Advertisement

Using Advances in Cognitive Science to Improve Students Study Skills and Reading Comprehension

  • Tenaha O’ReillyEmail author
  • John Sabatini
Chapter
Part of the Literacy Studies book series (LITS, volume 13)

Abstract

National and international assessments of reading, science and math indicate that students and adults in the United States lag behind citizens of other developed nations. While there are multifaceted reasons for this lag, recent advances in cognitive science and technology have uncovered promising ways to intervene and help struggling students. This chapter will review recent developments from the cognitive literature that can potentially shed light on solutions for improving students study skills, as well as their general reading comprehension. We draw upon the available literature from reading strategy research and recent advances in assessment. Collectively, while this research indicates that the construct of reading has shifted; modern reading interventions are positioned to help prepare students for twenty-first century literacy activities.

Keywords

Study skills Reading strategies Assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported, in part, by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through grant R305F100005 to the Educational Testing Service as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of Educational Testing Service, the Institute, or the U.S. Department of Education. We would like to also like to thank Kim Fryer for editorial assistance; Don Powers, Laura Halderman, and anonymous reviewers for their suggestions for improving the chapter.

References

  1. ACT. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: ACT.Google Scholar
  2. Afflerbach, P., Cho, B., Kim, Y., Carassas, M. E., & Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: What else matters besides strategies and skills? Reading Teacher, 66, 440–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, P. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47, 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E. M., Olejnik, S., & Edward, J. K. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth-grade students’ ability to derive and infer word meanings. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 447–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bean, T. W., Singer, H., & Frazee, C. (1986). The effect of metacognitive instruction in outlining and graphic organizer construction on students’ comprehension in a tenth-grade world history class. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 153–169.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Gromoll, E. (1989). Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 99–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K-12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment and professional support. In C. Wyatt-Smith & J. J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 43–62). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bråten, I., Gil, L., & Strømsø, H. (2011). The role of different task instructions and reader characteristics when learning from multiple expository texts. In M. T. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 53–74). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Britt, A., & Rouet, J. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In M. J. Lawson & J. R. Kirby (Eds.), The quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and mental structures (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference making ability and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29, 850–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cain, K., & Parrila, R. (2014). Introduction to the special issue. Theories of reading: What we have learned from two decades of scientific research. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cantrell, R. J., Fusaro, J. A., & Dougherty, E. A. (2000). Exploring the effectiveness of journal writing on learning social studies: A comparative study. Reading Psychology, 21, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Catts, H., Tomblin, J., Compton, D., & Bridges, M. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 166–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Chiu, L., & Liu, G. (2013). Effects of printed, pocket electronic, and online dictionaries on high school students’ English vocabulary retention. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 619–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cirino, P. T., Romain, M. A., Barth, A. E., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2013). Reading skills components and impalements in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 1059–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coiro, J. (2009). Rethinking reading assessment in a digital age: How is reading comprehension different and where do we turn now? Educational Leadership, 66, 59–63.Google Scholar
  19. Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 352–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deane, P., Sabatini, J., & O’Reilly, T., (2012). English language arts literacy framework. Princeton, NJ: ETS. Document is located at: http://elalp.cbalwiki.ets.org/Table+of+Contents
  21. Denton, C. A., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Bryan, D. (2008). Intervention provided to linguistically diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ETS. (2014a). The CBAL™ initiative: Innovation in k–12 assessment. Retrieved on 15th Sept from: https://www.ets.org/research/topics/cbal/initiative/
  23. ETS. (2014b). Reading for understanding. Retrieved from: https://www.ets.org/research/topics/reading_for_understanding/
  24. Faber, J. E., Morris, J. D., & Lieberman, M. G. (2000). The effect of note taking on ninth grade students’ comprehension. Reading Psychology, 21, 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 238–244.Google Scholar
