the study of strategies ofsuccessful and unsuccessful learners

8/14/2019 the study of strategies ofsuccessful and unsuccessful learners

1/14

Journal of Reading Behavior1994, Volume 26, Number 4

THE STUDY STRATEGIES OF SUCCESSFUL ANDUNSUCCESSFUL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Ann L LorangerUniversity of New Hampshire

ABSTRACTI examined the study strategies of successful and unsuccessful learners to deter-mine if successful learners would differ in the quality of their information pro-cessing from unsuccessful learners. It was expected that good learners would usestudying techniques requiring greater cognitive effort, such as notetaking, sum-marizing, and outlining. Three high school students in Grade 11 were studied assuccessful students; three unsuccessful students were studied as well. Each of thesix participants was interviewed individually for a single,1-hoursession. Duringthe session, students read and studied an article. A videotaped interview with theresearcher followed reading and studying. The successful students were moreactive, purposeful, and flexible in their strategy use. Although the unsuccessfulstudents were generally less efficient in their use of learning strategies, they weresatisfied with their academic performance. That is, the unsuccessful studentsperceived themselves as successful learners, lacking self-knowledge of their in-efficient strategy use.Since a great deal of an adolescent's school life is devoted to studying texts, Iam concerned as an educator about how students use strategies as they read and

study. There has been a long history of interest in how students study and thestrategies they use, such as notetaking, underlining, outlining, summ arizing, ques-tion-generating, and so on. (Anderson & A rmbruster, 1984; Baker & Brow n, 1984;Brown & Day, 1983; Devine, 1987; Loranger, 1988; Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet,Zajchowski, & Evans, 1989). Study strategies, specific processes which studentsmay use alone or in combination to learn content of the curriculum (Graham &Robinson, 1987), have been identified by groups such as the College Board as key

7


2/14

348 Journal of Reading Behavior

in learning how to learn (Marshak, 1979). A Nation atRisk: The Imperative forEducational Reform(1983), also identified study strategies as essential throughouta student's school career, beginning in the early grades and continuing throughhigh school.Although in the past learners were seen as passive participants in the act oflearning (Durkin, 1978-1979; Norman, 1980), effective learners are now seen asactive information processors and synthesizers who use strategies to fit their needsand goals (Weinstein, Butterfield, Schmidt, & Poythress, 1982). Consistent withthis current emphasis on process, the how to of learning, good teaching shouldinclude not only teaching students how to learn, but also teaching them how toremember, how to think, and how to motivate themselves (Weinstein & Mayer,1985).

Studying as an Interactive ProcessStudying is defined as a special form of reading. The way that studying differsfrom ordinary reading is that studying requires attentive, thoughtful exam ina-tion of a subject or a problem. The learner is expected to perform a cognitive orprocedural task in order to gain knowledge o r skill. If a learner is to be successful

at a task, he/she must be aware of the demands of the task and have the ability toadapt studying to meet these demands (Armbruster, Echols, & Brown, 1983).Based on a tetrahedral m odel proposed by Jenkins (1979), Brown, Cam pione,and Day (1981) identified four interacting variables that affect learning from textwhich can be related to study strategies: the activities or strategies of the learner,such as summarizing, notetaking, outlining, and so on; certain characteristics ofthe learner, including m emory capacity and state of prior know ledge ; the nature ofthe materials to be learned, such as text organization and conceptual difficulty; and

the criterial task of the learner, that is, recall, transfer, problem solving, and so on .Recent research on comprehension instruction and development of study strategieshas centered on the interactive nature of learning, largely consistent with Jenkins'tetrahedral model.The work of Pressley has focused on interactive factors in comprehension,especially as developed through instruction. For example, Pressley, El-Dinary,Gaskins, Schuder, Bergman, Almasi, and Brown (1992) concluded that strategiesare best acquired when classroom teaching promotes strategies, metacognition,knowledge, and motivationthat is, a number of information processing compo-nents in interaction. The focus on interactions between strategies, metacognition,other knowledge, and motivation to understand student cognition has been sup-ported generally in research. This led Marx, Winne, and Walsh (1985) to concludethat (1) students, particularly younger and less academically mature students, arenot likely to be aware of their cognition nor to be articulate when introspectingabout their cognitive operations; and (2) more successful students are m ore able toadjust their studying strategies and gain control of their learning. That is, they


3/14

Study Strategies 349

viewed student thinking as dependent on strategies and other knowledge in rela-tion to various types of tasks and materials, consistent with Jenkins' (1979) con-clusions. Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, and Campione (1982) also concluded thatstudents differ in what they know and what they know about using their knowl-edge. Brown et al. (1982) referenced the Jenkins model explicitly in making theircase for the primacy of information processing factors in interaction as determi-nants of student cognition.Framework for Inquiry

Pressley et al.'s (1989) good information processor m odel specifies the charac-teristics of competent thinke rs. Good information processors u se strategies for aca-demic tasks, know how and when to use the strategies they know, and articulatestrategy use with nonstrategic knowledge as they read, write, problem solve, andthink. (In this context, a strategy is defined as a process which facilitates perfor-mance of a task, assuming the strategy is matched to the requirements of the task.)The task in the present investigation was studying an article. All study behaviorsobserved here could be coded as examples of either planning for learning, distin-guishing between relevant and irrelevant information, detecting the author's orga-nizational plan, activating prior knowledge, summarizing, determining author'spurpose, or notetaking. These categories were probed during the interview session,which was concerned with the following issues: Was the student able to (a) deter-mine the author's purpose for writing the article, (b) detect the author's organiza-tional plan for presentation of the material (cause/effect, com parison/con trast, etc.),(c) generate a clearly defined system for studying the material given, (d) relate theinformation in the article with any previous knowledge he/she may have on thetopic, (e) distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information, (f) write a co-herent summary of the material in his/her own words, and (g) did the student takenotes?

In addition, videotapes and written notes were analyzed to determine whetherstudents did any of the following wh ile reading the article: underline, circle wordsor phrases, list, jo t down reactions. Did the student take notes on the material? Ifso, did he/she use a specific notetaking style, such as linear or mapping? Finally,how did the student approach this assignment... with confidence, anxiety, confu-sion, or any other apparent reactions?

METHODSchool

The high school used in this study is situated in rural southeastern N ew H am p-shire. The student body is comprised of 550 students, predominantly white and


4/14


lower-middle class. There is a faculty of 35 full-time teachers who average 15years of teaching experience.Subjects

The six subjects for this study were llth-grade students, ages 16 to 18, withthree categorizable as successful students and three as unsuccessful students. Thecriteria for selection and categorization were teacher recom mendations, grade pointaverage, and the results of a standardized reading test, T he Nelson D enny (Brown,Bennett, & Hanna, 1981) (see Table 1). I was looking for students who were con-sistently high (successful students) and consistently low (unsuccessful students) onall three of these measures. The six students selected based on these criteria wereDino,Jay, and Jennifer as successful students; and Jerry, Tammy and Bill as unsuc -cessful students. All willingly participated.Procedure

Each session was divided into two pa rts. In the first part, the student was givenan article to read. Since I was working with two levels of students, I chose twoarticles on the same topic that would be app ropriate for each level as determined byapplying the Fry Readability Formula: an article from Timem agazine,No Fear ofthe Big Bad Wolf (lOth-grade readability), for the above average students, andWolves and Moose on the Firing Line (5th-grade readability) from Science Newsfor the other students. Since the purpose of my study w as to determine study behav-iors, I wanted students to be comfortable with the content of the reading material.Both articles averaged 550 words in length and dealt with the controversy centeredon the control of wildlife and the debate between hunters and environmentalists

Table 1Nelson-Denny Reading T est (Form E)

Vocabulary Com prehension Total ScoreStudent RS PR RS PR RS PRDinoJa yJenniferTammyJerryBillNote.RS=Raw Score, PR=Percentile.

