Acquisition of Logographics and the Relationship to Learning Sounds of Letters
Correspondence
Evelyn R. Klein, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Assistant Professor,
Dept. of Speech-Language-Hearing Science
La Salle University
Philadelphia, PA 19141
klein@lasalle.edu
Introduction
The scope of practice for speech-language pathologists has expanded in recent years to include support for literacy acquisition. Speech-language pathologists are often critically important in developing children’s literacy, enhancing phonological awareness and supporting acquisition of the alphabetic principle (ASHA, 1999). Recent research suggests that delayed acquisition of early literacy skills can be traced to delays in acquiring letter-sound knowledge (Duncan & Seymour, 2000; Hecht, Burgess, Torgesen, Wagner & Rashotte, 2000). The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between preschooler’s abilities to recall names of novel symbols and learn sounds of letters.
According to Frith (1985) there are three stages associated with learning to read. Each stage builds on the concept of word knowledge to further develop reading. The first stage is termed ‘logographic’ and although it is visually oriented, it relies more on rote memory of words connected to graphic symbols and may be referred to as visually cued reading. The second stage is called ‘alphabetic’ and is more analytical than the logographic stage. Word elements and sounds of letters within words are most important. Ehri (1991) referred to this stage as phonetically cued reading. The third stage in Firth’s model is called ‘orthographic.’ This stage requires analysis of groups of words and has been referred to as ‘cipher sight word reading’ (Ehri, 1991). It occurs when reading is more automatic and fluent. According to Frith (1985), children who are unable to link phonemes to corresponding letters, remain at the logographic stage of literacy. If typically developing children progress through logographic, alphabetic, and orthographic stages, can performance in the earliest stage predict performance in the next stage?
When children begin to learn to read, their allocation of mental resources needed to decode print results in reduced reading comprehension (Kamhi & Catts, 1999). Once they learn to decode and retain orthographic knowledge, information can be retrieved (Ehri, 1991). According to Share and Stanovich (1995) it is the phonological awareness that contributes to the development of orthographic knowledge in memory. Once the visual orthographic image is established as a mental representation, reading becomes more automatic and fluent.
Bastien-Toniazzo and Jullien (2001) support the importance of the logographic phase in learning to read. The same visual imaging system that assists recall of symbols to be associated with words may be critical in the association of sounds to printed letters of the alphabet. It is likely that young children who easily recall novel letters and can pair them with words are those who are more likely to recall images of letters and can pair them with corresponding sounds. Engaging verbal working memory to associate abstract symbols with words, as is done when children read a logographic sign (for example, McDonald’s is associated with two golden arches), is an important component of pre-reading skills. In this study, approximately thirty pre-readers at the preschool level took part in an investigation to determine if there was a relationship between learning names of symbols (logographics) and subsequent learning sounds of letters.
Learning names for letter symbols (initially unfamiliar to new learners) requires an individual to encode, store, and retrieve verbal information. The ability to look at a novel sequence of letters (d-o-g) and say the word (“dog”) while understanding its meaning (an animal that has 4 legs, wags its tail, and barks, etc.) requires stored orthographic, phonologic, and semantic knowledge. Research indicates that children diagnosed with reading disorder (RD) may experience poor working memory performance under taxing conditions that stress the central executive storage system (Swanson, Ashbaker, & Lee, 1996). Gathercole and Baddeley (1990) found that 5-year-old children who were asked to learn names given to new toy animals had more difficulty in recalling unfamiliar names (Pyemass vs. Peter) as higher demands were placed on an intact phonological loop. Collectively, phonological awareness and working memory performance contribute to early reading ability (Leather & Henry, 1994).
According to Montgomery (2002), verbal working memory (VWM) is crucial to reading success. Individuals with poorer VWM demonstrate poorer reading comprehension capabilities and tend to concentrate more of their resources to understanding the message, thereby having fewer resources available to store information. This limited storage capacity means the incoming information may not be sufficiently encoded and therefore not adequately recalled. Just and Carpenter (1992) explained the capacity constraints of comprehension stating that limited working memory capacity affects storage, processing, accuracy, and speed. It is the visual orthographic knowledge (the way the word looks), obtained through exposure to a written word that assists in the automatic access of the word’s mental representation. The ability to access the meaning of the word (semantic memory) is related to developing automatic word recognition, fluent reading, and ultimately more efficient comprehension of written material.
It is clearly supported that phonological analysis is the most powerful cognitive variable for determining early reading ability and that phonological analysis depends on earlier skills including phonological letter knowledge, naming, and memory (Kirby, Martinussen, & Beggs, 1996). According to Storch and Whitehurst (2002), individual differences in code-related and oral language skills are important to explaining elementary reading achievement. Efforts to help young children with reading problems should target investigations that interrelate code-related skills, oral language, and reading achievement.
In a study by Littlefield and Klein (in review), middle elementary school children diagnosed with reading disability (RD) were found to experience significantly more difficulties on measures of complex auditory-verbal working memory than did their normally achieving peers. The best predictor of reading performance was word recall ability measured after students were provided with semantically-cued training sentences designed to enhance their memory for symbol-word pairs. In this study, children were shown a series of black and white line drawings. For example, one drawing was a horizontal straight line with two circles, one at each end, and the corresponding word “baby” was presented. There were 15 novel black-white line drawings (symbols) and corresponding words. After all the pairs were shown and corresponding words said, the children were again presented with the same stimuli. However, during the second presentation the children were also given a semantic cue in the form of a related sentence (for example, the word baby corresponded to the symbol of a rattle), “The baby plays with a rattle.” Children previously diagnosed with reading disability were found to have significantly more difficulty than their normally achieving peers when recalling names of the abstract symbols after the semantically-cued training sentences were said. Those children with RD did not use the additional verbal input effectively. Research has supported the finding that children with RD have reduced aptitude for simultaneous processing and storage of verbal information (de Jong, 1998). The normally achieving children were able to use the additional verbal cues to help them recall the names of the symbols more effectively.
In this current study, preschool children were evaluated to determine the relationship between logographic learning (both before and after verbal training cues were given) and letter-sound learning. Research has supported the notion that young children initially rely on a visual component of working memory rather than utilizing a phonological component of working memory, as is seen with older children (Hitch, Woodin, & Baker, 1989). Children who grasp the initial recognition of whole words associated with the visual images (logographic stage) display knowledge that print has a function.
In this study, it is hypothesized that children who perform poorly on naming the novel black-white line drawings (after semantically-cued sentences are given) will be those children who have greater difficulty learning to associate sounds with letters of the alphabet. Current norms suggest that typically developing 5.0-to-5.6-year-old children can provide the sounds for approximately 20 letters and that they can identify 22 of 26 letters by sound or name (Dodd & Carr, 2003).
The current study may help identify children with whom additional support is needed to encode sounds of letters. Children at risk for RD may benefit from receiving multisensory supports, focusing more on visual cues and less on added semantic input, to help them learn more effectively.
Methods
Participants
Participants initially included 15 boys and 15 girls from three preschool classrooms in metropolitan Philadelphia. The two preschools were located in the same community area. The preschools were part of a federally funded grant providing early curriculum support and speech-language services to children in an urban environment. The children ranged in age from 4 to 6 years (Mean = 4.8 years; SD = 5.7 months). The racial composition of the participants was 60% African American, 37% Hispanic, and 3% Caucasian. All children were enrolled in a community-based preschool program and for most of the children it was their first school experience. All children in the study were tested with the Brigance Assessment (Glascoe, 2002) to screen for possible developmental delays and make appropriate referrals for a speech-language evaluation. All children in the study scored within -1 SD to +1 SD (standard deviation units) on the Brigance Screen. Pearson-Product Moment correlations indicated there were no significant relationships between scores obtained on the Brigance and performance on the measures used in this study.
Brigance and Letter-sound Identification (r=.31; p=.22)
Brigance and Association Memory Test (r=.12; p=.60 to r=.23; p=.32)
Brigance and Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (r=-.24; p=.31)
Procedures
All children in the study were part of a one year early childhood development program funded through the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory in conjunction with a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. One of the major functions of this grant was to provide preschool children from disadvantaged neighborhoods with developmentally appropriate academic support. The primary objectives of the program included: identification and support for children who required speech-language therapy, direct educational enhancement of communication and cognitive skills, and ongoing training for early childhood educators in the classroom.
Parent permission slips were secured for all children in the study. All children were screened with the Brigance Screening Measure (Glascoe, 2002). None of the children were noted as having vision or hearing problems.
Initially, during mid-year (January), approximately forty-five preschool children were assessed on letter-identification and letter-sound correspondence. Each child was assessed with preliteracy measures used in the “Precursors to Developmental Dyslexia” Project (Locke, Hodgson, Macaruso, Roberts, Lambrecht-Smith, & Guttentag, 1997). Preschool students were presented with a letter chart with 26 randomly placed letters in 4 columns and asked to identify them (Identification of Letters Named). When students finished identifying letters from all the columns, the examiner named letters that were missed and each student was given an opportunity to point to them (Letters Pointed To When Named). Following this task, children were asked to generate the sounds associated with 15 consonant letters, randomly presented in 4 columns. Two practice items were provided first. Only one column was shown at a time. Approximately 5 seconds were permitted for a response. The score was based on the number of items the child could correctly provide (Sound-Letter Correspondence). Children who remained at the preschools were again tested with the two measures at the end of the preschool year, approximately 6 months later, after being instructed with a phonological awareness program focusing on learning sounds of 16 consonants (b, f, m, t, g, p, d, k, s, h, v, n, w, l, r, and j). Children were instructed on learning letters of the alphabet and corresponding sounds throughout the year with the T.A.L.L. While Small Program (Teacher/Tutor Assisted Literacy Learning) (Gerber & Klein, 2002). The initial letter-sound testing was conducted prior to the initiation of this program. During the school year, sixteen sounds of consonants were reviewed using a story-based framework with accompanying phonological awareness activities.
At the end of the preschool year these children were again tested on their ability to associate 15 abstract black-white line drawings (logographic symbols) with corresponding symbol names before and after hearing a semantically related sentence to potentially help them recall the name of the symbol. Children were also asked to point to the picture beginning with the same sound as the named target picture (Sound Matching subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Wagner, Torgesen & Rashotte, 1999). Children were tested individually at their preschool by trained graduate students from the Speech-Language-Hearing Science Program at La Salle University. All children were tested individually in a quiet area away from other students in the classroom.
The Association Memory Task (Appendix A)was administered in June. Students were asked to look at 15 abstract black-white line drawings (Appendix B) as the names of these drawings were said aloud. Following the stimuli, children were asked to freely recall the names of as many of the drawings as they could (Free Recall 1). Next, the 15 drawings were shown again in the same order as originally presented and children were asked to name the drawings from memory (Symbol Reading 1). After they named as many drawings as possible, the students were shown the 15 drawings again in the same order but this time a semantically-cued sentence was told to help them recall more items. Students were asked to recall the names of as many of the drawings as they could (Free Recall 2). After they named as many drawings as possible from memory, they were shown the drawings again (one at a time without any verbal cueing) and were scored on their ability to name them from memory (Symbol Reading 2).
Testing Protocol
Preschool students involved in this study were assessed in the middle (January) and end of the preschool year (June) with the following measures:
- Identification of Letters Named (26 possible): students were asked to point to the letters named
(Activity adapted by Locke, Hodgson, Macaruso, Roberts, Lambrecht-Smith, & Guttentag, 1997) - Sound-Letter Correspondence (15 possible): students were asked to say each sound when shown upper case letters
(Activity adapted by Locke, Hodgson, Macaruso, Roberts, Lambrecht-Smith, & Guttentag, 1997)
Students were also assessed at the end of the preschool year (June) with the following measures:
- Sound Matching (10 possible): identify the picture beginning with the same initial sound as the named target picture
(Sound Matching subtest from the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing)
(Wagner, Torgesen, & Rishotte, 1999) - Free Recall 1 & 2 (15 possible): recall words while shown novel abstract symbols (black-white line drawings) both before and after hearing semantically-cued sentences
(Association Memory Test – Word Memory)(Klein & Littlefield, 2000) - Symbol Reading 1 & 2 (15 possible): name words corresponding to novel abstract symbols (black-white line drawings) shown both before and after hearing semantically-cued sentences
(Association Memory Test – Symbol Reading) (Klein & Littlefield, 2000)
Results
Students in this study took part in learning names and sounds of letters from January to June. An independent t-test for children above and below the mean age of 56 months revealed that there was no significant difference in letter-sound identification between the younger and older age groups t(24)=1.51, p=.142. Preschool age and letter-sound identification was not significantly correlated (r=.235; p=.245). However, Pearson-Product Moment correlations revealed a significantly high positive correlation (r=.730) between performances on learning names and sounds of letters from mid to end year (p< .01). More proficient students at mid-year also tended to be those students who learned the most by the end of the school year.
