Cover not available
Part of
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. 91–120

Chapter 4
Comprehension processes in digital reading

| University of Valencia
| University of Osl
| Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien Tübingen | Welten Institute - Open University of the Netherlands
| University of Bochum
| Leiden University
The Internet offers readers the unique opportunity to access rich information scenarios, but doing so requires the use of advanced digital reading skills. Examples of such scenarios are searching and acquiring information from multiple sources (e.g., hypertext, images, videos) and participating in the social exchange of information (e.g., web forums, social networks, commenting newspapers). In such scenarios, the reader has to cope with (a) the constantly growing number of available information sources, (b) the different formats in which digital information is presented, and (c) the varying quality of the information available. To deal with these affordances, individuals need to possess reading skills that go beyond what is needed to understand a single text alone. Such advanced reading skills include: (a) search and navigation skills to select relevant web pages and hyperlinks and to avoid getting lost in hyperspace; (b) the ability to integrate multiple pieces of information and multiple presentation formats (texts from different web pages, text and animations); and (c) critical evaluation skills (e.g., assessing the trustworthiness of information on a web page and evaluating the quality of a comment from a social network). Existing literature suggests that children and adolescents possess some of these skills, but that students at all levels struggle to apply them in complex scenarios. In the present chapter, we aim to review the literature regarding the skills needed to master the affordances of advanced digital reading scenarios.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Navigation
    • 2.1Navigation: Description of the competence
      • 2.1.1How readers select web pages
      • 2.1.2How readers navigate across web pages
    • 2.2Navigation: Individual differences
    • 2.3Navigation: Design influences
      • 2.3.1Design influences in the selection of web pages
      • 2.3.2Design influences in the navigation across web pages
  • 3.Integration
    • 3.1Integration: Description of the competence
      • 3.1.1How readers integrate information from different web pages
      • 3.1.2How readers integrate across online modalities
    • 3.2Integration: Individual differences
    • 3.3Integration: Design influences
  • 4.Evaluation
    • 4.1Evaluation: Description of the competence
      • 4.1.1How readers evaluate information from web pages
      • 4.1.2How readers evaluate information in social media
    • 4.2Evaluation: Individual differences
    • 4.3Evaluation: Design influences
  • 5.Methodologies for the study of digital reading
    • 5.1Eye tracking
    • 5.2Log files
    • 5.3Verbal protocols
    • 5.4Evaluation tasks
    • 5.5Memory and comprehension tasks
  • 6.Discussion and future directions
  • References
Published online: 9 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.17.04sal
References (138)
References
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, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Amadieu, F., & Salmerón, L. (2014). Concept maps for comprehension and navigation of hypertexts. In R. Hanewald & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Digital knowledge maps in education (pp. 41–59). New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amadieu, F., van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 376–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2013). Teachers’ source evaluation self-efficacy predicts their use of relevant source features when evaluating the trustworthiness of web sources on special education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 821–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anmarkrud, Ø., McCrudden, M. T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41, 873–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barzilai, S., Tzadok, E., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional Science, 43, 737–766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bendixen, L. D., & Hartley, K. (2003). Successful learning with hypermedia: The role of epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 15–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beker, K., Jolles, D., Lorch, R. F., Jr., & van den Broek, P. (2016). Learning from texts: Activation of information from previous texts during reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 1161–1178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betsch, C., Ulshöfer, C., Renkewitz, F., & Betsch, T. (2011). The influence of narrative vs. statistic information on perceiving vaccination risks. Medical Decision Making, 31(5), 742–753. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using Internet. Computers & Education, 53, 1207–1217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30, 9–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11, 87–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, B-Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers’ use of Internet reading strategies: A think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 32, 252–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline comprehension skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 352–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Locating information within extended hypermedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 287–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1616–1641. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duncan, L. G., McGeown, S. P., Griffiths, Y. M., Stothard, S. E., & Dobai, A. (2015). Adolescent reading skill and engagement with digital and traditional literacies as predictors of reading comprehension. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 209–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyson, M. C. (2004). How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23, 377–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyson, M. L. (2005). How do we read text on screen. In H. Van Oostendorp, L. Breure, & A. Dillon (Eds.), Creation, use and deployment of digital information (pp. 279–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eastin, M. S., Yang, M.-S., & Nathanson, A. I. (2006). Children of the net: An empirical exploration into the evaluation of Internet content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 211–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9, 319–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences (DUX ’03) (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: ACM Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, M. C., Ericsson, K. A., & Best, R. (2011). Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 316–344. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12, 51–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fu, W. T., & Pirolli, P. (2007). SNIF-ACT: A cognitive model of user navigation on the World Wide Web. Human–Computer Interaction, 22, 355–412. [URL].Google Scholar
Gazan, R. (2010). Microcollaborations in a Social Q&A Community. Information Processing & Management, 46, 693–702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerjets, P., & Hellenthal-Schorr, T. (2008). Competent information search in the World Wide Web: development and evaluation of a web training for pupils. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 693–715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerjets, P., Kammerer, Y., & Werner, B. (2011). Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data. Learning and Instruction, 21, 220–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., & Keßel, Y. (2013). Assessing individual differences in basic computer skills. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 263–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. A., Yu, S. B., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers and Education, 76, 55–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gwizdka, J. (2009). What a difference a tag cloud makes: Effects of tasks and cognitive abilities on search results interface use. Information Research, 14(4). Retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
Hahnel, C., Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., & Kröhne, U. (2016). Effects of linear reading, basic computer skills, evaluating online information, and navigation on reading digital text. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 486–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, K., Siegel, M., & Freyermuth, S. (2010). Non-science majors’ critical evaluation of websites in a biotechnology course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 612–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hertzum, M., Hansen, K. D., & Andersen, H. H. K. (2009). Scrutinising usability evaluation: Does thinking aloud affect behavior and mental workload? Behaviour & Information Technology, 28, 165–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing and Management, 44, 1467–1484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 313–334). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Issa, N., Schuller, M., Santacaterina, S., Shapiro, M., Mayer, R. E., & DaRosa, D. A. (2011). Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical Education, 45, 818–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivanitskaya, L., O’Boyle, I., & Casey, A. M. (2006). Health information literacy and competencies of information age students: Results from the interactive online research readiness self-assessment (RRSA). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juvina, I., & van Oostendorp, H. (2008). Modeling semantic and structural knowledge in web navigation. Discourse Processes, 45, 346–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kammerer, Y., Amann, D., & Gerjets, P. (2015). When adults without university education search the Internet for health information: The roles of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and a source evaluation intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 297–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). The role of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons’ source evaluations and decisions during Web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1193–1203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Effects of search interface and Internet-specific epistemic beliefs on source evaluations during Web search for medical information: An eye-tracking study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31, 83–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The role of thinking-aloud instructions and prior domain knowledge in information processing and source evaluation during Web search. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 716–721). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
(2014a). The role of search result position and source trustworthiness in the selection of web search results when using a list or a grid interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30, 177–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Quellenbewertungen und Quellenverweise beim Lesen und Zusammenfassen wissenschaftsbezogener Informationen aus multiplen Webseiten. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 42, 7–23.Google Scholar
Kammerer, Y., Kalbfell, E., & Gerjets, P. (2016). Is this information source commercially biased? How contradictions between web pages stimulate the consideration of source information. Discourse Processes, 53, 430–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keck, D., Kammerer, Y., & Starauschek, E. (2015). Reading science texts online: Does source information influence the identification of contradictions within texts? Computers & Education, 82, 442–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keil, F. C., & Kominsky, J. F. (2013). Missing links in middle school: Developing use of disciplinary relatedness in evaluating Internet search results. PLoS ONE, 8: e67777. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating Internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39, 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, S., & Oh, S. (2009). Users’ relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q&A site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 716–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48, 169–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornmann, J., Kammerer, Y., Anjewierden, A., Zettler, I., Trautwein, U., & Gerjets, P. (2016). How children navigate a multiperspective hypermedia environment: The role of spatial working memory capacity. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 145–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2008). Integrating critical Web skills and content knowledge: Development and evaluation of a 5th grade educational program. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 666–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Magliano, J. P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26, 335–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1996). Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 385–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Domain knowledge, interest and hypertext navigation: A study of individual differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7, 51–69.Google Scholar
Lawless, K. A., Mills, R., & Brown, S. W. (2002). Children’s hypertext navigation strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 274–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 37–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucassen, T., Muilwijk, R., Noordzij, M. L., & Schraagen, J. M. (2013). Topic familiarity and information skills in online credibility evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 254–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J., Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2013). Teaching fourth and fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 204–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MaKinster, J. G., Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Why can’t I find Newton’s Third Law?: Case studies of students using of the Web as a science resource. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 155–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E‐readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Ariasi, N. (2014). Reading information about a scientific phenomenon on web pages varying for reliability: An eye-movement analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 663–685. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–284). New York, NY: Elsevier Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naumann, J. (2015). A model of online reading engagement: Linking engagement, navigation, and performance in digital reading. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 263–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Log file analysis in hypertext research: An overview, a meta-analysis, and some suggestions for future research. In J. J. Cañas (Ed.), Workshop on cognition and the web: Information processing, comprehension and learning (pp. 53–56). Granada, Spain: University of Granada.Google Scholar
Naumann, J., Richter, T., Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2008). Working memory capacity and reading skill moderate the effectiveness of strategy trainings in learning from hypertext. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 197–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naumann, J., Richter, T., Flender, J., Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2007). Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 791–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naumann, J., & Salmerón, L. (2016). Does navigation always predict performance? Effects of relevant page selection on digital reading performance are moderated by offline comprehension skills. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17, 42–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olive, T., Rouet, J.-F., Francois, E., & Zampa, V. (2008). Summarizing digital documents: Effects of alternate or simultaneous window display. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 541–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olston, C., & Chi, E. H. (2003). ScentTrials: Integrating browsing and searching on the Web. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 10, 177–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ophir, E., Nass, C. I., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 106, 15583–15587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 801–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, J., Macedo-Rouet, M., Stadtler, M., & Rouet, J.-F. (2016). Why attend to source information when reading online? The perspective of ninth grade students from two different countries. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pirolli, P. (2007). Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Price, C. J. (2012). A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. Neuroimage, 62, 816–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puntambekar, S., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Effect of visual representation of the conceptual structure of the domain on science learning and navigation in a hypertext environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16, 429.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richter, T., Naumann, J., & Noller, S. (2003). LOGPAT: A semi-automatic way to analyze hypertext navigation behavior. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62, 113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 145–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robins, D., & Holmes, J. (2008). Aesthetics and credibility in a website design. Information Processing & Management, 44, 386–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2014). Multimedia learning from multiple documents. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 813–841). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Ros, C., Goumi, A., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Dinet, J. (2011). The influence of surface and deep cues on primary and secondary school students’ assessment of relevance in Web menus. Learning and Instruction, 21, 205–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Cañas, J. J., Kintsch, W., & Fajardo, I. (2005). Reading strategies and hypertext comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40, 171–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Cerdán, R., & Naumann, J. (2015). How adolescents navigate Wikipedia to answer questions. Infancia y Aprendizaje: Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 38, 435–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Gil, L., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Comprehension effects of signaling relationships between documents in search engines. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 419–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., & García, V. (2011). Comprehension skills and children’s navigation strategies in hypertext. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1143–1151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning with hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1157–1171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Rouet, J-F. (2016). Multiple viewpoints increase students’ attention to source features in social question and answer forum messages. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 2404–2419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Naumann, J., García, V., & Fajardo, I. (in press). Scanning and deep processing of information in hypertext: An eye-tracking and cued retrospective think-aloud study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 10.1111/jcal.12152
Sanchez, C., & Wiley, J. (2009). To scroll or not to scroll: Interactions of text presentation and working memory capacity. Human Factors, 51, 730–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheiter, K., & Van Gog, T. (2009). Using eye tracking in applied research to study and stimulate the processing of information from multi-representational sources. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1209–1214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Easy to understand but difficult to decide: Information comprehensibility and controversiality affect laypeople’s science-based decisions. Discourse Processes, 50, 361–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22, 231–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). You’d better ask an expert: Mitigating the comprehensibility effect on laypeople’s decisions about science-based knowledge claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 465–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and inference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Learning in a sheltered Internet environment: The use of Webquests. Learning and Instruction, 19, 423–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (in press). Reading across mediums: Effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education. DOI logo
Singer, M. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 362–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stadtler, M., Bromme, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (in press). Learning from multiple documents: How can we foster multiple document literacy skills in a sustainable way? In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka, & C. Chinn (Eds.), Promoting spontaneous use of learning and reasoning strategies: Theory, research, and practice.Singapore: Routledge.
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-F., & Bromme, R. (2016). Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing, 29, 705–729. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stadtler, M., Paul, J., Globoschütz, S., & Bromme, R. (2015). Watch out! - An instruction raising students’ epistemic vigilance augments their sourcing activities. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2278–2283). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 176–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanyam, K., Michikyan, M., Clemmons, C., Carrillo, R., Uhls, Y. T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2013). Learning from paper, learning from screens: Impact of screen reading and multitasking conditions on reading and writing among college students. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, S., Gnesdilow, D., & Puntambekar, S. (2011). Navigation behaviors and strategies used by middle school students to learn from a science hypertext. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20, 387.Google Scholar
Sullivan, S. A., & Puntambekar, S. (2015). Learning with digital texts: Exploring the impact of prior domain knowledge and reading comprehension ability on navigation and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 299–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sung, Y. T., Wu, M. D., Chen, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Examining the online reading behavior and performance of fifth-graders: Evidence from eye-movement data. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2015). Building coherence in Web-based and other non-traditional reading environments: Cognitive opportunities and challenges. In R. J. Spiro, M. DeSchryver, M. S. Hagerman, P. M. Morsink, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Reading at a crossroads? Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices (pp. 104–114). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Oostendorp, H. (2002). Updating mental representations during reading scientific text. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 309–329). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Strien, J. L. H., Kammerer, Y., Brand-Gruvel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016). How attitude strength biases information processing and evaluation on the web. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 245–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vibert, N., Ros, C., Le Bigot, L., Ramond, M., Gatefin, J., & Rouet, J.-F. (2009). Effects of domain knowledge on reference search with the PubMed database: An experimental study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1423–1447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 817–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52, 234–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walraven, A., Brand-Gruvel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2013). Fostering students’ evaluation behavior while searching the Internet. Instructional Science, 41, 125–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, R. W., Dumais, S. T., & Teevan, J. (2009). Characterizing the influence of domain expertise on Web search behavior. In R. Baeza Yates et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’09) (pp. 132–142). New York: ACM Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. In Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society  (pp. 1136–1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wiley, J., Goldman, S., Graesser, A., Sanchez. C., Ash, I., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal. 46, 1060–1106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 80–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wirth, W., Böcking, T., Karnowski, V., & von Pape, T. (2007). Heuristic and systematic use of search engines. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 778–800. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, S., & Duke, N. K. (2011). The impact of instruction in the WWWDOT framework on students’ disposition and ability to evaluate Websites as sources of information. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 132–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (57)

Cited by 57 other publications

Espinas, Daniel R. & Brennan W. Chandler
2024. Correlates of K-12 Students’ Intertextual Integration. Educational Psychology Review 36:2 DOI logo
Griffin, Robert A. & Diana Mindrila
2024. Teacher Reading Motivation: Factors and Latent Profiles. Literacy Research and Instruction 63:1 ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo
Incognito, Oriana & Christian Tarchi
2024. The association between sourcing skills and intertextual integration in lower secondary school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education 39:2 ► pp. 1485 ff. DOI logo
Kocaarslan, Mustafa & Ahmet Yamaç
2024. An examination of preservice classroom teachers’ perceived importance, self-efficacy beliefs, practices, and conceptions related to new literacies: a mixed design study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 36:2 ► pp. 486 ff. DOI logo
Krenca, Klaudia, Emily Taylor & S. Hélène Deacon
2024. Scrolling and hyperlinks: The effects of two prevalent digital features on children's digital reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading 47:3 ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Li, Chenyang & Fu Chen
2024. Impacts of ICT-related factors on students’ digital reading literacy: Evidence from high-performing Asian countries and regions. Education and Information Technologies DOI logo
Macedo-Rouet, Mônica, Gastón Saux, Anna Potocki, Emilie Dujardin, Yann Dyoniziak, Jean Pylouster & Jean-François Rouet
2024. Fostering university students’ online reading: effects of teacher-led strategy training embedded in a digital literacy course. Instructional Science DOI logo
Martínez, Magalí Ayelén, Gaston Saux, Franco Londra & Debora I. Burin
2024. Effects of a classroom intervention on college students’ sourcing skills: replication and extension study. Discourse Processes 61:4-5 ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
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
Tsalapova, Oksana & Marina Fedorenko
2024. The Development of Reading Culture among Youth in the Context of Digitalization of Society. Education and Pedagogical Sciences :2 (186) ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Hahnel, Carolin, Ulf Kroehne & Frank Goldhammer
2023. Rule-based process indicators of information processing explain performance differences in PIAAC web search tasks. Large-scale Assessments in Education 11:1 DOI logo
Hahnel, Carolin, Dara Ramalingam, Ulf Kroehne & Frank Goldhammer
2023. Patterns of reading behaviour in digital hypertext environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 39:3 ► pp. 737 ff. DOI logo
He, Qiwei, Francesca Borgonovi & Javier Suárez‐Álvarez
2023. Clustering sequential navigation patterns inmultiple‐sourcereading tasks with dynamic time warping method. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 39:3 ► pp. 719 ff. DOI logo
Hildenbrand, Lena & Jennifer Wiley
2023. Working memory capacity as a predictor of multiple text comprehension. Discourse Processes 60:4-5 ► pp. 378 ff. DOI logo
Hoch, Emely & Tim Fütterer
2023. Kompetenzen für das Lernen mit digitalen Medien: Eine konzeptuelle Analyse. In Bildung für eine digitale Zukunft [Edition ZfE, 15], ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Hye Yeon & Alexandra List
2023. The role of relevance determinations in multiple text reading and writing: an investigation of the MD-TRACE. Discourse Processes 60:1 ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo
List, Alexandra
2023. Social justice reasoning when students learn about social issues using multiple texts. Discourse Processes 60:4-5 ► pp. 244 ff. DOI logo
Londra, Franco & Gastón Saux
2023. The effect of document source trustworthiness on the evaluation and strategic use of embedded sources when reading health information online. Reading Psychology 44:6 ► pp. 623 ff. DOI logo
Sanchiz, M., F. Amadieu, J. Lemarié & A. Tricot
2023. Do graphic and textual interactive content organizers have the same impact on hypertext processing and learning outcome?. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 35:3 ► pp. 433 ff. DOI logo
Fajardo, Inmaculada, Vicenta Ávila, Pablo Delgado, Nadina Gómez‐Merino & Ladislao Salmerón
2022. Video‐blogs and linguistic simplification for students with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 35:5 ► pp. 1217 ff. DOI logo
Kerneža, Maja & Metka Kordigel Aberšek
2022. ONLINE READING IN DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS. Problems of Education in the 21st Century 80:6 ► pp. 836 ff. DOI logo
Mason, Lucia, Angelica Moè, Maria Caterina Tornatora & Angelica Ronconi
2022. Promoting Web-Source Evaluation and Comprehension of Conflicting Online Documents: Effects of Classroom Interventions. In Psychology, Learning, Technology [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1606], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Mastrobattista, Ludovica & Javier Merchán-Sánchez-Jara
2022. Identificación y análisis de factores de desapego de la lectura digital en el entorno académico: una revisión crítica de la bibliografía. El Profesional de la información DOI logo
Oh, Chen May, Pramela Krish & Afendi Hamat
2022. Text Selection and Preferences of EFL Students While Reading on Smartphones. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 12:10 ► pp. 1022 ff. DOI logo
van den Broek, Paul & Panayiota Kendeou
2022. Reading Comprehension I. In The Science of Reading, ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Burin, Debora I., Federico M. González, Magali Martínez & Jonathan G. Marrujo
2021. Expository multimedia comprehension in E‐learning: Presentation format, verbal ability and working memory capacity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 37:3 ► pp. 797 ff. DOI logo
Coiro, Julie
2021. Toward a Multifaceted Heuristic of Digital Reading to Inform Assessment, Research, Practice, and Policy. Reading Research Quarterly 56:1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Hämäläinen, Elina K., Carita Kiili, Eija Räikkönen & Miika Marttunen
2021. Students' abilities to evaluate the credibility of online texts: The role of internet‐specific epistemic justifications. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 37:5 ► pp. 1409 ff. DOI logo
Nash, Brady L.
2021. Constructing Meaning Online: Teaching Critical Reading in a Post‐Truth Era. The Reading Teacher 74:6 ► pp. 713 ff. DOI logo
Nash, Brady L.
