Epilogue

Sawyer, Diane J.; Fox, Barbara J.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3010-6_9

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(2009)). Analogous to this, adult illiterates are shown to have improved their phonological skills after having learned to read and write (Morais, 1991). It is reasonable to assume that literacy training in itself interacted with and improved the children's neurocognitive skills.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Neurocognitive Development and Predictors of L1 and L2 Literacy Skills in Dyslexia: A Longitudinal Study of Children 5–11 Years Old

Helland

Morken

2015

Dyslexia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to find valid neurocognitive precursors of literacy development in first language (L1, Norwegian) and second language (L2, English) in a group of children during their Pre‐literacy, Emergent Literacy and Literacy stages, by comparing children with dyslexia and a typical group. Children who were 5 years old at project start were followed until the age of 11, when dyslexia was identified and data could be analysed in retrospect.The children's neurocognitive pattern changed both by literacy stage and domain. Visuo‐spatial recall and RAN appeared as early precursors of L1 literacy, while phonological awareness appeared as early precursor of L2 English. Verbal long term memory was associated with both L1 and L2 skills in the Literacy stage. Significant group differences seen in the Pre‐literacy and Emergent literacy stages decreased in the Literacy stage.The developmental variations by stage and domain may explain some of the inconsistencies seen in dyslexia research. Early identification and training are essential to avoid academic failure, and our data show that visuo‐spatial memory and RAN could be suitable early markers in transparent orthographies like Norwegian. Phonological awareness was here seen as an early precursor of L2 English, but not of L1 Norwegian. © 2015 The Authors. Dyslexia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Neurocognitive Development and Predictors of L1 and L2 Literacy Skills in Dyslexia: A Longitudinal Study of Children 5–11 Years Old

Helland

Morken

2015

Dyslexia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Phonological abilities have long been hypothesized to be a major factor in determining reading ability, particularly in acquisition or among poor readers (e.g. Byrne & Letz, 1983; Read & Ruyter, 1985; Sawyer & Fox, 1991; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). Experimental manipulations of phonological interference in text (Baddeley, Eldrige, & Lewis, 1981; Keller, Carpenter, & Just, 2003; Kennison, 2004; McCutchen, Bell, France, & Perfetti, 1991, to name a few) also suggest a role of phonology in offline syntactic comprehension even among skilled adult readers.…”

Section: What Might Account For Individual Differences In Syntactic Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in syntactic processing: Is there evidence for reader-text interactions?

James

Fraundorf

Lee

et al. 2018

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There remains little consensus about whether there exist meaningful individual differences in syntactic processing and, if so, what explains them. We argue that this partially reflects the fact that few psycholinguistic studies of individual differences include multiple constructs, multiple measures per construct, or tests for reliable measures. Here, we replicated three major syntactic phenomena in the psycholinguistic literature: use of verb distributional statistics, difficulty of object-versus subject-extracted relative clauses, and resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguities. We examine whether any individual differences in these phenomena could be predicted by language experience or general cognitive abilities (phonological ability, verbal working memory capacity, inhibitory control, perceptual speed). We find correlations between individual differences and offline, but not online, syntactic phenomena. Condition effects on reading time were not consistent within individuals, limiting their ability to correlate with other measures. We suggest that this might explain controversy over individual differences in language processing.

show abstract

“…Relative to the enormous literature on socioeconomic status (SES) differences in language development (see Feagans & Farran, 1982), there has been little research investigating the development of phonological abilities as a function of parental SES 1 Pickering & Bowey, 1985; Raz & Bryant, 1990; Share, Jorm, MacLean, Matthews, & Waterman, 1983; see also Feagans & Farran, 1982; White, 1982) and the wealth of evidence that has accumulated on the likely role of phonological sensitivity in early reading development (see Adams, 1990; Brady & Shankweiler, 1991; Sawyer & Fox, 1991). In particular, recent training studies have shown that phonological sensitivity contributes directly to early reading achievement (e.g., Cunningham, 1990; Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement.

Bowey¹

1995

Journal of Educational Psychology

285

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two groups of 5-year-old children whose fathers' occupations differed markedly in education and skill levels were seen in preschool, where they were given tests of performance IQ, receptive vocabulary and grammar, verbal working memory, phonological sensitivity, letter knowledge, and novice reading ability. At the end of first grade, academic achievement was assessed. Marked group differences were observed on most measures. Most differences remained after performance IQ effects were controlled. When general verbal ability effects were controlled, differences in phonological sensitivity and word-level reading and arithmetic achievement remained. When phonological sensitivity effects were also controlled, differences remained only in arithmetic performance. The same general pattern of results was observed in converging hierarchical multiple regression analyses. Overall, the results are consistent with the view that socioeconomic status differences in word-level reading achievement are mediated partly through preexisting differences in phonological sensitivity.Relative to the enormous literature on socioeconomic status (SES) differences in language development (see Feagans & Farran, 1982), there has been little research investigating the development of phonological abilities as a function of parental SES. 1 This is a somewhat surprising state of affairs, given the well-documented differences in academic achievement in children varying in parental SES (e.g.,

show abstract

Epilogue

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

Neurocognitive Development and Predictors of L1 and L2 Literacy Skills in Dyslexia: A Longitudinal Study of Children 5–11 Years Old

Neurocognitive Development and Predictors of L1 and L2 Literacy Skills in Dyslexia: A Longitudinal Study of Children 5–11 Years Old

Individual differences in syntactic processing: Is there evidence for reader-text interactions?

Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About