Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors of reading literacy

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two reading literacy/text comprehension tests with different demands (on-line comprehension vs. memory-based comprehension) were administered to 6,104 15-year-old students from all German states and school types. The combined and specific effects of proximal and distal variables from small-scale psychological research as well as from large-scale educational studies on each text comprehension measure were investigated.

Metacognitive knowledge, decoding speed, and the number of books at home (as an indicator for family background) were found to have specific and large effects on on-line comprehension and accounted for 46 percent of the variance with the highest effects for metacognition. Metacognitive knowledge was also highly predictive when the effects of specific prior knowledge and thematic interest on memory-based text comprehension were estimated simultaneously.

In addition, students who showed relative strength in building up a coherent representation of specific texts (memory-based text comprehension) were characterised by high amounts of prior knowledge and thematic interest thereby underlining the importance of these student characteristics for learning.

Résumé

Deux épreuves de compréhension de l’écrit exigeant la mise en oeuvre de compétences différentes (compréhension on-line vs. compréhension via mémoire) ont été administrées à un échantillon de 6.104 élèves de 15 ans comprenant tous les Länder allemands et tous les types d’établissement scolaire. Pour chaque mesure de compréhension de l’écrit, les effets combinés et spécifiques de certaines variables proximales et distales issues de la recherche psychologique à petite échelle et des études à grande échelle en sciences de l’éducation ont été étudiés.

Il en résulte que la connaissance métacognitive, la vitèsse de décodage et le nombre des livres se trouvant à la maison (pris comme indicateur de l’environnement familial) ont des effets larges et spécifiques pour la compréhension on-line, expliquant 46% de la variance, avec la métacognition produisant les effets les plus marqués. La valeur prédictive de la connaissance métacognitive était également marquée lors du mesurage simultané des effets qu’ont la connaissance spécifique antérieure et l’intérêt porté au sujet pour la compréhension via mémoire.

On constate, en outre, chez les élèves faisant preuve d’une performance relativement forte dans le compte rendu cohérent de textes spécifiques (compréhension via mémoire), un niveau supérieur pour les connaissances antérieures et pour l’intérêt porté au sujet, ce qui souligne l’importance de ces caractéristiques d’élève pour le procès d’apprentissage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, P.A., Kulikowich, J.M., & Jetton, T.L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts.Review of Educational Research, 64, 201–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P.A., Murphy, P.K., Woods, B.S., Duhon, K.E., & Parker, D. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–293). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artelt, C. (2000).Strategisches Lernen. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J. (1990).Die differentielle Sichtweise in der Psychologie. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984a). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J. Flood (Ed.),Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language and the structure of prose (pp. 21–44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984b). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr,& P. Mosenthal (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergin, D.A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest.Educational Psychologist, 34, 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, D.F. (1987). How age changes in the knowledge base contribute to the development of children’s memory: An interpretive review.Developmental Review, 7, 93–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklung, D.F., & Schneider, W. (1996). The interaction of knowledge, aptitudes, and strategies in children’s memory performance. In H.W. Reese (Ed.),Advances in child development and behavior (vol. 26, pp. 59–89). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borkowski, J.G., Milstead, M., & Hale, C. (1988). Components of children’s metamemory: Implications for strategy generalization. In F.E. Weinert & M. Perlmutter (Eds.),Memory development: Universal changes and individual differences (pp. 73–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton, B.K., & Graesser, A.C. (1996).Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J.H. Flavell & E.M. Markman (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology: Cognitive development (pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M.T.H., & Ceci, S.J. (1987). Content knowledge: Its role, representation, and restructuring in memory development. In H.W. Reese (Ed.),Advances in child development and behavior (vol. 20, pp. 91–142). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Towards a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition.New Ideas in Psychology, 6, 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E.L. (1998). The relation of interest to motivation and human needs — The self-determination theory viewpoint. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K.A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.),Interest and learning (pp. 146–162). Kiel: Institude for Science Education, University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985).Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F.J.R.C. (1996). Assessment of domain-specific and domain-transcending prior knowledge: Entry assessment and the use of profile analysis. In M. Birenbaum & F.J.R.C. Dochy (Eds.),Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 227–264). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F.J.R.C., & Alexander, P.A. (1995). Mapping prior knowledge: A framework for discussion among researchers.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elley, W.B. (1992).How in the world do students read? IEA Study of reading literacy. Amsterdam: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elley, W.B. (1994).The IEA study of reading literacy: Achievement and instruction in thirty-two school systems. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K.A. (Ed.) (1996).The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and science. sports and games. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K.A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory.Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J.H., & Wellman, H.M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. Kail Jr. & W. Hagen (Eds.),Perspectives on development of memory and cognition (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J.H., Miller, P.H., & Miller, S.A. (1993). Cognitive development (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, C.R. (1986). Strategies for the allocation of short-term memory during comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language, 25, 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folds, T.F., Footo, M.M., Guttentag, R.E., & Ornstein, P.A. (1990). When children mean to remember: Issues of context specificity, strategy effectiveness, and intentionality in the development of memory. In D.F. Bjorklund (Ed.),Children’s strategies: Contemporary views of cognitive development (pp. 67–91). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R., & Alexander, P.A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions.Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future.Discourse Processes, 23, 357–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A.C., Hoffman, N.L., & Clark, L.F. (1980). Structural components of reading times.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior.19, 131–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasselborn, M. (1995). Beyong production deficiency and utilization incfficiency: Mechanisms of the emergence of strategic categorization in episodic memory tasks. In F.E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.),Utilization deficiencies in the development of memory strategies (pp. 141–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning.Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J.E., & Paris, S.G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement and instruction.Educational Psychologist.22, 225–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of fifty-four children from first through fourth grades.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998).Comprehension: A Paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, I.S., & Mosenthal, P.B. (1994). Interpreting the IEA reading literacy scales. In M. Binkley, K. Rust, & M. Winglee (Eds.),Methodological issues in comparative educational studies: The case of the IEA reading literacy study, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, I.S., Jungblut, A., & Mosenthal, P.B. (1998). The measurement of adult literacy. In T.S. Murray, I.S. Kirsch, & L. Jenkins (Eds.),Adult literacy in OECD countries: Technical report on the first International Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köller, O., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2000). Zum Zusammenspiel von schulischem Interesse und Lernen im Fach Mathematik: Längsschnittanalysen in den Sekundarstufen I und II. In U. Schiefele & W.-P. Wild (Eds.),Interesse und Lernmotivation. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung. Förderung und Wirkung (ppp. 163–181). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.),The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, B.E., & Borkowski, J.G. (1984). Children’s metacognition: Exploring relations among knowledge, process, and motivational variables.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 335–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J.H. (1989). What kind of knowledge transfer? In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 283–305). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, R.H., Peek, R., Pieper, I., & Stritzky, R. von (1995).Leseverständnis und Lesegewohnheiten deutscher Schüler und Schülerinnen. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen, E. (1992). Lern- und Bewältigungsstrategien im Unterricht. In H. Mandl & H.F. Friedrich (Eds.),Lern- und Denkstrategien (pp. 125–149). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnaert, A., & Janssen, P.J. (1995). How general are the effects of domain-specific prior knowledge on study expertise as compared to general thinking skills? In M. Birenbaum & F.J.R.C. Dochy (Eds.),Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 265–281). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, H.J., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment.Journal of Educational Research, 89, 234–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C.A. (1985).Reading ability: New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Borkowski, J.G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and how education can promote it.International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Harris, K.R., & Marks, M.B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists.Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Wood, E., & Woloshyn, V. (1990). Elaborative interrogation and facilitation of fact learning: Why having a knowledge base is one thing and using it is quite another. In W. Schneider & F.E. Weinert (Eds.),Interactions among aptitudes, strategies, and knowledge in cognitive performance (pp. 200–221). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renninger, K.A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theory and practice. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.),The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 361–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reusser, K. (1994). Die Rolle von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern neu denken.Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 1, 19–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (1996).Motivation und Lernen mit Texten. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text.Scientific Studies of Reading.3, 257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (2001). The role of interest in motivation and learning. In J.M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.),Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 163–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text.Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 141–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U., & Schreyer, I. (1994). Intrinsische Lernmotivation und Lernen.Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 8, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (1999).Metacognitive knolwedge about text processing: A questionnaire, Unpublished manuscript, University of Würzburg.

