Search results

Literacy research in Norway has focused on many areas. Dyslexia has been one main area for many years. The last years’ many approaches have been taken to understand how reading disabilities can be prevented and to understand the connection between the spoken and written language. A school reform reducing the age of admission to school from seven to six from 1997 has had the effect of stimulating research in the field of reading development.

Norwegian orthography is described as semi-transparent. Studies of Norwegian children show that even children with dyslexia break the alphabetic code rather easily. Also, Norway is an advanced, rich country with a clear commitment to equity. These are some reasons why Norway should get good results on international reading achievement tests. The results from different international reading assessments, however, have worried the Norwegian Government. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has clearly stated that Norway has a job to do in terms of equity. In most reading achievement tests, Norway shows a wider spread of outcomes than many other OECD countries. The Norwegian school reform of 1997 has not been a great success in the area of children's literacy development. The international results and the evaluation of the reform have led to a range of initiatives from the Government and to yet another reform with a new curriculum. In this new curriculum, there is a somewhat clearer focus on benchmarks to be achieved. There is, however, little concentration on what to do when children fall behind their peers for no apparent reason. The school authorities hope, however, that the initiatives that are taken will make a difference.

Spanish-speaking children learn to read words written in a relatively transparent orthography. Variations in orthographic transparency may shape the manifestation of reading difficulties. This study was intended to help clarify the nature of developmental dyslexia in Spanish. Developmental dyslexic group (DD) were compared to two control groups, a chronological age-matched control group (CA) and a reading level-matched control group (RL). Measures included naming speed, verbal working memory (WM), phonological short-term memory (STM), phonemic awareness, and different reading subtests (letter, word and pseudoword reading, punctuation mark, reading skills). On the reading subtests, accuracy and reading speed were measured. Results demonstrated that developmental dyslexics show a severe deficit in lexical access on accuracy and speed measures, in addition to reading-related cognitive deficits in areas such as naming speed, verbal WM, phonological STM, and phonemic awareness. Hierarchical cluster analysis demonstrated that a subgroup of children with DD showed lower IQs and more severe reading-related cognitive deficits in naming speed, verbal WM, and phonological STM. Our results are consistent with studies conducted in the Spanish language and in other transparent orthographies.

There has been much discussion in the literature in recent years on the problems involved in the identification of children with reading disabilities. One of the most influential sources of knowledge in the field of learning disabilities is the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). This agency has typically been a major funding source for methodologically rigorous reading intervention research. Further, such research has contributed significantly to the validity of identifying children suspected of learning disabilities as “treatment resistors” (e.g. Vellutino et al., 1996). Yet, the NICHD has recently been the focus of some controversy. The purpose of this chapter was to synthesize NICHD funded research conducted over the past 10 years via a meta-analysis to determine what can be generalized from this body of research that can be applied to the identification of students with learning disabilities in reading. The results of the synthesis were that a prototypical intervention study has a mean effect size (ES) of 0.67 (SD=0.42), indicating that most interventions designed to increase reading skills were effective. The overall ES ranged, however, from 0.19 to 1.76, and therefore some criterion could be established for identifying treatment resistors. Performance below an overall ES of 0.25 was suggested as one of several criteria for identifying children with potential reading disabilities. However, this suggestion must be put in the context of intervention outcomes. The synthesis indicated that: (a) performance was more pronounced on skill or process measures (e.g. ES varies from 0.45 to 1.28 on measures of segmentation and pseudoword reading) than on measures of actual reading (ES varies from 0.17 to 0.60 on real word and comprehension measures); (b) the magnitude of effect sizes were more related to instructional activity (e.g. explicit instruction/practice) than to the content of instruction (e.g. type of phonics instruction); and (c) the bulk of intervention studies focused on a narrow range of reading behaviors (i.e. phonological awareness). Implications related to identification and sound teaching practice versus content training of reading instruction (e.g. phonological skills, comprehension skills) are discussed.

The primary purpose of this chapter is to synthesize the existing research that describes children who are unresponsive to generally effective early literacy interventions. Studies were selected in which: (a) children ranged from preschoolers to third graders and were at-risk for reading disabilities; (b) treatments targeted early literacy; (c) outcomes reflected reading development; and (d) students’ unresponsiveness to intervention was described. The search yielded 23 studies, eight of which were designed primarily to identify characteristics of unresponsive students; the remaining 15 studies focused on treatment effectiveness, but also identified and described unresponsive students. A majority of unresponsive students had phonological awareness deficits; additional characteristics included phonological retrieval or encoding deficits, low verbal ability, behavior problems, and developmental delays. Methodological issues are discussed that complicate comparisons of non-responders across studies. A secondary purpose of this chapter is to describe findings from recent longitudinal studies that support the hypothesis that non-responders may be the truly reading disabled. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to provide research-based information to foster positive discussions about the need for phonics and phonemic awareness instruction in the primary grades. In order to read, students must possess secure knowledge of the alphabetic principle (i.e., that speech sounds are represented by combinations of letters in the alphabet) as well as the ability to aurally separate the distinct sounds (phonemes) that make up words.

Design: In this chapter, the authors provide essential definitions of phonics and phonemic awareness terms, highlight peer-reviewed research and best instructional practices, and clarify findings in relation to the recently renewed controversy over how to effectively teach reading to young children. The authors draw from respected research journals and years of classroom experience to provide recommendations to literacy teachers.

Findings: Explicit, systematic phonics instruction is crucial for beginning readers because most children will not intuit phonics concepts. To set the stage for phonics instruction (connecting speech sounds with their written representations), students must understand how to separate sounds in words. Therefore, instruction in phonemic awareness must be given independently of alphabetic representations; that is, students need to be able to hear the distinct sounds before mapping them onto written words. Once a student has mastered this understanding, however, instructional time need not be devoted to its development.

Practical Implications: This chapter contributes to the literature on phonics and phonemic awareness by clearly explaining the differences between the two concepts and their necessary inclusion in any beginning reading program. It includes practical activities teachers can use to develop these understandings in the classroom and provides research evidence to support their use.

Purpose – To provide classroom teachers with an overview of a range of assessments that can be administered either individually or to a group.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter is organized from early literacy skill assessments (both individual and group based) to comprehension and standardized tests.

Findings – Provides detailed information on skills required for each element of reading, design of assessment, intended purpose, and process of administration.

Research limitations/implications – This is not an exhaustive list, the authors strove to highlight the most reliable and practical assessments from a large body of possible choices.

Practical implications – This is a valuable source for classroom teachers who are provided with a wide-range of assessment choices covering the breadth of reading skills with extensive details on each.

Originality/value of paper – Teachers need a range of assessments to choose from to make decisions at the individual, class and school level.

Inclusion of deaf/hard of hearing (D/HH) students is more common than ever before. General education teachers need to be aware of strengths and needs of this particular group of students as well as have a few simple strategies to implement in the classroom. This chapter will present strengths and needs relative to language, social/emotional skills, and literacy. Language modalities, educational philosophies, as well as assistive listening technologies are discussed. We will further present important information on changes in technology and support personnel that may be used to improve the education of D/HH students.

Purpose – To provide educators an overview of instructional practices in reading that are associated with improved learning outcomes with students K-8 who have a mild-to-moderate learning disability.Design/methodology/approach – The chapter provides a conceptual framework to view the process of reading, discusses foundational reading skills necessary to master word reading, presents two approaches to teaching comprehension, and highlights ways to effectively teach vocabulary.Findings – The content of this chapter presents empirical evidence as well as specific examples for clinical practice.Research limitations/implications – This chapter highlights key practices that have been extensively researched and found to be associated with improved learning outcomes for all students, including those with learning disabilities (LD).Practical implications – The chapter offers a wealth of information to help educators more effectively provide reading instruction for struggling readers K-8.Originality/value of chapter – The information compiled in this chapter will help teachers impact learning and reading outcomes for all of their students, particularly those who have a mild-to-moderate LD.

A substantial number of students read significantly below grade level, and students with disabilities perform far below their non-disabled peers. Reading achievement data indicate that many students with and at-risk for reading disabilities require more intensive reading interventions. This chapter utilizes the theoretical model of the Simple View of Reading to describe the benefit of early reading instruction, targeting both word reading and word meaning. In addition, evidence is presented supporting the use of word meaning instruction to improve accurate and efficient word reading for students who have failed to respond to explicit decoding instruction.