Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 724

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction.

Guthrie, John T., Wigfield, Allan, Barbosa, Pedro, Perencevich, Kathleen C., Taboada, Ana, Davis, Marcia H., Scafiddi, Nicole T., Tonks, Stephen·2004·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Based on an engagement perspective of reading development, we investigated the extent to which an instructional framework of combining motivation support and strategy instruction (Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction—CORI) influenced reading outcomes for third-grade children. In CORI, five motivational practices were integrated with six cognitive strategies for reading comprehension. In the first study, we compared this framework to an instructional framework emphasizing Strategy Instruction (SI), but not including motivation support. In the second study, we compared CORI to SI and to a traditional instruction group (TI), and used additional measures of major constructs. In both studies, class-level analyses showed that students in CORI classrooms were higher than SI and/or TI students on measures of reading comprehension, reading motivation, and reading strategies. A widespread goal of education in the elementary grades is reading comprehension for all students. Reading comprehension becomes especially important in the later elementary grades (Sweet & Snow, 2003) and provides the basis for a substantial amount of learning in secondary school (Kirsch et al., 2002). Without the skills of reading comprehension and the motivation for reading to learn, students’ academic progress is limited (Alvermann & Earle, 2003). In view of the prominence of reading comprehension, a vital issue for educational psychology is investigating the characteristics of effective instruction for reading comprehension (Hiebert & Raphael, 1996). The growing knowledge base about instruction for reading comprehension is rightly directed toward identifying classroom practices with known effects on specific aspects of reading, and a major focus of this research has been on identifying effective reading strategies that increase children’s comprehension (Block & Pressley, 2002; Duke & Pearson, 2002; National Reading Panel, 2000). However, the evidence rests primarily on instructional research in which single cognitive strategies, such as questioning, are taught in controlled experiments. Relatively little investigation has been conducted on how multiple strategies can be combined in long-term comprehension instruction within the classroom, and

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 724

Metadata

Authors
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S.
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
2004-09
Volume
96
Issue
3
Pages
403-423
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2095913254
Cited by
724
References
5
FWCI
22.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403
The paper
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.