View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Eye Movements of Deaf Students in Expository versus Narrative Texts

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Eye Movements of Deaf Students in Expository versus Narrative Texts
Language: English
Authors: Gómez-Merino, Nadina, Fajardo, Inmaculada, Ferrer, Antonio, Joseph, Holly
Source: American Annals of the Deaf. 2022 167(3):313-333.
Availability: Gallaudet University Press. 800 Florida Avenue NE, Denison House, Washington, DC 20002-3695. Tel: 202-651-5488; Fax: 202-651-5489; Web site: https://gupress.gallaudet.edu/annals/index.htm
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Eye Movements, Deafness, Reading Processes, Reading Comprehension, Accuracy, Time on Task, Literary Genres, Elementary School Students, Secondary School Students
ISSN: 0002-726X
1543-0375
Abstract: Text comprehension, a daily academic activity in primary and secondary school, is especially challenging for deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) students. The present study analyzed the effect of text genre (narrative vs. expository) on accuracy and eye-movement patterns during text comprehension by DHH students (ages 9-15 years) when compared to a typically hearing (TH) control group matched for chronological age. Comprehension accuracy was found to be similar across text genres for both groups, though TH participants outperformed DHH participants. Regarding eye movements, both groups spent more time and made more regressive fixations in the expository text than in the narrative text, but DHH participants showed longer saccade amplitude in the expository than in the narrative, which could be interpreted as indicating better self-regulation of DHH readers in the easiest and more familiar narrative text structure.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Access URL: https://gupress.gallaudet.edu/annals/archives.htm
Accession Number: EJ1354410
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG1tSIbgrFrALdm0cHVr1HTAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDBNf5ej-wXCqL3kLgIBEICBmwNLkLJStGSFVeLmBgBABfde-QBZfk9rgFr8SLr7mcZIPzwichk0qSEk_1pdRLkg8oeFOFJWKM8d1xriIksJmWCfCfZ5epT_oH6z9eXFHp7cg4ojJPE1J2CWbM2lTSaouXfVfkkQ-qG7XVKVYJpOoIrhyeFpg8TKPlR7e95KYhIHXbViC_HnZbeN8QqsIZ2ct1WHxttI9J-A1Wom
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0160063950;aod01jul.22;2022Nov09.00:59;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0160063950-1">Eye Movements of Deaf Students in Expository Versus Narrative Texts </title> <p>Text comprehension, a daily academic activity in primary and secondary school, is especially challenging for deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) students. The present study analyzed the effect of text genre (narrative vs. expository) on accuracy and eye-movement patterns during text comprehension by DHH students (ages 9–15 years) when compared to a typically hearing (TH) control group matched for chronological age. Comprehension accuracy was found to be similar across text genres for both groups, though TH participants outperformed DHH participants. Regarding eye movements, both groups spent more time and made more regressive fixations in the expository text than in the narrative text, but DHH participants showed longer saccade amplitude in the expository than in the narrative, which could be interpreted as indicating better self-regulation of DHH readers in the easiest and more familiar narrative text structure.</p> <p>Keywords: deafness; reading; eye movements; text genre; text comprehension</p> <p>Students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) have traditionally been found to have difficulty achieving age-appropriate reading comprehension (see, e.g. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref2">68</reflink>]). Knowledge and monitoring of text genre are important factors in text comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref4">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref5">49</reflink>]). However, studies in this area with students who are DHH are scarce and difficult to compare due to methodological differences. For example, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref6">33</reflink>] found that as a group, typically hearing (TH) students outperformed DHH students in reading comprehension accuracy regardless of the text genre, while in a case study, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>] found that DHH participants reported using more monitoring strategies when reading narrative than when reading expository texts. However, Banner and Wang's study did not measure reading comprehension accuracy or include a control group. As these two examples illustrate, previous studies differ enormously in methodology and, in particular, how reading comprehension is measured (e.g. the product versus the process of comprehension), which suggests that a comprehensive study of the effect of text genre on comprehension should include both type of measures. In order to address this issue and provide a better understanding of reading comprehension of students with DHH, the present study focused on comparing both the accuracy of responses to reading comprehension questions (the product) and eye-movement patterns during text processing (the process) of DHH students and TH students on the basis of text genre: expository and narrative. To our knowledge, no studies have explored the effect of text genre on the reading comprehension of DHH children in comparison to TH children using measures of reading comprehension and process (in the present case, eye movements). That was, in fact, the main goal of the present research.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-2">Reading Comprehension as a Function of Text Genre for Readers With Typical Hearing</hd> <p>When we talk about narrative texts, we refer to pieces of writing such as stories or novels whose main goal is to entertain the reader ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref8">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref9">63</reflink>]). These texts include elements such as characters (who have their own goals and motives), and actions are organized in a temporal chain of events. By contrast, expository texts aim to communicate with or inform the reader about something new; content is thus connected through logical relations ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref10">53</reflink>]). Materials such as textbooks and manuals are considered expository texts ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref11">63</reflink>]). Regarding the frequency of use of each text genre in school, it seems that children are mainly exposed to narrative texts in the early grades. For instance, as [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>] found, a mean of only 3.6 min per day were spent with informational/expository texts during classroom written-language activities in first grade (even less time in classrooms in which students were in low socioeconomic strata). However, in later grades, expository texts become the main source of academic knowledge ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref13">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Empirical findings with TH children and recent meta-analyses of the effect of text genre on both adults and children ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref15">49</reflink>]) suggest that expository texts are more difficult to understand than narrative texts, for several reasons. First, the structure and reading goals of expository texts are not as clear and familiar to young readers as those of narrative texts ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref16">48</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref17">51</reflink>]). Second, readers' prior knowledge has greater influence on comprehension of expository texts than on comprehension of narrative texts ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref18">9</reflink>]). Third, expository texts tend to introduce novel concepts or ideas, so the vocabulary might be less familiar to the reader than in narrative texts ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref19">51</reflink>]). Finally, these factors make it more difficult for readers to draw inferences automatically ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref20">48</reflink>]), especially readers who are students with learning disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref21">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-3">Reading Comprehension as a Function of Text Genre for Readers Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing</hd> <p>Concerning DHH readers, we have only found two studies comparing comprehension of narrative and expository texts. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref22">33</reflink>] showed that adolescents with cochlear implants (CIs) (N = 36, M<subs>age</subs>= 14.03 years) obtained significantly lower reading comprehension scores than a TH control group on both an expository and a narrative text. When the DHH group was split on the basis of age of cochlear implantation, the differences for both text types compared to the differences for the TH group remained only for the late-implanted group. This finding seems to suggest that hearing age (associated with more language exposure) might be an important contributor to text comprehension regardless of text genre. However, the study by Figueroa et al. did not directly compare the effect of text genre on each group of participants, so it is only possible to conclude that the groups performed differently in both genres as a function of reading age. Conversely, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>] used interviews and think-aloud procedures in which DHH participants (five adults and six teenagers) were interrupted three times during the reading of a text to answer questions about their reading strategies. Banner and Wang found that the participants reported using more reading strategies such as "Seeking answers in context to self-generated questions" or "Deciding what to skim or skip and what to read carefully" in a narrative text than in an expository text. If the premise that expository texts are more complex than narrative texts is correct, we could interpret this finding to indicate a more efficient use of reading strategies (or self-regulation) in the easiest and more familiar narrative text structure. However, as noted, Banner and Wang did not measure comprehension accuracy, but, rather, the process of reading by means of think-aloud procedures, so we cannot make conclusions about the effect of text genre on accuracy. Next, we discuss the importance of measuring the reading process by means of eye movements in order to acquire a complete picture of reading comprehension by both DHH and TH readers.