CHANGES IN THE USE OF GRAPHIC AND ...

Journal of Reading Behavior 1979. Vol. XI, No. 4

CHANGES IN THE USE OF GRAPHIC AND CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION AS FUNCTIONS OF PASSAGE DIFFICULTY AND READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL1

Andrew Biemiller University of Toronto

Abstract. This paper presents results from a study of oral reading errors. The purpose of the study was to compare strategies of information use by readers of differing levels of reading achievement as they read passages of increasing difficulty. The study included 59 first graders from two different reading programs. Four passages were used ranging from preprimer to second grade levels. Achievement groups were formed on the basis of the most difficult passage a child could read without making more than 25% errors. Results indicated that with increasing passage difficulty, children made proportionately more non-response, and graphic substitution errors. On their most difficult passages, the most able readers made higher proportions of graphic errors than other children. These results are interpreted as indicating that when faced with increasingly difficult reading material (for their reading level), children increase their use of graphic information strategies. The results do not support the view that able readers make less use of graphic information than less able readers. This study concerns the relative use of graphic and contextual information by first grade children of different levels of reading achievement, on passages of varying levels of difficulty. As defined by Biemiller (1970) "Contextual Information, is ... information the reader brings to the situation (knowledge of syntactic constraints and the subject matter) and information he has just read. Graphic Information is ... information one has about letters alone and in series which help identify words." In recent years, something of a debate has developed among reading researchers regarding the relative importance of mastery of the use of these types of information by children acquiring reading skill. This debate parallels the much older debate regarding sight word instruction and meaning emphasis versus phonics instruction and code emphasis (Chali, 1967). One group of theorists argues that able readers use context effectively while "using less and less graphic input" (Goodman, 1973a); and that effective reading involves perceiving meaning rather than decoding to sound (Smith, 1973a; Kolers, 1973). This theoretical position is, presented in Smith's

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on December 5, 2016

308

Journal of Reading Behavior

Psycholinguistics and Reading (1973b) (Chapters 5, 6, 15, and 16) and also Smith (1978). A more recent review of the position can be found in Rumelhart's (Note 4) discussion of "top down" approaches to reading. Research supporting this viewpoint includes Goodman and Burke's (1973) detailed analyses of miscues indicating less effective use of contextual (both syntactic and semantic) strategies by poor readers. Goodman and Burke suggest that "semantic acceptability could be an important single indicator of proficiency in reading" (1973, p. 49). Pike (Notes 2 and 3) has found evidence that poor readers differ from average and able readers in being less able to repeat orally-presented meaningful sentences although there were no differences between good and poor readers in repeating random words. This suggests differences in linguistic skills which the children bring to the reading situation. Vellutino (1977) reviews a number of studies supporting this conclusion. On the other hand, in the author's research, poor first grade readers made proportionately as many or more contextual errors than good readers while learning to read (Biemiller, 1970), and older poor readers showed as great or greater contextual facilitation of word identification times as good readers (Biemiller, 1978). Similarly, West and Stanovich (1978) report evidence that poor 4th and 6th graders make more use of context than able readers as does Allington (1978a). Kolers (1975), reports no difference between good and poor readers' in grammatical constraints on errors. In short, evidence is mixed regarding the view that differences in the use of contextual information account for differences in reading progress. A second group of theorists suggest that able readers differ from less able readers in making more use or more effective use of graphic information. In comparison to able readers, poor readers are characterized by less accuracy in out-ofcontext word identification (Schankweiler & Liberman, 1972); by less speed in picture, letter, and word identification in or out of context (Biemiller, 1978; Vellutino, 1977; West & Stanovich, 1978); by less mastery of orthographic structure (Mason, 1975; Mason & Katz, 1976; Venezky, 1976; Biemiller, 1978; Allington, 1978b; Gibson & Levin, 1975); by less graphically similar substitution errors (Weber, 1970); and by later development of strategies emphasizing graphic information when learning to read (Biemiller, 1970). In a change of his position, Kolers (1975) argues that poor readers are characterized "primarily by relatively poor ability to analyze and remember graphemic patterns." All of these deficiencies involve the ability to use graphic information in reading. Rumelhart (Note 4) describes theories emphasizing the use of graphic information as "bottom-up theories". A point of contact between the two positions may lie in question of strategy change for different reading situations. Kolers (1973, p. 48) observes, "The skilled reader, however, is a highly sophisticated system performing a highly sophisticated art. It is characteristic of sophistication that when the need arises, performance may proceed on less sophisticated levels, as in identifying unfamiliar words or reading proof. Thus the sophisticated practitioner of a skill has a hierarchy of options available to him". Williamson and Young (1974) report that fifth graders make more graphically similar errors on "frustration" passages than on "basal" passages. Goodman and Burke similarly find that "graphic proximity" and non-words produced by attempts to "sound out" increase when tenth grade readers are faced with more difficult passages, while the "semantic acceptability" of errors declines (1973). It may be, as Goodman and Burke argue, that all readers use the same strategies but with different proficiency. (For example, Allington, 1978b found poor older readers func-


Graphic and Contextual Information

309

tioning similarly to young good readers on his measure of use of orthographic structure.) If so, poor readers may be forced to use the more primitive strategies emphasizing graphic information on less advanced passages than good readers. Consequently, when compared on reading the same passage, one would expect to find poorer readers using relatively more graphic strategies and able readers using more contextual strategies. The use of oral reading errors to assess use of graphic and contextual information in reading has been described by Weber (1969, 1970); Goodman (1969, 1973); Barr (1972); Biemiller (1970); and Hood (1976, Note 1). In all cases, roughly similar assumptions are made. Specifically, substitution errors (where the reader says a word which differs from the word on the page) which are similar to the word on the page in appearance (e.g., "slip" for ship] are considered to be evidence that the reader was attending to graphic aspects of the written word. Substitution, omission, and insertion errors which are syntactically compatible with prior context (either within the sentence or including prior sentences) are considered to be evidence that the reader's response was influenced by contextual constraints—i.e., that the reader was using contextual information when attempting to identify the word. Note that it is possible for substitution errors to be simultaneously "graphic" and "contextual". Except for Hood, the researchers cited have not included "non-response" errors in their analyses of oral reading errors. Non-responses are cases where the reader simply stops on encountering a difficult word or waits for the teacher or tester to tell him or her what it is. In an earlier study, I suggested that non-response errors should be treated as indicators of using graphic information. This follows from both logical and empirical grounds. Logically, readers cannot conclude that they do not "know" words without having looked at them. Empirically, an increase in the incidence of non-response errors is strongly associated with an increase in the incidence of graphically similar substitution errors as children learn to read (Biemiller, 1970). The useful information we can extract from oral reading errors consists of trends or changes across groups, reading passages, or time. Absolute values cannot be interpreted as indicating actual proportions of "types of information used." For example, finding that all errors made by able readers on "easy passages" are "contextual" could not be interpreted to mean that these readers use little or no "graphic information" in reading easy passages. If no graphic information were used, the readers might as well have their eyes shut! On the other hand, finding a shift among the same readers from predominantly contextual to predominantly graphic errors as passage difficulty increases would suggest that a shift in the relative importance of contextual and graphic strategies is associated with passage difficulty. Such a shift would probably reflect deteriorating ability to use contextual constraints due to syntactic complexity or unfamiliar information. The study reported in this paper permits an examination of the impact of reader ability and passage difficulty on the use of graphic and contextual information in reading. This study involves examination of oral reading errors made by children near the end of grade one while reading progressively more difficult passages. All children in the study read the easiest passage. Achievement groups are based on the most difficult passage a child could read without making more than 25 7o errors. Use of strategies was inferred on the basis of the relative proportions of oral reading errors indicative of graphic or contextual strategies. These proportions are not affected


310


by the overall error rates used to categorize children's reading ability levels. This design permits comparison of the strategies of children of differing levels of achievement on the same passage or on passages of equivalent error rate as well as comparison of children of a given level of achievement on passages of varying difficulty. METHODS Subjects The children in this study attended grade one in two public schools in Ithaca, New York. The study includes 34 children from one class in each school who participated in the experimental instructional program developed by the Laboratory for Research in Language Skills (L.R.L.S.) at Cornell University,2 and 47 children from the other first grade classrooms in each school (regular classes]. Eight L.R.L.S. and nine non-L.R.L.S. children were excluded because they could not read thé simplest primer level passage at the end of the year without making 257a errors. Half of the children in each of the non-experimental classrooms were selected randomly. The standard Scott-Foresman (Robinson, et al., 1962] series was used in these classes.3 Assessment was carried out in June at the end of the first grade year. Materials Three passages were constructed to assess the oral reading of the two groups (L.R.L.S. and regular classrooms]. The first passage used 100% vocabulary from preprimers used by both groups. The second passage used 80% vocabulary from the preprimers. The remaining passages had 50% and 34% preprimer vocabulary respectively. A fourth passage was taken from the end of the second grade Scott-Foresman reader (Robinson et al., 1962). Passages were 66, 74, 96, and 95 words long respectively. Each passage was typed in primary type on a separate sheet of paper. Assessment Procedure and Identification of Achievement Groups Each child was tested individually. All sessions were tape-recorded. Children were told "I would like to hear you read. Please read this to me." (The first passage was then handed to the child.) No assistance was given unless the child asked to have a word identified or paused more than five seconds over a word. In either of these cases, the tester told the child what the word was. (While it is possible to instruct children in a test situation to simply skip over words they can't identify, this is ecologically invalid. In normal classroom reading situations, children frequently seek help in identifying words. Biemiller, 1970, found that in many cases, more than half the first grade child's errors may be non-responses.) Each child read the fürst passage. If he made less than 25 % errors, he read the second passage. "Errors" includes all non-self-corrected deviations from the text (substitutions, omissions, and insertions) plus all non-responses in which the child either requested help or failed to respond after 5 seconds. The same criterion was used to determine whether a child would read the third and fourth passage. The 25 % criterion was chosen to avoid forcing a child to read when the material was very difficult for him.



311

If a child experienced considerable difficulty in reading a passage, he would be stopped. "Considerable difficulty" was determined by missing an average of one word in four. Achievement groups were formed on the basis of the most advanced passage a child could read without making more than 25% errors. Table 1 shows number of children in each ability group and mean errors on each passage for each group. TABLE 1 Percentage of Errors by Ability Group and Passage (Ranges of percentages of errors are given in parentheses)

Achievement Group

Passage and Instructional Group

D

C

B

A

Passage 1 LRLS Classes Regular Classes

20 (15-25) 23 19

5 (0-14) 6 5

2 (0-8) 2 1

0.6 (0-3) 0.8 0.4


—

11 (1-20) 11 10

2 (0-11) 2 2

0.7(0-4) 0.5 0.9


—

E —

15 (6-25) 15 15

5 (0-13) 6 5

Passage 4 LRLS Classes Regular Classes Number of Children LRLS Classes Regular Classes

10 3 7

23 9 14

—

8 (0-18) 10 7

22 11 11

26 11 15

Coding Data

There were two steps in coding data. First, the coder listened to the tape of the child's reading, noting on copies of the text all non-self-corrected deviations the child made from the text and all words for which the child either requested help or failed to respond after 5 seconds. These were recorded in standard written English. The following phenomena were noted on the transcripts: A. Non-response Errors. Child stops reading just before a word which we assume he cannot identify. Noted by a line between the last word read and the next word, and underlining the un-read word, (example: John/cried.] B. Response Errors, (includes all errors except non-response errors.) 1. Substitutions. Child says something other than the word on the page. If he either continues, or stops having made a substitution, the


312


substitution is recorded. Noted by crossing out the misread word and writing the substitution over it. 2. Insertions. Child adds a word while reading a sentence. Noted by entering a caret (A) at the point of insertion and writing the inserted word over it. 3. Omissions. Child skips a word in a sentence. Noted by crossing out the omitted word. C. Self Corrections. Errors that were corrected by the child without any prompting. Noted by writing "S.C." next to the error description. The second step in coding errors involved identifying and summarizing errors in terms of those indicating use of graphic and contextual information. Self-corrected errors were not included in this analysis. Five categories of errors were counted: 1. The number of errors. 2. The number of non-response errors. 3. The number of uncorrected response errors (including partial or incomplete words). 4. The number of contextually acceptable response errors. (Including substitution, insertion, and omission errors.) To be "contextually acceptable" an error had to be both grammatically and semantically acceptable in the sentence up to and including the error. 5. The number of graphically similar substitution errors. To be "graphically similar" the first letter of the response had to be the same as the first letter of the word in the text. (Evidence supporting the use of the first letter correspondence between text and error as evidence of use of graphic information is given in Biemiller, 1970; and Hood, Note 1.) Reliability Two coders were responsible for the data, each coding approximately half of the children's tests. Coding reliability was checked by having the two regular coders analyze a sample of 103 errors. The two coders were in perfect agreement on coding all errors except for the category "acceptable substitutions". Both coders coded the same 24 out of 30 substitutions "acceptable"; however, one coder also included three of the remaining six substitutions in the "acceptable" category. Analysis of Data Comparisons of the incidence of error types were made by pooling either all errors or all response errors (i.e., all errors except non-responses) made by children falling into a particular category. (E.g., errors made by children in achievement group B when reading passage.)1 In response to Hood's (1976) concerns about the use of pooled data, an alternative procedure, tabulating averages of each child's percentages was carried out. This yielded approximately the same results. However, due to the small numbers of errors observed from some children, error variation in this approach was too great for statistical analysis. Non-response errors were examined as a percentage of total errors. Graphic substitutions and contextual errors were examined as percentages of response errors.4 This was done because it was evident



313

that the incidence of non-response errors increased as readers encountered more difficulty. Because of this effect, changes in the relative proportions of graphic substitutions and contextual errors among response errors across passages would be obscured by the increasing number of non-response errors if the non-responses were not excluded. Chi-square tests of significance were used to determine the significance of differences in percentages between groups on a given passage, or between passages for a given group. RESULTS Use of Graphic Information Variations in the use of graphic information were examined with two different measures: percentage of non-response errors among all errors; and percentage of graphic substitutions among all response errors. Non-response Errors. Table 2 shows percentages of non-response errors by ability groups, passages read, and instructional group. TABLE2 Percentages of Non-Response Errors by Achievement Groups, Passages, and Instructional Groups

Achievement Croup Significance Level (,•)


D


29 24 31

41 32 47

6 6 7

7 12 0

.005


_ — —

52 53 51

28 12 38

12 0 17

.005 .01 .05


_ — —

_ — —

55 51 61

41 43 38

.005 .005


_ _ —

_ _ -

45 45 44

_ — -

Significance Level LRLS Classes Regular Classes

— — —

ns

B

C

_ — — .005 .005 .005

.05

ns

A

ns

.005

ns .05

Number of Errors Passage 1:

LRLS Regular

45 88

37 49

18 15

8 6

Passage 2:

LRLS Regular

—

73 104

16 26

5 13

LRLS Regular

_

_

-

—

154 156

68 69

_

_

—

—

—

—

Passage 3: Passage 4:

LRLS Regular

—

ns .01

105 100


hardest passage .005 .005 .01

314


Two patterns are apparent in these data. First, on any given passage, the most able group made the lowest or nearly lowest percentage of non-response errors. Second, each ability group (except group D which read only one passage] showed a pattern of increasing percentages of non-response errors on increasingly difficult passages. Five out of six comparisons involving the different instructional groups were significant. The remaining non-significant cases all reflected the same trends. These results suggest that effects observed generalize across at least two sets of teaching materials. Another way of viewing the data in Table 2 is to compare the performance of children in each group on the most difficult passage they could read without making more than 25% errors. Thus we compare group D on passage 1 with group C on passage 2, etc. It is apparent that the least able group made proportionately fewer non-response errors on their hardest passage than did the other groups [p < .005). This suggests that the poorest readers were less likely to adopt a strategy oriented towards using graphic information when confronted with difficult material than were the other children.

TABLES Percentages of Graphic Substitutions by Achievement Groups, Passages, and Instructional Groups Achievement Group

Significance Level (x1)


D

C


45 41 48

39 36 42

45 S3 36

39 45 33

ns ns

-

53 SO SS

60 64 56

57 40 64

ns ns ns

-

61 60 62

65 67 63

ns ns ns

Passage 2 LRLS Classes Regular Classes Passage 3 LRLS Classes Regular Classes

I I I


A

ns

75 71 BO

I I I


B

cs ns ns

34 61

25 26

17 14

7 6

34 51

14 16

S 11

76 60

39 43

-

58 55

ns ns

ns

.001

.05

.025

hardest passage .005 .OS .005

Number of Response Errors Passage 1: LRLS Regular Passage 2:

LRLS Regular

Passage 3:

LRLS Regular

—

—

Passage 4:

LRLS Regular

—

—



315

Graphic substitution errors. Table 3 shows percentages of graphic substitution errors among all response errors by passages, ability group, and instructional group. The incidence of graphic substitutions increases with passage difficulty. There is no evidence of differences between ability groups on the same passage. Rather, the more able groups differed by increasing their proportions of graphic substitutions on the more difficult passages which poorer readers could not read without making more than the permitted rate of errors. When graphic substitution errors for each group's hardest passage are compared, the more able readers make higher percentages of graphic substitution errors than did less able readers [p < .005), again suggesting that abler readers are more flexible in shifting strategies towards use of graphic information when confronted with difficult material. Use of Contextual Information Variations in- the use of contextual information were assessed by examining changes in the percentage of contextually acceptable errors among all response types. These are shown in Table 4. The only apparent trend in Table 4 is the nonsignificant shift in the most able group from very high percentages of contextual erTABLE4 Percentages of Contextual Errors by Achievement Groups, Passages, and Instructional Groups Achievement Group •

Passage and Instructional Group Passage 1 LRLS Classes Regular Classes

B

A

72 71

71 72 69

70 70 71

86 100

78 68 72

63 64

62

88 80 91

— — —

74 71 77

68 61 74

— — — — —



C

72



D

•

— •

—

—

—

—

— —

ns

ns ns

—

_

ns ns

ns

Number of Response Errors (same as table 3)


92

68 69 66

ns ns ns

Significance Level lx')

ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns — — hardest passage

ns ns ns

316


rors on the easier two passages to lower percentages on the more difficult passages. It would appear that as these children increase their use of graphic information on difficult passages, they may reduce their use of contextual information. It is important to note, however, that they do not by any means eliminate contextual errors. Even on difficult material, on which 75% of then- response errors were graphic substitutions, 68% of their response errors also showed a contextual constraint. These findings clearly suggest that by the end of the first grade, children taught using "meaning emphasis" curricula shift towards increased use of graphic information when confronted with reading material in which words are harder to identify. This conclusion is supported both by the trend towards increased non-response errors, and the trend towards more graphic substitutions on harder passages. The findings also suggest that the most able readers could make more use of graphic information when confronted with difficult (for them) reading material. This was apparent both in the poorest readers' percentage of graphic substitutions, and in their significantly lower rate of non-response errors on their "hardest" (and only) passage compared to the other children on their hardest passage. Findings concerning the use of contextual information are less clear. Proportions of contextual errors did not vary significantly across passages or groups. The most able group had a non-significant trend towards reduced percentages of contextual errors on the more difficult passages. These data provide no clear support for the view that able readers make more use of contextual information than poorer readers. Thus, for children at the end of first grade who have been instructed with meaning-emphasis materials (Chali, 1967), this study indicates that able first grade readers differ from poor readers primarily through using more graphic information. However, this difference is apparent only when ability groups are compared on reading passages of roughly comparable difficulty for each group. When compared on a single passage (e.g., passage 1), able readers differed significantly from their less able peers only in making fewer non-response errors, possibly indicating less use of graphic information on easy (for them) reading material. The finding regarding increased proportions of graphic substitutions associated with more difficult passages are consistent with the findings of Williamson and Young (1974), Goodman and Burke (1973), and Hood (reference Note 1). However, unlike this study, Goodman and Burke, and Hood also report reduced incidences of contextual errors associated with increased difficulty. This difference may be attributable to age differences. The present study involved children at the end of first grade. Hood studied children at the end of second grade, while the other studies cited involved high school children. Data on oral reading errors have been cited as evidence that children require broadly based reading instruction in normal language without emphasis on decoding skills. (Goodman & Goodman, 1977; Smith, 1973a, citing Burke & Goodman, 1970; Goodman, 1973, especially p. 10 and pp. llff). One of the arguments for this view has been the finding that able readers make less use of graphic information than less able readers. The present study has demonstrated that faced with comparable difficulty (as indexed by error rates), able readers make more errors indicating graphic strategies than poor readers. Whether this means that instruction for poorer readers or all readers should place considerable emphasis on the development of efficiency in using graphic skills remains a debatable matter. The author quite agrees with Smith (1978, ch. 10) and



317

Goodman (1972) that we cannot possibly teach all sound-spelling relationships didactically, nor, as Gibson and Levin (1975, p. 304) confess, do we know how to teach orthographic structure. On the other hand, if it is true that efficiency in using graphic information is a major factor differentiating good and poor readers, it seems inappropriate to dismiss research and teaching strategies which are concerned with developing this skill. FOOTNOTES 1

The research reported here was conducted as part of doctoral dissertation supervised by Professor Harry Levin at Cornell University. This research was undertaken at the Laboratory for Research on Language Skills with support from the United States Office of Education, Project No. 5-1213, Contract No. 06-10-156. The author wishes to thank the Ithaca City School District and L.R.L.S. staff for cooperation and help, especially Saundra Dyer, Berle Cushman, Sylvia Gilmore, Jean Simmons, and Janet Rogers. He also wishes to thank his doctoral committee: Harry Levin, Urie Bronfenbrenner, and Eleanor Gibson. Finally the author wishes.to thank Dr. Kenneth Goodman, Dr. Rebecca Barr, Dr. Frank Smith and Dr. Rose-Marie Weber for reading and commenting on the manuscript, and Barbara Brodie for typing the final version. Reprints are available from the author, Institute of Child Study, Faculty of Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2 The experimental program is described in detail in Gibson and Levin (1975, pp. 322-332). Details of the children's socio-economic background are provided in Biemiller (1970). 3 The 1962 Scott-Foresman program is summarized in Chall, pp. 252-255. 4 Hood, (1976, p. 580) incorrectly states that the author (1970) calculated graphic errors as a percentage of substitution errors only, thereby overestimating them. In reality, graphic errors were calculated as a percentage of response errors—including substitutions, omissions, and insertions. REFERENCE NOTES 1. HOOD, J. The effects of accuracy levels and passage characteristics on oral reading miscue scores. Unpublished manuscript. University of Iowa, 1979. 2. PIKE, R. Linguistic development as a limiting factor in learning to read. Paper presented at the first annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, 1976. 3. PIKE, R. Memory for words and reading ability. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, 1977. 4. RUMELHART, D. E. Towards an interactive model of reading. Technical report no. 56, San Diego, CA: University of California, 1976. REFERENCES ALLINGTON, R. Effects of contextual constraints on rate and accuracy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1978a, 46, 1318. ALLINGTON, R. Sensitivity to orthographic structure as a function of grade and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1978b, 10, 437-439. BARR, R. The influence of instructional conditions on word recognition errors. Reading Research Quarterly, 1972, 7, 509-529. BIEMILLER, A. Changes in the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly, 1970, 6, 75-96.


318


BIEMILLER, A. Relationships between oral reading rates for letters, words, and simple text and the development of reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 1978, 13, 223-253. BURKE, C. L., & GOODMAN, K. S. When a child reads: a psycholinguists analysis. Elementary English, 1970, 121-129. CHALL, J. Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. GIBSON, J., & LEVIN, H. The psychology of reading. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1975. GOODMAN, K. Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 1969, 5, 9-30. GOODMAN, K. S. Orthography in a theory of reading instruction. Elementary English, December 1972, 1254-1261. GOODMAN, K. S. Miscues: Windows on the reading process. In K. S. Goodman (Ed.) Miscue analysis: Application to reading instruction. Champaign-Urbana, Ill. ERIC Clearinghouse of Reading and Communication, N.C.T.E., 1973. GOODMAN, K., & BURKE, C. Theoretically based studies of patterns of miscues in oral reading performance. Final report. Project N o . 9-0375, Grant N o . OEG-0-9-320275-4269, U. S. Dept. Health, Education, and Welfare, 1973. GOODMAN, K., & GOODMAN, Y. Learning about psycholinguistic processes by analyzing oral reading. Harvard Educational Review, 1977, 47, 317-333. HOOD, J. Qualitative analysis of oral reading errors; the interjudge reliability of scores. Reading Research Quarterly, 1976, 11, 557-598. KOLERS, P. A. Three stages of reading. In F. Smith (Ed.) Psycholinguistics and reading, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. KOLERS, P. A. Pattern-analyzing disability in poor readers. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 287-290. MASON, M. Reading ability and letter search time: Effects of orthographic structure defined by single-letter positional frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975, 104, 146-166. MASON, M., & KATZ, L. Visual processing of nonlinguistic strings: Redundancy effects and reading ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976, 105, 338-348. ROBINSON, H. M., MONROE. M., & ARTLEY, A. S. The new basic reading program. Curriculum foundation series. Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Company, 1962. SHANKWEILER, D., & LIBERMAN. I. Y. Misreading: Search for cues. In J. F. Kavanaugh and I. G. Mattingly (Eds.) Language by ear and by eye. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1972. SMITH, F. Understanding reacting, (2nd Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1978. SMITH, F. Decoding, the great fallacy. In F. Smith (Ed.). Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973(a). SMITH, F. (Ed.) Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973(b). VELLUTINO, F. R. Alternative conceptions of dyslexia: Evidence in support of a verbal-deficit hypothesis. Harvard Educational Review, 1977, 47, 334-354. VENEZKY, R. The role of orthographic regularity in word recognition. Working paper No. 181. Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning. Madison, Wisconsin, 1976. WEBER, R. The study of oral reading errors: A survey of the literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 1968, 4, 96-119. WEBER, R. A linguistic analysis of first-grade reading errors. Reading Research Quarterly, 1970, 5, 427-451. WILLIAMSON, L. E., & YOUNG. F. The IRI and RMI diagnostic concepts should be synthesized. Journal of Reading, 1974, 6, 183-194. WEST, R. F., & STANOVICH, K. E. Automatic contextual facilitation in readers. Child Development, 1978, 49, 717-727.


CHANGES IN THE USE OF GRAPHIC AND ...

CHANGES IN THE USE OF GRAPHIC AND ...

Suggest Documents

performance differences in the use of graphic and tabular ... - CiteSeerX

performance differences in the use of graphic and tabular ... - CiteSeerX

The use of Graphic Calculator in Teaching and Learning - American ...

CULTIVATING THE USE OF GRAPHIC ORGANISER ...

The Use of Graphic Calculators in Malaysian Secondary Schools ...

The Use of Graphic Calculators in Malaysian Secondary Schools ...

âFacebook Styleâ: The Use of Emoticons and Graphic ...

changes in the use of natural resources and human ...

The Implications of Changes in Population, Land Use, and ... - BioOne

Land Use and Landscape Structural Changes in the Ecoregions of

DEFORESTATION AND LAND USE: CHANGES IN ...

Cocaine Use and Hypertensive Renal Changes in

changes in chemical properties by use and

Progress in Mozambique: Changes in the availability, use, and ... - PLOS

Increased Prevalence of Insomnia and Changes in Hypnotics Use in ...

The Link Between Graphic Design and Report Use

Methods and consequences of changes in use of episiotomy.

Changes in the use practitioner-based complementary and ... - PLOS

Changes in Land Use, Socioeconomic Indices, and the Transportation ...

farmland conversion and changes in the land-use ...

Land Use Changes and Volumetric Processes in the ...

Determination of Land Use/Cover Changes and Land Use Potentials ...

graphic design school : the principles and practice of graphic design ...

Influence of changes in land use and earthworm ...

CHANGES IN THE USE OF GRAPHIC AND ...