Review of “Strategies for Internet Reading with Different Reading Purposes: A

Descriptive Study of Twelve Good Internet Readers” (2008)

What does it mean to be literate for the twenty-first century? Shenglan Zhang and Nell

Duke explored this question in “Strategies for Internet Reading with Different Reading Purposes:

A Descriptive Study of Twelve Good Internet Readers” (2008). There is much to be learned

about the impact of technology on learning and education. While modern communication

technology exists almost everywhere we look, a driving force in all aspects of society is Internet

technology. The International Reading Association has assumed responsibility for advocating for

change in the definition and methods of literacy instruction.

Conceptual Framework

The study roots itself in the New Literacies1 framework, which claims “new technologies

such as the Internet has changed the very nature of literacy” (p. 134). The authors assert their

view of reading comprehension fits within this framework developed in response to the

increasing demands technology places on peoples’ ability to communicate effectively in this era.

The New Literacies framework is a fitting theoretical companion to this study. As a team of

researchers seeking to advance the field of reading comprehension, it is critical to represent

reading comprehension in its most natural forms. Increasingly, the natural state of reading is

online, digital, and interactive. The authors’ hope of identifying the relationship between reading

purpose and reading strategy is accurately seated within this framework.

The conceptual framework for this study is based on the assumption that reading the

Internet is the same as reading printed texts. The authors have grounded themselves in the

1 The New Literacies Framework is a component of the International Reading Association and is a key element in
their advocacy of a 21st Century framework. Zhang and Duke do not capitalize this in their report as published.
However, for the remainder of this critique it will be capitalized in recognition of its status as a guiding theoretical
framework.

Lawrence Bruce EPET Prosem 900-930

 2

existing theories of reading comprehension and in Internet reading. A report (Duke & Pearson,

2002) claims that studying good readers can provide insight into how to teach printed text

comprehension. Furthermore, in a chapter for the International Handbook of Literacy and

Technology, Duke et al indeed suggest that the study of good Internet readers can provide

insights into teaching Internet comprehension (Zhang, p. 130). This relationship between reading

printed text and Internet text has no research base upon which to rest for support as well as to

measure its results.

It is understood that the research precedence and antecedents are largely unavailable upon

which to base solid practice on the comparisons between reading printed text and Internet text.

The relationships between printed text and Internet text are becoming increasingly disparate.

Information on the web is of varying type from the static pages designed by novices and the

archaic pages designed twenty years ago to the wiki pages that change daily, always in flux.

Content online is becoming less centered on text and more on the media driving user demands,

such as video and flash-based animation, graphically oriented, interactive and embeddable

content, and hypertextual design. The dynamic nature of Internet content challenges the

relationship between the kinds of reading beyond the three purposes studied here. Therefore, this

exploratory study must shed light on teaching reading comprehension in order for its purpose to

be justified.

Additionally, there is an assumption that rests deeper into this framework that extends

beyond this study into the studies on reading used to support this research. However, the

implications here rest on a question that remains unclear. Identification of strategies based on

observations of the actions and behaviors of good Internet readers when engaged in purposive

tasks suggests that these strategies are naturally occurring. Can it be assumed that all good

Lawrence Bruce EPET Prosem 900-930

 3

readers would naturally employ the strategies identified in this study? If so, then there’s little

need for the study and teaching to improve reading will generate appropriate reading strategies.

If not, then the entire validity of this study is in question as the sample bears no standard of

measure.

Study Importance

It is agreed upon by many that the structure of learning is changing and that technology is

a driving force behind it. Educating students to be successful in this era requires proper

instruction be in place to allow teachers to meet their students’ reading needs. The authors’ intent

was to identify the influence reading purposes had on the strategies employed by active readers.

