A comparison of the effects of students' expository text comprehension strategies

Instructional Science

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 551-570

  Ramsay, Crystal M ^a   Sperling, Rayne A ^a   Dornisch, Michele M ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension strategies; Elaborative interrogation; Main idea; Situational interest; Text comprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958486946     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-008-9081-6     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA.
2. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545-561. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 94. 3. 545.
3. Alexander, P. A. (1995). Superimposing a situation-specific and domain-specific perspective on an account of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist. Special Issue: Current issues in research on self-regulated learning: A discussion with commentaries, 30, 189-193.
4. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., Armstrong, J. O., Wise, M. A., Janisch, C., & Mayer, L. A. (1991). Reading and questioning in content area lessons. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(1), 35-59.
5. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 331-346. doi: 10. 2307/747972.
6. Axelrod, J. (1975). Getting the main idea is still the main idea. Journal of Reading, 18, 383-387.
7. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(3), 251-276. doi: 10. 2307/747763.
8. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next-A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
9. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, O. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
10. Boudreau, R. L., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., & Specht, J. (1999). Evaluating the efficacy of elaborative strategies for remembering expository text. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 170-183.
11. Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The benefits of embedded question adjuncts for low and high structure builders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 339-348. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 99. 2. 339.
12. Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257. doi: 10. 1598/RRQ. 42. 2. 2.
14. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311-325. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 99. 2. 311.
15. Davis, M. A. (2001). Integrative studies: Teaching for the twenty-first century. The History Teacher, 34(4), 471-485. doi: 10. 2307/3054200.
16. DiVesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 8-14. doi: 10. 1037/h0032243.
17. Dornisch, M. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2004). Elaborative questions in web-based text materials. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31, 49-59.
18. Dornisch, M. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2006). Facilitating learning from technology-enhanced text: Effects of prompted elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 156-166.
19. Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31, 349-365. doi: 10. 1016/S0346-251X(03)00047-2.
20. Evers, A. (2001). The revised Dutch rating scale for test quality. International Journal of Testing, 1(2), 155-182. doi: 10. 1207/S15327574IJT0102_4.
21. Foner, E. (2005). Give me liberty: An American history (Vol. 2). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
22. Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210-225. doi: 10. 1177/00222194070400030301.
23. Georgia End-of-Course-Tests. U. S. History released test booklet. (2004). Georgia Department of Education.
24. Gilabert, R., Martinez, G., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2005). Some good texts are always better: Text revisions to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 15, 45-68. doi: 10. 1016/j. learninstruc. 2004. 12. 003.
25. Greene, C., Symons, S., & Richards, C. (1996). Elaborative interrogation effects for children with learning disabilities: Isolated facts versus connected prose. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 19-42. doi: 10. 1006/ceps. 1996. 0003.
26. Hamilton, R. J. (1997). Effects of three types of elaboration on learning concepts from text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 299-318. doi: 10. 1006/ceps. 1997. 0935.
27. Harcourt School Publishers. (2003). Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www. harcourt. com/.
28. Heartsoft Educational Software. (2007). Software for development of literacy skills. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www. heartsoft. com/literacy/literacy_home. php.
29. Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191-209. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1016667621114.
30. Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 51-75. doi: 10. 1080/10573560600837651.
31. Houghton Mifflin. (2008). Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www. hmco. com/products/products_elementary. html.
32. Jitendra, A. K., Chard, D., Hoppes, M. K., Renouf, K., & Gardill, M. C. (2001). An evaluation of main idea strategy instruction in four commercial reading programs: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 53-73. doi: 10. 1080/105735601455738.
33. Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 127-139. doi: 10. 1177/002246690003400302.
34. Kiewra, K. A., DuBios, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240-245. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 83. 2. 240.
35. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 111-126. doi: 10. 1207/s15326985ep2701_8.
36. Marcus, R. D. (2000). Nonreaders anonymous: Reading history collaboratively. The History Teacher, 33, 453-468. doi: 10. 2307/494942.
37. Martin, V., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-interrogation effects depend on the nature of the question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 113-119. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 83. 1. 113.
38. Mason, L. H., Meadan, H., Hedan, L., & Corso, L. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development instruction for expository text comprehension. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 47-52.
39. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103-116. doi: 10. 2307/1593593.
40. McDaniel, M. A., & Donnelly, C. M. (1996). Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 508-519. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 88. 3. 508.
41. McDougal Littell. (2007). The Americans. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www. mcdougallittell. com/ml/ss. htm?level2Code=AH& lvl=3.
42. Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structures in text: Key for reading comprehension in ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72-103. doi: 10. 2307/747349.
43. Meyer, B. J. F., Middlemiss, W., Theodorou, E., Brezinski, K. L., McDougall, J., & Bartlett, B. J. (2002). Effects of structure strategy instruction delivered to fifth-grade children using the internet with and without the aid of older adult tutors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 486-519.
44. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424-436. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 85. 3. 424.
45. Montelongo, J., Berber-Jimenez, L., Hernandez, A. C., & Hosking, D. (2006). Teaching expository text structures. Science Teacher (Normal, Ill.), 73(2), 28-31.
46. Myers, M. P., & Savage, T. (2005). Enhancing student comprehension of social studies material. Social Studies (Maynooth, Ireland), 96, 18-23. doi: 10. 3200/TSSS. 96. 1. 18-23.
47. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teacher's tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology (NCES Report No. 2000-102). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
48. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The nation's report card reading summary (NCES Report No. 2006-451). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
49. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The nation's report card reading summary (NCES Report No 2007-496). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
50. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
51. Ness, M. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content-area classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 229-231.
52. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), Program of Research on Reading Comprehension, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 69 (April 10, 2002), Department of Education. (Notice of final priority).
53. O'Reilly, T., Symons, S., & MacLatchy-Gaudet, H. (1998). A comparison of self- explanation and elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 434-445. doi: 10. 1006/ceps. 1997. 0977.
54. Ozgungor, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Interactions among elaborative interrogation, knowledge, and interest in the process of constructing knowledge from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 437-443. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 96. 3. 437.
55. Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 291-300. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 13. 2. 291.
56. Pressley, M., Symons, S., McDaniel, M. A., Snyder, B. L., & Turnure, J. E. (1988). Elaborative interrogation facilitates acquisition of confusing facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 268-278. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 80. 3. 268.
57. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159-194. doi: 10. 1207/s1532799xssr0202_4.
58. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91-109. doi: 10. 1207/s15326985ep2701_7.
59. Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Panayiota, K., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading. Special Issue: What should the scientific study of reading be now and in the near future?, 11(4), 289-312.
60. Reder, L. M., Charney, D. H., & Morgan, K. I. (1986). The role of elaborations in learning a skill from an instructional text. Memory & Cognition, 14, 64-78.
61. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Toward a unified theory of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 337-356.
62. Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(1), 1-17.
63. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). The effect of reader purpose on interest and recall. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(1), 1-18.
64. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23-51. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1009004801455.
65. Seifert, T. L. (1993). Effects of elaborative interrogation with prose passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 642-651. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 85. 4. 642.
66. Seifert, T. L. (1994). Enhancing memory for main ideas using elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 360-366. doi: 10. 1006/ceps. 1994. 1026.
67. Sjostrom, C. L., & Hare, V. C. (1984). Teaching high school students to identify main ideas in expository text. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(2), 114-118.
68. Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 249-260. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 90. 2. 249.
69. Stein, B. S., & Bransford, J. D. (1979). Constraints on effective elaboration: Effects of precision and subject generation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 769-777. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5371(79)90481-X.
70. Stevens, R. J. (1988). Effects of strategy training on the identification of the main idea of expository passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 21-26. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 80. 1. 21.
71. Studies capture a world of reading instruction. (2006, October/November). Reading Today, 5.
72. Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1-35. doi: 10. 1207/s15548430jlr3801_1.
73. Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 89-97. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1540-5826. 2006. 00209. x.
74. Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). A conspiracy of good intentions: America's textbook fiasco. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
75. U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). Washington, D. C. Retrieved February 9, 2007 from http://nces. ed. gov/programs/digest/d97/d97t404. asp.
76. van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer tutoring on second and fifth graders' reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 291-329. doi: 10. 3200/JEXE. 73. 4. 291-329.
77. Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 147-166. doi: 10. 2307/747599.
78. Wakefield, J. F. (2006, April). Textbook usage in the United States: The case of U. S. History. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Textbooks, Santiago, Chile.
79. Warren, W. J. (2007). Closing the distance between authentic history pedagogy and everyday classroom practice. The History Teacher, 40(2), 249-255.
80. Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6-18. doi: 10. 1177/00224669050390010201.
81. Willoughby, T., Waller, T. G., Wood, E., & MacKinnon, G. E. (1993). The effect of prior knowledge on an immediate and delayed associative learning task following elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 36-46. doi: 10. 1006/ceps. 1993. 1005.
82. Willoughby, T., Wood, E., McDermott, C., & McLaren, J. (2000). Enhancing learning through strategy instruction and group interaction: Is active generation of elaborations critical? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 19-30. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200001)14: 1< 19:: AID-ACP619> 3. 0. CO; 2-4.
83. Wittrock, M. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-376. doi: 10. 1207/s15326985ep2404_2.
84. Woloshyn, V. E., Paivio, A., & Pressley, M. (1994). Use of elaborative interrogation to help students acquire information consistent with prior and information inconsistent with prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 79-89. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 86. 1. 79.
85. Woloshyn, V. E., Pressley, M., & Schneider, W. (1992). Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledge effects on learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 115-124. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 84. 1. 115.
86. Woloshyn, V. E., Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Elaborative interrogation facilitates adult learning of factual paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 513-524. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 82. 3. 513.
87. Wood, E., & Hewitt, K. L. (1993). Assessing the impact of elaborative strategy instruction relative to spontaneous strategy use in high achievers. Exceptionality, 4, 65-79. doi: 10. 1207/s15327035ex0402_1.
88. Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Winne, P. H. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children's learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 741-748. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 82. 4. 741.
89. Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Kaspar, V., & Idel, T. (1994). Enhancing adolescents' recall of factual content: The impact of provided versus self-generated elaborations. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 57-65.