Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [ ]On: 12 September 2012, At: 09:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Cognition and InstructionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcgi20
Use of Thinking Aloud in Identificationand Teaching of Reading ComprehensionStrategiesCarl Bereiter & Marlene Bird
Version of record first published: 14 Dec 2009.
To cite this article: Carl Bereiter & Marlene Bird (1985): Use of Thinking Aloud in Identification andTeaching of Reading Comprehension Strategies, Cognition and Instruction, 2:2, 131-156
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0202_2
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand,or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
COGNITION AND INSTRUCTION, 1985,2(2) 13 1- 156 Copyright O 1985, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Use of Thinking Aloud in Identification and Teaching of
Reading Comprehension Strategies
Carl Bereiter Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Marlene Bird Duferin-Peel (Ontario)
Roman Catholic Separate School Board
Analysis of protocols from adults thinking aloud while reading identified four potentially teachable strategies. In a teaching experiment involving 80 students in Grades 7 and 8, significant advantages were found in both target strategy acquisition and reading comprehension for a treatment that com- bined thinking-aloud strategy modeling and practice with instruction in identification and use of the target strategies. Neither strategy modeling and practice alone, nor question-answer comprehension activities, were effective. Even in the successful group, instruction was effective with only three of the strategies. Implications for identification of teachable strategies are dis- cussed.
Most attempts to teach specific strategies for improving reading comprehension have dealt with procedures to be carried out either before or after the initial reading of a passage. This is true of study techniques such as SQ3R (Robinson, 1946), of programs used to teach critical reading (Case, 1981; Denberg & Jones, 1966/67), of flow-charting used to extract knowledge structures from text (Anderson, 1979; Dansereau et al., 1979; Geva, 1983), of summarization strategies (Brown & Day, 1983), and of questioning and predicting (Hansen & Pearson, 1983; Palinscar & Brown, 19184). Yet retrospective reports have suggested that skilled readers are distinguished by a great deal of strategic behavior carried out on-line-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Carl Bereiter, Centre for Applied Cognitive Sci- ence, OISE, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1V6.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
132 BEREITER AND BIRD
that is, during the actual course of initial reading (Anderson, 1979; Jen- kinson, 1957, 1969).
The research reported in this article was concerned with identifying and teaching such on-line strategies. The main difficulty in this research is the rapid and automatized nature of the reading process. This has led investi- gators to infer strategies from indirect indicators such as gaze durations (Just & Carpenter, 1980) and recall protocols (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). It has no doubt also led to the instructional emphasis on strategies that can be applied before or after reading.
Thinking-aloud procedures, widely employed in the study of problem solving (Ericsson & Simon, 1980), have recently begun to be applied in reading. Because the essence of such procedures is the reporting of thoughts as they occur, thinking aloud offers promise of breaking into the reading process to reveal on-line strategies (Olson, Duffy, & Mack, in press; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1984). Correspondingly, thinking aloud provides a way of demonstrating on-line strategies for instructional pur- poses (Davey, 1983).
Thinking aloud while reading has several drawbacks that will probably prevent it from doing for reading research what it has done for problem- solving research. These drawbacks have not, to our knowledge, been formally tested, but in our experience they are obvious. One is that think- ing aloud naturally slows down the reading process-although it does not appear to break up its continuity the way requiring subjects to stop and comment at designated points does (cf. Olshavsky, 1976/77). The effects of such a slow-down are unknown and might well vary with the task, but they are unlikely to be negligible. Another drawback is that thinking- aloud protocols taken during reading are relatively impoverished com- pared to those obtained in more deliberative activities. Consequently, they probably reveal only certain elements of the strategic activity going on during reading-perhaps only those that involve some break in the con- tinuity of reading, as caused, for instance, by a difficulty in comprehen- sion.
These are serious drawbacks as far as developing a complete theory of the reading process is concerned, but they are not necessarily drawbacks at all as far as instructional psychology is concerned. Although the stra- tegies revealed through reading protocols may be only a special subset of the strategies involved in skilled reading, they might also be the most teachable. They evidently come into play during momentary breaks in the automatic flow of reading-breaks during which control is temporarily shifted to a conscious level. The more covert reading processes may correspondingly be less accessible to conscious control, or may be of such a nature that they cannot be attended to consciously without disrupting the reading process.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 133
The practical thrust of the preceding observations is toward setting modest expectations about the range of reading comprehension strategies that can be identified and taught through use of thinking-aloud pro- cedures. This limited view of strategy instruction is, however, comple- mented by another view that emphasizes the powerful role of domain knowledge in reading comprehension (Pearson, Hansen, & Gordon, 1979; Spillich, Vesonder, Chiesi, & Voss, 1979). According to this latter view, fluent comprehension in a familiar domain is mainly a process of recogni- tion that does not require strategies-if by strategies one means procedures for heuristic search through a space of possible text interpretations. Comprehension strategies, then, may be needed only when there are problems-when the reader's knowledge is insufficient, when the text has gaps or ambiguities, and so on. However, because such problems are likely to occur frequently when students are studying unfamiliar material, the identification of teachable strategies for dealing with comprehension difficulties is an educationally significant endeavor (Palinscar & Brown, 1984).
The present research consisted of two parts. The first was an analysis of adult reading protocols aimed at identifying strategies used for dealing with comprehension difficulties. The second was a teaching experiment in which thinking aloud while reading was used to demonstrate and to give practice in strategies identified in the first study.
STUDY 1 : IDENTIFICATION OF TEACHABLE STRATEGIES
Efforts to mine expert protocols for teachable content are generally informal and intuitive. For example, to account for how experts handle th~e multiple constraints of writing without cognitive overload, Flower and Hayes (1980) abandoned systematic classification of protocol statements in favor of cataloguing and illustrating the kinds of devices that appeared to seirve "constraint juggling" purposes. A similar informal approach is used in the present study: cataloguing and illustrating strategies that mature readers appear to use when they encounter comprehension difficulties. Our present concern is with the rationale of such an approach. Is it just sloppy psychology, excusable because of the nature of the problem, but hoped to be superceded by more rigorous methods in the future? Or does it have its own rationale, which is different from the rationale that typi- cally guides protoc~l analysis?
In cognitive research, thinking-aloud protocols are typically treated as data that are to be accounted for by a theory or model. An example is Hayes and Flower's (1980) application of a theoretical model to protocols obtained from writers at work. The model of the composing process was
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
134 BEREITER AND BIRD
arrived at intuitively through examination of a number of protocols, and was then tested by seeing how reliably and completely judges could code protocol statements into categories of the model.
When the interest is instructional, however, accounting for the protocol data is not a relevant objective. A more relevant concern is accounting for performance differences on the basis of strategy use. Protocol data have been used to account for differences in detection of semantic anomalies in text (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1984), in reconstruction of scrambled texts (Burtis, Bereiter, & Scardamalia, 1984), and in learning implicit informa- tion in texts (Franks et al., 1982). Because, however, these studies have all looked for specific cognitive behaviors to account for specific outcomes, they do not suggest a generally applicable approach to investigating expert protocols for purposes of identifying knowledge to be taught to nonexperts.
The task in question is best viewed as one of curriculum construction. It is analogous to what one might do if planning some novel addition to the elementary school curriculum-a unit on taxation, for instance. One might begin by gathering a corpus of relevant adult-level material and examin- ing it with two goals in mind:
1. To identify content that is valuable from the standpoint of people competent in the subject.
2. To identify content that is likely to be learnable by intended students (allowing for simplifications, as long as these do not undercut the first cri- terion).
Sets of content that meet both these criteria would constitute a provi- sional body of appropriate curriculum content.
In this context, thinking-aloud protocols would constitute one kind of material that might be searched in light of these criteria-a kind of material that would be especially suitable when what is to be taught is a skill rather than a body of declarative knowledge. But one would not expect the search procedure to be radically different from searches for other kinds of curriculum-relevant material. The approach would be intui- tive, in the sense of relatively unrestricted application of one's knowledge of the subject and knowledge of teaching. Empirical tests of adequacy would have to await actual try-out of the curriculum.
An example of such a curriculum construction effort applied to reading comprehension is provided by Davey (1983), who searched the literature to find reading strategies that teachers could demonstrate to students via thinking aloud-essentially the same intent as that that motivated the present study. This search led to the following list of strategies to be demonstrated:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 135
1. Make predictions. 2. Describe the picture you're forming in your head from the informa-
tion. 3. Share an analogy ("This is like a time we drove to Boston and had a
flat tire. . ."[p. 451). 4. Verbalize a confusing point ("This just doesn't make sense" [p. 451). 5. Demonstrate fix-up strategies.
This list illustrates the type and specificity of content likely to be gen- erated by surveying the reading comprehension literature with the two aforementioned criteria in mind (cf. Paris, Lipson, & Wixon, 1983; Press- ley, Forrest-Pressley, Elliott-Faust, & Miller, in press). The challenge for analysis of reading protocols, then, is to identify strategies that rate higher on these criteria-that more adequately represent how skilled readers cope with comprehension difficulties or that more readily lend themselves to being taught.
In considering the teachability of cognitive strategies, it may be profitable to view even very informally stated strategies, such as those dis- cussed, in terms of production systems-that is, to consider them as condition-action pairs (Newel1 & Simon, 1972). The strategy description must either state or imply a set of conditions and a set of actions to be talcen when those conditions are met.When a condition is not indicated, it milst be assumed that the action is to run continuously unless it is super- ceded by another action. For the strategy to be teachable, it must be within the capacity of the learner to recognize the conditions and to per- form the required actions.
The strategies identified by Davey need greater specification of condi- tions and actions. "Make predictions" overlooks a potentially important distinction between kinds of predictions-whether one predicts actual con- tent (that the wolf will or will not eat Red Riding Hood) or type of con- tent (a reason, a definition, etc.). Olson, Mack, and Duffy (1981) found from protocol analyses that skilled readers tended to do the former when reading narrative, the latter when reading expository prose. Without an indication of the conditions under which it should be applied, "share an analogy" sounds like an invitation to unfettered free association, which is not what advocates of elaboration procedures have had in mind (Linden & Wittrock, 1981). Recognizing appropriate conditions for this strategy, however, might involve still other strategies and skills or an understand- ing of the subject matter beyond what could be expected of students. "Demonstrate fix-up strategies," however, does not specify the actions to be performed. In large part, the objective of the present research is to identify actions that make up teachable "fix-up" strategies.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
136 BEREITER AND BIRD
Method
Participants in this study were 10 adults-2 graduate students in applied psychology and 8 others from a variety of middle-class occupations. Each received approximately 10 min of training in thinking aloud while read- ing, consisting of a demonstration by the experimenter followed by prac- tice on trial passages. The participants were instructed to read the text aloud (including any rereading) and to express all thoughts aloud at the moment they came to mind. Although many participants were initially skeptical about the possibility of verbalizing thoughts while reading, all easily mastered the procedure.
After training, subjects applied the procedure in reading six passages of approximately 500 words each. The passages comprised six different prose types: exposition, description, narration, personal opinion, discussion of controversy, and description of process. The resulting corpus of 60 tran- scripts was used in a search for strategies that reflected some positive way of dealing with comprehension difficulties and that showed promise of being teachable to upper elementary school students.
Results
Four main strategies that subjects appeared to use when dealing effectively with comprehension difficulties were identified. These stra- tegies did not, of course, encompass all the reported mental activity. Other behaviors of potential significance to reading comprehension are discussed later in this article.
The four strategies, together with variations related to different eliciting conditions, are described and illustrated in Table 1. A condition for activating any of these strategies is the recognition of something unsatis- factory in the meaning being constructed from the text. Variations in the nature of the experienced difficulty, however, could give rise to different strategic actions:
Restatement. Uninterpretable text, involving anything from an unfamiliar word to an overly dense paragraph, could give rise to one or another form of restatement in which material is rephrased in simpler or more familiar terms.
