Raising Literacy Attainments in the Early Years: the impact of instructional psychology

Solity, Jonathan; Deavers, Rachael P.; Kerfoot, Sue; Crane, George W.; Cannon, Karen J.

doi:10.1080/0144341990190401

Cited by 31 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The major problem with teaching onset-rimes, from an instructional perspective, is the additional demands they make on children's memories (Solity et al, 1999). This point was highlighted by the results of the analysis undertaken here, which showed that up to an eightfold increase in onsets and rime mappings would need to be learned in order to enable beginning readers to read the same amount of text that could be read through knowledge of the 64 GPCs.…”

Section: Gpcs and Onset-rimesmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The second analysis examined the frequency of the 100 high-frequency words (as listed in Appendix 2) used in the Early Reading Research (ERR; Solity, 2000Solity, , 2003Solity, Deavers, Kerfoot, Crane, & Cannon, 1999, 2000. These words were based on the Ladybird Key Word List (McNally & Murray, 1964) and formed part of the ERR literacy framework, which was introduced to schools in an experimental investigation into the framework's impact on children's progress in learning to read.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Real books vs reading schemes: a new perspective from instructional psychology

Solity¹,

Vousden

2009

Educational Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A fiercely contested debate in teaching reading concerns the respective roles and merits of reading schemes and real books. Underpinning the controversy are different philosophies and beliefs about how children learn to read. However, to some extent debates have largely been rhetoric-driven, rather than research-driven. This article provides a theoretical perspective derived from instructional psychology and explores the assumptions that have been made about the use of real books and reading schemes, which have tended to polarise arguments about their respective strengths and limitations. It analyses the structures of adult literature, children's real books, and reading schemes, and examines the demands that they make on children's sight vocabulary and phonic skills. The critical high-frequency words and grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) are identified that will enable children to read the majority of phonically regular and irregular words that they encounter which, perhaps surprisingly, occur more often in real books than structured reading schemes. Learning additional sight words or GPCs is of limited value due to their relatively low occurrence in written English and, thus, potentially minimal impact on children's reading. Finally, the implications of this research for teaching reading are considered, particularly the complementary roles of real books and teaching methods derived from instructional psychology. In the past they have been viewed as diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive. BackgroundA long-running debate in teaching reading concerns whether children learn best through the use of 'reading schemes' or 'real books'. Underpinning the controversy are different philosophies and beliefs about how children learn to read, in particular about the roles of phonic and whole language approaches to teaching reading and their impact on children's progress. The tensions between the two were recognised over 30 years ago in the Bullock Report (Department of Education and Skills [DES], 1975) which commented:

show abstract

Section: Gpcs and Onset-rimesmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real books vs reading schemes: a new perspective from instructional psychology

Solity¹,

Vousden

2009

Educational Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Th us some studies have investigated the use of small grapheme to phoneme units (e.g., Solity, Deavers, Kerfoot, Crane, & Cannon, 1999, 2000Stuart, 1999;Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, et al, 1996) while other studies have taught larger rime body units (e.g., Bradley, & Bryant, 1985;Gaskins, Downer, Anderson, Cunningham, Gaskins, & Schommer, 1988;Greaney, Tunmer, & Chapman, 1997;White & Cunningham, 1990;Wise, Olson, & Treiman, 1990). Both rimebased and phoneme-based models of intervention have provided some support for their effi cacy.…”

Section: Using Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When overall reading ability is considered, several short term studies have reported equivalent improvements for rime-and phoneme-based programs (e.g., Haskell, Foorman, & Swank, 1992;O'Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000;Sullivan, Okada, & Niedermeyer, 1971). Recent longer term intervention studies suggest that intense phoneme-based interventions are superior to mixed phonic approaches that include rime awareness (Christensen & Bowey, 2005;Hatcher, Hulme, & Snowling, 2004;Solity et al, 1999Solity et al, , 2000. Savage, Carless, and Stuart (2003) describe a rime-and phoneme-based training study delivered over eight weeks by schools' own para-professionals to 6-year-olds "at-risk" of reading diffi culties.…”

