Using Think-Alouds to Validate a Diagnostic Reading Comprehension Assessment and Conceptualize Reading Comprehension Interventions

• In Event: First-Year Results From the College Version of the Multiple-Choice Online Causal Comprehension Assessment (MOCCA-College)

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). Thus, given the consistency of such findings, we compared think-aloud findings to distinguish which processes poor comprehenders in college are relying on during reading to help validate a new version of a diagnostic reading comprehension assessment aimed to identify causal comprehension. In addition, we will use these findings to help conceptualize the development of new interventions to help improve struggling college-aged readers’ comprehension.
Method. We asked 90 college-aged students in California and North Dakota to participate in the think-aloud task with expository and narrative texts. This sample of college students coming from two regions in the United States were a diverse sample of students – over 50% were of Hispanic or Latino background, and about 25% of which was limited or formerly limited in English proficiency. This method was purposefully chosen to complete this task because reading comprehension theory and think aloud findings are based on less heterogeneous samples of students. Thus, our sample incorporates a more diverse group of readers.
Results and Significance. Results from the think-aloud task provide early evidence across college-aged readers for the differences in the types of comprehension processes that readers use as they read expository and narrative texts. In addition, results provide evidence for these differences among comprehender subgroups (i.e., different types of struggling comprehenders). Results will be discussed in terms of the validation for our assessment, but also the development of interventions needed to help improve comprehension for subgroups of college-aged struggling comprehenders based on theories of reading comprehension and poor reading comprehension.

Authors

• Sarah Elizabeth Carlson, Georgia State University

• Benjamin Seipel, CSU, Chico

• Virginia Clinton-Lisell, University of North Dakota

• Mark L. Davison, University of Minnesota

• Patrick Kennedy, University of Oregon

• Heather Ness, Georgia State University