Self-Questioning Strategies Help Students Comprehend Text Across Instructional Settings
Laurice M. Joseph, Laura Kastein, and Trenton DeVore
ontributors: Sheila Alber-Morgan, Jennifer Cullen, & Christina Rouse
Methods
Abstract
Examples of Evidence-based Self-Questioning
Strategies
The majority of studies revealed that elementary and secondary
students with and without disabilities who used self-questioning strategies
improved on their reading comprehension performance over and above
either control conditions or control groups. Favorable outcomes were
particularly evident when self-questioning was coupled with explicit
instructional components (i.e., modeling, guided practice, independent
practice with corrective feedback; e.g., Crabtree et al., 2010; Johnson,
Reid, & Mason, 2011; Hagaman, Casey, & Reid, 2010; and Hagaman &
Reid, 2008 McCallum, et al., 2011). For instance, self-questioning
methods taught using self-regulated strategy instruction model—a model
that incorporates these instructional components—was effective for helping
students improve reading comprehension (e.g., Hagaman & Reid, 2008;
Johnson et al., 2011).
In general, methods that incorporated self-questioning strategies
were particularly effective on elementary and secondary students’
performance on comprehension measures that consisted of retelling main
ideas and recalling details of text, answering fact-based questions on
multiple choice tests, and responding to questions requiring short answers.
There were no studies in this review that evaluated students’
understanding of the relationships among multiple perspectives presented
in the text or the transactions conveyed from the author to the text to the
reader (Iser, 2000). Students were not asked to create lengthy responses
to questions conveying deep interpretations and extensions of text.
In the very few studies that examined the effects of self-questioning
on near and far transfer outcome measures (i.e., Malone & Mastropieri,
1992; Rogevich & Perin, 2008), students whom received self-questioning
instruction outperformed comparison groups on these outcome measures.
Using self-questioning strategies before, during, and after reading text is
effective; however, it is unknown which of these is better than the others.
Additionally, prescribed self-questioning strategies in which students
did not generate their own questions were used in 13 studies, and in 22
studies student-generated questions were used for part or all of the study.
The quality of the questions students generated were not evaluated in any
study.
Lastly, self-questioning strategies were effectively implemented in
small and large classroom settings, which has implications for educators
who implement a multi-tiered instructional delivery model to meet the
diverse needs of their learners in their classrooms.
Before the searching process began, criteria for including articles in
this review, search terms, and the search process were identified.
The purpose of this poster presentation is to present a review of the
effects of self-questioning strategies on students’ reading comprehension
performance and to determine the extent to which self-questioning is an
evidence-based practice. This review resulted in 35 experimental research
studies that involved teaching self-questioning to K-12 students with and
without disabilities. Participants are presented with procedures for
implementing various types of self-questioning reading comprehension
techniques across diverse learners and instructional settings.
Inclusion Criteria:
a) Published in peer-reviewed journals from 1990 to 2012;
b) Include self-questioning independent variables (i.e., instruction or
intervention) in the area of literacy;
c) Consist of experimental or quasi-experimental studies;
d) Include participants in grades K-12;
e) Include participants with or without disabilities; and
f) Include reading and story (listening) comprehension as one of the
outcome (dependent) variables.
Search Process and Terms:
Comprehending text is the ultimate goal of reading. However, only
about 34% of fourth and eighth graders score at or above proficient in
reading comprehension (National Assessment of Educational Progress,
2011). The results are substantially lower for ethnically, racially,
economically, and academically diverse populations. Only 14% to 18% of
students receiving free or reduced lunch score at or above proficient levels
in reading. Students with disabilities fare the worst, with only 7% to 11%
attaining proficiency. There are various strategies students can employ to
gain meaning from text. Self-questioning is one strategy that enables
students to monitor their comprehension and increase their ability to learn
independently during reading.
What is Self-Questioning?
Self-questioning strategies typically require students to ask
themselves a series of self-generated questions or teacher-provided
questions before, during, and/or after reading a passage Using selfquestioning strategies is a way to monitor one’s understanding of text:
helping one focus on the critical information in the text (e.g., Crabtree,
Alber-Morgan, & Konrad, 2010; Hagaman & Reid, 2008).
Past Reviews
Past reviews examining the effect of self-questioning strategies
(Rosenshine et al.1996; Wong 1985) identified several factors contributing
to the success of teaching students how to self-generate questions to
improve their reading comprehension. However, studies in these reviews
included typically developing students and used large group comparison
designs. Students with disabilities and single-subject research designs
were not included.
These reviews were published two decades ago. Since the time of
these reviews, there have been no reviews of research reporting on the
effects of self-questioning strategies on reading comprehension for
students with and without disabilities.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this review is to present experimental research
studies that examined the effects of self-questioning methods and
determine the extent to which self-questioning is an evidence-based
practice for improving school-age students’comprehension.
