The Use of the Linguistic Context: Do Good and Poor Readers Use Different Strategies?

Abstract

SUMMARY. -This study investigates whether good and poor readers use different strategies when making use of the linguistic context, and in particular whether good readers make better use of the succeeding context by using a better strategy or whether they do so simply because of their superior knowledge. A cloze test was specially constructed to control for the readers' knowledge and, after successive refinements, was administered to 121 7-and 8-year-old children in their first year at junior school. The children were better at using the preceding context than the succeeding context (P<O.OOl), and the better the reader the better was his use of the succeeding context (P<O.Ol). As the knowledge of the readers had been controlled this must have been a consequence of some difference in the strategies used by the better and poorer readers. It was not, however, because the good readers made better use of an overt self-corrective strategy, as self-corrections were not found to be related to reading ability. No conclusion could therefore be drawn as to whether the good readers used a more efficient strategy, or whether they used the same strategy more skilfully. It was also argued that, as poor readers are less able to use the context, it might well be a mistake to conclude that they are reluctant to do so when there is graphic information available simply on the evidence that they make less use of it.

Reading Accuracy as a Function of Teaching Strategy, Personality and Word Complexity in Seven‐year‐old Children

“…Differences in the use of context according to reading ability is reported by Potter (1982). His findings supported the hypothesis that good readers made better use of succeeding context but whether this resulted from using different strategies or from more skilful use of the same strategies was not determined.…”

The Changing Pattern of Reading Errors and Reading Style From 5 to 11 Years of Age

“…One such proposition was that proficient readers use context cues more than less proficient readers. This proposal has been confirmed by the research of Au (l977), D'Angelo (1981), Murray and Maliphant (1982) and Potter (1982), but contrary evidence is given in the research of K. Goodman and Burke (1973), Cohen (1974-79, Allington andStrange (1977), Biemiller (1977-78), Thomson (1 978), Juel (l980), Stanovich (198 1) and Harding (1984). The second proposal was that less proficient readers use graphophonic cues more than proficient readers.…”

Le test de closure : un outil pour mesurer l’effet de l’illustration sur la compréhension de textes

“…Dans une expérimentation auprès d'enfants lisant de courts paragraphes troués, Potter (1982) a montré que le mot omis est significativement mieux reconnu s'il peut être induit sur la base du contexte linguistique précédant le mot omis (exemple a) que dans les cas où le mot omis ne peut être induit que sur la base du contexte linguistique suivant (exemple b).…”