In 2008 Christian Boer, a Dutch artist, developed a special font ("Dyslexie") to facilitate reading in children and adults with dyslexia. The font has received a lot of media attention worldwide (e.g., TheGuardian.com, Slate.com, TheAtlantic.com, USA Today, and io9.com). Interestingly, there is barely any empirical evidence for the efficacy of Dyslexie. This study aims to examine if Dyslexie is indeed more effective than a commonly used sans serif font (Arial) and, if so, whether this can be explained by its relatively large spacing settings. Participants were 39 low-progress readers who were learning to read in English. They were asked to read four different texts in four different font conditions that were all matched on letter display size (i.e., x-height), but differed in the degree to which they were matched for spacing settings. Results showed that low-progress readers performed better (i.e., read 7% more words per minute) in Dyslexie font than in standardly spaced Arial font. However, when within-word spacing and between-word spacing of Arial font was matched to that of Dyslexie font, the difference in reading speed was no longer significant. We concluded that the efficacy of Dyslexie font is not because of its specially designed letter shapes, but because of its particular spacing settings. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Identifying low-progress readers easily and quickly is an essential prerequisite for effective literacy intervention in schools. In this study, teacher judgment of reading performance is compared with a curriculum-based measurement procedure. This study involved 33 teachers and their Year 3 to Year 5 classes. Twelve students were randomly selected from each class and their teachers were asked to rank them based on their judgments of student reading performance. All students were also assessed on a Passage Reading Test (PRT) based on the principles of curriculum-based measurement. The obtained oral reading fluency measures for the students were ranked for each class and compared with teacher judgment rankings. The results indicated that only one-half of the teachers identified the same poorest reader as did the curriculum-based PRT. Moreover, only 15% of the teachers identified the same 3 lowest performing readers as the PRT. These findings suggest that over-reliance on teacher judgment for identifying low-progress readers may be misplaced and that curriculum-based PRTs may provide a more objective and quick alternative procedure.

Although the importance of intervening to assist young struggling readers is widely accepted and many interventions have been developed to meet this need, research has not yet established that there is an effective and low-cost option for schools. Reviews of research into beginning reading provide guidance about what needs to be included in an intervention for young struggling readers but there is less available information about how to organise and implement an intervention. Recent research into the variables influencing interventions that have been used with young students provides some useful information that can be used to adapt existing programs or design and develop new ones. Ten desirable features of interventions suitable for young students who are beginning to struggle in reading after a year of schooling are identified.

No abstract

No abstract