How does reading and learning change on the Internet? You are invited into a conversation about the nature of information on the Internet and its implications for how we think about reading comprehension and critical thinking in a digital information age. Julie first explores how the Internet poses new opportunities for authentic inquiry, collaborative conversations, and students to develop their voices as active citizens. Then, she describes the reading challenges that extend beyond traditional reading comprehension skills to encompass rapidly changing literacies for questioning, locating, evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating information during online inquiry. Finally, she highlights important areas for future research in order to keep up with the changing technologies that will continue to redefine what literacy means in the future.

1. Online Reading Comprehension: Opportunities,
Challenges, and Next Steps
Julie Coiro, Associate Professor, School of Education
University of Rhode Island
jcoiro@mail.uri.edu
Academic Papers: http://uri.academia.edu/JulieCoiro/Papers

2. Where are we headed?
What is online reading comprehension (from a new
literacies perspective)?
What questions are worth exploring next?

3. A New Literacies Perspective of
Online Reading Comprehension
1.
Students require additional, new skills to read and
effectively comprehend information online.
2. Students are sometimes more literate than their
teachers with certain aspects of using the Internet.
3. The Internet is a READING and WRITING issue
(not a technology issue) for every content-area
classroom teacher, reading educator, and library
media specialist.

4. How does reading and learning
on the Internet change?
You begin by identifying an important question
New ways of locating information
New reasons for critically evaluating the
information
New contexts for synthesizing information to
answer your questions
New ways of communicating the answers to others
Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack (2004)
Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry (2013)

5. Initial Evidence of something “new”
(r=0.19, n = 89, N.S.)
Offline Reading =
CT State
Reading Test
Online Reading
Comprehension=
ORCA Blog
Leu, D. Castek, J., Hartman, D., Coiro, J.,
Henry, L., Kulikowich, J., Lyver, S. (2005).

6. Additional Evidence:
Predicting Online Reading Comprehension
R2
Offline Reading
Comprehension
Additional R2
Prior Knowledge
Additional R2
Online Reading
Comprehension
Total R2
.351*
.074
.154*
.579*
35%
7.4%
15.4%
57.9%
Offline Reading Comp.= CT State Reading Test
Online Reading Comprehension = ORCA Quia
Coiro, 2011
n=120
Qualitative evidence: (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Afflerbach & Cho, 2009)
Quantitative evidence: (Kingsley, 2010; Coiro, 2011)
Theoretical examples: (Hartman, Morsink, & Zheng, 2009)

7. Turn and Talk:
Think about your own experiences reading
on the Internet…how do they compare to
reading printed materials? Share with a
partner…
What is one thing that appears to
be different?
What do you notice you (or
your students) struggle with?

8. Other studies of online reading
(Afflerbach & Cho, 2009)
Nature of unique reading strategies reported by
accomplished online readers
Overviewing before reading
Evaluating qualities of multiple & diverse texts/snippets
Strategies for realizing and constructing potential texts to
read (scrutinizing hyperlinks, generating inferences,
sequencing texts, conducting complementary searches)
points to the centrality of monitoring
Implications for developing readers? Many areas of
potential challenge
Afflerbach, P. & Cho, B. (2009). 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: Guilford Press.

9. Other studies of online reading
Major shift in our conception of reading comprehension
in terms of complexity and multiplicity
RAND Model (2002):
Tetradic conception of
four interacting elements
Hartman, Morsink, & Zheng (2010):
Hexadic conception of six interacting
elements (each is multiple as well)
Texts
Texts
Texts
Texts
Texts Authors
Texts Authors
Contexts
Contexts
Authors
Contexts
Authors
Contexts
Authors
Contexts
Authors
Contexts
Readers
Readers
Tasks
Tasks
Readers
Readers
Tasks
Tasks
Readers
Readers
Tasks
Tasks
Technologie
Technologie
Technologie
Technologie
Technologie
s
Technologie
s
s
s
s
s

10. So what skills are important to have
for reading on the Internet? (Coiro, 2007)
Speed matters!
A new kind of fluency!
Well, I’d say - concentration…immunity to the
rest of the sites once you click on one. And being a
good internet searcher - meaning when you know
exactly what to click on without having to think
twice about it, and when you click on it, it’s
reliable….I’d say it’s about 25% luck, 74% skill,
and 1% wit - I really can’t understand it all
myself but …they mold right into a perfect circle
and it works correctly!
Evaluate relevancy
Locating &
Evaluating
Evaluate reliability

11. What opportunities do “digitally
literate” learners encounter when they
interact with people and information
online?

12. Authentic Inquiry & Deeper Thinking

13. Authentic Inquiry & Deeper Thinking

14. Collaboratively Co-Construct Knowledge
Social Practices: Request & give information;
jointly acknowledge, evaluate, & build on
partner’s contributions
Cognitive Strategies: Read, question, monitor, repair,
infer, connect, clarify, and interpret

15. Opportunities for Extended Online
Collaboration and Communication
Grade 4: Cross-Country
Collaboration with Animal Specialists
Three stages
1. Local Expert Inspires
Inquiry Circles
2. Students identify
specific animals to study
3. Animal specialists
support student discovery
using Voicethread

16. Building Productive Skills in
Collaboration and Communication
Grade 4: Ask-An-Expert with VoiceThread

17. Developing/Sharing Your Personal Voice
Generating Online Texts
Over 460 entries by
Grade 3 & 4 students!

18. Developing/Sharing Your Personal Voice
Taking Action with Public Service
Announcements

19. What challenges do learners encounter
when they interact with people and
information online?

20. Challenges: Balance, Prudence,
and Digital Wisdom
Digital Natives (Prensky, 2005)
– Are they really??
The Digital Natives Debate (e.g., Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008)
From Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom (Prensky, 2010; 2012)
“The human mind is extended, enhanced, amplified and
liberated by technology”
Find the best combination of mind and technology
Brain Gain: Technology and the Quest for Digital Wisdom
(Prensky, 2012)

21. Challenges: Balance, Prudence,
and Digital Wisdom
Critical skills include:
How to acquire new information;
Learning how to learn;
A positive attitude; and
A quest for digital wisdom:
• “Figure out where and when the ‘old’ wisdom still
works, and where and when it doesn’t. And, in the latter
case, we need to put something new its place (p. 7)”
Brain Gain: Technology and the Quest for Digital Wisdom
(Prensky, 2012)

22. Generally, students struggle with
inquiry and online research…
Generating important questions to solve a
problem (McKenzie, 2005; Rothstein & Santana, 2011)
Locating relevant information
(Henry, 2006; Leu et al,
2005; Miller & Bartlett, 2012)
Critically evaluating information (especially
conflicting claims) (Metzger & Flanigan, 2008; Miller & Bartlett,
2012; Pew Internet Study, 2012)
Synthesizing information from multiple sources
and modes/formats (Killi, 2012; Rouet, 2006)
Communicating their findings/solutions clearly in
writing (e.g., argumentation) and with new
technologies (e.g., email, blogs, wikis) (Sevensma, 2013)

23. Findings from less skilled readers
Elementary, middle, and high school students have few
strategies for systematically locating information on the
Internet – They struggle with…
Generating and refining precise keyword searches
Inferring which link might be most useful in a set of
search results
Efficiently scanning and navigating within websites
Efficiently locating information that best suits their needs
(e.g., Bilal, 2000, 2001; Eagleton & Guinee, 2002; Henry, 2006; Kuiper &
Volman, 2008; Rouet, 2006, Sutherland-Smith, 2002)

24. Conducting Google Searches
Images of American History?
Images American History
Images American History: edu

25. Reading within search results
Which site features
information about
hieroglyphics?
Who sponsors Site 4?
What’s missing?

26. Reading within complex websites

27. Findings from less skilled readers
Elementary and middle students have few strategies for
critically judging the quality of information on the
Internet – They struggle with…
Determining the author and/or sponsor of a website
Evaluating an author’s level of expertise
Identifying the author’s point of view and one piece
of evidence that illustrates that point of view
Determining the overall reliability of a website with
reasoned evidence to support their decision
(e.g., Barzalai & Zohar, 2012; Coiro, 2013; Fabos, 2008; Forzani &
Burlingame, 2012; Metzger & Flanigan, 2008; Miller & Bartlett, 2012;
Walraven et al, 2009)

28. The TICA Project: Leu, Reinking, et al. (2005-2008)

29. Findings from less skilled readers
Almost 20%!
80-88% of our large Grade 7 sample struggled
with all three of these evaluation skills!
Coiro (2013); Leu, Kulikowich, Sedransk, & Coiro (2009-2014)

30. Sample student responses: Online Reading
Comprehension Assessment (ORCA, 2012)
Is the author an expert?
Yes, because he talks a lot about the topic in this article
Yes, I think he is because he made a chart.
Yes, it has his job title at the bottom of the article.
What is the author’s point of view and how does it
affect the words and images used on the website?
The point of view in the article is from Tim's point. It
affects the words because it's like he's telling you himself.
By the author’s craft – by the way he writes I guess.
I think it’s 3rd person point of view.

31. Sample student responses: Online Reading
Comprehension Assessment (ORCA, 2012)
Do you think the information at this site is
reliable?
No, because I have never heard of this site before.
Yes because it says that many people use and it helps them.
At the top it says official affiliate/unofficial opinions so I
think it is reliable even though it’s a blog.
In the third paragraph, he did a comparison with two
companies, which shows it has to be pretty accurate.
Yeah because it was posted on June 2, 2009.
It could be. I’m not sure.

32. Findings from less skilled readers
Less skilled adolescent synthesizers…
Know less about a topic at the outset which leads to
more “ineffective traversals” (Sevensma, 2013)
Seem less aware of task purpose as way to organize
reading/synthesizing activities (Goldman et al., 2012)
Prioritize content-relevance over other critical factors
when choosing a text (Braasch et al., 2009)
Are less likely to discriminate between more and less
reliable online texts (Wiley et al., 2009; Goldman, et al., 2012)

33. Findings from less skilled readers
Less skilled adolescent synthesizers…
Struggle to identify discontinuities or controversies
presented across texts (Britt & Aglinksas, 2002; TICA Project)

36. Humane
Society
Dog
Musher

37. Findings from less skilled readers
As less skilled readers communicate a
representation of their ideas they…
Are less likely to have a “cohesive plan” or to
carry out a plan that would lead to effective
representation and communication of their
message
Generate less content in the same amount of time
as their peers
(Sevensma, 2013)

38. What about attitudes and
beliefs?
Survey of Online Reading Dispositions (SORD)
20-item questionnaire (10 Likert-scale items and 8 open-ended
interview questions)
Likert-item subscales: useful, engaging, valuable, easy to use (r =.705)
Open-ended items: scored 0 or 1 for total of 8 points
Open-ended questions:
(a) How approach; (b) How respond; (c): Self-efficacy
• What is easiest for you about using the Internet for research?
• What is hardest for you about using the Internet for research?
• Can you think of a time when you had trouble finding something using the Internet? How do you
feel when this happens? How long do you keep trying before you give up?
• What do you know about using the Internet effectively that some kids your age might not know?

39. What about attitudes and
beliefs?
Survey of Frequency of Internet Use
12 items (Entertainment, Communication, Information,
Location) r = .636

40. Role of Dispositions (mindsets,
attitudes, and beliefs)
Online Reading Dispositions (12 Likert items)
(no additional variance explained) correlation r = .210, p <.05
R2
Offline Reading
Comprehension
Additional R2
Prior Knowledge
Additional R2
Online Reading
Comprehension
Additional R2
Online Reading
Dispositions
Total R2
.351*
.074
.154*
.003NS
.582*

Online Reading Dispositions (open ended items)
(significant amount of additional variance explained) correlation r =.369, p<.001
R2
Offline Reading
Comprehension
Additional R2
Prior Knowledge
Additional R2
Online Reading
Comprehension
Additional R2
Online Reading
Dispositions
Total R2
.355*
.076
.142*
.027*
.600*

41. Dispositions vs.
Frequency of Internet Use

Frequency of Internet Use (no additional variance explained)
R2
Offline Reading
Comprehension
Additional R2
Prior Knowledge
Additional R2
Online Reading
Comprehension
Additional R2
Frequency of
Internet Use
Total R2
.351*
.074
.154*
.009NS
.587*

42. Online Reading Dispositions
Coiro, J. (2012, April). Digital Literacies: Understanding dispositions toward reading
on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(7), 645-648.

43. Opportunities…
Challenges...
Next Steps for Understanding
Online Research and Comprehension

44. Next steps…
Reading online to locate information
Continually re-examine our thinking about which locating
skills are most important (rapidly emerging new tools, features,
and affordances/constraints)
Reading online to critically evaluate information:
Deepen our understanding of cognitive abilities and limitations
(Eastin, 2008): At what age can we expect learners to be able
to make credibility judgments (e.g., identify author motives
and perspectives; counterbalance information with multiple and
conflicting sources)?
Role of students’ personal epistemologies (ways of thinking
about the nature of knowledge and knowing) and its impact on
student competence in website evaluation (Barzalai & Zohar,
2012)

45. Next steps…
Reading online to synthesize information
What are the underlying processes involved in how learners
deconstruct, analyze, consolidate, organize, and integrate
information from disparate sources (Schira-Hagerman, in process;
DeSchryver, 2012)?
How can collaborative partnerships and digital support tools (Coiro
et al, 2012; 2013; Kiili et al. 2012, Kiili & Coiro, in process)
scaffold complex online reading processes?
Reading online to communicate information
Turn attention toward readers and writers as media makers and
socially active citizens (Hobbs, 2010; 2011; Hobbs & Moore, 2013)
– How do we document students’ ability to collaboratively collect,
share, generate, and creatively produce in ways that meet social
demands of a participatory culture (e.g., Jenkins, 2006)?

46. In summary…
New reading and composing/making skills, practices,
and dispositions are required to comprehend online
information…and more are on the horizon!
Tomorrow: How can educators support online readers?

47. References
Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic Thinking in Action: Evaluating and Integrating Online
Sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.636495
Bilal, D. (2000). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: I. Cognitive, physical, and
affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 51(7), 646–665. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:7<646::AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-A
Bilal, D. (2001). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: II. Cognitive and physical
behaviors on research tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
52(2), 118–136. doi:10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-ASI1038>3.3.CO;2-I
Coiro, J. (2007). Exploring changes to reading comprehension on the Internet. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut. Storrs, CT.
Eagleton, M. B., & Guinee, K. (2002). Strategies for supporting student Internet inquiry. New England
Reading Association Journal, 38, 39–47.
Fabos, B. (2008). The price of information: Critical literacy education and today’s Internet. . In J.Coiro,
M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 839-870). New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flanagin, A.J., and Metzger, M. (2008) Digital Media and Youth: Unparalleled Opportunity and
Unprecedented Responsibility. In M.J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.) Digital Media, Youth, and
Credibility: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning.
(pp. 5–28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.005

48. References
Forzani, E. & Burlingame, C. (2012). Evaluating seventh grade students’ ability to critically evaluate
online information. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, San
Diego, CT.
Hagerman, M.S. (in progress). The impact of Online Synthesis Instruction (OSI) on adolescents’
ability to construct an integrated understanding of science topics from multiple Internet texts.
(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI.
Hartman, D. K., Morsink, P. M., & Zheng, J. (2010). From print to pixels: The evolution of cognitive
conceptions of reading comprehension. In E. A. Baker (Ed.). The new literacies: Multiple perspectives
on research and practice (pp. 131-164). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Henry, L. a. (2006). SEARCHing for an Answer: The Critical Role of New Literacies While Reading on
the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 614–627. doi:10.1598/RT.59.7.1
Hicks, T. (2013) Composing texts across media and genres. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Kuiper, E. & Volman, M. (2008). The web as a source of information for students in K-12 education. In
J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 241266) New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Donald J. Leu, Jr., Charles K. Kinzer,
Julie L. Coiro, and Dana W. Cammack. Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1570–
1613).

49. References
Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D., Henry, L.A., & Reinking, D. (2008). Research on
instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In Cathy Collins
Block, Sherri Parris, & Peter Afflerbach (Eds.). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best
practices. New York: Guilford Press. Retrieved from
http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/pub_files/instruction.pdf
Miller, C. & Bartlett, J. (2012). ‘Digital fluency’: Toward young people’s critical use of the Internet.
Journal of Information Literacy, 6(2), 35-55.
Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sevensma, K. (2013). Negotiating new literacies in science: An examination of at-risk and averageachieving ninth-grade readers’ online reading comprehension strategies. (Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation). Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The
Reading Teacher, 55, 662-669.
Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. a. (2009). How students evaluate information and
sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52(1), 234–
246. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.003
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, 128–162.

50. Collaboratively Co-Construct Knowledge
Social Practices: Request & give information;
jointly acknowledge, evaluate, & build on
partner’s contributions
Cognitive Strategies: Read, question, monitor, repair,
infer, connect, clarify, and interpret