A comparison of the effects of students’ expository textcomprehension strategies

Crystal M. Ramsay Æ Rayne A. Sperling Æ Michele M. Dornisch

Received: 9 February 2008 / Accepted: 6 November 2008 / Published online: 16 January 2009� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract This experimental study examined students’ comprehension of challenging,

ecologically valid, history text. We examined the benefits of the elaborative interrogation

(EI) comprehension strategy and the main idea (MI) strategy when compared to an

independent study (IS) control. This work extended previous research and explored the

ecological validity, generalizability, and utility of EI as an effective comprehension

strategy. Dependent measures included a matching test, text-explicit recognition items,

text-implicit recognition items, and a situational interest measure. Demographic data were

collected for descriptive purposes and prior domain knowledge was used as a control

variable. Findings indicated few differences between the MI and EI comprehension

strategies in learning outcomes. Additional results, however, suggested potential for the EI

strategy to increase interest when students have prior knowledge of the text topic.

Keywords Comprehension strategies � Elaborative interrogation � Main idea �Text comprehension � Situational interest

Students in secondary social studies classes and college level general education courses are

required to read lengthy, expository texts about the history of civilizations and countries,

people and places, eras and events. From this reading they are expected to understand

chronology, infer meaning, draw comparisons, analyze cause and effect, evaluate past

decisions, and thoughtfully consider future implications. Despite current moves toward

social studies curriculum reform (e.g., Davis 2001; Warren 2007), textbooks remain the

C. M. Ramsay (&)The Pennsylvania State University, 231 CEDAR Building, University Park, PA 16802, USAe-mail: cmg5@psu.edu

R. A. SperlingThe Pennsylvania State University, 232 CEDAR Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA

M. M. DornischLong Island University, C.W. Post, 720 Northern Boulevard, Brookville, NY 11548, USA

123

Instr Sci (2010) 38:551–570DOI 10.1007/s11251-008-9081-6

primary sources of information at many academic levels and tend to either drive the

curriculum or serve as the de facto curriculum (Tyson-Bernstein 1988; Wakefield 2006).

Unfortunately, textbooks generally are written for purposes of transmission, rather than

construction, of meaning (Spires and Donley 1998). As an additional constraint, although

students in classrooms are likely to be domain novices, unfortunately, they typically

receive little or no guidance from instructors in how to navigate the assigned text and

instead are expected to independently read and understand the content.

This common comprehension scenario can be problematic for students, especially in

history classes. First, while texts are the primary sources of information, students struggle

to comprehend them because they often lack or fail to use appropriate reading strategies.

Second, history texts are written in expository prose, a context in which comprehension

strategies are particularly important. The International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement (as cited in U.S. Department of Education 1992) defines

expository prose as ‘‘continuous text designed to describe factual information to the

reader.’’ As such, these texts are often fact-dense, and students must call upon prerequisite

knowledge in order to successfully comprehend them.

Despite the fact that students are exposed to expository texts in their reading and

language arts classes as well as in content area classes, they still struggle to comprehend

exposition (e.g., Ness 2007). In fact, it has long been generally accepted that learners lack

effective strategies for processing expository text (e.g., Armbruster et al. 1991; Chall et al.

1990; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2000). For example,

large portions of our 8th and 12th grade students are reading below expectations (NCES

2005). Further, recent National Report Card data indicate no significant percentage

increase since 2005 among 8th graders scoring proficient in reading (NCES 2007). ACT

(2006) also recently indicated that many entering college learners are ill-prepared to face

the rigors of learning from exposition. As a result, research to assist students in effective

comprehension of expository text continues (e.g., Montelongo et al. 2006; Taboada and

Guthrie 2006; Van Keer and Verhaeghe 2005). In this study we specifically examined

students’ learning from expository history texts.

History texts are riddled with many of the same problems that characterize texts in other

domains. However, history texts also have unique characteristics that pose particular

challenges for learners’ comprehension. Marcus (2000) lamented the unique problems of

history texts for both the sage historian and the novice reader. He pointed to syntax,

vocabulary, obscure internal references, and uncertain historical context as some of the

problematic issues in history texts. Text authors’ need to describe many events within a

relatively short amount of space results in text that is, simultaneously, fact-dense and fact-

sparse. Without sufficient explanation, students often experience confusion about agents

and actions in the context of historical events, struggle without explicit details, and find

themselves reading about resolutions to problems when the problems themselves have not

even been discussed (Beck et al. 1991). Given these circumstances, there is a critical need

for learners to display content-related skills such as the ability to make inferences (Myers

and Savage 2005).

Thus, history texts are problematic for students. Over the last decade and a half,

researchers have examined ways texts might be revised to improve student comprehension

(e.g., Beck et al. 1991; Gilabert et al. 2005). An alternative is further exploration of the

strategies readers can employ when engaged with challenging expository texts. One logical

place to turn for support is the body of literature that investigates effective student com-

prehension strategies. The National Reading Panel Report (NICHHD 2000) supports the

use of comprehension strategies and proposes purposeful and active interaction between

552 C. M. Ramsay et al.

123

text and reader. The Panel reported eight empirically supported strategies. In this work we

selected and examined two of the strategies with known empirical support, self-questioning

and summarizing, and compared their effectiveness against an independent study (IS)

control condition.

Elaborative interrogation (EI) is a specific self-questioning strategy (e.g., Callender and

McDaniel 2007; King 1992; Martin and Pressley 1991; Ozgungor and Guthrie 2004) not

previously studied in the context of history texts. Identifying main ideas (MI) is a specific

summarizing strategy often taught to young learners. Therefore, most high school and

college learners have been exposed to MI and have likely had opportunities to practice MI

in a host of settings (e.g., Jitendra et al. 2000; Sjostrom and Hare 1984; Stevens 1988).

What is not clear, and which is the focus of this study, is the extent to which prompting

college students’ use of these strategies can be effective in helping them to understand their

history texts.

In addition to the general research need identified by the Reading Panel Report is an

ongoing federal call for research to mitigate comprehension problems among older stu-

dents (Biancarosa and Snow 2004) and with expository text currently in use in the domain

of social studies (Office of Educational Research and Improvement 2002). There are

strategies that may facilitate effective comprehension, but it is yet unclear whether college

learners can independently employ these strategies with ecologically valid history text.

Also uncertain is the extent to which these strategies can be effectively used without

explicit and sustained strategy instruction. Our current research addressed these needs and

purposes. Further, we extended research that examines the MI strategy and the EI strategy

by focusing on historical text and providing learners a long expository passage. We also

specifically extended previous EI research by considering the efficacy of the strategy when

compared to the well-established MI strategy.

In the current study we explored two experimental conditions and one control condition.

First, participants in the IS control were instructed to read the text as for a class. No

strategies were required nor instructed for this condition. As such, learners were free to use

any strategy they desired, including no strategy, as they read the text. While not a primary

focus of the present study, the question of what default strategies learners use is relevant

given the IS control we used. Wade et al. (1990) studied spontaneous study strategies used

by college learners when reading expository texts. In their work, they identified and

collapsed fourteen study tactics into six types of ‘‘studiers.’’ Interestingly, no significant

differences in students’ immediate recall were found among these six types. Other research

has also explored IS strategies both in traditional and technology-rich reading environ-

ments (e.g., Boudreau et al. 1999; Coiro and Dobler 2007; Wood and Hewitt 1993). In the

current study, we suspect IS participants used what Wade and colleagues characterized as

mental learning tactics or reading tactics as they read the experimental history text. That is,

we believe that readers in the IS control used unobservable cognitive strategies (e.g.,

imagery, self-questioning, re-reading) that did not result in verifiable artifacts but which

facilitated comprehension.

The first experimental strategy condition in the current research was the MI strategy.

Consistent with long-standing views on MI and its critical role in reading comprehension

(e.g., Axelrod 1975; Jitendra et al. 2001), we define MIs as the ‘‘gist of a text’’ (Armbruster

et al. 1987, p. 332). The MI is a function of both text structure and reader construction. As

such, it is critical for comprehension that learners are able to both identify and generate MIs.

In addition to foundational research that has established the viability of MI as a compre-

hension strategy, recent research has further explored the strategy as a component of

comprehensive, multi-component comprehension strategies (e.g., Armbruster et al. 1987;

Comprehension strategies 553

123

Gajria et al. 2007; Jitendra et al. 2000; Mason et al. 2006; Mastropieri et al. 2003; Meyer

et al. 1980, 2002; Stevens 1988; Therrien et al. 2006; Williams 2005).

A large body of research, accumulated over the last few decades, has established the MI

as a successful reading strategy. The numerous studies published in the 1980s and 1990s

led to a focus on the MI in school curricula. While the extent to which MI is overtly taught

to students and the extent to which students can use the strategy are uncertain, conventional

thinking supports that MI is taught systematically to students of a wide range of ages and

ability levels. Shiel’s presentation at the 2006 World Congress on Reading in Budapest (as

reported in ‘‘Studies Capture a World of Reading Instruction’’ 2006) highlighted recent

PISA/PIRLS data. He reported that by second grade, identifying MIs is a strategy

emphasized in reading instruction in the United States, and 94% of students report their

teacher emphasizing MI on a weekly basis.

In fact, available reading instructional materials for both elementary (e.g., Harcourt

Brace, 2003; Heartsoft software 2007; Houghton Mifflin 2008) and secondary (e.g.,

McDougal Littell 2007) levels illustrate an emphasis on the MI within their texts and

activities for readers (e.g., see Fig. 1). In short, there is much to support that American

curricula expose learners to the importance of the MI. Nonetheless, there is mixed evidence

regarding how extensively the MI strategy is taught in practice. For example, Pressley et al.

(1998), in an extensive year-long observational study of literacy practices in ten elemen-

tary classrooms, found a great divide between what teachers know about the effectiveness

of MI and their direct teaching of the strategy.

In the current study, we examined MI as an experimental study condition. In the MI

condition, participants were required to identify MIs. They copied and pasted relevant MI

statements from the text and stated the MI in their own words. We designed this condition

to determine the benefits of the MI strategy when compared to EI and spontaneous study

strategies.

The second experimental condition in the current study was an EI condition. Elabora-

tions can be ‘‘any information that supports, clarifies, or further specifies the main points of

Fig. 1 Screenshot of McDougal Littel page (pupils’ edition, Chap. 19, p. 578) highlighting section mainidea

554 C. M. Ramsay et al.

123

a text’’ (Reder et al. 1986, p. 64). Generating elaborations prompts retrieval of appropriate

prior knowledge (e.g., Pressley et al. 1988; Willoughby et al. 1993; Woloshyn et al. 1992,

1994) by providing ‘‘multiple retrieval routes to the essential information’’ (Reder et al.

1986, p. 64). EI links prior knowledge and to-be-learned information. This process can be

described in terms of generative cognitive processing (Wittrock 1990).

According to generative processing theory, for reading to be more than a simple process

of word recognition, learners must activate prior knowledge and relate it to text con-

structions (Wittrock 1990). Readers must apply meaning to the text in order to distill

meaning from it. From this perspective, effective comprehension ‘‘involves generative

cognitive processes that create meaning by building relations (a) among the parts of the

text and (b) between the text and what we know, believe, and experience’’ (Wittrock 1990,

p. 347). The focus of EI directly addresses the second process. MI and other summarization

strategies, and EI as a generative questioning strategy, are consistent with current theo-

retical views of text comprehension (e.g., Cromley and Azevedo 2007; Rapp et al. 2007;

Sadoski and Paivio 2007). Strategic processing is a critical component of these views.

Elaborative interrogation is a specific strategy related to the broader process of elabo-

ration. Pressley et al. (1988) coined the term ‘‘Elaborative Interrogation’’ to refer to the

strategy they required learners to employ by generating elaborations in response to ‘‘why’’

questions posed about to-be-learned facts (Pressley et al. 1992, p. 97). Elaboration of text,

generally, and as interrogation, is discussed in several dozen studies. The purposes of these

studies were varied and findings were mixed. In the context of reading comprehension,

researchers explored the effectiveness of EI among different populations, with different

text lengths and topics, and between learner-generated and experimenter-generated elab-

orations. Researchers also questioned whether the quality of the elaboration makes a

difference. EI has been studied with children and adults, regular education students and

exceptional children, and individuals as well as groups. However, only a limited number of

studies have addressed older learners and longer text (e.g., Boudreau et al. 1999; Dornisch

and Sperling 2006; Hamilton 1997).

Although the effectiveness of EI has been examined on a range of text lengths, much of

the existing research has examined the benefit of EI for learning facts contained in single

sentences (e.g., Martin and Pressley 1991; O’Reilly et al. 1998; Willoughby et al. 2000).

Stein and Bransford’s (1979) work, among the earliest, also focused on precision of

elaborations of single sentences. Pressley et al. (1987) used the same base sentences as

Stein and Bransford, but instead prompted participants to provide an elaboration for ‘‘why’’

the base sentence was true. These and other similar studies (e.g., Greene et al. 1996;

Pressley et al. 1988) demonstrated significant learning gains from EI. In a study by

Woloshyn et al. (1994), substantial gains from EI persisted even on delayed tests

administered 6 months later.

