PETER BIMMEL and ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRATEGIC READING

ACTIVITIES AND READING COMPREHENSION

ABSTRACT. In the present article, we investigate the degree to which 15-year-old students
in regular secondary education in the Netherlands (N = 144) master four strategic reading
activities and the relationship of the mastery to their first-language reading comprehension,
preference for self-direction and in-depth information processing, and attitude towards
reading and strategic reading activities. Students mastery of strategic reading activities
appears to be strongly related to reading comprehension. Differences in reading comprehension between school types are not completely explained by differences in mastery of
strategic reading activities. No relationship was found between students preference for
self-direction or in-depth processing of information on the one hand and mastery of strategic reading activities or reading comprehension on the other. Students attitudes towards
the usefulness of strategic reading activities appear to be negatively related both to their
mastery of these activities and to their reading comprehension. We suggest that mastery of
strategic reading activities probably influences reading comprehension, and that strategy
training appears to be less suitable for students with well-developed reading skills.
KEY WORDS: reading comprehension, reading strategies, secondary education, strategic
reading

1. I NTRODUCTION

Much research carried out on young and poor readers aged 6 to 12

connected reading strategies and comprehension and the effectiveness
of training teaching reading strategies (see Pressley, 2000). In contrast,
comparatively little research has been conducted in the reading comprehension of students in regular secondary education. In view of results of
research on adults reading comprehension in many developed countries,
this lack of research is surprising. For example, studies by the OECD
(1998, 2000) indicate that roughly 10% of adults in the Netherlands
have serious problems understanding newspaper and magazine articles.
Other countries show comparable or even higher scores (Canada: 16.6%,
Germany: 14.4%, USA: 20.7%). Such findings are a cause for alarm not
only because of the role reading comprehension plays in everyday life,
but also because of its importance for education and study. In short,
there seems to be little reason to assume that primary school pupils
have completed their training in reading comprehension when they move
L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature 4: 85102, 2004.
2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

86

PETER BIMMEL AND ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

on to secondary school. The question therefore remains of how reading

comprehension instruction might best be constructed in secondary education. Should it focus on training reading strategies? If so, which ones?
How important are reading strategies and mastery of strategic reading
activities for reading comprehension? In this article we investigate the
degree to which 15-year-old students in regular secondary education in
the Netherlands (N = 144) master four strategic reading activities, and
the extent to which this mastery relates to their reading comprehension.
In this introduction we define: (a) reading comprehension, (b) reading
strategies and, (c) student mastery of strategic reading activities. Next, we
consider previous research into the connection between reading strategies
and reading comprehension and the relationship between learning style
on the one hand, and mastery of strategic reading activities and level
of reading comprehension, on the other. We also examine how attitudes
towards reading and towards use of strategic reading activities affect
mastery of strategic reading activities and level of reading comprehension.
Reading Comprehension, Reading Strategies and Strategic Reading
Activities
Understanding a text requires an interaction between text-directed and
knowledge-directed processing (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000; Pressley,
2000). Text-directed processing entails processing the content of the text
(i.e., words, text passages, and their interrelated meanings) and its organisation (i.e., word order and sentence order, and rhetorical and graphic
structure markers). Knowledge-directed processing calls on linguistic and
background knowledge. Smith (1988) shows how flexibly readers use
redundancy at different levels (i.e., at feature level, letter level, word level,
sentence level and text level) to compensate for the inevitable bottle-necks
in processing which result from the limited capacity of working memory.
When involved in simple reading tasks or reading simple texts, readers
construct meaning by trusting their autopilot. The more difficult the text
or the more complex the reading task, the more readers must direct the
process of meaning construction consciously and with planning (Baker &
Brown, 1984; Garner, 1987). In such circumstances, they cannot blindly
trust implicit reading skills (Paris, Wasik & Turner, 1991; Pressley &
Afflerbach, 1995). Successful and experienced readers appear to apply
flexible and context-sensitive reading strategies (Pressley & Afflerbach,
1995; Pressley, 2000: 550), to consciously direct the process of meaning
construction.
Because various definitions of reading strategy exist (cf. Bimmel, 1999:
1314), it is important to specify how we define such strategies. In this

