Toward Integrative Reading Science: The Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Reading

Abstract

The authors propose an integrative theoretical model of reading called the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER) that builds on and extends several prominent theoretical models of reading. According to DIER, the following skills and knowledge are involved in reading comprehension: word reading, listening comprehension, text reading fluency, background knowledge (content knowledge and discourse knowledge), reading affect or socioemotions, higher order cognitions and regulation (e.g., inference, perspective taking, reasoning, and comprehension monitoring), vocabulary, grammatical (morphosyntactic and syntactic) knowledge, phonology, morphology, orthography, and domain–general cognitions (e.g., working memory and attentional control). Importantly, DIER also describes the nature of structural relations—component skills are hypothesized to have (a) hierarchical relations; (b) dynamic (or differential) relations as a function of text, activity (including assessment), and development; and (c) interactive relations. The authors then examined the hierarchical relations hypothesis by comparing a flat or direct relations model with hierarchical relations (or direct and indirect effects) models. Structural equation model results from 201 Korean-speaking first graders supported the hierarchical relations hypothesis and revealed multichanneled direct and indirect effects of component skills. These results are discussed in light of DIER, including instructional and assessment implications for reading development and reading difficulties.

Multiple Pathways by Which Compounding Morphological Awareness Is Related to Reading Comprehension: Evidence From Chinese Second Graders

“…The unique independent relation of vocabulary to reading comprehension over and above the two robust and powerful predictors of reading comprehension (i.e., word reading, listening comprehension) is divergent with previous studies (e.g., see Braze et al, 2016;Kim, 2015Kim, , 2017Kim, , 2019Tunmer & Chapman, 2012), whereas the unique relation of morphological awareness to reading comprehension was reported for English learners in the United States (Goodwin et al, 2015;. Several potential factors, including text features, measurement error, and language differences, may explain the present finding.…”

“…These results indicate that students’ knowledge and awareness of morphemes, as measured by a compound task in the present study, are important building blocks of semantic processing and make substantial, cascading indirect contributions to reading comprehension via lexical‐level oral language (vocabulary) and word reading, as well as discourse‐level oral language (listening comprehension). Unpacking the multichanneled indirect effects expands our understanding of the role of morphological awareness by revealing mechanisms and is in line with DIER, which recognizes the importance of indirect effects of various component skills on reading comprehension (Kim, , ).…”

“…We systematically examined theory-based competing models by including well-established predictors of reading comprehension: word reading, vocabulary, and listening comprehension. In particular, examining the pathway via listening comprehension is important as an effort to integrate various theories (e.g., triangle model, the simple view of reading; see DIER; Kim, 2017Kim, , 2019. Despite the robust evidence of the relation of morphological awareness to vocabulary (e.g., Nagy & Anderson, 1984;Nagy & Scott, 2000;Sternberg, 1987), the relation of vocabulary to listening comprehension (Florit et al, 2014;Fong & Ho, 2017;Kendeou et al, 2008;Kim, 2015Kim, , 2017, and the relation of listening comprehension to reading comprehension (e.g., Florit & Cain, 2011;Hoover & Gough 1990;Kim, 2015Kim, , 2017, few studies have incorporated listening comprehension as a potential mediator of the relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension (for an exception, see Goodwin et al, 2015).…”

“…As for the explanation by text features, DIER explicitly hypothesizes potential differential relations of component skills to reading comprehension as a function of text factors (dynamic relations hypothesis; see Kim, ), as reading involves an interaction of student characteristics (e.g., morphological awareness, vocabulary knowledge, cognitive skills) and text characteristics (Goodwin et al., ; Kim, ; RAND Reading Study Group, ). Texts differ in multiple aspects, including the nature of word characteristics (e.g., morphological composition; Goodwin et al., ; Kearns, ), and demands on vocabulary, syntactic knowledge, cognition, and background knowledge (Kim, , ). For instance, some texts have a greater demand for vocabulary (e.g., academic vocabulary) or higher order cognitive skills (e.g., inference or perspective taking) than others do.…”

“…Linguistic and orthographic features of focal language may also play a role in the nature of relations; morphology may be more prominent in some orthographies than in others. Finally, the nature of relations may vary as a function of students’ developmental phase of reading because according to DIER (Kim, , ), language and higher order cognitive skills are expected to have a larger impact on reading comprehension at a later phase of reading development than in the beginning phase (for empirical evidence of a stronger relation of oral language to reading comprehension at a later phase, see Adlof et al., ; Hoover & Gough, ; Kim & Wagner, ). Examining these multiple potential factors was beyond the scope of the present study.…”