Louisa C. Moats

Critical Conceptual and Methodological Considerations in Reading Intervention Research

Research designed to identify the instructional and ecological conditions that foster the development of literacy skills in children with reading disabilities reflects a complex, multivariate enterprise. In essence, such research must be able to ultimately identify the teacher characteristics and instructional components that are critical for individual children and the interrelationships among these components. The intensity and duration of instruction will differ according to the severity of deficits in either single- or multiple-component reading processes. Moreover, training in any one component may not be sufficient to produce automatic improvements in other reading skills. This article identifies a number of conceptual and methodological issues that should be considered when conducting and interpreting reading intervention research.

Wanted: Teachers with Knowledge of Language.

Research on the nature of reading and spelling disability (dyslexia) indicates unequivocally that most dyslexic individuals do not process language accurately or fluently at the level of phonology and that they may experience disorders in syntax and semantics as well. Simultaneously, intervention research clearly demonstrates that individuals who arc taught language structure explicitly progress more readily than those who are not. Given the consistency of research findings, the paucity of teachers skilled in teaching language explicitly to dyslexic children is of more concern than ever. Surveys of teacher knowledge, reviews of the literature on teacher education, and policy statements indicate that many teachers are underprepared to teach language content and processes to children whose learning problems are language based. Even motivated and experienced teachers typically understand too little about spoken and written language structure to be able to provide sufficient instruction in these areas. A new approach to teacher education is needed that emphasizes the importance of language knowledge for literacy instruction, as well as its skilled application to instructional planning.

The Necessity of the Alphabetic Principle to Phonemic Awareness Instruction.

This investigation examined the extent to whichcurricular choice and incorporation of phonemicawareness (PA) into the kindergarten curriculumaffects growth in kindergarten literacy skillsand first-grade reading and spelling outcomesin 114 classrooms in 32 Title 1 schools for4,872 children (85% African American). Literacy curricula were described as havingmore or less teacher choice and more or less PAand were implemented with ongoing professionaldevelopment. Observations of curriculumfidelities and ratings of student behavior werealso obtained. Alphabetic instruction withoutPA was not as effective as alphabeticinstruction with PA. However, effectiveinstruction in PA and alphabetic codingappeared to be as much a consequence of ongoingprofessional development as it was a functionof prescribed PA activities. Results providelarge-scale classroom support for findings onPA reported by the National Reading Panel[(2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-basedassessment of the scientific research literature onreading and its implications for reading instruction.Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development].

Learning Disabilities in the United States Advocacy, Science, and the Future of the Field

This overview offers a perspective on the distinguishing characteristics, past and present, of the LD field in the United States. The discussion focuses on the complex relationships that exist among the social and political forces that have molded the field, advocacy, and research and teaching practices. It emphasizes the compelling need to establish clinical and scientific validation of LD, to preserve the hard-won achievements of advocacy.

Still Wanted Teachers With Knowledge of Language

My long-standing concern about the preparation and professional development of teachers responsible for preventing and remediating reading and spelling disabilities (Moats, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2009) is shared by many colleagues (Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001; Brady & Moats, 1997; Mather, Bos, & Babur, 2001; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Moats & Lyon, 1996). In our classrooms, workshops, and research studies, we find that teachers often feel unprepared to address the instructional needs of students with language, reading, and writing problems, although these groups compose the large majority of those in remedial and special education. Teachers often have minimal understanding of how students learn to read and write or why many of their students experience difficulty with this most fundamental task of schooling. Although the quality of implementation of an instructional program has everything to do with its success (Haager, Heimbichner, Dhar, Moulton, & McMillan, 2008), poor implementation of adopted programs is a major reason why students at risk fail to progress. Unfortunately, current educational policies and funding practices continue to focus on program selection, school organization, and student test scores—not teachers, the contexts in which they teach, or the leadership and professional development required to ensure “teacher quality.” Thus, the research on teachers and teaching reported in this special issue of Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD) is all the more welcome and needed. This special issue of JLD enables us to consider why reading, writing, and language instruction may not be effective even though federal, state, and local policies may promote the value of evidence-based reading programs. The contributors to this issue consider the content knowledge, attitudes, learning experiences, and working environments that support teachers’ ability and willingness to implement research-based instruction. Teachers cannot teach well what they do not understand themselves, and these articles help explain why deep understanding is hard for teachers to acquire and why the path to progress is more complex than sometimes realized. Below is a brief summary of some obstacles to improvement that have been underappreciated in the past and that come to light in this issue.

Phonological spelling errors in the writing of dyslexic adolescents

Spelling researchers in the past have disagreed about the meaning of spelling errors for the diagnosis of dyslexia. Many studies have reported that spelling errors of individuals with dyslexia are similar to those of younger children but that they are not deviant or unusual. In this study, spelling errors from the spontaneous writing of 19 adolescents with a history of reading problems and persistent spelling difficulties were analyzed. The poorer spellers in this group made more errors than the better spellers on certain phonological and morphophonological constructions. Specifically, the poorer spellers made a disproportionately large number of errors in their representation of liquid and nasal consonants, especially after vowels, and their spellings of inflections -ed and -s. Even though poor spellers might eventually learn to spell with reasonable phonetic accuracy, their spelling appears to be marked by persistent, intractable difficulties representing specific phonological and morphophonological features of words.

From Assessment to Treatment

Within the past decade, child clinical neuropsychologists have been called upon increasingly to make relevant and informed recommendations for the treatment of both documented (i.e., traumatic head injury) and putative (i.e., learning disabilities) neurologically based developmental disorders. This increase in requests for specific therapeutic recommendations reflects a change in how the role of the child clinical neuropsychologist is perceived and, in particular, how the data obtained from neuropsychological assessments are used.