Striving and Struggling Readers: Part 2
Updated: Sep 8
Welcome to Part 2 of the PEARS 2026 Classroom series! Here we look more closely at how you can tell striving readers from struggling readers. The terms striving reader and struggling reader can help you meet students where they are with their literacy skills by differentiating students at different points in their reading development. As described in our first post, struggling readers are inaccurate readers who do not yet decode words correctly. In contrast, students who are striving readers may read slowly, but they can decode with a fair degree of accuracy. These distinctions are important because they speak to the kinds of instruction and support that will help students grow into functional readers (Burns, 2023).
Observing your students’ reading and spelling in the first weeks of school can help you conceptualize students as struggling, striving, or thriving readers. Your observations of students’ reading and spelling, their performance on universal screeners, and what you know about reading development will provide you with a strong foundation for educational decision making and effective lesson planning. Together, these three sources of data indicate whether a student is thriving, striving, or struggling.
Section 1 provides two case studies to illustrate the differences between striving and struggling readers. These case studies highlight the literacy skills that place each hypothetical student at a different place in our framework.
Section 2 describes how you can use observational information along with the information obtained from universal screeners to better understand the learning priorities of your students.
Section 3 describes how integrating screening data, observational data, and knowledge of reading development can build an understanding of what instruction to prioritize for the different students in your class.
We hope that this series encourages you to reflect on students’ reading performance and leads to a deeper understanding of your students’ learning needs. Use the Table of Contents below to navigate through the post as needed.
Section 1: Case Studies
The Case of a Striving Reader: Elijah
At six years old, Elijah has preschool and kindergarten under his belt. He is entering the first grade as a social child who enjoys being outside with his friends. Oral language skills are age appropriate; he listens to stories and follows most oral directions. Hearing and vision are good. Elijah sees himself as a reader. He prefers books about dinosaurs, the meaner the better.
Elijah has learned the letters of the alphabet by name and by sound. He forms his letters fairly accurately and his writing efficiency is improving. He understands that spoken words are made of sequences of sounds that can be written as letters. He is enthusiastic about rhyming and other phonological awareness activities. He can segment and blend three sounds within a word. Now that he is beginning first grade, Elijah is working on manipulating sounds in words. He can delete first sounds and is learning to say words without the final sound as in “Say teach without the /ch/”. Elijah’s phonemic awareness progress is similar to that of his peers. Elijah’s performance on the fall screening fell at benchmark on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Letter Naming Fluency, and Nonsense Word Fluency.
Elijah is responding to his structured literacy instruction. He applies the letter-sounds he has learned to read new words correctly and to spell by sound. He reads decodable text with the letter-sounds that he has been taught (CVC words). His oral reading is effortful and slow, but accurate. This pattern of reading behaviors indicates that his reading is in the early full alphabetic phase (Ehri, 2014). He makes a valiant effort to sound out unfamiliar letter strings and new words.
In grade 2, Elijah continues to make progress. He masters higher-level phonemic awareness activities such as deletion in consonant clusters; his ability to manipulate sounds in words has improved as has his spelling. He can apply many phonics patterns to read single syllable words easily. He can read some multi-syllabic words by stripping off common affixes. He has moved into the late full alphabetic phase (Ehri, 1995) and is beginning to consolidate his command of symbol-sound correspondence into larger units - a development that will help him to read faster and more efficiently. He can use self-teaching to store new words in his reading, which builds his word recognition stores. As he recognizes more words instantly and needs to decode fewer words, reading becomes more fluent and his confidence grows. His reading rate improves and he reads with greater expression. Elijah’s spelling is grade appropriate. He is working on spelling words with prefixes and suffixes. By now, he has many skills to read new words accurately, but he may not yet be a voracious reader. As he gets more reading practice, he should begin to read with greater ease and confidence.
The Case of a Struggling Reader: Samantha
At six years old, Samantha has attended preschool and kindergarten. Her gross motor milestones developed on schedule; her oral language milestones were somewhat delayed. She is shy; she has difficulty following oral directions. Hearing and vision are within normal limits.
In grade 1 Samantha has learned her letters, although she continues to have difficulty with basic decoding tasks. She has made limited progress in phonological awareness. She can identify the first sound in words, and she is able to identify the last sound when using Elkonin boxes for support. Samantha’s performance on the fall screening entailed below benchmark scores on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency and Nonsense Word Fluency, and at benchmark scores on Letter Naming Fluency.
Samantha has learned many rules for symbol-sound correspondence, but she does not apply them accurately to read decodable words. When reading words, she attends mainly to the first letter-sound in printed words. Sight words are challenging; she often fails to recognize common words such as “the” or “said.” Her oral reading is slow and inaccurate, with numerous pauses, repeated attempts to recognize words, self-corrections, and misreads. This pattern of behaviors indicates that her reading is in the partial alphabetic phase (Ehri, 1995).
Samantha’s spelling is developing. She usually spells the beginning of words accurately and sometimes spells the ending sound correctly as well. Vowel sounds are sometimes confused, especially short e/i and short o/u. Samantha works hard to form her letters, and she complains that her hand gets tired when she writes, which contributes to her limited stamina for writing. Although she likes the idea of writing, her stories are exceptionally short. They are not always intelligible, and she has difficulty reading them back to others.
Samantha stays in the partial alphabetic phase for her entire first grade year despite continued lessons in a structured literacy curriculum. On the Spring screening, her scores are below benchmark on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency and Letter Naming Fluency, and well below benchmark on Nonsense Word Fluency.
In grade 2, Samantha struggles to participate in classroom literacy activities because sustained reading is so tiring for her. She is improving her segmenting and blending of three sound words. However, she is not yet accurate and confident with phonemic awareness tasks that involve four sound words. She is inconsistent in her efforts to decode words, often resorting to context to help her guess the word. Her oral reading remains slow and inaccurate; she seems to know many more phonics skills in isolation than she can apply in independent reading. She remains in the partial alphabetic stage. Her spelling is not yet fully alphabetic and reflects her ongoing challenge in phonemic awareness. She usually spells sounds at the beginning and the end of words correctly; she does not seem to detect both sounds in consonant blends, spelling “clap” as cap.
Summary
Elijah and Samantha represent profiles that we commonly see in first and second grade. What is it that can be learned from their stories? How can these profiles help you respond to students’ learning needs more effectively? Neither student is reading fluently, yet they have very different reading trajectories. We can see that Elijah’s structured literacy instruction has developed a solid foundation of letter knowledge, phonemic awareness, and symbol-sound correspondences. Samantha, on the other hand, has shown signs from the beginning of first grade that her foundational skills in phonemic awareness and phonics are not as secure as we would hope.
Section 2: Getting a Handle on Students' Reading
It is the first day of school. Your students are in their seats. Some are excited. Others are a little anxious. Still others look down at the floor. It is your job to get to know these students and to support them in their efforts to become readers. It is no small job.
You have read their files, and you may have met with their parents. You hope they are rested and well-cared for, though many may not be. They come to you with strengths to appreciate and needs to uncover. Although you may not be able to address all their needs, you can provide effective instruction to help them become readers and life-long learners. It is now time to get a general sense of their skills and where to begin.
Working with students in the first weeks of school may feel overwhelming. How can you get a handle on what they require? Through daily observation of their reading and spelling work, you can identify which students are struggling, striving, or thriving. The framework below lays out the reading attributes that you can observe as indicators of instructional needs.
Students’ literacy behaviors reveal much about where they are in their reading development. The Literacy Acquisition Behaviors (LAB) framework provides a convenient way to understand which of your students are where in their reading development. Some students appear to “read” simple texts that they have seen before. However, they read slowly and inaccurately. They spell words with missing, incorrect or extra sounds; these are struggling readers. Other students read slowly but can decode new words accurately and spell words; these are striving readers. Other students read nearly effortlessly. They can usually read text easily and spell many words correctly; these are thriving readers.
It can take 4 to 5 years for many students to develop the fluency (accuracy and speed) required to support reading comprehension in high school (Fuchs et al., 1993; Fuchs et al., 2001). Research tells us that students who complete first grade on grade level are likely to read well in grade 4 (Juel, 1988; Francis et al., 1996; and see this Reading Rockets article for more information). Students who fail to complete the first grade on grade level usually continue to find reading challenging because it is difficult to build on a shaky foundation. One step to meeting their learning needs is to understand where they fall in the LAB framework.
In addition to your daily observations of student work, you will have access to data from the Fall reading screener and progress monitoring data from the previous year. These assessments can indicate whether students are performing at levels that are likely to support the development of grade-appropriate reading skills. Screeners are popular because they are a highly efficient way of learning which students are most at-risk for reading difficulties.
Performance on the universal screener reflects a student’s ability to execute a particular skill not just with accuracy, but also with ease. Of course, we want our students to be accurate in their efforts… but that is not all. Ease of execution, or the automaticity with which a task is performed, is critical for developing skilled reading (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Burns et al., 2014). For example, being able to decode unknown words quickly and to recognize familiar words instantly frees up cognitive resources for higher level tasks like comprehension (Perfetti, 1988; Perfetti & Hart, 2001; VanDyke & Shankweiler, 2012; Hamilton et al., 2016). Universal screeners track the development of accuracy and automaticity in decoding and word recognition with subtests like Nonsense Word Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency.
