Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Davidson, J. & Noyes, P. (1994) Computer-generated speech feedback as support for reading instruction. In C. H. Singleton (Ed.) Computers and Literacy Skills. Hull: Dyslexia Computer Resource Centre, University of Hull, pp. 120-136.. Davis, G.N., Lindo, E.J. & Compton, D.L. (2007) Children at risk for reading failure: Constructing an early screening measure. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 32-37. DCSF (2008) Every Child a Reader – guidance for local authorities. London: DCSF Publications. http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/89280 DeFord, D.E., Estice, R., Fried, M., Lyons, C.E. & Pinnell, G.S. (1993) The Reading Recovery program: Executive summary 1984-92. Columbus: The Ohio State University. DeFord, D.E., Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., & Place, A.W. (1990) The Reading Recovery follow-up study, Vol. 11, 1987-89. Columbus: Ohio State University. Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L. & Francis, D.J. (2006) An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447-466. Derrington, S. (2001a) Early Literacy Support Pilot: Evaluation report. Bristol: Bristol City LEA Achievement Division. Derrington, S. (2001b) Report on the use of Phono-Graphix as a method of helping struggling readers at Key Stage 2. Bristol: Bristol City LEA Achievement Division. DfES (2001) Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. London: DfES Publications. DfES (2003) Targeting support: choosing and implementing interventions for children with significant literacy difficulties. Department for Education and Skills, Circular DfES 0201/2003. Donley, J., Baenen, N., & Hundley, S. (1993) A study of the long-term effectiveness of the Reading Recovery Program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Douëtil, J. (2003) Reading Recovery National Network National Monitoring 2002-2003. London: Institute of Education. Douëtil, J. (2004) Reading Recovery Annual Report for the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland: London: Institute of Education. Douëtil, J. (2005) Reading Recovery Annual Report for UK and Ireland: 2004-2005. London: Institute of Education. Douëtil, J. (2006) Reading Recovery Annual Report for UK and Ireland: 2005-2006. London: Institute of Education. Douëtil, J. (2007a) Reading Recovery Annual Report for the UK and Republic of Ireland: 2006-2007. London: Institute of Education. Douëtil, J. (2007b) International research on long- and short-term outcomes of Reading Recovery, and comparisons with other programmes. London: Institute of Education. 134 Intervention for Dyslexia
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/literacy/pri_every_chld_rdr0003408/pri _ecar_research03408.pdf Dyer, P.C. (1992) Reading Recovery: A cost-effectiveness and educational outcomes analysis. Spectrum: Journal of Research in Education, 10, 110-119. Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., et al. (2007) Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Report to Congress. Institute of Educational Sciences National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. ECaR (2006) Every Child A Reader: the results of the first year. London: Every Child A Reader. www.everychildareader.org/pubs/first_year_final.pdf ECaR (2007) Every Child A Reader: the results of the second year. London: Every Child A Reader. www.everychildareader.org/pubs/second_year.pdf ECaR (2008) Every Child A Reader: the results of the third year. London: Every Child A Reader. www.everychildareader.org/pubs/third_year.pdf Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A. & Willows, D.M. (2001) Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393-447. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. & Moody, S. (2000) How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A metaanalysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605-619. Elbro, C., Borstrøm, I. & Petersen, D.K. (1998) Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten: the importance of distinctiveness of phonological representations of lexical items. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 36-60. Elbro, C. & Petersen, D.K. (2004) Long-term effects of phoneme awareness and lettersound training: An intervention study with children at risk for dyslexia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 660-670. Elbro, C., Rasmussen, I. & Spelling, B. (1996) Teaching reading to disabled readers with language disorders: A controlled evaluation of synthetic speech feedback. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37, 140–155. Elliot, C.D., Smith, P., & McCulloch, K. (1996) British Ability Scales, second edition. London: GL Assessment. Elliott, S.N., Huai, N. & Roach, A.T. (2007) Universal and early screening for educational difficulties: Current and future directions. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 137-161. Esposito, K. (2004) Reading Recovery program deemed a failure. Isthmus, November 4, 2004. www.nrrf.org/rrp_failure_11-4-04.htm Evans, B.J.W. (2001). Dyslexia and Vision. London: Whurr. Everatt, J., Bradshaw, M.F. & Hibbard, P.B. (1999) Visual processing and dyslexia. Perception, 28, 243-254. Intervention for Dyslexia 135
Page 1 and 2:
Intervention for Dyslexia A review
Page 3 and 4:
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........
Page 5 and 6:
4.3.4 Computer-based screening test
Page 7 and 8:
presuppose any neurological link be
Page 9 and 10:
(0.56 for reading accuracy, 0.91 fo
Page 11 and 12:
instruction in phonics, it cannot b
Page 13 and 14:
Acknowledgements I would like to ex
Page 15 and 16:
The remit calls for conclusions to
Page 17 and 18:
Co-occurring difficulties may be se
Page 19 and 20:
Teacher Status (ATS). In general, c
Page 21 and 22:
Table 1. Why use multisensory teach
Page 23 and 24:
pupils are going to be identified a
Page 25 and 26:
coloured overlay as the criterion f
Page 27 and 28:
have reported standard scores; unfo
Page 29 and 30:
2 Intervention studies in the US an
Page 31 and 32:
progressing normally (36 boys and 2
Page 33 and 34:
training in phonological awareness,
Page 35 and 36:
subtest. All these children were in
Page 37 and 38:
intervention identified by Vaughn a
Page 39 and 40:
Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). Ove
Page 41 and 42:
1. Lindamood Auditory Discriminatio
Page 43 and 44:
and writing. Students were taught i
Page 45 and 46:
evised as the Lindamood Phoneme Seq
Page 47 and 48:
2.5.10 Torgesen et al. (2004) Torge
Page 49 and 50:
period 1995-2003 were identified, a
Page 51 and 52:
“The actual reading impairment a
Page 53 and 54:
from multisyllabic words. Instructi
Page 55 and 56:
3 UK intervention studies 3.1 Stage
Page 57 and 58:
and effect sizes of 0.55 for readin
Page 59 and 60:
used Lexia for 10 weeks, after whic
Page 61 and 62:
structured phonologically-based sec
Page 63 and 64:
3.3.9 SIDNEY Norgate and Bentote (2
Page 65 and 66:
Table 6. Summary of results of UK i
Page 67 and 68:
Table 6 (continued). Summary of res
Page 69 and 70:
Table 6 (continued). Summary of res
Page 71 and 72:
3.4 Studies in UK specialist dyslex
Page 73 and 74:
Rack and Walker (1994) presented an
Page 75 and 76:
probably require some 1:1 teaching
Page 77 and 78:
& Baker, 2008; Frost et al., 2005;
Page 79 and 80:
Unlike traditional learning disabil
Page 81 and 82:
According to Wolfendale and Bryans
Page 83 and 84: cases). Glascoe and Byrne (1993) ar
Page 85 and 86: Between 1.0 and 1.4: moderate dysle
Page 87 and 88: provided by a study reported in Faw
Page 89 and 90: Against the many advantages of comp
Page 91 and 92: Peer, 1998). A high overall level o
Page 93 and 94: Recently Singleton and Henderson (2
Page 95 and 96: 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Scope 5 Read
Page 97 and 98: 5.1.4 Reading Recovery and the teac
Page 99 and 100: writing. To be able to work on word
Page 101 and 102: success of the programme appears to
Page 103 and 104: in a meta-analysis. However, the av
Page 105 and 106: 5.3.2 Every Child a Reader (ECaR) I
Page 107 and 108: phonological awareness compared wit
Page 109 and 110: (accuracy or comprehension or both)
Page 111 and 112: 5.5.2 Key Stage 1 results of Readin
Page 113 and 114: 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2
Page 115 and 116: ‘accelerated progress’ children
Page 117 and 118: It is not until Level 2b that child
Page 119 and 120: Reading Recovery specifically benef
Page 121 and 122: 6 Computer technology and support o
Page 123 and 124: 6.2.1 The advantages of computer as
Page 125 and 126: and Olson, 2000). Software designed
Page 127 and 128: new phonic principle was introduced
Page 129 and 130: impact on reading and spelling, par
Page 131 and 132: Berninger, V.W., & Hidi, S. (2006)
Page 133: Clay, M.M. (1993a) Observation Surv
Page 137 and 138: Frost, J. & Sørensen, P.M. (2007)
Page 139 and 140: Hatcher, P.J. (2003) Reading Interv
Page 141 and 142: Kuhn, M.R. & Stahl, S.A. (2003) Flu
Page 143 and 144: Marks, A. & Burden, B. (2005) How U
Page 145 and 146: Olofsson, Å (1992) Synthetic speec
Page 147 and 148: Reason, R. & Boote, R. (1994) Helpi
Page 149 and 150: Singleton, C.H. (1977) Dyslexia or
Page 151 and 152: Speece, D.L., Case, L.P. & Molloy,
Page 153 and 154: Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wa
Page 155 and 156: Vaughn, S. & Roberts, G. (2007) Sec
Page 157: Wilson, J. & Frederickson, N. (1995
show all

Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?