Identifying Subgroups of Struggling Comprehenders: Triangulation of Reading Comprehension Processing Methods

• In Event: First-Year Results for the Multiple-Choice Online Causal Comprehension Assessment: Project MOCCA

Abstract

Objective and Theoretical Framework. Previous research has established two types of struggling readers: those who struggle with lower-level reading skills and those who struggle with higher-level reading skills (Cain & Oakhill, 2006; Perfetti, 2007). The latter group is commonly termed poor comprehenders: readers who exhibit poor comprehension compared to peers with similar word-reading skills and vocabulary (e.g., Authors, 2014; Cain & Oakhill, 2006; Rapp et al., 2007). Moreover, research has revealed that poor comprehenders exhibit specific difficulty with generating causally coherent inferences when reading narrative texts (e.g., McMaster et al., 2012; Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985).
Causally coherent inferences require synthesis of why an event occurs based on relevant goals and subgoals previously identified in the text and missing information from background knowledge consistent with this synthesis. Although poor comprehenders do make causally coherent inferences, they do not make them as consistently as good comprehenders.
Instead, when poor comprehenders do not make such inferences, they often use other types of comprehension processes that are strategic and useful, but that fail to fill the causal gap in the text. Specifically, poor comprehenders tend either to paraphrase (i.e., rephrase prior text information) or make lateral connections (i.e., elaborative inferences or personal associations, which use background knowledge but are not causally coherent with the text). These trends have been found repeatedly with intermediate grade readers (i.e., Grades 3-5; e.g., Authors, 2014; McMaster et al., 2012; Rapp et al., 2007). Given the consistency of such findings, we compared three different methods to distinguish which processes poor comprehenders are relying on: a traditional think aloud; a forced-choice think aloud, and a new maze-like reading comprehension assessment (i.e., MOCCA) under development to extend and triangulate previous research.
Method. We asked about 90 children (30 per Grades 3-5) in California to participate in each of these methods. This sample of children in California – over 50% of which was on free or reduced price meals and was of Hispanic or Latino background, and about 25% of which was limited or formerly limited in English proficiency – was purposefully chosen to complete these tasks because much reading comprehension theory and think aloud findings are based on less heterogeneous samples of children. Thus, our sample incorporates a more diverse group of readers.
Results and Significance. Results from these three methods, provide early evidence across each method for the differences in types of comprehension processes that readers use as they read narrative texts. In addition, results provide evidence for these differences among comprehender subgroups (i.e., different types of struggling comprehenders). Results have implications not only for further development of our assessment, but also for the generalizability of commonly accepted theories of reading comprehension and poor reading comprehension.

Authors

• Sarah Elizabeth Carlson, University of Oregon

• Gina Biancarosa, University of Oregon

• Ben Seipel, California State University, Chico

• HyeonJin Yoon, University of Oregon - Center on Teaching and Learning

• Joan Grohman, California State University - Chico

• Mark L. Davison, University of Minnesota