Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Hurry, J. & Sylva, K. (1998) The Long-term Effects of Two Interventions for Children with Reading Difficulties, London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Ihnot, C., Matsoff, J., Gavin, J. & Hendrickson, L. (2001) Read Naturally, St. Paul, MN: Read Naturally. Irlen, H. (1983) Successful treatment of learning difficulties. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, California. Iversen, S., & Tunmer, W. (1993). Phonological Processing Skills and the Reading Recovery Program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112-126. Jansky, J. J. (1977). A Critical Review of “Some Developments and Predictive Precursors of Reading Disabilities”. In A. L. Benton and D. Pearl (Eds.), Dyslexia. New York: Oxford University Press. Jeanes, R., Busby, A., Martin, J., Lewis, E., Stevenson, N., Pointon, D. & Wilkins, A. (1997) Prolonged use of coloured overlays for classroom reading. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 531-548. Jenkins, R.R., Peyton, J.A., Sanders, E.A. & Vadasy, P.F. (2004) Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53- 85. Jeynes, W. & Littell, S. (2000) A meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of Whole Language instruction on the literacy of low-SES students. Elementary School Journal, 101, 21-33. Johnson, L., Graham, S. & Harris, K.R. (1997) The effects of goal setting and selfinstructions on learning reading comprehension strategy: A study with students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 80-91. Joshi, R.M. (2003) Misconceptions about the assessment and diagnosis of reading disability. Reading Psychology, 24, 247-266. Kavale, K.A. (2005) Identifying specific learning disability: is responsiveness to intervention the answer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 553-562. Kavale, K.A. & Forness, S.R. (2000) History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 279-296. Kerslake, J. (1999) Trends in Reading Recovery data between 1984 and 1998. The Research Bulletin, 10, 72-78. Kibel, M. (2000) Soundworks early literacy training programme. London: Collins. Kingslake, B. (1982). The predictive (In) Accuracy of On-entry to school screening procedures when used to anticipate learning difficulties. Special Education, 10, 23-26. Kirtley, C., Bryant, P., Maclean, M. & Bradley, L. (1989) Rhyme, rime and the onset of reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 224–245. Kriss, I. & Evans, B.J.W. (2005) The relationship between dyslexia and Meares-Irlen syndrome. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 350-364. 140 Intervention for Dyslexia
Kuhn, M.R. & Stahl, S.A. (2003) Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21. Lanes, D., Perkins, D., Whatmuff, T., Tarokh, H. and Vincent, R. (2005) A survey of Leicester City Schools using the RML1 and RML2 literacy programme. Leicester, Leicester City LEA. Lange, A.A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G. and Wylie, J. (2006) Assistive Software Tools for Secondary-level Students With Literacy Difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21, 13-22. Lerkkanen, M-K., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Aunola, K. & Nurmi, J-E. (2004) Reading performance and its developmental trajectories during first and second grade. Learning and Instruction, 14, 111-130. Lewin, C. (1997) ‘Test driving CARS’: Addressing the issues in the evaluation of computer assisted reading software. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8, 111–132. Lewin, C. (1998) Talking book design: what do practitioners want? Computers and Education, 30, 87–94. Lewin, C. (2000) Exploring the effects of talking book software in UK primary classrooms. Journal of Research in Reading, 23, 149-157. Lewis, A. (1999) Integrated Learning Systems and pupils with low attainments in reading. British Journal of Special Education, 26, 153-157. Lewis, C.K. (2007) Technology for Learning Disabilities Project: 2005–2007 Evaluation Report. Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation. Lewis, R. B., Graves, A.W., Ashton, T.M. & Kieley, C.L. (1998) Word processing tools for students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies to increase text entry speed. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13; 95-108. Lindamood, P. & Lindamood, P. (l998) The Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc. Lipka, O., Lesaux, N.K. & Siegel, L.S. (2006) Retrospective analyses of the reading development of grade 4 students with reading disabilities: Risk status and profiles over 5 years. Journal of Learning Disabilities,39, 364-378. Lore, P. (2001) Rapid reading improvement and phonological awareness training using Phono-Graphix at a specialist dyslexia school. Paper presented at the 5 th International Conference of the British Dyslexia Association, University of York. Lovett, M.W., Borden, S. L., Lacerenza, L., Benson, N. J. & Brackstone, D. (1994) Treating the core deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically-and strategy-based reading training programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 805-822. Lovett, M.W., Lacerenza, L. & Borden, S.L. (2000) Putting struggling readers on the PHAST track: A program to integrate phonological and strategy-based remedial reading instruction and maximizing outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 458-476. Intervention for Dyslexia 141
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 and 136: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/p
Page 137 and 138: Frost, J. & Sørensen, P.M. (2007)
Page 139: Hatcher, P.J. (2003) Reading Interv
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?