Advertisement

Capacity-Sharing Interdependence in Reading Processes

  • M. Boekaerts

Abstract

Psychologists have studied the reading process for many years. The main reason for their persistent interest in the reading act undoubtedly lies in the fact that reading is a complex skill which involves many interacting subprocesses. Two main approaches can be distinguished: (1) a pratical approach and (2) an explorative approach. The rationale behind the former approach is to identify ways to improve instruction. On the basis of cognitive principles experimental instructional programmes are designed and they are tested in a natural or quasi-natural setting. If they prove to be more successful than the traditional reading programmes they are implemented and henceforth replace the existing programmes. By contrast, researchers who foster the latter approach have as their main objective the analysis and description of specific aspects of the reading act. They adhere to a specific reading model, featuring one or more specific subskills, and try and expand our knowledge of those subskills by way of controlled experiments and hypothesis testing.

Keywords

Reading Comprehension Primary Task Secondary Task Reading Task Reading Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boekaerts, M., Some remarks regarding the dual-task performance paradigm as a means of studying capacity-sharing interdependence in reading research (in press).Google Scholar
  2. Clark, H.H., and Clark, E.V., 1977, Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. Harcourt, Brace and Javanovich.Google Scholar
  3. Coltheart, M., 1977, Critical notice on E.J. Gibson and H. Levin, eds., The psychology of reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 157–167.Google Scholar
  4. Gibson, E.J. and Levin, H., 1975, The psychology of reading. M.I.T. press.Google Scholar
  5. Goodman, K.S., 1970, Behind the eye: What happens in reading. In K.S. Goodman and O.S. Niles, eds., Reading and programme, NCTE publications.Google Scholar
  6. Gough, P.B., 1972, One second of reading. In J.F. Kavanagh andGoogle Scholar
  7. I.G. Mattingly, eds., Language by Ear and Eye. Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  8. Guthrie, J.T., 1973, Models of reading and reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guthrie, J.T., 1976, Aspects of reading acquisition. Baltimore, MD.: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Keele, S.W., 1968, Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. LaBerge, D. and Samuels, S.J., 1974, Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levelt, W.J.M., 1978, A survey of studies in sentence perception. In W.J.M. Levelt and G.B. Flores d’Arcais, eds., Studies in the perception of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Marslen-Wilson, W.D., 1975, Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science, 189, 226–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mitchell, D.C., 1982, The process of reading. New York: Wiley. Norman, D.A. and Bobrow, D.G., 1975, On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.Google Scholar
  15. Perfetti, C.A., Goldman, S.R. and Hogaboam, T.W., 1979, Reading skill and the identification of words in discourse context. Memory and Cognition, 7, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rumelhart, D.E., 1977, Introduction to human information processing. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Samuels, S.J., 1970, Effects of pictures on learning to read, comprehension and attitudes. Review of Educational Research, 40, 397–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shiffrin, R.M. and Schneider, W., 1977, Controlled and automatic human information processing. Psychological Review, 84, 127190.Google Scholar
  19. Singer, H., and Ruddell, R.B., 1976, Theoretical models and processes of reading. Publication of the International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  20. Stanovich, K.E., 1980, Towards an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tanenhaus, M.K., 1978, Linguistic context and sentence perception (Ph. D. Dissertation ). Columbia University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Boekaerts
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Psychology and Educational ResearchUniversity of NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations