Abstract
The current research used the Proficient Academic Reader (PAR) framework to explore whether reading strategies, task awareness, and motivation predicted college students’ literacy skills over and above foundational skills (e.g., decoding, vocabulary). Specifically, the current research investigated the unique contribution of the PAR constructs to literacy performance across two studies with two different samples of college students. In study one, college students completed assessments of bridging and elaborative reading strategies, task awareness, motivation (intrinsic motivation and competence beliefs), foundational skills, and literacy performance at the beginning of the semester. In study two, college students completed the same assessments at the beginning and end of a reading study and strategies course. Across both studies, students’ task awareness and motivation were significantly predictive of their literacy performance over and above foundational skills. Results from study one indicated that elaborative reading strategies uniquely predicted college students’ literacy performance. Results from study two indicated that elaborative strategies did not predict literacy performance at time one, however, they predicted literacy performance at time two. Exploratory analyses showed that the relation of motivation to literacy performance was moderated by students’ enrollment in developmental education courses. Additionally, motivation, elaborative reading strategies, and task awareness partially mediated the relation of foundational skills to literacy performance, suggesting modifications to the original PAR model. These findings support using the PAR framework to understand college reading readiness. Additional randomized controlled trial intervention studies are warranted to explore if factors of the PAR framework are malleable to classroom instruction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
According to independent-samples t-tests, there were no differences in performance on the complex literacy, foundational reading skills, task awareness, reading motivation, and reading strategies measures between the 2- and 4-year college students (ps > 0.05).
To test the construct validity of reading strategies (bridging and elaboration) as a single factor, a second, 3-factor CFA model was run with latent factors of foundational skills, motivation, and awareness correlated with observed variables of bridging and elaboration. This model generally demonstrated good fit to the data, χ2(28) = 53.46, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.047 (90% CI: 0.027—0.065), SRMR = 0.033. A second, 4-factor model was run with foundational skills, motivation, task awareness, and reading strategies as latent factors. This model also fit well to the data χ2(30) = 54.28, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.98, TLI = .98, RMSEA = 0.044 (90% CI: 0.024 — 0.062), SRMR = 0.033. The 4-factor model did not demonstrate improvement in model fit over the 3-factor model (Δ df = 2, Δ χ 2 = 1.02, p > 0.05), suggesting that a latent factor of reading strategies does not improve the overall fit of the model over two observed variables of bridging and elaboration. Therefore, and for theoretical reasons discussed above, bridging and elaboration were kept as separate, observed variables.
The models at Time 1 and Time 2 were run separately and demonstrated good model fit (Time 1: χ2(33) = 88.33, p < 0.001 CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.066, SRMR = 0.033, Time 2: χ2(33) = 63.16, p = 0.001 CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.048, SRMR = 0.027, respectively). These models demonstrated similar results to the final predictive model that included both time points. See Figure S1 in Appendix B of the supplementary files.
These questions were explored per the suggestion of reviewers during the review process.
References
Ahmed, Y., Francis, D. J., York, M., Fletcher, J. M., Barnes, M., & Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002
Ahmed, Y., Miciak, J., Taylor, W. P., & Francis, D. J. (2022). Structure altering effects of a multicomponent reading Intervention: An application of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in upper elementary grades. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219421995904
Ari, O. (2016). Word recognition processes in college-age students’ reading comprehension achievement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(8), 718–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1098578
Ariani, D. (2016). Why do I study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance. Business, Management and Education, 14(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2016.329
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Bergey, B. W., Deacon, S. H., & Parrila, R. K. (2017). Metacognitive reading and study strategies and academic achievement of university students with and without a history of reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415597020
Boakye, N. A. Y. (2017). Efficacy of a reading intervention for first-year university students. Per Linguam, 33(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5785/33-1-710
Boekaerts, M. (1991). Subjective competence, appraisals and self-assessment. Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(91)90016-2
Boekaerts, M. (1992). The adaptable learning process: Initiating and maintaining behavioural change. Applied Psychology, 41(4), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00713.x
Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). Teaching sourcing in upper secondary school: A comprehensive sourcing intervention with follow-up data. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(4), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.253
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition Learning, 6(2), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. (2018). Literacy Beyond Text Comprehension: A Theory of Purposeful Reading (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315682860
Bui, N. H. (2017). The relationship between self-efficacy and perceptions of different literacy types among college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 47(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2016.1218808
Cartwright, K. B., Lee, S. A., Barber, A. T., DeWyngaert, L. U., Lane, A. B., & Singleton, T. (2020). Contributions of executive function and cognitive intrinsic motivation to university students’ reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(3), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.273
Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, R., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanation: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(89)90002-5
Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7
Cho, Y., Weinstein, C. E., & Wicker, F. (2011). Perceived competence and autonomy as moderators of the effects of achievement goal orientation. Educational Psychology, 31(4), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.560597
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: What are we measuring? Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6895-7
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019452
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (2014). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology (pp. 35–54). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_3
