Advertisement

European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 401–409 | Cite as

The effects of strategy training on high school students’ learning from science texts

  • Phillip John Moore
  • Jill Janina Scevak
Article

Abstract

This research examines the effects of a reciprocal teaching intervention aimed at providing high school students. with a repertoire of strategies to integrate text and visual aid information (graphs, diagrams) while learning in science. Experimental subjects received an hour of instruction each week for 7 weeks using SLIC (Summarise, Link, Image, Check) strategies to integrate the written word with the visual aid while Controls were taught under normal class teaching methods using the same materials. Post test ANOVA’s with Treatment (Experimental, Control) and Reading Ability (Average, Below average) as the factors showed superior recall of details by average ability students in the Experimental group but no significant differences in main idea recall nor on comprehension questions. All Experimental students included a graph in their recalls and they also significantly included more linking information in their texts on the graphs. The quality of their recall graphs was superior to those of the Control group. The results of a far transfer test showed no effects of training on transfer. Implications for future research and for teaching are discussed.

Key words

Learning Metacognition Science Strategy Training 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Afflerbach, P. (1990). Effects of prior knowledge on summarisation strategies.Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Cole, P., & Char, L. (1990).Teaching methods and techniques in special education. Sydney: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  4. Evans, G. (1988). Getting learning under control.Australian Educational Researcher, 15, 1–18.Google Scholar
  5. Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Towards a theory of settings.Review of Educational research, 60, 517–529.Google Scholar
  6. Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1989). Effects of a tree diagram on students’ comprehension of main ideas in a multi-thematic expository text.Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 237–247.Google Scholar
  7. Guthrie, J., Weber, S., & Kimmerly, N. (1993). Searching documents; Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 186–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holley, C.D., & Dansereau, D.F. (1984).Spatial learning strategies. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. McLeod, J., & Anderson, J. (1972).GAPADOL Reading Comprehension Test. Richmond: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  10. Mayer, R.E., Dyck, J.L., & Cook, L.K. (1984). Techniques that help readers build mental models from scientific text: Definitions pretraining and signalling.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1089–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moore, P. (1991). Reciprocal teaching of study skills. In J. Biggs (Ed.),Learning processes and training contexts (pp. 177–194). Hawthorn: ACER.Google Scholar
  12. Moore, P. (1988). Reciprocal teaching and reading comprehension: A review.Journal of Research in Reading, 11, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moore, P.J., Chan, L.K.S., & Au, W.K. (1993). High school students’ use of diagrams during reading.Journal of Research in Reading, 16, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moore, P.J., & Scevak, J.J. (1994). Systematic forced processing of text and graphic information. In W. Schnotz & R. Kulhavy (Eds.),Comprehension of graphics (pp. 303–319). Amsterdam: Elsvier Science Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Palincsar, A. (1986, April).Interactive cognition to promote listening comprehension. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  16. Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paas, F.G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reeve, R., & Brown, A. (1985). Metacognition reconsidered: Implications for intervention research.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reinking, D., Hayes, D.A., & McEneaney, J.E. (1988). Good and poor readers’ use of explicitly cued graphic aids.Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 229–247.Google Scholar
  20. Scevak, J.J., Moore, P.J., & Kirby, J.R. (1993). Training students to use maps to increase text recall.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scevak, J.J., & Moore, P.J. (1990). Effective processing of visual information.Reading, 24, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Torgesen, J.K. (1988). Studies of children with learning disabilities who perform poorly on memory span tasks.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 605–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Oostendorp, H. (1993). Text processing in terms of semantic cohesion monitoring. In H. van Oostendorp & R.A. Zwaan (Eds.),Naturalistic text comprehension (pp. 35–55). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
  25. van Oostendorp, H. (1991). Inferences and integrations made by readers of script-based text.Journal of Research in Reading, 14, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Oostendorp, H., & Zwaan, R.A. (1993). Constructing and updating spatial situational models in story comprehension. Paper presented at the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France, September.Google Scholar
  27. Winograd, P. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarising texts.Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 404–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Winn, W. (1990). A theoretical framework for research on learning from graphics.International Journal of Educational Research, 14, 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisbon, Portugal/ Springer Netherlands 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phillip John Moore
    • 1
  • Jill Janina Scevak
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations