Scientific Underpinnings for Phonics Programs

Systematic, explicit, synthetic, sequential code-based instruction (of which this program is a good example) has proven highly effective for beginning and problem readers (Foorman et al., 2016; Earle, Gentry A., Sayeski, Kristin L. 2017; Kilpatrick, 2015; Seidenberg, 2017; Henbest, Victoria S. et al. 2017; Jamaludin, K. A. et al 2016; Moats. L. C. 2014: Galuschka, K. et al. 2014; O’Connor, R. E. 2014; Hougen, M. & Smartt, S. 2012; Tolman, C. 2012; Weiser, B. L. 2012; Archer & Hughes 2011; Brady 2011; Chapman & Tunmer 2011; Wong, M. 2015; Calhoon & Petscher 2013; Connor et al. 2011; Hattie 2012; Rosneshine 2012; Moats, L. C. et al. 2012; Birsh, J. (Ed.) 2011; Slavin, Robert E., et al. 2011; Foorman, B., & Al Otaiba, S. 2009; Dehaene, S. 2009; de Graaff, S. et al. 2009; National Early Literacy Panel 2008; Roberts, G., et al. 2008; Fletcher, J. M., et al. 2007; Moats, L. C. 2006; Roberts, G., et al. 2008; Torgerson, C., et al. 2006; Christensen, C. and Bowey, J. 2005; Hatcher, P. J., et al. 2004; McCardle & Chhabra 2004; Bailet 2004; Ehri 2004; Torgesen 2004; Vellutino, F. R., et al. 2004; Foorman, B. 2003; Shaywitz, S. 2003; Torgesen J. 2001; Henry 2003; Torgesen 2003; Henry 1997; Ehri, L. C. 2002; 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; 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). Because English does not share the one-to-one phoneme/grapheme correspondence that other languages do (e.g., Finnish, Spanish), Moats (2009) claimed that it is vital that teachers have an understanding of phoneme/grapheme (sound/symbol) correspondences to be able to give systematic phonics instruction.

The Structured Literacy approach has proven more affective than less structured meaning-emphasis approaches for struggling readers and for beginning readers. (Archer & Hughes 2011; Brady, 2011; Chapman & Tunmer, 2011, Calhoon & Petscher, 2013; Connor et al., 2011; Hattie, 2012; Rosenshine, 2012; Foorman et al. 2016; Kilpatrick, 2015; Seidenberg, 2017).

Instruction needs to be direct, explicit, cumulative and mastery-oriented (NRP 2000; Rupley, W. H. et al. 2009; Torgerson et al., 2006; Archer, A. et al 2011; Carnine, D. W. et al. 2009).

Morgan Dynamic Phonics is a multisensory structured literacy 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, student engagement is enhanced, 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 2019; Birsh 1999; Birsh 2011). This book has a wealth of information for the novice as well as the experienced teacher.

“Given the consistent evidence from at least four decades of research, the public should expect that educators would have studied and implemented the findings. Not so.” “…the gap between science-based ideas and practices and those most often used in our classrooms remains very wide and persistent.” Moats, L, (2017)

The author of this program received no instruction in research-based reading methodology during his two masters degrees in education. In 35 years in the classroom, he saw one unscientific literacy program after another implemented in the schools every few years, i.e. Whole Language, Balanced Literacy, Four Block, etc. This is why Massachusetts, the highest reading score state has only 50% of students reading at or above proficiency level in reading. This is why the author finally wrote the Orton based programs that he then used for 25 years in his classroom.

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 (Ramus, F., & Szenkovits, G. 2008; Molfese. V., et al. 2006).

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, Dutch, 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 Ehri et al. 2001b and 2001c; National Early Literacy Panel 2008; 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.

Among the pre-reading skills linked to reading acquisition, phonemic awareness is, together with pre-reading skills (decoding) and letter knowledge, the best predictor of future reading success (Castles & Coltheart 2004; Elbro and Scarborough 2003; Melby- Lervag et al. 2012; National Early Literacy Panel 2008).

Children or adults having trouble learning to read, whether classified as reading disabled or as dyslexic, have been shown to have significant deficits in phonemic processing ability (Ehri, L. C. 2014; Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. 2012; Shaywitz, S. E., Morris, R., & Shaywitz, B. A. 2008; Desroches, A. S., et al. (2006); Boada, R., & Pennington, B. G. 2006; 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 (Boyer, N., & Ehri, L. C. 2011; Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. 2010; Pape-Nemann, J. et al. 2015; Kilpatrick, D. A. 2015; Cardoso-Martins, Claudia, et.al. 2011; Torgesen 2005; 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). Phoneme awareness training in 4-year-olds demonstrated gains in pre-reading skills (Tyler, Ann A., et al. 2014). Gains from phonological awareness training in kindergarten predicted reading comprehension in grade 9 (Kjeldsen, Ann-Christina 2014).

The discovery of the role phonemic awareness plays in reading ability and in reading instruction is revolutionizing the way we teach reading, or at least it should be.

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; Cassar 2005; 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:

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.
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.
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 pre-readers 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 from 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

About 20% of children have reading disabilities (dyslexia),
Deficits in phonemic awareness represent the primary deficit in dyslexia, and
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 who are labeled dyslexic have just not been given the right kind of instruction in reading.

Early and accurate identification of children at risk for reading disabilities is essential because targeted early intervention can prevent reading difficulties or reduce their impact (e.g., Fien et al., 2015; Partanen & Siegel, 2014; Torgesen. 2004; Olson et al., 2014; Torgesen, et al. 2001; Foorman, B. 2003; NRP. 2000; Speece, et al. 2003’ Vellutino & Scanlon, 2001). Furthermore, early identification and intensive intervention for students struggling with reading reduce reading failure and the need for long-term remediation services (Vaughn, S., et al 2010; Denton, et. al. 2006; Balu et al., 2015; Mathes, et al. 2005; Torgesen, J. 2004).

"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; also: Joseph, L. M., & Schisler, R. 2009; Connor, C. M. 2007; Lovett, M. W., et al 2012).

Intensity of research-based instruction is necessary for many students, especially if they are struggling and not given proper instruction early (National Center on Intensive Intervention. 2012; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2014; Vaughn, Denton, & Fletcher, 2010; Gabrieli, J. 2009; Vaughn & Wanzek, 2014; Gersten, R. et al. 2008; Denton, C. A., et al 2006; Crawford, E. C., & Torgesen, J. K. 2006; Blachman, B. et al. 2004; Torgesen, J. K. et al. 2001). See also Joe Torgesen on YouTube: Not Just Kidding: Teaching all students to read well.

One incredible intervention study done in 13 elementary schools in Kennewick, WA from 1996 to 2007 brought third grade reading proficiency levels from 57% to 90%, with some school reaching 98%, 99% and 100% in certain school years (Fielding, L., Kerr, N., Rosier, P. 2007). See also Joe Torgesen on YouTube: Not Just Kidding: Teaching all students to read well.

Morgan Dynamic Phonics uses lots and lots of phonetically decodable text to reinforce the letter patterns taught. 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.

The Morgan Dynamic Phonics programs, like most other Orton-Gillingham programs, teach 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). The author continued to use the program in his elementary SPED classrooms, as well as sell it around the world, for the next 24 years. When he had 1 ½ hour reading periods each day, his reading growth score were between 1.78 and 2.23. When he had less time per day scores ranged from 1.54 to 1.92. These scores were from Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension of the Woodcock Reading T Mastery Test - Revised. More progress was made when students started at a younger age. Reed Lyon once said in a IDA lecture that “if we don’t teach phonemic awareness and phonics in kindergarten and first grade, by 4th grade it takes four times as long to teach the same skills.”

This is a Structured Literacy program that is an adaptation of the Orton-Gillingham method. Programs such as this are the only types of programs that work for students who are struggling to read words accurately and fluently. In this approach we directly and explicitly teach the Alphabetic Principle - the system by which the letters and letter clusters in written language systematically map to the individual sounds (i.e., phonemes) of words in spoken language and phonics is the understanding of how to apply that knowledge for the purposes of decoding and reading. Knowledge of the Alphabetic Principle is highly predictive of reading achievement. We explicitly and systematically teach the structure of language (Alphabetic Principle) to beginning or struggling readers. About 25% of students can intuit this structure and don’t need to be taught it directly. The rest need at least some of this instruction. “If more schools adopted features of Structured Literacy in their general education programs, schools could help prevent or ameliorate many children’s difficulties with learning to read and write” (Foorman et al., 2016; also: Spear-Swerling, L. 2018; Duda, M. A., et. al., 2014; NRP, 2000; Cirino et al. 2009). The most severe cases are dyslexics who need the most instruction. Much research supports the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction (see: Schlesinger, N; and Gray, S. 2017; Ritchey & Goede, 2006; Oakland et al. 1998; Warnick, K. Caldarella, P. 2016; Leeming, M. 2015; Vaughn, S. et al. 2010).

As you use this program, you will learn much about the Alphabetic Principle (the structure of the English Language). The author spent 25 years perfecting this program, using knowledge from Orton-Gillingham programs, research, and other sources. “Knowledge of language structure must be explicit in order to teach reading effectively to all students” (Moats, 1994, 1999, 2009, 2014; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005; Tetley & Jones, 2014). Knowledge of the Alphabetic Principle in students is known to be highly predictive of reading achievement (Lonigan, B. 2000; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008). “Many university academics who deliver courses in reading and literacy also have limited explicit knowledge of basic language constructs” (Joshi et al., 2009). Therefore, research-based knowledge and competencies are not adequately addressed in most teacher training programs or in educational textbooks (Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi, & Hougen, 2012; Brady, 2011; Joshi et al., 2009; National Council on Teacher Quality, 2006). A growing body of evidence has demonstrated that teachers’ knowledge of basic language constructs (language structure) is correlated with students’ reading achievement (Carlisle, Correnti, Phelps, & Zeng, 2009; Lane et al., 2008; McCutchen et al., 2009; Lyon, G. R., & Weiser, B. 2009), and without an adequate knowledge of these constructs, teachers are not able to provide effective instruction to learners (e.g., Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004). “Effective teachers need to be steeped in sufficient English word-related content knowledge in order to provide their students with the necessary foundations to develop their English literacy” (Adams, 1990, Moats, 2014; Morrison, D. et al. (Eds.) 2016; Salinger, T., et al 2010).

For a great summary of what reading teachers need to know to be effective see Knowledge and Practice Standards (2018).

School-wide reforms are necessary for reading reform to work in the United States. For a summary of the Reading First Schools in Florida with the best outcomes see Crawford and Torgesen 2006. See also: Denton, C. A., (2003).

References

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

Adams, M. J. 1990. 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.

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. 2011. Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

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.

Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi, & Hougen, 2012. Peter Effect in the Preparation of Reading Teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, First (6).

Birsh, J. R., & Carreker, S. 2019. Multisensory teaching of basic language skills, 4th edition. Baltimore MD: Brookes.

Birsh, J. (Ed.) 2011. Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.

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.

Boada, R., & Pennington, B. G. 2006. Deficient implicit phonological representations in children with dyslexia. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 153-177.

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

Boyer, N., & Ehri, L. C. 2011. Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(5), 440–470.

Brady, S. 2011. Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Implications from Post-NRP research. In S. Brady, D. Braze, & C. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading (pp. 60-96), London, England: Psychology Press.

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.

Calhooon, M. B., & Petscher, Y. 2013. Individual and group sensitivity to remedial reading program design: Examining reading gains across three middle school reading projects. Reading and Writing, 26, 565-592.

Carlisle, J., Correnti, R., Phelps, G., & Zeng, J. 2009. Exploration of the contribution of teachers’ knowledge about reading to their students’ improvement in reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 457–486.

Chapman, I., & Tunmer, W. 2011. Reading recovery: Does it work? Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 37(4), 21-24.

Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E., & Tarver, S. 2009. Direct instruction reading. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

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

Cassar, M., Treiman, R., Moats, L., Pollo, T. C., & Kessler, B. 2005. How do the spellings of children with dyslexia compare with those of non-dyslexic children? Reading and Writing, 18, 27–49.

Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. 2004. Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition, 91, 77-111.

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.

Cardoso-Martins, Claudia, et.al. 2011. Letter names and phonological awareness help children to learn letter-sound relations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 109; 1; p25-38.

Christensen, C. and Bowey, J. 2005. The Efficacy of Orthographic Rime, Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondence, and Implicit Phonics Approaches to Teaching Decoding Skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 327-349.

Cirino. P. T., et al. 2009. One year follow-up outcomes of Spanish and English interventions for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 744-781.

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.

Connor, C. M., et. Al. 2011. Effective classroom instruction: Implications of child characteristics by reading instruction interactions on first graders’ word reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 173-207.

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Underwood, P. S. 2007. A second chance in second grade: The independent and cumulative impact of first- and second-g_r_a_d_e_ _r_e_a_d_i_n_g_ _i_n_s_t_r_u_c_t_i_o_n_ _a_n_d_ _s_t_u_d_e_n_t_s_’ _l_e_t_t_e_r_-word reading skill growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 199–233.

Crawford, E. C., & Torgesen, J. K. July, 2006. Teaching All Children to Read: Practices from Reading First Schools with Strong Intervention Outcomes. Presented at the Florida Principal's Leadership Conference.

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.

De Graaff, S. et al. 2009. Benefits of Systematic Phonics Instruction . Scientific Studies of Reading, v13 n4 p318-333

Dehaene, S. 2009. Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. New York NY: Penguin Group.

Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. 2006. An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447–466.

Denton, C. A., Foorman, B., Mathes, P. 2003. Perspective: Schools That “Beat the Odds” Implications for Reading Instruction. Remedial and Special Education. 24, 258.

Desroches, A. S., Joanisse, M. F., & Robertson, E. K., 2006. Specific phonological impairments in dyslexia revealed by eye tracking. Cognition, 100, B32–B42.

Duda, M. A., et. al., 2014. From theory to practice: A case for selecting evidence-based practices and building implementation capacity in three Canadian health jurisdictions. Journal of Evidence and policy, 10(4), 565-577 (13).

Earle, Gentry A., Sayeski, Kristin L. 2017. Systematic instruction in phoneme-grapheme correspondence for students with reading disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic: 52; 5; p262-269.

Ehri, L. C. 2014. Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5–21.

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: Brookes Publishing.

Ehri, L.C. 2002. Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology: Monograph Series, 1, 7-28.

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

Ehri, L. C. et. al. 2001B. Systematic 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., & Scarborough, H, 2003. Early identification. In T. Nunes and P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children’s literacy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

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.

Fien, H., Smith, J. L. M., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., Nelson, N. J., & Chaparro, E., 2015. An examination of the efficacy of a multitiered intervention on early reading outcomes for first grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(6), 602–621.

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., Rosier, P. 2007. Annual growth for all students, Catch-up Growth for those who are behind. The New Foundation Press: Kennewick, WA.

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

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S. & Barnes, M. A. 2007. Learning disabilities: from identification to intervention. New York NY: Guilford Press.

Foorman, B., et al. 2016. Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd. grade. (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Foorman, B., & Al Otaiba, S. 2009. Reading remediation: State of the art. In K. Pugh & P. McCardle (Eds.), How children learn to read: Current issues and new directions in the integration of cognition, neurobiology and genetics of reading and dyslexia research and practice (pp. 257-274). New York NY: Psychology Press.

Foorman, B. 2003. Preventing and remediating reading difficulties. Baltimore MD: York Press.

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.

Fuchs D., Fuchs L. S., Vaughn S. 2014. What is intensive instruction and why is it important? Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13–18.

Gabrieli, J. 2009. Dyslexia: A new synergy between education and cognitive neuroscience. Science, 325, 280–283.

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

Galuschka, Katharina; Ise, Elena; Krick, Kathrin; Schulte-Koerne, Gerd. 2014. Effectiveness of Treatment Approaches for Children and Adolescents with Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials . PLOS ONE; FEB 26 2014; 9; 2

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.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., and Tilly, W.D. 2008. Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.

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. Decoding, 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.

Henbest, Victoria S. & Apel, Kenn. 2017. Effective Word Reading Instruction: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? Communication Disorders Quarterly, v39 n1 p303-311.

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.

Hougen, M., & Smartt, S. 2012. The fundamentals of literacy instruction and assessment, Pre-K-5. Baltimore MD: Brookes Publishing.

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.

Jamaludin, K. A. et al 2016. The Effectiveness of Synthetic Phonics in the Development of Early Reading Skills among Struggling Young ESL Readers . School Effectiveness and School Improvement, v27 n3 p455-470

Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M. E., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. L.2009. Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 392–402.

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.

Joseph, L. M., & Schisler, R. 2009. Should adolescents go back to the basics? A review of teaching word reading skills to middle and high school students. Remedial and Special Education, 30(3), 131–147.

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.

Kjeldsen, Ann-Christina 2014. Gains from training in phonological awareness in kindergarten predict reading comprehension in grade 9. Scientific Studies of Reading, v18 n6 p452-467.

Kilpatrick, D. A. 2015. Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. Hoboken NJ: Wiley.

Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading, 2nd edition. 2018. International Dyslexia Association. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/knowledge-and-practices/

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).

Lane, H., Hudson, R., Leite, W., Kosanovich, M., Strout, M. T., Fenty, N. S., et al. 2008. Teacher knowledge about reading fluency and indicators of students’ fluency growth in reading first schools. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 57–86.

Leeming, M. 2015. A Short Monograph on How the Orton-Gillingham Method of Instruction Helps Children with Dyslexia to Learn to Read with Greater Fluency. Language in India. Vol. 15 Issue 8, 100-132.

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., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. 2000. Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596–613.

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

Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., DePalma, M., & Frijters, J. C. 2012. Evaluating the efficacy of remediation for struggling readers in high school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 151–169.

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., & Weiser, B. 2009. Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and the development of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 475–480

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 initiatives 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 crossfire. 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

McCutchen, D., Green, L., Abbott, R. D., & Sanders, E. A. 2009. Further evidence for teacher knowledge: supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 401–423.

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 MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.

Melby-lervag, M. et al. 2012. Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. 138(2), 322-352.

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

Moats, L. C. 2017. Can prevailing approaches to reading instruction accomplish the goals of RTI? Perspective on Language and Literacy, Vol. 43, No. 3. P. 20.

Moats, L. C. 2014. What teachers don’t know and why they aren’t learning it; Addressing the need for content and pedagogy in teacher education. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19. 75-91.

Moats, L. C. et al. (Eds.) 2012. Expert perspectives on interventions for reading. Baltimore MD: International Dyslexia Association.

Moats, L. C. 2009. Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 379–399.

Moats, L. C., 2006. How spelling supports reading. American Educator, 29, 12-22, 42-43.

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.

Molfese. V., et al. 2006. Letter knowledge, phonological processing and print awareness: Skill development in non-reading preschool children. J Learn Disabil.Jul-Aug; 39 (4) 296-305.

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.

Morrison, E., & Hessler, T. (Eds.) 2016. Teaching the teachers: Eliminating gaps to better serve children with dyslexia. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 42(4): 7-54.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. 2012. Intensifying interventions for struggling students through data-based individualization in academics. Retrieved from https://intensiveintervention.org/video-resource/intensifying-interventions-struggling-students-through-data-based-individualization.

National Council on Teacher Quality, 2006. Liston, D. et al. Too Little or Too Much: Teacher Preparation and the First Years of Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education.

National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) 2008. Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

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.

Oakland, T. et al. 1998. An evaluation of the Dyslexia Training Program: A multisensory method for promoting reading in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 140–147.

O’Connor, R. E. 2014. Teaching word recognition: Effective strategies for students with learning difficulties (2nd ed.). New York NY: Guilford Press.

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.

Olson, R. K., et al. 2014. Why do children differ in their development of reading and related skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 38-51.

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.

Pape-Neumann, Julia; van Ermingen-Marbach, Muna; Grande, Marion; Willmes, Klaus; Heim, Stefan, 2015. The role of phonological awareness in treatments of dyslexic primary school children . ACTA NEUROBIOLOGIAE EXPERIMENTALIS.

Partanen, M., & Siegel, L. S. 2014. Long-term outcome of the early identification and intervention of reading disabilities. Reading and Writing, 27(4), 665–684.

Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. 2010. Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 8-38.

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

Ramus, F., & Szenkovits, G., 2008. What phonological deficit? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 129–141.

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.

Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. 2006. Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 171–183.

Roberts, G., et al. 2008. Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. LD Research and Practice, 23, 63-66.

Rosenshine, B. 2012. Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36 (Spring). 12-19, 39.

Rupley, William H.; Blair, Timothy R.; Nichols, William D., 2009. Effective Reading Instruction for Struggling Readers: The Role of Direct/Explicit Teaching . Reading & Writing Quarterly, v25 n2-3 p125-138.

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

Salinger, T., et al. 2010. Study of teacher preparation in early reading instruction (NCEE 2010-4036). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Science, U.S. Department of Education.

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

Schlesinger, N. Gray, S. 2017. The impact of multisensory instruction on learning letter names and sounds, word reading, and spelling. Annals of Dyslexia. Vol. 67. Issue 3, pp. 219-258.

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

Seidenberg. M. 2017. Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. New York NY: Basic Books.

Shaywitz, S. E., Morris, R., & Shaywitz, B. A. 2008. The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 451–475.

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

Slavin, Robert E., et al. 2011. Effective programs for struggling readers: a best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, v6 n1 p.1-26.

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 instruction. 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. E. et al. (Eds.) 2005. Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. 2012. Children's reading impairments: From theory to practice. Japanese Psychological Research, 55, 186–202.

Spear-Swerling, L. 2018. Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51, 201–211.

Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. 2004. Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 332–364.

Speece, D. L. et al 2003. Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18. 147-156.

Sprenger-Charolies, L, et al. 2011. Prevalence of reliability of phonological, surface, and mixed profiles in dyslexia: A review of studies conducted in languages varying in orthographic depth. Scientific Studies of Reading. 15(6), 498-521.

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.

Tetley & Jones, 2014. Pre-service teachers' knowledge of language concepts: Relationships to field experiences. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19(1): 17-32

Tolman, C. 2012. Working smarter, not harder: What teachers of reading need to know and be able to do. In L. C. Moats, K. E. Dakin, & R. M. Joshi (Eds.). Expert perspectives on interventions for reading. Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.

Torgerson, C., et al. 2006. A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling. Nottingham UK: Department of Education and Skills.

Torgesen, J. K. 2005. Recent discoveries on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). Malden: Blackwell

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

Torgesen, J. 2004. Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355-381). Baltimore MD: Brookes Publishing.

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. et al. 2001. Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.

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.

Tyler, Ann A., et al. 2014. Effects of explicit teacher-implemented phoneme awareness instruction in 4-year-olds. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, Col 28(7-8) p.493-507.

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J. 2014. Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 29, 46–53.

Vaughn, S. et al. 2010. Why Intensive Interventions Are Necessary for Students with Severe Reading Difficulties . Psychology in the Schools, v47 n5 p432-444

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., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. 2004. Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2–40.

Vellutino, F. R. & Scanlon, D. 2001. Emergent literacy skills, early instruction, and individual differences as determinants of difficulties in learning to read: The case for early intervention. In Neuman & Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 295-321). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

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.

Warnick, K. Caldarella, P. 2016. Using Multisensory Phonics to Foster Reading Skills of Adolescent Delinquents . Reading & Writing Quarterly, v32 n4 p317-335

Weiser, B. L. 2012. Ameliorating reading disabilities early: Examining an effective encoding and decoding prevention instruction model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 161–177.

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.

Wong, M., 2015. Bruce McCandliss: Brain wave study shows how different teaching methods affect reading development. Stanford Graduate School of Education Newsletter. May 28. 2015.

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
Copyright © Morgan Dynamic Phonics, Inc., 3811 Hannett Ave NE, Albuquerque NM 87110
Updated: September 4, 2025