Cited by 742Reading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLanguage Development and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phonological Recoding and Orthographic Learning: A Direct Test of the Self-Teaching Hypothesis

Share, David L.·1999·Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

Abstract

According to the self-teaching hypothesis (Share, 1995), word-specific orthographic representations are acquired primarily as a result of the self-teaching opportunities provided by the phonological recoding of novel letter strings. This hypothesis was tested by asking normal second graders to read aloud short texts containing embedded pseudoword targets. Three days later, target spellings were correctly identified more often, named more quickly, and spelled more accurately than alternate homophonic spellings. Experiment 2 examined whether this rapid orthographic learning can be attributed to mere visual exposure to target strings. It was found that viewing the target letter strings under conditions designed to minimize phonological processing significantly attenuated orthographic learning. Experiment 3 went on to show that this reduced orthographic learning was not attributable to alternative nonphonological factors (brief exposure durations or decontextualized presentation). The results of a fourth experiment suggested that the contribution of pure visual exposure to orthographic learning is marginal. It was concluded that phonological recoding is critical to the acquisition of word-specific orthographic representations as proposed by the self-teaching hypothesis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/jecp.1998.2481

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 83 references

5 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Share, 1987, Segmental analysis: Co-requisite to reading, vital for self-teaching, requiring phonological memory, European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 509
  2. Share, 1995, Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition, Issues in Education, 1, 1
  3. Solberg, 1979, Preliminary steps towards an Israeli standardization of the Peabody Test, Megamot, 3, 407

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 737

Metadata

Authors
Share, D. L.
Affiliations
University of Haifa (IL)
Corresponding author
Share, David L.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-02
Volume
72
Issue
2
Pages
95-129
ISSN
0022-0965 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034568516
Cited by
742
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 45
FWCI
13.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
phonological recoding, orthographic learning, pseudowords, spelling acquisition, phonological processing, visual exposure, second grade students, reading aloud
MeSH terms
Child, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Phonetics, Reading, Mental Recall, Verbal Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review