STRATEGIC READING ACTIVITIES AND READING COMPREHENSION

87

article we use Westhoffs definition (1991a: 44): a strategy is a plan of

(mental) action to attain a goal. Therefore, a reading strategy, is a plan of
(mental) action to attain a reading goal. For example, readers may wish to
understand a text because they will be participating in a meeting on the
subject. A reading strategy as the action plan might consist of looking for
the most informative text passages.
This definition implies a distinction between the (reading) goal, the plan
of (mental) action to attain that goal, and its implementation (i.e., the action
itself). It therefore differs from other attempts to define or describe the
concept of strategy. Aarnoutse (1998: 24), for instance, suggests a reading
strategy is a coherent whole of cognitive activities readers can use to
understand a text well. This compares to Van Hout-Wolters (1992: 7)
definition of cognitive strategies as certain combinations of goal-directed
thinking activities. Such definitions describe strategies as activities or
combinations of activities where no distinction exists between the action
plan and its implementation. Alexander and Jetton (2000: 293) implicitly
make this distinction. They follow Alexander, Graham and Harris (1998),
who sum up a number of strategy characteristics (procedural, purposeful,
effortful, willful, essential and facilitative). They describe strategies as
consciously selected procedures.
By distinguishing between the plan (i.e., the strategy) and the execution
of strategic activities, research concentrates specifically on the two consecutive aspects in question, i.e., learning to generate appropriate strategies,
and learning to execute strategic activities. This enhances the efficiency
both of reading research and of pedagogy focusing on reading strategies.
Our definition of reading strategy involves the roles fulfilled by any
fully independent reader: (a) mental manager (i.e., analyse reading
tasks, determine reading goals, generate reading strategies to attain goals,
and monitor and evaluate the process of meaning construction); and,
(b) executor of strategic reading activities (e.g., predicting, deriving the
meaning of words, underlining key fragments, making notes, or summarising). Readers consciously manage their strategic action as part of a
complex metacognitive domain. We regard the executive tasks (i.e., the
strategic reading activities) as part of the cognitive domain.
Within the metacognitive domain we distinguish two components: (a)
metacognitive knowledge (i.e., knowledge about knowledge and about
cognitive processes); and (b) executive control (i.e., self-direction of
cognitive activities). Competence of either of these two components is
called metacognitive competence.
Previous research indicates a number of strategic reading activities
assumed to support reading comprehension (cf. Bimmel, 1999: 1923).

88

PETER BIMMEL AND ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

Like Westhoff (1991b: 28) and Mulder (1996: 29), we distinguish three
main groups: (a) readers linguistic and non-linguistic use of prior knowledge, including textual knowledge constructed while reading (for instance,
predicting text content on the basis of pictures, titles and headings, or the
beginnings and ends of paragraphs); (b) readers use of textual elements
with high informational value (e.g., looking for key fragments, or selfquestioning); and, (c) use of structure-marking elements in the text (for
instance, punctuation, connecting words, graphical structure characteristics) (see also Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000).
Research into the relationships between strategic reading activities and
reading comprehension has been carried out in different ways: (1) thinkaloud research (see the reviews by Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Fitzgerald,
1995; Kucan & Beck, 1997) which shows that experienced and successful
readers have a wider and more varied repertoire of strategic reading activities than weak, inexperienced ones. These studies also show that weak,
inexperienced readers are less likely than their stronger and more experienced counterparts to apply strategic reading activities (such as taking
notes, underlining text passages, deriving the meaning of words from the
context and predicting text content); (2) numerous intervention studies
have been conducted in both the first language (L1) especially with
young and weak readers and in foreign language study (L2), in which
students are trained in strategic reading activities (both with and without
a training component focused on enhancing metacognitive competence).
Reviews of intervention studies (e.g., Pearson & Dole, 1987; Paris, Wasik
& Van der Westhuizen, 1988; Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Pearson &
Fielding, 1991; Rosenshine & Meister, 1993; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995;
National Reading Panel, 2000) indicate that L1 reading strategy training
can have positive effects, especially with young and poor readers, at
least when the effect measurements occur through programme specific
reading tests. On the other hand, little use seems to be made of standard
reading tests to measure the transfer effects of reading strategy training to
reading comprehension. Reviews show, however, an increase in transfer
effects to reading comprehension when teaching attends specifically to
metacognitive competence.
Both types of research (i.e., think-aloud protocols and intervention
studies) show that the extent to which readers act strategically relates to
reading comprehension: experienced and successful readers use a wider
repertoire of strategic reading activities and use them more frequently than
less experienced and less successful readers. In short, research suggests a
connection between reading comprehension and the frequency readers use
and vary their strategic reading activities. What we do not know, however,

STRATEGIC READING ACTIVITIES AND READING COMPREHENSION

89

is the extent reading comprehension of secondary students is influenced

by their mastery of strategic reading activities (i.e., their ability to execute
such activities appropriately and successfully). An answer to that question is important, both theoretically and pedagogically, in organising
effective reading comprehension instruction. If students mastery of strategic reading activities is unrelated to reading comprehension, this would
challenge the common assumption that strategy training is important for
this target group.
Research (see Alexander & Jetton, 2000; Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000)
suggests highly different variables, each of which both independently
and in conjunction can influence reading comprehension, and thus
students mastery of strategic reading activities. They included such variables as word recognition, vocabulary size, ability to predict, knowledge of
the world, knowledge of text types and structures, attitude toward reading
and towards the usefulness of reading strategies. Learning style (Riding,
1997) and track of secondary education (vocational, lower general, higher
general or academic) (Hoogeveen & Bonset, 1998) does not appear as a
direct causal influence. School tracks suggest a proxy for other variables
that do have a causal effect on and correlate with reading comprehension.
Below, we limit this study to three variables: school type, learning style
and attitude.
(a) School type. Dutch secondary education consists of four main
streams or tracks: junior vocational, lower general, higher general and
academic. Junior vocational and lower general are four-year programs
which prepare students for senior secondary vocational education.
Higher general education consists of five years, and prepares students
for higher professional education. Pre-university (academic) requires
six years and prepares students for higher professional education or
university. Some findings indicate that students reading comprehension differs across these four main streams (Hoogeveen & Bonset,
1998: 203, 212, 216). It is often assumed that these differences relate
to a variety of underlying factors such as verbal intelligence, motivation, and social-economic background. We wonder about the extent
to which these differences are mediated by the mastery of strategic
reading activities, and whether the link between reading comprehension and students mastery of strategic reading activities is equally
strong across the four school types.
(b) Learning style. Although no clear agreement exists among theorists,
researchers and educators about the exact definition of the learning
style construct, considerable research (cf. Riding, 1997) indicates that
learners have clear preferences for how they process and store infor-

90

PETER BIMMEL AND ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

mation. Each individual learner appears to have more or less consistent

cognitive functioning in general and of learning languages in particular
(cf. Ellis, 1985: 114116; Lightbown & Spada, 1999: 58).
Although many different learning style assessment instruments are
available, very little research has examined possible interactions
between learner preferences and success in reading comprehension.
Learners preference for meaning orientation (Vermunt, 1992: 239)
seems to be particularly relevant for success in reading.
Vermunt (1992: 239) suggests a meaning oriented learning style
involves the use of strategies for in-depth and critical processing such
as making connections, processing information and self-direction.
Moreover, meaning-oriented learners have a mental model to construct
knowledge. It seems worthwhile to further investigate the extent of
the relationship between meaning orientation and students reading
comprehension and mastery of strategic reading activities.
(c) Attitude. Several studies indicate a weak correlation between the
reading attitudes of primary school students (0.100.40) and their
reading comprehension (cf. Aarnoutse & Van Leeuwe, 1998: 146).
It would be relevant, therefore, to investigate any such correlation in
secondary school students. It would also be interesting to investigate
how attitude towards usefulness of strategic reading activities relates
to mastery of these activities and to reading comprehension.
In light of the above, we pose the following research questions concerning
15-year-old Dutch secondary school students:
1. What relationship exists between L1 reading comprehension and
mastery of strategic reading activities?
2. To what extent are differences in average reading comprehension
between school types explained by differences in mastery of strategic reading activities, and to what extent is the relationship between
mastery of strategic reading activities and reading comprehension
equal across school types?
3. How strong is the relationship between meaning orientation on the
one hand, and mastery of strategic reading activities and reading
comprehension on the other?
4. How strong is the relationship between attitude towards reading and
the usefulness of reading strategies on the one hand, and mastery of
strategic reading activities and reading comprehension on the other?

STRATEGIC READING ACTIVITIES AND READING COMPREHENSION

91

2. M ETHOD

2.1. Analytical Method

We used analysis of covariance to answer the first two research questions.
Reading comprehension is the dependent variable and mastery of four strategic reading activities are covariates. School type is included as factor
to answer the second research question. Product-moment correlations
between attitude and learning style and between reading comprehension
and mastery of strategic reading activities provide the answers to the third
and fourth research question. Data originate from a quasi experiment,
in which reading strategy training was found neither to affect students
reading comprehension nor their mastery of strategic reading activities
(Bimmel, 1999: 59105 study 1).
Post-testing ocurred three months after pre-testing. The range of reliabilities of pre-tests and post-tests for measuring mastery of strategic reading
activities was 0.250.80 (Cronbachs Alpha). To obtain higher reliabilities,
we summed pre-test and post-test scores for identical constructs. Summing
pre-test and post-test scores for identical constructs is uncommon, but
since we found no treatment effect, we assume no treatment effect on posttest scores. In that case summing pre-test and post-test as indications of the
same construct is perhaps unusual, but methodologically sound.
2.2. Subjects
Participants of the study are 15-year-old students (grade 9) of all four
tracks of secondary education (vocational, lower general, higher general
and academic) from fifteen schools in Amsterdam. Mother Tongue
teachers of these 15 schools asked about 2,500 students to voluntarily
participate. Of 480 students who volunteered, we selected a non-random
sample of 144. In selecting students we aimed at an equal distribution of
vocational and lower general students on the one hand (N = 65) and higher
general and academic students (N = 79) on the other. Next we selected
equal numbers of girls and boys and of students with low, average and good
marks for Dutch. Students with very weak or very high marks were not
included in the selection to avoid threshold or ceiling effects. To exclude a
possible first-language effect, we included only native speakers of Dutch.
Since the sample is not random, we cannot interpret mean scores as
estimates of population means. Our research questions however pertain
to relationships between variables and not at generalizing mean scores.
Relationships between variables are less influenced by non-randomness
of the sample. If variances of variables are sufficiently large, relationships can be detected. Since students with extreme marks for Dutch were

92

PETER BIMMEL AND ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

excluded, variances in our study are probably smaller than population variances. Therefore, relationships found in the study will probably be smaller
than those found in a random sample of 15-year-old students in Dutch
secondary education.
2.3. Instruments
Below, we describe the selection and development of the instruments for
measuring reading comprehension, mastery of each of the four strategic
reading activities, attitude towards reading, attitude towards usefulness of
strategic reading activities, and the degree of meaning orientation in the
learning style.
Reading Comprehension
For measuring reading comprehension we selected parts of national final
mother-tongue exams for lower general secondary education from the
19871994 period. These exams consist of texts with multiple-choice
questions, and some open questions scored with answer keys. The 7 texts
selected each contain 79 items, all expected to measure reading comprehension at text or paragraph level. In addition to these exams, we used one
text from the IEA research, also intended to measure reading comprehension in secondary education (Elley, 1992). We altered some of the selected
instruments. First, we changed or excluded items that previously appeared
unreliable. Next, together with a bold-typeface introduction, we added
headings and some illustrations to make the Skimming strategy (see below)
possible.
Mastery of Strategic Reading Activities
We measured mastery of four strategic reading activities: (a) Skimming
(i.e., predicting text content on the basis of the title, headings, illustrations, etc.); (b) Reading the beginning and the end of paragraphs (BEP)
(predicting text content on the basis of the beginning and the end of paragraphs); (c) Key fragments (looking for and underlining passages with
a high informational value); and (d) Connecting words (using structuremarking connecting words (hinge words) that indicate logical connections
in a text).
We selected these strategic reading activities first because they have
often been taught successfully in earlier intervention research, both in
first-language and in foreign-language education (see reviews cited in the
above). Second, all three main reading strategy groups are represented
by these four strategic reading activities. Skimming belongs to the main
group Use of prior knowledge. BEP and Key fragments form part of the

STRATEGIC READING ACTIVITIES AND READING COMPREHENSION

93

group Use of text elements with a high informational value. BEP also
concerns prediction on the basis of prior knowledge. Hinge words is one
of the strategies from the group Use of structure-marking elements in the
text. For each of the four instruments measuring the ability to use strategic
reading activities we developed answer keys with instructions on how the
instruments should be scored.
The Skimming instrument shows the title, headings and illustrations of
four texts and 52 items. For each item participants indicate the probability
that the item is in one of the texts.
The BEP instrument (39 items) consists of parts of four texts: the illustrations and their captions, the introduction, the first and last paragraph,
and the beginning and end of all other paragraphs. For some items participants indicated whether a certain sentence could occur in the text; other
items consisted of multiple-choice questions on paragraph content.
In the Key fragments instrument (33 items), participants underlined key
fragments in two texts and indicated in two other texts whether given
fragments are key fragments.
Finally, the Hinge words instrument offers 27 multiple-choice items.
For some items participants chose the connecting word (i.e., a conjunction
or a pronominal adverb) belonging in the text. Other items consisted of
questions concerning connecting words used in the text.
The face and content validity of instruments measuring mastery of
strategic reading activities are discussed above. Other indications of
validity have not as yet been investigated for these instruments. If one or
more instruments measuring mastery of strategic reading activities also
measures reading proficiency, the correlation between reading proficiency
and mastery of strategic reading activities will be spuriously high (and
meaningless). This begs the question: to what extent do the instruments for
measuring strategic reading comprehension also (partly) measure reading
proficiency?
The reading comprehension items measure the extent of students
ability to extract and understand information including the main idea of a
text, the meaning of paragraphs, and links between paragraphs. The instruments for strategic reading activities requires students to: (a) predict text
content on the basis of titles, headings, illustrations or the beginnings and
ends of paragraphs; (b) identify text passages with a high informational
value; and, (c) indicate which structure markers fit in the text in certain
places. These tasks differ from those in the reading comprehension instrument. Only a small number of items in the Hinge words instrument, asking
for text meaning, show some overlap with the reading comprehension
instrument.

