After you read Pressley’s chapter, summarize the 5 major subheadings per section. Specifically, name the subheading (i.e., EMER

CHAPTER 14

Psychology of Literacy and Literacy Instruction

MICHAEL PRESSLEY

333

EMERGENT LITERACY DURING THE PRESCHOOL YEARS 334 Emergent Literacy 334 Phonemic Awareness 336

FIRST GRADE AND THE PRIMARY YEARS 337 Word Recognition 337 Teaching Primary-Level Students to

Sound Out Words 338 Reading Recovery 339 Studies of Exceptional Primary-Level Teachers 340 Summary 342

COMPREHENSION 343 Fluent Word Recognition 343

Vocabulary 343 Comprehension Strategies 343 Summary 344

WRITING 344 ENCOURAGING ADULT LITERACY 346

Basic, Word-Level Difficulties 346 Comprehension Difficulties 346 Writing Difficulties 347 Summary 348

CLOSING COMMENTS 348 REFERENCES 348

When first asked whether I could prepare a chapter summa- rizing literacy research, my initial response was that the request was impossible. What came to mind immediately were the three volumes of the Handbook of Reading Re- search (Barr, Kamil, Mosenthal, & Pearson, 1991; Kamil, Mosenthal, Pearson, & Barr, 2000; Pearson, Barr, Kamil, & Mosenthal, 1984), the most prominent compendiums of read- ing research, which collectively include 3,000 pages to sum- marize just reading research (although some writing research found its way into those volumes).

Even more daunting than just the volume of research, how- ever, is its diversity. From a methodological perspective, there are experimental and correlational traditions in literacy studies. In recent years, however, such traditional and quantitative ap- proaches have been supplanted largely by more qualitative methods, including ethnographies (Florio-Ruane & McVee, 2000), verbal protocol analyses (Afflerbach, 2000; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995), narrative approaches (Alvermann, 2000), and single-subject designs (Neuman & McCormick, 2000).

Conceptually, literacy at one time was primarily seen from a behavioral perspective, with such behaviorism yielding to cognitivism in the 1970s and 1980s. Although there is still much cognitive study of reading, sociocultural emphasis in the field has been increasing, beginning in the 1990s and mov- ing into the twenty-first century (Gaffney & Anderson, 2000).

Literacy is also a decidedly international field of study; exciting ideas have come from Australia and New Zealand (Wilkinson, Freebody, & Elkins, 2000), the United Kingdom (Harrison, 2000), Latin America (Santana, 2000), and in- creasingly from former Iron Curtain countries (Meredith & Steele, 2000). Although much of literacy instruction has been and remains focused on kindergarten through Grade 12 instruction, in recent decades a great deal of work has been done on literacy development during the preschool years (Yaden, Rowe, & McGillivray, 2000) as well as research ex- tending into the college years (Flippo & Caverly, 2000) and beyond (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993). Also, there has been a clear shift away from thinking about literacy as a development that occurs purely in the schools; it is now conceived as more an acquisition that occurs in families, (Purcell-Gates, 2000) in the workplace, and in the larger, in- creasingly technological community (Reinking, McKenna, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1998).

Of course, one way to deal with this enormous and multi- dimensionally expanding literature would be to focus only on the parts that are decidedly psychological because much of lit- eracy research was not carried out by psychologists and seems rather far afield from psychological issues; in fact, that is a tactic taken in this chapter. The downside of this approach is that some of the most interesting and cutting-edge directions

334 Psychology of Literacy and Literacy Instruction

are neglected. Some ideas that might start psychologists thinking about new directions they might pursue are not put before readers’ eyes. The serious scholar in literacy—or any- one who wants to have a broadly informed opinion—will (at a minimum) spend much time with the 3,000 Handbook pages now available at the beginning of this millennium.

Another tactic that I employ here is to focus on primary and significant issues and questions—ones that have been of con- cern for a very long time. This approach in particular makes sense because it does lead to some answers—that is, a number of important issues in reading and writing have been studied long enough that replicable findings have emerged. This em- phasis on replicable findings—on the surface at least—makes this chapter consistent with the approach of the National Read- ing Panel (2000). I am inconsistent with the National Reading Panel, however, in that I am willing to consider a greater di- versity of methods than that group was. That group generally limited itself to experimental studies; it admitted only the oc- casional quasi-experimental study and distanced itself from qualitative approaches entirely. This chapter certainly does present much coverage of outcomes produced in true experi- ments and approximations to experiments, but these out- comes are complemented by other scientific findings as well. In particular, descriptive methods, including ethnographies, have provided rich understandings about the complexities of some important instructional approaches—understandings that never would be produced in true experiments or repre- sented in the write-ups of experimental studies.

This chapter could have been organized in a number of dif- ferent ways; I have decided to organize this one along devel- opmental lines. In fact, there have been studies of literacy development beginning in late infancy and proceeding through adulthood. Of course, what develops varies with each develop- mental period; the development of general language compe- tencies is particularly critical during the preschool years. Although beginning reading instruction during the early ele- mentary school years focuses on the development of letter- and word-level competencies in reading and writing, this focus eventually gives way to the development of fluent reading as a goal and increasing concerns with comprehension and compo- sition in the later elementary and middle school grades. By high school and college, much of the emphasis is on honing lit- eracy skills in the service of the learning demands of secondary and postsecondary education. Researchers interested in adult literacy have often focused on adults who did not develop lit- eracy competencies during the schooling years; such research generally attempts to develop interventions to promote literacy in these populations, whose members often suffer socio- economic and personal disadvantages directly attributable to their reading problems.

EMERGENT LITERACY DURING THE PRESCHOOL YEARS

What happens to children during the preschool years relates to later literacy development. Many developmentalists inter- ested in literacy have focused on what is known as emergent literacy, which is the development of the language skills un- derlying literacy through interactions with the social world. Other developmentalists who have been interested in chil- dren’s beginning letter-level and word-recognition skills have focused more on a competency known as phonemic aware- ness, which is the awareness that words are composed of sounds blended together.

Emergent Literacy

One of the more heavily researched topics by developmental psychologists is the nature of mother-infant attachment. When interactions between the principal caregiver and an in- fant are constructive and caring, the attachment that develops can be described as secure (Bowlby, 1969). In particular, when parents are responsive to the child and provide for its needs, secure attachment is more likely. The securely at- tached baby interacts with the world comfortably in the care- giver’s presence and responds favorably to the caregiver after a period of caregiver absence.

Matas, Arend, and Sroufe (1978) made a fundamentally important discovery. Children who experience secure at- tachment during infancy engage in more effective problem solving with their parents during the preschool years. When parents are securely attached to their children, they are more likely to provide appropriate degrees of support as their chil- dren attempt to solve problems (Frankel & Bates, 1990; Matas et al., 1978).

A related finding is that when parents and preschoolers are securely attached, they interact more productively in situa- tions involving literacy. Bus and van IJzendoorn (1988) observed both securely attached and insecurely attached mother-child pairs as they watched Sesame Street together, read a picture book, and went through an alphabet book. The interactions involving securely attached parents and children were much more positive than were the interactions between insecurely attached parents and children. Securely attached preschoolers were more attentive and less easily distracted during interactions, and much more literate activity was ob- served in the interactions of securely attached pairs compared to those of insecurely attached pairs. Storybook reading was more intense with the secure pairs than with the insecure pairs; the secure parent-child pairs talked more about the story than did the insecure pairs. An especially interesting

Emergent Literacy During the Preschool Years 335

finding was that securely attached parents and their 3-year- old children reported doing more reading together (Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1995).

That storybook reading brings greater rewards when at- tachment security is greater is an important finding because high-quality storybook reading during the preschool years clearly promotes literacy development. There are clear corre- lations between the amount of storybook reading during the preschool years and subsequent language development, chil- dren’s interest in reading, and their success as beginning readers (Sulzby & Teale, 1991); this is sensible because storybook reading at its best is a rich verbal experience, with much questioning and answering by both reader and child. Storybook reading permits practice at working out meaning from words in text and pictures, as well as opportunities for the child to practice relating ideas in stories to their own lives and the world as they understand it (Applebee & Langer, 1983; Cochran-Smith, 1984; Flood, 1977; Pelligrini, Perlmutter, Galda, & Brody, 1990; Roser & Martinez, 1985; Taylor & Strickland, 1986). As a child matures and gains experience with storybook reading, the conversations between reader and child increase in complexity (Snow, 1983; Sulzby & Teale, 1987). Older preschoolers who have had much storybook reading experience are much more attentive during such read- ing than are same-age peers who have had relatively little op- portunity to experience books with their parents or other adults (Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1988). Many correlational data sup- port the hypothesis that storybook reading is beneficial for children’s cognitive development—that it stimulates language development and sets the stage for beginning reading.

This body of evidence in the context of storybook read- ing is complemented by other data substantiating striking connections between the richness of preschoolers’ verbal worlds and subsequent language development. One of the most ambitious and most cited analyses was made by Uni- versity of Kansas psychologists Hart and Risley (1995). They observed 42 families for 2.5 years, beginning in the second semester of a child’s life. During these observations, they recorded all actions and interactions. The first im- portant finding was that there were significant differences between families in both the quality and the extensiveness of verbal interactions. The quality of interactions in terms of completeness and complexity of language was greater in professional homes than in working-class homes, and lan- guage complexity in working-class homes was greater than in welfare homes—that is, in homes of higher socioeco- nomic status, parents listened more to their children, they asked their children to elaborate their comments more, and they taught their children how to cope verbally when con- fronted with ideas that were challenging for the children to

communicate. Quantitatively, the differences in verbal inter- actions were really striking: Whereas a child in a profes- sional home might experience 4 million verbalizations a year, a child in a welfare family could be exposed to only 250,000 utterances. Did these vast differences in experience translate into later performance differences? There was no doubt about it; superior language was detected by age 3 in the children raised in professional families compared to children in working-class and welfare families.

Of course, the problem with correlational data is that causality is never clear. Yes, it could be that the richer experi- ences promoted language development, or it could be that more verbal children stimulated richer language interactions during storybook reading and throughout their days. Fortu- nately, complementary experimental studies establish more definitively that high-quality verbal interactions result in linguistic advances in children.

Grover Whitehurst and his colleagues (Whitehurst et al., 1988) hypothesized that if parents were coached in order to improve their verbal interactions with their children during storybook reading, the language functioning of the children would improve. Whitehurst et al. worked for a month with the parents of 14 children between the ages of 1.5–3 years. In particular, the parents were taught to use more open-ended questions as they read storybooks with their children; they were also taught to ask more questions about the functions and attributes of objects in stories. Whitehurst et al. (1988) also taught the parents to elaborate and expand on comments made by their children during reading. In short, the parents were taught the tricks of the trade for stimulating productive and verbally rich conversations with young children. In contrast, parents and children in a control condition simply continued to read together for the month corresponding to treatment for the experimental participants.

First, the intervention worked in that it did increase the verbal complexity and extensiveness of communications between parents and children. Although experimental and control parent-child interactions were similar before the study, the experimental group conversations during book reading were much richer following the intervention. More- over, clear differences appeared in the language functioning of the experimental group children following the interven- tion, reflected by performance on standardized tests of psy- cholinguistic ability and vocabulary. These effects have been replicated several times, both by Whitehurst’s associates (Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, 1992; Whitehurst et al., 1994) and by others (Crain-Thoresen & Dale, 1995; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Lonigan, Anthony, & Burgess, 1995).

In short, evidence suggests that preschool verbal experi- ences promote language development, potentially in ways

336 Psychology of Literacy and Literacy Instruction

promoting subsequent development of reading. Whether these effects are great enough to inspire enthusiasm, how- ever, depends on the eye of the observing scientist; some sci- entists see large and important effects (Bus, van IJzendoorn, & Pelligrini, 1995; Dunning, Mason, & Stewart, 1994; Lonigan, 1994), whereas others who examine the same out- comes see small effects that might be explained away as due to factors other than verbal stimulation (Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). I tend to favor the former rather than the lat- ter conclusion; the experimental work of Whitehurst and his colleagues especially affects my thinking on this matter. In general, my optimism is consistent with the general optimism of the field that rich early language experiences affect lan- guage development in ways that should affect later reading development (Sulzby & Teale, 1991; Yaden et al., 2000).

Phonemic Awareness

In recent years, no prereading competency has received as much attention from researchers and practitioners as phone- mic awareness has. Understanding that words are composed of blended sounds seems essential for rapid progress in learning letter-sound associations and learning to use those associations to sound out words (Adams, 1990; Pennington, Groisser, & Welsh, 1993; Stanovich, 1986, 1988). This is not an all-or-none acquisition, however; Adams (1990) provides a conceptualization of phonemic awareness subcompetencies, listed as follows from most rudimentary to most advanced: (a) sensitivity to rhymes in words, (b) being able to spot words that do not rhyme (e.g., picking the odd word out if given can, dan, sod), (c) being able to blend sounds to form words (e.g., blending the sounds for M, short A, and T to produce mat), (d) being able to break words down into sound components (e.g., sounding out mat to indicate awareness of M, short A, and T sounds), and (e) being able to split off sounds from words (e.g., dropping the M sound from mat to say at; drop- ping the T sound from mat, producing ma).

Why is there such great interest in phonemic awareness? When phonemic awareness is low at ages 4–5, there is in- creased risk of difficulties in learning to read and spell (Bowey, 1995; Griffith, 1991; Näsland & Schneider, 1996; Pratt & Brady, 1988; Shaywitz, 1996; Stuart & Masterson, 1992). Perhaps the best-known study establishing linkage between phonemic awareness at the end of the preschool years and later reading achievement was Juel (1988). She studied a sample of children as they progressed from first through fourth grade. Problems in reading during Grade 1 predicted problems in reading at Grade 4—that is, problem readers in first grade do not just learn to read when they are ready! Rather, they never

seem to learn to read as well as do children who were strong readers in Grade 1. More important to this discussion is that low phonemic awareness in Grade 1 predicted poor reading performance in Grade 4, a result generally consistent with other demonstrations that low phonemic awareness between 4 and 6 years of age predict later reading problems (Bowey, 1995; Griffith, 1991; Näsland & Schneider, 1996; Pratt & Brady, 1988; Shaywitz, 1966; Stuart & Masterson, 1992).

Given that phonological awareness is so critical in learning to read, it is fortunate that phonological awareness has proven teachable; when taught, it influences reading performance positively. Perhaps the best known demonstration of the po- tency of phonemic awareness instruction is that provided by Bradley and Bryant (1983). They provided 5- and 6-year-olds with 2 years of experience categorizing words on the basis of their sounds, including practice doing so with beginning, mid- dle, and ending sounds. Thus, given the words hen, men, and hat with the request to categorize on the basis of initial sound, hen and hat went together; in contrast, hen and men was the correct answer when the children were asked to categorize on the basis of middle or ending sound. The students in the study first read pictures and made their choices on the basis of sounds alone; then they were transferred to words and could make their choices on the basis of letter and orthographic features as well as sounds.

The training made a substantial impact on reading mea- sured immediately after training, relative to a control condi- tion in which students made judgments about the conceptual category membership of words (e.g., identifying that cat, rat, and bat go together as animals). Even more impressive was that the trained participants outperformed control participants in reading 5 years after the training study took place (Bradley, 1989; Bradley & Bryant, 1991).

Bradley and Bryant’s work was the first of a number of studies establishing that phonemic awareness could be de- veloped through instruction and influence reading perfor- mance (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Barker & Torgesen, 1995; Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991, 1993, 1995; Cunningham, 1990; Foster, Erickson, Foster, Brinkman, & Torgesen, 1994; Lie, 1991; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; O’Connor, Jenkins, & Slocum, 1995; Tangel & Blachman, 1992, 1995; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Williams, 1980; Wise & Olson, 1995). Although the instruc- tional procedures varied somewhat from study to study, in general, phonemic awareness training has included at least several months of exercises requiring young children to attend to the component sounds of words, categorizing and dis- criminating words on the basis of sound features. Thus, some- times children were asked to tap out the syllables of words,

First Grade and the Primary Years 337

sometimes asked to say the word with the last sound deleted, and sometimes requested to identify the odd word out when one does not share some sound with other words in a group.

