Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: What are we measuring?
- 1.1k Downloads
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.
KeywordsMeasurement Self-report Reading Comprehension Strategies
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Cromley, J. G. (2005). Reading comprehension component processes in early adolescence.Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised edition). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Google Scholar
- Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.Google Scholar
- 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
- Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Roller, C. M. (1986). Overcoming underwriting and other textbook sins. Social Education, 50(1), 56–57.Google Scholar
- 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
- Stamp Act. (2004). Britannica Student Encyclopedia. Downloaded from the World Wide Web from http://www.search.eb.com/.
- 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
- 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
- Viola, H. J., Wheatley, H., & Hart, D. (1998). Why we remember. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- 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