Scan Science and Technology
Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies
The Experts below are selected from a list of 1092 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gwendolyn Cartledge – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
Early Reading Intervention for Urban Learners: Implications for PracticeMultiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 2010Co-Authors: Shobana Musti-rao, Gwendolyn CartledgeAbstract:
In this article the authors review the reading status of urban learners and examine the role of phonemic awareness in reading acquisition. Their review indicates that phonemic awareness alone is not sufficient for reading acquisition, and that phonemic awareness in combination with Alphabetic Principle is needed to promote reading competence. The article reports existing findings on phonemic awareness and Alphabetic Principle as they relate to outcomes for urban learners. Because one of the greatest challenges in today’s schools is putting research-based reading instruction into practice, a challenge greatly multiplied in urban settings, this article provides a focused discussion of practical implications for teachers, educators, and administrators.
Effects of a Supplemental Early Reading Intervention With At-Risk Urban LearnersTopics in Early Childhood Special Education, 2007Co-Authors: Shobana Musti-rao, Gwendolyn CartledgeAbstract:
This study investigated the effects of a supplemental early reading intervention program on the phonemic awareness and Alphabetic Principle skills of students identified as at risk for reading failure. Seven kindergarten students and one firstgrade student received 20 min of supplemental reading instruction 3 days a week for 16, 12, and 8 weeks. The researcher and a paraprofessional implemented the intervention in a coteaching format. A multiple-baseline-across-subjects design was used to analyze the effects of the instruction on Phoneme-Segmentation Fluency (PSF; Good & Kaminski, 2002) and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF; Good & Kaminski, 2002) skills of target students. The results indicated that students made moderate to substantial increases in PSF and NWF as a result of the intervention. Supplemental reading intervention with systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and the Alphabetic Principle may be used to improve important literacy skills in kindergarten students identified as at risk…
Brian Byrne – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
The Foundation of Literacy: The Child’s Acquisition of the Alphabetic Principle, 1998Co-Authors: Brian ByrneAbstract:
Definitions, Phenomena, Questions and Frameworks. Children’s Initial Hypotheses about Alphabetic Script. Induction of the Alphabetic Principle? Instruction in the Alphabetic Principle. Individual Differences. Conclusion and Implications.
The learnability of the Alphabetic Principle: Children’s initial hypotheses about how print represents spoken languageApplied Psycholinguistics, 1996Co-Authors: Brian ByrneAbstract:
This research examines the hypotheses about how print represents the speech that preliterate children select when they receive input compatible with several such hypotheses. In Experiment 1, preschoolers were taught to read hat and hats and book and books . Then, in generalization tests, they were probed for what they had learned about the letter s . All of the children were able to transfer to other plurals (e.g., to decide that bikes said “bikes” rather than “bike,” and that dog said “dog” and not “dogs”), but only those who knew the sound of the letter s prior to the experiment were able to decide, for example, that bus said “bus” and not “bug.” The failure to detect the phonemic value of s on the part of Alphabetically naive children was replicated in Experiments 2, 3, and 4, which instituted a variety of controls. In Experiment 5, it was found that, although preschoolers who had been taught to read pairs of words distinguished by the comparative affix er (such as small/smaller ) were able to generalize to other comparatives (e.g., mean/meaner ), they could not generalize to pairs where er had no morphemic value (e.g., corn/corner ). A similar failure by Alphabetically naive children to detect the syllabic, as compared with the morphemic, status of the superlative affix est was found in Experiment 6. Overall, the results indicate that most preliterate children fail to select phonologically based hypotheses, even when these are available in the input. Instead, they focus on morphophonology and/or semantic aspects of words’ referents. The research is couched in terms of the Learnability Theory (LT) (Gold, 1967), which provides a convenient framework for considering a series of interrelated questions about the acquisition of literacy. In particular, it is argued that if the data available to the child includes the pronunciation of written words, the Alphabetic Principle may be unlearnable, given the hypothesis selection procedures identified in these experiments.
Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1993Co-Authors: Brian Byrne, Ruth Fielding-barnsleyAbstract:
A follow-up of a study evaluating a program to teach young children about phonemic structure is reported. In the original study (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991 a), preschoolers were trained with the program for 12 weeks and gained in phonemic awareness and knowledge of the Alphabetic Principle as compared with a control group. The children were retested at the end of kindergarten on phonemic awareness, word identification, decoding, and spelling. Children who entered school with advanced levels of phonemic awareness scored significantly higher on each of the measures. Alphabetic knowledge predicted literacy development, but phonemic awareness accounted for significant additional variance in decoding and spelling. Verbal intelligence did not influence reading and spelling performance
Roland H. Good – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
Pathways to Word Reading and Decoding: The Roles of Automaticity and Accuracy.School Psychology Review, 2011Co-Authors: Kelli D. Cummings, Elizabeth Dewey, Rachael J. Latimer, Roland H. GoodAbstract:
Students who struggle with learning to read at the end of their first-grade year are likely to experience continued academic challenges and have increased likelihood of disciplinary problems (McIntosh, Horner, Chard, Boland, & Good, 2006). Effective early reading intervention represents a powerful target of opportunity for preventing a host of later difficulties. Recent advantages in assessment technologies (e.g., aimsweb.com; dibels.org; easyCBM.com) facilitate early intervention by providing educators with indicators of reading progress that predict later reading outcomes. One such tool is Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), a measure from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). There are over 14 published studies that document the reliability and predictive validity of NWF (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2008), but less research has been devoted to links between NWF and instructional practices. The purpose of our study is to replicate two findings from prior research: (a) to examine the effect of first-grade NWF gain on end of first grade Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) outcomes (e.g., Good, Baker, & Peyton, 2009; Harn, Stoolmiller, & Chard, 2008) and (b) to examine the added value of first-grade NWF decoding strategy on end of first grade ORF outcomes (e.g., Harn et al., 2008). Theoretical Approach to Reading Development Ehri (2002) theorized that students learn to become fluent readers by forming connections between letters in the spellings of words and sounds in the pronunciations of words. This connection, sometimes called the Alphabetic Principle, has been extensively researched and demonstrated to be a critical component of fluent reading (Perfetti & Bolger, 2004). Grapheme-phoneme connections are rapidly activated among fluent readers to retrieve both pronunciation and meaning when reading words (Ehri, 2005). Ehri (2005) classifies the development of the Alphabetic Principle in terms of four distinct phases, which are labeled to reflect the type of Alphabetic decoding strategy that predominates as students learn to read. In the preAlphabetic phase, children do not form letter-sound connections to read words. Word reading in this stage, if it occurs, is likely a result of visual cues that do not involve the Alphabetic system. When a student is just beginning to learn the names and/or sounds of Alphabetic letters, and using those connections to read words, they are classified as having skills in the partial Alphabetic phase. Students in this stage are limited by their phonemic awareness skills, and may display partial decoding with incorrect blending. In the full Alphabetic stage, as the name suggests, children form complete connections between letters in spellings and phonemes in pronunciations. Their word reading becomes more accurate, and they use a decoding strategy so that similarly spelled words are seldom confused. Children are said to be in the consolidated Alphabetic stage when they consolidate grapheme-phoneme connections into larger units, and build their vocabulary of words that can be read fluently. See Ehri (2002, 2005) for a more complete description of the theory and the phases of development. Links Between Phase Theory and Instruction Ehri’s theoretical approach is important to many reading researchers because the characteristics of each phase have important implications for instruction, and can assist teachers in matching the content of their lessons with what the child is ready to learn (Moats, 2000). Researchers have demonstrated that word reading strategies are highly influenced by instructional methods. For example, Fien, Kame’enui, and Good (2009) found that a large amount of the differences in kindergarten outcomes (between 22% and 36%) in both phonemic awareness and the Alphabetic Principle is determined solely by the school that a child attends. Cardoso-Martins (2001) demonstrated a direct relationship between kindergarten instruction and a student’s Alphabetic phase. …
Investigating the psychometric properties of three French language early reading measuresEffective Education, 2009Co-Authors: Chantal Dufour‐martel, Roland H. GoodAbstract:
Few empirical studies have examined the development of French reading skills in French immersion programs. The present study investigated the psychometric properties of three French early reading measures of phonological awareness and the Alphabetic Principle. The measures: Facilite a segmenter les phonemes (FSP), Facilite a lire des non‐mots (FNM), and Facilite en lecture orale (FLO) are modeled after DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) English literacy measures recognized as strong predictors of later reading achievement. The purpose was to investigate the reliability and predictive validity of these measures. Participants were 51 students from a partial French immersion school. Results indicate Phase 1 FNM scores strongly correlated with later Phase 2 FNM and FLO scores. Phase 1 FLO scores are significantly correlated with later Phase 2 FLO scores. Findings indicate these two measures showed sufficient reliability and validity for measuring French reading skills. The third was no…
Making Sense of Nonsense Word Fluency: Determining Adequate Progress in Early First-Grade Reading.Reading & Writing Quarterly, 2008Co-Authors: Roland H. Good, Scott K. Baker, Julia A. PeytonAbstract:
In this article, we examine the contribution of initial skill and slope of progress on Alphabetic Principle to end of first-grade reading outcomes. Initial skill and slope were measured using DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency. Reading outcomes were measured at the end of first grade with DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency. Students in Oregon Reading First schools (n = 2,172) and students participating in the DIBELS Data System (n = 358,032), with complete data during the 2004–2005 academic year, were participants. Slope of progress through the first semester of first grade on NWF was a strong predictor of first-grade reading outcomes, especially for students at risk of reading difficulty.