Tim was a professional computer user due to his part-time work as an engineer and his background as an electronic communications major. He was comfortable with Web site navigation, and his use of the Web encompassed a wide variety of activities, such as playing online games, hosting a discussion board, watching online news programs, and exchanging emails. He spent three hours a day on the Internet, most of which was devoted to leisure activities, such as reading news or listening to songs. Although he belonged to the Low-proficiency group due to his lowest score on the TOEFL sample test, he was quite confident about his English reading skills and he enjoyed learning English. The following describes how Tim read the easy and difficult texts gathered from videotape and semi-structured interviews.
In reading the easy text, “Finding Nemo,” the videotape showed that Tim first got his desktop ready by opening a tag-page in the KKMAN browser10 to http://www.google.com.tw/. He then tried
10 “Tag-page” is a feature in many recent browsers: it serves like an additional browser window in a traditional browser like Internet Explorer version 6.
Google to spot a good number of Web pages about “Finding Nemo.”11 Tim commented that using his favorite browser KKMAN made his online reading experience pleasant. In addition, the Web sites he searched prepared him for the reading of the text.
The videotape showed that the strategy buttons Tim used were Highlight followed by Keyword. During the interview, Tim expressed that Highlight helped him see the hyperlinked outline of the text, whereas Keyword helped him to know important words before reading. In addition to the use of strategy buttons provided in the program, Tim glanced at the photos gathered from the link at the bottom of the page. He found pictures helped him link what he already knew to the new article.
During the interview, Tim expressed his preference for using Google as a search engine as it could easily find the exact target.
Google displayed the results in the order of relevance and the number of visitors to those sites. Another comment he made was regarding program design. Tim noticed that the interface was not very friendly.
The popup window that was originally designed to count the number of strategies that students used was annoying to him. Also, the uploading of files was a problem, which might have been due to server overload.
In summary, Tim was an adept computer user whose reading strategies were deeply influenced by his computer skills. Instead of
11 These Web pages included English Web sites (“Pixar—Finding Nemo” http:// www.
pixar.com/featurefilms/nemo/ and “Finding Nemo 2003” http://www.imdb.com/
title/tt0266543/) as well as Chinese Web sites (“Hǎi Dǐ Zǒng Dòng Yuán” 海底總 動員 Finding Nemo http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/ news.xinhuanet.com/ ent/
2003-06-03/ content_901363.htm and “【Hǎi Dǐ Zǒng Dòng Yuán】〈Finding Nemo〉
<2003>” (http://disney.jbug.net/mvdata/data/Finding_Nemo.htm).
reading the given article, he resorted to searching for additional information first. In his search habit, he quickly moved back and forth between the online articles. He was quite confident that the search engine, Google, could find the most relevant article. Among all of the Web pages he searched, he read more Chinese pages than English ones. The additional information gained from linking outwards to related Web sites gave him necessary background knowledge and sustained his interest in reading. However, his overuse of his computer knowledge in searching back and forth diverted his attention from reading the article itself. During the short time he actually devoted himself to reading the article, his use of strategy buttons was limited to Highlight and Keywords. The former helped him annotate the text, whereas the latter gave him necessary vocabulary before reading the text. He expressed his willingness to try more tools in his next assignment.
After reading the difficult text, “St. Patrick’s Day,” Tim commented that he was overwhelmed by the length of the text and the large number of unknown words. Due to his lack of understanding of the religious background of this holiday, Tim felt insecure if he could read this article all alone without additional help. It could be interpreted that Tim was feeling scared because he lacked the necessary schemata to understand the article. Therefore, he began to search for additional information to build up his schemata, such as links to a Chinese site about the origin of this holiday (http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/4/3/18/n487444.htm), and an English site (http://www.ep66.idv.tw/patrick.htm/) on the history of St.
Patrick’s Day shown in the videotaped data. These two links were reported by Tim in the interview as the most useful in helping him
understand the text as the former provided religious background of this holiday in L1 and the later gave useful religion-related keywords.
For example, Tim commented that his understanding of what shamrocks symbolize on “St. Patrick’s Day” was not from the link that was originally listed in the text, but from the external links that he searched himself. Although most of the Web sites that Tim searched were written in Chinese, he indicated that these Web sites were very helpful in preparing him to understand the text. In addition to building up schemata, the act of reading additional information gave Tim a chance to confirm if what was stated in the text was true. This could be shown from his act of switching back and forth between the original text and the articles he found from Google search. It appeared that he was trying to determine if there were some related concepts between them. His use of search engines to find related information about the given text will be discussed later.
During the course of reading, Tim’s Web-browsing speed was quite fast. He quickly went through the links that he chose, went back to the articles when finding the article was still difficult for him, and then went on to read other articles12. For his Web behavior, he could do many things simultaneously, switching between tag pages. He was restless and ambitious to digest the information he wanted. Another
12 The video showed Tim’s quick navigating behavior in which he quickly browsed through (http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/4/3/18/n487444.htm) and then switched to the third Web site that he opened through the Google search result (http://big5.china.com.cn/chinese/zhuanti/174031.htm). He briefly read through the Web page and returned to the Google search result. He clicked the link http://www.ep66.idv.tw/patrick.htm (titled “St. Patrick’s Day”). While the Web site was loading, he closed the Keyword section and returned to the BBS site (scumotor.com.tw), and then stayed at the BBS site for about 3 minutes.
Web behavior was that his initial set-up of his reading environment13 made his reading more pleasant and personalized.
