by Roman Taraban, Dmitrii Paniukov, and Michelle Kiser

Texas Tech University

In a recent post to the CASP (College Academic Support Programs) listserve, a skeptical developmental programs instructor asked why more attention can’t be given to remedial readers when designing instruction for developmental education. The instructor’s concern highlights the question:  What do we know about students who are not “college-ready” and who enroll in developmental coursework? In particular, where does metacognition fit into their development as skilled readers?

We know that reading ability, as measured by standardized instruments, like the SAT reading test for high-school students, is significantly associated with reading comprehension (Taraban, Rynearson, & Kerr, 2000). But what underlies this reading ability and can it be enhanced in college students?  Prior research revealed a several things.  As University students progress from freshman to senior years, they show small but significant growth in their use of metacognitive reading strategies (Taraban, 2011). This growth happens naturally – i.e., college students typically do not take courses that teach metacognition.  In trying to deliberately develop metacognitive reading strategies in developmental reading students, however, we found that the process can be slow and costly, but it can be done!  In a study of developmental college readers, it took roughly one semester of regular practice with a look-back reading strategy (Garner, 1987) in order to show significant improvement in reading comprehension (Taraban et al., 1997).  In addition to semester-long practice, the intervention was implemented in one-on-one tutoring, pointing to the instructional costs of bringing about detectable gains in reading skills in a remedial population.

Recently my colleagues and I had an opportunity to work with developmental readers who were enrolled in a developmental reading course at a major public research university. The students were primarily freshmen (mean number of completed credits = 16.7). We were primarily interested in three questions: 1) Could a teacher-implemented intervention improve these students’ comprehension and retention of ideas from expository texts? 2) Which metacognitive reading strategies did these students apply on their own? and 3) Was students’ use of metacognitive strategies associated with better retention of information?

The students were asked to read two expository passages and to recall as much as they could either immediately or after a 48-hour delay. They were told that they would be asked later to recall the information from the texts, but they were not prompted to apply any specific learning strategies. The two texts used for the study were each about 250 words in length and had an average Flesch-Kincaid readability score of 8.2 grade level. The passages contained 30 idea units each. Idea units are simple units of meaning derived from the text, and here were used to score the recall data. The participants read and studied one of the passages without interruption (Uninterrupted Condition), and they read and studied one of the passages paragraph-by-paragraph, and then all together (Segmented Condition).  Participants spent an equal amount of total time (10 minutes) reading and studying each of the texts. After they recalled the information, we asked them to report the strategies they used to learn the information. The specific self-reported strategies were organized into six types, as shown in Table 1. To score the strategy-use data, participants were given credit for multiple strategy types, but not for repetitions of the same strategy for the same text.

 TABLE 1: Key Types of Self-Reported Strategies

1. REPETITION: Re-Reading; Memorize; Repetition
2. FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC ELEMENTS: Key words; Key concepts; Grouping terms or sentences; Identifying related concepts; Parts that stood out; Parts that were difficult
3. SELF TESTING: Summarizing; Recalling; Quizzing self; Forming acronyms
4. GENERATING COGNITIVE ELABORATIONS: Activating prior knowledge; Recalling related experiences; Re-explaining parts of the text in other ways; Comparing and contrasting ideas; Using analogies; Using mental imagery
5. SEGMENTATION: Grouping sentences for purposes of study; Divide by paragraph
6. GENERAL: Read slowly; Read thoroughly; Concentrate; Understand passage

Regression analyses were conducted in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the reading approach (Uninterupted vs Segmented) in conjunction with participants’ self-reported use of the six strategy types (see Table 1). Turning to the immediate test, the reading approach mattered. When participants read and studied a segmented text they had significantly higher recall of idea units (M = 11.64) compared to non-segmented text (M = 7.93). Further, all of the participants reported using reading strategies.  Of the six strategy types, participants’ application of FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC ELEMENTS during reading was strongly associated with better recall of information from the text, and REPETITION was also important.  Considering the delayed test next, the reading approach used for the text that was read two days earlier did not matter.  However, using the strategy type SELF TESTING during reading was strongly associated with better recall, and FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC ELEMENTS was also helpful.

To address our skeptical developmental instructor, our data suggest that developmental reading instructors can structure how students process information in order to increase the number of ideas students retain, for follow-up activities like inferencing and brainstorming. The data also showed that developmental readers naturally use metacognitive reading strategies to boost their retention of information both immediately and at a delay.  Interestingly, there is no single best strategy.  Rather, FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC ELEMENTS during reading is most effective for immediate retention and SELF-TESTING during reading is most effective for longer-term retention.  Developmental students’ natural disposition to apply strategies may open opportunities for instructors to further guide, enhance, and channel these metacognitive skills to better benefit students.  What is heartening in these data is the finding that these academically-challenged students self-initiate metacognitive activities to monitor and regulate their study behaviors in order to enhance their academic performance.

References

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norword, NJ: Ablex.

Taraban, R. (2011). Information fluency growth through engineering curricula: Analysis of students’ text-processing skills and beliefs. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 397-416.

Taraban, R., Becton, S., Shufeldt, M., Stirling, T., Johnson, M., & Childers, K. (1997). Developing underprepared college students’ question-answering skills. Journal of Developmental Education, 21 (1), 20-22, 24, 26, 28.

Taraban, R., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. (2000). College students’ academic performance and self-reports of comprehension strategy use. Journal of Reading Psychology, 21, 283-308.