Reading and spelling among nonvocal children with ... - Springer Link

Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 10: 23–50, 1998. c 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

23

Reading and spelling among nonvocal children with cerebral palsy: Influence of home and school literacy environment ANNIKA DAHLGREN SANDBERG Department of Psychology, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden

Abstract. In literacy research, home literacy experiences and exposure to print have been ascribed a contributing role in later reading development along with metalinguistic and other cognitive skills. In a study on reading and spelling skills in nonvocal children the home and school literacy experiences of 35 children with cerebral palsy were studied by means of questionnaires. The questionnaires were completed by the parents and teachers. The answers from the disability group were compared with the answers from two comparison groups, one matched for mental age and sex and the other for sex and IQ. The results revealed few differences in the home literacy experiences of the three groups. The children of all three groups had access to a variety of printed materials, and there were no differences in the parents’ reading habits or in their values and high priority given to literacy. The disabled children took a passive role in story reading with little linguistic interaction, and the parents took the active part. The results indicated that home literacy experiences in the groups studied at best had a marginal influence on reading development. Individual differences in speech and language abilities were proposed to have higher explanatory value of the low literacy skills found among nonvocal children. Key words: Home literacy environment, Nonvocal, Reading, Spelling

Introduction Reading and spelling acquisition has proven to be extremely slow and sometimes even nonexisting in nonvocal children with cerebral palsy who use augmentative and alternative communication systems (AAC). Their literacy development lags far behind what could be expected from their intellectual and verbal level (e.g., Berninger & Gans 1986a,b,; Bishop & Robson 1989a; Foley, 1993; Kelford Smith, Thurston, Light, Parnes & O’Keefe 1989; Koppenhaver, Evans & Yoder 1991; McGinnis & Beukelman 1989; Rutter 1978; Smith 1989, 1992). Literacy and dyslexia research has identified various cognitive variables that have an impact on literacy development in the speaking population, e.g. phonological awareness, memory capacity, verbal comprehension and IQ (e.g., Bradley 1988; Bradley & Bryant 1983; Ellis & Large 1987, 1988; Frith 1985; Høien & Lundberg 1992; Lundberg 1989, 1991; Olofsson & Lundberg 1985). Recent research on nonspeaking groups indicates that phonological awareness, proposed to be one of the best

24

ANNIKA DAHLGREN SANDBERG

predictors of reading and spelling ability among speaking children (Høien, Lundberg, Stanovich & Bjaalid 1995), develops also in children without productive speech (Baddeley & Wilson 1985; Bishop 1985; Bishop, Byers Brown & Robson 1990; Bishop & Robson 1989a,b; Dahlgren Sandberg & Hjelmquist 1996, 1997; Foley 1993), without having the expected positive influence on literacy development, though (Dahlgren Sandberg & Hjelmquist 1996, 1997; Foley 1993). Since literacy develops in a social context and is a cultural product (Lundberg 1991; Teale & Sulzby 1987), factors outside the individual, i.e. home literacy experiences and exposure to print, have also been subject of study (Payne, Whitehurst & Angell 1994; Scarborough & Dobrich 1994; Stanovich & West 1989; Wells 1985). Findings in the literacy and dyslexia research indicate that there are significant relationships between these variables and success in the literacy field (Scarborough, Dobrich & Hager 1991; Stanovich & West 1989; Teale & Sulzby 1987; Wells 1985). Literacy development starts long before formal literacy training takes place at school. It is embedded in the home settings in meaningful communicative situations (Gallimore & Goldenberg 1993; van Kleeck & Schuele 1987; Lundberg 1991; Teale & Sulzby 1987; Wells 1985). Wells (1985) argued that differences in children’s reading and spelling performance in the early school years were due to different preschool literacy experiences. Teale & Sulzby (1987) proposed this informal literacy training to take place through language interactions with adults, and they argued that story reading has a key role in the literacy process. They pointed to two important components of home literacy experiences; access to reading events and mediation, i.e. the interaction pattern in which the parent and the child are engaged during shared reading, both positively correlated with reading achievement. Access to reading events helps children develop concepts about books and print. They begin to understand that the story is not inherent in the pictures but in the text and they develop reading behaviours (Lundberg 1991; Teale & Sulzby 1987). Through involvement in literacy events, the children learn that print represents meaningful ideas and fulfills many functions. They also learn conventions about print, e.g. that letters are lined up in rows (van Kleeck & Schuele 1987), and gain awareness of literacy, e.g. awareness of the different language used in written material, the informative function of reading, handling of books, syntax, words and phonemes (Dunning, Mason & Stewart 1994; Stewart 1992). However, the positive effects of being read to are not independent of the way in which reading takes place (Gallimore & Goldenberg 1993; Payne, Whitehurst & Angell 1994). In a study by Ninio (1980) the ‘eliciting reading style’ (asking ‘What’-questions) proved to be associated with progress in language development. Also, modifying the text and focusing different

NONVOCAL CHILDREN AND HOME LITERACY ENVIRONMENT

25

aspects according to the child’s developmental level would be an important aspect in order to make story reading have an enhancing effect on literacy development (Teale & Sulzby 1987). Wells (1985) described four different types of literacy activities that he hypothesised would relate differently to reading development. These were looking at books, listening to a story read to the child from a book, drawing, and colouring and writing. All of them would bear on the reading acquisition process since they are related to aspects of literacy learning. He proposed that the activities involving text, i.e. listening to a story and writing, would have a greater influence though, since they encompass the decontextualisation properties of literacy. Since he found practically no writing in his sample, this variable was excluded from the analysis. Listening to stories read from books showed strong relationships to knowledge of literacy (letter knowledge and concepts about print), reading comprehension, teacher’s assessment of oral language and to parents’ education. Wells also commented upon the qualitative aspects of reading a story and stressed the importance of the parent taking an active role, e.g. discussing and explaining concepts and events. Payne et al. (1994) studied the effects of home literacy environment on preschool children’s language abilities, parting from the assumption that oral language skills are important in reading development. Like Reeder & Shapiro (1993) they used a measure of home literacy environment, composed of questions regarding frequency and duration of shared book reading, age of onset of picture book reading, number of picture books in the home, frequency of the child’s requests to read books, of the child’s private occupation with books, of shared library visits and caregiver’s frequency and enjoyment of reading. The study was conducted on low-income families, partly in order to eliminate the confounding effect of socioeconomic factors on the relationships between home literacy experiences and language abilities. They stressed though, that there are variations within social class and therefore, belonging to a lower economic class does not alone predict reading problems. Scarborough & Dobrich (1994) reported that reading achievement was less correlated with socioeconomic status than with home literacy experiences. Type of reading activity seemed to be more important (Gallimore & Goldenberg 1993). Payne et al. (1994) found that home literacy environment explained 12% to 18.5% of the variance in the children’s language score. Like Scarborough et al. (1991) they also found that the parents’ private reading was less important for the children’s language development than was shared book reading. In a number of studies Stanovich and his colleagues assessed the influence of exposure to print on spelling, word recognition ability, vocabulary, verbal fluency, word knowledge and general information, both in children and in adults. Their results indicated that exposure to print contributed to verbal

26


ability even when the effects of phonological ability were controlled (e.g., Allen, Cipielewski & Stanovich 1992; Cunningham & Stanovich 1990; Cunningham & Stanovich 1991; Cunningham & Stanovich 1993; Stanovich, West & Cunningham 1991; Stanovich & Cunningham 1992; West & Stanovich 1991; West, Stanovich & Mitchell 1993). The differential effects of exposure to print in a social context on environmental print knowledge were studied in a preschool setting by Vulkelich (1994). He argued that preschool children’s early identification of words in their environment, like ‘McDonald’s’, mediated by significant others, helps them in their development of print awareness and has an enhancing effect on later reading development. The results indicated positive effects of enrichment of the preschool environment with signs and labels on ability to read words, but also that this effect was greatest in the case where the exposure to print was embedded in an interaction setting. A more indirect mediating effect comes from experiences of reading adults and adults who in other ways show that they value reading, and who at the same time are important to the child. Such experiences provide the child with positive models for literacy behaviour (Gallimore & Goldenberg 1993; Lundberg 1991; Wells 1985). Through these models, they would be more prone to occupy themselves with books and get independent practice with reading events. In their review of research on the relationships between home literacy experiences and reading development, Scarborough & Dobrich (1994) reported several results indicating that a positive attitude towards reading activities is correlated with reading ability. According to Scarborough & Dobrich (1994) the number of studies on the effect of home literacy experiences on later reading development in the normal population was less than expected. Still fewer studies have been conducted on these effects in nonvocal children. For reasons of limits in speech and motor ability, there obviously must be problems in the nonvocal, cerebral palsied group to get access to reading events and to achieve the sort of interaction that promotes reading (Pierce & McWilliam 1993). Light & Kelford Smith (1993) pointed at differences, not so much in availability of printed material or interest in reading activities, but rather in opportunity to use such materials. Regarding qualitative aspects, the nonvocal children were less active in the shared story reading. The same results were reported by Marvin (1994) in her study on children with single and multiple disabilities, with the children with multiple disabilities being less active than the children with single disabilities. In a study on five preschool children with severe motor and speech disorders Light, Binger & Kelford Smith (1994) found a clear asymmetrical interaction pattern during story reading, with the mother being the more active part and leaving very little space for the child to interact.


27

The children mostly used unaided modes for communication, e.g. gestures, vocalization and facial expressions, giving very little opportunity for the child to engage in asking questions, explaining events and elaborating the text. The scope of story reading could be described as satisfying the important need for social contact rather than promoting literacy. These aspects were also stressed by Pierce & McWilliam (1993). In the study by Gallimore & Goldenberg (1993) on children without disabilities, all parents had high expectancies regarding their children’s literacy development and education. The priorities given by the parents in the study by Light & Kelford Smith (1993) put communication and physical needs like mobility and feeding in the first place. Reading and spelling got the lowest ranks, together with dressing. In the nondisabled comparison group, literacy activities were positioned in the third place. Marvin (1994) found equal ratings in a group of parents of children with single and multiple disabilities: low priorities and expectancies for reading and spelling abilities. Low expectancies might influence the already difficult reading process in a negative way (Light & McNaughton 1993). In summary, research on home literacy experiences in disabled children seem to show that less time was dedicated to literacy events, the children were less active in the story reading process, the parents demanded less activity from their children and the priorities and expectancies for literacy development were lower than for less disabled or nondisabled children. In a group of literate adults who used AAC systems, most respondents reported a home environment with an abundance of printed material, and parents that had been supportive and with high expectancies regarding literacy development (Koppenhaver et al. 1991). In this study the focus was on describing the home and school literacy experiences in a group of children with severe motor and speech disabilities. One specific purpose was to examine the relationships between these experiences and reading and spelling abilities in this population. We expected to find less literacy experiences in the disabled than in the nondisabled group, due to practical problems and the need to dedicate time to other activities, but that environmental factors might not be as important for the literacy development in the disabled group as they have been reported to be in the nondisabled group. Individual conditions, problems in, e.g., metalinguistic functioning, STM capacity, expressive vocabulary and verbal comprehension due to the motor and speech disorders, might be of more fundamental importance in reading acquisition and also attract the attention and efforts of parents. If there is a generally low level of literacy activities, i.e. little variation, this is a reason not to expect any substantial relationships. The results of this study

28


on nonvocal children might also contribute to the general understanding of precursors of reading and spelling development.

Method Participants The parents and teachers of 35 nonvocal, Bliss using children with cerebral palsy who participated in a larger study on literacy abilities in nonspeaking children and adolescents, responded to questionnaires regarding the children’s home and school literacy experiences. In addition, information was collected concerning the children’s communication mode, communicative efficiency using Bliss and their motor and speech disorder. The reading and spelling abilities of the children, along with their phonological awareness, memory capacity and verbal comprehension, were assessed (Dahlgren Sandberg & Hjelmquist 1996, 1997). Characteristics of the children are presented in Table 1. Bliss is a graphic representational system where words and parts of words are represented by icons and more or less arbitrary signs, so-called Blissymbols (Hehner 1982). They are often displayed on a chart with approximately 500 symbols. The parents and teachers of the children of two comparison groups, one matched for mental age and sex (the nondisabled group, ND) and the other for IQ and sex (the mentally retarded group, MR), responded to the same questionnaire, with exception for questions pertaining to the motor disability. The cognitive abilities of the children of the comparison groups were assessed using the same instruments used with the disabled children. There were statistically significant differences in chronological age and IQ among the three groups (F = 40.2661, df = 2,91, p = 0.000 and F = 61.367, df = 2,91, p = 0.000, respectively) with the ND-group being younger (M = 6.27, SD = 1.32) and with higher IQ (M = 109.47, SD = 17.06) than the other two groups. There were no differences between the children in the disability and MR groups. The mean chronological age of the disabled children was 11.47 years, SD = 4.07, mean IQ = 60.57, SD = 25.63. The corresponding values in the MR-group were: mean chronological age 13.24, SD = 3.47, mean IQ = 56.22, SD = 19.74. The children in the disability group more often proved to be the only child of the family (22.6%) or the eldest one (41.9%) than was the case for the children of the comparison groups, ND 9.7% and 25.8%, and MR 10% and 20%, respectively (F = 3.65, df = 2.81, p = 0.0305). Data on socioeconomic status of the families were not systematically collected in this study. The impression however, was that they represented a


29

normal range of standards for Swedish conditions. The families came from all over Sweden, urban and rural areas alike, in most cases with both parents working in qualified as well as unqualified positions. Further, there is no evidence in recent literature that severe damage to the immature brain is unevenly distributed among socioeconomic classes (Krägeloh-Mann, G. Hagberg, Meisner, Schelp, Haas, Edebol Eeg-Olofsson, Selbmann, B. Hagberg & Michaelis 1993, 1994; Krägeloh-Mann, G. Hagberg, Meisner, Haas, Edebol Eeg-Olofsson, Selbmann, B. Hagberg & Michaelis 1995). Conclusively, it is suggested that there would not be great enough differences in socioeconomic status within or between groups to affect the results in any specific direction. The visual ability of the nondisabled children was significantly better than in both the other groups (F = 9.1688, df = 2,82, p = 0.0003). In the ND group 90.3% of the children were reported to have normal vision, while only 48.9% of the disabled and 42.9% of MR ground had no visual problems. There were no differences in hearing. Reading and spelling ability, assessed by means of four reading and three spelling tests, differed significantly among the groups. Of the 35 disabled children, eight were of preschool age. Their reading and spelling results were treated separately. The results of the preschool group showed that the ND comparison group performed better than the disability group across all three types of spelling tests and for all the various response measures used. The group effects were: sounds correct (F = 31.474, df = 1,42, p < 0.001), letters correct (F = 33.807, df = 1,42, p < 0.001), phonetically correct version (F = 23.901, df = 1.42, p < 0.001), words correct (F = 21.805, df = 1,42, p < 0.001) and words attempted (F = 41.458, df = 1,42, p < 0.001). The group differences were dramatic. A 2 (groups) 4 (tests) ANOVA was performed on the reading data of the eight preschool children. A main effect of group (F = 6.15, df = 1,42, p < 0.02) was found, with the ND group performing better than the disabled children. The disability group reached a score above zero only on a lexical decision task (Dahlgren Sandberg & Hjelmquist 1996). The results of the remaining 27 school children and the children in the corresponding comparison groups showed no statistically significant differences regarding spelling of orally presented words. The disability group though, showed a tendency to be inferior to both the other groups, which, in turn, differed very little in their performance. The disability group did worse, though, on spelling of nonwords than the ND children for the following response measures: words correct (F = 4.0287, df = 2,75, p = 0.0219), phonetically correct version (F = 4.8252, df = 2,75, p = 0.0108), and sounds correct (F = 3.3182, df = 2,75, p = 0.0418). There was a third type of spelling

Dystonia Diplegia Diplegia Diplegia Diplegia Dystonia Other Athetosis Hemiplegia Dystonia Tetraplegia

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

17 Tetraplegia Dystonia

Athetosis Dystonia

Other

4

16

Ataxia Dystonia

3

Diplegia Dystonia

Hemiplegia

2

15

Athetosis Dystonia

1

Modes of expression of ‘yes’ and ‘no’

Subjective rating of intelligibility

Use of Bliss as

Clear speech sound, Bliss gesture, facial expression

Signing, Bliss, body movement

Body movement

Clear speech sound, gesture

Unclear speech sound, Bliss gesture

Clear speech sound

Clear speech sound, gesture, facial expression

Anarthria

Bliss, gesture, body movement, facial expression

Dysarthria Clear speech sound

Dysarthria Clear speech sound, Bliss gesture

Other

Anarthria

Dysarthria Clear speech sound, Bliss

Other

Anarthria


Anarthria



Anarthria

Dysarthria Clear speech sound, body movement

Anarthria


Complement and parallel to spoken language

Primary mode of communication

Complement and parallel to signing

No speech

Moderately intelligible

No speech

Unintelligible

No speech

Unintelligible

No speech

No speech





Complement and parallel to letters, body movement


Complement and parallel to sounds, signing

Signal

Hardly intelligible Complement and parallel to spoken language

No speech

Hardly intelligible Complement and parallel to signing

Moderately intelligible

No speech

Hardly intelligible Primary mode of communication

Hardly intelligible Complement and parallel to facial expressions, sounds

Complement and parallel to singing

Dysarthria Clear speech and sound, gestures Hardly intelligible Complement and parallel to spoken language

Child Cp-diagnosis Speech disorder

Table 1. Participants’ characteristics. Nonvocal children and adolescents

7

5

5

4

4

5

3

3–4

3

4

1

2

2

3

2.5

3

1.5

>500

400–499

100–199

>500

100–199

400–499

400–499

200–399

100–199

400–499

30–99

100–199

400–499

400–499

100–199

200–399

>500

200–399

200–399

200–399

100–199

400–499

100–199

100–199

400–499

30–99

100–199

100–199

400–499

100–199

30–99

100–199

Bliss use Number of Blissymbols in years Available Used

30 ANNIKA DAHLGREN SANDBERG

Diplegia Tetraplegia Dystonia

20

21

22

Readers

Tetraplegia Dystonia

Diplegia

32 33

34 35

Hemiplegia

31

30

Other

Anarthria

No speech

Unintelligible

No speech

No speech

No speech

No speech

Complement and parallel to facial expression




Bliss, signing, gesture, body movement

Bliss

No speech

No speech



Hardly intelligible Complement and parallel to spoken language

Clear speech sound


Unintelligible

Hardly intelligible Complement and parallel to signing

Unintelligible

No speech

No speech

Unintelligible

Hardly intelligible Complement and parallel to written language




Complement and parallel to pictograms


Signal


Clear speech sound, Bliss


Body movement

Bliss, facial expression

Dystonia

29

Anarthria

Clear speech sound Bliss, facial expression

Anarthria

Clear speech sound

Use of Bliss as

Hardly intelligible Primary mode of communication

Subjective rating of intelligibility

Clear speech sound, Bliss No speech signing, gesture, body movement

Bliss, body movement

Clear speech sound

Dystonia

Dysathria

Anarthria

Anarthria

Signing, gesture, facial expression

Clear speech sound

Facial expression

Bliss, gesture, body movement, facial expression

28

Athetosis Dystonia


Anarthria

Anarthria

Anarthria

Anarthria


Modes of expression of ‘yes’ and ‘no’

27

26

25

24

Dystonia


19

23

Ataxia Dystonia

18

Child Cp-diagnosis Speech disorder

Table 1. Continued

8

16

12–13

12

5

11

7

10

5–6

4

5–6

7–8

10

400–499

>500

>500

400–499

>500

100–199

200–399

400–499

>500

400–499

>500

>500 >500

100–199

100–199

100–199

100–199

400–499

400–499

400–499

>500

30–99

>500

100–199

200–399

100–199

400–499

30–99

200–399

>500

30–99

100–199

100–199

30–99

100–199

Bliss use Number of Blissymbols in years Available Used


31

32


test: words represented by pictures. In this condition the disabled children tended to perform on a lower level than the other two groups, without reaching significance. The two comparison groups performed at the same level. A 3 (groups) 4 (tests) ANOVA was performed on the reading results. A main effect of group (F = 7.123, df = 2,299, p = 0.001) was found, with the MR group performing better than both the disability and the ND groups. In summary, the nonvocal Bliss using children seemed to have great difficulties in reading and spelling compared with their matched peers. Reading and spelling ability was mainly found in ten of the 35 disabled children. The corresponding numbers were 15 readers of 22 children in the MR group and 15 of 35 in the ND group. It should be noticed that 28 of the nondisabled children were preschoolers (Dahlgren Sandberg & Hjelmquist 1996, 1997). Questionnaires Parents’ questionnaires. A questionnaire made up of questions tapping home literacy experiences and parents’ priorities regarding literacy activities was constructed. The questionnaires were composed of multiple-choice, openended and rank order questions, grouped into seven main areas: Communicative abilities: Type of speech disorder, intelligibility of spoken language and knowledge and use of Bliss. Availability of printed material: Number of owned books, number of different magazines at home, subscriptions to children’s magazines, type of writing material available and frequency of visits to the library. Parents’ habits, values and expectations: Frequency and duration of reading to the children, own reading and writing habits, importance put on the children’s reading and writing and priorities of the children’s activities. Children’s interest in literacy activities: Use of printed material, the children’s priorities of activities including reading and writing and their interest in written language reflected in questions about printed words and their meanings. Children’s activities during reading: Handling of books on their own and activities when the parents read aloud. Communication mode used during story reading. Parents’ activities when reading aloud: Activities while reading to the child. Other language related activities: Frequency and duration of watching television and of listening to the taperecorder. Teachers’ questionnaires. The questions regarding literacy experiences in school were grouped into four main areas:


33

Communicative abilities: Intelligibility of spoken language and knowledge and use of Bliss. Teachers’ priorities: Proportion of school day dedicated to various school subjects and priority of the children’s activities. Children’s interest in literacy activities: Use of printed material, the children’s priorities of activities and their interest in written language as shown in questions about printed words and their meanings. Children’s activities during reading: Handling of books on their own, activities during storybook reading and production of written text. There were also questions regarding availability and use of speech synthesis. Factor analysis. Separate factor analyses were performed for six of the areas in the questionnaire, using the principal component analysis. The number of factors extracted was determined by eigenvalues greater than one (Kaiser’s criterion). Transformations were made using the Varimax rotation to yield the best solution. In order to determine if the correlations in the correlation matrix were above zero, the Bartlett test of sphericity was used, resulting in values significant at the p < 0.00001 level in all the six cases. The results of the analyses are presented in Tables 2–5 where each area with the corresponding variables and factor loadings are found. In all analyses the extracted factors accounted for at least 50% of the variance. Factor loadings >0.50 were interpreted as salient loadings. In the analysis of ‘Children’s activities associated with reading at home’, ‘Children’s activities associated with reading at school’ and ‘Parents’ activities associated with story reading’ there was only one salient loading on the third factor, which consequently was omitted. The factor scores were computed according to the regression method. The resulting scores were used in the subsequent statistical analyses. Response rate. The response rate was 89% for the parents and 94% for the teachers in the disability group. In the ND group the corresponding response rate were 89% and 71%, respectively, and in the MR group 91% for both parents and teachers. Procedure. The questionnaires were personally handed over by the examiner in connection with the first assessment occasion, with a stamped envelope. A reminder was mailed after three or four weeks. Data analysis. For all analyses the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 6.1, was used. Means, standard deviations and response rates were computed for the three groups. Since some of the children in the nonvocal,

34


Table 2. Factor analysis of ‘availability of printed material’ in the home literacy environment and ‘parents’ habits and values’ regarding literacy; salient loadings are marked bold Variables

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Availability of printed material Access to paper and pencil Access to chalks Number of owned books Books as gift Listening to tape-recorded stories Frequency of borrowing books at the library Visits to book shops Visits to library Access to computer Access to type-writer Subscriptions to children’s magazines Number of different magazines available

Writing material 0.99 0.99 0.12 0.03 0.01

Story book material 0.04 0.04 0.78 0.83 0.63

Use of sources Writing outside the home machines 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.0 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.11

Parents’ values and habits Frequency of story reading Duration of story reading Frequency of own reading Importance of reading Importance of writing Frequency of writing

Factor 4

Factor 5 Printed material 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.26 0.20

0.13

0.14

0.56

0.09

0.10

0.10 0.05 0.02 0.19 0.17

0.42 0.03 0.13 0.26 0.01

0.56 0.79 0.07 0.09 0.23

0.17 0.02 0.76 0.76 0.18

0.22 0.11 0.04 0.10 0.72

0.24

0.28

0.12

0.15

0.70

Frequency of reading 0.79 0.54 0.69 0.39 0.13 0.44

Value of literacy skills 0.05 0.17 0.03 0.76 0.90 0.25

Bliss using group showed some literacy abilities, a comparison was also made between the responses given by their parents and teachers and those given by the parents and teachers of the nonreaders. The children who scored on at least two of the four reading tests were defined as ‘readers’. This subgroup was made up of ten children. Data were analyzed by means of one-way analysis of variance. Tukey’s HSD was used for post hoc analysis. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests.


35

Table 3. Factor analysis of ‘children’s interest in literacy activities at home’; salient loadings are marked bold Variable

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Children’s interest in literacy activities Requesting explanations of printed words Requesting explanations of words read aloud Requesting explanations of events in the text Use of printed material Enjoying reading Frequency of child’s ‘reading activities’ Use of writing material Enjoying writing

Linguistic interest 0.85 0.88 0.80 0.13 0.12 0.26 0.01 0.19

‘Silent’ interest 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.87 0.76 0.72 0.14 0.07

Interest in writing 0.28 0.09 0.01 0.25 0.12 0.35 0.87 0.74

Table 4. Factor analysis of ‘children’s activities associated with reading at home at school’; salient loadings are marked bold Variables

Factor 1

Factor 2

Children’s activities associated with reading at home Labeling pictures Answering questions Asking questions Guessing what will happen Looking at pictures Turning of pages Pointing at pictures Silent listening

Linguistic activity 0.67 0.51 0.64 0.89 0.01 0.15 0.30 0.01

Physical activity 0.24 0.41 0.09 0.03 0.76 0.69 0.73 0.02

Children’s activities associated with reading at school Looking at pictures Turning of pages Reading Listening Reading silently Reading and answering questions Listening to tape-recorded stories Listening to story reading Visits to school library

Reading activity 0.72 0.51 0.85 0.80 0.81 0.66 0.07 0.80 0.16

Listening activity 0.35 0.49 0.03 0.13 0.22 0.01 0.72 0.76 0.06

36


Table 5. Factor analysis of ‘parents’ activities associated with story reading’; salient loadings are marked bold Variable

Factor 1

Factor 2

Parents’ activities associated with story reading Pointing at pictures and labeling them Requesting the child to label Requesting the child to point at pictures Requesting explanations of what will happen Reading of text Pointing at words Requesting explanations of why

Interacting 0.73 0.73 0.70 0.62 0.19 0.19 0.11

Passive reading 0.07 0.09 0.37 0.13 0.77 0.75 0.08

Results Between groups analyses Availability of printed material. The only difference found in access to literacy related material was for the factor ‘Story book material’ where the children in the MR group had less access to such material than the other two groups (F = 6.8439, df = 2,75, p = 0.0019). Parents’ habits, values and expectations. There were no differences in frequency or valuation of literacy activities among the three groups. Reading and writing was judged equally important by all the parents. The importance of a number of activities for the children were ranked by the parents. The rankings are found in Table 6. The parents of the disabled children ranked “communicating effectively” significantly higher than the parents of the MR group (F = 5.9271, df = 2,55, p = 0.0048). On the other hand, they ranked toileting lower than did the parents of the MR group (F = 4.9804, df = 2,39, p = 0.122) and dressing lower than both the other groups (F = 10.4226, df = 2,40, p = 0.0002). There were no statistically significant differences in ranking for making friends, learning to read and write or feeding. Children’s interest in literacy activities. The nonvocal, disabled children showed overall less interest in literacy activities compared with the ND group. Interest demonstrated by means of language, ‘Linguistic interest’, was significantly less pronounced among the nonvocal children compared with the children in the ND group (F = 4.0845, df = 2,73, p = 0.0209). They also showed less interest in writing activities than did the ND group (F = 10.3733, df = 2,73, p = 0.0001). So did the children of the MR group.

37


Table 6. Mean rankings of parents’ ratings of the importance of various activities for the children; scale 1–8 with 8 as the highest rank Activity Communicating effectively Making friends Learn to read Learn to write Independent mobility Feeding Toileting Dressing A

Disability group Mean SD N

MR group Mean SD

N

ND group Mean SD

N

p-value

7.21A

1.57 24 5.46

1.56 13 6.55

1.28 19 0.0048

6.16 6.11 5.68 5.15

1.38 1.29 1.17 1.67

19 5.46 19 6.43 17 5.46 17

2.07 13 5.95 2.06 14 5.23 1.66 13 4.97

1.75 21 0.5260 2.24 20 0.1598 2.14 20 0.4603

3.32 1.52 11 4.64 2.73A 1.64 13 4.91 2.33A;B 1.61 12 5.09

2.46 11 4.20 1.87 11 4.31 1.58 11 4.64

2.27 15 0.3468 1.82 16 0.0122 1.61 18 0.0002

= Disability group ND group.

