scispace - formally typeset
L

Lauren Leslie

Researcher at Marquette University

Publications -  17
Citations -  850

Lauren Leslie is an academic researcher from Marquette University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Reading (process) & Reading comprehension. The author has an hindex of 12, co-authored 17 publications receiving 835 citations.

Papers
More filters
Book

Qualitative Reading Inventory-4

TL;DR: Examples of Using the Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 Using the QRI-4 in the Classroom to Estimate Reading Level using the Qri-4 for Literacy Portfolios and the Q RI-4 to Design Intervention Instruction and the results are Summarizing the Results.
Journal ArticleDOI

Factors That Predict Success in an Early Literacy Intervention Project

TL;DR: The authors found that children who were either nonreaders or were one or more years below grade level in reading received small-group literacy instruction from preservice teachers after school for 10 weeks each semester until they achieved grade-level reading.
Journal ArticleDOI

The effects of prior knowledge and oral reading accuracy on miscues and comprehension

TL;DR: The effects of prior knowledge (high, low) and oral reading accuracy (95% +, 90-94%) on miscues and comprehension were examined by requiring 57 third-grade average readers to read an expository passage orally as discussed by the authors.
Journal ArticleDOI

Thinking Aloud in Expository Text: Processes and Outcomes

TL;DR: This article examined the effect of think-aloud statements made by middle school students while reading expository text and found that they are associated with more associative inferences in recall, which correlated negatively with the ability to answer comprehension questions.
Book ChapterDOI

Formal and Informal Measures of Reading Comprehension

TL;DR: A review of research on assessments of reading comprehension should begin with a defi-formance of the construct to be measured; in this case, reading comprehension as discussed by the authors, and while this review would necessarily restrict our review of assessments to those that had chosen the theory we had chosen, and therefore, our discussion would not be representative of the variety of assessments available to researchers and practitioners.