The Responses of Good and Poor Readers When Asked to Read for Different Purposes

EXPLORES THE product and process of reading comprehension when high school seniors were asked to read for two different purposes: for details and for general impressions. A case-study method involving structured interviews and retrospection was used to secure evidence of the success of 15 good reader subjects and 15 poor reader subjects in understanding the materials read and to gain insight into the processes they used when they read for the two purposes. Intensive structured interviews were conducted individually on two successive days. In one of the interviews, subjects were asked to read for details; in the other, for general impressions. Alternate good readers and alternate poor readers read for details during the first interview; the remainder of the subjects read for general impressions during the first interview. All subjects answered the same series of questions on each part, explained how they arrived at each answer, and responded to questions about past experiences in reading for different purposes. Responses made by the subjects were categorized and analyzed either statistically or qualitatively. The data revealed that good readers read for both purposes with equal success. The results for the poor reader group were similar. Good readers, however, were more successful than poor readers in reading for details. The quality of the responses made by good readers was superior to that of poor readers for both purposes to both kinds of questions, except detailed questions when the subjects read for general impressions. Good readers adjusted their procedures to the two purposes, but poor readers varied their reading approach only slightly; good readers made more adjustments than poor readers.