Direct theory evaluation

   This dissertation presents a response to decades of reading research which proposed theories which are narrow in focus and not integrated. Here, I have presented a ``Grand Unified Theory of Reading'' and have argued for its validity. However, can I successfully answer critics who may claim that the work is, by its very nature, too ambitious? To frame my response, I need to answer four questions:

• Is what I am doing important?
• Is what I am doing different from what everybody else has done?
• Is what I am doing practical?
• Finally, how significant is my theory likely to be?

Before I can examine these points, however, I need to relate the model and its performance to some theory evaluation metrics. I begin by reviewing the ISAAC model in the framework proposed by     Singer & Ruddell (read-ed:singer1). They argue that there are a set of questions which one should ask when evaluating any model of reading. Most researchers producing models will make use of similar questions when describing their models. Therefore, it is useful to place my theory and model through the same sort of analysis:

• Purpose: The purpose of my model is to explain high-level comprehension of real-world texts, in particular, narratives. It is not the intent of the model or the theory to explain low-level comprehension processes or subconscious-level processes.
• Explanation: The model explains high-level reading by appealing to two points. First, there is a structure of supertasks which interact strongly, each aiding the others in the framework. What emerges from the interaction is the behavior known as reading. Second,   creative understanding is a crucial aspect of high-level comprehension and must be account for in any complete theory. Mine includes this as part of the explanation.
• Adequacy or comprehensiveness: The model instantiation and the associated evaluation demonstrates that the theory is adequate. As the model is an accurate implementation of the theory and the model performs at a high level of correctness (as seen in the last section), then the theory itself is also accurate.
• Predictiveness: Evaluation has not been performed which would indicate the predictiveness of the theory. Only future work will determine the degree of predictiveness which the ISAAC theory possesses.
• Productive: The theory has been productive. For example, several associated research projects have resulted from the work.
• Internally consistent: The theory is extremely consistent. Notice, for instance, that one process is able to explain the understanding of known and novel concepts.
• Weight of the evidence: The theory is supported by a wide-range of prior research, from a number of diverse disciplines; the theory is also supported by the empirical evidence afforded by the instantiated model.