Children's Monitoring of Another's Comprehension: Effects of Reading Ability and Context

Abstract

Previous research has shown that children do not monitor their own comprehension very well when reading. Theories have been advanced which emphasize the roles of capabilities and strategies in inhibiting monitoring; at least one crucial factor is that children often do not perceive that errors are possible in text. This paper describes the development of a task, the inserted cloze task, in which children are required to judge the correctness of another child's comprehension. This task elicits comprehension monitoring quite easily. An empirical study of above and below average readers in Years 3 and 4 is reported. Their performance indicates that use of prior context within the sentence poses little difficulty for either group of readers. However use of within-sentence following context is most likely in simple texts, and is the only measure which differentiates the better readers from the less able. These results demonstrate that comprehension can be elicited from even less skilled readers, but that the amount of context which must be considered is an important factor. A possible hierarchy of comprehension skills is discussed, and suggestions for the teaching of these skills are presented. It is concluded that the inserted cloze task would be useful in teaching comprehension monitoring.

Keywords

cloze procedure context clues learning activities reading ability reading comprehension skill development

References

Biggs

J. B.

Collis

K. F.

(1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.

Daneman

Carpenter

P. A.

(1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–66.

Durkin

(1978–79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–533.

Johnson

F. C.

(1976). Endeavour Reading Programme (Teachers manual). Brisbane: Jacaranda.

Kirby

J. R.

(in press). Style, strategy, and skill in reading. In Schmeck

R. R.

(Ed.), Learning Styles and Learning Strategies. New York: Plenum.

Kirby

J. R.

Williams

N. H.

(in press). Learning Problems: An Integrated Approach. New York: Macmillan.

LaBerge

Samuels

S. J.

(1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.

Liberman

I. Y.

Shankweiler

(1979). Speech, the alphabet, and teaching to read. In Resnick

L. B.

Weaver

P. A.

(Eds), Theory and Practice in Early Reading, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Markman

E. M.

(1979). Realizing that you don't understand: Elementary school children's awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643–55.

10.

Markman

E. M.

(1981). Comprehension monitoring. In Dickson

W. P.

(Ed.), Children's Oral Communication Skills. New York: Academic Press.

11.

Masson

M. E. J.

Miller

J. A.

(1983). Working memory and individual differences in comprehension and memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 314–18.

12.

Perfetti

C. A.

Lesgold

A. M.

(1977). Discourse comprehension and sources of individual differences. In Just

M. A.

Carpenter

P. A.

(Eds), Cognitive Processes in Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Perfetti

C. A.

Lesgold

A. M.

(1979). Coding and comprehension skill in reading and implications for reading instruction. In Resnick

L. B.

Weaver

P. A.

(Eds), Theory and Practice of Early Reading, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

14.

Robinson

E. J.

Robinson

W. P.

(1977). The child's understanding of life-like communication failure. Australian Journal of Psychology, 29, 137–42.

15.

Wagoner

(1983). Comprehension monitoring: What it is and what we Know about it. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 328–46.