The relationships between oral language and reading instruction: Evidence from a computational model of reading

Abstract

To become a proficient reader, children must learn mappings between print, sound and meaning. Using learning of artificial orthographies, studies have compared print-to-sound or print-to-meaning focused reading training and demonstrated that print-to-sound training is superior for learning to read. However, the extent to which this advantage is dependent on prior acquisition of effective oral language skills remains unclear. To explore this issue, we developed a series of computational models of reading incorporating orthographic, phonological and semantic processing to simulate both artificial and natural orthographic learning conditions in adults and children. We exposed the models to sound- or meaning-focused reading training, but tested the influence of the models’ oral language proficiency on the effectiveness of these training regimes. Overall, the simulations showed that oral language skills are a key determinant of the behavioural advantage of print-to-sound focused reading training. The results emphasise that early reading training should address development of both oral language skills and print-to-sound mappings.

Individual differences in a computational model of reading: the influence of oral vocabulary knowledge

“…Though in the model, phonology could also be accessed indirectly via the OS pathway and then the SP pathway. The process was not as e cient as the access via the direct pathway of the OP, consistent with previous behavioural and computational investigations [19,50]. Moreover, according to the Simple View of Reading (SVR [51]), reading comprehension is a combination of reading uency and oral language skills.…”

“…While it is relatively clear that reading experience and reading capacity would have an impact on individual differences in reading, less is known about the in uence of oral language, provided that reading is a relatively late human invention and highly rely on preliteracy language experience. Evidence from both behavioural and computational modelling has demonstrated that oral vocabulary knowledge interacts with reading development [18][19][20][21][22][23]. Particularly, Chang and Monaghan [24] demonstrated that diversity and quantity of oral language skills could predict reading performance in a triangle model of reading.…”

A Different View on the Simple View of Reading

“…It is important to note that since the model was introduced, other researchers have used alternative terms for listening comprehension and/or conceptualized that component of the model in different ways. Two terms now frequently used to describe the second component of the model are language comprehension (e.g., Catts, 2021; García & Cain, 2014; Silverman et al, 2020) and oral language abilities (e.g., Chang et al, 2020; Kendeou et al, 2009; Metsala et al, 2021). By definition, oral or spoken language is the ability to produce and comprehend speech (or other communication modes, such as sign language) through the spontaneous interactive use of five knowledge bases—phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics—during a communicative exchange (e.g., American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], n.d., Bloom & Lahey, 1978).…”

EPS mid-career prize lecture 2017: Writing systems, reading, and language

“…However, we do not have a good understanding of how these factors come together to affect adult reading skill. Research has begun to address these questions-how the knowledge underpinning reading builds up over time (e.g., Monaghan & Ellis, 2010), whether certain learning experiences are more important than others (e.g., Joseph & Nation, 2018;Zevin & Seidenberg, 2002), whether explicit training on aspects of a writing system improves learning (Powell, Plaut, & Funnell, 2006), and how pre-existing language ability may modulate the impact of that explicit training (Chang, Taylor, Rastle, & Monaghan, 2017). However, much further work on these dimensions of experience needs to be conducted to understand reading acquisition.…”