Advertisement

Do Preschool Data Predict Resistance to Treatment in Phonological Awareness, Decoding and Spelling?

  • Pekka Niemi
  • Riitta Kinnunen
  • Elisa Poskiparta
  • Marja Vauras
Part of the Neuropsychology and Cognition book series (NPCO, volume 16)

Abstract

Much hope been invested in reading interventions based on linguistic awareness as a means of alleviating children’s-at-risk potential reading and spelling problems. Indeed, training in linguistic awareness has produced good results with preschoolers not yet able to read, thus pointing towards the possibility that training has tapped a factor causally related to reading (e.g. Ball & Blachman, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Castle, Riach, & Nicholson, 1994, Korkman & Peltomaa, 1993; Kozminsky & Kozminsky, 1995; Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988; Schneider, Kuespert, Roth, Visé, & Marx, 1997; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992).

Keywords

Reading Comprehension Phonological Awareness Lexical Decision Task Learn DisabilIties Good Reader 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, L. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.J. Pearson, M. Kamil, M.R. Barr & P. Mosenthal (Eds), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, E. (1993). Phonological awareness: What’s important and to whom? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason in spelling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Castle, J.M., Riach, J., & Nicholson, T. 81994). Getting off to a better start in reading and spelling: The effects of phonemic awareness instruction within a whole language program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 350–359.Google Scholar
  6. van Dijk, T.A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies in discourse comprehension. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fawcett, A., Nicolson, R. (1994). Speed of processing, motor skill, automaticity and dyslexia. In A. Fawcett & R. Nicolson (Eds), Dyslexia in children: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 157–190). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  8. Hagtvet, B. & Palsdóttir, H. (1992). Lekmed språket. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  9. Kappers, E.J. (1997). Outpatient treatment of dyslexia through the stimulation of the cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 100–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kinnunen, R., Vauras, M., & Niemi, P. (1998). Comprehension monitoring in beginning readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Korkman, M., & Peltomaa, A. (1993). Preventive treatment of dyslexia by a preschool training program for children with language impairments. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kozminsky, L., & Kozminsky, E. (1995). The effects of early phonological awareness training on reading success. Learning and Instruction, 5, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Lundberg, I. (1988). Preschool prevention of reading failure: Does training in phonological awareness work? In R. Masland & M. Masland (Eds), Prevention of reading failure (pp. 163–176). Parkton, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen O-P. (1988). Effects of extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lyytinen, H. (1995). Comorbidity and developmental neurocognitive disorders. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11,269–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meece, J.L. & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 582–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Niemi, P., Poskiparta, E., Vauras, M., & Mäki, H. (1998). Reading and writing difficulties do not always occur as the researcher expects. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39, 159–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olofsson, Å. (1993). The relevance of phonological awareness in learning to read: Scandinavian longitudinal and quasi-experimental studies. In R.M. Joshi, & C.K. Leong (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 185–198). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Olson, R., Wise, B., Ring, J., & Johnson, M. (1997). Computer-based remedial teaching in phoneme awareness and phonological decoding: Effects on the posttraining development of word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Poskiparta, E., Niemi, P., & Vauras, M. (1998). Who benefits from training in linguistic awareness and what components of it show training effects? (submitted, a)Google Scholar
  22. Poskiparta, E., Vauras, M., & Niemi, P. (1998). Promting word recognition, spelling and reading comprehension skills in a computer-based training program in grade 2. In P. Reitsma & L.Verhoeven (Eds), Problems and interventions in literacy development. Amsterdam: Vrije Universitet. (in press, b).Google Scholar
  23. Salonen, P., Lepola, J., & Niemi, P. (1998). The development of first-graders’ reading skill as a function of pre-school motivational orientation and phonemic awareness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schneider, W., Ennemoser, M., Roth, E., & Kuespert, P. (1998). Kindergarten prevention of dyslexia: Does training in phonological awareness work for everybody? (submitted)Google Scholar
  25. Schneider, W., Kuespert, P., Roth, E., Visé, E., & Marx, H. (1997). Short- and long-term effects of training phonological awareness in kindergarten: Evidence from two German studies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 311–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Statistica(1995). Cluster analysis. Statistica for Windows (pp. 3165–3195), Vol. III. (2nd edition). Tulsa: Statsoft, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Torgesen, J., Morgan, S., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in Kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 364–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276–286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Torgesen, J., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 1–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tornéus, M., Hedström, G-B., & Lundberg, I. (1991). Löytöretki kieleen. Leikkejä ja harjoituksia. Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus.Google Scholar
  32. Vauras, M. (1998). Resistance to treatment — working with motivationally highly vulnerable students with learning problems, (submitted)Google Scholar
  33. Yap, R. & van der Leij, A. (1994). Automaticity deficits in word reading. In A. Fawcett & R. Nicolson (Eds), Dyslexia in children: Multidisplinary perspectives (77–106). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pekka Niemi
    • 1
  • Riitta Kinnunen
    • 1
  • Elisa Poskiparta
    • 1
  • Marja Vauras
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations