The effectiveness of an experimental reading program, Bridge, was compared to “Whole Language” reading instruction in two schools in economically disadvantaged areas. The Bridge program uses icons or picture symbols to facilitate print word identification. Children who were predicted to be at risk for reading difficulties comprised the Bridge (N = 42) and Whole Language (N = 64) samples. Predictions of at-risk reading status were made using a test of phonemic analysis skills (the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test), Denkla and Rudel's Rapid Letter Naming Test, and a test of syntactic awareness. The Bridge group performed significantly better on the WRAT Reading test than the Whole Language group at the end of grade 1 and grade 2. The Bridge program appears to be useful for children who are at risk for reading failure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerW. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged—what we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518–544.
2.
BiemillerA.J. (1970). The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 75–96.
3.
BiemillerA.J. (1977–1978). Relationships between oral reading rates for letters, words, and simple text and the development of reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 223–253.
4.
BlachmanB.A. (1984). Relationship between rapid naming ability and language analysis skills to kindergarten and first-grade achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 610–622.
5.
ByrneB.FreebodyP.GatesA. (1992). Longitudinal data on the relations of word-reading strategies to comprehension, reading time, and phonemic awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 141–151.
6.
CantaliniM. (1987). The effects of age and gender on school readiness and school success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
7.
CurtisM.E. (1980). Development of components of reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 656–669.
8.
DencklaM.B.RudelR.G. (1974). Rapid automatized naming of pictured objects, colors, letters, and numbers by normal children. Cortex, 8, 186–202.
DolchE. (1936). Basic sight vocabulary. Elementary School Journal, 36, 456–560. (The Dolch list is reprinted as Appendix A of BarrR., SadowM., & Blachowicz's Reading Diagnosis for Teachers, second edition, New York: Longman, 1990.)
11.
DunnL. (1965). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
12.
EdelskyC. (1990). Whose agenda is this anyway? A response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller. Educational Researcher, 19 (3), 7–11.
13.
GleitmanL.RozinP. (1972). Teaching reading by use of a syllabary. Reading Research Quarterly, 8, 447–483.
14.
GoughP.B.TunmerW.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
15.
JastakS.WilkinsonG.S. (1984). Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
16.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
17.
JuelC.GriffithP.L.GoughP.B. (1986). The acquisition of literacy: a longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243–255.
18.
KingE. (1982). Canadian Tests of Basic Skills. Toronto, Canada: Nelson Canada, Ltd.
LovettM. (1987). A developmental approach to reading disability: Accuracy and speed criteria of normal and deficient reading skill. Child Development, 58, 234–260.
21.
McKennaM.C.RobinsonR.D.MillerJ.W. (1990). Whole language: A research agenda for the nineties. Educational Researcher, 19 (3), 3–6.
22.
MounoudP. (1986). Similarities between developmental sequences at different age periods. In LevinI. (Ed.), Stage and structure. New York: Ablex.
23.
PerfettiC. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
SatzP.TaylorH.G.FrielJ.FletcherJ. (1978). Some developmental and predictive precursors of reading disabilities: a six-year follow-up. In BentonA.L.PearlD. (Eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
SiegelL.S. (in press). The development of reading. In ReeseH.W. (Ed.), Advances in child behavior and development. New York: Academic Press.
26.
SiegelL.S.RyanE.B. (1988). Development of grammatical-sensitivity, phonological, and short-term memory skills in normally achieving and learning disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 28–37.
27.
SiegelL.S.RyanE.B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Development, 60, 973–980.
28.
StahlS.A.MillerP.D. (1989). Whole language and language experience approaches for beginning reading: A quantitative research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 87–116.
29.
StanovichK. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.
30.
StanovichK.E.NathanR.G.ZolmanJ.E. (1988). The developmental lag hypothesis in reading: longitudinal and matched reading level comparisons. Child Development, 59, 71–86.
31.
VanderveldenM. (1992). Phonological recoding and phonological analytical skill in early literacy learning: A developmental approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
32.
VellutinoF.R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
VellutinoF.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, 437–443.
34.
WoodcockR.W. (1973). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
