a comparison of reading comprehension knowledge in above average, average and below average...

A Comparison of Reading Comprehension Knowledge in Above Average, Average and

Below Average Comprehenders: A Study in Metacomprehension

Anne Newman*

Abstract. Differences which exist between d~ferent groups of reading comprehenders were examined through an interview approach. Thirty sixth graders, representing above average, average and below average reading comprehenders, were interviewed as they completed 4 sets of reading comprehension exercises. Statistically significant differences were found between the three groups for correct monitoring of textual information and answering strategies: unsuccessful use of recall. Significant differences were found between the above average and below average groups for, schema about text structure; schema about solution strategies; knowledge of the given text; and incorrect monitoring of textual information. The above average and average comprehenders were found to have a significant difference on the variable, answering strategies; unsuccessful use of lookbacks. The results are discussed in terms of metacomprehension ability.

Over the better part of this century numerous efforts have been made to def'me the differences which exist between good and poor readers. The difficulty, and diversity of this task is illustrated by the wide range of areas investigated. In Golinkoffs (1976) review of studies comparing reading comprehension ability in good and poor comprehenders, three distinct areas of investigation were delineated. Differences between good and poor comprehenders have been found to exist in the areas of decoding (Buswell, 1920; Fair- banks, 1937; Clay and Ymlach, 1971; Katz and Wicklund, 1971; Perfetti and Hogaboam, 1975; Golinkoff and Rosinski, 1976); lexical access (Golinkoff and Rosinski, 1976; Pace and Golinkoff, 1976; Perfetti, 1976); and text organization (Buswell, 1920; Epstein, 1967; Wiener and Cromer, 1967; Anglin and Miller, 1968; Levin and Turner, 1968; Schlesinger, 1968; Levin and Kaplan, 1970; Willows, 1974; McFarland and Rhodes, 1978; Wong, 1978; Garner, 1981).

The last decade has seen a growing body of researchers (Brown, 1978; Donaldson, 1978; Markman, 1979; Spiro, Bruce and Brewer, 1980; Garner, 1981; Paris and My- ers, 1981; Erickson, Stahl and Rinehart, 1985) suggesting that investigations into

Anne Newman is at the Institute of Catholic Education, Christ Campus, Melbourne.

26 Newman

metacognition, will assist in developing a greater understanding of the varying abilities which exist amongst different groups of readers.

Metacognition has long been an important field of research for the Soviet cognitive psychologists (Vygotsky, 1962; Smirnov, Istomina, Mal'tseva and Samokhualova, 1971-72; Istomina, 1975). In western countries, interest can be traced to Flavell (1971, 1976) who def'med metacognition as referring to "one's knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them" (1976:232). Flavell suggested that much of what is involved in metacognition is the ability to think about "messages", and that messages such as those likely to be presented in a reading exercise, can elicit cognitive experiences. According to Brown (1978), the skills of metacognition refer to those abilities attributed to the executive in many theories of human memory and machine intelligence; skills of predicting, checking, monitoring, reality testing and the co-ordination and control of deliberate attempts to study, learn or solve prob- lems.

The value of the active involvement of the pupil in the reading process has been recognizeA since the days of Huey (1908), Dewey (1910) and Thomdike (1917); all of whom not only helped pioneer the concept of reading as a reasoning process, but who also stressed the need for the reader to be involved as a monitor of information. Metacognitive research, as it relates to reading comprehension (termed metacomprehension), is, however, still at an early stage. Much of the research is exploratory, though the results tend to confirm that the metacomprehension ability of successful reading comprehenders is superior to that of the less successful reading comprehenders (Myers and Paris, 1978; Di Vesta, I-Iayward and Orlando, 1979; Garner, 1981; Paris and My- ers, 1981).

The fundamental assertion underlying the research reportexl in this paper, is that, by grade six many children do possess a degree of metacomprehension ability, and that above average comprehenders may possess more advanced metacomprehension ability than below average comprehenders. If distinguishing characteristics can be found between different groups of readers, then it is posmlate~ that metacomprehension may be one of the crucial links between the able and less able comprehender.

The aspect of metacomprehension which has attracted the most research attention is comprehension monitoring ability or what Brown (1980) termed "knowing when you know". Paris and Myers (1981) showed that poor fourth grade readers engaged in significantly less monitoring of difficult and anomalous information than good readers at the same grade level. In addition Paris and Myers stated that the metacognitive measure of perceived reading strategy effectiveness indicated that poor readers are often unaware of the negative influence of some strategies used by them when reading. In an earlier study Myers and Paris (1978) had interviewed grade 6 and grade 2 pupils on their metacogni- five awareness of variables that influence reading. The results showed that, although the grade 2 subjects were aware of the influence of some reading dimensions, such as interest, familiarity and length of the passage; they were less sensitive, than the grade 6 subjects, to the semantic structure of paragraphs, goals of reading and strategies for re- solving comprehension failures.

Australian Educational Researcher 27

In this present research metacomprehension was seen as knowing about the type of knowledge and strategies used to understand a text. The aim was to examine metacomprehension of grade six pupils, specifically knowledge of one's schema about text features, schema about topics, schema about comprehension solution strategies, and ability to correctly monitor the text. The types of strategies used to answer comprehension questions associateA with a text, were also investigated. The study was based on an introspective interview analysis; a research design which allows for pupils of varying reading comprehension ability to have their knowledge and self-awareness of the reading comprehension process tapped in as realistic a manner as possible. It was anticipated that if the metacomprehension possessed by good reading comprehenders could be dis- tinguished from that possessed by poor reading comprehenders, then it would be foreseeable that this information would offer constructive directions for the teaching of reading comprehension. Average comprehenders were included in the study, for it was anticipated that an analysis of their knowledge about the comprehension process may offer a valuable link between those pupils who can comprehend successfully and those who experience difficulties. The basic assumption being made was that, when a pupil failed to comprehend a text (assessed through answering a set of questions), it was likely that he/she was lacking in an awareness and use of appropriate reading comprehension knowledge and strategies.

Method

Subjects

Thirty grade six pupils from seven state primary schools in Melbourne (Victoria) were the subjects. Three groups, each consisting of 10 pupils, represented above average, average and below average reading comprehenders. Tt~re were 5 boys and 5 girls in each group. The groups were formed on the basis of test scores derived from the Progressive Achievement Test: Reading Comprehension (ACER, 1973). The 30 subjects were randomly chosen from the 420 pupils given the reading comprehension test. Pupils with English as a second language and pupils who appeared to be hindered by word recognition ability, as indicated by a score of less than late grade four on the Word Iden- tification Test (ACER, 1972), were eliminated from the selection. The above average comprehenders were randomly selected from pupils scoring above stanine 6 on the test; the average comprehenders from those pupils scoring stanine 5; and the below average comprehenders from those pupils scoring below stanine 4. An analysis of variance indicated that no significant difference existed between the mean ages of the 30 subjects chosen to represent the three reading comprehension groups.

Materials

The Interview Schedule. Through a pilot study, an interview schedule was designed to tap the knowledge and strategies of the pupils in nine different areas. Each of the areas

28 Newman

matched a conjectured step which could be applied by a pupil when reading a text and answering a series of questions related to the text. The nine areas forming the structure of the interview schedule are outlined under Procedure.

Reading Material. Following a survey of 155 schools, two examples of commonly used reading comprehension materials were chosen, v/s., SRA Reading Laboratory Mark H (2c) and Endeavour Read and Learn comprehension cards (Jacaranda Press, 1975). Two reading comprehension exercises from the Red level of the SRA Reading Laboratory and two cards for Level 17 of the Read and Le, am materials, were chosen. According to the Elley (1975) noun frequency method of readability, each of the passages and the related sets of comprehension questions, on the exercises chosen had a readability rating of 9.5 years to 10.5 years. The kinds of text represented were: historical report, historical adventure story, fictional adventure story and recipe instruction. The format of each exercise was the same, where a text was accompanied by a set of multiple choice questions to be answered in writing. Predominantly the questions were of the inferential type.

Procedure

Each subject was interviewed four times as he/she worked through the comprehension exercise (1 per interview). Each interview took approximately 30 to 45 minutes. The order in which the exercises were presented was random. All interviews were conducted by the writer with the explicit instructions set out in the interview schedule being fol- lowed. As the subject worked through the exercise he/she was questioned as to his/her knowledge about (1) the initial reaction planning strategies used at the commencement of reading; (2) cognizant planning strategies which were deliberately put into action when reading; (3) organization strategies (the approach used to work through the exercise); (4) awareness of clues in the ~ i f i c text being read; (5) operation strategies (knowledge and strategies exhibited by the pupil when answering the questions belong- ing to the comprehension exercise); (6) self evaluation of answers; (7) self evaluation of difficulties; (8) self evaluation of sources of answers; and (9) perception of the learning which might have taken place during the exercise. Observational notes on the types of strategies being used to answer the comprehension questions were taken.

Measures

Written transcripts recorded verbatim everything that was said by the subject for each interview question asked. A classification system (see Table 1) for analyzing the interview responses was constructed. Each category in the classification represented an area of knowledge or strategies related to the reading comprehension process. The responses from the subjects were analyzed according to discrete meaningful units, that is, the ver- balization of the smallest possible meaningful unit of information. A pupil scored one point for each meaningful unit named and once named and classified into the appropriate category, the same unit of information could not be scored again. Double scoring was possible for any one response. For example, if a pupil talked about the use of a solu-


tion strategy and within this statement, included knowledge of a text feature, a score of one point was recorded for the solution strategy and one point for the text feature. Such a response might have been, "You just think about the main parts of the story". That the subject knew to think about the main parts, would be scored as a solution strategy. The knowledge that texts contain main parts would gain an additional point under the category, schema about text features.

Table 1 Classification of Interview Responses

1. Schema related to the text structure and its features la Ability to name the text and/or any of the text features lb Knowledge of the nalxtre of the text and/or any of the text features

2. Schema related to topics in a text 3. Schema related to solution strategies

3a Knowledge of strategies which will assist in gaining a solution to the comprehension questions

3b Evidence of self-correction of an answer given for a comprehension question 3c Direct reference to personal factors related to solution strategies

4. Knowledge of the given text information 4a Ability to name the given text and/or any of the specific features in the

given text 4b Knowledge about the specific nature of the given text or the ~ i f i c nature

of any of the given text features 4c Recall of information from the given text 4d Reading from or directly referring to information contained in the text

5. Comprehension monitoring 6. Miscellaneous (unclassified statemen0

Six variables were established from the analysis of the interview responses (schema about text structure, schema about topic, schema about solution strategies, knowledge of the given text, correct monitoring of textual information and incorrect monitoring of textual information). Eight other variables related to time on task and successful and unsuccessful use of answering strategies (recall, single lookbacks and multiple lookbacks), were included.

R e s u l t s

Analyses of variance were applied to examine the differences which occurred between the three groups of reading comprehenders. Where significant differences between the three groups detected, the Scheffe method (Glass and Stanley, 1970) of multiple comparisons

30 Newman

was applied, so that the source of the difference (between which of the three comprehension groups) could be detected. The main findings are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 F Values and the Degree of Significant Difference for each Variable

Variable F Value Significance

1. Schema about text structure 5.04 2. Schema about topic 3.22 3. Schema about solution strategies 6.08 4. Knowledge of the given text 5.06 5. Correct monitoring of textual information 12.45 6. Incorrect monitoring of textual information 5.50 7. Time taken to read the text (words per se) 1.00 8. Time taken to answer the comprehension

questions Answering strategies: successful use of recall Answering strategies: unsuccessful use of recall Answering strategies: successful use of single Iookbacks Answering strategies: unsuccessful use of single lookbacks Answering strategies: successful use of multiple lookbacks Answering strategies: unsuccessful use of multiple lookbacks

o

10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

Significance level *p<0.05 **p~.01

NS

NS

0.24 NS 2.14 NS

13.29 **

2.08 NS

4.00 *

3.41 *

0.08 NS

Of the 14 variables tested, eight were found to significantly discriminate between the reading comprehension groups. These variables were, schema about text structure; schema about solution strategies; knowledge of the given text; correct monitoring of textual information; incorrect monitoring of textual information; answering strategies: unsuccessful use of recall; answering strategies: unsuccessful use of single lookbacks: and answering strategies: successful use of multiple lookbacks. In four of these cases the statistical significance level was found to be p<0.01. Table 3 shows the source of the difference (using the Scheffe method). The main differences were found to exist between the above average reading comprehenders and the below average reading comprehenders. Correct monitoring of textual information discriminated between both the above average and average reading comprehenders, and between the above average and below average reading comprehenders.


Table 3 Statistical Differences Between the Three Groups

of Reading Comprehenders

Comprehension group Significant Variable means Difference

AAC AC BAC (Scheffe)

1. Schema about text structure 2. Schema about solution

strategies 3. Knowledge of the given text 4. Correct monitoring of textual

information 5. Incorrect monitoring of

textual information 6. Answering strategies:

unsuccessful use of recall 7. Answering strategies:

unsuccessful use of lookbacks 8. Answering strategies:

successful use of multiple lookbacks

97.00 70.20 56.70 AAC/BAC 223.60 176.50 122.80 AAC/BAC

218.50 139.00 122.10 143.20 79.20 57.00

8.50 16.20 22.00 3.00 4.50 10.80

AAC/BAC AAC/AC AAC/BAC

AAC/BAC AC/BAC

AAC/BAC

1.60 4.70 2.70 AAC/AC

2.60 2.40 0.40 *

* Difference between groups not detecte~ by the Scheffe method.

The variable, answering strategies: unsuccessful use of recall, discriminated between average and below average reading comprehenders; and between above average and below average reading comprehenders. Answering strategies: unsuccessful use of lookbacks, discriminated between above average and average reading comprehenders.

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated for reading comprehension ability (z scores) as gained on the PAT Reading Comprehension test (AER, 1973), reading comprehension ability gained for the reading comprehension exercises used as part of the interview with each subject, and metacomprehension ability according to the 14 variables. Within this study a correlation of 0.60 or more was defined as indicating a fairly strong relationship between the respective variables being consid-

There was a high correlation (0.76) between the PAT Reading Comprehension test and the scores gained for answering the reading comprehension exercise questions used in the interviews. A correlation coefficient of 0.64, between ability on the PAT Reading Comprehension test and the total score for the metacomprehension variables, was found. When the metacomprehension variables were examined separately in relation to the PAT

32 Newman

Reading Comprehension test results (see Table 4), a high correlation of 0.75 was found between reading comprehension ability and correct monitoring ability. Correct monitoring ability was shown, by analysis of variance (see Table 3) to be an important variable in distinguishing between different ability groups of reading comprehenders. Schema about solution strategies was found at 0.57 to have a reasonable correlation with comprehension ability. The analysis of variance applied to this variable significantly discriminated between the above average and the below average reading comprehenders.

Table 4 Correlation Coefficients for Reading Comprehension Ability and Metacomprehension

Variables and for Reading Vocabulary and Metacomprehension Variables

Variable PAT Reading Pat

Comprehension Test Vocabol_~ry Test

Schema about text structure Schema about topic Schema about solution strategies Knowledge of the given text Correct monitoring of textual information Incorrect monitoring of textual information Time taken to read the text (words per se) Time taken to answer the comprehension question Answering strategies: successful use of recall Answering strategies: Unsuccessful use of recall Answering strategies: successful use of single lookbacks Answering strategies: unsuccessful use of single lookbacks Answering strategies: successful use of multiple Iookbacks Answering strategies: unsuccessful use of multiple lookbacks

0.50 0.42 0.47 0.39 0.57 0.42 0.56 0.55 0.75 0.70

-0.51 -0.26 0.27 0.26

-0.06 0.06 0.25 0.11

-0.69 -0.71

0.38 0.46

-0.15 -0.03

0.50 0.42

-0.09 0.25

A negative correlation of -0.69 was found to exist between reading comprehension ability and the variable, answering strategies: unsuccessful use of recall. The analysis of variance (Table 3) highlighted that the below average comprehenders used recall inac- curately to answer questions, significantly more than either the average or above average comprehenders. This result would suggest that there was a fairly strong relationship between comprehension ability and the use of recall as an answering strategy.

Correlation coefficients were also calculated to show possible relationships which might exist between the different metacomprehension variables defined in this study.


Schema about text structure was found to correlate 0.78 with schema about solution strategies and 0.57 with schema about topic. A correlation coefficient of 0.75 between schema about topic and correct monitoring ability was found. Schema about the topic was found to correlate 0.62 and 0.61, with schema about solution strategies and knowledge of the given text, respectively. Both of these latter two variables were found to significantly discriminate between the above average comprehenders and below average comprehenders (see Table 3). In addition, a correlation coefficient of 0.62 was found between schema about solution strategies and correct monitoring' of the text. This seemed to suggest that good monitors of the text also possessed an understanding of the strategies which assist in the application of that monitoring.

A negative correlation of -0.62 was found between correct monitoring ability and unsuccessful use of recall. On the other hand, correct monitoring of textual information correlated 0.58 with successful use of multiple lookbacks. Successful use of recall correlated negatively (-0.60) with successful use of single lookbacks; whereas, successful use of single lookbacks correlated 0.64 with successful use of multiple lookbacks. The correlation between incorrect monitoring and unsuccessful use of single lookbacks was 0.54 suggesting that these two abilities are related in some way. A correlation of 0.58 between correct monitoring ability and successful use of multiple lookbacks was found.

Table 4 also gives the correlation coefficients for reading vocabulary and the metacomprehension variables. In general, the results show that the correlations were lower than those found for reading comprehension, though a correlation of 0.70 was found to exist between vocabulary knowledge and correct monitoring ability. A negative correlation of-0.71 was found between vocabulary knowledge and answering strategies: unsuccessful use of recall. Overall, reading vocabulary knowledge was found to correlate 0.59 with total metacomprehension ability (all variables combined).

D i s c u s s i o n

The purpose of the r e ~ c h was to explore the differences which existed between thirty grade six subjects of above average, average and below average reading comprehension ability, as determined by a standardized reading comprehension (prose) test. In the main the differences were examined with respect to, what were defineA as, metacomprehension variables. It has been suggested by earlier researchers (Camperell, 1981; Raphael, My- ers, Tirre, Fritz and Freebody, 1981) that comprehension ability is closely related to metacomprehension ability.

The analyses of variance tests and the correlation analyses found two variables to have the strongest relationship to degree of success in comprehending a text. These variables were, the ability to correctly monitor the textual information, and the unsuccessful use of recall as an answering strategy. This result appears to conf'mn that the ability to monitor textual information distinguishes the above average reading comprehenders from both average and below average comprehenders. The ability to correctly monitor text also correlated highly with four other metacomprehension variables, posi-

34 Newman

tively with schema about the topic, schema about solution strategies, and knowledge of the given text; and negatively with unsuccessful use of recall as an answering strategy.

In the light of these findings it would seem reasonable to conclude that the above average reading comprehenders were superior to their peers because they were able to monitor the text accurately. This success in monitoring the text accurately, was most likely relaWA to the fact that the above average reading comprehenders knew more about the comprehension process, ~ i f i c a l l y about the structure of texts, the type of solution strategies to use and how to utilize schema about the topic. Raphael, Myers, Tirre, Fritz and Freebody (1981) found that knowledge of the topic and text structure affecteA performance on reading comprehension and metacomprehension in very similar ways.

The results associated with the different types of answering strategies suggested that the subjects who were poor in comprehension monitoring ability also tended to be unsuccessful in their use of recall. The negative correlation of -0.60 between successful use of recall and successful use of single lookbacks a ~ to imply that pupils who use recall successfully do not tend to use single lookbacks as an answering strategy. On the other hand the pupils who use~ lookbacks to answer comprehension questions were apparently adept with either single or multiple reference to the text.

The results showed that there was some relationship between incorrect monitoring ability and unsuccessful use of single lookbacks. It is possible that pupils who use single lookbacks rather than multiple lookbacks do so because they lack the ability to search and monitor text to any great extent; a skill which is required when multiple lookbacks are employeA. Unfortunately these pupils are often also incorrect in their use of single lookbacks. Further support for this argument can be found in the reasonable correlation between successful use of multiple lookbacks and correct monitoring ability.

Some insight into the variables which possibly discriminate between average and below average reading comprehenders, can be found in the results associated with unsuccessful use of recall as an answering strategy. In the present study the average comprehenders made significantly less unsuccessful recall attempts than were made by the below average comprehenders. This difference occurred on all but one comprehension exercise (historical adventure gory). Although no significant difference was found between the successful use of recall by the three reading comprehension groups, the average comprehenders did use recall less often than the above average comprehenders. It would appear that the average comprehenders used single lookbacks more than the above and below average comprehenders. The average comprehenders were also more successful in the use of this strategy than the below average comprehenders but not as successful as the above average comprehenders, who used single lookbacks. Both the above average and average subjects used multiple lookbacks more successfully than the below average comprehenders; the mean scores indicating that the difference in ability was between the average and below average comprehenders. In the use of multiple lookbacks the average comprehenders were as successful as their more able peers.

This r ~ c h was based on an introspective interview approach, the value of which has been recognized widely in the field of educational research (Kerlinger, 1965; Robin- son, 1965; Gibson and Levin, 1975; Donaldson, 1978; Brown, 1980; Paris and My- ers, 1981). There are, however, limitations associated with this line of investigation.


One of the main difficulties is that introspective studies rely heavily upon the ability of the pupil to verbalize what he/she knows, in this case, about the reading comprehension process. In this present study, extensive measures were taken to reduce the effects of this difficulty. Special consideration was given to the construction of the interview schedule, recognizing the importance of raplx)rt with the pupil being interviewed, and to the necessity for indepth questioning during the interview.

As Simons (1971) Moynahan (1973), Salatas and Flavell (1976) and Brown (1980) have pointed out, there may be a gap between what children say they know, or appear to know, and how they perform or put that knowledge into action. The relationship between verbal descriptions of knowledge and mental processes employed in gaining comprehension of a text needs to be addressed in future research. In addition, as Simons (1971) has emphasized there is a need to question the relationship between the mental processes employed in answering comprehension questions after reading and those mental processes employe~ during the actual reading p r ~ s . This study examined children's knowledge about mental processes employed after reading, and in association with direct questioning of comprehension gained from the reading.

The most important implication which comes out of the study, is that the field of metacomprehension offers an added dimension to the development of reading comprehension in the classroom. Central to the reading comprehension process is the reader's understanding of his/her involvement in deriving meaning from print. The knowledge possesseA by able readers allows them to have control over their own comprehension ability. Future research should set ~ i f i c directions as to how this knowledge can be developexl in the less able readers.

References

Anglin, J. M. and Miller, G. A. (1968). "The Role of Phrase Structure in the Recall of Meaningful Verbal Materiar'. Psychonomic Science, 10, pp. 343-344.

Berry, B. T. (1931). "Improving Freshman Reading Habits". English Journal, 20, pp. 824-828.

Brown, A. L. (1978). "Knowing When, Where, and How to Remember: A Problem of Metacognition" in R. Glaser (ed.) Advances in Instructional Psychology. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, A.L. (1980). "Metacognitive Development and Reading" in R.J. Spiro, B. Bruce and W. Brewer (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Buswell, G. T. (1920). "An Experimental Study of the Eye-Voice-Span in Reading". Supplementary Educational Monographs, No. 17, pp. 1-105.

Clay, M. M. and Imlach, R. H. (1971). "Juncture, Pitch and Stress as Reading Behav- ior Variables". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, pp. 133-139.

Camerell, K. (1981). "Identification of Seventh-Grade Students' Insights About the Strategies They Used to Study and Understand an Expository Text". Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 (01), 154-A.

36 Newman

Davis, F. B. (1972). "Psychometric research on Comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 7 (4), pp. 628-678.

Dewey, J. C. (1910). How We Think. Boston: Heath. Di Vesta, F., I-Iayward, K. G. and Orlando, V. (1979). "Developmental Trends in

Monitoring Text for Comprehension". Child Development, 50, pp. 97-105. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children's Minds. Glasgow: Collins. Elley, W. B. (1975). Assessing the Difficulty of Reading Materials: The Noun Fre-

quency Method. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Epstein, W. (1967). "Some Conditions of the Influence of Syntactical Structure on

Learning Instruction and Chunking". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Be- havior, 6, pp. 415-419.

Erickson, L. G., Stahl, S. A. and Rinehart, S. D. (1985). "Metacognitive Abilities of Above and Below Average Readers; Effects of Conceptual Tempo, Passage Level, and Error Type on Error Detection". Journal of Reading Behavior, 17 (3), pp. 235- 252.

Fairbanks, G. (1937). "The Relation Between Eye-Movements and Voice in the Oral Reading of Good and Poor Silent Readers". Psychological Monographs, 48, No. 215, pp. 78-107.

Flavell, J. H. (1971). "First Discussant's Comments: What is Memory Development the Development of?." Human Development, 14, pp. 272-278.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). "Metacognitive A ~ t s of Problem Solving" in L. B. Reswick (ed.) The Nature of Intelligence. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum As- sociates.

Garner, R. (1981). "Monitoring of Passage Inconsistency Among Poor Comprehenders: A Preliminary Test of the 'Piecemeal Process' Explanation". Journal of Educational Research, 74 (3), pp. 159-162.

Gibson, E. and Levin, H. (1975). The Psychology of Reading. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Glass, G. V. and Stanley, J. C. (1970). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychol- ogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Golinkoff, R. M. (1976). "A Comparison of Reading Comprehension Processes in Good and Poor Comprehenders". Reading Research Quarterly, 11 (4). pp. 623-659.

Golinkoff, R. M. and Rosinski, R. R. (1976). "Decoding, Semantic Processing, and Reading Comprehension Skill". Child Development, 47, pp. 252-258.

Hochberg, J. and Brooks, V. (1970). "Reading as an Intentional Behavior" in H. Singer and R. B. Ruddell (eds.) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, pp. 304-314.

Huey, E. B. (1908). The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. New York: MacMil- lan.

Istomina, Z. M. (1975). "The Development of Voluntary Memory in Preschool-age Children". Soviet Psychology, 13, pp. 5-64.

Katz, L. L. and Wicklund, D. A. (1971). "Word Scanning Rate for Good and Poor Readers". Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, pp. 138-140.


Kerlinger, F. N. (1965). Foundations of Behavioral Research: Educational and Psychological Inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Levin, H. and Kaplan, E. L. (1970). "Grammatical Structure and Reading" in H. Levin and J. P. Williams (eds.), Basic Studies in Education. New York: Basic Books.

