Chapter published in:
Reading Comprehension in Educational Settings
Edited by José A. León and Inmaculada Escudero
[Studies in Written Language and Literacy 16] 2017
► pp. 125–144

Chapter 5
Five building blocks for comprehension strategy instruction

| Arizona State University
| Arizona State University
Comprehension is a complex task that is integral to success in academics and the workplace. Unfortunately, it is not a task that comes easily to all students. Hence, an important question faced by educators and researchers is how to most effectively provide students with instruction to improve comprehension, particularly on how to understand and learn from challenging texts. One promising approach is to provide students with training to use comprehension strategies. Strategies are intended to help students overcome skill and knowledge deficits by using overt techniques that mimic or support the processes integral to successful comprehension, including understanding the words and sentences in the text, making connections between sentences, and making connections to what the student already knows (i.e., prior knowledge). In this chapter, we approach these research questions by building upon the 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework proposed by McNamara, Ozuru, Best, and O’Reilly (2007). This framework describes five types of strategies that can help to scaffold reading and comprehension. We expand upon this framework by describing various contextual factors that may influence comprehension and strategy use. Further, we discuss methods to enhance strategy instruction, introducing five building blocks for effective comprehension strategy training.
Article outline
  • Five building blocks for comprehension strategy instruction
    • Reading comprehension
      • This is a complex and challenging task for many readers
    • The 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework
    • Contextual factors of strategy acquisition
      • Stimulus
      • Task
      • Method
      • Population
    • The five building blocks for comprehension strategy instruction
      • Varying task conditions
      • Explicit instruction of strategies
      • Deliberate practice opportunities
      • Feedback
      • Motivational components
    • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.16.05all
References

References

Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E.
(1988) The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allen, L. K., Crossley, S. A., Snow, E. L., & McNamara, D. S.
(2014) Game-based writing strategy tutoring for second language learners: Game enjoyment as a key to engagement. Language Learning and Technology, 18, 124–150.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. J.
(1991) Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 460–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D. A., Flores d’Arcais, G. B., & Rayner, K.
(1990) Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., & Arici, A.
(2009) Transformational play: Why educators should care about games. Educational Leadership, 67, 76–80.Google Scholar
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L.
(2002) Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Berman, I., & Biancarosa, G.
(2005) Reading to achieve: A governor’s guide to adolescent literacy. National governors Association Center for Best Practices. Retrieved from http://​www​.nga​.org​/Files​/pdf​/0510govguideliteracy​.pdf.
Block, E. L.
(1986) The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463–494. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M.
(Eds.) (2000) Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brantmeier, C.
(2002) Second language reading strategy research at the secondary and university levels: Variations, disparities, and generalizability. The Reading Matrix, 2.Google Scholar
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P.
(2004) Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L.
(1989) Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 121–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Center on Education Policy
(2007) Caught in the middle: Arizona’s English language learners and the high school exit exam. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Corbett, A. T. & Anderson, J. R.
(2001) Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact of learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In Proceedings of ACM CHI-2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 245–252).Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M.
(1996) Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A.
(2006) Affect detection from human-computer dialogue with an intelligent tutoring system. In J. Gratch, M. Young, R. Aylett, D. Ballin, & P. Oliver (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Intelligent Virtual Agents: 6th International Conference (pp. 54–67). Berlin, Heiderlberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duvivier, R. J., van Dalen, J., Muijtjens, A. M., Moulaert, V. R. M. P., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A.
(2011) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of clinical skills. BMC Medical Education, 11, 101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Engel, S.
(1999) Context is everything: The nature of memory. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A.
(1996) The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2008) Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15, 988–994. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ericcson, A., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C.
(1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everson, H., & Tobias, S.
(1998) The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in college: A metacognitive analysis. Instructional Science, 26, 65–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givón, T.
(1995) (Eds.) Coherence in spontaneous text. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T.
(1994) Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A.
(2000) Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Reading research handbook (Vol. III, pp. 403–424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Haberlandt, K. F., & Graesser, A. C.
(1985) Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357–374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Healy, A., Schneider, V., & Bourne, L.
(2012) Empirically valid principles of training. In A. Healy and L. Bourne (Eds.), Training cognition: Optimizing efficiency, durability, and generalizability (pp. 13–39). Psychology Press: New York.Google Scholar
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M.
(2000) Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holman, L.
(2000) A comparison of computer-assisted instruction and classroom bibliographic instruction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 40, 53–60.Google Scholar
Hupbach, A., Hardt, O., Gomez, R., & Nadel, L.
(2008) The dynamics of memory: Context-dependent updating. Learning and Memory, 15, 574–579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S.
(2013) Motivation and performance in a game-based intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1036–1049. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kindler, A. L.
(2002) Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000–2001 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W.
(1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linderholm, T., Virtue, S., Tzeng, Y., & van den Broek, P. W.
(2004) Fluctuations in the availability of information during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the landscape model. Discourse Processes, 37, 165–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R.
(1994) Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1456–1470.Google Scholar
Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P., & Mogan,A. M.
(1987) Effects of reading task on on-line processing of a text’s topic structure. Discourse Processes, 10, 63–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S.
(1994) The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Magliano, J. P., & Schleich, M.
(2000) Verb aspect and situation models. Discourse Processes, 29, 83–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maqsud, M.
(1997) Effects of metacognitive skills and nonverbal ability on academic achievement of high school pupils. Educational Psychology, 17, 387–397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E.
(1993) Comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview. Learning and Instruction, 3, 239–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G.
(2011) Relevance in text comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 1–17). Greenwich, CT: Information Age PublishingGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S.
(2001) Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2007) Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2011) Measuring deep, reflective comprehension and learning strategies: Challenges and successes. Megacognition and Learning, 3, 1–11.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P., & Cai, Z.
(2014) Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Jacovina, M. E., & Allen, L. K.
(2015) Higher order thinking in comprehension. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Text and context, (pp. 164–176). Taylor & Francis, Routledge: NY.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Jacovina, M. E., Snow, E. L., & Allen, L. K.
(2015) From generating in the lab to tutoring systems in classrooms. American Journal of Psychology, 128(2), 159–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W.
(1996) Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S. & Magliano, J. P.
(2009) Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). New York, NY: Elsevier Science. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A.
(2004) Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465–482.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., & Ozuru, Y.
(2006) Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., Best, R., & O’Reilly, T.
(2007) The 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 465–496). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
National Assessment Governing Board
(2013) Less than half of 12th Graders estimated to be academically prepared for college coursework. Washington, D.C. Retrieved Jan. 13, 2015, http://​www​.nagb​.org​/newsroom​/naep​-releases​/grade​-12​-preparedness​.html
National Assessment of Educational Progress
(2011) The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2012, nces​.ed​.gov​/nationsreportcard​/writing.
Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N.
(1996) Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. In C. Cornaldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 69–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
OECS
(2014) PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Retrieved Jan. 13, 2015, http://​www​.oecd​.org​/pisa​/keyfindings​/pisa​-2012​-results​.htm
O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S.
(2007) Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, P. D.
(1974–75) The effects of grammatical complexity on children’s comprehension, recall and conception of semantic relations. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 155–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A.
(2007) Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pressley, M., Beard El-Dinary, P., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R.
(1992) Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 513–555. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, R.
(1990) The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 273–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ricci, K., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A.
(1996) Do computer-based games facilitate knowledge acquisition and retention? Military Psychology, 8, 295–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roebers, C. M., Röthlisberger, M., Cimeli, P., Michel, E., & Neuenschwander, R.
(2011) School enrolment and executive functioning: A longitudinal perspective on developmental changes, the influence of learning context, and the prediction of pre-academic skills. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 526–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, J., Shores, L., Mott, B., & Lester, J.
(2011) Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in narrative-centered learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 21, 115–133.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A.
(1992) New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, D. W.
(2007) How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S.
(2007) Double the work – Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from http://​www​.carnegie​.org​/literacy​/pdf​/DoubletheWork​.pdf.
Shute, V. J.
(2008) Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R.
(2006) The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623–664. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., Stevens, J. R., & Asher, J. W.
(2006) The effects of explicit reading strategy training on L2 reading comprehension. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 213–244). Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M.
(2001) The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081–1087. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J.
(1988) Understanding of anaphoric relations in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 173–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar