See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229687732

Comprehension monitoring, metacognition and other mysterious processes

Article in Support for Learning · May 2007

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.1994.tb00169.x

CITATIONS READS

7 547

1 author:

David Wray
The University of Warwick
99 PUBLICATIONS 1,806 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David Wray on 15 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comprehension monitoring, metacognition and other mysterious processes
Wray, D. (1994) ‘Comprehension monitoring, metacognition and other mysterious
processes’, in Support for Learning, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 107-113

Introduction

While reading some particularly densely written background material before writing this
article I noticed that it was becoming increasingly difficult for me to concentrate on what I
was reading. My mind kept drifting to other, lighter, topics and several times I came to with a
jerk to realise that I had understood nothing of the several paragraphs I thought I had read’. In
the language I shall use in this article, this was a metacognitive experience, and my
comprehension monitoring had alternately lapsed and kicked into action. These terms are
probably unfamiliar to many people, yet the processes to which they refer have been
increasingly demonstrated to be of special importance in intellectual development and in the
operation of many intellectual activities, in particular that of reading. This article will explore
the areas of metacognition and reading, focusing in particular upon comprehension
monitoring, before briefly reviewing the practical ways in which teachers might respond to
these insights. (Much greater detail about the issues referred to here will be found in Wray,
(1994)).

Metacognition and comprehension monitoring

Vygotsky suggested (1962) that there are two stages in the development of knowledge:
firstly, its automatic unconscious acquisition (we learn things or how to do things, but do not
know that we know these things), and secondly, a gradual increase in active conscious control
over that knowledge (we begin to know what we know and that there is more that we do not
know). This distinction is essentially the difference between the cognitive and metacognitive
aspects of knowledge and thought. The term metacognition is used to refer to the deliberate
conscious control of one’s own cognitive actions (Brown, 1980), that is, cognition about
cognition: thinking about thinking.

There is a hierarchical relationship between the terms •metacognition’ and •comprehension

monitoring’ (Baker & Brown, 1984). •Metacognition’ can be seen as the wider concept,
applying to knowledge about cognition in general. •Comprehension monitoring’ is seen as
applying mainly to the comprehension of connected discourse, which may, of course, involve
either reading or listening. In thinking about this topic the following kinds of questions tend
to get asked (Wagoner, 1983): What do readers know about their own comprehension, that is,
what they comprehend and how they comprehend? Are they aware of when they comprehend
adequately and when they do not? How do readers decide when their comprehension is
adequate? What kinds of strategies do readers use when they realise they are not
comprehending what they read in order to compensate for this? Some fairly clear answers to
these questions have emerged from research, and they are answers with important
implications for teachers of reading.

Comprehension monitoring in reading

An analysis of the operation of comprehension monitoring during the reading process must
begin with a description of what this process involves. Good reading has been described as
follows: “A good reader proceeds smoothly and quickly as long as his understanding of the
material is complete. But as soon as he senses that he has missed an idea, that the track has
been lost, he brings smooth progress to a blinding halt. Advancing more slowly, he seeks
clarification in the subsequent material, examining it for the light it can throw on the earlier
trouble spot. If still dissatisfied with his grasp, he returns to the point where the difficulty
began and rereads the section more carefully. He probes and analyses phrases and sentences
for their exact meaning; he tries to visualise abstruse descriptions; and through a series of
approximations, deductions, and corrections he translates scientific and technical terms into
concrete examples. (Whimbey, 1975, p. 91)

While it is, of course, true that all readers do not follow precisely this sequence of actions,
most theories of reading have suggested similarly strategic models for the comprehension
process. According to Brown (1980), some of the metacognitive activities involved in reading
are:
a) clarifying one’s purposes for reading, that is understanding the explicit and implicit
demands of a particular reading task,
b) identifying the important aspects of a text,
c) focussing attention on these principal aspects rather than on relatively trivial aspects,
d) monitoring on-going activities to determine whether comprehension is taking place,
e) engaging in self-questioning to check whether the aims are being achieved,
f) taking corrective action if and when failures in comprehension are detected.

Reading for meaning therefore inevitably involves the metacognitive activity of

comprehension monitoring, which entails keeping track of the success with which one’s
comprehension is proceeding, ensuring that the process continues smoothly and taking
remedial action if necessary. It thus involves the use of what have been called ‘debugging’
skills (Brown, 1980).

Although mature readers typically engage in comprehension monitoring as they read for
meaning, it is usually not a conscious experience. Brown (1980) distinguishes between an
automatic and debugging state. Skilled readers, she argues, tend to proceed on automatic pilot
until a ‘triggering event’ alerts them to a failure or problem in their comprehension. When
alerted in this way they must slow down and devote extra effort in mental processing to the
area which is causing the problem. They employ debugging devices and strategies, all of
which demand extra time and mental effort. Anderson (1980) suggests that efficient readers
need not devote constant attention to evaluating their own understanding and he suggests the
existence of an ‘automated monitoring mechanism’ which ‘renders the clicks of
comprehension and clunks of comprehension failure’.

The events which trigger such action may vary widely. One common triggering event is the
realisation that an expectation held about a text has not been confirmed by actual experience
of the text. For example, in reading a sentence such as the following; “The old man the
boats”; the fourth and fifth words will probably cause a revision of the reader’s sense of
understanding and therefore take longer to process. Another triggering event is the meeting of
unfamiliar ideas at too rapid a frequency for the reader to maintain a tolerance for the
subsequent lack of understanding. The usual reader reaction to this is to slow down the rate of
processing, devoting time and effort to the task of sorting out the failure in comprehension.
The reader enters a deliberate, ‘aware’ state quite distinct from the automatic pilot state and
the smooth flow of reading abruptly changes. (Baker & Brown, 1984).
Realising that one has failed to understand is only part of comprehension monitoring; one
must also know what to do when such failures occur. This involves the making of a number
of strategic decisions. The first of these is simply to decide whether or not remedial action is
required. This seems to depend largely upon the reader’s purposes for reading (Alessi,
Anderson & Goetz, 1979). For example, if a reader’s purpose is to locate a specific piece of
information, a lack of understanding of the surrounding text will not usually trigger any
remedial action. On the other hand, if the purpose is to understand a detailed argument, then
practically any uncertainty will spark off extra mental activity.

In the event of a decision to take action, there are a number of options available. The reader
may simply store the confusion in memory as an unanswered question (Anderson, 1980) in
the hope that the author will subsequently provide sufficient clarification to enable its
resolution, or the reader may decide to take action immediately, which may involve
rereading, jumping ahead in the text, consulting a dictionary or knowledgeable person, or a
number of other strategies (Baker & Brown, 1984).

The occurrence of this range of strategies has been studied by Winser (1988) who asked
readers of various ages to think aloud as they tried to understand difficult texts. The strategies
they used when they encountered comprehension difficulties included the following:
- reading on: reading more of the text to see if more information could be gained,
- sounding out: examining letters and sounds carefully (this strategy was used most
often by younger readers),
- making an inference: guessing a meaning on the basis of textual clues and previous
knowledge,
- re-reading: reading the difficult section again,
- suspending judgement: waiting to see if the text provided more clues.

Research on comprehension monitoring in action

Two important studies of the comprehension monitoring of undergraduate students have

given us insights into how this operates in mature, skilful readers. Baker (1979) gave students
passages to read in which the middle paragraph had deliberately confusing features such as
inconsistent information, an unclear reference, or an inappropriate connecting word. A large
proportion of these confusions (62%) seemed not to be detected by the students even after
they had been specifically asked to search for them. However, asking them afterwards about
what they had been thinking while reading suggested that many of their failures to report
confusions were due to their use of ‘fix-up’ strategies for resolving comprehension problems.
They often, for example, made inferences from what they read in order to make up for the
omission of information in the passage. With other text problems, they seemed to make a
rapid assessment that the problem was unimportant and then ignored it.

Baker & Anderson (1982), also working with undergraduate students, used a computer
terminal to present texts for evaluation. Passages containing inconsistencies were presented
one sentence at a time on a computer, under the reader’s control. Records were kept of the
total time spent reading the passages, the time spent on each sentence and of the amount of
looking back. The readers did seem to spend more time reading inconsistent paragraphs than
consistent paragraphs and they also looked back at previous information more frequently
when inconsistencies were present. A full third of the inconsistencies, however, seemed to go
undetected but, of course, there are several possible explanations for this. They may really
have been undetected, or they may have been detected and ‘fixed’, or detected and ignored.
It does seem, however, that in general mature readers evaluate their own understanding
during the actual process of reading. If they encounter a confusion they give extra time to
studying it and they reread previous sentences in an effort to clarify their understanding. They
also seem to be prepared to make allowances for the fact that the problem might lie in the text
rather than in them. This comprehension monitoring behaviour implies an active approach to
gaining understanding from texts. How and when does this develop in younger and less
experienced readers?

Numerous research studies have examined children’s monitoring of their own comprehension
and there has been a remarkable consistency in the findings of these studies. The two most
replicated results have been that:
a) “younger and poorer readers have little awareness that they must attempt to make sense of
text; they focus on reading as a decoding process, rather than as a meaning-getting process”
(Baker & Brown, 1984, p.358)
b) “younger children and poorer readers are unlikely to demonstrate that they notice major
blocks to text understanding. They seem not to realise when they do not understand” (Garner
& Reis, 1981, p.571)

These findings have emerged from studies using a range of methodological approaches and it
must be admitted that methodology has always been problematic. It is no easy matter to
discover what is going on in the minds of highly articulate adults, let alone those of young
children and children with reading problems. Studies have focussed on interviewing children
(asking what they do when they read), measuring the eye movements of young readers for
signs of their responses to lack of comprehension, asking readers to make a judgement about
how certain they are that they understand a text and then to compare their judgements with
their actual comprehension as measured by a test, examining children’s self-corrections as
they read, and the use of distorted texts, that is, texts containing inconsistencies of various
kinds or other deliberate errors.

While there are problems with each of these research approaches and there also remain
several unanswered questions about comprehension monitoring in reading, it is possible to
draw some fairly firm conclusions from the extensive research in this area. Garner (1987)
sums these up well: “The convergent findings from recent research can be summarised:
Young children and poor readers are not nearly as adept as older children / adults and good
readers, respectively, in engaging in planful activities either to make cognitive progress or to
monitor it. Younger, less proficient learners are not nearly as ‘resourceful’ in completing a
variety of reading and studying tasks important in academic settings” (p. 59). It appears that
“planful, strategic behaviour” (Brown, 1978, p.457) in the face of the kind of reading tasks
likely to be encountered in school learning does not develop until relatively late in children’s
school careers, and for some children, those who find reading difficult, this may be very late
indeed. This is important because this kind of awareness is an essential ingredient in success
in school. “Part of being a good student is learning to be aware of the state of one’s mind and
the degree of one’s understanding. The good student may be one who often says that he does
not understand, simply because he keeps a constant check on his understanding. The poor
student, who does not, so to speak, watch himself trying to understand, does not know most
of the time whether he understands or not. Thus the problem is not to get students to ask us
what they don’t know; the problem is to make them aware of the difference between what
they know and what they don’t.” (Holt, 1969, p. 23).
This, of course, begs the question of how teachers might help children to develop the
monitoring of their own understanding while reading and the next section of this article will
examine some teaching approaches to this.

Teaching approaches to comprehension monitoring

Several teaching strategies have been suggested as beneficial in developing children’s

comprehension. Most, however, have not yet been subjected to objective research assessment
and conclusions about them must remain tentative (See Wray (1994) for a more extensive
discussion of teaching approaches). A major problem which has emerged in work on teaching
awareness and strategy use has been that of transfer of learning. Children who demonstrate
that they have learnt to act in a particular metacognitive way in the context of the training
they have been given often seem not to maintain this way of acting in other situations or over
the longer term. Brown, Armbruster & Baker (1986) suggest that, in order to overcome this
problem, children need to learn strategies rather than particular techniques, strategic
understanding involving a knowledge of not just what to do but of when, where, how and
why to use particular techniques.

One relatively simple strategy with some history of success is that of teacher modelling.
Tonjes (1988) discusses metacognitive modelling as a way of teachers demonstrating to
children the monitoring strategies they use in their own reading and Duffy, Roehler &
Herrmann (1988) similarly discuss the idea of the teacher modelling mental processes to
children. They argue that teachers using this approach should concentrate upon transferring
metacognitive control from themselves to their children and should model mental processes -
what they think as they read or write - rather than simply procedures - what they do. Only in
this way, they suggest, can children learn strategies which they can apply across a range of
situations rather than which are limited to the context in which they were encountered.

Another apparently beneficial strategy is that of children being taught to ask themselves
questions as they read. Miller (1985) reports on a study in which eight to ten year olds who
were explicitly taught a self-questioning procedure to accompany their reading were better
able to identify inconsistencies and errors in texts (that is, according to Miller, monitor their
comprehension) than other children who were directly told to look for these inconsistencies.
The self-questioning procedure these children were trained to apply consisted of the
following questions which they had to ask themselves as they read:
1. First, I am going to decide if this story has any problems in it, like if one sentence
says one thing and another sentence says something different or opposite.
2. Second, as I read I will ask myself, “Is there anything wrong with the story?”
3. Third, I will read two sentences and stop and ask if anything is wrong.
4. Fourth, so far, so good, I am doing a great job. Now I will read the whole story and
decide if there are any problems in the whole story.
5. Did I find any problems in this story?

It should be noted that this study does not provide evidence that the effects of the training
would transfer to other, more self-sponsored reading tasks. It is perhaps not so surprising that
children trained to alert themselves to the presence of text inconsistencies should become
fairly good at spotting them. This does not necessarily mean, however, that they will have
improved their abilities to monitor their own comprehension when reading texts in which
there are no deliberate errors or inconsistencies.
Tregaskes & Daines (1989) report on their research into the effectiveness of the direct
teaching of strategies to monitor comprehension to twelve year olds. These children were
taught the following metacognitive strategies:
1. Visual imagery (Stewart & Tei, 1984). The children were asked to visualise selected
passages as the teacher read them, then to share their images by discussing and
sketching them.
2. Summary sentences (Stewart & Tei, 1984). The children were taught to omit trivial
and redundant information in order to identify the main ideas of a text.
3. Webbing (Clewell & Haidemos, 1983). The children were shown how to make
concept maps of the ideas in a given passage.
4. Self-interrogation (Brown, 1978). The children were encouraged to ask themselves
questions about what they already knew about a topic and what they expected to learn
from the new passage.
5. ‘Clunk Click’ cards (Babbs, 1984). The children were introduced to a monitoring
procedure outlined for them on a personal card. A copy of this card is shown in Figure
1.

Groups of children were directly instructed in these strategies over a twelve week period.
After that time they were found to perform significantly better on the testing measures than
children who had not been taught the strategies. Again, however, it needs to be pointed out
that these testing measures were less than satisfactory, involving, firstly, cloze tests in which
the children received a mark only for each word they got exactly right, and, secondly, an
error detection test in which children had to underline words or sentences in passages which
did not make sense to them. This seems a limited method of measuring improvements in
comprehension and in comprehension monitoring. No attempt was made to assess whether
the children’s command of comprehension monitoring strategies extended to other contexts
or indicated a lasting improvement.

Studies such as these give some hope, albeit tentative, that beneficial effects might arise from
the direct teaching of metacognitive strategies. Approaches such as the modelling of mental
processes by teachers, the encouragement of children to ask themselves questions about their
own understandings and intentions and the setting of this kind of work into collaborative
contexts may all be useful procedures for teachers to adopt.

Larger scale research has been carried out on one teaching approach which is currently
receiving major worldwide attention and it will be useful to explore this in greater detail.

Palincsar & Brown (1984) begin by arguing that most training studies have produced rather
discouraging outcomes, with little real impact on children’s use of strategies and, particularly,
on the transfer of these to activities outside those directly experienced during the training
context. They attribute this failure to effect real change in learners’ approaches to dealing
with text to a model of learning which sees learners as simply responding, relatively
passively, to instruction without really being made aware of just what they are learning and
why. They claim that training, to be successful, needs to encourage learners to be active in
their use of strategies and to understand why, and when, they should use the strategies to
which they are introduced. The model of learning they propose as an alternative is based
upon the twin ideas of ‘expert scaffolding’ and what they refer to as ‘proleptic’ teaching: that
is, teaching in anticipation of competence. This model arises from the ideas of Vygotsky
(1978), who put forward the notion that children first experience a particular cognitive
activity in collaboration with expert practitioners. The child is firstly a spectator as the
majority of the cognitive work is done by the expert (parent or teacher), then a novice as
he/she starts to take over some of the work under the close supervision of the expert. As the
child grows in experience and capability of performing the task, the expert passes over
greater and greater responsibility but still acts as a guide, assisting the child at problematic
points. Eventually, the child assumes full responsibility for the task with the expert still
present in the role of a supportive audience. Using this approach to teaching, children learn
about the task at their own pace, joining in only at a level at which they are capable - or
perhaps a little beyond this level so that the task continually provides sufficient challenge to
be interesting. The approach is often referred to as an apprenticeship approach and many
teachers will be familiar with its operation in the teaching of reading (Waterland, 1985). The
distance between the level at which children can manage independently and which they can
manage with the aid of an expert is termed by Vygotsky ‘the zone of proximal development’
and it is, according to the model, the area in which the most profitable instruction can
proceed. Vygotsky claimed that “what children can do with the assistance of others might be
in some sense even more indicative of their mental development than what they can do
alone” (1978, p.85).

Palincsar & Brown (1984) designed their comprehension monitoring teaching procedures
around this apprenticeship model of learning. Their approach used what they termed
‘reciprocal teaching’ to focus upon four activities:
a) summarising - asking children to summarise sections of text, thereby encouraging
them to focus upon the main ideas in a passage and to check their own understanding
of these,
b) questioning - getting children to ask questions about what they have read, which again
encourages them to attend to the principal ideas and to think about their own
comprehension of these,
c) clarifying - asking children to clarify potentially problematic sections of text,
requiring them to critically evaluate the current state of their understanding,
d) predicting - getting them to go beyond what the text actually says to make inferences
which they have to justify by reference to what they have read.

Each of these activities had a cognitive and a metacognitive dimension in that not only were
the children working upon their comprehension of the texts (comprehension fostering) but
they also having to reflect upon the extent of their comprehension (comprehension
monitoring).

The reciprocal teaching procedure involved an interactive ‘game’ between the teacher and the
learners in which each took it in turns to lead a dialogue about a particular section of text.
The ‘teacher’ for each section firstly asked a question, then summarised, then clarified and
predicted as appropriate. The real teacher modelled each of these activities and the role
played by the children was gradually expanded as time went on from mostly pupil to mostly
teacher.

This procedure was tested on a group of eleven year olds with reading difficulties. These
children did initially experience some difficulties in taking over the role of teacher and
needed a lot of help in verbalising during summarising, questioning, clarifying and
predicting. They did eventually, however, become much more accomplished leaders of the
comprehension dialogues and showed a very significant improvement on tests of reading
comprehension, an improvement which seemed to generalise to other classroom activities and
did not fade away after the completion of the research project. Palincsar & Brown attribute
the success of their training programme to the reciprocal teaching procedure, suggesting that
it involved extensive modelling of comprehension fostering and monitoring strategies which
are usually difficult to detect in expert readers, that it forced children to take part in dialogues
about their understanding even if at a non-expert level and they learnt from this engagement.

Gilroy & Moore (1988) report on the results of their replication of the Palincsar & Brown
reciprocal teaching procedure with 9 to 13 year olds in New Zealand. They found that
positive gains in comprehension test scores were made by these children. In a review of
research on the reciprocal teaching approach Moore (1988) agrees with the Palincsar &
Brown analysis of the strengths of the approach and suggests that it has a great deal to offer,
particularly to children with identifiable weaknesses in reading comprehension.

Conclusion

Although there are several caveats to be made about the quality of the research evidence, in
particular about the methods typically used to ascertain children’s comprehension monitoring
performance, it does seem that there is reason to focus upon the development of this ability as
one possible way forward in developing reading comprehension, particularly in poorer
readers. It may be that the key to enhancing children’s understanding in reading is to develop
their abilities to be more ‘aware’ of their reading.

If this is the case, then teachers need to consider carefully how they will set about doing this.
Although, again, the research evidence is as yet incomplete, there do seem to be several
teaching strategies which might be beneficial in this area. Reciprocal teaching is certainly
creating a great deal of interest, especially among teachers of children with reading problems
(for example, McGowan & Bell, 1993), and this procedure currently seems to offer the
greatest hope in terms of a well-founded, systematic approach to teaching. Its components,
however, such as teacher modelling, encouraging self-questioning and explicit discussion of
comprehension processes, are all beneficial teaching activities in their own rights. The
teaching of reading comprehension would undoubtedly benefit from wider use of such
approaches.

References

Alessi, S., Anderson, T. & Goetz, E. (1979) •An investigation of lookbacks during
studying’, Discourse Processes, 2, pp 197-212

Anderson, T. (1980) •Study strategies and adjunct aids’, in Spiro, R., Bruce, B. & Brewer,
W. (eds) Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum

Babbs, P. (1984) •Monitoring cards can help improve comprehension’, The Reading
Teacher, 38, pp. 200-204

Baker, L. (1979) •Comprehension monitoring: identifying and coping with text confusions’,
Journal of Reading Behaviour, 11, pp 365-374

Baker, L. & Anderson, R. (1982) •Effects of inconsistent information on text processing:

evidence for comprehension monitoring’, Reading Research Quarterly, 17, pp. 281-294
Baker, L. & Brown, A. (1984) •Metacognitive skills and reading’, in Pearson, D. (ed)
Handbook of Reading Research New York: Longman

Brown, A. (1978) •Knowing when, where and how to remember: a problem of

metacognition’, in Glaser, R. (ed) Advances in Instructional Psychology Hillsdale, New
Jersey: Erlbaum

Brown, A. (1980) •Metacognitive development and reading’ in Spiro, R., Bruce, B. &
Brewer, W. (eds) Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Erlbaum

Brown, A., Armbruster, B. & Baker (1986) •The role of metacognition in reading and
studying’, in Orasanu, J. (ed) Reading Comprehension: from Research to Practice Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Clewell, S. & Haidemos, J. (1983) •Organisational strategies to increase comprehension’,

Reading World, 22, pp. 314-321

Duffy, G., Roehler, L. & Herrmann, B. (1988) •Modelling mental processes helps poor
readers become strategic readers’, The Reading Teacher 41 (8), pp. 762-767

Garner, R. & Reis, R. (1981) •Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles: an

investigation of spontaneous text lookbacks among upper grade good and poor
comprehenders’, Reading Research Quarterly, 16, pp. 569-582

Garner, R. (1987) Metacognition and Reading Comprehension, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex

Gilroy, A. & Moore, D. (1988) •Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension-monitoring activities with ten primary school girls’, Educational Psychology,
8 (1/2), pp. 41-49

Holt, J. (1969) How Children Fail Harmondsworth: Penguin

McGowan, J. & Bell, G. (1993) Learning difficulties and classroom support: Reciprocal
teaching (Primary English Notes 90) Newtown, New South Wales: PETA

Miller, G. (1985) •The effects of general and specific self-instruction training on children’s
comprehension monitoring performances during reading’, Reading Research Quarterly 20
(5), pp. 616-628

Moore, P. (1988) •Reciprocal teaching and reading comprehension: a review’, Journal of

Research in Reading 11 (1), pp. 3-14

Palincsar, A. & Brown, A. (1984) •Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension-monitoring activities’, Cognition and Instruction, 1 (2), pp. 117-175

Stewart, O. & Tei, E. (1984) •Some implications of metacognition for reading instruction’,
Journal of Reading 27, pp. 36-43
 Tonjes, M. (1988) •Metacognitive modelling and glossing: two powerful ways to teach self
responsibility’, in Anderson, C. (ed) Reading: The abc and Beyond Basingstoke: Macmillan

Tregaskes, M. & Daines, D. (1989) •Effects of metacognitive strategies on reading

comprehension’, Reading Research and Instruction 29 (1), pp. 52-60

Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press

Wagoner, S. (1983) •Comprehension monitoring: what it is and what we know about it’,
Reading Research Quarterly, 18, pp. 328-346

Waterland, L. (1985) Read with Me Stroud: Thimble Press

Whimbey, A. (1975) Intelligence can be taught New York: Dutton

Winser, B. (1988) •Readers getting control of reading’, Australian Journal of Reading,

11(4), pp. 257-268

Wray, D. (1994) Literacy and Awareness Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton

View publication stats