Comprehension Monitoring during Reading: An Eye-tracking Study with Children Learning English as an Additional Language

ABSTRACT

This experiment investigated comprehension monitoring in children learning English as an additional language (EAL) compared to monolinguals. Sixty-three 9–10-year-old children read texts containing an internal inconsistency (e.g. a barking kitten vs. barking puppy) while their eye movements were monitored. Standardized tests measured word reading fluency and vocabulary size and the children completed a questionnaire tapping rereading behavior. There was no overall difference between EAL and monolingual children. Regardless of EAL status, children with larger vocabularies were more efficient in their re-analysis of inconsistent information, as revealed by regressive eye movements. As efficient re-analysis of inconsistent information is essential for comprehension and is ubiquitous in proficient readers, the presence of this pattern in the children is indicative of successful online monitoring. However, rereading of inconsistent vs consistent words in the eye movement record was not related to children’s self-reported rereading, not providing any support for deliberate rereading. Our findings indicate that successful online monitoring relies on strong word knowledge leading to efficient processing of texts, both for bilingual and monolingual children, and beyond deliberate rereading.

View correction statement:

Correction

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Jane Ashby and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

Informed consent

We secured consent from the child participants’ legal guardian and assent from the children themselves.

Ethics approval statement

The procedure was approved by the Central University Research Ethics Community of the Oxford University Department of Education as conforming to the British Educational Research Association Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Scatcherd European Scholarship (reference number:  GAF1516_SESSOC-676836) and by the Economic and Social Research Council (Refernce number: 1637966) while the first author was a doctoral student at the University of Oxford.;Economic and Social Research Council [1637966];Scatcherd European Scholarship[GAF1516_SESSOC-676836].