Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 229–247 | Cite as

Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: What are we measuring?

  • Jennifer G. Cromley
  • Roger Azevedo
Empirical Study

Abstract

Proficient readers engage in a wide range of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and both developmental and classroom intervention researchers are in need of high-quality measures of strategy use. Several researchers have recently called into question the validity of the most common type of measures of strategy use in reading, self-report or introspective measures (i.e., the participant must report on his or her cognitive activity while not actually engaged in the activity). We administered three parallel strategy use measures to a sample of 30 ninth-grade students: a prospective self-report measure, a concurrent multiple-choice measure which required students to apply the strategies to specific passages, and a text on which we asked students to think aloud. We also collected two measures of reading comprehension—a standardized measure and free recall scores. Consistent with Veenman’s (2005) conclusions based on a literature review, the concurrent multiple-choice and think-aloud data were both significantly correlated with both of the comprehension scores and with each other, whereas the prospective self-report data had non-significant correlations with all of the other measures. We conclude by recommending concurrent measures for researchers who wish to study strategy use in reading comprehension.

Keywords

Measurement Self-report Reading Comprehension Strategies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by funding from an AERA/Spencer Pre-Dissertation Fellowship and a Spencer Dissertation Fellowship to the first author and by funding from the National Science Foundation (REC#0133346) awarded to the second author. Portions of this research were previously presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 15, 2005, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. We thank Dr. Sheila Barron, Jeffrey Greene, Dr. Andrew Ho, Dr. Lorena Llosa, and Dr. Jean-Pierre Verhaege for comments that improved the quality of this paper.

References

  1. Afflerbach, P. (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, vol. 3 (pp. 163–179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Woods, B. S., Duhon, K. E., & Parker, D. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(2), 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 97(4), 171–184.Google Scholar
  5. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, S. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 262–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker, L., & Cerro, L. C. (2000). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99–146). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crain-Thoreson, C., Lippman, M. Z., & McClendon-Magnuson, D. (1997). Windows on comprehension: Reading comprehension processes as revealed by two think-aloud procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 579–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cromley, J. G. (2005). Reading comprehension component processes in early adolescence.Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  14. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2004a). Testing the fit of three models of reading comprehension with 9th grade students. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2004b). Using think-aloud data to illuminate a model of high school reading comprehension. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2005). Testing the fit of four variations of the Inferential Mediation model of reading comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised edition). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Google Scholar
  18. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 5(3), 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(4), 371–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  21. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Hadwin, A., Winne, P., Stockley, D., Nesbit, J., & Woszczyna, C. (2001). Context moderates students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kozminsky, E., & Kozminsky, L. (2001). How do general knowledge and reading strategies ability relate to reading comprehension of high school students at different educational levels? Journal of Research in Reading, 24(2), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2001). Gates–MacGinitie reading tests, Level 7/9, Form S (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
  25. Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). A three-pronged method for studying inference generation in literary text. Poetics, 20, 193–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. Washington, DC: NICHD.Google Scholar
  29. Nokes, J. D., & Dole, J. A. (2004). Helping adolescent readers through explicit strategy instruction. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 162–182). NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  30. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.Google Scholar
  31. 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(6), 1239–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume II (pp. 609–640). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Verbal protocols of reading. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 308–321). NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  35. Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., & Erickson, L. G. (1986). Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 422–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogers, T. (1991). Students as literary critics: The interpretive experiences, beliefs, and processes of ninth-grade students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(4), 391–423.Google Scholar
  37. Roller, C. M. (1986). Overcoming underwriting and other textbook sins. Social Education, 50(1), 56–57.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, R. S. W., Roehrig, A. D., & Guan, Q. (2006, April). Validation of a tool to assess the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies within adolescent and adult readers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  39. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(2), 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stamp Act. (2004). Britannica Student Encyclopedia. Downloaded from the World Wide Web from http://www.search.eb.com/.
  42. Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In B. Moschner & C. Artelt (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 75–97). Berlin: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  43. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Groen, M. G. M. (1993). Thinking aloud: Does it affect regulatory processes in learning. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 18, 322–330.Google Scholar
  44. Viola, H. J., Wheatley, H., & Hart, D. (1998). Why we remember. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  45. Wyatt, D., Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Stein, S., Evans, P., & Brown, R. (1993). Comprehension strategies, worth and credibility monitoring, and evaluations: Cold and hot cognition when experts read professional articles that are important to them. Learning and Individual Differences, 5(1), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychological Studies in EducationTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations