Investigating Text–Reader Interactions in the Context of Supported etext

  • Bridget Dalton
  • Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)


We describe the empirical and theoretical roots of the Reading to Learn program of research, which was designed to investigate the metacognition and learning of upper elementary students in supportive etext environments. The results of study one, a think-aloud study in which children responded to narrative and informational texts, were used to inform the design of supports that were investigated in study two. Study two was an intervention study in which children read and responded to one of three etext versions: A static version, an interactive diagram version in which students could animate the graphic that corresponded with information presented in the prose and could manipulate the diagrams to explore ideas that were presented in the prose, or an interactive diagram/coaching version, which included two animated pedagogical agents, who provided both procedural and conceptual support. We critique the methods used in the intervention study and propose further research suggested by its findings.


Word Recognition Reading Comprehension Situation Model Vocabulary Knowledge Pedagogical Agent 
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.



The research reported here was funded by a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education to CAST, Inc (Co-Principal Investigators B. Dalton, CAST, and A.S. Palincsar, University of Michigan). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the US Department of Education. The authors thank our research teams, especially S.J. Magnusson, Susanna Hapgood, Nancy DeFrance, Patrick Proctor, Debi Khasnabis, Ge Vue, Kristin Robinson, and E. Mo. We also thank the administrators, teachers, and, especially, the children who have contributed to this work. Finally, we thank the editors for their helpful feedback and their inexhaustible patience.


  1. ACT (2010, October 23). The condition of college and career readiness 2010. Retrieved from
  2. Braun, H., Coley, R., Jia, Y., & Trapani, C. (2009, May). Exploring what works in science instruction: A look at the eighth-grade science classroom. ETS Policy Information Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  3. Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). Poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15, 44. Spring, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L., & Cook Smith, N. (2010). Literacy by design: A universally designed digital reading approach for young students with significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. doi: 10.1177/0741932510381651. Advance online publication.
  5. Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2007). Reading as thinking: Integrating strategy instruction in a universally designed digital literacy environment. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 423–442). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (January, 2002). Engaging the text: reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded digital learning environment. Final report to US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.Google Scholar
  7. Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2008). The changing landscape of text and comprehension in the age of new literacies. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 297–324). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton, B., Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E. (2011). Designing for diversity: The role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital ­reading environment for 5th grade monolingual English and bilingual students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1), 68–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeFrance, N. (2008). Struggling readers learning with graphic-rich digital science text: Effects of a highlight & animate feature and manipulable graphics. Unpublished dissertation study. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  10. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 Minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  13. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.Google Scholar
  15. Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2005). Teaching and learning inquiry-based science in the elementary school. In J. Bransford & S. Donovan (Eds.), Visions of teaching subject matter guided by the principles of how people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. McKenna, M. C., & Zucker, T. A. (2009). Use of electronic storybooks in reading. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 254–272). NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in ­secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1988). Teaching and practicing thinking skills to promote comprehension in the context of group problem solving. Remedial and Special Education, 9 (1), 53–59.Google Scholar
  21. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Instruction for self-regulated reading. In L. Resnick & L. Kloepfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  22. Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and text-based investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty five years of progress (pp. 151–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Palincsar, A., & Dalton, B. (2005). Speaking literacy and learning to technology; Speaking technology to literacy and learning. In B. Maloch, J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, C. Fairbanks, & J. Worthy (Eds.), Invited annual research address, 54th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 83–102). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Palincsar, A. S., Hapgood, S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2007). Examining “Expert Guidance” in the context of inquiry-based science teaching: Applying lenses that Ann Brown honed to the study of teachers’ practice. In J. C. Campione, K. Metz, & A. S. Palincsar (Eds.), Children’s learning in the laboratory and in the classroom: Essays in honor of Ann Brown. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Proctor, P., Dalton, B., Uccelli, P., Biancarosa, G., Mo, E., Snow, C. E., & Neugebauer, S. (2011). Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(5), 517–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rand Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for Understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  27. Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  28. Rummelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. 6, pp. 573–603). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.Google Scholar
  31. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Feeman, D. J. (1981). A longitudinal study of sentence context effects in ­second grade children: Tests of an interactive compensatory model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations