This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ]On: 15 May 2014, At: 07:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20

Learning reading strategies by triggeringreading motivationCor Aarnoutse a & Gonny Schellings aa Department of Educational Sciences, University of Nijmegen,Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The NetherlandsPublished online: 03 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Cor Aarnoutse & Gonny Schellings (2003) Learning readingstrategies by triggering reading motivation, Educational Studies, 29:4, 387-409, DOI:10.1080/0305569032000159688

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305569032000159688

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4, December 2003

Learning Reading Strategies byTriggering Reading MotivationCOR AARNOUTSE & GONNY SCHELLINGSDepartment of Educational Sciences, University of Nijmegen, Montessorilaan 3,6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands

SUMMARY In this article, the effectiveness of an intervention aimed at the development ofreading motivation and reading strategies within problem-oriented learning environments isevaluated. The basic assumption underlying the intervention is that reading should occur inmeaningful contexts and that reading and science should be regularly integrated. The interven-tion challenges pupils to investigate a self-formulated problem, read several books or texts on thetopic and report the results of their study. The participants were six experimental third-gradeclasses and seven comparable control classes. The effects of the intervention were measured usinga pretest-posttest control group design. Analyses of covariance were conducted to examine theeffects as measured by a standardized Reading Comprehension Test, a Reading ComprehensionQuestionnaire, a Reading Strategy Test and a Reading Motivation Scale. The results showedthe experimental group to outperform the control group with regard to knowledge of readingstrategies (Reading Comprehension Questionnaire) and the use of such strategies (ReadingStrategy Test). A significant difference in favour of the experimental group was also found forthe Reading Motivation Scale. An effect on the standardized Reading Comprehension Test wasnot found.

Introduction

In the present study, the central question is just how the teaching of readingcomprehension can best be undertaken to prepare primary school children toread informative texts with both interest and understanding. As will be seen, thestimulation of reading motivation and the development of reading strategieswithin problem-oriented learning environments can play an important role inthis.

Reading motivation activates and guides reading behaviour. According toGuthrie and Wigfield (2000) it is likely “that motivational processes are thefoundation for coordinating cognitive goals and strategies in reading” (p. 408).Reading motivation is multifaceted including goals for reading, intrinsic andextrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and social motivation for reading.

Reading comprehension is the construction of the meaning of texts. Suchmeaning emerges from the interaction between reader and text, between the

ISSN 0305-5698 print; 1465-3400 online/03/040387–23 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0305569032000159688

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

388 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

knowledge, skill and motivation of the reader and the text which has a specificintention, structure and degree of difficulty.

Reading Motivation

Pupils who consciously apply knowledge and strategies to clearly understand atext tend to have a high level of reading motivation. They are intrinsically orextrinsically motivated to exert themselves. Pupils who have a clear desire toread a text with understanding and are thus engaged also meet an importantprerequisite for becoming good readers and thereby enriching themselves via thewritten word (Verhoeven & Snow, 2001). Guthrie et al. (1999) describemotivation as those personal characteristics which influence the activities andachievements of individuals in the form of objectives, convictions and needs. Animportant aspect of reading motivation is reading attitude, which pertainspredominantly to the feelings of the individual with respect to reading. Researchhas demonstrated an indirect relation between reading motivation and readingcomprehension (Baker & Wigfield, 1999). In a study by Guthrie et al. (1999),reading motivation was found to exert a direct and significant effect on thenumber of texts and books read by a group of third- and fifth-grade children,but not on their reading comprehension. In a follow-up study among secondaryschool pupils, Guthrie et al. (1999) showed reading motivation to exert anindirect effect on reading comprehension via the number of texts and booksread. Furthermore, a clear relation has been demonstrated between people’sopinions regarding their own reading competence and their actual readingachievement (Schunk & Rice, 1993). A similar relation holds for the value whichpeople attach to reading or reading-related tasks and their reading comprehen-sion (Wigfield et al., 1996). A strong connection exists between the interest ofpupils in texts and their comprehension of texts (Renninger, 1992). Differentresearchers have emphasized that motivation is of critical importance for theacquisition and application of reading strategies (Alexander et al. 1998; Pressley,1998). Research has shown a reciprocal relation to exist between readingmotivation and the use of reading strategies: reading motivation influences theuse of reading strategies and the use of reading strategies influences readingmotivation (Carr & Borkowski, 1989; Van Kraayenoord & Schneider, 1999). Inaddition, the aforementioned studies and research by Van Elsacker (2002) hasshown reading motivation to exert an indirect effect, via the use of readingstrategies, on achievement in the domain of reading comprehension.

The finding that the intrinsic motivation to learn and read declines acrossthe primary school period is disturbing (Eccles, 1993; Van Elsacker, 2002; Otter& Schoonen, 1996; Wigfield, 1994). Along these lines, McKenna et al. (1995)have shown the positive attitudes of primary school children (grades onethrough six) to clearly decline with respect to both learning to read andrecreational reading (cf. Aarnoutse & Van Leeuwe, 1998). This decline can beexplained in part by the changing attributions of primary school children:First-grade children largely attribute their successes or failures to having done

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 389

their best (or not) while fifth- and sixth-grade children tend to explain theirsuccesses or failures more in terms of having the requisite capacities (i.e., talentor intelligence). It should be clear that the reading motivation of children whocontinually attribute their failures to a lack of capacity (i.e., I’m stupid) entersthem into a downward spiral with all the concomitant consequences of such.

Pressley (1998) distinguishes five methods to improve the reading motiv-ation of children. The first concerns changing the attributions of poor readers.Along these lines, Borkowski et al. (1988) provided pupils who were knownto have poor reading comprehension skills with not only explicit instructionon reading strategies but also training aimed at the modification of dysfunc-tional attributions. The pupils in this condition were indeed found to usereading strategies more often than pupils who received explicit instruction onreading strategies alone. The second method distinguished by Pressley isbased on the assumption that interest is critical for the engagement of pupilsand the comprehension of text (Schiefele, 1992). This assumption impliesthat children should be offered texts and books with topics which stronglyinterest them in order to improve their reading motivation. The third methodinvovles the creation of a rich reading and writing environment within theclassroom. Such an environment should include a large number of books withreading, writing and storytelling corners and thereby plenty of opportunitiesto read, write and tell in small groups, interact with other pupils and so forth.From research by Morrow (1992), it appears that such a ‘whole language’approach can, indeed, positively affect both the reading motivation andlanguage skills of pupils. The fourth method to improve reading motivationinvolves making a large number of books available to schools and libraries andthereby the stimulation of children to read them. Teachers and parents shouldalso be called upon as much as possible. The fifth method is what Pressley(1998) refers to as the ‘community-of-learners approach.’ In such a com-munity, the children work in smaller groups to solve a particular problem orintensively study a particular question. This approach is in line with theproblem-oriented approach to reading being examined in the present contri-bution. The starting assumption is that reading, writing and social studies orscience should take place within the most meaningful context possible forpupils and thereby encourage them to explore, acquire and apply reading andwriting strategies in a functional manner. In such a learning community, thechildren themselves determine the problems or questions to be studied, workwith authentic texts, utilize a variety of media (including the internet), learnfrom each other in both small and large groups and ask both teachers andpeers about how to best search, select, process and write texts. In such amanner, reading and writing strategies can be acquired in a functionalmanner and the probability of transfer to other domains of learning andsituations is maximized.

Examples of the community-of-learners approach are so-called anchoredinstruction (cf. Bransford et al., 1990), the Sail Programme (cf. Brown et al.,1996), Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) (Guthrie et al., 1996)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

390 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

and the work of the research group associated with Van Elsacker & Verhoeven(2001).

Given that the experimental programme to be examined for its effectivenesshere closely resembles the concept-oriented approach to reading instructionoutlined by Guthrie, the procedures associated with the CORI will be brieflyconsidered further here. The aim of Guthrie’s programme is to promote greaterinvolvement (i.e., engagement) in literacy and science among pupils. Thisbegins with the choice of a topic in the domain of science with great interest topupils—for example, the adaptation of birds to their environment. Thereafter,the pupils are divided into small groups to observe concrete objects or events—in this case, birds in their natural environment. They take notes and formulatea number of questions. The teacher then stimulates each group to answer oneof the questions or a few closely related questions. The teacher shows the groupshow to find books on a particular topic or question and how tables of contents,indexes, illustrations and tables can be used. After an inventory has been madeof the necessary study materials, the processing of the numerous pieces ofinformation and integration of this information must be undertaken. Theteacher can again help by teaching the pupils different reading strategiesincluding the skimming of texts, the location of important information, thecomparison of texts and summary skills. The last phase involves communicationof the findings. This means that each of the small groups writes a text forpresentation to their classmates. Studies have shown the programme to posi-tively influence not only reading strategies but also reading comprehension andreading motivation (Guthrie et al., 1996; Guthrie et al., 1998).

Reading Strategies

Reading comprehension is a complex process consisting of numerous subprocesses which strongly influence each other. The perception of letters, rapidrecognition of words, detection of the function and meaning of the differentwords within a sentence and the integration of the parts of a sentence andconsecutive sentences into a meaningful whole are important sub processes. Therapid recognition of words and the integration of information into a meaningfulwhole constitute the core of reading comprehension.

In order to adequately comprehend a text, readers must have sufficientknowledge of not only the spoken and written language but also the topic of thetext. Readers must have sufficient knowledge of the concepts which occur withinthe text in the form of words. In addition to this conceptual knowledge, readersmust have mastered the necessary reading comprehension strategies. They mustalso be motivated to understand the text. In the following, just what we meanby reading comprehension strategies will be clarified and the findings from therelevant research to date will be briefly considered. Thereafter, we will devoteour attention to the effects of problem-oriented learning environments.

Reading strategies are the cognitive activities which readers can undertakebefore, during and after the reading of a text in order to adequately comprehend

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 391

the text and prevent, identify or solve any problems which may occur during thisprocess (Aarnoutse, 1998). Reading strategies are specific heuristics, methods orprocedures which readers more or less apply intentionally to adequately processand understand the information presented in a text. Reading strategies areprocedures which can be adapted to the characteristics of the reader, the textand the task (ef. Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Reading strategies are aids whichreaders can apply or not apply; they are not part of the objectives of readinginstruction but, rather, among the means to achieve such objectives. If readersuse such strategies unconsciously and effectively, one can speak of skills whichoperate almost automatically and, in such a case, readers who have completelymastered the relevant strategies.

Good readers employ different strategies before, during and after thereading of a text. They first determine their reading objective, use the title orsome other information to identify the topic of the text and activate their ownknowledge of the topic. They then read a few sentences, determine the type oftext and adjust their tempo and manner of reading accordingly. During thereading process itself, good readers draw connections between words andsentences; make use of clues to the structure and organization of the text; inferinformation from the sentences and paragraphs in the text; steer, monitor andcorrect their own reading behaviour; and identify the main ideas in the text. Inthe end, good readers also judge the value of the text. On the basis of theforegoing description, certain strategies can be viewed as metacognitive; that is,the strategies are used to steer or monitor ongoing cognitive activities. Examplesof important metacognitive strategies are the planning, steering and monitoringof one’s own reading behaviour and reflection on such. These self-control andself-regulation strategies pertain to not only ongoing cognitive activities—ac-cording to Alexander et al. (1998)—but also to the motivational and socialaspects of reading behaviour. From other research (Brand-Gruwel, 1995; Dane-man, 1991; Garner, 1987), we know that poor readers make little or no use ofsuch metacognitive strategies. Poor readers do not plan their readingsufficiently, do not monitor themselves adequately during the reading processand do not ask themselves whether they have understood the text frequentlyenough.

The following strategies are, according to different studies in the area ofreading comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000; Pearson, 2001; Press-ley, 1998, 2000; Rand Reading Study Group, 2002), essential for the readingprocess to go well: determination of a reading objective; activation and use ofone’s own knowledge with regard to the content of the text; drawing ofconnections or relations between words, sentences and paragraphs including theprediction of information and creation of representations; exploration of thenature and structure of different types of texts; discovery of the theme and themain ideas in a text along with a summary of such; posing and answering ofone’s own questions; planning, steering, monitoring and correction of one’s ownreading behaviour; evaluation of texts for their value; and reflection on thereading activities which have been executed and their results.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

392 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

Several years ago, research has shown that most teachers and most pro-grammes of reading instruction devoted little or no attention to the actualdevelopment of reading strategies among primary school children (Aarnoutse &Weterings, 1995; Durkin, 1978–79; Dutch Educational Inspectorate, 1996;Weterings & Aarnoutse, 1986). Teachers provided little or no explicit instruc-tion in the area of reading comprehension. They did not show pupils how toapproach a text or—in other words—demonstrate which strategies can best beapplied before, during and after the reading process in order to understand thetext as well as possible.

The observation that children were generally taught very little aboutreading strategies during the course of their reading comprehension lessonsprompted a large number of intervention studies aimed at the determination ofwhether explicit strategy instruction exerted an effect and, if so, the extent towhich this occurred. Three paradigms of research along these lines can bedistinguished with the most recent paradigm characterized by, among otherthings, attention to reading motivation and reading attitudes among children. Inaddition to the development of reading strategies, the promotion of pupilinvolvement or engagement in literacy activities thus stands central.

