View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development of Comprehension Monitoring Skill in Chinese Children: Evidence from Eye Movement and Probe Interviews

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development of Comprehension Monitoring Skill in Chinese Children: Evidence from Eye Movement and Probe Interviews
Language: English
Authors: Kunyu Xu, Yu-Min Ku (ORCID 0000-0002-1285-6549), Chenlu Ma, Chien-Hui Lin, Wan-Chen Chang
Source: Metacognition and Learning. 2024 19(1):103-121.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Early Childhood Education
Grade 1
Primary Education
Grade 2
Descriptors: Eye Movements, Computer Assisted Testing, Memory, Reading Comprehension, Elementary School Students, Grade 1, Grade 2, Progress Monitoring
DOI: 10.1007/s11409-023-09354-x
ISSN: 1556-1623
1556-1631
Abstract: As an important construct in the cognitive process, comprehension monitoring has received much scholarly attention. Researchers have recognized comprehension monitoring as an ability closely linked with children's reading comprehension ability and working memory capacity. Evidence is also abundant to prove that comprehension monitoring skill develops with age. It remains unclear, however, how these factors interact during reading, particularly in low-grade children. Many previous empirical studies have only employed online or offline measurements to examine children's monitoring performance, which might lead to unsolid conclusions. In this study, we utilized both online eye-tracking measures and offline probe interviews to quantify the developmental features (i.e., evaluation and regulation) of comprehension monitoring skills among Chinese beginning readers. The results indicated that the comprehension monitoring performance, as quantified by eye-tracking measures, was positively related to their reading comprehension ability and working memory capacity. Moreover, the first-graders' performances lacked online regulation skills during the error-detecting tasks, while second-graders had relatively developed online monitoring performance. Additionally, the eye-tracking measures were found as a predictor for children's performances in probe interviews, as the readers with high comprehension ability and working memory capacity successfully reported more errors embedded in the self-designed reading materials. Therefore, the findings support the claim that children's comprehension monitoring is a developing skill associated with reading comprehension and working memory capacity and further question the existence of comprehension monitoring skills in beginning readers, especially first-graders.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1418576
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFo5N74eVtQISvhlU85AFjbAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNRx-Txi4_FoaXd6ngIBEICBmkLcDUMxEK1FF3ROamH89_iSkYLTW1yLrZy97GAWuUEyGnnWTDpoUuYRfUTAPR77oI5QcZn78xZLlrvCNy18LmoJfjb4lDJLn0bgZaMx2EgaLBgQTNkgCcw2BtHsrT_h6KNlbIxE2LRLygvJhTEZV3gt-i8wugU8tU5N9zyjdEf7llRHTDek8RbArfzRwsxFD4LrvNzEiAQfZfQ=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176300789;[3d0h]01apr.24;2024Apr01.06:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176300789-1">Development of comprehension monitoring skill in Chinese children: evidence from eye movement and probe interviews </title> <p>As an important construct in the cognitive process, comprehension monitoring has received much scholarly attention. Researchers have recognized comprehension monitoring as an ability closely linked with children's reading comprehension ability and working memory capacity. Evidence is also abundant to prove that comprehension monitoring skill develops with age. It remains unclear, however, how these factors interact during reading, particularly in low-grade children. Many previous empirical studies have only employed online or offline measurements to examine children's monitoring performance, which might lead to unsolid conclusions. In this study, we utilized both online eye-tracking measures and offline probe interviews to quantify the developmental features (i.e., evaluation and regulation) of comprehension monitoring skills among Chinese beginning readers. The results indicated that the comprehension monitoring performance, as quantified by eye-tracking measures, was positively related to their reading comprehension ability and working memory capacity. Moreover, the first-graders' performances lacked online regulation skills during the error-detecting tasks, while second-graders had relatively developed online monitoring performance. Additionally, the eye-tracking measures were found as a predictor for children's performances in probe interviews, as the readers with high comprehension ability and working memory capacity successfully reported more errors embedded in the self-designed reading materials. Therefore, the findings support the claim that children's comprehension monitoring is a developing skill associated with reading comprehension and working memory capacity and further question the existence of comprehension monitoring skills in beginning readers, especially first-graders.</p> <p>Keywords: Beginning readers; Comprehension monitoring; Eye movement; Probe interviews; Reading comprehension</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-2">Introduction</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176300789-3">Reading comprehension, working memory, and comprehension monitoring in young children</hd> <p>Reading comprehension, essential both at school and societal levels (Snow et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref1">53</reflink>]), is the ability to abstract information from a piece of written text and understand its meaning through a complex mental cognitive process. Generally, this ability develops naturally along with growth, but education and instructions also play critical roles. Carroll ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]) discovered that ineffective or insufficient instruction would possibly lead to reading difficulties. It is thus significant to investigate the nature of reading comprehension and its development to offer proper guidance for school educators to prevent reading disabilities in young children, among whom first- and second-graders deserve special attention since they are experiencing a transition from "emergent reading" to "'real' reading" (Snow et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref3">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>Comprehension monitoring, a set of conscious and unconscious strategies used during reading comprehension, has been established to have a positive correlation with reading comprehension ability (Paris & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref4">48</reflink>]; Catts et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]; Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref6">54</reflink>]; Muhid et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref7">42</reflink>]; Zargar et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref8">68</reflink>]). Comprehension monitoring involves at least two dimensions: evaluation and regulation (Baker, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]; Baker & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref10">6</reflink>]; Baker & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>]; Kinnunen & Vaurast, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>]). Evaluation refers to the process of assessing understanding, whereas regulation indicates the strategies readers implement when encountering comprehension failures. These strategies may include rereading or looking back at the previous text, making inferences, using contextual clues, taking notes, and consulting external sources (Paris & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref13">48</reflink>]; Zabrucky & Ratner, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref14">66</reflink>]; Zargar et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref15">68</reflink>]). The primary standards of evaluation used by adult readers can be categorized as the lexical standard, the syntactic standard, and five specific standards regarding semantic analysis (Baker, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]): the external consistency standard, which requires readers to check the authenticity of the ideas with their knowledge; the internal consistency standard, which readers use to check if the logic within the text is consistent; the propositional cohesiveness standard, the structural cohesiveness standard, and the informational completeness standard. Readers performing different levels of comprehension monitoring conduct different levels of text analysis, and the successful application of the standards represents their performance. There is much evidence that comprehension monitoring is one of the main reasons for differences in reading comprehension performances among children (Baker, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]; Kinnunen & Vaurast, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>]; Zabrucky & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref19">65</reflink>]). Therefore, measuring comprehension monitoring skills can be a key to further understanding beginning readers' reading comprehension ability (Sutiyatno, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref20">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Apart from reading comprehension ability, comprehension monitoring also relies heavily on working memory, a cognitive system that actively holds information to facilitate cognitive operations (Spencer, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref21">55</reflink>]). In the reading process, readers constantly compare the current mental representation shaped by the new incoming information with the knowledge already saved in working memory. They may adopt strategies to resolve potential conflicts when the new information is inconsistent with the previously constructed mental representation. The previous studies reported readers' worse performance in the error-detection task when their working memory was loaded with secondary tasks or additional instructions (de Bruïne et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]). Besides, difficulties in detecting inconsistencies were also more pronounced among less skilled readers when reading nonadjacent pieces of inconsistent information (Yuill et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref23">64</reflink>]), for readers with lower working memory may fail to recall the information to resolve inconsistencies when the inconsistent pieces are separated. The research mentioned above has discovered the influence of working memory capacity on error- or inconsistency-identification, pointing out a positive correlation between working memory capacity and comprehension monitoring (Artuso et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-4">The predictive role and improving impacts of comprehension monitoring skill</hd> <p>Apart from influencing the reading comprehension capacity, comprehension monitoring performance may also predict reading comprehension ability later in life (Cain et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>]). Having conducted a four-year longitudinal experiment on UK students from Grade 3 to Grade 6, Oakhill and Cain ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref26">45</reflink>]) discovered that as comprehension components, both reading comprehension skill and comprehension monitoring measured in Grade 3 were strong predictors of reading comprehension in Grade 6. Another longitudinal research also found that comprehension monitoring in Grade 1 significantly contribute to reading comprehension in Grade 3 after controlling decoding, vocabulary, and working memory (LARRC, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref27">39</reflink>]). In a study on Mandarin Chinese speakers, comprehension monitoring is also found to be one of the critical skills for predicting reading comprehension (Zhao et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref28">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Aside from predicting reading comprehension ability, comprehension monitoring still can also be trained to enhance reading comprehension. Comprehension monitoring training is observed to be effective in improving reading comprehension ability in many empirical studies (e.g., Gambrell & Bales, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>]; Palincsar & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref30">46</reflink>]; Teng, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref31">58</reflink>]). For instance, Paris et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref32">47</reflink>]) introduced reading strategy training in experiment classes, including the training of comprehension monitoring skills. The results showed that the experiment classes had a richer knowledge about the strategies and better performance on reading comprehension tasks such as cloze and error detection. Through a comparison of how students dealt with comprehension obstacles before and after reading strategy training, Kinnunen and Vaurast ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]) also discovered that training can improve lower-achievers' monitoring and comprehension. These studies suggest that strategic training in comprehension monitoring may help improve reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-5">Comprehension monitoring development and its investigation</hd> <p>Comprehension monitoring has been proven to possess a developmental property. Skarakis-Doyle ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref34">52</reflink>]) reported that children under three years old showed awareness when actors, actions, objects, and the temporal sequence of events in familiar stories were changed, indicating that they already have the ability to constantly check their understanding, identify abnormal contents, and respond to those contents. Children at around the age of five have been observed to develop comprehension monitoring abilities in oral communicative contexts as they can detect inconsistencies while listening (e.g., Baker, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]; Doebel et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]). First graders (about 6–7 years old), who are beginning readers, have been discovered to slow down their reading and even look back at the target word when encountering inconsistencies (Kinnunen et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]), indicating a more sophisticated comprehension monitoring skill. Comprehension monitoring skills, along with other metacognitive skills, have been proven to develop continuously throughout the primary school years (Teng & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref38">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>In order to better understand the developmental dimension of comprehension monitoring, scholars have invested much effort on the topic. Several gaps, however, can be discerned in terms of research subjects and paradigms. Existing studies on the effects of comprehension monitoring skill since the 1980s generally adopted the expert-novice research models, which makes a comparison between the reading comprehension ability of older and younger readers (e.g., Baker, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref39">4</reflink>]; Zabrucky & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref40">65</reflink>]; Zabrucky & Ratner, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref41">67</reflink>]) or readers with better and poorer reading comprehension skills (e.g., August et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>]; Zabrucky & Ratner, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref43">67</reflink>]). Though most studies using this model could recognize the developmental nature of comprehension monitoring (e.g., Baker, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>]; Zabrucky & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref45">65</reflink>]), the models failed to reveal when and how the development progresses. Most previous studies have focused on middle- or upper-grade groups, and there was a relative lack of research on low-graders or preschoolers. It remains unclear whether there is a significant growth in comprehension monitoring skills during the crucial transitional period generally considered children's first and second year in primary school (Snow et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref46">53</reflink>]). Though Kinnunen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref47">32</reflink>]) did focus on first graders and found that first-graders as beginning readers already showed signs of comprehension monitoring, their study did not extend to understanding the developmental features of these young students.</p> <p>Scholars have pointed out that in comprehension monitoring, evaluation tends to develop faster than regulation (Kinnunen et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref48">32</reflink>]; Kinnunen & Vaurast, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>]). By asking the students to read manipulated short passages, Kinnunen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref50">32</reflink>]) found that first graders were better at evaluating than regulating because they represent little regression or re-reading strategies during the reading. The discrepancy between the developing speeds of these two dimensions may result from the different levels of mental development, as evaluation appears as a subconscious skill in early reading, requiring only a passive check on readers' understanding of easy reading tasks (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref51">33</reflink>]; Maier & Richter, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref52">41</reflink>]), while regulation necessarily demands the spontaneous act of adjusting, which is much more difficult for beginners in reading, and thus appears later in development. However, the relevant evidence is relatively scarce. Without applying a quantitative approach to measure the difference between these two dimensions of comprehension monitoring skills, it would be hard to make any further conclusion regarding the development trajectory of comprehension monitoring skills.</p> <p>Past studies usually utilized the error-detection paradigm, which requires readers to point out errors in the text and solve the errors. The error-detection paradigm uses reading time and regression to respectively reflect readers' evaluation and regulation process, based on the theories that evaluation leads to an increase in reading time and regulation performs as regression (August et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>]; Baker & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>]). In this paradigm, the reading time and regression performance could only be estimated through the screen-switching time (e.g., Kinnunen et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]). Participants in many previous studies were interviewed whether or not they identified errors or were asked to underline the detected errors after the reading process (e.g., Baker, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>]; Kim & Phillips, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref57">29</reflink>]; Oakhill et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref58">44</reflink>]). However, such offline measurement can only indirectly infer the monitoring process from the results of interviews or correction tasks, and the secondary tasks may occupy some of the limited cognitive resources, which reduces the credibility of the findings (Laberge & Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref59">38</reflink>]). Eye-tracking, on the other hand, is an online measure that can examine the process of comprehension monitoring more directly and accurately while readers are free from irrelevant secondary tasks (Hessel & Schroeder, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref60">24</reflink>]). Therefore, the present study attempts to discover the specific developmental property of comprehension monitoring and its correlation with the development of reading comprehension ability in beginning readers by taking into account both dimensions of comprehension monitoring and complementing past offline methods with the new eye-tracking measure.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-6">The present study</hd> <p>As the present study aims to investigate the interaction of reading comprehension and working memory in reading comprehension monitoring and its developmental features among beginning readers, we developed two hypotheses. First, we suggest that statistical differences in performance exist between different reading comprehension (RCT) and working memory (WM) ability groups in the online eye-tracking measurement and that error detection is reported differently in the offline probe interviews. Second, we propose that the higher-grade children will have longer processing times of the measures representing both evaluation and regulation stages (i.e., regression path duration, re-reading time, and regression time) in the error-detecting tasks, which could support that the presence of higher reading comprehension levels and more significant working memory involvement correlate with better comprehension monitoring performances for readers of a higher developmental stage.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176300789-8">Participants</hd> <p>This study involved 113 students in the early stage of primary school. They were randomly selected from the first- and second-grade students in a primary school in northern Taiwan. After excluding children who failed the eye-movement correction test or did not complete the Reading Comprehension Screening Test (Ko & Chan, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref61">34</reflink>]), there were 58 first-grade students (28 girls and 30 boys) and 55 second-grade students (30 girls and 25 boys) who were set to take part in the tests, the eye-tracking experiments and the following interviews. Among all data, first-grade students took 51.3% valid percent, and second-grade students took 48.7%. Before the study, parental consent was ensured by using the agreement forms.</p> <p>Participants' RCT and WM were assessed by the Reading Comprehension Screening Tests (Ko & Chan, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref62">34</reflink>]) and the Working Memory Test (Tzeng, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref63">60</reflink>]) before the error-detection task. The Reading Comprehension Screening Tests were graded for students in grades two to six, assessing their understanding of polysemous words, proposition combination, sentence comprehension, and short passage comprehension. To prevent a ceiling effect, first-grade (G1) students took the second-grade version, while second-grade (G2) students took the third-grade version. The second-grade test had 19 multiple-choice questions, and the third-grade test had 26. Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.80 for second-grade and 0.81 for third-grade. The Working Memory Test included several sequential naming questions. Here is a sample question: 'Please read the following hard objects in the original order. Cake, stone, towel, glass.' As this WM test was tested to be suitable for lower-grade students (Tzeng, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref64">60</reflink>]), all participants in our study received the same test. Students were divided into High/Low RCT groups and High/Low WM groups according to their test scores, which were calculated separately for each grade. Specifically, students who had above-median scores in their grades were assigned to a high-ability group. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and medians of first- and second-graders' RCT and WM scores.</p> <p>Table 1 RCT and WM test scores of G1 and G2 students</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>RCT</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>WM</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Mean (SD)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Median</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean (SD)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Median</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>G1 (<italic>N</italic> = 58)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.02 (2.96)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.58 (0.76)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>G2 (<italic>N</italic> = 55)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.25 (4.88)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.17 (0.79)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.25</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total (<italic>N</italic> = 113)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.59 (4.31)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.87 (0.83)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.75</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0176300789-9">Experiment design and procedures</hd> <p>The experimental procedure was as displayed in Fig. 1. The students were arranged to take the two Tests examining their working memory capacity and reading comprehension ability in the first place. The Tests lasted for 30–45 min in total. After the Tests, all the participants took a 5-minute break before they took the comprehension monitoring tasks with the eye-tracking measurement. The reading material included three texts containing three versions (internal error version, external error version, and control version) of three different essays with distinguished themes. The participants were instructed to read the texts on the screen during the reading sessions. Each participant received a drift correction before reading a text, and once they finished reading, they were asked to recall the main points of the text. After the eye-tracking session, a probe interview was conducted with each participant to ensure satisfying responses from the participant. The design of probe interview questions was based on those used in previous studies (Ruffman, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref65">50</reflink>]; Zabrucky & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref66">65</reflink>]; Hyönä & Nurminen, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref67">26</reflink>], with the specific aim of eliciting responses from participants on their ability to identify errors and how they cope with difficulties. The examples of the questions are listed below:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is there anything you do not understand in the text? Why don't you understand it? What do you usually do when you encounter something you don't understand? What did you do during the experiment? (Ask the students to circle the places that they do not understand)</item> <p></p> <item> Is there anything you find strange in the text? Why do you feel strange? What do you usually do when you encounter a strange place? What did you do during the experiment? (Ask the students to circle the strange places)</item> </ulist> <p>These results of the probe interview were utilized as a supplement to the eye-tracking data and as an important presentation of the potential predicting effects of the readers' monitoring performances.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1The experimental procedure in this study. Firstly, the prior tests on working memory and reading comprehension ability were applied (the left panel). Then, all participants received an eye movement experiment (the middle panel) with a sample passage shown in the bottom right corner. Finally, a probe interview was conducted (the right panel) with each participant</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-10">Materials</hd> <p>The reading material version was an internal variable with three levels, two with different types of inconsistency errors (external and internal inconsistency error) and one control version. The external inconsistency criterion refers to errors in which the content of the text violates the world knowledge, and the internal inconsistency error refers to errors in which the text message is inconsistent.</p> <p>This study employed expository texts as the reading materials. Since the level of task difficulty influences children's comprehension monitoring performances, detecting errors in expository texts is suggested as more demanding than in narrative texts (Currie et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref68">18</reflink>]; Zabrucky & Ratner, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref69">67</reflink>]). The genre of the reading materials was the intellectual essay, and the contents of the three texts had the main themes of "elephant" "cactus" and "sun". Each text was limited to 215–225 words, and the same sentence was used in different versions. The objectives of the manipulation included (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>) <emph>the control version</emph>, in which the content was identical, only free of errors; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>) <emph>the internally inconsistent versio</emph>n, where the target concept contradicted the contextual content of the text; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>) <emph>the externally inconsistent version</emph> where the target concept violated the participants' world knowledge. A Latin square design was used to match different combinations to measure comprehension monitoring on different standards, as shown in Table 2. The text materials were presented in random order during the test.</p> <p>Table 2 The combinations of matching texts and versions. The arrangement according to the Latin square design enabled every participant to read all three passages manipulated in three versions in the tests</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Elephant</p></th><th align="left"><p>Cactus</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sun</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>The control version</p></td><td align="left"><p>Combination 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Combination 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Combination 2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Internal inconsistent version</p></td><td align="left"><p>Combination 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Combination 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Combination 3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>External inconsistent version</p></td><td align="left"><p>Combination 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Combination 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Combination 1</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The errors in the texts were designed to correspond to the standards of evaluation in reading comprehension monitoring: the internal and external consistency standard. Among the lexical, syntactic and five semantic standards of consistencies mentioned above, the internal consistency and lexical standards can most detect students' comprehension monitoring in reading comprehension, followed by the external consistency and syntactic standards (Ruffman, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref73">50</reflink>]). As detecting lexical or syntactic errors is not the prerequisite to understanding the text and is primarily determined by readers' vocabulary knowledge (Zabrucky & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref74">65</reflink>]), the lexical and syntactic standards are relatively less important in general reading comprehension monitoring. In this regard, this research designed the two types of major semantic errors, external and internal inconsistencies, to examine the participants' comprehension monitoring skills. The reading materials were thus manipulated into three parallel versions: a control version with no errors; an internal consistency version with contradictions between information within the text; an external consistency version with violations against common knowledge. The sample text with the theme "cactus" is shown below:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>In this example, the control version of the theme "cactus" is allocated in combination 3. The underlined words are the contextual words, and the framed words "rarely" and "little" are the critical words, C1 and C2, respectively. The words between C1 and C2 are determined as the interior part, while the words preceding C1 and succeeding C2 are identified as the exterior part.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-11">Apparatus</hd> <p>The EyeLink1000 Eye Tracking System (SR Research Ltd.) was used to present the experimental stimuli and collect participants' eye movement data. The system consists of two personal computers (PC), one display PC for stimulus presentation and experimental control, and one host PC for monitoring eye movement patterns and recording eye movement data, both with a 19" LCD screen. The sampling rate was 1000 HZ (i.e., 1000 samples per second). A chin rest was used to fix the subject's head position, making the eye movement data more stable and reducing the error caused by head shaking.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-12">Data preprocessing and analysis</hd> <p>The eye movement data were extracted in EyeLink Data Viewer (SR Research Ltd.), where we performed the automatic four-stage fixation cleaning procedure. In the first three stages, fixations in specific duration and distance thresholds were merged sequentially (duration less than 80 ms, distance less than 0.5 degrees in Stage 1; duration less than 40 ms, distance less than 1.25 degrees in Stage 2; duration less than 140 ms and no more than three fixations in Stage 3). In the fourth stage, fixations shorter than 140 ms or longer than 800 ms were excluded. The thresholds in each stage were determined according to the default setting and the previous researches regarding reading comprehension (e.g., Acheson & Hagoort, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>]; Carrol & Conklin, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref76">13</reflink>]; Carrol & Littlemore, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref77">14</reflink>]; Nassif et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref78">43</reflink>]). Outliers were then excluded from further analysis using the criterion of three standard deviations (SDs) higher or lower than the mean value.</p> <p>In this study, the measures of analysis included (a) first fixation duration, (b) first pass reading time, (c) first pass fixation count, (d) regression path duration, (e) re-reading time, (f) regression time, (g) total reading time, (h) number of fixations, for (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>) the two critical words (C1 and C2), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref80">2</reflink>) the contextual words (including total, exterior, and interior), respectively.</p> <p>The measures were used to analyze different processing stages. First fixation duration, first pass reading time, and first pass fixation count represent readers' early processing stage (Yan et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref81">63</reflink>]). (a) First fixation duration is the duration of the first or only fixation on a word on the first pass through an area of interest (AOI), which can be either one of the contextual words or the critical word C1 or C2. For example, in the sample text, it can be "炎" in the first AOI. (b) First pass reading time (or first pass fixation time, gaze duration) is defined as the amount of time from the first fixation to the first time the readers' fixation point leaves the current AOI, and (c) first pass fixation count refers to the number of fixation points within an AOI in the first pass reading time. The following three measures examine readers' performances in the later processing stages. (d) Regression path duration is the amount of time from the first fixation to the point of fixation falling into the regions on the right of the AOI (excluding this point of fixation). It differs from the first pass duration when readers choose to leave the current region and regress to the previous regions. Thus, it reflects the process of detecting the problem and re-reading the previous text. (e) Re-reading time is the duration of regression path duration excluding the first pass reading time, which is a reflection of the regulation process after the readers detect the inconsistencies in an AOI (Yan et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref82">63</reflink>]). Moreover, (f) regression time examines the sum of the duration of all gaze times back to the current AOI. The last two, total reading time and number of fixations, are the measures that demonstrate readers' processing of one AOI as a whole, including the early processing and the later stage. (g) Total reading time, also referred to as total fixation duration or total dwell time, is defined as the total durations of all the fixations falling into the AOI, and the (h) number of fixations refers to the total counts of fixations in the AOI. These measures are susceptible to slower and longer cognitive processing (Holmqvist et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref83">25</reflink>]), thus they are all included as essential indicators in this study.</p> <p>Eye movement data were analyzed using the linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), as this method is helpful for repeated measures in psychological and neuroscientific studies, especially for within-participant designed experiments (e.g., Judd et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref84">28</reflink>]; Kristensen & Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref85">36</reflink>]; Magezi, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref86">40</reflink>]). The analysis was conducted using <emph>lme4</emph> (Bates et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref87">8</reflink>]) and <emph>lmerTest</emph> (Kuznetsova et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref88">37</reflink>]) package in R (R Development Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref89">49</reflink>]), and simple effect test as well as post hoc test were then applied using <emph>emmeans</emph> package (https://github.com/rvlenth/emmeans) where appropriate. To determine the optimal model, we sequentially included all variables controlled in the experiment as the fixed factors: the version, the grade, the WM group, the RCT group, and their interactions. The participant was included as the random factor. The optimal LMM model was defined by model comparison, as shown below in (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>).</p> <p>1 <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">Value</mi><mo>∼</mo><mi mathvariant="normal">Version</mi><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal">RCT</mi><mi>_</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">Group</mi><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal">WM</mi><mi>_</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">Group</mi><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mo>+</mo><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mi mathvariant="normal">Version</mi><mo>:</mo><mi mathvariant="normal">RCT</mi><mi>_</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">Group</mi><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mo>+</mo><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mi mathvariant="normal">Version</mi><mo>:</mo><mi mathvariant="normal">WM</mi><mi>_</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">Group</mi><mo>+</mo><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mn>1</mn><mo stretchy="false">|</mo><mi mathvariant="normal">Participant</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow></math> </ephtml></p> <p>Graph</p> <p>During the probe interview, participants were asked to recall any inconsistencies they detected and whether they used strategies to resolve such difficulties or challenges during the reading comprehension. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two trained raters, with an inter-rater reliability of 0.96, coded the responses of each participant on whether they reported the inconsistency correctly or not (correct as 1 and incorrect as 0). Participants were thought to have certain comprehension monitoring behavior if they pointed out the target word or sentence. We calculated the scores and applied Chi-square tests to examine whether there were any differences between the high/low RCT/WM groups.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-13">Results</hd> <p>In this study, we attempted to observe how readers comprehended the reading materials with different comprehension difficulties and then investigated whether readers' reading comprehension monitoring skill develops along with individuals' working memory and reading comprehension ability. By analyzing the results of the two Tests via two-sample t-tests, we found significant differences between Grade 1 (G1) and Grade 2 (G2) groups in both Reading Comprehension Test and Working Memory Test scores (RCT: <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref91">88</reflink>) = -4.24, <emph>p</emph> <.001; WM: <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref92">111</reflink>) = -4.02, <emph>p <</emph>.001). We then computed and categorized RCT and WM scores according to the grade. The results indicated that both G1 students' RCT scores and WM scores were lower than those of G2 students (RCT-G2: <emph>M</emph> = 16.25, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.88, <emph>Median</emph> = 16; RCT-G1: <emph>M</emph> = 13.02, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.96, <emph>Median</emph> = 13; WM-G2: <emph>M</emph> = 3.16, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.79, <emph>Median</emph> = 3.25; WM-G1: <emph>M</emph> = 2.58, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.76, <emph>Median</emph> = 2.5). Further, we divided all the participants into High RCT group (<emph>N</emph> = 52), Low RCT group (<emph>N</emph> = 61), High WM group (<emph>N</emph> = 64), and Low WM group (<emph>N</emph> = 49) according to the median number of each group, to further observe the correlation between eye-tracking measures and readers' RCT and WM scores.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-14">Eye-tracking measurements</hd> <p>First of all, the performance discrepancy between the two RCT and WM groups was evaluated among all eye-tracking measurements, including those of early and later processing stages and those representing the whole processing stage. Among the early processing measures, there were significant differences between the two RCT groups in first pass reading time and first pass fixation count in C2 (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib277" id="ref93">277</reflink>) = -2.54, <emph>p</emph> =.012, d = -0.57; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib278" id="ref94">278</reflink>) = -2.07, <emph>p</emph> =.040, d = -0.50) of the external error version and the exterior contextual words (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib254" id="ref95">254</reflink>) = -2.94, <emph>p</emph> =.004, d =-0.77; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib247" id="ref96">247</reflink>) = -2.51, <emph>p</emph> =.013, d = -0.68) of the internal error version. For the different WM groups, we only observed the significant differences in first pass reading time in exterior contextual words (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib263" id="ref97">263</reflink>) = -2.58, <emph>p</emph> =.011, d = 0.19) of the external error version.</p> <p>The later processing measures show differences between the two RCT groups. The low RCT group showed longer regression path duration in contextual words in all of the normal (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib264" id="ref98">264</reflink>) = -2.25, <emph>p</emph> =.025, d = -0.58), internal error (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib266" id="ref99">266</reflink>) = -3.13, <emph>p</emph> =.002, d = -0.81), and external error (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib266" id="ref100">266</reflink>) = -2.56, <emph>p</emph> =.011, d = -0.66) versions as compared to high RCT group, which was mainly contributed by the exterior part (normal: <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib247" id="ref101">247</reflink>) = -2.45, <emph>p</emph> =.015, d = -0.66 ; internal error: <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib249" id="ref102">249</reflink>) = -2.83, <emph>p</emph> =.005, d = -0.77; external error: <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib249" id="ref103">249</reflink>) = -3.49, <emph>p</emph> <.001, d = -0.95). Longer re-reading time was shown in contextual words of the internal error (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib313" id="ref104">313</reflink>) = -2.51, <emph>p</emph> =.013, d = -0.57) and external error <emph>(t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib316" id="ref105">316</reflink>) = -2.21, <emph>p</emph> =.028, d = -0.51) versions, but only in exterior contextual words (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib306" id="ref106">306</reflink>) = -2.88, <emph>p</emph> =.004, d = -0.68) of the external error version. On the other hand, no significant differences were found in the WM groups (<emph>ps</emph> > 0.05).</p> <p>The low RCT group was observed with longer total reading time and more fixations particularly in the exterior contextual words of all the external error version (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib254" id="ref107">254</reflink>) = -2.93, <emph>p</emph> =.004, d = -0.78; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib273" id="ref108">273</reflink>) = -2.59, <emph>p</emph> =.010, d = -0.65), the internal error version (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib253" id="ref109">253</reflink>) = -3.01, <emph>p</emph> =.003, d = -0.80; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib273" id="ref110">273</reflink>) = -2.56, <emph>p</emph> =.011, d = -0.65), and the normal version(<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib254" id="ref111">254</reflink>) = -2.81, <emph>p</emph> =.005, d = -0.75; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib273" id="ref112">273</reflink>) = -2.52, <emph>p</emph> =.013, d = -0.64), in C2 of both the internal error version (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib276" id="ref113">276</reflink>) = -3.48, <emph>p</emph> <.001, d = -0.83; t(<reflink idref="bib283" id="ref114">283</reflink>) = -3.59, <emph>p</emph> <.001, d = -0.77) and the normal version(<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib276" id="ref115">276</reflink>) = -2.03, <emph>p</emph> =.043, d = -0.81; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib283" id="ref116">283</reflink>) = -3.00, <emph>p</emph> =.003, d = -0.67). The high WM group presented longer total reading time (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib277" id="ref117">277</reflink>) = 3.05, <emph>p</emph> =.003, d = 0.73) and more fixations (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib283" id="ref118">283</reflink>) = 3.38, <emph>p</emph> <.001, d = 0.77) in C2 of the internal error version. The groups' performances in total reading time in C2 of the internal error version are listed in Fig. 2.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2Performances of two working memory (WM) groups in total reading time at C2 in the three versions</p> <p>In order to examine our second hypothesis that the beginning reader may develop the regression or re-reading strategy until entering the second grade, where the discrepancy between the RCT and WM levels may count more heavily. We tested the regression-related measures (i.e., regression path duration, re-reading time, and regression time) for G1 and G2 separately. We therefore further included the Grade and also its interaction with the RCT and WM groups as independent factors to see whether there are significant differences between different groups among those measures. The results showed that for G1 students, no significant differences were found in RCT across individuals. However, for G2 students, the high RCT group was more sensitive to the errors in the external error version, showing a longer re-reading time (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib268" id="ref119">268</reflink>) = 2.22, <emph>p</emph> =.028, d = 0.57) in C1 when compared to that in the low RCT group (as shown in Fig. 3).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3Performances of two RCT groups of Grade One and Grade Two in re-reading time at C1 in the external error version. For Grade One students, no significant difference across RCT groups is found (left panel). For Grade Two students, the high RCT group has a significantly longer time than the low RCT group (right panel). (** p <.01)</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-15">Probe interview</hd> <p>The data from the individual probe interview was also collected and analyzed. From the results, we identified five types of offline indicators of readers' reading comprehension monitoring performances as follows: detection of the unreasonable target concepts (critical words) in the text, the complicated sentences, the complex vocabulary, and the difficulty in reading due to broken words or sentences, and the inability to state the reason for their reading comprehension monitoring performances. The first three types are also commonly found in other existing studies related to reading comprehension monitoring (Calvo, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref120">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results showed that about 60% of the participants could identify the specified sentence or word that caused reading difficulties, and this could explain why they could not comprehend the content, reflecting their performances in comprehension monitoring. A significant difference was found between the high and low RCT groups (<emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> = 4.19, <emph>p</emph> =.041), as only 16.67% of participants were able to detect inconsistent target concepts in the text in the low RCT group, compared to 30.76% in the high RCT group. In addition, 22.22% of the students in the low WM group responded with detection of the errors, compared to 25.00% in the high WM group though no significant difference was found (<emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.16, <emph>p</emph> =.686).</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-16">Discussion and conclusion</hd> <p>In this study, we proposed that RCT and WM groups would differ significantly in the online measurement and the offline probe interviews, and the higher-grade students would show longer processing times of regression path duration, re-reading time, and regression time in the error-detecting tasks than the lower-grade children. Further, we assumed that the reading comprehension and working memory would positively correlate with comprehension monitoring performances.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-17">Comprehension monitoring skills in relation to reading comprehension and WM capacity</hd> <p>In line with our first hypothesis, the present results indicated that RCT and WM showed a developmental tendency with age, as the G1 student' RCT and WM scores were significantly lower than those of G2 students. Moreover, both RCT and WM groups indicated robust discrepancies when encountering reading difficulties, especially in critical words (i.e., C1 and C2) and contextual words of reading materials. Specifically, among the three measures which might best reflect readers' early processing—first pass reading time, first pass fixation count, and first fixation duration (Yan et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref121">63</reflink>]), we found that the low RCT group required a longer first pass reading time or more fixations to overcome the reading difficulties during the comprehension, regardless of which version of materials was used in this study. The findings in all three versions consistently indicated a negative relationship between RCT and first-pass reading times. Moreover, we found that such correlation could be significantly influenced by the levels of text difficulties, which was indicated by more discrepancies between groups in errored versions than in the normal version. Likewise, we also observed a similar but relatively weak pattern between WM ability and readers' early processing performance, as the low WM group showed a longer first pass reading time during the reading of the normal version and the external error version compared to the high WM group. This finding is in line with much empirical evidence from previous studies, as first pass reading times have been recognized mainly as correlated to one's working memory capacity (e.g., Calvo, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref122">10</reflink>]), even the comprehension monitoring performance (Inhoff & Radach, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref123">27</reflink>]). Additionally, prior studies have reported that textual difficulties did not influence the first-pass reading of earlier sentence regions (e.g., Weiss et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref124">62</reflink>]). This may partially explain the significant differences in reading times between the errored and normal versions in C2 and the exterior contextual parts of the texts in this study.</p> <p>Furthermore, we also found a significant difference between the RCT groups and/or between the WM groups in other critical eye-tracking measures (i.e., total reading time, number of fixations, regression path duration, re-reading time, and regression time) that may reflect comprehension monitoring performance as well as the relatively complete process of comprehension loading during reading. Prior research has pointed out that readers who detect difficulties during reading tend to require a longer time in the cognitive process for comprehension, thus increasing the total reading time (August et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref125">3</reflink>]; Baker & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref126">6</reflink>]). Thus, longer total reading time can be treated as an essential index for readers' monitoring performances. In the present results, not only total reading time but also the number of fixations showed a negative correlation between RCT and reading performance. The low RCT groups had longer total reading times and more fixations in contextual words of all the reading materials and in C2 of the external error version and normal version compared to the high RCT groups. However, some previous studies reported a positive relationship between comprehension ability and monitoring performance (e.g., Catts et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref127">15</reflink>]; Paris & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref128">48</reflink>]). That is, the total reading time should be longer in the high RCT group than in the low RCT group. The potential reason for this contradiction is that some of the participants, including those in the high RCT group as well, may simply process the reading materials in one pass and did not utilize a developed comprehension monitoring with multiple regression times during the reading. Moreover, it has been mainly recognized as the appearance of comprehension monitoring in upper-grade students (e.g., Oakhill & Cain, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref129">45</reflink>]). However, as for the first-and second-graders in this study, they might not be capable of detecting the errors, at least with many individual differences.</p> <p>This speculation is further supported by evidence from the WM groups, which presented inconsistent results in different versions of reading materials. The high WM group had longer total reading times and more fixations in C2 of the internal error version but processed faster and showed fewer fixations in C2 of the external error version and the normal version (as shown in Fig. 2). Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Spencer, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref130">55</reflink>]), we also found longer dwell time and more fixations in the relevant AOIs for the high WM group. The comprehension monitoring performance may vary as the comprehension difficulties change, thus resulting in inconsistent patterns among the three versions. According to Kinnunen and Vaurast ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref131">31</reflink>]) and Zabrucky and Moore ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref132">65</reflink>]), detecting internal inconsistencies is more difficult than detecting other kinds of inconsistencies. Thus, the opposite patterns shown in the external error version and the normal version may be due to the comprehension difficulty residing in these two versions, which was insufficient to elicit different performances between the high WM and low WM groups.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-18">Comprehension monitoring skills develop with age</hd> <p>Our second hypothesis, which suggests longer regression path duration, re-reading time, and regression time among older children, was also supported by our empirical experiments. Regression path duration indicates the sum of all fixation durations during the first pass plus all fixation durations on predecessor AOIs until a saccade goes past the target AOI (Konieczny et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref133">35</reflink>]), which represents readers' detection of the inconsistencies and re-processing of the preceding texts, i.e., the evaluation. Our results showed that the low RCT group performed longer regression path duration in exterior contextual words of all three versions, accordant with our assumptions. Given the significant differences in the first pass reading time presented before, the differences in regression path duration may not necessarily represent the detection of anomalies. Thus, we examined re-reading time, which subtracted first pass reading time from regression path duration and served as a more reliable measure for readers' monitoring performance. Low RCT groups showed longer re-reading time in contextual words of both errored versions. As argued in the former part, a proportion of participants might not perform reading comprehension monitoring, especially low-graders. Furthermore, the data showed distinct differences in C1 of the external error version. The G1 students showed no significant differences across the RCT groups, while for the G2 students, the high RCT group performed significantly longer re-reading time than the low RCT group. Longer re-reading time on inconsistent words than consistent words further reflected that readers have repaired misunderstandings or confusions, which represents individuals' evaluation and regulation skills (Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref134">17</reflink>]). Thus, the findings also suggest that among the second graders, the high RCT group, tending to have a high monitoring skill, performs more prominent monitoring strategies during reading comprehension. The difference between the first graders' and the second graders' re-reading time divergences across the RCT groups strongly indicate that the first graders may not have developed monitoring skills. In contrast, the second graders have, and this ability is strongly correlated to reading comprehension ability in a positive way. Existing research has provided abundant evidence on the monitoring performances of second graders and its positive relevance to their comprehension ability (e.g., Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref135">30</reflink>]). Furthermore, some empirical studies argue that evaluation is an unconscious metacognitive process of reading which appears in all children and does not develop along with their growth, while regulation does (Grammer et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref136">22</reflink>]). Accordingly, the lack of monitoring performances in the first graders found in our study may be a product of their lack of regulation skills; and upper-graders are more likely to perform regulation compared to the lower-graders as indicated in the present as well as previous studies (e.g., Zargar et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref137">68</reflink>]). The longer re-reading time may act as a more reliable reflection of the differences in regulation among participants, and different levels of RCT may be correlated with the different performances of regulation abilities among the second graders. This finding is generally in line with the existing theories that regulation is a conscious skill influenced by readers' reading comprehension ability (Zargar et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref138">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another important finding is regression time, with the high WM group taking significantly longer than the low WM group in C2 of the external error version. This measure has been usually recognized as a presentation of post-lexical processing and is mainly relevant to the regulation process. Since Schotter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref139">51</reflink>]) suggest fewer regressions as a display of poorer comprehension monitoring of the text, it is evident that the participants' ability of comprehension monitoring, especially regulation, is in a positive relationship with their working memory capacity. Together with the results mentioned above, one conclusion may be safely made that the comprehension monitoring performance largely relies on individuals' comprehension ability and working memory capacity. That is, the emergence of the development of comprehension monitoring skills may not be merely related to age. We thus speculate that individual differences in RCT and WM may result in discrepancies in comprehension monitoring performance, especially in the regulation process.</p> <p>Besides, the online measures are consistent with the offline records from our probe interviews and display a predicting value to the latter results. Through the interviews, the readers with high RCT and WM scores reported more capability of detecting inconsistencies in the texts, which was chosen as a presentation of their reading comprehension monitoring skill. Tighe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref140">57</reflink>]) have proposed that longer re-read duration, regression path duration, and other re-reading times on the context sentence were more likely to reflect a correct score on the passage-specific reading comprehension questions irrespective of passage type. In this study, we found that there was either a longer re-reading time in the high RCT group or a longer regression time in the high WM group, and their offline detection rate was relatively higher than their low-level counterparts. It is acknowledged that good readers detected more inconsistencies when explicitly asked to do so and thus performed better in the offline measure of the inconsistency task than poor readers (e.g., Currie et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref141">18</reflink>]; Helder et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref142">23</reflink>]; Oakhill et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref143">44</reflink>]). In this regard, our previous findings on the better monitoring performances of the high RCT/WM groups are again proved evident.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-19">Limitations and further direction</hd> <p>In sum, the eye-tracking results provide us with more specific indications of the development of comprehension monitoring in beginning readers. Monitoring performances are found to be positively correlated with both comprehension ability and working memory capacity, which is in line with previous studies with older children (e.g., Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref144">16</reflink>]; van der Schoot et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref145">61</reflink>]), and the present findings indicate that such monitoring processes are also evident in earlier development of the second grade. However, our results also show inconsistencies with earlier studies proposing monitoring performances in first graders (e.g., Kinnunen et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref146">32</reflink>]) by indicating a highly probable lack of monitoring processes through multiple measures of the grade-one students. We thus suggest that the correlation between comprehension monitoring and other factors (e.g., reading comprehension ability and working memory capacity) is established on the precondition that monitoring skill has already developed at a certain age.</p> <p>In conclusion, this study aimed to investigate the developmental features of comprehension monitoring skills among Chinese beginning readers. By utilizing both online eye-tracking measures and offline probe interviews, the study found compelling evidence to support the claim that comprehension monitoring is an ability closely linked with children's reading comprehension ability and working memory capacity. The study's findings also provided insights into the interaction between these factors during the reading process, particularly among low-grade children. Educators and researchers working with young readers can benefit from the insights gained in this study, as it contributes to a deeper understanding of the cognitive processes involved in reading comprehension and highlights the importance of fostering effective comprehension monitoring skills from an early age.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-20">Funding</hd> <p>This research was supported by grants from National Science Council of Taiwan (NSC 101-2420-H-008-001).</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-21">Data availability</hd> <p>The data can be made available upon request to the corresponding author under a formal data-sharing agreement.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-22">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176300789-23">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0176300789-24">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0176300789-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref70" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Acheson DJ, Hagoort P. Stimulating the brain's language network: Syntactic ambiguity resolution after TMS to the inferior frontal gyrus and middle temporal gyrus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2013; 25; 10: 1664-1677. 10.1162/jocn_a_00430</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Artuso C, Carretti B, Palladino P. Short-term training on working memory updating and metacognition in primary school: The effect on reading comprehension. School Psychology International. 2019; 40; 6: 641-657. 10.1177/0143034319881671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref42" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> August DL, Flavell JH, Clift R. Comparison of comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers. Reading Research Quarterly. 1984; 20; 1: 39-53. 10.2307/747650</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker L. Children's effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1984; 76; 4: 588-597. 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker L. Differences in the standards used by college students to evaluate their comprehension of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly. 1985; 20; 3: 297-313. 10.2307/748020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref10" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baker L, Anderson RI. Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly. 1982; 17; 2: 281-294. 10.2307/747487</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref11" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baker L, Brown APearson PD, Kamil ML, Barr R, Mosenthal PB. Metacognitive skills and reading. Handbook of reading research. 1984; Longman: 353-394</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref87" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B, & Walker, S. (2014). Lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. R Package. In (Version 1.1-6.).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref25" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cain K, Oakhill J, Bryant P. Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004; 96; 1: 31-42. 10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calvo MG. Working memory and inferences: Evidence from eye fixations during reading. Memory (Hove, England). 2001; 9; 4–6: 365-381. 10.1080/09658210143000083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calvo MG. Relative contribution of vocabulary knowledge and working memory span to elaborative inferences in reading. Learning and Individual Differences. 2005; 15; 1: 53-65. 10.1016/j.lindif.2004.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carrol G, Conklin K. Is all formulaic language created equal? Unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech. 2020; 63; 1: 95-122. 10.1177/0023830918823230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carrol G, Littlemore J. Resolving figurative expressions during reading: The role of familiarity, transparency, and context. Discourse Processes. 2020; 57; 7: 609-626. 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1729041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carroll JB. A model of school learning. Teachers College Record. 1963; 64: 723-733. 10.1177/016146816306400801</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Catts HW, Adlof SM, Weismer SE. Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 2006; 49: 278-293. 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connor CM, Phillips BM, Kaschak M, Apel K, Kim YS, Lonigan CJ. Comprehension tools for teachers: Reading for understanding from prekindergarten through fourth grade. Educational Psychology Review. 2014; 26; 3: 379-401. 10.1007/s10648-014-9267-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connor CM, Radach R, Vorstius C, Day SL, McLean L, Morrison FJ. Individual differences in fifth graders' reading and language predict their comprehension monitoring development: An eye-movement study. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2015; 19; 2: 114-134. 10.1080/10888438.2014.943905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Currie NK, Francey G, Davies R, Gray S, Bridges MS, Restrepo MA, Thompson MS, Ciraolo MF, Hu J, Cain K. The process and product of coherence monitoring in young readers: Effects of reader and text characteristics. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2021; 25; 2: 141-158. 10.1080/10888438.2020.1831503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Bruïne A, Jolles D, van den Broek P. Minding the load or loading the mind: The effect of manipulating working memory on coherence monitoring. Journal of Memory and Language. 2021; 118: 104212. 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doebel S, Rowell SF, Koenig MA. Young children detect and avoid logically inconsistent sources: The importance of communicative context and executive function. Child Development. 2016; 87; 6: 1956-1970. 10.1111/cdev.12563</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gambrell LB, Bales RJ. Mental imagery and the comprehension-monitoring performance of fourth-and fifth-grade poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly. 1986; 21; 4: 454-464. 10.2307/747616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grammer JK, Carrasco M, Gehring WJ, Morrison FJ. Age-related changes in error processing in young children: A school-based investigation. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. 2014; 9: 93-105. 10.1016/j.dcn.2014.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 Individual Differences. 2016; 48: 17-23. 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.02.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessel AK, Schroeder S. Word processing difficulty and executive control interactively shape comprehension monitoring in a second language: An eye-tracking study. Reading and Writing. 2022; 35; 10: 2287-2312. 10.1007/s11145-022-10269-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmqvist, K, Nyström, M, Andersson, R, Dewhurst, R, Jarodzka, H, & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyönä J, Nurminen A-M. Do adult readers know how they read? Evidence from eye movement patterns and verbal reports. British Journal of Psychology. 2006; 97; 1: 31-50. 10.1348/000712605X53678</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inhoff AW, Radach RUnderwood G. Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. Eye guidance in reading and scene perception. 1998; Elsevier: 29-54. 10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50003-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Judd CM, Westfall J, Kenny DA. Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012; 103; 1: 54-69. 10.1037/a0028347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim YS, Phillips B. Cognitive correlates of listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. 2014; 49; 3: 269-281. 10.1002/rrq.74</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim YSG, Vorstius C, Radach R. Does online comprehension monitoring make a unique contribution to reading comprehension in beginning readers? Evidence from eye movements. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2018; 22; 5: 367-383. 10.1080/10888438.2018.1457680</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinnunen R, Vaurast M. Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high and low-achieving primary school children's reading. Learning and Instruction. 1995; 5: 143-165. 10.1016/0959-4752(95)00009-R</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinnunen R, Vauras M, Niemi P. Comprehension monitoring in beginning readers. Scientific Studies of Reading. 1998; 2; 4: 353-375. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0204_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch W. The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-incrementation model. Psychological Review. 1988; 85: 363-394. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ko, H. W, & Chan, Y. L. (2007). Reading comprehension screening test for 2nd grade to 6th grade elementary school students. Ministry of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Konieczny L, Hemforth B, Scheepers C, Strube G. The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from german. Language and Cognitive Processes. 1997; 12; 2–3: 307-348. 10.1080/016909697386871</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kristensen M, Hansen T. Statistical analyses of repeated measures in physiological research: A tutorial. Advances in Physiology Education. 2004; 28; 1: 2-14. 10.1152/advan.00042.2003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software. 2017; 82; 13: 1-26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laberge D, Samuels SJ. Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology. 1974; 6: 293-323. 10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Language and Reading Research Consortium (LARRC). Oral language and listening comprehension: Same or different constructs?. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 2017; 60; 5: 1273-1284. 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-16-0039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magezi DA. Linear mixed-effects models for within-participant psychology experiments: An introductory tutorial and free, graphical user interface (LMMgui). Frontiers in Psychology. 2015; 6: 2. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maier J, Richter T. Effects of text-belief consistency and reading task on the strategic validation of multiple texts. European Journal of the Psychology of Education. 2016; 31: 479-497. 10.1007/s10212-015-0270-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muhid A, Amalia ER, Hilaliyah H, Budiana N, Wajdi MBN. The effect of metacognitive strategies implementation on students' reading comprehension achievement. International Journal of Instruction. 2020; 13; 2: 847-862. 10.29333/iji.2020.13257a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nassif L, Huntley E, Mohamed A. Attention to verbal morphology in L2 arabic reading: An eye-movement study. Foreign Language Annals. 2022; 55; 3: 769-792. 10.1111/flan.12644</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oakhill JV, Cain K. The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2012; 16; 2: 91-121. 10.1080/10888438.2010.529219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oakhill J, Hartt J, Samols D. Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing. 2005; 18; 7–9: 657-686. 10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palincsar AS, Brown AL. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-rostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction. 1984; 1; 2: 117-175. 10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paris SG, Myers M. Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior. 1981; 13; 1: 5-22. 10.1080/10862968109547390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paris SG, Cross DR, Lipson MY. Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1984; 76; 6: 1239-1252. 10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 3-900051-07-0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruffman T. Do children understand the mind by means of simulation or a theory? Evidence from their understanding of inference. Mind & Language. 1996; 11; 4: 388-414. 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1996.tb00053.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schotter ER, Tran R, Rayner K. Don't believe what you read (only once): Comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science. 2014; 25; 6: 1218-1226. 10.1177/0956797614531148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skarakis-Doyle E. Young Children's detection of violations in familiar stories and emerging comprehension monitoring. Discourse Processes. 2002; 33; 2: 175-197. 10.1207/S15326950DP3302_04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow CE, Burns MS, Griffin P. Preventing reading difficulties in young children. 1998; National Academy Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soto C, Gutiérrez de Blume AP, Jacovina M, McNamara D, Benson N, Riffo B. Reading comprehension and metacognition: The importance of inferential skills. Cogent Education. 2019; 6; 1: 1565067. 10.1080/2331186X.2019.1565067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spencer JP. The development of working memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2020; 29; 6: 545-553. 10.1177/0963721420959835</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutiyatno S. A survey study: The correlation between metacognitive strategies and reading achievement. Theory & Practice in Language Studies. 2019; 9; 4: 438-444. 10.17507/tpls.0904.11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teng F. The benefits of metacognitive reading strategy awareness instruction for young learners of English as a second language. Literacy. 2020; 54; 1: 29-39. 10.1111/lit.12181</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teng MF, Zhang LJ. Development of children's metacognitive knowledge, reading, and writing in English as a foreign language: Evidence from longitudinal data using multilevel models. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2021; 91; 4: 1202-1230. 10.1111/bjep.12413</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tighe, E. L, Kaldes, G, Talwar, A, Crossley, S. A, Greenberg, D, & Skalicky, S. (2022). Do struggling adult readers monitor their reading? Understanding the role of online and offline comprehension monitoring processes during reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221081473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tzeng SJKo HW. Working memory, phonological processing, and naming speed of chinese poor readers. The identification and diagnosis of reading difficulties. 1999; National Chung-Cheng University: 5-28</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Schoot M, Reijntjes A, van Lieshout EC. How do children deal with inconsistencies in text? An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in good and poor reading comprehenders. Reading and Writing. 2012; 25; 7: 1665-1690. 10.1007/s11145-011-9337-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss AF, Kretzschmar F, Schlesewsky M, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Staub A. Comprehension demands modulate re-reading, but not first pass reading behavior. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2018; 71; 1: 198-210. 10.1080/17470218.2017.1307862</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yan G, Xiong J, Zang C, Yu L, Cui L, Bai X. Review of eye-movement measures in reading research. Advances in Psychological Science. 2013; 21; 4: 589-605. 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yuill N, Oakhill J, Parkin A. Working memory, comprehension ability and the resolution of text anomaly. British Journal of Psychology. 1989; 80; 3: 351-361. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02325.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabrucky K, Moore D. Children's ability to use three standards to evaluate their comprehension of text. Reading Research Quarterly. 1989; 24; 3: 336-352. 10.2307/747773</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabrucky K, Ratner HH. Effects of Reading ability on children's comprehension evaluation and regulation. Journal of Reading Behavior. 1989; 21; 1: 69-83. 10.1080/10862968909547659</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabrucky K, Ratner HH. Effects of passage type on comprehension monitoring and recall in good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior. 1992; 24; 3: 373-391. 10.1080/10862969209547782</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zargar E, Adams A, Connor CM. The relations between children's comprehension monitoring and their reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge: An eye-movement study. Reading and Writing. 2020; 33; 3: 511-545. 10.1007/s11145-019-09966-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao A, Guo Y, Dinnesen MS. The direct and indirect effects of language and cognitive skills on chinese reading comprehension. Reading and Writing. 2021; 35; 3: 539-564. 10.1007/s11145-021-10192-z</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kunyu Xu; Yu-Min Ku; Chenlu Ma; Chien-Hui Lin and Wan-Chen Chang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib277" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib278" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib254" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib247" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib263" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib264" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib266" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib249" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib313" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib316" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib306" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib273" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib253" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib276" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib283" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib268" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref145"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1418576
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development of Comprehension Monitoring Skill in Chinese Children: Evidence from Eye Movement and Probe Interviews
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kunyu+Xu%22">Kunyu Xu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yu-Min+Ku%22">Yu-Min Ku</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1285-6549">0000-0002-1285-6549</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chenlu+Ma%22">Chenlu Ma</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chien-Hui+Lin%22">Chien-Hui Lin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wan-Chen+Chang%22">Wan-Chen Chang</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Metacognition+and+Learning%22"><i>Metacognition and Learning</i></searchLink>. 2024 19(1):103-121.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– 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="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Eye+Movements%22">Eye Movements</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Assisted+Testing%22">Computer Assisted Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Memory%22">Memory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Progress+Monitoring%22">Progress Monitoring</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11409-023-09354-x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1556-1623<br />1556-1631
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: As an important construct in the cognitive process, comprehension monitoring has received much scholarly attention. Researchers have recognized comprehension monitoring as an ability closely linked with children's reading comprehension ability and working memory capacity. Evidence is also abundant to prove that comprehension monitoring skill develops with age. It remains unclear, however, how these factors interact during reading, particularly in low-grade children. Many previous empirical studies have only employed online or offline measurements to examine children's monitoring performance, which might lead to unsolid conclusions. In this study, we utilized both online eye-tracking measures and offline probe interviews to quantify the developmental features (i.e., evaluation and regulation) of comprehension monitoring skills among Chinese beginning readers. The results indicated that the comprehension monitoring performance, as quantified by eye-tracking measures, was positively related to their reading comprehension ability and working memory capacity. Moreover, the first-graders' performances lacked online regulation skills during the error-detecting tasks, while second-graders had relatively developed online monitoring performance. Additionally, the eye-tracking measures were found as a predictor for children's performances in probe interviews, as the readers with high comprehension ability and working memory capacity successfully reported more errors embedded in the self-designed reading materials. Therefore, the findings support the claim that children's comprehension monitoring is a developing skill associated with reading comprehension and working memory capacity and further question the existence of comprehension monitoring skills in beginning readers, especially first-graders.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1418576
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1418576
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11409-023-09354-x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 103
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Eye Movements
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Assisted Testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Memory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 2
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Progress Monitoring
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development of Comprehension Monitoring Skill in Chinese Children: Evidence from Eye Movement and Probe Interviews
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kunyu Xu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yu-Min Ku
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chenlu Ma
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chien-Hui Lin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wan-Chen Chang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1556-1623
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1556-1631
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Metacognition and Learning
              Type: main
ResultId 1