Morgan Dynamic Phonics

Search
Home

About Morgan Dynamic Phonics

Testimonials

Humorous Reading Text

Scope and Sequence

Scientific Underpinnings

Teacher Training

Tutoring/Homeschooling

Correctional Institutions

Phonemic Awareness Strategies

Comprehension, Vocabulary and Fluency Strategies

High School and Adult Programs

Higher Level Reading -- Morphology

Word Origin of the Week

What's New -- New Teaching Ideas

Order Now

 

 

Morgan Dynamic Phonics: Scientific Underpinnings

Orton Gillingham Based Programs

Systematic, explicit, sequential code-based instruction (of which this program is a good example) has proven highly effective for beginning and problem readers (McCardle & Chhabra 2004; Bailet 2004; Ehri 2004; Torgesen 2004; Henry 2003; Torgesen 2003; Henry 1997; Ehri 2001A; Ehri 2001B; Cunningham, J. 2001; Blackman, B. 2004; Moats 2000; NRP 2000; Lyon 2001; Ehri, C. 2000; Hall & Moats 1999; Snow 1998; Moats 1998C; Ehri 1998; Torgesen 1998; Adams and Bruck 1993; Chall 1989; Liberman and Liberman 1990; Mather 1992; Brown & Felton 1990; Felton 1993; Lyon 1996; Snow 1998; Burns 1998; Foorman 1998; Foorman 1997; Torgesen 1997; Hall and Moats 1999; Morgan 1995). "For the past century, phonic and multisensory methods have been used effectively to teach reading and writing to students with learning disabilities. A review of clinical history affirms the value of these methods for teaching reading." (Mather 1992, p.90).

"The accumulated research over nearly 100 years has been that a code emphasis (approach) leads to better results in word recognition and in comprehension." (Chall 1997).

Morgan Dynamic Phonics is an multisensory program in which information is deliberately input to all sensory channels. Weaker sensory channels are strengthened because they are linked with stronger ones. In this way, memory is strengthened, and learning is accelerated. A review the effectiveness of other Orton-Gillingham multisensory structured language programs can be found in McIntryre, et. al. 1995. A comprehensive review of multisensory procedures and techniques in all subject areas can be found in Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills (Birsh 1999). This book has a wealth of information for the novice as well as the experienced teacher.

A report published by the Appellate Division, 1st Judicial district, Supreme Court of the State of New York, 1990, found a more significant correlation between academic failure and delinquency than between delinquency and socioeconomic status. It has been demonstrated that using multisensory Orton-Gillingham instruction with juvenile delinquents in detention centers resulted in significant gains in reading and in significantly lower rates of recidivism (Simpson, et. al. 1992). The same methods appear to be very beneficial for reading disabled college students (Guyer 1989).

Phonemic awareness refers to the sensitivity to, or understanding of, the underlying phonology or sound structure of the language (Adams et. al. 1998). To be more specific, phonemic awareness is the understanding that words contain sounds (phonemes), and it involves the ability to isolate, identify and blend the individual phonemes or sound components of the language. These are crucial skills for learning to read and spell. Successful reading requires blending ability; successful spelling requires segmenting and identifying ability. Note: Sometimes we will use the term phonological awareness in place of phonemic awareness. The term phonological awareness is a more inclusive term which contains phonemic awareness as well as print awareness, word and sentence awareness and short-term sequential linguistic short term memory.

Phonemic awareness has been shown to be the best predictor of reading success in English (Windsor 2000; Blackman 1984; Juel 1991; Stanovich 1986; Mann & Brady 1988; Manu 1993). This has also been shown to be the case in Swedish, Norwegian, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese and Russian (see Adams 1998, p. 2). Strong relationships have been found between phonemic processing scores and reading progress one to three years later (Bradley & Bradley 1985; Fox & Routh 1980, 1983; Helfgott 1976; and Zifcak 1981) and between phonemic awareness and reading and spelling 11 years later (MacDonald & Cornwall 1995). Poor phonemic awareness has been shown to distinguish low SES preschoolers from high SES preschools and to be characteristic of adults with reading problems in the U.S., Portugal, England, and Australia (Adams 1998, p .2). "Indeed, among readers of alphabetic languages, those who are successful invariably have phonemic awareness, whereas those who lack phonemic awareness are invariably struggling" (Adams 1998, p.2).

Wagner and Torgesen (1987) argued that phonemic processing skill is causally related to success or failure in reading (see also Adams 1991; Jorm and Share 1983; Lyon 1995A). Researchers such as Adams (1991) and Wagner and Torgesen (1987) believe that phonemic processing ability leads directly to the acquisition of word identification skills.

Children having trouble learning to read, whether classified as reading disabled or with sub-average intelligence, have been shown to have significant deficits in phonemic processing ability (Wesseling & Reitsma 2001; Wagner 1997; Hurford et. al. 1994; Vellutino 1987; Wagner, Torgesen & Rashotte 1994; Gough & Tunmer 1986; Alexander, Anderson, Heilman, Voeller, & Torgesen 1991; Stanovich 1988; IDA 1997; Lyon & Chhabra 1996; Lonigan 1998). The recently popular theory of phonologically based reading disabilities (Stanovich 1988; Torgesen 1993) proposes that phonemic awareness deficits are the direct cause of a substantial proportion of reading disabilities in children and adults.

Fortunately, phonemic awareness can be taught to children and has been shown to positively impact reading and spelling skill development (Torgesen 2004; Ehri et. al. 2001C; NRP 2000; Torgesen 1998; Snow 1998; Yopp 1997; Tangel & Blachman 1995; Bradley and Bryant 1983; Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen 1988; Bradley and Bryant 1985; Hurford et. al. 1994; Scanlon 1997; Smith 1998). It has been shown that developing phonemic awareness in combination with learning letters and sounds in written format is better than learning letters and sounds alone (Ball & Blachman 1991). Conversely, it has also been shown that developing phonemic awareness along with letters is more effective than training phonemic awareness alone (Bradley & Bryant 1983; Byrne & Fielding-Barnesley 1991; Cunningham 1990). Some studies have shown that early phonemic awareness training seemed to reduce the prevalence of dyslexia in at-risk children (Borstrom 1997; Schneider 1999). The discovery of the role phonemic awareness plays in reading ability and in reading instruction is revolutionizing the way we teach reading.
Phonemic awareness training appears to be especially effective when combined with explicit instructions in applying these skills to reading and spelling - (well designed phonics instruction) (Elbro & Petersen 2004; Yopp & Yopp 2000; Torgesen 1999; Griffith & Olson 1992; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte 1994; Ball & Blachman 1991; Bradley & Bryant 1985, 1983; Hurford et. al. 1994; Clay, 1979; Lyon and Chhabra, 1996; Blackman 1991; Clark 1988; Hall and Moats 1999; Lyon 1998; IDA 1997; Snider 1988). Torgesen, Wagner and Rashotte (1994) strongly recommend that phonemic awareness training be included in any reading program for children who may be at risk for reading problems. Integrated instruction in segmenting and blending seem to provide the greatest benefit for reading.

"Among readers of alphabetic languages, those who are successful invariably have phonemic awareness, whereas those who lack it are invariably struggling." (Marilyn Jaeger Adams – IDA conference 2003)

"Phonics is the key to reading. Phonemic awareness is the WD 40. Reading is the key to literacy." (Marilyn Jaeger Adams – IDA conference 2003)

"It has been said that phoneme awareness is the greatest break through in reading pedagogy in universal literacy since the invention of the Gutenberg printing press." M. J. Adams

In the Morgan Dynamic Phonics program, we have integrated three very powerful phonemic awareness training techniques into our daily reading and spelling lessons. All of these methods also improve short-term sequential linguistic memory - which is a weakness for many students with reading problems and is trainable. These techniques are also multisensory.

  1. The Finger Tapping technique (which comes from Barbara Wilson of the Wilson Reading System). Finger Tapping teaches phoneme blending and helps children sound out new words. Phoneme blending is one of the phonological tasks which is difficult for most problem readers.
  2. The Block Spelling technique, adapted from the work of Russian scientist Elkonin (Elkonin 1973). The Block Spelling technique teaches phoneme segmentation (the best predictor of reading success - troublesome for most at-risk students), identification, sequencing, and also improves short term sequential linguistic memory. Block Spelling impacts heavily on reading and spelling progress by helping to create visual representations of the sounds in words, and this helps children understand the connections between written and spoken language.
  3. The Sound Spelling method has the student write the letters in a word and say the sounds that those letters represent at the same time that he writes them.

These three multisensory, phonemic awareness techniques are extremely powerful additions to an already successful reading and spelling program - Morgan Dynamic Phonics. Students make much quicker progress in reading and spelling with the use of these techniques.

The use of Elkonin box technique for prereaders is also a very powerful phonemic awareness training process - see the Pre-reading Activities section.

Our focus on the use of blending and segmenting phonological awareness techniques has strong support form research (McCardle pp. 165).

For more information on the assessment and remediation of phonemic awareness see: Smith 1998, Yopp 1995A, Yopp 1995B, Yopp & Yopp 2000, Hall 1999, Adams 1998, and Burns 1999.

The National Institute of Health has recently stated, after spending more that 120 million research dollars to find the best instructional techniques for at risk readers, that

  1. About 20% of children have reading disabilities (dyslexia),
  2. Deficits in phonemic awareness represent the primary deficit in dyslexia, and
  3. These children need an intensive, structured and explicit code emphasis approach along with phonemic awareness training to learn how to read (Lyon 1995B).

Morgan Dynamic Phonics is such an approach. Many children end up in middle school or high school with poor reading skills because no one used a method like this one to teach them. Some of these children become permanent members of special education and end up as angry and frustrated adults.

"Converging evidence from NICHD research suggests that the most useful interventions for reading disabled individuals consist of explicit and direct instruction in phonemic awareness, sound-symbol relationships (phonics) and contextual reading and reading comprehension skills" (Lyon 1997).

Morgan Dynamic Phonics is designed to promote quick and efficient word reading. We are always striving for more and more automatic responses from children. It has been pointed out that skillful readers are automatic decoders and that poor readers usually have problems in this area (Rayner, K. et. al. 2001; Samuels 1988). It has also been shown that accurate and fluid word reading of single words is a good predictor of comprehension of written text (Curtis 1980; Stanovich, Cunningham & Freeman 1984). See section of fluency for other techniques to speed up reading speed.

Most of those children who need a good phonics system in order to learn to read can become very competent readers, if instructed correctly (Mathes 1998; Slavin 1993; Shaywitz 2003). The problem is that many of these children are not receiving proper reading instruction in our schools. This is primarily the result of misunderstanding on the part of teacher training schools about how children learn to read (Moats 1994; Moats and Lyon 1996; Moats 1999). As a result, many teachers are unprepared to give appropriate reading instruction to their students who need a good structural phonics approach.

Ehri (1989) has suggested that many children fail in reading and spelling because of uninformed instruction and that these problems may not originate from individual deficiencies but from poor instructional practices. She proposes that many of the students that are labeled dyslexic have just not been given the right kind of instruction in reading.

"Intensive, well-designed intervention that addresses the core linguistic deficits underlying reading failure has been shown to salvage most children, even if their early instruction was inadequate. The components of an effective instructional program include phonemic awareness, letter recognition and formation, sound symbol connections, opportunities to practice decoding in controlled texts, vocabulary building with an emphasis on word structure and morphology, instruction in comprehension strategies and motivational techniques to foster independent reading" (Moats 1998B).

Morgan Dynamic Phonics uses lots and lots of phonetically decodable text to reinforce the letter patterns taught. With more sever reading problems, we believe that students should only read decodable texts for some time to avoid confusion. The use of decodable text with research-based phonics instruction is strongly recommended by: Foorman 1998 and Juel & Minden-Cupp 2000.

Morgan Dynamic Phonics programs, like most other Orton-Gillingham programs, teaches syllable division and syllable type identification to help students read larger words. When the English language is taught by syllables and meaningful word parts called morphemes, it is a lot more predictable (see Stanback 1992). Our Dynamic Roots program (used by many after students complete the Morgan Dynamic Phonics programs) uses the study of root words, suffixes, prefixes and Latin and Greek word origins to teach higher level reading and vocabulary skills.

Morgan Dynamic Phonics was created during the 1992-1993 school year. The program yielded extremely good results in the first year (Morgan 1995). In the second year of using this method, with 3rd, 4th and 5th grade special needs students, a reading growth rate of 1.68 years was attained in one year, according to the Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills. In the third year, with a combination of 2nd - 5th grade special needs students and 2nd grade general education nonreaders, a reading growth rate of 1.74 years was attained in one year, according to the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test. In the third year, with 2nd-5th grade special needs students, a reading growth rate of 1.78 years was attained, according to the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test. With the consistent use of Block Spelling in this year, the students also made two years progress in spelling, according to the Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills. In the next four years, with elementary school special education students pulled from all levels of Special Education, reading growth rates of 1.97, 1.92, 1.54 and 2.23 years were attained according to the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test. In the last three years, with elementary special education students but with more limited teaching times, reading growth rates of 1.65, 1.3, and 1.62 years were attained. Some of the Dynamic Roots program was also used with some of these students.

A Comparison Study

One experimental group was matched to two control groups by using school free lunch percentages and the school's 3rd and 5th grade reading scores on state mandated testing.

The experimental group: This was the first year the teacher was using the program. She attended a one hour talk by the author at the beginning of the year. She had a 3rd-5th self contained SPED classroom. Because of scheduling problems, she was only able to use Dynamic Phonics for about 30 minutes per day. The children spent another 30 minutes doing other reading activities that mostly involved independent reading activities. Even with this small amount of reading time, her children attained over one years reading growth according to the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test.

1st control group: This class was also an 3rd-5th self contained SPED classroom. This teacher used a literature based reading program with the Houghton-Mifflin reading series. The teacher taught sight words and the children had phonics workbooks for extra practice. These children had about an hour of reading instruction per day. The children in this class attained 0.326 years reading growth according to the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test.

2nd control group: This class was a 3rd-5th self contained SPED classroom. This teacher used the Focus reading series, the Modern Curriculum Press phonics books, and had the children read for 15 minutes at home every night. The reading time in this class was at least 2 hours per day. The children in this class attained 0.833 years reading growth according to the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test.

Conclusions: The difference between the experimental group and the first control group are substantial and demonstrate the power of this reading program.

The difference between the experimental group and the second control group do not seem as great until we take into consideration the time each teacher spent teaching reading in the classroom. The experimental group teacher was able to attain a little more reading growth with her students in one hour per day of reading than the control group attained in 2 hours of reading time.

References

Adams, M. J., et. al. 1998. The elusive phoneme. American Educator, 22. 1&2.

Adams, M. J. 1991. Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Adams, M. J., and Bruck, M. 1993. Word recognition: The interface of educational policies and scientific research. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 5: 113-139.

Adams, M.J., Foorman, B.R., Lundberg, I., and Beeler, T.D. 1998. Phonemic Awareness in Young Children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co. 880/638-3775

Alexander, A., Anderson, H., Heilman, P. C., Voeller, K. S., & Torgesen, J. K. 1991. Phonological awareness training and remediation of analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 193-206.

Bailet, L. 2004. Spelling instruction and intervention frameworks. In Sten, C. A. et. al. Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders. 661-678. New York: Guilford.

Bakken, J. P. et. al. 1997. Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. The Journal of Special Education. Vol. 33. No. 3. pp. 300-324.

Ball, E., & Blachman, B. 1991. Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-86.

Bell, N. 1991. Gestalt imagery: A critical factor in language comprehension. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 41, 1991

Bell, N. 1986. Visualizing and Verbalizing for Language Comprehension and Thinking. Paso Robles, California: Academy for Reading Publications.

Birsh, Judith R. (Editor). 1999. Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Company. (880) 638-3775.

Blackman, B., et. al. 2004. Research based intensive-phonologic and orthographic connection: Effects of intensive reading remediation for 2nd and 3rd graders and a one year follow-up. Journal of Ed. Psychology, 96, 3, 444-461.

Blackman, Benita 1991. Getting ready to read. Learning how print maps to speech. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

Blackman, J., Bruck, M., Herbert, M. & Seidenberg, M. 1984. Acquisition and use of spelling-sound correspondences in reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 38: 114-133.

Borstrom, I., & Elbro, C. 1997. Prevention of dyslexia in kindergarten: Effects of phoneme awareness training with children of dyslexic parents. In C. Hulme & M. Snowling (Eds.). Dyslexia: Biology, cognition and intervention (p.235-253. London:Whurr

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. 1983. Categorizing sounds and learning to read - A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. 1985. Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Brown, I. S., & Felton, R. H. 1990. Effects of instruction on beginning reading skills in children at risk for reading disability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 223-241.

Bryant, D. P. et. al. 1999. Instructional strategies for content-area reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic. Vol. 34, No. 5. May 1999.

Burns et. al. 1999. Starting Out Right: A Guide to Promoting Children's Reading Success. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Byrne, B. & Fielding-Barnesley, R. 1991. Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451-455.

Carreker, S. 2002. Creating rich associations for the rapid recognition of words. Perspectives, Vol. 28, No. 1. Winter 2002. Baltimore: The International Dyslexia Association.

Chall, J, 1989. Learning to read: The great debate 20 years later: A response to "Debunking the great phonics myth." Phi Delta Kappan 70: 521-38.

Chall, J., 1997. Are reading methods changing again. In Annals of Dyslexia. Volume 47. Port City Press. International Dyslexia Association.

Clark, D. B. 1988. Dyslexia: Theory and practice of Remedial Instruction. Parkton, MD: York Press.

Clay, M. M. 1979. Reading: The Patterning of Complex Behavior. Portsmouth, NH: Heinnemann.

Curtis, M. E. 1980. Development of components of reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology 72: 656-669.

Cunningham, J. 2001. The National Reading Panel report. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 3.

Cunningham, A. E., Stanovich, K. E & Wilson, M. 1990. Cognitive variation in adult college students differing in reading abilities In: T. Carr & B. A. Levy (eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 129-159). San Diego: Academic Press.

Davis, R. 1994. The Gift of Dyslexia. Burlingame, CA: Reading Research Council.

Ehri, L. 2004. Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics. In P. McCardle and V. Chhabra (Eds.), The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research. 153-186. Baltimore, Md.: Brookes Publishing.

Ehri, C. E. 2001A. National reading panels meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly. 36, 3.

Ehri, L. C. et. al. 2001B. Sytematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393-447.

Ehri, L.C., et. al. 2001C. Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.

Erhi, C. 2000. Learning to read and spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 19-49.

Ehri, C. E. 1989. The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol. 22, Num. 6

Ehri, L. C. 1998. Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Mitsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.). Word Recognition in Beginning Literacy. 3-40. Mahwah, N.J. Erlbaum.

Elbro, C. & Petersen, D. 2004. Long-term effects of phoneme awareness and letter sound training: An intervention study with children at-risk for dyslexia. Journal of Ed. Psych. 96, 4, 660-670.

Elkonin, D. B. 1973. In: Downing, J. (ed.), Comparative Reading: Cross National Studies of Behavior and Processes in Reading and Writing. New York: MacMillan.

Felton, R. 1993. Effects of instruction on the decoding skills of children with phonological-processing problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 583-589.

Fischer, Phillis 1999. Getting up to speed. Perspectives, Vol. 25, No. 2. Spring, 1999. Baltimore: The International Dyslexia Association.

Foorman, B. R. et. al. 1997. Early intervention for children with reading problems: study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities. Vol.8 No.1 P. 63-71.

Foorman, B. R. et. al. 1998. The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Education Psychology. 90: 37-55.

Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. 1980. Phonemic analysis and severe reading disability in children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9, 115-119.

Gajria, M. et. al. 1992. The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children. May 1992.

Gardill, M. C. et. al. 1999. Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education. Vol. 33. No. 1. pp. 2-17.

Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. S. 1960. Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. E. 1990. Phonological Skills and Learning to Read. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. 1986. Decodiing, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.

Graham, S. et. al. 1989. Teaching reading to learning disabled students: A review of research-supported procedures. Focus on Exceptional Children. Vol. 21. No. 6. Feb.

Griffith. P. L., & Olson, M. W. 1992. Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break the code. The Reading Teacher. 45, 516-523.

Guyer, B. P. and Sabatino, D. 1989. The effectiveness of multisensory alphabetic phonetic approach with college students who are learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol. 22, No. 7. pp. 430-434.

Hall, S. H., Moats, L. C. 1999. Straight Talk About Reading: How Parents Can Make a Difference During the Early Years. Chicago: Contemporary Books.

Hannah, P. R., Hodges, R. E., & Hanna, J. S. 1971. Spelling: Structure and Strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hearne, D., & Stone, S. 1995. Multiple intelligences and underachievement: Lessons from individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, #7.

Helfgott, J. A. 1976. Phonemic segmentation and blending skills of kindergarten children: implications for beginning reading acquisition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1, 157-169.

Henry, M. 2003. Unlocking Literacy. Baltimore, Md.: Brookes Publishing.

Henry, M. 1997. The decoding/spelling curriculum: Integrated decoding and spelling instruction from pre-school to early secondary school. Dyslexia, 38, 178-198.

Hooks, P. and Jones, S. 2002. The importance of automaticity and fluency for efficient reading comprehension. Perspectives. Vol. 28. No. 1. Winter 2002. Baltimore: The International Dyslexia Association.

Hurford, D. P., Schauf, J. D., Bunce, L., Blaich, T., & Moore, K. 1994. Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 371-382.

Hurford, D. P., Johnston, M., Nepote, P., Hampton, S., Moore, S., Neal, J., Mueller, A., McGeorge, K., Huff, L., Awad, A., Tatre, C., Christine J., & Huffman, D. 1994. Early identification and remediation of phonological-processing deficits in first-grade children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 647-658.

IDA - International Dyslexia Association, 1997. A position paper of the International Dyslexia Association. Phone: # 410 296-0232

Idol, L. 1987. Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol. 20. No. 4. April.

Jerger, M. A., 1996. Phoneme awareness and the role of the educator. Intervention In School and Clinic, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 5-13.

Jorm, A. F., & Share, D. L. 1983. Phonological recoding and reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103-147.

Juel, C & Minden-Cupp, C. 2000. Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 458-492.

Juel, C. 1991. Beginning reading. In: R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2: 759-788. New York: Longman.

Knupp, R. 1988. Improving oral reading skills of educationally handicapped elementary school-aged students through repeated reading. ED Practicum Report, Nova University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 297 275)

Liberman, I. Y., and Liberman, A. M. 1990. Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia 40: 51-76.

Long, S. A., et. al. 1989. The effects of reader and text characteristics on reports of imagery during and after read. Reading Research Quarterly 19(3): 353372.

Longo, A. M. 2001. Using writing and study skills to improve the reading comprehension of at-risk adolescents. Perspectives: Spring Issue. Baltimore, MD: The International Dyslexia Association.

Lonigan, C. J. et. al. 1998. Development of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5- year-old children. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 90, No. 2. pp. 294-311

Lonigan, C. J. et. al. 1998. Development of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5- year-old children. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 90, No. 2. pp. 294-311

Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O. 1988. Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263-284.

Lyon, G. R. et. al. 2001. Rethinking learning disabilities. In Finn, Rotherham, and Hokanson (Eds.) Rethinking Special Education for a New Century. Washington, D. C.: Progressive Policy Institute and Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Lyon, G. R. 1995A. Toward a definition of dyslexia. In Annals of Dyslexia, 40, pp. 3-27.

Lyon, G. R. 1995B. Research intitiatives in learning disabilities: contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology. 10. pp.120-126

Lyon, G. R. 1996. The state of Research. in Learning Disabilities; Lifelong Issues. eds. Cramer, Shirley and Ellis. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

Lyon, G. R. 1997. Progress and promise in research in L.D. Learning Disabilities. Vol.8 No.1 p.1-6.

Lyon, G. R. 1998. Reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, March 1998.

Lyon, G. R. & Chhabra, V. 1996. The current state of science and the future of specific reading disability. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 2: 2-9.

MacDonald, G. W., & Conwall, A. 1995. The relationship between phonological awareness and reading and spelling achievement eleven years later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 523-527.

Malone, L. D. et. al. 1992. Reading comprehension instruction: summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children. Dec./Jan.

Mann, V. A., & Brady, S. 1988. Reading disability: The role of language deficiencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 811-816

Manu, Virginia A. 1993. Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol 26, No. 4, April.

Mastropieri, M. A. et. al. 1997. Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. Vol. 18. No. 4. July/August.

Mastropieri, M. A. et. al. 1999. Strategies to increase reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic. Vol. 34, No. 5. May pp. 278-283

Mather, N. 1992. Whole language reading instruction for students with learning disabilities: Caught in the cross fire. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 7: 87-95.

Mathes, P. G. et. al. 1998. All children can learn to read: critical care for the prevention of reading failure. Peabody Journal of Education. 73(3&4). 317-340

McIntyre, C., and Pickering, J. 1995. Clinical Studies of Multisensory Structured Language Education for Students with Dyslexia and Related Disorders. Salem, OR: International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council.

McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. 2004. The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul Brookes Publishing.

Meyer, M. S. 2002. Repeated reading: an old standard is revisited and renovated. Perspectives. Vol. 28. No. 1. Winter. Baltimore, MD: The International Dyslexia Association.

McIntyre. Repeated reading to enhance fluency: old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 49, 1999. Baltimore: The International Dyslexia Association.

Moats, L. C., 2000. Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers. Baltimore, Md.: Brookes Publishing.

Moats, L. C., 1999. Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Paper prepared for the American Federation of Teachers.

Moats, L. C., 1994. The missing foundation in teacher education. American Educator, The professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 19, #2, 9-51.

Moats, L. C., 1998A. Intervention Research in Dyslexia. Perspectives. Vol.24, No. 4

Moats, L. C., 1998B. Reading, spelling and writing disabilities in the middle grades. In Wong, B. (Ed.) Learning about Learning Disabilities. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Moats, L. C. 1998C. Teaching Decoding. American Educator, 22. 1&2.

Moats, L.C. and Lyon, R. G. 1996. Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Top Lang Disord 16 (2) p.73-86 Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Morgan, K. B. 1995. Creative phonics: A meaning-oriented reading program. Intervention in School and Clinic. 30, 287-291.

Morias, J., et. al. 1998. Why and how phoneme awareness helps learning to read. In C. Hulme & D. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and Spelling: Development and Disorders, 127-152. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

National Reading Panel, 2000. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

O'Connor, R, E., Notari-Syverson, A, & Vadasy, P. F., 1996. Ladders to literacy: The effects of teacher-led phonological activities for kindergarten children with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, Vol. 63, No. 1. pp. 117-130.

Pailliotet, A.; Semali, L. Rodenberg, R., Giles, J. & Macaul, S., 2000. Intermediality: Bridge to critical media literacy. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 54, No. 2, October 2000.

Palincsar, A. S. and Brown, A. L. 1988. Teaching and practicing thinking skills to promote comprehension in the context of group problem solving. RASE. 9(1), 53-59.

Paul, P. V. et. al. 1988. Multi-meaning words and reading comprehension: Implications for special education students. RASE. 9(3) pp. 42-52.

Pressley, G. M. 1976. Mental imagery helps eight-year-olds remember what they read. Journal of Educational Psychology 68:355-359.

Rasinski, Timothy 2000. Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 54, No. 2, October 2000.

Rayner, K., et. al. 2001. How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31-73.

Samuels, S. J. 1988. Decoding and automaticity: Helping poor readers become automatic at word recognition. The Reading Teacher, 41, 756-760.

Scanlon, Donna M. et. al.1997 Instructional influences on early reading success. Perspectives Vol. 23,No. 4. Fall 1997

Schneider, W., et. al. 1999. Kindergarten prevention of Dyslexia: Does training in phonological awareness work for everybody? Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol. 32. Num. 5 p. 429-436

Shaywitz, S. 2003. Overcoming Dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Ramdon House.

Short, K., Kauffman, G., Kahn, Lesley 2000. I just need to draw. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 54, No. 2, October.

Simons, S. M. 1991. Strategies for Reading Nonfiction. Eugene, OR: Spring Street.

Simpson, S. B., et. al. 1992. The impact of an intensive multisensory reading program on a population of learning-disabled delinquents. Annals of Dyslexia. Vol. 42. 1992. pp.54-66

Smith, B. D., et. al. 1987. The effect of imagery instruction on vocabulary development. Journal of College Reading and Learning 20:131-137.

Slavin, R. E. et. al. 1993. Preventing early reading failure: What works. Educational Leadership, 10-18

Smith, C. R., 1998. From gibberish, phonemic awareness: effective decoding instrucion. Teaching Exceptional Children. July/Aug. 1998 pp. 20-25. Great teacher resource.

Snider, V. E., 1988. Direct instruction reading with average first-graders. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol.80. No. 4. pp. 437-447. Dec. 1988.

Snow, C. et. al. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Academy Press: Washington, DC

Stanback, M. L. 1992. Syllable and rime patterns for teaching reading: Analysis of a frequency-based vocabulary of 17,602 words. Annals Of Dyslexia, Vol. 42, 1992.

Stanovick, K. E. 1988. Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-612.

Stanovich, K. E. 1986. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 21: 360-407.

Stanovick, K. E., Cunningham, A. E. & Freeman, D. J. 1984. Relation between early reading acquisition and word decoding with and without context: A longitudinal study of first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 668-677.

Swanson, P. N. and De La Paz, S. 1998. Teaching effective comprehension strategies to students with learning and reading disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic. Vol. 33. No. 4. March 1998

Tan, A., and Nicholson, T. 1997. Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (2), 276-288.

Tangel, D. and Blachman, B. 1995. Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on the invented spelling of first-grade children: A one-year follow-up. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 153-185.

Torgesen, J. K. 2004. Preventing early reading failure - and its devastating downward spiral. American Educator, 28, 3.

Torgesen, J. K., et. al. 2003. Progress toward understanding the instructional conditions necessary for remediating reading difficulties in older children. In D. J. Foreman (Ed.), Interventions for Children at Risk for Reading Difficulties or identified with Reading Difficulties. 275-298. Timonium, Md.: York Press.

Torgesen, J. K. 1999. Phonologically based reading disabilities: Toward a coherent theory of one kind of learning disability. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Spear-Swerling (Eds.), Perspectives on Learning Disabilities, 231-262. New Haven: Westview Press.

Torgesen, J. K. 1998. Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children, American Educator, 22, 32-39.

Torgesen, J. K. 1993. Variations on theory in learning disabilities. In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F. Kavanagh, & N. A. Krasnegor (eds.), Better understanding of learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies (pp. 153-170). Baltimore: Brookes.

Torgesen, J. K. et. al.1997. Preventive and remedial interventions for children with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities. Vol. 8 No. 1 p. 51-61

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. 1994. Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276-286.

Vaughn, S. and Klingner, J. K. 1999. Teaching reading comprehension through collaborative strategic reading. Intervention in School and Clinic. Vol. 34. No. 5. May.

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

Wagner, R. K., et. al. 1997. Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 468-479.

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

Wesseling, R. & Reitsma, P., 2001. Preschool phonological representations and development of reading skills. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 203 - 230.

West, T. G., 1991. In the Mind's Eye: Visual Thinkers, Gifted People With Learning Difficulties, Computer Images, and The Ironies of Creativity. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

Williams, Joanna P. 2001. Theme instruction for improving disabled reader' comprehension. Perspectives: Spring Issue. Baltimore, MD: The International Dyslexia Association.

Williams, Joanna P. 1998. Improving the Comprehension of Disabled Readers. In Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 48, 1998. Page 213.

Windsor, K. 2000. The role of phonological opacity in reading achievement. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 43, 50-61.

Wood, F. B., Flowers, L., and Grigorenko, E. 2001. On the functional neuroanatomy of fluency or why walking is just as important to reading as talking is. In M. Worf (Ed.), Dyslexia, Fluency, and the Brain. Timonium, MD: York Press.

Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H., 2000. Supporting phonemic awareness development in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54, 2, 130-143.

Yopp, H, K., 1997. Research developments in phonemic awareness and implications for classroom practice. Presentation at the research Institute at the annual meeting of the California Reading Association, San Diego, CA.

Yopp, H. K., 1995A. A test for assessing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher. Vol.49, No.1 Sept. 1995. pp.20-29.

Yopp, H. K., 1995B. Read-aloud books for developing phonemic awareness: An annotated bibliography. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 48. No. 6. pp. 538-542.

Zifcak, M. 1981. Phonological awareness and reading acquisition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 117-126.


Send comments, suggestions, or questions to: Ken Morgan at kmorgan@hubwest.com or (505) 254-0533
Copyright Morgan Dynamic Phonics, Inc., 3811 Hannett Ave NE, Albuquerque NM 87110
Updated: April 17, 2009