Articles were searched on EBSCO-HOST, ERIC, PsychInfo,
Education Abstracts, and Google Scholar data-bases using the following
terms: Self-questioning, question generation, question-answer generation,
self generated questions, reading comprehension questions, main idea
summarization, reading comprehension, reading strategies, summarizing,
summarization self-regulation (paired with reading comprehension), selfregulated strategy development, self-regulated strategy instruction (SRSD),
self-management (paired with reading comprehension), self-monitoring
(paired with reading comprehension), QAR (Question Answer
Relationship), KWL (what you Know, what you Want to know, what have
you have Learned), RAP strategy, PQ4R (Preview, Question, Read, Recite,
Review, and Reflect) previewing and reading comprehension, and SQ3R
(Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review). Articles that were located were
independently reviewed and coded for inclusion by two graduate students
other than the authors.
Findings
There were 35 out of 48 studies that met the inclusion criteria.
Findings are reported according to participants, instructional settings, type
of self-questioning method, and overall effects of self-questioning methods
across the 35 studies.
Participants:
The total number of participants included in the 35 studies was
2,263. Out of the 2,263 participants, 958 (42%) students were male and
718 (32%) students were female. Eight studies consisting of 587 (26%)
participants did not specify gender. Of the total number of participants in
the 35 studies there were 720 (32%) students in elementary school, 1,245
(55%) in middle school, and 298 (13%) in high school. Ethnicity and race
was reported for 24 of the 35 studies. In these 24 studies, there were a
total of 1,455 participants, 726 (50%) were Caucasian, 419 (29%) were
Hispanic, 254 (17%) were African American, 37 (3%) were Asian, and 19
(1%) were designated as other. 13 studies did not report the ethnicity of
their participants. 32 out of 35 studies reported that 1,235 (73%) were in
regular education and 452 (27%) were receiving special education
services.
Instructional Settings:
All 35 studies reported the instructional arrangement for the selfquestioning interventions: 12 (34%) used whole class instruction, 12 (34%)
used small group instruction, and 11 (31%) used one-on-one instruction.
Some of the self-questioning methods were examined in both small and
large group classroom settings. Of the 32 studies reporting educational
classroom placement, 25 studies (21%) were conducted in reading
language arts classes (i.e., 14 were conducted in general education
reading/language arts class and 11 were conducted in special education
reading/language arts class). Three studies (9%) were conducted in a
social studies class; one study (3%) was conducted in a science class; and
three studies (9%) were conducted during summer programs. There were
20 studies (57%) conducted in elementary schools, seven studies (20%)
conducted in middle schools, and six (17%) studies conducted in high
schools. One study (8%) was conducted in juvenile delinquent facilities,
and one study (3%) was conducted in a residential treatment facility.
Discussion of Overall Effects
References:
Example of Embedded Story Structured
Self-Q Worksheet
(Crabtree, Alber-Morgan, & Konrad, (2010)
*Crabtree, T., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Konrad, M. (2010). The effects of self-monitoring of story
elements on the reading comprehension of high school seniors with learning disabilities.
Education and Treatment of Children, 33, 187–203.
*Ezell, H. K., Hunsicker, S. A., Quinque, M. M., & Randolph, E. (1996). Maintenance and
generalization of QAR reading comprehension strategies. Reading Research and Instruction,
36, 64–81.
*Ezell, H. K., Kohler, F. W., Jarzynka, M., & Strain, P. S. (1992). Use of peer-assisted
procedures to teach QAR reading comprehension strategies to third-grade children. Education
and Treatment of Children, 15(3), 205-227.
*Fagella-Luby, M., Schumaker, J. S., & Deschler, D. D. (2007). Embedded learning strategy
instruction: Story structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 30–, 131–147.
Hagaman, J. L., Casey, K. J., & Reid, R. (2010). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on
the reading comprehension of young students. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 1–14.
*Hagaman, J. L., & Reid, R. (2008). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading
comprehension of middle school students at risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special
Education, 29, 222–234.
Iser, W. (2000). The range of interpretation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Malone, L.D., & Mastropieri, MA. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization
and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58,
270–279.
*Mason, L. H., Snyder, K. H., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). TWA+PLANS strategies for
expository reading and writing: Effects for nine fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 73,
69–89.
*McCallum, R. S., Krohn, K. R., Skinnder, C. H., Hilton-Prillhart, A., Hopkins, M., Waller, S., &
Polite, F. (2011). Improving reading comprehension of at-risk high-school students: The art of
reading program. Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 78-86.
*McCormick, S., & Cooper, J. O. (1991). Can SQ3R facilitate secondary learning disabled
students' literal comprehension of expository test? Three experiments. Reading Psychology,
12, 239–271.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). The nation’s report card: Reading 2011.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
*Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions.
A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
*Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Swanson, E. A., Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Mohammed, S. S.,
& Stillman-Spisak, S. J. (2011). Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school
students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 938–964.
*Walker, M.L. (1995). Help for the "Fourth-Grade Slump"-SRQ2R instruction in text structure or
main idea. Reading Horizons, 36(1), 38-58.