S A quantitative meta‐analysis evaluating the effects of phonemic awareness (PA) instruction on learning to read and spell was conducted by the National Reading Panel. There were 52 studies published in peer‐reviewed journals, and these contributed 96 cases comparing the outcomes of treatment and control groups. Analysis of effect sizes revealed that the impact of PA instruction on helping children acquire PA was large and statistically significant (d = 0.86). PA instruction exerted a moderate, statistically significant impact on reading (d = 0.53) and spelling (d = 0.59). Not only word reading but also reading comprehension benefited. PA instruction impacted reading under all the conditions examined although effect sizes were larger under some conditions. PA instruction helped various types of children: normally developing readers as well as at‐risk and disabled readers; preschoolers, kindergartners, and first graders; low socioeconomic status children as well as mid‐high SES. PA instruction improved reading, but it did not improve spelling in disabled readers. PA instruction was more effective when it was taught with letters than without letters, when one or two PA skills were taught than multiple PA skills, when children were taught in small groups than individually or in classrooms, and when instruction lasted between 5 and 18 hours rather than longer. Classroom teachers were effective in teaching PA to their students. Effect sizes were larger for studies using more rigorous experimental designs, with rigor assessments drawn from Troia (1999). In sum, PA instruction was found to make a statistically significant contribution to reading acquisition. [See also a letter to the editors regarding this article, and the first author's response: http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.37.2.1] Un meta‐análisis cuantitativo que evaluó los efectos de la instrucción en conciencia fonémica (CF) sobre el aprendizaje de la lectura y la escritura fue llevado a cabo por el Panel Nacional de Lectura (National Reading Panel). Se tomaron 52 estudios, publicados en revistas con referato, que aportaron 96 casos en los que se comparó el resultado de los grupos de tratamiento y de control. El análisis de las magnitudes del efecto reveló que el impacto de la instrucción en CF sobre el desarrollo de la CF en los niños fue grande y estadísticamente significativo (d = 0.86). La instrucción en CF ejerció un impacto moderado, estadísticamente significativo en la lectura (d = 0.53) y escritura (d = 0.59). No sólo se benefició la lectura de palabras, sino también la comprensión lectora. La instrucción en CF impactó en la lectura, en todas las condiciones examinadas, sin embargo las magnitudes del efecto fueron mayores en algunas condiciones. La instrucción en CF ayudó a distintos tipos de niños: lectores de desarrollo normal, lectores de riesgo y lectores con dificultades; niños de jardín, preescolar y primer grado; niños de NSE bajo y niños de NSE medio‐alto. La instrucción en CF mejoró la lectura pero no la escritura en los lectores con difi...

A quantitative meta-analysis evaluating the effects of systematic phonics instruction compared to unsystematic or no-phonics instruction on learning to read was conducted using 66 treatment-control comparisons derived from 38 experiments. The overall effect of phonics instruction on reading was moderate, d = 0.41. Effects persisted after instruction ended. Effects were larger when phonics instruction began early (d = 0.55) than after first grade (d = 0.27). Phonics benefited decoding, word reading, text comprehension, and spelling in many readers. Phonics helped low and middle SES readers, younger students at risk for reading disability (RD), and older students with RD, but it did not help low achieving readers that included students with cognitive limitations. Synthetic phonics and larger-unit systematic phonics programs produced a similar advantage in reading. Delivering instruction to small groups and classes was not less effective than tutoring. Systematic phonics instruction helped children learn to read better than all forms of control group instruction, including whole language. In sum, systematic phonics instruction proved effective and should be implemented as part of literacy programs to teach beginning reading as well as to prevent and remediate reading difficulties.

Employing a cognitive-motivational analysis, the present investigation sought to determine some specific self-perceptions that might contribute to motivational and performance deficits observed in children with reading difficulties. Children of relatively good, average, and poor reading ability were assessed on tasks in which success and failure were manipulated. Consistent with predictions, poor readers displayed characteristics indicative of learned helplessness and low self-concepts of ability. These included significantly lower initial estimates of success, less persistence, attribution of failures to lack of ability and of successes to factors beyond personal control, and greater decrements in expectancy of success following failure. Implications for education and reading remediation are discussed.

The social competence of students with learning disabilities (LD), low achievement (LA), and average to high achievement (AHA) was examined from the perspectives of parents, teachers, peers, and self, guided by a theoretical model of social competence (Vaughn & Hogan, 1990) that includes social skills, behavior problems, peer relations, and self-perceptions. Parent ratings of social skills did not differ significantly among achievement groups; however, for two factors of behavior problems (internalizing and hyperactivity), students with LD and LA were rated as having more problems than AHA students. Teachers perceived students with LD and LA as demonstrating poorer social skills and more behavior problems than AHA students. Peer ratings indicated that students with LD and LA were less likely by peers than were AHA students, yet only LA students received significantly higher peer rejection. Self-reports differentiated the groups on one factor: cooperation. Discussion focuses on the complexity of social competence as a construct, and explanations of the results are offered.

No abstract