Reading Fluency: Rime or Random
Structure Counts

An effective instructional approach to achieve reading fluency can only emerge out of an understanding of both elements of the term, i.e., reading and fluency. After a long period of denying the facts, educators finally seem to have the resolve to base practice in what science has repeatedly established as the basis for reading acquisition (NPR, No child left behind), i.e., phonologically based direct instruction in the code. This does not in itself assure appropriate instruction and most certainly doesn’t ensure appropriately individualized instruction (Cherkes-Julkowski, 2003). Nevertheless, it is a very good beginning.
Far less resolved is the issue of fluency. Most of the work concerning reading fluency is based in an idea of additive automaticity, originally associated with LaBerge and Samuels (LaBerge & Samuels,1974) and now with reference to it (Samuels, 1985, Wolf & Katzir Cohen, 2001). On the automaticity theory, fluency is built based on repeated practice of a number of contributing skills, such that a response can be given without having to devote full consciousness to it, reserving cognitive capacity for “higher functions” such as comprehension. To get to this “desired” level of diminished consciousness, however, very conscious presence during practice would be needed (Shiffrin, & Schneider, 1977). However “logical” this view might seem, lost to it is an explanation of how these contributing skills would ever merge fluently with each other and what would make them useable in novel situations.
We will argue that reading can be reduced neither to the extreme of reflexive action nor to the other extreme of overly conscious regard for individual skills, the postulates upon which the automaticity theory is built. Instead, fluent reading would have its source in a flexibly implicit awareness of those features more critical to revealing the principles of the code. We will argue further that the automaticity-through-practice approach is actually counterproductive in that it leads to: 1) exactly a disengagement of conscious awareness of and attention to the appropriately informative structures of the print code; 2) an urgency to find the minimal path to the right response (Swenson NGO paper ), bringing the problem back to point 1; and 3) anxiety, narrow focus and halting rigidity as a result of skill fragmentation, time and response pressure.

Fluidity trumps Automaticity
A more cognitively viable theory would have to rest in the idea of fluency as an outgrowth of intuitively based implicit awareness rather than simply practice. On this view, fluency would be associated more closely with fluidity than with automaticity, with a flexible awareness of what is most meaningful/informative/fundamental in the information field. The most likely prospects for the most informative, widely applicable structures relevant to reading are phoneme level speech segmentation and rime level orthographic segmentation.
As a basis for flexible fluidity, implicit awareness has a number of advantages over more conscious, explicit, rule based applications. Because implicit awareness is more fundamental/less specified, it allows for adaptations to fluctuating situations, in our case novel words. Computer models establish that implicit processing, in its responsivity to situational demands, preserves memory by avoiding metacognitive issues of strategy or rule selection (Wei & Levoy, 2002), the very goal that reading fluency is meant to accomplish as a way of releasing cognitive capacity for reading comprehension.
Herein might lie the unexplained contribution to reading made by the nondominant, right hemisphere (Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Pugh, Fulbright, Constable, Mencl, Shankweiler, Liberman, Skudlarski, Fletcher, Katz, Marchione, Lacadie, Gatenby & Gore, 1998). Where the left hemisphere makes critical contributions to phoneme awareness and language analysis, the right makes important contributions to more fundamental, global (more responsive to situational fluctuations) and fluid insights. When critical features of orthography or phonology are perceived as patterned structures, supported in doing so by posterior regions of the right hemisphere, they provide the basis for less effortful and less rigid recognition, for generalization and for a platform to promote further development. If there is validity to a right hemisphere contribution to orthography, it is likely to lie at the level of awareness of fundamental structures per se and not, as is usually suggested, at the level of visual processing (Berninger, 2001).
As the Shaywitz, et al (1998) findings suggest, the problem for children with dyslexia is not that they lack effortful and well executed strategies such as would be needed to allow automaticity through practice (Shiffrin, & Schneider, 1977). To the contrary, children with dyslexia are characterized by over activation of those frontal regions of the brain that facilitate carefully controlled execution of explicit strategies. In relying on over used highly conscious explicit strategies for practice, standard approaches to automaticity are likely to be aggravating an over used capacity that is associated with the dysfunction itself, i.e., dyslexia, while at the same time failing to develop more functional capacities that support attunement to fundamental orthographic and phonological structures.

Roots of Reading Fluency
Few would disagree that the end point of reading is the comprehension of text. To the extent that reading fluency is important at all, its importance is conferred on it by its contribution to comprehension. Some (Miller & Gillis,2004; Shanahan, 1999; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001) have taken this to mean that fluency is the culmination of all contributing skills including decoding (phoneme, orthographic and alphabetic awareness), morphology, semantic knowledge, syntax and other aspects of language comprehension. While this can hardly be argued, it is not explanatory. The listed contributing factors do not have an equal effect on fluency in terms of population trends, i.e., statistically. Nor do they have an equal or predictable degree of influence in the attainment of fluency in any given child. To determine the latter, highly individualized and probative assessment would be needed.
From a purely statistical point of view, reading fluency rests largely and almost solely on one of the factors, i.e., decoding skill (Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, 1997). In fact, To the extent that decoding is dependent on phoneme awareness, the line of influence is obvious. Fluency rests directly on decoding skill which in turn rests directly in phoneme awareness.
Shankweiler, Lundquist, Katz, Stuebing, Fletcher, Brady, Fowler, Dreyer, Marchione, Shaywitz & Shaywitz (1999) found a correlation of .89 between decoding words and comprehension, accounting for 79% of the variance in achieving reading comprehension. It is decoding ability per se, completely independent of any issues of word recognition or semantic knowledge, that is related to comprehension since even the ability to decode pseudowords correlates significantly with reading comprehension (r=.79, accounting for 62% of the variance). Given the strength of these correlations, it makes little sense to consider any factor other than decoding as a first and primary source of reading fluency.

Too much of a good thing
After at least a half century of reproving the fact that learning the skill of reading depends on phoneme awareness (Elkonin, 1963; Liberman, Shankweiler, Fischer & Carter, 1974; Blachman, 2000; Chapman, Tunmer, & Prochnow, 2000), instructional emphasis on letter-sound association is finally reaching center stage (Cooper & Pikulski, 2001; No Child Left Behind, 2001, Shaywitz, 2003). While this has huge potential to turn back the rising tide of illiteracy (No Child Left Behind, 2001), the emphasis on skill instruction has already managed to create its own problems.
Confused and permissive terminology makes it difficult for educators to stay centered on the critical components of reading success. Currently, loose terminology allows for the overlap of ideas such as phonetics, phoneme awareness and decoding (Cheesman, in preparation). It allows for blurring distinctions between decoding “strategies”(using pictures, context and possibly the first letter in a word to guess) and word attack (sounding out a word systematically based on the relationship between orthographic and phonological structures). However, the biggest threat to functionally fluent reading acquisition appears to be the over fragmentation and over rulification of skill instruction, the outcome of which is to replace a more intuitive, implicit awareness of orthographic (spelling) patterns with an overly conscious, explicit and nonfunctional letter-by-letter, left-to-right approach to reading.
Phoneme awareness has been defined any number of times. At its essence, phoneme awareness refers to the insight that integrated syllable sounds can, at least in the abstract, be subdivided (segmented) into smaller units of sound (phonemes) that roughly and ambiguously line up with letters. The subdivision of syllable sounds into its smallest components is the critical ability of phoneme segmentation so often referred to as a prerequisite or concomitant of reading skill acquisition (Blachman, 2000). Phoneme awareness is an important insight since it lays the foundation for accepting the alphabetic principle, i.e., the alignment of letters with the sounds of syllabic subdivisions that are meant to be captured by them.
From this point forward, however, there is very little that can be offered definitively to the beginning reader since phonemes lack distinct identities separate from their adjacent sounds. Consonants especially vary with their syllabic context as they are coarticulated with adjacent sounds. To appreciate this, get ready to say the word cat. Notice that the corners of you mouth are stretched and pinched, as in a smile (LIPS1 program terminology). There is constriction at the back of your mouth (tongue to soft palate or lingua-velar site of articulation). Since the first sound in cat is the hard c, /k/, this must be the motor pattern that generates that sound. Right? Now get ready to say the word cot. Notice the constriction and the “smile” are gone. There is a limp opening around the mouth. This is still the hard c, still produced from the tongue to soft palate site, but before a sound is even uttered, the mechanism for producing it has been altered from the hard c in cat. The subsequent vowel colors the way the initial consonant is produced even before the beginning of the sound is uttered. So what is the essence of the hard c that extends into cat and cot or for that matter cut? The answer to this is addressed by phoneme awareness, an abstraction that goes beyond what is auditorally verifiable; captured most effectively, as above, as patterns of articulation. Try explaining this to a six year old. Instruction does it anyway, telling the student that the letter sound for b is buh or at best some truncated version of that, usually designated as /b/.
The vowels are hard too because they lie along a continuum with no clear demarcation between one and the other. In some languages vowels get marked off in different ways (like the umlauts in German). Some children find a way out by reducing all possible vowel sounds to the indefinite schwa, thus masking both phonological and orthographic distinctions. Vowels present other problems that are particular to print that will be discussed below.
When phoneme awareness terminology slips into phonics or phonetics terminology these important distinctions are lost. Suddenly consonant sounds, in fact individual letter sounds, are said to have clear identities independently of any other letter or sounds in the syllable. Usually multiple sounds are introduced. The g can be hard or soft, likewise c and s. Vowels can be long or short or diphthongs or silent. If you are confused and overwhelmed already, you should be.
You’ve taken the first phonics-based plunge into fragmentation of what might otherwise have been a meaningfully integrated, implicitly knowable information field. Now that there are, however fictional, multiple and discrete sounds for letters, the child needs a way to paste them back together into words. Here is where the explicit rules come in. There are the rules themselves: vowel-consonant-e, vowel is long, e is silent; two vowels together, the first one is long, the second silent - sometimes, unless... Since no rule is consistently reliable (come vs home, head vs bead), now there needs to be rules for knowing what to do with the rules (metarules). Of course, these don’t work all the time either. Therefore there are the “sight” words, most of which are not really sight but instead exemplars of wider patterns (ghost, host, most, almost, post).
As long as the would be reader operates under the false assumption that s/he can sound a word out, going from left to right, one letter at a time, there will be starts and restarts, stumbling all of which is captured in and described as dysfluency. We can try one as long as you don’t look ahead. Sound out the following word, left to right, using your letter-sound knowledge. The first letter is b, the sound of which is- you say it. The second letter is o. If you said the sound of b was buh, you have some revision to do since you have ended in a vowel sound that does not allow for blending with the o. But how does the o sound? Now you have bo. What does it sound like? Try bou, bough. At this point you might have begun to appreciate that the vowel is not knowable until you reach the end of the syllable. Now try bought.

Rime vs random letter sounds
This is one of the reasons that it is so important for the child to be aware of the phonological/orthographic structure called the rime. The rime, or the vowel through the end of the syllable, contains the information needed to determine the vowel. There is no other place to get that information. In the above example of the word bought, trying to read carefully from left to right only makes it necessary to continually revise, i.e., the essence of dysfluency.
A good deal of attention has been given to onset-rime as natural subdivisions of a syllable, emerging earlier and more spontaneously than phoneme structure (Bryant, 1991; Hempenstall, 2003; and Treiman, 1991). When a child accesses the onset-rime structure, therefore, s/he is using a more fundamental awareness, one that does not necessitate more elusive phoneme abstractions. Because onset-rime/rime-onset distinctions do not penetrate to all levels of phoneme analysis, they are not sufficient as a prerequisite or readiness intervention for reading (Hempenstall, 2003). Nevertheless, rime-onset awareness seem to offer an important advantage over letter-sound associations when learning to read (Munro, 1995).
Studies assessing the effectiveness of emphasizing rime and onset to teach reading per se have had two main flaws. They teach the child to begin with the onset, thereby failing to solve the problem of dysfluency at the word level due to lack of foreknowledge of the vowel (Spector????). And, they fail to ensure that onset-rime instruction is offered after there is a foundation in alphabetic knowledge. The facts remain that the rime is the least ambiguous unit in English orthography (Martensen, 2003) and that letter-sound associations, without the benefit of the rime structure, are unavoidably ambiguous, i.e., random without reference to the rime.
Not only does knowledge of the rime make it possible to know which variant of the vowel pertains, starting with the rime-determined vowel makes it possible to sound the initial consonant or consonants, i.e., the onset, without stumbling over the consonant-vowel coarticulation. In our example, the word bought would be read first as ought and then bought. You would eliminate the production of the b-sound in a way that is coarticulated with the wrong vowel sound, starting instead by forming the /b/ to be coarticulated with the correct vowel as it is in the word bought. Had the word been brought, you would approach the word the same way, first ought and then the onset br to produce brought.

Lost, Helpless and Dependent in a Random Information Field
Absent this orthographic insight pertaining to the value of the rime, a left to right phonics reader or, equally if not worse, a whole word guess reader, is left to think that there is no detectable structure to print, i.e., that it is random. In fact, the belief in the randomness of print is implicit in references to “sight” words, the “virtues” of guessing, reliance on context or pictures. It is also implicit, although less obvious and therefore more insidious, in left to right phonics approaches. Once a child believes that s/he is in an information field that is random, i.e., unpredictable, there is no value in trying to figure it out since it is unfigurable. The only option is to wait for the teacher to tell how to read individual words and then try to memorize them. This is not reading. It does not use the alphabetic principle, instead treating the whole word as a single unit that lines up with meaning but not speech sounds. It is certainly not independent reading since it prohibits a child from figuring a word out on his or her own.
If the child is forced to accept that print is random, the only recourse is to submit herself to authority; wait to be told, assume that what is told is absolutely correct. This is the epitome of helplessness and the inevitable source of anxiety since there is nothing one can do for oneself and so much rides on success or failure.
All of this would be bad enough if it were contained to reading, but the evidence says it is not. Yes, anxiety correlates with reading achievement but it seems to generalize to other achievement areas as well. There is at least a modest, positive relationship between the ability to read and anxiety (Manassis, Tannock & Barbosa, 2000). While performing school tasks, even those beyond reading, high achievers are measured to have higher levels of epinephrine, i.e., the adrenaline rush of fight/flight, (Anderson, Dover, Yang, Holahan, Shaywitz, Marchione, Hall, Fletcher, Shaywitz, 2000).
In our own diagnostic and program planning work with school children and adolescents, we find a repeated pattern of:
a random approach to word attack
poor spelling skills
a generalized dependence and hyperfocus on the literal form of instruction
generalized learned helplessness/anxiety in the face of a growing conviction that there are no fundamental structures to things learned in school, only randomness.
There are too many case examples too enumerate. Three of the more recent ones will make the point. All of these children came for educational evaluation because of serious and recalcitrant reading problems, especially word attack dysfluency. All had well above average intelligence with scores in the superior and very superior ranges. None had any behavioral difficulties although all could be described as anxious and increasingly narrow in their focus.
Reading errors committed by all three demonstrate an overly literal approach to reading, one that, to no avail, tried using letter-sound knowledge as the basis for decoding a word, of course from left to right, one letter at a time. T (grade 1) tried sounding out the pseudoword grawl as gra-wul, lish as liz-huh. V (grade 4) was especially confused about the vowel: mave read as mav, poil as pole, touse as toe-us. H (grade 8) also approached the vowel sound as if it were randomly determined: thrept read as threept, sluke as sluck. He too tried to work his way through shorter words letter by letter, grawl attempted as gru-ol. In longer words, he started out this way and then gave way to guessing, moustache read as moustcher. Spellings of these three children showed the same lack of awareness of orthographic patterns:
T V H
*
Their attempt to cling closely to the fragmentation that instruction had provided them even when it over rode available orthographic structure and even when it met with frequent defeat, had generalized to a literal, robotic imitation of instruction as a way of “learning”. Given free range on the California Verbal Learning Test for Children (CVLT-C) to structure a pretend 15-item shopping list any they wanted, all failed to utilize the undisclosed categorical structure of the list (3 categories into which 5 each of the items fall). Instead, they tried to memorize the list in exactly the randomized sequence in which instruction had delivered it. This is reflected in the low average scores of all three for semantic clustering (failure to group by category) and the average to above average scores for serial clustering.
They resigned themselves to passive, helpless attempts to imitate instruction without using more fundamental, meaning-giving structure in math as well. V was willing to add 1/4 + 1/4 to get 2/8 without ever a thought that her answer was impossible. H couldn’t keep his memorized but meaningless strategies straight, subtracting 6-2 to get -4. In a corruption of the filing metaphor often used to describe how thoughts are organized and thereby efficiently accessed (Ausubel, 1960), H leveled the idea into a totally random collection as he explained his need for time, “I need to give my brain a few minutes to look in all the file cabinets.”

