www.ijcrsee.com
1
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
Introduction
Literacy skill constitutes the framework and essence of science, technology, and education, which
are the main triggers of social change. As a result of the 20
th
-century scientic developments, it is seen
that early literacy views have gained weight in research on the acquisition of this skill (see. Commodari et
al., 2020; Guldenoglu, Kargin and Ergul, 2016; Floyd, McGrew and Evans, 2008; Foorman and Liberman,
1989; Landerl et al., 2019; Pfost et al, 2019; Ouellette and Senechal, 2017; Schatschneider et al., 2004;
Speece et al., 2004; Turna and Guldenoglu, 2019; Zhang and Lin, 2018). However, writing/spelling was
less studied until the rst quarter of the 21
st
century (Joshi, Wijekumar and Gillespie Rouse, 2022; Treiman,
2017). Some of the studies focused on the end of kindergarten and rst grade of primary school when
writing is learned (Kim et al, 2011). Other studies have examined the longitudinal relationships between
literacy skills (Lerkkanen, 2003; Leppänen et al., 2009) and reading spelling errors (Desimoni, Scalisi and
Orsolini, 2012).
During the decoding process, children may make errors in reading and writing. These errors may
indicate language structures that are difcult to decode or prociency in prerequisite skills. However, while
investigating the relationships between reading skills and spelling/writing in the studies, either prerequisite
skills were not taken into account or participants’ prerequisite skills before rst grade were measured.
However, learning to read can increase phonological awareness (Scarborough et al., 1998), and the
development of visual perception (Tsai, Wilson and Wu, 2008) can continue in the early years of primary
school. These prerequisite skills may affect the decoding process. In addition to phonological awareness,
visual coding is one of the most basic skills in learning to read and write. Because for visual coding, it is
necessary to perceive, analyze and distinguish the properties of graphic symbols.
Literacy/Spelling
A strong relationship between reading and writing/spelling has been found in many studies
(Caravolas, Hulme and Snowling, 2001; Juel, Grifth and Gough, 1986; Andersen et al., 2018). In literacy
Direct and Indirect Effects Between First Literacy Errors, Visual
Perception, and Phonological Awareness Variables
Aysel Ferah-Ozcan
1*
, Sevilay Yildiz
2
1
Sakarya University, Faculty of Education, Hendek Sakarya Turkey, e-mail: aferah@sakarya.edu.tr
2
Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Univesity, Faculty of Education, Golkoy Bolu Turkey, e-mail: sevilayyildiz@ibu.edu.tr
Abstract: This research is a descriptive study in the survey model to determine the direct and indirect effects between
visual perception, phonological awareness, and literacy errors. The design of the study is exploratory correlational design.
552 rst-grade primary school students participated in the study. The data were collected using measurement tools named
phonological awareness, visual perception, word-sentence writing/spelling, and reading errors. According to the ndings, visual
perception affects sentence writing/spelling both directly and through word-writing-reading errors. Visual perception affects
reading errors both directly and through word-sentence writing errors. The results show that the development of prerequisite
skills and reading are mediated by writing, writing/spelling are mediated by reading, and learning develops in a spiral manner.
It can be said that children’s reading-writing/spelling errors increase because they have difculty in converting from sound to
the letter, from letter to sound, and in synthesizing and analyzing according to their initial level of phonological awareness and
visual perception development.
Keywords: literacy, spelling error, reading, perception, phonology.
Original scientic paper
Received: September, 09.2022.
Revised: November, 17.2022.
Accepted: November, 28.2022.
UDK:
159.922.72.072
159.946.3.075-053.5
81`342.2-053.5
10.23947/2334-8496-2022-10-3-1-16
© 2022 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*
Corresponding author: aferah@sakarya.edu.tr
www.ijcrsee.com
2
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
model development studies, the sources of reading and writing/spelling were identied. For example,
both spelling and word recognition require code-dictionary knowledge (Juel, Grifth and Gough, 1986).
According to the same model, code-dictionary knowledge, word recognition, and listening comprehension
are components of reading comprehension. Writing/spelling can be realized through phonology. It is
understood that this phonological knowledge is an important component of writing as it requires separating
the heard words into syllables and sounds (Brynildssen, 2000).
In other studies, theoretical views on the developmental stages of literacy have been put forward (see
Ehri, 2005 for details). According to Ehri (2014), children’s learning to read words requires phonological
awareness and knowledge of writing systems. The ability to read words accurately and automatically
involves a developmental process from non-alphabetic visual features to grapho-syllabic connections. In
addition, reading and writing require cognitive processes. Some of the studies in the literature suggest
that the cognitive processes of reading and spelling may be similar (Berninger et al., 1994; Nikolopoulos
et al., 2006). However, writing/spelling skills are based more on memory processes and functions in terms
of perceiving sensory data such as letters-sounds, syllables, words, and sentences and requiring the
perceived data to be encoded and recalled in memory (Juel, 1994). Accordingly, the amount of information
to be retrieved from memory increases for spelling, which requires remembering letters in the correct
order, compared to reading (Ferah, 1996). Children who read incorrectly may be more likely to write
incorrectly. This may indicate difculties and levels in the decoding process.
Children have to learn letter-sound correspondences at the beginning of literacy. An incomplete or
misspelled language unit may not only indicate the developmental phase of children’s literacy learning
(Ehri, 2005), but it may also indicate structures that are difcult to encode in memory or remember. In
an earlier memory study, it was determined that letters could be confused in short-term memory due to
their sound similarities (Conrad, 1964). In another study, it was found that children make mistakes while
learning to read and write in Turkish; letter sounds such as “ç, f, t, h, s, k, p, ş, b, d, n, m” and some
afxessyllable structures are difcult to encode in memory (Ferah-Ozcan and Ozcan, 2016). Children
who read incorrectly may be more likely to write incorrectly. This may indicate difculties and levels in the
decoding process.
Visual Perception and Literacy
Visual perception is the capacity to identify, classify, and interpret visual stimuli in light of prior
knowledge (Aral and Erturan, 1999). Visual perception describes the cognitive skills that integrate visual
information into higher cognitive functions and processes (Pienaar, Barhors and Twisk, 2014). The
ability to discern similarities and differences between groups of objects, such as size, color, and shape,
is known as visual discrimination. This improves the person’s capacity to match letters (Ferah, 1996).
Letter recognition is correlated with visual-sensing abilities (Bellocchi et al., 2017). Children can practice
writing by ipping the letters until they learn which way is up (Cubelli and Della Sala, 2009). Additionally,
Commadari et al. (2020) discovered that visual analysis and mental imagery have an impact on reading
achievement. According to some studies, preschool assessments of visual motor skills are related to
future reading success (Franceschini et al., 2012).
