This study examines three questions: What kinds of think-aloud statements, in particular what kinds of inferences, are made by middle school students while reading expository text? Does thinking aloud affect comprehension as measured by recall and answers to questions? Does thinking aloud add value to the assessment of comprehension beyond what is learned through recall and question answering? Sixty-eight middle-school students read expository texts and thought aloud on one segment and did not think aloud on another segment. After completing each segment, the students recalled the texts and answered comprehension questions. The content of think-alouds and recall was examined using Trabasso and Magliano's (1996a) clausal coding scheme and inferences were differentiated as explanatory, predictive or associative. Students primarily paraphrased the text as they thought aloud and made associative inferences using text information. Thinking aloud was associated with more associative inferences in recall, which correlated negatively with the ability to answer comprehension questions. The content of think-alouds may provide a more sensitive picture of readers' processing than unaided recall or answers to questions.
References
1.
AfflerbachP.JohnstonP. (1984). Research methodology on the use of verbal reports in reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 307–322.
2.
BakerL.BrownA. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In PearsonP. D.KamilM.BarrR.MosenthalP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. I (pp. 353–394). White Plains, NY: Longman.
3.
BereiterC.BirdM. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131–156.
4.
BloomB.KrathwohlD. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans Green.
5.
BrownR.PressleyM.Van MeterP.SchuderT. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second graders. Journal of Educational Psychology88, 18–37.
6.
CaldwellJ. S.LeslieL. (2003/2004). Does proficiency in middle school reading assure proficiency in high school reading? The possible role of think-alouds. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 324–335.
CampbellJ. R. (2005). Single instrument, multiple measures: Considering the use of multiple item formats to assess reading comprehension. In ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 237–368). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
CaronT. A. (1989). Strategies for reading expository prose. In McCormickS.ZutellJ. (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction. Thirty-eighth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 293–299). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Chou-HareV.SmithD. C. (1982). Reading to remember: Studies of metacognitive reading skills in elementary school-aged children. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 157–164.
12.
CoteN.GoldmanS. R.SaulE. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1–53.
13.
Crain-ThoresonC.LippmanM. Z.McClendon-MagnusonD. (1997). Windows of comprehension: Reading comprehension processes as revealed by two think-alouds. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 579–591.
14.
FoxE. (2009). The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational text. Review of Educational Research, 79, 197–261.
15.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.CattsH. E.TomblinJ. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369–394). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
GarrodS.O'BrienE. J.MorrisR.RaynerK. (1990). Elaborative inferencing as an active or passive process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 250–257.
17.
GrasserA. C.BertusE. L. (1998). The construction of causal inferences while reading expository texts on science and technology. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 247–269.
18.
HardyN. D.JermanM. E. (1985). Readability estimator. Seattle, WA: Berta Max, Inc.
19.
KendeouP.van den BroekP. (2005). The effects of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235–245.
20.
KintschW.KintschE. (2005). Comprehension. In ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
KintschW.van DijkT. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 5, 363–394.
22.
LeslieL.CaldwellJ. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory-4. New York: Longman.
LeslieL.CaldwellJ. S. (2009). Formal and informal comprehension assessment. In IsraelS.DuffyG. (Eds.), Handbook of reading comprehension (pp. 403–427). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
MaglianoJ. P.TrabassoT.GraesserA. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615–629.
26.
MyersJ.LytleS. (1986). Assessment of the learning process. Exceptional Children, 53, 138–144.
27.
MyersJ.LytleS.PalladinoD.DevenpeckG.GreenM. (1990). Think-aloud protocol analysis: An investigation of reading comprehension strategies in fourth and fifth grade students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 112–127.
28.
NarvaezD.van den BroekP.RuizA. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 488–496.
29.
O'BrienE. J.AlbrechtJ. E. (1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 777–784.
30.
O'BrienE. J.RizzellaM. L.AlbrechtJ. E.HalleranJ. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.
31.
PalincsarA. S.MagnussenS. J.PeskoS.HamlinM. (2005). Attending to the nature of subject matter in text comprehension. In ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 257–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
PearsonP. D.JohnsonD. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
33.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols in reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
PressleyM.HildenK. R. (2005). Commentary on three important directions in comprehension assessment research. In ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 305–315). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35.
PritchardR. (1990). The evolution of introspective methodology and its implication for studying the reading process. Reading Psychology, 11, 1–13.
36.
RizzellaM. L.O'BrienE. J. (2002). Retrieval of concepts in script-based texts and narratives: The influence of general world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 780–790.
37.
SteinN. L.GlennC. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In FreedleR. O. (Ed.), Advances in discourse processes, Vol. 2: New directions in discourse processes (pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38.
TrabassoT.MaglianoJ. P. (1996a). Conscious understanding during reading. Discourse Processes, 21, 255–287.
39.
TrabassoT.MaglianoJ. P. (1996b). How do children understand what they read and what can we do to help them? In GravesM.van den BroekP.TaylorB. (Eds.), The first R: A right of all children (pp. 158–181). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.
40.
TrabassoT.SuhS. Y. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3–34.
41.
TrabassoT.van den BroekP.SuhS. Y. (1989). Logical necessity and transivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1–25.
van den BroekP.RisdenK.FletcherC. R.ThurlowR. (1996). A “landscape” view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In BrittonB. K.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44.
WolfeM. B. W.GoldmanS. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467–502.
