May 21st ~ The 1 year anniversary of the Recap!! Winner of the "Most Appreciated Paper" + Learning Letters: Evidence and Questions From a Science‐of‐Reading Perspective (In-depth)
The Weekly Email Newsletter Covering the Latest Reading Research!
Welcome! This is Issue No. 52
Welcome to the Reading Research Recap, a weekly newsletter featuring the latest reading research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The goal of the Recap is to share recent scientific findings and foster an appreciation of science as a way to navigate the world. I try to make this one of the most informative emails you get each week.
Updates
Happy 1st Birthday to the Recap!
The Recap has been in existence for 1 year. I was not sure there would be enough interest to last a few weeks much less a year. Thank you, readers!! Even though this is just a side project for me, I will try to keep it going as long as there is interest.
The Votes Are In!
Here are the Results of the First Annual Recap Award for Most Appreciated Paper:
In 3rd place
There was a tie between
and
Patterns and predictors of reading comprehension growth in first and second language readers.(covered in-depth next week by DeAnne)
In 2nd place
Voter/reader comments
“I voted for the one about OG. I really liked it because OG does dominate the field, but, at the same time, trying to implement it with my daughter, it seemed painfully slow and ineffective and I realized the research base behind it was a lot more fluff than devotees make it out to be, ultimately switching to a non-OG program. So, it was interesting to see someone finally explore it more in-depth. I think it’ll be helpful in allowing other programs that aren’t OG but do follow the Science of Reading to flourish and provide more innovation in the development of new reading interventions.”
“OG dominates phonics instruction. The fact that 3 meta studies have shown that results are less than stellar shows that it may be factor in frozen reading scores. We need to deconstruct it and rebuild using recent translational research.”
And, the winner…
…of The Most Appreciated Paper was…
Reader comments on why they voted for the paper
“Simple, easy to understand and most importantly, very easy to see concrete application to practice.”
“This paper helped me answer a real-life question from a practitioner!”
“This research supports classroom instruction and can be used right away by teachers.”
Author Responses to The Award
By Dr. Selenid Gonzalez-Frey (first author on the paper)
Thank you so much! I am so happy that many have found out study informative and accessible. Thank you for including the comments.
I am always interested to connect with readers about their thoughts on the study and how they are using connected phonation in their work. Please feel free to share my email with your reply to your readers: freysm@buffalostate.edu
Best,
Selenid
and some comments from Dr. Ehri
by Dr. Linnea Ehri (final author on the paper)
Dear Neena,
Thank you so much for your email. We are extremely gratified that your readers found our study and its findings helpful in teaching children to decode words. I would like to suggest that one can supplement decoding instruction with encoding or spelling instruction and implement both concurrently to strengthen students' foundational skills in literacy. Using the same sequence of letter-sounds (continuants first, then stop consonants), an instructor can teach beginners to segment CVC spoken words into phonemes and select a letter representing each phoneme as it is pronounced. To help children detect the separate phonemes in spoken words, the instructor can draw attention to the child’s mouth positions to articulate each phoneme and then move to the next position to say the next phoneme, and so forth. For example, to spell map, lips close to say /mmmm/ and select or write M, lips open to say /æ/ and select or write A, lips close to say /p/ and select or write P. Children enjoy and are assisted in detecting the succession of phonemes by using mirrors to watch their mouth positions and movements. This spelling exercise is the equivalent of teaching phonemic segmentation using letters and articulatory cues. An instructor might give children practice with feedback decoding a list of five CVCs, and then have the children encode (spell) the same set of five CVCs.
I have listed two research studies we have done to show the effectiveness of teaching phonemic segmentation using articulatory cues and letters.
References:
2011 Boyer, N. & Ehri, L. Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(5), 440-470.
2018 Sargiani, R., Ehri, L.C., & Maluf, M. Orthographic mapping instruction to facilitate reading and spelling in Brazilian emergent readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(6), 1405-1437. doi:10.1017/S0142716418000371
Thank you for your efforts to inform educators and parents about research on how children learn to read.
All the best,
Linnea Ehri
Thank you to everyone who voted!
Orthographic depth and developmental dyslexia: a meta-analytic study (open access)
“We found an age-by-orthography interaction effect in word reading accuracy and a significant effect of age in pseudoword reading accuracy, but we found no effect of age and orthographic depth on the fluency parameters. These results suggest that reading speed is a reliable index for discriminating between DD and control groups across European orthographies from childhood to adulthood. A similar pattern of results emerged for PA, RAN, and short-term/WM.”
The effects of spacing and massing on children’s orthographic learning (open access preprint)
“Despite substantial evidence that distributing study opportunities over time improves the retention of learned verbal material compared to study trials that occur consecutively, the influence of temporal spacing on children’s learning of written words has not been investigated…Words experienced in the distributed condition were better recognised than those in the massed condition, but there was no effect on recall. These findings suggest that temporal spacing influences the acquisition of new written word forms, extending the potential utility of the spacing principle to reading acquisition.”
The Relation Between a Systematic Analysis of Spelling and Orthographic and Phonological Awareness Skills in First-Grade Children
“These findings suggest that specific types of scores on the spelling error analysis provided information about the children's phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge. They also support continued investigations on the use of a systematic spelling error analysis for measuring phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge and highlight the potential utility of the analysis procedure in the educational setting.”
The roles of morphology, phonology, and prosody in reading and spelling multisyllabic words
“Seventy 7–10-year-old children completed a battery of tasks. MA and prosodic sensitivity were independent predictors of multisyllabic reading, while MA and PA were independent predictors of multisyllabic spelling. These results contrast with previous research, which instead found that PA plays a more prominent role while prosodic sensitivity appears to demonstrate only an indirect influence. However, those studies largely examined reading of shorter, one to three syllable words. These findings indicate when words are longer and multisyllabic, prosodic sensitivity, PA, and MA have differing direct influences on literacy.”
Child‐level factors affecting rate of learning to write in first grade (open access)
“Controlling for age, overall performance was predicted by spelling, transcription fluency, handwriting accuracy, word reading, and non‐verbal reasoning. Most students showed rapid initial improvement, but then much slower learning. Weak spellers (and to a lesser extent less fluent hand‐writers) showed weaker initial performance, but then steady improvement across the study period.”
“I've got something to tell you. I'm dyslexic”: The lived experiences of trainee teachers with dyslexia
“This study examined the experiences of three primary and four secondary school trainees with dyslexia, encompassing both their university and placement-based experiences in England. This research highlighted the similarities in experience across training in a primary and a secondary school but found there are specific challenges associated with training to teach at secondary school level. We also captured the strengths trainees brought to the profession.”
Doing Assessment: A Multicase Study of Preschool Teachers’ Language and Literacy Data Practices
“Findings indicate (a) teachers may understand data differently than researchers or policymakers do, (b) teachers’ understanding of data sources goes beyond traditional conceptualizations, (c) a continuum in teachers’ data use practices, and (d) a need to better support teachers in moving from simply doing assessment to using data in ways that are meaningful for practice and children’s language and literacy outcomes.”
Tools/Resource
Peekbank: Exploring children's word recognition through an open, large-scale repository for developmental eye-tracking data
Dissertations
Graduation Season means lots of dissertations being published. Note that these are not peer-reviewed! Also, some only have a short sample, not the full dissertation.
Phonics: The Breaking Apart of Words to Help All Children Learn to Read
Implementation of Word Solving Strategies During First Grade Guided Reading
Learning Letters: Evidence and Questions From a Science‐of‐Reading Perspective
by Theresa Roberts
Paper here
Background
Letter knowledge is one of the best predictors of later reading success. The degree to which it is causal versus correlational (another third variable might control letter knowledge and later reading success) is still not known:
In spite of the strong evidence of the association between alphabet letter name and letter sound knowledge and learning to read and write well, there has been surprisingly little experimental research, consistent with a “science of reading” (SOR) perspective, on identifying instructional features and learning activity that advances children’s alphabet learning and their engagement and motivation (Ehri, 1983; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Piasta & Wagner, 2010; Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium [PCERC], 2008).
Rationale for this review
We need to figure out why certain curricula are successful in teaching letter-sound knowledge and why some are not:
“For example, the PCERC (2008) found that only one out of 15 curricula improved children’s letter/word performance. Many children from low-income families and many beginning to learn English exit preschool with limited alphabet knowledge (Molfese, Beswick, Molnar, & Jacobi-Vessels, 2006).”
So, Dr. Roberts decided to search the literature and focus on “…four recently published randomized control trials of instruction designed to teach alphabet letters to 3- and 4-year-old children (N = 342) attending preschool in the United States.”
* note that this review is not a systematic review nor a meta-analysis, it is more of an expert opinion/summary of four recent experimental studies. This means that it is not analyzing the extant studies in a statistical (meta-analytic) way, but, since the four studies discussed are experimental and used randomization, the author states that the evidence “…permits causal interpretations informing questions regarding the optimal content, instructional procedures and learning activity, letter contextualization, and practices for enhancing motivation and engagement for preschool alphabet instruction.”
The 5 Research Questions
1. What alphabet content optimizes alphabet learning: letter names only, letter sounds only, or letter names and sounds?
2. Do procedures to teach letter names before letter sounds, or vice versa, influence letter learning?
3. What cognitive learning processes activated with instructional procedures optimize learning?
4. Is teaching letters in the context of meaningful language advantageous?
5. Can alphabet instruction be designed to promote learning and motivation?
The Four Experimental Studies That Were Reviewed to Answer the Research Questions
Roberts, T.A., & Sadler, C.D. (2019). Letter sound characters and imaginary narratives: Can they enhance motivation and letter sound learning?
Roberts, T.A., Vadasy, P.F., & Sanders, E.A. (2018). Preschoolers’ alphabet learning: Letter name and sound instruction, cognitive processes, and English proficiency.
Roberts, T.A., Vadasy, P.F., & Sanders, E.A. (2019). Preschoolers’ alphabet learning: Cognitive, teaching sequence, and English proficiency influences.
Roberts, T.A., Vadasy, P.F., & Sanders, E.A. (2020). Preschool instruction in letter names and sounds: Does contextualized or decontextualized instruction matter?
Results
Small Variations in Instruction Matter
Embedding Letters in Characters
“…the detail of embedding a letter within a drawing of a character whose name includes the letter sound (e.g., Dippy Duck for the letter D) and hearing imaginary narratives that included several words that begin with /d/ yielded large effect sizes on letter sound learning (ES = 1.31) and moderate effects on initial phoneme ID (ES = 0.62) and blending (ES = 0.62) as compared with matched instruction with plain letters and traditional alphabet books…”
However, “More research to determine the utility of letters embedded in letter characters for dual-language learners is needed.”
Lots of practice!
“…more practice in the process of associating the printed letter with its spoken letter name or letter sound label resulted in significantly greater growth on accuracy and speed measures—letter name ID (ES = 0.46), letter sound ID (ES = O.66), and rapid letter sound ID (ES = 0.52)—as compared with instruction with (a) less association practice plus letter writing or (b) less association practice plus attention to mouth movements for speaking letters…”
Letter Names and Letter Sounds: Teach them together or Separately?
“Preschool children can learn letter names and sounds at the same time. Alphabet instruction that included both led to statistically significantly greater breadth of letter learn- ing as compared with teaching only letter names or sounds…”
Even the author thought this was surprising, because they thought it would burden the student, but perhaps, instead, it helped by providing multiple verbal labels which helped consolidate memory.
Even Short Lessons Yield Improvement
“Short lessons (~10–15 minutes) were sufficient for children to achieve a statistically significant rate of growth in letter learning.”
Should I Teach Letter Names before Letter Sounds?
“There was no main effect for teaching either letter names or letter sounds first. Thus, learning letter sounds was not dependent on letter name knowledge.”
This finding tentatively suggests that, “Preschool alphabet instruction in which children’s learning is supported by ample amounts of paired- associate, memory-building instruction may best start with letter sounds rather than letter names.” (emphasis added is mine, not the author’s).
What is the best context to teach letters: In isolation or embedded in stories?
“Statistically significantly greater growth on letter sound ID accuracy (ES = 0.53) and phonemic awareness (ES = 0.45) in favor of the decontextualized treatment…”
“The findings suggest that decontextualized instruction was particularly beneficial for learning letter sounds, more difficult than letter names, and that both types of instruction were effective for letter names.”
The children did not find the isolation condition boring (often a concern of teachers):
“In fact, children’s engagement was statistically significantly higher, with a large effect size, when plain letters were taught decontextualized from the traditionally endorsed context of storybook reading, meaningful words, and children’s names.”
There is not one single “take-home” message from this study. All the results listed above have practical implications.