One factor that may either directly or indirectly affect decoding is visual perception, particularly in
regular languages where alphabetic principles are introduced in the rst grade of elementary school. But
only a small amount of research has been done on the topic of visual skills (Bellocchi et al., 2017). It has
been determined that children with high levels of visual perception at the beginning of the rst grade also
have high levels of reading and reading comprehension (Memiş and Sivri, 2016). It was also found that
children’s writing (Ferah, 1996) and reading errors (Memiş and Sivri, 2016) were related to their visual
perception development in the rst grade. Keskinova and Ajdinski, 2018 reported that one of the variables
predicting Finnish children’s reading skills in rst grade was visual motor skills. It can be considered that
visual perception may be one of the variables that may directly or indirectly affect decoding, especially in
regular languages where alphabetic principles are taught in the rst grade of primary school. Children with
specic learning disabilities, such as those who have dyslexia-dysgraphia, can also exhibit deciencies
in motor coordination development (Keskinova and Ajdinski, 2018). Children who struggle with visual
analysis often misspell letters and letter groups when writing or write them incorrectly (Ferah, 1996).
Inadequate discrimination abilities could lead to more people writing letters backwards (mirror image).
This is why early support for the development of visual perception is important.
Phonological Awareness and Literacy
The ability to recognize, comprehend, and manage the fact that language is made up of smaller
units like words, syllables, and sounds is known as phonological awareness (Trawich-Smith, 2013).
Some studies on reading have found strong evidence that phonological awareness is one of the important
variables predicting children’s literacy skills in primary school (Abbott and Berninger, 1993; Lerkkanen et
www.ijcrsee.com
3
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
al., 2004; Muter et al., 1997; Pfost, 2015; Sandoval, Briceño and Bargas, 2014; Zarić, Hasselhorn and
Nagler, 2021; Stahl and Murray, 1994). In some studies, it has been determined that this skill is developed
by learning real words through reading (Lerkkanen et al., 2004; Leppänen et al., 2009; Scarborough et
al., 1998). Moreover, it has been determined that general and word-specic orthographic knowledge
contributes to reading and spelling performance beyond phonological awareness (Zarić, Hasselhorn and
Nagler, 2021). In one study, phonemic awareness with phoneme errors in word writing, stress awareness
was determined to be related to accent errors in word/sentence writing. Based on this result, it has been
suggested that prosodic awareness may also be related to learning to spell words (Gutierrez-Palma
et al., 2019). Recent studies show that phonological awareness directly affects spelling, and its effect
on reading is through invented orthography (Albuquerque and Martins, 2022). It has been found that
children’s invented spelling predicts their subsequent spelling and reading performance (Ouellette and
Sénéchal, 2017, Treiman et al., 2019) and contributes to their learning to spell and read (Ouellette
and Sénéchal, 2017). These spellings reveal children’s knowledge of how letters are combined rather
than reecting a lack of alphabet knowledge or phonological awareness (Treiman, Kessler and Pollo,
2022). Reading has also been reported to predict phonological awareness (Burgess and Lonigan, 1998).
However, researchers have not yet found sufcient evidence on the effects of this variable on visual
perception and literacy errors in Turkish.
Present Study
In Turkey, formal learning of reading and writing begins in the rst grade of primary school. Since
Turkish has few syllable structure possibilities and each letter corresponds to a sound, it is known that
letter-sound matching and spelling skills are acquired rapidly, and some children learn to read and write
towards the end of the rst semester of the rst grade (Durgunoglu and Oney, 1999; Erdogan, 2012).
Therefore, it can be expected that the effect of phonological awareness skills on literacy skills at the
transition stage (Ehri, 1986) is relatively low. However, until reading and writing become automatic, both
reading and writing errors continue to be made (Ferah, 1996; Ruotsalainen et al., 2022). The results of
a study conducted with primary school rst-graders aimed at learning two languages (Finnish-Estonian)
whose spellings (orthography) are similar also revealed that there are students who cannot learn to
decode in the spring semester (Ruotsalainen et al., 2022). In Turkish, it can be said that some of the rst-
grade students’ writing/spelling achievements may also be low due to the mistakes made in letters/sounds
that are difcult to encode, especially in the transition phase.
Children learning to read and write in regular languages spend very little time in the preliminary
and partial alphabetic phases after learning the letter-sound relationship; however, letter name and shape
knowledge is also fundamental for these phases (Ehri and McCormick, 1998). However, since children in
Turkey are not taught alphabetic knowledge in the preschool period, it can be predicted that automaticity
in letter-sound matching may progress more slowly in some children. The relatively low correlation of
phonological awareness with rst literacy skills when measured at the beginning of the rst grade in
Turkish rst literacy teaching (Erdogan, 2012) and the correlation of these skills with visual perception
(Ferah, 1996; Memiş and Sivri, 2016) requires taking into account the effect of visual perception as well
as phonological awareness on literacy skills. Therefore, we predict that visual perception may have a
direct effect on the acquisition of literacy/spelling skills in regular languages such as Turkish, as well as an
indirect effect through phonological awareness as decoding continues. Analyzing these relationships may
also clarify the educational measures that can be taken for children who have difculties in the literacy
learning process.
In this study, we focused on the mediating relationships between phonological awareness and
visual perception variables and initial literacy/spelling errors in Turkish, a regular and highly transparent
language, in the rst grade of primary school. It was hypothesized that it would be possible to determine
the levels of literacy/spelling errors in Turkish through a measurement tool that includes the letters, sounds,
and afxes that children confuse when learning to read and write for the rst time. This study can be said
to be one of the rst studies in the literature in terms of its target group being rst-grade students, taking
into account the effect of visual perception as well as phonological awareness in early literacy acquisition
and focusing on the direct and indirect relationships of literacy errors made during the decoding process
with prerequisite variables. No related study was found by the researchers in terms of this context and the
variables addressed, and the analyzes performed. However, it is known that both in the period before the
start of primary school and the process of rst reading and writing, certain competencies and skills that
form the basis of reading and writing (the concept of printing, visual perception, phonological awareness,
etc.), affect academic performance in the rst reading, writing, and learning process. For example,
phonological awareness is one of the strongest predictors of reading skills (Ehri et al., 2001; Pfost, 2015;
Sandoval, Briceño and Bargas, 2014; Zarić, Hasselhorn and Nagler, 2021). It is thought that the results
www.ijcrsee.com
4
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
obtained from the study will shed light on the understanding of the literacy process in regular languages.
Purpose of the Study
The rst aim of this study is to determine the possible multiple mediating roles of reading and word
writing errors and phonological awareness in the effect of visual perception on sentence writing errors;
the second aim is to determine the possible multiple mediating variable relationships of visual perception,
phonological awareness, reading speed, word and sentence writing errors in the effect of visual perception
on reading errors. In line with these aims, the research questions were determined as follows:
- Do phonological awareness, word writing, and reading errors have signicant multiple mediating
roles in the effect of visual perception on sentence writing errors?
- Do reading speed, phonological awareness, word and sentence writing errors have signicant
multiple mediating roles on the effect of visual perception on reading errors?
Materials and Methods
In this study, explanatory relational research design, one of the survey models, was used.
Considering that the possible mediating factors between the success in the rst literacy learning process
and the reading/writing errors made by children and visual perception/phonological awareness variables
are questioned, it can be said that the explanatory relational design is suitable for the purpose of the study
(Creswell, 2013).
Population and Sample
Considering human resources, material resources, and time, it was decided to research the
sample (Buyukozturk et al., 2012). The population of the study consisted of 69487 rst-grade primary
school students in Istanbul in the 2018-2019 academic year. However, considering the research costs
(transportation, the printing of measurement tools, etc.) and time, the research was conducted on a
sample expected to represent the population. The sample group of the study consisted of 552 rst-grade
students selected by convenience sampling from six schools in three districts of Istanbul. First, three easily
accessible districts were determined. Considering time and cost, six schools from these districts were
included in the study. Two of the schools were from regions with less socioeconomic development, two
were from medium and two were from regions with more socio-economic development. Applications were
carried out with rst-year students whose parents’ consent was obtained from the determined schools. It
was observed that 47.8% (n=264) of the students in the sample were female, and 52.2% (n=288) were
male. It was found that the number of samples representing 69487 people was 382 according to the
formula of Krejcie and Morgan (1970), taking the ratio of the universe (p) 0.5, degree of accuracy (d) 0.05
and X
2
=3.841 (at the level of 0.05).
Data Collection Tools
The Mountain Shadows Phonological Awareness Scale (MS-PAS), developed in 1998 (Watkins
and Edwards, 2004), was adapted to Turkish culture by Buyuktaskapu (2012). Both the original and
adapted forms consisted of 20 items, and both the same and different sound categories were used. Since
the structure of the scale was known before the analyses, and it was desired to examine whether the
available data set t the predicted structure, CFA was conducted (Brown, 2015). Model t indices were
found to support data-model t. χ
2
/sd value less than 2 and RMSEA value less than 0.05 indicated a good
t (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger and Müller, 2003). CFI and TLI values greater than 0.95 indicated
a good t (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The factors were considered as a total due to their strong relationship
with each other (0.882) (Cohen, Swerdlik and Sturman, 2013). It can be said that the reliability of the
data obtained from the MS-PAS scale in terms of internal consistency is at an adequate level (McDonald
omega coefcients 0.94 for the whole scale, n=552). Since the data set was dichotomized, CFA was
conducted with a (1-0) tetrachoric correlation matrix.
The Word and Sentence Writing Errors Scale were developed by the researchers. The primary
school word and sentence writing skills scales were aimed to include some language structures of
Turkish. The targeted language structures are, respectively, low frequency (f, ç, h, v, ğ) and potentially
confused (b, d, p, m, n) sounds; front-to-nal open syllable, closed syllable, consonant-consonant and
vowel-consonant syllable structures and some construction, inection and possessive sufxes (-cı, -çi, lı,
-luk, -lük, -çü, suz, (-ğ)im). The sentences were organized as four, ve, and six words, and the words as
one, two, three, four, and ve syllables, and it was determined that the scales adequately sampled the
scope in line with the expert opinions. Types of typing errors were arranged according to expert opinions,
and in the grading scale of word and sentence writing errors, words written without any errors were scored
in three categories no errors (3), 1-3 errors partially wrong (2), and 4 or more errors wrong (1). The word
www.ijcrsee.com
5
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
writing errors scale consisted of 10 items, and the rating scale for evaluating sentence writing errors
consisted of 15 items. The dictation study was conducted with puppets and scenarios, and sentences
were dictated in the form of phrases by dividing them into two meaningful parts to exclude the short-term
memory effect. The Word and Sentence Writing Skills scale were administered in a single session during
the same class period in March.
McDonald Omega coefcients (0.93 for sentence writing errors and 0.93 for word writing errors)
were used in the reliability analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to reveal the
structure of the word and sentence writing scales, and it was found that the data obtained from the scales
had a unidimensional structure; therefore, a total score could be obtained from the scale (KMO 0.91 for
sentence writing errors, χ
2
= 2931.4; sd=15; p=0.00, the variance explained by a single factor was 74.95%,
and the factor loadings of the variables were found to be between 0.59 (plot 6) and 0.92 (plot 4). For word
writing, KMO was 0.88, χ
2
= 2364.8; sd=6; p=0.00, the variance explained by a single factor was 89.54%,
and the factor loadings of the variables were between 0.91 (plot 4) and 0.95 (plot 3).
The distribution of the total scores obtained from the sentence and word writing errors was examined,
and it was observed that they were normally distributed (Skewness coefcient -0.48, kurtosis coefcient
-1.72 for the lower group for sentence writing errors, skewness coefcient 1.03, kurtosis coefcient -0.58
for the upper group; For word writing errors, the coefcient of skewness for the lower group was -0.75, the
coefcient of kurtosis was -1.42, the coefcient of skewness for the upper group was 0.37, the coefcient
of kurtosis was -0.83). As a result of the independent samples t-test, it was observed that the average
score obtained from the upper group for sentence writing errors (3.99) was statistically signicantly
different from the average score obtained from the lower group (-6.35) (t(154,70)=-20.73, p<0.01). For
word writing errors, the mean score obtained from the upper group (2.51) was statistically signicantly
different from the mean score obtained from the lower group (-4.19) (t(151,96)=-16.21, p<0.01). On the
other hand, item analysis was conducted for the parceled items of sentence and word writing errors, and
the corrected item-total score correlation was examined for this purpose. It was observed that all item
means differed between the lower and upper groups for both sentence and word writing errors; on the
other hand, item-total correlations for sentence writing errors ranged from 0.57 (parcel 6) to 0.87 (parcel
5). Item-total score correlations for word writing errors ranged from 0.88 (parcel 4) to 0.91 (parcel 2).
Accordingly, it was determined that the item discriminations were at a sufcient level and that the items
discriminated against individuals with and without the trait measured in the item. In addition, it can be
stated that the item parcels showed a sufcient relationship with the test as a whole.
For the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) conducted with the data obtained from the sentence
and word writing errors, it was observed that the correlations between some variables were high, so
item parceling was created to overcome the multicollinearity problem. The sentence writing data set was
formed by grouping 15 items into 6 parcels, and these 6 variables were standardized and converted into
z scores. For the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) conducted with the data obtained from word writing
errors, 43 participants with signicant Mahalanobis distance values (α = 0.001) were excluded from the
data set, and the analyses continued with a data set of 509 participants. The word writing data set was
created by grouping 10 items into 4 parcels, and these 4 variables were standardized and converted into
z scores. Therefore, since the word and sentence writing data set was continuous, EFA was conducted
using the Pearson Product Moment correlation matrix.
While identifying reading errors, a literature review was conducted, and possible errors were
listed. In the classication of errors, similar to the study of Dessimoni, Scalisi and Orsolini (2012), a
classication was made as letter/syllable/word omission, letter/syllable/word insertion, and stress-tone-
stop-sound quality. A 10-item rating scale was created in line with expert opinion. The rating scale is
scored in 3 categories (1-Wrong, 2-Partially Wrong, 3-No Error). First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
was performed with the reading error variables (KMO value 0.91, χ2= 6249.6; sd=45; p=0.00), and it was
seen that the factor loads of the items ranged between 0.37 (item 6) and 0.87 (item 3). It can also be
stated that the data obtained from the scale has a unidimensional structure, and therefore a total score
can be obtained from the scale (explained variance 58.21%, McDonald Omega coefcient 0.92). Since
the observed variables were skewed, the unweighted least squares (ULS) method was used as the factor
extraction method in EFA. Since the data set was scored with three categories (1-3), EFA was performed
with a polychoric correlation matrix. Factor 10.10 software (Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando, 2019) was used
in EFA for word writing, sentence writing, and reading errors. For reading speed, a text consisting of 117
words was given to the students, and their reading speed was measured in seconds, and the number of
words they read per minute was determined by subtracting the words they read with errors from the total
words they read.
