Compilation - an error analysis on READING DIFFICULTIES
Introduction
The argument is that effective instruction of children with reading difficulties relies little on accurate diagnosis either of the apparent cause of the reading problem or the nature of the reading problem. The former argument that the diagnosis of the underlying cause of the problem is futile is not new but bears restatement as there is no sign that the practice is abating among certain health professionals. The diagnosis of the child's relative strengths and weaknesses in reading is also irrelevant to instruction is more controversial as it contradicts standard educational practice. It is considered that standardized reading tests, if properly administered and interpreted, have part to play in the identification of children with reading problems, but not in the diagnosis or treatment of such problems (Leu, 1991). Indeed, children with reading difficulties would be better served if more attention were paid to instruction and less to diagnosis.
Body
There was situation of oral reading error analysis containing the potential for generating important clues to our understanding of the reading process but this potential is currently unrealized. In a historical overview of this investigative approach, three problems that plagued early oral reading error studies are evident, lack of clearly articulated theoretical framework, inadequate sensitivity to important methodological issues and failure to adequately test the major assumptions involved in this approach. The overview suggests that current oral reading error studies have overcome the first problem but not the second and third. Furthermore, methodological problems contribute significantly to the inconsistent results typically found among oral reading error studies. There cannot use the results from oral reading error analysis confidently in order to make strong claims about either the nature of the reading process or the most appropriate instructional procedures for children (Leu, 1991). The early evidence pertaining to development of phonological segmentation abilities and their relation to reading was collected with English-speaking subjects.
Another, there has been French oral reading errors of two groups of seventh grade English-speaking students with intermediate and advanced competence in French as a second language were analyzed and compared to the errors of native French-speaking students (Cziko, 2006 pp. 101 – 114). There found that the intermediate students made a significantly lower proportion of deletion and insertion errors than did the advanced and nativespeaker students and significantly higher proportion of substitution errors that graphically resembled the text than did the native speakers. The intermediate students made significantly higher proportion of errors that did not conform to the syntactic, semantic, or discourse constraints of the text than did advanced and native speaker students (Cziko, 2006 pp. 101 – 114). Thus, native French speaking students and students with advanced competence in French as second language appeared to use an interactive strategy of drawing on both graphic and contextual information in reading French. Students with less competence in French did not use contextual information to the same extent and instead employed a more "bottom-up" strategy of relying primarily on graphic information (Cziko, 2006 pp. 101 – 114).
Conclusion
Therefore, data from other languages have been obtained, explicit cross language comparisons have not been made. It was considered that since languages vary in their phonological structures, they may also vary in the demands they make on the beginning reader. The study compared the segmentation abilities of children with those of English speaking children using the same methods of assessment and the same subject selection criteria. The syllable segmentation ability was stronger than phoneme segmentation. In both language groups, phonemic segmentation ability distinguished children of different levels of reading skill and those discrepancies between the language groups were seen as reflecting phonologic and orthographic differences between the languages.
References
Cziko G (2006) LANGUAGE COMPETENCE AND READING STRATEGIES: A COMPARISON OF FIRST-AND SECOND-LANGUAGE ORAL READING ERRORS. Language Learning Volume 30 Issue 1, pp. 101 – 114 Leu D (1991) Oral Reading Error Analysis: A Critical Review of Research and Application. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 420-437 International Reading Association
0 comments:
Post a Comment