Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:32:42.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Addressing semantics promotes the development of reading fluency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2006

INEZ E. BERENDS  and
PIETER REITSMA
INEZ E. BERENDS
Affiliation:
PI Research, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
PIETER REITSMA
Affiliation:
PI Research, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In two experimental training studies we examined the hypothesis that an emphasis on the meaning of a word is more effective than merely focusing on the orthography to increase reading fluency. Reading delayed children from Grade 1 (mean age = 7.3 years) and two groups from Grade 2 (mean age = 8.3 and 7.8 years) repeatedly read words while focusing either on the orthography or on the semantics of the word. Furthermore, the claim that limited exposure duration during training further promotes fluency was examined. The results show that the semantic based exercises yield more effect than orthographic training, especially for Grade 2 students. No beneficial effect is found for limited presentation duration. The results strongly suggest that practice with printed words with a specific focus on the semantic characteristics effectively promotes the attainment of reading fluency.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 247 - 265
Copyright
2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer N., & Bryant P.2001. Investigating the role of context in learning to read: A direct test of Goodman's model. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 579– 591.Google Scholar
Aro M., & Wimmer H.2003. Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 621– 635.Google Scholar
Badian N. A.2001. Phonological and orthographic processing: Their roles in reading prediction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 179– 202.Google Scholar
Bowers P. G., & Wolf M.1993. Theoretical links among naming speed, precise timing mechanisms and orthographic skill in dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 69– 85.Google Scholar
Brady S., & Shankweiler D. P. (Eds.). 1991. Phonological processes in literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Breznitz Z.1997. Effects of accelerated reading rate on memory for text among dyslexic readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 289– 297.Google Scholar
Brus B. Th., & Voeten M. J. M.1973. Eén-Minuut-Test. Nijmegen: Berkhout Nijmegen B.V.
Castles A., & Coltheart M.2004. Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition, 91, 77– 111.Google Scholar
Chard D. J., Vaughn S., & Tyler B.2002. A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386– 406.Google Scholar
Dixon M., Stuart M., & Masterson J.2002. The relationship between phonological awareness and the development of orthographic representations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 295– 316.Google Scholar
Donker A., Berends I., & Reitsma P.2004. The effect of feedback on child–computer interaction. H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 197– 210). Münster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.
Ehri L. C.2005. Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. S. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135– 154). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ehri L. C., Nunes S. R., Willows D. M., Schuster B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh Z., & Shanahan T.2001. Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the national reading panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250– 287.Google Scholar
Ehri L. C., & Wilce L. S.1983. Development of word identification speed in skilled and less skilled beginning readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 3– 18.Google Scholar
Elbro C.1996. Early linguistic abilities and reading development: A review and a hypothesis about distinctness of phonological representations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 453– 485.Google Scholar
Georgiewa P., Rzanny R., Gaser C., Gerhard U., Vieweg U., Freesmeyer D., et al. 2002. Phonological processing in dyslexic children: A study combining functional imaging and event related potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 318, 5– 8.Google Scholar
Goswami U., & Bryant P.1990. Phonological skills and learning to read. London: Erlbaum.
Hagtvet B. E.2003. Listening comprehension and reading comprehension in poor decoders: Evidence for the importance of syntactic and semantic skills as well as phonological skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 505– 539.Google Scholar
Harm M. W., & Seidenberg M. S.2004. Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662– 720.Google Scholar
Hutzler F., Ziegler J. C., Perry C., Wimmer H., & Zorzi M.2004. Do current connectionist learning models account for reading development in different languages? Cognition, 91, 273– 296.Google Scholar
Ischebeck A., Indefrey P., Usui N., Nose I., Helwig F., & Taira M.2004. Reading in a regular orthography: An fMRI study investigating the role of visual familiarity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 727– 741.Google Scholar
Kirby J. R., Parrila R. K., & Pfeiffer S. L.2003. Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 453– 464.Google Scholar
Laing E., & Hulme C.1999. Phonological and semantic processes influence beginning readers' ability to learn to read words. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 183– 207.Google Scholar
Lemoine H. E., Levy B. A., & Hutchinson A.1993. Increasing the naming speed of poor readers: Representations formed across repetitions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 297– 328.Google Scholar
Mayringer H., & Wimmer H.2000. Pseudoname learning by German-speaking children with dyslexia: Evidence for a phonological learning deficit. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 116– 133.Google Scholar
Morris R. D., Shaywitz S. E., Shankweiler D. P., Katz L., Stuebing K. K., Fletcher J. M., et al. 1998. Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347– 373.Google Scholar
Nicholson T.1991. Do children read words better in context or in lists? A classic study revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 444– 450.Google Scholar
Norbury C. F., & Chiat S.2000. Semantic intervention to support word recognition: A single-case study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 16, 141– 163.Google Scholar
Perfetti C. A.1977. Language comprehension and fast decoding: Some psycholinguistic prerequisites for skilled reading comprehension. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Cognition, curriculum and comprehension (pp. 20– 41). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Perfetti C. A.1985. Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti C. A., & Hart L.2002. The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189– 213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pugh K. R., Mencl W. A., Jenner A. R., Katz L., Frost S. J., Lee J. R., et al. 2001. Neurobiological studies of reading and reading disability. Journal of Communication Disorders, 34, 479– 492.Google Scholar
Reitsma P.1983. Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36, 321– 339.Google Scholar
Sandak R., Mencl W. E., Frost S. J., & Pugh K. R.2004. The neurobiological basis of skilled and impaired reading: Recent findings and new directions. Scientific Studies of Reading, 83, 273– 292.Google Scholar
Sandak R., Mencl W. E., Frost S. J., Rueckl J. G., Katz L., Moore D., et al. 2004. The neurobiology of adaptive learning in reading: A contrast of different training conditions. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 67– 88.Google Scholar
Share D. L.1995. Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151– 218.Google Scholar
Share D. L.1999. Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95– 129.Google Scholar
Stanovich K. E.1986. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360– 407.Google Scholar
Tan A., & Nicholson T.1997. Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 276– 288.Google Scholar
Torgesen J. K., Wagner R. K., & Rashotte C. A.1994. Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276– 286.Google Scholar
Torgesen J. K., Wagner R. K., Rashotte C. A., Rose E., Lindamood P., Conway T., et al. 1999. Preventing reading failure in children with phonological processing difficulties: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 579– 593.Google Scholar
van den Bosch K., & van Bon W. H. J., & Schreuder R.1995. Poor readers' decoding skills: Effects of training with limited exposure duration. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 110– 125.Google Scholar
van Loon-Vervoorn W. A.1985. Voorstelbaarheidswaarden van Nederlandse woorden. Lisse, Switzerland: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Vellutino F. R., Fletcher J. M., Snowling M. J., & Scanlon D. M.2004. Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2– 40.Google Scholar
Wolf M., & Bowers P. G.1999. The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415– 438.Google Scholar
Wolf M., & Bowers P. G.2000. Naming-speed processes and developmental reading disabilities: An introduction to the special issue on the double-deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 322– 324.Google Scholar
Yap R., & van der Leij A.1993. Word processing in dyslexics: An automatic decoding deficit? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 261– 279.Google Scholar