Early prediction of reading trajectories of children with and without reading instruction in kindergarten: a comparison study of Estonia and Finland

Abstract

Background The present study examined differences in the prediction of reading development and reading difficulties in Estonia (n = 348) and Finland (n = 344). These neighbouring countries share many similarities in terms of their language, orthography and educational system; however, they differ in the timing of the onset of reading instruction, which is kindergarten in Estonia and Grade 1 in Finland. Methods Children's skills were assessed three times – fall and spring in Grade 1 and spring in Grade 2. Results The results showed that school‐entry rapid automatised naming and reading fluency predicted the development of fluency in Grade 2, but reading fluency was a stronger predictor in Estonia than in Finland. In addition, school‐entry reading fluency was the strongest predictor of reading comprehension in Grade 2. Furthermore, listening comprehension was a stronger predictor of reading comprehension in the Finnish sample than in the Estonian sample. Finally, high‐risk children were identified based on their slow reading and rapid automatised naming at school entry. In Estonia, the reading development of high‐risk children was declining compared to their peers, while the Finnish high‐risk children were catching up with their peers. The high‐risk children in the Finnish sample also had reading difficulties less often than the Estonian sample. Conclusions The findings suggest that the skills at school entry are stronger predictors of reading development in Estonia than in Finland. The reasons for this could be the earlier onset of reading instruction in kindergarten in the Estonian sample or differences in reading instruction practices between Estonian and Finnish schools.

Latent profile analysis of students’ reading development and the relation of cognitive variables to reading profiles

“…However, the process of phonological decoding remains slow and extremely laborious for children who experience reading difficulties, and this process can be interpreted as slow reading fluency. Some studies have found that children who exhibit slow reading fluency also display a reduced ability to name familiar symbols, shown, e.g., in RAN tasks (Georgiou, Torppa, Manolitsis, Lyytinen, & Parrila, 2012;Moll & Landerl, 2009;Torppa, Soodla, Lerkkanen, & Kikas, 2019).…”

The effects of teaching strategies on primary school students’ reading outcomes and interest in reading

“…how to apply knowledge and make inferences or understand and evaluate texts). The majority of Estonian children acquire the basic skill of reading simple one-and two-syllable words in kindergarten (Torppa et al, 2019). When they enter primary school at seven years old, their reading instruction focuses on decoding speed and accuracy and comprehension at the literal level (Soodla et al, 2019).…”

“…By the end of grade 3 (age 10), students are expected to read fluently and comprehend various types of listening and reading texts, such as fictional and informational texts (Põhikooli riiklik õppekava, 2011(Põhikooli riiklik õppekava, /2014. However, there is a potential risk that poorer readers-those who would still need support in basic skills-may suffer from a premature focus on advanced competence (Torppa et al, 2019).…”

Readiness or Impairment: Cognitive and Linguistic Differences Between Children Who Learn to Read and Those Who Exhibit Difficulties With Reading in Kindergarten Compared to Their Achievements at the End of First Grade

“…In contrast, other children have failing scores on the initial screenings, but are still able to achieve reading success over time. Therefore, additional variables, such as rate of knowledge acquisition and changes in development (maturation), must be taken into account in order to more accurately recognize children at risk (Torppa et al, 2019).…”