The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension: Rethinking the Reading Achievement Gap
Abstract
enIs there an achievement gap for online reading ability based on income inequality that is separate from the achievement gap in traditional, offline reading? This possibility was examined between students in two pseudonymous school districts: West Town (economically advantaged) and East Town (economically challenged; N = 256). Performance‐based assessments were used within a simulation of the Internet developed as part of a larger project. Seventh graders completed two online research and comprehension assessments, which evaluated four skill areas (locate, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate) and two knowledge domains in science. Students also completed an assessment of prior domain knowledge and a short Internet use questionnaire. Standardized state reading and writing test scores served as measures of offline literacy skills. Results indicated that there was a significant achievement gap favoring West Town students in offline reading scores, offline writing scores, and online research and comprehension scores. A significant gap persisted for online research and comprehension after we conditioned on pretest differences in offline reading, offline writing, and prior knowledge scores. The results of the questionnaire indicated that West Town students had greater access to the Internet at home and were required to use the Internet more in school. These results suggest that a separate and independent achievement gap existed for online reading, based on income inequality. Current estimates of this gap, which rely solely on measures of offline reading, may underrepresent the true nature of the U.S. reading achievement gap in an online age. Policy implications are explored.
Chinese
zh基于收入不平等的在线阅读能力成绩差距,是否有别于传的统离线阅读能力成绩差距?本研究旨在考查这种可能性,并在西镇(经济优势)和东镇(经济弱势)两个假名学校区的256名学生之中进行。在线阅读能力成绩的评估,是以表現為本的評估方式在一个模拟互联网上进行,该模拟互联网的研制是属于一个较大研究项目的一部分。七年级的学生完成两个在线研究和阅读理解能力评估,其目的是评量四个技能领域(寻找、评价、综合、沟通)和两个科学知识领域。这些学生也完成一个先备知识评估和一个互联网使用的简短问卷调查。标准化州立阅读和写作考试分数则用作离线读写技能的评量。结果显示,离线阅读得分、离线写作得分,以及在线研究和阅读理解的得分,均有显著而有利于西镇学生的成绩差距。经离线阅读、离线写作和先备知识的前测得分差异调整后,在线研究和阅读理解有持续的显著差距。问卷调查结果显示,西镇学生较多在家上网,并在学校内较多需要使用互联网。这些结果表明,基于收入不平等,在线阅读能力,存在着单独的和独立的成绩差距。目前对这差距的估计是单靠离线阅读的评量,或许未能完全代表在线时代美国阅读能力成绩差距的真正本质。本文最后探讨此研究对政策的启示。
Spanish
es¿Existe una brecha en el rendimiento en la habilidad de leer en línea basada en la desigualdad de ingresos aparte de la brecha en el rendimiento en la lectura tradicional, fuera de línea? Se examinó esta posible ocurrencia entre estudiantes en dos distritos escolares seudónimos: West Town (económicamente privilegiado) y East Town (económicamente deprimido; N = 256) Evaluaciones basadas en el rendimiento fueron usadas en una simulación del Internet desarrollada como parte de un proyecto más extenso. Estudiantes de séptimo grado completaron dos evaluaciones de investigación y comprensión que evaluaban cuatro áreas de destrezas (localizar, evaluar, sintetizar, y comunicar) y dos campos de conocimiento en las ciencias. Los estudiantes también completaron una evaluación sobre su conocimiento anterior en dichos campos y un cuestionario corto sobre su uso del Internet. Las calificaciones en pruebas estatales estandarizadas de lectura y escritura sirvieron como medida de las destrezas de alfabetización fuera de línea. Los resultados indicaron que hay una brecha de rendimiento importante que favorece a los estudiantes de West Town en cuanto a las calificaciones en la lectura fuera de línea, las calificaciones en la escritura fuera de línea, y las calificaciones en la investigación y la comprensión en línea. Persiste una brecha importante en cuanto a la investigación y la comprensión en línea aún después de tomar en cuenta las diferencias en las pruebas previas de la lectura fuera de línea, la escritura fuera de línea, y las calificaciones en el conocimiento anterior. Los resultados del cuestionario indicaron que los estudiantes de West Town tenían mayor acceso al Internet en sus hogares y tenían que usar el Internet más en la escuela. Estos resultados sugieren que una brecha separada e independiente en el rendimiento existía en cuanto a la lectura en línea basada en la desigualdad de ingresos. Los estimados corrientes de esta brecha que se basan únicamente en medidas de la lectura fuera de línea podrían estar mal representando la verdadera naturaleza de la brecha en el rendimiento de la lectura en los Estados Unidos en la era del trabajo en línea. Se exploran las implicaciones a las pólizas.
Arabic
arهل هنالك فجوة إنجاز للقراءة على الشابكة من حيث الدخل غير المتساوي الذي يختلف عن فجوة الإنجاز في القراءة التقليدية؟ تم فحص هذه الإمكانية بين الطلاب الذين من منطقتين مدرسيتين أخذتا تسميتيهما من جهتين من الجهات الأربعة: البلدة الغربية (متقدمة اقتصادياً) والبدلة الشرقية (متخلفة اقتصادياً، عدد الطلاب = 256). وقد تم استخدام تقييمات مبنية على الأداء في نموذج محاكاة الشابكة المصمم كجزء من مشروع أكبر. أكمل طلاب الصف السابع تقييمين للبحث والاستيعاب على الشابكة فحصاً أربع مهارات (تحديد المكان والتفكير التقديري والتجميع والتواصل) ومجالي المعرفة في العلم. وأكمل الطلاب كذلك تقييماً لمعرفة المجال السابقة واستفتاء قصيراً بشأن استخدام الشابكة. وقد استخدمت اختبارات قياسية للقراءة والكتابة كمعايير مهارات معرفة القراءة والكتابة دون الاتصال بالشابكة. أشارت النتائج إلى أن ثمة فجوة إنجاز معنوية لصالح طلاب البلدة الغربية في علامات القراءة والكتابة دون الاتصال بالشابكة وعلامات البحث والاستيعاب على الشابكة. واستدامت فجوة معنوية للبحث والاستيعاب على الشابكة بعد أن أخذنا بالحسبان التباينات قبل التجربة بالنسبة للقراءة والكتابة دون الاتصال بالشابكة وعلامات المعرفة السابقة. وأشارت نتائج الاستفتاء إلى أن طلاب البلدة الغربية تمتعوا بالوصول إلى الشابكة في البيت وكان لابد لهم من أن يستخدموا الشابكة في المدرسة إلى درجة أكبر من المجموعة الأخرى. وتدل هذه النتائج على أن فجوة منفصلة ومستقلة قد قامت للقراءة على الشابكة حسب الدخل غير المتساوي. إن تقادير هذه الفجوة الحالية التي تعتمد على معايير القراءة دون الاتصال بالشابكة اعتماداً تاماً قد تقصر في تمثيل ماهية فجوة إنجاز القراءة الحقيقية في الولايات المتحدة في عصر الشابكة. وقد تم استكشاف آثار السياسة.
Russian
ruПpи тpaдициoннoм oфлaйнoвoм чтeнии мнoгoe зaвиcит oт экoнoмичecкoгo фaктopa: дeти из мeнee oбecпeчeнныx ceмeй cтaбильнo пoкaзывaют бoлee низкиe peзyльтaты. Учeныe зaдyмaлиcь, бyдyт ли пoлyчeны cxoдныe peзyльтaты пpи чтeнии oнлaйн. B иccлeдoвaнии пpиняли yчacтиe шкoльники (N = 256) двyx oкpyгoв, ycлoвнo нaзвaнныx Зaпaдный гopoд (экoнoмичecки пpoцвeтaющий) и Bocтoчный гopoд (экoнoмичecки oтcтaлый). Oцeнивaниe иx ycпexoв пpoиcxoдилo в paмкax дpyгoгo, бoлee кpyпнoгo интepнeт‐пpoeктa. Ceмиклaccники выпoлнили двa зaдaния нa иccлeдoвaниe и нa пoнимaниe пpoчитaннoгo oнлaйн. Пpи этoм пpoвepялиcь чeтыpe нaвыкa (пoиcк инфopмaции, eгo oцeнивaниe, cинтeз и кoммyникaция) и иx пpимeнeниe в двyx бoльшиx oблacтяx ecтecтвeнныx нayк. Кpoмe тoгo, шкoльники пpoшли тecтиpoвaниe для пpoвepки paнee oбpeтeнныx знaний в этиx нayчныx oблacтяx и кopoткoe aнкeтиpoвaниe пo иcпoльзoвaнию интepнeтa. Для зaмepa oфлaйнoвыx нaвыкoв гpaмoтнocти иcпoльзoвaлиcь бaллы cтaндapтнoгo шкoльнoгo тecтиpoвaния пo чтeнию и пиcьмy. Пoлyчeнныe peзyльтaты cвидeтeльcтвyют o тoм, чтo нaблюдaeтcя cyщecтвeнный oтpыв шкoльникoв из Зaпaднoгo гopoдa oт иx cвepcтникoв из Bocтoчнoгo гopoдa в чтeнии oфлaйн и пиcьмe oфлaйн, a тaкжe в oнлaйн иccлeдoвaнияx и пoнимaнии пpoчитaннoгo. Cyщecтвeнный oтpыв coxpaнилcя для oнлaйн иccлeдoвaний и для пoнимaния пpoчитaннoгo в ceти пocлe тoгo, кaк были cнивeлиpoвaны пpeдвapитeльныe paзличия в чтeнии и пиcьмe oфлaйн, a тaкжe в oбъeмe paнee oбpeтeнныx знaний. Peзyльтaты aнкeтнoгo oпpoca cвидeтeльcтвyют o тoм, чтo шкoльники из Зaпaднoгo гopoдa имeют бoльший дocтyп к интepнeтy дoмa и иx чaщe oбязывaют иcпoльзoвaть интepнeт в шкoлe. Taким oбpaзoм, выявлeнo oтдeльнoe, нeзaвиcимoe oт иныx фaктopoв oтcтaвaниe мaлoимyщиx шкoльникoв в чтeнии oнлaйн. Hынe нaвыки чтeния этиx дeтeй зaмepяютcя иcключитeльнo нa ocнoвe чтeния oфлaйн, чтo иcкaжaeт иcтиннyю кapтинy и yмaляeт пpoблeмy, cтoящyю пepeд Aмepикoй в oнлaйн‐эпoxy. Oбcyждaeтcя знaчeниe пoлyчeнныx вывoдoв для oбpaзoвaтeльнoй пoлитики.
French
frY a‐t‐il des différences dans les capacités de lecture sur Internet reposant sur les inégalités de revenu et distinctes des différences classiques en lecture traditionnelle, hors ligne ? Cette possibilité a été examinée dans deux circonscriptions distinctes que nous avons appelées la ville de l'ouest (favorisée sur le plan économique) et la ville de l'est (économiquement non favorisée : N = 256). Nous avons utilisé des évaluations de performance sur Internet dans le cadre d'un projet plus large. Des élèves de 5e ont répondu à deux évaluations portant sur la recherche et la compréhension en ligne et portant sur quatre domaines de compétence (localiser, évaluer, synthétiser, et communiquer) et sur deux domaines de connaissance en science. Les élèves ont aussi répondu à une évaluation de leurs connaissances préalables du domaine et à un bref questionnaire relatif à leur utilisation d'Internet. Nous avons utilisé des tests standardisés officiels de lecture et écriture pour mesurer les compétences de littératie en ligne. Les résultats ont montré qu'il y a un écart significatif de réussite en faveur des élèves de la ville de l'ouest dans les résultats de lecture et d’écriture hors ligne, et dans les résultats en recherche et compréhension en ligne. Cet écart demeure significatif pour la recherche et la compréhension en ligne, même quand on contrôle les différences préalables en lecture et écriture hors ligne et les connaissances de départ. Les résultats du questionnaire montrent que les élèves de la ville de l'ouest ont davantage accès à Internet chez eux et sont davantage sollicités pour l'utiliser en classe. Ces résultats suggèrent qu'il existe un écart de réussite distinct et indépendant pour la lecture en ligne qui repose sur les inégalités de revenu. Les estimations habituelles de cet écart, qui reposent uniquement sur des mesures de lecture hors ligne, peuvent sous‐estimer la véritable nature des différences en lecture à l’âge numérique aux Etats‐Unis. Nous explorons les conséquences politiques.
