Assessing improvement in college reading ability as predicted by two different reading theories

摘要

This research investigated two theoretical approaches to reading--rauding theory and higher-order literacy theory. There were three hypotheses: two hypotheses based on rauding theory and a third based on higher-order literacy theory. The first hypothesis was that students who have the greatest cognitive speed and who read the greatest amount of easy material make the greatest gains in rate level. The second hypothesis was that students who have the greatest cognitive power and who read the greatest amount of difficult material make the greatest gains in accuracy level. The third hypothesis was that students who are taught an annotation strategy make greater gains in evaluative thinking than students who do not receive the training. The subjects were 100 college students enrolled in six sections of a reading and study skills course. They were given pretest and posttest measures designed to measure variables relevant to each of the two theories. Fifty students were randomly assigned to receive annotation strategy training while the remaining 50 students received only traditional reading strategies. The training consisted of six sessions over a six week period. Eighty-four of those students also kept a log of the amount and type of reading they did for 13 weeks. The multiple correlation involving the amount of easy reading and the Speed of Thinking Test scores as predictor variables, and the rate level gain as the criterion variable was.03, a negligent effect size. The multiple correlation involving the amount of difficult reading and the Raven Progressive Matrices Test scores as predictor variables, and the accuracy level gain as the criterion variable was.17, a small effect size. The annotation strategy training resulted in no gain in the Critical Judgments Test, a measure of evaluative thinking. This study seemed to provide no support for any of the three hypotheses which were investigated.