Effective methods for enhancing the acquisition of knowledge and understanding when
reading text
Dasha Bunks
Liberty University
PSYC 775 - Teaching of Psychology
Dr. Winn
2022
Effective methods for enhancing the acquisition of knowledge and understanding when
reading text
In many educational settings today, much of the learning takes place outside of the
classroom. Though instructors play an instrumental role in shaping students’ educational
experiences, a primary source of acquiring knowledge is from textbooks. Because of the limited
available class time, instructors typically assign extensive reading, and students spend countless
hours trying to learn (or cram) from reading textbooks (though see Sikorski et al., 2002). This
practice is potentially problematic because much research suggests that learners are typically
poor at comprehending texts due to the complex nature of text comprehension (Gernsbacher,
1990; Kintsch, 1998; McNamara & McDaniel, 2004). To this end, it is imperative that students
possess the proper techniques to help them learn from texts.
Therefore, a major challenge for researchers and educators has been developing and
promoting effective techniques to aid text learning. A brief review of the educational literature
indicates that there exist several techniques capable of improving text learning. Strategies such
as Survey-Question-Read-Recite-Review (SQ3R) and concept mapping have been shown to be
particularly effective for enhancing text comprehension under certain conditions (Novak, 2010;
Robinson, 1941). Although these techniques have been successfully implemented in some
classroom settings, a major limitation exists; these techniques require significant time
investment (Martin, 1985; Novak, 2010).
Not only do these techniques require extensive training in order to yield any benefits,
they are also time-intensive for the student. Due to the heavy time demands already placed on
students, they are unlikely to implement techniques that require much more time commitment
than simply reading through the textbook. Thus, a major goal of the present chapter is to focus
on effective techniques for improving text learning that are not so time-intensive, with the
hope that students will increase the likelihood of implementing sound techniques for learning
from their texts and other assigned readings. First, we will discuss the merits of rereading and
note-taking, which are popular study activities among students. Then, we will introduce three
evidence-based techniques that have implications for improving learning from texts. For each
technique, we will briefly discuss the empirical support and then suggest how each technique
might be successfully implemented in authentic educational settings. Finally, we will discuss
how individual differences might moderate the effectiveness of strategies designed to improve
text comprehension.
Rereading
Before we discuss strategies to improve text learning, it is important to first consider
how students typically study texts when left to their own devices. According to several recent
surveys investigating students’ study strategies, the widely preferred method of study among
most college students is to simply reread the textbook (Hartwig & Dunlosky, 2012; Karpicke,
Butler, & Roediger, 2009; Kornell & Bjork, 2007). This overwhelming preference to reread is
potentially problematic because empirical evidence suggests that rereading has limited
benefits, especially when compared to other study strategies (Callender & McDaniel, 2009;
Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b).
In four experiments, Callender and McDaniel (2009) had participants read educational
texts that included either chapters from a psychology textbook or a Scientific American article
and assessed learning with a range of tests including multiplechoice questions, short-answer
questions, and summaries of the texts. The authors found that immediate rereading did not
significantly improve final performance relative to reading the text once. Rawson and Kintsch
(2005) found that the merits of rereading are a bit more complicated. In particular, the
effectiveness of rereading may depend on when the rereading opportunity takes place and
when the final tests are assessed. They found that spacing out the first and second reading
opportunities was beneficial for performance on delayed tests relative to when the rereading
took place immediately after the first reading. However, students are likely to engage in
rereading relatively proximal to the exam.
In this situation (immediate tests), Rawson and Kintsch found no benefit of spaced
rereading. Although these findings suggest that rereading under some circumstances can be
beneficial for performance relative to reading only once, it has been repeatedly shown that
rereading has limited benefits when compared to other study strategies (e.g., McDaniel,
Howard, & Einstein, 2009; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b). While rereading might be useful in
certain situations, there exist more potent strategies to improve text learning than simply
rereading.
Note taking
Taking notes is another commonly practiced strategy by students (Lahtinen, Lonka, &
Lindblom-Ylanne, 1997). But unlike rereading, the benefits of note-taking are much more
robust (See Armbruster, 2000 for a review). Slotte and Lonka (1999) investigated the benefits of
spontaneous note-taking for high school students. Students were instructed to read a
philosophical text and take as much or as little notes as they wanted. Half of the students were
allowed to review their notes during the subsequent writing tasks while the other half
completed the writing tasks without their notes. They found that quality and quantity of notes
were predictive of text comprehension.
Furthermore, being able to review notes produced benefits for deep-level text
comprehension relative to not being able to review notes. These results suggest that note-
taking has two main functions: encoding and storage (Di Vesta & Gray, 1972). The encoding
hypothesis posits that the act of taking notes produces effective learning via generative
processing (Einstein, Morris, & Smith, 1985; Peper & Mayer, 1978). That is, taking notes
requires learners to actively process the information. The other hypothesis, the external
storage account, argues that the benefit of note-taking comes from being able to review the
notes (Kiewra, 1989). Both of these hypotheses rest on the idea that note-taking is only
effective to the extent that students are actually summarizing, paraphrasing, or integrating
rather than copying verbatim from the text (Kiewra, Benton, Kim, Risch, & Christensen, 1995). If
students are simply transcribing the text, then there is presumably no active processing going
on, and reviewing their notes becomes comparable to simply rereading the textbook.
Read-recite-review
Robinson (1941) introduced the Survey-Question-Read-Recite-Review (SQ3R) strategy to
help students learn from texts. This strategy has several components that theoretically should
be helpful, including organizing (survey), actively anticipating content (Question), practicing
retrieval (Recite), and receiving feedback (Review). Accordingly, this strategy held some appeal;
indeed, many of our contemporaries were introduced to the SQ3R strategy during their school
years and encouraged by teachers to use it. But these contemporaries admitted to never using
it, noting that it simply took too much time. This is a likely reason (as highlighted in the
introduction) SQ3R has not continued to be promoted by teachers; most of the current
students in our classes were not even introduced to the technique in their precollege classes
. Recently, McDaniel, Howard, and Einstein (2009) introduced a truncated version of the
SQ3R that would serve to be more portable and time-efficient. Specifically, they dropped the
survey and question facets and emphasized only the read-recite-review (3R) portion of the
SQ3R strategy. In the 3R strategy, learners are instructed to read through a text passage once
and then recite aloud as much of the information as they can without the passage in front of
them. Following recitation, learners are given another self-paced opportunity to restudy the
passage. Thus, 3R maintains two components that are theoretically potent. One is the retrieval
practice associated with recitation (see Roediger’s Chapter in this book for an in-depth review
on the benefits of retrieval practice). In one example of retrieval practice effects, Roediger and
Karpicke (2006b) found that recall (retrieval) following reading was a more potent strategy than
simply rereading.
They had participants study a short text for as long as they wanted. Then half of the
participants were instructed to free recall (i.e., testing) as much as they could whereas the
other half were allowed to study the text for a second time. They found that testing conferred
benefits on delayed tests of up to a week. The other crucial component of 3R is the review
phase that follows recitation. Rereading following testing is assumed to be beneficial because
learners can rely on improved metamemory (testing provides feedback about what the learner
does or does not know) to effectively guide their restudy (during review). To demonstrate the
value of 3R, McDaniel et al. (2009) had participants study complex technical passages about
brakes and pumps using one of three strategies: 1) 3R, 2) note-taking (plus restudy), or 3)
highlighting (plus reread).
In line with the theoretical predictions, participants who engaged in the 3R strategy
performed much better on tests (free recall, inferential multiple-choice, and problem-solving)
that were administered a week later, than those who highlighted. These benefits produced by
the 3R strategy have also been found when learners are asked to write down their recitation as
opposed to orally reciting the information (Nguyen & McDaniel, 2013a). Importantly, learners in
the 3R conditions did not spend more time studying than those in the highlighting or note-
taking conditions, suggesting that it is just as efficient as students’ typical study strategies (at
least for shorter texts). However, the story became more complicated when the 3R technique
was compared to note-taking, a strategy we mentioned above to be effective in promoting
learning (See Armbruster, 2000, for a review).
Specifically, while the 3R strategy conferred benefits on free recall performance relative
to a note-taking condition, it did not improve inferential multiple-choice or problem-solving
performance, measures that required integration and/or inferencing. From an educational
perspective, these results are likely to be taken with mixed feelings. On the one hand, the 3R
strategy seems to improve memory for the text, and does so in a more efficient manner
(participants using the 3R strategy spent less time studying than those using a note-taking
strategy). However, relative to another effective and more commonly used strategy (i.e., note-
taking), the 3R technique does not improve performance on 107 measures that require
integration and inferencing. Because a major educational objective is to promote flexible
learning beyond just rote memorization, it is important to endorse a strategy that enhances
transfer or flexible use of knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001).
