Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article addresses the question of whether instructional biases foster the use of limited processing strategies that impair the child's ability to learn to identify printed words. To evaluate this question, poor and normal readers in second and sixth grade were randomly assigned to treatments that simulated three general methods of teaching word identification: (a) the whole-word/meaning-based method, (b) the phonics method and (c) the whole-word/meaning and phonics methods combined. Results indicate that the whole-word/meaning-based method fostered a global processing strategy in “word” identification while the phonics method fostered an analytic strategy. In contrast, the whole-word/phonics method fostered the use of both processing strategies, and subjects who received this treatment generally performed better than did subjects who received only one or the other. It was concluded that the use of only one of these methods of reading instruction to the exclusion of the other may create processing bias that could impair the acquisition of fluency in word identification, while the complementary use of both may facilitate the acquisition of fluency in word identification.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bradley

, & Bryant

P. E.

(1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read—A causal connection. Nature, 303, 419–421.

Brooks

(1977). Visual pattern in fluent word identification. In Reber

A. S.

& Scarborough

D. L.

(Eds.), Toward a psychology of reading (pp. 143–181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chall

J. S.

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

Fox

, & Routh

D. K.

(1980). Phonemic analysis and severe reading disability in children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9, 115–119.

Gilmore

J. V.

, & Gilmore

E. C.

(1968). Gilmore Oral Reading Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Goodman

K. S.

(1970). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. Journal of Typographic Research, 4, 103–110.

Gough

P. B.

, & Hillinger

M. L.

(1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179–196.

Liberman

I. Y.

, & Shankweiler

(1979). Speech, the alphabet and teaching to read. In Resnick

& Weaver

(Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading, volume 2 (pp. 109–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Liberman

I. Y.

Shankweiler

Camp

Heifetz

, & Werfelman

(1980). Steps toward literacy. In Levinson

P. J.

& Sloan

(Eds.), Auditory processing and language: Clinical and research perspectives. New York: Grune and Stratton.

10.

Liberman

I. Y.

Shankweiler

Fischer

F. W.

, & Carter

(1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201–212.

11.

Slosson

R. L.

(1963). Slosson Intelligence Test. East Aurora, NJ: Slosson Educational Publishers.

12.

Smith

(1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

13.

Vellutino

F. R.

(1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

14.

Vellutino

F. R.

, & Scanlon

D. M.

(1982). Verbal processing in poor and normal readers. In Brainerd

C. J.

& Pressley

(Eds.), Verbal processes in children (pp. 189–264). New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.

15.

Vellutino

F. R.

, & Scanlon

D. M.

(in press). Reading and coding ability: An experimental analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Vellutino

F. R.

, & Shub

M. J.

(1982). Assessment of disorders in formal school language: Disorders in reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 2, 20–33.

Experimental Evidence for the Effects of Instructional Bias on Word Identification

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References