Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of different approaches to reading instruction on letter detection tasks in normally achieving and low achieving readers

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study used two letter detection tasks, the classic missing letter effect paradigm and a single word versus familiar word compound version of this paradigm, to study bottom-up and top–down processes involved in reading in normally achieving as compared to low achieving elementary school readers. The research participants were children in grades first to sixth who had been taught to read by three approaches to reading instruction (ARI): the whole language/global approach, the phonic/synthetic approach or the eclectic approach. Thus, the study attempted to clarify how different ARIs activate these processes in these two types of readers. The main hypothesis was that since low achieving readers rely on top–down processes for word recognition (see, e.g., Stanovich, 1980), the whole language ARI will reduce the difference in bottom-up tasks between them and the normally achieving readers. In the two experiments included in the study, participants were required to perform a letter detection task while reading short texts in Hebrew for comprehension. Contrary to this study hypotheses, the main finding was that the whole language ARI does not compensate for difficulties in bottom-up processes of low achieving readers. Moreover, the results of this study imply that any improvement in basic processes involved in reading proficiency produced by the whole language ARI for both the normal and the low achieving readers dissipates by grade three.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cheek, E. R., Flippo, R. F., & Lindsey, J. D. (1997). Reading for success in elementary schools. Dubuque IA: Brown Benchmark publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drewnowski, A. (1978). Detection errors on the word the: Evidence for the acquisition of reading levels. Memory & Cognition, 6, 403–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiene, J., & McMahon, S. (2007). Assessing comprehension: A classroom-based process. The Reading Teacher, 60, 406–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, R. (1997). Principles of reading acquisition in Hebrew: Analysis of the psycholinguistic method. In J. Shimron (Ed.), Psycholinguistic studies in Israel: Language acquisition, reading, and writing (pp. 290–307). Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes. (In Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 15, 411–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith-Phillips, J. (1989). Word and context in reading development: A test of the interactive-compensatory hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 299–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, S. N., Healy, A. F., Koriat, A., & Kreiner, H. (2004). The GO model: A reconsideration of the role of structural units in guiding and organizing text on line. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 428–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, S. N., Koriat, A., & Vellutino, F. R. (1998). Age changes in the missing-letter effect reflect the reader’s growing ability to extract the structure from text. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 69, 175–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, S. N., & Nisslein, M. (1999). Words do not stay alone: Do not ignore a word’s role when examining patterns of activation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 289–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, S. N., & Tai, J. (2001). Letter detection in very familiar texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1088–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, F. M., Reschley, D. J., & Carey, M. P. (1987). Teachers as “tests”: Classification accuracy and concurrent validation in the identification of learning disabled children. School Psychology Review, 16, 543–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, A. F. (1976). Detection errors on the word the: Evidence for reading units larger than letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 235–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, A. F. (1994). Letter detection: A window to unitization and other cognitive processes in reading text. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, A. F., & Drewnowski, A. (1983). Investigating the boundaries of reading units: Letter detection in misspelled words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenes, W. H. (2008). A meta-analysis of the relationship between phonics instruction and minority elementary school student academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 40, 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. S. (2008). Research and reading wars [electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 372–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. H., & Goetz, E. T. (1994). Context effects on word recognition and reading comprehension of poor and good readers: A test of the interactive-compensatory hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 178–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Greenbeerg, S. N. (1991). Syntactic control of letter detection: Evidence from English and Hebrew nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 1035–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Greenbeerg, S. N. (1994). The Extraction of phrase structure during reading: Evidence from letter detection errors. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 345–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Greenberg, S. N. (1993). Prominence of leading functors in function morpheme sequences as evidenced by letter detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 34–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Greenberg, S. N. (1996). The enhancement effect in letter detection: Further evidence for the structural model of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1184–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Greenberg, S. N., & Goldshmid, Y. (1991). The missing-letter effect in Hebrew: Word frequency or word function? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 66–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masson, M. E. J., & May, R. B. (1985). Identification of words and letters during reading: A sentence inferiority effect for letter detection. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39, 449–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkoff, S. R. B., & Raney, G. E. (2000). Letter-detection errors in the word the: Word frequency versus syntactic structure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 55–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, J. E., & Healy, A. F. (1995). Effect of meaning on letter detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 82–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, J. E., & Healy, A. F. (1998). Effect of syntactic role and syntactic prominence on letter detection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 96–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J., & Garnham, A. (1988). Becoming a skilled reader. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

  • Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language; a blueprint of the reader. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167–210). Oxford England: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, J. D., & Healy, A. F. (1985). A secondary-task analysis of a word familiarity effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 286–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. F., Tunmer, W. E., & Greaney, K. T. (2008). Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemically based decoding skills as an intervention strategy for struggling readers in whole language classrooms. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 349–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saint-Aubin, J., & Poirier, M. (1997). The influence of word function in the missing-letter effect: Further evidence from French. Memory & Cognition, 25, 666–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Share, D. L. (1997). Understanding the significance of phonological deficits in dyslexia. English Teachers’ Journal, 51, 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Share, D. L. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimron, J. (1999). The role of vowel signs in Hebrew: Beyond word recognition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 301–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Towards an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. E. (1979). Mechanisms of sentence context effects in reading: Automatic activation and conscious attention. Memory and Cognition, 7, 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Feeman, D. J. (1981). A longitudinal study of sentence context effects in second grade children: Tests of an interactive-compensatory model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treiman, R. (2001). Reading. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), Handbook of linguistics (pp. 664–672). Oxford England: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E. (2008). Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 299–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Bizar, M. (1999). Sixty years of reading research—But who’s listening? [electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 513–517.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers and Shlomo Kravetz for their helpful comments on this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and Gonda Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Miriam Faust

  2. Department of Communication Disorders, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Osnat Kandelshine-Waldman

Authors
  1. Miriam Faust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Osnat Kandelshine-Waldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miriam Faust.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Faust, M., Kandelshine-Waldman, O. The effects of different approaches to reading instruction on letter detection tasks in normally achieving and low achieving readers. Read Writ 24, 545–566 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9219-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9219-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation