Reading nonfiction text on an iPad in a secondary classroom
Abstract
The intent of this research was to investigate the experiences of eighth grade readers as they read nonfiction text on an iPad for academic purposes. We investigated reading strategies that students use to support their reading as well as what role iPad features played in the reading process. New literacies, metacognition and transactional theories informed the framework. Multiple data sources were used to triangulate findings and included (a) retrospective think alouds, (b) student iPad survey, (c) pre and post study student interviews, (d) Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory and (e) student observations. Data for the collective case study participants focused on the identification of proficient readers who displayed confidence, competency, and control over text. Themes identified in the collective case studies included (a) reading comprehension strategies, (b) nonfiction features and (c) iPad features to support their reading of nonfiction on the iPad.
Implications for Practice
What is already known about this topic
- Comprehension process is more complex when reading digitally.
- Digital readers construct meaning on the basis of the choices made.
- Technology can benefit student learning.
What this paper adds
- Teacher instructional support is needed for learning how to read digital text using the iPad.
- Findings underscore the importance of helping students develop metacognitive awareness of specific reading strategies when using the iPad for academic learning.
- Additional metacognitive strategies are needed as students develop into sophisticated digital readers.
Implications for practice and/or policy
- Application of the device as an integral part of the curriculum will require a deeper understanding of the device, the skills and strategies needed to scaffold learning.
- Support features were identified as useful tools to sustain the level of complexity.
- Teachers may need to adapt current teaching practices to accommodate and promote student independence and collaborative learning
Reading on a screen involves some of the same processes related to online reading (e.g., navigating through animated hyperlinks, icons and sound effects). Recent work on reading comprehension (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Leu & Reinking, 2005) has expanded the traditional model of reading comprehension to include online reading comprehension. Coiro and Dobler (2007) found that no two readers construct meaning in the same way from the same text online. Online readers synthesise the meaning of the text by putting together their understanding of what they read, as well as actively constructing meaning from the text read through the metacognitive choices they make, and the links they follow. Ultimately, these findings call for more research of digital reading comprehension.
Review of Related Literature
Critical state of adolescent literacies
Previous research suggested that approximately eight million adolescent readers between fourth and twelfth grade struggle to read at or on grade level (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). Yet issues are often associated not with readability but rather with depth of comprehension. Many studies have shown that good readers activate their schema and engage in metacognitive reading strategies when they read or construct meaning from text (Baker, 2002; Durkin, 1978; Harris & Hodges, 1995; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). However, these studies have examined the processes associated with reading paper texts.
The National Reading Panel (2000) has defined comprehension strategies as ‘an activity that students might engage in to enhance comprehension and repair it when it breaks down’ (p. 17). RAND Reading Study Group (2002) suggested that the most powerful means of improving reading comprehension and preventing comprehension problems is good instruction of strategy application. Therefore, students can be taught to use strategies to facilitate reading comprehension and increase in strategy use in turn increases awareness and performance (Miller, 1987).
Ironically, what is unknown at the time of this study is what strategies will students need to be successful reading digital text on a digital device? Keane et al. (2012) proposed that teachers play a valuable role in the implementation of mobile devices because the responsibility for implementation falls to the teachers. Their study found teachers as influential and important leaders in the adoption of technologies. They also found that the use of the iPad increased student engagement and even improved literacy. However, they caution that the key factor in their research findings is not per se the device itself but rather how the students interacted and engaged with the device. This information is critical for educators as iPads are being used for academic learning.
Challenges associated with digital tools
Current research postulates the notion that technology places a large demand on individual literacy skills such as learning, comprehending and interacting with the text in a meaningful way (Coiro, 2003; Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2014; Leu et al., 2013). Yet despite the influx of nearly 10 million iPads in the academic realm, little is known about the strategic reading patterns of adolescent readers and the cognitive processes they employ when using the iPad to read digital text for academic purposes.
What has been learned from the current research is that digital readers construct meaning from the text they read on the basis of the navigational choices they make (DeStefano & LeFevre, 2007). Thus, as students are actively engaged in questioning, locating, evaluating, synthesising and creating understanding in the online environment, they create their own text through their navigational choices (Coiro & Dobler, 2007). With each hyperlink, readers are dynamically constructing a virtual text that they read as they move through a problem or question. Herein, the comprehension processes become more complex and translucent, because the text is in the reader's mind (Coiro, 2003). Current research has identified that accessing information via the Internet requires multiple layers of comprehension and application of additional critical thinking skills to analyse data that are constantly changing and evolving (Leu et al., 2013). The additional interactive features of an e‐reading device play an equally critical role in the complexity of metacognition. Because each device has features specific to the device itself, prior knowledge of the device may affect the level of comprehension.
Challenge associated with text(s)
Shanahan, Fisher, and Frey (2012) define challenging text as the purposeful increase of complex text, text that challenges students' vocabulary, that may not have a familiar organisational structure, and for which students may not have background knowledge, to build stamina and skill. They frame complex text within word knowledge, sentence structure and coherence, organisation and background knowledge. RAND (2002) reported ‘electronic texts that incorporate hyperlinks and hypermedia...require skills and abilities beyond those required for the comprehension of conventional, linear print’ (p. 14). Research also suggested reader and text play a critical role in the comprehension of reading (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002).
Theoretical perspectives
Currently, technological changes are defining literacy (Best & Kellner, 2001; Kamil, Interator, & Kim, 2000; Kamil & Lane, 1998; Leu, 2001; Reinking, 1998). Technological changes have increased the intensity and complexity of a literate environment (NCTE Executive Committee, 2008). In a society permeated with technology, information is increasing at a rapid pace creating transmutable literacy skills. The central concept of new literacies is that complexity has shifted the way digital comprehension is viewed, moving it into the realm of reading (Coiro, 2003). The fundamental tenet of new literacies is that complexity has shifted the way digital comprehension is viewed, and much remains unknown about how adolescent readers negotiate meaning with nonfiction digital text using the iPad. Because of the prevalence of technologies and the shift from book page to computer screen, the form and function of literacy has changed, and technology has been the driving force. Literacy is changing; no longer is it enough to read static print in a text (Leu, 2001). Reading is no longer confined to print‐based text, rather it is seen as multimodal, interactive and informative. Students are using multimodal tools to develop literacy skills rather than merely consuming content. New literacies require new knowledge, skills and dispositions for learning in the 21st century.
The relationship between literacy and technology is transactional (Leu and Reinking, 2005). Transactional theory is the notion that meaning is produced in transactions between the reader and the text and the ability of the student. Rosenblatt (2005) stated, ‘Every reading act is an event, or a transaction involving a particular time in a particular context’ (p. 1369). Reinking (1998) observed that electronic text that is highly interactive and engaging is transforming the way students are thinking about literacy. In other words, readers are more engaged with hypermedia because it promotes a more active role to reading. Meaning does not reside in the text; rather, it develops during the transaction between the text and the reader.
Reading comprehension is a complex process in which students metacognitively think about the cognitive process involved in reading (Baker, 2002). Metacognition consists of both active monitoring and consequent regulation. Metacognition is defined by Flavell (1976) as deliberate, conscious, foresighted and purposeful discussion making, directed at accomplishing a metacognitive goal or outcome. Marzano et al. (1988) described metacognition as the process that guides readers as they think through a problem and making strategic decisions.
Methodology
This qualitative research utilised a collective case study design using narrative description to explore reading strategies and student interactions with the iPad as they spent approximately 12 weeks – 3 lessons per week interacting with the iPad as they read nonfiction text for academic learning. The data sources included student iPad survey, identification of strategies using the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) to develop a baseline, field notes, verbal protocols, retrospective think alouds, observations of students reading and interacting with nonfiction text on the iPad in their social studies class and pre‐interviews and post‐interviews with students.
Participant selection
The researchers identified eight proficient readers who displayed confidence, competency and control over text to participate in an in‐depth analysis of strategy use through think alouds. Shortly after the start of the study, participant number 8 withdrew from the school. This purposeful selection of proficient readers allowed us to focus more closely on each participant as they read nonfiction text using the iPad for academic reading. Although there are limitations associated with the small sample size, it was large enough for exploring patterns within each case and across cases. The study took place in a newly formed STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) nonprofit charter school operating in a large school district in Central Florida. The school housed 282 students in kindergarten through grade 8 with 67% of students receiving free or reduced lunch.
Data sources and procedures
Selection criteria used to identify the most proficient eighth grade readers were as follows: (a) average to high MARSI levels; (b) average levels of proficiency/comfort with the iPad; and (c) average to high Lexile scores. If prior student knowledge of iPads did not exist, only reading skills (Lexile levels) and MARSI strategy results were used in the participant selection.
First, the MARSI version 1.0 was used to identify the most proficient reading strategy users (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002). The MARSI was administered to all eighth grade students during the first week of the study to determine their perceived use of strategies to facilitate reading comprehension in paper texts. The MARSI is a 30‐item instrument designed to measure readers' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and is a highly reliable tool. Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient was found to be 0.89 for the full scale (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002). The MARSI is used to determine behaviour and strategies good readers use when they interact with the text to read academic or school‐related material. The MARSI was used to develop a baseline for student strategy usage.
Second, an iPad Use Survey was administered during the first week to all students to gauge their familiarity, general use and engagement with the iPad. The iPad Use Survey was researcher developed and was used to determine students' level of usage of the iPad. It did not address proficiency of other platforms or devices as we feel the features are unique to each device. The questions focused on I use the iPad for… (i.e., reading, playing games, shopping, social networking, research, doing my homework, checking my grades, etc.). The results of the survey were used to build a more complete picture of students' experiences with the iPad as they interacted with the text and the device to create meaning. The 16‐item instrument used a 5‐point Likert‐type scale with responses on each item ranging from 1 (I never or almost never do this) to 5 (I always or almost always do this). Two additional items included (a) the number of hours they used an iPad in an average week and (b) an open response item to add an additional comment. Familiarity criteria were determined on average scale scores where 3.5 or above = high, 2.5 to 3.4 = average and 2.4 and below = low. As shown in Table 1, the survey revealed that prior knowledge of iPads was determined to be very limited with 84% of the class scoring at the low level. Therefore prior to the start of the study, all participating students in the eighth grade class were given the opportunity to explore the iPad and websites related to the unit of study. Results from a previous pilot study (Author) indicated that students often struggled with the newness of the device and often had varying levels of device proficiency. Therefore, training was provided by the researcher to allow for adequate time for interaction with the device. Features were explored and time was given throughout the week prior to the start of the study to explore the features.
| Student | Lexile score | Rank | MARSI score | Average | iPad Usage Survey | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lori | 1,555 | 1 | 3.9 | High | 3.12 | Medium |
| Joe | 1,300 | 2 | 2.66 | Medium | 1.68 | Low |
| Jerry | 1,255 | 3 | 3.06 | Medium | 2.31 | Low |
| Roger | 1,195 | 4 | 3.18 | Medium | 1.43 | Low |
| Trey | 1,160 | 5 | 4.05 | High | 1.5 | Low |
| Erin | 1,115 | 6 | 3.85 | High | 3.06 | Medium |
| Anna | 1,060 | 7 | 2.9 | Medium | 1.43 | Low |
| Tom | 1,030 | 8* | 4.2 | High | 2.25 | Low |
| S17 | 1,030 | 9 | 2.3 | Low | 2.33 | Low |
| S21 | 1,020 | 10 | 2.3 | Low | 1.0 | Low |
| S1 | 945 | 11 | 1.6 | Low | 1.9 | Low |
| S15 | 935 | 12 | 3.37 | Medium | 2.81 | Medium |
| S3 | 885 | 13 | 2.6 | Medium | 2.06 | Low |
| S8 | 880 | 14 | 3.74 | High | 1.0 | Low |
| S10 | 860 | 15 | 2.51 | Medium | 1.25 | Low |
| S13 | 830 | 17 | 1.59 | Low | 1.5 | Low |
| S5 | 750 | 18 | 1.62 | Low | 2.25 | Low |
| S16 | 715 | 19 | 2.2 | Low | 1.25 | Low |
| S11 | 695 | 20 | 3.74 | High | 2.68 | Medium |
| S19 | 645 | 21 | 2.7 | Medium | 1.0 | Low |
- Notes: MARSI, Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory.
- * student withdrew; all names are pseudonyms
Third, Lexile scores, which are used to determine the appropriateness of material at the student's grade level, were used to identify proficient readers. Lexile Measurement™ was developed by an educational and technology firm MetaMetrics, Inc (n.d.a). Lexile scores are measures of a student's development in reading ability and are used to determine text readability. A Lexile score can be used to determine the appropriateness of material at the student's grade level. The Lexile scale is an equal‐interval scale. Regardless of where students are on the scale, the amount of growth is equivalent between two points. For eighth graders, equivalent Lexile scores range between 805 and 1,100 L. In this study, Lexile scores were organised, categorised and identified to establish low, average and high Lexile levels. Table 1 displays a comprehensive list of Lexile scores, MARSI scores and iPad usage for all eighth graders in the school and their rankings.
In the following discussions, we have provided a sample description of the eight students selected.
Lori, 13 years old, (all names are pseudonyms) ranked first in her class on the basis of Lexile scores. She also ranked high on the MARSI, indicating that she already had reading strategies in place as she read print text. The problem solving strategies category was the highest on her MARSI, indicating strong strategy use. Lori's iPad survey showed that she ranked in the medium range for usage, indicating that she had some familiarity with the device outside of school.
Joe, 13 years old, ranked second in his class on the basis of Lexile levels and displayed average ability for reading strategies as noted in his MARSI. The category of highest ranking on his MARSI was global reading strategies. Joe was an excellent candidate for the think alouds, but his frequent absences seemed to interfere with his reading.
Jerry, 13 years old, ranked third in his class on the basis of Lexile levels and displayed average ability for reading strategies as noted in his MARSI. The category of highest ranking on his MARSI was problem solving. Jerry was quick to verbalise and apply fix up strategies as he was reading. He was the most vocal participant throughout this study. Jerry's iPad survey showed that he had a low ranking for usage.
Roger, 14 years old, ranked fourth in his class on the basis of Lexile levels and displayed average ability for reading strategies as noted in his MARSI. The category of highest ranking on his MARSI was problem solving. Roger was very quiet and did not offer much information during think alouds. He read smoothly, adjusting his reading rate when text became difficult but never vocalised during reading. Roger was considered one of the most proficient students in the classroom based on teacher comments, but his absences were excessive in that he missed 16 consecutive days during a single quarter.
Trey, 13 years old, was a strategic reader who ranked fifth in his class based on his Lexile scores. He ranked very high on the MARSI, indicating he already had strategies in place as he read print text. Problem solving was the highest area indicated on his MARSI indicating strong strategy use. His iPad survey showed that he ranked in the low range for usage indicating that he had little to no familiarity with the device outside of school.
Erin, 14 years old, ranked sixth in her class in regard to Lexile levels. She also ranked high on the MARSI, which indicated that she had strategies in place for print text. Problem solving was her highest category on the MARSI. Erin indicated that she had some familiarity with device and sometimes used the iPad to connect with friends through social networking, to play games or listen to music at her father's office.
Anna, 13 years old, ranked seventh in her class in regard to Lexile levels. She also ranked in the average ability for strategy use on the MARSI, which indicated that she had some strategies in place for print text. Problem solving was her highest category on the MARSI. Anna was a very cautious yet eager participant in the think alouds. She often found reading on the iPad confusing and frustrating.
Tom moved shortly after the start of the study.
Data collection
Questions to guide our research: (a) How do eighth grade students read nonfiction digital text using the iPad? (b) What reading comprehension strategies do eighth grade students use to read nonfiction digital text using the iPad? (c) What role/s do the iPad features play in the reading process?
Think aloud protocols of the selected participants were used to determine which metacognitive reading strategies were used by the selected students. Pre‐interviews and post‐interviews were conducted to obtain more detailed information about student iPad use that may not be revealed during think aloud sessions. Data were collected two to three times per week for 12 weeks using observation protocols and strategic activities checklist (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995).
Prior to the formal observations and think alouds, the researcher trained all participants on think aloud protocols including both concurrent and retrospective think alouds. The researcher met with the eight students and introduced them to thinking aloud when using a digital device to read nonfiction text. Participants were encouraged to ask clarifying questions during this introduction. During this phase, each student was given the opportunity to practice using both concurrent and retrospective think alouds. Immediately following each session of think alouds, the researcher asked the students to reflect (retrospectively) and verbalise the strategies they used to overcome or enhance reading comprehension in the concurrent stage of verbal protocols.
The intent of the researcher in using retrospective think alouds was to elicit descriptive details related to students' strategy use to facilitate reading comprehension as they interacted and engaged with the nonfiction reading on a digital device. The rationale for using retrospective think alouds was to understand readers' thought processes as they carried out discussion making activities to enhance their understanding of the text. Retrospective think alouds guided the discovery of the readers' actions. They were useful in revealing the mental processes, which were taking place for readers while reading.
Stage 1
Interviews
Using video recording and handwritten notes, both prior to and at the conclusion of this research, we sought to uncover students' previous experiences with the iPad (survey and interviews) and at the conclusion of the study reflect on their experiences with the iPad for academic reading. The pre‐interviews contained 16 questions to provide detailed descriptions of how students used the device for reading. The post‐interview contained 14 open‐ended questions encouraging students to discuss their experiences, the features of the iPad they used to support their understanding of the digital text and the strategies they used to support their reading and comprehension of the digital text.
Text selection
Text selection for digital text on the iPad was challenging, as there were a limited number of texts that offered more than just a static page or PDF. After careful consideration, we choose mentor texts: Anne Frank and the Children of the Holocaust (Lee, 2006), and The Shoah: 101 Keys to Understanding the Holocaust (Hurd, 2012). The Shoah was an interactive text slightly above the students' reading levels (1,180 Lexile level), and Anne Frank was a static text with an absence of digital features at the students' levels of readability (920 Lexile level).
Think alouds and observations
After the introduction of think alouds, the researcher initiated retrospective think alouds. Retrospective think alouds are questions asked after the completion of the activity, used to support users' intent and reasoning for their actions (Ericsson & Simon, 1993); they differ from regular think alouds because they ask students to clarify and confirm their thinking. Think alouds were video recorded to capture how students engaged, interacted with and explored the text. Each recording was approximately 45 minutes long. Recordings were also used to analyse students' use of interactive tools such as find, dictionary and sticky notes. The find feature allows the reader to quickly look for words, dates and statements simply by using the find tool; dictionary is often built in and by simply clicking on the hyperlink takes the reader to the definition of the word. If there is an absence of the hyperlink, the reader can tap on the word to find out the definition; sticky notes are a multi‐touch enabled noteboard app for iPad in which the reader can annotate and paste information related to what they are reading.
We noticed that retrospective think alouds required a little more practice and modelling than did regular think alouds. Students often reflected without explaining why they were doing something. The researcher revisited this concept as some students could verbalise their thoughts, and others needed more prompting. Retrospective think aloud statements produced by the participants were coded and categorised. In addition, themes were identified as they emerged from the data and categorised using the constant comparative method for data analysis.
Member check
Each student read over their transcriptions captured through video recordings to create a member check. All participants verified all transcripts and agreed that the transcriptions were accurate.
Data analysis
Qualitative data collection and analysis were used in this collective case study. Constant comparative analysis was used in a recursive process throughout and beyond the data collection to generate open coding techniques in which the codes are broken down, examined, compared, conceptualised and categorised to develop interconnectivity between categories (Straus & Corbin, 1990). The constant comparative method involves comparing one segment of data with another to determine similarities and differences of data collected. Through ongoing and repetitive reviews using multiple data sources, we established themes and subthemes through two stages of analyses. The first stage addressed similarities and differences within individual themes; the second stage synthesised across the collective case studies.
Individual analysis
Think alouds and observations were transcribed immediately after each session and coded weekly by two people (one researcher and a graduate student) to identify themes using semantic mapping techniques (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). This served as a fidelity check of strategies observed during recorded sessions that were not captured through think alouds. All video recordings were transcribed verbatim and then coded into units of think alouds using the constant comparison method (Glasser & Strauss, 1967). Think alouds were separated into individual units of thought. Each student was assigned a specific colour, and each unit was sorted on the basis of student and code. We then compared the individual units obtained from the retrospective transcripts using selective coding using Pressley and Afflerbach's (1995) strategic reading before, during and after checklist to develop a story. The researcher and the graduate student occasionally differed on the vernacular used for coding. When such disagreements happened, they discussed the intent of the terminology and agreed upon a common language. Using the formula (number of cases that received the same rating divided by the total number of cases received by the two raters), it was identified that the first think aloud scored a 67% rating. The first think aloud scored a low rating because of the vernacular. After discussion, common terms were agreed upon and review of think alouds showed stronger consensus. An analysis of the reliability showed an 82.85% rating.