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-4">Eye Movements During Text Comprehension as a Function of Text Genre for Readers With Typical...</hd> <p>The difficulty the text poses for typical readers is reflected not only in global comprehension but in several eye-movement measures. For example, in the case of TH adults and children, measures such as average fixation duration (sum of duration of all fixations divided by number of fixations in the text), number of fixations, and total fixation time for the text (sum of the duration from all fixations in the text, known as dwell time if saccades are included in the computation) have been found to correlate with subjective ratings of the difficulty of the passages ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref24">59</reflink>]). In this sense, the duration and number of fixations increase in difficult texts: for example, average fixation duration for adults, M<subs>easy</subs> = 267 ms, M<subs>difficult</subs> = 270 ms ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref25">59</reflink>]); for children, M<subs>easy</subs> = 268 ms, M<subs>difficult</subs> = 300 ms ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]). Saccade amplitude (defined as the sum of all saccade amplitude divided by the number of saccades in the text where the amplitude is the distance from start to end point of the saccade) is 7–9 letter spaces for typical adult readers ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref27">57</reflink>]) and can also vary with text difficulty. In this way, as text difficulty increases, saccade amplitude decreases; for a review, see [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref28">56</reflink>]. Finally, regressive fixations (fixations preceded by regressive saccades that go backward within the same word or area of interest before leaving it, or go back to a previous word or line of text that has been already visited [also called revisits in the latter case]), in comparison with progressive fixations (fixations preceded by progressive saccades that stay within the same word before leaving it or go to a subsequent word or line of text), can also appear as an indicator of effortful reading. As text difficulty increases, the number of regressive fixations also tends to increase, in many cases as an attempt by the reader to recover from comprehension failure; for a review, see [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref29">56</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref30">61</reflink>].</p> <p>Interestingly, text-related characteristics (such as text genre) and student-related characteristics might have an interactive effect on the time course of text processing ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]). When text difficulty increases, readers need to invest more resources in terms of prior knowledge, vocabulary, inferencing abilities, or metacognitive skills (that help the reader to detect, regulate, and restore comprehension breaks). Indeed, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref33">46</reflink>] showed that for TH readers, reading proficiency influences the processing of texts of different genres. The researchers registered the eye movements of 53 good comprehenders (GC) and 27 poor comprehenders (PC) (M<subs>age</subs> = 7:8 years) while they read two expository and two narrative texts. Their comprehension accuracy on each text was assessed by means of comprehension questions. Kraal et al. found that comprehension scores were higher for narrative texts than for expository texts in both groups, and that GC students obtained higher scores than PC students. Regarding eye movements, the researchers found that PC students made longer first-pass fixations, skipped fewer words, and made smaller saccades than GC students across text genres, a finding that suggested that PC students were, in general, doing more careful or effortful processing. Although the effect was not statistically significant, the PC students also showed a tendency toward increased saccade amplitude in the expository texts that, according to Kraal et al. would indicate that PC students adopted a less efficient or less flexible processing strategy than GC students when facing texts of different difficulty (in this case, of different genre). We highlight this last nonsignificant result of the research of Kraal et al. because, as we will show later in the present article, one of the results of our study is consistent with this tendency.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-5">Eye Movements During Text Comprehension as a Function of Text Genre for Readers Who Are Deaf...</hd> <p>In the particular case of students who are DHH, the literature has documented weaknesses in several domains related to literacy and reading proficiency in terms of discourse skills ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref34">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref35">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref36">65</reflink>]; for a review, see [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref37">66</reflink>]), prior knowledge ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]), vocabulary ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref41">52</reflink>]), and syntactic skills ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref42">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref43">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]). All of these findings suggest that the online reading pattern of DHH readers might differ from that of TH readers as a function of the former's reading proficiency and the type of text they are reading, in a similar way to how TH poor and good comprehenders differ ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref45">46</reflink>]). In fact, the results of [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref46">3</reflink>], mentioned above, showed that DHH participants reported using fewer reading strategies in expository texts than in narrative texts, a finding that coincides with the pattern of less efficient or less flexible processing strategies being used by poor readers when facing texts of higher difficulty, as shown by [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref47">46</reflink>]. However, Banner and Wang did not use eye movements, but verbal protocols, as a measure of the reading process.</p> <p>In contrast, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>] did measure eye movements in DHH readers but found results that were inconsistent with the interpretation by [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>] examined the reading perceptual span of children and adolescents (ages 7–15 years) who were DHH using the moving-window paradigm combined with eye movements. In the moving-window paradigm, some information in parafoveal vision (part of a text focused on the region of the retina surrounding the fovea, which is up to 5 degrees from the foveal fixation point) is blocked (with a series of Xs or jumbled letters), preventing access to information from the parafovea (see [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref51">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref52">60</reflink>]). The number of characters visible is manipulated (no window, and 2, 6, 10, 14, or 18 characters, in the study by [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]). The reading perceptual span is defined as the region in which readers use and process visual information in order to guide their eye movements. In the moving-window paradigm, this is operationalized as the window size at which normal reading speed is reached. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>] found that children and adolescents who are DHH (as well as DHH adults; see [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref55">8</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>], for a review) (a) showed a larger perceptual span than their reading-age TH peers (10 vs. 6 characters to the right of fixation, respectively), and (b) made a similar number of regressions back into the sentence in comparison to their reading-age TH counterparts. Therefore, the DHH readers could reach the same level of comprehension by making longer saccades and without needing to re-read the text. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref57">5</reflink>] argued that these results confirmed that DHH readers were more efficient when attending to information allocated in the parafovea and could capture more visual information within a single fixation either due to auditory deprivation or to exposure to sign language. It should be noted, however, that these effects were only observed in participants who used sign language as their preferred communication mode, and to our knowledge this question remains unexplored for those who use spoken language as their unique mean of communication. Indeed, communication mode has affected the pattern of results in previous online studies with the deaf population (e.g. studies on the use of phonological codes during reading; see [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref58">6</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>In summary, to date no studies have explored the online reading comprehension of children with DHH using the whole text as the unit of analysis. According to [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref60">41</reflink>], the integrative processes required to build a coherent mental representation of a longer text are likely to increase re-reading rate or saccade amplitude in comparison to sentence reading (see [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref62">41</reflink>], for a review and discussion). Although the aim of the present study was not to compare sentence reading and passage reading, we mention this issue to highlight a research gap in the reading and deafness literature that made us to focus on the whole text as the unit of analysis.</p> <p>In sum, and turning to the issue of the influence of text genre in reading patterns, in general terms, DHH readers have been found to present a profile of poor comprehension. Therefore, if their performance is similar to that of TH poor comprehenders, we would expect that their eye movements during text reading would differ from those of TH adequate comprehenders. In particular, DHH readers would show fewer monitoring behavior differences between text genre types than TH adequate comprehenders, who would adapt their online processing strategies to the more demanding expository texts. These differences would be observed in the number and duration of regressive and progressive fixations, and in saccade amplitude. This study is the first to attempt a comprehensive analysis of reading comprehension as a function of text genre in DHH participants by measuring both comprehension product and process. Examining the reading process of students who are deaf may help to identify exactly where and when reading comprehension breaks down, and thus provide a better understanding of what might be the best focus of reading intervention practices. It is also necessary to include the product of reading too in order to know if the eye-movement fluctuations correlate with higher or lower comprehension accuracy.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-6">Aims of the Study</hd> <p>The present study examined comprehension accuracy and patterns of eye movements during reading of short texts in two groups: (a) children and adolescents who were deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and (b) a control group with typical hearing (TH) matched for chronological age. Participants' eye movements were monitored while they read two short texts. Afterward, they were asked to answer comprehension questions about what they had read. The effects of text genre (narrative vs. expository) on comprehension accuracy and eye-movement patterns were analyzed. Our predictions are detailed below.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-7">Predictions</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Global comprehension (called "accuracy" hereinafter):</item> <p></p> <item> a. We expected that DHH participants would show lower comprehension accuracy than the TH participants (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> b. We expected higher comprehension accuracy for narrative than for expository text for both groups ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref64">9</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Eye-movement measures:</item> <p></p> <item> a. In terms of whole text eye-movement measures, we expected that reading times and number of fixations (especially regressive) would be higher, and saccade amplitude shorter, in the expository text than in the narrative text ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref66">56</reflink>]), as indicators of effortful reading.</item> <p></p> <item> b. We also expected an interaction between hearing status and text genre such that TH readers would read more slowly (as indicated by longer fixation times, shorter saccades, and more fixations) in the expository text to adjust to its higher processing demands ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref67">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref68">56</reflink>]), but DHH participants' eye-movement patterns would not differ across text genres ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref69">46</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0160063950-8">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0160063950-9">Participants</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0160063950-10">Students Who Were Deaf or Hard of Hearing</hd> <p>Twenty-six DHH participants in grades 4–10 were recruited from different audiology services in public hospitals, mainstream schools with special units for deaf students, and associations for deaf people in Valencia, Spain. Although Valencia is a bilingual region of Spain (Valencian and Spanish are the two official languages), Spanish had been one of the languages of instruction for all participants in primary and secondary school. The tutors and parents of all participants received information sheets and gave their explicit written consent. They also received a report of their children's results on the standardized tasks used in the present study in order to thank them for their participation. There were four inclusion criteria for the DHH participants:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. onset of bilateral hearing loss before the age of 2 years</item> <p></p> <item> 2. severe to profound hearing loss according to norms of the Bureau Internacional d'Audiophonologie (1997)</item> <p></p> <item> 3. nonverbal IQ in the normal range (≥ 85) as measured by the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref70">44</reflink>])</item> <p></p> <item> 4. word decoding skills appropriate to their school year (less than 2 standard deviations below the average) as measured by the word and nonword reading tasks of the two instruments for evaluating reading processing: the PROLEC-R (for primary school students; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>]) and the PROLEC-SE (for secondary school students; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref72">55</reflink>])</item> </ulist> <p>The exclusion criterion for this group was the presence of other sensorial deficits or comorbid conditions. Therefore, of the total of 26 recruited participants, seven were excluded: two because of diagnosed visual difficulties, two due to comorbidities (Usher syndrome and hydrocephaly), two because they were users of Spanish as a second language, and one for being interrupted during the experiment.</p> <p>Consequently, the final sample was composed of the remaining 19 students (11 girls; M<subs>age</subs> 12.4 years, range 9.6–15.2). Although these were not inclusion criteria, all of the participants had hearing parents and did not have knowledge of sign language. Eleven participants were users of CIs, four of hearing aids, and four of both types of hearing stimulation. For details about audiological features of the sample, see "Deafness_Textgenre" (2021), https://osf.io/8msx2/?view_only=c780391017b948129d1eb60eaef2a225.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-11">Students With Typical Hearing</hd> <p>A group of 19 TH students from primary and secondary schools (11 girls; M<subs>age</subs> 11.8 years, range 8.8–14.8) were recruited for the present study. Some of the participants were TH children who attended the same schools as the DHH participants; others were recruited from other mainstream schools in Valencia. As was the case for the DHH participants, all TH participants had had Spanish as one of the languages of instruction in primary and secondary school. Following a group matching procedure, we matched the TH students with the students who were DHH by chronological age and nonverbal IQ. The differences between groups on these two measures were not significant, as shown by a comparison using the Student t test for variables for normally distributed measures and the Mann-Whitney U test for non-normally distributed measures (see Table 1 for details). As can be seen in Table 1, the distributions by grade level of the DHH and TH participants were similar, although grade level was not a matching criterion.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-12">Background and Exclusion Criteria Assessment</hd> <p>To assess background levels in nonverbal reasoning, language, and reading skills, a battery of tests was administered to both groups of participants. The test battery evaluated seven variables:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • nonverbal IQ: matrices subscale of the K-BIT</item> </ulist> <p>Click for larger view View full resolution</p> <p>Table 1.</p> <p>Means, Standard Deviations, and Significance Tests for Comparisons Between Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) and Typically Hearing (TH) Students in Demographic Variables and Background Measures</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • word and nonword reading accuracy and speed: word and nonword tasks of the PROLEC, primary- or secondary-level versions according to the school age of the participants</item> <p></p> <item> • written syntax: Syntactic Ability Test ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref73">26</reflink>])</item> <p></p> <item> • text comprehension: The reading comprehension subtest of the Magallanes Scales of Reading and Writing ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref74">67</reflink>]) was used to establish the reading comprehension level of students, but the texts contained in it were different from the ones used as experimental texts.</item> <p></p> <item> • reading span: Spanish-language version of the Reading Span Test ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref75">20</reflink>]; Spanish-language adaptations for children and adolescents, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref76">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref77">32</reflink>])</item> <p></p> <item> • receptive vocabulary: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref78">30</reflink>])</item> <p></p> <item> • expressive language: formulated sentences from the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, fourth edition ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref79">64</reflink>])</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0160063950-13">Materials</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0160063950-14">Target Reading Task</hd> <p>In order to measure global text comprehension, we selected two of the four short texts that made up the reading comprehension subtest of the PROLEC-R battery. The original subtest consists of four texts in Spanish: two expository texts (short and long), and two narrative texts (short and long). As the present experiment was part of a larger study, we selected the shortest version of each type of text in order to avoid fatigue effects. The same two texts were assigned to students regardless of their reading level (in keeping with the manual instructions). The expository text contained 75 words: 37 content words (49.3%) and 38 function words (50.7%). The narrative text contained 94 words: 42 content words (44.7%) and 52 function words (55.3%). There were no significant differences between texts regarding average frequency, U =3344, z = – 0.57, p =.567, r = –.81; values (frequencies) obtained from the EsPal database ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref80">27</reflink>]); average number of characters per word, U = 3331, z = – 0.62, p =.533, r = –.44; average number of syllables per word, U = 3382, z = –0.49, p =.625, r = –.35; or rate of function versus content words that composed each text, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>, 169) =.60, p =.439.