The Language, Phonology and Reading Connection: Implications for Teaching Practice Dr Valerie Muter Great Ormond St Hospital for Children May 2009

The Language, Phonology- Reading Connection Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, Rimes, Vocabulary & Grammatical Skills – Evidence from a Longitudinal Study. Dev. Psych. 5, Implications for screening, prevention, assessment & teaching

The Phonology-Reading Connection Phonological Awareness - sensitivity to speech sound structure of words Measuring phonological awareness - blending sounds, rhyming, segmenting syllables and phonemes, manipulating phonemes Phonological awareness tasks are stable & robust predictors of later reading skill

The Vocabulary-Phonology- Reading Connection Segmentation & rhyming are separate abilities in phonological domain Segmentation skills are better predictors of early reading than rhyming Rhyming ability may influence later stages of learning to read and the use of orthographic analogies - f-ight, l-ight Phonological awareness is driven by early vocabulary growth

Age 4/5Age 6 Vocabulary Rhyming Segmentation Reading Vocabulary, Phonology and Reading

Letter Knowledge and Reading Ease of learning the individual letters is strongest single predictor of early reading Letter knowledge acquisition interacts with segmentation skill to promote reading - “phonological linkage” Acquiring the Alphabetic Principle requires segmentation skill, knowledge of the alphabet and “linkage”

Age 4/5Age 6 Letter Knowledge Segmentation Letter Knowledge X Segmentation Reading/Decoding Acquiring the Alphabetic Principle

Phonology-Reading Connection- A Case Study N. participated in a longitudinal study of reading - seen at ages 4, 5, 6 & 10y At 4, his scores on phonological & letter knowledge tests were same as his peers At 5: Phoneme Deletion 1/10 (3), Letter Knowledge 5/26 (12) At 6: Phoneme Deletion 0/10 (5), Letter Knowledge 5/26 (19)

N. at Age 10

Screening for Reading Failure What is the best way to screen for early reading failure? Important to highlight role of teacher in early identification of reading failure Combining teacher input with known predictor measures of early reading skill to improve screening reliability

Teachers and Early Screening Advantages of involving teachers Problems of subjectivity and “global impressions” Improving reliability with skill based teacher rating scales Flynn (2000) - using rating scales can increase accuracy of prediction by 34%

Standardised Measures, Prediction & Screening Two phonological segmentation tests, and letter knowledge from PAT given at age 5 will predict with 90% accuracy children reading skills one year later. Identifying at risk children can result in prevention (or reduction) of reading failure & associated behavioural problems

Preventing Reading Failure Screening allows “targeting” of children who have poor phonological skills Borderline children may be monitored and kept on “review” Children with significant phonological deficits benefit from receiving explicit phonological training Note: not all children need explicit phonological training

Assessing Poor Readers Phonology-reading connection has influenced assessment practice Tests of phonological processing are now readily available e.g. CTOPP, PhAB Tests of nonword reading (eg TOWRE) allow assessment of decoding skills

Teaching Poor Readers Phonological awareness training is important in literacy support teaching Need to “link” phonological skill to print - phonological training in conjunction with letter acquisition Explicit training in phoneme- grapheme relations Synthetic vs analytic phonics?

Phonology, Grammar and Reading Phoneme awareness, but not grammatical awareness, predicts reading accuracy skill during the first two years of learning to read Grammatical awareness, but not phoneme awareness, predicts reading comprehension ability at age 6

Age 4/5 Age 6 Phoneme Awareness Phoneme Awareness Reading Accuracy Reading Accuracy Grammatical Awareness Reading Accuracy Grammatical Awareness Reading Comprehension

Reading, Phonology & Language in High-Risk Poor Readers Snowling, M., Muter, V. & Carroll, J. (2007), Children at Family Risk of Dyslexia: A Follow-Up in Early Adolescence, JCPP, 48, Muter, V. & Snowling, M. (2009). Children at Familial Risk of Dyslexia: Implications from an At-risk Study, CAMH, 14, 37-41

High risk prospective study Snowling & Frith Began in 1992 Recruited 74 children at genetic risk of dyslexia before their 4th birthday 37 controls of similar SES 4 Phases of study - 3y9m, 6y, 8y, 12-13y Children given wide range of cognitive, inc. language and educational, measures.

Incidence of Reading Problems In general population, significant reading underachievement has incidence of 5-10% depending on age and cut-off points. Phase 2 - half the children in at-risk group scored 1SD below the control mean in reading. Phase % in at-risk group scored 1SD below control mean Phase 4 -Prevalence rate was 42%.

Findings from Phases 1 and 2 At age 3y9m, the children in at-risk sample scored significantly below controls on tests of vocabulary, expressive language & grammar At age 6y, children in the at-risk group still mildly delayed in language skills At age 6y, the best predictor of early reading progress was letter knowledge At age 6y, the children in the at-risk group had difficulty with phonological tasks

Practical Implications from Phases 1 and 2 Reading problems run in families – do other family members have literacy problems? Children with language delay are at risk of literacy problems - need close monitoring and some may need speech therapy Phonological and letter knowledge tasks given at age 5 predict later reading skill - used for screening & early identification »Parents & nursery teachers can help to develop literacy precursors

Findings from Phase 3 Family risk is continuous - reading unimpaired children in at-risk group showed weaknesses in spelling, nonword reading, STVM & phonology At-risk unimpaired readers more verbally able than at-risk impaired readers - verbal strength is as a compensatory/protective factor Expression of difficulty depends on interplay between severity of phonological deficit & availability of compensatory resources

Findings from Phase 4 At-risk poor readers continued to score below at-risk unimpaired readers on literacy, verbal and phonological tasks At-risk unimpaired readers nonetheless showed problems in reading fluency and spelling. Stability noted in performance on literacy tasks between Phases 3 & 4 70% of at-risk poor readers showed co-occurring problems in attention, nonverbal skill, language or maths

Dyslexia and Specific Language Impairment cognitive behavioural phonological difficulties short term verbal memory difficulties reading & spelling difficulties vocabulary & grammar difficulties dyslexiaSLI

Practical Implications – Phases 3 & 4 - Assessment Literacy assessment is multi- dimensional - single word reading, prose reading, comprehension, phonic decoding, speed & fluency and spelling Assess phonological deficit and its severity through tests of phonological processing & STVM, & capacity for compensation through language tasks Assess for co-occurring difficulties - attention, NVLD, arithmetic, SLI

Practical Implications Phases 3 & 4 - Management Reading skills change little after 8y - for maximum effectiveness, intervention needs to be delivered shortly after school entry Literacy programmes need to target deficient phonological and decoding skills Co-occurring difficulties may need to be addressed in their own right – language programs for children with additional SLI –Verbally able poor readers can be taught to use semantic strategies

The Rose Report 2009 Linking Language & Literacy 1 of 6 core areas of primary curriculum is ‘understanding, communication & languages’ Highlights interconnection of these important processes Research strongly supports the view that literacy is a skill embedded in language & communication Assessment and teaching needs to recognise & promote this important connection