Why is this sentence true: A Study of Learning to Read a Textbook
Students have difficulties comprehending science texts. The interrogation method, which prompts students to read
sentences from the text and answer, “Why is this true?” has been developed to enhance students’ ability to read
science texts. To enact this method, instructors must choose sentences that are both important conceptually and
deeply able to be interrogated (interrogatable). We explored the use of this method in an introductory physics
course for non-physics majors. The teaching assistants (pre-service teachers), learning assistants (undergraduates
who took the course last year), and the course instructor chose sentences for each chapter of the text, and the
students were asked to interrogate 2-4 of the sentences each chapter. We analyzed the conceptual importance of
the sentences and their interrogatability, based on underlying epistemologies. We then interviewed the course
instructor to determine how he chose the interrogatable sentences. Based on analysis of the chosen sentences and
interview responses, we developed a model for choosing productive sentences to interrogate.
Elana Resnick, Robert Zisk, Eugenia Etkina
Sponsored by a grant from the ARESTY Research Center
Rutgers University
Historically, students have difficulties
reading science textbooks. Reading is
an important skill that is necessary to
succeed in a science class. The
interrogation method is one method
that has been developed in order to
help students learn to read science
textbooks. However, this has not been
researched in the area of physics and
there hasn’t been an in depth look at
how the sentences are structured and
chosen.
Each week, the TA’s and LA’s were prompted by the
main course instructor with the following prompt:
“As you read the textbook be on the lookout for sentences
that would be interesting to ask ‘why is this sentence true?’
As you come across these sentences fill them in below (do
at least 2). Also include the section, page, and paragraph
where each sentence is located. Choose sentences from
sections that have the fewest sentences already chosen so
there is even coverage throughout the chapter.”
We then collected these responses and coded them
according to their interrogatability, importance, and
underlying epistemologies.
Comparing Interrogatability and Importance
Epistemologies
Important
Interrogatable Code
Code
0
None
0
Low
1
Low
1
High
2
High
2
Math
Instructor
LA Total
TA total
Totals
Authority
MR
Epistemological Ideas
The sentences chosen by the
instructor, TA’s and LA’s most
frequently required students
to reason through authority or
the use of multiple
representations. However, the
instructor chose sentences
with high interrogatability,
while the TA’s and LA’s chose
sentences with low
interrogatability.
Observation
None
Sentence 1: The line shown on a kinematics graph is
not a picture of the actual path that the object takes
as it moves.
Sentence 2: An external force that causes a zero
torque on the tire does not change the tire’s rotation
rate.
Skill
Reasoning
Coding procedure:
0
50
Counts
100
150
TA/LA
Epistemology
Code
Observation
O
Obs Low
Math
M
Authority
Reasoning with
Multiple
Representations
A
Skill
S
Obs
High
Math
Low
Math
High
Auth
Low
Auth
high
MR
Obs High
Math Low
Auth Low
Auth high
MR Low
MR Low
MR High
MR High
50
Counts
Interrogatability
2
1
A, MR
A
5
10
Counts
15
20
LA
Interrogatability
Importance
ANOVA comparing TA’s, LA’s, and the
Instructor on interrogatability:
Source of
Variation
SS
df
MS
F
Between
Groups
.285
2
.142
Within Group
.347
11
0.032
Total
.632
13
TA
0.971
1.07
1.54
1.62
1.67
1.82
Source of
Variation
P
4.507
Instructor
0.037
Between
Groups
Within
Group
Total
SS
ANOVA comparing TA’s, LA’s, and the
Instructor on importance:
df
MS
.050
2
0.025
.273
11
0.025
.323
13
F
P
1.008
0.396
Contrast comparing the instructor and the TA’s and
LA’s grouped together based on interrogatability:
Model Sentence
When the elevator is at rest or moving at a constant speed the scale
reading is the same as the magnitude of the force that the Earth
exerts on you.
Corresponding Codes
0
Group
1
High interrogatability
This sentence requires the use of high
levels of cognitive processes in order to
completely answer the question.
High importance
This sentence represents several
conceptually important ideas in physics:
system choice, Newton’s three laws, motion
diagrams, and force diagrams.
100
Sentence 2
2
Interrogatability/ Importance
Instructor
Comparing Interrogatability and Importance
Importance
References
Math High
TA/LA
Codes for Sentences
Episemologies
Instructor
Obs Low
0
Physics: A Process Approach
E. Etkina, M. Gentile, A. Van Heuvelen
Pearson, 2012
•Farragher, P., & Yore, L. D., (1997). The Effects of
Embedded Monitoring and Regulating Devices on the
Achievement of High School Students Learning Science
From Text. School Science and Mathematics 97, 87–95.
•Hall, L.A. (2005). Teachers and Content Area Reading:
Attitudes, Beliefs and Change. Teaching and Teacher
Education,21, 403-14.
•May, D. & Etkina, E. (2002). College Physics Students
Epistemological Self-Reflection and its Relationship to
Conceptual Learning. American Journal of Physics,
70(12), 1249-1258.
•Smith, B.L, Holliday, W. & Austin, H. (2009). Students’
Comprehension of Science Textbooks Using a Question
Based Reading Strategy. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching. 47(4), 363-379.
• Spence, D., Yore, L., & Williams, J. (1999)." The Effects of
Explicit Science Reading Instruction on Selected Grade 7
Students’ Metacognition and Comprehension of Specific
Science Text” Journal of Elementary Science
Education,11 (2) 15-30.
* Veal, W.R., Tippins, D.J., & Bell, J.(1999). The Evolution of
Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Prospective
Secondary Physics Teachers. Unpublished
Manuscript.
Epistemology Totals
Coding procedure:
Example Sentences
Sentence 1
Textbook Used in Course
Results
Low vs. High Interrogatability with Epistemologies
Participants
TA’s, LA’s and Instructor for an
introductory physics course.
The course instructors were split into
three groups:
Group A: Teaching Assistants (TA’s):
pre-service physics teachers
Group B: Learning Assistants (LA’s) :
Undergraduates who have
previously taken the course
Group C: Course Instructor: Full time
instructor in the Physics Department
Data Analysis
Data Collection
Introduction
Epistemological Value
 Observation
The students can observe this experiment
being performed.
Authority
Students can cite Newton’s laws.
Multiple Representations
Student can use motion diagrams, force
diagrams, and equations in order to answer
the question.
Contrasts
Instructor vs. TA
and LA
Value
0.5182
T
P
2.810
.017
The groups differed significantly on interrogatability but not on
importance. The instructor’s sentences were significantly more
interrogatable than sentences chosen by the TA’s and LA’s.
Implications for Instruction
Implications for instruction:
Choosing highly interrogatable sentences requires an in depth knowledge of the textbook and the subject matter. When
choosing an interrogatable sentence the instructor must be aware of all of the epistemologies the students may implement in
their answer. While all the groups frequently chose sentences that required reasoning through multiple representations to
respond, there were very few instances of reasoning based on observation.
Opportunities for the future:
•Analyze student responses to the sentences to further enhance the model of choosing sentences to interrogate.
•Develop training to enhance instructor’s abilities to choose productive sentences to interrogate.