Number of times cited: 61
- Hiller A. Spires, Casey Medlock Paul and Shea N. Kerkhoff, Digital Literacy for the 21st Century, Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Library Science, Information Management, and Scholarly Inquiry, 10.4018/978-1-5225-7659-4.ch002, (12-21)
- Lesley S. J. Farmer, The Role of Librarians in Blended Courses, Handbook of Research on Blended Learning Pedagogies and Professional Development in Higher Education, 10.4018/978-1-5225-5557-5.ch007, (122-138)
- Pamela M. Sullivan and Will P. Sullivan, Where Are We If Our Batteries Die?, Early Childhood Development, 10.4018/978-1-5225-7507-8.ch002, (20-32), (2019).
- Jeffrey Alan Greene, Dana Z. Copeland, Victor M. Deekens and Seung B. Yu, Beyond knowledge: Examining digital literacy's role in the acquisition of understanding in science, Computers & Education, 117, (141), (2018).
- Carita Kiili, Donald J. Leu, Miika Marttunen, Jarkko Hautala and Paavo H. T. Leppänen, Exploring early adolescents’ evaluation of academic and commercial online resources related to health, Reading and Writing, 31, 3, (533), (2018).
- Jonathan A. Plucker and Scott J. Peters, Closing Poverty-Based Excellence Gaps: Conceptual, Measurement, and Educational Issues, Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 1, (56), (2018).
- Lotta Larson, Elena Forzani and Donald J. Leu, New Literacies: Curricular Implications, Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, 10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_2-1, (1-16), (2017).
- Eero Sormunen, Roberto González-Ibáñez, Carita Kiili, Paavo H. T. Leppänen, Mirjamaija Mikkilä-Erdmann, Norbert Erdmann and María Escobar-Macaya, A Performance-Based Test for Assessing Students’ Online Inquiry Competences in Schools, Information Literacy in the Workplace, 10.1007/978-3-319-74334-9_69, (673-682), (2018).
- Colin Harrison, Defining and seeking to identify critical Internet literacy: a discourse analysis of fifth‐graders' Internet search and evaluation activity, Literacy, 52, 3, (153-160), (2017).
- Elena Forzani, 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), (2018).
- W. Ian O’Byrne, Empowering Students as Critical Readers and Writers in Online Spaces, Best Practices in Teaching Digital Literacies, 10.1108/S2048-045820180000009018, (233-250), (2018).
- Hui-Yin Hsu, Shaing-Kwei Wang and Daniel Coster, New Literacy Implementation, K-12 STEM Education, 10.4018/978-1-5225-3832-5.ch026, (526-546), (2018).
- Lesley S. J. Farmer, Optimizing OERs for Optimal ICT Literacy in Higher Education, Handbook of Research on Mobile Technology, Constructivism, and Meaningful Learning, 10.4018/978-1-5225-3949-0.ch020, (366-390)
- Robert Martínez-Carrasco, Collaborative Writing 2.0, Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Technology-Enhanced Language Learning, 10.4018/978-1-5225-5463-9.ch016, (283-302)
- Hiller A. Spires, Casey Medlock Paul and Shea N. Kerkhoff, Digital Literacy for the 21st Century, Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition, 10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch194, (2235-2242), (2018).
- Casey Medlock Paul and Nermin Vehabovic, Lost in Comprehension, Optimizing Elementary Education for English Language Learners, 10.4018/978-1-5225-3123-4.ch015, (270-288)
- Carita Kiili, Donald J. Leu, Jukka Utriainen, Julie Coiro, Laura Kanniainen, Asko Tolvanen, Kaisa Lohvansuu and Paavo H. T. Leppänen, Reading to Learn From Online Information: Modeling the Factor Structure, Journal of Literacy Research, 10.1177/1086296X18784640, 50, 3, (304-334), (2018).
- Clarence Ng and Steve Graham, Improving literacy engagement: enablers, challenges and catering for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, Journal of Research in Reading, 41, 4, (615-624), (2018).
- Roberto González‐Ibáñez, Daniel Gacitúa, Eero Sormunen and Carita Kiili, NEURONE: oNlinE inqUiRy experimentatiON systEm, Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54, 1, (687-689), (2017).
- Sarah Lupo, Bong Gee Jang and Michael McKenna, The Relationship Between Reading Achievement and Attitudes Toward Print and Digital Texts in Adolescent Readers, Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66, 1, (264), (2017).
