Bradley and Bryant Flashcards
Why did Bradley and Bryant (1983) conduct a longitudinal study and a training study?
To test causality between sound categorisation and reading ability.
WHat aware did Bryant get in 1984
BPS Presidents award
What are whole word sounds broken into
Whole word sounds are automatically broken up into sound constituents
What is the critical language period
12-13 years
What was study 1
60 ‘backward’ readers (mean age 10 yrs)
30 ‘normal’ readers (mean age 7 yrs)
Both groups equal on reading, spelling and IQ
backwards readers made more errors with rhymes and alliteration
What was study 2
Experiment 2
Children are asked to rhyme 10 words
Result: Backward readers made more errors
Evidence that ‘backward’ readers have difficulty categorising sounds
But is the link causal?
• Does reading difficulty come from poor categorisation?
• Can training in sound categorisation improve reading?
• Longitudinal study for temporal order
Why were there two studies
Two-pronged methodology to investigate causation
“We used both methods because we reasoned that neither on its own is a sufficient test of a causal hypothesis and that the strengths and weaknesses of the two are complementary.”
What was the longitudinal study
Participants
• 403 children (118 four-year-olds, 285 five-year-olds)
• None could read
• Baseline rates
Method
• Tested on rhyming and alliteration
• Reading, spelling and IQ assessed over 4 years
Results
• 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
what happened in the training study
Participants
• 65 children at least 2 SD below mean in initial categorisation score (bottom 3%)
Method
• 4 groups matched on age, verbal intelligence and initial categorisation score
• 4 training regimes
• Test 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)
Reading age= (no. correct/10)+5
Stop rule= 8 consecutive errors
Results
• Main effect of training was reliable for reading and spelling
• Training did NOT affect maths performance
– effect is specific to literacy
What is phonological awareness
the ability to detect and manipulate the component sounds in words
What groups were not significantly different
Group I not significantly different from Group III (semantic categorisation). Although biggest gains in sound categorisation, not that different from results seen in the control.
What was the debate about missing control condition
– Even in languages where letter-sound relations are highly consistent (e.g., German) training on letter-sound relations alone does not give the same level of benefit as combined training on sound categorisation and letters.
WHat was the debate about whether there is really a causal connection
- Most children in literate western cultures have some experience of letters (e.g., logos, printing their own name)
- Exposure levels
what did Blomert comment
• Acquisition of letter knowledge takes time (2-3 years)
Most researchers accept that the connection is real
what did Bus et al say about the size of the effect
• Bus et al (1999)- a meta analysis
• Effect of phonological awareness on reading was:
• D= 0.70 r=0.33, 10-12%
o As phonological awareness goes up, so does reading
o 10-12% of reading is explained by phonological awareness
