literacy skills research

• Open access
• Published: 15 March 2022

A review of academic literacy research development: from 2002 to 2019

• Dongying Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6835-5129 1  

Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education volume  7 , Article number:  5 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

20 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Academic literacy as an embodiment of higher-order language and thinking skills within the academic community bears huge significance for language socialization, resource distribution and even power disposition within the larger sociocultural context. However, although the notion of academic literacy has been initiated for more than twenty years, there still lacks a clear definition and operationalization of the construct. The study conducted a systematic review of academic literacy research based on 94 systematically selected research papers on academic literacy from 2002 to 2019 from multiple databases. These papers were then coded respectively in terms of their research methods, types (interventionistic or descriptive), settings and research focus. Findings demonstrate (1) the multidimensionality of academic literacy construct; (2) a growing number of mixed methods interventionistic studies in recent years; and (3) a gradual expansion of academic literacy research in ESL and EFL settings. These findings can inform the design and implementation of future academic literacy research and practices.

Introduction

Academic literacy as an embodiment of higher order thinking and learning not only serves as a prerequisite for knowledge production and communication within the disciplines but also bears huge significance for individual language and cognitive development (Flowerdew, 2013 ; Moje, 2015 ). Recent researches on academic literacy gradually moved from regarding literacy as discrete, transferrable skills to literacy as a social practice, closely associated with disciplinary epistemology and identity (Gee, 2015 ). The view of literacy learning as both a textual and contextual practice is largely driven by the changing educational goal under the development of twenty-first century knowledge economy, which requires learners to be active co-constructors of knowledge rather than passive recipients (Gebhard, 2004 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is considered as a powerful tool for knowledge generation, communication and transformation.

However, up-till-now, there still seems to lack a clear definition and operationalization of the academic literacy construct that can guide effective pedagogy (Wingate, 2018 ). This can possibly lead to a peril of regarding academic literacy as an umbrella term, with few specifications on the potential of the construct to afford actual teaching and learning practices. In this sense, a systematic review in terms of how the construct was defined, operationalized and approached in actual research settings can embody huge potential in bridging the gap between theory and practice.

Based on these concerns, the study conducts a critical review of academic literacy research over the past twenty years in terms of the construct of the academic literacy, their methods, approaches, settings and keywords. A mixed methods approach is adopted to combine qualitative coding with quantitative analysis to investigate diachronic changes. Results of the study can enrich the understandings of the construct of academic literacy and its relations to actual pedagogical practices while shedding light on future directions of research.

Literature review

Academic literacy as a set of literacy skills specialized for content learning is closely associated with individual higher order thinking and advanced language skill development (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008 ). Recent researches suggest that the development of the advanced literacy skills can only be achieved via students’ active engagement in authentic and purposeful disciplinary learning activities, imbued with meaning, value and emotions (Moje et al., 2008 ). Therefore, contrary to the ‘autonomous model’ of literacy development which views literacy as a set of discrete, transferrable reading and writing skills, academic literacy development is viewed as participation, socialization and transformation achieved via individual’s expanding involvement in authentic and meaningful disciplinary learning inquiries (Duff, 2010 ; Russell, 2009 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is viewed as a powerful mediation for individual socialization into the academic community, which is in turn closely related to issues of power disposition, resource distribution and social justice (Broom, 2004 ). In this sense, academic literacy development is by no means only a cognitive issue but situated social and cultural practices widely shaped by power, structure and ideology (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ; Wenger, 1998 ).

The view of literacy learning as a social practice is typically reflected in genre and the ‘academic literacies’ model. Genre, as a series of typified, recurring social actions serves as a powerful semiotic tool for individuals to act together meaningfully and purposefully (Fang & Coatoam, 2013 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is viewed as individual’s gradual appropriation of the shared cultural values and communicative repertoires within the disciplines. These routinized practices of knowing, doing and being not only serve to guarantee the hidden quality of disciplinary knowledge production but also entail a frame of action for academic community functioning (Fisher, 2019 ; Wenger, 1998 ). Therefore, academic literacy development empowers individual thinking and learning in pursuit of effective community practices.

Complementary to the genre approach, the ‘academic literacies’ model “views student writing and learning as issues at the level of epistemology and identities rather than skill or socialization” from the lens of critical literacy, power and ideology (Lea & Street, 1998 , p. 159). Drawing from ‘New Literacies’, the ‘academic literacies’ model approaches literacy development within the power of social discourse with the hope to open up possibilities for innovations and change (Lea & Street, 2006 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is regarded as a powerful tool for access, communication and identification within the academic community, and is therefore closely associated with issues of social justice and equality (Gee, 2015 ).

The notion of genre and ‘academic literacies’ share multiple resemblances with English for Academic Purposes (EAP), which according to Charles ( 2013 , p. 137) ‘is concerned with researching and teaching the English needed by those who use the language to perform academic tasks’. As can be seen, both approaches regard literacy learning as highly purposeful and contextual, driven by the practical need to ‘foregrounding the tacit nature of academic conventions’ (Lillis & Tuck, 2016 , p. 36). However, while EAP is more text-driven, ‘academic literacies’ are more practice-oriented (Lillis & Tuck, 2016 ). That is rather than focusing on the ‘normative’ descriptions of the academic discourse, the ‘academic literacies’ model lays more emphasis on learner agency, personal experiences and sociocultural diversity, regarded as a valuable source for individual learning and the transformation of community practices (Lillis & Tuck, 2016 ). This view of literacy learning as meaningful social participation and transformation is now gradually adopted in the approach of critical EAP (Charles, 2013 ).

In sum, all these approaches regard academic literacy development as multi-dimensional, encompassing both linguistic, cognitive and sociocultural practices (Cumming, 2013 ). However, up-till-now, there still seems to lack a clear definition and operationalization of the academic literacy construct that can guide concrete pedagogies. Short and Fitzsimmons ( 2007 , p. 2) provided a tentative definition of academic literacy from the following aspects:

Includes reading, writing, and oral discourse for school Varies from subject to subject Requires knowledge of multiple genres of text, purposes for text use, and text media Is influenced by students’ literacies in contexts outside of school Is influenced by students’ personal, social, and cultural experiences.

This definition has specified the main features of academic literacy as both a cognitive and sociocultural construct; however, more elaborations may be needed to further operationalize the construct in real educational and research settings. Drawing from this, Allison and Harklau ( 2010 ) and Fang ( 2012 ) specified three general approaches to academic literacy research, namely: the language, cognitive (disciplinary) and the sociocultural approach, which will be further elaborated in the following.

The language-based approach is mainly text-driven and lays special emphasis on the acquisition of language structures, skills and functions characteristic of content learning (Allison & Harklau, 2010 , p. 134; Uccelli et al., 2014 ), and highlights explicit instruction on academic language features and discourse structures (Hyland, 2008 ). This notion is widely influenced by Systemic Functional Linguistics which specifies the intricate connections between text and context, or linguistic choices and text meaning-making potential under specific communicative intentions and purposes (Halliday, 2000 ). This approach often highlights explicit consciousness-raising activities in text deconstruction as embodied in the genre pedagogy, facilitated by corpus-linguistic research tools to unveil structures and patterns of academic language use (Charles, 2013 ).

One typical example is data driven learning (DDL) or ‘any use of a language corpus by second or foreign language learners’ (Anthony, 2017 , p. 163). This approach encourages ‘inductive, self-directed’ language learning under the guidance of the teacher to examine and explore language use in real academic settings. These inquiry-based learning processes not only make language learning meaningful and purposeful but also help form more strategic and autonomous learners (Anthony, 2017 ).

In sum, the language approach intends to unveil the linguistic and rhetorical structure of academic discourse to make it accessible and available for reflection. However, academic literacy development entails more than the acquisition of academic language skills but also the use of academic language as tool for content learning and scientific reasoning (Bailey et al., 2007 ), which is closely connected to individual cognitive development, knowledge construction and communication within the disciplines (Fang, 2012 ).

Therefore, the cognitive or disciplinary-based approach views academic literacy development as higher order thinking and learning in academic socialization in pursuit of deep, contextualized meaning (Granville & Dison, 2005 ). This notion highlights the cognitive functions of academic literacy as deeply related to disciplinary epistemologies and identities, widely shaped by disciplinary-specific ways of knowing, doing and thinking (Moje, 2015 ). Just as mentioned by Shanahan ( 2012 , p. 70), ‘approaching a text with a particular point of view affects how individuals read and learn from texts’, academic literacy development is an integrated language and cognitive endeavor.

One typical example in this approach is the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) initiated by Chamot and O’Malley ( 1987 ), proposing the development of a curriculum that integrates mainstream content subject learning, academic language development and learning strategy instruction. This approach embeds language learning within an authentic, purposeful content learning environment, facilitated by strategy training. Another example is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP model) developed by Echevarría et al. ( 2013 ). Sheltered instruction, according to Short et al. ( 2011 , p. 364) refers to ‘a subject class such as mathematics, science, or history taught through English wherein many or all of the students are second language learners’. This approach integrates language and content learning and highlights language learning for subject matter learning purposes (Allison & Harklau, 2010 ). To make it more specifically, the SIOP model promotes the use of instructional scaffolding to make content comprehensible while advancing students’ skills in a new language (Echevarría et al., 2013 , p. 18). Over the decade, this notion integrating language and cognitive development within the disciplines has gradually gained its prominence in bilingual and multilingual education (Goldenberg, 2010 ).

Complementary to the language and cognitive approach, the sociocultural approach contends literacy learning as a social issue, widely shaped by power, structure and ideology (Gee, 2015 ; Lea & Street, 2006 ). This approach highlights the role of learner agency and identity in transforming individual/community learning practices (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ). Academic literacy in this sense is viewed as a sociocultural construct imbued with meaning, value and emotions as a gateway for social access, power distribution and meaning reconstruction (Moje et al., 2008 ).

However, despite the various approaches to academic literacy teaching and learning, up-till-now, there still seems to be a paucity of research that can integrate these dimensions into effective intervention and research practices. Current researches on academic literacy development either take an interventionistic or descriptive approach. The former usually takes place within a concrete educational setting under the intention to uncover effective community teaching and learning practices (Engestrom, 1999 ). The later, on the contrary, often takes a more naturalistic or ethnographic approach with the hope to provide an in-depth account of individual/community learning practices (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ). These descriptions are often aligned to larger sociocultural contexts and the transformative role of learner agency in collective, object-oriented activities (Engeström, 1987 ; Wenger, 1998 ).

These different approaches to academic literacy development are influenced by the varying epistemological stances of the researcher and specific research purposes. However, all these approaches have pointed to a common conception of academic literacy as a multidimensional construct, widely shaped by the sociocultural and historical contexts. This complex and dynamic nature of literacy learning not only enables the constant innovation and expansion of academic literacy construct but also opens up the possibilities to challenge the preconceived notions of relevant research and pedagogical practices.

Based on these concerns, the study intends to conduct a critical review of the twenty years’ development of academic literacy research in terms of their definition of the academic literacy construct, research approaches, methodologies, settings and keywords with the hope to uncover possible developmental trends in interaction. Critical reflections are drawn from this systematic review to shed light on possible future research directions.

Through this review, we intended the address the following three research questions:

What is the construct of academic literacy in different approaches of academic literacy research?

What are the possible patterns of change in term of academic literacy research methods, approaches and settings over the past twenty years?

What are the main focuses of research within each approach of academic literacy development?

Methodology

The study adopts mixed methods to provide a systematic review of academic literacy research over the past twenty years. The rationale for choosing a mixed method is to integrate qualitative text analysis on the features of academic literacy research with quantitative corpus analysis applied on the initial coding results to unveil possible developmental trends.

Inclusion criteria

To locate academic literacy studies over the past twenty years, the researcher conducted a keyword search of ‘academic literacy’ within a wide range of databases within the realm of linguistic and education. For quality control, only peer-reviewed articles from the Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science) were selected. This initial selection criteria yielded 127 papers containing a keyword of ‘academic literacy’ from a range of high-quality journals in linguistics and education from a series of databases, including: Social Science Premium Collection, ERIC (U.S. Dept. of Education), ERIC (ProQuest), Taylor & Francis Online—Journals, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, Informa—Taylor & Francis (CrossRef), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (Web of Science), ScienceDirect Journals (Elsevier), ScienceDirect (Elsevier B.V.), Elsevier (CrossRef), ProQuest Education Journals, Sage Journals (Sage Publications), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, JSTOR Archival Journals, Wiley Online Library etc. Among these results, papers from Journal of Second Language Writing, Language and Education, English for Specific Purposes, Teaching in Higher Education, Journal of English for Academic Purposes and Higher Education Research & Development are among the most frequent.

Based on these initial results, the study conducted a second-round detailed sample selection. The researcher manually excluded the irrelevant papers which are either review articles, papers written in languages other than English or not directly related to literacy learning in educational settings. After the second round of data selection, a final database of 94 high-quality papers on academic literacy research within the time span between 2002 and 2019 were generated. However, considering the time of observation in this study, only researches conducted before October 2019 were included, which leads to a slight decrease in the total number of researches accounted in that year.

Coding procedure

Coding of the study was conducted from multiple perspectives. Firstly, the study specified three different approaches to academic literacy study based on their different understandings and conceptualizations of the construct (Allison & Harklau, 2010 ). Based on this initial classification, the study then conducted a new round of coding on the definitions of academic literacy, research methods, settings within each approach to look for possible interactions. Finally, a quantitative keywords frequency analysis was conducted in respective approaches to reveal the possible similarities and differences in their research focus. Specific coding criteria are specified as the following.

Firstly, drawing from Allison and Harklau ( 2010 ), the study classified all the researches in the database into three broad categories: language, disciplinary and sociocultural. While the language approach mainly focuses on the development of general or disciplinary-specific academic language features (Hyland, 2008 ), the disciplinary approach views academic literacy development as deeply embedded in the inquiry of disciplinary-specific values, cultures and epistemologies and can only be achieved via individual’s active engagement in disciplinary learning and inquiry practices (Moje, 2015 ). The sociocultural approach, largely influenced by the ‘academic literacies’ model (Lea & Street, 1998 ) contends that academic literacy development entails more than individual socialization into the academic community but is also closely related to issues as power, identity and epistemology (Gee, 2015 ; Lillis, 2008 ).

Based on this initial coding, the study then identified the research methods in all studies within each approach as either quantitative, qualitative or mixed method. Drawing from Creswell ( 2014 ), quantitative research is defined as ‘an approach for testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables’ (p. 3) and is often quantified or numbered using specific statistical procedures. The use of this approach in academic literacy studies are often closely associated with corpus-driven text analysis, developmental studies, academic language assessment or large-scale intervention studies. This approach is particularly useful in unveiling the possible developmental effects of effective interventions but may fall short to account for the process of development which are often highly idiosyncratic and contextual. The use of qualitative methods can to some extent address this concern, as they often intend to explore deep contextualized meanings that individuals or groups ascribe to a social problem (Creswell, 2014 ). Drawing from the notion of literacy learning as a social practice, qualitative methods and especially linguistic ethnographies are highly encouraged in early academic literacy studies for their potential to provide detailed descriptions of a phenomenon through prolonged engagement (Lillis, 2008 ). In complementary, the use of mixed methods integrates both quantitative and qualitative data to ‘provide a more complete understanding of a research problem than either approach alone’ (Creswell, 2014 , p. 3). This approach embodies huge potentialities in academic literacy research as it can align teaching and learning processes with possible developmental outcomes, which not only preserves the contextualized and practice-oriented nature of academic literacy research but also makes their results generalizable.

Secondly, the study classified all the researches into two types: interventionistic and descriptive. The former entails an intentional pedagogical intervention with an aim to improve individual and community learning practices. The latter, however, tends to adopt a more naturalistic approach under an intention to unveil the complex and dynamic interactions between academic literacy development and the wider sociocultural context. These two approaches complement each other in academic literacy researches in real educational settings, serving distinct purposes.

Thirdly, for a closer inspection of the context of research, the study specifies three general research settings: English as a native language (ENL), English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) (Kirkpatrick, 2007 ). According to Kirkpatrick ( 2007 , p. 27), ‘ENL is spoken in countries where English is the primary language of the great majority of the population’ where ‘English is spoken and used as a native language’. ESL in contrast, ‘is spoken in countries where English is an important and usually official language, but not the main language of the country’ (Kirkpatrick, 2007 , p. 27). These are also countries that are previously colonized by the English-speaking countries, often with a diverse linguistic landscape and complicated language policies (Broom, 2004 ). Therefore, language choices in these countries are often closely connected to issues as power, identity and justice. Academic literacy development in this respect serves both to guarantee social resource distribution and to empower individuals to change. Finally, ‘EFL occurs in countries where English is not actually used or spoken very much in the normal course of daily life’ (Kirkpatrick, 2007 , p. 27). Within these settings, for example in China, English language education used to serve only for its own purposes (Wen, 2019 ). However, dramatic changes have been going on these days in pursuit of a language-content integrated curriculum to achieve advanced literacy and cognitive skills development. (Zhang & Li, 2019 ; Zhang & Sun, 2014 ).

Finally, the study conducted detailed keywords analysis in terms of their frequency within each approach (language, disciplinary and sociocultural). Based on these, the researcher then merged the raw frequencies of similar constructs for example: testing and assessment, teaching and pedagogy to get a better representation of the results. This analysis reveals the focus of research within each approach and helps promote further operationalization of the academic literacy construct.

The coding was conducted by two independent coders, with coder one in charge of the coding of all data, and coder two responsible for 30% of the coding of the total data. Coder one, also the main researcher trained coder two in terms of the coding procedures in detail with ample practices until the threshold of intercoder reliability was reached. Coder two then coded the remaining 30% of the data independently with an interrater reliability of over 80%. The coding was done on an excel worksheet which makes data access and retrieval readily available. The statistical software R was used for keywords frequency analysis.

Data analyses in the study mainly involve three parts: (1) specifying the construct and operationalization of the academic literacy research; (2) investigating the dynamic interactions among research approaches, methods and settings; (3) identifying the focus of research within each approach through keywords analysis. The following parts deal with these questions respectively.

Definition and operationalization of the academic literacy construct

The study extracted all the explicit definitions of academic literacy within each approach (language, disciplinary and sociocultural) and conducted detailed thematic analysis recategorizing them into different themes (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 shows that the definitions of academic literacy vary with respect to the different conceptualizations and epistemologies of academic literacy development within each approach. For instance, the language-based approach mainly defines academic literacy from two aspects: (1) language use in academic settings; and (2) language competence required for academic study (Baumann & Graves, 2010 ; Sebolai, 2016 ). The former takes a relatively narrow view of academic literacy development as learners’ gradual appropriation of the linguistic and rhetorical features of the academic discourse (Schleppegrell, 2013 ; Uccelli et al., 2014 ). The latter in complementary specifies academic literacy development for content learning purposes, entailing the kind of competence students need to possess for academic study (Kabelo & Sebolai, 2016 ). Academic language learning in this sense does not serve for its own sake but is considered as a tool for content learning and cognitive development. Overall, the language-based approach to academic literacy development lays much emphasis on the acquisition of academic language features which serves as a prerequisite for learners to examine and explore the meaning-making potential of the academic language (Schleppegrell, 2013 ).

The disciplinary-based approach on the other hand focuses on an integrated development of advanced language and cognitive skills within the disciplines, with language learning closely intertwined with the appropriation of disciplinary-specific values, cultures and practices. In this sense, academic literacy development is viewed as a dynamic process of higher-order language socialization in pursuit of deep, collaborative contextual meaning (Lea & Street, 2006 ). During this process, academic literacy development goes hand in hand with cognitive development and knowledge production within the disciplines, along with learners’ gradually expanding involvement with the disciplinary-specific ways of doing knowing and thinking (Granville & Dison, 2005 ). Other researches within this approach regard academic literacy development as more than language socialization but widely shaped and constrained by issues of power, epistemology and identity (Lea & Street, 1998 ). This definition is also widely used in the sociocultural approach, regarding academic literacy development as a sociocultural enterprise, widely related to the identification, reification and transformation of the social practices (Wenger, 1998 ).

The sociocultural approach also known as the ‘academic literacies’ model views literacy learning at the level of power struggle, structure reconstruction and social justice (Gee, 2015 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is not only a shared repertoire for individual access to social communities but also a tool for emancipation and transformation, which is object-oriented, practice-driven and value-laden (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ).

Academic literacy research approaches, methods and settings

The study also analyzed changes in the approaches, methods and settings of academic literacy research over the past twenty years. Table 2 and Fig.  1 in the following present the number of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies within the language-based, disciplinary-based and sociocultural approach respectively.

Methods approach interaction in academic literacy studies

Table 2 and Fig.  1 show that the research methods chosen tend to vary with the approaches. To begin with, the number of qualitative studies generally surpassed the quantitative ones in both the disciplinary and the sociocultural approach, especially in the latter where qualitative studies dominated. However, their numbers tended to decrease in the past five years giving way to the rising mixed method researches. This was particularly evident in the growing number of mixed-methods language and disciplinary studies observed after 2015, which can also be an indication of the emergence of more robust designs in relevant educational researches. Finally, while the sociocultural approach was mainly featured by qualitative research, research methods in the language approach were more evenly distributed, which can possibly be accounted by its relatively longer research tradition and more well-established research practices.

In addition, the study also specified changes in the number of descriptive and intervention studies each year (see Table 2 , Fig.  2 ). Results showed that: (1) generally there were more qualitative researches in both the intervention and descriptive approach compared to the quantitative ones, although their numbers decreased in the past five years, especially in terms of the number of qualitative intervention studies; (2) a growing number of mixed-methods intervention studies were perceived in recent years. The findings echoed Scammacca et al.’s ( 2016 ) a century progress of reading intervention studies, indicating the emergence of more ‘standard, structured and standardized group interventions’ with ‘more robust design’ compared to the previous ‘individualized intervention case studies’ (p. 780). This developmental trend can indicate a possible methodological shift towards more large-scale intervention studies in the future based on recursive and reflective pedagogical practices. For more detailed descriptions of the methods-approach interaction, the study further investigated changes in the number of descriptive and intervention studies within each approach (see Table 3 , Fig.  3 ).

Diachronic changes in academic literacy research methods

Methods-approach interaction in academic literacy studies

Table 3 suggests that while the sociocultural approach tended to be more descriptive, the language and disciplinary approaches were more likely to interventionist. Another developmental trend was a dramatic decrease in descriptive language studies after 2015, giving way to an evident increase in intervention studies. This phenomenon entails an intricate connection among academic literacy development, education and pedagogy, indicating that language socialization does not come naturally, and well-designed, explicit pedagogical interventions are often in need.

Furthermore, the study tracked diachronic changes in the settings of academic literacy research. Results show that among the 94 selected academic literacy researches, 81 take place in a higher education context, accounting for about 86% of the total. Only 10 out of the 13 remaining researches take place in secondary school settings and 3 in elementary school settings. These results suggest that up-till-now, discussions on academic literacy development are mainly restricted to higher education settings, closely linked to the learning of advanced language and thinking skills. However, future researches may also need to attend to academic literacy development in secondary or primary school settings, especially in face of the growing disciplinary learning demands for adolescents (Dyhaylongsod et al., 2015 ).

Finally, the study recorded the specific countries where academic literacy studies take place, among which South Africa stands as the highest with 22 studies amounting to 20.95% of the total, followed by the United States (17.14%), United Kingdom (12.38%), Australia (11.43%) and China (9.64%). These results suggest that academic literacy research most often take place in ENL or ESL settings with relatively long traditions of literacy teaching and learning, and prominent demands for academic literacy development within subject areas. In the meantime, the study attributes the high number of academic literacy research in the South African context to its complex linguistic realities and historical legacies, where literacy development is closely associated with issues of power, identity and equality (Broom, 2004 ; Lea & Street, 2006 ). Based on this, the study specified the approaches of academic literacy research within the ENL, ESL and EFL settings respectively (see Table 4 , Fig.  4 ).

Academic literacy research settings

Table 4 shows that while the ENL settings dominated most of the academic literacy researches, relevant studies in ESL and EFL settings gradually increased in recent years, indicating an expanding influence of the academic literacy construct in different educational settings. Another pattern was the observation of more balanced research approaches or more evenly distributed language, disciplinary and sociocultural researches in all three settings. This phenomenon suggests that there seems to be an increasing flexibility in academic literacy research in recent years under the intention to address specific contextual issues. All these developmental trends reinforce the notion of academic literacy as a multi-dimensional construct (Cumming, 2013 ).

Focus of academic literacy research

To investigate the focus of academic literacy research within each approach, the study conducted detailed keywords analysis in all studies (see Fig.  5 ). Results show that academic literacy development is a situated educational practice, closely linked to issues as content learning, teacher education, assessment and pedagogy. Another feature that stands out is the frequent appearance of ‘writing’ and its related practices, such as: academic writing, student writing etc. This phenomenon suggests that compared to reading, writing seems to share a greater emphasis in academic literacy research. This can possibly be accounted by the intricate connections among writing, language and content learning and the gradual shift of focus from learning to write to writing to learn in higher education settings (Prain & Hand, 2016 ).

Keywords analysis of academic literacy research

From Fig.  5 , it can be seen that different approaches share common and distinct research focuses. For instance, the disciplinary approach is mainly featured by content learning and the development of subject-matter knowledge and skills, with a close relation to situated educational practices as genre and pedagogy, disciplinary-specific teaching and learning, reading interventions and teacher education. The language approach on the other hand tends to be more text-oriented, focusing on the development of advanced cognitive and academic language skills, widely influenced by the notions of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and genre pedagogy. In addition, assessment and testing are also a key issue in the language-based approach, indicating that language testing practices today are still largely text-oriented, focusing on the acquisition of specific academic language skills. Finally, keywords analysis results in the sociocultural approach revealed its deeply held assumptions of academic literacy development as a situated, complex sociocultural practice. One emerging feature is its growing attention to multilingualism, multiculturalism and international students. In an era of rapid globalization and academic exchange, academic literacy development has gradually become a global issue as is manifested in a rapid expansion of international students in ENL countries (Caplan & Stevens, 2017 ). These students, however, often face double barriers in language and content learning, especially in terms of advanced literacy skills development required for content learning and inquiry (Okuda & Anderson, 2018 ). In this sense, more attentions are needed for the implementation and innovation of effective community learning practices.

Data analysis results in the study reveal that: (1) academic literacy development is a multidimensional construct (Cumming, 2013 ); (2) there is a growing number of mixed-methods intervention studies in recent years especially within the language approach; (3) a gradual expansion of academic literacy research in ESL and EFL settings is perceived with increasing attention to international and multilingual students. The following parts of the discussion and conclusion will provide detailed analyses on these aspects.

Definition and keywords analysis of the academic literacy studies reveal that academic literacy is a multidimensional construct, embodying both textual and contextual practices and bears huge significance for individual language and cognitive development. Drawing from this, future researches may need to cross the boundaries to integrate the language, disciplinary and sociocultural aspects of academic literacy development within a holistic view of literacy teaching and learning. In this respect, academic literacy development can widely draw from various research domains as language acquisition, language socialization, genre and pedagogy and critical literacy (Duff, 2010 ; Gee, 2015 ; Hyland, 2008 ; Lea & Street, 2006 ; Russell, 2009 ). Future researches may need to pay more attention to these multiple aspects which closely intertwine and mutually shape one another to serve for the innovation and design of effective practices.

Data analysis in the study also demonstrated the intricate connections between literacy learning and pedagogical interventions. The development of academic literacy does not come naturally, but often calls for explicit instruction and interventions to address situated learning needs (Shanahan, 2012 ). It is hoped that in the future larger-scale interventions with more rigorous designs are necessary in pursuit of more effective pedagogical practices (Scammacca et al., 2016 ). This assumption, however, are not in contradiction to the dynamic and contextual nature of academic literacy development, as more sophisticated designs can generally provide more detailed account of the practice-driven and contextualized learning processes which are often cyclical and recursive in nature.