2024. Emotion, stimulation, habit, and criticality: Learning from teachers’ multifaceted conceptions of digital reading. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 56:1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Saux, Gaston, Mary Anne Britt, Nicolas Vibert & Jean‐François Rouet
2021. Building mental models from multiple texts: How readers construct coherence from inconsistent sources. Language and Linguistics Compass 15:3 DOI logo
Soliman, Maha
2021. From Integrating to Learning: Insights from Spanish L2 Multiple Documents Selection in Reading Tasks. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning 14:1 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Stenseth, Tonje
2021. Når målet er læring – har elevene gode nok digitale leseferdigheter?. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift 105:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Junfeng, Ahmed Tlili, Ronghuai Huang, Rongxia Zhuang & Kaushal Kumar Bhagat
2021. Development and Validation of a Digital Learning Competence Scale: A Comprehensive Review. Sustainability 13:10 ► pp. 5593 ff. DOI logo
Burin, Debora I., Federico Martin Gonzalez, Juan Pablo Barreyro & Irene Injoque-Ricle
2020. Metacognitive regulation contributes to digital text comprehension in E-learning. Metacognition and Learning 15:3 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo
Böhme, Richard & Meike Munser-Kiefer
2020. Lernunterstützung mit digitalen Unterrichtsmaterialien. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo
Böhme, Richard, Meike Munser-Kiefer & Sarah Prestridge
2020. Lernunterstützung mit digitalen Medien in der Grundschule. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung 13:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Keliang, Yunxiao Zu & Yansong Cui
2020. Design and implementation of bilingual digital reader based on artificial intelligence and big data technology. Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering 20:3 ► pp. 889 ff. DOI logo
Delgado, Pablo, Elisabeth Stang Lund, Ladislao Salmerón & Ivar Bråten
2020. To click or not to click: investigating conflict detection and sourcing in a multiple document hypertext environment. Reading and Writing 33:8 ► pp. 2049 ff. DOI logo
Hahn, Oliver, Steffen Lemke, Athanasios Mazarakis & Isabella Peters
2020. Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2020, ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Parodi Sweis, Giovanni, Tomás Moreno-de-León & Cristobal Julio
2020. Comprensión de textos escritos: reconceptualizaciones en torno a las demandas del siglo XXI. Íkala 25:3 ► pp. 775 ff. DOI logo
Philipp, Maik
2020. Leseförderung 4.0?. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Rouet, Jean-François, Julie Ayroles, Mônica Macedo-Rouet & Anna Potocki
2020. Children’s Acquisition of Text Search Strategies: The Role of Task Models and Relevance Processes. In Understanding and Improving Information Search [Human–Computer Interaction Series, ], ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Strømsø, Helge I., Ivar Bråten & Eva W. Brante
2020. Profiles of warm engagement and cold evaluation in multiple-document comprehension. Reading and Writing 33:9 ► pp. 2337 ff. DOI logo
Vanhees, Claudio, Mathea Simons & Vanessa Joosen
2020. Desirability of Multimedia Hyperlinks in Fiction to Foster Pupil Reading Motivation and Immersion. In Recent Tools for Computer- and Mobile-Assisted Foreign Language Learning [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Vanhees, Claudio, Mathea Simons & Vanessa Joosen
2023. Hyperlink desirability in adolescent fiction: location and absorption. Computer Assisted Language Learning 36:3 ► pp. 486 ff. DOI logo
Weyergang, Cecilie & Tove Stjern Frønes
2020. Å lese kritisk: Elevers vurderinger av teksters troverdighetog pålitelighet. In Like muligheter til god leseforståelse?, ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Beker, Katinka, Paul van den Broek & Dietsje Jolles
2019. Children’s integration of information across texts: reading processes and knowledge representations. Reading and Writing 32:3 ► pp. 663 ff. DOI logo
Delgado, Pablo, Vicenta Ávila, Inmaculada Fajardo & Ladislao Salmerón
2019. Training young adults with intellectual disability to read critically on the internet. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 32:3 ► pp. 666 ff. DOI logo
Mangen, Anne, Gérard Olivier & Jean-Luc Velay
2019. Comparing Comprehension of a Long Text Read in Print Book and on Kindle: Where in the Text and When in the Story?. Frontiers in Psychology 10 DOI logo
Máñez, Ignacio, Eduardo Vidal-Abarca, Panayiota Kendeou & Tomás Martínez
2019. How do students process complex formative feedback in question-answering tasks? A think-aloud study. Metacognition and Learning 14:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Naumann, Johannes
2019. The Skilled, the Knowledgeable, and the Motivated: Investigating the Strategic Allocation of Time on Task in a Computer-Based Assessment. Frontiers in Psychology 10 DOI logo
Riddell, Judith E.
2019. Literacy and Technology. In Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Riddell, Judith E.
2020. Literacy and Technology. In Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies, ► pp. 1104 ff. DOI logo
Salmerón, Ladislao & Pablo Delgado
2019. Critical analysis of the effects of the digital technologies on reading and learning / Análisis crítico sobre los efectos de las tecnologías digitales en la lectura y el aprendizaje. Cultura y Educación 31:3 ► pp. 465 ff. DOI logo
Barzilai, Sarit, Asnat R. Zohar & Shiri Mor-Hagani
2018. Promoting Integration of Multiple Texts: a Review of Instructional Approaches and Practices. Educational Psychology Review 30:3 ► pp. 973 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Il lettore 'distratto' [Studi e saggi, 230], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2024. 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.