Children improved in their abilities to name letters of the alphabet and to verbally produce the sounds of letters. It should be noted that when students were given the opportunity to point to letters that they could not previously name (receptive knowledge), they improved by identifying a mean of 3.95 additional letters (standard deviation = 3.87). Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations and correlations from time 1 (January 2003) to time 2 (June 2003).
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations for learning names and sounds of letters.
At the end of the preschool year the Association Memory Task (Klein & Littlefield, 2000) was given to students. In addition to sound matching, free word recall (before and after training sentences) and symbol reading (before and after training sentences) were scored. Results are reported in Table 2 with Pearson-Product Moment correlations found in Table 3.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations of subtests administered at end of preschool year.
Table 3. correlations and level of significance among measures for 33 preschool students.
Pearson Product-Moment correlations revealed a significant positive relationship (ranging from r= .438 to .770; p<.01) among subtests of free recall and reading symbols both before and after the semantically-cued training sentences were given. However, when analyzing the group as a whole, no significant correlation was found between learning to read symbols and learning the sounds of letters. Students were then divided into higher and lower groups (based on scores above and below the mean). These groups were analyzed on their ability to say sounds of letters and match initial sounds on Sound-Matching subtest of the C-TOPP (Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). As can be seen in Table 4, when students were divided into lower and higher performance groups (according to the overall mean on ability to name sounds), a different picture emerged.
Table 4. Means and standard deviations for symbol reading when comparing high and low sound learning groups.
As indicated in Table 4, the means and standard deviations were analyzed and t-test results for higher and lower sound learning groups for symbol reading 1 and 2 revealed that students with higher ability for learning sounds of letters performed significantly better on learning novel symbols when semantically-cued sentences were provided to aid their memory t (26)=2.53, p=.018.
As can be seen in Table 5, the same pattern emerged when analyzing the students’ ability to match initial sounds in words using the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Sound Matching subtest. T-test results for higher and lower sound matching groups for symbol reading 1 and 2 revealed that students with higher ability for matching sounds of letters performed significantly better on learning novel symbols when semantically-cued sentences were provided to aid their memory t (29)=2.65, p=.013.
Table 5. Means and standard deviations for reading new symbols when comparing high and low sound matching groups.
Students with higher ability for matching initial sounds of words performed significantly better on recalling new symbols when semantically-cued training sentences were provided. The lower phonological awareness group did not show a significant improvement in learning names for new symbols.
Conclusion
The purpose of this exploratory study was to determine the relationship between recalling names of symbols and learning to associate sounds with letters of the alphabet. The authors set out to explain connections between the more visually oriented logographic representations of words and the potentially subsequent alphabetic stage of early phonological awareness (Frith, 1985).
As part of a federally funded grant, approximately 30 urban preschool children were evaluated twice during the school year on their ability to name letters, say the sounds of letters, and match initial letter sounds in words. These children were also tested on their ability to associate 15 novel black-white line drawings (logographic symbols) with corresponding names that were provided verbally. Following these trials, each child heard semantically-cued training sentences to help make stronger connections and thereby recall more names of symbols.
