Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 224–232 | Cite as

iSTART 2: Improvements for efficiency and effectiveness

  • Irwin B. LevinsteinEmail author
  • Chutima Boonthum
  • Srinivasa P. Pillarisetti
  • Courtney Bell
  • Danielle S. McNamara
Articles From the SCiP Conference
  • 376 Downloads

Abstract

iSTART (interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking) is a Web-based reading strategy trainer that develops students’ ability to self-explain difficult text as a means to improving reading comprehension. Its curriculum consists of modules presented interactively by pedagogical agents: an introduction to the basics of using reading strategies in the context of self-explanation, a demonstration of self-explanation, and a practice module in which the trainee generates self-explanations with feedback on the quality of reading strategies contained in the self-explanations. We discuss the objectives that guided the development of the second version of iSTART toward the goals of increased efficiency for the experimenters and effectiveness in the training. The more pedagogically challenging high school audience is accommodated by (1) a new introduction that increases interactivity, (2) a new demonstration with more and better focused scaffolding, and (3) a new practice module that provides improved feedback and includes a less intense but more extended regimen. Version 2 also benefits experimenters, who can set up and evaluate experiments with less time and effort, because pre- and posttesting has been fully computerized and the process of preparing a text for the practice module has been reduced from more than 1 person-week to about an hour’s time.

Keywords

High School Student Latent Semantic Analysis Demonstration Module Target Sentence Reading Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preferences

  1. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., &Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.Cognitive Science,13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., &LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding.Cognitive Science,18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  3. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., &Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis.Discourse Processes,25, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., &Kintsch, W. (Eds.) (2007).Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Louwerse, M. M., Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Bell, C., & Lu, S. (2007).Pay attention to embodied conversational agents. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  6. Magliano, J. P., Todaro, S. Millis, K., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Kim, H. J., &McNamara, D. S. (2005). Changes in reading strategies as a function of reading training: A comparison of live and computerized training.Journal of Educational Computing Research,32, 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McNamara, D. S. (2004a). Aprender del texto: Efectos de la estructura textual y las estrategias del lector.Revista Signos,37, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McNamara, D. S. (2004b). SERT: Self-explanation reading training.Discourse Processes,38, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McNamara, D. S., Boonthum, C., Levinstein, I. B., &Millis, K. (2007). Using LSA and word-based measures to assess self-explanations in iSTART. In T. K. Landauer, D. S. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.),Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 227–241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. McNamara, D. S., & the CSEP Lab (2005). Promoting active reading strategies to improve undergraduate students’ understanding of science. Annual project reports submitted to the National Science Foundation, IERI.Google Scholar
  11. McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., &Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36, 222–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., &Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART.Journal of Educational Computing Research,34, 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McNamara, D. S., &Scott, J. L. (1999). Training reading strategies. InProceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. O’Reilly, T. P., Best, R., &McNamara, D. S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training: Effects for low-knowledge readers. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.),Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1053–1058). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. O’Reilly, T. P., Sinclair, G. P., &McNamara, D. S. (2004a). iSTART: A Web-based reading strategy intervention that improves students’ science comprehension. In Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, & P. Isaías (Eds.),Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age: CELDA 2004 (pp. 173–180). Lisbon, Portugal: IADIS Press.Google Scholar
  16. O’Reilly, T. P., Sinclair, G. P., &McNamara, D. S. (2004b). Reading strategy training: Automated versus live. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.),Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1059–1064). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irwin B. Levinstein
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chutima Boonthum
    • 2
  • Srinivasa P. Pillarisetti
    • 3
  • Courtney Bell
    • 3
  • Danielle S. McNamara
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceOld Dominion UniversityNorfolk
  2. 2.Hampton UniversityHampton
  3. 3.University of MemphisMemphis

Personalised recommendations