Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://ldx.sagepub.com/
Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities
and
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Learning Disabilities can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/33/4/375.refs.html
Comprehensive, Fluency-Based
Reading Intervention Program
Maryanne Wolf, Lynne Miller,
and Katharine
Donnelly
The most important implication of the double-deficit hypothesis (Wolf & Bowers, in this issue) concerns a new emphasis on fluency and
automaticity in intervention for children with developmental reading disabilities. The RAVE-O (Retrieval, Automaticity, Vocabulary Elaboration, Orthography) program is an experimental, fluency-based approach to reading intervention that is designed to accompany a
phonological analysis program. In an effort to address multiple possible sources of dysfluency in readers with disabilities, the program
involves comprehensive emphases both on fluency in word attack, word identification, and comprehension and on automaticity in underlying componential processes (e.g., phonological, orthographic, semantic, and lexical retrieval skills). The goals, theoretical principles,
and applied activities of the RAVE-O curriculum are described with particular stress on facilitating the development of rapid orthographic pattern recognition and on changing childrensattitudes toward language.
components
are
implemented
in
Background
from original studies by
Geschwind (1965), Denckla (1972;
Denckla & Rudel, 1976a, 1976b), and
Stemming
that
learning grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules in early reading acquisition is based on the more basic
phonological ability to analyze the
sounds within words (Shankweiler &
naming speed
Spring
complex.
by Wolf, Bowers, and
issue), naming speed is
appears
more
376
conceptualized
an
reading. Thus,
in many instances,
deficits in processes underlying naming speed also affect processing speed
in naming and word recognition. The
degree of dysfluency in particular aspects of word recognition (e.g., word
attack or word identification pro-
cesses)
is
deficits
derlying
temic they
occur
are
ers
rate
(c) double deficits, which are accompanied by the most pervasive form of
reading disabilities. The most impor-
that it
&dquo;treatment resisters.&dquo; We
hypothesize
subgroups.
Although
phonological
areas
represents
more
systematic,
well-conceptualized work the RD field
has ever conducted (Blachman, 1997;
Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Brady & Shank-
to
development of
com-
ponential reading
p. 579)
ing
SieRash&
gel, 1994; Torgesen, Wagner,
otte, 1994; Tunmer, 1995; Vellutino &
Scanlon, 1987; Wagner, Torgesen, &
Rashotte,1994). As discussed by Torgesen, Rashotte, and Wagner (1997) and
by Lyon and Moats (1997), phonologically based intervention, with its
emphasis on phonemic awareness and
decoding skills, has resulted in considerable progress in most reading behaviors among at-risk readers, with the exception of fluency-related skills:
cesses.
designed
current status,
as a
secondary
as
377
Goals and
Theoretical Principles
in which processes are considered automatic when they are fast, obligatory,
and autonomous and require only lim-
automaticity
just defined,
but
only
underlying component processes; we use fluency to refer
to the acquisition of smooth rates of
processing speed in reading outcomes
(e.g., word identification, word attack,
and comprehension). This somewhat
arbitrary distinction helps us distinguish reading outcome from component skills in this programs design;
in
as
relationship
to
literature,
small-group,
one
goal predominating.
Goal 1
Goal 2
RAVE-Os second set of goals incorporates lexical and sublexical levels and
represents a significant departure from
previous programs work at the level
of connected text. An emphasis on the
interconnectedness of sublexical and
lexical processes is, we believe, important for achieving fluency in the variety of impaired readers. If there are, as
we have described in other articles (see
Wolf & Bowers, 1999, in this issue;
Wolf, Bowers, & Biddle, in this issue),
widely differing reasons for slow rates
of processing in dysfluent readers,
then it is important to attack a range of
are
used
literature.
maticity
in
underlying component
cesses
technique,
hension
378
role of orthography.) This set of abilities is seen as key to acquiring orthographic-level fluency, which, in turn, is
seen as key to fluency in word recognition.
At the lexical
meanings
phonemes
Repeated experience reading a letter sequence that symbolizes the same phoneme blend across different words yields
a
Our
posures of the most common sublexical units in English (e.g., rimes, initial
blends, and affixes) is to provide a lexicon of &dquo;sight&dquo; letter chunks to facilitate speed of word recognition processes (see also Juel & Solso, 1981).
The theoretical principle for connecting lexical retrieval and vocabulary
skills is that rapid word retrieval is facilitated by the childs familiarity with
and amount of knowledge about the
word (see Beck, McKeown, & Oman-
1987; Beck,
McKeown,
1982; German,1992; Kameenui, Dixon,
son,
Perfetti, &
&
work
by
ing sources.
Goal 3
1998).
Negative attitudes like denial, inflexibility, and fear of failure, we believe, are the product, not the precursor, of reading problems in most young
impaired readers. Many of the poor
we
cannot
next
The third
guage learners
section).
read
suc-
379
aim to
change childrens attitudes toward language, oral and written, and toward
themselves as learners. The cognitive
and emotional elements of this goal are
inextricably bound in the curriculums
whimsy
actively attempt
to engage the
childs
imagination. First,
only disguise
multiple
format, however,
teachers
use
these
To summarize Goal
common
sublexical units,
2. the retrieval of words through
word finding strategies or the finding of alternative vocabulary
choices, and
3. the semantic analysis of words into
known roots and associations.
The teacher
gradually helps
them
we
vering.
Summary of Goals
Underlying the convergence of this
programs three goals is a framework
based on a connectionist view of the
reading
man,
1.
3,
egies
The
in
onset-rimes,
graphs, and common affixes are gradually introduced. Children in the same
session, therefore, are taught in the
phonological program to analyze a
selected group of phonemes and in
RAVE-O to use these same phonemes
perceive sublexical chunks that
speed up word recognition. In this
to
ex-
accurate letter
380
Relationships
TABLE 1
Between RAVE-O Materials Used in Activities and
Reading Outcome
in
Componential
Skills
381
children and
can
challenge
words is
As accuracy for
an
are
marked. Note
and
3.
evolving, computerized
Speed Wizards was
conjunction with Gordon
two
core
mas-
382
rime
patterns
Practice
culty.
only one or two rimes (e.g., am or am
plus an rime words) or can include an
entire vowel family of rime patterns.
The auditory stimulus reinforces pho-
neme
graphic patterns.
recognition.
can
specific rime.
Multiple other activities (see Table 1)
reinforce these same orthographic
skills and strategies. Our guiding principle here is that a range of imaginative
a
helping children tolerate drill and routine. Based on work by Reitsma (1983)
and Levy and Bourassa (1998), we seek
to provide children with RD maximum
The
Development of Fluency
Semantic Facilitation
the activities discussed in
the previous section concentrate on the
orthographic basis of words, they are
never used in isolation from semantic
Although
activities
designed
to
strengthen
stu-
knowledge (Beck
et
al., 1982;
383
fluency
programs
Samuels
et
(Samuels, 1985;
et al., 1997;
is
al.,
1996), easily incorpoYoung
rated through these stories. Students
et
children, these
stories
activities acminute
stories and push stucompany
another
level
of recognition of
dents to
orthographic patterns in their own
spelling. Work focuses on vocabulary
Companion writing
Lexical Retrieval
Strategies
with two
or more
The children
syllables?
play
different deduc-
on
384
orthographic (rime pattern clues), phonological (phoneme onsets), and semantic information that is useful in
both oral and written contexts. More-
can
read-
Summary
The RAVE-O program is
comprehen-
that
integrates phonological, orthographic, and semantic knowledge. Maryanne Wolf, EdD, is director of the CenThe RAVE-O program is conceptual- ter for Reading and Language Research at Tufts
ment
half of an intervention
treatment package that moves daily
from a phonologicalI analysis and
base to emphasis
orthoblending
blending
emphasis
ononortho. &dquo;
&dquo;
i~
graphlc pattern recognition, semantic
graphic
development, and retrieval strategies.
RAVE-O has been designed to supplement, reinforce, and extend reading
programs that stress phonological decoding principles in intervention readized
as
one
&
the
Miller
02155.
.
AUTHORS NOTE
_
present members
Deeney,
Alyssa
REFERENCES
Phonological
naming,
processes, confrontation
dys-
385
word
havior, ,25
133-153.
Bowers, P. G., Steffy, R., & Tate, E. (1988).
Comparison of the effects of IQ control
methods
(1), 69-85.
ciplinary Journal, 5
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A
causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.
Brady, S., & Shankweiler, D. (Eds.). (1991).
Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute
to Isabelle Y Liberman. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruck, M., & Treiman, R. (1990). Phonological awareness and spelling in normal
children and dyslexics: The case of initial
consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 50
(1), 156-178.
Catts, H. W. (1996). Defining dyslexia as a
developmental language disorder: An expanded view. Topics in Language Disorders, 16
(2), 14-29.
Denckla, M. B. (1972). Color-naming defects in dyslexic boys. Cortex, 8, 164-176.
Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1974). Rapid
automatized naming of pictured objects,
colors, letters, and numbers by normal
children. Cortex, 10,
186-202.
Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976a).
Naming of objects by dyslexic and other
learning-disabled children. Brain and Language, 3, 1-15.
Denckla, M. B., &
Rudel, R. G. (1976b).
automatized
naming (R.A.N.):
Rapid
Dyslexia differentiated from other learn, 471ing disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14
479.
for
early reading
of neuropsychology (Vol. 7,
B. Blachman
nal
chology:
mance,
Lahey,
Human
Perception
and
Perfor-
14(4), 601-609.
Why
are
163-185).
intervention. In
Erlbaum.
German, D. J. (1992). Word-finding intervention for children and adolescents. Topics in Language Disorders, 13
, 33-50.
(1)
Geschwind, N. (1965). Disconnection syndrome in animals and man (Parts I, II).
Brain, 88, 237-294, 585-644.
pp.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
(1994). Treating the core deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically- and
strategy-based reading training programs.
Developmental Psychology, 30, 805-822.
McBride-Chang, C.,
ences.
339-348.
386
New
Press.
University
Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word learning in
beginning readers. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 36, 321-339.
Samuels, S. J. (1985). Automaticity and repeated reading. In J. Osborn, P. T. Wilson,
& R. C. Anderson (Eds.), Reading education: Foundations for a literate America
(pp. 215-230). Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Samuels, S. J., Schermer, N., & Reinking, D.
(1992). Reading fluency: Techniques for
making decoding automatic. In S. J.
Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research says about reading instruction, 2nd
edition (pp. 124-144). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Segal, D., & Wolf, M. (1993). Automaticity,
word retrieval, and vocabulary development in children with reading disabilities. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Cognitive, linguistic, and developmental perspectives on
learning disorders (pp. 141-165). Boston:
Little, Brown.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L.
(1989). A distributed, developmental
model of word recognition and naming.
Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. (1972).
Misreading: A search for causes. In J. F.
Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye (pp. 293-317). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1988). Development of grammatical-sensitivity, phonological, and short-term memory skills in
normally achieving and learning disabled children. Developmental Psychology,
Perfetti, C.
A.
York: Oxford
24(1), 28-37.
Topics
in
Learning Disabilities,
(1), 15-32.
13
, 1-38.
Reading Research Report, 79
Stanovich,
in
407.
in devel-
reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity and modularity. Developmental Review, 10, 72-100.
Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculations on the
Stanovich,
K. E.
opmental
(1990). Concepts
theories of
Swanson,
L. B.
published
versity
& Wagner, R.
Research
on instruc(1997, November).
tional interventions for children with reading
disabilities. Paper presented at the International Dyslexia Association conference,
Chicago.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte,
C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276-286.
Tunmer, W. (1995, July). Intervention strategies for developing onset-rime sensitivity and
analogical transfer in reading disabled children. Paper presented at the Extraordinary Brain III Conference, Kauai, Hawaii.
Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, P. (1987). Phono-
ing: The contribution of the cognitive neurosciences. Reading Research Quarterly, 26,
123-141.
R. (1986). Automaticity, retrieval processes, and reading: A longitudinal study in average and
impaired readers. Child Development, 57,
988-1000.
Accuracy,
(RAVE)
, 1-27.
5
Wolff, P., Michel, G., & Ovrut, M. (1990).
Rate variables and automatized naming
in developmental dyslexia. Brain and Language, 39, 556-575.