Cover not available

In:Reading Comprehension in Educational Settings
Edited by José A. León and Inmaculada Escudero
[Studies in Written Language and Literacy 16] 2017
► pp. 125–144

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 5
Five building blocks for comprehension strategy instruction

 | Arizona State University
 | Arizona State University
Published online: 19 October 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.16.05all
Abstract
Comprehension is a complex task that is integral to success in academics and the workplace. Unfortunately, it is not a task that comes easily to all students. Hence, an important question faced by educators and researchers is how to most effectively provide students with instruction to improve comprehension, particularly on how to understand and learn from challenging texts. One promising approach is to provide students with training to use comprehension strategies. Strategies are intended to help students overcome skill and knowledge deficits by using overt techniques that mimic or support the processes integral to successful comprehension, including understanding the words and sentences in the text, making connections between sentences, and making connections to what the student already knows (i.e., prior knowledge). In this chapter, we approach these research questions by building upon the 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework proposed by McNamara, Ozuru, Best, and O’Reilly (2007). This framework describes five types of strategies that can help to scaffold reading and comprehension. We expand upon this framework by describing various contextual factors that may influence comprehension and strategy use. Further, we discuss methods to enhance strategy instruction, introducing five building blocks for effective comprehension strategy training.
Article outline
  • Five building blocks for comprehension strategy instruction
    • Reading comprehension
      • This is a complex and challenging task for many readers
    • The 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework
    • Contextual factors of strategy acquisition
      • Stimulus
      • Task
      • Method
      • Population
    • The five building blocks for comprehension strategy instruction
      • Varying task conditions
      • Explicit instruction of strategies
      • Deliberate practice opportunities
      • Feedback
      • Motivational components
    • Conclusion
  • References
References (72)
References
Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375–404. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allen, L. K., Crossley, S. A., Snow, E. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Game-based writing strategy tutoring for second language learners: Game enjoyment as a key to engagement. Language Learning and Technology, 18, 124–150.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 460–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Flores d’Arcais, G. B., & Rayner, K. (1990). Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., & Arici, A. (2009). Transformational play: Why educators should care about games. Educational Leadership, 67, 76–80.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berman, I., & Biancarosa, G. (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor’s guide to adolescent literacy. National governors Association Center for Best Practices. Retrieved from [URL].
Block, E. L. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463–494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brantmeier, C. (2002). Second language reading strategy research at the secondary and university levels: Variations, disparities, and generalizability. The Reading Matrix, 2.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 121–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Center on Education Policy. (2007). Caught in the middle: Arizona’s English language learners and the high school exit exam. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, A. T. & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact of learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In Proceedings of ACM CHI-2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 245–252).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2006). Affect detection from human-computer dialogue with an intelligent tutoring system. In J. Gratch, M. Young, R. Aylett, D. Ballin, & P. Oliver (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Intelligent Virtual Agents: 6th International Conference (pp. 54–67). Berlin, Heiderlberg: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duvivier, R. J., van Dalen, J., Muijtjens, A. M., Moulaert, V. R. M. P., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2011). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of clinical skills. BMC Medical Education, 11, 101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engel, S. (1999). Context is everything: The nature of memory. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15, 988–994. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ericcson, A., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Everson, H., & Tobias, S. (1998). The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in college: A metacognitive analysis. Instructional Science, 26, 65–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givón, T. (1995). (Eds.) Coherence in spontaneous text. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Reading research handbook (Vol. III, pp. 403–424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haberlandt, K. F., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Healy, A., Schneider, V., & Bourne, L. (2012). Empirically valid principles of training. In A. Healy and L. Bourne (Eds.), Training cognition: Optimizing efficiency, durability, and generalizability (pp. 13–39). Psychology Press: New York.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holman, L. (2000). A comparison of computer-assisted instruction and classroom bibliographic instruction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 40, 53–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hupbach, A., Hardt, O., Gomez, R., & Nadel, L. (2008). The dynamics of memory: Context-dependent updating. Learning and Memory, 15, 574–579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Motivation and performance in a game-based intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1036–1049. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000–2001 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linderholm, T., Virtue, S., Tzeng, Y., & van den Broek, P. W. (2004). Fluctuations in the availability of information during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the landscape model. Discourse Processes, 37, 165–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1456–1470.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P., & Mogan,A. M. (1987). Effects of reading task on on-line processing of a text’s topic structure. Discourse Processes, 10, 63–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magliano, J. P., & Schleich, M. (2000). Verb aspect and situation models. Discourse Processes, 29, 83–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maqsud, M. (1997). Effects of metacognitive skills and nonverbal ability on academic achievement of high school pupils. Educational Psychology, 17, 387–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1993). Comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview. Learning and Instruction, 3, 239–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2011). Relevance in text comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 1–17). Greenwich, CT: Information Age PublishingGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Measuring deep, reflective comprehension and learning strategies: Challenges and successes. Megacognition and Learning, 3, 1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Jacovina, M. E., & Allen, L. K. (2015). Higher order thinking in comprehension. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Text and context, (pp. 164–176). Taylor & Francis, Routledge: NY.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Jacovina, M. E., Snow, E. L., & Allen, L. K. (2015). From generating in the lab to tutoring systems in classrooms. American Journal of Psychology, 128(2), 159–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S. & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). New York, NY: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465–482.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., Best, R., & O’Reilly, T. (2007). The 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 465–496). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
National Assessment Governing Board (2013). Less than half of 12th Graders estimated to be academically prepared for college coursework. Washington, D.C. Retrieved Jan. 13, 2015, [URL]
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2012, [URL].
Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. In C. Cornaldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 69–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
OECS (2014). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Retrieved Jan. 13, 2015, [URL]
O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pearson, P. D. (1974–75). The effects of grammatical complexity on children’s comprehension, recall and conception of semantic relations. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 155–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pressley, M., Beard El-Dinary, P., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 513–555. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 273–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ricci, K., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Do computer-based games facilitate knowledge acquisition and retention? Military Psychology, 8, 295–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roebers, C. M., Röthlisberger, M., Cimeli, P., Michel, E., & Neuenschwander, R. (2011). School enrolment and executive functioning: A longitudinal perspective on developmental changes, the influence of learning context, and the prediction of pre-academic skills. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 526–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowe, J., Shores, L., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (2011). Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in narrative-centered learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 21, 115–133.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaffer, D. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work – Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from [URL].
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623–664. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, A., Stevens, J. R., & Asher, J. W. (2006). The effects of explicit reading strategy training on L2 reading comprehension. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 213–244). Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081–1087. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1988). Understanding of anaphoric relations in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 173–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Kim, Jinhee, Sang-Soog Lee, Rita Detrick, Jialin Wang & Na Li
2025. Students-Generative AI interaction patterns and its impact on academic writing. Journal of Computing in Higher Education DOI logo
Kim, Jinhee, Seongryeong Yu, Rita Detrick & Na Li
2025. Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing. Education and Information Technologies 30:1 ► pp. 1265 ff. DOI logo
Tran, Thi Thu Phuong, Tuyet Nhi Dang & Vo Lam Phuong Nguyen
2025. Master Students’ Perceptions of How ChatGPT Influenced Critical Thinking in Academic Writing at The Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City. International Journal of AI in Language Education 2:2 ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Qiong & Anfeng Xu
2025. Poe or Gemini for fostering writing skills in Japanese upper‐intermediate learners: Uncovering the consequences on positive emotions, boredom to write, academic self‐efficacy and writing development. British Educational Research Journal DOI logo
Zhu, Jing & Chunyun Duan
2025. Pan-indexicality and prompt: developing a teaching model for AI-mediated academic writing. Language and Semiotic Studies 11:2 ► pp. 286 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Reid, Pamela Snow, Tanya Serry & Lorraine Hammond
2023. Elementary Teachers' Perspectives on Teaching Reading Comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 54:3 ► pp. 888 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue