Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests.

Strategy use and its impact on standardized reading test performance were investigated. High school students were randomly assigned to 2 groups, standardized test and main idea, with separate control and think-aloud conditions. In the standardized think-aloud group, students thought aloud while taking a portion of a reading test, consisting of passages accompanied by several questions each. In the main idea conditions, students read the same passages with the lower level questions removed and answered a single multiple-choice question about the main idea of each passage, having been told that the task was not a test. Both groups used strategies, and students in the standardized test condition made significantly greater use of strategies than students in the main idea condition. Significant between-group differences were found in use of rereading. In comparisons between the think-aloud and control conditions, thinking aloud was found to have a significant detrimental effect on students' ability to identify passage main ideas.

[1]  Barak Rosenshine,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of 19 Experimental Studies. Technical Report No. 574. , 1993 .

[2]  S. Norris.  Effect of Eliciting Verbal Reports of Thinking on Critical Thinking Test Performance. , 1990 .

[3]  D. Cross,et al.  Informed strategies for learning: a program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension , 1984 .

[4]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. , 1994 .

[5]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching Improves Standardized Reading-Comprehension Performance in Poor Comprehenders , 1990, The Elementary School Journal.

[6]  E. Short.  Cognitive, Metacognitive, Motivational, and Affective Differences Among Normally Achieving, Learning-Disabled, and Developmentally Handicapped Students: How Much Do They Affect School Achievement? , 1992 .

[7]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, Rev. ed. , 1993 .

[8]  Scott G. Paris,et al.  Children's reading strategies, metacognition, and motivation , 1986 .

[9]  Karen K. Wixson,et al.  Becoming a strategic reader , 1983 .

[10]  C. Bereiter,et al.  Use of Thinking Aloud in Identification and Teaching of Reading Comprehension Strategies , 1985 .

[11]  Robert Pritchard,et al.  A Description of What Happens When an Examinee Takes a Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehension Test , 1990 .

[12]  Dolores Durkin,et al.  What Classroom Observations Reveal about Reading Comprehension Instruction. Technical Report No. 106. , 1978 .

[13]  Ronald P. Carver,et al.  Reading Rate: A Review of Research and Theory , 1990 .

[14]  M. O’Connor,et al.  Changing assessments : alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction , 1994 .

[15]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities , 1984 .

[16]  S. Paris,et al.  The benefits of informed instruction for children's reading awareness and comprehension skills. , 1984 .

[17]  Peter Afflerbach,et al.  Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading , 1996 .

[18]  Steven W. Evans,et al.  The effect of thinking aloud on the problem-solving performance of bright, average, learning disabled, and developmentally handicapped students , 1991 .

[19]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Learning to read in American schools : basal readers and content texts , 1984 .

[20]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Interactive Learning Environments: A New Look at Assessment and Instruction , 1992 .

[21]  Steven W. Evans,et al.  Thinking aloud during problem solving: Facilitation effects , 1991 .

[22]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .