Competent Adolescent Readers’ Use of Internet Reading Strategies: A Think-Aloud Study

Cho, Byeong‐Young

doi:10.1080/07370008.2014.918133

Cited by 55 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These scores were used to roughly infer the participants’ levels of print‐reading skills. Because previous research has suggested that print‐reading skills are positively and substantially correlated with online reading performance (Coiro, ) and heavily involved in locating and comprehending digital sources (Cho, ), we collected print‐reading test scores to see whether any gaps existed between the selected more and less successful online reader groups that ought to be considered in interpreting their epistemic processing during online reading.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the same time, because we were interested in collecting real‐time processing data, individual participants were asked to think aloud while performing the critical online reading task. We planned this think‐aloud online reading session in accordance with guidelines for verbal reporting (Afflerbach & Johnston, ) and the methods proven to be useful in our previous think‐aloud studies of online reading (Cho, ; Cho & Afflerbach, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Verbal reporting is among the most widely used systems of methods suited for process‐oriented assessment of thinking (Pressley & Afflerbach, ; Smagorinsky, ). It is useful for allowing fine‐grained verbal protocol analysis that can not only delineate cognitive strategies and sequences of thinking (Cho, ; Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Graesser, & Brodowinska, ) but also depict noncognitive processes, including emotion, feeling, and engagement in reading (Craig, D'Mello, Witherspoon, & Graesser, ; Eva‐Wood, ). Moreover, recent studies have demonstrated the utility of verbal reporting methods in examining epistemic beliefs activated in the process of reading digital sources (Ferguson, Bråten, & Strømsø, ; Greene, Yu, & Copeland, ; Mason, Boldrin, & Ariasi, ).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Epistemic Processing When Adolescents Read Online: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of More and Less Successful Online Readers

Cho

Woodward

2017

Reading Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how the beliefs that adolescent readers hold about knowledge and knowing are activated during online reading. The research questions center on the pattern of these readers’ epistemic processes through which more or less productive learning occurs. High school students performed a critical online reading task on a controversial topic; 10 more successful readers and 10 less successful readers were then selected based on their topic knowledge gain and the quality of the questions that they constructed in response to their online reading. The epistemic processes of these two groups’ 20 readers were inferred from their concurrent verbal reports. Verbal reports were coded and classified qualitatively until concrete types of epistemic processing were recognized; the coded data were then quantified for statistical group comparisons to identify and interpret emerging patterns. The results indicated that more successful online readers tended to engage in higher order epistemic processes when judging information sources, monitoring their knowing processes, and regulating their alternative knowledge‐seeking actions, whereas the epistemic actions of their less successful counterparts were more often disconnected and tended to function at a surface level. Cross‐categorical associations were found among epistemic judgment, monitoring, and regulation, suggesting that epistemic processes operate interactively. Implications of the study's results are discussed in relation to literacy research and practice.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Epistemic Processing When Adolescents Read Online: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of More and Less Successful Online Readers

Cho

Woodward

2017

Reading Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research has examined adolescents' evaluation behavior using methods ranging from surveys, interviews, or focus groups (e.g., Connaway, Dickey, & Radford, 2011;Flanagin & Metzger, 2010;Hargittai, 2010;Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008;Paul, Macedo-Rouet, Rouet, & Stadtler, 2017) to direct observation (e.g., Barzilai & Zohar, 2012;Brand-Gruwel, Wopereis, & Walraven, 2009;Cho, 2014;Cho & Afflerbach, 2015;Watson, 2014). Only a few experimental studies have precisely investigated how adolescents implement evaluation criteria after receiving prompts to do so (Coiro, Coscarelli, Maykel, & Forzani, 2015;Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Graesser, & Brodowinska, 2012;Kammerer, Meier, & Stahl, 2016;Mason, Junyent, & Tornatora, 2014;Mason, Scrimin, Tornatora, Suitner, & Moè, 2018;Stadtler, & Bromme, 2007;Stanford History Education Group, 2016;Wiley et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Good Is This Page? Benefits and Limits of Prompting on Adolescents’ Evaluation of Web Information Quality

Macedo-Rouet

Potocki

Scharrer

et al. 2019

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examined adolescents’ detection of features that affect the quality of web information. In experiment 1, participants (12–16 years old) rated the goodness/usefulness of four web‐like documents for a simulated study assignment. Each document came with an issue that potentially undermined its quality. Two documents had source‐related issues (i.e., noncompetent author, outdated), and the other two documents had content‐related issues (i.e., topic mismatch, poor readability). Most students failed to notice the issues, including topic mismatch. The participants also produced inconsistent evaluations of topic match, readability, author competence, and currency. In experiment 2, students were prompted to assess each criterion separately. The participants distinguished poorer from better documents in relation to each criterion, except for author competence. The authors discuss these results in light of previous research on adolescents’ evaluation behavior, propose further avenues for reading research, and articulate recommendations for educational practice.

show abstract

“…Responsive readers interpret, analyze, and evaluate different aspects of text, including content, structure, and intended purposes, to determine the best pathways to goal attainment (Afflerbach & Cho, 2009;Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). For example, in Internet settings, responsive readers selectively access and learn from multiple web sources, and make informed-decisions about what to read and how to read (Cho, 2014;Goldman, Braasch, Graesser, Wiley, & Brodowinska, 2012). Selfregulation marks many acts of higher-order thinking (Zimmerman, 2008), and metacognition plays an important role when goal-oriented readers read strategically (Bannert, Reiman, & Sonnenberg, 2013;Magno, 2010).…”

Section: Attributes Of Higher-order Thinking In Readingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Conceptualizing and Assessing Higher-Order Thinking in Reading

Afflerbach¹,

Cho²,

Kim³

2015

Theory Into Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competent Adolescent Readers’ Use of Internet Reading Strategies: A Think-Aloud Study

Cited by 55 publications

References 64 publications

Epistemic Processing When Adolescents Read Online: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of More and Less Successful Online Readers

Epistemic Processing When Adolescents Read Online: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of More and Less Successful Online Readers

How Good Is This Page? Benefits and Limits of Prompting on Adolescents’ Evaluation of Web Information Quality

Conceptualizing and Assessing Higher-Order Thinking in Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About