Search

Theories of reading development generally agree that, in addition to phonological decoding, some kind of orthographic processing skill underlies the ability to learn to read words. However, there is a lack of clarity as to which aspect(s) of orthographic processing are key in reading development. We test here whether this is orthographic knowledge and/or orthographic learning. Whereas orthographic knowledge has been argued to reflect a child's existing store of orthographic representations, orthographic learning is concerned with the ability to form these representations. In a longitudinal study of second- and third-grade students, we evaluate the relations between these two aspects of orthographic processing and word-reading outcomes. The results of our analyses show that variance captured by orthographic knowledge overlaps with that of word reading, to the point that they form a single latent word-reading factor. In contrast, orthographic learning is distinctive from this factor. Further, structural equation modeling demonstrates that early orthographic learning was related to gains in word reading skills. We discuss the implications of these findings for theories of word-reading development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationships among first language (L1) and second language (L2) phonological awareness and reading skills were examined in English L2 learners with a variety of L1s, specifically Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese (maximum N = 252). Longitudinal and concurrent relations between word reading and subcomponents of phonological awareness (i.e., syllable, onset-rime, phoneme, and, where applicable, tone awareness) were examined in kindergarten and first and second grades. The relationships between reading and specific subcomponents of phonological awareness were associated with the orthography being read, English or the L1. Phonological awareness subcomponents related to English reading were generally similar for the three English L2 groups, despite differences in the orthographies of learners’ native language. The findings support the psycholinguistic grain size theory with regard to links between phonological sensitivity and the sound–symbol correspondences used to read the specific languages. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]