1 / 32

The influence of early skills and instruction on reading development

The influence of early skills and instruction on reading development.

palila
Télécharger la présentation

The influence of early skills and instruction on reading development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The influence of early skills and instruction on reading development Laura ShapiroPsychology, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston UniversityL.R.Shapiro@aston.ac.ukJulia CarrollPsychology Department, University of WarwickJonathan SolityDirector, KRM: Psychological and Educational Research Consultants & Honorary Research Fellow, University College London

  2. Outline • Which early skills most critical for learning to read? • Study 1: The influence of early skills on reading development • Future plans- are there more general underlying component skills influencing academic achievement? • What are the relative influences of instruction and early skills? • Study 2: The impact of a whole-class intervention on children’s reading • Future plans- does intervention mediate impact of early skills?

  3. Study 1: Influence of early skills • We already know about the importance of speech processing skills in early literacy development (e.g. Carroll et al., 2003, Muter et al., 2004) • Our study includes additional measures: motor, visual, auditory (non-speech) • Which skills are directly related to early reading development? • Which skills are less important (have an indirect influence)? Shapiro, Carroll & Solity (submitted)

  4. Study 1 Design • 3 primary schools, 3-4 cohorts of children • Baseline data collection • Sensory/ cognitive measures at beginning of Reception year (mean age 4y 6m; N = 392) • Outcome data collection • Literacy measures at end of Reception year (age 5y 2m; N = 348) Shapiro, Carroll & Solity (submitted)

  5. Study 1 Results • Baseline • What are the underlying factors that explain performance on different measures? (age 4;6, N=392) • Outcomes • Which skills are directly linked, which skills are only indirectly linked? (age 5;2, N = 348) Shapiro, Carroll & Solity (submitted)

  6. Baseline data analyses • Structural Equation Modelling (or confirmatory factor analysis) • Start with most complex model (i.e. largest no. of factors that could explain children’s performance on the different measures) • Systematically decrease no. of factors (best model is the simplest model that still provides a good fit to the data) • Best model of baseline data included 7 factors (skill-groups): • Speed of processing • Reading (words, letters and numbers) and Phoneme Isolation • Accuracy of processing • Rhyme • IQ & memory • Motor • Speech & auditory

  7. Peg board Reading &Phoneme Speech & Auditory Motor Speed Rhyme IQ & Memory Accuracy DEST rhyme Target present acc Target absent acc Button press acc Auditory discrim PAT rhyme Digit span Nonword rep BPVS Rapid naming Sound order ATP Button press RT Speech rate Ravens N = 392, Age 4;6 .77 .77 Visual Search slope Letter Knowledge .84 .55 Sight Words .72 Digit Naming .64 Phoneme Isolation .52 .69 .52 .56 Significant Correlations between all factors .74 .52 .51 .62 .63 Bead threading .47 .72 Shape copying .65 Phoneme discrim .44 .40 .34 .57 .57 .68 Single headed arrows: Factor loadings (with standardised regression weights).

  8. Baseline factors (age 4;6) • Speed of Processing • Gerhardstein & Rovee-Collier (2002) visual search task: child searched for a target dinosaur among distractors- score is time taken to find dinosaur, per distractor (visual search slope). • Button press: easy task- press 1 button when dinosaur present, 1 button when dinosaur hidden, no distractors- score is speed of button pressing (button press RT) • Reading (words, letters and numbers) and Phoneme Isolation • Letter sound knowledge, Sight word reading (100 most frequent words), DEST Digit naming (BAS word reading and NFER accuracy not used- at floor) • DEST phoneme isolation • Accuracy of processing • Visual search accuracy (target present accuracy, target absent accuracy), Button press accuracy, auditory discrimination (associating 2 buttons with 2 sounds) • Rhyme • PAT Rhyme detection, DEST Rhyme detection • IQ & memory • Verbal IQ (vocabulary, BPVS), Non-verbal IQ (Raven et al., 1994), Working memory (DEST digit span) • Motor • DEST bead threading, Annett’s (1985) peg board (created cumulative measure of left&right RT, hand difference not used- correlations very low), DEST shape copying (DEST Postural stability not used- correlations very low with other measures) • Speech & Auditory • Speech: PAT speech rate (say “buttercup” 10 times), Non-word repetition (repeat, “haplut”), DEST rapid picture naming, DEST phonological discrimination • Auditory (Non-speech): Auditory Temporal Processing based on Tallal (1980): repeating back sequences of sounds; DEST sound order (which sound came 1st?)

  9. Summary of baseline findings • Reading&Phoneme separated from Rhyme and Speech&Auditory • Performance on reading and phoneme tasks arose from different underlying processes than performance on rhyme, speech and auditory measures • Single factor for Speech&Auditory • Same underlying processes drove performance on our speech and non-speech tasks, whether production of sounds was involved or not • Separate factors for Speed and Accuracy • Performance on button pressing speed measures arose from same underlying processes • Performance on all button press response-accuracy measures arose from same underlying processes

  10. Follow-up assessments (age 5;2) • Letter sound knowledge • Reading (correlations very high- used cumulative score): • Non-word reading fluency (non-words read in 30s) • PHAB non-word reading • BAS word reading test • NFER passage reading test (no. words read) • Sight word reading

  11. Peg board Read&Phoneme Literacy Speech&Aud Speed IQ&Memory Rhyme Accuracy Motor PATrhyme Ravens Auditory discrim Button press acc DEST rhyme Button press RT BPVS Speech rate Nonword rep Rapid naming Sound order ATP Digit span End Reading .78 N = 348, Age 4;6 and 5;2 .76 Visual search slope Letter Knowledge .81 .55 Sight Words .73 Digit Naming .64 Phoneme Isolation .52 Target present acc .61 .69 .94 Target absent acc .52 .56 Significant Correlations between all factors .74 .52 .52 .69 .61 .27 .63 End Letter Knowl .47 Bead threading .72 Shape copying .66 Phoneme discrim .43 .39 .36 .58 .57 .67 Single headed arrows: Factor loadings (with standardised regression weights).

  12. Peg board Read&Phoneme Literacy Speech&Aud Speed IQ&Memory Rhyme Accuracy Motor PATrhyme Ravens Auditory discrim Button press acc DEST rhyme Button press RT BPVS Speech rate Nonword rep Rapid naming Sound order ATP Digit span End Reading .78 N = 348, Age 4;6 and 5;2 .76 Visual search slope Letter Knowledge .81 .55 Sight Words .73 Digit Naming .64 Phoneme Isolation .52 Target present acc .61 .69 .94 Target absent acc .52 .56 Significant Correlations between all factors .74 .52 .52 .69 .61 .27 .63 End Letter Knowl .47 Bead threading .72 Shape copying .66 Phoneme discrim .43 .39 .36 .58 .57 .67 Single headed arrows: Factor loadings (with standardised regression weights).

  13. Indirect influences

  14. Indirect influences

  15. Indirect influences

  16. Indirect influences

  17. Study 1 Conclusions • Early auditory and speech skills have a direct influence on literacy at age 5;2 (Confirms the importance of speech processing skills, supporting Carroll et al; Muter et al) • No direct influence of other skills (IQ&memory, motor, rhyme, speed or accuracy), at this stage Shapiro, Carroll & Solity (submitted)

  18. Early skills: Future plans • How do the causal relationships between baseline skills and literacy change as reading develops? (e.g. influence of visual/ motor skills on more fluent reading?) • Can we isolate generic skills that underlie both sensory and cognitive predictors of academic performance? E.g. timing, speed of processing… (in collaboration with Joel Talcott and Caroline Witton at Aston)

  19. Study 2: Influence of whole-class intervention • Early speech and auditory skills critical for reading development • affects acquisition of phonological awareness, hence reading • Recent focus on id of children “at risk” of developing reading difficulties • Benefit from supplementary phonological awareness plus phonics (PA/Ph) training (Ehri et al., 2001) • Training effective even when delivered to large groups or whole classes of children (e.g. Hatcher et al., 2004; Fuchs et al., 2001) • Could this type of training benefit at risk children even when incorporated into normal whole-class sessions? • Consistent with continuum of PA… Shapiro & Solity (BJEP, in press)

  20. Study 2: Overview • Core components of PA/Ph training • Incorporated into single whole-class session: Early Reading Research (ERR)intervention (Solity & Shapiro, 2008, ECP) • Delivered for 1st 2 years of school (age 4-6) • Research Qns • Overall Impact? • Impact for children at different levels of PA? • Reduction in reading difficulties? Shapiro & Solity (BJEP, in press)

