Online reading differs from traditional reading because it requires readers to

References

[32] American Press Institute (2014), How Americans get their news, http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The_Media_Insight_Project_The_Personal_News_Cycle_Final.pdf.

[7] Ananiadou, K. and M. Claro (2009), “21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154.

[121] Artelt, C., U. Schiefele and W. Schneider (2001), “Predictors of reading literacy”, European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. XVI/3, pp. 363-383, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03173188.

[109] Becker, M., N. McElvany and M. Kortenbruck (2010), “Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 102/4, pp. 773-785, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020084.

[1] Binkley, M. et al. (2011), “Defining Twenty-First Century Skills”, in Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2.

[41] Binkley, M., K. Rust and T. Williams (eds.) (1997), Reading literacy in an international perspective, U.S. Department of Education, Washington D.C.

[66] Brand-Gruwel, S., I. Wopereis and Y. Vermetten (2005), “Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 487–508, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.005.

[77] Bråten, I. et al. (2011), “The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 46/1, pp. 48-70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647.

[74] Bråten, I., H. Strømsø and M. Britt (2009), “Trust Matters: Examining the Role of Source Evaluation in Students’ Construction of Meaning within and across Multiple Texts”, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 44/1, pp. 6-28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.1.

[14] Britt, M., S. Goldman and J. Rouet (eds.) (2013), Reading--From words to multiple texts, Routledge, New York.

[46] Britt, M. and J. Rouet (2012), “Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition.”, in Kirby, J. and M. Lawson (eds.), Enhancing the Quality of Learning: Dispositions, Instruction, and Learning Processes, Cambridge University Press, New York, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139048224.017.

[122] Brown, A., A. Palincsar and B. Armbruster (1984), “Instructing Comprehension-Fostering Activities in Interactive Learning Situations”, in Mandl, H., N. Stein and T. Trabasso (eds.), Learning and Comprehension of Text, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

[37] Brozo, W. and M. Simpson (2007), Content Literacy for Today’s Adolescents: Honoring Diversity and Building Competence, Merrill/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

[64] Cain, K. and J. Oakhill (2008), Children’s Comprehension Problems in Oral and Written Language, Guilford Press, New York.

[94] Cain, K. and J. Oakhill (2006), “Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading comprehension”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 697–708, http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709905X69807.

[123] Cantrell, S. et al. (2010), “The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 102/2, pp. 257-280, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018212.

[59] Chard, D., J. Pikulski and S. McDonagh (2006), “Fluency: The Link between Decoding and Comprehension for Struggling Readers”, in Rasinski, T., C. Blachowicz and K. Lems (eds.), Fluency Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, Guilford Press, New York.

[33] Clark, C. (2014), Children’s and Young People’s Writing in 2013: Findings from the National Literacy Trust’s Annual Literacy Survey, National Literacy Trust, London, http://www.literacytrust.org.uk.

[47] Coiro, J. et al. (2008), “Central Issues in New Literacies and New Literacies Research”, in Coiro, J. et al. (eds.), Handbook of Research on New Literacies, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.

[27] Conklin, J. (1987), “Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey”, Computer, Vol. 20, pp. 17-41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MC.1987.1663693.

[2] Cunningham, A. and K. Stanovich (1997), “Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 33/6, pp. 934-945.

[26] Dillon, A. (1994), Designing Usable Electronic Text Ergonomics Aspects of Human Information Usage, Taylor & Francis, London.

[67] Dreher, M. and J. Guthrie (1990), “Cognitive processes in textbook chapter search tasks”, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 25/4, pp. 323-339, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/747694.

[70] Duggan, G. and S. Payne (2009), “Text skimming: the process and effectiveness of foraging through text under time pressure”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol. 15/3, pp. 228-242, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016995.

[104] Eason, S. et al. (2013), “Examining the Relationship Between Word Reading Efficiency and Oral Reading Rate in Predicting Comprehension Among Different Types of Readers”, Scientific Studies of Reading, Vol. 17/3, pp. 199-223, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.652722.

[28] Foltz, P. (1996), “Comprehension, Coherence and Strategies in Hypertext and Linear Text”, in Rouet, J. et al. (eds.), Hypertext and Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

[31] Gartner (2014), Forecast: PCs, Ultramobiles and Mobile Phones, Worldwide, 2011-2018, 4Q14 Update, https://www.gartner.com/doc/2945917/forecast-pcs-ultramobiles-mobile-phones.

[71] Gerjets, P., Y. Kammerer and B. Werner (2011), “Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during Web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data.”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 21/2, pp. 220-231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.005.

[55] Goldman, S. (2004), “Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts”, in Shuart-Faris, N. and D. Bloome (eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.

[48] Gray, W. and B. Rogers (1956), Maturity in Reading: Its nature and appraisal, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

[96] Grisay, A. and C. Monseur (2007), “Measuring the Equivalence of item difficulty in the various versions of an international test”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 33, pp. 69-86, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2007.01.006.

[39] Guthrie, J., S. Klauda and A. Ho (2013), “Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents”, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 48/1, pp. 9-26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rrq.035.

[118] Guthrie, J. and A. Wigfield (2000), “Engagement and motivation in reading.”, in Kamil, M. et al. (eds.), Handbook of reading research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates , Mahwah, NJ.

[110] Guthrie, J. et al. (1999), “Motivational and Cognitive Predictors of Text Comprehension and Reading Amount”, Scientific Studies of Reading, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3.

[38] Guthrie, J., A. Wigfield and W. You (2012), “Instructional Contexts for Engagement and Achievement in Reading”, in Christenson, S., A. Reschly and C. Wylie (eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, Springer Science, New York, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7.

[79] Hacker, D. (1998), “Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading”, in Hacker, D., J. Dunlosky and A. Graesser (eds.), The Educational Psychology Series. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

[119] Heckman, J. and T. Kautz (2012), “Hard Evidence on Soft Skills”, Discussion Paper Series, No. 6580, The Institute for the Study of Labor , Bonn, Germany.

[49] Hofstetter, C., T. Sticht and C. Hofstetter (1999), “Knowledge, Literacy, and Power”, Communication Research, Vol. 26/1, pp. 58-80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365099026001004.

[90] Hubbard, R. (1989), “Notes from the Underground: Unofficial Literacy in One Sixth Grade”, Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 20/4, pp. 291-307, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3195740.

[6] International Telecommunications Union (2014), Key 2005-2014 ICT data for the world, by geographic regions and by level of development [Excel file], http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2014.aspx.

[5] International Telecommunications Union (2014), Measuring the Information Society Report 2014, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva.

[63] Jenkins, J. et al. (2003), “Sources of Individual Differences in Reading Comprehension and Reading Fluency.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95/4, pp. 719-729, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719.

[15] Kamil, M. et al. (eds.) (2000), Handbook of Reading Research. Volume III, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

[20] Kintsch, W. (1998), Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

[22] Kirsch, I. (2001), The International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS): Understanding What Was Measured, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.

[8] Kirsch, I. et al. (2002), Reading for Change Performance and Engagement Across Countries: Results From PISA 2000, OECD, Paris.

[23] Kirsch, I. and P. Mosenthal (1990), “Exploring Document Literacy: Variables Underlying the Performance of Young Adults”, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 25/1, pp. 5-30, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/747985.

[108] Klauda, S. and J. Guthrie (2015), “Comparing relations of motivation, engagement, and achievement among struggling and advanced adolescent readers”, Reading and Writing, Vol. 28, pp. 239–269, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9523-2.

[105] Kuhn, M., P. Schwanenflugel and E. Meisinger (2010), “Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody, and Definitions of Fluency”, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 45/2, pp. 230–251, http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4.

[58] Kuhn, M. and S. Stahl (2003), “Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95/1, pp. 3–21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3.

[98] Lafontaine, D. and C. Monseur (2006), Impact of item choice on the measurement of trends in educational achievement, Paper presented at the 2006 Annual AERA meeting, San Francisco, CA, https://convention2.allacademic.com/one/aera/aera06/index.php?click_key=1&cmd=Multi+Search+Search+Load+Publication&publication_id=49435&PHPSESSID=h5edlqu9juanjmlaaa6ece3e74.

[99] Lafontaine, D. and C. Monseur (2006), Impact of test characteristics on gender equity indicators in the Assessment of Reading Comprehension, University of Liège, Liège.

[107] Landerl, K. and C. Reiter (2002), “Lesegeschwindigkeit als Indikator für basale Lesefertigkeiten”, in Wallner-Paschon, C. and G. Haider (eds.), PISA Plus 2000. Thematische Analysen nationaler Projekte, Studien Verlag, Innsbruck.

[120] Legault, L., I. Green-Demers and L. Pelletier (2006), “Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic a motivation and the role of social support”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 98/3, pp. 567-582, http://dx.doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.567.

[12] Leu, D. et al. (2015), “The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap”, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 50/1, pp. 37–59, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rrq.85.

[11] Leu, D. et al. (2013), “New Literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy instruction and assessment”, in Alvermann, D., Norman J. Unrau and R. Ruddell (eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, International Reading Association, Newark.

[51] Lundberg, I. (1991), “Reading as an individual and social skill”, in Lundberg, I. and T. Höien (eds.), Literacy in a world of change: perspective on reading and reading disability; proceedings, Literacy Conference at Stavanger Forum, Center for Reading Research/UNESCO.

[72] Mason, L., A. Boldrin and N. Ariasi (2010), “Searching the Web to Learn about a Controversial Topic: Are Students Epistemically Active?”, Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 38/6, pp. 607-633.

[52] McCrudden, M. and G. Schraw (2007), “Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 19/2, pp. 113–139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7.

[42] McNamara, D. and J. Magliano (2009), “Toward a Comprehensive Model of Comprehension”, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 51, pp. 297-384, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2.

[91] Meyer, B. and G. Rice (1984), “The Structure of Text”, in Pearson, P. et al. (eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Longman, New York.

[111] Mol, S. and A. Bus (2011), “To read or not to read: a meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 137/2, pp. 267-96, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021890.

[68] Moore, P. (1995), “Information Problem Solving: A Wider View of Library Skills”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 20/1, pp. 1-31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1995.1001.

[112] Morgan, P. and D. Fuchs (2007), “Is there a bidirectional relationship between children’s reading skills and reading motivation?”, Exceptional Children, Vol. 73/2, pp. 165-183, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F001440290707300203.

[50] Morrisroe, J. (2014), Literacy Changes Lives 2014: A new perspective on health, employment and crime, National Literacy Trust, London, http://www.literacytrust.org.uk.

[36] Naumann, J. (2015), “A model of online reading engagement: Linking engagement, navigation, and performance in digital reading”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 53, pp. 263–277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.051.

[43] Oakhill, J., K. Cain and P. Bryant (2003), “The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills”, Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 18/4, pp. 443-468, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000008.

[35] OECD (2015), Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, OECD, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/19963777.

[130] OECD (2014), PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014): Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208780-en.

[3] OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.

[13] OECD (2013), PISA 2015 Draft Frameworks, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm.

[30] OECD (2012), OECD Internet Economy Outlook 2012, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264086463-en.

[103] OECD (2011), “Do Students Today Read for Pleasure?”, PISA in Focus, No. 8, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9h362lhw32-en.

[25] OECD (2011), PISA 2009 Results: Students On Line. Digital Technologies and Performance (Volume VI), OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264112995-en.

[117] OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Assessment Framework, OECD, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/19963777.

[124] OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: Learning to Learn: Student Engagement, Strategies and Practices (Volume III), PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264083943-en.

[129] OECD (2007), PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World: Volume 1: Analysis, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264040014-en.

[128] OECD (2004), Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264006416-en.

[116] OECD (2002), Reading for Change: Performance and Engagement across Countries: Results from PISA 2000, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264099289-en.

[24] OECD (2000), Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills. The PISA 2000 Assessment of Reading, Mathematical and Scientific Literacy, OECD, Paris.

[86] O’Reilly, T. and J. Sabatini (2013), Reading for Understanding: How Performance Moderators and Scenarios Impact Assessment Design, ETS Research Report RR-13-31, http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-13-31.pdf.

[87] Ozuru, Y. et al. (2007), “Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension”, Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 25/4, pp. 399-438, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370000701632371.

[17] Perfetti, C. (2007), “Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension”, Scientific Studies of Reading, Vol. 11/4, pp. 357-383, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730.

[16] Perfetti, C. (1985), Reading Ability, Oxford University Press, New York.

[65] Perfetti, C., M. Marron and P. Foltz (1996), “Sources of Comprehension Failure: Theoretical Perspectives and Case Studies”, in Cornoldi, C. and J. Oakhill (eds.), Reading Comprehension Difficulties: Processes and Intervention, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

[56] Perfetti, C., J. Rouet and M. Britt (1999), “Toward Theory of Documents Representation”, in van Oostendorp, H. and S. Goldman (eds.), The Construction of Mental Representations During Reading, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

[113] Pfost, M., T. Dörfler and C. Artelt (2013), “Students’ extracurricular reading behavior and the development of vocabulary and reading comprehension”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 26, pp. 89-102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.008.

[125] Pressley, M. (2000), “What Should Comprehension Instruction be the Instruction Of?”, in Kamil, M. et al. (eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume III, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

[100] Rasinski, T. et al. (2005), “Is Reading Fluency a Key for Successful High School Reading?”, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Vol. 49/1, pp. 22-27, http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.49.1.3.

[102] Rayner, K. et al. (2001), “How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 2/2, pp. 31-74, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004.

[19] Rayner, K. and E. Reichle (2010), “Models of the Reading Process”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, Vol. 1/6, pp. 787-799, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.68.

[40] Reeve, J. (2012), “A Self-determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement”, in Handbook of research on student engagement, Springer, Boston, MA, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7.

[45] Richter, T. and D. Rapp (2014), “Comprehension and Validation of Text Information: Introduction to the Special Issue”, Discourse Processes, Vol. 51/1-2, pp. 1-6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855533.

[73] Rieh, S. (2002), “Judgment of Information Quality and Cognitive Quthority in the Web”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 53/2, pp. 145-161, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10017.

[126] Rosenshine, B. and C. Meister (1997), “Cognitive strategy instruction in reading”, in Stahl, S. and D. Hayes (eds.), Instructional Models in Reading, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

[9] Rouet, J. (2006), The Skills of Document Use: From Text Comprehension to Web-based Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

[78] Rouet, J. and M. Britt (2014), “Multimedia Learning from Multiple Documents”, in Mayer, R. (ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

[53] Rouet, J. and M. Britt (2011), “Relevance Processes in Multiple Document Comprehension”, in McCrudden, M., J. Magliano and G. Schraw (eds.), Text Relevance and Learning from Text, Information Age, Greenwich, CT.

[69] Rouet, J. and B. Coutelet (2008), “The Acquisition of Document Search Strategies in Grade School Students”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 389–406, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1415.

[29] Rouet, J. and J. Levonen (1996), “Studying and Learning with Hypertext: Empirical Studies and Their Implications”, in Rouet, J. et al. (eds.), Hypertext and Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

[82] Rouet, J., Z. Vörös and C. Pléh (2012), “Incidental Learning of Links during Navigation: The Role of Visuo-Spatial Capacity”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 31/1, pp. 71-81.

[95] Routitsky, A. and R. Turner (2003), Item Format Types and Their Influences on Cross-national Comparisons of Student Performance, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), April 2003.

[83] Rupp, A., T. Ferne and H. Choi (2006), “How Assessing Reading Comprehension With Multiple-choice Questions Shapes the Construct: A Cognitive Processing Perspective”, Language Testing, Vol. 23/4, pp. 441–474, http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt337oa.

[106] Sabatini, J. and K. Bruce (2009), “PIAAC Reading Components: A Conceptual Framework”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 33, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers.

[84] Sabatini, J. et al. (2014), “Broadening the Scope of Reading Comprehension Using Scenario-Based Assessments: Preliminary findings and challenges”, L’Année Psychologique, Vol. 114/4, pp. 693-723, http://dx.doi.org/10.4074/S0003503314004059.

[85] Sabatini, J. et al. (2015), “Improving Comprehension Assessment for Middle and High School Students: Challenges and Opportunities”, in Santi, K. and D. Reed (eds.), Improving Reading Comprehension of Middle and High School Students (Literacy Studies), Springer, New York.

[93] Santini, M. (2006), “Web pages, Text types, and Linguistic Features: Some Issues”, International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (CAME), Vol. 30, pp. 67-86.

[101] Scammacca, N. et al. (2007), Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Meta-Analysis With Implications for Practice, Center on Instruction at RMC Research Corporation, Portsmouth, NH, http://www.centeroninstruction.org.

[114] Schaffner, E., M. Philipp and U. Schiefele (2016), “Reciprocal Effects Between Intrinsic Reading Motivation and Reading Competence? A Cross-lagged Panel Model for Academic Track and Nonacademic Track Students”, Journal of Research in Reading, Vol. 39/1, pp. 19–36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12027.

[115] Schiefele, U. et al. (2012), “Dimensions of Reading Motivation and Their Relation to Reading Behavior and Competence”, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 47/4, pp. 427–463, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.030.

[88] Schroeder, S. (2011), “What readers have and do: Effects of students’ verbal ability and reading time components on comprehension with and without text availability”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 103/4, pp. 877-896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023731.

[97] Schwabe, F., N. McElvany and M. Trendtel (2015), “The School Age Gender Gap in Reading Aachievement: Examining the Influences of Item Format and Intrinsic Reading Motivation”, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 50/2, pp. 219–232, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rrq.92.

[4] Smith, M. et al. (2000), “What Will Be the Demands of Literacy in the Workplace in the Next Millennium?”, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 35/3, pp. 378-383, http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.3.3.

[18] Snow, C. and the RAND Corporation (2002), Reading for Understanding: Toward an R and D Program in Reading Comprehension, RAND Reading Study Group, Santa Monica, CA, http://www.rand.org/.

[10] Spiro, R. et al. (eds.) (2015), Reading at a Crossroads? Disjunctures and Continuities in Current Conceptions and Practices, Routledge, New York.

[75] Stadtler, M. and R. Bromme (2014), “The Content–Source Integration Model: A Taxonomic Description of How Readers Comprehend Conflicting Scientific Information”, in Rapp, D. and J. Braasch (eds.), Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[76] Stadtler, M. and R. Bromme (2013), “Multiple Document Comprehension: An Approach to Public Understanding of Science”, Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 31/2, pp. 122-129, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.771106.

[81] Strømsø, H. et al. (2013), “Spontaneous Sourcing Among Students Reading Multiple Documents”, Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 31/2, pp. 176-203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769994.

[34] UNESCO (2014), Reading in the Mobile Era: A Study of Mobile Reading in Developing Countries, UNESCO, Paris, http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en.

[44] van den Broek, P., K. Risden and E. Husbye-Hartmann (1995), “The Role of Readers’ Standards of Coherence in the Generation of Inferences During Reading”, in Lorch, Jr., R. and E. O’Brien (eds.), Sources of Coherence in Text Comprehension, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hilssdale, NJ.

[57] Vidal-Abarca, E., A. Mañá and L. Gil (2010), “Individual Differences for Self-regulating Task-oriented Reading Activities”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 102/4, pp. 817-826, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020062.

[60] Wagner, R. et al. (2010), Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension, Pro-Ed, Austin, TX.

[127] Waters, H. and W. Schneider (eds.) (2010), Metacognition, Strategy Use, and Instruction, Guilford Press, New York.

[61] Wayman, M. et al. (2007), “Literature Synthesis on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading”, The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 41/2, pp. 85-120.

[92] Werlich, E. (1976), A Text Grammar of English, Quelle and Meyer, Heidelberg.

[54] White, S., J. Chen and B. Forsyth (2010), “Reading-Related Literacy Activities of American Adults: Time Spent, Task Types, and Cognitive Skills Used”, Journal of Literacy Research, Vol. 42, pp. 276–307, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1086296X.2010.503552.

[89] Wineburg, S. (1991), “On the Reading of Historical Texts: Notes on the Breach Between School and Academy”, American Educational Research Joumal, Vol. 28/3, pp. 495-519.

[80] Winne, P. and A. Hadwin (1998), “Studying as Self-regulated Learning”, in Hacker, D., J. Dunlosky and A. Graesser (eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

[62] Woodcock, R., K. McGrew and N. Mather (2001), Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement, Riverside Publishing, Itasca, IL.

[21] Zwaan, R. and M. Singer (2003), “Text comprehension”, in Graesser, A., M. Gernsbacher and S. Goldman (eds.), Handbook of Discourse Processes, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

How does digital reading differ from traditional reading?

Print is visually less demanding than digital text. It provides spatial and tactile cues to help readers process words on a page. Mindset may also be a factor. If people associate screen time with casual web-surfing they may rush through without fully absorbing the text.

What are the 3 traditional approaches to reading instruction?

Discover more about fostering pre-literacy skills..
The Phonics Method. The smallest word-part that carries meaning is a phoneme. ... .
The Whole-word Approach. This method teaches reading at the word level. ... .
The Language Experience Method. ... .
8 Tips for parents..

What is the importance of using different reading approach?

There are some benefits in utilizing reading approach: Reading approach can be used in a big class. In reading approach, students can know much vocabulary because they have to read the passage. Students focus what they are studying because they only learn grammar.

Why is digital reading better?

Much of what we read on-screen tends to be text messages and social-media posts. They're usually easy to understand. So, “when people read on-screen, they read faster,” says Alexander at the University of Maryland. “Their eyes scan the pages and the words faster than if they're reading on a piece of paper.”