Journal of Reading Behavior

1984, Volume XVI, No. 3

STUDENTS' SELF-QUESTIONING AND SUMMARIZING

AS READING STUDY STRATEGIES

James R. King
Texas Woman's University, Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
P.O. Box 23029, Denton, TX 76204

Shirley Biggs and Sally Lipsky

University of Pittsburgh, Department of Instructional Studies,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260

Abstract
The effects of student-generated prequestions and summaries were compared
as reading study strategies for college-age subjects. Eighty-seven freshmen and
sophomores from several sections of a developmental reading course were
trained to use one of two study approaches: (a) phrasing and answering higher
level questions while reading or (b) constructing and checking summary
statements while reading. An additional number of students from the same
population served as members of a control group. The results of three post-
treatment tests—free recall, an objective test, and an essay test—were used as
dependent measures. The results indicated that training in summary genera-
tion as an adjunct study activity significantly increased college students' free
recall as well as performance on the objective test and, especially, on the essay
test. Training in the interspersed prequestioning significantly facilitated
students' performance on the objective test recall but not on free recall or the
essay test. It was concluded that college students benefited from engaging in
encoding strategies during reading and that specific strategies may be strongly
related to posttest measures.

Current theories of reading comprehension hold that readers are respon-

sible for constructing meaning from text (Spiro, 1980). Consequently, much

205
206 Journal of Reading Behavior

research attention has focused on mathemagenic behaviors or strategies that

readers use when processing text (Anderson & Armbruster, 1980; Rothkopf,
1970). Two such behaviors studied are self-questioning and summarizing.
A review of research on the effects of self-questioning revealed that much
of the data has been embedded and often obscured in studies addressing the
impact of total study systems, like Robinson's (1962) Survey, Question, Read,
Recite, and Review (SQ3R) system, of which self-questioning is but one
element. Further, while SQ3R is frequently recommended to readers as a
useful strategy, the results of studies investigating its effectiveness remain
equivocal. On the other hand, three studies (André & Anderson, 1978-79;
Duell, 1978; Frase & Schwartz, 1975) that test the effectiveness of student-
generated questions as a distinct strategy have provided clearer évidence that
this strategy (self-questioning) can be an aid to comprehending text.
Summarizing as a comprehension strategy rests on the assumption that
readers are or can be made aware of important or potentially useful text. It
appears that even third graders can distinguish more important and less
important text information (Brown & Smiley, 1977). Further, studies with
college-age subjects demonstrate a relationship between importance and recall
(Johnson, 1970; Meyer & McConkie, 1973) that extends even to implied infor-
mation such as inference (Goetz, 1979).
While readers in the previously cited studies demonstrated the ability to
isolate important text in experimental tasks, such as information deletion, and
to form helpful questions while reading, more practical applications of these
abilities are required for learning in classrooms. The next issue, albeit an
obvious one, is formulating strategies that consistently allow readers,
particularly less able ones, to perceive and encode the important aspects of
text. Two student-centered techniques, self-questioning and summarizing, ap-
pear to have promise.

Self-Questioning as a Study Strategy

The use of questions as a reading study strategy has several manipulable
variables. Some of the aspects that influence the effectiveness of questioning
include the following: who forms the questions, where do the questions occur,
what format do the questions assume, and what is the content of the questions.
Anderson and Biddle (1975) were able to make several statements in a review
of adjunct questions (questions that appear in the text). With regard to
question position, prereading questions have been found to significantly im-
prove recall on objective measures, providing the posttests measure the same
information presented in the prequestions. It has not been found that recall of
information that appears in the text and on the posttest but not in the pre-
 Self-Questioning and Summarizing 207

questions is improved. Questions asked after reading have been found to have
the same facilitative effect on corresponding posttest questions, but, in
addition, significant effects have been found for nonquestioned information.
So, transfer to additional information has been observed. Anderson and
Biddle (1975) also pointed out that questions asked in formats of higher levels
of comprehension, such as inferential and critical inquiry, have been found to
be more facilitative than those at lower levels.
Several studies that have compared adjunct questioning with questions
posed by students while reading have supported the use of student-constructed
questions. First, Frase and Schwartz (1975) found that writing questions while
reading significantly increased scores on posttest items, particularly those
items that were highlighted in student-written questions. Duell (1978) also
found that forming questions based on stated objectives enhanced college-age
subjects' recall to a greater degree than reading stated objectives that accom-
panied the text. André and Anderson (1978-79) found that question-writing
while reading, even without training in questioning, facilitated higher posttest
scores. Of particular interest was the finding that trained and untrained
questioners showed no difference at a higher reading ability level, but subjects
of low and middle reading ability appeared to benefit from training in self-
questioning as the trained questioning group surpassed the untrained group at
these ability levels.
Other students have failed to demonstrate a positive effect from student-
generated questions. Owens (1976), Pederson (1976), and Bernstein (1973)
found no differences among self-questioned, teacher-questioned, and
rereading groups. A common element in these three studies was the use of
multiple-choice questions in both adjunct and posttest situations. It may be
that, as Anderson and Armbruster (1980) suggest, questioning is effective
when it causes additional processing or transformations of the text. Perhaps
additional attention is focused on forming structured multiple-choice
questions in the self-questioned condition and therefore is not available for
processing text information which may, or may not, be used to answer the
questions.
In general, questioning at a literal level may increase readers' awareness
and recall of specific, objective facts when these facts are present in both the
questioning prior to testing and the testing. However, literal questions may
also inhibit assimilation of more general concepts and may not allow readers
to form higher level judgments about the text. Conversely, conceptually based
questions, which require higher level comprehension, may increase readers'
awareness of text concepts and may promote readers' restructuring of text
propositions in a personal way (Frase & Schwartz, 1975; Ruddell, 1978;
Singer, 1978).
208 Journal of Reading Behavior

Summarizing as a Study Strategy

According to van Dijk and Kintsch (1976), comprehended text is
represented in memory in macrostructures, or representations approximating
summaries. A summary representation of comprehended text is in part
supported by Johnson (1978) who found that even first graders were able to
recall 79.9% of a simple story which they had heard. That such young subjects
recalled most of the story could be evidence that summary representations for
text are basic, and, therefore, easily formed even by young subjects. In con-
trast to Johnson's simple, taped stories, Brown and Day (1980) used longer,
typewritten stories which contained redundancies and trivial information.
These texts, which were about seven paragraphs long, were presented to fifth,
seventh, and eleventh graders and to college students. Since subjects at all
levels except seventh grade recalled at least 80% of the ideas judged to be
important by the researchers, younger subjects' inability to form summaries
equal to the quality of college subjects' summaries was not credited to lack of
comprehension of the text. It would appear that summarizing previously read
text is either a developmental skill, a skill that requires training, or both.
Supporting evidence for the use of summary statements or paraphrase as
reading study strategies is reported by Doctorow, Wittrock, and Marks (1978).
In this study, sixth graders who generated paraphrase statements for in-
dividual paragraphs performed significantly better on both an immediate
multiple-choice test and a delayed cloze recall test than did students in a
reading only group. Similar findings were reported by Dansereau et al. (1974).
College students who paraphrased short prose passages had significantly
higher group means on essay exams than did a control group. However, no
differences were found for performance on objective tests; the means for the
summary group were not significantly higher than a postreading questioning
group. Similar positive results with summarizing have been found with high
school and college-age subjects (Pio & André, 1977).
In general, it appears that generating summary or paraphrase statements
following segments of passages facilitates recall of those passages. While the
effects of summarizing are reported for performance on both objective and
essay tests, they are more robust for essay or essay type responses. What is still
missing is direct comparison between summarizing and self-questioning. While
several studies have investigated these two strategies separately, few have com-
pared them. In a pilot study with fourth graders, Chodos, Gould, and Rusch
(1977) compared student-generated questions and statements (summaries)
along with other treatments. They found a facilitative effect for self-
questioning on both immediate and delayed recall. However, the posttests
were given only in objective format. Furthermore, while these findings relative
to self-questioning are consonant with the conclusions of Anderson and Biddle
(1975), they raise questions regarding the effects of essay response. Although
 Self-Questioning and Summarizing 209

self-questioning was found to facilitate objective recall, it seems possible that

summarizing, a very different reading strategy, would not aid readers in the
same manner or with the same type of recall. A direct comparison of self-
questioning and summarizing across objective as well as essay response is
needed.
Up to this point, experimental results for both self-questioning and
summarizing remain ambiguous, with research supporting both reading study
approaches. A comparison that is sensitive to the critical differences between
these approaches is needed. The present study was carried out to compare the
effectiveness of self-questioning and generating summary statements as
student-generated study strategies. The critical aspect of the study was the
inclusion of an essay response as a recall measure. Specifically, this study
compared one group of college-age readers' use of self-generated interspersed
postreading summary statements as a study aid with a second group's use of
interspersed self-generated prereading questions. Results were derived from an
objective test, an essay test, and free recall.

Method

Subjects
The participants for the study were students who had voluntarily enrolled
in nine sections of a college developmental reading and study course (N = 87).
Students participated in this study as part of the course. Treatment groups
were randomly assigned to classes. Consequently, it was not possible to
control for preexperimental abilities. However, a comparison of group means
for the Nelson Denny Reading Test (1973) in a one-way analysis of variance
revealed no significant difference, F(2, 86) = 0.46, p > .05, which indicated
that the experimental groups and the control group were not significantly
different in reading ability. Four sections of students (n = 35) were trained in
the interspersed self-questioning technique, and four other sections (« = 42)
were trained in the interspersed summary statement technique. A control
group in = 10) received no training. All three groups read and were tested on
the same materials. Both summary and question-generation treatments were
taught by the two instructors to an equal number of treatment groups (n = 4).

Materials
For the training and reading phases of the study, students read chapters
from Miller's (1977) Maintaining Reading Efficiency. All chapters from the
Miller material used in the study were on single themes presented in the chapter
titles. Each of the chapters was 5,000 words in length with a readability score
210 Journal of Reading Behavior

of 44, described by Flesch (1949) as "difficult." Bold-face headings segmented

the content but were only somewhat reflective of the sections. No other textual
aids were provided. The objective posttests used in the training and recall
phases of the study were constructed by Miller (1977). They were composed of
fifty true/false, multiple-choice and short-answer items.
All students in the study recorded information on glossing strips (Dana,
1982). Two-inch strips were cut from 14-inch paper so that three inches of
paper could be folded over the text booklet pages, creating marginal gloss
strips that were anchored in place by hooking them over the tops of the
booklet pages. The sequential stack of gloss strips (one for each text page)
could later be studied by the students without rereading the text passages.

Procedures
The study involved three phases: training, reading, and recall. For all
three phases, instructors followed predetermined scripts and strategies. During
the first training session, students read Miller's (1977) Maintaining Reading
Efficiency Test 4, "History of New Zealand." With the control group and both
experimental groups, instructors demonstrated surveying the chapter
headings. This was followed by a demonstration of recording chapter informa-
tion on the glossing strips. All three groups were shown how to use the glossing
strips for notetaking while reading. For the self-questioning group, students
were told to form higher level questions based on the text, record them on the
gloss strips, and then read the passage to answer the question. The training
procedure for the questioning group began with a discussion of question for-
mats. Students wrote and shared questions based on the Miller chapter. Group
discussions, guided by the instructor, isolated questions that required "more
thinking" and that characteristically began with how and why.
In the summary statement group, students were instructed to read text
sections, form summary statements and record the statement in appropriate
locations on the gloss strips. The training procedure for the summary group
was developed from Day's (1980) "Five Rules of Summarization." These rules
were interpreted for subjects in this study as follows:
1. Ignore unimportant information.
2. Ignore repeated information.
3. Group lists under labels.
4. Pick topic sentences.
5. Invent topic sentences (when missing).
6. Write down 3-5 topic sentences in abbreviated form.
7. List important details.

After practicing with about one half of the passage, students compared
questions or statements in small groups. Following the small group dis-
cussions, entire classes compared either questions or statements, depending on
 Self-Questioning and Summarizing 211

the classes' treatment condition. In these follow-up discussions, students

selected and read aloud appropriate higher level questions or inclusive, concise
summaries. In the summarizing and questioning conditions, students
evaluated the quality of their peers' questioning and summarizing through
discussion.
Following the discussion-centered training, students in both treatment
groups practiced reading the chapter with the study strategy just learned. This
reading was immediately followed by a short quiz that simulated posttesting
conditions in both literal-objective and interpretive-essay formats. Control
group members were also quizzed with the same questions after they had read
the chapter with instructions to use the glossing strips for notetaking.
In a second training session, students read "The History of Brazil"
(Miller, 1977) with self-questioning, summarizing, or notetaking (control
group) as part of the reading process. Groups of three or four students again
compared questions or statements, depending upon their treatment group. By
discussion throughout part of the chapter, the treatment groups were again
taught how to generate inferential applied questions or generalized summary
statements. Students then practiced with the remainder of the chapter.
Following the students' reading of "The History of Brazil," the testing pro-
cedure that would later be used for data collection was introduced. Students
were given three tasks, in the order listed, to assess their comprehension: free
recall, an objective test, and an essay question which tapped higher levels of
comprehension. The students' responses to the different questions were
discussed with the classes as a training activity. Control group members also
read the passage and participated in the simulated testing session with shared
responses to the test items. In all three groups, the tests were presented as a
simulation of the posttest format and were discussed as such. Students were
told that free recall was used to measure which aspects and how much of text
they would recall. The objective test was used to measure their literal memory
for the text when prompted with questions. The essay questions were designed
to measure the degree to which the students could generalize about concepts
they had read.
The second phase of the study, the reading phase, occurred in the class
period that immediately followed training session two. Students read "The
History of Switzerland" (Miller, 1977) and were instructed to use their assigned
reading study techniques. Students were allowed fifty minutes for reading and
making notations on the marginal gloss strips. At the end of the class time,
instructors collected both test chapters and gloss strips from the subjects. An
inspection of the questioning groups' gloss strips revealed that most students
were able to form higher level questions that required synthesis of text for an
answer. Examples of those questions are "How is Switzerland a land of con-
trasts?" and "How did the departure of the Roman armies affect the history of
Switzerland?" Students also grouped information under related questions by
212 Journal of Reading Behavior

underlining questions, numbering response items, indenting response items,

and combinations of these techniques. While some students in the questioning
group listed information rather than writing a question, the information was
usually grouped by topics. Glossing strips from the summarizing group re-
vealed similar grouping of information as did those of the questioning group.
However, the information was collected under statements. When compared
with the text information available, the statements usually constituted a
unifying statement. Some examples are "Switzerland is a land of great con-
trasts." and "The end of the Roman Empire was the beginning of
Switzerland." As in the questioning group, the summarization group made use
of graphic organization when recording summary-related information.
The third phase of the study, the recall phase, took place in a class session
48 hours after the reading phase. Students in all three groups studied their
marginal gloss strips from the previous reading for ten minutes. The gloss
strips were collected and the first test, free recall, was introduced. Instructors
asked students to "Write down the words, ideas and concepts you (students)
remember about the history of Switzerland." After students completed the free
recall task, the remaining class time was used for taking the objective test that
accompanied the chapter on Switzerland and for answering two essay ques-
tions. The free recall task preceded the objective test and essay questions so
that ideas inherent in the objective test would not prime students for free
recall.
The objective tests were scored according to the answers provided by the
author (Miller, 1977). The essay responses were ranked on two predetermined
five-point scales by three independent raters with interrater reliabilities of .83,
.70, and .69. The rating scales for essay questions were predetermined by a
panel of five experts who took into consideration the nature of the questions,
the text information available, and answers they independently formulated.
The scale for ranking the first essay question was as follows:
0—No correct information
1 —Some information from one side of the conflict
2 — Correct information from both sides or an inference drawn on one side
3—Partial inferences on both sides with partial information
4—Good inference with supporting information on both sides of the
conflict
The scale for ranking the second essay question was as follows:
0—No correct information
1 —One factual cause
2—More than one factual cause or at least one inferential cause
3—A stated cause and effect relationship using an inferential cause
4—A stated cause and effect relationship using an inferential cause with
specific examples
 Self-Questioning and Summarizing 213

Sets of essay responses were assembled for rating so that they contained
responses from both treatment groups as well as control group responses.
Therefore, raters were unaware of a particular respondent's treatment group
when they evaluated essay responses. An average of the three raters' scores for
each of the two questions (six scores) was computed and used as the essay score
for each subject.
Three raters scored each free recall protocol. The free recall measure was
tabulated by computing an average for three independent rankings assigned by
the three raters. Raters credited each correctly recalled idea with one point.
Items that incorporated more than one text idea were credited with an
appropriate number of points. Ideas rephrased at higher levels of conceptual-
ization were given additional points. As with the essay responses, free recall
was scored blindly by the raters, with interrater reliabilities of .94, .87, and .81.

Results

The results presented for the objective test scores, essay test scores, and
free recall measure are based on the subjects' reading of Miller's (1977)
"History of Switzerland" and subsequent performance on the three measures
after a 48-hour delay. A one-way ANO VA was performed for each dependent
measure.

Free Recall
The means for the three groups are presented in Table 1. A one-way
ANOVA revealed significant difference in these means with an ^ 2 , 86) =
4.38, p < .01. Scheffe tests indicated that the summary group had a
significantly higher mean than the control group (p < .05). No differences
were found to distinguish the self-questioning group from either the summary
group or control group.

Table 1
Group Means and Standard Deviations for Free Recall

Group M SD
Control 17.1 6.01
Question 21.9 8.30
Summary 24.3 7.17
214 Journal of Reading Behavior

Objective Test Scores

A one-way ANO VA on the means for the objective posttest scores showed
significant differences between treatment groups, F\2, 86) = 4.29, p < .0001.
Scheffe tests showed that both summary and self-questioning groups had
significantly greater means than did the control group (p < .05). The means
are presented in Table 2.

Table 2
Group Means and Standard Deviations for Objective Recall

Group M SD
Control 14.86 4.82
Question 27.88 4.96
Summary 29.66 5.57

Essay Test Scores

The group means for the essay test scores are presented in Table 3. The
results of a one-way ANO VA showed that the group means for essay responses
were significantly different, F{2, 86) = 8.32, p < .001. Scheffe tests indicated
that the summary group had a higher group mean than did the self-questioning
group or control group (p < .05).

Table 3
Group Means and Standard Deviations for Essay Recall

Group M SD
Control 1.35 0.83
Question 1.55 1.03
Summary 2.29 0.71
 Self-Questioning and Summarizing 215

Discussion

For the three groups and three dependent measures, several findings will
be discussed. First, summarizing appeared to be an effective reading study
strategy. Students trained in summarizing segments of text had higher scores
than the control group on all three dependent measures and higher scores than
the self-questioning group on the essay test. The fact that summarizing was
effective in terms of responding to essay questions on a passage was not unex-
pected. Based on results of Dansereau et al. (1974), in which students who
summarized passages had higher essay test scores than control subjects, the
authors anticipated such results. However, while Dansereau et al. found no
differences between the summarizing, self-questioning, or control groups on
objective test performance, this study found self-questioning and summarizing
to be effective study strategies in terms of objective test scores. Both
summarizing and self-questioning groups had scores significantly higher than
the control group. The authors had expected that there would be a significant
effect for self-questioning on objective test scores based on the findings of
Anderson and Biddle (1975), Frase and Schwartz (1975), Duell (1978), and
André and Anderson (1978-79). An equal effect for summarizing on objective
scores was not anticipated. Perhaps the reason that subjects who trained in
summarizing recalled objective information as well as those trained in
questioning was due to the training that subjects received in the present study.
In addition to following Day's (1980) five steps of summarizing, students in
this study were instructed to record details associated with summaries. It may
be that attention to these specific points enabled the summary group to do as
well as they did on the objective test.
Students involved in summarizing had better free recall than students in
the control group but not better than students in the self-questioning group.
As Singer (1978) suggests, prequestioning may have narrowed this groups'
focus such that assimilating and organizing whole-passage information was
preempted by low-level search strategies for specific answers. Summarizing
may have helped readers organize information at a whole-passage level rather
than specific information level, thereby facilitating unstructured or free recall
when compared with the control group. However, this effect is not so robust
that it exceeded self-questioning as a strategy to enhance free recall.
A second finding is that, depending on the posttest format, self-
questioning may be an effective reading study strategy. In this study,
generating questions and reading to answer them was as effective as
summarizing in answering objective questions on a posttest. A common
element in summarizing and self-questioning approaches, as used in this study,
was attention to specific textual details. By adding the steps of listing
216 Journal of Reading Behavior

supporting details to Day's (1980) approach, the summarizing group may have
engaged in reading strategies similar to those used by the questioning group.
In terms of responding to essay questions, summarizing was found to be
more effective than self-questioning or the control condition. A possible
explanation for these results is found in Tulving's and Thomson's (1973)
Encoding Specificity Principle. In general, Tulving and Thomson maintain
that encoding, storage, and retrieval processes are not separate events but,
rather, related steps in a processing chain. The most efficient method of en-
coding (selected from reading study, mnemonic, and classification strategies)
is determined, to a large degree, by the retrieval task. In terms of this study,
generating summary statements about text facilitated performance in essay
writing, when compared to self-questioning or to the control group. There are
certainly close parallels in summaries formed while reading and summaries
constructed after reading in response to essay questions. In both instances,
students were engaged in synthesizing text information, either immediately
after reading or from memory. During initial reading, the summaries were
formed in response to implicit task directives such as "What is the main
point?" In the testing situation, the summaries were formed around posed
questions. Text information synthesized into generalized statements while
reading would be information available for essay responses and, perhaps,
available in a format approximating an essay response.
The fact that the summary group performed significantly better than the
control group on the objective test would seem to be in opposition to results
predicted by encoding specificity. Since the readers in the summary group
focused primarily on generalizations rather than on specific details, it would
seem likely that they may not have been well prepared to respond to questions
that referred specific text information. However, as previously discussed, in
the last step of the summary training procedure, subjects listed any important
details after each summary statement. Collecting facts for this list may have
approximated answering questions on specific information and, consequently,
readied these subjects for objective test questions.
A limitation of this study is that the results were based on just one
passage. However, because the results suggest that self-questioning and
summarizing may be effective study strategies, further research on these
techniques seems warranted.
In conclusion, it can be said that particular reading study strategies may
or may not be related to particular test formats and that, depending upon the
appropriateness of the match between a study strategy and a test format,
reading study strategies may assist students in both reading and performing on
tests. The results of this study have important implications for teachers and
students in text-centered courses. Letting students know the format of post-
 Self-Questioning and Summarizing 217

tests may improve their performance on the tests. Also, posttest formats can
be made to match the kinds of text information on which students are to be
tested and the way that information is presented in different chapters and
books. Or, when a very factual, objective chapter is to be tested with gener-
alized, summarizing questions, students should certainly be made aware of
this. Teachers can also teach and/or review self-questioning and summarizing
in their classes. For students, the use of self-questioning and summarizing
strategies while reading may improve their comprehension during study and
subsequently their test scores, especially if study approaches are matched with
test format.

References

ANDERSON, R. C., & BIDDLE, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are
reading. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 89-132).
New York: Academic Press.
ANDERSON, T. H., & ARMBRUSTER, B. B. (1980). Studying (Tech. Rep. No. 155). Urbana-
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
ANDRÉ, M. L. D. A., & ANDERSON, T. H. (1978-79). The development and evaluation of a
self-study technique. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 605-623.
BERNSTEIN, S. (1973). The effects of children's question asking behaviors on problem solution
and comprehension of the written word. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia
University, New York.
BROWN, A. L., & DAY, J. (1980). Knowledge and strategies for summarizing text: The develop-
ment of expertise. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
BROWN, A. L., & SMILEY, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose
passages: A problem of cognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1-8.
BROWN, J. I., NELSON, M. J., & DENNY, E. C. (1973). The Nelson-Denny Reading Test.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
CHODOS, L. B., GOULD, S. A., & RUSCH, R. P. (1977). Effect of student-generated pre-
questions and post-statements on immediate and delayed recall of fourth grade social studies
content. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading Theory and Practice, Twenty-Sixth Yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 11-16). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.
DANA, C. (1982). Gloss in action: Gloss used in remedial reading classes to improve comprehen-
sion of expository text. In G. McNinch (Ed.), Third Annual Yearbook of the American
Reading Forum (pp. 25-29). Carrollton, GA: American Reading Forum.
DANSEREAU, D. G., McDONALD, B. A., LONG, G. L., ATKINSON, T. R., ELLIS, A. M.,
COLLINS, K. W., WILLIAMS, S., & EVANS, S. H. (1974). The development and assess-
ment of an effective learning strategy training program (Rep. No. 3). Fort Worth, TX: Texas
Christian University.
DAY, J. D. (1980). Teaching summarization skills: A comparison of training techniques.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
DOCTOROW, M., WITTROCK, M. C., & MARKS, C. (1978). Generative processes in reading
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 109-118.
DUELL, O. K. (1978). Overt and covert use of different cognitive levels. Contemporary Journal
of Educational Psychology, 3, 239-245.
218 Journal of Reading Behavior

FLESCH, R. F. (1949). The art of readable writing. New York: Harper & Row.
FRASE, L. T., & SCHWARTZ, B. J. (1975). Effect of question production and answering in
prose recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 628-635.
GOETZ, E. T. (1979). Inferring from text: Some factors influencing which inferences will be
made. Discourse Processes, 2, 179-195.
JOHNSON, N. (1978). A structural analysis of the development of story recall and summariza-
tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
JOHNSON, R. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of the linguistic
units. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 12-20.
MEYER, B. J. F., & McCONKIE, G. W. (1973). What is recalled after hearing a passage?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 109-117.
MILLER, L. L. (1977). Maintaining reading efficiency tests. Laramie, WY: Developmental
Reading Distributors. (Work originally published 1970)
OWENS, A. M. (1976). The effects of question generation, question answering, and reading on
prose learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
PEDERSON, J. E. P. (1976). An investigation into differences between student-constructed
versus experimenter-constructed post-questions on the comprehension of expository prose.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
PIO, E., & ANDRÉ, M. L. D. A. (1977, April). Paraphrasing highlighted statements and learning
from prose. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.
ROBINSON, F. P. (1962). Effective study. New York: Harper and Row.
ROTHKOPF, E. Z. (1970). The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational
Research, 40, 326-336.
RUDDELL, R. (1978). Developing comprehension abilities: Implication from research for an
instructional framework. Educational Perspective, 17, 8-11.
SINGER, H. (1978). Active comprehension: From answering to asking questions. Reading
Teacher, 31, 901-908.
SPIRO, R. J. (1980). Constructive processes in prose comprehension and recall. In R. Spiro,
B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 245-278).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
TULVING, E., & THOMSON, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in
episodic memory. Psychology Review, 80, 352-373.
VAN DIJK, T. A., & KINTSCH, W. (1976). Cognitive psychology and discourse: Recalling and
summarizing stories. In W. U. Dressier (Ed.), Trends in text linguistics (pp. 61-80). New
York: deGruyter.