The goal of this case study was to examine a second grader’s reading of picture books using eye movement miscue analysis as a method to further understand reading as a meaning-making process. Two picture books with different relationships (e.g., enhanced and counterpoint) were selected because they elicit varied ways of presenting meaning and thus provide a unique opportunity to study reading. Findings from this case study highlight that reading is more than the eyes moving sequentially from word to word while the reader actively constructs meaning. Reading picture books demands an expanded repertoire of strategies since only looking at multimodal signs, such as written and pictorial cues, that are available when reading is not sufficient to ensure full comprehension of picture books. Implications for teaching reading and understanding multimodality in learning are addressed.
BezemerJ.KressG. (2016). Multimodality, learning, and communication: A social semiotic frame. New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BrownJ.KimK.O’Brien RamirezK. (2011). What a teacher hears, what a reader sees: Eye movements from a phonics-taught second grader. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 12, 202–222.
4.
CastilloL. (2014). Nana in the city. New York, NY: Clarion/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
5.
DuchowskiA. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. London, England: Springer.
6.
DuckettP. (2002). New insights: Eye fixations and the reading process. Talking Points, 13, 16–21.
7.
DysonA. (2013). The case of the missing childhoods: Methodological notes for composing children in writing studies. Written Communication, 30, 399–427.
8.
FeathersK. M.AryaP. (2015). Exploring young children’s patterns of image use in a picturebook. Language and Literacy, 17, 42–62.
9.
GoodmanK. (2016). Toward a theory based view of brain-eye functioning in reading. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
10.
GoodmanK.FriesP.StraussS. (2016). Reading—The grand illusion: How and why people make sense of print. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
GoodmanK.GoodmanY. (2014). Making sense of learners, making sense of written language. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
GoodmanY.MartensP.FlurkeyA. (2016). Revaluing readers: Learning from Zachary. Language Arts, 93, 213–225.
13.
GoodmanY.WatsonD.BurkeC. (2005). Reading miscue inventory: From evaluation to instruction. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
14.
HallidayM. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London, England: Edward Arnold.
15.
HolmqvistK.NystromM.AndersonR.DewhurstR.JarodzkaH.van De WeijerJ. (2015). Eyetracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford, England: University Press.
16.
IrwinP.MitchellJ. (1983). A procedure for assessing the richness of retellings. Journal of Reading, 26, 391–396.
17.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1984). Using eye fixations to study reading comprehension. In KierasD. E.JustM. A. (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 151–182). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
KressG. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
KressG.van LeeuwenT. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
LeeS. (2007). The zoo. La Jolla, CA: Kane/Miller.
21.
LiwanagM.PelattiC.MartensR.MartensP. (2016). Children’s eye movements, miscue analysis patterns, and retellings when reading a counterpoint picturebook. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65, 253–267.
22.
MollL.AmantiC.NeffD.GonzalezN. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In GonzalezN.MollL.AmantiC. (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in household, communities, and classrooms (pp. 71–87). New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
NikolajevaM.ScottC. (2001). How picturebooks work. New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
PaulsonE. (2002). Are oral reading word omissions and substitutions caused by careless eye movements?Journal of Reading Psychology, 23, 45–66.
25.
PaulsonE. (2005). Viewing eye movements during reading through the lens of chaos theory: How reading is like the weather. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 338–358.
26.
PaulsonE.FreemanA. (2003). Insight from the eyes: The science of effective reading instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
27.
PaulsonE.GoodmanK. (2008). Re-reading eye-movement research: Support for transactional models of reading. In FlurkeyA.PaulsonE.GoodmanK. (Eds.), Scientific realism in studies of reading (pp. 25–50). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
PooreH. (1967). Composition in art. New York, NY: Dover.
30.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychology Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
31.
RaynerK.PollastekA. (1989). The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
RosenblattL. M. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In RuddellR. B.RuddellM. P.SingerH. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1057–1092). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
33.
StraussS.GoodmanK.PaulsonE. (2009). Brain research and reading: How emerging concepts in neuroscience support a meaning construction view of the reading process. Educational Research and Review, 4, 21–33.
34.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
WeintraubS. (1981). Annual summary of investigations relating to reading July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
36.
WolvertonG.ZolaD. (1983). The temporal characteristics of visual information extraction during reading. In RaynerK. (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 41–51). New York, NY: Academic Press.
