Lecture 16 - Bradley & Bryant Flashcards
What was the main aim of Bradley & Bryant’s 1983 study?
To investigate whether phonological awareness (e.g., rhyming, alliteration) causally influences early reading development.
How many children participated in Bradley & Bryant’s study, and what were their ages?
403 children, aged 4 to 5 years old, all pre-readers.
What were the two main phonological awareness tasks used in the study?
The Oddity Task (focused on rhyme and alliteration) and categorization tasks that tested children’s ability to recognize differences in sounds.
In the Oddity Task, what was tested in the rhyme judgment?
Children had to determine which word did not rhyme with the others, based on either middle or final sound differences.
What was the key finding about early phonological awareness in the study?
Children who performed better on rhyme and alliteration tasks at age 4 showed significantly better reading and spelling abilities at age 8, even after controlling for IQ and memory differences.
How long was the follow-up period in Bradley & Bryant’s study?
4 years.
How did the training aspect of the study test phonological awareness?
65 children who were poor at sound categorization received intensive training for 40 one-on-one sessions over two years, focusing on rhyme and alliteration.
What were the results of the training study?
Children who received training on phonological awareness showed significant improvements in reading and spelling, but this effect was stronger when combined with training on letter-sound correspondence.
What criticism was raised about the Oddity Task in the study?
The task’s limited pool of items and the single phonological difference (e.g., rhyme or alliteration) made it potentially less reliable and valid.
What criticism was made regarding the absence of letter-sound correspondence training?
The study did not include a group that received training on letter-sound correspondence alone, which is now known to be a key factor in early reading development.
What ethical issue arose with the control group in the study?
Children in the control group (Group 4) did not receive any training, which raised concerns about whether they could have benefited from intervention.
What was the criticism regarding the study’s claim of causality between phonological awareness and reading?
Some argued that children in literate environments already have exposure to letters and words (e.g., logos, writing their names), making it difficult to separate letter awareness from phonological awareness and firmly establish causality.
What concern did critics raise about the effect size of the phonological awareness training?
Critics argued that the effect size (D = .70, r = .33) may not be as large or generalizable in the long term, especially when applied to diverse populations.
How does phonological awareness development vary across languages?
In languages like Chinese, syllable and tone awareness are more predictive of literacy, whereas in alphabetic languages like English, rhyme and alliteration play a more significant role.
How did Bradley & Bryant’s research influence modern education?
It led to a focus on integrating phonological awareness into early reading curricula, helping to connect oral language skills to reading and spelling abilities, and emphasizing the importance of preschool literacy environments.
What was one criticism of the phonics instruction suggested by the study’s findings?
Critics argued that synthetic phonics (letter-by-letter teaching) missed the importance of understanding the meaning behind words, suggesting a combined approach with whole-book reading methods.
How does English’s phonological complexity affect reading development?
English has a highly inconsistent mapping of letters to sounds (e.g., “CAP”, “SAW”, “MAKE”), making phonological awareness more complex than in languages like Spanish, where letter-sound correspondence is much more consistent.
What did the meta-analysis by Bus et al. (1999) reveal about the effect of phonological awareness on reading?
The effect of phonological awareness on reading was moderate (D = .70, r = .33), suggesting a modest but significant relationship, especially in early stages of reading development.
How did Bradley & Bryant’s study contribute to the phonological deficit theory of developmental dyslexia?
The study supported the idea that deficits in phonological awareness, such as difficulty with rhyming and alliteration, are a key factor in the development of reading difficulties and dyslexia.
Who were the main researchers in the Bradley & Bryant study, and what were their roles?
Peter Bryant: Psychology professor interested in causal processes in cognitive development.
Lynette Bradley: Teacher who noticed that differences in phonological awareness could affect literacy acquisition.
