The Use of Contextual and Graphic Information in Word Recognition by Second-,Fourth-,and Sixth-Grade Readers

Abstract

This study evaluated the relative importance of graphic and contextual information in word recognition as well as the relative importance of several specific sources of contextual information (lexical, semantic, syntactic, discourse) among students at three different grade levels (second, fourth, and sixth). In addition, word recognition behavior was compared at both target word locations where various aspects of context were disrupted and at non-target word locations where naturally occurring oral reading errors appeared. Results indicated that all students used greater graphic than contextual information at target word locations. The use of graphic information during word recognition tended to increase with development. The use of contextual information tended to decrease with development. These results are interpreted as being generally consistent with recent work by Stanovich (1980) and others who emphasize the importance of automatic context-free word recognition ability. Context use at non-target word locations occurred largely at function word locations that were rich in syntactic context. These results suggest that word recognition processing varies not only with the proficiency level of a reader, as Stanovich's model suggests, but also with the amount of contextual richness that surrounds any particular word.

References

Allington

R. L.

(1984). Oral reading. In Pearson

P. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.

Allington

R. L.

Strange

M. S.

(1977). Effects of grapheme substitutions in connected text upon reading behaviors. Visible Language, 11, 285–297.

K. H.-P.

(1977). Analyzing oral reading errors to improve instruction. Reading Teacher, 31, 46–49.

Beebe

(1980). The effect of different types of substitution miscues on reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(3), 324–336.

Cambourne

(1976–1977). Getting to Goodman: An analysis of the Goodman model of reading with some suggestions for evaluation. Reading Research Quarterly, 12, 605–636.

Carver

(1984). Reading theory prediction of amount comprehended under different purposes and speed reading conditions. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 205–218.

Chall

J. S.

(1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chall

J. S.

(1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Danks

(1979). Text comprehension in reading (Final Rep. G-78–0223). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

10.

Goodman

(1981). Letter to the editor. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 477–478.

11.

Goodman

Burke

C. L.

(1973). Theoretically based studies of patterns of miscues in oral reading performance (U.S.O.E. Project No. 90375). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

12.

Goodman

Gollasch

(1980). Word omissions: Deliberate and non-deliberate. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 6–31.

13.

Gough

(1984). Word recognition. In Pearson

P. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.

14.

Gough

Cosky

(1977). One second of reading again. In Castellan

(Eds.), Cognitive theory (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Harris

A. J.

Sipay

E. R.

(1985). How to increase reading ability (8th ed.). New York: Longman.

16.

Leslie

(1980). The use of graphic and contextual information by average and below-average readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12(2), 139–149.

17.

Leslie

Osol

(1978). Changes in oral reading strategies as a function of quantities of miscues. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10(4), 442–445.

18.

Leu

D. J.

Jr. (1982). Oral reading error analysis: A critical review of research and application. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 420–437.

19.

Leu

D. J.

Jr. DeGroff

Simons

H. D.

(1986). Testing interactive-compensatory hypotheses: Individual differences in reading ability, context use and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(5).

20.

Massaro

D. W.

(1984). Building and testing models of reading processes. In Pearson

P. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.

21.

Resnick

(1979). Toward a usable psychology of reading instruction. In Resnick

Weaver

(Eds.), Theory and practice in early reading (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

22.

Samuels

S. J.

Eisenberg

(1981). A framework for understanding the reading process. In Pirozzolo

F. J.

Wittrock

M. C.

(Eds.), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading. New York: Academic Press.

23.

Samuels

S. J.

Kamil

M. L.

(1984). Models of the reading process. In Pearson

P. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.

24.

Simons

H. D.

Chambers

(1979). Reading error protocol study: A data base. Berkeley, CA.

25.

Smith

(1979). Conflicting approaches to reading research and instruction. In Resnick

L. B.

Weaver

P. A.

(Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

26.

Stanovich

K. E.

(1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.

27.

Stanovich

K. E.

(1982a). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of reading, I: Word decoding. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 485–493.

28.

Stanovich

K. E.

(1982b). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of reading, II: Text-level processes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 549–554.