Differentiating between Good Readers and Poor Readers: The Role of Linguistic and Cognitive Factors



Abstract Views
2083

Downloads
694

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Dec 1, 2021
Published Jan 13, 2022
10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.1.235

Abstract viewed = 2083 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Attainment of reading ability is one of the most important goals of early elementary education. The goal of the present study was to compare groups of good readers and poor readers on several cognitive and linguistic skills and to determine the influence of these variables in differentiating these two groups of readers. An additional goal was to determine whether there are differences in proportion of boys and girls in groups of good and poor readers. The sample for this study comprised 60 third-grade children divided in two categories, 30 children in the category of good readers and 30 children in the category of poor readers. The results of this study revealed the largest differences between good readers and poor readers were on the phoneme deletion task and processing speed task. Another finding is that more boys than girls were in the group of good readers and more girls than boys in the group of poor readers. It is very important to know which underlying skills best differentiate good and poor readers at certain age. This in turn will lead to creating more effective reading interventions.


 

Keywords: Cognitive Factors, Gender Differences, Linguistic Factors Reading Abilities

References

  1. Below, J. L., Skinner, C. H., Fearrington, J. Y., & Sorrell, C. A. (2010). Gender Differences in Early Literacy: Analysis of Kindergarten through Fifth-Grade Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Probes. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 240-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087776
     Google Scholar
  2. Biščević, I., Maleč, D., & Memišević, H. (2021). The Relationship of Reading and Mathematics in Third-Grade Elementary School Students in Canton Sarajevo. Školski vjesnik: časopis za pedagogijsku teoriju i praksu, 70(1), 207-226.
     Google Scholar
  3. Breda, T., & Napp, C. (2019). Girls’ comparative advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in math-related fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(31), 15435-15440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905779116
     Google Scholar
  4. Bryant, P. E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L. L., & Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme and alliteration, phoneme detection, and learning to read. Developmental psychology, 26(3), 429-438.
     Google Scholar
  5. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's Reading Comprehension Ability: Concurrent Prediction by Working Memory, Verbal Ability, and Component Skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
     Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Language and phonological skills in children at high risk of reading difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(3), 631-640.
     Google Scholar
  7. Coyle, T. R., Pillow, D. R., Snyder, A. C., & Kochunov, P. (2011). Processing Speed Mediates the Development of General Intelligence (g) in Adolescence. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1265-1269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611418243
     Google Scholar
  8. Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers’ text-reading fluency in English. Reading and Writing, 23(5), 475-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9168-8
     Google Scholar
  9. Daly, M., & Corcoran, R. P. (2019). Kindergarten self-control mediates the gender reading achievement gap: A population-based cohort study. Journal of Research in Personality, 83, 103881. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103881
     Google Scholar
  10. Di Filippo, G., Brizzolara, D., Chilosi, A., De Luca, M., Judica, A., Pecini, C., Spinelli, D., & Zoccolotti, P. (2005). Rapid naming, not cancellation speed or articulation rate, predicts reading in an orthographically regular language (Italian). Child Neuropsychology, 11(4), 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040490916947
     Google Scholar
  11. Fluss, J., Ziegler, J., Ecalle, J., Magnan, A., Warszawski, J., Ducot, B., Richard, G., & Billard, C. (2008). Prevalence of reading disabilities in early elementary school: impact of socioeconomic environment on reading development in 3 different educational zones. Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie, 15(6), 1049-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcped.2008.02.012
     Google Scholar
  12. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific studies of reading, 5(3), 239-256.
     Google Scholar
  13. Georgiou, G. K., Parrila, R., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2008). Predictors of word decoding and reading fluency across languages varying in orthographic consistency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 566-580. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.566
     Google Scholar
  14. Gillam, S. L., Fargo, J., Foley, B., & Olszewski, A. (2011). A nonverbal phoneme deletion task administered in a dynamic assessment format. Journal of Communication Disorders, 44(2), 236-245. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.11.003
     Google Scholar
  15. Goswami, U. (1990). A Special Link between Rhyming Skill and the Use of Orthographic Analogies by Beginning Readers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31(2), 301-311. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1990.tb01568.x
     Google Scholar
  16. Grigorenko, E. L., Klin, A., & Volkmar, F. (2003). Annotation: Hyperlexia: disability or superability? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(8), 1079-1091.
     Google Scholar
  17. Hansen, J., & Bowey, J. A. (1994). Phonological Analysis Skills, Verbal Working Memory, and Reading Ability in Second-Grade Children. Child Development, 65(3), 938-950. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00794.x
     Google Scholar
  18. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.
     Google Scholar
  19. Heikkilä, R., Närhi, V., Aro, M., & Ahonen, T. (2009). Rapid Automatized Naming and Learning Disabilities: Does RAN Have a Specific Connection to Reading or Not? Child Neuropsychology, 15(4), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040802537653
     Google Scholar
  20. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00401799
     Google Scholar
  21. Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29(1), 102-119.
     Google Scholar
  22. Kessels, R. P., Van Zandvoort, M. J., Postma, A., Kappelle, L. J., & De Haan, E. H. (2000). The Corsi block-tapping task: standardization and normative data. Applied neuropsychology, 7(4), 252-258.
     Google Scholar
  23. Landerl, K., Freudenthaler, H. H., Heene, M., De Jong, P. F., Desrochers, A., Manolitsis, G., Parrila, R., & Georgiou, G. K. (2019). Phonological Awareness and Rapid Automatized Naming as Longitudinal Predictors of Reading in Five Alphabetic Orthographies with Varying Degrees of Consistency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(3), 220-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1510936
     Google Scholar
  24. Limbrick, L., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2012). Reading and Related Skills in the Early School Years: Are boys really more likely to struggle? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(4), 341-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2012.723939
     Google Scholar
  25. Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x
     Google Scholar
  26. Lundberg, I., Larsman, P., & Strid, A. (2012). Development of phonological awareness during the preschool year: the influence of gender and socio-economic status. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 305-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9269-4
     Google Scholar
  27. Mathuranath, P. S., George, A., Cherian, P. J., Alexander, A., Sarma, S. G., & Sarma, P. S. (2003). Effects of Age, Education and Gender on Verbal Fluency. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25(8), 1057-1064. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.25.8.1057.16736
     Google Scholar
  28. Memisevic, H., Dedic, A., Biscevic, I., Hadzic, S., Pasalic, A., & Malec, D. (2020). Identifying predictors of reading speed and reading comprehension in Bosnian. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2020.1815023
     Google Scholar
  29. Memisevic, H., Malec, D., Biscevic, I., & Pasalic, A. (2019). Predictors of Reading Fluency in Second and Third Grade Students: Results from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Studia Psychologica, 61(3), 175-188.
     Google Scholar
  30. Merisuo‐Storm, T. (2006). Girls and Boys Like to Read and Write Different Texts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830600576039
     Google Scholar
  31. Morris, D., Pennell, A. M., Perney, J., & Trathen, W. (2018). Using subjective and objective measures to predict level of reading fluency at the end of first grade. Reading Psychology, 39(3), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017.1418466
     Google Scholar
  32. Mueller, S. T., & Piper, B. J. (2014). The psychology experiment building language (PEBL) and PEBL test battery. Journal of neuroscience methods, 222, 250-259.
     Google Scholar
  33. Nalipay, M. J. N., Cai, Y., & King, R. B. (2020). Why do girls do better in reading than boys? How parental emotional contagion explains gender differences in reading achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 57(2), 310-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22330
     Google Scholar
  34. Ostrolenk, A., d’Arc, B. F., Jelenic, P., Samson, F., & Mottron, L. (2017). Hyperlexia: Systematic review, neurocognitive modelling, and outcome. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 79, 134-149.
     Google Scholar
  35. Papadopoulos, T. C., Spanoudis, G. C., & Georgiou, G. K. (2016). How Is RAN Related to Reading Fluency? A Comprehensive Examination of the Prominent Theoretical Accounts [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1217). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01217
     Google Scholar