Some researchers moved beyond elaboration of facts or single sentences and addressed

the effects of EI on several fact statements combined into paragraphs (e.g., Woloshyn et al.

1990; Wood et al. 1990). These test materials were simply sentences bundled together, not

necessarily paragraphs structured with super-ordinate and subordinate ideas. This slight

departure from single fact statements still resulted in substantial benefits for learners who

used EI. A comparatively small number of researchers utilized texts that were short

expository paragraphs to examine the effects of EI (e.g., Seifert 1993). A more recent but

limited research base considered texts of longer lengths more typical of authentic passages

(e.g., Boudreau et al. 1999; Dornisch and Sperling 2004, 2006; Greene et al. 1996;

Ozgunger and Guthrie 2004; Seifert 1994). Whether single sentences or longer passages,

experimental texts used in EI studies have represented a range of topics. History, one broad

Comprehension strategies 555

123

topic area missing from EI research, is the subject of the experimental text in the present

study.

Another variable considered in the EI literature is experimenter or author-generated

elaborations versus learner-generated elaborations. There are differences in the effective-

ness of elaborations based upon who generates the elaboration. Reder et al. (1986) noted

that text authors are perhaps the best people to create questions to facilitate recall of target

information. However, there are compelling reasons, supported by generative processing

and current views of reading comprehension (e.g., Rapp et al. 2007; Sadoski and Paivio

2007), why both questions and responses should be generated by the learner. These views

support that learners make sense of new information by generating a response to what they

are reading and by connecting new information to their existing prior knowledge. The

connections made during this process are unique to the learner and to his own experiences,

constructions, and comprehension. This constructive process applies to both question

generation and answer generation. Findings from many EI studies support the benefits of

learner-generated elaborations (e.g., King 1992; Pressley et al. 1992; Stein and Bransford

1979).

Related to learner-generated elaborations is the question of whether elaboration quality

makes a difference in text recall. Among the few studies that have examined this issue,

findings are mixed. Some (e.g., Reder et al. 1986; Stein and Bransford 1979) determined

that elaboration quality makes a difference, while others (e.g., Pressley et al. 1987, 1988;

Seifert 1993; Woloshyn et al. 1994) found that active attempts to process answers to

‘‘why’’ questions, regardless of accuracy or quality, results in improved recall.

EI has also been compared to other comprehension strategies and text manipulations

such as an underlining strategy (Seifert 1993), analogy-enhanced text (McDaniel and

Donnelly 1996), and text that is both consistent and inconsistent with prior knowledge

(Woloshyn et al. 1994). In this work we compared the learning outcomes among readers

exposed to EI, the well-established MI strategy, and an IS condition.

Despite the apparent benefits of the EI strategy as a student comprehension strategy

(e.g., Pressley et al. 1987, 1988; Seifert 1993, 1994), there are several limitations of

previous EI research. In this study we addressed three of these limitations. First, most

previous work has lacked ecological validity. Target learning materials used in prior work

were single sentences or short passages (e.g., Greene et al. 1996; Seifert 1993). Second, the

generalizability of EI to history text is unknown. Previously studied learning materials

addressed only a limited number of topics, none of which included history (e.g., Boudreau

et al. 1999; Greene et al. 1996; McDaniel and Donnelly 1996). Third, the utility of EI is

unclear. EI has not always been more effective than other comprehension strategies (e.g.,

Boudreau et al. 1999; Dornisch and Sperling 2004, 2006; Pressley et al. 1988; Wood and

Hewitt 1993; Wood et al. 1994), especially as texts more closely resemble those used in

classrooms.

The current study addressed these issues of ecological validity, generalizability, and

utility. We examined EI with learners who read a long, historical text passage. In addition,

we considered prior knowledge as an essential individual difference variable for new

learning (e.g., Pressley et al. 1988), an important variable in the effective use of EI (e.g.,

Martin and Pressley 1991), and a critical self-regulation variable (e.g., Alexander 1995).

We also examined text interest.

Specifically, this study considered readers’ comprehension when they were provided an

EI or MI strategy prompt or when they used their typical, IS approach. To this end, our

research questions focused on differences in dependent measure scores with respect to

556 C. M. Ramsay et al.

123

prompted comprehension strategy, relations between prior knowledge and effective use of

EI, and relations between EI and reported interest in a text after reading it.

Our first research question examined whether learners’ comprehension of declarative

knowledge, as measured by a matching task, differed based upon strategy condition. None

of the instructions in any of the three conditions prompted readers to attend specifically to

the names of people in the passage they were about to read. Yet, the matching task targeted

names. It was expected that college learners would be accustomed to reading text for

comprehension and would consider knowledge of names important in a history text.

Therefore, no specific benefit for MI or EI strategy use was hypothesized on the matching

test. However, given that the two strategy condition prompts directed learners’ selective

attention away from the declarative knowledge assessed on the matching test, a slight

advantage was expected for the IS control condition on this outcome. The expected pattern

of results for the matching assessment was MI = EI \ IS.

Our second research question examined whether learners’ comprehension, as measured

by text-explicit items, differed based upon comprehension strategy condition. Once again,

it was expected that college learners would be accustomed to reading for lower level

recognition. However, we expected that MI and EI condition learners would see benefits of

strategy use on a simple associative task as represented by the text-explicit items. Previous

research found significant results on recognition tasks following EI, but not on tasks of

recall (e.g., Martin and Pressley 1991; Woloshyn et al. 1994). In contrast to the matching

outcomes which demanded learners recognize isolated facts, in this case names, the text-

explicit items required learners to associate facts through connections within the text. A

summarization strategy such as MI should enhance learners’ abilities to make such con-

nections. Therefore, we expected those in the MI condition to outperform those in the IS

condition. Further, although the EI strategy requires learners to make connections outside

of the text, successful use of the EI strategy also requires a complete text-based repre-

sentation. As such, we felt EI would perform as well as MI on lower-level recognition

items, and therefore our expected pattern of results on these items was IS \ MI = EI

Our third question examined whether learners’ comprehension, as measured by text-

implicit items, differed based upon strategy condition. As described, there is research

evidence to suggest that EI improves recall of facts made explicit in text. In authentic texts

used in classrooms, however, not all important information is made explicit. We expected

learners to benefit from the strategy interventions that targeted text-implicit, inferential

information. We expected that the pattern of results for the text-implicit outcomes would

be IS \ MI \ EI.

The purpose of the research questions was to address whether the MI and EI strategy

conditions have a direct link to improved recognition performance. We questioned, too,

whether the experimental strategies might have an indirect effect on performance. Our

final research question explored the effects of strategy condition on students’ post reading

interest in the text. Numerous studies have established the important role of interest in new

learning (e.g., Hidi 2001; Schraw et al. 1995; Schraw and Dennison 1994; Schraw and

Lehman 2001). It was expected that the strategy conditions would serve to increase interest

in the experimental text materials. It was further anticipated that the EI condition would

have a larger interest effect than the MI condition because of the intentional connection to

learners’ prior knowledge.

Research on reader interest (e.g., Ainley et al. 2002; Schraw et al. 1995; Schraw and

Lehman 2001) contrasts two related types of interest in text, personal interest and situa-

tional interest. Schraw et al. (1995) developed instruments to measure personal interest,interest unique to each individual and related to prior knowledge and intrinsic motivation,

Comprehension strategies 557

123

and of importance in this study, situational interest, the spontaneous interest sparked by

context. A measure of situational interest was included to examine differences in reported

interest in the text among readers employing different comprehension strategies. We

expected that the pattern of interest results across conditions would reflect questionnaire

means such that IS \ MI \ EI.

Method

Participants

Participants in this experimental study were 296 females and 57 males recruited from

introductory educational psychology classes at a large Mid-Atlantic university. While

students’ semester standing ranged from first semester to graduate, 84% of participants

were first-year students or sophomores. All students received a small amount of extra credit

toward their course grade in exchange for participation in the study. Students represented

diverse majors in the social sciences. However, very few participants were enrolled in

academic majors directly related to the text topic. Those with relevant majors included two

history majors and eight secondary education/social studies majors.

Materials and measures

Target text

In this study the text was delivered electronically regardless of condition. Consistent with

other related recent research (e.g., Dornisch and Sperling 2006; Dreyer and Nel 2003) and

practice, learners are increasingly required to read electronically delivered text for their

academic classes (NCES 2000). The target text, with a Flesch-Kinkaid reading level of

12.0, was a 5518-word passage from an actual American History survey text (Foner 2005).No changes were made to the experimental text other than changing the text delivery to an

electronic page and breaking the text into segments. The text therefore represented an

ecologically valid, fact-dense, history text as typically found in college classrooms. The

same experimental text, comprised of 62 paragraphs with an average of 5.3 sentences per

paragraph, was used across experimental conditions and was divided into ten segments

based upon naturally occurring content breaks. Text for the IS condition contained unin-

terrupted expository text with appropriate section headings. For the MI and EI strategy

conditions, text boxes, in which participants typed required responses, were provided at

each of the section breaks (see Fig. 2).

Measures included a demographic questionnaire, a prior knowledge assessment, a

matching test, a multiple-choice recognition test that included both text-explicit and text-

implicit items, and an interest questionnaire.

Demographic questionnaire

Prior to the reading, all participants completed a demographic questionnaire that queried

age, gender, major, semester standing, and previously taken courses in American History.

These data provided descriptive information about the sample.

558 C. M. Ramsay et al.

123

Prior knowledge test

Participants next completed an 8-item multiple-choice prior knowledge test that assessed

students’ general prior knowledge of American History around the time of the Gilded Age,

1870–1900. Questions addressed Native Americans, politics in the 1850s, Americans’

westward migration, and U.S. domestic and foreign policy during the late 19th and early

20th centuries. All items were taken from the state of Georgia’s End-of-Course-Test: U.S.

History released test booklet (2004). An example prior knowledge item is When TheodoreRoosevelt said, ‘‘Speak softly and carry a big stick,’’ he was trying to gain support for (a)imposing harsh laws to reduce crime; (b) supporting women’s suffrage to expand civilrights; (c) building a powerful navy to aid United States diplomacy; or (d) using nationalforests to stimulate building projects.

The prior knowledge test served as an assessment of general, but related, prior

knowledge. Items on this test were not directly covered in the text nor were they included

on the multiple choice test. The prior knowledge test was short, with only eight items; and

the content scope was broader than the experimental text content. This purposeful design

allowed for some assessment of prior knowledge of the historical era under study, while

circumventing the internal validity threat of pretest content cuing posttest responses. The

tradeoff was low reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .36), resulting in a potential instrument

threat, such that we may or may not have ascertained reliable information about partici-

pants’ prior knowledge from this assessment.

Fig. 2 Screenshot of target text and embedded response boxes for elaborative interrogation condition

Comprehension strategies 559

123

Matching test

After exposure to the learning materials and conditions, to assess students’ knowledge-level

comprehension (Bloom et al. 1956), a 17-item matching test (Cronbach’s alpha = .78) was

administered. The matching test assessed name recognition of historical figures discussed in

the text. Using a drop-down menu that included the full range of possible responses,

participants matched key historical figures with the event, quotation, or literary work with

which they were associated. Answers could be used more than once. Participants were not

permitted to return to the text while completing this or any of the other assessments.

Multiple-choice recognition test

A 30-item multiple-choice recognition test assessed both text-explicit (n = 19) and text-

implicit (n = 11) comprehension. To assure the representativeness of the test related to text

content, we constructed the recognition dependent measure by dividing the text into seg-

ments and designing questions around each segment. The Cronbach’s alpha for this

multidimensional multiple-choice test including both item types was .66. While less than

ideal, such reliability is comparable to reliabilities on teacher-made tests and is considered

appropriate for group research tests as indicated by international rating systems of test quality

(e.g., Evers 2001). Therefore, we deemed this reliability acceptable. An example of a text-

explicit item is: Which of the following is NOT a cause for the second industrial revolution inAmerica? (a) Abundant natural resources; (b) Low tariffs to promote trade; (c) Availablecapital for investment; or (d) A growing labor supply. An example of a text-implicit item is:

The Dennisons settled in South Dakota and ranched the land around the turn of the century.Which of the following was most critical to their economic survival as a rural family? (a)Trade with Canada; (b) European supplies; (c) Accessible electricity; or (d) Transconti-nental railroads. For no items were participants permitted to look back at the text.

Interest questionnaire

The Perceived Interest Questionnaire (PIQ) (Schraw et al. 1995) was administered at the

conclusion of the study session. The 10-item PIQ employs a 5-point Likert-type scale

where 1 = low agreement and 5 = high agreement. Possible scores range from 10 to 50.

The PIQ measured situational interest, the overall interest a learner felt while reading the

text. Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was .90, a figure commensurate with reli-

ability reported by Schraw et al. (1995).

Procedure

At the time of recruitment, participants were given a link to the study’s website. They were

told to allow approximately one hour to complete the study and that they could log onto the

website at their convenience when their schedules allowed. Random assignment was

conducted via computer once students logged into the site.

