By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

Improving early language and literacy skills: differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Improving early language and literacy skills : differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention. / Bowyer-Crane, Claudine Anne; Snowling, Margaret J.; Duff, Fiona J.; Fieldsend, Elizabeth; Carroll, Julia M.; Miles, Jeremy; Gotz, Kristina; Hulme, Charles.

In: Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, Vol. 49, No. 4, 04.2008, p. 422-432.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Bowyer-Crane, CA, Snowling, MJ, Duff, FJ, Fieldsend, E, Carroll, JM, Miles, J, Gotz, K & Hulme, C 2008, 'Improving early language and literacy skills: differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention', Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 422-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01849.x

APA

Bowyer-Crane, C. A., Snowling, M. J., Duff, F. J., Fieldsend, E., Carroll, J. M., Miles, J., ... Hulme, C. (2008). Improving early language and literacy skills: differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 49(4), 422-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01849.x

Vancouver

Bowyer-Crane CA, Snowling MJ, Duff FJ, Fieldsend E, Carroll JM, Miles J et al. Improving early language and literacy skills: differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry. 2008 Apr;49(4):422-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01849.x

Author

Bowyer-Crane, Claudine Anne ; Snowling, Margaret J. ; Duff, Fiona J. ; Fieldsend, Elizabeth ; Carroll, Julia M. ; Miles, Jeremy ; Gotz, Kristina ; Hulme, Charles. / Improving early language and literacy skills : differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention. In: Journal of child psychology and psychiatry. 2008 ; Vol. 49, No. 4. pp. 422-432.

Bibtex - Download

@article{5532575343014876b2078e84dbf000ee,
title = "Improving early language and literacy skills: differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention",
abstract = "Background This study compares the efficacy of two school-based intervention programmes (Phonology with Reading (P + R) and Oral Language (OL)) for children with poor oral language at school entry. Methods Following screening of 960 children, 152 children (mean age 4;09) were selected from 19 schools on the basis of poor vocabulary and verbal reasoning skills and randomly allocated to either the P + R programme or the OL programme. Both groups of children received 20 weeks of daily intervention alternating between small group and individual sessions, delivered by trained teaching assistants. Children in the P + R group received training in letter-sound knowledge, phonological awareness and book level reading skills. Children in the OL group received instruction in vocabulary, comprehension, inference generation and narrative skills. The children's progress was monitored at four time points: pre-, mid- and post-intervention, and after a 5-month delay, using measures of literacy, language and phonological awareness. Results The data are clustered (children within schools) and robust confidence intervals are reported. At the end of the 20-week intervention programme, children in the P + R group showed an advantage over the OL group on literacy and phonological measures, while children in the OL group showed an advantage over the P + R group on measures of vocabulary and grammatical skills. These gains were maintained over a 5-month period. Conclusions Intervention programmes designed to develop oral language skills can be delivered successfully by trained teaching assistants to children at school entry. Training using P + R fostered decoding ability whereas the OL programme improved vocabulary and grammatical skills that are foundations for reading comprehension. However, at the end of the intervention, more than 50{\%} of at-risk children remain in need of literacy support.",
keywords = "early intervention, oral language, phonological awareness, early literacy, RCT, AWARENESS INTERVENTION, YOUNG-CHILDREN, INSTRUCTION, IMPAIRMENT, EFFICACY, METAANALYSIS, VOCABULARY, DYSLEXIA, FAILURE, PROGRAM",
author = "Bowyer-Crane, {Claudine Anne} and Snowling, {Margaret J.} and Duff, {Fiona J.} and Elizabeth Fieldsend and Carroll, {Julia M.} and Jeremy Miles and Kristina Gotz and Charles Hulme",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01849.x",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "422--432",
journal = "Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry",
issn = "0021-9630",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving early language and literacy skills

T2 - differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention

AU - Bowyer-Crane, Claudine Anne

AU - Snowling, Margaret J.

AU - Duff, Fiona J.

AU - Fieldsend, Elizabeth

AU - Carroll, Julia M.

AU - Miles, Jeremy

AU - Gotz, Kristina

AU - Hulme, Charles

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - Background This study compares the efficacy of two school-based intervention programmes (Phonology with Reading (P + R) and Oral Language (OL)) for children with poor oral language at school entry. Methods Following screening of 960 children, 152 children (mean age 4;09) were selected from 19 schools on the basis of poor vocabulary and verbal reasoning skills and randomly allocated to either the P + R programme or the OL programme. Both groups of children received 20 weeks of daily intervention alternating between small group and individual sessions, delivered by trained teaching assistants. Children in the P + R group received training in letter-sound knowledge, phonological awareness and book level reading skills. Children in the OL group received instruction in vocabulary, comprehension, inference generation and narrative skills. The children's progress was monitored at four time points: pre-, mid- and post-intervention, and after a 5-month delay, using measures of literacy, language and phonological awareness. Results The data are clustered (children within schools) and robust confidence intervals are reported. At the end of the 20-week intervention programme, children in the P + R group showed an advantage over the OL group on literacy and phonological measures, while children in the OL group showed an advantage over the P + R group on measures of vocabulary and grammatical skills. These gains were maintained over a 5-month period. Conclusions Intervention programmes designed to develop oral language skills can be delivered successfully by trained teaching assistants to children at school entry. Training using P + R fostered decoding ability whereas the OL programme improved vocabulary and grammatical skills that are foundations for reading comprehension. However, at the end of the intervention, more than 50% of at-risk children remain in need of literacy support.

AB - Background This study compares the efficacy of two school-based intervention programmes (Phonology with Reading (P + R) and Oral Language (OL)) for children with poor oral language at school entry. Methods Following screening of 960 children, 152 children (mean age 4;09) were selected from 19 schools on the basis of poor vocabulary and verbal reasoning skills and randomly allocated to either the P + R programme or the OL programme. Both groups of children received 20 weeks of daily intervention alternating between small group and individual sessions, delivered by trained teaching assistants. Children in the P + R group received training in letter-sound knowledge, phonological awareness and book level reading skills. Children in the OL group received instruction in vocabulary, comprehension, inference generation and narrative skills. The children's progress was monitored at four time points: pre-, mid- and post-intervention, and after a 5-month delay, using measures of literacy, language and phonological awareness. Results The data are clustered (children within schools) and robust confidence intervals are reported. At the end of the 20-week intervention programme, children in the P + R group showed an advantage over the OL group on literacy and phonological measures, while children in the OL group showed an advantage over the P + R group on measures of vocabulary and grammatical skills. These gains were maintained over a 5-month period. Conclusions Intervention programmes designed to develop oral language skills can be delivered successfully by trained teaching assistants to children at school entry. Training using P + R fostered decoding ability whereas the OL programme improved vocabulary and grammatical skills that are foundations for reading comprehension. However, at the end of the intervention, more than 50% of at-risk children remain in need of literacy support.

KW - early intervention

KW - oral language

KW - phonological awareness

KW - early literacy

KW - RCT

KW - AWARENESS INTERVENTION

KW - YOUNG-CHILDREN

KW - INSTRUCTION

KW - IMPAIRMENT

KW - EFFICACY

KW - METAANALYSIS

KW - VOCABULARY

KW - DYSLEXIA

KW - FAILURE

KW - PROGRAM

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=41149115190&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01849.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01849.x

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 422

EP - 432

JO - Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry

JF - Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry

SN - 0021-9630

IS - 4

ER -