  21. Structure of intervention • 3 x 12 minute sessions a day: • Phonological awareness (4 mins) • Phonic skills (2 mins) • Sight vocabulary (2mins) • Reading to children (4 mins) • Implemented by usual teachers to whole class Shapiro & Solity (BJEP, in press)

  22. Study 2: Design • Quasi-Experimental design: 12 schools, 464 children • 6 given ERR training (251 children) • 6 used as comparison (213 children) • Matched on % free school meals (mean 24%), KS2 results (mean 39% achieving level 4) • Measured reading performance from age 4y,7m (baseline) to age 7y,4m (1 year post intervention) • No difference between ERR and comparison literacy at baseline (letter sounds & rhyme), also no difference on maths (writing numbers & counting). Shapiro & Solity (BJEP, in press)

  23. Overall impact • ERR improve faster (Gllamm 3 level model: time, child, school, z = 6.05***) BAS word reading test A (Elliott et al., 1983) ** p < .05, *** p < .001

  24. Overall impact Intervention removed • ERR improve faster (Gllamm 3 level model: time, child, school, z = 6.05***) BAS word reading test A (Elliott et al., 1983) ** p < .05, *** p < .001

  25. Overall impact • ERR improve faster (Gllamm 3 level model: time, child, school, z = 6.05***) • Gllamm models with previous year’s literacy factored in: • Year R: Rhyme: z= 4.04***, Letter Knowledge: z = 8.25***, ERR: z = 3.57*** • Year 1: Year R BAS: z = 21.66***, ERR: z = 2.27** • Year 2: Year 1 BAS: z = 28.05***, ERR: z = 0.10ns BAS word reading test A (Elliott et al., 1983) ** p < .05, *** p < .001

  26. Overall impact • ERR improve faster (Gllamm 3 level model: time, child, school, z = 6.05***) • Gllamm models with previous year’s literacy factored in: • Year R: Rhyme: z= 4.04***, Letter Knowledge: z = 8.25***, ERR: z = 3.57*** • Year 1: Year R BAS: z = 21.66***, ERR: z = 2.27** • Year 2: Year 1 BAS: z = 28.05***, ERR: z = 0.10ns d = 0.59 d = 0.62 d = 0.45 BAS word reading test A (Elliott et al., 1983) ** p < .05, *** p < .001

  27. Impact on children with poor PA? • Synthesis, segmentation and rhyme, measured at age 5,4 (end of Year R) • Children with better phonological skills were better readers*: • Gllamm 3 level models (time, child, school): Synthesis skill (z = 7.44***), Segmentation skill (z = 10.03***), Rhyme skill (z = 4.35***) • No interaction between ERR and phonological skill: • Gllamm 3 level models (time, child, school): Synthesis skill and ERR(z=-0.44ns), Segmentation skill and ERR (z=-0.28ns), Rhyme skill and ERR (z = -0.48ns) • Responsiveness to ERR did not vary with phonological skill • Children with poor phonological skills benefited to the same extent as those with better phonological skills *BAS word reading test A (Elliott et al., 1983)

  28. Comparison distributionvs. norms for 7,4 yr olds (British Ability Scales, BAS) (Comp N = 149)

  29. ERR distributionvs. norms for 7,4 yr olds (British Ability Scales, BAS) (ERR N = 226)

  30. Study 2: Summary • Incorporating PA/Ph training as part of whole-class teaching can have a significant impact on children with poor phonological skills • Can reduce the incidence of reading difficulties • Consistent with continuum of PA • But could be a small, undetected subgroup with different learning requirements? • Or has ERR reduced the impact of early skills? Shapiro & Solity (BJEP, in press)

  31. Future plans • Can instruction mediate influence of early skills? • In collaboration with Jonathan Solity & Birmingham LEA: deliver key tasks to reception children receiving range of teaching methods (ERR, NLS- either Jolly Phonics or Letters & Sounds)

  32. Thanks to • All the teachers and pupils • Research Assistants Heather Ball, Liz Blagrove, Amy Clinch, Jay Grant, Kate Graham, Hannah Ingless, Emma Johnstone, Anna Willoughby and Amy Williamson for their help in conducting Study 1 • Sue Kerfoot, George Crane and Karen Vincent for their help in conducting Study 2 • Gordon Brown (Warwick), Nick Chater (UCL), Michelle Ellefson (Virginia), Janet Vousden (Warwick) and Caroline Witton (Aston) for their advice on design, analysis and presentation • The British Academy, The Leverhulme Trust, The Economic and Social Sciences Research Council

More Related