Journal of Reading Behavior 1994, Volume 26, Number 4

THE STUDY STRATEGIES OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Ann L. Loranger
University of New Hampshire

ABSTRACT I examined the study strategies of successful and unsuccessful learners to determine if successful learners would differ in the quality of their information processing from unsuccessful learners. It was expected that good learners would use studying techniques requiring greater cognitive effort, such as notetaking, summarizing, and outlining. Three high school students in Grade 11 were studied as successful students; three unsuccessful students were studied as well. Each of the six participants was interviewed individually for a single, 1-hour session. During the session, students read and studied an article. A videotaped interview with the researcher followed reading and studying. The successful students were more active, purposeful, and flexible in their strategy use. Although the unsuccessful students were generally less efficient in their use of learning strategies, they were satisfied with their academic performance. That is, the unsuccessful students perceived themselves as successful learners, lacking self-knowledge of their inefficient strategy use. Since a great deal of an adolescent's school life is devoted to studying texts, I am concerned as an educator about how students use strategies as they read and study. There has been a long history of interest in how students study and the strategies they use, such as notetaking, underlining, outlining, summarizing, question-generating, and so on. (Anderson & Armbruster, 1984; Baker & Brown, 1984; Brown & Day, 1983; Devine, 1987; Loranger, 1988; Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet, Zajchowski, & Evans, 1989). Study strategies, specific processes which students may use alone or in combination to learn content of the curriculum (Graham & Robinson, 1987), have been identified by groups such as the College Board as key
347

348

Journal of Reading Behavior

in learning how to learn (Marshak, 1979). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983), also identified study strategies as essential throughout a student's school career, beginning in the early grades and continuing through high school. Although in the past learners were seen as passive participants in the act of learning (Durkin, 1978-1979; Norman, 1980), effective learners are now seen as active information processors and synthesizers who use strategies to fit their needs and goals (Weinstein, Butterfield, Schmidt, & Poythress, 1982). Consistent with this current emphasis on process, the "how to" of learning, good teaching should include not only teaching students how to learn, but also teaching them how to remember, how to think, and how to motivate themselves (Weinstein & Mayer, 1985). Studying as an Interactive Process Studying is defined as a special form of reading. The way that studying differs from "ordinary reading" is that studying requires attentive, thoughtful examination of a subject or a problem. The learner is expected to perform a cognitive or procedural task in order to gain knowledge or skill. If a learner is to be successful at a task, he/she must be aware of the demands of the task and have the ability to adapt studying to meet these demands (Armbruster, Echols, & Brown, 1983). Based on a tetrahedral model proposed by Jenkins (1979), Brown, Campione, and Day (1981) identified four interacting variables that affect learning from text which can be related to study strategies: the activities or strategies of the learner, such as summarizing, notetaking, outlining, and so on; certain characteristics of the learner, including memory capacity and state of prior knowledge; the nature of the materials to be learned, such as text organization and conceptual difficulty; and the criterial task of the learner, that is, recall, transfer, problem solving, and so on. Recent research on comprehension instruction and development of study strategies has centered on the interactive nature of learning, largely consistent with Jenkins' tetrahedral model. The work of Pressley has focused on interactive factors in comprehension, especially as developed through instruction. For example, Pressley, El-Dinary, Gaskins, Schuder, Bergman, Almasi, and Brown (1992) concluded that strategies are best acquired when classroom teaching promotes strategies, metacognition, knowledge, and motivationthat is, a number of information processing components in interaction. The focus on interactions between strategies, metacognition, other knowledge, and motivation to understand student cognition has been supported generally in research. This led Marx, Winne, and Walsh (1985) to conclude that (1) students, particularly younger and less academically mature students, are not likely to be aware of their cognition nor to be articulate when introspecting about their cognitive operations; and (2) more successful students are more able to adjust their studying strategies and gain control of their learning. That is, they

Study Strategies

349

viewed student thinking as dependent on strategies and other knowledge in relation to various types of tasks and materials, consistent with Jenkins' (1979) conclusions. Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, and Campione (1982) also concluded that students differ in what they know and what they know about using their knowledge. Brown et al. (1982) referenced the Jenkins model explicitly in making their case for the primacy of information processing factors in interaction as determinants of student cognition. Framework for Inquiry Pressley et al.'s (1989) good information processor model specifies the characteristics of competent thinkers. Good information processors use strategies for academic tasks, know how and when to use the strategies they know, and articulate strategy use with nonstrategic knowledge as they read, write, problem solve, and think. (In this context, a strategy is defined as a process which facilitates performance of a task, assuming the strategy is matched to the requirements of the task.) The task in the present investigation was studying an article. All study behaviors observed here could be coded as examples of either planning for learning, distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant information, detecting the author's organizational plan, activating prior knowledge, summarizing, determining author's purpose, or notetaking. These categories were probed during the interview session, which was concerned with the following issues: Was the student able to (a) determine the author's purpose for writing the article, (b) detect the author's organizational plan for presentation of the material (cause/effect, comparison/contrast, etc.), (c) generate a clearly defined system for studying the material given, (d) relate the information in the article with any previous knowledge he/she may have on the topic, (e) distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information, (f) write a coherent summary of the material in his/her own words, and (g) did the student take notes? In addition, videotapes and written notes were analyzed to determine whether students did any of the following while reading the article: underline, circle words or phrases, list, jot down reactions. Did the student take notes on the material? If so, did he/she use a specific notetaking style, such as linear or mapping? Finally, how did the student approach this assignment... with confidence, anxiety, confusion, or any other apparent reactions?

METHOD School The high school used in this study is situated in rural southeastern New Hampshire. The student body is comprised of 550 students, predominantly white and

350

Journal of Reading Behavior

lower-middle class. There is a faculty of 35 full-time teachers who average 15 years of teaching experience. Subjects The six subjects for this study were llth-grade students, ages 16 to 18, with three categorizable as successful students and three as unsuccessful students. The criteria for selection and categorization were teacher recommendations, grade point average, and the results of a standardized reading test, The Nelson Denny (Brown, Bennett, & Hanna, 1981) (see Table 1). I was looking for students who were consistently high (successful students) and consistently low (unsuccessful students) on all three of these measures. The six students selected based on these criteria were Dino, Jay, and Jennifer as successful students; and Jerry, Tammy and Bill as unsuccessful students. All willingly participated. Procedure Each session was divided into two parts. In the first part, the student was given an article to read. Since I was working with two levels of students, I chose two articles on the same topic that would be appropriate for each level as determined by applying the Fry Readability Formula: an article from Time magazine, No Fear of the Big Bad Wolf (lOth-grade readability), for the above average students, and Wolves and Moose on the Firing Line (5th-grade readability) from Science News for the other students. Since the purpose of my study was to determine study behaviors, I wanted students to be comfortable with the content of the reading material. Both articles averaged 550 words in length and dealt with the controversy centered on the control of wildlife and the debate between hunters and environmentalists

Table 1 Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Form E)

Vocabulary RS PR Comprehension RS PR Total Score RS PR

Student Dino Jay Jennifer Tammy Jerry Bill Note. RS=Raw Score, PR=Percentile.

51 59 47 24 10 25

93 96 89 37 4 40

52 48 46 30 20 20

93 87 84 48 23 23

103 107 93 54 30 45

93 94 87 43 8 29

Study Strategies

351

regarding the fate of some endangered species. Excerpts from both articles make clear the differences in the readability and concept levels in the two articles:
Berg and other environmentalists contend that farm animals are in much greater danger from wild dogs and coyotes. Blaming the wolf for every kill, she argues, is almost a psychological need. Says she, with just a touch of hyperbole: "The wolf is an intelligent animal that groups together and does what a hunter does when he gets together with his pals." (No Fear of the Big Bad Wolf, p. 56) Environmentalists, on the other hand, think the wolves are getting a raw deal. Some environmentalists would prefer much less human moose hunting and no aerial wolf hunting. Others want to see no human moose hunting at alland then want the wolves left alone. It is their belief that, without humans hunting moose, a natural balance will be brought back between moose and wolf. (Wolves and Moose on the Firing Line, p. 2)

My instructions to participants were, "Read this article as if you were preparing to take a test on it. Take all the time you need. When you are finished, I will ask you some questions." I then left each student alone for about 20 minutes while they read the article. All the students were able to complete the task within the 20minute period. The interview session took place during the second part. The exact questions in the interview were the following: (a) What do you think the author's purpose was in writing this article? (b) Do you think the author had an organizational plan in presenting this information; for example, cause/effect, comparison/contrast, problem/solution, and so on? (c) Did you have a specific plan when approaching this assignment? (d) When you read this article, did you relate the information to anything you already knew? (e) How did you know what was important in this article? (f) What is a summary? Please give me a summary of this article, (g) Did you take notes on this article? If so, why? (h) How did you approach this assignment, and how do you approach studying in general? (i) Do you consider yourself to be a successful student? The whole session took 1 hour, and all sessions were videotaped. Use of Videotape/Interviews Videotaping permitted me to observe and to analyze students' activities in the study situation, and complemented the information gained by interviewing students after studying. This approach is consistent with other studies in which videotaping has been combined with interviews to examine students' cognitive activities in classrooms (Heldenbrand & Hixon, 1991; Marx et al, 1985; Peterson, Swing, Stark, & Waas, 1983). Data Analysis Two types of qualitative data were analyzed. First, I evaluated the videotape of the student studying the article with the researcher not present. While viewing the

352

Journal of Reading Behavior

videotapes, I generated a list of observed behaviors. I then narrowed the list down to categories of behaviors related to studying. Three raters viewed the tapes of each of six students working with the article. Each observation was 20 minutes long. Raters were asked to respond to categories of behaviors observed during 1-minute intervals. The following is a list of categories of behaviors observed with definitions: (a) Reading: Student is reading article; (b) Reading/Taking Notes: Student is reading article and taking notes on a separate piece of paper; (c) Analyzing: Student appears to be rereading the article and/or studying material while marking paper; and (d) Time not Used: Student terminated activity before time was up. Pair-wise, interrater reliability was determined by percentage of time two raters agreed on the same behavior out of 20-minute blocks. The average interrater reliability was 76%. Disagreements about the definitions of categories were resolved by consensus. The second type of qualitative data analyzed was all of the student's written data, such as notes, jottings, and so on, which were generated while the students were studying the article. Three raters reviewed the written data to verify (a) key elements contained in the articles and (b) coherence and organization in the students' written notations. All raters were in agreement. (In reality, interview responses were also analyzed to identify responses that linked with observations during the videotaping. The information derived from this analysis provided the same evidence confirmed in the observations.)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The performance differences observed and responses given by the students during the interview session were related to various tenets of the good information processor model and are presented in this section grouped by categories of study strategies. Determining the Author's Purpose Good information processors are able to attend to relevant parts of a text to determine the author's purpose. Experienced readers are able to detect an author's purpose by attending to within the text cues whereas inexperienced readers are not (Weinstein & Mayer, 1985). The responses of Dino, Jay, and Jennifer as successful students support this finding: "Informational . . . presents different viewpoints" (Dino, Jay, Jennifer). In contrast, the unsuccessful students indicated: "Biased . . . persuasive in favor of the wolves" (Jerry, Bill). Three raters judged the articles to be informational in purpose, presenting all sides of the issue on the endangered species discussed. Schema theorists argue that comprehension depends on the interaction between the learner's knowledge of the characteristics of the message and the context in which it is given.

Study Strategies

353

Detecting the Author's Organizational Plan Good information processors attend to cues on organization and structure offered by an author in a reading passage. In order for students to be able to detect the organizational plan of the article, it helps for the structure of the text to be coherent and organized (Brown et al., 1982). The selections that I chose from Time and Science News met these criteria. The three raters who read the passages concluded that the authors presented both sides of the issue. The question asked of students was, "Do you think that the author had an organizational plan; for example, cause/effect, comparison/contrast, problem-solution, in presenting this information?" Most of the students understood that the author did have an organizational plan and answered confidently with the response, "To show all sides of the issue." Jerry and Bill, unsuccessful students, seemed to confuse the organizational plan with the author's purpose by answering this question as they had answered when asked about the author's purpose, "Biased . . . persuasive in favor of the wolves." Planning for Learning Good information processors make plans for learning. When asked if they had a specific plan when approaching this assignment, all but one student indicated and demonstrated that they did have a plan. Dino's response was typical: "I read it through first; then I took notes." The videotape revealed that Dino, a successful student, approached this assignment with an organized plan in support of the good information processor having "an orderly plan of attack" (Pressley et al., 1989, p. 308). He took detailed notes and worked with a seriousness of purpose never distracted by the video camera. This is consistent with Pressley's et al.'s (1989) contention that good information processors shield themselves from distractions as they perform tasks. Given the theoretical claim that effective learners have flexible, high-level plans and more self-conscious control of their planning, it is interesting to note that only Bill, an unsuccessful student, had no apparent plan. Bill's response was, "No, I just read it over and over again." Bill rushed through the article, and did not use the allotted time to study or take notes. Bill seemed like Pressley et al.'s (1989) prototypical impulsive students who do not delay responding in order to plan and use strategies. Activating Prior Knowledge Good information processors are able to integrate information in text with prior knowledge. The participants were split on the question, "When you read this article, did you relate the information to anything you already know?" Dino, Jerry, and Bill indicated that they had not related the information to what they knew, whereas Jay, Jennifer, and Tammy indicated that they did:

354

Journal of Reading Behavior

Yes . . . to a story I read in middle school. (Jennifer) Yes . . . to an article about endangered species. (Jay, Tammy)

Distinguishing between Relevant/Irrelevant InformationGood information processors are able to identify aspects of a passage that are important. Dino, Jay, and Jennifer, the successful students, reflected such knowledge in response to, "How did you know what was important in this article?" Facts are important. (Dino, Jay) I write down things I don't know . . . also names and dates. (Jennifer) Less successful students, Tammy, Bill, and Jerry, by comparison, were less competent when determining what was important in the article. I really don't know. (Tammy, Bill) You just know. It's weird . . . different events that happen in the story. (Jerry) An examination of the recorded notes of all the students also supported the idea that the successful students were more aware of what needed to be learned. They were able to identify key elements in the article. Summarizing Good information processors use studying techniques that require greater cognitive effort, such as summarizing. I asked each of the students, "What is a summary?" and "Please give me a summary of this article." I'd say that it was what everyone's opinions are and the conflict. (Dino) Pull important facts out of the articlelike an outline. (Jay) Sums up what you read. Wolveshow they are endangered; different people's point of view. (Tammy) All the participants seemed confident that they were able to summarize efficiently, and did so verbally during the interview, but when examining their written notes on the articles they read, none of them had used summarizing as a study strategy. That is, none of them had condensed the essential ideas contained in the articles into a brief statement. Their notes were written in outline form. Notetaking Good information processors take notes to aid them in the recall of information. Notetaking, a study strategy that requires greater cognitive effort and a deeper level of processing than other strategies such as rereading or underlining, has received much attention in the literature (Carrier & Titus, 1981; Devine, 1987; Kiewra, 1985; Peper & Mayer, 1986; Van Meter, Yokoi, & Pressley, 1994). Notetaking seemed to be the primary area that clearly distinguished the successful students from the unsuccessful students in this study in that all the successful students took notes. According to Anderson and Armbruster (1984), the very act of writing aids

Study Strategies

355

in the processing of new information because it focuses attention. When examining the videotapes and all written data, Dino, Jay, and Jennifer, successful students, all took detailed and organized notes which aided them in recalling important information when they were interviewed. Jerry, an unsuccessful student, also took notes but they were not as coherent and well organized as the other notetakers. Tammy and Bill, unsuccessful students, took no notes and claimed that they never took notes while studying material. The percent of time the students spent on observed study behaviors is reported in Table 2. The successful students spent 53% of the 20-minute time allotment to taking notes while reading, whereas the unsuccessful students spent only 13% of the time on this activity. Sometimes students, like Tammy and Bill, use strategic approaches that probably do not serve them well, such as reading only. Consistent with the notion that these differences in notetaking are associated with comprehension and meaning of text, I gave each student a five-item objective quiz at the end of each interview. The students were allowed to use their notes during the quiz. The resulting grades for each student are as follows: Dino (80%), Jay (100%), Jennifer (100%), Tammy (80%), Jerry (60%), and Bill (20%). Attitude of Learner I also wanted to determine the students' attitudes toward studying and their reactions to this project. Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, and Pressley (1990) found that competent strategy use is definitely related to motivation and self-esteem. I asked the following questions: "How did you approach this assignment, and how do you approach studying in general?" Dino, Jay, and Jennifer, the successful students, were somewhat anxious about the task as: Do it; get it over with . . . thought this might be difficult. (Dino) Little nervous about this, but relaxed about studying. (Jay) A little pressured . . . thought I was going to be part of a group, but relaxed now that I'm alone .. . studying depends on class and teacher. (Jennifer)

Table 2 Percent of Time Students Spent on Observed Study Behaviors

Student Successful Unsuccessful

R
14 42

R/T
53 13

A
17 25

T/N
16 20

Note. R=Reading: Student is reading article; R/T=Student is reading article and taking notes on a separate piece of paper; A=Analyzing: Student appears to be rereading the article and/or studying material while marking the paper; T/N=Time not used: Student terminated activity before allotted time.

356

Journal of Reading Behavior

In the videotapes Dino, Jay, and Jennifer appear to be very serious approaching the task and used most of the time allotted. In contrast, the unsuccessful students, Tammy, Bill, and Jerry did not appear anxious, approached the task with apparent ease, and did not use time efficiently. When asked about this assignment, and how they approach studying, their responses were:
Timid at first. . . more comfortable now. How I approach studying depends on what subject I am studying. I just read this through. (Tammy) Just did i t . . . no feelings... I study because I have to. (Bill) Just did i t . . . most of the time I don't study. (Jerry)

Perceptions of Students as Successful/Unsuccessful When I decided to examine the study strategies of successful and unsuccessful students, I chose students whom I thought would represent these categories based on the criteria for selection. In order to tap their awareness of their academic ability, my final question was, "Do you consider yourself to be a successful student?"
Yes. (Dino, Bill) When I apply myself. (Jay, Jennifer) Most of the time . . . depends on class. (Tammy) In the middle. (Jerry)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In this study, I focused on the study strategies of successful and unsuccessful students, with the goal of determining whether the "good-information-processor model" proposed by Pressley et al. (1989) captured differences between better and weaker readers. Good information processors are competent thinkers who know the techniques needed to accomplish goals in learning. They are also able to assess whether these goals are being met and if not, are able to modify strategies to meet these goals. Good information processors know how to set an environment for learning; they are knowledgeable, purposeful, resourceful. Good information processors know facts and are able to make connections. To what extent did the students in the present study adhere to the "good-information-processor model"? In fact, there was support for the conclusion that how students study involves the interplay of many skills, strategies, knowledge, and attitudes. What has emerged during the course of this study are profiles of six diverse, individual learners. Table 3 summarizes the categories of study strategies used as a model of good information processing. The following is a synthesis of how the students in this study measured up to this model. (1) Dino, a successful student, is serious, organized, in control of his learning, and has good study habits. He had a plan, took control of the task, freed himself

Study Strategies

357

Table 3

Categories of Study Strategies Used as a Model of Good Information Processing Study Strategies Determining the author's purpose Detecting the author's organizational plan Planning for learning Activating prior knowledge Distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant information Summarizing Notetaking Note. + Behavior present, - Behavior not present. from distractions, and took detailed notes to aid him in his recall of the information. He did not, however, activate his prior knowledge when reading the article. Dino closely adhered to the model of a good information processor presented in all areas except in the area of prior knowledge activation. (2) Jay, a successful student, is fairly serious and clearly aware of his shortcomings when not applying himself. He has fair to good study habits. He was able to articulate his use of strategies, but was not as purposeful in his goals for learning as the other two successful students. Jay adhered to the model of a good information processor as presented. (3) Jennifer, a successful student, is enthusiastic about learning and articulate about when and where to use study strategies. She said that her study habits vary with purpose. She also admitted that she tends to "spread herself too thin" and that affects her academic performance. She is clearly in control of her learning. Jennifer closely adhered to the model of a good information processor in all areas. (4) Tammy, an unsuccessful student, is quiet, steady, and does what she must to get by. Her attitude toward learning is affected by preference for class and teacher. Although she took no notes and seemed to waste time as indicated on the videotape, she did demonstrate strategy use in most of the other areas. She was not able to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information in the article. Tammy partially adhered to the model of a good information processor. (5) Jerry, an unsuccessful student, admitted that school has never been easy for him, but is apparently satisfied with what he has accomplished. He took some notes, but was not strategic in his planning. He has below average study habits. Jerry did not adhere to the model of a good information processor. (6) Bill, an unsuccessful student, is relaxed and low key. He does not take Successful Students Dino Jay Jennifer + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Unsuccessful Students Jerry Tammy Bill + . + + + + + + + . -

. + -

358

Journal of Reading Behavior

school seriously, and he is not intimidated by learning. He had no apparent plan, took no notes, and was the least efficient in study habits. Bill considers himself a successful student but did not adhere to the model of a good information processor. If we examine the data as a whole, we see that the successful students outperformed the unsuccessful students in their use of study strategies, with the exception of Tammy, an unsuccessful student, who was strategic. The videotapes also revealed that (a) the successful students approached the assignment with a seriousness of purpose, and (b) the unsuccessful students appeared restless during the studying session. The unsuccessful students rushed through the assignment and finished earlier than the successful ones. Perhaps the most salient finding of all is that each student perceived himself or herself as a somewhat successful learner and was satisfied with his/her present study habits, whereas only three of the six studentsDino, Jay, and Jennifermet this study's criteria as successful learners. This finding is consistent with a study by Miller and Yochum (1991), which examined students' perceptions of themselves as readers and the strategies they used to solve reading problems. When they interviewed the students about the types of reading difficulties they experienced, some students lacked awareness of any difficulty whereas others were aware of difficulties yet were unable to demonstrate appropriate strategies. Similarly, Pressley, Ghatala, Woloshyn, and Pirie (1990) found that students are often not aware of reading competence. In two experiments conducted with university students, students were asked to rate their confidence to answers to short-answer and multiple-choice questions after reading challenging passages. The students had great confidence in their answers even when they were wrong. The authors concluded that "when adults read challenging, inconsiderate texts, they may often be unaware of gross comprehension problems" (p. 233). In summary, the purpose of this inquiry was to examine the study strategies of successful and unsuccessful learners. The successful students in this study, for the most part, were motivated to succeed and did use strategies to accomplish this goal. The less successful students were not only less apt to access strategies on their own, but also lacked self-knowledge of inefficient strategy use. The study is limited in many respects because of the small sample and the restriction to only one study session. More research is needed with larger samples to understand good information processing more completely, especially qualitative studies fleshing out the perspective that emerged from the quantitative work favored by Pressley et al. (1989) as they developed the good information processor model.

REFERENCES
Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Studying. In P. David Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 657-679). New York: Longman.

Study Strategies

359

Armbruster, B. B., Echols, C , & Brown, A. W. (1983). The role of metacognition in reading to learn: A developmental perspective (Report No. 40). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. David Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman. Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, E. A., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated strategy use: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem. In B. F. Jones (Ed.), Dimensions of thinking: Review of research (pp. 53-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. (1982). Learning, remembering, understanding (Tech. Rep. No. 244). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10, 14-21. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14. Brown, J., Bennett, J. M., & Hanna, G. (1981). The Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Chicago: Riverside. Carrier, C. A., & Titus, A. (1981). Effects of notetaking pretraining and test mode expectations on learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 385-397. Devine, T. (1987). Teaching study skills. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Durkin, D. (1978-79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-553. Graham, K., & Robinson, H. A. (1987). Study skills handbook: A guide for all teacher. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Heldenbrand, L., & Hixon, J. E. (1991). Video-assisted training of study skills. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 26, 121-129. Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model and memory experiments. In L. S. Cermak and F. I. M. Craik (Eds.). Levels and processing in human memory (pp. 429-466). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kiewra, K. A. (1985) Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternatives. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23-32. Loranger, A. L. (1988) The effect of instruction in three study strategies on the content area learning of ninth grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University). University Microfilms International, 8806752. Marshak, D. (1979). hm study skills program (teachers' guide). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary Principals. Marx, R. W., Winne, P. H., & Walsh, J. (1985). Studying student cognition during classroom learning. In M. Pressley and C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Cognitive learning and memory in children (pp. 181-203). New York: Springer-Verlag. Miller, S., & Yochum, N. (1991). Asking students about the nature of their reading difficulties. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 465-485. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Norman, D. A. (1980). Cognitive engineering and education. In D. T. Tuna and F. Riefs (Eds.), Problem solving and education (p. 97). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of notetaking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34-38. Peterson, P. L., Swing, S. R., Stark, K. D., & Waas, G. A. (1983, April). Students' reports of their cognitive processes and affective thoughts during classroom instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T. Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 513-555.

360

Journal of Reading Behavior

Pressley, M., Ghatala, E. S., Woloshyn, V., & Pirie, J. (1990). Sometimes adults miss the main ideas and do not realize it: Confidence in responses to short-answer and multiple-choice comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 233-249. Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 89, 301-342. Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students' theory of notetaking derived from their perceptions of notetaking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323-338. Weinstein, C , Butterfield, P., Schmidt, C , & Poythress, M. (1982). An experimental program for remediating learning strategies deficits in academically underprepared students. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. Weinstein, C , & Mayer, R. E. (1985). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1-53). New York: Macmillan.

Manuscript received: March 30, Revision requested: April 15, Revision received: June 1, Accepted for publication: June 10,

1994 1994 1994 1994