Models of reading comprehension are evaluated as to their utility in facilitating research in comprehension. The criteria employed are: Articulation, Differentiation, Prediction, Creativity, and Flexibility. The models are evaluated as models in the abstract since many models of “comprehension” in fact attempt to explain different phenomena, thereby preventing direct comparisons. Models of comprehension vary considerably in the extent to which they meet each of the criteria. The value of models in the investigation of comprehension lies in their capacity to provide testable hypotheses which can lead to scientific prediction and understanding. However, models of comprehension remain untested and therefore limited in the degree to which they have facilitated the scientific understanding of comprehension.
References
1.
BarrettT. T.Taxonomy of cognitive and affective dimensions of reading comprehension. In T. Clymer, What is ‘reading’?: some current concepts. In RobinsonH. M. (Ed.) Innovation and Change in Reading Instruction, Sixty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, pp. 17–23.
2.
BrownE.The bases of reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly1970, 6, 49–74.
3.
CarverR. P.A computer model of reading and its implications for measurement and research. Reading Research Quarterly1971, 6, 449–471.
4.
ClelandD. L.The nature of comprehension. In Progress and Promise in Reading Instruction, Twenty-second Annual Conference and Course on Reading.Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg, 1966, 18–32.
5.
ClymerT.What is ‘reading’?: some current concepts. In RobinsonH. M. (Ed.) Innovation and Change in Reading Instruction, Sixty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, pp. 7–29.
6.
GoodmanK. S.Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (Edited by SingerH.RuddellR. B.). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1970, pp. 259–272.
7.
GrayW. S.The major aspects of reading. In RobinsonH. M. (Ed.) Sequential Development of Reading Abilities.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960, pp. 8–24.
8.
GuilfordJ. P.Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist1959, 14, 469–479.
9.
HarkerW. J.Reading comprehension to 1970: its theoretical and empirical bases, and its implementation in secondary professional textbooks, instructional materials and tests. Doctor's Thesis. Vancouver, British Columbia: University of British Columbia, 1971.
10.
HolmesJ. A.Basic assumptions underlying the substrata-factor theory. Reading Research Quarterly1965, 1, 4–28.
11.
HolmesJ. A.Factors underlying major reading disabilities at the college level. Genetic Psychology Monographs1954, 49, 3–95.
12.
HolmesJ. A.Speed, comprehension, and power in reading. In BliesmerE. P.StaigerR. C. (Eds.) Problems, Programs, and Projects in College-Adult Reading, Eleventh Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.Milwaukee: The National Reading Conference, 1962, pp. 189–206.
13.
KingstonA. J.A conceptual model of reading comprehension. In BliesmerE. P.KingstonA. J. (Eds.) Phases of College and Other Adult Reading Programs, Tenth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.Milwaukee: The National Reading Conference, 1961, pp. 100–107.
14.
McCulloughC. M.Balanced reading development. In RobinsonH. M. (Ed.) Innovation and Change in Reading Instruction, Sixty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, pp. 320–356.
15.
RobinsonH. M.The major aspects of reading. In RobinsonH. A. (Ed.) Reading: Seventy-five Years of Progress.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.
16.
RuddellR. B.Psycholinguistic implications for a systems of communication model. Psycholinguistics and the Teaching of Reading. (Edited by GoodmanK. S.FlemingJ. L.). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1969, pp. 61–78.
17.
RystromR.Toward defining comprehension: a first report; Toward defining comprehension: a second report. Journal of Reading Behavior1970, 2, 56–74; 144.157.
18.
SingerH.Changing patterns of factors in power of reading, elementary through college levels. In ThurstonE. L.HafnerL. E. (Eds.) The Philosophical and Sociological Bases of Reading, Fourteenth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.Milwaukee: The National Reading Conference, 1965, pp. 41–56.
19.
SmithD. E. P.Reading comprehension: a proposed model. In CauseyO. S.BliesmerE. P. (Eds.) Research and Evaluation in College Reading, Ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1960, pp. 21–27.
StaufferR. G.Directing reading maturity as a cognitive process.. New York: Harper and Row, 1969.
22.
VenezkyR. L.CalfeeR. C.The reading competency model. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. (Edited by SingerH.RuddellR. B..) Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1970, pp. 273–291.
