the influence of early skills and instruction on reading development

Laura Shapiro Psychology, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University

[email protected]

Julia CarrollPsychology Department, University of Warwick

Jonathan SolityDirector, KRM: Psychological and Educational Research Consultants &

Honorary Research Fellow, University College London

The influence of early skills and instruction on reading development

Outline

• Which early skills most critical for learning to read?• Study 1: The influence of early skills on reading development

• Future plans- are there more general underlying component skills influencing academic achievement?

• What are the relative influences of instruction and early skills?• Study 2: The impact of a whole-class intervention on children’s reading

• Future plans- does intervention mediate impact of early skills?

Study 1: Influence of early skills

• We already know about the importance of speech processing skills in early literacy development (e.g. Carroll et al., 2003, Muter et al., 2004)

• Our study includes additional measures: motor, visual, auditory (non-speech)

• Which skills are directly related to early reading development?

• Which skills are less important (have an indirect influence)?

Shapiro, Carroll & Solity (submitted)

Study 1 Design

• 3 primary schools, 3-4 cohorts of children

• Baseline data collection• Sensory/ cognitive measures at beginning of Reception year

(mean age 4y 6m; N = 392)

• Outcome data collection• Literacy measures at end of Reception year (age 5y 2m; N =

348)


• Baseline– What are the underlying factors that explain performance on different

measures? (age 4;6, N=392)

• Outcomes– Which skills are directly linked, which skills are only indirectly linked?

(age 5;2, N = 348)

Study 1 Results


• Structural Equation Modelling (or confirmatory factor analysis)– Start with most complex model (i.e. largest no. of factors that could

explain children’s performance on the different measures)

– Systematically decrease no. of factors (best model is the simplest model that still provides a good fit to the data)

• Best model of baseline data included 7 factors (skill-groups):

1. Speed of processing

2. Reading (words, letters and numbers) and Phoneme Isolation

3. Accuracy of processing

4. Rhyme

5. IQ & memory

6. Motor

7. Speech & auditory

Baseline data analyses

Reading & Phoneme

Accuracy

Rhyme

IQ & Memory

Motor

Speech & Auditory

Letter Knowledge

Sight Words

Digit Naming

Phoneme Isolation

Phoneme discrim

Target present acc

Target absent acc

Button press acc

Auditory discrim

PAT rhyme

DEST rhyme

Ravens

BPVS

Digit span

Bead threading

Peg board

Shape copying

Speech rate

Nonword rep

Rapid naming

Sound order

ATP

SpeedButton press RT

Visual Search slope

.57

.40

.34

.57.68

.47

.72.65

.51.62

.63

.74

.52

.69

.52

.52.56

.72

.84

.55

.64

.44

.77

.77N = 392, Age 4;6

Single headed arrows: Factor loadings (with standardised regression weights).

Significant Correlations between all factors

Baseline factors (age 4;6)

1. Speed of Processing• Gerhardstein & Rovee-Collier (2002) visual search task: child searched for a target dinosaur

among distractors- score is time taken to find dinosaur, per distractor (visual search slope).• Button press: easy task- press 1 button when dinosaur present, 1 button when dinosaur

hidden, no distractors- score is speed of button pressing (button press RT)

2. Reading (words, letters and numbers) and Phoneme Isolation• Letter sound knowledge, Sight word reading (100 most frequent words), DEST Digit naming

(BAS word reading and NFER accuracy not used- at floor)

• DEST phoneme isolation

3. Accuracy of processing• Visual search accuracy (target present accuracy, target absent accuracy), Button press

accuracy, auditory discrimination (associating 2 buttons with 2 sounds)

4. Rhyme• PAT Rhyme detection, DEST Rhyme detection

5. IQ & memory• Verbal IQ (vocabulary, BPVS), Non-verbal IQ (Raven et al., 1994), Working memory (DEST

digit span)

6. Motor• DEST bead threading, Annett’s (1985) peg board (created cumulative measure of left&right

RT, hand difference not used- correlations very low), DEST shape copying (DEST Postural stability not used- correlations very low with other measures)

7. Speech & Auditory• Speech: PAT speech rate (say “buttercup” 10 times), Non-word repetition (repeat, “haplut”),

DEST rapid picture naming, DEST phonological discrimination• Auditory (Non-speech): Auditory Temporal Processing based on Tallal (1980): repeating back

sequences of sounds; DEST sound order (which sound came 1st?)

• Reading&Phoneme separated from Rhyme and Speech&Auditory– Performance on reading and phoneme tasks arose from different

underlying processes than performance on rhyme, speech and auditory measures

• Single factor for Speech&Auditory– Same underlying processes drove performance on our speech and non-

speech tasks, whether production of sounds was involved or not

• Separate factors for Speed and Accuracy– Performance on button pressing speed measures arose from same

underlying processes

– Performance on all button press response-accuracy measures arose from same underlying processes

Summary of baseline findings

• Letter sound knowledge

• Reading (correlations very high- used cumulative score):

– Non-word reading fluency (non-words read in 30s)

– PHAB non-word reading

– BAS word reading test

– NFER passage reading test (no. words read)

– Sight word reading

Follow-up assessments (age 5;2)

Read&Phoneme

Accuracy

Rhyme

IQ&Memory

Motor

Speech&Aud

Letter Knowledge

Sight Words

Digit Naming

Phoneme Isolation

Phoneme discrim

Target present acc

Target absent acc

Button press acc

Auditory discrim

PAT rhyme

DEST rhyme

Ravens

BPVS

Digit span

Bead threading

Peg board

Shape copying

Speech rate

Nonword rep

Rapid naming

Sound order

ATP


Visual search slope

.58

.39

.36

.57.67

.72

.66

.52.61

.63

.74

.52

.69

.52

.52.56

.73

.81

.55

.64

.78

.76

Literacy

End Reading

End Letter Knowl

.69

.94.61

.27

.47

.43

N = 348, Age 4;6 and 5;2



Read&Phoneme

Accuracy

Rhyme

IQ&Memory

Motor

Speech&Aud

Letter Knowledge

Sight Words

Digit Naming

Phoneme Isolation

Phoneme discrim

Target present acc

Target absent acc

Button press acc

Auditory discrim

PAT rhyme

DEST rhyme

Ravens

BPVS

Digit span

Bead threading

Peg board

Shape copying

Speech rate

Nonword rep

Rapid naming

Sound order

ATP


Visual search slope

.58

.39

.36

.57.67

.72

.66

.52.61

.63

.74

.52

.69

.52

.52.56

.73

.81

.55

.64

.78

.76

Literacy

End Reading

End Letter Knowl

.69

.94.61

.27.47

.43

N = 348, Age 4;6 and 5;2



Indirect influences

Speed Reading & Phoneme Accuracy Rhyme IQ & Memory Motor

Speed .

Reading & Phoneme 0.39 .

Accuracy 0.22 0.36 .

Rhyme 0.23 0.54 0.23 .

IQ & Memory 0.47 0.78 0.59 0.67 .

Motor 0.48 0.53 0.47 0.51 0.71 .

Auditory & Speech 0.62 0.84 0.55 0.52 0.80 0.67

• Early auditory and speech skills have a direct influence on literacy at age 5;2 (Confirms the importance of speech processing skills, supporting Carroll et al; Muter et al)

• No direct influence of other skills (IQ&memory, motor, rhyme, speed or accuracy), at this stage

Study 1 Conclusions


• How do the causal relationships between baseline skills and literacy change as reading develops? (e.g. influence of visual/ motor skills on more fluent reading?)

• Can we isolate generic skills that underlie both sensory and cognitive predictors of academic performance? E.g. timing, speed of processing… (in collaboration with Joel Talcott and Caroline Witton at Aston)

Early skills: Future plans

Study 2: Influence of whole-class intervention

• Early speech and auditory skills critical for reading development– affects acquisition of phonological awareness, hence reading

• Recent focus on id of children “at risk” of developing reading difficulties– Benefit from supplementary phonological awareness plus phonics

(PA/Ph) training (Ehri et al., 2001)– Training effective even when delivered to large groups or whole classes

of children (e.g. Hatcher et al., 2004; Fuchs et al., 2001)

• Could this type of training benefit at risk children even when incorporated into normal whole-class sessions?– Consistent with continuum of PA…

Shapiro & Solity (BJEP, in press)

• Core components of PA/Ph training

• Incorporated into single whole-class session: Early Reading Research (ERR) intervention (Solity & Shapiro, 2008, ECP)

• Delivered for 1st 2 years of school (age 4-6)

• Research Qns– Overall Impact?– Impact for children at different levels of PA?– Reduction in reading difficulties?

Study 2: Overview


• 3 x 12 minute sessions a day:– Phonological awareness (4 mins)– Phonic skills (2 mins)– Sight vocabulary (2mins) – Reading to children (4 mins)

• Implemented by usual teachers to whole class

Structure of intervention


Study 2: Design

• Quasi-Experimental design: 12 schools, 464 children– 6 given ERR training (251 children)– 6 used as comparison (213 children)

• Matched on % free school meals (mean 24%), KS2 results (mean 39% achieving level 4)

• Measured reading performance from age 4y,7m (baseline) to age 7y,4m (1 year post intervention)– No difference between ERR and comparison literacy at baseline (letter

sounds & rhyme), also no difference on maths (writing numbers & counting).


Overall impact• ERR improve faster (Gllamm 3 level model: time, child, school, z = 6.05***)

** p < .05, *** p < .001

BAS word reading test A

(Elliott et al., 1983)


** p < .05, *** p < .001



Intervention removed


• Gllamm models with previous year’s literacy factored in:– Year R: Rhyme: z= 4.04***, Letter Knowledge: z = 8.25***, ERR: z = 3.57***– Year 1: Year R BAS: z = 21.66***, ERR: z = 2.27**– Year 2: Year 1 BAS: z = 28.05***, ERR: z = 0.10ns

** p < .05, *** p < .001




• Gllamm models with previous year’s literacy factored in:– Year R: Rhyme: z= 4.04***, Letter Knowledge: z = 8.25***, ERR: z = 3.57***– Year 1: Year R BAS: z = 21.66***, ERR: z = 2.27**– Year 2: Year 1 BAS: z = 28.05***, ERR: z = 0.10ns

d = 0.45

d = 0.62

d = 0.59

** p < .05, *** p < .001



• Synthesis, segmentation and rhyme, measured at age 5,4 (end of Year R)

– Children with better phonological skills were better readers*:• Gllamm 3 level models (time, child, school): Synthesis skill (z = 7.44***) , Segmentation skill (z = 10.03***), Rhyme skill

(z = 4.35***)

– No interaction between ERR and phonological skill:• Gllamm 3 level models (time, child, school): Synthesis skill and ERR (z = -0.44ns), Segmentation skill and ERR (z = -

0.28ns), Rhyme skill and ERR (z = -0.48ns)

• Responsiveness to ERR did not vary with phonological skill– Children with poor phonological skills benefited to the same extent as those

with better phonological skills

Impact on children with poor PA?

*BAS word reading test A (Elliott et al., 1983)

Comparison distributionvs. norms for 7,4 yr olds (British Ability Scales, BAS)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6

BAS T-score

% o

f c

hild

ren

BAS norms

Comparison

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80

BAS T score

% o

f ch

ild

ren

BAS norms

Comparison

(Comp N = 149)

ERR distributionvs. norms for 7,4 yr olds (British Ability Scales, BAS)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6

BAS T-score

% o

f c

hild

ren

BAS norms

ERR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80

BAS T score

% o

f ch

ildre

n

BAS norms

Comparison

(ERR N = 226)

Study 2: Summary

• Incorporating PA/Ph training as part of whole-class teaching can have a significant impact on children with poor phonological skills

• Can reduce the incidence of reading difficulties

• Consistent with continuum of PA– But could be a small, undetected subgroup with different learning

requirements?– Or has ERR reduced the impact of early skills?


Future plans

• Can instruction mediate influence of early skills? – In collaboration with Jonathan Solity & Birmingham LEA: deliver key

tasks to reception children receiving range of teaching methods (ERR, NLS- either Jolly Phonics or Letters & Sounds)

• All the teachers and pupils

• Research Assistants Heather Ball, Liz Blagrove, Amy Clinch, Jay Grant, Kate Graham, Hannah Ingless, Emma Johnstone, Anna Willoughby and Amy Williamson for their help in conducting Study 1

• Sue Kerfoot, George Crane and Karen Vincent for their help in conducting Study 2

• Gordon Brown (Warwick), Nick Chater (UCL), Michelle Ellefson (Virginia), Janet Vousden (Warwick) and Caroline Witton (Aston) for their advice on design, analysis and presentation

• The British Academy, The Leverhulme Trust, The Economic and Social Sciences Research Council

Thanks to

the influence of early skills and instruction on reading development

Documents

impact of early skills

outcomeswhich skills

early reading development

influence of early skillswe

early literacy development

speed of button

factorsbaseline factors

button press