  • Schneider, W. (1989).Zur Entwicklung des Meta-Gedächtnisses bei Kindern. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W. (1999). The development of metamory in children. In D. Gopher, A. Koriat et al. (Eds.),Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. Attention and performance (pp. 487–514). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W. (2001). Giftedness, expertise, and (exceptional) performance: A developmental perspective. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.),International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. London: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Bjorklund, D.F. (1998). Memory. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (5th ed., pp. 467–521). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Bjorklund, D.F. (in press). Memory and knowledge development. In J. Valsiner & K. Connolly (Eds.),Handbook of developmental psychology. London: Sage.

  • Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997).Memory development between two and twenty, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Weinert, F.E. (1990). The role of knowledge, strategies, and aptitudes in cognitive performance: Concluding comments. In W. Schneider & F.E. Weinert (Eds.),Interactions among aptitudes, strategies, and knowledge in cognitive performance (pp. 286–302). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R.S. (1990). How content knowledge, strategies, and individual differences interact to produce strategy choices. In W. Schneider & F.E. Weinert (Eds.),Interactions among aptitudes, strategies, and knowledge in cognitive performance (pp. 73–89). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, R.L. (1973).Reading comprehension education in fifteen countries. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kraayenoord, C.E., & Schneider, W.E. (1999). Reading achievement, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: A study of German students in grades 3 and 4.European Journal of Psychology of Education.14, 305–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Oostendorp, H., & Goldman, S.R. (Eds.). (1999).The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, H., & Tornquist, K. (1980). The role of metamemory and metamemory activation in the development of mnemonic performance.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 3, 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P.H., & Perry, N.E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrick, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),Handbook of self regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, M.L., Adams, R.J., & Wilson, M.R. (1998).ACER ConQuest: Generalized item response modeling software manual. Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, D-14195, Berlin, Germany

    Cordula Artelt

  2. University of Bielefeld, Germany

    Ulrich Schiefele

  3. University Würzburg, Germany

    Wolfgang Schneider

Authors
  1. Cordula Artelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulrich Schiefele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wolfgang Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cordula Artelt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Artelt, C., Schiefele, U. & Schneider, W. Predictors of reading literacy. Eur J Psychol Educ 16, 363–383 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173188

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173188

Key words

Search

Navigation