Lastly, results of the study revealed a growing trend of academic literacy research in EFL settings especially with respect to English language learners and international students. Compared to the ENL and ESL settings, academic literacy research in EFL settings, although a relatively recent issue, embodies huge potentialities. Drawn by the demand to promote higher-order thinking and learning and the need to innovate traditional form-focused, skilled-based EFL pedagogy, the notion of academic literacy development as a disciplinary-based, socioculturally constructed, dynamic academic socialization process offers a sensible option for pedagogical innovation and curriculum development in these contexts. In this sense, the notion of academic literacy as a multidimensional construct has provided a possible solution to the long-standing problems concerning the efficacy the efficiency of EFL education, the alignment of language and content learning as well as the challenges in curriculum design and material development in EFL settings (Wen, 2019 ).

Conclusion and implication

Results of the study suggest a relatively straight-forward agenda for the development of effective academic literacy pedagogies. Firstly, the study revealed an intricate connection between academic literacy development and disciplinary-specific knowledge construction and inquiry activities. Academic literacy development is by no means only a textual issue, but agentive scaffolded learning activities that are meaningful, purposeful and authentic. Literacy activities such as reading and writing in this sense are often object-oriented to serve for real knowledge production and communicative needs. Therefore, effective academic literacy instruction often aligns language development with content learning within meaningful disciplinary and social inquiries.

Secondly, in an era of rapid globalization and communication, the development of academic literacy often takes a critical role in resource distribution and power reconstruction. This has also led to an increasing attention to academic literacy development of international students in multilingual contexts, who often face multiple challenges in learning disciplinary literacy. However, contrary to the traditional ‘deficit model’ seeking for a remediation for their relatively ‘disadvantaged’ language background, the notion of academic literacy highlighted the role of teacher and learner agency in the development of new pedagogical practices. These innovative approaches often acknowledge and build on students’ diverse language and cultural backgrounds to make literacy learning a cognitively meaningful and culturally valuable practice.

The study can shed light on future research from both an empirical and pedagogical perspective. From an empirical perspective, future research may need to pay more attention to the multidimensionality of the construct of academic literacy. As revealed in the current study, academic literacy development embodies multiple dimensions as language learning, cognitive development and social transformation. Future research may need to transcend the epistemological boundaries to seek for a more integrated definition of academic literacy in which language, cognitive and social development mutually transform one another. From a pedagogical perspective, an activity-based, integrated pedagogy should be proposed in academic literacy development. In the case, students generally use language to engage in authentic communication and practices relating not only to the advancement of disciplinary knowledge but also for the betterment of society. As it is through these practices that students’ engagement in complex meaning making and higher order thinking are ensured, and the internalization of language knowledge and transformation of social practices gradually occur.

The study also bears some limitations. Although it seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of the general trend, method and focus of academic literacy research for nearly two decades, it does not go deeper into specific studies of their findings and implications. Future studies can possibly narrow down their scope of investigation to delve deeper and provide a more thorough analysis of specific research findings.

Availability of data and materials

The studies reviewed can be referred from the reference citations in the supplementary materials.

Abbreviations

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach

Data driven learning

English for Academic Purposes

English as a native language

English as a second language

Systemic Functional Linguistics

Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol

Allison, H., & Harklau, L. (2010). Teaching academic literacies in secondary school. In G. Li & P. A. Edwards (Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction. The Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Anthony, L. (2017). Introducing corpora and corpus tools into the technical writing classroom through Data-Driven Learning (DDL). In J. Flowerdew & T. Costley (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice. Routledge.

Bailey, A. L., Butler, F. A., Stevens, R., & Lord, C. (2007). Further specifying the language demands of school. In A. L. Bailey (Ed.), The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. Yale University Press.

Basturkmen, H. (2017). Developing writing courses for specific academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & T. Costley (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice. Routledge.

Baumann, J. F., & Graves, M. F. (2010). What is academic vocabulary? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54 (1), 4–12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bigelow, M., & Vinogradov, P. (2011). Teaching adult second language learners who are emergent readers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 , 120–136.

Broom, Y. (2004). Reading English in multilingual South African primary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7 (6), 506–528.

Caplan, N. A., & Stevens, S. G. (2017). “Step out of the cycle”: Needs, challenges, and successes of international undergraduates at a U.S. University. English for Specific Purposes, 46 , 15–28.

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (2), 227–249.

Charles, M. (2013). English for academic purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 137–155). Wiley-Blackwell.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Sage.

Cumming, A. (2013). Multiple dimensions of academic language and literacy development. Language Learning, 63 (1), 130–152.

Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30 , 169–192.

Dyhaylongsod, L., Snow, C. E., Selman, R. L., & Donovan, M. S. (2015). Toward disciplinary literacy: Dilemmas and challenges in designing history curriculum to support middle school students. Harvard Educational Review, 85 (4), 587–608.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model . Pearson Education.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research . Cambridge University Press.

Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In R.M.R.-L.P. Yrjo Engestrom (Ed.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Fang, Z. (2012). Approaches to developing content area literacies: A synthesis and a critique. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56 (2), 103–108.

Fang, Z., & Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know about it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56 (8), 627–632.

Fisher, R. (2019). Reconciling disciplinary literacy perspectives with genre-oriented Activity Theory: Toward a fuller synthesis of traditions. Reading Research Quarterly, 54 (2), 237–251.

Flowerdew, J. (2013). Introduction: Approaches to the analysis of academic discourse in English. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse. Routledge.

Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices. The Modern Language Journal, 88 (2), 245–265.

Gee, J. P. (2015). Literacy and education . Routledge.

Goldenberg, C. (2010). Improving achievement for English learners: Conclusions from recent reviews and emerging research. In G. Li & P. A. Edwards (Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction (pp. 15–44). The Guilford Press.

Granville, S., & Dison, L. (2005). Thinking about thinking: Integrating self-reflection into an academic literacy course. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4 , 99–118.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2000). An introduction to functional grammar . Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41 (4), 543–562.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching . Cambridge University Press.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23 (2), 157–172.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The “Academic Literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45 (4), 368–377.

Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing” closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication , 25 (3), 353–388.

Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1), 5–32.

Lillis, T., & Tuck, J. (2016). Academic literacies: A critical lens on writing and reading in the academy. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 30–44). Routledge.

Lillis, T., & Turner, J. (2001). Student writing in higher education: Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching in Higher Education , 6 (1), 57–68.

Moje, E. B. (2015). Doing and teaching adolescent literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85 (2), 254–278.

Moje, E. B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1), 107–154.

Okuda, T., & Anderson, T. (2018). Second language graduate students’ experiences at the writing center: A language socialization perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 52 (2), 391–413.

Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2016). Coming to know more through and from writing. Educational Researcher, 45 (7), 430–434.

Russell, D. R. (2009). Texts in contexts: Theorizing learning by looking at genre and activity. In R. Edwards, G. Biesta, & M. Thorpe (Eds.), Rethinking contexts for learning and teaching: Communities, activities and networks. Routledge.

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., et al. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research , 86 (3), 756–800.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63 (1), 153–170.

Sebolai, K. (2016). Distinguishing between English proficiency and academic literacy in English. Language Matters, 47 (1), 45–60.

Shanahan, C. (2012). How disciplinary experts read. In T. L. Jetlon & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies. The Guilford Press.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1), 40–59.

Short, D. J., Echevarría, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 363–380.

Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York . Alliance for Excellent Education.

Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 52 (2), 77–91.

Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Galloway, E. P., Meneses, A., & Sanchez, E. (2014). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36 (5), 1077–1109.

Wen, Q. (2019). Foreign language teaching theories in China in the past 70 years. Foreign Language in China, 16 (5), 14–22.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Wingate, U. (2018). Academic literacy across the curriculum: Towards a collaborative instructional approach. Language Teaching, 51 (3), 349–364.

Zhang, L., & Li, D. (2019). An integrated development of students’ language and cognition under the CLIL pedagogy. Foreign Language Education in China, 2 (2), 16–24.

Zhang, L., & Sun, Y. (2014). A sociocultural theory-based writing curriculum reform on English majors. Foreign Language World, 5 , 2–10.

Zhao, K., & Chan, C. K. K. (2014). Fostering collective and individual learning through knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 9 , 63–95.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the original manuscript.

The study was supported by the start up research funding for young scholars in Nanjing Normal University (No. 184080H202A135).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Languages, Nanjing Normal University, Wenyuanlu #1, Qixia District, Nanjing, 210023, Jiangsu, China

Dongying Li

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dongying Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, D. A review of academic literacy research development: from 2002 to 2019. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 7 , 5 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00130-z

Download citation

Received : 20 September 2021

Accepted : 01 February 2022

Published : 15 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00130-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic literacy
• Academic language
• Cognitive development
• Intervention
• Sociocultural context

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Microbiol Biol Educ
• v.24(2); 2023 Aug
• PMC10443302

Developing Science Literacy in Students and Society: Theory, Research, and Practice

Nicole c. kelp.

a Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Melissa McCartney

b Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA

Mark A. Sarvary

c Investigative Biology Teaching Laboratories, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

Justin F. Shaffer

d Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA

Michael J. Wolyniak

e Department of Biology, Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, Virginia, USA

The subject of scientific literacy has never been more critical to the scientific community as well as society in general. As opportunities to spread misinformation increase with the rise of new technologies, it is critical for society to have at its disposal the means for ensuring that its citizens possess the basic scientific literacy necessary to make critical decisions on topics like climate change, biotechnology, and other science-based issues. As the Guest Editors of this themed issue of the Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education , we present a wide array of techniques that the scientific community is using to promote scientific literacy in both academic and nonacademic settings. The diversity of the techniques presented here give us confidence that the scientific community will rise to the challenge of ensuring that our society will be prepared to make fact-based and wise decisions that will preserve and improve our quality of life.

Scientific literacy can be defined in multiple ways, from how an individual processes scientific facts and concepts and interprets scientific data to how a community collectively interacts with scientific knowledge and processes. Scientific literacy skills are incredibly important for people to develop: whether they are trained scientists or not, people encounter issues pertaining to science frequently in their daily lives. In modern times, people are continually exposed to news stories about climate change, energy production, and health, exercise, and medicine, not to mention the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. By investigating scientific literacy skill development and designing classroom or outreach activities to promote scientific literacy skills, we as science educators can help improve student and societal scientific literacy, which can lead to more-informed decision-making by individuals and societies. Whether the students in our classrooms are science majors or not, it is critical for them to develop science literacy skills and promote science literacy in their communities.

As scientists and science educators, we are passionate about promoting the science literacy of both our students and our society. The 2023 JMBE themed issue on “Scientific Literacy” will examine this concept from multiple angles, from theoretical frameworks to research on the impact of literacy interventions to practical tools for developing scientific literacy in diverse groups of learners. Here, we analyze a portion of these articles, sorted by major themes in scientific literacy that are represented in this special issue.

Theoretical frameworks that inform the development of scientific literacy

At the core of all great research studies is a theoretical framework. However, for a topic as complex as scientific literacy, how do you determine which framework is appropriate for your particular take on scientific literacy? Tenney et al. identified three different learning theories, information processing, constructivism, and sociocultural theory, and they discussed the conceptualizations of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) literacy and offered insightful perspectives on how to conceptualize what it means to be STEM literate ( 1 ). And, if you envision science literacy to be larger than these three theories, and to extend outside of the classroom, Elhai here helps readers redefine science literacy at the community level ( 2 ). These perspectives may be valuable to others as they work to conceptualize what science literacy means in their own circumstances.

Scientific literacy in the context of microbiology, cell biology, molecular biology, immunology, disease ecology, and other disciplines

We cannot forget that science is at the heart of science literacy, and part of science literacy is knowing basic science. In line with current scientific challenges related to public health, Ricci et al. ( 3 ) and Mixter et al. ( 4 ) provide ideas for teaching and learning about infectious disease, through art (as described here by Ricci et al.) and through system-level change and collaboration among novice and experienced educators, professional societies, and policymakers (as described here by Mixter et al.). Access to microbiology is also expanded, with Newman et al. presenting here a novel card-sorting task involving visual literacy skills ( 5 ) and Joyner and Parks outlining how to develop a public data presentation and an epidemiological model based on current events ( 6 ).

Pedagogical practices, including effective classroom tools

Undergraduates are prosumers, consuming and producing scientific information at the same time. This requires assignments to be built on each other in a scaffolded or multistep format. Joyner and Parks present a multicourse approach using modern pedagogical methods to promote communication and data and information literacy in STEM students ( 6 ). Similarly, Rholl et al. described how they let students engage with current events in interactive, multiweek activities that increase student motivation and agency ( 7 ). Sarvary and Ruesch describe how undergraduates can be taught through a multistep framework to become critical consumers of scientific evidence in a single laboratory session. These two authors have used and assessed a variety of active learning methods in the past decade to help students find, evaluate, comprehend, and cite scientific information ( 8 ). With the rise of social media, undergraduates need to be taught how to responsibly share information using these constantly changing platforms. The Social Media Reflection assignment has been successfully used in both lower- and upper-level courses, helping students assess scientific claims and fight misinformation ( 9 ).

Student understanding of the nature of science, quantitative literacy skills, and science communication

There is an intricate connection between how students understand scientific concepts, scientific process, and primary scientific data and how they are able to communicate about these topics with each other and with those outside the scientific community ( 10 ) and in their future careers ( 11 , 12 ). This is critically important for our science students who will interact with patients as future health professionals ( 11 ). One way in which students can engage with a mix of scientific facts, processes, and data is via the primary scientific literature. Developing the skills to read and understand the primary scientific literature is difficult ( 13 ). Authors in this special issue present how student skills in analyzing data in the primary scientific literature can be improved via graphical abstract assignments ( 14 ) and annotations ( 15 , 16 ), as well as by engaging in peer review ( 17 ). Beyond developing their own understanding of the science, engaging with the primary scientific literature is important for our students, as they can utilize the literature as a tool for science communication with nonscientist audiences ( 18 ). Conversely, we can utilize popular texts intended for the public in our science classrooms in order to promote science literacy and new insights about socio-scientific issues ( 19 ). In addition to specific forms of literature, empathetic and relational conversations about science are another tool by which students can build both their knowledge of the science and their abilities in science communication ( 10 ).

