thanks
play

Thanks Reading Difficulty: Is it all SSHRC Phonological? University - PDF document

Nov 13, 2023 •673 likes •784 views

5/21/2014 Thanks Reading Difficulty: Is it all SSHRC Phonological? University of Manitoba Research Assistants, Honours students: Jane, Antonella, Jaga, Kailey, Robyn, Cameron, Cassia, Richard Kruk Heather, Kristin, Jesse, Leah, Krista,

  1. 5/21/2014 Thanks Reading Difficulty: Is it all • SSHRC Phonological? • University of Manitoba • Research Assistants, Honours students: Jane, Antonella, Jaga, Kailey, Robyn, Cameron, Cassia, Richard Kruk Heather, Kristin, Jesse, Leah, Krista, Courtney, Keith, University of Manitoba Maxine, Deborah, Ashley, Ashley, Tianna, Kay, Todd, Karelia, Hanna, Alana, Shannon, Maureen, Jane, Cassandra, Phoenix Agenda for today A bit of history… what influences reading? • Congenital Word Blindness (George Hinshelwood, • A bit of history 1917) • Phonological processing in reading – Visual memory for words and letters (reversals, spelling and comprehension difficulties) • Add ‐ on explanations: language ‐ , non ‐ • Strephosymbolia (Samuel Orton, 1925) language ‐ based – “twisted signs” – failure to establish cerebral dominance: difficulty associating visual and spoken forms of words A bit of history… what influences Phonological Processes reading? • Phonological (not visual) Processing (Frank • Phonological awareness (ery ‐ vay uch ‐ may!) Vellutino) • Phonological working memory (GPC) – Focus on word ‐ level reading difficulty • Rapid naming (fluency) – Phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension 1

  2. 5/21/2014 Phonological Processes Phonological Processes • Phonological awareness – English reading – alphabetic principle • Phonological working memory – Anglocentricity of reading research – Lee Swanson • Phonological grain size theory (Zeigler & Goswami) – Blending, GPC rule application • Dual route theory (Coltheart) • Connectionism (Siedenberg) Phonological Processes Reading Difficulty • Phonological Awareness • Rapid Naming • Phonological Working Memory – Patricia Bowers, MaryAnn Wolf – Fluency • Rapid Naming • Is that all there is? Add ‐ on explanations Language ‐ Based • Phonological Processes don’t explain all the • Simple view of reading (Gough) variance in reading performance – Reading comprehension = Word Decoding X • Search for additional language ‐ based and Language Comprehension non ‐ language ‐ based explanations • Language operates at different levels (independent of Phonological Processes) (phonological, semantic, syntactic) 2

  3. 5/21/2014 Add ‐ On 1: Additional language Exposure to Additional Language context • French Immersion • Are there harms and benefits of French – Benefits of bilingualism Immersion for at ‐ risk readers? – Influences on reading? – Expect no difference between IMM and Eng – What about struggling readers? (Transition programs question – should I move out of IMM?) • IMM benefits all on phonological awareness • Kruk & Reynolds (2013). J. Child Lang. and decoding • N=46 (22 at ‐ risk, half of each group in IMM) • Difference between at ‐ risk IMM and at ‐ risk • Longitudinal – multilevel modeling ENG – Reading comprehension growth better in IMM Immersion Immersion • Benefits of Immersion – PA and decoding – Cross ‐ language transfer • Benefits of Immersion to at ‐ risk in comprehension – Word relation knowldege improved, related to executive functioning 3

  4. 5/21/2014 Language ‐ Based Add ‐ On 2: Rapid Naming • Exposure to additional language • Phonological Processes don’t explain all the – Richer linguistic landscape variance in reading performance – More opportunities to connect ideas, meanings • Is Rapid Naming Phonological only? (Bialystock) • Needs replication! Rapid Naming Rapid Naming • 52 at ‐ risk (at least .5 SD below on 2 of 4 WRMT ‐ R • Kruk, Mayer, & Funk (2014). J. Res. Reading. subtests) and 69 not ‐ at ‐ risk (above average on – Alphanumeric rapid naming (RN) better predictor of subtests) readers reading than non ‐ alphanumeric (Lervåg et al., 2009) – Examined predictive relations between non ‐ alphanumeric – tracked from Grade 1 to Grade 3 RN and growth in regular and irregular word decoding in – Grade 1 scores in RN as predictors, at ‐ risk readers • controls: PA, PWM, Cogn., orthographic knowledge, – Grade 1 RN’s influence on growth in irregular word reading autoregressors decoding was different for at ‐ risk than not ‐ at ‐ risk readers Regular Word Decoding: Model estimates – Rapid Naming ns Irregular Word Decoding: Model estimates – * RN; * RN X Time for At ‐ Risk 84 th percentile on rapid naming (84 th percentile on rapid naming) (16 th percentile on rapid naming) (16 th percentile on rapid naming) At ‐ Risk Not ‐ At ‐ Risk At ‐ Risk Not ‐ At ‐ Risk 4

  5. 5/21/2014 Rapid Naming Rapid Naming • After controlling PA, Cogn, autoregressor, • Non ‐ Alphanumeric Rapid Naming influence: Rapid Naming: – Reflects over ‐ reliance on non ‐ phonological – No role in predicting Regular Word decoding processes in at ‐ risk readers – Significant in predicting Irregular at Grade 2, and • Rapid access to word ‐ level associations in predicting Growth in at ‐ risk readers to end of • Visual ‐ auditory learning (vs. phonological ‐ route) Grade 3 Language ‐ Based Add ‐ On 3: Morphological Awareness Morphological Awareness Morphological Awareness • • Semantic and Syntactic aspects of language – Morph knowledge task • Morphological Awareness measures: • “Say teacher” Josh likes both of his _______. (COMPOSE) • “Say teachers” Josh had only one ______. (DECOMPOSE) – Morphological Knowledge test (The “Wug” task) – Smaller word task: – Is there a smaller word in … • Is there a smaller word in “teacher” that means the same thing as “teacher?” “corner?” – Analogies – Analogies task: – Lexical Integration (Arlin et al., 2003) Processes: • – Compose vs. decompose • Derivations and Infections Morphological Awareness Morphological Awareness • Longitudinal Study, Grade 1 to Grade 3 • MA – Reading relations can work in both – N= 157; 5 waves, every 6 months directions – Reading (WRMT ‐ R: WA, WI, WC, PC) • Reciprocal Relations – Morphological awareness (MKT) – Kruk & Bergman (2013). J. Exp. Ch. Psych. • Compose and Decompose (both derive and inflect) 5

  6. 5/21/2014 Morphological Awareness Morphological Awareness • Multilevel modeling • MA influences growth in Reading • Wave 1 = autoregressor; controls (PA, Vocab) – Decompose influences WC – Compose influences WI, WC, PC • What influences growth, end ‐ point in MA and • Reading influences growth in MA Reading? – WI, WC, PC influences Decompose • (All after controlling for PA, Vocab) Reciprocal Relations Reciprocal Relations Decompose influences growth in WC Compose influences growth in WI, WC, PC WI WC PC Reciprocal Relations Morphological Awareness • Reciprocal relations not perfectly balanced WC, PC influence growth in Decompose – But likely involve lexical access Next step: look at other MA measures – lexical integration, smaller word test) on comprehension (Kruk & Hardern, in prep) Decompose 6

  7. 5/21/2014 Benefits to reading Non ‐ language processes? • Benefits of – Bilingualism (or at least additional language exposure) – • Magnocellular visual deficit – Bialystock, Geva, Cummins – Non ‐ alphanumeric rapid naming (after controlling for the new “word blindness,” or a new explanation? • phonological awareness) • Visual attention span – Morphological awareness • There might be more to reading and reading difficulty than phonological awareness Non ‐ language processes? Non ‐ language processes? • Magnocellular visual deficit – • Cause of PA deficit? (Vidyasagar & Pammer, 2010): • Another visual deficit –Visual Attention Span – reading difficulty related to poor contrast sensitivity, motion detection ability – letter ‐ order knowledge • Correlation with reading ability (Valdois et al., 2004) • What purely visual processing deficit? (Ziegler et al., 2010) • Independent of PA (Bosse et al., 2007) – Weak evidence for letter ‐ order anomalies with magno deficit • Purely visual processing deficit? – Correlation between Magno andPhonologicalAwareness Example of VAS Example of VAS • Whole Report: • Partial Report: – You will see 5 consonants – You will see 5 consonants – Name the consonants as soon as they disappear – Name the consonant in the indicated location 7

  8. 5/21/2014 Visual Attention Span Visual Attention Span • Typical finding: poor readers less accurate than good • Kruk & Peters (in prep.) readers • Distributed attention? (Franceschini et al., 2013) • Smaller “span” of attention – Ability to “spread out” attention • Less visual information to process in a single fixation • Correlate with object substitution masking (after controlling PA and other visual measures) – Is it “purely visual?” Object Substitution (4 ‐ dot) Orienting Attention • Attention Network test (Rueda et al., 2004): * VAS 4 ‐ dot ANT Phon. IQ 4 ‐ dot .42** • N=40 adults (Intro Psy students) ANT ‐ .12 .28 – VAS, OSM (distributed), ANT (orienting) PA .33* .29 .36* IQ .20 .51** .30 .35* – WRMT ‐ R (WI), CTOPP (EL), WASI (Voc, MR) WI .22 .15 .48** .29 .39* *p < .05. **p < .01 8

Recommend

More recommend