How Individual Differences Interact With Task Demands in Text Processing

ABSTRACT

Reading is affected by both situational requirements and one’s cognitive skills. The current study investigated how individual differences interacted with task requirements to determine reading behavior and outcome. We recorded the eye movements of college students, who differed in reading efficiency, while they completed a multiple-choice (MC) comprehension test in two within-subject conditions: one in which they read passages and answered MC questions as in a typical reading test and one in which they wrote a summary before answering the MC questions. We found students spent longer time reading the text in the summary-writing condition, resulting in a benefit in the time they spent when answering MC questions. This time benefit was larger for students who had relatively low reading efficiency. These results demonstrated that both task requirements and individual differences can interact to affect reading behavior and performance. Implications for reading practice and assessment are discussed.

Acknowledgments

We thank Jennifer Lentini, Don Powers, Jesse Sparks, and Jingyuan Huang.

Funding

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305G04065; grant R305F100005 to the Educational Testing Service as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative; and in partnership with Arizona State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of Educational Testing Service or the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Additional information

Funding

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305G04065; grant R305F100005 to the Educational Testing Service as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative; and in partnership with Arizona State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of Educational Testing Service or the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.