Dyslexia Intervention
You will find links to sites that have more detailed information on each method. Dyslexia Intervention: Direct Instruction
Direct instruction is an explicit method of reading instruction that emphasizes logical, incremental and well thought out lesson plans that are developed so that misinterpretation on the part of the teacher is minimized. The direct instruction reading intervention model was developed back in the late 60's early 70's by Siegfried Engelmann and his colleague, Wesley Becker. Direct instruction programs focus on teacher training as one of their main goals. Primary school teachers are taught the direct instruction model extensively, before they implement the program in their classrooms. The direct instruction lessons are designed to last no longer than 40 - 45 minutes. The lessons target phonological processing, word recognition, and also aim to develop students' fluency and reading comprehension. Despite a significant evidence base of high efficacy, critics of the direct instruction teaching method claim that educators have to follow a strict formula, which tends to inhibit and curtail their natural spontaneity and creativity as teachers. More information about direct instruction can be found here. Dyslexia Intervention: Reading Recovery
Reading recovery is an early intervention reading program that assists grade 1 students, who have been identified as being at risk for reading failure. Reading recovery was developed by a New Zealand educator, Marie Clay. A typical reading recovery lesson plan lasts 20 weeks of 30 minutes each. The training is performed 1 to 1 with a trained, reading recovery teacher. In contrast to direct instruction, reading recovery emphasizes the teacher's contribution to the student's learning. The reading instruction is more open-ended and stresses that decoding and phonics instruction does not need to be explicitly taught. The reading recovery philosophy instead teaches that phonics skills can be learnt through the context of authentic reading and writing tasks. Reviews of the effectiveness of reading recovery claim that 70% of students who complete the program make significant gains in reading accuracy and fluency. However, independent assessment of the reviews indicates that many of the studies were methodologically deficient. Shanahan & Barr (1995) Critics of reading recovery claim that proponents of this method ignore the latest and best research on phonological awareness. Instead of targeting phonemic awareness, teachers of reading recovery emphasize whole word learning, with scarce attention to phonics training and the letter-sound correspondence. In my experience, students who qualify for reading recovery instruction tend to have poor phonological awareness skills. They often need explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and the letter-sound correspondence. Typically, children with language disorder usually present with poor phonemic awareness skills as well. These children don't always respond well to reading recovery. Whole word learning, in the absence of good phonemic awareness skill training, does not work well for language impaired children with poor phonemic awareness. Reading recovery continues to be a popular reading intervention in Australian schools. More information about reading recovery can be found here. Other prominent reading instruction methods will be added soon... |