Older student reading of informational texts like those found in most high school classrooms continue to be a concern. College entrance exams scores attest to the fact that this age group of readers remain largely unprepared for the rigorous, discipline area reading and comprehension demands of higher education. In response to this issue content area teachers have been encouraged to teach reading skills for their subject matter. Standard reading instruction tools have included reading guides and summative reading assessments. This study sought to compare the effects of standard reading pedagogy with computerized, formative reading assessments given to students as they read. The largest publisher of high school textbooks, Pearson Prentice-Hall, and the publisher of the high school government text used in this study currently does not have in place digital, formative reading assessments tracking section by chapter section. High school seniors in nine sections of American Government under two different instructors participated in this mixed method, quasiexperimental study. Results indicate a significant difference in content comprehension with the formative assessment pedagogy. Survey and questionnaire responses suggest students thought they read better and were more motivated to read responding to computerized formative assessments (CBA’s) that closely tracked their subject matter textbooks.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
ACT. (2011). ACT College and Career Readiness Report. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/content/act/en/newsroom.html?year=2011&p=1476&lang=%20nglish.
ACT. (2015). ACT College and Career Readiness Report. Retrieved from https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Condition-of-College-and-Career-Readiness-Report-2015-United-States.pdf.
Afflerbach, P. (2005). High stakes testing and reading assessment: National reading conference policy brief. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2), 151–162.
Allen, K. D., & Hancock, T. E. (2008). Reading comprehension improvement with individualized cognitive profiles and metacognition. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 124–139.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Briggs, D. C., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Furtak, E., Shepard, L., & Yin, Y. (2012). Meta-analytic methodology and inferences about the efficacy of formative assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31(4), 13–17.
Brozo, W. G., Moorman, G., Meyer, C., & Stewart, T. (2013). Content area reading and disciplinary literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(5), 353–357.
Bull, J., & McKenna, C. (2004). Blueprint for computer-assisted assessment. London: Routledge-Falmer.
Bunch, G. C., Walqui, A., & Pearson, P. D. (2014). Complex text and new common standards in the United States: Pedagogical implications for English learners. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 543–559.
Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from Media. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Coleman, D. (2011). Race to the top: Bringing the common core to life. Retrieved from http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/resources/bringing-the-common-core-to-life.html.
Corno, L. (1993). The Best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22, 14–22.
The Council Chronicle. (2007). A Policy Research Brief on Adolescent Literacy. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cuevas, J., Russell, R., & Irving, M. A. (2012). An examination of the effect of customized reading modules on diverse secondary students’ reading comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 445–467.
Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 75–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., & Cook, M. J. (2003). The role of feedback during academic testing: The delay retention test revisited. The Psychological Record, 53, 533–548.
Economides, A. (2009). Conative feedback in computer-based assessment. Computers in the Schools, 26, 207–223.
Fang, Z. (2014). Preparing content area teachers for disciplinary literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(6), 444–448.
Farley, J. P., & Kim-Spoon, J. (2014). The development of adolescent self-regulation: Reviewing the role of parent, peer, friend, and romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 37(4), 433–440.
Gates-MacGinite Reading Tests, Fourth Edition. (2007). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Gegner, J. A., Mackay, Donald. H. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Computer-supported aids to making sense of scientific articles: Cognitive, motivational, and attitudinal effects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 79–97.
Gill, M., & Greenhow, M. (2008). How effective is feedback in computer-aided assessments? Learning, Media, and Technology, 33(3), 207–220.
Hargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 213–224.
Hasselbring, T., & Goin, L. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 123–144.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
He, Q., & Timms, P. (2005). A computer-assisted test design and diagnosis system for use by classroom teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 21, 419–429.
Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Teleoperators and Virtual Environment, MIT Press, 1(2), 262–271.
Higgins, C., & Bligh, B. (2006). Formative computer-based assessment in diagram based domains. Association of computing machinery. Paper presented at the annual joint conference integrating technology into Computer Science Education, in proceedings of the 11th annual SIGCSE conference on innovation in technology in computer science education, 26–28 June 2006, Bologna, Italy. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1140123.1140152&coll=&dl=ACM&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618.
Hodgen, J., & Marshall, B. (2005). Assessment for learning in English and Mathematics: A comparison. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 153–176.
Hooley, D., Tysseling, L., & Ray, B. (2013). High school seniors’ perception of class reading. The High School Journal, 96(4), 321–338.
Hoska, D. M. (1993). Motivating learners through CBI feedback: Developing a positive learner perspective. In V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 105–132). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Irvin, J. L., Buehl, D. R., & Klemp, R. M. (2007). Reading and the high school student. Boston: Pearson Press.
Johnson, K. M. (2009). Review of the Gates-MacGinitie reading test, fourth edition, forms S and T. In Mental measurements yearbook. Retrieved July, 2010, from http://web.edbscohost.
Jordan, S. (2012). Student engagement with assessment and feedback: Some lessons from short-answer, free-text, e-assessment questions. Computers & Education, 53, 818–834.
Kamil, M. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Retrieved September 16, 2009, from http://www.all4ed.org.
Karay, Y., Schauber, S., Stosch, C., & Schuettpelz-Brauns, K. (2012). Can computer-based assessment enhance the acceptance of formative multiple choice exams? A utility. Medical Teacher, 34, 292–296.
Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The Challenge of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. Retrieved from http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/tta_Lee.pdf.
Lewis, D., & Sewell, R. (2007). Instructional design and assessment: Providing formative feedback from a summative computer-aided assessment. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(2), 1–5.
Lynch, L., Fawcett, A., & Nicolson, R. (2000). Computer-assisted reading intervention in a secondary school: An evaluation study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 333–348.
Mason, B. J., & Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us (p. 14). Lincoln, NB: Center for Instructional Innovation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Retrieved from http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
McClain, M. (2000). Using technology for diagnosis and intervention in reading. Media and Methods Magazine Online. Retrieved from http://www.media-methods.com/p3.html.
McClenaghan, W. (2003). MacGruder’s American Government. Needham, MA: Pearson.
McKenna, M., & Stahl, K. (2008). Assessment for reading instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Wijekumar, K. (2007). A web-based tutoring system for the structure strategy: Theoretical background, design, and findings. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 347–375). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyer, B., Wijekumar, K., Middlemiss, W., Higley, K., Lei, P.-W., Meier, C., et al. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for 5th and 7th grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(1), 62–92.
Miller, T. (2009). Formative computer-based assessment in higher education: The effectiveness of feedback in supporting student learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 181–192.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.
Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E., Pearson, P. D., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. L., Jr. (2008). Technology and reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 6–58.
Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Kennedy, A. M., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 International Report: IEA’s progress in international literacy study in primary schools in 40 countries. Boston: TIMMS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multi- media learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Munster, NY: Waxman.
The Nation’s Report Card. (2015). 2015 Grade 12 reading and mathematics results. Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov.
Ness, M. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content-area classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 229–232.
O’Brien, D., Beach, R., & Scharber, C. (2007). “Struggling” middle schoolers: Engagement and literate competence in a reading writing intervention class. Reading Psychology, 28(1), 51–73.
Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles. In C. Collins Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 259–271). New York: The Guilford Press.
Patrick, J. J. (1988). High school government textbooks. Boulder, CO: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. ED 301532. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9210/high.htm.
Pearson Prentice-Hall. (n.d.). MacGruder American Government. Retrieved from http://wwwphschool.com.
Peat, M., & Franklin, S. (2002). Supporting student learning: The use of computer-based formative assessment modules. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 515–523.
Radhakrishnan, P., Lam, D., & Ho, G. (2009). Giving university students incentives to do homework improves their performance. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3), 219–225.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Raufelder, D., Hoferichter, F., Schneeweiss, D., & Wood, M. (2015). The power of social and motivational relationships for test-anxious adolescents’ academic self-regulation. Psychology in the Schools, 52(5), 447–462.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The Media equation. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Roediger, H., & Marsh, E. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiple choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(5), 1155–1159.
SAT. (2013). The SAT report on college and career readiness. Retrieved from http://media.collegeboard.com/homeOrg/content/pdf/sat-report-college-career-readiness-2013.pdf.
Schroth, M. L. (1992). The effects of delay of feedback on a delayed concept formation transfer task. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 77(1), 78–82.
Scott, D. (2012). States continue plugging into digital textbooks. Governing View. Retrieved from http://www.governing.com.
Shepard, L. A. (2005, October). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. Paper presented at the ETS invitational conference the future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning, New York NY.
Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
Tovani, C. (2004). Do I really have to teach reading?. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Welch, M. (2010). Instructional technological factors that impede and impel struggling adolescent students’ reading comprehension. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 6, 137–150.
What do we know about assessment? (2016). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/policy-research/wwk/assess#2%20-%20high%20stakes.
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–205.
About this article
Cite this article
Hooley, D.S., Thorpe, J. The effects of formative reading assessments closely linked to classroom texts on high school reading comprehension. Education Tech Research Dev 65, 1215–1238 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9514-5
- High school seniors
- College readiness
- Computer-based assessments
- Reading comprehension
- Academic texts