Metalinguistic Skills, Oral Language Knowledge, and Reading

Menyuk, Paula; Chesnick, Marie

doi:10.1097/00011363-199705000-00008

Cited by 32 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact this study tests the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (LCDH), which was developed by Sparks and Ganschow (1993a, b;Sparks, 1995), which predicts that basic linguistic abilities that allow for successful L1 reading have similar impact on the acquisition of FL reading. Linguistic abilities imply intuitive use of oral or written language (Menyuk & Chesnick, 1997), as well as basic linguistic skills. The speaker who masters these linguistic skills are at least partially sensitive to the linguistic structure of language (Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989).…”

Section: Core Linguistic Abilities Underlying L1 and Fl Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Foreign Language Reading Achievement in Elementary School Students

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined whether factors affecting first language reading acquisition also affect English Foreign Language (EFL) reading acquisition. Hebrew (L1) and EFL reading related measures were administrated to 145 fourth graders from the north of Israel who were beginning their first year of English instruction. Results from a Linear Structural Equational Analysis (LISREL) showed that the Hebrew independent variable consisting of morphological and phonological awareness, orthographic ability, and word reading (accuracy and speed) predicted EFL knowledge of letter sounds and names, word attack and reading comprehension. In addition to the Hebrew independent variable, English word recognition (accuracy and speed) predicted English reading comprehension. These results support the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (LCDH), which argues for core linguistic abilities that influence first and subsequent language reading acquisition.

show abstract

Section: Core Linguistic Abilities Underlying L1 and Fl Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Foreign Language Reading Achievement in Elementary School Students

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Longitudinal and retrospective research has indicated that many children with language disorders are at risk for reading difficulties (e.g., Aram, Ekelman, & Nation, 1984;Aram & Nation, 1980;Bishop & Adams, 1990;Gillam & Carlile, 1997;Korngold, Menyuk, Liebergott, & Chesnick, 1988;Menyuk & Chesnick, 1997). For children with speech impairments, the picture is less consistent, with several studies showing no relationship between speech impairments and reading disabilities (Bishop & Adams, 1990;Catts, 1993;Hall & Tomblin, 1978;King, Jones, & Lasky, 1982;Levi, Capozzi, Fabrizi, & Sechi, 1982;Lewis & Freebairn, 1992) and others finding a relationship between specific types of speech impairments and reading disabilities (Catts, 1986(Catts, , 1989Magnusson & Naucler, 1990).…”

Section: Why Focus On Children With Speech And/or Language Disorders?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding phonological awareness abilities more specifically, studies have shown that these skills are deficient in children with both speech (Bird et al, 1995;Marion, Sussman, & Marquardt, 1993;Stackhouse & Snowling, 1992;Webster & Plante, 1992) and language disorders (Catts, 1993;Kamhi & Catts, 1986;Kamhi, Lee, & Nelson, 1985;Magnusson & Naucler, 1993;Menyuk & Chesnick, 1997), and that these deficiencies are related to reading difficulties (Bird et al, 1995;Catts, 1993;Menyuk & Chesnick, 1997). Once again, however, the findings for children with speech impairments are inconclusive.…”

Section: Why Focus On Children With Speech And/or Language Disorders?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two longitudinal studies found that children with language impairments do not "catch up" on a variety of metalinguistic skills, including phonological awareness skills (Magnusson & Naucler, 1993;Menyuk & Chesnick, 1997). Regarding reading in general, Stanovich (1986) suggests that not only do children not "catch up," but they actually fall farther and farther behind.…”

Section: Why Train Phonological Awareness In Preschool-aged Children?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Study of Classroom-Based Phonological Awareness Training for Preschoolers With Speech and/or Language Disorders

Kleeck

Gillam

McFadden

1998

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sixteen preschool children with speech and/ or language disorders received phonological awareness training for a period of 9 months. Eight children attended a preschool classroom, and 8 children attended a pre-kindergarten classroom. The classrooms were located in a private school for children with speech and language disorders. A group of older children with speech and/or language disorders served as a nontreatment comparison group. Children in the treatment groups received 15 minutes of small-group lessons twice each week for two semesters. Classroom-based treatment focused on rhyming the first semester and on phoneme awareness the second semester.Rhyming and phoneme awareness activities were adapted from the literature on the development of phonological awareness in typicallyachieving children. Results revealed that preschool children with speech and/or language disorders made significant improvement in rhyming and phoneme awareness. Comparisons with the non-treatment group indicated that gains in phoneme awareness were likely a result of the treatment rather than maturation or other aspects of the curriculum. We recommend the inclusion of some form of phonological awareness training, particularly phoneme awareness training, in intervention programs for preschoolers.T he relationship between phonological awareness and early reading achievement has been clearly established. Research has shown that the two skills are highly correlated in beginning readers, that the phonological awareness skills of prereaders predict early reading abilities, that training in phonological awareness results in improved reading achievement, and that children who are poor readers and illiterate adults have less well developed phonological awareness abilities than good readers (see, for example, reviews by Adams, 1990;Blachman, 1994;and Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). These results hold in spite of the numerous ways in which both phonological awareness and reading abilities have been measured and in spite of variation in how phonological awareness has been trained. In short, these findings have been compelling and robust. Clearly, phonological awareness in prereaders is a powerful predictor of subsequent early reading achievement. Explicit training in phonological awareness has a positive impact on reading and spelling skills, and phonological awareness can be effectively trained in prereaders with a subsequent positive impact on reading ability (Blachman, 1994;Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988).The purpose of this study was to determine whether phonological awareness (including rhyming and phoneme awareness) could be effectively trained in preschool children with speech and/or language disorders in a classroom setting. The critical aspects of this treatment study that depart from previous research include (a) that the children had speech and/or language disorders, (b) that they were preschool-aged, (c) that the training took place in a classroom context, and (d) that the training included a rhyming phase and a phoneme awareness phase. One...

show abstract

“…Most researchers and clinicians now agree that knowledge of oral language plays an important role in learning how to read and also in developing reading competence [3]. Researchers such as Orton [4] have stressed this point.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%