Proposed Definition
Reading comprehension is an increasingly automatic
process by which readers strive to construct a coherent mental representation of
a text by way of extracting literal meaning from printed words and filling in
gaps in understanding through inferences that are informed by socio-cultural
factors and prior knowledge.
Comparison
with Other Definitions
As
per PISA (2003), “Reading literacy is understanding, using and reflecting on written
texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential,
and to participate in society.” The proposed definition takes into
consideration reading goals, as does the PISA definition. However, while the
PISA definition focuses on the outputs of reading literacy (developing
knowledge and potential; participating in society), the proposed definition
focuses more on the sub-processes in a reader’s mind and their interaction with
the text and socio-cultural factors, which together determine the development
of reading skills.
The
Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) posits that reading
comprehension is the product of sets of skills: decoding and linguistic
comprehension. The proposed definition is closer to the SVR definition, in that
both focus on decoding and comprehension skills as essential sub-processes for
skilled reading comprehension. The proposed definition additionally takes into
consideration how these skills are informed by working memory resources,
socio-cultural factors, and prior knowledge.
Reading Comprehension: A Breakdown of
the Proposed Definition
Reading
comprehension is a process that becomes increasingly automatic with extended
practice over a period of time. This automaticity is a result of increasingly
efficient utilization of working memory resources for the various sub-processes
required to read a text with comprehension (Perfetti et al., 2005)
The aim of every reader must be a coherent mental representation
of the text. This coherence requires simultaneous sub-processes within the
reader’s mind—decoding and extracting the literal meaning of the words and
sentences read; putting those meanings together to establish the literal
meaning of the text read; and filling in any gaps in understanding or
supplementing the literal understanding by making inferences. These three levels
correspond with the model proposed by Kintsch & Kintsch (2005), comprising propositions,
the textbase, and the situation model.
The
following sections will delve into each sub-process in play during reading
comprehension. As the definition states, it is the increasing automaticity of
each sub-process that makes one a skilled reader. Automaticity is a result of
efficient use of working memory. Furthermore, as stated, socio-cultural factors
and prior knowledge inform these sub-processes. Thus, each of the following
sections will include the role of working memory, socio-cultural factors, and
prior knowledge in informing the sub-processes.
Decoding and Word Identification
Decoding
and word identification form the initial sub-processes of reading. Decoding is
defined as the ability to map letters to sound and use this analysis to
identify printed words without context (Vellutino et al., 2007). Studies
conducted by researchers such Sticht (1979) and Hoover & Gough (1990) show
that decoding plays a crucial role in comprehension abilities of low-skilled
readers, both adults and children.
Beginning
readers devote their working memory resources to decoding and word
identification (Perfetti et al., 2005). With repetition, word identification
skills get strengthened and more automatic (Graesser et al., 1994) and take up
fewer resources in working memory, as deliberate decoding skills are needed by
skilled readers only to identify unfamiliar words (Chall, 1996).
As
Perfetti et al. (2005) point out, “phonological knowledge prior to literacy
could play a role in the development of reading comprehension” (p. 239).
Phonological knowledge forms the basis of decoding, and it is logical to assume
that a different native language and level of exposure to the language of
instruction in everyday life play a role in decoding abilities of beginning
readers.
Vocabulary and
Syntactic Knowledge
To
convert decoded words into propositions, readers need vocabulary and syntactic
knowledge.
As
established by Perfetti et al. (2005), vocabulary knowledge plays a dual role—in
word identification and in comprehension. Especially among readers with weak
decoding skills, the dependence on the meaning of the word for identification
may be higher. Furthermore, the role of vocabulary and strategies for understanding
the meaning of words in comprehension is undeniable (Alvermann & Eakle,
2003), as it is estimated that for comprehension, the reader must know the
meaning of at least 90% of the words (Nagy & Scott, 2000). Vellutino et al.
(2007) posit that vocabulary knowledge is critical for comprehension of
sentences. As readers read more, they may encounter unfamiliar words, the
meaning of which they may infer from context to ensure comprehension. However,
such inference has two requirements: one, the reader must know the meaning of most
words in the text to make the inference; and two, the retrieval of the meaning
must be automatic so as to not overwhelm working memory resources and become a
bottleneck to comprehension (Perfetti et al., 2005).
The
socio-cultural background determines, to a significant extent, the pool of
vocabulary knowledge a reader brings (Hart & Risley, 1995), as vocabulary
is accumulated through reading experiences and oral conversations in everyday
life (Snow, 2002).
Syntactic
knowledge is defined as “implicit knowledge of grammatical rules for ordering,
coreferencing, and inflecting the words in sentences” (Vellutino et al., 2007,
p. 8). Syntactic elements in written text include a variety, such as morphology,
nominalizations, causal noun phrases, and anaphoric and cataphoric referents. Deep
understanding of syntactic elements enables readers to parse sentences for
meaning and establish propositional structures (Perfetti et al., 2005).
As
the definition suggests, syntactic knowledge is implicit knowledge. However, as
long as parsing requires readers to make deliberate efforts, working memory
resources are devoted to it. The aim is for this knowledge to become implicit
with reading experience for comprehension to proceed beyond the propositional
stage.
Socio-cultural
factors also play a role in syntactic processing, as there may be drastic differences
in grammatical rules among different languages, specifically the native
language of readers and the language of the text to be read, over and above differences
in the syntax of oral and written language (Perfetti et al., 2005).
Gap-Filling
Once a reader is able to extract meaning from the
semantic and syntactic components of a text, the components come together to
make the text locally and globally coherent (Graesser et al., 1994). However,
to construct a coherent mental representation, or a situation model, the reader
must fill in gaps in understanding by monitoring comprehension and making
inferences that align with reading goals.
a) Comprehension Monitoring
Every reader encounters points in texts that are not
explicit in their meaning or difficult to comprehend at the propositional or
textbase level. For this, Kintsch & Kintsch (2005) suggest “consciously
monitoring one’s ongoing comprehension, identifying the source for a breakdown
in comprehension, and attempting to resolve the problem rather than passively
reading on” (p. 84).
Once
the textbase is established, the goals of the reader (Graesser et al., 1994) as
well the reader’s standard of coherence in relation with that text also determine
at what points the reader pauses to consider what mental representation he/she
needs to construct to fill the gaps and what background knowledge needs to be
pulled forth for such a construction. For example, reading a short story to
critically review it requires a different mental representation of the story
than reading it for pleasure. Similarly, knowledge of the text structure also
contributes to better monitoring (Perfetti et al., 2005). For example, a
mystery story requires a reader to keep a lookout for clues, while a persuasive
essay requires attention to claims and supporting evidence.
Studies
have shown that skilled reading requires monitoring of comprehension (Hacker,
1997). For successful monitoring, a reader must both have relevant prior
knowledge and know that such prior knowledge needs to be retrieved (Perfetti et
al., 2005). Furthermore, comprehension monitoring requires the text to be held
in working memory while also retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term
memory. Therefore, other sub-processes such as decoding and semantic and
syntactic processing must be automatic for comprehension monitoring to be
successful.
b) Inferences
As skilled readers monitor their comprehension and notice
inconsistencies within the text or between the text and their knowledge, they
make inferences to resolve the inconsistencies, especially those who have high “standards
of coherence” (Perfetti et al., 2005, p. 247). Simply put, this means that the
more the reader wants to see how all the details in a text, little or big, fit
together, the more he/she will strive to make inferences. Oakhill et al. (2003)
established that inference-making skills better predicted comprehension among
young readers than working memory, vocabulary, and word recognition ability.
Just as with comprehension monitoring, skilled readers
know when to make inferences and what kind of prior knowledge to draw on to
make those inferences (Perfetti et al., 2005). From this we can logically
assume that readers with relevant prior knowledge or a wider range of reading
experiences will be able to make better inferences.
Graesser
et al. (1994) list out thirteen types of inferences that readers make to
establish local coherence and global coherence, and construct situation models.
Some of these inferences can be drawn from clues given in the text, and such
inferences may not require retrieval of much background knowledge, placing a
smaller demand on working memory. Other inferences, that require integration of
the text and prior knowledge, place a higher demand on working memory. Consider
the following sentences: Neel was the
world’s youngest detective. He had a hat and sunglasses to hide his face.
Here, the anaphoric reference connecting the pronoun he to Neel can be
directly inferred from the text. However, the inference that detectives work
best when they are not noticed or recognized needs integration of the text and
prior knowledge about detectives. Therefore, for a reader to construct a rich
situation model, all other sub-processes must be fairly automatic to allow for
such “knowledge-based inferences” (Graesser et al., 1994, p. 374) to be made in
the working memory.
In
conclusion, a skilled reader automatically decodes and identifies words; knows
the meaning of most words and makes automatic inferences from context to
understand unfamiliar words; and automatically parses sentences. He/She devotes
most working memory resources to monitoring comprehension and making
knowledge-based inferences to construct a rich situation model.
References
Alvermann, D. E., &
Eakle, A. J. (2003). Comprehension Instruction: Adolescents and their multiple
literacies.
In A. P. Sweet, & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking
reading comprehension. New York,
NY:
Guilford Press, pp. 12-29
Chall, J. S. (1996). A
proposal for reading stages. In J. S. Chall, Stages of reading development, (pp. 9-
39).
Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Gough, P. B., &
Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and special
education, 7(1),
6-10.
Graesser, A. C., Singer,
M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text
comprehension.
Psychological review, 101(3), 371.
Hacker, D. J. (1997).
Comprehension monitoring of written discourse across early-to-middle
adolescence.
Reading and Writing, 9(3), 207-240.
Hart, B., & Risley,
T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in
the everyday experience of young American
children.
Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Hoover, W. A., &
Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and writing, 2(2), 127-160.
Kintsch, W. &
Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In Paris, S. G., & S. A. Stahl (Eds.),
Children’s reading comprehension and
assessment, (pp. 71-92). Mahwah, New
Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nagy, W. E., & Scott,
J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. Handbook
of reading research, 3(269-284).
Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K.,
& Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text
comprehension:
Evidence
from component skills. Language and
cognitive processes, 18(4), 443-468.
Perfetti, C. A., Landi,
N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The Acquisition of Reading Comprehension Skill.
Programme for
International Student Assessment. (2004). PISA
Learning for Tomorrow's World: First
Results from PISA 2003
(Vol. 659). Simon and Schuster.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D
program in reading comprehension. Rand
Corporation.
Sticht, T. (1979).
Applications of the audread model to reading evaluation and instruction. Theory and
practice of early reading, 1,
209-226.
Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer,
W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability:
Multivariate
evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific studies of
reading, 11(1), 3-32.
Comments
Post a Comment