The three groups did not differ in distinguishing conventional written signs from other visual signs¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Children, illiterate adults and literate adults did not differ significantly in identifying writing signs as 'for reading', and the difference on non-writing signs was also not significant. → Kurvers 2009

Evidence¶

Kurvers 2009¶

Kurvers, J., Van Hout, R., & Vallen, T. (2009). Print awareness of adult illiterates: a comparison with young pre-readers and low-educated adult readers. Read Writ 22, 863-887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9129-7

q3 · i? · associational · r1

Item-type analysis of the 14-card signs sorting task. Non-readers had a rather clear idea of which signs belonged to written language; 56% of illiterates identified Chinese characters as writing signs.

"the groups did not differ in identifying writing signs as ''for reading'' (81% correct by the children, 84% by the illiterates and 89% by the literates); the difference between the groups was not significant (Fisher Exact 0.42, p = 1.00)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Non-reading children and unschooled illiterate adults both differ significantly from low-educated literate adults on most print-awareness tasks, but do not differ from each other — related
• Unschooled illiterate adults living in print-rich environments have good knowledge of the pragmatic functions and uses of written language but cannot read environmental print out of context — related
• Adult illiterates significantly outperform pre-reading children on grapheme knowledge and on writing-speech correspondence — related
• Non-readers recognize logos with additional visual features better than logos distinguished only by color and typeface — related