To this end, Nguyen and McDaniel (2012) examined a potential enhancement to the
standard 3R strategy that would augment performance on inference based tests. Specifically, ‐
participants were required to make Judgments of Inferencing (JOIs) following recitation and
prior to restudy. These JOIs probed participants’ perceived abilities to integrate the information
presented in the text and make inferences in order to apply this knowledge.
Practical Considerations
These findings suggest that the 3R strategy can be an effective and time efficient ‐
technique for enhancing students’ text comprehension, and can be adapted for use in virtually
any course. The unique value in the 3R strategy is that it is capable of enhancing both memory
for the text content and acquisition of flexible knowledge. This makes it a potentially effective
strategy for a wide range of classes. The standard 3R strategy can be applied in courses that
require mostly memorization (e.g., physiology, foreign language, history).
For classes that require using flexibly information obtained from the text (e.g.,
chemistry, physics), making JOIs following reading and reciting is a recommended addition to
the 3R strategy. It is important to stress that we are not advising students to recite an entire
chapter at once. That is obviously not practical. Instead, students should break down their
reading assignments into smaller sections and recite immediately following reading a particular
section. This will allow them to not only learn that section better, but it should also indirectly
help them learn future sections better for several reasons.
First, testing (reciting) should help learners develop prior knowledge for the subsequent
material, which is an important predictor of text learning (e.g., McNamara & Kintsch, 1996).
Furthermore, testing has been shown to reduce proactive interference (Szpunar, McDermott, &
Roediger, 2008), the finding of reduced memory for material learned later (e.g., Kalbaugh &
Walls, 1973; Keppel & Underwood, 1962). Thus, once students have learned a particular section
well, they are in 0.57 0.50 0.70 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Proportion Correct Meta‐
Notetaking Standard 3R Meta 3R 108 better position to learn future sections. Instructors can ‐
further augment the effectiveness of the 3R strategy by having students make JOIs in class. Not
only will making JOIs orient students toward a reading approach that fosters deep
understanding (cf. Stine-Morrow, Gagne, Morrow, & DeWall, 2004), it can also give instructors
feedback about how well their students are comprehending the material and to alter their
lectures accordingly.
Embedded Questions
Embedded questions (also referred to as adjunct questions) are questions that are
embedded at important parts of texts to probe a reader’s understanding of what they have just
read. Because they encourage learners to become active readers when studying texts,
researchers and educators have promoted embedded questions for some time. Early on,
researchers found that embedding questions within texts could improve learning from texts by
orienting learners toward the key concepts in a given section (Anderson & Biddle, 1975; Andre,
1979; Hamaker, 1986; Hamilton, 1985; Melton, 1978; Rothkopf, 1966).
Much research has confirmed this finding, which is why embedded questions are used in
many textbooks. The value of embedded questions may be augmented with the new trend
toward e-textbooks. Using an e-textbook chapter, Nguyen and McDaniel (2013b) found that
embedding questions in the text was a useful technique for enhancing comprehension.
Specifically, participants read an e-text chapter on social psychology and answered six short-
answer questions that were embedded in the text at the end of each section.
To simulate realistic educational practices, participants were allowed to look back at the
textbook when answering the questions. As seen in Figure 2 (the generated condition is
discussed in the next section), answering the embedded questions (while reading) relative to
simply reading improved students’ performance on a final delayed (one-week) multiple-choice
test that consisted of fact-based, inference-based, and applied questions. Additionally, study
time did not differ between the two conditions, which suggests that answering embedded
questions is actually an efficient study strategy. While embedded questions are fairly standard
in textbooks today, we get the sense from talking to undergraduates that few students actually
make use of them.
Thus, it is up to instructors and book publishers to encourage readers to actually make
efficacious use of the embedded questions. In Nguyen and McDaniel (2013b), the e-textbook
allowed participants to move on to the next section only after they submitted an answer to the
embedded question. These results suggest that when made mandatory, answering questions
embedded within the text can benefit learning from texts.
References
Campitelli, G., & Gobet, F. (2011). Deliberate practice: Necessary but not sufficient. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 280–285. doi:10.1177/096372141142922
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving
students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from
cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14,
4–58. doi.10.1177/1529100612453266
Roediger, H. L. (2013). Applying cognitive psychology to education: Translational education
science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 1–3.
doi.10.1177/1529100612454415
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive
strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26–33.
Simkins, S. P., & Maier, M. H. (2008). Just-in-time teaching: Across the disciplines, across the
academy. Sterling VA: Stylus.
van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s
mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13.
doi:10.1207 /s15326985EP3801_2
