This study focuses on the instructional approaches to decoding and comprehension in the first-grade basal reading programs published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (1983), Houghton Mifflin (1979), Ginn (1976) (analytical phonics, meaning-emphasis programs), and S.R.A. Reading Mastery (1983) (a synthetic phonics, code-emphasis program). In addition, analyses were completed on the comprehensibility of matched and selected stories from each of the four programs. Results reveal that with the exception of consonant sound instruction and text-tied comprehension interactions, the programs vary considerably. Results of the analysis of comprehensibility show similar differences between programs.
References
1.
AndersonR. C.HiebertE. H.ScottJ. A.WilkinsonI. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. National Institute of Education.
2.
BarrR. (1984). Beginning reading instruction: From debate to reformation. In PearsonP. D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 545–581). New York: Longman.
3.
BarrR.DreebenR.WiratchaiN. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BeckI. L.McCaslinE. S. (1978). An analysis of dimensions that affect the development of code-breaking ability in eight beginning reading programs. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
5.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.McCaslinE. S.BurkesA. M. (1979). Instructional dimensions that may affect reading comprehension: Examples from two commercial reading programs. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
6.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.OmansonR. C.PopleM. T. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 263–277.
7.
ChallJ. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
ClymerT.WongO.BenedictV. J. (1976). Reading 720, Ginn and Company (Xerox Corporation). Lexington, MA: Ginn.
9.
DurkinD. (1981). Reading comprehension instruction in five basal reader series. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(4), 515–544.
EngelmannS.BrunerE. C. (1983). Reading Mastery: Distar Reading. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
13.
FloodJ.LappD.FloodS. (1984). Types of writing included in basal reading programs: Preprimers through second-grade readers. In NilesJ. A.HarrisL. A. (Eds.), Changing perspectives on research in reading/language processing and instruction. Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
14.
FraseL. T. (in press). The UNIXTM Writer's Workbench Software: Philosophy (Bell System Technical Journal, special issue on the behavioral sciences). Bell System.
15.
HareV. C.MilliganB. (1984). Main idea difficulties develop: Perspectives from a longitudinal study. In DasJ. P.MulcahyR. F.WallA. E. (Eds.), Theory and research in learning disabilities (pp. 155–187). New York: Plenum.
16.
LesgoldA. M.ResnickL. B. (1982). How reading disabilities develop: Perspectives from a longitudinal study. In DasJ. P.MulcahyR.WallA. E. (Eds.), Theory and research in learning disability. New York: Plenum.
17.
MeyerL. A. (1982). The relative effects of word-analysis and word-supply correction procedures with poor readers during word-attack training. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 544–555.
18.
MeyerL. A.LinnR. L.HastingsC. N. (1985). The heuristic and measurement models during a study of reading comprehension development and science knowledge (Tech. Rep. No. L-2). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
19.
OmansonR. C.BeckI. L.VossJ. F.McKeownM. G. (1984). The effects of reading lessons on comprehension: A processing description. Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 45–67.
20.
PearsonP. D.JohnsonD. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
21.
SchmidtW. H.CaulJ.ByersJ. L.BuchmannM. (1983). Content of basal text selections: Implications for comprehension instruction. In DuffyG. G.RoehlerL.MasonJ. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction. New York: Longman.
22.
WinogradP.BrennanS. (1983). Main idea in the basal readers. In NilesJ. A.HarrisL. A. (Eds.), Searches for meaning in reading/language processing and instruction. Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
