Statistical views of literacy development maintain that proficient reading requires the assimilation of myriad statistical regularities present in the writing system. Indeed, previous studies have tied statistical learning (SL) abilities to reading skills, establishing the existence of a link between the two. However, some issues are currently left unanswered, including questions regarding the underlying bases for these associations as well as the types of statistical regularities actually assimilated by developing readers. Here we present an alternative approach to study the role of SL in literacy development, focusing on individual differences among beginning readers. Instead of using an artificial task to estimate SL abilities, our approach identifies individual differences in children's reliance on statistical regularities as reflected by actual reading behavior. We specifically focus on individuals' reliance on regularities in the mapping between print and speech versus associations between print and meaning in a word naming task. We present data from 399 children, showing that those whose oral naming performance is impacted more by print-speech regularities and less by associations between print and meaning have better reading skills. These findings suggest that a key route by which SL mechanisms impact developing reading abilities is

No abstract

The science of reading should be informed by an evolving evidence base built on the scientific method. Decades of basic research and randomized controlled trials of interventions and instructional routines have formed a substantial evidence base to guide best practices in reading instruction, reading intervention, and the early identification of at‐risk readers. The recent resurfacing of questions about what constitutes the science of reading is leading to misinformation in the public space that may be viewed by educational stakeholders as merely differences of opinion among scientists. The authors’ goals in this article were to revisit the science of reading through an epistemological lens to clarify what constitutes evidence in the science of reading, and to offer a critical evaluation of the evidence provided by the science of reading. To this end, the authors summarize those things that they believe have compelling evidence, promising evidence, or a lack of compelling evidence. The authors conclude with a discussion of areas of focus that they believe will advance the science of reading to meet the needs of all students in the 21st century.

As children learn to read they become sensitive to context-dependent vowel pronunciations in words, considered a form of statistical learning. The work of Treiman and colleagues demonstrated that readers’ vowel pronunciations depend on the consonantal context in which the vowel occurs and reading experience. We examined child- and nonword-factors associated with children’s assignment of more vs. less frequent grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPC) to vowel pronunciations as a function of rime coda in monosyllabic nonwords. Students (N=96) in grades 2–5 read nonwords in which more vs. less frequent vowel GPCs were wholly supported or partially favored by the rime unit. Two explanatory item-response models were developed using alternative nonword scoring procedures. Use of less frequent vowel GPCs was predicted by set for variability, word reading, and rime support for the context-dependent vowel pronunciation. We interpret the results within a developmental word reading model in which initially incomplete and oversimplified GPC representations become more context-dependent with reading experience.

No abstract