As a result of the findings in this study, differences were found among children in their ability to benefit from verbal cues to associate letters with sounds. Children who were more proficient at learning names of the black-white line drawings (symbols) were better able to use the verbal cues to enhance their performance. They were also the same children who demonstrated a significantly higher ability for saying sounds of letters and matching initial sounds of words. Overall, it appeared that some children in the study were superior to others in verbal working memory. They acquired phonological awareness skills with greater ease, were able to learn names of novel symbols without difficulty, and were able to use additional verbal associations to recall more symbols. For others, added verbal associations did not make a significant difference in learning the new symbols. These children tended to be those who scored poorly on learning sounds of letters and matching initial sounds of words. It should be noted that this study was limited by the small number of preschool children involved. Analyzing children from a variety of socio-economic areas may also have revealed worthwhile information. All children in this study were from the same urban neighborhood.
This investigation attempted to expand phonological awareness to a broader realm of verbal working memory. The tests given to the preschool children in this study required verbal information to be encoded by attaching a word to a symbol, freely recalling words, and using semantic cues to help enhance recall. The ability to recall verbal input to name letters, say sounds associated with letters, and read strings of letters in the form of words requires verbal working memory.
For children who are too young to read strings of letters as words and who do not yet know the associations between sounds and letters, future research may determine if it is beneficial to use a procedure such as the association memory task to determine how efficiently children can learn to pair visual input in the form of abstract symbols with words. In addition, it may be beneficial to know if enhancement of verbal working memory (as was done by providing semantically-cued sentences) helps children encode, store, and recall more effectively. Providing specialized intervention to young children is critical and has been shown to reduce the incidence of expected reading failure from 18% of school age children to 1.4 to 5.4% (Torgesen, 2000). Results from studies on children with reading disabilities have paved the way for successful evidence-based treatment programs (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Morris, Stuebing, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Lyon, Shankweiler, Katz, Francis, & Shaywitz, 1998; Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000).
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1999). Guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of the school-based speech-language pathologist. Rockville, MD: Author.
Bastien-Toniazzo, M. & Jullien, S. (2001) Nature and importance of the logographic phase in learning to read. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14,119-143.
de Jong, P.F. (1998). Working memory deficits of reading disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70(2), 75-96.
Dodd, B. & Carr, A. (2003). Young children’s letter-sound knowledge. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(2), 128-137.
Duncan, L., & Seymour, P. (2000). Socio-economic differences in foundation-level literacy. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 145-166.
Ehri, L. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 2, 383-417). New York: Longman.
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K.E. Patterson, J.C. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface Dyslexia: Neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gathercole, S.E. & Baddeley, A.D. (1990). The role of phonological memory in vocabulary acquisition: A study of young children learning new names. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 439-454.
Gerber, A. & Klein, E. (2002). T.A.L.L. While Small: Teacher/tutor assisted literacy learning. (Unpublished manuscript). Philadelphia: La Salle University.
Glascoe, F.P. (2002). The Brigance Screens. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
Hecht, S., Burgess, S., Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (2000). Explaining social class differences in growth of reading skills from beginning kindergarten through fourth-grade. The role of phonological awareness, rate of access, and print knowledge. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 99-127.
Hitch, G.J., Woodin, M.E., & Baker, S. (1989). Visual and phonological components of working memory in children. Memory and Cognition, 17(2), 175-185.
Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual difference in working memory. Psychology Review, 99, 122-149.
Kamhi, A.G., & Catts, H.W. (1999). Reading development. In Language and reading disabilities (H.W. Catts & A.G. Kamhi, Eds.), 15-59. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kirby, J.R., Martinussen, R., & Beggs, P. (1996). Causal Path Analysis of Processes Affecting Early Reading. Paper presentation at 1996 Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association. Toronto, Canada.
Klein, E ,& Littlefield, L. (2000). The Association Memory Test – A Cross-Modality Test of Visual-Verbal Learning and Memory. (Unpublished test). Philadelphia, PA: La Salle University.
Leather, C.V., & Henry, L.A. (1994). Working memory span and phonological awareness tasks as predictors of early reading ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58(1), 88-11.
Littlefield, L., & Klein, E. (in review). Verbal working memory and semantic associations: Differences between children with and without reading disorder. (Submitted for Review to Journal of Reading Psychology).
Locke, J.L., Hodgson, J., Macaruso, P., Roberts, J., Lambrecht-Smith, S., and Guttentag, C. (1997). The development of developmental dyslexia. In C. Hulme and M. Snowling, (Eds.), Dyslexia: Biology, Cognition, and Intervention. London: Whurr Publishers.
Montgomery, J. (2002). Understanding the language difficulties of children with specific language impairment: Does verbal working memory matter? American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 77-91.
Morris, R.D., Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., Haywitz, S.E., Lyon, G.R., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Francis, D.J., & Shaywitz, B.A. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347-373.
Report of the National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (Volume NIH Publication No. 00-4754): Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Share, D. & Stanovich, K. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues In Education, 1, 1-57.
Stanovich, K.E., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 24-53.
Storch, S.A., & Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 6, 934-947.
Swanson, H.L., Ashbaker, M.H., & Lee, C. (1996). Learning-disabled readers’ working memory as a function of processing demands. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61(3), 242-275.
Torgesen, J.K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 1, 55-64.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K. & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.
Appendix A. Psychometric Information: The Association Memory Test
The Association Memory Test (AM Test) was piloted on 125 kindergarten and first grade children and 24 second to forth grade children. Content validity was in part determined by using rank-ordered words from a spoken word count relating to frequency for elementary school children. The fifteen test words were analyzed using point biserial correlations. Ten of the words were determined to be easy to moderate and five were considered more difficult. Interrater reliability indicated 95% interrater agreement for subjectively scored subtests. Internal consistency was established using the Kuder-Richardson 20 for dichotomously scored items. Alpha coefficients for Word Memory and Symbol Reading were .71 and .78, respectively. Criterion-related predictive validity indicates an approximate hit rate of 92% for predicting classroom achievement. In a pilot study of twenty-four 2nd –4th graders, the ability to recall words from the AM Test was highly correlated with reading ability (measured by basal text reading evaluations) r=.73; p<.01 (Klein & Littlefield, 2000). While correlation between the AM Test score and the WPPSI-R IQ (Wechsler, 1989) for 125 students in kindergarten and first grades was r=.62 (p < .001), factor analytic findings support the notion that the AM Test is a fairly unique construct with four subtests grouping together as a ‘working memory factor.’.
Appendix B: Items from the Association Memory Test (Klein & Littlefield, 2000)
The initial presentation included viewing 15 black/white line drawings while being told a name to go with each one. “Listen carefully. Don’t say anything yet. Just look. When I am finished showing you all of the drawings, I will ask you to tell me as many of the words as you can remember.”
- Word Memory I – Recall the words verbally from memory.
- Symbol Reading I – Recall the words verbally from looking at each drawing.
The second presentation included viewing the 15 black/white line drawings again (same order) while being told a semantically coded sentence to go with each one.
“I am going to tell you some sentences that may help you remember more of the words and drawings. Listen and look as I name each drawing.”
Training Sentences and Corresponding Black/White Line Drawings (novel symbols):
Baby. The baby likes her rattle. Baby.
Build. You can build with blocks. Build.
Break. Break the stick in half. Break.
Walk. Put your boot on and walk. Walk.
Wild. Wow, that picture is wild. Wild.
Fight. He used his fist to fight. Fight.
Big. One of the lines is big. Big.
Fan. The turning fan makes you cooler. Fan.
Beautiful. The diamond is so beautiful. Beautiful.
Green. Dollar bills are green rectangles. Green.
Laugh. He smiled and started to laugh. Laugh.
Indian. The Indian saw the arrow. Indian.
Moth. The moth has wings to fly. Moth.
Angry. Her mouth looked angry to me. Angry.
Horse. Sit on the horse and ride. Horse.
Following the semantically-cued training sentences, the same Word Memory (II) and Symbol Recall (II) subtests were administered to determine if there was a change in performance.
For more information on earning online CEs, CLICK HERE.
Editor's Note: It is with great pride that we re-release this peer reviewed and CE approved version of this article. This paper was originally released on this website as a non-peer reviewed paper. The author has worked with our staff and members of the www.SpeechPathology.com Review Board (click here to visit the Review Board) to successfully complete the peer review process. We are grateful to the author and the peer reviewers for their time and commitment.