Thirty-three poor readers participated in an experimental test of a method to teach decoding skills. Twenty-one students in the experimental condition were given approximately 18 sessions of individual tutoring in which they practiced associations between letter patterns and pronunciations for pronounceable parts of words. A control group of 12 students remained in their class instead of receiving the tutoring program. Standardized tests of word identification, word attack, and passage comprehension were administered before and after the tutoring program. Analyses of covariance were used to compare performance of experimental and control participants on the reading measures. Students in the experimental group showed greater improvements on all measures than did students in the control condition when the effects of initial scores were statistically controlled.
References
1.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print.Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
2.
AebiT. (1991). Maiden Voyage. Scholastic Scope, 2–3.
3.
BruckM.TreimanR. (1992). Learning to pronounce words: The limitations of analogies. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 375–389.
4.
DunnL. M.DunnL. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Revised.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
5.
EhriL. C.RobbinsC. (1992). Beginners need some decoding skill to read words by analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 13–26.
6.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.SchatschneiderC.MehtaP. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 37–55.
7.
GlassG. C.BurtonE. H. (1973). How do they decode? Verbalizations and observed behaviours of successful decoders. Education, 94, 58–64.
8.
GlassG. G.GlassE. W. (1976). Glass-Analysis for Decoding Only: Teacher Guide.Garden City, NY: Easier To Learn, Inc.
9.
GoswamiU. (1986). Children's use of analogy in learning to read: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42, 73–83.
10.
GoswamiU. (1988). Orthographic analogies and reading development. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 239–268.
11.
GreaneyK. T.TunmerW. E. (1996). Onset/rime sensitivity and orthographic analogies in normal and poor readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 15–40.
12.
GreaneyK. T.TunmerW. E.ChapmanJ. W. (1997). Effects of rime-based orthographic analogy training on the word recognition skills of children with reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 645–651.
13.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. RASE: Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
14.
HardyM.StennettR. G.SmytheP. C. (1973). Word attack: How do they “figure them out’?Elementary English, 50, 99–102.
15.
LevyB. A.BourassaD. C.HornC. (1999). Fast and slow namers: Benefits of segmentation and whole word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 115–138.
16.
LevyB. A.LysynchukL. (1997). Beginning word recognition: Benefits of training by segmentation and whole word methods. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 359–387.
17.
LlabreM. M. (1984). Standard Progressive Matrices. In KeyserD. J.SweetlandR. C. (Eds.), Test Critiques (pp. 595–602). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
18.
LovettM.LacerenzaL.BordenS. L.FrijtersJ. C.SteinbachK. A.De PalmaM. (2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 263–283.
MuterV.SnowlingM.TaylorS. (1994). Orthographic analogies and phonological awareness: Their role and significance in early reading development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 293–310.
21.
PetersonM. E.HainesL. P. (1992). Orthographic analogy training with kindergarten children: Effects on analogy use, phonemic segmentation, and letter-sound knowledge. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 109–127.
22.
RavenJ. (1981). Manuel for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary Scales. Research Supplement No. 1. The 1972 Irish Standardisation of the Standard Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary Scales and the 1979 British Standardisation of the Standard Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary Scales. London: H. K. Lewis & Co. Ltd.
23.
RavenJ.RavenJ. C.CourtJ. H. (1993). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales.Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.
StahlS. A.MurrayB. A. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 221–234.
26.
StanbackM. L. (1992). Syllable and rime patterns for teaching reading: Analysis of a frequency-based vocabulary of 17,602 words. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 196–221.
27.
StanovichK. E. (1982). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of reading: 1. Word Decoding. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 485–493.
28.
StanovichK. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590–604.
29.
TreimanR.MullennixJ.Bijeljac-BabicR.Richmond-WeltyE. D. (1995). The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 107–138.
30.
TreimanR.ZukowskiA. (1991). Levels of phonological awareness. In BradyS.ShankweilerD. (Eds.) Phonological Processes in Literacy: A Tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31.
WangC. C.GaffneyJ. S. (1998) First graders' use of analogy in word reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 389–403.
32.
WiseB. W.OlsenR. K.TreimanR. (1990). Subsyllabic units in computerized reading instruction: Onset-rime vs. post-vowel segmentation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 1–19.
33.
WoodcockR. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests - Revised.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
34.
WylieR. E.DurrellD. D. (1970). Teaching vowels through phonograms. Elementary English, 47, 787–791.
