Active reading questions as a strategy to support college students’ textbook reading.

Abstract

This pilot study and experiment investigates the use of active reading questions (ARQs) as a potential reading tool to support college students’ textbook reading. The pilot study compares the self-selected use of ARQs and PowerPoint slides (PPTs) in 4 college classrooms and indicated that both reading strategies had similar but limited effects on learning. In the experiment, a reading tool (e.g., ARQs or PPTs) was required or participants were given no tool at all (control group). Time spent reading and general reading comprehension skills were controlled for. Participants who completed the ARQs demonstrated significantly increased higher-level learning for recall questions when compared with the PPT (p = .02, d = .36) and control conditions (p < .001, d = .31). Students given ARQs also demonstrated significantly increased lower-level learning for recall questions when compared with the PPT (p = .03, d = .68) and control conditions (p = .003, d = .63). There were no differences in participants recognition of information. Applications of these findings are discussed as well as limitations and future directions.

Effect of inserted adjunct questions on L2 reading with Chinese learners

“…Written recall depicts a thorough picture of comprehension, primarily because it has no retrieval cues or tester interference (Bernhardt, 2011). Written recall invokes deeper-level processing than information recognition that is tested via multiple-choice (Fleck et al, 2017). It taps into the encoding of individual propositions (Irwin & Mitchell, 1983), the discerning of essential and nonessential content, and the integration of multiple pieces of information into a coherent mental representation (Martin et al, 2016).…”

“…One type of adjunct question is the targeted segment (TS) question, also referred to as “what question.” TS question asks about specific text content and can be answered by information solely presented in the text. Research has shown that TS questions enhance text memory and comprehension for L1 readers (Butler, 2010; Carroll et al, 2007; Fleck et al, 2017; Hamilton, 1985; Healy et al, 2017; Kapp et al, 2015; Walczyk & Hall, 1989; Weinstein et al, 2016; Zhou et al, 2015), particularly when the questions overlap with those in final assessment (Hamaker, 1986; McDaniel et al, 2012). Less‐skilled readers especially benefit from adjunct questions (Callender & McDaniel, 2007; Peverly & Wood, 2001), whereas proficient readers perform well with or without adjunct questions (Stiegler‐Balfour & Benassi, 2015).…”

“…The above adjunct question signals the importance of the “retina's function” information and promotes its linkage to other components in the mental representation of the text. It has been widely reported in L1 reading that answering questions embedded within the text improves comprehension (Butler, 2010; Callender & McDaniel, 2007; Carroll et al, 2007; Fleck et al, 2017; Hamaker, 1986; Hamilton, 1985; Healy et al, 2017; Kapp et al, 2015; McDaniel et al, 2012; Peverly & Wood, 2001; van den Broek et al, 2001; Walczyk & Hall, 1989; Weinstein et al, 2016; Zhou et al, 2015). Nevertheless, this technique has not been investigated extensively in L2 reading and previous research has produced mixed results.…”

An evidence-based roadmap for success: Part 1—The bumpy road of graduate school.

“…SoTL is defined as the "systematic study of teaching and/or learning and the public sharing and review of such work through presentations, performance, or publications" (McKinney, 2007, p. 39). For example, Fleck, Richmond, Rauer, Beckman, and Lee (2017) developed a method of active reading to increase students' learning and students' use and efficiency of reading textbooks in their classes and found that compared to the use of Power-Point presentations, that students who engage in active reading were more motivated to engage in course work and academically do better. Richmond, Gurung, and Boysen (2016) suggested that SoTL research is ripe for growth, especially at the graduate student level.…”

High-tech versus low-tech: Comparing approaches to increase college student reading compliance and engagement.

“…It is hard to test student preclass reading directly since self-report can be unreliable, particularly when students know that their report may influence their grade (Sappington et al, 2002). However, researchers have tested various interventions to evaluate their effectiveness at increasing student performance on assessments (e.g., Maurer & Longfield, 2015) or compliance rates on anonymous self-report measures (e.g., Fleck et al, 2017; Hoeft, 2012). Some of these approaches have involved voluntary interventions.…”