Coming soon: Guest academic bloggers share their research

Over the last couple of months I have been in touch with a number of researchers in the UK, whose research focuses on children’s and adolescents’ learning and development.   I am very pleased that many of these researchers will be providing guest posts within this blog to share their research; these will be uploaded throughout 2015.   At present, some of the guest bloggers and titles of posts include:

Working memory in the classroom. Dr Helen St.Clair-Thompson, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle

How much carrot and how much stick: What messages do teachers use prior to high-stakes exams and does it have any influence on their students? Professor Dave Putwain, Professor, School of Education, Edge Hill University. 

How to develop children’s emotion understanding.  Dr Ana Aznar, Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Dr Harriet Tenenbaum, Reader, School of Psychology, University of Surrey.

Using computerised assessments in schools: Advantages and disadvantages. Dr Jo Horne, Lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of Hull.

Network Autism – Autism and Technology. Dr Sue Fletcher-Watson, Chancellor’s Fellow, The Patrick Wild Centre, University of Edinburgh.

Can a smart phone game really make kids more active at school? Professor Judy Robertson, Chair in Digital Learning, School of Education, University of Edinburgh

We hope that contributions from these areas will allow those working within primary and secondary education settings to gain greater insight into current research, from those academics directly conducting research in the field.   By sharing research through this outlet, we also hope primary and secondary school teachers will feel more confident about using research to inform their practices. 

These posts will be shared throughout the year, with more guest bloggers still to come …..

Does it matter what children and adolescents read? Different text types and the relationship with reading outcomes

There is a considerable amount of research to demonstrate that children and adolescents who engage more often in reading activities have better literacy skills (Anderson, Wilson & Fielding, 1988; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991; Leppanen, Aunola & Nurmi, 2005; Mol & Bus, 2011).  In addition, frequency of reading has been associated with the development of other abilities such as general knowledge, oral language, spelling, vocabulary and verbal fluency (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991; Echols, West, Stanovich & Zehr, 1996; Senechal & Cornell, 1993; Senechal, LaFevre, Hudson & Lawson, 1996).  Therefore encouraging children to read is advantageous to both reading and language outcomes.

That said, some types of reading activities have been more consistently associated with reading skill than others.  For example, Anderson et al. (1988) reported that time spent reading books was more strongly associated with reading comprehension and reading speed than other text types (e.g., comics, newspapers and magazines).  Similarly, Spear-Swerling, Brucker and Alfano (2010) found that fiction book reading was more closely associated with various reading-related skills (i.e., word reading, oral comprehension, vocabulary and reading comprehension) compared to other reading habits. 

Therefore book reading, but particularly fiction book reading, does appear to be a stronger correlate with reading outcomes compared to shorter paper based texts.  It is possible that the composition and extended nature of these text types, in addition to the wider and more varied vocabulary that books introduce children and adolescents to, means that this type of reading activity is more closely associated with positive reading outcomes.

However, over the last decade or so, there has been a steep and steady increase in the diversity of text types available to children and adolescents, more specifically, an increase in the availability and ubiquity of digital texts (e.g., text messages, emails, websites, ebooks, blogs, facebook, etc).  These text types are as varied (or arguably more varied) than their paper based equivalents and children and adolescents now have opportunities to engage in a much wider range of reading activities than ever before.  Large scale research by Clark (2011) shows that digital texts are among children’s and adolescents’ most popular reading activities, highlighting a need to understand more about the relationship between these different reading activities and reading outcomes.

In a recent research study (McGeown et al., 2015), we examined the extent to which adolescents’ reported time spent engaging with different text types: fiction book reading, factual book reading, school book reading, short traditional texts (comprising of: magazine, comic, newspaper, song lyrics, instructions/manual, poetry) and short digital texts (comprising of: text messages/email, social networking site, computer game, factual website, Twitter) predicted a number of reading outcomes (word reading, reading comprehension, reading summarisation skills and reading fluency).