Backtracking. Looking back and resuming reading at some point previously passed could arise either from failure to comprehend the last segment read or from loss of connection with previous sections. The latter was fairly common in the protocols, but it may have been an artifact of the thinking-aloud procedure itself, which slowed down reading and sometimes introduced digressions.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 137
Demanding relationships. This was a response to missing infor- mation that the reader expected later portions of the text to supply. As the examples indicate, the strategy was mainly manifested by questions; but these expressed anticipation rather than dissatisfaction with the present state of information. These questions were regarded as strategic because they were often followed by remarks at appropriate points later in the text, remarks such as "So that's it" or perhaps only "Hmm." The action involved is referred to in Table 1 as setting up "watchers." This is a refer- ence to Rieger's hypothesis (1977) that narratives are comprehended by means of "watchers," each set to detect a particular kind of information required by the story schema. Generalizing this notion to other forms of discourse, we conclude that the anticipatory questions expressed by skilled readers signal the setting up of watchers to ensure that the needed infor- mation will be recognized when it appears.
Problem formulation. The protocols suggested that formulating some difficulty as a problem was itself a strategic move, which permitted the reader to bring into play general problem-solving procedures that are not normally activated during reading.
The strategies described in Table 1 are far from perfectly specified with respect to the actions to be performed or the conditions for initiating the actions. Nevertheless, a comparison of these strategies with those noted in recent surveys (Paris et al., 1983; Pressley et al., in press; Williams & Loom- er, 1984) suggests that a significant advance has been made. As Palinscar and Brown (1984) put it, descriptions of comprehension strategies are often quite vague. Because thinking-aloud protocols permit identification of the text segment immediately preceding a strategic action and examination of actions under a variety of text conditions, they provide a basis for at least the beginning forms of executable rules. In the final section of this article, we discuss prospects for achieving greater specificity along lines that would increase the instructional potential of strategy analysis.
Behaviors of Questionable Strategic Status
Missing from Table 1 are several behaviors frequently attributed to skilled readers-specifically, prediction, imagery, and recall of related information. These behaviors were all observed in the protocols, but for various reasons they could not be formulated at this time as potentially teachable strategies. They therefore remain objects of further investigation.
Prediction. Example: A subject reads the title "Aesop" and then looks ahead, saying, "I'm just skimming to see if this is about Aesop's fables." Prediction has been taught with favorable results as a prereading activity (Hansen, 1981; Hansen & Pearson, 1983). As an on-line reading
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
rn - 0 0 0 - 2 a +d - 3
S c .- u (I) .- *- -
7 c w A 2 m g .!
(I) I
F tj C 0 .- m
5 r
E o
2 X-
3 13 2 5
0" O * w Y 1 2 E 5 m L a, .z " 5
= 9
g
3 ., .. K a
- '7
2 s $ "2 0 2
C
4- 2 2, 0 B 2 .z .o m d .z 2 2 .C : 0 . x E , s 9 0 0 0 m '7 U
h w 2 o 5 - u - 3 a:
E il e . - : w3 . - 9 , s E E 7 C > g- '3 ti r
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
Backtracking
Comprehension failure Reread from beginning of confusing segment
Loss of connection Reread previously comprehended parts
Demanding Relationships
Missing cause or effect Set "watchers" for cause or effect No one knows exactly when crude stone tools were discarded in favor of tools made of more pliable metals, but [Why did they want more pliable stuff?] . . .
Lack of warrant for assertion Set "watcher" for reason
Lack of orientation
Topic incoherence
The cougar is one of the greatest animals on earth. [What makes him say that?]
Set "watcher" for scope of topic, set- [Are they going to tell me about Mozart's career, or just his early life?] ting, time of writing, time of refer- [Where is the-Europe?] [Is this a recent article?] [Is this long ago ence, etc. they're talking about?]
Set "watcher" for link between [Why are we talking about salmon? Up here it's about dams.] topics
Problem Formulation
Anomalous information Formulate problem and try to (a) [But how could he say she's lazy when she works so hard? Maybe dispose of it by (a) inference, she's lazy when it comes to other things.] (b) [Oh, it says "as well as," (b) closer examination of text, not "instead of."] (c) [He says slaves were well treated? Yes he does. (c) rejection of information Well I certainly disagree with him on that!]
Note. Brackets indicate statements interjected by reader.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
140 BEREITER AND BIRD
strategy, however, it seems to be just a special case of demanding relation- ships, prompted by a lack of orientation and involving "watchers" for identifiers of topic, plot outcomes, and so forth. But prediction as a rou- tine activity, not conditional on any specific need for orientation, would seem more likely to impede comprehension than to facilitate. it. Conse- quently there is a need to find out more about when expert readers predict and for what purpose. The protocols did not yield enough instances to support such an investigation.
Imagery. Example: "Now I see the soldiers in caps parading outside the palace." Although there is evidence that coaching students to generate images deliberately has a positive effect on comprehension (Linden & Wittrock, 1981; Pressley, 1976), protocol statements like the one above do not suggest that imagery is being used strategically. A cognitive strategy, according to Pressley et al. (in press), should consist of "cognitive opera- tions over and above the processes that are a natural consequence of car- rying out the task" and should serve to "achieve cognitive purposes." The mere reporting of imagery by skilled readers, therefore, cannot be taken as sufficient evidence that imagery plays a strategic role. This is not an argument against teaching children to generate images, but rather a suggestion that imagery training not be construed as teaching an expert strategy until there is clearer evidence of ways that experts may use imagery strategically.
Recall of related information. Example: When the topic of the Rocky Mountains is introduced in the text, a reader remarks, "I was in the Rockies last year." Activating relevant prior knowledge has come to be recognized as crucial to reading comprehension (Anderson, 1978). As with imagery, however, recall of related knowledge is not in itself evi- dence of strategic behavior. It may be automatic, a natural consequence of processing the meaning of the text. Trying to solve a comprehension problem often entails recall of related information, of course. But the iso- lated recall of related knowledge appeared to be largely spontaneous and irrelevant to text comprehension. The situation might be different when texts present special problems in identifying what knowledge is relevant. Protocol studies involving texts with misleading or ambiguous topics might bring to light strategies for appropriate knowledge retrieval that are as yet unidentified.