In the IS condition, participants were told why the study was important, were asked to

carefully read the text as they might read for a class, and were informed that they would be

asked some test-like questions at the end of the reading activity. Participants were not

instructed to use any strategies as they read. Of course, this does not mean that they did not

use any. Rather, they were left to make their own strategy choices. There was no electronic

note-taking mechanism for those in the IS condition. Participants in the IS group, as well as

560 C. M. Ramsay et al.

123

those in both experimental conditions, were directed to the dependent measures upon

completion of the reading and were not permitted to return to the text.

For each of the experimental conditions, participants were also asked to read carefully,

were told why the study was important, and were given advance information that they

would be asked to answer some test-like questions at the end. In addition, for the two

strategy conditions, MI and EI, the strategy itself was briefly described and modeled. These

descriptions and examples were adapted from Seifert’s (1993) study conducted on a non-

history topic.

The MI condition focused on both identification and restatement of the MIs found

within the text. As they read, participants in the MI condition copied and pasted relevant

sentences or phrases into the response box at the end of the specific section of the text.

When finished with the reading, copying, and pasting tasks for each section, participants

were asked to write, in their own words, the MI of that specific section.

The EI condition focused on both the identification and elaboration of the MIs within

the text. Participants were asked to copy and paste MI statements and to pose and answer

‘‘why’’ questions. Participants were told that as they read they would be periodically asked

to (1) highlight MIs and copy the text into an appropriate text box, (2) generate ‘‘why’’

questions about the text content, and (3) respond to the ‘‘why’’ questions.

As they read, participants in the EI condition copied and pasted MI statements, posed

‘‘why’’ questions in provided response boxes, and responded to the questions they posed.

As with the MI condition, they completed one section at a time. In both conditions,

participants were able to scroll up to revise previous responses. When they finished with

the instructional materials, participants in all conditions were directed to the dependent

measures. They were not permitted to return to the text while completing the tests.

Results

An ANOVA was first conducted with prior knowledge as the dependent variable and

condition as the independent variable to assure that there were no preexisting differences in

prior knowledge by condition. The prior knowledge pretest results were non-significant,

F(2,352) = .53, p = .59, indicating no significant difference in prior knowledge among

participants by condition prior to treatment.

The first research question examined potential differences among learners’ performance

on the matching test by condition. It was hypothesized that learners in the IS condition

would outperform learners in both the MI and EI conditions on the matching task. There

was a significant effect in the predicted direction, F(2,352) = 3.51, p = .03. Tukey post hoc

comparisons indicated differences between MI and IS (p = .04) and between EI and IS

(p = .08). Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for each learning outcome

by condition.

The second research question addressed whether there were differences among strategy

conditions for text-explicit recognition test items. Mean scores on text-explicit recognition

test items were hypothesized to be lowest in the IS condition, with no significant difference

predicted between MI and EI conditions. Although there were no significant differences,

F(2,352) = 1.624, p = .20, mean scores were in the opposite direction from that hypothe-

sized. Participants in the IS condition scored highest and MI participants scored lowest.

The third research question examined potential differences across conditions on text-

implicit recognition test items. In contrast to the text-explicit items addressed in the pre-

vious research question, learners in the two strategy conditions were expected to

Comprehension strategies 561

123

outperform learners in the IS condition on text-implicit recognition items. We further

expected that learners in the EI condition would outperform those in the MI condition on

this inferential task. Results indicated that the mean scores were in the expected direction

but were not significant, F(2,352) = 2.24, p = .11.

To address the fourth research question, we examined the interest measure, the PIQ, in

two ways. The first analysis conducted was a one-way ANOVA to determine whether there

were differences in reported interest scores among strategy conditions. It was hypothesized

that using the EI strategy would result in greater interest in the text than use of the MI

strategy. Although not significant at p = .05, there was a moderate effect, F(2,352) = 2.66,

p = .07, with those in the EI condition reporting the highest mean interest scores.

To further explore the relations among EI, interest, and prior knowledge, we analyzed

PIQ scores relative to high prior knowledge and low prior knowledge subgroups. For

analytical purposes, the prior knowledge test, M = 4.58 (1.53), was divided into extreme

groups. The low prior knowledge group encompassed all participants whose prior

knowledge test scores were lower than 5.0 (n = 168). High prior knowledge scores were

those greater than 5.0 (n = 103) (see Table 2).

Participants considered to be low prior knowledge in the EI condition had the lowest

average interest scores across all conditions. In contrast, those considered to be high prior

knowledge in the EI condition reported the highest average interest across all groups. In

spite of the patterns noted, analyses revealed non-significant differences among treatment

means for high and low knowledge participants.

Discussion

In this study we examined the effectiveness of prompted MI and EI strategies when

compared to students’ IS while reading ecologically valid expository history text. We

considered students’ prior knowledge, examined students’ learning on three outcome

measures, and addressed students’ perceived interest in the text passage after reading.

Table 1 Comparative means on outcome measures by condition

Dependent measure IS MI EIn = 126 n = 119 n = 108

Prior knowledge 4.67 (1.52) 4.47 (1.55) 4.61 (1.53)

Matching 4.56 (3.36) 3.68 (2.54) 3.76 (2.61)

Recognition total 13.50 (4.07) 12.67 (3.73) 13.66 (4.45)

Recognition text-explicit 7.55 (2.55) 6.92 (2.50) 7.36 (2.94)

Recognition text-implicit 5.95 (1.86) 5.75 (1.95) 6.30 (2.10)

Interest 22.75 (7.21) 21.18 (6.86) 23.21 (7.06)

Table 2 Comparative means oninterest survey relative to priorknowledge

Prior knowledge level Condition

IS MI EI

Low 22.07 (8.25) 20.24 (7.02) 20.13 (6.63)

n = 58 n = 63 n = 47

High 22.23 (5.80) 23.55 (7.32) 25.30 (7.42)

n = 39 n = 31 n = 33

562 C. M. Ramsay et al.

123

Overall the findings from this study suggest that neither EI nor MI is a more effective

comprehension strategy for college learners than IS strategies. Conditions in this study,

consistent with typical reading tasks in history classes, required learners to comprehend a

lengthy and challenging expository passage. Our findings support some previous research

that indicates as passages become more ecologically valid, EI is less effective (Seifert

1993). Despite the relative lack of benefit for MI or EI, specific results point to important

conclusions and implications. Further, the effect of the EI process on readers’ interest

offers some tentative implications for research and practice as well.

In the current study, our first research question asked whether learners’ comprehension

of declarative knowledge, as measured by a matching task, would differ among strategy

conditions. It was hypothesized that learners in the IS condition would outperform learners

in both the MI and EI conditions. Results indicated a significant effect in the hypothesized

direction. The IS control outperformed both the MI and EI conditions. There was no

significant difference between the MI and EI conditions. Instructions for all three condi-

tions directed students to focus on MIs. The matching task, however, focused on names of

people mentioned in the text. Thus it is not surprising that readers did not focus their

attention on the people highlighted. A matching task focused on MIs would have likely

yielded a different result.

These findings are important because they support that not all strategies are effective for

all learning outcomes. We must be selective in prompting learners to use specific strate-

gies. The nature of the strategies employed for effective comprehension should match the

types of learning outcomes that will be required of learners. Further, based upon what is

known about effective strategy instruction, learners must be taught conditional knowledge

as they are taught strategies, so they are best able to ascertain when and why to use

particular strategies.

As noted, the spontaneous strategies that these college learners used were as effective as

prompted use of both MI and EI. Future research should examine what strategy or strat-

egies learners independently use when reading texts similar to the text employed in this

study. It is likely that readers in the IS condition used more effective strategies for

responding to knowledge-based recognition items. College learners are more likely than

other readers to have a repertoire of reading strategies, and it is possible that without the

prompted strategy use, learners in the IS condition used a strategy that focused attention on

what they thought to be important, specifically factual, knowledge-based information

within the text. For these experienced readers with a practiced repertoire of strategies, their

self-selected strategies yielded better results than the prompted strategies. A second pos-

sibility is that IS participants were using the MI strategy but without meeting the strict

copy-paste-rewrite requirements of the actual MI condition. For those in the MI condition,

the interruptive and demanding nature of the copy and paste task may have been dis-

tracting, thus reducing the effects of the MI strategy. A potential follow-up study regarding

our first research question might examine the benefits of the MI strategy as used in this

study compared to requiring students to simply note the MI. Results would inform our

question about the demanding nature of the current MI task and whether it reduced the

overall effect of the general MI strategy.

As on the other learning outcomes, students in all three conditions performed poorly on

the multiple-choice test. The text was authentic but challenging and the assessments

indicated that learners did not fully comprehend the text. While this performance may be

attributed partly to ineffective strategies, it may also be explained by text length. It may be

that the complexity and length of the text made it challenging for the students to generate a

concise MI. Seifert (1993) suggested that prose, by its very nature, may provide needed

Comprehension strategies 563

123

elaborations. When important ideas and facts are embedded in the context of other

information, prior knowledge may be activated before the elaboration even occurs, thus

reducing the effectiveness of the EI strategy. Further, findings from Dornisch and Sperling

(2006) suggested learners may not be able to construct elaborated responses to questions

embedded in longer texts.

The second research question addressed whether there were differences among strategy

conditions for text-explicit recognition items. Unlike the matching task, the text-explicit

items on the multiple choice test were relevant to the MIs, making the multiple choice test

more transfer-appropriate. Mean scores on text-explicit recognition items were hypothe-

sized to be lowest in the IS condition, with no significant difference predicted between MI

and EI conditions. We assumed that college learners, especially learners in survey history

courses, are accustomed to attending to text-explicit information. We expected readers in

the IS condition to have a host of strategies to aid their comprehension of this type of

information, but we anticipated benefit from the specific prompted strategy used by

learners in the MI and EI conditions. Interestingly, such a benefit was not found in this

study, and there were no significant differences found among strategy conditions. We

considered that interrupting readers to employ the MI or EI strategy may have been

distracting and hindered students’ effective knowledge construction.

Further, the elaborations generated by the learners in the EI condition may have drawn

them too far outside of the text and distracted them from explicit text information. Most

previous EI research has not addressed the quality of ‘‘why’’ questions. Some researchers

(e.g., Boudreau et al. 1999; Willoughby et al. 1993; Wood and Hewitt 1993) have scored

students’ responses to elaborative questions. Typical scoring protocols score responses as

simply ‘‘adequate,’’ ‘‘inadequate,’’ or ‘‘no response.’’ Dornisch and Sperling (2006) used a

more extensive and specific scoring rubric for assessing learners’ level of transfer after

elaboration strategies. Future research should examine how well students generate EI

questions and may further illuminate students’ actual use of the EI strategy.

A contributing factor for why those in the IS performed as well as those in the

experimental conditions is likely that college learners are accustomed to taking explicit

multiple choice test items from content they read in texts. It is possible, then, that the

practice learners have had with their selected personal strategies outweighed benefits of the

MI and EI strategy prompts.

The third research question examined differences among conditions on text-implicit

multiple-choice items. It was expected that learners in the EI condition would outperform

those in the other two conditions. There were no significant differences among conditions

on this outcome assessment. There may be likely explanations related to contextual

variables such as level of prior knowledge and instructional scaffolding.

First, it was clear from the prior knowledge test that participants had low prior

knowledge. The mean score on the prior knowledge test was 4.8 out of 8 possible.

Unfortunately, learners with limited prior knowledge of history are often asked to read and

comprehend long, expository history text. The text in this study was challenging. It could

be that knowledge deficits and challenging text combined to render all of the strategies

unhelpful. As a result, performance on the outcome assessments was generally low.

This study provides some insight into the relative benefit of prompting students to use

the MI and EI strategies as they face a challenging reading task for which they have little

knowledge. Our findings indicate neither the MI nor EI strategies may be very viable under

these circumstances. This is not surprising for the EI strategy, since EI relies on prior

knowledge. For the MI strategy, students with low knowledge may expend so much

cognitive energy on reading the challenging text that little remains to generate a MI. Thus,

564 C. M. Ramsay et al.

123

differences in prior knowledge and cognitive effort may make time-on-task a relevant

issue. Although there were no apparent differences in time among conditions, future

research can explore time as a possible covariate. In spite of limitations for low knowledge

readers, MI and EI may be beneficial strategies when learners have a more substantial

knowledge base. Curious about the affect of our sample’s few history majors, we ran

analyses without them included; results did not change.

A test of the same reading and measures on a large pool of history majors may yield a

different result than that seen here. Future research and practice should consider the

conditions under which readers should employ a strategy.

Second, it may be that to fulfill the potential of these strategies, learners require more

instruction and practice in their use. In the current study, learners were provided brief

instructions, an example model, and text boxes to implement the strategy. Existing

research establishes effective strategy instruction includes attention to procedural and

conditional knowledge and instruction over time (e.g., Hilden and Pressley 2007; Mason

et al. 2006). In the absence of such extensive strategy instruction, our findings suggested

more benefit from student-selected strategies than from the selected prompted strategies.

Future research should explore the nature of the instruction necessary to best support

learners’ effective use of these strategies when their use is warranted.

The final research question explored the effects of strategy use on situational interest.

Many learners find history text ‘boring’ and challenging to read. We questioned whether

strategy use might increase situational interest. We hypothesized that it would and that

learners who used EI, in particular, would be more interested in the text than those who

used MI and IS strategies because the EI strategy draws the reader into the text through

activation of related prior knowledge. In the current study we considered the possibility

that there is a relation between EI and interest. Future research should continue to explore

this connection, as both the highest and lowest interest scores fell within the EI group.

It may be that for some readers EI serves a ‘catch’ function as described by Mitchell

(1993) in his studies of mathematics learning. For high knowledge learners, as measured in

this study, who are capable of making meaningful connections with the text, this situational

enhancement results in an ‘empowering’ (Mitchell 1993, p. 426) experience that maintains

their interest. However, it appears that for low knowledge readers who may not have the

depth of knowledge to make meaningful connections, use of the EI strategy is not an

interest-inducing task. One limitation of the current study that may have impacted our

findings was placement of the interest survey after all other dependent measures. Greater

differences may have been found had participants reported their situational interest

immediately following their reading of the text. Still, future research should consider the

situational interest benefits for EI while controlling not only for prior knowledge but also

for personal interest.

The current research revealed implications pertaining to ecological validity, general-

izability, and utility relative to long, expository history texts when readers were prompted

to use MI and EI strategies. We see a number of major implications from this research for

comprehension strategy instruction when using authentic history texts and envision

important avenues for future research.

Previous research (Seifert 1993) found that as texts become more ecologically valid,

effects of EI diminish. The current study, which employed a text actually in use by

undergraduate survey history courses, supports Seifert’s finding. EI provided no significant

benefit for students on the matching or multiple choice items. We found similar effects

from the MI strategy. On the matching task, readers in the MI condition did significantly

worse than those using their own independent strategies. Further, participant scores on both

Comprehension strategies 565

123

text-explicit and text-implicit recognition items were lowest in the MI condition. Possibly,

the effects of the MI strategy are diminished if there are several central ideas presented in a

long expository text.

Another possible explanation is that, as text becomes longer, the relative benefit of

encoding versus external storage in note-taking processes (e.g., DiVesta and Gray 1972;

Kiewra et al. 1991) becomes more salient. In the current study, we purposely constrained

the effects of the experimental strategies by not permitting students to look back at the text

or at elaborations made or MIs generated. The trade-off is reduced ecological validity, as

students would likely have that ability during their preparation for classroom assessments.

Future studies allowing students to return to the text and to the artifacts of their strategy use

may reveal benefits of EI, MI, and IS strategies.

Therefore, these strategies, while known to be effective with shorter texts, may not be

appropriate for longer authentic texts. Prior to suggesting our students use MI or EI as they

read our course texts, more research must examine the benefits and limitations of using

these strategies in practice. Findings from this study make us question whether the minimal

effects of MI on comprehension of long, expository texts are worth the current investment

in MI strategy instruction. Further, if current and future research deem these strategies

worthy of use in classrooms, then sufficient training in their implementation is essential

(NICHHD 2000). As noted, how extensive that training should be is yet undetermined.

Finally, future research should more deeply explore the benefits of strategy use for

affective connections with expository text. While not significant, findings from this study

suggest that situational interest may be related to EI. If so, teaching EI may be one

mechanism within instructors’ control to increase engagement in learning from text.

References

ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading.Iowa City, IA.

Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediatetheir relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545.

Alexander, P. A. (1995). Superimposing a situation-specific and domain-specific perspective on an accountof self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist. Special Issue: Current issues in research on self-regulated learning: A discussion with commentaries, 30, 189–193.

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., Armstrong, J. O., Wise, M. A., Janisch, C., & Mayer, L. A. (1991).Reading and questioning in content area lessons. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(1), 35–59.

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instructionfacilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 331–346. doi:10.2307/747972.

Axelrod, J. (1975). Getting the main idea is still the main idea. Journal of Reading, 18, 383–387.Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a

text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly,26(3), 251–276. doi:10.2307/747763.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and highschool literacy: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:Alliance for Excellent Education.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, O. R. (1956). Taxonomy ofeducational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. NewYork: Longman.

Boudreau, R. L., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., & Specht, J. (1999). Evaluating the efficacy of elaborativestrategies for remembering expository text. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 170–183.

566 C. M. Ramsay et al.

123

Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The benefits of embedded question adjuncts for low and highstructure builders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 339–348. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.339.

Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-gradeskilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2),214–257. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2.

Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model ofreading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311.

Davis, M. A. (2001). Integrative studies: Teaching for the twenty-first century. The History Teacher, 34(4),471–485. doi:10.2307/3054200.

DiVesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1),8–14. doi:10.1037/h0032243.

Dornisch, M. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2004). Elaborative questions in web-based text materials. InternationalJournal of Instructional Media, 31, 49–59.

Dornisch, M. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2006). Facilitating learning from technology-enhanced text: Effects ofprompted elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 156–166.

Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31, 349–365. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00047-2.

Evers, A. (2001). The revised Dutch rating scale for test quality. International Journal of Testing, 1(2), 155–182. doi:10.1207/S15327574IJT0102_4.

Foner, E. (2005). Give me liberty: An American history (Vol. 2). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in

students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210–225. doi:10.1177/00222194070400030301.

Georgia End-of-Course-Tests. U.S. History released test booklet. (2004). Georgia Department of Education.Gilabert, R., Martinez, G., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2005). Some good texts are always better: Text revisions to

foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction,15, 45–68. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.12.003.

Greene, C., Symons, S., & Richards, C. (1996). Elaborative interrogation effects for children with learningdisabilities: Isolated facts versus connected prose. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 19–42.doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0003.

Hamilton, R. J. (1997). Effects of three types of elaboration on learning concepts from text. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 22, 299–318. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0935.

Harcourt School Publishers. (2003). Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.harcourt.com/.Heartsoft Educational Software. (2007). Software for development of literacy skills. Retrieved February 8,

2008, from http://www.heartsoft.com/literacy/literacy_home.php.Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational

Psychology Review, 13, 191–209. doi:10.1023/A:1016667621114.Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction. Reading &

Writing Quarterly, 23, 51–75. doi:10.1080/10573560600837651.Houghton Mifflin. (2008). Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.hmco.com/products/products_

elementary.html.Jitendra, A. K., Chard, D., Hoppes, M. K., Renouf, K., & Gardill, M. C. (2001). An evaluation of main idea

strategy instruction in four commercial reading programs: Implications for students with learningproblems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 53–73. doi:10.1080/105735601455738.

Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students withlearning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journalof Special Education, 34, 127–139. doi:10.1177/002246690003400302.

