Students' strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 113-147

  Strømsø, Helge I ^a   Bråten, Ivar ^a   Samuelstuen, Marit S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038487558     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2102_01     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 31-46.
2. Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Woods, B. S., Duhon, K. E., & Parker, D. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes in students' knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 125-146.
3. Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we don't understand? Standards for evaluating text comprehension. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 155-205). Orlando, FL: Academic.
4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5. Björnsson, C. H. (1968). Läsbarhet [Readability]. Stockholm: Liber.
6. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic.
7. Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.
8. Bråten, I., & Strømsa, H. I. (2003). A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 195-218.
9. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
10. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
11. Cote, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
12. Crain-Thoreson, C., Lippman, M. Z., & McClendon-Magnuson, D. (1997). Windows on comprehension: Reading comprehension processes as revealed by two think-aloud procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 579-591.
13. Deegan, D. H. (1995). Exploring individual differences among novices reading in a specific domain: The case of law. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 154-170.
14. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
15. Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357-398.
16. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165-191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
17. Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 670-681.
18. Hartman, D. K. (1992). Intertextuality and reading: The text, the reader, the author, and the context. Linguistics and Education, 4, 295-311.
19. Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 520-561.
20. Ignacio, L. S., & Crain-Thoreson, C. (2000, April). The influence of assessment expectation on students ' reading comprehension strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
21. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
22. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Klare, G. R. (1984). Readibility. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 681-744). New York: Longman.
24. Lahtinen, V., Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (1997). Spontaneous study strategies and the quality of knowledge construction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 13-24.
25. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students' conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239-252.
26. Lundeberg, M. A. (1987). Metacognitive aspects of reading comprehension: Studying understanding in legal case analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 407-432.
27. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-629.
28. Mannes, S. (1994). Strategic processing of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 577-588.
29. Mælan, E. N., & Bråten, I. (1998). Metakognitiv kompetanse og strategibruk hos universitetsstudenter med lese- og skrivevansker [Metacognitive competence and strategy use among university students with reading and writing difficulties]. Nordic Journal of Special Education, 76, 102-113.
30. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
31. Paxton, R. J. (1999). A deafening silence: History textbooks and the students who read them. Review of Educational Research, 69, 315-339.
32. Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., & Brown, R. (1992). Skilled and not-so-skilled reading: Good information processing and not-so-good information processing. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 91-127). San Diego, CA: Academic.
36. Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478-493.
37. Shearer, B. A., Lundeberg, M. A., & Coballes-Vega, C. (1997). Making the connection between research and reality: Strategies teachers use to read and evaluate journal articles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 592-598.
38. Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1994). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 602-615). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
39. Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J. G., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. E. (1987). Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 177-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
40. Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430-456.
41. Strømsø, H. I., Hagtvet, B. E., Lyster, S. A. H., & Rygvold, A. L. (1997). Lese- og skriveprøver for studenter på høyskole- og universitetsnivå [Reading and spelling tests for students in higher education]. University of Oslo, Norway: Department of Special Needs Education.
42. Trabasso, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 255-288.
43. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
44. Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D., & Lodewijks, H. G. (1999). A longitudinal perspective on learning strategies in higher education: Different viewpoints towards development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 222-244.
45. Vinje, F. E. (1982). Journalistspråket [The journalist language]. Fredrikstad, Norway: Institute for Journalism.
46. Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 230-245). New York: Longman.
47. Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 727-745). San Diego, CA: Academic.
48. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
49. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
50. Wineburg, S. (1996). The psychology of learning and teaching history. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 423-437). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
51. Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319-346.
52. Wyatt, D., Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Stein, S., Evans, P., & Brown, R. (1993). Comprehension strategies, worth and credibility monitoring, and evaluations: Cold and hot cognition when experts read professional articles that are important to them. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 49-72.