PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2019, Vol. 15(3) 207-222

How Digital Reading Differs from Traditional Reading: An Action Research

Ahmet Yamaç & Ergün Öztürk

pp. 207 - 222   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.15   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1810-10-0003.R1

Published online: June 03, 2019  |   Number of Views: 39  |  Number of Download: 122


Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine the insights of preservice teachers' new literacies throughout online research and comprehension. The study is grounded in an online research and comprehension perspective. In the study, the action research design of qualitative approaches was selected as the method. The participants in the research were nine teacher candidates studying in the first year of the Classroom Teacher Education Programme at Erciyes University. The teacher candidates took part in two online research and comprehension tasks about children’s literature and teaching materials lasting 28 hours in total. Following, the preservice teachers’ perspectives regarding this process were elicited through semi-structured individual interviews. The findings reveal that the internet has resulted in certain changes in the nature of information and learning. During the online research and comprehension process, the preservice teachers employed strategies for information location, determining reliability, reading, and online information synthesising and content creation. Moreover, during this process the preservice teachers developed certain digital skills as well as their online research and technology competencies and awareness of reliable information. All these findings have contributed to the exploration of teacher candidates’ new literacy skills, strategies, and dispositions.

Keywords: Teacher education, online research and comprehension, digital skills and dispositions.


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Yamac, A. & Ozturk, E. (2019). How Digital Reading Differs from Traditional Reading: An Action Research . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(3), 207-222. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.15

Harvard
Yamac, A. and Ozturk, E. (2019). How Digital Reading Differs from Traditional Reading: An Action Research . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(3), pp. 207-222.

Chicago 16th edition
Yamac, Ahmet and Ergun Ozturk (2019). "How Digital Reading Differs from Traditional Reading: An Action Research ". International Journal of Progressive Education 15 (3):207-222. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.15.

References
  1. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  2.  Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2010). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 201–225). New York, NY: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bråten, I., Braasch, J., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Reading multiple and non-traditional texts: new opportunities and new challenges. In E. B. Moje, P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. V). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  4. Castek, J. M. (2008). How do 4 and 5 grade students acquire the new literacies of online reading comprehension? Exploring the contexts that facilitate learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cho, B. Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers’ use of Internet reading strategies: A think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 32(3), 253-289. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cho, B. Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2015). Reading on the Internet: Realizing and constructing potential texts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6), 504-517. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cho, B.-Y., Afflerbach, P., & Han, H. (2018). Strategic processing in accessing, comprehending, and using multiple sources online. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 133–150). New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  8. Coiro, J. (2008, December). Exploring the relationship between online reading comprehension, frequency of Internet use, and adolescents’ dispositions toward reading online. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL. [Google Scholar]
  9. Coiro, J. (2009, May). Promoting online reading success: Understanding students’ attitudes toward reading on the Internet. Paper presented at the 54th annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Minneapolis, MN. [Google Scholar]
  10. Coiro, J., Sekeres, D. C., Castek, J., & Guzniczak, L. (2014). Comparing the quality of third, fourth, and fifth graders' social ınteractions and cognitive strategy use during structured online ınquiry. Journal of Education, 194(2), 1-15.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the internet: contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research : A Publication of the Literacy Research Association, 43(4), 352–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11421979 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Creswell,  J.W.  (2012). Educational  research:  Planning,  conducting  and  evaluating  quantitative  and  qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  14. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dwyer, B. (2016). Engaging all students in internet research and inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 69(4), 383-389. [Google Scholar]
  16. Esmer, B., & Ulusoy, M. (2015). Sınıf öğretmen adaylarının elektronik ortamlarda okuma becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi [ Evaluation online reading comprehension skills of elementary pre-service teachers]. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(37), 734-746. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., &Hyun (2012).  How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw- Hill. [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356-381. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPAD for literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1225 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Larson, L.C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-Book reading and response. Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15-22.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Leu, DJ Jr, Kinzer C.K., Coiro J, & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (eds) Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. [Google Scholar]
  24. Leu, D.J., Everett-Cacopardo, H., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J.G., O’Byrne, W. I. (2012). The new literacies of online reading comprehension. In C.A. Chapelle, (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. (pp. 4239-4247). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  25. Leu, D. J., McVerry, O’Byrne, Kiili, C., & Zawilinski, L. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1598/JA  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A Dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Sixth Edit., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.  [Google Scholar]
  27. Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Forzani, E., & Timbrell, N. (2015). Best practices in teaching the new literacies of online research and comprehension. In L.B. Gambrell & L.M. Morrow (Ed.), Best practices in literacy instruction (5th ed., pp. 343–364). New York: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher(with MyEducationLab). (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  29. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 576-600. [Google Scholar]
  30. O’Byrne, W. I., & McVerry, J. G. (2009). Measuring the dispositions of online reading comprehension: A preliminary validation study. In K. M. Leander, D. W. Rowe, D. K. Dickinson, M. K. Hundley, R. T. Jimenez, & V. J. Risko (Eds.), 58th yearbook of the National Reading Conference Yearbook (pp. 362–375). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference [Google Scholar]
  31. Öz, M., & Memis, E. K. (2018). Effect of multi modal representations on the critical thinking skills of the fifth grade students. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(2), 209-227. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pang, S., Reinking, D., Hutchison, A., & Ramey, D. (2015). South Korean teachers ’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction. Education Research International, 2015, 1-13. [Google Scholar]
  33. Putman, S. M. (2014). Exploring dispositions toward online reading: Analyzing the survey of online reading attitudes and behaviors. Reading Psychology, 35(1), 1-31. [Google Scholar]
  34. Putman, S. M., Wang, C., & Ki, S. (2015). Assessing the validity of the cross-cultural survey of online reading attitudes and behaviors with american and south korean fifth-and sixth-grade students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(5), 403-418. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18- year-olds. Retrieved from kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/8010.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  36. Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (in press). Comprehension processes in digital Reading. In Paul van den Broek et al. (Eds.) Learning to read in a digital world. John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  37. Salmerón, L., García, A., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2018). The development of adolescents' comprehension-based Internet reading activities. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 31-39. [Google Scholar]
  38. Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the Internet: The link between literacy and technology. Journal of adolescent & adult literacy, 47(1), 80-85. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tsai, M. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2003). Information searching strategies in web-based science learning: The role of Internet self-efficacy. Innovations in education and teaching international, 40(1), 43-50. [Google Scholar]
  40. Turkey Statistical Institute (2017). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri kullanım araştırması [Research on the use of household information technology]. Retreived from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=24862  [Google Scholar]
  41. Ulusoy, M., & Dedeoglu, H. (2015). Pre-service teachers' online reading comprehension practices and beliefs about their future classrooms. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(4), 67-79. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yeh, H. C. (2018). Exploring the perceived benefits of the process of multimodal video making in developing multiliteracies. Language Learning & Technology, 22(2), 28-37.  [Google Scholar]
  43. Author, (in Press). [details removed for peer review] [Google Scholar]
  44.  Author (2016). [details removed for peer review]  [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, S., & Duke, N. K. (2008). Strategies for Internet reading with different reading purposes: A descriptive study of twelve good Internet readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 128-162. [Google Scholar]