Community science literacy and outreach

Science literacy skills are required for everyday decision-making and are often applied by nonscientists. These nontechnical audiences are able to understand scientific evidence using primary literature ( 18 ) and develop interest in science using art ( 3 ). Attitudes toward science and trust in scientists became especially important during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mixter et al. discuss immune literacy at the individual and societal level and call for a system-level change to build this important skill not only in classrooms but also in the community ( 4 ). Service learning and community engagement can help with this effort ( 10 ).

Impacts on learning and assessment in the classroom or the community

By creating students and communities that are more scientifically literate, we can set the table for increased opportunities for these groups to learn and understand science, to translate that knowledge into making positive changes in society, and to potentially join the STEM workforce. Several articles ( 3 , 4 , 7 , 16 ) consider new approaches for using scientific literacy as a vehicle for enhancing student appreciation for specific STEM fields. Other articles focus on ways that instructors can better assess the progress that students are making toward developing both stronger levels of overall scientific literacy and mastery of particular course material ( 8 , 13 ). Finally, when students gain practice in argumentation about authentic ethical issues in research, they are better prepared to collaboratively engage with diverse communities about these challenging issues ( 12 ). There is a dynamic conversation taking place within the scientific education community on ways to translate increases in scientific literacy with gains in overall learning objectives in a variety of STEM disciplines. This conversation promises to continue to evolve best practices for reaching this goal among both traditional students and “citizen scientists” in society.

Inclusive approaches and removal of barriers to scientific information

The scientific community is becoming more cognizant of the need to consider equity and inclusion and incorporate them into strategies for improving scientific literacy in the classroom and across society. This issue explores the use of laboratory course elements as drivers of equity-based STEM education ( 20 ) as well as the development of empathetic communication skills as an effective means of reaching all members of the community regardless of their previous experiences with science and potential exposure to scientific misinformation ( 10 ). Within the classroom, different research groups are exploring how to develop literacy-based assignments that either use unconventional and more accessible means to bring new students into an exploration of science ( 3 , 14 ) or provide learning support tools that make engagement with scientific literature more accessible to all ( 18 ). A society cannot improve its overall level of scientific literacy without finding ways of making scientific knowledge accessible to all of its members, and the work presented in this issue provides a variety of approaches toward this goal.

This issue could not be coming out at a more critical juncture in our society, as the scientific community struggles to find ways to battle both disinformation campaigns about how science is done and presented and the preconceived intimidating notions that many hold about the accessibility of science to the masses. Issues such as climate change, vaccination, and environmental conservation cannot be solved by a scientifically illiterate society. As science continually evolves, so must our understanding of how to best communicate science across ever-changing platforms and audiences. It is our hope that the ideas presented in this issue will inspire both the current scientific community and future generations of scientists and teachers to continually work to make science as accessible, learnable, and exciting as possible to citizens of all ages and backgrounds.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education for advancing this vital scientific literacy conversation and for allowing us the opportunity to help assemble this exciting collection of current work on this topic. We hope that these articles will engender in you the desire to join the conversation and help to keep moving our understanding of best scientific literacy practices forward.

We declare that there are no conflicts of interest with respect to the contents of this article.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or of ASM.

Literacy skills and online research and comprehension: struggling readers face difficulties online

• Open access
• Published: 21 March 2019
• Volume 32 , pages 2201–2222, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Laura Kanniainen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6651-6534 1 ,
• Carita Kiili   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-4094 2 ,
• Asko Tolvanen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6430-8897 3 ,
• Mikko Aro   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0545-0591 4 &
• Paavo H. T. Leppänen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8941-2225 1  

19k Accesses

37 Citations

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The present study evaluated the extent to which literacy skills (reading fluency, written spelling, and reading comprehension), together with nonverbal reasoning, prior knowledge, and gender, are related to students’ online research and comprehension (ORC) performance. The ORC skills of 426 sixth graders were measured using a Finnish adaptation of the Online Research and Comprehension Assessment. Results of a structural equation model showed that these ORC skills were divided into six highly correlated factors, and that they formed a common factor in ORC. Altogether, these predictor variables explained 57% of the variance in ORC. Reading comprehension, along with gender, was the strongest predictor for ORC performance. In addition, reading fluency and written spelling explained ORC variance over and above reading comprehension. These findings suggest that struggling readers probably face difficulties online.

Similar content being viewed by others

Keyword: Reading literacy. Reading competencies in Germany and underlying cognitive skills

Reading Success

Reading and Writing Connections: How Writing Can Build Better Readers (and Vice Versa)

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Rapidly developing technology and the ubiquity of the Internet have changed people’s reading practices, rendering the traditional view of literacy insufficient (Hartman, Morsink, & Zheng, 2010 ). Changes in the reading practices and skills needed in a modern society are already reflected in many nations’ educational standards or curricula (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], n.d..; The Finnish National Board of Education, 2016 ) as well as in international assessments (Fraillon, Ainley, Schulz, Friedman, & Gebhardt, 2013 ; Office for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2013a ). Even in daily school life, utilizing the Internet for learning is a common practice: 95% of surveyed teachers in the United States reported doing research or searching for information online as a typical school assignment (Purcell et al., 2012 ). Because of the increased role of the Internet in school work and in other areas of life, educators should ensure that all students acquire sufficient skills to read and learn on the Internet.

Reading to learn from online information, often referred to as online research and comprehension (ORC), requires, in particular, skills and strategies for locating, evaluating, and synthesizing online information as well as for communicating one’s learning to others (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013b ). Even though research has begun to identify the specific skills and strategies important when reading online (e.g., Brand-Gruwel, Wopereis, & Vermetten, 2005 ; Coiro & Dobler, 2007 ), there is still a need to better understand how traditional reading skills contribute to students’ performance when they solve problems with online information. Understanding the consequences of poor literacy skills would help educators to design tasks and supports for students with varying literacy skills. As such, this study examined how different aspects of the literacy skills of reading, reading fluency, written spelling, and reading comprehension predict sixth graders’ ORC performance. To achieve as thorough an understanding as possible on aspects related to ORC performance, we also included prior knowledge and nonverbal reasoning into our examination, as prior knowledge and inferential processes are seen as integral components of reading comprehension (McNamara & Magliano, 2009 ). Finally, because gender differences in literacy skills have been widely recognized (e.g., OECD, 2013a ), gender was also included in our examination to clarify its role in ORC performance beyond reading ability.

Online research and comprehension

The present study is framed using an online research and comprehension framework (Leu et al., 2013b ), which identifies five crucial component skills: (1) identifying an important question or a problem to solve, (2) locating information, (3) evaluating information critically, (4) synthesizing information, and (5) communicating information (see also Brand-Gruwel et al., 2005 ; Fraillon et al., 2013 ; International ICT Literacy Panel, 2002 ).

A reader begins online research by identifying a question to answer or problem to solve. In school or assessment contexts, the question or problem is often given to students. However, students are still required to build an understanding of the given task (Britt, Rouet, & Durik, 2018 ) that helps students to locate relevant information to solve the problem. Locating information requires the ability to form adequate search queries for search engines (Cho & Afflerbach, 2015 ) and to analyze search engine results (Rouet, Ros, Goumi, Macedo-Rouet, & Dinet, 2011 ). Without these skills, students are unable to use online information efficiently for their learning (Leu, Forzani, Burlingame, Kulikowich, Sedransk, Coiro, & Kennedy, 2013a ).

Because a considerable amount of information on the Internet appears to be questionable (Britt & Gabrys, 2002 ) or commercially biased (Lewandowski, 2011 ), an ability to critically evaluate online information is essential. To make informed judgements of the quality of online information, readers need to evaluate the author’s expertise and the trustworthiness of online resources (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008 ; Pérez et al. 2018 ).

The fourth component skill— synthesizing information —refers to collecting ideas across resources and integrating these ideas into a versatile and coherent representation (Bråten, Britt, Strømsø, & Rouet, 2011 ; Cho & Afflerbach, 2017 ). A high quality synthesis also requires readers to compare and contrast information and different perspectives presented in multiple online resources (Cho & Afflerbach, 2015 ; Rouet, 2006 ). Finally, communicating information that one has learned requires good argumentation skills and the ability to address a specific audience. Presenting well justified arguments requires practice, especially when the information is controversial (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000 ). Audience awareness may include components such as the greeting, addressing one’s message to a reader, and using correct language (Lapp, Shea, & Wolsey, 2011 ), as well as properly concluding the writing (Berggren, 2014 ), all of which reflect a knowledge of communicative conventions.

A recent study (Kiili, Leu, Utriainen, Coiro, Kanniainen, Tolvanen, Lohvansuu, & Leppänen, 2018b ) confirmed the basic structure of the four component skills (locate, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate) while also suggesting the introduction of additional complexity to the skill structure. First, evaluation of information was divided into two components: confirming the credibility of information, and questioning the credibility of information. It seems that questioning a source that is, for example, biased or lacking in expertise, is more difficult for students than confirming the credibility of the source with relevant expertise (Kiili, Leu, Marttunen, Hautala, & Leppänen, 2018a ; Pérez et al. 2018 ). Second, synthesizing was divided into two separate components: identifying main ideas from a single online text, and synthesizing information across multiple online texts. This suggests that the process of building coherent intertextual relationships across multiple online texts requires somewhat different skills than building coherence within a single online text (Cho & Afflerbach, 2017 ).

Literacy skills: reading fluency, written spelling, and reading comprehension

Reading has been defined as consisting of two main skills: decoding and comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ), which have been considered to be interconnected via reading fluency (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974 ). At the lower level of literacy skill development, the letter–sound decoding ability enables readers to process the graphic symbols and to identify single words by connecting the graphic symbol strings—that is, letters or their clusters—in spoken word representations (Kintsch & Rawson, 2005 ). In addition to decoding, written spelling requires the ability to phonologically recode spoken words into grapheme strings. It has also been suggested that this process further develops the word identification system via strengthening the words’ orthographic representations (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014 ; Share, 2008 ). The development of the effectiveness and automatization of the basic decoding skill increases reading fluency, which is the ability to read the text accurately and rapidly (Meyer & Felton, 1999 ; National Reading Panel, National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, 2000 ).

The development of fluency and effortless word recognition skills reduces the amount of attentional resources allocated for decoding and improves reading comprehension, which is a higher level of literacy skill (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001 ; Tilstra, McMaster, Van den Broek, Kendeou, & Rapp, 2009 ). In reading comprehension, readers construct a text base model by combining and interrelating the word meanings of the text and by recognizing the wider topics within the entire text (Kintsch, 1998 ; Kintsch & Rawson, 2005 ). According to the lexical quality hypothesis (Perfetti, 2007 ), this kind of word-to-text integration requires a sufficient quality of word representations as well as the ability to efficiently retrieve word meanings from long-term memory (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014 ).

Finally, to build a deeper understanding of the text, readers need to construct a situational model by integrating the text base information with their prior knowledge (Kintsch, 1998 ). However, sometimes readers face difficulties with accurate and fluent word recognition, as well as with poor written spelling and decoding abilities, which may also lead to reading comprehension difficulties (Perfetti, 2007 ). These kinds of difficulties are defined as the lack of those skills that allow readers to construct meaning from the text (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007 ).

The relation of prior knowledge, reasoning, and gender to literacy skills

Prior topic knowledge plays an important role in comprehension of single texts (Cromley, Snyder-Hogan, & Luciw-Dubas, 2010 ; Tarchi, 2010 ), hypertexts (Amadieu, Tricot, & Mariné, 2009 ), and multiple texts (Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, & Strømsø, 2013 ). Prior topic knowledge may aid in navigation of networked texts (Amadieu et al., 2009 ; Salmerón, Cañas, Kintsch, & Fajardo, 2005 ); it may also support intertextual inferencing (Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ) as well as the evaluation of information during online research (Forzani, 2016 ). However, Coiro ( 2011 ) found that even though prior topic knowledge played an important role in online research and comprehension performance of students with low online reading skills, it did not influence the performance of students with high online reading skills. Further, a recent study showed that even though prior topic knowledge was associated with knowledge acquisition after engaging with multiple web pages on a socio-scientific topic, it was not associated with multiple source integration (Andresen, Anmarkrud, & Bråten, 2018 ). These results suggest that prior knowledge is also an important factor in online research; however, further research is needed to better understand its role.

In addition to prior topic knowledge, theoretical models of reading specify inferential processes as integral for reading comprehension (Kendeou, McMaster, & Christ, 2016 ); as such, students with low verbal and nonverbal reasoning skills are more likely to have comprehension difficulties (Snowling, 2013 ). Nonverbal reasoning has been shown to have direct and indirect effects on reading comprehension (Swart et al., 2017 ); it has also been shown to support young at-risk readers’ development of comprehension skills (Peng et al., 2018 ). Online research may require reasoning skills additional to those required for the reading of a single text on paper. Readers need to make inferences about the usefulness of a web page with the incomplete information provided by search engines (Coiro & Dobler, 2007 ), intertextual inferences across online texts (Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ), and source-content inferences to judge the quality of information (Britt et al., 2018 ). Reasoning skills are particularly needed when reading tasks—such as complex online research tasks—require critical thinking and problem solving (Adlof, Catts, & Lee, 2010 ).

Gender difference has also been an area of interest in literacy research. Girls have been shown to have an advantage in reading fluency and reading comprehension in several studies (Logan & Johnston, 2009 ; Torppa, Eklund, Sulkunen, Niemi, & Ahonen, 2018 ), including large-scale international studies, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (OECD, 2013b ). Similar patterns have also been observed in some ORC studies (Forzani, 2016 ; Salmerón, García, & Vidal-Abarca, 2018 ).

