Cited by 519Reading and Literacy DevelopmentVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training

McNamara, Danielle S.·2004·Discourse Processes

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

Crossref · 10.1207/s15326950dp3801_1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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