Peer Reviewed Scholary Sources Reading Comprehension Early Childhood

• Loading metrics

Open up Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The skills related to the early on reading acquisition in Kingdom of spain and Republic of peru

• Pilar Sellés,
• Vicenta Ávila,
• Tomás Martínez,
• Liz Ysla

ten

• Published: March v, 2018
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193450

Figures

Abstract

This paper deals with the skills related to the early reading acquisition in two countries that share language. Traditionally on reading readiness enquiry there is a great interest to find out what factors affect early reading power, but differ from other bookish skills that bear upon full general school learnings. Furthermore, it is also known how the influence of pre-reading variables in two countries with the same language, affect the development of the reading. On the other manus, several studies have examined what skills are related to reading readiness (phonological sensation, alphabetic awareness, naming speed, linguistic skills, metalinguistic knowledge and bones cognitive processes), only there are no studies showing whether countries tin can besides influence the evolution of these skills.Our chief objective in this study was to establish whether at that place were differences in the caste of conquering of these skills between Spanish (119 children) and Peruvian (128 children), five years old children assessed in their own countries and later decision-making Economical, Social and Cultural Condition (ESCS). The results testify that there are significant differences in the caste of acquisition of these skills between these two samples. Information technology'due south particularly relevant, in these results, that the main predictor in a regression report was the country of origin, explaining a college pct of variance than other variables such as age differences, in months, or gender. These findings corroborate the results obtained in other studies with migrant population.

Citation: Sellés P, Ávila V, Martínez T, Ysla L (2018) The skills related to the early reading acquisition in Spain and Republic of peru. PLoS ONE 13(three): e0193450. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193450

Editor: Etsuro Ito, Waseda University, Japan

Received: July 7, 2017; Accustomed: February 12, 2018; Published: March five, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Sellés et al. This is an open access commodity distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: "All "The skills related to the early reading conquering in Spain and Republic of peru" files are bachelor from the 15-12-2017 databaseDANS, Information Archiving and Networked Services, (accession number(10.17026/dans-z76-spnm).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

A large body of literature shows that literacy evolution models are quite similar, and they are influenced past social, cognitive, and linguistic variables that underlie differences in students' pre-reading skills [1], [ii].

Early on predictors of reading

Social, cerebral, and linguistic variables can contribute to explaining students' differences in early literacy. In addition, these factors strengthen and interact with each other in a multiplicative effect [iii].

Amongst the social variables, we have to highlight the role of socioeconomic status [four], [v], [6], [vii], [8]. The most used index in instruction is the alphabetize of economical, social and cultural status (ESCS), based on the Programme for International Pupil Assessment (PISA). This indicator combines information on teaching and parents' occupation with household possessions. The alphabetize is derived from three variables: the International Socio-Economical Index of Occupational Status (ISEI); the highest level of education of the student's parents; the PISA index of family unit wealth; the PISA index of home educational resource; and the PISA index of possessions related to "classical" civilization in the family habitation, include an item regarding the number of books a family has in the household. This has been shown in PISA studies every bit a predictor parameter of bookish success [nine].

It is commonly accepted that social and economic status play an of import function in the conquering and subsequent reading performance of students. In general, children from depression-income families are more likely to accept poor reading achievement [10]. The family unit income level, besides as the parent's of education and occupation level, accept a direct impact on the academic progress of their children [eleven], [12] just as unemployment or unstable occupation of parents can have a negative impact on the development of cognitive skills related to reading and literacy development [xiii], [14].

The family unit has been shown to influence the experiences that the habitation offers children, beingness these differences primal to the command of linguistic skills associated with emergent literacy. There really is an interaction betwixt linguistic elements and shared reading experiences. The effect of the family unit on reading goes beyond these shared experiences, since the linguistic code used past the family is a determining cistron in the acquisition of reading itself, the children'southward domicile plays a central role in mastering the language skills associated with reading initiation and evolution [fifteen], [16], [17], [18]

On the other mitt, the shared reading of a book contributes to the evolution of receptive language, which in turn is strongly linked to reading operation [18]. Also, a good pre-reading experience will be enriched past the child's contact with elements related to written material [19]. Along these lines, studies accept shown higher levels of reading competence in students whose parents have better attitudes toward reading and claim to spend more hours per calendar week engaged on this activeness [20].

In addition, some linguistic [21], [22] and metalinguistic [23], [24], [25] variables also facilitate emergent literacy.

Two of the linguistic skills are oral language components that are mainly related to reading acquisition: vocabulary, comprehensive and expressive [26], [27], and morphosyntactic evolution [28], [29]. These aspects of oral language are essential in reading acquisition, and they maintain their influence on reading comprehension during elementary education [22], [xxx].

Amongst the metalinguistic skills, phonological sensation tin can be highlighted as one of the most widely studied factor [31], [32], [23], [33], [34] as it is considered the master predictor of reading performance. Its acquisition helps to larn the alphabetic code, and this learning in turn significantly increases the conquering of phonological awareness [35]. Its written report is of great involvement due to the reflexive posture of children towards oral language and the sensation of the units that arrange written language [36]. Some other relevant metalinguistic gene would be impress knowledge: sensation of the reading objective [37], and the written word has pregnant [38]. The child must be aware that writing is a representation which enables to perpetuate and transmit oral linguistic communication [39]. The hypothesis that cognition about written language is related to success in reading acquisition has received considerable support [forty], [41], [42], [43], [44], [24], [45], [46].

