An Examination of the Basic Reading Skills of Incarcerated Males

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 4-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret E. Shippen ◽  
David E. Houchins ◽  
Steven A. Crites ◽  
Nicholas C. Derzis ◽  
Dashaunda Patterson
2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 470-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Cummine ◽  
Ron Borowsky ◽  
Fern Stockdale Winder ◽  
Margaret Crossley

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Mengna Liu

A number of studies have been conducted regarding self-efficacy in the field of foreign language learning. Yet, with the popularity of mobile learning, research on the relationship between mobile learning and self-efficacy in this field is still limited. To bridge the gap, the study aims to investigate the effects of mobile learning on students’ reading self-efficacy, i.e. whether the use of mobile learning can improve students’ English reading self-efficacy. A questionnaire is employed to collect data from 294 non-English major students in universities. To survey the effect of mobile learning on students’ reading self-efficacy, the data is accessed by the software SPSS 20.0. Results of independent T test demonstrate that for overall students, reading self-efficacy for students who have used the app is significantly different from those who haven’t in overall reading skills and in the four dimensions of reading skills, i.e. basic reading skills, applied reading skills, reading task skills, and advanced reading skills. As for students with relatively better reading performance, the results are consistent. However, for students with relatively weak reading performance, the reading self-efficacy of students who have used the app only shows significant differences in overall reading skills and in the two dimensions of basic reading skills and applied reading skills, but shows no difference in the dimensions of reading task skills and advanced reading skills. Finally, practical suggestions for mobile learning and students’ English reading are given.


Author(s):  
Jessica Scott ◽  
Scott Cohen

Frequently, literacy research with deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students focuses on the development of basic reading skills. However, for middle/secondary DHH students, academic language demands are relevant to the ability to read texts and learn new content. Academic English, which has been called the language of schooling (Schleppegrell, 2001), includes a constellation of features such as specialized vocabulary, densely packed syntax, and markers of organization (Uccelli, Phillips-Galloway, Barr, Meneses, & Dobbs, 2015). Academic English is often challenging for hearing and DHH learners alike, and proficiency with academic English may be related to reading comprehension (Chenhansa & Schleppegrell, 1998; Scott & Hoffmeister, 2017). Academic American Sign Language (ASL), though profoundly understudied, is an important tool for conveying complex concepts to DHH learners who use ASL (Harris, 2016). This chapter explores the academic language(s) that DHH students may encounter when reading to learn in content areas and what is known about their relationship with broader literacy skills for this population.


2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Ron Nelson ◽  
Scott Stage ◽  
Alex Trout ◽  
Kristin Duppong-Hurley ◽  
Michael H. Epstein

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 660
Author(s):  
Anibal Puente ◽  
Jesús M. Alvarado ◽  
Virginia Jiménez ◽  
Lourdes Martínez

<p>Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) and Down Syndrome (DS) read better than expected for their mental age. We have measured three basic reading skills (word recognition, phonological awareness, and reading comprehension), and two standard intellectual and verbal measures: the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Tests. The tests were applied to 16 adolescents classified as FXS (<em>M</em> = 14.74 years old, <em>SD</em> = 4.03) and 16 adolescents classified as DS (<em>M</em> = 15.59 years old, <em>SD</em> = 2.35). For comparison purposes, the reading tests were also applied to a typical develop group of 70 children aged between 4.8 and 7.0 years (<em>M</em> = 6.11, <em>SD</em> = 0.71).  Children with DS and FXS exhibited verbal skills superior to their cognitive development, especially in the FXS group. In reading performance, FXS showed a reading level corresponding to 5/6 their age, and for SD 6/7 of the equivalent reading age, however, both groups exhibited a similar reading performance in the three reading skills measured, when nonverbal mental age was controlled.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document