Section: Using Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Technology to Assist Children Learning to Read and Write

Abrami

Savage

Wade

et al. 2007

Children's Learning in a Digital World

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As for writing, the children wrote their names and their peers' names, created words with magnetized letters, switched letters to create new words, made a telephone directory for the preschool, and more. We utilized explicit teaching and practice of the alphabetic skills, with the hope that the clear benefits of such programs for older children (Solity, 1996;Solity & Deavers, 1999) would emerge for the younger children as well. Due to younger children's possible difficulties in writing with a pencil, especially at the beginning of the year, we encouraged the children in the program to be active and practice writing and forming letter shapes in diverse ways: using seals, stickers, magnetized letters, newspaper cuttings, pencils, and crayons.…”

Section: The Intervention Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting alphabetic skills of young children with hearing loss in co-enrollment versus individual inclusion.

Aram¹,

Ingber²,

Konkol³

2009

L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study assessed the efficacy of an early literacy intervention for 79 children ages 5-6 years with prelingual hearing loss (HL) who all functioned auditorily, using appropriate devices. Teachers and speech therapists administered an 8-month-long intervention in preschools through two alphabetic sessions and one storybook-reading session per week. Alphabetic sessions involved games and activities that encouraged letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and functional writing. Storybook-reading sessions utilized children's books to discuss central concepts and ideas via games and creative activities. The study compared two educational inclusion tracks: individual inclusion (a single student with HL fully integrated into a regular classroom) and co-enrollment (a group of students with HL partially integrated into a regular classroom and co-taught by a regular teacher and a special education teacher). Another group of children with HL studying in a co-enrollment track served as a control group. Children's alphabetic skills (letter naming, orthographic awareness, phonological awareness, and word writing) were assessed at pretest and posttest. Results showed that participants progressed more in the intervention groups than in the control group on phonological awareness and word writing, regardless of inclusion track. Interestingly, the two intervention groups did not differ in their progress.Keywords: early literacy intervention, letter knowledge, phonological awareness, functional writing, educational tracks, storybook-reading. Tanja Janssen] TITEL. Het bevorderen van alfabetische vaardigheden van jonge kinderen met hoorproblemen die gezamenlijk zijn ingeschreven versus individueel zijn toegelaten SAMENVATTING. Het onderzoek stelde de effectiviteit vast van een vroegtijdige interventie op het gebied van geletterdheid voor 79 kinderen in de leeftijd van 5 tot 6 jaar met vroeg gehoorverlies (HL) die allemaal konden functioneren met gebruik van passende hulpmiddelen. Docenten en spraakleraren voerden gedurende 8 maanden een interventie uit op kleuterscholen, door twee sessies rond het alfabet en een leessessie per week. De sessies rond het alfabet behelsden spelletjes en activiteiten gericht op kennis van letters, fonologisch bewustzijn en functioneel schrijven. In de leessessies werden kinderboeken gebruikt om centrale concepten en ideeën te bespreken via spelletjes en creatieve activiteiten. In het onderzoek werden twee educational inclusion tracks met elkaar vergeleken: individuele inclusie (waarbij een individuele leerling met hoorproblemen volledig geïntegreerd is in een gewone klas) en coenrollment of gezamenlijke inschrijving (waarbij een groep leerlingen met hoorproblemen gedeeltelijk geïntegreerd is in een gewone klas en daarbij onderwijs krijgt van een gewone docent en speciaalonderwijs-docent). Een andere groep leerlingen met hoorproblemen in een co-enrollment track vormde de controlegroep. De alfabetische vaardigheden van de kinderen (noemen van letters, orthografisch bewustzijn, fonologisch bew...

show abstract

Raising Literacy Attainments in the Early Years: the impact of instructional psychology

Cited by 31 publications

References 30 publications

Real books vs reading schemes: a new perspective from instructional psychology

Real books vs reading schemes: a new perspective from instructional psychology

Using Technology to Assist Children Learning to Read and Write

Promoting alphabetic skills of young children with hearing loss in co-enrollment versus individual inclusion.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About