Reading Difficulties In Young Children Research Articles

Reading Difficulties in Young Children

Despite decades of research on reading development and instructional practices that promote reading proficiency, millions of children in the United States still fail to acquire adequate reading skills. This article discusses factors that influence children’s difficulties in reading acquisition, but which have received less attention, relative to basic early literacy skills. Specifically, vocabulary knowledge, behavioral regulation, teacher knowledge and school factors, and individualized instruction predict whether children develop proficient reading skills. Particularly, they explain the reading difficulties of demographic groups that have historically experienced the lowest reading achievement: children living in poverty and English learners. The article offers recommendations and implications for policy.

Entering the Digital Literacy Era: Considerations for Digital Texts in Intervention

No AccessPerspectives on School-Based IssuesArticle1 Oct 2013Entering the Digital Literacy Era: Considerations for Digital Texts in Intervention Melissa Malani Melissa Malani Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi14.3.47 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In School-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) play a critical role in the development of students' literacy skills. As schools begin to include more digital texts, and eventually use digital texts exclusively, SLPs must consider the distinctive features of digital texts and how to strategically incorporate them within intervention sessions as well consultation and collaborative teaching sessions. In this article, I focus on providing in-depth background information for digital literacy in relation to a presentation I did for the American Speech-Language Hearing Association's (ASHA's) online Adolescent Language and Literacy conference in March of 2013. References Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. (1997). Electronic books for secondary students.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40, 486–491. Google Scholar Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers.In D. Reinking, L. D. Labbo, M. C. McKenna, & R. D. Keiffer (Eds.). Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 15–43). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (2007). Supported etext: Assistive technology through text transformations.Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 153–160. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.1.8 Google Scholar Baker, L. (2003). The role of parents in motivating struggling readers.Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 87–106. doi: 10.1080/10573560390143049 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1995). Dimensions of children‘s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement.Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–494. Google Scholar Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy.A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Google Scholar Beers, K. (2003). When kids can't read – what teachers can do: A guide for teachers 6–12.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Google Scholar Bempechat, J. (1999). Learn from poor and minority students who succeed in school.. Harvard Education Letter, 15(3), 1–3. Google Scholar Best, R., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2004, April). Understanding the fourth-grade slump: Comprehension difficulties as a function of reader aptitudes and text genre.Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting American Education Research Association, Newport Beach, CA. Google Scholar Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development.Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 135–140. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.1.5 Google Scholar Buehl, D. (2011). Developing readers in the academic disciplines.Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Google Scholar Castek, J., Coiro, J., Hartman, D., Henry, L., Leu, D., & Zawilinski, L. (2006). Thinking about our future as researchers: New literacies, new challenges, and new opportunities.In M. B. Sampson, P. E. Linder, F. Falk-Ross, M. M. Foote, & S. Szabo (Eds)., Multiple literacies in the 21st century: The twenty-eighth yearbook, a peer-reviewed publication of the College Reading Association (pp. 31–50). Readyville, TN US: College Reading Association. Google Scholar Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, G., O‘Byrne, I., & Leu, D.J. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: New opportunities and challenges for students with learning difficulties.In C., Wyatt-Smith, J., Elkins, & S., Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 91–110). New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children‘s fourth grade slump.American Educator, Spring 2003. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2003/hirschsbclassic.cfm Google Scholar Coiro, J. (2007). Exploring changes to reading comprehension on the internet: Paradoxes and possibilities for diverse adolescent readers.(Doctoral dissertation). Google Scholar Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet.Reading Research Quarterly. 42, 214–257. Google Scholar Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers‘ comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs.In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International Handbook of Literacy and Technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 75–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Google Scholar Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, F. (1993). Age and gender differences in children‘s self- and task perceptions during elementary school.Child Development, 64, 830–847. Google Scholar Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers.Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. Google Scholar Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2009). Changes over time in digital literacy. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 713–715. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0264 Google Scholar Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631–645. Google Scholar Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount.Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256. Google Scholar Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement.Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Google Scholar Hillesund, T. (2010). Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the Web, and electronic paper.First Monday, 15(4). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2762/2504 Google Scholar Justice, L. M., Chow, S., Capellini, C., Flanigan, K., & Colton, S. (2003). Emergent literacy intervention for vulnerable preschoolers: Relative effects of two approaches.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 320–332. LinkGoogle Scholar Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the torrence tests of creative thinking.Creativity Research Journal, 23, 285–295. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2011.627805 Google Scholar Labbo, L. D., Reinking, D., & McKenna, M. C. (1998). Technology and literacy education in the next century: Exploring the connection between work and schooling.Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 273–289. Google Scholar Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age.In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. III, pp. 743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar Leu, D. J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Coiro, J., Henry, L. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Lyver, S. (2005). Evaluating the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension during online learning (Final report submitted to the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory/Learning Point Associates). Retrieved from http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/ncrel_files/FinalNCRELReport.pdf Google Scholar Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y., & O‘Neil, M. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension?.L., Rush, J., Eakle, & A., Berger, (Eds.). Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom practices. (37–68). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Google Scholar Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behaviour in the digital environment: Changes in reading behaviour over the past ten years.Journal of Documentation, 61, 700–712. Google Scholar Lyon, G. R. (2009). Learning to read: A call from research to action.Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/in-the-home/supporting-learning-at-home/especially-for-young-children/7-learning-to-read-a-call-from-research-to-action Google Scholar Malani, M. D. (2012). Effects of a reading strategy with digital social studies texts for eighth grade students.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. Google Scholar Malani, M. D. (2013). Digital literacy: Strategic intervention with adolescents who struggle with language and literacy.Paper presented at the 2013 American Speech-Language Hearing Association Online Conference, Adolescent language and literacy: Supporting emotional, social, and academic growth. Google Scholar Mangen, A. (2008). Hyptertext fiction reading: Haptics and immersion.Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 404–419. Google Scholar McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children‘s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934–956. Google Scholar McKenna, M. C., Reinking, D., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (1999). The electronic transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader.Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 111–126. Google Scholar Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1998). Nurturing independent learners: Helping students take charge of their learning.Cambridge, MA: Brookline. Google Scholar Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E., Pearson, P. D., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2008). Technology and reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy and practice.Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 6–5. doi: 10.1080/10862960802070483 Google Scholar National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation's report card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012-457).Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R., Rowland, I., Dobrowolski, T., & Tenopir, C. (2008). Viewing and reading behavior in a virtual environment: The full-text download and what can be read into it.Aslib Proceedings, 60(3), 185–198. Google Scholar O‘Brian, D., & Scharber, C. (2008). Digital literacies go to school: Potholes and possibilities.Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(1), 66–68. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.52.1.7 Google Scholar RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Google Scholar Reinking, D. (1994). Electronic literacy.(Perspective in Reading Research No. 4). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center, University of Georgia, University of Maryland. Google Scholar Reinking, D., & Watkins, J. (2000). A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary students‘ independent reading.Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 384–419. Google Scholar Skinner, E., & Belmont, M. (1993). A longitudinal study of motivation in school: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Google Scholar C. E. Snow, M. S. Burns, & P. Griffin (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar A. P. Sweet, & C. E. Snow (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension.Reading & Writing, 22, 85–106. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y Google Scholar Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., … Rivera, M. O. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction.Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Google Scholar Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children‘s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432. Google Scholar Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J., Perencevich, K., Taboada, A., Klauda, S., McRae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes.Psychology in the Schools, 45, 432–445. doi: 10.1002/pits.20307 Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByPerspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups6:4 (912-923)20 Aug 2021Creating Culturally Supportive Settings That Foster Literacy Development: Guidance for SLPsCarrie Knight, Kyomi Gregory and Kristin Nellenbach Volume 14Issue 3October 2013Pages: 47-54 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Oct 1, 2013 Metrics Downloaded 30 times Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2013 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...

Improving Reading in the Primary Grades

Almost fifteen years have passed since the publication of the National Research Council's seminal report Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, which provided research-based recommendations on what could be done to better position students in prekindergarten through third grade for success in grade four and above. This article by Nell Duke and Meghan Block first examines whether specific key recommendations from the report have been implemented in U.S. classrooms. They find that recommendations regarding increased access to kindergarten and greater attention to and improvement of students' word-reading skills have been widely adopted. Others have not. Vocabulary and comprehension, long neglected in the primary grades, still appear to be neglected. Contrary to the report's recommendations, attention to building conceptual and content knowledge in science and social studies has actually decreased in the past fifteen years. In other words, the easier-to-master skills are being attended to, but the broader domains of accomplishment that constitute preparation for comprehension and learning in the later grades--vocabulary knowledge, comprehension strategy use, and conceptual and content knowledge--are being neglected. Near stagnation in fourth-grade students' comprehension achievement is thus unsurprising. The authors then turn to research and reviews of research on improving primary-grade reading published since 1998, when Preventing Reading Difficulties was issued. They discuss several instructional approaches identified as effective in improving word-reading skill, vocabulary and conceptual knowledge, comprehension strategies, and reading outside of school; they discuss advances in interventions for struggling readers, and in whole-school literacy reform. Duke and Block then identify three key obstacles that have prevented widespread adoption of these best practices in teaching reading. The first obstacle is a short-term orientation toward instruction and instructional reform that perpetuates a focus on the easier-to-learn reading skills at the expense of vocabulary, conceptual and content knowledge, and reading comprehension strategies. The second is a lack of expertise among many educators in how to effectively teach these harder-to-master reading skills, and the third is the limited time available in the school day and year to meet unprecedented expectations for children's learning. Policy makers, the education community, and parents must attend to these three challenges if they wish to see meaningful improvements in the reading skills of American children.

Adults With Low Literacy Skills: How SLPs Can Help

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Aug 2011Adults With Low Literacy Skills: How SLPs Can Help Daphne Greenberg, andPhD Jacqueline Laures-GorePhD, CCC-SLP Daphne Greenberg Google Scholar More articles by this author , PhD and Jacqueline Laures-Gore Google Scholar More articles by this author , PhD, CCC-SLP https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR7.16102011.np SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110830/Adults-With-Low-Literacy-Skills--How-SLPs-Can-Help.htm Speech-language pathologists actively aid those with poor literacy skills. Much attention has been devoted to understanding language and literacy development and to proposing methods for SLPs to provide effective intervention. Unfortunately, the attention devoted to studying literacy and language skills is unequally distributed across the lifespan, with the majority of researchers focusing on children’s literacy skills. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (2003), however, reported that approximately 93 million adults in the United States (45% of the population) read below the high-school level, and approximately 30 million (14% of the population) have difficulty reading typical materials encountered in their homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces (National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 2003). They have difficulty completing job applications, reading to their children, understanding prescription labels, and voting. Many of these adults’ reading difficulties were unrecognized or unremediated during their childhood (Snow & Strucker, 2000). Elish-Piper (2007) explains that this heterogeneous population includes adults of all ages, income levels, ethnicities, and educational backgrounds. Low literacy affects the entire society. People who have low literacy skills cost the United States up to $238 billion in health care (17% of annual health care costs) and more than $225 billion in crime, loss of tax revenue, and low productivity in the workplace. More than 60% of all inmates in state and federal corrections facilities have difficulty reading. Recent research addressing health literacy in adults has shown that low literacy skills are related to decreased knowledge about health issues such as diabetes, hypertension, weight loss, and stroke (Fang, Panguluri, Machtinger, & Schillinger, 2009; Kennen et al., 2005; Williams, Parker, Baker, & Nurss, 1998). Language Skills of Adults With Low Literacy Skills Historically, it was believed that adults who have reading deficiencies do not necessarily have similar deficiencies in oral-language skills because of their daily exposure to and experience with oral language over their lifetime. In essence, it was thought that lifelong daily exposure and experience with oral language should make up for the lack of exposure to print that adults with reading difficulties experienced (Hoffman, 1978). However, evidence suggests that adult poor readers do demonstrate weak oral-language skills. For example, Sticht (1982) found that adults reading at the fifth-grade level also perform at the fifth-grade level answering multiple-choice questions 0about a passage they had just heard. Similarly, adults who read at the third-grade level have been found to have listening-comprehension skills at the fourth-grade level and antonym-production skills at the sixth-grade level (Gold & Johnson, 1982). Researchers studying object-naming skills in adult struggling readers have found that they not only have object-naming difficulties, but also exhibit frequent phonological errors during naming tasks (Cantwell & Rubin, 1992; Dietrich & Brady, 2001) Furthermore, Greenberg, Ehri, and Perin (1997) found that compared to children of similar reading level, adults on average scored consistently lower that the children on phonological tasks of segmentation and deletion. On receptive vocabulary, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test scores of the adults were extremely low—in the first percentile. Finally, research on adults who read below the sixth-grade level continues to paint a consistent picture of their difficulty with oral-language skills, indicating that they have deficient syntactic, confrontation-naming, receptive-vocabulary, and phonological skills (Taylor, Greenberg, Laures-Gore, & Wise, in press; Hall, Greenberg, Laures-Gore, & Pae, under review; Greenberg et al., 2011). Role of the SLP There is a paucity of research in the adult literacy field (e.g., Curtis, 2006; Greenberg, 2008; Krudenier, 2002) and considerable discord between the needs of adults who have difficulty reading and the availability of research-based methods to address these needs. Federal agencies recently began an attempt to build this foundation by funding researchers across universities and private industry to study reading instruction in adults with low literacy skills. The results of some these studies are published in a special issue of the Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness (Volume 4, 2011); however, there is a continuing need to explore further and understand adults who struggle with reading. Given the SLP’s crucial role in developing the language skills of children, the field must also explore ways in which SLPs can add to the building of an empirically and theoretically based understanding of language skills in adults with low literacy skills. SLPs providing services to adults with low literacy skills must first administer assessments to determine whether a client actually needs help. Finding an appropriate test, however, can be difficult. The equivalencies are based on children’s scores and may have different meanings for adults (Perin, 1991); research is beginning to show that adults and children do not necessarily exhibit the same reading profile patterns even when matched on word-reading scores (Greenberg et. al., 1997; Nanda, Greenberg, & Morris, 2010). Finally, most tests have not been standardized on adults with extreme reading difficulties and therefore may not capture information the same way they do with children (Greenberg, Pae, Morris, Calhoon, & Nanda, 2009). When testing adults who have difficulty reading, SLPs should keep some important caveats in mind. They should reassure clients that many people find the tests difficult. As Greenberg (2008) suggests, the client should not be informed of grade-equivalency scores, because unless counseling is available, clients may be disturbed to discover how poorly they read. As Greenberg (2008) recommends, only strengths and weaknesses should be shared. If assessments indicate that an adult would benefit from literacy instruction, the SLP should have a referral list of community-based literacy organizations ready to share. The client should be informed that free (or low-cost) adult literacy help is available and that the program is qualified to help adults with their reading. The SLP also may want to work on phonological and vocabulary skills with the client. McShane (2005) offers some advice when working with adults on such skills. For example, when working with adults who would benefit from vocabulary instruction, she recommends that “real life” words should be emphasized through multiple exposures in several different contexts: “...this guideline suggests teaching words they will encounter in real life settings, such as family or work-related terms” (p. 63). When working on phonological skills, she recommends these skills be taught explicitly and systematically, i.e., the skills are “...logically sequenced and directly taught” (p. 42). Adults with low literacy skills pose a challenge for the country. However, SLPs can contribute positively to remediating this issue by addressing the language difficulties exhibited by this population and by aiding in the development of a greater theoretically based understanding of the problem. References Cantwell A., & Rubin H. (1992). Object naming ability of adults with written language difficulties.Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 179–195. Google Scholar Curtis M. E. (2006). The role of vocabulary instruction in adult basic education.In Comings J., Garner B., & Smith C. (Eds.), Review of adult learning and literacy: Vol. 6 (pp. 43–69). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar Dietrich J. A. & Brady S. A. (2001). Phonological representations of adult poor readers: An investigation of specificity and stability.Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 383–418. Google Scholar Elish-Piper L. (2007). Defining adult literacy.In Guzzetti B. J. (Ed.) Literacy for the new millennium: Vol. 4. Adult literacy (pp. 3–16). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Google Scholar Fang M. C., Panguluri P., Machtinger E. L., & Schillinger D. (2009). Language, literacy, and characterization of stroke among patients taking Warfarin for stroke prevention: Implications for health communication.Patient Education and Counseling, 403–410. Google Scholar Gold P. C., & Johnson J. A. (1982). Prediction of achievement in reading, self-esteem, auding, and verbal language by adult illiterates in a psychoeducational tutorial program.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 513–522. Google Scholar Greenberg D. (2008). The challenges facing adult literacy programs.Community Literacy Journal, 3, 39–54. Google Scholar Greenberg D., Ehri L. C., & Perin D. (1997). Are word-reading processes the same or different in adult literacy students and third-fifth graders matched for reading level?.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 262–275. Google Scholar Greenberg D., Sabatini S. (Eds.). (2011). Adult literacy interventions [Special Issue].Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(2). Google Scholar Greenberg D., Pae H., Morris R., Calhoon M. B., & Nanda A. (2009) Measuring adult literacy students’ reading skills using the Gray Oral Reading Test.Annals of Dyslexia, 2009, DOI 10.1007/s11881-009-0027-8. Google Scholar Greenberg D., Wise J., Morris R., Fredrick L., Rodrigo V., Nanda A., & Pae H. (2011). A randomized-control study of instructional approaches for struggling adult readers.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 101–117. Google Scholar Hall S., Greenberg D., Laures-Gore J., & Pae H. (under review). The relationship between expressive vocabulary knowledge and reading skills for adult struggling readers. Google Scholar Hoffman L. (1978). Reading errors among skilled and unskilled adult readers.Community/Junior College Research Quarterly, 2, 151–162. Google Scholar Kennen E. M., Davis T.C., Huang J., Yu H., Carden D., Bass R., & Arnold C. (2005). Tipping the scales: The effect of literacy on obese patients’ knowledge and readiness to lose weight.Southern Medical Journal, 98, 15–18. Google Scholar Kruidenier J. (2002). Research-based principles for adult basic education reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Google Scholar McShane S. (2005), Applying research in reading instruction for adults: First steps for teachers. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Google Scholar Nanda A., Greenberg D., & Morris R. (2010). Modeling Child-Based Theoretical Constructs with Struggling Adult Readers.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 139–153. DOI: 10.1177/0022219409359344. PubMed # 20179308. Google Scholar National Assessment of Adult Literacy (2003). Retrieved from www.ncladvocacy.org/ffadult.html#factsheets. Google Scholar Perin D. (1991). Test scores and adult literacy instruction: Relationship of reading test scores to three types of literacy instruction in a worker education program.Language and Literacy Spectrum, 1, 46–51. Google Scholar Smith M. C. (2007). Teaching and learning in adult basic education.In Guzzetti B. J. (Ed.) Literacy for the new millennium: Vol. 4. Adult literacy (pp. 39–57). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Google Scholar Snow C., & Strucker J. (2000). Lessons from preventing reading difficulties in young children for adult learning and literacy.In Comings J., Garner B., & Smith C. (Eds.). Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy: Vol. 1 (pp. 25–73). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar Sticht T. G. (1982). Evaluation of the “reading potential” concept for marginally literate adults. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 217 168). Google Scholar Taylor N., Greenberg D., Laures-Gore J., & Wise J. (in press). Exploring the syntactic skills of struggling adult readers. Google Scholar Williams M. V., Baker D. W., Parker R. M., & Nurss J. (1998). Relationship of functional health literacy to patients’ knowledge of their chronic disease: a study of patients with hypertension or diabetes.Archives of Internal Medicine, 158, 166–172. Google Scholar Author Notes is associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education at Georgia State University. Her research interests focus on family literacy, health literacy, instructional interventions for struggling adult readers, and word-reading processes of both children and adults. She can be reached at [email protected]. is associate professor of communication disorders at Georgia State University. Her research interests include adult language and motor speech disorders. She can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 16Issue 10August 2011 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Aug 1, 2011 Metrics Current downloads: 1,639 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesleader-topicsCopyright & Permissions© 2011 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Using visual phonics as a strategic intervention to increase literacy behaviors for kindergarten participants at-risk for reading failure.

A primary task of schools is to teach young children to read. Teaching reading is a complex task, further complicated by the fact that this intricate skill is more difficult for some participants to learn than others (Bursuck & Damar, 2007; Moats, 2000). In addition, children enter schools with varying levels of pre-reading skills, thus requiring different levels of instruction. The challenge for teachers of reading is to meet the diverse instructional needs of all children in their classrooms. Once children fall behind in reading, a challenging instructional task becomes even more difficult. Children who are behind in reading at the end of the first grade usually continue to be behind at the fourth grade and throughout their schooling (Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Fletcher, & Shaywitz, 1996; Hall & Moats, 1999; Juel, 1988; McGuinness, 2004, 2005; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Consequences for participants who do not learn to read proficiently are often dire. Children who are poor readers are at increased risk for having behavior problems (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995; Walker & Severson, 2002), special education placement (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and low paying jobs as adults (Chhabra & McCardle, 2004). On the other hand, proficient reading remains the most essential skill required for academic success (Chhabra & McCardle, 2004). The ability to identify those children who need extra assistance can allow teachers to target their instruction to benefit all children. The last decade has seen an intensive effort to identify participants that are at risk or high risk for reading failure and to intervene before they experience failure (Kame'enui et al., 2006). For example, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) (Good, Kaminski, Smith, & Laimon, 2001) has proven to be an effective assessment and predictive tool for early reading success/failure. The DIBELS is an assessment tool that allows teachers to determine if a participant is demonstrating the appropriate level of pre-reading and reading skills for his or her grade level and age. In other words, it answers the question of whether the participant is on target (at benchmark) in prerequisite skills to be a proficient reader at the end of third grade. If the participant is on target then the current instruction should be continued. However, if the participant is not on target that participant should receive additional explicit instruction with the intensity of the intervention based on the degree to which the participant is below benchmark standards. Unfortunately, many teachers do not know what to do with the results of the DIBELS assessment, particularly how to modify instruction or provide more intensive instruction in problem areas. Curriculum-based measures (CBM) are an assessment tool that can be used to supplement DIBELS. CBMs are generally probes of particular performances on skills related to the on-going classroom instruction. We discuss one effective modification for teaching kindergarten children letter/sound relationships using the DIBELS and CBMs as the dependent variables. Important indicators of future reading difficulties in young children are deficits in phonemic awareness skills (Ehri, 2004; McGuinness, 2004, 2005). That is, young children who are at risk for reading failure have difficulty discriminating between the sounds in English words and consequently they have difficulty associating the sounds with the appropriate letters. Letter sound relations require a child to perceive individual sounds and associate the sounds with letters. This two-fold task encompasses both phonemic awareness and beginning phonics instruction, crucial prerequisites for mastering the alphabetic code. Bowey and Francis (1991) found that kindergarten participants who were nonreaders did not have adequate phonological awareness skills. …

Literacy in Ireland

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderWorld Beat1 Aug 2007Literacy in Ireland Martine Smith Martine Smith Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.WB3.12102007.14 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Nearly 20 years after David Koppenhaver and David Yoder put the topic of literacy and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) firmly on the research agenda, what have we learned? We have laid to rest the myth that children and adults who use AAC cannot learn to read and write (Sturm & Clendon, 2004). We recognize the complexity of developing skills in reading and writing, in devising assessments that effectively tap underlying skills, and in constructing intervention programs that meet the needs of those who use AAC. We do not have all the answers, but our questions are becoming more focused. Although many individuals who use AAC find reading and writing difficult, this struggle is not directly the result of speech impairment. Becoming a successful reader-writer involves many factors, and the resources the learner brings are important. Individuals who use AAC face multiple challenges and potential barriers in learning to read and write. Probably the most significant yet poorly understood component relates to language skills and AAC. The links between spoken language skills and literacy development are well-documented. All aspects of language, including syntax, morphology, semantics, pragmatics, and meta-linguistic skills (especially phonological awareness), are important in learning to read and write. What is less clear is how use of aided communication influences language development (von Tetzchner & Grove, 2003), and hence literacy attainment. Many children who use aided communication start the formal process of reading and writing when they are at the early stages of using formal systems of expressive language. Their experiences in speaking are very different from their peers and accessing many aspects of language may be constrained. Certainly the cognitive challenges of accessing language structure are far greater than for their speaking peers. Children using aided communication cannot easily match the levels of interaction of speaking children. Identifying possible communication barriers is a necessary step. Using communication systems with combined potential at an early age allows children more opportunities to construct their own language systems. The result is refocused attention on the importance of language to the whole process of literacy learning. Some skills involved in both reading and writing do not depend solely on learner resources. Unlike spoken language skills, these skills are linked closely to specific experiences and rely on explicit instruction. Interest in and research on effective reading instruction has exploded over the past four decades (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). Two things are now clear. One is that good literacy instruction is good for all children. No evidence demonstrates that children who are struggling to read require radically different teaching approaches from their peers, although instruction may require more intensity. For children using AAC, we may need to adapt materials and presentation, but the fundamental principles of effective instruction do not change. Second, learning needs change over time. Early literacy experiences that allow children to become familiar with the form and purpose of print—through shared reading, storytelling, creation of text, familiarity with letters, and early sound-play games—are critically important for children who use AAC (Light & Kelford-Smith, 1993). Progressing to the next stage of reading requires explicit instruction. Strong evidence suggests that this instruction should include specific attention to the sound structure of language (Snow et al., 1998). It should make explicit the links between sound patterns and written forms, as typified in a phonics approach, and supported by access to voice output. However, it is not at all clear that all children access or use these skills in the same way, or to the same extent. Children may have access to strategies that they do not use in their reading and writing. Children and adults who use AAC may be predisposed or biased to pay attention to visual forms at least as much as to analytic strategies. Fluent readers and writers have access to a range of skills. Individuals who use AAC need at least the same opportunities to develop a full repertoire of skills. Literacy proficiency is attainable—but that does not make it easy. We are still at the early stage of developing intervention programs that meet the needs of children and adults using AAC while also accommodating the educational opportunities and challenges implicit in service delivery models. Approximately 8% of all children are estimated to present with specific reading difficulties. Unfortunately the presence of one disability, such as dysarthria, does not provide immunity against other difficulties, such as dyslexia. It is important to recognize that a sizeable minority of individuals using AAC face additional challenges acquiring literacy skills that may be unrelated to their use of AAC. If these individuals were speaking, the difficulties likely would be identified. The need to use AAC does not cause these difficulties—but it does make the identification process much more complex! Finally, we can gain some insights from successful AAC users. Erickson, Koppenhaver, & Yoder (2002) and Fried-Oken & Bersani (2000) present essays by or with augmented communicators reflecting on their journey to literacy. A number of key characteristics of successful intervention programs are common across many of the writings: Integrating all aspects of communication, and encouraging independent communication from an early stage Harnessing motivation of all participants and stakeholders, and raising expectations that literacy can be achieved Providing intensive input over extended periods of time in functional, real, and meaningful activities Integrating reading, writing, spelling, and communication across activities and goals Using voice output and other technologies Having a willingness to adapt, take risks, use trial-and-error, and maintain an open and questioning attitude to intervention. These are sound principles for all our interventions. As we embrace the challenge of building the evidence base to guide our practice, these principles provide a good starting point. AAC in Ireland: Population Surge Challenges Service Delivery In Ireland, a small country of slightly more than 4 million, most health and education services are publicly funded. The majority of SLPs work in the public health system, providing services to children attending mainstream and special schools, but they are not formally linked to the Department of Education and Science. The separation can be difficult, particularly for complex educational challenges such as with children using AAC. Complicating service provision is the seismic shift in the country’s population size and demographics over the past 10 years, fueled by an economic boom. In 2006, the population reached the highest recorded level since 1861, and immigration accounted for almost 15% of that increase. The boom presents significant challenges for all health and education services, including services for individuals who use AAC. Language and literacy learning are socio-cultural processes, embedded in interaction contexts that may differ significantly across different ethnic groups (Harrison-Harris, 2002). Understanding and adapting to the diversity of philosophies surrounding these processes, as well as to socially modulated concepts of disability, will be key challenges to all working in this area in the coming years. AAC is well-established in Ireland. In the late 1980s, clinicians and teachers established a special interest group, which became a chapter of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) in 1996; Ireland hosted ISAAC’s biennial conference in Dublin in 1998. ISAAC-Ireland continues to offer support through mini-conferences, seminars, and a range of educational activities. Concurrent with Ireland’s significant growth in ethnic and cultural diversity are ongoing and exciting developments in AAC, including two related to literacy. In 2006 SLPs and educators came together to review the National Primary School Curriculum and explore how it could be adapted to meet the needs of children using AAC. The curriculum is divided into three strands: oral language, reading, and writing. Each strand is subdivided into four units: Receptiveness to language Confidence and competence in using language Developing cognitive abilities through language Emotional and imaginative development through language The group identified the barriers and facilitators in each of these strands, and developed educational and intervention strategies to promote access to the curriculum for children using AAC. This ongoing project represents a significant step in collaboration across traditional administrative boundaries. A second collaborative project, launched in 2006 with the National Adult Literacy Association, focuses on training literacy tutors to work with adults who use AAC. A series of workshops developed by Trinity College Dublin and Enable Ireland services promoted skill development for interested volunteers. In 2007 programs were initiated to support two adults who use AAC in acquiring literacy skills, within mainstream adult education services. Both these initiatives reflect a firmly held philosophy—that children and adults who use AAC should be supported to develop literacy skills across the lifespan, in contexts that are as close as possible to those of their peers without disabilities. Accommodations are necessary for this integration to be successful—and that is the challenge we all face, whatever our location. References Erickson K., Koppenhaver D., & Yoder D. E. (2002). Waves of Words: Augmented communicators read and write. Toronto: ISAAC Press. Google Scholar Fried-Oken M., & Bersani H. (2000). Speaking up and spelling it out: Personal essays on Augmentative and Alternative Communication. London: Paul Brookes Publishing Co. Google Scholar Snow C., Burns M. S., & Griffin P. E. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar Smith M. (2005). Literacy and Augmentative and Alternative Communication. London: Elsevier Press. Google Scholar Author Notes Martine Smith, is a senior lecturer in speech-language pathology at Trinity College Dublin. She is past president of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, and author of Literacy and Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Contact her at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 12Issue 10August 2007 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Aug 1, 2007 Metrics Current downloads: 479 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2007 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Building support for language and early literacy in preschool classrooms through in-service professional development: Effects of the Literacy Environment Enrichment Program (LEEP)

There is a substantial and persistent gap in achievement between children from different backgrounds [National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Children's reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten and first grade. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office] that can be traced to the preschool years [Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press], highlighting the importance of ensuring that preschools that serve low-income populations provide strong support for children's language and early literacy development. The current project sought to improve program quality in Head Start classrooms throughout New England with the Literacy Environment Enrichment Program (LEEP), an in-service intervention that was delivered in the form of a credit-bearing course. The impact of LEEP was studied using a wait-list comparison group strategy to determine whether intervention group teachers (n = 30) showed more fall–spring growth in measures of classroom support for literacy than did comparison group teachers (n = 40). Multiple hierarchical regression analyses that controlled for background measures and fall scores on classroom measures revealed moderate to large positive effects on all measures of classrooms support for language and early literacy with the exception of writing, for which only a small effect was found.

Using Early Literacy Monitoring to Prevent Reading Failure

MOST CHILDREN who do not to during the primary grades will probably never to well. Children who reach the end of third grade with low literacy skills typically have less access to the regular curriculum, require long-term support, and fall further behind their peers in literacy achievement and curricular knowledge. The negative ramifications of low literacy skills are pervasive and well documented--poor self-esteem, low motivation, behavioral difficulties, academic underachievement, and, ultimately, reduced occupational and economic status. However, these negative trajectories can be altered. Children experiencing reading difficulties can be identified early and, with appropriate early intervention during the primary grades, can to read. (1) Reading is a complex process, and that complexity is reflected in the range of philosophies, pedagogies, curricula, and programs available to guide early elementary reading instruction. It is little wonder, given the myriad of options available and the constraints imposed by limited resources and students' diverse skills, that a crucial question for practitioners and researchers alike is how best to ensure that children do to early and well. The Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children suggests a three-tier framework to address that question: 1) provide excellent classroom literacy instruction for all children, 2) further reduce literacy failure by allocating supplementary resources and offering enhanced learning opportunities to at-risk children, and 3) ameliorate the effects of established reading difficulties by providing intensive interventions. Efforts to translate research into practice always generate additional questions, and early literacy is no exception. As with most issues in education, responses to concerns about early literacy programming must take into account the needs of multiple stakeholders--students, parents, teachers, and administrators--while at the same time respecting empirical evidence of what constitutes effective practice. Research strongly supports both the vital role of early identification in the prevention of reading difficulties and the urgent need to teach children to during the first few years of school so that they can read to learn in grade 3 and beyond. These issues were the driving force behind a yearlong process in which a group of researchers from the Canadian Research Institute for Social Policy consulted with the New Brunswick Department of Education and five district school boards. The consultation evolved into a five-year pilot program aimed at lowering the rate of reading failure at the K-2 level. The pilot program involves implementing a school-based, continuous monitoring system during those crucial years to assist teachers in the early identification of children who encounter difficulty in their literacy development. This early literacy monitoring program, currently in its third year of data collection, is being piloted in 20 public schools and six federal First Nations schools. It responds to needs expressed by teachers, department officials, and school administrators and provides a mechanism for keeping parents apprised of their children's progress. IDENTIFYING WHAT WE NEED Throughout the first year of our five-year program, two members of our project team traveled frequently to participating schools and district offices to gather input from teachers, reading specialists, program coordinators, and school administrators. After each round of meetings, the entire research team, including researchers, programmers, analysts, early reading consultants, and support staff, would review partner specifications in order to design the components of the monitoring program. At each stage, return visits to districts and schools sought further input that the research team would again take into account, a process that continued over the course of the year until we had a structure in place that met the expectations of all partners. …

50 years ago in the journal of pediatrics: Why Johnny can’t read: Fact or fallacy

Hobkirk, J. J Pediatr 1956;48:520-529.In his book Why Johnny Can’t Read, Rudulph Flesch identified poor teaching methods as the primary cause of reading failure in American schools. More specifically, he proposed that the problem was a lack of phonics instruction, a teaching approach in which students are taught to phonetically decode words through the process of linking speech sounds (“phonemes”) to letters (“graphemes”) and to blend the sounds together to produce words. Published in 1955 when a whole word method was popular in elementary schools, Flesch’s book garnered national attention and spurred criticism from advocates of the “look-and-say” approach, in which students learn to sight-read words through repeated exposure in text. Hobkirk’s article, in which she states, “Why Johnny Can’t Read is a partisan, argumentative discussion which generates a great deal more heat than it throws light on the subject,” provides an introduction to the so-called “reading wars” that ensued.For decades after the publication of Why Johnny Can’t Read, there remained vehement disagreement about how to teach children to read, and popularity rather than empirical support determined which instructional approach was employed. Then, in 1997, through a Congressional mandate, the National Reading Panel (NRP) was formed to systematically examine the available research literature on reading instruction using rigorous scientific methodology. In 2000, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development published the NRP report.1National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)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: Reports of the Subgroups. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC2000Google Scholar Their conclusions, along with those in a consensus report of the National Research Council (NRC), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children,2Snow C.E. Burns M.S. Griffin P. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Academies Press, Washington, DC1998Google Scholar, 3McCardle P. Vinita C. The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co, Baltimore, MD2004Google Scholar have served as the basis for significant changes in public policy, which incorporate the central components of reading instruction identified by the NRP: explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development, and comprehension strategies.Despite this progress, results of the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), published by the National Center for Educational Statistics, indicate that 38% of American fourth graders fail to attain even basic levels of reading achievement; they are unable to understand the overall meaning of what they have read and lack the skills necessary to work proficiently at grade-level. Of the approximately 10 million American children who have difficulties learning to read, 10% to 15% eventually drop out of school. Given the high risk for poor outcomes in children with reading failure, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development considers literacy a national public health, rather than an educational, issue. Hobkirk, J. J Pediatr 1956;48:520-529. In his book Why Johnny Can’t Read, Rudulph Flesch identified poor teaching methods as the primary cause of reading failure in American schools. More specifically, he proposed that the problem was a lack of phonics instruction, a teaching approach in which students are taught to phonetically decode words through the process of linking speech sounds (“phonemes”) to letters (“graphemes”) and to blend the sounds together to produce words. Published in 1955 when a whole word method was popular in elementary schools, Flesch’s book garnered national attention and spurred criticism from advocates of the “look-and-say” approach, in which students learn to sight-read words through repeated exposure in text. Hobkirk’s article, in which she states, “Why Johnny Can’t Read is a partisan, argumentative discussion which generates a great deal more heat than it throws light on the subject,” provides an introduction to the so-called “reading wars” that ensued. For decades after the publication of Why Johnny Can’t Read, there remained vehement disagreement about how to teach children to read, and popularity rather than empirical support determined which instructional approach was employed. Then, in 1997, through a Congressional mandate, the National Reading Panel (NRP) was formed to systematically examine the available research literature on reading instruction using rigorous scientific methodology. In 2000, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development published the NRP report.1National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)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: Reports of the Subgroups. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC2000Google Scholar Their conclusions, along with those in a consensus report of the National Research Council (NRC), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children,2Snow C.E. Burns M.S. Griffin P. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Academies Press, Washington, DC1998Google Scholar, 3McCardle P. Vinita C. The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co, Baltimore, MD2004Google Scholar have served as the basis for significant changes in public policy, which incorporate the central components of reading instruction identified by the NRP: explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development, and comprehension strategies. Despite this progress, results of the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), published by the National Center for Educational Statistics, indicate that 38% of American fourth graders fail to attain even basic levels of reading achievement; they are unable to understand the overall meaning of what they have read and lack the skills necessary to work proficiently at grade-level. Of the approximately 10 million American children who have difficulties learning to read, 10% to 15% eventually drop out of school. Given the high risk for poor outcomes in children with reading failure, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development considers literacy a national public health, rather than an educational, issue.

Biliteracy and Second-Language Learners

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Jun 2004Biliteracy and Second-Language Learners Hortencia Kayser Hortencia Kayser Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR2.09122004.4 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In There were over 3.4 million children with limited English proficiency in elementary and secondary schools in the United States in 1997–2000 (Census, 2000). Schools across the nation are faced with the formidable responsibility of educating culturally and linguistically diverse children. Hispanics, the largest group, now represent over 13% of the nation's population and are projected to comprise a larger percentage in all regions by 2025. Children who are second language learners face the challenges of learning to speak, read, and write in English and learn the content of academic subjects while adjusting to the cultural and linguistic environments of American schools. As the number of children from homes where a language other than English is spoken increases, speech-language pathologists are becoming more concerned about how intervention should be provided to this growing population. There was a time when the major argument was whether children with language impairments could learn two languages and whether we should attempt to facilitate bilingualism in this population. Thoughtful clinicians may have posed the question, but practicality was that treatment had to be in English. We're finding that this solution isn't as effective for children as practicality prescribed. As our field's scope of practice expanded to include literacy, the questions that now confront clinicians are: “Should we facilitate young children's experiences in two literacy environments, English and the home language? Can children with language impairments become biliterate?” I believe that we're again asking the wrong questions. What we should be asking is “What are the best strategies for language and literacy development in young children who are learning English as a second language?” Since we know that children are individuals and have their own language-learning strategies, there has to be more than one way to develop literacy abilities in second-language learners. Realities and Assumptions Unfortunately, the reality for many second-language learners is a high dropout rate, (Cuban have the lowest while Mexican children have the highest drop out rates), poverty in the majority of homes, lack of school resources, and inner city schools that may have environmental hazards not conducive to learning (Census, 2000; Paratore, Melzi, & Krol-Sinclair, 2003; Pew Report, 2002). In addition, teacher attitudes may exist that do not promote parents' contributions to the education of children. Teachers may believe that the absence of parent-child storybook reading is evidence that a child has been reared in a low-literate home and is thus at risk for reading difficulty. Teachers may think that parents who have low literacy and low English proficiency are uninterested in supporting their children's school success or that parents who are uneducated or have low English literacy lack effective parenting skills. Finally, teachers may believe that children “come with nothing” and teachers are doing “the best they can” with children who enter as “empty slates” (Paratore, Melzi, & Krol-Sinclair, 2003). Too often we focus on the negative and don't consider what the family brings in the native language to the literacy development of their own children (Dickinson & Tabors, 2002). Families vary in their backgrounds and their expectations for their children. Parents may have been educated in their native language but do not have the same social cultural practices of book reading that is assumed for mainstream American families. But literacy may be in the home in other forms (see the sidebar at right). Thomas & Collier (1998) stated that research conducted with children suggests that first-language literacy development is strongly related to successful second-language learning and academic achievement, and that literacy skills developed in the native language transfer to the second language. The outcome for these children will be biliteracy. At the opposite end of the continuum, Fitzgerald and Noblit (1999) suggest that young, typically developing ESL children are capable of making sense of written input while they are working on becoming fluent speakers of English. These authors suggest that the earliest stages of reading and writing development may outpace children's oral development in the second language and that native language reading development is not a prerequisite for learning to read in a new language. The outcome here is literacy in English but not necessarily in the home language. We can assume that this probably is the course of action for most school systems, and we know that there is a high dropout rate using this method of instruction (Census, 2000). Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) reported that the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children recommends that whenever possible, bilingualism and biliteracy should be promoted as it provides intellectual, economic, and social benefits. The use of the native language aids in the meaning-making process by allowing learners to read words they know and sentences they understand, use content effectively, and self-correct efficiently. According to the International Reading Association's position statement, “The accumulated wisdom of research in the field of bilingualism suggests that while initial literacy learning in a second language (i.e., English) can be successful, it is riskier than starting with the child's home language-especially for those children affected by poverty, low levels of parental education, or poor schooling.” Learning two languages is possible and feasible for many children, just as learning two literacy systems is possible and feasible for many children. The hurdle is convincing professionals and educators that developing children's native language and literacy does promote the learning of the English language and literacy. What Can We Do? The successful education of young English Language Learners (ELLs) depends on the successful cooperation and interactions of parents with their children in oral language and literacy activities. Parents are an important component of successful academic learning in all children. Research suggests that parents who speak a language different from that of the school environment must promote native language use in young children so that these children may develop cognitive and linguistic skills necessary for literacy. Effective practice would be to provide materials in the native language to parents so that they may assist their children in oral language and literacy development at home. This native language academic preparation will transfer to English as the child develops English competency in school. The advantage that English-speaking children have can be an advantage that second-language-learning children may have if parents are provided the tools to develop their child's foundations for school achievements. Thomas and Collier state that there are two ways to empower language minority students in an English-dominant classroom: provide age-appropriate books written in the native language in both the school and home environments, and encourage parents to participate in the learning process. We must learn about children's lives beyond the school walls. Expect the most from children and avoid the deficit model. Implement a curriculum that is meaningful to the children and recognize their knowledge of two languages and cultures (MacGilivray & Rueda, 2003). Hancock reported that providing Hispanic children with Spanish books that are then read to them at home resulted in children who learned English literacy at a higher level than children who received English-only books. These children were achieving at the same level as children who spoke only English. In many cases, however, sending native language books home isn't enough. Often parents themselves need training in literacy. In a project discussed by Paratore, Melzi, and Krol-Sinclair, parents became partners with teachers in developing their children's literacy only when they were provided adult literacy classes and explanation of the classroom expectations. These parents developed their own literacy skills while they learned to communicate more effectively with teachers and learned how to be partners in the education of their children. There were several components of this program that accounted for its success: monthly newsletter shared details of classroom themes and activities elicited from parents information about how these connected to children's experiences home literacy portfolio engaged parents and teachers in reciprocal learning; parents shared samples and explained home literacy practices with teachers and vice versa parents as classroom storybook readers helped these parents enter the classroom with what they were learning about storybook reading in the adult literacy class; parents learned about book selection, read-aloud techniques, modeled and discussed strategies, and learned how to invite children's comments and predictions. Snow, Burns, and Griffin developed a framework for predicting success and failure for reading difficulties in young children that encompasses child-based, school-based, and family-based factors. These include a value placed on literacy, emphasis on achievement, availability and use of reading materials, and parent-child book reading. We cannot assume that all children who are ELLs come from homes that do not value literacy, have parents who do not want their children to achieve academically, do not have reading materials, and do not share book reading in the home. We can assume that families will be different, children will have different experiences with literacy, and that their experiences can be a strength to learning in school. Children who are second-language learners need our support and our belief in them that they can become bilingual and biliterate. We, as clinicians, can support these children by working not only with teachers, but also with parents. Second-Language Learners Background Children enter the schools with diverse language backgrounds and experiences. The roles and expectations for children in their own cultures have determined the extent of their language development and literacy experiences. Sometimes children have some schooling in their native language. Parents of these children may not have been born in the United States and may have the literacy expectation of their native country. English may be the school language and the native language may be used at home and in the community. Households may receive written materials in the form of native language newspapers and books. Children may be expected to comprehend vocabulary and language structures that are totally alien to them. Adapted from Kayser, H. (1998). Assessment and intervention resource for Hispanic children. Delmar-Thompson: New York. Resources Journal ArticleHome Literacy Experiences and Their Relationship to Bilingual Preschoolers' Developing English Literacy Abilities: An Initial Investigation, by Carol Scheffner Hammer, Adele W. Miccio, and David A. Wagstaff ASHA Leader ArticleAAC, Literacy, and Bilingualism Brochure “Learning Two Languages” Order from ASHA Product Sales (888-498-6699; ask for #0112544 [English] or #0112545 [Spanish]) The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instructional Educational Programshttp://www.ncela.gwu.edu National Center for Family Literacyhttp://www.famlit.org International Literacy Explorerhttp://literacy.org/explorer/overview.html Has an application that allows you to view statistics on literacy across the globe. Very interesting site. Development of Literacy in Spanish Speakers -an excellent resource from the Center for Applied Linguistics. They had to create their own products and are providing them for free- http://www.cal.org/delss/index.html#OVERVIEW References Dickinson D. K., & Tabors P. O. (2002). Fostering language and literacy in classrooms and homes.Young Children, 57, 10–18. Google Scholar Fitzgerald & Noblit (1999). About hopes, aspirations, and uncertainty: First-grade English-language learners' emergent reading.Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 133–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Hancock D. R. (Fall, 2002). The effects of native language books on the pre-literacy skill development of language minority kindergartners.Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17(1), 62–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar International Reading Association (2001). Second-language literacy instruction: A position statement of the International Reading Association. International Reading Association: Newark, DE. http://www.reading.org Google Scholar MacGillivray L., & Rueda R. (2003). Listening to inner city teachers of English language learners: Differentiating literacy instruction. http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/2001-05/0105McRued.htm Google Scholar Montague N. S., Marroquin C., & Lucido F. (2002). A dual language curriculum for young children.In Cassidy J. & Garrett S. D. (Eds.), Early childhood literacy: programs & strategies to develop cultural, linguistic, scientific and healthcare literacy for very young dhildren & their families, 2001 Yearbook. Corpus Christi, TX: CEDER. Google Scholar Paratore J. R., Melzi G., & Krol-Sinclair B. (2003). Learning about the literate lives of Latino families.In Barone D. M. & Morrow L. M. (Eds.) Literacy and Young Children (pp. 101–120). New York: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar Pew Hispanic Center (2002). 2002 National survey of Latinos. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Google Scholar Snow E. E., Burns M. S., & Griffin P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar Tabors P. O., & Snow C. E. (2002). Young bilingual children and early literacy development.In Neuman S. B. & Dickinson D. K. (Eds), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 159–178).New York: The Gilford Press. Google Scholar Thomas W. P., & Collier V. (1998). Two languages are better than one.Educational Leadership, 55(4), 23–27. Google Scholar U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000 [Data file]. Available from the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, http://www.census.gov Google Scholar Author Notes Hortencia Kayser, is professor of communication sciences and disorders and associate dean of the Graduate School at Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO. Contact her at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetailsCited byContemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders42:Fall (191-201)1 May 2015Direct Vocabulary Instruction With Two 5th-Grade English-Language Learners With Language-Learning Disabilities: A Treatment StudyLaura Green, Melissa Stockholm, Jennifer Cearley and Lareshea Sheffield-Anderson Volume 9Issue 12June 2004 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Jun 1, 2004 Metrics Current downloads: 745 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2004 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

ACCELERATING STRUGGLING READERS' PROGRESS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EXPERT OPINION AND CURRENT RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

In this article, we review the findings of Rona Flippo's (1998) “Expert Study” within the comparative context of recently published reading research reports such as the National Reading Panel report (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) and Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Does expert opinion square with research recommendations for helping young, struggling readers? Instructional practices that the experts categorized as either “making learning to read difficult” or “facilitating learning to read” are distilled into summary form. Areas of convergence and divergence between “expert opinion” and recent reading research recommendations are identified and discussed. Finally, recommendations of the “Expert Study” and recommendations of recent reading research reports are synthesized into a single set of instructional recommendations for accelerating the progress of struggling readers.

Learning to Read in Kindergarten: Has Curriculum Development Bypassed the Controversies?

The prevailing assumption has been that a formal reading curriculum is inappropriate for kindergartners. However, district staff members and teachers in the Northern Lights School Division of Alberta were convinced that a nurturing approach to teaching reading would not endanger the and might in fact prevent some of them from encountering academic difficulties in the primary grades and beyond. WE'LL BEGIN with a simple proposition: let's teach our kindergarten students to read. We already know how to do it, so why don't we? Within schools and school districts, decisions about curriculum and instruction in literacy have to be made on the basis of present knowledge and judgment. Such decisions can't wait until all controversies have been resolved and all the evidence is in with regard to available options. In the case of kindergarten, decisions about curriculum are complicated by debates about whether there should be a formal curriculum in reading or whether the components of the kindergarten program should be designed to develop the dimensions of emergent literacy only. But research on how to teach beginning readers grows apace, and we believe that we should take advantage of it. In the Northern Lights School Division in Alberta, Canada -- a district of 20 schools and about 6,500 students -- we decided to design a formal reading curriculum for kindergarten, prepare the teachers to implement it, and conduct an action research study of student learning. Our decision stemmed from the judgment that research on beginning reading had reached the point where an effective, engaging, and multidimensional curriculum could be designed and implemented without placing our students at risk in the process. And if such a curriculum proved successful, it seemed likely that the much-publicized gap would be reduced. Over the past five years in Northern Lights, we (we includes the superintendent, Ed Wittchen; the trustees; and representative teachers and administrators) had concentrated on the development of nets for low-achieving students at the second-grade level and in grades 4 through 12.1 We based the two curriculum designs on strands of research on beginning literacy for young and for older struggling readers and writers.2 Currently, in both safety net curricula, about three-fourths of the students are progressing well and narrowing the distance between themselves and the district's average students. The others are holding their own. The need for the safety net programs and our observation of the frustration and hopelessness experienced by students who needed help caused us to consider the K-3 literacy curricula and to explore whether we could strengthen them and so reduce the need for the later safety nets. We take seriously the statement by Connie Juel, who, in reacting to the National Research Council report Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, wrote that children who struggle in vain with reading in the first grade soon decide that they neither like nor want to read.3 Our teachers who work in the safety net programs confirm that their job is half instruction and half therapy. For some decades, because of the concerns about not generating demands beyond the capabilities of the students or introducing students to reading in unpleasant ways, there has been a dearth of studies on formal reading programs for kindergarten. A few studies did suggest that formal reading programs in kindergarten could have positive effects that lasted throughout schooling. For kindergarten interventions as such, though, we had to go back to Delores Durkin's work of 30 years ago. In building a kindergarten curriculum, we were not able to draw on a body of recent research on, say, alternative kindergarten reading programs or dimensions of learning to read at age 5. We drew on the literature relevant to learning to read in grades 1 through 3 and above. …

At What Age Should Children Enter Kindergarten? A Question for Policy Makers and Parents

Social Policy ReportVolume 16, Issue 2 p. 1-20 ReportFree Access At What Age Should Children Enter Kindergarten? A Question for Policy Makers and Parents Deborah Stipek, Deborah Stipek Stanford UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Deborah Stipek, Deborah Stipek Stanford UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 June 2002 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2002.tb00018.xCitations: 61AboutPDF 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 References Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. W. Barnett, & S. Boocock (Eds.). (1998). Early care and education for children in poverty: Promises, programs, and long-term outcomes. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York Press. Bickel, D., Zigmond, N., & Strayhorn, J. (1991). Chronological age at entrance to first grade: Effects on elementary school success. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 105– 117. Bisanz, J., Morrison, F., & Dunn, M. (1995). Effects of age and schooling on the acquisition of elementary quantitative skills. Developmental Psychology, 31, 221– 236. B. Bowman, S. Donovan, & S. Burns (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Brent, D., May, D., & Kundert, D. (1996). The incidence of delayed school entry: A twelve-year review. Early Education and Development, 7, 121– 135. Breznitz, Z., & Teltsch, T. (1989). The effect of school entrance age on academic achievement and socialemotional adjustment of children: Follow-up study of fourth graders. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 62– 68. Byrd, R., Weitzman, M., & Auinger, P. (1997). Increased behavior problems associated with delayed school entry and delayed school progress. Pediatrics, 100, 664– 661. Cahan, S., & Cohen, N. (1989). Age versus schooling effects on intelligence development. Child Development, 60, 1239– 1249. Cahan, S., & Davis, D. (1987). A between-grade-levels approach to the investigation of the absolute effects of schooling on achievement. American Education Research Journal, 24, 1– 12. Cameron, M., & Wilson, B. (1990). The effects of chronological age, gender, and delay of entry on academic achievement and retention: Implications for academic redshirting. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 260– 263. Carlton, M., & Winsler, A. (1999). School readiness: The need for a paradigm shift. School Psychology Review, 28, 338– 352. Cosden, M., Zimmer, J., & Tuss, P. (1993). The impact of age, sex, and ethnicity on kindergarten entry and retention decisions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 209– 222. Cronbach, L. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing ( 5th ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Crone, D., & Whitehurst, G. (1999). Age and schooling effects on emergent literacy and early reading skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 604– 614. Crosser, S. (1991). Summer birth date children: Kindergarten entrance age and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 140– 146. Dietz, C., & Wilson, B. (1985). Beginning school age and achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 93– 94. Entwisle, D., & Alexander, K. (1992). Summer setback: Race, poverty, school composition and mathematics achievement in the first two years of school. American Sociological Review, 57, 72– 84. Ferreira, F., & Morrison, F. (1994). Children's metalinguistic knowledge of syntactic constituents: Effects of age and schooling. Developmental Psychology, 30, 663– 678. Frick, R. (1986). In support of academic redshirting. Young Children, 41(2), 9– 10. Graue, M. E. (1993). Ready for what? Constructing meanings of readiness for kindergarten. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Graue, E., & DiPerna, J. (2000). Redshirting and early retention: Who gets the 舠gift of time舡 and what are its outcomes? American Educational Review Journal, 37, 509– 534. Gredler, G. (1992). School readiness: Assessment and educational issues. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co., Inc. Griffin, S., & Case, R. (1998). Re-thinking the primary school math curriculum: An approach based on cognitive science. Issues in Education, 4, 1– 51. House, E. (1989). Policy implications of retention research. In L. Shepard & M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 202213). Philadelphia: The Falmer Press. Jones, M., & Mandeville, K. (1990). The effect of age at school entry on reading achievement scores among South Carolina students. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 56– 62. Kagan, S. (1990, December). Readiness 2000: Rethinking rhetoric and responsibility. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 272279. S. Kagan, E. Moore, & S. Bredekamp (Eds.). (1995). Reconsidering children's early development and learning: Toward shared beliefs and vocabulary. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel. Kinard, E., & Reinhertz, H. (1986). Birthdate effects on school adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 366– 372. Kundert, D., May, D., & Brent, D. (1995). A comparison of students who delay kindergarten entry and those who are retained in grades K-5. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 202– 209. Langer, P., Kalk, J., & Searls, D. (1984). Age of admission and trends in achievement: A comparison of Blacks and Caucasians. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 61– 78. May, D., Kundert, D., & Brent, D. (1995). Does delayed school entry reduce later grade retentions and use of special education services? Remedial and Special Education, 16, 288– 294. May, D., & Welch, E., (1986). Screening for school readiness: The influence of birthday and sex. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 100– 105. Mayer, S., & Knutson, D. (1999). Does the timing of school affect how much children learn? In S. Mayer & P. Peterson (Eds.), Earning and learning: How schools matter (pp. 79– 102). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. McClelland, M., Morrison, F., & Holmes, D. (2000). Children at risk for early academic problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 307– 329. Meisels, S. (1992). Doing harm by doing good: Iatrogenic effects of early childhood enrollment and promotion policies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 155174. Meisels, S. (1996). Performance in context: Assessing children's achievement at the outset of school. In A. Sameroff & M. Haith (Eds.), The five to seven year shift: The age of reason and responsibility (pp. 408431). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meisels, S. (1999). Assessing readiness. In R. Pianta & M. Cox (Eds)., The transition to kindergarten (pp. 39– 66). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Morrison, F., Griffith, E., & Alberts, D. (1997). Nature-nurture in the classroom: Entrance age, school readiness, and learning in children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 254– 262. Morrison, F., Smith, L., & Dow-Ehrensberger, M. (1995). Education and cognitive development: A natural experiment. Developmental Psychology, 31, 789– 799. Nason, R. (1991). Retaining children: Is it the right decision? Childhood Education, 67, 300– 304. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1993). Public school kindergarten teachers' views on children's readiness for school. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). The elementary school performance and adjustment of children who enter kindergarten late or repeat kindergarten: Findings from national surveys. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education (NCES98-097). National Research Council, Committee on the prevention of reading difficulties In young children. C. Snow, S. Burns, & P. Griffin (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Piotrkowski, C., Botsko, M., & Matthews, E. (2000). Parents' and teachers' beliefs about children's school readiness in a high-need community. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 537– 558. Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1986). Escalating academic demand in kindergarten: Counterproductive policies. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 135– 145. Smith, M., & Shepard, L. (1988). Kindergarten readiness and retention: A qualitative study of teachers' beliefs and practices. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 307– 333. Spizter, S., Cupp, R., & Parke, R. (1995). School entrance age, social acceptance, and self-perceptions in kindergarten and 1st grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 433– 450. Stipek, D., & Byler, P. (2001). Academic achievement and social behaviors associated with age of entry into kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 175– 189. Stipek, D., & Ryan, R. (1997). Economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Ready to learn but further to go. Developmental Psychology, 33, 711– 723. Sweetland, J., & De Simone, P. (1987). Age of entry, sex, and academic achievement in elementary school children. Psychology in the Schools, 234, 406– 412. Uphoff, J., & Gilmore, J. (1986). Pupil age at school entrance: How many are ready for success? Young Children, 41(2), 11– 16. Valeski, T., & Stipek, D. (2001). Young children's attitudes toward school: Causes and consequences. Child Development, 72, 1198– 1213. Varnhagen, C., Morrison, F., & Everall, R. (1994). Age and schooling effects in story recall and story production. Developmental Psychology, 30, 969– 979. Whitehurst, G., Epstein, J., Angell, A., Payne, A., Crone, D., & Fischel, J. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 542– 55. Citing Literature Volume16, Issue2At What Age Should Children Enter Kindergarten? A Question for Policy Makers and ParentsSummer 2002Pages 1-20 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Science informing policy: The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's contribution to reading.

As pediatricians who have devoted our entire professional lives to the care of children and young adults with reading difficulties, we must respond to the misinformed commentary by Strauss1 that appeared in the January 2002 issue. It is difficult to understand how in the year 2002 and in the prestigious journal Pediatrics someone can argue against criteria for scientific research that are the universal “gold standard.” And yet, taking a giant step backwards, Strauss argues against the scientific method and against accountability in education. Specifically, Strauss criticizes the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) research for insisting that treatment efficacy for reading instruction be based on “experimental, not descriptive” studies. His antipathy toward experimental research is based on the “fact that the latter [descriptive] methodology is widely accepted in reading research …” Here, Strauss is partially correct; until quite recently, research in reading instruction was often descriptive. This was unfortunate because an experimental or quasi-experimental design is the only type of research design that can specifically address the question of cause and effect, that is, which reading program is most effective in teaching children to read. The descriptive methodology that Strauss advocates is not appropriate to address the question of causality and thus lacks the quality of trustworthiness that modern science and medicine demand. Within the past decade there has been an extraordinary change; largely through the vision and persistence of the NICHD and particularly, Reid Lyon, research in reading is now held to the same rigorous standard expected of research affecting other important disorders of children. Reading research, including but not limited to that conducted by NICHD-funded investigators, has recently been thoroughly and rigorously reviewed by 2 national bodies. The first is the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, sponsored by … Address correspondence to Sally E. Shaywitz, MD Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT 06510-8064. E-mail: sally.shaywitz{at}yale.edu

Media Reviews: Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children

The alarming incidence of reading failure is one of the most prevalent concerns for our nation. Growing numbers of students are reaching upper elementary, middle school, or high school unable to read at grade level. To complicate matters, divergent views in research, etiology, characteristics, prevention, intervention, and instruction have led to marked controversy in the field of reading over the past 25 years-a controversy termed the Wars to denote its intensity. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children focuses on the increasing numbers of children with reading difficulties in America's schools as well as addressing the conflicts in the field of reading. The book is an essential resource for all professionals, including those interested in developing prevention and intervention reading programs for students with behavioral disorders (BD), a large number of whom have reading difficulties. The authors, chosen for their special competencies by the National Research Council, were charged with synthesizing the extensive body of reading research as well as developing a consensus on the prevention of and interventions for reading difficulties in young children. The focus included children from birth through grade 3 in special and general education settings. The goals were to (a) comprehend a rich but diverse research base; (b) translate the research findings into advice and guidance for parents, educators, publishers, and others involved in the care and instruction of the young; and (c) convey this advice to the targeted audiences through a variety of publications, conferences, and other outreach activities. The authors reviewed research from experimental investigations, qualitative studies, correlational studies, and various quasi-experimental design studies in its efforts to address project goals. In so doing, they agreed upon a definition of reading as a process of getting meaning from print, using knowledge about the written alphabet and about the sound structure of oral language for purposes of achieving understanding. This book is divided into four sections. Part I introduces the challenges of reading literacy and provides an overview of the reading process. Chapter 1 includes information about the rising demand for literacy, societal and technological challenges, and the complexities of the English language. The sources of reading difficulties are reviewed, and the demographics of correlates to reading difficulties are introduced, including socioeconomic status, ethnicity, culture, urban/suburban schools, and students from families with limited English proficiency and/or nonstandard English dialects. Chapter 2 describes the process of learning to read, taking into consideration the biological, cognitive, and instructional factors that are important as predictors for reading success and/or failure. The authors provide an overview of how children develop language and literacy skills before they are introduced to formal instruction. Research specific to children's language development, phonological awareness, and literacy development is presented, as well as the characteristics of skilled readers specific to comprehension and word identification. The chapter describes the processes of emerging literacy and transition to school for the beginning reader; learning to identify words in print; and gaining fluency, automaticity, and understanding. Tables detail the reading accomplishments of children from kindergarten through grade 3. Part 11 describes the population of children who have reading difficulties and the factors that may predict either success or failure in reading. The authors point to predictors that are (a) intrinsic to the individual and identifiable in assessment procedures, (b) identified in the family environment, and (c) associated with the larger environment of the child (e.g., neighborhood, school, community). Chapter 3 examines issues in identification and measurement, including (a) a categorical model versus a dimensional model for estimating reading difficulties; (b) specific groups of students who are not viewed as having legitimate reading problems but who should be included in estimates; and (c) the use of criterion-referenced assessment as opposed to norm-referenced assessment to identify reading difficulties. …

What Speech-Language Pathologists Need To Know About Early Reading

The National Research Council report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, reviews research on early reading and recommends prevention strategies and optimal interventions for reading difficulties. Since speech-language pathologists often treat children whose language problems co-occur

Critical Issues: Reading and the New Literacy Studies: Reframing the National Academy of Sciences Report on Reading

This article is a reflection on the recent report from the National Academy of Sciences, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. This report, typical of many recent discussions of early reading instruction, centers on psycholinguistic aspects of reading having to do with phonological awareness, decoding, word recognition, and literal comprehension. I seek to reframe the report from the perspective of the New Literacy Studies, an interdisciplinary effort that takes a sociocultural approach to language and literacy. My approach is to stress tensions internal to the report itself as pressure points around which one could imagine a different sort of report being written, one more in the spirit of the New Literacy Studies. I take up issues such as whether or not there is a consensus in the reading field; the nature of the “literacy crisis”; relationships among reading, poverty, racism, and culture; whether or not technology leads to higher literacy demands; learning to read as against learning content; and the connections among phonological awareness, early language abilities, and the use of specific genres and registers in school.

Reading Development, Reading Disorders, And Reading Instruction: Research-Based Findings

No AccessPerspectives on Language Learning and EducationArticle1 May 1999Reading Development, Reading Disorders, And Reading Instruction: Research-Based Findings G. Reid Lyon G. Reid Lyon Child Development and Behavior Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of HealthBethesda, MD Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/lle6.1.8 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar Adams, M. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Resolving the great debate.The American Educator, 19, 6–12. Google Scholar Adams, M. J., Trieman, R., & Pressley, M. (1998). Reading, writing, and literacy.In I Siegel & A Renninger (Eds.), Mussen’s handbook of child psychology, volume 4: Child psychology in practice. (pp. 275–355). NY: Wiley. Google Scholar Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, D. P. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading.In D.P Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp.255–291). New York: Longman. Google Scholar Beck, I. L., & Juel, C. (1995). The role of decoding in learning to read.The American Educator, 19, 81–12 Google Scholar Blachman, B. A. (1991). Phonological awareness: Implications for prereading and early reading instruction.In S. A Brady & D. P Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp. 29–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar B. A. Blachman (Ed.), (1997). Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Brady, S. A., & Shankweiler, D. P. (Eds.) (1991). Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Liberman. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Cardon, L. R., Smith, S., Fulker, D., Kimberling, W., Pennington, B., & DeFries, J. (1994). Quantitative trait locus for reading disability on chromosome 6.Science, 268, 276–279. Google Scholar Catts, H. W. (1989). Phonological processing deficits and reading disabilities.In A. G Kamhi & H. W Catts (Eds.), Reading disabilities: A developmental language perspective (pp. 26–59). Boston: College Hill Press. Google Scholar DeFries, J., Fulker, D., & LaBuda, M. (1987). Evidence for a genetic etiology in reading disability in twins.Nature, 329, 537–539. Google Scholar Feldman, L. B., & Turvey, T. (1983). Word recognition in Serbo-Croatian is phonologically analytic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 288–298. Google Scholar Fletcher, J. M., & Lyon, G. R. (1998). Reading: A research-based approach.In W. M Evers (Ed.), What’s gone wrong in America’s classrooms (pp. 50–90). Stanford University: Hoover Institution Press. Google Scholar Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Liberman, I. Y., Fowler, A., Francis, D. J., Stuebing, K. K., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low-achievement definitions.Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,1–18. Google Scholar Foorman, B. F. (1995). Research on the "Great Debate": Code-oriented versus whole language approaches to reading instruction.School Psychology Review, 24, 376–392. Google Scholar Foorman, B. F., Francis, D., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Gough, P. B., & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act.Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30,179–196. Google Scholar Hall, S., & Moats, L. C. (1999). Straight talk about reading. Chicago: Contemporary Books. Google Scholar Liberman, A. M. (1997). How theories of speech affect research in reading and writing.In B Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 3–19). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Liberman, A. M. (1989). Reading is hard just because listening is easy.In C Von Euler (Ed.), Wenner-Gren International Symposium Series: Brain and reading (pp. 197–205). Hamshire, UK: MacMillan. Google Scholar Liberman, I. Y. (1983). A language oriented view of reading and its disabilities.In H. R Myklebust (Ed.), Progress in learning disabilities, Volume 5 (pp. 127–172). New York: Grune and Stratton. Google Scholar Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. P. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write.Remedial and Special Education, 6, 8–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. P. (1991). Phonology and beginning reading: A tutorial.In L Rieben & C. A Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D. P., & Liberman, A. M. (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read.In D. P Shankweiler & I. Y Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (pp. 1–33). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1987). Loci of phonological effects in the lexical access of words written in a shallow orthography.Psychological Research, 49, 139–146. Google Scholar Lyon, G. R. (April, 1998). The status of NICHD research on reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction: Congressional testimony. Washington, DC: The U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Google Scholar Lyon, G. R. (In press). In celebration of science in the study of reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction.Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology. Google Scholar Lyon, G. R., & Chhabra, V. (1996). The current state of science and the future of specific reading disability.Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 2, 2–9. Google Scholar Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 578–588. Google Scholar Lyon, G. R., Vaasen, M., & Toomey, F. (1989). Teacher perceptions of their undergraduate and graduate training.Teacher Education and Special Education, 12,164–169. Google Scholar Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language.Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81102. Google Scholar Moats, L. C. (in press). Teaching reading is rocket science.The American Educator. Google Scholar Moats, L. C., & Lyon, G. R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language.Topics in Language Disorders, 16,73–86. Google Scholar Morris, R., Steubing, K., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Francis, D. J., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar National Assessment of Educational Progress (1994). NAEP Reading: A first look— Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Revised Edition). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Google Scholar Nolan, P. A., McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V. W. (1990). Ensuring tomorrow’s literacy: A shared responsibility.Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 63–72. Google Scholar Olson, R. K., Conners, F., & Rack, J. (1991). Organization, heritability, & remediation of component reading and language skills: Genetic and environmental influences.In T. H Carr & B. A Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 261–322). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar Pearson, D. P., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction.In R Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading instruction (Vol. 2, pp. 815–860). New York: Longman. Google Scholar Pennington, B. F. (1995). Genetics of learning disabilities.Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 69–77. Google Scholar Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar Pressley, M., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1997). What we know about translating comprehension strategies instruction research into practice.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 486–488. Google Scholar Pugh, K., Shaywitz, B., Constable, R., Shaywitz, S., Skudlarski, P., Fulbright, R., Bronen, R., Shankweiler, D., Katz, L., Fletcher, J., & Gore, J. (1996). Cerebral organization of component processes in reading.Brain, 119,1221–1238. Google Scholar Samuels, S. J. (1994). Word recognition.In R. B Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 359–380). Newark, DE: IRA. Google Scholar Scarborough, H. S. (1989). Prediction of reading disability from familial and individual differences.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 101–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in dyslexic children.Child Development, 61,1728–1743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Scarborough, H. S. (1991). Antecedents to reading disability: Preschool language development and literacy experiences of children from dyslexic families.Reading and Writing, 3, 219–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers.Developmental Review, 14, 245–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: A model of acquisition and individual differences.Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 1,1–35. Google Scholar Shaywitz, S. E. (1996). Dyslexia: Current concepts.New England Journal of Medicine, 264, 998–1002. Google Scholar Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K., Constable, R. T., Shaywitz, S. E., Bronen, R., Fulbright, R., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Fletcher, J. M., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. (1995). Localization of semantic processingusing functional magnetic resonance imaging.Human Brain Mapping, 2, 149–158. Google Scholar Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K., Constable, R. T., Skudlarski, P., Fulbright, T., Bronen, R., Fletcher, J. M., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., & Gore, J. (1995). Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language.Nature, 373, 607–609. Google Scholar Shaywitz, S. E. (1997). Dyslexia: Current concepts.New England Journal of Medicine, 338, 32–37. Google Scholar Shaywitz, S. E., Escobar, M. D., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Makuch, R. (1992). Distribution and temporal stability of dyslexia in an epidemiological sample of 414 children followed longitudinally.New England Journal of Medicine, 264, 998–1002. Google Scholar Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K., Jenner, A. R., Fulbright, R. K., Fletcher, J. M., Gore, J., & Shaywitz, B. A. (In press). The neurobiology of reading and reading disability (dyslexia).In M. L Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Excobar, M. D. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls: Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study.Journal of the American Medical Association, 264,998–1002. CrossrefGoogle Scholar C. E. Snow, S. Burns, & P. Griffen (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Stanovich, K. E, (1993). The construct validity of discrepancy definitions of reading disability.In G. R Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F. Kavanagh, & N. A Krasnegor (Eds.), Better understanding learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policy (pp. 273–308). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profiles of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable difference model.Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 25–53. Google Scholar Torgesen, J. K. (1996). A model of memory from an information processing perspective: The special case of phonological memory.In G. R Lyon & N. A Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 157–188). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Torgesen, J. K., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness.Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 63,1–21. Google Scholar Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997). Approaches to the prevention and remediation of phonologically based reading disabilities.In B Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 287–304.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediateand readily remediated poor readers: Toward distinguishing between constitutionally and experientially based causes of reading disability.Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638. Google Scholar Wolf, M., Bally, H., & Morris, R. (1986). Automaticity, retrieval processes, and reading: A longitudinal study in average and impaired readers.Child Development, 57, 988–1005. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools32:2 (114-125)1 Apr 2001Literate Language Features in Spoken Narratives of Children With Typical Language and Children With Language ImpairmentsKellie S. Greenhalgh and Carol J. Strong Volume 6Issue 1May 1999Pages: 8-16 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: May 1, 1999 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 1999 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...

A Historically Based Review of Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children

Book reviewed in this article:Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Catherine E. Snow, Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin (Eds.). 1998.

A Practitioner's Perspective of Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children

In this paper, the report by the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children is discussed from a practitioner's perspective. The many and notable strengths are described, including the comprehensive review of the topic, the balanced manner of the report's conclusions, and the way in which the report was written. The weaknesses of the report also are presented.