Differences in question reading and responding behaviour across reading achievement skills

An eye‐tracking study

Bibliographic Data

ID7177433
AuthorsAlissa N Garguilo (0000-0003-4602-9952, Center for Autism and Behavioral Education Research University of Georgia, Athens GA 30602 USA), Scott P Ardoin (0000-0003-2176-4221, Center for Autism and Behavioral Education Research University of Georgia, Athens GA 30602 USA, corresponding author), Katherine S Binder (0000-0003-0711-5751, Psychology and Education Department Mount Holyoke College South Hadley MA 01075 USA)
Year2025
Volume49
Issue1
Publication date2025-12-04
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Research in Reading (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0141-0423 • E-ISSN: 1467-9817
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/1467-9817.70018
OpenAlexW4417018279
LanguageEN
References cited36

Background Reading comprehension (RC) tests are meant to assess students' ability to read and process information within passages but also require students to read and understand the questions. Just as students of different reading achievement use varying compensatory skills to develop comprehension of a passage, we suspected skill level might also be related to different behaviours as they read questions and response options. Methods We analysed data of 174 students, with a mean age of 9.06 years. All students attended schools in the southeastern region of the United States and were assessed in English. Students were asked to read passages and respond to multiple‐choice questions as their eye movements were recorded. Results Compared to lower‐achieving students, higher‐achieving students (1) needed less time to read the passages and questions, (2) were sensitive to question type in that they took more time to read inferential‐question stems compared to literal stems and (3) were less likely to re‐read when answering questions, but if they did re‐read, they were more likely to answer literal questions correctly. Conclusions Just as lower‐achieving students experience greater challenges reading passages and have fewer skills to overcome those challenges, they likewise expend more effort reading questions and searching passages for answers. Unfortunately, their searches are less likely to result in the correct answer choices. Findings emphasise teaching evidence‐based test‐taking strategies that prioritise comprehension and highlight eye‐tracking technology's potential to inform RC test design and evaluation

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access