Changes in reading strategies as a function of reading training: A comparison of live and computerized training

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 185-208

  Magliano, Joseph P ^a   Todaro, Stacey ^a   Millis, Keith ^a   Wiemer Hastings, Katja ^a   Kim, H Joyce ^b   McNamara, Danielle S ^c  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RHODES COLLEGE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18144414834     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/1LN8-7BQE-8TN0-M91L     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
2. Best, R., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Self-explaining science texts: Strategies, knowledge, and reading skill. In Y. B. Yasmin, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences: Embracing diversity in the learning sciences (pp. 89-96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). The Nelson-Denny reading test. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
4. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, R., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanation: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
5. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
6. Coté, N., & Goldman, S. R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children's think-aloud protocols. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169-193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
8. Craig, S. D., Driscoll, D., & Gholson, B. (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. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428-434.
10. Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Psychology, 60, 517-529.
11. Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Harter, D., Person, N., & the TRG (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 31-51.
12. Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Harter, D., Person, N., & the TRG (2000). Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 129-148.
13. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
14. Knuth, D. (1998). The art of computer programming, Vol. 3, 2nd Ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15. Kurby, C. A., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Ganduri, N., Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., & McNamara, D. S. (2003). Computerizing reading training: Evaluation of a latent semantic analysis space for science text. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 244-250.
16. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. 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. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251-283.
18. Magliano, J. P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Millis, K. K., Munoz, B. D., & McNamara, D. (2002). Using latent semantic analysis to assess reader strategies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 181-188.
19. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-629.
20. McNamara, D. S. (2004a). Aprendiendo a través de los textos: Efectos de la estructura del texto y las estrategias de los lectores. Signos, 37, 123-159.
21. McNamara, D. S. (2004b). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
22. McNamara, D. S., Best, R., & Castellano, C. (2004). Learning from text: Facilitating and enhancing comprehension. www.speechpathology.com
23. McNamara, D. S., Boonthum, C., Levinstein, I. B., & Millis, K. (In press). Using LSA and word-based measures to assess self-explanations in iSTART. In T. Landauer, D. S. McNamara, S. Dennis & W. Kintsch (Eds.), LSA: A road to meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B. & Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 222-233.
25. McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465-482.
26. McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (1999). Training reading strategies. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 387-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. O'Reilly, T., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training: Effects for low-knowledge readers. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp, 1053-1058). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. O'Reilly, T., Sinclair, G., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Reading strategy training: Automated versus live. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1059-1064). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Otero, J. (2002). Noticing and fixing difficulties while understanding science texts. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Ozuru, Y., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Contribution of reading skill to learning from expository texts. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1071-1076). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.
32. Shapiro, A., & McNamara, D. (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. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
34. Trabasso, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 255-288.
35. Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., & Suh, S. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in the representation of stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1-25.
36. van den Broek, R., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartman, E. (1995). The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353-374). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies in discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
38. Yuill, N. M., & Oakhill, J. V. (1988). Effects of inference awareness training on poor reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 33-45.
39. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.