A strategy is defined by the report as “any general approach that the readers used in an attempt to

achieve their reading goals, as well as anything they avoided doing in order to read more

efficiently” (p. 139). The purposes had been loosely identified in an earlier study (Slatin, 1991),

and essentially reflect the reasons people turn to the Internet: to seek specific information,

acquire general knowledge, and to be entertained. If good readers are observed doing these tasks,

observations may provide insight into their active engagement and facilitate an application into

teaching practices in order to make all readers “good” Internet readers.

The study aims to pursue questions grounded in gaining deeper understandings and

increasing what we know about reading. Scholars, teachers, parents, and students could benefit

from this study. Strategies used by good readers could provide insight into how comprehension

of reading online is similar to or different from reading printed text.

The authors supplement research on printed text reading with research on Internet text

reading. Although reading comprehension is well documented, reading Internet text is not. The

published material that exists on reading hypertext and the Internet has focused on singular
 4

purposes (such as research), reading within a single Website, or investigation of strategies. This

study will be the first, to the knowledge of the authors, to explore strategies based on the

purposes of reading.

The conclusions within the conceptual framework of the study appropriately identify this

research as the logical next step in a series of research devoted to the practice of understanding

reading comprehension in a technology intensive era. As stated by the authors, the product of this

study is to inform instructional practices in a way that would produce better Internet readers for

this technology intensive era. This is the reason why the authors have chosen New Literacies as

their theoretical framework. By adding to that body of knowledge and expanding its base, this

study has the potential to provide teachers with methods of improving the 21st century literacy of

their students.

However, behind this study lurk critical, contentious questions regarding research of

reading comprehension. The definitions of a “good” reader are understated. It is purported that

“good” readers are active and “poor” readers are passive. Within the pages of this study are

descriptions of the strategies employed by good readers when engaged in reading, and it is stated

that poor readers do none of this. One may argue that “good reader” is pleonastic and that the

ways in which good readers are compared with poor readers is unfair. The foundations that

underlie a poor reader are not passivity, but rather a product of cognitive, social, and emotional

influences. Studying good readers for the benefit of poor readers fails to account for powerful

forces behind reading and comprehension.

Tie to Research and Theory

In a very clear and methodical manner, the authors articulated relevant research

appropriately and effectively. In a section of their report titled “Literature Review”, they have

Lawrence Bruce EPET Prosem 900-930

 5

identified the research and publications that have provided a progressive background that

seemingly naturally led to this study. Beginning with relevant printed text comprehension and

moving through studies on reading hypertext and the Internet, the authors sketch the relevant

research. Focus is placed on what good readers do while reading, and it is clear from antecedent

work that identifiable strategies emerge from observations of these very active readers. In fact,

active reading is a prominent theme that runs throughout this report, making it clear that active

reading is a distinct feature that separates effective readers from ineffective readers. However,

the authors do not report on the role of active reading on reading strategies. Rather, the report

seeks to identify the influence that purpose has on reading strategy.

Attention is directed to the relationship between printed text reading and Internet reading.

This attention is necessary due to the conceptual assumption that observations derived from

Internet text reading can be applied to instructional practices in the same way that observations

of printed text reading has led to instructional gains. The research develops the underlying

principle that while there are some strategies that span printed text reading and Internet text

reading, some texts are unique to the latter due to the unique nature of the medium. While the

relationship exists between the two types of reading, the authors conclude from the prior research

the reading purpose to be what influences reading strategy, even more than the reading type or

the reader.

The authors claim that previous studies have not investigated this relationship between

reading purpose and reading strategy. Therefore, this provides opportunity to generate

understanding of how readers read the Internet under very natural pretenses. The three purposes

of reading studied here - seeking specific information, acquiring general knowledge, and for

entertainment - have been identified as the natural reasons why people access the Internet. This
 6

methodical, logical, and progressive articulation of relevant research supports the authors’ claim

for the need for this study.

Research Questions

There are two research questions that emerge from this progression of reading

comprehension research. The authors very clearly state their research intent in two questions:

• How do good Internet readers read the Internet given different reading purposes?

• Do readers use different reading strategies for different reading purposes?

