Abstract
We describe the empirical and theoretical roots of the Reading to Learn program of research, which was designed to investigate the metacognition and learning of upper elementary students in supportive etext environments. The results of study one, a think-aloud study in which children responded to narrative and informational texts, were used to inform the design of supports that were investigated in study two. Study two was an intervention study in which children read and responded to one of three etext versions: A static version, an interactive diagram version in which students could animate the graphic that corresponded with information presented in the prose and could manipulate the diagrams to explore ideas that were presented in the prose, or an interactive diagram/coaching version, which included two animated pedagogical agents, who provided both procedural and conceptual support. We critique the methods used in the intervention study and propose further research suggested by its findings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Below Basic (130 and below).
Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade (131–166).
Proficient represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter (167–223).
Advanced represents superior performance (224 and above).
References
ACT (2010, October 23). The condition of college and career readiness 2010. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr10/pdf/ConditionofCollegeandCareerReadiness2010.pdf.
Braun, H., Coley, R., Jia, Y., & Trapani, C. (2009, May). Exploring what works in science instruction: A look at the eighth-grade science classroom. ETS Policy Information Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). Poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15, 44. Spring, 2003.
Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L., & Cook Smith, N. (2010). Literacy by design: A universally designed digital reading approach for young students with significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. doi:10.1177/0741932510381651. Advance online publication.
Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2007). Reading as thinking: Integrating strategy instruction in a universally designed digital literacy environment. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 423–442). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (January, 2002). Engaging the text: reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded digital learning environment. Final report to US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2008). The changing landscape of text and comprehension in the age of new literacies. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 297–324). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dalton, B., Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E. (2011). Designing for diversity: The role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital reading environment for 5th grade monolingual English and bilingual students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1), 68–100.
DeFrance, N. (2008). Struggling readers learning with graphic-rich digital science text: Effects of a highlight & animate feature and manipulable graphics. Unpublished dissertation study. University of Michigan.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 Minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.
Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2005). Teaching and learning inquiry-based science in the elementary school. In J. Bransford & S. Donovan (Eds.), Visions of teaching subject matter guided by the principles of how people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McKenna, M. C., & Zucker, T. A. (2009). Use of electronic storybooks in reading. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 254–272). NY: Routledge.
Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1988). Teaching and practicing thinking skills to promote comprehension in the context of group problem solving. Remedial and Special Education, 9 (1), 53–59.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Instruction for self-regulated reading. In L. Resnick & L. Kloepfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and text-based investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty five years of progress (pp. 151–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A., & Dalton, B. (2005). Speaking literacy and learning to technology; Speaking technology to literacy and learning. In B. Maloch, J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, C. Fairbanks, & J. Worthy (Eds.), Invited annual research address, 54th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 83–102). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference, Inc.
Palincsar, A. S., Hapgood, S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2007). Examining “Expert Guidance” in the context of inquiry-based science teaching: Applying lenses that Ann Brown honed to the study of teachers’ practice. In J. C. Campione, K. Metz, & A. S. Palincsar (Eds.), Children’s learning in the laboratory and in the classroom: Essays in honor of Ann Brown. NY: Routledge.
Proctor, P., Dalton, B., Uccelli, P., Biancarosa, G., Mo, E., Snow, C. E., & Neugebauer, S. (2011). Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(5), 517–544.
Rand Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for Understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rummelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. 6, pp. 573–603). New York: Academic.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Feeman, D. J. (1981). A longitudinal study of sentence context effects in second grade children: Tests of an interactive compensatory model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 185–199.
Acknowledgments
The research reported here was funded by a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education to CAST, Inc (Co-Principal Investigators B. Dalton, CAST, and A.S. Palincsar, University of Michigan). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the US Department of Education. The authors thank our research teams, especially S.J. Magnusson, Susanna Hapgood, Nancy DeFrance, Patrick Proctor, Debi Khasnabis, Ge Vue, Kristin Robinson, and E. Mo. We also thank the administrators, teachers, and, especially, the children who have contributed to this work. Finally, we thank the editors for their helpful feedback and their inexhaustible patience.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dalton, B., Palincsar, A.S. (2013). Investigating Text–Reader Interactions in the Context of Supported etext. In: Azevedo, R., Aleven, V. (eds) International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 28. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-5545-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-5546-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)