Wong (1985)

Review of Educational Research
Summer, 1985, Vol. 55, No. 2, Pp. 227-268
Self-Questioning Instructional Research: A Review

Bernice Y. L. Wong
Simon Fraser University
ABSTRACT. Studies in self-questioning designed to improve students' prose

processing are reviewed in the context of theoretical issues and instruc-
tional implications that stem from three theoretical perspectives: the active
processing perspective, metacognitive theory, and schema theory. The
review indicates that the effects of self-questioning training on students'
prose processing are successful. Moreover, it indicates the need to consider
the issue of constraints in self-questioning. The constraints of content
knowledge and metacognitive deficiencies on self-questioning are illus-
trated. Subsequently, methodological problems underlying instructional
failures in self-questioning research are examined. These include level of
criterion in training, processing time allowed the subjects, explicitness in
instruction, and maintenance and transfer tests. Last, potential directions
of future research are discussed.
Parallel to the interest in the effects of experimenter/teacher-generated adjunct

questions, there has always been interest in the effects of self-questioning/student-
generated questions on students' prose processing (Carver, 1963; Helfeldt & Lalik,
l976;Hunkins, l976;Marksberry, 1979; Olmo, 1975; Singer, l978;Tinsley, 1973).
However, the quantity of research in the latter area pales in comparison to that of
research on the effects of adjunct questions on students' prose processing. Moreover,
while self-questioning instruction has consistently been shown to produce enhanced
questioning in students, the precise impact of self-questioning instruction on
processing of prose remains elusive because of the absence of a more updated and
comprehensive literature review. Specifically, an early review by Fahey (1942) cited
some facilitative evidence of self-questioning on achievement (cf. Finley, 1921;
Helseth, 1942). In Marksberry's (1979) section on self-questioning instruction and
achievement, only studies involving elementary and nonhandicapped students were
reviewed. Hence, a more updated and comprehensive review on the effects of self-
questioning instruction on students' processing of prose appears necessary.
This paper is organized into four sections. The first section describes three
theoretical perspectives that generated the studies in self-questioning instruction
and prose processing. The second section reviews 27 studies that were designed to
increase students' processing of prose through self-questioning instruction. The
discussion of these studies centers around theoretical issues and instructional
implications that stem from the theoretical perspectives described in the first
section. The third section involves a discussion of general methodological issues
I thank Jim Dillon for his constructive criticisms of the first draft of this paper. I also thank
the reviewers for their helpful comments and Eileen Mallory for typing the manuscript.
This article was accepted for publication under the editorship of Naftaly S. Glasman.
227
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
that arise from the review of self-questioning instructional research. The fourth
section focuses on potential areas for future research. Lastly, a summary and some
general conclusions are presented.
Theoretical Perspectives in Self-Questioning Instructional Research and
Prose Processing
There are three discernible theoretical perspectives in self-questioning instruc-
tional research and prose processing: Active processing, metacognitive theory, and
schema theory. The overwhelming majority of studies has ensued from the active
processing theoretical perspective. Because of the relative recency of theoretical
development and research in metacognition, only four self-questioning instructional
studies have used this theoretical framework (Andre & Anderson, 1978—79; Dreher
&Gambrell, l982;Palincsar, 1982; Wong & Jones, 1982). Although schema theory
has been much applied in reading comprehension research, tying it with self-
questioning instruction to improve students' processing of prose is new (Singer &
Donlan, 1982). Berlyne's theory had been used to investigate self-questioning in
children (Ross & Balzer, 1975; Ross & Killey, 1977), but not in self-questioning as
it relates to prose processing.
Active Processing
The overwhelming majority of self-questioning instructional research studies
appears to ensue from a theoretical assumption that for students to be active
comprehenders and independent thinkers, they must generate questions that shape,
focus, and guide their thinking in their reading (Hunkins, 1976; Singer, 1978;
Tinsley, 1973). Self-questioning then is seen to have a crucial role in students'
active processing of given materials. These theoretical views lead logically to the
advocacy of self-questioning instruction among educators and to self-questioning
instructional research (cf. Carver, 1963; Helfeldt & Lalik, 1976; Hunkins, 1976;
Marksberry, 1979; Olmo, 1975; Singer, 1978; Tinsley, 1973). However, the research
here appears to lack conceptual clarity regarding students' active processing of
prose. Specifically, there is the neglected question, What kinds of psychological
processes are students engaged in when we think they are actively processing prose?
Different self-questions may elicit and mobilize different kinds of psychological
processes. Concerning the nature of these processes, we may extrapolate some
useful pointers from Cook and Mayer's (1983) delineation of encoding processes
mobilized by specific reading strategies deployed by readers. Cook and Mayer listed
the following as encoding processes: selection, acquisition, construction, and inte-
gration. Selection basically refers to "the process of selective attention." Acquisition
refers to "the process of transferring information from attention to long-term
memory." Construction refers to establishing internal connections among ideas
learned from the text. Integration is "locating relevant existing knowledge and
building external connections between that knowledge and ideas acquired from the
passage. This process involves both accessing existing knowledge and mapping new
ideas onto that knowledge" (p. 90). Reader's reading strategies include underlining,
summarizing, and question-answering. Cook and Mayer suggest that the encoding
processes "may serve as goals of various reading strategies" (p. 90). For example, a
reader's underlining of key words or phrases can serve the goal of selecting those
textual units for memory storage. I submit that in self-questioning instructional
228
SELF-QUESTIONING INSTRUCTIONAL RESEARCH
research we need to conceptualize what specific cognitive processes are manipulated

and mobilized by the type of self-questions used, analogous to the kinds of
conceptualization made by Cook and Mayer (1983). Such needed conceptualization
would clarify what psychological processes mediated the instructional efficacy of
self-questioning. It would also provide us with clearer goals in experimental
manipulations of type of self-questions, and eventually lead to matching type of
self-questioning instruction with specific needs of students. For example, for
learning-disabled children with deficient selective attention, we may teach them to
generate self-questions to focus on key words and ideas in their reading.
The centrality of self-questioning in the active processing theoretical perspective
leads to several straightforward instructional implications: (a) Student-generated
questions should induce prose processing superior to experimenter-generated ques
tions; (b) generation of higher order questions would produce better comprehension
because higher order questions are presumed to induce more thorough processing
of given materials (Rickards & Di Vesta, 1974); (c) generating more questions could
induce more processing of prose in students, which in turn would result in better
comprehension and retention.
Metacognitive Theory
FΊavell (1976) developed the theoretical notion of metacognition that refers to
one's awareness of one's own cognitive processes and products and self-regulation.
Initially, the study of metacognition lay in the area of memory research, or
metamemory (FΊavell & Wellman, 1977). Subsequently, it spread to other areas,
such as metalinguistic abilities (Ryan, 1980) and, most important, to reading
(Brown, 1980).
Brown (1980) pointed out the role of metacognition in efficient reading and
effective studying. Metacognitive skills include "predicting, checking, monitoring,
reality testing and coordination, and control of deliberate attempts to study, learn
or solve problems" (p. 454). Good readers demonstrate all these skills in their
reading and studying. To illustrate, they are clear about the demands in given tasks,
they identify important parts of the text and focus on them rather than on
unimportant parts when studying, they monitor their state of reading comprehen
sion and engage in debugging strategies when they encounter comprehension
failures, and they engage in review and self-questioning to ascertain if their goals
in reading and studying have been met. In short, good readers plan and use strategy,
always aware of task demands and what they need to do in terms of strategy
deployment to meet these demands. Such conscious coordination indicates meta
cognition (Baker & Brown, in press; Brown, 1980).
Metacognitive theory has the greatest impact on the design of current instruc
tional studies. Specifically, this theoretical approach has highlighted the importance
for strategy maintenance and transfer, the inclusion of metacognitive supplements
in the training. Metacognitive theory has generated informed training and self-
control training1 in current instructional research. In informed training, trainees
are given the rationale of the strategy to be learned and are helped to see the direct
1
Informed training, self-control training, and blind training are terminologies originated by
Brown and Palincsar (1982).
229
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
relationship between strategy use and subsequent increased learning. The use of
informed training has resulted in successful maintenance of learned strategy in
trainees (cf. Paris, Newman, & McVey, 1982). In self-control training, which
originated with A. L. Brown and her associates, trainees are instructed in executive
control functions as well as specific strategy. Executive control functions include
planning, checking, monitoring, and overseeing the activity or activities induced.
The guiding principles of self-control training are twofold: (a) to teach subjects how
to learn rather than only what to learn; and (b) to teach them to behave like
successful learners who spontaneously plan, check, and monitor themselves in their
learning, performance, and problem-solving. The advantages of the self-control
training approach lie in trainees' maintenance and generalization of learned strat-
egies. These are significant advantages when one contrasts them to those of blind
training.
Blind training refers to interventions in which only the trainers are aware of the
rationales and usefulness of the skill/strategy to be learned. Trainees were never
privy to such knowledge. They were simply instructed to engage in certain experi-
menter-designed learning strategies and given certain posttests. It may well be
argued that for certain skill training or preskill training, trainees' awareness of the
rationale in training may be superfluous. However, the limitations of blind training
are demonstrated in the trainees' failure to maintain learned strategy and, more
important, in their failure to transfer learned strategy (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara,
& Campione, 1983; Brown & Palincsar, 1982).
Providing trainees with informed training appears to successfully induce strategy
maintenance (Brown et al., 1983; Brown & Palincsar, 1982). A good example of
informed training is found in Paris et al. (1982). Paris et al. first obtained prior free
recall data of categorized lists from 7- and 8-year-old subjects on 2 days of baseline
performance and then divided them into two training groups. One group was given
nonelaboration training. The children were simply instructed to engage in a variety
of activities: grouping, labeling, cumulative rehearsal, and recalling by groups. They
were basically given blind training. The other group was given elaboration training.
They were instructed to engage in the same activities as the other group, but were
also given rationales for each activity as well as feedback on their performance after
their recall. Essentially, this group received informed training. The results indicated
the superiority of the elaboration (informed training) group over the nonelaboration
(blind training) group in both training and maintenance. Paris et al. attributed such
good data to the elaboration subjects' awareness of the usefulness of the activities
to their recall. In support of their interpretation, Paris et al. reported the elaboration
subjects' demonstration of increased awareness of the role of those sorting activities
compared with the nonelaboration subjects. Moreover, awareness scores were
significantly correlated with strategy use and recall performance.
Informed training differs from self-control training in the following manner. The
informed training approach focuses on providing trainees with a clear rationale of
the strategy to be trained and on the direct relationship between strategy use and
its beneficial effects on learning. Self-control training focuses on direct instruction
of general executive skills, such as planning, checking, and monitoring, as well as
help with overseeing and coordinating the activity (Brown et al., 1983). Studies by
Brown and Barclay (1976) and Brown, Campione, and Barclay (1979) provide a
good example of self-control training. Brown and Barclay (1976) asked educable
230
mentally retarded (EMR) children to study a supraspan set of items. The subjects
were self-paced in their learning. When they were ready, they recalled the items.
The children's performance during baseline was poor, and instruction was given.
There were two instructional conditions. In one, the children were taught to use a
rehearsal strategy to learn the list. In the other, they were asked to anticipate list
items before exposing them. In both conditions, subjects were instructed to engage
in self-checking activities to see that learning was occurring. The results indicated
that relative to subjects in a control group, subjects in the rehearsal and anticipation
conditions improved their recall on the prompted posttest. However, on un-
prompted posttests, beneficial effects of such strategy plus self-regulation training
were evident only among the older EMR children (MA = 8 years). The performance
of the younger EMR (MA = 6 years) children reverted to baseline level in the two
unprompted posttests. In short, maintenance of training was shown only by the
older EMR children. Brown et al. (1979) found that 1 year later the older EMR
children maintained the originally learned strategies of anticipation and rehearsal.
More important, they were able to generalize these strategies to a different task,
namely, studying and recalling prose passages. Compared to the control subjects
and to a new group of untrained subjects, the older EMR children studied longer
and recalled more idea units from the passages. Moreover, their recall showed a
clear relationship to the thematic importance of idea units. Such a pattern in recall
is typical of developmentally advanced subjects. Clearly, if one's goal is for the
trainees to generalize the trained strategy, one should incorporate into the instruc-
tional design explicit instruction of executive control functions in addition to
specific strategy instruction.
Thus in blind training the trainer performs the executive functions of monitoring,
regulating, and overseeing strategy use on behalf of the trainees. He or she instructs
the subjects on what to do, how to do it, and for how long. With few exceptions
(cf. Brown et al., 1983), most instructional research, including self-questioning
instructional studies, afforded trainees blind training. In self-control training, the
subjects are taught to self-regulate. Brown et al. (1983) claim that apart from
inculcating in subjects self-regulation, self-control training induces the same aware-
ness as informed training. They reason that if trainees monitor their performance,
they will see their performance improve. Hence the trainees derive their own
information about strategic usefulness. To the extent that this obtains, self-control
training may lead to more general effects than may be expected from providing
information on specific strategies, since a regular tendency to monitor performance
should enable trainees to ascertain and evaluate the effectiveness of learned strate-
gies.
Applying metacognitive theory to self-questioning instructional research entails
two instructional implications: (a) teaching students to be sensitive to important
parts of the text by asking questions such as, What is the main idea in this
paragraph? Can I summarize the important points in this paragraph? (b) teaching
students to monitor their state of reading comprehension by asking questions such
as, Is there anything I don't understand in this paragraph? Such self-questioning is
designed to increase awareness of when students encounter a reading comprehen-
sion difficulty. For poor readers, instruction on such self-monitoring questioning
appears particularly relevant because they tend to be unaware of their lack of
reading comprehension (Whimbey & Whimbey, 1975).
231
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
Schema Theory
A schema theory of reading focuses on how readers' prior knowledge influences
their understanding of text. Printed words evoke in the reader associated concepts
and experiences, their past and potential interrelationships. The textual organization
helps him or her to choose among those conceptual associations (Adams & Collins,
1979).
That readers' prior knowledge governs the interpretations of what they read was
dramatically demonstrated by Bartlett (1932). Current schema theories have im-
proved much on the vagueness of the early notion of schema used by Bartlett. For
example, there are attempts to specify how readers' prior knowledge interacts and
influences the information on the page, how that knowledge must be organized or
instantiated to support the interaction (Adams & Collin, 1979; Anderson, Spiro, &
Anderson, 1977; Anderson, Pichert, Goetz, Schallert, Stevens, & Trollip, 1976),
and the mechanisms by which schemata affect readers' processing of text infor-
mation (Anderson, 1977).
Clearly, lack of appropriate prior knowledge would seriously impair a reader's
comprehension (Collins & Smith, 1980). However, one's reading comprehension
may suffer not from lack of prior knowledge but from lack of activating it (Bransford
et al., 1982). The instructional implication from schema theory for self-questioning
instructional research lies in teaching students to activate relevant prior knowledge
through appropriate self-questions to aid processing of prose.
Summary
Three theoretical perspectives have been described from which self-questioning
instructional research has ensued. Each theoretical perspective targets different foci
for self-questioning instruction. The active processing theoretical perspective fo-
cuses on comparative investigations of the efficacy of student-generated versus
teacher (experimenter)-generated questions on students' prose processing and on
the qualitative and quantitative aspects of self-questioning instruction. The meta-
cognitive theory focuses on self-monitoring instruction, and the schema theory
focuses on activating students' relevant prior knowledge.
Self-Questioning Instructional Studies

The literature has demonstrated consistently the ease in training subjects to
generate self-questions. Using modeling, imitation, and reinforcement, various
researchers have been successful in training self-questioning in children and men-
tally retarded teenagers (cf. Denney, 1972; Denney & Connors, 1974; Denney,
Denney, & Ziobrowski, 1973; Henderson & Garcia, 1973; Laughlin, Moss, &
Miller, 1969; Twardosz & Baer, 1973; Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1972; Rosenthal,
Zimmerman, & Dunning, 1970; Zimmerman & Pike, 1972). Other researchers
successfully induced questioning in children, junior high students, and adults
through manipulating text ambiguity and inconsistency (Nash & Torrance, 1974),
problem finding (Allender, 1969; Ivany, 1969; Shulman, 1965; Suchman, 1966),
and through manipulating the effects of children's questions on their retention
(Ross & Balzer, 1975; Ross & Killey, 1977). However, the interest in this paper is
on discovering whether or not self-questioning instruction enhanced prose process-
232
ing. Toward this end, 27 studies were reviewed. These studies were designed to
enhance students' prose processing through self-questioning instruction.
Of the 27 studies, 10 involved elementary children, 9 involved junior to senior
high school students, 6 involved college students, 1 involved high school and college
students (Frase & Schwartz, 1975), and 1 involved students from elementary school
to college (Manzo, 1969). The self-questioning instruction given in these studies
was either oral or written; on an individual basis or in small groups; and involved
direct instruction, modeling, or reciprocal questioning training. Length of instruc-
tion varied in the studies, as does the number of dependent variables. A summary
of the training studies is presented in the Appendix, which includes relevant
categories such as experimental focus, instructional design (conditions), instruc-
tional duration, dependent variables, and outcome.
Does Self-Questioning Instruction Enhance Students' Processing of

Prose?
When one examines the 27 studies and attempts to answer this question, one
sees the following picture. Fourteen studies (52%) succeeded in increasing students'
prose processing through self-questioning instruction, 9 studies (33%) failed, and 5
studies (19%) had mixed results. This tallying provides global but unenlightening
information. A more profitable analysis of the data in these 27 studies appears to
be to attempt discernment, where possible, of theoretical issues that can be used to
organize the data coherently and methodological issues that can explain instruc-
tional success and failure in those studies. Accordingly, the next section presents a
discussion of various theoretical issues, which are illustrated with appropriate
studies. Specifically, the issue of types and functions of questions is discussed in
the context of the three theoretical perspectives described in the first section.
Subsequently, within the theoretical perspective of active processing, the issue of
differential instructional goals is considered. Then the issue of constraints on
student-questioning is discussed. The succeeding section will discuss methodological
issues.
Types and Functions of Questions

In instructional research on self-questioning, the experimental manipulation of
question types and the functions of the questions correspond to instructional
implications stemming from the three theoretical perspectives described earlier.
Hence, a useful way of discussing data on this topic is to cluster data presentation
around the relevant theoretical perspective.
Active processing. This theoretical perspective predicts that inducing students to
generate higher order questions would substantially increase their reading compre-
hension, because relative to lower order questions, higher order questions produce
more thorough processing of given materials (Rickards & DiVesta, 1974). A related
empirical question is whether or not increasing the number of questions generated
by students would produce more thorough processing of prose. These two aspects,
quantitative and qualitative, of student-generated questions were investigated in a
study by Frase and Schwartz (1975).
Frase and Schwartz (1975) reported two experiments, the second of which focused
on the quantitative and qualitative effects of student-generated questions. Sixty-
233
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
four college freshmen participated in the study. Shortened versions of the passage
(two sections instead of three) and a criterion test in Experiment I (60 items instead
of 90 items, multiple-choice) were used. Four treatment conditions were created.
Two pertained to number of questions generated (5 or 10), and two pertained to
type of questions to be constructed. Concerning type of question construction,
students were given either no instructions or instructions to construct questions
about facts difficult to remember.
The questions constructed by students were compared to posttest items and were
categorized as "targeted" or "nontargeted" according to their match with the
criterion posttest items. Subjects in the 5-question condition targeted 29% of the
posttest questions; those in the 10-question condition targeted 47%. This difference
was highly significant. Subjects given no difficulty instructions in question construc-
tion targeted 36% of the posttest questions, whereas those instructed to generate
difficult questions targeted 41% of the posttest questions. The difference was
significant. Thus, questions constructed by the subjects were clearly influenced by
the given instructions in terms of quantity and quality of question construction.
Posttest scores on test items relevant to student-generated questions were higher
than those incidental to the questions. However, making students construct 5 or
10 questions and giving them no instructions or instructions to construct difficult
questions did not substantially increase their learning.
Frase and Schwartz's (1975) study was the first to examine the effects of
manipulating the quantitative and qualitative aspects of student-generated ques-
tions. However, they did not examine the nature of the questions the students
generated. They reported only that 99% of the questions generated by their subjects
required verbatim answers. One study that did examine the kinds of questions
students generated after training was Sadker and Cooper's (1974) study, which
involved training students to generate higher order questions.
Sadker and Cooper (1974) successfully induced in four students the generation
of five types of higher order questions. These included evaluation, comparison,
problem-solving, cause-and-effect, and divergent questions. The investigators de-
fined lower order questions to be those that required the student to rely on memory
and recall. In afterclass microteaching, four fifth graders, as experimental subjects,
were given a curriculum consisting of two skills: (a) student-initiated, content-
related question asking; and (b) student-initiated, content-related, higher order
question generation. Students first read a description of each skill and its relevance.
Then they watched a videotape of students demonstrating the generation of the
two types of questions. Subsequently, these experimental subjects were taught to
ask those two types of questions in a series of 10-minute lessons. These lessons
were videotaped to provide useful feedback and a basis for discussion of subjects'
performance. The subjects' question generation was considered to reach criterion
after four microteaching sessions. When training was finished, token reinforcement
was used to motivate self-questioning behavior. The study used a particular design
in applied behavioral analysis (baseline, microteaching, reinforcement I, return to
baseline, and reinforcement II).
The trained students' mean higher order questioning rate during baseline, micro-
teaching, and return to baseline was .07. During reinforcement periods, it soared
to a mean of .62 per 5-minute interval. Untrained (control) students' rate of higher
order question generation hovered consistently between 0 to .15 in all phases of
234
the study. Concerning frequency of type of question asked, trainees asked more
cause-and-effect questions (109) and problem-solving questions (49) than evalua-
tion (16), comprehensive (9), and divergent (3) questions.
Sadker and Cooper's (1974) study is important because it focused on quality of
student-generated questions and the nature of the questions generated after training.
Despite its importance, the success of this study should be tempered by several
observations: (a) The researchers did not measure the effects of these student-
generated, higher order questions on students' achievement; (b) success of training,
especially maintenance of training, has yet to be demonstrably independent of
token reinforcement; (c) a potential confounding exists in the additional training
given three subjects at the onset of the second reinforcement period. This procedure
violates the methodology of the applied behavioral analysis design used. Hence,
the results of Sadker and Cooper (1974) should be interpreted cautiously.
A study by N. J. Smith (1977) also reported successful training of students to
formulate higher order (inferential and critical) questions and lower order (literal)
questions. However, training had no effect on students' reading comprehension.
The above studies (Frase & Schwartz, 1975; Sadker & Cooper, 1974; N. J. Smith,
1977) may suggest ease of inducing students to generate higher order questions that
have little facilitation on students' prose processing. Such a conclusion appears to
be premature. A study by Hori (1977) did show facilitation of higher and lower
order question-generation on students' processing of prose.
Hori (1977) used Manzo's (1969) Request Procedure to teach nine learning-
disabled junior high students (from grades 7-9) to generate four levels of questions:
decoding, literal, inferential, and evaluative. Modifying Manzo's procedure, Hori
used reciprocal questioning on successive sentences for the first two paragraphs
instead of using just the first sentence in the first paragraph or two. A multiple
baseline design was used. Training lasted five daily sessions as did reinstitution of
training after a return to baseline. On the criterion reading comprehension test (the
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests), the trained group scored significantly higher
than the untrained group. Similar results were charted in graphs from applied
behavioral analysis.
Metacognitive theory. This theory predicts that instructing students to be sensitive
to important parts of the text, and to monitor their understanding of these important
parts, would increase students' prose processing. Such a prediction is supported by
Andre and Anderson (1978-79). These investigators addressed two questions: (a)
Whether or not students could be trained to identify parts of the text that contain
important points (main ideas) and construct questions about them, and (b) whether
or not such self-questioning would enhance students' learning the given material.
Twenty-nine seniors at a rural high school participated in the study. The trained
group received self-questioning training in which they were taught to construct
questions in the following manner. First, they were instructed to locate the main
idea in each paragraph of a three-paragraph passage. Second, they had to generate
questions around the identified main ideas, but their questions had to ask for new
examples of ideas and/or concepts (i.e., generate higher order questions). If con-
structing a new example was too hard or inappropriate, students were to construct
a paraphrased question about a concept in the text. The directions and materials
of the self-questioning training program were contained in a booklet. Each trainee
received a training booklet that included (a) short introduction to the questioning
235
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
technique and a description of the steps to be followed in studying a text; (b) a

model paragraph demonstrating the appropriate use of the self-questioning tech-
nique; (c) several single paragraphs and one two-paragraph passage designed to give
the students practice in generating questions about material read; (d) model
examples of questions that could have been constructed for those paragraphs; and
(e) a 450-word passage with directions for students to apply the self-questioning
technique. Space was provided on the right-hand margin of the passage for students
to record their questions. To provide students feedback on their questioning of the
450-word passage, examples of good questions were given on the following page.
The experimenter dealt with trainees' problems in question-generation individually.
Andre and Anderson's (1978-79) first experiment was run on 2 consecutive days
with a 50-minute session per day. The first session was spent on giving a verbal
ability test (Wide Range Vocabulary Test) and on self-questioning training. The
untrained read and reread control group received the same passages as the trained
group. The second session required all subjects to read two passages and take a 20-
item criterion test. Half of the items involved main ideas, and the other half
involved details in the passage. The results indicated no main effects of treatment
but a significant Treatment × Verbal Ability interaction. Trained students with
low verbal ability scored higher on the criterion test (mean = 13.66) than untrained
students with low verbal ability (mean = 8.26). However, trained and untrained
students with high verbal ability obtained about the same score (mean = 18.67 for
trained group; mean = 20.88 for read-reread control group). It appears that students
with low verbal ability profited more from the self-questioning training in their
prose processing than students with high verbal ability.
Concerning the quality of student-generated questions, Andre and Anderson
(1978-79) found that during training, 75% of the student-generated questions were
considered "good." In the test passages, 74% of their questions were good. (A good
question was one that focused on the identified main idea and asked for new
examples or was a paraphrased question/statement. Thus, in testing the trainees
maintained the high quality of questions that they generated during training.
Moreover, the probability of students' answering a posttest item correctly, given
that they had generated a good question, was .78. The probability of their answering
a posttest item correctly when an inadequate question had been generated was .39.
In Experiment II, Andre and Anderson used three groups with high, middle, and
low verbal ability. An additional group of questioning without training was included
in the experimental design. Subjects in this condition were told to generate four
questions on each passage, questions that they would expect a teacher to ask.
Eighty-one students in grades 11 and 12 participated. The experimental proce-
dures for the trained questioning and reread control groups were the same as those
used in Experiment I. However, three passages were used instead of a randomized
combination of two out of three passages as in Experiment I. A 24-item criterion
test was used.
The results indicated that while the two questioning groups (trained questioning
vs. untrained questioning) did not differ significantly on the criterion test, the
trained questioning group scored significantly higher than the read-reread control
group. However, the difference in mean scores between the untrained questioning
group and the read-reread control group approached significance (p < .06). The
failure to replicate the Treatment × Verbal Ability interaction in Experiment I was
236
attributed to the wide variability in the middle verbal ability group (exceptionally
high and low scores resulting in consistently larger standard deviations). Subsequent
reanalysis of data eliminating this middle group resulted in a significant Treatment
× Verbal Ability interaction. Further analyses indicated that the trained questioning
group generated more good questions than the untrained questioning group.
The findings in the two experiments reported by Andre and Anderson (1978-
79) indicated the usefulness of self-questioning instruction in improving students'
subsequent performance on a comprehension test. The investigators attributed the
effectiveness of their self-questioning study technique to its metacognitive and
cognitive characteristics. Specifically, the self-questioning strategy made the stu-
dents monitor actively their own learning and led them to deploy strategy to attain
effective reading and studying (Anderson, 1980; Andre & Anderson, 1978-79;
Brown, 1980). Similar self-monitoring training successfully increased reading com-
prehension in learning-disabled adolescents (Palincsar, 1982; Wong & Jones, 1982).
Schema Theory. From this theoretical perspective, the experimental focus is on
instructing students to generate questions that would activate relevant prior knowl-
edge to aid and/or enrich students' prose processing. Singer and Donlan's (1982)
study illustrates this focus.
Essentially, these investigators taught students the recurring elements in simple
stories (e.g., main character, plan/plot, action/event, etc., in story grammar). They
furnished students with a list of general questions about each element in the story.
Then they taught students to generate more specific questions about the story
content from the list of general questions. Singer and Donlan's point is that when
students encounter a complex story, they need to generate specific questions about
it in order to activate their knowledge of elements in story grammar that they have
derived from simple stories. Otherwise, they would be unable to use this knowledge
when reading a complex story (i.e., they would not instantiate particular slots in
their knowledge structures of story grammar). Singer and Donlan were interested
in inducing the generation of story-specific questions and whether or not direct
instruction in generating specific questions about story content would increase
students' comprehension of complex stories.
Two groups of 11th graders participated in the study. The experimental group
was taught recurring elements in a story and was taught to generate story-specific
questions using a set of story-general (general information) questions. After an
introductory session, the experimental group was taught one story element (e.g.,
character in the story grammar) per day across 5 days and to generate story-specific
questions on it using the given set of story-general questions. The control group
received teacher-generated, story-specific questions and had to write essays (50-75
words) in response to questions about each story. The stories were selected from
high school curriculum. Daily quizzes of 10 multiple-choice items were given.
The results of quizzes over six stories indicated a significant difference between
the two groups in favor of the experimental group. Regarding self-generated, story-
specific questions, the trained subjects asked the most questions for the story
element taught in a specific session. For example, in the session in which the story
element "obstacle" was taught, 37% of the students' self-generated questions were
about obstacles. Clearly the trained subjects generated questions related to instruc-
tion.
These results indicate that students can be taught to generate specific questions
237
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
about story content. More important, Singer and Donlan show that their instruction
on generating story-specifìc questions helped students to activate their knowledge
structures of stories and to apply them to their reading of a complex story with
good results. Without learning to generate story-specifìc questions, the students
would not have been able to extend their knowledge structures of simple stories to
the given complex stories. This was the case with the students in the control group.
Different Goals in Self Questioning Instruction

Within the active processing theoretical framework of research, the goals in self-
questioning instructional studies vary from problem solving to processing of prose.
The following studies illustrate such differentiation in instructional goals.
Blank and Covington's (1965) study was the only self-questioning instructional
study that was designed to increase students' problem-solving skills. These investi-
gators developed and tested an instructional method for inducing questioning in
problem-solving. Examples of problems in the training package included how to
get an overloaded truck through a tunnel; how to travel fastest from one point to
another; how to choose the best of different campsites according to certain criteria;
and how to make the best use of certain natural materials for crossing rivers. Fifty-
four sixth graders were divided into three groups of 18. Group 1 was trained through
a tightly structured program to ask for additional, clarifying questions in order to
solve a given problem. Group 2 was exposed to the same materials as Group 1 but
was not trained to generate questions. Group 3 was not exposed to the materials
given to the other groups. After subjects had generated their own questions, the
investigators showed examples of appropriate clarification questions for each prob-
lem. After a problem had been solved, the investigators discussed with the trained
subjects the usefulness of the training procedure. In addition to a variety of training
problems, a transfer measure was included.
Four criterion measures were used: an oral criterion test, a written criterion test,
a science achievement test, and a teacher rating of students' participation in class
discussion. The oral criterion test had three problems, each containing insufficient
information for their solution. The child had to generate questions for additional
information in order to solve the problems. Pre- and posttests of criterion measures
consisted of two equivalent forms. The written criterion test, administered as a
posttest, contained problems similar to those in the oral criterion test, but the
children had to write down their questions. No feedback was provided on these
questions. The science achievement test of 25 problems was designed by the
classroom teacher and the investigators. The items did not bear directly on the
science concepts and materials taught and used in class. This test was thus
considered a transfer task. The teacher rated each child's amount of participation
in regular class discussion of the general science course material on a 5-point scale.
The results indicated that Group 1, the trained group, surpassed the two control
groups on all criterion measures.
The only weakness in Blank and Covington's (1965) study concerns the transfer
task (the science achievement test). Because they did not ask the trained subjects
to write down whatever clarification questions that arose in the course of their
problem solving, and related number of questions generated to number of problems
solved, and they did not calculate the probability of correct problem-solving given
appropriate questions, we do not know whether or not training had any relationship
238
to the trained subjects' performances in the transfer task. Thus their claim of
transfer of training does not appear warranted.
The goal of increasing prose processing by inducing self-questioning generation
is shared by the rest of the studies using the active processing theoretical framework
(Bird, 1980; Blaha, 1979; Chodos, Hould, & Rusch, 1977; Collins, Gentner, &
Rubin, 1980; Duell, 1977; Frase & Schwartz, 1975; Hori, 1977; Manzo, 1969;
Morse, 1975; Owens, 1976; Pederson, 1976; Prosser, 1974, 1978; Schmelzer, 1975;
A. E. Smith, 1972; N. J. Smith, 1977; Weiner, 1977). Duell's (1977) study is chosen
to illustrate self-questioning instruction with the goal of enhancing students' proc-
essing of prose.
Duell (1977) investigated the effectiveness of student-generated test items while
reading four 552-word passages on certain concepts in operant research (e.g.,
shaping, negative reinforcement). The study comprised three groups. Group 1 was
given the passage and a list of objectives and was instructed to write items to match
the objectives. The students could either write a recognition test item or an
application question for concepts in the passages. The subjects were also clearly
instructed on how to write the test items with a 2-page set of directions. Group 2
was given the passages and objectives but was not instructed on how to write
multiple-choice test items to match the objectives. Group 3 was given the criterion
test without seeing the passages. All subjects were allowed unlimited study time.
The 31-item, multiple-choice posttest comprised two types of questions: (a) lower
level (recognition) items, which required subjects to recognize an instance of a
psychological process copied from the text, and (b) higher level (application) items,
in which new instances of a process were presented and the subjects had to identify
the name of the process in the instance. The difference between recognition and
application posttest items was in whether or not the item had occurred in the study
passage.
The results showed significant performance superiority of the item-generating
group. Generating questions for both high and low level objectives resulted in more
learning than studying with objectives. Item-generating subjects scored substantially
higher than those who were given only the list of objectives to study with (the
respective means were 25.35 and 22.88).
Constraints in Self-Questioning
Constraints in self-questioning is an issue that has received scant attention from
researchers. Yet it is an important issue that has an important impact on self-
questioning instruction. In this section, the constraints of prior knowledge and
metacognitive deficiency on self-questioning are discussed.
Content knowledge as a constraint on student questioning. Prior knowledge
enables an individual to formulate a question on a particular topic and to interpret
the answer. Conversely, the lack of relevant prior or content knowledge hampers
an individual's generation of questions. The issue of content knowledge as a
constraint on student questioning is a specific issue within the broader context of
schema theory.
Content knowledge as a determinant of students' questioning was demonstrated
in a study by Miyake and Norman (1979). These investigators used two groups of
college students: One group was ignorant of computers and text editors, and the
other group was trained to use three commands of a text editor. The criterion in
239
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
training was the students' editing of one text unaided. Subsequently, both groups
were instructed to learn to operate a different text editor by following either an
easy, nontechnical manual or a hard, technical manual. The students were further
instructed to think out loud their thoughts and questions as they tackled the new
text editor. Miyake and Norman (1979) found an interesting interaction in their
study: Novice students in computer science asked more questions on the easy
manual but very few on the hard manual. The reverse pattern of questioning was
obtained for the trained students. Miyake and Norman interpreted the findings to
suggest that, to ask a question, you must have an optimal amount of prior
knowledge for the particular subject matter at hand.
Meiacogniiìve deficiency. Various kinds of self-questions aid one's reading com-
prehension, for example, self-questions that clarify textual ambiguities (Palincsar,
1982) and self-monitoring questions that enable detection of comprehension fail-
ures (Baker, 1979). To generate these useful self-questions that promote thorough
comprehension of what is read, one must possess (a) an awareness of the functional
importance of clarifying and comprehension-monitoring questions and other useful
self-questions (e.g., critical evaluative ones), and (b) an awareness of task demands
(i.e., the purpose in one's reading).
Concerning (a), given arbitrary information, such as "The bald man went into a
shop," "The hungry man got into a car" (Bransford et al., 1982), poor readers did
not ask clarifying questions, such as why would the bald man want to read a
newspaper, for what purpose would the hungry man get into the car? Generating
clarifying questions would have activated their prior knowledge about bald and
hungry men that would enable them to transform the arbitrary sentences into more
meaningful sentences. Relevant prior knowledge would have helped them realize
that most likely the bald man went into a shop to buy a wig, and the hungry man
got into the car to drive to a restaurant. Such meaningful transformations of
arbitrary materials would have increased the poor readers' comprehension and
recall of the materials.
Poor readers do not generate clarifying questions because they do not realize the
importance of generating them. Bransford et al. (1982) found that they had to
make the poor readers first realize the importance of self-questioning before they
could successfully train them to generate requisite self-questions that enabled
comprehension and retention of seemingly arbitrary information (e.g., The hungry
man got into the car).
Self-monitoring one's reading comprehension appears to be an automatic process
engaged in by good or mature readers. When reading comprehension is proceeding
smoothly, one is rarely conscious of any form of self-monitoring. However, when
one encounters a comprehension difficulty that halts one's reading, one realizes
that one must have engaged in some form of self-monitoring (Anderson, 1980;
Baker, 1979). There is evidence that poor readers do not self-monitor their state of
reading comprehension (Whimbey & Whimbey, 1975). This insufficiency in part
reflects a lack of sensitivity to important textual elements and in part an unaware-
ness of the importance to self-check one's reading comprehension.
Concerning (b), to generate self-questions in one's reading, one needs to know
for what purpose one is reading. This purpose in reading constitutes the criterion
against which to evaluate one's reading. But setting a purpose in reading entails the
reader's being aware of task demands. Again, poor readers with their passive
240
learning style (Torgesen, 1977) tend to be unaware of task demands and tend to
show deficient self-questioning skills (Brown, 1980). Thus metacognitive deficiency
appears to be an important constraint in students' self-questioning generation.
Summary
This section dealt with three theoretical issues: types and functions of questions
in self-questioning research emanating from the three theoretical perspectives;
different goals in self-questioning instructional research emanating from the active
processing theoretical perspective; and content knowledge and metacognitive defi-
ciency as constraints on student questioning.
The issue of constraints on students' self-questioning is an interesting theoretical
issue that has hitherto received relatively little attention from researchers. That
content knowledge and metacognitive deficiency should figure as important con-
straints on student questioning comes as no surprise (cf. Peterson & Swing, 1983).
Yet these constraints point out areas that educators and researchers should attend
to in their efforts to foster self-questioning behavior in students. Moreover, research-
ers and educators should explore other potential constraints on student questioning.
For example, what are the constraints on children's generating higher order ques-
tions? More specifically, what prerequisite comprehension skills must fifth graders
have before receiving instruction to generate critical evaluative questions on ma-
terials read?
With the exception of a study by Blank and Covington (1965), the instructional
goal in self-questioning studies is enhanced processing of prose in trainees. The
goal in Blank and Covington (1965) is enhanced problem solving. Since problem
solving is an important cognitive activity, more research appears in order to see
how self-questioning instruction could increase it in tasks different from those used
in Blank and Covington.
The types of questions on which students were instructed to generate follow
directly from the instructional implications of the particular theoretical perspective
used by the researchers. The functions of the questions also fulfilled the instructional
implications. Thus, researchers using the active processing framework concentrated
on qualitative and quantitative aspects of self-questioning and their effects on
trainees' prose processing. Other researchers using the metacognitive framework
concentrated on instruction of self-monitoring questions. Those using the schema
theoretical framework concentrated on instruction of self-questions that activated
relevant prior knowledge. Clearly, these theoretical perspectives lead to instruction
of different kinds of self-questions. The effects on students' prose processing,
however, were successful. Where instructional outcome was unfavorable, methodo-
logical problems can readily be identified to explain the negative outcome. We now
turn to a discussion of these methodological problems.
Methodological Issues
In this section, several methodological issues are discussed: level of criterion in
training, time factor in processing a test passage and in constructing questions,
direct instruction or explicit written instructions on generating questions, criterion
measures, maintenance and transfer tests. The first three serve as pivotal points in
discussing some of the sources contributing to instructional success and failure in
241
BERNKΈ Y. L. WONG
self-questioning instructional studies. The remaining two are more general but
pertinent methodological issues regarding the design of self-questioning instruc
tional studies.
Level of Criterion in Training
A common observation of unsuccessful self-questioning instructional studies is
the dubious attainment of criterion level in training in the trainees prior to their
being tested (cf. Collins, Gentner & Rubin, 1980; Dreher & Gambrell, 1982;
Owens, 1976; Pederson, 1976). To illustrate this point, Collins et al.'s study is used.
Collins et al. (1980) investigated the teaching of four specific study strategies in
high school students. These students were from a special high school that enrolled
underachieving students who had failed in normal schools. They were, however,
not retarded or emotionally disturbed. In individual tutorials, eight students were
taught specific study strategies through modelling and reciprocal questioning. The
study strategies were time allocation (optimal apportionment of study time to each
part of the text), spaced learning, structuring principle (using charts and graphs to
depict structure in the text), and causal elaboration (cf. Bransford, 1979). Four
passages were used, two of which involved conceptually deep materials (e.g., heat
and its behaviour).
No reliable differences were obtained on the criterion comprehension tests
between trained and untrained groups. However, there was a trend favoring the
experimental group. Collins et al. suggested that high variability among the exper
imental subjects, together with small sample size, were responsible for the results.
An equally potent factor for the results appears to be insufficient training. It is
recalled that each trained subject had only two tutorials. Because of their academic
underachievement and the complexity in acquisition and application of the strat
egies, possibly the trained subjects might not have attained mastery of the strategies
prior to testing.
Time Factor
How well students could generate adequate questions given restrictive time, and
how adequately they processed long and/or difficult text in limited time, are
questions that must be considered in analyzing the instructional failures in Pederson
(1976) and Owens (1976). An earlier study by Schmelzer (1975) showed clearly
that student-generated questions after passage reading facilitated prose learning.
Also, more specific effects on inferential test items were achieved through student-
generated questions before and after passage reading. Despite using Schmelzer's
experimental passage and test items, Pederson (1976) failed to replicate Schmelzer's
findings with 81 college students. However, because Pederson allowed only 15
minutes for subjects to process the 1,488-word passage on logic and 10 minutes for
students to generate questions, it is possible that students did not process the
materials adequately and/or had difficulty constructing questions in the short
period. These factors could have mitigated treatment effects.
Similar methodological problems were present in the study by Owens (1976),
which compared the effects of question generation, question answering, and reread
ing on prose learning. Eighty-seven college students were assigned to three treat
ments: (a) Students generated easy multiple-choice questions; (b) students re-
242
sponded to multiple-choice questions; and (c) students reread the passage until they
understood the main points.
Owens found that having students generate their own questions increased their
task engagement time. However, there were no differences among the three treat-
ments in the immediate and delayed posttests. It is recalled that Owens allowed
subjects 6 minutes to process a 1,200 word passage and 20 minutes to respond to
their treatment instructions. Because constructing multiple-choice questions re-
quires skill, it appears doubtful that this exercise benefìtted the subjects in the way
Owens intended. Moreover, one wonders how much information the subjects got
from rushing through the long passage in 6 minutes.
In contrast, in an instructionally successful study, Duell (1977) allowed the
subjects unlimited time in their reading, studying, and question generation. Clearly,
in Owens (1976) and Pederson (1976), the cognitive demands of understanding a
lengthy passage and generating self-questions taxed the college students' processing
capacities. By imposing a time limit on students, Owens and Pederson inadvertently
increased the difficulty of the task demands; the students had not only to process
the tasks, but had to do it fast and efficiently. They literally ran out of processing
time. Thus, sufficiency in processing time allowed subjects in reading a test passage
and in constructing questions is an important methodological variable in self-
questioning instructional research, and it appears to play a critical role in the
instructional outcome.
Direct Instruction/Explicit Written Instruction

Successful self-questioning instructional studies all appear to involve either direct
instruction on question generating or explicit, systematically written instruction on
how to construct questions. Some prime examples of self-questioning studies
involving direct instruction are Adams, Carnine, and Gersten (1982), Bird (1980),
Singer and Donlan (1982), Blank and Covington (1965), Palincsar (1982), and
Wong and Jones (1982). Representative examples of studies that provide explicit
written instructions and/or model examples are Andre and Anderson (1978-79)
and Duell (1977).
The crucial presence of explicit instructions to students on how to construct
questions or test items is highlighted by contrasting the failure of Owens' (1976)
instructional study and the success of DuelΓs (1977) study. Owens (1976) asked
subjects to generate multiple-choice questions without providing any kind of
instruction on item construction, whereas Duell (1977) provided students with a
two-paged, 539-word set of instructions on how to construct questions or test items.
It seems Owens (1976) had underestimated the difficulty of question construction
of multiple-choice items. Such oversight contributed to the unsuccessful instruc
tional outcome.
Criterion Measures
The literature review on self-questioning instructional research indicates quite a
few of the studies used a single index of the effectiveness of self-questioning
instruction. A prime example concerns the use of a single multiple-choice criterion
test in all the studies involving college students, excepting the study by Blaha
(1979). At issue is not quantity of criterion measures per se. Rather, the issue
243
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
concerns the limitations in using a single index for the effects of self-questioning
instruction, since a single criterion measure may not encompass therichnessand
subtleties of possible self-questioning intervention effects. More specifically, the use
of a single criterion measure may not demonstrate the relationship between self-
questioning instruction and the outcome in the trainees. An illustration from Singer
and Donlan's (1982) recent study will substantiate this point. Singer and Donlan
analyzed the type and number of questions trained students generated each day
across 5 days. They found that trainees generated the most questions on the
particular type of story element they were taught. For example, on the day subjects
were taught the story element "obstacle," and were shown the given set of story-
general questions from which to generate story-specific questions on that story
element, the highest percentage of questions generated for that day's training session
occurred on "obstacle" elements in the story. Singer and Donlan's analysis thus
indicates explicitly the effects of self-questioning instruction on students' question
generation. It is precisely information on this kind of explicit relationship between
intervention and trainees' question generation that escapes detection in studies
employing only one criterion measure.
For example, Knapczyk and Livingston (1974) showed self-questioning instruc-
tion increased the subjects' number of questions asked, the percentage of their on-
task behaviour, and the accuracy of their reading comprehension. It would have
been instructive if the investigators had continued to analyze the interdependencies
among the three dependent variables. Such analyses would have enlightened us on
the "synergistic nature of learning" (Tierney & Cunningham, 1980, p. 66). A case
in point concerns Prosser (1978), who ran correlations on the number of questions
students generated and their learning scores. He found significance only among
students with low reading ability.
Another advantage of using multiple criterion measures concerns "convergent
validity" of the instructional effect when positive data are obtained on all of them
(Brown, 1980). The robustness of the instructional effect is demonstrably unequiv-
ocal. A case in point is Blank and Covington's (1965) study, which used four
dependent measures, on all of which the group trained in generating clarifying
questions surpassed the control (untrained) groups.
Maintenance and Transfer Tests
In self-questioning instructional research, demonstration of superior performance
of the trained group at posttest or substantial gain scores of the trained group from
pretest to posttest serve(s) as indices of the effectiveness of training. However, the
same demonstrations do not inform us of the durability or strength of training. An
inclusion of an additional delayed posttest gives some indication of the durability
of training. But a clearer, more reliable indication of the durability of training
appears to involve the use of a repeated measures design, which basically consists
of a series of maintenance tests with new materials, that is, materials different from
training and from the immediate posttest. As Campione and Brown (1977) rea-
soned, maintenance tests are a more stringent measure of training effectiveness. Of
course, transfer tests remain the most stringent of all (Campione & Brown, 1977).
But if we were committed to research and demonstrate the usefulness of self-
questioning instruction in students' processing of prose, then we should assume the
challenge of devising training methods that will induce maintenance and transfer
244
of positive training effects. After all, if the benefits of self-questioning instruction

cannot be maintained across time or transferred to similar prose despite adequate
methodology, we should seriously consider abandoning this instructional strategy
in research and in practice.
Summary
The three instructional variables—level of criterion training, explicit instructions
about question-generation, and processing time—are critical in enhancing students'
prose processing through self-questioning instruction. Their influence on instruc-
tional outcome is consistent across studies regardless of the particular theoretical
perspective involved (the theoretical perspective of active processing, metacognitive
theory, and schema theory). Studies in which students received clear instructions
on question construction (e.g., Andre & Anderson, 1978-79; Blank & Covington,
1965; Duell, 1977) and were trained to criterion (e.g., Palincsar, 1982; Wong &
Jones, 1982) achieved successful instructional outcomes. In contrast, studies in
which little attention was paid to providing explicit instruction on students' question
generation or sufficiency in training failed to achieve the intended enhancement of
prose processing in trainees (e.g., Dreher & Gambrell, 1982; Pederson, 1976; Owens,
1976). In addition, students' active processing of prose and generation of questions
require time. Failure to provide them with sufficient time for those cognitive
activities negates the experimenter's intended benefit of self-questioning instruction.
Both Owens (1976) and Pederson (1976) taxed the processing capacities of their
subjects by requiring them to process lengthy passages (1,200 words and 1,488
words, respectively) in a very short time (6 minutes and 15 minutes, respectively)
and to generate questions in a short time (20 minutes and 10 minutes, respectively).
The cognitive demands of these tasks are such that students literally ran out of
processing time. Consequently, they failed to profit from the self-questioning
exercise. Providing students with sufficient processing time in reading the passage
and/or question generation warrants closer attention by educators and researchers
who emphasize the importance of students' active processing of given materials.
The issues of maintenance and transfer also pertain to instructional research
ensuing from the three theoretical perspectives. Only studies by Blank and Coving-
ton (1965) and Palincsar (1982) contained measures of maintenance and transfer
of training. Palincsar's claims of transfer were valid, while those of Blank and
Covington were not. Using the metacognitive theoretical framework, Palincsar
(1982) taught seven learning-disabled seventh grade students four specific strategies
to enhance their reading comprehension. These students had adequate decoding
skills but deficient reading comprehension skills. The strategies included (a) detect-
ing textual anomalies, (b) summarizing, (c) predicting what authors might discuss
next in the passages, and (d) constructing questions teachers might ask in testing
students' knowledge of the text. In 18 daily sessions, Palincsar used modeling and
corrective feedback to teach the learning-disabled students these four strategies.
A multiple baseline design was used. Regarding reading comprehension, the
criterion measure was a 10-item comprehension test given each day during the
intervention, maintenance, and follow up that occurred after an 8-week delay. The
test contained four text-explicit, four text-implicit, and two script-implicit questions.
In addition, generalization probes were given in class by the regular classroom
245
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
teachers using social studies and science curricula. The results clearly indicated that
the students' reading comprehension scores improved substantially during inter-
vention and were well maintained during maintenance test and follow-up. Moderate
gains were observed in transfer as measured by the classroom probes.
Near transfer was observed in students' ability to implement summarization
rules, question prediction, and detection of textual anomalies. The far transfer
measure of rating thematic importance indicated little improvement. It seems that
Palincsar had chosen a very difficult task to measure far transfer. Thus the lack of
generalization here does not necessarily detract from the strength of her training
procedure. Palincsar (1982) successfully replicated her first study in a second
experiment in which 21 poor comprehenders from grades 6-8 were taught the
same four strategies in small groups of 4 to 8 students.
It is the additional support of positive data from maintenance and transfer tests
that future studies in self-questioning instruction should strive for. Moreover, future
studies should incorporate multiple dependent variables to tap the range and
richness of responses to self-questioning instruction among students. Mapping the
interdependencies in students' responses on several dependent measures would
enlighten us on the full impact of self-questioning instruction on their prose
processing and learning (cf. Singer & Donlan, 1982).
Future Directions
This section focuses on questions and areas in self-questioning and self-question-
ing instruction that may profit from more research.
A Conceptual Problem
There is a need to conceptualize the processes that explain the effectiveness of
self-questioning instruction. This need applies to the active processing theoretical
view, not to the schema theory or the metacognitive theory, both of which do
specify the processes that mediate effective self-questioning instruction (cf. Andre
& Anderson, 1978-79; Singer & Donlan, 1982). The conceptual problem concerns
the question of what psychological processes that mediate the enhanced compre-
hension and retention of given materials are mobilized by the student's self-
questions. Obviously, the nature of the mobilized psychological process depends
on the nature of self-question. For example, in biology, if a student is trained to
ask, What is the functional significance of arteries having properties of thickness,
being muscular, and elastic? (cf. Bransford, Stein, Shelton, & Owings, 1981), then
very likely an organizational process is mobilized. The student's self-questions help
organize information (in this case, content knowledge of biology) into a coherent,
meaningful whole rather than a list of disparate facts. Other kinds of questions may
mobilize attentional processes, constructional processes, or integrational processes.
Researchers should analyze the different kinds of psychological processes elicited
and mobilized by specific kinds of self-questions (cf. Cook & Mayer, 1983).
Focusing on psychological processes would lead to a clear explanation of what
mediates the effective self-questioning instruction. Unless the above conceptual
problem is addressed, advocacy of self-questioning instruction from the active
processing theoretical view leaves us in an embarrassing lacuna: We cannot specify
what psychological processes resulting in the student's increased reading compre-
hension are set in motion by self-questioning and self-questioning instruction.
246
Consequently, we would be reduced to a mere functional analysis of the effects of

self-questioning instruction. The unsatisfactory nature of functional analyses is self-
explanatory.
Evolution of Acquired Questioning Strategies
One question that appears ripe for research is the evolution of acquired simple
self-questioning activities into sophisticated strategies spontaneously deployed in
reading, problem formulation, and solution. A glimpse of the complex answer to
the preceding question is afforded in a study by Adams et al. (1982). Using a
modified version of Robinson's (1941) SQ3R method, Adams et al. successfully
trained fifth graders to study efficiently. The pertinent aspect of their results
concerns their report of students using their own modified version of the study
strategy during the delayed posttest. Adams et al. found that the trained group had
longer study times than the other two untrained control groups at immediate and
delayed posttests. Interestingly, the study time in the trained group decreased
noticeably from immediate (19.33 minutes) to delayed posttest (11.67 minutes).
The decrease in study times among these students was attributed to their modifi-
cation of the acquired study strategy. Adams et al. observed that during delayed
posttest, 80% of trained students did not appear to use all the component rules of
the trained study strategy. However, this was not due to forgetting the rules. When
trained students were asked to recall the six study rules at the end of the posttest,
two-thirds of them recalled the rules. The students' modified use of the trained
strategy consisted of some form of rehearsal strategy (e.g., lookback or reviewing
notes). (Incidentally, decreased study time did not affect adversely trained students'
performance on the delayed comprehension test.)
The observations by Adams et al. are significant, because this is the first report
of how an inculcated strategy undergoes changes in the trainees. The observations
also have important implications for ascertaining maintenance of newly learned
self-questioning strategies. Specifically, observations of trainees' modifications of
learned strategies should accompany the maintenance test, since if trainees modified
many of their newly learned self-questioning strategies, their performance on the
maintenance test would be confounded. Where the experimenter concludes trainees
showed little maintenance of learned strategies, he or she may in fact commit a
Type II error.
Returning to the point under discussion, research appears very much called for
on the question of how the acquisition of relatively simple self-questioning activities
evolves into sophisticated strategies of problem identification, crystallization, for-
mulation, and articulation (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Whimbey & Lock-
head, 1979), and sophisticated strategies in self-monitoring, regulation, and evalu-
ation in problem-solving tasks, reading comprehension, and verbal analogies
(Whimbey & Lockhead, 1979).
Interactive Aspects of Self-Questioning Instruction
Researchers in self-questioning instructional research have not considered suffi-
ciently developmental aspects and constraints in self-questioning (Meyer & Shane,
1973; Miyake & Norman, 1979). For example, there is no research on what kinds
of self-questioning instruction may be most effective for different age groups or
reader type (e.g., good vs. poor readers). I submit that to research this question and
247
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
the question of constraints of self-questioning, one needs to think in terms of an

interactional framework analogous to the one conceptualized by Jenkins (1979) for
memory research. Specifically, one needs to think of the cognitive capacities and
repertoires of the student, the goal of instruction (e.g., generation of self-questions
per se, problem solving, enhanced prose processing), content of the materials, and
type and amount of self-questions taught (e.g., higher order questions, one kind or
a number of functionally different self-questions—cf. Bird, 1980; Palincsar, 1982).
Thus far, content of materials appears somewhat neglected. Yet this variable
deserves more careful attention in self-questioning instructional research. We need
to research the interaction between various knowledge domains and domain-
specific strategies (cf. Cook & Mayer, 1983). To illustrate, study of dense biology
text in junior high may be facilitated by teaching students to ask one particular
type of question, questions of functional significance (e.g., the significance of
arteries being thick, muscular, and elastic for their function in carrying blood
pumped from the heart at high pressure—cf. Bransford et al., 1981).
Thus it appears profitable to design studies in self-questioning instructional
research using an interactional framework analogous to that for memory research
conceptualized by Jenkins (1979). Investigating any two-way or three-way interac-
tions of the variables mentioned should yield interesting and specific information
on the effectiveness of self-questioning instruction. For example, there is some
evidence (Andre & Anderson, 1978-79; Prosser, 1978; Wong & Jones, 1982) that
students with low verbal ability or reading skills profited more from self-questioning
instruction than those with higher verbal ability or reading skills. Conceivably,
good readers failed to profit from the self-monitoring instruction given in studies
by Andre and Anderson and Wong and Jones because for them it is redundant.
Good readers already spontaneously monitor their own state of reading compre-
hension (Baker & Brown, in press; Brown, 1980). However, they may profit from
other kinds of self-questioning instruction (e.g., critical evaluation). To test this
notion, we can design a study to investigate a two-way interaction between students
with different educational status and type of self-questioning instruction. Additional
manipulation of content materials would enable us to investigate a three-way
interaction.
Self-Questioning and Theory Building in Reading Comprehension
That self-questioning contributes in a potentially important way to theory
building in reading comprehension can be seen in the work of Olson, Duffy, Eaton,
and Vincent (1982). Olson et al. (1982) were interested in developing a process
model that would account for all the phenomena typically found in skilled reading.
They suggested that one way of conceptualizing reading processes is to consider
each sentence in the story or text to pose certain questions in the reader's mind
and simultaneously to answer questions posed by previous sentences. The important
point is Olson et al.'s suggestion that each question may reflect a mental operation
that the reader must carry out for the particular sentence as part of understanding
it.
To examine their assumption that questioning and answering is an integral part
of the process of reading comprehension, Olson et al. had one group of subjects
read each sentence of a story typed on a card successively, thinking aloud whatever
questions the sentence sparked. Subjects were given unlimited time per sentence.
248
Their questions were tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed. The number of

questions asked per sentence was counted and pooled over subjects. This procedure
was repeated on four simple stories; the longest contained 41 sentences. A second
group of subjects read the sentence on a computer terminal. One sentence of the
story would appear when the subject pressed the key. The sentence remained in
view until the subject pressed the key for the next one. The subjects were told to
proceed with the task as normally as possible. Also, they were to write a five- or
six-sentence summary of the story at the end. The subjects read all four stories in
this way. Reading time per sentence per subject was recorded, and the mean reading
rate for each sentence over all subjects was calculated. The subjects in the second
group were also asked to recall the stories. A brief descriptive title for each story
was given to them, and they had unlimited time for the verbatim recall. A third
group of subjects read each story and deleted 50% of words, phrases, or sentences
they considered trivial. The relative importance of each sentence in a story was
measured by the proportion of undeleted words over subjects.
The main issue addressed by Olson et al. was whether the question-making task
was related to reading times. Thus they examined the relationship between the
total number of questions asked per sentence in a story and the average reading
time per sentence for those subjects reading silently. They predicted that sentences
that elicited many questions would be particularly salient to real-time processing.
Hence these sentences would be read more slowly by subjects who were reading
silently. This prediction was confirmed. Additional analyses by multiple regressions
were run, in which the average reading time per sentence was the dependent
measure and different predictor variables were used. These predictors included
sentence length, total number of questions, serial position, and importance. Prelim-
inary analyses of the results indicated that sentence length and number of questions
asked were significant predictors of reading time. However, number of questions
asked had little relationship to recall. Rated importance and serial position were
significant predictors of recall. Olson et al. (1982) concluded that their question-
asking task appeared to be more closely related to activities that took place during
reading comprehension than to the form of the final memory representation
constructed as a result of comprehension.
The importance of Olson et al.'s study is that they showed that their question-
asking task "taps the kind of informational needs a reader encounters while
proceeding through a text" (Olson et al., 1982, p. 8, emphasis added). Moreover,
As each sentence is understood and added to a growing representation of the

story, the reader revises and elaborates the set of information still needed to
have the developing story make sense. These informational needs interact
with what is presented in the next sentence to generate a new set of infor-
mational needs ... or if you will, a new set of questions ... that guide the
reader's comprehension through the succeeding parts of the text. (p. 8)
The significance of self-questions in the construction of theories of reading

comprehension is that they serve as indices of the various kinds of cognitive
processing that occur in reading comprehension. For example, a student's particular
self-question may indicate that his or her informational needs involve retrieval of
prior knowledge that is referred to by the current sentence or confirmation of a
249
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
prediction of future events in the text through a vigilant search for relevant
information in subsequent sentences. As Olson et al. aptly stated, the kinds of
operations conducted by any reader for a specific sentence depend partly on its
content, partly on the role of the sentence in the text, and partly on the reader's
prior knowledge. Because any potential theory of reading comprehension must
describe the kinds of cognitive processes that occur in the reader, the study of self-
questions/self-questioning offers one possible way of tapping some of those cognitive
processes.
Summary and Conclusions

In assessing the efficacy of self-questioning instruction in enhancing students'
prose processing, 27 studies were reviewed in the context of three theoretical
perspectives: the active processing theoretical perspective, the metacognitive theory,
and the schema theory. An obvious feature of these studies is that type of questions
on which the students were instructed corresponded to instructional implications
from the particular theoretical perspective used by the researchers. Thus an inves-
tigator using the active processing theoretical perspective would focus on instructing
students in generating higher order questions; an investigator using the metacog-
nitive theoretical perspective would focus on instructing students in generating self-
monitoring questions to ensure comprehension of important textual elements; and
an investigator using the schema theoretical perspective would focus on instructing
students in generating questions that would activate relevant prior knowledge to
enhance textual understanding. Despite the differential nature of instructional
questions, self-questioning instructional studies emanating from those three theo-
retical perspectives have been efficacious in enhancing students' processing of prose.
Instructional studies that failed to achieve the intended benefit of self-questioning
instruction on students' prose processing have consistently shown one or more of
the following problems: insufficient training prior to administering posttraining
tests, lack of explicitness in or direct instruction on generation of questions, and
insufficient processing time allowed students to read given passages and to generate
questions (cf. Collins et al., 1980; Dreher & Gambrell, 1982; Owens, 1976; Peder-
son, 1976).
It is recalled that the recency of using the metacognitive and schema theoretical
perspectives in self-questioning instructional research is responsible for the small
number of studies emanating from them—four from the metacognitive perspective
(Andre & Anderson, 1978-79; Dreher & Gambrell, 1982; Palincsar, 1982; Wong
& Jones, 1982) and one from the schema perspective (Singer & Donlan, 1982). All
other self-questioning instructional studies have come from the active processing
theoretical perspective. This imbalance in research output suggests that the direction
for future research would differ for the three theoretical perspectives. Specifically,
investigators using the active processing theoretical perspective may have exhausted
the question of comparing the efficacy of student-generated versus teacher- (exper-
imenter-) generated questions on students' prose processing. They may more
profitably research the question of interactive factors governing the efficacy of self-
questioning instruction. For example, because learning-disabled students are una-
ware of their state of reading comprehension (Whimbey & Whimbey, 1975), they
would profit from self-monitoring instruction (cf. Palincsar, 1982; Wong & Jones,
1982), but they may not profit from instruction on generating critical evaluative
250
questions owing to their general reading comprehension problems. The reverse

may obtain with good readers. To investigate the preceding two-way interaction,
one can design a study with type of reader and type of self-questioning instruction
as independent variables. Moreover, researchers interested in this active processing
theoretical perspective should attend to the conceptual question of what psycholog-
ical processes are mobilized by the students' self-questions in reading given mate-
rials. Unless this conceptual question is answered, we are left with a functional
analysis of the effects of self-questioning instruction. For researchers interested in
further self-questioning instruction using the metacognitive theory, they may wish
to investigate the efficacy of instructing students to generate self-testing questions
for one's readiness to take a test, or instructing students to evaluate their compre-
hension of materials read using specific evaluative criteria (Baker, 1983; Markman
& Gorin, 1981). For those interested in additional self-questioning instruction using
the schema theory, researching the question of activating relevant prior knowledge
in content areas other than complex stories may be useful.
Some nascent research by Olson et al. (1982) has suggested a potentially impor-
tant role for self-questions in theory building in reading. Self-questions may reflect
one specific kind of mental operation among innumerable ones triggered by the
interaction between the reader and the text. Since any potential theory of reading
comprehension must include descriptions of various kinds of cognitive processes
that go on in the reader, the research of self-questions appears to offer one possible
way of tapping some of those cognitive processes. Finally, an equally important
question for research concerns the evolution of acquired, relatively simple self-
questioning strategies into sophisticated strategies that individuals spontaneously
deploy in reading, problem formulation, and solution. What are the cognitive and
motivational variables that contribute to this evolution of the acquired self-ques-
tioning strategies? Understanding some of these cognitive and motivational vari-
ables would give us the student's perspective on the given self-questioning instruc-
tion. For example, we may discover which components the self-questioning instruc-
tion students considered useful and kept in use. Students subsequently modified
these components for use in areas related to the one in which they were originally
trained to use the self-questioning strategy. Investigating these cognitive and moti-
vational variables that underlie the evolution of simple self-questioning strategies
into sophisticated ones should also improve the design of self-questioning instruc-
tion, maintenance, and transfer tests.
251
252 APPENDIX
Summary of Training Studies
Exœπmental
Study Grade level . Instructional conditions Instructional duration Dependent measures Outcome
Blank & Cov- Grade 6 Student-generated 3 groups: self-questioning training 9 school days, 45 minutes Oral criterion test, The trained group surpassed
ington questions and to solve given problems; no per day (the control written criterion the two control groups on all
(1965) problem-solv- training but exposure to same group spent same test, science achieve- criterion measures,
ing. materials as trained group (Con- amount of time in reg- ment test, teacher
trol I); no training, no exposure ular class work). rating of students'
to training materials (Control II). participation in class
discussion. For
trained group: one
additional test of
five items embedded
in training mate
rials.
Manzo (1969) Ages 7-21 Comparing the ef- Individual tutoring in reciprocal 1 ½ hours daily for 6 Gain scores derived Students trained in reciprocal
fectsofrecipro- questioning of 41 students (de- weeks. from pre-and postquestioning had significantly
cal questioning scription of DRA group was ab- tests comparison on higher mean scores in read-
and Directed sent). Gates-McGinitie ing comprehension, while
Reading Activ- and the Nelson- the DRA group had signifi-
ity (DRA) on Denny Reading cantly higher mean reading
reading com- Test, standardized vocabulary scores. Students
prehension. measures of vocabu- trained in reciprocal ques-
lary (tests not tioning asked significantly
named), percentage more questions, and their
of questions an- questions approximated
swered congruently those of their tutors, suggest-
during tutoring, fre- ing improvement in quality
quency of question- of questions generated,
ing, question pro
files (i.e., resem
blance of students'
questions to tutor's
questions).
A. E. Smith Grade 7 Effectiveness of Condition 1: 15 lessons over 30 school Gates McGinitie Students in both conditions
(1972) student-gener- instruction on the nature of days, 1 lesson on alter- Reading test, an in- generated more prereading
ated questions. questioning, to preview titles and nate days. formal test measur- questions, but training had
subtitles for clues to generate ing questions gener- no impact on reading test or
questions. ated by students be- on postreading questions.
Condition 2: fore reading, infor-
more time was spent on the na- mal test to measure
ture of questioning. postreading ques-
tions.
Berstein Grade 6 Question-asking 3 treatments: children generated Not stated in dissertation Two measures were No reliable differences were ob-
(1973) behaviors of questions about two stories and abstract. used: a 29-item, tained among the three treat-
children ages tried to answer own question multiple-choice ment conditions on either
9-14. (own condition); children read comprehension test dependent measure. How-
and answered questions gener- and a problem solu- ever, type of question gener-
ated by a peer (peer condition); tion idea rating sys- ated was found to affect per-
children read and answered tern. formance on the criterion
questions generated by a teacher measures. The fewer factual
(teacher condition). verifications the children
asked, the better they did on
the comprehension test; the
more problem-oriented ques-
tions were (whether factual
or not), the higher problem
scores they achieved.
Knapczyk<fc Grades 8, Inducing ques- Explicit instructions to ask ques- 4 days of training in first Rate of questioning The two EMR subjects' ques-
Livingston 9 tion-generation tions over any vocabulary difíî- training period, 1 day behavior, on-task tioning behavior increased.
(1974) in two EMR culty or difficulty with directions of training in second behavior, and read- Equally facultative effects
adolescents. in task assignments. training period. ing comprehension. were obtained on their on-
task behavior and reading
comprehension performance.
Prosser (1974) Not stated. The effects of stu- 5 treatments: (a) active questions— Groups a, b, and c given Posttest for each ex- Separate analyses of data from
Ages 13- dent-generated students read a summary, then 5 minutes to process periment was a Experiments 1 and 2 showed
14 (ap- questions on constructed questions; (b) pas- the nonspecific (vague) modified cloze pro- no reliable differences
prox. prose learning. sive questions—students read a passage. Groups a and cedure involving 25 among factors of main inter-
grades summary and experimenter-con- b given 15 minutes to sentences, from each est (active questioning).
8-9) structed questions; (c) active and generate or read ques- of which 2 words Combined analyses of data
APPENDIX—Continued
Experimental
Study Grade level J1 Instructional conditions Instructional duration Dependent measures Outcome
focus
passive questions—students both tions. Group c was were deleted. from both experiments indi-
constmcted questions and read given 10 minutes to cated a significant three-way
the questions provided by the ex- generate own questions Difficulty × Treatment ×
perimenter; (d) reading, dou- and 5 minutes to read Sex interaction, indicating
ble—students read both sum- experimenter-generated that with easy prose, girls
mary and complete passage; (e) questions. Read-double profited from questioning,
reading, single—students read group given 20 minutes while boys were hindered;
the complete passage only. These to process the nonspe- with difficult prose, boys de-
5 treatments were run in two ex- cifìc passage. Read-sin- rived more benefit, although
periments (an easy passage was gle group given 35 both sexes profited from
used in Exp. I; a difficult one minutes to process the questioning,
was used in Exp. II). full passage. All groups
then given 15 minutes
to read the full passage
and 10 minutes for the
criterion test.
Sadker& Grade 5 Inducing genera- Four subjects were taught to ob- 4 microteaching sessions. Generation of higher Trained students generated
Cooper tion of higher serve two models generate (a) order question ask- substantially more higher or-
(1974) order, content- content-related questions, (b) ing. der questions after training
related ques- content-related, higher order (mean .62 per 5-minute
tions. questions. Reinforcement by interval compared to mean
points (token economy) when in baseline, .07). Untrained
trainees generate desired ques- students' higher order ques-
tions in class. Applied behavioral tion generation ranged from
analysis design (baseline, micro- 0 to . 15.
teaching, reinforcement I, rever-
sal to baseline, reinforcement II).
Frase & High Experiment 1: Experiment 1: 48 high school stu- 1 session self-paced, time Experiment 1: The cri- Experiment 1: Engaging in
Schwartz school Effects of recip- dents were assigned to tutorial recorded by subjects. terion test was a 90- question generation pro-
(1975) and col- rocal question- dyads and instructed to engage item test requiring duced higher overall recall
lege ing. in reciprocal questioning and an- recall of specific than simply studying the
Experiment 2: swering for the first two sections facts. text. Facilitative effects of re-
Quantitative of the test and to study on their Experiment 2: ciprocal questioning were
and qualitative own on the third section of the Shortened version of tied to posttest items directly
effects of stu- text. the criterion test in related to the questions stu-
dent-generated Experiment 2: 64 college freshmen Experiment 1 (60 dents had generated. The re-
questions. assigned randomly to four treat- items). sults did not support the hy-
ments. Two pertained to number pothesis that students would
of questions generated (5 or 10), learn more from generating
and two to type of questions to questions than answering
be constructed (either questions them.
with no special instructions or Experiment 2: Posttest scores
questions about facts difficult to on test items relevant to stu-
remember). Control group of 16 dent-generated questions
subjects from Experiment 1 who were higher than those inci-
had just studied the text (no dental to the questions.
question generation). Quantity in question genera-
tion did not substantially af-
fect student learning. In-
struction to construct diffi-
cult questions did not enable
students to anticipate more
difficult posttest items.
Morse (1975) College The effects of ex- 7 treatment conditions and 1 con- Not stated in dissertation A 10-item, multiple- Groups that studied with either
perimenter-gen- trol condition: experimenter pre- abstract. choice posttest. reader-generated or experi-
erated vs. stu- sents questions before reading; menter-generated questions
dent-generated reader generates questions before did not differ significantly
questions on reading; experimenter asks ques- from the control group of no
prose process- tions after reading; reader gener- questions. No reliable differ-
ing. ates questions after reading; ex- ences were found among
perimenter presents questions groups that could be attrib-
before and after reading; reader uted to position of questions.
generates questions before and Questions generated by ex-
after reading; reader generates perimenters were more facul-
questions before and after read- tative than reader-generated
ing with extended time; no ques- questions.
tions.
OS
Experimental
Study Grade level f Instructional conditions Instructional duration Dependent measures Outcome
focus
Schmelzer College Student-generated 4 groups: group 1 (pre-questioning) Not stated in dissertation A 21-item comprehen- Postquestioning group sur-
(1975) questions and previewed passage and con- abstract. sion test based on passed the other three
comprehension structed 5 questions over con- the passage. groups. Results on the infer-
of expository tent, read passage to answer own ential test items indicated
prose. questions and any question they prequestioning and postques-
thought of during reading. tioning groups surpassed the
Group 2 (interspersing ques- interspersing questions group
tions) read passage and con- and the control group,
structed a question about every
20 lines on what they had read.
Group 3 (post-questioning) con-
structed 5 questions on the
whole passage after reading it.
Group 4 (control) read the pas-
sage twice.
Helfeldt & Grade 5 Comparing the ef- 2 groups: reciprocal questioning 45-minute lessons on 14 Interpretation subtest Superior performance in
Lalik fects of recipro- and teacher questioning. consecutive school of the Van Wagenen Group 1 (reciprocal ques-
(1976) cal questioning days. Analytical Reading tioning) over Group 2
between stu- Scales. (teacher-questioning group),
dent and
teacher vs.
teacher ques-
tioning on stu-
dent's interpre-
tive reading.
Owens (1976) College The effects of 3 treatments: students generated 6 minutes to read a 18 multiple-choice No reliable differences among
question-gener- easy multiple-choice questions; 1,200-word passage, 20 questions posttest. treatment groups on imme-
ation, question students answered multiple- minutes to generate The same posttest diate and delayed posttests.
answering, and choice questions; students reread multiple-choice ques- was given 7 days Task engagement time was
rereading on passage until they understood tions. later. longer in the question-gener-
prose learning. the main points. ation treatment.
Pederson College The effects of 4 treatment groups: experimenter- 15 minutes to read a A 31-item, multiple- No reliable differences among
(1976) postquestions generated factual question; ex- 1,488-word passage, 10 choice criterion test. treatment groups.
on prose learn- perimenter-generated inferential minutes for question-
ing, question; student-generated generation,
question; a read-twice control
group.
Duell(l977) College Student-generated 3 groups: Group 1 constructed Unlimited processing A 31-item, multiple- Group 1 surpassed the remain-
questions and questions to match given objec- time. choice posttest, with ing groups on the posttest.
prose process- tives for passages. Group 2 was two types of ques-
ing. told to study passages with given tions: lower level
objectives. Group 3 was given (recognition) and
criterion test on the passages higher level (applica-
without seeing them. tion).
Hori(l977) Junior Reciprocal ques- 2 groups: in group 1, 9 learning- 5 days each in treatment Criterion reading com- Trained group scored signifi-
high, tioning and disabled students were taught to 1 and treatment 2 pe- prehension test, cantly higher than the un-
grades reading com- generate four kinds (levels) of riods. charting data in trained group on the crite-
7-9 prehension in questions: decoding, literal, in- graphs of applied be- rion reading comprehension
learning-disa- ferential, and evaluative. Group havioral analysis. test. Similar results were ob-
bled students. 2 was the untrained control. A tained and charted in graphs
combined multiple baseline and from applied behavioral
reversal procedure was used. analysis.
N. J. Smith Grade 3 Inducing student 3 groups: students trained to for- Not stated in dissertation Frequency of question- Students trained to generate
(1977) generation of mulate literal, inferential, and abstract. generation of the 3 the 3 specific types of ques-
specific ques- critical questions; teacher gener- specific question tions generated more literal
tion types: lit- ated literal, inferential, and criti- types; reading com- questions than students from
eral, inferential, cal questions (with teachers re- prehension. the two control conditions,
and critical. ceiving prior training in ques- They also generated more in-
tioning); students with teachers ferential and critical ques-
untrained in questioning. tions than students with
teachers trained to ask stu-
dents the same kinds of
questions. However, training
had no effect on students'
reading comprehension.
Weiner Grade 6 Effects of student One group trained to generate 6 ge- 9 days of training. A multiple-choice test Combined effect of TQ, UQ,
(1977) question gener- neric questions on the reading. Amount of training per and an essay test. and TNQ proved to differ re-
ation and read- This group was then divided into day was not stated in liably from UNQ on the
ing achieve- a trained questioner (TQ) group dissertation abstract. multiple-choice test,
ment. and a trained nonquestioner
258
Experimental
xp
Study Grade level ţ Instructional conditions Instructional duration Dependent measures Outcome
focus
(TNQ) group, which was di
verted from questioning with
language arts worksheets while
TQ groups were directed to con
struct questions on given read
ing. 2 control groups: untrained
questioners (UQ) and untrained
nonquestioners (UNQ).
Andre & An- Junior A self-questioning Experiment 1: 2 groups: group 1 A 50-minute training ses- Student's generation of Experiment 1: Training in-
derson high study tech- was taught a self-questioning sion. "good" questions creased students' generation
(1978-79) nique. study technique; group 2 was a (ones that targeted of "good" questions, facili-
read-reread control. main ideas), com- tated comprehension of stu-
Experiment 2: an additional group prehension perform- dents with lower verbal abil-
was used: Second control group ance; conditional ity more than those with
(group 3) was told to compose probability of stu- high verbal ability. Probabil-
questions on their own. dents' answering a ity of students answering a
test item correctly posttest item correctly after
given they had gen- having generated a good
erated a good ques- question was .78. Experi-
tion on it. ment 2 replicated findings in
Experiment 1.
Prosser(1978) Not stated. Effects of student- 3 conditions: (a) Relevant active Self-paced subjects re- A criterion test resem- In the overall analysis summed
Ages 13- generated vs. questions—Students first read a corded time taken to bling a cloze test. across six presentations (a
14 years experimenter- nonspecific passage (deliberately complete task. presentation being one para-
(Approx. generated ques- made vague by substituting pro- graph from a 6-paragraph
grades tions on stu- nouns for names, referring to passage), students in the ex-
8-9). dent learning. events in general and indefinite perimenter-generated ques-
terms), then generated questions tions condition surpassed
on the first paragraph. Subse- those in the other two stu-
quently, they checked the experi- dent-generated questions
menter's list of answers for ques- conditions. However, sepa-
tions for the first paragraph. rate analyses of the first pres-
They underlined answers to own entation and on the differ-
questions on that list and under- ence scores between the first
lined own questions not an- and second presentations in-
swered by the experimenter's list. dicated significantly superior
This procedure continued till performances in the two stu-
end of passage, (b) Active ques- dent-generated questions
tions—After reading and gener- group over the experimenter-
ating questions on the first para- provided questions group,
graph of the nonspecific passage, Boys with lower reading abil-
students were given the parallel ity asked more questions
paragraph from the original, un- than boys with higher read-
adulterated full passage, and in- ing ability. The reverse was
structed to underline all the new obtained among girls. Corre-
information in the full passage. lation between number of
This procedure continued till questions asked and learning
end of nonspecific passage. The scores was significant only
two student question-generated for subjects with low reading
groups thus differed in the na- ability. The superiority of the
ture of the feedback given, (c) experimenter-provided ques-
Provided questions—Students tions group dissipated in a
read the same nonspecific and delayed posttest after 10
full passages as in (b), but an- months. Again, boys of
swered experimenter-provided lower reading ability were
questions. better on this delayed post-
test than boys of higher abil-
ity, whereas the reverse was
obtained among girls.
Blaha(l979) College Effects of student- Six college composition classes: Not stated in dissertation Posttests using the The experimental group im-
generated ques- three given questioning training abstract. Nelson-Denny proved substantially in read-
tions and an- and three served as controls. Reading Test, the ing comprehension after
swersonread- Trainees taught to generate ques- TestofOrganiza- training and in reading rate,
ing comprehen- tions on analyzing the topic in tional Skills in Better readers showed most
sion, reading the materials. Reading, reading gains in reading rate. Poorer
rate, organiza- rate; also a one-par- readers showed most signifi-
tional skills in agraph composition cant gains in reading corn-
reading, and by trainees on a TV prehension and organiza-
writing ability. topic before and tional skills in reading. The
©
Experimental
Xp e
Study Grade level ţ Instructional conditions Instructional duration Dependent measures Outcome
focus
after the training. experimental group also sur
passed the control in writing.
Bird (1980) Grades 7, Direct instruction 4 conditions: (a) Direct instruc- 9 40-minute sessions. Measures of strategy Subjects in direct instruction
8 of specific read- tion—Subjects received explana- use and reading condition surpassed those in
ing strategies tion of 4 reading strategies (para- comprehension. the other three conditions in
and the effects phrase, back-tracking, problem Strategy use was strategy use in 3 out of 4
of strategies on solving, and deriving relation- measured on the strategies (deriving relation-
reading com- ships, e.g., cause and effect), basis of think-aloud ships being the exception)
prehension. shown through modeling the use statements by sub- and on both reading compre-
of the strategies practiced, iden- jects while reading hension measures. No relia-
tifying them, and practice using aloud. Reading ble differences were observed
them, (b) Modeling condition— comprehension was among the other conditions
Subjects received modeling of measured by the of modeling, exercise, and
the use of the strategies and Nelson Reading control,
practiced using them, but no ex- Skills Test (silent
planation or identification prac- reading) as a pretest
tice. (c) Exercise condition— and the Nelson-
Subjects given verbal and written Denny Reading Test
exercises designed to develop the as posttest; the
use of the four reading strategies. Metro Oral Reading
(d) 16 additional subjects in a Comprehension Test
control, no treatment condition. (a series of passages
taken from the Met
ropolitan Achieve
ment Test).
Collins, Gent- High Specific study 2 groups: one taught specific study 2 tutorials, each 1 to 1 ½ Criterion comprehen- No reliable differences between
ner, & school strategies. strategies through modelling and hours long. sion tests. trained and untrained
Rubin (grade reciprocal questioning; the other groups, but there was a trend
(1980) level not group not trained. favoring the trained group,
given)
Adams, Car- Grade 5 Training study 3 groups: group 1 systematically in- 4 days of training, 30-40 Immediate and de- Group 1 surpassed the other
nine, & skills through a structed on study skills; group 2 minutes per day. layed (2 weeks) tests, two groups on immediate
Gersten modified ver- studied independently with each consisting of a and delayed posttests; no re-
(1982) sion of SQ3R. teacher feedback; group 3 re- 10-item, short an- liable differences in recall.
ceived no study skills training swer comprehension
and no teacher feedback. test, recall of test
materials.
Dreher & Grade 6 Replicating 3 groups: group 1 trained in the 2 training sessions sepa- Comprehension test No reliable differences among
Gambrell Andre & An- self-questioning study technique rated by 1 day (dura- with questions on treatment groups on crite-
(1982) derson's (1978- used by Andre & Anderson tion of each training main ideas and de- rion test.
79) self-ques- (1978-79); group 2 instructed to session not given). tails,
tioning study write questions without training;
technique with group 3 told to study given pas-
elementary stu- sages by reading, reciting, and re-
dents, viewing.
Palincsar Grade 7 Improving learn- 7 learning-disabled students were 18 successive sessions. Criterion measure of a Students' reading comprehen-
(1982) ing-disabled taught 4 questioning strategies to 10-item comprehension scores improved sub-
students read- enhance their reading compre- sion test given per stantially during interven-
ing comprehen- hension: generating clarifying day during intervention, were well maintained
sion through questions, summarizing impor- tion, maintenance during maintenance test and
reciprocal ques- tant points, predicting what au- and follow-up, follow-up. Moderate gains in
tioning train- thor would say in subsequent which occurred after classroom probes. Study was
ing. parts of text, and predicting test an 8-week delay. successfully replicated with
questions. A multiple baseline Additional generali- 21 poor comprehenders from
design was used. zation probes were grades 6-8 taught in groups
given in class by of 4-8 students by teachers
teachers using social trained in the 4 questioning
studies and science strategies,
curricula.
Singer & Grade 11 Inducing genera- 2 groups: one taught to generate 6 lessons, spread out over 10-item, multiple Experimental group surpassed
Donlan tion of ques- story-specific questions, the 3 weeks, 2 lessons per choice quiz (total 6 control in the quizzes. Type
(1982) tions specific to other given teacher-made ques- week. quizzes), analyses of of questions generated by
story contents. tions. type of story-specific trainees closely paralleled the
questions generated. story element that was
taught in a particular lesson.
(For example, in the session
in which the story element
"obstacle" was taught, 37%
262
Experimental
Study Grade level f Instructional conditions Instructional duration Dependent measures Outcome
focus
of the trainees' self-generated
questions were about obsta-
cles.)
Wong& Grades 8, Instructing learn- 4 groups: 2 learning-disabled (LD) 2 days of training with a Students'generation of Training increased LD stu-
Jones 9 ing-disabled ad- and 2 normally achieving (NA) 2-hour session per day. "good" questions dents'generation of "good"
(1982) olescents in adolescents. Within the LD (that targeted main questions and their ability to
self-questioning groups, one was trained in self- ideas), identification identify important textual
to monitor questioning study technique as of important textual parts. In comprehension per-
their reading in Andre & Anderson; the other parts, reading com- formance, training facilitated
comprehension. was untrained. Similarly for the prehension perform- LD students but not NA stu-
NA groups. Unlike Andre & An- ance and recall. dents. No differences in re-
derson, prior to self-questioning call,
training, all groups received
training to criterion on identify-
ing main ideas.
Chodos, Grade 4 A pilot study 6 treatments: (a) students read a An immediate posttest Reliable differences between
Hould, & comparing ef- summary of the first part of the of 40 questions and treatments (a) and (b) on the
Rusch fects of student- passage, and were instructed to a delayed posttest of immediate posttest and be-
(1977) generated ques- generate 4 questions. Subse- 20 questions (1 tween treatments (a) and (e)
tions vs. use of quently they read the section week's delay). on the delayed posttest.
advance organ- and answered 10 questions. This
izers, read- procedure was repeated for the
study condi- remaining three parts of the pas-
tions on prose sage. Treatment (b) was the same
learning. as treatment (a) except students
were instructed to write state-
ments instead of questions.
Treatment (c) combined the pre-
ceding treatments. In treatment
(d) students read and studied the
first part of the passage with the
summary as an advance organ-
izer. Then they answered 10
questions. This procedure was
repeated with the remaining
parts of the passage. Treatment
(e) was a read/study condition.
Students studied one part of the
passage and answered 10 ques-
tions before proceeding to the
next. Treatment (f) was the same
as treatment (e) except students
studied two parts (800 words) of
the passage at a time and an-
swered 20 questions instead of
10 at a time.
ON
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
References
Adams, A., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1982). Instructional strategies for studying content
area texts in the intermediate grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 27-55.
Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. C. (1979). A schema-theoretic view of reading. In R. Freedle
(Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 1-22). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Allender, J. S. (1969). A study of inquiry activity in elementary school children. American
Educational Research Journal, 6, 543-558.
Anderson, R. C. (1977, July). Schema-directed processes in language comprehension (Tech.
Rep. No. 50). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Anderson, R. C, Pichert, J. W., Goetz, E. T., Schallert, D. L., Stevens, K. V., & Trollip, S.
R. (1976). Instantiation of general terms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
15, 667-679.
Anderson, R. C, Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. (1977, March). Schemata as scaffolding for
the representation of information in connected discourse (Tech. Rep. No. 24). Urbana-
Champaign: University of Illinois.
Anderson, T. H. (1980). Study strategies and adjunct aids. In R. J. Spiro, B. B. Bruce, & W.
F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 484-502). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Andre, M. E. D. A., & Anderson, T.H. (1978-1979). The development and evaluation of a
self-questioning study technique. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 605-623.
Baker, L. (1979, July). Do I understand or do I not understand: That is the question (Reading
Education Report No. 10). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
Baker, L. (1983). Spontaneous vs. instructed use of multiple standards for evaluating compre-
hension: Effects of age, reading proficiency, and type of standard. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Maryland.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (in press). Metacognitive skills of reading. In D. P. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook on research in reading. New York: Longman.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press.
Berstein, S. (1973). The effects of children's question-asking behaviours on problem solution
and comprehension of written materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia
University.
Bird, M. (1980). Reading comprehension strategies: A direct teaching approach. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Blaha, B. A. (1979). The effect of answering selfgenerated questions on reading. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
Blank, S., & Covington, M. (1965). Inducing children to ask questions in solving problems.
Journal of Educational Research, 59, 21-27.
Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding and remembering.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Vye, N. J., Franks, J. J., Auble, P. M., Mezynski, K. J., &
Perfetto, G. A. (1982). Differences in approaches to learning: An overview. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 390-398.
Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Shelton, T. S., & Owings, R. A. (1981). Cognition and adaptation:
The importance of learning to learn. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behaviour and
the environment (pp. 93-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. B. Bruce, &
W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, A. L., & Barclay, C. R. (1976). The effects of training specific mnemonics on the
metamnemonic efficiency of retarded children. Child Development, 47, 71-80.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning,
264
remembering and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology

(4th ed.) (Vol. 3, pp. 77-166). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of
informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C, & Barclay, C. R. (1979). Training self-checking routines for
estimating test readiness: Generalization from list learning to prose recall. Child Develop
ment, 50, 501-512.
Campione, J. C, & Brown, A. L. (1977). Memory and metamemory development in educable
retarded children. In R. V. Kail, Jr., & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development
of memory and cognition (pp. 367-406). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Carver, R. L. (1963, May). Levels of questioning. Education, 83, 546-550.
Chodos, L. B., Hould, S. M., & Rusch, R. R. (1977). Effect of student generated pre-questions
and post statements on immediate and delayed recall of fourth grade social studies content.
In P. D. Pearson & J. Hansen (Eds.), Reading: Theory, research, and practice. 26th yearbook
ofthe national reading conference (pp. 11-16). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.
Collins, A., Gentner, D., & Rubin, A. (1980, October). Teaching study strategies (Report No.
4794). Urbana Champaign, IL: Bolt, Beranek & Newman.
Collins, A., & Smith, E. E. (1980, September). Teaching the process ofreading comprehension.
(Tech. Rep. No. 182). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Reading strategies training for meaningful learning from
prose. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational
applications (pp. 87-131). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Denney, D. R. (1972). Modelling and eliciting effects upon conceptual strategies. Child
Development, 43, 810-823.
Denney, D. R., Denney, N. W., & Ziobrowski, M. J. (1973). Alterations in the information-
processing strategies of young children following observation of adult models. Developmen
tal Psychology, 8, 202-208.
Denney, N. W., & Connors, G. J. (1974). Altering the questioning strategies of preschool
children. Child Development, 45, 1108-1112.
Dreher, M. J., & Gambrell, L. B. (1982, April). Training children to use a self-questioning
strategy for studying expository prose. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association, New York.
Duell, O. K. (1977, April). Overt and covert use ofobjectives ofdifferent levels. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Fahey, G. L. (1942). The questioning activity of children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 60,
337-357.
Finley, C. W. (1921). Some studies of children's interests in science materials. School Science
and Mathematics, 11, 1-24.
FΊavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The
nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
FΊavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen (Eds.),
Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3-33). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Frase, L. T., & Schwartz, B. J. (1975). Effect of question production and answering on prose
recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(5), 628-635.
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). From problem solving to problem finding. In
J. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 90-116). Chicago: Aldine.
Helfeldt, J. P., & Lalik, R. (1976, December). Reciprocal student-teacher questioning. Reading
Teacher, 30, 283-287.
Helseth, I. O. (1942). Children's thinking. In Public teaching collection (No. 209). New York:
Columbia University.
Henderson, R. W., & Garcia, A. B. (1973). The effects of parent training programs on the
265
BERNICE Y. L. W O N G
question-asking behaviour of Mexican-American children. American Educational Research

Journal, 10, 193-201.
Hori, A. K. O. (1977). An investigation of the efficacy of a questioning training procedure on
increasing the reading comprehension performance ofjunior high school learning-disabled
students. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas.
Hunkins, F. P. (1976). Involving students in questioning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ivany, G. (1969). The assessment of verbal inquiry in junior high school science. Science
Education, 53, 287-293.
Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model and memory experiments.
In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels and processing in human memory (pp.
429-447). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Knapczyk, D. R., & Livingston, G. (1974). The effects of prompting question-asking upon
on-task behaviour and reading comprehension. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 7,
115-121.
Laughlin, P. R., Moss, I. L., & Miller, S. M. (1969). Information-processing in children as a
function of adult model, stimulus display, school grade and sex. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 60, 188-193.
Manzo, A. V. (1969). Improving reading comprehension through reciprocal questioning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
Markman, E. M., & Gorin, L. (1981). Children's ability to adjust their standards for evaluating
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 320-325.
Marksberry, M. L. (1979). Student questioning: An instructional strategy. Educational Hori-
zons, 57, 190-196.
Meyer, W. J., & Shane, J. (1973). The form and function of children's questions. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 123, 285-296.
Miyake, N., & Norman, D. A. (1979). To ask a question, one must know enough to know
what is not known. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 357-364.
Morse, J. M. (1975). Effect of reader-generated questions on learningfrom prose. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.
Nash, W. R., & Torrance, E. P. (1974). Creative reading and the questioning abilities of
young children. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 8, 15-19.
Olmo, B. G. (1975). Teaching students to ask questions. Language Arts, 2, 1116-1119.
Olson, G. M., Duffy, S. A., Eaton, M., & Vincent, P. (1982, March). On-line question-asking
as a component of story comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York.
Owens, A. M. (1976). The effects of question generation, question answering, and reading on
prose learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Improving the reading comprehension of junior high students through
reciprocal teaching of comprehension-monitoring strategies. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Illinois.
Paris, S. G., Newman, R. S., & McVey, K. A. (1982). Learning the functional significance of
mnemonic actions: A microgenetic study of strategy acquisition. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 34, 490-509.
Pederson, J. E. P. (1976). An investigation into the differences between student-constructed
versus experimenter-constructed post-questions on the comprehension of expository prose.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Peterson, P. L., & Swing, S. R. (1983). Problems in classroom implementation of cognitive
strategy instruction. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research:
Educational applications (pp. 267-287). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Prosser, G. V. (1974). The role of active questions in learning and retention of prose material.
Instructional Science, 2, 451-476.
266
Prosser, G. V. (1978). The role of relevant active questions in learning based upon successive
presentations. Instructional Science, 7, 359-383.
Rickards, J. P., & DiVesta, F. J. (1974). Type and frequency of questions in processing textual
material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(3), 354-362.
Robinson, F. P. (1941). Diagnostic and remedial techniques for effective study. New York:
Harper and Brothers.
Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1972). Instructional specificity and outcome expec-
tation in observationally induced question formulation. Journal ofEducational Psychology,
63, 500-504.
Rosenthal, T. L., Zimmerman, B. J., & Dunning, K. (1970). Observationally induced changes
in children's interrogative classes. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 7ó(4), 681 -
688.
Ross, H. S., & Balzer, R. H. (1975). Determinants and consequences of children's questions.
Child Development, 46, 536-539.
Ross, H. S., & Killey, J. C. (1977). The effect of questioning on retention. Child Development,
48, 312-314.
Ryan, E. B. (1980, July). Metalinguistic development and reading acquisition (Final Report,
Grant BNS76-09559). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Sadker, M., & Cooper, J. (1974). Increasing student higher-order questions. Elementary
English, 51, 502-507.
Schmelzer, R. V. (1975). The effect of college student constructed questions on the comprehen-
sion of a passage of expository prose. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota.
Shulman, L. S. (1965). Seeking styles and individual differences in patterns of inquiry. School
Review, 73, 258-266.
Singer, H. (1978, May). Active comprehension: From answering to asking questions. Reading
Teacher, 31, 901-908.
Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1982). Active comprehension: Problem-solving schema with
question generation for comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quar-
terly, 27, 166-186.
Smith, A. E. (1972). The effectiveness of training students to generate their own questions
prior to reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
Smith, N. J. (1977). The effects of training teachers to teach students at different reading
ability levels to formulate three types of questions on reading comprehension and question
generation ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Suchman, J. R. (1966). Developing inquiry. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Tierney, R. J., & Cunningham, J. W. (1980, November). Research on teaching reading
comprehension (Tech. Rep. No. 187). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study
of Reading.
Tinsley, D. C. (1973, May). The use of questions. Educational Leadership, 3Œß\ 710-713.
Torgesen, J. K. (1977). The role of nonspecific factors in the task performance of learning-
disabled children: A theoretical assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 27-34.
Twardosz, S., & Baer, D. M. (1973). Training two severely retarded adolescents to ask
questions. Journal ofApplied Behaviour Analysis, 6, 655-661.
Weiner, C. J. (1977). The effect of training in questioning and student question generation on
reading achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
Whimbey, A., & Lockhead, J. (1979). Problem-solving and comprehension: A short course in
analytic reasoning. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.
Whimbey, A., & Whimbey, L. S. (1975). Intelligence can be taught. Stanford, CA: Innovative
Sciences.
Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning-disabled and
267
BERNICE Y. L. WONG
normally-achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quar-

terly, 5, 228-240.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Pike, E. O. (1972). Effects of modelling and reinforcement on the
acquisition and generalization of question-asking behaviour. Child Development, 43, 892-
907.
AUTHOR
BERNICE Y. L. WONG, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Instructional
Psychology Research Group, Simon Fraser University, Bumaby, BC, Canada
V5A 1S6. Specialization: Special education (learning disabilities).
268

Wong (1985)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wong (1985)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Educational Research

Summer, 1985, Vol. 55, No. 2, Pp. 227-268

Self-Questioning Instructional Research: A Review

ABSTRACT. Studies in self-questioning designed to improve students' prose

Parallel to the interest in the effects of experimenter/teacher-generated adjunct

research we need to conceptualize what specific cognitive processes are manipulated

Self-Questioning Instructional Studies

Does Self-Questioning Instruction Enhance Students' Processing of

Types and Functions of Questions

technique and a description of the steps to be followed in studying a text; (b) a

Different Goals in Self Questioning Instruction

Direct Instruction/Explicit Written Instruction

of positive training effects. After all, if the benefits of self-questioning instruction

Consequently, we would be reduced to a mere functional analysis of the effects of

the question of constraints of self-questioning, one needs to think in terms of an

Their questions were tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed. The number of

As each sentence is understood and added to a growing representation of the

The significance of self-questions in the construction of theories of reading

Summary and Conclusions

questions owing to their general reading comprehension problems. The reverse

remembering and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology

question-asking behaviour of Mexican-American children. American Educational Research

normally-achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quar-

You might also like