Does Choice of College Textbook Make a Difference in Students’ Comprehension?

By Durwin, Cheryl Cisero Sherman, William M

Abstract. The authors investigate whether the choice of college textbook affects students’ comprehension of the material. Forty- eight students from educational psychology courses were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) unfamiliar passages drawn from the textbook used in the course, or (2) comparable passages selected from a competitor textbook. Students read three passages and completed comprehension tests and an opinion survey. No significant differences were found. Implications for textbook selection practices are presented in the discussion section. Keywords: comprehension, student preferences, textbook selection

Choosing a textbook for a college course is integral to student learning. In choosing a textbook, an instructor needs to consider the students’ background and knowledge level, course type (e.g., upper level or lower level), the course’s objectives, and characteristics such as readability, scope, and chapter organization. Instructors are quick to select another textbook when the chosen textbook fails to meet the needs of students in the course, especially when students voice their opinions on teaching evaluations.When instructors succeed in finding a textbook that works, however, they stick with that text. They do this despite the barrage of competitor textbooks that appear every semester and the claims of sales representatives from publishing companies that their textbook is unique, offers a different perspective, or provides opportunities for interactive learning. Are faculty justified in sticking with the tried and true? If an instructor adopted a different textbook, would student learning be positively or adversely affected? Does choice of textbook really make a difference in students’ learning?

There is a body of research evidence on the factors influencing students’ reading comprehension. Various individual differences are well-documented factors affecting students’ reading comprehension. The effect of prior knowledge on comprehension has been extensively researched.1 Prior knowledge is activated while reading a text and can facilitate comprehension of the text. The reader’s interest and goals, also widely investigated, may have a facilitative effect on comprehension. 2 In addition, cognitive processes such as working memory, language skills, and basic reading skills (word identification and decoding processes) all affect an individual’s ability to comprehend text (e.g., Haenggi and Perfetti 1994; Just and Carpenter 1992; Kintsch 1998; Kintsch and van Dijk 1978; Perfetti 1988).

In addition, a great deal of research has focused on the effect that text characteristics have on comprehension of written material, such as text coherence, organization, and text relevance.3 Related to text organization, some research has examined the effects that text design has on college students’ comprehension. Specifically, the writing style of the author has an effect on students’ reading comprehension (Moravcsik and Kintsch 1993). Also, appropriate imagery and concreteness of details enhance comprehension (Sadoski, Goetz, and Fritz 1993; Wharton 1987-1988). Even the use of advance organizers can influence a readers’ recall of detail from the text (Tyler, Delaney, and Kinnucan 1983). An advance organizer refers to information that is presented before new material. It activates students’ prior knowledge about the content, directs their attention to important to-be-learned information, and highlights relationships among ideas to be presented.

Given that the research literature supports both text characteristics and reader characteristics as important for comprehension of text material, it is logical that textbook authors and publishers would pay close attention to the design of textbooks to maximize student learning. In fact, if one peruses undergraduate textbooks within various areas of psychology, it becomes apparent that the industry is aware of the impact that textbook features can have on student learning. Textbooks produced for introductory, survey-type courses in the authors’ discipline, such as introductory psychology and educational psychology, appear to be looking more alike. Regarding educational psychology textbooks, Rocklin (e-mail to [Teaching_ edPsych@Listserv.temple.edu] mailing list, Jan. 10, 2006) notes that one possibility may be that the market is driving all of the textbooks, causing them to look the same. Editors routinely conduct surveys in which instructors are asked about the topics they would like to see addressed and the pedagogical aids they prefer. If textbooks resemble each other because of market demand, then one would expect the same trend to occur with textbooks for survey courses in other college disciplines (e.g., biology, chemistry, sociology, political science, humanities, fine arts).

Although textbooks may look similar, Griggs and Marek (2001), in their evaluation of introductory psychology textbooks, urged educators not to judge texts based on superficial similarities. Examinations of samples of introductory psychology textbooks indicate that although the texts contained similar chapter topics and organization (Jackson et al. 2000), little overlap was found in core concepts and key terms (Proctor 2000; Zechmeister and Zechmeister 2000) and reference citations (Gorenflo and McConnell 1991). Griggs and Marek, therefore, propose that to make the best possible text selection for students, instructors should thoroughly consider the texts on multiple criteria. They cite features such as topic coverage, organization, core concepts, pedagogical aids, reference citations, level of difficulty, and readability. Whereas the text’s characteristics are certainly important factors to consider when choosing a text, one additional factor that is often overlooked is whether students’ learning would be differentially affected across various textbooks.

This study presents research evaluating whether using different textbooks impacts students’ learning or, more specifically, their comprehension. An extensive review of the literature reveals little information on whether different textbooks yield differential student outcomes. However, researchers have examined other aspects related to the value of textbooks in learning. For instance, Bamber (1974) investigated the readability of psychology, sociology, and physics texts. Also, several researchers have examined factors such as student evaluations of textbooks, textbook pedagogical aids, and students’ evaluations of the readability of textbooks within psychology (e.g., Greisinger and Klene 1984; Marek, Griggs, and Christopher 1999; Stang 1975; Weiten, Guadagno, and Beck 1996).

In addition, there are a few studies that investigated whether different formats affect learning. For example, Fernald (1989) examined students’ quiz performances as a function of expository material from an introductory psychology text written in a traditional format or the same material adapted to a narrative mode. On quizzes, the final exam, and a follow-up, students’ performance favored the narrative approach. Students also preferred narrative to the traditional format. Likewise, Nevid (2002) compared students’ quiz performances on an introductory psychology text passage presented in a traditional format (i.e., as a chapter) and a modular format, which were counterbalanced across students. Modules are typically shorter than chapters and are written so that they stand alone, allowing instructors to arrange modules for their courses in any order because information in one module does not need to rely on information presented in a different module elsewhere in the textbook. In a chapter format, by contrast, information presented in a certain chapter often refers to content learned in earlier chapters. Results revealed some benefit of the modular format, but quiz performance was only better for the passage with fewer modules and for students who preferred the modular format.

Given that the literature has not specifically addressed the issue of whether student learning is affected by the use of different textbooks, our study examined this hypothesis in an educational psychology course. More specifically, when given comparable passages from the top two competing educational psychology textbooks, would there be a difference in comprehension between the texts? Although these leading educational psychology textbooks appear to be similar, as most texts within this discipline appear to be, the research on introductory psychology textbooks (e.g., Gorenflo and McConnell 1991; Griggs and Marek 2001; Jackson et al. 2000; Proctor 2000; Zechmeister and Zechmeister 2000) suggests that similarity among texts may be illusory rather than real. Thus, students’ learning experiences may differ between the two leading educational psychology texts despite the texts’ apparent similarities. In the present study, forty-eight students enrolled in two educational psychology classes were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: unfamiliar passages from the textbook used in the course or comparable passages from a competitor textbook. Students read three passages and completed comprehension tests and an opinion survey.

Method

Participants

The forty-eight students were enrolled in two sections of an educational psychology course taught by the authors. Thirteen students (out of twenty) from the first author’s course and thirty- five students (out of forty) from the second author’s course participated. The course is a requirement for students in teacher education programs and is intended for juniors and seniors. The majority of students were female (77.1 perecent) and were juniors and seniors (56.3 percent juniors and 31.3 percent seniors). Also, students ranged in age from 19 to 41, with a median age of 21. Materials

Comprehension tests

The authors used Woolfolk’s Educational Psychology (2004) in their courses and chose to compare this with a popular competitor textbook, Ormrod’s Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (2003). An examination of the Woolfolk and Ormrod textbooks and their tables of contents revealed that they contained chapters on the same topics. In two instances the Ormrod text contained two chapters on a topic where the Woolfolk text treated the topic in one chapter. The chapters also appeared in roughly the same order, with two exceptions. Therefore, these texts were similar in content and organization, which supports results from research on introductory psychology textbooks (e.g., Jackson et al. 2000).

Passages on formative and summative assessment, the effect of teacher expectations on students, and communicating with parents were chosen from the Wool-folk textbook because they were from chapters that neither instructor assigned in his or her course. These are also topics typically found in educational psychology texts but not in education courses. In that way, the passages would be relatively unfamiliar to all students, minimizing the effect of prior knowledge on reading comprehension. Passages on the same topics were chosen from the Ormrod text.

The intent of the study was not to evaluate the comprehensibility of the textbooks as a whole, but to choose representative passages from them. The authors also did not intend to compare the comprehensibility of all, or even several, educational psychology texts in the discipline. Rather the two leading textbooks, those written by Woolfolk and Ormrod, were chosen to investigate a specific hypothesis regarding whether the same topic written by two different authors would result in comprehension differences.

The comprehension tests were constructed using the Sentence Verification Technique (SVT). The SVT technique is a procedure for constructing either listening or reading comprehension tests based on any type of oral or written material. Examinees read or listen to text passages and then complete a set of test sentences for each passage (without access to the passage) in which they decide whether a test sentence means the same as a sentence encountered in the passage.

Underlying the SVT technique is the theoretical assumption that comprehension is a constructive process that involves an interaction between context, the linguistic message, and the knowledge base of the listener or reader. As a result, the reader or listener constructs an interpretation of the linguistic message that preserves the meaning but not the surface structure of the message (e.g., Brown et al. 1983; Cernak and Craik 1979; diSibio 1982; Kintsch and van Dijk 1978; Royer and Cunningham 1981). This theoretical perspective suggests that assessing comprehension can be conducted by asking readers to judge whether test sentences mean the same as sentences they read or heard in the text. It is important to note that although SVT is administered at the level of an individual sentence, research suggests that the SVT technique is a measure of passage comprehension rather than sentence-level comprehension (Royer et al.1984). Moreover, recent theories of learning and comprehension suggest that the same set of variables influences both of these processes (e.g., Brown et al. 1983; Cernak and Craik 1979; Tra-basso 1981). Therefore, performance on a comprehension test could be used as an estimate of learning in general.

We chose to measure comprehension with the SVT technique for two reasons. First, SVT tests can be used for evaluating the comprehensibility of texts by sampling segments of a text and then constructing SVT tests from the samples (Royer, Carlo, and Cisero 1992). Therefore, the SVT technique is well suited for the purpose of this study. Second, there is much research supporting SVT’s reliability and validity as a measure of comprehension. The SVT technique shows good convergent and discriminant validity (Royer et al. 1992), is sensitive to text difficulty (Royer, Hastings, and Hook 1979; Royer et al. 1986), is sensitive to differences in reading skill (Rasool and Royer 1986; Royer et al. 1979), and is sensitive to text characteristics such as proposi-tional density and intersentence connection (Royer et al. 1984, experiments 2 and 3). In addition, the SVT technique is sensitive to educational gains (Royer et al. 1984, experiments 1 and 2). Furthermore, results from several studies indicate that SVT performance is a highly significant predictor of learning performance, as measured by performance in college courses and overall grade point average GPA (Marchant, Royer, and Greene 1988; Royer, Abranovic, and Sinatra 1987; Royer et al. 1990). Therefore, using SVT to assess students’ comprehension of the text samples in this study provides an accurate estimate of their learning from text material.

More detailed information about constructing SVT tests and a more extensive discussion of the reliability and validity of the SVT procedure can be found in Royer et al. (1992). A brief description of the construction of the SVT tests for this study follows.

First, the test maker must adapt or choose passages so that they are twelve sentences in length. Because paragraphs in both textbooks are relatively short, there were several instances in which paragraphs were combined to make a twelve-sentence passage. Consequently, minor changes in wording were needed at the beginning of a few sentences to maintain coherence between sentences within the passage. For example, if a sentence began with the phrase “As you learned in chapter 10, . . .” this phrase was deleted because it would not make sense in the context of the SVT test because the students taking the test did not read chapter 10. The next step for the test maker is to create test sentences by taking each sentence in the passage and constructing three types of sentences: (1) original (an exact copy of the passage sentence), (2) paraphrase (changing as many words as possible from the original sentence while preserving the meaning of the sentence), and (3) meaning change (changing a few words to alter the meaning of the original sentence). The test maker then chooses four dis-tractor sentences by selecting sentences from the text surrounding the passage so they are consistent with the passage’s theme but are different in meaning from any of the passage sentences. The final step involves constructing a sixteen-item SVT test by choosing four originals, four paraphrases, and four meaning changes from the pool of items, and adding four distractors. The sentences are arranged in random order with the restriction that test sentences from the passage’s first half appear in the first half of the test and test sentences from the passage’s second half appear in the second half of the test. This restriction minimizes any short-term memory effects: the first test sentence is one that has just been read at the end of the passage. Examinees taking SVT tests are instructed to respond “Yes” if the sentence means the same as a sentence in the passage and “No” if the sentence has a different meaning from a sentence in the passage.

The first author trained two undergraduate research assistants in the construction of SVT test sentences. The research assistants constructed drafts of the items and revised them after receiving feedback from the first author. Once the SVT tests for both textbooks were constructed, the second author completed both tests to determine whether there were items that were not functioning properly. Some items were then revised and final versions of the tests were developed.

Survey

The second author constructed a brief survey to obtain information about the students’ psychology background (e.g., major, number of previous psychology courses taken, etc.) and their opinions about the readability of the passages. In particular, students were asked to rate the difficulty of the passages on a scale from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy), and were also asked how likely they would be to recommend the textbook to their professor on a scale from 1 (definitely not) to 5 (yes definitely).

Procedure

Students in both classes were randomly assigned to one of two condi-tions: passages and SVT tests based on the Woolfolk (2004) textbook or comparable passages and SVT tests based on the Ormrod (2003) textbook.4 Participants were unaware that in one condition passages were based on the textbook for their course. In both conditions, students read three 12-sentence passages and completed a 16-item SVT test following each passage without the aid of the passage. The test was given during class time. Students took as long as they needed to complete the test. Immediately after students finished the comprehension tests, they completed the survey containing background information and opinions about the passages. The average time for completing the tests and survey was approximately forty minutes.

Results

The readability of the passages was obtained using the Flesch reading ease formula. Passages drawn from the Woolfolk (2004) and Ormrod (2003) textbooks were found to have comparable readabilities.5

Prior to conducting analyses related to the hypothesis, a t test was performed on students’ mean percent correct scores as a function of course instructor to eliminate the possibility that students’ comprehension performance varied between the two courses taught by different instructors. Students in the first author’s class scored an average of 68.85 percent (SD = 10.75) and students in the second author’s class scored 71.89 percent on average (SD = 11.12). The t test showed no significant differences in student performance between instructors, t(46) = -.85, p > .05. Data from both instructors were collapsed for the purpose of examining differences between textbook conditions. Mean performance on the SVT test and mean item scores from the opinion survey are presented in table 1. Participants in the Woolfolk condition performed somewhat more accurately than those in the Ormrod condition. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on accuracy scores with condition (Woolfolk v. Ormrod) as a between-subjects factor and students’ estimated GPA as a covariate. GPA was included as a covariate to remove any overall ability differences as a source of variance in reading comprehension performance. There was, in fact, a significant effect of the covariate, F(1, 43) = 11.11, MSE = 103.73, p < .01. However, after accounting for GPA, there was no significant effect of text condition, F(1, 43) = .01, MSE = 103.73, p > .05. Analyses using students’ estimates of course grade and number of previous psychology courses taken as covariates yielded similar results.

An analysis was also conducted to determine if students’ opinions about the passages differed as a function of textbook condition. The mean difficulty ratings in table 1 indicate that students in both conditions considered the passages relatively easy to read, with participants in the Wool-folk condition rating the text to be slightly higher in readability than those in the Ormrod condition. A t test performed on mean ratings of passage difficulty between the conditions revealed no significant differences, t(45) = .51, p > .05.

Finally, differences between conditions in whether students would recommend the textbook were also examined. As table 1 reveals, students in the Woolfolk condition gave slightly higher recommendations on average than students in the Ormrod condition. However, a t test performed on mean ratings yielded no significant differences, t(45) = .489, p > .05.

Discussion

This study’s purpose was to determine whether using a certain textbook has an impact on student learning, particularly students’ comprehension of the material. The study reveals several interesting findings. First, passages selected from the textbook by Woolfolk (2004) used in the authors’ course and those from a textbook by Ormrod (2003) had similar readability levels. Although Griggs (1999) found substantial variability in readability across introductory psychology texts, this finding was not supported by the two texts used in this study. The fact that passages from both textbooks contained comparable readabilities substantiates our observation that many textbooks within the discipline of educational psychology are increasingly similar, making it difficult to determine whether a new textbook or new edition actually is unique, as textbook publishers claim. This also supports Rocklin’s (e-mail to [Teaching_edPsych@Listserv .temple.edu] mailing list, Jan. 10, 2006) argument that textbooks appear to look similar because the market is driving their design and construction. Consequently, it is also not surprising that students’ comprehension was not significantly different between the two textbooks, given their comparable readabilities. Moreover, it also would be expected that students would judge the texts equally in terms of passage difficulty and recommendations for use, given that reading performance was roughly equivalent between the groups.

The findings are not surprising and would be entirely expected given that the two textbooks are similar in content coverage, scope, organization, and writing style. The results may have been different if two other textbooks were compared. For example, there is a wider variation in developmental psychology textbooks. Some take a chronological approach, and others take a topical approach; some are theory oriented and others emphasize practical applications. In addition, in disciplines such as abnormal psychology and behavior modification, some textbooks are diagnosis oriented whereas others are treatment strategy oriented. Thus, it may be that students’ comprehension of material would vary between texts in these cases. It is also conceivable that textbooks from a variety of other disciplines may vary in their approach, organization, and depth of coverage, leading to differences in students’ comprehension. This is an empirical question that could be investigated in future research.

Nevertheless, this research suggests some valuable implications for textbook selection practices. Instructors are not only concerned with choosing a textbook that meets their needs with respect to content coverage, scope, and course objectives, but they also want a textbook that students will like (so they will actually want to read it) and understand. One important factor, then, is student preferences. The results from this study indicate that students’ ratings from the student opinion survey were consistent with their reading comprehension performance, suggesting that college students are accurate judges of the quality of text from the learner’s perspective. This finding is also consistent with research by Britton et al. (1991), which found that college students can make accurate judgments about how much they would learn and remember from textbook passages. Therefore, students’ judgment about the readability of texts can be an important factor in an instructor’s decision to adopt a textbook.

A second important factor to consider is whether students are able to adequately learn from the textbooks that instructors intend to choose for their courses. One way to determine this is by calculating readability indices for texts considered for use. However, readability indexes have been criticized as a means of determining whether a text can be understood by a group of students (e.g., Davidson and Green 1988). The primary concern is that readabilities describe characteristics of the text rather than providing information about whether a student can understand the text (Royer et al. 1992).

Therefore, a better way to determine whether students would learn from texts being considered for adoption would be to assess the students’ reading comprehension when given various texts. The SVT technique lends itself to assessing students’ comprehension of textbook materials. Not only is it a valid measure of reading comprehension, but it is also a powerful predictor of learning in college courses. Thus, using the SVT technique would enable the instructor to determine whether a text is appropriate for students and would also provide information to help instructors tailor the curriculum to the students’ background.

Instructors know that it is not the jazzy title, glossy pictures, or innumerable supplements that make a great textbook. A great textbook provides the essential information in a way that students can truly understand without much background knowledge. Does the textbook make a difference in students’ comprehension? This is a question that faculty need to ask when choosing their next textbook.

THE RESULTS FROM THIS STUDY INDICATE THAT STUDENTS’ RATINGS FROM THE STUDENT OPINION SURVEY WERE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR READING COMPREHENSION PERFORMANCE, SUGGESTING THAT COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE ACCURATE JUDGES OF THE QUALITY OF TEXT FROM THE LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE.

NOTES

1. See, for example, Alexander, Kulikowich, and Schulze 1994; Kintsch and Franzke 1995; McNamara and Kintsch 1996; Moravcsik and Kintsch 1995; and Voss and Silfies 1996.

2. See, for example, Alexander, Kulikowich, and Schulze 1994; Anderson 1982; Anderson and Pichert 1978; Anderson, Pichert, and Shirey 1983; Baillet and Keenan 1986; Borland and Flammer 1985; Goetz et al. 1983; Grabe 1979; Kaakinen, Hyona, and Keenan 2001; Kardash, Royer, and Greene 1988; and Rothkopf and Billington 1979.

3. See, for example, Beck, McKeown, and Gromoll 1989; Beck et al. 1984; Beck et al. 1991; Beck, McKeown, and Worthy 1995; Beck, Omanson, and McKeown 1982; Davison and Kantor 1982; Duffy et al. 1989; Duffy and Kabance 1982; Klare 1985; Olsen and Johnson 1989; and Reder and Anderson 1980.

4. One might ask why we chose to investigate our hypothesis by examining comprehension differences on a few representative passages rather than examining student course grades or exam grades in two separate sections of the course, each using a different textbook. The reason is that there would be several confounds in such a quasi- experimental design that could explain a result where one course section outperformed the other. A major confound that cannot be eliminated is teacher (experimenter) bias. It may be that subtle differences in interaction between the instructor and students in the two sections would account for one section performing better than the other, even if the same instructor taught both sections. Some other factors that cannot be controlled are time of day of the two sections, ability differences between students in the two sections, or differences in exam questions. Therefore, we chose to define student performance more narrowly (i.e., score on a comprehension test) and to use an experimental methodology to evaluate our hypothesis.

5. The Woolfolk and Ormrod passages were not manipulated or modified so as to achieve similar readabilities. Readability estimates were obtained simply to determine whether the authors’ writing styles were comparable.

REFERENCES

Alexander, P. A., J. M. Kulikowich, and S. K. Schulze. 1994. The influence of topic knowledge, domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition. Learning and Individual Differences 6 (4): 379-97. Anderson. R. C. 1982. Allocation of attention during reading. In Discourse processing, ed. A. Flammer and W. Kintsch, 292-305. New York: North-Holland.

Anderson. R. C., and J. W. Pichert. 1978. Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17:1-12.

Anderson. R. C., J. W. Pichert, and L. L. Shirey. 1983. Effects of the reader’s schema at different points in time. Journal of Educational Psychology 75:271-79.

Baillet, S. D., and J. M. Keenan. 1986. The role of encoding and retrieval processes in the recall of text. Discourse Processes 9:247- 68.

Bamber, R. T. 1974. The impossible dream: How to out-science physics. Teaching of Psychology 1 (1): 28-29.

Beck, I. L., M. G. McKeown, and E. W. Gro-moll. 1989. Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and Instruction 6:99-158.

Beck, I. L., M. G. McKeown, R. C. Oman-son, and M. Pople. 1984. Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly 19:263-77.

Beck, I. L., M. G. McKeown, G. M. Sina-tra, and J. A. Loxterman. 1991. Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly 26:251-76.

Beck, I. L., M. G. McKeown, and J. Worthy. 1995. Giving a text voice can improve students’ understanding. Reading Research Quarterly 30:220-38.

Beck, I. L., R. C. Omanson, and M. G. McK-eown. 1982. An instructional redesign of reading lessons: Effects on comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 17:462-81.

Borland, R. and A. Flammer. 1985. Encoding and retrieval processes in memory for prose. Discourse Processes 8:305-17.

Borland, R., A. Flammer, and A. J. Wearing. 1987. Text memory: Recalling twice, using different perspectives. European Journal of Psychology of Education 2:209-17.