In summary, Tim, with the best computer skills in the Low-proficiency group, did not bother to read the original article at all during his work on the most difficult article. He got the original article translated into Chinese, but he did not really spend time trying to understand the original article with the assistance of the Chinese translation. The general direction on how Tim dealt with assignment was that he looked into the translation of the original article, searched for Chinese sites that could assist him, and then clicked on various sites looking, perhaps, for something fun. In other words, most of the student’s time was spent on looking for something fun and having fun, and the time he spent on understanding the original article was relatively very little. However, if Tim could combine his zest for efficiently locating information he wanted with his efforts in reading, one could expect that his computer skills would be an asset in assisting his understanding of the original text.
Other Online Strategies Emerging from the Four Cases
The four chosen participants’ navigation behaviors found in videotaping and interview data were transcribed and coded. Four types of strategies were generated: Navigating strategies, Information-gathering strategies, Interface-changing strategies, and Usability problem-reporting strategies.
Navigating strategy. Navigating strategies refer to those that
13Tim started with using the KKMAN browser that had the BBS site (scumotor.com.tw). He next opened the MSN Messenger (version 6.2) and then turned off the customer survey located at the top of the MSN Messenger window.
readers used when they navigated through the text. This category was subdivided into two parts: Random-navigating strategy and Targeted-navigating strategy. Random-navigating strategies included using the back button, moving between Web pages, connecting pictures with the text, adjusting the scrolling range, and switching between windows. When using this type of strategy, the only aim that readers had in mind was to navigate through the text, retrieve what they read, and return back to the original content. For example, Chris switched between different tag-pages of the KKMAN browser and also switched between different windows of the Internet Explorer browser. What he did was only to get back to the content he was reading—a natural response in online reading.
Targeted-navigating strategy is the act of navigating with a targeted entity in mind, including moving the cursor along the words, selecting unknown words, and highlighting certain sections of the text.
For example, James moved his cursor along the words and very often selected the words as, perhaps, an assistance to read better. Tim highlighted some of the words to help him concentrate on reading.
Information-gathering strategy. Different from Navigating strategy, which is simply to navigate through the text, Information-gathering strategies are used when readers aim to search for related information. The major difference between Navigating strategies and Information-gathering strategies is that the former consists of behaviors that readers employ to move successfully between pages in reading, while, the latter describes the actions that readers use to build up their background knowledge by searching for additional information. To fulfill the reading task at the end of the
Web-surfing, students needed to build up their schemata. They needed to consult extra information to prepare themselves for the reading text.
This additional information was in the form of pictures, videos, and extra links. Strategies in this category included using specific keywords and linking outside the current Web site to access information in another Web site. For example, Tim linked to many Chinese Web sites to browse through related information about St.
Patrick’s Day to get necessary background knowledge. This type of goal-oriented strategy was particularly helpful in guiding students to find knowledge on the Internet.
Interface-changing strategy. Personalizing strategies were those techniques that readers used to tailor-make their reading environment according to personal preference. These strategies included changing the screen saver, changing the background of the screen, loading software that they were familiar with, using the browser that they were accustomed to, changing the font of the text, and changing the color of the words. For example, Tim changed his primary browser to the KKMAN browser, which had a tag-page feature. Chris made http://tw.yahoo.com/ as the default page of the Internet Explorer browser. Tim also turned off the MSN Messenger survey immediately to avoid disruption. Amber even took the time to download and install the Wúxiāmǐ (Chinese typing) to make her Chinese typing easier. In general, students wanted to personalize the delivery and presentation of the content to make their online reading more comfortable.
Usability problem-reporting strategy. Usability problem-reporting strategy refers to reporting on the Web site effectiveness and problems while surfing the Web site to complete a particular task (Elshair,
2002). This includes complaints about (1) links, (2) advertisements, (3) user-friendliness of the program, and (4) font size. This type of strategy provided readers a means to express their complaints about ill-designed Web sites. When readers can evaluate sites in terms of text design and functions, they will have a better chance to adapt themselves to an online reading environment. For example, students expressed their dissatisfaction with being interrupted when clicking hyperlinks, their distrust of online technology, and their strong feelings about being disturbed by pop-up advertisements. Students were intimidated by the vast links online. Below are two interview excerpts translated from Chinese in gist. For example,
I don’t like to be interrupted during the process of reading, and thus I don’t really like links all over the place in an article. Links really make me anxious because I know I have to click them for more information, yet I hate to be interrupted.
Although it’s possible to click the links afterwards, I might have lost interest in the links by the time I am done reading the article at hand. In brief, I don’t like articles filled with links. (James, interviewed on November 23, 2004)
I liked printed materials more than texts displayed on screen. The primary reason is that I can draw, highlight, underline, and do whatever I want on printed materials, but I cannot do any of these with online materials. I also find myself distrusting technology even though I spend a lot of time with computers. Although there were tools for me to use, I didn’t really trust them, and maybe this is what software engineers could work on in the future: to improve the sense of trust humans have toward machines. And this is also what, I believe, English-teaching software must accomplish. (Chris, interviewed on December 1, 2004)
When I saw the small words on the computer, I felt dizzy. (Amber, interviewed on December 7, 2004)
Table 1 shows the results of the four participants’ use of strategies. It was found that Navigating strategies were used by all four participants. Information-gathering strategies and Interface-changing strategies were used mostly by Chris and Tim, which was representative of High- and Low-proficiency groups with good computer skills. As for Usability problem-reporting strategies, participants used them in varying degrees.