Structure Counts
The alternative to a disordered collection of facts or rules, is an awareness of the occurrence and recurrence of basic patterns. Of course in reading, the essential, unambiguous patterns are situated in the rime. The instructional problem is how to make the rime salient to the reader so she can notice recurrences of the rime structure. There are several ways but they should be selected and adapted to suit the particularities of each child.
Essential to any rime-oriented approach would be to present words in rime patterns, or word families. This is done in any linguistic reader such as Let’s Read ( ) and with less fastidiousness in most decodeable texts ranging from the careful hierarchical structures such as the story sequences in the Wilson program ( ) to the phonics readers in a series such as Houghton Mifflin’s (Cooper & Pikulski, 2001). Which of these would be most appropriate depends upon a number of learner idiosyncrasies. In question would be how phonologically competent a child was. A more phonologically competent child would be ready to align orthographic rime information with the phonological structure of the spoken word and might not need a fine grained breakdown of rime patterns. A child whose phonological deficits included difficulty with speech production would need further consideration. A child who had reverted to the belief that print is an essentially random collection of words to be individually memorized might need more proof that in fact it isn’t. The implication is that the latter child would need many exemplars of any given rime pattern and many exemplars that rimes in fact come in patterns.
It sometimes helps to color code the information or use different fonts to signal rime patterns. For example, if the goal is to teach basic rime patterns, the child might be asked to read the following font-highlighted sequences:
cAT cAP
rAT rAP
sAT sAP
Contrast among short vowel rimes can be shown in a similar way:
pAT pIT
bAT bIT
pAT pIT
Contrast among short and long vowel sounds might use the same approach: kIT vs kITE. The same can be done for other rime structures: rIG vs right, rAG vs rage.
It is hard enough to get children with reading disabilities to read one syllable words accurately and fluently. The transition to multisyllable word reading has been that much more challenging (Shaywitz, 2003). If the key to fluency at the syllable level is recognizing predictably decodeable rimes, the transfer to multisyllable word reading is that these syllable-level patterns simply jump out at the reader as she confronts them in a novel, multisyllable word. This is the way a literate person would read multisyllable pseudowords like the ones on the Woodcock-Johnson (2001) word attack test: doitibility, deprotenation, apertuate.
A child who is still trying to work letter-by-letter to sound out a word would of necessity overwhelm herself with not only the number of individual sounds but now the exponential increase in that number due to the many possibilities for sounds offered up by individual letters. In an effort to simulate what the fragmentation must be like for such a child, imagine confronting a word such as Tremendous vs TREMENDOUS. For this reason, it is critical that mastery and fluency with one syllable rimes be achieved prior to expecting fluency or even accuracy with multisyllable words.
Many children who have phonologically based reading disability also have phonologically based articulation difficulties. Some of these children surface even before reading as having articulation problems that interfere with speech intelligibility. Others have a far more subtle version that might affect the discrimination of similarly produced sounds such as /v/ vs /f/, /b/ vs /p/, /t/ vs /d/. There are also diadochokinetic difficulties that affect efficient transitions between articulatory patterns. These kinds of problems often are most clearly noted when a child begins to read multisyllable words. There is a tendency to reduce the degree of motor shifting that takes place at syllable breaks. As in V’s case, the nonword woolanuwup (from the CTOPP nonword repetition test) was repeated as woowanuloop. The articulatory demands made by vowel transitions can be avoided by regressing as many as possible to a schwa sound. These same kinds of errors show up in reading and spelling and would seem to benefit from articulation therapy under the oversight of a speech and language clinician.

Practice: More Problem than Solution
Notice the absence in the above suggestions of any of the traditional instructional attempts to promote automaticity. Traditional approaches emphasize practice in various forms. There are repeated readings in the forms of guided, monitored reading, choral readings, partner reading and other variations on the theme. All of these are repetitions of connected text with the only nod toward critical structures in the form of chunking text into phrases.
On our view the critical structure is the rime. Although the child will need extended exposure to rime patterns, what is critical in that exposure is the opportunity to observe enough variation in exemplars to uncover the critical principles (Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). If the child or teacher feels a need for more practice, that is to be taken as diagnostic evidence that the proper awareness of rime structure has not been achieved. More practice would avoid the instructional responsibility to find a way to make the rime structure accessible to the implicit awareness of the child.

From Structure to Fluency
Although fluency is usually attributed to automaticity it might be better thought of as based in intuition. Automaticity implies memorization instilled by drill and practice to the point that answers are given below the level of consciousness, i.e., mindlessly. Intuition implies that the learner remains flexibly connected to the information field, specifically to the most essential, meaning-giving structures. Where automaticity can be achieved in a random information field if one develops a strong enough habit, intuition rests on a tacit connection to precisely those invariant macroscopic, structural properties that carry identity and meaning (Gibson, 1979). Where automaticity of random information requires unreliable rules to bind the particulars back together, intuition captures the integrated essence. Where automaticity requires extreme effort to reach a final stage of reflexivity, intuition is the expression of a natural connection made possible as the knower is drawn into a connection with the essential properties of the known (Swenson, 1999; Barab, Cherkes-Julkowski, Swenson, Garrett, Shaw & Young, 1999).
The advantages of intuition based fluency over automaticity are easily appreciated. The learning itself is less strained as it becomes drafted by the essential properties of that which is to be learned; as “end-directed behavior (is) prospectively controlled or determined by meaning ” (Swenson, 1999, p. 569). What is learned is at the level of generic properties that can be recognized flexibly, in various and novel presentations, i.e., the child can sound out a word s/he has never seen before. What is learned can provide a foundation to make the next, related principles more easily grasped , i.e., the child who can read hop, hopped and hope has a reasonable basis for concluding that the printed letter configuration, hoped, must have a long o or at least does not have a short one.











