Reading development Flashcards
Historical reading levels
deFrancesca 1972: 17,000 US at 18yo, RA: 9yo
Conrad 1979: N468 school leavers RA of 9yo, 2.4% read appropriately, 50% RA under 7yo
Recent reading levels studies1
Walters, qi and mitchell, powers and gregory
Walters 2006: N404 dutch, 4% at expected RA
Qi and Mitchell 2011: retrospective ltnl at SAT scores predict deficit over 30 years
Powers and gregory (99): no improvement for deaf interventions over decades- gap between chron age and RA increases with age!
Kyle and Harris 2010
N29, over 3 years, 7-10yo: every 12 months they were given a battery of literacy, cognitive, and language tasks;
- gap between chron and reading age increases with age, and reading development gives phonological awareness. most- age appropriate reading from children with least severe hearing
Hulme and Snowling 2014
Reading development is ‘parasitic on language’- good language base leads to good reading skills, irrespective of modality
Important factors for learning to read:
1) Phonological awareness
2) Letter-sound knowledge
3) Rapid automatized naming (RAN)
or Musselman (2000): phonological encoding, language-specific or language-general knowledge
- sign is a different LANG: grammar, syntax– limited from outset
Phonological awareness:
Mutter (04); NIL (08); Bowyer-Crane (08)
*Mutter (04); NIL (08); Bowyer-Crane (08): causal impact of decoding skills; phoneme deletion and rhyme oddity.
and letter-sound knowledge– York ass. of reading and comprehension ie that ‘p’ is /p/
partial hearing is most helpful!- harris and moveno 2006
Phonological encoding alternatives:
May base on more visual entities (better at visual stimuli (parasnis and samar 1982)
- Orthography (not as successful)
- Articulation (lip pattern: partial knowledge)- total communication; speech cues with sign, gesture, finger spelling- can help reading as more english
- Finger spelling: attention to letters
- sign: encoded print info to STM (Hanson 1982)
- – Lichenstein 1998: likely multiple strategies
RAN abiltiies
ability to rapidly label items efficiently predicts reading ability cross-linguistically (Caravalos 2012)- unaffected by strange mappings
- Conflicting evidence for PA as predictor!
NO link: McQuarrie 09: no r in 32 6-18yo with sever-profound RD
YES link: Cupples 13: PA accounts for 10% variance in word reading at 5yo (N101) (& MAs: Mayberry 2010 (11%), bus and van ijzendoorn 99 (12%))
Why is there conflicting evidence for PA?
variation in type of tasks used, appropriateness of task for population, age range, langauge experience- causality?
Orthographic strategies used vary a lot in populations (Hirshorn 2014)
LTNL: Kyle and Harris 10: reading LEADS to PA; Colin 06: PA leads to reading!
Normal reading comprehension
Gough and Turner: reading comp= decoding x language comprehension
Nation 2010: vocab knowledge, listening comprehension, grammatical knowledge
SO substantial L1 predicts reading in L2 (even if sign)
Language skills predict reading dev in deaf
Mayberry 89/01
Lederberg 2013
kyle and harris
Deaf natives are best on reading test as language input is strong (Mayberry 89/01); although necessary not vital (Lederberg 2013),
Language ability accounts for 35% of variance for reading outcomes (much more than PA)- Kyle and harris 2010
Cochlear implantation affects reading:
Improves speech production and perception (Niparko 2010)
Superior outcomes in reading (svirsky 2004)
Geers 2003: CI children have better syntax and english Vocab – matthew effect
Although catch up by 7yo (dunni 2014)
Early identification/implication: Pimperton 2014
Reading interventions:
Hulme and Snowling 2015:RCT: letter-sound knowledge and PA is most reliable reading skills: = Rose review UK 2006, nat reading panel usa (2000)
OR differentiate instruction: mayer and trezek 2014
1) speech reading
2) cued speech
3) visual phonetics
STAR project 2014
group (deaf) level deficit, increase little with age- speech reading training- computer intervention thenRCT: games with adaptive component. Visual word spoken, then click on item- adaptive reaidng to match letter- sound
- variation in speakers: accent, age, gender variation
- variability in time played but seem to improve
- game needs some amendments
Speech reading
Kyle and harris10.11: ltnl redictor of reading although impoverished route but helps. Amodal, support from Macsweeney 2009 – STAR project.
Cued speech
Infro from visual confused by phoneme (V)(F): demonstrated by McGurk effect- cue words with specific sign gesture code: intensively learnt can be fast acquired
Lasasso and crain 2010/15- clear and visually complete, leads to superior phono and reading skills- BUT self selecting bias sample.
Visual phonetics
multisensory strategy using fingerspelling, HS and M for each phoneme- eg ‘m’ from nose as it is nasal– NOT communication system; designed for reading.
-effective for phonics but nothing else- initial efficacy (tucci 2014) but need RCTs
Lederberg 2011
Still significantly behind despite interventions, DOH children particularly weaknesses in grammatical development, language deficits have consequences for other areas of cognitive development- reading, ToM, literacy dev
Recent reading levels studies2
Traxler 2000: cross-cultural 10% at appropriate RA
-Need for a parallel study to Conrad (1979)
Spencer 2010: still sig low despite intervention
