Working Memory Failures and Comprehension Monitoring Impairments in Primary Readers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17140/PCSOJ-9-170Keywords:
Working memory, Comprehension monitoring, Decoding, Vocabulary, Reading comprehensionAbstract
Background
This paper investigates the relationship between working memory (WM) failures and comprehension impairments in text comprehension
among L2 primary readers in primary four through primary six in selected schools in Ghana.
Method
Five measures—decoding, vocabulary, working memory, comprehension monitoring, and reading comprehension—were used
to test three research questions on the L2 primary reader’s ability to notice inconsistencies in paragraphs, stronger academic
language, re-reading times for mismatched words in sentences, and self-reporting and comprehension.
Results
Major findings were that the primary readers’ ability to notice inconsistencies between paragraphs showed a significant average
change between primary 4 and 5 in non-linear terms, with a correlation of r=-0.51 and a significant inverse correlation between
the inability to see inconsistencies and the ability to recognize them. Vocabulary had a stronger positive relationship with comprehension
monitoring (β=0.07, p<0.001) for primary five and six and primary four and five (β=0.04, p<0.001), respectively.
Conclusion
Decoding, vocabulary, and WM were found to be predominant factors for reading (β=0.46, p<0.00010), (β=0.37, p<0.0001), and
(β=0.45, p<0.0001), while vocabulary and WM combination accounted for 25% of the additional reading variance in primary six,
suggesting the significance of WM on self-reporting as a comprehension measure. The recommended classroom practice was
for teachers to be mindful of working memory capacities, imposing mental demands on struggling L2 pupils.
References
Baddeley A. WM. Current Biology. 2010; 20: R136-R140. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.014
D’Esposito M, Postle BR. The cognitive neuroscience of WM. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015; 66: 115-142. doi: 10.1146/an-nurev-psych-010814-015031
Cowan N. What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and WM? Prog Brain Res. 2008; 169: 323-338. doi: 10.1016/ S0079-6123(07)00020-9
Cowan N. WM Capacity. NY, USA: Psychology Press; 2005. doi: 10.4324/9780203342398
Hoover WA, Gough PB. The simple view of reading. Read Writ. 1990; 2: 127-160. doi: 10.1007/BF00401799
Protopapas A, Simos PG, Sideridis GD, Mouzaki A. The components of the simple view of reading: A confirmato-ry factor analysis. Reading Psychology. 2012; 33(3): 217-240. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2010.507626
Kershaw S, Schatschneider C. A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading. Read Writ. 2012; 25: 433-464. doi: 10.1007/ s11145-010-9278-3
Garner R. Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. NY, USA: Ablex Publishing; 1987.
Jacobs JE, Paris SG. Children’s metacognition about reading: Is-sues in definition, measurement, and instruction.Educational Psycholo-gist. 1987; 22(3-4): 255-278. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1987.9653052
Pazzaglia F, Gyselinck V, Cornoldi C, De Beni R. Individual differences in spatial text processing. In: Gyselinck V, Pazzaglia F, eds. From Mental Imagery to Spatial Cognition and Language: Essays in Honour of Michel Denis. NY, USA: Psychology Press; 2012: 127-161.
Roebers CM, Schmid C, Roderer T. Metacognitive monitor-ing and control processes involved in primary school children’s test performance. Br J Educ Psychol. 2009; 79(4): 749-767. doi: 10.1348/978185409X429842
Manchón RM, McBride S, Martínez MDM, Vasylets O. WM, L2 proficiency, and task complexity: Independent and interactive effects on L2 written performance. Studies in Second Language Ac-quisition. 2023; 45(3): 737-764. doi: 10.1017/S0272263123000141
Ntim SK. Comprehension skill differences between proficient and less proficient readers in word-to-text integration processes: Implications for interventions for students with reading problem. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 2015; 13(3): 41-61.
Oakhill J, Hartt J, Samols D. Levels of comprehension moni-toring and WM in good and poor comprehenders. Read Writ. 2005; 18(7-9): 657-686. doi: 10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z
Skarakis-Doyle E. Young children’s detection of violations in familiar stories and emerging comprehension monitoring. Discourse Processes. 2002; 33(2): 175-197. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3302_04
Helder A, Van Leijenhorst L, van den Broek P. Coherence monitoring by good and poor comprehenders in elementary school: Comparing offline and online measures. Learning and Indi-vidual Differences. 2016; 48; 17-23. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.02.008
Baker L. Spontaneous versus instructed use of multiple stand-ards for evaluating comprehension: Effects of age, reading profi-ciency, and type of standard. J Exp Child Psychol. 1984; 38(2): 289- 311. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(84)90127-9
Kim Y-SG. Direct and mediated effects of language and cogni-tive skills on comprehension of oral narrative texts (listening com-prehension) for children. J Exp Child Psycholy. 2016; 141: 101-120. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.00
Strasser K, Del Rio F. The role of comprehension monitoring, theory of mind, and vocabulary depth in predicting story compre-hension and recall of kindergarten children. Reading Research Quar-terly. 2014; 49(2): 169-187. doi: 10.1002/rrq.68
Van Dyke JA, Johns CL, Kukona A. Low WM capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition. 2014; 131(3): 373-403. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.01.007
Sidek HM, Aishah R. The role of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension: A cross-linguistic study. Procedia - So-cial and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 197: 50-56. doi: 10.1016/j.sb-spro.2015.07.046
Nation K, Adams JW, Bowyer-Crane CA, Snowling MJ. WM deficits in poor comprehenders reflect underlying language im-pairments. J Exp Child Psychol. 1999; 73(2): 139-58. doi: 10.1006/ jecp.1999.2498
Johnson-Laird PN. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. MA, USA: Harvard University Press; 1983.
