Common Patterns of Prediction of Literacy Development in Different Alphabetic Orthographies

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that phoneme awareness, letter-sound knowledge, rapid automatized naming (RAN), and verbal memory span are reliable correlates of learning to read in English. However, the extent to which these different predictors have the same relative importance in different languages remains uncertain. In this article, we present the results from a 10-month longitudinal study that began just before or soon after the start of formal literacy instruction in four languages (English, Spanish, Slovak, and Czech). Longitudinal path analyses showed that phoneme awareness, letter-sound knowledge, and RAN (but not verbal memory span) measured at the onset of literacy instruction were reliable predictors, with similar relative importance, of later reading and spelling skills across the four languages. These data support the suggestion that in all alphabetic orthographies, phoneme awareness, letter-sound knowledge, and RAN may tap cognitive processes that are important for learning to read.

The precursors of double dissociation between reading and spelling in a transparent orthography

“…These findings are in line with those of previous studies (e.g., Furnes & Samuelsson, 2011;Moll et al, 2014;Wimmer & Mayringer, 2002). Despite the shortlived importance of phonological awareness as a predictor of reading in Finnish (e.g., Silvén, Poskiparta, Niemi, & Voeten, 2007;Torppa et al, 2015) and in other transparent orthographies (e.g., Georgiou, Parrila, & Papadopoulos, 2008;Mann & Wimmer, 2002), it has been shown to be an important predictor of spelling (e.g., Babayiğit & Stainthorp, 2010;Caravolas et al, 2012;Furnes & Samuelsson, 2011). The importance of phonological awareness in general and phoneme identification in particular is easy to understand in the case on Finnish.…”

“…In Finnish, development of letter knowledge has been found to be predicted by phonological awareness, short-term memory, and RAN (Torppa et al, 2006). The identification of problems in RAN in the group of dysfluent readers fits nicely in with the findings of previous studies showing a link between RAN and reading fluency in consistent orthographies (e.g., Brizzolara et al, 2006;Caravolas et al, 2012;de Jong & van der Leij, 2002;Eklund et al, 2013;Georgiou, Parrila, Cui, & Papadopoulos, 2013;Landerl & Wimmer, 2008;Lervåg et al, 2009) and challenge Bowers and Wolf's (1993) theoretical account according to which RAN is involved in the development of orthographic knowledge. Children in the RD group learned to read and spell accurately, but had problems developing reading fluency.…”

Phonological development in relation to native language and literacy: Variations on a theme in six alphabetic orthographies

“…While the impact of variation between languages on orthographic development has been documented in several large-scale studies (Caravolas et al, 2012;Ellis et al, 2004;Seymour et al, 2003;Ziegler et al, 2010), phonological development has yet to receive the same degree of attention in cross-linguistic research. One consequence of this is that understanding of phonological development in relation to early reading is informed by a predominantly English-language literature with all the disadvantages entailed by over-reliance on what is acknowledged to be an atypical orthography (Share, 2008).…”

Fluidez lectora en niños: cuáles son las habilidades subyacentes

“…Se entiende por RAN la velocidad con la cual se pueden denominar estí-mulos familiares como letras, números, colores o dibujos (Denkla y Rudel, 1974). La relación entre lectura y esta habilidad ha sido demostrada en varios trabajos realizados con niños sin dificultades y con dificultades para el aprendizaje de la lectura (Caravolas et al, 2012;Georgiou, Parrila y Kirby, 2009;López-Escribano, De Juan, Gómez-Veiga y García-Madruga, 2013;López-Escribano, Sánchez-Hípola, Suro-Sánchez y Leal-Carretero, 2014;Wolf, Bowers y Biddle, 2000). Esta relación varía según el estímulo utilizado en la tarea; denominar letras o números parece estar más estrechamente relacionado con la lectura que la denominación de dibujos o colores, así como la denominación de dígitos está más relacionada con la velocidad lectora que con la precisión (Savage y Frederickson, 2005;Schatschneider, Fletcher, Francis, Carlson y Foorman, 2004).…”