Levin, H. and Turner, E. A. (1968). "Sentence Structure and the Eye-voice Span" in Harry Levin, Eleanor Gibson and Hames H. Gibson (eAs.) The Analysis of Reading Skill. Final Report. Project No. 5-1213, Contract No. OE6-10-156, Cornell University and U.S. Office of Education.

McFarland, C. E. and Rhodes, D. D. (1978). "Memory for Meaning in Skilled and Un- skilled Readers", Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25, pp. 199-207.

Mackworth, J. F. (1972). "Some Models of the Reading Process: Learners and Skilled Readers". Reading Research Quarterly 7(4), pp. 701-733.

Markman, E. M. (1979). "Realizing that You Don't Understand: Elementary School Children's Awareness of Inconsistencies", Child Development, 50, pp. 643-655.

Moynahan, E. D. (1973). "The Development of Knowledge Concerning the Effect of Categorizations upon Free Recall", Child Development, 44, pp. 238-246.

Myers M. and Paris, S. G. (1978). "Children's Metacognitive Knowledge about Read- ing", Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, (5), pp. 680-690.

Pace, A. J. and Golinkoff, R. M. (1976). "The Relationship Between Word Difficulty and Access of Single-word Meaning by Skilled and Less Skilled Readers". Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Paris, S. G. and Myers, M. (1981). "Comprehension Monitoring, Memory and Study Strategies of Good and Poor Readers", Journal of Reading Behavior, 13 (1), pp. 5- 22.

Perfetti, C. A. (1976). "Reading Comprehension Depends on Language Comprehen- sion". Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Perfetti, C. A. and Hogaboam, T. (1975). "The Relationship Between Single Word Decoding and Reading Comprehension Skill", Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, pp. 461-469.

Progressive Achievement Tests: Reading Comprehension.(1973). Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Raphael, T. E., Myers, A. C., Tirre, W. C., Fritz, M. and Freebody, P. (1981). "The Effects of Some Known Sources of Reading Difficulty on Metacomprehension and Comprehension", Journal of Reading Behavior, 13 (4), pp. 323-334.

Robinson, H. A. (1965). "Reading Skills Employed in Solving Social Studies Prob- lems", Reading Teacher, 18, pp. 263-269.

Salatas, H. and Flavell, J. H. (1976). "Behavioral and Metamnemonic Indications of Strategic Behaviors under Remember Instructions in First Grade", Child Devel- opment, 47, pp. 80-89.

Schlesinger, I. M. (1968). Sentence Structure and the Reading Process. The Hague: Mouton.

38 Newman

Simons, H. D. (1971). "Reading Comprehension: The NeeA for a New Perspective", Reading Research Quarterly, 6 (3), pp. 338-363.

Smirnov, A. A., Istomina, Z. M., Martseva, K. P. and Samokhualova, V. I. (1971- 72). "The Development of Logical Memorization Techniques in the Pre-school and Young Child", Soviet Psychology, 10, pp. 178-195.

Smith, F. (1971). Understanding Reading: A psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C. and Brewer, W. F. (eds.) (1980). Theoretical Issues in Read- ing Comprehension. Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence and Education. HiUsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thorndike, E. L. (1917). "Reading as Reasoning: A Study of Mistakes in Paragraph Reading", Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, pp. 323-332.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Wiener, M. and Cromer, W. (1967). "Reading and Reading Difficulty: a Conceptual

Analysis", Harvard Educational Review, 37, pp. 620-643. Willows, D. M. (1974). "Reading Between the Lines: Selective Attention in Good and

Poor Readers", Child Development, 45, pp. 408-415. Wong, B. (1978). "The Effects of Directive Cues on the Organization of Memory and

Recall in Good and Poor Readers", Journal of Educational Research, 72, pp. 32-38. Word Identification Test. (1972). Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educa-

tional Research.

a comparison of reading comprehension knowledge in above average, average and below average...

Documents