Models of reading

Whilst the models of writing discussed above all give reading a place in the writing process, none of them discuss how different cognitive processes interact during the reading process to achieve comprehension. Grabe and Stoller (2011:25) and Rayner et al. (2012:21) suggest that metaphorical models of reading aimed at explaining how reading comprehension takes place can be divided into bottom-up models, top-down models and interactive models. As with Field’s (2003) model of listening discussed in section 2.3.1, interactive models suggest that both low level processes (such as word recognition in the example in section 2.3.1) and high-level processes (such as ‘consideration of previous experiences’ in Field’s example) work simultaneously to enable comprehension of the text on the page.

The account of comprehension provided by Perfetti and Adlof (2012) also suggests that the processes that are responsible for comprehension of a text occur at multiple levels of language (orthographic, word recognition, parsing of sentences and so on) and those from word recognition upwards interact with the reader’s general knowledge to achieve comprehension.

28 Figure 5 Perfetti and Adlof (2012) model of reading comprehension

In their discussion of their model Perfetti and Adlof (2012) suggest that skilled readers engage in three processes which less skilled readers do not. These processes are inferencing, comprehension monitoring and the use of strategies. The researcher suggests that the highly repetitive use of monitoring for comprehension and the routine use of strategies could lead to skilled readers automating not only the low-level cognitive processes discussed earlier (such as word recognition), but they may also begin to automate some of the processes that might be thought of as higher-level processes too. This would seem to be an aspect worth of investigation.

Stanovich (1980) also proposes an interactional model of reading. In Stanovich’s model when deficits in lower level skills such as word recognition cause a delay in the reading process, higher level processes such as predicting based on context have time to offer the reader assistance in resolving the ‘word’. However, this increased reliance on high-level processes draws on working memory resources and depletes the availability of working

29

memory to assist with other high-level processes such as making connections between propositions in a text.

Stanovich’s explanation is, for the researcher, an extremely plausible explanation of the cognitive processes at work during reading and one which helps to account for individual differences in reading ability. The central role of working memory in facilitating processes has been cited by all the models of both reading and writing discussed above (Chenoweth and Hayes, 2001; Hayes, 1996; Hayes and Flower, 1980; Perfetti and Adlof, 2012). If, as Stanovich suggests, low level processes are weak and need to draw heavily on working memory, then there is unlikely to be sufficient working memory left to assist with higher level processes. This concept could prove central to any model of reading into writing as the number of processes being orchestrated by the reader / writer would seem to be much higher than in reading or writing in isolation.

Rayner et al. (2012) also suggest that interactive models of reading are necessary to account for a reader’s ability to arrive at comprehension. Rayner suggests that not only do high and low-level processes operate simultaneously but that at times, processes compete for priority as they are integrated to achieve comprehension. For example, a literal understanding resulting from the parsing of a phrase such as ‘she had itchy feet’ may be out competed by an idiomatic interpretation of meaning if it was followed by ‘and so decided to book a holiday’.

The models discussed above provide a broad understanding of how the processes of reading and writing might fit together to represent the processes of reading into writing. However, in places, they are quite theoretical, devoting less attention describing the way some elements of the models are operationalised when reader (and writers) engage in a task.

30

A model which is more relevant to this study because it includes an account of how the reader’s conscious goals influence the application of reading processes in an academic context is supplied by Khalifa and Weir (2009) (Figure 6). During an academic reading into writing task, the reader is reading for a clear purpose: to supply the content for their essay or assignment. Therefore, the role of reader’s goals would seem to be central to the way that reading processes might be operationalised during the task.

Figure 6 Khalifa and Weir's model of reading (Khalifa and Weir 2009:43)

Khalifa and Weir’s model of reading suggests that the ‘goal setter’ (in the left-hand column in Figure 6) determines how the reader will engage with the text. During the section on cognitive processes (2.3.1) the discussion centred around low-level and high-level processes. High-level processes are conscious and effortful whilst low-level processes are

31

automated and largely subconscious. Khalifa and Weir (2009) suggest that readers make decisions about how to read, utilising different types of high-level reading processes to

access the information they need to meet their reading goals.

For example, the reader may not elect to pursue a slow and careful parsing of every sentence in a bid to achieve total comprehension if their goal is merely to assess whether the text is relevant to their current assignment.

Khalifa and Weir suggest that, based on Urquhart and Weir (1998), reading can take the form of careful or expeditious reading. Careful reading ‘is intended to extract complete meanings from the presented material’ (Khalifa and Weir, 2009:46) and reflects the type of careful reading described by Rayner et al. (2012). The physical characteristics of this type of reading are described in more detail in section 2.4.1 but essentially it involves a slow, serial progress through the text, resolving any difficulties or misunderstandings as they occur. This type of careful reading can take place at local or global level. In the case of careful local reading the reader wishes to extract complete meaning from a single sentence. If the reader continues reading across several sentences, linking together propositions from more than one sentence, the reading is said to be global.

