Adam Sofronijevic
ABSTRACT
The reading process as a paradigm for the intimate experience and individual cogitation of the content is changing, mostly because of technological and social innovations known as the Web 2.0. Emerging new quality in reading is described via Reading 2.0 concept. This concept is in turn contrasted with the concept of a Solitary reader that focuses on some aspects of the reading process as perceived in the past. In this context research proposal of some psychological aspects of Reading 2.0 is presented. Building on available research in text structure importance for cognitive processes during comprehension of scientific texts, the role of interactivity and collaboration in changing readers' misconceptions are proposed as important research areas. Various aspects of collaboration and interactivity are compared in regards to two different text structures in order to develop plausible scenarios for testing changes in readers' erroneous prior knowledge. Further research in this area is proposed and benefits that might arise from better understanding of discussed phenomena are described. Some conclusions on research directions and possibilities are presented. Possibilities for a librarian's role in the interpretive communities embracing interactivity and collaboration in reading are discussed in order to enhance research proposal and provide an input for the future of this profession.
- Akscyn, R. M., McCracken, D. L., and Yoder, E. A. 1988. KMS: A distributed hypermedia system for managing knowledge in organizations. Communications of the ACM, 31(7): 820--835. DOI=10.1145/48511.48513 Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Barnet, B. 2005. The Magical Place of Literary Memory: Xanadu, Retrieved August 13, 2011, from www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fr_18/BBfr18a.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G. J., and Voss, J. F. 1979. Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behaviour, 18: 257--273.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Diakidoy, I. N., and Kendeou, P. 2001. Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning & Instruction. 11: 1--20.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dillon, A. 1992. Reading from Paper versus screens: a Critical Review of the Empirical Literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297--1326.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dillon, A. 2005. So What is This Thing Called Information? In van Oostendorp, H., Breure, L., & Dillon, A. (Eds.) Creation, Deployment and Use of Digital Information, (pp. 307--316) Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
- Dochy, F., Segers, M., and Buehl, M. M.. 1999. The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research. 69: 145--186.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gadamer, H. G. 1989. Truth and Method. Crossroad, New York.Google Scholar
- Graesser, A. C., Leon, J. A., and Otero, J. 2002. Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, and A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension, (pp. 1--15) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Kendeou, P., Rapp, D. N., and van den Broek, P. 2004. The influence of readers' prior knowledge on text comprehension and learning from text. Progress in education. 13: 189--209.Google Scholar
- Kendeou, P., and van den Broek, P.. 2005. The effects of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology. 97: 235--245.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kendeou, P. and van den Broek, P. 2007. The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition. 35: 1567--1577.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria, K., and MacGinitie, W. 1987. Learning from texts that refute the reader's prior knowledge. Reading Research & Instruction. 26: 222--238.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McNamara, D. S. 2001. Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology. 55: 51--62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peeck, J., van den Bosch, A. B., and Kreupeling, W. J. 1982. Effect of mobilizing prior knowledge on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology. 74: 771--777.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Simon, N. 2010. Participatory museum, Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, Kindle edition.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Changes in reading research proposition: some psychological aspects of reading 2.0
Recommendations
Skim reading: an adaptive strategy for reading on the web
WebSci '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM conference on Web scienceIt has been suggested that readers spend a great deal of time skim reading on the Web and that if readers skim read they reduce their comprehension of what they have read. There have been a number of studies exploring skim reading, but relatively little ...
Reading Experiences and Reading Efficiency Among Adults with Dyslexia: An Accessibility Study
Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Access to Media, Learning and Assistive EnvironmentsAbstractDyslexia is a common reading disorder that typically affects reading, concentration and short-term memory. Consequently, for people with dyslexia, reading fictional books might be challenging. Several studies have addressed layout and typography ...
Evaluating reading fluency behavior via reading rates of elementary school students reading e-books
AbstractAs technology advances, paper-based text is transitioning to e-books, and this affects every aspect of educational practices. Fostering student literacy is critical to success. Reading ability is an important skill that allows young ...
Highlights- The ebook system record students' reading process for diagnosing reading fluency.
Comments