Addressing Literacy: Effective Methods for Reading Instruction.

by Dee M. Lance , Brenda L. Beverly , Lea Helen Evans , Kim C. McCullough

As speech-language pathologists work more directly and in concert with educators to address reading problems in school-age children with language-based learning disabilities (LLD), knowledge of current methods in reading instruction will become critical. Eight methods found to be effective with typically developing children and children with LLD are outlined. Word identification is best trained using methods that rely upon knowledge of letter-sound correspondences in varying syllable contexts and word attack skills using letter--sound decoding and analogy. When learning reading comprehension, students benefit from methods that address vocabulary skills and text-level comprehension monitoring.

On a daily basis, the U.S. public is bombarded with news reports regarding new government initiatives--local, state, and federal--for addressing the seemingly intractable reading problems faced by children and our education system. Over the past 25 years, the amount of involvement of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in reading interventions has increased as the relationship between reading impairment and school-age language impairment has become more clear. Given the connection between language disorders and reading disabilities, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2001) expanded the scope of practice for SLPs to include the prevention of, identification of, assessment of, and intervention for reading disorders in children. SLPs are being encouraged to become involved in phonological awareness assessment and remediation, treatment for literacy-related oral language skills, and collaborative consultation with other team members. SLPs also are empowered to provide direct intervention for reading, including instruction in skills and strategies for word identification and reading comprehension (Kamhi, Allen, & Catts, 2001). This expanded role is an exciting opportunity for SLPs to more directly affect the academic success of children. Developing confidence in

reading instruction, however, is a challenge, especially given the mountain of reading programs available and in use.

The consensus among experts in evidence-based reading instruction is that there is not just one right program but a set of practices that lead to effective literacy learning (for a complete listing and description, see National Reading Panel, 2000). Some practices considered to be effective are exposure to quality literature, the integration of systematic phonics, explicit strategies-based teaching for decoding and text comprehension, and small-group instruction. In this article we outline several effective methods that focus on word identification and reading comprehension. We believe this information will assist SLPs in providing explicit small-group reading instruction, working cooperatively in the classroom, and advocating as a team member for additional reading services.

DEVELOPING SUCCESSFUL WORD IDENTIFICATION

Word identification is a primary goal of early reading instruction (Briggs & Clark, 1997; Fox, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000). Successful word identification is built upon several essential skills: (a) knowledge of letter-sound correspondences; (b) skills for blending, chunking, and segmenting words into symbols and sounds; and (c) automatic word recognition or sight reading (Fox, 2000; Kamhi et al., 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000; Walton & Walton, 2002). These skills lead to effective decoding, the ability to sound out unfamiliar written words and, beyond decoding, to the ability to store words as wholes. The goal is for children to develop a sight-word vocabulary that enables them to read familiar words efficiently, applying word attack skills as needed for unfamiliar words.

It is not surprising that children with a language-based learning disability (LLD) struggle to read. They generally present with significant deficits in phonemic awareness--the very skill required to associate sounds with symbols, to blend and segment sounds in words (Blachman, 1994; Catts & Kamhi, 1999). They also display weaknesses for word retrieval (Bowers & Wolff, 1993; German, 1994; Meyer, Wood, Hart, & Felton, 1998) that can interfere with successful letter naming, automatic retrieval for sounds associated with symbols, and sight-word reading. Children

with LLD thus are "knocked out" of the word identification process early in the game. The four methods that follow are valuable procedures for facilitating word identification for children both with and without LLD.

Method 1: Letter-Sound Decoding

Research has shown that letter-sound decoding is effective (Briggs & Clark, 1997; Kamhi et al., 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000). Its foundation is in systematic phonics-based approaches and approaches grounded in Orton-Gillingham techniques (e.g., Alphabetic Phonics, Slingerland Approach, Dyslexia Training Program, and Multisensory Teaching Approach; see Note) that have shown success with typically developing children and people with impairments (Briggs & Clark, 1997; Hook, Macaruso, & Jones, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000; Oakland, Black, Stanford, Nussbaum, & Balise, 1998). Children using this method sound out each letter or combination of letters and blend the sounds to decode words. Often, typically developing children learning to read will note the recurrence of the written t with the pronunciation of /t/, thus discovering alphabetic correspondences that enable rapid growth for independent reading. Children with LLD, however, have difficulty inferring these associations and struggle to blend, chunk, or segment. Our purpose is to allow children with LLD to use the letter-sound decoding strategy and thereby crack the code.

Letter-sound decoding is built upon knowledge of letter-sound correspondences. Children with LLD need direct instruction that begins with regular letter-sound correspondences (e.g., t, p, n, k, b, f, h, m) and gradually introduces less regular symbols (e.g., c, ng, oo, ea) and irregular words (e.g., said, of, come, two). Children's knowledge and retrieval of letter-sound correspondences benefit from a mnemonic or association cue. Kindergarten teachers often focus on teaching these associations (e.g., Letter People), or first-grade teachers post illustrated alphabets. SLPs can extend this with a key-word system. For example, the Alphabetic Phonics program (Cox, 1984) uses an Initial Reading Deck, a set of flashcards depicting pictures of key words and associated letters (e.g., a line drawing of a "ship" with sh). More than 98 sound-symbol associations are taught, starting with frequent, regular letter-sound correspondences and moving

toward combinations that require increasing flexibility on the part of the reader. The key words assist the child in storing and retrieving the phonological information. The High Hat Program (Goldman & Lynch, 2001), which was designed specifically for SLPs teaching early reading skills, has story characters (e.g., "Marti Mouse" and "Tiger Tom") to help cue 39 sound-symbol associations. Likewise, Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LIPS), part of the Lindamood-Bell program, classifies phonemes by articulatory similarities. Labels (e.g., "lip poppers" and "tongue tappers"), mouth pictures, and letter symbols are used for learning and recall (Lindamood-Bell, n.d.; see also American Federation of Teachers, 1999). Each of these programs encourages daily drill with key-word picture cards to facilitate automaticity. This combined approach of key words and daily drill is recommended to establish letter--sound correspondences and overcome word-retrieval deficits.

Phonemic awareness is integral to letter-sound decoding (Fox, 2000; Kamhi et al., 2001) because after achieving automatic retrieval for sounds associated with symbols, children must still blend the sounds to form words. Many frustrated children and educators have worked to attain skills for sounding out, only to be thwarted in their efforts to blend the sounds into words. Kamhi et al. recommended using continuants (e.g.,/s, h, f/) to facilitate blending. Fox described half a dozen kid-friendly ways to practice blending (e.g., "Slide Blending" and "Finger Blending" pp. 43-47). Her suggestions reinforce our experiences using multisensory methods and manipulatives (e.g., colored blocks) to blend sounds into words effectively.

One limitation of the letter-sound decoding method is the amount of energy it requires for application. For the weak reader, letter-sound decoding can be slow and labored; however, children with LLD will never develop to their potential if educators bypass this basic component. Furthermore, meta-analysis has revealed moderate to large effect sizes for phonics programs using letter-sound decoding methods, especially for children with reading impairments (National Reading Panel, 2000). Letter-sound decoding leads to strong alphabetic knowledge of the language and confidence in identifying unfamiliar words.

Method 2: Syllable Neighborhoods

Letters group together in predictable patterns, and these patterns directly affect decoding. Fox (2000) used the concept of letter-sound neighborhoods to assist teachers and students in identifying predictable letter-sound correspondences. We borrowed Fox's idea of neighborhoods, but our neighborhoods are built upon six syllable types typically taught in Orton-Gillingham methods (e.g., Alphabetic Phonics). Six syllable neighborhoods with example words and the corresponding instructional principles are presented in Table 1. Syllable neighborhoods move beyond simple letter-sound correspondences, an important step because these associations vary by context. For example, the letter o in pot predictably says /alpha/; the o in rope says /o/; two o's as in book are /u/; and o with a in boat is /o/. For each of these, it is the neighborhood that cues the reader to the most likely o sound.

To successfully use syllable neighborhoods, children need automatic recognition of letters that represent consonant sounds (e.g., t, th, y, and w in the initial position of words) versus vowel sounds (e.g., u, oo, ew, ay). Vowel and consonant identification, however, is a metalinguistic skill often difficult for children with LLD. To effectively cue children, the educator or SLP should start by color-coding reading manipulatives, for example, consonants in black and vowels in red. In this fashion, the syllable pattern is readily recognized during practice activities.

