1. hobbies and interests
2. reading

Dyslexia, Orthography, and the Componential Model
of Reading: Current Research and Classroom
Applications
R. MALATESHA JOSHI
TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY
[email protected]
Education Service Center, Region 4
Houston, TX
April 1, 2010
• There are known knowns. There are things
we know we know (or at least we think we
know). We also know there are known
unknowns. That is to say, we know there are
some things we do not know. But there are
also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t
know we don’t know.
•
Donald Rumsfeld
• We have made too many wrong mistakes
Yogi Berra
• There are known knowns
• 33% of fourth grade students are unable to read
simple books
• 25% of adults are unable to read a newspaper
• Illiteracy is a public health issue
• >50% of the adolescents with criminal problems
and history of substance abuse have reading
problems
• (NCES, 1999 and Lyon, 2001)
• Number of prison cells
Number of prison cells
“Based on this year's fourth-grade reading
Scores, California is already planning the
number of new prison cells it will need in the
next century.”
Paul Schwartz, U. S. DoE, 1998
≈ 15% drop out of school,
over 75% report difficulties in learning to read;
only 2% of students receiving special or
compensatory education for difficulties
learning to read will complete a four-year
college program
• IDEA
• 3 million students are in LD classrooms just
because they cannot read
• Why is this?
• Not because of lack of money (½ a trillion
dollars spent per year)
• or lack of teachers or their education [45%
have degrees beyond bachelor’s degree (I
did not add the quality of education)]
• How do you solve a problem like literacy?
A Poem On Learning Disabilities
By Anna Gillingham
The college dean says:
“Such rawness in a student is a shame–
‘Tis lack of preparation is to blame!”
The high school principal says:
“Good Heavens, what crudity! The boy’s a fool!
The fault of course is in the elementary school.”
The elementary school principal says:
“Would that from such a dunce I might be spared.
They send them up to me so unprepared.”
The primary principal says:
“Poor kindergarten blockhead! And they call
that preparation? Worse than none at all!”
The kindergartner says:
“Such lack of training did I never see –
What sort of a person can the mother be!”
The mother says:
“You stupid child! But then you’re not to blame.
Your father’s family are all the same.”
• There are things we know we know (or
at least we think we know).
• Reasons for illiteracy:
• Environmental and Instructional Reasons
(Vellutino & Scanlon, 2003)
• A. Environmental Reasons:
•
•
•
•
•
Oral language Development (Hart & Risley, 1995)
Welfare families: 10 million → 500
Middle class families: 20 million → 700
Professional families: 30 million → 1100
Linguistically “poor” first graders knew 5,000
words; linguistically “rich” knew 20,000 words
(Moats, 2001).
• Number of books available at home (McBrideChang, 2006)
• Parents reading to children (Feitelson, 1964);
Enjoyment of reading (McBride-Chang, 2006)
“Have you any idea how much that playstation
cost?”
• We also know there are known
unknowns. That is to say, we know
there are some things we do not know.
• Genetics (Colorado Family Reading
study, 1973-)
• Gender Differences (McBride-Chang,
2006)
• Not only oral language but written
language Orthography/Writing system
of a language/script
Reading level after 1 year of instruction
% correct
Word reading
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Seymour et al. (2003), British Journal of Psychology
Items/min
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
r accuracy/speed = .87
Seymour et al. (2003), British Journal of Psychology
The establishment of an effective
sight vocabulary and decoding
needs about 2 years of reading
experience in English as against 1year in many European languages.
• B. Instructional Reasons:
• Carroll (1963): High percentage of
schoolchildren fail to acquire literacy skills
when the classroom instruction is
ineffective or insufficient
• Calfee (1983): Majority of the reading
disability children represent an
instructional dysfunction rather than a
constitutional disability
Poor instruction resulting in poor reading
performance is especially true at the early
primary grades.
• Juel (1988): Children who read poorly at the end of
the first grade were likely to remain poor readers
at the end of the fourth grade.
• Shaywitz et al. (1993): 74% of reading
disabled in the third grade continue to
exhibit reading and spelling problems even
at the ninth grade level.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-IV, 1994)
Reading achievement, as measured by
individually administered standardized tests of
reading accuracy or comprehension, is
substantially below that of expected given the
person’s chronological age, measured
intelligence, and age appropriate education.
Discrepancy Definition
Problems with the Current discrepancy
definition
1. There is no well-defined difference that
indicates significant discrepancy. The
extent of discrepancy that is used as a
marker for LD (RD) differs among the
States and even school systems.
Problems with the Current discrepancy
definition (Continued)
The correlation between IQ and reading
achievement is very poor especially at
primary grades. IQ is not a potent predictor
of reading potential (r =0.5).
Stanovich, Cunningham, & Feeman (1984)
Grade 1 (ages 6-7)
Barnes (1955)
Bond & Dykstra (1967)
Feshbach, et al. (1977)
Sewall (1979)
Stevenson et al (1976)
Yule & Rigley (1982)
.31
.48
.42
.48
.20 &.41
.59
Grade 2 (ages 7-8)
Birch & Belmont (1965)
Stevenson et al (1976)
Yule & Rigley (1982)
.53
.28, .28, .75
.61 & .45
Grade 3 (ages 8-9)
Birch & Belmont (1965)
Feshbach et al. (1977)
Stevenson et al. (1976)
Yule et al. (1974)
.48
.45
.19, .19, .71
.62 & .36
Grade 4-8 (ages 9-14)
Birch & Belmont (1965)
Muehl & DiNello (1976)
Yule et al (1974)
.27, .69
.31, .41, .51
.50, .57, .61
Grade 9 and above (ages 14+)
Andrew (1978)
Yule et al (1981)
.71
.61
The relationship between IQ and reading is
not unidirectional but rather reciprocal. That
is, in addition to the influence of IQ scores on
reading ability, reading experience can affect
IQ scores.
Vocabulary is probably the best single
predictor of one’s overall level of intelligence
(Sternberg, 1987)
Teachers, generally, are not trained to
administer IQ tests; psychometricians
(diagnosticians) are not trained in
teaching of reading.
Diagnosis based on IQ scores does not
lead to recommendations regarding
remediation and instruction.
• Study I:
First
Second
Difference
Administration Administration
(After 3 years)
Verbal IQ
Performance
IQ
Full scale
IQ
Significance
95.20 (9.90)
88.40 (8.60)
-6.8
Yes (0.05)
104.20
(12.60)
104.11
(14.10)
-0.09
No
99.40 (10.55)
95.26 (10.03)
-4.14
Yes (0.05)
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
Performance
Verbal
1st
2nd
Mean Performance and Verbal IQs of 57 LD
children at 2 administrations (approximately
at ages 8 and 11)
• Study II: (n = 170)
First
Second
Administration Administration
(After 6 years)
Difference
Significance
Verbal
IQ
90.5
87.4
-3.1
Yes (0.05)
PIQ
95.6
93.4
-2.2
No (0.07)
FS IQ
91.6
89.9
-1.7
No (0.10)
Comp.
84.2
81.7
-2.5
No (0.07)
WR
77.6
77.0
-0.6
No
spelling
77.6
74.0
-3.6
Yes (0.05)
Bentum (2000)
Reading Achievement Scores over a Period of 3 years
(n=237)
Reading
Word
Spelling
comprehn
recogn
_______________________________________
Pretest (1998)
87.5
78.2
78.3
Post-test (2001) 85.2
77.3
76.3
• But there are also unknown unknowns,
the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
• If you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Recommendations:
1. will be encouraged to continue her efforts
to produce the best work possible
2. may benefit from peer tutoring, peer
mentoring, and/or working in pairs
3. may benefit from lesson extensions,
enrichment activities
Recommendations:
4. It is recommended that classroom
accommodations be made so as to allow …. . . to
venture further into a subject as her interests
dictate
5. recommended that home accommodations be
made so as to allow ….. . . to venture further into
a subject as her interests dictate
6. recommended that . . …be challenged at home
with a variety of tasks in areas she enjoys
Componential Model of Reading
Componential
Model of Reading
Domain I
Domain II
Cognitive
Components
Psychological
Components
Word recognition
Comprehension
Motivation & Interest
Teacher Expectations
Gender Differences
Learned Helplessness
Domain
III
Ecological
Components
Home Environment
Parental Involvement
Classroom
Environment
Dialect
The Many Strands that are Woven into Skilled Reading
(Scarborough, 2001)
LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION
BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE
LANGUAGE STRUCTURES
VERBAL REASONING
LITERACY KNOWLEDGE
SKILLED READING:
fluent execution and
coordination of word
recognition and text
comprehension.
WORD RECOGNITION
PHON. AWARENESS
DECODING (and SPELLING)
SIGHT RECOGNITION
Reading is a multifaceted skill, gradually acquired over years of instruction and practice.
Components of Reading
• Word Recognition
– identification and pronunciation of words (Decoding).
– Sight Vocabulary (Instant word recognition)
– (both speed and accuracy are important)
• Comprehension
– Listening and reading are processes which are combined
to produce comprehension and, in a sense,
understanding. (Vocabulary is a subcomponent of
comprehension.)
• Componential Model of Reading (based on Simple
View of Reading)
• Componential Model of Reading
• Simple View of Reading
• R = D X C (Gough & Tunmer ; Hoover &
Gough)
• If D = 0, then R = 0; if C = 0, then also R = 0
Evidence for the two-component nature of
reading
• Experimental Psychology: Frederiksen (1982);
Jackson & McClelland (1979); Palmer et al.
(1985); Stanovich et al. (1984)
• Neuropsychology: Coltheart (1978); Derousene &
Beauvois (1985); Marshall & Newcombe (1973).
• Developmental Psychology: Aaron et al (1990);
Aram & Healy (1987); Frith & Snowling (1983)
• Factor analytic Studies: Carr & Levy (1990);
Carrroll (1994); Stanovich (1984)
• Genetic Studies: Colorado Family Study: Defries et
al. (1987)
Three kinds of poor readers:
1. those with decoding deficit only
2. those with comprehension deficit
only
3. those with deficits in both decoding
and comprehension
Distribution of different types of reading disabilities
(Grades 3, 4, & 6; 198 participants)
Adeq. Decoding
Poor comp
7%
poor decoding
adeq. Comp
8%
poor decoding
poor comp.
8%
Aaron, P.G. & Joshi, R.M. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are
alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120-137.
Also see Leach, Scarborough, and Rescorla (2003); Stothard &
Hulme (1994); Oakhill & Bryant (2003)
Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R.M., Boulware-Gooden, R., & Bentum,
K. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities
based on the Component Model of reading: An
alternative to the Discrepancy Model of Learning
Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67-84.
Remedial procedures
CHILDREN IN LD RESOURCE ROOMS:
READ: Number of children:
159
171
Children receiving decoding training : 125
Children receiving comprehension training: 46
Decoding
deficit:
Decoding
training
Decoding
deficit: Comp.
training
Comp. deficit:
decoding
training
Comp. deficit:
Comp. training
Control Group
Pretest-Post-test
Treatment Group
Pretest-Post-test
86.19 (12.553)
87.08 (11.485)
(n=62)
86.19 (12.553)
87.08 (11.485)
(n=62)
86.67 (14.124)
84.90 (12.974)
(n=97)
86.67 (14.124)
84.90 (12.974)
(n=97)
84.66 (9.965)
90.05 (11.418)
(n=125)
98.55 (12.083)
98.74 (12.811)
(n=46)
88.14 (12.403)
91.79 (12.486)
(n=125)
100.50 (9.477)
102.54 (10.608)
(n=46)
Writing Systems
Logographic
(Morphosyllabic)
Kanji
Chinese
Syllabic
No phonemic
representation
Kana
ba vs bi
ti vs gi
Alphabetic
Potential
phonemic
representation
Roman alphabet
Cyrillic alphabet
Devanagari
ba vs bi
ti vs gi
Orthographic Depth
S
y
l
l
a
b
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Shallow……………………............……...…Deep
Simple
Complex
Finnish
Greek
Italian
Spanish
Portuguese French
German
Danish
Dutch
Norwegian Swedish
Icelandic
Source. Seymour, Aro, and Erskine (2003).
