Ways students read texts

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 25, NO. 1, PP. 69-84 (1988)

WAYS STUDENTS READ TEXTS

JAMES H. WANDERSEE

Dr. Martin Luther College, New Ulm, Minnesota 56073

Abstract

College students responding to the Preferred Method of Study (PMOS) questionnaire explained how they approach reading a new textbook chapter for comprehension. Results indicated that a significant positive correlation exists between the number of passes a student makes at new textbook material and hisher college grade-point average. Women showed a significant preference for adopting a single method of study. Less than half of the students queried construct “organizational tools” such as outlines or diagrams as they study a textbook. Students said they would alter their textbook strategies in response to the type of test they expected significantly more often than they would for the type of subject matter being studied. Only 6% of the students said they make a conscious effort to link the new concepts in the text to prior knowledge. There was no discernable relationship between the study strategies undergraduate college students employ and their college grade level (freshman through senior).

Ulerick (1983) points out that “learning from science textbooks occurs at all levels of science teaching and in nearly all school settings” (p. 1). In addition, she states that very few studies specifically focus on the problems, practices, or results of learning from textbooks. Williams & Yore (1985) note that “numerous studies have indicated that science materials are too difficult or frustrating to read” (p. 85). They speculate that “either students are not increasing their content reading skills at a normal rate or authors’ writing levels are not logically increased between grade levels of textbook series” (p. 85).

Could it be that teachers expect too much to occur when students read a science textbook? Spiegel & Wright (1984) found that high-school biology teachers believe the most important function of a textbook is content input; teachers think that if science content is accurate, up to date, and presented in a lively manner, learning will occur. The researchers, however, disagree, saying “the assumption that students will comprehend fully an attractive and accurate text just by starting at the beginning and reading through to the end needs to be challenged” (p. 628). Rodriguez (1985) lends support, noting “particularly at the secondary and college level, students may need help in coping with all that content” (p. 704).

0 1988 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/88/010069-16$04.00

70 WANDERSEE

We want science students to be “competent comprehenders” of their textbooks. As Farr (1981) declares, “Comprehension is, after all, the essential condition of reading, for without an understanding of what is read, there is no reading” (p. 17). In this study, Carr’s (1985) definition of comprehension as “a constructive process in which meaning results from an interaction between the reader’s background and the text ...” (p. 685) was used. Finley (1983) found sup- porting evidence that science reading is a constructive process.

“Reading educators, focusing on students’ skills and difficulties in learning from texts, have found that students do not have the mature and efficient strategies necessary for learning on their own” (Simpson, 1984, p. 136). The most significant finding from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (1981) related to reading is that 17-year-olds have developed very few skills for examin- ing the nature of the ideas that they take away from their reading.

Horak (1985) performed a meta-analysis of learning science concepts from texts and concluded “the present study indicates that most students can be expected to benefit from forms of textual structuring that aid them in selecting the important concepts and also that aid them in making internal connections within the presented materials” (p. 7). However, structuring is not just the author’s responsibility. Rawson (1979) reminds educators that “the structuring of information is another essential operation in understanding meaning that is largely a responsibility of the learner. Structure is imposed on knowledge and experience, imposed by us” (p. 237). In short, the text is a blueprint for meaning. Smith (1985) remarks that competent readers build a structure of meaning within the text and then erect a structure of meaning around it. She found the mature readers are quick to go beyond the text in order to extract meaning from difficult material, building an external scaffold rather than relying on internal framework alone to span the gap between the reader and the textbook.

Simpson (1983), using a self-report survey, studied college freshmen and found students (a) had a limited range of study strategies, (b) could seldom explain why they used a particular strategy, (c) had a single study strategy they used for most learning tasks regardless of content area, and (d) had little idea how to know or check when they were prepared for a test. Building upon Simpson’s findings and using Ausubel’s (1968) theory of meaningful learning and the Novak- Gowin (1984) theory of educating, the present investigation sought to answer the question of how college students extract meaning from textbooks. More specifically, this descriptive study was conducted to probe the study strategies students use when reading a new chapter in a textbook and whether their study strategies change in response to the content area of the text and the anticipated method of evaluation.

