If everyone reading this donated $5

our fundraiser would be over today.

Please donate to keep Wikipedia free.
$2.4M left
$13.6M raised

Please help

Reading education in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Reading (disambiguation).
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page.
• It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing
reliable sources. Tagged since May 2009.
• It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged
since June 2009.

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for
details. WikiProject Languages or the Languages Portal may be able to help recruit an
expert. (June 2009)

Part of a series on

Reading

LANGUAGE

Language · Writing
 Writing system · Orthography
Braille

TYPES OF READING

Close reading · Slow reading

Speed reading · Subvocalization

LEARNING TO READ

Reading skills acquisition

Comprehension
Spelling · Vocabulary
Reading disability · Dyslexia

READING INSTRUCTION

Alphabetic principle · Phonics

Whole language

LITERACY

Literacy · Functional illiteracy

Family literacy
English orthography

LISTS

Languages by writing system

Management of dyslexia

v•d•e

Reading education is the process by which individuals are taught to derive meaning from
text.
Government-funded scientific research on reading and reading instruction began in the U.S.
in the 1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers began publishing findings based on
converging evidence from multiple studies. However, these findings have been slow to move
into typical classroom practice.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Competencies for proficient reading
• 2 History of reading education in the U.S.
• 3 Alphabetic principle and English orthography
• 4 Instructional methods
○ 4.1 Whole Language
○ 4.2 "Whole Word", "Sight Word", or "Look (and) Say"
○ 4.3 Initial teaching alphabet
○ 4.4 Phonics
 4.4.1 Controversy about phonics
 4.4.2 Other instructional methods
○ 4.5 Reading comprehension
○ 4.6 Learning to read and write in Sudbury schools
• 5 Comparing reading education in English and other alphabetic languages
○ 5.1 History of English spelling
○ 5.2 Time required to learn to read English compared to other alphabetic
languages
• 6 Success rate of reading education in the USA
• 7 Print exposure
• 8 Other linguistic models of English spelling
• 9 Practical application
• 10 See also
• 11 References
○ 11.1 Notes
○ 11.2 Bibliography
• 12 External links

[edit] Competencies for proficient reading

This section requires expansion.
Proficient reading is equally dependent on two critical skills: the ability to understand the
language in which the text is written, and the ability to recognize and process printed text.
Each of these competencies is likewise dependent on lower level skills and cognitive abilities.
[1]

Children who readily understand spoken language and who are able to fluently and easily
recognize printed words do not usually have difficulty with reading comprehension.
However, students must be proficient in both competencies to read well; difficulty in either
domain undermines the overall reading process. At the conclusion of reading, children should
be able to retell the story in their own words including characters, setting, and the events of
the story.[2] Reading researchers define a skilled reader as one who can understand written
text as well as they can understand the same passage if spoken. [3]
There is some debate as to whether print recognition requires the ability to perceive printed
text and translate it into spoken language, or rather to translate printed text directly into
meaningful symbolic models and relationships. The existence of speed reading, and its
typically high comprehension rate would suggest that the translation into verbal form as an
intermediate to understanding is not a prerequisite for effective reading comprehension. This
aspect of reading is the crux of much of the reading debate.
[edit] History of reading education in the U.S.

1905 edition cover of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland retold in words of one syllable
In colonial times, reading instruction was simple and straightforward: teach children the code
and then let them read. At that time, reading material was not specially written for children
but consisted primarily of the Bible and some patriotic essays; the most influential early
textbook was The New England Primer, published late 1680s. There was little consideration
for how best to teach children to read or how to assess reading comprehension.[citation needed]
Not until the mid-19th century did this approach change significantly. Educators, in particular
Horace Mann, began to advocate changes in reading instructional methods. He observed that
children were bored and "death-like" at school, and that instruction needed to engage
children's interest in the reading material by teaching them to read whole words.[citation needed]
The McGuffey Readers (1836) were the most popular of these more engaging graded readers.
In the mid-19th century, Rebecca Smith Pollard developed a sequential reading program of
intensive synthetic phonics, complete with a separate teacher's manual and spelling and
reading books.[citation needed]
From the 1890s to at least 1910, A. L. Burt of New York and other publishing companies
published series of books aimed at young readers, using simple language to retell longer
classics. Mrs J. C. Gorham produced three such works, Gulliver's Travels in words of one
syllable (1896), Alice's Adventures in Wonderland retold in words of one syllable (1905), and
Black Beauty retold in words of one syllable (1905). In the UK, Routledge published a
similar series between 1900 and 1910.
The meaning-based curriculum did not dominate reading instruction until the second quarter
of the 20th century. Beginning in the 1930s and 1940s, reading programs became very
focused on comprehension and taught children to read whole words by sight. Phonics was not
to be taught except sparingly and as a tool to be used as a last resort.[citation needed]
In the 1950s Rudolf Flesch wrote a book called Why Johnny Can't Read, a passionate
argument in favor of teaching children to read using phonics.[citation needed] Addressed to the
mothers and fathers of America, he also hurled severe criticism at publishers' decisions that
he claimed were motivated by profit, and he questioned the honesty and intelligence of
experts, schools, and teachers.[citation needed]The book was on the bestseller list for 30 weeks and
spurred a hue and cry in general population. It also polarized the reading debate among
educators, researchers, and parents.[citation needed]
This polarization continues to the present time. In the 1970s an instructional philosophy
called whole language (which explicitly de-emphasizes teaching phonics) was introduced,
and it became the primary method of reading instruction in the 1980s and 1990s.[citation
needed]
During this time, researchers (such as the National Institute of Health) conducted studies
showing that early reading acquisition depends on the understanding of the connection
between sounds and letters.[4]
[edit] Alphabetic principle and English orthography
Main article: Alphabetic principle
Beginning readers must understand the concept of the alphabetic principle in order to master
basic reading skills. A writing system is said to be alphabetic if it uses symbols to represent
individual language sounds.[5] In contrast, syllabic writing systems (such as Japanese kana)
and Chinese hanzi use a symbol to represent a single syllable .
Alphabetic writing systems vary in complexity. For example, Spanish is an orthography in
the Latin alphabetic Writing system that has a nearly perfect one-to-one correspondence of
symbols to individual sounds. In Spanish a shallow orthography, most of the time words are
spelled the way they sound, that is, word spellings are almost always regular; . English a deep
orthography, on the other hand, is far more complex in that it does not have a one-to-one
correspondence between symbols and sounds. English has individual sounds that can be
represented by more than one symbol or symbol combination. For example, the long |a| sound
can be represented by a-consonant-e as in ate, -ay as in hay, -ea as in steak, -ey as in they, -ai
as in pain, and -ei as in vein. In addition, there are many words with irregular spelling and
many homophones (words that sound the same but have different meanings and often
different spellings as well). Pollack Pickeraz (1963) asserted that there are 45 phonemes in
the English language, and that the 26 letters of the English alphabet can represent the 45
phonemes in about 350 ways.[5]
It should be noted that the irregularity of English spelling is largely an artifact of how the
language developed. English is a West Germanic language that originated from the Anglo-
Frisian and Old Saxon dialects brought to Britain by Germanic settlers and Roman auxiliary
troops from various parts of what is now northwest Germany and the northern
Netherlands[citation needed] in the 5th century. One of these Germanic tribes were the Angles,[6]
who may have come from Angeln, and Bede wrote that their whole nation came to Britain,[7]
leaving their former land empty. The names 'England' (or 'Aenglaland') and English are
derived from the name of this tribe.
The Anglo Saxons began invading around 449 AD from the regions of Denmark and Jutland,
[8][9]
Before the Anglo-Saxons arrived in England the native population spoke Brythonic, a
Celtic language[10] Although the most significant changes in dialect occurred after the
Norman invasion of 1066, the language retained its name and the pre-Norman invasion
dialect is now known as Old English.[11] Germanic language a constituent part of Indo-
Europeanlanguage system;[12][13] and it has substantial influences from Latin, Greek, and
French, among others. Over its history, English adopted vocabulary from many languages,
and the imported words usually follow the spelling patterns of their language of origin.[citation
needed]
Advanced English phonics instruction includes studying words according to their origin,
and how to determine the correct spelling of a word using its language of origin.
Clearly, the complexity of English orthography makes it more difficult for children to learn
decoding and encoding rules, and more difficult for teachers to teach them.[citation needed]
However, effective word recognition relies on the basic understanding that letters represent
the sounds of spoken language, that is, word recognition relies on the reader's understanding
of the alphabetic principle[citation needed].
[edit] Instructional methods
A variety of different methods of teaching reading have been advocated in English-speaking
countries. In the United States, the debate is often more political than objective.[citation needed]
Parties often divide into two camps which refuse to accept each others terminology or frame
of reference. Despite this both camps often incorporate aspects of the other's methods. Both
camps accuse the other of causing failure to learn to read and write.[citation needed]
Sub-lexical reading
Sub-lexical reading,[14][15][16][17] involves teaching reading by associating characters or groups
of characters with sounds or by using Phonics learning and teaching methodology.
Sometimes argued to be in competition with whole language methods.
Lexical reading
Lexical reading[14][15][16][17] involve acquiring words or phrases without attention to the
characters or groups of characters that compose them or by using Whole language learning
and teaching methodology. Sometimes argued to be in competition with phonics methods,
and that the whole language approach tends to impair learning how to spell.
Historically, the two camps have been called Whole Language and Phonics[citation needed],
although the Whole Language instructional method has also been referred to as "literature-
based reading program" and "integrated language arts curriculum".[18] Currently (2007), the
differing perspectives are frequently referred to as "balanced reading instruction" (Whole
Language) and "scientifically-based reading instruction" (Phonics).[19]
Phonics advocates assert that, to read a large vocabulary of words correctly and fluently
requires detailed knowledge of the structure of the English language, particularly spelling-
speech patterns.[citation needed] Whole Language advocates assert that students do not need to be
able to sound out words, but should look at unknown words and figure them out using
context.[citation needed]
[edit] Whole Language
Main article: Whole language
The whole language methodology involves the teaching of reading skills and strategies in the
context of authentic literature. Word recognition accuracy is considered less important than
meaning accuracy; therefore, there is an emphasis on comprehension as the ultimate goal of
reading. In a whole language classroom, students are immersed in a literature-rich
environment, in which they are given the opportunity to appreciate real-world purposes for
reading.[citation needed]
[edit] "Whole Word", "Sight Word", or "Look (and) Say"
The "Sight Word" method is not synonymous with "Whole Language" approach, but is often
considered to be part of it.[citation needed]
The "Sight Word" method also appears prominently in avowedly "Phonic" teaching such as
the National Curriculum for England & Wales, where words that do not fit the rules of
phonics are placed on a list of sight words for rote memorization.
Some advocates claim that it is the same method used to acquire literacy in languages such as
Chinese, assumed by the advocates to be based on ideograms. The Chinese writing system is
however a complex logographic system with many morphosyllabic elements particularly in
phonetic markers for frequently used characters.[20] Chinese characters.
Students learning English using this method memorize the appearance of words, or learn to
recognize words by looking at the first and last letter from rigidly selected vocabularies in
progressive texts (such as The Cat in the Hat).[citation needed] Often this method is taught by slides
or cards with a picture next to a word, teaching children to associate the whole word with its
meaning.[citation needed] Often preliminary results show children taught with this method have
higher reading levels than children learning phonics, because they learn to automatically
recognise a small selection of words.[citation needed] However later tests demonstrate that literacy
development becomes stunted when hit with longer and more complex words later.[citation needed]
However, they can learn the 5,000 most common words in roughly three years which is
sufficient for basic literacy.[citation needed] This is disputed. Following almost a decade of hands-
on research by Dr. Diane McGuinness’ and three associates and a study of the last 25 years of
reported research on teaching methods, she reports (three times for her emphasis):
“The average number of words in daily conversations on the streets of any town in the world
today is about 50,000. . . . But when people are asked to memorize what word goes with
which abstract visual symbol scribbled on clay, or papyrus, or paper, the upper limit is around
1,500 to 2,000, not enough for any language. Not even close. . . . There is a natural limit on
human memory for memorizing codes with too many confusing symbols. This limit, from the
evidence so far, is around 2,000 symbols. . . . What turns out to be “natural” is that ordinary
people (including children) can only remember about 1,500 to 2,000 abstract visual
symbols.”[21]
Dr. Rudolf Flesch reported in his 1981 book Why Johnny Still Can’t Read:
“And how does look-and-say [now called whole word] work? It works on the principle that
children learn to read by reading. It starts with little “stories” containing the most-often-used
words in English and gradually builds up a ‘sight vocabulary.’ The children learn to read by
seeing those words over and over again. By the end of first grade they can recognize 349
words, by the end of second grade 1,094, by the end of third grade 1,216, and by the end of
fourth grade 1,554. (I got those numbers from the Scott, Foresman series, but all look-and-say
series teach about the same number of words.) . . . Now consider the look-and-say trained
reader. The word rectitude is of course not among the 1,500 or 3,000 words he learns to
recognize during his first three or four school years.”[22]
Although the number of words taught by the whole word method may be different today, Dr.
McGuinness’ studies shows that unless the students learn phonics (on their own or from help
outside the classroom) in addition to their whole word training, they cannot learn more than
about 2,000 words by sight alone.[citation needed] In any case, if the students know only 3,000 to
5,000 common words, they read so poorly that they do not like to read,[citation needed] seldom do
so, and—-in most cases—-cannot hold an above-poverty-level wage job.[23] The classic
implementation of this approach was the McGill reading curriculum used to teach most baby
boomers to read in the U.S.
The sight-word (whole language) method was invented by Rev. Thomas H. Gallaudet, the
director of the American Asylum at Hartford in the 1830s.[citation needed] It was designed for the
education of the Deaf by juxtaposing a word, with a picture.[citation needed] In 1830, Gallaudet
provided a description of his method to the American Annals of Education which included
teaching children to recognize a total of 50 sight words written on cards and by 1837 the
method was adopted by the Boston Primary School Committee.[citation needed] Horace Mann the
then Secretary of the Board of Education of Massachusetts, USA favored the method and it
soon became the dominant method state wide.[citation needed]By 1844 the defects of the new
method became so apparent to Boston schoolmasters that they issued an attack against it
urging a return to an intensive, systematic phonics.[citation needed] Again Dr. Samuel Orton, a
neuropathologist in Iowa in 1929 sought the cause of children's reading problems and
concluded that their problems were being caused by the new sight method of teaching
reading.[citation needed](His results were published in the February 1929 issue of the Journal of
Educational Psychology, “The Sight Reading Method of Teaching Reading as a Source of
Reading Disability.”)[citation needed]
[edit] Initial teaching alphabet
Main article: Initial teaching alphabet
This method was designed to overcome the fact that English orthography has a many-to-
many relationship between graphemes and phonemes. The method fell in to disuse because
children still had to learn the Latin alphabet and the conventional English spellings in order to
integrate with society outside of school. It also recreated the problem of dialect dependent
spelling, which the standardisation of spelling had been created to eliminate.[citation needed]
[edit] Phonics
Main article: Phonics
Phonics refers to an instructional method for teaching children to read. The method teaches
sounds to be associated with letters and combinations of letters.[18][24] "Phonics" is distinct
from the linguistics terms "phoneme" and "phonetics", which refer to sounds and the study of
sounds respectively.[citation needed]
There are several different varieties of phonics.[citation needed]
• Embedded phonics is an instructional approach where letter sounds are taught
opportunistically, as the need arises and in meaningful contexts, such as the reading of
a storybook. Embedded phonics is often associated with a whole language approach
to teaching reading.
Synthetic phonics and analytic phonics [4] are different but popular methods of teaching
phonics. Synthetic and analytic phonics approaches both generally involve explicit, carefully
sequenced instruction that teach a large body of phonics patterns.[citation needed]
• Synthetic phonics emphasizes the one-to-one correspondences between phonemes and
graphemes. In synthetic phonics programs students say the sounds for the graphemes
they see and orally blend them together to produce a spoken word. In the context of
phonics, the word blend takes on a different meaning from its use in linguistics.
• In analytic phonics, students often learn phonograms, the rime parts of words
including the vowel and what follows it. Students are taught to generalize the
phonogram to multiple words. The phonogram -ail can be used to read fail, trail,
mail, wail, sail, and other words.[citation needed]
The Orton phonography, originally developed to teach brain-damaged adults to read, is a
form of phonics instruction that blends synthetic and analytic components. Orton described
73 "phonograms", or letter combinations, and 23 rules for spelling and pronunciation which
Orton claimed would allow the reader to correctly pronounce and spell all but 123 of the
13,000 most common English words.[citation needed]
[edit] Controversy about phonics
Main article: Phonics#History and controversy
Advocates of phonics cite the large reading and spelling vocabulary that phonetic students
can theoretically obtain.[citation needed] However, critics of phonetic methods talk of students that
fail at each one of the method's many mandatory skills.[citation needed] Almost all students learn
letter-sounds.[citation needed] Some students find it difficult to "blend" the letter sounds to produce
sensible speech.[citation needed] Some students also fail to apply rules to select letter sounds.[citation
needed]
Also, critics charge that in phonetic programs, students can learn to pronounce a
sentence without ever learning to understand it.[citation needed]The same holds true for "look say".
[citation needed]

[edit] Other instructional methods

Some methods of teaching reading are not easily categorized as either phonics or whole
word, but are rather a mixture of each.[citation needed] Native reading, for example, uses both
phonics and whole word techniques, but differs from both in that it emphasizes teaching
reading beginning at a very early age, when the human brain is neurodevelopmentally most
receptive to learning language. Native readers learn to read as toddlers, starting at the same
time they learn to speak, or very soon thereafter.[25]
[edit] Reading comprehension
Main article: Reading comprehension
Many educators in the USA believe that children need to learn to analyze text (comprehend
it) even before they can read it on their own, and comprehension instruction generally begins
in pre-Kindergarten or Kindergarten. But other US educators consider this reading approach
to be completely backward for very young children, arguing that the children must learn how
to decode the words in a story through phonics before they can analyze the story itself.[citation
needed]

During the last century comprehension lessons usually comprised students answering
teachers' questions, writing responses to questions on their own, or both. The whole group
version of this practice also often included "round robin reading," wherein teachers called on
individual students to read a portion of the text (and sometimes following a set order). In the
last quarter of the 20th century, evidence accumulated that the read-test methods assessed
comprehension more than they taught it. The associated practice of "round robin" reading has
also been questioned and eliminated by many educators.[citation needed]
Instead of using the prior read-test method, research studies have concluded that there are
much more effective ways to teach comprehension.[citation needed] Much work has been done in
the area of teaching novice readers a bank of "reading strategies," or tools to interpret and
analyze text.[26] There is not a definitive set of strategies, but common ones include
summarizing what you have read, monitoring your reading to make sure it is still making
sense, and analyzing the structure of the text (e.g., the use of headings in science text).[citation
needed]
Some programs teach students how to self monitor whether they are understanding and
provide students with tools for fixing comprehension problems.
Instruction in comprehension strategy use often involves the gradual release of responsibility,
wherein teachers initially explain and model strategies.[citation needed] Over time, they give
students more and more responsibility for using the strategies until they can use them
independently.[citation needed] This technique is generally associated with the idea of self-
regulation and reflects social cognitive theory, originally conceptualized by Albert Bandura.
[27]

[edit] Learning to read and write in Sudbury schools

Main article: Sudbury Valley School
Sudbury model of democratic education schools assert that there are many ways to study and
learn. They argue that learning is a process you do, not a process that is done to you; That is
true for everyone. It's basic.[28] The experience of Sudbury model democratic schools shows
that there are many ways to learn without the intervention of teaching, to say, without the
intervention of a teacher being imperative. In the case of reading for instance in the Sudbury
model democratic schools some children learn from being read to, memorizing the stories and
then ultimately reading them. Others learn from cereal boxes, others from games instructions,
others from street signs. Some teach themselves letter sounds, others syllables, others whole
words. Sudbury model democratic schools adduce that in their schools no one child has ever
been forced, pushed, urged, cajoled, or bribed into learning how to read or write -- no need to
do that to the modern child, streetwise and nurtured on TV -- and they have had no dyslexia.
None of their graduates are real or functional illiterates, and no one who meets their older
students could ever guess the age at which they first learned to read or write.[29][30] In a similar
form students learn all the subjects, techniques and skills in these schools.
[edit] Comparing reading education in English and other
alphabetic languages
This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the
talk page. (March 2008)

Many will claim that failure to learn to read in English is due to a failure of the students to
apply themselves properly to the task, or to various societal problems, or to inadequate
teaching. The lack of the alphabetic nature of English is the real culprit, however, in this
sense: (1) although most students can learn to read English, it requires significantly longer to
learn to read than in alphabetic languages Frank C. Laubach, Teaching the World to Read
(New York: Friendship Press, 1947), p. 103 and 108; Sanford S. Silverman, Spelling For the
21st Century (Cleveland, Ohio: self-published, 2003), pp. vi-vii. This is the Preface by Steve
Bett, Ph.D., Editor, Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society; Rudolf Flesch, Why Johnny
Can’t Read—and What You Can Do About It (New York: Perennial Library, 1983), and (2)
an unknown but substantial number of students are so resistant to the lack of logic and
inconsistency of English spelling that they cannot learn to read without the extensive help of
a one-to-one tutor for a year or more.[31] Different students have different abilities. Some
people—-particularly young girls—-are very good at memorizing. Young boys and most
adults prefer to learn new things by comparison to what they already know-—i.e. they like to
learn by logic. Unfortunately, the lack of logic is a complete “turn off” to some of the most
intelligent students who are looking for logic in what they learn. Sir James Pitman, Alphabets
and Reading (New York: Pitman Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 38, 54, and 161;[21]
Ever since alphabets were first invented, alphabetic languages have used a letter or letter
combination to represent the sounds in the words. The easiest alphabetic languages to learn
are those that use one specific grapheme (a single letter or a specific letter combination) for
each specific phoneme (the smallest sound in a language or dialect used to distinguish
syllables or words). English uses at least 1,768 graphemes to represent the 40 English
phonemes.[32] Although these 40 English phonemes could be spelled with 26 single letters and
14 digraphs (two letter combinations), they are spelled with all 26 single letters in the
alphabet and at least 153 two-letter graphemes, 98 three-letter graphemes, 14 four-letter
grapheme, and 3 five-letter graphemes, for a total of at least 294 different graphemes. This is
less than the 1,768 mentioned above because every English phoneme is spelled with more
than one grapheme. The number of spellings of the phonemes varies from at least four (for
the TH phoneme in words such at this) to at least 60 spellings of the U phoneme in words
such as nutty-—which is exactly what English spelling really is.[33]
Some phonics spelling advocates claim that English is more than 80 percent phonetic. This is
only possible, however, if you allow more than one grapheme for a phoneme. If you allow
only one grapheme for every phoneme as logic and ease-of-learning demands, English is only
a little more than 20 percent phonetic. The problem is that there is absolutely no way of
knowing which word is spelled phonemically and which is not. There are no invariable
spelling rules in English—-every rule has exceptions and some of the exceptions have
exceptions. Edward Rondthaler of the American Language Academy in a personal letter to
Bob Cleckler, author of Let’s End Our Literacy Crisis, stated, “A 1986 round table of British
linguists called by eminent scholars to discuss the underlying pattern of English spelling
concluded, not surprisingly, that only one rule in our spelling is not watered down with
exceptions: No word in English ends with the letter V.” Since Webster’s Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary includes the words rev and spiv there are therefore no invariable
spelling rules.
In addition, Dr. Diane McGuinness’ book Why Our Children Can’t Read explains the
complex logic that is required to learn to read English. Unlike many alphabetic languages,
there are tens of thousands of different syllables in English, with sixteen different syllable
patterns in English: (C=consonant, V=vowel) CV, CCV, CCCV, CVC, CCVC, CCCVC,
CVCC, CVCCC, CCVCC, CCVCCC, CCCVCCC, CCCVCC, VCCC, VCC, VC, and V.
There are two or more syllables in most English words.[21] Each syllable can have one of the
sixteen syllable patterns. If each vowel and each consonant in each of these patterns
consistently represented the same phoneme (one-to-one mapping), there would be nothing in
the logic of these syllables that would be beyond the abilities of most four- or five-year-olds.
But they do not. English spelling also has one-to-many and many-to-one mapping. This
requires a type of logic that most children do not develop until they are eleven or twelve
years old.
The types of logic required for one-to-many and many-to-one mapping are: (1) the logic of
“classes” (categories where objects or events that are similar are grouped) and “relations”
(where objects share some features but not all features, e.g. all poodles are dogs, but not all
dogs are poodles) and (2) “propositional logic,” which involves combining both the classes
and relations types of logic. This requires the ability to think of the same item in more than
one way at the same time. These combinations require the use of relational terms such as
“and,” “or,” “not,” “if—then,” and “if and only if” in formal statements of propositional
logic, e.g. if an H follows the T, then say /TH/ as in thin or then; but if any other letter or no
letter follows the T, then say /T/ as in top or ant.[21]
The eyes of the fluent reader skip easily over a multitude of traps for the beginner. Most
fluent readers who learned to read as a child have long since forgotten the difficulty they had
in learning. Due to the difficulty of English spelling there are basically three ways of learning
to read (a more precise explanation of the time required for learning is in the section “Time
required to learn to read English vs. other alphabetic languages” below):
• Young children can learn (a) the very limited number of common English words that
are phonemically regular (one-to-one mapping) either by phonics teaching, by whole
word, or by whole language teaching, (b) learn a few hundred sight words (most of
which are almost totally unphonemic) by the whole word or whole language method,
and (c) if being taught by the phonics method, memorize—-without understanding the
logic involved—-the hundreds of many-to-one and one-to-many phoneme-to-
grapheme mappings. Then—-with constant practice in reading that extends past the
age when they can understand the logic required—-using their knowledge of phonics,
they learn one-at-a-time all 20,000 or more of the words in their reading vocabulary
required to be a fluent reader. This process requires at least two-and-one-half years to
give young children the foundational knowledge and confidence to continue reading
long enough to become fluent readers and—-for most students-—extends past their
eleventh birthday.
• Begin learning to read after age eleven or twelve—-when they can understand the
logic involved—-and spend at least one to one-and-one-half years learning strictly by
phonics. Then with additional reading experience, learn one-at-a-time all 20,000 or
 more of the words in their reading vocabulary required to be fluent readers. This
method, of course, is totally impractical. Children should begin learning to read at the
age of four to six years of age when they are best able to learn to read. Furthermore,
students of almost all other school subjects need the ability to read to be able to do the
classwork, homework, and testing required to learn each subject. Delaying this
instruction would place students at a serious competitive disadvantage with students
of almost every other nation.
• If taught only by the whole word or whole language method and if they do not learn
phonics—-on their own or with help outside the classroom—-they can learn 2,000 or
so words (or perhaps as many as 5,000 or a little more if they have a superb memory)
and join the ranks of the functionally illiterate (see U.S. statistics on functional
illiteracy below). Those who can only read 2,000 to about 5,000 simple words they
learned in the first four grades in school have difficulty competing in our increasingly
complex and competitive world as well as they should.
As stated in the Whole Word method section above, the human mind cannot remember more
than about 2,000 symbols,.[21] Students of whole-word-only or whole-language-only teaching
cannot become fluent readers unless they also learn phonics-—either on their own or with
help outside the classroom—-as a tool to help them “decode” new words. When phonics
knowledge or contextual clues do not reveal the word they must consult a dictionary or ask
someone.
The problem is that learning words individually until one knows enough words to be able to
“get by” in life as well as they should—-as well as is required in our increasingly complex
society-—takes much longer than is required in alphabetic languages. Although some phonics
advocates have recently designed much-improved methods of teaching phonics, learning to
read in these programs still requires a year or more longer than a perfect one-grapheme-for-
one-phoneme spelling system.
The problem with whole word (or whole language) only type of teaching is that most of
today’s adults cannot hold an above-poverty-level wage job if they only know 2,000 common
words (or perhaps as many as 5,000 if they have a superb memory) they learned by sight in
the first four grades in school. Although there are several ways of determining functional
illiteracy, due to the fact that very few U.S. adults can afford to accept a job that pays less
than they are capable of earning, the average yearly earnings is the best method—or certainly
one of the best methods—of determining functional illiteracy. The most comprehensive study
of U.S. functional illiteracy ever commissioned by the U.S. government proves that 46 to 51
percent of individual adults earn significantly less than poverty level wages. This percentage
of families is not in poverty only because most families have more than one employed adult
and most low-income families receive governmental and charitable assistance.Irwin S.
Kirsch, et al., Adult Literacy in America (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 2002), pp. xvi, 63, 65, and 66, available
for free inspection and download from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf. This is a 199
page report on the most comprehensive study of U.S. adult literacy ever commissioned by the
U.S. government. It consisted of lengthy interviews of 26,700 U.S. adults. The interviewees
were statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, and location (urban, suburban, or rural)
in a dozen states across the U.S. to be representative of the U.S. population as a whole. It
used statistically rigorous methods to ensure accuracy and was reviewed by an outside testing
agency before it was released. No other persons had access to the study before it was
released. The same group who prepared this study did a less statistically rigorous study with a
slightly smaller database of interviewees and issued a report in 2003 that showed little or no
statistically significant improvement from the earlier report. It is available at
http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.PDF.
[edit] History of English spelling
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2009)

The English is a West Germanic language which originated from the Anglo-Frisian dialects
brought to Britain by Germanic invaders from various parts of what is now northwest
Germany and the northern Netherlands.[unreliable source?][12][13]
Prior to 1755 writers spelled the words the way they sounded, but a specific spelling of the
phonemes had not been settled upon. As a result, for example, Shakespeare often spelled a
phoneme two different ways in the same paragraph in his original writings. To further
complicate the matter, the early publishers hired many foreign typographers because
originally there were very few British typographers. These foreign typographers often knew
little or nothing about English words. In order to avoid the difficulty of adding small lead
pieces between each word in a line of type to justify the right margin, they would often add a
“silent E” or double the letters in some of the words.
In 1755 the publishers hired Dr. Samuel Johnson to prepare an English dictionary to
standardize the spelling. In a misguided and often erroneous attempt to show the origin of the
words, Dr. Johnson made a very serious linguistic error: he included the foreign words with
the spelling of the original language. Instead of freezing the spelling of the phonemes in the
words, as linguistic logic demands, he froze the spelling of entire words. In effect he divorced
the graphemes from the phonemes and turned each word into a Chinese picture-writing type
of logogram using a specific group of letters in a specific order. There were dictionaries prior
to Johnson’s, but they were not as authoritative or as well-received as Johnson’s.
Due to the changing pronunciation of words with time, what was bad in 1755 is even worse
today. As Edward Rondthaler and Edward Lias state, “[S]pelling is the only branch of
learning that has undergone no serious update or repair since before the 16th century. Other
disciplines receive continuous updating. But not spelling.[34]
[edit] Time required to learn to read English compared to other alphabetic
languages
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2009)

Following Frank C. Laubach’s thirty years of experience in teaching adult illiterates around
the world in 300 or more different languages, he stated, “Over 90 percent of the world’s
languages, writing styles, have one sound for a letter and one letter for a sound. In such
languages learning to read is swift and easy, requiring from one to twenty days.”[35]
Furthermore, he found that in 295 of these languages (98 percent of them) students could
master reading and writing in less than three months.[36]
In comparison, most U.S. students require two and one-half years or more to learn to read
well enough to succeed in school. As Rudolf Flesch explains, “Generally speaking, students
in our schools are about two years behind students of the same age in other countries. This is
not a wild accusation of the American educational system; it is an established, generally
known fact. . . . What accounts for these two years? Usually the assumption seems to be that
in other countries children and adolescents are forced to study harder. Now that I have looked
into this matter of reading, I think the explanation is much simpler and more reasonable:
Americans take two years longer to learn how to read—-and reading, of course, is the basis
for achievement in all other subjects.[37]
Frank C. Laubach believes even more time is lost: “It is estimated that two and one-half years
are lost in the student’s studies because of our chaotic spelling.”[38]
Perhaps most convincing of all is this quote: “In November 1974 Professor Durr reported on
a study trip to Russia in the pages of The Reading Teacher. . . . He found that first-graders are
taught to read 46 of the 130 national languages of Russia. . . . All children in the USSR are
given an ABC book and start to learn from it the day school begins. They learn at first about a
letter a day and what it stands for, and gradually proceed to syllables and words. By
December 15 of their first year all Russian children are through with their ABC books and
start reading simple stories and poems. There is no further instruction in reading as such after
the end of first grade.”[22]
[edit] Success rate of reading education in the USA
National literacy rates range from about 10 percent to 99+ percent. Frank C. Laubach’s books
Teaching the World to Read and Forty Years With the Silent Billion detail much of his
experience in teaching in 300 or more languages around the world. In teaching adults to read
in languages other than English, he never once mentions being unable to teach some of his
students to become fluent readers. When he makes the statement that “Over 90 percent of the
world's languages have one sound for a letter and one letter for a sound. In such languages
learning to read is swift and easy, requiring from one to twenty days.”[35] it implies that they
all learned to read. It follows that the literacy rates in non-English speaking countries is—-
more than anything else-—a measure of the percentage of the population that has had reading
training.
Unlike some other nations, which do not enforce universal education for all citizens, U.S.
children are required to be in school until their mid-teens. It is in the short-term best interests
of politicians and educators to believe the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the U.S. literacy
rate is 90 percent or more. There is not necessarily any conscious deception, but a brief study
of how the Census Bureau made this determination will reveal why the reported figure can be
so much higher than the true literacy rate.
The Census Bureau has included questions about literacy in each census from 1840 to 1930.
Many of those most knowledgeable about U.S. literacy believe that literacy began to drop in
the early 1960s and has been declining ever since.Thomas Sowell, Inside American
Education (New York: The Free Press, 1993), p. 1 and elsewhere; David Barton, The Myth of
Separation (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1992), p. 212 and elsewhere. (See also
pp. 209–216.); William J. Bennett, Ph.D., The Devaluing of America (New York:
Touchstone, 1992), p. 55; William J. Bennett, Ph.D., The Index of Leading Cultural
Indicators (New York: Touchstone, 1994), pp. 82–84. The Census Bureau reintroduced
questions about literacy in 1970 at the insistence of the military.
In the 1970 census the only question asked about literacy was on grade completion. The
Census Bureau considered those with fifth-grade completion or higher to be literate. A little
more than 5 percent reported less than a fifth-grade education. For some reason, the Census
Bureau decided that 80 percent of these could read, so they reported 99 percent literacy.
In 1980 the Census Bureau mailed out forms and based most of their calculations upon
written responses to questions about grade completion. In addition they used a small sample
of home visits and telephone interviews. They asked people what grade they had completed.
If the answer was “Less than fifth grade,” they asked if the person could read and write. As
explained in Jonathan Kozol’s book Illiterate America, this technique of determining literacy
is almost certain to underestimate illiteracy.U.S. Census Bureau methods of determining
illiteracy is almost certain to underestimate the level of illiteracy for the following reasons:
 • Illiterates would not respond to written forms, and their family members—-likely also
to be illiterate-—would not either.
• The underprivileged poor, and especially illiterates, may feel they are being singled
out like criminals. They therefore have cause to distrust salespersons, bill collectors,
or strangers knocking on their door seeking information—-especially if the answers to
the questions would be embarrassing. Home visits by Census Bureau officials who are
not known by the person answering the door cannot be expected to yield accurate
information under such circumstances.
• Grade-level completion does NOT equal grade-level competence.
• Those who have no permanent address, no phone number, no post office box, or no
regular job—-a condition shared by almost six million people, most of whom are
illiterate-—often are not counted. They can’t be found by the Census Bureau in time
for the census.[39]
Because U.S. schools since the 1930s have mostly taught by the whole word method (or the
whole language method) and due to new time-consuming pleasurable activities and negative
influences explained below, roughly 46 to 51 percent of U.S. adults are now functionally
illiterate. See Irwin S. Kirsch, et al., Adult Literacy in America
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf. pp. xvi, 63, 65, and 66 and
http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.PDF. Few if any non-English speaking nations use
the whole word teaching method.They do not have to; phonics works for their language
because it follows the alphabetic principle: the words are almost entirely spelled as they
sound.
• dozens of scholars[who?] for the last 250 years have recommended solving the problem
of English spelling—rather than merely fighting the symptoms of the problem-—by
making the spelling phonetic.
• Several nations both smaller and larger than the U.S. have simplified their spelling
systems.
• A simple, logical phonemic spelling system has been proven effective for teaching
students students to read in less that three months in 300 or more alphabetic
languages.
[edit] Print exposure
Print exposure is simply the amount of time a child or person spends being visually aware of
the written word (reading)--whether that be through newspapers, magazines, books, journals,
scientific papers, or more. Research has shown that the amount of print material that a child
accesses has deep cognitive consequences. In addition, the act of reading itself, for the most
part irrespective of what is being read, increases the achievement difference among children.
Children who are exposed to large amounts of print often have more success in reading and
have a larger vocabulary to draw from than children who see less print. The average
conversations among college graduates, spouses or adult friends contain less rare (advanced)
words than the average preschool reading book. Other print sources have increasingly higher
amounts of rare words, from children's books, to adult books, to popular magazines,
newspapers, and scientific articles (listed in increasing level of difficulty). Television, even
adult news shows, do not have the same level of rare words that children's books do.
The issue is that oral language is very repetitive. To learn to read effectively a child needs to
have a large vocabulary. Without this, when the child does read they stumble over words that
they do not know, and have trouble following the idea of the sentence. This leads to
frustration and a dislike of reading. When a child is faced with this difficulty he or she is less
likely to read, thus further inhibiting the growth of their vocabulary. This cycle leads to the
"rich get richer, poor get poorer" phenomena known as the Matthew Effect.
Children who enjoy reading do it more frequently and improve their vocabulary. A study of
out-of-school reading of fifth graders, found that a student in the 50th percentile read books
about 5 minutes a day, while a student in the 20th percentile read books for less than a minute
a day. This same study found that the amount of time a child in the 90th percentile spent
reading in two days, was the amount of time a child in the 10th percentile spent reading all
year.
Print exposure can also be a big factor in learning English as a second language. Book flood
experiments are an example of this. The book flood program brought books in English to the
classroom. Through focusing their English language learning on reading books instead of
endless worksheets the teachers were able to improve the rate at which their students learned
English.
[edit] Other linguistic models of English spelling
Attempts to make English spelling behave phonetically have given rise to various campaigns
for spelling reform; none have been generally accepted. Opponents of simplified spellings
point to the impossibility of phonetic spelling for a language with many diverse accents and
dialects. Several distinguished scholars, however, have thoroughly disproven all reasonable
objections to spelling reform, including this objection. See, for example, Dictionary of
Simplified American Spelling.[40] Thomas Lounsbury, LL.D., L.H.D., emeritus professor of
English, Yale University, presented a devastating rebuttal to all reasonable objections to
spelling reform in his book English Spelling and Spelling Reform as far back as 1909,
particularly the last chapter, pages 331 to 341.[41] A shorter rebuttal of all the reasonable
objections to spelling reform is available on pages 166 to 170 of Let's End Our Literacy
Crisis published in 2005, ISBN 1-58982-230-7, available at
http://www.pdbookstore.com/comfiles/pages/category7.shtml.
Linguists documenting the sounds of speech use various special symbols, of which the
International Phonetic Alphabet is the most widely known. Linguistics makes a distinction
between a phone and phoneme, and between phonology and phonetics. The study of words
and their structure is morphology, and the smallest units of meaning are morphemes. The
study of the relationship between words present in the language at one time is synchronic
etymology, part of descriptive linguistics, and the study of word origins and evolution is
diachronic etymology, part of historical linguistics.
English orthography gives priority first to morphology, then to etymology, and lastly to
phonetics. Thus the spelling of a word is dependent principally upon its structure, its
relationship to other words, and its language or origin. It is usually necessary to know the
meaning of a word in order to spell it correctly, and its meaning will be indicated by the
similarity to words of the same meaning and family.
English uses a 26 letter Latin alphabet, but the number of graphemes is expanded by several
digraphs, trigraphs, and tetragraphs, while the letter "q" is not used as a grapheme by itself,
only in the digraph "qu".
Each grapheme may represent a limited number of phonemes depending on etymology and
location in the word. Likewise each phoneme may be represented by a limited number of
graphemes. Some letters are not part of any grapheme, but function as etymological markers.
Graphemes do not cross morpheme boundaries.
Morphemes are spelt consistently, following rules inflection and word-formation, and allow
readers and writers to understand and produce words they have not previously encountered.
Examples of strict linguistic teaching methods include the Real Spelling approach.
[edit] Practical application
In practice, many children are exposed to both "Phonic" and "Whole Language" methods,
coupled with reading programs that combine both elements. For example, the extremely
popular book, Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons, by Siegfried Engelman, et al.
(ISBN 0-671-63198-5), teaches pronunciation and simple phonics, then supplements it with
progressive texts and practice in directed reading. The end result of a mixed method is a
casually phonetic student, a much better first-time pronouncer and speller, who still also has
look-say acquisition, quick fluency and comprehension. Using an eclectic method, students
can select their preferred learning style. This lets all students make progress, yet permits a
motivated student to use and recognize the best traits of each method.
Speed reading continues where basic education stops. Usually after some practice, many
students' reading speed can be significantly increased. There are various speed-reading
techniques. Hopify is a GPL tool to practice speed-reading.
However, speed reading does not guarantee comprehension or retention of what was read.
Readability indicates the ease of understanding or comprehension due to the style of writing.
Reading recovery is a method for helping students learn to read.
[edit] See also
• Accessible publishing
• Dolch Word List
• Speaking word processor supports reading education (Gio-Key-Board)
[edit] References
[edit] Notes
1. ^ Hoover, Wesley A. and Philip B. Gough. Reading Acquisition Framework,
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory [1]
2. ^ Hoover, Wesley A. and Philip B. Gough. Reading Acquisition Framework,
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, page 14. [2]
3. ^ Byrne, Brian (2005), "Theories of Learning to Read", in Snowling, Margaret J. and
Charles Hulme, The Science of Reading: A Handbook (First ed.), Blackwell
Publishing, pp. 104–119, 978-1-4051-6811-3
4. ^ Adams, Marilyn Jager. Learning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. MIT
Press, 1990.
5. ^ a b Wren, Sebastian (1999), Phonics Rules, Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory (SEDL), http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/read07.html, retrieved
2007-07-07 [dead link]
6. ^ Anglik English language resource
7. ^ [3]
8. ^ Linguistics research center Texas University
9. ^ The Germanic Invasions of Western Europe, University of Calgary
10. ^ English Language Expert
11. ^ History of English, Chapter 5 "From Old to Middle English"
12. ^ a b A history of the English language By Richard M. Hogg, David Denison
(Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 3
13. ^ a b A history of English By Barbara A. Fennell (Wiley-Blackwell, 2001 ISBN
0631200738, 9780631200734) pp 2
14. ^ a b Borowsky R, Esopenko C, Cummine J, Sarty GE (2007). "Neural representations
of visual words and objects: a functional MRI study on the modularity of reading and
object processing". Brain Topogr 20 (2): 89–96. doi:10.1007/s10548-007-0034-1.
PMID 17929158.
15. ^ a b Borowsky R, Cummine J, Owen WJ, Friesen CK, Shih F, Sarty GE (2006).
"FMRI of ventral and dorsal processing streams in basic reading processes: insular
sensitivity to phonology". Brain Topogr 18 (4): 233–9. doi:10.1007/s10548-006-
0001-2. PMID 16845597.
16. ^ a b Sanabria Díaz G, Torres Mdel R, Iglesias J, et al. (November 2009). "Changes in
reading strategies in school-age children". Span J Psychol 12 (2): 441–53.
PMID 19899646.
17. ^ a b Chan ST, Tang SW, Tang KW, Lee WK, Lo SS, Kwong KK (November 2009).
"Hierarchical coding of characters in the ventral and dorsal visual streams of Chinese
language processing". Neuroimage 48 (2): 423–35.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.078. PMID 19591947.
18. ^ a b Chall, Jeanne S. and Helen M. Popp, Teaching and Assessing Phonics: Why,
What, When and How, Educators Publishing Service, 1996
19. ^ Louisa Moats, Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of “Balanced” Reading
Instruction, The Fordham Foundation, Oct 2000. Downloaded from
http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/moats.pdf July 30, 2007.
20. ^ Perfetti, C. & Zhang, S. (1995) Very early phonological activation in Chinese
reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition
21. ^ a b c d e Diane McGuinness, Why Our Children Can’t Read (New York: Touchstone,
1997), pp. 38, 45, 50.
22. ^ a b Rudolf Flesch, Why Johnny Still Can’t Read (New York: Harper Colophon
Books, 1981)
23. ^ pages xvi, 63, 65, and 66 of the 199 page report titled Adult Literacy in America
available for free inspection and download from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf,
the 1993 U.S.Census Bureau report
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh93.html and the 2003
follow-up report http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.PDF
24. ^ Moats, Louisa Cook. Spelling: Development Disability and Instruction, York Press,
1995
25. ^ Kailing, Timothy D. (2008). Native Reading. Elliptical Research Books. ISBN 978-
1434848819.
26. ^ Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced
teaching. New York: Guilford Press.
27. ^ Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced
instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.
28. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987) The Sudbury Valley School Experience Back to Basics.
Retrieved, December 27, 2009.
29. ^ Greenberg, D. (1987) Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School, Chapter 5, The
Other 'R's. Retrieved, December 27, 2009.
 30. ^ John Taylor Gatto (2000-20003) The Underground History of American Education
- A Schoolteacher's Intimate Investigation Into The Problem Of Modern Schooling,
Chapter Three - Eyeless In Gaza, The Sudbury Valley School. Retrieved, December
27, 2009.
31. ^ Frank C. Laubach, et al., Laubach Way to Reading (New York: New Readers Press,
1981) Skill Books 1 through 4.
32. ^ Julius Nyikos, “A Linguistic Perspective of Functional Illiteracy,” The Fourteenth
LACUS Forum 1987 (Lake Bluff, Illinois: Linguistic Association of Canada and the
United States, 1988), pp.146-163
33. ^ Bob C. Cleckler, Let’s End Our Literacy Crisis (Salt Lake City: American
University & Colleges Press, 2005), pp. 75-87, ISBN 1-58982-230-7
34. ^ Edward Rondthaler and Edward Lias, Dictionary of Simplified American Spelling
(New York: The American Language Academy, 1986), p. 4
35. ^ a b Frank C. Laubach, Teaching the World to Read (New York: Friendship Press,
1947), p. 103
36. ^ Sanford S. Silverman, Spelling For the 21st Century (Cleveland, Ohio: self-
published, 2003), pp. vi-vii. This is the Preface by Steve Bett, Ph.D., Editor, Journal
of the Simplified Spelling Society.
37. ^ Rudolf Flesch, Why Johnny Can’t Read—and What You Can Do About It (New
York: Perennial Library, 1983), pp. 76-77
38. ^ Frank C. Laubach, Teaching the World to Read (New York: Friendship Press, 1947)
p. 108
39. ^ Jonathan Kozol, Illiterate America, New York: New American Library, 1895, pp.
37-39.
40. ^ Rondthaler, Edward and Edward J. Lias, Dictionary of Simplified American
Spelling (New York: The American Language Academy, 1986)
41. ^ Thomas Lounsbury, English Spelling and Spelling Reform (New York: Harper &
Brothers Publishers, 1909). This rare book can be found online at
http://www.archive.org/details/englishspellings00lounuoft.
[edit] Bibliography
• National Right To Read Foundation - Many articles on comparison between Phonics
and Whole language techniques and effects
[edit] External links
• "Reading Can Make You Smarter" by Anne Cunningham and Keith Stanovich;
National Academy of Elementary School Principles
• The Phonics Page
[show]
v•d•e
Literacy

TReading education in the USA • Phonics • Whole language • Dick and Jane • National
eCouncil of Teachers of English • NCLB • Family literacy • Adolescent literacy
a
c
h
i
n
g

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

D
e
f
i
n
i
n
g
Functional illiteracy • Critical literacy
l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

LInternational Reading Association • List of countries by literacy rate • Literacy in India •

iInternational Literacy Day • List of Chinese administrative divisions by illiteracy rate
t
e
r
a
c
y

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

M
a
j
o
r

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
Frank Laubach • Paulo Freire • Griffith Jones • Marie Clay
o
r
s

t
o

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

R
e
l
a
t
eAgricultural literacy • Aliteracy • Asemic writing • Computer literacy • Cultural literacy •
dDyslexia • Diaspora literacy • Ecological literacy • Electracy • Emotional literacy • Financial
literacy • Health literacy • Information literacy • Information and media literacy • Literacy
ctest • Media literacy • Mental health literacy • Mental literacy • New literacies • Numeracy •
oOracy • Orality • Oral literature • Postliterate society • Racial literacy • Scientific literacy •
nStatistical literacy • Technological literacy • Transliteracy • Visual literacy • Writing system
c
e
p
t
s
 [show]
v•d•e
Education by subject

Agricultural · Art ·
Bilingual · Chemistry ·
Language · Legal ·
Mathematics · Medical ·
Military · Music ·
Peace · Performing arts ·
Physical · Physics ·
Reading · Religious ·
Science · Sex ·
Technology ·
Vocational · More...

Education Portal
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_education_in_the_United_States"
Categories: Reading | Learning to read | Education by subject | Orthography | Applied
linguistics | Writing systems
Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links
from November 2010 | Articles lacking sources from May 2009 | All articles lacking sources |
Articles needing cleanup from June 2009 | All pages needing cleanup | Languages articles
needing expert attention | Articles needing expert attention from June 2009 | All articles
needing expert attention | Articles to be expanded from September 2007 | All articles to be
expanded | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from
June 2009 | Articles with unsourced statements from October 2008 | Accuracy disputes from
March 2008 | All accuracy disputes | NPOV disputes from November 2009 | All NPOV
disputes | All articles lacking reliable references | Articles lacking reliable references from
June 2009 | All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases | Articles with
specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from March 2009
Personal tools
• Log in / create account
Namespaces
• Article
• Discussion
Variants
Views
• Read
• Edit
• View history
Actions
Search
Top of Form
Special:Search
 Bottom of Form
Navigation
• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
• Donate to Wikipedia
Interaction
• Help
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page
Print/export
• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version
Languages
• Deutsch
• Français
• 中文
• This page was last modified on 12 November 2010 at 04:00.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers
 •

If everyone reading this donated $5

our fundraiser would be over today.
Please donate to keep Wikipedia free.
$2.4M left
$13.6M raised

Please help

Reading comprehension
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (June 2010)

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States
and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article
and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Part of a series on

Reading

LANGUAGE
 Language · Writing
Writing system · Orthography
Braille

TYPES OF READING

Close reading · Slow reading

Speed reading · Subvocalization

LEARNING TO READ

Reading skills acquisition

Comprehension
Spelling · Vocabulary
Reading disability · Dyslexia

READING INSTRUCTION

Alphabetic principle · Phonics

Whole language

LITERACY

Literacy · Functional illiteracy

Family literacy
English orthography

LISTS

Languages by writing system

Management of dyslexia

v•d•e

Reading comprehension is defined as the level of understanding of a writing.

Proficient reading depends on the ability to recognize words quickly and effortlessly.[1][2] If
word recognition is difficult, students use too much of their processing capacity to read
individual words, which interferes with their ability to comprehend what is read.
Many educators in the USA believe that children need to learn to analyze text (comprehend
it) even before they can read it on their own, and comprehension instruction generally begins
in pre-Kindergarten or Kindergarten.[citation needed] But other US educators consider this reading
approach to be completely backward for very young children, arguing that the children must
learn how to decode the words in a story through phonics before they can analyze the story
itself.[citation needed]
During the last century comprehension lessons usually comprised students answering
teachers' questions, writing responses to questions on their own, or both.[citation needed] The whole
group version of this practice also often included "Round-robin reading", wherein teachers
called on individual students to read a portion of the text (and sometimes following a set
order). In the last quarter of the 20th century, evidence accumulated that the read-test
methods assessed comprehension more than they taught it. The associated practice of "round
robin" reading has also been questioned and eliminated by many educators.[citation needed]
Instead of using the prior read-test method, research studies have concluded that there are
much more effective ways to teach comprehension. Much work has been done in the area of
teaching novice readers a bank of "reading strategies," or tools to interpret and analyze text.[3]
[4]
There is not a definitive set of strategies, but common ones include summarizing what you
have read, monitoring your reading to make sure it is still making sense, and analyzing the
structure of the text (e.g., the use of headings in science text).[citation needed] Some programs teach
students how to self monitor whether they are understanding and provide students with tools
for fixing comprehension problems.[citation needed]
Instruction in comprehension strategy use often involves the gradual release of responsibility,
wherein teachers initially explain and model strategies. Over time, they give students more
and more responsibility for using the strategies until they can use them independently. This
technique is generally associated with the idea of self-regulation and reflects social cognitive
theory, originally conceptualized by Albert Bandura.[citation needed]

Contents
[hide]
• 1 Teaching reading comprehension
○ 1.1 Vocabulary
○ 1.2 Reading strategies
○ 1.3 Professional development for teachers
• 2 Reading difficult texts
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 Further reading
• 6 External links

[edit] Teaching reading comprehension

The U.S. National Reading Panel conducted a comprehensive literature search on teaching
reading comprehension. They concluded that (1) vocabulary knowledge, (2) reading
comprehension instruction based on reading strategies, and (3) practices were critical to
effective reading comprehension teaching.[citation needed]
One strategy for reading comprehension is the technique called SQ3R. This stands for
Survey, Question, Read, Recite, and Review. In order to get an understanding of the text, you
should survey the chapters. This consists of quickly looking at the title, headings and any
subheadings. Look at any end of chapter questions as well. While surveying, you ask
questions about the topics you have scanned, such as, "What did my teacher say about this
chapter?"[citation needed]
The next thing is to begin reading. In a chapter book, you would read the majority of the
words. In a textbook, just read quickly for the key words. There are words seen in the chapter
questions, teacher made questions and in the titles or subtitles of the chapter.[citation needed]
After reading a portion or section of the book, recite what you have read out loud. By orally
summarizing what you just read it helps to cement the content in your memory.[citation needed]
The last technique is top review what you have read again. By writing down key facts from
the chapter and reviewing it, you will better understand the information. You can also check
the website "Study Guides and Strategies" [1]
[edit] Vocabulary
Several theories of vocabulary instruction exist, namely, one focused on intensive instruction
of a few high value words, one focused on broad instruction of many useful words, and a
third focused on strategies for learning new words.[citation needed]
The idea of focusing intensely on a few words was popularized by Isabel Beck, Margaret
McKeown, and Linda Kucan in their book for teachers called Bringing Words to Life: Robust
Vocabulary Instruction (2002).[citation needed] They argued that words occur in three "tiers," the
lowest (tier 1) being common words such as eat and fish, the top (tier 3) being very content-
specific words such as photosynthesis and geopolitical. The tier 2 words were what they
considered general academic vocabulary, words with many uses in academic contexts, such
as analyze and frequent. Beck et al.[citation needed] suggested that teachers focus on tier 2 words
and that they should teach fewer of these words with greater intensity. They suggested that
teachers offer multiple examples and develop activities to help students practice these words
in increasingly independent ways.[citation needed]
The method of focusing of broad instruction on many words was developed by Andrew
Biemiller. He argued, contra Beck et al.,[citation needed] that more words would benefit students
more, even if the instruction was short and teacher-directed. He suggested that teachers teach
a large number of words before reading a book to students, by merely giving short
definitions, such as synonyms, and then pointing out the words and their meaning while
reading the book to students (Biemiller & Boote, 2006).[citation needed] The method contrasts with
the Beck et al. approach by emphasizing quantity versus quality. There is no evidence to
suggest the primacy of either approach.[citation needed]
The final vocabulary technique, strategies for learning new words, can be further subdivided
into instruction on using context and instruction on using morphemes, or meaningful units
within words to learn their meaning. Morphemic instruction has been shown to produce
positive outcomes for students reading and vocabulary knowledge, but context has proved
unreliable as a strategy and it is no longer considered a useful strategy to teach students. This
conclusion does not disqualify the value in "learning" morphemic analysis" - prefixes,
suffixes and roots - but rather suggests that it be imparted incidentally and in context.
Accordingly, there are methods designed to achieve this, such as Incidental Morpheme
Analysis (Manzo, Manzo, Thomas, 2004, p. 163-4)[citation needed].
[edit] Reading strategies
Before the 1980s, little comprehension instruction occurred in the United States (National
Reading Panel, 2000)[citation needed]. Palinscar and Brown (1984)[citation needed] developed a technique
called reciprocal teaching that taught students to predict, summarize, clarify, and ask
questions for sections of a text. The technique had positive outcomes. Since then, the use of
strategies like summarizing after each paragraph have come to be seen as effective strategies
for building students' comprehension. The idea is that students will develop stronger reading
comprehension skills on their own if the teacher gives them explicit mental tools for
unpacking text (Pressley, 2006)[citation needed].
There are a wide range of reading strategies suggested by reading programs and educators.
The National Reading Panel identified positive effects only for a subset, particularly
summarizing, asking questions, answering questions, comprehension monitoring, graphic
organizers, and cooperative learning. The Panel also emphasized that a combination of
strategies, as used in Reciprocal Teaching, can be effective.[citation needed]
Today, most reading comprehension programs teach students explicit reading strategies using
teacher direct instruction with additional student practice.
Comprehension through discussion involves lessons that are "instructional conversations"
that create higher-level thinking opportunities for students. The purpose of the discussions are
to promote critical and aesthetic thinking about text and encourage full classroom
involvement. According to Vivian Thayer,[citation needed] class discussions help students to
generate ideas and new questions. (Goldenberg, p. 317)[citation needed]
There are specific comprehension strategies that some teachers are now using in the
classroom. A great resource for elementary teachers on these specific comprehension
strategies is to go to the "Into the Book" website [2]. There you will find songs, book lists,
posters, and activities to teach these specific strategies.
First, teach students about prior knowledge. On one of the posters from the Into the Book
website, it explains that "Prior knowledge is using what you already know to help understand
something new." To help students comprehend and learn from a specific reading material,
they can access their prior knowledge on a subject to help them relate to the subject that they
are learning at the moment.[citation needed]
Making a connection is when a student can relate a passage to an experience, another book,
or other facts about the world. Making connections will help students understand what the
author's purpose is and what the story is about. You can use connections with any fiction or
non-fiction text that you read.[citation needed]
Questioning is another strategy that will greatly benefit a student. Dr. Neil Postman has said,
"All our knowledge results from questions, which is another way of saying that question-
asking is our most important intellectual tool" (Response to Intervention).[citation needed] There are
several types of questions that a teacher should focus on: remembering; testing
understanding; application or solving; invite synthesis or creating; and evaluation and
judging. Teachers should model these types of questions through "think-alouds" before,
during, and after reading a text.[citation needed]
Visualization is when a student can create a picture or movie in their mind while reading text.
Use terms like "mental image" and asking sensory questions will help students become better
visualizers. Another way of looking at visualization, is to think about bringing words to life.
[citation needed]

Into the Book's website explains that inferring means to "figure out what it really means from
clues in the text." Inferring is difficult for students. For the younger students, one suggestion
is to have your class become book detectives. Explain that detectives use what they already
know along with using clues from the book to help "solve" the mystery.[citation needed]
Summarizing is a comprehension strategy that also needs to be taught. Summarizing is telling
what is important about the text. A summary might include the answers to who, what, where,
when, why, and how. You can have students summarize any text that you are using the
classroom.[citation needed]
Evaluation is about making judgments on what you read and then explaining why you made
those judgments (Into the Book). Some activities to help with evaluating can be as easy as
having a small group book talk or having students rate a book. Evaluating non-fiction texts
can be done by using a criteria checklist (i.e. table of contents, index, titles, headings, etc.) to
help students rate a text.[citation needed]
Synthesizing is putting the pieces together to see them in a new way (Into the Book).
Students will take what they already know about a subject along with their reflections from
the book to create their own interpretation and ideas about a certain text.[citation needed]
Putting all of these "tools" together will give your students a toolbox of strategies to help
them with reading comprehension. For more reading activities, you can check out these
websites: [3]
Reading different types of texts requires the use of different reading strategies and
approaches. Making reading an active, observable process can be very beneficial to
struggling readers. A good reader interacts with the text in order to develop an understanding
of the information before them. Some good reader strategies are predicting, connecting,
inferring, summarizing, analyzing and critiquing. There are many resources and activities
educators and instructors of reading can use to help with reading strategies in specific content
areas and disciplines. Some examples are graphic organizers, talking to the text, anticipation
guides, double entry journals, interactive reading and note taking guides, chunking, and
summarizing.
[edit] Professional development for teachers
The National Reading Panel noted that comprehension strategy instruction is difficult for
many teachers, particularly because they were not taught this way and because it is a very
cognitively demanding task. They suggested that professional development can increase
teachers' willingness to use reading strategies but admitted that much remains to be done in
this area.[citation needed]
[edit] Reading difficult texts
Some texts, like in philosophy, literature or scientific research, may appear more difficult to
read because of the prior knowledge they assume; they may assume the tradition from which
they come, or assume having read a text which the author is criticizing or parodizing. Such
knowledge is assumed rather than restated, for economic reasons, for saving time and space.
Philosopher Jacques Derrida, whose texts are considered difficult even by fellow scholars,
explained that "In order to unfold what is implicit in so many discourses, one would have
each time to make a pedagogical outlay that is just not reasonable to expect from every book.
Here the responsibility has to be shared out, mediated; the reading has to do its work and the
work has to make its reader."[5]
[edit] See also
• Directed listening and thinking activity
• Reading comprehension for special needs
[edit] References
1. ^ Adams, Marilyn Jager (1994). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-51076-6.
2. ^ Marilyn Jager Adams (1994). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print.
Google Books. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P_Hk7-
n8i1AC&dq=Beginning+to+Read:
 +Thinking+and+Learning+about+Print&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=
mNsDTPfSC4z84AbQ59zLDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0
CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false.
3. ^ Pressley, Michael (2006). Reading instruction that works: the case for balanced
teaching. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 1-59385-228-2.
4. ^ Michael Pressley (2006). Reading instruction that works: the case for balanced
teaching. Google Books. http://books.google.co.uk/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=Gl6TWPOE2o0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Reading+instruction+that+
works:
+The+case+for+balanced+teaching&ots=WDL3X6Gy9_&sig=kgIU6slAZInOJfGqT
WuDqFeS2L0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
5. ^ Jacques Derrida (1987) Heidegger, the Philosopher's Hell, interview by Didier
Eribon for Le Nouvel Observateur issue of November 6–12, republished in Points:
Interviews 1974-1994 (1995) pp.187-8
[edit] Further reading
• Heim S, Friederici AD (November 2003). "Phonological processing in language
production: time course of brain activity". Neuroreport 14 (16): 2031–3.
doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000091133.75061.2d. PMID 14600492.
http://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/pages/articleviewer.aspx?
year=2003&issue=11140&article=00005&type=abstract.
• Vigneau M, Beaucousin V, Hervé PY, et al. (May 2006). "Meta-analyzing left
hemisphere language areas: phonology, semantics, and sentence processing".
Neuroimage 30 (4): 1414–32. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.002.
PMID 16413796. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?
_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4J2KTJ4-
3&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F01%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search
&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0
&_userid=10&md5=0039a96cfb812228ee9367bc90d4734c.
[edit] External links
• Vocabulary Instruction and Reading comprehension - From the ERIC Clearinghouse
on Reading English and Communication.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension"
Categories: Education by subject | Education in the United States | Learning to read | Reading
Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from June 2010 | All articles
needing additional references | Articles with limited geographic scope from December 2010 |
USA-centric | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements
from May 2010
Personal tools
• Log in / create account
Namespaces
• Article
• Discussion
Variants
Views
• Read
 • Edit
• View history
Actions
Search
Top of Form
Special:Search

Bottom of Form
Navigation
• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
• Donate to Wikipedia
Interaction
• Help
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page
Print/export
• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version
Languages
• Català
• Español
• 日本語
• Svenska
• This page was last modified on 9 December 2010 at 06:06.
 • Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

If everyone reading this donated $5

our fundraiser would be over today.
Please donate to keep Wikipedia free.
$2.4M left
$13.6M raised

Please help

Sales comparison approach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The sales comparison approach (SCA) is one of the three major groupings of valuation
methods, called the three approaches to value, commonly used in real estate appraisal. This
approach compares a subject property's characteristics with those of comparable properties
which have recently sold in similar transactions. The process uses one of several techniques
to adjust the prices of the comparable transactions according to the presence, absence, or
degree of characteristics which influence value. As such, all sales comparison approach
methods are variations on hedonic-type measurements, which determine the value of
something as the sum of the value of the various components which contribute utility.

Contents
[hide]
 • 1 Units of Comparison
• 2 Economic Basis
• 3 Examples of Methods
• 4 Further reading
• 5 References

[edit] Units of Comparison

The SCA relies on the assumption that a matrix of attributes or significant features of a
property drive its value. For examples, in the case of a single family residence, such attributes
might be floor area, views, distance to amenities, number of bathrooms, lot size, age of the
property and condition of property.

[edit] Economic Basis

The sales comparison approach is based upon the principles of supply and demand, as well as
upon the principle of substitution. Supply and demand indicates value through typical market
behavior of both buyers and sellers. Substitution indicates that a purchaser would not
purchase an improved property for any value higher than it could be replaced for on a site
with equivalent utility, assuming no undue delays in construction.
[edit] Examples of Methods
In practice, the most common SCA method used by estate agents and real estate appraisers is
the sales adjustment grid. It uses a small number of recently sold properties in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property to estimates the value of its attributes. Adjustments to the
comparables may be determined by trend analysis, matched-pairs analysis, or simple surveys
of the market.
More advanced researchers and appraisers commonly employ statistical techniques based on
multiple regression methods which generally compare a larger number of more
geographically dispersed property transactions to determine the significance and magnitude
of the impact of different attributes on property value. Research has shown that the sales
adjustment grid and the multiple regression model are theoretically the same, with the former
applying more heuristic methods and the latter using statistical techniques[1].
Spatial auto regression plagues these statistical techniques, since high priced properties tend
to cluster together and therefore one property price is not independent of its neighbor. Given
property inflation and price cycles, both comparison techniques can become unreliable if the
time interval between transactions sampled is excessive. The other factor undermining a
simplistic use of the SCA is the evolving nature of city neighborhoods, though in reality
urban evolution occurs gradually enough to minimize its' impact on this approach to value.
In more complex situations, such as litigation or contaminated property appraisal, appraisers
develop SCA adjustments using widely accepted advanced techniques, such as repeat sales
models (to measure house price appreciation over time), survey research (e.g. -- contingent
valuation), case studies (to develop adjustments in complex situations) or other statistically-
based techniques[2].
[edit] Further reading
• The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12th Edition, by the Appraisal Institute is an industry-
recognized textbook.
 • The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, by The Appraisal
Foundation, updated and published annually through the 2006 edition; henceforth,
updated editions are to appear biannually.
[edit] References
1. ^ see, for example, Lentz and Wang, Journal of Real Estate Research, 1997
2. ^ see, for example, Kilpatrick, Throupe, Mundy, & Spiess, Valuation of Impaired
Property, When Bad Things Happen to Good Property, Robert Simons, ed., 2006
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_comparison_approach"
Categories: Real estate valuation
Personal tools
• Log in / create account
Namespaces
• Article
• Discussion
Variants
Views
• Read
• Edit
• View history
Actions
Search
Top of Form
Special:Search

Bottom of Form
Navigation
• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
• Donate to Wikipedia
Interaction
• Help
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
 • What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page
Print/export
• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version
Languages
• Deutsch
• 日本語
• This page was last modified on 11 January 2010 at 02:36.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

Top of Form
00480110523965

FORID:10

UTF-8

Search

w w w .ldanatl.org

Bottom of Form
download movies the For Teachers Home | Understanding Learning Disabilities
shawshank redemption
inception movie watch & ADHD | Teaching Reading | Social/Emotional Aspects
movies of Learning Disabilities

For Teachers >

Reading Methods and
Learning Disabilities

Introduction
Reading instruction is designed to teach two elements of
reading: mechanics and comprehension. While the
foundation for reading begins at birth, the focus of
instruction from preschool through third grade is reading
mechanics, and reading comprehension is the focus from
the third grade into early adulthood. It cannot be assumed
that a child with learning disabilities will master the
mechanics of reading by third grade. Thus, it is critical that
appropriate reading instruction is available throughout
his/her school career.
Reading mechanics and comprehension comprise various
skill levels that are typically taught in a progressive
fashion. Skill levels involved in reading mechanics include
pre-reading, decoding and fluency. Pre-reading skills build
upon an individual's growing range of experiences that
develop awareness and appreciation of printed words.
Individuals should be encouraged to be aware of words
wherever they appear, e.g., on grocery labels, household
objects, billboards, and the like. Individuals can acquire a
more sophisticated understanding of written language by
learning:
• the alphabet, including the names, sounds, and
shapes of letters, and how to write them;
S e le c t O n e • that English has a left to right directionality;
Top of
• that words are made up of letters and syllables;
Form
• that words are made up of sound elements or
Bottom of
Form phonemes, and by learning the practical application
of the relationship between sounds and their
representative letters by counting the sounds in a
word, through rhyming games and exercises,
phonemic substitutions, and creating nonsense
words by substituting or rearranging phonemes
 (phonological awareness).
Decoding
Decoding is the process translating a written word into a
spoken word ("cracking the code"). An individual who has
developed adequate decoding skills can begin to acquire
fluency when reading no longer requires a conscious,
deliberate effort. When fluent, reading becomes automatic
and consists of word recognition rather than sounding out
and combining syllables necessary to decode words.
Teaching decoding provides students with the keys to
unlock new words. Teaching the regular phonetic patterns
of English can do this. These rules can be applied to words
with which the student is already familiar. New words are
then introduced beginning with simple words and working
through more complex words. Finally, irregular phonemic
patterns can be introduced and eventually mastered.
Comprehension skills
Individuals typically shift their attention to reading
comprehension once they have established appropriate
mechanical skills (decoding). Comprehension skills, like
mechanical skills, usually build progressively from
fundamental to more sophisticated levels. Therefore, it has
traditionally been helpful for individuals to learn to read
for factual information before they begin to compare and
evaluate the information they read. It will normally be
easier for an individual to learn to read and comprehend
material at these two levels before learning analysis and
synthesis.
Reading for factual information requires that the sequence
of events and the details of a story be followed so that, for
example, it is possible to read a murder mystery and solve
the story's dilemma or to understand how it was resolved.
Learning to compare and evaluate information from
different sources requires the reader to be able to derive
the main ideas from a text and isolate its organizing idea or
thesis. This fundamental level of critical reading allows the
reader to apply evaluative techniques like comparing and
contrasting what was read in order to solve and verify
statements.
The more advanced critical reading skills of analysis and
synthesis allow the reader to draw salient conclusions and
to make reasonable inferences from the information
contained in the text. In addition, these skills allow the
reader to engage the text with greater sophistication and to
evaluate materials for relevance, consistency, and bias.
Reading: A Problem for Many Persons with Learning
Disabilities
For the person with learning disabilities, the process of
learning to read can break down with reading mechanics or
comprehension, and at any of the specific skill levels. It is
also important to note that children with learning
disabilities do not always acquire skills in the normal
developmental sequence. If an individual does not develop
adequate phonemic awareness during the pre-reading
period, effective decoding may not be possible, which
influences the development of fluent reading and
comprehension skills. Also, children with learning
disabilities often come to the reading task with oral
language comprehension problems. When assessing and
planning for instruction, consideration of these oral
language comprehension problems may facilitate
acquisition of reading comprehension.
No single reading method will be effective for all
students with learning disabilities. Most individuals
with learning disabilities will benefit from the
application of a variety of methods. Instructors need a
repertoire of instructional methods.
Teachers should be able to appropriately and
systematically modify or combine methods, and utilize
different methods in order to meet an individual's changing
needs. Selecting the appropriate program to apply to the
student is not a simple matter, and requires a careful
assessment of where the student is in the developmental
process. It is not uncommon, for example, to observe an
individual with all the pre-reading skills, numerous
comprehension skills, and simple decoding skills acquired
during the student's progression through mechanical
reading instruction. Because there may be a lack of
understanding of the sophisticated decoding skills needed,
reading with fluency suffers. Students with learning
disabilities should be provided with sound strategic
approaches that empower them as readers, rather than
be allowed to learn and internalize incorrect practices.
Selecting the appropriate method
A significant part of selecting appropriate instructional
approaches is understanding the learning profile of an
individual. A diagnostic program is necessary to identify
students with learning disabilities. A cognitive profile is
also necessary to determine precisely what students' needs
are, their strengths and weaknesses, whether they have
difficulty with working memory, if they have inadequate
language skills, etc. Students with learning disabilities
need to be taught strategic approaches explicitly. They
need to have ideas made conspicuously clear to them.
Persons with learning disabilities who need to work on
reading mechanics frequently respond to explicitly taught
code-emphasis developmental reading methods such as
phonic, linguistic, or multisensory approaches. Some of
the more popular approaches are briefly described below.
Phonics approach. The phonics approach teaches word
recognition through learning grapheme-phoneme (letter-
sound) associations. The student learns vowels,
consonants, and blends, and learns to sound out words by
combining sounds and blending them into words. By
associating speech sounds with letters the student learns to
recognize new and unfamiliar words.
Linguistic method. This method uses a "whole word"
approach. Words are taught in word families, or similar
spelling patterns, and only as whole words. The student is
not directly taught the relationship between letters and
sounds, but learns them through minimal word differences.
As the child progresses, words that have irregular spellings
are introduced as sight words.
Multisensory approach. This method assumes that some
children learn best when content is presented in several
modalities. Multisensory approaches that employ tracing,
hearing, writing, and seeing are often referred to as VAKT
(visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile) methods.
Multisensory techniques can be used with both phonics
and linguistic approaches.
Neurological Impress Technique. This is a rapid-reading
technique. The instructor reads a passage at a fairly rapid
rate, with the instructor's voice directed into the student's
ear. The teacher begins as the dominant reading voice, but
gradually the student spends more time leading these
sessions. Students who have learned mechanics without
adequately learning reading fluency frequently benefit
from this, as do students who read slowly or who hesitate
over a number of words but are able to identify most of the
words in a sentence. A student is directed to read a passage
without errors. This method functions most effectively
when it is practiced for short periods every day.
Language experience approach. The language
experience approach uses children's spoken language to
develop material for reading. This approach utilizes each
student's oral language level and personal experiences.
Material is written by the child and teacher for reading
using each child's experience. This can be done in small
groups and individually. Familiarity with the content and
the vocabulary facilitate reading these stories. Each child
can develop a book to be read and re-read. This approach
helps children know what reading is and that ideas and
experiences can be conveyed in print.
Reading comprehension support. Persons with learning
disabilities who need work on reading comprehension
often respond to explicitly taught strategies which aid
comprehension such as skimming, scanning and studying
techniques. These techniques aid in acquiring the gist, and
then focus is turned to the details of the text through use of
the cloze procedures. The cloze procedure builds upon a
student's impulse to fill in missing elements and is based
upon the Gestalt principle of closure. With this method,
every fifth to eighth word in a passage is randomly
eliminated. The student is then required to fill in the
missing words. This technique develops reading skills and
an understanding not only of word meaning but also of the
structure of the language itself.
Conclusions
Persons with learning disabilities will typically require a
variety of instructional approaches in order to make their
educational experiences more productive. There is no one
best approach to teach reading to students with learning
disabilities. There are many reading methods available
with ongoing debate about which one is preferable. It is
critical that instructors understand both the student and the
various reading methods available if the student is to have
the best possible learning experience. The importance of a
comprehensive evaluation that will result in prescription
for intervention cannot be over-emphasized. As important,
is the notion that teachers must have the ability to
effectively and systematically alter various methods to
meet the needs of individual children with learning
disabilities.
This article appeared in the March/April 1998 issue of
LDA Newsbriefs (Volume 38, No.4), the newsletter of the
Learning Disabilities Association. Newsbriefs is published
six times a year and is a benefit of LDA membership.

Top

This page is Bobby Approved.

Home | Contact Us | Link To Us |

Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Donate
Learning © 2005-2011
Disabilities LDA of
Association of America
America
4156 Library Road
 Pittsburgh, PA
15234-1349
Phone (412) 341-
1515 Fax (412)
344-0224

click here
Top of Form

Bottom of Form

nd Nutrition Expert Advice Games for Mom

o Conceive Baby Names Pregnant Life Health & Nutrition Concerns & Complications Labor & Delivery Postpartum
and Toddlers Preschoolers Kindergartners Special Needs
Life Entertainment Special Needs
Life Entertainment Special Needs
Message Boards Advice from Parents

Share |
 search [ detailed ]
Top of Form
Bottom of
Form

Go To Category
l Building Tips

Article
Get Ready to
y Skills: Reading Go To Topic Read!SM
roaches Screening Tool

Expert Advice
Speech therapy

All Related Links

ADVERTISEMENT
 Send us feedback!

Newsletter sign-
up

click here

Problem/Solution Approach Add a

Review

description below was contributed

A visitor, on Dec 17, 2002
2:10PM

Group:
mentary School
dle School
h School
w do you use this reading approach?
problem/solution approach is a wonderful method to help
navigate that sea of relevant and irrelevant information that
stitutes most reading. The premise is simple: In most readings
e's a very limited amount of information that the teacher is
ing for the student to acquire. Often teachers will assign
stions to be answered or the text will have questions at the
This is almost always true for the sciences. Reading the
stions at the end of the chapter or the questions assigned by
eacher, is the best way to find out what is considered
ortant by the powers that be and are guides for the reading.
use this approach, do not have your child skim or start at the
nning of the text, but have them flip to the end and start with
problems or questions that they are asked to find the answers
They read the first question or problem, then work backwards
the text to find the answers by looking for key sight words.
en they find a paragraph that they believe has the answers,
read the paragraph before and after to get an overview. They
answer the question, move on to the next question, and
at the process.
er important information:
approach can also be used with the non-linear skimming
hod. After answering all the questions, have your child do a
d skim (introduction and conclusion). Moreover, you can
icate this method even if specific questions are not assigned
e class. Simply approach your child? teacher and ask for
e guiding questions your child should look to answer with
given reading. Use these questions as problems and then
ch for their solutions.
above information was written by Jonathan Mooney.

Print this
Email this
Descriptio
Description
n

click here

| About Family Education, part of Family Education Network | Site Map | Press Releases| Help | Advertise
vacy | Terms of Use

Advice | Teacher Resources | Online Gradebook | Reference Site | Homework Help | K-8 Kids | Poptropica
2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved