Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Poor Readers (poor + readers)
Selected AbstractsAdvanced Phonics: Teaching Strategies for Poor Readers at Key Stage 2ENGLISH IN EDUCATION, Issue 3 2000Susan Jennings Abstract Poor readers at Key Stage 2 need ongoing support for their reading development. They are frequently weak in the metacognitive skills that enable good readers to make their own progress and they require a repetition of much phonics material from Key Stage 1. Beyond that, they have a need for the further complexities of English to be taught to them as phonics, not as spelling strategies/investigations. Additionally, they have difficulty in tackling polysyllabic words and must be taught appropriate decoding strategies. There is a dearth of teaching materials in this area and little research evidence as to how such material might best be taught. This paper charts the development of a phonics booster programme for poor readers in Year 5. [source] Growth in Precursor and Reading-Related Skills: Do Low-Achieving and IQ-Discrepant Readers Develop Differently?LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH & PRACTICE, Issue 1 2002Kimberly J. O'Malley Poor readers who met low achievement and IQ-discrepancy definitions of reading disability were compared with nonimpaired readers on their development of eight precursor and reading-related skills to evaluate developmental differences prior to students' identification as reading disabled. Results indicated no evidence for differences between the two groups of poor readers in the development of the eight skills, with three exceptions. Students in the IQ-discrepant group demonstrated greater growth in letter sound knowledge, greater mean performance in visual-motor integration at the beginning of first grade, and greater deceleration in rapid naming of letters. When compared to the nonimpaired group, low-achieving readers demonstrated poorer performance and development in all skills, while the IQ-discrepant readers demonstrated poorer performance and development in phonemic awareness, rapid naming of letters and objects, spelling, and word reading. The largely null results for comparisons between the two groups of poor readers challenges the validity of the two-group classification of reading disabilities based on IQ-discrepancy. [source] Language-related differences between discrepancy-defined and non-discrepancy-defined poor readers: a longitudinal study of dyslexia in New ZealandDYSLEXIA, Issue 1 2007William E. Tunmer Abstract Language-related differences between discrepancy-defined and non-discrepancy-defined poor readers were examined in a three-year longitudinal study that began at school entry. The discrepancy-defined (dyslexic) poor readers (n = 19) were identified in terms of poor reading comprehension and average or above average listening comprehension performance, and the non-discrepancy-defined (non-dyslexic) poor readers (n = 19) in terms of both poor reading and listening comprehension performance. The two poor reader groups and a group of normally developing readers (n = 55) were given several oral language, phonological processing, and reading performance measures at six testing occasions. Results indicated that in addition to expected differences on the oral language measures, the non-discrepancy-defined poor readers also showed greater phonological processing deficits than the dyslexic poor readers. The results are discussed in terms of the lack of official recognition of dyslexia in New Zealand, the whole language orientation of classroom reading instruction, and the inadequacy of Reading Recovery for minimizing reading problems. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Resistant readers 8 months later: energizing the student's learning milieu by targeted counsellingDYSLEXIA, Issue 2 2006Anne Brit Andreassen Abstract Several studies have reported that an alarming large subgroup of poor readers seems to be treatment resistant. This group obviously needs attention beyond standard special education instructions. In Norway, the National Centre for Reading Education and Research has been assigned the task of assisting the school psychological services nationwide in severe cases of reading disabilities. The aim of the present study of a clinical sample of students with severe dyslexia, due to phonological deficits, was to evaluate effects of counselling 8 months after a 2-day assessment at the centre. Sixty-five students, with a mean age of 12.3 years, participated. A thorough assessment of each student's strengths and problems was conducted at the centre. Additional information was obtained from the school psychological services, the teachers, and the parents. Diagnostic reports and proposals for remediation were forwarded to the school psychological services. Students', parents', and teachers' evaluation of the students' reading abilities 8 months after the assessment was retrieved for 75% of cases. Of these, 80% reported clear progress in the students' reading abilities. The progress could not be related to age, cognitive level, place of residence, or previous special education received, but instead to improved motivation. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Advanced Phonics: Teaching Strategies for Poor Readers at Key Stage 2ENGLISH IN EDUCATION, Issue 3 2000Susan Jennings Abstract Poor readers at Key Stage 2 need ongoing support for their reading development. They are frequently weak in the metacognitive skills that enable good readers to make their own progress and they require a repetition of much phonics material from Key Stage 1. Beyond that, they have a need for the further complexities of English to be taught to them as phonics, not as spelling strategies/investigations. Additionally, they have difficulty in tackling polysyllabic words and must be taught appropriate decoding strategies. There is a dearth of teaching materials in this area and little research evidence as to how such material might best be taught. This paper charts the development of a phonics booster programme for poor readers in Year 5. [source] Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: a think-aloud studyJOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN READING, Issue 4 2006Kit-Ling Lau This study aimed to explore the differences between Chinese good and poor readers in their strategy use by using a think-aloud method. Eight grade 7 students in Hong Kong, four good readers and four poor readers, received a think-aloud task and an interview in the study. Consistent with the Western studies, findings of this study indicated that Chinese good readers used more strategies and had better ability and knowledge of strategy use than did poor readers. In addition to the cognitive deficiencies, poor readers were also found to have poorer intrinsic motivation than did good readers. The combined problems of poor reading ability and motivation made them reluctant to process the text at a deeper level and they gave up easily when they encountered reading difficulties. Implications of these findings for studying the reading problems of Chinese students and implementing effective reading instruction in Hong Kong Chinese language teaching are discussed. [source] Coloured overlays and their benefit for readingJOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN READING, Issue 1 2001Arnold Wilkins Children in mainstream schools compared text on white paper with identical text covered in turn by each of ten differently-coloured plastic overlays. More than 50% reported improved perception with one or more colours, and were given the best colour to use. About half used the overlays for more than three months and their reading speed increased when the overlays were used. In Study I children were examined twice using different methods and examiners. 47% chose the same colour on both occasions, and showed the greatest improvement in reading fluency, reliable at retest. In Study II children were issued with a random colour, and the greatest improvements in reading speed occurred when the random colour was the same as that previously chosen. Phonological reading strategies were not related to visual symptoms, or the benefit from overlays. Across individuals, reading speed varied by a factor of more than three, for good and poor readers. Study III provided estimates of the prevalence of improvements based on a sample of 426 children from 12 schools: 5% of children read more than 25% faster with a coloured overlay. [source] Predictors of Grade 2 Word Reading and Vocabulary Learning from Grade 1 Variables in Spanish-Speaking Children: Similarities and DifferencesLEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH & PRACTICE, Issue 1 2008Alexandra Gottardo We examined the components of first (L1) and second language (L2) phonological processing that are related to L2 word reading and vocabulary. Spanish-speaking English learners (EL) were classified as average or low readers in grades 1 and 2. A large number of children who started out as poor readers in first grade became average readers in second grade while vocabulary scores were more stable. Binary logistic regressions examined variables related to classifications of consistently average, consistently low, or improving on reading or vocabulary across grades. Good L2 phonological short-term memory and phonological awareness scores predicted good reading and vocabulary scores. L1 and L2 measures differentiated consistently good performers from consistently low performers, while only L2 measures differentiated children who improved from children who remained low performers. Children who are EL should be screened on measures of pseudoword repetition and phonological awareness with low scorers being good candidates for receiving extra assistance in acquiring L2 vocabulary and reading. This study suggests measures that can be used to select children who have a greater likelihood of experiencing difficulties in reading and vocabulary. [source] Growth in Precursor and Reading-Related Skills: Do Low-Achieving and IQ-Discrepant Readers Develop Differently?LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH & PRACTICE, Issue 1 2002Kimberly J. O'Malley Poor readers who met low achievement and IQ-discrepancy definitions of reading disability were compared with nonimpaired readers on their development of eight precursor and reading-related skills to evaluate developmental differences prior to students' identification as reading disabled. Results indicated no evidence for differences between the two groups of poor readers in the development of the eight skills, with three exceptions. Students in the IQ-discrepant group demonstrated greater growth in letter sound knowledge, greater mean performance in visual-motor integration at the beginning of first grade, and greater deceleration in rapid naming of letters. When compared to the nonimpaired group, low-achieving readers demonstrated poorer performance and development in all skills, while the IQ-discrepant readers demonstrated poorer performance and development in phonemic awareness, rapid naming of letters and objects, spelling, and word reading. The largely null results for comparisons between the two groups of poor readers challenges the validity of the two-group classification of reading disabilities based on IQ-discrepancy. [source] Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?THE JOURNAL OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY AND ALLIED DISCIPLINES, Issue 1 2004Frank R. Vellutino We summarize some of the most important findings from research evaluating the hypothesized causes of specific reading disability (,dyslexia') over the past four decades. After outlining components of reading ability, we discuss manifest causes of reading difficulties, in terms of deficiencies in component reading skills that might lead to such difficulties. The evidence suggests that inadequate facility in word identification due, in most cases, to more basic deficits in alphabetic coding is the basic cause of difficulties in learning to read. We next discuss hypothesized deficiencies in reading-related cognitive abilities as underlying causes of deficiencies in component reading skills. The evidence in these areas suggests that, in most cases, phonological skills deficiencies associated with phonological coding deficits are the probable causes of the disorder rather than visual, semantic, or syntactic deficits, although reading difficulties in some children may be associated with general language deficits. Hypothesized deficits in general learning abilities (e.g., attention, association learning, cross-modal transfer etc.) and low-level sensory deficits have weak validity as causal factors in specific reading disability. These inferences are, by and large, supported by research evaluating the biological foundations of dyslexia. Finally, evidence is presented in support of the idea that many poor readers are impaired because of inadequate instruction or other experiential factors. This does not mean that biological factors are not relevant, because the brain and environment interact to produce the neural networks that support reading acquisition. We conclude with a discussion of the clinical implications of the research findings, focusing on the need for enhanced instruction. [source] | |||||||||||||