The Impact of Dialect Density on the Growth of Language and Reading in African American Children

Washington, Julie A.; Branum‐Martin, Lee; Sun, Congying; Lee‐James, Ryan

doi:10.1044/2018_lshss-17-0063

Cited by 44 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(96 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on disentangling the influence of English learner status for students who also have identified disabilities (Solari, Petscher, & Folsom, 2014; Wagner, Francis, & Morris, 2005) has been insufficient. Greater attention to how language variation (e.g., dialect use) and differences in language experience affect reading development is crucial (Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018; Terry, Connor, Thomas‐Tate, & Love, 2010; Washington, Branum‐Martin, Sun, & Lee‐James, 2018). New realizations of the interaction between child characteristics and the depth of the orthography have also highlighted the importance of understanding the role of statistical learning in early reading development (Seidenberg, 2005).…”

Section: Where Do We Go Next In the Science Of Reading?mentioning

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

Section: Where Do We Go Next In the Science Of Reading?mentioning

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

show abstract

“…Results from such scaled scores allow longitudinal analyses across all five grades. For example, we have examined the longitudinal relations of language with reading and dialect (Washington et al, 2018) and the extent to which there may be gender differences in language growth (Washington et al, in press). Without a longitudinal scaled Note.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a Longitudinal Scale for Language: Linking Across Developmentally Different Versions of the Same Test

Branum‐Martin

Rhodes

Sun

et al. 2019

J Speech Lang Hear Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many language tests use different versions that are not statistically linked or do not have a developmental scaled score. The current article illustrates the problems of scores that are not linked or equated, followed by a statistical model to derive a developmental scaled score. Method: Using an accelerated cohort design of 890 students in Grades 1-5, a confirmatory factor model was fit to 6 subtests of the Test of Language Development-Primary and Intermediate: Fourth Edition (Hammill & Newcomer, 2008a, 2008b). The model allowed for linking the subtests to a general factor of language and equating their measurement characteristics across grades and cohorts of children. A sequence of models was fit to evaluate the appropriateness of the linking assumptions. Results: The models fit well, with reasonable support for the validity of the tests to measure a general factor of language on a longitudinally consistent scale. Conclusion: Although total and standard scores were problematic for longitudinal relations, the results of the model suggest that language grows in a relatively linear manner among these children, regardless of which set of subtests they received. Researchers and clinicians interested in longitudinal inferences are advised to design research or choose tests that can provide a developmental scaled score.

show abstract

“…Swiss German) has been linked to poor literacy outcomes when literacy is taught in the standard variety (e.g. Charity, Scarborough & Griffin, 2004;Gatlin & Wanzek, 2015;Terry, Connor, Johnson et al, 2016;Washington, Branum-Martin, Sun & Lee-James, 2018;Bühler, von Oertzen, McBride, Stoll & Maurer, 2018). It is not clear what causes this link.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposure to dialect variation in an artificial language prior to literacy training impairs reading of words with competing variants but does not affect decoding skills

Williams¹,

Kempe²,

Panayotov³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dialect exposure in children has been associated with reduced literacy outcomes but it is unclear to what extent these impairments are due to interference from competing lexical variants or reflect extralinguistic factors. Previous computational studies and artificial literacy learning experiments with adults confirmed a deficit for reading of words with dialect variants (contrastive words) but did not find detrimental effects of dialect exposure on phonological decoding of untrained words; in fact, sufficiently long periods of literacy training resulted in a dialect benefit that could arise from greater reliance on phonological decoding when dialect and standard variants increased variability in the input. However, those artificial language learning experiments interleaved word learning and reading/spelling training, yet child learners typically have well-entrenched phonological and semantic representations of most words before they start literacy training. Here we examine whether a contrastive deficit alongside unimpaired phonological decoding can be replicated when word learning precedes literacy training. We also manipulated training conditions to explore effects of interventions thought to be beneficial for literacy acquisition in naturalistic situations such as explicit social cues for variety use and literacy training in both varieties. The findings replicate the contrastive deficit which was most pronounced when literacy training in the dialect increased variability. Without such variability, only learners who successfully learned the dialect variants prior to literacy training showed the contrastive deficit. Although no benefits from the interventions were found dialect exposure per se had neither a beneficial nor a detrimental effect on phonological decoding skills.

show abstract

The Impact of Dialect Density on the Growth of Language and Reading in African American Children

Cited by 44 publications

References 54 publications

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

Developing a Longitudinal Scale for Language: Linking Across Developmentally Different Versions of the Same Test

Exposure to dialect variation in an artificial language prior to literacy training impairs reading of words with competing variants but does not affect decoding skills

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About