English
• Frith, Wimmer, & Landerl :
German - fewer errors for both words (8%)
and nonwords (15%);
English - words (30%) and nonwords (53%)
Caravolas et al.
Spelling, Czech - 65% accuracy
English - 36%
• Seymour et al. examined the speed and
accuracy of familiar word reading and
nonword reading in 8 writing system
• Finnish, Spanish, Italian, & Greek = 95 %
Portuguese, French, and Danish ≈ 75%
English = 34 % for word reading and
29% for non-word reading.
• Orthographic Depth Hypothesis
• An important factor that has an
influence on the rate in which literacy
skills is acquired depends on the degree
of correspondence between
orthography and phonology (GPC).
• Application of CMR in other languages
No. of
letters
No. of
phonemes
English
French
Norwegian
Spanish
26
26
29
(9v + 20C)
28-29 (w)
40
(16V +
24C)
29
(5V + 17C)
44
38
(20V + 24C) (19V + 19C)
Phoneme letter ratio
1.7:1
1.5:1
1.4:1
1:1
No. of
graphemes
≈ 250
≈165
36
29
• Subjects: 38 in grade 2 and 42 in grade 3
• (Home language and classroom instruction –
Spanish)
• Tests administered: Woodcock-Muñoz Batería
III
• Decoding, reading comprehension and listening
comprehension
• A comparative group of English speaking
children from grades 2-4 were administered
Decoding, reading comprehension and listening
comprehension from Woodcock Language
Proficiency Battery
Means and standard deviations (Spanish)
Grade
decoding
List. Comp.
Reading
Comp.
2
112.92 (9.41) 94.97 (7.99)
(n=38)
97.68 (5.12)
3
109.19 (9.36) 98.93 (10.25)
(n=42)
95.64 (5.96)
Means and standard deviations (English)
Grade
decoding
List. Comp.
2
95.45 (12.37) 100.51 (8.52)
(n=49)
Reading
Comp.
98.82 (7.34)
3
102.00 (16.83) 107.61 (15.76) 102.65 (11.23)
(n=54)
4
98.98 (17.73) 112.42 (18.43) 104.51 (17.63)
(n=55)
R² and Beta Weights for Grades 2-4
Grades
→
2
(n=49)
3
(n=54)
4
(n=55)
R² →
0.47
0.48
0.50
0.31*
0.36**
0.50***
0.20*
0.25*
0.23*
ß (beta)
LC
D
Grade
English
Spanish
2
(n=49) LC & D = 47% (n=38) LC & D = 57%
3
(n=54) LC & D = 48% (n=42) LC & D = 60%
4
(n=55) LC & D = 50%
2
LC=33%; D=35%
LC=45%; D=25%
3
LC=37%; D=35%
LC=47%; D=15%
4
LC=41%; D=14%
• Norwegian: More transparent than English but less
than Spanish
• Høien-Tengesdal:
• Grade 6: D X LC = 32% (D + LC = 49%); mostly
explained by listening comprehension
• Swedish: Grade 6: Very similar results with LC
explaining most of the variance.
CMR in Chinese:
Grade 2 = Character recognition & LC = 25%
Grade 4 = Character recognition & LC = 42%
Character Rec. = Grade 2 = 22% ; Grade 4 = 32%
Listening Comp. = Grade 2 = 11%; Grade 4 = 31%
Decoding may play an important role in reading
comprehension for a more prolonged time in a
more opaque script.
• Language comprehension becomes more
important for reading comprehension from the
beginning to the more advanced stage.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tilstra et al. (2009):
Grade 4 = 61%
Grade 7 = 48%
Grade 9 = 38%
Grades 2-10: 40-70%
Decoding contributes more at the early grade
levels and comprehension more at the upper grade
levels
Decoding
good
Comprehension
good
Normal Reader
Hyperlexia
poor
poor
Dyslexia
Low Ability
Reader
Continuum
Reading:
Decoding
Hyperlexia
adequate decoding
poor comprehension
Comprehension
Dyslexia
poor decoding
good comprehension
• Dyslexia: Poor decoding and good comprehension
• Hyperlexia: Good decoding and poor comprehension
• Nation (1999), “Although poor comprehenders show
less severe deficits, they are similar to hyperlexic
children in terms of the pattern of strengths and
weaknesses of their reading skills” (p. 347).
• Gregorenko, Klin, and Volkmar (2003): “Some
researchers are adamant about hyperlexia being a
clinical phenomenon whereas others readily assign the
label of hyperlexia to children with word-recognitioncomprehension discrepancies irrespective of any
clinical diagnosis” (p. 1080).
Differences between dyslexia and hyperlexia
•
•
•
•
•
Dyslexia
Poor decoding (inaccurate)
Good listening
comprehension
Reading comp. superior to
decoding
Spelling below average
Slow and laborious
decoding
•
•
•
•
•
Hyperlexia
Good decoding (accurate)
Poor listening
comprehension
Reading comp. inferior to
decoding
Spelling above average
Average to above average
speed of decoding
•
•
•
•
•
Dyslexia
2,470
2/3rd - English
Monolinguals
Bilingual Alexia,
(Dejerine, 1892;
Hinshelwood, 1902)
• Pringle Morgan,
1896; 14 year old
boy
•
•
•
•
•
Hyperlexia
22
Almost all-English
Monolinguals
None from
neuropsychological
patients
• Silberberg &
Silberberg (1967)
Patterns of Reading Ability
Normal Pattern:
Listening: 100
Reading: 100
Decoding: 100
Normal Reader
Child 1:
Listening: 100
Reading:
80
Decoding: 80
Dyslexic
Child 3:
Listening: 80
Reading:
80
Decoding: 80
Low Ability
Child 2:
Listening: 80
Reading:
80
Decoding: 100
Hyperlexic
Child 4:
Listening: 80
Reading: 100
Decoding: 100
ADHD
Remedial Teaching
• Poor Decoders:
– Phoneme Awareness Training
– Phonological Awareness Training
– Decoding Training
– Spelling Training
• Poor Comprehenders:
– Comprehension Strategy Training delivered
through Reciprocal Teaching
• Poor Vocabulary:
– Vocabulary training through morphemic
patterns, etymology; semantic mapping; cluster
analysis
• Poor Decoding and Poor Comprehension:
– Training in all of the above areas
Decoding requires knowledge of orthographic patterns of the language
that is based on solid phonological processing. Key elements of
decoding instruction include the following:
1. Phonological awareness training, especially in phonemic
awareness.
2. Instant letter-recognition training
3. Introduction of sound-symbol correspondences
4. Introduction of the six orthographic types of syllables
5. Introduction of common syllable-division patterns
6. Introduction of morphemes – prefixes, suffixes, roots
7. Training in recognizing and understanding word origins
8. Teaching of a procedure for learning to read irregular
words
9. Instruction in the orthographic patterns for encoding
(spelling)
Comprehension
Beware of the purpose of reading
Develop sensitivity to story grammar
Activate the relevant schemata
Develop story maps
Build mental imagery of what is being read
Generate questions and predict upcoming events
in the text
• Summarize what is read
• Combination of strategies:
– Problem solving approach
– Reciprocal teaching
•
•
•
•
•
•
• We also know there are known
unknowns. That is to say, we know
there are some things we do not
know.
• Why classroom teachers lack the
linguistic knowledge?
• A. College instructors lack the
knowledge
• B. Textbooks do not provide the
information
• C. Not taught in their university courses
• A. College instructors lack the knowledge
• i. Questionnaire ii. interview
Study 1:
Prepared a questionnaire
Based on Moats, McCutchen, & Cunningham
Total of 60 items
Questions like:
How well do you think you are prepared to teach
normal readers, struggling readers, phonological
awareness, decoding?
Definition of terms: phoneme (morpheme)
refers to . .
Explain: No. of speech sounds in box, moon, . . .
No. of morphemes in observer, heaven, .. .
Vocabulary Instruction: semantic mapping
Comprehension: Summarizing, reciprocal
teaching
Reliability of 0.92 (Cronbach’s α)
• University instructors of reading education
courses (n=78)
• 70 of them had a doctorate and 8 of them
were working on their doctorates
• All had taught in elementary schools
• Teaching 2-4 courses in reading education
• All of them believed that they are well
prepared to teach reading
• Good:
• > 90% define and count the number of syllables
correctly
• (compared to about 50% of inservice, preservice,
ACP teachers)
• 98% correctly recognize the definition of a
phoneme
• 92% correctly recognize that “chef” and “shoe”
begin with the same sound.
• Bad:
• 65% correctly recognize a word with two closed
syllables (napkin)
• 56% correctly recognize a word with an open
syllable (bacon)
• 58% correctly recognize the definition of
phonological awareness
• 54% correctly recognize the definition of
phonemic awareness
• 63% correctly count speech sounds in “through”
• 67% correctly recognize the definition of a
morpheme
It is badder than you think
(Shaquille O'Neal with apologies)
• Phonic knowledge:
• Literacy instructors
– 50% correctly identified the rule that governs the use
of ‘c’ for /k/ at the initial position
– 21% correctly identified the rule that governs the use
of ‘k’ at the initial position
• ACP students
– 52% correctly identified the rule that governs the use
of ‘c’ for /k
– 44% correctly identified the rule that governs the use
of ‘k’ in the initial position
• Ugly:
• 42% correctly count the correct speech
sounds in “box’
• 27% correctly recognize a word with a final
stable syllable (paddle)
• 50% correctly recognize the rule that governs
the use of ‘c’ in the initial position for /k/
• 21% correctly recognize the rule that governs
the use of ‘k’ in the initial position for /k/
Heaven
No. of syllables No. of morphemes
correctly
correctly identified
identified
92%
40%
Observer
96%
25%
Teacher
92%
48%
Frogs
88%
29%
Spinster
90%
17%
• Comprehension Knowledge:
• It’s déjà vu all over again
»Yogi Berra
• 38% of literacy instructors were able to
correctly identify the components of
reciprocal teaching
• Study II:
Reading professors from 12 universities
(n = 40; All had a doctorate and were teaching
courses in reading)
• interviewed with 12 questions
Causes of reading difficulty;
reading methodologies;
best way to help students with decoding
difficulties; and comprehension difficulties
Responses
1. 3 major causes of reading difficulty
SES, Family background, ESL/ELL
2. Reading methodologies:
Balanced Approach; LEA, Whole language –whole to part
to whole
• 3. Decoding through phonics but professors from only
two schools could correctly define PA; (rest thought that
PA is letter-sound correspondence); only instructors from
one school mentioned SBRR
• 4. Comp. through questioning; cloze procedure; think
alouds, SQ3R; wide reading
•
•
•
•
• You can observe a lot just by watching.
Yogi Berra
Not taught in their university classes (Peter Effect)
University faculty (n=78)
First Year Teachers (n=70)
•defined and counted the ≈ 92%
≈ 92%
number of syllables
correctly
identifying the definition 98%
of a phoneme
89%
correctly recognized
that “chef” and “shoe”
begin with the same
sound
92%
88%
correctly recognized a
word with two closed
syllables (napkin)
65%
53%
correctly recognized the
definition of
phonological awareness
58%
47%
40%
26%
29%
15%
21%
18%
24%
0%
No. of morphemes:
heaven
Observer
Frogs
5 components of NRP
• 3. Textbooks do not provide the information
Textbooks
Are the five components included in the
text?
Do they match the
definitions of the NRP?
Amount of coverage within
the text
1
Yes
Yes
60%
2
Yes
Yes
39%
3
Yes
Yes
34%
4
Yes
No
34%
5
Yes
Yes
28%
6
Yes
No
28%
7
Yes
Yes
28%
8
Yes
Yes
27%
9
Yes
Yes
25%
10
Yes
Yes
23%
11
Yes
Yes
20%
12
Yes
Yes
10%
13
Yes
No
9%
14
No (missing phonemic awareness)
NO
46%
15
No (PA and phonics not included)
No
24%
16
No (missing PA & fluency)
No
7%
17
No (PA and phonics not included)
No
4%
• Percentages of Five Components of Reading
included in each of the textbooks
Book
Phonemic
awareness
Phonics
Fluency Vocabulary
Text
Comprehension
Total %
1
5
14
6
15
20
60
2
4
7
7
9
12
39
3
2
6
7
5
14
34
4
4
1
7
7
9
28
5
2
4
2
9
10
28
6
2
3
4
6
12
27
7
3
2
4
6
9
25
8
2
3
2
5
11
23
9
2
3
3
5
7
20
10
1
2
1
2
5
10
• Phonemic awareness can be improved by teaching
letter-sound correspondences (three books).
• A grapheme is the smallest unit in a written
language, a letter of the alphabet in alphabetic
languages (page 61)
• This system (phonics) is unfortunately not a matter
of one-to-one correspondence, as can be readily
inferred from the mismatch between 26
graphemes and 44 phonemes.
• Phonics is a complex, imperfect system and some
of it is seldom if ever taught, but readers develop
considerable phonics knowledge whether they are
taught it or pick it up on their own (page 62).
SPELLING INSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT
In the left-hand column are examples of errors that a student consistently makes
when writing. In the right-hand column are specific activities. Write the appropriate
letter on the line. Write only one letter on each line.
• A. kook for cook, kamp for camp, kut
for cut
• B. lookt for looked, churchez for
churches, campen for camping
• C. cuf for cuff, kis for kiss, hil for hill
• D. sep for step, back for black, sip for
slip
• A. Have student trace and copy
words five times.
• B. Prepare a deck with blends.
Student reads the blend on each
card and gives the sounds of the
blends, moving a counter for
each sound in the blend.
• C. Teach student a specific
spelling pattern or generalization
in order to help student spell
words correctly.
• D. Have student close his or her
eyes and make a visual image of
the words.
• E. Teach student inflectional
endings.
Percentages of Teachers Correctly Counting Morphemes
Preservice
30 Hours 120 Hours
(n = 36)
(n = 56)
(n = 36)
1. keeper
2. phonology
3. salamander
4. projector
5. rattlesnake
6. kangaroo
7. jumped
8. happened
9. inhaled
10. supervisor
64%
67%
25%
36%
75%
61%
69%
64%
33%
16%
77%
86%
48%
59%
95%
68%
71%
71%
38%
34%
97%
94%
83%
75%
97%
83%
92%
94%
61%
44%
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Dyslexia Items for PSTs
Question
Seeing letters and words backwards is a
characteristic of dyslexia.
Children with dyslexia can be helped
by using colored lenses/colored overlays.
Children with dyslexia have problems in
decoding and spelling but not in
listening comprehension.
Dyslexics tend to have lower IQ scores
than non-dyslexics.
Most teachers receive intensive training to
work with dyslexia children.
Mean Score
(SD in parentheses)
3.37 (.661)
2.59 (.830)
2.65 (.899)
1.78 (.712)
1.88 (.828)
Note. 1 = definitely false, 2 = probably false, 3 = probably true, 4 = definitely true
Summary
• Approximately 20 to 25 % of the individuals
have difficulty with mastering literacy skills.
• The current practice of identifying children
based on the discrepancy formula should be
considered a failure.
• The intervention techniques based on this
criterion has resulted in the Matthew Effect.
It is theoretically not valid; it does not give
directions for remedial instruction.
Matthew Effect in Reading
Matthew 25:29:
For unto everyone that hath shall be
given and he shall have in abundance,
but from him that hath not shall be
taken away even that which he hath.
Keith Stanovich: The Matthew Effect:
“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
• likes reading
• good comprehension
• good decoding
• Reads!
• good phonemic awareness
• poor phonemic awareness
• poor decoding
• poor comprehension
• dislikes reading
• Doesn’t read!
Poor vs. Good Readers
Good
Do you like to read?
5/30
26/29
Would you rather play
with friends/ watch TV
than read?
70%
70%
Would you rather clean
your room than read?
40%
I’d rather clean the mold around the
bathtub than read.
Poor
This unfortunate situation is particularly tragic
since well-established procedures are available
from diverse disciplines.
•Explicit instruction in reading makes a
difference in learner outcomes, especially for
low-achieving students
•Early identification and intervention
(preventing reading difficulties as early as
possible) is more effective than later
identification and intervention.
• Componential Model can be applied to different
languages; however the contribution of decoding
and comprehension may be different in different
languages.
• Probably instruction in decoding strategies may be
completed early in Spanish while it may be
prolonged in Chinese.
• Comprehension strategies (including vocabulary)
could be taught from early grade levels.
• COMPONENTIAL MODEL PROVIDES AN
ALTERNATE MODEL FOR ASSESSMENT AND
INTERVENTION, WHICH IS EASY, TEACHERFRIENDLY, AND PRAGMATIC
• There is a need for increased preparation of preservice teachers to teach the linguistic
components of the English language.
• Teacher training programs must explicitly teach
the interdependence of these components in
effective reading instruction.
• Textbooks used in pre-service reading education
courses should be carefully selected to include all
components of scientifically-based reading
research.
Yogi Berra Quotes
• I want to thank you for making this day
necessary.
• Texas has a lot of electrical votes.
• You should always go to other people’s
funerals; otherwise, they won’t come to
yours.
• The towels were so thick in Crowne Plaza
Hotels, I could hardly close my suitcase.
• Thank you
• TODA RABA
•
• "efharisto" (ευχαριστώ)
• 谢谢
•
•
Tusen takk
Tack så mycket
Training in Word Recognition skills
Poor decoders: Phoneme awareness training
(Lindamood, 4 weeks); then
Spalding Writing Road to Reading (12 weeks)
Two Phonograms are introduced every session.
Two or three words with these phonograms are
taught.
Children are asked to say the words and copy
them.
During next session, these words are tested for
spelling
Move to Decodable texts (Scholastic)
• Strategy training
• 1. Children (in small groups) recall the strategies
• 2. They scan the text for difficult words
Instructor goes over these words and builds
schema
• 3.Instructor models the strategies during every
lesson.
• 4. Children take turn and read incorporating the
strategies
• 5. They summarize in one or two sentences
without looking at the book
Comprehension training: Strategy
instruction
• The 7 strategies:
1. Purpose of reading
2. Schema activation
3. Stop and think
4. Make use of visuals
5. Raise hand for help
6. What I know so far
7. Summarize
• Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, and Saunders (2009)
reviewed the development and implementation of
RTI in 50 states and concluded that because of the
lack of specificity in assessment and intervention,
RTI “seems to hold a similar trajectory as the
discrepancy model” (p. 94).
• Wagner (2008): “Although identification models
based on response to instruction appear potentially
promising, the notion that they represent real
progress for identification and intervention for
children with dyslexia should be considered to be a
popular myth until evidence from rigorous
evaluation is available” (p. 188).
• Componential Model can be applied to
different languages; however the
contribution of decoding and comprehension
may be different in different languages.
• Probably instruction in decoding strategies
may be completed early in Spanish while it
may be prolonged in Chinese.
• Comprehension strategies (including
vocabulary) could be taught from early grade
levels.
• 1. Literacy acquisition and literacy problems among
bilinguals may be influenced by the type of writing
systems.
• 2. Among bilinguals with reading problems, whether
they exhibit reading problems in one or both the
languages may depend on the ‘orthographic distance’
of two languages. If the two orthographies are similar,
such as Spanish and Italian, then reading problems
might occur in both the languages. On the other hand,
if two orthographies are farther apart, such as English
and Japanese, it is possible to exhibit reading problem
in only one language.
• 3. COMPONENTIAL
MODEL PROVIDES AN
ALTERNATE MODEL FOR ASSESSMENT AND
INTERVENTION, WHICH IS EASY, TEACHERFRIENDLY, AND PRAGMATIC