Has Basic Research in Reading Increased Our Understanding of Developmental Reading and How to Teach Reading?

Has Basic Research in Reading Increased Our Understanding of Developmental Reading andHow to Teach Reading?Beginning to Read: Learning and Thinking about Print by Marilyn Jager AdamsReview by: Frank R. VellutinoPsychological Science, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Mar., 1991), pp. 70, 81-83Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Association for Psychological ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062660 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 04:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Association for Psychological Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Psychological Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.47 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:57:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=assocpsychsci

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062660?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Beginning to Read: Learning and Thinking about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 495 pp. $29.95.

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Feature Review

How Johnny learns to read: PS examines the product of a new major study of the foundations of reading instruction

A review by Charles A. Perfetti with commentary from Keith E. Stanovich; Frank R. Vellutino; and Robert Calfee

Cognitive Science Meets Beginning Reading

Commentary by Keith E. Stanovich Oakland University

For an indication of how developments in cognitive psychology and cognitive science have influenced theory and research in beginning reading, there is no better place to look than Marilyn Jager Adams's book Beginning to Read: Learning and Thinking about Print (1990). To be sure, Adams's seminal volume does synthesize work from a variety of other disciplines. However, the reader wading through Adams's near- exhaustive synthesis will be struck by the extent to which the research techniques and theoretical formalisms of cognitive science infuse the study of reading acquisition. This trend began nearly 20 years ago with the publication of such important contributions as Gough's (1972) "One Second of Reading," La- Berge and Samuels's (1974) automaticity model, and Rumelhart's (1977) writings on interactive processing, and it has only accelerated since then.

THE SEA CHANGE IN THEORETICAL PREFERENCES:

CONNECTIONISM

Although theories of reading have al- ways been influenced by developments in cognitive psychology and cognitive science, the mix of influences has

(STANOVICH, continued on p. 77)

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Keith E. Stanovich, Department of Psy- chology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309-4401.

70 Copyright © 1991 American Psychological Society VOL. 2, NO. 2, MARCH 1991



Feature Review



The Psychology, Pedagogy, and Politics of Reading

A review by Charles A. Perfetti University of Pittsburgh

Congress made her do it. Amendment No. 2202, of the Human Service Reau- thorization Act of 1986, required the U.S. Department of Education to pro- vide '

'guidance as to how schools might maximize the quality of phonic instruction in beginning reading programs" (Adams, p. 29). The Center for the Study of Reading, funded by the Office of Ed- ucation, was a logical instrument for this mandate. The job of actually carrying out the mandate fell to a single author, Marilyn Adams.1 Those of us who think that good psychological research ought to inform public policy must rejoice in the results. Adams's is a splendid book. It is direct, careful, and thorough. Its direct style is accessible to the nonspecial- ists who are its target readers, but it is also interesting and up-to-date enough that anyone working in reading research will want to read it. We should be glad they made her do it.

There is, of course, a deja vu quality to a book that is supposed to settle the question of how to teach children to read. Jean Chair s (1967) Learning to Read: The Great Debate addressed this question with a remarkable study of reading programs and their instructional

(PERFETTI, continued on p. 71)

1 . Marilyn Adams is a cognitive psychol- ogist at Bolt Beranek and Newman (Cam- bridge, Massachusetts), which includes a con- tractual branch of The Center for the Study of Reading, located at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign .



Has Basic Research in Reading Increased Our Understanding of Developmental Reading and How To Teach Reading?

Commentary by Frank R. Vellutino Child Research and Study Center, State University of New York, Albany


Feature Review



Psychologists have been studying the reading process since before the turn of the century (Huey, 1908/1968), but research in reading has come into its own only in the past three decades. Most of the research has been conducted by cognitive psychologists interested in word recognition and processes underlying word recognition, and has entailed ex- tensive study of four different populations: adult skilled readers, brain- damaged adults having acquired reading disorders, children developing normally in reading, and children developing ab- normally in reading, often called dyslexics. Research with these populations has intersected over time and these comple- mentary lines of investigation have yielded several powerful models of component reading processes, and consider- able insight into skilled reading, developmental reading, and the probable and im- probable causes of dyslexia. These works have been summarized in several major texts that have appeared in the literature, one of the most recent the important book on developmental reading written by Marilyn Jager Adams (1990),

(VELLUTINO, continued on p. 81)

For "Decoding and Spelling," a Com- mentary by Robert Calfee please turn to p. 83.





Frank R. Vellutino

in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Re- search Quarterly, 21, 360-407.

Stanovich, K.E. (Ed.). (1988). Children's reading and the development of phonological awareness. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Stanovich, K.E. (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity. Developmental Review, 10, 72-100.

Stanovich, K.E. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 418-452). New York: Longman.

Stanovich, K.E. (1991). Speculations on the causes and consequences of individual differences in early reading acquisition. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition. HUlsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E., & Fee man, D.J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 278-303.

Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (1983). The general- izability of context effects on word recognition: A reconsideration of the roles of parafoveal priming and sentence context. Memory and Cognition, 11, 49-58.

Stove, D. (1982). Popper and after. Oxford: Perga- mon Press.

Strickland, D.S., & Morrow, L.M. (1989). Emerging literacy: Young children learn to read and write. Newark, DE: International Reading As- sociation.

Tanenhaus, M.K., Dell, G.S., & Carlson, G. (1988). Context effects in lexical processing: A con- nectionist approach to modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge rep- resentation and natural language understanding (pp. 83-108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tanenhaus, M.K., & Lucas, M.M. (1987). Context effects in lexical processing. Cognition, 25, 213-234.

Taylor, D. (1989). Toward a unified theory of literacy learning and instructional practices. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(3), 184-193.

Trieman, R., & Baron, J. (1983). Phonemic-analysis training helps children benefit from spelling- sound rules. Memory & Cognition, 11, 382- 389.

Van Orden, G.C., Pennington, B.F., & Stone, G.O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488-522.

Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, D. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321-363.

Venezky, R.L., & Massaro, D.W. (1979). The role of orthographic regularity in word recognition. In L. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 1, pp. 85-107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wagner, R.K., & Torgesen, J.K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psycholog- ical Bulletin, 101 , 192-212.

Weaver, C. (1989). The basalization of America: A cause for concern. In C. Weaver & P. Groff (Eds.) Two reactions to the report card on basal readers (pp. 4-7, 14-22, 33-37). Bloom- ington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.

Willinsky, J. (1990). The new literacy. New York: Routledge.

Worrall, R.S. (1990). Detecting health fraud in the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learn- ing Disabilities, 23, 207-212.

Zola, D. (1984). Redundancy and word perception during reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 277-284.

VELLUTINO, continued from p. 70)

featured in this issue of Psychological Science.

Given the impressive body of knowledge currently available, a question that naturally arises is whether or not reading research has produced the type of information that practitioners would find useful in teaching children to read and in remediating impaired readers. My own acquaintance with the literature prompts me to respond affirmatively to this question, and a careful and thorough reading of Adams's book will, I think, prompt a similar reaction. Although the research with developing and impaired readers has been the most informative with re- spect to teaching reading, each line of investigation has yielded reliable generalizations that could be used to good ad- vantage in this endeavor. However, the extent to which these generalizations have been utilized in mainstream reading pedagogy is quite another matter. To jus- tify these assertions, let me briefly discuss just a few of the known facts about reading that would seem to have impli- cations for instruction.

Researchers studying skilled reading have long debated the question of whether words are recognized as whole units or through recognition of their component letters, but it has been known for some time that a word's shape is not a very effective cue for recognition (Woodworth, 1938). Moreover, there is now abundant evidence that word recognition is mediated by letter recognition. For example, among many other relevant findings, it has been demonstrated that words can be recognized quite readily, regardless of whether they are

printed in upper case (which has no

shape cues), lower case, or even in mixed cases and fonts. When coupled with the rather obvious fact that some words can only be discriminated by tak- ing account of all of their letters (e.g., show/snow), such findings suggest that activities that foster the use of shape cues for word recognition would have limited value for reading instruction,

while those that foster letter and word analysis would be important components of the instructional program. Neverthe- less, many reading curricula still incorporate activities that attune children to word shapes as a vehicle for word recognition.

Even more impressive support for the importance of fostering letter and word analysis skills in reading instruction comes from developmental studies doc- umenting that facility in word recognition is causally related to knowledge of letter-sound invariance and phonetic decoding ability, which, in turn, appear to be causally related to phoneme awareness - that is, explicit awareness that spoken and written words are composed of individual sounds or phonemes. For example, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the great majority of poor readers tend to be deficient in both phoneme awareness and phonetic decoding ability. At the same time, studies conducted both in the laboratory and in the natural setting have shown that training in both of these skills significantly im- proves word recognition ability in such children. Moreover, longitudinal studies have shown that both are strong predic- tors of achievement in reading.

Yet, despite this highly convergent evidence, there is a very strong and in- creasingly popular movement away from teaching phonetic decoding and phoneme analysis skills in reading instruction and toward a context-based or what has been called "whole-language" approach to instruction. This trend is mo- tivated by a prominent theory of reading (Goodman & Goodman, 1979; Smith, 1971), which suggests that one reads by using the semantic and syntactic constraints of language to generate and con- firm predictions about words that are likely to appear in given sentence frames. Thus, according to the theory, skilled readers merely sample words from the text, and those words that are processed are recognized by selective sampling of the features defining their letters. Reading instruction should, therefore, incorporate activities that foster predictive and context-based strategies for word recognition, rather than activities such as phoneme and letter- sound analysis, which are said to fractionate written language.

Here again, results from basic re-

VOL. 2, NO. 2, MARCH 1991 81


Frank R. Vellutino

VELLUTINO, continued from p. 70)

featured in this issue of Psychological Science.

Given the impressive body of knowledge currently available, a question that naturally arises is whether or not reading research has produced the type of information that practitioners would find useful in teaching children to read and in remediating impaired readers. My own acquaintance with the literature prompts me to respond affirmatively to this question, and a careful and thorough reading of Adams's book will, I think, prompt a similar reaction. Although the research with developing and impaired readers has been the most informative with re- spect to teaching reading, each line of investigation has yielded reliable generalizations that could be used to good ad- vantage in this endeavor. However, the extent to which these generalizations have been utilized in mainstream reading pedagogy is quite another matter. To jus- tify these assertions, let me briefly discuss just a few of the known facts about reading that would seem to have impli- cations for instruction.

Researchers studying skilled reading have long debated the question of whether words are recognized as whole units or through recognition of their component letters, but it has been known for some time that a word's shape is not a very effective cue for recognition (Woodworth, 1938). Moreover, there is now abundant evidence that word recognition is mediated by letter recognition. For example, among many other relevant findings, it has been demonstrated that words can be recognized quite readily, regardless of whether they are

printed in upper case (which has no

shape cues), lower case, or even in mixed cases and fonts. When coupled with the rather obvious fact that some words can only be discriminated by tak- ing account of all of their letters (e.g., show/snow), such findings suggest that activities that foster the use of shape cues for word recognition would have limited value for reading instruction,

while those that foster letter and word analysis would be important components of the instructional program. Neverthe- less, many reading curricula still incorporate activities that attune children to word shapes as a vehicle for word recognition.

Even more impressive support for the importance of fostering letter and word analysis skills in reading instruction comes from developmental studies doc- umenting that facility in word recognition is causally related to knowledge of letter-sound invariance and phonetic decoding ability, which, in turn, appear to be causally related to phoneme awareness - that is, explicit awareness that spoken and written words are composed of individual sounds or phonemes. For example, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the great majority of poor readers tend to be deficient in both phoneme awareness and phonetic decoding ability. At the same time, studies conducted both in the laboratory and in the natural setting have shown that training in both of these skills significantly im- proves word recognition ability in such children. Moreover, longitudinal studies have shown that both are strong predic- tors of achievement in reading.

Yet, despite this highly convergent evidence, there is a very strong and in- creasingly popular movement away from teaching phonetic decoding and phoneme analysis skills in reading instruction and toward a context-based or what has been called "whole-language" approach to instruction. This trend is mo- tivated by a prominent theory of reading (Goodman & Goodman, 1979; Smith, 1971), which suggests that one reads by using the semantic and syntactic constraints of language to generate and con- firm predictions about words that are likely to appear in given sentence frames. Thus, according to the theory, skilled readers merely sample words from the text, and those words that are processed are recognized by selective sampling of the features defining their letters. Reading instruction should, therefore, incorporate activities that foster predictive and context-based strategies for word recognition, rather than activities such as phoneme and letter- sound analysis, which are said to fractionate written language.

Here again, results from basic re-

VOL. 2, NO. 2, MARCH 1991 81




Feature Review

search are informative. To be brief, we know from eye-movement studies (Just & Carpenter, 1987; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989) that, except for very high fre- quency words such as the and of, skilled readers process virtually all of the words they encounter in connected text and, typically, all of the letters in those words. We also know that guessing strategies will be successful in no more than one in four words, even among highly skilled readers (Gough, Alford, & Holly- Wilcox, 1981), and, further, that skilled readers rely very little on sentence context for word recognition, because the recognition process is so highly automa- tized in this group (Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1980). Moreover, there is now a great deal of evidence (Perfetti, 1985; Sticht & James, 1984; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Tanzman, in press) that facility in word recognition is a basic prerequisite to adequate reading comprehension, and that processes and knowledge sources, which more directly un- derlie language comprehension, become fully operative in reading only when a certain degree of fluency in word recognition has been achieved. Thus, it would seem that activities that foster automatic and fluent word recognition would also be useful in reading instruction, contrary to the dictates of the sentence-context theory.

This observation is not to suggest that meaning- and context-based approaches to instruction are not important. We have known for some time that children learn to read highly meaningful and more concrete words more easily than they learn to read less-meaningful and highly abstract words (consider cat vs. the), and the use of context is especially important for learning to read such words, not to mention homographs such as rose and rail. There is also abundant evidence that contextual constraints can affect word recognition enough to warrant use of context as a vehicle for instruction (Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1980). Thus, what is called for is a balanced approach to instruction, making generous use of both analytic and context-based strategies for word recognition. And the research findings favor such an approach (see Adams, 1990, for a thorough discussion of these issues).

The failure to make use of basic research findings to guide instruction also

has its counterpart in dyslexia research. There are many popular stereotypes as- sociated with dyslexia, but by far the most prominent is the belief that dyslexic children suffer from a major breakdown in the perceptual system manifested in optical reversibility (" seeing" words such as was and saw as reversed im- ages). There is now abundant evidence that dyslexics do not see letters and words in reverse and that the tendency to make was/saw-type errors in reading is due, more simply, to the failure to acquire the analytic processing strategies that come with learning about letter- sound invariance (Vellutino, 1979; Vel- lutino & Scanlon, 1987). Yet, many practitioners still hold this belief and, conse- quently, engage dyslexic children in irrelevant '

'perceptual training" activities that have little connection with reading. Unhappily, this is only one of many such examples that could be cited.

It should be clear from the foregoing discussion that relevant findings from reading research by and large have not been utilized by practitioners, who seem, on the face of it, to be influenced more by popular movements and fash- ionable trends in education than by sci- entific evidence. What is the reason for this gap between basic reading research and practical application? More impor- tantly, how can it be closed? These are not easy questions to answer, though they have been seriously addressed in the past, most comprehensively in a three- volume collection of papers put to- gether more than 10 years ago by Lauren Resnick and Phyllis Weaver (1979). What was most evident when I first read these papers was the skepticism ex- pressed by many of the contributors that the gap between research and practice would be filled in the near future. Many suggested that reading theory had not progressed to the point where it could yield results that would be useful to practitioners. Others were more sanguine. Resnick (1979), in particular (Vol. Ill), advocated better and more relevant research methods that incorporate the techniques of both cognitive psychology and learning psychology, but broadened to include: (1) evaluation of changing processes in developing readers through both longitudinal studies and cross- sectional contrasts of younger and older readers, (2) systematic contrasts of

skilled and less-skilled readers, and (3) greater use of intervention studies that could both inform our theories and set up guidelines for practice. I think it is fair to say that the past decade has witnessed significant progress on all these fronts (see Adams, 1990, for documentation). Yet, despite this progress, the gap between reading research and practical application still appears to be substantial.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I would like to suggest that this gap may be at least narrowed if basic researchers were more interested in applied issues and were disposed to translate relevant research findings into terms that practitioners would understand and find useful. Teachers do not read scholarly jour- nals reporting relevant research findings, nor should they necessarily be impor- tuned to do so. However, they may be more inclined to read texts and articles to which they can respond, especially if such materials are written by researchers who know something about what goes on in classrooms. Only a few researchers have begun to involve themselves in this type of enterprise. Marilyn Jager Adams is one such researcher, and her book does an admirable job of distilling and interpreting basic research findings in terms that relate directly to instruction. In this sense, the book is seminal and will, it is to be hoped, become an influ- ential prototype. One thing is certain, however: Unless such texts become com- monplace, practitioners will continue to be influenced largely by leaders of popular movements in education, whether or not the ideas promulgated by such indi- viduals are scientifically validated.

Acknowledgments - This paper was sup- ported by a grant from the National Insti- tute of Child Health and Human Develop- ment (#R01HDO9658). I also wish to thank Melinda Taylor and Judy Moran for their assistance in typing and editing this paper.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Frank R. Vellutino, Child Research and Study Center, SUNY, Husted Hall 134, Downtown Campus, Albany, NY 12222.

REFERENCES Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking

and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goodman, K.S., & Goodman, Y.M. (1979). Learn- ing to read is natural. In L.B. Resnick & P.A.

82 VOL. 2, NO. 2, MARCH 1991



DECODING AND SPELLING:

What to Teach; When to Teach

It; How to Teach It1

Commentary

Commentary by Robert Calfee Stanford University

"I've got a secret!" Anyone reading this sentence knows something hidden to

many U.S. citizens. "Cracking the code" is tied to schooling, but also to

privilege, class, culture, and language status. Although correlated with social indicators, failure in this rudimentary skill often means failure of the individual

(hence labels like dyslexic, reading dis- abled, and low-achieving). In this com- ment, I first discuss contextual issues in the recurring debates about decoding instruction in English, and then argue that

linguistics and cognitive psychology pro- vide foundations for recasting the context and resolving the debates.

CONTRADICTIONS

Learning to decode (and spell) is

fraught with conflict. On the one hand, the topic has evoked intensive polemic for decades, including the legislative

concerns that led to Beginning to Read (Adams, 1990), the occasion for these articles. On the other hand, national tests reveal that virtually all Americans pos- sess minimal competence with English print (Kirsch & Jungeblut, 1986; Mullis & Jenkins, 1990). Far more serious is the lack of improvement in comprehension and composition over the past quarter- century. Another contradiction: research consistently supports the benefit of explicit phonics instruction. Yet "whole language," the latest wave surg- ing through elementary classrooms, en-

joins direct teaching of decoding skills; according to the whole language philos- ophy, reading and writing are best taught in meaningful, literary contexts (Weaver, 1990).

Should phonics be taught directly or

implicitly, formally or naturally, to all students or just some? Missing from these questions is a careful analysis of the curricular and instructional foundations for the domain, hence the questions in my title. Current recommendations fall into two categories. Phonics propo- nents endorse a stage-wise, objectives- based strategy: Teach the specific decoding skills essential for fluent oral

reading, aiming for mastery by second grade. Whole-language advocates pro- pose a more naturalistic, literature-based approach: Teach reading through meaningful engagement with real books, and children will acquire letter-sound pat- terns along the way.

Current realities seldom match either proposal. Basal readers define curricu- lum and instruction in most primary classrooms. Decoding instruction appears twice daily in these series. First is oral reading of the daily story. Teacher judgment of student achievement is heavily influenced by this task. Passages are not chosen for consistent letter- sound patterning, however, so students depend on contextual cues and informed guessing. Second is student performance on the worksheet packets that ' 'in- struct" the decoding objectives. The manual gives scripted directions for teaching the skills (e.g., initial b-, long a, -ing), but student progress depends on successful completion of worksheets and end-of-unit tests. Although decoding and spelling might be joined to reinforce one another, spelling is generally taught at a different time with different materials and objectives.

Address for correspondence: Robert Cal- fee, School of Education, Stanford Univer- sity, Stanford, CA 94305-3096.

VOL. 2, NO. 2, MARCH 1991 83


Robert Calfee

Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 1, pp. 137-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gough, P.B., Alford, J.A., & Holly-Wilcox, P. (1981). Words and contexts. In O.J.L. Tzeng & H. Singer (Eds.), Perception of print: Read- ing research in experimental psychology (pp. 85-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Huey, E.B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: Macmillan. (Reprinted 1968, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.)

Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Resnick, L.B. (1979). Toward a useable psychology of reading instruction. In L.B. Resnick & P.A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. Ill, pp. 355-372). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Resnick, L.B., & Weaver, P.A. (1979). Theory and practice of early reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- baum.

Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycho- linguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Toward an interactive- compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Read- ing Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.

Sticht, T.G., & James, J.H. (1984). Listening and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 292-317). New York: Longman.

Vellutino, F.R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vellutino, F.R., & Scanlon, D.M. (1987). Phonolog- ical coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321-363.

Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Small, S.G., & Tan- zman, M.S. (in press). The linguistic basis of reading ability: Converting written to oral language. Text.

Woodworth, R.A. (1938). Experimental psychology. New York: Henry Holt.



Documents

Has Basic Research in Reading Increased Our Understanding of Developmental Reading and How to Teach Reading?