Abstract
The ability to form a mental model of a text is an essential component of successful reading comprehension (RC), and purpose for reading can influence mental model construction. Participants were assigned to one of two conditions during an RC test to alter their purpose for reading: concurrent (texts and questions were presented simultaneously) and sequential (texts were presented first, then questions were shown without text access). Their eye movements were recorded during testing. Working memory capacity (WMC) and centrality of textual information were measured. Participants in the sequential condition had longer first-pass reading times compared to participants in the concurrent condition, while participants in the concurrent condition had longer total processing times per word. In addition, participants with higher WMC had longer total reading times per word. Finally, participants in the sequential condition with higher WMC had longer processing times in central regions. Even among skilled college readers, participants with lower WMC had difficulty adjusting their reading behaviors to meet the task demands such as distinguishing central and peripheral ideas. However, participants with higher WMC increased attention to important text areas. One potential explanation is that participants with higher WMC are better able to construct a coherent mental model of the text, and attending to central text areas is an essential component of mental model formation. Therefore, these results help clarify the relationship between the purpose for reading and mental model development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(3), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01413.x
Anmarkrud, Ø., McCrudden, M. T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41(5), 873–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9263-8
Baayen, R., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01326548
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, R. H. (2018). Parsimonious mixed models. ArXiv:1506.04967v2
Bayrak Karsli, M., Demirel, T., & Kurşun, E. (2020). Examination of different reading strategies with eye tracking measures in paragraph questions. Hacettepe University Journal of Education 35(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019051160
Brown, J. I. (1960). The Nelson-Denny reading test. Houghton Mifflin.
Burin, D. I., Gonzalez, F. M., Barreyro, J. P., & Injoque-Ricle, I. (2020). Metacognitive regulation contributes to digital text comprehension in E-learning. Metacognition and Learning, 15(3), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09226-8
Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Romanò, M. (2005). Updating in working memory: A comparison of good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.01.005
Cerdán, R., Máñez, I., & Serrano-Mendizábal, M. (2021). Reading from multiple documents: The role of text availability and question type. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.380
Clemens, N. H., Hsiao, Y.-Y., Lee, K., Martinez-Lincoln, A., Moore, C., Toste, J., & Simmons, L. (2020). The differential importance of component skills on reading comprehension test performance among struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(3), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420932139
Cordon, L. A., & Day, J. D. (1996). Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.288
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
Daneman, M., & Hannon, B. (2001). Using working memory theory to investigate the construct validity of multiple-choice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 130(2), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.208
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214546
Dutke, S., & von Hecker, U. (2011). Comprehending ambiguous texts: A high reading span helps to constrain the situation model. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.485127
Farr, R., Pritchard, R., & Smitten, B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a multiple-choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(3), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00744.x
Ferrer, A., Vidal-Abarca, E., Serrano, M. -Á., & Gilabert, R. (2017). Impact of text availability and question format on reading comprehension processes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.10.002
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12025
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.4.294
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
Miller, A. C., & Keenan, J. M. (2009). How word decoding skill impacts text memory: The centrality deficit and how domain knowledge can compensate. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(2), 99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-0025-x
O’Reilly, T., Feng, D. G., Sabatini, D. J., Wang, D. Z., & Gorin, D. J. (2018). How do people read the passages during a reading comprehension test? The effect of reading purpose on text processing behavior. Educational Assessment, 23(4), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2018.1513787
Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 399–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701632371
Rayner, K., Ardoin, S. P., & Binder, K. S. (2013). Children’s eye movements in reading: A commentary. School Psychology Review, 42(2), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087486
Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(3), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000123
Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2013). The prediction of reading comprehension by cognitive and motivational factors: Does text accessibility during comprehension testing make a difference? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.003
Schraw, G., Wade, S. E., & Kardash, C. A. (1993). Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.652
Schroeder, S. (2011). What readers have and do: Effects of students’ verbal ability and reading time components on comprehension with and without text availability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 877–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023731
Soto, C., Gutiérrez de Blume, A. P., Jacovina, M., McNamara, D., Benson, N., & Riffo, B. (2019). Reading comprehension and metacognition: The importance of inferential skills. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2019.1565067
Swett, K., Miller, A. C., Burns, S., Hoeft, F., Davis, N., Petrill, S. A., & Cutting, L. E. (2013). Comprehending expository texts: The dynamic neurobiological correlates of building a coherent text representation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 853. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00853
Touron, D. R., Oransky, N., Meier, M. E., & Hines, J. C. (2010). Metacognitive monitoring and strategic behaviour in working memory performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(8), 1533–1551. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903418937
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192720
van den Broek, P., & Espin, C. A. (2012). Connecting cognitive theory and assessment: Measuring individual differences in reading comprehension. School Psychology Review, 41(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087512
Wang, Z., Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Feng, G. (2017). How individual differences interact with task demands in text processing. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1276184
Yeari, M. (2017). The role of working memory in inference generation during reading comprehension: Retention, (re)activation, or suppression of verbal information? Learning and Individual Differences, 56, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.04.002
Yeari, M., & Lantin, S. (2021). The origin of centrality deficit in text memory and comprehension by poor comprehenders: A think-aloud study. Reading and Writing, 34(3), 595–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10083-9
Yeari, M., & Lev, N. (2021). Processing and memory of central and peripheral ideas in reading comprehension by poor comprehenders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(3), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1759073
Yeari, M., van den Broek, P., & Oudega, M. (2015). Processing and memory of central versus peripheral information as a function of reading goals: Evidence from eye-movements. Reading and Writing, 28(8), 1071–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1759073
Zargar, E., Adams, A. M., & Connor, C. M. (2020). The relations between children’s comprehension monitoring and their reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge: An eye-movement study. Reading and Writing, 33(3), 511–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09966-3
Funding
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A17036 to the University of Georgia. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. Neither the Institute nor the U.S. Department of Education contributed to the study design; the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; or to the writing and submission of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Moss, C., Kwabi, S., Ardoin, S.P. et al. Eye movements and reading comprehension performance: examining the relationships among test format, working memory capacity and reading comprehension. Read Writ 37, 703–729 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10428-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10428-0