SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training

Abstract

This study examined the effects of providing reading strategy instruction to improve the effectiveness of self-explanation (i.e., explaining the meaning of information to oneself while reading). The effects of the reading strategy instruction, called Self-Explanation Reading Training (SERT), were examined both in terms of comprehension scores and self-explanation quality. Half of the participants (n = 42) received SERT, which included reading strategy instruction and self-explanation practice with 4 science texts (SERT condition). The remaining participants read aloud the 4 science texts (control condition). During this training phase, self-explanation, as compared to reading aloud, only improved comprehension for the most difficult of the 4 texts. Prior domain knowledge consistently improved comprehension performance, whereas reading skill and reading span had minimal effects. After training, both SERT and control participants self-explained a difficult text about cell mitosis. SERT improved comprehension and self-explanation quality only for participants with low domain knowledge. However, the effects of SERT on low-knowledge participants' comprehension emerged only for text-based questions and not for bridging-inference questions. Protocol analyses indicated that SERT helped these participants to use logic, or domain-general knowledge, rather than domain-specific knowledge to make sense of the text.Understanding and learning from written material is one of the most important skills to possess in modern society. The importance of understanding text ranges from being able to decipher the "three easy steps" for setting up your computer to understanding the ever-dreaded physiology textbook. Indeed, the ability to comprehend the challenging textbooks confronted in typical classrooms is one of the

Cognitive Processes in Discourse Comprehension: Passive Processes, Reader-Initiated Processes, and Evolving Mental Representations

“…But they can lead to comprehension beyond what results from the passive processes alone. There is a wide variety of possible reader-initiated processes (e.g., Duke & Pearson, 2002;Graesser et al, 1994;McNamara, 2004;Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992;Pressley & Wharton-McDonald, 1997;, ranging from simple actions such as rereading a sentence to very involved actions such as reflection, note-taking, comparison with other documents, and so on. Reader-initiated processes have received less systematic research attention than passive processes, in part because they are so varied.…”

Separating the Relevant From the Irrelevant: The Sri Learning Model

“…This is because the SRI model trained the students to memorize the key information, and traditional teaching models train them to be reproductive and where they have to learn the material, non--selective memorizing. The experimental SRI program directed the students to separate the relevant from the irrelevant, to memorize the chosen, to value the material, which is analogous to other researches (McNamara, 2004;Noordman et al, 1992;Rogers, 1969). The entire program was conducted in social interaction, with coeducation and cooperation of the students, which is in accordance with Albert Bandura's theory and the theory of social learning (1969).…”

“…In order not to learn everything that is in the curriculum and syllabus and textbooks, the student needs to learn how to separate the relevant from the irrelevant. In order to achieve this, we need to train students to ask questions and give answers (Bugg & McDaniel, 2012), to read selectively and actively (McNamara, 2004), to understand the things they are learning (Noordman, Vomk, & Kempff, 1992), to evaluate their own activity (Rogers, 1969). All this can only be accomplished with the teacher's ability to engage or interactively include students into the process.…”

Using Coherence Analysis to Characterize Self-Regulated Learning Behaviours in Open-Ended Learning Environments

“…They must then correctly interpret those relations in order to create an accurate mental model of the science phenomena involved. Such processes can be difficult for learners; they may not have a firm grasp of causal reasoning mechanisms and the corresponding representational structures, or they may have difficulty in extracting the correct causal relations from the nuanced, technical writing style typical of science texts (McNamara, 2004). Further complications exist when the information contained in the resources conflicts with or challenges learners' prior inaccurate understandings of the problem domain.…”