This study investigated the relational reasoning capabilities of older adolescents and young adults when the focal assessment was a verbal and more schooled measure than 1 that was figural and more novel in its configuration. To achieve this end, the verbal test of relational reasoning (vTORR) was constructed to parallel the test of relational reasoning (TORR), which has been shown to be a psychometrically sound measure of the ability to discern analogical, anomalous, antinomous, and antithetical patterns within figural problem sets. Two-hundred undergraduate students completed the vTORR, TORR, and a vocabulary cloze test. The psychometric properties of the vTORR were first examined to ensure that data were reliable and valid. Then, the convergence between the vTORR and TORR was tested, along with the degree to which performance on the vTORR could be explained by linguistic ability, as measured by the vocabulary cloze test. Outcomes of correlational and confirmatory factor analyses indicated that there was a significant moderate association between the ability to reason relationally in word (i.e., vTORR) and in figure (i.e., TORR) and that linguistic ability contributed only a limited amount to performance on the vTORR. Of 3 theoretical models tested, a 4-factor model was found to best fit the vTORR data, indicating that the 4 specific forms of relational reasoning reflected in this measure were directly related to overall performance.

Knowledge plays an inarguably critical role in reading comprehension. When considering the science of reading, it is important to engage with varying theoretical frameworks and empirical research that inform our collective understanding regarding the intersection of knowledge and literacy in K–12 classrooms. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to consider sociocultural and cognitivist perspectives on the role that knowledge plays throughout the reading process and to examine whose knowledge matters. Then, the authors address three tensions related to the role of knowledge in K–12 literacy instruction and offer research‐based perspectives on how educators, researchers, school leaders, parents, and community leaders can rethink knowledge to support students in learning from texts. First, the authors reframe the knowledge gap and suggest ways that teachers can privilege students’ knowledge as assets during literacy instruction. Second, the authors address the importance of supporting students in activating, integrating, and revising their knowledge during text processing and suggest evidence‐based instructional techniques that support students’ learning from texts. Finally, the authors contend that content knowledge is not the only type of knowledge that matters in reading and suggest how teachers can support readers in using other types of knowledge that are crucial to comprehension.

This article offers a retrospective and prospective analysis of the role of cognitive strategies in students’ academic development over the past 25 years. The focus is on those processes that individuals employ to advance their own learning and understanding (learning strategies) and, to a lesser degree, those procedures applied to regulate and monitor that learning and understanding (metacognitive or self-regulatory strategies). Drawing on a groundbreaking review from 1988, the article examines how students’ epistemic beliefs—their beliefs about knowing and knowledge—may affect strategic engagement. It also considers students’ motivations or emotions that accompany learning and academic development and, therefore, strategic processing. Finally, it describes strategies associated with online learning, the barriers to being strategic in classrooms, and situations in which teachers and students can foster strategic thinking.

The purpose of the current mixed-methods study was to investigate the effectiveness of a traditional and novel knowledge activation technique for supporting fifth and sixth graders' comprehension of exposition covering unfamiliar content. For the quantitative portion, 149 rural middle-school students were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: knowledge mobilization (traditional), relational reasoning (novel), or text annotation (control). Readings used during training and for posttraining assessment were chapters from a textbook on ancient Greece and Rome. The posttraining comprehension assessment included multiple-choice locate/recall questions and short-answer integrate/interpret and critique/ evaluate questions. The results of structural equation modeling demonstrated the comprehension outcomes for students in the relational reasoning activation condition were significantly higher than for students in either the mobilization (␤ ϭ 0.41) or control conditions (␤ ϭ 0.25). Two weeks after training, semistructured interviews were then conducted with 4 high-and 4 low-performing students from the mobilization and relational reasoning training groups. The purpose was to explore students' memory and use of the two activation techniques. Overall, the responses of high-performing students in both training conditions were richer than those for the low-performing students. Also, students in the relational reasoning condition displayed greater facility in the use of that technique than those in the mobilization condition. The contributions of this training study to the research and instruction on the effects of knowledge activation on students' comprehension are delineated and suggestions for subsequent research are forwarded. Educational Impact and Implications StatementIn this study, the effects of a traditional (mobilization) and a novel (relational reasoning) knowledge activation technique on fifth and sixth graders' comprehension of unfamiliar expository text was compared with the performance of classmates randomly assigned to a text-annotation control condition. Students who received the relational reasoning training significantly outperformed students in both the mobilization and the text annotation groups. A qualitative analysis of interview data from eight high and low comprehenders was also conducted. Both the quantitative and qualitative findings suggested that the activation technique of relational reasoning was beneficial for students who had limited topic-specific knowledge. This benefit may relate to the fact that the relational reasoning technique is unique in allowing students to look for how their background knowledge is different from, in conflict with, or categorically distinct from the reading, and not just what is similar to what they know or have experienced.

No abstract