Reading Psychology, 31:6981, 2010

Copyright
C
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 online
DOI: 10.1080/02702710903397082
ACTIVE READING PROCEDURES FOR MODERATING
THE EFFECTS OF POOR HIGHLIGHTING
VICKI S. GIER, DANIEL HERRING, JASON HUDNELL, and
JODI MONTOYA
Mississippi State UniversityMeridian, Meridian, Mississippi, USA
DAVID S. KREINER
University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, Missouri, USA
We investigated two active reading techniques intended to eliminate the nega-
tive effect on reading comprehension of preexisting, inappropriate highlighting.
College students read passages in three highlighting conditions: no highlighting,
appropriate highlighting, and inappropriate highlighting. In Experiment 1, 30
students read the passages while using a nger as if it were a highlighter. In
Experiment 2, another 30 students used blue highlighters while reading the pas-
sages. The results showed that both using a nger as a highlighter and using a
blue highlighter eliminated previously documented negative effects of preexisting,
inappropriate highlighting. Further, metacomprehension was poor in the presence
of inappropriate highlighting.
The amount of reading required at the college level can be chal-
lenging for some students. According to Orlando, Caverly, Swet-
nam, and Flippo (1989), students may read an average of 600750
pages a semester per course. Given that full-time students typically
take four courses or more per semester, the number of pages of
required reading could well exceed 2400 pages per semester. In
response to the demanding reading requirements, many college
students have learned to use a variety of study techniques while
reading their textbooks.
When college students read textbooks they quickly discover
that not all elements in a text are equally important. The expe-
rienced, high-level reader is able to distinguish between the im-
portant and unimportant information in the text (Maki, Shields,
Wheeler, & Zacchilli, 2005). Yang (2006) stated that students use
general strategies that include predicting content, recognizing
Address correspondence to Vicki S. Gier, Mississippi State UniversityMeridian, 1000
Highway 19 North, Meridian, MS 39307. E-mail: vgier@meridian.msstate.edu
69
70 V. S. Gier et al.
text structure, integrating information, posing questions, inter-
preting the text, utilizing general knowledge and associations,
reecting on behavior or process, monitoring comprehension,
self-correcting, and reacting to texts (p. 316). Additionally, many
strategies used by college students include annotating text, writing
in margins, and drawing diagrams (Nist & Holschuh, 2000). One
commonly used technique is to highlight material in the textbook
in an effort to target those points for later recall. Other college
students write in the margins of the textbook or make ash cards
in order to retain information for upcoming tests (Winograd,
1984). Peterson (1992) found that when students highlight rel-
evant parts of passages, reading comprehension improves. Un-
fortunately, when students do not actively think about what they
are reading and they highlight material that is unimportant, little
comprehension of the material occurs (Gourney, 1999; Long &
Long, 1987).
Some students try to decrease their study time by purchas-
ing used textbooks that contain preexisting highlighting. Students
may assume that they can save time by reading only the high-
lighted portions. Other students may purchase used books not
out of choice but due to economic issues and nd that the prior
owners have marked portions of the textbook erratically, result-
ing in additional study time to eliminate the negative effects of the
preexisting poor highlighting or, even worse, accepting the preex-
isting highlighting as relevant. When this occurs, the highlighting
may interfere with the important, relevant material needed for
the student to retain for testing. Some universities have a book
rental policy that allows students to highlight using only a yellow
highlighter. If this is the case, then those students renting text-
books may be at a bigger disadvantage because they cannot use
a different-colored highlighter to distinguish their markings from
the prior owners highlighting.
Research has shown that even if students try to ignore pre-
existing, inappropriate highlighting, they are not able to do so.
Silvers and Kreiner (1997) found that even when students were
warned in advance that the preexisting, inappropriate highlight-
ing may interfere with their reading comprehension, students
were unable to ignore the poor highlighting, resulting in lower
reading comprehension scores compared to the control and
appropriately highlighted conditions. Silvers-Gier, Kreiner, and
Moderating Effects of Poor Highlighting 71
Natz-Gonzolaz (2009) replicated the negative effect of poor high-
lighting on reading comprehension. Students read passages in
three conditions: no highlighting, appropriate highlighting, and
inappropriate highlighting. After reading each passage, students
responded to six multiple-choice questions as a measure of their
comprehension. In both studies, comprehension scores were
lower when the passages contained inappropriate highlighting.
Students who have high reading comprehension ability typi-
cally have good metacognitive skills (Pressley, 1998), meaning that
they know what know (e.g., I really understand this concept)
and know what they do not know (e.g., I amreally confused about
this concept). Metacognition applied to reading comprehension
is typically referred to as metacomprehension; therefore, we will use
the term metacomprehension to refer to metacognitive abilities
related to reading comprehension. According to Maki and Berry
(1984), metacomprehension is the processes of monitoring on-
line learning of text material.
Students therefore must learn to monitor their learning. Pin-
trich, Walters, and Baxter (2000) used an analogy comparing a
thermostat of a furnace to learners monitoring their learning.
If the temperature falls below a certain level, the heat is shut
off. Similarly, when students do not comprehend the material or
are confused by the material, the monitor alerts the students to
change their behavior and try different cognitive strategies in or-
der to increase their learning. Pintrich et al. suggested that one
barrier to students success may be the inability to assess their mas-
tery of the academic requirements they are facing.
According to Rosenthal (2000), while reading we make
metacognitive, or metacomprehension, judgments, which are
judgments on whether we know something, how easily we can
learn an item, or whether we have successfully learned what we are
reading. One example of a metacognitive judgment is the judg-
ment of learning (JOL) in which the participants indicate how
well they feel they have learned the material (see, e.g., Flavell,
Green, & Flavell, 1995; Forrest-Presley, Mackinnon, & Waller
1985; Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1994).
Another measure of metacomprehension is the prediction of
knowing (POK; Eakin, 2005; Schreiber & Nelson, 1998). Prior to
retrieval, the participants predict how well they will do on a subse-
quent recall test. Maki et al. (2005) examined the POKs of college
72 V. S. Gier et al.
students who read passages of two difculty levels: a hard version
and an easier, revised version. For the easier version, students
POKs were higher than their performance scores indicating over-
condence. This nding was replicated by Silvers-Gier, Kreiner,
& Natz-Gonzolaz (2009). When students experience overcon-
dence, they may spend less time studying the material than if their
condence level equaled their performance scores.
Silvers-Gier, Kreiner, & Natz-Gonzolaz (2009) included three
measures of metacomprehension in their investigation of the ef-
fects of preexisting highlighting. After reading each passage, the
students provided a JOL rating indicating how well they compre-
hended the passages. Second, the students made predictions in-
dicating how well they thought they would correctly answer the
comprehension questions. After responding to the comprehen-
sion questions, the students provided a condence rating indi-
cating how many questions they thought they answered correctly.
The results revealed reduced metacomprehension accuracy in the
inappropriate highlighting condition. In other words, the partic-
ipants had more difculty monitoring what they knew. For exam-
ple, in the inappropriate highlighting condition, when students
were more condent that they had answered the questions cor-
rectly, their comprehension scores tended to be lower . Silvers-Gier
and Kreiners results demonstrated that inappropriate highlight-
ing may disrupt the participants ability to monitor his or her com-
prehension of passages, which could be a cause of lower reading
comprehension scores. As Isaacson and Fujita (2006) explained,
Students whose JOLs overestimate their actual learning are also
likely to terminate their studying prior to mastering the material
and fall short of their goals, especially when the demands of the
tasks exceed the levels at which they have learned the required
material (p. 40).
The purpose of the present two experiments is to determine
whether active learning techniques can eliminate the negative
effects of preexisting, poor highlighting. In both studies, partici-
pants read passages that contained no highlighting, appropriate
highlighting, or inappropriate highlighting. We hypothesized
that an active reading procedure could reduce or eliminate the
effects of inappropriate highlighting on reading comprehension
and on metacomprehension. In Experiment 1 we asked the par-
ticipants to use their index ngers as if they were highlighters. In
Moderating Effects of Poor Highlighting 73
Experiment 2, we asked the participants to use a blue-colored
highlighter to highlight the relevant material in the passages.
Similar to the Silvers-Gier, Kreiner, & Natz-Gonzolaz (2009) study,
we measured comprehension of the passages in addition to three
measures of metacomprehension: JOL, POK, and condence
ratings.
Experiment 1
When a text contains preexisting highlighting, it is useful but not
sufcient for the reader to recognize that the highlighting may
be inappropriate. It is possible that the reader could overcome
any negative effect of preexisting highlighting by adding his or
her own highlighting of the relevant material. This method may
not be possible, however, if the student is prohibited by bookstore
policy from adding highlighting in another color. We investigated
whether the act of using ones nger as a highlighter, without mak-
ing any marks in the text, could be helpful.
Method
PARTICIPANTS
Thirty students from a southeastern university volunteered
to participate in exchange for an extra-credit coupon. The partic-
ipants ages were between the ages of 20 and 65 (M =26.80, SD =
9.96). Fourteen African American, 13 Caucasian, and 3 Native
American students participated. The students were all upper level
college students (juniors and seniors).
MATERIALS
The passages used for the current study were the same text
materials that were used by Maki et al. (2005). Rawson, Dunlosky,
and Thiede (2000) originally used these passages, taken from a
GRE preparation manual (Branson, Selub, & Solomon, 1987).
Maki et al. revised the original passages to make them easier to
comprehend. The revised passages contained fewer but shorter
sentences than the original passages. The mean Flesh-Kincaid
grade level was 11.71 for the original passages and 9.80 for the
revised passages. In Maki et al.s study, the two versions of the pas-
sages were referred to as hard and revised. In the present study,
74 V. S. Gier et al.
we used the revised version. We used the same multiple-choice
comprehensions questions as Rawson and Dunlosky (2002). Maki
et al. ensured that half of the questions tapped details and half
tapped more conceptual material.
Two passages were highlighted appropriately, two inappropri-
ately, and two had no highlighting. For the appropriate highlight-
ing condition, sentences that contained material corresponding
to the comprehension questions were highlighted in yellow. For
the inappropriate highlighting condition, the highlighted mate-
rial did not correspond to the comprehension questions. The
three highlighting conditions were counterbalanced across the
six passages, so that each passage occurred in each of the three
conditions for the same number of participants.
PROCEDURE
After reading and signing the consent form, the participants
listened to the following directions:
Today you will be asked to read six passages. Some of passages will have pre-
existing highlighting. While you are reading each passage you are being
asked to use your nger as if it were a highlighter to Highlight the parts
of the passage that are important, just as you would if this were your text-
book and you were highlighting the relevant material with a highlighter.
After each passage you will see a page with a JOL (Judgment of Learning)
question asking you How well do you think you understood the passage?
The scale includes ranges from 0, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%, with
0 meaning you did not understand the passage at all, to 100% meaning
you completely understood the passage. It is very important that you use
this scale in responding to the JOL for each passage. After writing down
the JOL percentage, you will see on the following page six multiple choice
questions. DO not answer the multiple choice questions at this time. What
you will do is make a prediction on how many questions you think you
will get correct if you were to take the quiz now. You may briey look at
the multiple choice questions to make this prediction. Once again, we are
asking you to not answer the multiple choice questions at this time. After
writing down your prediction of how many multiple choice you will get
right (06) you will turn the page and read another passage.
Repeat this process: Read the passage, JOL, Prediction, Next Passage, until
you have read all six passages. You will then go back to the rst passage
questions and circle the answer you think is correct. After answering each
set of multiple choice questions, you will see a condence scale that asks
how many of the multiple choice questions you believe you got correct.
After reading the instructions to the participants, the re-
searchers read the passages and answered all of the provided
Moderating Effects of Poor Highlighting 75
TABLE 1 Experiment 1 (Finger Highlighting) Descriptive Statistics for
Accuracy and Metacomprehension Measures by Highlighting Condition
(Standard Deviations in Parentheses)
Highlighting Condition
Dependent Variable No Highlighting Appropriate Inappropriate
Accuracy 5.77 (2.49) 6.03 (1.79) 5.70 (2.37)
JOL 114.00 (39.62) 125.33 (37.39) 114.67 (50.36)
POK 7.60 (1.90) 7.30 (2.20) 6.87 (2.54)
Condence 6.77 (1.70) 6.70 (1.97) 6.17 (2.32)
Note. Maximum scores for Accuracy, POK, and Condence are 12, based on two passages
in each condition. Condence ratings are reported as the mean of the two passages, with
the maximum condence being 100%.
questions. The six passages were presented in random order.
Once the participants had completed the study they were de-
briefed to the purpose of the study and dismissed.
Results
We compared the three highlighting conditions on accuracy
(number correct), JOL, POK, and condence ratings using one-
way repeated measures ANOVAs (see Table 1 for descriptive statis-
tics). There was not a signicant effect of highlighting condi-
tion on accuracy, F (2,58) = 0.32, p = .73, partial
2
= .01, JOL,
F (2,58) =1.30, p =.28, partial
2
=.04, POK, F (2,58) =1.76, p =
.18, partial
2
=.06, or condence ratings, F (2,58) =1.33, p =.27,
partial
2
= .04.
Correlations of the metacomprehension measures with ac-
curacy are shown in Table 2. In the no-highlighting condition,
TABLE 2 Experiment 1 (Finger Highlighting) Correlations Between Accuracy
and Measures of Metacomprehension by Highlighting Condition
Highlighting Condition
Measure No Highlighting Appropriate Inappropriate
JOL .24 .26 .06
POK .18 .18 .18
Condence .62

.30 .35
Note.

p < .001. All other correlation coefcients not signicant at p > .05.
76 V. S. Gier et al.
condence ratings were signicantly correlated with accuracy.
None of the metacomprehension measures signicantly corre-
lated with accuracy in either the inappropriate or appropriate
highlighting conditions.
Discussion
Unlike the prior studies of Silvers and Kreiner (1997) and Silvers-
Gier, Kreiner, & Natz-Gonzolaz (2009), there was no effect of pre-
existing highlighting. These results support the idea that the n-
ger highlighting procedure can eliminate the negative effect of
inappropriate highlighting. In the earlier highlighting studies the
participants were not allowed to use their nger or any other ac-
tive learning technique. The present results are encouraging for
those students who rent textbooks and are not allowed to high-
light in a different color.
Measures of metacomprehension did not predict accuracy on
the comprehension questions in either of the highlighting condi-
tion. In fact, the only measure of metacomprehension that was sig-
nicantly correlated with accuracy was condence but only when
no highlighting was present in the passage. These results suggest
that college students have difculty making useful metacognitive
judgments about what they are learning while they are reading.
Condence ratings of how well they thought they did on the com-
prehension questions were not predictive of actual performance
on those questions when highlighting was present, whether it was
inappropriate or appropriate. Thus, the presence of highlighting
may result in metacomprehension that is even less reliable than it
is without highlighting.
Experiment 2
In some cases, students are allowed to add their own highlighting
to a text that has been previously highlighted. For example, stu-
dents who purchase used textbooks and do not plan to sell them
back at the end of the semester are free to add their own highlight-
ing. If the text has already been highlighted in one color (yellow
is the most common), a student may wish to add highlighting in
a different color so that it is distinctive. In a second experiment,
Moderating Effects of Poor Highlighting 77
we sought to determine whether using a different colored high-
lighter could eliminate the negative effects of poor highlighting.
Method
PARTICIPANTS
Thirty undergraduate students volunteered to participate in
the study. Their ages ranged from 20 to 54 years of age (M =
26.50, SD = 7.89). The participants consisted of 16 Caucasians,
12 African Americans, and two Native Americans. All were juniors
and seniors.
MATERIALS AND PROCEDURE
We used the same materials and procedure as in Experiment
1, with the exception that we asked the students to highlight the
passages with a blue highlighter rather than using their ngers.
Results
We computed one-way repeated measures ANOVAs to compare
the three highlighting conditions on accuracy (number cor-
rect), JOL, POK, and condence ratings. Descriptive statistics are
shown in Table 3. There was a signicant effect of highlighting,
F (2,58) = 3.67, p = .03, partial
2
= .11, with Bonferroni com-
parisons indicating greater accuracy in the appropriate condi-
tion than in the inappropriate or no-highlighting conditions.
TABLE 3 Experiment 2 (Blue Highlighting) Descriptive Statistics for Accuracy
and Metacomprehension Measures by Highlighting Condition (Standard
Deviations in Parentheses)
Highlighting Condition
Dependent Variable No Highlighting Appropriate Inappropriate
Accuracy 5.80 (2.33) 6.57 (1.81) 5.70 (1.72)
JOL 60.00 (23.01) 66.33 (13.00) 63.17 (18.68)
POK 7.20 (1.47) 7.73 (1.79) 7.47 (1.72)
Condence 6.83 (2.09) 7.13 (1.81) 6.37 (2.09)
Note. Maximum scores for Accuracy, POK, and Condence are 12, based on two passages
in each condition. Condence ratings are reported as the mean of the two passages, with
the maximum condence being 100%.
78 V. S. Gier et al.
TABLE 4 Experiment 2 (Blue Highlighting) Correlations Between Accuracy
and Measures of Metacomprehension by Highlighting Condition
Highlighting Condition
Measure No Highlighting Appropriate Inappropriate
JOL .34 .44

.28
POK .13 .40

.26
Condence .23 .28 .09
Note.

p < .05.

p < .001. All other correlation coefcients not signicant at p > .05.
Bonferroni comparisons indicated no signicant difference be-
tween accuracy in the inappropriate and no-highlighting condi-
tions. The highlighting conditions did not differ signicantly on
JOL, F (2,58) = 1.46, p = .24, partial
2
= .05, condence ratings,
F (2,58) =2.30, p =.11, partial
2
=.07, or predictions, F (2,58) =
1.14, p = .33, partial
2
= .04.
As shown in Table 4, none of the measures of metacompre-
hension signicantly predicted comprehension accuracy in either
the inappropriate or no-highlighting conditions. However, in the
appropriate highlighting condition, both JOL and POK were sig-
nicantly correlated with accuracy.
Discussion
As in Experiment 1, there was no effect of the inappropriate
highlighting. Although there was a signicant effect of highlight-
ing condition on accuracy, Bonferroni comparisons indicated
that there was no difference between the inappropriate and no-
highlighting conditions. These results suggest that students may
be able to avoid the negative effects of preexisting inappropriate
highlighting by doing their own highlighting in a different color.
The results did indicate that preexisting, appropriate high-
lighting could be benecial. The benet of appropriate highlight-
ing may depend on details such as the materials used, as this ben-
et was also reported in Silvers-Gier, Kreiner, & Natz-Gonzolaz
(2009) but not in Silvers and Kreiner (1997). Metacomprehen-
sion also appeared to benet from the appropriate highlighting
in the current study, because both JOL and POK were signicant
predictors of accuracy in the appropriate highlighting condition.
Moderating Effects of Poor Highlighting 79
None of the measures of metacomprehension were signicant
predictors of accuracy in the other conditions. This nding is con-
sistent with the claim that college students have poor metacogni-
tive abilities in general but that they might be improved by high-
lighting relevant material.
General Discussion
Two previous studies (Silvers & Kreiner, 1997; Silvers-Gier,
Kreiner, Natz-Gonzolaz, 2009) showed that inappropriate high-
lighting does interfere with reading comprehension. In the lat-
ter study, metacognitive ability was also impaired by inappropriate
highlighting. Both of these studies investigated the effects of pre-
existing highlighting, such as students are likely to nd in previ-
ously owned or rented textbooks.
The present studies represent the rst research, to our knowl-
edge, investigating whether active reading methods could elim-
inate the effects of preexisting, inappropriate highlighting. The
results were promising in this regard. When participants used a
nger as if it were a highlighter, there was no effect of inappro-
priate highlighting on either comprehension accuracy or on mea-
sures metacomprehension. Similarly, when students added their
own blue highlighting, there was no effect of the preexisting in-
appropriate highlighting (although the appropriate highlighting
did appear to be benecial). Warning students of the possible neg-
ative effects of preexisting highlighting does not appear to have
any impact (Silvers & Kreiner, 1997), but the present results sug-
gest that active reading can make a difference.
In both studies, metacomprehension judgments tended to be
poor in the sense that they often did not predict how well stu-
dents performed on the comprehension questions. As Pintrich
et al. (2000) noted, this could have consequences for student suc-
cess. Outside the context of a controlled experiment, students
must decide for themselves what to read and how much time and
effort they should devote to different materials. Poor metacom-
prehension may prevent students from efciently allocating their
time and effort. In both studies, measures of metacomprehension
consistently failed to predict comprehension accuracy in the pres-
ence of inappropriate highlighting. Measures of metacomprehen-
sion did not always predict accuracy in the other highlighting
80 V. S. Gier et al.
conditions, suggesting that poor metacomprehension is a result
of factors other than poorly highlighted text.
It is imperative to nd out whether using active learning tech-
niques can eliminate the negative effects of poor highlighting
due to the vast numbers of used textbooks being purchased ev-
ery semester. The present studies suggest that there are relatively
simple methods that may be effective in dealing with this problem.
References
Branson, M., Selub, M., & Solomon, L. (1987). How to prepare for the GRE. San
Diego: Harcourt Brace.
Eakin, D. K. (2005). Illusions of knowing: Metamemory and memory under con-
ditions of retroactive interference [Special issue]. Journal of Memory and Lan-
guage, 52, 526534.
Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., & Flavell, E. R. (1995). Young childrens knowledge
about thinking. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(1,
Serial No. 24).
Forrest-Presley, D. L., Mackinnon, G. E., & Waller, T. G. (1985). Metacognition,
cognition, and human performance. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gourney, A. F. (1999). Teaching reading from a metacognitive perspective: The-
ory and classroom experience. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 30,
8593.
Isaacson, R. M., & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and
self-regulated learning: Academic success and reections on learning Journal
of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 3955.
Long, J. D., & Long, E. W. (1987). Enhancing student achievement through
metacomprehension training. Journal of Developmental Education, 11, 25.
Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663679.
Maki, R. H., Shields, M., Wheeler, A. E., & Zacchilli, T. L. (2005). Individual
differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 723731.
Metcalfe, J. A., & Shimamura, A. P. (Eds.). (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about
knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nist, S. L., & Holschuh, J. L. (2000). Comprehension strategies at the college
level. In R. Flippo & D. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study
strategy research (pp. 75104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Orlando, V., Caverly, D., Swetnam, L., & Flippo, R. F. (1989). Text demands in
college classes: An investigation. Forum for Reading, 21(1), 4348.
Peterson, S. (1992). The cognitive function of underlining as a study technique.
Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 4956.
Pintrich, P. R., Walters, C., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition
and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the
Moderating Effects of Poor Highlighting 81
measurement of metacognition (pp. 4397). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Men-
tal Measurement.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching.
New York: Guilford.
Rawson, K. A., &Dunlosky, J. (2002). Are performance predictions for text based
on ease of processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 28, 6980.
Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J. , & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Meta-
comprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition,
28(6), 10041010.
Rosenthal, D. M. (2000). Metacognition and higher-order thoughs. Consciousness
and Cognition, 9(2), 231242.
Schreiber, T. A., & Nelson, D. L. (1998). The relation between feelings of know-
ing and the number of neighboring concepts linked to the test cue. Memory
& Cognition, 26, 869883.
Silvers, V. L., & Kreiner, D. S. (1997). The effects of pre-existing inappropriate
highlighting on reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 36,
217223.
Silvers-Gier, V., Kreiner, D. S., & Natz-Gonzolaz, A. (2009). Harmful effects
of preexisting, inappropriate highlighting on reading comprehension and
metacognitive accuracy. Journal of General Psychology, 136(3), 287300.
Winograd, P. (1984). Strategic difculties in summarizing texts. Reading Research
Quarterly, 19, 404425.
Yang, Y.-F. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies?
Reading Psychology, 27, 313343.
Copyright of Reading Psychology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.