Universal screeners provide performance data that indicate whether a student will make adequate progress in reading during the school year. However, screeners have limitations - as all assessments do. It is important to recognize that these scores reflect student performance on a single day. As teachers know, children’s performance can vary from day to day depending on how they slept, the ease of their morning routine, and many other factors. Because of this fact, individual student performance on one screening day may yield an estimate of performance that is higher or lower than what you see on many days. By including observations of daily performance in your data-based instructional planning, you will be considering the performance of your student over several days. This provides a clearer picture of what they remember, which is useful for determining the next steps for instruction. Also, daily observation of students’ reading and spelling work can provide immediate feedback about which concepts they have automatized and which need further instruction and practice. Look for more about this in Part 3.
Many districts use an MTSS model to identify and monitor students’ instructional needs. If you are in such a district, K – 1 students will complete a reading screening in the Fall that usually contains three main subtests: Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF); Letter Naming Fluency (LNF); and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF). The scores that students earn on these tasks can be compared to established benchmarks for their grade. A benchmark is the standard of performance that is desirable for a particular point in the school year. When a student meets a benchmark, we expect that they are on track. Most test publishers provide benchmark scores for individual tests as well as a composite score that includes all three of these tests. Because the composite score is based on a large number of items across all three tests, it is considered to be the most reliable for the purpose of establishing a student’s risk for later reading difficulties.
Your classroom data (assuming 10 students) might look like this:
Above benchmark: 2 students
At benchmark: 4 students
Below benchmark: 2 students
Well-below benchmark: 2 students
According to the sample screening data above, four of the ten students are at-risk for reading difficulties. Administering a criterion-referenced test to students who fall near benchmark or below can help you identify where to begin instruction for these students. For example, your curriculum might have a phonics diagnostic that will identify which skills they have mastered (short vowels) and which they are still struggling with (consonant clusters). However, you are still a-ways away from determining how to modify your lesson delivery to meet their needs.
Like universal screeners, observations of students’ reading, writing, and spelling provide essential information that can help teachers avoid intuitive biases about who will be a good reader and who will struggle. For example, the child who is living in poverty may be more likely to struggle with learning to read, yet millions of these children become strong readers and successful professionals. Likewise, the highly verbal child with strong background knowledge is likely to become a strong reader, yet thousands of similar children struggle to learn to read and to live independently due to dyslexia. When these biases go unrecognized, they have potential to shape instructional decision-making and unintentionally harm students. The best way to counteract these biases is with data from daily observations and universal screeners. We know that reading difficulties are not a result of low intelligence (Fletcher et al., 2018); they can affect gifted students and multi-lingual learners, and they can co-exist with physical, emotional, and cognitive differences (Allor et al., 2010). Alternatively, students in any of these circumstances could also be thriving readers. Therefore, it is important to allow observations of students’ reading and spelling performance to guide your understanding of their instructional needs.
Remember, early instruction can be powerful. Challenges with early reading do not necessarily predict the student’s future reading, if the appropriate instruction is provided early enough and at the required dosage.
Section 3: Integrating Data and Setting Learning Priorities
While you rely on universal screening data to get a broad view of your students’ reading progress, daily observation of their reading and spelling work can supplement that data to provide additional reliable information about their phase of reading development. Integrating these three sources of information (screening data, observational data, and phases of reading) will allow you to identify which learning priorities will help children who are at different points in their journey to become confident readers.
Behaviors, Screening Data, & Reading Phase
Elementary students essentially fall into three groups in terms of their reading development: those who are thriving, those who are striving, and those who struggle. Listening to students read aloud, for example, you will notice that some read new text smoothly and with intonation. These are probably thriving readers, though you will need to look at their spelling to confirm the depth of their skill. Others read haltingly. Dysfluent, halting, readers can be further divided into those who read most words accurately (striving readers) and those who are frequently inaccurate (struggling readers). Conceptualizing striving readers and struggling readers allows educators to distinguish between students who are in different phases of reading development and, therefore, need different instructional priorities (see this one-pager for more information). Let’s take a look at the three groups in greater detail.
Thriving Readers
These students often score at or above benchmark on the universal screener basic skills composite. They may enter the first-grade classroom with books in hand, confidently reading connected text for fun. Their reading rate approaches the rate of speech, except when they slow down to decode an unfamiliar word. Reading seems pretty effortless; they read with feeling and with a prosody that reflects the content: animated when the hero saves the day; awe when the witch makes her presence known, and satisfaction for happily ever after. Retells are grade-appropriate and comprehension is strong. Their spelling is grade appropriate. Sounds in words are spelled accurately and they use conventional spelling for words that follow the rules they have been taught. Guesses for spelling patterns that have not yet been instructed are within reason. If you are thinking that thriving readers are at least in the late full alphabetic phase, give yourself a pat on the back (Ehri, 1995; 2005). Thriving readers will benefit from wide, independent reading, and structured literacy instruction for reading and spelling multisyllabic words.
Striving Readers
When you observe a striving reader, you will hear slow but accurate whole word reading. See the case study of Eijah, above.
Striving readers in K – 1 often score near benchmark on the universal screener basic skills composite (PSF, LNF, and NWF). As we look deeper into their performance, we may see that they perform adequately on the phoneme segmentation and letter naming fluency tests, suggesting that some basic skills are on target. In contrast, they may perform below benchmark on Nonsense Word Fluency, especially whole words read. They are accurate, but slow. This pattern of performance on the three screeners suggests solid foundation skills and accurate decoding that is not yet automatic. These students are often enthusiastic about reading, but it is hard work for them. Word-by-word decoding makes their reading sound halting and choppy, yet they may read prosodically in terms of the punctuation. A question mark results in rising intonation; an exclamation mark inspires enthusiasm. Comprehension is grade appropriate. These students tire easily when reading and retells may be inconsistent. Their spelling is mainly phonetic; it includes all the correct sounds in the word but might not use the correct letters. They may not remember to apply the rules they have been taught for conventional spellings, such as using ck to spell /k/ at the end of word.
Accurate decoding is the hallmark of the full alphabetic phase (Ehri, 2005). At this point, students can read new words accurately, but their decoding may be slow. When students first realize that many words can be accurately identified by decoding all the letters, they may start decoding text by saying each sound out loud when reading. This awkward phase should be recognized as progress, even though reading may temporarily sound worse than when they were guessing at words. Instruction can prioritize encouraging students to say the sounds in their head, first, then to say the whole word out loud. In time, most students will learn this new approach and begin to read one word at a time. Their slow decoding is now silent, so sentences may sound choppy. Students are still glued to the text (Chall, 1983) and very focused on accurate decoding, so they may have little mental space available for comprehension on the first read. For some children, decoding a sentence then immediately rereading it can improve prosody and allow for comprehension. With practice, decoding becomes faster and more confident. Once decoding processes speed up with more practice, their sentences will sound more like speech on the first read and comprehension often improves (Perfetti, 1985).
Students who are reading whole words accurately but slowly can be praised for reading at their own pace. Rushing students to read faster than they can decode can move them away from the important goal of reading accuracy and increase guessing errors. Striving readers will benefit from additional practice decoding unfamiliar words in lists and in text, reading mixed text, and continued structured literacy instruction to learn more complex letter-sound relationships for reading and spelling.
With more decoding practice and more advanced phonics skills, striving readers progress further into the full alphabetic phase to become independent decoders. Independent decoding allows a student to teach themselves new words that they find during reading (Share, 1995; Li & Wang, 2023), and this self-teaching process drives continuing expansion of their instant word recognition store. As texts become more complex and less predictable in the middle of elementary school, fewer content-area words are in the student’s speaking vocabulary. Striving readers who become independent decoders can grow their vocabulary while reading by first decoding a new word accurately and then orthographically mapping it to store it in memory for later instant word recognition (Kilpatrick, 2015).
Struggling Readers
When you observe a struggling reader, you will hear inaccurate word reading. See the case study of Samantha, above.
Struggling readers often perform below benchmark on one, some, or all of the foundational skills assessed during universal screening. Some of these students will demonstrate below benchmark skill on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency. These students lack an adequate awareness of individual speech sounds in words. Some may labor on Letter Naming Fluency. Their ability to retrieve letter names and sounds is sluggish and/or inaccurate, suggesting a need for additional instruction and practice to develop foundational skills. Some may find Nonsense Word Fluency to be downright frustrating. They lack a firm grasp of letter-sound correspondence and, as a result, cannot decode unfamiliar words and nonwords reliably.
The onset of the partial word decoding is an exciting time because it indicates that a student is beginning to understand the alphabetic principle (Ehri, 1997). Students begin to partially decode words based on their first and last letters (Ehri & McCormick, 1998). The inaccurate decoding you observe might be part of typical reading development, as in kindergarten and early first grade. When it occurs in older students, inaccurate partial decoding usually indicates that the student has incomplete foundational skills. The struggling reader cannot yet apply the alphabetic principle to read new words independently and confidently. Along with partial decoding, readers in this phase will often guess at words.