  26. Fletcher, J., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspective, 3, 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flynn, L. J., Zheng, X., & Lee, S. H. (2012). Instructing struggling older readers” a selective meta-analysis of intervention research. Learning Disabilities, Research & Practice, 27, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., & Dooley, S. (2005). Summary street ®: Computer support for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glenberg, A. M., Jaworski, B., Rischal, M., & Levin, J. R. (2007). What brains are for: Action, meaning, and reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 221–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Goldman, S. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. Future of Children, 22, 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Ferris & D. M. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317–351). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K. A., Pellegrino, J. W., Braasch, J. L. G., Manning, F. H., & Gomez, K. (2012). A technology for assessing multiple source comprehension: An essential skill of the 21st century. In M. Mayrath, J. Clarke-Midura, & D. H. Robinson (Eds.), Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research (pp. 171–207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Gordon Commission. (2013). To assess, to teach, to learn: a vision for the future of assessment. Princeton, NJ: Gordon Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.gordoncommission.org/rsc/pdfs/gordon_commission_technical_report.pdf
  35. Graesser, A. C., Ozuru, Y., & Sullins, J. (2009). What is a good question? In M. G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Threads of coherence in research on the development of reading ability (pp. 112–141). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  36. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Graesser, A., & Lehman, B. (2006). Questions drive comprehension of text and multimedia. In M. T. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 53–74). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Griffin, C. C., Malone, L. D., & Kammenui, E. J. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hannon, B., & Frias, S. (2012). A new measure for assessing the contributions of higher level processes to language comprehension performance in preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 897–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Head, M., Readence, J., & Buss, R. (1989). An examination of summary writing as a measure of reading comprehension. Reading-Research-and-Instruction, 28, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hornof, M. (2008). Reading tests as a genre study. The Reading Teacher, 62, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hsueh-Chao, M. H., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403–430.Google Scholar
  46. Institute of Education Sciences, IES. (2010). Reading for understanding initiative. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/projects/program.asp?ProgID=62
  47. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, IAEEA. (2013). ePirls online reading 2016. Retrieved from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Studies/PIRLS_2016/ePIRLS_2016_Brochure.pdf.
  48. Katz, I., & Macklin, A. S. (2007). Information and communication technology (ITC) literacy: Integration and assessment in higher education. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 3, 50–55.Google Scholar
  49. Kim, J. S., Samson, J. F., Fitzgerald, R., & Hartry, A. (2010). A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: Effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 1109–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. King, A. (1994). Autonomy and question asking: The role of personal control in guided student-generated questioning. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kosanovich, M. L., Reed, D. K., & Miller, D. H. (2010). Bringing literacy strategies into content instruction: professional learning for secondary-level teachers. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.Google Scholar
  55. Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Gomez, K., Manning, F., & Braasch, J. (2012). Assessing multiple source comprehension through evidence-centered design. In J. Sabatini, T. O’Reilly, & E. Albro (Eds.), Reaching an understanding: Innovations in how we view reading assessment (pp. 3–17). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  56. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 251–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J., & Schraw, G. (Eds.). (2011). Text relevance and learning from text. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. McDaniel, M., Anderson, J., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 494–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., Best, R., & O’Reilly, T. (2007a). The 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 465–496). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  64. McNamara, D. S., de Vega, M., & O’Reilly, T. (2007b). Comprehension skill, inference making, and the role of knowledge. In F. Schmalhofer & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 233–251). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  65. McNamara, D. S. M., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning And Motivation, 51, 297–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078–2091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Meyer, B. (1987). Following the author’s top-level organization: An important skill for reading comprehension. In R. J. Tierney, P. L. Anders, & J. N. Mitchell (Eds.), Understanding readers’ understanding (pp. 59–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Meyer, B., & Ray, M. N. (2011). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 127–152.Google Scholar
  69. Meyer, B., & 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: Theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 347–374). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  70. Millis, K., & King, A. (2001). Rereading strategically: The influence of comprehension ability and a prior reading on the memory for expository text. Reading Psychology, 22, 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.Google Scholar
  73. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO).Google Scholar
  74. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas (Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  75. O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2013). Reading for understanding: How performance moderators and scenarios impact assessment design. Princeton, NJ: ETS.Google Scholar
  76. O’Reilly, T., Sabatini, J., Bruce, K., Pillarisetti, S., & McCormick, C. (2012). Middle school reading assessment: Measuring what matters under an RTI framework. Journal of Reading Psychology, 33, 162–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. O’Reilly, T., Symons, S., & MacLatchy-Gaudet, H. (1998). A comparison of self-explanation and elaborative interrogation. Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 434–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. O’Reilly, T., Weeks, J., Sabatini, J., Halderman, L., & Steinberg, J. (2014). Designing reading comprehension assessments for reading interventions: How a theoretically motivated assessment can serve as an outcome measure. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Oakhill, J., & Patel, S. (1991). Can imagery training help children who have comprehension problems? Journal of Research in Reading, 14, 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. Reading Teacher, 39, 564–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD, (2014). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and 2 what they can do with what they know. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf
  82. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009a). PIAAC literacy: A conceptual framework. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/workingpaper/220348414075
  83. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009b). PISA 2009 assessment framework—Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/44/0,3746,en_2649_35845621_44455276_1_1_1_1,00.html
  84. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st century skills map. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_english_map.pdf
  87. Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, A. G., & Moore, D. S. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pressley, M., Symons, S., McDaniel, M., Snyder, B., & Turnure, J. E. (1988). Elaborative interrogation facilitates acquisition of confusing facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 268–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Radmacher, S., & Latosi-Sawin, E. (1995). Summary writing: A tool to improve student comprehension and writing in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 113–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory and Cognition, 28(6), 1004–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Reed, D. K., & Santi, K. L. (2015). Special education in middle and high school. In K. L. Santi & D. K. Reed (Eds.), Improving comprehension for middle and high school students (pp. 179–197). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  92. Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processing in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  94. Rupp, A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23, 441–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Deane, P. (2013). Preliminary reading literacy assessment framework: Foundation and rationale for assessment and system design. (Research Report No. RR-13-30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  96. Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L., & Bruce, K. (2014). Broadening the scope of reading comprehension using scenario-based assessments: Preliminary findings and challenges. International Journal Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 114, 693–723.Google Scholar
  97. Sabatini, J., Petscher, Y., O’Reilly, T., & Truckenmiller, A. (2015). Improving comprehension assessment for middle and high school students: Challenges and opportunities. In D. Reed & K. Santi (Eds.), Secondary issues with reading. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  98. Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., & Ulferts, H. (2013). Reading amount as a mediator of the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 369–385.Google Scholar
  99. Schraw, G., & Robinson, D. R. (2011). Assessment of higher order thinking skills. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  100. Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 159–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Shepard, R. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences and pictures. Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Solis, M., Ciullo, S., Vaughn, S., Pyle, N., Hassaram, B., & Leroux, A. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4), 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Spires, H. A., Gallini, J., & Riggsbee, J. (1992). Effects of schema-based and text structure-based cues on expository prose comprehension in fourth graders. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Educational Psychology, 28, 129–160.Google Scholar
  105. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Thiede, K. W., Dunlosky, J., Griffin, T., & Wiley, J. (2005). Understanding the delayed-keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1267–1280.Google Scholar
  107. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2013). Mathematics and reading assessments. Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_g12_2013/#/.Google Scholar
  108. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Jr., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartman, E. (1995). The role of the reader’s standards of coherence in the generation of inference during reading. In R. F. Lorch Jr. & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in text comprehension (pp. 353–373). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  110. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  111. Vitale, M., & Romance, N. (2007). A knowledge-based framework for unifying content-area reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 73–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  112. Wiley, J., Goldman, S., Graesser, A., Sanchez, C., Ash, I., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Williams, J. (2007). Literacy in the curriculum: Integrating text structure and content area instruction. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 199–219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  114. Youjia, H., Woods-Groves, S., Ford, J. W., & Nobles, K. A. (2014). Effects of the paraphrasing strategy on expository reading comprehension of young adults with intellectual disability. Education & Training In Autism & Developmental Disabilities, 49, 429–439.Google Scholar
  115. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1988). Effects of inference awareness training on poor reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  117. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Testing ServicePrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations