Reading has never been as indispensable as it is in today’s highly complex technological world. And in a society where innovation is the norm, it is hard to imagine how an illiterate individual can manage to survive. Indeed, the literacy-knowhow of the majority a decade ago is no longer sufficient to cope with the increasing demands of technological breakthroughs in recent years. There is simply an enormous amount of information to read and process today.
As an academic discipline, reading holds a prominent place in the curriculum. This is understandable since across academic levels, the success of every student lies largely in how good he or she is at managing torrents of information. As it is the usual case, the school is always left with the daunting task of making students skilled consumers of information in both print and electronic environments.
The spectacular proliferation of Internet has given rise to what is called “hypertext” which is commonly described as nonlinear and nodal. As described by Bolanos (2012, p.43), hypertext is “a kind of informational environment in which textual materials and ideas are linked to one another in multiple ways”. Given this nature of hypertext where today’s students read inside and outside of the classroom, reading has become more complex compared with the traditional print. And as a result of such problem as disorientation that is associated with hypertext, comprehension has also become a popular issue especially for research.
Anderson (2003) claims that studies investigating the nature of comprehension and comprehension strategies in online environment are too limited. Aside from Konishi (2003), only Coiro (2011) did an elaborate study on the topic. It goes without saying that the area is under investigated. Fontanini (2004) states that due to the dearth of studies in the area, the differences in the processing of linear text and hypertext seem not to be totally established yet. This, of course, is not a welcome news since educators who subscribe to research-based pedagogy would not have sound basis for instruction, in particular, of comprehension strategies.
As mentioned, Konishi (2003) was one of the few scholars who investigated the area. Her study centered on reading strategies Japanese ESL students employ when they read in hypertext context. Data analysis showed that some of the strategies readers used seemed similar to those used for reading print text, especially for reading a single text carefully. It was also found out that all the participants availed themselves of several strategies specific to reading hypertext, and lastly, some participants expanded their intelligent curiosity over the extent of the tasks they were assigned to and voluntarily went into more pages to read. This study offers interesting findings particularly on the seeming relationship between proficiency and cognitive flexibility which are also interesting areas in literacy now. It also supports what other scholars like Schmar-Dobler (2003, as cited in Atchison, 2004) and Sutherland-Smith (2002) claim that there are some strategies distinct to hypertext as a medium of information presentation.
Coiro’s (2011) study is the recent and probably the most comprehensive of the studies on hypertext strategies. His exploratory study investigated the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. His 11 good readers of traditional print form were tasked to locate, evaluate, and synthesize content area information within informational websites and search engines. Data analysis of verbal protocols, interviews, and field observations following a grounded theory model (Yang, 199y; Balcytiene, 1997) demonstrated that first, “in some ways, reading on the Internet looks the same as reading printed text” (p.229) and second, “reading on the Internet is uniquely more complex” (p.229).
Premised on the view that reading is a process of constructing meaning while interacting with texts (Zammit, 2011), the comprehension processing was accounted for by some theories and models such as self-regulated learning by Azevedo (2005, as cited in Scheiter & Gerjets, 2007) which states that for better processing of any textual information, awareness and monitoring of the reading activity being performed are necessary; cognitive flexibility theory by Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, and Coulson (1991,as cited in Bolaños, 2009, p. 70) which argues that for successful hypertext navigation, flexibility is important for it is centered on the cognitive aspect which is in command of restructuring knowledge processing in hypertext context; new literacies by Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack (2004) which succinctly asserts that as new technologies emerge, new ways of reading also emerge; and cognitive load theory by Chandler (1995) which explains that to reduce the mental effort readers must exert in comprehending a text, readers must be presented with organized, readable material.
The call for more empirical observations on the reading strategies the readers apply while engaged in online and print reading tasks has become more pressing due to the continuum in technological advancement. And the education field must be at the fore in heeding this call.
References
Bolanos, E. (2012). A comparison of the reading strategies used by good readers in print and hypertext environments: Implications and recommendations for the improvement of reading instructions.TESOL Journal,7, 2-9.
Konishi, M. (2003). Strategies for reading hypertext by Japanese ESL learners.The reading matrix,3(3).
Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the internet contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge.Journal of Literacy Research,43(4), 352-392.
Fontanini, I. (2004). Reading theories and some implications for the processing of linear texts and hypertexts.Linguagem and Ensino,7(2), 165-184.
Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the Internet: The link between literacy and technology.Journal of adolescent & adult literacy,47(1), 80-85.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen.The reading teacher,55(7), 662-669.
Yang, S. C. (1997). Information seeking as problem-solving using a qualitative approach to uncover the novice learners’ information-seeking processes in a Perseus hypertext system.Library & Information Science Research,19(1), 71-94.
Balcytiene, A. (1999). Exploring individual processes of knowledge construction with hypertext.Instructional science,27(3-4), 303-328.
Zammit, K. (2011). Moves in hypertext: The resource of negotiation as a means to describe the way students navigate a pathway through hypertext.Linguistics and Education,22(2), 168-181.
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds.Instructional Science,33(5), 367-379.
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds.Instructional Science,33(5), 367-379.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies.Theoretical models and processes of reading,5(1), 1570-1613.
Chandler, P. (1995, July). Is conventional computer instruction ineffective for learning. InProceedings of Australian Computers in Education Conference 1995.
Anderson, K. M., Sherba, S. A., & Lepthien, W. V. (2003, August). Structure and behavior awareness in themis. InProceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia(pp. 138-147). ACM.
By: Ruby Rosa S. Paule
