Donald J. Leu New Literacies Research Lab University of Connecticut

1. Donald J. Leu New Literacies Research Lab University of Connecticut Institute of Education Sciences Research Conference - June 9, 2009 From The Report Of The RAND Reading Study Group To Online Reading Comprehension:  New Directions For Research On Reading Comprehension Portions of this material are based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Education under Award No. R305G050154. Opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.

2. Important Funding and Support From: • Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education • Ray and Carole Neag • The Carnegie Corporation of New York • The National Science Foundation • North Central Educational Research Lab • PBS • The Annenberg Foundation • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation • Australian Council of Educational Research • OECD • Schools and teachers around the world.

3. Homage and Challenge “ . . .to completely analyze what we do when we read would almost be the acme of a psychologist’s achievements, for it would be to describe very many of the most intricate workings of the human mind . . . .” (The Psychology of Reading Edmond B. Huey, 1908, p. 6) After

4. I. Selected Summary: “Reading for Understanding: An R&D Program in Reading Comprehension” • “…the current knowledge base on reading comprehension…is sizeable but sketchy, unfocused, and inadequate as a basis for reform…” (p. xii)

5. An Interactive and Socially Situated Definition/Heuristic Reading comprehension is “…the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language. It consists of three elements: the reader, the text, and the activity or purpose for reading.”

6. The Report Identified “Priority Research Domains” • Instruction “Good instruction is the most powerful means of promoting the development of proficient comprehenders and preventing reading comprehension problems.” • Teacher Preparation “…teaching is so complex that the current teacher education programs cannot adequately prepare novice teachers to engage in practice that reflects the existing knowledge base about reading.”

7. “Priority Research Domains” • Professional Development “…students’ reading achievement will not improve unless teachers use that knowledge to improve their instruction.” • Assessment “All of the research recommended by the RRSG depends on having better instruments for assessing reading comprehension.”

8. It Defines Essential Elements For Evaluating Potential Research Projects • Practical Knowledge “A potential project should be judged not only by its methodological rigor but also by its capacity to generate improvements in classroom practices...” • Multiple Methodologies: “…a range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies is essential to ensure rigor.” • Long-term and Cumulative Research Base: “High-quality research efforts should be long-term and cumulative.”

9. Other Essential Elements for Our Research Agenda • Links to Other Disciplines “…should create links across the now-distinct subfields and subgroups of research in this field.” • Collaboration ensures “…a healthy forum for quality control and the judicious use of resources.” • Community building “…contribute to the task of forming a community of researchers linked by their common intellectual focus.”

10. A Prescient Comment About The Future • “… the Internet…requires readers to have novel literacy skills, and little is known about how to analyze or teach those skills.” (p. 4). The new literacies of online reading comprehension

11. II.The Internet Is This Generation’s Defining Context For Reading Comprehension, Literacy, And Learning

12. 

13. The Workplace Has Changed • Recent productivity gains around the world are, at least partially, due to Internet use in the workplace to share information, communicate, and solve problems (van Ark, Inklaar, & McGuckin, 2003; Friedman, 2005; Matteucci, O’Mahony, Robinson, & Zwick, 2005). This generation’s defining technology for reading.

14. Our Students Have Changed • The Tipping Point Year: 2005 Students aged 8-18 in the U.S. spent more time reading online per day than reading offline: 48 minutes per day vs. 43 minutes per day. (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005). • In Accra, Ghana: • 66% of 15-18 year olds report having gone online previously; (Borzekowski, Fobil, & Asante, 2006). This generation’s defining technology for reading.

15. The World Has Changed: Nations Prepare Their Citizens for Work in an Information Economy • Finland: teachers receive five weeks of paid, release time professional development at integrating the Internet into the classroom (Svedlin, Personal Correspondence) • Japan: broadband in nearly every home that is 16 times faster than the broadband in US homes for $22 per month. (Bleha, 2005) This generation’s defining technology for reading.

16. The World Has Changed: Nations Prepare Their Citizens for Work in an Information Economy • OECD Assessment Initiatives in Online Reading Comprehension: 2009 PISAInternational Assessment of Reading – Digital Literacies Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) – Problem Solving in Technologically Rich Environments • Mexico: e-Mexico, a policy designed to provide every citizen and every school with an Internet connection (Ludlow, 2006).

17. The U.S. ?Not a single state assessment measures the ability to... • …critically read online information to evaluate source reliability. • … read search engine results to select the best link for an information problem. • Nor, indeed, any aspect of reading online to solve information problems. This generation’s defining technology for reading.

18. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) • NAEP decided to exclude online reading comprehension from the 2009 NAEP reading framework. This generation’s defining technology for reading.

19. III.What Do We Know About Online Reading Comprehension? • We have many more questions than answers. • It often appears to be a problem solving task. • Online readers construct the texts they read, through the links they follow. • Reading comprehension is somewhat different online. How it differs is not fully understood.

20. Possible Starting Points To Our Understanding

21. A Preliminary Model of Online Reading Comprehension(Castek, 2008; Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Coiro, 2007;Henry, 2007; Leu, Castek, Hartman, Coiro, Henry, Kulikowich, & Lyver, 2005 Leu; Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Leu, Reinking, et. al, 2007) Online reading comprehension typically includes: • Reading to identify important questions; • Reading to locate information; • Reading to critically evaluate the information we find; • Reading to synthesize information to answer those questions; • Reading as we communicate with others.

22. Valid And Reliable Assessments of Online Reading Comprehension (ORCAs) (Castek, 2008; Coiro, 2007; Henry, 2007; Leu et al., 2005; Leu, Reinking, et. al, 2007). Issues: Practicality and Stability

23. Online and Offline Reading Comprehension May Not Be Isomorphic (r=0.19, n = 89, N.S.) Online Reading Comprehension = ORCA Blog Offline Reading = Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) of Reading Comprehension Leu, D. Castek, J., Hartman, D., Coiro, J., Henry, L., Kulikowich, J., Lyver, S. (2005).

24. Additional Evidence:Predicting Online Reading Comprehension Offline Reading Comp.= CT State Reading Test Online Reading Comprehension = ORCA Quia Coiro, 2007 The new literacies of online reading comprehension

25.  Challenged Readers • Some challenged readers read better online than high performing offline readers (Castek, et. al, in press; Coiro, 2007). Why? (case study evidence) • Read online at home each day. • Excellent locating skills • Shorter units of text lessened fluency issues • Online readers choose texts; greater engagement • Web pages are graphic images, a strong suit

26. We Have a Very Preliminary Set of the Skills And Strategies Used During Online Reading Comprehension • A taxonomy of online reading comprehension skills is emerging from an analysis of think-aloud, verbal protocols by skilled online readers (Leu, Reinking, et al., 2007).

27. There may be a more limited contribution of prior knowledge during online reading. • Online readers often develop required prior knowledge during “just in time” reading (Coiro, 2007).

28. Many Adolescents Are Not Proficient With Reading Online Information, Especially Locating And Critical Evaluation Skills. • Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008 • Leu, Reinking, et al., 2007 • Many used a “dot com” strategy to locate information. • 100% of the top 50/1100 online readers thought “Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus” was reliable or very reliable.

32. An Initial Instructional Model Shows Modest Effects With Improving Online Reading Comprehension In 1-1 Laptop Classrooms • Internet Reciprocal Teaching (Leu, Coiro, Castek, Hartman, Henry, & Reinking, 2008) • Three phases (Direct, Exchange, Online Collaborative Inquiry) • Problem based • Distributes Online Reading Comprehension Strategy Knowledge

33. Challenging Information Problems, within IRT, Seem to Generate Greater Acquisition of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies • Students appear to learn online reading comprehension skills best from other students within the context of more challenging activities (Castek, 2008).

34. IV. What Do We Need To Know About Online Reading Comprehension? • Online Reading Process Issues • Instructional Issues • Teacher Preparation • Professional Development • Assessment

35. Process Issues In Online Reading Comprehension“…the acme of a psychologist’s achievements…” • We need better theories, more precisely defined constructs, better methodologies, and a critical mass of researchers to study the issue. • What is the complete set of online reading comprehension skills and strategies? What are the limits of continuous change as we study this issue? • How does online communication play a role in online reading comprehension?

36. Process Issues In Online Reading Comprehension“…the acme of a psychologist’s achievements…” • Which online reading comprehension skills best predict performance? Why? • Why are online and offline reading comprehension different? • The Technology Continuum Hypothesis • The Bottleneck Skill Hypothesis • Locating Skills of Online Reading Comprehension • Critical Evaluation Skills of Online Reading Comprehension • The Problem-based Reading Hypothesis

37. Instructional Issues“Good instruction is the most powerful means of promoting the development of proficient comprehenders and preventing reading comprehension problems.” (RRSG, 2002, p. xvii) • How do 1-1 Internet classrooms alter the terrain of possibilities for online reading comprehension instruction? • How do we take advantage of students’ online literacy practices outside of school to foster the development of online reading comprehension and learning skills within school? • How can we best adapt and evaluate effective instructional models from offline reading comprehension?

38. Teacher Preparation Issues“…teaching is so complex that the current teacher education programs cannot adequately prepare novice teachers to engage in practice that reflects the existing knowledge base about reading.” (RRSG, 2002, p. 9) • How do we support professors/instructors to include effective practices in online reading comprehension when some are not “newly literate” themselves? • Which online strategies can be most effective in rapidly disseminating effective instructional practices in online reading comprehension?

39. Professional Development Issues“…students’ reading achievement will not improve unless teachers use that knowledge to improve their instruction.”(RRSG, 2002, p. xviii) • Should we plan now for 1-1 Internet classrooms in our research on professional development? • What should we teach teachers? • Instructional models vs. skills and strategies? • Insights to foster continual learning in a changing context? • How should we best conduct PD? • Literacy coaches, peer coaches, online coaches, communities of learners? • Should we use test beds like Maine to rapidly evaluate scalable models of professional development in reading comprehension within 1-1 Internet classrooms?

40. Assessment Issues“All of the research recommended by the RRSG depends on having better instruments for assessing reading comprehension.” (RRSG, 2002, p. xix) • What are the most valid, reliable, and practical ways to assess online reading comprehension? • How can we develop more sensitive assessment instruments that take less time to administer? • How can assessments keep up with the deictic nature of our online reading contexts?

41. V. Two Important Policy Issues“How do national, state, and local policies and practices facilitate or impede the efforts of teachers to implement effective comprehension instruction?” (RRSG, 2002, p. 47) • Neglecting research into online reading comprehension perpetuates public policies that help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. • The cruelest irony of No Child Left Behind may be that the students who most need to be prepared at school for an online age of information are precisely those who are being prepared the least.

42. A Second Policy Issue:Defining Technology Integration A literacy issue Technology standards are separated from subject area standards Online learning is separated from subject areas Specialists are responsible Online information and communication skills are assessed separately from subject area knowledge. A technology issue • Technology standards become integrated within subject area standards • Online learning is integrated into each subject area; • Every classroom teacher is responsible • Subject area assessments and online information skills are assessed together.

43. Expanding our Understanding of Reading Comprehension Will Not Easy

44. Donald J. Leu New Literacies Research Lab University of Connecticut Institute of Education Sciences Research Conference - June 9, 2009 From The Report Of The RAND Reading Study Group To Online Reading Comprehension:  New Directions For Research On Reading Comprehension Portions of this material are based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Education under Award No. R305G050154. Opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.