The purpose of this study was to compare the relative effectiveness of live (SERT) and computer-based (iSTART) reading strategy training. Prior to and after training, participants read scientific texts and self-explained after each sentence. They also answered comprehension questions. Students showed improvement in the quality of their self-explanations and in the performance on the comprehension questionsasa function of both live and computer-based training. However, there were some differences in response to iSTART training as a function of reading skill. Specifically, less skilled readers improved their performance on text-based questions, but not bridging questions. The opposite was found for skilled readers. These results indicate that computer-based, reading-skills training is effective, but different readers may improve at different levels of comprehension.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartlettF. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BestR.OzuruY., & McNamaraD. S. (2004). Self-explaining science texts: Strategies, knowledge, and reading skill. In YasminY. B.SandovalW. A.EnyedyN.NixonA. S., & HerreraF. (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences: Embracing diversity in the learning sciences (pp. 89–96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ChiM. T. H.BassokM.LewisM. W.ReimannR., & GlaserR. (1989). Self-explanation: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
CotéN., & GoldmanS. R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children's think-aloud protocols. In van OostendorpH. & GoldmanS. R. (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
CotéN.GoldmanS. R., & SaulE. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1–53.
8.
CraigS. D.DriscollD., & GholsonB. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 163–183.
9.
CraigS. D.GholsonB., & DriscollD. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.
10.
GarnerR. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Psychology, 60, 517–529.
11.
GraesserA. C.Wiemer-HastingsP.Wiemer-HastingsK.HarterD., Person, N., & the TRG (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 31–51.
12.
GraesserA. C.Wiemer-HastingsP.Wiemer-HastingsK.HarterD., Person, N., & the TRG (2000). Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 129–148.
13.
GraesserA. C.SingerM., & TrabassoT. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
14.
KnuthD. (1998). The art of computer programming, Vol. 3, 2nd Ed.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15.
KurbyC. A.Wiemer-HastingsK.GanduriN.MaglianoJ. P.MillisK. K., & McNamaraD. S. (2003). Computerizing reading training: Evaluation of a latent semantic analysis space for science text. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 244–250.
16.
LandauerT. K., & DumaisS. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.
17.
MaglianoJ. P., & MillisK. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251–283.
18.
MaglianoJ. P.Wiemer-HastingsK.MillisK. K.MunozB. D., & McNamaraD. (2002). Using latent semantic analysis to assess reader strategies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 181–188.
19.
MaglianoJ. P.TrabassoT., & GraesserA. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615–629.
20.
McNamaraD. S. (2004a). Aprendiendo a través de los textos: Efectos de la estructura del texto y las estrategias de los lectores. Signos, 37, 123–159.
McNamaraD. S.BestR., & CastellanoC. (2004). Learning from text: Facilitating and enhancing comprehension. www.speechpathology.com
23.
McNamaraD. S.BoonthumC.LevinsteinI. B., & MillisK. (In press). Using LSA and word-based measures to assess self-explanations in iSTART. In LandauerT.McNamaraD. S.DennisS. & KintschW. (Eds.), LSA: A road to meaning.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
McNamaraD. S.LevinsteinI. B. & BoonthumC. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 222–233.
McNamaraD. S., & ScottJ. L. (1999). Training reading strategies. In HahnM. & StonessS. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 387–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
O'ReillyT.BestR., & McNamaraD. S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training: Effects for low-knowledge readers. In ForbusK.GentnerD., & RegierT. (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp, 1053–1058). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
O'ReillyT.SinclairG., & McNamaraD. S. (2004). Reading strategy training: Automated versus live. In ForbusK.GentnerD., & RegierT. (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1059–1064). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
OteroJ. (2002). Noticing and fixing difficulties while understanding science texts. In OteroJ.LeónJ. A., & GraesserA. C. (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
OzuruY.BestR., & McNamaraD. S. (2004). Contribution of reading skill to learning from expository texts. In ForbusK.GentnerD., & RegierT. (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1071–1076). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
32.
ShapiroA., & McNamaraD. (2000). The use of latent semantic analysis as a tool for the quantitative assessment of understanding and knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 1–36.
33.
SnowC. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
34.
TrabassoT., & MaglianoJ. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 255–288.
35.
TrabassoT.van den BroekP., & SuhS. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in the representation of stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1–25.
36.
van den BroekR.RisdenK., & Husebye-HartmanE. (1995). The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In LorchR. F. & O'BrienE. J. (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353–374). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
van DijkT. A., & KintschW. (1983). Strategies in discourse comprehension.New York: Academic Press.
38.
YuillN. M., & OakhillJ. V. (1988). Effects of inference awareness training on poor reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 33–45.
39.
ZwaanR. A., & RadvanskyG. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.
