An Introduction to Strategic Reading Comprehension

Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 3-26

  Graesser, Arthur C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145546679     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203810033-3     Document Type: Chapter

References (57)

1. Ackerman, P. L. (1988).Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition:Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General 117, 288-318.
2. Anderson, R. C. (1990).Inferences about word meanings. In A. C. Graesser and G. H. Bower (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Inferences and text comprehension 1-16 New York: Academic
3. Azevedo, R., and Cromley, J. G. (2004).Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Psychology 96 523-535.
4. Baker, L. (1985).Differences in standards used by college students to evaluate their comprehension of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly 20 298-313.
5. Barsalou, L. W. (1999).Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 577-660.
6. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., and Kucan, L. (1997).Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
7. Burstein, J. (2003).The e-rater® scoring engine: Automated essay scoring with natural language processing. In M. D. Shermis and J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring:A cross-disciplinary perspective 113-121 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
8. Carroll, J. B. (1987).Psychometric approaches to cognitive abilities and processes. In S. H. Irvine and S. E. Newstead (Eds.), Intelligence and cognition: Contemporary frames of reference 217-251 Boston: Martinus Nijhoff
9. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., and LaVancher, C. (1994)Eliciting self-explanation improves understanding. Cognitive Science 18 439-477.
10. Glenberg, A. M. (1997).What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 1-19.
11. Glenberg, A. M., and Epstein, W. (1985).Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11 702-718.
12. Glenberg, A. M., and Robertson, D. A. (1999).Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes 28 1-26.
13. Goldman, S. R., Varma, S., and Cote, N. (1996).Extending capacity-constrained construction integration: Toward “smarter” and flexible models of text comprehension. In B. K. Britton and A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text 73-114 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
14. Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., and Goldman, S. R. (2003). Handbook of discourse processes Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
15. Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Mathews, E. C., Mitchell, H. H., Olney, A., Ventura, M., et al. (2003).Why/AutoTutor: A test of learning gains from a physics tutor with natural language dialogue. In R. Alterman and D. Hirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 1-6 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
16. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., and Louwerse, M. M. (2004).AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36 180-193.
17. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., and Cai, Z. (2004).Coh-Metrix:Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36 193-202.
18. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., and Zwaan, R. A. (1997).Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology 48 163-189.
19. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., and Trabasso, T. (1994).Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101 371-395.
20. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., and Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Motivating reading comprehension:Concept-oriented reading instruction Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21. Haladyna, T. M. (2004).Developing and validating multiple-choice test item. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
22. Hannon, B., and Daneman, M. (2001).A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 93 103-128.
23. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992).Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher 30 141-158.
24. Johnson, W. L. (2001).Pedagogical agent research at CARTE. AI Magazine 22 85-94.
25. Jurafsky, D., and Martin, J. H. (2000).Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26. King, A. (1992).Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal 29 303-323.
27. Kintsch, W. (1998).Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
28. Klare, G. R. (1974-1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102.
29. LaBerge, D., and Samuels, S. J. (1974).Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology 6 292-323.
30. Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. (1997).A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104 211-240.
31. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., and Foltz, P. W. (2003).Automatic scoring and automation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In M. D. Shermis and J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective 87-112 Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
32. Landauer, T., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., and Kintsch, W. (2007). LSA: A road to meaning Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., and Graesser, A. C. (1999).Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 91 615-629.
34. Maki, R. H. (1998). Test predictions over text material. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35. McNamara, D. S. (2004).SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes 38 1-30.
36. McNamara, D. S., and Kintsch, W. (1996).Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes 22 247-287.
37. McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., and Boonthum, C. (2004).iSTART: Interactive Strategy Trainer for Active Reading and Thinking. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36 222-233.
38. Millis, K. K., Kim, H. J., Todaro, S., Magliano, J., Wiemer-Hastings, K., and McNamara, D.S. (2004).Identifying reading strategies using latent semantic analysis: Comparing semantic benchmarks. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36 213-221.
39. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., and Almond, R. G. (2003).On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 1 3-62.
40. Myers, J. L., O’Brien, E. J., Albrecht, J. E., and Mason, R. A. (1994).Maintaining global coherence during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20 876-886.
41. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
42. O’Brien, E. J., Raney, G. E., Albrecht, J. E., and Rayner, K. (1997).Processes involved in the resolution of explicit anaphors. Discourse Processes 23 1-24.
43. Otero, J., and Kintsch, W. (1992).Failures to detect contradictions in text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science 3 229-235.
44. Palinscar, A. S., and Brown, A. (1984).Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1 117-175.
45. Perfetti, C. A. (1985).Reading ability New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., and Menke, D. (1992).Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist 27 91-109.
47. Pressley, M., Rankin, J., and Yokoi, L. (1996).A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal 96 363-383.
48. Robinson, F. P. (1970).Effective study 4th ed.). New York: Harper and Row. (Original work published 1961)
49. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., and Chapman, S. (1996).Teaching students to generate questions:A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research 66 181-221.
50. Snow, C. (2002).Reading for understanding: Toward an RandD program in reading comprehension Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
51. Trabasso, T., and Magliano, J. P. (1996).Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes 21 255-287.
52. Van den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Everson, M. G., Tzeng, Y., and Sung, Y. (2002).Comprehension and memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representation. In J. Otero, J. Leon, and A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension 131-154 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
53. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., and Rose, C. P. (in press).When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science
54. Vitale, M. R., Romance, N. R., and Dolan, M. F. (2006).A knowledge-based framework for the classroom assessment of student science understanding. In M. McMahon, P. Simmons, R. Summers, D. DeBaets, and F. Crawley (Eds.), Assessment in science: Practical experiences and educational research 1-14 Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association
55. Zimmerman, B., and Schunk, D. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
56. Zwaan, R. A., and Radvansky, G. A. (1998).Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123 162-185.
57. Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., and Yaxley, R. H. (2002).Do language comprehenders routinely represent the shapes of objects? Psychological Science 13 160-171.