The importance of flexibility of pronunciation in learning to decode: A training study in set for variability

Zipke, Marcy

doi:10.1177/0142723716639495

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CI = confidence interval. Four outliers: Kozminsky and Asher-Sadon (2013); Reich et al (2019); Silverman et al (2019), Study 2; and Zipke (2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We did code enhancements meant to teach story-related vocabulary . For instance, in The Polar Bear Horizon story, children see and hear word labels as soon as they touch on the corresponding illustrations on the screen (Zhou & Yadav, 2017); in Tacky the Penguin , the reader can tap on individual pictures to make the name of the object or action pop up and hear the word spoken aloud (Zipke, 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of Children’s Reading on Paper Versus Screen: A Meta-Analysis

Furenes

Kucirkova

Bus

2021

Review of Educational Research

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis examines the inconsistent findings across experimental studies that compared children’s learning outcomes with digital and paper books. We quantitatively reviewed 39 studies reported in 30 articles (n = 1,812 children) and compared children’s story comprehension and vocabulary learning in relation to medium (reading on paper versus on-screen), design enhancements in digital books, the presence of a dictionary, and adult support for children aged between 1 and 8 years. The comparison of digital versus paper books that only differed by digitization showed lower comprehension scores for digital books. Adults’ mediation during print books’ reading was more effective than the enhancements in digital books read by children independently. However, with story-congruent enhancements, digital books outperformed paper books. An embedded dictionary had no or negative effect on children’s story comprehension but positively affected children’s vocabulary learning. Findings are discussed in relation to the cognitive load theory and practical design implications.

show abstract

“…CI = confidence interval. Four outliers: Kozminsky and Asher-Sadon (2013); Reich et al (2019); Silverman et al (2019), Study 2; and Zipke (2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Children’s Reading on Paper Versus Screen: A Meta-Analysis

Furenes

Kucirkova

Bus

2021

Review of Educational Research

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Certainly, this study serves as a strong start to exploring important child characteristics and word features that predict SfV performance, but many important questions still require study. Finally, there is emerging evidence that lexical flexibility, based on the SfV task, can be trained in children (Dyson et al, 2017; Savage et al, 2018; Zipke, 2016). Training protocols have emphasized flexibility in applying different pronunciations for letters or letter combinations (Zipke, 2016), checking for matches and making approximations to known words (Dyson et al, 2017; Savage et al, 2018), and a two-step instructional model where direct instruction in simple decoding was the first step and set for variability flexibility training followed as a second step (Savage et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking the unique relationship between set for variability and word reading development: Examining word- and child-level predictors of performance.

Edwards¹,

Steacy²,

Siegelman³

et al. 2022

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Set for variability (SfV) is an oral language task that requires an individual to disambiguate the mismatch between the decoded form of an irregular word and its actual lexical pronunciation. For example, in the task, the word wasp is pronounced to rhyme with clasp (i.e. /waesp/), and the individual must recognize the actual pronunciation of the word to be /wɒsp/. SfV has been shown to be a significant predictor of both item-specific and general word reading variance above and beyond that associated with phonemic awareness skill, letter-sound knowledge, and vocabulary skill. However, very little is known about the child characteristics and word features that affect SfV item performance. In this study, we explored whether word features and child characteristics that involve phonology only are adequate to explain item-level variance in SfV performance or whether including predictors that involve the connection between phonology and orthography explains additional variance. To accomplish this, we administered the SfV task (N = 75 items) to a sample of grade 2-5 children (N = 489), along with a battery of reading, reading related, and language measures. Results suggest that variance in SfV performance is uniquely accounted for by measures tapping phonological skill along with those capturing knowledge of phonology to orthography associations, but more so in children with better decoding skill. Additionally, word reading skill was found to moderate the influence of other predictors suggesting that how the task is approached may be impacted by word reading and decoding ability. Educational Impact and Implications StatementSet for variability (SfV) is a powerful predictor of word recognition skill in developing readers. The measure taps children's ability to go from the decoded form of a word (e.g., /wˆz/for was) to the correct form (e.g., /wɒz/ for was), which is considered an important second step in word decoding. In the current study, we worked to determine what factors lead to variability in children's ability to perform the task. We found that performance on the SfV task was highly correlated with children's phonemic awareness skill and also related to their reading and decoding skill. This suggests that children with advanced reading and decoding skill may be using both phonological and spelling skills to go from the decoded form of a word to the correct pronunciation. The findings suggest that further studies evaluating the causal influence of SfV on reading development are warranted.

show abstract

“…Studies in this area have suggested that students can benefit from being encouraged to engage with the irregularities of English (Dyson, Best, Solity, & Hulme, 2017) to promote the implicit knowledge structures needed to read and spell these complex words. Additional research has suggested that training in set for variability can be effective in promoting early word‐reading skills (e.g., Savage, Georgiou, Parrila, & Maiorino, 2018; Zipke, 2016). The work done in this area to date has suggested that set for variability requires knowledge structures and strategies, which can be developed through instruction, that allow successful matching of partial phonemic‐decoding output with the corresponding phonological, morphological, and semantic lexical representations.…”

Section: Promising But Not (Yet) Compelling Evidence In the Science Omentioning

confidence: 99%

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

Petscher¹,

Cabell²,

Catts³

et al. 2020

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The science of reading should be informed by an evolving evidence base built on the scientific method. Decades of basic research and randomized controlled trials of interventions and instructional routines have formed a substantial evidence base to guide best practices in reading instruction, reading intervention, and the early identification of at‐risk readers. The recent resurfacing of questions about what constitutes the science of reading is leading to misinformation in the public space that may be viewed by educational stakeholders as merely differences of opinion among scientists. The authors’ goals in this article were to revisit the science of reading through an epistemological lens to clarify what constitutes evidence in the science of reading, and to offer a critical evaluation of the evidence provided by the science of reading. To this end, the authors summarize those things that they believe have compelling evidence, promising evidence, or a lack of compelling evidence. The authors conclude with a discussion of areas of focus that they believe will advance the science of reading to meet the needs of all students in the 21st century.

show abstract

The importance of flexibility of pronunciation in learning to decode: A training study in set for variability

Cited by 19 publications

References 24 publications

A Comparison of Children’s Reading on Paper Versus Screen: A Meta-Analysis

A Comparison of Children’s Reading on Paper Versus Screen: A Meta-Analysis

Unpacking the unique relationship between set for variability and word reading development: Examining word- and child-level predictors of performance.

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About