- Natascha Notten and Birgit Becker, Early home literacy and adolescents’ online reading behavior in comparative perspective, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 58, 6, (475), (2017).
- Blaine E. Smith, Composing across modes: a comparative analysis of adolescents’ multimodal composing processes, Learning, Media and Technology, 42, 3, (259), (2017).
- Charles K. Kinzer and Donald J. Leu, new literacies, New Literacies, Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory, 10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_111, (1559-1565), (2017).
- Susan Chambers Cantrell, Margaret Rintamaa, Eric M. Anderman and Lynley H. Anderman, Rural adolescents' reading motivation, achievement and behavior across transition to high school, The Journal of Educational Research, (1), (2017).
- Gregory J. Trevors, Krista R. Muis, Reinhard Pekrun, Gale M. Sinatra and Marloes M.L. Muijselaar, Exploring the relations between epistemic beliefs, emotions, and learning from texts, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, (116), (2017).
- Eliane Segers, Children’s hypertext comprehension, Developmental Perspectives in Written Language and Literacy, 10.1075/z.206.10seg, (2017).
- Helge I. Strømsø, Multiple Models of Multiple-Text Comprehension: A Commentary, Educational Psychologist, 52, 3, (216), (2017).
- Allison Lombardi, Margo V. Izzo, Nicholas Gelbar, Alexa Murray, Andrew Buck, Victor Johnson, Jay Hsiao, Yan Wei and Jennifer Kowitt, Leveraging information technology literacy to enhance college and career readiness for secondary students with disabilities, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 46, 3, (389), (2017).
- Julie Coiro, Advancing Reading Engagement and Achievement through Personal Digital Inquiry, Critical Literacy, and Skilful Argumentation, Improving Reading and Reading Engagement in the 21st Century, 10.1007/978-981-10-4331-4_3, (49-76), (2017).
- Elena Forzani and Donald J. Leu, Multiple Perspectives on Literacy as it Continuously Changes: Reflections on Opportunities and Challenges when Literacy is Deictic, Journal of Education, 197, 2, (19), (2017).
- Ho-Ryong Park, Influences of reading online texts in Korean English language learners' cultural identities, The Journal of Educational Research, (1), (2017).
- Jiun Yu Wu and Ya-Chun Peng, The modality effect on reading literacy: perspectives from students’ online reading habits, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and web navigation skills across regions, Interactive Learning Environments, 25, 7, (859), (2017).
- Cathy Burnett, Reading the Future: The Contribution of Literacy Studies to Debates on Reading and Reading Engagement for Primary-Aged Children, Improving Reading and Reading Engagement in the 21st Century, 10.1007/978-981-10-4331-4_6, (119-140), (2017).
- Guofang Li, From Absence to Affordances: Integrating Old and New Literacies in School‐Based Instruction for English Learners, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61, 3, (241-246), (2017).
- Hui-Yin Hsu, Shaing-Kwei Wang and Daniel Coster, New Literacy Implementation, International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 10.4018/IJICTE.2017070105, 13, 3, (53-72), (2017).
- Pamela M. Sullivan and Will P. Sullivan, Where Are We If Our Batteries Die?, Deconstructing the Education-Industrial Complex in the Digital Age, 10.4018/978-1-5225-2101-3.ch004, (72-84)
- Katie S. Dredger, Joy Myers, Pamela M. Sullivan and Douglas J. Loveless, Creating Connected Educators with Online Portfolios, Deconstructing the Education-Industrial Complex in the Digital Age, 10.4018/978-1-5225-2101-3.ch011, (183-200)
- Bernadette Dwyer, Engaging All Students in Internet Research and Inquiry, The Reading Teacher, 69, 4, (383-389), (2015).
- Suhua Huang, Pelusa Orellana and Matthew Capps, U.S. and Chilean College Students' Reading Practices: A Cross‐Cultural Perspective, Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 4, (455-471), (2016).
- Amy C. Hutchison, Lindsay Woodward and Jamie Colwell, What Are Preadolescent Readers Doing Online? An Examination of Upper Elementary Students’ Reading, Writing, and Communication in Digital Spaces, Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 4, (435-454), (2016).
- Joseph Kahne, Erica Hodgin and Elyse Eidman-Aadahl, Redesigning Civic Education for the Digital Age: Participatory Politics and the Pursuit of Democratic Engagement, Theory & Research in Social Education, 44, 1, (1), (2016).
- Dorothy Chun, Richard Kern and Bryan Smith, Technology in Language Use, Language Teaching, and Language Learning, The Modern Language Journal, 100, S1, (64), (2016).
- Caitlin McMunn Dooley, Tisha Lewis Ellison, Meghan M. Welch, Mindy Allen and Dennis Bauer, Digital Participatory Pedagogy: Digital Participation as a Method for Technology Integration in Curriculum, Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32, 2, (52), (2016).
- Jeanne R. Paratore, Lisa M. O’Brien, Laura Jiménez, Alejandra Salinas and Chu Ly, Engaging preservice teachers in integrated study and use of educational media and technology in teaching reading, Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, (247), (2016).
- Charles K. Kinzer and Donald J. Leu, new literacies, New Literacies, Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory, 10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_111-1, (1-7), (2016).
- Francesca Borgonovi, Video gaming and gender differences in digital and printed reading performance among 15-year-olds students in 26 countries, Journal of Adolescence, 48, (45), (2016).
- Colin Harrison, Are Computers, Smartphones, and the Internet a Boon or a Barrier for the Weaker Reader?, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60, 2, (221-225), (2016).
- Jesse R. Sparks, Irvin R. Katz and Penny M. Beile, Assessing Digital Information Literacy in Higher Education: A Review of Existing Frameworks and Assessments With Recommendations for Next‐Generation Assessment, ETS Research Report Series, 2016, 2, (1-33), (2016).
- Clint Kennedy, Christopher Rhoads and Donald J. Leu, Online research and learning in science: A one-to-one laptop comparison in two states using performance based assessments, Computers & Education, 100, (141), (2016).
- Jennifer E. Dolan, Splicing the Divide: A Review of Research on the Evolving Digital Divide Among K–12 Students, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48, 1, (16), (2016).
- Donald J. Leu and Cheryl Maykel, Thinking in New Ways and in New Times About Reading, Literacy Research and Instruction, 55, 2, (122), (2016).
- Amy Hutchison and Jamie Colwell, Preservice Teachers' Use of the Technology Integration Planning Cycle to Integrate iPads Into Literacy Instruction, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48, 1, (1), (2016).
- Donald J. Leu, Elena Forzani, Nicole Timbrell and Cheryl Maykel, Seeing the Forest, Not the Trees, The Reading Teacher, 69, 2, (139-145), (2015).
- Tara L. Kingsley and Melissa M. Grabner‐Hagen, Gamification, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59, 1, (51-61), (2015).
- Donald J. Leu, Elena Forzani and Clint Kennedy, Income Inequality and the Online Reading Gap, The Reading Teacher, 68, 6, (422-427), (2015).
- Sandra Robinson, The Role of Context in Defining Secondary Language Arts Instruction, Handbook of Research on Cross-Cultural Approaches to Language and Literacy Development, 10.4018/978-1-4666-8668-7.ch017, (421-445)
- Brian E. Gravel, Eli Tucker-Raymond, Kaitlin Kohberger and Kyle Browne, Navigating worlds of information: STEM literacy practices of experienced makers, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10.1007/s10798-017-9422-3, (2017).
- Mary L. Hoch, Ryan McCarty, Debra Gurvitz and Ivy Sitkoski, Five Key Principles: Guided Inquiry With Multimodal Text Sets, The Reading Teacher, , (2018).
- Bong Gee Jang and Ji Hoon Ryoo, Multiple dimensions of adolescents’ reading attitudes and their relationship with reading comprehension, Reading and Writing, 10.1007/s11145-018-9926-6, (2018).
- Stephen D. Whitney and David A. Bergin, Students’ Motivation and Engagement Predict Reading Achievement Differently by Ethnic Group, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 10.1080/00221325.2018.1527754, (1-14), (2018).
- Ahmet Yamaç, Yeni Okuryazarlığa Genel Bir Bakış: Karar Alıcılar, Araştırmacılar ve Öğretmenler İçin Bazı Öneriler, Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 10.30831/akukeg.370469, (383-410), (2018).