The Experimental Programme

An experimental programme consisting of 40 lessons distributed across fourunits of 10 lessons each was developed to stimulate the acquisition andapplication of reading motivation and reading comprehension strategies amongchildren. In each unit, a specific problem as formulated by the childrenthemselves stands central. The content of the problem concerns a particularsocial studies topic theme, which means that the themes addressed in the fourunits (i.e., animals, hobbies, countries, computers) link up with the experientialworld of third graders. Every unit is introduced with an exciting story or eventpertaining to the theme of the unit and concluded with the presentation andexplanation of the different products to be produced by the children (i.e., acollage, brochure, guidebook or manual). Following the introduction to theunit, the children orient themselves towards the theme by reading all kinds oftexts presented to them by the teacher. In addition, the pupils are encouragedto bring personal attributes to school such as hobby materials and referencebooks. Thereafter, the pupils divide into pairs and formulate a single problemin the form of a question to be answered. Each pair then assembles informationfrom authentic materials in order to work out the problem and create a concreteproduct relating to the problem. The reference materials consist predominantlyof informative texts which the pupils themselves have selected from booksavailable from the school or public libraries.

In the formulation and solution of the problem, each group is guided by theteacher who also provides specific instruction on reading strategies. The readingstrategies have been selected in such a manner that the pupils learn how toderive appropriate information from authentic materials. Within the pro-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 393

gramme, a distinction is also made between strategies for before, during andafter reading. Examples of strategies for application before reading are thesetting of the reading objective, search for a suitable text or book, activation ofprior knowledge, identification of the topic of the text and determination of thetext type. Strategies for application during the reading process involve theassociation of text fragments, the derivation of the meaning of difficult wordsand identification of the main ideas in the text. Examples of strategies forapplication after reading include the prediction of the further course of thetext, evaluation of text fragments (i.e., is the information relevant to theproblem?) and reflection on the learning process. All of the strategies wereoperationalized in the form of simple questions: What do I want to read aboutand why? What do these difficult words mean? What have I done? Thesequestions were printed on the bookmarks which were handed out to thepupils. The programme was organized in such a manner that primarily thosestrategies needed before the reading process were addressed in the first unit.Those strategies which play a central role in the reading process itself wereaddressed in the second unit followed by consideration of those strategieswhich are of particular importance for after the reading process in the thirdunit. In the fourth unit, all of the strategies received consideration. Therelevant strategies were explained by the teacher and demonstrated in the formof thinking out loud.

The pupils worked on each lesson in heterogeneous pairs. Given that thepupils were often not accustomed to working together, it was decided to havethem work in pairs. The better pupils often had to explain how a particularstrategy could best be applied to the weaker pupils and the weaker pupilsthereby had continuous access to a model. The pairs were not explicitlytrained on consultation although attention was paid to six rules for theadequate conduct of a conversation and thus consultation. The children weretaught to not talk simultaneously, to listen to each other, to not yell, to react,to ask each other for help and to compliment each other. The consultationrules were demonstrated via role playing, frequently in the form of a teacher-pupil game.

Within the programme, numerous different possibilities were utilized toinvolve the children in the reading and writing of texts to the greatest extentpossible and keep them highly involved. The most important motivationalfactors proved to be an exciting begin for each unit, choosing the problemoneself, working the problem out into a concrete product and the actualpresentation of the product.

The problem-oriented reading programme consists of a manual for theteacher and a workbook for the pupils. In the manual, relatively detaileddescriptions of how the lessons can be implemented are provided. A largenumber of suggestions and tips are also provided with regard to the guidance ofsmall groups of pupils. The workbooks contain texts, instructions, explanationsand tasks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

394 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

Research Questions

The central question in the present study concerned the effects of a programmeaimed at the development of reading strategies and reading motivation within aproblem-oriented learning environment. The programme was aimed at third-grade children, and answers were sought to the following three questions.

1. What is the effect of the programme on the children’s knowledge ofreading strategies and use of such?

2. What is the effect of the programme on the children’s reading compre-hension in general?

3. What is the effect of the programme on the children’s reading motiv-ation?

The effects of the programme were compared to the effects of a programmewhich was not based on the principles of problem-oriented reading. In the lattercase, the children did not research a self-formulated problem, did not examineauthentic texts and did not report on the outcomes of their study. Considerableattention was nevertheless devoted to the acquisition and application of readingstrategies in the control programme for reading instruction. It was expected thatthe pupils in the problem-oriented learning programme would be more moti-vated to acquire the reading strategies and expand their knowledge of how toapply them than the pupils in the control programme. In addition, it wasexpected that the acquisition of reading strategies within meaningful andfunctional contexts would positively affect the children’s reading comprehensionin general and their reading motivation as well.

Method

Design

A pretest-posttest control group design was followed. The pupils in the exper-imental group were taught according to the experimental programme and thepupils in the control group according to the usual reading comprehensionprogramme ‘Who reads this’ (Wie dit leest) (Aarnoutse & Van de Wouw, 1991).With the exception of the reading comprehension lessons, the pupils wereotherwise taught in the usual manner according to the remaining sections of thestandard programme (i.e., technical reading, information processing and read-ing promotion). For purposes of pretest, the pupils in both the experimental andcontrol groups were administered a number of different tests between Octoberand November. The results from some of these tests were used to composeheterogeneous pairs of pupils in the experimental group. Thereafter, the teach-ers in the experimental group began with the lessons from the experimentalprogramme and the teachers from the control group with the reading compre-hension lessons from the ‘Who reads this’ programme. Towards the end of theschool year in the period between May and July, the pupils were again tested.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 395

Subjects

From the database of primary schools using the ‘Who reads this’ programme(available from the publisher), 30 schools were approached and asked toparticipate in the present research. After six classes proved willing to participatein the experimental programme, a comparable set of seven classes was soughtfrom the remaining schools to create the control group. The 10 schoolsparticipating in the present study could be considered representative with anaverage pupil weight of 1.15 and 10% minority children. The schools came fromfour provinces in the southeast of The Netherlands. An advantage of selectingschools using the ‘Who reads this’ programme was that the teachers werealready familiar with the ideas and methods associated with strategic readinginstruction and the thinking out loud method of instruction. Prior to theinitiation of the study, it was made clear to the schools in the experimentalgroup that the reading strategies addressed in the ‘Who reads this’ programmefor grade three pupils also stood central in the experimental programme butthen in a different form.

The experimental group consisted of six third-grade classes (N � 155pupils) with seven teachers. In one of the classes in the experimental group, theteacher had a leave of four months. During her absence, a new teacher took careof the lessons and at the return of the first teacher, both teachers shared theteaching job and undertook the experimental lessons according to their normalroster.

The control group consisted of seven third-grade classes (N � 172 pupils)with seven teachers. The classes came for the most part from different schools.One school from the experimental group included two classes; two of the classesfrom the control group came from the same large school.

Measurement Instruments

During pretest, the following measurement instruments were administered: theOne Minute Test (Een-Minuut-Test) (Brus & Voeten, 1973); the VocabularyTest for grade three (Woordenschattest) (Aarnoutse, 1996a); the Reading Com-prehension Test for grade three (Begrijpend Leestest) (Aarnoutse, 1996b); theReading Comprehension Questionnaire (Vragenlijst: Begrijpend Lezen en Test:Zoek de fouten) (Gruwel & Aarnoutse, 1995); a self-developed Reading StrategyTest; and a self-constructed Reading Motivation Scale. The latter four measure-ment instruments were also administered at post-test.

The first three tests were administered in order to form heterogeneous pairsof pupils for the experimental condition. The Reading Comprehension Test wasalso administered at posttest in order to determine the effects of the experimen-tal programme on the reading comprehension of the pupils in general. TheReading Comprehension Questionnaire was administered at both pretest andposttest to determine whether the experimental programme particularly im-proved the children’s knowledge of reading strategies. The Reading Strategy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

396 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

Test was administered at both pretest and posttest to determine the effects ofthe experimental programme on the actual use of reading strategies. And theReading Motivation Scale was administered at pretest and posttest to examinewhether the experimental programme affected the children’s reading motivationor not. It should be noted that the measurement instruments were notspecifically attuned to the experimental programme.

One Minute Test

This standardized test measures technical reading in terms of the rapid recogni-tion and naming of words. The test consists of 116 unrelated words with anincreasing degree of difficulty. The raw scores consist of the total number ofwords read correctly in one minute. A test-retest reliability of .91 has beenfound for this test with third-grade pupils.

Vocabulary Test

This standardized test measures the vocabulary skills of children. The childmust choose from a set of four alternatives that word with approximately thesame meaning as the word underlined in the sentence presented. The test forgrade three consists of 36 items. The internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha,has been found to be .88 for this test.

Reading Comprehension Test

This standardized test measures children’s understanding of text meaning. Thetest measures general reading comprehension skill and not specific strategiessuch as the identification of main ideas. After reading a text, the pupils answera number of questions pertaining to word, sentence and text levels of compre-hension. The correct answer must be chosen from four alternatives. The testconsists of 11 texts, seven informative texts and four story texts, with a total of30 test items. The internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha, has been found to be.85 for this test.

Reading Comprehension Questionnaire

This standardized questionnaire measures children’s knowledge of readingstrategies. Six types of questions are posed: questions pertaining to strategieswhich can be used before, during or after reading; strategies for the evaluationof the reading process; and two different strategies which can be put to use toclarify obscurities. The questionnaire is intended for fourth grade primaryschool pupils and consists of 30 multiple choice questions. For each question,four possible strategies are mentioned. The pupil must choose that strategywhich is most appropriate for a particular situation. The internal consistency forgrade four has been found to be good (Cronbach’s alpha � .81). The question-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 397

naire was administered unadapted to the third-grade pupils in the present study(pre-test alpha � .75, N � 333; post-test alpha � .80, N � 326).

Reading Strategy Test

This test measures the use of the following reading strategies: drawing relationsbetween words, sentences and paragraphs; identification of the type of text andstructure; determination of main ideas; and regulation of the reading process. Inthe drawing of relations or connections between words, sentences and para-graphs, the children must track down the meaning of a difficult word, difficultsentence or a title. They must also identify the appropriate anaphoric relations(i.e., correctly identify the antecedent to pronouns and deictic words). Thenature of a text must also be identified in order to decide whether the text hasa storytelling, strictly informative or directive character. Insight into the struc-ture and organization of a text is measured by asking about the order ofsentences in the text. The children are also asked to predict the conclusion fora text. Determination of the main ideas in a text is measured by presenting fouralternatives. The regulation of reading behaviour is frequently operationalized asthe detection of inconsistencies in a text (cf. Brand-Gruwel, 1995). Given thatsuch an operationalization is known to have certain problems, other tasks weredeveloped to tap the ability to regulate the reading process. Pupils are asked torate the relevance of different text fragments or entire texts (consisting of about12 lines), for example. They are also asked to select that text which best fits aparticular reading objective out of three texts with only the title and three wordslegible. Similarly, they are asked to judge whether a particular text, after havingread it, can be used to answer a particular question. And they are also asked torate the information value or importance of different sentences from a text.Finally, the pupils must decide whether a number of main ideas or propositions,as formulated by fictitious children, relate to a particular text or not.

After pilot testing, the final form of the Reading Strategy Test consisted often informative, two storytelling and two directive texts and a total of 45multiple choice questions with two, three or four response options. The score isthe number of questions answered correctly. The Cronbach’s alpha was foundto be acceptable for both measurement moments (pre-test alpha � .77, N � 325;post-test alpha � .84, N � 333).

Reading Motivation Scale

This scale is a combination of self-formulated questions such as ‘Do you like todiscover all kinds of things out of books?’, the Reading Attitude Scale fromAarnoutse (1990) and the Reading Attitude Scale from Bisschop, Aarnoutse &Feenstra (1985). As an indication of a particular type of reading motivation(including reading attitude), an item regarding a particular reading situation orreading material is answered either in the affirmative or negative (i.e., with ‘yes’or ‘no’). In order to prevent a socially accepted responding, 27 items were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

398 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

formulated in the positive and 18 items in the negative. The number of itemsout of the total of 45 answered affirmatively constitutes the measure of readingmotivation. The scores at both pretest and posttest show the scale to be difficultfor third-grade children to respond to. They appear to find adoption of aparticular stance to be difficult: a number of the children simply skipped anitem, checked both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ response options or marked a positionsomewhere in between the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ options. Such responses were coded asmissing in the database. The reading motivation measure was next calculated asthe number of positive answers divided by the total number of answers in asuitable format and then transformed into the percentage positive readingmotivation. The internal consistency of the children’s responding was calculatedfor only those scales which were fully completed by the children and found tobe considerably high for both measurement points (pre-test: N � 231, al-pha � .91; posttest: N � 212, alpha � .92).

As previously mentioned, the experimental group consisted of heteroge-neous pairs of pupils established on the basis of the results of three tests. Foreach experimental class, the combined scores of the pupils on the tests wererank ordered from high to low. The class was then divided into four levels: goodreaders, high-average readers, low-average readers and poor readers. The teach-ers were then asked to form pairs of pupils out of the good and low-averagegroups and pairs of pupils out of the high-average and poor groups of readers.In such a manner, a fair amount of difference in the level of skill between thepupils within the different pairs was realized, whereas overly large differencesbetween the pairs was minimized (Abrami et al., 1995). In the formation of thepairs, the teachers were also guided by the question of which children couldwork together.

Procedures

Prior to the initiation of the study, the teachers in the experimental group wereinstructed on the starting assumptions and implementation of the experimentalprogramme. Due to financial limitations, only two or three such sessions couldbe organized per school.

The manner in which the different experimental and control groups imple-mented their lessons was examined along two routes. First, the teachers in theexperimental group were asked to indicate via a small number of questions justhow the lessons had proceeded (e.g., which components went well and less well,which components were not addressed, whether the objective of the lesson wasmet or not, how much time the lessons took and which pupils did not attend thelessons). Second, the researchers undertook a discussion with the teachers fromeach school. This information showed the teachers in the two experimentalschools (classes 2 and 6) to encounter some problems during the implemen-tation of the lessons. As already mentioned, the teacher in class 2 was absent fora longer period of time, and then took part in a shared teaching job. Unfortu-nately, taking up her part of the job did not go on rather smooth. More

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 399

importantly, due to an overload in the curriculum, both teachers underesti-mated the time they reserved for the experimental lessons. The teacher in class6 met problems of order and disliked the social arrangements necessary for theexperimental lessons. This same teacher also appeared to have difficulties withstrategic reading instruction despite his experience with the strategic readingmethod used in the ‘Who reads this’ programme and the fact that someexamples of the experimental lessons were actually demonstrated.

During the implementation of the experimental programme, it appearedthat the classes and school libraries in a number of the experimental schoolswere not well-equipped. The limited availability of written resources becameapparent. And those authentic resources available to the children did not alwaysfit their reading level. Moreover, the answers to some questions posed by thechildren could only be found with considerable difficulty.

All of the measurement instruments were administered by the test assistantson a classroom basis with the exception of the technical reading test (i.e., OneMinute Test), which was administered individually. Some holes occurred in thedata collection, since in one of the control schools, the completed ReadingMotivation Scale was not saved.

Results

In this section, we will first present the effects of the experimental programmeon reading strategies. Thereafter, the effects of the programme on readingcomprehension will be considered. And in closing, the effects of the programmeon reading motivation will be reviewed.

Reading Strategies

The results presented in Table I show both the experimental group and thecontrol group to make progress with respect to the use of reading strategies.Both groups produce higher scores on the Reading Strategy Test at post-test.Despite the presence of a test-retest effect, the progress is significant for bothgroups (experimental group: t (143) � 9.52, p � .001; control group: t(168) � 8.33, p � .001). The experimental group also shows significant growthin their knowledge of reading strategies on the Reading Comprehension Ques-tionnaire (t (143) � 9.70, p � .001). The control group shows significantgrowth, as well (t (171) � 8.20, p � .001).

As previously mentioned, we were particularly interested in the differencesbetween the experimental group and the control group with respect to perform-ance on the Reading Strategy Test. In order to take any differences between thetwo groups at pretest into consideration, an univariate analysis of covariance wasundertaken with the scores at pretest used as the covariate. First, it wasdetermined whether the assumption of parallelism was violated or not. This didnot prove to be the case: The regression lines for the two groups were parallel(F (1,309) � .100; p � .752). The analyses of covariance could thus be conduc-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

400 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

TA

BL

EI.

T-t

ests

wit

hre

peat

edm

easu

res

for

four

diff

eren

tin

stru

men

ts

M(s

d)M

(sd)

first

seco

ndM

tm

easu

rem

ent

mea

sure

men

tpa

ired

dfpa

ired

sig.

Str

ateg

ies

Rea

ding

Exp

.gr

oup

26.3

330

.95

4.63

143

9.52

.000

Str

ateg

yT

est

(6.2

0)(6

.89)

Con

trol

26.2

529

.82

3.57

168

8.33

.000

grou

p(6

.34)

(6.9

0)R

eadi

ngE

xp.

grou

p14

.76

19.0

24.

2614

39.

70.0

00C

ompr

ehen

sion

(4.6

2)(4

.81)

Que

stio

nnai

reC

ontr

ol14

.41

17.3

02.

8917

18.

20.0

00gr

oup

(4.9

1)(5

.57)

Rea

ding

Com

preh

ensi

onR

eadi

ngE

xp.

grou

p17

.80

21.4

73.

6714

110

.25

.000

Com

preh

ensi

onT

est

(5.5

8)(5

.75)

Con

trol

18.1

821

.66

3.48

179

9.53

.000

grou

p(5

.88)

(6.0

2)R

eadi

ngM

otiv

atio

nR

eadi

ngE

xp.

grou

p66

.84

71.3

24.

4814

42.

90.0

04M

otiv

atio

n(2

0.01

)(2

0.67

)S

cale

Con

trol

70.7

667

.09

�3.

6612

7�

2.45

.016

grou

p(6

7.09

)(2

0.88

)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 401

TABLE II. Results of analyses of covariance for the Reading Strategy Test

Reading Strategy Test MS df F p

Overall:Experimental vs. control group 90.84 310 3.16 .076Univariate contrasts:Experimental vs. control classes 111.74 299 4.03 .046Class 1 vs. control classes 235.31 299 8.48 .004Class 2 vs. control classes 9.66 299 0.35 .556Class 3 vs control classes 25.00 299 0.90 .343Class 4 vs. control classes 5.26 299 0.19 .664Class 5 vs. control classes 118.09 299 4.26 .040Class 6 vs. control classes 45.06 299 1.62 .204Implemented according to plan vs. 1.77 299 0.06 .801notImplemented according to plan vs. 96.52 299 3.48 .063control classes

ted without any adjustments (see Table II). The difference between both groupsshowed a trend to significance (F (1,310) � 3.16; p � .076).

The preceding overall analyses do not consider the fact that differences canexist from one classroom to the next and thus across teachers with respect to theactual implementation of the experimental programme. For this reason, anunivariate analysis of covariance was undertaken at the level of the class withspecified contrasts comparing the experimental classes one-by-one to the controlgroup. The assumption of parallelism was again examined and not violated (F(12,287) � 1.58, p � .096). The comparison of all the classes in the experimen-tal group with all the classes in the control group was significant (F(1,299) � 4.03, p � 0.05). Keeping these differences at the level of the class inmind, the experimental programme thus positively influences the performanceof pupils on the Reading Strategy Test. The results of the analyses show twoclasses (classes 1 and 5) in which the experimental programme was imple-mented according to plan to attain higher results on the Reading Strategy Testthan the other classes. The experimental classes in which the programme wasconducted according to plan (class 1, 3, 4 and 5) showed a trend to significance(F (1, 299) � 3.48; p � .063) in comparison with the control classes.

