Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relations between children's comprehension monitoring and their reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge: an eye-movement study

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Poor reading comprehension may be due to having ineffective comprehension monitoring, the metacognitive process of evaluating and regulating comprehension. When comprehension breaks down due to an inconsistency either at the word-level (e.g., due to an unfamiliar word) or at the sentence-level (e.g., due to contradictory information), readers may identify the misunderstanding and take steps to regulate their comprehension. In the current study, we utilized two eye-movement tasks (one newly developed) to examine comprehension monitoring in third through fifth grade students (n = 123), when confronted with word- and sentence-level inconsistencies, by measuring the amount of time they read (gaze duration) and reread the target inconsistent words. We investigated how this skill may be associated with individual differences in age, reading comprehension ability, and vocabulary knowledge. The results showed that generally, all students detected the word-level inconsistencies, indicated by longer gaze durations, and attempted to regulate their comprehension after detecting both word- and sentence-level inconsistencies, as indicated by more time spent rereading. Students with stronger reading comprehension (when controlling for their vocabulary), and stronger vocabulary knowledge (when controlling for their reading comprehension) were more likely to attempt regulating their comprehension. In general, the difference between the control words and the inconsistent words was smaller for third graders and larger for fourth and fifth graders, which we argue indicates greater levels of comprehension monitoring—specifically employing repair strategies. With eye-tracking technology becoming more accessible, these tasks may be useful in assessing children’s reading processes to better understand at which level of comprehension monitoring they may be struggling, which in return will allow us to develop more individualized instruction for all readers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, L. (1984). Spontaneous versus instructed use of multiple standards for evaluation comprehension: Effects of age, reading proficiency, and type of standard. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,38, 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we don’t understand? Standards for evaluating comprehension. In D. Forrest-Pressley, G. McKinnon, & T. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition and human performance (pp. 155–205). New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2014). Reading comprehension and vocabulary: Is vocabulary more important for some aspects of comprehension? L’Année Psychologique [Topics in Cognitive Psychology],114, 647–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference making ability, and the relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition,29, 850–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology,96, 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M. (2013). Intervening to support reading comprehension development with diverse learners. In B. Miller & L. E. Cutting (Eds.), Unraveling the behavioral, neurobiological and genetic components of reading comprehension: The Dyslexia Foundation and NICHD (pp. 222–232). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M., Day, S. L., Zargar, E., Wood, T. S., Taylor, K. S., Jones, M. R., et al. (2019). Building word knowledge, learning strategies, and metacognition with the Word-Knowledge e-Book. Computers & Education,128, 284–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M., Radach, R., Vorstius, C., Day, S. L., McLean, L., & Morrison, F. J. (2015). Individual differences in fifth graders’ literacy and academic language predict comprehension monitoring development: An eye-movement study. Scientific Studies of Reading,19, 114–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.943905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Giudice, M. (2014). Middle childhood: An evolutionary-developmental synthesis. Child Development Perspectives,8(4), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). WordGen: A tool for word selection and non-word generation in Dutch, German, English, and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers,36(3), 488–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading,18, 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, M. F. (1996). Metacognitive monitoring in the processing of anaphoric devices in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. In C. Cornoldi & J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and remediation (pp. 221–249). Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading,5, 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukkink, R. G., & de Glopper, K. (1998). Effects of instruction in deriving word meaning from context: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,68(4), 450–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, A. J., Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Baker, L. (2006). Development of the metacognitive skills of prediction and evaluation in children with or without math disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,21, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00208.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kavé, G., & Halamish, V. (2015). Doubly blessed: Older adults know more vocabulary and know better what they know. Psychology and Aging,30(1), 68–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Van Den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,29(1), 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology,101, 765–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G. (2016). Direct and mediated effects of language and cognitive skills on comprehension or oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,141, 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking the simple view of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading,21, 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S. G., Vorstius, C., & Radach, R. (2018). Does online comprehension monitoring make a unique contribution to reading comprehension in beginning readers? Evidence from eye movements. Scientific Studies of Reading,22, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (1995). Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high- and low-achieving primary school children’s reading. Learning & Instruction,5, 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (2010). Tracking online metacognition: Monitoring and regulating comprehension in reading. In A. Efklides & P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 209–258). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2002). Gates-Macginitie reading tests, fourth edition technical report for forms S & T. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W. (2007). Metalinguistic awareness and the vocabulary-comprehension connection. In R. Wagner, A. Muse, & K. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 52–77). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly,20(2), 233–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W. E., McClure, E. F., & Mir, M. (1997). Linguistic transfer and the use of context by Spanish-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics,18(4), 431–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading comprehension and word reading in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading,16, 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.529219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & McCarthy, D. (2015). Inference processing in children: The contributions of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch Jr. (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 140–159). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,18(7–9), 657–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., & Lesgold, A. M. (1979). Coding and comprehension in skilled reading and implications for reading instruction. Theory and Practice of Early Reading,1, 57–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. M., Wagner, R. K., Petscher, Y., & Lopez, D. (2015). Developmental relations between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension: A latent change score modeling study. Child Development,86, 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radach, R., & Kennedy, A. (2004). Theoretical perspectives on eye movements in reading: Past controversies, current issues, and an agenda for the future. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,16, 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radach, R., & Kennedy, A. (2013). Eye movements in reading: Some theoretical context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,66, 4429–4452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science,14, 276–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin,124, 372–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading,10, 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, G. A., & Robinson, D. O. (1975). The role of bigram frequency in the perception of words and nonwords. Memory & Cognition,3(5), 513–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubman, C. N., & Waters, H. S. (2000). A, B seeing: The role of constructive processes in children’s comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology,92, 503–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology,38(6), 934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities,45(5), 453–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Reading for Understanding Network, Grant R305F1000027 and Developing Electronic-Books to Build Elementary Students’ Word Knowledge, Comprehension Monitoring, and Reading Comprehension, Grant R305A170163, as well as National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Grant P50HD052120. We thank the Individualizing Student Instruction team members, especially Sean Coffinger and Tameka Spence for their help in developing the eye-movement tasks and collecting the data. We also thank the students, parents, teachers, and school administrators for participating in our research, making this project possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of California, Irvine, 3200 Education Bldg., Irvine, CA, 92697-5500, USA

    Elham Zargar, Ashley Marie Adams & Carol McDonald Connor

Authors
  1. Elham Zargar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashley Marie Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carol McDonald Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elham Zargar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Stimuli used in Word vs. Non-word eye-movement task

  1. 1.

    David wanted to explore/spettle the wild island.

  2. 2.

    The bug crawled/thecked up Daisy’s arm.

  3. 3.

    Rosita climbed the mountain/floggorn in the morning.

  4. 4.

    The loud noise/ploof scared Ethan.

  5. 5.

    The sun was shining and it was a beautiful/smotterup day.

  6. 6.

    The cheetah was fast, but the lion was stronger/roolaps.

  7. 7.

    At his birthday, Dan laughed/shalled at the clown.

  8. 8.

    Wow/Zop, this cake is really tasty!

  9. 9.

    Mickey did not enjoy the apple because it was not ripe/bope.

  10. 10.

    The ballerina danced gracefully on the stage/quode.

  11. 11.

    The dentist/cranter said Jimmy needed to floss.

  12. 12.

    Electricity allows for the toaster/hearner to work.

  13. 13.

    The soccer team won/jub the playoffs.

  14. 14.

    My father is a judge and goes to court/sneet.

  15. 15.

    Rubber/Trople tires are the best for a car.

  16. 16.

    School/Phleen is where Timmy learned science.

  17. 17.

    Water/Klopa is very important to drink on a hot day.

  18. 18.

    Lindsey had to take/chup her dog on a walk.

  19. 19.

    Did you know tomatoes are a fruit/grutt?

  20. 20.

    When it rains, my mom uses an umbrella/nepronto to stay dry.

Stimuli used in Plausible vs. Implausible eye-movement task

  1. 1.

    For the wedding, Linda wore her best outfit. The colorful dress/plant was one of her favorites.

  2. 2.

    Jeremy carefully sawed through a large oak tree in his yard. The steel blade/bolt became dull after only a few minutes.

  3. 3.

    Last week Kyle flew to visit his family in another city. The large plane/truck was spacious and quickly transported them.

  4. 4.

    Charles and his friends tossed the new toy outside in the yard. They were upset when the ball/book went over the fence.

  5. 5.

    Marcus washed dishes every night to earn his allowance. The new sponge/broom was great for getting rid of the grit.

  6. 6.

    Before school Jack printed his report for history class. He became angry when the paper/pencil got stuck.

  7. 7.

    Every day Rover barked at the passing animals on the street. He was the most alert puppy/kitten in the neighborhood.

  8. 8.

    In the evening, Nicholas pounded two boards together in his garage. His new hammer/handsaw was a really useful tool.

  9. 9.

    Tyler cautiously sipped his fresh sweetened tea. He dropped the glass/plate because it was so hot.

  10. 10.

    Last night Bobby slept very well for many hours. His new boots were cozy and comfortable. His new boots/sheets were cozy and comfortable.

  11. 11.

    Tim and Landon rowed along the river in the park. Tim lost his paddle/saddle in the middle of the river.

  12. 12.

    Justin threw the ball to his friend during the game. He liked football/jogging more than any other sport.

  13. 13.

    Yesterday evening Jenny sewed patches onto her jeans. Sadly, she lost the needle/wrench and could not finish.

  14. 14.

    When she got mad Sarah stomped on the floor. It really hurt when her foot/hand hit the ground with such force.

  15. 15.

    Today Sean arrested an unruly criminal as everyone watched. As an experienced officer/minister he quickly took control of the situation.

  16. 16.

    Amanda sat outside and read about a man named Arthur. She loved the novel/movie about ancient times.

  17. 17.

    To plant a tree Shannon dug a large hole in the ground. Her sturdy shovel/blower helped make the job easy.

  18. 18.

    Michelle poured a fresh cup of coffee for her friend. She dropped the kettle/shoes and got very annoyed.

  19. 19.

    Today Janet rode with her friends to the mall. The yellow taxi/kayak quickly got them to their favorite places.

  20. 20.

    They were all happy as they sailed along the coast. The swift boat/bike raced near the beautiful beach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zargar, E., Adams, A.M. & Connor, C.M. The relations between children's comprehension monitoring and their reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge: an eye-movement study. Read Writ 33, 511–545 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09966-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09966-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation