360 likes | 383 Views
Language as a Foundation for Reading. Dr. Fiona Duff University of Oxford. The Importance of Reading. Reading is the gateway to academic learning A significant minority fails to achieve sufficient levels of literacy
E N D
Language as a Foundation for Reading Dr. Fiona Duff University of Oxford
The Importance of Reading • Reading is the gateway to academic learning • A significant minority fails to achieve sufficient levels of literacy • 15% of adults in England at/below 11-year-old level; 5% at 5- to 7-year-old level (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011) • Dyslexia is associated with lower educational, employment and economic outcomes(Government Office for Science, 2008)
The Importance of Language • Vital for expressing and encountering ideas, accessing the education system, and building relationships • Language Impairment is associated with poorer educational and psychosocial outcomes (Conti-Ramsden et al., 2009; Snowling et al., 2006) • Language is also important because it provides a foundation for reading
Components of Reading learning to read reading to learn decoding × linguistic comprehension = reading comprehension Gough & Tunmer (1986)
How Language and Reading Relate • Causal theory: Development of reading builds on a foundation of spoken language
How Language and Reading Relate • Muter et al. (2004): Longitudinal evidence from school-age children • 90 children tested in first term of formal schooling (4;09 years), and 1 and 2 years later • What skills early on in schooling predict later reading accuracy and comprehension?
Age 5 Age 6 Phoneme awareness Reading accuracy Letter knowledge Reading Receptive vocabulary Grammatical awareness Muter et al. (2004)
Age 5 Age 6 Phoneme awareness Reading accuracy .20 Letter knowledge .52 Reading accuracy .22 Receptive vocabulary Grammatical awareness Muter et al. (2004)
Age 5 Age 6 Phoneme awareness Reading accuracy Letter knowledge .56 Reading comprehension Receptive vocabulary .16 .21 Grammatical awareness Muter et al. (2004)
How Language and Reading Relate • Hulme et al. (2012): Evidence from an RCT • 20-week interventions for ‘at-risk’ 5-year-olds • Random allocation to intervention group: • Phonology plus reading; oral language • P+R intervention improved word-level literacy more than OL intervention • Entirely driven by growth in letter knowledge and phoneme awareness
How Language and Reading Relate • Clarke et al. (2010): Evidence from an RCT • 20-week interventions for 9-year-old poor comprehenders • Random allocation to intervention group: • Text comprehension; oral language; combined; waiting control • All interventions improved reading comprehension relative to waiting control • Partially driven by growth in vocabulary
How Language and Reading Relate • Phoneme awareness and letter knowledge as foundations for reading accuracy • Phonemes map onto letters; this mapping is critical for a phonic decoding approach to reading
How Language and Reading Relate • Phoneme awareness and letter knowledge as foundations for reading accuracy • Phonemes map onto letters; this mapping is critical for a phonic decoding approach to reading • Vocabulary and grammar as foundations for reading comprehension • Understanding the meaning of individual words (vocabulary) and how they relate (syntax) is essential for understanding the meaning of connected text
Reading and Language • Good oral language leads to good reading • Phonological skills critical for reading accuracy • Nonphonological skills critical for reading comprehension • Poor oral language leads to poor reading • Children with dyslexia have impairments in phonological aspects of language (Snowling et al.,2003) • Children who are poor comprehenders have impairments in semantic and grammatical aspects of language (Nation et al., 2004)
Reading and Language • An obvious implication: • Poor oral language skills could be used to identify children at risk for reading difficulties, and candidates for preventative language intervention • A critical question: • How early does language reliably predict reading?
Reading and Language • An obvious implication: • Poor oral language skills could be used to identify children at risk for reading difficulties, and candidates for preventative language intervention • A critical question: • How early does language reliably predict reading? • A slight problem: • Infant vocabulary is not an especially reliable predictor even of later vocabulary
Infant Vocabulary • Early Language in Victoria Study (Reilly et al., 2007, 2010) • Community sample of >1600 infants • Children classified as ‘late talkers’ at 24 months • Lowest 10% for age on parent report of productive vocabulary (CDI)
Infant Vocabulary • Generation R Study (Ghassabian et al., 2013; Henrichset al., 2011) • Population-based cohort study of >2700 infants • Vocabulary measured by parent report at ages 18 months, 24 months; and by researchers at 6 years
Infant Vocabulary • Lee (2011) • Assessed >1000 24-month-olds; followed up from 3 to 11 years
Infant Vocabulary • “Expressive vocabulary at age 2 is… crucial to subsequent literacy development” (Lee, 2011, p. 83) • “Research findings also are frequently over-interpreted… Significant statistical differences are equated with clinically meaningful differences” (Paul & Roth, 2011, p. 333) • Carried out our own study in the UK context to critically evaluate statistical and practical significance
Learning to Read Project • Followed 300 children from infancy (16-24 months) to school-age (4-9 years) • In infancy, vocabulary measured with OCDI • Parental checklist of 416 words • At school-age, measured vocabulary, phonological awareness and reading • Research question: Does infant vocabulary predict language and reading outcomes?
Infancy School-age Vocabulary .40 (16%) Phonological awareness Vocabulary .21 (4%) Reading accuracy .33 (11%) .43 (18%) Reading comprehension
Learning to Read Project • Infant vocabulary is a significant predictor of language and reading outcomes approximately 5 years later • Vocabulary a plausible antecedent of reading development • However, it is not sufficiently reliable to be predictive at the individual level • Infant vocabulary only accounted for 16% of variance in later vocabulary • Indicates instability in language development pre-2 years • Fits with the observation that the majority of ‘late talkers’ catch up by school-age (Rescorla, 2011)
Learning to Read Project • What might explain additional variance in outcomes? • Family risk of reading/language difficulties • Better predictor of language outcomes at 4 years than ‘late talker’ status at 18 months (Bishop et al., 2012) • 35% of our sample had a first-degree relative with reading/language difficulties
Infancy School-age Vocabulary .40 (16%) Phonological awareness Vocabulary .21 (4%) Reading accuracy .33 (11%) .43 (18%) Reading comprehension
Infancy School-age Vocabulary .38 Phonological awareness -.09 Vocabulary .18 -.15 Reading accuracy Family risk .28 -.32 -.34 Reading comprehension .38
Learning to Read Project • Infant vocabulary and family risk together explain: • 6% variance in phoneme awareness (cf. 4%) • 16% variance in vocabulary (cf. 16%) • 21% variance in reading accuracy (cf. 11%) • 30% variance in reading comprehension (cf. 18%) • Infant vocabulary combined with family risk increases prediction of reading outcomes • Infants with vocabulary delay and FR at greater risk for RD • Fits with findings from dyslexia FR studies: children with FR and weak pre-school vocabulary at greater risk for dyslexia (Scarborough, 1990)
Late Talking vs. Language Impairment • How early can we reliably use language levels to identify risk for reading and language difficulties? • Using parent report, even language status at 3 years doesn’t seem sufficiently reliable for predicting language outcomes (Dale & Hayiou-Thomas, 2013; Zambrana et al., 2014) • Some evidence of better prediction of later vocabulary deficits from 4 years than 3 years (Dollagahan & Campbell, 2009)
Late Talking vs. Language Impairment • Tracked progress of 18 children from 18 months to 4 years, then 8 years • At 18 months: 9 late talkers and 9 average talkers • At 4 years: 6 with specific language impairment and 12 with typical development • Compared outcomes at 8 years
Conclusions • Good oral language is important in its own right • It also provides a foundation for reading development • Still unclear how early on language weaknesses can be used to identify risk of reading difficulty • Delayed vocabulary in infancy plus family history (amongst other risks) indicate particular risk • Language weaknesses at school entry especially problematic • Important we encourage a broad and rich language environment at home and in schools
Acknowledgements • Professor Kate Nation, University of Oxford • Professor Kim Plunkett, University of Oxford • Professor Dorothy Bishop, University of Oxford • Gurpreet Reen, Royal Holloway University of London • Julia Dilnot, University of Oxford • Jane Ralph, University of Oxford