It is relevant to point out that phonological, morphological, and orthographic awareness have significantly predicted reading success, fifty-fifty in non-alphabetic languages such as Chinese [47]. However, when comparing the predictors in transparent and opaque languages, studies have shown that in opaque languages, instruction time is necessary before phonological awareness and vocabulary begin to show their influence on reading conquering [48].

In the case of alphabet knowledge [49], [50], [51], it facilitates literacy through the early acquisition of the correspondence betwixt written letters and sounds [52].

Finally, within this group of predictors of reading performance, sure cognitive variables can be mentioned [53], such equally attention [54], [55], perception [56], [57], and memory [58], [54], which deed as mediators in learning to read [59].

Evaluation of early predictors of reading in the Spanish language

Regarding the evaluation of these skills in Spanish-speaking children, various attempts have been made to mensurate them, both as individual and grouping assessment [lx], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. Of the pre-reading tests published in Spanish, only three of them focus on evaluating these precursors: the Exam for the early detection of reading and writing learning difficulties [60], the Pre-reading Skills Examination [67], and the BIL (3–half-dozen), Batería de Inicio a la Lectura (Emergent Reading Bombardment) [66], for children from three to 6 years old. The latter includes the greatest number of skills and can be practical during the entire preschool menses.

Comparative studies on early predictors of reading

An important issue is whether the precursors of reading are the aforementioned in all languages and countries. Emergent literacy development models are quite similar, with identical cognitive and linguistic skills predicting reading [one], [2]. It is also necessary to ask whether the acquisition and evolution of these skills occur in a similar way in different countries.

Ethnic group seem to differentially predict the development of pre-reading skills in children [68]. In the written report of Lopez-Escribano and Beltrán [68] examined emergent literacy skills in children with an average age of 5 years and 9 months (i.e., Cognition about Print, Listening Comprehension, Receptive Vocabulary, Rapid Naming of Objects and Letters, and Phonological Awareness) in three groups of native Castilian speakers: Spaniards, Latin Americans, and Spanish Gypsies. As regression analyses indicated, ethnic groundwork significantly predicted all the pre-literacy skills assessed, except listening comprehension. Mean scores showed that Spaniards outperformed the other two groups on the variables examined.

However, it is not known whether the influence of these differences betwixt ethnic groups is due to comparison the migrant population to the local population. There are several researches that find worse academic results in immigrant children than in native children [69], [70], [71], [72], [73] and in receptive vocabulary [74]. Similarly, on the PISA examination, reading proficiency scores of students from immigrant backgrounds are consistently lower than those of native students [9], [75], with the reading performance of first and second generation immigrant students consistently lower than that of autochthonous students [76]. Therefore, the results found on that piece of work could be due to the fact that a sample of local students was compared to a group of migrant students.

The main purpose of this study is to analyze whether the differences found past Lopez-Escribano and Beltrán [68] bweteen the Castilian (local students) and South American (migrant students), attributed to cultural differences, would be replicated by taking both samples in their country of origin

Lopez-Escribano & Beltran, [68] indicated that cultural background predicted significantly the pre-literacy skills assessed. Hateful scores showed that Spanish students accept amend functioning than the other 2 groups (S American migrants and gipsy people), although this written report presented a serious problem, as Spanish students had been assessed in their land of origin as native population, while South American students belonged to a migrant population. Therefore, the differences between the two samples could accept been due to the fact of comparison native and immigrant populations. The main hypothesis of our report is to try to prove that these differences remain when Spanish and Due south American students are all assessed in their country of origin, eliminating the possible influence of being office of a migrant grouping and maintaining controlled, equally far as possible, socio-economical status of children in both countries.

The nowadays written report aims to analyze whether the results obtained in previous studies are due to cultural differences, or to belonging to the native population or the immigrant population. Therefore, to resolve this event the participants are assessed in their ain countries and that "Economic, Social and Cultural Status" is controlled. This allows to better explore if there are differences between Castilian and Peruvian children, and if these differences are due to other factors over an above the economical gap between Spain an Republic of peru.

Specifically, this study has been developed between two countries from two different continents, Spain and Peru, only with the same linguistic communication, although they have certain dialectal differences. Spanish, despite its big number of variants spoken in different countries, is considered a homogeneous linguistic communication [77], [78]. This homogeneity is consolidated by institutional action, such as the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua (Association of Language Academies), and by the influence of the media [79]. This similarity betwixt Spanish from Espana and South America is nearly pronounced in Republic of peru. The language spoken in both countries is very like, especially in the city of Lima, inside the "Ribereña" expanse. It's the Peruvian zone where the Castilian has remained more "pure", every bit it has received less influence from the indigenous languages. In this sense, it is worth mentioning that several authors attribute to Peruvian Castilian a great closeness to the tradition of Castilian Spanish. This idea was confirmed past Malmberg [eighty] when he asserted: "that Peruvian Spanish is, fifty-fifty today, the closest Castilian American language to the Castilian linguistic norm" (p. 140).

Materials and methods

Participants

The study was carried out with 119 Castilian (70 boys and 49 girls) and 128 Peruvian (67 boys and 61 girls) five-year-old children. This study was canonical by the Experimental Research Ethics Committee of the University of Valencia (Spain). We obtained written informed consent from their parents before participating in the experiment.

The Spanish sample comes from 8 schools located in different regions of Espana. The pick of these centers has taken into business relationship the socioeconomic medium of their neighborhood. All Spanish schools belong to neighborhoods with a medium socio-economical level. The Peruvian sample comes from four centers of the city of Lima, these centers are located in especially "favoured" neighborhoods so they have a high socio-cultural level with respect to the Peruvian population, simply quite similar to the Spanish schools. The Peruvian schools belonged to two Metropolitan Lima districts with like socioeconomic characteristics and according to the wealth indicators analyzed [81], [82] both districts are located in quintile five, which represents households with higher incomes compared to other areas of the country.

In addition, in the pick of the Peruvian sample, family unit data were obtained, based on the Questionnaire on the Socioeconomic and Cultural Status of the Family, indicators established in the Spanish PISA evaluations [9], [75]; taking into account the level of instruction and occupation of parents, as well as questions about possessions. The purpose was to obtain more detailed information from the ESCS in the Peruvian sample, to ensure that it was comparable to the Spanish population. These data show that in the Peruvian sample, parents have loftier levels of study, even higher than the Spanish averages, as can exist seen in Table 1.

In both samples, the examination was administered to all the children, with no choice or randomization process, in guild to avoid any type of bias past the teachers or possible individual differences in pre-reading experience. Children were excluded if they had some type of specific educational need or their native linguistic communication was not Castilian. In both countries the Early on Childhood Educational activity begins at the age of 3. This level is not obligatory in both countries merely a high percentage of children are enrolled. Usually, effectually 100% of children at the age of 5 are schooled [83], [84].

Variables and instruments

The variables used in the study were: state of origin (0 Espana, one Peru) and gender (0 female, 1 male person) as dichotomous variables, and the historic period of the children codified in months.

The instrument used to evaluate the emergent literacy skills was: BIL (3–vi), Batería de Inicio a la Lectura (Emergent Reading Bombardment) for children from 3 to half dozen years sometime [36]. This instrument consists of 15 tests grouped in 5 factors. In the written report was been used the following tests:

The Phonological Sensation cistron (PA) consists of 5 tests:

1. ✓. Rimes (Rim). Identify whether the final sounds of pairs of words are the aforementioned or unlike (12 items).
2. ✓. Give-and-take Count (WCo). The kid has to signal the number of words that make upward each of the sentences presented. (half-dozen items).
3. ✓. Syllable Count (SCo). Requires dividing the word into syllabes. (14 items).
4. ✓. Isolate Syllables (SIs). Recognize commencement phonemes or syllables of eight words (viii items)
5. ✓. Omit Syllables (SOm). Get out out syllables in unlike positions. (5 items).

Alphabet Knowledge factor (AK). Consists of only ane test that requires recognizing the name or sound of capital or lowercase letters (24 items).

Metalinguistic Awareness factor"Print Cognition" (MA) is composed of 3 tasks:

1. ✓. Word Recognition (WRe). A list of ten written stimuli are presented, and the child must betoken whether or not each stimulus is a discussion (x items).
2. ✓. Sentence Recognition (SRe). Similar to the previous job, only a listing of v stimuli are presented (v items).
3. ✓. Reading Functions (RFu). A visually represented sequence is narrated in four images in which the kid must indicate how reading functions in the story (5 scenes).

Linguistic Skills (LS):

1. ✓. Vocabulary (Voc). Proper name a set of pictures. (viii items).
2. ✓. Basic Concepts (BCo). Recognition of concepts in drawings (8 items).
3. ✓. Grammatical Structures (GSt). Recognize whether the syntax of a sentence is correct or not (six sentences).

Cognitive Processes (CP) has two tasks:

1. ✓. Auditory Sequential Memory (AsM). Echo a set words in the aforementioned order (8 items). Maximum rank: 35, according to the number of words remembered and their position in the series.
2. ✓. Visual Perception (VPe). Notice a model symbol and point to the ones that are the aforementioned (22 items).

The BIL is applied individually and takes nearly 25 minutes per kid past native teachers in both countries. Because information technology is designed for preschool children, it relies on graphic stimuli. The items focus exclusively on the levels demonstrated prior to contact with reading, and low and medium difficulty tasks have been used in pre-reading children. The reliabilities indexes obtained, in the original report past authors, by the different tests that brand up the BIL range from 0.54 to 0.97 (Tabular array 2).

Although the test uses a elementary and basic vocabulary, it was decided to cheque, previously, the subtest of vocabulary, to ensure that the words used past the Peruvian children to proper name the elements of the test were the aforementioned equally those used by Spanish children. In this group, it was found that when the child knew the word, he always used the same word equally the one supposedly correct by the test. No child responded to whatsoever item with a synonym or specific word to their region. Based on these results, it was non considered necessary to revise the test or its correction criteria. Alongside these lexical varieties nosotros reviewed all items of the test and found that two items of the alphabetical cognition test and i item of the phonological awareness exam could be affected by the phonological differences between the two dialectal variances. The most important differences are found in some phonological varieties of Spanish spoken in Republic of peru: the /s/, /c/ and /z/ are pronounced the similar fashion; the /rr/ and /r/ are pronounced without fricativization; the "s" is predorsal and aspired before consonant (not at the end of syllable); the terminal /d/ becomes /t/ or is omitted; the sound /ll/ is pronounced as /y/; and tendency to eliminate hiatus in words with the suffix '–ear'.

In this case, we also tested these items empirically, using the same group of Peruvian children. Nosotros found two problems, in the alphabetic character "c" children said the name of this letter every bit 'ce' or 'se' (incorrect pronunciation) and the letter "z" was said equally 'zeta' or 'seta' (wrong pronunciation). In these two cases we decided consider any of these variations as correct. The Peruvian evaluators were urged to check the correct identification of the letter, non its pronunciation. In the third possibly problematic item, belonging to the phonological awareness test, there was no evidence of confusion with the letter /southward/ at the beginning of a word, since when the evaluator pronounced the particular correctly the children were able to isolate the sound without farther difficulty. Based on this result no modification was considered necessary. Further, this original musical instrument to be supported by other Peruvian authors [85].

Procedure

To analyze the data obtained, statistical tests were utilized that were similar to those used in previous studies with migrant and native populations in order to establish whether the significant differences between the ii samples were due to being a migrant population. The study was conducted with a comparison of means, based on Educatee's t test, in order to decide whether in that location were statistically pregnant differences betwixt the children from the two countries. The Levene Test was used to test the homogeneity of the variances; if the differences in variances were significant, the t value was corrected. The effect size was too estimated for contained samples. The calculation is based on the formulas reported by Borenstein [86].

In add-on, as in the written report by López-Escribano and Beltrán [68], we performed a footstep-wise regression analysis to establish to what degree the country of origin, gender, and age predicted the caste of acquisition of the reading precursors analyzed, based on the chief factors assessed by the BIL iii–6.

Results and discussion

The results of the t tests performed bespeak that in that location are meaning differences between the ii groups on the majority of the skills evaluated (Tabular array 3).

Significant differences are detected on the majority of the skills studied, except on the "Rhyme" subtest of the "Phonological Awareness" test and the "Auditory Sequential Retentiveness" subtest of the "Cognitive Processes" exam. In add-on, about of the tests present differences with a significance above 0.001, and big or medium effect sizes are found on all the significant variables, except Grammatical Structures, with a modest upshot size.

On the regression analyses performed using the BIL 3–six factors as DV, the Country variable was in all cases the best predictor of the reading precursors studied, as its influence was even stronger than what was plant betwixt native and emigrant Latin American children living in Spain [68]. In the case of Phonological Sensation, the country of origin variable was highly significant, explaining 22% of the variance (S1 Tabular array). These differences are more significant because this effect was not found in the emigrant population living in Kingdom of spain. With regard to Alphabet Knowledge (S2 Tabular array) and Metalinguistic Awareness (S3 Table), the country was pregnant, explaining xv% of the variance. In addition, Linguistic Skills (S4 Table), showed the greatest difference, with 38% of the variance explained by the Country of origin. These results are similar to those constitute past López-Escribano and Beltrán [68], where vocabulary explained 33% of the variance between Latin emigrant and Spanish children. Finally, on Cognitive Skills (S5 Table) the differences betwixt countries were smaller, explaining only x% of the variance. In all these analyses, in the adjacent step of the statistical procedure, the historic period variable was introduced in 2d place, await for the Metalinguistic cistron, where Gender explained a larger percentage of the variance. The three variables used were always meaning as predictors, explaining from nineteen.4% of the variance in the case of Cognitive Processes to 47.3% of the variance in the case of Linguistic Skills in the final model.

Discussion

The main purpose of this written report was to clarify whether the differences constitute by Lopez-Escribano and Beltrán [68] between the Spanish (local students) and Due south American (migrant students), attributed to cultural differences, would be replicated by taking both samples in their country of origin.

The data obtained shows significant differences between the emergent literacy skills of the two populations studied, corroborating the written report past López-Escribano and Beltrán, [68], even, or peculiarly, when the populations are establish in their country of origin.

The results show the same previous trend, existence replicated even with a slight increase in the variance explained past the country variable, although in this case the Due south American sample had not been taken from the migrant population, nor in disadvantaged neighborhoods. In this study both samples were taken in their land of origin, although the Peruvian sample was selected among the about favoured neighborhoods of Lima in order to achieve ESCS the near like as that of the Castilian population.

The main reasons for these differences should be associated with non-linguistic variables, related to the development of reading precursors in different cultural contexts Within our study, the just explanatory data we have is the number of books in the family home. In the evaluation of the ESCS in the Peruvian sample, the indices obtained were appreciably lower than the hateful values obtained in the Castilian population, despite the fact that it was a sample with a college index of studies and high levels of wealth. Contempo studies in Spain and Perú that accept included the variable «number of books in the habitation» among the indicators of families' socioeconomic status have demonstrated that admission to a certain number of books favors phonological and metalinguistic awareness [87], [88], [89]. The exploration of books, solitary or in the company of an adult promotes interest in reading [19] and the development of reading precursors [90], with college rates of reading competence amidst students whose parents have improve attitudes towards reading and claim to dedicate more hours per week to this activity [twenty].

Studies have shown that home experiences play a key function in the command of linguistic skills associated with emergent literacy. For example, the shared reading of a book contributes to the development of receptive linguistic communication, which, in turn, is strongly linked to reading operation [18]. As well, a kid will have a greater chance of gaining early literacy if due south/he comes into contact with elements related to written materials [nineteen]. College levels of reading performance accept been confirmed in students whose parents accept meliorate attitudes toward reading and spend more than hours on this activity, demonstrating the importance of the socio-familiar context of the pupil [20].

Therefore, another factor that could be explanatory is the "domicile literacy environs", set of activities that can be washed at abode related to reading readiness, such as: read together with the kid, letter and sound recognition, rhyming, developing appropriate vocabulary, modeling reading beliefs. These activities, developed at home effectually reading, can exist responsible for the cultural differences between both countries, in all pre-reading factors. For example, related to Alphabet Knowledge, the pre-reading factor that is more related to the familiar exposure to written texts has evidenced that children with a articulate command of letter knowledge come up from families that help them to learn the names of the letters by relating them to sure familiar objects [91].

