A Study on the Education for Argumentative Writing -Focusing on the integrated model of reading and writing

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung-Eun Go
1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Boone ◽  
Harold M. Friedman

Reading and writing performance was observed in 30 adult aphasic patients to determine whether there was a significant difference when stimuli and manual responses were varied in the written form: cursive versus manuscript. Patients were asked to read aloud 10 words written cursively and 10 words written in manuscript form. They were then asked to write on dictation 10 word responses using cursive writing and 10 words using manuscript writing. Number of words correctly read, number of words correctly written, and number of letters correctly written in the proper sequence were tallied for both cursive and manuscript writing tasks for each patient. Results indicated no significant difference in correct response between cursive and manuscript writing style for these aphasic patients as a group; however, it was noted that individual patients varied widely in their success using one writing form over the other. It appeared that since neither writing form showed better facilitation of performance, the writing style used should be determined according to the individual patient’s own preference and best performance.


2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 124-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Barber

Spelling is a window into a student's individual language system and, therefore, canprovide clues into the student's understanding, use, and integration of underlyinglinguistic skills. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) should be involved in improvingstudents' literacy skills, including spelling, though frequently available measures ofspelling do not provide adequate information regarding critical underlying linguistic skillsthat contribute to spelling. This paper outlines a multilinguistic, integrated model of wordstudy (Masterson & Apel, 2007) that highlights the important influences of phonemicawareness, orthographic pattern awareness, semantic awareness, morphologicalawareness and mental graphemic representations on spelling. An SLP can analyze anindividual's misspellings to identify impairments in specific linguistic components andthen develop an individualized, appropriate intervention plan tailored to a child's uniquelinguistic profile, thus maximizing intervention success.


2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy Montgomery

Abstract As increasing numbers of speech language pathologists (SLPs) have embraced their burgeoning roles in written as well as spoken language intervention, they have recognized that there is much to be gained from the research in reading. While some SLPs reportedly fear they will “morph” into reading teachers, many more are confidently aware that SLPs who work with adult clients routinely use reading as one of their rehabilitation modalities. Reading functions as both a tool to reach language in adults, and as a measure of successful therapy. This advanced cognitive skill can serve the same purpose for children. Language is the foundational support to reading. Consequently spoken language problems are often predictors of reading and writing challenges that may be ahead for the student (Juel & Deffes, 2004; Moats, 2001; Wallach, 2004). A targeted review of reading research may assist the SLP to appreciate the language/reading interface.


2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen C. Harton ◽  
Kimberley Kochurka ◽  
Jennifer Bumgarner ◽  
Melinda Bullock

Author(s):  
Dani Gunawan

This study was directed to develop a learning technique, to analyze the obstacles faced by teachers in implementing the lesson, and to overcome the problems faced by teachers in enhancing elementary students’ reading and writing comprehension. In order to fulfill the mentioned goals, this study tried to use scramble-based learning technique. It was cconducted at SDN Gentra Masekdas 1, Kecamatan Tarogong Kaler involving 32 first grade students. A pilot study was conducted on 9 March 2017 for about 35 minutes. The first cycle started on 18 April 2017, while the second one was on 24 April 2017. It was found that there was an increasing trend after the implementation. The analysis proccess generated data as followed: during pilot study, eight students succeeded to reach the standard indicator with percentage of 25%. Cycle I generated 15 students with learning completion percentage of 46.8.%. And, during second cycle, there were 27 students who succeeded in reaching completion standard with completion percentage of 84.3%.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document