This study examines the benefits of reading strategy training on adolescent readers' comprehension of science text. Training was provided via an automated reading strategy trainer called the Interactive Strategy Trainer for Active Reading and Thinking (iSTART), which is an interactive reading strategy trainer that utilizes animated agents to provide reading strategy instruction. Half of the participants were provided with iSTART while the others (control) were given a brief demonstration of how to self-explain text. All of the students then self-explained a text about heart disease and answered text-based and bridging-inference questions. Both iSTART training and prior knowledge of reading strategies significantly contributed to the quality of self-explanations and comprehension. Adolescents with less prior knowledge about reading strategies performed significantly better on text-based questions if they received iSTART training. Conversely, for high-strategy knowledge students, iSTART improved comprehension for bridging–inference questions. Thus, students benefitted from training regardless of their prior knowledge of strategies, but these benefits translated into different comprehension gains.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerL., & BrownA. L. (1984). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In FloodJ. (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension (pp. 21–44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
2.
Brand-GruwelS.AarnoutseC. A. J., & Van den BosK. P. (1998). Improving text comprehension strategies in reading and listening settings. Learning and Instruction, 8, 63–81.
3.
CainK. (1996). Story knowledge and comprehension skill. In CornoldiC. & OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 167–192). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
4.
ChiM. T. H.BassokM.LewisM. W.ReimannP., & GlaserR. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
ConwayA., & EngleR. (1994). Working memory and retrieval: A resource-dependent inhibition model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 354–373.
7.
CornoldiC.De BeniR., & PazzagliaF. (1996). Profiles of reading comprehension difficulties: An analysis of single cases. In CornoldiC. & OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
CotéN.GoldmanS. R., & SaulE. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1–53.
9.
DaltonB.TivnamT.RileyM. K.RawsonP., & DiasD. (1995). Revealing competence: Fourth-grade students with and without learning disabilities show what they know on paper-and-pencil and hands-on performance assessments. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 197–214.
10.
DanemanM., & CarpenterP. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
11.
DanemanM., & MerikleP. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychosomatic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422–433.
12.
DanemanM., & TardifT. (1987). Working memory and reading skill re-examined. In ColtheartM. (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 491–508). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B., & WoodruffS. K. (2004). Improving literacy skills of at-risk adolescents: A school-wide response. In StricklandD. S. & AlvermannD. E. (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap grades 4–12 (pp. 86–104). New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
EngleR. (1996). Working memory and retrieval: An inhibition-resource approach. In Working memory and human cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
EversonH., & TobiasS. (1998). The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in college: A metacognitive analysis, Instructional Science, 26, 65–79.
16.
ForgetM. A. (1999). Comparative effects of three methods of staff development in content area reading instruction on urban high school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University.
17.
GernsbacherM. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
GernsbacherM. A., & FaustM. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 245–262.
19.
GernsbacherM. A.VarnerK. R., & FaustM. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and cognition, 16, 430–445.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA.BarbosaP.PerencevichK. C.TaboadaA.DavisM. H.ScafiddiN. T., & TonksS. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.
22.
HansenJ., & PearsonP. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 821–829.
23.
HooverW., & GoughP. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160.
24.
JustM. A., & CarpenterP. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
25.
KintschW. (1998). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
26.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
27.
LiangK. Y., & ZegerS. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using general models. Biometrika, 73, 13–22.
28.
LongD. L.OppyB. J., & SeelyM. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1456–1470.
29.
LyonR. G. (2002). Reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction: Educational and public health issues. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 3–6.
30.
LysynchukL. M.PressleyM., & VyeN. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading comprehension performance. Elementary School Journal, 90, 469–484.
31.
MaglianoJ. P.TodaroS.MillisK. K.Wiemer-HastingsK.KimH. J., & McNamaraD. S. (2005). Changes in reading strategies as a function of reading training: A comparison of live and computerized training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 185–208.
32.
MagnussonS. J., & PalincsarA. S. (1995). The learning environment as a site of science education reform. Theory into Practice, 34, 43–50.
McNamaraD. S.KintschE.SongerN., & KintschW. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.
35.
McNamaraD. S.LevinsteinI. B., & BonthumC. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy trainer for active reading and thinking. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers36, 222–233.
McNamaraD. S., & ScottJ. L. (1999). Training reading strategies. Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
MommersM. J. (1987). An investigation into the relation between word recognition skills, reading comprehension and spelling skills in the first two years of primary school. Journal of Research in Reading, 10, 122–143.
39.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Reading Highlights, NCES Number: 2004452. Release Date: November 13, 2003.
40.
OakhillJ. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children's comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31–39.
41.
OakhillJ., & YuillN. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. In CornaldiC. & OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
O'ReillyT.BestR., & McNamaraD. S. (2004). Self explanation reading training: Effects for low-knowledge readers. In ForbusK.GentnerD., & ReigerT. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science society (pp. 1053–1058). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
O'ReillyT. P.SinclairG. P., & McNamaraD. S. (2004). iSTART: A web-based reading strategy intervention that improves students' science comprehension. In KinshukD.SampsonG., & IsaíasP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age: CELDA 2004 (pp. 173–180). Lisbon, Portugal: IADIS Press.
44.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
45.
PerfettiC. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
PressleyM.WoodW. W.WoloshynV. E.MartinV.KingA., & MenkeD. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91–100.
48.
RosenV., & EngleR. (1997). The role of working memory capacity in retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 211–227.
49.
RosenV., & EngleR. (1998). Working memory capacity and suppression. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 418–436.
50.
RosenshineB., & MeisterC. (1994). Cognitive Strategy instruction in reading. In HayesD. A. & StahlS. A. (Eds.), Instructional models in reading (pp. 85–107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51.
RosenshineB.MeisterC., & ChapmanS. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
52.
RossB. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 15, 456–468.
53.
RothF. P.SpeeceD. L.CooperD. H., & De La PazS. (1996). Unresolved mysteries: How do metalinguistic and narrative skills connect with early reading?Journal of Special Education, 30, 257–277.
54.
SchmittM. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children's awareness of strategic reading process. The Reading Teacher, 49, 454–461.
55.
Shortland-JonesB. (1986). The development and testing of an instructional strategy for improving reading comprehension based on schema and metacognitive theories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
56.
SpilichG.VesonderG.ChiesiH., & VossJ. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275–290.
57.
StothardS. E., & HulmeC. (1996). Acomparison of reading comprehension and decoding difficulties in children. In CornoldiC. & OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 93–112). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
58.
TaschowH. G. (1969). Reading improvement in mathematics. Reading Improvement6, 62–67.
59.
TaylorB. M., & FryeB. J. (1992). Comprehension strategy instruction in the intermediate grades. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 39–48.
60.
VellutinoF. R. (2003). Individual differences as sources of variability in reading comprehension in elementary school children. In SweetA. P. & SnowC. E. (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 51–81). New York: Guilford Press.
61.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M., & TanzmanM. S. (1994). Components of reading ability: Issues and problems in operationalizing word identification, phonological coding, and orthographic coding. In LyonG. R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 279–329). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
62.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
YuillN., & OakhillJ. (1988). Understanding of anaphoric relations in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 173–186.