55 9472 42 5

9 39 68 9374

4

52484 6322

9 38784482 32 3

3 79 35434 5

9 39 4874 38

2 9


5/14


regarding the fate of some endangered species. Excerpts from both articles makeclear the differences in the readab ility and concept levels in the two articles:Berg and other environmentalists contend that farm animals are in much greaterdanger from wild dogs and coy otes. Blaming the wolf for every kill, she argues, isalmost a psychological need . Says sh e, with jus t a touch of hyp erbo le: Th e wolfis an intelligent animal that groups tog ether and does what a hunter does when hegets together with his pals. (No Fear of the Big Bad Wolf p. 56)Environmentalists, on the other hand, think the wolves are getting a raw deal.Some environmentalists would prefer much less human moose hunting and noaerial wolf hunting. Others want to see no human moose hunting at alland thenwant the wolves left alone. It is their belief that, without humans hunting moose,a natural balance will be brought back between moose and wolf. (Wolves andMoose on the Firing Line,p. 2)M y instructions to participan ts we re, Read this article as if you w ere prepar-ing to take a test on it. Take all the time you need. W hen you are finished, I will askyou som e questions . I then left each student alone for about 20 minutes while theyread the article. All the students were able to complete the task within the 20-minute period.The interview session took place during the second part. The exact questions

in the interview were the following: (a) What do you think the author's purposewas in writing this article? (b) Do you think the author had an organizational planin presenting this information; for example, cause/effect, co mp arison/contrast, prob -lem/solution, and so on? (c) Did you have a specific plan when approaching thisassignment? (d) When you read this article, did you relate the information to any-thing you already knew ? (e) How did you k now what w as important in this article?(f) What is a summary? Please give me a summary of this article, (g) Did you takenotes on this article? If so, why? (h) How did you approach this assignment, andhow do you approach studying in general? (i) Do you consider yourself to be asuccessful student? Th e who le session took 1 hour, and all sessions were video -taped.Use of Videotape/Interviews

Videotaping permitted me to observe and to analyze students' activities in thestudy situation, and complemented the information gained by interviewing stu-dents after studying. This approach is consistent with other studies in which video-taping has been comb ined w ith interviews to exam ine stud ents' cog nitive activitiesin classrooms (H eldenbrand & Hixon , 19 91; Marx et a l , 1985; Peterson, Swing,Stark, & Waas, 1983).Data Analysis

Two types of qualitative data were analyzed. First, I evaluated the videotape ofthe student studying the article with the researcher not present. While viewing the


6/14


videotapes, I generated a list of observed behaviors. I then narrowed the list downto categories of behav iors related to study ing. Three raters viewed the tapes of eachof six students working with the article. Each observation was 20 minutes long.Raters were asked to respond to categories of behaviors observed during1-minuteintervals. The following is a list of categories of behaviors observed with defini-tions:(a) Reading : Student is reading article; (b) Reading/Taking Notes: Student isreading article and taking notes on a separate piece of paper; (c) Analyzing: Stu-dent appears to be rereading the article and/or studying material while markingpaper; and (d) Time not Used: Student terminated activity before time was up.Pair-wise, interrater reliability was determined by percentage of time two ratersagreed on the same behavior out of 20-minute blocks. The average interrater reli-ability was 76%. Disagreements about the definitions of categories were resolvedby consensus.

The second type of qualitative data analyzed was all of the student's writtendata, such as notes, jottings, and so on, which were generated while the studentswere studying the article. Three raters reviewed the written data to verify (a) keyelements contained in the articles and (b) coherence and organization in the stu-dents' written notations. All raters were in agreement. (In reality, interview re-sponses were also analyzed to identify responses that linked with observations duringthe videotaping. The information derived from this analysis provided the sameevidence confirmed in the observations.)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe performance differences observed and responses given by the studentsduring the interview session were related to various tenets of the good information

processor model and are presented in this section grouped by categories of studystrategies.Determining the Author s Purpose

Good information processors are able to attend to relevant parts of a text todetermine the author s purpose. Experienced readers are able to detect an auth or'spurpose by attending to within the text cues whereas inexperienced readers are not(Weinstein & M ayer, 1985). The responses of Dino, Jay, and Jennifer as successfulstudents support this finding: Inform ational . . . presents different v iew points(Dino, Jay, Jennifer). In contrast, the unsuccessful students indicated: Biased . . .persuasive in favor of the wo lves (Jerry, Bill). Three raters jud ged the articles tobe informational in purpose, presenting all sides of the issue on the endangeredspecies discussed. Schema theorists argue that comprehension depends on the in-teraction between the learner's knowledge of the characteristics of the message andthe context in which it is given.


7/14


Detecting the Author s Organizational PlanGood information processors attend to cues on organization and structure

offered by an author in a reading passage. In order for students to be able to detectthe organizational plan of the article, it helps for the structure of the text to becohe rent and o rganized (Brown et al., 1982). The selections that I chose from Timeand Science News met these criteria. The three raters who read the passages con-cluded that the authors presented both sides of the issue. The question asked ofstudents was, Do you think that the author had an organizational plan ; for ex-ample, cause/effect, comparison/contrast, problem-solution, in presenting this in-form ation? M ost of the s tuden ts und erstood that the autho r did have anorganizational plan and answered confidently w ith the respon se, To show all sidesof the issue. Jerry and Bill, unsuccessful studen ts, seemed to confuse the organi-zational plan with the author's purpose by answering this question as they hadanswered when asked about the auth or's purpose, Biased . . . persuasive in favorof the wolves.Plann ing for Learning

Good information processors make plans for learning. When asked if theyhad a specific plan when approaching this assignment, all but one student indi-cated and dem onstrated that they did have a plan. Dino's response was typical: Iread it through first; then I took note s. Th e videotape revealed that Dino , a suc-cessful student, approached this assignment with an organized plan in support ofthe good information processor having an orderly plan of attack (Pressley et al.,1989, p. 308). He took detailed notes and worked with a seriousness of purposenever distracted by the video camera. This is consistent with Pressley's et al.'s(1989) contention that good information processors shield themselves from dis-tractions as they perform tasks.Given the theoretical claim that effective learners have flexible, high-levelplans and more self-conscious control of their planning, it is interesting to notethat only Bill, an unsuccessful student, had no apparent plan. Bill's response was, No,I just read it over and over again . Bill rushed through the article, and did notuse the allotted time to study or take note s. Bill seemed like Pressley et al.'s (1989)prototypical impulsive students who do not delay responding in order to plan anduse strategies.Activating Prior Knowledge

Good information processors are able to integrate information in text withprior knowledge. The participants were split on the question, W hen you read thisarticle, did you relate the information to anything you already kno w ? D ino, Jerry,and Bill indicated that they had not related the information to what they knew,whereas Jay, Jennifer, and Tammy indicated that they did:


8/14


9/14

Study trategies 355

in the processing of new information because it focuses attention. When examin-ing the videotapes and all written data, Dino, Jay, and Jennifer, successful stu-dents,all took detailed and organized notes which aided them in recalling impo rtantinformation when they were interviewed. Jerry, an unsuccessful student, also tooknotes but they were not as coherent and well organized as the other notetakers.Tammy and Bill, unsuccessful students, took no notes and claimed that they nevertook notes while studying material. The percent of time the students spent on ob-served study behaviors is reported in Table 2. The successful students spent 5 3 % ofthe 20-minute time allotment to taking notes while reading, whereas the unsuc-cessful students spent only 13% of the time on this activity. Som etimes stud ents,like Tammy and Bill, use strategic approaches that probably do not serve themwell, such as reading only.Consistent with the notion that these differences in notetaking are associatedwith comprehension and meaning of text, I gave each student a five-item objectivequiz at the end of each interview. The students were allowed to use their notesduring the quiz. The resulting grades for each student are as follows: Dino (80%),Jay (10 0% ), Jennifer (100% ), Tammy (80% ), Jerry (60% ), and Bill (20% ).Attitude of Learner