MR group, B = Disability group

ND group, C = MR group

The parents’ ratings of the children’s preferred activities are found in Table 7. Highest possible ranking was 9. According to the parents, the children in the nonvocal group gave significantly lower priority to watching television (M = 5.02, SD = 2.57) than the children in the MR group (M = 7.32, SD = 2.1), so did the children in the ND group (M = 4.62, SD = 2.1) (F = 8.819, df = 2,77, p = 0.0004). Playing with things was ranked significantly lower in the disability group (M = 4, SD = 2.21) than in both the other groups (ND: M = 5.43, SD = 1.67 ad MR: M = 5.68, SD = 1.85), (F = 5.3367, df = 2,72, p = 0.0068). The interest in spending time with other children was also ranked lower in the nonvocal group (M = 5.32, SD = 2.44) than in the ND group (7.71, SD = 1.87), (F = 9.3628, df = 2,77, p = 0.0002). In all three groups reading was ranked quite low. The teachers’ reports regarding the children’s interest in literacy activities at school showed that the nonvocal, disabled children significantly less often chose to occupy themselves with printed material in school compared with the children of the other two groups (F = 18.0809, df = 2,74, p = 0.0000). Only 10% chose reading activities once a day. The corresponding numbers in the ND group were 72% and in the MR group 50%. They also less often asked for the meaning of words read by the teacher than did the children in the ND group (F = 4.9027, df = 2,75, p = 0.01). Only 16.1% of the disabled children often asked for the meaning of words, while 32% did so in the ND group. Ten percent of the MR group showed interest in words measured by frequency of asking for the meaning.

38


Table 7. Mean rankings of parents’ ratings of the children’s preferred activities; scale 1–9 with 9 as the highest rank Activity Go to school Spend time outside Listen to music Spend time with other children Watch television Read Write Play with things A

= Disability group group.


MR group Mean SD

N

ND group Mean SD

N

p-value

6.21 5.83 5.50 5.32B

2.47 2.14 2.18 2.44

29 29 28 28

5.91 5.47 6.09C 6.53

2.27 2.19 2.04 1.98

17 18 17 19

5.10 5.93 4.22 7.71

2.14 1.68 2.09 1.87

21 29 29 31

0.2468 0.7363 0.0107 0.0002

5.02A 4.73 4.65 4.00A;B

2.57 2.29 2.28 2.21

29 22 24 26

7.32C 3.83 4.24C 5.68

2.10 2.15 2.05 1.85

19 18 17 17

4.62 4.24 5.90 5.43

2.10 1.67 1.86 1.66

30 25 31 30

0.0004 0.3827 0.0150 0.0068

MR group, B = Disability group

ND group, C = MR group

ND

Table 8. Mean rankings of teachers’ ratings of the children’s preferred activities at school; scale 1–8 with 8 as the highest rank Activity Spend time with other children Listen to music Watch television Spend time outside Play with things Write Read B

= Disability group


MR group Mean SD

N

ND group Mean SD

N

p-value

6.24

2.01 27 4.71

1.79 17 5.50

2.74 16 0.0805

5.61 4.88 4.50 4.31B 4.28 3.09

2.02 2.35 2.01 1.88 2.25 2.15

1.91 1.96 2.36 2.11 2.00 2.06

1.69 1.22 2.04 1.64 2.05 1.80

28 25 26 27 25 22

5.39 5.88 4.50 5.00 4.88 3.69

18 17 18 18 17 16

4.64 4.00 5.21 6.13 4.70 4.50

11 5 14 16 15 11

0.3730 0.1577 0.5543 0.0145 0.6439 0.1845

ND group.

Table 8 shows the teachers’ ranking of the children’s priorities of activities at school. Highest ranking was 8. Only the ranking of the children’s interest in playing with things differed significantly between the disability group (M = 4.31, SD = 1.88) and the ND group (M = 6.13, SD = 1.64), (F = 4.5635, df = 2,59, p = 0.0145). Children’s activities during reading. The way of using books and newspapers differed somewhat. The children of the disability group and the ND group listened silently to story reading significantly more often (93.3% and 93.5% respectively) than did the children of the MR group (50%) (F = 12.6879, df = 2,80, p = 0.0000). The disabled children read by themselves significantly


39

more seldom than the other two groups (F = 7.5233, df = 2,81, p = 0.0010). The percentages for the disabled children were 3.2%, the ND group 38.7% and the MR group 40%. There were no differences in their looking at pictures or turning of pages. When being read to, the children in the disability group were less active in using linguistic expressions compared with the children in the ND group (F = 6.0834, df = 2,77, p = 0.0036). There were no differences in physical activity in connection with story book reading, though. At school there were few differences among the children in relation to reading activities. The disabled children less often engaged in listening activities than did the children in the ND group (F = 3.8599, df = 2,74, p = 0.0256). Parents’ activities when reading aloud. There were no statistically significant differences in the nature of the parents’ activities during reading aloud. The parents of the nonvocal children tended to use a reading strategy using less requests for linguistic answers. Other language related activities. There were no differences in frequency of watching television or in frequency of the parents watching TV with their children. The children in the MR group watched TV for longer periods than the children in the ND group (F = 4.6238, df = 2,79, p = 0.0127). In the MR group 60% of the children watched TV for more than one hour a day. The corresponding percentages were 44.8% in the disability group and 12.9% in the ND group. Teachers’ priorities. The teachers of the comparison groups were asked only to state the time used for reading and writing. There was a statistically significant difference in time dedicated to reading instruction (F = 7.563, df = 2,52, p = 0.0014). The disabled children got significantly less reading instruction than both the other groups. The same mean time as for reading was stated for writing in all three groups. The differences did not reach significance. Within groups analyses. Nonreading and reading Bliss users With the criterion of scoring on at least two of the four reading tests, ten children were defined ‘readers’, the remaining 25 were ‘nonreaders’. There were no statistically significant differences between the parents’ reports in the two subgroups regarding diagnosis or fine motor ability, nor was there any difference in IQ (F = 0.9139, df = 1,34, p = 0.3460). A hundred percent of the reading children had normal hearing and 95.7% of the nonreading. The nonreading children had significantly better vision than the reading children (F = 5.6972, df = 1,30, p = 0.0237). Fourteen out of 23 in the nonreading

40


group and only one in the reading group were reported to have normal vision. Parental data were consequently missing for two of the reading children. Communicative abilities. There were no differences in the parental reports in type of speech disorder or intelligibility of the spoken language. Fourteen of 21 of the nonreading and seven of the reading children had no spoken language abilities at all or unintelligible or hardly intelligible spoken language. Ten of the nonreading (data were missing for three children) and three of the reading children used Bliss as their primary mode of communication. There were statistically significant differences in knowledge of Bliss, measured by the number of Blissymbols used by the children (F = 7.7197, df = 1,28, p = 0.0098). Five (four missing values) of the nonreading and six of the reading children used more than 400 symbols. There were no statistically significant differences in the teachers’ ratings of intelligibility of the children’s spoken language, nor of the children’s use of Bliss as the primary language. Also the teachers rated the number of Blissymbols used by the reading children as higher than the number used by the nonreading children (F = 7.5472, df = 1,26, p = 0.011). Their ratings were overall lower than the parents’. Three (seven missing values) of the nonreading and five out of nine of the reading children were stated to use more than 400 symbols. Availability of printed material. The reading children owned more books than the nonreading ones (F = 10.1552, df = 1,29, p = 0.0035). Six of the reading children but only four out of 22 of the nonreading owned more than 50 books. There were no statistically significant differences in frequency of borrowing books at the library, subscriptions to children’s magazines, type of reading and writing material found in the children’s homes, visits to book stores or libraries or having had books as gifts. Parents’ and teachers’ habits, values and expectations. Both nonreading and reading children were read to with the same frequency and duration. The reading and writing habits of the parents in the two subgroups were also similar. In both groups, reading and writing were judged to be important to the children. There were no statistically significant differences in the parents’ or teachers’ judgments of the importance of the children’s various activities (Table 9). Children’s interest in literacy activities. There were no statistically significant differences between the children’s interest in literacy activities in the two groups according to the parents’ reports. The children of both groups occupied themselves with reading activities, enjoyed reading and writing and

41


Table 9. Parents’ and teachers’ rankings of important activities in the reading and nonreading subgroups

Activity

Readers Mean SD

N

Nonreaders Mean SD

N

p-value

1.71 1.46 1.36 1.28 1.56 1.68 1.42 1.56

18 15 15 13 13 9 10 9

0.9420 0.3504 0.6503 0.7115 0.6040 0.8630 0.7612 0.6998

1.63 1.34 1.18 1.62 1.67 1.73 1.73 2.61

22 19 16 14 16 8 8 6

0.7223 0.3090 0.9623 0.1682 0.1496 0.1958 0.6587 0.8273

Parents Communicating effectively Making friends Learn to read Learn to write Independent mobility Feeding Toileting Dressing

7.17 6.75 6.38 5.88 4.75 3.50 3.00 2.67

1.17 0.96 1.11 0.85 2.22 0.71 2.65 2.08

6 4 4 4 4 2 3 3

7.22 6.00 6.03 5.62 5.27 3.28 2.65 2.22

Teachers Communicating effectively Making friends Learn to read Learn to write Independent mobility Feeding Toileting Dressing

7.00 5.75 5.79 6.06 4.25 2.75 2.70 3.70

1.20 1.58 2.45 1.78 1.60 1.17 1.48 1.57

8 8 7 8 6 6 5 5

7.23 6.37 5.75 5.00 5.44 3.88 3.13 4.00

asked for explanations of difficult words or events to approximately the same extent. The teachers, on the other hand, reported differences in frequency with which the children asked for explanations of difficult words (F = 9.5345, df = 1,30, p = 0.0044). Five of the children in the reading group did this often, while none of the children in the nonreading group did so. Both groups chose to occupy themselves with books almost equally often. Eleven (five missing values) of the nonreading children chose books once a week or more. The corresponding number in the reading group was four. The parents’ ratings of the children’s preferred activities are found in Table 10. Reading, ranked highest among the readers (M = 6.29, SD = 1.6), was ranked lowest among the nonreaders (M = 4, SD = 2.22) (F = 5.872, df = 1,21, p = 0.025). None of the differences between the other ratings reached significance. The corresponding ratings made by the teachers showed significantly higher ranking only for watching television in the reading group (M = 6.5, SD = 2) compared with the nonreading group (M = 4.12, SD = 2.15) (F = 6.9782, df = 1,24, p = 0.0146) (Table 10).

42


Table 10. Mean rankings of parents’ and teachers’ ratings of the children’s preferred activities in the reading and nonreading subgroups

Activity

Readers Mean SD

N

Nonreaders Mean SD

N

p-value

2.23 2.12 2.39 2.17 2.40 2.61 2.22 2.46 2.18

15 21 18 20 21 21 20 16 18

0.0250 0.7942 0.2285 0.5742 0.4442 0.7363 0.3489 0.3379 0.0832

2.34 1.91 1.93 1.80 2.15 1.97 2.19 1.83

17 19 19 19 17 19 19 19

0.9175 0.2337 0.1287 0.8219 0.0146 0.0965 0.9486 0.9720

Parents Read Spend time outside Listen to tape-recorded stories Listen to music Go to school Watch television Spend time with other children Write Play with things

6.29 6.00 6.00 5.88 5.63 4.75 4.62 4.00 2.88

1.60 2.33 1.63 2.30 2.72 2.20 2.97 1.85 1.96

7 8 7 8 8 8 8 8 8

4.00 5.76 4.78 5.35 6.43 5.12 5.60 4.97 4.50

Teachers Read Spend time outside Listen to tape-recorded stories Listen to music Watch television Spend time with other children Write Play with things

3.00 3.71 5.14 5.72 6.50 5.25 4.33 4.29

1.58 2.21 2.27 2.60 2.00 1.83 2.66 2.14

5 7 7 8 8 8 6 7

3.12 4.79 3.74 5.55 4.12 6.66 4.26 4.32

p = 0.0250.

Children’s activities during reading. The parents stated that the children of the nonreading group more often listened to stories read by the parents than did the reading group (F = 6.8444, df = 1,29, p = 0.0142). Twenty-two of the nonreading children (three missing values) and six of the reading children did so. The lower number in the reading group might depend on the fact that these children also read by themselves. There were no other differences in the nature of reading activities or in use of communication mode during story reading: Bliss, single words, sounds, facial expressions or gestures. In the whole nonvocal group the percentage of Bliss use was 24.1%, compared with 27.6% for single words, sounds 51.7%, facial expressions 51.7% and gestures 31%. Also at school the nonreading children more often listened to stories read by the teachers than did the reading children (F = 8.8393, df = 1,31, p = 0058). There were no differences in nature of production of written text or in the children’s possibilities to discuss what they had read at school. There was a difference in visits to the school library (F = 4.6774, df = 1.30,


43

Table 11. Parents’ activities associated with story reading at home in the reading and nonreading subgroups Activities

Readers (n = 8)

Non-readers (n = 21)

p-value

Reads the text Points at the pictures and labels them Points at the words Asks the child to label the pictures Asks the child to point at the pictures Asks the child what will happen Asks the child to explain why something happened

7 2 2

20 14 5 4 7 5 1

0.4802 0.0454 0.9490 0.1967 0.6780 0.9490 0.4802

p

2 2 1

< 0.05.

p = 0.0389). All of the reading children had visited the school library, while only 14 (four missing values) of the nonreading children had done this. Parents’ activities when reading aloud. The only statistically significant difference in the nature of the parents’ activities during reading aloud was found in the parents’ pointing at the pictures and labelling them (F = 4.4035, df = 1,28, p = 0.0454). Fourteen of the nonreading children’s parents reported pointing at the pictures (four values missing) while only two of the reading children’s parents did so (Table 11). There were no differences between the children in the two groups in position while reading. Most reading took place in bed at bedtime. Teachers’ priorities. There were no statistically significant differences in time dedicated to the various subjects. Although there were no significant differences in availability of speech synthesis, there were differences in the use of synthesized speech. In four of the reading cases the teachers stated that they used speech synthesis in reading and writing instruction. In the nonreading group none did (nine missing values) (F = 9.8462, df = 1,25, p = 0.0045). Other language related activities. There were no differences in frequency of watching television, of the parents watching TV together with their children, of listening to taperecorded stories or in duration of such listening.

Discussion The scope of this study was to see if the great difficulties in reading and spelling abilities displayed by a group of nonvocal, cerebral palsied children

44


(Dahlgren Sandberg & Hjelmquist 1996, 1997) to any extent could be related to the experiences of literacy events at home and at school. This was made by means of questionnaires filled in by parents and teachers of 35 children with cerebral palsy, selected from a total of 164 Bliss using preschool and school children found in a nationwide survey (Dahlgren Sandberg & Hjelmquist 1992). The response rates were 89% for the parents and 94% of the teachers. In the comparison groups the response rates varied between 71% and 91%. The conclusions were thus based on a substantial proportion of the nonvocal, Bliss using children in Sweden. The study is, as far as we know, one of the most comprehensive ones on this population. Home literacy experiences and exposure to print have mainly been described to be composed of two principal factors: access to or availability of printed material and the quality of the interaction pattern in shared literacy events. There are indications that availability alone is not enough for a positive development of literacy abilities. Rather, the interaction mode, which concerns the participants’ type and degree of activity, seems to have a considerable impact. Obviously, exactly interactive activity could be expected to be of great difficulty in a nonspeaking population with severe motor disorders. The parents could be expected to have less time for shared book reading since they have to spend time on care-taking activities. The children would also have fewer opportunities to engage in solitary book activities and their speech disorders could impede active part-taking in the story reading process. The results of this study indicated that the children of all three groups had access to a lot of various printed materials. They all owned books, borrowed books, bought or subscribed to children’s magazines, and had access to writing material. There was a variety of literature found in their homes. There were no differences in the parents’ reading habits or in their values and high priorities of literacy activities, in contrast to other studies on disabled children, where physical needs were ranked after communication and literacy activities were ranked last. Parents of nondisabled children gave high priorities to reading and writing in these studies (Light & Kelford Smith 1993; Marvin 1994). These differences might depend on the fact that the children in the mentioned studies all were preschoolers. Literacy activities might therefore not yet have been of current interest, with the Daily Living Routines still to be managed. A complementary explanation could be that the children in the present study had such severe motor disorders that Daily Living Routines were judged impossible, which was also commented upon by some of the parents, with a higher rank for literacy activities as a consequence. Thus, all children were furnished with models and expectations that could promote a positive attitude towards reading.


45

Regarding interaction mode and degree of activity the children of the disability and MR groups seemed to show the same interest in literacy activities. The disabled children enjoyed more being read to, though. The ND group more often interacted with the parents using language than did the nonvocal children during story book reading. The disabled children more rarely read alone than the children in the other two groups, which is natural taking into consideration the low reading level in the disability group. Their difficulty in handling books was probably also a contributing factor. They listened to stories read to them to the same extent as the children in the ND group, but were less active in asking questions about the text. Since there were mostly readers in the MR group they also preferred to read alone. Generally, the disabled children more often took a passive role in story reading while the children in the ND group were more prone to ask questions and try to guess what would happen, which could be explained by their limited expressive possibilities. They also less often engaged in activities where their motor disorders were an impediment, activities like solitary book reading and playing with things. The parents in the disability group seldom asked the children to explain words or events. The most common pattern was that they read the text, pointed at the pictures and the words, and asked the children to point. Taken together, this gives a picture of a rather asymmetrical interaction, with the parents being the active part, adapting their pattern of activity to the children’s motor difficulties and lack of speech. The picture of the interaction mode and degree of activity could have been profounded, had video-registered observations of storybook reading been used. Such observations could have contributed a more detailed and enlightening presentation of the differences in activity pattern. Thus, contrary to what could have been expected, given the limited possibilities of the disabled children and the time-consuming care-taking activities of the parents, the home literacy experiences of the disabled children did not differ very much from the experiences in the MR group. This indicates that the motor and speech difficulties did not have any great impact on access to reading events, but to some extent on the interaction pattern. The fact that the reports regarding the children in the disability group differed very little from the reports from the MR group and yet that there were differences between the groups in reading and spelling ability also indicate that home literacy experiences might not be as important in this group as has been reported for the nondisabled, speaking population. The analysis of the home literacy environments of the two subgroups of Bliss using children, the readers and the nonreaders, revealed even fewer differences. The reading children owned more books, had more often visited

46


the school library, and asked more often for explanations of text read to them. Owning more books and visiting the library more often are likely consequences of being able to read, and at the same time probably have a positive influence on reading development. Such factors are examples of the so called ‘rich-get-richer’ effect, the more one reads the better one gets and the better one gets the more books one borrows or owns and gets further literacy experiences (Cunningham & Stanovich 1990). The detrimental effects of the opposite, ‘poor-get-poorer’, should not be neglected in this group of children. There were no differences in the parents’ and children’s activities during story reading. Taking into consideration that the information was gathered by means of questionnaires and the accompanying risks for influence of social desirability, the results have to be treated with some caution. There are no obvious reasons though, that the parents of either group would have a more pronounced tendency to respond to the questions in any special way. The distribution of responses in all three groups, covering all response alternatives, also point in that direction. To avoid such influences, direct observations could have been used in parts of the study, as mentioned above. In conclusion, the results from this study indicated few differences in home literacy environment in the children who participated in this study. Most of the differences belonged to the pattern of interaction, with more passivity for the nonvocal children, little use of language and fewer demands for active participation from the parents. Since there were practically no differences between reading and nonreading nonvocal children in these respects, the home literacy situation can at best be marginally influential on reading development. Probably, individual differences in speech and language abilities on different levels can better explain the differences found in literacy development in nonvocal children. The results of this study and studies of reading and spelling skills (Dahlgren Sandberg & Hjelmquist 1996, 1997) indicate that, among the particular groups studied, individual factors are the important determinants of the children’s literacy acquisition. There were, for example, important individual differences in memory capacity, verbal comprehension and number of Blissymbols used. The readers used significantly more symbols, i.e. had a better expressive ability and a larger vocabulary. The effects of lack of speech on reading and spelling acquisition have still to be assessed (Dahlgren Sandberg & Hjelmquist 1997). The more frequent, even if limited, and apparently positive use of speech synthesis as a substitute for the own voice in reading and spelling instruction indicates though, that vocal ability is important. The activity pattern in the disability group during story reading; mostly silent listening, few questions asked by the children and little activity


47

demanded by the parents, suggests, though, the possibility of changes in the reading situation. Without diminishing the value of a socially desirable and important interaction, more stress put on the child’s active participation in story reading might at the same time contribute to the child’s print awareness and promote literacy learning. On the basis of the argument ‘rich-get-richer’ and its opposite, it would also be important to encourage various contacts with books and other printed material. The most common communication modes were sounds and facial expressions. The children in both subgroups seldom used their Blissymbols for communication during shared story book reading. Only through use of the Bliss chart a verbal exchange of thoughts about the text would be possible, with a positive influence on literacy development as a consequence.

Acknowledgments This study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Council for Social Research.

References Allen, L., Cipielewski, J. & Stanovich, K.E. (1992). Multiple indicators of children’s reading habits and attitudes: Construct validity and cognitive correlates, Journal of Educational Psychology 84: 489–503. Baddeley, A. & Wilson, B. (1985). Phonological coding and short-term memory in patients without speech, Journal of Memory and Language 24: 490–502. Berninger, V. & Gans, B.M. (1986a). Language profiles in nonspeaking individuals of normal intelligence with severe cerebral palsy, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2: 45–50. Berninger, V. & Gans, B.M. (1986b). Assessing word processing capability of the nonvocal, nonwriting, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2: 56–63. Bishop, D.V.M. (1985). Spelling ability in congenital dysarthria: Evidence against articulatory coding in translating between graphemes and phonemes, Cognitive Neuropsychology 2: 229–251. Bishop, D.V.M., Byers Brown, B. & Robson, J. (1990). The relationship between phoneme discrimination, speech production and language comprehension in cerebral-palsied individuals, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 33: 210–219. Bishop, D.V.M. & Robson, J. (1989a). Accurate non-word spelling despite congenial inability to speak: Phoneme-grapheme conversion does not require subvocal articulation, British Journal of Psychology 80: 1–13. Bishop, D.V.M. & Robson, J. (1989b). Unimpaired short-term memory and rhyme judgement in congenitally speechless individuals: Implications for the notion of ‘articulatory coding’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 41A: 124–140. Bradley, L. (1988). Making connections in learning to read and spell, Applied Cognitive Psychology 2: 3–18. Bradley, L. & Bryant, P.E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection, Nature 301: 419–421.

48


Cunningham, A.E. & Stanovich, K.E. (1990). Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skill in children: A quick measure of reading experience, Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 733–740. 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. Cunningham, A.E. & Stanovich, K.E. (1993). Children’s literacy environments and early word recognition subskills, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 5: 193–204. Dahlgren Sandberg, A. & Hjelmquist, E. (1992). Blissanvändare i förskola, skola och efter avslutad skolg˚ang. Inventering av antal och skattning av grad av blissanvändning [Blissusers in preschool, school and after completed formal education. Assessment of number and estimates of degree of the use of Bliss]. Rapport fr˚an Psykologiska Institutionen Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden, No 6. Dahlgren Sandberg, A. & Hjelmquist, E. (1996). Phonological awareness and literacy abilities in nonspeaking preschool children with cerebral palsy, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 12: 138–153. Dahlgren Sandberg, A. & Hjelmquist, E. (1997). Language and literacy in nonvocal children with cerebral palsy, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 9: 107–133. Dunning, D.B., Mason, J.M. & Stewart, J.P. (1994). Reading to preschoolers: A response to Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) and recommendations for future research, Developmental Review 14: 324–339. Ellis, N. & Large, B. (1987). The development of reading: As you seek so shall you find, British Journal of Psychology 78: 1–28. Ellis, N. & Large, B. (1988). The early stages of reading: A longitudinal study, Applied Cognitive Psychology 2: 47–76. Foley, B.E. (1993). The development of literacy in individuals with severe congenital speech and motor impairment, Topics in Language Disorders 13: 16–32. Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In: K.E. Patterson, J.C. Marshall & M. Coltheart (eds.), Surface dyslexia (pp. 301–330). London: Routledge & Kegan-Paul. Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (1993). Activity settings of early literacy: Home and school factors in children’s emergent literacy. In: E.A. Forman, N. Minick & C.A. Stone (eds.), Contexts for learning (pp. 315–335). New York: Oxford University Press. Hehner, B. (1982). Blissymbols for use. Toronto: Blissymbolics Communication Institute. Høien, T. & Lundberg, I. (1992). Dyslexi [Dyslexia]. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur. Høien, T., Lundberg, I., Stanovich, K.E. & Bjaalid, I.-K. (1995). Components of phonological awareness, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 7: 171–188. Kelford Smith, A., Thurston, S., Light, J., Parnes, P. & O’Keefe, B. (1989). The form and use of written communication produced by nonspeaking physically disabled individuals using microcomputers, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 5: 115–124. Koppenhaver, D.A., Evans, D.A. & Yoder, D.E. (1991). Childhood reading and writing experiences of literate adults with severe speech and motor impairment, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 7: 20–33. Krägeloh-Mann, I., Hagberg, G., Meisner, C., Schelp, B., Haas, G., Edebol Eeg-Olofsson, K., Selbmann, H.K., Hagberg, B. & Michaelis, R. (1993). Bilateral spastic cerebral palsy: A comparative study between south-west Germany and western Sweden, I: Clinical patterns and disabilities, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 35: 1037–1047. Krägeloh-Mann, I., Hagberg, G., Meisner, C., Schelp, B., Haas, G., Edebol Eeg-Olofsson, K., Selbmann, H.K., Hagberg, B. & Michaelis, R. (1994). Bilateral spastic cerebral palsy: A comparative study between south-west Germany and western Sweden, II: Epidemiology, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 36: 473–483. Krägeloh-Mann, I., Hagberg, G., Meisner, C., Haas, G., Edebol Eeg-Olofsson, K., Selbmann, H.K., Hagberg, B. & Michaelis, R. (1995). Bilateral spastic cerebral palsy: A comparative


49

study between south-west Germany and western Sweden, III: Aetiology, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 37: 191–203. Light, J., Binger, C. & Kelford Smith, A. (1994). Story reading interactions between preschoolers who use AAC and their mothers, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 10: 255–268. Light, J. & Kelford Smith, A. (1993). Home literacy experiences of preschoolers who use AAC systems and of their nondisabled peers, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 9: 10–25. Light, J. & McNaughton, S. (1993). Literacy and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): The expectations and priorities of parents, teachers, Topics in Language Disorders 13: 33–46. Lundberg, I. (1989). Lack of phonological awareness – a critical factor in dyslexia. In: C. von Euler, I. Lundberg & C. Lennerstrand (eds.), Brain and reading (pp. 221–231). London: MacMillan. Lundberg, I. (1991). Reading as an individual and social skill. In: I. Lundberg & T. Høien (eds.), Literacy in a world of change: Perspective on reading and reading disability (pp. 14–22). Stavanger: Center for Reading Research. Marvin, C. (1994). Home literacy experiences of preschool children with single and multiple disabilities, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 14: 436–454. McGinnis, J.S. & Beukelman, D.R. (1989). Vocabulary requirements for writing activities for the academically mainstream student with disabilities, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 5: 183–191. Ninio, A. (1980). Picture-book reading in mother-infant dyads belonging to two subgroups in Israel, Child Development 51: 587–590. ˚ . & Lundberg, I. (1985). Evaluation of long term effects of phonemic awareness Olofsson, A training in kindergarten: Illustrations of some methodological problems in evaluation research, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 26: 21–34. Payne, A.C., Whitehurst, G.J. & Angell, A.L. (1994). The role of home literacy environment in the development of language ability in preschool children from low-income families, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 9: 427–440. Pierce, P.L. & McWilliam, P.J. (1993). Emerging literacy and children with severe speech and physical impairments (SSPI): Issues and possible intervention strategies, Topics in Language Disorders 13: 47–57. Reeder, K. & Shapiro, J. (1993). Relationships between early literate experience and knowledge and children’s linguistic pragmatic strategies, Journal of Pragmatics 19: 1–22. Rutter, M. (1978). Prevalence and types of dyslexia. In: A. Benton & A. Pearl (eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge (pp. 3–28). New York: Oxford University Press. Scarborough, H.S. & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers, Developmental Review 14: 245–302. Scarborough, H.S., Dobrich, W. & Hager, M. (1991). Preschool literacy experience and later reading achievement, Journal of Learning Disabilities 24: 508–511. Smith, M.M. (1989). Reading without speech: A study of children with cerebral palsy, The Irish Journal of Psychology 10: 601–614. Smith, M.M. (1992). Reading abilities of nonspeaking students: Two case studies, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 8: 57–66. Stanovich, K.E. & Cunningham, A.E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure, Memory & Cognition 20: 51–68. Stanovich, K.E. & West, R.F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing, Reading Research Quarterly 24: 402–433. Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F. & Cunningham, A.E. (1991). Beyond phonological processes: Print exposure and orthographic processing. In: S.A. Brady & D.P. Shankweiler (eds.), Phonological process in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp. 219–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

50


Stewart, J. (1992). Kindergarten students’ awareness of reading at home and in school, Journal of Educational Research 86: 95–104. Teale, W.H. & Sulzby, E. (1987). Literacy acquisition in early childhood: The roles of access and mediation in storybook reading. In: D.A. Wagner (ed.), The future of literacy in a changing world (pp. 111–130). Oxford: Pergamon Press. van Kleeck, A. & Schuele, C.M. (1987) Precursors to literacy: Normal development, Topics in Language Disorders 7: 13–31. Vulkelich, C. (1994). Effects of play interventions on young children’s reading of environmental print, Early Childhood Research 9: 153–170. Wells, G. (1985). Preschool literacy-related activities and success in school. In: D.R. Olson, N. Torrance & A. Hildyard (eds.), Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 229–255). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. West, R.F. & Stanovich, K.E. (1991). The incidental acquisition of information from reading, Psychological Science 2: 325–329. West, R.F., Stanovich, K.E. & Mitchell, H.R. (1993). Reading in the real world and its correlates, Reading Research Quarterly 28: 35–50.

Address for correspondence: Annika Dahlgren Sandberg, Göteborg University, Department of Psychology, Haraldsgatan 1, S-413 14 Göteborg, Sweden Phone: +46 31 7734273; Fax: +46 31 7734628; E-mail: [email protected]