Comprehension is often seen as the ultimate goal of reading instruction. In fact, the National Reading Panel wrote that "comprehension is critically important to development of children's reading skills and therefore their ability to obtain an education" (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000, p. 4-1). However, it is important to understand that multiple distinct cognitive processes interact to create the construct we commonly refer to as reading comprehension.Perfetti, Landi, and Oakhill ( 2005) created a cognitive model of reading that recognizes the interactions between a written text, word identification, comprehension, and background knowledge. In a recent review, Savaiano, Compton, and Hatton (2014) used the Perfetti et al. (2005) model to frame existing Braille reading research. They highlighted that the majority of researchers of Braille reading have concentrated on word identification processes, specifically focusing on the perceptual features of the Braille code itself and the rate at which students can decode Braille.Although decoding is an integral part of the reading process, it is only helpful for comprehension if the resulting word is part of the reader's vocabulary (NICHD, 2000). The age of onset of blindness, visual diagnosis, and presence of additional disabilities are only a subset of factors that could potentially affect the quality and quantity of early learning experiences of Braille readers. There is a reciprocal relationship between vocabulary, comprehension, and amount of reading (Nagy, 598774E CXXXX10.

No abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated whether children with visual impairments who receive repeated reading instruction exhibit an increase in their oral reading rate and comprehension and a decrease in oral reading error rates. Methods: A single-subject, changing-criterion design replicated across three participants was used to demonstrate the association between a repeated reading intervention and the oral reading rate, comprehension, and error rate. Results: Visual analysis of the data indicates that there was a functional relation between repeated reading and oral reading rate for two participants, and a functional relation between repeated reading and comprehension for all participants. There was not a functional relation between repeated oral reading and error rate. Discussion: Based on the results of this study, repeated reading appears to be an effective practice for some students with visual impairments. Implications for practitioners: Teachers and parents can engage children in repeated reading activities in an effort to develop automaticity in reading and to improve oral reading rates.

Introduction: Not much is known about the writing skills of students with visual impairments, and this research is often limited to subgroups of the population or subskills. A more comprehensive approach to research on the writing skills of students with visual impairments is needed. Methods: Researchers used a cross-sectional design to examine the writing of students with visual impairments in Nebraska, attempting to include as many students as possible aged from 4 to 21 years. Fifty students participated. All students were given the Essay Composition subtest of the Wechsler Individualized Achievement Test (third edition), with modified instructions. Essays were scored on number of words, essay elements, and mechanics. Descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons of groups are provided. Results: Mean scores of the overall sample and subgroups fell within the average range when compared to normative samples. There were no statistical differences between students who were blind and students with low vision and no statistical differences between writing modality. There were statistical differences between students with multiple disabilities and others. Results suggest substantial heterogeneity in the sample. Discussion: Results suggest some students with visual impairments write as well as do their sighted peers. These results are complicated by heterogeneity and do not imply anything about the writing ability of individual students. Implications for practitioners: Teachers should avoid making assumptions about the writing potential of specific students. Students with visual impairments in this study scored comparably to a normative sample, and students with multiple disabilities may be able to participate in writing activities in a variety of ways.

No abstract