Journal Of Research In Reading Research Articles

Dimensionality of Morphological Knowledge—Evidence from Norwegian Third Graders

AbstractThis study aimed to determine the dimensionality of morphological knowledge by examining different sources of variance. According to the Morphological Pathways Framework (Levesque et al., Journal of Research in Reading, 44, 10–26, 2021), morphological awareness, morphological analysis and morphological decoding are related, but distinct dimensions of morphological knowledge. However, multidimensionality might also stem from construct‐irrelevant variance due to methodological artifacts. We assessed 612 Norwegian third graders on five measures of morphological knowledge and one measure of general vocabulary. Fitting a series of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models, we evaluated the dimensionality of morphological knowledge both within and across the five tests. Furthermore, we fitted three structural equation models (SEMs) to explore how different conceptualizations affect the relationship between morphological knowledge and general vocabulary: a five‐factor model, a bifactor model, and a higher‐order model representing morphological awareness, morphological analysis and morphological decoding. CFAs supported a multidimensional view of morphological knowledge and highlighted the need to account for construct‐irrelevant variance. SEM analyses further illustrated that construct‐irrelevant variance introduces a confounding element to the relations between morphological knowledge and vocabulary in the test‐specific five‐factor model, as only the bifactor and higher‐order models separate between construct‐relevant variance and variance due to methodological artifacts. The bifactor model is useful for separating sources of variance, especially during test development. For research purposes, however, we recommend conceptualizing morphological knowledge in line with Levesque et al., Journal of Research in Reading, 44, 10–26, 2021, to increase knowledge of morphological dimensions and their relations to other areas of literacy.

The effect of integrating automated writing evaluation on EFL writing apprehension and grammatical knowledge

ABSTRACT Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in automated writing evaluation (hereafter AWE). However, few studies have examined the use of AWE with apprehensive writers. Hence, this study extends research in this area, investigating the effect of using AWE on reducing writing apprehension and enhancing grammatical knowledge. The participants were English majors at an Egyptian university, divided into experimental and control groups. The experimental group used Cambridge ‘Write & Improve’ to evaluate their writing; whereas, the control group had an instructor evaluate their essays. Data were collected using the English Writing Apprehension Scale (EWAS, Abdel Latif [2015. “Sources of L2 Writing Apprehension: A Study of Egyptian University Students.” Journal of Research in Reading 38 (2): 194–212. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9817.2012.01549.x]) and a grammar knowledge test (hereafter GKT; adapted from TOEFL). The findings showed statistically significant differences in the post-administration in EWAS and GKT in favor of the experimental group. Additionally, the effect size of the intervention on apprehensive writers was large. The results indicated that AWE helped the apprehensive writers reduce their apprehension and slightly enhance the GKT of the non-apprehensive writers. Further, negative correlations were found between writing apprehension and grammatical knowledge. This study results suggest that AWE might be used as a remedial classroom treatment for struggling or apprehensive writers, purposefully integrating it as a formative tool, augmented with feedback practices.

A study of literacy acquisition in English as a foreign language amongst native Hebrew and Arabic speaking pupils

ABSTRACT Israel has two official languages: Hebrew and Arabic, and one semi-official language, English. Within this multilingual environment, the national English curriculum relates to all learners as one homogenous population. There are no specific directives regarding the linguistic needs of diverse language backgrounds. Studies of literacy acquisition in English as a foreign language (EFL) to date have focused primarily on Hebrew or Arabic speakers without considering unique characteristics of each language population that might influence the EFL acquisition process. These unique characteristics include typological characteristics of each language and the fact that Hebrew speakers learn English as their second written language, whereas Arabic speakers learn Hebrew as their second written language and English as their third written language in school. The present study examined beginning EFL literacy amongst fourth grade Hebrew and Arabic speakers within a cross-sectional framework. Two issues were examined: the role of universal versus language specific factors in EFL acquisition and the contribution of multilingualism. These issues were examined within the framework of the central processing hypothesis [Geva, E., and L. Siegel. 2000. “Orthographic and Cognitive Factors in the Concurrent Development of Basic Reading Skills in Two Languages.” Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 12: 1–30] and the linguistic and orthographic proximity hypothesis [Kahn-Horwitz, J., M. Schwartz, and D. Share. 2011. “Acquiring the Complex English Orthography: A Triliteracy Advantage?” The Journal of Research in Reading 34 (1): 136–156]. Findings have theoretical and practical implications regarding the role of multi-lingual backgrounds in EFL acquisition.

Pseudoword spelling ability predicts responsiveness to treatment for spelling words

Pseudoword spelling ability predicts responsiveness to treatment for spelling words

On the validity and sensitivity of the phonics screening check: erratum and further analysis

Duff, Mengoni, Bailey and Snowling (Journal of Research in Reading, 38: 109–123; 2015) evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the phonics screening check against two reference standards. This report aims to correct a minor data error in the original article and to present further analysis of the data. The methods used are calculation of predictive values of the phonics screening check in addition to sensitivity and specificity, and evaluation of agreement between the reference tests. Predictive values are important indicators of screening test quality. The positive predictive value of the phonics check is low (0.31) when compared with a standardised reading test but high (0.84) when compared with teachers' phonic phases judgements, reflecting poor agreement (kappa = 0.27) between reference tests. Results have implications for practice in terms of choice of reference standard and choice of threshold criterion for children to pass the screening check. Longitudinal data are needed to assess the predictive validity and utility of the check.What is already known about this topic: The importance of phonics in learning to read is widely acknowledged. The phonics screening check was introduced into U.K. schools in 2012 to ensure that all children develop phonic decoding skills. Estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of the phonics screening check, compared with two established ‘reference’ measures, were reported by Duff et al. (). What this paper adds: We correct a minor error in the report of the original data by Duff et al. (). We draw attention to the importance of including predictive values, alongside sensitivity and specificity, in the evaluation of screening test validity. We also propose an alternative statistic for comparing the two reference measures. We show that applying this further analysis to the data in Duff et al. () reveals the following: (i) the numbers of incorrect (false positive and false negative) outcomes in the phonics check and (ii) the marked difference in these numbers depending on the choice of reference measure. Implications for theory, policy or practice: Reports of screening test validity should include positive and negative predictive values. A fundamental consideration for evaluating the validity of the phonics screening check is the choice of reference measure. Longitudinal data are needed to assess the predictive validity and utility of the phonics check.

Corrigendum to the ‘Evidence for a simplicity principle: teaching common complex grapheme‐to‐phonemes improves reading and motivation in at‐risk readers’ Journal of Research in Reading, 2014; 37(2): 196–214

In the article “Evidence for a simplicity principle: teaching common complex grapheme-to-phonemes improves reading and motivation in at-risk readers”, it has been noted that the Appendices A, B & C were missing from the article. We apologize for any inconvenience caused. *if a different book was used for Grade 1

Inference Instruction for Struggling Readers: a Synthesis of Intervention Research

Skill in generating inferences predicts reading comprehension for students in the elementary and intermediate grades even after taking into account word reading, vocabulary knowledge, and cognitive ability (Cain et al., Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–81, 2004; Kendeou et al., Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259–72, 2008; Oakhill and Cain, Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 91–121, 2012; Oakhill et al., Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468, 2003). While research shows that struggling readers are less likely than proficient readers to make inferences when reading text (Cain et al., Memory and Cognition, 29, 850–859, 2001; Oakhill, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31–39, 1984), struggling readers may also benefit more from inference instruction than do proficient readers (Hansen and Pearson, Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 821–829, 1983; McGee and Johnson, Educational Psychology, 23(1), 49–59, 2003; Raphael and Pearson, American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 217–235, 1985; Yuill and Oakhill, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 33–45, 1988). This synthesis assessed (a) the effectiveness of inference instruction in improving reading outcomes for struggling readers and (b) the features of instructional interventions (e.g., duration, type of instruction) that were associated with improved outcomes. One single-case design and eight experimental group design studies were synthesized. Mean effect sizes for group design studies ranged from g = 0.72* to g = 1.85* for researcher-developed measures of inferential reading comprehension and from g = −.03 to g = 1.96* for standardized measures of reading comprehension. The percentage of non-overlapping data for the study that employed a single-case design was 100 % for all measures.

