Differences in text processing by low- and high-comprehending beginning readers of expository and narrative texts: Evidence from eye movements

The present study investigated on-line text processing of second-grade low- and high-comprehending readers by recording their eye movements as they read expository and narrative texts. For narrative texts, the reading patterns of low- and high-comprehending readers revealed robust differences consistent with prior findings for good versus struggling readers (e.g., longer first- and second-pass reading times for low-comprehending readers). For expository texts, however, the differences in the reading patterns of low- and high-comprehending readers were attenuated. These results suggest that low-comprehending readers adopt a suboptimal processing approach for expository texts: relative to their processing approach for narrative texts, they either do not adjust their reading strategy or they adjust towards a more cursory strategy. Both processing approaches are suboptimal because expository texts tend to demand more, rather than less, cognitive effort of the reader than narrative texts. We discuss implications for (reading) education

What do students think about differentiation and within-class achievement grouping?

Differentiation and achievement grouping are frequently implemented practices to adapt education to students’ varying educational needs based on achievement level. Potential didactical and socioemotional advantages and disadvantages of these practices have been discussed in the literature. However, little is known about the perspective of students themselves. This study examined how Dutch students (N = 428) perceived differentiation and within-class homogeneous achievement grouping in primary mathematics education, with attention for potential differences between students of diverse achievement levels. Students of Grades 1, 3 and 5 completed a questionnaire about various differentiated mathematics activities and (if applicable) within-class achievement grouping. In line with the didactical perspective on differentiation, extended instruction and less difficult tasks were appreciated most by low-achieving students whereas more difficult tasks were appreciated most by high-achieving students. Students of all achievement groups had largely positive attitudes about achievement grouping and about their own achievement group. However, some differences between achievement groups were found, with less favourable results for students placed in low achievement groups. Students’ responses to open-ended questions provided additional insights into the reasons behind students’ evaluations of differentiation and achievement grouping. Differences between grade levels were also explored

The influence of linguistic and cognitive factors on the time course of verb-based implicit causality

In three eye-tracking experiments the influence of the Dutch causal connective “want” (because) and the working memory capacity of readers on the usage of verb-based implicit causality was examined. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that although a causal connective is not required to activate implicit causality information during reading, effects of implicit causality surfaced more rapidly and were more pronounced when a connective was present in the discourse than when it was absent. In addition, Experiment 3 revealed that—in contrast to previous claims—the activation of implicit causality is not a resource-consuming mental operation. Moreover, readers with higher and lower working memory capacities behaved differently in a dual-task situation. Higher span readers were more likely to use implicit causality when they had all their working memory resources at their disposal. Lower span readers showed the opposite pattern as they were more likely to use the implicit causality cue in the case of an additional working memory load. The results emphasize that both linguistic and cognitive factors mediate the impact of implicit causality on text comprehension. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of the ongoing controversies in the literature—that is, the focusing-integration debate and the debates on the source of implicit causality

Differentiating Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Validation Processes during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements

To build a coherent accurate mental representation of a text, readers routinely validate information they read against the preceding text and their background knowledge. It is clear that both sources affect processing, but when and how they exert their influence remains unclear. To examine the time course and cognitive architecture of text-based and knowledge-based validation processes, we used eye-tracking methodology. Participants read versions of texts that varied systematically in (in)coherence with prior text or background knowledge. Contradictions with respect to prior text and background knowledge both were found to disrupt reading but in different ways: The two types of contradiction led to distinct patterns of processes, and, importantly, these differences were evident already in early processing stages. Moreover, knowledge-based incoherence triggered more pervasive and longer (repair) processes than did text-based incoherence. Finally, processing of text-based and knowledge-based incoherence was not influenced by readers’ working memory capacity

Differentiating Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Validation Processes during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements

To build a coherent accurate mental representation of a text, readers routinely validate information they read against the preceding text and their background knowledge. It is clear that both sources affect processing, but when and how they exert their influence remains unclear. To examine the time course and cognitive architecture of text-based and knowledge-based validation processes, we used eye-tracking methodology. Participants read versions of texts that varied systematically in (in)coherence with prior text or background knowledge. Contradictions with respect to prior text and background knowledge both were found to disrupt reading but in different ways: The two types of contradiction led to distinct patterns of processes, and, importantly, these differences were evident already in early processing stages. Moreover, knowledge-based incoherence triggered more pervasive and longer (repair) processes than did text-based incoherence. Finally, processing of text-based and knowledge-based incoherence was not influenced by readers’ working memory capacity

Differentiating Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Validation Processes during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements

To build a coherent accurate mental representation of a text, readers routinely validate information they read against the preceding text and their background knowledge. It is clear that both sources affect processing, but when and how they exert their influence remains unclear. To examine the time course and cognitive architecture of text-based and knowledge-based validation processes, we used eye-tracking methodology. Participants read versions of texts that varied systematically in (in)coherence with prior text or background knowledge. Contradictions with respect to prior text and background knowledge both were found to disrupt reading but in different ways: The two types of contradiction led to distinct patterns of processes, and, importantly, these differences were evident already in early processing stages. Moreover, knowledge-based incoherence triggered more pervasive and longer (repair) processes than did text-based incoherence. Finally, processing of text-based and knowledge-based incoherence was not influenced by readers’ working memory capacity

Differentiating Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Validation Processes during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements

To build a coherent accurate mental representation of a text, readers routinely validate information they read against the preceding text and their background knowledge. It is clear that both sources affect processing, but when and how they exert their influence remains unclear. To examine the time course and cognitive architecture of text-based and knowledge-based validation processes, we used eye-tracking methodology. Participants read versions of texts that varied systematically in (in)coherence with prior text or background knowledge. Contradictions with respect to prior text and background knowledge both were found to disrupt reading but in different ways: The two types of contradiction led to distinct patterns of processes, and, importantly, these differences were evident already in early processing stages. Moreover, knowledge-based incoherence triggered more pervasive and longer (repair) processes than did text-based incoherence. Finally, processing of text-based and knowledge-based incoherence was not influenced by readers’ working memory capacity