We found that fiction book reading was the only consistent positive predictor of all reading outcomes (even after controlling for other variables).  In additional statistical analyses (not included in the paper), we examined the relationship between each of the text types in turn.  As expected, fiction book reading was the most consistent and strongest correlate with all reading outcomes.  The second most consistent and strongest correlate was time reported using Twitter; this statistically inversely related with most reading outcomes (i.e., greater use of Twitter was associated with poorer reading scores).

However, we need to consider that the association between reading skills and choice of reading material is likely to be reciprocal -although different text types may differ in their ability to develop reading skills, children and adolescents’ choice of text types is also likely to be influenced by their reading skills; students with better reading skills may be more likely to seek out more difficult texts (e.g. books), thereby further developing their reading skills.  That said, the research to date suggests that encouraging children and adolescents to spend more time reading books (but particularly fiction books) is the safest advice to promote reading development.

 

 

References

Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G.  (1988). Growth in reading and how

children spend their time outside of school.  Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285-303. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.23.3.2

Clark, C., (2011).  Setting the Baseline.  The National Literacy Trust’s first annual survey

into young people’s reading – 2010.  National Literacy Trust.

Coiro, J., & Dobler, E.  (2007).  Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used

by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet.  Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214-257. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E.  (1991).  Tracking the unique effects of print

exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 264-274. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.264

Echols, L. D., West, R. F., Stanovich, K. E., & Zehr, K. S.  (1996).  Using children’s literacy activities to

predict growth in verbal cognitive skills: A longitudinal investigation.  Journal of Educational

Psychology, 88, 296-304. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.296

Leppanen, U., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J-E.  (2005).  Beginning readers’ reading performance

and reading habits.  Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 383-399. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00281.x

Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G.  (2011).  To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure

from infancy to early adulthood.  Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267-296.  doi:
10.1037/a0021890

McGeown, S. P., Duncan, L. G., Griffiths, Y., & Stothard, S. E.  (2015). Exploring the relationship

between adolescents’ reading skills, reading motivation and reading habits.  Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. doi: 10.1007/s11145-014-9537-9

Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., DeLaney, C. J., Walker, N. T., Seunarinesingh, K., Mogge, S.,

Headley, K. N., Ridgeway, V., Peck, S., Hunt, R., & Dunston, P. J.  (2007).  Assessing adolescents’ motivation to reading.  Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50, 378-396. doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.5.5

Senechal, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993).  Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. 

Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 360-364.

Senechal, M., LeFevre, J-A., Hudson, E., & Lawson, E. P. (1996).  Knowledge of storybooks as a

predictor of young children’s vocabulary.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 520-536.

doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.520

Teachers deserve better

I was at a conference quite recently and attended a very engaging talk by an individual who was promoting a set of games and activities for schools (to purchase) which aimed to develop and support primary school children’s creativity.  I was thoroughly enjoying the session, the resources looked excellent and I must admit, if I were a teacher I probably would have purchased them.  However, my enthusiasm was quickly crushed when the research evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of this resource was presented.  Firstly, the audience (primarily teachers) were presented with an image of the brain and told that these activities would improve “connections within the brain”.  An image of the brain appeared on the screen and the audience were given an (incorrect) account of how children’s brain’s work and how these activities would improve brain connectivity.  I am not a neuroscientist, but I know enough about brain structure and function to know that the information presented had very little accurate content to it.  In addition, in no way could the claims being made about significant impact of the activities on children’s brains be supported by research evidence, because there was none.  Following this, a research study (carried out by the speaker and her team) was presented, which showed that children had higher levels of creativity (something which is very difficult to define, let alone measure) when they played with this game than when they did not.  The research design was incredibly poor and certainly wouldn’t have met criteria necessary for a peer review academic publication. 

Now this resource may be excellent at encouraging creative thinking and play among children, but I was so put off by the “evidence” presented, that my opinion of it completely changed.  What’s more, I couldn’t believe that teachers were being allowed to be presented with such inaccurate information and weak research evidence.  I naively thought that anyone providing advice to teachers would be well-informed on the topic they were presenting.

