rave o

http://ldx.sagepub.com/Journal of Learning Disabilities

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/33/4/375The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/002221940003300408

2000 33: 375J Learn DisabilMaryanne Wolf, Lynne Miller and Katharine Donnelly

Fluency-Based Reading Intervention ProgramRetrieval, Automaticity, Vocabulary Elaboration, Orthography (RAVE-O): A Comprehensive,

Published by:

  Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Learning DisabilitiesAdditional services and information for    

  http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/33/4/375.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jul 1, 2000Version of Record >>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Retrieval, Automaticity, VocabularyElaboration, Orthography (RAVE-O):A Comprehensive, Fluency-BasedReading 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 andautomaticity in intervention for children with developmental reading disabilities. The RAVE-O (Retrieval, Automaticity, Vocabulary Elab-oration, Orthography) program is an experimental, fluency-based approach to reading intervention that is designed to accompany aphonological analysis program. In an effort to address multiple possible sources of dysfluency in readers with disabilities, the programinvolves comprehensive emphases both on fluency in word attack, word identification, and comprehension and on automaticity in under-lying 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 ortho-graphic pattern recognition and on changing children’s attitudes toward language.

he RAVE-O (Retrieval, Automa-t ticity, Vocabulary Elaboration,JL Orthography) reading interven-

tion program is a direct outgrowth ofthe implications of the cumulativework that has attempted to understandthe phenomenon of naming-speeddeficits in severely impaired readers.The central purpose of the RAVE-O

program is the development of fluencyand automaticity in these readers. Inthis article, we first briefly describethe research context from which theRAVE-O program emerged. It is hopedthat readers unfamiliar with this liter-ature will read the other articles in this

special issue first, particularly the re-view by Wolf, Bowers, and Biddle. Sec-ond, the goals and major theoreticalprinciples that guided program designare discussed. Third, we present anoverview of the program’s instruc-

tional structure with selected examplesof methods that illustrate how the var-ious components are implemented in

the classroom. The purpose of this ar-

ticle, therefore, is to give a theoreticaldescription-rather than an empiricalstudy-of the first major application ofthis conceptualization of reading dis-abilities.

Background

Stemming from original studies byGeschwind (1965), Denckla (1972;Denckla & Rudel, 1976a, 1976b), and

Spring and Capps (1974), convergentevidence over the last 2 decades hasdemonstrated that the majority of chil-dren with reading disabilities (RD)across all languages and ages testedhave naming-speed deficits (Acker-man & Dykman, 1993; Badian, 1995,1996a, 1996b; Bowers, Steffy, & Tate,1988; Denckla & Rudel, 1976a, 1976b;Grigorenko et al., 1997; Lovett, 1992,1995; McBride-Chang & Manis, 1996;Meyer, Wood, Hart, & Felton, 1998;

Snyder & Downey, 1995; Spring &

Capps, 1974; Spring & Davis, 1988;Swanson, 1989; Wolf, 1979; Wolf, Bally,& Morris, 1986; Wolff, Michel, & Ovrut,1990; Wood & Felton, 1994). As dis-cussed in this special issue, we havedemonstrated that naming-speed defi-cits and the better known phonologicaldeficits represent two separable sourcesof reading failure whose co-occurrenceleads to profound reading disability.The extensive research on phonologi-cal deficits amply supports the viewthat learning grapheme-phoneme cor-respondence rules in early reading ac-quisition is based on the more basicphonological ability to analyze thesounds within words (Shankweiler &

Liberman, 1972; Stanovich, 1986; Tor-gesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994).The relationship between reading

failure and the processes underlyingnaming speed appears more complex.As discussed by Wolf, Bowers, andBiddle (in this issue), naming speed is

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

376

conceptualized as the end product ofan ensemble of both lower level per-ceptual, attentional, articulatory, andlexical retrieval processes and higherlevel cognitive and linguistic pro-cesses, each of which requires ex-

tremely rapid rates of processing. Thisis particularly the case for alphanu-meric stimuli that reach automatic-likelevels of processing. We argue thatmany of these same processes are alsoused in word recognition processes inreading. Thus, in many instances,deficits in processes underlying nam-ing speed also affect processing speedin naming and word recognition. Thedegree of dysfluency in particular as-pects of word recognition (e.g., wordattack or word identification pro-cesses) is dependent on where the un-derlying deficits occur and how sys-temic they are (see Wolf & Bowers,1999, in this issue). The result is thatdeficits that impede rapidity in namingspeed, particularly for alphanumericstimuli, also impede the lower level re-quirements necessary for fluent wordrecognition processes that, in turn, af-fect reading comprehension.

Recently, Bowers and Wolf (1993;Wolf & Bowers, 1999, in this issue)have articulated a reconceptualizationof dyslexia, the double-deficit hypothesis,to emphasize the separate roles thatcore deficits in processes underlyingnaming speed and underlying pho-nology play in reading failure. Threesubtypes of reading disabilities are

predicted in this hypothesis, with read-ers having (a) phonological deficits,(b) rate or naming-speed deficits, and(c) double deficits, which are accom-panied by the most pervasive form ofreading disabilities. The most impor-tant implication of this hypothesis isthat it provides a new theoretical di-rection for intervention. For example,using the aforementioned subtypes,children with single phonological coredeficits would be well served by cur-rent phonologically based treatments;however, children with either singleprocessing-speed deficits or doubledeficits would be only partially servedby such treatments and would require

particular emphasis on building flu-ency in reading skills and, potentially,building automaticity in lower levelprocesses subserving these skills. Byworking to better understand the roleof fluency in reading development andincorporating this dimension in cur-rent phonologically based treatmentmodels, we hope to better meet theneeds of more children, particularlythose children described by Torge-sen, Alexander, Wagner, and Rashotte(1998) and by Blachman (1994) as

&dquo;treatment resisters.&dquo; We hypothesizethat many such resisters are found inthe naming-speed and double-deficitsubgroups.Although some notable exceptions

are discussed in a later section, fluencyis largely unaddressed in most currentreading interventions that have rightlyfocused on what the RD field knowsbest (i.e., the phonological sources ofreading disabilities). Research in thephonological areas represents morethan 20 years of the most systematic,well-conceptualized work the RD fieldhas ever conducted (Blachman, 1997;Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Brady & Shank-

weiler, 1991; Bruck & Treiman, 1990;Catts, 1996; Foorman, Francis, Shay-witz, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1997;Kamhi & Catts, 1989; Lyon, 1995;Olson, Wise, Connors, Rack, & Fulker,1989; Perfetti, 1985; Shankweiler &

Liberman, 1972; Siegel & Ryan, 1988;Stanovich, 1986, 1992; Stanovich & Sie-

gel, 1994; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rash-

otte, 1994; Tunmer, 1995; Vellutino &

Scanlon, 1987; Wagner, Torgesen, &

Rashotte,1994). As discussed by Torge-sen, Rashotte, and Wagner (1997) andby Lyon and Moats (1997), phono-logically based intervention, with itsemphasis on phonemic awareness anddecoding skills, has resulted in consid-erable progress in most reading behav-iors among at-risk readers, with the ex-

ception of fluency-related skills:

Improvements in decoding and word-reading accuracy have been far easier toobtain than improvements in reading flu-ency and automaticity. This persistentfinding indicates there is much we have

to learn about the development of com-ponential reading skills and how suchskills mediate reading rate and read-

ing comprehension. (Lyon & Moats, 1997,p. 579)

The double-deficit hypothesis’ two-fold emphasis on phonological skills andon fluency and automaticity builds onpast treatment models of phonologicalawareness and decoding skills, but itadds to them a new stress on rate of

processing in each component skilland reading outcome. This point is em-bodied in the way that the RAVE-O

program is conceptualized as one halfof a treatment package. At no point isRAVE-O envisioned as an independenttreatment; that is, it is explicitly de-signed to follow and expand a system-atic phonological analysis and blend-ing program, which serves as its

foundation. This dual emphasis en-ables investigators to explore manyunresolved questions concerning therelationship between accuracy andfluency in early word recognition pro-cesses. Although various phonologicalprograms could in principle be used toteach phonological awareness and de-coding skills, our own work has com-bined RAVE-O with the PhonologicalAnalysis and Blending (PHAB) pro-gram described by Lovett et al. (1994)and based on SRA Reading Mas-tery 1/11 Fast Cycle (Engelmann &

Bruner, 1988). In its current status,RAVE-O is designed as a secondaryprevention program for children iden-tified as at-risk readers in Grade 1 and2. Although the program was designedto address reading difficulties associ-ated with a naming-speed deficit andfluency issues, children with primaryphonological deficits will also be as-sisted by the practiced instruction ofthe sublexical units.As alluded to earlier, there are many

basic questions in the area of fluencythat are largely unanswered and criti-cal to confront in future work. At thefore are questions about what is meantby fluency and by automaticity. In thepast, we have used work in readingtheory and cognitive sciences (e.g.,

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

377

Logan, 1988; Perfetti, 1985; Spring &

Davis, 1988; Stanovich, 1990) to defineautomaticity cautiously as a continuumin which processes are considered au-tomatic when they are fast, obligatory,and autonomous and require only lim-ited use of cognitive resources (see dis-cussions of automaticity in Logan,1988; Stanovich, 1990; Wolf, 1991). Inthe present article, we use the term

automaticity as just defined, but onlyin relationship to underlying compo-nent processes; we use fluency to referto the acquisition of smooth rates ofprocessing speed in reading outcomes(e.g., word identification, word attack,and comprehension). This somewhatarbitrary distinction helps us distin-guish reading outcome from compo-nent skills in this program’s design;however, we are aware that both theseterms are used interchangeably in theliterature. Regardless of definition,large theoretical questions remain un-addressed. Is automaticity for lowerlevel, sublexical processes a necessaryprerequisite for reading fluency, or canfluent reading be attained by practiceand attention directed solely to thelexical or word level? Are there largeindividual differences in the develop-ment of fluency and automaticity?What is the relationship between flu-ency and accuracy in phonologicalawareness and decoding skills?The double-deficit hypothesis, as

presently articulated, offers no imme-diate answers to these questions.Rather, it provides a framework in

which these questions can be ad-

dressed if optimal forms of fluency-based intervention are to evolve. In theabsence of immediate answers with re-

gard to the relationship between flu-ency and automaticity, the presentform of the RAVE-O program was de-

signed to treat both fluency in overtreading outcomes (Goal 1) and auto-maticity in underlying componentskills (Goal 2). It is hoped that futurestudies in which one or the other ofthese areas is the basis of treatment willallow us to compare the efficacy ofeach approach, particularly for differ-ent reader subtypes.

Goals andTheoretical Principles

The RAVE-O program was designed asa small-group, intensive pull-out pro-gram for second and third graders atrisk for reading failure. There are threeoverarching, interconnected goals thatmotivated the selection and design ofactivities within the program. This sec-tion describes each of the goals andsome of the theoretical principles thatguided their selection. It is importantto underscore that in this program’sdesign all three goals are conceptuallyand practically interwoven with noone goal predominating.

Goal 1

First, the ultimate goal of the programis the development of fluency in

reading outcome behaviors, includingword identification, word attack, and

comprehension. This is a shared goalwith the few other existing fluencyprograms, most of which emphasizethe importance of practice, wide read-ing, and repeated reading in the achieve-ment of fluency (Samuels, 1985; Sam-uels, Schermer, & Reinking, 1992;Stahl, Heubach, & Crammond, 1997).Stahl et al. (1997), for example, re-

designed a basal reading program for aGrade 2 classroom in order to stress re-

peated reading, partner reading, choicereading, and home reading. Their useof practice and wide reading resultedin significant gains in fluency for mostaverage readers and for one half of thechildren who had not been at the pri-mer level. Bowers and her colleagues(Bowers, 1993; Young & Bowers, 1995;

Young, Bowers, & MacKinnon, 1996)employed an assisted repeated readingtechnique, where the child reads si-

multaneously with a fluent reader inorder to model not only pronunciationbut also prosodic features of the text.Young, Bowers, and MacKinnon (1996)found gains in fluency and compre-hension through repeated readingpractice regardless of prosodic model-ing (for a more complete review of this

literature, see Meyer and Felton, 1999).In all of these studies, the emphasis todate has been largely at the level ofpracticing connected text.

t

Goal 2

RAVE-O’s second set of goals incorpo-rates lexical and sublexical levels and

represents a significant departure fromprevious programs’ work at the levelof connected text. An emphasis on theinterconnectedness of sublexical and

lexical processes is, we believe, impor-tant for achieving fluency in the vari-ety of impaired readers. If there are, aswe have described in other articles (seeWolf & Bowers, 1999, in this issue;Wolf, Bowers, & Biddle, in this issue),widely differing reasons for slow ratesof processing in dysfluent readers,then it is important to attack a range ofpossible sources in our interventions.For example, at the sublexical level,RAVE-O activities emphasize the de-velopment of increased processingspeed or automaticity in such underly-ing component skills as (a) vision-

related processes such as left-to-rightscanning, letter recognition, and, in

particular, orthographic pattern recog-nition and (b) auditory processes thatinclude faster initial and final pho-neme and rime identification.The theoretical rationale for attend-

ing to the rate of underlying sublexicalprocesses is grounded in work in thecognitive sciences. Seidenberg andMcClelland (1989), for example,posited that automatic letter patternrecognition is based on rapid visualand auditory perception, rapid visual-auditory matching, and sublexical pat-tern segmentation for the most fre-

quent letter patterns. (To be discussedlater, each of these underlying pro-cesses has become the basis of severalRAVE-O subgoals and correspondingactivities.) Within the RAVE-O pro-gram, it is important to note the cen-trality of the child’s ability to perceive,segment, and recognize rapidly themost frequent orthographic multiletterpatterns in the language (see the ex-tensive work of Berninger, 1994, on the

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

378

role of orthography.) This set of abili-ties is seen as key to acquiring ortho-graphic-level fluency, which, in turn, isseen as key to fluency in word recog-nition.

At the lexical level, the program

places simultaneous emphasis on morefluent lexical retrieval skills alongsidedirectly instructed semantic develop-ment. The latter work in vocabulary in-cludes the systematic introduction ofcore words, each of which possesses(a) systematically introduced pho-nemes in the PHAB program, (b) con-nected orthographic patterns (e.g.,rimes, consonant blends) that employthese phonemes, and (c) multiplemeanings and rich associations at-

tached to each meaning.The theoretical rationale connecting

phonemes and common orthographicletter patterns is that rapid word iden-tification is facilitated by the ability toperceive and use multiletter units

rather than by relying on often labori-ous letter-to-letter decoding. In her de-scription of the &dquo;consolidated alpha-betic&dquo; phase in reading acquisition,Ehri (1997) writes:

Repeated experience reading a letter se-quence that symbolizes the same pho-neme blend across different words yieldsa consolidated unit in which several

graphemes become bonded to a blend ofphonemes. Consolidation allows readersto operate with multiletter units that maybe morphemes, syllables, or parts of syl-lables.... Knowing letter chunks is par-ticularly valuable for learning multisyl-labic words. (p. 178)

Our explicit emphasis on multiple ex-posures of the most common sublexi-cal units in English (e.g., rimes, initialblends, and affixes) is to provide a lex-icon of &dquo;sight&dquo; letter chunks to facili-tate speed of word recognition pro-cesses (see also Juel & Solso, 1981).The theoretical principle for connect-

ing lexical retrieval and vocabularyskills is that rapid word retrieval is fa-cilitated by the child’s familiarity withand amount of knowledge about theword (see Beck, McKeown, & Oman-

son, 1987; Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown,1982; German,1992; Kameenui, Dixon,

& Carnine, 1987; Lahey & Edwards,1996; Lorsbach, 1982; Snyder & Godley,1992; Wolf & Segal, 1999). Indeed,some work by Ferraro and his col-

leagues (Kellas, Ferraro, & Simpson,1988) suggests that the speed of wordrecognition is facilitated by the numberof meanings available for a given word.In other words, the child retrieves fast-est what she or he knows best in oraland written language. Each of thesecomponent skills will be discussed fur-ther with concrete examples in latersections.

To summarize the first two goals, theRAVE-O program is designed as a

comprehensive approach toward flu-ency that addresses multiple levels ofreading-related skills. The underlyingsublexical skills, particularly for ortho-graphic letter pattern recognition, areaddressed along with lexical-level re-trieval and vocabulary skills. The facil-itation of speed and accuracy at theselower levels is believed to enhance the

speed and accuracy of word attack,word identification, and comprehen-sion, especially for the population ofimpaired readers whose heterogeneitycan be based on a variety of underly-ing sources.

Goal 3

The third goal is the most difficult toarticulate and implement, but essentialto overall success-that is, an evolvingself-recognition by the children of theirgrowing command over the language,through incremental success in dailypractice and an accumulation of meta-cognitive tools (strategies) aimed di-rectly at decoding and retrieving words.In other words, our third goal has botha cognitive and an emotional compo-nent that work together to change chil-dren’s attitudes toward language andtheir perception of themselves as lan-guage learners (Donnelly, Joffe, & Wolf,1998).Negative attitudes like denial, in-

flexibility, and fear of failure, we be-lieve, are the product, not the precur-sor, of reading problems in most youngimpaired readers. Many of the poor

readers we have taught believe thatthey cannot gain control of the readingpuzzle-that there is some magic tolearning to read that they will neverknow. They do not readily make theconnection between the strategies theyare taught and the ability to decode. Inthe RAVE-O program, we call the meta-

cognitive strategies that are taught&dquo;magic tricks,&dquo; thus tacitly confrontingthis often implicit belief in poor read-ers that reading is beyond their ken. Bycalling children &dquo;word magicians&dquo; or&dquo;speed wizards,&dquo; we place them morein control of their own &dquo;bag of tricks.&dquo;The RAVE-O materials are designed

to combat students’ expectations of

failure by establishing a platform ofsuccess in early reading skills. Eachmaterial can be used in a variety of ac-tivity formats, so that componentialskills can be systematically developedby the teacher and presented in small-step challenges that are within thereach of individual students. Students’initial successes and their observationsof their own growing competence en-courage greater risk-taking and rekin-dle their beliefs in their own capacitiesto learn. Practice is key in this process,some of which is provided by comput-erized word and letter recognition gamescalled Speed Wizards (described in thenext section).The combined emotional and moti-

vational components that contribute toa changed attitude toward learning toread are integral to the RAVE-O struc-ture. For example, the RAVE-O pro-gram’s intensive small-group, pull-outapproach allows teachers to build anenvironment that fosters this growth.The trusted community of the smallclassroom becomes the place to trynew skills and discover new strengths.Both the teacher and the students work

together to build a RAVE-O classroom,where children become able to expressthe frustration in not being able to

learn something easily as well as thepositive feelings accompanying suc-cess. One way the children learn this is

through play-in this case, through thegame-like formats that characterizemuch of the RAVE-O curriculum.

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

379

Indeed, at the surface level theRAVE-O program may appear to be acollection of whimsical activities that

actively attempt to engage the child’sand the teacher’s imagination. First,this engagement is critical. Second,whimsy and fun not only disguisemuch-needed practice and multipleexposures, but they are also conceptu-alized as antidotes to self-perceivedweaknesses and the consequent ten-dency to give up in many children withlearning disabilities. Below the surfaceformat, however, teachers use thesegame-like activities to provide a foun-dation of highly practiced skills andstrategies in three areas:

1. phonological and orthographicpattern analyses of the internalstructure of words into commonsublexical units,

2. the retrieval of words throughword finding strategies or the find-ing of alternative vocabularychoices, and

3. the semantic analysis of words intoknown roots and associations.

The unique features of this program liein the explicitly connected, daily prac-tice of these three areas through fun ac-tivities.

Put another way, while playinggames, the children are practicing themany necessary componential skills fordecoding and reading comprehension.The teacher gradually helps themmake the megacognitive connectionsbetween the skills they are practicingand their applications in other areas oftheir lives. The children are encour-

aged each day to report on where theysaw a word, discovered a new mean-

ing for a word, or used a magic trick tounlock an unknown word. The cumu-lative effects of these skills and strat-

egies encourage the children to per-severe during the exact moments offormer weakness, and not give up.Eventually, the children begin report-ing with pride how they have usedthese skills during other parts of theschool day or at home.

To summarize Goal 3, we aim to

change children’s attitudes toward lan-guage, oral and written, and towardthemselves as learners. The cognitiveand emotional elements of this goal areinextricably bound in the curriculum’sformat, the pull-out environment, andthe incremental units of learning thatencourage both succeeding and perse-vering.

Summary of Goals

Underlying the convergence of this

program’s three goals is a frameworkbased on a connectionist view of the

reading process (Adams, 1990; Foor-man, 1994): Phonology, orthography,and semantic processes are seen as in-

tegrally connected aspects of readingdevelopment. In a similar vein, we be-lieve that different problems in readingacquisition can be based on variouscontributions by these three aspects ofreading. The remainder of this articleelaborates on the specific ways in

which the above goals are imple-mented in the program, with specialemphasis on orthographic and seman-tic skills. There will be no individualsection on phonology, because themajor work in this area falls within theprovince of the separate phonologicalanalysis and blending program that isused (see Lovett et al., 1994, for de-

scription of the program used withRAVE-O in the National Institute forChild Health and Human Develop-ment (NICHD) intervention programby Morris, Lovett, & Wolf, 1996). Nev-ertheless, consistent with a connec-tionist view of reading, all work in or-thography is conceptualized as using,reinforcing, and extending those skillstaught in the phonological base.

The Developmentof Automaticity

The systematic development of fast,accurate letter pattern recognition is

the central goal of this part of the pro-gram and is the basis of many RAVE-Oactivities. Based on the work of Seiden-

berg and McClelland (1989), Ehri (1997),and memory research on &dquo;chunking,&dquo;RAVE-O was designed to address thecomponents of letter pattern recogni-tion with a range of activities.The treatment package includes one

half-hour of a phonological programand one half-hour of RAVE-O. As pres-ently structured, the package is de-

signed for second and third gradersand includes 70 1-hour classes that

usually extend from October to Marchin an average school year (futureplanned iterations include a full-yearprogram). The focus moves from thephonological program’s introductionof single phonemes to RAVE-O’s intro-duction of predictable letter patternsusing those phonemes; for example,onset-rimes, consonant blends and di-

graphs, and common affixes are grad-ually introduced. Children in the samesession, therefore, are taught in thephonological program to analyze aselected group of phonemes and inRAVE-O to use these same phonemesto perceive sublexical chunks that

speed up word recognition. In this

way, RAVE-O both reinforces and ex-

pands word attack skills.Several concrete examples illustrate

this interconnected application of pho-nological and orthographic skills. Achild is introduced to the vowel sounda and the consonant sound m in thePHAB program. In RAVE-O, the childlearns several core words with the amrime (e.g., jam and ram). After the mul-tiple meanings of the core words arediscussed, the words are taught onrime cards with separable starter (onset)cards that are color coded (see ortho-graphic pattern cards in chart on Ta-ble 1). Students learn to segment andrecompose a set of approximately fivecore words each week and also to iden-

tify other words with the same rimepatterns. They begin to recognize thesegments (chunks) in words and to be-come more flexible in their ability torecognize multiple other examples oftaught letter patterns.

Orthographic pattern cards (that is, therime, starter, and ender cards) offer ahigh level of teacher control, so that the

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

380

TABLE 1

Relationships Between RAVE-O Materials Used in Activities and Reading Outcome in Componential Skills

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

381

Note. Although most activities address several interrelated goals in reading development, the goals targeted most directly by particular activities are marked. Notethat each material can be used to address particular componential goals through the design of its use in the activity.

teacher can individualize the materialsto match the student’s level of achieve-ment. By manipulating the total num-ber of cards and patterns, the teachercreates activities that can challengechildren and can ensure success.As accuracy for core words is mas-

tered, two fluency-related activities

occur. First, rime pattern knowledge isgeneralized by additional starter cardsto make new words (e.g., ham, ram).The goal of this activity is for the childto begin to realize that she or he haspower over letters to &dquo;make words.&dquo;

The ability to create new words, inturn, facilitates the student’s ability to

distinguish one word from another,thus building both word identificationand word attack skills.

Second, to facilitate the underlyingcomponents of orthographic pattern rec-ognition, an evolving, computerizedset of games called Speed Wizards wasdesigned in conjunction with GordonGoodman at the Rochester Institute of

Technology. The computerized gameformat permits the increased facilita-tion of

1. visual perception of teacher-selected, common orthographicpatterns;

2. visual discrimination of similar sub-lexical patterns (e.g., am vs. an);and

3. visual-auditory matching (throughgames that have the student matchthe word on the screen to an audi-

torialy presented word).

Thus, the computerized Speed Wiz-ards games have been designed to pro-vide simultaneous attention to thesublexical-level skills discussed by Sei-denberg and McClelland (1989) and toword-level skills.

Speed Wizards provides controlled,timed practice of the most common

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

382

rime patterns at four levels of diffi-

culty. Practice can be constrained toonly one or two rimes (e.g., am or amplus an rime words) or can include anentire vowel family of rime patterns.The auditory stimulus reinforces pho-neme discrimination. There are five

general game formats-one for eachvowel. Each format extends from

consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) tocompound and multisyllabic wordsthat employ the embedded root rimes.Very important, children work to in-crease their individual speeds of wordrecognition. At any point, the teachercan have the child work on a particu-larly difficult speed for a given rimepattern or on a strategy for dealingwith longer, multisyllabic words witha specific rime.

Multiple other activities (see Table 1)reinforce these same orthographicskills and strategies. Our guiding prin-ciple here is that a range of imaginativeactivities that teach the same skills indifferent formats is our best tool for

helping children tolerate drill and rou-tine. Based on work by Reitsma (1983)and Levy and Bourassa (1998), we seekto provide children with RD maximumexposure to common orthographic pat-terns, but in constantly varying ways.Many of these activities are already

long familiar to teachers but are usedhere in new ways with focused goals.For example, the orthographic cardscan also be used in adaptations of well-known card games, such as Go Fish,Rummy, or Memory, to add a nuanceof fun and a decrease in structure. Or-

thographic cards can also be incor-porated into writing activities. Timedsorting or recomposing activities canadd the speed dimension to push thedevelopment of automaticity.Sound sliders are another game-like

component that provide a next level ofscaffolded practice of orthographicpatterns. After the week’s rime pat-terns are learned, sliders are often in-troduced. Sliders are easily made froma manila file folder and consist of a listof known patterns with a &dquo;sliding&dquo; ini-tial phoneme. This tool allows studentsto match different possible starters

with, for example, the am-family rime.

The activity combines visual, auditory,and semantic knowledge bases, as stu-dents generate lists of both real wordsand nonwords. Adding a timed com-ponent increases the development ofrapid automatic responses to ortho-graphic patterns.Dice games are an activity that can

reduce teacher scaffolding. Spelling pat-tern dice are composed of rime patternsfor a single vowel or for two vowels.Starter dice have single consonants orconsonant blends. Students can be

guided in more controlled activities touse the dice as blocks to make words.Paired with a writing activity, it bringsmastery over the system of words to asomewhat higher level. As studentsadvance in the program, they enjoy theless scaffolded activity of dice games inwhich they roll a selection of dice andthen compose as many words as possi-ble. Variations of solitaire versus part-ner play and timed versus untimedconditions incorporate dimensions ofautomaticity and play.

The Development of Fluency

Semantic Facilitation

Although the activities discussed in

the previous section concentrate on theorthographic basis of words, they arenever used in isolation from semanticactivities designed to strengthen stu-dents’ vocabulary knowledge base.RAVE-O is grounded in the belief thatword recognition is facilitated by se-mantic knowledge (Beck et al., 1982;Beck et al., 1987; Kameenui et al., 1987;Segal & Wolf, 1992; Wolf & Segal, 1992,1999) and that these components areinteractively connected. In the initial in-troduction of words, therefore, RAVE-Oputs strong emphasis on the semanticcomponent. This is based on pilot re-search begun 10 years ago on the rela-tionship between vocabulary and re-trieval in adolescent readers withsevere reading disabilities (see Wolf &

Segal, 1992, 1999). Accentuating thefun that words can provide is one partof the third, overarching goal-to winstudents’ affection for language itself.

As discussed, core words are centralto the program and are selected on thebasis of both their sublexical patternsand their multiple meanings. Corewords are first introduced every week

through a discussion of the children’sprior knowledge of the words’ variousmeanings. Idiomatic usage and evenjokes are used to concretize this aspectof linguistic flexibility. Most core

words have three or more common

meanings. For example, the word jamhas four relatively well-known mean-ings. Image cards accompany the chil-dren’s discussion and have pictorialrepresentations of each of the word’smeanings, selected from popular chil-dren’s literature or drawn by an artist.Beyond their introductory function,the image cards can be used in adapta-tions of Memory and various sortinggames to consolidate the breadth and

depth of meanings possible from anygroup of words.There are several important reasons

for RAVE-O’s emphasis on multiplemeanings. First, many children with

reading impairments begin with or de-velop a particular inflexibility towardwords. Children who become progres-sively disenfranchised from their lan-guage are more likely to cling rigidly towhat they know. Moreover, some chil-dren with dyslexia have significantword finding problems or dysnomia.The image cards provide a visual mne-monic for these children (see reviewsof word finding difficulties in childrenwith dyslexia in Wolf, 1982; Wolf &

Goodglass, 1986; Wolf & Obreg6n,1992; Wolf & Segal, 1992).Another reason involves the alloca-

tion of time during reading. Dysfluentreaders literally don’t have time to pro-cess alternative meanings to wordswhen they read and, thus, miss out onmore and more of the richness of lan-

guage. (This is analogous to Stano-vich’s [1986] discussion of Mattheweffects for poor readers.) RAVE-Ostresses the richness of written lan-

guage from the start to combat this po-tential consequence of dysfluency andto help build a better basis for compre-hension. Furthermore, we wish to giveall children an early set toward the

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

383

multiple-layered structure of writtenlanguage and the many connectionsamong words.Word webs (weekly changing wall

charts) offer a different method for in-creasing children’s understanding ofsemantic connections. Each week, stu-dents create a word web for one core

word by brainstorming their associa-tions for the word’s multiple defini-tions. The resulting graphic web ofmeaning dramatizes the many facetsthat words can have. As the year pro-gresses, webs change subtly to be ableto teach such concepts as hierarchical

relationships within semantic associ-ates. The overall goal of web work is toincrease the children’s appreciation ofa word’s depth of meaning and its

great breadth and connectedness to

other words. Children begin to realizethat, if you know one word very well,you know a hundred more. Such

knowledge contributes directly to com-prehension and indirectly to providingalternative words during word re-

trieval lapses, as discussed later.Minute stories are very short &dquo;short

stories&dquo; that were written for the

RAVE-O curriculum. The stories use

only the cumulative words in the pro-gram and emphasize the particularweek’s core words with their multiplemeanings. Minute stories meld ortho-graphic and semantic representationsof words and incorporate direct workon comprehension and fluency in con-nected text. Through the controlled vo-cabulary in the stories, students havean opportunity to apply the week’s sparticular orthographic and semanticstrategies and to build fluency in a con-textual reading activity. The stories areshort enough to be attended to withoutinterruption and interesting enough tobe reread to build fluency and auto-matic recognition. Repeated readingpractice, a main component in otherfluency programs (Samuels, 1985;Samuels et al., 1992; Stahl et al., 1997;Young et al., 1996), is easily incorpo-rated through these stories. Students’ability to demonstrate mastery in thesestories is a significant accomplishment.For many of the children, these storiesrepresent their first book.

Companion writing activities ac-

company minute stories and push stu-dents to another level of recognition oforthographic patterns in their own

spelling. Work focuses on vocabularyuse, reading comprehension, and self-expression and is incorporated by theteacher according to student capability.

Lexical Retrieval StrategiesSeveral references have been made inthis article to the difficulties that somechildren with reading impairmentshave in word retrieval. Indeed, some ofthe original work on naming speed’emerged from a more general study oflexical processes and the word retrie-val difficulties experienced by manydyslexic readers (see Bashir & Sca-

vuzzo, 1992; Wolf, 1982). As noted inseveral recent studies, word retrieval

problems in children with languageimpairments (Lahey & Edwards, 1996)and reading impairments (Wolf & Ob-

reg6n, 1992; Wolf & Bowers, in this

issue) can be based on a variety of un-derlying sources, ranging from simplelack of vocabulary knowledge to issuesin phonological or lexical access andretrieval processes. The precursor to

the present program, RAVE (Wolf &

Segal, 1992, 1999), sought to addressthe range of possible sources of re-trieval problems through a combina-tion of semantic development activi-ties and explicit strategies for lexicalstorage and retrieval.The lexical retrieval activities in the

present RAVE-O program are based ontheoretical principles and findingsfrom the original RAVE vocabulary re-trieval program. The two central axes

are (a) the employment of differentmodalities in the introduction and

practice of core words to enhance stor-age and (b) a metacognitive approachto the retrieval of words that are diffi-cult to &dquo;find.&dquo; First, with regard to stor-age, as discussed in the last section,

image cards that depict the multiplemeanings of the core words provide avisual mnemonic. Other modalities arealso invoked. For example, some corewords like jam are literally eaten from ajar by the children in the introductory

discussion or heard on a tape. Second,core words are sometimes presentedfor brief exposures as concrete objectsand then covered with a cloth. At-

tempts to recall the covered objectshelp both storage and retrieval. Thecolor-coded orthographic pattern cardsfor teaching core words are often givena kinesthetic dimension through lettersmade of sand. Vivid associations are

elicited through word web activitiesand often pictorially presented onevolving wall charts. The cumulative,multi-modality effect of these storageactivities is aimed to aid long-termmemory and easier, faster retrieval.A more metacognitive approach to

retrieval is exemplified in the Sam

Spade strategies for finding elusive butknown words. Developed earlier in theprecursor RAVE program, Sam Spadeis a word detective who gives the chil-dren a set of four questions, each ofwhich begins with an s to help findclues for the words they cannot re-trieve. The image of the detective andhis ability to use clues to find words&dquo;on the tip of the tongue&dquo; has provento be a powerful one for adolescents(Segal & Wolf, 1993; Wolf & Segal,1992) and younger children. The ques-tions are

Starts with? That is, what sounddoes the missing word start with?

Sounds like? That is, what knownword does it sound like? Do youknow the rime inside it? .

Similar to? What word has a similar

meaning? Do you know any associ-ated word from a word web thatcan lead you to it?

Short word? That is, is the word ashort, simple word or a long wordwith two or more syllables?

The children play different deduc-tion games based on the four strategieswith the teacher and among them-selves to locate &dquo;missing words.&dquo; TheSam Spade strategies help provide aseries of clues to the missing word.When playing these games, by the sec-ond or third clue children often deducethe missing word or find an acceptablealternative. Either result helps them

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

384

feel more in charge and more capable as letter and letter pattern recognition,of using language to help themselves. auditory discrimination of phonemes,Over the course of the program, the and semantic facilitation. Within the

children internalize these Sam Spade component skills, orthographic patternstrategies and use them not only for recognition is particularly emphasized;oral word finding difficulties but also numerous opportunities for practicewhen they encounter unknown writ- are provided through imaginative ac-ten words. These strategies integrate tivities and through a specially de-

orthographic (rime pattern clues), pho- signed set of computer games callednological (phoneme onsets), and se- Speed Wizards.mantic information that is useful in The major, theoretically based objec-both oral and written contexts. More- tives of this experimental program areover, these tools give the children the to help children activate phonological,psychological confidence to try, to per- orthographic, and semantic informa-severe, and to find alternatives when tion about words more automaticallyconfronted with gaps in their knowl- and to facilitate fluency in word recog-edge of words. As such, the Sam Spade nition and comprehension. The majorstrategies contribute to several goals of pedagogical objective is to harness thethe RAVE-O program: increased flu- imagination of children and teachers inency in underlying retrieval skills, a the service of transforming linguisti-sense of greater flexibility toward words, cally disenfranchised, impaired read-and growing linguistic prowess. ers into children who can see, use, and

ultimately enjoy the power of humanlanguage. Ongoing empirical studies

Summary of the RAVE-O program with different

subtypes of readers will be available inThe RAVE-O program is a comprehen- the coming year.sive approach to reading fluency that isbased on a model of reading develop- ABOUT THE AUTHORSment that integrates phonological, or-

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

thographic, and semantic knowledge. Maryanne Wolf, EdD, is director of the Cen-The RAVE-O program is conceptual- ter for Reading and Language Research at Tuftsized as one half of an intervention University and a professor in the Eliot-Pearsontreatment package that moves daily Department of Child Development. Her work

from a phonological I analysis and focuses on reading disabilities, reading interven-

blending base to emphasis on ortho- tion, and cognitive neuroscience. Lynne Millerblending base to emphasis on ortho- ~. mn r~ rr ~n n. &dquo; &dquo; i~ is in the PhD prograIn of the Eliot-Pearson De-graphlc pattern recognition, semantic is in the PhD program of the Eliot-Pearson De-

graphic pattern & ~ partment of Child Development at Tufts Uni-development, and retrieval strategies. versity, and a research member of the Center forRAVE-O has been designed to supple- Reading and Language Research. Her interestsment, reinforce, and extend reading include learning disabilities, risk and resiliency,programs that stress phonological de- and intervention. Katherine Donnelly, MA, iscoding principles in intervention read- a research teacher at the Center for Readinging programs in primary grades. and Language Research. Her interests includeThere is a simultaneous, dual focus reading disabilities, reading intervention, and

on fluency in reading outcomes like teacher education. Address: Maryanne Wolf,word attack, word identification, and Center for Reading and Language Research,

~~~ i ..... Miller Hall, Tufts University, Medford, MAcomprehension and on automaticity in Miller Hall, Tufts University, Medford, MA

the underlying phonological, ortho- 02155.

graphic, semantic, and lexical retrieval .

skills that collectively contribute to, or AUTHORS’ NOTE _

impede, overall reading fluency. Sys- We wish to thank all past and present memberstematically introduced, game-like ac- of the Tufts Center for Reading and Languagetivities address both accuracy and Research, particularly Heidi Bally, Kathleen

speed in each reading outcome and in Biddle, Tami Katzir-Cohen, Theresa Deeney,each underlying component skill, such Katherine Feinberg, Calvin Gidney, Alyssa

Goldberg, Julie Jeffery, Terry Joffe, CynthiaKrug, Mateo Obreg6n, Claudia Pfeil, andDenise Segal. We are grateful to Wendy Galantefor technical help, to Catherine Stoodley forgraphic design, and to Linda Rath for story-writing in the RAVE-O curriculum. The firstauthor wishes to acknowledge the support of theStratford Foundation and Tufts Faculty Re-search Activity Grants for the first phases of thiswork, and NICHD Grant OD30970-OlAl forsupport during ongoing intervention. Finally,we are grateful to our colleagues, MaureenLovett and Robin Morris, for their contribu-tions to this research.

REFERENCES

z

Ackerman, P. T., & Dykman, R. A. (1993).Phonological processes, confrontation

naming, and immediate memory in dys-lexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26,597-609.

Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Think-ing and learning about print. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Badian, N. (1995). Predicting reading abilityover the long-term: The changing roles ofletter naming, phonological awarenessand orthographic processing. Annals ofDyslexia: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 45,79-86.

Badian, N. (1996a, November). Dyslexia:Does it exist? Dyslexia, garden-variety poorreading, and the double-deficit hypothesis.Paper presented at the Orton DyslexiaSociety, Boston.

Badian, N. (1996b). Dyslexia: A validationof the concept at two age levels. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 29, 102-112.

Bashir, A. S., & Scavuzzo, A. (1992). Chil-dren with learning disorders: Natural

history and academic success. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 25, 53-65.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson,R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diversevocabulary instructional techniques. InM. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds), Thenature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown,M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocab-ulary instructions on lexical access andreading comprehension. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 74, 506-521.

Berninger, V. W. (1994). The varieties of or-thographic knowledge I: Theoretical and devel-opmental issues. Dordrecht, The Nether-lands: Kluwer.

Blachman, B. A. (1994). What we havelearned from longitudinal studies of pho-

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

385

nological processing and reading, andsome unanswered questions: A responseto Torgesen, Wagner, and Rashotte. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 287-291.

Blachman, B. A. (1997). (Ed.) Foundations ofreading acquisition and dyslexia. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Bowers, P. G. (1993). Text reading andrereading: Predictors of fluency beyondword recognition. Journal of Reading Be-havior, 25, 133-153.

Bowers, P. G., Steffy, R., & Tate, E. (1988).Comparison of the effects of IQ controlmethods on memory and naming speedpredictors of reading disability. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 23, 304-309.

Bowers, P. G. & Wolf, M. (1993). Theoreticallinks among naming speed, precise tim-ing mechanisms and orthographic skill indyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdis-ciplinary Journal, 5(1), 69-85.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Catego-rizing sounds and learning to read: Acausal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.

Brady, S., & Shankweiler, D. (Eds.). (1991).Phonological processes in literacy: A tributeto Isabelle Y Liberman. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-baum.

Bruck, M., & Treiman, R. (1990). Phonolog-ical awareness and spelling in normalchildren and dyslexics: The case of initialconsonant clusters. Journal of ExperimentalChild Psychology, 50(1), 156-178.

Catts, H. W. (1996). Defining dyslexia as adevelopmental language disorder: An ex-panded view. Topics in Language Disor-ders, 16(2), 14-29.

Denckla, M. B. (1972). Color-naming de-fects in dyslexic boys. Cortex, 8, 164-176.

Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1974). Rapidautomatized naming of pictured objects,colors, letters, and numbers by normalchildren. Cortex, 10, 186-202.

Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976a).Naming of objects by dyslexic and otherlearning-disabled children. Brain and Lan-guage, 3, 1-15.

Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976b).Rapid automatized naming (R.A.N.):Dyslexia differentiated from other learn-ing disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471-479.

Donnelly, K., Joffe, T., & Wolf, M. (1998).Learning by risks: Insights in implementingreading intervention programs. Submittedmanuscript.

Ehri, L. C. (1997). Sight word learning innormal readers and dyslexics. In B. Blach-man (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisi-

tion and dyslexia (pp. 163-189). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E. C. (1988). Read-

ing Mastery I/II Fast Cycle: Teacher’s guide.Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Foorman, B. R. (1994). Phonological and ortho-graphic processing: Separate but equal?In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties oforthographic knowledge I: Theoretical and

developmental issues (pp. 319-355). Dord-recht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Shaywitz, S.,

Shaywitz, B., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Thecase for early reading intervention. InB. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of readingacquisition (pp. 243-264). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

German, D. J. (1992). Word-finding inter-vention for children and adolescents. Top-ics in Language Disorders, 13(1), 33-50.

Geschwind, N. (1965). Disconnection syn-drome in animals and man (Parts I, II).Brain, 88, 237-294, 585-644.

Grigorenko, E., Wood, F., Meyer, M., Hart,L., Speed, W., Shuster, A., & Pauls, D.

(1997). Susceptibility loci for distinct

components of developmental dyslexiaon chromosomes 6 and 15. American Jour-nal of Human Genetics, 60, 27-39.

Juel, C., & Solso, R. L. (1981). The role of

othographical redundancy, versatility,and spelling-sound correspondences inword identification. In M. L. Kamil (Ed.),Directions in reading: Research and instruc-tion (pp. 74-82). Washington, DC: Na-tional Reading Conference.

Kameenui, E. J., Dixon, R. C., & Carnine,D. W. (1987). Issues in the design of vo-cabulary instruction. In M. G. McKeown& M. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabu-lary acquisition (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Kamhi, A., & Catts, H. (1989). Reading dis-abilities: A developmental language perspec-tive. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Kellas, G., Ferraro, R. F., & Simpson, G. B.(1988). Lexical ambiguity and the time-course of attentional allocation in word

recognition. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology: Human Perception and Perfor-mance, 14(4), 601-609.

Lahey, M., & Edwards, J. (1996). Why arespecifically language-impaired childrenslower than their peers in naming pic-tures? Journal of Speech and Hearing Re-search, 39, 1081-1098.

Levy, B. A., & Bourassa, D. (1998, April).Slow vs. fast namers: Benefits of segmenta-tion and whole word training. Poster pre-

sented at meeting of Society for ScientificStudy of Reading, San Diego, CA.

Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance

theory of automatization. Psychological Re-view, 95, 492-527.

Lorsbach, T. C. (1982). Individual differ-

ences in semantic encoding processes. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 476-480.

Lovett, M. (1992). Developmental dyslexia.In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook

of neuropsychology (Vol. 7, pp. 163-185).Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Lovett, M. (1995, April). Remediating dys-lexic children’s word identification deficits:Are the core deficits of developmental dyslexiaamenable to treatment? Symposium paperpresented at Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, Indianapolis, IN.

Lovett, M. W., Borden, S., DeLuca, T., Lac-erenza, L., Benson, N., & Brackstone, D.

(1994). Treating the core deficits of devel-opmental dyslexia: Evidence of trans-

fer of learning after phonologically- andstrategy-based reading training programs.Developmental Psychology, 30, 805-822.

Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition ofdyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia: An Interdisci-plinary Journal, 45, 3-27.

Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical

conceptual and methodological consider-ations in reading intervention research.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 578-588.

McBride-Chang, C., & Manis, F. (1996).Structural invariance in the associationsof naming speed, phonological aware-ness, and verbal reasoning in good andpoor readers: A test of the double deficit

hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 8, 323-339.

Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Evolu-tion of fluency training: Old approachesand new directions. Annals of Dyslexia. 49,283-306.

Meyer, M. S., Wood, F. B., Hart, L. A., & Fel-

ton, R. H. (1998). The selective predictivevalues in rapid automatized namingwithin poor readers. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 31, 106-117.

Morris, R., Lovett, M., & Wolf, M. (1996).Treatment of developmental reading disabili-ties. National Institute for Child Healthand Human Development grant propo-sal.

Olson, R. K., Wise, B., Connors, F., Rack,J. P., & Fulker, D. (1989). Specific deficitsin component reading and languageskills: Genetic and environmental influ-ences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22,339-348.

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

386

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

Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word learning inbeginning readers. Journal of ExperimentalChild Psychology, 36, 321-339.

Samuels, S. J. (1985). Automaticity and re-peated reading. In J. Osborn, P. T. Wilson,& R. C. Anderson (Eds.), Reading educa-tion: Foundations for a literate America

(pp. 215-230). Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

Samuels, S. J., Schermer, N., & Reinking, D.(1992). Reading fluency: Techniques formaking decoding automatic. In S. J.Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What re-search says about reading instruction, 2ndedition (pp. 124-144). Newark, DE: Inter-national Reading Association.

Segal, D., & Wolf, M. (1993). Automaticity,word retrieval, and vocabulary develop-ment in children with reading disabili-ties. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Cognitive, lin-

guistic, and developmental perspectives onlearning disorders (pp. 141-165). Boston:Little, Brown.

Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L.

(1989). A distributed, developmentalmodel 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.), Lan-guage by ear and by eye (pp. 293-317). Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1988). Develop-ment of grammatical-sensitivity, phono-logical, and short-term memory skills innormally achieving and learning dis-

abled children. Developmental Psychology,24(1), 28-37.

Snyder, L., & Downey, D. (1995). Serial

rapid naming skills in children with read-ing disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 45,31-50.

Snyder, L., & Godley, D. (1992). Assessmentof word-finding disorders in children andadolescents. Topics in Learning Disabilities,13(1), 15-32.

Spring, C., & Capps, C. (1974). Encodingspeed, rehearsal, and probed recall of

dyslexic boys. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 66, 780-786.

Spring, C., & Davis, J. (1988). Relations ofdigit naming speed with three compo-nents of reading. Applied Psycholinguis-tics, 9, 315-334.

Stahl, S., Heubach, K., & Crammond, B.(1997). Fluency-oriented reading instruc-tion. Reading Research Report, 79, 1-38.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). "Matthew effects"in reading: Some consequences of indi-vidual differences in acquisition of lit-

eracy. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 360-407.

Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Concepts in devel-opmental theories of reading skill: Cog-nitive resources, automaticity and modu-larity. Developmental Review, 10, 72-100.

Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculations on thecauses and consequences of individual

differences in early reading acquisition.In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman

(Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 307-342).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phe-notypic performance profile of childrenwith reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core vari-able difference model. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 86(1), 24-53.

Swanson, L. B. (1989). Analyzing namingspeed-reading relationships in children. Un-published doctoral dissertation, Uni-

versity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,Canada.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A., Wagner, R., &

Rashotte, C. (1998, April). Individual dif-ferences in response to intensive reading in-struction among 9-11 year old severely dis-abled readers. Paper presented at the

Society for the Scientific Study of Read-ing, San Diego, CA.

Torgesen, J., Rashotte, C., & Wagner, R.

(1997, November). Research on instruc-

tional interventions for children with readingdisabilities. Paper presented at the Inter-national Dyslexia Association conference,Chicago.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte,C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of pho-nological processing and reading. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 27, 276-286.

Tunmer, W. (1995, July). Intervention strate-gies for developing onset-rime sensitivity andanalogical transfer in reading disabled chil-dren. Paper presented at the Extraordi-nary Brain III Conference, Kauai, Hawaii.

Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, P. (1987). Phono-

logical coding, phonological awareness,and reading ability: Evidence from a

longitudinal and experimental study.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321-363.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte,C. A. (1994). The development of reading-related phonological processing abilities:New evidence of bi-directional causalityfrom a latent variable longitudinal study.Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.

Wolf, M. (1979). The relationship of disordersof word-finding and reading in children andaphasics. Unpublished doctoral disser-

tation, Harvard University, Cambridge,MA.

Wolf, M. (1982). The word-retrieval processand reading in children and aphasics.In K. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s language(pp. 437-493). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wolf, M. (1991). Naming speed and read-ing: The contribution of the cognitive neu-rosciences. Reading Research Quarterly, 26,123-141.

Wolf, M., Bally, H., & Morris, R. (1986). Au-

tomaticity, retrieval processes, and read-ing: A longitudinal study in average andimpaired readers. Child Development, 57,988-1000.

Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999). The "doubledeficit hypothesis" for the developmen-tal dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 91, 1-24.

Wolf, M., & Goodglass, H. (1986). Dyslexia,dysnomia, and lexical retrieval. Brain andLanguage, 28, 154-168.

Wolf, M., & Obregón, M. (1992). Early nam-ing deficits, developmental dyslexia, anda specific deficit hypothesis. Brain and

Language, 42, 219-247.Wolf, M., & Segal, D. (1992). Word findingand reading in the developmental dys-lexias. Topics in Language Disorders, 13(1),51-65.

Wolf, M., & Segal, D. (1999). Retrieval-rate,Accuracy, and Vocabulary Elaboration(RAVE) in reading-impaired children: Apilot intervention program. Dyslexia: AnInternational Journal of Theory and Practice,5, 1-27.

Wolff, P., Michel, G., & Ovrut, M. (1990).Rate variables and automatized namingin developmental dyslexia. Brain and Lan-guage, 39, 556-575.

Wood, F. B., & Felton, R. H. (1994). Separatelinguistic and developmental factors inthe development of reading. Topics in Lan-guage Disorders, 14(4), 42-57.

Young, A., & Bowers, P. (1995). Individualdifference and text difficulty determi-

nants of reading fluency and expressive-ness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychol-ogy, 60, 428-454.

Young, A., Bowers, P., & MacKinnon, G.

(1996). Effects of prosodic modeling andrepeated reading on poor readers’ flu-

ency and comprehension. Applied Psy-cholinguistics, 17, 59-84.

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 22, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from