Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Tunmer, W.E. & Chapman, J.W. (2004) The use of context in learning to read. In P. Bryant & T. Nunes (Eds.), Handbook of Children's Literacy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, pp. 199-212. Turner, M. (1997) Psychological Assessment of Dyslexia. London: Whurr. Turner, M. & Smith, P. (2004) The Dyslexia Screener. London: GL Assessment. Tyrrell, R., Holland, K., Dennis, D. & Wilkins, A.J. (1995) Coloured overlays, visual discomfort, visual search and classroom reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 10- 23. Underwood, G. & Underwood, J.D.M. (1998) Children’s interactions and learning outcomes with interactive talking books. Computers Education, 30, 95–102. Underwood, J.D.M. (2000) A comparison of two types of computer support for reading development. Journal of Research in Reading, 23, 136-148. US Office of Education (1977) Assistance to states for education for handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, G1082- G1085. Vadasy, P.F. & Sanders, E.A. (2008) Repeated reading intervention: Outcomes and interactions with readers’ skills and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 272-290. Vadasy, P.F., Sanders, E.A. & Abbott (2008) Effects of a supplemental early reading intervention at 2-year follow-up: reading skill growth patterns and predictors. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 51-89. Vadasy, P.F., Sanders, E.A., Peyton, J.A. & Jenkins, J.R. (2002) Timing and intensity of tutoring: A closer look at the conditions for effective early literacy tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 227–241. Van Daal, V.H.P. & Reitsma, P (2000) Computer-assisted learning to read and spell: Results form two pilot studies. Journal of Research in Reading, 23, 181-193. Van Dusen, L.M. & Worthen, B.R. (1994) The impact of integrated learning system implementation on student outcomes: Implications for research and evaluation. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 13–24. Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L.S. (2003) Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137-146. Vaughn, S., Gersten. R. & Chard. D.J. (2000) The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99-114. Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003) Group size and time allotted to intervention: Effects for students with reading difficulties. In B. Foornun (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 275-298). Parkton, MD: York Press. 154 Intervention for Dyslexia
Vaughn, S. & Roberts, G. (2007) Secondary interventions in reading: Providing additional instruction for students at risk. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 40-46. Vellutino, F.R. (2002) On the role of intervention in identifying learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson & D. Hallahan (Eds.) Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 555-564. Vellutino, F.R. and Fletcher, J.M. (2005) Developmental dyslexia. In M.J. Snowling and C. Hulme (Eds.) The Science of Reading: A handbook. Oxford: Blackwell, 521-537. Vellutino, F.R., Fletcher, J.M., Snowling, M.J. & Scanlon, D.M. (2004) Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2-40. Vellutino, F.R. & Scanlon, D.M. (1991) The effects of instructional bias on word identification. In I.L. Rieben & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.) Learning to read: Basic research and its implications. Hillsdale, NJ: Elbbaoum, pp. 189-204. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M. & Jaccard, J. (2003) Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read. In B.R. Foorman (Ed.) Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. Baltimore. MD: York Press, pp. 73-120. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M. & Lyon, G.R. (2000) Differentiating difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223-238. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M. & Sipay, E. (1997) Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: The importance of early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. In B. Blachman (Ed.) Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, pp. 347-379. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., Chen, R. et al. (1996) Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily-remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601- 638. Vygotsky, L (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Walker, J. (2000) Teaching basic reading and spelling. In J. Townend & M. Turner (Eds.) Dyslexia in Practice: A guide for teachers. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 93-129. Walker, J. & Brooks, L. (Eds.) (1996) Dyslexia Institute Literacy Programme. Staines: The Dyslexia Institute. Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E.A., Edmonds, M. & Kim, A-H. (2006) A synthesis of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on spelling outcomes of students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 528-543. Intervention for Dyslexia 155
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 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: Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wa
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?