Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine whether the effects of phonological awareness (PA) and morphological awareness (MA) on reading vary as a function of writing system (Chinese, English) and type of reading outcome (accuracy, fluency, and comprehension).
Method: The literature search yielded 62 studies (EN: 30; CN: 32). 374 effect sizes were reported, based on 82 independent samples. In total, 10,632 subjects were included. Pearson’s r-values were coded.
Results: In Chinese, there were moderate effects between PA and reading (accuracy: r = .30; fluency: r = .26; comprehension: r = .26), and also between MA and reading (r = .39, r = .39, r = .36, respectively). In English, we found large effects between PA and two of the reading outcomes (accuracy:.54; fluency:.51) and a large effect between MA and reading comprehension (r = .53).. PA had a significantly larger effect on reading in Englsih than in Chinese, but no differences emerged across writing systems for MA. When the effects of PA and MA on different reading outcomes were contrasted within each language, we found that whereas MA contributed more in Chinese reading accuracy and comprehension than PA, PA correlated more strongly with reading accuracy and fluency in English than MA.
Conclusion: Taken together, the findings of this meta-analysis suggest that although phonological awareness correlates with reading across languages, its effect is stronger in English than in Chinese. In contrast, the role of MA on reading is similar across writing systems. Copyright © 2016 Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR).
Method: The literature search yielded 62 studies (EN: 30; CN: 32). 374 effect sizes were reported, based on 82 independent samples. In total, 10,632 subjects were included. Pearson’s r-values were coded.
Results: In Chinese, there were moderate effects between PA and reading (accuracy: r = .30; fluency: r = .26; comprehension: r = .26), and also between MA and reading (r = .39, r = .39, r = .36, respectively). In English, we found large effects between PA and two of the reading outcomes (accuracy:.54; fluency:.51) and a large effect between MA and reading comprehension (r = .53).. PA had a significantly larger effect on reading in Englsih than in Chinese, but no differences emerged across writing systems for MA. When the effects of PA and MA on different reading outcomes were contrasted within each language, we found that whereas MA contributed more in Chinese reading accuracy and comprehension than PA, PA correlated more strongly with reading accuracy and fluency in English than MA.
Conclusion: Taken together, the findings of this meta-analysis suggest that although phonological awareness correlates with reading across languages, its effect is stronger in English than in Chinese. In contrast, the role of MA on reading is similar across writing systems. Copyright © 2016 Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR).
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication status | Published - Jul 2016 |
| Event | Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of Society for the Scientific Study of Reading - University of Porto, Porto, Portugal Duration: 13 Jul 2016 → 16 Jul 2016 https://www.triplesr.org/twenty-third-annual-meeting |
Conference
| Conference | Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of Society for the Scientific Study of Reading |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | SSSR 2016 |
| Country/Territory | Portugal |
| City | Porto |
| Period | 13/07/16 → 16/07/16 |
| Internet address |