1982
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.1982.tb00136.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Context Cues in Early Reading

Abstract: An investigation was carried out to examine any significant differences in the use of four types of context cues by good and poor readers in the early stages of their reading development. Sentences incorporating proactive and retroactive syntactic, and proactive and retroactive semantic cues were presented in the form of deletions at three levels of difficulty. Sixty-four subjects, 32 of each sex, were drawn equally from the six to seven and seven to eight year age levels and subdivided into groups of good and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 10 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the same issue of the Journal of Research in Reading as Potter's article, Donald (1980) speculated that contemporary evidence on children's oral reading errors implied a developmental sequence of strategies: first, predominant use of word familiarity; second, use of context (contextual guessing); third, unresolved graphic‐contextual conflict (no response); fourth, incorrectly resolved graphic‐contextual conflict (nonsense); and lastly, correctly resolved graphic‐contextual conflict. Neat though this theory appeared, it did not withstand empirical investigation (see Beardsley, 1982; Campbell, 1987; Francis, 1984). Although there are developmental changes, the miscue data indicate a transition at around a reading age of 7 years, probably as a function of teaching input and learning opportunities.…”
Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the same issue of the Journal of Research in Reading as Potter's article, Donald (1980) speculated that contemporary evidence on children's oral reading errors implied a developmental sequence of strategies: first, predominant use of word familiarity; second, use of context (contextual guessing); third, unresolved graphic‐contextual conflict (no response); fourth, incorrectly resolved graphic‐contextual conflict (nonsense); and lastly, correctly resolved graphic‐contextual conflict. Neat though this theory appeared, it did not withstand empirical investigation (see Beardsley, 1982; Campbell, 1987; Francis, 1984). Although there are developmental changes, the miscue data indicate a transition at around a reading age of 7 years, probably as a function of teaching input and learning opportunities.…”
Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%