Literature DB >> 11023657

Individual differences in gains from computer-assisted remedial reading.

B W Wise1, J Ring, R K Olson.   

Abstract

Two hundred second- to fifth-grade students (aged approximately 7 to 11 years) spent 29 h in a computer-assisted remedial reading program that compared benefits from accurate, speech-supported reading in context, with and without explicit phonological training. Children in the "accurate-reading-in-context" condition spent 22 individualized computer hours reading stories and 7 small-group hours learning comprehension strategies. Children in the "phonological-analysis" condition learned phonological strategies in 7 small-group hours, and divided their computer time between phonological exercises and story reading. Phonologically trained children gained more in phonological skills and untimed word reading; children with more contextual reading gained more in time-limited word reading. Lower level readers gained more, and benefited more from phonological training, than higher level readers. In follow-up testing, most children maintained or improved their levels, but not their rates, of training gains. Phonologically trained children scored higher on phonological decoding, but children in both conditions scored equivalently on word reading. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11023657     DOI: 10.1006/jecp.1999.2559

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol        ISSN: 0022-0965


  12 in total

1.  Examining the Etiology of Reading Disability as Conceptualized by the Hybrid Model.

Authors:  Florina Erbeli; Sara A Hart; Richard K Wagner; Jeanette Taylor
Journal:  Sci Stud Read       Date:  2017-12-05

2.  Phonological Spelling and Reading Deficits in Children with Spelling Disabilities.

Authors:  Angela Friend; Richard K Olson
Journal:  Sci Stud Read       Date:  2010-01

3.  Longitudinal Stability of Reading-Related Skills and their Prediction of Reading Development.

Authors:  Jacqueline Hulslander; Richard K Olson; Erik G Willcutt; Sally J Wadsworth
Journal:  Sci Stud Read       Date:  2010-03-01

4.  A Response to Recent Reanalyses of the National Reading Panel Report: Effects of Systematic Phonics Instruction Are Practically Significant.

Authors:  Karla K Stuebing; Amy E Barth; Paul T Cirino; David J Francis; Jack M Fletcher
Journal:  J Educ Psychol       Date:  2008-02-01

5.  Does Use of Text-to-Speech and Related Read-Aloud Tools Improve Reading Comprehension for Students With Reading Disabilities? A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Sarah G Wood; Jerad H Moxley; Elizabeth L Tighe; Richard K Wagner
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2017-01-23

6.  Longitudinal stability and predictors of poor oral comprehenders and poor decoders.

Authors:  Sa Elwér; Janice M Keenan; Richard K Olson; Brian Byrne; Stefan Samuelsson
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  2013-03-23

7.  Are Child Cognitive Characteristics Strong Predictors of Responses to Intervention? A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Karla K Stuebing; Amy E Barth; Lisa H Trahan; Radhika R Reddy; Jeremy Miciak; Jack M Fletcher
Journal:  Rev Educ Res       Date:  2014-11-12

8.  Phonics training for English-speaking poor readers.

Authors:  Genevieve McArthur; Yumi Sheehan; Nicholas A Badcock; Deanna A Francis; Hua-Chen Wang; Saskia Kohnen; Erin Banales; Thushara Anandakumar; Eva Marinus; Anne Castles
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-11-14

9.  Cognitive tutoring induces widespread neuroplasticity and remediates brain function in children with mathematical learning disabilities.

Authors:  Teresa Iuculano; Miriam Rosenberg-Lee; Jennifer Richardson; Caitlin Tenison; Lynn Fuchs; Kaustubh Supekar; Vinod Menon
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 14.919

10.  What does the brain of children with developmental dyslexia tell us about reading improvement? ERP evidence from an intervention study.

Authors:  Sandra Hasko; Katarina Groth; Jennifer Bruder; Jürgen Bartling; Gerd Schulte-Körne
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.