Collective analysis
Data analysis focused upon using selective coding to develop a story that connects the categories related to our questions across the seven remaining individual case studies.
We then developed a collective case study in which commonalities and differences were analysed among the cases.
Findings
Data analysis was derived from all video recording and observational notes and revealed several themes and subthemes suggesting that, in some ways, reading comprehension on a digital device looks the same as print, and in other ways, it is much more complex, requiring more specified strategies and support. Our findings suggest that additional metacognitive strategies are needed as students develop into sophisticated digital readers. In addition, results from this study suggested that student support and the supportive features of the device could, in themselves, encourage multiple approaches to supportive learning environments when reading complex text. Three themes identified from this research are as follows: (1) comprehension and reading strategies; (2) digital nonfiction text features; and (3) iPad features. All three themes will be discussed using both individual analysis and collective analysis.
Comprehension and reading strategies
Themes identified from our data suggested that reading comprehension on the iPad required both established print strategies and sometimes modified strategies. Collectively, the seven students in this study demonstrated common key reading comprehension strategies (Table 2). Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) identified these key strategies as supportive or practical strategies used by students when text becomes difficult. We found that proficient readers collectively relied upon five major strategies as they read nonfiction text using the iPad: (a) connections, (b) context clues, (c) determining importance, (d) evaluation and (e) rereading. Only the comprehension reading strategies with the highest frequency of use for the collective group will be discussed in turn. For each strategy, examples will follow to illustrate applications before, during, or after reading using the iPad.
| Strategies | Lori | Erin | Jerry | Trey | Anna | Joe | Roger | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connections* | 8 | 8 | 11 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 35 |
| Context clues* | 8 | 1 | 16 | 5 | 17 | 0 | 2 | 49 |
| Determining importance* | 24 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 38 |
| Evaluation* | 7 | 6 | 23 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 55 |
| Inference | 4 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 14 |
| Monitoring of meaning | 13 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 24 |
| Prediction | 1 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| Reflection | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
| Rereading* | 15 | 7 | 16 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 48 |
| Synthesis | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
- Note.
- * supportive strategies with high frequency of use by the collective group.
Making connections
Piaget (1964) stated that when students encounter something new, they forge connections to schema of previous ideas and experiences. We found this to be the case when students read digital text on the iPad. For instance, Lori explained how her understanding of the context helped her make connections between her existing schema of a key concept and new vocabulary acquisition. Lori was not familiar with the term droll in the following text:
Lori, reading from text: “In another letter, Mrs. Frank wrote: ‘Our big girl, Margot, is very hardworking and already thinks of going on to college. Little Anne is somewhat less industrious, but very droll.’ ”
Lori, commenting: “…um I am not sure what that means [evaluation] so I am going to highlight and define it and reread [Uses highlighting and define] It means curious or unusual in a way that provokes dry amusement [evaluates her understanding]. I am going to read the example, [reads example] so I think it's like a strange sense of humor” [infers based on example].
Researcher: “Did the example help?”
Lori: “Um yeah, I think the example helped me a little bit, [evaluation] but I am not completely understanding what the word is, so [monitoring of understanding, evaluation] I am using my context clues [context clues] and I am looking at the word amusement [reflection] and thinking that it would be a type of humor [word connections]. I am going to reread that sentence just to make sure I understand it” [rereads].
Many of the words identified were content specific (crematoria, socialist and droll) or words not frequently used except in specific content areas or domains (right wing, propaganda and industrious). Many of her strategies built upon her word schema through semantic knowledge about the connections of word meaning to specific concepts and linguistic knowledge of roots and word parts. Similarly, Jerry made connections between a new term and real word learning as displayed in the following think aloud:
Jerry: “I think I know what that means [prediction] so I am going to look it up to check.”
Jerry uses context clues to make sense of the word. “Malnutrition is where they don't feed you good food, so that is what I thought, I′ll check my prediction.”
[uses highlighted word and hyperlinks to the glossary, definition, and pronunciation key] “Like I know that on the news there is malnourishment which means the parents were bad to them like cruel to them and when they did feed him they feed him like spaghetti noodles hard and that was all he could eat.” [text to
real world connections] Reads the definition. “Wow that's bad” [evaluation and reflection].
Jerry often relied on the interactive dictionary for word definitions and examples when reading nonfiction text on the iPad. He believed this feature helped him to relate what he was reading to ‘real stuff’. The interactive dictionary often gave him examples embedded in the definition and showed him how the word was used, and this allowed him to visualise what was going on in a section of the text. Furthermore, students often listened to videos related to historical information about the Holocaust embedded in the text 101 Keys to Understanding the Holocaust (Hurd, 2012) prior to reading to determine author purpose or make text connections.
Jerry: “I would like to look at the video, because whenever I am looking at a book I usually look at the pictures and read what's under it to help my understanding.” [text connections]. Reads the caption first, then listens to video [text features]. “The video shows a person on crutches. Do you think they make them fight? No, it looks like they are just trying to show how many people they have” [infers and evaluates]. “Like that's not even the whole picture. Part of it is cut off. Wow!” [analysis]. Researcher: “How did this video help your understanding?”
Jerry: “It showed me how many people were in the war, how did they get everybody out. It must of like took a long time, because there are so many people in the picture.” [evaluation, analysis and synthesis]
Collectively, making connections, used 35 times, allowed students to make connections across texts and to real world examples. This strategy was often connected to specific text and features of the iPad, as students typically hyperlinked to examples to support their understanding of the text; in doing so, they made new connections between what they already knew and what they were learning.
Context clues
Students used context clues frequently when reading the digital book Anne Frank and the Children of the Holocaust (Lee, 2006) because there was an absence of hyperlinks in the digital text itself. Whereas, they did not have to use contexts clues as frequently when reading The Shoah (Hurd, 2012) because the digital text itself included colour hyperlinks for key vocabulary, which typically signalled students to ‘click’ on them for better understanding of the text. Signal words became very important for students as these words often supported their understanding of the text. In Anne Frank, there was an absence of ‘colour’ hyperlinks, and therefore, there was an absence of signal words to support students' understanding of the text. Students could still click on a word to define it, but because it was not a signal word for them, they often relied on context clues.
Erin: “Jews were the primary target of Nazi hatred and persecution”.
“I′m gonna click that because I am not really sure what that means.” [Hyperlink glossary dictionary feature identified meaning break down] [reads definition] There was a word inside the definition [additional word definition needed] that she did not know‐‐incarcerated. Tries to click it “I wonder if we can look that up?” [Tries to hyperlink within the definition] “I think incarcerated means like buried, murdered dead.” [context clues and prediction]
Anna and Jerry: Jerry stated that he was unsure of what the term “thwart” meant and Anna told him, “It means not supporting what they could do so they wanted it changed.” Jerry asked how she knew that, and she stated that she used context clues. Jerry looked up the definition and confirmed that Anna was correct and that she accurately used context clues.
In a follow‐up interview, Anna discussed some frustration and unique challenges she had as she interacted with the The Shoah (Hurd, 2012). Although Anna displayed strong use of reading strategies such as context clues, she found it difficult to transfer her print reading strategies to digital text that offered interactive features. When asked if she used the hyperlinks embedded in The Shoah, she stated that she knew they were there to support her reading, but she felt it was an annoyance to have to stop everything to click on them. When the researcher asked Anna to clarify why it was annoying, Anna explained, ‘Because I have to stop reading, then I forget what I was reading’. As illustrated in Anna's comments, students encountered unique challenges and additional strategies as they interacted with the electronic text. Students like Lori used multiple strategies automatically, whereas Roger displayed very little strategy use, and Anna stumbled with interactive text features and/or device features.
Collectively, context clues displayed the second highest frequency use with 49 instances and demonstrated that students still relied on context clues in a digital environment when there is an absence of hyperlinks.
Determining importance
When Lori was asked to reflect on her strategy use in her post‐interview, she reported that certain strategies had changed when reading digital text using the iPad, more specifically determining the importance of unknown words. Lori scored high on the MARSI in regard to problem solving strategies. She scored an average of 4.17, which indicates high usage. Problem solving strategies are oriented towards developing an understanding of textual information. Similarly, Erin's use of highlighting and sticky notes changed the way she perceived the text. She often read to determine importance and decide if the text she read fit her purpose for reading. Erin also scored very high on the MARSI in regard to problem solving strategies. Her average was 4.75 indicating high usage of strategies used to develop an understanding of textual information. The following think aloud displays Erin's use of highlighting to determine importance.
Erin: I used purple for dates and green for any specific information in The Shoah and Anne Frank. I used green for things that happened to Anne Frank and sometimes blue or yellow for any definitions. It makes it more, what's the word? Intelligent.
The blue [hyperlinks to glossary in The Shoah] I really, like using those words. It just helps build my vocabulary.
Collectively, all of the students used determining importance (38 times) as they read The Shoah. Additionally, determining importance was demonstrated as students selectively adjusted their reading rate when important information was being presented in the text. They demonstrated this as they skipped around the text and searched for key terms to support their reading of Anne Frank.
Evaluation
Trey often combined multiple strategies to support his learning. For example, the following think aloud shows how he combined questioning, determining importance, inference and evaluation to extend a discussion with his peers on the topic of homosexuality.
Trey: [discussion on homosexuality] Listens to the video for a second time [device feature] “Earnest was gay? Wait, why did Hitler want to kill homosexuals if his friend was gay?” [questioning, determining importance, evaluation, and further discussion] “Because they thought, they were impure and not perfect” [discussion]. “He actually wanted people who were pure with blue eyes and brown hair. He killed all Jews.”
All students throughout this research used evaluation 55 times collectively. Students were observed using evaluation of text, evaluation of websites and evaluation of interactive features of the text and the device to support their understanding of the text. Furthermore, evaluation had some of the same characteristics of print reading for students. They continued to evaluate what they were reading, but it also looked slightly different. In the digital environment, students evaluated hyperlinks, examples, videos and strategies to determine which one to use to accomplish each task. Students evaluated the importance of validity in a website and they also evaluated features of the iPad to support their learning. For example, Anna evaluated the purpose of stopping to use the highlighting and dictionary feature of the text and believed that they would not support her understanding but would further distract her. Trey offered Anna peer assistance and modelled how to use highlighting, to search for and define troublesome words. After modelling these features, Trey asked her if she would use these strategies, she responded nervously saying it is annoying to stop and use the feature and apply the strategies. Trey discussed the importance of stopping to clarify vocabulary, and Anna further explained when she stops reading she often forgets what she is reading. Anna was aware of meaning breaking down but was unsure of what to do to apply fix‐up strategies when reading on the iPad.
Rereading
Rereading was not always evident in all of the individual cases, although it had a high frequency of use (48 times collectively). When students reread the text, they would often display strong strategy usage followed by multiple fix up strategies. For example, Lori was a strategic reader with strong strategy use (i.e., rereading, determining importance, highlighting, identifying and defining key vocabulary) as displayed in several of her think alouds. She displayed automaticity of strategies in a short period of time to monitor and repair text meaning. She deployed specific strategies such as determining importance, monitoring understanding and rereading in rapid information‐seeking cycles within a short text or passage.
Collectively, the students who used rereading throughout the study often reread directly after interacting with text features or devices features such as using a hyperlink, the definition feature or the search feature. Often, students believed that they should reread the text to ‘make sure’ they understood what they had just read after using a hyperlink or the definition feature when using the iPad.
Nonfiction feature
All students used elements of nonfiction text to support their understanding of increasingly complex text. Findings showed nonfiction support features reinforced students' understanding of the text as they interacted with both the digital text and the iPad features. Collectively, the seven students in this study demonstrated use of several key features of nonfiction text features (i.e., headings, subheadings, captions, examples, bolded, or key vocabulary and videos). These key findings were identified through triangulation of data collected from think alouds, the MARSI, student pre‐interviews, post‐interviews and observations. The following features, inherently supportive of student learning and understanding, showed high frequency use for the collective group: audio/video, pronunciation guide and definition (Table 3).
| Themes | Lori | Erin | Jerry | Trey | Anna | Joe | Roger | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Audio/video | 2 | 6 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 42 |
| Definition/glossary | 26 | 21 | 2 | 19 | 14 | 7 | 12 | 101 |
| Examples | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| Pronunciation | 7 | 10 | 16 | 3 | 14 | 2 | 3 | 55 |
Features directly linked to nonfiction text were also often linked to the interaction with the device. Students determined the importance of text features as well as features exclusive to the device. In reviewing Erin's think aloud transcripts and her MARSI results, it was clear that vocabulary strategy use was very important to Erin and blue hyperlinks aided her in the further development of new or complex vocabulary.
Erin: The blue [hyperlinks to glossary in The Shoah] I really, like using those words. It just helps build my vocabulary.
Erin: “Blue hyperlinks were really helpful. You didn't have to highlight. You just click on it and it takes you right to it [glossary] vocabulary words' names.”
Erin: “I am going to look up Aryan word because it's blue [hyperlink & text book feature] and I don't know what it means.”
Once again, students used text features as well as features exclusive to the device that supported their learning and acquisition of new vocabulary and their understanding of text using features to support before, during and after reading strategies. These features were used to support their understanding of nonfiction text using the iPad.
iPad Features
Collectively, the seven students in this study demonstrated high frequency use of several key iPad features. These features were also identified through triangulation of data collected from think alouds, post‐interviews and observations. Students showed high frequency use of the following iPad features: highlighting, hyperlinking, sticky note and the find feature (search) (Table 4). These inherently specific iPad features supported student learning and understanding of text. Many features associated with the iPad were not discrete, as nonfiction features and reading strategies often generated the action of highlighting. Highlighting was often connected to hyperlinks or search features, both of which had a high frequency of use as well.
| Themes | Lori | Erin | Jerry | Trey | Anna | Joe | Roger | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Highlighting | 32 | 7 | 4 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 66 |
| Hyperlinks | 9 | 17 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 51 |
| Search | 4 | 4 | 14 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 42 |
| Sticky notes | 9 | 17 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 48 |
Discussion
This qualitative collective case study investigated (a) how adolescent readers construct meaning from nonfiction digital text; (b) the nature of their reading comprehension process; and (c) tools used to support the reading process. The findings suggest that (a) students may need to develop and use additional metacognitive strategies for reading digital text on the iPad and (b) students need scaffolding and support for learning how to use features when reading digital text using the iPad. Kucan (1993) found that students had a dominance or preference for strategies such as elaboration, reasoning and signalling for understanding when reading nonfiction text. Results from this study also indicated that there are unique student preferences, characteristics and differences that teachers may need to consider when using iPads for academic purposes For example, Lori's preferred strategy was determining importance, highlighting and features of the dictionary, whereas Anna preferred context clues, features of the dictionary and the pronunciation guide. Nickerson echoes these findings stating metacognitive skills are identifiable and learnable (1988). Results did indicate that support strategies were very important to all readers, and the iPad features supported their strategy use. Several students commented that the device supported the genre and the complexity of text. The features of the device and the text allowed for easier navigation and exploration as students interacted with the device. These transactions supported student understanding of text through the transaction between the reader, the text and the ability of the student. Rosenblatt's transactional theory (2005) postulates that meaning is produced in the transactions of the readers and the text. The interactions transformed the reading experience as students interacted with digital text that was highly interactive and engaging. In other words, students were engaged with the digital because it promotes a more active role to reading.
We examined the implications of our findings within the lenses that framed our study: new literacy theory, transactional theory and metacognitive theory. Further research is needed to bridge the strategy use between print reading, e‐reading and Internet reading. In addition, study results revealed that readers construct the text they are reading on the basis of choices they make with each keystroke they choose. Each keystroke or action allowed readers in this study to interact and engage with the text differently, evaluating and constructing meaning and understanding based on their individual needs. The current research exposed key differences and similarities between Internet reading and digital reading, determining that the device also plays a critical role in the reading process. Specifically, support features were identified as useful tools to sustain the level of complexity.
Central to transactional theory is the intent that literacy and technology are transactional (Leu and Reinking, 2005). Meaning was produced in the transaction between the reader and the text as they navigated and negotiated the development of meaning in a virtual environment. The structure of reading using an iPad became a supportive environment for complex text in which the episodic structure or the choices the readers made before, during or after reading influenced their individual reading experiences. Students in this research perceived their reading as a transaction with the device. The features of the device became a supportive structure as students interacted with the text. Readers constructed knowledge as they interacted with the text. Each hyperlink, each search and each physical movement was considered a transaction that helped to support and develop student understanding of the text.
Digital text placed additional cognitive and technological demands on the readers as they read nonfiction text using the iPad. Students relied on their metacognitive skills as they planned, evaluated and regulated their reading strategies of digital text, and they displayed a complex process of metacognitive thinking as they navigated and negotiated their understanding of the digital text. As students engaged in the complex metacognitive process, they often analysed, evaluated and inferred meaning from the text through social interaction, interaction with the device and text and cognitive resources as they negotiated and navigated their self‐regulation of learning. This suggests that additional metacognitive strategies such as planning, evaluating and regulating their reading strategies are needed as students develop into sophisticated digital readers.
Results from this study showed that device features supported the level of text difficulty as the interaction with the iPad made accessing information quick and also supported student learning. Simply making technology available, however, will not ensure deep reading of increasingly complex text. Application of the device as an integral part of the curriculum will require a deeper understanding of the device, curricular goals and the skills and strategies needed to scaffold student learning. Students' metacognitive skills will require a metacognitive teacher that is not only knowledgeable about content, pedagogy, students and technology but also has positive dispositions towards technology integration into his or her teaching (Wilson, Zygouris‐Coe, Cardullo, & Fang, 2013).
Conclusion
Results from this study add to the emerging research of iPad reading and comprehension. What continues to be needed is a strong pedagogical framework for e‐readers as they enter classrooms across the nation. For a strong pedagogical framework to be implemented, the classroom teacher must be metacognitively aware of how to scaffold learning to support learning opportunities for all learners.
Findings from this research indicate the importance of interactive digital media such as hyperlinks, video, glossary, pronunciation guide, examples and dictionary. This research provides insight into the comprehension strategies students used to support reading on the iPad. These strategies help teachers and researchers understand that supporting students' digital literacies with the iPad is complex. It also provides insight into the supportive text and interactive device features that can support academic comprehension using the iPad. The emerging themes from this study add to a developing body of research in the topic of new literacies. These themes will help build our understanding as we further explore the nature of digital literacies when using the iPad for academic purposes.
Biographies
Victoria Cardullo is an assistant professor of Literacy and Language in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching in the College of Education at Auburn University (AU). Her research is closely aligned with teaching and teacher dispositions related to digital literacy. She has published several articles and book chapters related to literacy and technology. She actively disseminates research as noted in presentations at numerous national and international conferences. Dr Cardullo is serving as Chair of the American Reading Forum. She is an associate editor for the American Reading Forum Yearbook.
Dr Vassiliki “Vicky” I. Zygouris‐Coe is currently a professor of reading education at the University of Central Florida (UCF), College of Education and Human Performance, School of Teaching, Learning, and Leadership. Her research focuses on reading in the content areas, disciplinary literacy, literacy teacher education, professional development, online learning and literacy and technology. Her research has been published in various literacy and education journals, books and reports. She is co‐editor of the Literacy Research and Instruction journal and has been associate editor of other professional journals.
Dr Nance S. Wilson is an associate professor of literacy and Chair of the Literacy Department at the State University of New York at Cortland. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in literacy. Her research focuses on reading comprehension and metacognition, using digital tools to expand learning, middle grades learning, literacy teacher education and professional development. She has published several book chapters and journal articles related to digital learning devices. She has also published articles on metacognition and reading comprehension as related to instructional approaches and teacher's beliefs for improving student achievement as reflected by her work. She actively disseminates research as noted in presentations at numerous national and international conferences. She is the editor of Reading in the Middle and has served as Chair of the American Reading Forum and has been a programme chair for the American Reading Forum. Dr Wilson also serves as a reviewer for several literacy journals.
