Translating advances in reading comprehension research to educational practice

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 33-46

  McNamara, Danielle S ^a   Kendeou, Panayiota ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEAPOLIS UNIVERSITY PAFOS   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

Education practice; Instructional implications; Reading comprehension research

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857098251     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13079298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. Adlof, S.M., Catts, H.W., & Little, T. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 933-958.
2. Bereiter, C. & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131-156.
3. Cain, K. & Oakhill, J.V. (1999). Inference making and its relation to comprehension failure. Reading and Writing, 11, 489-503.
4. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P.E. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42.
5. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K., (2005). The relation between children's reading comprehension level and their comprehension of idioms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 65-87.
6. Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331-361.
7. Chi, M.T.H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self- explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
8. Chiesi, H.L., Spilich, G.J., & Voss, J.F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257-273.
9. Cook, A.E., Limber, J.E., & O'Brien, E.J. (2001). Situation-based context and the availability of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory & Language, 44, 220-234.
10. Cornoldi, C. & Oakhill, J.V. (Eds.). (1996). Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and remediation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Inc.
11. Cutting, L.E. & Scarborough, H.S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 227-299.
12. Dewitz, P., Carr, E., & Patberg, J. (1987). Effects of interference training on comprehension and comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 99-121.
13. Dixon, P. & Bortolussi, M. (1996). Literary communication: Effects of reader-narrator cooperation. Poetics, 23, 405-430.
14. Einstein, G.O., McDaniel, M.A., Owen, P.D., & Coté, N.C. (1990). Encoding and recall of texts: The importance of material appropriate processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 566-581.
15. Fletcher, J.M. (2006). Measuring reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 323-330.
16. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Instruction on mathematical problem solving. In D. Berch & M. Mazzacco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 397-414). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
17. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
18. Garnham, A., Oakhill, J.V., & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1982). Referential continuity and the coherence of discourse. Cognition, 11, 29-46.
19. Givón, T. (1995). Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In M.A. Gernsbacher & T. Givón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp. 59-115). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
20. Gough, P.B., Hoover, W.A., & Peterson, C.L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Gough, P.B. & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
22. Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., & Louwerse, M.M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A.P. Sweet & C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
23. Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
24. Guthrie, J.T. & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivations for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32, 95-105.
25. Haenggi, D. & Perfetti, C.A. (1994). Processing components of college level reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17, 83-104.
26. Hansen, J. & Pearson, P.D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of fourth grade good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 821-829.
27. Keenan, J. M. (in press). Measure for measure: Challenges in assessing reading comprehension. In J. Sabatini & E. Albro (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences.
28. Keenan, J.M. & Betjemann, R.S. (2006). Comprehending the Gray Oral Reading Test without reading it: Why comprehension tests should not include passage-independent items. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 363-380.
29. Keenan, J.M., Betjemann, R.S., & Olson, R.K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281-300.
30. Kendeou, P., Lynch, J.S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., White, M., & Kremer, K.E. (2005). Developing successful readers: Building early narrative comprehension skills through television viewing and listening. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 91-98.
31. Kendeou, P. & Papadopoulos, T.C. (2008, November). Cognitive profiles of struggling readers: A theorybased approach to reading disabilities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago, IL.
32. Kendeou, P. & Papadopoulos, T.C. (in press). The use of CBM-Maze in Greek: A closer look at what it measures. In C. Espin, K. McMaster, & S. Rose (Eds.), The progress monitoring paradigm: Research, policy, and practice.
33. Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & van den Broek, P. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 353-370.
34. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M.J., & Lynch, J.S. (2007). Preschool and early elementary comprehension: Skill development and strategy interventions. In D.S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, (pp. 27-45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M.J., & Lynch, J.S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765-778.
36. King, A. (2007). Beyond literal comprehension: A strategy to promote deep understanding of text. In D.S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 267-290). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction- integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
38. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39. Kintsch, W. & van dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
40. Kucan, L. & Beck, I.L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social Interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271-299.
41. Long, D.L., Oppy, B.J., & Seely, M.R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1456-1470.
42. Lonigan, C.J., Burgess, S.R., & Anthony, J.L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596-613.
43. Magliano, J.P. & Millis, K.K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251-283.Magliano, J.P., Millis, K.K.,
44. Magliano, J.P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Millis, K.K., Muñoz, B.D., & McNamara, D.S. (2002). Using latent semantic analysis to assess reader strategies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 181-188.
45. Mannes, S.M. & Kintsch, W. (1987). Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 91-115.
46. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge.
47. McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inferences during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
48. McNamara, D.S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
49. McNamara, D.S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
50. McNamara, D.S. (2007). IIS: A marriage of computational linguistics, psychology, and educational technologies. In D. Wilson & G. Sutcliffe (Eds.), Proceedings of the twentieth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 15-20). Menlo Park, California: The AAAI Press.
51. McNamara, D.S., Boonthum, C., Levinstein, I.B., & Millis, K. (2007). Evaluating self-explanations in iSTART: Comparing word-based and LSA algorithms. In T. Landauer, D.S. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 227-241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., & Kintsch, W. (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.
53. McNamara, D.S. & Magliano, J.P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297-384). New York, NY: Academic Press.
54. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M.J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, 665-681.
55. Nation, K. (2005). Children's reading comprehension difficulties. In M.J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp 248-265). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
56. Oakhill, J. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children's comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31-39.
57. Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Bryant, P.E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443-468.
58. Oahill, J. & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. In C. Cornaldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
59. Oakhill, J., Yuill, N. & Donaldson, M. (1990). Understanding of because in skilled and less-skilled text comprehenders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 401-410.
60. O'Brien, E.J. & Myers, J.L. (1985). When comprehension difficulty improves memory for text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11, 12-21.
61. O'Brien, E.J. & Myers, J.L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In S.R. Goldman, A.C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35-54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. O'Reilly, T. & McNamara, D.S. (2002). What's a science student to do? In W.D. Gray & C.D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 726-731). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
63. O'Reilly, T., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training: Effect for lowknowledge readers. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1053-1058). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
64. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007a). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121-152.
65. O'Reilly, T. & McNamara, D.S. (2007b). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional "High-Stakes" measures of high school students' science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 161-196.
66. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D.S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228-242.
67. Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D.S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
68. Ozuru, Y., Rowe, M., O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D.S. (2008). Where's the difficulty in standardized reading tests: The passage or the question? Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1001-1015.
69. Palincsar, A.S. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
70. Paris, S.G. (2007). Assessment of reading comprehension. Encyclopedia of language an literacy development (pp. 1-8). London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network.
71. Paris, S.G., Cross, D.R., & Lipson, M.Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1239-1252.
72. Paris, S.G., Lindauer, B.K., & Cox, G.L. (1977). The development of inferential comprehension. Child Development, 47, 1728-1733.
73. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
74. Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York, NY: Guilford.
75. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume 3 (pp. 545-561). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
76. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
77. Rapp, D.N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K.L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C.A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289-312.
78. Rauenbusch, F. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Making reading more difficult: A degraded text microworld for teaching reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 181-206.
79. Savage, R. (2006). Reading comprehension is not always the product of nonsense word decoding and linguistic comprehension: Evidence from teenagers who are extremely poor readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 143-164.
80. Shanahan, R., Kamil, M.L., & Tobin, A.W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 229-55.
81. Singer, M. & Ritchot, K.F.M. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory & Cognition, 24, 733-743.
82. Spooner, A., Baddeley, A.D., & Gathercole, S.E. (2004). Can reading accuracy and comprehension be separated in the Neale Analysis of reading ability? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 187-204.
83. Snowling, M.J. & Hulme, C. (2005) Learning to read with a language impairment. In M.J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 397-412). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
84. Stanovich, K.E. & Cunningham, A.E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211-229.
85. Storch, S.A. & Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934-947.
86. Stothard, S.E. & Hulme, C. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties in children: The role of language comprehension and working memory skills. Reading and Writing, 4, 245-256.
87. Trabasso, T. & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through online inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3-34.
88. van den Broek, P. (1990). The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. In D.A. Balota, G.B. Flores d' Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 423-445). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
89. van den Broek, P. & Kremer, K.E. (1999). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning (pp. 1-31). New York: Teacher's College Press.
90. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D.N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299-316.
91. van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & White, M. J. (2009). Cognitive processes during reading: Implications for the use of multimedia to foster reading comprehension. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 57-73). New York: Rutledge.
92. Whitney, P., Ritchie, B., & Clark, M. (1991). Working memory capacity and the use of elaborative inferences in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 14, 133-145.
93. Yuill, N. & Oakhill, J. (1988). Understanding of anaphoric relations in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 173-186.