Assignment Prompt & Instructions
Read Article provided
– ## ArticelCritiqueAssignment.pdf
– ## ReadingDifficultyArticles.pdf
**## ArticelCritiqueAssignment.pdf**
Page 1 of 2
Article Critique
Read the two articles provided. Choose one of the articles and complete a 2-page article
analysis using the guidelines provided. Submit your analysis to the grade book for evaluation.
Reading and Thinking:
• Read the article SLOWLY. Don't criticize anything just yet. Try to really understand the
author's logic rather than questioning it.
• Mark key points and transitions as you read. Try to isolate at least one central point in
each paragraph.
• Review introductory and closing sections closely. Think about how the author moves
from opening statements to conclusions via the body of the article.
Writing:
• Begin your written analysis with a blanket statement summarizing what the author does
in the article. Sometimes the author explicitly gives you his or her agenda in the
introduction and/or in the conclusion. You should be able to relay this in one or (maybe)
two sentences.
• Summarize the key ideas used by the author in achieving his or her agenda. Look at the
parts of the article you have marked. Try to indicate how the author progresses from
idea to idea in the article.
• List important evidence used to support key ideas in the article. Indicate why the author
finds this evidence convincing.
Critiquing:
• Carefully describe any biased, illogical, or inappropriate use of evidence in the
article. Take into account the author's purpose and perspective, as any apparent misuse
of evidence may be attributable to these factors.
• Note any avoidable lack of evidence in the article.
• Note the strong points of the article.
Finalizing:
• Proofread your writing. Read it aloud. Try to use active verbs and concise modifiers.
• Verify that your analysis would be helpful to someone who hadn't read the article. Don't
assume that your reader can intuit what you mean by anything.
Grading Rubric
Component Unacceptable Acceptable Target
At the top of the page,
write your article
reference in APA
format.
Reference has more
than 1 APA error.
(0 points)
Reference follows APA
format, with 1 error.
(1 point)
Reference carefully
follows APA format,
with no errors.
(2 points)
Page 2 of 2
Component Unacceptable Acceptable Target
Summary
Key points and
evidence to support
those points is clearly
presented
Summary of article is
inadequate or too
brief; does not identify
main points; fails to
include appropriate
evidence to support
points. (0 points)
Acceptable summary
of information that
describes the article’s
premise; evidence is
included. (5 points)
Excellent summary of
relevant information
that clearly describe
the article’s premise;
evidence is included.
(10 points)
Critique Incomplete critique;
lacks reflection and
sound analysis of the
chosen article; no
clear connections are
made to evidence
gather from the article.
(0 points)
Complete critique;
shows an adequate
level of reflection and
analysis; may lack
connections to
evidence gathered
from the article.
(5 points)
Complete, well-formed
critique; shows a
thoughtful, reflective,
in-depth analysis of
chosen article.
(10 points)
Professional
Presentation
Writing involves many
grammatical errors
(more than 3).
(0 points)
Writing involves few
grammatical errors (no
more than 2). (1 point)
Writing is free of all
writing errors.
(3 points)
– Article Critique
– Grading Rubric
**## ReadingDifficultyArticles.pdf**
Types of Reading Disability
By: Louisa Moats and Carol Tolman (2008)
Researchers have identified three kinds of developmental reading disabilities that often overlap but that can
be separate and distinct: (1) phonological deficit, (2) processing speed/orthographic processing deficit, and
(3) comprehension deficit.
Researchers have made considerable progress in understanding all types of reading disabilities (Fletcher et
al., 2007). For purposes of research, "reading impaired" children may be all those who score below the 30th
percentile in basic reading skill. Among all of those poor readers, about 70-80 percent have trouble with
accurate and fluent word recognition that originates with weaknesses in phonological processing, often in
combination with fluency and comprehension problems. These students have obvious trouble learning
sound-symbol correspondence, sounding out words, and spelling. The term dyslexic is most often applied to
this group.
Another 10-15 percent of poor readers appear to be accurate but too slow in word recognition and text
reading. They have specific weaknesses with speed of word recognition and automatic recall of word
spellings, although they do relatively well on tests of phoneme awareness and other phonological skills. They
have trouble developing automatic recognition of words by sight and tend to spell phonetically but not
accurately. This subgroup is thought to have relative strengths in phonological processing, but the nature of
their relative weakness is still debated by reading scientists (Fletcher et al, 2007; Katzir et al., 2006; Wolf &
Bowers, 1999). Some argue that the problem is primarily one of timing or processing speed, and others
propose that there is a specific deficit within the orthographic processor that affects the storage and recall of
exact letter sequences. This processing speed/orthographic subgroup generally has milder difficulties with
reading than students with phonological processing deficits.
Yet another 10-15 percent of poor readers appear to decode words better than they can comprehend the
meanings of passages. These poor readers are distinguished from dyslexic poor readers because they can
read words accurately and quickly and they can spell. Their problems are caused by disorders of social
reasoning, abstract verbal reasoning, or language comprehension.
Subtypes of Reading Disability
Researchers currently propose that there are three kinds of developmental reading disabilities that often
overlap but that can be separate and distinct:
1. Phonological deficit, implicating a core problem in the phonological processing system of oral
language.
2. Processing speed/orthographic processing deficit, affecting speed and accuracy of printed word
recognition (also called naming speed problem or fluency problem).
3. Comprehension deficit, often coinciding with the first two types of problems, but specifically found in
children with social-linguistic disabilities (e.g., autism spectrum), vocabulary weaknesses,
generalized language learning disorders, and learning difficulties that affect abstract reasoning and
logical thinking.
If a student has a prominent and specific weakness in either phonological or rapid print (naming-speed)
processing, they are said to have a single deficit in word recognition. If they have a combination of
phonological and naming-speed deficits, they are said to have a double deficit (Wolf & Bowers, 1999).
Double-deficit children are more common than single-deficit and are also the most challenging to remediate.
Related and coexisting problems in children with reading disabilities often include:
• faulty pencil grip and letter formation;
• attention problems;
• anxiety;
• task avoidance;
• weak impulse control;
• distractibility;
• problems with comprehension of spoken language; and
• confusion of mathematical signs and computation processes.
About 30 percent of all children with dyslexia also have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Moats, L, & Tolman, C (2009). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling (LETRS): The challenge of
learning to read (module 1). Boston: Sopris West.
Three Things Research Tells Us about
Interventions for Struggling Readers
By: Joe Torgenson, et al. (2007)
This article, excerpted from a larger guidance document from the Center on Instruction, looks at what
research tells us about helping students who read below grade level, and highlights the following findings:
1) schools must provide varied instructional support, based on the degree and nature of the student's
difficulty; 2) it is important for students to learn comprehension strategies, and strategy instruction should
be coordinated between literacy specialists and content-area teachers; and 3) more research is needed to
prove which instructional improvements are really effective.
When considering research findings, we can draw several conclusions about effective instruction for
struggling readers.
First, schools need to be able to provide high-quality instruction in both word-level and comprehension skills
in order to meet the diverse needs of students who continue to struggle with reading in late-elementary,
middle, and high school. Because struggling readers differ in both the degree and the nature of their reading
problems, their instructional supports need to vary in intensity and focus. Some students with adequate
word-level skills who perform slightly below grade level might be effectively served through differentiated
instruction in content-area classes.
Many other students, however, will need much more intensive reading instruction than content area
teachers alone can provide. There is a clear role for reading specialists in middle and high school to provide
intensive, focused instruction to students with serious gaps in their reading skill, including students with
learning disabilities.
Second, with the exception of instruction to increase reading accuracy and fluency, the content of effective
literacy instruction for students reading below grade is very similar to that recommended for students
reading at grade level and above. As with students reading at grade level, general recommendations include
instruction to help students apply reading comprehension strategies more effectively before, during, and
after reading, instruction to increase the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge, instruction and
assignments that are motivating and engaging, and instruction that improves knowledge of content-area
concepts and facts.
The overlap between the instructional needs of struggling readers and those reading at grade level suggests
the opportunity for carefully coordinated instruction between reading specialists in intensive reading classes
and content-area teachers in their subject areas. Many struggling readers may require support beyond that
which content-area teachers can provide to become proficient in the use of specific comprehension
strategies (more explicit and intensive instruction), but it would seem immensely helpful if content-area
teachers were explaining and reinforcing the use of similar strategies with textbooks in social studies,
history, science, and so on. In fact, given the problems of obtaining strong impacts on measures of general
reading comprehension noted earlier, extending both instructional and practice opportunities in the use of
effective reading strategies for struggling readers into the content areas seems a very important
instructional innovation for middle and high school.
Third, it is clear that we need more research conducted in real classroom settings over a substantial period
of time before we can realistically estimate the extent to which instruction in reading accuracy and fluency,
as well as other areas important for reading comprehension, can actually close the reading gap for students
with varying degrees of reading impairment.
Most studies conducted thus far have identified instructional procedures that are more effective than a
control condition involving "traditional instruction." However, very few of these studies have used
standardized measures that provide standard scores or percentile ranks that allow us to estimate the extent
to which students have become better readers in relation to grade level reading standards. Further, we are
not aware of any studies that have examined changes in performance on state-mandated accountability
measures as a result of exposure to the kinds of instructional improvements recommended in this
document. Without research with these kinds of measures, it is difficult to specify the necessary instructional
conditions for students with various levels and types of reading impairment to make significant
improvements toward grade-level reading standards.
Torgenson, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J. Francis, D. J, Rivera,
M. O., Lesaux, N. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on
Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Academic%20Literacy.pdf.
– Types of Reading Disability
– Three Things Research Tells Us about Interventions for Struggling Readers
**## ReadingDifficultyArticles.pdf**
Types of Reading Disability
By: Louisa Moats and Carol Tolman (2008)
Researchers have identified three kinds of developmental reading disabilities that often overlap but that can
be separate and distinct: (1) phonological deficit, (2) processing speed/orthographic processing deficit, and
(3) comprehension deficit.
Researchers have made considerable progress in understanding all types of reading disabilities (Fletcher et
al., 2007). For purposes of research, "reading impaired" children may be all those who score below the 30th
percentile in basic reading skill. Among all of those poor readers, about 70-80 percent have trouble with
accurate and fluent word recognition that originates with weaknesses in phonological processing, often in
combination with fluency and comprehension problems. These students have obvious trouble learning
sound-symbol correspondence, sounding out words, and spelling. The term dyslexic is most often applied to
this group.
Another 10-15 percent of poor readers appear to be accurate but too slow in word recognition and text
reading. They have specific weaknesses with speed of word recognition and automatic recall of word
spellings, although they do relatively well on tests of phoneme awareness and other phonological skills. They
have trouble developing automatic recognition of words by sight and tend to spell phonetically but not
accurately. This subgroup is thought to have relative strengths in phonological processing, but the nature of
their relative weakness is still debated by reading scientists (Fletcher et al, 2007; Katzir et al., 2006; Wolf &
Bowers, 1999). Some argue that the problem is primarily one of timing or processing speed, and others
propose that there is a specific deficit within the orthographic processor that affects the storage and recall of
exact letter sequences. This processing speed/orthographic subgroup generally has milder difficulties with
reading than students with phonological processing deficits.
Yet another 10-15 percent of poor readers appear to decode words better than they can comprehend the
meanings of passages. These poor readers are distinguished from dyslexic poor readers because they can
read words accurately and quickly and they can spell. Their problems are caused by disorders of social
reasoning, abstract verbal reasoning, or language comprehension.
Subtypes of Reading Disability
Researchers currently propose that there are three kinds of developmental reading disabilities that often
overlap but that can be separate and distinct:
1. Phonological deficit, implicating a core problem in the phonological processing system of oral
language.
2. Processing speed/orthographic processing deficit, affecting speed and accuracy of printed word
recognition (also called naming speed problem or fluency problem).
3. Comprehension deficit, often coinciding with the first two types of problems, but specifically found in
children with social-linguistic disabilities (e.g., autism spectrum), vocabulary weaknesses,
generalized language learning disorders, and learning difficulties that affect abstract reasoning and
logical thinking.
If a student has a prominent and specific weakness in either phonological or rapid print (naming-speed)
processing, they are said to have a single deficit in word recognition. If they have a combination of
phonological and naming-speed deficits, they are said to have a double deficit (Wolf & Bowers, 1999).
Double-deficit children are more common than single-deficit and are also the most challenging to remediate.
Related and coexisting problems in children with reading disabilities often include:
• faulty pencil grip and letter formation;
• attention problems;
• anxiety;
• task avoidance;
• weak impulse control;
• distractibility;
• problems with comprehension of spoken language; and
• confusion of mathematical signs and computation processes.
About 30 percent of all children with dyslexia also have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Moats, L, & Tolman, C (2009). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling (LETRS): The challenge of
learning to read (module 1). Boston: Sopris West.
Three Things Research Tells Us about
Interventions for Struggling Readers
By: Joe Torgenson, et al. (2007)
This article, excerpted from a larger guidance document from the Center on Instruction, looks at what
research tells us about helping students who read below grade level, and highlights the following findings:
1) schools must provide varied instructional support, based on the degree and nature of the student's
difficulty; 2) it is important for students to learn comprehension strategies, and strategy instruction should
be coordinated between literacy specialists and content-area teachers; and 3) more research is needed to
prove which instructional improvements are really effective.
When considering research findings, we can draw several conclusions about effective instruction for
struggling readers.
First, schools need to be able to provide high-quality instruction in both word-level and comprehension skills
in order to meet the diverse needs of students who continue to struggle with reading in late-elementary,
middle, and high school. Because struggling readers differ in both the degree and the nature of their reading
problems, their instructional supports need to vary in intensity and focus. Some students with adequate
word-level skills who perform slightly below grade level might be effectively served through differentiated
instruction in content-area classes.
Many other students, however, will need much more intensive reading instruction than content area
teachers alone can provide. There is a clear role for reading specialists in middle and high school to provide
intensive, focused instruction to students with serious gaps in their reading skill, including students with
learning disabilities.
Second, with the exception of instruction to increase reading accuracy and fluency, the content of effective
literacy instruction for students reading below grade is very similar to that recommended for students
reading at grade level and above. As with students reading at grade level, general recommendations include
instruction to help students apply reading comprehension strategies more effectively before, during, and
after reading, instruction to increase the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge, instruction and
assignments that are motivating and engaging, and instruction that improves knowledge of content-area
concepts and facts.
The overlap between the instructional needs of struggling readers and those reading at grade level suggests
the opportunity for carefully coordinated instruction between reading specialists in intensive reading classes
and content-area teachers in their subject areas. Many struggling readers may require support beyond that
which content-area teachers can provide to become proficient in the use of specific comprehension
strategies (more explicit and intensive instruction), but it would seem immensely helpful if content-area
teachers were explaining and reinforcing the use of similar strategies with textbooks in social studies,
history, science, and so on. In fact, given the problems of obtaining strong impacts on measures of general
reading comprehension noted earlier, extending both instructional and practice opportunities in the use of
effective reading strategies for struggling readers into the content areas seems a very important
instructional innovation for middle and high school.
Third, it is clear that we need more research conducted in real classroom settings over a substantial period
of time before we can realistically estimate the extent to which instruction in reading accuracy and fluency,
as well as other areas important for reading comprehension, can actually close the reading gap for students
with varying degrees of reading impairment.
Most studies conducted thus far have identified instructional procedures that are more effective than a
control condition involving "traditional instruction." However, very few of these studies have used
standardized measures that provide standard scores or percentile ranks that allow us to estimate the extent
to which students have become better readers in relation to grade level reading standards. Further, we are
not aware of any studies that have examined changes in performance on state-mandated accountability
measures as a result of exposure to the kinds of instructional improvements recommended in this
document. Without research with these kinds of measures, it is difficult to specify the necessary instructional
conditions for students with various levels and types of reading impairment to make significant
improvements toward grade-level reading standards.
Torgenson, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J. Francis, D. J, Rivera,
M. O., Lesaux, N. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on
Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Academic%20Literacy.pdf.
– Types of Reading Disability
– Three Things Research Tells Us about Interventions for Struggling Readers
**## ArticelCritiqueAssignment.pdf**
Page 1 of 2
Article Critique
Read the two articles provided. Choose one of the articles and complete a 2-page article
analysis using the guidelines provided. Submit your analysis to the grade book for evaluation.
Reading and Thinking:
• Read the article SLOWLY. Don't criticize anything just yet. Try to really understand the
author's logic rather than questioning it.
• Mark key points and transitions as you read. Try to isolate at least one central point in
each paragraph.
• Review introductory and closing sections closely. Think about how the author moves
from opening statements to conclusions via the body of the article.
Writing:
• Begin your written analysis with a blanket statement summarizing what the author does
in the article. Sometimes the author explicitly gives you his or her agenda in the
introduction and/or in the conclusion. You should be able to relay this in one or (maybe)
two sentences.
• Summarize the key ideas used by the author in achieving his or her agenda. Look at the
parts of the article you have marked. Try to indicate how the author progresses from
idea to idea in the article.
• List important evidence used to support key ideas in the article. Indicate why the author
finds this evidence convincing.
Critiquing:
• Carefully describe any biased, illogical, or inappropriate use of evidence in the
article. Take into account the author's purpose and perspective, as any apparent misuse
of evidence may be attributable to these factors.
• Note any avoidable lack of evidence in the article.
• Note the strong points of the article.
Finalizing:
• Proofread your writing. Read it aloud. Try to use active verbs and concise modifiers.
• Verify that your analysis would be helpful to someone who hadn't read the article. Don't
assume that your reader can intuit what you mean by anything.
Grading Rubric
Component Unacceptable Acceptable Target
At the top of the page,
write your article
reference in APA
format.
Reference has more
than 1 APA error.
(0 points)
Reference follows APA
format, with 1 error.
(1 point)
Reference carefully
follows APA format,
with no errors.
(2 points)
Page 2 of 2
Component Unacceptable Acceptable Target
Summary
Key points and
evidence to support
those points is clearly
presented
Summary of article is
inadequate or too
brief; does not identify
main points; fails to
include appropriate
evidence to support
points. (0 points)
Acceptable summary
of information that
describes the article’s
premise; evidence is
included. (5 points)
Excellent summary of
relevant information
that clearly describe
the article’s premise;
evidence is included.
(10 points)
Critique Incomplete critique;
lacks reflection and
sound analysis of the
chosen article; no
clear connections are
made to evidence
gather from the article.
(0 points)
Complete critique;
shows an adequate
level of reflection and
analysis; may lack
connections to
evidence gathered
from the article.
(5 points)
Complete, well-formed
critique; shows a
thoughtful, reflective,
in-depth analysis of
chosen article.
(10 points)
Professional
Presentation
Writing involves many
grammatical errors
(more than 3).
(0 points)
Writing involves few
grammatical errors (no
more than 2). (1 point)
Writing is free of all
writing errors.
(3 points)
– Article Critique
– Grading Rubric
**## ReadingDifficultyArticles.pdf**
Types of Reading Disability
By: Louisa Moats and Carol Tolman (2008)
Researchers have identified three kinds of developmental reading disabilities that often overlap but that can
be separate and distinct: (1) phonological deficit, (2) processing speed/orthographic processing deficit, and
(3) comprehension deficit.
Researchers have made considerable progress in understanding all types of reading disabilities (Fletcher et
al., 2007). For purposes of research, "reading impaired" children may be all those who score below the 30th
percentile in basic reading skill. Among all of those poor readers, about 70-80 percent have trouble with
accurate and fluent word recognition that originates with weaknesses in phonological processing, often in
combination with fluency and comprehension problems. These students have obvious trouble learning
sound-symbol correspondence, sounding out words, and spelling. The term dyslexic is most often applied to
this group.
Another 10-15 percent of poor readers appear to be accurate but too slow in word recognition and text
reading. They have specific weaknesses with speed of word recognition and automatic recall of word
spellings, although they do relatively well on tests of phoneme awareness and other phonological skills. They
have trouble developing automatic recognition of words by sight and tend to spell phonetically but not
accurately. This subgroup is thought to have relative strengths in phonological processing, but the nature of
their relative weakness is still debated by reading scientists (Fletcher et al, 2007; Katzir et al., 2006; Wolf &
Bowers, 1999). Some argue that the problem is primarily one of timing or processing speed, and others
propose that there is a specific deficit within the orthographic processor that affects the storage and recall of
exact letter sequences. This processing speed/orthographic subgroup generally has milder difficulties with
reading than students with phonological processing deficits.
Yet another 10-15 percent of poor readers appear to decode words better than they can comprehend the
meanings of passages. These poor readers are distinguished from dyslexic poor readers because they can
read words accurately and quickly and they can spell. Their problems are caused by disorders of social
reasoning, abstract verbal reasoning, or language comprehension.
Subtypes of Reading Disability
Researchers currently propose that there are three kinds of developmental reading disabilities that often
overlap but that can be separate and distinct:
1. Phonological deficit, implicating a core problem in the phonological processing system of oral
language.
2. Processing speed/orthographic processing deficit, affecting speed and accuracy of printed word
recognition (also called naming speed problem or fluency problem).
3. Comprehension deficit, often coinciding with the first two types of problems, but specifically found in
children with social-linguistic disabilities (e.g., autism spectrum), vocabulary weaknesses,
generalized language learning disorders, and learning difficulties that affect abstract reasoning and
logical thinking.
If a student has a prominent and specific weakness in either phonological or rapid print (naming-speed)
processing, they are said to have a single deficit in word recognition. If they have a combination of
phonological and naming-speed deficits, they are said to have a double deficit (Wolf & Bowers, 1999).
Double-deficit children are more common than single-deficit and are also the most challenging to remediate.
