LEARNING TO READ AT GRADE1: COGNITIVE AND MOTIVATIONAL PREDICTORS

Abstract

Learning to read received much attention and the learning to decode and identify words processes are well established. However, much less is known regarding the early development of the reading comprehension abilities. Firstly and according to the simple view of reading, reading comprehension results from reading acquisition and oral language development. However, oral language is rarely extensively assessed and it remains unclear how the complex skills involved in oral language are themselves organized and how their contribute to reading comprehension in the early steps of reading acquisition (Bianco et al. 2012). Secondly, some researchers emphasize the importance to take into account non cognitive factors such as motivation and self-efficacy that could impact the dynamic of learning (Guthrie, Laurel, Hoa, Wigfield et al., 2007; Retelsdorf, Köller & Möller, 2014). The present study is designed to address the two above issues. A longitudinal design was implemented to assess cognitive and motivational predictors of literacy development; intrinsic and identified aspects of motivation were considered.

Full text

► Latent factors analysis ► Latent factors analysis
Learning to read received much attention and the learning to decode and identify words processes are well established. However, much less is known regarding the
early development of the reading comprehension abilities. Firstly and according to the simple view of reading, reading comprehension results from reading
acquisition and oral language development. However, oral language is rarely extensively assessed and it remains unclear how the complex skills involved in oral
language are themselves organized and how their contribute to reading comprehension in the early steps of reading acquisition (Bianco et al. 2012).
Secondly, some researchers emphasize the importance to take into account non cognitive factors such as motivation and self-efficacy that could impact the dynamic
of learning (Guthrie, Laurel, Hoa, Wigfield et al., 2007; Retelsdorf, Köller & Möller, 2014).
The present study is designed to address the two above issues. A longitudinal design was implemented to assess cognitive and motivational predictors of literacy
development; intrinsic and identified aspects of motivation were considered.
LEARNING TO READ AT GRADE1: COGNITIVE AND MOTIVATIONAL PREDICTORS
Maryse Bianco, Laurent Lima, Jessica Massonnié & Pascal Bressoux
Université Grenoble- Alpes, Laboratoire des sciences de l’éducation, BP 47, 38040 Grenoble cedex 9
Conclusion Conclusion
Results Results
Purpose and Research Questions Purpose and Research Questions
Method Method
556 grade 1 normally developing French children, 35 classrooms and 23 schools
Middle socio-economic background
SSSR , Porto, July 2016
►Assessments
Maryse.bianco@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
► Structural path modeling: best fitting model ► Structural path modeling: best fitting model
We found no evidence of an influence of motivation to read expressed by first graders and their reading acquisition. The results bring converging evidence regarding what is
known about early literacy development but they also extend them showing that:
Oral comprehension must be distinguished from oral language skills. When sentence and text comprehension are controlled for, vocabulary does not appear as a unique
predictor of early reading performance.
Oral language and comprehension skills do not seem to be influenced by schooling at first grade which raises an important issue to the educational system.
Cognitive skills oral language Code skills Reading Reading
Comprehension
Conative factors /
Attitude toward reading
T1
Prestest
Grade 1
(Autumn 2014)
Non verbal reasoning
(Matrix
WIPPSI)
Rapid naming
(letters,
digits)
Vocabulary
(breadth
/depth)
Text Comprehension
(narrative /
informative)
Sentence
comprehension
Phonological
awareness
Alphabetic knowledge
(reading
and writing
letters)
Word decoding
Pseudo
-word decoding
Motivation (intrinsic,
identified)
Self
-efficacy
T2
Post
-test (june 2015)
Vocabulary
(breadth)
Text Comprehension
(narrative /
informative)
Sentence
comprehension
Phonological
awareness
Alphabetic knowledge
Word decoding
Pseudo
-word decoding
Text Reading fluency
Narrative
comprehension
Motivation
Self
-efficacy
T1 T2
RMSEA: .064
CFI: .912
TLI: .900
SRMR: .065
R²: .737
Exploratory factor analysis revealed four latent factors both at T1 and T2:
- Code skills: letter knowledge (reading and writing) and alphanumeric rapid naming
- Oral language skills: phonological awareness, vocabulary breath, sentence comprehension
- Oral comprehension: vocabulary depth, text comprehension
- Motivation: intrinsic – identified
Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed these four latent factors:
T1: RMSEA: .064; CFI: .912; TLI: .900; SRMR: .065
T2: RMSEA: .052; CFI: .960; TLI: .950; SRMR: .056
► Stepwise regression on T1 and T2 predictors:
Which unique predictors explain reading comprehension
at the end of grade 1?
► Stepwise regression on T1 and T2 predictors:
Which unique predictors explain reading comprehension
at the end of grade 1?
Motivation is not a significant predictor of reading acquisition at Grade 1
Albeit related, oral language skills and oral comprehension skills are distinct factors in early language development
T1 oral language skills fully predict T2 oral skills and strongly predict reading comprehension one year later
- T1 and T2 Vocabulary (breath and depth) does not explain a unique
variance
- T2 Text reading fluency (TRF) does not predict reading
comprehension.
- Each other predictor explains a unique variance in reading
comprehension performance
ΔR² T1 ΔR² T2
Alphabetic
skills 294 ***
Rapid
Naming .073 ***
Phonological
Awareness .112 *** .017 ***
Vocabulary
(breath) .015 .001
Sentence
Comprehension
.027 *** .004 *
Text
Comprehension .031 *** .005 **
Vocabulary
(depth) .010
Pseudo
-Word Fluency .090 ***
Word
Fluency .009 **
TRF
.000