Not all sentences are created equal: Evaluating the relation between children’s understanding of basic and difficult sentences and their reading comprehension.

Abstract

The sentences in texts are far more complex and diverse than those that children commonly encounter in oral language. This raises interesting questions as to whether the understanding of some sentence types might be more important than others in children's reading comprehension. Accordingly, we examined the relation between children's reading comprehension and their understanding of two types of sentences: one we label as basic sentences, which are common in both oral and written language, and the other we label as difficult sentences, which are more restricted to written language. One hundred and four English-speaking students (mean age = 10.8 years) completed an experimental measure of oral sentence comprehension capturing these two sentence types, a standardized measure of reading comprehension, as well as control measures for word reading, phonological awareness, vocabulary and working memory. After accounting for the variance explained by the control measures, hierarchical linear regression analyses revealed that comprehension of basic sentences, but not of difficult sentences, was significantly related to children's reading comprehension.These results demonstrate that, at least in the fifth grade, English-speaking children use their understanding of those sentences for which they have gained a strong foundation through oral language (i.e., basic sentences) to springboard into reading for understanding.

Building Meaning: Meta‐analysis of Component Skills Supporting Reading Comprehension in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…Understanding the individual words within a text is an essential component of establishing the meaning of that text [Perfetti & Stafura, 2014]. The larger event descriptions that result from combining these words into sentences are also an essential component of understanding because sentences convey information about what actually happened (e.g., “The puppy happily chased the boy” vs. “the boy happily chased the puppy”) [Poulsen & Gravgaard, 2016; Sorenson Duncan, Mimeau, Crowell, & Deacon, 2020]. The comparable magnitude of the relations between vocabulary and syntax to reading comprehension emphasizes that, as Kirby and Savage [2008] have argued for typical readers, to understand reading comprehension in children with ASD, the particular language skills encompassed under the oral language umbrella must be delineated.…”

Informing the Science of Reading: Students’ Awareness of Sentence‐Level Information Is Important for Reading Comprehension

“…Two of these studies, both with students in grade 5, yielded diverging results. Poulsen andGravgaard (2016) andSorenson Duncan et al (2021) investigated how students' processing of basic (i.e., active and subject-relative clause) and difficult (i.e., passive and object-relative clause) sentences influence reading comprehension. Poulsen and Gravgaard found that response times to difficult, but not basic, sentences made unique and direct contributions to reading comprehension.…”

Broadening the Lens on the Science of Reading: A Multifaceted Perspective on the Role of Academic Language in Text Understanding

“…One research-informed understanding about language comprehension skills is that they entail much more than comprehending word meanings. Research has suggested that despite strong predictive associations between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension (Ahmed et al, 2016;Quinn, Wagner, Petscher, & Lopez, 2015;Wright & Cervetti, 2017), interventions that primarily target vocabulary, or knowledge of word parts, often fail to move reading comprehension outcomes (Deshler, Palincsar, Biancarosa, & Nair, 2007 (Cain & Nash, 2011;Crosson & Lesaux, 2013;Deacon & Kieffer, 2018;Lorch, 1989;Sorenson Duncan, Mimeau, Crowell, & Deacon, 2020), knowledge of specialized and general vocabulary (Ahmed et al, 2016;Crosson, McKeown, Robbins, & Brown, 2019;Greenleaf, Brown, & Litman, 2004;Quinn et al, 2015), awareness of meaningful word parts (Nagy, Carlisle, & Goodwin, 2014), familiarity with text structures (Giulia Cataldo & Oakhill, 2000;Meyer & Ray, 2017), and comprehension of language needed to make logical inferences (Kendeou, van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009). In other words, vocabulary knowledge, although essential to text comprehension, is not the only language resource used by skilled readers.…”

“…Indeed, even proficient word readers must develop new language resources to navigate middle‐grade texts focused on abstract concepts and unfamiliar content (Language and Reading Research Consortium, 2015; Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu, 2018; Lonigan, Burgess, & Schatschneider, 2018). These language resources comprise multiple linguistic dimensions: syntactic awareness (Cain & Nash, 2011; Crosson & Lesaux, 2013; Deacon & Kieffer, 2018; Lorch, 1989; Sorenson Duncan, Mimeau, Crowell, & Deacon, 2020), knowledge of specialized and general vocabulary (Ahmed et al, 2016; Crosson, McKeown, Robbins, & Brown, 2019; Greenleaf, Brown, & Litman, 2004; Quinn et al, 2015), awareness of meaningful word parts (Nagy, Carlisle, & Goodwin, 2014), familiarity with text structures (Giulia Cataldo & Oakhill, 2000; Meyer & Ray, 2017), and comprehension of language needed to make logical inferences (Kendeou, van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009). In other words, vocabulary knowledge, although essential to text comprehension, is not the only language resource used by skilled readers.…”