Changing How Students Process and Comprehend Texts with Computer-Based Self-Explanation Training

Abstract

This study assessed whether and how self-explanation reading training, provided by iSTART (Interactive Strategy Training for Active Reading and Thinking), improves the effectiveness of comprehension processes. iSTART teaches students how to self-explain and which strategies will most effectively aid comprehension from moment-to-moment. We used RSAT (Reading Strategy Assessment Tool) to assess how iSTART changes the relation between important selfexplanation reading strategies-bridging and elaboration-and online comprehension, and how often they are produced. College and high school students received iSTART and were administered RSAT prior to and post-training. Results from three experiments showed that iSTART primarily benefits bridging inferences when self explaining. The frequency of bridging inferences was higher post training than prior to training, but only in the experiments involving college students. Additionally, prior to exposure to iSTART, RSAT bridging scores did not predict comprehension performance, whereas they did after iSTART, suggesting that iSTART may improve comprehension processes by teaching students how to appropriately use selfexplanation to address comprehension difficulties. Finally, the results from this study suggest that RSAT may provide a valuable computer-based assessment of the effectiveness of selfexplanations that could be used in conjunction with iSTART and in future research on selfexplanation.

Spontaneous inferential processing while reading interleaved expository texts enables learners to discover the underlying regularities

“…The moderated mediation analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of interleaving on learning (when participants were spontaneously engaged in self‐questioning), mediated by making inductive inferences, which confirms the Moderated Mediation Hypothesis 3 . This pattern of results converges with the finding of the link between coherence construction processes reflected in students' language responses while reading and learning outcomes (Abel & Hänze, 2019; Ainsworth & Burcham, 2007; Allen, McNamara, & McCrudden, 2015; Kurby et al, 2012; Magliano & Millis, 2003). Paraphrases (which can be considered low‐level inferences) in contrast do not support the representation of factual details (McNamara, 2004).…”

“…We also found no support for the second presumption of no difference between both interleaving conditions. Readers in the inter- ing of the link between coherence construction processes reflected in students' language responses while reading and learning outcomes (Abel & Hänze, 2019;Ainsworth & Burcham, 2007;Allen, McNamara, & McCrudden, 2015;Kurby et al, 2012;Magliano & Millis, 2003). Paraphrases (which can be considered low-level inferences) in contrast do not support the representation of factual details (McNamara, 2004).…”

Generating Causal Relations in Scientific Texts: The Long-Term Advantages of Successful Generation

“…For example, Allen et al (2015) found a link between the learning performance and the extent of causal cohesion in students’ language responses during self-explanation and think-aloud activities. Kurby et al (2012) also found that local and distal inferences during self-explanation predicted comprehension. Similarly, Magliano and Millis (2003) demonstrated that readers whose verbal protocols overlapped with causally important sentences from the text achieved higher scores on the comprehension test.…”

Learning-by-Teaching Without Audience Presence or Interaction: When and Why Does it Work?

“…Further inspiration could be drawn from the rich body of research on enhancing the effectiveness of self-explaining or writing interventions (Bisra et al, 2018;Klein et al, 2018). For instance, regarding self-explaining, it is well-documented that focused prompting (e.g., Johnson & Mayer, 2010;Renkl & Eitel, 2019;Rittle-Johnson & Loehr, 2017) or even explicit training (e.g., Kurby et al, 2012) helps students make better self-explanations and thereby learn more. It seems sensible to assume that these strategies also work for non-interactive teaching.…”