Elective Badge #3 – Online Comprehension

Main Idea/Key Points/Connections -

Student: “What do you mean Google isn’t the website I got the information from?”

Teacher: “Google is the search engine. It helps you find the information.”

Student: “Exactly! It is where I found the information!”

Have y’all heard this from your students?  I get it at least once a year from a student who isn’t Internet savvy or a low-achieving online user.  Cioro (2009) mentions a similar issue in her article, “Rethinking online reading assessment.” She mentions instead that “they use a “.com strategy”; they type a whole question or phrase into the address bar at the top of an Internet browser, add “.com” (Coiro, 2009, p. 62).  What is so interesting to me, is that these children don’t have the same issues with books.  They know the Table of Contents or Glossary is a resource or reference, yet it doesn’t transfer to online comprehension.

This difference is the main topic of Coiro’s (2009) work.  She highlights five major differences between the comprehension of traditional print-based and digital text.  The first is that online reading comprehension requires a completely new skill set. “A typical Internet-based reading assignment requires students to generate appropriate search requests, sift through disparate sources to locate their own texts, synthesize the most reliable and relevant information within those texts, and respond with online communication tools such as an e-mail message or blog post” (Coiro, 2009, p. 59).  This was the most powerful difference for me to read about because I couldn’t agree more.  The before mentioned steps tap all levels of thinking – recall through critical skills like synthesis and evaluation.  The second difference shows that attitudes towards the Internet can affect comprehension.  This I would also say is true of print based books.  The third area highlighted, seeking answers collaboratively, does demonstrate that the digital world helps emphasize the social nature of literacy. Reading process should inform reading instruction, the fourth difference, is a really powerful statement. “In an age of data-informed instruction, we do a disservice to our students by not using readily available technologies to help determine how we can best prepare them for the challenges of Internet reading” (Coiro, 2009, p. 62). The final difference puts the fire on the feet of educators.  Digital technologies are changing the nature of reading comprehension, and we, as teachers, need to stay flexible in our instruction to ensure student engagement.

Moratelli & DeJarnette (2014) document one way to increase student engagement, through the use of Clickers.  Clickers provide teachers and students with an electronic way to answer and assess questions. Also known as Classroom Response Systems, Clickers incorporate technology in the classroom which students appreciate (Moratelli & DeJarnette, 2014, pp. 586, 589). In addition to providing data, the authors revealed that student engagement, in a particular study, “that 59%, or 13 of the 22 total students involved, improved their test score averages” (Moratelli & DeJarnette, 2014, pp. 590).  This was especially true of students who had been placed in a low-achieving category based on previous test scores.  As I read this article, I was reminded of a quote from James Gee’s book, Social linguistics and literacies; Ideology in discourse. He says, “Most young adults do not have an ‘illiteracy’ problem; rather they have a ‘schooling’ problem” (Gee, 2012, p. 31).  This article really drives that idea home.  When students were given tools that reflected those they use outside of school, their engagement and achievement increased.  Therefore, I feel confident in saying that schools and classrooms need to be flexible in the way they assess reading comprehension before labeling a student as “low-achieving” or “Not meeting objectives.”

I have shared this in other classes but I really feel that it embodies so many of the issues we see with students today and reading comprehension. 

Albert Einstein said, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

Image Citation

Ideas for the Classroom –

I loved Coiro’s (2009) idea for using Survey Monkey for assessment! Below are just a couple of ways I have already begun to brainstorm -

            a. Beginning of the year – within the survey students are given links to websites and asked to locate specific information such as year published, authors, contact us, etc.  This would help me locate students who need additional scaffolding for Internet proficiency. 

            b. English/Grammar – Instead of worksheets asking students to practice grammar concepts, have a students use Survey Monkey and Google Slides to locate concepts that are misused and need correction. (Dyslexics are typically terrible proofreaders.)

            c. Vocabulary – provide students a “new” word used in various sentences.  Using online resources, have students choose which sentence demonstrates the correct usage.  Then students will add their own sentence or picture to a Google Slide as they collaboratively create a definition.

            d. Social Studies – When assessing a unit or theme, have facts and details that are important, but more recall than critical thinking, be assessed by Survey Monkey and students Internet searching abilities.  Then, those answers used in students’ responses to deeper content questions.

            e. Science – see d. Social Studies

References:

Coiro, J. (2009). Rethinking reading assessment in a digital age: How is reading comprehension different and where do we turn now. Educational Leadership, 59–63.

Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies; Ideology in discourse. London: Routledge.

Moratelli, K., & DeJarnette, N. K. (2014). Clickers to the Rescue. The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 586–593.