This article was downloaded by: [Florida International University]

On: 27 August 2015, At: 14:42

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Theory Into Practice

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Conceptualizing and Assessing Higher-

Order Thinking in Reading
Peter Afflerbach, Byeong-Young Cho & Jong-Yun Kim
Published online: 09 Jul 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Peter Afflerbach, Byeong-Young Cho & Jong-Yun Kim (2015) Conceptualizing
and Assessing Higher-Order Thinking in Reading, Theory Into Practice, 54:3, 203-212, DOI:
10.1080/00405841.2015.1044367

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.1044367

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015
 Theory Into Practice, 54:203–212, 2015
Copyright q The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University
ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online
DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2015.1044367
Peter Afflerbach
Byeong-Young Cho
Jong-Yun Kim
Conceptualizing and Assessing
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015
Higher-Order Thinking in Reading
Students engage in higher-order thinking as they
read complex texts and perform complex reading-
related tasks. However, the most consequential
assessments, high-stakes tests, are currently limited
in providing information about students’ higher-
order thinking. In this article, we describe higher-
order thinking in relation to reading. We provide a
The Assessment of Higher-Order Thinking
in Reading
B
UILDING A detailed conceptualization of
higher-order thinking in reading is a
challenging and necessary task (Kintsch, 1998;
Thorndike, 1917). An understanding of higher-
Peter Afflerbach is Professor of Reading in the College
of Education at the University of Maryland; Byeong-
Young Cho is an Assistant Professor in the University
of Pittsburgh/LRDC; and Jong-Yun Kim is an
Instructor in the College of Education at Korea
University.
Correspondence should be addressed to Professor
Peter Afflerbach, College of Education, University of
Maryland, 2311 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD
20742-1115. E-mail: afflo@umd.edu.
framework for understanding higher-order think-
ing in reading, in relation to relevant theories and
research in reading, and standards and assessment
initiatives. We conclude with the considerations in
assessments of higher-order thinking in reading
that can help teachers and students work toward
attainment of the Common Core State Standards.
order thinking in reading must inform the creation
of assessments, comprised of texts, tasks, and
scenarios, that provide valid and reliable infor-
mation (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001).
In this article, we describe higher-order thinking
in reading. We argue for the importance of
distinguishing between higher-order thinking
and more basic thinking in reading, and propose
parameters for both. Next, we propose a
conceptual framework that juxtaposes higher-
order thinking in reading with major curricular
(Common Core State Standards) and assessment
(National Assessment of Educational Progress;
NAEP) initiatives. We conclude with character-
izations of assessment that can offer useful
information about the development of students’
higher-order thinking in reading.
203
 Assessment of Complex Thinking
Attributes of Higher-Order Thinking in
Reading
Our characterization of higher-order thinking
in reading derives from juxtaposing what is
known about expert, accomplished reading with
established depictions of higher-order thinking
(Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Based on this
comparative process, we characterize higher-
order thinking in reading as (a) goal-directed, (b)
responsive, and (c) self-regulated.
Reading is goal-directed, and accomplished
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015
readers use strategies to identify, select, apply,
revise, and evaluate the means to achieving reading
goals. Thus, higher-order thinking in reading
includes strategies to determine and then pursue
goals (Alexander, Graham, & Harris, 1998; van
Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). Characterizing higher-order
thinking in reading as goal-directed does not mean
that goals serve only as prompts to readers to
execute particular algorithmic procedures. Rather,
goals may emerge and evolve in the midst of
complex reader-text-context interactions, requiring
readers’ effortful thinking (Afflerbach, Pearson, &
Paris, 2008; Malmberg, Jarvenoja, & Jarvela,
2013). Readers’ higher-order thinking is marked by
responsivity to both text and task. Responsive
readers interpret, analyze, and evaluate different
aspects of text, including content, structure, and
intended purposes, to determine the best pathways
to goal attainment (Afflerbach & Cho, 2009;
Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). For example, in
Internet settings, responsive readers selectively
access and learn from multiple web sources, and
make informed-decisions about what to read and
how to read (Cho, 2014; Goldman, Braasch,
Graesser, Wiley, & Brodowinska, 2012). Self-
regulation marks many acts of higher-order
thinking (Zimmerman, 2008), and metacognition
plays an important role when goal-oriented readers
read strategically (Bannert, Reiman, & Sonnen-
berg, 2013; Magno, 2010). Hence, self-regulated
reading involves higher-order thinking that con-
nects reading goal, task, situation, and discourse
context to the reading strategies and skills in a
conscious manner (Mischel, Cantor, & Feldman,
1996), and helps readers determine the best
204
sequences and combinations of strategic processes
(Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008).
Basic and Higher-Order Thinking in Reading
Not all thinking in reading is of higher order,
and an important task is distinguishing between
basic and higher-order thinking. Theory and
research that informs this distinction includes
processing models of text comprehension, text
complexity and readers’ thinking, and taxo-
nomies of cognitive processes. First, models of
reading comprehension describe how basic and
higher-order thinking contribute to successful
text processing (Kintsch, 1998; McNamara &
Magliano, 2009). Text comprehension requires
that readers build a textbase model and then
situation model. The textbase model represents
what exactly is written in the text, and the
building of this model involves largely the set of
skills to understand written letters, words, and
sentences: basic thinking that helps readers
access text-explicit meanings. In contrast, the
situation model represents a coherent under-
standing of text in relation to the goal, task,
discourse context, and readers’ relevant knowl-
edge, and it is built through the use of complex
analytical, constructive, interpretive, and evalua-
tive strategies and skills. This deep-level text
processing requires higher-order thinking.
Taxonomies of thinking (Bloom, 1956;
Krathwohl, 2002) suggest that readers’ thinking
operates at multiple levels, but not all reading-
related thinking is complex. Basic thinking is
sufficient when readers identify written words
and match them with word meanings from
memory, building an understanding of simple
text. However, higher-order thinking is required
when readers manage constructive and integra-
tive processes to make complex inferences using
text information and prior knowledge and parse a
text into the idea units to grasp what the text says.
Based upon the results of these reading processes,
readers may engage in subsequent higher-order
thinking, such as that required to question an
author’s claim, applying what is learned from
reading in problem solving, or synthesizing
information from a group of texts.
 Afflerbach, Cho, Kim
Task complexity also influences whether or
not higher-order thinking is used in reading. The
National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) Framework defines reading as:
Reading is an active and complex process that
involves
. Understanding written text.
. Developing and interpreting meaning.
. Using meaning as appropriate to type of text,
purpose, and situation. (National Assess-
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015
ment Governing Board, 2013, p. iv)
“Understanding written text” utilizes basic think-
ing to establish a surface-level text understanding,
and higher-order thinking may be used in
“developing and interpreting meaning.” Notably,
“using meaning” (the third bullet in the cited
NAEP definition) demands complex strategies
and mindsets as readers apply the information,
knowledge, and understandings gained from
reading in the tasks of evaluating different texts,
solving problems, and achieving reading goals.
Thus, the final section of the NAEP reading
definition invokes higher-order thinking. Further,
the Common Core State Standards’ (Council of
Chief State School Officers & National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, 2010)
reading benchmarks require higher-order thinking
situated in critical-analytical reading tasks. The
tasks range from a close reading of text segments,
to the interpretation and synthesis of multiple
texts, to the questioning and challenging of
authors’ arguments, and to citing specific textual
evidence to support readers’ responses to the texts.
Reading research and theory support a fairly
firm boundary between basic and higher-order
thinking in reading. Basic thinking is regularly
used in the course of reading and contributes to
locating, understanding, and recalling text-
explicit information. However, complex and
higher-order thinking is called for when text,
related reading task, or both, become increasingly
demanding. For example, reading a text that
requires frequent, complex inferencing, evaluat-
ing the contents of text, or using the meaning
derived from text clearly requires higher-order
Conceptualizing and Assessing Higher-Order Thinking
thinking in reading. This is in contrast to
decoding written language and accessing literal
meaning.
A caveat concerning our conception of basic
and higher-order thinking is that the degree of
effort and attention given by a reader to a reading
task is not a reliable metric of either basic or
higher-order thinking. Challenging reading does
not necessarily equate with higher-order thinking
in reading. For example, a first grader who
exhibits strategic thinking and considerable effort
while decoding printed letters to sound is in the
midst of challenging work. The developing
reader uses declarative and procedural knowl-
edge to determine letter-sound correspondences,
blend individual letter sounds, and then recognize
the word. The coordination and execution of
these mental operations represents important
reading development and contributes to success-
ful reading. Yet, the student’s work does not
include higher-order thinking because the atten-
tion and effort was not invested beyond the
establishment of a literal understanding of text.
A Conceptual Frame for Assessing
Higher-Order Thinking in Reading
Assessment requires that one reason about the
nature of higher-order thinking, and the assess-
ment texts and tasks that can evoke it (Pellegrino
et al., 2001). Accordingly, we propose a
conceptual framework that describes the types
and hierarchies of higher-order thinking in reading
and the relevant assessment tasks (Table 1). The
framework modifies Krathwohl’s (2002) taxon-
omy of cognitive processes to suggest increasing
complexity of the reading strategies and skills
along the hierarchy of multiple types of thinking:
remember, understand, analyze, apply, evaluate,
create, and reflect. For example, basic thinking
skills and strategies are largely involved when
readers use what they remember about letters,
words, and language to understand a literal
meaning of text. However, reading to analyze
the information, contents, and meanings implied
in the text demands more complex inferential and
integrative strategies for text comprehension.
Higher-order thinking is called for when readers
205
 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015

