Changing how students process and comprehend texts with computer-based self-explanation training

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 429-459

  Kurby, Christopher ^a   Magliano, Joseph ^b   Dandotkar, Srikanth ^b   Woehrle, James ^b   Gilliam, Sara ^b   McNamara, Danielle ^c  

^a GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872955838     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: 15414140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/EC.47.4.e     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. ACT, Inc. (2009). ACT national profile report. Iowa City, IA.
2. Bellissens, C., Jeuniaux, P., Duran, N., & McNamara, D. (2007). Towards a textual cohesion model that predicts self-explanations inference generation as a function of text structure and readers' knowledge levels. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 233-238). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
3. Birtwisle, M. (2002). The Soundex Algorithm. Retrieved from http://www.comp.leeds. ac.uk/matthewb/ar32/basic-soundex.htm
4. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, R., & Glaser, R. (1989). Selfexplanation: 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. Christian. P. (1998). Soundex-Can it be improved? Computers in Genealogy, 6, 215-221.
7. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. 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. (Pubitemid 128752417)
9. de Leeuw, N., & Chi, M. T. H. (2003). The role of self-explanation in conceptual change learning. In G. Sinatra & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 55-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Foltz, P. W. (2007). Discourse coherence and LSA. In T. K. Landauer, D. S. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 167-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Gilliam, S., Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2007). Assessing the format of the presentation of text in developing a Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (RSAT). Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 39, 199-204.
12. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395. (Pubitemid 24976808)
13. Jackson, G. T., Boonthum, C., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The efficacy of iSTART extended practice: Low ability students catch up. In J. Kay & V. Aleven (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 349-351). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
14. Jackson, G. T., Demspey, K. B., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Game-based practice in a reading strategy tutoring system: Showdown in iSTART-ME. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Computer games. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
15. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58, 79-97.
17. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. W. (2003). Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 87-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Levinstein, I. B., Boonthum, C., Pillarisetti, S. P., Bell, C., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). iSTART 2: Improvements for efficiency and effectiveness. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 224-232.
19. 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.
20. MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1989). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: The Riverside Publishing Company.
21. Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Computer-based assessment of studentconstructed responses. Behavioral Research Methods, 44, 608-621.
22. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251-284.
23. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., & Levinstein, I. (2010). Assessing comprehension skill with verbal protocols. Final report submitted to the United States Department of Education for Grant No. R305G040055
24. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K., The RSAT Development Team, Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2011). Assessing comprehension during reading with the Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (RSAT). Metacognition and Learning.
25. 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.
26. Magliano, J. P., Todaro, S., Millis, K. K., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Kim, H. J., & McNamara, D. 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. (Pubitemid 41442195)
27. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9, 615-629.
28. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
29. McNamara, D. S. (2009, Spring). The importance of teaching reading strategies. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, pp. 34-40.
30. McNamara, D. S., Boonthum, C., Kurby, C. A., Magliano, J., Pillarisetti, S., & Bellissens, C. (2009). Interactive paraphrase training: The development and testing of an iSTART module. In the Proceeding of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2009), Brighton, UK, July 6-10, 2009.
31. McNamara, D. S., Boonthum, C., Levinstein, I. B., & Millis, K. (2007a). Evaluating selfexplanations 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., & Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy trainer for active reading and thinking. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 222-233. (Pubitemid 39196120)
33. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009a). Self-explanation and metacognition: The dynamics of reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 60-81). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009b). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
35. McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465-482.
36. McNamara, D. S., O'Reilly, T., Best, R., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students' reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147-171. (Pubitemid 44877313)
37. McNamara, D. S., O'Reilly, T., Rowe, M., Boonthum, C., & Levinstein, I. B. (2007). iSTART: A web-based tutor that teaches self-explanation and metacognitive reading strategies. In D. S.McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 397-421) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (1999). Training reading strategies. Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 387-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Millis, K. K., & Magliano, J. P. (in press). Assessing comprehension processes during reading. To appear in J. P. Sabatini, E. R. Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences. Lanham, MD: R & L Publishing.
40. Millis, K. K., Magliano, J. P., & Todaro, S. (2006). Measuring discourse-level processes with verbal protocols and latent semantic analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 251-283.
41. Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 69-91),Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. 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 26th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1053-1058). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. O'Reilly, T., Taylor, R. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Classroom based reading strategy training: Self-explanation vs. reading control. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1887). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44. Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Best, R., & McNamara, D. (2010). Contributions of self-explanation to comprehension of high-and low-cohesion texts. Discourse Processes, 47, 641-667.
45. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
46. Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 275-290.
47. Trabasso, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 255-287. (Pubitemid 126774786)