Cover not available

In:Learning to Read in a Digital World
Edited by Mirit Barzillai, Jenny Thomson, Sascha Schroeder and Paul van den Broek
[Studies in Written Language and Literacy 17] 2018
► pp. 185–204

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 8
Reading to learn

Developing advanced reading skills in traditional and digital environments

 | TED University
 | Atılım University
 | Mersin University
 | Anadolu University
Published online: 9 August 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.17.08bat
Abstract
Rapid advances in digital technologies are transforming patterns of learning to read, as well as ‘reading to learn’. The latter refers to the process of reading in the service of learning, in school and beyond, and is a major purpose for reading beyond the earliest school years. When reading to learn, contemporary e-learning trends either promote the supplementary use of ICT in face-to-face settings or the use of such environments for comprehensive delivery of learning materials. Such changes make it imperative to understand the basic elements of reading in digital environments to support learning. In this chapter we first introduce the basic elements that can be used to build an effective digital reading environment to improve learning. The chapter then considers the instructional design principles that best promote learning through digital reading and explores the impact of digital interfaces on traditional reading-to-learn strategies.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Transition from learning to read to reading to learn
  • 2.Instructional design for promoting learning through digital reading
  • 3.Digital design principles
  • 4.Reading strategies for learners to foster higher-order thinking skills: Use of reading strategies via digital media
    • 4.1Previewing
    • 4.2Generating and answering questions
    • 4.3Evaluating an argument generated from the reading
    • 4.4Contextualizing
    • 4.5Annotating
    • 4.6Recognising story/text structure
    • 4.7Graphic and semantic organisers
    • 4.8Keyword writing and summarising
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
References (95)
References
Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 202–232.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Akbulut, Y. (2007). Effects of multimedia annotations on incidental vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of advanced learners of English as a foreign language. Instructional Science, 35(6), 499–517. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Predictors of foreign language reading comprehension in a hypermedia reading environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 37–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C., & Biddle, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 9, 89–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 280–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, E. D., Hope, L., & Karandjeff, K. (2009). Contextualized teaching and learning: A faculty primer. San Francisco, CA: Research & Planning Group for California Community Colleges.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beck, I. L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, S. (2016). Young learners’ transactions with interactive digital texts using e-readers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(1), 42–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burnett, A. (2011). The effects of listening previewing on fourth grade students’ acquisition of knowledge of reading vocabulary words. Retrieved on July, 6, 2016 from [URL].
Caitlin, L. (2015). 5 strategies for teaching close reading with tech. Retrieved on July, 6, 2016 from [URL].
Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 727–752. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carenini, G., & Moore, J. D. (2006). Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 170(11), 925–952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Catlin, T. (2016). StudySync is the perfect tool to develop 21st century literacy! Retrieved from [URL].
Chandler, P., & Sweller J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, H. C., & Graves, M. F. (1995). Effects of previewing and providing background knowledge on Taiwanese college students’ comprehension of American short stories. Tesol Quarterly, 29(4), 663–686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ciullo, S., Falcomata, T., & Vaughn, S. (2015). Teaching social studies to upper elementary students with learning disabilities graphic organizers and explicit instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(1), 15–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, V. (2006). Strategies for comprehending electronic text in digitally mediated times. In A. Méndez-Vilas, A. Solano Martín, & J. A. Mesa González (Eds.), Current developments in technology-assisted education (pp. 170–174). Spain: FORMATEX.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing (No. 403). In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Reading strategies training for meaningful learning from prose. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research (pp. 87–131). New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, D. S., & Neitzel, C. (2012). Collaborative sense-making in print and digital text environments. Reading and Writing, 25(4), 831–856. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2002). Quality of book-reading matters for emergent readers: An experiment with the same book in a regular or electronic format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press, 578, 53–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dexter, D. D., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 51–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dole, J., Valencia, S., Greer, E., & Wardrop, J. (1991). Effects of two types of prereading instruction on the comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(2), 142–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowden, T. (2007). Relevant, challenging, integrative and exploratory curriculum design: Perspectives from theory and practice for middle level schooling in Australia. Australian Educational Researcher, 34, 51–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31(3), 349–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elbro, C., Rasmussen, I., & Spelling, B. (1996). Teaching reading to disabled readers with language disorders: A controlled evaluation of synthetic speech feedback. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 140–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edyburn, D. L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fagella-Luby, M., Schumaker, J. S., & Deshler, D. (2007). Embedded learning strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 131–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, J. A. (1973). Effects of cue synthesis procedure and postquestions on the retention of prose material. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 615.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haring, N., Lovitt, T., Eaton, M., & Hansen, C. (1978). Classroom organization and management. The fourth R: research in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. O., Musti-rao, S., Hale, A., McGuire, S., & Hailley, J. (2010). Examining listening previewing as a classwide strategy to improve reading comprehension and vocabulary. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 903–916. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. L. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herold, B. (2014). Research drives teacher training for digital reading. Education Week. Retrieved on May, 7, 2014 from [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ijaz, K., Bogdanovych, A., & Trescak, T. (2016). Virtual worlds vs books and videos in history education. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, T. E., Archibald, T. N., & Tenenbaum, G. (2010). Individual and team annotation effects on students’ reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1496–1507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, B. F., Pierce, J., & Hunter, B. (1988). Teaching students to construct graphic representations. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 20–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, A. H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
King, A. (1994). Autonomy and question asking: The role of personal control in guided student-generated questioning. Learning and Individual Differences, 6(2), 163–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Korat, O. (2010). Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education, 55(1), 24–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2007). Electronic books versus adult readers: Effects on children’s emergent literacy as a function of social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 248–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). The educational electronic book as a tool for supporting children’s emergent literacy in low versus middle SES groups. Computers & Education, 50(1), 110–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Constructing knowledge with learning tool. In P. Kommers, D. Jonassen, & T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning (pp. 23–32). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1182). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, J. R., & Pressley, M. (1981). Improving children’s prose comprehension: Selected strategies that seem to succeed. In C. M. Santa & B. L. Hayes (Eds.), Children’s prose comprehension: Research and practice (pp. 44–71). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loranger, A. L. (1994). The study strategies of successful and unsuccessful high school students. Journal of Literacy Research, 26(4), 347–360. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenz, B., Green, T., & Brown, A. (2009). Using multimedia graphic organizer software in the prewriting activities of primary school students: What are the benefits?. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 115–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maclellan, E. (1997). Reading to learn. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 277–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005a). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp.169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005b). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp.183–200). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005c). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201–212). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzeo, C., Rab, S. Y., & Alssid, J. L. (2003). Building bridges to college and careers: Contextualized basic skills programs at community colleges. Brooklyn, NY, and San Francisco, CA: Work Strategy Center.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCormick, S. (1989). Effects of previews on more skilled and less skilled readers’ comprehension of expository text. Journal of Literacy Research, 21(3), 219–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merga, M. K. (2014). Are teenagers “really” keen digital readers? Adolescent engagement in ebook reading and the relevance of paper books today. English in Australia, 49(1), 27–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., & Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36, 5–7.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 72–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 271–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nist, S. L., & Simpson, M. L. (1988). The effectiveness and efficiency of training college students to annotate and underline text. In National Reading Conference Yearbook . National Reading Conference, 37, 251–257.
Novak, E., Razzouk, R., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). The educational use of social annotation tools in higher education: A literature review. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 39–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pearson, P. D. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating student learning through contextualization: A review of evidence. Community College Review, 39(3), 268–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Porter-O’Donnell, C. (2004). Beyond the yellow highlighter: Teaching annotation skills to improve reading comprehension. English Journal, 93, 82–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Puente, K. (2012). Empowering students with digital reading. District Administration, 48(5), 38–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Razon, S., Turner, J., Johnson, T. E., Arsal, G., & Tenenbaum, G. (2012). Effects of a collaborative annotation method on students’ learning and learning-related motivation and affect. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 350–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rich, S., & Pressley, M. (1990). Teacher acceptance of reading comprehension strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 43–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, T. L., & Sherry, L. (1984). Relative effects of two previewing procedures on LD adolescents’ oral reading performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(1), 39–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sam D. P., & Rajan, P. (2013). Using graphic organizers to improve reading comprehension skills for the middle school ESL students. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samaras, H., Giouvanakis, T., Bousiou, D., & Tarabanis, K. (2006). Towards a new generation of multimedia learning research. AACE Journal, 14(1), 3–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (1990). Textbook annotation: An effective and efficient study strategy for college students. Journal of Reading, 34(2), 122–129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Encouraging active reading at the college level. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 365–379). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1982). Active comprehension: Problem-solving schema with question generation for comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 166–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Singer, H. (1978). Active comprehension: From answering to asking questions. The Reading Teacher, 31(8), 901–908.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Singleton, S. M., & Filce, H. G. (2015). Graphic organizers for secondary students with learning disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48(2), 110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spiro, R. J., DeSchryver, M., Hagerman, M. S., Morsink, P. M., & Thompson, P. (Eds.). (2015). Reading at a crossroads?: Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices. New york, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strangman, N., Hall, T., & Meyer, A. (2004). Background knowledge instruction and the implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (Links updated 2009). Retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suzuki, A., Sato, T., & Awazu, S. (2008). Graphic display of linguistic information in English as a Foreign Language reading. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 591–616. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watts, G. H. (1973). The “arousal” effect of adjunct questions on recall from prose materials. Australian Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 81–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wijekumar, K. K., Meyer, B. J., & Lei, P. (2012). Large-scale randomized controlled trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 987–1013. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe, J. (2008). Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned annotation interface on student argumentation and reading strategies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 141–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, F. Y., Chang, Y. L., & Wu, H. L. (2015). The effects of an online student question-generation strategy on elementary school student English learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(1), 1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, L. J., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean primary school pupils’ use of reading strategies in learning to read in English. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 245–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Pleau, Joannie, Jean-Bernard Carrier & Gabrielle Ross
2024. Cocréation d’un projet d’atlas historique numérique au service des apprentissages d’élèves de première secondaire en univers social. Revue de recherches en littératie médiatique multimodale 18 ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Şendağ, Serkan, Mustafa Caner & Sacip Toker
2019. Yabancı Dil Öğrenenlerin Kullandıkları Dinleme Stratejileri İle Okumada Medya Tercihleri ve Okuma Sıklıkları Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi :52 ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue