Allowing Think-Time and Re-Reading¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 9 studies (3 causal, 3 quant-synthesis, 2 review, 1 associational), q2–q4 · 2 of 9 report an effect size

Description¶

Allowing think-time and re-reading means deliberately extending the interval between posing a question (or presenting material) and expecting a response, and permitting learners to revisit text multiple times before responding. This supports deeper comprehension and reduces frustration, particularly for learners who process language or information more slowly.

Design Implications¶

Extended wait-time after questions shifts classroom discourse from rapid recall toward more elaborate reasoning: teachers who sustain silence for 3+ seconds after a question get longer, more cognitively complex student responses [~S]. Re-reading (repeated reading) improves fluency and comprehension because each pass frees working-memory resources from decoding, allowing attention to shift to meaning [~M]. Both tactics work only if the time is structured — unstructured silence or aimless re-reading produces little gain.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Flexibility in pacing and scheduling; a supportive, non-pressured classroom climate where silence is normalized
• A clear purpose for the wait: a specific question worth thinking about (Class Discussion prompts, Practice problems)
• A productive use for re-reading — a goal for the second pass (e.g., "find the claim," "mark what confused you" via Annotating)
• A classroom or course norm that silence after a question is productive, not a failure
• Genuinely open questions worth thinking about; wait time after low-level recall questions adds little
• Access to materials for re-reading (texts, recorded explanations, worked problems)
• A follow-up structure that converts thinking into a response (Class Discussion, written response, or Check-In)

Constraints¶

• Wait-time gains collapse when teachers break the silence after 1–2 seconds, which is the default in most classrooms [~S]
• Re-reading without a purpose or feedback yields diminishing returns; gains plateau when the text is already fully understood [~M]
• Extending time for everyone can slow whole-class pacing; effectiveness depends on learners actually using the time rather than disengaging [-W]
• Timed assessments and rapid-fire questioning formats negate the strategy entirely
• Unstructured extra time invites disengagement; some learners stop attending when nothing is required of them [-M]
• Re-reading familiar text creates fluency-based illusions of knowing — learners mistake ease of re-reading for mastery Rereading is less effective than retrieval-based study strategies. [-S]
• Extended time on timed assessments changes what is being measured; accommodations must be deliberate (Accommodations)
• Whole-class wait time can feel uncomfortable for instructors, who tend to cut it short after under one second without training Wait time improves the quality of classroom discourse. [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Structured think-pair-share: individual think-time before peer discussion
• Re-reading with varied purpose per pass (first for gist, second for detail, third for evaluation)
• Extended-time accommodations on assessments for identified learners
• Self-paced digital materials (Adaptive Learning) that let learners control pacing
• Wait time 1 (after the question) vs. wait time 2 (after a student responds, before the teacher reacts) — both matter
• Think-pair-share: individual think-time followed by peer rehearsal before public response
• Structured re-reading: second pass with a specific purpose (annotating, answering a guiding question) rather than verbatim repetition
• Extended-time accommodations on assessments for learners with documented processing-speed needs

Target Learners¶

• Learners with processing-speed challenges, language-processing difficulties, or reading fluency limitations
• Second-language learners who need additional passes at text
• All learners benefit from wait-time on higher-order questions; the effect is not limited to struggling students [~S]
• Learners with slower processing speed or working-memory constraints, for whom forced-pace questioning produces guessing rather than reasoning Cognitive overload degrades learning outcomes. [+M]
• Second-language learners and anyone processing in a non-native language
• Anxious learners, for whom immediate cold-calling suppresses performance
• Less beneficial as unstructured re-reading for learners who already use stronger strategies like self-testing Rereading is less effective than retrieval-based study strategies. [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Reading comprehension and fluency development
• Higher-order reasoning and elaborated verbal responses during discussion
• Metacognitive monitoring — re-reading teaches learners to detect and repair comprehension failures
• Deeper comprehension and reasoning rather than rapid recall
• Quality of oral and written contributions in discussion
• Self-regulated study habits — knowing when a second pass is useful and how to structure it

Instructions¶

1. Pose a question and explicitly announce the think-time ("Take 30 seconds before anyone answers").
2. Enforce silence for 3–5 seconds minimum; count silently if needed [~S].
3. Direct learners to re-read the relevant passage with a specific second-pass goal, using Annotating to mark key points or confusions.
4. Invite responses, then extend a second wait-time after a learner answers before evaluating or calling on someone else.
5. Build re-reading into Practice cycles rather than treating it as remediation.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Background Knowledge — a purposeful first-pass re-read often serves to connect new text to prior knowledge
• Chunking — breaking text into segments makes targeted re-reading manageable within working-memory limits Chunking reduces working memory load. [+S]
• Self-Explanation — prompts learners to use think-time productively by explaining the text to themselves Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S]
• Activating Prior Knowledge — think-time gives learners the space to retrieve relevant prior knowledge before new input

Examples¶

• Wait-time in science discourse — Rowe's classic classroom studies trained teachers to hold 3-second pauses after questions and after student answers, producing longer student utterances and more student-initiated questions.
• Repeated reading interventions — Reading fluency programs in which a learner re-reads a short passage aloud several times until reaching a criterion rate, with feedback each pass.
• UDL-aligned course design — CAST's UDL Guidelines list "vary the demands and time allowed" as a design feature; instructors post recordings and transcripts so learners can re-watch and re-read at their own pace (CAST UDL Guidelines).
• Think-Pair-Share — a standard active-learning routine: 30–60 seconds of silent thinking, brief pair discussion, then whole-class sharing; the pair step converts private think-time into a low-stakes rehearsal.
• Extended-time testing accommodations — most university disability services grant 1.5× time for documented processing-speed or ADHD-related needs.
• Purposeful re-reading in reading instruction — a second read of a science text with the task of marking claims vs. evidence, converting repetition into analysis.

Key Sources¶

• Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43–50. doi:10.1177/002248718603700110
• Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 69–95. doi:10.3102/00346543057001069
• Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403–408.
• Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 180–188. doi:10.1598/rrq.20.2.4
• Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 30–41. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.07.001
• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
• Stahl, R. J. (1994). Using "think-time" behaviors to promote understanding and inquiry. Clearing House, 67(3), 151–157.