Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Sight Word Reading in Prereaders: Use of Logographic vs. Alphabetic Access Routes

View through CrossRef
In a previous study, Ehri and Wilce (1985) found that prereaders who had not mastered letters were better at forming logographic access routes than letter-sound access routes into memory to read words by sight. Of interest here was whether prereaders who knew all their letters would reveal the same pattern. Preschoolers and kindergartners who could read few if any words out of context but who knew letters were taught to read either six simplified phonetic spellings whose letters corresponded to sounds (e.g., JRF for “giraffe”), or six logographic spellings whose letters were non-phonetic but were more visually distinctive (e.g., JRF for “candy”). Word reading practice included either naming or counting letters in phonetic spellings or counting letters in visual spellings. Letter naming was expected to draw prereaders' attention to phonetic cues. Letter counting was the control. Results revealed that phonetic spellings were learned better than visual spellings regardless of whether letters were named or counted. We conclude that prereaders become capable of forming letter-sound access routes when they learn letters well enough to take advantage of the phonetic cues they provide.
Title: Sight Word Reading in Prereaders: Use of Logographic vs. Alphabetic Access Routes
Description:
In a previous study, Ehri and Wilce (1985) found that prereaders who had not mastered letters were better at forming logographic access routes than letter-sound access routes into memory to read words by sight.
Of interest here was whether prereaders who knew all their letters would reveal the same pattern.
Preschoolers and kindergartners who could read few if any words out of context but who knew letters were taught to read either six simplified phonetic spellings whose letters corresponded to sounds (e.
g.
, JRF for “giraffe”), or six logographic spellings whose letters were non-phonetic but were more visually distinctive (e.
g.
, JRF for “candy”).
Word reading practice included either naming or counting letters in phonetic spellings or counting letters in visual spellings.
Letter naming was expected to draw prereaders' attention to phonetic cues.
Letter counting was the control.
Results revealed that phonetic spellings were learned better than visual spellings regardless of whether letters were named or counted.
We conclude that prereaders become capable of forming letter-sound access routes when they learn letters well enough to take advantage of the phonetic cues they provide.

Related Results

Incidental Collocation Learning from Different Modes of Input and Factors That Affect Learning
Incidental Collocation Learning from Different Modes of Input and Factors That Affect Learning
Collocations, i.e., words that habitually co-occur in texts (e.g., strong coffee, heavy smoker), are ubiquitous in language and thus crucial for second/foreign language (L2) learne...
Sexual Harassment Survivor's Self Disclosure in Twitter
Sexual Harassment Survivor's Self Disclosure in Twitter
Purpose: Word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word Purpose : The purpose of this qualitative study is to investigate how s...
Innoverende toegangsroetes in selfoonwoordeboeke
Innoverende toegangsroetes in selfoonwoordeboeke
Innovative Access Structures in Mobile Dictionaries. The access structure of any dictionary is an important one. It provides the user with a means to obtain the required data or to...

Back to Top