Some Good News About Research on Social Work Practice

s in journals published by the British Psychological Society. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 443-456. Hartley, J., & Sydes, M. (1997). Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones? Journal of Research in Reading, 20,

A preliminary investigation of akshara knowledge in the Malayalam alphasyllabary: extension of Nag’s (2007) study

The reading acquisition literature is mainly based on alphabetic orthographies and is largely silent on reading acquisition in alphasyllabic orthographies. In this context, as a preliminary attempt, the present study investigated akshara (orthographic character of alphasyllabary) knowledge in a group of Grade III children learning to read an unexplored alphasyllabary, Malayalam (a Dravidian language spoken in Kerala, India) by extending Nag’s study [Nag, S. (2007). Early reading in Kannada: The pace of acquisition of orthographic knowledge and phonemic awareness. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(1): 7–22]. Specifically, the study investigated participants’ knowledge of the following akshara types: (a) consonants with inherent vowels (e.g. ക /ka/); (b) consonants with vowel diacritics (ലി /li/); (c) consonant clusters (e.g. തര /thra/); and (d) vowel in primary form (ഇ /i/). The results showed that children master consonants with inherent vowels and vowels in primary form by Grade III. However, they did ...

Understanding the nature and impact of young readers’ literacy interactions with talking books and during adult reading support

This paper reports an extended analysis of the study reported in [Wood, C. (2005). Beginning readers’ use of ‘talking books’ software can affect their reading strategies. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 170–182.], in which five and six-year-old children received either six sessions using specially designed talking books or six sessions of one-to-one tuition with an adult using the paper-based versions of the same books. This analysis focuses on the nature of the children’s interactions with either the adult or the computer in an attempt to explore how these different resources impacted on the children’s literacy interactions, and whether different styles of literacy interaction observed within each group were associated with gains in phonological awareness or changes in reading strategy. Four styles of literacy interaction were identified and there was a significant association between these styles and membership of one of the two experimental conditions in the study. Interactional style was also seen to impact positively on phonological awareness development for lower ability children who used the talking books. In contrast, interactional style affected changes in reading strategy amongst children in the adult tutor condition. Finally, there was also an influence of interactional style on spontaneous dialogic reading by the children overall, but this effect originated from the children in the adult tutor group.

Elucidating the component processes involved in dyslexic and non-dyslexic reading fluency: An eye-tracking study

The relationship between rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency is well documented (see Wolf, M. & Bowers, P.G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 415–438, for a review), but little is known about which component processes are important in RAN, and why developmental dyslexics show longer latencies on these tasks. Researchers disagree as to whether these delays are caused by impaired phonological processing or whether extra-phonological processes also play a role (e.g., Clarke, P., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2005). Individual differences in RAN and reading: A response timing analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(2), 73–86; Wolf, M., Bowers, P.G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of learning disabilities, 33(4), 387–407). We conducted an eye-tracking study that manipulated phonological and visual information (as representative of extra-phonological processes) in RAN. Results from linear mixed (LME) effects analyses showed that both phonological and visual processes influence naming-speed for both dyslexic and non-dyslexic groups, but the influence on dyslexic readers is greater. Moreover, dyslexic readers’ difficulties in these domains primarily emerge in a measure that explicitly includes the production phase of naming. This study elucidates processes underpinning RAN performance in non-dyslexic readers and pinpoints areas of difficulty for dyslexic readers. We discuss these findings with reference to phonological and extra-phonological hypotheses of naming-speed deficits.

Abstracts: Reading & writing

Abstracts: Reading & writing

Reading & writing

07–259Abasi, Ali R., Nahal Akbari & Barbara Graves (U Ottawa, Canada), Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing (Elsevier) 15.2 (2006), 102–117.07–260Brantmeier, Cindy (Washington U, St Louis, USA), Toward a multicomponent model of interest and L2 reading: Sources of interest, perceived situational interest, and comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language (U Hawaii, USA) 18.2 (2006), 89–115.07–261Bremner, Stephen (City U Hong Kong, China), Politeness, power, and activity systems: Written requests and multiple audiences in an institutional setting. Written Communication (Sage) 23.4 (2006), 397–423.07–262Cargill, Margaret (U Adelaide, Australia) & Patrick O'Connor, Developing Chinese scientists' skills for publishing in English: Evaluating collaborating-colleague workshops based on genre analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.3 (2006), 207–221.07–263Edge, Julian, Reading to take notes and to summarize: A classroom procedure (reprint of author's 1983 article). Reading in a Foreign Language (U Hawaii, USA), 1.2, 93–98.07–264Edge, Julian (Manchester U, UK; julian.edge@manchester.ac.uk), From paragraphs to patterns: Ablocutionary value in autobiography. Reading in a Foreign Language (U Hawaii, USA) 18.2 (2006), 124–127.07–265Goetry, Vincent, Lesly Wade-Woolley, Régine Kolinsky & Philıppe Mousty (Queen's U, Belgium; vgoetry@ulb.ac.be), The role of stress processing abilities in the development of bilingual reading. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.3 (2006), 349–362.07–266Huang, Shu-Chen (National Chiao Tung U, Hsinchu, China; sjh241@yahoo.com.tw), Reading English for academic purposes – What situational factors may motivate learners to read?System (Elsevier) 34.3 (2006), 371–383.07–267Huang, Shu-Chen, Yuh-Show Cheng & Chiou-Lan Chern (National Chiao Tung U, Hsinchu, Taiwan; sjh241@yahoo.com.tw), Pre-reading materials from subject matter texts – Learner choices and the underlying learner characteristics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.3 (2006), 193–206.07–268Hui-Tzu Min (National Cheng Kung U, Tainan, Taiwan), The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing (Elsevier) 15.2 (2006), 118–141.07–269Ikeda, Makiko (Himeji Dokkyo U, Japan; maikoike@wonder.ocn.ne.jp) & Takeuchi, Osamu, Clarifying the differences in learning EFL reading strategies: An analysis of portfolios. System (Elsevier) 34.3 (2006), 384–398.07–270Juzwik, Mary M. (Michigan State U, East Lansing, USA, mmjuzwik@msu.edu), Svjetlana Curcic, Kimberly Wolbers, Kathleen D. Moxley, Lisa M. Dimling & Rebecca K. Shankland, Writing into the 21st century: An overview of research on writing, 1999 to 2004. Written Communication (Sage) 23.4 (2006), 452–476.07–271Ma, Jee Hyun (U Hawaii, USA; jeehyun@hawaii.edu), Just taking notes is not enough. Reading in a Foreign Language (U Hawaii, USA) 18.2 (2006), 128–130.07–272Orsolini, Margherita (Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’; margherita.orsolini@uniroma1.it), Rachele Fanari, Valeria Tosi, Barbara De Nigris & Roberto Carrieri, From phonological recoding to lexical reading: A longitudinal study on reading development in Italian. Language and Cognitive Processes (Routledge/Taylor & Francis) 21.5 (2006), 576–607.07–273Pretorious, Elizabeth (U South Africa, South Africa; pretoej@unisa.ac.za), The comprehension of logical relations in expository texts by students who study through the medium of ESL. System (Elsevier) 34.3 (2006), 432–450.07–274Rogers, Rebecca & Melissa Mosley, Racial literacy in a second-grade classroom: Critical race theory, whiteness studies, and literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly (International Reading Association) 41.4 (2006), 462–495.07–275Ross, Nigel (Institute for Interpreters and Translators, Milan, Italy), Writing in the Information Age. English Today (Cambridge University Press) 22.3 (2006), 47–50.07–276Schwanenflugel, Paula J., Elizabeth B. Meisinger, Joseph M. Wisenbaker, M. R. Kuhn, Gregory P. Strauss & Robin D. Morris, Becoming a fluent and automatic reader in the early elementary school years. Reading Research Quarterly (International Reading Association) 41.4 (2006), 496–522.07–277Starfield, Sue & Louise J. Ravelli (U New South Wales, Sydney, Australia), ‘The writing of this thesis was a process that I could not explore with the positivistic detachment of the classical sociologist’: Self and structure inNew Humanitiesresearch theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.3 (2006), 222–243.07–278Tardy, Christine M. (DePaul U, Chicago, USA), Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing (Elsevier) 15.2 (2006), 79–101.07–279Weber, Rose-Marıe (State U New York, USA; rweber@albany.edu), Function words in the prosody of fluent reading. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.3 (2006), 258–269.07–280Wood, Clare (Coventry U, UK; c.wood@coventry.ac.uk), Metrical stress sensitivity in young children and its relationship to phonological awareness and reading. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.3 (2006), 270–287.07–281Ziegler, Johannes C. & Usha Goswami (U Cambridge, UK; ucg10@cam.ac.uk), Becoming literate in different languages: Similar problems, different solutions. Developmental Science (Blackwell) 9.5 (2006), 429–436.

Reading Lessons and Federal Policy Making: An Overview and Introduction to the Special Issue

Previous articleNext article No AccessReading Lessons and Federal Policy Making: An Overview and Introduction to the Special IssueRichard L. AllingtonRichard L. AllingtonUniversity of Tennessee Search for more articles by this author University of TennesseePDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Elementary School Journal Volume 107, Number 1September 2006 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/509523 Views: 99Total views on this site Citations: 11Citations are reported from Crossref © 2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Katherine K. Frankel Remedial Reading Programs: Identification, Instruction, and Impacts of a Separate System for Learning, (Sep 2022): 61–87.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_3Brian Gearin, Jessica Turtura, Edward J. Kame’enui, Nancy J. Nelson, Hank Fien A Multiple Streams Analysis of Recent Changes to State-Level Dyslexia Education Law, Educational Policy 41 (Oct 2018): 089590481880732.https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807328Min Sun, Kenneth A. Frank, William R. Penuel, Chong Min Kim How External Institutions Penetrate Schools Through Formal and Informal Leaders, Educational Administration Quarterly 49, no.44 (Mar 2013): 610–644.https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12468148Gary E. Bingham, Kendra M. Hall-Kenyon Examining teachers' beliefs about and implementation of a balanced literacy framework, Journal of Research in Reading 36, no.11 (Feb 2011): 14–28.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01483.x Research Synthesis and Education Policy, (Sep 2012): 170–178.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880968-21Amy Noelle Parks, Sarah Bridges-Rhoads Overly Scripted: Exploring the Impact of a Scripted Literacy Curriculum on a Preschool Teacher's Instructional Practices in Mathematics, Journal of Research in Childhood Education 26, no.33 (Jul 2012): 308–324.https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.684422Terri D. Pigott Generalizations from Meta-analysis, (Dec 2011): 133–141.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2278-5_9 Peter H. Johnston Response to Intervention in Literacy: Problems and Possibilities, The Elementary School Journal 111, no.44 (Jul 2015): 511–534.https://doi.org/10.1086/659030S. Michael Putman, Lawrence L. Smith, Jerrell C. Cassady Moving Beyond Legislation to Create and Sustain Intentionality in Reading Instruction, The Educational Forum 73, no.44 (Oct 2009): 318–332.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720903166846S. Michael Putman, Lawrence L. Smith, Jerrell C. Cassady Promoting Change Through Professional Development: The Place of Teacher Intentionality in Reading Instruction, Literacy Research and Instruction 48, no.33 (May 2009): 207–220.https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802251988IRENE W. GASKINS, LINDA D. LABBO Diverse perspectives on helping young children build important foundational language and print skills, Reading Research Quarterly 42, no.33 (Nov 2011): 438–451.https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.3.10

Reading & writing

Reading & writing

Erratum

Journal of Research in ReadingVolume 29, Issue 2 p. 252-252 Free Access Erratum First published: 05 April 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00305.xAboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Erratum. Journal of Research in Reading 29:1, 104-123 ‘Elena L. Grigorenko, Damaris Ngorosho, Matthew Jukes and Donald Bundy: Reading in able and disabled readers from around the world: Same or different? An illustration from a study of reading-related processes in a Swahili sample of siblings’Volume 29 Issue 1 (February 2006) P. 106 in the last sentence on this page, the first of the two genes referred to is named “DCDC2,” and not “DCDCZ,” as printed. The Journal of Research in Reading would like to apologise to the authors for the misprint. Reference Grigorenko, E.L., Ngorosho, D., Jukes, M. & Bundy, D. (2006). Reading in able and disabled readers from around the world: Same or different? An illustration from a study of reading-related processes in a Swahili sample of siblings. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 104– 123. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Volume29, Issue2May 2006Pages 252-252 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Reading & writing

06–273Andrews, Richard (York U, UK; rja3@york.ac.uk), Carole Torgerson, Sue Beveton, Allison Freeman, Terry Locke, Graham Lowe, Alison Robinson & Die Zhu, The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal (Routledge/Taylor & Francis) 32.1 (2006), 39–55.06–274Astika, Gusti (Satya Wacana U, Salatiga, Indonesia; astika@uksw.edu), A task-based approach to reading English for specialised purposes. English in Australia (www.englishaustralia.com.au) 22.2 (2005), 14 pp.06–275Ayoola, Kehinde A. (Lagos State Polytechnic, Ikorodu, Nigeria; kehinday77@yahoo.co.uk), Challenges to a new generation of Nigerian writers in English. English Today (Cambridge University Press) 22.1 (2006), 3–9.06–276Banerjee, Jayanti & Dianne Wall (Lancaster U, UK; j.banerjee@lancaster.ac.uk), Assessing and reporting performances on pre-sessional EAP courses: Developing a final assessment checklist and investigating its validity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.1 (2006), 50–69.06–277Bitchener, John (Auckland U Technology, New Zealand; john.bitchener@aut.ac.nz) & Helen Basturkmen, Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.1 (2006), 4–18.06–278Brantmeier, Cindy (Washington U, USA; cbrantme@artsci.wustl.edu), Advanced L2 learners and reading placement: Self-assessment, CBT, and subsequent performance. System (Elsevier) 34.1 (2006), 15–35.06–279Byrne, Brian (U New England, USA; bbyrne@une.edu.au), Richard K. Olson, Stefan Samuelsson, Sally Wadsworth, Robin Corley, John C. DeFries & Erik Willcutt, Genetic and environmental influences on early literacy. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.1 (2006), 33–49.06–280Castles, Anne (U Melbourne, Australia; acastles@unimelb.edu.au), Timothy Bates, Max Coltheart, Michelle Luciano & Nicholas G. Martin, Cognitive modelling and the behaviour genetics of reading. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.1 (2006), 92–103.06–281Cheng, An (Oklahoma State U, USA; an.cheng@okstate.edu), Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purposes (Elsevier) 25.1 (2006), 76–89.06–282Conlon, Elizabeth G., Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck, Peter A. Creed & Melinda Tucker (Griffith U, Australia; e.conlon@griffith.edu.au), Family history, self-perceptions, attitudes and cognitive abilities are associated with early adolescent reading skills. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.1 (2006), 11–32.06–283Fitze, Michael (Dubai Women's College, Dubai), Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electroncic conferences.Language Learning & Technology (http://llt.msu.edu/intro.html) 10.1 (2006), 67–86.06–284Grigorenko, Elena L. (Yale U, USA & Moscow State U, Russia; elena.grigorenko@yale.edu), Damaris Ngorosho, Matthew Jukes & Donald Bundy, Reading in able and disabled readers from around the world: same or different? An illustration from a study of reading-related processes in a Swahili sample of siblings. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.1 (2006), 104–123.06–285Halleck, Gene B. (Oklahoma State U, USA; halleck@okstate.edu) & Ulla M. Connor, Rhetorical moves in TESOL conference proposals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.1 (2006), 70–86.06–286Hayiou-Thomas, Marianna E. (U York, UK; m.hayiou-thomas@psychology.york.ac.uk), Nicole Harlaar, Philip S. Dale & Robert Plomin, Genetic and environmental mediation of the prediction from preschool language and nonverbal ability to 7-year reading. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.1 (2006), 50–74.06–287Hood, Susan (U Technology, Sydney, Australia; sue.hood@uts.edu.au), The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.1 (2006), 37–49.06–288Keenan, Janice M. (U Denver, USA; jkeenan@du.edu), Rebecca S. Betjemann, Sally J. Wadsworth, John C. DeFries & Richard K. Olson, Genetic and environmental influences on reading and listening comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.1 (2006), 75–91.06–289Koutsantoni, Dimitra (U Birmingham, UK; dkoutsantoni@yahoo.com), Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.1 (2006), 19–36.06–290Kwan, Becky S. C. (Hong Kong Baptist U, Hong Kong, China; becky@hkbu.edu.hk), The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics.English for Specific Purposes (Elsevier) 25.1 (2006), 30–55.06–291Lee, David & John Swales (Nagoya U, Japan; david_lee00@hotmail.com), A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes (Elsevier) 25.1 (2006), 56–75.06–292Okamura, A. (Takasaki City U of Economics, Japan; okamura@tcue.ac.jp), Two types of strategies used by Japanese scientists, when writing research articles in English. System (Elsevier) 34.1 (2006), 68–79.06–293Pecorari, Diane (Mälardalen U, Sweden; Diane.Pecorari@mdh.se), Visible and occluded citation features in postgraduate second-language writing. English for Specific Purposes (Elsevier) 25.1 (2006), 4–29.06–294Piller, Bonnie & Mary Jo Skillings (California State U, San Bernardino, USA; bpiller@csusb.edu), English language teaching strategies used by primary teachers in one New Delhi, India, school. TESL-EJ (www.tesl-ej.org) 9.3 (2005), 23 pp.

Reading in able and disabled readers from around the world: same or different? An illustration from a study of reading‐related processes in a Swahili sample of siblings

Erratum. Journal of Research in Reading 29:2, 252 In this article, we discuss two characteristics of the majority of current behaviour‐ and molecular‐genetic studies of reading ability and disability, specifically, the ascertainment strategies and the populations from which samples are selected. In the context of this discussion, we present data that we collected on a sample of Swahili‐speaking siblings from Tanzania. With this sample, we (1) explore the efficiency and practicality of the single proband sibpair design and (2) provide data on the predictability of reading and spelling performance using reading‐related componential measures in a novel Swahili‐speaking sample. Specifically, we present the selection criteria, discuss the pattern of behavioural and behaviour‐genetic results obtained on the sample and compare these results with those available in the literature. We report behavioural and behaviour‐genetic correlations in this sample that are comparable with other studied samples in other languages, and discuss the similarities and differences. Thus, we demonstrate the suitability and effectiveness of the single sib ascertainment method for genetic analyses of reading ability and disability in novel samples in previously unstudied languages.

Reading & Writing

Reading & Writing

Call for papers for forthcoming special issue of the Journal of Research in Reading

Journal of Research in ReadingVolume 28, Issue 2 p. 207-207 Call for papers for forthcoming special issue of the Journal of Research in Reading First published: 06 May 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00265.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume28, Issue2May 2005Pages 207-207 RelatedInformation