Whether the simple view of reading (SVR) as incorporated in the componential model of reading (CMR) is applicable to other orthographies than English was explored in this study. Spanish, with transparent orthography and Chinese, with opaque orthography were selected because of their diverse characteristics. The first part reports a study of students from grades 2 and 3, whose home language and medium of instruction was Spanish, and were administered tests of decoding, listening, and reading comprehension. A comparison group of 49 children from Grade 2, 54 children from Grade 3, and 55 children from Grade 4, whose home language and instruction was English, were also administered tests of decoding, listening, and reading comprehension. Multiple regression analysis showed that approximately 60% of the variance in reading comprehension of Spanish participants and 50% of the variance in reading comprehension of English participants were explained by decoding and listening comprehension. Furthermore, the performance of third grade Spanish participants resembled that of fourth grade English-speaking participants. In the second study, 102 Chinese students from Grade 2 and 106 students from Grade 4 were administered tasks of Chinese character recognition, reading fluency, listening, and reading comprehension. Multiple regression analyses showed character recognition and listening comprehension accounted for 25% and 42% of the variance in Chinese reading comprehension at Grades 2 and 4 respectively. These results indicate that the simple view of reading is applicable to writing systems other than that of English.

The three current models of identifying learning disabilities: discrepancy model, RtI, and Componential Model of reading are discussed in terms of their utility.

The three current models of identifying learning disabilities: discrepancy model, RtI, and Componential Model of reading are discussed in terms of their utility.

Currently, learning disabilities (LD) are diagnosed on the basis of the discrepancy between students' IQ and reading achievement scores. Students diagnosed with LD often receive remedial instruction in resource rooms. The available evidence suggests that the educational policy based on this discrepancy model has not yielded satisfactory results. This has led researchers to try other paradigms, such as the component model and response to intervention, for dealing with children with reading disabilities. The component model of reading (CMR) described in the present article identifies the reading component that is the source of reading difficulty and targets instruction at that component. Study 1 describes the CMR and reports on its validity. Study 2 describes the successful outcome of a 7-year CMR-based reading instruction program. Compared to the discrepancy model, the CMR has demonstrated several advantages.

It is believed that language is an innate ability and, therefore, spoken language is acquired naturally and informally. In contrast, written language is thought to be an invention and, therefore, has to be learned through formal instruction. An alternate view, however, is that spoken language and written language are two forms of manifestations of the same inner language and that under certain circumstances, they both are acquired the same way. Nevertheless, in reality, the motor mechanisms for speech mature earlier than the ones needed for reading and writing, and, therefore, spoken language gains precedence and is acquired earlier than the written language. Based on this rationale, it is hypothesized that if the option to communicate through oral language is restricted, and children are made to communicate only through written language, we can expect written language skill to emerge with greater force. This hypothesis was put to test by conducting a pilot study in which children’s option to communicate with each other in the classroom was limited to written language for brief periods. One group of fourth graders were allowed to communicate with each other for half an hour a day, 4 days a week, for a period of one semester only through written language. No talking was allowed during this period. A comparison group of children were not restricted in this way. We labeled this project “Drop Everything and Write” (DEAW). Both the groups were administered pre- and post-tests of reading and spelling. After one semester of this program, children in the DEAW program achieved significantly higher scores on tests of vocabulary, reading comprehension, and spelling than the comparison group. The DEAW group also improved greatly in written language use. The results are interpreted to support the hypothesis.

A commonly held belief is that language is an aspect of the biological system since the capacity to acquire language is innate and evolved along Darwinian lines. Written language, on the other hand, is thought to be an artifact and a surrogate of speech; it is, therefore, neither natural nor biological. This disparaging view of written language, even though propounded by some renowned linguists and biologists, has not gained universal acceptance. Dissenters such as linguists from the Prague circle who claim that written language is an independent system that deserves a status equivalent to that of spoken language have developed their argument along linguistic parameters. The present article also endeavors to show that written language is as natural as spoken language but does so from a biolinguistic perspective. Biolinguistics defines language as a product of biological adaptation in the Darwinian sense (Givon, 2002) and considers language to be innate and species specific (Jenkins, 2000). The present article presents evidence to show that, similar to spoken language, written language has adaptive value, evolved over time, and is relatively independent of spoken language. The Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, which has a history of about 4,000 years, is used for examining the proposition that written language evolved along Darwinian lines as much as spoken language did. It is concluded that written language is yet another manifestation of the natural endowment of the human mind and may not be treated as a proxy for speech. The educational implication is that, in literacy instruction, written language should be given as much importance in today's schools as elements of spoken language, such as phoneme awareness and phonological awareness.

Until about two decades ago, the study of writing systems and their relationship to literacy acquisition was sparse and generally modeled after studies of English language learners. This situation is now changing. As the worldwide demand for literacy continues to grow, researchers from different countries with different language backgrounds have begun examining the connection between their writing systems and literacy acquisition. This text, which derives from a NATO sponsored conference on orthography and literacy, brings together the research of seventy scholars from across the world--the largest assemblage of such experts to date. Their findings are grouped into three parts, as follows:Part I, Literacy Acquisition in Different Writing Systems, describes the relationship between orthography and literacy in twenty-five orthographic systems. This section serves as a handy reference source for understanding the orthographies of languages as diverse as Arabic, Chinese, English, Icelandic, Kannada, and Kishwahili.Part II, Literacy Acquisition From a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, makes direct comparisons of literacy acquisition in English and other orthographic systems. The overall conclusion that emerges from these eight chapters is that the depth of an orthographic system does influence literacy acquisition primarily by slowing down the acquisition of reading skills. Even so, studies show that dyslexic readers can be found across all orthographic systems whether shallow or deep, which shows that dyslexia also has internal cognitive and biological components.Part III, Literacy Acquisition: Instructional Perspectives, explores literacy acquisition from developmental and instructional perspectives and ends with a look into the future of literacy research.This Handbook is appropriate for scholars, researchers, and graduate students in such diverse fields as cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, literacy education, English as a second language, and communication disorders.

In this chapter, we present evidence gleaned from a variety of sources to show that some talented individuals from the historic past had learning disabilities (LD). The coexistence of talent and LD ceases to be a paradox if the ability to decode printed words and spell them is considered to be a skill that is independent of higher-level cognitive functions such as linguistic comprehension. We call this proposition the Component model of the reading process. After presenting the rationale of the Component model, we examine relevant information available on six famous historic persons—two inventors, two artists, and two literary figures—for evidence of LD. The practical implications of this investigation are that teachers should be careful not to generalize and evaluate intellectual abilities of individuals on the basis of their performances on skill-based tasks such as word recognition, spelling, and grammar.

Poor performance on tests of reading comprehension could be the result of weak word-recognition skills, inconsistent attention (ADD), or a combination of the two. Identifying the source of the reading disability (RD) reliably has been difficult because inconsistent attention interferes with reading and weak word recognition skill makes attention wander. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there are no objective diagnostic tests for ADD (Breggin, 1998; Diller, 1998). We proposed a new model of differential diagnosis of ADHD-I/RD and field-tested its utility in two studies. The new diagnostic procedure utilizes intra-individual differences seen in the performance of at-risk learners on tasks related to reading that vary in the degree of sustained attention required for successful performance. The hypothesis is that children whose attention is inconsistent would perform more poorly on tests such as listening comprehension, which require sustained attention, than on tests such as reading comprehension, which are more tolerant of inattention. Such differences will not be seen in the test scores of children who have only a reading disability because their performance on reading tests is determined more by the difficulty level of the tests than by the sensitivity of the tests to attention. The validity of this new model was evaluated by determining the relationship between differences seen in the scores of tests that differ in their attention requirement and the degree of inconsistency in sustained attention as measured by Conners' CPT. The results of the two studies indicate this to be a viable approach. The results of the second study are presented in this report.

The present investigation has three aims: (1) to establish a suitable composite index which combines speed and accuracy in the measurement of decoding skill; (2) to examine whether speed acts as a confounding factor in the measurement of decoding ability; and (3) to see whether familiarity with the word, as indicated by the ability to pronounce it, or lack of it acts as a confounding factor in the assessment of spelling skills. Three studies were conducted to fulfill these aims. In the first study, 33 children from Grade 2 were asked to name a list of 40 letters of the alphabet as quickly and as accurately as possible. A combined index of speed and accuracy was computed from these two sets of data using two formulas, which were based on the ‘ z ’ score and the mean variance score. A Pearson product‐moment correlation coefficient of 0.94 was obtained between the results of the two formulas indicating that the two formulas yield almost identical results. In the second study, 37 fifth‐graders were administered the word‐attack sub‐test of Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery. When the speed and accuracy composite index, based on the ‘ z formula’ was applied to the word‐attack scores, it was found that three children were slow decoders even though their scores were within the normal range. In the third study, 39 children from Grade 3 and 40 children from Grade 5 were asked to read aloud a list of words and then these words were administered as a spelling test. Subsequently, their spelling ability was assessed by computing the number of words they could both read and spell correctly. When familiarity of words was included as a factor in assessing spelling ability, five children in Grade 3 and three children in Grade 5 were found to be misclassified as poor spellers. This indicates that including word‐naming speed and word familiarity (i.e. ability to pronounce) produce different metrics than when they are not. Inclusion of speed and familiarity factors in assessment can be helpful in avoiding false negatives and false positives.

Conventional methods of differentiating reading disability (RD) caused by deficits in decoding skills or comprehension from poor reading performance caused by inconsistent attention associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have produced equivocal results. This study presents a model of differential diagnosis of attentional problems and RD that differs from these conventional approaches. The new diagnostic procedure uses intraindividual differences seen in the performance of at-risk learners on tasks related to reading that vary in their sensitivity to the sustained attention required for successful performance. The hypothesis is that children with inconsistent attention would perform more poorly on tests that require sustained attention, such as listening comprehension, than on tests that are more tolerant of inattention, such as reading comprehension. Such differences would not be seen in the test scores of children who have only RD, because their performance is determined more by the difficulty level of the reading tests than by the degree of sensitivity of the task to attention. The validity of this new model was evaluated by determining the capability of the differences seen in the scores of tests that differ in their sensitivity to sustained attention to predict the degree of inconsistency in sustained attention as measured by a continuous performance test. The data obtained from 39 children who are at risk for RD suggest that this is a viable model.

Two studies were conducted in which phonology-based instructional strategies designed for improving spelling skills of elementary school children were compared against instruction strategies that relied only on visual exposure of words. Thr first study involved a total of 93 children. Of these. 46 were instructed by drawing their attention to the psycholinguistic nature of their spelling errors. The remaining 47 children in the comparison group were shown the correct version of all the words. In study II 15 children were placed in a treatment group and were taught phoneme awareness. and 15 children were placed in a comparison group and were exposed to printed words only. In both studies. posttests showed that children taught through pyycholinguistic and phoneme awareness methods significantly outperformed the visual training groups. Further, these gains were retained after a period of 2 weeks. (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Word recognition skill is the foundation of the reading process. Word recognition could be accomplished by two major strategies: phonological decoding and sight-word reading, the latter being a marker for proficient reading. There is, however, a controversy regarding the relationship between decoding and sight-word reading, whether the two are independent or the latter is built on the foundations of the former. A related controversy about instructional strategy could be whether to use whole-word method to improve word recognition skills, or to first build decoding skills and then introduce sight words. Five goals were set up to address these issues: (a) developing a criterion that can be used easily by classroom teachers to assess sight-word reading ability, (b) examining this relationship between decoding and sight-word reading, (c) identifying the mechanism that can explain the relationship, (d) examining factors that facilitate sight-word reading, and (e) discussing potential instructional implications of these findings. In order to accomplish these goals, naming time and word-naming accuracy of three groups of subjects (elementary school children, children identified as having reading disability, and college students) were studied by using a variety of verbal materials. The over-all conclusions are that the difference in naming time of letters and words can be used as a metric for assessing sight-word reading skill. Sight-word reading appears to be intimately related to decoding. Sight-word reading is accomplished by parallel processing of constituent letters of words and is influenced also by the semantic nature of words. It is conjectured that sight-word reading instruction is likely to be successful if decoding skills are firmly established first.

In this article, reading disability is defined broadly to refer to below-average achievement in reading comprehension as assessed by a standardized test. With our research we tried to answer the question of whether all children with reading disability share a common etiology of deficient phonology, or constitute heterogeneous groups. The answer to this question was sought in four studies that examined reading disabilities from the perspective of componential skills of reading. In Part 1, the results of the first study are reported. A principal-components analysis of the performance of 139 children from Grades 3, 4, and 6 on reading-related tasks yielded two factors: decoding and comprehension. However, factor analyses conducted for each grade separately indicated that orthographic skill and processing speed could possibly constitute a third component. The orthography-speed factor emerged as a factor only in the 6th grade. Part 2 of this article reports the findings of three studies that analyzed the componential skills profiles of poor readers. It was found that the poor readers constituted heterogeneous groups and that four different types of poor readers could be identified with deficiency in any one of the following skills: (a) decoding only, (b) comprehension only, (c) a combination of decoding and comprehension, and (d) a combination of orthographic processing and reading speed. It was also found that the criteria used in selecting poor readers influenced the distribution of the ratio of the four types of poor readers within any given group.