Effect of Think-Aloud Instruction on Elementary Students' Comprehension Monitoring Abilities

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of explicit instruction in think aloud as a means to promote elementary students' comprehension monitoring abilities. Sixty-six fourth-grade students were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: (a) a Think-Aloud (TA) group, in which students were taught various comprehension monitoring strategies for reading stories (e.g., selfquestioning, prediction, retelling, rereading) through the medium of thinking aloud; (b) a Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DRTA) group, in which students were taught a predict-verify strategy for reading and responding to stories; or (c) a Directed Reading Activity (DRA) group, an instructed control, in which students engaged in a noninteractive, guided reading of stories. The primary quantitative analyses involved two planned orthogonal contrasts-effect of instruction (TA + DRTA vs. 2 x DRA) and intensity of instruction (TA vs. DRTA)-for three whole-sample dependent measures: (a) an error detection test, (b) a comprehension monitoring questionnaire, and (c) a modified cloze test. Results of effect of instruction contrasts revealed that TA and DRTA students were more skillful at comprehension monitoring than DRA students (TA + DRTA>DRA for all three measures). Results of intensity of instruction contrasts indicated that although TA-trained students had greater awareness of comprehension monitoring abilities (TA>DRTA for the questionnaire), DRTA students' performance equaled (TA = DRTA for the cloze test) or exceeded (TA<DRTA for the error detection test) that of the TA students. Qualitative data from student interviews, however, revealed that TA students both reported and demonstrated using a greater depth 143

Measures of Effect Size for Comparative Studies: Applications, Interpretations, and Limitations

“…In the sections that follow we will use that data collected by Bauman et al (1992) to demonstrate a variety of effect size indicators for several designs and data analyses. We will review both standardized mean difference effect sizes and proportion of variance effect sizes.…”

“…In Bauman et al (1992) two contrasts were of specific interest. The complex contrast examined the effect of instruction by comparing the average of TA and DRTA with DRA:…”

“…When option A was used the standard deviation for the DRA group was used. The DRA treatment was the control treatment in Bauman et al (1992). The effect sizes only differ slightly depending on the estimate used for σ.…”

“…To illustrate how the resolution of the issue affects results we separated each of the treatment groups in the Bauman et al (1992) study into two subgroups. Within each treatment group, students above the group's median on the pretest EDT were assigned to the high-ability group; the other students were assigned to the low-ability group.…”

“…As a consequence of a small sample size statistical power (the likelihood of detecting true differences) can be low. Bauman et al (1992), for example, had access to only 68 participants, with only 66 individuals completing the study. One strategy that can be used to increase statistical power is to obtain additional information, prior to the beginning the intervention, about the partici-pants that is related to the outcome measures.…”