Comprehension Monitoring, memory, and study strategies of Good and Poor Readers

1981 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott G. Paris ◽  
Meyer Myers
Keyword(s):  
Oral Reading ◽  
Fourth Grade ◽  
Reading Strategy ◽  
Study Strategies ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Comprehension Monitoring ◽  
Multiple Measures ◽  
Study Behaviors ◽  
Good And Poor Readers

Comprehension and memory skills of fourth grade good and poor readers were compared in two studies. Their ability to monitor comprehension of difficult and anomalous information was measured in three ways; by spontaneous self-corrections during oral reading, by directed underlining of incomprehensible words and phrases, and by study behaviors. Poor readers engaged in significantly less monitoring on all three measures and this was correlated with poorer comprehension and recall scores. An additional metacognitive measure of perceived reading strategy effectiveness indicated that poor readers are often unaware of the negative influences of some strategies. The patterns of responses on the multiple measures suggest that poor readers may adopt decoding rather than meaning comprehension goals during reading and they are less accurate in applying monitoring skills towards resolving comprehension failures.

Effects of Reading Ability on Children's Comprehension Evaluation and Regulation

1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Zabrucky ◽  
Hilary Horn Ratner
Keyword(s):  
Reading Ability ◽  
Verbal Report ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Comprehension Monitoring ◽  
Verbal Reports ◽  
Good Readers ◽  
On Line ◽  
Good And Poor Readers ◽  
Multidimensional Process

Good and poor readers in the sixth grade ( M age = 11.92 years) were videotaped reading inconsistent stories presented one sentence at a time. Children's comprehension evaluation was assessed with on-line (reading times) and verbal report measures; comprehension regulation was assessed by examining look-backs during reading. All children read inconsistencies more slowly than consistent control information but good readers were more likely than poor readers to look back at inconsistencies during reading, to give accurate verbal reports of passage consistency following reading, and to recall text inconsistencies. Results highlight the importance of using multiple comprehension monitoring measures in assessing children's abilities and of treating comprehension monitoring as a multidimensional process.

scholarly journals Effects of Notetaking and Studying on the Retention of Prose

1979 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Minnick Santa ◽  
Lindsay Abrams ◽  
John L. Santa
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Recognition Test ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Study Strategies ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Good And Poor Readers ◽  
Main Ideas

College students, equally divided between good and poor readers used one of five study-notetaking strategies for retaining prose information. Students just read, or read and took either restricted or unlimited notes on a passage. After reading, subjects directly or mentally reviewed their notes before taking a recognition and recall examination. Recall and recognition performance was measured immediately and one week later. None of the notetaking-study strategies helped for the recognition test or for the recall of main ideas, but the various strategies led to considerable differences in performance on a general recall test of detailed ideas.

Reading and Listening to Expository Text

1985 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind Horowitz ◽  
S. Jay Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Reading Comprehension ◽  
Oral Reading ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Expository Text ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Good Readers ◽  
Poor Reading ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Good And Poor Readers

Poor reading comprehension may result from a general comprehension problem, a decoding problem, or a combination of these problems. Using a counterbalanced design, 38 good and poor sixth-grade readers read aloud and listened to easy and hard texts. Immediately after reading and listening, students orally retold what they had read or heard. Their recalls were scored for number of idea units produced. Results indicated no difference in listening comprehension between good and poor readers for either easy or hard texts, but a significant difference in oral reading comprehension in favor of good readers on both easy and hard texts. The finding of no difference in listening suggests that the poor readers in this sample did not have a general comprehension problem, while their poor oral reading performance indicates that they did have a decoding problem. These findings support a more complex comprehension process model of listening and reading than has typically been described in the literature.

An Analysis of Semantic Products of Disadvantaged and Advantaged Second, Third, and Fourth Grade Good and Poor Readers

1970 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 22-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Dinnan ◽  
A. C. Bickley ◽  
Harry Cowart
Keyword(s):  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Oral Language ◽  
Fourth Grade ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Reference Base ◽  
Common Reference ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Good And Poor Readers

One hundred-thirty students were analyzed in this study to discern if there is a significant difference between good and poor readers when the subjects are grouped as advantaged or disadvantaged. The P/S Oral Language Inventory was used and responses from subjects were considered as paradigmatic or syntagmatic. When these results were subjected to an Analysis of Variance, measureable differences were noted. The data are used as background for a proposed frame of reference for both advantaged and disadvantaged learners. In such a frame the individuals would share a common reference base.

scholarly journals Effects of Passage Type on Comprehension Monitoring and Recall in Good and Poor Readers

1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Zabrucky ◽  
Hilary Horn Ratner
Keyword(s):  
Error Detection ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Comprehension Monitoring ◽  
Verbal Reports ◽  
Good Readers ◽  
Look Back ◽  
On Line ◽  
Good And Poor Readers

An error detection paradigm was used to assess the effects of passage type on students' comprehension monitoring and recall of texts. Good and poor readers in the sixth grade ( M age =12 years, 0 months) read inconsistent expository and narrative passages presented one sentence at a time. On- and off-line measures (reading times and verbal reports of passage inconsistencies) were used to examine students' comprehension evaluation, and look-backs to inconsistencies during reading were used to measure comprehension regulation. Although all students detected problems on-line, good readers were better able to verbally report on passage consistency following reading. Passage type affected regulation of understanding with students more likely to look back at inconsistencies in narratives but not expository passages. Students were more likely to reread expository passages, however, when passages did not contain problems and were less able to recall expository passage information. Implications for instruction and directions for future research are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document