Phonemic—Morphemic dissociation in university students with dyslexia: an index of reading compensation?

A phonological deficit constitutes a primary cause of developmental dyslexia, which persists into adulthood and can explain some aspects of their reading impairment. Nevertheless, some dyslexic adults successfully manage to study at university level, although very little is currently known about how they achieve this. The present study investigated at both the individual and group levels, whether the development of another oral language skill, namely, morphological knowledge, can be preserved and dissociated from the development of phonological knowledge. Reading, phonological, and morphological abilities were measured in 20 dyslexic and 20 non-dyslexic university students. The results confirmed the persistence of deficits in phonological but not morphological abilities, thereby revealing a dissociation in the development of these two skills. Moreover, the magnitude of the dissociation correlated with reading level. The outcome supports the claim that university students with dyslexia may compensate for phonological weaknesses by drawing on morphological knowledge in reading.     

Analyzing and Selecting Instructional Strategies and Tactics

“Formulation of instructional strategy to match subject matter and learner requirements” is an integral part of most instructional design models (Andrews & Goodson, 1980, p.5). Yet the meaning and purpose of instructional strategies in these design model vary considerably. An instructional strategy in traditional design models usually refers to the selection of instructional delivery vehicles (e.g., lecture, demonstration, computer–assisted instruction) and support activities (e.g., practice exercises, tutoring) (cf. Tracey, Flynn, & Legere, 1970). Contrast those conceptions with the many instructional strategies described in elaboration theory (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983), such as subsumptive sequencing, internally consistent orienting structures, synthesizers, summarizers, and cognitive strategy activators. What is obvious from these disparate conceptions is that instructional designers do not share a consistent definition of instructional strategies. Many of the activities that are referred to as instructional strategies are not in fact strategies, but rather are presentation vehicles. In this article, we first define instructional strategies and tactics in the context of an iterative design model. Instructional strategies are then distinguished from instructional tactics, which are the implementation of strategies. We then list the range of instructional strategies and tactics that implement them. Finally, we provide a decision tree for assisting designers to select appropriate instructional tactics.