Students in the partial alphabetic phase can be praised as they begin to rely more on letter information to read words and to guess less often. This shift may slow their reading at first, or make it sound less prosodic compared to when they were guessing the words based on the pictures. Struggling readers will benefit from more intense instruction in PA, phonics, and spelling by sound. They may need additional practice decoding words in lists and spelling by sound. These are two literacy activities that focus attention on applying letter-sound relationships.
Students who persist in partial alphabetic reading in the winter of first grade require immediate additional support and instruction. Delays in the development of accurate decoding are not a sign of immaturity or other so-called “understandable” challenges. These delays are suggestive of atypical reading development or inadequate instruction (Adams, 1990). |
The key reading behavior of students in the partial alphabetic phase is inaccurate word reading. These students use information from the first and last letters, picture cues, and prior context to guess at written words. Their misreadings may not seem to alter the meaning of the text much in the early grades, when they are reading predictable text that is written about a familiar topic like a trip to the store.
From Grade 3 onward, however, texts become increasingly complex and less predictable. The topics are unfamiliar (e.g., science and social studies) and fewer of the words are in the student’s speaking vocabulary. Struggling readers in the upper elementary grades and beyond face several challenges (Chall, 1983). Older struggling readers have a limited set of words that are recognized automatically. They rarely orthographically map words and so they store fewer words that can be instantly recognized in the future. Although we may think of this challenge as one of decoding, students who remain in the partial alphabetic phase in the late elementary grades also have difficulty growing their vocabulary because they misread new words as familiar words that look very similar (e.g., reading “confident” for consistent). This challenge eventually impairs their ability to comprehend text, to store words for instant recognition in the future, and to expand their vocabulary through reading. According to the framework, older students in the partial alphabetic phase are also referred to as struggling readers based on the inaccuracy of their decoding.
Conclusion
Students have many different ways of showing you their strengths and their challenges. With their performance data and their literacy behaviors, they are unknowingly communicating their learning needs. By closely observing students’ daily classwork, you can draw conclusions that will enhance their reading progress and enrich their futures. These powers of observation will serve your students well.
- Jane Ashby, Melissa Farrall, Dae Selcer, and the PEARS team
P.S. Thanks for reading Part 2 of the 2026 PEARS Classroom Series. Stay tuned for Part 3, which describes how teachers can modify their lesson delivery to support the different learning needs of striving and struggling readers.
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.
Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Jones, F. G., Champlin, T. M., & Cheatham, J. P. (2010). Individualized research-based reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: Success stories. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(3), 6-12.
Burns, M. K., Haegele, K., & Petersen-Brown, S. (2014). Screening for early reading skills: Using data to guide resources and instruction. In R. J. Kettler, T. A. Glover, C. A. Albers, & K. A. Feeney-Kettler (Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings: Evidence-based decision making for schools (pp. 171–197). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14316-007
Burns, M. K. (2023). Examining the learning hierarchy with accuracy and rate scores for reading fluency among second- and third-grade students. Journal of Behavioral Education. (2024-31402-001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-023-09536-2
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. McGraw Hill.
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Teachers need to know how word reading processes develop to teach reading effectively to beginners. Thinking and literacy: The mind at work. (pp. 167-188). Routledge.
Ehri, L. C. (1997). Sight word learning in normal readers and dyslexics. In Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention. (pp. 163–189). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167-188.
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14(2), 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356980140202
Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., and Barnes, M.A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed). Guilford Press.
Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., and Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 3-17.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1993.12085636
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
Hamilton, S., Freed, E., & Long, D. L. (2016). Word‐decoding skill interacts with working memory capacity to influence inference generation during reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 391-402.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437
Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. A. S. Kaufman, & N. L. Kaufman (Eds.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293-323.
Li, Y., & Wang, M. (2023). A systematic review of orthographic learning via self-teaching. Educational Psychologist, 58(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2137673
Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In Reading research: Advances in theory and practice, Vol. 6. (pp. 109–143). Academic Press.
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 67–86). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10459-004
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2
Van Dyke, J. A., & Shankweiler, D. P. (2012). From verbal efficiency theory to lexical quality: the role of memory processes in reading comprehension. In Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 115-131). Routledge.
Wattenberg, R., Hansel, L., Hendricks, S., & Chang, J. (2004). Waiting rarely works: “Late bloomers” usually just wilt.'. American Educator, 10-11. Retrieved from: https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/struggling-readers/articles/waiting-rarely-works-late-bloomers-usually-just-wilt
Comments