These questions reveal the parents' importance in the evolution of these skills by, not always intentionally, placing their children in contact with elements of written language. Yet, information technology is also important to consider the role of schools in these two contexts because all the children attended school. There are certain differences in the curricula of the two countries; in the Spanish schools, there is more specific intervention in these skills. Studies in populations of children have made clear that these actions tin favor emergent reading [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [35], even helping to reduce the percentage of subjects at adventure of learning difficulties and increasing their academic achievement [97]. For example, instructing children in the manipulation of the language'south phonemes is effective because it facilitates reading acquisition, compared to education that pays no attending to the evolution of phonological awareness [98]. In the same management, there are sure skills related to learning to read in which the Peruvian curriculum does non explicitly intervene, such as the arroyo to the written code, whereas in Spain information technology is one of the main reading objectives [99].

However, it has been observed that exposure to school practices alone is not sufficient to promote the development of literacy skills [100]. In this surface area, new studies volition have to determine whether family and/or school patterns, and their possible interactions, are responsible for these differences.

Moreover, differences have been detected in the cognitive factors that are substantially "cultural costless". Notwithstanding, the cognitive factors evaluated by BIL three–6, especially the "Visual Perception" test, are strongly influenced by the kid's exposure to written texts. The BIL 3–half-dozen was adult under the assumption that cognitive factors are only an acceptable predictor of reading when the stimuli used for its evaluation are elements shut to written texts, so the "Visual Perception" test uses several alphabetic characters as stimuli, v of which belong to the Latin alphabet, used in the Castilian linguistic communication. Patently, children with greater alphabetical noesis will exist favored when performing this type of task. Therefore, in the BIL three–6 this test cannot exist actually considered to exist entirely gratuitous from cultural influence. The differences between countries found in the "Cognitive Processes" test are due to the visual task, no differences were found in the "Auditory Sequential Memory" test, based on oral language rather than written language.

In summary, the cultural context of the family and, specifically, children's access to written material, can be ane of the factors explaining differences in these skills. In add-on, including these pre-literacy skills in the Early Babyhood curriculum and, therefore, intervening at young ages, can be another gene. Although these differences have been corroborated amongst countries with similar linguistic contexts, it is necessary to carry out more than exhaustive studies that bear witness how the different social and cultural variables influence the development of these reading precursor, in social club to boost the creation of advisable contexts for learning this basic and of import skill.

Supporting information

References

1. 1. Georgiou GK, Torppa M, Manolitsis G, Lyytinen H,Parrila R. Longitudinal predictors of reading and spelling across languages varying in orthographic consistency. Reading and Writing. 2012; 25(2): 321–346.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. McBride–Chang C, Kail RV. Cross–cultural similarities in the predictors of reading conquering. Kid development. 2002; 73(5): 1392–1407. pmid:12361308
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
3. three. Noble KG, Farah MJ, McCandliss BD. Socioeconomic groundwork modulates noesis–achievement relationships in reading. Cognitive Evolution. 2006; 21(3): 349–368. pmid:19789717
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
4. iv. Bradley R, Corwyn R, Burchinal One thousand, McAdoo H, García Coll C. The home environments of children in the U.s. Part II: Relations with behavioral evolution through age 13. Kid development. 2001; 72(6): 1868–1886. pmid:11768150
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
5. v. D'angiulli A, Siegel L, Maggi Southward. Literacy Didactics, SES, and Word‐Reading Achievement in English‐Linguistic communication Learners and Children with English as a First Language: A Longitudinal Written report. Learning Disabilities Inquiry & Practice. 2004; 19(4): 202–213.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. six. Gentaz Due east, Sprenger-Charolles L, Theurel A. Differences in the Predictors of Reading Comprehension in First Graders from Depression Socio-Economic Status Families with Either Skilful or Poor Decoding Skills. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(iii): e0119581. pmid:25793519
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Duncan LG., Seymour P. Socio‐economic differences in foundation‐level literacy. British Periodical of Psychology. 2000; 91(2): 145–166.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
8. viii. White KR. The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological message. 1982; 91(3): 461–481.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
9. ix. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deportes. PISA 2015. Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de los Alumnos. Informe español. 2016.
10. 10. Ramey C T, Ramey Due south. Early intervention and early experience. American psychologist. 1998; 53 (2): 109. pmid:9491742
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Ensminger One thousand E, Fothergill KE, Bornstein 1000 H, Bradley R H. A decade of measuring SES: What it tells us and where to go from here. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. 2003; 13:27.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Sirin Due south R. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of inquiry. Review of educational research 2005; 75 (3): 417–453.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. D' Angiulli A, Siegel LS, Hertzman C. Schooling, socioeconomic context and literacy evolution. Educational Psychology. 2004; 24 (vi): 867–883.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Scanlon E, Devine K. Residential mobility and youth well-being: Research, policy, and practice issues. J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare, 2001; 28: 119.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Davis-Kean P Eastward. The influence of parent teaching and family income on child accomplishment: the indirect role of parental expectations and the home surroundings. Journal of family psychology. 2005; 19 (2): 294. pmid:15982107
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
16. sixteen. Kiuru N, Lerkkanen M, Niemi P, Poskiparta East, Ahonen T, Poikkeus A, et al. The role of reading disability risk and environmental protective factors in students' reading fluency in grade 4. Reading Research Quarterly. 2013; 48(4): 349–368.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Leseman P, Jong PF. Home literacy: Opportunity, instruction, cooperation and social‐emotional quality predicting early reading achievement. Reading Inquiry Quarterly 1998; 33 (3): 294–318.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. eighteen. Sénéchal M, LeFevre JA. Parental involvement in the evolution of children's reading skill: A five‐year longitudinal study. Child development. 2002; 73(two): 445–460. pmid:11949902
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Piacente T, Marder S, Resches Thousand, Ledesma R. El contexto alfabetizador hogareño en familias de la pobreza. Comparación de sus características con las de familias no pobres. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica, 2006; 21(ane): 61–88.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Gil-Flores J. Hábitos y actitudes de las familias hacia la lectura y competencias básicas del alumnado. Revista de educación. 2009; 350: 301–322.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Catts HW, Adlof SM, Weismer SE. Linguistic communication deficits in poor comprehenders: A instance for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech communication, Language, and Hearing Research. 2006; 49(2): 278–293. pmid:16671844
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Dickinson D, Porche M. Relation betwixt linguistic communication experiences in preschool classrooms and children's kindergarten and fourth-course linguistic communication and reading abilities. Kid development. 2011; 82(iii): 870–886. pmid:21413936
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Lonigan CJ, Shanahan T. Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Console. Executive Summary. A Scientific Synthesis of Early on Literacy Development and Implications for Intervention. National Institute for Literacy; 2009.
24. 24. Jiménez JE, Ortiz MR. Conciencia metalingüística y adquisición lectora en la lengua española. The Castilian Journal of Psychology. 2000; iii (i): 37–46.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Speece DL, Ritchey KD, Cooper DH, Roth FP, Schatschneiderd C. Growth in early reading skills from kindergarten to 3rd grade. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2004; 29: 312–332.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Pearson PD, Hiebert EH, Kamil ML. Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to larn. Reading enquiry quarterly. 2007; 42(two): 282–296.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Proctor CP, Silverman RD, Harring JR, Montecillo C. The role of vocabulary depth in predicting reading comprehension amid English language monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual children in uncomplicated school. Reading and Writing. 2012; 25(7): 1635–1664.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Nation 1000, Clarke P, Marshall CM, Durand M. Hidden Linguistic communication Impairments in Children Parallels Betwixt Poor Reading Comprehension and Specific Language Damage? Journal of Spoken communication, Language and Hearing Inquiry. 2004; 47(ane): 199–211.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Wolter Fifty. That'south that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. PhD Dissertation, Academy of California, Santa Cruz; 2006.
30. 30. Hipfner-Boucher 1000, Milburn T, Weitzman Eastward, Greenberg J, Pelletier J, Girolametto L. Relationships between preschoolers' oral linguistic communication and phonological sensation. First Language. 2014; 34 (2): 178–197.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Aguilar Grand, Navarro JI, Menacho I, Alcale C, Marchena E, Ramiro P. Velocidad de nombrar y conciencia fonológica en el aprendizaje inicial de la lectura. Psicothema. 2010; 22(three): 436–442.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Defior S. ¿Cómo facilitar el aprendizaje inicial de la lectoescritura? Papel de las habilidades fonológicas. Infancia y Aprendizaje. 2008; 31 (3): 333–345.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Parrila R, Kirby JR, McQuarrie Fifty. Articulation charge per unit, naming speed, verbal short-term retentiveness, and phonological awareness: Longitudinal predictors of early on reading development? Scientific Studies of Reading. 2004; 8(one): 3–26.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Thomson J, Hogan T. Time to come advances in the early on detection of reading take chances: Subgroups, dynamic relations, and avant-garde methodologies. Epilogue Special Edition "Advances in the Early Detection of Reading Take chances". Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2009; 43(four): 383–386.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Defior S, Serrano F. La conciencia fonémica, aliada de la adquisición del lenguaje escrito. Revista de Logopedia. Foniatría y Audiología. 2011, 31(1): 2–13.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Sellés P, Martínez T. Evaluación de los predictores y facilitadores de la lectura: análisis y comparación de pruebas en español y en inglés. Bordón, 2008; lx (3): 113–129.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Flórez-Romero R, Torrado MC, Mondragón South, Pérez C. Explorando la metacognición: Evidencia en actividades de lectura y escritura en niños y niñas de five a 10 años de edad. Revista colombiana de psicología. 2003; 12(1): 85–98.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Kassow DZ. Parent-child shared book reading: Quality versus quantity of reading interactions betwixt parents and young children. Talaris Research Institute. 2006; 1: ane–9
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Niessen NL, Strattman 1000, Scudder R. The influence of three emergent literacy skills on the invented spellings of 4-yr-olds. Advice Disorders Quarterly. 2011; 32(ii): 93–102.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. forty. Baghban Thousand. La adquisición precoz de la lectura y la escritura (de 0 a 3 años). Madrid: Aprendizaje-Visor; 1990.
41. 41. Ferreiro E, Teberosky A. Literacy before schooling. Heinemann Educational Books Inc., lxx Courtroom St., Portsmouth, NH 03801. 1982.
42. 42. Harlin R, Lipa S. Emergent literacy: A comparing of formal and breezy cess methods. Reading Horizons. 1990; thirty(3): 210–223.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Huba ME, Robinson SS, Kontos Southward. Prereaders' Understanding of the Purposes of Print and Subsequent Reading Achievement. The Journal of Educational Research. 1989; 82(4): 210–215.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Garton A, Pratt C. Aprendizaje y proceso de alfabetización: el desarrollo del lenguaje hablado y escrito (Vol. 21). Grupo Planeta (GBS); 1991.
45. 45. Tunmer We, Herriman ML, Nesdale AR. Metalinguistic abilities and starting time reading. Reading Research Quarterly. 1988; 23: 134–158
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Wells G. Aprender a leer y escribir. Barcelona: Laia; 1988.
47. 47. Wei TQ, Bi HY, Chen BG, Liu Y, Weng 90, Wydell TN. Developmental changes in the role of unlike metalinguistic awareness skills in Chinese reading acquisition from preschool to tertiary form. PloS i 2014; 9(5): e96240. pmid:24809477
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Zaretsky E, Kraljevic JK, Cadre C, Lencek M. Literacy predictors and early reading and spelling skills as a factor of orthography: Cantankerous-linguistic evidence. Written Linguistic communication & Literacy. 2009; 12(1): 52–81.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Bravo Fifty, Villalón Chiliad, Orellana E. Predictibilidad del rendimiento en la lectura: una investigación de seguimiento de primer a tercer año. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología. 2006. 38(one): 9–xx.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
50. l. Diuk BG, Ferroni MV. Aprendizaje de letras en niños preescolares de nivel socioeconómico bajo. Interdisciplinaria. 2014; 31(1): 25–37.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Foulin JN. Why is letter-name knowledge such a proficient predictor of learning to read? Reading and Writing. 2005; 18: 129–155.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Hulme C, Bowyer-Crane C, Carroll JM, Duff FJ, Snowling Yard J. The Causal Function of Phoneme Sensation and Letter-Sound Knowledge in Learning to Read: Combining Intervention Studies With Mediation Analyses. Psychological Science. 2012; 23: 572–577. pmid:22539335
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Konold TR, Juel C, Mckinnon M, Deffes R. A multivariate model of early reading acquisition. Practical Psycholinguistics. 2003; 24: 89–112.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Welsh JA, Null RL, Blair C, Bierman KL, Nelson KE. The evolution of cognitive skills and gains in bookish schoolhouse readiness for children from low-income families. Periodical of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102: 43–53. pmid:20411025
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Die JL, Schwanenflugel PA. Structural model of the effects of preschool attention on kindergarten literacy. Reading and Writing. 2012; 25(9): 2205–2222
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Laberge A, Samuels S J. Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cerebral Psychology. 1974; half-dozen: 293–323.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Bosse ML, Valdois Due south. Influence of the visual attention span on child reading performance: a cantankerous‐sectional study. Journal of Enquiry in Reading. 2009; 32(two): 230–253.2009
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. Injoque-Ricle I, Barreyro JP, Calero A, Burin DI. Memoria de Trabajo y vocabulario: United nations modelo de interacción entre los componentes del modelo de Baddeley y el sistema de información exact cristalizada. Cuadernos de neuropsicología. 2012; 6 (1): 33–45.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
59. 59. Alfonso Due south, Deaño Grand, Almeida LS, Conde A, García-Señorán 1000. Facilitación del conocimiento alfabético en preescolar a través del entrenamiento en codificación, grafomotricidad y lectura. Psicothema. 2012; 24(4): 573–580.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
60. 60. Cuetos F, Suárez Coalla MP, Molina MI, Llenderrozas MC. Test for the early detection of learning difficulties in reading and writing [Test para la detección temprana de las dificultades en el aprendizaje de la lectura y escritura]. Pediatría de Atención Primaria. 2015; 17(66): e99–e107.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
61. 61. Filho L. Examination ABC de verificación de la madurez necesaria para el aprendizaje de la lectura y escritura. Buenos Aires: Kapelusz; 1960.
62. 62. Inizan A. Cuando enseñar a leer. Batería predictiva. Pablo Del Rio, Editor. 1979
63. 63. Molina South. BADIMALE. Batería Diagnóstica de la madurez Lectora. Madrid: CEPE; 1988
64. 64. Molina S. BADICBALE, Batería diagnóstica de la competencia básica para la lectura. Madrid: CEPE; 1992
65. 65. Mora JA. BENHALE, Batería Evaluadora de las Habilidades Necesarias para el Aprendizaje de la Lectura y Escritura. Madrid: TEA EDICIONES; 1999
66. 66. Sellés P, Martínez T, Vidal-Abarca Due east, Gilabert R. Manual Batería de Inicio a la lectura para niños de iii a 6 años (BIL 3–6). Madrid: ICCE; 2008.
67. 67. Velarde E, Meléndez One thousand, Canales R, Lingán K. Examination de Habilidades Prelectoras (THP). Madrid: Ed. EOS; 2010
68. 68. López-Escribano C, Beltrán JA. Early on predictors of reading in three groups of native Castilian speakers: Spaniards, Gypsies, and Latin Americans. The Spanish journal of psychology. 2009; 12(01): 84–95.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
69. 69. Siguan M. La escuela y los inmigrantes. Paidós, 1998.
70. 70. Vila I. Lengua, escuela e inmigración. Cultura y educación. 2006, 18 (2): 127–142.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
71. 71. Montes R. La inclusión de las minorías étnicas en la Región de Murcia. Situación y resultados dos años después. II Jornadas Interculturalidad en la Región de Murcia. 2002: 15–27.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
72. 72. Huguet A, Navarro JL, Janés J. La adquisición del castellano por los escolares inmigrantes. El papel del tiempo de estancia y la lengua familiar. Anuario de Psicología. 2007; 38 (3).
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
73. 73. Huguet A. Interdependencia lingüística y práctica educativa. Un estudio con escolares de origen inmigrante. Infancia y aprendizaje. 2008; 31(3): 283–301.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
74. 74. Ferrer A, Brancal M, Carreres D, Tomás I, Ávila 5, Jiménez Chiliad. VAVEL Superior. Prueba de Valoración del Vocabulario Español, ix–sixteen años. Barcelona. Lebón; 2010
75. 75. Ministerio de Educación. PISA 2009. Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de los alumnos. OCDE Informe Español. 2010.
76. 76. Azzolini D, Schnell P, Palmer JRB. Educational accomplishment gaps betwixt immigrant and native students in 2 "new" immigration countries: Italy and Kingdom of spain in comparison. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2012; 643 (1): 46–77. pmid:23493944
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
77. 77. Blanch JML. Diversidad léxica y uniformidad gramatical. En torno al porvenir de la lengua española. Revista de Filología Española. 2000; eighty: 201–214.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
78. 78. Blanch JML. Cuestiones de filología hispanoamericana. 2003; 51.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
79. 79. López Morales H. El futuro del español. Instituto Cervantes, Enciclopedia del español en el mundo. 2006: 476–491.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
80. 80. Malmberg B. La América hispanohablante: unidad y diferenciación del castellano. Istmo. 1971; 3.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
81. 81. Díaz J. Nuevo Mapa de Pobreza del Fondo de Cooperación para el Desarrollo Social (FONCODES) Lima: fONCODES. 2006.
82. 82. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (Perú). Dirección Técnica de Demografía e Indicadores Sociales. Perfil sociodemográfico del Perú: Censos Nacionales 2007: Xi de población y 6 de vivienda. INEI, 2008.
83. 83. Instituto Nacional de Estadística east Informática INEI (2016) Encuesta Nacional de Hogares.
84. 84. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Las cifras de la Educación en España. Estadísticas eastward Indicadores. 2017.
85. 85. Canales RC, Velarde EM, Meléndez CM, Lingán Southward. Lenguaje oral y habilidades prelectoras en niños de 4 a 6 años. Un estudio sobre marginalidad y bilingüismo en el Perú. Revista de Investigación en Psicología. 2014; 17(1): 107–119.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
86. 86. Borenstein One thousand. Effect sizes for continuous data. In: Cooper H, Hedges H, Valentine J (eds.) The handbook of enquiry synthesis and meta analysis, New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. p. 221–237.
87. 87. Tiana A. El contexto sociocultural en la evaluación de los centros educativos. En Marchesi A, Martín E, eds. Evaluación de la Educación Secundaria. Fotografía de una etapa polémica. Madrid: Editorial SM; 2002. pp 61–76.
88. 88. Marchesi A, Martínez R, Martín Eastward. Estudio longitudinal sobre la influencia del nivel sociocultural en el aprendizaje de los alumnos en la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Infancia y aprendizaje. 2004; 27(three): 307–323.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
89. 89. Ysla LC, Ávila V. Influencia de los factores demográficos, familiares y culturales en el desarrollo de las habilidades de inicio a la lectura en niños limeños de cinco años. En Castejón JL coord. Psicología y Educación: Presente y Futuro [Libro de Actas]. Ed. ACIPE- Asociación Científica de Psicología y Educación; 2016. pp. 2720–2729
90. 90. Neumann M, Hood M, Ford RM. Using environmental print to heighten emergent literacy and print motivation. Reading and Writing. 2013; 26 (5): 771–793.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
91. 91. Robins S, Treiman R, Rosales Due north. Alphabetic character cognition in parent–child conversations. Reading and writing. 2014; 27(3): 407–429. pmid:25598577
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
92. 92. Aspe A, Acosta 5, Moreno A. Intervention Strategies in Preschool Students With Specific Linguistic communication Impairments. Revista de Psicodidáctica. 2012; 17(2): 271–289
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
93. 93. Suárez-Coalla P, García de Castro M, Cuetos F. Variables predictoras de la lectura y la escritura en castellano. Infancia y Aprendizaje. 2013; 36 (i): 77–89.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
94. 94. Muter V, Hulme C, Snowling MJ, Stevenson J. Phonemes, Rimes, Vocabulary, and Grammatical Skills equally Foundations of Early on Reading Development: Testify From a Longitudinal Study. Developmental Psychology. 2004; xl (v): 665–681. pmid:15355157
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
95. 95. Trías D, Cuadro A, Costa D. Desarrollo de la conciencia fonémica: evaluación de united nations programa de intervención. Ciencias Psicológicas. 2009; 3 (2): 177–184.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
96. 96. Porta ME. Un programa de intervención pedagógica en conciencia fonológica. Efectos sobre el aprendizaje inicial de la lectura. Revista de orientación educacional. 2012; 50: 93–111.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
97. 97. González MJ, Martín I, Delgado M. Teaching Literacy and Decreased Risk of Learning Disabilities. Revista de Psicodidáctica. 2012; 17(ii): 253–268
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
98. 98. Jiménez J, O'Shanahan I. Enseñanza de la lectura: de la teoría y la investigación a la práctica educativa. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación. 2008; 45(five): two–22.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
99. 99. ORDEN ECI/3960/2007, de xix de diciembre. Curriculo y regulación de la ordenación de la educación infantil en España. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte; 2007.
100. 100. Flórez-Romero R, Restrepo M, Schwanenflugel P. Promoción del alfabetismo inicial y prevención de las dificultades en la lectura: una experiencia pedagógica en el aula de preescolar. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana. 2009; 27(ane): 79–96.
     • View Article
     • Google Scholar

smithtwous1981.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193450