What may go wrong in grades 1 and 2? Are there early pedagogical measures with long-

lasting help?

Finnish Reading Association in Collaboration with Ilpoinen, Puropelto and Cygnaeus Schools, Turku, August 2017

Pekka Niemi

University of Turku, Finland

Co-authors

Kaisa Aunola, University of Jyväskylä

Ann-Christina Kjeldsen, Åbo Akademi University

Janne Lepola, University of Turku

Åke Olofsson, University of Umeå

Elisa Poskiparta, University of Turku

Silja Saarento, University of Turku

Minna Torppa, University of Jyväskylä

Outline of the talk

(1) Motivational changes after transition to school?

(2) Clouds in Finland’s PISA sky?

(3) Home literacy environment and reading development

(4) Early interventions promoting beginning reading: any long-lasting effects, transfer to reading comprehension?

A fresh first-grader feels academically omnipotent

Alkuportaat (First Steps) Study 2006-2015:

about 2 000 children were followed up from the beginning of kindergarten year until the end of grade 9

• among many other things, reader self-image was measured with the Self-Concept of Ability Scale (Nicholls, 1978)

Reading and writing

Numbers and counting Skating

(After Nicholls, Child Psychology, 1978)

Reader-self image: school beginners

• Altogether 80 percent of school beginners feel that they are among the better half of the readers. In reality about 35 percent can decode words.

Reader self-image, grade 2 spring

• By the end of grade 2, the reader self-image has become much more realistic.

Reading

Reading

Reading

Reading

Task- avoidance

Task- avoidance

Task- avoidance

Task- avoidance

Pre-reading skills

August October December January April

.86 .88 .86

.59 .43

.48

-.45

-.29 -.21

.69

-.11

1st grade reading accuracy and fluency is affected by task-avoidant tendencies

From Aunola, K., Nurmi, J-E., Niemi, P., Lerkkanen, M-K., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2002). Developmental dynamics of reading skills, achievement strategies, and parental beliefs. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 310-327.

Behavior Strategy Rating Scale

(Onatsu-Arvilommi & Nurmi, 2000)

Development of off-task motivation among grade 2 prospective good, average and poor readers

(from Poskiparta, Niemi, Lepola, et al. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2003, 73, 187–206)

• Left panel: prospective poor readers are similarly affected by a stressful play episode as prospective average and good readers.

• Stressful episode: an impossible task (Lego building with faulty bricks) or competition against a superior adult person.

• Right panel: their performance collapses in a stressful situation.

Development of off-task motivation among grade 2 good, average and poor readers

(from Poskiparta et al., 2003)

• By the end of grade 2, the now struggling readers show essentially more ego-defensive behaviour (fussing, refusing etc.) than other pupils.

• Socially dependent behaviour (lack of initiative, poor self-efficacy) is equally conspicuous (right panel).

• These tendencies are observed already in spring of grade 1

Anyhow, Finnish school is doing well? Word reading efficiency from grade 1 to grade 6 A longitudinal study of 2000 pupils (First Steps)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gr 1 fall Gr 1spring

Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 6

Precocious

Fast

Mainstream

Slow reading

Slow + math

… albeit intra-class differences are large Combined difficulty in word reading & math: decoding ability in grade 6 (spring), at the level average good readers of grade 3, fall term. In other words, intra-class differences are large.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gr 1 fall Gr 1spring

Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 6

Precocious

Fast

Mainstream

Slow reading

Slow + math

Agent of good results? What happens after grade 1? Received remedial teaching in grades 1–4. A longitudinal study of 2000 pupils (First Steps) NOTE: a number of good readers have received speech/articulation training in grade 1

0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %

100 %

No remedial

Remedial

Finnish PISA success turning sour?

Finnish PISA scores (raw points) in 2000 OECD average = 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th

Dif

fere

nce

sco

res

Percentile values

2000

Finnish PISA scores (raw points) above the OECD average in 2000 and 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th

Dif

fere

nce

sco

res

Percentile values

2009

2000

Finnish PISA scores (raw points) above the OECD average in 2000, 2009, and 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th

Dif

fere

nce

sco

res

Percentile values

2012

2009

2000

Finnish PISA scores (raw points) above the OECD average in 2000 through 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th

Dif

fere

nce

sco

res

Percentile values

2015

2012

2009

2000

Counteracting poor development: Shared reading at home – long-term effects? Intensive kindergarten programmes

Shared reading

Shared reading

Shared reading

.46***

.54***

MLR: X2(36)=40.45, p=.28, CFI=.99 TLI=.98 RMSEA = .04 SRMS=.07

Reading fluency

Reading fluency

.82***

-.24*

.00

-.07

Phon Awar

Letters

Vocab

-.08

.49***

.22*

Reading fluency

Shared reading

.80***

.55***

.05

4 5 6 8 9 Gr 1 spring

Gr 2 spring

Gr 3 spring

.18**

.38***

.37***

.27**

-.22*

-.14

Shared reading

.39***

2 years

.23*

Data from Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia; Heikki Lyytinen Timo Ahonen (Torppa et al., unpubl.)

Shared reading

Shared reading

Shared reading

.44***

.54***

MLR: X2(28)=30.05, p=.36, CFI=.98 TLI=.98 RMSEA = .03 SRMS=.08

4 5 6 8 9 Gr 1 spring

Gr 2 spring

Gr 3 spring

Reading comprehension

.09

Reading comprehension

.42**

.54***

.07

-.22*

Shared reading

Phon Awar

Letters

Vocab

.06

.32**

.20

.38***

.37***

.27**

Shared reading

.39***

2

.32**

.03 -.04

Data from Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia; Heikki Lyytinen Timo Ahonen (Torppa et al., unpubl.)

Ingvar Lundberg: Nordic model of reading intervention Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen (1988). Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284.

Kindergarten intervention in phonological awareness features the following:

• Play on equal basis, everybody participates, attractive games

• Little rivalry

• Pecking order mostly absent

• Clearly defined target skills, albeit not obvious to the child

• Mutual help

Replication with modification in Åland, Finland, with a follow-up until the end of grade 9

(1) Kjeldsen, Niemi & Olofsson, Learning and Instruction, 2003, 13, 349–365.

• Similar results as in Lundberg et al. (1988), even with a 60 % training dose

• Both mainstream readers and those at risk for reading failure benefitted

• Despite the fact that the starting level was much higher than in Lundberg et al. (1988)

(2) Kjeldsen, Kärnä, Niemi, Olofsson & Witting, Scientific Studies of Reading, 2014, 18, 452–467.

• Decoding gains sustained until grade 6

• Reading comprehension gains sustained until grade 9

• Albeit statistically significant, the gains were small in magnitude across the entire group

(3) Kjeldsen, Saarento & Niemi, unpubl.

• Crucial question: how do readers-at-risk fare through the comprehensive school until grade 9?

Intervention effects nine years later: Kindergarten at-risk and not at-risk children below the 25th percentile in decoding (grade 1)

and reading comprehension (grades 6 and 9).

60 60

53

32

24 25

31 35

27

13 9

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Grade 1 decoding Grade 6 readingcomprehension

Grade 9 readingcomprehension

Per

cen

t o

f th

e o

rigi

nal

gro

up

at-risk ctrl

at-risk int

not at risk ctrl

not at risk int

Grade 6; Readers-at-risk Pre-reading skills (z-scores) and reading comprehension.

Vertical line = performance at the 25th percentile. In other words, use of a cut-off score does not create artificial differences

Grade 9; Readers-at-risk Pre-reading skills (z-scores) and reading comprehension.

Vertical line = performance at the 25th percentile

Thank you!