essay on reading difficulties

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Open access
• Published: 31 March 2017

Helping children with reading difficulties: some things we have learned so far

• Genevieve McArthur 1 &
• Anne Castles 1  

npj Science of Learning volume  2 , Article number:  7 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

34k Accesses

21 Citations

65 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

A substantial proportion of children struggle to learn to read. This not only impairs their academic achievement, but increases their risk of social, emotional, and mental health problems. In order to help these children, reading scientists have worked hard for over a century to better understand the nature of reading difficulties and the people who have them. The aim of this perspective is to outline some of the things that we have learned so far, and to provide a framework for considering the causes of reading difficulties and the most effective ways to treat them.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reading skills intervention during the Covid-19 pandemic

Ana Sucena, Ana Filipa Silva & Cátia Marques

Rapid online assessment of reading ability

Jason D. Yeatman, Kenny An Tang, … Benjamin W. Domingue

Enhancing reading skills through a video game mixing action mechanics and cognitive training

Angela Pasqualotto, Irene Altarelli, … Paola Venuti

Introduction

Over 20 years ago, The Dyslexia Institute asked a 9-year-old boy called Alexander to describe his struggle with learning to read and spell. He bravely wrote: “I have blond her, Blue eys and an infeckshos smill. Pealpie tell mum haw gorgus I am and is ent she looky to have me. But under the surface I live in a tumoyl. Words look like swigles and riting storys is a disaster area because of spellings. There were no ply times at my old school untill work was fineshed wich ment no plytims at all. Thechers sead I was clevor but just didn’t try. Shouting was the only way the techors comuniccatid with me. Uther boys made fun of me and so I beckame lonly and mishroboll”. 1

Alexander’s experience is not unique. Sixteen per cent of children struggle to learn to read to some extent, and 5% of children have significant, severe, and persistent problems. 2 The impact of these children’s reading difficulties goes well beyond problems with reading Harry Potter or Snapchat. Poor reading is associated with increased risk for school dropout, attempted suicide, incarceration, anxiety, depression, and low self-concept. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 It is therefore important to identify and treat poor readers as early as we possibly can.

Scientists have been investigating poor reading—also known as reading difficulty, reading impairment, reading disability, reading disorder, and developmental dyslexia (to name but a few)—for over a century. While it may take another century of research to reach a complete understanding of reading impairment, there are number of things that we have learned about reading difficulties, as well as the children who experience reading them, that provide key clues about how poor reading can be identified and treated effectively.

Poor readers display different reading behaviours

One thing that we have learned about poor readers is that they are highly heterogeneous; that is, they do not all display the same type of reading impairment (i.e., “reading behaviour”; 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ). Some poor readers have a specific problem with learning to read new words accurately by applying the regular mappings between letters and sounds. 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 This problem, which is often called poor phonological recoding or decoding, can be detected by asking children to read novel “nonwords” such as YIT. Other poor readers have a particular difficulty with learning to read new words accurately that do not follow the regular mappings between letters and sounds, and hence must be read via memory representations of written words. 7 , 13 , 15 , 16 This problem, which is sometimes called poor sight word reading or poor visual word recognition, can be detected by asking children to read “exception” words such as YACHT. In contrast, some poor readers have accurate phonological recoding and visual word recognition but struggle to read words fluently. 17 , 18 , 19 Poor reading fluency can be detected by asking children to read word lists or sentences as quickly as they can. In contrast yet again, some poor readers have intact phonological recoding and visual word recognition and reading fluency, but struggle to understand the meaning of what they read. These “poor comprehenders” 20 can be identified by asking them to read paragraphs aloud (to ascertain that they can read accurately and fluently), and then ask them questions about the meaning of what they have read (to ascertain that they do not understand what they are reading). It is important to note that most poor readers have various combinations of these problems. 21 For example, Alexander’s spelling suggests that he would have poor phonological decoding (since he misspells words like playtimes as “plytims”) and poor sight word knowledge (since he misspells exception words like said as “sead”). Thus, poor readers vary considerably in the profiles of their reading behaviour.

Reading behaviours have different “proximal” causes

Another thing we have learned about poor readers is that the same reading behaviour (e.g., inaccurate reading of novel words) does not necessarily have the same “proximal cause”. A proximal cause of a reading behaviour can be defined as a component of the cognitive system that directly and immediately produces that reading behaviour. 22 , 23 , 24 Most reading behaviours will have more than one proximal cause. Reflecting this, several theoretical and computational models of reading comprise multiple cognitive components that function together to produce successful reading behaviour (e.g., refs 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ). While these models vary in some respects, all include cognitive components that represent (1) the ability to recognise letters (e.g., S), letter-clusters (e.g., SH), and written words (e.g., SHIP), (2) the ability to recognise and produce speech sounds (e.g., “sh”, “i”, “p”) and spoken words (e.g., “ship”), (3) the ability to access stored knowledge about the meanings of words (e.g., “a floating vessel”), and (4) links between these various components. Impairment in any one of these components or links will directly and immediately impair aspects of reading behaviour. Thus, guided by theoretical and computational models, we have learned that a poor reading behaviour can have multiple proximal causes, and we have some idea about what those proximal causes might be. 10 , 11 , 12

Reading behaviours have different “distal” causes

We have also learned that even if two poor readers have exactly the same reading behaviour with exactly the same proximal cause, this reading behaviour will not necessarily have the same “distal cause”. A distal cause has a distant (i.e., an indirect or delayed) impact on a reading behaviour. 22 , 23 , 24 Distal causes reflect the fact that reading is a taught skill that unfolds over time and across development. It depends upon a range of more cognitive abilities, such as memory, attention, and language skills, to name but a few. Depending on children’s strengths and weaknesses in these underlying abilities, and how these abilities affect learning over time, children will have different profiles of developmental, or distal, causes of their reading impairment. Stated differently, there can be different causal pathways to the same impairment of the reading system.

To provide an example, as mentioned earlier, a common reading behaviour observed in poor readers is inaccurate reading of new or novel words, which can be assessed using nonwords such as YIT. Indeed, some researchers have described this as the defining symptom of reading difficulties. 29 According to theoretical and computational models of reading, one proximal cause of impaired reading of nonwords is impaired knowledge of letter-sound mappings. But what is responsible for this proximal cause of poor nonword reading? There are multiple hypotheses. The prominent “phonological deficit hypothesis” proposes a pervasive language-based difficulty in processing speech sounds that affects the ability to learn to associate written stimuli (e.g., letters) with speech sounds. 30 The “paired-associate learning deficit hypothesis” proposes a memory-based difficulty in forming cross-modal mappings across the visual (e.g, letters) and verbal domains (e.g., speech sounds) that affects letter-sound learning (e.g., ref. 31 ). And the “visual attentional deficit hypothesis” proposes an attention-based impairment in the size of the attentional window, affecting the formation of the sub-word orthographic units (e.g., letters) used in the letter-sound mapping process. 32 These three hypotheses illustrate why a single reading behaviour (e.g., poor nonword reading) with a common proximal cause (impaired knowledge of letter-sound mappings) might not have the same distal cause (e.g., a phonological deficit, a paired-associate learning deficit, or a visual attention deficit). These hypotheses also raise the possibility that the distal causes of poor readers’ reading behaviours may vary as much (if not more) than the proximal causes and the reading behaviours themselves.

Poor readers have concurrent problems with their cognition and emotional health

Another thing we have learned about poor readers is that many (but not all) have comorbidities in other aspects of their cognition and emotional health. Regarding cognition, studies have found that a significant proportion of poor readers have impairments in their spoken language. 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 Studies have also found that poor readers have atypically high rates of attention deficit disorder—a neurological problem that causes inattention, poor concentration, and distractibility (e.g., refs 40 , 41 , 42 ). Regarding emotional health, there is evidence that poor readers, as a group, have higher levels of anxiety than typical readers (e.g., refs 43 , 44 ). The same is true for low self-concept, which can be defined as a negative perception of oneself in a particular domain (e.g., academic self-concept; e.g., refs 45 , 46 ).

The fact that poor readers vary in their comorbid cognitive and emotional health problems—as well as in their reading behaviours, and the proximal and distal impairments of these behaviours—creates an impression of almost overwhelming complexity. However, it is possible to simplify this complexity somewhat using a proximal and distal schema. Specifically, comorbidities of poor reading might be categorised according to whether they represent potential proximal or distal impairment of poor reading—or possibly both. For example, a child’s current problem with spoken vocabulary might be considered a proximal cause of their poor word reading behaviour since, according to theoretical and computational models of reading, vocabulary knowledge may directly underpin word reading accuracy or reading comprehension. However, a child’s previous problem with spoken vocabulary, which may or may not still be present, might be considered a distal cause of their poor word reading: A history of poor understanding of word meanings might reduce a child’s motivation to engage in reading (distal cause), which would impair their development of phonological recoding and visual word recognition (proximal cause), and hence their word reading accuracy and fluency (reading behaviour). Thus, the proximal and distal schema can prove useful in clarifying the causal chain of events linking a reading behaviour to a potential cause.

The proximal and distal schema can also be useful in clarifying reciprocal or circular relationships between comorbidities of poor reading and reading behaviours. For example, if a poor reader has low academic self-concept (distal cause), this may stymie their motivation to pay attention in reading lessons (distal cause), which will impair their learning of letter-sound mappings (proximal cause), and hence their poor word reading (reading behaviour). At the same time, a reverse causal effect may be in play: A child’s poor word reading in the classroom (distal cause) may create a poor perception of their own academic ability (proximal cause) that lowers their academic self-concept (behaviour). Thus, the proximal and distal schema can be used to help develop hypotheses as to whether comorbidities of poor reading are proximal and/or distal causes or consequences of poor reading. Ultimately, of course, all of these hypotheses must be tested through experimental training studies.

Proximal intervention is more effective than distal intervention

Poor readers have inspired, and have been subjected to, an extraordinary array of interventions such as behavioural optometry, chiropractics, classical music, coloured glasses, computer games, fish oil, phonics, sensorimotor exercises, sound training, spatial frequency gratings, memory training, medication for the inner ear, phonemic awareness, rapid reading, visual word recognition, and vocabulary training, to name just a selection. It is noteworthy that while many of these interventions claim to be “scientifically proven”, few have been tested with a randomised controlled trial (RCT)—an experiment that randomly allocates participants to intervention and control groups in order to reduce bias in outcomes. RCTs are the gold standard method for assessing a treatment of any kind, and the method that must be used to prove the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical treatment.

In order to make sense of the chaotic variety of interventions that claim to help poor readers, it may again be helpful to use the proximal and distal schema outlined above to subdivide interventions into two types: “proximal interventions” that focus training on proximal causes of a reading behaviour that are proposed to be part of the cognitive system for reading (e.g., phonics training, vocabulary training) and “distal interventions” that focus on distal causes of a reading behaviour (e.g., coloured lenses, inner-ear medication). The idea of making a distinction between proximal and distal interventions is supported by the outcomes of a systematic review of all studies that have used an RCT to assess an intervention in poor readers. 47 These studies assessed the effect of coloured lenses or overlays, medication, motor training, phonemic awareness, phonics, reading comprehension, reading fluency, sound processing, and sunflower therapy on poor readers. One key finding of this review is that it only identified 22 RCTs, which is a small number of gold-standard intervention studies given the huge number of interventions that claim to help poor readers. A second key finding is that the majority of RCTs of interventions for poor readers have assessed the efficacy of phonics training, which trains the ability to use letter-sound mappings to learn to read new or novel words. A third key finding is that only one type of intervention produced a statistically reliable effect. This was phonics training, which focuses on improving a proximal cause of poor word reading (i.e., letter-sound mappings). In contrast, interventions that focused on distal causes of poor reading did not show a statistically reliable effect in poor readers. The outcomes of this systematic review suggest that interventions that focus on phonics—a proximal cause of reading behaviour—are more likely to be effective than interventions that focus on a distal cause. In other words, the “closer” the intervention is to an impaired reading behaviour, the more likely it is to be effective.

Translating what we know (thus far) into evidence-based practice

At first glance, what we have learned (so far) about poor readers and reading difficulties paints a picture of such complex heterogeneity that it is tempting to throw one’s hands up in despair. And yet, somewhat paradoxically, it is this very heterogeneity that provides some important clues about how to maximise the efficacy of intervention for poor readers. First, the fact that poor readers vary in the nature of their reading behaviours suggests that the first step in identifying an effective intervention for a poor reader is to assess different aspects of reading (e.g., word reading accuracy, reading fluency, and reading comprehension). There are numerous standardized tests provided commercially (e.g., the York Assessment for Reading Comprehension available from GL Assessment) 48 or for free (e.g., the Castles and Coltheart Word Reading Test—Second Edition (CC2) available at www.motif.org.au ) 49 that can be used to determine if a child falls below the average range for their age or grade for reading accuracy, fluency, or comprehension. In our experience, a teacher who has appropriate training in administrating such tests can carry out this first step effectively.

Second, the fact that poor readers’ reading behaviours can have different proximal causes suggests that the next step is to test them for the potential proximal causes of their poor reading behaviours. This is where cognitive models of reading are a useful roadmap, providing an explicit account of the key processes directly underpinning successful reading behaviour. Again, this can be done using standardized tests that are available commercially (e.g., the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Fourth Edition available from Pearson) 50 or for free (e.g., the Letter-Sound Test available at www.motif.org.au ). 51 And well-trained teachers can administer these tests.

Third, the fact that poor readers vary in the degree to which they experience comorbid cognitive and emotional impairments suggests that it would be useful to assess poor readers for their spoken language abilities, attention, anxiety, depression, and self-concept, at the very least. This knowledge will reveal if they need support in other areas of their development, or if their reading-related intervention needs to be adjusted to accommodate their concomitant impairment in order to maximise efficacy. Trained speech and language therapists typically carry out the assessment of children’s spoken language; neuropsychologists are experts in assessing children’s attention; and clinical psychologists have the expertise to assess children’s emotional health.

Once a poor reader’s reading behaviours, proximal impairments, comorbid cognitive, and emotional health problems have been identified, it should be possible to design an intervention that is a good match to their needs. According to the systematic review conducted by Galuschka et al. 47 , current evidence suggests that this intervention should focus on the proximal impairment of a child’s reading behaviour, rather than a possible distal impairment. Two more recent controlled trials 52 , 53 and a systematic review 54 further suggest that it is possible to selectively train different proximal impairments of poor reading behaviours in order to improve those behaviours. The outcomes of these studies and reviews tentatively suggest that proximal interventions can be executed by a reading specialist or a highly-sophisticated online reading training programme.

In sum, over the last century or so, we have learned important things about reading difficulties and the people who have them. We have learned that poor readers display different reading behaviours, that any one reading behaviour has multiple proximal and distal causes, that some poor readers have concomitant problems in other areas of their cognition and emotional health, and that interventions that focus on proximal causes of poor reading behaviours may be more effective than those that focus on distal causes. This knowledge provides some clues to how we might best assist children with reading difficulties. Specifically, we need to assess poor readers for (1) a range of reading behaviours, (2) proximal causes for each poor reading behaviour, and (3) comorbidities in their cognition and emotional health. It should be possible to design an individualised intervention programme that accommodates for a poor reader’s comorbid cognitive or emotional problems whilst targeting the proximal causes of their poor reading behaviour or behaviours. This approach, which requires the co-ordinated efforts of teachers and specialists and parents, is no mean feat. However, according to the scientific evidence thus far, this is the most effective approach we have for helping children with reading difficulties.

The Dyslexia Institute. As I See It (Walker Books, 1990).

Shaywitz, S. E., Escobar, M. D., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M. & Makuch, R. Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability. N. Engl. J. Med. 326 , 145–150 (1992).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Daniel, S. S. et al. Suicidality, school dropout, and reading problems among adolescents. J. Learn. Disabil. 39 , 507–514 (2006).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McArthur, G., Castles, A., Kohnen, S. & Banales, E. Low self-concept in poor readers: prevalence, heterogeneity, and risk. Peer. J. 4 , e2669 (2016).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Carroll, J. M., Maughan, B., Goodman, R. & Meltzer, H. Literacy difficulties and psychiatric disorders: evidence for comorbidity. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 46 , 524–532 (2005).

Christie, C. A. & Yell, M. L. Preventing youth incarceration through reading remediation: issues and solutions. Read. Writ. Quart. 24 , 148–176 (2008).

Article   Google Scholar  

Castles, A. & Coltheart, M. Varieties of developmental dyslexia. Cognition 47 , 149–180 (1993).

Goulandris, N. K. & Snowling, M. Visual memory deficits: a plausible cause of developmental dyslexia? Evidence from a single case study. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 8 , 127–154 (1991).

Jones, K., Castles, A. & Kohnen, S. Subtypes of developmental dyslexia: recent developments and directions for treatment. ACQuiring Knowledge Speech Lang. Hear. 13 , 79–83 (2011).

Google Scholar  

McArthur, G. et al. Getting to grips with the heterogeneity of developmental dyslexia. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 30 , 1–24 (2013).

Peterson, R., Pennington, B. & Olson, R. Subtypes of developmental dyslexia: testing predictions of the dual-route and connectionist frameworks. Cognition 126 , 20–38 (2013).

Ziegler, J. C. et al. Developmental dyslexia and the dual route model of reading: Simulating individual differences and subtypes. Cognition 107 , 151–178 (2008).

Manis, F. R., Seidenberg, M. S., Doi, L. M., McBride-Chang, C. & Petersen, A. On the bases of two subtypes of development dyslexia. Cognition 58 , 157–195 (1996).

Temple, C. M. & Marshall, J. C. A case study of developmental phonological dyslexia. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 74 , 517–533 (1983).

Friedmann, N. & Lukov, L. Developmental surface dyslexias. Cortex 44 , 1146–1160 (2008).

Broom, Y. M. & Doctor, E. A. Developmental phonological dyslexia: a case study of the efficacy of a remediation programme. Cogn. Neuropsychol 12 , 725–766 (1995).

de Jong, P. F. & van der Leij, A. Developmental changes in the manifestation of a phonological deficit in dyslexic children learning to read a regular orthography. Educ. Psychol 95 , 22–40 (2003).

Landerl, K., Wimmer, H. & Frith, U. The impact of orthographic consistency on dyslexia: a German-English comparison. Cognition 63 , 315–334 (1997).

Torgesen, J. K. Recent discoveries on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. in The Science of Reading: A Handbook , (eds Snowling, M. J. & Hulme, C.), pp.521–537 (Blackwell, 2005).

Nation, K. & Snowling, M. Semantic processing and the development of word-recognition skills: evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. J. Mem. Lang. 39 , 85–101 (1998).

Stuart, M., & Stainthorp, R. Reading Development and Teaching (Sage, 2016).

Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. Developmental Disorders of Language, Learning and Cognition (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

Jackson, N. E., & Coltheart, M. Routes to Reading Success and Failure: Toward an Integrated Cognitive Psychology of Atypical Reading (Psychology Press, 2001).

Castles, A., Kohnen, S., Nickels, L. & Brock, J. Developmental disorders: what can be learned from cognitive neuropsychology? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369 , 20130407 (2014).

Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R. & Ziegler, J. DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychol. Rev. 108 , 204 (2001).

Hoover, W. A. & Gough, P. B. The simple view of reading. Read. Writ. 2 , 127–160 (1990).

Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C. & Zorzi, M. Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: the CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychol. Rev. 114 , 273–315 (2007).

Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S. & Patterson, K. Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychol. Rev. 103 , 56–115 (1996).

Rack, J. P., Snowling, M. J. & Olson, R. K. The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: a review. Read. Res. Q. 1 , 29–53 (1992).

Snowling, M. Dyslexia as a phonological deficit: evidence and implications. Child Psychol. Psychiatry.Rev. 3 , 4–11 (1998).

Warmington, M. & Hulme, C. Phoneme awareness, visual-verbal paired-associate learning, and rapid automatized naming as predictors of individual differences in reading ability. Sci. Studying Read. 16 , 45–62 (2012).

Bosse, M.-L., Tainturier, M. & Valdois, S. Developmental dyslexia: the visual attention span deficit hypothesis. Cognitio 104 , 198–230 (2007).

Bishop, D. V. M. & Snowling, M. J. Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: same or different? Psychol. Bull. 130 , 858–886 (2004).

Eisenmajer, N., Ross, N. & Pratt, C. Specificity and characteristics of learning disabilities. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry. 46 , 1108–1115 (2005).

Fraser, J., Goswami, U. & Conti-Ramsden, G. Dyslexia and specific language impairment: the role of phonology and auditory processing. Sci. Studies Read. 14 , 8–29 (2010).

McArthur, G. & Castles, A. Phonological processing deficits in specific reading disability and specific language impairment: same or different? J. Res. Read. 36 , 280–302 (2013).

McArthur, G. M., Hogben, J. H., Edwards, V. T., Heath, S. M. & Mengler, E. D. On the “specifics” of specific reading disability and specific language impairment. J Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Disciplines 41 , 869–874 (2000).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Rispens, J. & Been, P. Subject–verb agreement and phonological processing in developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment (SLI): a closer look. Int.J. Lang. Commun.Dis. 42 , 293–305 (2007).

Catts, H. W., Adolf, S. M., Hogan, T. P. & Weismer, S. E. Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? J. Speech. Lang. Hear. Res. 48 , 1378–1396 (2005).

Gilger, J. W., Pennington, B. F. & DeFries, J. C. A twin study of the etiology of comorbidity: attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 31 , 343–348 (1992).

Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M. & Shaywitz, S. E. Defining and classifying learning disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J. Child. Neurol. 10 , S50–S57 (1995).

Willcutt, E. G. & Pennington, B. F. Comorbidity of reading disability and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder differences by gender and subtype. J. Learn. Disabil. 33 , 179–191 (2000).

Maughan, B. & Carroll, J. Literacy and mental disorders. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 19 , 350–354 (2006).

Mugnaini, D., Lassi, S., La Malfa, G. & Albertini, G. Internalizing correlates of dyslexia. World J. Clin. Pediatr. 5 , 255–264 (2009).

Snowling, M. J., Muter, V. & Carroll, J. Children at family risk of dyslexia: a follow-up in early adolescence. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 48 , 609–618 (2007).

Taylor, L. M., Hume, I. R. & Welsh, N. Labelling and self‐esteem: the impact of using specific vs. generic labels. Educ. Psychol. 30 , 191–202 (2010).

Galuschka, K., Ise, E., Krick, K. & Schulte-Körne, G. Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 9 , e89900 (2014).

Snowling, M. J. et al. YARC York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension Passage Reading (GL Assessment, 2009).

Castles, A. et al. Assessing the basic components of reading: a revision of the Castles and Coltheart test with new norms. Aust. J. Learn. Diffic. 14 , 67–88 (2009).

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: PPVT 4 (Pearson, 2015).

Larsen, L., Kohnen, S., Nickels, L. & McArthur, G. The letter-sound test (LeST): a reliable and valid comprehensive measure of grapheme-phoneme knowledge. Aust. J. Learn. Diffic. 20 , 129–142 (2015).

McArthur, G. et al. Sight word and phonics training in children with dyslexia. J. Learn. Disabil. 48 (4), 391–407 (2015a).

McArthur, G. et al. Replicability of sight word training and phonics training in poor readers: a randomised controlled trial. Peer. J. 3 , e922 (2015b).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

McArthur, G. et al. Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers. The Cochrane Library . 12 , 1–102 (2012).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Cognitive Science, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

Genevieve McArthur & Anne Castles

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Genevieve McArthur .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

McArthur, G., Castles, A. Helping children with reading difficulties: some things we have learned so far. npj Science Learn 2 , 7 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0008-3

Download citation

Received : 22 April 2016

Revised : 16 February 2017

Accepted : 01 March 2017

Published : 31 March 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0008-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Perceptions of intelligence & sentience shape children’s interactions with robot reading companions.

• Nathan Caruana
• Ryssa Moffat
• Emily S. Cross

Scientific Reports (2023)

Deaf readers benefit from lexical feedback during orthographic processing

• Eva Gutierrez-Sigut
• Marta Vergara-Martínez
• Manuel Perea

Scientific Reports (2019)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998)

Chapter: 1. introduction, 1 introduction.

Reading is essential to success in our society. The ability to read is highly valued and important for social and economic advancement. Of course, most children learn to read fairly well. In fact, a small number learn it on their own, with no formal instruction, before school entry (Anbar, 1986; Backman, 1983; Bissex, 1980; Jackson, 1991; Jackson et al., 1988). A larger percentage learn it easily, quickly, and efficiently once exposed to formal instruction.

SOCIETAL CHALLENGES

Parents, educators, community leaders, and researchers identify clear and specific worries concerning how well children are learning to read in this country. The issues they raise are the focus of this report:

1. Large numbers of school-age children, including children from all social classes, have significant difficulties in learning to read.

2. Failure to learn to read adequately for continued school success is much more likely among poor children, among nonwhite

children, and among nonnative speakers of English. Achieving educational equality requires an understanding of why these disparities exist and efforts to redress them.

3. An increasing proportion of children in American schools, particularly in certain school systems, are learning disabled, with most of the children identified as such because of difficulties in learning to read.

4. Even as federal and state governments and local communities invest at higher levels in early childhood education for children with special needs and for those from families living in poverty, these investments are often made without specific planning to address early literacy needs and sustain the investment.

5. A significant federal investment in providing bilingual education programs for nonnative speakers of English has not been matched by attention to the best methods for teaching reading in English to nonnative speakers or to native speakers of nonstandard dialects.

6. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides accommodations to children and to workers who have reading disabilities. In order to provide full access for the individuals involved, these accommodations should reflect scientific knowledge about the acquisition of reading and the effects of having a reading difficulty.

7. The debate about reading development and reading instruction has been persistent and heated, often obscuring the very real gains in knowledge of the reading process that have occurred.

In this report, we are most concerned with the children in this country whose educational careers are imperiled because they do not read well enough to ensure understanding and to meet the demands of an increasingly competitive economy. Current difficulties in reading largely originate from rising demands for literacy, not from declining absolute levels of literacy (Stedman and Kaestle, 1987). In a technological society, the demands for higher literacy are constantly increasing, creating ever more grievous consequences for those who fall short and contributing to the widening economic disparities in our society (Bronfenbrenner et al., 1996). These economic dispari-

ties often translate into disparities in educational resources, which then have the self-reinforcing effect of further exacerbating economic disparities. Although the gap in reading performance between educational haves and have-nots has shrunk over the last 50 years, it is still unacceptably large, and in recent years it has not shrunk further (National Academy of Education, 1996). These rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer economic effects compound the difficulties facing educational policy makers, and they must be addressed if we are to confront the full scope of inadequate literacy attainment (see Bronfenbrenner et al., 1996).

Despite the many ways in which American schools have progressed and improved over the last half century (see, for example, Berliner and Biddle, 1995), there is little reason for complacency. Clear and worrisome problems have to do specifically with children's success in learning to read and our ability to teach reading to them. There are many reasons for these educational problems—none of which is simple. These issues and problems led to the initiation of this study and are the focus of this report.

The many children who succeed in reading are in classrooms that display a wide range of possible approaches to instruction. In making recommendations about instruction, one of the challenges facing the committee is the difficult-to-deal-with fact that many children will learn to read in almost any classroom, with almost any instructional emphasis. Nonetheless, some children, in particular children from poor, minority, or non-English-speaking families and children who have innate predispositions for reading difficulties, need the support of high-quality preschool and school environments and of excellent primary instruction to be sure of reading success. We attempt to identify the characteristics of the preschool and school environments that will be effective for such children.

The Challenge of a Technological Society

Although children have been taught to read for many centuries, only in this century—and until recently only in some countries—has there been widespread expectation that literacy skills should be universal. Under current conditions, in many ''literate" societies, 40 to

60 percent of the population have achieved literacy; today in the United States, we expect 100 percent of the population to be literate. Furthermore, the definition of full-fledged literacy has shifted over the last century with increased distribution of technology, with the development of communication across distances, and with the proliferation of large-scale economic enterprises (Kaestle, 1991; Miller, 1988; Weber, 1993). To be employable in the modern economy, high school graduates need to be more than merely literate. They must be able to read challenging material, to perform sophisticated calculations, and to solve problems independently (Murnane and Levy, 1993). The demands are far greater than those placed on the vast majority of schooled literate individuals a quarter-century ago.

Data from the National Education Longitudinal Study and High School and Beyond, the two most comprehensive longitudinal assessments of U.S. students' attitudes and achievements, indicate that, from 1972 through 1994 (the earliest and most recently available data), high school students most often identified two life values as "very important" (see National Center for Educational Statistics, 1995:403). "Finding steady work" was consistently highly valued by over 80 percent of male and female seniors over the 20 years of measurement and was seen as "very important'' by nearly 90 percent of the 1992 seniors—the highest scores on this measure in its 20-year history. "Being successful in work" was also consistently valued as very important by over 80 percent of seniors over the 20-year period and approached 90 percent in 1992.

The pragmatic goals stated by students amount to "get and hold a good job." Who is able to do that? In 1993, the percentage of U.S. citizens age 25 and older who were college graduates and unemployed was 2.6 percent (U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, quoted in National Center for Education Statistics, 1995:401). By contrast, the unemployment rate for high school graduates with no college was twice as high, 5.4 percent, and for persons with less than a high school education the unemployment rate was 9.8 percent, over three times higher. An October 1994 survey of 1993-1994 high school graduates and dropouts found that fewer than 50 percent of the dropouts were holding

jobs (U.S. Department of Labor, 1995 ; quoted in National Center for Education Statistics, 1995:401).

One researcher found that, controlling for inflation, the mean income of U.S. male high school dropouts ages 25 to 34 has decreased by over 50 percent between 1973 and 1995 (Stringfield, 1995 , 1997). By contrast, the mean incomes of young male high school graduates dropped by about one-third, and those of college graduates by 20 percent in the 1970s and then stabilized. Among the six major demographic groups (males and females who are black, white, or Hispanic), the lowest average income among college graduates was higher than the highest group of high school graduates.

Academic success, as defined by high school graduation, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by knowing someone's reading skill at the end of grade 3 (for reviews, see Slavin et al., 1994). A person who is not at least a modestly skilled reader by the end of third grade is quite unlikely to graduate from high school. Only a generation ago, this did not matter so much, because the long-term economic effects of not becoming a good reader and not graduating from high school were less severe. Perhaps not surprisingly, when teachers are asked about the most important goal for education, over half of elementary school teachers chose "building basic literacy skills" (National Center for Education Statistics Schools and Staffing Survey, 1990-1991, quoted in National Center for Education Statistics, 1995:31) .

The Special Challenge of Learning to Read English

Learning to read poses real challenges, even to children who will eventually become good readers. Furthermore, although every writing system has its own complexities, English presents a relatively large challenge, even among alphabetic languages. Learning the principles of a syllabic system, like the Japanese katakana, is quite straightforward, since the units represented—syllables—are pronounceable and psychologically real, even to young children. Such systems are, however, feasible only in languages with few possible syllable types; the hiragana syllabary represents spoken Japanese with 46 characters, supplemented with a set of diacritics (Daniels

and Bright, 1996). Spoken English has approximately 5,000 different possible syllables; instead of representing each one with a symbol in the writing system, written English relies on an alphabetic system that represents the parts that make up a spoken syllable, rather than representing the syllable as a unit.

An alphabetic system poses a challenge to the beginning reader, because the units represented graphically by letters of the alphabet are referentially meaningless and phonologically abstract. For example, there are three sounds represented by three letters in the word "but," but each sound alone does not refer to anything, and only the middle sound can really be pronounced in isolation; when we try to say the first or last consonant of the word all by itself, we have to add a vowel to make it a pronounceable entity (see Box 1-1).

Once the learner of written English gets the basic idea that letters represent the small sound units within spoken and heard words, called phonemes, the system has many advantages: a much more limited set of graphemic symbols is needed than in either syllabic (like Japanese) or morphosyllabic (like Chinese) systems; strategies

for sounding out unfamiliar strings and spelling novel words are available; and subsequences, such as prefixes and suffixes, are encountered with enough frequency for the reader to recognize them automatically.

Alphabetic systems of writing vary in the degree to which they are designed to represent the surface sounds of words. Some languages, such as Spanish, spell all words as they sound, even though this can cause two closely related words to be spelled very differently. Writing systems that compromise phonological representations in order to reflect morphological information are referred to as deep orthographies. In English, rather than preserving one-letter-to-one-sound correspondences, we preserve the spelling, even if that means a particular letter spells several different sounds. For example, the last letter pronounced "k" in the written word "electric" represents quite different sounds in the words "electricity" and ''electrician," indicating the morphological relation among the words but making the sound-symbol relationships more difficult to fathom.

The deep orthography of English is further complicated by the retention of many historical spellings, despite changes in pronunciation that render the spellings opaque. The "gh" in "night" and "neighborhood" represents a consonant that has long since disappeared from spoken English. The "ph" in "morphology" and "philosophy" is useful in signaling the Greek etymology of those words but represents a complication of the pattern of sound-symbol correspondences that has been abandoned in Spanish, German, and many other languages that also retain Greek-origin vocabulary items. English can present a challenge for a learner who expects to find each letter always linked to just one sound.

SOURCES OF READING DIFFICULTIES

Reading problems are found among every group and in every primary classroom, although some children with certain demographic characteristics are at greater risk of reading difficulties than others. Precisely how and why this happens has not been fully understood. In some cases, the sources of these reading difficulties

are relatively clear, such as biological deficits that make the processing of sound-symbol relationships difficult; in other cases, the source is experiential such as poor reading instruction.

Biological Deficits

Neuroscience research on reading has expanded understanding of the reading process (Shaywitz, 1996). For example, researchers have now been able to establish a tentative architecture for the component processes of reading (Shaywitz et al., 1998; Shaywitz, 1996). All reading difficulties, whatever their primary etiology, must express themselves through alterations of the brain systems responsible for word identification and comprehension. Even in disadvantaged or other high-risk populations, many children do learn to read, some easily and others with great difficulty. This suggests that, in all populations, reading ability occurs along a continuum, and biological factors are influenced by, and interact with, a reader's experiences. The findings of an anomalous brain system say little about the possibility for change, for remediation, or for response to treatment. It is well known that, particularly in children, neural systems are plastic and responsive to changed input.

Cognitive studies of reading have identified phonological processing as crucial to skillful reading, and so it seems logical to suspect that poor readers may have phonological processing problems. One line of research has looked at phonological processing problems that can be attributed to the underdevelopment or disruption of specific brain systems.

Genetic factors have also been implicated in some reading disabilities, in studies both of family occurrence (Pennington, 1989; Scarborough, 1989) and of twins (Olson et al., 1994). Differences in brain function and behavior associated with reading difficulty may arise from environmental and/or genetic factors. The relative contributions of these two factors to a deficit in reading (children below the local 10th percentile) have been assessed in readers with normal-range intelligence (above 90 on verbal or performance IQ) and apparent educational opportunity (their first language was English and they had regularly attended schools that were at or above national

norms in reading). This research has provided evidence for strong genetic influences on many of these children's deficits in reading (DeFries and Alarcon, 1996) and in related phonological processes (Olson et al., 1989). Recent DNA studies have found evidence for a link between some cases of reading disability and inheritance of a gene or genes on the short arm of chromosome 6 (Cardon et al., 1994; Grigorenko et al., 1997).

It is important to emphasize that evidence for genetic influence on reading difficulty in the selected population described above does not imply genetic influences on reading differences between groups for which there are confounding environmental differences. Such group differences may include socioeconomic status, English as a second language, and other cultural factors. It is also important to emphasize that evidence for genetic influence and anomalous brain development does not mean that a child is condemned to failure in reading. Brain and behavioral development are always based on the interaction between genetic and environmental influences. The genetic and neurobiological evidence does suggest why learning to read may be particularly difficult for some children and why they may require extraordinary instructional support in reading and related phonological processes.

Instructional Influences

A large number of students who should be capable of reading ably given adequate instruction are not doing so, suggesting that the instruction available to them is not appropriate. As Carroll (1963) noted more than three decades ago, if the instruction provided by a school is ineffective or insufficient, many children will have difficulty learning to read (unless additional instruction is provided in the home or elsewhere).

Reading difficulties that arise when the design of regular classroom curriculum, or its delivery, is flawed are sometimes termed "curriculum casualties" (Gickling and Thompson, 1985; Simmons and Kame'enui, in press). Consider an example from a first-grade classroom in the early part of the school year. Worksheets were being used to practice segmentation and blending of words to facili-

tate word recognition. Each worksheet had a key word, with one part of it designated the "chunk" that was alleged to have the same spelling-sound pattern in other words; these other words were listed on the sheet. One worksheet had the word "love" and the chunk "ove.'' Among the other words listed on the sheet, some did indicate the pattern ("glove," "above," "dove"), but others simply do not work as the sheet suggests they should ("Rover," "stove," and "woven"). In lesson plans and instructional activities, such mistakes occur in the accuracy and clarity of the information being taught.

When this occurs consistently, a substantial proportion of students in the classroom are likely to exhibit low achievement (although some students are likely to progress adequately in spite of the impoverished learning situation). If low-quality instruction is confined to one particular teacher, children's progress may be impeded for the year spent in that classroom, but they may overcome this setback when exposed to more adequate teaching in subsequent years. There is evidence, however, that poor instruction in first grade may have long-term effects. Children who have poor instruction in the first year are more seriously harmed by the bad early learning experience and tend to do poorly in schooling across the years (Pianta, 1990).

In some schools, however, the problem is more pervasive, such that low student achievement is schoolwide and persistent. Sometimes the instructional deficiency can be traced to lack of an appropriate curriculum. More often, a host of conditions occur together to contribute to the risk imposed by poor schooling: low expectations for success on the part of the faculty and administration of the school, which may translate into a slow-paced, undemanding curriculum; teachers who are poorly trained in effective methods for teaching beginning readers; the unavailability of books and other materials; noisy and crowded classrooms; and so forth.

It is regrettable that schools with these detrimental characteristics continue to exist anywhere in the United States; since these schools often exist in low-income areas, where resources for children's out-of-school learning are limited, the effects can be very detrimental to students' probabilities of becoming skilled readers (Kozol, 1991; Puma et al., 1997; Natriello et al., 1990). Attending a

school in which low achievement is pervasive and chronic, in and of itself, clearly places a child at risk for reading difficulty. Even within a school that serves most of its students well, an instructional basis for poor reading achievement is possible. This is almost never considered, however, when a child is referred for evaluation of a suspected reading difficulty. Evidence from case study evaluations of children referred for special education indicate that instructional histories of the children are not seriously considered (Klenk and Palincsar, 1996). Rather, when teachers refer students for special services, the "search for pathology" begins and assessment focused on the child continues until some explanatory factor is unearthed that could account for the observed difficulty in reading (Sarason and Doris, 1979).

In sum, a variety of detrimental school practices may place children at risk for poorer achievement in reading than they might otherwise attain. Interventions geared at improving beginning reading instruction, rehabilitating substandard schools, and ensuring adequate teacher preparation are discussed in subsequent chapters.

DEMOGRAPHICS OF READING DIFFICULTIES

A major source of urgency in addressing reading difficulties derives from their distribution in our society. Children from poor families, children of African American and Hispanic descent, and children attending urban schools are at much greater risk of poor reading outcomes than are middle-class, European-American, and suburban children. Studying these demographic disparities can help us identify groups that should be targeted for special prevention efforts. Furthermore, examining the literacy development of children in these higher-risk groups can help us understand something about the course of literacy development and the array of conditions that must be in place to ensure that it proceeds well.

One characteristic of minority populations that has been offered as an explanation for their higher risk of reading difficulties is the use of nonstandard varieties of English or limited proficiency in English. Speaking a nonstandard variety of English can impede the easy acquisition of English literacy by introducing greater deviations

in the representation of sounds, making it hard to develop sound-symbol links. Learning English spelling is challenging enough for speakers of standard mainstream English; these challenges are heightened for some children by a number of phonological and grammatical features of social dialects that make the relation of sound to spelling even more indirect (see Chapter 6).

The number of children who speak other languages and have limited proficiency in English in U.S. schools has risen dramatically over the past two decades and continues to grow. Although the size of the general school population has increased only slightly, the number of students acquiring English as a second language grew by 85 percent nationwide between 1985 and 1992, from fewer than 1.5 million to almost 2.7 million (Goldenberg, 1996). These students now make up approximately 5.5 percent of the population of public school students in the United States; over half (53 percent) of these students are concentrated in grades K-4. Eight percent of kindergarten children speak a native language other than English and are English-language learners (August and Hakuta, 1997).

Non-English-speaking students, like nonstandard dialect speakers, tend to come from low socioeconomic backgrounds and to attend schools with disproportionately high numbers of children in poverty, both of which are known risk factors (see Chapter 4). Hispanic students in the United States, who constitute the largest group of limited-English-proficient students by far, are particularly at risk for reading difficulties. Despite the group's progress in achievement over the past 15 to 20 years, they are about twice as likely as non-Hispanic whites to be reading below average for their age. Achievement gaps in all academic areas between whites and Hispanics, whether they are U.S. or foreign born, appear early and persist throughout their school careers (Kao and Tienda, 1995).

One obvious reason for these achievement differences is the language difference itself. Being taught and tested in English would, of course, put students with limited English proficiency at a disadvantage. These children might not have any reading difficulty at all if they were taught and tested in the language in which they are proficient. Indeed, there is evidence from research in bilingual education that learning to read in one's native language—thus offsetting the

obstacle presented by limited proficiency in English—can lead to superior achievement (Legarreta, 1979; Ramirez et al., 1991). This field is highly contentious and politicized, however, and there is a lack of clear consensus about the advantages and disadvantages of academic instruction in the primary language in contrast to early and intensive exposure to English (August and Hakuta, 1997; Rossell and Baker, 1996).

In any event, limited proficiency in English does not, in and of itself, appear to be entirely responsible for the low reading achievement of these students. Even when taught and tested in Spanish, as the theory and practice of bilingual education dictates, many Spanish-speaking Hispanic students in the United States still demonstrate low levels of reading attainment (Escamilla, 1994; Gersten and Woodward, 1995; Goldenberg and Gallimore, 1991; Slavin and Madden, 1995). This suggests that factors other than lack of English proficiency may also contribute to these children's reading difficulties.

One such factor is cultural differences, that is, the mismatch between the schools and the families in definitions of literacy, in teaching practices, and in defined roles for parents versus teachers (e.g., Jacob and Jordan, 1987; Tharp, 1989); these differences can create obstacles to children's learning to read in school. Others contend that primary cultural differences matter far less than do "secondary cultural discontinuities," such as low motivation and low educational aspirations that are the result of discrimination and limited social and economic opportunities for certain minority groups (Ogbu, 1974, 1982). Still others claim that high motivation and educational aspirations can and do coexist with low achievement (e.g., Labov et al., 1968, working in the African American community; Goldenberg and Gallimore, 1995, in the Hispanic community) and that other factors must therefore explain the differential achievement of culturally diverse groups.

Literacy is positively valued by adults in minority communities, and the positive views are often brought to school by young children (Nettles, 1997). Nonetheless, the ways that reading is used by adults and children varies across families from different cultural groups in ways that may influence children's participation in literacy activities

in school, as Heath (1983) found. And adults in some communities may see very few functional roles for literacy, so that they will be unlikely to provide conditions in the home that are conducive to children's acquisition of reading and writing skills (Purcell-Gates, 1991, 1996). The implications of these various views for prevention and intervention efforts are discussed in Part III of this volume.

It is difficult to distinguish the risk associated with minority status and not speaking English from the risk associated with lower socioeconomic status (SES). Studying the differential experiences of children in middle- and lower-class families can illuminate the factors that affect the development of literacy and thus contribute to the design of prevention and intervention efforts.

The most extensive studies of SES differences have been conducted in Britain. Stubbs (1980) found a much lower percentage of poor readers with higher (7.5 percent) than with lower SES (26.9 percent).  Some have suggested that SES differences in reading achievement are actually a result of differences in the quality of schooling; that is, lower-SES children tend to go to inferior schools, and therefore their achievement is lower because of inferior educational opportunities (Cook, 1991). However, a recent study by Alexander and Entwisle (1996) appears to demonstrate that it is during nonschool time—before they start and during the summer months—that low-SES children fall academically behind their higher-SES peers and get progressively further behind. During the school months (at least through elementary school) the rate of progress is virtually identical for high- and low-SES children.

Regardless of the specific explanation, differences in literacy achievement among children as a result of socioeconomic status are pronounced. Thirty years ago Coleman et al. (1966) and Moynihan (1965) reported that the educational deficit of children from low-income families was present at school entry and increased with each year they stayed in school. Evidence of SES differences in reading achievement has continued to accumulate (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1981, 1995). Reading achievement of children in affluent suburban schools is significantly and consistently higher than that of children in "disadvantaged" urban schools (e.g.,

NAEP, 1994, 1995; White, 1982; Hart and Risley, 1995). An important conceptual distinction was made by White (1982) in a groundbreaking meta-analysis. White discovered that, at the individual level, SES is related to achievement only very modestly. However, at the aggregate level, that is, when measured as a school or community characteristic, the effects of SES are much more pronounced. A low-SES child in a generally moderate or higher-SES school or community is far less at risk than an entire school or community of low-SES children.

The existence of SES differences in reading outcomes offers by itself little information about the specific experiences or activities that influence literacy development at home. Indeed, a look at socioeconomic factors alone can do no more than nominate the elements that differ between middle-class and lower-class homes. Researchers have tried to identify the specific familial interactions that can account for social class differences, as well as describe those interactions around literacy that do occur in low-income homes. For example, Baker et al. (1995) compared opportunities for informal literacy learning among preschoolers in the homes of middle-income and low-income urban families. They found that children from middle-income homes had greater opportunities for informal literacy learning than children of low-income homes. Low-income parents, particularly African-American parents, reported more reading skills practice and homework (e.g., flash cards, letter practice) with their kindergarten-age children than did middle-income parents. Middle-income parents reported only slightly more joint book reading with their children than did low-income families. But these middle-income parents reported more play with print and more independent reading by children. Among the middle-class families in this study, 90 percent reported that their child visited the library at least once a month, whereas only 43 percent of the low-income families reported such visits. The findings of Baker et al. that low-income homes typically do offer opportunities for literacy practice, though perhaps of a different nature from middle-class homes, have been confirmed in ethnographic work by researchers such as Teale (1986), Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988), Taylor and Strickland (1986), Gadsden (1993), Delgado-Gaitan (1990), and Goldenberg et al. (1992).

ABOUT THIS REPORT

Charge to the committee.

The Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children has conducted a study of the effectiveness of interventions for young children who are at risk of having problems in learning to read. It was carried out at the request of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs and its Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Early Childhood Institute) and the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development (Human Learning and Behavior Branch). The sponsors requested that the study address young children who are at -risk for reading difficulties, within the context of reading acquisition for all children. The scope included children from birth through grade 3, in special and regular education settings. The project had three goals: (1) to comprehend a rich research base; (2) to translate the research findings into advice and guidance for parents, educators, publishers, and others involved in the care and instruction of the young; and (3) to convey this advice to the targeted audiences through a variety of publications, conferences, and other outreach activities. In making its recommendations, the committee has highlighted key research findings that should be integrated into existing and future program interventions to enhance the reading abilities of young children, particularly instruction at the preschool and early elementary levels.

The Committee's Perspective

Our recommendations extend to all children. Of course, we are most worried about children at high risk of developing reading difficulties. However, there is little evidence that children experiencing difficulties learning to read, even those with identifiable learning disabilities, need radically different sorts of supports than children at low risk, although they may need much more intensive support. Childhood environments that support early literacy development and

excellent instruction are important for all children. Excellent instruction is the best intervention for children who demonstrate problems learning to read.

Knowledge about reading derives from work conducted in several disciplines, in laboratory settings as well as in homes, classrooms, and schools, and from a range of methodological perspectives. Reading is studied by ethnographers, sociologists, historians, child developmentalists, neurobiologists, and psycholinguists. Reading has been approached as a matter of cognition, culture, socialization, instruction, and language. The committee that wrote this report embraces all these perspectives—but we acknowledge the difficulty of integrating them into a coherent picture.

The committee agrees that reading is inextricably embedded in educational, social, historical, cultural, and biological realities. These realities determine the meaning of terms like literate as well as limits on access to literacy and its acquisition. Literacy is also essentially developmental, and appropriate forms of participation, instruction, and assessment in literacy for preschoolers differ from those for first graders and also from those for sophisticated critical readers.

Reading as a cognitive and psycholinguistic activity requires the use of form (the written code) to obtain meaning (the message to be understood), within the context of the reader's purpose (for learning, for enjoyment, for insight). In children, one can see a developmental oscillation between these foci: the preschool child who can pretend to read a story she has heard many times is demonstrating an understanding that reading is about content or meaning; the same child as a first grader, having been taught some grapheme-phoneme correspondences, may read the same storybook haltingly, disfluently, by sounding out the words she had earlier memorized, demonstrating an extreme focus on form. The mature, fluent, practiced reader shows more rapid oscillations between form-focused and meaning-focused reading: she can rely on automatic processing of form and focus on meaning until she encounters an unfamiliar pharmaceutical term or a Russian surname, whereupon the processing of meaning is disrupted while the form is decoded.

Groups define the nature as well as the value of literacy in culturally specific ways as well. A full picture of literacy from a cultural

and historical perspective would require an analysis of the distribution of literacy skills, values, and uses across classes and genders as well as religious and social groups; it would require a discussion of the connections between professional, religious, and leisure practices and literacy as defined by those practices. Such a discussion would go far beyond the scope of this report, which focuses on reading and reading difficulties as defined by mainstream opinions in the United States, in particular by U.S. educational institutions at the end of the twentieth century. In that context, employability, citizenship, and participation in the culture require high levels of literacy achievement.

Nature of the Evidence

Our review and summary of the literature are framed by some very basic principles of evidence evaluation. These principles derive from our commitment to the scientific method, which we view not as a strict set of rules but instead as a broad framework defined by some general guidelines. Some of the most important are that (1) science aims for knowledge that is publicly verifiable, (2) science seeks testable theories—not unquestioned edicts, (3) science employs methods of systematic empiricism (see Box 1-2). Science renders knowledge public by such procedures as peer review and such mechanisms as systematic replication (see Box 1-3). Testable theories are those that are potentially falsifiable—that is, defined in such a way that empirical evidence inconsistent with them can in principle be accumulated. It is the willingness to give up or alter a theory in the face of evidence that is one of the most central defining features of the scientific method. All of the conclusions reached in this report

are provisional in this important sense: they have empirical consequences that, if proven incorrect, should lead to their alteration.

The methods of systematic empiricism employed in the study of reading difficulties are many and varied. They include case studies, correlational studies, experimental studies, narrative analyses, quasi-experimental studies, interviews and surveys, epidemiological studies, ethnographies, and many others. It is important to understand how the results from studies employing these methods have been used in synthesizing the conclusions of this report.

First, we have utilized the principle of converging evidence. Scientists and those who apply scientific knowledge must often make a judgment about where the preponderance of evidence points. When this is the case, the principle of converging evidence is an important tool, both for evaluating the state of the research evidence and also for deciding how future experiments should be designed. Most areas of science contain competing theories. The extent to which one particular theory can be viewed as uniquely supported by a particular study depends on the extent to which other competing explanations have been ruled out. A particular experimental result is never equally relevant to all competing theoretical explanations. A given experiment may be a very strong test of one or two alternative theories but a weak test of others. Thus, research is highly convergent when a series of experiments consistently support a given theory while collectively eliminating the most important competing explanations. Although no single experiment can rule out all alternative explanations, taken collectively, a series of partially diagnostic studies can

lead to a strong conclusion if the data converge. This aspect of the convergence principle implies that we should expect to see many different methods employed in all areas of educational research. A relative balance among the methodologies used to arrive at a given conclusion is desirable because the various classes of research techniques have different strengths and weaknesses.

Another important context for understanding the present synthesis of research is provided by the concept of synergism between descriptive and hypothesis-testing research methods. Research on a particular problem often proceeds from more exploratory methods (ones unlikely to yield a causal explanation) to methods that allow stronger causal inferences. For example, interest in a particular hypothesis may originally stem from a case study of an unusually successful teacher. Alternately, correlational studies may suggest hypotheses about the characteristics of teachers who are successful. Subsequently, researchers may attempt experiments in which variables identified in the case study or correlation are manipulated in order to isolate a causal relationship. These are common progressions in areas of research in which developing causal models of a phenomenon is the paramount goal. They reflect the basic principle of experimental design that the more a study controls extraneous variables the stronger is the causal inference. A true experiment in controlling all extraneous variables is thus the strongest inferential tool.

Qualitative methods, including case studies of individual learners or teachers, classroom ethnographies, collections of introspective interview data, and so on, are also valuable in producing complementary data when carrying out correlational or experimental studies. Teaching and learning are complex phenomena that can be enhanced or impeded by many factors. Experimental manipulation in the teaching/learning context typically is less ''complete" than in other contexts; in medical research, for example, treatments can be delivered through injections or pills, such that neither the patient nor the clinician knows who gets which treatment, and in ways that do not require that the clinician be specifically skilled in or committed to the success of a particular treatment.

Educational treatments are often delivered by teachers who may enhance or undermine the difference between treatments and controls; thus, having qualitative data on the authenticity of treatment and on the attitudes of the teachers involved is indispensable. Delivering effective instruction occurs in the context of many other factors—the student-teacher relationship, the teacher's capability at maintaining order, the expectations of the students and their parents—that can neither be ignored nor controlled. Accordingly, data about them must be made available. In addition, since even programs that are documented to be effective will be impossible to implement on a wider scale if teachers dislike them, data on teacher beliefs and attitudes will be useful after demonstration of treatment effects as well (see discussion below of external validity).

Furthermore, the notion of a comparison between a treatment group and an untreated control is often a myth when dealing with social treatments. Families who are assigned not to receive some intervention for their children (e.g., Head Start placement, one-on-one tutoring) often seek out alternatives for themselves that approximate or improve on the treatment features. Understanding the dynamic by which they do so, through collecting observational and interview data, can prevent misguided conclusions from studies designed as experiments. Thus, although experimental studies represent the most powerful design for drawing causal inferences, their limitations must be recognized.

Another important distinction in research on reading is that between retrospective and prospective studies. On one hand, retrospective studies start from observed cases of reading difficulties and attempt to generate explanations for the problem. Such studies may involve a comparison group of normal readers, but of course inference from the finding of differences between two groups, one of whom has already developed reading difficulties and one of whom has not, can never be very strong. Studies that involve matching children with reading problems to others at the same level of reading skill (rather than to age mates) address some of these problems but at the cost of introducing other sources of difficulty—comparing two groups of different ages, with different school histories, and different levels of perceived success in school.

Prospective studies, on the other hand, are quite expensive and time consuming, particularly if they include enough participants to ensure a sizable group of children with reading difficulties. They do, however, enable the researcher to trace developmental pathways for participants who are not systematically different from one another at recruitment and thus to draw stronger conclusions about the likely directionality of cause-effect relationships.

As part of the methodological context for this report, we wish to address explicitly a misconception that some readers may have derived from our emphasis on the logic of an experiment as the most powerful justification for a causal conclusion. By such an emphasis, we do not mean to imply that only studies employing true experimental logic are to be used in drawing conclusions. To the contrary, as mentioned previously in our discussion of converging evidence, the results from many different types of investigations are usually weighed to derive a general conclusion, and the basis for the conclusion rests on the convergence observed from the variety of methods used. This is particularly true in the domains of classroom and curriculum research.

For example, it is often (but not always) the case that experimental investigations are high in internal validity but limited in external validity, whereas correlational studies are often high in external validity but low in internal validity. Internal validity concerns whether we can infer a causal effect for a particular variable. The more a study approximates the logic of a true experiment (i.e., includes manipulation, control, and randomization), the more we can make a strong causal inference. The internal validity of qualitative research studies depends, of course, on their capacity to reflect reality adequately and accurately. Procedures for ensuring adequacy of qualitative data include triangulation (comparison of findings from different research perspectives), cross-case analyses, negative case analysis, and so forth. Just as for quantitative studies, our review of qualitative studies has been selective and our conclusions took into account the methodological rigor of each study within its own paradigm.

External validity concerns the generalizability of the conclusion to the population and setting of interest. Internal validity and exter-

nal validity are often traded off across different methodologies. Experimental laboratory investigations are high in internal validity but may not fully address concerns about external validity. Field classroom investigations are often quite high in external validity but, because of the logistical difficulties involved in carrying out such investigations, are often quite low in internal validity. Hence, there is a need to look for a convergence of results—not just consistency across studies conducted with one method. Convergence across different methods increases confidence that the conclusions have both internal and external validity.

A not uncommon misconception is that correlational (i.e., nonexperimental) studies cannot contribute to knowledge. This is false for a number of reasons. First, many scientific hypotheses are stated in terms of correlation or lack of correlation, so that such studies are directly relevant to these hypotheses. Second, although correlation does not imply causation, causation does imply correlation. That is, although a correlational study cannot definitively prove a causal hypothesis, it may rule one out. Third, correlational studies are more useful than they used to be because some of the recently developed complex correlational designs allow for limited causal inferences. The technique of partial correlation, widely used in studies cited in this report, provides a case in point. It makes possible a test of whether a particular third variable is accounting for a relationship.

Perhaps the most important argument for quasi-experimental studies, however, is that some variables (for instance, human malnutrition, physical disabilities) simply cannot be manipulated for ethical reasons. Other variables, such as birth order, sex, and age, are inherently correlational because they cannot be manipulated, and therefore the scientific knowledge concerning them must be based on correlational evidence. Finally, logistical difficulties in carrying out classroom and curriculum research often render impossible the logic of the true experiment. However, this circumstance is not unique to educational or psychological research. Astronomers obviously cannot manipulate the variables affecting the objects they study, yet they are able to arrive at scientifically founded conclusions.

Outline of the Report

In Chapter 2 we present a picture of typical skilled reading and the process by which it develops. We see this as crucial background information for understanding reading difficulties and their prevention.

Part II presents a fuller picture of the children we are addressing in this report. We survey the population of children with reading difficulties in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4 we discuss risk factors that may help identify children who will have problems learning to read.

Part III presents our analysis of preventions and interventions, including instruction. Chapter 5focuses on the preschool years. Chapter 6 discusses prevention and literacy instruction delivered in classrooms in kindergarten and the primary grades. Chapter 7 presents our analysis of organizational factors, at the classroom, school, or district level, that contribute to prevention and intervention for grades 1 through 3. Chapter 8 continues discussion of grades 1 through 3, presenting more targeted intervention efforts to help children who are having reading difficulties.

Part IV presents our discussion of how the information reviewed in the report should be used to change practice. Chapter 9 discusses a variety of domains in which action is needed and obstacles to change in those domains. Chapter 10 presents our recommendations for practice, policy, and research.

While most children learn to read fairly well, there remain many young Americans whose futures are imperiled because they do not read well enough to meet the demands of our competitive, technology-driven society. This book explores the problem within the context of social, historical, cultural, and biological factors.

Recommendations address the identification of groups of children at risk, effective instruction for the preschool and early grades, effective approaches to dialects and bilingualism, the importance of these findings for the professional development of teachers, and gaps that remain in our understanding of how children learn to read. Implications for parents, teachers, schools, communities, the media, and government at all levels are discussed.

The book examines the epidemiology of reading problems and introduces the concepts used by experts in the field. In a clear and readable narrative, word identification, comprehension, and other processes in normal reading development are discussed.

Against the background of normal progress, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children examines factors that put children at risk of poor reading. It explores in detail how literacy can be fostered from birth through kindergarten and the primary grades, including evaluation of philosophies, systems, and materials commonly used to teach reading.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

“Reading Difficulties in Young Children” by Clemens et al. Essay

Analysis and reflection analyze.

The article under investigation is Reading Difficulties in Young Children: Beyond Basic Early Literacy Skills by Clemens, Ragan, Widales-Benitez. It is devoted to the analysis of reading skills among children and the most common problems that might appear during their education. Traditionally, the acquisition of early literacy skills is considered one of the most important processes that impact the further development of a child and his/her skills in the future (Clements, Ragan, & Widales-Benitez, 2016). For this reason, the authors examine factors that stipulate the emergence of difficulties in reading acquisition.

The article is written by three researchers. Nathan Clemens, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of school psychology at Texas A&M University. He has already created numerous research works devoted to the investigation of early academic skills and has acquired several grants. The second author, Kelsey Ragan, also works at Texas A&M University with Clements to investigate the above-mentioned issue and formulate its most important aspects. Finally, Oscar Widales-Benitez is their colleague working at the same University and cooperating with these authors to reveal the most problematic aspects of the sphere.

In the selected paper, the authors state that vocabulary knowledge, behavioral regulation, teacher knowledge, and school factors, and individualized instruction are the central factors impacting early literacy skills in children and stipulating their outcomes (Clements et al., 2016). In such a way, the researchers suggest that the implementation of a particular policy aimed at the mitigation of these difficulties might result in numerous positive shifts in childrens early literacy and academic successes. Clements et al. (2016) also promote the idea of the gradual implementation of the recommended policy.

In general, the paper could be analyzed regarding the teaching context. The fact is that the formation of early literacy in children and the cultivation of their cognitive skills are the fundamental tasks of teachers nowadays. For this reason, the key problems that are described by the authors in their paper are important for the improved comprehending of the methods to overcome all challenges and create the basis for the further development of a child (Clements et al., 2016). Additionally, the in-depth understanding of the root causes that result in the deterioration of early literacy in children can help teachers to create a more beneficial environment free of stressors and factors that might result in poor outcomes.

Resting on my own field experience, I should also say that the paper becomes important for a better understanding of how to work with children who might have problems with the acquisition of important literacy skills or some other experiences. Therefore, speaking about such factors as vocabulary knowledge, behavioral regulation, teacher knowledge, and school factors, and individualized instruction (Clements et al., 2016). I should also emphasize a significant role they play in the formation of the needed competence in children and their successful development. In such a way, one can admit the high practical use of the selected paper.

As it has already been stated, the authors assume that the introduction of a particular policy aimed at the investigation of the most important factors that impact children might help to solve the problem and attain better academic successes in children regarding their enhanced literacy skills. In such a way, the focus on improved outcomes could be considered one of the apparent advantages of the researchers argument (Clements et al., 2016). Moreover, enumerating the essential factors like vocabulary, instruction, etc., the authors cultivate teachers enhanced understanding of the problem.

At the same time, there are several drawbacks and limitations to the authors assumptions. First, the authors lack credible pieces of evidence proving their assumptions and showing that the enhanced attention devoted to formulated factor might trigger significant alterations in wide populations, now only in children living in poverty and English learners (Clements et al., 2016). Additionally, there are several limits regarding the number of participants and investigation of literature devoted to the issue. For this reason, the authors emphasize the necessity of future research of the sphere and its significant complexity.

Nevertheless, cogitating about the basic ideas of their paper, the authors provide relevant information about how the outlined obstacles might impact literacy levels in children and how they might benefit from the implementation of policies suggested by the researchers. Moreover, the paper investigates the existing perspectives on the issue with the primary aim to reveal the current approach to early literacy skills and their cultivation in children (Clements et al., 2016). For this reason, the investigators manage to support their basic assumptions with a detailed explanation and credible pieces of evidence.

Altogether, the given work could be considered an important source that can be used to attain the enhanced comprehending of early literacy skills in children and the way they should be formed to achieve the most desirable results. It demonstrates the most important obstacles that deteriorate results and stipulate the appearance of undesired outcomes in children. Moreover, it could be used as the basis for the future investigation of the topic and its in-depth analysis. In such a way, the article should be recommended for researchers working in the sphere.

Clements, N., Ragan, K., & Widales-Benitez, P. (2016). Reading difficulties in young children: Beyond basic early literacy skills. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (2), 177-184. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 18). "Reading Difficulties in Young Children" by Clemens et al. https://ivypanda.com/essays/reading-difficulties-in-young-children-by-clemens-et-al/

""Reading Difficulties in Young Children" by Clemens et al." IvyPanda , 18 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/reading-difficulties-in-young-children-by-clemens-et-al/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '"Reading Difficulties in Young Children" by Clemens et al'. 18 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. ""Reading Difficulties in Young Children" by Clemens et al." February 18, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/reading-difficulties-in-young-children-by-clemens-et-al/.

1. IvyPanda . ""Reading Difficulties in Young Children" by Clemens et al." February 18, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/reading-difficulties-in-young-children-by-clemens-et-al/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . ""Reading Difficulties in Young Children" by Clemens et al." February 18, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/reading-difficulties-in-young-children-by-clemens-et-al/.

• Letters from the Earth
• Industrial Detroit: A View From a Literature
• Psychoanalysis and Madness by Freud and Lacan
• Disney's "The Little Mermaid" Adaptation
• Reading Vocabulary: Before, During, After
• Reading Literacy Development and Instruction
• Vocabulary Instruction for History Students: Vocabulary Skills as a Crucial Component of Studying
• Problems of Reading and Literacy
• Comprehensive Literacy Model
• Article Reflection about Literacy
• Fourth-Grade Slump in Reading and Writing
• Group Learning and Cheating in Classrooms
• Activities for Children with Basic Language Proficiency
• Literacy Challenges at the Postsecondary Level
• Learning Challenges for Nursing Students

• Our Mission

5 Ways to Support Students Who Struggle With Reading Comprehension

These strategies can help students who are able to decode well but have difficulty understanding what they read—and they’re beneficial for all students.

When we think of reading issues, we often imagine children who struggle to decode the letters in text and turn them into spoken language. This type of struggling reader has a very difficult time figuring out what many of the words are and has poor phonological (speech-sound) skills. However, there are also many students who sound like they’re reading beautifully but have difficulty with understanding vocabulary and figurative language, inferencing, verbal reasoning, grammatical development, and oral expression.

As children get older, if they are decoding text well we assume they are reading well. Once a person learns to decode, reading comprehension becomes more about language comprehension and focus. At this transition, starting around third grade, teachers may begin to notice some students who decode text fluently but are not understanding.

Since this type of struggling reader is less noticeable than ones who have difficulty decoding, they often slip under the radar until they begin to fail standardized state comprehension tests. Even then, their issues may go undetected for a long time, resulting in middle and high school students who sound like they’re reading but understand nothing that they have read.

These struggling readers should be targeted for remediation—the earlier the better. However, remediation consisting of practice passages and questions may be ineffective as it focuses too narrowly on text-based skills.

Supporting Students Who Struggle With Comprehension

Here are five strategies to try out with students who read fluently but struggle to comprehend what they’re reading.

1. Target overall comprehension of language: Recent research reveals that reading comprehension difficulties may stem from an underlying oral language weakness that exists from early childhood, before reading is even taught. It turns out that students who have poor reading comprehension also often understand fewer spoken words and less of what they hear, and have worse spoken grammar. So, to address reading comprehension deficits effectively, educators may have to use an approach that teaches vocabulary, thinking skills, and comprehension first in spoken language and then in reading and written language.

2. Teach vocabulary: Because students with poor comprehension often have poor vocabulary skills and understand less of what they hear, it’s helpful to teach the meanings of new words through the use of multisensory strategies like graphic organizers, pictures, and mnemonics. Improving their overall language skills increases the likelihood that they will understand the words they encounter in written text. Since it is impossible to know every word one might encounter, students should be taught about the different types of context clues and how to use them to determine the meaning of unknown words.

3. Teach thinking strategies: Once students have the vocabulary to be able to make it through a text, they often struggle with the complex thinking or sustained attention required to keep up with all of the important details and to access information that is implied but not directly stated. Teachers can instruct students on cognitive strategies they can use. Many common text reading strategies—such as annotation, SQ3R , and the KWL chart —make use of these thinking strategies, including:

• Discussing or activating prior knowledge,
• Developing questions while reading,
• Connecting what they are reading to another text, something they have seen, or something they have experienced,
• Visualizing or picturing what they are reading,
• Making predictions about what will come next in the text,
• Looking back for keywords and rereading in order to clarify or answer questions, and
• Thinking aloud to model the strategies and thought processes needed for comprehension.

Students can learn and then use the strategies that work best for them depending on the text they’re reading. Pulling deeper meaning out of text through the use of thinking strategies can be beneficial not just to reading comprehension but also to writing.

4. Have students practice reciprocal teaching: Once taught, cognitive strategies can be consistently practiced and implemented through the use of reciprocal teaching , which encourages students to take a leadership role in their learning and begin to think about their thought process while listening or reading. Teachers can use reciprocal teaching during class discussions, with text that is read aloud, and later with text that is read in groups. The students should rotate between the following roles:

• Questioner , who poses questions about parts of the lesson, discussion, or text that are unclear or confusing, or to help make connections with previously learned material.
• Summarizer , who sums up each important point or detail from the lesson, discussion, or text.
• Clarifier , who tries to address the Questioner’s issues and make sure that parts they found confusing are clear to others.
• Predictor , who makes a prediction about what will happen next based on what was presented, discussed, or read,

5. Directly teach comprehension skills: Students should be directly taught comprehension skills such as sequencing, story structure using the plot mountain, how to make an inference and draw a conclusion, and the different types of figurative language. Students should have the opportunity to first use the skills with text that they hear the teacher read aloud, and then later with text that they read independently at their own level.

The comprehension skills and strategies listed above can be used with the whole class, as they closely align with reading and language arts standards for elementary and middle school students. Teachers can help students select reading material with vocabulary that matches their current ability levels so that within a classroom, students are reading text and working on vocabulary at levels that are accessible for each of them.

As literacy lags nationwide, Purdue researcher highlights ways to enhance reading and writing in young children

Written By: Rebecca Hoffa, [email protected]

A text message from a friend. A product label at the grocery store. A street sign. Even in the most basic elements of day-to-day life, reading is everywhere.

Cammie McBride , professor in the Purdue University Department of Human Development and Family Science and associate dean for research in the College of Health and Human Sciences , has dedicated her career to taking a global approach toward understanding how children learn to read, exploring literacy across English and Chinese languages, among others.

“Children need to learn to read and write because it helps us navigate our environments,” McBride said. “If we can’t read, that’s more difficult. If you look worldwide, illiteracy is correlated with gross domestic product and the learning of a country’s people.”

Cammie McBride

From contributing to a massive open online course (MOOC) titled “Teaching Struggling Readers Around the World” to developing new resources and screening capabilities, McBride’s developmental psychology approach toward literacy ranges from cognitive linguistics, or how the brain processes language, to the relationships among parents, children and teachers and how those influence reading and writing.

McBride also serves as a co-lead on a $1.5 million grant to strengthen literacy preparation for Indiana teachers using science-based methods.

“My whole career, I’ve tried to look at how children read in different aspects,” McBride said. “I’m really interested in: Does reading develop from birth or before birth even? There are lots of aspects that go into reading that start at the very beginning. I’ve always been interested in those developmental models.”

McBride noted that one of her most interesting research findings has been enhancing understanding of a new cognitive-linguistic skill that has a direct impact for reading in Chinese as well as vocabulary in English, Dutch and other languages. The task requires children to put together morphemes, or the smallest unit of meaning in language, in ways that make sense. For example, if a teacher or parent gave the example that the sun going down in the sky is called a sunset and then asked the child what the moon going down in the sky would be called, the expectation would be the child would answer “moonset.” They’re putting together smaller units in ways that make sense.

“I think this task is really useful because we can test vocabulary to improve vocabulary, but this is another way, which is a focus on morphemes and how they come together,” McBride said. “If you understand how to put these together to make new aspects of meaning, you tend to be a better reader in Chinese, but also, this is a really good way to test for kids’ vocabulary development over time in every language. It’s a fun task — kids love to do that.”

McBride uses cognitive-linguistic skills like the example above in her research to understand methods for assessing children’s literacy and training teachers and families in what children need to learn to read. In order to read, McBride explained children must develop both oral language, such as vocabulary and forming sentences, as well as an understanding of print, such as understanding letters and their sounds. She explained that assessing children’s literacy skills early is important to keep them on track in their reading and writing development.

“These cognitive-linguistic skills are things we use in assessment and training,” McBride said. “Most 3- and 4-year-olds cannot read, and it would be weird to try to test them with reading materials before they can read, but you need to catch them quickly so that they don’t have a sense of failure and are always trying to catch up. If you test them at 3, 4 or 5 on cognitive-linguistic skills, this often can be a good way to determine if they’re at risk for reading difficulties and then give them some tools to help them improve.”

McBride mentioned dialogic reading is an effective tool parents can use to build up their child’s language skills. Rather than simply reading a book and looking at the pictures or testing the child on knowledge presented in the book, dialogic reading turns the process of reading into a conversation. Parents can ask open-ended questions, such as what the child thinks will happen next or if they’ve ever had a similar situation happen to them. The goal is to encourage two-sided communication.

If the child is struggling with reading, McBride’s go-to piece of advice is giving them more practice. While the same learning methods still can be effective with students who have a learning disorder, such as dyslexia, they may need to put more time and energy into practicing the reading process. McBride suggested literacy-based video games as a great tool to help children master literacy skills they may be struggling with. The important thing to keep in mind is to avoid burning the child out on reading.

“Keep it light because the other part of reading besides oral language and print is motivation,” McBride said. “You don’t want to get kids to feel like they’re being tested early; you want them to get interested themselves.”

After various nationwide setbacks toward literacy resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, McBride is currently looking to take her research one step further by making literacy tests, which screen for children’s risks for reading problems and often are expensive and require a licensed educational psychologist to administer, more accessible. Her most recent work is focusing on the development of affordable online tests for children and families — a significant step in continuing to improve children’s reading preparation.

“If we want to understand if children are maybe at risk for reading and writing problems early, it’s good to have tests that can help us to determine that,” McBride said.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Teaching Word Identification to Students with Reading Difficulties and Disabilities

The majority of students identified with learning disabilities (LDs) are primarily impaired in reading ( Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007 ). Many students who have other high-incidence disabilities (e.g., behavioral disorders) also have serious reading difficulties ( Benner, Nelson, Ralston, & Mooney, 2010 ). Although some students with disabilities are impaired in reading comprehension even though they can read words fairly accurately, the most commonly occurring reading disability is characterized by inaccurate word reading (Torgesen, 2000; 2005 ). In this paper we will describe evidence-based word identification instruction for students with reading disabilities and for those with serious word reading difficulties who have not been identified as having reading disabilities, as students in these two groups have been found to respond similarly to kind of instruction we will describe ( Benner et al, 2010 ; Fletcher et al., 2007 ). We will refer to this group of students collectively as students with serious word reading difficulties (RD).

The need to teach students with RD to read is urgent, as the consequences of low reading proficiency are serious. Students who do not learn to read adequately are more likely to have pervasive academic difficulties and are at high risk for school dropout ( Alliance for Excellent Education, 2002 ). Poor reading has also been related to a higher incidence of delinquency ( Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture, 1997 ) and suicide ( Daniel et al., 2006 ). Adding to the urgency of this situation is the fact that, with typical instruction, the vast majority of students who do not learn to read adequately in the early elementary grades remain impaired in reading as long as they are in school ( Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1996 ; Juel, 1988 ; Torgesen & Burgess, 1998 ). In addition, early difficulties with basic reading skills typically result in limited time engaged in text reading ( Juel, 1988 ; Stanovich, 1986 ); because of this lack of exposure to text, a decoding problem may eventually become a generalized reading deficit characterized by low fluency, poor vocabulary, and limited world knowledge, all contributing to impaired reading comprehension (Stanovich).

Unfortunately, traditional approaches to special education services often fail to close the gap between students with RD and average readers; at best, special education programs tend to stabilize the reading development of students with disabilities so that they do not fall farther behind. For example, in a study of special education reading instruction for students in Grades 3–6, Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (1998) found that students’ standard scores in reading rose by an average of only 0.04 standard deviations per year. If a student performing at the 5th percentile progressed at this rate, he or she would perform at only the 9th percentile 8 years later ( Torgesen, Rashotte, Alexander, Alexander, & MacPhee, 2003 ).

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of evidence-based instructional practices for teaching word reading to students with RD. We define evidence-based practices in word reading instruction as instructional processes and routines that have been shown to be effective in teaching most students with RD to read words. Although no instructional approach is effective for every individual student, the practices we describe are supported by converging research findings from multiple studies. To provide a foundation for this discussion of word reading instruction, we begin with a description of the reading process. Then we describe the role of assessment in teaching word reading. Next, we describe evidence-based reading instruction and intervention for students with RD, including a set of general principles for effective instruction. The next section addresses additional considerations for the implementation of effective word reading instruction.

The Reading Process

Reading is a complex endeavor that is made up of multiple components, all of which must be executed and orchestrated by the reader with the goal of making meaning from printed text. The reader must quickly and accurately recognize printed words, understand the meanings of the words, and create a cohesive mental model of the meaning of the text (e.g., make sense of the text by making inferences based on connections within and beyond the current text; Snow, 2002 ). Gough and Tunmer (1986) proposed a simple model of the reading process that suggested that effective reading is the product of the ability to decode print and the ability to comprehend language. In other words, students must learn to recognize known words immediately, quickly and efficiently decode unknown words, and read connected text quickly and accurately. They must also develop a sufficient vocabulary, a body of world knowledge, and oral language skills that will enable them to comprehend increasingly complex language. To read advanced text, they must command a large body of general and subject-specific vocabulary and background knowledge, sophisticated syntax (i.e., language usage), and text structures (e.g., narrative, compare and contrast) commonly used in written text, including text that addresses specialized domains such as chemistry or English literature. Mature, proficient readers are able to execute many of these processes automatically, without direct attention, while simultaneously building a mental representation of the meaning of the text, monitoring their own understanding of the text, and thinking critically about the text they are reading (e.g., Ehri, 2002 ).

Basic Reading Skills

At the most basic level, beginning readers must become aware of individual sounds and groupings of sounds within the oral speech stream. Spoken language consists of words composed of syllables that are in turn composed of individual sounds; however, when a person listens to oral speech, these words and word parts tend to run together. The beginning reader must become aware that oral language is made up of these components, a competency commonly referred to as phonological awareness ( Blachman, 2000 ). Phonemic awareness, a subcategory of phonological awareness, is the recognition that orally spoken words are composed of individual sounds, or phonemes. The ability to hear and manipulate the sounds within words has been found to be highly predictive of reading proficiency (Blachman; Schatschneider, Fletcher, Francis, Carlson, & Foorman, 2004 ), and deficits in this area are characteristic of persons with dyslexia ( Shaywitz, 2003 ). In addition to this awareness of sounds in spoken language, beginning readers of alphabetic languages must understand that letters and letter combinations represent spoken sounds. This is commonly called the “alphabetic principle.” Although the awareness of phonemes and an understanding of the alphabetic principle normally develop in preschool through grade 1, some older students with serious word reading difficulties benefit from instruction in these basic competencies (e.g., Calhoon, 2005 ; Lovett et al., 2000 , Torgesen et al., 2001 ).

Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension

Accurate and quick word recognition is necessary—though not sufficient—for making meaning from print. For the most part, word recognition is accomplished in two ways—through phonological decoding (i.e., applying phonics to “break the code”) and by recognizing intact words or parts of words “at sight” ( Ehri, 2002 ). Although proficient readers use context, or the meaning of the text, to monitor their reading accuracy and to refine word identification, there is evidence that they do not rely on context as a primary way to identify unknown words (Ehri). Weak readers overrely on context in order to compensate for inadequate word-level reading ability, which is inefficient as only about 10% of the words that are important to the meaning of passages can be inferred correctly from context alone ( Gough and Walsh; 1991 ). As students increase in reading proficiency, they are able to recognize more and more words instantly and automatically, and reading becomes more fluent. Essentially, fluent readers have very large “sight word” vocabularies ( Torgesen et al., 2003 ). Reading fluency is affected not only by the speed of word recognition but also by the reader’s ongoing comprehension of the text, and fluent readers are able to interpret the phrasing and inflections in the text appropriately ( Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001 ). Fluency is highly predictive of how well students in the elementary grades will comprehend the text they read (Fuchs et al.). Researchers have had mixed findings about the relationship between fluency and comprehension in older students; in general, this relationship weakens as students progress through the upper grades ( Denton et al., 2011 ).

Reading comprehension, the ultimate goal of the reading process, is affected by many factors, including word reading accuracy, reading fluency, vocabulary, world or background knowledge, and the ability to make inferences and strategically process text ( Sweet & Snow, 2002 ). This means that students with reading comprehension difficulties differ in their needs related to word reading instruction. Young children who are at risk for or experiencing reading difficulties in Grades K–2 almost always need a full program of instruction in basic decoding and word recognition, as these are the years in which children are expected to master the code and learn to recognize many high-frequency words at sight. Students in Grades 3 and above who have reading difficulties may need (a) a full program of instruction in basic decoding and word recognition, (b) short-term concentrated word identification instruction focused primarily on multisyllable words and structural analysis, or (c) ongoing word study that provides only minimal support in basic word recognition but equips students for decoding and spelling complex words as well as using morphemic analysis to determine word meanings (i.e., using knowledge of meaningful word parts such as affixes and roots).

The Role of Assessment in Word Identification Instruction

Four types of assessments serve important purposes in an effective reading program. Three types of assessments are formative, meaning they are designed to provide ongoing information to educators to inform their instruction decisions: screeners, diagnostic assessments, and progress monitoring assessments. These formative assessments are used to identify students with reading difficulties, design instruction, and gauge whether students are responding adequately to instruction. The fourth type is summative assessment, designed to assess whether students have met important goals and benchmarks, typically at the end of the school year. Summative assessments include outcome measures and statewide accountability tests. All of these assessments are important, but our primary focus will be on formative assessment because of its key role in word reading instruction.

Screening and Progress Monitoring Assessments

Screening assessments are brief assessments designed to identify students who may be at risk for RD or require supplemental intervention. These brief assessments always have some degree of error; they overidentify students who do not actually need supplemental intervention (i.e., false positives) and/or fail to identify some students who do need additional intervention (false negatives) ( Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007 ). There is a trade-off between false positive and false negative errors. If a screener is made more rigorous, more students will fail it, but some of these will not actually be at risk for RD; conversely, if a screener is less difficult, many students will pass it, but some of these actually do require additional instruction to become proficient readers. Most published screeners are designed to have a low false negative error rate since the consequences of this kind of error is that students who need intervention do not receive it. For this reason, it is important to follow screening assessments with other kinds of assessments, including progress monitoring assessments, which are brief tests that are administered repeatedly on a regular schedule in order to track students’ development of key skills and competencies over time.

The purpose of screening is to determine which students are not performing on grade level or are not making appropriate growth on key skills within the scope and sequence of the reading curriculum so that their instruction can be modified or supplemental intervention can be provided. Such assessments are therefore deliberately related to the curriculum and may include a general approach known as curriculum based assessment (CBA). Shapiro (2004) described CBA as incorporating several steps: (a) assessing the academic and behavioral instructional environment, (b) determining the level of performance of a student relative to classmates, (c) identifying placement within the curriculum and identifying appropriate accommodations or differentiated instruction, and (d) monitoring ongoing progress within the differentiated instructional curriculum. The use of timed measures that are closely aligned with the curriculum, or curriculum-based measurement (CBM; Deno, 1985 ), to monitor students’ progress toward important goals has a long and rich tradition in special education across many domains, including reading ( Jenkins, Graff, & Miglioretti, 2009 ).

As an example, in a school applying CBA to inform early reading instruction, kindergarten teachers may screen all students using brief curriculum based measures (CBMs) of key skills such as phonological awareness and letter knowledge. This step helps identify individual students who enter school with weaker initial skills and informs placement within the reading curriculum. Subsequently, ongoing progress monitoring using CBMs allows teachers to (a) rule out general problems within the instructional environment, (b) target students who are not performing as well as classmates, and (c) plan instructional goals and devise homogeneous small groups for supplemental intervention. First grade teachers may then assess key skills that develop a little later in the sequence, such as phonemic awareness, word identification, phonemic decoding, word reading fluency, and oral reading fluency (ORF) in connected text. There is evidence that brief measures of ORF are good indicators of growth in general reading ability in the primary grades, reflecting the development of quick and accurate word identification and closely related to reading comprehension outcomes ( Fuchs et al., 2001 ). Despite the long history of using CBMs like ORF to inform instruction across the primary grades (e.g., Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984 ; Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005 ), recently, some researchers have cautioned that measuring progress through repeated measurement of ORF may be unreliable when individual passages are not equally difficult, unless the scores are statistically adjusted ( Francis et al., 2008 ).

Diagnostic Assessments

The effective use of data from diagnostic assessment is critical to the delivery of word reading instruction to students with RD. Diagnostic assessments are most often individually administered and may be either standardized or informal. The purpose of diagnostic assessment is to inform a teacher about a student’s specific strengths and needs so that instruction can be designed to address these needs. Some assessments provide general information that indicates that a student needs instruction in word reading, fluency, and/or comprehension. For example, low performance on ORF CBMs would likely indicate a need for fluency instruction and possibly word identification instruction. Other individually administered tests are norm referenced, such as the widely-used Woodcock-Johnson Reading Mastery Test–Revised ( Woodcock, 1987 ), which includes an array of reading skills, or the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999 ). The TOWRE assesses the speed and accuracy of reading sight words and pseudowords (as measures of phonological decoding) presented in list format in order of increasing difficulty; students have 45 seconds to read as many as they can. Norm-referenced reading tests such as these allow teachers to determine a student’s reading performance relative to same-age or same-grade peers and to establish a general profile of strengths and weaknesses. For example, using the TOWRE would allow a teacher to know if a student was performing below grade level and to understand whether the student performed relatively better on sight words or on decodable pseudowords.

Other diagnostic assessments can provide teachers with precise and reliable information about students’ levels of performance on important subskills in reading, data that is necessary to provide instruction designed to accelerate student progress. For example, it is necessary to know which specific phonics elements (e.g., letter–sound correspondences, silent- e word patterns) and which high-frequency words have been mastered and which need to be taught or retaught. This type of diagnostic assessment can include simple letter–sound inventories, sight word inventories, or criterion-referenced standardized assessments such as the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR; Roswell, Chall, Curtsi & Kearns, 2005 ) or the Quick Phonics Screener ( Hasbrouck, 2008 ), which can help teachers distinguish which phonetic patterns (e.g., CVC, CVCe) have been mastered and which have not been mastered. Valuable information to guide instruction and the pace of movement through published instructional programs may also come from placement tests and mastery tests that accompany these programs, if these assessments are administered frequently and the results are interpreted carefully. Essentially, the critical question answered by diagnostic assessment is, “What does this student already know and what does he/she need to learn?” Teachers who have precise information to answer this question can make informed decisions about what to teach during the very limited instructional time that is available to them.

Providing Effective Word-Reading Instruction

For students with RD, attaining benchmarks for proficient reading can be highly challenging. In order for students who perform below grade level to attain average levels of reading proficiency, they must make faster progress than their typically-developing peers. (Consider that, if someone is trailing in a footrace, they must run faster to overtake runners who are ahead of them.) This thought may be overwhelming to their teachers, but accelerated word reading progress is possible for students with RD. To accomplish this goal, instruction must be both effective and efficient .

To make accelerated progress, students with RD generally require more instruction and more practice than their typically-developing classmates, so it is recommended that they receive both daily classroom reading instruction and supplemental small-group reading intervention. The US Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse suggests that students with serious reading difficulties who have not responded adequately to regular classroom reading instruction and lower-intensity interventions should receive daily, intensive small-group reading intervention in addition to daily classroom reading instruction ( Gersten et al., 2008 ).

Studies that have demonstrated the best outcomes for students with RD have been conducted in the context of small-group supplemental interventions. A substantial body of converging evidence supports the effectiveness of instructional reading interventions provided to students with reading difficulties in the primary grades ( Benner et al. 2010 ; Cavanaugh, Kim, Wanzek, & Vaughn, 2004 ; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001 ; Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 2000 ; Torgesen, 2004 ; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007 ). Studies of reading interventions provided to students with identified learning disabilities have also demonstrated that it is possible to intervene successfully with these students ( Swanson, 1999 ). For example, Torgesen et al. (2001) showed that students in grades 3–5 with severe RD can be remediated through highly intensive intervention. In studies of this type conducted with elementary-aged students, group outcomes have been generally positive, but some students have demonstrated little growth even with highly intensive intervention (e.g., Denton et al., 2006 ). These students may need a different instructional approach, or they may need intensive instruction over a period of years rather than months.

Reviews and meta-analyses have revealed larger effects for reading interventions provided in the early stages of reading acquisition than for those provided in Grades 3 and higher. For example, Wanzek and Vaughn (2007) found larger effects for intervention provided in Grades K–1 than 2–5. Although the reading difficulties of students in Grades 3 to 5 can be remediated through intensive small group or one-on-one (1:1) interventions, this may be more challenging than providing intervention at early stages of reading acquisition ( Torgesen, 2004 ; Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, & Ciullo, 2010 ). For students with RD at the secondary level, intervention can be even more challenging (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2010 ), particularly for those with poorly developed oral language skills ( Denton, Wexler, Vaughn, & Bryan, 2008 ). Denton et al. speculated that such students may require highly intensive interventions over the course of several years to become adequate readers. In contrast, in the context of a brain imaging study, Simos et al. (2002) demonstrated that severely impaired readers ranging from age 7 to 17 years could be brought to average levels of word reading performance through 8 weeks of individually designed and delivered, highly concentrated reading intervention provided about 2 hours per day in a reading clinic setting, and that these changes in word reading scores were accompanied by changes in the ways the students’ brains functioned when reading.

Although current research cannot assure educators that all students with RD will be able to read on grade level, a strong research base has emerged related to effective word reading instruction for these students. These findings were synthesized in the reports of the National Research Council ( Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998 ) and the National Reading Panel ( NRP; 2000 ). These reports, along with more recent meta-analyses and research summaries ( Foorman & Torgesen, 2001 ; Gersten et al., 2008 ; Swanson, 1999 ; Torgesen, 2004 ; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007 ; Wanzek et al., 2010 ) have identified a set of principles for effective instruction of students with or at risk for RD, derived primarily from common characteristics of reading instruction, that has been found to be effective in multiple scientific studies. The instructional approaches used in these studies differed in some ways, but they had important features in common.

In general, explicit instruction that is purposefully designed to target the critical content that students need to learn based on ongoing assessment data has been shown to be effective for students with RD. This instruction is most effective when it is delivered within structured, carefully sequenced, well-organized lessons and when it includes daily opportunities to read and respond to connected text at an appropriate level of difficulty. Students with serious RD also require intensive instruction, meaning that it is delivered to small groups of students in highly interactive formats over extended periods of time . These principles apply to both general education and classroom reading instruction for students with RD and to supplemental intensive interventions specifically designed to accelerate their reading development. In the next section we describe these evidence-based principles for providing effective instruction to students with RD.

Provide Explicit Instruction

Instruction that accelerates word reading development is highly explicit , which means that teachers use direct instruction, modeling, and timely corrective feedback so that students do not mislearn, misinterpret, or mistakenly repeat their own errors. When students with RD receive clear, explicit instruction, they are not left to infer information or guess what the teacher wants them to do. On the other hand, if points of confusion are not addressed and foundational skills are not mastered, students will likely continue to perform below grade level. Explicit instruction in word reading skills is a common theme in programs that have reliably produced substantial growth in students with RD. For example, Iverson and Tunmer (1993) added explicit instruction in phonics and phonemic decoding to the Reading Recovery ( Clay, 1993 ) program, which has traditionally focused less on explicit instruction. The researchers found that even a small amount of explicit instruction in phonics increased the efficiency of the Reading Recovery program by nearly 40%.

A teacher who provides explicit instruction (a) conducts frequent assessment to identify student needs and evaluate mastery of key objectives; (b) plans lessons focused on clear instructional objectives guided by assessment results; (b) clearly models or demonstrates skills and provides clear explanations of new concepts; (c) provides guided practice, checking for understanding and providing timely feedback; (d) monitors independent practice, providing feedback if needed and gradually releasing responsibility to students; and (e) monitors student progress and mastery of key objectives, providing reteaching or extended practice as necessary. Figure 2 illustrates an explicit instruction cycle that is likely to support the progress of students with RD.

Characteristics of an Evidence-Based Word Study Program for Students with Serious Word-Reading Difficulties

Plan purposeful instruction to target student needs, including phonics instruction

Instruction that is purposefully directed at key skills related to word identification (e.g., letter–sound correspondence, irregular word recognition, recognition of commonly occurring patterns in words) leads to improved word reading performance ( NRP, 2000 ; Snow et al., 1998 ). In explicit instruction frameworks, teachers administer diagnostic and progress monitoring assessments regularly, and they use the results of these assessments to determine and/or refine the instructional objectives for the lessons they deliver.

Students with RD benefit from instruction in phonics, and some benefit from phonemic awareness instruction, if they have severe word reading deficits and weaknesses in phonemic awareness. Phonics instruction teaches students to decode unfamiliar words. There are two basic approaches to phonics instruction, and both have been found to be effective for students in the primary grades ( NRP, 2000 ) and for older students who need it (e.g., Abbott & Berninger, 1999 ; Bhattacharya and Ehri, 2004 ). In a synthetic phonics approach, students learn the sounds of individual letters, then how to blend these sounds together to read words and word parts (e.g., syllables). The progression is generally from smaller to larger units. In an analogy phonics approach, students learn to recognize larger word parts and patterns by analogy to a group of known keywords. For example, students may learn the word cow as a keyword and use this knowledge to enable them to read the words now and plow . Wanzek and Vaughn (2007) completed a meta-analysis of studies of extensive small-group reading intervention (i.e., lasting over 100 hours) for students with RD in the primary grades. Results suggested that studies with the highest effects emphasized phonics instruction that incorporated either letter–sound identification with word blending or instruction in recognizing word patterns. There are examples of highly effective word reading programs for students with RD that utilize both synthetic (e.g., Mathes et al., 2005 ) and analogy (e.g., Gaskins, Ehri, Cress, O’Hara, & Donnelly, 1997 ) approaches, as well as combinations of the two (e.g., Denton et al., 2010 ). Ehri, Satlow, and Gaskins (2009) found evidence that teaching students with RD to use analogies to keywords to decode unfamiliar words along with instruction in letter–sound correspondences resulted in better outcomes than analogy phonics instruction alone.

Regardless of the approach selected, word reading instruction that is likely to accelerate the reading development of students with RD must be efficient, particularly for students who are in Grades 2 and above who may be a year or more behind. When teachers use precise diagnostic reading assessments like those described above to guide instruction, they are able to determine how time is best allocated during the reading lesson. For example, if a fourth grade student who is receiving basic decoding instruction has already mastered the majority of the letter–sound correspondences for the single consonants, time may be wasted on lessons that teach these skills. A better choice might be to focus on vowel sounds and letter combinations, including vowel patterns (e.g., ea, ai, igh, or ) and more complex word patterns, including prefixes and suffixes (e.g., tion, dis ). Students who are performing below grade level do not have time to waste, and effective teachers keep this in mind as they plan for and implement lessons. Scripted and other highly structured published reading programs can be adapted to individualize instruction if they include well-designed placement and mastery tests. Results from these tests can inform decisions to move quickly through or even skip over lessons or activities that focus on skills the students have already mastered, or to reteach or supplement lessons that focus on skills the students need to master ( Denton, Anthony, Parker, & Hasbrouck, 2004 ; Denton et al., in press ).

Provide clear demonstrations and explanations

Students who are easily confused are more likely to be successful when teachers provide clear demonstrations and explanations. When teaching a skill or strategy, such as decoding a multisyllable word or reading a silent e word, effective teachers first demonstrate or model by showing the students what they want them to do. When teaching strategies, teachers can “think aloud,” talking through each step of a process that will ultimately be performed “in the head.” When teaching concepts or items of knowledge, teachers can provide clear statements and explanations, providing both examples and nonexamples of a concept.

Provide extended opportunities for guided and independent practice

After teachers model new skills or explain new concepts, students practice, first with teacher support and feedback, and then independently. Students with RD typically need to spend more time practicing skills they have learned than typically developing readers do. Because students with RD must practice the very skills that are most challenging for them to learn, evidence shows it is vital that teachers provide frequent opportunities for both guided and independent practice, including cumulative review. This is important in light of research showing that students with reading disabilities require more opportunities to correctly pronounce new words before they are able to recognize them automatically ( Reitsma, 1990 ). Repeated practice reading individual words, as well as repeated practice reading connected text, leads to improved reading fluency ( Levy, Abello, & Lysynchuk, 1997 ; Meyer & Felton, 1999 , particularly when it is accompanied by teacher feedback ( Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002 ).

During guided practice , students practice newly taught skills in isolation, as well as the application of these skills in reading and writing, with teacher feedback . Students with RD particularly benefit from supportive feedback that is immediate, be it corrective or positive. Corrective feedback prevents students from practicing and habitualizing their errors. Powerful praise statements incorporate comments that attribute a students’ improved reading performance to his or her own hard work and sustained effortful attention. Rather than offering a generic “Good job,” a teacher might say, “You must feel proud that your practice on this set of words is paying off. You did not miss any today when I timed you. You achieved your goal of 40 words per minute …. Way to go!” Note how this targeted praise can be paired with tracking growth towards a goal or benchmark on progress monitoring assessments.

Students also need independent practice , during which they implement skills and strategies without teacher support (but with close teacher monitoring and reteaching when necessary). During the guided-to-independent practice sequence, responsibility for performance is gradually released from the teacher to the student.

Guided and independent practice should include not only newly taught items, but also previously taught items in the form of cumulative practice over time. Proficient reading requires that key skills are practiced to the point that they are both firm and fluent . In other words, students should consistently demonstrate mastery of basic word reading skills and be able to apply them automatically, with little conscious attention. This principle can be illustrated with a high-frequency irregular word. When the word is first learned, students may be inconsistent in identifying it, remembering the word at times and forgetting it or confusing it with other words at other times. It may also take several seconds for students to recall the word during this phase of learning. In order to read fluently and accurately, students must be able to identify this frequently occurring word just as automatically as a proficient adult reader does. Cumulative practice also provides students with RD with the opportunity to discriminate between previously and newly learned items such as letter–sound correspondences and high-frequency irregular words. For example, imagine that a student has previously learned to recognize the words was and what . In a new lesson, the student learns the word when . The student may become confused when the new word is introduced, and accuracy on the previously learned words may decline. The student will benefit from opportunities for practice integrating new and prior learning.

Monitor mastery of key objectives and reteach if needed

It is important that students with RD master reading skills and strategies before they are introduced to new skills and strategies ( Gersten et al., 2008 ). Effective reading instruction for students with RD is designed so that easier skills form a foundation for more difficult skills. If students attempt to learn the more advanced skills before they have mastered essential pre-skills, they may experience great difficulty or failure. Many high-quality published reading programs designed for students with reading difficulties include mastery tests designed to assess student proficiency on taught skills. Teachers can also monitor mastery through frequent administration of criterion-based informal assessments such as letter–sound or sight word inventories.

While teaching to mastery is important, this consideration must be balanced with the need to move students through the curriculum at a pace that will enable them to “close the gap” with typically-developing readers. On one hand, students with RD should experience a high level of successful or accurate responses in every lesson. Students with RD tend to progress more quickly when instruction is designed so that they can achieve success with teacher support, much like Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” (1978). However, it is also important that instruction does not progress at so slow a rate that students progress through only a small part of the curriculum during a school year, as this will likely be ineffective in accelerating their reading development ( Denton, 2010 ).

Judgements about insisting on a high level of mastery may be particularly challenging when instruction is delivered in small groups rather than individually. In our professional development sessions, teachers frequently ask whether an entire group should be kept on a lesson for an extended period of time because one student in the group has not passed a mastery test. We advise one of these approaches:

• If a student occasionally struggles to master objectives, provide 5 to 10 minutes of extra 1:1 instruction to that student so that he or she can achieve mastery and the group can progress at an appropriate rate.
• If one student consistently requires considerably more time to master key skills than others in his or her group, and if there is another small group that moves at a pace that is more appropriate for that student, rearrange the intervention schedule so that the student can be moved to a different group.
• If it is not possible to move the student to a different group, go on to the next lesson or unit, but modify instruction to incorporate additional instruction and practice on the items the student failed to master. This kind of modification can be made even within a scripted reading program.
• If none of these approaches is successful, the student may require 1:1 instruction for a time rather than small-group instruction.

Provide Carefully Sequenced, Well-Organized Lessons

Effective word reading instruction for students with RD is carefully sequenced, so that easier skills are presented and mastered before more complex skills are introduced, and potentially confusing elements are separated. Skills and concepts are taught in a predetermined order according to a logical scope and sequence so students are not asked to perform challenging tasks when they lack the necessary subskills. A well-sequenced beginning reading program that implements a synthetic phonics approach would introduce new letter–sound correspondences in a sequence designed so that letters are separated from each other if they are visually similar (e.g., b and d ; p and q ; v and w ) or have similar sounds (e.g., “short” e and i ). In most effective reading intervention programs, the amount of new information introduced at any one lesson is limited to ensure that students master the key objectives. Much of each lesson consists of practice of previously introduced skills, strategies, and concepts and the integration of these with the newly taught material.

Published reading programs that are developed in this way are typically called systematic programs. It is important to note, however, that systematic does not mean scripted . Some reading programs are highly prescriptive, or scripted, and are also systematic. However, unscripted programs can also be well-organized based on a carefully constructed scope and sequence.

A carefully developed scope and sequence for teaching basic word reading using a synthetic phonics approach typically follows a developmental trajectory that begins with teaching high utility consonant letter–sound correspondences. For students who struggle to master these letter–sound correspondences, initial instruction may focus on helping students learn to recognize and be aware of the spelling of their own names ( Ehri, 2002 ). Then, as students begin to master letter–sound correspondences, teachers may deliberately introduce high-frequency initial and ending sounds (e.g., m, s, t, n) and short vowels (e.g., a). Teachers teach students how to blend sounds together in order to phonemically decode words (/D/ /a/ /d/ is “Dad”) and teach how to segment in order to encode or spell “Dad.” Students are also taught a small number of very useful high-frequency irregular words. Thus, children are able to begin to read simple words and sentences very early in the instructional sequence. Next, teachers introduce consonant digraphs and long vowels, followed by vowel digraphs and variant vowel digraphs and diphthongs. It is important to note that even when letter–sounds are taught in isolation, it is essential to quickly offer opportunities for students to practice reading words using those letter sounds. For more advanced students, teachers provide instruction in recognizing word patterns such as syllable types and in using morphemic analysis to read and determine the meaning of multisyllabic words.

Instruction in high-frequency words and irregular words is also important. Oftentimes, teachers use the terms sight words, high frequency words , and irregular words interchangeably. Strictly speaking, irregular words are those that cannot be decoded using the most common sounds of the alphabet letters (e.g., was, of), or that do not follow typical phonics rules (e.g., love, give). These must be recognized as units, “at sight.” However, it is important to remember that, to children who know only a small group of letters, many other words are nondecodable. The important determinant of which words are taught as early “sight words” is how frequently they occur in children’s text and their usefulness in producing meaningful text that the students will be able to read using the skills they have been taught. To be fluent readers, students need to ultimately be able to recognize a large group of frequently occurring English words “at sight” without having to decode them, even if they are decodable.

Provide Daily Opportunities to Read and Respond to Connected Text

Students with RD spend much less time reading connected text than typically developing readers ( Juel, 1988 ). Lack of reading practice is related to low reading fluency, as well as limited world knowledge, all contributing to impaired comprehension. Just as when learning any skill, such as dribbling a basketball or playing the trumpet, practicing text reading leads to proficiency and automaticity.

Students who are learning to decode need to practice reading connected text in order to apply the isolated skills they are learning. Teachers cannot assume that these skills will generalize automatically ( Levy et al., 1997 ); students who are able to recognize words in word-reading drills may not apply the same skills when they are reading connected text. Particularly older students, who tend to habitualize ineffective ways of interacting with text (e.g., guessing words using the initial letters, skipping difficult words, waiting to be told unknown words), may struggle to replace old habits with newly learned strategies and processes. For this reason, at least a portion of daily text reading should be guided by the teacher, who can prompt the students to apply what they have learned and provide instructional scaffolding to support them as they learn to apply new skills and strategies and “orchestrate” the complex processing that contributes to proficient reading. Teachers can incorporate a discussion of the content or meaning of the text during this reading experience so that students understand that comprehension is the goal of reading. Having students construct oral or written responses to text can also help to focus their attention on the message of the text. Moreover, students with RD need instruction in text-level processes such as vocabulary and comprehension in addition to word identification instruction. For example, teaching middle school students a strategy for summarizing text at their instructional reading levels can prepare them to comprehend more complex text as decoding proficiency increases.

Text selection

Two considerations are important to text selection for students with RD: text difficulty and decodability. In order to increase the likelihood that students with RD will be successful when they read text, it is important to provide them with text on their instructional or independent reading levels. Throughout most of their school experience, students with RD are asked to read textbooks and other materials that are too difficult for them, which often results in frustration, feelings of helplessness, and problem behaviors.

Students with RD may be provided with three types of text: (a) decodable text that is aligned with a reading program’s scope and sequence, (b) “phonics readers” that can provide students with practice reading text that contains many examples of elements they are currently learning (e.g., a story containing many “silent e words”), and (c) nondecodable text at students’ instructional reading levels for practice generalizing reading strategies beyond decodable text. Decodable text can be read using the phonics elements (e.g., letter–sound correspondences) and intact words (i.e., sight words) that have been previously taught; strictly speaking, text can only be termed “decodable” in relation to a particular instructional sequence (e.g., the scope and sequence of a specific reading program). These texts are constructed so that they will provide ample repetition of high-utility, high-frequency words and newly learned phonics patterns contextualized within thematic structures.

Particularly in the early stages of reading acquisition, there are advantages to using texts with a high density of known high-frequency words and decodable words: These texts (a) allow students to apply skills and strategies (e.g., “sounding out” words) in contexts in which these strategies will “work” for most of the words in the text, increasing the probability of successful reading experiences, and (b) ensure that students receive many opportunities, within a single reading of the text, to pronounce important words multiple times ( Hiebert & Fisher, 2002 ). A disadvantage of text that is specifically written to be decodable is that it may lack rich vocabulary and content to support the development of reading comprehension. This problem should become less salient as students master a larger pool of phonics elements and recognizable words.

Despite some advantages of using decodable text in early decoding development, some effective early reading intervention programs do not use decodable text. For example, in one of the first-grade interventions tested by Mathes et al. (2005) and later by Denton et al. (2010) , students read text that was not designed to be decodable but was leveled according to difficulty using the text leveling system developed for the guided reading approach ( Fountas & Pinnell, 1996 ). Outcomes for this intervention were strong, both when implemented by members of the research team (Mathes et al.) and by regular school district employees (Denton et al.). In a study that experimentally compared the effects of decodable vs. nondecodable text in early reading intervention, Jenkins, Peyton, Sanders, and Vadasy (2004) found no significant differences in student outcomes when the same intervention was provided to at-risk first graders with decodable and nondecodable text. Decodable text may be best thought of as a form of scaffolding that can be gradually phased out as students develop the ability to read more complex words, and teachers may purposefully incorporate nondecodable text and phonics readers when they are appropriate to promote generalization of skills to more authentic reading experiences.

Provide Instruction to Small Groups of Students with Similar Needs

Students with reading difficulties benefit from instruction delivered to small groups of students with similar instructional needs. The primary advantage of this instructional arrangement is that it potentially increases the percentage of time in each lesson in which students are actively involved in activities that address their instructional needs.

Classroom reading instruction

A growing but converging evidence base indicates that classroom reading teachers who group their students homogeneously for instruction and who individualize or differentiate what they do in small group instruction have students with significantly greater reading outcomes ( Al Otaiba, Connor et al., in press ; Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Schatschneider, & Underwood, 2007 ). In a meta-analysis of the effects of within class grouping in regular education classes, Lou et al. (1996) found that across different subject areas, group sizes of 3–4 yielded effect sizes that were twice as large as those for groups of 8–10 (ES = .22 vs. ES = .11, respectively). Moreover, low-ability students benefited more than medium- or high-ability students (ES = .37 vs. ES = .19 and ES = .26, respectively). In a study that specifically examined outcomes in reading, Taylor, Pearson, Clark, and Walpole (1999) found that first- through third-grade teachers in more effective schools spent more than twice as much time as those in less effective schools in small-group instruction for reading.

Supplemental reading intervention

Gersten et al. (2008) recommended that supplemental intervention for students with severe RD that is resistant to remediation be provided 1:1 or in very small groups. An advantage of such small-group instruction is that each student has many opportunities to respond and the teacher is able to monitor and provide appropriate feedback to every student. A meta-analysis by Elbaum et al. (2000) found strong effects for 1:1 instruction provided to students with reading difficulties, and in their synthesis of studies of extensive reading interventions for students in the primary grades, Wanzek and Vaughn (2007) found that higher effects were demonstrated when interventions were provided 1:1 or in very small groups (e.g., groups of 2 or 3) relative to interventions provided in larger groups.

Specifically, in studies that experimentally manipulated group size, Iversen, Tunmer, and Chapman (2005) and Vaughn & Linan-Thompson. (2003) both found that reading interventions delivered in groups of two or three were as effective as the same interventions delivered in 1:1 formats. Some students with serious RD may require 1:1 instruction, although some studies have indicated that interventions for students with RD provided in very small groups were successful. For example, Denton et al. (2006) provided highly intensive intervention to severely impaired readers in groups of two, finding that, on average, students made considerable growth in decoding, fluency, and comprehension; however, some students did not respond adequately to this intervention. It is probably advisable to make individual decisions about intervention group size based on the nature and extent of a student’s impairment in reading, as well as any accompanying attention or behavior challenges. Naturally, resources will also be a consideration.

Providing Effective Instruction: Other Considerations

In addition to the principles for effective instruction discussed previously, it is important that educators carefully select instructional programs implemented in reading instruction and that teachers who will deliver instruction have the necessary professional development to do so successfully. Finally, educators must understand how to increase the intensity of supplemental interventions to address the needs of students who do not respond readily to less intensive instruction.

Selecting Published Programs

Since government initiatives such as No Child Left Behind began to stress the use of reading programs with scientific evidence of effectiveness, publishers have promoted nearly all programs as “research based.” It can be challenging to evaluate these claims or the quality of the research that is purported to support these programs. It may be helpful for practitioners to consider two categories of programs—those that are “evidence based” and those that are “research validated.” Evidence-based programs typically incorporate the principles of effective instruction for students with reading difficulties that were described earlier in this article. Thus, they are based on research evidence, but the effects of these specific programs may not have been evaluated in scientific studies. Figure 2 contains a list of characteristics that can be used to determine the extent to which a program is evidence based.

In contrast, research validated programs have been shown to be effective in studies that specifically evaluated those programs. The “gold standard” for a research-validated program is that it has been studied in more than one randomized, controlled experiment in which some students received the program and others did not, and it has produced consistently positive results with different groups of students. Several programs with this level of evidence are currently available for providing supplemental intensive reading intervention to younger students. Appreciably less research has been conducted to evaluate core reading programs used in classroom instruction and intervention programs designed for secondary students with RD, although some evidence-based intervention programs are available. If a research-validated program is unavailable, practitioners can determine whether a program is evidence based and likely to have good results by applying standards like those discussed in this article (i.e., Does the program provide explicit instruction? Is it organized according to a clear scope and sequence?) However, the greatest likelihood of success is associated with the use of programs that have undergone rigorous research.

Core reading programs for classroom instruction

Researchers have demonstrated that reading outcomes are stronger when classroom teachers use an explicit core reading instructional program that is well organized and that emphasizes teaching code-focused skills than when teachers use less explicit and less systematic programs. Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, and Mehta (1998) directly tested the effectiveness of core reading programs in a large study involving roughly 70 first and second grade classrooms. Specifically, children whose teachers used core reading programs that emphasized direct instruction and that included controlled vocabulary text showed more significantly more word reading improvement than children taught with a core program that was less direct and less explicit. A second large-scale study conducted by Foorman and colleagues also examined the effect of explicit and systematic core reading programs in conjunction with professional development ( Foorman et al., 2003 ). This multiyear study involved three cohorts and over 4,800 students who attended struggling schools. Foorman and colleagues reported that children whose teachers used systematic and explicit reading curricula that explicitly linked phonemic awareness and the alphabetic principle in kindergarten achieved reading performance that was at the national average. Most commercially available core reading programs published after the NRP (2000) report that claim to be evidence based contain instructional materials and provide routines that support explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and word recognition, at least in the early grades ( Al Otaiba, Kosanovich-Grek, Torgesen, Hassler, & Wahl, 2005 ).

Programs for supplemental intervention

Research-validated programs are available for providing supplemental intervention to students with RD, particularly in the primary grades. A smaller number of programs have been adequately tested with older students. One characteristic that differentiates these programs is that they may be more or less prescriptive.

In highly prescriptive programs (e.g., Osborn, 1995 ) lessons are preplanned, and the verbiage used by the teacher during the lesson is scripted. An advantage of scripted lessons is that students receive carefully constructed instruction delivered using consistent language. From the teacher’s point of view, lesson preparation consists primarily of reading and practicing delivery of the lessons so that they do not appear to be reading the scripts while they teach and so that they are freed up to observe the students and provide them with effective feedback. A disadvantage of scripted programs is that it may be difficult for teachers to individualize instruction when students already know content that is included in future lessons or when they fail to master content that has already been taught. These programs are normally designed so that students progress through each lesson in sequence, but completing the entire sequence can take from 1 to even 2 years.

Less prescriptive programs can also be used to provide well-organized, structured intervention. The key is that they must have a recommended or incorporated scope and sequence to guide the order in which skills are introduced. Some unscripted programs (e.g., Sprick, Howard, & Fidanque, 1998 ) provide sequential, structured lesson materials such as daily lesson sheets and teacher guides that carefully describe each lesson. One less prescriptive research-validated program ( Denton & Hocker, 2006 ) provides a framework for the daily lesson, carefully described teaching activities, and a sequence for introducing phonics skills and high-frequency words, but it allows for considerable flexibility so that teachers can plan lessons based on ongoing diagnostic assessments that are included with the program.

Reviews of reading programs

Several groups have published reviews of currently available reading programs. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), sponsored by the US Department of Education, provides ongoing reviews of programs by applying rigorous standards to evaluate the quality of research conducted specifically to evaluate the programs. A tutorial about how the WWC works is available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/help/tutorials/tour.asp . The Florida Center for Reading Research ( www.fcrr.org ) has posted reviews of many programs. Finally, expert committees have reviewed the quality of research supporting specific reading assessment tools and intervention programs for the National Center for Response to Intervention ( http://www.rti4success.org ).

Teacher Preparation

Selecting an evidence-based or research-validated instruction program does not ensure success; it matters what teachers do with the programs they implement. The first step toward ensuring evidence-based instruction and intervention are well implemented is to ensure that teachers have the requisite knowledge to use data to inform instruction ( Al Otaiba & Lake, 2007 ; Al Otaiba, Lake, Gruelich, Folsom, & Guidry, in press ). Al Otaiba et al. demonstrated that students whose kindergarten teachers were provided data, coaching, and web-based guidance to individualize instruction outperformed the reading performance of students whose teachers did not receive this support by a half a standard deviation. Another recent study conducted by Piasta and colleagues ( Piasta, Connor, Fishman, & Morrison, 2009 ) showed that delivering more instruction, when classroom teachers had very little knowledge about how to teach code-focused skills, was associated with lower student scores than delivering less instruction. This finding emphasizes that no program is “teacher-proof” and that teacher knowledge matters.

Supplemental reading interventions for students with serious RD should be provided by well-qualified teachers with the training necessary to implement intervention programs with high fidelity and to respond appropriately to the needs of the students. Students with RD may be difficult to teach; they have been found to have problems in phonological processing, processing speed, and verbal working memory, and they often have challenging behaviors and/or attention deficits ( Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002 ; Fletcher et al., in press ; Nelson, Benner, & Gonzalez, 2003 ). Providing effective, individualized intervention to these students places large demands on teachers’ knowledge and skills and requires the capacity to make quick instructional decisions in order to respond appropriately to struggling learners.

Increasing the Intensity of Supplemental Intervention

Students who do not respond well to regular classroom instruction and typical interventions (e.g., small-group tutoring) need interventions of increased intensity. The intensity of reading interventions can be increased by reducing group size and by increasing the amount of time in intervention by either extending the length of daily lessons, providing lessons more frequently, or providing intervention over an extended period of time. Intervention intensity can also be increased by raising the percentage of each intervention session during which students are actively involved in focused instruction that is aligned with their instructional needs. Pacing of instruction within lessons is quick but responsive to student needs for “think time,” feedback, and reteaching, and every lesson incorporates many teacher-student interactions ( Vaughn, Denton, & Fletcher, 2010 ; Warren, Fey, and Yoder, 2007 ).

An important determiner of the intensity of an intervention is the dosage of the intervention students receive. Dosage, or the hours of intervention provided, is determined by the length of individual teaching sessions, how many times per week they are provided, and the overall duration of the intervention. Gersten et al. (2008) recommended that interventions for students with RD who have been previously unresponsive to lower intensity interventions should consist of individualized, “concentrated instruction” delivered in “multiple and extended instructional sessions daily” (p. 10). The number of months spent in intervention will depend on the needs of the students and other aspects of instructional intensity such as group size, the length of daily lessons, and how time is used during each lesson. Researchers have provided interventions to students with severe reading difficulties at the elementary level for 50 to 60 minutes per day over an entire school year, with generally positive group outcomes (e.g., Blachman et al., 2004 ; Vaughn et al., 2009 ); however, some students with reading disabilities will need more extensive intervention, perhaps over several years.

Many students in both the elementary and secondary grades struggle with word reading. Fortunately, a strong research base evaluates effective word reading instruction for these students. For students with severe word reading problems, intervention may be challenging and require considerable resources, including daily small-group targeted intervention provided over the course of years. Given the consequences of continuing reading failure to both students and society, we suggest that the effort and resources are justified. Implementing the approaches and tools identified by research may make a life-long difference for many individuals. McCray, Vaughn, and Neal (2001) interviewed middle school students with serious reading problems; in a response that reflected a major theme of the research, a girl expressed a strong desire to learn to read, “I would love to learn my letter sounds again and learn how to pronounce words right. It would be good if I could figure out what words mean and could figure out what those stories mean” (p. 26).

Explicit Instruction Cycle

• Abbott SP, Berninger VW. It's never too late to remediate: Teaching word recognition to students with reading disabilities in grades 4–7. Annals of Dyslexia. 1999; 49 :223–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Otaiba S, Lake V. Preparing special educators to teach reading: Using classroom-based assessments to judge response to intervention. Reading and Writing. 2007; 20 :591–617. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Otaiba S, Fuchs D. Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education. 2002; 23 (5):300–316. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Otaiba S, Connor CM, Folsom J, Greulich L, Meadows J, Li Z. Assessment data-informed guidance to individualize kindergarten reading instruction: Findings from a cluster-randomized control field trial. Elementary School Journal. (in press) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Otaiba S, Kosanovich-Grek ML, Torgesen JK, Hassler L, Wahl M. Reviewing core kindergarten and first grade reading programs in light of No Child Left Behind: An exploratory study. Reading and Writing Quarterly. 2005; 21 :377–400. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Otaiba S, Lake VE, Greulich L, Folsom JS, Guidry L. Preparing beginning reading teachers: An experimental comparison of initial early literacy field experiences. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. (in press) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alliance for Excellent Education. Every child a graduate: A framework for an excellent education for all middle and high school students. Washington, DC: Author; 2002. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/EveryChildAGraduate/every.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Benner GJ, Nelson JR, Ralston NC, Mooney P. A meta-analysis of the effects of reading instruction on the reading skills of students with or at risk of behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders. 2010; 25 (2):86–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhattacharya A, Ehri LC. Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2004; 37 :331–348. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman B. Phonological awareness. In: Kamil M, Mosenthal P, Pearson P, Barr R, editors. Handbook of reading research. Vol. 3. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2000. pp. 483–502. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Francis DJ, Clonan S, Shaywitz B, Shaywitz S. Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004; 96 :444–461. [ Google Scholar ]
• Calhoon MB. Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition of middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2005; 38 (5):424–433. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cavanaugh CL, Kim AH, Wanzek J, Vaughn S. Kindergarten reading interventions for at-risk students: Twenty years of research. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal. 2004; 2 (1):9–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture. Education as crime prevention (Occasional Paper Series No. 2) 1997 Retrieved from http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/research_brief__2.pdf .
• Chard DJ, Vaughn S, Tyler BJ. A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2002; 35 (5):386–406. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clay MM. Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor CM, Morrison FJ, Fishman BJ, Schatschneider C, Underwood P. The early years: Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science. 2007; 315 :464–465. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor[E1] CM, Piasta SB, Fishman B, Glasney S, Schatschneider C, Crowe E. Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child by instruction interactions on first graders' literacy development. Child Development. 2009; 80 (1):77–100. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel SS, Walsh AK, Goldston DB, Arnold EM, Reboussin BA, Wood FB. Suicidality, school dropout, and reading problems among adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2006; 39 :507–514. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deno SL. Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children. 1985; 52 :219–232. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denton CA. The impact of instructional variables on outcomes in tier 2 first grade reading intervention; Paper presented at the annual Pacific Coach Research Conference; Coronado, CA. 2010. Feb, [ Google Scholar ]
• Denton CA, Anthony JL, Parker R, Hasbrouck JE. The effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish–English bilingual students. Elementary School Journal. 2004; 104 :289–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denton CA, Barth AE, Fletcher JM, Wexler J, Vaughn S, Cirino PT, Romain M, Francis DJ. The relations among oral and silent reading fluency and comprehension in middle school: Implications for identification and instruction of students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2011; 15 :109–135. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denton CA, Cirino PT, Barth AE, Romain M, Vaughn S, Wexler J, Francis DJ, Fletcher JM. An Experimental Study of Scheduling and Duration of “Tier 2” First Grade Reading Intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. (in press). [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denton CA, Fletcher JM, Anthony JL, Francis DJ. An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2006; 39 :447–466. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denton CA, Hocker JL. Responsive reading instruction: Flexible intervention for struggling readers in the early grades. Longmont, CO: Sopris West; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denton CA, Nimon K, Mathes PG, Swanson EA, Kethley C, Kurz T, Shih M. The effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools. Exceptional Children. 2010; 76 :394–416. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denton CA, Wexler J, Vaughn S, Bryan D. Intervention provided to linguistically diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 2008; 23 :79–89. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC. Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. In: Stainthorp R, Tomlinson P, editors. Learning and teaching reading. London: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II; 2002. pp. 7–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Stahl SA, Willows DM. Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2001; 71 (3):393–447. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Satlow E, Gaskins IW. Grapho-phonemic enrichment strengthens keyword analogy instruction for struggling young readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2009; 25 :162–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbaum B, Vaughn S, Hughes MT, Moody SW. How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? Journal of Educational Psychology. 2000; 92 :605–619. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fletcher JM, Lyon GR, Fuchs LS, Barnes MA. Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fletcher JM, Stuebing KK, Barth AE, Denton CA, Cirino PT, Francis DJ, Vaughn S. Cognitive correlates of inadequate response to reading intervention. School Psychology Review. (in press). [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BR, Chen D, Carlson C, Moats L, Francis DJ, Fletcher JM. The necessity of the alphabetic principle to phonemic awareness instruction. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2003; 16 :289–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BR, Francis DJ, Fletcher JM, Schatschneider C, Mehta P. The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1998; 90 :37–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BR, Torgesen J. Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2001; 16 :203–212. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fountas IC, Pinnell GS. Guided Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Francis DJ, Santi KL, Barr C, Fletcher JM, Varisco A, Foorman BR. Form effects on the estimation of students' oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology. 2008; 46 :315–342. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Francis DJ, Shaywitz SE, Stuebing KK, Shaywitz BA, Fletcher JM. Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1996; 88 (1):3–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuchs LS, Deno SL, Mirkin PK. The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal. 1984; 21 :449–460. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuchs LS, Fuchs D, Hosp MD, Jenkins J. Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2001; 5 :239–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaskins I, Ehri L, Cress C, O'Hara C, Donnelly K. Procedures for word learning: Making discoveries about words. The Reading Teacher. 1997; 50 :312–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Compton D, Connor CM, Dimino J, Santoro L, Linan-Thompson S, Tilly WD. Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009–4045. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education; 2008. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough PB, Tunmer WE. Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial & Special Education. 1986; 7 :6–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough P, Walsh S. Chinese, Phoenicians, and the orthographic cipher of English. In: Brady S, Shankweiler D, editors. Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1991. 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanushek EA, Kain JF, Rivkin SG. Does special education raise academic achievement for students with disabilities? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 6690. Cambridge, MA: 1998. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w6690 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasbrouck J. Quick phonics screener. St. Paul, MN: Read Naturally; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hiebert EH, Fisher CW. Text matters in developing reading fluency; Paper presented at the International Reading Association; San Francisco, CA. 2002. Apr, [ Google Scholar ]
• Iversen S, Tunmer WE. Phonological processing skills and the reading recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1993; 85 :112–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Iversen S, Tunmer WE, Chapman JW. The effects of varying group size on the Reading Recovery approach to preventative early intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2005; 38 (5):456–472. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins JR, Graff JJ, Miglioretti DL. Estimating reading growth using intermittent CBM progress monitoring. Exceptional Children. 2009; 75 :151–163. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins JR, Hudson RF, Johnson ES. Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review. 2007; 36 :582–600. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins JR, Peyton JA, Sanders EA, Vadasy PF. Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2004; 8 (1):53–85. [ Google Scholar ]
• Juel C. Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1988; 80 :437–447. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levy BA, Abello B, Lysynchuk L. Transfer from word training to reading in context: Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly. 1997; 20 :173–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lou Y, Abrami PC, Spence JC, Poulson C, Chambers B, d'Appollonia S. Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Research. 66 :423–458. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovett MW, Lacerenza L, Borden SL, Frijters JC, Seteinbach KA, DePalma M. Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2000; 92 :263–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathes PG, Denton CA, Fletcher JM, Anthony JL, Francis DJ, Schatschneider C. The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly. 2005; 40 :148–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCray AD, Vaughn S, Neal LI. Not all students learn to read by third grade: Middle school students speak out about their reading disabilities. Journal of Special Education. 2001; 35 (1):17–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer MS, Felton RH. Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia. 1999; 49 :283–306. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Reading Panel (NRP) Teaching children to read: evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Reading Panel, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson JR, Benner GJ, Gonzalez J. Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2003; 18 :255–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborn S. Reading Mastery series guide. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill; 1995. (Rainbow Edition) [ Google Scholar ]
• Piasta SB, Connor CM, Fishman B, Morrison FJ. Teachers' knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2009; 13 :224–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reitsma P. Development of orthographic knowledge. In: Reitsma P, Verhoeven L, editors. Acquisition of reading in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris; 1990. pp. 43–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roswell FG, Chall JS, Curtis ME, Kearns G. Diagnostic assessments of reading. Itasca, IL: Riverside; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Francis DJ, Carlson CD, Foorman BR. Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004; 96 :265–282. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapiro ES. Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaywitz S. Overcoming dyslexia. New York: Knopf; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simos PG, Fletcher JM, Bergman E, Breier JI, Foorman BR, Castillo EM, et al. Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology. 2002; 58 :1–10. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow CE. Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program for comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow CE, Burns MS, Griffin P, editors. Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sprick MM, Howard LM, Fidanque A. Read well: Critical foundations in primary reading. Longmont, CO: Sopris West; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich K. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly. 1986; 21 :360–407. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stecker PM, Fuchs LS, Fuchs D. Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools. 2005; 42 :795–820. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein M, Johnson B, Gutlohn L. Analyzing beginning reading programs: The relationship between decoding instruction and text. Remedial and Special Education. 1999; 20 :275–287. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swanson HL. Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1999; 32 (6):504–532. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweet AP, Snow C. Reconceptualizing reading comprehension. In: Block CC, Gambrell LB, Pressley M, editors. Improving reading comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice. San Francisco, CA: Joseey-Bass; 2002. pp. 17–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor BM, Pearson PD, Clark KE, Walpole S. Beating the odds in teaching all children to read. (CIERA Rep. No. 2-006. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK. Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning to read. In: McCardle P, Chhabra V, editors. The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore: Brookes; 2004. pp. 355–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK. Remedial interventions for students with dyslexia: National goals and current accomplishments. In: Richardson S, Gilger J, editors. Research-based education and intervention: What we need to know. Boston: International Dyslexia Association; 2005. pp. 103–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller K, Conway T, Rose E. Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2001; 34 :33–58. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Burgess SR. Consistency of reading-related phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal-correlational and instructional studies. In: Metsala JL, Ehri LC, editors. Word recognition in beginning literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1998. pp. 161–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Rashotte CA, Alexander A, Alexander J, MacPhee K. Progress towards understanding the instructional conditions necessary for remediating reading difficulties in older children. In: Foorman B, editor. Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. Parkton, MD: York Press; 2003. pp. 275–298. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA. Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn SR, Cirino PT, Wanzek J, Wexler J, Fletcher JM, Denton CA, Francis DJ. Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review. 2010; 39 (1):3–21. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S, Denton CA, Fletcher JM. Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools. 2010; 47 (5):432–444. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S, Linan-Thompson S. Group size and time allotted to intervention: Effects for students with reading difficulties. In: Foorman B, editor. Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. Baltimore, MD: Pro Ed.; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S, Wanzek J, Murray CS, Scammacca N, Linan-Thompson S, Woodruff AL. Response to early reading intervention examining higher and lower responders. Exceptional Children. 2009; 75 (2):165–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky LS. Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S. Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review. 2007; 36 :541–561. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Wexler J, Vaughn S, Ciullo S. Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2010; 23 :889–912. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Warren SF, Fey ME, Yoder PJ. Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2007; 13 (1):70–77. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodcock R. Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]

share this!

April 1, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

Researchers study rate of stuttering in adult struggling readers

by Claire Miller, Georgia State University

Adults who struggle to read often read at a slower pace and with lower accuracy compared to their peers. They can also have difficulties with spoken language skills, such as difficulties with understanding and using words, and recognizing and working with sounds associated with spoken language.

Reading and spoken language skills are closely connected, and adults who struggle in these areas may be at a higher risk for speech difficulties, such as stuttering, a neurodevelopmental disorder that disrupts the flow of a person's speech.

College of Education & Human Development faculty members Ai Leen Choo, Daphne Greenberg and Hongli Li and CEHD alum Amani Talwar (Ph.D. '19) conducted a study to learn more about stuttering rates for adults who struggle to read and to better understand the relationship between their speech and reading skills. The paper is published in the Journal of Learning Disabilities .

The study, which is the first publication to examine stuttering in adults who struggle with reading, included 120 participants. These individuals completed a series of standardized reading-related assessments; answered questions about whether they'd been tested for a learning disability , whether they attended special education classes and other similar questions; and were asked to speak about a positive reading experience and a negative one.

The research team transcribed participants' oral responses and analyzed their responses for speech disfluencies. Their results noted that about 18% of participants met the criteria for stuttering—noticeably higher than the estimated 1% of the general population who stutters.

"The higher rate of stuttering in adults who struggle with reading concurs with neuroimaging and genetics studies that have found overlaps between stuttering and reading impairment," Choo said. "Stuttering may mask any improvements in reading gains, particularly if the assessments require oral speech. Thus, it is important to screen for stuttering in adult literacy programs."

Based on the study's standardized reading assessments, adult struggling readers who stutter did not show weaker reading skills compared with their peers who do not stutter.

However, the researchers found that adult struggling readers who stutter showed a lack of synchronization between their reading and reading-related skills compared to their peers who do not stutter. For example, the reading comprehension ability of adult struggling readers who stutter was not consistent with their phonological awareness skills.

"These results suggest that adult struggling readers who stutter have challenges coordinating various reading skills and may use different reading strategies compared to their peers who do not stutter," Choo said. "Educators need to be aware that instruction for adult struggling readers who stutter may need to address both stuttering and reading strategies."

Provided by Georgia State University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

AI improves monsoon rainfall predictions

12 hours ago

82% of EU farm subsidies bolster high emissions foods: Study

Leaves of three, let it be? Wide variability among poison ivy plants makes identification more challenging

Golfers' risk from pesticides used on turf grass is likely low, studies find

'Frankenstein design' enables 3D printed neutron collimator

New antibiotic class effective against multidrug-resistant bacteria discovered

13 hours ago

Computational tools fuel reconstruction of new and improved bird family tree

New method reveals hidden activity of life below ground

A frozen chunk of genome rewrites our understanding of bird evolution

Engineers 'symphonize' cleaner ammonia production

14 hours ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

Motivating high school physics students with popcorn physics.

5 hours ago

How is Physics taught without Calculus?

Mar 29, 2024

Why are Physicists so informal with mathematics?

Mar 24, 2024

The changing physics curriculum in 1961

Suggestions for using math puzzles to stimulate my math students.

Mar 21, 2024

The New California Math Framework: Another Step Backwards?

Mar 14, 2024

More from STEM Educators and Teaching

Related Stories

Study finds that adults who stutter don't stutter when they're alone

Oct 8, 2021

Study shows how Instagram could help promote awareness of stuttering

Dec 13, 2023

What is stuttering?

Oct 29, 2021

Gene linked to persistent stuttering into adulthood uncovered

Nov 20, 2023

Q&A: Dispelling myths about stuttering

Oct 20, 2023

Global study investigates the cause of stuttering

Aug 16, 2019

Recommended for you

Research reveals significant effects of onscreen instructors during video classes in aiding student learning

Mar 25, 2024

Prestigious journals make it hard for scientists who don't speak English to get published, study finds

Mar 23, 2024

Using Twitter/X to promote research findings found to have little impact on number of citations

Mar 22, 2024

Gender and racial discrimination uncovered in leadership positions at Australia's leading universities

Mar 15, 2024

Study finds children in Flint experienced educational declines even if they did not have lead pipes

Could iPhones replace microscopes in early STEM education?

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter