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

▶
thanks
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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

Nov 13, 2023 673 likes •787 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,

slide-1
SLIDE 1

5/21/2014 1

Reading Difficulty: Is it all Phonological?

Richard Kruk University of Manitoba

Thanks

  • SSHRC
  • University of Manitoba
  • Research Assistants, Honours students:

Jane, Antonella, Jaga, Kailey, Robyn, Cameron, Cassia, Heather, Kristin, Jesse, Leah, Krista, Courtney, Keith, Maxine, Deborah, Ashley, Ashley, Tianna, Kay, Todd, Karelia, Hanna, Alana, Shannon, Maureen, Jane, Cassandra, Phoenix

Agenda for today

  • A bit of history
  • Phonological processing in reading
  • Add‐on explanations: language‐, non‐

language‐based

A bit of history… what influences reading?

  • Congenital Word Blindness (George Hinshelwood,

1917)

– Visual memory for words and letters (reversals, spelling and comprehension difficulties)

  • Strephosymbolia (Samuel Orton, 1925)

– “twisted signs” – failure to establish cerebral dominance: difficulty associating visual and spoken forms of words

A bit of history… what influences reading?

  • Phonological (not visual) Processing (Frank

Vellutino)

– Focus on word‐level reading difficulty – Phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension

Phonological Processes

  • Phonological awareness (ery‐vay uch‐may!)
  • Phonological working memory (GPC)
  • Rapid naming (fluency)
slide-2
SLIDE 2

5/21/2014 2

Phonological Processes

  • Phonological awareness

– English reading – alphabetic principle – Anglocentricity of reading research

  • Phonological grain size theory (Zeigler & Goswami)
  • Dual route theory (Coltheart)
  • Connectionism (Siedenberg)

Phonological Processes

  • Phonological working memory

– Lee Swanson – Blending, GPC rule application

Phonological Processes

  • Rapid Naming

– Patricia Bowers, MaryAnn Wolf – Fluency

Reading Difficulty

  • Phonological Awareness
  • Phonological Working Memory
  • Rapid Naming
  • Is that all there is?

Add‐on explanations

  • Phonological Processes don’t explain all the

variance in reading performance

  • Search for additional language‐based and

non‐language‐based explanations (independent of Phonological Processes)

Language‐Based

  • Simple view of reading (Gough)

– Reading comprehension = Word Decoding X Language Comprehension

  • Language operates at different levels

(phonological, semantic, syntactic)

slide-3
SLIDE 3

5/21/2014 3

Add‐On 1: Additional language context

  • French Immersion

– Benefits of bilingualism – Influences on reading? – What about struggling readers? (Transition question – should I move out of IMM?)

Exposure to Additional Language

  • Are there harms and benefits of French

Immersion for at‐risk readers?

– Expect no difference between IMM and Eng programs

  • Kruk & Reynolds (2013). J. Child Lang.
  • N=46 (22 at‐risk, half of each group in IMM)
  • Longitudinal – multilevel modeling
  • IMM benefits all on phonological awareness

and decoding

  • Difference between at‐risk IMM and at‐risk

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

slide-4
SLIDE 4

5/21/2014 4

  • Exposure to additional language

– Richer linguistic landscape – More opportunities to connect ideas, meanings (Bialystock)

  • Needs replication!

Language‐Based Add‐On 2: Rapid Naming

  • Phonological Processes don’t explain all the

variance in reading performance

  • Is Rapid Naming Phonological only?

Rapid Naming

  • Kruk, Mayer, & Funk (2014). J. Res. Reading.

– Alphanumeric rapid naming (RN) better predictor of reading than non‐alphanumeric (Lervåg et al., 2009) – Examined predictive relations between non‐alphanumeric RN and growth in regular and irregular word decoding in at‐risk readers – Grade 1 RN’s influence on growth in irregular word decoding was different for at‐risk than not‐at‐risk readers

Rapid Naming

  • 52 at‐risk (at least .5 SD below on 2 of 4 WRMT‐R

subtests) and 69 not‐at‐risk (above average on subtests) readers

– tracked from Grade 1 to Grade 3 – Grade 1 scores in RN as predictors,

  • controls: PA, PWM, Cogn., orthographic knowledge,

reading autoregressors

Regular Word Decoding: Model estimates – Rapid Naming ns

At‐Risk Not‐At‐Risk

84th percentile on rapid naming (16th percentile on rapid naming) Irregular Word Decoding: Model estimates – * RN; * RN X Time for At‐Risk

At‐Risk Not‐At‐Risk

(84th percentile on rapid naming) (16th percentile on rapid naming)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5/21/2014 5

Rapid Naming

  • After controlling PA, Cogn, autoregressor,

Rapid Naming:

– No role in predicting Regular Word decoding – Significant in predicting Irregular at Grade 2, and in predicting Growth in at‐risk readers to end of Grade 3

Rapid Naming

  • Non‐Alphanumeric Rapid Naming influence:

– Reflects over‐reliance on non‐phonological processes in at‐risk readers

  • Rapid access to word‐level associations
  • Visual‐auditory learning (vs. phonological‐route)

Language‐Based Add‐On 3: Morphological Awareness

  • Semantic and Syntactic aspects of language
  • Morphological Awareness measures:

– Morphological Knowledge test (The “Wug” task) – Is there a smaller word in … – Analogies – Lexical Integration (Arlin et al., 2003)

  • Derivations and Infections

Morphological Awareness

  • Morphological Awareness

– Morph knowledge task

  • “Say teacher” Josh likes both of his _______. (COMPOSE)
  • “Say teachers” Josh had only one ______. (DECOMPOSE)

– Smaller word task:

  • Is there a smaller word in “teacher” that means the same thing as “teacher?”

“corner?”

– Analogies task:

  • Processes:

– Compose vs. decompose

Morphological Awareness

  • MA – Reading relations can work in both

directions

  • Reciprocal Relations

– Kruk & Bergman (2013). J. Exp. Ch. Psych.

Morphological Awareness

  • Longitudinal Study, Grade 1 to Grade 3

– N= 157; 5 waves, every 6 months – Reading (WRMT‐R: WA, WI, WC, PC) – Morphological awareness (MKT)

  • Compose and Decompose (both derive and inflect)
slide-6
SLIDE 6

5/21/2014 6

Morphological Awareness

  • Multilevel modeling
  • Wave 1 = autoregressor; controls (PA, Vocab)
  • What influences growth, end‐point in MA and

Reading?

Morphological Awareness

  • MA influences growth in Reading

– Decompose influences WC – Compose influences WI, WC, PC

  • Reading influences growth in MA

– WI, WC, PC influences Decompose

  • (All after controlling for PA, Vocab)

Reciprocal Relations

Decompose influences growth in WC

Reciprocal Relations

Compose influences growth in WI, WC, PC

WI WC PC

Reciprocal Relations

WC, PC influence growth in Decompose

Decompose

Morphological Awareness

  • Reciprocal relations not perfectly balanced

– But likely involve lexical access

Next step: look at other MA measures

– lexical integration, smaller word test) on comprehension (Kruk & Hardern, in prep)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

5/21/2014 7

Benefits to reading

  • Benefits of

– Bilingualism (or at least additional language exposure) – Bialystock, Geva, Cummins – Non‐alphanumeric rapid naming (after controlling for phonological awareness) – Morphological awareness

  • There might be more to reading and reading difficulty

than phonological awareness

Non‐language processes?

  • Magnocellular visual deficit –
  • the new “word blindness,” or a new explanation?
  • Visual attention span

Non‐language processes?

  • Magnocellular visual deficit –
  • Cause of PA deficit? (Vidyasagar & Pammer, 2010):

– reading difficulty related to poor contrast sensitivity, motion detection ability – letter‐order knowledge

  • What purely visual processing deficit? (Ziegler et al., 2010)

– Weak evidence for letter‐order anomalies with magno deficit – Correlation between Magno andPhonologicalAwareness

Non‐language processes?

  • Another visual deficit –Visual Attention Span
  • Correlation with reading ability (Valdois et al., 2004)
  • Independent of PA (Bosse et al., 2007)
  • Purely visual processing deficit?

Example of VAS

  • Whole Report:

– You will see 5 consonants – Name the consonants as soon as they disappear

Example of VAS

  • Partial Report:

– You will see 5 consonants – Name the consonant in the indicated location

slide-8
SLIDE 8

5/21/2014 8

Visual Attention Span

  • Typical finding: poor readers less accurate than good

readers

  • Smaller “span” of attention
  • Less visual information to process in a single fixation

– Is it “purely visual?”

Visual Attention Span

  • Kruk & Peters (in prep.)
  • Distributed attention? (Franceschini et al., 2013)

– Ability to “spread out” attention

  • Correlate with object substitution masking (after

controlling PA and other visual measures)

Object Substitution (4‐dot) Orienting Attention

  • Attention Network test (Rueda et al., 2004):

*

  • N=40 adults (Intro Psy students)

– VAS, OSM (distributed), ANT (orienting) – WRMT‐R (WI), CTOPP (EL), WASI (Voc, MR)

VAS 4‐dot ANT Phon. IQ 4‐dot .42** ANT ‐.12 .28 PA .33* .29 .36* IQ .20 .51** .30 .35* WI .22 .15 .48** .29 .39* *p < .05. **p < .01

slide-9
SLIDE 9

5/21/2014 9

  • VAS task performance as dependent variable
  • Distributed attention accounts for unique variance in VAS

Predictor B SE Sig. R2 4‐dot 34.45 15.70 * Phon. 1.20 .80 IQ ‐0.01 .15 Total Model * .22 *p < .05.

  • Above‐ vs Below‐average readers:

– Correlations held only for Below average readers – possibly “purely” visual factor:

  • Distributed visual attention

Next Steps

  • Examine relations in children (at‐risk, not at‐risk)
  • Visual factors predicting

– Rapid Naming in at‐risk and not‐at‐risk readers

  • Kruk & Luther Ruban (in prep.)

– Math disability (number estimation): Ivanna Lukie

Next Steps

  • Affective influences

– socio‐emotional impact of timing of reading disability: Alyse Newman

Take‐home message

  • There is more to reading difficulty than

phonological awareness

– Language‐Based

  • Non‐alpha RN, morphological awareness, additional

language (identification, intervention)

– Visual attention (early identification)

Practical Implications

  • Language related:

– assess/explicitly teach morphological awareness

  • In tandem with reading instruction/intervention

– French Immersion, small positive effect on medium‐term reading growth for at‐risk readers (need more research on this to confirm)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

5/21/2014 10

Practical Implications

  • Non‐Language (visual‐processing) related:

– no clear intervention implication yet

  • Need more research on extent small VAS is detrimental to

reading

  • Is there developmental potential to “expand” VAS to

improve reading skill?

– assessment implication – non‐verbal early assessment of risk of reading disability

Selected References

  • Bosse, M. L., Tainturier, M. J., & Valdois, S. (2007). Developmental dyslexia: The visual span hypothesis. Cognition, 104(2), 198–230.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.009

  • Franceschini, S., Gori, S., Ruffino, M., Viola, S., Molteni, M., & Facoetti, A. (2013). Action video games make dyslexic children read better. Current

Biology, 23(6), 462‐466 doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.044

  • Kruk, R. S., & Bergman, K. (2013). The reciprocal relationships between morphological awareness and reading. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 114, 10‐34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.014

  • Kruk, R. S., Mayer, J., & Funk, L. (2014). The predictive relations between non‐alphanumeric rapid naming and growth in regular and irregular word

decoding in at‐risk readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 17–35. DOI: 10.1111/jrir.12005

  • Kruk, R. S., & Peters, K. (in prep.). Distributed visual attention in visual attention span in reading difficulty.
  • Kruk R. S., & Reynolds, K. A. A. (2012). French Immersion experience and reading skill development in at‐risk readers. Journal of Child Language, 39,

580‐610. doi:10.1017/S0305000911000201

  • Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., & Posner, M. L. (2004). Development of attentional networks in
  • childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1029‐1040.
  • Valdois, S., Bosse, M. L., & Tainturier, M. J. (2004). The cognitive deficits responsible for developmental dyslexia: Review of evidence for a selective

visual attentional disorder. Dyslexia, 10(4), 339‐363.

  • Vidyasagar, T. R., & Pammer, K. (2010). Dyslexia: A deficit in visuo‐spatial attention, not in phonological processing. Trends in Cognitive Science, 14,

57–63.

  • Ziegler, J. C., Pech‐Georgel, C., Dufau, S., & Grainger, J. (2010). Rapid processing of letters, digits and symbols: what purely visual‐attentional

deficit in developmental dyslexia? Developmental Science, 13, F8‐F14.