The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reading as Problem Solving: An Investigation of Strategies
Abstract
writing style, concrete and abstract. This resulted in a 2x2x2 design. The method, analysis of readers' verbal protocols, was adapted from cognitive psychology research. The protocols, verbalizations about the subjects' silent reading behavior, were transcribed and analyzed to infer stragegies. Of the 10 strategies identified, 3 pertain to the word level, 6 pertain to the clause level, and I pertains to the story. To test for statistically significant differences in use of a strategy by 1 group of subjects, the Fisher exact probability test was employed. The level of significance was .05. Although all subjects used the same 10 strategies, readers with high interest, readers with abstract style material, and good readers used certain strategies significantly more often. The types of strategies identified and the conditions under which they were used have implications for a theory of reading as problem solving and for teaching strategies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature
DILLON, A. (1992) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139208967394 · Cited by 523
Metadata
- Authors
- Olshavsky, J. E.
- Venue
- Reading Research Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1976
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 654
- ISSN
- 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2063533806
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.86
- 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
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.
