A Longitudinal Study of the Development of Automatic Recognition Skills in First Graders

Abstract

Abstract. Experiment 1 was a study in which three times during the school year (in September, February, and April) first graders performed a discrete-trial Stroop task in which they named the colors of stimuli that were either letters, high-frequency words, or low-frequency words. The amount of interference caused by these stimuli was assessed by comparing the naming times to a control condition where the subject named a series of X's. In each testing period the interference caused by letters exceeded that caused by high-frequency words. There was also a nonsignificant tendency for interference caused by high-frequency words to exceed that caused by low-frequency words. There was a marked increase in interference between September and February, but very little change between February and April, indicating that the automaticity function had already flattened out by the end of first grade. There was a tendency for better readers to display more interference and to show interference earlier in the year. Experiment 2 replicated the developmental trends displayed in Experiment 1 and explored the relationship between interference and the speed and accuracy with which subjects named the stimuli. The overall pattern of results in the two experiments was reasonably consistent with the automaticity model of reading developed by LaBerge and Samuels (1974).The automaticity model of reading developed by LaBerge and Samuels (1974) has had a great impact on research in the experimental and educational psychology of reading. LaBerge and Samuels argued that reading fluency develops because lowerlevel processes such as letter and word recognition become automated and thus free cognitive capacity for higher-level comprehension processes. An automated process

The development of the relation between letter-naming speed and reading ability

“…The correlations between letter-naming time and reading ability in Groups A and B were larger than those observed by Stanovich (1981) and Stanovich et al (1981) and, unlike those from the previous research, were statistically significant. The reason for the discrepancy may be in the different sample sizes that were employed.…”

“…The trends are easily summarized. The data from Groups A and B displayed correlations larger than those previously obtained by Stanovich (1981) and Stanovich et al (1981), but markedly below those obtained in previous research using the continuous-list procedure (Speer & Lamb, 1976; Biemiller, Note 1).…”

“…Similar correlations were obtained when the letter-naming times were correlated with scores on the comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinite. The correlations between letternaming time and scores on the Metropolitan_ were A detailed view of the magnitude of the correlation at various points during the first-grade year is provided in Table 1, in which the data from Groups A and Bare combined with the results previously reported by Stanovich (1981) and Stanovich et al (1981), who used similar subject groups and procedures. The trends are easily summarized.…”

“…This table displays the mean times for the skilled and less skilled readers as defmed by median splits of each group . Again, the data of Stanovich (I 981) and Stanovich et al (1981) are included for purposes of comparison.…”

“…In fact, the discrepancies between the experiments on first-grade children may actually have their explanation in the different variants of the vocalization paradigm that have been used. Speer and Lamb (1976) and Biemiller (Note 1), who found strong correlations beween letter-naming speed and reading ability, both employed a continuous-list procedure, whereas in the Stanovich (1981) and Stanovich et al (1981) studies, a discrete-trial procedure was used.…”