Method

Subjects

In this study, 133 undergraduate students were selected from a pool of 555 using stratified random sampling across grade levels. Students in the sample attend

WAYS STUDENTS READ TEXTS 71

a private four-year college in the midwest. All are teacher-education majors, graduates of both public and private high schools located throughout the U.S.A. The majority (80%) come from the midwest and have a middle-class background. Their American College Testing program (ACT) scores in every tested area lie above the national norms for entering students at large American universities. They enter with an average high school grade average of 3.0 on a four-point scale. Most students matriculate directly from high school and are from 18 to 22 years old.

Materials

The Preferred Method of Study questionnaire (PMOS) was designed by the author (see Figure 1) using the clinical interview method (Novak & Gowin, 1984) as a referent. Initially, several clinical interviews were conducted with college students on the topic of how they approach studying from a textbook. Based upon their responses, a paper-and-pencil instrument, the PMOS was designed to simulate what occurs in the clinical interview process and yet permit a larger sample size. Focused questions intended to probe students’ textbook study strategies and also allow free responses were developed.

Since “...interviews work best when they deal with a closely related set of concepts and propositions and their application in the tasks presented” (Novak & Gowin, 1984, pp. 122-123), students completing the PMOS were asked to imagine they were to read a chapter in one of their textbooks with the stipulation that they would be tested on its contents the next day. All PMOS items center on the strategies students would use to accomplish that task under various cir- cumstances. The questionnaire was examined by a panel of three college educators who made suggestions for improvement based upon the criteria of clarity, relevance, scope, and content. An indication of the questionnaire’s construct validity stems from the author’s previous work with clinical interviews and Ausubelian psychology. The questionnaire has a calculated repeat reliability coef- ficient of 0.81; the major assumption of trait stability (here, method-of-study be- havior) required for stability reliability assessment is supported by Simpson’s (1983) findings.

Design and Procedure

The PMOS was administered in May, 1985 by professors at the college following prescribed instructions to assure uniformity and avoid biasing the results. Stu- dents were asked to put their student numbers on the forms to allow the author to access database information on grade level, college grade-point average, and sex of respondent. They were, however, assured of anonymity in the study.

The independent variable of college grade level was chosen for analysis to contrast with Simpson’s (1983) focus on freshmen. The variables of gender and achievement (college grade-point average) were selected in response to Novak & Ridley’s (1984) hypothesis that females (more than males) have been socialized into rote mode learning patterns. It should be noted that the male-female ratio of subjects in the study (1:2.7) is representative of that in the student body. Of the 133 students in the sample, there were 33 freshmen, 56 sophomores, 22 juniors,

72 WANDERSEE

0 0 P $fl$:dm @@j@'Jje) QUESTIONNAIRE

Imagine t h a t you are a s k e d t o r e a d a c h a p t e r i n one of y o u r

rn d a y . What method d o you u s u a l l y use: t o " g r a s p t h e mpaning" o f a t e x t b o o k s . Assume t h a t you w i l l be t e s t e d o n i t s c o n t e n t t h e n e x t

new c h a p t e r ? E x p l a i n y o u r f a v o r i t e method. 1

Would you u s e a d i f f e r e n t methnd o f s t u d y f o r a c h a p t e r i n a h i s t o r y book as compared t o a s c i e n c e book? I f s o , e x p l a i n t h e 2 . d i f f e r e n c e .

Would you s t u d y a new c h a p t e r d i f f e r e n t l y i n p r e p a r i n g f o r a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e t e s t a s compared t o a n e s s a y t e s t ? If s o , what 3 rn would you d o d i f f e r e n t l y ?

Do you o f t e n c o n s t r u c t y o u r own c h a r t s , o u t l i n e s , o r d i a g r a m s as you r e a d a ncw c h a p t e r ? I f s o , which of t h o s e " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l 4 m t o o l s " seems t o work b e s t f o r you?

Are you s t i l l e x p r r i m e n t i n g w i t h d i f f e r e n t methods of s t l l d y i n g o r d i i you us0 a s i n r ; l e method most ,>f t h e time' E x p l a i n y o u r 5 . answpr .

As you road a new chapt .e r i n a t e x t b o o k , what one q u e s t i o n a r e you tryinv tl, a n s w e r ( t h e q o a l 3f y o u r r e a d i n g ) ? 6.

Fig. 1. Preferred method of study questionnaire (PMOS).

and 22 seniors. Thus the study surveyed about one-fourth of the students enrolled at the college. Responses were categorized, rechecked for consistency, coded, and analyzed by the author.

Results

The main findings of this study were (a) the greater the number of passes stu-


dents make at new textbook material, the more likely they are to have a high college grade-point average, (b) female students are more likely to use a single study strategy than males are, (c) less than half of the college students queried use self- constructed organizational tools such as outlines or diagrams when studying textbook material, (d) students alter their study strategies more because of the type of test expected than for the type of subject matter being studied, (e) only 6% of the students queried make a conscious effort to link new concepts in the text to prior knowledge, and ( f ) there is no discernable relationship between college students’ grade level (freshman through senior) and the study strategies they employ.

Item 1

Analysis of student responses to the first item on the PMOS (referring to their favorite method of studying textbook material) centered upon the number of passes students prefer to make at new textbook material. For example, “I just read it once” was coded as a 1-pass approach. “Taking notes while reading and then studying my notes before the test” was categorized as a 2-pass approach while “Read it through once, go through it again and highlight the important things, then study those points” was categorized as a 3-pass approach.

Figure 2 shows the proportion of students in each approach category. There was a significant correlation (r [131]+0.27, p<O.Ol) between the number of passes students make at new textbook material and their college grade-point averages. Table I presents mean college grade-point averages for the entire sample, the sample partitioned by sex of respondent, and the sample partitioned by approach strategy. Chi-square testing revealed no significant difference between the male and female students with regard to the number of passes they make at new textbook material.

Fig. 2. The proportion of students in each approach category.

74 WANDERSEE

TABLE I. Mean College Grade-Point Averages (GPA) by Sex and Approach Strategy

Mean GPA a Group n

~~~~

Entire sample 133 2.83

Ma1 e

Female

Sex

36

97

2.82

2.83

Approach strategy

Passes

1 32 2.62

2 81 2.84

3 or more 20 3.13

aNumber of students in each category.

The following are illustrative samples of the types of responses given by students to the first item:

“I would have to admit that I just read it through once and most of the time I remember/grasp the majority of the material assigned.” (sophomore male)

“I read it and make a general outline with the basic terms highlighted.” (junior female)

“I read it through once in a quiet place, then read it again taking notes.” (junior female)

“I read one subheading at a time and then try to get the main idea out of that subheading.” (senior female)

“I’d skim the chapter and look at the titles and graphics. Thcn I’d read it thoroughly, taking notes or highlighting what I consider important.” (sophomore female)

“I read it the night before and highlight it. The next day I would just read the parts I highlighted.” (freshman female)

“I put down all the key statements as I read and then I study those.’’ (sophomore male)

WAYS STUDJXTS READ TEXTS 75

“I read the chapter slowly, maybe jot down the main concepts. When I’m done I’ll think about what I read and try to say all the main concepts.” (sophomore female)

“I read and highlight the text, read the highlights, take notes, and finally study my notes.” (freshman male)

“I read the chapter using a highlighter, then review the highlighted material while trying to reconstruct the story, pattern, or relationship in my mind.” (junior female)

“I read the chapter through thoroughly and then go back over the material to find vocabulary words that are important. I make lists of names, vocabulary, etc. I study those lists. Then I reread the chapter if time is available.” (senior female)

“I begin by reading the chapter slowly and carefully. While doing this I underline (with red or green marker) things I think may be on the test and items that are new to me. Later, I’ll read the underlined parts as often as three times to review.” (junior female)

The examples above are indicative of the range of responses generated by the first item. A reading of all the responses gave no indication that this was simply a matter of time on task. Some respondents talked of spending hours on a single pass while others wrote of using a multiple-pass approach in less than an hour.

Item 2

The second item of the PMOS was designed to show whether or not students use the same study strategy to extract meaning from a history textbook as they would use for a science textbook. The majority of the students use the same strategy for studying both types of subject matter, although a sizable minority (46% of sample) uses a different approach for each subject. Chi-square testing revealed no significant difference between male and female students in response to this item.

The following examples show the wide range of responses to the second item:

“Yes, in a history book I would look for dates, places, or events of importance, whereas in a science book, I’d take out terms that I feel are important.” (freshman female)

“In a science book I would rely more on key phrases supplied by the authors and for history I would study names and events.” (sophomore male)

“In the science textbook I would probably worry more about writing out definitions and compiling lists in a notebook. In a history book, I would be more apt to write out an outline of the chapter.” (sophomore male)

“Yes, in history I try to get a story line and in science it’s more a case of getting to know different terms and operations.” (sophomore male)

76 WANDERSEE

DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER

DIFFERENT T Y P E S OF TESTS

D i f f e r e n t S t r a t e g y

Fig. 3. different subject matter and for different types of tests.

A comparison of the proportions of students using the same study strategy for

“Yes, for history, I would read much faster to get to the main ideas whereas for science I would go slowly and apply new concepts mentally.” (senior female)

“No, I would generally study each the same way.” (sophomore female)

“I approach every text for study in the same manner. I do not use a different method for each.” (senior male)

“No, not really, I’ve found (through much effort) a single method that works best for me.” (freshman female)

It was interesting to note the wide variety of perceptions students hold about both disciplines. For example, some thought history emphasizes details, facts, and trivia, whereas others said the same thing about science. Perceptions of the nature of the discipline appeared to influence methods used to study it.

Item 3

Students were asked whether the type of test they expected (multiple choice compared to essay) would affect their method of study. Figure 3 shows a com-


parison of the proportions of students using the same study strategy for different subject matter and for different types of tests. Students are more likely to alter their study strategy in response to the kind of test they expect than to alter it for different types of subject matter. Chi-square testing revealed a significant difference in students’ response patterns for items 2 and 3 (~“1, N=1331=43.00, p<O.OOOl). There was no significant difference between the responses of males and females to item 3 detected by chi-square testing.

Table I1 presents a summary of responses to Items 2 and 3 by category and sex. The table values for Item 3 can be better understood by the following illustrative examples of responses students wrote for that item:

“I study the same way for both kinds of tests.” (senior female) “In each you need to know some big ideas as well as some small details, so I would study in the same manner.” (junior male) “Yes, in a multiple-choice test you have to be more in-depth because you often have to pick out the best answer from several that apply. In an essay test, you just have to know the basics.” (sophomore female) “Yes, for essay i tem you have to learn only the topics that lend themselves to es- says. Multiple-choice requires you to learn just about everything.” (sophomore male) “I would make sure that I had a more thorough understanding for an essay test because the words have to be my own. I have to be prepared to explain what I know in detail without any help from the professor.” (sophomore female) “I can much more easily recognize a right answer than give it.” (senior female) “Yes, because multiple-choice tests demand little recall (all the answers are already on the test copy) while essay tests involve total recall. I would have to study much more for an essay test.” (sophomore female)

“In multiple-choice, I am concerned with the hard facts. If it’s an essay test, I look for a broader line of thinking.” (senior female)

TABLE II. Responses to Items 2 and 3 by Sex and Approach Category

Sex Approach S t r a t e g y

Method Me t h od s Same D i f f e r e n t

Ma1 e

Female

Item 2

22

50

14

47

Male

Female

Item 3

9 27

12 85 -~

Note: The values represent the number of students in each category.

78 WANDERSEE

“When I know that the test will be essay, I look for the concepts and think of how I can apply them. In my experience, essay tests have made me form my own con- clusions and make decisions about things.” (senior male)

It was interesting to note that students who said they would study differently for each kind of test seemed to have more coherent reasons for their methods. In contrast, those students who said they would use the same study method for both kinds of tests were more likely to give shorter responses and omit any justification for using a single method. There was, however, no significant difference between study methods and GPA detected by chi-square testing (using responses to either Item 2 or Item 3).

Item 4

The fourth item on the PMOS asked students if it was their usual practice to construct charts, outlines, or diagrams as they read a new chapter in a textbook. The majority (55% of the sample) indicated that they seldom construct organizational tools. The most frequently mentioned organizational tool mentioned by those who do use tools was the outline. The outline was mentioned as the preferred tool by 65% of those who often use tools, followed by lists (lo%), diagrams (9%), charts (6%), and other methods (10% combined). Chi-square testing showed that males and females do not differ significantly in their use of self-constructed organizational tools.

Item 5

When students were asked if they were still experimenting with various study methods or use a single method most of the time, the majority (69% of the sample) said they use a single method. Chi-square testing revealed a si nificant difference between males and females in their responses to this item (x [l, N=133]= 4.29, pc0.05). It was discovered that 74% of the women used a single method, while only 56% of the men did so. A t test performed on the mean grade-point averages of all who use a single method (M=2.92) and all who use multiple methods and are still experimenting with new study strategies (M=2.63) showed no significant difference. Table I11 presents responses to Item 5 partitioned by study pattern and sex.

zg

The ranges of responses to Item 5 can be shown by the following:

“I mostly use just one method-I feel more comfortable doing it.” (freshman female)

“I basically use the same method all the time because it seems to work.” (freshman female)

“Reading is my main method-and always has been.” (sophomore male)

“I am a procrastinator and so I just have to skim something and can’t really study it.” (senior female)


TABLE III. Responses to Item 5 by Sex and Study Pattern

Sex S t u d y P a t t e r n

S i n g l e Various Method Methods

Ma1 e

Female

20

72

16

25

Note: The values represent the number of students in each category.

“I write outline notes and study from them. I’ve done it this way since high school so it’s hard to change.” (junior male)

‘‘I basically fall back on one method. Why? Probably because I never think of other methods to use and have never been taught various methods I could use.” (senior female)

“I am comfortable with my method but I know I need to improve so 1 do experiment. (I tried writing down a short sentence for each paragraph as I read. It helped me remember but it took too longl)” (sophomore male)

“I always write up my own study guide sheets from class notes or the text. It’s a method I started in 8th grade. Writing things out myself helps me organize and remember better.” (sophomore female)

‘The amount of time I have determines the method I use.” (sophomore male)

“Till I get straight A’s. I’ll always experiment with ways to study.” (sophomore female)

“I study for the prof. After 1 or 2 tests, I know what types of questions and the style of answer each prof is looking for. Study accordingly.” (sophomore male)

“Each course requires its own study methods.” (junior female)

Although some students claimed to be experimenting with study methods, their responses often described a trial-and-error approach. The majority of responses also indicated a willingness to try a new study method when it was suggested to them by someone with credibility.

Item 6

The sixth item on the PMOS asked students what question they try to answer as they read a textbook chapter (the goal of their reading). The results are presented in Table IV by sex and response category. The majority of the sample (66%) said

80 WANDERSEE

TABLE IV. Responses to Item 6 by Sex and Goal of Reading

Goal of Reading

None E x t r a c t Determine Connect t o Group

Meaning Value -- Prior from Text How does t h i s Knowledae -

a p p l y t o me? E n t i r e sample 1 88 35 8 Ma1 e 0 27 6 2

Female 1 61 29 6 Note: The numerical values represent the number of students in each category. There was one missing value.

their goal was to extract the meaning embedded in the text by the author(s). Com- ments such as “What does the author want me to grasp from this?” are representative of this group.

The value of the chapter contents for the reader was paramount for 27% of the sample. It is interesting to note that 30% of the women but only 17% of the men would focus on value as they read. “Why is this important? How does this information apply to me and what I want to do?” was the comment of a senior woman.

A third category of respondents (6% of the sample) said they try to connect the ideas in the text to their own prior knowledge. A junior woman writes, “What in the reading is new to me and how is it related to what I already know?” It is noteworthy that 6% of the males and 6% of the females made linking content to prior knowledge their reading goal.

The following responses serve to illustrate the range of comments students made about Item 6:

“What is the main idea this chapter is trying to convey to me?” (freshman female)

“My goal is to comprehend and remember as much of the material as I can.” (sophomore male)

“Do I understand this material and can I explain it to someone else if I have to?” (freshman female)

“What does it mean?!” (sophomore male)

“I always want to understand what the author is saying-without that the chapter wouldn’t do me any good.” (junior female)

“What’s so important in what I’m reading?” (freshman female)

“I zero in on the importance and significance of the subject and its unique characteristics.” (junior female)


“Is there anything in here that I could use and remember for the rest of my life?’ (sophomore female)

“What is more important here? Can I sort out this information?” (junior female)

“What in this chapter would help me the most in the future-whether it be on a test or something that could apply to my life?” (freshman female)

“How is everything in this chapter related to what I already know?” (sophomore male)

“I fry to fit this reading into the topic we’re covering.” (senior female)

“How does this relate to the course objectives presented in class?” (junior male)

“How does this new stuff fit in with what I’ve been studying before?“ (sophomore male)

“What picture does this chapter give me-overall?” (senior female)

Additional Remarks

While explaining their methods of study, many students expressed the wish that they would have more time to study from their college textbooks. A female student explained it this way: “I pretty much use the method I explained above. I’ve found that with enough time (which is the key) you can master an area this way. The part of school I find hardest to cope with is the fact that there is rarely (if ever) enough time to study properly.” Time management skills might be valuable for such students to learn.

Statistical testing failed to reveal any significant differences between grade levels (freshman through senior) and preferred methods of study. There was a significant difference between grade-point averages across grade levels with freshmen tending to have lower grade point averages than seniors but this is explainable by attrition rates.

Discussion

In the context of Ausubel’s (1968) theory of meaningful learning and Novak’s (1977) theory of education as well as Novak & Gowin’s (1984) metalearning strategies, learning by reading appears to be a complex, layered phenomenon. One must (a) extract the meaning the author has embedded in the text, (b) assess its validity and significance, (c) decide to learn it, (d) grasp the meaning by linking new concepts to those already learned in the past, (e) consolidate new concepts through confirmation, clarification, practice, and review, and ( f ) assess the felt-significance of what was learned. These steps are not likely to occur without conscious effort by the student and will probably require multiple passes at the textbook material using appropriate organizational tools.

82 WANDERSEE

The finding that more than half of the students queried seldom construct organizational tools is distressing in view of what Novak & Gowin (1984) have discovered about their value. Smith (1982) studied the learning strategies of mature learners who were successful at learning and found that each one in the study constructed some kind of alternate text as an aid to mastering the material. Spiegel and Wright (1984) point out the potentially powerful effects of “student- directed strategies for enhancing comprehension of text” (p. 628). Clewell & Haidemos (1983) describe a pyramid diagram students can construct as they read in order to increase comprehension. Research has demonstrated the value of such tools but only 45% of the students in this study make frequent use of them. Those who do seem to focus on outlines, a tool learning theorists (Novak and Gowin, 1984) say is less appropriate to the way the brain stores information and lacks the dramatic visual impact of a concept map, for example.

Females in this study showed a proclivity for using a single study method in all situations. The use of a single study method may be symptomatic of a tenden- cy for females to use inflexible strategies better suited for rote learning or it may indicate they are better at determining their own optimal study strategies for meaningful learning than males are. No explanatory generalizations can be made from the data collected in this study. The Novak & Ridley (1984) hypothesis and Gilligan’s (1982) provocative contention that psychology has persistently misunderstood the differences between men and women call for further analysis of how women learn.

In regard to Item 6, only 6% of the students indicated that they make a conscious effort to link prior knowledge to the new concepts in the textbook as they read it. This is unfortunate in view of what we know about meaningful learning and the importance of such links (Novak, 1977). Farr (1981) stresses the importance of prior knowledge by saying, “In a sense, the author’s ideas are seeded in the reader’s background” (p. 19). As the reader attempts to construct new ideas, he or she is in a continual process of conceptual development. Farr (1981) emphasizes that “Reading as a comprehension process involves <getting meaning from and bringing meaning to the printed page,” (p. 6).

In summary, this study has attempted to explore the problem of how college students extract meaning from textbooks. Shrank (1982) suggested, “Since reading is, after all, comprchension, the key question to ask is what is a person doing when he is attempting to <understand>” (p. 5). The more educators know about how students learn from textbooks, the more effective instruction will be.

In the context of the previous discussion, the present results have some implications for the improvement of science education. We could (a)- assist students in understanding the psychology of reading and the advantage of making multiple passes at new textbook material, (b) assist them in using organizational tools (such as concept maps) when reading a textbook, (c) help them to realize that different instructional goals are reflected in different kinds of tests and may call for different study strategies, (d) recognize that women may be using different study strategies than men and may set different reading goals, (e) teach students to con- sciously attempt to link new concepts in a textbook to prior knowledge, and ( f ) realize that reading is a complex activity that may be quite difficult, even for many college students.


References

Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Carr, E.M. (1985). The vocabulary overview guide: A metacognitive strategy to improve vocabulary comprehension and retention. Journal of Reading. 28,

Clewell, S.F. & Haidemos, J. (1983). Organizational strategies to increase comprehension. Reading World, 22,3 14-321.

Farr, R. (198 1). Reading: Trends and challenges. Washington: National Education Association.

Finley, EN. (1983). Students’ recall from science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20,247-259.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Horak, W.J. (1985, April). A meta-analysis of learning science concepts from textual materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Associa- tion for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick, IN.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (198 1). Reading, thinking, and writing: Results from the 197940 national assessment of reading and literature (Report no. 11-R-01). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Novak, J.D. (1977). A theory of education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Novak, J.D. & Ridley, D.R. (1984). Letters. Science, 223, 1248. Rawson, H. (1979). Cognition and reading: An approach to instruction. In

T.G. Waller & G.E. MacKinnon, Eds., Reading research: Vol. 1. Advances in theory and practice. New York, Academic Press, pp. 187-256.

Rodriguez, J.H. (1985). When reading less can mean understanding more. Journal of Reading, 28,701-705.

Schank, R.C. (1982). Reading and understanding: Teaching from the perspec- tive of artificial intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Simpson, M.L. (1983). A survey of the independent learning strategies of university freshmen. Unpublished manuscript. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

Simpson, M.L. (1984). The status of study strategy instruction: Implications for classroom teachers. Journal of Reading, 28, 136-142.

Smith, S.L. (1982). Learning strategies of mature college learners. Journal of Reading, 26,5-12.

Smith, S.P. (1985). Comprehension and comprehension monitoring by ex- perienced readers. Journal of Reading, 28,292-299.

Spiegel, D.L. & Wright, J.D. (1984). Biology teachers’ preferences in textbook characteristics. Journal of Reading, 21,624-628.

Ulerick, S.L. (1983). A critical review of research related to learning from science textbooks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Associa- tion for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

684-688.

84 WANDERSEE

Williams, R.L. & Yore, L.D. (1985). Content, format, gender and grade level differences in elementary students’ ability to read science materials as measured by the cloze procedure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22,81-88.

Manuscript accepted July 30, 1987

Documents

Ways students read texts