Van Dijk TA, Kintsch W. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. NY, USA: Academic Press; 1983.
Rapp DN, Kendeou P. Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Mem Cognit. 2007; 35(8): 2019-2032. doi: 10.3758/bf03192934
Markman EM. Comprehension monitoring. In: Dickson WP, ed. Children’s Oral Communication Skills. NY, USA: Academic Press; 1981: 433-465.
Singer H. Validation in psychological. Science. 2013; 22(6): 361- 366.
Castles A, Rastle K, Nation K. Ending the reading wars: Read-ing acquisition from novice to expert. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2018; 19(1): 5-51. doi: 10.1177/1529100618772271
Cain K, Oakhill J. Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. Br J Educ Psychol. 2006; 76(4): 683-696. doi: 10.1348/000709905X67610
Carretti B, Borella E, Cornoldi C, De Beni R. Role of WM in explaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences. 2009; 19(2): 246-251. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.002
Guthrie JT, Wigfield A. How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading. 1999; 3(3): 199-205. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_1
Baker L, Brown AL. Metacognitive skills and reading. In: Pear-son PD, Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal P, eds. Handbook of Reading Research. New York, USA: Longman; 1984: 353-394.
Nelson TO, Narens L. Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. 1990; 26: 125-173. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
Spencer M, Wagner RK, Petscher Y. The reading compre-hension and vocabulary knowledge of children with poor read-ing comprehension despite adequate decoding: Evidence from a regression-based matching approach. J Educ Psychol. 2019; 111(1): 1-14. doi: 10.1037/edu0000274
Strand S, Demie F. English language acquisition and educa-tional attainment at the end of primary school. Educational Studies. 2005; 31(3): 275-291. doi: 10.1080/03055690500236613
Strand, S. and Hessel, A., English as an additional lan-guage, proficiency in English and pupils’ educational achieve-ment: An analysis of local authority data. 2018. doi: 10.13140/ RG.2.2.20269.74727
Whiteside KE, Gooch D, Norbury CF. English language pro-ficiency and early school attainment among children learning eng-lish as an additional language. Child Dev. 2017; 88(3): 812-827. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12615
Bowyer-Crane, Claudine, Silke Fricke, Blanca Schaefer, Arne Lervåg, and Charles Hulme. Early literacy and comprehension skills in children learning English as an additional language and monolingual children with language weaknesses. Read Writ. 2017; 30: 771-790. doi: 10.1007/s11145-016-9699-8
D’Angiulli A, Siegel LS, Serra E. The development of reading in English and Italian in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2001; 22(4): 479-507. doi: 10.1017/S0142716401004015
Hessel AK, Murphy VA. Understanding how time flies and what it means to be on cloud nine: English as an Additional Lan-guage (EAL) learners’ metaphor comprehension. J Child Lang. 2019; 46(2): 265-291. doi: 10.1017/S0305000918000399
Lesaux NK, Rupp AA, Siegel LS. Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007; 99(4): 821-834. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.821 Original Research | Volume 9 | Number 1 | Ntim SK
Spätgens T, Schoonen R. The structure of developing semantic networks: Evidence from single and multiple nominal word asso-ciations in young monolingual and bilingual readers. Applied Psycho-linguistics. 2020; 41(5): 1141-1169.
Verhoeven L. Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2000; 4(4): 313-330. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0404_4
Burgoyne K, Duff FJ, Clarke PJ, Buckley S, Snowling MJ, Hulme C. Efficacy of a reading and language intervention for chil-dren with Down syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012; 53(10): 1044-1053. doi: 10.1111/j.1469- 7610.2012.02557.x
van den Broek P, Kendeou P. Cognitive processes in compre-hension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2008; 22(3): 335-351. doi: 10.1002/acp.1418
Carpenter PA, Daneman M. Lexical retrieval and error recov-ery in reading: A model based on eye fixations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1981; 20(2): 137-160. doi: 10.1016/ S0022-5371(81)90357-1
von der Malsburg T, Vasishth S, Kliegl R. Scanpaths in reading are informative about sentence processing. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Eye-tracking and Natural Language Process-ing. Mumbai, India; 2012; 37-54.
Kim Y-S, Phillips B. Cognitive correlates of listening com-prehension. Reading Research Quarterly. 2014; 49(3): 269-281. doi: 10.1002/rrq.74
Meyers J, Lytle SL, Palladino D, Devenpeck G, Green M. Think-aloud protocol analysis: An investigation of reading comprehension strategies in fourth- and fifth-grade students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 1990; 8(2): 112-127. doi: 10.1177/073428299000800201
Pretorius E, Roux K. When comprehension barely occurs. In: Tracking Changes in South African Reading Literacy Achieve-ment. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Publisher; 2023: 88-120. doi: 10.1163/9789004687011_005
Zabrucky K, Ratner HH. Effects of reading ability on chil-dren’s comprehension evaluation and regulation. Journal of Reading Behavior. 1989; 21(1): 69-83.
Cornoldi C. Metacognitive control processes and memory deficits in poor comprehenders. Learning Disability Quarterly. 1990; 13(4): 245-255. doi: 10.2307/1510351
Cornoldi C, Oakhill JV, eds. Reading Comprehension Difficul-ties: Processes and Intervention. NY, USA: Routledge; 1996. doi: 10.4324/9780203053324
Gernsbacher MA, Varner KR, Faust ME. Investigating dif-ferences in general comprehension skill. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990; 16(3): 430-445. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.430
Koriat A. Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1997; 126(4): 349-370. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
Mirandola C, Del Prete F, Ghetti S, Cornoldi C. Recollection but not familiarity differentiates memory for text in students with and without learning difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences. 2011; 21(2): 206-209. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.12.001
Woodcock RW. Woodcock reading mastery tests, revised, ex-aminer’s manual. Karnataka, India: Pearson; 1998. https://pear-sonclinical.in/solutions/woodcock-reading-mastery-tests-revised-normative-update-wrmt-r-nu/. Accessed October 4, 2023.
Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA. Prevention and re-mediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2009; 1(3): 217-234. doi: 10.1207/ s1532799xssr0103_3
Dunn LM, Dunn DM. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test--. APA PsycTests. 1997. doi: 10.1037/t15144-000
Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, Mather N, Schrank FA. Wood-cock-Johnson III Diagnostic Supplement to the Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL, USA: Riverside Publishing Company; 2003: 10.
MacGinitie WH, MacGinitie RK, Maria K, and L. G. Dreyer. Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. 4th ed. IL, USA: Riverside Pub-lishing Company; 2000.
Muthén LK, Muthén BO. 1998–2012. Mplus : Statistical Analy-sis With Latent Variables: User’s guide. Los Angeles, USA: Muthen & Muthen; 2012. https://www.statmodel.com/download/users-guide/Mplus%20user%20guide%20Ver_7_r6_web.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2023.
Daneman M, Merikle PM. WM and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1996; 3(4): 422-433. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546 Submit your article to this journal | https://openventio.org/submit-manuscript/
Cain K, Oakhill J, Bryant P. Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by WM, verbal ability, and compo-nent skills. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004; 96(1): 31-42. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
Burgoyne K, Whiteley HE, Hutchinson JM. The role of back-ground knowledge in text comprehension for children learning English as an additional language. Journal of Research in Reading. 2013; 36(2): 132-148. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01493.x
Christensen SC, Wright HH, Ratiu I. WM in aphasia: Peel-ing the onion. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 2018; 48: 117-132. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.02.001
Kane MJ, Engle RW. Working-memory capacity and the con-trol of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response com-petition, and task set to Stroop interference. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003; 132(1): 47-70. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47
Rummel J, Boywitt DC. Controlling the stream of thought: WM capacity predicts adjustment of mind-wandering to situation-al demands. Psychon Bull Rev. 2014; 21: 1309-1315. doi: 10.3758/ s13423-013-0580-3
Wendling BJ, Mather N, Schrank F. A Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. In: Naglieri JA, Goldstein S, eds. Prac-titioner’s Guide to Assessing Intelligence and Achievement. NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2009: 191-229.
Whitehurst GJ, Lonigan CJ. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Dev. 1998; 69(3): 848-872. doi: 10.2307/1132208
Nugba RM, Quansah F, Ankomah F, Tsey E, Ankoma-Sey VR, Rosemary V. A trend analysis of Junior High School Pupils’Per-formance in the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) in Ghana. International Journal of Elementary Education. 2021; 10(3) : 79-86. doi: 10.11648/j.ijeedu.20211003.15
Yeomans-Maldonado G, Language and Reading Research Con-sortium (LARRC). Development of comprehension monitoring in beginner readers. Read Writ. 2017; 30(9): 2039-2067. doi: 10.1007/ s11145-017-97
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in Psychology and Cognitive Sciences (PCS) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.
