H

I LU I N 0 I S
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

PRODUCTION NOTE
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Library
Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007.
T
E R Technical Report No. 87

C E
The Development and Evaluation
H P of a Self-Questioning Study Technique
N 0 Marli E.D.A. Andre and Thomas H. Anderson
I R University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
C T June 1978
A S
L

Center for the Study of Reading

J
1 LRy Y
OF

OCT 7 ?9g7
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
/Af, p. ,. j I
UIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
51 Gerty Drive
Champaign, Illinois 61820

The N BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN INC.

Inst
Edi 50 Moulton Street
Health. Educatiol
Washingto
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
 CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF READING

Technical Report No. 87

The Development and Evaluation

of a Self-Questioning Study Technique

Marli E.D.A. Andre and Thomas H. Anderson

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

June 1978

University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
51 Gerty Drive 50 Moulton Street
Champaign, Illinois 61820 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

The research reported herein was supported in part by the National

Institute of Education under Contract No. US-NIE-C-400-76-0116 and in
part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency under Contract No.
NO0123-77-C-0622.
 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

Abstract

The main purpose of these two studies was to determine whether or not

generating good comprehension questions while studying prose material was

an effective study technique. In the first study there were two treatment

groups to which the high school seniors participating in the study were

randomly assigned: a questioning-with-training or a read-reread control

group. In the second study high school juniors and seniors were randomly

assigned to one of three treatment groups: a questioning-with-training

group, an untrained questioning group, or a read-reread control group.

Verbal ability, as measured by the Wide Range Vocabulary Test (French,

Ekstrom, & Price, 1963), was used to group subjects ex post facto into three

levels of verbal ability. Two sessions of approximately 50 minutes each were

used for training and testing the subjects. The first day was devoted to

training the experimental groups and administering the verbal ability test.

On the second day, students studied two 450-word passages and were tested

over their content. Findings from one of the studies showed a significant

main effect for treatment in favor of questioning-with-training. Further,

results from both studies indicate that student generation of questions

during study is more effective for lower than for higher verbal ability

students.
 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

The Development and Evaluation

of a Self-Questioning Study Technique

There is wide agreement that active involvement of the student in

the reading process facilitates learning from text. Thorndike (1917)

suggested that oral exercises be replaced by silent reading during which

the student should be guided "to find the answers to given questions, or

to give a summary of [Link] read, or to list the questions which it

answers..." (p. 332).

Since the time of Thorndike, many reading strategies have been devised

to guide the reader in studying texts. One step frequently included in many

of these strategies is the use of questions (Bird & Bird, 1945; Frederick,

1938; Frederick, Kitchen, & McElwee, 1947; Gerken, 1953; Morgan & Deese, 1957;

Muse, 1929; Robbins, 1957; Robinson, 1961; Smith 1939; Wrenn & Larsen, 1955).

The process of using questions during study may take two forms: (a) students

answer questions constructed by the teacher or other source, such as the text

author; (b) students generate questions covering material read.

Author- or teacher-generated questions are acknowledged to be an aid in

assisting students to master the content of a selection. Since the investi-

gations of Washburne (1929) and Holmes (1931), a large number of studies have

shown that experimenter-constructed questions facilitate comprehension and

recall of textual materials. These studies have been concerned with the

effects, nature, and type of adjunct questions as well as their location and

frequency within the prose passage (e.g., Boker, 1974; Bruning, 1968; Felker &

Dapra, 1975; Frase, 1967, 1968; Frase, Patrick, & Schumer, 1970; Rothkopf, 1966;
 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967; Watts & Anderson, 1971). There has also been

some interest in how supplied questions interact with individual differences

(Hiller, 1974; Sanders, 1973; Shavelson, Berliner, Ravitch, & Loeding, 1974).

Anderson and Biddle (1975) recently reviewed the literature on adjunct

questions and indicated that, in general, experimenter-constructed questions

have a facilitative effect on prose learning. It seems that this enhance-

ment is greater when questions are placed after the material to which they

refer. Further, the benefits tend to be stronger when constructed answers

rather than multiple-choice items are used as adjunct questions. In addition,

high level-questions--questions which require comprehension of the text and

application of principles and concepts to new situations--seem to prompt

more thorough study and thus improve learning and retention.

But where author- or teacher-generated questions are not available, "the

possibility still exists that students can direct their own attention to

relevant material through self-questioning" (Morse, 1975; p. 2). Some

educators have stressed that students should be encouraged to ask their own

questions in order to develop as independent readers (Bernstein, 1973;

Dansereau, McDonald, Long, Actkinson, Ellis, Collins, Williams, & Evans, 1974;

Frase & Schwartz, 1975; Smith, 1972). Until recently, the studies of pupil-

constructed questions tended to focus on the development of inquiry skills

and problem solving behavior. Little research has been conducted on the

effects of student-generated questions within the context of reading or

prose learning.

Among the several studies which show facilitative effects for student-

generated questions are two reported by Frase and Schwartz (1975). In

 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

Experiment 1, 48 high school students read a 1,218-word biographical passage

which was divided into three sections of approximately 400 words each. Sub-

jects were assigned to 24 tutorial pairs and received instructions to ask

their partners questions on one-third of the text, answer their partner's

questions on another third, and study the other third on their own. Each

subject answered the 90-item short-answer posttest, which was tape recorded.

The questions constructed by students were compared to posttest items; the

test items were classified either as "targeted" (similar to a student ques-

tion), "nontargeted," or control (covering the material that the student read

without questions). Mean total recall for answering, questioning, and study-

ing conditions was 54.1%, 52.4%, and 46.8%, respectively. The means of the

answering and questioning conditions differed significantly (p < .01) from

the studying-only condition mean, but did not differ significantly from

one another.

In Experiment 2, 64 college freshmen read the same passage and took the

same test as in the first experiment, except that only the first two sections

of the text and the first 60 items of the test were used. The subjects were

required to read one text section and construct questions about it and then

to study the other section without questions. The mean proportion correct

on the posttest for the question-generation condition was .60 and for the

studying-only condition, .53. The difference was significant at the .005

level. The mean proportion correct for the targeted, nontargeted, and con-

trol items were .72, .55, and .53, respectively, a difference which is

significant at the .001 level. As in Experiment 1, scores on nontargeted

items did not differ from scores on control test items.

 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

Recently, Duell (1977) examined the effectiveness of asking subjects

to generate test items while reading four 552-word passages describing the

psychological processes of shaping, negative reinforcement, prompting, and

overlearning. One hundred and three college students were randomly assigned

to three experimental groups. Group 1 received the four passages, a list

of objectives, and instructions to write items to match the objectives.

Group 2 was instructed to study the passages with a list of behavioral

objectives. Control group students were directed to take the criterion

test without reading the passages. Two types of questions were used in the

31-item multiple-choice posttest. There were lower level, or recognition,

items which required the subjects to recognize an example of a psychological

process copied from the text. The high level, or application, items presented

new examples of a process and asked subjects to identify the name of the

process represented by the example. Posttest data revealed a significant

advantage for the item-generating group. Writing questions for both low and

high level objectives produced more learning than studying with objectives.

Item-generating learners scored significantly higher than learners who

received only the list of objectives.

In an investigation by Schmelzer (1975), 159 college students read a

1,488-word passage from a college textbook in logic. Group 1 was instructed

to preview the passage for five minutes and then to generate five questions.

Group 2 was given the passage, which was divided into five sections, and

told to read each section and then construct a question covering the material

contained in that particular section. Group 3 was instructed to read the

entire passage and then generate five questions over the material read. Group 4
 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

received instructions to read the passage twice. A 21-item multiple-choice

criterion test was administered immediately after the treatment. Although

the effects were not strong, there is evidence that the post-questioning

group scored higher than the other groups.

In several studies, the student-generated questions treatment had no

effect. Specifically, Pederson (1976) used Schmelzer's (1975) materials

and failed to replicate the earlier results. In addition, Bernstein (1973),

Morse (1975), and Owens (1977) were unable to find an effect for student

questioning.

Even though Frase and Schwartz (1975) and Duell (1977) present convincing

evidence that the question generating technique is effective, they included

several conditions which make the technique less than appealing for independent

studying. Duell had her students construct multiple choice questions with the

aid of instructional objectives. These aids and procedures helped the students

to determine the exact text content on which to base the questions, and the

format of the question. Frequently, however, students do not have these aids

available. On the other hand, Frase and Schwartz did not supply the student

with many aids, but they used text material which was so factually dense, that

virtually all of the generated questions were related to knowledge of these

facts (Frase, Note 1), and not to higher ordered knowledge.

It remains to be demonstrated that (a) students can be trained to locate

sections of text material which contain important main points and generate

questions about them, and (b) that the process of generating such questions

will facilitate learning the material. Consequently, the first experiment

was designed to assess directly whether the treatment was effective or not.
 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

Experiment 2 was designed to replicate the findings of Experiment 1 with a

larger sample size, and to assess the relative importance of carefully

training students to become good question generators in comparison to stu-

dents who simply are 'told' to use the questioning technique.

EXPERIMENT 1

Method

Design

The design involved two between-subject factors and one within-subject

factor. The between-subject factors were study technique (questioning-with-

training and rereading) and verbal ability (high and low). The within-subject

factor was the item type in the posttest. Subjects scoring above the 50th

percentile on the Wide Range Vocabulary Test (French, Ekstrom, & Price, 1963)

were classified as higher verbal ability students and those falling below the

50th percentile were classified as having lower verbal ability.

Subjects

The sample consisted of 29 seniors at a rural high school in central

Illinois. They participated in this study using time from their regular

English curriculum.

Materials

Reading passages. Three 450-word passages describing the principles

of displacement, extroversion-introversion, and drive reduction were used.

The passages were adapted from those employed in Watts and Anderson's (1971)

study. All three passages are similar in organization and style. In the

first paragraph the principle is introduced, and a situation which illustrates

 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

the principle is presented in common language. The second paragraph names

the psychologist with whom the principle is associated and gives a technical

explanation of the principle. In the third paragraph a new situation illus-

trating the principle is presented. The last paragraph introduces a related

concept and provides a concluding sentence.

Readability for the three passages was measured using the Dale-Chall

Readability Formula (Dale & Chall, 1948). All three passages were assessed

to be between the ninth and twelfth grade levels, which are usually judged

as appropriate levels for high school juniors and seniors. Since the period

of time available for student study did not allow the use of all three

passages, each student received a random combination of any two passages

and a set of 20 questions related to them.

The self-questioning training program. Each subject in the questioning

condition received a booklet with directions and instructional materials for

self-directed study. Training booklets included: (a) a brief introduction

to the questioning technique and a description of steps that should be

followed in studying a text; (b) an experimenter's model paragraph illus-

trating the appropriate use of the technique; (c) several single paragraphs

and a two-paragraph passage designed to give the students practice in con-

structing questions about material read; (d) experimenter-provided examples

of questions that could have been generated for those paragraphs; and (e) a

short passage--about 450-words--with instructions for students to apply the

questioning technique. This passage was presented in the left half of the

page in order to leave sufficient blank space at the right margin for the

students to write their questions. The next page showed questions produced
 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

by the experimenter as an example of the correct application of the ques-

tioning procedure over the same material. The purpose of these experimenter-

generated questions was to serve as examples of good question construction

for students. Students' difficulties during the training session with the

materials and/or procedures were handled by the experimenter on an individual

basis.

Students were taught how to generate questions using procedures similar

to those reported by Anderson, Anderson, Dalgaard, Wietecha, Biddle, Paden,

Smock, Alessi, Surber, and Klemt (1974). First, the students were instructed

to identify the main idea of each paragraph, which would serve as the core of

the questions. Second, students were given specific directions to form ques-

tions which asked for new instances of ideas and/or concepts. Last, when

generating a new instance proved difficult or inappropriate, the question

was to be about a concept in the text, but in a paraphrased format.

Criterion Posttest

The criterion measure was a 20-item constructed-response-type achievement

test. Ten items were constructed for each of the three passages, but only 20

items were used for any one student since each student read only two passages.

One-half of the items assessed passage main ideas and the other half assessed

details. Each test item was typed on a separate page and the order of the

items was determined randomly.

The main-idea items were prepared following strictly the same procedure

outlined in the student's training program. Whenever possible, the items

entailed application of main-point concepts and/or principles to new examples.

 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

10

In general, the language of the main-idea items did not repeat substantive

words (nouns, verbs, modifiers) found in the instructional passages.

The detail questions, (one for each of the four text paragraphs), were

framed with one of the following interrogative words: which, who, when,

where, what, or how. In order to answer these questions correctly, the

student had to recall specific information (or facts) from the text, such

as names, technical terms and dates.

Experimental Procedures

This study was conducted on two consecutive days. Two sessions of

approximately fifty minutes each were used for training and testing the

subjects. The first day was devoted to training the experimental groups

and administering the verbal ability test. In order to facilitate moni-

toring of the training session, the subjects were organized into two class-

rooms according to their assigned conditions. (The experimenter was given

a list containing all students' names so that subjects could be randomly

assigned to one of the two groups in advance.) First, the students were

informed about the purpose of the research and were told that their partic-

ipation in the study should be voluntary. Then all subjects were given the

Wide Range Vocabulary Test (French et al. 1963). The instructor read the

directions aloud and told subjects that they were allowed seven minutes to

complete the thirty multiple-choice test items. Upon completion of the

vocabulary test, the training materials, assembled in randomly ordered

booklets, were distributed to the students. The first page of the booklet

contained specific directions for the group. Two different sets of directions
 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

11

were written: one for the questioning-with-training group and the other for

the reading-rereading group. The directions informed the subjects that they

were either to learn the questioning technique, or to read and reread the

passages. Subjects recorded the amount of time spent studying the experi-

mental passage and the entire set of materials.

The second session required all students to read two experimental

passages, perform the tasks described in the testing booklets, and take the

criterion test. The students were again organized into two different class-

rooms which included subjects from each of the two treatment groups. Treat-

ment Group 1 was instructed to use the self-questioning technique while

studying the texts. The directions for this group presented an outline of

the steps that should be followed while using the questioning method. Treat-

ment Group 2 was required to read and reread the passages. Both groups were

told to read the passages in preparation for a later constructed-response-type

test and were given thirty minutes in which to complete the tasks. Each

student recorded the amount of time taken to study the passages. As soon as

each student completed the materials, he or she was given the criterion task.

Scoring and Analysis

The basic dependent measure for this study was the number of items

correctly answered in the criterion posttest. The criteria for scoring

the posttest were based on the rules for scoring constructed-response-type

items suggested by Gronlund (1968). An outline of the expected answers was

prepared including the key points of each response, and the amount of credit

to be allotted to it and to the parts within it. The answers were scored
 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

12

by the point method; that is, the number of points assigned to each answer

was determined by the previously prepared scoring key. In addition, all of

the students' answers to one question were evaluated before proceeding to

the next question. Finally, the main-idea items were graded by at least two

independent judges in order to check the reliability of the scoring process.

When there was disagreement between the two ratings, a third independent

judge was asked to evaluate the item and the decision was based on the con-

sensus of the group.

The posttest scores were analyzed by two three-factor unweighted means

analyses of variance with repeated measures on one factor, i.e., the item-

type factor. Another source of data, the amount of time taken by the subjects

to study the passages, was analyzed by a t-test. Finally, the questions

generated by the students were examined and evaluated (on a scale from 0-4)

according to the rules for constructing good comprehension questions which

were presented in the students' self-questioning program. Analyses were

carried out to estimate the conditional probability of scoring posttest

items correctly, given that a good comprehension question matching the

specific item had been written. These analyses were done for every question

constructed by the students and their matching main-idea test items. In

addition, the percentage of good comprehension questions generated by the

questioning group was calculated.

Results

The posttest scores were analyzed by a 2 x 2 x 2 fixed effects analysis

of variance with repeated measures on the last factor. The factors were study
 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

13

technique, verbal ability and type of posttest item. Results showed significant

main effects for verbal ability and item type, but not for treatment. Signifi-

cant two-way interactions were disclosed for Treatment x Verbal ability, F(1,23) =

4.38, p < .05 and for Item type x Verbal ability F(1,23) = 4.93, p < .05. The

latter interaction is not relevant to the scope of this study, but the former

needs more discussion. The question-generation strategy affects the test per-

formance of low verbal ability students more than it affects the performance of

high ability students. The low ability questioning group scored higher (M = 13.66)

than the low ability read-reread group (M = 8.26), while the high ability students

scored about the same whether they used questions (M = 18.67) or read-reread

(M = 20.88).

The self-questioning group spent significantly more minutes (M = 19.54, SD =

5.04) studying the experimental passages than did the rereading group (M = 8.69,

SD 2.89), t(27) = 7.28, p < .0005. The low verbal ability questioning group

spent approximately the same amount of time (M = 19.17, SD = 2.71) studying the

texts as did the high verbal ability questioning group (M = 18.17, SD = 5.15).

The low rereading group studied the passages (M = 9.29, SD = 3.64) approximately

as long as the high verbal ability rereading group (M = 8.63, SD = 2.07). The

difference on test performance between high and low verbal ability students thus

does not seem to be attributed to the amount of study time.

The student-generated questions were analyzed according to the criteria

for constructing good comprehension questions described in the self-questioning

program. From a total of 148 questions written by students during the training

session, 75% were considered good comprehension questions. In the passages

used for testing, froma total of 118 questions, 74% were classified as good
 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

14

comprehension questions. Further analyses were undertaken to examine the rela-

tionship between study questions and performance on the corresponding criterion

test items. It was found that the probability of answering a posttest item

correctly, after having generated a good text-based question, was .78. The

probability of answering a posttest item correctly when a less than adequate

question had been generated was .39.