Kiewra, K. A., DuBios, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240–245. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.240.

King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educa-tional Psychologist, 27, 111–126. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_8.

Marcus, R. D. (2000). Nonreaders anonymous: Reading history collaboratively. The History Teacher, 33,453–468. doi:10.2307/494942.

Martin, V., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-interrogation effects depend on the nature of the question.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 113–119. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.113.

Comprehension strategies 567

123

Mason, L. H., Meadan, H., Hedan, L., & Corso, L. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development instructionfor expository text comprehension. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 47–52.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondarystudents: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.doi:10.2307/1593593.

McDaniel, M. A., & Donnelly, C. M. (1996). Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation. Journalof Educational Psychology, 88(3), 508–519. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.508.

McDougal Littell. (2007). The Americans. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.mcdougallittell.com/ml/ss.htm?level2Code=AH&lvl=3.

Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structures in text: Key for readingcomprehension in ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103. doi:10.2307/747349.

Meyer, B. J. F., Middlemiss, W., Theodorou, E., Brezinski, K. L., McDougall, J., & Bartlett, B. J. (2002).Effects of structure strategy instruction delivered to fifth-grade children using the internet with andwithout the aid of older adult tutors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 486–519.

Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematicsclassroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424.

Montelongo, J., Berber-Jimenez, L., Hernandez, A. C., & Hosking, D. (2006). Teaching expository textstructures. Science Teacher (Normal, Ill.), 73(2), 28–31.

Myers, M. P., & Savage, T. (2005). Enhancing student comprehension of social studies material. SocialStudies (Maynooth, Ireland), 96, 18–23. doi:10.3200/TSSS.96.1.18-23.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teacher’s tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’use of technology (NCES Report No. 2000-102). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The nation’s report card reading summary (NCES ReportNo. 2006-451). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The nation’s report card reading summary (NCES ReportNo 2007-496). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel.Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature onreading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ness, M. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content-area classrooms. Phi DeltaKappan, 89(3), 229–231.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), Program of Research on Reading Comprehen-sion, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 69 (April 10, 2002), Department of Education. (Notice of finalpriority).

O’Reilly, T., Symons, S., & MacLatchy-Gaudet, H. (1998). A comparison of self- explanation and elaborativeinterrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 434–445. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0977.

Ozgungor, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Interactions among elaborative interrogation, knowledge, and interestin the process of constructing knowledge from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 437–443. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.437.

Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision ofelaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology.Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 291–300. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.291.

Pressley, M., Symons, S., McDaniel, M. A., Snyder, B. L., & Turnure, J. E. (1988). Elaborative interrogationfacilitates acquisition of confusing facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 268–278. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.268.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instructionin 10 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159–194. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_4.

Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindfuluse of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. EducationalPsychologist, 27, 91–109. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_7.

Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Panayiota, K., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-ordercomprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. ScientificStudies of Reading. Special Issue: What should the scientific study of reading be now and in the nearfuture?, 11(4), 289–312.

Reder, L. M., Charney, D. H., & Morgan, K. I. (1986). The role of elaborations in learning a skill from aninstructional text. Memory & Cognition, 14, 64–78.

568 C. M. Ramsay et al.

123

Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Toward a unified theory of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4),337–356.

Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of ReadingBehavior, 27(1), 1–17.

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). The effect of reader purpose on interest and recall. Journal ofReading Behavior, 26(1), 1–18.

Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for futureresearch. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23–51. doi:10.1023/A:1009004801455.

Seifert, T. L. (1993). Effects of elaborative interrogation with prose passages. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 85(4), 642–651. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.642.

Seifert, T. L. (1994). Enhancing memory for main ideas using elaborative interrogation. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 19, 360–366. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1026.

Sjostrom, C. L., & Hare, V. C. (1984). Teaching high school students to identify main ideas in expositorytext. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(2), 114–118.

Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informationaltexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 249–260. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.249.

Stein, B. S., & Bransford, J. D. (1979). Constraints on effective elaboration: Effects of precision and subjectgeneration. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 769–777. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90481-X.

Stevens, R. J. (1988). Effects of strategy training on the identification of the main idea of expositorypassages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 21–26. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.21.

Studies capture a world of reading instruction. (2006, October/November). Reading Today, 5.Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to con-

struction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1–35. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3801_1.

Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and questiongeneration intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2),89–97. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00209.x.

Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). A conspiracy of good intentions: America’s textbook fiasco. Washington, DC:Council for Basic Education.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). Washington, D.C.Retrieved February 9, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d97/d97t404.asp.

Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer tutoringon second and fifth graders’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. Journal of Exper-imental Education, 73(4), 291–329. doi:10.3200/JEXE.73.4.291-329.

Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 25(2), 147–166. doi:10.2307/747599.

Wakefield, J. F. (2006, April). Textbook usage in the United States: The case of U.S. History. Paperpresented at the International Seminar on Textbooks, Santiago, Chile.

Warren, W. J. (2007). Closing the distance between authentic history pedagogy and everyday classroompractice. The History Teacher, 40(2), 249–255.

Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on textstructure. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6–18. doi:10.1177/00224669050390010201.

Willoughby, T., Waller, T. G., Wood, E., & MacKinnon, G. E. (1993). The effect of prior knowledge on animmediate and delayed associative learning task following elaborative interrogation. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 18, 36–46. doi:10.1006/ceps.1993.1005.

Willoughby, T., Wood, E., McDermott, C., & McLaren, J. (2000). Enhancing learning through strategyinstruction and group interaction: Is active generation of elaborations critical? Applied CognitivePsychology, 14, 19–30. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200001)14:1\19::AID-ACP619[3.0.CO;2-4.

Wittrock, M. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2.

Woloshyn, V. E., Paivio, A., & Pressley, M. (1994). Use of elaborative interrogation to help students acquireinformation consistent with prior and information inconsistent with prior knowledge. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 86(1), 79–89. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.79.

Woloshyn, V. E., Pressley, M., & Schneider, W. (1992). Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledgeeffects on learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 115–124. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.115.

Woloshyn, V. E., Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Elaborative interrogation facilitatesadult learning of factual paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 513–524. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.513.

Comprehension strategies 569

123

Wood, E., & Hewitt, K. L. (1993). Assessing the impact of elaborative strategy instruction relative to spon-taneous strategy use in high achievers. Exceptionality, 4, 65–79. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex0402_1.

Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Winne, P. H. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children’s learning offactual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 741–748. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.741.

Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Kaspar, V., & Idel, T. (1994). Enhancing adolescents’ recall of factual content:The impact of provided versus self-generated elaborations. The Alberta Journal of EducationalResearch, 40, 57–65.

570 C. M. Ramsay et al.

123