Related and coexisting problems in children with reading disabilities often include:
• faulty pencil grip and letter formation;
• attention problems;
• anxiety;
• task avoidance;
• weak impulse control;
• distractibility;
• problems with comprehension of spoken language; and
• confusion of mathematical signs and computation processes.
About 30 percent of all children with dyslexia also have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Moats, L, & Tolman, C (2009). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling (LETRS): The challenge of
learning to read (module 1). Boston: Sopris West.
Three Things Research Tells Us about
Interventions for Struggling Readers
By: Joe Torgenson, et al. (2007)
This article, excerpted from a larger guidance document from the Center on Instruction, looks at what
research tells us about helping students who read below grade level, and highlights the following findings:
1) schools must provide varied instructional support, based on the degree and nature of the student's
difficulty; 2) it is important for students to learn comprehension strategies, and strategy instruction should
be coordinated between literacy specialists and content-area teachers; and 3) more research is needed to
prove which instructional improvements are really effective.
When considering research findings, we can draw several conclusions about effective instruction for
struggling readers.
First, schools need to be able to provide high-quality instruction in both word-level and comprehension skills
in order to meet the diverse needs of students who continue to struggle with reading in late-elementary,
middle, and high school. Because struggling readers differ in both the degree and the nature of their reading
problems, their instructional supports need to vary in intensity and focus. Some students with adequate
word-level skills who perform slightly below grade level might be effectively served through differentiated
instruction in content-area classes.
Many other students, however, will need much more intensive reading instruction than content area
teachers alone can provide. There is a clear role for reading specialists in middle and high school to provide
intensive, focused instruction to students with serious gaps in their reading skill, including students with
learning disabilities.
Second, with the exception of instruction to increase reading accuracy and fluency, the content of effective
literacy instruction for students reading below grade is very similar to that recommended for students
reading at grade level and above. As with students reading at grade level, general recommendations include
instruction to help students apply reading comprehension strategies more effectively before, during, and
after reading, instruction to increase the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge, instruction and
assignments that are motivating and engaging, and instruction that improves knowledge of content-area
concepts and facts.
The overlap between the instructional needs of struggling readers and those reading at grade level suggests
the opportunity for carefully coordinated instruction between reading specialists in intensive reading classes
and content-area teachers in their subject areas. Many struggling readers may require support beyond that
which content-area teachers can provide to become proficient in the use of specific comprehension
strategies (more explicit and intensive instruction), but it would seem immensely helpful if content-area
teachers were explaining and reinforcing the use of similar strategies with textbooks in social studies,
history, science, and so on. In fact, given the problems of obtaining strong impacts on measures of general
reading comprehension noted earlier, extending both instructional and practice opportunities in the use of
effective reading strategies for struggling readers into the content areas seems a very important
instructional innovation for middle and high school.
Third, it is clear that we need more research conducted in real classroom settings over a substantial period
of time before we can realistically estimate the extent to which instruction in reading accuracy and fluency,
as well as other areas important for reading comprehension, can actually close the reading gap for students
with varying degrees of reading impairment.
Most studies conducted thus far have identified instructional procedures that are more effective than a
control condition involving "traditional instruction." However, very few of these studies have used
standardized measures that provide standard scores or percentile ranks that allow us to estimate the extent
to which students have become better readers in relation to grade level reading standards. Further, we are
not aware of any studies that have examined changes in performance on state-mandated accountability
measures as a result of exposure to the kinds of instructional improvements recommended in this
document. Without research with these kinds of measures, it is difficult to specify the necessary instructional
conditions for students with various levels and types of reading impairment to make significant
improvements toward grade-level reading standards.
Torgenson, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J. Francis, D. J, Rivera,
M. O., Lesaux, N. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on
Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Academic%20Literacy.pdf.
– Types of Reading Disability
– Three Things Research Tells Us about Interventions for Struggling Readers
**## ArticelCritiqueAssignment.pdf**
Page 1 of 2
Article Critique
Read the two articles provided. Choose one of the articles and complete a 2-page article
analysis using the guidelines provided. Submit your analysis to the grade book for evaluation.
Reading and Thinking:
• Read the article SLOWLY. Don't criticize anything just yet. Try to really understand the
author's logic rather than questioning it.
• Mark key points and transitions as you read. Try to isolate at least one central point in
each paragraph.
• Review introductory and closing sections closely. Think about how the author moves
from opening statements to conclusions via the body of the article.
Writing:
• Begin your written analysis with a blanket statement summarizing what the author does
in the article. Sometimes the author explicitly gives you his or her agenda in the
introduction and/or in the conclusion. You should be able to relay this in one or (maybe)
two sentences.
