Explaining phonology and reading in adult learners: Introducing prosodic awareness and executive functions to reading ability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study was designed to extend our understanding of phonology and reading to include suprasegmental awareness using measures of prosodic awareness, which are complex tasks that tap into the rhythmic aspects of phonology. By requiring participants to access, reflect on and manipulate word stress, the prosodic awareness measures used here necessarily impose demands on the executive system. Prosodic awareness was evaluated as a phonological predictor of reading in older readers while controlling for executive functions (EF) in order to ascertain whether observed predictive relationships could be confidently attributed to suprasegmental awareness. Methods 103 adults between 18 and 55 years of age completed tasks on prosodic awareness, EF, vocabulary, nonverbal abilities, naming speed and short‐term memory. Results Independent contributions of prosodic awareness added to models of word reading, whereas EF processes did not uniquely contribute to adult reading outcomes. Conclusions Suprasegmental phonology explains individual differences in word reading among experienced readers. Theoretical implications of findings are discussed. Implications for Practice What is already known about this topic Phonological awareness (PA) becomes less predictive of reading in older readers. PA is typically assessed at the level of the segment (e.g., phonemes, syllables and onset‐rimes), with less focus on suprasegmental processes (e.g., rhythm, stress and intonation). Suprasegmental phonological processing includes measures of prosodic ability (e.g., awareness and manipulation of suprasegmental features of oral language). Studies on prosodic awareness and reading have independent contributions beyond segmental PA in early readers. Less work has been investigated among adult readers. Executive functions (EF) including inhibitory control, working memory, switching and updating and monitoring of goal directed behaviour, predict overall academic achievement. Limited studies have controlled for EF demands in phonological tasks. What this paper adds Tasks of prosodic awareness necessarily impose demands on the executive system when manipulating components of oral language. After controlling for EF and controls, prosodic awareness explained individual differences in adult word reading. Tasks of suprasegmental phonological processes explain the association between phonology and reading in older and more experienced readers. Researchers who explore phonology and reading development should begin to include tasks of prosodic awareness to examine the dual role of segmental and suprasegmental PA as it is implicated across development. Implications for theory, policy or practice Theoretical models of phonology and reading can be extended to include suprasegmental processes. For educational practitioners involved in reading assessment of older readers, tasks of prosodic awareness are a more age‐appropriate measure of phonology. Tasks of phonology and reading with increasing complexity impose greater demands on the executive system. The relationship between cognitive flexibility and reading needs to be considered in theoretical models of reading.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it