Evidence for complementary effects of code- and knowledge-focused reading instruction

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
M. Vollebregt, Jana Leggett, Sherry Raffalovitch, Colin King, Deanna C. Friesen, L. Archibald
{"title":"Evidence for complementary effects of code- and knowledge-focused reading instruction","authors":"M. Vollebregt, Jana Leggett, Sherry Raffalovitch, Colin King, Deanna C. Friesen, L. Archibald","doi":"10.1177/02656590211014246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is growing recognition of the need to end the debate regarding reading instruction in favor of an approach that provides a solid foundation in phonics and other underlying language skills to become expert readers. We advance this agenda by providing evidence of specific effects of instruction focused primarily on the written code or on developing knowledge. In a grade 1 program evaluation study, an inclusive and comprehensive program with a greater code-based focus called Reading for All (RfA) was compared to a knowledge-focused program involving Dialogic Reading. Phonological awareness, letter word recognition, nonsense word decoding, listening comprehension, reading comprehension, written expression and vocabulary were measured at the beginning and end of the school year, and one year after in one school only. Results revealed improvements in all measures except listening comprehension and vocabulary for the RfA program at the end of the first school year. These gains were maintained for all measures one year later with the exception of an improvement in written expression. The Dialogic Reading group was associated with a specific improvement in vocabulary in schools from lower socioeconomic contexts. Higher scores were observed for RfA than Dialogic Reading groups at the end of the first year on nonsense word decoding, phonological awareness and written expression, with the differences in the latter two remaining significant one year later. The results provide evidence of the need for interventions to support both word recognition and linguistic comprehension to better reading comprehension.","PeriodicalId":46549,"journal":{"name":"Child Language Teaching & Therapy","volume":"29 3","pages":"300 - 320"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/02656590211014246","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Language Teaching & Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02656590211014246","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

There is growing recognition of the need to end the debate regarding reading instruction in favor of an approach that provides a solid foundation in phonics and other underlying language skills to become expert readers. We advance this agenda by providing evidence of specific effects of instruction focused primarily on the written code or on developing knowledge. In a grade 1 program evaluation study, an inclusive and comprehensive program with a greater code-based focus called Reading for All (RfA) was compared to a knowledge-focused program involving Dialogic Reading. Phonological awareness, letter word recognition, nonsense word decoding, listening comprehension, reading comprehension, written expression and vocabulary were measured at the beginning and end of the school year, and one year after in one school only. Results revealed improvements in all measures except listening comprehension and vocabulary for the RfA program at the end of the first school year. These gains were maintained for all measures one year later with the exception of an improvement in written expression. The Dialogic Reading group was associated with a specific improvement in vocabulary in schools from lower socioeconomic contexts. Higher scores were observed for RfA than Dialogic Reading groups at the end of the first year on nonsense word decoding, phonological awareness and written expression, with the differences in the latter two remaining significant one year later. The results provide evidence of the need for interventions to support both word recognition and linguistic comprehension to better reading comprehension.
以代码为中心和以知识为中心的阅读教学互补效应的证据
越来越多的人认识到,有必要结束关于阅读教学的争论,转而采用一种方法,在语音和其他潜在的语言技能方面提供坚实的基础,以成为专业读者。我们通过提供主要侧重于书面代码或发展知识的教学的具体效果的证据来推进这一议程。在一项一级项目评估研究中,将一个更注重代码的包容性综合项目——全民阅读(RfA)与一个注重知识、涉及对话阅读的项目进行了比较。语音意识、字母单词识别、无意义单词解码、听力理解、阅读理解、书面表达和词汇量在学年开始和结束时以及一年后进行了测量,只在一所学校进行。结果显示,在第一学年结束时,除了听力理解和词汇量外,RfA项目的所有指标都有所改善。一年后,除了书面表达能力的提高外,所有指标都保持了这些进步。在社会经济背景较低的学校,对话阅读组与词汇量的具体提高有关。在第一年结束时,RfA组在无意义单词解码、语音意识和书面表达方面的得分高于对话阅读组,一年后后两者的差异仍然显著。研究结果表明,为了提高阅读理解能力,需要对单词识别和语言理解进行干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Child Language Teaching and Therapy is an international peer reviewed journal which aims to be the leading inter-disciplinary journal in the field of children"s spoken and written language needs. The journal publishes original research and review articles of high practical relevance and which emphasise inter-disciplinary collaboration. Child Language Teaching and Therapy publishes regular special issues on specific subject areas and commissions keynote reviews of significant topics. The readership of the journal consists of academics and practitioners across the disciplines of education, speech and language therapy, psychology and linguistics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书