Bus and van IJzendoorn (1999) provided especially com- plete and analytical review of the phonemic awareness in- structional data. Collapsing data over 32 research reports, all of which were generated by U.S. investigators, Bus and van IJzendoorn (1999) concluded that there was a moderate rela- tionship between phonemic awareness instruction and later reading. When long-term effects (i.e., 6 months or more fol- lowing training) were considered, however, the phonemic awareness instruction had less of an impact on reading—a small impact at best. Thus, although delayed effects of phone- mic awareness training can be detected, they are not huge.

All scientifically oriented reviewers of the early reading literature have concluded that phonemic awareness is impor- tant as part of learning to read (e.g., Adams, 1990; Adams, Treiman, & Pressley, 1998; Goswami, 2000; National Read- ing Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). The available correlational and experimental data converge on the conclu- sion that phonemic awareness is probably an important pre- requisite for learning to read words. After all, if a child does not understand that words are composed of sounds blended together, why would reading instruction emphasizing the component sounds of words make any sense to the child? Of course, the answer is that it would not, which explains why phonemic awareness is so critical for a child to learn to read (e.g., Fox & Routh, 1975). Acquiring phonemic awareness is just a start on word recognition competence, which is a criti- cal task during the primary grades.

In summary, much progress in literacy development can and does occur before Grade 1, which has traditionally been viewed as the point of schooling for beginning reading in- struction. Much of it is informal—the learning of language in a language-rich environment that can include activities such as storybook reading with adults. Increasingly, high-quality kindergarten programs include activities explicitly intended to develop phonemic awareness.

FIRST GRADE AND THE PRIMARY YEARS

There has been tremendous debate in the past quarter century about the best approach to primary-grades reading educa- tion. This debate somewhat reflects a much longer debate (i.e., one occurring over centuries to millennia) about the nature of beginning reading instruction (see Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block, & Morrow, 2001). In recent years, at one extreme have been those who have advocated an

approach known as whole language, which posits that chil- dren should be immersed in holistic reading and writing tasks from the very start of schooling—that is, reading trade books and composing their own stories. At the other extreme are those who argue that skills should be developed first. The skills-first advocates particularly favor phonics as an ap- proach to developing word-recognition abilities; they argue that if students learn letter-sound associations and how to blend the component sounds in words to recognize words, their word recognition will be more accurate and more certain.

Word Recognition

Even preschoolers can read some words, such as McDonald’s when in the context of the company’s logo, Coca-Cola when encountered on a bottle or aluminum can, and Yankees when scripted across a ballplayer’s chest. Young children learn to recognize such logographs from their day-to-day experiences. When presented the words McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Yankees out of their familiar contexts, preliterate children cannot read them. Even so, encountering words as logographs somehow seems to make it easier for preschoolers to learn words out of context. When Cronin, Farrell, and Delaney (1995) taught preschoolers words as sight words, previously encountered logographs were learned more easily than were control words never encountered as logographs. At best, how- ever, logographic reading is just a start on word-recognition skills and is very different from most of word recognition.

Well before children can sound out words using all the let- ters of a word, they sometimes can read words based on a few letters, a process Ehri (1991) referred to as phonetic cue read- ing. Thus, as a little boy, I learned the very long word ele- mentary because I encountered it often during first grade. As a consequence, I could read elementary wherever I encoun- tered the word. The problem was that I was reading the word based on a couple of cues (probably the beginning e and the fact that it was a long word) shared by other words. Thus, for quite a while, I thought that label on the escape hatch in the school bus was labeled elementary door, when in fact it was an emergency door! Such mistakes are common in children who are 5–6 years old (Ehri & Wilce, 1987a, 1987b; Gilbert, Spring, & Sassenrath, 1977; Seymour & Elder, 1986).

Many children do reach the kindergarten doors knowing the alphabet. One reason is that as a society, we decided to teach the alphabet to preschoolers—for example, through ef- forts such as those in Sesame Street; it is clear from the earliest evaluations that such environmental enrichment did affect ac- quisition of alphabetic knowledge (e.g., Anderson & Collins, 1988; Ball & Bogatz, 1970; Bogatz & Ball, 1971). It is now

338 Psychology of Literacy and Literacy Instruction

known that Sesame Street contributes to alphabetic learning over and above the contributions made by family and others (Rice, Huston, Truglio, & Wright, 1990).

Knowing letter names and letter-sound associations alone does not result in word recognition competence, however. Children must also learn the common blends (e.g., dr, bl) and digraphs (e.g., sh, ch). In general, primary education includes lots of repetition of the common letter-sound associations, blends, and digraphs—for example, through repeated reading of stories filled with high-frequency words. Walk into any Grade 1 classroom: It will be filled with many single-syllable words, including lists of words featuring the common di- graphs and blends. Word families also will be prominent (e.g., beak, peak, leak). Grade 1 teachers spend a lot of time model- ing for their students how to sound out words by blending the component sounds in words and using common chunks; they also spend a lot of time encouraging students to sound out words on their own, including doing so to write words in their compositions (Wharton-McDonald, Pressley, & Hampston, 1998).

The students most likely to make rapid progress in learn- ing to sound out words are those who already have phonemic awareness and know their letter-sound associations (Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988). Even so, a large body of evi- dence indicates that teaching students to sound out words by blending components’ sounds is better than alternative ap- proaches with respect to development of word-recognition skills.

Teaching Primary-Level Students to Sound Out Words

One of the most important twentieth-century contributions to reading research was Jeanne Chall’s (1967) Learning to Read: The Great Debate. After reviewing all of the evidence then available, Chall concluded that the best way to teach be- ginning reading was to teach students explicitly to sound out words—that is, she felt that early reading instruction should focus on teaching letter-sound associations and the blending of letter sounds to recognize words, an approach she referred to as synthetic phonics. Based on the available research, Chall concluded that synthetic phonics was superior to other approaches regardless of the ability level of the child, al- though synthetic phonics seemed to be especially beneficial to lower-ability children. After the publication of the first edition of the Chall book, there was a flurry of laboratory studies of phonics instruction, and most researchers found synthetic phonics to be better than alternatives (Chall, 1983, Table I-2, pp. 18–20).

The next book-length treatment of the scientific founda- tions of beginning reading instruction was Marilyn Adams’

(1990) Beginning to Read. By the time of that publication, a great deal of conceptualization and analysis of beginning reading had occurred. Adams reviewed for her readers the ev- idence permitting the conclusion that phonemic awareness is a critical prerequisite to word recognition. So was acquisition of the alphabetic principle, which is the understanding that the sounds in words are represented by letters. Researchers interested in visual perceptual development had made the case that children gradually acquire understanding of the distinctive visual features of words, gradually learning to discriminate Rs from Bs and Vs from Ws (Gibson, Gibson, Pick, & Osser, 1962; Gibson & Levin, 1975). Consistent with Chall (1967, 1983), Adams also concluded that instruction in synthetic phonics promoted beginning word-recognition skills.

Since Adams’ (1990) book, a number of demonstrations have shown that intensive instruction in synthetic phonics helps beginning struggling readers. For example, Foorman, Francis, Novy, and Liberman (1991) studied urban first-grade students who were enrolled either in a program emphasizing synthetic phonics or in a program downplaying phonics in word recognition in favor of whole language. By the end of the year, the students in the synthetic phonics program were reading and spelling words better than were students in the other program. Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, and Mehta (1998) reported a similar outcome; a program em- phasizing synthetic phonics produced better reading after a year of instruction than did three alternatives that did not provide systematic phonics instruction. Maureen Lovett treats 9- to 13-year-olds who are experiencing severe reading problems; she and her colleagues have presented consider- able evidence that systematic teaching of synthetic pho- nics improves the reading of such children (Lovett, Ransby, Hardwick, Johns, & Donaldson, 1989; Lovett et al., 1994). Similar results have been produced in a number of well- controlled studies (Alexander, Anderson, Heilman, Voeller, & Torgesen, 1991; Manis, Custodio, & Szeszulski, 1993; Olson, Wise, Johnson, & Ring, 1997; Torgesen et al., 1996; Vellutino et al., 1996), permitting the clear conclusion that intensive (i.e., one-on-one or one teacher to a few students) synthetic phonics instruction can help struggling beginning readers.

In recent years, a popular alternative to synthetic phonics has been teaching students to decode words by recognizing common chunks (or rimes) in them (e.g., tight, light, and sight include the -ight chunk). Use of such chunks to decode, however, r

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.