This paper examines the role of Working Memory (WM) in developmental reading problems, considering: 1) The operationalization of WM; 2) The unique contribution of WM to reading; 3) Domain-general or -specific explanations of decoding and reading comprehension deficits; and 4) The capacity of WM constructs to distinguish between reading disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It is concluded that: 1) Significant problems operationalizing working memory measures remain; 2) No clear unique role for WM is evident in longitudinal studies of reading acquisition; 3) Existing evidence concerning the domain-specificity or generality of WM problems is hard to interpret given problems in identification and sampling of poor readers and operationalization of WM constructs; 4) Further work is required to specify the nature of WM problems in samples of poor readers, as distinct from other co-occurring problems such as ADHD. Additional research is suggested to address these issues more fully.

Working Memory and Reading Difficulties: What We Know and What We Don’t Know About the Relationship

The ability to read on grade level is a fundamental skill required for children to achieve academic success. Students who are English language learners (ELLs) and/or those who have learning disabilities often find it extremely difficult to achieve at the reading expectation level. This study examines English phonemic awareness and phonic skills in four groups of kindergarten students with and without disabilities: (a) 20 high-reading-level English monolinguals, (b) 20 low-reading-level English monolinguals, (c) 20 high-reading-level English-Spanish bilinguals, and (d) 20 low-reading-level English-Spanish bilinguals. Findings indicated differences for monolingual versus bilingual speakers in their ability to identify voiced versus voiceless contrasts. It appears from these findings that an achievement gap in reading levels between monolingual and bilingual students exists even at the kindergarten grade level.

Investigation of Phonemic Awareness and Phonic Skills in Spanish-English Bilingual and English-Speaking Kindergarten Students

This study investigates the relationship between nonword repetition (NWR) and vocabulary in 2-year-olds. Questions addressed are whether (1) NWR and vocabulary are associated, (2) phonotactic probability affects NWR, and (3) there is an interaction effect between phonotactic probability and vocabulary on NWR performance. The general aim of the study is to investigate whether NWR, as a task of phonological storage, assesses the quality of phonological representations in children as young as 2 years of age. 557 Dutch 2-year-olds performed a NWR task containing items of varying phonotactic probability as well as a receptive vocabulary task. The results showed a moderate, significant correlation between NWR and vocabulary. Phonotactic probability had an effect on NWR performance. Further analyses showed that there was a significant interaction between phonotactic probability and vocabulary for part of the items. These results support previously reported effects of vocabulary and phonotactic probability on NWR in older, English-speaking children for a large sample of Dutch-speaking 2-year-olds, and provide evidence that NWR assesses the quality of phonological representations already in very young children.

/pdf/effects-of-vocabulary-and-phonotactic-probability-on-2-year-5fvuhsam1s.pdf

Effects of Vocabulary and Phonotactic Probability on 2-Year-Olds’ Nonword Repetition

We investigated phonemic competence in production in three age groups of children (7 and 8, 10 and 11, 12 and 13 years) using rhyme and phoneme monitoring. Participants were required to name target pictures silently while monitoring covert speech for the presence or absence of a rhyme or phoneme match. Performance in the verbal tasks was compared to a nonverbal control task in which participants monitored tone sequence pairs for a pattern match. Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed significant differences between the three age groups in phoneme monitoring, whereas similar differences were limited to the younger age groups in rhyme monitoring. This finding supported early and ongoing acquisition of rhyme- and later acquisition of segment-level units. In addition, the 7- and 8-year-olds were significantly slower in monitoring phonemes within consonant clusters compared to the 10- and 11-year-olds and in monitoring both singleton phonemes and phonemes within clusters compared to the 12- and 13-year-olds. Regression analysis revealed that age accounted for approximately 30% variance in the nonverbal and 60% variance in the verbal monitoring tasks. We attribute the observed differences to the emergence of cognitive processes such as segmentation skills that are critical to performing the verbal monitoring tasks.

/pdf/cross-sectional-study-of-phoneme-and-rhyme-monitoring-1itxp5g3ie.pdf

Cross-sectional study of phoneme and rhyme monitoring abilities in children between 7 and 13 years

The current study examined predictors of concurrent phonological awareness in 95 Grade 1 children and of reading achievement 5 months later. Of primary interest was whether the repetition of nonwords with less versus more common sound patterns was a better predictor of these variables. Only the repetition of nonwords low in wordlikeness predicted unique variance in concurrent phonological awareness after measures of phonological memory and vocabulary. Similarly, nonword repetition for words low in wordlikeness accounted for unique variance in later reading after measures of fall reading, phonological memory, vocabulary, and phonological awareness. A fall phonological representations factor was directly related to later reading achievement. Results are discussed within a framework for which the representation of less common sound sequences has a robust relationship to reading acquisition, and for which awareness of the phonemic structure of language may be reducible to the representation of phonological information in lexical memory.

/pdf/repetition-of-less-common-sound-patterns-a-unique-4vnm5oez1i.pdf

Repetition of Less Common Sound Patterns: A Unique Relationship to Young Children's Phonological Awareness and Word Reading

Previous research has established that the degree of ‘wordlikeness’ of nonwords affects young children's nonword repetition performance. Experiment 1 examined the possibility that output processes are responsible for the wordlikeness effect by using a probed recall procedure. Wordlikeness was defined in terms of phonological neighbourhood density, although this measure was found to be related to the traditional measure of wordlikeness involving adult ratings. A significant effect of number of phonological neighbours/wordlikeness was observed in favour of nonwords with many neighbours. In Experiments 2 and 3 the wordlikeness effect was qualified by a significant interaction with nonword repetition ability. Children with poorer repetition ability were affected by number of neighbours/wordlikeness, while children with better repetition ability were not. Children with poorer repetition ability were significantly poorer than the better repeaters with nonwords with few neighbours. The results were interpreted in terms of theories of phonological development that suggest progressive segmentation of lexical representations. In Experiment 4 the relationship of children's nonword repetition ability to phonemic discrimination ability was investigated. The results demonstrated that children with better nonword repetition ability had superior phonemic discrimination performance than children with poorer nonword repetition ability.

Nonword recall and phonemic discrimination in four- to six-year-old children

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Sheila Wright

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Nonword recall and phonemic discrimination in four- to six-year-old children