Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 131–149 | Cite as

How prior knowledge affects word identification and comprehension

  • Sarah J. Priebe
  • Janice M. Keenan
  • Amanda C. Miller
Article

Abstract

While prior knowledge of a passage topic is known to facilitate comprehension, little is known about how it affects word identification. We examined oral reading errors in good and poor readers when reading a passage where they either had prior knowledge of the passage topic or did not. Children who had prior knowledge of the topic were matched on decoding skill to children who did not know the topic so that the groups differed only on knowledge of the passage topic. Prior knowledge of the passage topic was found to significantly increase fluency and reduce reading errors, especially errors based on graphic information, in poor readers. Two possible mechanisms of how prior knowledge might operate to facilitate word identification were evaluated using the pattern of error types, as was the relationship of errors to comprehension. Implications of knowledge effects for assessment and educational policy are discussed.

Keywords

Word identification Comprehension Prior knowledge Error analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from NIH HD27802 to the Colorado Learning Disabilities Center, for which J. Keenan is a co-PI. These data were presented at the 2008 and 2009 meetings of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading. We thank Richard K. Olson, Rebecca Betjemann, Laura Roth, Chelsea Meenan, and Anh Hua for discussions of the data, all the participants and their families, and all the testers and scorers.

References

  1. Beebe, M. J. (1980). The effect of different types of substitution miscues on reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bransford, J., & Johnson, M. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chard, D., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Difficulties with reading comprehension. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and Disorders (pp. 501–520). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C. (1970). Examiner’s manual: Peabody individual achievement test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  6. Erickson, T., & Mattson, M. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 7–21.Google Scholar
  8. Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodman, K., & Goodman, Y. (1977). Learning about psycholinguistic processes by analyzing oral reading. Harvard Educational Review, 47(3), 317–333.Google Scholar
  10. Gough, P. (1983). Context, form, and interaction. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading (pp. 203–211). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hirsch, E. D. (2006). Building knowledge: The case for bringing content into the language arts block and for a knowledge-rich curriculum core for all children. American Educator, 30(1). Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator.htm.
  12. Johnston, P. (1984). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension test bias. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kamhi, A. (2007). Knowledge deficits: The true crisis in education. The ASHA Leader, 12, 28–29.Google Scholar
  14. Keenan, J. M., & Betjemann, R. S. (2007). Comprehension of single words: The role of semantics in reading and reading disability. In E. Grigorenko & A. Naples (Eds.), Single word reading (pp. 191–210). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  15. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., & Olson, R. K. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on reading and listening comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landauer, T. K. (2002). Applications of latent semantic analysis. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the cognitive science society. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  18. Leslie, L. (1980). The use of graphic and contextual information by average and below-average readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 139–149.Google Scholar
  19. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Malik, A. A. (1990). A psycholinguistic analysis of the reading behavior of EFL-proficient readers using culturally familiar and culturally nonfamiliar expository tests. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 205–223.Google Scholar
  21. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller, A. C., & Keenan, J. M. (2009). How word decoding skill impacts text memory: The centrality deficit and how domain knowledge can compensate. Annals of Dyslexia, 59, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murphy, S. (1999). The validity and reliability of miscue analysis. In A. M. Marek & C. Edelsky (Eds.), Reflections and connections: Essays in honor of Kenneth S. Goodman’s influence on language education (pp. 95–122). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nation, K., & Cocksey, J. (2009). Beginning readers activate semantics from sub-word orthography. Cognition, 110, 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1998). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 69(4), 996–1011.Google Scholar
  26. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  27. National institute of Child Health, Human Development. (2005). A day in third grade: A large-scale study of classroom quality and teacher and student behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 105(3), 305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicholson, T., & Tan, A. (1999). Word identification processes. In G. B. Thompson & T. Nicholson (Eds.), Learning to read: Beyond phonics and whole language (pp. 150–173). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. Olson, R. K. (2006). Genes, environment, and dyslexia: The 2005 Norman Geschwind memorial lecture. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olson, R. K., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., & Rack, J. (1994). Measurement of word recognition, orthographic, and phonological skills. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 243–277). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  31. Pearson, P., & Hamm, D. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices-past, present, and future. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13–69). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Perfetti, C., Goldman, S., & Hogaboam, T. (1979). Reading skill and the identification of words in discourse context. Memory & Cognition, 7(4), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  35. Plaut, D., McClelland, J., Seidenberg, M., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103(1), 56–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Priebe, S. J., & Keenan, J. (2009). Automated methods of assessing oral reading accuracy. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  37. Rawson, K. A., & Van Overschelde, J. P. (2008). How does knowledge promote memory? The distinctiveness theory of skilled memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 646–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reder, L., & Kusbit, G. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30(4), 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodd, J. (2004). When do leotards get their spots? Semantic activation of lexical neighbors in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), 434–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sadoski, M., Carey, R. F., & Page, W. D. (1999). Empirical evidence for the validity and reliability of miscue analysis as a measure of reading comprehension. In A. M. Marek & C. Edelsky (Eds.), Reflections and connections: Essays in honor of Kenneth S. Goodman’s influence on language education (pp. 123–144). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  42. Spilich, G., Vesonder, G., Chiesi, H., & Voss, J. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18(3), 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stahl, S., & Heubach, K. (2006). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. In K. A. D. Stahl & M. C. McKenna (Eds.), Reading research at work: Foundations of effective practice (pp. 177–204). New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Stanovich, K. (1984). The interactive-compensatory model of reading: A confluence of developmental, experimental, and educational psychology. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 5(3), 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taft, M., & Leslie, L. (1985). The effects of prior knowledge and oral reading accuracy on miscues and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(2), 163–179.Google Scholar
  46. Tan, A., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 276–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tulving, E., & Gold, C. (1963). Stimulus information and contextual information as determinants of tachistoscopic recognition of words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(4), 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2004). The use of context in learning to read. In P. Bryant & T. Nuñes (Eds.), Handbook of children’s literacy (pp. 199–212). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  49. Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  50. West, R., & Stanovich, K. (1978). Automatic contextual facilitation in readers of three ages. Child Development, 49(3), 717–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Examiner’s manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement.. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah J. Priebe
    • 1
  • Janice M. Keenan
    • 1
  • Amanda C. Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations