The case for the narrow view of reading

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 174-177

  Kamhi, Alan G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Definition; Reading

Indexed keywords

COMPREHENSION; EDITORIAL; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; LANGUAGE DISABILITY; LANGUAGE TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; READING; SCHOOL;

COMPREHENSION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE DISORDERS; LANGUAGE TESTS; READING; SCHOOLS;

EID: 66349116761     PISSN: 01611461     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0068)     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bashir, A. S., & Hook, P. E. (2009). Fluency: A key link between word identification and comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 196-200.
2. Catts, H. W. (2009). The narrow view of reading promotes a broad view of comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 178-183.
3. Ehren, B. J. (2009). Looking through an adolescent literacy lens at the narrow view of reading. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 192-195.
4. Fletcher, J., Coulter, W., Reschly, D., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304-331.
5. Hirsch, E. D. (2006). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking education gap for American children. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
6. Kamhi, A. (2007a, May 29). Knowledge deficits: The true crisis in education. The ASHA Leader, 12(7), 28-29.
7. Kamhi, A. (2007b, September 25). A narrow view of reading promotes comprehension. The ASHA Leader, 12(13), 40.
8. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Lyon, R. (1998, April). Overview of reading and literacy initiatives. Report presented to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Washington, DC.
10. Lyon, R., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1-14.
11. Moats, L. (2004). Language, science, and imagination in the professional development of teachers of reading. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 269-287). Baltimore: Brookes.
12. Moravcsik, J., & Kintsch, W. (1993). Writing quality, reading skills, and domain knowledge as factors in reading comprehension. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 360-374.
13. National Assessment of Education Progress. (2007). Long-term trend: National trends in reading by performance levels. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/nat-reading-perf-asp.
14. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
15. Perfetti, C. (1986). Cognitive and linguistic components of reading ability. In B. Foorman & A. Siegel (Eds.), Acquisition of reading skills (pp. 1-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Pianta, R., Belsky, J., Houts, R., & Morrison, F.(2007). Teaching: Opportunities to learn in American classrooms. Science, 315, 1795-1796.
17. Recht, D., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16-20.
18. Scott, C. M. (2009). A case for the sentence in reading comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 184-191.
19. Simmons, D., Kame'enui, E., Harn, B., Coyne, M., Stoolmiller, M., Santoro, L., et al. (2007). Attributes of effective and efficient kinder-garten reading intervention: An examination of instructional time and design specificity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 331-348.
20. Torgesen, J., Al Otaiba, S., & Grek, M. (2005). Assessment and instruction for phonemic awareness and word recognition skills. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), Reading and language disabilities (pp. 127-156). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
21. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind: A desktop reference. Washington, DC: Author.
22. Wallach, G. P., Charlton, S., & Christie, J. (2009). Making a broader case for the narrow view: Where to begin? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 201-211.
23. Willingham, D. (2006, Spring). How knowledge helps: It speeds and strengthens reading comprehension, learning-and thinking. American Educator, 30, 1-12.
24. Yekovich, F., Walker, C., Ogle, L., & Thompson, M. (1990). The influence of domain knowledge on inferencing in low-aptitude individuals. In A. Graesser & G. Bowers (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 175-196). New York: Academic Press.