Did I really write “I will review the research which tells us context cues…are not the most effective cues for teaching skilled word recognition.”?
Ooops way toooo big an undertaking for a blog.

The reading research community has published so many studies falsifying the “we read by using context” model, a review would be a book. And is! In fact quite a few books or sections in books. Here are references for synopsis of the research.  You should be able to get these books at your public library if you would like to read these.

1) Progress in Understanding Reading Scientific Foundations and New Frontiers, (Stanovich)  “Role of Context Effect” and while you have the book read the chapter “Putting Children First by Putting Science First.”

2) Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print (M.J. Adams)  “Orthoghraphic Processing” and “Use and Uses of Meaning.” Good synopsis for research prior to 1990.

Currently this is what the reading research community has come to a consensus on:

“There is now abundant evidence that the prediction model of reading is incorrect.” The Science of Reading: A Handbook (Snowling & Hulme)

When we use what reading science has learned we help children, especially struggling readers. They benefit, and you know what, it feels good to be successful.

With the context model of reading refuted we may get better results if we change some our teaching strategies.  When children do not recognize a word and we use the old model’s cues “What do you think it says?” or “Look at the picture.” we are directing children to use context to identify the word and this is not how skilled readers identify words.

“Scientifically, the results are now uncontroversial. However, they are still not welcomed by some reading educators who would perpetuate the mistaken view that an emphasis on contextual prediction is the way to good reading.” (Stanovich, 2000, 2003)

Contextual prediction is not the way to good reading….let’s change how we do this.