94

PETER BIMMEL AND ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

Learning Styles
The learning style instrument is an adaptation of the Inventory Learning
Styles for academic secondary education (ILS-VWO) (Vermunt & Van
Rijswijk, 1992). The different scales used in the instrument are based on
student interviews. We used two of the ILS scales; in-depth processing
and self-direction. The in-depth processing scale measures to what extent
students seek connections within the text itself, and between textual
information and their own prior knowledge (Vermunt, 1992: 86). The selfdirection scale measures to what extent the learning process is directed by
the individual student. Vermunt (1992) used exploratory factor analysis to
support the discriminant validity of the different scales used in the ILS.
Also, the stability of the ILS scales was demonstrated.
Attitude
To answer the fourth research question, we constructed two attitude questionnaires: affective attitude towards reading (10 items) and cognitive attitude towards usefulness of strategic reading strategies (12 items) (Ajzen,
1988, 1991). Students indicated the degree to which items applied to them
on Likert-scales (1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree). Examples of items
are I hate reading, Reading is fun (affective attitude towards reading),
and For me to understand a text properly, I think it is useful to first read the
beginnings and ends of paragraphs (cognitive attitude towards usefulness
of strategic reading activities).
2.4. Reliabilities
For analyses aimed at detecting relations between constructs at group level,
a reliability of 0.70 is regarded as acceptable, 0.80 and higher is regarded
as good (De Groot & Van Naerssen, 1969). Only the self-direction learning
style instrument has a rather low reliability (0.64). Reliabilities of all other
instruments are larger than 0.70 (see Table 1).

3. R ESULTS

The average score for reading comprehension is 29.7, with a standard deviation of 8.1 (N = 141). Table 2 shows that, as expected, higher tracks of
secondary education have higher mean reading comprehension scores (see
observed means). These mean scores cannot be seen as estimates of the
respective scores in the populations under consideration, but the magnitude
of the scores support the validity of the reading comprehension instrument.

95

STRATEGIC READING ACTIVITIES AND READING COMPREHENSION

TABLE 1
Test reliabilities ( = Cronbachs alpha, k = number of items, N = number of subjects).
Test

Reading comprehension
Skimming
Beginning and end of paragraphs
Key fragments
Hinge words
Learning style in depth processing
Learning style self direction
Attitude reading
Attitude reading strategies

0.84
0.81
0.75
0.74
0.75
0.75
0.64
0.91
0.82

53
52
39
33
27
10
10
10
12

141
143
145
138
134
145
145
71a
71a

a In the original intervention study, the attitude questionnaire was used in order to inves-

tigate whether the intervention would have an influence on students attitudes in the
experimental condition towards reading and reading strategies. Therefore this instrument
was administered only with the students in the experimental condition. This explains the
lower N for this instrument (N = 71 instead of 134 or more).

As can be seen in Table 2, specific track of secondary education and

mastery of strategic reading activities explain 71% of the variance in
reading comprehension. The standardized betas of the three significant
covariates are modest. The regression weight of Skimming is not significant in the covariance analysis. This does not imply that Skimming is not
related to reading comprehension. The correlations between Skimming,
BEP, Key fragments and Hinge words on the one hand and the reading
comprehension on the other are respectively 0.47 (P = 0.000, N = 139),
0.66 (P = 0.000, N = 141), 0.57 (P = 0.000, N = 134) and 0.72 (P = 0.000,
N = 132). The proportions of variance explained by each covariate are
therefore 0.22, 0.44, 0.32 and 0.52, respectively. The regression weight of
Skimming in Table 2 is not significant because of covariance with the other
three covariates (see Table 3).
The answer to the first research question suggests a significant relationship between reading comprehension on the one hand and mastery
of each of the four strategic reading activities on the other. The strongest
connection was found for Hinge words, followed by BEP, Key fragments
and Skimming. With reference to Hinge words, however, we should note
that the instrument shows a certain similarity to the reading comprehension
instrument.
To summarize, on average, students reading comprehension is better
when they demonstrate proficiency in: (a) using structure-marking ele-

96

PETER BIMMEL AND ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

TABLE 2
Analysis of covariance with reading comprehension in Dutch as the dependent variable,
school type as factor and strategic reading activities as covariates.
df
Model
Regression
School type

Skimming
Beginning and end of paragraphs
Key fragments
Hinge words

Junior vocational & lower general

Lower general & higher general
Higher general & pre-academic
Pre-academic

7
4
3

F
45.26
14.89
14.90

Standardized
betas

t-value

0.01
0.20
0.17
0.23

0.16
3.07
2.78
3.13

P
0.000
0.000
0.000
Sig t
0.873
0.003
0.006
0.002

Observed means
(and standard
deviations)

Corrected
means

19.78 (5.5)
26.74 (6.3)
33.53 (4.5)
36.53 (4.4)

23.66
27.96
31.59
33.39

(1) N = 125. (2) Adjusted R2 = 0.71. (3) Assumption of parallel regression lines (school
type x covariates): df = 12; F = 1.39; P = 0.185. Huitemas inequality = 7/125 = 0.06. (4)
Maximum score to be obtained in reading comprehension = 47.

ments in the text, (b) predicting text content on the basis of the beginning
and end of paragraphs, (c) recognizing text passages with a high information value, and (d) predicting text content on the basis of titles, headings
and illustrations.
The answer to the second research question is also in Table 2. After
correcting for the effects of students mastery of strategic reading activities
on reading comprehension, the factor school type remains significant.
Based on differences between uncorrected averages, the difference in
reading comprehension between students of the lowest and the highest
school type is 16.75, i.e., more than two standard deviations (using the
standard deviation of the general average, which is 8.1). After correction for the effects of mastery of strategic reading activities, we still
have a difference of more than one standard deviation. Clearly no more
than half the difference in reading comprehension between students of

STRATEGIC READING ACTIVITIES AND READING COMPREHENSION

97

TABLE 3
Product-moment-correlations.
Reading
comprehension

Skimming

BEP

Key
fragments

Hinge
words

Learning style
self direction

0.13
N = 117

0.09
N = 117

0.09
N = 117

0.03
N = 117

0.18
N = 117

Learning style
in depth processing

0.05
N = 117

0.13
N = 117

0.07
N = 117

0.07
N = 117

0.02
N = 117

Attitude reading

0.26
N = 70

0.02
N = 69

0.14
N = 70

0.17
N = 66

0.13
N = 65

Attitude strategic
reading activities

0.13
N = 67

0.25
N = 66

0.26
N = 67

0.17
N = 63

0.23
N = 64

0.49
N = 143

0.47
N = 137

0.52
N = 132

0.50
N = 138

0.59
N = 134

Skimming

BEP

Key fragments

0.51
N = 128

P < 0.05; P < 0.01; P < 0.001.

different school types can be traced to mastery of the four strategic reading
activities.
The answer to the second part of research question 2 (whether the
relations between reading comprehension and mastery of strategic reading
activities are equal for the four tracks of secondary education) is found
in the results of testing the assumption of parallel regression lines (see
Table 2, note 3). If an interaction effect occurs between the covariates
(the scores on the tests for strategic reading activities) on the one hand,
and the factor (school type) on the other, the regression lines do not run
parallel. Since the interaction is not significant (P = 0.185), we conclude
that relations between reading comprehension and mastery of strategic
reading activities are equal for the four tracks of secondary education.
In Table 3, product-moment correlations are presented between reading
comprehension and mastery of each of the four strategic reading activities
on the one hand, and the different attitude and learning style variables
on the other. We do not find a significant connection between learning

98

PETER BIMMEL AND ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

style (self-direction and in-depth processing) on the one hand, and reading
comprehension and mastery of strategic reading activities on the other.
The strength of the relationships between attitudes towards reading
and usefulness of strategic reading activities on the one hand and reading
comprehension and mastery of strategic reading activities on the other
(fourth research question) can be found in Table 3. The relationship
between reading comprehension and attitude towards reading is low but
significant (r = 0.26, P < 0.05). Attitude towards the usefulness of strategic reading activities correlates negatively with all four indications of
mastery of strategic reading activities, although only for Skimming and
BEP correlation (respectively 0.25 and 0.26) are significant at 5%. We
did not perform regression or covariance analyses, since a precondition for
such analyses is that the independent variables are meaningfully related to
the dependent variable. Stevens (1986) mentions a correlation of 0.40 as
lower boundary.

4. C ONCLUSIONS AND D ISCUSSION

What implications do these results have on reading comprehension instruction in secondary education? First, our results support those who advocate
specific reading strategy instruction since the mastery of the strategic
reading activities is strongly related to students reading comprehension.
Although plausible, our study does not provide empirical evidence for
a causal relation. Other indications of a causal relation are provided by
Bimmel, Van den Bergh and Oostdam (2001). A follow-up study to verify
whether these relations are truly causal would certainly be worthwhile.
Mastery of strategic reading activities is strongly related to reading
comprehension and explains half of its variance. Even more interestingly,
the relation between mastery of strategic reading activities and reading
comprehension is equal for the four different streams of Dutch secondary
education. This means that for able and less able students alike, mastery of
strategic reading activities seems to facilitate reading comprehension. We
may therefore conclude that training of strategic reading activities need not
be limited to lower levels of secondary education but may be beneficial for
all students in secondary education.
The negative relation found between attitude towards usefulness of strategic reading activities and reading comprehension, means that more able
students think strategic reading activities are less useful even though these
more able students seem to benefit from using the same strategic reading
activities as their less able peers.

STRATEGIC READING ACTIVITIES AND READING COMPREHENSION

99

Second, the results of our study do not support the claims of the
beneficial effects of catering to student learning styles. We found no relationship between reading comprehension and a meaning-oriented learning
style. This could mean that the level of meaning orientation in learning
style does not affect reading comprehension, or that the learning style
measurement is invalid. Prins, Busato, Hamaker and Visser (1996) and
Prins, Busato, Elshout and Hamaker (1998) used think aloud protocols
of first-year students of psychology learning content material and found
that Vermunts ILS has little connection to differences in strategic activities. Indeed, these researchers question the validity of the ILS. Phifer and
Glover (1982) had similar results; that is, students do not consistently apply
the strategies they say they use, and are not very proficient in applying the
strategies they say they use. The negative relationship we found between
students attitudes towards usefulness of strategic reading activities on the
one hand and their reading comprehension and mastery of strategic reading
activities on the other supports Lohman (1990) that training thinking skills
negatively affects the performance of students with high scores.
The causal chain appears to run from students reading comprehension
to their attitude towards usefulness of strategic reading activities. After
all, it seems unlikely that students reading comprehension is negatively
influenced by a positive attitude towards the usefulness of strategic reading
activities, or, conversely, that reading comprehension improves because of
a negative attitude. So, although more able students do seem to benefit
from the use of strategic reading activities, designing reading strategy
instruction for students with a high level of reading comprehension must
recognise average negative attitudes. One might say these students are
right. Why should they change their approach to reading texts if their
current approach is satisfactory? Since these competent students appear
to resist strategic reading activities and in fact, require less instruction for
reading improvement, it appears sensible to direct explicit teaching of the
strategies to students with lower reading proficiencies (and a positive attitude toward strategic reading strategies). We suggest that, while all readers
could benefit from explicit teaching of the strategies, those less competent
will gain most substantially.
R EFERENCES
Aarnoutse, C. (1998). Lezen in ontwikkeling. [Developing reading.] Inaugural speech.
Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
Aarnoutse, C. & van Leeuwe, J. (1998). Relation between reading comprehension, vocabulary, reading pleasure, and reading frequency. Educational Research and Evaluation,
4(2), 143166.

100

PETER BIMMEL AND ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179211.
Alexander, P.A., Graham, S. & Harris, K.R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research:
Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129154.
Alexander, P.A. & Jetton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and
developmental perspective. In R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III
(pp. 285310). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Alvermann, D.E. & Moore, D.W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M.L.
Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal & P.D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research, Vol. II
(pp. 951983). New York: Longman.
Baker, L. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 353394). New York: Longman.
Bereiter, C. & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of
reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2), 131156.
Bimmel, P.E. (1999). Training en transfer van leesstrategien. Training in de moedertaal
en transfer naar een vreemde taal een effectstudie bij leerlingen uit het voortgezet
onderwijs. [Training and transfer of reading strategies. Training in the first language
and transfer to a foreign language an intervention study with students in secondary
education.] s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands: Malmberg.
Bimmel, P., van den Bergh, H. & Oostdam, R. (2001). Effects of strategy training on
reading comprehension in first and foreign language. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 16(4), 509.
Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the world do students read? IEA study of reading literacy. The
Hague: IEA.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners cognitive reading processes:
a review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 145
190.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, New Jersey:
Ablex.
Goldman, S.R. & Rakestraw, J.A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from
text. In R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 311335). Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Groot, A.D. de & Naerssen, R.F. van (1969). Studietoetsen. Construeren, afnemen, analyseren. [Educational testing. Construction, administration, analysis.] The Hague, The
Netherlands: Mouton.
Hoogeveen, M. & Bonset, H. (1998). Het schoolvak Nederlands onderzocht. Een inventarisatie van onderzoek naar onderwijs Nederlands als eerste en tweede taal in Nederland
en Vlaanderen. [An inventory of research into the teaching of Dutch as a first and second
language in the Netherlands and Flanders.] Apeldoorn, The Netherlands: Garant.
Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. van (1992). Cognitieve strategien als onderwijsdoel. [Cognitive
strategies as an instructional aim.] Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Kucan, L. & Beck, I.L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research:
Inquiry, instruction and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3),
271299.

STRATEGIC READING ACTIVITIES AND READING COMPREHENSION

101

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lohman, D.F. (1990). When good programs have bad effects on good students: Understanding mathemathanic effects in thinking skills programs. In M.J. Ippel & J.J. Elshout
(Eds), Training van hogere-orde denkprocessen (pp. 2130). Amsterdam/Lisse, The
Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Miller, C.D., Miller, H.F. & Rosen, L.A. (1988). Modified reciprocal teaching in a regular
classroom. Journal of Experimental Education, 56, 183186.
Mulder, H.B.G.W.J. (1996). Training in leesstrategien: vorm en rendement. Een
onderzoek naar het effect van vier trainingsvarianten op leesvaardigheid Frans als
vreemde taal. [Training of reading strategies methods and effects. A study into the
effects of four training methods on reading comprehension in French as a foreign
language.] Amsterdam: Meulenhoff Educatief.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. Retrieved from www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp.
OECD (1998). Literacy, economy and society. Results of the first International Adult
Literacy Survey. Ontario: OECD/Statistics Canada.
OECD (2000). Literacy in the information age. Final report of the International Adult
Literacy Survey. Paris: OECD.
Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A. & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R.
Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal & P.D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research,
Vol. II (pp. 609640). New York: Longman.
Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A. & Van der Westhuizen, G. (1988). Meta-metacognition: A review
of research on metacognition and reading. In J. Readence & S. Baldwin (Eds), Dialogues
in literacy research. The 37th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 143
166). Chicago, Illinois: National Reading Conference.
Pearson, P.D. & Dole, J.A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: a review of research
and a new conceptualization of instruction. Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151165.
Pearson, P.D. & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil,
M., P.B. Mosenthal & P.D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research, Vol. II
(pp. 815860). New York: Longman.
Phifer, S.J. & Glover, J.A. (1982). Dont take students word for what they do while
reading. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19(4), 194196.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In R.
Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 545561). Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: the nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Prins, F.J., Busato, V.V., Hamaker, C. & Visser, K.H. (1996). Een bijdrage tot de validatie
van het (meta)cognitieve deel van de Inventaris Leerstijlen. [A contribution to the validation of the (meta)cognitive part of the Learning Styles Inventory.] Pedagogische Studin,
73, 108122.
Prins, F.J., Busato, V.V., Elshout, J.J. & Hamaker, C. (1998). Een nieuwe bijdrage tot de
validatie van het (meta)cognitieve deel van de Inventaris Leerstijlen (ILS). [A new contribution to the validation of the (meta)cognitive part of the Learning Styles Inventory.]
Pedagogische Studin, 75, 7393.
Riding, R.J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17(12),
2949.

102

PETER BIMMEL AND ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C.E. (1993). Reciprocal teaching: A review of 19 experimental

studies. Technical Report No. 574. Champaign, Illinois: Center for the Study of Reading.
ERIC Document 356456.
Simons, P.R.-J. (Ed.) (2000). Review studie leren en instructie. [Review on learning and
instruction.] Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, Department
of Educational Sciences. (= J.H.G.I. Giesbers reports on education, no. 13).
Smith, F. (19884 ). Understanding reading. A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and
learning to read. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vermunt, J. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs.
Naar procesgerichte instructie in zelfstandig denken. [Learning styles and the regulation of learning processes in higher education. Towards process oriented instruction in
autonomous thinking.] Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Vermunt, J. & van Rijswijk, F. (1992). Inventaris Leerstijlen. [Learning Styles Inventory.]
Tilburg, The Netherlands: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Sectie Onderwijspsychologie.
Westhoff, G.J. (1991a). Strategies some tentative definitions. In M. Biddle & P. Malmberg
(Eds), Learning to learn: Investigating learner strategies and learner autonomy. Report
of workshop 2a (p. 44). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Westhoff, G.J. (1991b). Increasing the effectiveness of foreign language reading instruction
(Part 2). ADFL-Bulletin, 22(3), 2832.

PETER BIMMEL

Graduate School of Teaching and Learning (ILO)

Amsterdam University
Wibautstraat 24
1091 GM Amsterdam
E-mail: pbimmel@wxs.nl
ERIK VAN SCHOOTEN

SCO-Kohnstamm Institute
Amsterdam University
Wibautstraat 24
1091 GM Amsterdam