Britton, B. K., L. Van Dusen, S. Gulgoz, S. M. Glynn, and L. Sharp. 1991. Accuracy of learnability judgments for instructional texts. Journal of Educational Psychology 83 (1): 43-47.

Brown, A. L., J. D. Bransford, R. A. Ferrera, and J. C. Campione. 1983. Learning, remembering, and understanding. In Carmichael’s manual of child psychology, vol. 1, ed. J. H. Flavell and E. M. Markman, 77-166. New York: John Wiley.

Cernak, L. S., and F. I. M. Craik. 1979. Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davidson, A. and G. M. Green, eds. 1988. Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davison, A. and R. Kantor. 1982. On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly 17:187-209.

diSibio, M. 1982. Memory for connected dis-course: A constructivist review. Review of Educational Research 52:149-74.

Duffy, T. M., L. Higgins, B. Mehlenbacher, C. Cochran, D. Wallace, C. Hill, D. Hau-gen, et al. 1989. Models for the design of instructional text. Reading Research Quarterly 24:434-57.

Duffy, T. M., and P. Kabance. 1982. Testing a readable writing approach to text revision. Journal of Educational Psychology 74:733- 48.

Fernald, L. D. 1989. Tales in a textbook: Learning in the traditional and narrative modes. Teaching of Psychology 16 (3): 121- 24.

Goetz, E. T., D. L. Schallert, R. E. Reynolds, and D. I. Radin. 1983. Reading in perspec-tive: What real cops and pretend burglars look for in a story. Journal of Educational Psychology 75:500-10.

Gorenflo, D. W., and J. V. McConnell. 1991. The most frequently cited journal articles and authors in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology 18:8-12.

Grabe, M. 1979. Reader imposed structure and prose retention. Contemporary Educational Psychology 4:162-71.

Greisinger, W. S., and R. R. Klene. 1984. Readability of introductory psychology textbooks: Flesch versus student ratings. Teaching of Psychology 11 (2): 90-91.

Griggs, R. A. 1999. Introductory psychology textbooks: Assessing levels of difficulty. Teaching of Psychology 26:248-53.

Griggs, R. A., and P. Marek. 2001. Similarity of introductory psychology textbooks: Reality or illusion? Teaching of Psychology 28 (4): 254-56.

Haenggi, D., and C. A. Perfetti. 1994. Processing components of college-level reading comprehension. Discourse Processes 17 (1): 83- 104.

Jackson, S. L., R. A. Griggs, C. S. Koenig, A. N. Christopher, and P. Marek. 2000. A compendium of introductory psychology texts: 1997-2000. http://www.lemoyne .edu/OTRP (accessed July 22, 2000).

Just, M. A., and P. A. Carpenter. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99:122-49.

Kaakinen. J. K., J. Hyona, and J. M. Keenan. 2001. Perspective effects on on-line text processing. Discourse Processes 33:159-73.

Kardash. C. A., J. M. Royer, and B. A. Greene. 1988. Effects of schemata on both encoding and retrieval of information from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology 80:324- 29.

Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Kintsch, W., and M. Franzke. 1995. The role of background knowledge in the recall of a news story. In Sources of coherence in reading, ed. R. F Lorch and E. J. O’Brien, 321-33. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

Kintsch, W., and T. A. van Dijk. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85:363-94.

Klare, G. R. 1985. How to write readable English. London: Hutchinson.

Marchant, H. M., J. M. Royer, and B. A. Greene. 1988. Superior reliability and validity for a new form of the Sentence Verification Technique for measuring comprehension. Educational and Psychological Measurement 48:827-34.

Marek, P., R. A. Griggs, and A. N. Christopher. 1999. Do college students’ perceptions justify their prevalence? Teaching of Psychology 26 (1): 11-19.

McNamara, D. S., and W. Kintsch. 1996. Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes 22:247-88.

Moravcsik, J. E. 1995. Writing quality, reading skills, and domain knowledge as factors in text comprehension. In Reading and language processing, ed. J. M. Henderson, M. Singer, and F. Ferreira. 232-46. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moravcsik, J. E., and W. Kintsch, 1993. Writing quality, reading skills, and domain knowledge as factors in text comprehension. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 47 (2): 360-74.

Nevid, J. S. 2002. Traditional versus modular format in presenting textual material in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology 29 (3): 237-38.

Olsen, L. A., and R. Johnson. 1989. A discourse based approach to the assessment of readability. Linguistics and Education 1:207-31.

Ormrod, J. E. 2003. Educational psychology: Developing learners. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Perfetti, C. A. 1988. Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In Reading research: Advances in theory and practice, 6:109-43. New York: Academic.

Proctor, D. L. 2000. The language of introductory psychology. Poster session presented at the meeting of National Institute on the Teaching of Psychology, St. Petersburg Beach, FL.

Rasool, J. M., and J. M. Royer. 1986. Assessment of reading comprehension using the Sentence Verification Technique: Evidence from narrative and descriptive tests. Journal of Educational Research 79:180-84.

Reder, L. M., and J. R. Anderson. 1980. A comparison of texts and their sum-maries: Memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19:121-34.

Rothkopf, E. Z., and M. J. Billington. 1979. Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology 71:310- 27.

Royer, J. M., W. A. Abranovic, and G. M. Sinatra. 1987. Using entering reading performance as a predictor of course performance in college classes. Journal of Educational Psychology 79:19-26.

Royer, J. M., M. S. Carlo, and C. A. Cisero. 1992. School-based uses for the Sentence Verification Technique for measuring listening and reading comprehension. Psychological Test Bulletin 5 (1): 5-19.

Royer, J. M., and D. J. Cunningham. 1981. On the theory and measurement or reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology 6:187-216.

Royer, J. M., C. N. Hastings, and C. Hook. 1979. A sentence verification technique for measuring reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior 11:355-63.

Royer, J. M., R. W. Kulhavy, J. B. Lee, and S. E. Peterson. 1986. The Sentence Verification Technique as a measure of listening and reading comprehension. Educational and Psychological Research 6:299- 314.

Royer, J. M., D. J. Lynch, R. K. Hambleton, and C. Bulgarelli. 1984. Using the Sentence Verification Technique to assess the comprehension of technical text as a function of subject matter expertise. American Educational Research Journal 21:839-69.

Royer, J. M., H. Marchant, G. Sinatra, and D. Lovejoy. 1990. The prediction of college course performance from reading comprehension performance: Evidence for general and specific factors. American Educational Research Journal 27:158-79.

Sadoski, M., E. T. Goetz, and J. B. Fritz. 1993. Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology 85 (2): 291-304.

Stang, D. J. 1975. Student evaluations of twenty eight social psychology texts. Teaching of Psychology 2 (1): 12-15.

Trabasso, T. 1981. Can we integrate research and instruction on reading comprehension. In Children’s prose comprehension, ed. C. M. Santa and B.L. Hayes, 103-16. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Tyler, S. W., H. Delaney, and M. Kinnucan. 1983. Specifying the nature of reading ability differences and advance organizer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology 75 (3): 359-73.

Voss, J., and L. N. Silfies. 1996. Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction 14:45-68. Weiten, W., R. E. Guadagno, and C. A. Beck. 1996. Students’ perceptions of textbook pedagogical aids. Teaching of Psychology 23 (2): 105-07.

Wharton, W. P. 1987-1988. Imagery and the comprehension of college history texts: Free response measure. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality 7 (4): 323-33.

Woolfolk, A. 2004. Educational psychology. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson.

Zechmeister, J. S., and E. B. Zechmeister. 2000. Introductory textbooks and psychology’s core concepts. Teaching of Psychology 27:6-11.

Cheryl Cisero Durwin and William M. Sherman are associate professors of psychology at Southern Connecticut State University. Her research interests include reading skills and learning disabilities. His research interests include educational psychology and health psychology.

Copyright (c) 2008 Heldref Publications

Copyright Heldref Publications Winter 2008

(c) 2008 College Teaching. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.