View in EDS

Effects of Grapheme Substitutions in Connected Text Upon Reading Behaviors.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of Grapheme Substitutions in Connected Text Upon Reading Behaviors.
Authors: Allington, Richard L., Strange, Michael
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 1977
Document Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers
Descriptors: Context Clues, Decoding (Reading), Failure, Intermediate Grades, Miscue Analysis, Oral Reading, Reading Difficulty, Reading Processes, Reading Research, Semantics, Success, Syntax, Word Recognition
Abstract: It has been suggested that good readers make better use of semantic/syntactic information and use relatively less graphic information than do poor readers. To test these hypotheses, minor visual alterations were inserted in words in connected text. Fifteen good and 15 poor readers at the fourth-grade level read two of the altered Passages orally. Results indicated that the good readers read at a faster rate and made fewer miscalls in overall word identification than did the poor readers. However, there were no differences in the ratio of textually acceptable miscalls, and poor readers' responses to altered words seemed less bound to graphic cues than did those of the good readers. These comparisons do not support the initial hypotheses. (Author/AA)
Notes: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New York, New York, April 1977)
Journal Code: RIEAUG1977
Entry Date: 1977
Accession Number: ED136248
Database: ERIC
Description
Abstract:It has been suggested that good readers make better use of semantic/syntactic information and use relatively less graphic information than do poor readers. To test these hypotheses, minor visual alterations were inserted in words in connected text. Fifteen good and 15 poor readers at the fourth-grade level read two of the altered Passages orally. Results indicated that the good readers read at a faster rate and made fewer miscalls in overall word identification than did the poor readers. However, there were no differences in the ratio of textually acceptable miscalls, and poor readers' responses to altered words seemed less bound to graphic cues than did those of the good readers. These comparisons do not support the initial hypotheses. (Author/AA)