The role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade

Abstract

The direct, retention, and transfer effects of repeated word and pseudoword reading were studied in a pretest, training, posttest, retention design. First graders (48 good readers, 47 poor readers) read 25 CVC words and 25 CVC pseudowords in ten repeated word reading sessions, preceded and followed by a transfer task with a different set of items. Two weeks after training, trained items were assessed again in a retention test. Participants either received phonics feedback, in which each word was spelled out and repeated; word feedback, in which each word was repeated; or no feedback. During the training, both good and poor readers improved in accuracy and speed. The increase in speed was stronger for poor readers than for good readers. The good readers demonstrated a stronger increase for pseudowords than for words. This increase in speed was most prominent in the first four sessions. Two weeks after training, the levels of accuracy and speed were retained. Furthermore, transfer effects on speed were found for pseudowords in both groups of readers. Good readers performed most accurately during the training when they received no feedback while poor readers performed most accurately during the training with the help of phonics feedback. However, feedback did not differentiate for reading speed or for effects after the training. The effects of repeated word reading were found to be stronger for poor readers than for good readers. Moreover, these effects were found to be stronger for pseudowords than for words. This indicates that repeated word reading can be seen as an important trigger for the improvement of decoding skills.

The Efficiency of Briefly Presenting Word Forms in a Computerized Repeated Spelling Training

“…It can be concluded that visual dictation was more efficient than word copying for learning to spell rule-based words and loan words, which complements the findings from previous research (e.g., Bosman, Van Huygevoort et al, 2006;Hilte & Reitsma, 2006, 2008. As the authors of earlier research concluded, spelling from memory increases the focus on orthographic details (e.g., Hilte & Reitsma, 2006, 2008Van Leerdam et al, 1998). Visual dictations leads to a quicker implementation of specified lexical representations than word copying, because with copying more repetitions are required to reach the same accuracy level for both word types.…”

“…Repeated spelling training of rule-based words and loan words contributes to the construction of highly specified lexical representations (Perfetti, 1992(Perfetti, , 2017Shahar-Yames & Share, 2008). In several studies, it has been found that spelling training is particularly effective if a memory component is involved, as has been shown, for example, with visual dictation in Dutch (Bosman, Van Huygevoort et al, 2006;Hilte & Reitsma, 2006, 2008Van Leerdam et al, 1998), visual imagery in Spanish (Gaintza & Goikoetxea, 2016), and the so-called cover-copy-compare strategy in English (Cates et al, 2007;Nies & Belfiore, 2006).…”

“…In a study conducted by Van Leerdam et al (1998), 70 first graders were allocated randomly to one of five repeated spelling training conditions: visual dictation, word copying, oral spelling, word completion, or a reading control group. Independent of spelling ability, participants in the visual dictation group outperformed their peers in all other groups.…”

“…Often this is achieved by repeated reading of words, but it has been shown that repeated copying is more efficient (Bhide, 2018;Bosman & Van Leerdam, 1993;Pan, Rubin, & Rickard, 2015). Even more efficient than copying is spelling words from memory after briefly previewing the correct form (visual dictation; e.g., Bosman, Van Huygevoort, & Verhoeven, 2006;Cates et al, 2007;Gaintza & Goikoetxea, 2016;Hilte & Reitsma, 2006, 2008Nies & Belfiore, 2006;Van Leerdam, Bosman, & Van Orden, 1998). However, a direct comparison of copying versus retrieving words from memory has not been made for rule-based words versus loan words, and the efficiency of the methods may differ for these two word types.…”

Evaluation of the multiple‐deficit hypothesis among dyslexic Arabic‐speaking children

“…Frequently, dyslexic students exhibit significant alterations in morphological awareness (Layes et al, 2017), poorer phonological proficiency (Siddaiah & Venkatesh, 2014), and impaired general orthographic processing (Elbeheri et al, 2020;van Gorp et al, 2017) which lead to impaired reading processing (Tibi & Kirby, 2019).…”