Differences in question reading and responding behaviour across reading achievement skills: An eye‐tracking study

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Research in Reading
Published
2025-12-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.70018
Primary Topic
Reading and Literacy Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Differences in question reading and responding behaviour across reading achievement skills: An eye‐tracking study

Katherine S. Binder, Scott P. Ardoin, Alissa N. Garguilo
Journal of Research in Reading
Reading and Literacy Development
article

Differences in question reading and responding behaviour across reading achievement skills: An eye‐tracking study

Katherine S. Binder, Scott P. Ardoin, Alissa N. Garguilo
article en

Abstract

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.

Journal of Research in ReadingVol. 49(1)
Mount Holyoke College (US), University of Georgia (US), Center for Autism and Related Disorders (US)
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
Reading and Literacy Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.