DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparing the Word Processing and Reading Comprehension of Skilled and Less Skilled Readers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparing the Word Processing and Reading Comprehension of Skilled and Less Skilled Readers Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice - 12(4) • Autumn • 2822-2828 ©2012 Educational Consultancy and Research Center www.edam.com.tr/estp Comparing the Word Processing and Reading Comprehension of Skilled and Less Skilled Readers İ. Birkan GULDENOĞLU Tevhide KARGINa Paul MILLER Ankara University Ankara University University of Haifa Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the word processing and reading comprehension skilled in and less skilled readers. Forty-nine, 2nd graders (26 skilled and 23 less skilled readers) partici- pated in this study. They were tested with two experiments assessing their processing of isolated real word and pseudoword pairs as well as their reading comprehension skills. Findings suggest that there is a significant difference between skilled and less skilled readers both with regard to their word processing skills and their reading comprehension skills. In addition, findings suggest that word processing skills and reading comprehension skills correlate positively both skilled and less skilled readers. Key Words Reading, Reading Comprehension, Word Processing Skills, Reading Theories. Reading is one of the most central aims of school- According to the above mentioned phonologi- ing and all children are expected to acquire this cal reading theory, readers first recognize written skill in school (Güzel, 1998; Moates, 2000). The words phonologically via their spoken lexicon and, ability to read is assumed to rely on two psycho- subsequently, apply their linguistic (syntactic, se- linguistic processes: a) a word recognition process, mantic, pragmatic) knowledge in order to make and b) a sentence comprehension process. The sense of them within the context of a sentence. word recognition process is implemented as a cog- Given this to be true, reading comprehension nitive procedure that converts graphemes into cor- problems may originate from a processing failure responding phonemes whereas the sentence com- at the word decoding level, from failure at the word prehension process is implemented as a process integration level, or both (Abott & Berninger, 1999; that integrates the meaning of recognized printed Torgesen & Hudson, 2006; Vaughn, Linan-Thomp- words into a meaningful whole (Hoover & Gough, son, & Hickman-Davis, 2003; Wauters, Van Bon, 1990; Lewis & Doorlag, 1983; Ross, 1976). & Tellings, 2006). More specifically, the efficient decoding of written words is hypothesized to be a Tevhide KARGIN, Ph.D., is currently a professor at contingent upon the reader’s phonemic awareness the Department of Special Education. Her rese- (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001; Report of the arch interests include mainstreaming, assess- National Reading Panel, 2000; Share, 1995; Shay- ment and individualized educational programs, witz & Shaywitz, 2005Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; early childhood special education, deaf studies, Stanovich, 2000; Troia, 2004; Vellutino, Fletcher, supporting reading and reading comprehension Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004) whereas his/her abil- skills. Correspondence: Prof. Dr. Tevhide KARGIN, ity to integrate recognized words into a meaning- Ankara University, Educational Sciences Faculty, ful whole is assumed to be intrinsically linked to Department of Special Education, Ankara/Turkey. his/her basic language skills (Bradley & Bryant, E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +90 312 363 1983; Caravolas, Hulme, & Snowling, 2001; Høien, 3350/3019 Fax: +90 312 3636145. Lundberg, Stanovich, & Bjaalid, 1995; Stothard & GULDENOĞLU, KARGIN, MILLER / Comparing the Word Processing and Reading Comprehension of Skilled and... Hulme, 1996; Torgesen & Hudson, 2006; Torgesen, ers (Redd & Vaughn, 2012; Schiff, Schwartz, & Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997). Nagar, 2011; Therrien, 2004; Young-Suk, Richard, Strong phonological reading theories hypoth- & Danielle, 2012). Given this to be true, a question esize that the recognition of a written word pro- of central interest is, of course, whether there is a ceeds along a reading route that converts written causal relationship between readers’ basic written words into phonological code via the application word processing skills and their ability to under- of grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules (Frost, stand connected text? In other words, are readers’ 1998, 2006; Ramus, Pidgeon, & Frith, 2003; Ziegler word processing skills powerful predictors of their & Goswami, 2005, 2006). On the other hand, reading comprehension skills and vice versa? some theoreticians assume that processing written Clarification of the above research question has par- words phonologically may not be the only way to ticular appeal with regard to Turkish orthography their recognition. Instead, they theorize that word that – due to complete orthographic transparency recognition is possible along two distinct reading (Spencer & Henley, 2003) – requires the mastery of routes, a nonlexical reading route and a lexical only a simple set of grapheme-to-phoneme conver- reading route (Jackson & Coltheart, 2001). The rec- sion rules in order to sustain the processing of writ- ognition process of written words along the non- ten words at the lexical level (Durgunoğlu & Öney, lexical reading route – as stated above – involves a 1999, 2002; Peynircioğlu, Durgunoğlu, & Öney, grapheme-to-phoneme conversion procedure that 2002; Raman, 2006; Raman, Baluch, & Besner, outputs phonological forms the reader is able to 2004; Raman & Weekes, 2005; Spencer & Henley, recognize in his/her phonological lexicon (spoken 2003). On the other hand, Turkish is highly com- vocabulary) as known or unknown words. In con- plex at the morpho-syntactic level (Durgunoğlu trast, word recognition along the lexical reading & Öney, 2002), a complexity that my fail reading route is assumed to rely on a process that connects comprehension even in instances in which Turk- the letter strings of written words with permanent ish readers recognize written words with great ef- orthographic knowledge (representations) that ficiency. Taking this into consideration, comparing mediates their meaning (Paap & Noel, 1991). the word processing and reading comprehension According to the dual route reading theory, the skills of proficient and less proficient Turkish read- lexical and the nonlexical reading routes operate ers may prove to be particularly helpful in provid- in parallel (simultaneously). However, proficient ing satisfactory answers to whether there is a causal readers – in the majority of instances – are hypoth- relationship between these two domains. These esized to recognize written words along the fast or- answers eventually may facilitate the development thographic-knowledge-based reading route. Word of more adequate reading instruction methods for recognition along the indirect nonlexical reading those who fail to make sense of what they read. route is assumed to be restricted to low-frequency In order to elucidate how skilled and less skilled words for which the reader has not yet established Turkish readers’ word processing skills predict well-internalized orthographic representations or their reading comprehension, we administered two to instances in which the reader encounters an un- research paradigms, one assessing the efficiency familiar word or a nonsense letter strings. with which such readers determine the identical- The efficient and accurate recognition of written ness of written words or pseudowords, and another words is undoubtedly a prerequisite for proper testing their comprehension of sets of semantically reading comprehension, but not sufficient on its plausible and semantically implausible sentences. own. In order to comprehend a sentence or para- graph, the final meaning of correctly recognized words has to be elaborated with reference to the Aim reader’s syntactic and semantic knowledge (Miller, The present study was designed to compare the 2000, 2005a, 2010b; Tily, Fedorenko, & Gibson, word processing and reading comprehension skills 2010), which the reader acquires to a large extent of skilled and less skilled readers. According to this within the general development of his/her spoken aim, present study was designed to answer the fol- language (MacLeod & Masson, 2000; Weldon, lowing research questions and hypothesis; 1993). In addition, research indicates that there is a positive relationship between the phonological 1. Are there any meaningful differences in word abilities, word knowledge, word reading accuracy, processing skills of skilled and less skilled read- and the reading comprehension of proficent read- ers? 2823 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE 1a. Participants will process real words faster presented on a computer monitor; and the second and more accurately in comparison to the testing the participants’ comprehension of 16 pseudowords, (b) In comparison to less syntactically complex sentences with half of them skilled readers, skilled readers will be faster conveying a semantically plausible message and and more accurate in both the processing of the remainder a semantically implausible message. real words and pseudowords. Both paradigms were originally developed within 2. Are there any meaningful differences n the read- a large-scale international reading study executed ing comprehension of skilled and less skilled in four different countries (Israel, Turkey, Germany readers ? and USA) with the goal to bring about a better understanding of the factors underlying reading 2a. In comparison to less skilled readers, skilled comprehension failure in individuals reading in readers will demonstrate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) in Plain Language
    Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) in Plain Language Academic Areas of Concern Students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) have severe trouble learning or demonstrating skills in one or more of these academic areas: oral expression reading fluency listening comprehension reading comprehension written expression mathematics calculation and basic reading skill mathematics problem solving Students with SLD often do well in some school subjects but have extreme difficulty with skills like decoding (sounding out) words, calculating math facts, or writing down their thoughts. Even with adequate instruction and intensive intervention, a student with SLD has low classroom achievement when compared to students without disabilities in the same grade. Specific information about how the student has responded to instruction and intensive intervention is used to decide if a student is SLD or if the student is not achieving for other reasons. Referral for Special Education When someone thinks a student might have any disability and needs special education, a referral for a special education evaluation is made to the school. The referral must be in writing and say why the person making the referral thinks the student has a disability. A group of people, called an IEP team, which includes the student’s parents, does an evaluation and decides if the student meets state and federal criteria. Three Criteria to Meet The three criteria (requirements) below must be considered by the IEP team and all 3 of them must be met in order to decide the student has SLD. 1. Inadequate Classroom Achievement - This means a student's academic skills in one or more academic areas of concern are well outside the expected range for students without disabilities of the same age.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Comprehension Difficulties Handout for Students
    Reading Comprehension Difficulties Definition: Reading comprehension is a process in which knowledge of language, knowledge of the world, and knowledge of a topic interact to make complex meaning. It involves decoding, word association, context association, summary, analogy, integration, and critique. The Symptoms: Students who have difficulty with reading comprehension may have trouble identifying and understanding important ideas in reading passages, may have trouble with basic reading skills such as word recognition, may not remember what they’ve read, and may frequently avoid reading due to frustration. How to improve your reading comprehension: It is important to note that this is not just an English issue—all school subjects require reading comprehension. The following techniques can help to improve your comprehension: Take a look at subheadings and any editor’s introduction before you begin reading so that you can predict what the reading will be about. Ask yourself what you know about a subject before you begin reading to activate prior knowledge. Ask questions about the text as you read—this engages your brain. Take notes as you read, either in the book or on separate paper: make note of questions you may have, interesting ideas, and important concepts, anything that strikes your fancy. This engages your brain as you read and gives you something to look back on so that you remember what to discuss with your instructor and/or classmates or possibly use in your work for the class. Make note of how texts in the subject area are structured you know how and where to look for different types of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Vocabulary Instruction by Joan Sedita
    Published in “Insights on Learning Disabilities” 2(1) 33-45, 2005 Effective Vocabulary Instruction By Joan Sedita Why is vocabulary instruction important? Vocabulary is one of five core components of reading instruction that are essential to successfully teach children how to read. These core components include phonemic awareness, phonics and word study, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). Vocabulary knowledge is important because it encompasses all the words we must know to access our background knowledge, express our ideas and communicate effectively, and learn about new concepts. “Vocabulary is the glue that holds stories, ideas and content together… making comprehension accessible for children.” (Rupley, Logan & Nichols, 1998/99). Students’ word knowledge is linked strongly to academic success because students who have large vocabularies can understand new ideas and concepts more quickly than students with limited vocabularies. The high correlation in the research literature of word knowledge with reading comprehension indicates that if students do not adequately and steadily grow their vocabulary knowledge, reading comprehension will be affected (Chall & Jacobs, 2003). There is a tremendous need for more vocabulary instruction at all grade levels by all teachers. The number of words that students need to learn is exceedingly large; on average students should add 2,000 to 3,000 new words a year to their reading vocabularies (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2002). For some categories of students, there are significant obstacles to developing sufficient vocabulary to be successful in school: • Students with limited or no knowledge of English. Literate English (English used in textbooks and printed material) is different from spoken or conversational English.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Vocabulary a Strong Variable Predicting Reading Comprehension and Does the Prediction Degree of Vocabulary Vary According to Text Types
    Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri • Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice - 11(3) • Summer • 1541-1547 ©2011 Eğitim Danışmanlığı ve Araştırmaları İletişim Hizmetleri Tic. Ltd. Şti. Is Vocabulary a Strong Variable Predicting Reading Comprehension and Does the Prediction Degree of Vocabulary Vary according to Text Types Kasım YILDIRIMa Mustafa YILDIZ Seyit ATEŞ Ahi Evran University Gazi University Gazi University Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore whether there was a significant correlation between vocabulary and re- ading comprehension in terms of text types as well as whether the vocabulary was a predictor of reading comp- rehension in terms of text types. In this regard, the correlational research design was used to explain specific research objectives. The study was conducted in Ankara-Sincan during the 2008-2009 academic years. A total of 120 students having middle socioeconomic status participated in this study. The students in this research were in the fifth-grade at a public school. Reading comprehension and vocabulary tests were developed to evaluate the students’ reading comprehension and vocabulary levels. Correlation and bivariate linear regression analy- ses were used to assess the data obtained from the study. The research findings indicated that there was a me- dium correlation between vocabulary and narrative text comprehension. In addition, there was a large correlati- on between vocabulary and expository text comprehension. Compared to the narrative text comprehension, vo- cabulary was also a strong predictor of expository text comprehension. Vocabulary made more contribution to expository text comprehension than narrative text comprehension. Key Words Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Text Types. Reading comprehension is defined as a complex Reader factor includes prior knowledge, linguistic process in which many skills are used (Cain, Oa- skill, and metacognitive awareness.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read
    Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.cfm?renderforprint=1 Last Update: 10/11/2006 Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction Table of Contents Acknowledgments Members of the National Reading Panel Introduction Methodological Overview Findings and Determinations of the National Reading Panel by Topic Areas Next Steps Reflections Addendum Methodology: Processes Applied to the Selection, Review, and Analysis of Research Relevant to Reading Instruction U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service National Institutes of Health National Institute of Child Health and Human Development NIH Pub. No. 00-4769 April 2000 (Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of the Subgroups provides complete and extensive descriptions of information presented in this Report.) Printed from the NICHD Public Web Site 06/04/2011 08:39 PM 1 of 1 6/4/2011 6:39 PM NRP Acknowledgments http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/ack.cfm Health Information Research Funding News & Media About NICHD Last Update: 08/31/2006 Printer Friendly Email This Page Download Adobe Reader Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read Acknowledgments The National Reading Panel wishes to express its gratitude to the following individuals for their contributions to its effort. Marilyn Adams Ed Bouchard Harris Cooper Gerald Duffy Michelle Eidlitz Barbara Foorman David Francis Ester Halberstam Blair Johnson Alisa Kenny Helen S. Kim Marjolaine Limbos Khalil Nourani Simone Nunes Elizabeth S.
    [Show full text]
  • Dyslexia Or Ld in Reading: What Is the Difference?
    DYSLEXIA OR LD IN READING: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? Anise Flowers & Donna Black, Pearson Dyslexia or LD in Reading? TCASE 2017 Image by Photographer’s Name (Credit in black type) or Image by Photographer’s Name (Credit in white type) International Dyslexia Association Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is characterized by Dyslexia or LD in Reading: What difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word is the Difference? recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of Presented by effective classroom instruction. Secondary Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Donna Black, LSSP consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience TCASE that can impede growth of vocabulary and January 2017 background knowledge. Presentation Title Arial Bold 7 pt 1 2 Dyslexia Identification and Services in Texas Dyslexia Definition (in Texas) Texas Education Code (TEC)§38.003 defines Texas Education Code (TEC)§38.003 definition: dyslexia and mandates testing and the provision of 1. “Dyslexia” means a disorder of constitutional instruction origin manifested by a difficulty in learning to State Board of Education (SBOE) adopts rules and read, write, or spell, despite conventional standards for administering testing and instruction instruction, adequate intelligence, and TEC §7.028(b) relegates responsibility for school sociocultural opportunity. compliance to the local school board 2. “Related disorders” include disorders similar to or 19 (TAC)§74.28 outlines responsibilities of districts related to dyslexia such as developmental auditory and charter schools in the delivery of services to imperceptions, dysphasia, specific developmental students with dyslexia dyslexia, developmental dysgraphia, and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §504, establishes developmental spelling disability.
    [Show full text]
  • How and Why Children Learn About Sounds, Letters, and Words in Reading Recovery Lessons
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 437 616 CS 013 828 AUTHOR Fountas, Irene C.; Pinnell, Gay Su TITLE How and Why Children Learn about Sounds, Letters, and Words in Reading Recovery Lessons. INSTITUTION Reading Recovery Council of North America, Columbus, OH. PUB DATE 1999-00-00 NOTE 12p. PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Teacher (052) Journal Articles (080) Reports Research (143) JOURNAL CIT Running Record; v12 n1 p1-6,10-11,13-14 Fall 1999 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Beginning Reading; Classroom Research; *Classroom Techniques; Learning Activities; *Learning Processes; *Literacy; Primary Education; Word Recognition IDENTIFIERS Lesson Structure; *Orthography; Phonological Awareness; *Reading Recovery Projects; Word Learning ABSTRACT This article takes a look at Reading Recovery lesson elements to compare the teaching and learning within the lesson components to several areas of learning that have been identified at the national level as important to children's literacy learning. The lesson elements examined in the article are: (1) phonological awareness; (2) orthographic awareness; and (3) word learning in reading and writing. The article states that the first two areas of knowledge, and the way they are interrelated, contribute to young children's growth in the ability to solve words while reading for meaning, while the third area strongly supports learning in the first two areas and also helps to accelerate early learning in literacy. These elements together contribute to the child's development of a larger process in which the reader uses "in-the-head" strategies in an efficient way to access and orchestrate a variety of information, including meaning and language systems, with the visual and phonological information in print.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonemic Awareness and Phonics in Reading Recovery
    Phonemic awareness and phonics in Reading Recovery It is not uncommon for beginning readers to exhibit challenges in the areas of phonemic awareness and/or phonics. Reading Recovery, based on Dr. Marie Clay’s literacy processing theory, incorporates teaching phonemic and orthographic relationships in every individually designed daily lesson. Phonemic awareness is defined as the ability to notice, think about, and work with the individual sounds in spoken words. Reading Recovery does Phonics instruction teaches children the relationships between the letters (graphemes) of written language and the individual not follow a pre-packaged, sounds (phonemes) of spoken language. scripted, one-size-fits-all approach to literacy learning. Phonemic awareness and phonics are explicitly taught throughout each Instead, as with all daily Reading Recovery lesson within the context of reading and writing components of the Reading continuous, authentic text and only in isolation when necessary. In addition, the writing part of the lesson and initial and ongoing assessments Recovery lesson, phonemic used in Reading Recovery devote special attention to these two critical awareness and phonics components of reading instruction. instruction are systematic in nature and based on close Phonics and phonemic awareness support the decoding component of observation by the skilled the reading and writing processes. While it is necessary to value decoding skills as an important piece of literacy learning, it is equally important to teacher and the strengths and understand that the terms decoding and reading are not synonymous. needs of the child. Decoding in isolation leaves out the critical component of comprehending the meaning in text. Standardized assessment and individualized daily lessons An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2016) provides a standardized, systematic way of capturing early reading and writing behaviors and is the primary assessment tool used in Reading Recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Language and Traditional Reading Instruction: a Comparison of Teacher Views and Techniques
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 365 963 CS 011 558 AUTHOR Morrison, Julie; Mosser, Leigh Ann TITLE Whole Language and Traditional Reading Instruction: A Comparison of Teacher Views and Techniques. PUB DATE [93] NOTE 18p. PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Comparative Analysis; *Conventional Instruction; Elementary Education; *Reading Instruction; Reading Research; *Teacher Attitudes; *Teacher Behavior; *Whole Language Approach IDENTIFIERS Teacher Surveys ABSTRACT A study examined two methods of reading instruction, the whole language literature-based approach and the traditional basal approach. Eighty teachers from four diverse school districts in two midwestern states were surveyed to find out which method was the most widely used. Results indicated that 847. of the 50 teachers who responded used a combination approach. The teachers believed that by using key aspects of each approach, a more powerful tool for reading instruction would result.(RS) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** Views and Techniques 1 Whole Language and Traditional Reading Instruction: A Comparison of Teacher Views and Techniques Julie Morrison and Leigh Ann Mosser Fremont City Schools DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Offtce or Educatoo(ai Research rto improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS CENTER
    [Show full text]
  • Defending Whole Language: the Limits of Phonics Instruction and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction
    Defending Whole Language: The Limits of Phonics Instruction and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction Stephen Krashen Reading Improvement 39 (1): 32-42, 2002 The Reading Wars show no signs of stopping. There appear to be two factions: Those who support the Skill-Building hypothesis and those who support the Comprehension Hypothesis. The former claim that literacy is developed from the bottom up; the child learns to read by first learning to read outloud, by learning sound-spelling correspondences. This is done through explicit instruction, practice, and correction. This knowledge is first applied to words. Ultimately, the child uses this ability to read larger texts, as the knowledge of sound-spelling correspondences becomes automatic. According to this view, real reading of interesting texts is helpful only to the extent that it helps children "practice their skills." The Comprehension Hypothesis claims that we learn to read by understanding messages on the page; we "learn to read by reading" (Goodman, 1982; Smith, 1994). Reading pedagogy, according to the Comprehension Hypothesis, focuses on providing students with interesting, comprehensible texts, and the job of the teacher is to help children read these texts, that is, help make them comprehensible. The direct teaching of "skills" is helpful only when it makes texts more comprehensible. The Comprehension Hypothesis also claims that reading is the source of much of our vocabulary knowledge, writing style, advanced grammatical competence, and spelling. It is also the source of most of our knowledge of phonics. Whole Language The term "whole language" does not refer only to providing interesting comprehensible texts and helping children understand less comprehensible texts.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Recovery and Common Core State Standards Are Closely Interconnected Within Each Lesson
    Reading Recovery can play a vital role in ensuring that students are able to meet the goals of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (the Standards). Because the Standards were created to help ensure that all students are college and career ready in literacy by the end of high school, early literacy intervention must be available for first graders who are already struggling with literacy learning. Early intervention has the potential to prevent literacy difficulties for many students, including English language learners, by quickly catching them up with their peers by the end of Grade 1, and thus providing the opportunity to benefit from instruction at every subsequent grade level. Reading Recovery is a research- and evidence-based intervention that brings 75% of the students with a Reading Recovery full intervention to the average performance of their and Common Core grade level.1 A review by the USDE’s What Works Clearinghouse provided high ratings for the intervention State Standards across four domains central to the Common Core State Standards: alphabetics, fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement.2 Standards in the early grades provide foundational support for the College and Career Readiness Standards. While Background the Standards “do not define the intervention methods Across the U.S., most states are adopting the Common or materials necessary to support students who are well Core State Standards so that teachers and parents have a below or well above grade-level expectations” (page 6), this common understanding of what students are expected to learn regardless of where they live.
    [Show full text]
  • Word Recognition and Content Comprehension of Subtitles For
    The Journal of Specialised Translation Issue 21 – January 2014 Word recognition and content comprehension of subtitles for television by deaf children Soledad Zarate, University College London Joseph Eliahoo, Imperial College London ABSTRACT This project explores how deaf children read subtitles on television. The participants – recruited from years 3 to 6 of a mainstream school with a hearing impairment unit – were exposed to both broadcast and enhanced subtitles and their performances were compared. In particular, the focus is on identifying enhancements that can help children to understand subtitle content and to recognise new or difficult words. Among the enhancements introduced were repetition and highlighting of new or difficult words through the use of a bigger and different typeface, use of longer reading times, text reduction and careful spotting. This pilot study provides some useful information for future empirical experimental research on subtitling for deaf children. KEYWORDS Subtitling, deaf children, word recognition, content comprehension. 1. Introduction The research aims, in a broad sense, at exploring how deaf children read subtitles on television. The approach is empirical and consists of practical observation conducted in the classroom through the use of short screenings of two subtitled episodes of the cartoon Arthur, followed by questionnaires aimed at assessing the children's comprehension of subtitles and their ability to recognise new or difficult words. Three relevant studies motivated the sharpening of the initial question to assessing content comprehension and in particular recognition of new vocabulary. Firstly, Neuman and Koskinen (1992) examined how “comprehensible input,” as intended by Krashen (1985), in the form of subtitled television, influences incidental vocabulary learning in a second language (L2).
    [Show full text]