Explore the vast range of titles available.

I am interested in questions of reading and interpretation. I am also drawn to actor-network theory and the work of Bruno Latour. Can these attractions be brought into alignment? To what extent can a style of thought that describes itself as empiricist and rejects critique speak to the dominant concerns of literary studies? Can actor-network theory help us think more adequately about interpretation? Might it inspire us to become more generous readers? How do literary studies and Latourian thought engage, enlist, seduce, or speak past each other? What duels, rivalries, intrigues, appropriations, or love affairs will ensue?

The application of gamification methods is still complex for most Latin American teachers who apply gamified pedagogies. Many confuse their nature with cognitivist classes that are totally confusing when using gamified tools for active learning of their students. The background information states the reduction of academic obstacles for students to perform at a high level, especially when participating in an interactive and combinatorial way with gamification technologies offered by the teacher. We tested the effects of the D-S-F[IR] proposal (dynamics, strategies, feedback, and interactive reinforcement), replicating gamified pedagogical phases with virtual applications, the use of video games in academic underachievement; and a follow-up verbal interactive reinforcement. The method made it possible to develop between 1,600 and 1,800 verbal didactic interactions of knowledge (orientation, questioning, and reassuring). The approach consisted of 60 reinforcement sessions (± 8 months of implementation), for 140 students with low cognitive performance at school (range[age] = 8.5-12.5), who were previously selected and randomly assigned to three comparison groups (EG[1] = 47; EG[2] = 47; CG = 46). The results were evidenced by performance tests, reporting significant improvements in mathematics cognitive performance (F = 53.316; p < 0.05). A specific analysis of performance in science and communication allowed for significant improvement (F = 93.119; F = 85.770; p < 0.05), although no differentiating effects were evident between the experimental groups. It is important to conclude that mixed gamification was responsible for the reduction of the low level of school cognitive performance.

Reading is a highly complex skill that is prerequisite to success in many societies in which a great deal of information is communicated in written form. Since the 1970s, much has been learned about the reading process from research by cognitive psychologists. This book summarizes that important work and puts it into a coherent framework. The book’s central theme is how readers go about extracting information from the printed page and comprehending the text. Like its predecessor, this thoroughly updated 2nd Edition encompasses all aspects of the psychology of reading with chapters on writing systems, word recognition, the work of the eyes during reading, inner speech, sentence processing, discourse processing, learning to read, dyslexia, individual differences and speed reading. Psychology of Reading, 2 nd Edition , is essential reading for undergraduates, graduates, and researchers in cognitive psychology and could be used as a core textbook on courses on the psychology of reading and related topics. In addition, the clear writing style makes the book accessible to people without a background in psychology but who have a personal or professional interest in the process of reading. Keith Rayner is the Atkinson Professor of Psychology at the University of California, San Diego and Emeritus Distinguished University Professor at the University of Massachusetts.　 He has published widely on topics related to reading, eye movements, and language processing. Alexander Pollatsek is Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Research Professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.　 His primary research interests are in reading, word recognition, scene perception, and driving behavior.　 He has published widely in each area. Jane Ashby is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Central Michigan University. Her primary interests are in skilled reading, phonological processing, dyslexia, and reading development. Charles Clifton, Jr is Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Research Professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.　 He is primarily interested in psycholinguistics and has published numerous papers dealing with linguistic processing, parsing, and syntactic ambiguity. Preface. Part 1. Background Information. 1. Introduction and Preliminary Information. 2. Writing Systems. 3. Word Perception I: Some Basic Issues and Methods. Part 2. Skilled Reading of Text. 4. The Work of the Eyes. 5. Word Perception II: Word Identification in Text. 6. A Model of Eye Movements in Reading. Part 3. Understanding Text. 7. Inner Speech. 8. Words and Sentences. 9. Comprehension of Discourse. Part 4. Beginning Reading, Reading Disability, Individual Differences. 10. Stages of Reading Development. 11. Learning to Read. 12. Reading Disorders. 13. Speed Reading, Proofreading, and Individual Differences. 14. Overview. \"I don’t think it’s possible to overstate the importance of this book. It’s written by some of the very best-known and respected researchers in the field who, to a very large degree, have defined the field itself. In short, reading research would not have been the same without these authors, and to the present day they’re still amongst the most prominent scholars in the world.\" -Steven Frisson, Ph.D., University of Birmingham, UK \"I absolutely loved reading this book. The level of detail and analysis provided in several of the chapters was exceptional. In fact, given the attention to detail, and the continual use of presenting data followed by argument/criticism to build a position, results in a book that will be valuable at many levels.\" -Edward O’Brien, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire, US \"The original Psychology of Reading by Rayner and Pollatsek - of which this current book is a thoroughly revised and updated version - has often been described as a seminal book. Only too frequently this term is used to describe books which have received considerable attention in the field but in hindsight fail to meet the criterion for using that specific, powerful epithet . . . The current book is a rightful heir to the throne of the [first edition].\" -Denis Drieghe, Ph.D., University of Southampton, UK

Shortly after reading instruction, a region in the ventral occipital temporal cortex (vOTC) of the left hemisphere, the Visual Word Form Area (VWFA), becomes specialized for written words. Its reproducible location across scripts suggests important anatomical constraints, such as specific patterns of connectivity, notably to spoken language areas. Here, we explored the structural connectivity of the emerging VWFA in terms of its specificity relative to other ventral visual regions and its stability throughout the process of reading instruction in ten children studied longitudinally over 2 years. Category-specific regions for words, houses, faces, and tools were identified in the left vOTC of each subject with functional MRI. With diffusion MRI and tractography, we reconstructed the connections of these regions at two time points (mean age ± standard deviation: 6.2 ± 0.3, 7.2 ± 0.4 years). We first showed that the regions for each visual category harbor their own specific connectivity, all of which precede reading instruction and remain stable throughout development. The most specific connections of the VWFA were to the dorsal posterior parietal cortex. We then showed that microstructural changes in these connections correlated with improvements in reading scores over the first year of instruction but not 1 year later in a subsample of eight children (age: 8.4 ± 0.3 years). These results suggest that the VWFA location depends on its connectivity to distant regions, in particular, the left inferior parietal region which may play a crucial role in visual field maps and eye movement dynamics in addition to attentional control in letter-by-letter reading and disambiguation of mirror-letters during the first stages of learning to read.

Educational leadership plays a pivotal role in fostering effective home reading practices for families with children in kindergarten to Grade 2. This study examines the literacy environments of 135 families across four schools and includes in-depth interviews with 20 parents to identify key challenges in early reading development. The findings reveal that many parents struggle with supporting their children in decoding unfamiliar words, establishing consistent reading habits, and understanding the reading acquisition process. The research highlights the need for targeted guidance and structured strategies to enhance home literacy practices. School leaders and educators are essential in bridging the gap between classroom instruction and home reading support. By strengthening family–school partnerships, enhancing parental engagement, and implementing sustainable systems, educational leaders can empower families and improve early reading outcomes. This study provides practical recommendations for school leaders and administrators to create environments that support collaborative reading efforts, ensuring that children receive the necessary reinforcement both in school and at home.

A troubling feature of the common core state standards initiative (CCSSI) for english language arts (ELA) is its failure to recognize literature as a catalyst of complex thinking in students. According to the CCSSI, to “prepare all students for success in college, career, and life,” children must read texts “more complex” than “stories and literature” (“English Language Arts Standards”). The assumption that “stories” are inferior to nonfiction has a long tradition in Western culture; tapping into that prejudice is easy, and no proof seems to be required.