Khalifa and Weir (2009) acknowledge that, at times, careful reading may be more intense when readers are attempting to understand how macro and micro propositions link together. Cohen and Upton (2006:p7) suggest that reading to learn requires readers to…

…recognize the organization and purpose of a text, to distinguish major from minor ideas and essential from nonessential information, to conceptualize and organize text information into a mental framework, and to understand rhetorical functions such as cause-effect relationships, compare-contrast relationships, arguments, and so on…

32

Grabe and Stoller (2011:p7) also suggest that reading to learn is more demanding than reading to comprehend and is likely to be slower as readers engage in rereading of the text and attempt to remember information, draw inferences and make connections to their existing knowledge. Grabe and Stoller (2011) also propose that reading to integrate information in order to write or critique a text forces the reader to make additional decisions about how different sources support or contradict each other in order to develop a new rhetorical framework incorporating ideas from a variety of sources. Rouet (2006) suggests in the process of integrating information from multiple sources experts consider the validity of the source, corroborating information across sources in addition to relating information in the texts to their prior knowledge. The researcher suggests that reading as part of reading to write, as with reading to learn, is likely to be an intense, demanding form of careful reading as described by Khalifa and Weir.

Khalifa and Weir suggest that expeditious reading is quick, selective and efficient, guided by the reader’s goals. Urquhart and Weir (1998) suggest that expeditious reading can take three forms: skimming, search reading and scanning. Each of which are now discussed in turn.

Skimming, Urquhart and Weir suggest, is when the reader attempts to build a broad understanding (a macro-structure) of the text by reading very selectively, reading the minimum amount of information possible. Grabe and Stoller (2011:p7) suggest that skim reading involves…

a combination of strategies for guessing where important information might be located in the text, and then using basic reading comprehension skills on those segments of the text until a general idea is formed.

33

It incorporates reading for gist (skimming), where the reader wishes to quickly establish what the main idea or theme of the text is. Skimming or gist reading is necessarily a form of global reading as it must encompass several ideas or propositions distributed across the wider text. Duggan and Payne (2011, also see section 2.8.1) used eye tracking to monitor skim reading. They concluded that when reading for gist, readers start reading a section or paragraph carefully but as the quantity of information about the key point or proposition begins to fall the reader will abandon careful reading and advance to the next page, section or paragraph and start again.

Khalifa and Weir (2009), based on Urquhart and Weir (1998), also describe search reading. They argue that in search reading…

the reader is sampling the text, which can be words, topic sentences or important paragraphs, to extract information on a predetermined topic. Khalifa and Weir (2009:57)

The key difference between reading for gist and search reading, is the reader’s purpose or motivation. In reading for gist, the reader is perhaps aiming to sample the text guided by the structure of the text, whereas in search reading the information being sought is on a predetermined topic. Search reading differs from scanning where the reader is trying to locate an exact word or phrase. In search reading the reader will need to consider whether words under consideration have a semantic link to the theme of their search. Search reading can be both local and global as the reader’s search could relate to a single proposition, or a theme that incorporates several propositions.

Khalifa and Weir suggest that scanning should always be considered local. Not because the scan for the word is confined to a single sentence but because the item sought (a single word or phrase) operates at a local level.

34

Grabe and Stoller (2011: 7) also describe a form of reading that they call search reading. However, in their ‘reading to search for simple information’ the reader is scanning the text for a specific piece of information. This seems to correlate to Khalifa and Weir’s (2009) scanning in which the reader does not engage with the meaning of the text but rather engages in a word or text matching exercise. Once the ‘match’ is located, the reader may then engage in careful reading around the site of the match. To be clear, this research adopts Khalifa and Weir’s term scanning to describe this type of word matching behaviour and uses the term search reading to apply to Khalifa and Weir’s purposeful hunt for information on a predetermined topic. Having discussed the left-hand column on the Khalifa and Weir model (Figure 6), the central column of processes is now considered.

The central column breaks reading processes down into a series of processes, which start at the bottom with low level processes such as word recognition and lexical access through to high level processes such as building a mental model. The right-hand column lists the type of knowledge that the reader will need to consider for different processes.

Several recent studies have adopted the framework as a basis for their analysis of reading processes; for example, Bax (2013), Brunfaut and McCray (2015) and Wu (2011). For the researcher this model represents a logical and convincing model that is capable of accounting for the types of reading that experienced academic readers utilise when interacting with written sources of information. The only aspect that the model lacks is any reference to the role of working memory in the process. As discussed, earlier in this section, the automation (or lack of automation) of low-level skills is likely to impact on the amount of working memory available to engage in more strategic reading activities and therefore the researcher suggests that some reference to the role of working memory in the model is desirable.

35

The detailed description of types of high-level reading processes proposed by Khalifa and Weir offers suggests that it may be possible to differentiate the different types of reading utilised by readers in response to their reading goals. Therefore, the researcher proposes to adopt aspects of Khalifa and Weir’s different types of reading to categorise the reading behaviour in this study. Having considered the models of writing and models of reading, we review the research suggesting the extent to which reading and writing skills are interrelated.