Reading Research Quarterly最新文献

To learn to read, the brain must repurpose neural systems for oral language and visual processing to mediate written language. We begin with a description of computational models for how alphabetic written language is processed. Next, we explain the roles of a dorsal sublexical system in the brain that relates print and speech, a ventral lexical system that develops the visual expertise for rapid orthographic processing at the word level, and the role of cognitive control networks that regulate attentional processes as children read. We then use studies of children, adult illiterates learning to read, and studies of poor readers involved in intervention, to demonstrate the plasticity of these neural networks in development and in relation to instruction. We provide a brief overview of the rapid increase in the field's understanding and technology for assessing genetic influence on reading. Family studies of twins have shown that reading skills are heritable, and molecular genetic studies have identified numerous regions of the genome that may harbor candidate genes for the heritability of reading. In selected families, reading impairment has been associated with major genetic effects, despite individual gene contributions across the broader population that appear to be small. Neural and genetic studies do not prescribe how children should be taught to read, but these studies have underscored the critical role of early intervention and ongoing support. These studies also have highlighted how structured instruction that facilitates access to the sublexical components of words is a critical part of training the brain to read.

Definitions of dyslexia typically make reference to unexpected poor reading, although how best to operationalize unexpected remains an issue. When operationally defined as reading below expectations based on level of oral language, cases of unexpected poor reading make up fewer than half of cases of poor reading, and cases of unexpected poor reading occur throughout the range of reading proficiency. An implication is that what optimally predicts poor reading may not optimally predict unexpected poor reading. The goal of the three presented studies was to test this implication empirically. In Study 1, a model-based meta-analysis, phonological awareness accounted for 40% of the variance in decoding but only 1% of the variance in decoding that was unexpected based on level of vocabulary. Conversely, unexpected phonological awareness accounted for 34% of the variance in unexpected decoding but only 1% of the variance in decoding. An analogous pattern of results occurred for reading comprehension. In Study 2, a study of 766 children in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade, latent variables were used to represent oral vocabulary, phonological awareness, and decoding. As was seen in Study 1, unexpected decoding was better predicted by unexpected phonological awareness than by phonological awareness. In Study 3, a longitudinal study of 1,025 children followed from preschool through grade 2, the pattern of results mirrored those of Studies 1 and 2. An important implication of these studies is that typical assessments may be better at identifying poor reading than they are at identifying unexpected poor reading or dyslexia.

Quasiregular orthographies such as English contain substantial ambiguities between orthography and phonology that force developing readers to acquire flexibility during decoding of unfamiliar words, a skill referred to as a "set for variability" (SfV). The ease with which a child can disambiguate the mismatch between the decoded form of a word and its actual lexical phonological form has been operationalized using the SfV mispronunciation task (e.g., the word wasp is pronounced to rhyme with clasp [i.e., /wæsp/] and the child must recognize the actual pronunciation of the word to be /wɒsp/). SfV has been shown to be a significant predictor of word reading variance. However, little is known about the relative strength of SfV as a predictor of word reading compared to other well-established predictors or the strength of this relationship in children with dyslexia. To address these questions, we administered the SfV task to a sample of grade 2-5 children (N=489) along with other reading related measures. SfV accounted for 15% unique variance in word reading above and beyond other predictors, whereas phonological awareness (PA) accounted for only 1%. Dominance analysis indicated SfV is the most powerful predictor, demonstrating complete statistical dominance over other variables including PA. Quantile regression revealed SfV is a stronger predictor at lower levels of reading skill, indicating it may be an important predictor in students with dyslexia. Results suggest that SfV is a powerful and potentially highly sensitive predictor of early reading difficulties and, therefore, may be important for early identification and treatment of dyslexia.

The purpose of this paper is to describe what we know and what we still need to learn about literacy intervention for children who experience significant difficulties learning to read. We reviewed 14 meta-analyses and systematic reviews of experimental and quasi-experimental studies published in the last decade that examined the effects of reading and writing interventions in the elementary grades, including research focused on students with reading difficulties and disabilities, including dyslexia. We attended to moderator analyses, when available, to further refine what we know and need to learn about interventions. Findings from these reviews indicate that explicit and systematic intervention focusing on the code and meaning dimensions of reading and writing, and delivered one-to-one or in small groups, are likely to improve foundational code-based reading skills, and to a lesser extent, meaning-based skills, across elementary grade levels. Findings, at least in the upper elementary grades, indicate that some intervention features including standardized protocols, multiple components, and longer duration can yield stronger effects. And, integrating reading and writing interventions shows promise. We still need to learn more about specific instructional routines and components that provide more robust effects on students' ability to comprehend and individual differences in response to interventions. We discuss limitations of this review of reviews and suggest directions for future research to optimize implementation, particularly to understand for whom and under what conditions literacy interventions work best.