Reading and Writing

, Volume 18, Issue 7–9, pp 755–786 | Cite as

Web-Based Training of Metacognitive Strategies for Text Comprehension: Focus on Poor Comprehenders

  • Mina C. Johnson-GlenbergEmail author


Metacognitive reading strategies were trained and practiced using interactive Web-based tools. Twenty middle school poor reading comprehenders were trained in two metacognitive strategies using a Web-based application called 3D-Readers. The training texts were science-oriented and merged the narrative and expository genres. Results from a within-subjects design answered two main experimental questions: (1) Were greater comprehension gains demonstrated after reading experimental texts with embedded verbal (generate questions) and visual (create a model) strategies compared to control texts? (2) Did the embedded strategies affect elective rereading of the texts? The data answered both questions in the affirmative. Comprehension, as assessed with constructed answers, was significantly higher in the experimental condition, thus demonstrating the efficacy of training verbal and visual strategies in a Web-based environment. In addition, participants elected to reread more often in the experimental condition (as assessed with number of clicks to “ScrollBack” through the text), thus demonstrating the efficacy of strategy training on text reprocessing. Interestingly, the poorer comprehenders altered their rereading behavior the most. Implications for Web-based instructional applications are discussed.


At-risk readers Comprehension Computer-assisted learning Metacognitive strategies Reading remediation Struggling readers Web-based applications 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amlund, J. T., Kardash, C. A. M., Kulhavy, R. W. 1986Repetitive reading and recall of expository textReading Research Quarterly214958Google Scholar
  2. Bell, N. 1986Visualizing and verbalizing for language comprehension and thinkingAcademy of Reading PublicationsPaso Robles, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, N. 1991Gestalt memory: A critical factor in language comprehensionAnnals of Dyslexia41246260Google Scholar
  4. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., Bassiri, D. 1987Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategiesReading Research Quarterly22347368Google Scholar
  5. FOSS – Full option science program, Lawrence Hall of Science, retrieved October 5:2003, from
  6. Gambrell, L. B., Jaywitz, P. B. 1993Mental imagery, text illustrations and children’s story comprehension and recallReading Research Quarterly28265273Google Scholar
  7. Gough, P., Tunmer, W. E. 1986Decoding, reading, and reading disabilityRemedial and Special Education7610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graesser, A, Golding, J.M., Long, D. L. 1991Narrative representation and comprehensionBarr, R.Kamil, M. L. Mosenthal, P.Pearson, P. D. eds. Handbook of reading researchLongman Publishing GroupWhite Plains, NY171205Google Scholar
  9. Haenggi, D., Perfetti, C. A. 1992Individual differences in reprocessing of textJournal of Educational Psychology84182192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. 2000Training reading comprehension in adequate decoders/poor comprehenders: Verbal vs visual strategiesJournal of Educational Psychology92772782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983 Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousnessHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Kintsch, W. 1988The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction integration modelPsychological Review95163182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Landauer, T. K., Dumais, S. T. 1997A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledgePsychological Review104211240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levin, J. R. 1973Inducing comprehension in poor readers: A test of a recent modelJournal of Educational Psychology651924Google Scholar
  15. Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., Warren-Chaplin, P. M., Lacerenza, L., DeLuca, T., Giovinazzo, R. 1996Text comprehension training for disabled readers: An evaluation of reciprocal teaching and text analysis training programsBrain and Language54447480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayer, R. E., Sims, V. K. 1994For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learningJournal of Educational Psychology86389401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meloth, M. S. 1990Changes in poor readers’ knowledge of cognition and the association of knowledge of cognition with regulation of cognition and reading comprehensionJournal of Educational Psychology82792798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Millis, K., King, A. 2001Rereading strategically: The influences of comprehension ability and a prior reading on the memory for expository textReading Psychology224165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Millis, K., Simon, S., tenBroek, J. 1998Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific textsMemory & Cognition26232246Google Scholar
  20. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Retrieved August 10, 2002, from www.NCES.ed.govGoogle Scholar
  21. National Reading Panel (Report of the), Teaching Children to Read (2000). Reports of the Subgroups. Retrieved June 5, 2001, from Scholar
  22. Oakhill, J., Patel, S. 1991Can imagery training help children who have comprehension problems?Journal of Research in Reading12106115Google Scholar
  23. Paivio, A. 1986Mental representation: A dual coding approachOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Palinscar, A. S., Brown, A. L. 1984Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activitiesCognition and Instruction1117175Google Scholar
  25. Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., Lipson, M. Y. 1984Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehensionJournal of Educational Psychology7612391252Google Scholar
  26. Pearson, P. D., & Hamm D. N. (2001). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices: past, present and future. Technical Report for RAND CorporationGoogle Scholar
  27. Pressley, M. 1977Imagery and children’s learning: Putting the picture in developmental perspectiveReview of Educational Research47585622Google Scholar
  28. Pressley, M. 2000What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of?Kamil, M. L.Mosenthal, P. B. eds. Handbook of Reading ResearchNJ Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah545561Google Scholar
  29. Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., Theide, K. W. 2000The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trialsMemory and Cognition2810041010Google Scholar
  30. Reyna, V. F., Brainerd, C. J., Effken, J., Bootzin, R., Lloyd, F. J. 2001The psychology of human–computer mismatchesWolfe, C. R. eds. Learning and teaching on the world wide webAcademic PressSan Diego, CA2341Google Scholar
  31. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., Chapman, S. 1996Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studiesReview of Educational Research66181221Google Scholar
  32. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C. 1994Reciprocal teaching: A review of the researchReview of Educational Research64479530Google Scholar
  33. Sadoski, M., Paivio, A. 2001Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writingLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  34. Stein, N. L., Glenn, C. G. 1979An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school childrenFreedle, R. eds. New directions in discourse processingAblexNorwood, NJ53120Google Scholar
  35. TerraNova Reading and Language Arts Test (1997), Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  36. Tovani, C. 2000I read it but I don’t get it: Comprehension strategies for adolescent readersStenhouse PublishersPortland, MEGoogle Scholar
  37. Trabasso, T., Magliano, J. P. 1996How do children understand what they read and what can we do to help them?Graves, M.Broek, P.Taylor, B. eds. The first R: A right of all childrenTeachers College PressNew York255288Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin MadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations