Viewing eye movements during reading through the lens of chaos theory: How reading is like the weather

o all readers read alike? Most educators would answer no. Even within a group of readers with similar proficiency levels there is variation and unpredictability in many aspects of the reading process. Differences can include the variety of ways readers approach the text, the types of oral reading miscues they make, the level of comprehension they demonstrate, the connections they make, and more. There is also intrareader variability in these aspects across texts and situations. A reader reading the same text at two different times would be unlikely to read in exactly the same way each time. Many literacy professionals might agree that no two reading acts are exactly the same; within the parameters of what is viewed as “reading” exist much interand intrareader variability and unpredictability. Few theoretical models of reading, however, emphasize this variability. In his analysis of contemporary models of reading, Tierney (1994) pointed out that while some theorists include variation and idiosyncrasy in models of reading, “their ramifications for ongoing and indefinite meaning-making are not embraced” (p. 1172). Instead, aspects of reading that are not predictable and do not fit neatly into a model or theory are typically disregarded or ignored. Such models “appear to offer a more segmented and straightforward depiction of the elements and their interrelationships than may exist” (Tierney, p. 1176). Robinson and Yaden (1993) offered a similar critique in terms of literacy research, questioning research that is based on data that assume linearity and a direct relationship between a particular variable and the desired outcome. They argued that “reductionist models that center on only one aspect of the reading process may in fact present an invalid picture of what is actually taking place during reading instruction” (p. 20). A perspective on