The effects of student-generated prequestions and summaries were compared as reading study strategies for college-age subjects. Eighty-seven freshmen and sophomores from several sections of a developmental reading course were trained to use one of two study approaches: (a) phrasing and answering higher level questions while reading or (b) constructing and checking summary statements while reading. An additional number of students from the same population served as members of a control group. The results of three post-treatment tests–free recall, an objective test, and an essay test–were used as dependent measures. The results indicated that training in summary generation as an adjunct study activity significantly increased college students' free recall as well as performance on the objective test and, especially, on the essay test. Training in the interspersed prequestioning significantly facilitated students' performance on the objective test recall but not on free recall or the essay test. It was concluded that college students benefited from engaging in encoding strategies during reading and that specific strategies may be strongly related to posttest measures.
References
1.
AndersonR. C.BiddleW. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In BowerG. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 89–132). New York: Academic Press.
2.
AndersonT. H.ArmbrusterB. B. (1980). Studying (Tech. Rep. No. 155). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
3.
AndréM. L. D. A.AndersonT. H. (1978–79). The development and evaluation of a self-study technique. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 605–623.
4.
BernsteinS. (1973). The effects of children's question asking behaviors on problem solution and comprehension of the written word. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
5.
BrownA. L.DayJ. (1980). Knowledge and strategies for summarizing text: The development of expertise. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
6.
BrownA. L.SmileyS. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of cognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1–8.
7.
BrownJ. I.NelsonM. J.DennyE. C. (1973). The Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
ChodosL. B.GouldS. A.RuschR. P. (1977). Effect of student-generated pre-questions and post-statements on immediate and delayed recall of fourth grade social studies content. In PearsonP. D. (Ed.), Reading Theory and Practice, Twenty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 11–16). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.
9.
DanaC. (1982). Gloss in action: Gloss used in remedial reading classes to improve comprehension of expository text. In McNinchG. (Ed.), Third Annual Yearbook of the American Reading Forum (pp. 25–29). Carrollton, GA: American Reading Forum.
10.
DansereauD. G.McDonaldB. A.LongG. L.AtkinsonT. R.EllisA. M.CollinsK. W.WilliamsS.EvansS. H. (1974). The development and assessment of an effective learning strategy training program (Rep. No. 3). Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University.
11.
DayJ. D. (1980). Teaching summarization skills: A comparison of training techniques. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
12.
DoctorowM.WittrockM. C.MarksC. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 109–118.
13.
DuellO. K. (1978). Overt and covert use of different cognitive levels. Contemporary Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 239–245.
14.
FleschR. F. (1949). The art of readable writing. New York: Harper & Row.
15.
FraseL. T.SchwartzB. J. (1975). Effect of question production and answering in prose recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 628–635.
16.
GoetzE. T. (1979). Inferring from text: Some factors influencing which inferences will be made. Discourse Processes, 2, 179–195.
17.
JohnsonN. (1978). A structural analysis of the development of story recall and summarization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
18.
JohnsonR. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of the linguistic units. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 12–20.
19.
MeyerB. J. F.McConkieG. W. (1973). What is recalled after hearing a passage?Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 109–117.
20.
MillerL. L. (1977). Maintaining reading efficiency tests. Laramie, WY: Developmental Reading Distributors. (Work originally published 1970).
21.
OwensA. M. (1976). The effects of question generation, question answering, and reading on prose learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
22.
PedersonJ. E. P. (1976). An investigation into differences between student-constructed versus experimenter-constructed post-questions on the comprehension of expository prose. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
23.
PioE.AndréM. L. D. A. (1977, April). Paraphrasing highlighted statements and learning from prose. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
24.
RobinsonF. P. (1962). Effective study. New York: Harper and Row.
25.
RothkopfE. Z. (1970). The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational Research, 40, 326–336.
26.
RuddellR. (1978). Developing comprehension abilities: Implication from research for an instructional framework. Educational Perspective, 17, 8–11.
27.
SingerH. (1978). Active comprehension: From answering to asking questions. Reading Teacher, 31, 901–908.
28.
SpiroR. J. (1980). Constructive processes in prose comprehension and recall. In SpiroR.BruceB.BrewerW. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 245–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29.
TulvingE.ThomsonD. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychology Review, 80, 352–373.
30.
van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1976). Cognitive psychology and discourse: Recalling and summarizing stories. In DresslerW. U. (Ed.), Trends in text linguistics (pp. 61–80). New York: deGruyter.