  36. Park, Y., & Kim, M. K. (2015). The quality of evidence in reading fluency intervention for Korean readers with reading difficulties and disabilities. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(4), 637-651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9404-7
     Google Scholar
  37. Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge Between Decoding and Reading Comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.58.6.2
     Google Scholar
  38. Powell, D., Stainthorp, R., Stuart, M., Garwood, H., & Quinlan, P. (2007). An experimental comparison between rival theories of rapid automatized naming performance and its relationship to reading. Journal of experimental child psychology, 98(1), 46-68.
     Google Scholar
  39. Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Gender differences in reading and writing achievement: Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). American Psychologist, 74(4), 445-458. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000356
     Google Scholar
  40. Riordan, J., Reese, E., Rouse, S., & Schaughency, E. (2018). Promoting code-focused talk: The rhyme and reason for why book style matters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 69-80. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.05.004
     Google Scholar
  41. Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35(1), 83-92. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.05.004
     Google Scholar
  42. Romeo, R. R., Christodoulou, J. A., Halverson, K. K., Murtagh, J., Cyr, A. B., Schimmel, C., Chang, P., Hook, P. E., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2017). Socioeconomic Status and Reading Disability: Neuroanatomy and Plasticity in Response to Intervention. Cerebral Cortex, 28(7), 2297-2312. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx131
     Google Scholar
  43. Rupley, W. H. (2009). Introduction to Direct/Explicit Instruction in Reading for the Struggling Reader: Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3), 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560802690189
     Google Scholar
  44. Scholes, R. J. (1991). Phoneme deletion and literacy in native and non-native speakers of English. Journal of Research in Reading, 14(2), 130-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1991.tb00014.x
     Google Scholar
  45. Shanahan, M. A., Pennington, B. F., Yerys, B. E., Scott, A., Boada, R., Willcutt, E. G., Olson, R. K., & DeFries, J. C. (2006). Processing Speed Deficits in Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Reading Disability. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(5), 584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9037-8
     Google Scholar
  46. Siegel, L. S. (1994). Working Memory and Reading: A Life-span Perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17(1), 109-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502549401700107
     Google Scholar
  47. Stuart, M. (1990). Processing strategies in a phoneme deletion task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 42(2), 305-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749008401224
     Google Scholar
  48. Tobia, V., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2014). Predictors of reading fluency in Italian orthography: Evidence from a cross-sectional study of primary school students. Child Neuropsychology, 20(4), 449-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2013.814768
     Google Scholar
  49. Troyer, A. K., Moscovitch, M., & Winocur, G. (1997). Clustering and switching as two components of verbal fluency: Evidence from younger and older healthy adults. Neuropsychology, 11(1), 138-146. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.11.1.138
     Google Scholar
  50. Troyer, M., Kim, J. S., Hale, E., Wantchekon, K. A., & Armstrong, C. (2019). Relations among intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and comprehension: a conceptual replication. Reading and Writing, 32(5), 1197-1218.
     Google Scholar
  51. White, B. (2007). Are Girls Better Readers than Boys? Which Boys? Which Girls? Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 30(2), 554-581. https://doi.org/10.2307/20466650
     Google Scholar
  52. Wolf, M., & Denckla, M. B. (2005). The rapid automatized naming and rapid alternating stimulus tests (RAN/RAS). Pro-ed.
     Google Scholar
  53. Wolff, U. (2014). RAN as a predictor of reading skills, and vice versa: results from a randomised reading intervention. Annals of Dyslexia, 64(2), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-014-0091-6
     Google Scholar
  54. Zoccolotti, P., de Jong, P. F., & Spinelli, D. (2016). Editorial: Understanding Developmental Dyslexia: Linking Perceptual and Cognitive Deficits to Reading Processes [Editorial]. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(140). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00140
     Google Scholar
  55. Zumeta, R. O., Compton, D. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Using Word Identification Fluency to Monitor First-Grade Reading Development. Exceptional Children, 78(2), 201-220. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800204
     Google Scholar