Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M.A. (2007, January/February/March). Supported eText: Assistive Technology Through Text Transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 153–160. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.1.8
To gain meaningful access to the curriculum, students with reading difficulties must overcome substantial barriers imposed by the printed materials they are asked to read. Technology can assist students to overcome these challenges by enabling a shift from printed text to electronic text. By electronic text we mean textual material read using a computer or some other electronic device such as a Palm, iPod, or even a LeapPad. Shifting to a computer for presenting text offers immediate advantages to readers, primarily because a computer can be used to modify the way text is viewed and read: font face, size, and color can be changed; text can be read out loud; concepts can be defined and explained; multiple illustrations can appear simultaneously; links can lead to supportive information; and documents can be accessed from different computers in different geographic locations. In short, electronic texts are malleable.
In spite of its inherent possibilities, electronic text by itself is rather limited in its usefulness to readers and learners. In order to really take advantage of its potential as an assistive technology, an electronic reading environment that intelligently transforms text into something that supports comprehension and extends meaningful learning is required. This is accomplished in a variety of ways, including embedded supports (e.g., definitions of unfamiliar terms), multiple modalities (e.g., text that can be read out loud), and links to useful resources (e.g., background information, concept map, notepad)—all of which can transform electronic text so that it is more accessible and supportive to diverse learners. We refer to text that has been altered to increase access and provide support to learners as supported electronic text or supported eText.
From multiple research and development projects that focused on investigating the nature and impact of supportive electronic text, Anderson-Inman and Horney developed typology that talked about the specific types of resources that can be used to transform electronic text. The work publisized eight types of supportive resources that enable students to read texts easier and more educational. They focus on what function the supportive resource encorporates in the reading process. This adds features that enhance the reading process and help develop heightened comprehension.A strength is that if teachers design a reading environment that is effective and can be used for all students not just an accommodation for a few. A weakness is that multimedia can have a negative impact if not done correctly because not all eText supports are supportive for all learners. As with some of the other research I've done there is not a "one size fits all", the teacher should learn the programs and assess and try different strategies with each student.
They found that any type of eText support can be implemented in multiple ways, using different types of media. For students who have learning disabilities the translational resources may simplified text or synonyms. Students who are deaf, translation can be in the form of video with an American Sign Language interpreter. There is new technology coming to the for front each day so the virtual text will change yearly as the electronic form changes.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Article # 10 Assistive Technology in the Reading Clinic: Its Emerging Potential
McKenna, M.C., & Walpole, S. (2007, January/February/March). Assistive Technology in the Reading Clinic: Its Emerging Potential. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 140–145. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.1.6
In the experience, traditional reading clinics, whose mission it is to serve struggling readers through comprehensive, individually administered assessment and individually tailored one-on-one instruction, have been slow to embrace the potential of technology. Instead, technology applications in literacy instruction appear to have been far more commonly implemented in special education settings and far more commonly investigated by literacy researchers whose agendas do not focus on struggling readers. They believe that this situation is unfortunate. Developments within assistive technology (AT), not to mention policy-driven reality, suggest that clinical practice be reconsidered in light of emerging applications if clinics are to serve struggling readers optimally and if, ultimately, clinics are to thrive in a digital era.
The study has a belief in the utility of the reading clinic as an essential context for teacher preparation and as a means of serving struggling children. Clinics remain a vehicle useful in reaching nuanced judgments about reading difficulties, offering detailed guidance to practitioners, and pioneering new methods of assessment. The research suspected that AT holds exceptional promise for achieving these ends. Our purpose here is first to sharpen the definition of AT in clinical settings, to describe how theory and available research support its use in clinics, to link AT in clinics to AT in schools, and finally to identify questions for future inquiry.
The problem is that traditional reading clinics served struggling readers through comprehensive, individually designed for one-on-one instruction, and have been slow to believe in the potential of technology. There has been far more research on technology for learning disabillities than for struggling readers. Assistive technology can help the students read print and any print is beneficial for the struggling readers. A weakness of the research is that it is limited and sometimes conflicting. For exampole in text-to-speech technologies it may be helpful for comorehension for below average and reading disabled, but lacks the strength to help students with ADD. Sometimes speech recognition can suffer from inaccurate word matches and students with severe spelling disorders hasve problems with spell checkers. The strengths of the research is that it shows the potential for readers to compensate for specific reading deficits by using AT along with instructional interventions.
The implications of the findings are that many readers can benefit from Assistive Technology, not only students with learning disabilities. Teachers can impliment the AT with help from additional school personal who are better able to monitor the student. The child's individual classroom sets the format for the type if instruction that may happen, and create expectations that are attainable.
In the experience, traditional reading clinics, whose mission it is to serve struggling readers through comprehensive, individually administered assessment and individually tailored one-on-one instruction, have been slow to embrace the potential of technology. Instead, technology applications in literacy instruction appear to have been far more commonly implemented in special education settings and far more commonly investigated by literacy researchers whose agendas do not focus on struggling readers. They believe that this situation is unfortunate. Developments within assistive technology (AT), not to mention policy-driven reality, suggest that clinical practice be reconsidered in light of emerging applications if clinics are to serve struggling readers optimally and if, ultimately, clinics are to thrive in a digital era.
The study has a belief in the utility of the reading clinic as an essential context for teacher preparation and as a means of serving struggling children. Clinics remain a vehicle useful in reaching nuanced judgments about reading difficulties, offering detailed guidance to practitioners, and pioneering new methods of assessment. The research suspected that AT holds exceptional promise for achieving these ends. Our purpose here is first to sharpen the definition of AT in clinical settings, to describe how theory and available research support its use in clinics, to link AT in clinics to AT in schools, and finally to identify questions for future inquiry.
The problem is that traditional reading clinics served struggling readers through comprehensive, individually designed for one-on-one instruction, and have been slow to believe in the potential of technology. There has been far more research on technology for learning disabillities than for struggling readers. Assistive technology can help the students read print and any print is beneficial for the struggling readers. A weakness of the research is that it is limited and sometimes conflicting. For exampole in text-to-speech technologies it may be helpful for comorehension for below average and reading disabled, but lacks the strength to help students with ADD. Sometimes speech recognition can suffer from inaccurate word matches and students with severe spelling disorders hasve problems with spell checkers. The strengths of the research is that it shows the potential for readers to compensate for specific reading deficits by using AT along with instructional interventions.
The implications of the findings are that many readers can benefit from Assistive Technology, not only students with learning disabilities. Teachers can impliment the AT with help from additional school personal who are better able to monitor the student. The child's individual classroom sets the format for the type if instruction that may happen, and create expectations that are attainable.
Article #9 Technology-Enhanced Reading Performance:Defining a Research Agenda
Edyburn, D.L. (2007, January/February/March). Technology-Enhanced Reading Performance: Defining a Research Agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146–152. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.1.7
In each of the scenarios presented, it is important to consider the event that stimulates an intervention and associated support services. Such issues are clear in the first example. However, in the second scenario, there is no single event that triggers action. Therefore, how long do we continue to provide reading instruction when a child is clearly not benefiting from it? This point is not meant to suggest that we give up teaching a child to read. Rather, at what point do we intervene with compensatory strategies, including assistive technology, to enable students to bypass, for example, the decoding aspects of reading that they have not been able to master in order to engage in the higher order processes of extracting meaning from text?
A fundamental problem for many struggling readers, their parents, and their teachers is that there are few benchmarks to guide decision making about using assistive technology when the nature of a disability is cognitive rather than physical. Given that the basic processes associated with reading and comprehending are cognitive, the field has been caught unprepared to address issues of how technology compensates for cognitive impairments (Edyburn, 2000, 2003a). Several factors may explain the lack of attention devoted to assistive technology and reading and the minimal knowledge base that has accumulated to date.
Instructional methods often cause an achievement gap for underperforming students;Black students, students with disabilities, students living in poverty, and students whose first language is not English. There is a definite line between grade-level achievement and performance. The weakness of assistive technology is that there still needs to be more research on the underdeveloped range of technological text-to-speech tools. A strength is that federal policies are starting to realize that through using technology as an intervention for struggling readers is a way to differentiate instruction.
The findings were that academic performance that is achieved without outside help is more esteemed than performance that is contingent on tools or resources. there is a bias against using technology for struggling readers that is called, "naked independence". The conception is students using outside sources aren't performing as well. They argue that these students may become dependant on the machines and will not be able to test well on state tests. Although the use if technology does challenge the theory of working without technology the students are able to perform well and decrease the learning gap.
In each of the scenarios presented, it is important to consider the event that stimulates an intervention and associated support services. Such issues are clear in the first example. However, in the second scenario, there is no single event that triggers action. Therefore, how long do we continue to provide reading instruction when a child is clearly not benefiting from it? This point is not meant to suggest that we give up teaching a child to read. Rather, at what point do we intervene with compensatory strategies, including assistive technology, to enable students to bypass, for example, the decoding aspects of reading that they have not been able to master in order to engage in the higher order processes of extracting meaning from text?
A fundamental problem for many struggling readers, their parents, and their teachers is that there are few benchmarks to guide decision making about using assistive technology when the nature of a disability is cognitive rather than physical. Given that the basic processes associated with reading and comprehending are cognitive, the field has been caught unprepared to address issues of how technology compensates for cognitive impairments (Edyburn, 2000, 2003a). Several factors may explain the lack of attention devoted to assistive technology and reading and the minimal knowledge base that has accumulated to date.
Instructional methods often cause an achievement gap for underperforming students;Black students, students with disabilities, students living in poverty, and students whose first language is not English. There is a definite line between grade-level achievement and performance. The weakness of assistive technology is that there still needs to be more research on the underdeveloped range of technological text-to-speech tools. A strength is that federal policies are starting to realize that through using technology as an intervention for struggling readers is a way to differentiate instruction.
The findings were that academic performance that is achieved without outside help is more esteemed than performance that is contingent on tools or resources. there is a bias against using technology for struggling readers that is called, "naked independence". The conception is students using outside sources aren't performing as well. They argue that these students may become dependant on the machines and will not be able to test well on state tests. Although the use if technology does challenge the theory of working without technology the students are able to perform well and decrease the learning gap.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Article #7 The Effects of Theoretically Different Instuction and Student Characteristics on the Skills of Struggling Readers
Abstract from Mathes, P.G., Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L., Francis, D.J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005, April/May/June). The Effects of Theoretically Different Instruction and Student Characteristics on the Skills of Struggling Readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2
This study investigated the effectiveness of combining enhanced classroom instruction and intense supplemental intervention for struggling readers in first grade. Further, it compared two supplemental interventions derived from distinct theoretical orientations, examining them in terms of effects on academic outcomes and whether children's characteristics were differentially related to an instructional intervention. One intervention (Proactive Reading) was aligned with behavioral theory and was derived from the model of Direct Instruction. The other intervention (Responsive Reading) was aligned with a cognitive theory and was derived from a cognitive-apprenticeship model. These interventions were provided to small groups of first-grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Students were assessed on various reading and reading-related measures associated with success in beginning reading. Results indicated that (a) first-grade students who were at risk for reading failure and who received supplemental instruction in the Responsive or Proactive interventions scored higher on measures of reading and reading-related skills than students who received only enhanced classroom instruction, (b) enhanced classroom instruction appeared to promote high levels of reading growth for many children at risk for reading failure, (c) the two interventions were essentially equally effective even though they reflected different theoretical perspectives, and (d) children's characteristics did not differentially predict the effectiveness of an intervention.
The problem is without effective early instruction, which may require supplemental instruction, initial reading difficulties may eventually be compounded as students fall further and further behind their peers and continue with ineffective strategies for coping with reading failure. With a continued use of these strategies students may be learning to be disabled. The children who were in this study were six United States schools in a large urban Texas school district. The school's were selected based on their high proficiency rating in reading by the Texas Department of education and the school district. The kindergartners who were used were based on the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI). A strength of the study is that it determined that high-quality classroom instruction is a primary factor in determining success. A weakness of the research is is still not clear how much instruction must occur, how contextualized skills instruction needs to be, and the level of intensity at which it must occur in order for struggling readers to succeed. The implications for this are that it affirms the value of providing early intervention to struggling readers. The most important finding is that supplemental intervention from different theoretical perspectives were both effective. There is no best approach or one right way every it is important to take a proactive and responsive approach that is relevant to each individual child.
This study investigated the effectiveness of combining enhanced classroom instruction and intense supplemental intervention for struggling readers in first grade. Further, it compared two supplemental interventions derived from distinct theoretical orientations, examining them in terms of effects on academic outcomes and whether children's characteristics were differentially related to an instructional intervention. One intervention (Proactive Reading) was aligned with behavioral theory and was derived from the model of Direct Instruction. The other intervention (Responsive Reading) was aligned with a cognitive theory and was derived from a cognitive-apprenticeship model. These interventions were provided to small groups of first-grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Students were assessed on various reading and reading-related measures associated with success in beginning reading. Results indicated that (a) first-grade students who were at risk for reading failure and who received supplemental instruction in the Responsive or Proactive interventions scored higher on measures of reading and reading-related skills than students who received only enhanced classroom instruction, (b) enhanced classroom instruction appeared to promote high levels of reading growth for many children at risk for reading failure, (c) the two interventions were essentially equally effective even though they reflected different theoretical perspectives, and (d) children's characteristics did not differentially predict the effectiveness of an intervention.
The problem is without effective early instruction, which may require supplemental instruction, initial reading difficulties may eventually be compounded as students fall further and further behind their peers and continue with ineffective strategies for coping with reading failure. With a continued use of these strategies students may be learning to be disabled. The children who were in this study were six United States schools in a large urban Texas school district. The school's were selected based on their high proficiency rating in reading by the Texas Department of education and the school district. The kindergartners who were used were based on the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI). A strength of the study is that it determined that high-quality classroom instruction is a primary factor in determining success. A weakness of the research is is still not clear how much instruction must occur, how contextualized skills instruction needs to be, and the level of intensity at which it must occur in order for struggling readers to succeed. The implications for this are that it affirms the value of providing early intervention to struggling readers. The most important finding is that supplemental intervention from different theoretical perspectives were both effective. There is no best approach or one right way every it is important to take a proactive and responsive approach that is relevant to each individual child.
Article #6 Research on Reading/Learning Disability Interventions
0Abstract of Allington, R.L. (2002).Research on Reading/Learning Disability Interventions.In A.E. Farstrup, & S. Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 261-290). Newark, DE: International Reading Association
The author points out that definitions of “reading disability” and “learning disability” are remarkably inconsistent and, in the United States, have shifted significantly over the years, largely due to political considerations. Despite the ambiguities in definitions, however, there is research on interventions that may prove effective with children who, for a variety of reasons, struggle to learn to read. The chapter summarizes research on preventive designs, acceleration designs, and more systemic, longer term approaches, concluding that a reconceptualizing of reading/learning disability is needed to achieve the desired goal of improved reading achievement for all children.
The Problem is that often there are not clear definitions between what can be considered a reading or learning disability. The research came from the records of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the shift to how research standards are set to distinguish achievement based on prior performance. The researchers found not all children learn to read and write the same way and at the same achievement level. Teachers should not segregate and label students who are experiencing difficulty and are struggling to become literate. The school system as a whole needs to resturcture the instructional program and produce more accurate intervention designs as well as developing more accurate litereacy instruction. A strenghth of the research states that when a program has sufficient results in literacy development the instructional method and curriculum are usually the predinating factors. A weaknesses of the research states that althought the methods and materails are one answer they are not the only answer, acheiving these standards set by policy makers will require additional funding and unfortunately funding is unlikely due to low budgets. The implications for this research says that all achildren should be reading by grade 4, there are criteria for grade-level reading achievement for promotion tot he next grade. There needs to be political and professional attention based on literacy funding to design a program that answers the problem.
The author points out that definitions of “reading disability” and “learning disability” are remarkably inconsistent and, in the United States, have shifted significantly over the years, largely due to political considerations. Despite the ambiguities in definitions, however, there is research on interventions that may prove effective with children who, for a variety of reasons, struggle to learn to read. The chapter summarizes research on preventive designs, acceleration designs, and more systemic, longer term approaches, concluding that a reconceptualizing of reading/learning disability is needed to achieve the desired goal of improved reading achievement for all children.
The Problem is that often there are not clear definitions between what can be considered a reading or learning disability. The research came from the records of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the shift to how research standards are set to distinguish achievement based on prior performance. The researchers found not all children learn to read and write the same way and at the same achievement level. Teachers should not segregate and label students who are experiencing difficulty and are struggling to become literate. The school system as a whole needs to resturcture the instructional program and produce more accurate intervention designs as well as developing more accurate litereacy instruction. A strenghth of the research states that when a program has sufficient results in literacy development the instructional method and curriculum are usually the predinating factors. A weaknesses of the research states that althought the methods and materails are one answer they are not the only answer, acheiving these standards set by policy makers will require additional funding and unfortunately funding is unlikely due to low budgets. The implications for this research says that all achildren should be reading by grade 4, there are criteria for grade-level reading achievement for promotion tot he next grade. There needs to be political and professional attention based on literacy funding to design a program that answers the problem.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Article #5 Struggling Readers A Child's Response to Intervention Requires a Responsive Teacher of Reading
Abstract from Lose, M.K. (2007, November). A Child's Response to Intervention Requires a Responsive Teacher of Reading. The Reading Teacher, 61(3), 276–279. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.3.9
There are a number of principles that teachers of reading and administrators need to keep in mind to ensure that Response to Intervention (RTI) enables struggling literacy learners to achieve success within the provisions of the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). The author argues for evidence-based RTI approaches that emphasize teacher expertise and sustained teacher development, that are scalable, and that can be implemented immediately by education systems.
The Problem is that state education agencies may establish the criteria needed to identify children with disabilities, but the local agencies choose the RTI model. So the studies above are trying to identify what models work the best. The best evidence-based interventions from What Works Clearinghouse, founded by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute for Educational Sciences. There were 20 models of which one was a Reading Recovery program. The Reading Recovery scored the highest and only three of the remaining nineteen were positive interventions.
The criteria for an appropriate RTI program are Ensure Early Identification for all children struggling with literacy learning and provide a way to correctly identify children who are LD.
early Intervention Services should include effective, intensive, evidence based services. The school should document and provident evidence of adequate yearly progress to a team of highly qualified professionals who support comprehensive literacy developments. The principles of a successful program include: a child learning to red is an individual, the child should respond successfully, the most struggling child requires the most successful teacher, and teachers should maintain high-quality professional development.
The strengths are the research came ot the following conclusions: A child, not a group needs to read. The only valid RTI approach is one in which the child responds in a positive way. In order to be successful even the child that struggles the most needs a trained professional who is an expert and is able to make moment-by-moment decisions. The research also covered beginning reading programs in the four key domains: alphabetic, reading fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. A weakness of the 20 interventions reviewed by the What Works Clearing House was that only one of the interventions were a Reading Recovery model. This model scored the highest and it would have been beneficial to have more than one approach of a positive model of this type.
Implications of the article are that teachers have a responsibility to implement highly-rated evidence -based approaches by a skilled, responsive teacher. Reading professionals have enough information from existing positive programs to give struggling students appropriate, and timely responses to the challenges of RTI. The lowest performing students must be identified early so that appropriate interventions and tiers of support can be provided within a comprehensive approach at the first indication of difficulty.
There are a number of principles that teachers of reading and administrators need to keep in mind to ensure that Response to Intervention (RTI) enables struggling literacy learners to achieve success within the provisions of the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). The author argues for evidence-based RTI approaches that emphasize teacher expertise and sustained teacher development, that are scalable, and that can be implemented immediately by education systems.
The Problem is that state education agencies may establish the criteria needed to identify children with disabilities, but the local agencies choose the RTI model. So the studies above are trying to identify what models work the best. The best evidence-based interventions from What Works Clearinghouse, founded by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute for Educational Sciences. There were 20 models of which one was a Reading Recovery program. The Reading Recovery scored the highest and only three of the remaining nineteen were positive interventions.
The criteria for an appropriate RTI program are Ensure Early Identification for all children struggling with literacy learning and provide a way to correctly identify children who are LD.
early Intervention Services should include effective, intensive, evidence based services. The school should document and provident evidence of adequate yearly progress to a team of highly qualified professionals who support comprehensive literacy developments. The principles of a successful program include: a child learning to red is an individual, the child should respond successfully, the most struggling child requires the most successful teacher, and teachers should maintain high-quality professional development.
The strengths are the research came ot the following conclusions: A child, not a group needs to read. The only valid RTI approach is one in which the child responds in a positive way. In order to be successful even the child that struggles the most needs a trained professional who is an expert and is able to make moment-by-moment decisions. The research also covered beginning reading programs in the four key domains: alphabetic, reading fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. A weakness of the 20 interventions reviewed by the What Works Clearing House was that only one of the interventions were a Reading Recovery model. This model scored the highest and it would have been beneficial to have more than one approach of a positive model of this type.
Implications of the article are that teachers have a responsibility to implement highly-rated evidence -based approaches by a skilled, responsive teacher. Reading professionals have enough information from existing positive programs to give struggling students appropriate, and timely responses to the challenges of RTI. The lowest performing students must be identified early so that appropriate interventions and tiers of support can be provided within a comprehensive approach at the first indication of difficulty.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Article #3 Teaching Tips 10 Rules for Teaching
Litt, D.G. (2007, March). 10 Rules for Reading. The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 570–574. doi: 10.1598/RT.60.6.7.
In the author's experience, a significant source of reading difficulty for many beginning and struggling readers are misconceptions about print concepts so basic teachers assume their students are aware of them. Many children fail to grasp implicit principles of print such as the following: the reader cannot make up the words, the order of letters within a word makes a difference, and each letter in a word must be considered.
Using brief vignettes from her work with beginning and struggling readers, the author draws attention to these often-overlooked misconceptions. The author explains how she helped students overcome their faulty understandings by providing “rules” about reading, which enabled them to regulate their own reading.
Deborah Litt, was a former elementary level Reading Recovery Teacher and Reading Specialist.
The 10 rules are: (1) Read only what's on the page, don't make it up. (2) Reading always makes sense. (3) When reading doesn't make sense, find out what is wrong and correct it. (4) If the words and the pictures are different , go by the words. (5) Say the words as they are written. (6) Say the part of the word you know. (7) Always read form left to right. (8) You can't change the order of the letters. (9) Only make sounds for letters that you see in the word. (10) You're not allowed to ignore any letters in a word. The strength of the article is it shows strategies that students can use to correct 10 misconceptions of reading. If students continue using ineffective reading behaviors they will be stunted and he or she may have problems with comprehension. The rules are not entirely what is paramount in the discussion, the early intervention with the students before negative habits are formed is the most critical. Each teacher can develop a strategy that works in their classroom and assess students' comprehension of the 10 principles for the struggling readers helps them to learn the positive strategies when reading. A weakness of the article is that although the author used studies from Marie Clay (1993) and Linnea Ehri (1997 & 1998), she only studied her school experience of the studies. Implications of the findings are that many teachers assume certain text information is common knowledge and each teacher should assess struggling readers to assure he or she has full comprehension of the 10 rules for reading. Each classroom teacher should develop a plan to work with students on the rules he or she does not understand to produce effective reading skills.
In the author's experience, a significant source of reading difficulty for many beginning and struggling readers are misconceptions about print concepts so basic teachers assume their students are aware of them. Many children fail to grasp implicit principles of print such as the following: the reader cannot make up the words, the order of letters within a word makes a difference, and each letter in a word must be considered.
Using brief vignettes from her work with beginning and struggling readers, the author draws attention to these often-overlooked misconceptions. The author explains how she helped students overcome their faulty understandings by providing “rules” about reading, which enabled them to regulate their own reading.
Deborah Litt, was a former elementary level Reading Recovery Teacher and Reading Specialist.
The 10 rules are: (1) Read only what's on the page, don't make it up. (2) Reading always makes sense. (3) When reading doesn't make sense, find out what is wrong and correct it. (4) If the words and the pictures are different , go by the words. (5) Say the words as they are written. (6) Say the part of the word you know. (7) Always read form left to right. (8) You can't change the order of the letters. (9) Only make sounds for letters that you see in the word. (10) You're not allowed to ignore any letters in a word. The strength of the article is it shows strategies that students can use to correct 10 misconceptions of reading. If students continue using ineffective reading behaviors they will be stunted and he or she may have problems with comprehension. The rules are not entirely what is paramount in the discussion, the early intervention with the students before negative habits are formed is the most critical. Each teacher can develop a strategy that works in their classroom and assess students' comprehension of the 10 principles for the struggling readers helps them to learn the positive strategies when reading. A weakness of the article is that although the author used studies from Marie Clay (1993) and Linnea Ehri (1997 & 1998), she only studied her school experience of the studies. Implications of the findings are that many teachers assume certain text information is common knowledge and each teacher should assess struggling readers to assure he or she has full comprehension of the 10 rules for reading. Each classroom teacher should develop a plan to work with students on the rules he or she does not understand to produce effective reading skills.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