References

Anderson, G.M., Dover, M.A., Yang, B.P., Holahan, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Marchione, K.E., Hall, L.M., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, B.A. (2000). Adrenomedullary function during cognitive testing in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 39(5), 635-43.

Ausubel, D.P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267-272.

Barab, S. A., Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Swenson, R., Garrett. S., Shaw, R. E., & Young, M. (1999). Principles of self-organization: Learning as Participation in Autocatakinetic systems. The Journal of The Learning Sciences. 8(3/4), 349-390.

Berninger, V. (2001). Understanding the lexia in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 23-48.


Blachman, B. A. (2000). Phonological Awareness. In Kamill, et al (Eds.), Handbook of Reading
Research, Volume III. London: Lawrence Erlbam Associates.


Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological development and reading. In P. D. Pumfrey, & C. D. Elliot (Eds.), Children's difficulties in reading, spelling and writing: Challenges and responses (pp. 63-82). London The Falmer Press.

Chapman, J.W., Tunmer, W.E., & Prochnow, J.E. (2000). Early reading-related skills and performance, reading self-concept, and the development of academic self-concept: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 4, 703–708.


Cheesman, E. A. (2004). Teacher education in phonemic awareness instruction. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Cherkes-Julkowski, M. (2003). New Era:  The Sacrifice of Individual Differences to the False Claim of Scientifically Based Instruction. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12 (2) 75-78.

Cooper, J.D. & Pikulski, J.J. (2001.) Houghton Mifflin Reading. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Elkonin, D.B. (1963). The Psychology of Mastering the Elements of Reading. In B. Simon & J.
Simon (Eds.) Educational Psychology in the U.S.S.R., pp 165-179.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 63-71. 

Gibson, J. (1979), An Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin.

Hempenstall, K. (2003). Phonemic Awareness: What does it Mean? Available: http://www.educationnews.org/phonemic_awareness_what_does_it_.htm

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.

Liberman, I., Shankweiler, D., Fischer F. & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme
segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201-212.

Manassis, K., Tannock, R. & Barbosa, J. (2000). Dichotic Listening and Response Inhibition in Children With Comorbid Anxiety Disorders and ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(9):1152-1159.

Martensen, H. (2003). Research Statement. Available:
http://cpl.ufsia.ac.be/web/Heike%20Martensen%20-%20Research%20Statement

Munro, J. (1995). Explaining developmental dyslexia Orthographic processing difficulties. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 27(1), 5-15.

No Child Left Behind (2001). Available:
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010910-11.html.

Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W., Johnson, D. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cogn. Psychol., 8:382--439.

Samuels, S.J. (1985). Automaticity and repeated reading. In Reading education: Foundations for a literate America, eds. J. Osborn, P.T. Wilson, and R.C. Anderson. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.


Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S., Fowler, A., Dreyer, L. G., Marchione, K. E., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69-94. 

Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming Dyslexia. Knopf.

Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., Pugh, K., Fulbright, R., Constable, R.T., Mencl, W.E, Shankweiler, D., Liberman, A., Skudlarski, P., Fletcher, J., Katz, L., Marchione, K., Lacadie, C., Gatenby C., & Gore, 1998. Functional organization of the brain for reading in dyslexia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 95, 2636-2641.

Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.

Swenson, R. (2000). Spontaneous Order, Autocatakinetic Closure, and Development of Space-
Time, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 901, pp 311-319.

Treiman, R. (1991). The role of intrasyllabic units in learning to read and spell. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 65-106). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.

Wei, L-Y & Levoy, M. (2002). Order-Independent Texture Synthesis. Available at: http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:76HqRXz6-H4J:graphics.stanford.edu/papers/texture-synthesis-tr-2002-01/texture_TR_2002_01.pdf+implicit+flexible+explicit&hl=en&start=6&ie=UTF-8


Wolf, M & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading Fluency and its Intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211-239.

Woodcock, R., McGrew, K. & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL.


CTOPP,

CVLT-C