SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training
Abstract
This study examined the effects of providing reading strategy instruction to improve the effectiveness of self-explanation (i.e., explaining the meaning of information to oneself while reading). The effects of the reading strategy instruction, called Self-Explanation Reading Training (SERT), were examined both in terms of comprehension scores and self-explanation quality. Half of the participants (n = 42) received SERT, which included reading strategy instruction and self-explanation practice with 4 science texts (SERT condition). The remaining participants read aloud the 4 science texts (control condition). During this training phase, self-explanation, as compared to reading aloud, only improved comprehension for the most difficult of the 4 texts. Prior domain knowledge consistently improved comprehension performance, whereas reading skill and reading span had minimal effects. After training, both SERT and control participants self-explained a difficult text about cell mitosis. SERT improved comprehension and self-explanation quality only for participants with low domain knowledge. However, the effects of SERT on low-knowledge participants' comprehension emerged only for text-based questions and not for bridging-inference questions. Protocol analyses indicated that SERT helped these participants to use logic, or domain-general knowledge, rather than domain-specific knowledge to make sense of the text.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Low knowledge learners reading a science text were unable to benefit from prompted-self explanation without training.
“McNamara (2004) found that low knowledge learners reading a science text were unable to benefit from prompted-self explanation without training.”
From The Knowledge‐Learning‐Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science‐Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning (2012) · cites this paper as McNamara (2004)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 48 · Cited by 519
- Authors
- McNamara, D. S.
- Corresponding author
- McNamara, Danielle S.
- Venue
- Discourse Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-07
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-30
- ISSN
- 0163-853X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6950
- OpenAlex
- W2041179101
- Cited by
- 519
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 35.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Discourse Processes (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- self-explanation, reading comprehension, reading strategy instruction, scientific texts, domain knowledge, text-based questions, reading aloud, protocol analysis, cell mitosis
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