NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Student: Daniel Alan Coffin

THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN

Follow these procedures: If requested by your instructor, please include an assignment cover
sheet. This will become the first page of your assignment. In addition, your assignment header
should include your last name, first initial, course code, dash, and assignment number. This
should be left justified, with the page number right justified. For example:

DoeJXXX0000-1 1

Save a copy of your assignments: You may need to re-submit an assignment at your
instructors request. Make sure you save your files in accessible location.

Academic integrity: All work submitted in each course must be your own original work. This
includes all assignments, exams, term papers, and other projects required by your instructor.
Knowingly submitting another persons work as your own, without properly citing the source of
the work, is considered plagiarism. This will result in an unsatisfactory grade for the work
submitted or for the entire course. It may also result in academic dismissal from the University.

EDR8200 Dr. Kelsey

Scholarly Literature Review Incorporate a Theoretical Framework

<Add student comments here>

Faculty Use Only

<Faculty comments here>

<Faculty Name> <Grade Earned> <Date Graded>

Running head: CoffinDEDR8200-3 1

Incorporate a Theoretical Framework

Daniel Coffin

Northcentral University
CoffinDEDR8200-3 2

Incorporate a Theoretical Framework

The purpose of this paper is to identify an educational theory and investigate how this

theory relates to my research topic of interest. Specifically, I will review the literature relevant to

cognitive load theory and explain how this theory of cognition explains the problem of reading

disfluency with respect to deficits in reading comprehension. Disfluent readers, or readers who

are not able to decode text with speed and accuracy appropriate to their developmental age, place

upon themselves an undue cognitive load by struggling with text decoding, which leads to

decreased reading comprehension due to the exhaustion of their cognitive resources.

Oral Reading Disfluency

Oral reading fluency refers to the ability of a reader to quickly and accurately decode

text. Readers who are fluent are able to decode text with automaticity, or with a minimum of

mental effort, allowing them to attend to the ideas presented within the text rather than the text

itself. Oral reading fluency, then, is dependent upon a strong grasp of phonics and, in turn,

permits the reader to develop both reading prosody (reading aloud with appropriate intonation

and phrasing) and reading comprehension (Hilsmier, Wehby, & Falk, 2016; Rasinski, Rupley, &

Nichols, 2008).

Disfluent reading is marked by inappropriate pauses and breaks in oral reading while

readers attempt to decode text on the fly, frequent errors in word decoding, and either flat

affect while reading aloud or the use of inappropriate tone (e.g., reading a sad or serious text

in an upbeat or happy tone). Extensive research has shown that readers who fail to

comprehend while reading also demonstrate reading disfluency (Hilmsier, Wehby, & Falk,

2016). Developing fluency with the end goal of improving reading comprehension is of great

interest to me as a teacher of reading? Why, though, does reading comprehension seem to rely at
CoffinDEDR8200-3 3

least in part upon reading fluency? One answer to that question appears to be provided by

cognitive load theory.

Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive load theory attempts to explain what happens in the mind of the learner during

a reading event. In any given event, a learner must apprehend, organize, and incorporate

information from the text into their schemas. These processes take place in working memory

(Eitel, Kuhl, Scheiter, & Gerjets, 2014). Working memory is a finite resource and thus the

amount of information that can be retained in working memory during a reading event is limited.

If the constraints of working memory are exceeded by the demands of the text with which a

reader is working, the efficiency of a readers schema may be reduced, inhibiting transfer of

information, and some of the information gained from that text will be lost (Cho, Altarriba, &

Popiel, 2015; Sala & Gobet, 2017). A good analogy for this effect is juggling: tossing and

catching one ball is relatively easy, even for a novice, but as additional balls are added, the task

becomes progressively difficult, and the likelihood grows that something is going to be dropped.

When one considers the reading event in light of this analogy, what is being juggled, and what is

being dropped?

The Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Reading Performance

The cognitive processes most involved in processing text are phonological awareness

(PA) and rapid automatized naming (RAN). Phonological awareness refers to the ability of a

reader to perceive speech sounds encoded in text, and is one of the precursor skills upon which

reading proficiency is built. Before one can read, one must be able to recognize that the marks in

text are letters which represent sounds in speech, and that these letters may be combined in

different ways to generate new sounds which can, in turn, represent ideas (Vaessen & Blomert,
CoffinDEDR8200-3 4

2010). A reader doesnt stop and decode a word down to its constituent phonemes every time

that word is encountered, however. With repeated exposure to words and practice, the reader

comes to understand the word as a whole. RAN represents the ability of the reader to build up an

internal inventory of orthographic word pattern (Vaessen & Blomert, 2010). As a reader

becomes more experienced and builds up a greater inventory of sight words, the cognitive load

placed upon the reader is decreased because working memory is not being used to decode text.

With the decrease in cognitive load from automatized decoding, cognitive resources are

freed in working memory which permit the reader to better attend to relationships between words

in a sentence and sentences in a paragraph, helping them to make meaning of the text and

incorporate that information into their schemas, improving not only comprehension but recall as

well (Mikk, 2008). There is a fluency-comprehension feedback loop as well, as improved

comprehension supports improved prosody and phrasing, which are important aspects of reading

fluency.

Conclusion

While research has consistently shown the correlation between oral reading disfluency

and impaired reading comprehension, the mechanisms which explain this connection have not

conclusively been determined. It seems, however, that cognitive load theory offers a compelling

explanation as well as suggestions for further research which appear to be fruitful. In particular,

working memory training interventions might serve as a valuable adjunct to traditional fluency

development lessons, improving not only reading performance, but also other academic tasks

such as mathematical processing which, like reading, are also constrained by limits of working

memory.
CoffinDEDR8200-3 5

References

Cho, K.W., Altarriba, J., & Popiel, M. (2015). Mental juggling: When does multitasking impair
reading comprehension? The Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 90-105.

Eitel, A., Kuhl, T., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Disfluency meets cognitive load in
multimedia learning: Does harder-to-read mean better-to-understand? Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 28, 488-501.

Hilsmier, A.S., Wehby, J.H., Falk, K.B. (2016). Reading fluency interventions for middle school
students with academic and behavioral disabilities. Reading Improvement, 53(2), 53-64.

Mikk, J. (2008). Sentence length for revealing the cognitive load reversal effect in text
comprehension. Educational Studies, 34(2), 119-127.

Rasinski, T., Rupley, W.H., & Nichols, W.D. (2008). Synergistic phonics and fluency
instruction: The magic of rhyming poetry! New England Reading Association Journal, 44(1),
9-14.

Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2017). Working memory training in typically developing children: A
meta-analysis of the available evidence. Developmental Psychology, 53(4), 671-685.

Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2010). Long-term cognitive dynamics of fluent reading
development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 213-231.