In order to gain greater insight into the children’s knowledge of readingstrategies, it is important to know more about the scores of the different classeson the Reading Comprehension Questionnaire. However, both at the overalllevel (F (1,312) � 8.49, p � .01) and at the level of the class (F(12,290) � 1.91, p � .05) the assumption of parallelism was violated. For thisreason, we decided to analyse the data on the questionnaire with help of the lessstringent analysis of repeated-measures instead of the more meticulous analysisof covariance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

402 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

TABLE III. Results of repeated meauses analyses for the Reading Comprehension Questionnaire

Reading Comprehension MS df F pQuestionnaire

Overall:Experimental vs. control group 166.74 314 4.37 .037Univariate contrasts:Experimental vs. control classes 191.38 303 5.68 .018Class 1 vs. control classes 172.47 303 5.12 .024Class 2 vs. control classes 224.25 303 6.66 .010Class 3 vs. control classes 147.25 303 4.37 .037Class 4 vs. control classes 39.59 303 1.18 .279Class 5 vs. control classes 14.00 303 0.42 .519Class 6 vs. control classes 43.84 303 1.30 .255Implemented according to plan vs. 37.93 303 1.13 .289notImplemented according to plan vs. 222.76 303 6.62 .011control classes

The overall analysis of repeated measures (see Table III) clearly shows theexperimental programme to exert a significant effect on the children’s knowl-edge of reading strategies (F (1,314) � 4.37, p � .037). The significant effect ofthe experimental programme remained when all of the experimental classes werecompared to the relevant control classes (F (1,303) � 5.68, p � .018). Theexperimental classes in which the programme was conducted according to planshowed also a significant effect in comparison with the control classes (F(1, 303) � 6.62; p � .011).

Reading Comprehension

In addition to whether the experimental programme influenced the children’sknowledge and use of reading strategies, we were also interested in whether theprogramme influenced their reading comprehension in general. As can be seenfrom Table I and despite a test-retest effect, both the experimental and controlgroups performed better on the Reading Comprehension Test at posttest thanat pretest (experimental group: t (141) � 10.25, p � .001; control group: t(179) � 9.53, p � .001). Both groups thus made progress in the area of readingcomprehension, which was in keeping with what the test manual shows to beusual (Aarnoutse, 1996a).

The next step was to compare the two groups at posttest in an overallanalysis of covariance. The regression lines for the experimental and controlgroups ran parallel (F (1,318) � 0.50, p � .481). As can be seen from Table IV,one cannot speak of an effect: the performance of the experimental group didnot differ from that of the control group (F (1,319) � 0.03, p � .873). Thevariation at the level of the class was again found to be quite large for the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 403

TABLE IV. Results of analyses of covariance for the Reading Comprehension Test

Reading Comprehension Test MS df F pOverall:Experimental vs. control group 0.48 319 0.03 .873

Univariate contrasts:Experimental vs. control classes 0.30 308 0.02 .898Class 1 vs. control classes 15.43 308 0.84 .359Class 2 vs. control classes 2.42 308 0.13 .716Class 3 vs. control classes 4.31 308 0.24 .628Class 4 vs. control classes 7.71 308 0.42 .517Class 5 vs. control classes 77.99 308 4.27 .040Class 6 vs. control classes 18.28 308 1.00 .318Implemented according to plan vs. 33.96 308 1.86 .174notImplemented according to plan vs. 9.65 308 0.53 .468control classes

Reading Comprehension Test. The regression lines for the separate classesnevertheless ran parallel (F (12,296) � 1.36, p � .183). No difference betweenall of the experimental classes and all of the control classes were found (F(1,308) � 0.02, p � .898). In sum, the experimental programme failed to posi-tively influence reading comprehension in general.

Reading Motivation

The experimental programme was also intended to stimulate a greater interestin reading and learning to read. With the exception of one control class (class8), a motivation measure could be calculated for all of the pupils: the percentagequestions positively responded to on the Reading Motivation Scale. For theexperimental group (see Table I), growth in the pupils’ reading motivationcould be seen (t (144) � 2.90, p � .01). However, notice that for the controlgroup, the pupils’ reading motivation showed a decrease (t (127) � 3.66,p � .016). In Table I, it can also be seen that the reading motivation of thecontrol group at pretest (M � 70.76) was higher than the reading motivation ofthe experimental group at pretest (M � 66.84).

The overall analysis of covariance could be conducted without adjustmentsas the regression lines for the experimental and control groups ran parallel (F(1,269) � 1.11, p � .293). The differences in the motivation measures (seeTable V) was significant (F (1,270) � 11.34, p � .001). The pupils in theexperimental group (adj. M � 71.32) showed a more positive reading motivationat the end of the school year than the pupils in the control group (adj.M � 67.09). The regression lines for the separate classes ran parallel (F(11,249) � 1.29, p � .230), and especially the pupils in experimental class 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

404 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

TABLE V. Results of the analyses of covariance for the Reading Motivation Scale

Reading Motivation Scale MS df F p

Overall:Experimental vs. control group 3080.23 270 11.34 .001Univariate contrasts:Experimental vs. control classesa 3002.38 260 11.32 .001Class 1 vs. control classes 1025.12 260 3.86 .050Class 2 vs. control classes 224.72 260 0.84 .358Class 3 vs. control classes 37.85 260 0.14 .706Class 4 vs. control classes 819.44 260 3.09 .080Class 5 vs. control classes 5273.25 260 19.88 .000Class 6 vs. control classes 650.35 260 2.45 .119Implemented according to plan vs. 1641.56 260 6.19 .013notImplemented according to plan vs. 1017.33 260 3.84 .051control classes

Note: a � control class 8 is excluded.

(adj. M � 82.06) showed the most positive reading motivation at post-test,which also differed significantly from the reading motivation for the controlclasses. The manner in which the experimental programme was implementedappeared to influence reading motivation. The experimental classes in which theprogramme was implemented according to plan showed a more positive readingmotivation at post-test than the classes in which the programme was notimplemented according to plan (F (1,260) � 6.19, p � .013). The experimentalclasses in which the programme was implemented according to plan alsoshowed a more positive reading motivation than the control classes (F(1,260) � 3.84, p � .051).

Conclusions and Discussion

The aim of this research was to evaluate a programme in which the teaching ofreading comprehension and social studies were integrated and not only thecognitive but also the motivational aspects of reading behaviour were stimu-lated. The stimulation of reading motivation and the development of readingstrategies within problem-oriented learning environments was of particularinterest.

The results showed that the experimental programme tended to influencethe capacity of the children to use various reading strategies. The results showedthat the experimental programme promoted the children’s knowledge of readingstrategies. With regard to the effect of the programme on reading comprehen-sion in general, no such an effect was found. Finally, the present researchshowed that the experimental programme clearly influenced the children’sreading motivation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 405

The influence of the programme in a number of experimental classes is inkeeping with current theory and research by Guthrie et al. (1998) and Pressley(1998). It appears that a programme in which the instruction of readingcomprehension is integrated into the instruction of social studies within aproblem-oriented learning environment exerts an effect. It also appears that aprogramme in which it is explicitly attempted to integrate the cognitive andmotivational aspects of reading clearly exerts an effect. While the children in thecontrol group drop from pretest to posttest on the Reading Motivation Scale,the children in the experimental group do grow (cf. McKenna et al. 1995). Inconnection with the detection of trends and significant differences between theexperimental and control classes, it should be noted that the wager that theexperimental classes would perform better than the control classes on theparticular measurement instruments used here was quite risky, because theprogramme which the teachers in the control classes used involved considerableattention to the development of reading strategies in particular and readingcomprehension in general. In contrast to the experimental programme, a greatdeal of attention is paid within the control programme to the explicit instructionand repeated practice of reading strategies. While the experimental programmeinvolved an ‘open’ learning environment with unfamiliar practice materials, themethod of instruction used in the control programme was rather ‘closed’ withspecific instruction and practice texts specially designed for the programme.And, indeed, the data show a number of the control classes to make strongprogress on the measurement instruments, including the Reading Strategy Testand the Reading Comprehension Test.

The results also show major differences between the experimental classes.There was one experimental class (class 6) showing no significant differencesfrom the control classes on any of the four measurement instruments at posttest.There were also experimental classes (classes 2, 3 and 4) showing only onesignificant difference from the control classes on one of the measurementinstruments. The finding that classes 2 and 6 did not differ (much) from thecontrol classes at the posttest confirms our suspicion based on the notes fromthese teachers and discussions with them, namely that these teachers hadconsiderable difficulties with the implementation of the experimental pro-gramme. Especially, the classes 1 and 5 strongly differed from the control classesand from the other experimental classes, as well.

An explanation for the observed differences between the experimentalclasses can be sought in differences in the capacities and efforts of the teachers.There were teachers who could switch from a standard reading comprehensionlesson to the lessons constituting the experimental programme with relativelylittle effort despite the intensive preparation necessary to realize the lessons inthe experimental programme, the ‘open’ forum required for many of the lessonsand the organization needed to guide a large number of small groups. As alreadymentioned, there were also teachers who encountered difficulties with theimplementation of the experimental programme. This appeared to be particu-larly the case when the creative capacities of the pupils and the organizational

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

406 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

talents of the teachers were called upon to foster sufficient and productivecooperation. It also became clear that the number of training sessions for thesesame teachers was too limited particularly with regard to the open learningenvironments and the social aspects of the programme. The explanation for thenonsignificant differences from the control classes for a number of the exper-imental classes may therefore lie in a shortage of training and guidance for therelevant teachers.

Equally important is also the fact that children need time and experiencesto coop with the ‘open’ forum of the experimental lessons. For example, theyhave to realize that there are many appropriate ways (and not just one “true”answer) in solving creative problems. Obviously, solving creative problemsrequires a high level of social cooperation and engagement, especially forindividuals who haven’t had the chance to learn this kind of cooperationbefore.

In addition to the aforementioned comments, a few critical commentsshould now be made. To start with, we know too little about the exact courseof the lessons taught in both the experimental and control conditions. As alreadymentioned, the teachers in the experimental classes were asked to answer anumber of questions with regard to the implementation of the lessons and anumber of discussions were also held. From the answers to the questions andcomments of the teachers, the general course of the lessons could be more orless deduced. However, exact information on the course of the lessons could notbe distilled from this feedback, which makes actual observation most critical forintervention research.

A second critical comment concerns the explanation for the significanteffects of the experimental programme. Given the design of the study, theabsence of systematic observations and a lack of interim measurements, it is notpossible to draw conclusions with regard to which components of the pro-gramme are responsible for the significant effects—that is, the operative ele-ments of the programme cannot be pinpointed. In addition, we cannot drawconclusions with regard to which pupils did or did not benefit from theexperimental programme.

A third and final critical comment concerns the number of classes partici-pating in the research. It should be clear that the number of experimental andcontrol classes is too limited to justify generalization with regard to the effectsof the programme. Additional studies with a greater number of classes and awider variety of pupils will therefore be undertaken in the near future.

In sum, the critical comments really concern fundamental criteria thatintervention research must fit. Financial resources and manpower must becomeavailable in order to reach sufficient methodological standards, to train andguide the relevant teachers and classes in proper ways, and to gather or to createthe appropriate authentic resources, which are the building stones of theexperimental programme. Our research is just a first but promising step in thedevelopment of reading comprehension, literacy skills and reading engagementwithin problem-oriented learning environments.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 407

REFERENCES

AARNOUTSE, C.A.J. (1990) Woordenschattest en Leesattitudeschaal (Vocabulary Test and ReadingAttitude Scale) (Lisse, Swets & Zeitlinger).

AARNOUTSE, C.A.J. (1996a) Begrippentest en Woordenschattest (Concept Test and Vocabulary Test)(Lisse, Swets & Zeitlinger).

AARNOUTSE, C.A.J. (1996b) Begrijpend leesstest (Reading Comprehension Test) (Lisse, Swets &Zeitlinger).

AARNOUTSE, C.A.J. (1998) Lezen in ontwikkeling (Reading in development) (Nijmegen, KatholiekeUniversiteit Nijmegen).

AARNOUTSE, C.A.J. & VAN DE WOUW, J. (1991) Wie dit leest (Who reads this) (Tilburg, Zwijsen).AARNOUTSE, C.A.J. & WETERINGS, A.C.E.M. (1995) Onderwijs en begrijpend lezen (Teaching and

reading comprehension) (Nijmegen, Vakgroep Onderwijskunde).AARNOUTSE, C.A.J. & VAN LEEUWE, J. (1998) Relation between reading comprehension, vocabu-

lary, reading pleasure, and reading frequency, Educational Research and Evaluation, 4, pp.143–166.

ABRAMI, P.C. & CHAMBERS, B., POULSEN, C., DE SIMONE, C., D’APOLONNIA & HOWDEN, J. (1995)Classroom Connections: Understanding and Using Cooperative Learning (Toronto, HarcourtBrace).

ALEXANDER, P.A., GRAHAM, S. & HARRIS, K.R. (1998) A perspective on strategy research:Progress and prospects, Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), pp. 129–153.

BAKER, L. & WIGFIELD, A. (1999) Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and theirrelations to reading activity and reading achievement, Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), pp.452–477.

BORKOWSKI, J.G., WEYHING, R.S. & CARR, M. (1988) Effects of attributional retraining onstrategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students, Journal of EducationalPsychology, 80, pp. 46–53.

BRAND-GRUWEL, F.L.J.M. (1995) Onderwijs in tekstbegrip (Teaching reading comprehension) (Ubber-gen, Tandem Felix).

BRANSFORD, J., SHERWOOD, T., HASSELBRING, T., KINZER, C. & WILLIAMS, S. (1990) Anchoredinstruction: why we need it and how technology can help, in: D. NIX & R. SPIRO (Eds)Cognition, Education and Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology (Hillsdale, NJ,Erlbaum).

BRUS, B.T. & VOETEN, M.J.M. (1973) Een-Minuut-Test (One Minute Test) (Nijmegen, Berkhout).CARR, M. & BORKOWSKI, J.G. (1989) Attributional training and the generalization of reading

strategies with underachieving students, Learning and Individual Differences, 1, pp. 327–341.DANEMAN, M. (1991) Individual differences in reading skills, in: R. BARR, M.K. KAMIL, P.B.

MOSENTHAL & P.D. PEARSON (Eds) Handbook of Reading Research, Volume 2 (New York,Longman).

DURKIN, D. (1978–79) What classroom observation reveals about reading comprehensioninstruction, Reading Research Quarterly, 14, pp. 481–533.

ECCLES, J.S. (1993) School and family effects on the ontogeny of children’s interests, self-percep-tions, and activity choices, in: J.E. JACOBS (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Develop-mental Perspectives on Motivation, Vol. 40 (Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press).

GARNER, R. (1987) Metacognition and Reading Comprehension (Norwood, NJ, Ablex).GRUWEL, S. & AARNOUTSE, C. (1995) Vragenlijst: Begrijpend lezen en Test: Zoek de fouten (Reading

Comprehension Questionnaire and Test: Find the errors) (Lisse, Swets & Zeitlinger).GUTHRIE, J.T., VAN METER, P., MCCANN, A.D, WIGFIELD, A., BENNETT, L., POUNDSTONE, C.C.,

RICE, M.E., FAIBISCH, F.M., HUNT, B. & MITCHELL, A.M. (1996) Growth of literacy engage-ment: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction,Reading Research Quarterly, 31, pp. 306–332.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

408 C. Aarnoutse & G. Schellings

GUTHRIE, J.T., VAN METER, P., HANCOCK, G.R., ALAO, S., ANDERSON, E. & MCCANN, A. (1998)Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and coceptual learning fromtext?, Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), pp. 261–278.

GUTHRIE, J.T., WIGFIELD, A., METSALA, J.L. & COX, K.E. (1999) Motivational and cognitivepredictors of text comprehension and reading amount, Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), pp.231–256.

GUTHRIE, J.T. & WIGFIELD, A. (2000) Engagement and motivation in reading, in: M.L. KAMIL,P.B. MOSENTHAL, P.D. PEARSON & R. BARR (Eds) Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3 (NewYork, Longman).

INSPECTIE VAN HET ONDERWIJS (Dutch Educational Inspectorate) (1996) Begrijpenderwijs. Eenevaluatie van het onderwijs in begrijpend en studerend lezen in het basisonderwijs (Understandably.An evaluation of instruction in reading comprehension and study skills in the elementary school)(Den Haag, Sdu DOP).

MCKENNA, M.C., ELLSWORTH, R.A. & KEAR, D.J. (1995) Childrens attitudes toward reading: Anational survey, Reading Research Quarterly, 30, pp. 934–956.

MORROW, L.M. (1992) The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, use ofliterature, and attitudes of children from minotity backgrounds, Reading Research Quarterly,27, pp. 250–275.

NATIONAL READING PANEL (NRP) (2000) Teaching Children to Read: an Evidence-Based Assessmentof the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction(Washington, DC, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development).

OTTER, M.E. & SCHOONEN, R. (1996) Aap, Noot, Niets … Het spook van de ontlezing in hetbasisonderwijs. (Monkey, nut, nothing … The ghost of non reading in the elementary school)(Amsterdam, SCO-KI).

PEARSON, P.D. (2001) Life in the radical middle: a personal apology for a balanced view ofreading, in: R. Flippo (Ed.) Reading Researchers in Search of Common Ground (Newark, DE,International Reading Association).

PRESSLEY, M. (1998) Reading Instruction that Works. The Case for Balanced Teaching (New York,The Guilford Press).

PRESSLEY, M. (2000) What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.L.KAMIL, P.B. MOSENTHAL, P.D. PEARSON & R. BARR (Eds) Handbook of Reading Research Vol.3 (New York, Longman).

PRESSLEY, M. & AFFLERBACH, P. (1995) Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of ConstructivelyResponsive Reading (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).

PRESSLEY, M., JOHNSON, C.J., SYMONS, S., MCGOLDRICK, J.A. & KURITA, J.A. (1989) Strategiesthat improve memory and comprehension of what is read, The Elementary School Journal, 90,pp. 3–32.

RAND READING STUDY GROUP (2002) Reading for Understanding. Toward an R&D Program inReading Comprehension (Arlington, RAND Education).

RENNINGER, K. (1992) Individual interest and development. Implications for theory and practice,in: K.A. RENNINGER, S. HIDI & A. KRAPP (Eds) The Role of Interest in Learning and Develop-ment (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).

SCHIEFELE, U. (1992) Topic interest and levels of text comprehension, in: K.A. RENNINGER, S.HIDI & A. KRAPP (Eds) The Role of Interest in Learning and Development (Hillsdale, NJ,Erlbaum).

SCHUNK, D.H. & RICE, J.M. (1993) Strategy fading and progress feedback. Effects on self-efficacyand comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services, Journal of SpecialEducation, 27, pp. 257–276.

VAN ELSACKER, W. (2002) Development of Reading Comprehension: The Engagement Perspective. AStudy of Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Strategy Use, Reading Motivation, and LeisureTime Reading of Third- and Fourth-Grade Students from Diverse Backgrounds in the Netherlands(Den Haag, Van Elsacker).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Reading Strategies 409

VAN ELSACKER, W. & VERHOEVEN, L. (2001) Interactief lezen en schrijven. Naar motiverend lees- enschrijfonderwijs in de midden- en bovenbouw van het basisonderwijs (Interactive reading and writing.Towards instruction in reading and writing in the middle grades of the elementary school)(Nijmegen, Expertisecentrum Nederlands).

VAN KRAAYENOORD, C.E. & SCHNEIDER, W.E. (1999) Reading achievement, metacognition,reading self-concept and interest: a study of German students in Grades 3 and 4, EuropeanJournal of Psychology of Education, 14(3), pp. 305–324.

VERHOEVEN, L. & SNOW, C. (Eds) (2001) Literacy and Motivation. Reading Engagement inIndividuals and Groups (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).

WETERINGS, A.C.E.M. & AARNOUTSE, C.A.J. (1986) De praktijk van het onderwijs in begrijpendlezen (Reading comprehension practices), Pedagogische Studien, 63, pp. 387–401.

WIGFIELD, A. (1994) Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: a developmentalperspective, Educational Psychology Review, 6, pp. 49–78.

WIGFIELD, A., WILDE, K., BAKER, L., FERNANDEZ-FEIN, S. & SCHER, D. (1996) The Nature ofChildren’s Motivation for Reading, and Their Relations to Reading Frequency and ReadingPerformance (Athens, GA, and College Park, MD, National Reading Research Center).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

32 1

5 M

ay 2

014