Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Lovett, M.W., Lacerenza, L., Borden, S.L., Frijters, J.C., Steinbach, K.A. & DePalma, M. (2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 263-283. Lovett, M.W. & Steinbach, K.A. (1997) The effectiveness of remedial programs for reading disabled children of different ages: Does the benefit decrease for older children? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 189-210. Lundberg, I. (1995) The computer as a tool of remediation in the education of students with reading disabilities: A theory-based approach. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 89-99. Lynch, L. Fawcett, A.J. & Nicolson, R.I. (2000) Computer-assisted reading intervention in a secondary school: An evaluation study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 333-348. Lyon, G.R. (1995) Towards a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27. Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M. & Barnes, M (2002) Learning disabilities. In E.J. Marsh & R.A.Barkley (Eds.) Child Psychopathology (2 nd edition). New York: Guildford, pp. 520- 588. Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Fuchs, L. & Chabra, V. (2006) Learning disabilities. In E. Mash & R. Barkley (Eds.) Treatment of Childhood Disorders (3 rd edition). New York: Guildford, pp. 512-591. Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Torgesen, J.K., Wood, F.B. et al. (2001) Rethinking learning disabilities. In C.E. Finn, R.A.J. Rotherham & C.R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.) Rethinking special education for a new century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute. Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2003) A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14. Lyons, C. A. (2003) Reading Recovery in the United States: More than a decade of data. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.) Research in Reading Recovery, Vol 2. Portsmount, NH: Heinemann, pp. 215-230. Lyons, C.A. & Beaver, J. (1995) Reducing retention and learning disability placement through Reading Recovery: An educationally sound, cost-effective choice. In R. L. Allington & S.A. Walmsley (Eds.) No Quick Fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 116- 136. MacArthur, C.A., Ferretti, R.P., Okolo, C.M. & Cavalier, A. (2001) Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. Elementary School Journal, 101, 273-301. MacKay, T. (2006) The West Dunbartonshire Literacy Initiative. The Design, Implementation and Evaluation of an Intervention Strategy to Raise Achievement and Eradicate Illiteracy: Phase 1 research report. Dumbarton: West Dunbartonshire Council. 142 Intervention for Dyslexia
Marks, A. & Burden, B. (2005) How Useful are Computerised Screening Systems for Predicting Subsequent Learning Difficulties in Young Children? An Exploration of the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cognitive Profiling System (CoPS 1). Educational Psychology in Practice, 21, 327–342. Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005) The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148– 182. Matthews, D. (1998) Special Initiative to Enhance Literacy Skills in Bridgend, Spring 1998. Bridgend: Bridgend County Borough Council Special Needs Services. McDowall, S., Boyd, S. & Hodgen, E. (2005) Reading Recovery in New Zealand: Uptake, implementation, and outcomes, especially in relation to Mäori and Pasifika students. Wellington: New Zealand Council For Educational Research. McGuinness, C. & McGuinness, D. (1998) Reading Reflex: The foolproof Phono- Graphix method for teaching your child to read. New York: Free Press. McGuinness, C., McGuinness, D. & McGuinness, G. (1996) Phono-Graphix: A new method for remediating reading difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 73-96. McNaughton, D., Hughes, C.A. & Clark, K. (1994) Spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: Implications for research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 169-185. Meares, O. (1980) Figure/ground brightness contrast and reading disabilities. Visible Language, 14, 13-29. Meyer, M.S. (2000) The Ability–Achievement Discrepancy: Does it contribute to an understanding of learning disabilities? Educational Psychology Review, 12, 315-337. Meyer, M.S. & Felton, R.H. (1999) Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283-306. Miles, E. (1989) The Bangor Teaching System. London: Whurr. Miles, M. (1994) The Talking Computer Project. In C. Singleton (Ed.) Computers and Dyslexia. Hull: Dyslexia Computer Resource Centre, University of Hull, pp. 99-110. Miles, T.R. (1995) Can there be a single definition of dyslexia? Dyslexia, 1, 37-45. Miles, M., Martin, D. & Owen, J. (1998) A Pilot Study into the Effects of Using Voice Dictation Software with Secondary Dyslexic Pupils (Devon LEA, 1998). DfEE/Becta SEN Speech Recognition Project: Final Report, DfEE, 2000. Miller, L., DeJean, J. & Miller, R. (2000) The literacy curriculum and use of an Integrated Learning System. Journal of Research in Reading, 23, 149-157 Moore, M., & Wade, B. (1998) Reading Recovery: Its effectiveness in the long term. Support for Learning, 13, 123–128.14 Intervention for Dyslexia 143
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 and 140: Hatcher, P.J. (2003) Reading Interv
Page 141: Kuhn, M.R. & Stahl, S.A. (2003) Flu
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?