Listen and learn: Research paper 
Educators continue to administer various forms of the Concepts About Print, but even Clay (2000) suggests the “rules of the road” (p. 24) are expanding and becoming more complex. These complexities relate to the multiliteracies required of internet reading. Multiliteracies, or multimodal literacies, involve visual and audio modes of communication presented through print, photos, videos, or graphs (New London Group, 1996; Kress, 2010). Reading online requires navigating a hypermedia, 3-dimensional platform by clicking on images and words that connect to additional pages that can lead readers “into greater understanding, or into greater distraction” (Warlick, 2009, p. 22). The dimensions of multimodal, networked information environments expand the ways readers acquire information and comprehend ideas. Therefore, our focus on the concepts of online text is grounded in a multiliteracies perspective.
Young children begin school with varying understandings about the conventions used to communicate meaning in text. A developmental perspective is consistent with the stages of children’s acquisition of print and media. Children develop and use concepts and categories to make sense of their environment (Piaget & Inhelder, 1972). The interview protocol used in this research examines children’s acquisition of knowledge and skills related to online text and media.
Materials and Methods
Since 2016, we have conducted ongoing research to learn more about elementary students’ web literacy skills. In order to assess web literacy skills, we developed the Concepts of Online Text (COT), which measured the knowledge of online navigation and text features of students in grades 1-5. Traditional assessments of concepts about print inspired the development of the instrument, which includes an observation protocol of online text, similar to the observation protocol Marie Clay (1979) used with print-based text. The COT instrument consists of seven tasks that align with two main constructs: (1) website orientation and navigation and (2) knowledge of webpage text features. Construct 1 involves the orientation of a website, including the understanding of principles involving directional arrangement of text and media. Construct 2 involves the identification and understanding of webpage text features such as author, publisher, titles, headings, menus, captions, graphics, and hyperlinks. While emerging readers typically master print awareness and concepts of print in kindergarten, research conducted with the COT, published in 2018, indicated that knowledge of text features and website navigation occurs during the later elementary years.
The COT-R, an updated protocol, extends the assessment instrument to evaluate knowledge of an internet search. The COT-R instrument added a research component to the assessment, which included additional constructs: 3) Application of Re-search Skills and 4) Evaluation of Online Information. Construct 3 involves the ability to use digital skills to search, save, cite, and share information. Construct 4 involves the ability to evaluate search results, websites, and content for relevance and credibility/trustworthiness of sources. For the purpose of this study, we focus on construct 4, the evaluation of information found during an authentic search on the wild wide web.
Data Collection and Analysis
Participants included 354 first through fifth graders across the US. 183 participants were female and 171 were male. The authors and certified teachers trained to give the assessment collected the data.
Students in this study used a laptop or desktop using a Google search engine. The research tasks began with a prompt in which students were asked to search for an animal, specifically a dolphin. If the participant needed help with spelling, the administrator assisted by spelling the word aloud or typing it for the student, if needed. Many students selected the target word from the au-to-complete drop-down box. It was also noted that a few students used the microphone feature to start their search. Then, students examined search results and discussed their search. Two tasks were assessed, including the ability to narrow information and the ability to evaluate information. The first task was evaluated with the following prompts: 1) Show me how many websites your search provided and 2) Show me how you could narrow the dolphin search to find what dolphins eat. Examples of answers that received credit for question one had to be specific. For example, a student might say, “A search for ‘dolphins’ provides 86,000 sites.” Most searches will reveal multiple pages of sites, so the child would earn credit for the question if he/she understands results extend beyond those visible on the first page. Counting visible links or websites on first screen is NOT correct. Examples of answers that received credit on questions two included: the website titles/subtitles, context clues, credible sources. Examples of answers that receive no credit: first link, an advertisement, or images. The number of correct responses on each task for each grade level was calculated and converted to a percentage. Examples of actions that received credit on question two included the addition of keywords, typing a more specific question, or using quotation marks (with two or more words). Boolean terms (and, or, not) or the use of advanced searches would also count as an appropriate action. If students simply clicked on a link or indicated they did not know how to narrow a search, they received no credit.
The second task was evaluated with the following prompts: 3) How do you know which website will provide the best in-formation about your topic; 4) Click on one of the websites you found. How can you tell if this website is relevant to your search? In other words, how can you tell if this website will give you the kind of information you need; and 5) How can you tell if this website will provide correct information that is true, or accurate? Examples of answers that received credit on question 3 included: the website titles/subtitles, context clues, credible sources. Examples of answers that receive no credit: first link, an advertisement, or images. Students received credit on question 4 if they were able to determine that the website(s) they selected matched their topic. For example, the child might say, “It is about dolphins.” A website about the football team, the Miami dolphins, would be an inappropriate response to this question. Students received credit on question 5 if they were able to explain a way to check the validity or credibility of the website. They could respond with answers like, “Go to the home page and look for information about the publisher,” “It is part of the Family Education Network (reliable source),” “Cross-reference the website,” or “I trust the author because s/he is a scientist (or other occupation)”. Examples of answers that receive no credit include: It’s the first website; it’s not an advertisement, it’s a .org or .net (not always reliable). Data were analyzed using quantitative statistics in which students scored a “1” for a correct response and a “0” for an incorrect response. In addition, each item included a space for the test administrator to add notes related to the task.
Task 1 addressed the ability to narrow information and was evaluated with two prompts. The first prompt stated, “Show me how many websites your search provided.” The number of correct responses on each prompt per grade level was calculated and converted to a percentage. Overall, 20.1 % of the participants earned credit for their response to this task. It was noted that in most cases, students either counted the number of results on each page or did not know how to determine the answer.
The next prompt stated, “Show me how you could narrow the dolphin search to find what dolphins eat.” Overall, 81.9 % of the participants earned credit for their response to this task. It was noted that most students typed in a question in the search bar in order to narrow the search. For example, a common search was, “What do dolphins eat?”
Task 2 addressed the ability to evaluate information encountered in an internet search and was assessed with three prompts. The number of correct responses on each prompt per grade level was calculated and converted to a percentage. The first prompt asked “How do you know which website will provide the best information about your topic?” Overall, 40.9 % of the participants earned credit for their response to this task. One COT-R test administrator noted that students often referred to images with asked this question. This could explain why fewer students earned credit for this prompt as opposed to the next task.
The next prompt stated, “Click on one of the websites you found. How can you tell if this website is relevant to your search? In other words, how can you tell if this website will give you the kind of information you need? Overall, 74.6 % of the participants earned credit for their response to this task. Because students searched what dolphins like to eat, many students were able to use images on the website they selected to confirm they had found what dolphins like to eat. Images seemed to catch a child’s attention more easily than other text features.
The final prompt asked, “How can you tell if this website will provide correct information that is true or accurate. Student performance was weakest on this task. Overall, 18.9 % of the participants earned credit for their response to this task. Observations notes indicated many students believed websites had correct information because the pictures were real.
Just as teachers teach informational text features in paper-based books and how to use the glossary, heading, charts, tables, facts vs opinions, in the online information age, they are charged to teach how to determine source credibility and reliability reasoning. This instruction needs to begin at an early age if we are to equip students with the tools and thought processes needed to critically exam information. The International Society for Technology in Education published standards for students identifying web literacy competencies for learning in the digital age. The standards, adopted in all 50 U.S. states and in many countries, are available in eight languages. Standard 3 relates to the content of this article with its focus on students as “Knowledge Conductors” (para. 4) The corresponding skill states that “Students evaluate the accuracy, perspective, credibility and relevance of information, media, data or other resources” (para. 4). The age range for the student standards is unclear. Perhaps such skills should be the focus of teachers around the globe.
Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd ed.). New Zealand: Heinemann. .
Clay, M. M. (2000). Concepts About Print: What have children learned about printed language? New Zealand: Heinemann.
]Dalton, B. (2015). Charting our path with a web literacy map. The Reading Teacher, 68, 604–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/ trtr.1369
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York, NY: Routledge
New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. CA: Sage Publications.
Warlick, D. F. (2009). Redefining literacy 2.0. (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Linworth Books.
Return
Trips and Tours