Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fawcett, A.J. (2002a) Reading Remediation: An evaluation of traditional phonologically based interventions. A review for the Department for Education and Skills, the British Dyslexia Association and the Dyslexia Institute. Review 3. www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/6025/Dyslexia - Recent research development 3.doc Fawcett, A.J. (2002b) Evaluating therapies excluding traditional reading and phonological based therapies. A review for the Department for Education and Skills, the British Dyslexia Association and the Dyslexia Institute. www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/6025/Dyslexia - Recent research development 2.doc Fawcett, A. J. & Nicolson, R. I. (1996) The Dyslexia Screening Test. London: Psychological Corporation. Fawcett, A.J., Nicolson, R.I. and Dean, P. (1996) Impaired performance of children with dyslexia on a range of cerebellar tasks. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 259–283. Fawcett, A.J., Nicolson, R.I., Moss, H., Nicolson, M.K. & Reason, R. (2001) Effectiveness of reading intervention in junior school. Educational Psychology, 21, 299-312. Fawcett, A.J., Singleton, C.H. & Peer, L. (1998) Advances in early years screening for dyslexia in the UK. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 29-60. Ferrier, J. (2008) Tackling the spelling problems of dyslexics. In C.H. Singleton (Ed.) The Dyslexia Handbook. Bracknell, Berks: The British Dyslexia Association, pp. 63-70. Fletcher, J.M., Foorman, B.R., Boudousquie, Barnes, M., Schatschneider, C., & Francis, D.J. (2002b) Assessment of reading and learning abilities: A research-based intervention-oriented approach. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 27-63. Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M., Steubing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K, et al. (2002a) Classification of learning disabilities: An evidenced-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson & D. Hallahan (Eds.) Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 185-202. Foorman, B.R. (Ed.) (2003) Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. Baltimore. MD: York Press Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Winikates, D., Mehta, P., Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J.M. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 255–276. Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C. & Mehta, P. (1998) The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55. Francis, H. (1992) Patterns of reading development in the first school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 225-232. Fraser, H., MacDougall, A., Pirrie, A. & Croxford, L. (2001) National Evaluation of the Early Intervention Programme. Glasgow: Strathclyde University. Frost, J., Madsbjerg, S., Niedersøe, J. & Olofsson, A. (2005) Semantic and phonological skills in predicting reading development: From 3–16 years of age. Dyslexia, 11, 79-92. 136 Intervention for Dyslexia
Frost, J. & Sørensen, P.M. (2007) The effects of a comprehensive reading intervention programme for Grade 3 children. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 270-286. Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., Bryant, J. & Davis, G.N. (2008) Making ‘secondary intervention’ work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: findings from the 1 st grade longitudinal study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21, 413-436. Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L.S. (2006) Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Thompson, A., Al-Otaiba, W.S., Yen, L., Yang, N. et al. (2001) Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomised field trial with teachers as programs implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251-267. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1997) Use of curriculum-based measurement in identifying students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30, 1-16. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998) Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204-219. Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (2007) A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14-20. Fudge, P. (2001) Reading Recovery in Bristol: an evaluation of the first two years of the initiative, 1999–2001. Bristol: Bristol LEA. Fulk, B.M. (1996) The effects of combined strategy and attribution training on LD adolescents’ spelling performance. Exceptionality, 6; 13-27 Fulk, B.M. & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1995) Spelling interventions for students with disabilities: A review. Journal of Special Education, 28, 488-513. Gathercole, S.E., Alloway, T.P., Willis, C.S., & Adams, A.M. (2006) Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 265-281. Glascoe, F.P. & Byrne, K.E. (1993) The accuracy of three developmental screening tests. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 368-379. Glynn, T., Crooks, T., Bethune, N., Ballard, K. & Smith, J. (1989) Reading Recovery in context. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Education. Gombert, J.E. (1992) Meta-linguistic development. London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf. Gomez-Bellenge, F.X., Rodgers, E., & Fullerton, S.K. (2003) Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura national report 2001–2002. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Gomez-Bellenge, F.X., & Rodgers, E.M. (2004) Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura national report 2002–2003. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Intervention for Dyslexia 137
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 and 134: Clay, M.M. (1993a) Observation Surv
Page 135: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/p
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?