Readers in Adult Basic Education

Abstract

The present study explored the reading skills of a sample of 48 adults enrolled in a basic education program in northern Florida, United States. Previous research has reported on reading component skills for students in adult education settings, but little is known about eye movement patterns or their relation to reading skills for this population. In this study, reading component skills including decoding, language comprehension, and reading fluency are reported, as are eye movement variables for connected-text oral reading. Eye movement comparisons between individuals with higher and lower oral reading fluency revealed within- and between-subject effects for word frequency and word length as well as group and word frequency interactions. Bivariate correlations indicated strong relations between component skills of reading, eye movement measures, and both the Test of Adult Basic Education ( Reading subtest) and the Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery Passage Comprehension assessments. Regression analyses revealed the utility of decoding, language comprehension, and lexical activation time for predicting achievement on both the Woodcock Johnson III Passage Comprehension and the Test of Adult Basic Education Reading Comprehension.

Does memory contribute to reading comprehension in adults who struggle with reading?

“…In general, more research is needed on predictors of reading comprehension in this population. Our findings reiterate the importance of word reading, fluency and oral vocabulary (Barnes et al, 2017;Braze et al, 2007;Mellard et al, 2010;Sabatini et al, 2010). Beyond these basic skills, text comprehension also involves higher-level skills that help the reader make meaning from the text (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014).…”

“…In Tighe and Schatschneider's (2016) meta-analysis of 16 studies involving struggling adult readers, word reading, fluency and oral vocabulary exhibited strong relations with reading comprehension (i.e., average rs > .50). These three skills have also explained variance in reading comprehension for struggling adult readers (Barnes, Kim, Tighe, & Vorstius, 2017;Braze, Tabor, Shankweiler, & Mencl, 2007;Mellard, Fall, & Woods, 2010;Sabatini, Sawaki, Shore, & Scarborough, 2010).…”

“…We expected these predictors to make a substantial contribution to the reading comprehension variance. There is considerable evidence for relations between these skills and reading comprehension in struggling adult readers (e.g., Barnes et al, 2017;Braze et al, 2007;Mellard et al, 2010;Tighe & Schatschneider, 2016). Additionally, the SVR emphasises the predictive utility of decoding and linguistic comprehension for reading comprehension.…”

Unraveling the complexity of the relations of metalinguistic skills to word reading with struggling adult readers: Shared, independent, and interactive effects

“…Further obscuring this issue is the large amount of heterogeneity present in samples of adult learners (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, reading levels, and English language status; Lesgold & Welch-Ross, 2012). The current study attempted to curb part of this issue by including only native English speakers; however, some differences have been noted in recent work looking at component skill profiles of struggling adult readers (see Binder & Lee, 2012;MacArthur, Konold, Glutting, & Alamprese, 2012;Mellard, Fall, & Mark, 2009). Future work is needed to assess the robustness of the magnitudes of the relations among metalinguistic skills and word reading and to consider variations by demographic characteristics and reading levels.…”

Reading Fluency Matters: NIH R21 HD090460-01A1

“…Tracking eyemovements during reading is an established means of getting at that information (Rayner, 1998). Most eyemovement research on reading has focused on silent reading and the mature reader (Rayner et al, 2013), but see Barnes et al (2015) for a recent analysis of gaze patterns during oral reading. In this new project, tracking eye-movements in both oral and silent reading within subjects will allow us to directly examine the inter-play of text and lexical properties with reader characteristics (e.g., Gong et al, 2015;Kuperman et al, 2010;Kuperman & Van Dyke, 2011;Valle et al, 2013).…”