A Synthesis
of Research on Reading from the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development
by Bonita Grossen
University of Oregon
November, 1997
Contents:
A Note About the NICHD Research Program
How the NICHD Research Program is Different
Developing a New Understanding of Reading Difficulties
Research on Treatment for Reading Difficulties
Major Implications for Early Reading Instruction
Other Important Research Questions and Findings
Future Directions
References
A Note About the NICHD
Research Program
The National Institute
of Child Health and Development (NICHD) educational research program,
initiated in 1965, began to focus more on reading difficulties as it
became clear how extensive the reading problem was in the general population.
The 1985 Health Research Extension Act resulted in a new charge to the
NICHD to improve the quality of reading research by conducting long-term,
prospective, longitudinal, and multidisciplinary research. Reid Lyon
led the new charge by closely coordinating the work of over 100 researchers
in medicine, psychology, and education in approximately 14 different
research centers. (Numbers vary from year to year.)
A major problem with reading
research in the past was that findings often did not replicate. One
researcher would get one result, another researcher would get the opposite
result. Lyon and colleagues identified that the key problem in obtaining
replicability was that researchers were studying different samples of
children. Lyon established detailed sampling requirements for the research
and increased scientific rigor in other areas. Consequently, the NICHD
research program has produced a growing body of highly replicable findings
in the area of early reading acquisition and reading disabilities that
have been reported in over 2,000 refereed journal articles since 1965.
How the NICHD Research
Program is Different
To appreciate fully the
significance of the NICHD findings it helps to understand the level
of scientific rigor used to guide the formation of conclusions from
the research. Reid Lyon coordinates the parallel investigation of similar
questions across several NICHD research centers. Under Lyon's leadership,
the researchers determine that the questions have been answered only
when the findings replicate across researchers and settings. Findings
with a high degree of replicability are finally considered incontrovertible
findings and then form the basis for additional research questions.
Funding is awarded the research centers through a competitive peer review
process. A panel of researchers who are not competing for the research
funds award the funds after evaluating competing proposals according
to specific criteria. Each research study within the NICHD network must
follow the most rigorous scientific procedures.
True scientific model.
The NICHD studies do not embrace any a priori theory, but test all theories
against one another at different points in time. In a true scientific
paradigm, theories are tested by doing everything to try to prove the
theory incorrect. This contrasts with the usual nature of research in
education, where untested hypotheses are often presented as proved theories
before any testing has occurred.
Long-term duration.
The average length of a study has been 8 years, ranging in length from
3 years to 31 years. In these longitudinal studies, the growth of children
from preschool through adulthood has been evaluated. Currently, several
large-scale, 5-year longitudinal treatment intervention studies are
underway. This longer-term design allows evaluation of the effects of
different instructional variables on later reading performance.
Sampling procedures.
The sampling procedures ensure that all subgroups in the population
(all ethnic groups, a full range of IQ levels, and so on) are included
in sufficient numbers to provide a window to the population as a whole
and provide information regarding the relationship of reading disabilities
to other variability in individuals such as IQ. To evaluate the relationship
between IQ and reading disabilities, for example, the research subjects
must proportionately sample different IQ bands. Most studies involve
around 200 subjects representing variation within specified dimensions.
Children who do not speak English have been excluded from the NICHD
research samples to this point. After basic reading instruction issues
have been resolved for teaching children with some knowledge of English,
including bilingual children, the research questions will turn to treatment
for children who do not know English and are beginning to learn it as
a second language.
Researcher bias.
Researcher bias is reduced by the sheer number of people involved in
the NICHD program. For example, at only one NICHD-funded research center,
the one at Yale University, the following researchers are involved:
Jack Fletcher, David Francis, Rafael Kloorman, John Gore, John Halahan,
Robert Constable, Leonard Katz, Barbara Foorman, Bonita Blachman, Dorothy
Aram, Alvin Liberman, Ken Pugh, Michael Studdert-Kennedy, Donald Shankweiler,
Karla Stuebing, Keith Stanovich, Linda Siegel, and Louisa Moats. In
addition, researchers at the different NICHD centers communicate frequently
regarding their findings, checking each other's data and testing alternative
explanations with additional studies.
Contrast with other
educational research. The NICHD research program differs from
much of the earlier research in its scientific rigor. Table 1 helps
illustrate the contrast by summarizing several studies that reported
conclusions that conflict with those of the NICHD. The studies in Table
1 are laudable for attempting to evaluate competing theories and were
sometimes even two years in duration, quite long as educational studies
go. Yet the studies are still too short in duration to evaluate the
effects of the different treatments on the children's actual ability
to read with understanding. In nearly all of the studies in Table 1
the children never progressed far enough in their reading to use a measure
of independent reading comprehension to evaluate their learning. The
important question of how different approaches to beginning reading
instruction ultimately impact authentic reading remains unanswered in
these studies.
Many of the measures used
to evaluate the children's learning had no established validity as predictors
of reading comprehension. For example, children who used multiple cueing
systems or who said they valued understanding more than getting the
words right, were given higher scores in many of the studies in Table
1. Whether or not this performance would correlate with later reading
performance was not established at the time of the research.
With the NICHD research
we now know that the values given the responses on these measures should
have been reversed. What was considered desirable performance on miscue
analyses actually indicates a poor comprehender, rather than a good
comprehender. Children who are poor readers make greater use of two
of the three cueing systems, syntax and semantics (context), than good
readers. Good readers make greater use of the graphophonic cueing system,
as indicated by the fact that they read fluently and accurately without
rereading. Readers who get words right are better comprehenders than
readers who guess using context to figure out words. Most likely the
children who scored highest on these measures would become the poorest
readers, based on NICHD studies of good and poor readers.
Even when the skills measured
do predict better reading later, such as knowing the names of the letters,
teaching children these skills does not necessarily guarantee that these
children will be better readers later on. Though many of the studies
in Table 1 were over two years duration, the time frame was still too
short to see the nature of the impact of the instruction on reading
comprehension.
Table 1. Research supporting conclusions
that conflict with the NICHD research findings.
| Date |
Researchers
|
Population sampled
|
N in whole language
group |
N in skills-
based group |
Duration |
Reading comprehension
measure included? |
| 1985 |
Ribowsky |
2 K classes in parochial
school |
26
|
27
|
1 yr |
No |
| 1989 |
Kasten, Clark, &
Nations |
2 Preschool &
2 K classes |
54
|
66
|
1 yr |
No |
| 1990 |
Stice & Bertrand
|
At-risk 1st &
2nd graders in 10 classes |
25
(5 from each class) |
25
(5 from each class) |
2 yrs |
The SAT was administered,
but no significant difference found. |
| 1991 |
Freppon |
4 1st grade
classes, wealthy, white |
12
|
12
|
4 mths |
No |
| 1993 |
McIntyre |
1st grade, varied
|
1 (also
1 in Reading Recovery) |
1
|
2 yrs |
No |
| 1994 |
McIntyre & Freppon
|
low SES groups |
3
|
3
|
2 yrs |
No |
| 1995 |
Dahl & Freppon
|
4 classes |
12
focal Ss
21 on some measures |
7 focal
Ss
12 on some measures |
8 mths |
No |
*N= number of subjects (Ss) in each treatment
group.
In contrast, the NICHD
longitudinal treatment studies now in progress are five years in duration
and have already used reading comprehension measures to evalute instructional
variables in the second year of the studies. In addition, the sample
sizes are much larger in the NICHD research studies. For example, the
kindergarten study by Foorman and her colleagues (in press) involved
260 kindergarten children. Their first- and second-grade study in eight
Title I schools involved 375 subjects. Their special education study
of children in the lower 25% involved 113 children with reading disabilities.
The study of children in the lower 10% at the Florida Treatment Center
involved 180 children (Torgesen et al., in press). The larger samples
in the NICHD research included a full range of IQ levels, ethnic groups,
and included lower income children. As Table 1 shows, the largest study
reporting contradictory conclusions included only 100 subjects. Most
of the studies involved much smaller samples.
Developing a New Understanding
of Reading Difficulties
Much of the recent NICHD
research has focused on identifying the nature of reading disabilities
and the causes. Using modern neuroimaging technology, medical researchers
have identified a unique signature on the brain scans of persons with
reading problems. These unique brain scans seem to reflect an inability
to work with phonemes in the language. This lack of phonemic awareness
seems to be a major obstacle to reading acquisition. Children who are
not phonemically aware are not able to segment words and syllables into
phonemes. Consequently, they do not develop the ability to decode single
words accurately and fluently, an inability that is the distinguishing
characteristic of persons with reading disabilities.
About 40% of the population
have reading problems severe enough to hinder their enjoyment of reading.
These problems are generally not developmental and do not diminish over
time, but persist into adulthood without appropriate intervention. Because
the percentage is so large, an arbitrary cutoff point of 20% was selected
for the purpose of labelling children as disabled in basic reading skills.
The difference between a child who has a learning disability in reading
and a child who is simply a poor reader is only a difference in the
severity of the problem.
The most reliable indicator
of a reading disability is an inability to decode single words. Lyon
(1994, 1995a) suggests that the best way to determine if this inability
is "unexpected" is to compare the performance of a child with that of
other children his or her age and / or compare reading ability to academic
performance in other domains (e.g., listening comprehension, verbal
expression, mathematics, written expression). The definition suggests
that traditional methods for identifying a reading disability, such
as looking for an IQ-achievement discrepancy, are not as reliable (Lyon,
1994; Lyon, 1995a).
Phonological processing
is the primary ability area where children with reading disabilities
differ from other children. It does not seem to matter whether the children
have an IQ-achievement discrepancy in reading or not. Phonological processing
encompasses at least three different components. Each component and
a sample assessment are described in Table 2.
Table 2. Three important components
of phonological processing and sample assessments.
| Component Skill |
Assessment |
| Phonological awareness |
E.g., say cat without the /t/ sound.
|
| Phonological recoding in lexical
access (Rapid naming) |
Name objects, letters, colors quickly.
|
| Phonological recoding in working
memory |
Repeat sentences, words, or digits
accurately. |
Of these three major phonological
processing skills, phonological awareness appears to be the most prevalent
linguistic deficit in disabled readers.
Research on Treatment
for Reading Difficulties
What is Developmentally
Appropriate?
Treatment intervention research has shown that appropriate early direct
instruction seems to be the best medicine for reading problems. Reading
is not developmental or natural, but is learned. Reading disabilities
reflect a persistent deficit, rather than a developmental lag in linguistic
(phonological) skills and basic reading skills. Children who fall behind
at an early age (K and grade 1) fall further and further behind over
time. Longitudinal studies show that of the children who are diagnosed
as reading disabled in third grade, 74% remain disabled in ninth grade
(Fletcher, et al., 1994; Shaywitz, Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch,
1992; Stanovich, 1986; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Adults with reading
problems exhibit the same characteristics that are exhibited by children
with reading problems.
These findings contradict
the prevalent notion that children will begin to learn to read when
they are "ready." The concept "developmentally appropriate" should
not suggest delaying intervention, but using appropriate instructional
strategies at an early age—especially in kindergarten. Although
we now have the ability to identify children who are at-risk for reading
failure, and we now understand some of the instructional conditions
that must be considered for teaching, the majority of reading disabilities
are not identified until the third grade.
Early Identification
and Treatment
The best predictor in K or 1st grade of a future reading disability
in grade 3 is a combination of performance on measures of phonemic awareness,
rapid naming of letters, numbers, and objects, and print awareness.
Phonemic awareness is the ability to segment words and syllables into
constituent sound units, or phonemes. Converging evidence from all the
research centers show that deficits in phonemic awareness reflect the
core deficit in reading disabilities. These deficits are characterized
by difficulties in segmenting syllables and words into constituent sound
units called phonemes—in short, there is a difficulty in turning
spelling into sounds.
Lack of phonemic awareness
seems to be a major obstacle for learning to read (Vellutino & Scanlon,
1987a; Wagner & Torgeson, 1987). This is true for any language, even
Chinese. About 2 in 5 children have some level of difficulty with phonemic
awareness. For about 1 in 5 children phonemic awareness does not develop
or improve over time. These children never catch up but fall further
and further behind in reading and in all academic subjects (Fletcher,
et al., 1994; Shaywitz, Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch, 1992;
Stanovich, 1986; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994).
Instruction using the following
types of phonemic awareness tasks has had a positive effect on reading
acquisition and spelling for nonreaders: rhyming, auditorily discriminating
sounds that are different, blending spoken sounds into words, word-to-word
matching, isolating sounds in words, counting phonemes, segmenting spoken
words into sounds, deleting sounds from words (Ball & Blachman, 1991;
Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1990; Cunningham, 1990; Foorman, Francis,
Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, in press; Lie, 1991; Lundberg, Frost,
& Petersen, 1988; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987b; Yopp, 1988).
Explicit instruction in
how segmentation and blending are involved in the reading process was
superior to instruction that did not explicitly teach the children to
apply phonemic awareness to reading (Cunningham, 1990). Kindergarten
children with explicit instruction in phonemic awareness did better
than a group of first graders who had no instruction, indicating that
this crucial preskill for reading can be taught at least by age 5 and
is not developmental (Cunningham, 1990).
In a study by Ball and
Blachman (1991), 7 weeks of explicit instruction in phonemic awareness
combined with explicit instruction in sound-spelling correspondences
for kindergarten children was more powerful than instruction in sound-spelling
correspondences alone and more powerful than language activities in
improving reading skills.
In a study by Foorman,
Francis, Beerly, Winikates, & Fletcher (in press), 260 children were
randomly assigned to a revised kindergarten curriculum (n=80) and a
standard curriculum (n=160) consisting of developmentally appropriate
practices described by the state of Texas' essential elements for kindergarten.
The revised curriculum sought to prevent reading disabilities by teaching
phonemic awareness for 15 minutes a day using the Lundberg, Frost, and
Petersen (1988) curriculum from Sweden and Denmark. Children in the
revised curriculum made significant gains in phonemic awareness over
the year. Foorman et al. found that the greatest gains occurred when
the explicit instruction moved into teaching the sound-spelling relationships
concurrently with the instruction in phonemic awareness.
Explicit, Systematic
Instruction in Sound-spelling Correspondences
Phonemic awareness alone is not sufficient for many children. Explicit,
systematic instruction in common sound-spelling correspondences is also
necessary (Adams, 1988; Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley,
1990; Foorman et al., in press; Mann, 1993; Rack, Snowling, & Olson,
1992; Snowling, 1991; Spector, 1995; Stanovich, 1986; Torgesen et al.,
in press; Vellutino, 1991; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987a). Foorman, Francis,
Novy, & Liberman (1991) found that more intensive instruction in sound-spelling
relationships during reading (45 minutes per day) was more effective
than less daily instruction in sound-spelling relationships (sound-spelling
instruction occurring only during spelling and not during reading).
Instruction in specific
sound-spelling relationships was more effective than a strategy for
using analogous word parts on transfer to new words and on standardized
reading measures (Lovett, Borden, DeLuca, Lacerenza, Benson, & Brackstone,
1994). Torgesen et al. (in press) also found that explicitly teaching
the sound-spelling relationships was superior to teaching explicitly
using word families and word analogies and superior to an implicit approach.
Foorman, Francis, Beerly,
Winikates, and Fletcher (in press) found that explicit, systematic instruction
in sound-spelling relationships in the classroom was more effective
in reducing reading disabilities than a print-rich environment characterized
by interesting stories, even with children who had benefited from phonemic
awareness instruction in kindergarten.
"[Explicit, systematic
instruction in sound-spelling relationships] brought economically
disadvantaged, low-achieving first and second graders close to the
national average in reading on the Woodcock-Johnson-R, whereas whole
language instruction placed these [Title] 1 students near the 25th
percentile. Children scoring below the 25th percentile are often identified
as reading disabled under traditional diagnostic criteria. These results
suggest that [explicit, systematic instruction] in sound-spelling
patterns in first and second grade classrooms can prevent reading
difficulties in a population of children at-risk of reading failure."
(Foorman et al., in press)
Figure 1 graphically displays
the effects on reading comprehension for the three treatments Foorman et al. compared. The whole language treatment offered children a print-rich
environment with interesting stories. The embedded phonics treatment included a more structured approach to phonics in a print-rich environment.
The systematic, explicit phonic approach included phonemic awareness
instruction, explicit instruction in sound-spelling relationships, and
extensive practice in decodable text. Details of the explicit, systematic
approach are described in the next section.
Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, and Fletcher, in press
Foorman et al. (in press)
also found that changing instruction from whole language to explicit,
systematic phonics at the classroom level was more effective in reducing
the occurrence of reading problems than any of three types of one-on-one
tutorial programs that were evaluated. Foorman and her colleagues concluded
that in order to avoid reading failure, the focus should be on prevention,
not intervention.
"It was the classroom
curriculum effect, not the tutorial method effect that was significant.
The tutorial effect was not particularly strong, given the weak association
between growth in word reading and number of days in tutorial. But
at least the tutorial may have kept children from falling further
behind in reading. These curriculum effects have important implications
for urban school districts with large numbers of students at risk
for reading failure. The morbidity of reading failure and subsequent
placement in special education can possibly be reduced with explicit,
systematic phonics in the alphabetic code during first grade." (p.
16)
Prediction From Context
is not a Useful Strategy for Word Recognition
Research quite clearly shows that overemphasizing prediction from context
for word recognition can be counterproductive, possibly delaying reading
acquisition. Stanovich and Stanovich (1995) recently summarized the
research findings regarding the predictability of authentic text:
"An emphasis on the role
of contextual guessing actually represents a classic case of mistaken
analogy in science and has been recognized as such for over a decade....It
is often incorrectly assumed that predicting upcoming words in sentences
is a relatively easy and highly accurate activity. Actually, many different
empirical studies have indicated that naturalistic text is not that
predictable. Alford (1980) found that for a set of moderately long expository
passages of text, subjects needed an average of more than four guesses
to correctly anticipate upcoming words in the passage (the method of
scoring actually makes this a considerable underestimate). Across a
variety of subject populations and texts, a reader's probability of
predicting the next word in a passage is usually between .20 and .35
(Aborn, Rubenstein, & Sterling, 1959; Gough, 1983; Miller & Coleman,
1967; Perfetti, Goldman, & Hogaboam, 1979; Rubenstein & Aborn, 1958).
Indeed, as Gough (1983) has shown, the figure is highest for function
words, and is often quite low for the very words in the passage that
carry the most information content." (p. 90)
Stanovich and Stanovich
(1995) also summarize the findings regarding the role of context in
reading acquisition. Of the three cueing systems frequently mentioned
in reading (semantic, syntactic, and graphophonemic cues), the semantic
and syntactic cueing systems seem to play a minor role. Recent eye movement
research indicates that good readers do not sample the text and predict
to recognize words efficiently, but rather see every single letter on
the page.
"The key error of
the whole language movement is the assumption that contextual dependency
is always associated with good reading. In fact, the word recognition
skills of the good reader are so rapid, automatic, and efficient that
the skilled reader need not rely on contextual information. In fact,
it is poor readers who guess from context-out of necessity because
their decoding skillls are so weak." (p. 92)
In the NICHD intervention
studies (Foorman et al., in press; Torgesen et al., in press) teaching
children to use context and prediction as strategies for word recognition
resulted in greater numbers of reading disabilities than instruction
that taught children to use their sound-spelling knowledge as the primary
strategy for word recognition.
Major Implications
for Early Reading Instruction
Below are the key principles
of effective reading instruction identified in the research along with
concrete examples of what these principles mean. These examples are
taken directly from the research studies. The research findings indicate
that to prevent reading problems classroom teachers should do the following:
1. Begin teaching phonemic
awareness directly at an early age (kindergarten).
Children who are able to recognize individual sounds in words are phonemically
aware. Phonemic awareness can be taught with listening and oral reproduction
tasks similar to those listed below. When concurrent instruction in
sound-spelling relationships occurs, growth in the development of phonemic
awareness seems to accelerate. Teachers should initiate instruction
in phonemic awareness before beginning instruction in sound-spelling
relationships and continue phonemic awareness activities while teaching
the sound-spelling relationships.
Examples of phonemic awareness
tasks
- Phoneme deletion: What word
would be left if the /k/ sound were taken away from cat?
- Word to word matching: Do pen
and pipe begin with the same sound?
- Blending: What word would we
have if you put these sounds together: /s/, /a/, /t/?
- Sound isolation: What is the
first sound in rose?
- Phoneme segmentation: What
sounds do you hear in the word hot?
- Phoneme counting: How many
sounds do you hear in the word cake?
- Deleting phonemes: What sound
do you hear in meat that is missing in eat?
- Odd word out: What word starts
with a different sound: bag, nine, beach, bike?
- Sound to word matching: Is
there a /k/ in bike?
Stanovich, 1994 |
There is little correlation
between developmental stages and phonemic awareness. Every school child
is ready for some phonemic instruction. In fact, if the children who
fall behind do not begin receiving explicit teacher-initiated instruction,
they are very likely to continue falling further and further behind.
Phonemic awareness and other important reading skills are learned and
do not develop naturally. The earliest direct interventions have been
initiated in kindergarten with very positive results. How preschoolers
respond to instruction is a question currently under investigation.
2. Teach each sound-spelling
correspondence explicitly.
Not all phonic instructional methods are equally effective. Telling
the children explicitly what single sound a given letter or letter combination
makes is more effective in preventing reading problems than encouraging
the child to figure out the sounds for the letters by giving clues.
Many children have difficulty figuring out the individual sound-spelling
correspondences if they hear them only in the context of words and word
parts. Phonemes must be separated from words for instruction.
Explicit instruction means
that a phoneme is isolated for the children. For example, the teacher
shows the children the letter m and says, "This letter says /mmm/."
In this way a new phoneme is introduced. A new phoneme and other phonemes
the children have learned should be briefly practiced each day, not
in the context of words, but in isolation. These practice sessions need
only be about 5 minutes long. The rest of the lesson involves using
these same phonemes in the context of words and stories that are composed
of only the letter-phoneme relationships the children know at that point.
3. Teach frequent, highly
regular sound-spelling relationships systematically.
Only a few sound-spelling relationships are necessary to read. The most
effective instructional programs teach children to read successfully
with only 40 to 50 sound-spelling relationships. (Writing can require
a few more, about 70 sound-spelling relationships.) The chart below
is not taken from any particular program but represents the 48 most
regular letter-phoneme relationships. (The given sounds for each of
the letters and letter groups are either the most frequent sound or
occur at least 75% of the time.)
The 48 most regular sound-letter
relationships
| a
|
as
in fat |
g
|
as
in goat |
v
|
|
| m
|
|
l
|
|
e
|
|
| t
|
|
h
|
|
u-e
|
as
in use |
| s
|
|
u
|
|
p
|
|
| i
|
as
in sit |
c
|
as
in cat |
w
|
"woo"
as in well |
| f
|
|
b
|
|
j
|
|
| a-e
|
as
in cake |
n
|
|
i-e
|
as
in pipe |
| d
|
|
k
|
|
y
|
"yee"
as in yuk |
| r
|
|
o-e
|
as
in pole |
z
|
|
| ch
|
as
in chip |
ou
|
as
in cloud |
kn
|
as
in know |
| ea
|
beat
|
oy
|
toy
|
oa
|
boat
|
| ee
|
need
|
ph
|
phone
|
oi
|
boil
|
| er
|
fern
|
qu
|
quick
|
ai
|
maid
|
| ay
|
hay
|
sh
|
shop
|
ar
|
car
|
| igh
|
high
|
th
|
thank
|
au
|
haul
|
| ew
|
shrewd
|
ir
|
first
|
aw
|
lawn
|
To teach systematically
means to coordinate the introduction of the sound-spellings with the
material the children are asked to read. The words and stories the
children read are composed of only the sound-spelling relationships
the children have learned, so all the children must be taught using
the same sequence. The order of the introduction of sound-spelling
relationships should be planned to allow reading material composed
of meaningful words and stories as soon as possible. For example,
if the first three sound-spelling relationships the children learn
are a, b, c, the only real word the children could read would be cab.
However, if the first three sound-spelling relationships were m,a,s,
the children could read am, Sam, mass, ma'am.
4. Show children exactly
how to sound out words.
After children have learned two or three sound-spelling correspondences,
begin teaching them how to blend the sounds into words. Show them
how to move sequentially from left to right through spellings as they
"sound out," or say the sound for each spelling. Practice blending
words composed of only the sound-spelling relationships the children
have learned every day.
5. Use connected,
decodable text for children to practice the sound-spelling relationships
they learn.
The findings of the NICHD research emphasize that children need extensive
practice applying their knowledge of sound-spelling relationships
to the task of reading as they are learning them. This integration
of phonics and reading can only occur with the use of decodable text.
Decodable text is composed of words that use the sound-spelling
correspondences the children have learned to that point and a limited
number of sight words that have been systematically taught. As
the children learn more sound-spelling correspondences, the texts
become more sophisticated in meaning, but initially they are very
limited. Only decodable text provides children the opportunity to
practice their new knowledge of sound-letter relationships in the
context of connected reading.
Texts that are less decodable
do not allow the integration of the phonological knowledge the children
gain with actual reading. For example, the first sentence children
read in a meaning-based program that added an unintegrated phonic
component was: "The dog is up." The sound-letter relationships the
children had learned up to this point were: d, m, s, r, and t. This
is how much of the sentence the children could read by applying what
they had learned in the phonic component: "--- d-- -- --. In this
case, it is impossible for the children to use their phonics knowledge
to read.
Here is a different example:
"Sam sees a big fist." The sounds the children have learned to this
point are: a, s, m, b, t, ee, f, g, and i. This is how much of the
sentence the children can read using the sound-spelling relationships
they have learned: "Sam sees a big fist." This sentence is 100% decodable.
Here the children can apply the sound-spelling relationships they
have learned to their reading of this sentence, so the phonics component
is integrated into the child's real reading. Only decodable text provides
children a context for using their new knowledge of sound-spelling
relationships in the context of real reading.
Text that is less decodable
requires the children to use prediction or context to figure out words.
Much research has evaluated the effectiveness of prediction as a strategy
for word recognition. Though prediction is valuable in comprehension
for predicting the next event or predicting an outcome,
the research indicates that it is not useful in word recognition.
The following passage is a sample of authentic text (from Jack London).
The parts of the text that are omitted are the parts that a child
was unable to decode accurately. The child was able to decode approximately
80% of the text. If prediction is a useful strategy, a good reader
should be able to read this easily with understanding:
He had never seen dogs
fight as these w__ish c___ f___t, and his first ex_______ t_____t
him an unf______able l____n. It is true, it was a vi____ ex_______,
else he would not have lived to pr_____it by it. Curly was the v_______.
They were camped near the log store, where she, in her friend__
way, made ad______ to a husky dog the size of a full-______ wolf,
th____ not half so large as _he. __ere was no w____ing, only a leap
in like a flash, a met____ clip of teeth, a leap out equal__ swift,
and Curly's face was ripped open from eye to jaw.
It was the wolf manner of fight___, to st___ and leap away; but
there was more to it than this. Th__ or forty huskies ran _o the
spot and not com_____d that s_____t circle. But did not com_____d
that s______t in_______, not the e___ way with which they were licking
their chops. Curly rushed her ant________, who struck again and
leaped aside. He met her next rush with his chest, in a p_______
fash___ that tum__ed her off her feet. She never re_____ed them.
This was __at the on_______ing huskies had w______ for.
The use of predictable text, rather
than this authentic text, might allow children to use prediction to
figure out a passage. However, this strategy would not transfer to
real reading, as the above passage demonstrates. Predictable text
gives children false success. While this false success may be motivating
for many children, ultimately they will not be successful readers
if they rely on text predictability to read.
6. The use of interesting
stories to develop language comprehension.
The use of interesting authentic stories to develop language
comprehension is not ruled out by this research. Only the use of these
stories as reading material for nonreaders is ruled out. Any controlled
connected text, whether it is controlled for decodability or for vocabulary,
will not be able to provide entire coherent stories in the early stages
of reading acquisition. During this early stage of reading acquisition,
the children can still benefit from stories that the teacher reads
to them. These teacher-read stories can play an important role in
building the children's oral language comprehension, which ultimately
affects their reading comprehension. These story-based activities
should be structured to build comprehension skills, not decoding skills.
Balance, but don't
mix. The sixth feature, using real stories to develop comprehension,
should be balanced with the decoding instruction described in the
first five features. The comprehension instruction and the decoding
instruction are separate from each other while children are learning
to decode, but both types of instructional activities should occur.
In other words, comprehension and decoding instruction should be balanced.
A common misconception regarding the balance that is called for by
the research is that the teacher should teach sound-spelling relationships
in the context of real stories. This mixture of decoding and comprehension
instruction in the same instructional activity is clearly less effective,
even when the decoding instruction is fairly structured. The inferiority
of instructional activities with mixed goals (embedded phonics)had
been demonstrated in several studies (Foorman et al., in press; Foorman,
Francis, Novy, & Liberman, 1991; Torgesen et al., in press).
During the early stages
of reading acquisition, children's oral language comprehension level
is much higher than their reading comprehension level. The text material
used to build children's comprehension should be geared to their oral
language comprehension level. The material used to build their decoding
should be geared to their decoding skills, with attention to meaning.
Though decodable text can be meaningful and engaging, it will not
build children's comprehension skills nor teach them new vocabulary
to the extent that might be needed. Comprehension strategies and new
vocabulary should be taught using orally presented stories and texts
that are more sophisticated than the early decodable text the children
read. The teacher should read this text to the children and discuss
the meaning with them. After the children become fluent decoders,
they can apply these comprehension strategies to their own reading.
Other
Important Research Questions and Findings
The scope of the NICHD
research program is much broader than identifying effective methods
for treating reading difficulties. Some of these research questions
and the findings are briefly described below.
Research Question: Are
there medical reasons to explain why 20 to 40% of the population do
not naturally develop phonemic awareness?
Finding: Yes, sophisticated modern brain research using neuroimaging
and other technologies show a unique brain signature for many, but
not all, children without phonemic awareness. This neuroimaging research
is being conducted at several NICHD sites, thus providing the opportunity
for replication.
Research Question: Are
reading disabilities inherited?
Finding: Twin studies have found strong evidence for genetic etiology
of reading disability, with deficits in phonemic awareness reflecting
the greatest degree of heritability. There is also behavioral genetic
evidence for degrees of heritability for letter processing.
Research Question: How
does ADD relate to learning disabilities?
Finding: Disorders of attention and reading disabilities often coexist,
but the two disorders appear distinct and separable with respect to
the effects of attention-deficit disorder (ADD) on cognitive tasks.
For example, it has been found that ADD children perform poorly on
rote verbal learning and memory tasks, but relatively well on naming
and phonemic awareness tasks. The converse appears to be the case
for children with reading disabilities.
Research Question: Are
more boys than girls reading disabled?
Finding: Despite the widely held belief that boys are more likely
to have reading disabilities than girls, research has shown that as
many girls as boys have difficulties learning to read. More boys are
identified by teachers in school because of their tendency to be more
rowdy and active than girls.
Future
Directions
The NICHD research program
has made a great deal of progress in the investigation of reading
disabilities. These findings are potentially of great benefit to most
children. However, the work is not done and not all the issues are
resolved. There are still some children remaining with reading problems
in the most successful interventions described above. Future research
will investigate effective treatments for teaching children who have
no knowledge of English to read English. The on-going longitudinal
intervention studies sponsored by the NICHD will be bringing important
new knowledge to the field in the continuing effort to make every
child a reader at an early age.
References
The NICHD Research
Sites
| Location
|
Director(s)
|
Affiliates
|
| University
of Colorado |
John
DeFreis |
University
of Denver, University of California, Irvine,
Harvard University, |
| Bowman-Gray
School of Medicine, North Carolina |
Frank
Wood |
|
| Haskins
Laboratories |
Carol
Fowler |
|
| Yale
University |
Bennett
and Sally Shaywitz |
Keith
Stanovich's team at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
|
| University
of Miami |
Herbert
Lubs |
|
| Beth
Israel Hospital / Harvard University. |
Albert
Galburda |
|
| University
of Houston |
Jack
Fletcher |
|
| University
of Washington, Seattle |
Virginia
Berninger |
|
| Harvard
University / The Children's Hospital-Boston, |
Deborah
Waber |
|
| Johns
Hopkins University |
Martha
Denckla |
Vellutino
and Scanlon's team at the State University of New York
|
| Florida
State University |
Joseph
Torgeson |
|
| University
of Houston |
Barbara
Foorman |
|
| Georgia
State University |
Robin
Morris |
Maureen
Lovett's team at the University of Toronto; Maryanne Wolfe's
at Tufts University in Boston |
Within this context, scientists
from NICHD and other scientists as well as leaders from the National
Center for Learning Disabilities and the Orton Dyslexia Society Research
Committee collaborated to develop an improved definition of disabilities
in basic reading skills based on the most recent research in the field.
Characterizing the definition as a "working" definition reflects the
need to alter the definition in light of continuing advances in research
and clinical knowledge. The working definition is as follows:
Dyslexia is one of several
distinct learning disabilities. It is a specific language-based
disorder of constitutional origin characterized by difficulties
in single word decoding, usually reflecting insufficient phonological
processing. These difficulties in single word decoding are often
unexpected in relation to age and other cognitive and academic
abilities; they are not the result of generalized developmental
disability or sensory impairment. Dyslexia is manifest by variable
difficulty with different forms of language, often including,
in addition to problems with reading, a conspicuous problem with
acquiring proficiency in writing and spelling (The Orton Dyslexia
Society Research Committee, April, 1994).
Bibliography
Alford, J. (1980, May).
Predicting predictability: Identification of sources of contextual
constraint on words in text. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Midwestern Psychological Association, St. Louis.
Aborn, M., Rubenstein,
H., & Sterling, F. (1959). Sources of contextual constraint upon words
in sentences. Journal of Experimental Pscyhology, 57, 171-180.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning
to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Ball, E. W., & Blachman,
B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make
a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling?
Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 49-66.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley,
R. (1990). Acquiring the alphabetic principle: A case for teaching
recognition of phoneme identity. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83, 451-455.
Cunningham, A. E. (1990).
Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonological awareness. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429-444.
Dahl, K.L., & Freppon,
P. (1995). A comparison of inner-city children's interpretations of
reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skill-based
and whole language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly,
30, 50-74.
Fletcher, J., Shaywitz,
S., Shankweiler, D., Katz, L., Liberman, I., Stuebing, K., Francis,
D., Fowler, A., & Shaywitz, B. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading
disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 6-23.
Foorman, B., Francis,
D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D, & Fletcher, J. (in press). Early interventions
for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary
findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-disciplinary Journal.
Foorman, B., Francis,
D., Novy, D. & Liberman, D. (1991). How letter-sound instruction mediates
progress in first-grade reading and spelling. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83(4), 456-469.
Francis, D., Shaywitz,
S., Stuebing, K., Shaywitz, B., & Fletcher, J. (1996). Developmental
lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual
growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1),
3-17.
Freppon, P.A. (1991).
Children's concepts of the nature and purpose of reading in different
instructional settings. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(2),
139-163.
Gough, P. (1983). Context,
form, and interaction. In K. rayner (Ed.), Eye mevements in reading
pp. 331-358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hiebert, E. H., Colt,
J.M., Catto, S.L., & Gary, E.C. (1992). Reading and writing of first-grade
students in a restructured Chapter 1 program. American Educational
Research Journal, 29, 545-572.
Iversen, S., & Tunmer,
W. (1993). Phonological Processing Skills and the Reading Recovery
Program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 112-126.
Kasten, W.C., & Clarke,
B.K. (1989). Reading / writing readiness for preschool and kindergarten
childrne: A whole language approach. Sansibel: Florida Educational
Research and Development Council (ED 312 041).
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman,
N.L. (1985). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Lie, A. (1991). Effects
of a training program for stimulating skills in word analysis in first-grade
children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(3), 234-250.
Lovett, M., Borden, S.,
DeLuca, T., Lacerenza, L., Benson, N., & Brackstone, D. (1994). Treating
core deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning
after phonologically- and strategy-based reading training programs.
Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 805-822.
Lundberg, I., Frost,
J., & Petersen, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating
phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23, 263-284.
Lyon, R., & Alexander,
D. (1996). NICHD research program in learning disabilities. In S.
Horowitz (Ed.), Their World, p 13-15. New York, NY: National
Center for Learning Disabilities.
Lyon, G.R., & Chhabra,
V. (1996). The current state of the science and the future of specific
reading disability. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
Research Reviews, 2, 2-9.
Lyon, G.R. (1993). Treatment
effectiveness for the learning disabled. Request for Applications
(93-009). Bethesda, MD: The National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development.
Lyon, G.R. (1994). Frames
of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views
on measurement issues. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Lyon, G.R. (1995a). Toward
a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27.
Lyon, G.R. (1995b). Research
initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists
supported by the National Institite of Child Health and Human Development.
Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 120-126.
Lyon, G.R., Gray, D.,
Kavanagh, J., Krasnegor, N. (Eds.) (1993). Better understanding
learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications
for education and public policies. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Mann, V. A. (1993). Phoneme
awareness and future reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
26(4), 259-269.
McIntyre, E., & Freppon,
P. (1994). A comparison of children's development of alphabetic knowledge
in a skill-based and a whole language classroom. Research in the
Teaching of English, 28, 391-417.
Miller, G., & Coleman,
E. (1967). A set of thirty-six prose passages calibrated for complexity.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, , 851-854.
Perfetti, C.A., Goldman,
S., & Hogaboam, T. (1979). Reading skill and the identification of
words in discourse context. Memory and Cognition, 7, 273-282.
Rack, J. P., Snowling,
M. J., & Olson, R. K. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental
dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 29-53.
Ribowsky, H. (1985).
The effects of a code emphasis approach and a whole language approach
upon emergent literacy of kindergarten children. Alexandria, VA: Educational
Document Reproduction Service (ED 269 720).
Rubenstein, H., & Aborn,
M. (1958). Learning, prediction, and readability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 42, 28-32.
Shaywitz, S., Escobar,
M., Shaywitz, B., Fletcher, J., & Makuch, R. (1992). Evidence that
dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of
reading disability. New England Journal of Medicine, 326(3),
145-150.
Snowling, M. (1991. Dyslexia:
A cognitive developmental perspective. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Spector, J. E. (1995).
Phonemic awareness training: Application of principles of direct instruction.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, II, 37-51.
Stanovich, K., & Siegel,
L. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading
disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference
model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 24-53.
Stanovich, K. (1993).
The construct validity of discrepancy definitions of reading disability.
In G.R. Lyon, D. Gray, J. Kavanagh,, N. Krasnegor (Eds.) (1993). Better
understanding learning disabilities: New views from research and their
implications for education and public policies. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.
Stanovich, K. (1994).
Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47(4), 280-291.
Stanovich, K., & Stanovich,
P. (1995). How research might inform the debate about early reading
acquisition. Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 87-105.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986).
Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences
in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly,
21, 360-407.
Stice, C.F., & Bertrand,
N.P. (1990). Whole language and the emergent literacy of at-risk children:
A two-year study. Nashville: Center of Excellence, Basic Skills, Tennessee
State University (ED 324 636).
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner,
R., Rashotte, C.A., Alexander, A.W., & Conway, T. (in press). Preventive
and remedial interventions for children with severe reading disabilities.
Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal.
Vellutino, F. R. (1991).
Introduction to three studies on reading acquisition: Convergent findings
on theoretical foundations of code-oriented versus whole-language
approaches to reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83(4), 437-443.
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon,
D. M. (1987a). Linguistic coding and reading ability. In S. Rosenberg
(Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics (pp. 1-69). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon,
D. M. (1987b). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading
ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 33(3), 321-363.
Wagner, R.K., & Torgesen,
J. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role
in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin,
101, 192-212.
Yopp, H. K. (1988). The
validity and realiability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading
Research Quarterly, 23(2), 159-176.
Reproduced by permission of The National Right to Read
Foundation.