This blog is simply an appeal - firstly, to those advising teachers on matters concerning children’s learning. Ensure you are well informed; the teaching community deserve honesty and accurate information. If research evidence does not exist, be clear about this.  If there is research evidence, provide teachers with an unbiased account of it so that they can make their own decisions about what is likely to work best for their pupils. 

Secondly, teachers, please demand more from those presenting you with information.  If you are uncertain about the information presented to you or the quality of evidence presented, ask for more information.  Teachers, you deserve better – just ask.  

A phonics focused approach to teach reading: Equally beneficial for all?

In the UK at present, a synthetic phonics approach to reading instruction is used widely (see earlier blog for a description of this method).  This is a phonics focused approach to teach reading, with little teaching of other word recognition strategies (e.g., flashcards to teach whole words, recognising words in books using picture and context cues etc).  An alternative mixed method approach, which I refer to as an eclectic approach within my research, often includes phonics teaching, but the emphasis on phonics is less and it is taught alongside other word reading strategies.

I have carried out research into phonics teaching (and learning) for 10 years now and believe there is strong research evidence to suggest that a phonics focused synthetic phonics method to teach reading is effective.  However, I don’t believe it is equally beneficial for all children.  For example, I believe that a synthetic phonics approach will most benefit those children who start school with weak pre-reading skills, that is, children with little-to-no knowledge of letter-sounds, letter-names or words, and with poor language skills.  That is not to say that this approach is not effective for the majority of children, but rather the benefits are particularly marked for children starting school with this weaker reading/language profile.

In two longitudinal studies which my colleagues and I have carried out, children taught by an eclectic (mixed method) approach were compared with children taught by a synthetic phonics approach (Study 1 - McGeown, Johnston & Medford, 2012) or children taught by a synthetic phonics approach were studied only (Study 2 - McGeown & Medford, 2014).  In the first study, children taught to read by a synthetic phonics approach were less reliant on their language skills for reading (i.e., their vocabulary knowledge was a weaker predictor of their later word reading success) and their pre-reading skills were also a weaker predictor of their later reading success.  In the second study, with a larger sample of children studied over a longer period of time, children again were relying less on their language skills to read and more on a different cognitive skill (short-term memory).

These results were in line with our initial predictions.  After observing children learning to read in the eclectic group, where whole word learning (flashcards) and big book/story time activities were a considerable part of their reading instruction, it was clear that those children with superior language skills and knowledge of letter-sounds/names were better able to learn the words taught through flashcards and were better able to use context cues within stories to learn words. 

On the other hand, observing children learning by a synthetic phonics approach, where children synthesise sequences of letter-sound correspondences to read words (e.g., c-a-p, c-a-m-p, c-r-a-m-p) led to a reliance on their short term memory, as they had to retain the sequences of letter-sounds to be blended together.  Language skills were a far less important predictor of their reading success. 

Both studies provide insight into the influence of instructional approach on children’s initial reading development and the skills children rely upon as they learn to read.  On the basis of this research, I believe that for children with weaker language skills and weaker reading readiness skills (i.e., poorer letter-sound knowledge), a synthetic phonics approach is particularly important. 

 

 

 

References:

McGeown, S. P., & Medford, E. (2014).  Using method of instruction to predict the skills supporting initial reading development: insight from a synthetic phonics approach.  Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 591-608. DOI 10.1007/s11145-013-9460-5

McGeown, S. P., Johnston, R. S., & Medford, E. (2012).  Reading instruction affects the cognitive skills supporting early reading development. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 360-364. 

 

Digital books: Can we really assess effectiveness on language and literacy outcomes?

There are an increasing number of studies which have examined specific design features of digital books and their effectiveness on reading outcomes.  Digital books provide opportunities to introduce a number of different additional features, for example: integration of a computer tutor/assistant to provide feedback (Kegel & Bus, 2012) or to pose comprehension questions (Smeets & Bus, 2012), easy access to a digital dictionary (Korat & Shamir, 2008), greater interaction via hotspots aimed at increasing story understanding (Korat & Shamir, 2008), additional games to support and develop language and literacy skills (Segers & Verhoeven, 2002), dynamic rather than static images (Verhallen & Bus, 2010; Verhallen et al., 2006) and the inclusion of other multimedia additions such as video, sounds and music (Verhallen et al., 2006). 

The studies noted above have examined the extent to which these features pose challenges or opportunities to support and develop children’s language and literacy skills.  In most cases, these additional features have been found to be beneficial to children’s language and literacy skills; although gains to language and/or literacy are often smaller than one might predict. 

Indeed, digital texts are not necessarily beneficial to children’s literacy skill and development when compared to traditional texts, if children are too distracted by the additional features of the digital texts (e.g., games) at the expense of the story (e.g., de Jong & Bus, 2002).  Therefore, there is a need for well-designed, evidence informed, digital texts which are supportive of children’s language and literacy skills, in addition to being engaging.  A fairly outdated content analysis of commercially available digital texts (de Jong & Bus, 2003) suggests that many of the design features which could have been beneficial to children’s language and literacy skills are not optimally developed (e.g., incongruence between the story/text and images/hotspots/games) nor optimally used by children. 

Indeed, what is interesting about this last point is the greater number of ways in which children can navigate/read digital books compared to more traditional books. Davis et al., (2012) commented on individual differences in children’s user style as they engage with digital books, suggesting different navigational profiles of readers:  Knowledge seekers (those that actively seek information), feature explorers (those that spend much of their time accessing non-prose features) and apathetic hypertext users (those that don’t extensively interact with the content or non-prose features). 

As the potential numbers of ways in which readers can interact with digital books is greater than traditional books (at least from a design perspective), this does pose difficulties for researchers interested in the extent to which digital books support children’s reading attainment.  Most of the studies cited above were carried out under experimental conditions.  However, in reality, we cannot control how children independently ‘read’ or ‘navigate’ digital books.  It is therefore challenging to know the real increases in reading skills that may come from digital books, as opposed to the potential increases.

 

References:

Davis, D. S., & Neitzel, C.  (2012).  Collaborative sense-making in print and digital text environments.  Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 831-856. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9302-2

De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G.  (2002).  Quality of book-reading matters for emergent readers: An experiment with the same book in a regular or electronic format.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 145-155. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.94.1.145

De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G.  (2003).  How well suited are electronic books to supporting literacy?  Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3, 147-164.

Kegel, C. A. T., & Bus, A. G.  (2012).  Online tutoring as a pivotal quality of web-based early literacy programs.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 182-192.  doi: 10.1037/a0025849

Korat, O., & Shamir, A.  (2008).   The educational electronic book as a tool for supporting children’s emergent literacy in low versus middle SES groups.  Computers and Education, 50, 110-124. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04.002

Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L.  (2002).  Multimedia support of early literacy learning.  Computers and Education, 39, 207-221.

Smeets, D. J. H., & Bus, A. G.  (2012).  Interactive electronic storybooks for kindergartners to promote vocabulary growth.  Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112, 36-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.12.003

Verhallen, M. J. A. J., & Bus, A. G. (2010).  Low-income immigrant pupils learning vocabulary through digital picture storybooks.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 54-61.  doi: 10.1037/a0017133

Verhallen, M. J. A. J., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2010).   The promise of multimedia stories for kindergarten children at risk.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 410 – 419. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.410

Commons Select Committee: Invitation to comment on strength of evidence for phonics instruction

Last week I was directed to this by Susan Godsland (thank you Susan).  Deadline is 12^th December if you’d like to submit a comment, my contribution is below (note: maximum 5000 characters):

The Education Committee invites views on the strength of the evidence in relation to the current policy on Phonics and various methods of learning to read.   http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/education-committee/dfe-evidence-check-forum/phonics/

My comment:

In terms of additional research focusing on synthetic phonics instruction in UK schools, I would like to direct the Education Committee to the following papers (see below).  I believe the strength of evidence for synthetic phonics instruction is increasing; however we need to be critical of the evidence, impartial and ensure we rely on high quality research to inform this debate.  In response to the paper produced by the UK Parliament, I’ve also commented on a couple of points:  

The following papers may be of interest to inform the discussion of phonics in UK schools:

Papers A and B below examine synthetic phonics in depth and show that this is a particularly effective method for children starting school with weak reading readiness skills (e.g., poor letter-sound knowledge) and also for children with weak language (i.e., vocabulary) skills.  Therefore it is important to consider individual differences (see point below) when considering the effectiveness of phonics instruction. In addition, for schools implementing a systematic synthetic phonics method of instruction, these papers show the skills children are relying upon as they learn to read by this approach:

A) McGeown, S. P., & Medford, E.  (2013). Using method of instruction to predict the skills supporting initial reading development: insight from a synthetic phonics approach.  Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 591-608.

B) McGeown, S., Johnston, R., & Medford, E.  (2012).  Reading instruction affects the cognitive skills supporting early reading development.  Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 360-264.

Paper C compares the long term effects of synthetic phonics vs analytic phonics instruction in UK schools. 

C) Johnston, R. S., McGeown, S., & Watson, J. E. (2012).  Long term effects of synthetic versus analytic phonics teaching on the reading and spelling ability of 10 year old boys and girls.   Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1365-1384. 

Papers D and E deal specifically with concerns regarding the irregular nature of the English orthography and show that use of decoding skills/a phonological approach is actually beneficial, not detrimental, to irregular word reading.  This is evidence against the idea that the English writing system is too irregular for a phonics focused approach to be effective:

D) McGeown, S. P., Johnston, R. S., & Moxon, G.  (2013).  Toward an understanding of how children read and spell irregular words: the role of nonword and orthographic processing skills.  Journal  of Research in Reading, 37, 51-64.

E) McGeown, S. P., Medford, E., & Moxon, G. (2013).  Individual differences in children’s reading and spelling strategies and the skills supporting strategy use.  Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 75-81. 

Copies of papers can be accessed via: https://edinburgh.academia.edu/SarahMcGeown

Comments on points within the UK Parliament document specifically:

“UK and international research shows overwhelmingly that systematic phonics teaching,

in a language-rich curriculum….”. 

I think it is critical that you continue to highlight that phonics is an effective way to teach children to read new/unfamiliar words, but is not a method to teach children the meaning of these words.  I think this distinction is often confused (i.e., phonics is criticised because children don’t learn word meanings through this approach; however that is not the function of phonics).  Therefore phonics needs to be presented to teachers within a context; phonics is an effective method to teach children to read new words; however children should also be exposed to literature and a rich linguistic environment to develop their language and reading comprehension skills (e.g., via story book activities etc). 

“Sound evidence that systematic synthetic phonics programmes produce greater growth in reading than other reading programmes, and this is especially effective for younger, at-risk readers (National Reading Panel, 2000b)”

Again, I think this point is crucial.  There is huge variation among children in the reading-related and cognitive skills that they start school with and a systematic synthetic phonics method of instruction is potentially most effective for children starting school knowing very few letter-sounds and with weak language skills (see Papers A and B above).  However, teachers are experiencing very different student intakes and this may explain the differing views regarding the effectiveness of phonics instruction.  We need to appreciate that the effectiveness of a synthetic phonics approach may differ based on student cohort.  The argument that ‘one size does not fit all’ does not mean that we should be teaching children a range of strategies to read new words (e.g., former ‘searchlight’ model), but rather that we should be finding the most effective method to teach children based on their cognitive profiles (i.e., reading and language skills).

Acquiring reading and spelling skills – what’s the difference?

Being able to read and spell are two essential literacy skills which children acquire during their primary schooling.  Indeed, there is often a close correlation between children’s ability to read and spell (i.e., children who are good readers are typically good spellers and likewise poor readers are typically poor spellers).  Despite reading and spelling being similar skills (in that they are both literacy skills), they are different in several respects.  For example, of the two, spelling is typically harder; while reading requires the recognition of printed word(s), spelling requires the production of word(s).  In addition, in English, the writing system exhibits bidirectional asymmetry; that is, phoneme-to-grapheme mapping is more ambiguous than grapheme-to-phoneme mapping (Fletcher-Flinn, Shankweiler, & Frost, 2004).  In other words, there are more phonetically plausible ways to misspell words than there are to misread them.  Anyone who has seen children’s spelling errors, or carried out an analysis of children’s spelling errors will understand this.  For example, the word ‘circle’ can be spelt by children in a variety of interesting ways - serkul, sirkil, sircul, sercil, circel, cricel, cricle, and many more…..  Indeed, these different spelling errors provide us with good insight into the skills and strategies children are drawing upon as they attempt to spell (see McGeown et al., 2013).  In contrast however, the number of different ways in which the word ‘circle’ can be read (incorrectly) is fewer. As a result, higher quality lexical representations (i.e., a better ‘visual’ image of the word’s spelling pattern) are arguably more important for spelling than for reading. 

In a recent study, my collaborators and I distinguished between two different types of reading and spelling strategies (phonological and orthographic) using children’s reading and spelling errors and examined the relationship between children’s (n = 172, aged 6-8) use of these strategies and their performance on tests of word reading and spelling (words were chosen to be unfamiliar to children).

A phonological strategy reflected a greater dependence on using letter-sound rules (e.g., reading ‘pint’ to rhyme with ‘mint’ or spelling ‘tuna’ as ‘choona’), while an orthographic strategy reflected greater use of the visual/letter information in words (i.e., errors were orthographically (i.e., visually) similar to the target word, e.g., reading ‘wart’ as ‘want’ or spelling ‘knife’ as ‘knif’).  We assessed how use of these strategies correlated with irregular and standardised word reading and spelling performance. 

In reading, while a phonological reading strategy correlated strongly and positively with word reading skills, an orthographic reading strategy was inversely related with word reading skills.  Therefore, making use of letter-sound information seems to be a much more effective way to read unfamiliar (including irregular) words, than attempting to recognise the word as a visual whole.  On the other hand, for spelling, greater use of an orthographic strategy was positively correlated with spelling performance, while use of a phonological strategy was unrelated to spelling performance. 

So what are the educational implications of this research?  Firstly I would argue that children should be taught and supported to use a phonological strategy to read; that is, be given phonics instruction so that they can learn to effectively use letter-sound rules to read new and unfamiliar words.  This approach will be more effective than teaching children to recognise words as visual wholes and encouraging them to use a strategy based on this. However, the results for spelling were different; children need to have good ‘visual’ representation of the word to be able to spell it correctly.  How do they achieve this?  One way is through reading; once a child has read a word several times within text they will then have a better visual representation of that word and therefore be better placed to accurately spell it.  Therefore good reading skills can precede good spelling skills; ensuring children receive guidance in effective reading strategies is therefore crucial.

 

Correct spelling:  circle, tuna, knife

 

Examples of orthographic spelling error:  cricle, tunea, knif

Examples of phonological spelling error:  serkul, choona, niyf

 

References:

Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., Shankweiler, D., & Frost, S. J. (2004). Coordination of reading and spelling in early literacy development: An examination of the discrepancy hypothesis.  Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 617–644.

McGeown, S. P., Medford, E., & Moxon, G.  (2013).  Individual differences in children’s reading and spelling strategies and the skills supporting strategy use.  Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 75-81.

See link for Teacher Summary Poster: “Children’s strategies for reading and spelling irregular words”

https://edinburgh.academia.edu/SarahMcGeown/Summaries-for-teachers