Cox (1984) outlined the use of discovery principles for successful reading instruction. She recommended that educators present children with sets of syllables from the same neighborhood that contain familiar letter-sound correspondences. To teach the open syllable (CV), the teacher might present go, hi, su, and ta. The teacher would read each written syllable aloud, stressing the long vowel sounds and prompting students to discover the visual pattern and corresponding vowel pronunciations. In this manner, the instructional principle for the syllable neighborhood is discovered and then learned as an explicit rule (e.g., "In syllables that end with a vowel, the vowel says its name"). Daily practice using carefully selected materials and decodable texts reinforces students' knowledge and application for reliable reading. Note in the above example that two of the four syllables represented real words (i.e., go, hi) but two (su, ta) cannot stand alone as words.

The latter do, however, represent real syllables in English words, such as super and table.

Method 3: Decoding by Analogy

The analogy strategy for reading focuses on combining known onsets with known times to read new words (Fox, 2000; Walton & Walton, 2002). For example, a child may know that h is /h/ based on the word hop, and he or she may be familiar with the word cat. Using onset-time analogy, this child could learn to read hat. The onset is the consonant or consonants that come before the vowel in a syllable (e.g., cat, chair, cry), and the time is the rest of the syllable, including the vowel (e.g., cat, chair, cry). Most typically developing kindergartners can segment words into onsets (i.e., as in initial phoneme identification tasks) or times (for rhyming practice) without explicitly knowing about onsets or primes. Early instruction in the analogy strategy without additional attention to phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondences is not effective, however, even with typically developing preschoolers (Walton & Walton, 2002). Children need basic phonemic awareness skills to apply this strategy and a relatively large sight-word vocabulary from which to access the times and onsets for analogy.

Despite these limitations, the analogy method is effective for several reasons. First, Walton and Walton (2002) found that children who had been taught analogy had better reading skills for new words and an increased awareness of medial and final phonemes. Second, emphasis on onsets and times increases the size of the phonological chunks manipulated by a child, moving him or her away from a letter-by-letter decoding strategy to a focus on groups of letters and sounds (Fox, 2000). Third, the analogy strategy can be used to help children when words do not conform to regular English patterns. Fox pointed out that children who know old can read other words, such as told, bold, and fold, although the letter o in these words does not conform to the short vowel rule for closed syllables (i.e., /alpha/ as in octopus [key word] for words such as rock, box, ostrich). Finally, decodable texts are generally built upon word families that have the same times (e.g, see the books The Cat in the Hat and One Fish, Two Fish).

Method 4: Multiletter Chunking

Another method of word identification stressed by Fox (2000) is the use of multiletter chunking. Like the analogy method, this effectively shifts the reader's focus to even larger word segments. Chunks that can substantially improve decoding skills include compound words (e.g., popcorn, sidewalk, bluebird); prefixes, suffixes, and base words (e.g., unhappy, worthless, demobilize); and syllables within multisyllabic words (e.g., expert, Atlantic, table). Both the syllable neighborhoods method and multiletter chunking derive from reading approaches that teach structural analysis--knowledge of syllables, free and bound morphemes, and word root origins (Abbott & Berninger, 1999).

The first step in multiletter chunking is to assist children in stripping common suffixes from base words when reading. Many poor readers, even in the middle school grades, freeze when they come across derivations of familiar words. Children are taught to attack words by scanning for suffixes, removing the suffix (i.e., covering it with a finger or card, or drawing a box around it), and sounding out the base word. They then pronounce the whole word by blending the base word with the suffix. At beginning reading levels, the focus is on common verb and noun suffixes (-ing, -ed, -s or -es). Children in upper elementary grades and middle school can continue to use this procedure with an increasing knowledge of English prefixes and suffixes (e.g., dependable, mistaken).

Because multisyllabic words are not infrequent in reading lists for early elementary grades (e.g., something, monkey, address, behind, flower), SLPs need techniques to assist children with LLD in attacking these words. Five rules for syllabicating English words are summarized in Table 2. The vowel sound is the nucleus of the syllable, so the reader first locates the vowels. He or she then determines the number of consonants between the vowels. This dictates the syllabication rule. If there are two or more consonants between the vowels (e.g., monkey, address), the most likely segmentation is between the consonants. When there is only one consonant, the first best guess is to segment before the consonant. When this does not result in a recognizable word, the reader should rechunk by segmenting after the consonant. Ideally, segmentation yields recognizable chunks (e.g., mon +

key, ad + dress, ta + ble). If, however, the student cannot automatically read the singlesyllable chunks, he or she can decode the word by using syllable neighborhoods

Multiletter chunking is particularly useful for upper elementary school-age children who continue to demonstrate weaknesses in word identification and decoding. Abbott and Berninger (1999) reported on the effectiveness of teaching structural analysis in combination with sound-symbol correspondences for poor readers in Grades 4 through 7. Rather than practicing reading CVC or CV syllables that perpetuate students' feelings of incompetence, older children can tackle multisyllabic words using decodable, multiletter chunks. There is nothing "babyish" about reading words such as candid, influence, volume, and deduct. Mega-words (Johnson & Bayrd, 2002) is an excellent series of books based upon these syllabication rules and syllable neighborhoods. Furthermore, multiletter chunking supports curriculum-based reading practice, because many examples exist in students' grade-level content (e.g., third-grade science content includes the water cycle and owl pellets).

IMPROVING READING COMPREHENSION

Reading comprehension is defined as "deriving meaning from text when they [the readers] engage in intentional problem solving" (National Reading Panel, 2000, p. 14). It is this meaning-making task that can be daunting for both typically developing children and children with LLD (Rand Corporation, 2002). More specifically, children with oral language deficits are at risk for developing reading comprehension problems because it is a high-level language task requiring extensive semantic and syntactic knowledge (Catts & Kamhi, 1999). Furthermore, the phenomenon known as the "fourth-grade slump" or late-emerging reading disability will affect some children who previously experienced no reading problems (Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Rand Corporation, 2002). Leach et al. suggested that approximately 40% of all children with a reading disability will have late-emerging problems and, of this group, about two thirds will demonstrate deficits in reading comprehension only or a mixed deficit in comprehension and word identification.

Given the impact of reading comprehension skills on all aspects of children's academic achievement, direct and effective instruction requires continued attention by educators (Vaughn & Klingner, 1999), including SLPs (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2001). Beyond word identification, prerequisite skills supporting good reading comprehension include fluency for reading, oral and auditory vocabulary skills, knowledge of syntax, well-developed world knowledge, and problem-solving ability (Rand Corporation, 2002). The methods that have been presented so far incorporate various components found to be effective but do not attempt to address all possible tools. The first two reading comprehension techniques focus on understanding vocabulary. These methods are useful for SLPs because children's semantic deficits can be targeted in curriculum-based activities. The next two methods engage a broader understanding of the text. These are particularly helpful for SLPs who co-teach and use a collaborative model for intervention.

Method 5: List--Group--Label

List--Group--Label was first introduced by Taba (as cited in Tierney, Readence, & Dishner, 1995) to target the development of vocabulary and categorization skills, organize verbal concepts, and increase the recall of new vocabulary. It was designed for elementary social studies and science texts and focuses on activating prior knowledge. Tierney et al. described it as a three-part strategy: list, group and label new vocabulary words, and follow-up.

The SLP should start the lesson by choosing a one- or two-word topic to act as a catalyst for word listing. For example, the text and topic under study might be China (or the Chinese peoples). Students are then asked to brainstorm topic-related words and expressions. All suggested words are written down by the SLP or students as long as a justification for the word choice can be given. This brainstorming session proceeds until students have generated a list of about 25 words, enough to facilitate categorization without becoming unwieldy. The next step is to group and label the words, and students can accomplish this as a class, individually, or in small cooperative groups. When working with younger students or poor readers, the SLP reads the words

aloud. This enables students with weak word-identification skills to continue participating in the comprehension activity. Students are asked to group the words into

categories of at least three words each, although each word can be used more than once. They are directed to provide labels for each category that indicate the commonality among the words. During follow-up, students share their groupings and rationales with the class. Relationships among words should be based on shared semantic features, not simply structural or phonologic aspects (e.g., sun, sea, and sand are all natural elements found at the beach rather than words starting with s). During this sharing and justification time, students are exposed to other categories that expand their knowledge base and comprehension network.

Tierney et al. (1995) suggested several modifications, depending on children's abilities and comfort. For children struggling with categorization and justification, several demonstrations or cooperative groups are warranted. Also, the SLP can provide the labels and have students categorize the words. Although this technique is typically used for developing vocabulary prior to reading, it is effective for postreading reinforcement and test review. List--Group--Label can facilitate authentic assessment both pre- and postlesson. As a prereading tool, it indicates students' prereading knowledge base; as a postreading tool, it helps the SLP evaluate student understanding.

Method 6: Contextual Redefinition

Contextual redefinition was designed to teach students at all grade levels a problem-solving strategy for determining the meaning of unknown words (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1995). First, the SLP identifies words from a reading passage that are likely to be unfamiliar or that are central to text comprehension or a student's individual language objectives. For each of the chosen words, the SLP generates sentences or a group of sentences that provide accurate and explicit cues to word meanings. The meaning of the vocabulary word must be transparent within the context of the sentence. An example would be, "The emperor of China was like a king, and the Chinese people considered him to be a god." Up to this point, the

instructor works independently of students, preparing the word lists and contextual sentences. At the start of the lesson, the SLP writes and reads each word for the class without presenting any of the prepared sentences. Students are asked to hypothesize the word meanings, giving rationales for their ideas, which is a critical component. After this time spent in speculating about the words' meanings, the SLP presents the contextual sentences he or she developed. Students are encouraged to use the contextual sentences to modify the definitions they created and to provide a rationale for their modifications. At this stage, they discover that context is integral when determining meanings for unknown words.

In the last step, the students use a dictionary to verify their definitions (Readence et al., 1995). Children in the lower grades or with lesser ability may need extra support in this step. The dictionary work can be done individually, but working in pairs is preferable when the group's ability level is mixed. Students use the dictionary definitions to make any final revisions to their previous definition guesses. Once again, revisions are accompanied with support or a rationale from the dictionary. This last step is what makes contextual redefinition a useful tool for teaching functional dictionary use.

Although this method teaches students to systematically discover the meanings of unknown words encountered within passages, it is not designed to manage vocabulary retention (Tierney et al., 1995). We recommend copying each word with its contextual sentence and the completed definition onto an index card or into students' reading notebooks to help them in committing words to memory. These notebook pages or index cards may then be used for test review and drill to facilitate retrieval.

Method 7: Directed Reading--Teaching Activity

One very popular reading comprehension technique is known as Directed Reading--Teaching Activity (DR-TA). Designed to teach reflective and critical reading for narrative discourse, DR-TA requires students to set a purpose for reading, evaluate the purpose and their understanding as they read, and make ongoing adjustments (Blachowicz, 1994). The first step in DR-TA is predicting what is going to be read using information from the

title or part of the story. Students then read the story, looking for clues that support or negate the original prediction. The last step involves testing predictions using clues gathered from reading.

SLPs using DR-TA direct students' prediction and problem-solving attempts during each of these steps. When first introducing new reading material, the SLP prompts the students with questions (Blachowicz, 1994), such as the following: What do you think a story with this title might be about? What do you think is going to happen in this story? Which of these predictions do you agree with? Students are encouraged to provide multiple predictions and to discuss their agreement or disagreement (Tierney et al., 1995). After open, free-flowing discussion of the various predictions, the students independently read the assigned section. The SLP or educator begins a comprehension check after they have finished reading. Questions used to guide students' examination of the evidence might include the following: Was your prediction correct? What do you think now that you have read the story? Proof from the text to support conclusions is considered critical to DR-TA. This process of prediction, reading, and substantiation is repeated for each story segment. DR-TA structures students' comprehension with the goal of eventually developing independence. Note that prior subject knowledge is a cornerstone for successful application because students will not be able to make predictions for themes that are completely unfamiliar. When this occurs, the SLP should provide background information to improve students' predictions.

Tierney et al. (1995) noted that DR-TA is easily adapted for children of different reading levels, for use with various genres of fictional and nonfictional discourse, and for either group or individual instruction. For example, students reluctant or unable to support their predictions in the initial teaching phase can be allowed to include predictions without justification until some success and confidence has been gained. Blachowicz (1994) suggested modifying the method for very young children and poor readers so that the SLP will read the text aloud to the students. Another adjustment suggested by Blachowicz was Silent Directed Reading--Thinking Activity, for which more independence is encouraged and a written response required. The benefits of this last modification are that each student can

set his or her own pace and the risk of public embarrassment is reduced.

Method 8: Collaborative Strategic Reading

Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) was developed to teach children in the upper elementary grades and above four specific reading comprehension tactics for use in cooperative learning groups (Klingner & Vaughn, 1998). CSR is implemented in two distinct phases: the introductory phase, which consists of direct teacher instruction, and the cooperative learning group phase. Klingner and Vaughn's four CSR strategies are Preview, Click and Clunk, Get the Gist, and Wrap-Up, and reading notebooks are used during and after reading.

Preview, the first strategy, is brainstorming the possible topic of the assigned reading (Klingner & Vaughn, 1998). Students use any clues they can find with a quick scan of the text to help them form predictions and then spend 5 to 10 minutes discussing their different predictions. The second CSR strategy, Click and Clunk, serves to help students monitor comprehension while reading. Clicks are those ideas in the text that make sense (or click) for the reader, and clunks are the ones that do not make sense. When a clunk is identified, students are taught to problem solve the word using context cues, tables, or figures to increase understanding. Get the Gist is focused on main idea skills using sections of the reading material (e.g., chapter sections). Students determine the most important point by identifying the most significant person, place, or thing. They then write a 10- to 12-word summary in their reading notebooks to show that they understood. After completing the entire reading assignment, students apply the last strategy, Wrap-Up, during which they ask questions with the goal of improving their understanding of the material. Most students will need guidance when it comes to creating questions. One way to get started is to create question stems that require information from the text.

During Phase 2, the cooperative learning group, small groups of students use the strategies without further instruction (Klingner & Vaughn, 1998). Initially, the SLP needs to assign a role to each person in the group. For example, one student is the leader, the person who facilitates Preview and keeps the group moving

through each of the strategies. Another student is the Clunk expert, whose primary job is help the group identify different problem-solving strategies when clunks occur. The group recorder reports his or her group's Wrap-Up questions when all groups rejoin in the classroom. Throughout the cooperative learning phase, all students are responsible for maintaining their reading notebooks by writing up the initial predictions, clunks, main ideas, and final questions.

CONCLUSION

Reading, the act of decoding written symbols for the purpose of making meaning, is one of the most difficult tasks young brains undertake. The complexity of the task is increased when confounded by difficulty in learning the language, for any reason. It is this language--reading connection that has thrust SLPs into the murky waters of reading interventions. To truly have an impact on the literacy skills of children with LLD, SLPs must know effective reading instruction methods that will enable them to help students manage curricular demands. Two areas in which SLPs can make a difference for children with LLD are explicit instruction in word identification and reading comprehension. We have outlined specific methods for addressing these two pillars of an effective reading program. SLPs working with school-age children are encouraged to implement these evidence-based techniques to improve children's reading.

TABLE 1. Syllable Neighborhoods: Six Common Syllable Types Used for Reading and Spelling Success Type Symbol Examples Instructional principle Open CV she, go Vowel pronunciation is typically long Closed VC on, get Short vowel sounds are prevalent Final, stable Cle tumble, ladle Unstressed, with consistent pronunciation

Vowel pair VV look, toy Digraph with a learned single vowel sound r-controlled Vr car, port r diphthongs have learned pronunciations Silent e VCe make, fine Vowel is typically long Note. Adapted from various materials in the Alphabetic Phonics curriculum as described in Cox (1984). TABLE 2. Five Syllabication Rules to Facilitate Chunking Symbol Instructional principle Examples VC/CV Divide between 2 Cs, keeping rabbit, ethnic digraphs/blends together V/CV Usually divide before 1 C between 2 Vs open, erase VC/V If not V/CV, try dividing after the C canal, melon V/V A few words divide between Vs dial, nuance /Cle Divide before the Cle syllable table, puzzle Note. Adapted from the Alphabetic Phonics curriculum as described in Cox (1984).

NOTE These are all series of materials: Alphabetic Phonics by Aylett Royal Cox, Slingerland Teaching Materials by Beth H. Slingerland, Dyslexia Training Program by the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children, and Multisensory Teaching Approach by Margaret Taylor Smith. All are available from Educational Publishing Service, PO Box 9031, Cambridge, MA 02139-9031 (www.epsbooks.com).

REFERENCES

Abbott, S. P., & Berninger, V. W. (1999). It's never too late to remediate: Teaching word recognition to students with reading disabilities in Grades 4-7. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 223-250.

American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Building on the best, learning from what works: Five promising remedial reading intervention programs. Washington, DC: Author.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Scope of practice in speech--language pathology. Rockville, MD: Author.

Blachman, B. (1994) Early literacy acquisition: The role of phonological awareness. In G. F. Wallach & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language-learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents (pp. 253-274). New York: Macmillan.

Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (1994). Problem-solving strategies for academic success. In G. F. Wallach & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language-learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents (pp. 304-322). New York: Macmillan.

Bowers, P. G., & Wolff, M. (1993, March). A double-deficit hypothesis for developmental reading disorders. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.

Briggs, K. L., & Clark, C. (1997). Reading programs for students in the lower elementary grades: What does the research say? Austin: Texas Center for Educational Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420046)

Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Language and reading disabilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cox, A. (1984). Structures and techniques: Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (alphabetic phonics). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Fox, B. J. (2000). Word identification strategies: Phonics from a new perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

German, D. (1994). Word finding difficulties in children and adolescents. In G. P. Wallach & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language-learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents (pp. 323-347). New York: Macmillan.

Goldman, R., & Lynch, M. E. (2001). Sounds & symbols: Early reading program. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Hook, P. E., Macaruso, P., & Jones, S. (2001). Efficacy of Fast ForWord training on facilitating acquisition of reading skills by children with reading difficulties--A longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 75-96.

Johnson, K., & Bayrd, P. (2002). Megawords, book 1: Multisyllabic words for reading, spelling, and vocabulary. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Kamhi, A. G., Allen, M. M., & Catts, H. W. (2001). The role of the speech--language pathologist in improving decoding skills. Seminars in Speech and Language, 22, 175-183.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(6), 32-37.

Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211-224.

Lindamood-Bell. (n.d.). Lindamood-Bell learning processes [brochure]. San Louis Obispo, CA: Author.

Meyer, M. S., Wood, F. B., Hart, L. A., & Felton, R. H. (1998). Selective predictive value of rapid automatized naming in poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 106-117.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read--An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development.

Oakland, T., Black, J. L., Stanford, G., Nussbaum, N. L., & Balise, R. R. (1998). An evaluation of the dyslexia training program: A multisensory method for promoting reading in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 140-147.

Rand Corporation. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463559)

Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (1995). Content area reading: An integrated approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Tierney, R. J., Readence, J. E., & Dishner, E. K. (1995). Reading strategies and practices. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. K. (1999). Teaching reading comprehension through collaborative strategic reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 284-292.

Walton, P. D., & Walton, L. M. (2002). Beginning reading by teaching in time analogy: Effects on phonological skills, letter-sound knowledge, working memory, and word-reading strategies. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(1), 79-115.

Dee M. Lance, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Central Arkansas, where she teaches and conducts research in the area of language development and disorders, with a special emphasis in reading impairment. Brenda L. Beverly, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of South Alabama in Mobile and has more than 16 years of experience working in transdisciplinary settings dedicated to treating individuals with reading disorders. Lea Helen Evans, PhD, is an assistant professor at Mississippi University for Women. She has clinical expertise with both preschool and school-age children. Kimberly C. McCullough, PhD, is an assistant professor at The University of Central Arkansas and has extensive experience in clinical methods with both school-age children and adults. Address: Dee M. Lance, The University of Central Arkansas, Department of Speech-Language Pathology, 201 Donaghey Ave., Conway, AR 72035-0001; e-mail: dlance@uca.edu

Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com

Publication Information: Article Title: Addressing Literacy: Effective Methods for Reading Instruction. Contributors: Dee M. Lance - author, Brenda L. Beverly - author, Lea Helen Evans - author, Kim C. Mccullough - author. Journal Title: Communication Disorders Quarterly. Volume: 25. Issue: 1. Publication Year: 2003. Page Number: 5+. COPYRIGHT 2003 Pro-Ed; COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group