These two questions, taken together, should provide the definition to which the design of the

study adheres. They are the product of previous research as well as studies and publications by

the authors themselves. Suggestive of the source, the questions appear at the end of the section

titled “Literature Review” and follow the statement, “to our knowledge, no research has been

done on the influence of reading purpose on strategy use in Internet reading” (p. 134).

These research goals suggest that there is in fact a relationship between reading purpose

and strategies and that the purpose influences the strategy that active readers employ when

reading Internet texts. This is a sound hypothesis given the previous research done by Zhang and

Duke as well as others. Elaborate reference and background on reading printed text and reading

hypertext and the Internet outline how these questions are the next questions to which answers

must be sought. Additionally, the exploration of the relationship between purpose and strategy

has never been done, and is a next step in informing instruction on Internet reading

comprehension.

Study Design

This study was designed to explore the different strategies employed by selectively

chosen participants while engaged in specific Internet reading purposes. The authors prepared an

Lawrence Bruce EPET Prosem 900-930

 7

observational study to determine how these expert users accomplished three Internet reading

tasks. The design included measures to record their behaviors and actions online in order to use

the recording for stimulated recall. This recall created a dialogue that could be used for coding

the strategies into necessary categories. The stimulated recall was transcribed for further coding

and for comparative analysis. Additionally, the navigational record was maintained in order to

reinforce observations of participant behavior.

The design of the study was appropriate for the purposes of exploring how expert Internet

users addressed the three Internet reading purposes and to identify the strategies employed.

These methods allowed the participants to freely navigate the online environment and to execute

the tasks in a way that was natural and free of interference. The researcher had the opportunity to

engage in limited conversation after each task was complete and the stimulated recall began for

that purpose. Therefore, the compiled list of strategies created were a product of authentic

experiences from the eyes of the participant, which increases the credibility of this study’s

qualitative validity.

However, there were no additional methods expressly focused on the influence of

purpose on reading strategy. This seemed to be an essential part of the research base, but design

of the study generally focused on the identification of strategies and the organization of them into

the three purposes. This organization of strategies into the three purposes of online reading may

have satisfied the authors’ intent of identification, but falls short of providing analysis of how

purpose defined or influenced strategy.

Sampling Methods

The authors’ design was intended to include a very selective sample. In order to achieve

their hope of identifying what good Internet users do online, it was necessary to identify what a
 8

good Internet user looks like. The parameters set for the purposive selection required that they

have high verbal skills (>75th percentile on SAT or GRE), extensive Internet experience (self-

measured but must exceed 15 hrs online each week, not counting e-mail), advanced skills of

Internet navigation (self-perception of ability must be 3 out of possible 4), and a rich knowledge

of Internet function (measured by occupation). The authors do not provide the size of the pool

from which their sample was collected, but given the methods they clearly identified what

anyone would consider very intelligent, cognitive individuals. The final sampling provided the

researchers with thirteen participants that met the aforementioned standards. To further scrutinize

their final sample, readers were given an Internet search task to demonstrate success in

completing what was comparable to one of the three tasks in the study itself. Only one of the

thirteen was unable to complete the task, leaving the researchers with twelve good readers for

their study.

It was not articulated whether the population from which these participants were chosen

reflected a general population, or even whether it should reflect a larger population. All that was

stated was that the authors sought “good, experienced Internet readers” (p. 135). The resulting

sample criterion generated a mix of highly educated students, ten of whom were graduate

students. In order to guide practice or effect further research the authors have an obligation to

provide description of the reasoning behind the sample, their population, and how this sample

allows the researchers to achieve the goals of this study.

The design of the study was partly intended to explore and identify the strategies

employed by the participants in a naturally occurring set of tasks. The authors state that during

coding of these strategies, no new strategies were identified by the ninth participant’s data. The

maximum number needed was nine, but the authors continued coding even though it was

Lawrence Bruce EPET Prosem 900-930

 9

unnecessary. Even though twelve is a very low sample number, this sample provided the authors

with what was necessary to meet the needs of the questions and the hypothesis. Therefore, this

sample was adequate to meet the needs of this study’s research goals.

Before the research team began administering their study to/on the sample participants,

they employed a pilot study in order to identify any design errors or oversights. The pilot

allowed the authors to know the time each task should take and to make minor adjustments to the

procedures in order to make the environment more natural. Specifically, the pilot allowed the

researcher to establish a reasonable and appropriate time limit for each of the tasks, as well as to

create a more natural reading environment. The pilot is an excellent way to increase the

transferability of the study. These measures generate a sense that the study’s procedures and

materials were indeed appropriate and adequate.

Procedures and Materials

For the study itself, the authors had developed three tasks, one to represent each of the

purposes of Internet reading: seeking specific information, acquiring general knowledge, and to

be entertained. The first task asked participants to locate three sets of information, the second

asked participants to select a topic from a list and learn more about it, and the last asked the

participants to surf freely for fun or enjoyment. The order of the tasks was randomized between

participants and the second two - acquiring general information and being entertained - were

limited in time. Using information from the pilot, it was determined that eight minutes was

sufficient time to for the reader to gather information and for the researchers to collect all of the

strategies that occurred in that task. Data collection also included the log of each participant’s

navigational records.
 10

Once the tasks were complete, the participants were asked to do a situational recall to

create a dialogue of their thought processes while they were working. Recall is an appropriate

method for the acquisition and identification of strategies because it allows the researcher to not

only see what is being done - which can be subjective - but also record the participants thoughts,

processes, and behaviors. This “interview” was intentionally non-directive and the prompts used

were not intended to lead the participant. The researchers followed “the recommended practice in

verbal protocol research” (p. 138) in order to allow the participant to volunteer the processes and

strategies used. Such direction would compromise the basis of the data analyzed for this study.

This data collection procedure therefore maximizes the researchers’ ability to gain the data from

which to generate proper conclusions.

It was stated that navigational records were used to reinforce observational data, but there

is little additional information contributed to the data analysis. In the section titled “Data

Collection Procedures” the authors provide a descriptive analysis on the first task duration.

Given that the task was to find three sets of information on the Internet, we are told that the

duration range was 5-12 minutes with a mean of 8 minutes, and visited 7-12 websites with a

mean of 9. This is confusing and unnecessary for even a descriptive qualitative analysis. If this

was not the only reason why navigational records were taken, then more information needs to be

included.

Measures

The authors make their methods clear, transparent, and their assumptions known. From

the very beginning of this report, the conceptual framework is structured in a way that is easy to

follow with clear titles for each section and a logical progression from one element to the next.

The authors provided ample description to supplement their research methods. For a qualitative

Lawrence Bruce EPET Prosem 900-930

 11

report, this allows for transferability. Their choice of direct observation to meet their research

goals is fitting and is capable of producing the desired results, as designed.

In order to achieve what the authors hypothesized, a very natural observational context

was necessary. The participants were asked to do what they normally would do when pursuing

specific information, acquiring general knowledge, and being entertained. The recall interview

following the tasks provided the best possible method of capturing the thoughts of the participant

minutes after each was engaged in the process.

Data Analysis

The core of the qualitative data used in this study was the stimulated recall. These

interviews were recorded and transcribed. The authors did an open coding for strategies used by

the participants. This coding process consisted of four clearly defined steps that began with an

examination and re-examination of the first five participants’ recalls identifying categories. The

researchers also completed a comparative analysis to examine the similarities and differences of

the three reading purposes. The coding and analysis process ended with two outside sources

reviewing and confirming the validity of the process used. To support and quantify these coded

strategies, the authors also counted the frequency in which they occurred, once per student, per

purpose/task. Arguably, this data did little else but allow the authors to sort the strategies.

However, it helped support the creation of the conceptual model (integrative diagram) and

reinforced the research goals.

In order to conceptualize the data collected, the authors developed an integrative diagram

that provides a limited summary of the research goals. This Venn diagram consisted of three

spheres, one for each of the online reading purposes, and listed the strategies employed within

each labeled sphere. There was significant overlap between the purposes of seeking specific
 12

information and acquiring general knowledge, but there was little overlap between the purpose of

entertainment and the other two. Use of an integrative diagram that summarizes the distinct, yet

overlapping reading purposes provides a visual element to the research. A visual framework is a

key component to grounded theory.

The analytical measures taken within the context of this descriptive study provide a solid

foundation for the results. The authors have designed procedures for observation applicable for

research goals. They have strengthened their procedures through a pilot test of the tasks to be

completed. The design of the tasks allow for a natural environment for the participants. The data

collected provides nearly all that is necessary for the adequate measure of the research goals.

Finally, the description of these measures is rich enough to allow for transferability.

Limitations

The authors self addressed three main limitations. The first is that the readers’ reports in

the recall may not exactly or accurately reflect the level of thinking that actually occurred. Zhang

and Duke contend that this is mitigated by the recording and tracking of their actual habits, and is

valid regardless. Gender bias is an additional concern in the results of this study. The authors

report that only one of the twelve participants was a female. This study may create a bias in

research regarding Internet reading comprehension. Furthermore, the authors state that gender

differences are noticeable in reading printed text research, but do not offer clarity on this. Given

the purported relationship between reading printed text versus Internet text, it would have been

appropriate to articulate what those differences are and relate them to the findings from this

study. This could have provided insight into the male-dominated results as reported. In a closing

statement in the discussion of limitations, the authors express concern for the implications that

these findings have on the goal of informing classroom practice. The statement is a product of

Lawrence Bruce EPET Prosem 900-930

 13

sample-to-population extrapolation. The experienced Internet users may well have employed

strategies that allowed them to successfully achieve what they wanted to online, but it is not

inherently appropriate to assume these strategies will provide all users the same success.

The conceptual framework supporting this study rested upon the relationship between

well-researched printed text reading comprehension and the less-researched Internet text reading

comprehension. Theory guiding the study identifies literacy in today’s technology-infused

society as being far greater than the ability to read and write for effective communication; the

New Literacies framework provides the open door for the research such as this. The authors’

assumption that the two formats of reading correlate enough to state that the strategies identified

will inform practice and instruction is more than this study allows for. To assert that research of

reading Internet text can inform instructional methods the same way that research of reading

printed text has is a leap that must be proven. This proof neither exists in this report, nor in

previous research, although it is stated in the discussion on implications that “initial work

suggests that the same pattern is true for reading online” (p. 157). Furthermore, this study does

nothing to strengthen this relationship. In fact, this study helps support a disparity between

printed text reading and Internet text reading.

The authors begin their report with comparisons of the two types of reading. There are

similarities in the way readers have approached reading on the Internet and printed text and cited

research supports this. They have based this relationship on similar reading strategies that have

been observed between the two types of reading and the importance of prior knowledge on

comprehension of both. However, this study attempts to bridge these types of reading when the

differences between printed text and the Internet continues to grow.

 14

Within this comparison is a contrasting statement: “Despite the similarities between

Internet reading and printed text reading, Internet reading has unique features” (p. 131). These

unique characteristics are defined in the findings as most of the strategies demonstrated by the

participants in the study were unique to Internet reading, such as the use of search engines,

evaluating the relevance of URLs, avoiding advertisements, etc. Additionally, the Internet that

was used in the studies to compare the two types of reading is a far different Internet than what

one finds today. Therefore, the authors are basing this study’s implications of the relationship of

two things that are becoming increasingly different.

Authors’ Conclusions

The findings of the study are clear, defined, and consistent with the authors’ conclusion

and reported results. From the stimulated recall, the authors were able to identify more than 50

strategies that are critical to the effective online experience. The authors report that strategies that

relate to navigation and searching habits, such as using a specific search engine, copying key text

to paste it into search bar later, using quotations to specify search terms and limit results,

selecting links to pursue, etc., are unique to online reading purposes. There were other strategies

that the authors claimed were new to online reading: ignoring advertisements, evaluating text

difficulty, identifying the relevance or authenticity of Web sites, evaluating the Web domain, etc.

Overall, the design of the study produced a significant amount of reading strategies employed in

online reading.

According to the conclusions, more significant was the clear distinction that existed

among the strategies along the lines of reading purpose. Although some of the reading strategies

(evaluating, monitoring, summarizing, making inferences, skimming, scanning) were the same as

what would be used in printed text reading, many were unique to the online experience, as listed

Lawrence Bruce EPET Prosem 900-930

 15

earlier. The authors found that readers do in fact employ different strategies for different

purposes. These “strategies for each purpose differed at the very beginning of reading and

throughout the reading process” (p. 155). Indeed, purpose very much dictates how Internet users

process the information online. It has been made clear that, as expected, the purpose with which

users employ the Internet influences the strategies used to do so effectively.

Results and Theory

Zhang and Duke clearly report the implications of their findings regarding the theoretical

base. The authors based their research on the assumption that teaching effective strategies to

developing Internet readers in order to improve literacy should be done because this practice is

effective in improving general reading comprehension. They reflect that the disparity between

the two media are critical and this assumption remains to be proven, as described above.

However, the New Literacies framework can be improved by what this research provides. The

authors correctly identify the importance of reading purpose on how the reader acts, behaves, and

thinks while online. If any instruction is to occur on Internet reading, this instruction “should be

differentiated by purpose” (p. 157). The research clearly provided strategies that are overlapping,

but generally unique to the purpose. If Internet comprehension is to be improved, regardless of

the theoretical base, it would be necessary to identify the purposes first, as suggested by the

authors.

Additionally, in regards to New Literacies, the authors reported the significance of

background knowledge in reading Internet text. This was mentioned in the literature review but

came across as unanticipated; at least the study was not designed to expose it. All readers

demonstrated very specific knowledge that was necessary to accomplish all three Internet tasks

in the study. This is a critical element of media literacy - which is different from the “New
 16

Literacies” framework - but still speaks to the nature of Internet reading requiring more than an

ability to read and write. Users must be able to evaluate, synthesize, and make decisions about

what they read in order to continue to successfully navigate all that is online.

Significance and Implications

In the exploration of the influence of purpose on reading online, Zhang and Duke set the

stage for future research in literacy in the 21st century. The authors found that readers do in fact

employ different strategies for different purposes. These “strategies for each purpose differed at

the very beginning of reading and throughout the reading process” (p. 155). Indeed, purpose very

much dictates how Internet users process the information online. It has been made clear that, as

expected, the purpose with which users employ the Internet influences the strategies we employ

to effectively use the Internet.

Given the need for the improvement on media literacy skills, this study may provide

assistance on the guidance of practice. In the era of a technology-infused culture, students in

classrooms need to know more than how to read and write. This study allows future research on

Internet reading to proceed with guidance on the importance of reading purpose as well as

technology skills that need to be understood in order to be a successful Internet reader, such as

understanding how different search engines work, domains, etc.

However, there was the lingering question regarding the need for this study given the

assumptions being made by the authors: Can it be assumed that all good readers would naturally

employ the strategies identified in this study? The significance of this study remains in the

balance until research can identify how these subjects came to acquire these skills and strategies.

If they are the product of being good readers, then our instructional methods should focus on

generating good readers. If we cannot assume that good readers naturally acquire effective

Lawrence Bruce EPET Prosem 900-930

 17

strategies, then further research is still needed to bridge the gap of reading comprehension

between the two media.

References:

Zhang, S., & Duke, N. (2008). Strategies for Internet Reading with Different Reading Purposes:

A Descriptive Study of Twelve Good Internet Readers. Journal of Literacy Research,

40(1), 128-162. doi: 10.1080/10862960802070491.