Abstract
Competent use of the Internet to locate information is an important skill for today’s youth. Yet, many lack the knowledge and dispositions to engage in the processes necessary to effectively and efficiently find information on the Internet. As a result, various countries have incorporated references to the processes of online inquiry within their educational standards. Despite similarities in these standards, however, international comparisons are rare and have not produced insights into broader themes and patterns regarding how cognitive, metacognitive, and affective variables interact to influence outcomes on related measures of success, e.g., international assessments. The purpose of this research was two-fold: to examine the measurement invariance of a German-language version of the Survey of Online Reading Attitudes and Behaviors across a sample of participants from Germany and to compare the results with students from United States who completed the English-version of SORAB. The results justified comparisons across the samples with respect to the latent factor variables and comparisons yielded differences associated with cognitive and behavioral engagement, value/interest, and anxiety. No differences were noted with regard to self-regulation and efficacy for online reading. Implications are framed within broader contextual variables that may have been influential in producing the differences between the samples.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Anmarkrud, O., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents library: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64–76.
Author. (2014).
Author. (2015).
Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8.
Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers & Education, 53, 1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004.
Brand-Gruwel, S., Kammerer, Y., van Meeuwen, L., & van Gog, T. (2017). Source evaluation of domain experts and novices during Web search. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33, 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12162.
Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 773–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9421-7.
Brosnan, M., Joiner, R., Gavin, J., Crook, C., Maras, P., Guiller, J., & Scott, A. J. (2012). The impact of pathological levels of internet-related anxiety on internet usage. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.4.b.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
Cho, B.-Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers’ use of Internet reading strategies: A think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 32 ,253-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.918133
Cho, B.-Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S. E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (2nd ed., pp. 109–134). New York: Guilford Press.
Cho, B.-Y., Woodward, L., & Li, D. (2017). Examining adolescents’ strategic processing during online reading with a question-generating task. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 691–724. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217701694.
Christoph, G., Goldhammer, F., Zylka, J., & Hartig, J. (2015). Adolescents’ computer performance: The role of self-concept and motivational aspects. Computers & Education, 81, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.004.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Coiro, J., Sparks, J. R., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2018). Assessing online collaborative inquiry and social deliberation skills as learners navigate multiple sources and perspectives. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Braten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 34–54). New York: Routledge.
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency, and cognitive performance: New developments from attentional control theory. European Psychologist, 14(2), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.2.168.
Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121–149.
Eickelmann, B., Schaumburg, H., Drossel, K., & Lorenz, R. (2014). Schulische Nutzung von neuen Technologien in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. In W. Bos, B. Eickelmann, J. Gerick, F. Goldhammer, H. Schaumburg, K. Schwippert, M. Senkbeil, R. Schulz-Zander, & H. Wendt (Eds.), ICILS 2013. Computer- und informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern der 8. Jahrgangsstufe im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 197–230). Münster: Waxmann.
European Commission (2014). The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS). Main findings and implications for education policies in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indices to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_1.
Feierabend, S., Plankenhorn, T., & Rathgeb, T. (2016). JIM-Studie 2016: Jugend, Information, (Multi-)Media. [JIM-Study 2016: Youth, Information, (Multi-Media)]. Stuttgart, Germany: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2014). Description of seven different transversal competence areas. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/download/190839_aiming_for_transversal_competences.pdf
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study International Report. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14222-7.
French Ministry of Education. (2015). Socle commun de connaissances, de competences et de culture. Retrieved from http://cache.media.education.gouv.fr/file/17/45/6/Socle_commun_de_connaissances,_de_competences_et_de_culture_415456.pdf.
Frerejean, J., Velthorst, G. J., van Strien, J. L. H., Kirschner, P. A., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2019). Embedded instruction to learn information problem solving: Effects of a whole task approach. Computers in Behavior, 90, 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.043.
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. M. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027.
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Adolescents’ use of self-regulatory processes and their relation to qualitative mental model shifts while using hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 125–148.
Greene, J. A., Copeland, D. Z., Deekens, V. M., & Yu, S. B. (2018). Beyond knowledge: Examining digital literacy’s role in acquisition of understanding in science. Computers & Education, 117, 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.003.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement in reading. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601–634). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hahnel, C., Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., & Kröhne, U. (2015). Effects of linear reading, basic computer skills, evaluating online information, and navigation on reading digital text. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.042.
Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: The universal and the culturally specific. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 369–394. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163655.
Hinostroza, J. E., Ibieta, A., Labbe, C., & Soto, M. T. (2018). Browsing the internet to solve information problems: A study of students’ search actions and behaviors using a ‘think-aloud’ protocol. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 1933–1953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9698-2.
Hofman, J. L., Wu, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners' science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 323–346.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 312–333.
Kanniainen, L., Kiili, C., Tolvanen, A., Aro, M., & Leppänen, P. H. T. (2019). Literacy skills and online research and comprehension: Struggling readers face difficulties online. Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09944-9.
Kiili, C., Leu, D. J., Utriainen, J., Coiro, J., Kanniainen, L., Tolvanen, A., et al. (2018). Reading to learn from online information: Modeling the factor structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 304–334.
Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media, & technology overview 2015. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/04/PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdf
Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., O’Byrne, W. I., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett-Cacopardo, H., et al. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55, 5–14.
List, A., Alexander, P., & A. (2018). Cold and warm perspectives on the cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Braten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 34–54). New York: Routledge.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490.
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technology 2013. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2013/PIP_TeensandTechnology2013.pdf.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.
Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest [Media Educational Research Network Southwest]. (2014). KIMStudie 2014. Kinder + Medien, Computer + Internet. Basisuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 6–13-Jähriger in Deutschland. Retrieved from http://www.mpfs.de/studien/kim-studie/2014/
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from person’s responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.
Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg. (2016a). Wahlfach Informatik an der Hauptschule, Werkrealschule und Realschule. Villingen-Schwenningen: Neckar-Verlag GmbH.
Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg. (2016b). Gymnasium - Basiskurs Medienbildung. Villingen-Schwenningen: Neckar-Verlag GmbH.
Moos, D. C. (2014). Setting the state for the metacognition during hypermedia learning: What motivation constructs matter? Computers & Education, 70, 128–137.
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Self-efficacy and prior domain knowledge: To what extent does monitoring mediate their relationship with hypermedia? Metacognition and Learning, 4, 197–216.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). ePIRLS 2016 international results on online informational reading. Chestnut Hill: TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Center.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://corestandards.org/assets/CCSI_ELA%20 Standards.pdf.
Naumann, J. (2015). A model of online reading engagement: Linking engagement, navigation, and performance in digital reading. Computers in Behavior, 53, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.051.
Naumann, J., & Salmerón, L. (2016). Does navigation always predict performance? Effects of navigation on digital reading are moderated by comprehension skills. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(1). Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2113/3586
Naumann, J., & Sälzer, C. (2017). Digital reading proficiency in German 15-year olds: Evidence from Pisa 2012. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20, 585–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-017-0758-y.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Byrne, W. I., & McVerry, J. G. (2009). Measuring the dispositions of online reading comprehension: A preliminary validation study. In J. Worthy, B. Maloch, J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, & C. M. Fairbanks (Eds.), 57thYearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 362–375). Oak Creek: National Reading Conference, Inc..
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). PISA 2009 Results: Students on Line: Digital Technologies and Performance (Volume VI). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264112995-en
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Students, computers, and learning: Making the Connection. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en
Paul, N., & Glassman, M. (2017). Relationship between internet self-efficacy and internet anxiety: A nuanced approach to understanding the connection. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 147–165.
Paul, J., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J., & Stadtler, M. (2017). Why attend to source information when reading online? The perspective of ninth grade students from two different countries. Computers & Education, 113, 339–354.
Peña, E. D. (2007). Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development, 78, 1255–1264.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). New York: Academic Press.
Putman, S. M. (2014). Exploring dispositions towards online reading: Analyzing the Survey of Online Reading Attitudes and Behaviors. Reading Psychology, 35, 1-31.
Putman, S. M., Wang, C., & Ki, S. (2015). Assessing the validity of the cross-cultural Survey of Online Reading Attitudes and Behaviors with American and South Korean fifth- and sixth-grade students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 403-418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914564038
Salmerón, L., Garcia, A., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2018). The development of adolescents’ comprehension-based Internet reading activities. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.006.
Senkbeil, M., & Ihme, J. M. (2017). Motivational factors predicting ICT literacy: First evidence on the structure of an ICT motivation inventory. Computers & Education, 108, 145–158.
Sonderen, E., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013). Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: Let’s learn from cows in the rain. Plos One, 8(7). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068967
Tsai, C. C., & Lin, C. C. (2004). Taiwanese adolescents’ perceptions and attitudes regarding the Internet: Exploring gender differences. Adolescence, 39, 725–734.
Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Zylka, J., Christoph, G., Kroehne, U., Hartig, J., & Goldhammer, F. (2015). Moving beyond cognitive elements of ICT literacy: First evidence on the structure of ICT engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.008.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1 Survey of Online Reading Attitudes and Beliefs [name redacted for blind review]
Appendix 1 Survey of Online Reading Attitudes and Beliefs [name redacted for blind review]
Efficacy for Online Reading | |
1. I feel confident that I can use a browser (like Safari, Explorer, or Firefox) to navigate the Internet. | |
2. I feel confident that I can open a web address directly by typing in the address. | |
3. I feel confident I can use the “back” and “forward” buttons to move between web pages. | |
4. I feel confident that I can use a search engine (like Google) to locate material during research. | |
5. I feel confident understanding terms/words related to the Internet. | |
6. I feel confident trouble shooting Internet problems. | |
Cognitive & Behavioral Engagement | |
1. I am confident that I can think of a question to ask about content before reading/searching on the Internet. | |
2. I am confident I can skim the results of an Internet search page to see what link might be best. | |
3. I am confident that I can read the search summaries of websites carefully to understand the meaning of information on the website. | |
4. I am confident that I can skim a website to decide whether or not the information is useful for my question. | |
5. I can stay focused on the information I need from a website rather than getting distracted by things I do not need. | |
6. I am confident that can make a prediction about where a website link might lead if I click on it. | |
7. I am confident I can use knowledge of how a webpage is set up to help locate information on it. | |
8. I am confident I can use the search engine located within a website to find information on the site. | |
9. I am confident that I can combine information from more than one website in a way that makes sense to other people. | |
10. I am confident that I can determine if information on a website is a reliable and trustworthy. | |
11. I am more careful in my research using the Internet when I know that I am going to be graded. | |
Value/Interest | |
1. I feel confident that I can find information on the Internet much faster than I can when I use a book to search. | |
2. When I search for information on the Internet, I remember it better. | |
3. I prefer to use the Internet for research because it helps my grades. | |
4. Once I start researching information on the Internet, I cannot stop because I want to find the answers. | |
5. I would rather complete research on the Internet than using a book or magazine. | |
6. I would rather read on the Internet than read a book during free time. | |
7. Reading a book or magazine is more relaxing than reading on the Internet.* | |
8. I think kids who do not use the Internet miss out on a lot of important information. | |
9. I think kids who are really good at using the Internet get better grades in school. | |
10. Everyone should know how to use the Internet. | |
11. Being able to use the Internet is important to me. | |
12. I believe using the Internet for research and reading has made learning more interesting. | |
13. Using the Internet for research is beneficial because it saves people time. | |
14. I believe the Internet makes it easier to get useful information. | |
Self-Regulation | |
1. When I have trouble understanding something on the Internet, I re-read the task. | |
2. When I have trouble understanding something on the Internet, I go ask a friend or classmate for help. | |
3. While I am conducting research on the Internet, I stop and think about how well I am doing and change strategies if necessary. | |
4. When I become confused about something I am reading on the Internet, I scroll back to previous screens. | |
5. Before I begin to research on the Internet, I look to see if I can break the task into smaller pieces to make it easier. | |
6. If I am researching something on the Internet, I can motivate myself even if the topic is boring. | |
7. When I have completed an Internet project, I think about how well it went and what I could change. | |
8. I always think about the information I am reading on the Internet to help me understand if it matches the required information I am looking for. | |
9. When I encounter difficulties on the Internet, I work through them by telling myself that I can complete the task. | |
10. Before I start a task on the Internet, I organize myself and think about how I will accomplish the task. | |
11. Before using information from a website to answer my question, I check to see if the author is reputable. | |
12. Before beginning an Internet search about a topic, I think about what I know about that topic. | |
13. When I navigate to a website on the Internet, I tend to read the whole page before clicking on any hypertext (links). | |
14. Before beginning an Internet search about a topic, I think about whether I know how to find information on it. | |
Anxiety | |
1. Researching information on the Internet intimidates me. | |
2. Researching information on the Internet makes me feel tense. | |
3. I feel helpless when asked to research information on the Internet. | |
4. I cannot relax when I am reading/researching on the Internet. | |
5. I believe it is easy to get lost when I am using the Internet for research. | |
6. Sometimes I worry that other kids do not think I can read on the Internet as well as they can. | |
7. I go out of my way to avoid using the Internet. | |
8. I feel anxious about using the Internet. | |
Additional Questions | |
1. How comfortable to you feel using the Internet? (Very comfortable, Comfortable, Uncomfortable, Very Uncomfortable) | |
2. How long have you been accessing Internet? (Less than 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 1 to 2 years, 3 to 5 years, more than 5 years) | |
3. How frequently do you use the Internet at school? (Every day, 2–3 times per week, Once a week, Once a month, Less than once a month) | |
4. How frequently do you use the Internet outside of school? Every day, 2–3 times per week, Once a week, Once a month, Less than once a month) | |
5. On average, how many hours a week do spend on the Internet? (0–1 h, 2–4 h, 5–7 h, 8 to 10 h, More than 10 h per week) |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Putman, S.M., Wang, C., Rickelman, B. et al. Comparing German and American students’ cognitive strategies and affective attributes toward online inquiry. Educ Inf Technol 25, 3357–3382 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10066-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10066-6