• Summarize the key ideas used by the author in achieving his or her agenda. Look at the
parts of the article you have marked. Try to indicate how the author progresses from
idea to idea in the article.
• List important evidence used to support key ideas in the article. Indicate why the author
finds this evidence convincing.
Critiquing:
• Carefully describe any biased, illogical, or inappropriate use of evidence in the
article. Take into account the author's purpose and perspective, as any apparent misuse
of evidence may be attributable to these factors.
• Note any avoidable lack of evidence in the article.
• Note the strong points of the article.
Finalizing:
• Proofread your writing. Read it aloud. Try to use active verbs and concise modifiers.
• Verify that your analysis would be helpful to someone who hadn't read the article. Don't
assume that your reader can intuit what you mean by anything.
Grading Rubric
Component Unacceptable Acceptable Target
At the top of the page,
write your article
reference in APA
format.
Reference has more
than 1 APA error.
(0 points)
Reference follows APA
format, with 1 error.
(1 point)
Reference carefully
follows APA format,
with no errors.
(2 points)
Page 2 of 2
Component Unacceptable Acceptable Target
Summary
Key points and
evidence to support
those points is clearly
presented
Summary of article is
inadequate or too
brief; does not identify
main points; fails to
include appropriate
evidence to support
points. (0 points)
Acceptable summary
of information that
describes the article’s
premise; evidence is
included. (5 points)
Excellent summary of
relevant information
that clearly describe
the article’s premise;
evidence is included.
(10 points)
Critique Incomplete critique;
lacks reflection and
sound analysis of the
chosen article; no
clear connections are
made to evidence
gather from the article.
(0 points)
Complete critique;
shows an adequate
level of reflection and
analysis; may lack
connections to
evidence gathered
from the article.
(5 points)
Complete, well-formed
critique; shows a
thoughtful, reflective,
in-depth analysis of
chosen article.
(10 points)
Professional
Presentation
Writing involves many
grammatical errors
(more than 3).
(0 points)
Writing involves few
grammatical errors (no
more than 2). (1 point)
Writing is free of all
writing errors.
(3 points)
– Article Critique
– Grading Rubric
**## ReadingDifficultyArticles.pdf**
Types of Reading Disability
By: Louisa Moats and Carol Tolman (2008)
Researchers have identified three kinds of developmental reading disabilities that often overlap but that can
be separate and distinct: (1) phonological deficit, (2) processing speed/orthographic processing deficit, and
(3) comprehension deficit.
Researchers have made considerable progress in understanding all types of reading disabilities (Fletcher et
al., 2007). For purposes of research, "reading impaired" children may be all those who score below the 30th
percentile in basic reading skill. Among all of those poor readers, about 70-80 percent have trouble with
accurate and fluent word recognition that originates with weaknesses in phonological processing, often in
combination with fluency and comprehension problems. These students have obvious trouble learning
sound-symbol correspondence, sounding out words, and spelling. The term dyslexic is most often applied to
this group.
Another 10-15 percent of poor readers appear to be accurate but too slow in word recognition and text
reading. They have specific weaknesses with speed of word recognition and automatic recall of word
spellings, although they do relatively well on tests of phoneme awareness and other phonological skills. They
have trouble developing automatic recognition of words by sight and tend to spell phonetically but not
accurately. This subgroup is thought to have relative strengths in phonological processing, but the nature of
their relative weakness is still debated by reading scientists (Fletcher et al, 2007; Katzir et al., 2006; Wolf &
Bowers, 1999). Some argue that the problem is primarily one of timing or processing speed, and others
propose that there is a specific deficit within the orthographic processor that affects the storage and recall of
exact letter sequences. This processing speed/orthographic subgroup generally has milder difficulties with
reading than students with phonological processing deficits.
Yet another 10-15 percent of poor readers appear to decode words better than they can comprehend the
meanings of passages. These poor readers are distinguished from dyslexic poor readers because they can
read words accurately and quickly and they can spell. Their problems are caused by disorders of social
reasoning, abstract verbal reasoning, or language comprehension.
Subtypes of Reading Disability
Researchers currently propose that there are three kinds of developmental reading disabilities that often
overlap but that can be separate and distinct:
1. Phonological deficit, implicating a core problem in the phonological processing system of oral
language.
2. Processing speed/orthographic processing deficit, affecting speed and accuracy of printed word
recognition (also called naming speed problem or fluency problem).
3. Comprehension deficit, often coinciding with the first two types of problems, but specifically found in
children with social-linguistic disabilities (e.g., autism spectrum), vocabulary weaknesses,
generalized language learning disorders, and learning difficulties that affect abstract reasoning and
logical thinking.
If a student has a prominent and specific weakness in either phonological or rapid print (naming-speed)
processing, they are said to have a single deficit in word recognition. If they have a combination of
phonological and naming-speed deficits, they are said to have a double deficit (Wolf & Bowers, 1999).
Double-deficit children are more common than single-deficit and are also the most challenging to remediate.
Related and coexisting problems in children with reading disabilities often include:
• faulty pencil grip and letter formation;
• attention problems;
• anxiety;
• task avoidance;
• weak impulse control;
• distractibility;
• problems with comprehension of spoken language; and
• confusion of mathematical signs and computation processes.
About 30 percent of all children with dyslexia also have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Moats, L, & Tolman, C (2009). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling (LETRS): The challenge of
learning to read (module 1). Boston: Sopris West.
Three Things Research Tells Us about
Interventions for Struggling Readers
By: Joe Torgenson, et al. (2007)
This article, excerpted from a larger guidance document from the Center on Instruction, looks at what
research tells us about helping students who read below grade level, and highlights the following findings:
1) schools must provide varied instructional support, based on the degree and nature of the student's
difficulty; 2) it is important for students to learn comprehension strategies, and strategy instruction should
be coordinated between literacy specialists and content-area teachers; and 3) more research is needed to
prove which instructional improvements are really effective.
When considering research findings, we can draw several conclusions about effective instruction for
struggling readers.
First, schools need to be able to provide high-quality instruction in both word-level and comprehension skills
in order to meet the diverse needs of students who continue to struggle with reading in late-elementary,
middle, and high school. Because struggling readers differ in both the degree and the nature of their reading
problems, their instructional supports need to vary in intensity and focus. Some students with adequate
word-level skills who perform slightly below grade level might be effectively served through differentiated
instruction in content-area classes.
Many other students, however, will need much more intensive reading instruction than content area
teachers alone can provide. There is a clear role for reading specialists in middle and high school to provide
intensive, focused instruction to students with serious gaps in their reading skill, including students with
learning disabilities.
Second, with the exception of instruction to increase reading accuracy and fluency, the content of effective
literacy instruction for students reading below grade is very similar to that recommended for students
reading at grade level and above. As with students reading at grade level, general recommendations include
instruction to help students apply reading comprehension strategies more effectively before, during, and
after reading, instruction to increase the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge, instruction and
assignments that are motivating and engaging, and instruction that improves knowledge of content-area
concepts and facts.
The overlap between the instructional needs of struggling readers and those reading at grade level suggests
the opportunity for carefully coordinated instruction between reading specialists in intensive reading classes
and content-area teachers in their subject areas. Many struggling readers may require support beyond that
which content-area teachers can provide to become proficient in the use of specific comprehension
strategies (more explicit and intensive instruction), but it would seem immensely helpful if content-area
teachers were explaining and reinforcing the use of similar strategies with textbooks in social studies,
history, science, and so on. In fact, given the problems of obtaining strong impacts on measures of general
reading comprehension noted earlier, extending both instructional and practice opportunities in the use of
effective reading strategies for struggling readers into the content areas seems a very important
instructional innovation for middle and high school.
Third, it is clear that we need more research conducted in real classroom settings over a substantial period
of time before we can realistically estimate the extent to which instruction in reading accuracy and fluency,
as well as other areas important for reading comprehension, can actually close the reading gap for students
with varying degrees of reading impairment.
Most studies conducted thus far have identified instructional procedures that are more effective than a
control condition involving "traditional instruction." However, very few of these studies have used
standardized measures that provide standard scores or percentile ranks that allow us to estimate the extent
to which students have become better readers in relation to grade level reading standards. Further, we are
not aware of any studies that have examined changes in performance on state-mandated accountability
measures as a result of exposure to the kinds of instructional improvements recommended in this
document. Without research with these kinds of measures, it is difficult to specify the necessary instructional
conditions for students with various levels and types of reading impairment to make significant
improvements toward grade-level reading standards.
Torgenson, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J. Francis, D. J, Rivera,
M. O., Lesaux, N. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on
Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Academic%20Literacy.pdf.
– Types of Reading Disability
– Three Things Research Tells Us about Interventions for Struggling Readers
– 1
– 2