Vocabulary performance of students with and without difficulties learning to read and write
Desempenho em vocabulário de escolares com e sem dificuldades na alfabetização
Cláudia da Silva; Patrícia do Valle Alves
Abstract
Purpose: to compare vocabulary performances and verify the lexical competence of students with and without difficulties learning to read and write.
Methods: 93 first-grade students were divided into Group I (50 students without difficulties) and Group II (43 students with difficulties learning to read and write). They were administered the Child Language Test focusing on vocabulary. The analysis considered aspects of usual word designation, non-designation, and substitution process. The data analysis was conducted with the Mann-Whitney test, with a p-value ≤ 0.05.
Results: there were significant performances in the comparison between the groups in all the conceptual fields analyzed. There was no significance for either group regarding the conceptual fields of Foods, Furniture and Appliances, Places, and Professions in non-designation; regarding Means of Transportation in substitution processes; regarding Toys and Musical Instruments in both non-designation and substitution processes. Group I had higher means than Group II in usual word designation, and lower ones in non-designation and substitution processes.
Conclusion: students with difficulties learning to read and write had greater difficulties in usual word designation, as well as higher error indexes in substitution processes and non-designation, which reveals a deficient vocabulary concerning lexical access in comparison with students without difficulties.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: comparar o desempenho em vocabulário para verificar a competência lexical de escolares com e sem dificuldades na alfabetização.
Métodos: 93 escolares do 1º ano do ensino fundamental, divididos em GI (50 escolares sem dificuldades) e GII (43 escolares com dificuldades na alfabetização). O Teste de Linguagem Infantil foi aplicado, com enfoque na área de vocabulário, analisado de acordo com aspectos de designação por vocábulo usual, não designação e processo de substituição. Na análise dos dados foi utilizado o Teste de Mann-Whitney com valor de p ≤0,05.
Resultados: houve desempenhos significantes na comparação entre os grupos em todos os campos conceituais analisados. Não havendo significância para ambos os grupos nos campos conceituais alimentos, móveis e utensílios, locais e profissões em não designação, para meios de transporte em processos de substituição, para brinquedos e instrumentos musicais em não designação e processos de substituição, indicando médias superiores do Grupo I para designação por vocábulo usual e inferiores para não designação e processos de substituição, em comparação ao Grupo II.
Conclusão: escolares com dificuldades na alfabetização apresentaram maior dificuldade na designação por vocábulo usual e maior índice de erros por processos de substituição e não designação, o que revela um vocabulário deficitário quanto ao acesso lexical em comparação aos escolares sem dificuldades.
Palavras-chave
Referencias
1. Tighes LE, Schatschneider CA. Quantile regression approach to understanding the relations among morphological awareness, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in adult basic education students. J Learn Disabil [journal on the internet]. 2016 [accessed on 2019, December 8]; 49(4):424-36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414556771
2. Silva C, Pereira FB. Performance in receptive vocabulary and reading comprehension tests in elementary education students. Rev. Psicol. teor. Prat [journal on the internet]. 2019 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 21(2):277-93. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5935/1980-6906/psicologia.v21n2p277-293
3. Limissuri RCA, Befi-Lopes D. Fonologia e vocabulário na percepção de educadores sobre comunicação de pré-escolares. Rev Bras. Est. Pedag [journal on the internet]. 2009 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 90(225):348-433. Available at: https://doi.org/10.24109/2176-6681.rbep.90i225.518
4. Kaminski TI, Mota HB, Cielo CA. Consciência fonológica e vocabulário expressivo em crianças com aquisição típica da linguagem e com desvio fonológico. Rev. CEFAC [journal on the internet]. 2011 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 13(5);813-24. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-18462011005000019
5. Nóro LA, Mota HB. Relationship between mean length of utterance and vocabulary in children with typical language development. Rev. CEFAC [journal on the internet]. 2019 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 21(6):e4419. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20192164419
6. Araújo MVM, Marteleto MRF, Schoen-Ferreira TH. Avaliação do vocabulário receptivo de crianças pré-escolares. Est Psicol [journal on the internet]. 2010 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 27(2):169-76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-166X2010000200004
7. Brancalioni AR, Zauza A, Karlinski CD, Quitaiski LF, Thomaz MFO. Expressive vocabulary performance of students aged from 4 to 5 years attending public and private schools. Audiol Commun Res [journal on the internet]. 2018 [accessed on 2020, August 18]; 23:e1836. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2016-1836
8. Gândara JP, Befi-Lopes DM. Trends on lexical acquisition in children within normal development and children with developmental language disorder. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2010; 15(2):297-304.
9. Barbosa ALA, Soares HB, Azoni CAS. Development of a vocabulary-screening tool for children 3 to 7-years of age. Audiol Commun Res [journal on the internet]. 2019 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 24:e2131. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2019-2131
10. Teixeira BS, Schiefer AM, Carvalho CAF, Àvila CRB. Listening and reading comprehension and syntactic awareness in reading and writing disorders. Rev. CEFAC [journal on the internet]. 2016 [accessed on 2020, August 18]; 18(6):1370-1377. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620161862216
11. Sargiani RA, Maluf MR. Language, cognition and early childhood education: Contributions of cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Psicol. Esc. Educ [journal on the internet]. 2018 [accessed on 2020, August 12]; 22(3):477-84. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392018033777
12. Erbeli F, Hart SA, Taylor J. Genetic and environmental influences on achievement outcomes based on family history of learning disabilities status. J Learn Disabil [journal on the internet]. 2019 [accessed on 2020, August 18]; 52(2):135-45. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775116
13. Christodoulou JÁ, Cyr A, Murtagh J, Chang P, Lin J, Guarino AJ et al. Impact of intensive summer reading intervention for children whit reading disabilities and difficulties in early elementary school. J Learnin Disabil [journal on the internet]. 2017 [accessed on 2020, August 18]; 50(2):115-27. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415617163
14. Nalom AFO, Soares AJC, Cárnio MS. The relevance of receptive vocabulary in reading comprehension. CoDAS [journal on the internet]. 2015 [accessed on 2020, August 18]; 27(4):333-8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20152015016
15. Colombo RC, Cárino MS. Reading comprehension and receptive vocabulary in Elementary School students with typical development. CoDAS [journal on the internet]. 2018 [accessed on 2020, August 12]; 30(4):e201700145. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182017145
16. Pedrosa BAC, Dourado JS, Lemos SMA. Lexical development, speech language disorders and school performance: literature review. Rev. CEFAC [journal on the internet]. 2015 [accessed on 2017, July 6]; 17(5):1633-42. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216201517519913
17. Aravena S, Tijms J, Snellings P, van der Molen MW. Predicting individual differences in reading and spelling skill with artificial script–based letter–speech sound training. J Learnin Disabil [journal on the internet]. 2018 [accessed on 2020, August 18]; 51(6):552-64. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417715407
18. Befi-Lopes DM, Santos MTM. Vocabulário, consciência fonológica e nomeação rápida: contribuições para a ortografia e elaboração escrita. J. Soc. Bras. Fonoaudiol [journal on the internet]. 2012 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 24(3):269-75. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2179-64912012000300013
19. Barbosa VM, Silva C. Correlation between receptive vocabulary skill, syntactic awareness, and word writing. Rev. CEFAC [journal on the internet]. 2020 [accessed on 2020, August 18]; 22(3):e2420. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20202232420
20. Andrade CRF, Befi-Lopes DM, Fernandes FDM, Wertzner HF. Teste de linguagem infantil nas áreas de fonologia, vocabulário, fluência e pragmática – ABFW. Carapicuiba: Editora Pró-Fono; 2002.
21. Schiff R, Ben-Shushan YN, Ben-Artzi E. Metacognitive strategies: a foundation for early word spelling and reading in kindergartners with SLI. J Learn Disabil [journal on the internet]. 2017 [accessed on 2017, August 12]; 50(2):143-57. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415589847
22. Souza CA, Escarce AG, Lemos SMA. Reading competence of words and pseudo words, school performance and listening skills in primary schools. Audiol Commun Res [journal on the internet]. 2019 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 24:e2018. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2018-2018
23. Willoughby MT, Magnus B, Vernon-Feagans L, Blair CB. Developmental delays in executive function from 3 to 5 years of age predict kindergarten academic readiness. J Learn Disabil [journal on the internet]. 2017 [accessed on 2020, August 18]; 50(4):359-72. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219415619754
24. Silva C, Capellini SA. Comparison of performance in metalinguistic tasks among students with and without risk of dyslexia. J. Hum. Growth Dev [journal on the internet]. 2017 [accessed on 2020, August 12]; 27(2):198-205. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.118823
25. Silva C, Capellini SA. Efficacy of phonological intervention program in students at risk for dyslexia. Rev. CEFAC [journal on the internet]. 2015 [accessed on 2020, August 18]; 17(6):1827-37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620151760215
26. Conti-Ramsdena G, Durkin K. What factors influence language impairment? Considering resilience as well as risk. Folia Phoniatr Logop [journal on the internet]. 2015 [accessed on 2020, August 12]; 67:293-9. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000444750
27. Dias NM, Bueno JOS, Pontes JMM, Tatiana P. Oral and written language in infant education: relation with environmental variables. Psicol. Esc. Educ [journal on the internet]. 2019 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 23:e178467. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392019018467
28. Carretti B, Motta E, Re AM. Oral and written expression in children with reading comprehension difficulties. J Learn Disabil [journal on the internet]. 2016 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 49(1):65-76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414528539
29. Fink K, Mélo TR, Israel VL. Technologies in neuropsicomotor development in schools four to six years. Cad. Bras. Ter. Ocup [journal on the internet]. 2019 [accessed on 2020, August 10]; 27(2):270-8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4322/2526-8910.ctoao1186
Submitted date:
13/10/2020
Accepted date:
01/02/2021
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email