Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research late readers catch up citation

This isn't gifted research and not new (2010), but as I just came across it I thought it might be useful to post. This link below is an article which describes a study comparing "early" to "late" readers and the age at which their skill levels merge. Relevant in that it is nice to know what educators may point as data to support the frequently heard statements, "they all catch up" and "early readers don't stay ahead".

Briefly, the study compared children who were taught to read starting at age 5 with those who were taught to read at age 7 and found they read at the same level by age 11.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20100401-20448.html

Polly

Normally I hate these assertions, because of the implication that the kids that learned to read don't advance faster than their peers because basically it all levels out because they are all at the same point by third grade. That always drove me insane because of this idea that the spontaneous readers or kids that learn it quickly are just sitting there waiting and then they all move on together!!!

But this study is different because it's not about being able to read by 5 but being taught to read starting at 5 or by 7. So when are these kids actually reading??? If you can't say student A started at 5, progressed to level x by 11 versus student B starting at 7, progressing to level x by 11 then how are you actually demonstrating anything about their age and skills.

And of course not really useful for kids that learn to read on their own, wonder where they fit in!!!

DeHe

The study indicated that early receptive language skills were a better indicator of later reading level than any of the other variables they looked at, which actually makes a good case *against* the idea that all children even out in the end.

That finding actually indicates that, while young children of the same age who have the same level of receptive language skills will likely even out with each other, regardless of when they are taught to read (if they even need to be formally taught), children who are significantly behind or ahead of their age peers in receptive language skills will likely have a corresponding significant difference in later reading level.

Well that makes a lot of sense!!! So it actually better explains those kids that people are always surprised about, when they turn out to be quite competent despite not having done it early.

DeHe

My eldest learned to read late, she had to be very actively taught and she learned with agonising slowness. She's only just reading for pleasure at 9+yrs. But she's gone from not having the whole alphabet at 7yrs old to having a mid 7th grade comprehension score on DORA at just over 9 years. So I guess that puts her in a group of kids for whom reading late (and needing to be taught) reflected not her ability to comprehend language but other issues.

My dd started reading at 2.5 (recognizing the jobs and names on the job board at school) and then stopped. By kindergarten she had dug in her heels and effectively said "I'm not doing that".She found out one of her friends read "better" than she did, and decided she would be a math person instead. Ha! The teacher pulled me aside and told me she had better get going, so I bought all these Bob books, and pretty stickers, thinking we could sticker the book each time she read it, as I figured we'd be reading each a bunch of times. A motivational tool.

I sat her down on the couch with the books and she gave me this "oh, no, not this reading thing again" look. She then read all the books-once- and went over and grabbed a story book off the shelf. I guess she didn't like stumbling over words aloud in the classroom, or the books were just too dull or something.

I remember asking her 1st grade teacher how the reading was going, with some concern on my face, and she looked at me like I had two heads. Apparently the summer between K and 1st dd became a VERY competent reader.

We laugh about it now. Dd thinks it's hysterical.

A sample of 50 is not statistically significant at all. There is way too much chance for variability in that sample.

They also "applied corrections" which really begs the question.

A better explanation would be that they as a group were exposed to the same curriculum in later years so they evened out. And that that curriculum did not challenge each kid so the early readers slowed down.