EXPERIMENT 2

Method

Design and Analysis Plan

The main design was a 3 x 3 x 2 factorial analysis of variance with re-

peated measures on the last factor. The between-subject factors were study tech-

nique (questioning-with-training, questioning, and rereading) and verbal ability

(low, middle, and high). The within-subject factor was item type in the posttest

(main-idea and detail). The dependent variable was score on the immediate post-

test. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups. Ver-

bal ability, as measured by the Wide Range Vocabulary Test (French et al., 1963),

was used to group subjects ex post facto into three levels of verbal ability.

Subjects

The sample consisted of 81 juniors and seniors from the high school in a

farming community in central Illinois. Ten students who did not follow direc-

tions, that is, who did not perform the experimental tasks described in their

materials, were dropped from the study.

All students were enrolled in classes considered as average or above

average in achievement level. There were 46 females and 25 males from 16

 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

to 18 years of age who were in the eleventh (35%) or twelfth (65%) grade.

The subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental groups.

Materials

The reading passages and training materials used in Experiment 1 were

also used in Experiment 2, with a few modifications to the training materials.

The major modification was to replace the practice passage at the end of the

training materials with one of the three reading passages. This meant that

each student practiced on one of the passages and received the other two for

experimental purposes on a subsequent day. Consequently, all three passages

were used for practice and experimental purposes.

Criterion Posttest

The criterion posttest was a 24-item constructed-response-type achieve-

ment test. Items used in Experiment 1 were also used in Experiment 2. Eight

items were constructed for each of the three passages. One-half of the items

assessed passage main ideas and the other half assessed details. Each test

item was typed on a separate page and the order of items was determined ran-

domly. Sixteen of the items measured recall of the experimental passages and

eight items assessed retention of the passage studied during the training

session.

Experimental Procedures

Similar experimental procedures were used in the two experiments, but

an additional experimental group was added. Students in this group received

no special training on how to construct questions, but when they studied the

two experimental passages they were asked to construct four questions on each
 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

16

passage. The instructions told subjects that their questions should be the

type they would expect an instructor to construct over the same material.

Consequently, there were three experimental groups: (1) a read-reread

group; (2) a questioning group with no question-generation training; and

(3) a questioning group with question-generation training.

Scoring and Analysis

Scoring and analysis procedures in Experiment 2 were very similar to

those in Experiment 1, with the primary difference being that the design

had three treatment conditions and three verbal ability groups as compared

to two in Experiment 1.

Results

The questioning-with-training group (M = 14.79, SD = 4.56) and the

untrained questioning group (M = 13.70, SD = 5.02) obtained higher scores

on the posttest than the rereading group (M = 11.42, SD = 6.58). An analysis

of variance on the posttest scores revealed significant main effects for both

treatment, F(2,62) = 3.81, p < .03 and verbal ability, F(2.62) = 27.01,

p < .001. A Tukey's post hoc analysis showed a significant difference (p < .03)

between total mean scores for the questioning-with-training group and the

rereading control group. The total mean scores for the two questioning groups

did not differ from each other. The difference in mean scores between the

untrained questioning group and the rereading group approached significance

(p < .06). The verbal ability main effect indicates that high verbal ability

subjects performed higher on the posttest than low verbal ability subjects.
 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

17

The failure to find the Treatment by Ability level interaction found in

Experiment 1, prompted a closer look at the cell means and standard devia-

tions. It then became obvious that the middle ability group had consistently

larger standard deviations (exceptionally high and low scores) than the

approximately equal standard deviations of the high and low ability groups.

Since there was no covariate measure to control statistically for that vari-

ance, it was decided to investigate the possibility of a Treatment x Verbal

ability interaction by performing another ANOVA using the three treatment

groups, two verbal ability groups (the middle group was eliminated), and

two item types. This analysis yielded the following results: a significant

interaction between treatment and verbal ability, F(2,40) = 3.81, p < .05;

a significant interaction between item type and verbal ability F(1,40) =

15.20, p < .005; and significant main effects for treatment F(2,40) = 4.76,

p < .01 and verbal ability, F(1,40) = 71.92, p < .001.

As explained earlier, 'good comprehension questions' are those which

are based on main points of text paragraphs, require new examples of ideas

or concepts presented in the instructional materials and/or paraphrase the

text statements. All of the student-generated questions were rated accord-

ing to those criteria.

In order to determine statistically whether the trained group generated

better questions or not, an analysis of variance was carried out using the

two questioning groups and three levels of verbal ability as factors. The

dependent variable was percentage of good comprehension questions.

The results show one significant effect, the main effect for treatment,

F(1,41) = 6.06, p < .025. The questioning-with-training group (M = 72, SD = 23)

 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

18

generated a significantly greater percentage of good comprehension questions

than the untrained questioning group (M = 57, SD = 21), F(1,41) = 6.06,

p < .025.

The questioning-with-training group (M = 16.67, SD = 4.28) and the

untrained questioning group (M = 14.17, SD = 4.84) spent significantly more

minutes studying the material than did the rereading group (M = 8.16, SD =

3.08), F(2,66) = 25.268, p < .00005. A Scheffe post hoc analysis revealed

significant differences (p < .005) between questioned and unquestioned groups.

In order to examine the relationship between time and the performance of

the questioned groups, multiple regression analyses were carried out using

amount of time and percent of good comprehension questions as predictors of

achievement. For the untrained questioners, the correlation between time

and performance on the test was low and negative, -.29, p > .05. However,

the correlation for percentage of good questions and test scores was .37,

p < .05. The regression analysis (Mult. R =.51) revealed that percentage of

good comprehension questions was a significant predictor of achievement,

t(20) = 2.17, p < .05, but time was not, t = -1.8, p > .05. For the trained

questioning group, the correlation between amount of study time and achieve-

ment was .11, p > .05, whereas the correlation between percentage of good

comprehension questions and test scores was .62, p < .01. Again, the

regression analysis (Mult. R= .62) revealed that only the percentage of good

questions was a significant predictor of test performance, t(21) = 3.58,

p < .005.

In additional analyses, it was found that the probability of correctly

answering a question on the posttest, given that a matching good comprehension

 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

19

question had been constructed during the study period, was .80 for both the

trained and the untrained group. The mean proportion correct with less than

adequate questions generated during study was .56 and .58 for the trained

and untrained questioners, respectively. Furthermore, the mean proportion

of test items answered incorrectly when a good comprehension question had

been generated was .20 for both groups, and the mean conditional probability

of answering a criterion test question incorrectly when a less than ade-

quate question had been generated was .44 and .42 for the trained and un-

trained questioning groups, respectively. It is worth noting that the

proportion of items correctly answered with less than adequate questions is

related to a small proportion of less than adequate questions, that is, .27

and .43 for the trained and untrained groups, respectively.

Finally, the reliability (KR-21) for the criterion test was .84. Main-

idea items had a KR-21 of .82, and detail items had a KR-21 of .59.

DISCUSSION

The results of this investigation indicate that self-generation of ques-

tions during study can lead to improved performance on a test of comprehension.

Findings show a significant main effect for treatment (study technique) in

favor of the questioning-with-training group. Further, results show that

the untrained questioning group obtained higher posttest scores than the re-

reading control group, albeit the difference in mean scores was not statisti-

cally significant. No significant differences were found between means of

the groups that generated questions.

There are several possible explanations for the beneficial effects of

the self-questioning study technique. One explanation could be the levels-

 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

20

of-processing notion of cognitive psychology (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Accord-

ing to this theory, input is analyzed in a hierarchy of processing stages,

where increasing "depth" implies a greater degree of semantic or cognitive

analysis and hence greater retention. This depth of processing explanation

for memory effects has been offered in studies by Watts & Anderson (1971),

Anderson & Biddle (1975), Felker and Dapra (1975), and Andre and Sola (1976).

The explanation may also be applicable to the present study: The superior

criterion test performance by the groups who constructed main idea questions

(either with or without training) compared to the rereading control group may

be due to the fact that determining main ideas and transforming them into ques-

tions necessarily entails a deeper semantic analysis of the text than does

simply reading and rereading the text.

A second possible explanation for the results is that the improved reten-

tion of textual materials by the questioned groups is simply a function of

extended study time (Faw & Waller, 1976). Even though an equal amount of

study time was allocated to the three treatment groups, the questioned groups

reported a significantly greater amount of effective study time than the

rereading control group. On the average, about twice as much time was spent

questioning than rereading.

Additional analyses were then performed to assess the correlational

effects of study time on test performance. The results of correlational

analyses between amount of study time and criterion test scores disclosed

a negative low correlation for the untrained group and a very low correla-

tion for the trained group. Apparently, 'within group performance' on the

comprehension test is not associated with the amount of study time. Findings
 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

21

from multiple regression analyses using study time and percentage of good

questions as predictors of comprehension scores suggest that study time,

again, was not a significant predictor of achievement. The significant

predictor in those analyses was the percentage of good comprehension

questions.

A final explanation for the effectiveness of the main-point self-

questioning technique is the combination of its metacognitive and cognitive

characteristics. Anderson (1978) suggests that self-generation of questions

may be an effective reading strategy because the student is forced to (a)

pause frequently, (b) deal with an "understanding question," (c) determine

whether or not comprehension has occurred, and (d) decide what strategic

action should be taken next. The process of self-awareness and conscious

control of the study activity is an illustration of the metacognitive aspect

involved in the self-questioning strategy. This prospective broadens the

levels-of-processing notion by stressing the reader's active role in the

monitoring of activities and in the development of strategies to remediate

comprehension failures. The self-questioning study technique includes com-

ponents that may affect the metacognitive and cognitive behaviors of students.

It is a technique that encourages the reader to (a) set purposes for study;

(b) identify and underline important segments of the material; (c) generate

questions which require comprehension of the text to be correctly answered;

and (d) think of possible answers to the questions. The questioning strategy

leads the student to an active monitoring of the learning activity and to

the engagement of strategic action to achieve efficiency (Anderson, 1978;

 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

22

Brown, 1978). This seems to be a plausible reason for its demonstrated

effectiveness.

The use of questions during study appears to be particularly beneficial

for low verbal ability subjects as evidenced by the significant interactions.

Low verbal ability subjects may profit most from question generation because

their usual study behaviors are less adequate; therefore, making use of an

efficient study technique affects their criterion test performance. Rothkopf

(1972) suggested that adjunct questions would have the most effect if inspec-

tion activities were ineffective or deteriorating. The same may be true for

the effects of the self-questioning strategy. The low ability students im-

proved their performance because they were asked to use a study strategy which

is more effective than the one they would normally use. Apparently high

verbal ability students already have the component skills included in the

self-questioning study technique and their posttest performance was not

affected by the use of the method.

How effective was the question-generation training procedure? Findings

indicate that students taught to generate main-idea questions constructed

a significantly greater percentage of good questions than students who

received no training. These results suggest that students can be trained

in the skill of generating main-point questions and the training procedure

appears to be effective in increasing the students' ability to construct

good questions.

The results in terms of verbal ability groups suggest that the training

procedure helped more low and middle verbal ability students yet did not

greatly influence high verbal ability subjects. It seems that high ability
 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

23

subjects already know how to generate good questions, for trained and un-

trained subjects constructed approximately the same percentage of good compre-

hension questions. Students in the middle verbal ability group most improved

their ability to raise good questions, followed by the low ability group. The

general conclusion of these findings is that the question-generation training

procedure helps low and middle verbal ability students to generate main-idea

questions, but does not alter the performance of high verbal ability students.

The analysis of students' protocols revealed that a major difference

between trained and untrained questioners was the ability to construct new

example--or application--questions. The students in the untrained questioning

group generated very few new-example-type questions.

In conclusion, these data support the contention that student generation

of questions during study produces greater learning than the rereading method

of study. Findings indicate that training students to generate main-idea

questions may enhance their comprehension of written materials. It seems

that the benefits of the self-questioning study technique are greater for

lower verbal ability students than for students having higher verbal ability.

Further, the training procedure seems to improve the students' skills in con-

structing good comprehension questions. The data show high probabilities

of correctly answering a question in the criterion test provided that a

good comprehension question was generated for that topic during the study

period.
 The Self-Questioning Study Technique

24

Reference Notes

1. Frase, L. T. Personal communication, Spring, 1977.

 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

25

References

Anderson, R. C., & Biddle, B. W. On asking people questions about what they

are reading. In G. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning motivation

(Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press, 1975.

Anderson, T. H. Study strategies and adjunct aids. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce,

& W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension.

Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978, in press.

Anderson, T. H., Anderson, R. C., Dalgaard, B. R., Wietecha, E. J., Biddle,

W. B., Paden, D. W., Smock, H. R., Alessi, S. M., Surber, J. R., &

Klemt, L. L. A computer based study management system. Educational

Psychologist, 1974, 11 (No. 1), 36-45.

Andre, T., & Sola, J. Imagery, verbatim and paraphrased questions, and

retention of meaningful sentences. Journal of Educational Psychology,

1976, 68, 661-669.

Bernstein, S. The effects of children's question-asking behaviors on

problem solution and comprehension of written material.' Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1973.

Bird, C., & Bird, D. M. Learning more by effective study. New York:

Appleton-Century, 1945.

Boker, J. R. Immediate and delayed retention effects of interspersed

questions in written instructional passages. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 1974, 66, 96-98.

Brown, A. L. Metacognitive development in reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce,

& W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension.

Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978, in press.

 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

26

Bruning, R. H. Effects of review and testlike events within the learning

of prose materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1968, 59, 16-19.

Craik, F. 1. M., & Lockhart, R. S. Levels of processing: A framework for

memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972,

11, 671-684.

Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. A formula for predicting readability: Instructions.

Educational Research Bulletin, 1948, 27, 37-54.

Dansereau, D. G., McDonald, B. A., Long, G. L., Actkinson, T. R., Ellis, A. M.,

Collins, K. W., Williams, S., & Evans, S. H. The development and assess-

ment of an effective learning strategy training program (Final Technical

Report 3). Fort Worth, Texas Christian University, 1974.

Duell, 0. K. Overt and covert use of objectives of different levels.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, New York, April, 1977.

Faw, H. W., & Waller, T. G. Mathemagenic behaviors and efficiency in

learning from prose materials: Review, critique and recommendations.

Review of Educational Research, 1976, 46, 691-720.

Felker, D. B., & Dapra, R. A. Effects of question type and question place-

ment on problem solving ability from prose material. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 1975, 67. 380-384.

Frase, L. T. Learning from prose material: Length of passage, knowledge

of results, and position of questions. Journal of Educational Psycho-

logy, 1967, 58, 266-272.

Frase, L. T. Effect of question location, pacing and mode upon retention

of prose material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1968, 59, 244-249.

 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

27

Frase, L. T., Patrick, E., & Schumer, H. Effect of question position and

frequency upon learning from text under different levels in incentive.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 52-56.

Frase, L. T., & Schwartz, B. J. Effect of question production on prose

recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 628-635.

Frederick, R. W. How-to-study-handbook. New York: Appleton-Century, 1938.

Frederick, R. W., Kitchen, P. C., & McElwee, A. R. A guide to college study.

New York: Appleton-Century, 1947.

French, J. W., Ekstrom T. B., & Price, L. A. Kit of reference tests for

cognitive factors. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1963.

Gerken, C. d'A. Study your way through school. Chicago: Science Research

Associates, 1953.

Gronlund, N. E. Constructing achievement tests. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Hiller, J. H. Learning from prose text: Effects of readability level,

inserted question difficulty, and individual differences. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 202-211.

Holmes, E. Reading guided by questions versus reading and [Link] without

questions. School Review, 1931, 39, 361-371.

Morgan, C. T., & Deese, J. How to study. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957.

Morse, J. M. Effect of reader-generated questions on learning from prose.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 1975.

Muse, M. B. An introduction to efficient study habits. Philadelphia:

W. B. Saunders, 1929.
 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

28

Owens, A. M. The effects of question generation, question answering, and

reading on prose learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon,

1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 37, 5709A-5710A.

(University Microfilms No. 77-4750).

Pederson, J. E. P. An investigation into the differences between student-

constructed versus experimenter-constructed post-questions on the

comprehension of expository prose. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Minnesota, 1976.

Robbins, P. A. How to make better grades. Los Angeles, Calif.: PAR

Publishing Company, 1957.

Robinson, F. P. Effective study (Rev. ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers,

1961.

Rothkopf, E. Z. Learning from written instructive materials: An exploration

of the control of inspection behavior by testlike events. American

Educational Research Journal, 1966, 3, 241-249.

Rothkopf, E. Z. Variable adjunct question schedules, interpersonal inter-

action, and incidental learning from written material. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 87-92.

Rothkopf, E. Z., & Bisbicos, E. E. Selective facilitative effects of inter-

spersed questions on learning from written prose. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 1967, 58, 56-61.

Sanders, J. R. Retention effects of adjunct questions in written and oral

discourse. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 65, 181-186.

 A Self-Questioning Study Technique

29

Schmelzer, R. V. The effect of college student constructed questions on

the comprehension of a passage of expository prose (Doctoral Dissertation,

University of Minnesota, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International,

1975, 36, 162A. (University Microfilms, No. 75-21,088).

Shavelson, R. J., Berliner, D. C., Ravitch, M. M., & Loeding, D. Effect

of position and type of question on leraning from prose material:

Interaction of treatments with individual differences. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 40-48.

Smith, E. P. The how of study. Leviston, Maine: Echo Publishing, 1939.

Thorndike, E. L. Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph

reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1917, 8, 323-332.

Washburne, J. N. The use of question in social science material. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 1929, 20, 321-359.

Watts, G. H., & Anderson, R. C. Effect of three types of inserted questions

of learning from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62,

387-394.

Wrenn, C. G., & Larsen, R. P. Studying effectively (2nd ed.). Stanford,

Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1955.

 CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF READING

READING EDUCATION REPORTS

No. 1: Durkin, D. Comprehension Instruction--Where Are You?, October 1977.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 566, 14p., HC-$1.67,
MF-$.83)

No. 2: Asher, S. R. Sex Differences in Reading Achievement, October 1977.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 567, 30p., HC-$2.06,
MF-$.83)

No. 3: Adams, M. J., Anderson, R. C., & Durkin, D. Beginning Reading: Theory
and Practice, November 1977.

No. 4: Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. Teaching Reading Comprehension in the Middle
Grades, January 1978.
 CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF READING

TECHNICAL REPORTS

* Available only through ERIC

*No. 1: Halff, H. M. Graphical Evaluation of Hierarchical Clustering Schemes,

October 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 926,
llp., HC-$1.67, MF-$.83)

*No. 2: Spiro, R. J. Inferential Reconstruction in Memory for Connected Dis-

course, October 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 136 187, 81p., HC-$4.67, MF-$.83)

*No. 3: Goetz, E. T. Sentences in Lists and in Connected Discourse, November

1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 927, 75p.,
HC-$3.50, MF-$.83)

*No. 4: Alessi, S. M., Anderson, T. H., & Biddle, W. B. Hardware and Software
Considerations in Computer Based Course Management, November 1975.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 928, 21p., HC-$1.67,
MF-$.83)
*No. 5: Schallert, D. L. Improving Memory for Prose: The Relationship Between
Depth of Processing and Context, November 1975. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 134 929, 37p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)

*No. 6: Anderson, R. C., Goetz, E. T., Pichert, J. W., & Halff, H. M. Two
Faces of the Conceptual Peg Hypothesis, January 1976. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 930, 29p., HC-$2.06,
MF-$.83)

*No. 7: Ortony, A. Names, Descriptions, and Pragmatics, February 1976. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 931, 25p., HC-$1.67,
MF-$.83)

*No. 8: Mason, J. M. Questioning the Notion of Independent Processing Stages

in Reading, February 1976. (Journal of Educational Psychology,
1977, 69, 288-297)
*No. 9: Siegel, M. A. Teacher Behaviors and Curriculum Packages: Implications
for Research and Teacher Education, April 1976. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 134 932, 42p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)

*No. 10: Anderson, R. C., Pichert, J. W., Goetz, E. T., Schallert, D. L., Stevens,
K. V., & Trollip, S. R. Instantiation of General Terms, March
1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 933, 30p.,
HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)

*No. 11: Armbruster, B. B. Learning Principles from Prose: A Cognitive Approach

Based on Schema Theory, July 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 134 934, 48p., HC-$.206, MF-$.83)
*No. 12: Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T.
Frameworks for Comprehending Discourse, July 1976. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 134 935, 33p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)

No. 13: Rubin, A. D., Bruce, B. C., & Brown, J. S. A Process-oriented language
for Describing Aspects of Reading Comprehension, November 1976.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 188, 41p., HC-$2.06,
MF-$.83)

No. 14: Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. Taking Different Perspectives on a

Story, November 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 134 936, 30p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)
No. 15: Schwartz, R. M. Strategic Processes in Beginning Reading, November
1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 937, 19p.,
HC-$1.67, MF-$.83)
No. 16: Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. Curriculum Biases in Reading Achievement
Tests, November 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 134 938, 24p., HC-$1.67, MF-$.83)

No. 17: Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Wigfield, A. Children's Comprehension of
High- and Low-Interest Material and a Comparison of Two Cloze
Scoring Methods, November 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 134 939, 32p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)
No. 18: Brown, A. L., Smiley, S. S., Day, J. D., Townsend, M. A. R., & Lawton,
S. C. Intrusion of a Thematic Idea in Children's Comprehension
and Retention of Stories, December 1976. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED 136 189, 39p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)
No. 19: Kleiman, G. M. The Prelinguistic Cognitive Basis of Children's
Communicative Intentions, February 1977. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED 134 940, 51p., HC-$3.50, MF-$.83)
No. 20: Kleiman, G. M. The Effect of Previous Context on Reading Individual
Words, February 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 134 941, 76p., HC-$4.67, MF-$.83)
No. 21: Kane, J. H., & Anderson, R. C. Depth of Processing and Interference
Effects in the Learning and Remembering of Sentences, February
1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 942, 29p.,
HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)
No. 22: Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. Memory Strategies in Learning:
Training Children to Study Strategically, March 1977. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 234, 54p., HC-$3.50,
MF-$.83)

No. 23: Smiley, S. S., Oakley, D. D., Worthen, D., Campione, J. C., & Brown,
A. L. Recall of Thematically Relevant Material by Adolescent
Good and Poor Readers as a Function of Written Versus Oral
Presentation, March 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 136 235, 23p., HC-$1.67, MF-$.83)
No. 24: Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. Schemata as
Scaffolding for the Representation of Information in Connected
Discourse, March 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 136 236, 18p., HC-$1.67, MF-$.83)

No. 25: Pany, D., & Jenkins, J. R. Learning Word Meanings: A Comparison of
Instructional Procedures and Effects on Measures of Reading
Comprehension with Learning Disabled Students, March 1977.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 237, 34p.,
HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)
No. 26: Armbruster, B. B., Stevens, R. J., & Rosenshine, B. Analyzing Content
Coverage and Emphasis: A Study of Three Curricula and Two Tests,
March 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 238,
22p., HC-$1.67, MF-$.83)

No. 27: Ortony, A., Reynolds, R. E., & Arter, J. A. Metaphor: Theoretical
and Empirical Research, March 1977.

No. 28: Ortony, A. Remembering and Understanding Jabberwocky and Small-Talk,

March 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 137 753,
36 p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)

No. 29: Schallert, D. L., Kleiman, G. M., & Rubin, A. D. Analysis of Differences
Between Oral and Written Language, April 1977. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 144 038, 33p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)
No. 30: Goetz, E. T., & Osborn, J. Procedures for Sampling Texts and Tasks
in Kindergarten through Eighth Grade, April 1977. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 146 565, 80p., HC-$4.67, MF-$.83)
No. 31: Nash-Webber, B. Anaphora: A Cross-Disciplinary Survey, April 1977.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 144 039, 43p., HC-$2.06,
MF-$.83)

No. 32: Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. A Schema-Theoretic View of Reading Compre-
hension, April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 146 565, 80p., HC-$4.67, MF-$.83)

No. 33: Huggins, A. W. F. Syntactic Aspects of Reading Comprehension, April

1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 972, 68p.,
HC-$3.50, MF-$.83)

No. 34: Bruce, B. C. Plans and Social Actions, April 1977.