The present study

In the current study, we set out to examine how literacy skills (reading fluency, written spelling, and reading comprehension), prior topic knowledge, nonverbal reasoning, and gender are related to students’ ORC performance. We expected that reading comprehension, prior knowledge, nonverbal reasoning, and gender would independently contribute to explain the variance of ORC performance (Hypothesis 1). Studies using similar types of online reading tasks have found considerable overlap in skills needed in reading comprehension and online research tasks (Coiro, 2011 ; Hahnel, Goldhammer, Naumann, & Kröhne, 2016 ; Salmerón et al., 2018 ). In light of this research, we expected reading comprehension to be the strongest predictor of students’ ORC performance. Of the other explanatory factors, prior topic knowledge has been shown to play an important role in comprehension of single and multiple texts (e.g., McNamara & Kintsch, 1996 ; Bråten et al., 2013 ). Therefore, we expected that prior topic knowledge would also independently contribute to ORC performance. Furthermore, an ORC task involving multiple online texts requires inferencing within and across texts that is not necessarily captured in multiple choice reading comprehension tests, which we also used in this study (Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ). Therefore, we expected nonverbal reasoning to be another unique contributor to ORC performance over and above reading comprehension. We also included gender in our analyses, expecting to confirm previous findings that show that girls outperform boys in digital reading tasks (OECD, 2013b ; Naumann & Sälzer, 2017 ; Salmerón et al., 2018 ). Finally, we were interested to test whether lower level literacy skills, reading fluency, and written spelling would affect ORC skills through reading comprehension or whether these skills would make their own contribution.

Participants

The participants were 426 sixth-grade students (207 girls, 219 boys) aged from 12 to 13 years ( M  = 12.34, SD  = .32) from eight elementary schools in Central Finland. Both large and average sized schools from urban and rural areas voluntarily participated. The data were collected during the fall semesters of 2014 and 2015. A statement from the Ethical Committee was obtained, and the participants’ primary caregivers gave their written consent for participation in the study.

Measures and materials

Students’ ORC skills were measured with the Internet Reading Assessment (Internet Lukemisen Arviointi, or ILA test), which is a Finnish adaptation (see Kiili et al., 2018b ) of the Online Research and Comprehension Assessment originally developed by Leu et al. ( 2013a ). The test consists of a simulated closed Internet environment and tasks that measure four ORC skill areas: (1) locating information, (2) evaluating information, (3) synthesizing information, and (4) communicating information (see also Kiili et al., 2018b ).

At the beginning of the test, students received an assignment by email from the principal of a fictitious school. In this email, the principal asked students to explore the health effects of energy drinks and to write a recommendation justifying whether the principal should allow the school to purchase an energy drink vending machine. During the test, students were guided through the tasks by two avatar students in an environment that simulated a social networking site with a chat message window.

Students were asked to read four online resources (two news web pages [OR1, OR4], an academic online resource [OR2], and a commercial online resource [OR3]) to form their final recommendation concerning the purchase of an energy drink vending machine. The students were also required to take notes while reading these online resources. Students were asked to locate two of these resources (OR2, OR4) by formulating a search query in a search engine. When they received the search engine result list, they were asked to distinguish the relevant online resource from the irrelevant ones. If a student failed in this locating task, the avatar student gave a link to the online resource in the social networking site. Two additional resources (OR1, OR3) were given to the students. Thus, even if a student was not able to receive credit for selecting the correct resource, they could still read and take notes from the relevant resources, thereby receiving credit for this part of the task.

Students were also asked to evaluate two of four online resources—an academic (OR2) and a commercial (OR3) online resource—with regard to the author’s expertise in health issues as well as the overall credibility of the online resource itself. Instructions for the evaluation task were given by the avatar student in the chat message window. After reading, taking notes, and evaluating the online resources, the students were asked to compose a summary text on the basis of what they had learned from these resources concerning the health effects of energy drinks. They were able to utilize their notes while writing the summary. Finally, the students were asked to compose an email to the principal, in which they justified their opinion concerning the purchase of the energy drink vending machine. [For a more detailed description of the ILA test and the content of the online resources, see Kiili et al. ( 2018a , 2018b ). The scoring rubric for the measured skills can be found in the Appendix.]

The original assessment—the Online Research and Comprehension Assessment—was developed with acceptable levels of reliability and validity. Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient for the energy drinks task was .83. Validity was established with a framework document approved by experts, 2 years of cognitive lab testing, and modifications based on a large scale pilot study (Leu et al., 2015 ).

To establish inter-rater reliability of coding, two independent coders, including the first and second author and trained research assistants, coded 20% of the responses for each of the 16 items. The kappa values for inter-rater reliability in locating information were 1.000. These varied in evaluation (four items) between .947 and .983, in identifying main ideas and synthesizing (six items) between .784 and 1.000, and in communication (two items) between .722 and .939. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. The remaining responses were scored by a single rater. Validation of the ILA was conducted through confirmatory factor analysis showing that the ILA assessment satisfactorily reflected the ORC framework (Kiili et al., 2018b ).

Reading fluency

Fluency was measured using the three tests described below. A reading fluency factor (see the Data Analyses section) was formed on the basis of these tests. The McDonald’s omega—a model based reliability—was .68 (cf. Zhang & Yuan, 2016 ).

The word identification test, a subtest of the standardized Finnish reading test battery ALLU (Lindeman, 1998 ), included 80 items, each consisting of a picture and four alternative written words. The students’ task was to identify and connect correct picture–word pairs by drawing a line between a word and a picture. The score was the number of correctly connected pairs within the two minutes. The Kuder–Richardson reliability coefficient for the original test was .97 (Lindeman, 1998 ).

The word chain test (Holopainen, Kairaluoma, Nevala, Ahonen, & Aro, 2004 ) consisted of 25 chains of four words written without spaces between them. The students’ task was to draw a line at the word boundaries. The score was the number of correctly separated words within the 90 s time limit. The test–retest reliability coefficient for the original test varied between .70 and .84.

The oral pseudoword text - reading test (Eklund, Torppa, Aro, Leppänen, & Lyytinen, 2014 ) consisted of 38 pseudowords (277 letters). These pseudowords were presented in the form of a short passage, which students were instructed to read aloud as quickly and accurately as possible. The reading performance of the students was audio recorded for consecutive scoring. The score was the number of correctly read pseudowords divided by the time, in seconds, spent on reading. The inter-rater agreement for scoring the original test was .95 (Eklund et al., 2014 ).

Written spelling

Spelling accuracy was measured with a task in which students were asked to write 12 four syllable pseudowords from dictation (see Eklund et al., 2014 ). The recorded pseudowords were presented verbally to students twice, one at a time. The score was the number of correctly spelled items. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .49, and Revelle’s omega reliability coefficient was .86.

Reading comprehension

Comprehension skills were tested using another subtest of the standardized Finnish reading test battery (Lindeman, 1998 ). In this subtest, students were asked to read an expository text of instructions for consumers and to respond to 12 multiple choice (four options) questions representing the following categories: (1) detail/fact (one question), (2) cause–effect/structure (one question), (3) conclusion/interpretation (four questions), (4) concept/phrase (three questions), and 5) main idea/purpose (three questions). The two page text was available when responding to the questions. The maximum score was 12 points. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .64, and Revelle’s omega reliability coefficient was .86.

Nonverbal reasoning

Nonverbal reasoning ability was assessed with Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test, which is a visuospatial task appropriate for children over 11 years of age (Raven, 1998 ). The test consists of 60 items, of which a shortened version was used containing 30 items (every second item from the larger test). Previous studies have shown that shortened versions produce an adequate estimate of nonverbal reasoning compared to the full version of Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (see, e.g., Wytek, Opgenoorth, & Presslich, 1984 ). The total score was the number of items correctly responded to. In another large scale project with more than 800 sixth graders from the same area in Finland, the same shortened version was used with a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of .81 (Kanerva et al., submitted for publication).

Prior knowledge

Prior knowledge (refering to prior topic knowledge) was tested with seven multiple choice (four options) questions on energy drinks and their health effects. The answer options included one correct option, two incorrect options, and a “don’t know” option. One point was given for each correct selection, and zero points were given for selecting the other options. The Kuder–Richardson reliability coefficient for the total score was .89, and Revelle’s omega reliability coefficient was .42.

The data were collected in four separate researcher-led sessions: three 45 min group testing sessions and one five minute individual test session. During the first two group sessions, students completed the tests of literacy skills and nonverbal reasoning. In the third group session, the students completed the ILA test on laptops after answering prior knowledge questions. Students’ performances were saved as log files and recorded with a screen capture program. During the assessment, the researchers provided technical assistance with the test application when needed. In the fourth session, the students completed the pseudoword text reading task in an individual test setting.

Data analyses

All analyses were conducted with Mplus version 7.3 and IBM SPSS Statistics 22. Since the pre-analysis of these data revealed some non-normality of the observed variables, and the ORC variables were categorical, the weighted least square (WLSMV) estimator was used in the structural equation model (SEM). WLSMV conducts the estimation with a diagonal weight matrix with robust standard errors and with a mean and variance adjusted χ 2 test statistic with a full weight matrix (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2017). To ensure that the specified latent factors model adequately represented the data, the model fit was evaluated using multiple indices, including Chi square (χ 2 ), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and weighted root mean square residual (WRMR). As an acceptable model fit, the following cutoff criteria were generally preferred: χ 2 test ( p  > .05), RMSEA < .06, TLI and CFI ≥ .95, and WRMR ≤ .90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Yu, 2002 ). Missing values were due, for example, to sickness absences. To estimate the model parameters, the incomplete cases were used in the analyses. WLSMV supposes that missingness is allowed to be a function of the observed covariates but not of the observed outcomes (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010 ; Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2017). There were no missing values in the 15 observed variables of ORC skills, except 11.7% in NOTE2 and 7.7% in NOTE4 (Fig.  1 ). Neither were there any missing values in prior knowledge and gender. The amount of missing data varied between 0.5 and 1.6% in the reading fluency tests forming the factor. The amount of missing data was 2.6% in written spelling, 0.9% in reading comprehension, and 2.3% in nonverbal reasoning.

SEM of literacy skills (reading fluency, written spelling [WSP], reading comprehension [RC]), nonverbal reasoning (NVR), prior knowledge (PK), and gender (GNDR) in relation to ORC skills. Notes. RF1 = word identification test, RF2 = word chain test, RF3 = oral pseudoword reading test. Measurement components are shown using thin lines and structural components are shown using bolded lines. Circles represent latent variables, and rectangles represent observed variables. All values are standardized, and all statistically significant ( p  < .01–.001) coefficients and unexplained variances are included in the figure. Nonsignificant relations are presented using brackets and dotted lines. The LOC1 observed variable did not load on the Locating factor (see Kiili et al., 2018b )

The six latent factors of ORC subskills (see Kiili et al., 2018b ) were used in the SEM investigating literacy skills (reading fluency, written spelling, and reading comprehension), prior knowledge, nonverbal reasoning, and gender in relation to ORC. The first confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model was formed on the basis of 15 observed variables. Since the six latent factors were highly correlated, another, more restrictive, CFA model with a common second order factor and six first order factors was evaluated against the first, less restrictive, CFA model. The comparison of these two nested models was implemented in Mplus with a DIFFTEST option.

After endorsing the final measurement model, the following were included in the SEM: reading fluency as a latent factor; written spelling, reading comprehension, prior knowledge, and nonverbal reasoning as observed variables; and gender. The reading fluency factor was based on the three reading fluency tests described earlier. In the aforementioned SEM, the predictor variables were evaluated in relation to the common ORC factor. As an additional extension of the analyses, we also evaluated these same predictor variables in relation to the six ORC subskills.

Descriptive statistics for literacy skills, prior knowledge, and nonverbal reasoning

Table  1 shows the descriptive statistics for the measured independent variables. Figure  1 shows the correlations between the independent variables.

Dimensional structure of online research and comprehension skills

The results of the structural equation model are shown in Fig.  1 . In this section, we present the measurement model for ORC skills. In the next section, we present the aspects that were predicted to explain students’ performance in ORC.

The measurement model revealed six ORC factors. These were labelled (1) locating, (2) confirming credibility, (3) questioning credibility, (4) identifying main ideas, (5) synthesizing, and (6) communicating (see also Kiili et al., 2018b ). In this CFA model, all parameter estimates were statistically significant ( p  < .01), and all fit indices indicated a good model fit ( χ 2 (75) = 83.57, p  = .233; RMSEA = .02; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; WRMR = .59). Since the factors were strongly correlated ( r  = .29–.73), a second order factor was set to capture the common variance across the six first order factors in another CFA model.

This common factor was named ORC. The second CFA model also demonstrated good fit to the data ( χ 2 (84) = 108.77, p  = .036; RMSEA = .03; CFI = .99; TLI = .99; WRMR = .72); however, the χ 2 -difference test indicated that the less restricted model of the six first order factors would fit the data better (χ 2-diff (9) = 20.43, p  = .015) than the model of the second order factor of ORC and the six first order factors. However, the modification indices suggested that the model fit would be better if the residuals of questioning credibility and synthesizing were allowed to correlate. This third CFA model fulfilled the criteria for a good model fit ( χ 2 (83) = 89.50, p  = .294; RMSEA = .01; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; WRMR = .64). In addition, the χ 2 -difference test indicated that this more restricted CFA model would fit the data equally as well (χ 2-diff (8) = 7.18, p  = .517) as the less restricted model of the six first order factors.

Based on these results, the third CFA model was considered as the final measurement model and was utilized as a part of the aforementioned final SEM (Fig.  1 ). In the SEM, the common ORC factor explained 26% of locating (.51; p  < .001), 42% of confirming credibility (.65; p  < .001), 37% of questioning credibility (.61; p  < .001), 71% of identifying main ideas (.84; p  < .001), 63% of synthesizing (.79; p  < .001), and 63% of communicating (.80; p  < .001). The negative correlation (.33; p  < .01) between the residuals of questioning credibility and synthesizing indicated an inverse relation between the residuals.

Aspects explaining students’ performance in online research and comprehension

In the next phase of the analysis, predictor variables were included in the SEM. Supporting Hypothesis 1, reading comprehension, nonverbal reasoning, and gender independently contributed to explain the variance of ORC performance: The regression coefficient of reading comprehension was .34 ( p  < .01), nonverbal reasoning was .14 ( p  < .001), and gender was .34 ( p  < .001). Contrary to our expectations, the relation between prior knowledge and ORC was nonsignificant. Furthermore, when examining lower level literacy skills in relation to the ORC performance, it was found that reading fluency and written spelling both independently contributed to ORC performance. The regression coefficient of reading fluency was .18 ( p  < .01) and written spelling was .17 ( p  < .001).

Altogether, predictor variables included in the SEM model explained 57% of the ORC variance. Therefore, 43% of the variance in the ORC factor remained unexplained. All the fit indices of the SEM, except the χ 2 test ( p  = .004), indicated a good model fit: CFI was .99, TLI was .98, RMSEA was .03, and WRMR was .78.

In order to understand the role of different literacy skills and other individual differences in students’ performance in different areas of ORC, we conducted a differential examination with the six factor component model (Table  2 ). The results of this additional SEM indicated that reading comprehension was related to all other ORC subskills except locating information. Written spelling was related to locating, synthesizing, and communicating, whereas reading fluency was only related to communication. Further, gender was related to all other subskills except locating and confirming credibility, and nonverbal reasoning was related to identifying main ideas and communicating. All the fit indices of the SEM indicated a good model fit ( χ 2 (169) = 206.22, p  = .027; RMSEA = .02; CFI = .99; TLI = .99; WRMR = .63).

The present study sought to understand the role that literacy skills (reading fluency, written spelling, and reading comprehension), prior knowledge, nonverbal reasoning, and gender play in sixth graders’ ORC performance. Since the ORC subskills were highly correlated, the aforementioned variables were evaluated in relation to a common factor of ORC as well as in relation to ORC subskills.

Struggling readers face difficulties in online research and comprehension

In line with previous research (Coiro, 2011 ; Leu et al., 2015 ; Salmerón et al., 2018 ), reading comprehension, along with gender, was the strongest predictor for ORC performance, and it was also related to all ORC subskills except locating information. It might be that the current assessment, where students were given specific instructions for locating tasks, required more understanding of how search engines work than comprehension skills. In more open locating tasks, where readers need to comprehend the task assignment in order to formulate relevant search queries, reading comprehension may play a bigger role.

In addition, lower level literacy skills (reading fluency and written spelling) were unique predictors for the ORC performance. This contradicts the finding by Salmerón et al. ( 2018 ), who did not find an effect of word identification on the performance of an online reading task among secondary school students. It is worth noting that in the study by Salmerón et al. ( 2018 ), more emphasis was placed on the navigational component of online reading than in the present study. On the other hand, Hahnel, Goldhammer, Kröhne, and Naumann ( 2018 ) found that lower level reading skills, namely performance in a sentence verification task, made a unique contribution in addition to reading comprehension when students evaluated search engine web page results. As such, our results suggest that lower level reading skills in early adolescence can contribute to ORC performance. Slow reading makes it more difficult to read all the required materials in multiple online texts in a given time.

This is confirmed by the fact that—despite the unique contribution of reading fluency to the ORC common factor—fluency in the differential examination was primarily related to communication. The communication task required text based argumentation: that is, relying on reasoning based on the collection of information from multiple online texts, which presupposed the reading of whole web pages. Furthermore, written spelling was related to three subskills, with the strongest relationship to locating information. In our assessment environment, the search engine did not suggest correctly spelled search terms; as such, the relation we found might be stronger than it would be in authentic search environments, where search engines suggest corrections to misspellings.

The linear relationship of literacy skills to ORC performance suggests that those with below average reading fluency, written spelling, or reading comprehension are also very likely to have difficulties in ORC. Struggling readers seem to have difficulties especially in identifying main ideas and synthesizing and communicating information (see Fig.  1 ), which are essential skills for understanding the topic at hand. Lack of these skills may hinder their ability to learn from online information. When the direct relation of literacy skills to subskills was examined (Table  2 ), readers with poor reading comprehension skills also struggle with the evaluation of information.

Nonverbal reasoning and prior knowledge in online research and comprehension

In accordance with our expectations, nonverbal reasoning contributed independently to the variance of ORC performance. This is consistent with earlier findings suggesting a supportive role for nonverbal reasoning in reading comprehension (Swart et al., 2017 ; Peng et al., 2018 ). When examining the relation of nonverbal reasoning to ORC subskills, nonverbal reasoning was found to be related to identifying main ideas and communicating. In particular, communication tasks required reasoning skills because students were asked to form a recommendation and to justify it with reasoning that represented different perspectives covered in the online resources.

Even though prior knowledge has been found to play an important role in various reading contexts (e.g., McNamara & Kintsch, 1996 ; Bråten et al., 2013 ), it was not a significant predictor in the present study. One reason for this might be that all students had at least some general knowledge of energy drinks and health that helped them in the task, as the topic has been widely discussed in public and probably also in many homes. Notably, other ORC studies (Coiro, 2011 ; Leu et al., 2015 ) have found that prior knowledge does not play such an important role in students’ ORC performance. On the other hand, Forzani ( 2016 ) found a positive but weak relation between prior knowledge and evaluation of information during online research. We want to point out that our finding might be related to how prior knowledge was measured in this study (see limitations). As such, one should be hesitant in drawing any conclusions about the role of prior knowledge on the basis of the current results.

Girls outperformed boys in online research and comprehension

Our results showing that girls outperformed boys in ORC are consistent with previous findings in digital reading contexts (Forzani, 2016 ; Naumann & Sälzer, 2017 ; Salmerón et al., 2018 ). Gender had a direct effect beyond indirect effects via literacy skills and other predictors. Therefore, there are other gender related differences that could explain why girls performed better than boys in the ORC task. Future research should explore the gender differences by evaluating, for example, the role of motivation for reading to learn from online information. Compelling evidence shows that girls show more positive motivation for traditional reading than boys (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997 ) and that reading engagement seems to mediate their higher reading scores (Chiu & McBride-Chang, 2006 ). This might be the case especially in Finland, where the gender difference in reading engagement is one of the widest among OECD countries (Brozo et al., 2014 ). Even though boys seem to have more positive attitudes towards computers (Meelissen & Drent, 2008 ), girls show better reading performance across different reading environments and tasks. Notably, gender differences were not found in locating information that might be perceived as relating to a more technology related activity.

Limitations and future research

The present study comes with several limitations that could be addressed in future research. First, students’ ORC skills were measured with a performance based assessment that simulated online research in the closed, scaffolded information space. Students’ literacy skills, prior knowledge, and nonverbal reasoning skills may play somewhat different roles in more complex, open Internet information spaces. Furthermore, assessing students’ information locating skills in particular would benefit from several additional tasks that would better reveal students’ search patterns (Kiili et al., 2018b ). However, including all ORC subskills into one assessment requires compromising on the number of tasks. To complete the ILA assessment in its current form already requires students to invest a lot of cognitive effort.

Some of the other measures also have limitations. First, prior knowledge had somewhat low reliability. Second, prior knowledge was measured with only seven items that did not cover all perspectives on the topic presented in online resources. Furthermore, giving students the option to select “don’t know” as an answer instead of the inclusion of an additional false option may have restricted the variability.

Finally, our study examined only a few potential sources of individual variation in online research and comprehension skills. 43% of the variance remained unexplained. One potential source could be metacognitive skills that are required particularly in complex reading tasks where readers need to compare and synthesize information from multiple online resources (Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Graesser, & Brodowinska, 2012 ). Previous research has shown that good reading comprehension skills do not ensure students’ success in integrating information from multiple texts (Stahl, Hynd, Britton, McNish, & Bosquet, 1996 ). Integrating information may also involve additional demands on working memory (Andresen et al., 2018 ; DeStefano & Levre, 2007 ). Additionally, students’ attention and executive functions may contribute to their ORC performance, especially in synthesizing information. In traditional reading research, executive functions have been shown to be associated with reading comprehension (Follmer, 2018 ), and some evidence exists that inattention increases difficulties when working with online information (Desjarlais, 2013 ).

Theoretical and instructional implications

This study expands our theoretical knowledge of ORC and contributes to instruction. First, our findings suggested that, in future studies, students’ performance in ORC could be investigated as a single construct, since a large amount of the common variance in ORC subskills was captured by a latent structure. Thus, depending on the purpose of the study, the students’ ORC skills could be examined by using either a general ORC construct or a more detailed component structure that is based on the theoretical model (Kiili et al., 2018b ; Leu et al., 2013a , 2013b ).

Because literacy skills partly overlap with ORC skills, instruction supporting students’ literacy skills is important but not sufficient for educating skilled online readers. We believe that struggling readers would benefit from instruction that is relevant to both traditional reading and ORC. Online readers need effective comprehension strategies that they can apply in the context of both single and multiple texts (Cho & Afflerbach, 2015 ; Britt et al., 2018 ). As comprehension of multiple online resources goes beyond comprehension of a single online resource, students need instruction on accessing, selecting, evaluating, and using online resources that vary in their perspectives, interpretations, and genres (Britt et al., 2018 ).

Reading of multiple online texts might be overwhelming for many struggling readers. Because they need more time and effort for reading as compared to their classmates, struggling readers would benefit from guided practice in which they can integrate ideas from a limited numbers of texts, starting from two different texts. This would ensure more resources for practicing the specific skills needed for synthesizing, such as comparing and contrasting texts and forming ties between ideas originating from different online texts.

According to our model, all six component skills contribute to ORC performance, and all students, including struggling readers, need support to develop these skills. Students need to know how to form search terms, how to enter them into a search engine (Leu et al., 2013a ), and how to examine who the author of an online resource is and why he or she has written the text (Cho & Afflerbach, 2015 ). Instruction focusing on effective locating and evaluation strategies would help struggling readers become more skilled in these areas. Being able to efficiently locate and evaluate online information would increase resources dedicated to making sense of relevant online texts. Because ORC requires novel approaches for teaching reading strategies and supporting students with special needs, increased attention should be paid to teacher professional development.

Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Lee, J. (2010). Kindergarten predictors of second versus eighth grade reading comprehension impairments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410369067 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Prior knowledge in learning from a non-linear electronic document: Disorientation and coherence of the reading sequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.017 .

Andresen, A., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Bråten, I. (2018). Investigating multiple source use among students with and without dyslexia. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9904-z .

Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2010). Weighted least squares estimation with missing data. Mplus Technical Appendix, 2010, 1–10. Retrieved June 25, 2018, from http://www.statmodel.com/download/GstrucMissingRevision.pdf .

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (n.d). The Australian Curriculum, v6.0. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Home .

Berggren, J. (2014). Learning from giving feedback: A study of secondary-level students. ELT Journal, 69, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu036 .

Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 487–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.005 .

Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647 .

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26, 321–348.

Britt, M. A., & Gabrys, G. (2002). Implications of document-level literacy skills for web site design. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 170–176. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195439 .

Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. (2018). Representations and processes in multiple source use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 17–33). New York, NY: Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Brozo, W. G., Sulkunen, S., Shiel, G., Garbe, C., Pandian, A., & Valtin, R. (2014). Reading, gender, and engagement. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57, 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.291 .

Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1004_1 .

Cho, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2015). Reading on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58 (6), 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.387 .

Cho, B.-Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (2nd ed., pp. 109–134). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 352–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11421979 .

Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257.

Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019452 .

Desjarlais, M. (2013). Internet exploration behaviours and recovery from unsuccessful actions differ between learners with high and low levels of attention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 694–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.006 .

DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1616–1641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012 .

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3%3c287:AID-SCE1%3e3.0.CO;2-A .

Eklund, K., Torppa, M., Aro, M., Leppänen, P. H., & Lyytinen, H. (2014). Literacy skill development of children with familial risk for dyslexia through grades 2, 3, and 8. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037121 .

Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.005 .

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention . New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 35, 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295 .

Forzani, E. (2016). Individual differences in evaluating the credibility of online information in science: Contributions of prior knowledge, gender, socioeconomic status, and offline reading ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2013). Preparing for life in a digital age. The IEA international computer and information literacy study international report. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). Retrieved November 18, 2017, from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICILS_2013_International_Report.pdf .

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3 .

Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (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 .

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104 .

Hahnel, C., Goldhammer, F., Kröhne, U., & Naumann, J. (2018). The role of reading skills in the evaluation of online information gathered from search engine environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.004 .

Hahnel, C., Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., & Kröhne, U. (2016). Effects of linear reading, basic computer skills, evaluating online information, and navigation on reading digital text. Computers in Human Behavior, 55 (Part A), 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.042 .

Hartman, D. K., Morsink, P. M., & Zheng, J. (2010). From print to pixels: The evolution of cognitive conceptions of reading comprehension. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 131–164). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Holopainen, L., Kairaluoma, L., Nevala, J., Ahonen, T., & Aro, M. (2004). Lukivaikeuksien seulontamenetelmä nuorille ja aikuisille [Dyslexia screening test for youth and adults] . Jyväskylä: Niilo Mäki Instituutti.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 .

International ICT Literacy Panel. (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved February 17, 2019, http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/Information_and_Communication_Technology_Literacy/ictreport.pdf .

Kanerva, K., Kiistala, I., Kalakoski, V., Hirvonen, R., Ahonen, T., & Kiuru, N. (submitted for publication). The feasibility of WM tablet tasks in predicting scholastic skills in classroom settings.

Kendeou, P., McMaster, K. L., & Christ, T. J. (2016). Reading comprehension: Core components and processes. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624707 .

Kiili, C., Leu, D. J., Marttunen, M., Hautala, J., & Leppänen, P. H. (2018a). Exploring early adolescents’ evaluation of academic and commercial online resources related to health. Reading and Writing, 31 , 533–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9797-2 .

Kiili, C., Leu, D. J., Utriainen, J., Coiro, J., Kanniainen, L., Tolvanen, A., et al. (2018b). Reading to learn from online information: Modeling the factor structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 50 , 304–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X18784640

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2 .

Lapp, D., Shea, A., & Wolsey, T. D. (2011). Blogging and audience awareness. Journal of Education, 191, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741119100104 .

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., et al. (2013a). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with common core state standards. In S. B. Newman & L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of common core standards (pp. 219–236). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.85 .

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013b). New literacies and the new literacies of online reading comprehension: A dual level theory. In N. Unrau & D. Alvermann (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: IRA.

Lewandowski, D. (2011). The influence of commercial intent of search results on their perceived relevance. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference (pp. 452–458) Seattle, WA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1940761.1940823 .

Lindeman, J. (1998). Ala-asteen lukutesti ALLU [Reading test for primary school ALLU] . Turku: Center for Learning Research.

Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x .

McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975 .

McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297–384.

Meelissen, M. R., & Drent, M. (2008). Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 969–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.03.001 .

Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide, 8th edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

National Reading Panel, National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction . Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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 .

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy . Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-en .

Book   Google Scholar  

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2013). PISA 2012 results: Excellence through equity (volume II): giving every student the chance to succeed . Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201132-en .

Peng, P., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Elleman, A. M., Kearns, D. M., Gilbert, J. K., et al. (2018). A longitudinal analysis of the trajectories and predictors of word reading and reading comprehension development among at-risk readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities . https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418809080 .

Pérez, A., Potocki, A., Stadtler, M., Macedo-Rouet, M., Paul, J., Salmerón, L., et al. (2018). Fostering teenagers’ assessment of information reliability: Effects of a classroom intervention focused on critical source dimensions. Learning and Instruction, 58, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.006 .

Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730 .

Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687 .

Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., Friedrich, L., Jacklin, A., et al. (2012). How teens do research in the digital world . Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.

Raven, J. C. (1998). Raven’s progressive matrices . Oxford: Psychologists Press, Oxford.

Rouet, J. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rouet, J., Ros, C., Goumi, A., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Dinet, J. (2011). The influence of surface and deep cues on primary and secondary school students’ assessment of relevance in web menus. Learning and Instruction, 21, 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.007 .

Salmerón, L., Cañas, J. J., Kintsch, W., & Fajardo, I. (2005). Reading strategies and hypertext comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40, 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4003_1 .

Salmerón, L., García, A., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2018). The development of adolescents’ comprehension-based Internet reading skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.006 .

Share, D. L. (2008). Orthographic learning, phonological recoding, and self-teaching. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 31–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(08)00002-5 .

Snowling, M. J. (2013). Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: A contemporary view. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01262.x .

Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430–456.

Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29, 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903046864 .

Swart, N. M., Muijselaar, M. M., Steenbeek-Planting, E. G., Droop, M., de Jong, P. F., & Verhoeven, L. (2017). Cognitive precursors of the developmental relation between lexical quality and reading comprehension in the intermediate elementary grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 59, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.08.009 .

Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus on direct and indirect effects of reader’s prior knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 415–420.

The Finnish National Board of Education. (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014 . Helsinki: The Finnish National Board of Education.

Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., Van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 383–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01401.x .

Torppa, M., Eklund, K., Sulkunen, S., Niemi, P., & Ahonen, T. (2018). Why do boys and girls perform differently on PISA reading in Finland? The effects of reading fluency, achievement behaviour, leisure reading and homework activity. Journal of Research in Reading, 41, 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12103 .

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420 .

Wytek, R., Opgenoorth, E., & Presslich, O. (1984). Development of a new shortened version of Raven’s Matrices test for application rough assessment of present intellectual capacity within psychopathological investigation. Psychopathology, 17, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1159/000284003 .

Yu, C. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved January 20, 2017, from http://www.statmodel.com/download/Yudissertation.pdf

Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K. H. (2016). Robust coefficients alpha and omega and confidence intervals with outlying observations and missing data: Methods and software. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76, 387–411.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Open access funding provided by University of Jyväskylä (JYU). We thank the teachers, students, and parents from the participating schools for their cooperation. We also thank Sini Hjelm, Sonja Tiri, and Paula Rahkonen for collecting and managing the data. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. Last but not least, we thank the development team of the Online Research and Comprehension Assessment (ORCA).

This research was part of the project (No. 274022), Internet and learning difficulties: Multidisciplinary approach for understanding information seeking in new media (eSeek) , funded by the Academy of Finland.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

Laura Kanniainen & Paavo H. T. Leppänen

Department of Education, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1092, Blindern, 0137, Oslo, Norway

Carita Kiili

Methodology Centre for Human Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

Asko Tolvanen

Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Kanniainen .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Scoring criteria for students’ online research and comprehension performance by component skills

• OR1 = online resource 1; OR2 = online resource 2; OR3 = online resource 3; OR4 = online resource 4
• For more detailed scoring criteria see Kiili et al. ( 2018b )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kanniainen, L., Kiili, C., Tolvanen, A. et al. Literacy skills and online research and comprehension: struggling readers face difficulties online. Read Writ 32 , 2201–2222 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09944-9

Download citation

Published : 21 March 2019

Issue Date : November 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09944-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital literacy
• Online reading
• Information literacy
• Comprehension
• Struggling readers
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Skip to content

Your source for improving outcomes for students with literacy-related disabilities, including dyslexia.

Get Started

Clash of Heroes Contest

Voting for this year's contest has now closed. Check out past winners and learn more about the contest.

Check out Clash of Heroes now

See this year's submissions.

See this year's submissions now.

A Path to Success

For Parents & Families

Help your child read and write with practical ideas and strategies based on what works.

For Schools & Districts

Find evidence-based approaches and effective professional development to screen, identify, and teach students with literacy-related difficulties.

For State Agencies

Develop and implement state and local structures and procedures to address challenges that students with literacy-related difficulties face in learning.

The Literacy Playground for Kids & Families!

• All Resources

Check out the Kidzone!

Explore Topics

View more Topics

Explore Tools & Resources

Improving literacy briefs.

Research summaries and infographics written by our experts.

Implementation Toolkits

Practical help for implementing recommended literacy practices.

MTSS-R Implementation Guide

Step-by-step guide to implementing multi-tiered systems of support in reading (MTSS-R).

Resource Repository

Recommended websites, downloads, and videos from reliable sources.

State of Dyslexia

Dyslexia legislation and related initiatives in the U.S.A.

Videos & Webinars

Pragmatic discussions and presentations from our experts that explore literacy topics.

Academic Screening Tools Chart Selector

Academic screeners based upon personalized search criteria.

Ask an Expert

Our experts answer your literacy-related questions.

Literacy Skill Checklist

Personalized resources aligned with literacy skills for beginning readers.

Learning Literacy Glossary

Key literacy terms with definitions.

News & Announcements

Educational Diagnostics

Great dialogue with researchers in the field.

March: National Reading Month - 2024

March is National Reading Month, a celebration that encourages reading every day and promotes the value of reading.

Celebrating Black History Month Through Literacy

We’re celebrating Black History Month with a collection of resources that explore diversity considerations in literacy instruction and celebrate Black history and culture.

The research reported here is funded by awards to the National Center on Improving Literacy from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, in partnership with the Office of Special Education Programs (Award #: S283D160003). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of OESE, OSEP, or the U.S. Department of Education. Copyright © 2024 National Center on Improving Literacy. https://improvingliteracy.org

The National Center on Improving Literacy is a partnership among literacy experts, university researchers, and technical assistance providers, with funding from the United States Department of Education.

In Partnership with:

Teaching Research Literacy

At Grinnell College Libraries, we believe the term "research literacy" best defines our work of helping students learn the skills and concepts underlying successful academic inquiry.  To this end, we draw from a multifaceted base in our research literacy work:

From the  Grinnell College Mission Statement :

"The College aims to graduate women and men who can think clearly, who can speak and write persuasively and even eloquently, who can evaluate critically both their own and others' ideas, who can acquire new knowledge, and who are prepared in life and work to use their knowledge and their abilities to serve the common good."

From the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education

Grinnell’s librarians, faculty members and research tutors can help students consider and learn the following principles of academic research:

• Authority Is Constructed and Contextual
• Information Creation as a Process
• Information Has Value
• Research as Inquiry
• Scholarship as Conversation
• Searching as Strategic Exploration

And our own Statement on Research Literacy:

Research literacy is a set of interdisciplinary, transferable competencies that help individuals determine and diminish knowledge gaps. To be research literate is to know methods of inquiry, to possess effective research skills, to navigate all formats of publication fluently, to recognize one's personal limitations and how to overcome them, to know where to start, to discern when to consult a librarian or other expert for assistance, and to communicate ideas effectively. It includes the ability to articulate a research information need, to construct complex search statements, to assess the relevance and authority of found documents, and to be capable of synthesizing existing content in order to explore the parameters of her or his research question. Research literacy is the sum of the attributes required of lifelong learners.

The Librarians of Grinnell College seek to develop research literacy skills in concert with discipline-based learning. Librarians consult and collaborate with classroom faculty to help integrate research literacy competencies into courses and sequence research literacy skills throughout students' academic careers. Through this partnership, students will cultivate research literacy skills, use core resources, and search for information with increased facility, improving their performance in academic work and beyond.

We use cookies to enable essential services and functionality on our site, enhance your user experience, provide better service through personalized content, collect data on how visitors interact with our site, and enable advertising services.

To accept the use of cookies and continue on to the site, click "I Agree." For more information about our use of cookies and how to opt out, please refer to our website privacy policy.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• Student Guide: Information Literacy | Meaning & Examples

Student Guide: Information Literacy | Meaning & Examples

Published on May 13, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Information literacy refers to the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources effectively. The term covers a broad range of skills, including the ability to:

• Navigate databases
• Find credible sources
• Cite sources correctly

Table of contents

Why is information literacy important, information literacy skills, finding sources, evaluating sources, citing sources, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about information literacy.

The vast amount of information available online means that it can be hard to distinguish accurate from inaccurate sources. Published articles are not always credible and sometimes reflect a biased viewpoint intended to sway the reader’s opinion.

Outside of academia, think of the concept of fake news : deliberately spreading misinformation intended to undermine other viewpoints. Or native advertising , designed to match other content on a site so that readers don’t notice they’re reading an advertisement.

It’s important to be aware of such unreliable content, to think critically about where you get your information, and to evaluate sources effectively, both in your research and in your media consumption more generally.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Information literacy is really a combination of skills and competencies that guide your research. Each stage of a research project, from choosing a thesis statement to writing your research paper , will require you to use specific skills and knowledge.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find sources
• Can assess the authority and credibility of a source
• Can distinguish biased from unbiased content
• Can use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

An early stage in the research process is finding relevant sources. It’s important to understand how to search for these sources efficiently.

First, you need to consider what kind of sources you’re looking for. This will depend on the topic and focus of your project, and what stage you are at in the research process.

In the beginning, you may be looking for definitions or broad overviews of a topic. For this, you might use a tertiary source , like an encyclopedia or a dictionary, that is just for your own understanding. Further along, you might look for primary and secondary sources that you will actually cite in your paper. It’s important to ensure that all sources you consult are reliable.

• Websites: Look for websites with legitimate domain extensions (.edu or .gov).
• Search engines: When using search engines to find relevant academic journals and articles, use a trusted resource, like Google Scholar .
• Databases: Check your institution’s library resources to find out what databases they provide access to. Consider what databases are most appropriate to your research.

Finding the right sources means:

• Having a clear research problem
• Knowing what databases and journals are relevant to your research
• Knowing how to narrow and expand your search

Once you have a well-defined research problem, specific keywords, and have chosen a relevant database, you can use Boolean operators to narrow or expand your search. With them, you can prioritize and exclude keywords and search for exact phrases.

Evaluating the quality and credibility of a source is an important way of filtering out misinformation. A reliable source will be unbiased and informed by up-to-date research, and it will cite other credible sources.

You can evaluate the quality of a source using the CRAAP test . “CRAAP” is an acronym that informs the questions you should ask when analyzing a source. It stands for:

• Currency: Is the source recent or outdated?
• Relevance: Is it relevant to your research?
• Authority: Is the journal respected? Is the author an expert in the field?
• Accuracy: Is the information supported by evidence? Does the source provide relevant citations?
• Purpose: Why was the source published? What are the author’s intentions?

How you evaluate a source based on these criteria will depend on the specific subject. In the sciences, conclusions from a source published 20 years ago may have been disproven by recent findings. In a more interpretive subject like English, an article published decades ago might still be relevant.

Just as you look for sources that are supported by evidence and provide correct citations, your own work should provide relevant and accurate citations when you quote or paraphrase a source.

Citing your sources is important because it:

• Allows you to avoid plagiarism
• Establishes the credentials of your sources
• Backs up your arguments with evidence
• Allows your reader to verify the legitimacy of your conclusions

The most common citation styles are:

• APA Style : Typically used in the behavioral and social sciences
• MLA style : Used in the humanities and liberal arts
• Chicago style : Commonly used in the sciences and for history

It’s important to know what citation style your institute recommends. The information you need to include in a citation depends on the type of source you are citing and the specific citation style you’re using. An APA example is shown below.

You can quickly cite sources using Scribbr’s free Citation Generator .

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research

It can sometimes be hard to distinguish accurate from inaccurate sources , especially online. Published articles are not always credible and can reflect a biased viewpoint without providing evidence to support their conclusions.

Information literacy is important because it helps you to be aware of such unreliable content and to evaluate sources effectively, both in an academic context and more generally.

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

The CRAAP test is an acronym to help you evaluate the credibility of a source you are considering using. It is an important component of information literacy .

The CRAAP test has five main components:

• Currency: Is the source up to date?
• Relevance: Is the source relevant to your research?
• Authority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field?
• Accuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly?
• Purpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source?

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). Student Guide: Information Literacy | Meaning & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/information-literacy/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Significance of Basic Literacy Skills

• September 2019

• University of Delhi

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Daffa Dhiya Ulhaq

• Iing Dwi Lestari
• Dwi Ratnasari
• Usman Usman

• Okta Rosfiani
• Cecep Rahman Hermawan
• Assyifa Kamila
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

Language and Literacy Development: Research-Based, Teacher-Tested Strategies

You are here

“Why does it tick and why does it tock?”