Table 1

206
A Conceptual Frame for Assessing Basic to Complex Thinking in Reading1
Revised National Assessment CCSS Anchor Standards for
Taxonomy: Examples of Reading Skills of Educational Reading in Relation to the Revised Representative Assessment Types
Cognitive and Strategies Relevant to the Progress (NAEP) Framework: Taxonomy and the NAEP and Tasks Suitable for Particular
Dimension2 Revised Taxonomy Definition of Reading Framework3 Types of Thinking

Remember Determining word meanings Understanding written text Standard R1. Read closely to Maze test to assess vocabulary
Recognizing by accessing semantic memory determine what the text knowledge
Recalling Recall information that says explicitly Multiple choice items following
Assessment of Complex Thinking

is explicitly stated in the text text reading that focus on recall

of word meanings or
text-explicit information
Understand Identifying and building causal Developing and interpreting Standard R1. Read closely to Story map that describes a
Interpreting relations among a series of meaning make logical inferences from it reader’s anticipation and
Exemplifying previous events and anticipate Standard R2. Summarize key understanding of a story plot
Classifying subsequent events supporting details and ideas and and character development
Summarizing Identifying and summarizing the determine central ideas or Written summary that includes
Inferring main ideas by discerning themes of a text main ideas and supporting
Comparing important and unimportant Standard R4. Interpret words and details that the author presents
Explaining information in the text phrases as they are used in a in the text
text, including determining,
technical, connotative, and
figurative meanings
Analyze Parsing out the text into the idea Standard R3. Analyze how and Graphic organizer or visual
Differentiating segments and putting the ideas why individuals, events, or representation of complex
Organizing together, cuing signal words ideas develop and interact over relationships among the
Attributing and phrases, to grasp the overall the course of a text concepts and components
organization of text
information

(continued)
 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015
Revised
Taxonomy: Examples of Reading Skills
Cognitive and Strategies Relevant to the
Dimension2 Revised Taxonomy
Identifying and building the
semantic linkages between and
across different sources to build
a global understanding of the
text set
Apply Applying the understanding of
Executing complex ecological concepts
Implementing and mechanisms learned from
science text in the
investigations of a local
ecosystem
Using the knowledge of
fundamental principles of
Newton Mechanics gained
from reading into the
confrontation and revision of
the reader’s own
misconceptions about
relevant scientific
phenomena
207
Table 1 – (Continued)
National Assessment
of Educational
Progress (NAEP) Framework:
Definition of Reading
Using meaning as appropriate
to type of text, purpose,
and situation
CCSS Anchor Standards for
Reading in Relation to the Revised Representative Assessment Types
Taxonomy and the NAEP and Tasks Suitable for Particular
Framework3 Types of Thinking
Standard R4. Analyze how Feature analysis of a set of
Afflerbach, Cho, Kim
specific word choices shape refutation texts that represents a
meaning or tone reader’s understanding of how
Standard R5. Analyze the each text says about a certain
structure of texts, including how topic and the intertextual
specific sentences, paragraphs, relationships (e.g., mutually
and larger portions of the text to supportive, contradicting,
related each other and the whole affirmative)
*Several standards in Writing and Annotated bibliographies that
Speaking & Listening in the include different perspectives,
CCSS reflect the importance of claims, and evidence related to
applying what students learned a controversy that a reader gains
from text into complex literacy from readings
and content learning tasks Reflective essay that compares
and contrasts what a reader
already knew ad what is newly
learned from readings, and that
identifies inconsistencies
between them
(continued)
Conceptualizing and Assessing Higher-Order Thinking
 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015
208
Revised
Taxonomy: Examples of Reading Skills
Cognitive and Strategies Relevant to the
Dimension2 Revised Taxonomy
Evaluate Assessing the trustworthiness of a
Checking text by examining its author, the
Critiquing context in which it was written
and published, and how it is
associated with other texts
Judging the goal-relevance of
texts and the validity of their
information
Create Identifying problem spaces and
Generating generating inquiry questions
Planning while accessing, examining,
Producing and selecting texts believed to
be useful to the task goal
Constructing a new text by
reconstructing the information
gained from multiple texts in
order to build the knowledge
base for writing
Reflect: Detecting a comprehension *The NAEP assesses the
Metacognition problem in one or multiple texts
Monitoring and attempt to solve the
Controlling detected problem by
Revising searching for information from
other available texts
Table 1 – (Continued)
National Assessment
of Educational
Progress (NAEP) Framework:
Definition of Reading
*None of the standards directly
outcomes of the strategies and
skills use, which requires
readers’ metacognitive
thinking
CCSS Anchor Standards for
Reading in Relation to the Revised Representative Assessment Types
Taxonomy and the NAEP
Framework3
Standard R8. Delineate and
evaluate the argument and
specific claims in a text,
including the validity of the
reasoning as well as the
relevance and sufficiency of the
evidence
Standard R1. Cite specific textual Inquiry questions that reflect
evidence when writing or
speaking to support
conclusions drawn from the text
Standard R9. Analyze how two or
more texts address similar
themes or topics in order to
build knowledge or compare
the approaches the authors take
designates a particular
metacognitive thinking in
reading
and Tasks Suitable for Particular
Types of Thinking
Critical rubrics to verify and
evaluate source texts used in
multiple text reading of
a historical event
Assessment of Complex Thinking
Peer-led discussion about the
arguments and
counterarguments learned from
different texts
understandings of the texts read
and that guides archival
research to collect and
synthesize relevant sources
Professional presentation of a
comprehensive plan, based
upon learning from multiple
texts, which suggests legitimate
and alternative solutions to the
problems
Reader-generated think-aloud
reports that reflect strategic
thinking and comprehension
monitoring processes
(continued)
 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015

Table 1 – (Continued)

Revised National Assessment CCSS Anchor Standards for

Taxonomy: Examples of Reading Skills of Educational Reading in Relation to the Revised Representative Assessment Types
Cognitive and Strategies Relevant to the Progress (NAEP) Framework: Taxonomy and the NAEP and Tasks Suitable for Particular
Dimension2 Revised Taxonomy Definition of Reading Framework3 Types of Thinking
Afflerbach, Cho, Kim

Refocusing on the goal for Self-assessment checklist that

reading when detecting guides higher-order thinking in
information overloads in reading
a complex hypertext reading,
and revising the strategies for
reading

Note. 1The framework assumes the basic and higher thinking processes involved in reading comprehension, and it excludes precursors to constructing meaning and
understanding (e.g., grapho-phonemic knowledge, word recognition fluency). The CCSS categorize these precursors as Foundational Skills.
2
We switch the order of Apply and Analyze because analysis is a thinking working toward sophisticated understanding of “text content” and “implied and hidden meanings” in
the text whereas application is one that is related to what students gained from reading (information, knowledge, concepts, perspectives, insights, etc.) into certain complex problem-
solving tasks. This helps align application with the NAEP category of Using meaning. Also, we add Reflect to the taxonomy, as a reflection of the importance of metacognition as
higher-order thinking in reading. Metacognition is an underlying executive function that affords choices of particular cognitive processes for particular reading situations. Thinking
processes at both basic and higher-order levels are monitored, assessed, and modified by a function of metacognition, and as reading becomes more complex, it often requires more
metacognitive reflections and self-regulatory processes.
3
CCSS: Common Core State Standards. The CCSS Anchor Standard for Reading R10 is not included in this table because it is related to a text factor. Also, each of the Standard
R 1 and 4 is segmented into smaller parts because these standards represent multiple levels of thinking.
Conceptualizing and Assessing Higher-Order Thinking

209
 Assessment of Complex Thinking
evaluate the internal and external features of texts
and apply what they learned from the texts into
certain problem-solving tasks. We note that
metacognition is included in our framework,
requiring higher-order thinking as readers manage
complex reading text and task combinations.
In addition, our framework provides a means
to compare particular types of thinking and
reading with relevant standards and benchmarks.
For example, basic thinking, including strategies
and skills, help students achieve part of the
anchor standard “Read closely to determine
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015
what the text says explicitly” in the Common
Core (CCSSO & NGA Center for Best Practices,
2010, p. 10). Strategy and skill also operate, as
readers understand written texts in the NAEP
framework. In contrast, higher-order thinking,
used to analyze and interpret texts, assists
readers in meeting numerous Common Core
State Standards (e.g., analysis of various aspects
of text, including information organization,
development of themes and arguments, and
word choices and subtle meaning differences
contextualized in the text). These higher-order
strategies contribute to readers’ developing and
interpreting text meanings as the NAEP frame-
work describes. Higher-order thinking is used
further in complex literacy tasks, such as citing
textual evidence, and evaluating different
arguments represented in multiple texts.
To sum, the framework highlights connections
among particular thinking types, relevant reading
strategies and skills, and the currently practiced
standards and benchmarks. The framework can
inform the design of reading assessment for higher-
order thinking based on a designation of the target
strategies and skills, tailored assessment tasks and
settings, and pertaining procedures and materials.
Assessment of Higher-Order Thinking in
Reading
Valid and reliable assessment is attainable
when one consults current understandings of both
assessment and higher-order thinking. The final
column of Table 1 (“Representative Assessment
Types and Tasks Suitable for Particular Types
Thinking”) suggests assessment types and tasks
210
as they relate to particular types of thinking in
reading. For example, basic thinking can be
assessed with multiple-choice items that focus on
literal comprehension. However, more analytical
and interpretive thinking should be measured
through performance-based assessment tasks
where readers generate constructive responses
(e.g., constructed response items, student-gener-
ated visual representations of text content).
In addition, to describe critical and creative
thinking in reading, assessment tasks can be
designed with which readers appraise and critique
text perspectives (e.g., analytical essays), create
informative resources (e.g., create video trailers
based on books), and share constructed meanings
to address relevant problems and issues (e.g.,
white papers, professional presentations).
Further, metacognitive thinking and the related
strategies and skills can be observed as readers
think out loud about their reading strategies.
As noted earlier, successful reading may
require both basic and higher-order thinking.
Assessments ably describe both types of readers’
thinking. In classrooms, this means that the
assessment of higher-order thinking in reading
must be accompanied by assessment that
certifies that students are skilled in the
mechanics of reading, and capable of construct-
ing literal understanding of most texts. Assess-
ment should provide assurance that basic
comprehension has occurred prior to engaging
students in higher-order thinking tasks. To help
illustrate this need, we focus on a Common Core
State Standard for English Language Arts. Here
is the standard:
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas: CCSS.
ELA-LITERACY.RI.5.9
Integrate information from several texts on the
same topic in order to write or speak about the
subject knowledgeably. (Retrieved July 17,
2014 from: http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-
Literacy/RI/5/)
A task analysis of assessment demonstrates that
students meeting this standard must do the
following:
 Afflerbach, Cho, Kim
. Apply basic reading strategies and skills to
construct an accurate understanding of each
text;
. Summarize each text and note relevant details
within each text;
. Make evaluative judgments to determine what
information from each text is suitable for use
in a written or spoken presentation;
. Synthesize information within and across
texts, noting unique and shared aspects of this
information;
. Develop a spoken or written presentation; and
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015
. Use metacognitive strategies to manage the
entire enterprise.
We noted earlier in this article that higher-order
thinking in reading depends, in part, on readers’
proficiency with basic reading strategies and skills.
A higher-order thinking task that requires students
to “Integrate information from several texts on the
same topic . . . ” requires that students understand
each of the texts. Thus, it is important that
assessment certifies a student’s ability to construct
literal meaning. NAEP Reading results help
reiterate this point: There are hundreds of thousands
of students who do not meet the basic reading level
for NAEP 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade reading. These
students struggle to construct literal understanding
of relatively simple texts. Placing these students in
complex reading and assessment contexts that
assume an ability to construct meaning prior to
attempting higher-order thinking will have dire
consequences for students, and the utility of the
assessment.
The assessments associated with the Common
Core State Standards, specifically the performance
assessments created by Smarter Balance Assess-
ment Consortium and Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers will be used to
certify that students have met specific standards.
As summative assessments, they serve the import-
ant purpose of measuring student achievement with
increasingly complex text-task combinations, and
higher-order thinking. However, summative assess-
ments do not inform classroom instruction that helps
students move toward attainment of standards that
demand higher-order thinking. This means that any
progress in the assessment of higher-order thinking
Conceptualizing and Assessing Higher-Order Thinking
will be accompanied by an increased focus on
formative assessment. These assessments serve to
regularly inform educators of students’ progress and
development, and are used by teachers to adjust
instruction. Consider again the Common Core State
Standard described previously. There are, at a
minimum, five different aspects of higher-order
thinking that a student must conduct to be successful
at the Standard. Each of these is an assumed result of
classroom teaching and learning, and formative
assessment can provide current and detailed
information on student progress with each.
If assessment is to make major contribution to
students’ attainment of higher-order thinking in
reading, it will be in the formative phase (Wiliam,
2013). Effective formative assessment is at the
center of effective teaching, the teaching that helps
students progress on the path toward complex
performances. Summative assessment can tell one
whether or not a student has met a standard, or is
capable of a performance that involves reading and
higher-order thinking. Formative assessment helps
teachers and students determine what is needed to
build toward this attainment. Finally, we note that
the development of higher-order thinking in reading
is not an exclusively cognitive enterprise and related
affective factors including students’ motivation and
self-efficacy are worthy of assessment attention
(Afflerbach, Cho, Kim, Crassas, & Doyle, 2013).
Conclusions
Effective assessment of higher-order thinking
in reading is possible when one attends to both
the accurate conceptualization of higher-order
thinking in reading, and the development of
assessment text-task combinations that evoke
such higher-order thinking. In regards to the first,
we have considerable knowledge of the nature of
reading, and the characteristics of both basic, and
higher-order thinking. We gathered information
in support of our conceptualization of higher-
order thinking from diverse, but related fields.
Assessment text-task combinations that require
higher-order thinking will certify that students
meet today’s challenging educational standards.
Higher-order thinking in reading is always
211
 Assessment of Complex Thinking
accompanied by more basic thinking, and useful
assessment programs will provide valid infor-
mation on both types of thinking. A second, acute
need is formative and summative assessments
that work in tandem: the formative providing
regular, diagnostic information that provides
markers on the path to students’ complex,
higher-order thinking, and that informs instruc-
tion as students move towards increasingly
complex and demanding performances.
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 14:42 27 August 2015
References
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Identifying and
describing constructively responsive comprehen-
sion strategies in new and traditional forms of
reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.),
Handbook of research on reading comprehension
(pp. 69 – 90). New York, NY: Routledge.
Afflerbach, P., Cho, B.-Y., Kim, J.-Y., Crassas, M. E.,
& Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: What else matters
besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher,
66, 440– 448.
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, D., & Paris, S. (2008). Clarifying
differences between reading skills and reading
strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373.
Alexander, P., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1998). A
perspective on strategy research: Progress and
prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10,
129– 154.
Bannert, M., Reiman, P., & Sonnenberg, C. (2013).
Process mining techniques for analysing patterns
and strategies in students’ self-regulated learning.
Metacognition and Learning, doi:10.1007/s11409-
013- 9107-6
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objec-
tives: Cognitive and affective domains (1st ed.).
New York, NY: David McKay.
Cho, B.-Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers’ use
of Internet reading strategies: A think-aloud study.
Cognition and Instruction, 32, 253– 289.
Council of Chief State School Officers & National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices.
(2010). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.
org/ELA-Literacy/.
Dinsmore, D., Alexander, P., & Loughlin, S. (2008).
Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition,
self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Edu-
cational Psychology Review, 20, 391– 409.
212
Goldman, S., Braasch, J., Wiley, J., Graesser, A., &
Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and
learning from internet sources: Processing patterns
of better and poorer learners. Reading Research
Quarterly, 47, 356– 381.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for
cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy:
An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 121–218.
Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in
developing critical thinking. Metacognition Learn-
ing, 5, 137– 156.
Malmberg, J., Jarvenoja, H., & Jarvela, S. (2013).
Patterns in elementary school students’ strategic
actions in varying learning situations. Instructional
Science, 41, 933– 954.
McNamara, D., & Magliano, J. (2009). Towards a
comprehensive model of comprehension. In
B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and
motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297– 384). New York, NY:
Elsevier Science.
Mischel, W., Cantor, N., & Feldman, S. (1996).
Principles of self-regulation: The nature of willpower
and self-control. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski
(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles (pp. 329–360). New York, NY: Guilford.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2013). Read-
ing Framework for the 2013 National Assessment of
Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.
Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001).
Knowing what students know: The science and
design of educational assessment. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols
of reading: The nature of constructively responsive
reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thorndike, E. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of
mistakes in paragraph reading. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 8, 323– 332.
van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of
discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Aca-
demic Press.
Wiliam, D. (2013). Assessment: The bridge between
teaching and learning. Voices from the Middle, 21,
15 – 20.
Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation
and motivation: Historical background, methodo-
logical developments, and future prospects. Amer-
ican Educational Research Journal, 45, 166– 183.