Contributions of Executive Function and Cognitive Intrinsic Motivation to University Students’ Reading Comprehension

Abstract

Reading comprehension is an incredibly complex, purposeful activity that involves simultaneous orchestration and integration of multiple processes. However, dominant perspectives suggest that two clusters of skills, word reading and language comprehension, account for successful reading. Such two‐factor models are problematic because they do not easily account for complexities in reading comprehension processes or for contributions to reading comprehension of other individual difference variables related to the purposeful nature of reading, such as executive functions (EFs) and intrinsic motivation. Further, simple models may lead to oversimplification of research questions, curricula, and instructional practices, causing researchers and educators to miss important contributors to reading comprehension necessary for students to develop into skilled readers. In this study, the authors assessed the unique contributions of EFs, both domain‐general and reading‐specific, and cognitive intrinsic motivation (i.e., the desire to engage in effortful cognitive activities) to reading comprehension in 122 university students beyond language comprehension and word‐reading skills. Findings confirm unique contributions of cognitive intrinsic motivation and reading‐specific EF to students’ reading comprehension beyond established predictors and domain‐general EFs. Findings also suggest complexities, such as impacts of language comprehension on word reading, as well as impacts of cognitive intrinsic motivation on both language and reading comprehension, that should be considered in theory and practice. Finally, because reading‐specific EF contributed to reading comprehension directly and indirectly beyond controls, these findings underscore the importance of applying knowledge of EF to specific reading processes to better support students who struggle to understand text.

Beyond the Simple View of Reading: The Role of Executive Functions in Emergent Bilinguals’ and English Monolinguals’ Reading Comprehension

“…We agree with other scholars that the substantial overlap between D and LC in the prediction of reading comprehension suggests that other cognitive-linguistic variables may be contributing to reading comprehension via the overlapping portions of D and LC (i.e., the nonunique portions of D and LC). One possibility is that the shared influence of D and LC on reading comprehension may be due to LC's direct facilitation of D, as has been found in prior work (e.g., Cartwright, Lee, et al, 2020;Tunmer & Chapman, 2012). We addressed this possibility in our second research question.…”

“…A substantial body of emerging scientific findings, including our own, suggests that the SVR' s elegant simplicity may mask contributions to reading comprehension that could-and should-inform research, practice, and ultimately, the science of reading (for reviews, see Cervetti et al, 2020;Snowling & Hulme, 2012). In particular, the original independent, two-factor SVR model, and its typical implementation in practice, disallows commonalities between D and LC and, occasionally, neglects scientific findings that LC contributes directly to D-and to reading comprehension through D-partially explaining the substantial shared variance between these constructs (e.g., Cartwright, Lee, et al, 2020;Tunmer & Chapman, 2012). Our findings suggest that LC facilitates word-reading processes, in contrast to the assumption, based on the original SVR, that decoding processes occur first, after which readers apply their LC skills to understand what they have decoded (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).…”

“…Far from being simple, reading comprehension comprises a wide range of component skills and processes (Kendeou, van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009; Oakhill & Cain, 2012; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). Thus, one way scholars have pushed on the original SVR framework is by investigating theoretical and empirical expansions of the SVR that include contributions of additional variables to reading comprehension beyond the original components (D and LC), such as background knowledge (Cromley & Azevedo, 2007; see also Kintsch, 2004), text characteristics (Francis, Kulesz, & Benoit, 2018), reading fluency (Tilstra, McMaster, van den Broek, Kendeou, & Rapp, 2009), and executive functions (EFs), both domain‐general (Locascio, Mahone, Eason, & Cutting, 2010) and reading‐specific (Cartwright, Lee, et al, 2020). Other expansions of the SVR have focused on unpacking the LC construct (Kieffer, Petscher, Proctor, & Silverman, 2016; Kim & Pilcher, 2016; LARRC, 2017), taking into account its multidimensionality and significance (e.g., Cervetti et al, 2020) by exploring the specific contributions of variables, such as inference making, perspective taking, and background knowledge to reading comprehension through LC (Kim, 2017, 2020).…”

“…Another way in which a handful of scholars have pushed on the SVR is by examining directly the substantial shared variance between D and LC, suggesting that general cognitive variables may contribute to reading comprehension through the overlap between D and LC (e.g., Foorman & Petscher, 2018;Lonigan, Burgess, & Schatschneider, 2018). Recent work has confirmed the lack of independence between D and LC, finding, for example, that vocabulary contributes to both D and LC (Kim, 2020) and that LC contributes statistically significant variance to reading comprehension through D, as well as independently (Cartwright, Lee, et al, 2020;Tunmer & Chapman, 2012). As Lonigan et al (2018) noted, both cognitive and linguistic factors may account for the shared variance between D and LC.…”

The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading

“…Thus, by definition, this ability transcends language comprehension because language comprehension does not involve graphemes, and transcends word recognition because, as conceived in the SVR, word recognition does not include semantics. Numerous studies have shown that GSF predicts variance in reading ability above and beyond various assessments of word recognition and language comprehension in children and adults (e.g., Cartwright, 2002;Cartwright, Lee, et al, 2020;Knudsen, López, & Archibald, 2018). This type of reading-specific EF skill can be taught in order to address EF difficulties that negatively impact reading.…”