6/26 đđThoughts on The Reading League Journal, Plus: Individual Differences in Learning the Regularities Between Orthography, Phonology and Semantics Predict Early Reading Skills
Plus: Latent Class Growth Trajectories of Letter Name Knowledge During Pre-kindergarten and Kindergarten; Not All Sentences Are Created equal: Evaluating the Relation Between Childrenâs Understanding
Notes
I got rid of the âNewsâ section at the bottom of the newsletter. (That was short-lived!) It was too much to maintain and most people get their news from Twitter or Facebook anyway. Iâll stick to what I know best: recaps of reading research and my opinions of reading-related books and articles.
Iâve changed my system to include over 25+ peer-reviewed journals for reading studies. I generally focus my recaps on pre-k through grade 12 (not adults) and English-speaking children or ELLs, rather than other languages. Previously, I waited for a journal to release an issue and then scanned the contents. Now, Iâm trying out a process that looks at early view or online first articles and posts then here as soon as they are released.
Research
There were no RCTs or Meta-Analyses to report this week.
Individual Differences in Learning the Regularities Between Orthography, Phonology and Semantics Predict Early Reading Skills
This was a really interesting paper. This group of researchers looked at childrenâs variation in accuracy on a word naming task. They found that children who relied on print-speech associations did better than those who relied on print-meaning associations. This study is basic science, not applied, so there arenât really direct implications for practice that stem from it. That said, it sheds light on how skilled readers become skilled. If you are interested in the division of labor that this paper talks about and the triangle model of word recognition, you can go here and click the link on reference #37 to get the full article on Seidenbergâs division of labor. Citation: Siegelman, N., Rueckl, J. G., Steacy, L. M., Frost, S. J., van den Bunt, M., Zevin, J. D., ... & Morris, R. D. (2020). Individual differences in learning the regularities between orthography, phonology and semantics predict early reading skills. Journal of Memory and Language, 114, 104145.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X20300590
Latent Class Growth Trajectories of Letter Name Knowledge During Pre-kindergarten and Kindergarten
Letter name knowledge (LNK) is often the focus of pre-k and k literacy instruction. Yet, âTo date, no single study has examined early language as predictor of childrenâs LNK development across preschool and kindergarten as well as the later literacy outcomes of childrenâs LNK trajectories.â Therefore, the study examined a diverse sample of 1,015 children and found evidence of âMatthew Effectsâ for LNK: ââŠchildren with higher levels of early language skills were more likely to acquire LNK skills earlier rather than later, and, in turn, demonstrated more advanced emergent literacy skills in the spring of kindergarten.â In terms of practical implications, the authors suggest that LNK be monitored, and intervention provided, if children are not meeting benchmarks. What are good benchmarks? The authors cite another paper that say by the end of pre-K, children should be able to identify 18 uppercase and 15 lowercase letters. Citation: Carr, R. C., Bratsch-Hines, M., Varghese, C., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2020). Latent class growth trajectories of letter name knowledge during pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 69, 101141. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0193397319300668
Not All Sentences Are Created equal: Evaluating the Relation Between Childrenâs Understanding of Basic and Difficult Sentences and Their Reading Comprehension
This study examined the comprehension abilities of 104 English-speaking children (average age was 10.8 years old) on two types of sentences: âbasicâ and âdifficultâ. Basic sentences are sentences that are common in both oral and written language whereas difficult sentences were defined as sentences that occurred more in written language. They found that childrenâs general comprehension measures were related to their performance on basic sentences, but not difficult sentences. They interpret this finding to mean that ââŠchildren use their understanding of those sentences for which they have gained a strong foundation through oral language (i.e. basic sentences) to springboard into reading for understanding.â Citation: Sorenson Duncan, T., Mimeau, C., Crowell, N., & Deacon, S. H. (2020). Not all sentences are created equal: Evaluating the relation between childrenâs understanding of basic and difficult sentences and their reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.l
My Thoughts on The Reading Leagueâs Recent Issue
The May/June issue of The Reading League Journal recently arrived. (You can read more about The Reading League here). The journal comes with a $100/year membership. As a former teacher and reading researcher and someone interested in getting research into the hands of practitioners, I was interested in how they try and achieve their mission via their journal. Below are my thoughts/opinions on the recent issue.
Before I start, I want to say that I can only imagine how hard it is to put out a journal like this. Planning topics, finding authors, staying on top of authors to get their pieces in, editing, more editing, formatting, etc. It is easy for me to critique from the outside, and I am aware of that.
Generally, I enjoyed the collection of articles and the book review. I like how the editors addressed the fact that while the researchers use different terms (linguistic comprehension vs language comprehension) they are generally referring to the same thing.
That said, I had some questions about the recent issueâŠ
My confusion stemmed from the way the different authors approached the Simple View of Reading Model. Maybe it is just a matter of wording (or maybe the Saharan Dust has gone to my brain) but I got really confused with what appear to be conflicting statements about the SVR model.
Specifically: I couldnât tell whether the model was intended to be a developmental, causal model, or not.
First: why does it matter if the SVR is a developmental, mechanistic model of reading or not?
A developmental, mechanistic model of reading would imply that as a teacher you could change student outcomes by working on the components of the model (i.e., the components are âmalleable factorsâ in children). But, if a model is just meant to describe individual differences in reading, and not how those reading skills develop, then it is less useful for practitioners. So, hereâs where my confusion set it:
In the interview with Wesley Hoover (on page 9), Hoover states that the Simple View
ââŠis not a theory of how reading is accomplished nor of the cognitive skills that underlie its two main components.â (the italics on âhowâ is his own).
Then, again, on page 38, Hoover and Tunmer also state (in point 7):
âThe Simple View of Reading provides an account of reading at a single point in time. By itself, the Simple View is not a model of reading development- it does not state how reading develops over time.â
Hoover clearly states that the SVR is ânot a theory of howâ but then Robert Savageâs article on page 42 states that, ââŠthe Simple View of Reading has withstood multiple attempts to falsify it; to date, no one has been able to prove that it does not explain how skilled reading comprehension develops.â Savageâs words (âdevelopsâ) seem to imply that the SVR is, in fact, a developmental model of reading. Savageâs words on page 44 also indicate that he sees the SVR as a developmental model; âThe Simple View of Reading focuses on the direct factors involved in becoming a capable reader.â The key word being: âbecomingâ
Clearing up whether or not the Simple View of Reading is, in fact, a developmental model of reading or not has implications for the teaching of reading. There are so many theories of reading, so why focus on a model that doesnât tell us âhow reading is accomplishedâ (Hooverâs own words) and doesnât tell us âthe cognitive skills that underlie its two main componentsâ (again, Hooverâs own words from the quote above)?
The answer to whether or not the SVR is a causal model is also important for models that expand upon it like Young-Suk Grace Kimâs Direct and Indirect Effects (DIER) model of reading. On page 18, Dr. Kim expands on the SVR and suggests (on page 20) that teachers assess up to 13 different skills. (How often, what assessments, and the logistics of this are not mentioned - which is only frustrating only because it is a practitioner-focused journal).
But perhaps more confusing is the question: if SVR is not a causal model, then is DIER also not a causal model? Does increasing attentional control (one of the many components that Dr. Kim suggested assessing) actually lead to better reading outcomes? Or, is it simply correlated with good reading performance? It is really hard to answer this question without doing a really deep dive into the research methods of the papers listed. But I wish the authors would have touched on the practical implications a bit more. For example, what happens if you assess a child on attentional control (like Dr. Kim recommends) and find their attentional control performance in the at-risk category? As a practitioner or parent what do you do next? Is there a specific intervention for attentional control? (the answer is yes there are, but does it work? No evidence suggests that it does). From what little I know, executive functions like attentional control and working memory are notoriously hard to train and then transfer to skills such as reading. But I could be wrong (attentional control is not my area of expertise). So, if you know of a successful (a couple RCTs on it) intervention let me know.
So, in wrapping up, just a few concluding thoughts:
Other fields of science, like physics, for example, are obsessed with discovering a Theory of Everything, or; a theory that can tie together all the sub-theories in one overarching concept. Physics hasnât found it, and some say reading hasnât either (âThere is no theory of reading, because reading has too many components for a single theory.â -Perfetti & Stafura, 2014), but why, then, is there such a focus on the Simple View and not other models? I have no idea what the answer isâŠ
The Simple View of Reading is a popular model frequently cited in the literature (including in a few of my own papers I believe), but reading researchers also know of several other models, some which do not get as much attention as the SVR.
I have often wondered why these other models do not get mentioned as much- maybe they arenât simple enough? I would love to do a poll of reading researchers asking them what model of reading they find most useful in their own research as well as for practitioners. Maybe Iâll try this and Iâll let you know if I get any responsesâŠ
Hope everyone has a good weekend!
Really useful critiques of the recent issue of The Reading League journal. As a practitioner, and not a researcher, I find the SVR most useful to practice because while it may not outline how the components interrelate developmentally, it provides a useful distinction of discrete vs. cumulative skills that can guide screeners and diagnostics, and from there, practice.