1979Journal of Reading BehaviorRequires access

Effects of Embedded Anomalies and Oral Reading Errors on Childen's Understanding of Stories

Tom Nicholson, P. David Pearson, Robert C. Dykstra

Open publisher page 38 citations

Abstract

The basic question asked by this study was, “Do mistakes made while reading interfere with comprehension?” A secondary aim was to clarify the competing views of Gough (1972) who argues that the unskilled reader would not make hypotheses about what words in the text should be, and Goodman (1976a), who argues that the generation of tentative hypotheses about meaning is an inevitable part of the reading process. Three experiments were conducted. The first two were simulations in which skilled readers, about 9 years of age, read stories which varied according to embedded error type, difficulty, error rate, text access, and set strength. The third experiment was a naturalistic comparison study, using unskilled readers. Overall, the results offered support for both Gough and Goodman, depending on the kind of comprehension tested and the criterion for acceptability of responses. It seems that accuracy is necessary for atomistic precision; less so for global interpretation.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The basic question asked by this study was, “Do mistakes made while reading interfere with comprehension?” A secondary aim was to clarify the competing views of Gough (1972) who argues that the unskilled reader would not make hypotheses about what words in the text should be, and Goodman (1976a), who argues that the generation of tentative hypotheses about meaning is an inevitable part of the reading process. Three experiments were conducted. The first two were simulations in which skilled readers, about 9 years of age, read stories which varied according to embedded error type, difficulty, error rate, text access, and set strength. The third experiment was a naturalistic comparison study, using unskilled readers. Overall, the results offered support for both Gough and Goodman, depending on the kind of comprehension tested and the criterion for acceptability of responses. It seems that accuracy is necessary for atomistic precision; less so for global interpretation.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 38 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The basic question asked by this study was, “Do mistakes made while reading interfere with comprehension?” A secondary aim was to clarify the competing views of Gough (1972) who argues that the unskilled reader would not make hypotheses about what words in the text should be, and Goodman (1976a), who argues that the generation of tentative hypotheses about meaning is an inevitable part of the reading process. Three experiments were conducted. The first two were simulations in which skilled readers, about 9 years of age, read stories which varied according to embedded error type, difficulty, error rate, text access, and set strength. The third experiment was a naturalistic comparison study, using unskilled readers. Overall, the results offered support for both Gough and Goodman, depending on the kind of comprehension tested and the criterion for acceptability of responses. It seems that accuracy is necessary for atomistic precision; less so for global interpretation.

Key concepts: Reading (process), Meaning (existential), Comprehension, Interpretation (philosophy), Set (abstract data type), Reading comprehension, Computer science, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Effects of Embedded Anomalies and Oral Reading Errors on Childen's Understanding of Stories — Research Paper | ScholarLens