Bradley & Bryant

Question 1

What impact does learning the alphabet have on brain development?

Answer 1

• causes fundamental changes to the way the brain represents whole word sounds
• whole word sounds are automatically broken up into sound constituents
• even though the alphabet is a visual code it changes the way we hear and memories words

Question 2

What did the earlier experiments in 1978 find?

Answer 2

• 60 backward readers (mean age 10), 30 normal readers (mean age 7) (all equal in reading, spelling and IQ)
• had to identify the odd word out: last phoneme-rhyme, middle phoneme-rhyme, first phoneme-alliteration
• backwards readers made more errors on all 3 tests
• experiment 2: children were asked to rhyme 10 words and found that the backward readers made more errors
• suggests backward readers have difficulty categorising sounds

Question 3

What were the 2 methods used in this classic study?

Answer 3

• longitudinal approach following a group of children as they learn to read (investigating whether early rhyming/alliteration can predict later reading ability)
• training study (investigating whether training in sound categorisation improves reading ability)

Question 4

Who were the participants of the longitudinal study?

Answer 4

• 403 children (118 were four, 285 were five-year-olds)

- none could read

Question 5

What was the method of the longitudinal study?

Answer 5

• tested on rhyming and alliteration

- reading, spelling and IQ was assessed over 4 years

Question 6

What were the results of the longitudinal study?

Answer 6

-significant relationship between initial sound categorisation (alliteration, rhyme) and subsequent reading (2 tests) and spelling attainment (even when differences in IQ and memory are controlled for)

Question 7

Who were the participants of the training study?

Answer 7

-65 children at least 2 SD below mean in initial categorisation score (bottom 3%)

Question 8

What was the method of the training study?

Answer 8

• 4 groups matched on age, verbal intelligence, and initial categorisation score
• 4 training regimes, tested progress after intensive training (2 years)
• group 1: sound categorisation training (picture cards only)
• group 2: sound categorisation training (picture cards and plastic letters)
• group 3: semantic categorisation training (same picture cards)
• group 4: unseen control (no training- normal development and maturation)

Question 9

What were the results of the training study?

Answer 9

• main effect of training was reliable for reading and spelling
• training didn’t affect maths performance (effect is specific to literacy)

Question 10

What conclusions were drawn?

Answer 10

-sound categorisation training improves reading ability (phonological awareness: the ability to detect and manipulate the component sounds in words)

Question 11

What are the issues with missing control?

Answer 11

• training on letter-sound correspondences without oral training in sound categorisation
• it’s now routinely included and typically display weaker benefits than with oral sound categorisation
• even in languages where letter-sounded relations are highly consistent, training on letter-sound relations alone doesn’t give the same level of benefit as combined training on sound categorisation and letters

Question 12

What is the issue with the causal connection?

Answer 12

• used pre-reading children but most children in literate western cultures have some experience of letters
• difficult to disentangle letter awareness from sound categorisation
• Blomert (2011): acquisition of letter knowledge takes time (2-3 years)
• most researchers accept the connection is real

Question 13

What did Bus et al (1999) find on the size of effect?

Answer 13

• meta analysis on effect of phonological awareness
• D=.70, r=.33 (about 10-12%)
• effect was weaker for longer-term outcomes

Question 14

What are the ethics of the studies?

Answer 14

• group 3 received training but weren’t expected to benefit from it (concern over whether it’s right to subject children to training that won’t help them)
• group 4 parents gave informed consent and there were some non-significant benefits in this group

Question 15

What is the scope of the impact it had?

Answer 15

• developmental psychology: phonological awareness (different ages and causal link in other languages), phonological deficit theory of developmental dyslexia, use of longitudinal and training studies to understand causality
• education: early reading curriculum, linking oral skills to reading and spelling, social class differences, pre-school environment

Question 16

What impact does it have on different languages?

Answer 16

• confirmed in most languages tested
• in Chinese syllable and tone awareness are the best predictors but rhyme and alliteration are significant predictors too
• sequential development of phonological awareness: grain size (syllable, rhyme, phoneme), children first become aware of syllables
• development of phonological awareness in all languages: pre-reading children are aware of syllables at onset-rime level
• cross-language divergence: development of phonological awareness, phonemes, phonological complexity of the language, orthographic consistency of the written form
• phonological complexity of the language: most languages have simple phonological structure (CV make most syllables, English has CVC though)

Question 17

What is the orthographic consistency of the written form?

Answer 17

• many alphabetic languages have 1:1 mapping of letter:sound
• children learning to read in language with consistent spelling system identify >90% of words/non-words in first year
• English speaking children perform poorly in first year (though they’re learning to code at word and rime level)
• most efficient way to learn to read English but takes time
• focusing on sound categorisation in grain sizes greater than single-letters really helps English readers
• the plastic letter training was way ahead of its time

Question 18

What is the Rose Report (2009)?

Answer 18

• literacy hour
• synthetic phonics
• enforced in all UK schools
• very prescriptive
• current thinking among educationalists: synthetic phonics misses something more important (understanding) and phonics combined with the ‘whole book’ approach