Ashley Bonte

May 27, 2014

EDET 780

Critique 2
Goldman, S., Braasch, J., Wiley, J., Graesser, A., & Brodowinska, K.
(2012). Comprehending and Learning From Internet Sources: Processing
Patterns of Better and Poorer Learners. Reading Research Quarterly,
47(4), 356-381.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=82336109

Introduction

Comprehending and Learning from Internet Sources: Processing Patterns
of Better and Poorer Learners is a research study done to compare the
findings found in 2009 by Wiley et al. called Experiment 1. The idea was
to analyze the way readers understand information from sources on the
Internet. The basic focus was on linking the learning outcomes to the
source evaluations and reading behaviors. In order to give this previous
study credibility, Goldman et. al (2012) replicated it with the current study
being carried out.

The study was conducted in a very similar way to the 2009 study. First, 34
University students who were the same aged were pulled together to
participate in a think-aloud methodology condition the Wiley et. al. (2009)
study. They all knew little about the topic (volcanoes) being studied. The
purpose was to explore the reading behaviors and process that led to the
greatest learning by analyzing pretest and posttest scores on volcano
concepts. These scores were then used to contrast the better with the
poorer learners.

Subjects participated in a two-hour session split into three phases. First is
the researching/think-aloud phase, which lasted 50 minutes. In this phase,
a read-aloud modeled using a similar to text the volcano ones. This allows
the participants to hear the type of conversation that they should also be
sharing aloud during the session, without biasing the types of read-aloud
comments. The idea is to get participants to verbalize anything that they
were thinking about the information. This includes diagrams and even
things they may be unsure about. A generic prompt such as, can you tell
me what you are thinking about was used if participants were silent for
five or more seconds of if they read three sentences without a think-aloud
comment. They were always given positive feedback or producing
comments. This session was videotaped and later transcribed.

What type of information would participants be reading aloud? Well,
students were presented with seven websites in the form of a Google page
mock-up. However, these websites have been strategically selected to
include 3 reliable sources, which are accurate and partially overlapping
information. The next 3 sources are considered unreliable because they
contain incomplete and erroneous information. The final site is a
commercial education site that fits into the casual model that the three
reliable sites, but does not have a reliable extension (.go, .edu) so it does
not fall into either category. The site formats are all-similar and provide
evidence for their stated position, but the information on the unreliable
sites do not fit into the model suggested by the reliable sites. The
information is presented on a grade 11 and 12 reading level.

The second phase began either after the 50 minute allotted time, or when
participants indicated that they were done researching. The researching
browser window was closed and the writing phase began. Participants
were given 40 minutes to write either an argument or a description of what
caused the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

The third and final phase came after the essay was saved and closed.
Participants then completed a series of task including the pretest
(questions in a different order), a reliability-ranking task, and a final survey
collecting basic educational and demographic information.

The findings of the study come from the difference in the pretest and
posttest scores. This is what categorizes the better versus the poorer
learners. The assessment was a true-false, force-choice recognition task
that contained 20 items. Ten of these were true and ten were false. There
were also additional questions based on misconceptions from the articles
and other statements not found on the sites at all. The pretest was
administered a month before the posttest. The essay also provided useful
information as well as the read-aloud transcript and annotations.

So what were the actual findings? The initial study, Experiment 1, done by
Wiley et al. (2009) had findings that were replicated in this study. The main
conclusion of Wiley et. al.s study was that the processing and behaviors
that readers actually engaged in, regardless of the essay prompt was a
much more helpful in their learning process. However, this study took the
results a step deeper by exploring the process revealed by the think-aloud
analysis. A few findings came from this analysis. First, all learners engage
in more processing on reliable sites. Better learners spend more time on
the reliable sites than poorer learners. Second, the better and poorer
learners did not difference in which process they used when analyzing text,
but rather in when they chose to use them. Better learners used self-
explanation, and monitoring on reliable sites. They also took note of
information quality and credibility.

The author states one limitation to the study. During the essay-writing
phase, half the participants were given a prompt asking them to write a
descriptive essay while the others had to write a persuasive one. The
author states, Due to the small sample size of this study and to avoid
further reduction of power, the analyses of the think-aloud protocols are
reported without this factor (2012).

The implications are implied rather than explicitly stated. In order to
produce readers of all ages who can use the Internet to synthesize and
integrate information across sources, they need to be able to critically
evaluate information for their relevance, reliability, and consistency. The
way to do this is to look at the questions and conversations that readers
have between themselves and the text, and enhance those questions and
conversations with ones that can make them successful evaluators as
seen in this study.

The next steps that I would take as a researcher in this study is to study
how the better learners arrived at questioning and analyzing texts the way
they do. They are better learners and can synthesize text on the Internet
very well, but how do they do this? What strategies can we implement
starting in the elementary schools to help students reach this goal and be
college and career ready? As one who has studied a lot with the new
Common Core Standards for K-12 students.

Critique

This study was done to show support for a previous study. In order to help
me understand the research better, I needed to read about the previous
research report which I was unable to find. Therefore, the research
question is clearly stated, but not enough background information was
provided for me to truly see the whole picture.

While this study was useful for me as a teacher and understanding the
internet and limitations for those who cannot synthesize multiple sources of
information all the while evaluating its reliability, it was definitely extensive.
Im not sure there is a particular audience targeted. This research study
could have been written three different ways with an elementary teacher in
mind, a college professor in mind, or even a college student in mind. The
information would have been better presented if the audience was
pinpointed like this, because the information would have been more
specific and relevant.

The wording in this article was very difficult for me to comprehend. I found
myself looking up words such as catalyst, juxtaposed, and deictic. While I
understand these words in context and even standing alone, the formatting
of the sentences along with these words confused me. I found myself
rereading multiple paragraphs and taking a lot of notes, talking my way
through. I was disappointed that there was not a better conclusion at the
end nor an implications section. These two sections are my go-to sections
that get me through the articles.

This article was excellent in helping me realize that as I look up multiple
articles on Web 2.0 Tools, I need to be evaluating the articles and
synthesizing information while looking at the validity. I also need to make
connections and the best way to do this, is by tracking my thinking just like
the study did with participants. I am exciting to use this concept as I
continue my literature review and my synthesis of my own study.

At the end of the report, I did not feel as though I learned a lot of new
information. Instead, the knowledge that I have on integrating and
evaluating Internet sources was confirmed. The author did a great job
opening the report, and introduced the theory as an implicit one. I am not
sure the author made it clear this clear in the beginning or the conclusion
of the paper, however.

Conclusion

Overall, I connected this article to my current studying of the Common Core
Standards that are in place for next year. While these standards are only in place
for one year, and South Carolina will be replacing them starting 2015-2016 with
similar state standards, I felt like this helped me see the relevance behind
teaching students to evaluate sources and compose arguments and information
from more than one source of information. I wish this study would have be
directed more to my specific purpose which is teaching elementary age students,
but it did give me a wide view of where my students are headed in this digital
age. I feel as though the strategies needed to produce better learners still needs
to be evaluated and analyzed. While I know where I want my students to end up,
I am still not sure how to get them there. How do I teach them to question text?
How do I make them interact with the text and evaluate sources on their own?
Im not sure I am good at this as an adult, so learning the strategies to get there,
would be beneficial to me as a teacher and a professional.