Search

Educational neuroscience approaches have helped to elucidate the brain basis of Reading Disability (RD) and of reading intervention response; however, there is often limited translation of this knowledge to the broader scientific and educational communities. Moreover, this work is traditionally lab-based, and thus the underlying theories and research questions are siloed from classroom practices. With growing awareness of the neurobiological origins of RD and increasing popularity of putative 'brain-based' approaches in clinics and classrooms, it is imperative that we create more direct and bidirectional communication between scientists and practitioners. Such direct collaborations can help dispel neuromyths, and lead to increased understanding of the promises and pitfalls of neuroscience approaches. Moreover, direct partnerships between researchers and practitioners can lead to greater ecological validity in study designs to improve upon the translational potential of findings. To this end, we have forged collaborative partnerships, and built cognitive neuroscience laboratories within independent reading disabilities schools. This approach affords frequent and ecologically valid neurobiological assessment as children's reading improves in response to intervention. It also permits the creation of dynamic models of leading and lagging relationships of students' learning, and identification of individual-level predictors of intervention response. The partnerships also provide in-depth knowledge of student characteristics and classroom practices, which, when combined with the data we acquire, may facilitate optimisation of instructional approaches. In this commentary, we discuss the creation of our partnerships, the scientific problem we are addressing (variable response to reading intervention), and the epistemological significance of researcher-practitioner bi-directional learning.

Statistical learning (SL) approaches to reading maintain that proficient reading requires assimilation of rich statistical regularities in the writing system. Reading skills in developing first-language readers are predicted by individual differences in sensitivity to regularities in mappings from orthography to phonology (O-P) and semantics (O-S), where good readers rely more on O-P consistency, and less on O-S associations. However, how these regularities are leveraged by second-language (L2) learners remains an open question. We utilize an individual-differences approach, measuring L2 English learners' sensitivity to O-P, O-S, and frequency during word-naming, across two years of immersion. We show that reliance on O-P is leveraged by better readers, while reliance on O-S is slower to develop, characterizing less proficient readers. All factors explain substantial individual variance in L2 reading skills. These findings show how SL plays a key role in L2 reading development through its role in assimilating sublexical regularities between print and speech.

There is now considerable evidence regarding the types of interventions that are effective at remediating reading disabilities on average. It is generally unclear, however, what predicts the magnitude of individual-level change following a given intervention. We examine new predictors of intervention gains that are theoretically grounded in computational models of reading and focus on individual differences in the functional organization of the reading system. Specifically, we estimate the extent to which children with reading disabilities (n = 118 3rd-4th graders) rely on two sources of information during an oral word reading task-print-speech correspondences and semantic imageability--before and after a phonologically-weighted intervention. We show that children who relied more on print-speech regularities and less on imageability preintervention had better intervention gains. In parallel, children who over the course of the intervention exhibited greater increases in their reliance on print-speech correspondences and greater decreases in their reliance on imageability, had better intervention outcomes. Importantly, these two factors were differentially related to specific reading task outcomes, with greater reliance on print-speech correspondences associated with pseudoword naming, while (lesser) reliance on imageability related to word reading and comprehension. We discuss the implications of these findings for theoretical models of reading acquisition and educational practice.

Statistical learning (SL) approaches to reading maintain that proficient reading requires assimilation of rich statistical regularities in the writing system. Reading skills in developing first-language readers are predicted by individual differences in sensitivity to regularities in mappings from orthography to phonology (O-P) and semantics (O-S), where good readers rely more on O-P consistency, and less on O-S associations. However, how these regularities are leveraged by second-language (L2) learners remains an open question. We utilize an individual-differences approach, measuring L2 English learners' sensitivity to O-P, O-S, and frequency during word-naming, across two years of immersion. We show that reliance on O-P is leveraged by better readers, while reliance on O-S is slower to develop, characterizing less proficient readers. All factors explain substantial individual variance in L2 reading skills. These findings show how SL plays a key role in L2 reading development through its role in assimilating sublexical regularities between print and speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]