Structured Abstract
Sample
Research design and methods
People and institutions involved
IES program contact(s)
Products and publications
ERIC Citations: Find available citations in ERIC for this award here.
Select Publications:
Book chapters
Britt, M.A., Wiemer, K., Millis, K.K., Magliano, J.P., Wallace, P., and Hastings, P. (2012). Understanding and Reasoning With Text. In P. McCarthy, and C. Boonthum (Eds.), Cross-Disciplinary Advances in Applied Natural Language Processing: Issues and Approaches (pp. 133-154). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publisher.
Magliano, J.P., and Perry, P.J. (2008). Individual Differences in Reading Proficiencies and Comprehension. In N.J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology, Volume 2 (pp. 511-517). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Magliano, J.P., Millis, K.K., Ozuru, Y., and McNamara, D.S. (2007). A Multidimensional Framework to Evaluate Reading Assessment Tools. In D.S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies (pp. 107-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McNamara, D.S., and Magliano, J.P. (2009). Self-Explanation and Metacognition: The Dynamics of Reading. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 60-81). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
McNamara, D.S., and Magliano, J.P. (2009). Towards a Comprehensive Model of Comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Volume 51 (pp. 297-384). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
Millis, K., Magliano, J., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Todaro, S., and McNamara, D.S. (2007). Assessing and Improving Comprehension With Latent Semantic Analysis. In T. Landauer, D.S. McNamara, S. Dennis, and W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 207-225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Journal articles
Gilliam, S., Magliano, J.P., Millis, K.K., Levinstein, I., and Boonthum, C. (2007). Assessing the Format of the Presentation of Text in Developing a Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (R-SAT). Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 3: 199-204.
Magliano, J., Kurby, C.A., Magliano, J.P., Dandotkar, S., Woehrle, J., Gilliam, S., and McNamara, D.S. (2012). Changing how Students Process and Comprehend Texts With Computer-Based Self-Explanation Training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(4): 429-459.
Magliano, J.P., Millis, K.K., Levinstein, I., and Boonthum, C. (2011). Assessing Comprehension During Reading With the Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (RSAT). Metacognition and Learning, 6(2): 131-154.
Millis, K.K., Magliano, J.P., and Todaro, S. (2006). Measuring Discourse-Level Processes With Verbal Protocols and Latent Semantic Analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3): 225-240.
Munoz, B., Magliano, J.P., Sheridan, R., and McNamara, D.S. (2006). Typing Versus Thinking Aloud When Reading: Implications for Computer-Based Assessment and Training Tools. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 38(2): 211-217.
Proceedings
Malladi, R., Levinstein, I.B., Boonthum, C., and Magliano, J.P. (2010). Summarization: Constructing an Ideal Summary and Evaluating a Student's Summary Using LSA. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference (pp. 295-296). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Mylavarapu, S., Levinstein, I.B., Boonthum, C., Magliano, J.P., and Millis, K.K. (2010). Enhancing Protocol Evaluation Through Semantic Modification of Benchmarks. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference (pp. 297-298). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
Related projects
Supplemental information
Co-Principal Investigator(s): Millis, Keith
Measure: R-SAT will identify basic reading strategies and the extent to which the reader is actively engaged. R-SAT provides two very important advantages over existing reading tests that rely on a multiple-choice format. The first is that R-SAT provides an assessment of the level of coherence and reading strategies employed by the student, and the second is that it measures comprehension during reading. Because multiple-choice tests measure comprehension after reading, they are subject to test-taking strategies and processes that adversely affect the validity of the instrument. For example, a student may first read the questions before reading the test passage, or a listed answer to a question might actually trigger the correct answer.
Questions about this project?
To answer additional questions about this project or provide feedback, please contact the program officer.
