Does Online Comprehension Monitoring Make a Unique Contribution to Reading Comprehension in Beginning Readers? Evidence from eye movements

ABSTRACT

The goal of this study was to investigate the nature of online comprehension monitoring, its predictors, and its relation to reading comprehension. Questions were concerned with (a) beginning readers’ sensitivity to inconsistencies, (b) predictors of online comprehension monitoring, and (c) the relation of online comprehension monitoring to reading comprehension over and above word reading and listening comprehension. Using eye tracking technology, online comprehension monitoring was measured as the amount of time spent rereading target implausible words and looking back at surrounding contexts. Results from 319 second graders revealed that children spent greater time fixating on inconsistent than consistent words and engaged in more frequent lookbacks. Comprehension monitoring was explained by both word reading and listening comprehension. However, comprehension monitoring did not uniquely predict reading comprehension after accounting for word reading and listening comprehension. These results provide insight into the nature of comprehension monitoring and its role in reading comprehension for beginning readers.

Acknowledgments

We thank participating schools and children, as well as project staff.

Notes

¹ Note that using linear mixed effects models yielded identical results.

² Log transformed values are not particularly different from the original raw values for rereading time for target implausible word N, word N + 1, and word N + 2 (see Table 3). This is primarily due to the zero values as shown in Appendix B. Given that the 0s were true values, the results reported in the text are from data including 0s.

³ Results were essentially the same when the gaze duration latent variable was included as an additional predictor—neither gaze duration nor comprehension monitoring (rereading times) were statistically significant (ps ≥ .41).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from Institute of Education Sciences (IES), US Department of Education (R305A120147; R305A130131) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2P50HD052120). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agency.