Stages Of Reading Development Research Articles

Latin American Immigration and U.S. Schools

Latin American Immigration and U.S. Schools

Curriculum-Based Measurement and Developmental Reading Models: Opportunities for Cross-Validation

Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a standardized form of curriculum-based assessment (CBA) that relies on rate samples to assess academic skills. These measures were empirically derived, but the use of such rate measures also is consistent with developmental reading models such as Chad's stages of reading development and LaBerge and Samuels' model of automaticity. In fact, oral reading rate measures may be a more theoretically sound assessment method than are many traditional reading assessment practices. The empirically validated usefulness of CBM measures in the field in turn provides valuable support for the developmental models of reading.

Can Illiteracy Be Prevented?

Adult illiteracy stems from failure to progress at early stages of reading development, often because of lack of language experience and stimulation.

Analysis of Oral Reading Errors Made by Economically Disadvantaged Students Taught with a Synthetic-Phonics Approach

CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSES of oral reading errors made by economically disadvantaged firstand third-grade children who received carefully supervised instruction with a synthetic-phonics approach were conducted. First-grade children read specially constructed passages comprised of about 80% practiced (previously taught) and 20% transer words. The proportion of errors self-corrected by the students was significantly higher on practice words than on transfer words. The proportion of nonsense errors was significantly lower on the previously taught words. First-grade children's substitution errors tended to be graphically (as opposed to contextually) constained. In contrast, third-grade children's substitutions tended to be contextually constrained as well as graphically constrained. The results are related to Biemiller's (1970) stages of reading development and Leu's (1982) analysis of miscue research.

READING AND TELEVISION

How does television affect children's reading skill development? The relationship between television behavior and reading achievement is examined within a conceptual framework of television and reading constructs such as media availability and parental media behavior, children's use of print and broadcast media, and measures of their attitudes and orientations toward television and print. The framework is examined for children at three different stages of reading development. Five principal constructs—socioeconomic status, print and television home environment, amount of media use, orientations toward print and television, and involvement with print and television—are used to predict reading achievement in regression analyses performed separately for each grade cohort.

The effect of a film aided coaching course on the rate of students' reading of texts of varying difficulty

Journal of Research in ReadingVolume 3, Issue 1 p. 11-16 The effect of a film aided coaching course on the rate of students' reading of texts of varying difficulty Michael J. Moss, Michael J. Moss Senior Lecturer in the Faculty ofEducation at Crewe and Alsager College of Higher Education. His qualifications include a B.A. degree from the University of Shefield, and an MA. (Reading Studies) degree from the University of Lancaster. Before his College appointment he had varied teaching experience in primary schools, culminating in a Deputy Headship. At the College he is heavily involved with courses in Language and Reading and has also been a Part-time Tutor for the Open University Reading Development courses. Mr. Moss, who has a particular research interest in the later stages of reading development, may be contacted at Crewe and Alsager College, CREW, Cheshire, CW1 1DU, England.Search for more papers by this author Michael J. Moss, Michael J. Moss Senior Lecturer in the Faculty ofEducation at Crewe and Alsager College of Higher Education. His qualifications include a B.A. degree from the University of Shefield, and an MA. (Reading Studies) degree from the University of Lancaster. Before his College appointment he had varied teaching experience in primary schools, culminating in a Deputy Headship. At the College he is heavily involved with courses in Language and Reading and has also been a Part-time Tutor for the Open University Reading Development courses. Mr. Moss, who has a particular research interest in the later stages of reading development, may be contacted at Crewe and Alsager College, CREW, Cheshire, CW1 1DU, England.Search for more papers by this author First published: February 1980 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1980.tb00098.xCitations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume3, Issue1February 1980Pages 11-16 RelatedInformation

REPLY TO BIRCH AND BELMONT

Birch and Belmont (1964, 1965) have made important contributions to the study of reading development. Their hypothesis is interesting: that the ability to recognize equivalences between auditory-temporal and visual-spatial patterns is critically related to certain stages of reading development. The tesr which they devised [which we (1966) labeled the BB test] is in some respects ingenious and appropriate. We (Sterritt & Rudnick, 1966) called attention to several weaknesses in Birch and Belmont's methods and attempted to correct some of these deficiencies in an independent study. We object to Birch and Belmont's suggestions (1966) that our methods represent only a minor modification of their technique and that our finding exactly duplicate theirs. We devised rwo new tests (the instrumentation of which required about 4 mo. work), retaining the desirable features of their formar, in part to facilitate comparison of our work with theirs. Unlike their test, however, one of our tests is clearly entirely visual and one clearly requires cross-modal recognition of equivalences. Our data (1966) supported our criticism that the BB test does not tap cross-modal functioning, since our findings with the BB test resembled those with our purely visual test but did not resemble those with our cross-modal test. Birch and Belmont have protested (1966) that they had already reported (1965) no relationship of their test to reading in the fourth grade. The points we would like to make are that: (1) we did find a significant relationship of their test to reading; but in addition, (2) we demonstrated that this relationship was entirely attributable to intelligence; and (3) we found that the one of our tests which does require cross-modal perception relates to reading independently of inrelligence at the fourth grade. Thus, it seems to us that our methods and our findings depart significantly from rhose of Birch and Belmont's 1965 study. Birch and Belmont have not as yet acknowledged the possibility which our data (together with theirs) suggest, namely, that a purely visual perceptual factor (measured by the BB test) relates to reading early in reading development while a different perceptual factor (measured by our cross-modal test) becomes important later in reading development, along with, but independently of, the factor of general intelligence. This formulation is directly opposed to their arguments that the BB rest measures auditory-visual inregrarion and that the latter perceptual function declines in importance ro reading over Grades 1 to 4. We hope that this note will identify the ways in which we feel indebted to Birch and Belmont, while poinring up the differences, which we feel are very real, between their work and ours. We regret that these differences tended to be obscured in their (1966) note.