Ensuring Content‐Area Learning by Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities

Three factors tied with secondary student success in content‐area reading are demonstrated: (a) validated teacher‐focused and student‐focused interventions, (b) integrated and comprehensive service delivery systems, and (c) well‐designed, data‐based professional developmental programs. Difficult challenges face secondary students with LD and their teachers with regard to these students’ participation and success in required general education classes. Recently, instructional methods and materials have been developed and validated for promoting these students’ success. Some of them focus on how general education teachers plan and teach their content‐area courses; others focus on giving students the strategies they need to respond independently to the demands of their courses. This article describes these instructional methods, a service‐delivery model for implementing these interventions in secondary schools, and professional‐development mechanisms and administrative support that must be in place for the model to be maintained effectively.     

Early Literacy Skills in African-American Children: Research Considerations

The poor reading achievement of African-American children in urban schools is well established. African-American children from low-income homes may be at particular risk for reading difficulties, although middle-income children often fare poorly as well. Intervention efforts have focused on children in kindergarten through fifth grade. This article suggests that prevention efforts must begin prior to kindergarten entry. Several key variables that may influence young children's performance, including poverty, general oral language skills, dialectal variations, home literacy practices, standardized testing bias, and teacher expectations, are explored. Future directions for research addressing emergent literacy in African-American children are discussed throughout.     

Icelandic: A Lesser-Used Language in the Global Community

A small nation in the middle of the North Atlantic, Iceland currently has a population of 265,000 (1996). The Iceland language has changed very little since the island was settled some 11 centuries ago. Despite the relatively small number of people who speak the language and irrespective of the globalisation efforts by the international community, which includes the ever-increasing influence of English worldwide, the Icelandic language and culture are stronger than ever. The current volume and variety of publications of Icelandic works in all areas have never been as great. Icelandic is a living and growing language. Growth in vocabulary, in response to recent phenomena like the introduction of new technology, has primarily come about with the development of new words from the language's roots. The near absence of Latin, Greek and, more recently, English or Danish words in Icelandic, is striking. Iceland's language policy is not only a governmental policy. It is a policy that comes from the grassroots with the government and official institutions viewing their job as one of service to the people of Iceland. Icelanders are very proud of their language and are extremely determined to continually develop and preserve it for future generations.     

A comparison of the anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of female elite and recreational climbers and non-climbers.

There is limited information on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of female rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of females: Group 1 comprised 10 elite climbers aged 31.3 +/- 5.0 years (mean +/- s) who had led to a standard of 'hard very severe'; Group 2 consisted of 10 recreational climbers aged 24.1 +/- 4.0 years who had led to a standard of 'severe'; and Group 3 comprised 10 physically active individuals aged 28.5 +/- 5.0 years who had not previously rock-climbed. The tests included finger strength (grip strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus), flexibility, bent arm hang and pull-ups. Regression procedures (analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass, leg length, height and age. For finger strength, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values (P < 0.05) than the recreational climbers and non-climbers (four fingers, right hand: elite 321 +/- 18 N, recreational 251 +/- 14 N, non-climbers 256 +/- 15 N; four fingers, left hand: elite 307 +/- 14 N, recreational 248 +/- 12 N, non-climbers 243 +/- 11 N). For grip strength of the right hand, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values than the recreational climbers only (elite 338 +/- 12 N, recreational 289 +/- 10 N, non-climbers 307 +/- 11 N). The results suggest that elite climbers have greater finger strength than recreational climbers and non-climbers.