METACOGNITION AND ENGLISH READING-RELATED OUTCOMES FOR D/DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING STUDENTS: A NARRATIVE REVIEW

The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize empirical studies regarding the effects of metacognition on English reading-related outcomes for students who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh). This review covered the timeframe from the publication of the previous and only narrative review conducted by Strassman (1997) to 2020. Several of Strassman’s assertions were confirmed, including the oft-repeated one: d/Dhh students possess inadequate comprehension-monitoring skills. In fact, the students are not aware of effective metacognitive strategies and, in general, do not know “what they do not know.” Although intervention is strongly recommended, a few later studies asserted that such intervention not only should be based on the recommendations of the National Reading Panel, but also should be differentiated to meet the individual needs of d/Dhh students. It was argued that d/Dhh reading comprehension challenges are due to metacognitive or executive function issues; however, this assumption needs to be contextualized within a framework of reading which entails decoding and comprehension processes.

O conceito de “letramento” como fonte de equívocos e erros conceituais em alfabetização

Neste artigo, os autores exploram os equívocos e os erros conceituais que sistematicamente baseiam o discurso e as narrativas das políticas públicas e das propostas pedagógicas desenvolvidas no Brasil relacionadas à alfabetização com base no conceito de letramento. São identificadas duas fontes de equívocos e erros conceituais em alfabetização no Brasil e no mundo. A primeira é a “Whole Language”, desenvolvida por Kenneth Goodman e explorada para efeitos de alfabetização por Frank Smith, e a segunda é a abordagem socioconstrutivista proposta por Emília Ferreiro para a aprendizagem da linguagem escrita. Essas fontes de equívocos e erros conceituais foram identificadas com especial vigor por Marilyn Adams em 1990 e definitivamente desmontadas pelo National Reading Panel em 2000. Contudo, a formação de professores alfabetizadores continuou a privilegiar essas abordagens, com profundas consequências nos níveis de alfabetização dos alunos. A situação é mais séria no Brasil, pois os documentos oficiais durante décadas propuseram processos de alfabetização sem base em qualquer evidência científica, abusando claramente da linguagem. No Brasil, os conceitos equivocados sobre o que é Aprender a Ler e Ler para Aprender, o impacto da aprendizagem mecânica nos processos de aprender a ler e escrever e a quase completa ausência de consideração das estruturas neuro-anatômicas nos processos de alfabetização impuseram metodologias de alfabetização também elas equivocadas que dificultam a aprendizagem das “primeiras letras”. Estudos em neurociências esclarecem que os métodos fônicos são os únicos que proporcionam bons processos de alfabetização, ao estimularem as áreas cerebrais especializadas no processamento da linguagem lida e escrita.

The Promise of Comprehensive Early Reading Instruction for Children With Autism and Recommendations for Future Directions

Purpose Children with autism have an increased likelihood of reading difficulties. The reasons for this are numerous and varied, but many children with autism can learn to read when they are provided with evidence-based early reading instruction. Method Here, we provide an overview of some of the factors that impact early reading development for children with autism and a rationale for the provision of comprehensive early reading instruction consistent with the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (NRP). We discuss research on NRP instruction for children with autism, including some of our own empirical studies. We also discuss some areas of research that were not emphasized by the NRP but that we view as important. We offer recommendations that extend beyond NRP guidelines in order to advance knowledge and improve practice. Conclusions Comprehensive early reading instruction holds great promise for children with autism, but there are gaps in our understanding that need to be addressed. These include the most effective method(s) for tailoring reading instruction to the needs of the individual while optimizing delivery to small groups of children, supporting skills and making other accommodations not outlined by the NRP, and consideration of bilingualism and of reading instruction in languages other than English, among other issues. While our focus in this review article is early reading instruction for children with autism who use oral language, we acknowledge that there is a major gap in the literature concerning reading instruction for those who do not use oral language. We hope that this review article will be helpful to clinicians, educators, and researchers alike, as well as children with autism and their families, friends, and support networks.

Relatório do “National Reading Panel” dos EUA (2000)

Resenha do NATIONAL READING PANEL (NRP). Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction – reports of the subgroups. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development, 2000. Available in: <https:// www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/smallbook>. Access in: 26 abr. 2020.

Reading Fluency in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Readers

Prior to 2000, the role of fluency was poorly understood in deaf and hard-of-hearing learners beyond the examination of the use of repeated readings as an intervention technique. In 2000, the National Reading Panel identified factors critical to the development of literacy: phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, vocabulary, reading comprehension, motivation, and fluency. Since that time, much has been written on all these topics, except motivation and fluency. This chapter examines the various points of view necessary to understand the complexities of fluency, including but not limited to speed of word reading, vocabulary, prosody, and supralexical unitization. Further, it examines how these components differ based on an individual child’s first language. A concluding section explores successful interventions and lays out a research agenda that will allow the field to move forward.

Learning Disabilities in Reading

This chapter begins with a brief history of the controversy regarding teaching reading using the whole language versus phonics methods, including how these two teaching approaches affect students with reading disabilities. The development of reading skills is outlined, and the three interdependent components of reading as defined by the National Reading Panel are described (alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension). Various types of reading disabilities and their manifestations are illustrated with case studies. Emphasis is given to discussion of dyslexia and how it fits into an overall picture of reading disabilities. The chapter concludes with a description of the assessment process and intervention options for various types of reading difficulties.

Stillelesing i norskfaget – pustepause for læreren eller veiledningsøkt i lesing?

Denne studien undersøker hva fire lærere på barnetrinnet gjør når elevene leser stille. Stillelesing er en vanlig aktivitet i norske klasserom, men kunnskapen om hva læreren gjør i denne tiden og hvordan hun veileder faglig, er begrenset. Studien ønsker å bidra til økt viten om dette. For å belyse lærerens rolle under stillelesing, kombinerer studien forskning på stillelesing fra amerikanske klasserom med forskning på læreres tilbakemeldinger når elevene leser. De fire lærerne arbeider på 3. trinn. De er observert i en uke hver, og materialet består av videoopptak fra stillelesingsstundene i den uka lærerne er observert. Videoopptakene analyseres i lys av de fem grunnpilarene for leseopplæring (National reading panel, 2000): fonologisk bevissthet, avkoding, ordforråd, flyt og leseforståelse. Studien viser at lærerne bruker tiden under stillelesing svært forskjellig. To av lærerne bruker det aller meste av tiden på å høre på elevene lese og veilede dem faglig. De to andre lærerne bruker den største delen av tiden på organisering eller annet forefallende arbeid der de ikke kommuniserer med elever, for eksempel å rydde i klasserommet. Gjennom næranalyser av lærernes faglige veiledning finner studien at lærerne veileder i alle de relevante grunnpilarene for leseopplæring, men i ulik grad. Lærerne varierer også i hva slags type tilbakemeldinger de gir, og de bruker både ‘endelige’ tilbakemeldinger og ‘støttende’ tilbakemeldinger. Lærerne varierer veiledningen i større grad enn tidligere klasseromsstudier tilsier. Det kan imidlertid se ut som at lærere ville tjene på en bevisstgjøring rundt stillelesing som undervisningstid, og om ulike typer tilbakemeldinger.Nøkkelord: stillelesing, muntlige tilbakemeldinger, leseopplæring, barnetrinnet, norskfagetAbstractThis study explores what four teachers in primary school do when the pupils read silently. Silent reading (independent reading) is a common activity in Norwegian classrooms, but the knowledge about what the teacher does during this time and how she provides instructional support, is limited. This study aims to increase knowledge about this. To illuminate the teacher’s role during silent reading, the study combines research on silent reading with research on teachers’ feedback during oral reading. The four teachers are observed one week each, and the material consists of video recordings from the silent reading periods. The recordings are analyzed in light of the five pillars of reading instruction (National reading panel 2000): phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension. The study shows that the teachers spend the time during silent reading very differently. Two of them mostly spend the time on listening to the pupils read and on instructional support. The other two spend most time on organizing, or for instance tidying. Through close analyses of the teachers’ instructional support, the study finds that the teachers support the pupils in all the relevant pillars of reading instruction, but to a different degree. The teachers also vary in what kind of feedback they provide, using both ‘terminal’ and ‘sustaining’ feedback. The teachers vary their instructional support more than previous classroom studies have indicated. It looks, however, as if the teachers could profit on increased awareness about silent reading as teaching and about different kinds of feedback.Keywords: silent reading, oral feedback, reading instruction, primary school, Language arts

Do Textbooks Used in University Reading Education Courses Conform to the Instructional Recommendations of the National Reading Panel?

Two reasons may be responsible for the poor grasp of the linguistic concepts related to literacy acquisition by preservice and in-service teachers: a lack of attention given to such concepts by teacher educators (college faculty members) and a lack of relevant information provided in the textbooks used in college courses. In an earlier study, the authors found that many teacher educators involved in the training of preservice and in-service teachers were not well acquainted with these concepts. In this study, the authors examined the extent to which textbooks used in reading education courses contain the information about the five components of literacy instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension) recommended by the National Reading Panel. Such scrutiny shows that many textbooks do not adequately cover these five components and the related instructional procedures for teaching them. In addition to the paucity of information about teaching the five components, some textbooks present inaccurate information.

A response to Steubing et al., "Effects of systematic phonics instruction are practically significant": The origins of the National Reading Panel.

A recent article by Stuebing, Barth, Cirino, Francis and Fletcher critiqued the findings of Camilli, Vargas, and Yurecko (2003) and Camilli, Wolfe, and Smith (2006). With a methodological argument, they attempted to resolve the conflict between these studies and the original report Teaching Children to Read (National Reading Panel, 2000). In response, it is argued that three issues must be considered in a fair assessment of the NRP report—program labels or bins, alternative bins, and the role of literacy activities in reading instruction. In this light, three hypotheses ventured by Stuebing et al. are analyzed. It is concluded that the argument by Stuebing et al. does not reveal flaws in the original NRP report by Camilli et al. (2003), though some points of agreement are acknowledged.