</p> <p>To ensure that the participants started reading the text from the beginning, a fixation cross located above the upper-left corner of the texts preceded each text. The text was automatically presented when the participant fixated on the cross for 1 s. After reading each text, participants were asked to answer four open questions, which were presented in text format and read aloud by the evaluator. The order of presentation of the two texts was not counterbalanced in our study; the narrative was always presented before the expository text as indicated in the instructions of the original standard test. The maximum score per text was 4 points; thus, participants could obtain a maximum score of 8 points. Although the texts were constructed to be appropriate for children in grades 1–6, we considered that the material would be appropriate for our sample given the expected low reading comprehension levels of DHH students.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-15">Apparatus</hd> <p>Texts and comprehension questions were presented on a monitor with a screen resolution of 1366 * 768. A portable SMI eye tracker with a sampling rate of 60 Hz was used to record the students' eye movements (as was used in previous reading studies with children with and without developmental disabilities, e.g. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref82">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref83">45</reflink>]). Students sat in front of the monitor, which ensured a testing distance of 60 cm. A chin rest was used to minimize head movements. The presented texts were centered in black 28-point Courier New font, on a light-gray background. The lines were double-spaced to prevent overlaps between fixations in the vertical axis. Although viewing and recording were binocular, only data from the right eye were analyzed. A 9-point calibration procedure was used before the reading task and as needed during the session. The researcher monitored the calibration and stimuli presentation from a laptop connected to a display monitor by means of the iView X and Experiment Center software.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-16">Procedure</hd> <p>Ethical approval for the present study was obtained from the University of Valencia Committee for Research and from a collaborating hospital; the name of the hospital is withheld in order to preserve the anonymity of the participants. Participants were tested in a quiet room in their school, home, or, in some cases, the eye-tracking laboratory at the University of Valencia. All instructions were provided orally and in written form to ensure that hearing status did not interfere with comprehension of the tasks. The study was completed in two or three sessions, and the procedure was as follows: First, the parents signed the consent forms; then, the off-line tasks (except for the reading span and word decoding tasks) were administered. It was not possible to counterbalance the order of presentation of tasks across participants, as on most of the occasions it was necessary to adapt the administration of the tasks to the time availability of participants. This was the case especially when testing took place in the educational settings. Therefore, this first assessment took up to two sessions. Each session included at least one short break and lasted 50–60 min. Following this, the participants were given an appointment for the final session. During this session, the experimental task and two off-line tasks (the reading span and word decoding tasks) were administered. Students also completed two more experimental tasks as part of a larger study: These experimental tasks were administered in the same order to all participants. The final session lasted approximately 50 min.</p> <p>For the experimental task, the procedure was arranged in line with the PROLEC-R manual instructions. Participants were asked to read the two texts silently and indicate orally when they had finished reading. Their eye movements were monitored throughout passage reading but not during question answering. Once they finished each text, the four questions were presented in written form on the screen, and the participants gave oral answers to them.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0160063950-18">Background Assessment</hd> <p>Participants in the TH group outperformed participants in the DHH group in word-reading speed, text comprehension, expressive language, and vocabulary level, but the groups were similar in regard to the other background variables (see Table 1 for details and "Deafness_Textgenre" 2021, https://osf.io/8msx2/?view%5fonly=c780391017b948129d1eb60eaef2a225, for individual scores on each test).</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-19">Text Comprehension: Accuracy</hd> <p>As a measure of text comprehension accuracy, we used the percentage of correct answers, which was analyzed by means of a linear mixed model using the lmer (linear) function in R (R Core Team, 2019). Group and text genre were introduced as categorical fixed factors. Effect coding was used following a 0.5/-0.5 coding scheme (Group, DHH = 0.5 vs. TH = – 0.5; Genre, Expository = 0.5 vs. Narrative = – 0.5). To model for individual differences within each group, the intercept for participants was introduced as the only random effect in the model with the following syntax:</p> <p>This way, participants had their own baseline values. The random intercept for items was not introduced because there was just one item per condition at the whole-text level. In keeping with the standard in the field, effects were considered significant at the.05 alpha level if the reported (absolute) t values were equal to or greater than 1.96 (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref84">5</reflink>]). Means and standard deviations for each group and condition are shown in Table 2.</p> <p>Confirming prediction 1a (that DHH participants would show poorer comprehension accuracy than TH participants), the effect of hearing status was significant (b = –19.07, t = –2.99, p =.005), with the DHH group obtaining a lower percentage of correct answers (M = 57.90) than the TH group (M = 76.97). However, both the main effect of text genre (b = –9.87, t = - 1.81, p <. 078) and interaction group by text genre (b = 14.47, t =1.39, p =.173) were not significant. Therefore, prediction 1b (that both groups would obtain higher comprehension accuracy in narrative than in expository texts) was not supported.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-20">Eye Movements</hd> <p>Fixations shorter than 80 ms and longer than 1200 ms were excluded from the data set (following [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref85">42</reflink>]). For the analysis of text genre effect, the whole text was considered as a single area of interest.</p> <p>Click for larger view View full resolution</p> <p>Table 2.</p> <p>Means and Standard Deviations for Each of the Eye-Movement Measures That Were Obtained per the Global Text</p> <p>On the basis of previous literature on discourse processing ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref86">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref87">59</reflink>]), the following measures were considered for this area (described above under "Eye Movements During Text Comprehension as a Function of Text Genre for Readers With Typical Hearing"): dwell time, average fixation duration, percentage of regressive fixations, percentage of progressive fixations, and mean saccade amplitude (expressed in degrees of visual angle and characters). Except for the percentage measures, variables were averaged per character in order to control for text length, which was greater in the case of the narrative texts (narrative text = 375 characters, expository text = 325 characters).</p> <p>Per each eye-movement measure, a linear mixed model was computed with the lmer function ("lme4" R package). Protocols for fitting random and fixed factors were similar to the accuracy model's protocols. More details on random and fixed effects models are provided at "Deafness_Textgenre" (2021). When variables were not normally distributed, they were log-transformed, which resulted in more normal distributions. However, for ease of interpretation, Table 2 shows untransformed means and standard deviations for measures averaged per character and for measures nonaveraged per character. Nonaveraged descriptive data showed that the dwell fixation time (sum of the duration of fixations and saccades) was around 34 sec per text. Participants made around 100 fixations per text, 80% of which were progressive fixations and 20% regressive fixations. These proportions are similar to those seen in previous studies (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref88">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref89">46</reflink>]). The average fixation duration per word was 280 ms, and the average saccade amplitude around six letters—again, results consistent with the findings of previous eye-movement studies.</p> <p>In terms of eye-movement measures, per prediction 2a, we expected that reading times and number of fixations (especially regressive) would be greater and saccade amplitude less in the expository text than in the narrative text ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref90">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref91">56</reflink>]), as indicators of effortful reading. The results showed that the effect of text genre on the percentage of regressive fixations was significant (b = 2.38, t = –2.39, p =.022), as it was on the percentage of progressive fixations (b = - 2.38, t = 2.37, p =.023), dwell time (b = 17.66, t = 4.93, p >.001), and saccade amplitude (b = 0.001, t = –4.8, p <.001). The effect of text genre was not significant in average fixation duration per character (b = –2.98, t =1.145, p <.252). It should be noted that b values for time and percentage measures reported here were calculated with untransformed variables to ease the interpretation, but t and p values correspond to transformed data (following [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref92">42</reflink>], or [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref93">13</reflink>]). On average, participants spent more time and made more regressive fixations in the expository than in the narrative texts, a result that confirms our prediction 2a for these measures. However, participants made significantly more progressive fixations in the narrative texts than in the expository texts, which seems to suggest that reading was more linear in the narrative texts but that they also made shorter saccades in the narrative texts than in the expository texts, a finding that is not consistent with prediction 2a. However, it is worth noting that text genre and hearing status interacted for saccade amplitude, so we will qualify this last result and its interpretation below.</p> <p>The effect of hearing status was not significant for any eye-movement measure: dwell time (b = 11.94, t = 0.69, p =.495), average fixation duration (b = –1.76, t = 0.21, p =.834), percentage of progressive fixations (b = –1.10, t = –0.56, p =.576), percentage of regressive fixations (b = 1.10, t = 0.56, p =.576), or saccade amplitude (b = 0.001, t = – 0.195, p =.847).</p> <p>According to prediction 2b, we expected an interaction between hearing status and text genre such that TH readers would slow down (longer fixation time, shorter saccades, and more fixations) in the expository text to adjust to its higher processing demands ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref94">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref95">56</reflink>]), but also expected that DHH participants' eye-movement patterns would be more similar across text genres ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref96">46</reflink>]). However, the interaction between hearing status and text genre was significant only for saccade amplitude (b = 0.001, t = – 2.44, p =.020), and not for the rest of the variables: dwell time (b = – 2076, t = 0.18, p =. 960), average fixation duration (b = –3.39, t =1.19, p =. 234), progressive fixations (b = – 1.26, t = 0.65, p =. 521), and regressive fixations (b = 1.26, t = 0.65, p =. 521). Furthermore, the interaction between text genre and group in the case of saccade amplitude was in the opposite direction from what we expected, since the analysis of simple effects (using the test Interactions function of the phia R package; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref97">25</reflink>]) showed that the effect of text genre was significant for DHH participants (χ<sups>2</sups> = 26.25, p <.001, with Bonferroni correction) but not for TH participants (χ<sups>2</sups> = –12.03, p =.191, with Bonferroni correction), such that only DHH participants showed longer saccade amplitude in the expository than the narrative texts (see Figure 1). This result was not consistent with our</p> <p>Click for larger view View full resolution</p> <p>Figure 1.</p> <p>Saccade Amplitude Average per Character as a Function of Text Genre and Hearing Status</p> <p>Notes. DHH = deaf or hard of hearing. TH = typically hearing. Saccade amplitude average expressed in degrees of visual angle, not averaged per character.</p> <p>predictions that saccade amplitude would be longer in narrative than expository texts (2a) and that we would see similar eye-movement patterns across text genres for DHH participants (2b). In other words, this interaction between text genre and group for saccade amplitude was not consistent with our prediction for TH readers who showed no signs of monitory adjustment in the more difficult expository text, nor for DHH readers who showed shorter saccade amplitude or monitory adjustment in the a priori easier narrative text.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-21">Discussion and Conclusions</hd> <p>The well-documented gap between DHH and TH children and adolescents in reading comprehension performance ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref98">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref99">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref100">68</reflink>]) may have started to attenuate recently thanks to early educative and medical interventions and refined assessment instruments ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref101">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref102">33</reflink>]). Reducing this gap is essential in primary and secondary schools, where texts are still one of the main sources of knowledge and learning.</p> <p>In order to gain a better understanding of reading proficiency of DHH children and adolescents, in the present study we aimed to explore the effect of text genre (narrative vs. expository) on the comprehension accuracy and eye-movement patterns of DHH and TH students as they read texts for comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-22">Conclusions About the Effect of Text Genre on Comprehension Accuracy</hd> <p>Regarding comprehension accuracy, we expected that DHH participants would show poorer performance than TH participants (prediction 1a) and that both groups would obtain higher comprehension accuracy in narrative texts than in expository texts (prediction 1b). Our results only partially confirmed these predictions, as the comprehension accuracy of the DHH students was significantly less than that of the TH students. But it was similar across text genres for both DHH and TH. The main effect of hearing status seems to be consistent with the findings of [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref103">33</reflink>], whose study is the only previous one in which narrative and expository texts were used to compare the reading product of groups of students with and without hearing loss. Figueroa et al. showed that TH adolescents outperformed adolescents who were deaf and had CIs not only in expository but also in narrative texts. However, Figueroa et al. found these results only for the subgroup of late-implanted participants, so it seems that hearing age may better explain differences in global reading comprehension. We did not have sufficient sample size to examine the effect of hearing age in the present study, but we hope that future studies can examine this possibility. Another way of approaching this type of analysis is by aggregating data from different laboratories in order to facilitate data aggregation; we have made available the details about audiological features of our sample at [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref104">22</reflink>]. Actual disaggregated accuracy and eye-movement data collected during the reading comprehension task have also been made available in this repository.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-23">Conclusions About the Effect of Text Genre on Eye-Movement Measures</hd> <p>Regarding eye-movement measures, and before we discuss the results regarding our particular research questions, it is important to highlight some important results for the global measures that seem to converge with previous research on TH child and adult readers. The descriptive data showed that reading was mainly linear and that proportions of regressive and progressive fixations were similar to those seen in previous studies (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref105">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref106">46</reflink>]). The average fixation duration per word was 280 ms, and the average saccade amplitude was around six letters (a finding in line with those of previous studies with TH populations, e.g. Blythe et al, 2011, for a review; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref107">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref108">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref109">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>In relation to the effect of text genre on the eye-movement patterns in our two groups, we expected that reading time (global text dwell and average fixation duration) and number of fixations (especially regressive) would be greater and saccade amplitude would be smaller in the expository text than in the narrative text (prediction 2a). Partially confirming this prediction, both DHH and TH participants showed longer dwell times and made more regressive fixations in the expository text than in the narrative text. Both groups made more progressive fixations in the narrative than in the expository text, which suggests that reading was more linear in this condition. However, for saccade amplitudes, we found an interaction between hearing status and text genre that was inconsistent with what we predicted in our research questions (2a and 2b). Indeed, prediction 2b anticipated an interaction between hearing status and text genre such that the effect of text genre would be greater for TH participants than for DHH participants, as TH readers were expected to slow down in expository texts to adjust to their higher processing demands ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref110">9</reflink>]), while for DHH participants both expository and narrative texts would be similarly demanding. Instead, we found that DHH participants showed longer saccade amplitudes in the expository than in the narrative texts in comparison with TH participants, who showed no significant differences between genres.</p> <p>The longer saccade amplitude in expository texts could be interpreted as evidence that DHH readers adopt a more careless or effortless reading strategy because either they do not detect the difficulty of the expository text or do not have sufficient resources to adjust to it; this finding therefore could reflect a lack of reading monitoring strategies (see [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref111">46</reflink>]). Indeed, this result is somewhat consistent with the results of [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref112">3</reflink>], who found that deaf adults were able to report the use of more reading strategies in narrative than in expository texts, which means that they seemed to self-regulate better in the easiest and more familiar narrative text structure. Also, this result seems to agree with that of [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref113">46</reflink>] that students with poor comprehension made smaller saccades in the narrative texts than better-comprehending students (suggesting more careful or effortful processing) and increased saccade amplitude in the expository texts. We did base our prediction on the findings of Kraal et al. because, as they acknowledged, this effect was not statistically reliable. It is also possible that the reading difficulties of participants with DHH were associated with poor linguistic (vocabulary) knowledge, and that consequently they may not have known the meaning of many words in the expository text and thus did not try to adapt their reading to the text demands.</p> <p>A final remark about saccade length, and in particular, forward saccade length, is that it would also serve as a useful measure of how much information is included within one fixation as it is related to the extrafoveal distribution of visual attention ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref114">56</reflink>]). Understood in this way, longer saccade lengths would mean that readers are extracting more information per fixation, or, in other words, that they have a higher perceptual span. If we accept this premise, it would mean that our DHH participants were extracting more information during each fixation in the expository texts than in the narrative. However, their comprehension scores in the expository text were similar to those in the narrative text, so this enhanced perceptual span was not improving global comprehension.</p> <p>Another interesting finding is that in our study the average saccade amplitude was around six letters, which, as we have already noted, is in line with some previous findings on typical readers (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref115">11</reflink>], for a review; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref116">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref117">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref118">59</reflink>]) but differs from the enhanced perceptual span found by [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref119">5</reflink>] in participants with DHH (10 characters to the right of fixation). Clearly, there are many methodological differences between our study and that of Bélanger et al. that should be considered when this lack of consistency is being interpreted. In particular, most of the participants with DHH in the study by Bélanger et al. were experienced users of sign language, while our participants with DHH were users of oral language and reported no knowledge of sign language; consequently, the perceptual span of the participants in the study by Bélanger et al. may have been enhanced by their experience with a visuospatial language such as sign language.</p> <p>Despite a small sample size and the unpredicted pattern of effects, our eye-movement results make a significant contribution to the field because of their focus on reading comprehension of whole texts as unit of analysis by children and adolescents who are DHH. As we noted earlier, this type of reading material (texts) requires different processing resources of the reader than disconnected words or sentences (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref120">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref121">41</reflink>]) and are of enormous ecological validity for children and adolescent who are deaf, as texts are the main source of knowledge in primary and secondary school. Future research should explore passage reading among this population in order to examine outstanding questions (e.g. the role of hearing status or communication mode preferences).</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-24">Methodological Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Finally, we wish to mention some methodological limitations, some of them already noted, that might compromise the generalization of our results and could be considered in future research. First, as it is often the case in research with special populations, the sample was quite small, which can occur when certain key criteria (such as regular nonverbal IQ or decoding skills in the present case) are to be applied to a homogeneous group with a disability. Our small sample size may have increased the probability of committing type II errors by failing to reveal differences between hearing status groups on the eye-movement measures that might be present. Second, the order of presentation of the two texts was not counterbalanced in our study; that is, narrative was always presented before expository text. A possible consequence of this fixed order is that the text genre effects on comprehension accuracy and eye-movement patterns might be the result of fatigue or of familiarity with the procedure, as [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref122">46</reflink>] highlighted for their own research, in which a fixed text genre order was also used. However, the advantage of the fixed order was that it was consistent with the procedure recommended by the original standardized test from which the texts were extracted, the PROLEC-R reading battery. In addition, as the narrative text was actually expected to be easier than the expository text, we thought that this might motivate readers to keep engaged in the task. The last limitation we wish to mention is that there was just one text-by-genre condition, so the effects could be due to particularities of the texts we used and not to the genre itself. And again, the fact that there were just two items might cause statistical analyses to be underpowered. Future research should include a higher number of texts per condition.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-25">Applied Conclusions</hd> <p>Reading longer texts, both narrative and expository, becomes increasingly important as children progress through the education system, and indeed becomes the main source of academic knowledge in high school. Our data support those collected in previous studies that suggest that educators should be aware that differences between DHH and TH students are related not only to comprehension accuracy but also to the amount of resources they need to invest during text processing. Teaching text structure, especially of expository texts, to DHH students as part of more comprehensive literacy programs (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref123">69</reflink>]) as a way of facilitating comprehension monitoring ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref124">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref125">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref126">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref127">70</reflink>]) is already recommended, and our data are consistent with this recommendation. Indeed, explicit teaching of text structure might help students better anticipate, predict, and consequently monitor their understanding of a text. For instance, if students know the expository structure of a text by means of a graphic organizer, they might anticipate what to skim or skip and what to read carefully, or when to seek answers to teacher or self-generated questions. In this regard, in a meta-analysis of the effects of expository text structure interventions on comprehension, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref128">54</reflink>] concluded that such interventions of that kind often include modeling and corrective feedback, contrasting cases, the use of graphic organizers, and especially adapting and scaffolding text structure instruction (e.g. using more complex expository texts as students improve their use of the text structure strategy). When the instruction is personalized to students' level of performance, the combination of product and process (e.g. eye-movement) measures of comprehension might be especially well suited to a fine-grained classification of students' levels.</p> <p>Finally, as [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref129">28</reflink>] recommended in his preliminary research on text genre, not only explicit teaching but just the presence of different types of text genres other than stories should be increased in curricula from the early grades, especially for those students at risk of delays or failures in reading comprehension, such as students who are DHH. While we did not explore the use or effect of this kind of intervention in the present study, we encourage researchers to do so in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-26">NOTE ON FUNDING</hd> <p>The first author acknowledges funding from the University of Valencia (Spain) through the predoctoral fellowship program "Atracció de talent" (UV-INV-PREDOC17F1–540538) and is currently a recipient of the grants for the requalification of the Spanish university system from the Ministry of Universities of the Government of Spain (UV-EXPSOLP2U-1807959).</p> <hd id="AN0160063950-27">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>We would like to thank the doctors and teachers for their help during the recruitment process. We would also like to thank the participants and parents who took part in our study.—<emph>The Authors</emph></p> <ref id="AN0160063950-28"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref81" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akhondi, M., Malayeri, F. A., & Samad, A. A. (2011). How to teach expository text structure to facilitate reading comprehension. Reading Teacher, 64(5), 368–372. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.64.5.9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref125" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arfé, B., Mason, L., & Fajardo, I. (2018). Simplifying informational text structure for struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 31(9), 2191–2210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9785-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref7" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Banner, A., & Wang, Y. (2011). An analysis of the reading strategies used by adult and student deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref1" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barajas, C., González-Cuenca, A. M., & Carrero, F. (2016). Comprehension of texts by deaf elementary school students: The role of grammatical understanding. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 59, 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.07.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref48" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bélanger, N. N., Lee, M., & Schotter, E. R. (2018). Young skilled deaf readers have an enhanced perceptual span in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F17470218.2017.1324498</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref58" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bélanger, N. N., Mayberry, R. I., & Rayner, K. (2013). Orthographic and phonological preview benefits: Parafoveal processing in skilled and less-skilled deaf readers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(11), 2237–2252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.780085</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref56" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bélanger, N. N., & Rayner, K. (2015). What eye movements reveal about deaf readers. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414567527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref55" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bélanger, N. N., Slattery, T. J., Mayberry, R. I., & Rayner, K. (2012). Skilled deaf readers have an enhanced perceptual span in reading. Psychological Science, 23(7), 816–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref18" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710801963951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blythe, H. I., Dickins, J. H., Kennedy, C. R., & Liversedge, S. P. (2018). Phonological processing during silent reading in teenagers who are deaf/hard of hearing: An eye movement investigation. Developmental Science, 21(5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12643</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blythe, H. I., & Joseph, H. S. (2011). Children's eye movements during reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 643–662). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blythe, H. I., Liversedge, S. P., Joseph, H. S., White, S. J., & Rayner, K. (2009). Visual information capture during fixations in reading for children and adults. Vision Research, 49(12), 1583–1591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.03.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breadmore, H. L., & Carroll, J. M. (2018). Sublexical and syntactic processing during reading: Evidence from eye movements of typically developing and dyslexic readers. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1414222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bureau Internacional d'Audiophonologie. (1997). Recomendaciones del BIAP [Recommendations of BIAP]. Comité Español de Audiofonología.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carriedo, N., & Rucián, M. (2009). Adaptation of Daneman and Carpenter's Reading Span Test (PAL-N) for children. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 32(3), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037009788964079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clinton, V., Taylor, T., Bajpayee, S., Davison, M. L., Carlson, S. E., & Seipel, B. (2020). Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository texts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 33(9), 2223–2248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10044-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Convertino, C., Borgna, G., Marschark, M., & Durkin, A. (2014). Word and world knowledge among deaf learners with and without cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(4), 471–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enu024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B., Ruano, E., & Arribas, D. (2007). Batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores. Revisada (PROLEC-R) [Evaluation of Reading Processes for Children—Revised]. TEA Ediciones.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidson, M. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2017). Reading comprehension of ambiguous sentences by school-age children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 10(12), 2002–2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> "Deafness_Textgenre." (2021). Center for Open Science. https://osf.io/8msx2/?view_only=c780391017b948129d1eb60eaef2a225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Leeuw, L., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2016a). Role of text and student characteristics in realtime reading processes across the primary grades. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(4), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Leeuw, L., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2016b). The effect of student-related and text-related characteristics on student's reading behaviour and text comprehension: An eye movement study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(3), 248–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1146285</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Rosario-Martínez, H. (2015). Phia post-hoc interaction analysis (Version 0.2–1) [Software package]. https://github.com/heliosdrm/phia</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domínguez, A. B., Alegría, J., Carrillo, M. S., & Soriano, J. (2013). PEALE. Pruebas de Evaluación Analítica de Lengua Escrita [Tests for the Analytical Evaluation of Written Language] (Registration No. 00/2013/4067). University of Salamanca. https://complydis.usal.es/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/PEALE.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duchon, A., Perea, M., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1246–1258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L., & Arribas, D. (2006). PPVT – III: Peabody Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes [PPVT–III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test]. TEA Ediciones.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Easterbrooks, S. R., & Beal-Alvarez, J. (2012). States' reading outcomes of students who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(1), 27–40. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/475042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elosúa, M. R., Gutiérrez, F., Madruga, J. A. G., Luque, J. L., & Gárate, M. (1996). Adaptación española del «Reading span test» de Daneman y Carpenter [Spanish adaptation of the Reading Span Test of Daneman and Carpenter], Psicothema, 8(2), 383–395.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Figueroa, M., Darbra, S., & Silvestre, N. (2020). Reading and theory of mind in adolescents with cochlear implant. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 25(2), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enz046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geers, A., Tobey, E., Moog, J., & Brenner, C. (2008). Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in the preschool years: From elementary grades to high school. International Journal of Audiology, 47(Suppl. 2), S21–S30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020802339167</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gómez-Merino, N., Fajardo, I., & Ferrer, A. (2021). Did the three little pigs frighten the wolf? How deaf readers use lexical and syntactic cues to comprehend sentences. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 112, Article 103908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gómez-Merino, N., Fajardo, I., Ferrer, A., & Arfé, B. (2020). Time-course of grammatical processing in deaf readers: An eye-movement study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 25(3), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enaa005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26(3), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710590962550</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, M., & Terlektsi, E. (2011) Reading and spelling abilities of deaf adolescents with cochlear implants and hearing aids. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, M., Terlektsi, E., & Kyle, F. E. (2017). Concurrent and longitudinal predictors of reading for deaf and hearing children in primary school. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22(2), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herman, R. E., Kyle, F., & Roy, P. (2019). Literacy and phonological skills in oral deaf children and hearing children with a history of dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(4), 553–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyönä, J., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2019). Eye movements during reading. In C. Klein & U. Ettinger (Eds.), Eye movement research: Studies in neuroscience, psychology and behavioral economics (pp. 239–274). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20085-5_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joseph, H. S. S. L., Bremner, G., Liversedge, S. P., & Nation, K. (2015). Working memory, reading ability and the effects of distance and typicality on anaphor resolution in children. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1005095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joseph, H. S. S. L., Liversedge, S. P., Blythe, H. I., White, S. J., & Rayner, K. (2009). Word length and landing position effects during reading in children and adults. Vision Research, 49(16), 2078–2086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.05.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman N. L. (1997). Test Breve de Inteligencia de Kaufman [Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test]. TEA Ediciones.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khelifi, R., Sparrow, L., & Casalis, S. (2019). Is a frequency effect observed in eye movements during text reading? A comparison between developing and expert readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(4), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1571064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraal, A., van den Broek, P. W., Koornneef, A. W., Ganushchak, L. Y., & Saab, N. (2019). Differences in text processing by low- and high-comprehending beginning readers of expository and narrative texts: Evidence from eye movements. Learning and Individual Differences, 74, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyle, F. E., & Cain, K. (2015). A comparison of deaf and hearing children's reading comprehension profiles. Topics in Language Disorders, 35(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000053</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorch Jr., R. F. (2017). What is so difficult about expository text? In J. A. León & I. Escudero (Eds.), Reading comprehension and educational settings (pp. 145–167). John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mar, R. A., Li, J., Nguyen, A. T., & Ta, C. P. (2021). Memory and comprehension of narrative versus expository texts: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 28, 732–749. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01853-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marschark, M., & Wauters, L. (2008). Language comprehension and learning by deaf students. In M. Marschark & P. C. Hauser (Eds.), Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes (pp. 309–350). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., & Floyd, R. G. (2017). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers' prior knowledge. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 229–257. https://<ulink href="http://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/222">www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/222</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moreno-Pérez, F. J., Saldaña, D., & Rodríguez-Ortiz, I. R. (2015). Reading efficiency of deaf and hearing people in Spanish. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20(4), 374–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Primor, L., Pierce, M. E., & Katzir, T. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension of narrative and expository texts among Hebrew-speaking readers with and without a reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 242–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-011-0059-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pyle, N., Vasquez, A. C., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Gillam, S. L., Reutzel, D. R., Olszewski, A., et al. (2017). Effects of expository text structure interventions on comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(4), 469–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramos, J., & Cuetos, F. (1999). Evaluación de los Procesos Lectores en Alumnos de Tercer Ciclo de Educación Primaria y Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (PROLEC-SE). [Evaluation of Reading Processes of Students in the Third Cycle of Primary Education and Compulsory Secondary Education]. TEA Ediciones.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner, K. (2014). The gaze-contingent moving window in reading: Development and review. Visual Cognition, 22(3–4), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.879084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner, K., & Morrison, R. E. (1981). Eye movements and identifying words in parafoveal vision. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17(3), 135–138. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333690</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., Masson, M. E., Potter, M. C., & Treiman, R. (2016). So much to read, so little time: How do we read, and can speed reading help? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615623267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.6.1) [Software package]. R Project for Statistical Computing. https://<ulink href="http://www.R-project.org/">www.R-project.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sáenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250202300105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2006). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—fourth edition, Spanish. Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strassman, B. K. (1992). Deaf adolescents' metacognitive knowledge about school-related reading. American Annals of the Deaf, 137(4), 326–330. https:/doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0456</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan, S., Oakhill, J., Arfé, B., & Gómez-Merino, N. (2020). Reading comprehension: A comparison of typically hearing and deaf or hard-of-hearing children. In S. Easterbrooks & H. Dostal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies in literacy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197508268.013.13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toro, J., Cervera, M., & Urío, C. (2000). Escalas Magallanes de Lectura y Escritura. EMLE TALE-2000 [Magallanes Scales for Reading and Writing]. COHS Psicologos Consultores.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th edition: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(4), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/5.4.337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Y., & Paul, P. V. (2011). Integrating technology and reading instruction with children who are deaf or hard of hearing: The effectiveness of the Cornerstones Project. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2011.0014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure to young at-risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction. Exceptionality, 12(3), 129 –144. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1203_2</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nadina Gómez-Merino; Inmaculada Fajardo; Antonio Ferrer and Holly Joseph</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Gómez-Merino, Fajardo, and Ferrer are members of the Reading Research Unit/Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. Gómez-Merino is a postdoctoral researcher, and Fajardo and Ferrer are associate professors. Joseph is an associate professor, Centre for Literacy and Multilingualism, Institute of Education, University of Reading, Reading, England.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref128"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1354410
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Eye Movements of Deaf Students in Expository versus Narrative Texts
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gómez-Merino%2C+Nadina%22">Gómez-Merino, Nadina</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fajardo%2C+Inmaculada%22">Fajardo, Inmaculada</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ferrer%2C+Antonio%22">Ferrer, Antonio</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joseph%2C+Holly%22">Joseph, Holly</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22American+Annals+of+the+Deaf%22"><i>American Annals of the Deaf</i></searchLink>. 2022 167(3):313-333.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Gallaudet University Press. 800 Florida Avenue NE, Denison House, Washington, DC 20002-3695. Tel: 202-651-5488; Fax: 202-651-5489; Web site: https://gupress.gallaudet.edu/annals/index.htm
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Eye+Movements%22">Eye Movements</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Deafness%22">Deafness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Processes%22">Reading Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accuracy%22">Accuracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+on+Task%22">Time on Task</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literary+Genres%22">Literary Genres</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0002-726X<br />1543-0375
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Text comprehension, a daily academic activity in primary and secondary school, is especially challenging for deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) students. The present study analyzed the effect of text genre (narrative vs. expository) on accuracy and eye-movement patterns during text comprehension by DHH students (ages 9-15 years) when compared to a typically hearing (TH) control group matched for chronological age. Comprehension accuracy was found to be similar across text genres for both groups, though TH participants outperformed DHH participants. Regarding eye movements, both groups spent more time and made more regressive fixations in the expository text than in the narrative text, but DHH participants showed longer saccade amplitude in the expository than in the narrative, which could be interpreted as indicating better self-regulation of DHH readers in the easiest and more familiar narrative text structure.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://gupress.gallaudet.edu/annals/archives.htm" linkWindow="_blank">http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/annals/archives.htm</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1354410
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1354410
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 313
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Eye Movements
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Deafness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accuracy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time on Task
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literary Genres
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Eye Movements of Deaf Students in Expository versus Narrative Texts
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gómez-Merino, Nadina
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fajardo, Inmaculada
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ferrer, Antonio
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joseph, Holly
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0002-726X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1543-0375
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 167
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: American Annals of the Deaf
              Type: main
ResultId 1