Dai, D. Y., & Wang, X. (2007). The role of need for cognition and reader beliefs in text comprehension and interest development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.002
Dietrich, J., Viljaranta, J., Moeller, J., & Kracke, B. (2017). Situational expectancies and task values: Associations with students’ effort. Learning and Instruction, 47, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.009
Feller, D. P., Magliano, J., Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Kopatich, R. D. (2020). Relations between component reading skills, inferences, and comprehension performance in community college readers. Discourse Processes, 57(5-6), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1759175
Feller, D. P., Talwar, A., Greenberg, D., Kopatich, R. D., & Magliano, J. P. (2023). Exploring moderational and mediational relations among word reading, vocabulary, sentence processing and comprehension for struggling adult readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 46(3), 312-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12426
Feraco, T., Resnati, D., Fregonese, D., Spoto, A., & Meneghetti, C. (2023). An integrated model of school students’ academic achievement and life satisfaction: Linking soft skills, extracurricular activities, self-regulated learning, motivation, and emotions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38(4), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00523-7
Goldman, S. R. (2011). Choosing and using multiple information sources: Some new findings and emergent issues. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 238–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.006
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027
Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 55–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2013.773217
Guthrie, J. T., & Klauda, S. L. (2014). Effects of classroom practices on reading comprehension, engagement, and motivations for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 387–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.81
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403
He, Q., Liao, D., & Jiao, H. (2019). Clustering behavioral patterns using process data in PIAAC problem-solving items. In Theoretical and Practical Advances in Computer-based Educational Measurement (pp. 189–212). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20374-2_10
He, Q., & von Davier, M. (2015). Identifying feature sequences from process data in problem- solving items with n-grams. In A. van der Ark, D. Bolt, S. Chow, J. Douglas, & W. Wang (Eds.), Quantitative Psychology Research: Proceedings of the 79th Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society (pp. 173–190). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19977-1_13
He, Q., & von Davier, M. (2016). Analyzing process data from problem-solving items with n- grams: Insights from a computer-based large-scale assessment. In Y. Rosen, S. Ferrara, & M. Mosharraf (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Technology Tools for Real-World Skill Development (pp. 749–776). Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9441-5.ch029
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. SAGE.
Higgs, K. P., Santuzzi, A. M., Gibson, C., Kopatich, R. D., Feller, D. P., & Magliano, J. P. (2023). Relationships between task awareness, comprehension strategies, and literacy outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1056457. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1056457
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Hunsu, N. J., Adesope, O., & McCrudden, M. T. (2023). The effects of text structure on students’ use of comprehension strategies and cognitive outcomes during science text processing. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1112804
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
Kardash, C. M., & Noel, L. K. (2000). How organizational signals, need for cognition, and verbal ability affect text recall and recognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1011
Kopatich, R. D., Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Parker, C. P., & Ray, M. (2019). Understanding how language-specific and domain-general resources support comprehension. Discourse Processes, 56(7), 530-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1519358
Lampi, J. P., Armstrong, S. L., & Magliano, J. P. (2023). Reading matters in supporting students: The role of complex literacy tasks in academic success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 0(0), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251231214557
Liao, D., He, Q., & Jiao, H. (2019). Map** background variables with sequential patterns in problem-solving environments: An investigation of united states adults’ employment status in PIAAC. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 646. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00646
List, A., Du, H., & Wang, Y. (2019). Understanding students’ conceptions of task assignments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101801
Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
Llorens, A. C., & Cerdán, R. (2012). Assessing the comprehension of questions in task-oriented reading. Revista De Psicodidáctica, 17(2), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1387/Rev.Psicodidact.4496
Macaruso, P., & Shankweiler, D. (2010). Expanding the simple view of reading in accounting for reading skills in community college students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 454–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903241363
Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., The R-SAT Development Team, & Levinstein, I. (2011). Assessing comprehension during reading with the reading strategy assessment tool (RSAT). Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9064-2
Magliano, J. P., McCrudden, M. T., Rouet, J.-F., & Sabatini, J. (2017). The modern reader: Should changes to how we read affect research and theory? In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Processes (pp. 343-361). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687384
Magliano, J. P., Higgs, K., Santuzzi, A., Tonks, S. M., O'Reilly, T., Sabatini, J., Feller, D., Kopatich, R. D., Ray, M., & Parker, C. (2020). Testing the inference mediation hypothesis in a post-secondary context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101867
Magliano, J. P., Talwar, A., Feller, D. P., Wang, Z., O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2023). Exploring thresholds in the foundational skills for reading and comprehension outcomes in the context of postsecondary readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221087387
Marrs, H., Sigler, E., & Hayes, K. (2009). Study strategy predictors of performance in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(2), 125–133. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ952259
McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist, 56(3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.12.001
McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3801_1
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Self-explanation and metacognition: The dynamics of reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 60–81). Routledge.
McNamara, D. S., Newton, N., Christhilf, K., McCarthy, K. S., Magliano, J. P., & Allen, L. K. (2023). Anchoring your bridge: The importance of paraphrasing to inference making in self-explanations. Discourse Processes, 60, 337–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2225757
Miller, S. D., & Faircloth, B. S. (2009). Motivation and reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension (pp. 307–322). Routledge.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2019). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
O'Reilly, T., & Sheehan, K. M. (2009). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: A framework for assessing reading competency. ETS Research Report Series. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2009.tb02183.x
O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2013). Reading for understanding: How performance moderators and scenarios impact assessment design. ETS Research Report Series. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2013.tb02338.x
O’Reilly, T., Weeks, J., Sabatini, J., et al. (2014). Designing Reading Comprehension Assessments for Reading Interventions: How a Theoretically Motivated Assessment Can Serve as an Outcome Measure. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9269-z
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Perin, D. (2020). Reading, writing, and self-efficacy of low-skilled postsecondary students. In D. Perin (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Adult Literacy (pp. 237–260). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261407.ch11
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
Proctor, B. E., Prevatt, F. F., Adams, K. S., Reaser, A., & Petscher, Y. (2006). Study skills profiles of normal-achieving and academically-struggling college students. Journal of College Student Development, 47(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0011
Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The Skills of Document Use: From Text Comprehension to Web-Based Learning (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203820094
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015
Sabatini, J. P., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L., & Bruce, K. (2014). Broadening the scope of reading comprehension using scenario-based assessments: Preliminary findings and challenges. L'Année Psychologique, 114(4), 693–723. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503314004059
Sabatini, J., Bruce, K., Steinberg, J., & Weeks, J. (2015). SARA reading components tests, RISE forms: Technical adequacy and test design, 2nd Edition. ETS Research Report Series. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12076
Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., Wang, Z., & Dreier, K. (2018). Scenario-based assessment of multiple source use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of Multiple Source Use (1st ed., pp. 447-466). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627496
Sabatini, J., Weeks, J., O’Reilly, T. Bruce, K. Steinberg, J. & Chao, Z. (2019). SARA reading components tests, RISE forms: Technical adequacy and test design, 3rd Edition. ETS Research Report Series. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12269
Sabatini J., O’Reilly T., Weeks J., & Wang, Z. (2020). Engineering a 21st century reading comprehension assessment system utilizing scenario-based assessment techniques. International Journal of Testing. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1551224
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860
Shernoff, D. J., Kelly, S., Tonks, S. M., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, R. F., Sinha, S., & Abdi, B. (2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.003
Shumow, L., Lyutykh, E., & Schmidt, J. A. (2011). Predictors and outcomes of parental involvement with high school students in science. The School Community Journal, 21(2), 81–98. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ957128.pdf
Simpson, M. L. (1996). Conducting reality checks to improve students’ strategic learning. In N. A. Stahl & H. Boylan (Eds.), Teaching Developmental Reading: Historical, Theoretical, and Practical Background Readings (pp. 290–301). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Simpson, M. L., Stahl, N. A., & Francis, M. A. (2004). Reading and learning strategies: Recommendations for the 21st century. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(20), 2–15. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ718571
Snow, C., The RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Towards a R&D program for reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Talwar, A., Tighe, E. L., & Greenberg, D. (2018). Augmenting the simple view of reading for struggling adult readers: A unique role for background knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(5), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1450410
Talwar, A., Magliano, J. P., Higgs, K., Santuzzi, A., Tonks, S., O’Reilly, T., & et al. (2023). Early academic success in college: Examining the contributions of reading literacy skills, metacognitive reading strategies, and reading motivation. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 53(1), 58–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2022.2137069
Tighe, E. L., Kaldes, G., & McNamara, D. S. (2023). The role of inferencing in struggling adult readers’ comprehension of different texts: A mediation analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 102, 102268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102268
Tonks, S. M., Magliano, J. P., Schwartz, J., & Kopatich, R. D. (2021). How situational competence beliefs and task value relate to inference strategies and comprehension during reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 90, 102036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102036
Vanek, J. (2017). Using the PIAAC framework for problem solving in technology-rich environments to guide instruction: An introduction for adult educators. Retrieved from: https://edtech.worlded.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/PSTRE_Guide_Vanek_2017.pdf
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 727–747). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50051-2
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, & J. Dunlosky (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 277-304). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297-314). Routledge.
Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467–502. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2
Wu, Z. (2019). Academic motivation, engagement, and achievement among college students. College Student Journal, 53(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2019.0008
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Acknowledgements
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grants R305A150193 awarded to Northern Illinois University, R305A190063 awarded to Arizona State University, and Grant R305A190522 awarded to Educational Testing Service.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kaldes, G., Higgs, K., Lampi, J. et al. Testing the model of a proficient academic reader (PAR) in a postsecondary context. Read Writ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10500-9
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10500-9