Information Processing Abilities and Reading

Abstract

The LaBerge and Samuels (1974) information processing model is used as a framework to explain some aspects of reading disorder. According to the model, a major factor in reading difficulty is lack of automaticity in decoding, which overloads the attentional system, leads to the use of small, meaningless visual processing units such as the individual letter, places heavy demands on short-term memory, and interferes with comprehension. To determine if the decoding is automatic, several simple techniques are suggested, such as listening for expression during oral reading. In order to build reading fluency and automaticity, practice is required, and the method of repeated reading is suggested. Two studies are reported that compared learning disabled with normals on classroom and laboratory tests of attention. In neither study were differences found between these two groups of students. Finally, a promising new way to study reading difficulty through rapid sequential naming is suggested.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bryan, T.H. , & Bryan, J.H. (1978). Understanding learning disabilities. Sherman Oaks, CA: Alfred Publishing.

Denckla, M.B. , & Rudel, R.G. (1976a). Rapid automated naming: Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471–480.

Denckla, M.B. , & Rudel, R.G. (1976b). Naming of object drawings by dyslexic and other learning disabled children. Brain and Language, 3, 1–15.

Keogh, B.K. , & Margolis, J. (1976). Learn to labor and to wait: Attentional problems of children with learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 276–286.

LaBerge, D. , & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.

Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

Samuels, S.J. , & Edwall, G. (1981). The role of attention in reading with implications for the learning disabled student. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 353–361.

Samuels, S.J. , & Kamil, M.L. (1984). Models of the reading process. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 185–224). New York: Longman.

Samuels, S.J. , LaBerge, D.L. , & Bremer, D. (1978). Units of word recognition: Evidence for developmental changes. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 715–720.

10.

Samuels, S.J. , Miller, N. , & Eisenberg, P. (1979). Practice effects on the unit of word recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 514–520.

11.

Samuels, S.J. , & Miller, N.L. (1985). Failure to find attention differences between learning disabled and normal children on classroom and laboratory tasks. Exceptional Children, 51(5), 358–375.

12.

Samuels, S.J. , & Peterson, E. (1986). Toward a theory of word recognition: Integrative data from subjects, materials, task, and context. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Education.

13.

Terry, P. , Samuels, S.J. , & LaBerge, D. (1976). The effects of letter degradation and letter spacing on word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 577–585.

14.

Turnure, J. , Samuels, S.J. , & Carlson, L. (1985). An investigation of time-on-task for handicapped children in levels of two, three, and four service delivery systems. Minneapolis: Minnesota State Department of Education.

15.

Wallach, L. , Wallach, M. , Dozier, M. , & Kaplan, N. (1977). Poor children learning to read do not have trouble with auditory blending but do have trouble with phonemic recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 36–39.