Reading Comprehension: Its Nature and Development

Abstract

Reading comprehension is the process by which we understand the texts we read. It is the purpose of reading, why we teach it, and why we care about it. It is also the prerequisite for meaningful learning from text. As I discuss in this entry, reading comprehension is complex, and we are still far from a complete understanding of it. But
we have learned a great deal. My purpose in this paper is to review recent research and theory around three basic questions: (1) What is reading comprehension?, (2) What factors contribute to the development of reading comprehension?, and (3) Who are the
“poor comprehenders”? This entry sketches answers to these questions and provides links to sources in which they are treated in more depth. Reading comprehension does not develop in a vacuum, in isolation from other language and literacy processes, so this entry should be read in conjunction with the others in this section on reading comprehension, and with those in other sections.

Full text

Kirby, J. R.
Page 1 of 8
http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca
Reading Comprehension: Its Nature and Development
Written by: John R. Kirby, Ph.D., Faculty of Education, Queen’s University
Introduction and Key Research Questions
Reading comprehension is the process by which we understand the texts we read. It is
the purpose of reading, why we teach it, and why we care about it. It is also the
prerequisite for meaningful learning from text. As I discuss in this entry, reading
comprehension is complex, and we are still far from a complete understanding of it. But
we have learned a great deal. My purpose in this paper is to review recent research and
theory around three basic questions: (1) What is reading comprehension?, (2) What
factors contribute to the development of reading comprehension?, and (3) Who are the
“poor comprehenders”? This entry sketches answers to these questions and provides
links to sources in which they are treated in more depth. Reading comprehension does
not develop in a vacuum, in isolation from other language and literacy processes, so
this entry should be read in conjunction with the others in this section on reading
comprehension, and with those in other sections.
Recent Evidence
1. What is reading comprehension?
Reading comprehension is the application of a skill that evolved for other purposes
(listening or oral comprehension) to a new form of input (text). Unlike listening
comprehension, reading comprehension is not something for which our brains have
evolved. Whereas oral comprehension seems to develop “naturally” with minimal
deliberate intervention, reading comprehension is more challenging and requires
deliberate instruction. Humans have been accomplished in oral comprehension for
100,000 years or more (Donald, 1991), and virtually all humans do it; reading
comprehension has only been practiced for 5,000 years, and for most of that time the
majority of humans did not do it (Olson, 1994). It should not be surprising that reading
comprehension is difficult. The application of comprehension to text amplifies our
mental capacities. It is fundamental to full participation in society, now and for the
foreseeable future.
Levels of processing in reading
It is important to understand that reading occurs at several different levels, and how
these levels interact. One way of describing those levels is presented in Figure 1 (see
below). The lowest level shown there, Words, sits on top of many even lower levels of
processing that are beyond the scope of this paper (see Kirby, 1988, and Kirby &
Williams, 1991). Successful word recognition (either pronunciation, or, more rarely,
recognition of meaning without being able to pronounce) is a prerequisite for the higher
Kirby, J. R. (2007). Reading comprehension: Its nature and development. In Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy
Development. Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network,
.
.

Kirby, J. R.
Page 2 of 8
http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca
levels of comprehension. If some words cannot be recognized, the higher levels can
compensate to some extent (shown as “top-down processing” in Figure 1). Unknown
words can be inferred in some cases; however, this is more difficult than it sounds, it
can only work for some kinds of words and only for a small number of words in any text,
and it is very processing intensive. Once words have been recognized, the question of
word meaning arises (see the entry on vocabulary in this section of the Encyclopedia,
Biemiller, 2007); it is possible to make sense of text when the meaning of some words is
lacking or hazy, but beyond a modest level of uncertainty, comprehension becomes
impossible.
Figure 1. Levels of processing in reading comprehension.
Two types of processing occur: “bottom-up” and “top-down”. In bottom-up processing,
words are formed into phrases, and phrases are formed into more abstract units called
propositions or ideas; these processes require knowledge of syntax (grammar). Just as
several words can be processed into one phrase, several phrases can be processed
into one idea. Comprehension at the phrase or idea level results in a relatively shallow
understanding of what the text stated directly, often termed literal comprehension.
Further processing of these ideas either selects particular ones as main ideas, or
constructs main ideas from them, and then thematic generalizations or abstractions out
of the main ideas. Top-down processing occurs when higher-level information, just as
knowledge of the general topic of the text, helps the reader identify lower-level
information. It is important to recognize that both bottom-up and top-down processing
often occurs in reading comprehension. This is called interactive processing. The higher
levels of processing require prior knowledge to help decide what is important, and
especially to see the deeper implications of the text.
Processing occurs in these levels to make best use of working memory resources.
Working memory contains information or thoughts that we are currently aware of; it is
generally agreed that working memory is limited to four or five units and that there is no
limit to the size of those units (e.g., Baddeley, 1986). Thus we might only be able to
retain four or five unrelated words, but with coherent text we can process hundreds or
Themes
Main ideas
Ideas/Detail
s
Phrases
Words
Bottom-up
processing
Top-down
processing

Kirby, J. R.
Page 3 of 8
http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca
even thousands of words into a relatively small number of main ideas and even fewer
themes. With those higher-level units retained, we can often reconstruct (through top-
down processing) the important lower-level units. Efficient and automatic functioning of
the lower levels in Figure 1 is a prerequisite for the higher levels. If too much conscious
awareness has to be devoted to, for instance, sounding-out and recognizing words, it is
difficult for thinking to reach much above the Phrase level. In this way the lower levels
can act as bottlenecks.
The simple view of reading
Gough and Tunmer (1986) proposed the simple view of reading, in which reading
comprehension is seen as the product of decoding and listening comprehension.
Though simple, this approach does a remarkably good job of accounting for the data
(e.g., Johnston & Kirby, 2006; Joshi & Aaron, 2000), and it reminds us that the ability to
decode words is absolutely essential for skilled reading; those with either very low
decoding skills or very low oral comprehension skills will be poor reading
comprehenders. Decoding or word reading is often the bottleneck that prevents readers
from attaining higher or adequate text comprehension (see Figure 1). However, listening
comprehension, which represents verbal ability, is also essential. Verbal ability is a key
component of intelligence, and may be very difficult to improve through instruction; it
includes knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, the ability to make inferences, and so on.
Decoding provides a more promising and fruitful target for instruction.
Two important factors beyond decoding and listening comprehension can be added:
fluency and strategies. Fluency (speed and expression; e.g., Kuhn & Stahl, 2003) is not
an issue in listening as the speaker controls the pace, but it is needed for reading
comprehension because of working memory limitations. If word recognition is slow, then
previous words will have faded from working memory before later words are recognized,
and their joint meaning will not be able to be processed. Strategies (e.g., Dole et al.,
1991; National Reading Panel, 2000, chapter 4) are important in reading, and more
useful than in listening, because the text stays present and allows re-inspections.
Strategies are particularly useful when the text is long and/or complex, and the reader
has many options about where to attend. We expect skilled readers to extract more
from text than they would from speech, and some of that comes from strategic, goal-
directed, deliberate processing. Strategies are conscious, goal-oriented plans that call
on tactics which can vary from underline long words to create a mental simulation to see
if the author is right (Kirby, 1988). Strategies depend on prior knowledge (of content,
and of strategies) and on the learners’ intentions; intentions can be characterized as
combinations of deep and surface processing (Biggs, 1993), or depth and breadth of
processing (Kirby & Woodhouse, 1994).
Comprehension involves the relating of two or more pieces of information (e.g., Kintsch,
1999). Those pieces of information can come from long-term memory (prior knowledge),
but in reading comprehension at least one piece must come from the text. The pieces of
information can be simple or quite complex ideas, ranging from the word cat to the
concept democracy. The relating can also be of many sorts, such as is an example of,
is the same as, causes, or acts on in a specified way. The information to be integrated
is held in working memory (Baddeley, 1986), and the relating operation takes up space

Kirby, J. R.
Page 4 of 8
http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca
there too. As we read, we update our mental representation of the text’s meaning; these
mental representations are known as mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983) or situation
models (Kintsch, 1999).
These pieces of information are the different types of content shown in Figure 1, for
instance, words, ideas, main ideas, or themes. As information is processed, the lower-
level units are integrated into higher-level units; long-term memory stores some low-
level information, but comprehension relies critically upon long-term memory’s higher-
level, more abstract or schematic information. The abstract information is stored in the
form of schemas, which function like generalized mental or situation models. For
readers with rich knowledge, a word such as democracy evokes and brings to life many
ideas without taking up additional working memory space; for readers with less relevant
knowledge, the word itself may take up one or more spaces, with no additional
information brought along “for free”. Comprehension is enhanced when the contents of
working memory are higher-level units; children struggling to identify words are unlikely
to be able to attain even modest levels of comprehension. When lower-level units are
recognized automatically, there is a greater chance of higher levels being attained. It is
critical to build up the automaticity of the lower-level units (e.g., words). It is equally
important to remember that the processing of lower-level units does not guarantee the
comprehension of higher level units.
2. What factors contribute to the development of reading comprehension?
The previous section mentioned a number of factors involved in reading
comprehension; these and their antecedents can be seen as the causes or sources of
reading comprehension (see Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2, vocabulary knowledge
(Wagner et al., 2007) and prior knowledge contribute to listening comprehension,
though both and many other factors shown are also related to verbal intelligence. It is
difficult to see how readers can understand a text if there are many unknown words or
concepts.
Figure 2. Sources of reading comprehension
Reading
Comprehension
Listening
comprehension
Decoding
Fluency
Strategies
Phonological awareness
Naming speed
Orthographic knowledge
Morphological
awareness
Phonics knowledge
Cognitive speed
Orientation
Purpose
Verbal Intelligence
Vocabulary
Prior knowledge

Kirby, J. R.
Page 5 of 8
http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca
Over the last 25 years or so, we have learned a great deal about how the brain
accomplishes the lower-level aspects of reading, especially decoding (e.g., Adams,
1990; Rayner et al., 2001). We know that a number of factors contribute to word
reading, including phonological awareness (Stanovich, 2000), naming speed (Wolf &
Bowers, 1999), orthographic knowledge (Levy et al., 2006), morphological awareness
(Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Nunes & Bryant, 2006), and phonics knowledge (Adams, 1990).
Fluency is less well understood (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003), but clearly depends upon
decoding efficiency, and cognitive and naming speed (Wolf & Bowers, 1999). As fluency
drops, it becomes less and less likely that the needed information is still active in
working memory, making comprehension less and less likely.
Reading comprehension strategies have been studied extensively (National Reading
Panel, 2000, chapter 4). Dole et al. (1991) listed 5 major strategies, each of which is
associated with greater reading comprehension: determining importance, summarizing
information, drawing inferences, generating questions, and monitoring comprehension.
None of these factors has much influence in the absence of motivation and interest.
Most children are interested in reading when they begin school, but some can lose
interest/motivation if their skills are not adequate or if the text content does not suit
them.
3. Who are the “poor comprehenders”?
The factors listed in the previous section indicate the characteristics that will lead to
poor reading comprehension. Children with lows levels of skill in the various contributing
factors will struggle with reading comprehension, children with more areas of low skill
will struggle more, and the more they struggle the more their interest will suffer, creating
a vicious cycle. It is no secret that many children prefer other activities to reading, and
that uninteresting text content can turn a capable reader into an unenthusiastic reader
very quickly (Pressley, 2002, chapter 8).
Two subgroups of children who show poor reading comprehension deserve mention.
First, it should be no surprise that children with reading disabilities have difficulties in
reading comprehension (Cornoldi & Oakhill, 1996): these children’s most obvious and
primary problem is with word reading, which is critical for reading comprehension.
However it is important to recognize that some reading disabled children can develop
adequate or even good levels of reading comprehension, especially if time constraints
are not imposed (Lefly & Pennington, 1991). It is not yet clear how they do this, but it
almost certainly involves a great deal of practice, re-reading, and strategy use.
Secondly, some authors refer to a group of children termed poor comprehenders (e.g.,
Cain, Oakhill & Bryant, 2004; Nation, 2005). These children have normal word level
processing, but also have some language comprehension difficulties that interfere with
reading comprehension. These language difficulties involve drawing inferences,
understanding figurative language, and monitoring their own comprehension. Most
current assessment approaches to reading disability will overlook these children who
may need intensive language-oriented intervention. Some of these children may have

Kirby, J. R.
Page 6 of 8
http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca
low general ability, hence, it may not be surprising that they have low reading
comprehension. However, this is no excuse not to teach them. Other children, though
this is not yet clear, may have relatively specific difficulties in comprehension processes,
difficulties that targeted instruction may help to overcome; this remains a question for
future research.
Future Directions
There is continuing need for research that explores the factors shown in Figure 2, their
inter-relationships, and how they affect reading at both the word and comprehension
levels. Some relatively new factors, such as naming speed and morphology, may allow
us to better understand reading comprehension and its failures.
One of the challenges in this area concerns the ways in which reading comprehension
is measured (see Paris, 2007, this section). Formal, standardised tests are very
expensive to develop, and often fail to include the highest levels of reading
comprehension (those related to the thematic or situation model level). Reading
comprehension measures are also often given without word reading measures, making
it difficult to diagnose the source of any observed problems. There is need for
continuing development of theory-based tests and testing policies. All of this work points
towards instructional research that explores how best to combine the factors shown in
Figure 2 to design effective classroom and remedial instruction (see Phillips, 2007, this
section).
Conclusions
Reading comprehension is a complex process in itself, but it also depends upon other
important lower-level processes. It is a critical foundation for later academic learning,
many employment skills, and life satisfaction. It is an important skill to target, but we
should not forget about the skills on which it depends. To improve the reading
comprehension skills of poor performers, we need to understand that there is no “magic
wand” hidden in Figure 2, and no secret weapon that will quickly improve reading
competencies for all poor readers. Careful assessment is required to determine
individual children’s strengths and weaknesses, and programs need to be tailored
accordingly; most poor readers will need continued support in many areas. The roots of
most reading comprehension problems lie in the early elementary years. Waiting to
address them in later elementary or even secondary school is a high-risk strategy.
Date Posted Online: 2007-09-25 11:13:06

Kirby, J. R.
Page 7 of 8
http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really
measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 63, 1-17.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability:
Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42.
Cornoldi, C., & Oakhill, J. (Eds.) (1996). Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes
and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological: Is it more than phonological?
Evaluating the roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading
development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223-238.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to
the new: Research on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research,
61, 239-264.
Donald, M. (1991). The origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of
culture and cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability.
Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnston, T. C., & Kirby, J. R. (2006). The contribution of naming speed to the simple
view of reading. Reading and Writing, 19, 339-361.
Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of
reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85-97.
Kintsch, W. (1999). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Kirby, J. R. (1988). Style, strategy, and skill in reading. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed.) Learning
styles and learning strategies. New York: Plenum Press.
Kirby, J. R., Parrila, R., & Pfeiffer, S. (2003). Naming speed and phonological
processing as predictors of reading development. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 453-464.
Kirby, J. R., & Woodhouse, R. A. (1994). Measuring and predicting depth of processing
in learning. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 147-161.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.
Lefly, D. L., & Pennington, B. F. (1991). Spelling errors and reading fluency in
compensated dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 143–162.
Levy, B. A., Gong, Z., Hessels, S., Evans, M. A., & Jared, D. (2006). Understanding
print: Early reading development and the contributions of home literacy
experiences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 63-93.
Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M. J. Snowling and
C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp 248-265). Oxford UK:
Blackwell Publishing.

Kirby, J. R.
Page 8 of 8
http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. Bethesda MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. Routlege.
Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of
writing and reading. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Paris, S. G., & Stahl, S. A. (Eds.) (2005). Children’s reading comprehension and
assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parrila, R. K., Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Nurmi, J.-E., & Kirby, J. R. (2005). Development
of individual differences in reading: Results from longitudinal studies in English and
Finnish. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 299-319.
Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward and R & D
program in reading comprehension. Washington, DC: RAND Education.
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001).
How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31-74.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and
new frontiers. New York: Guilford.
Sweet, A. P. (2005). Assessment of reading comprehension: The RAND Reading Study
Group vision. In S. G. Paris and S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading
comprehension and assessment (pp 3-12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Wagner, R. K., Muse, A. E., & Tannenbaum, K. R. (Eds.) (2007). Vocabulary instruction:
Implications for reading comprehension. New York: Guilford Press.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental
dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415-438.
To cite this document:
Kirby, J. R. (2007). Reading comprehension: Its nature and development.
Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development (pp. 1-8). London,
ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. Retrieved from
http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/pdfs/topic.php?topId=227
View publication statsView publication stats