Reading for Understanding:
Instilling Reader Goals and
Expectations
Jennifer Wiley & Thomas D. Griffin
University of Illinois at Chicago
Keith Thiede, Boise State
Supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education, Grants R305H030170 and R305B07460
The importance of comprehension
and metacomprehension in
learning from text
– The goal of reading expository text in subject matter
instruction is generally for the reader to understand a
new phenomenon or a process (Wiley, Griffin &
Thiede, 2005; Wiley & Myers, 2003).
– This requires more than surface memory or superficial
processing of the text (Kintsch, 1994).
– It requires comprehension (the construction and
integration of causal mental models).
The importance of comprehension
and metacomprehension in
learning from text
– Accurate comprehension monitoring
metacomprehension
is critical for the effective self-regulation of study.
– However, readers are typically poor at gauging their
comprehension of expository texts. (Dunlosky &
Lipko, 2007; Maki, 1998: Thiede, Wiley, Griffin &
Redford, 2009) .
– As a result of poor metacomprehension accuracy,
readers fail to make optimal decisions about what to
re-read (Maki, 1998; Thiede, Anderson, & Therriault,
2003).
Defining Metacomprehension
Accuracy
Common Procedure: READ6 – JUDGE6 – TEST6
How well will you do on each test?
Rank order correlations between judgment &
actual test performance
JUDGE TEST
– Volcanoes 5 5
– Lightning 4 4
– Cheese Making 3 3
Perfect
– Photosynthesis 2 2 1.0 !!
– Natural Selection 3 3
– Ice Ages 5 5
Defining Metacomprehension
Accuracy
Common Procedure: READ6 – JUDGE6 – TEST6
How well will you do on each test?
Rank order correlations between judgment &
actual test performance
JUDGE TEST
– Volcanoes 5 5 More
– Lightning 4 4 Typical
– Cheese Making 3 3
– Photosynthesis 4 2
Value:
– Natural Selection 3 3 .27
– Ice Ages 2 5
What factors may lead to
inaccurate judgments?
Readers may be selecting the WRONG cues as
the basis for their judgments (Koriat, 1997)
– How well did you understand this text?
– How well will you do on a comprehension test?
Students may not understand what it means to
“read for understanding” or what it means to
“comprehend” an expository text.
Students may not know what to expect for a
comprehension test.
Do readers use valid cues for comprehension?
Reported Basis for Judgments
Thiede, Griffin, Wiley & Anderson, 2010
How many items will you get right
on a comprehension test?
What did you base your judgment on?
40
35
30
Frequency
25
20
15
10
5
0
Text Reader Memory Comprehension
Cue Type
Metacomprehension Accuracy
Thiede, Griffin, Wiley & Anderson, 2010
How many items will you get right
on a comprehension test?
0.9
0.8
Metacomprehension
0.7
0.6
Accuracy
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Text Reader Memory Comprehension
Cue Type
Students need to know what
“Reading for Understanding” means
Memory for text is not comprehension of text
– memory cues come from surface or textbase levels
– we define understanding in terms of the situation model which
requires the integration of ideas (Kintsch, 1994, 1998)
To make a judgment, a reader monitors various cues
Readers may default to memory cues
However these cues are not necessarily predictive of
understanding.
When comprehension items tap the situation-model level
(causal inferences, explanations), judgments based on
the quality of their situation models will be more valid
Use of valid cues should improve metacomprehension
accuracy
Supporting Better
Metacomprehension with Valid
Cues for Understanding
Delayed Keyword/Summary Tasks after reading
Thiede & Anderson, 2003; Thiede, Anderson & Therriault, 2003; Thiede, Dunlosky,
Griffin & Wiley, 2005; Anderson & Thiede, 2007
- surface memory fades quickly
Self Explanation during reading
Griffin, Wiley & Thiede, 2007
– Focused readers on quality of situation model representation
Concept Mapping during reading
Thiede, Anderson, Griffin & Wiley, 2010
– Focused less-skilled readers on quality of situation model representation
All of the above provide a CONTEXT that makes valid cues
more accessible and improves accuracy to .50-.80
Practice Tests and Test Expectancy
– Can readers select valid cues on their own if they are given more information
(goals and expectations) about what reading for understanding entails?
Improving Metacomprehension
Accuracy with Test Expectancy
Wiley, Griffin & Thiede, in preparation
3 Expectancy Conditions instilled in 3 Practice Texts
– Told Memory Test, Given Example Memory Tests
– Told Comprehension Test, Given Example Inference Tests
– No Example Tests or Expectancies (only read texts)
Read and Predicted Test performance on 6 target texts
– How many items do you think you will get correct on a 5 item
test?
Everyone got BOTH memory and inference target tests
– Final test order counterbalanced
Both metamemory and metacomprehension accuracy were
computed
Test Expectancies help
Wiley, Griffin & Thiede, in preparation
0.5
0.45
Metacomprehension
0.4
0.35
Accuracy
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
No Expect Expect Memory Expect
Comprehension
Practice Condition
Similar results obtained in Thiede, Wiley & Griffin, in press
Test expectancy influences monitoring accuracy
Better metacomprehension accuracy was seen
when participants expected comprehension
tests, and had an idea of what a comprehension
item would be like.
Some evidence that expectations can guide
selection of valid cues, but modestly
Can an intervention that makes valid cues more
accessible, along with expectancy that guides
selection, further improve monitoring accuracy?
Instilling both expectancies
and processing goals
Wiley, Griffin & Thiede, in preparation
Comprehension Test Expectancy or not
3 Practice Texts
Told Comprehension Test, Given Inference Tests
No Test Information, No Practice Tests
– (just read the 3 practice texts)
Self-explain silently while reading vs. not
Make connections, say how and why sentences relate,
explain relations (Based on Chi, 2000)
Aids metacomprehension accuracy through access to
situation-model level cues (Griffin, Wiley & Thiede, 2007)
Both Test Expectancy and Self-
Explanation help
0.7
0.6
Metacomprehension
0.5
Accuracy
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
No Expect/SE Expect Comp Self Explain Expect and SE
Practice Test/Explain Condition
Readers need to know what
Reading for Understanding
means
In combination, both practice tests (on OTHER topics)
and self-explanation instructions helped readers to
monitor their own understanding on NEW texts.
Readers need to be directed to consider situation-model
level cues when judging understanding, and those cues
need to be salient.
Exploring the long-term effects of these interventions on
studying and learning outcomes is the next step.
Ultimately, giving students a sense of “understanding”
should allow them to engage in more effective self-
regulated studying as they attempt to comprehend
information from expository texts.