Rhyme and Alliteration Sensitivity and Relevant Experiences among Preschoolers from Diverse Backgrounds

Journal Research in Reading

1999

113

137

Profound misunderstandings of the implications of rhyme and analogy research (sometimes called`new phonics') for classroom teaching still appear regularly in the reading literature. It has been argued that`rhyme and analogy' researchers do not believe in teaching children grapheme-phoneme correspondences (Chew, 1997). Rhyme and analogy has also been branded as`analytic phonics', which is argued to be inferior to`synthetic' phonics (Watson and Johnston, 1999). Such misconceptions are confusing the debate over how best to teach`phonics', following the publication of the National Literacy Framework (DfEE, 1998). For example, some authors are suggesting that teachers should replace an emphasis on phonological awareness and onset-rime with a teaching programme based on`synthetic' phonics Watson and Johnston, 1999). This paper discusses the implications of Goswami and Bryant's (1990) theory about important causal connections in reading for classroom teaching, and reviews more recent`rhyme and analogy' research within this framework. New research on the nature of the English spelling system and the representation of linguistic knowledge is also discussed. The importance of taking a balanced approach to phonics instruction and teaching children correspondences between letters and phonemes and letter sequences and rimes 1 is emphasised.

Section: Connection 1: the Evidence For Rhymementioning

confidence: 89%

Causal connections in beginning reading: the importance of rhyme

Journal Research in Reading

1999

113

137

“…nological segments like rhymes and the spelling patterns enhanced the acquisition of reading and spelling skills. The early availability of rhyme as a phonological structure and its links with reading have since been confirmed in a number of studies (e.g., Baker, Fernandez-Fein, Scher, & Williams, 1998;Bowey & Francis, 1991;Bryant, Maclean, Bradley, & Crossland, 1990;Chaney, 1992Chaney, , 1994Cronin & Carver, 1998;Ellis & Large, 1987;Fernandez-Fein & Baker, 1997;Maclean, Bryant, & Bradley, 1987;Scarborough, 1990;Webster & Plante, 1992. For example, Maclean et al (1987) and Chaney (1992) both found that 3-year-olds showed some success in rhyming tasks and reported relationships between this early rhyme awareness and later phonological skills predictive of literacy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Rhyme and analogy in beginning reading: Conceptual and methodological issues

Applied Psycholinguistics

East

2000

Goswami and Bryant (1990) proposed a theory of reading development based on three causal connections. One of these causal connections was based on the relationship between rhyming skills and reading development found in English. To explain this connection, they suggested that young readers of English used analogies based on rimes as one means of deciphering the alphabetic code. This proposal has recently become the subject of some debate. The most serious critique has been advanced by Seymour and his colleagues (Duncan, Seymour, & Hill, 1997; Seymour & Duncan, 1997; Seymour & Evans, 1994). These authors reported a series of studies with Scottish schoolchildren which, they claim, show that progression in normal reading acquisition is from a small unit (phonemic) approach in the initial stage to a large unit (rime-based) approach at a later stage. Two experiments are presented which replicate those conducted by Seymour and his group with samples of English schoolchildren. Different results are found. It is argued that methodological and instructional factors may be very important for the conceptual interpretation of studies attempting to pit “small” units (phonemes) against “large” units (onsets and rimes) in reading. In particular, it is necessary to consider whether a given phonological awareness task requires the recognition of shared phonological segments (“epilinguistic” processing) or the identification and production of shared phonological segments (metalinguistic processing). It is also important to take into account the nature of the literacy instruction being implemented in participating schools. If the phonological aspects of this tuition focus solely on phonemes (small units), then poor rime-level (large unit) performance may be found in metalinguistic tasks.

“…To support this claim, Savage begins by stating that of the 19 studies that I cited as evidence for the early availability of rhyme and its causal links with reading,``only a very small part of this evidence is longitudinal''. Of those studies, 6 provided evidence for the early availability of rhyme (Bowey & Francis, 1991;Chaney, 1992Chaney, , 1994Fernandez-Fein & Baker, 1997;Scarborough, 1990;Webster & Plante, 1992), 12 reported a significant longitudinal connection between rhyming measured at time 1 and reading measured time 2 (Baker, Fernandez-Fein, Scher, & Williams, 1998;Bradley & Bryant, 1983;Bryant, Bradley, Maclean & Crossland, 1989;Bryant, Maclean, Bradley & Crossland, 1990;Cronin & Carver, 1998;Ellis & Large, 1987;Greaney, Tunmer & Chapman, 1997;Maclean, Bryant & Bradley, 1987;Stahl & Murray, 1994;Walton, 1995;Webster & Plante, 1995), and the remaining study used a multiple regression design to show a specific relationship between rhyming and reading (Hansen & Bowey, 1994;Bowey 1995 showed a longitudinal connection between rhyming and reading). Savage also states that Bryant's work (e.g., Bryant et al, 1990)`is not as strong as is often implied'.…”

Section: Claim 1: It Cannot Be Concluded That Rhyme Awareness Is Impomentioning

confidence: 99%

Rhymes are important: a comment on Savage

Journal Research in Reading

2001

Savage (2001) makes 3 basic claims about the scientific database concerning rhyme and analogy in reading. The first is that the relationship between rhyme and reading remains controversial. The second is that there is doubt about the relevance of children's ability to make orthographic analogies for classroom reading instruction. The third is that training studies in reading have shown that rhyme is not important. These claims are considered in the current paper.