“Why don’t we call it a granddaughter clock?”

“Why are there pointy things stuck to a rose?”

“Why are there hairs up inside of your nose?”

She started with Why? and then What? How? and When? By bedtime she came back to Why? once again. She drifted to sleep as her dazed parents smiled at the curious thoughts of their curious child, who wanted to know what the world was about. They kissed her and whispered, “You’ll figure it out.”

—Andrea Beaty, Ada Twist, Scientist

I have dozens of favorite children’s books, but while working on this cluster about language and literacy development, Ada Twist, Scientist kept coming to mind. Ada is an African American girl who depicts the very essence of what it means to be a scientist. The book is a celebration of children’s curiosity, wonder, and desire to learn.

The more I thought about language and literacy, the more Ada became my model. All children should have books as good as Ada Twist, Scientist read to them. All children should be able to read books like Ada Twist, Scientist by the end of third grade. All children should be encouraged to ask questions about their world and be supported in developing the literacy tools (along with broad knowledge, inquiring minds, and other tools!) to answer those questions. All children should see themselves in books that rejoice in learning.

Early childhood teachers play a key role as children develop literacy. While this cluster does not cover the basics of reading instruction, it offers classroom-tested ways to make common practices like read alouds and discussions even more effective.

The cluster begins with “ Enhancing Toddlers’ Communication Skills: Partnerships with Speech-Language Pathologists ,” by Janet L. Gooch. In a mutually beneficial partnership, interns from a university communication disorders program supported Early Head Start teachers in learning several effective ways to boost toddlers’ language development, such as modeling the use of new vocabulary and expanding on what toddlers say. (One quirk of Ada Twist, Scientist is that Ada doesn’t speak until she is 3; in real life, that would be cause for significant concern. Having a submission about early speech interventions was pure serendipity.) Focusing on preschoolers, Kathleen M. Horst, Lisa H. Stewart, and Susan True offer a framework for enhancing social, emotional, and academic learning. In “ Joyful Learning with Stories: Making the Most of Read Alouds ,” they explain how to establish emotionally supportive routines that are attentive to each child’s strengths and needs while also increasing group discussions. During three to five read alouds of a book, teachers engage children in building knowledge, vocabulary, phonological awareness, and concepts of print.

Next up, readers go inside the lab school at Stepping Stones Museum for Children. In “ Equalizing Opportunities to Learn: A Collaborative Approach to Language and Literacy Development in Preschool ,” Laura B. Raynolds, Margie B. Gillis, Cristina Matos, and Kate Delli Carpini share the engaging, challenging activities they designed with and for preschoolers growing up in an under-resourced community. Devondre finds out how hard Michelangelo had to work to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and Sayo serves as a guide in the children’s classroom minimuseum— taking visitors to her artwork!

Moving into first grade, Laura Beth Kelly, Meridith K. Ogden, and Lindsey Moses explain how they helped children learn to lead and participate in meaningful discussions of literature. “ Collaborative Conversations: Speaking and Listening in the Primary Grades ” details the children’s progress (and the teacher’s methods) as they developed discussion-related social and academic skills. Although the first graders still required some teacher facilitation at the end of the school year, they made great strides in preparing for conversations, listening to their peers, extending others’ comments, asking questions, and reflecting on discussions.

Rounding out the cluster are two articles on different aspects of learning to read. In “ Sounding It Out Is Just the First Step: Supporting Young Readers ,” Sharon Ruth Gill briefly explains the complexity of the English language and suggests several ways teachers can support children as they learn to decode fluently. Her tips include giving children time to self-correct, helping them use semantic and syntactic cues, and analyzing children’s miscues to decide what to teach next.

In “ Climbing Fry’s Mountain: A Home–School Partnership for Learning Sight Words ,” Lynda M. Valerie and Kathleen A. Simoneau describe a fun program for families. With game-like activities that require only basic household items, children in kindergarten through second grade practice reading 300 sight words. Children feel successful as they begin reading, and teachers reserve instructional time for phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, and other essentials of early reading.

At the end of Ada Twist, Scientist , there is a marvelous illustration of Ada’s whole family reading. “They remade their world—now they’re all in the act / of helping young Ada sort fiction from fact.” It reminds me of the power of reading and of the important language and literacy work that early childhood educators do every day.

—Lisa Hansel

We’d love to hear from you!

Send your thoughts on this issue, as well as topics you’d like to read about in future issues of Young Children , to [email protected] .

Would you like to see your children’s artwork featured? For guidance on submitting print-quality photos (as well as details on permissions and licensing), see NAEYC.org/resources/pubs/authors-photographers/photos .

Is your classroom full of children’s artwork? To feature it in Young Children , see the link at the bottom of the page or email [email protected] for details.

Lisa Hansel, EdD, is the editor in chief of NAEYC's peer-reviewed journal, Young Children .

Vol. 74, No. 1

Print this article

[2024 - 2025] Academic Director, Middle School Literacy

Job Posting for [2024 - 2025] Academic Director, Middle School Literacy at KIPP Foundation

Company description.

Organizational Overview

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) North Carolina, is a network of eight tuition-free, college-preparatory public charter schools educating approximately 3,000 students in grades K-12 in Durham, Halifax, Northampton and Mecklenburg counties. At KIPP NC, we are committed to improving the life outcomes of North Carolina’s children through the delivery of culturally relevant curricula that are grounded in research, and clearing the paths that our students choose to follow by ensuring that they have the roadmaps and guideposts they need to arrive at success - however they define it.

KIPP North Carolina is also committed to building the pipeline of the state’s most talented and effective teachers and leaders through competitive compensation, integrated professional development lead by coaches and mentors, and resources they need to succeed, all rooted in core values that articulate our collectively designed organizational beliefs:

Pursue Excellence -

We uphold high standards for our staff, and are committed to providing the necessary resources, training, mentorship and feedback to help each staff member not only meet, but exceed, expectations. We believe excellence is a habit and a sustained pursuit, not an endpoint.

Build Knowledge -

We offer our educators robust school-based, regional and external professional development opportunities, before the start of and during the school year, designed to empower them with the latest teaching strategies and technology integration techniques. School Leaders and a statewide teacher development team provide professional coaching for school-based staff and foster collaborative learning, encouraging the exploration of effective teaching strategies and best practices.

Fight Injustice -

As a staff, we dismantle the white supremacy within our institution and deepen our own learning and understanding of anti-racism and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging (DEIB) through providing organization-wide regular workshops designed to holistically guide us through the redesign of our workplace culture through the lens of liberation. Additionally, we train and prepare our educators to deliver culturally responsive curricula that respect learners' cultures and prior experiences, and acknowledge and value the legitimacy of different cultures, not just the dominant culture of a society.

Spark Joy -

We believe in publicly and privately acknowledging and celebrating the outstanding contributions of our staff, and recognize exceptional individuals across the region. We also understand the importance of fostering a positive and collaborative work environment. We organize monthly school-based staff outings to provide an opportunity for our team to unwind, socialize, and engage in activities that promote camaraderie and a sense of community.

Rise Together -

We create space for our region to assemble and celebrate all successes - a space in which we strengthen community by embracing each other’s unique identities, and honoring the contributions that will allow us to lift as we rise in the years ahead. We believe Team always beats Individual.

Job Description

The Opportunity

The Academic Director for Middle School Literacy will provide instructional leadership in curriculum, assessment, and professional development for all 5-8 schools in North Carolina. The Academic Director for Middle School Literacy will report directly to the Managing Director of Academics, and will drive 5-8 Reading achievement at KIPP NC. The Academic Director for Middle School Literacy will work, in collaboration with schools and Regional Support Team colleagues, to design and implement high priority Reading initiatives across KIPP NC. The Academic Director for Middle School Literacy will also be expected to observe classrooms and provide feedback to leaders and teachers on implementation of high priority Reading initiatives across KIPP NC.

This is an ideal opportunity for a dynamic and visionary instructional leader looking to play a critical role in building and shaping a premier K-12 charter management organization committed to supporting students to graduate college and succeed in school and life.

Key Responsibilities

Coaching and supporting teacher and leader growth in content knowledge and curriculum execution/innovations

Weekly or bi-weekly coaching visits to work with leaders and teachers

• During visits, activities could include: leading or co-leading a content team meeting, supporting individual teachers or leaders, leading intellectual prep meetings for teachers or leaders, modeling a lesson, co-observing, real-time coaching, etc.
• Depending on school needs and expectations, determine the best "service model" for each individual school: Assistant Principal support, Principal Support, Teacher Support
• Build capacity in school principals, APs, and other leaders to support teacher development
• Plan agendas prior to coaching visits
• Follow up coaching visits with notes
• Plan and communicate follow ups and next steps to principal and leaders/teachers
• Support and manage execution and implementation of Literacy or Math components (role dependent) via instructional observations and walkthroughs, data and student work analysis, observing content team meetings, etc.

Analyzing student growth and achievement data regularly to determine next steps, adjustments, and enhancements to improve teaching and learning

• Clearly articulate benchmark student performance goals for each grade level
• Share data trends with individual schools and with T&L/Regional team members
• Celebrate successes and share areas of opportunity
• Thought partner with schools to determine next steps to address data
• Lead, co-lead, or observe data meetings (both academic progress team meetings and teacher data meetings) to provide feedback and support facilitator development

Leading and planning professional development that enhances teacher and leader content knowledge and practice, ultimately impacting student achievement

• Prioritize staff training needs and to organize a plan for regional professional development
• Oversee the implementation of the professional development plan and revise as necessary in response to teacher/leader/school needs
• Summer Institute Professional development for new and returning teachers and leaders
• Ongoing monthly regional PDs for Assistant Principals and teachers
• School-based PDs as needed (at the request of schools)

Strategic academic planning- thinking innovatively about the needs of our schools and what we may need to build/change in order to increase student growth and achievement

• Project/Initiative planning
• Utilize data to determine next steps/future strategy recommendations

Managing, developing and revising curriculum and assessments as needed

Manage implementation of the ELA curriculum and assessments in grades 5-8

• Revise lessons/units as needed to meet student and organizational needs
• Revise/create regional assessments as needed
• Revise/create Performance Training materials as needed
• Create and Maintain scope and sequence documents and curriculum maps
• Manage/provide leadership and support for implementation of regional academic literacy priorities
• Manage curricular pilots/working groups to test new curriculum/instructional approaches and inform future decisions

Qualifications

KIPP NC’s Academic Director for Middle School Literacy candidates will have the following:

• A deep commitment to the mission of KIPP NC and an unwavering belief in the potential of all our students
• An unwavering commitment to anti-racism, equity, and inclusion
• A strong desire to collaborate with school leaders and Regional Support Team teammates in service to KIPP NC
• 5 years of experience as an exemplary literacy teacher with strong student achievement results exemplary teacher coaching and adult management experience in a high performing school serving a similar student population to KIPP North Carolina; strong command of the essentials of the Science of Reading and understanding of all the necessary components of a solid literacy program
• 5 years of school leadership experience (Principal, Assistant Principal, Dean, Instructional Coach) with strong outcomes in driving results through others; strong command of instructional leadership competencies
• An understanding of the specific, unique characteristics of public charter schools, NC-specific knowledge a plus
• Outstanding leadership and management skills, particularly as it relates to building teams, working through others, promoting collaboration, managing conflict, goal setting, and holding people accountable
• An entrepreneurial spirit and demonstrated success in building a program, department or organization
• The flexibility needed to accommodate the breadth and depth of responsibilities and priorities with middle schools that are spread out from Charlotte to rural, Eastern North Carolina
• Outstanding written, speaking, and organizational skills including excellence in backwards planning long-term goals and accountability and progress monitoring systems
• Ability to interact with a broad range of stakeholders with different interests and needs
• Possess a deep commitment to both racial equity and improving the lives of kids from low-income communities; experience working within predominantly Black, Brown, and/or low-income communities
• Understanding and willingness to work in both rural and urban communities, including exhibiting resourcefulness and willingness to travel up to five hours within North Carolina multiple days per week based on need.
• Must live in North Carolina; Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, ideal, given the area’s equal distance from our schools in Charlotte, Gaston, and Halifax

Additional Information

• This role is required minimally to be on-site in all schools 3 half days per month. More may be needed due to necessary support
• This is a 12 month role and may work after hours outside of normal working hours

Compensation

This role is a Salary Band 4, ranging from $82,000 - $95,000 based on years of relevant experience, educational attainment, and proficiency in the role.

In addition, all RST members receive the following benefits:

• with a $1200 HRA that is replenished annually
• Optional enrollment in a 403b retirement program with employer match up to 3%
• On-going professional development opportunities
• Paid Time Off (17 days PTO & 6 days sick leave annually)
• Time off for all major national holidays (including Fall Break, Winter Break, and Spring Break)

Salary : $82,000 - $95,000

Apply for this job

Receive alerts for other [2024 - 2025] Academic Director, Middle School Literacy job openings

Report this Job

Sign up to receive alerts about other jobs that are on the [2024 - 2025] Academic Director, Middle School Literacy career path.

Click the checkbox next to the jobs that you are interested in.

Sign up to receive alerts about other jobs with skills like those required for the [2024 - 2025] Academic Director, Middle School Literacy .

3D CAD Skill

• CAD Support Technician IV Income Estimation: $79,790 - $99,332
• GIS Analyst III Income Estimation: $81,092 - $103,188

3D Modeling Skill

• Tool Design Engineer II Income Estimation: $80,534 - $106,489
• Industrial Designer III Income Estimation: $86,812 - $110,900

Job openings at KIPP Foundation

Not the job you're looking for here are some other [2024 - 2025] academic director, middle school literacy jobs in the rocky, nc area that may be a better fit., we don't have any other [2024 - 2025] academic director, middle school literacy jobs in the rocky, nc area right now..

KIPP North Carolina Public Schools , Rocky, NC

Middle School Literacy Coach

Rocky Mount Preparatory School , Rocky, NC