Explaining the variance in reading ability in terms of psychological processes: What have we learned?

After years of confusion, the literature on individual differences in reading ability is finally beginning to coalesce around a small set of general conclusions that are endorsed by the vast majority of researchers. The most fundamental is that word decoding ability accounts for a very large proportion of the variance in reading ability at all levels. Variation in word decoding skill is primarily the result of differences in phonological abilities, rather than visual processes. Less-skilled readers are not characterized by a general inability to use context to facilitate word recognition. However, situations where such readers fail to utilize context to facilitate word recognition will arise when their slow and inaccurate decoding of words renders the context useless. Less-skilled readers display performance deficits on a wide variety of short-term memory tasks, probably due to an inability to efficiently employ various memory strategies, and most certainly due to inadequate phonological coding. Less-skilled readers may have comprehension deficits that are partially independent of word decoding skill. These problems probably arise because syntactic abilities and metacognitive strategies are inadequately developed. Presented at the Twelfth Annual Conference of the New York Branch of The Orton Dyslexia Society, New York, March 1985.     

The Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking

The Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded in 2002 for work on judgment and decision-making tasks that are the operational measures of rational thought in cognitive science. Because assessments of intelligence (and similar tests of cognitive ability) are taken to be the quintessence of good thinking, it might be thought that such measures would serve as proxies for the assessment of rational thought. It is important to understand why such an assumption would be misplaced. It is often not recognized that rationality and intelligence (as traditionally defined) are two different things conceptually and empirically. Distinguishing between rationality and intelligence helps explain how people can be, at the same time, intelligent and irrational. Thus, individual differences in the cognitive skills that underlie rational thinking must be studied in their own right because intelligence tests do not explicitly assess rational thinking. In this article, I describe how my research group has worked to develop the first prototype of a comprehensive test of rational thought (the Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking).     

Preparing general educators to teach in inclusive classrooms: Some food for thought

Abstract

Teacher education programs designed to prepare general education classroom teachers to teach in classrooms that include students with disabilities should be developed based on current research into the variables that are key to the successful inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classroom settings. The authors attempt to build a bridge from research to practice by describing one such research project, presenting some of its findings, and offering some food for thought on designing teacher preparation programs.     

Children's literacy environments and early word recognition subskills

First-grade children completed a battery of tasks that included standardized measures of word recognition and spelling, measures of phonological and orthographic processing skill, and a short indicator of exposure to print via home literacy experiences. Phonological and orthographic processing skill were separable components of variance in word recognition. Orthographic processing ability accounted for variance in word recognition ability even after the variance in three phonological processing measures had been partialed. Additionally, variance in orthographic processing ability not explained by phonological abilities was reliably linked to differences in print exposure. The print exposure measure was not, however, linked to the measures of phonological processing. This finding was unexpected but it is consistent with some previous research. The theoretical implications of this result are discussed.