Processing of both a word’s orthography (its printed form) and phonology (its associated speech sounds) are critical for lexical identification during reading, both in beginning and skilled readers. Theories of learning to read typically posit a developmental change, from early readers’ reliance on phonology to more skilled readers’ development of direct orthographic-semantic links. Specifically, in becoming a skilled reader, the extent to which an individual processes phonology during lexical identification is thought to decrease. Recent data from eye movement research suggests, however, that the developmental change in phonological processing is somewhat more nuanced than this. Such studies show that phonology influences lexical identification in beginning and skilled readers in both typically and atypically developing populations. These data indicate, therefore, that the developmental change might better be characterised as a transition from overt decoding to abstract, covert recoding. We do not stop processing phonology as we become more skilled at reading; rather, the nature of that processing changes.

BackgroundThe Progress in International Reading and Literacy 2021 results draw stark attention to an ongoing crisis in primary education in South Africa. Research attempting to understand and address continued underperformance has focused on literacy learning and teaching in schools where the language of learning and teaching (LOLT) is the same as the learners’ home language. What has yet to be addressed is that a significant dilemma still exists for the many English Second Language (ESL) learners who attend schools where the LOLT is English.AimTo establish to what extent involvement in the Whistle Stop School (WSS) early grade reading programme impacts on reading rate and comprehension performance for ESL learners learning to read in English.SettingThis research examines the WSS programme in partnership with a local quintile three school.MethodsLongitudinal, quantitative secondary data was used from oral reading fluency and comprehension assessments conducted annually over the first six years of the programme.ResultsResults showed that involvement in the WSS programme had a significant impact on learner performance, with those learners involved in the programme notably outperforming those not in the programme and existing national benchmarks.ConclusionSmall-scale though the WSS is, the results demonstrate that with the right approach, the national goal to see every 10-year-old learner reading for meaning may be achievable.ContributionThis research aims to contribute to national conversations around early grade reading in South Africa by addressing the paucity of early grade reading learning research, specifically for ESL learners where LOLT is English.

What does the average middle schooler know about close reading? Launched in 2010 and adopted by forty-three states and the District of Columbia, the Common Core State Standards read like a Well Wrought Urn for kids—a New Critical primer for a new generation. From kindergarten through grade 12, close reading is the backbone of literary curricula. With each passing year, students perform close readings of increasing complexity—and with what feels like increasing adherence to New Critical doctrine. According to the Common Core reading standards, fifth graders must be able to “determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative language such as metaphors and similes.” They must also be able to explain “how a series of chapters, scenes, or stanzas fits together to provide the overall structure of a particular story, drama, or poem” (12). By eighth grade, students must be able to “provide an objective summary of the text” and “compare and contrast the structure of two or more texts and analyze how the differing structure of each text contributes to its meaning and style” (36). And by eleventh or twelfth grade, they must “cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain” (38). Students meeting these standards, we are told, can “readily undertake the close, attentive reading that is at the heart of understanding and enjoying complex literature” (3). In their textbook Understanding Poetry (1938), which popularized close reading across North American universities, Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren announced a similar goal: “to present to the student, in proper context and after proper preparation, some of the basic critical problems—with the aim, not of making technical critics, but merely of making competent readers of poetry” (xiv).

Learning to read fluently is an extremely important skill for all children to acquire. The current article focuses on learning to read in the most widely spoken languages of Malaysia, namely, the national language Bahasa Melayu, Tamil and Chinese. These three unrelated languages have quite distinct writing systems. Bahasa Melayu uses alphabetic Rumi or Roman script, Tamil has an alphasyllabary, and Chinese has a logographic or morphosyllabic writing system. Moreover, many of these children are learning to speak and read in more than one language. When we consider the task of these biscriptal learners, a complex picture emerges, as they may have to learn to map different phonological and orthographic systems. Furthermore, many children in Malaysia have the additional challenge of learning English as a second language. First, a brief review of the characteristics of the three main languages and their orthographies is given. Subsequently, research on phonological awareness, an important skill associated with success in reading, is reviewed. Initially, phonological awareness and reading in single language studies is examined prior to reviewing some research on bilingual learners. As these three languages have rich morphological systems, we will also briefly examine some research on morphological awareness and reading. A review of the literature reveals that children who speak a language with a similar orthography to a second language may have some advantage when learning to read that second language in comparison to children whose first and second languages and orthographies are unrelated.