I also wanted to determine the students' attitudes toward studying and theirreactions to this project. Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, and Pressley (1990) foundthat competent strategy use is definitely related to motivation and self-esteem. Iasked the following q uestions: How did you approach this assignment, and howdo you approach study ing in gene ral? Dino, Jay, and Jennifer, the successful stu-dents,were somewh at anxious about the task as:Do it; get it over with . . . thought this might be difficult. (Dino)Little nervous about this, but relaxed about studying. (Jay)A little pressured . . . thought I was going to be part of a group, but relaxed nowthat I'm alone . . . studying depends on class and teacher. (Jennifer)

Table 2Percent of Time Students Spent on Observed Study BehaviorsStudentSuccessfulUnsuccessful

R1442

R/T5313

A1725

T/N1620

Note.R= Read ing: Student is reading article; R/T=Student is reading article and taking notes on a separatepiece of paper; A= An alyzing: Student appears to be rereading the article and/or studying m aterial whilemarking the paper; T/N=T ime not used: Student terminated activity before allotted time .


10/14


In the videotapes Dino, Jay, and Jennifer appear to be very serious approach-ing the task and used most of the time allotted. In contrast, the unsuccessful stu-dents, Tammy, Bill, and Jerry did not appear anxious, approached the task withapparent ease, and did not use time efficiently. W hen asked about this assignment,and how they approach studying, their responses were :

Timid at first. . . more comfortable now. How I approach studying depends onwhat subject I am studying. I just read this through. (Tammy)Just did i t . . . no fee l i n g s . . . I s tudy because I have to . (Bil l)Just did i t . . . most of the time I don 't study. (Jerry)

Perceptions of Students as Successful/UnsuccessfulW hen I decided to examine the study strategies of successful and unsuccessfulstudents, I chose students whom I thought would represent these categories basedon the criteria for selection. In order to tap their awareness of their academ ic ab il-ity, my final question w as, Do you consider yourself to be a successful stud en t?Yes. (Dino, Bill)When I applymyself. (Jay, Jennifer)Most of the time . . . depends on class. (Tammy)In the middle. (Jerry)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONIn this study, I focused on the study strategies of successful and unsuccessfulstudents, with the goal of determining wh ether the good-informa tion-processorm odel proposed by Pressley et al. (1989) captured differences between better and

weaker readers. Good information processors are competent thinkers who knowthe techniques needed to accomplish goals in learn ing. They are also able to assesswhether these goals are being m et and if not, are able to modify strategies to m eetthese goals. Good information processors know how to set an environment forlearning; they are knowledgeable, purposeful, resourceful. Good information pro-cessors know facts and are able to make co nnections.To what extent did the students in the presen t study adhere to the good-infor-mation-processor model ? In fact, there was support for the conclusion that howstudents study involves the interplay of many skills, strategies, knowledge, andattitudes. What has emerged during the course of this study are profiles of sixdiverse, individual learners. Table 3 summarizes the categories of study strategiesused as a model of good information processing. The following is a synthesis ofhow the students in this study measured up to this model.(1) Dino, a successful student, is serious, organized, in control of his learning ,and has good study hab its. He had a plan, took con trol of the task, freed himself


11/14


Table 3Categories of Study Strategies Used as a Model of Good Information Processing

Successful Students Unsuccessful StudentsStudy Strategies Dino Jay Jennifer Jerry Tammy BillDetermining the author's purpose + + + - + -Detecting the author's organizational plan + + + - + -Planning for learning + + + + +Activating prior knowledge - + + +Distinguishing between relevant andirrelevant information + + + . . .Summarizing + + + + + +Notetaking + + + + - -Note.+ Behavior present, - Behavior not present.from distractions, and took detailed notes to aid him in his recall of the informa-tion. He did not, however, activate his prior knowledge when reading the article.Dino closely adh ered to the model of a good information processor presented in allareas except in the area of prior knowledge activation.

(2) Jay, a successful student, is fairly serious and clearly aware of his short-comings when not applyinghimself.He has fair to good study habits. He was ableto articulate his use of strategies, but was no t as purposeful in his goals for learningas the other two successful students. Jay adhered to the model of a good informa-tion processor as presented.(3) Jennifer, a successful student, is enthusiastic about learning and articulateabout when and where to use study strategies. She said that her study habits varywith purpose. She also admitted that she tends to spread herself too thin and thataffects her academic performance. She is clearly in control of her learning. Jenni-fer closely adhered to the model of a good information processor in all areas.(4) Tammy, an unsuccessful student, is quiet, steady, and does what she mustto get by. Her attitude toward learning is affected by preference for class and teacher.Although she took no notes and seemed to waste time as indicated on the video-tape,she did demonstrate strategy use in most of the other areas. She was not ableto distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information in the article. Tammypartially adhered to the model of a good information processor.(5) Jerry, an unsuccessful student, admitted that schoo l has never been easy forhim, but is apparently satisfied with what he has accomplished. He took somenotes, but was not strategic in his planning. He has below average study habits.Jerry did not adhere to the model of a good information processor.(6) Bill, an unsuccessful student, is relaxed and low key. He does not take


12/14


school seriously, and he is not intimidated by learning. He had no apparent plan,took no notes, and was the least efficient in study habits. Bill considers himself asuccessful student but did not adhere to the model of a good information processor.If we examine the data as a whole, we see that the successful students outper-formed the unsuccessful students in their use of study strategies, with the exceptionof Tammy, an unsuccessful student, who was strategic. The videotapes also re-vealed that (a) the successful students approached the assignment with a serious-ness of purpose, and (b) the unsuccessful students appeared restless during thestudying session. The unsuccessful students rushed through the assignment andfinished earlier than the successful ones.Perhaps the most salient finding of all is that each student perceived himselfor herself as a somewhat successful learner and was satisfied with his/her presentstudy habits, whereas only three of the six students Dino, Jay, and Jenniferm etthis study's criteria as successful learners.This finding is consistent with a study by Miller and Yochum (1991), whichexamined students' perceptions of themselves as readers and the strategies theyused to solve reading problem s. W hen they interview ed the students about the typesof reading difficulties they experienced, some students lacked awareness of anydifficulty whereas others were aware of difficulties yet were unable to dem onstrate

appropriate strategies. Similarly, Pressley, Ghatala, Woloshyn, and Pirie (1990)found that students are often not aware of reading competence. In two experimentsconducted with university students, students were asked to rate their confidence toanswers to short-answer and multiple-choice questions after reading challengingpassages. The students had great confidence in their answers even when they werewrong. The authors concluded that when adults read challenging, inconsideratetexts, they may often be unaware of gross comprehension problem s (p. 233 ).In summary, the purpose of this inquiry was to examine the study strategies of

successful and unsuccessful learners. The successful students in this study, for themost part, were motivated to succeed and did use strategies to accomplish thisgoa l. The less successful students were not only less apt to access strategies on theirown, but also lacked self-knowledge of inefficient strategy use. The study is limitedin many respects because of the small sample and the restriction to only one studysession. More research is needed with larger samples to understand good informa-tion processing more completely, especially qu alitative stud ies fleshing out the per-spective that emerged from the quantitative work favored by Pressley et al. (1989)as they developed the good information processor model.

REFERENCESAnderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B . (1984). Studying. In P. David Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading

research(pp. 657 -679 ). New York: Longman.


13/14


Arm bruster, B. B., Echols, C , & Brow n, A. W. (1983). The role of metacognition in reading to learn: Adevelopmental perspective (Report N o. 40). University of Illinois at U rbana-Champaign.

Baker, L., & Brown, A . L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. David P earson (E d.),Handbookof reading research(pp. 35 3-3 94) . New York: Longman .Bork owski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, E. A., & Pressley, M. (199 0). Self-regulated strategy u se: Interde-pendence of me tacognition, attributions, and self-esteem. In B . F. Jones (E d.),Dimensions ofthink-ing: Review of research(pp. 53 -92 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. (1982).Learning, remembering, under-standing(Tech. Rep . No . 244). Urbana-Cham paign: U niversity of Illinois at Urban a-Cham paign.

Brown, A. L., Camp ione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (198 1). Learning to learn: On training students to learn fromtexts.Educational Researcher, 10, 14-21.

Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.

Brow n, J., Bennett, J. M., & Hann a, G. (1981). The Nelson-Denny Reading T est.Chicago: R iverside.Carrier, C. A., & Titus, A. (19 81). Effects of notetaking pretraining and test mode expectations on learningfrom lectures.American Educational Research Journal, 18,385-397.

Devine, T. (1987).Teaching study skills.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Durkin, D. (1978-79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction.

Reading Research Quarterly, 14,4 8 1 -553 .Graham, K., & Robinson, H. A. (1987). Study sk ills handbook: A guide for all teacher. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.Heldenbrand, L ., & Hixon, J. E. (19 91). Video-assisted training of study skills.Elementary SchoolGuid-

ance and Counseling, 26, 121-129.Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model and memory experiments. In L. S.

Cermak and F. I. M. Craik (E ds.).Levels and processing in human mem ory(pp. 429 -466 ). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Kiewra, K. A. (1985) Investigating notetaking and review : A depth of processing alternatives. EducationalPsychologist, 20,2 3 -3 2 .

Loranger, A . L. (1988) T he effect of instruction in three study strategies on the content area learning ofninth grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston Univers ity).University Micro films International,8806752.

Marshak, D. (1979). hm study skills program (teachers guide). Reston, VA: National Association ofSecondary Principals.M arx, R. W., W inne, P. H., & Walsh, J. (1985). Studying student cognition during classroom learning. InM. Pressley and C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Cogn itive learning and m emory in children (pp. 181-203).New York: Springer-Verlag.

Miller, S., & Yochum, N. (1 991). Asking students about the nature of their reading difficulties.Journal ofReading Behavior, 22,4 6 5-4 8 5 .

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation atrisk:The imperative for educa-tional reform.Washington, DC: Government P rinting Office.

Norm an, D. A. (1980). Cog nitive engineering and e ducation. In D. T. Tuna and F. Riefs (E ds.), Problemsolving and education (p. 97). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986 ). Generative effects of notetaking during science lec tures.Journal ofEducational Psychology, 78,34-38 .Peterson, P. L., Sw ing, S. R., Stark, K. D., & W aas, G. A .(1983,A pril).Students reports of their cogni-

tive processes and affective thoughts during classroom instruction. Paper presented at the m eetingof the American Ed ucational Research Association, M ontreal.

Pressley, M ., El-Dinary, P. B., Ga skins, I., Schuder, T. Bergm an, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brow n, R. (199 2).Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading com prehension strategies. Elemen-tary School Journal, 92, 513-555.


14/14


Pressley, M., Ghatala, E. S ., Woloshyn, V., & Pirie, J. (199 0). Sometimes adults miss the main ideas and donot realize it: Confidence in responses to short-answer and multiple-choice comp rehension q uestions.Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 233-249.

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R ., & E vans, E . D. (1989). The challenges of classroomstrategy instruction.Elementary School Journal, 89, 301-342.Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M . (199 4). Colleg e stud en ts' theory of notetak ing derived from their

perceptions of notetaking.Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,323-338 .Weinstein, C , Butterfield, P., Schmidt, C , & Poythress, M . (1982). An experimental program for

remediating learning strategies deficits in academically underprepared students. Austin: Univer-sity of Texas at A ustin.

Weinstein, C , & M ayer, R. E. (1985). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C . Wittrock (Ed .),Hand-book of research on teaching (pp.1-53 .New York: Macm illan.

Manuscript received: March 30, 1994Revision requested: April 15, 1994Revision received: June 1, 1994Accepted for publication: June 10, 1994

the study of strategies ofsuccessful and unsuccessful learners

Documents