STUDY 2: STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the teachability of the read- ing strategies identified in Study 1 and in particular to assay the prospects for use of thinking aloud as an instructional vehicle.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 141
Thinking aloud has begun to be used as an instructional tool in a variety of ways. Protocol excerpts have been used as textbook material to illustrate problem-solving strategies (Hayes, 1981). Thinking aloud by teachers has been used for the same purpose (Davey, 1983). Thinking aloud by students has been used as a way to bring their composing processes into the open for discussion and evaluation (Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Steinbach, 1984). Palinscar and Brown (1984) have developed a reciprocal teaching method in which verbalized thoughts and questions by both teacher and student form part of the exchange in which students learn to enter cognitively into both the learner and the teacher/tester role. The present study, however, would appear to be the first in which there is an effort to examine thinking aloud itself as an experimental variable and to evaluate its effects on strategy use and performance.
Three instructional treatments, along with a control condition, were developed:
1. Modeling-plus-explanation. The strategies described in Table 1 were explained to students and modeled by the teacher thinking aloud. Stu- dents were given practice in identifying and judging the appropriateness of modeled strategies and received supervised practice in using the stra- tegies while thinking aloud during reading.
2. Modeling only. This was essentially the same treatment, minus the explanation and explicit identification of strategies. There is an ample literature showing effects from such modeling in other domains, most prominently in social behavior (e.g., Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1978).
3. Exercise. Strategies were neither modeled nor explicitly described. Instead, oral and written exercises required students to carry out answer seeking, problem solving, and other operations entailed in the previously identified strategies. This treatment was included because it represents the most widely used approach to teaching reading comprehension in current practice (Hodges, 1980; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983).
4. Control. Students remained in their regular classes except for testing.
One treatment condition that appeared desirable on logical grounds was, however, avoided for other reasons. This would have been explanation-without-modeling which complements modeling-without- explanation. The main reason for rejecting this condition was an ethical one. The experimental treatments would use a significant amount of instructional time. It did not seem justifiable to subject students to a treat- ment unless a reasonable a priori case could be made for its potential benefits. Furthermore, because explanation alone could not take up as much time as the other treatments, we would have had either to make it a briefer treatment than the others or else supplement it with other
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
142 BEREITER AND BIRD
seemingly relevant activities. In either case, isolation of variables (the rea- son for wanting such a condition in the first place) would have been compromised.
Subjects. The subjects were 40 female and 40 male students from Grades 7 and 8 in two small southern Ontario schools-one in a rural area and one in a small city. These subjects were selected by starting with the entire population of 160 passing students in Grades 7 and 8 of the two schools, then by administering the Spache Diagnostic Reading Scales and eliminating all those who scored below the Grade-7 level in oral reading, and finally by administering the Nelson Reading Skills test (Form C) and selecting the 40 males and females who scored closest to the sample median on reading comprehension. Thus the subjects were average or above in oral reading and had mid-range scores in silent-reading comprehension.
Pretesting. The Spache diagnostic Reading Scales and the Nelson Reading Skills Test (Form C) were administered as screening tests. The latter was administered without time constraints.
The 80 subjects remaining after screening were given 40 min of training in verbalizing their thoughts while reading aloud. Training was admin- istered to subjects in randomized groups of 6 to 8. It included description and modeling of each of the four target strategies described in Study 1, as well as 15 other strategic and nonstrategic behaviors identified in that study-for instance, imagery statements, associating information with pre- vious experience, and expressing personal reactions. Training also included supervised practice in thinking aloud while reading, with the experimenter encouraging verbalization of everything read and verbaliza- tion of all thoughts.
Following training, subjects were individually tested on strategy use and oral comprehension. Subjects read aloud six reading comprehension pas- sages drawn from the Intermediate and Advanced Batteries of the Metro- politan Achievement Tests, answering the associated comprehension ques- tions after each passage. Throughout this testing, the experimenter re- minded subjects to verbalize all their thoughts and also immediately queried unexplained pauses or facial expressions. Sessions were tape- recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim.
Posttesting. Because, on pretesting, the proportion of correct responses had tended to be high on both the oral- and the silent-reading comprehension measures, changes were made on posttesting to ensure
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 143
adequate discrimination. Silent-reading comprehension was tested with the comprehension subtest from the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, a high school-level version of the test used for pretesting. Again, no time limit was imposed. Strategy use and oral comprehension were tested using six passages randomly drawn from the same pool of Metropolitan Achieve- ment Test items as the pretest, but to these were added two other passages of greater difficulty. Control subjects and subjects in the exercise condition received a brief period of reorientation to the thinking-aloud procedure, but without further practice.
Instructional procedures. Students were randomly assigned (n = 20 per group) to the three treatment groups and the control group. Instruction for the three treatment groups consisted of nine 40-min ses- sions spaced over 3 weeks. During these sessions, the control subjects attended language arts classes as usual. Procedures for the modeling- plus-instruction group will be explained in detail, with the other two treatments defined by their contrasts to it.
A. Modeling-plus-instruction. Instruction consisted of three basic pro- cedures: explanation with modeling and examples, identification practice, and oral practice at thinking aloud using the target strategies.
1. In explanation with modeling and examples, the instructor defined each of the strategies described in Table 1, along with variations, and indi- cated the kinds of reading situations to which the strategies applied, demonstrating each variation by thinking aloud while reading appropriate material. The following remarks are intended to supplement Table 1 and illustrate how various concepts were explained to the students:
a. Restatement ("paraphrase" in the lessons) was defined as "saying something in your own words, translating it into simpler language." Three substrategies were specified:
(1) Rephrasing (single words, phrases, and sentences). (2) Summary (defined as "saying to yourself in your own words what the paragraph says or means. . . . You may call it . . . summing up"). (3) Identifying referents ("Sometimes we lose track of what the pro- nouns refer to. . . . When this happens, it is necessary to figure it out, and then remind yourself what the 'referent' is-to substitute the 'real thing' for the pronoun").
b. Backtracking to the point where needed information could be recovered ("The reason for backtracking is so you can grasp the sen- tence or the idea as a whole. . . . If you realize you've lost the thread or the meaning or the relevance of the whole paragraph, you will probably have to go back right to the beginning of the paragraph"). c. Demanding relationships was defined as "making sure everything
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
144 BEREITER AND BIRD
you read makes sense in relation to everything else. . . . You demand that you see the relationships. If you don't, you go looking for them."
(1) Cause-effect ("If you can't tell what, how, why, you must look for what, how, or why something happened. . . . Also, if it doesn't tell you the result of something, . . . you must demand that you know the consequence. You must ask 'So what?' "). (2) Statement-support ("You ask questions like, 'Why does he think that?'; 'How did he arrive at that conclusion?'; 'What examples can he give me?' "). (3) Demanding perspective or context ("What is the subject of this passage? . . . What time period does this talk about? . . . what does this have to do with that? . . .").
d. Problem formulation ("problem solving" to the students). A three- step procedure was taught:
(1) "Stop. Recognize that you have a problem. There is something that just doesn't seem to fit or make sense." Paraphrase and summary were suggested as ways to test whether there was a problem. (2) "Pinpoint the problem. Tell yourself why there is a problem and what it is that is wrong." (3) "Go back and solve it. Read it again; try to figure it through. Think of some way of thinking about the information so that it fits together and makes sense." The three tactics for solving problems illustrated in Table 1 (inference, closer examination of text, and rejec- tion of information) were demonstrated.
All explanations were accompanied by examples in which the instructor read short passages aloud and illustrated the strategy or point being made. Students were provided with booklets containing the illustrative passages but not the instructor's remarks.
2. In identification practice, the instructor read passages aloud, with interjected comments, as in the modeling described above. The students were provided with copies of the passages and were questioned during the reading of each passage. Questions used in the first lesson on the restate- ment strategy illustrate the activity:
"Tell me: a. which type of strategy I used-rephrasing, summary, or finding a referent. b. whether it was a good idea to use that strategy there-was it needed? c. whether I should have used a strategy-made a statement-but did not."
Examples appropriate to all three questions (e.g., unnecessary use of a strategy) were included among the 12 examples used in this session. In later sessions, after more strategies had been introduced, discriminations between major strategies as well as between subtypes were included.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 145
3. In oral practice, additional passages were provided for students to use in practicing the demonstrated strategies. They were allowed to mum- ble to themselves or to read silently but were taught ways to mark their texts to indicate each use of the target strategy. The instructor circulated and asked students individually to read aloud the next part of the text and to demonstrate the target strategy.
B. Modeling only. Instruction consisted of two procedures: modeling and oral practice.
1. In modeling, the instructor explained to the students: '7 I l l be showing you some ways to read that will help you understand the reading passages better. I will read some passages out loud, saying my thoughts out loud as I go along. You will follow on your copies. Pay attention to the types of things I think and say while I'm reading."
All the same strategies and variations were modeled by the instructor in this condition as in the modeling-plus-explanation condition, with the fol- lowing differences:
a. Continuous texts rather than isolated examples were used for model- ing. b. Strategies were never named or defined by the instructor. 2. In oral practice, general instructions were the same as those for the
modeling-plus-explanation group, with the differences noted in the points just listed. Instead of being instructed to use specific strategies, students in the modeling-only condition were urged to pay attention to their thoughts while reading and to try to say to themselves the sorts of things the instructor had demonstrated. Also, whereas the modeling-plus-explanation group marked the use of specific strategies on their practice texts, the modeling-only group was instructed to jot down their thoughts in short form between the lines that they were reading. During the last 10 min of each practice period, individual students read aloud portions of text along with their written comments. The whole class then discussed the type of comments the reader tended to make while reading.
C. Exercise condition. Instruction consisted of oral exercises, written exercises, and brief periods for follow-up discussion of written exercises.
1. In oral exercises, the activities closely paralleled the explanation and modeling activities of the modeling-plus-instruction condition, except that instead of explaining and modeling a strategy, the instructor directly called on students to make the kinds of responses associated with the stra- tegies. An example follows for each of the target strategies. Each example begins with a text portion that was read aloud by the teacher, with the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
146 BEREITER AND BIRD
students reading along from their own texts. Material interjected by the instructor is in brackets:
a. Restatement. He had started taking amphetamine pills 5 years before, when his career seemed to demand more energy than he could produce. [Tell me, in your own words, why Cash began taking pills.] b. Backtracking. Because backtracking could not be isolated as a task, it was combined with restatement tasks. [Reread this paragraph and state it in your own words.] c. Demanding relationships. This strong mother hog could easily have saved herself. [Why didn't she?] Wild razor-back hogs can swim for miles. But she would not leave her babies to drown. [So, what is she going to do about it?] d. Problem formulation. Only written exercises were used to practice this strategy. 2. Written exercises similar to those illustrated in immediately preced-
ing points a, b, and c were used. The "demanding relationships" exercises employed a full range of wh-questions in both multiple-choice and constructed-response formats and thus resembled conventional comprehension workbook and test items. "Problem-solving7' exercises were of three types corresponding to the three uses of problem solving stressed in the modeling-plus-instruction group:
a. Correcting errors. The task was to determine if some error in mean- ing was present and, if so, to correct it:
In his poems Archibald Lampman was an able interpreter of the landscape he knew. He not only "saw" each country scene, but tried to capture its mood. He was one of the best city poets we have.
b. Inferring missing information. The task was to determine if informa- tion was missing and, if so, to mark its location and guess its content:
There is much work to be done on a potato farm. The land must be ploughed. This is usually done in the autumn. In the spring it must be harrowed carefully, fertilized and harrowed again. In the fall the potatoes are dug up. After they have been picked, they are graded and shipped to market.
c. Resolving confusion. The task was to answer questions about confus- ingly written passages:
It is only of a comparatively recent date that a nationalistic meaning has been given to the flags of certain states, that is recent in compari- son to the long period that flags were distinctive of leaders whether king or baron. . . .
[What have flags represented for a longer time, a country or a king?]
Apportionment of instructional time. All three treatment groups received the same total amount of instruction-6 hr spread over nine class
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 147
periods. Within each group, instructional time was apportioned to activi- ties as follows:
1. Modeling-plus-instruction: explanation with modeling and examples, 40%; identification, 29%; oral practice, 3 1%.
2. Modeling only: modeling, 43%; oral practice, 57%. 3. Exercise condition: oral exercises, 29%; written exercises, 62%; dis-
c~lssion of written exercises, 9%.
Results
AJthough gender was included as an independent variable in all the ana- lyses to be reported, there were no significant main effects or interactions associated with it. Therefore, for economy of presentation, all data are collapsed over gender.
Mean raw scores on the oral- and silent-reading comprehension meas- ures are presented in Table 2. A multivariate analysis of covariance was carried out, using the two posttest scores as dependent variables, the two pretest scores as covariates, and experimental group and sex as indepen- d~ent variables. The F-ratio for multivariate test of mean vectors was highly significant, F(6,102) = p < .0001. Univariate tests for the two measures were equally significant. Multivariate and univariate contrasts between adjacent groups indicated that on both the oral- and silent- comprehension measures the modeling-plus-explanation group was significantly higher than the other three groups, which did not differ significantly from one another.
A rough idea of the magnitude of the treatment effect may be obtained by converting the silent-reading comprehension scores to grade-equivalent scores. This provides a rough estimate indeed because the pretests and posttests were at different levels, because the norms are for timed test and no time limit was imposed, and because full-scale scores on the posttest
TABLE 2 Raw Score Means (and Standard Deviations) on
Reading Comprehension Tests
Group
Metropolitan Nelson
N Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest a
Modeling-plus-explanation 16 15.36(3.32) 29.22(5.60) 24.94(3.96) 14.56(2.65) Modeling only I5 16.33(4.04) 25.90(6.66) 27.53(2.57) 11.47(2.76) Exercise condition I5 15.38(4.54) 24.52(5.86) 26.89(4.60) 12.38(3.34) Control 16 17.60(2.40) 24.95(5.11) 24.64(2.88) 11.24(2.59)
aPosttest used test of different level with different number of items.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
148 BEREITER AND BIRD
' had to be estimated from only the comprehension subtest. Still, differences in gains between groups may be roughly valid if we can assume that the effect of removing time limits is additive with respect to grade equivalents. The estimated grade equivalent gains are 2.7 grade lev- els for modeling-plus-explanation, no gain for modeling only, .8 grade level for the exercise condition, and .7 grade level for the no-treatment control group.
Strategy use. Resource limitations required that not all of the 80 thinking-aloud protocols be coded. Because some comparisons were of more interest than others, it was decided not to delete subjects from each group, but rather to delete the exercise condition group from this analysis, leaving the other groups intact.
Table 3 presents cell means for the total number of thinking-aloud statements of any kind made while reading the test passages. Both experi- mental groups increased in the number of statements made, whereas the control group declined. A univariate analysis was carried out on the pretest-posttest differences, with sex and experimental group as indepen- dent variables. The group effect was significant, F(2,40) = 4.97, p = ,012. Individual contrasts showed only one difference (modeling-plus- explanation vs. control) to be significant beyond the .05 level.
Table 4 shows the frequency of thinking-aloud statements coded as belonging to the four target strategies. The modeling-plus-explanation group shows a large gain, the modeling-only group shows no change, and the control group shows a decline commensurate with its decline in the total number of thinking-aloud statements. A multivariate analysis of vari- ance on pretest-posttest differences was carried out, using frequencies of the four strategies as dependent variables and sex and experimental group as independent variables. The overall F-ratio was significant for the group factor, F(8,74) = 2.97, p = .006. Individual F-ratios were significant for each strategy except "demanding relationships." On all other strategies, individual contrasts indicated a significant difference i~n favor of modeling-plus explanation over modeling only, with no significant differences between modeling only and the no-treatment control group.
TABLE 3 Frequency of Protocol Statements of Any Kind:
Group Means (and Standard Deviations)
Group N Pretest Posttest
Modeling-plus-explanation 16 39.58(19.19) 58.13(43.13) Modeling only 15 49.73(30.93) 54.07(34.5 1) Control 16 31.51(16.65) 23.47(16.86)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 149
TABLE 4 Frequency of Use of Target Strategies:
Group Means (and Standard Deviations)
Group
Modeling Modeling plus explanation Only Control
Strategy ( N = 16) ( N = 15) (N = 16)
Restatement
Pretest 5.44( 5.12) 12.93(14.07) 9.5 l(10.12) Posttest 14.63(19.16) 10.13( 8.44) 4.30( 4.44)
Backtracking
Pretest 3.68( 5.09) 1.53( 2.73) 3.03( 3.65) Posttest 10.19( 9.54) 3.60( 2.83) 4.05( 3.38)
Demanding Relationships
Pretest 3.94( 5.04) 6.29( 5.57) 2.77( 3.43) Posttest 7.06( 8.35) 6.86( 6.25) 2.20( 3.88)
Problem Formulation
Pretest .12( .35) .33( .83) .42( .77) Posttest 3.13( 3.97) .60( 36) .24( .46)
Correlation between gains in strategy use and in reading comprehension. Results so far indicate that the group that gained significantly more than others in use of target strategies also gained significantly more than the others in reading comprehension. The sugges- tion of a causal relationship would be strengthened by showing that the correlation between gains holds also at the individual level. For the 20 subjects in the modeling-plus-explanation group, a correlation was run for posttest frequency of target strategy use in relation to each of the posttest reading comprehension scores, partialling out the corresponding pretest strategy use and comprehension scores. These correlations may be regarded as correlations between regressed gain scores and are less subject to attenuation by error in the pretests than are correlations between raw gains (Bereiter, 1963). The partial correlation of target strategy use with Nelson-Denny silent-reading comprehension score was .26; the partial correlation with oral-reading comprehension score was .06. Neither corre- lation is statistically significant. Because low correlations between gains are typical (Bloom, 1964), the present results cannot be taken as either strengthening or weakening the main experimental findings.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
150 BEREITER AND BIRD
Discussion
The results are fairly clear about the teachability of three of the four tar- get strategies-restatement, backtracking, and problem solving. The group that had these strategies pointed out and explained to them and that prac- ticed identifying and using these strategies showed a significant increase in the frequency with which they used them. A group that had them modeled but not specifically identified did not gain. The group that gained in use of these strategies also showed a significant gain in reading comprehension-possibly a gain of educationally significant magnitude- whereas the other group did not gain.
The positive tenor of the results is diminished by two negative findings: the failure to achieve significant instructional effects on the strategy of demanding relationships, and the lack of correlation between gains in strategy use and gains in comprehension. The former result is noteworthy because, of the four strategies taught, "demanding relationships" seems most closely to fit long-standing conceptions of what constitutes skilled reading (Swain, 1953; Thorndike, 1917). The latter result is discomforting because it means the study has failed to establish a direct empirical link between strategy acquisition and comprehension improvement, even though there is significant indirect evidence pointing in that direction. Before proceeding further in discussing these negative results, it may be well to note that in both cases the direction of results was consistent with expectations. That is, the modeling-plus-explanation group did gain in fre- quency of demanding relationships-more so than did the other two groups-and the correlations between gains in strategy use and gains in comprehension performance, such as they were, were positive. Thus it is only the lack of reliable positive evidence that is at issue.
It should not be surprising if the most sophisticated reading strategies prove to be the most difficult to teach. This is what Brown and Day (1983) found in teaching summarization strategies. Relatively simple strategies of deletion, selection, and condensation of lists were readily acquired, whereas teaching students to construct novel sentences summarizing main ideas was difficult and generally less successful. Clues to the nature of the difficulty with demanding relationships come from comparing the stra- tegies, as they are set forth in Table 1, in terms of the discriminatio~s required to recognize conditions for executing them. For the most part, these conditions require only that the reader sense some general dissatis- faction with understanding of the text or else puzzlement over a particular expression or idea. But the conditions attached to the various demanding relationships-strategies require recognizing specific informational lacks in order to be able to formulate appropriate wh-questions or to set up
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 151
"watchers," as they are called in Table 1. This implies a level of c~omprehension monitoring beyond what elementary school students typi- cally exhibit (Markman, 198 1).
More extended instruction of the kinds that proved effective with other strategies might succeed in sharpening children's comprehension monitor- ing to the point where they were detecting an increasing range of missing information and actively seeking it. Deeper study of expert strategies, however, might make it possible to specify conditions and actions associ- ated with demanding relationships that would be more teachable.
The issue of finding direct evidence for effects of strategy use on comprehension raises substantial methodological problems. Training stu- dies are the obvious medium for studying this issue, because studies of naturally occurring differences in strategy use and comprehension yield correlational results that cannot stand as direct evidence of any causal relationship. Correlations between experimentally induced changes in strategy use and changes in comprehension performance are not, of course, altogether free of ambiguity about causation, but with appropriate experimental controls they could provide convincing findings. The trouble is that correlations of one difference score with another can be expected to have such low reliability (Bereiter, 1963) that it would take an experiment of very large size to gain the necessary statistical power. Studies involving strategy identification through protocol analysis are so labor-intensive, however, that a study involving the necessary 150 or more subjects would be prohibitively expensive. It will be noted that the protocol-analysis part of the present experiment was not carried out on all subjects because of resource limitations; even at that, it is one of the largest available analyses of thinking-aloud protocols.
A reviewer has suggested that pinning down the effect of strategies on comprehension may ultimately depend, not on global correlations, but on looking for the effects of specific strategic behaviors on comprehension of specific items in a text. The research of Franks et al. (1982) probably colmes closest to this. They made use of specially written texts in which information that would normally be explicit was left unstated. Training in making gap-filling inferences was shown to produce a significant increase in the uptake of implicit information from these texts. Highly focused strategy-training studies of this kind have their own problem, however. Because the range of strategy options is reduced (often to a binary choice or applying or not applying the taught strategy), recognizing the condi- tions for activating strategies is artificially simplified. As Markman and Gorin (1981) have found, children appear to have comprehension pro- ceidures available that they can apply when told what sort of thing to be on the watch for but that are not activated under unprompted conditions. If, as we have suggested, the main problem in using a demanding-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
152 BEREITER AND BIRD
relationships strategy is recognizing conditions, then studies must be car- ried out in task situations that do not especially favor the activation of the strategy under investigation.
It may, however, be possible to design experimental texts that contain problems sensitive to the use of particular strategies but that can be used without telegraphing the nature of the problem to the subjects. The texts designed by Markman (1979), which contain anomalous items of informa- tion, are of this sort-although critical reactions to Markman's findings (e.g., Stein & Trabasso, 1982) indicate how difficult it is to plant one kind of problem in a text without at the same time creating other difficulties. Evidence that such contrived texts can reveal the effects of specific stra- tegies comes, however, from a study by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1984), which showed a correlation between detecting anomalous information in one of Markman's texts and using a strategy of ongoing summarization.
Because of these difficulties in pinpointing strategy-comprehension relationships, it is likely that most of the evidence for developing an understanding of these relationships will have to come from assessing more global effects of strategy instruction, as in the present research. Sin- gle studies of this type cannot establish an unequivocal link between stra- tegy learning and comprehension improvement. Such a link would become increasingly salient, however, if a progression of studies could demonstrate that, as strategy identification and strategy instruction improve, students gain in both strategy use and comprehension-test per- formance. At a more advanced stage of research, certain persisting comprehension errors might be noted, strategies by which expert readers avoid those errors might be identified, and these strategies then might be taught to novices. If this resulted in a sharp decline in incidence of the error in question, the causal argument would be strongly supported.
Underlying these suggestions is the idea that identifying expert comprehension strategies and teaching comprehension strategies to less skilled readers should not be treated as separate research programs, with the former having logical priority over the latter. Such an approach would be reasonable if one presumes that cognitive strategies are real things that will gradually reveal their true character to the assiduous investigator. A more defensible view, however, is that cognitive strategies are constructions of the investigator and that many different constructions might do an equally good job of summarizing the content of expert proto- cols. Not all constructions are equally good from the standpoint of teacha- bility, however. Some ways of formulating expert strategies might involve concepts inaccessible to naive learners, whereas others might not. Also, once the view that strategies are there to be discovered is abandoned, it becomes clear that investigators of adult competence will be substantially influenced by what they already know when they set about formulating
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 153
what the expert evidence indicates. It would seem that knowledge gained from studies of procedural difficulties of less skilled readers would be helpful in suggesting new things to look for in expert performance. The present study suggests, for instance, that it would be profitable to examine more closely the conditions that prompt expert readers to set up "watch- ers."
With respect to further cycles of research on strategy teaching, there is a clear need to pin down the role of direct instruction. The present study offers strong evidence that students will not readily acquire cognitive stra- tegies simply by imitating models and that they also need direct, explicit instruction in the strategies. What is not clear is whether imitating models contributes anything to strategy learning. As explained previously, an instruction-only condition aimed at answering this question was con- sidered for the present experiment but was rejected on primarily ethical grounds. With results of the present experiment before us, however, it seems more justifiable to test such a condition.
What is clear from the present study is that modeling and direct instruction combine very naturally in the teaching of cognitive strategies. Direct instruction appears to be important for getting students to attend to what is relevant in cognitive modeling. Thinking aloud while reading, however, provides a means for the instructor to demonstrate what is to be taught, and transcripts of thinking-aloud protocols provide substance for discrimination exercises. By itself, direct instruction would have to rely on rule statement and exhortation-an unpromising way to influence on-line reading processes. It seems likely that the modeling of on-line processes through thinking aloud would combine naturally with other approaches to reading instruction as well. For instance, the reciprocal teaching approach of Palincsar and Brown (1984), which has been applied to summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting during pauses between text seg- ments, could be extended to include on-line reading behaviors. Reciprocal thinking aloud, with teacher and students alternating roles, has in fact been employed as part of a program for teaching planning strategies in writing (Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Steinbach, 1984). Thinking-aloud modeling would also be applicable to prereading activities (e.g., Au, 1977). By appropriate modeling, the teacher could not only activate relevant prior knowledge, but could demonstrate how skilled readers activate prior knowledge for themselves.
CONCLUSION
The thinking-aloud protocols of expert readers can serve as a basis for designing teachable reading-comprehension strategies. Not all cognitive behavior observed in expert protocols is necessarily strategic, and not all
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
154 BEREITER AND BIRD
of what appears to be strategic is necessarily teachable. But teachable stra- tegies emerge when it is possible: (a) to identify conditions that students can learn to recognize, and (b) to specify actions that students can learn to carry out when those conditions are met. The training study indicates that thinking aloud has value both for demonstrating strategies and for practice in recognizing and using the strategies. Finally, thinking-aloud protocols provide a way of assessing learning so that, even when overall effects on performance are good, failures to learn specific strategies can be detected.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. C. (1978). Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. In A. M. Lesgold, J. W. Pellegrino, S. D. Fokkema, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction (pp. 67-82). New York: Plenum.
Anderson, T. H. (1979). Study skills and learning strategies. In H. F. O'Neill, Jr. & C. S. Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affective learning strategies (pp. 77-98). New York: Academic.
Au, K. H. (1979). Using the experience-text-relationship method with minority children. The Reading Teacher, 32, 677-679.
Bereiter, C. (1963). Some persisting dilemmas in the measurement of change. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in measuring change (pp. 3-20). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: Wiley. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of
expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1-14. Burtis, P. J., Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1984, April). Problems with integrating ideas.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Case, R. (1981). Reading critically. Toronto: OISE Press. Dansereau, D. F., McDonald, B. A,, Collins, K. W., Garland, J., Holley, C. D., Diekhoff, G.
M., & Evans, S. H. (1979). Evaluation of a learning strategy system. In H. F. O'Neill, Jr. & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affective learning strategies. (pp. 3-44). New York: Academic.
Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud-modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27, 44-47.
Denberg, R., & Jones, C. (1966/67). Critical reading in a developmental reading program. Journal of Reading, 10(6), 399-402.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., Auble, P. M., Mezynski, K. J., Perfetto, G. A,, Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., & Littlefield, J. (1982). Learning from explicit versus implicit text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, I11(4), 41&422.
Geva, E. (1983). Facilitating reading comprehension through flowcharting. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 384-405.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
IDENTIFICATION AND TEACHING OF READING STRATEGIES 155
Hansen, J. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children's reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 39 1-4 17.
Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth grade readers. Journal of ~ducational Psychology, 75(6), 821-829.
Hayes, J. R. (1981). The complete problem solver. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.
W. Gress & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hodges, C. A. (1980). Toward a broader definition of comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 299-306.
Jenkinson, M. D. (1957). Selected processes and dzficulties of reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Jenkinson, M. D. (1969). Cognitive processes in reading: Implications for further research and classroom practice. In J. A. Figure1 (Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual International Reading Association Convention on Reading and Realism (Vol. 13, pp. 545- 554). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Just, M. A,, & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.
Linden, M., & Wittrock, M. C. (1981). The teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 4457.
Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you don't understand: Elementary school children's awareness of inconsistencies. child Development, 50, 643-655.
Markman, E. M. (1981). Comprehensive monitoring. In W. P. Dixon (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills (pp. 61-84). New York: Academic.
Markman, E. M., & Gorin, L. (1981). Children's ability to adjust their standards for evaluat-
, ing comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 32G325. Newell, A,, & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall. Olshavsky, J. N. E. (1976/77). Reading as problem solving: An investigation of strategies.
Reading Research Quarterly, 12, 654-674. Olson, G. M., Duffy, S. A., & Mack, R. L. (in press). Thinking-out-loud as a method for
studying real-time comprehension processes. In D. Kieras & M. Just (Eds.), New methods in the study of immediate processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Olson, G. M., Mack, R. L., & Duffy, S. A. (1981). Cognitive aspects of genre. Poetics, 10, 283-315.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, I, 1 17- 175.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixon, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contem- porary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-3 16.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Con- temporary Educational Psychology, 8, 3 17-344.
Rearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-210.
Pressley, G. M. (1976). Mental imagery helps eight-year-olds remember what they read. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 355-359.
Pressley, M., Forrest-Pressley, D. L., Elliott-Faust, D., & Miller, G. (in press). Children's use
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
156 BEREITER AND BIRD
of cognitive strategies, how to teach strategies, and what to do if they can't be taught. In M. Pressley & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to memory development. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Rieger, C. (1977). Spontaneous computation in cognitive models. Cognitive Science, 1, 315- 354.
Robinson, F. P. (1946). EfSective study. New York: Harper & Brothers. Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition. New York:
Academic. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1984). Development of strategies in text processing. In H.
Mandl, N. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text ( p p 379-406). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8(2), 173-190.
Spillich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 28, 275-290.
Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. (1982). What's in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 213-267). Hills- dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, E. (1953). Conscious thought processes used in the interpretation of reading materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Thomdike, E. L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(6), 323-332.
Williams, N. J., & Loomer, B. M. (1984). The cognitive-conceptual aspects of reading. San Diego, CA: Coronado.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
] a
t 09:
15 1
2 Se
ptem
ber
2012
