Skip to content
2018
Volume 56, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0034-527X
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2348

There is no abstract available.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/rte202131342
2021-08-01
2024-02-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aghaei S. Nematbakhsh M. A. , & Farsani H. K. (2012)  Evolution of the world wide web: From Web 1.0 to Web 4.0. International Journal of Web & Semantic Technology, 3 (1) 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alvermann D. (2017)  The m word: Dare we use it? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61 (1) 99–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson M. Jiang J. (2018)  May 31 Teens, social media and technology 2018, Pew Research Center http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baildon M. Damico J. S. (2009)  How do we know?: Students examine issues of credibility with a multimodal web-based text. Curriculum Inquiry, 39 (2) 265–285.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baron N. S. (2015)  Words onscreen: The fate of reading in a digital world, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barzilai S. Zohar A. (2012)  Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30 (1) 39–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bazeley P. (2013)  Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies, SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bower M. (2016)  Deriving a typology of Web 2.0 learning technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47 (4) 763–777.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. BråTen I. Mccrudden M. T. Lund E. S. Brante E. W. StrøMsø H. I. (2018)  Task-oriented learning with multiple documents: Effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on document selection, processing, and use. Reading Research Quarterly, 53 (3) 345–365.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Breakstone J. Mcgrew S. Smith M. Ortega T. Wineburg S. (2018)  Why we need a new approach to teaching digital literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 99 (6) 27–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cataldo M. G. Oakhill J. (2000)  Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (4) 791–799.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Coiro J. Coscarelli C. Maykel C. Forzani E. (2015)  Investigating criteria that seventh graders use to evaluate the quality of online information. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59 (3) 287–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Eagleton M. B. Dobler E. (2007)  Reading the web: Strategies for internet inquiry. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ericsson K. A. Simon H. A. (1993)  Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.) MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Forzani E. (2018)  How well can students evaluate online science information? Contributions of prior knowledge, gender, socioeconomic status, and offline reading ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 53 (4) 385–390.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Harris T. (2016)  May 18 How technology is hijacking your mind—from a magician and Google design ethicist. Medium: Thrive Global, https://medium.com/thrive-global/ how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hyman I. E. Jr. Jalbert M. C. (2017)  Misinformation and worldviews in the post-truth information age: Commentary on Lewandowsky, Ecker, and Cook. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6 (4) 377–381.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Influence Central (2016)  Kids and tech: The evolution of today’s digital natives http://in fluence-central.com/kids-tech-the-evolution-of-todays-digital-natives/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Janks H. (2018)  Texts, identities, and ethics: Critical literacies in a post-truth world. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62 (1) 95–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jenkins H. Clinton K. Purushotma R. Robinson A. J. Weigel M. (2009)  Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century, MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kammerer Y. Meier N. Stahl E. (2016)  Fostering secondary-school students’ intertext model formation when reading a set of websites: The effectiveness of source prompts. Computers & Education, 102, 52–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Keene E. K. Zimmerman S. (1997)  Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reading workshop, Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kiili C. Laurinen L. Marttunen M. (2008)  Students evaluating internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39 (1) 75–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kohnen A. M. Saul E. W. (2018)  Information literacy in the internet age: Making space for students’ intentional and incidental knowledge. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61 (6) 671–679.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lenhard W. Schroeders U. Lenhard A. (2017)  Equivalence of screen versus print reading comprehension depends on task complexity and proficiency. Discourse Processes, 54 (5-6) 427–445.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Leu D. J. Kinzer C. K. Coiro J. Castek J. Henry L. A. (2019)  A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Alvermann D. Unrau N. J. Sailors M. Ruddell R. B. . (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of literacy, 319–346 Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Luke A. (2012)  Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory Into Practice, 51 (1) 4–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lynch M. P. (2016)  The internet of us, Live-right Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mason L. Junyent A. A. Tornatora M. C. (2014)  Epistemic evaluation and comprehension of web-source information on controversial science-related topics: Effects of a short-term instructional intervention. Computers & Education, 76, 143–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Metzger M. J. (2007)  Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58 (13) 2078–2091.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Metzger M. J. Flanagin A. J. Medders R. B. (2010)  Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60 (3) 413–439.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. National Council Of Teachers Of English (2018)  October 25 Beliefs for integrating technology into the language arts classroom. [Position statement], http://www2.ncte.org/ statement/beliefs-technology-preparation-english-teachers/
    [Google Scholar]
  34. New London Group (1996)  A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1) 60–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Noble S. (2018)  Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism, NYU Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pressley M. Afflerbach P. (1995)  Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading, Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Proaps A. B. Bliss J. P. (2014)  The effects of text presentation format on reading comprehension and video game performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 41–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rosenblatt L. M. (1994)  The transactional theory of reading and writing. Ruddell R. B. Ruddell M. R. Singer H. . (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading, 1057–1092 International Reading Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rudman R. Bruwer R. (2016)  Defining Web 3.0: Opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Library, 34 (1) 132–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Siegenthaler E. Wurtz P. Bergamin P. Groner R. (2011)  Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32 (5) 268–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Singer L. M. Alexander P. A. 2017a Reading across mediums: Effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85 (1) 155–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Singer L. M. Alexander P. A. 2017b Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of Educational Research, 87 (6) 1007–1041.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Stanford History Education Group (2016)  November 22 Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning https:// stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:fv751yt5934/ SHEG%20Evaluating%20Information%20 Online.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Vaidhyanathan S. (2006)  Critical information studies: A bibliographic manifesto. Cultural Studies, 20 (2-3) 292–315.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wade S. E. (1990)  Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 43 (7) 442–451.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Wineburg S. Mcgrew S. (2019)  Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record, 121 (11) Article 22806, https://www.tcrecord .org/Content.asp?ContentId=22806
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wolf M. (2018)  Reader, come home: The reading brain in a digital world, Harper Collins Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Young K. A. (2005)  Direct from the source: The value of “think-aloud” data in understanding learning. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 6 (1) 19–33.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/rte202131342
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/rte202131342
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error