No. 35: Rubin, A. D. Comprehension Processes in Oral and Written Language,

April 1977.

No. 36: Nash-Webber, B., & Reiter, R. Anaphora and Logical Form: On Formal
Meaning Representations for Natural Language, April 1977.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 973, 42p.,
HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)

No. 37: Adams, M. J. Failures to Comprehend and Levels of Processing in

Reading, April 1977.
No. 38: Woods, W. A. Multiple Theory Formation in High-Level Perception,
April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 144 020,
58p., HC-$3.50, MF-$.83)

No. 40: Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Larkin, K. M. Inference in Text Under-
standing, December 1977.

No. 41: Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. Recall of Previously Unrecallable

Information Following a Shift in Perspective, April 1977.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 974, 37p.,
HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)

No. 42: Mason, J., Osborn, J., & Rosenshine, B. A Consideration of Skill
Hierarchy Approaches to the Teaching of Reading, December 1977.

No. 43: Collins, A., Brown, A. L., Morgan, J. L., & Brewer, W. F. The Analysis
of Reading Tasks and Texts, April 1977.

No. 44: McClure, E. Aspects of Code-Switching in the Discourse of Bilingual

Mexican-American Children, April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 142 975, 39p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)

No. 45: Schwartz, R. M. Relation of Context Utilization and Orthographic

Automaticity in Word Identification, May 1977.

No. 46: Anderson, R. C., Stevens, K. C., Shifrin, Z., & Osborn, J. Instantia-
tion of Word Meanings in Children, May 1977. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 142 976, 22p., HC-$1.67, MF-$.83)

No. 47: Brown, A. L. Knowing When, Where, and How to Remember: A Problem of
Metacognition, June 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 146 562, 152p., HC-$8.69, MF-$.83)

No. 48: Brown, A. L., & DeLoache, J. S. Skills, Plans, and Self-Regulation,
July 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 144 040,
66p., HC-$3.50, MF-$.83)

No. 49: Goetz, E. T. Inferences in the Comprehension of and Memory for Text,
July 1977.

No. 50: Anderson, R. C. Schema-Directed Processes in Language Comprehension,

July 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 977,
33p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)

No. 51: Brown, A. L. Theories of Memory and the Problems of Development:

Activity, Growth, and Knowledge, July 1977. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 144 041, 59p., HC-$3.50, MF-$.83)

No. 52: Morgan, J. L. Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts,

July 1977.

No. 53: Brown, A. L., Smiley, S. S., & Lawton, S. C. The Effects of Expe-
rience on the Selection of Suitable Retrieval Cues for Studying
from Prose Passages, July 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 144 042, 30p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)
No. 54: Fleisher, L. S., & Jenkins, J. R. Effects of Contextualized and De-
contextualized Practice Conditions on Word Recognition, July 1977.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 144 043, 37p., HC-$2.06,
MF-$.83)

No. 56: Anderson, T. H., Standiford, S. N., & Alessi, S. M. Computer Assisted
Problem Solving in an Introductory Statistics Course, August 1977.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 563, 26p.,
HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)

No. 57: Barnitz, J. Interrelationship of Orthography and Phonological Structure

in Learning to Read, August 1977.
No. 58: Mason, J. M. The Role of Strategy in Reading in the Mentally Retarded,
September 1977.

No. 59: Mason, J. M. Reading Readiness: A Definition and Skills Hierarchy

from Preschoolers' Developing Conceptions of Print, September 1977.
No. 60: Spiro, R. J., & Esposito, J. J. Superficial Processing of Explicit
Inferences in Text, December 1977.

No. 61: Spiro, R. J., & Smith, D. Distinguishing Sub-Types of Poor Comprehenders:
Overreliance on Conceptual vs. Data-Driven Processes, April 1978.

No. 65: Brewer, W. F. Memory for the Pragmatic Implications of Sentences,

October 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 564,
27p., HC-$2.06, MF-$.83)
No. 66: Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. The Development of Strategies for
Studying Prose Passages, October 1977.
No. 68: Stein, N. L., & Nezworski, T. The Effects of Organization and Instruc-
tional Set on Story Memory, January 1978.

No. 69: Stein, N. L. How Children Understand Stories: A Developmental Analysis,

March 1978.

No. 76: Thieman, T. J., & Brown, A. L. The Effects of Semantic and Formal
Similarity on Recognition Memory for Sentences in Children,
November 1977.

No. 77: Nash-Webber, B. L. Inference in an Approach to Discourse Anaphora,

January 1978.
No. 78: Gentner, D. On Relational Meaning: The Acquisition of Verb Meaning,
December 1977.

No. 79: Royer, J. M. Theories of Learning Transfer, January 1978.

No. 80: Arter, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. Differential Diagnosis-Prescriptive

Teaching: A Critical Appraisal, January 1978.
No. 81: Shoben, E. J. Choosing a Model of Sentence Picture Comparisons: A
Reply to Catlin and Jones, February 1978.
No. 82: Steffensen, M. S. Bereiter and Engelmann Reconsidered: The Evidence
from Children Acquiring Black English Vernacular, March 1978.

No. 83: Reynolds, R. E., Standiford, S. N., & Anderson, R. C. Distribution

of Reading Time when Questions are Asked about a Restricted
Category of Text Information, April 1978.
No. 84: Baker, L. Processing Temporal Relationships in Simple Stories: Effects
of Input Sequence, April 1978.
No. 85: Mason, J. M., Knisely, E., & Kendall, J. Effects of Polysemous Words
on Sentence Comprehension, May 1978.

No. 86: Anderson, T. H., Wardrop, J. L., Hively, W., Muller, K. E., Anderson,
R. I., Hastings, C. N., & Frederiksen, J. Development and Trial
of a Model for Developing Domain Referenced Tests of Reading
Comprehension, May 1978.
No. 87: Andr6, M.E.D.A., & Anderson, T. H. The Development and Evaluation of
a Self-Questioning Study Technique, June 1978.