Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

Learning to Read

Running Head: LEARNING TO READ

Learning to Read Involves Multiple Factors John Laing University of Calgary Apsy 523

Learning to Read

Introduction Many children with learning disabilities have reading deficits. The causes behind reading disorders are complex with many competing theories. This paper explores some likely contributors to reading disorders. The importance of both top-down and bottom-up perspectives to reading will be discussed, as well as the role of language acquisition in reading development. The complex role of working memory in reading comprehension is also discussed along with its link to the phonological process. Early intervention is important in helping students with reading disorders, however, it may not have lasting effects. Learning Disabilities and Reading Deficits Learning disabled is a label describing a set of learning difficulties a student may exhibit. Learning disabilities have the highest prevalence of all disabilities within the United States school system. Roughly 4.3% of all students are diagnosed with learning disabilities. Among those students requiring special education, 49.2% have been classified has having a learning disorder (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2007). Impairments in thinking, perceiving, remembering or learning lead to learning disabilities. Students with learning disabilities may struggle with the development of oral or written language, mathematics or reading. Students with learning disabilities may struggle with the development of one or more of these areas and demonstrate average or above average intelligence for thinking and reasoning (Jordan, 2007).

Learning to Read

The majority of students with learning disabilities have problems with reading. According to Lyon, Fletcher, Fuchs & Chhabra (2006), reading disabilities can result from impairments in word recognition, comprehension and/or fluency. Reading is important to a childs healthy development. Children with reading disorders experience difficulties with academic achievement and are at risk for drop-out or failure in school (Lyon, 1998). Learning to read begins early in a childs life. There is a crucial connection between the amount and quality of early language experiences and the development of the linguistic skills necessary for reading (Lyon, 1998). According to Lyon (1998), frequent exposure to quality language and literacy interactions in early childhood supports the acquisition of vocabulary, an awareness of print and literary concepts and an understanding of reading goals. Children who enter the school system with little exposure to the English language and/or children who lack the understanding of letter knowledge, text awareness, the purpose of reading and have oral language deficits are at greater risk for reading disabilities (Lyon, 1998). Other risk factors include: coming from a home of parents with low reading ability; children with below average intellectual ability; raised in chronic poverty; hearing impairments; and speech impairments (Lyon, 1998). According to Lyon (1998), reading disabilities seems to be hereditary as 23-65% of children with parents who have reading disabilities have the same deficits. Motivation factors are also correlated with reading development and disorders. Motivation to read and reading ability likely have a snowballing effect. A child who finds it difficult to read spends less time reading and may apply less effort if he or she finds it difficult. Reading is a learned skill and needs to be practiced; not practicing will lead to impoverished reading skills. Perspectives on Reading Ability

Learning to Read

Bottom-up view is the view that in order to comprehend text one must simply recognize and understand the meaning of individual words. Researchers holding this view suggest that simple word recognition is the key to understanding text. Meaning of text is constructed from individual words more than any other factor (Duke, Pressley & Hilden, 2004). In contrast, many theorists hold a top-down view of reading comprehension. Those holding a top-down perspective explain reading comprehension as the ability of the reader to apply meaning to a word based on prior knowledge of that word. Reading comprehension is developed when the reader makes sense of the word based on the knowledge they hold of the world. This allows readers to make predictions of what is to come based on the title alone. While reading through a book readers will confirm predications, make new predications, summarize what they have read and develop mental images of what they have read based on their life experiences. For example, one may think of their family dog when they read the word dog in a book. A third point of view is that both top-down and bottom-up processes are important to reading comprehension. That is, word recognition and understanding are equally important as the readers prior knowledge about the word (Duke et al., 2004). As evidence of the interaction between top-down and bottom-up processes in reading ability Dewitz and Dewitz (as cited in Duke, et al., 2004, p. 506), point to case examples of children who can recognize words but have difficulty comprehending the text they are reading. Paris, Carpenter, Paris and Hamilton found very little correlation between students word recognition abilities and their level of comprehension (as cited in Duke, et al., 2004, p. 504). Also, Shankweiler et al. cited examples of students with good ability to recognize words but struggled with comprehension (as cited in Duke, et al., 2004, p. 506).

Learning to Read

Readers who hold a plethora of prior knowledge about the environment have a greater ability to understand text. Readers who make inferences as they read do so based on their prior knowledge. Making inferences as one reads helps improve comprehension of the text and is often used as a deliberate reading comprehension strategy (Duke et al., 2004). Therefore, not having an abundance of past knowledge to draw from, in order to conceptualize text, may hamper reading comprehension. Difficulties with reading comprehension do not stem from a single cause. It is likely that many factors contribute to difficulties with reading comprehension. Word Recognition and Decoding Students with vast experiences and copious worldly knowledge may still struggle with reading comprehension. Perhaps the easiest symptom to recognize of a child with a reading disorder is that they cannot read the same words as their peers. The student may struggle with word recognition and decoding. Lyon (1998) stated the most prevalent symptom of children with reading disabilities is a slow laboured approach to decoding. There appears to be commonalities between language skills and reading ability. Children diagnosed with dyslexia and specific language impairment share common decoding deficits that are linked to phonological deficits (Snowling & Hayiou-Thomas, 2006). To identify words readers need to understand how letter strings map onto pronunciation. When encountering new words readers must be able to produce an approximate pronunciation (Penney, 2002). If readers can make an approximate pronunciation of known words, lexical and semantic information can be retrieved (Lyon, et al., 2006). Students diagnosed with dyslexia show deficits in accurately and/or fluently recognizing words and have poor encoding abilities (Snowling & Hayiou-Thomas, 2006). These difficulties are a result of deficits with the phonological process suggesting oral language deficits as a main contributor of reading disorders (Snowling & Hayiou-Thomas, 2006).

Learning to Read

Phonological Processing Pronouncing words relies on phonological processing (Troia, 2004). Students with reading disabilities may have deficits in phonological processing, therefore, lack phonological awareness. Phonological awareness is the ability to differentiate between sound structures of language. It involves the ability to tend to the sounds in spoken language while temporarily ignoring its meaning (Yopp & Yopp, 2009). Children who are good at detecting different sounds of language are phonologically aware. Phonological awareness has two dimensions. The first dimension consists of the size of the sound unit being attended to including syllables, onset-rime units and phonemes. The second refers to the type of manipulation of the sound units including: substituting one sound for another in a word; adding or subtracting sounds from words; blending sounds together to form words; and segmenting words into smaller units (Yopp & Yopp, 2009). Phonology involves the blending and segmentation of the sounds that individual letters or letter strings make to form words (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2007). When students are unable to learn the sound codes represented by individual letters and cannot apply those codes when reading, difficulties in reading are a result (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2007). Good readers are able to decode letter sounds quickly whereas students with reading disabilities struggle with fluent decoding of letter sounds and words. Poor decoding skills are a result of a deficit in phonological processing thus impacting phonological awareness (Troia, 2004). Reading text requires phonological recoding (Troia, 2004). Students learning to read rely on converting letters and letter strings into their phonemes and reassembling the sound to pronounce the word (Troia, 2004). Phonological recoding involves graphophonemic knowledge and phonological awareness (Troia, 2004). Phonemic segments of spoken words map to letters and

Learning to Read

letter strings known as orthographic units. According to Troia (2004), this principle is imperative to reading comprehension. Knowledge of letter-sound associations allow mapping between phonemes and graphemes quickly and accurately. Graphophonemic knowledge and phonological awareness allow meaningful associations between letters and sounds facilitating quick and accurate word recognition. Learning to read requires the establishment of graphemes of printed words and phonemes of spoken words. Graphemes are established when connections or mappings are made between letters. Connections between phonology and orthography allow for the decoding of words (Troia, 2004). Phonological awareness is important for reading comprehension because the written English language is a record of how the language sounds (Yopp & Yopp, 2009). That is, written words represent the sounds of spoken language. Beginning readers rely heavily on sounding out words, therefore, not being able to link words they read to the words they hear makes learning to read difficult. The clearest evidence for the link between phonological deficits and decoding impairments come from children with dyslexia (Snowling & Hayiou, 2006). According to Snowling & HayioThomas (2006), 25% of children with specific language impairments in kindergarten met the criteria for dyslexia in second, fourth and eighth grades. Known as the Critical Age hypothesis, children are likely to develop reading disabilities if their language impairments persist to the school age (Snowling & Hayiou-Thomas, 2006). The Role of Working Memory Often seen in children with autism, reading comprehension difficulties are not due to impairments with decoding. These children are deemed hyperlexic; meaning their decoding skills are normal, however, they show deficits in comprehending text (Duke, et al., 2004). This may be

Learning to Read

explained by deficits in working memory. Performance on working memory tasks is correlated with reading achievement (Troia, 2004). According to Troia (2004), there is a strong correlation between working memory performance and phonological awareness. This seems likely because retrieving phonological codes from text requires a lot of working memory capacity. Working memory stores, manipulates information for a short period of time and facilitates cognitive functions like reasoning, learning and understanding. One of the processes important to word pronunciation is the phonological loop (Troia, 2004). The phonological loop is a subsystem within working memory that stores and codes verbal information based on phonological characteristics (Troia, 2004). Impairments within the phonological loop are associated with impairments in phonology (Troia, 2004). Recovering phonological codes from text relies heavily on working memory capacity with specific reliance on the phonological loop (Troia, 2004). The phonological loop is responsible for phonological working memory (Barbosa, Mirand, Santos, & Bueno, 2007). The phonological working memory is comprised of the phonological store (retains verbal information) and the articulatory loop; responsible for the rehearsal of phonological representations in the phonological store. According to Adams & Gathercole & Baddley, this kind of memory is important for learning literacy skills (as cited in Barbosa, et al., 207, p. 2002). Children with literacy impairments are affected when the phonological process is activated as is the case with when reading. Furthermore, the ability to fragment words into phonemes requires the phonological memory to store the words while their phonemes are fragmented and put into sequence. Thus, the phonological working memory is important to the learning of the correspondence grapheme-phoneme (Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, & Baddley, as cited in Barbosa, et al., 2007, p. 202).

Learning to Read

Fluent word recognition is important for reading comprehension because word recognition relies on the phonological loop (Troia, 2004). Deficits with phonological processing impact reading comprehension because too much energy is spent decoding rather than analysis based on the readers prior knowledge (Troia, 2004). Sounding out words take a great deal of attention leaving very little capacity to recognize and comprehend the word. The more energy it takes to sound out a word the less capacity there is to comprehend it because both processes take the same conscious effort (Duke, et al., 2004). Buly & Valencia found 17% of students who did poorly on a state reading assessment had fluency difficulties as their main issue along with comprehension difficulties (as cited in Duke, et al., 2004, p. 506). Barbosa, et al., (2007) studied Brazilian children in grade two classrooms. Children for the study were divided into two groups: those who met the criteria for a literacy disability and those who did not. The study tested for phonological working memory, phonological awareness and language skills. Results showed the children identified with literacy difficulties scored lower on both reading and writing tests than their peers. The children without literacy difficulties scored significantly higher on measures of phonological verbal fluency; working memory tasks; phonological working memory tasks; and all language aspects including phonological awareness and phonemic discrimination. Furthermore, children with literacy difficulties scored lower on all test areas including: working memory, language (phonological aspects), phonological awareness and executive functioning (Barbosa, et al., 2007). Overall, children with literacy difficulties presented lower phonological working memory capacity. Barbosa, et al., (2007) argued, impairments are likely due to problems affecting the transfer of information to the phonological loop, a difficulty in accessing the phonological code or accessing a degraded phonological representation in long term memory. Findings suggest a strong

Learning to Read

10

relationship between phonological working memory and phonological awareness. This study shows that children with literacy difficulties have deficits in the phonological process. Specifically, phonological working memory and phonological awareness appear to be impaired in children with literacy difficulties. Because children with reading disabilities display deficits in spoken language it is likely reading disabilities are influence by deficits in the phonological process as well (Barbosa, et al., 2007). Intervention Early intervention is important to reduce the gap between poor readers and good readers. Children with reading disabilities read less than their peers causing impairments in their language development, their general knowledge and their intellectual functioning (Hurry & Sylva, 2007). Phonological intervention is a successful intervention focusing on improving phonology skills of children with reading deficits. Phonological interventions are based on the theory that decoding is a crucial task of readily ability and deficits with phonological processing impair decoding. The phase model of reading development suggests knowing alphabetic principles is vital for beginning readers development of fluent reading and comprehension. Based on this, phonological interventions focus on word-level skills and help readers form alphabetic connections, map phonemes and graphemes and consolidate letter patterns (Hurry & Sylva, 2007). Reading Recovery is one of the most successful early interventions with a focus on reading for meaning. Clay suggests a crucial acquisition period during the childs first two school years (as cited in Hurry & Sylva, 2007, p. 228). During this crucial period children develop strategies important for literacy learning including searching, selecting and checking understanding of print. Furthermore, the child is learning letter-sound relationships, how to use sources of information in

Learning to Read

11

text, how to link stored knowledge and what strategies make reading easier (Clay, as cited in Hurry & Sylva, 2007, p. 228). Children who struggle during this stage find difficulty in understanding what they read, do not develop important strategies to monitor their own reading, acquire bad habits and a poor approach to reading (Hurry & Sylva, 2007). Reading Recover programs teach children to develop meta-cognitive strategies including self-monitoring skills and checking their understanding of text using learned strategies to predict and confirm (Hurry & Sylva, 2007). Bryne, Fielding-Barnsley & Ashley found long-term effects for preschool phonological training six years after children with reading deficits received intervention (as cited in Hurry & Sylva, 2007, p. 229). Also, several studies have shown the effectiveness of Reading Recovery programs. Pinnet et al., found immediate effects after children attended Reading Recovery programs and remained more fluent than control groups after eight months (as cited in Hurry & Sylva, 2007, p. 231). Much of the research on long-term effects of reading intervention does not support the idea that early intervention can change the childs learning curve past the point of intervention. Venezky found that after early grades those students who attended early reading intervention programs begin to fall behind average students (as cited in Hurry & Sylva, 2007, p. 231). Although significant immediate effects are realized after early intervention, by the time the child entered grade five they were approximately two grade levels behind their peers in reading comprehension. Hurry & Sylva (2007) found, children who received Reading Recovery intervention made significantly better gains in all areas of reading ability compared to the control group. Children receiving phonological training were only better than the control group in phonological awareness tests. At one year follow up children who received Reading Recovery were still ahead of the control group in overall ability, however, the gap narrowed and differences were relatively small.

Learning to Read

12

Children receiving phonological training also made significant gains in overall reading ability, however, the gap narrowed after one year as well. Both interventions failed in helping children overcome their early deficits with reading (Hurry & Sylva, 2007). Overall, those children exhibiting reading deficits at the onset of Hurrys & Sylvas (2007) study and received early intervention, were significantly lower than the national average for reading comprehension four years later. Hurry & Sylva (2007) found, neither phonological treatment nor Reading Recovery intervention appeared to have long-term effects as both intervention groups were approximately 2.5 years behind their non-disabled peers at four years follow up. In the short-term both intervention strategies proved successful increasing reading ability, however, long-term effects were not significant, suggesting ongoing intervention may be useful. Penney (2002) found teaching decoding skills in teenagers increased their reading ability significantly. Known as Glass Analyses, Penny (2002) suggested that teaching associations between letter patterns and their pronunciations for pronounceable units such as syllables and rimes proved effective for teenagers. Using Glass Analyses intervention, students were asked to do word identification drills for words identified as problematic for them. Glass Analysis drills directly targeted decoding deficits and taught students to decode words. This study shows that older children can also benefit from reading intervention. The fact that early intervention strategies do not appear to have long-term effects and that teenagers benefit from intervention immediately following treatment; intervention should be frequent and ongoing. Conclusion

Learning to Read

13

Many students with learning disabilities struggle with reading deficits. The cause of reading disorders is complex with many contrasting theories. Many students with reading disorders struggle with decoding and recognizing words while other can decode words but cannot comprehend what they have read. Both top-down and bottom-up processes seem important for reading success. Children who struggle with decoding words appear to have deficits in language acquisition as well suggesting phonological processing contributes to reading ability. Working memory also seems to play a vital role in decoding, fluency and reading comprehension. Intervention appear to help increase childrens reading ability, however, long-term gains seem minimal. Continuing care models for intervention, similar to the Chronic Care Model, in which treatment is maintained and adjusted over time, may be the key to supporting students with reading disabilities. Another strategy to ensure long-term treatment effects is to base intervention on the Dental Care model where follow-ups are ongoing to monitor progress and provide further intervention if it is deemed necessary (Mash, 2006).

References

Learning to Read

14

Barbosa, T., Miranda, M. C., Santos, R.F., & Bueno, F. A. (2007). Phonological Working Memory, Phonological Awareness and Language in Literacy Difficulties in Brazilian Children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(2), 201-218. Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2006). Difficulties with Reading Comprehension. In Stone, C. A., Silliman, E. R., Ehren, B. J., & Apel, K. Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders (pp. 501-520). New York: The Guilford Press. Hurry, J., & Sylva, K. (2007). Long-term Outcomes of Early Reading Intervention. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(3), 227248. Jordan, A. (2007). Introduction to inclusive education. Mississauga, ON, Canada: John Wiley & Sons Canada. Lyon, R. G., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, L, S., & Chhabra, V. (2006). Learning Disabilities. In Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (3rd ed.), Treatment of Childhood Disorders (pp. 512-594). New York: The Guilford Press. Lyon, R. G. (1998). The NICHD Research Program in Reading Development, Reading Disorders and Reading Instruction: A Summary of Research. From: The National Center for Learning Disabilities. Mash, E. J. (2006). Treatment of Child and Family Disturbance: A cognitive-Behavioural Systems Perspective. In Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (3rd ed.), Treatment of Childhood Disorders (pp. 137-268). New York: The Guilford Press. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2007). The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective Instruction (3rd ed). New Jersey: Pearson.

Learning to Read

15

Penny, C. G. (2002). Teaching Decoding Skills in Poor Readers in High School. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(1), 99-118. Snowling, M. J., & Hayiou-Thomas, M. E. (2006). The Dyslexia Spectrum Continuities Between Reading, Speech, and Language Impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 26(2), 110 126. Troia, G. A. (2004). Phonological Processing and Its Influence on Literacy Learning. In Stone, C. A., Silliman, E. R., Ehren, B. J., & Apel, K. Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders (pp. 271-301). New York: The Guilford Press. Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2009). Phonological Awareness is Childs Play. Young Children, 64(1), 12-21.

Вам также может понравиться