The adaptation of the Frostig Visual Perception test (Maslow et al., 1964) to Turkish culture was
www.ijcrsee.com
6
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
conducted by Aral and Butun (2016). Since the structure of the scale was known from previous studies
(Aral and Butun, 2016), evidence for construct validity was sought with CFA. After modication, the χ
2
/
sd value was found to be 5.63 and did not show an acceptable t, while the RMSEA value was found
to be 0.092, indicating a moderate t. CFI and TLI values showed a very good t. When the model-data
t is evaluated in general, it can be stated that the established measurement model is supported by
the data. As a result of the reliability analysis of the data obtained from the Visual Perception Test, the
McDonald Omega coefcient was found to be 0.87. According to the Mahalanobis distance, the data
belonging to 6 people were excluded from the data set because it was signicant at α = 0.001 level.
Maximum likelihood (ML) was selected as the estimation method in CFA using the Pearson correlation
matrix for continuous data, and CFA was performed using Mplus software (Muthén and Muthén, 2012) for
phonological awareness and visual perception.
Data Analysis
To answer the research questions, the mean scores of visual perception, phonological awareness,
reading and writing (word and sentence) errors, and reading achievement test total scores were taken.
While addressing the visual perception variable, standardization was performed to eliminate the effect
of age. For this reason, the visual perception variable was examined as a percentage, and since the z
values of the skewness and kurtosis values of the variables showed that the normality assumption was
not met, the analyzes were carried out through the Spearman rank difference correlation coefcient.
The results were interpreted according to the criteria of low correlation coefcients up to 0.30, medium
correlation coefcients between 0.30 and 0.70, and high correlation coefcients above 0.70 (Buyukozturk,
2011). To answer the multiple mediation questions of the study, the Process plugin for SPSS prepared
by Hayes (2018) was used in the mediation analysis. Comments on the mediation effect were made by
taking into account the conditions presented by Baron and Kenny (1986). According to this, X’s Y M, the
effect of variable X on variable Y is analyzed by means of M. 1) Variable X statistically affects variable
Y signicantly predicted, 2) Variable X is statistically equivalent to variable M signicantly predicted, 3)
When variable X is kept under control, variable M, Y variable at a statistically signicant level, 4) M
variable control variable X is a statistically signicant predictor of variable Y or there should be a reduction
in the amount of association.
Results
As a result of the descriptive statistics of the research (n=552), visual perception (x=63.80,
ss=32.12, min.=1, max.=100), phonological awareness (x=0.65, ss=0.25 min.=0, max.=1), reading error
(x=2.40, ss=0.45, min.=1, max.=3), reading speed (x=39.09, ss=19.49, min.=0, max. =108), morphological
features (x=2.10, ss=0.67, min.=1, max.=3), word writing error (x=2.53, ss=0.50, min.=1, max.=100),
sentence writing error (x=2.51, ss=0.54, min.=1, max.=3) variables’ mean, standard deviation, minimum
and maximum values were calculated.
Spearman rank difference correlation coefcient was used to examine the relationships between
students’ visual perception, phonological awareness, reading achievement, word writing error, and
sentence writing error levels (Table 1).
Table 1
Correlations between variables
www.ijcrsee.com
7
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
When the correlations between the variables are analyzed, it can be said that the scores obtained
from the phonological awareness scale have no relationship with other variables. Reading achievement
is positively and moderately correlated with sentence writing errors and word writing errors. Visual
Perception is positively and moderately related to reading achievement and word and sentence writing
errors. A signicant positive correlation was found between sentence writing errors and word writing
errors. Although the relationship between sentence writing error and phonological awareness variable is
statistically signicant, it is at a very low level.
To answer the research question “The mediating role of word writing error, phonological awareness
and reading error in the effect of visual perception on sentence writing error,” “multiple mediation effect”
was examined. Direct effects between variables were examined (Table 2)
Table 2
Direct effects of visual perception on phonological awareness, word writing error, reading error, and
sentence writing error
p<.05 Unstandardized parameter estimation b Standard error c Standardized parameter estimation
As a result, the total effect of visual perception on sentence writing error (c=0.46; SE=.04; t=12.29;
p=.00<.05) was found to be signicant. The direct effect of visual perception on the mediating variable
phonological awareness (B=.03; β=.03, SE=.04; t=0.80; p=.43>.05) was not signicant. The direct effect
of visual perception on word writing error (B=,46; β=,46; SE=,04; t=12,08; p=,00<,05) and reading error
(B=,24; β=,24; SH=,03; t=7,53; p=,00<,05) was found to be signicant. The direct effect of the mediating
variables reading error (B=,20; β=,20; SE=,03; t=6,64; p=,00<,05) and word writing error (B=,71; β=,71;
SH=,03; t=24,92; p=,00<,05) on sentence writing error was signicant, while the direct effect of phonological
awareness (B=,02; β=,02; SE=,02; t=1,17; p=,24>,05) on sentence writing error was not signicant. When
the direct effect of visual perception and mediating variables on sentence writing error at the same time
was analyzed, the effect of visual perception on sentence writing error was not signicant (B=,03; β=,03;
SE=,02; t=1,40; p=,16>,05). When the effects of the mediating variables among themselves are analyzed,
it can be stated that the effect of phonological awareness on word writing error (B=,05; β=,05; SE=,04;
t=1,29; p=,20>,05) and the effect of phonological awareness on reading error (B=-,00; β=-,00; SE=,03; t=-
,12; p=,91>,05) is not signicant. The effect of word writing error on reading error was signicant (B=,60;
β=,60; SE=,03; t=18,64; p=,00<,05).
The indirect effects of visual perception on phonological awareness, word writing error, reading
error, and sentence writing error were examined. The results are shown in Table 3.
www.ijcrsee.com
8
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
Table 3
Indirect effects and specic indirect effects of visual perception on phonological awareness, word
writing error, reading error, and sentence writing error
The statistical signicance of the indirect effects in the model is examined using the bootstrap
technique. Results were obtained with 95% condence intervals. The total indirect effects of visual
perception on phonological awareness, word writing error, reading error, and sentence writing error were
statistically signicant (point estimate=.43; 95% CI[.36 - .50]). In the indirect effect of visual perception on
sentence writing error, phonology (point estimate=,00; 95% CI[-,00 - ,01]), phonology and word writing
error (point estimate=,00; 95% CI[-,00 - ,01]), phonology and reading error (point estimate=,00; 95% CI[-
,00 - ,00]), phonology and reading error (point estimate=,00; 95% CI[-,00 - ,00]), and phonology, word
writing error, and reading error (point estimate=,05; 95% CI[,02 - ,08]), while the mediation of reading error
(point estimate=,05; 95% CI[,02 - ,08]) and word writing error (point estimate=,33; 95% CI[,25 - ,40]) was
not signicant. The signicant pairwise comparisons of the mediating variables are shown in Table 2. For
example, word writing error is a stronger mediator than phonological awareness, and word writing error is
a stronger mediator than reading error. Also, reading error is a stronger mediator than reading error and
phonological awareness. In summary, word writing error and reading error mediate the effect of visual
perception on sentence writing error.
To answer the research question “The mediating role of reading speed, phonological awareness,
word and sentence writing errors in the effect of visual perception on reading errors,” rstly “multiple
mediation effect” was examined. Direct effects between variables were examined (Table 4).
www.ijcrsee.com
9
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
Table 4
Direct effects of visual perception on phonological awareness, word writing error, reading error, and
sentence writing error
p<.05 Unstandardized parameter estimation b Standard error c Standardized parameter estimation
As a result, it was observed that the total effect of visual perception on reading errors (c=.52; SH=.04;
t=14.19; p=.00<.05) was signicant. The direct effect of visual perception on the mediating variables of
reading speed (B=,55; β=,55, SH=,04; t=15,34; p=,00<,05) and sentence writing error (B=,16; β=,16;
SH=,04; t=4,12; p=,00<,05) was signicant. The direct effect of reading error on the mediating variables
phonological awareness (B=,03; β=,03; SH=,05; t=,66; p=,51>,05) and word writing error (B=,05; β=,05;
SH=,03; t=1,90; p=,06>,05) was not signicant. The mediating variables reading speed (B=,61, β=,61,
SH=,03; t=21,15; p=,00<,05), word writing error (B=,20; β=,20; SH=,04; t=4,65; p=,00<,05) and sentence
writing error (B=,15; β=,15; SH=,04; t=3,42; p=,00<,05), while the direct effect of phonological awareness
(B=,01, β=,01, SH=,02; t=,32; p=,75>,05) on reading errors was not signicant. When the direct effects of
visual perception and mediating variables on reading errors at the same time were analyzed, the effect of
visual perception on reading errors was not signicant (B=,02; β=,02; SH=,02; t=,98; p=,33>,05). When
the effects of mediating variables among themselves were examined, it was found that reading speed had
no signicant effect on phonological awareness (B=,00; β=,00; SH=,05; t=,02; p=,99>,05), phonological
awareness had no signicant effect on sentence writing errors (B=,06; β=,06; SH=,03; t=1,96; p=,05>,05)
and the effect of phonological awareness on word writing error (B=-,00; β=-,00; SH=,02; t=-,11; p=,92>,05)
was not signicant. The effects of reading speed on sentence writing error (B=,56; β=,56; SH=,04; t=14,47;
p=,00<,05), sentence writing error on word writing error (B=,81; β=,81; SH=,03; t=29,29; p=,00<,05) and
reading speed on word writing error (B=,07; β=,07; SH=,03; t=2,36; p=,02<,05) were signicant.
The indirect effects of visual perception on reading errors through reading speed, phonological
awareness, and word and sentence writing errors were examined. The results are shown in Table 5.
www.ijcrsee.com
10
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
Table 5
Indirect effects of visual perception on reading errors via reading speed, phonological awareness,
word, and sentence writing errors
1
1
The numbers in the third or next digits of the mediator variables Word Writing Error (CI [,0004 - ,0212]), Reading
Speed and Word Writing Error (CI [,0003 - ,02]) are greater than one or more than one. Therefore, the mediator role was
interpreted as signicant. Since the numbers were given in two digits, the third digits of the numbers were not written in the
tables in order not to disrupt the order.
The statistical signicance of the indirect effects in the model is examined using the bootstrap
technique. The results were obtained with 95% condence intervals. The total indirect effect of visual
perception on reading errors through reading speed, phonological awareness, and sentence and word
writing errors was statistically signicant (point estimate=.49; 95% CI[.41 - ,57]). In the indirect effect of
visual perception on reading errors, reading speed (point estimation=.33; 95% CI[,28 - ,38]), sentence
writing error (point estimation=.02; 95% CI[,01 - ,05]), word writing error (point estimate=.01; 95% CI[.00
- .02]), reading speed and sentence writing error (point estimate=.05; 95% CI[.01 - .08]), reading speed
and word writing error (point estimate=.01; 95% CI[.00 - .02]), sentence writing error and word writing
error (point estimate=.03; 95% CI[.01 - .05]), reading speed , sentence writing error and word writing
error (point estimate=.05; 95% CI[.02 - ,08]) are signicant. As seen in Table 5, it was concluded that the
mediation effect of other mediating variables and their associations was not signicant. It was observed
that 85/105 of the pairwise comparisons showing the power of the mediating variables for specic indirect
effects were signicant. In general, it can be stated that reading speed has a stronger mediation effect
than the other 14 mediating variables. There is no signicant difference between the mediator variables of
sentence writing error and word writing error. In summary, when all conditions are taken into consideration,
reading speed, sentence writing error, reading speed and sentence writing error, reading speed and word
writing error, sentence writing error and word writing error have a mediating effect on the effect of visual
perception on reading errors. This result is important in terms of revealing that visual perception affects
reading errors both directly and through other literacy components.
www.ijcrsee.com
11
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
Discussion
Literacy studies in recent years have focused on the effect of oral language skills on literacy skills.
However, our research results reveal that visual perception’s effect on literacy in transparent languages
should be considered. The ndings of the study showed that visual perception affects sentence writing
errors both directly and indirectly through the mediating variables of word writing and reading errors
in the learning of the Turkish language, which is a transparent language. Findings that writing skills at
the decoding level predict reading support our research (Anderson et al., 2018). Word writing error is a
stronger mediating variable in the effect of visual perception on sentence writing. Reading error is also
stronger mediating variable than reading error and phonological awareness. These results point to the
importance of spelling development. According to literacy development models, spelling is a low-level skill
for writing (Juel, Grifth and Gough, 1986). Children’s sentence writing errors indicate that they are not
yet automatized in decoding letter-sound correspondences rather than a phonological awareness decit
(Treiman, Kessler and Pollo, 2022). In order to learn to read and write, the letter-sound connection must
be established correctly. Even if children can decompose spoken language into units, they continue to
make reading and writing errors unless the ability to recognize and remember the letter corresponding to
the sound is automatic. It can be said that more mistakes are made, especially in writing, than in reading.
Research on made-up spellings supports this conclusion (Ouellette and Sénéchal, 2017).
In a very transparent language such as Turkish, letter knowledge is given during literacy instruction.
In the rst semester of school, the teaching of all letters and sounds is completed. However, as new letters-
sounds continue to be taught without thoroughly reinforcing the previously learned letter and sounds,
especially similar letters and sounds can be confused. The reason for this is the difculty in coding the
visually similar (such as b-d, p-b), hard-to-hearing (such as f-v-h-g), or less-used letters and sounds
in Turkish. Visual memory is affected by the ability to perceive, distinguish and recognize the physical
features of perceptual stimuli. This skill is also affected by our previous experiences (Lupyan et al., 2020).
In addition, the visual perception was found to have a strong effect on reading speed but a weaker effect
on sentence writing errors and word writing errors, respectively. These results suggest that the contribution
of phonological awareness to the reduction of reading, word and sentence writing errors in the transition
phase of children who learn to read and write in a regular language in the rst grade of primary school
decreases over time, while the effect of visual perception continues, albeit limited. The results of studies
examining the relationship between children’s word recognition, reading comprehension, spelling, writing
success, writing/spelling errors and visual perception variables also support this conclusion (Cayir, 2017;
Clutten, 2009; Ferah, 1996; Memis and Sivri, 2016; Pienaar, Barhors and Twisk, 2014). It can be said that
the difculty in analyzing a letter within the letter groups directly affects the visual coding and writing skills
in the decoding process.
The second result of the study on multiple mediation relationships revealed that both word and
sentence writing/spelling errors and reading speed play a mediating role in the effect of visual perception
on reading errors. When phonological awareness skill was measured in the rst semester of the rst
grade of primary school, it was determined that its effect on reading speed, reading errors, and word and
sentence writing/spelling errors measured in the second semester was very weak or had no signicant
effect. The reason for this may be the early development of phonological awareness skills in Turkish,
which is a regular language, and the fact that the letter-sound matching training given in the rst semester
led to an increase in phonological awareness tasks (Erdogan, 2012; Durgunoglu and Oney, 1999). The
importance of phonological awareness skills, which has a high contribution at the beginning, decreases
at the end of the transition period.
The conclusion that the effect of phonological awareness on reading, word and sentence writing
errors is not signicant is supported by some research results (Erdogan, 2012; Guldenoglu, Kargın and
Ergul, 2016) that examine the relationship between phonological awareness development and reading-
writing/spelling in regular and irregular languages (Burgess and Lonigan, 1998; Vaessen and Blomert,
2013; Juel, Grifth and Gough, 1986). For example, according to the results of a study conducted with
Finnish-speaking children, phonological awareness skills and letter-sound matching skills contribute to
spelling skills (Vaessen and Blomert, 2013). The results of a study on Turkish spelling skills also showed
that the underlying evidence for spelling is phonological awareness, while reading is fast automatic
naming skills (Babayigit and Stainthorp, 2010). This may have been due to the difference in the time when
these skills were measured and the variables considered. In addition, it can be thought that the power
of phonological awareness, which was initially effective in the relationship between reading and writing/
spelling, gradually weakened, and decoding and phonological processing skills became more effective
in the transition phase (Vaessen and Blomert, 2013). However, phonological processing skills were not
www.ijcrsee.com
12
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
measured in this study.
According to other results obtained in the study, the fact that spelling errors are effected by
visual perception requires careful examination of memory beyond perception. Because sounds must
be translated into visual symbols in order to be replicated when writing. Our current study is partially
supported by the nding that preschool children’s early decoding skills are related to their capacity to
copy designs (Cameronet al., 2012). Children who struggle to make the effort necessary for developing
early literacy skills because their motor and cognitive needs conict may nd it challenging to write letters
(Traversoet al., 2022). It might be benecial to plan actions and activities that enhance visual short-term
memory or activate visual processing memory in light of the connection between perception and memory.
Based on another result of the study, the direct effect of word writing errors on sentence writing errors
is stronger than the direct effect of reading errors. The result the basic dynamics of writing are partially
differentiated from reading. In addition, this nding of the study does not coincide with Lerkkanen’s (2003)
nding that reading achievement at the end of rst grade predicts spelling performance unidirectionally.
This is because writing/spelling errors also have a direct effect on reading errors. The fundamental
dynamics of writing may differ slightly from reading. Andersen et al. (2018) found strong effects between
reading-writing skills. They argued that effective decoding can free up cognitive resources for writing by
facilitating spelling, that literacy skills should be measured at different times at the word-sentence level,
and that writing can support reading. These results are also consistent with the results of our study. For
this reason, teaching should be focused on writing as well as reading (Graham and Herbert, 2011). Our
research contributes to the literature by measuring literacy errors at the primary school rst-grade level at
the sentence and word level. It also reveals visual perception’s direct and indirect effects on these errors
with other mediating variables. The importance of visual perception skills in the process is also explained.
İt can be said that reading speed has a strong effect on reading-writing errors. This is because words
are read repeatedly, and orthographic coding is performed; thus, the read word is accessed directly and
quickly from memory. Because reading requires visual analysis of strings of letters and retrieval of word
representations from memory (Bellocchi et al., 2017). This will facilitate syllable and word recognition.
According to some studies, rst-graders have morphological awareness, which inuences how they spell
words (Allen and Lembke, 2022; Apel and Werfel, 2014).
According to the other result obtained in the study, the direct effect of reading speed on sentence
writing errors is signicant and strong. The strongest variable that directly affects reading errors is read-
ing speed; the other variable is visual perception. Although the effect of word and sentence writing errors
on reading errors was signicant, it was observed that their power was slightly lower than the other
variables. Children who make reading errors will make more effort to decode words and read more slowly.
According to the other result obtained in the study, the strongest variable that directly affects reading
errors is word writing errors; the other variable is visual perception. When children cannot activate their
initial sound/letter awareness while learning to read and write, they have difculty applying the rules of
sound-to-spelling and spelling-to-sound conversion and may make errors. The role of visual perception
on word writing errors is an important nding in terms of showing the relationship between both literacy
and decoding skills and decoding skills with visual perception. Sound-syllable forgetting errors show that
the syllable concept has not developed in written language. Syllables are formed by differentiating the
properties of letters over time and by letter-sound blending. In addition to not having basic knowledge
and skills related to grammar rules about language elements and lexical rules, word splitting and merging
errors show that children have not yet separated spatial relations from objects and that they differentiate
and generalize spatial relations slowly (Ferah, 1996).
It can be thought that the basic evidence underlying the transition phase of literacy is beginning to
differentiate. In Turkish, which is a transparent language, the effect of phonological awareness decreases
in the transition phase of literacy. The effect of visual perception continues. Normally, children learn to
read and write by discovering information about word meanings and the connections between sounds and
letters (Share, 2004). However, it is also known that word reading requires skills such as phonological
encoding and orthographic processing (Bellocchi et al., 2017). Reading requires the analysis, recognition,
visualization, activation and use of visual stimuli (letter, syllable, word, etc.) (Commodari et al., 2020).
Therefore, word writing errors and visual perception has a direct impact on reading errors. Children
must analyze the graphic characteristics of letters, encode language units like letters and words, and
possess phonological skills like breaking language down into its constituent sounds, blending sounds,
and recognizing rhymes in order to learn to read. Visual spatial abilities are one of the most signicant
indicators of children’s reading development (Zhang and Lin, 2018).
www.ijcrsee.com
13
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
Conclusions
In this study, the authors focus on the relation between visual perception and the mistakes made
by rst-year students in writing and reading while gaining the rst literacy skill. First, the effects of visual
perception on sentence spelling errors indirectly through reading, word writing and phonological awareness
variables, were determined. Secondly, the impact of visual perception on reading errors indirectly, through
reading speed, word-sentence spelling errors, and phonological awareness variables was determined.
The results show that visual perception directly affects sentence writing and reading errors. As a result,
it has been determined that visual perception indirectly affects sentence spelling errors through word
writing, reading errors and phonological awareness tool variables. The relationships among the mediating
variables show that word writing errors are the strongest variable that directly affects sentence writing
errors. In addition, it has been observed that visual perception indirectly affects reading errors through
reading speed, word-sentence writing, and phonological awareness. The relationships between mediator
variables show that reading speed is the strongest variable that directly affects reading errors. This
research also indicates that visual-spatial skills contribute to developing reading and writing in a very
transparent language like Turkish. Although reading seems to mediate writing, its fundamental dynamics
differ. Writing also directly affects reading. Particular attention should be given to teaching writing in the
transition phase. Although studies in recent years have revealed the importance of oral language skills
in literacy acquisition, the results show that visual perception effects are more signicant in transparent
languages. Visual perception is one of the early literacy skills. Children with insufcient visual perception
development may also have difculty acquiring reading and writing. For this reason, visual perception
development should be supported at an early age. Writing is a different skill from reading skill. For this
reason, not only reading but also writing teaching should be included in the lessons.
Recommendations
The fact that perception is affected by information indicates that the relationship between literacy
errors and memory (processing and long-term memory) should also be examined. Considering the
increase in children’s word recognition skills during the transition phase of literacy, the contribution of
variables such as visual perception and morphological and syntactic awareness can be taken into account.
Although the evidence for the effect of phonological processing skills on the automatization of reading
gains importance, it can be said that searching for the underlying evidence of literacy in morphological
and syntactic awareness tasks, which are real-life skills, may be more benecial to the eld. It can be
suggested that teachers and practitioners organize additional activities for visual perception in lessons and
give importance to writing activities. In addition, the following recommendations can be made for future
research: Research can be designed to investigate the relationship between the variables discussed in
this study and early literacy skills such as phonological processing skills, visual-spatial copying, etc. In
a study to be conducted in the same context, longitudinal studies can be conducted in which students
are followed in terms of related skills. In addition, mixed method studies in which both qualitative and
quantitative methods are used together can be used to reach more in-depth and comprehensive data, and
studies that can lead to multidimensional discussions can be conducted.
In this study, the Conrmatory Factor Analysis of the MS Phonological Awareness Scale was
conducted by taking the total score due to the high correlation between the factors. The fact that it was
not investigated whether a second-order factor structure could explain the scale is a limitation of this
study. For this reason, conducting second-order factor analyses for the MS Phonological Awareness
Scale may be recommended in future studies. In this study, a limitation is that the study was conducted
through sampling due to time and cost constraints. In future research, repeating the study with a sample
representing the whole of Istanbul may be recommended.
Statements and Declarations
Declaration: This study is based on the rst author’s doctoral dissertation. All authors contributed
to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by
Author 1. The rst draft of the manuscript was written by Author 1 and all authors commented on previous
versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the nal manuscript.
Conict of interest
The authors have no relevant nancial or non-nancial interests to disclose.
Ethical Statement
This study was ethically approved by University Human Research and Ethics Committee with the
decision numbered 2018/215 and dated 21.11.2018.
www.ijcrsee.com
14
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
References
Abbott, R. D. & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing
skills in primary- and ıntermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 478-508. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.478
Albuquerque , A., & Alves Martins, M. (2022). Invented spelling as a tool to develop early literacy: The predictive effect on
reading and spelling acquisition in Portuguese. Journal of Writing Research, 14(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.17239/
jowr-2022.14.01.04
Allen, A. A., & Lembke, E. S. (2022). The effect of a morphological awareness intervention on early writing outcomes. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 45(2), 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720912414
Andersen, S. C., Christensen, M. V., Nielsen, H. S., Thomsen, M. K., Østerbye, T., & Rowe, M. L. (2018). How reading and
writing support each other across a school year in primary school children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55,
129-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.005
Apel, K., & Werfel, K. (2014). Using morphological awareness instruction to improve written language skills. Language Speech
and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0039
Aral, N. & Erturan, N. (1999). Frostıg Görsel Algılama Testi ve Eğitim Programına Dayalı Olarak Dört-Sekiz Yaş Arası Serebral
Palsili Çocuklarda Görsel Algılama davranışının İncelenmesi [Frostig Visual Perception Test and Training Program
Four-Eight Years Based On Cerebral Palsy Examination of Visual Perception Behavior in Children]. Özel Eğitim
Dergisi. 2(3), 58-63. Retrieved from https://kitaplar.ankara.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500
Aral, N. & A. Butun-Ayhan (2016). The adaptatıon of frostıg vısual perceptıon test to Turkısh. The Journal of Akademic Social
Science Studies (JASSS). 50, 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.9761/JASSS3587
Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2010). Component processes of early reading, spelling, and narrative writing skills in Turkish: A
longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 23(5), 539-568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9173-y
Bellocchi, S., Muneaux, M., Huau, A., Lévêque, Y., Jover, M., & Ducrot, S. (2017). Exploring the link between visual perception,
visual–motor integration, and reading in normal developing and impaired children using DTVP-2. Dyslexia, 23(3), 296-
315. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1561
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Berninger, V. W., Cartwright, A. C., Yates, C. M., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. D. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing
and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades. Reading and Writing, An Interdisciplinary Journal 6(2), 161-196.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01026911
Brown, T. A. (2015). Conrmatory factor analysis for applied research (2
nd
ed.). New York: The Guilford.
Brynildssen, S. (2000). Vocabulary’s inuence on successful writing. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading,
English, and Communication. (ERIC Document Service No. ED446339). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/
ED446339.pdf
Burgess, S. R., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Bidirectional relations of phonological sensitivity and prereading abilities: Evidence from
a preschool sample. Journal of experimental child psychology, 70(2), 117-141. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2450
Buyukozturk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2012). Eğitimde Bilimsel Araştırma Yontemleri.
[Scientic research methods in education]. Pegem Akademy Publishing. Retreived from https://avesis.medeniyet.edu.
tr/yayin/d93be4a3-e3bb-42ae-8635-96946af53ee9/bilimsel-arastirma-yontemleri
Büyüktaşkapu, S. (2012). Adaptation of mountain shadows phonological awareness scale (ms-pas) into turkish and validity
and reliability study. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 509-518. Retrived from https://iojes.
net/?mod=makale_tr_ozet&makale_id=41217#
Buyukozturk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (15.
baskı). [Data analysis handbook for social sciences: Statistics, research design, SPSS applications and interpretation].
Pegem Akademy Publishing.
Caravolas, M., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2001). The foundations of spelling ability: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal
study. Journal of memory and language, 45(4), 751774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006%2Fjmla.2000.2785
Cayir, A. (2017). Analyzing the Reading Skills and Visual Perception Levels of First Grade Students. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 5(7), 1113-1116. http://dx.doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050704
Clutten, S. C. (2009). The development of a visual perception test for learners in the foundation phase (Unpublished master’s
dissertation). University of South Africa. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10500/2613
Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and
measurement (8
th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Commodari, E., Guarnera, M., Di Stefano, A., & Di Nuovo, S. (2020). Children learn to read: how visual analysis and mental
imagery contribute to the reading performances at different stages of reading acquisition. Journal of psycholinguistic
research, 49(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09671-w
Conrad, R. (1964). Acoustıc Confusions in Immediate Memory. British Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 75–84. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1964.tb00899.x
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Arastırma deseni. Nitel, nicel ve karma yontem arastırmaları. (Selcuk Besir Demir, Trans & Ed.).
[Research design]. Egiten Book. (1st published)
Cubelli, R., & Della Sala, S. (2009). Mirror writing in pre-school children: A pilot study. Cognitive Processing, 10(2), 101-104.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-008-0233-z
Desimoni, M., Scalisi, T. G., & Orsolini, M. (2012). Predictive and concurrent relations between literacy skills in Grades 1
and 3: A longitudinal study of Italian children. Learning and Instruction, 22(5), 340-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2012.02.002
Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading
and Writing, 11(4), 281-299. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008093232622
www.ijcrsee.com
15
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
Ehri, L. C. (1986). Sources of difculty in learning to spell and read. Advances in Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 7,
121–195.
Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading
& Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difculties, 14(2), 135-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356980140202
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness
instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading research
quarterly, 36(3), 250-287. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and ndings . In M.J. Snowling and C. Hulme (Eds), The science
of reading: A handbook (pp. 135-154)(1
st
ed.). Blackwell publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch8
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning.
Scientic Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness
instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading research
quarterly, 36(3), 250-287. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
Erdoğan, O. (2012). The Relationship between the Phonological Awareness Skills and Reading Skills of the First Year Students
at Primary School. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri. Education and Science: Theory & Practice 11(3), 1506-
1510. Retreived from https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ936331.pdf
Ferah, A. (1996). İlkokuma yazma ogretiminde gorsel algılama ve zekanın yeri. [The place of visual perception and intelligence
in primary reading and writing teaching]. Unpublished Master Thesis. Marmara University Institute of Social Sciences,
Primary School Classroom Teaching Department. https://search.proquest.com/openview/62d01dd81489612ec457dc
a1d3548285/
Ferah-Ozcan, A. & Ozcan, A. O. (2016). Initial Reading and Writing Difculties in Learning that Children’s Lives, Causes
and Solutions: A Qualitative Study. Istanbul Gelisim University Journal of Social Science, 3(1), 69-103. https://doi.
org/10.17336/igusbd.61470
Floyd, R. G., McGrew, K. S., & Evans, J. J. (2008). The relative contributions of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities
in explaining writing achievement during childhood and adolescence. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2). https://doi.
org/10.1002/pits.20284
Foorman, B. R., & Liberman, D. (1989). Visual and phonological processing of words: A comparison of good and poor readers.
Journal of learning disabilities, 22(6), 349-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948902200605
Franceschini, S., Gori, S., Rufno, M., Pedrolli, K., & Facoetti, A. (2012). A causal link between visual spatial attention and
reading acquisition. Current biology, 22(9), 814-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.013
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading.
Harvard educational review, 81(4), 710-744. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566
Gutierrez-Palma, N., Naranjo, N. V., Justicia-Galiano, M. J., & Fernández, M. D. L. V. C. (2019). Beyond phonological
awareness: Stress awareness and learning word spelling. Learning and Individual Differences, 74, 101755. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101755
Guldenoglu, B., Kargın, T., & Ergul, C. (2016). Sesbilgisel farkındalık becerilerinin okuma ve okudugunu anlama uzerindeki
etkisi: Boylamsal bir calısma. [Effects of phonological awareness skills on reading and reading comprehension: A
longitudinal study]. İlkogretim Online, 15(1), 251-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.25973
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2
nd
edition). The Guilford.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519
909540118
Joshi, R. M., Wijekumar, K., & Gillespie Rouse, A. (2022). International Perspectives on Spelling and Writing in Different
Orthographies: Introduction to the Special Series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(2), 83-86. https://doi.
org/10.1177/00222194211059836
Juel, C., Grifth, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in rst and second grade.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 243-255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243
Juel, C. (1994). Learning to read and write in one elementary school (1
st
ed.). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4612-4282-6
Keskinova, A., & Ajdinski, G. (2018). Learning problems in children with mild intellectual disability. International Journal of
Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 6(1), 31. https://doi.org/110.5937/ijcrsee1801031K
Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Componential skills of beginning writing:
An exploratory study. Learning and individual differences, 21(5), 517-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.004
Landerl, K., Freudenthaler, H. H., Heene, M., De Jong, P. F., Desrochers, A., Manolitsis, G., Parrila, R., & Georgiou, G. K.
(2019). Phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming as longitudinal predictors of reading in ve alphabetic
orthographies with varying degrees of consistency. Scientic Studies of Reading, 23(3), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1
080/10888438.2018.1510936
Leppänen, U., Nieme, P., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. (2009). Development of Reading and Spelling Finnish From Preschool to
Grade 1 and Grade 2. Scientic Studies of Reading, 10 (1), 3–30. https://doi.com/10.1207/s1532799xssr1001_2
Lerkkanen, M. K. (2003). Learning to read: reciprocal processes and individual pathways, 233 (1
th
ed.). University of Jyväskylä.
Retreived from https://jyx.jyu./handle/123456789/13303
Lerkkanen, M. K., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Developmental dynamics of phonemic awareness
and reading performance during the rst year of primary school. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(2), 139-156.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X04042972
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2019). A general approach for tting pure exploratory bifactor models. Multivariate
behavioral research, 54(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1484339
Lupyan, G., Rahman, R. A., Boroditsky, L., & Clark, A. (2020). Effects of language on visual perception. Trends in cognitive
sciences, 24(11), 930-944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.08.005
Maslow, P., Frostig, M., Lefever, D. W., & Whittlesey, J. R. (1964). The Marianne Frostig developmental test of visual perception,
www.ijcrsee.com
16
Ferah-Ozcan, A., & Yildiz, S. (2022). Direct and indirect effects between rst literacy errors, visual perception, and phonological
awareness variables, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(3),
1-16.
1963 standardization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19(2), 463-499. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1964.19.2.463
Memis, A., & Sivri, D. A. (2016). The Analysis of Reading Skills and Visual Perception Levels of First Grade Turkish Students.
Journal of education and training studies, 4(8), 161-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i8.1663
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Taylor, S. (1997). Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts early progress in learning to read.
Journal of experimental child psychology, 65(3), 370-396. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.2365
Muthén, L. K. and Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables; user’s guide; [version 7]. Muthén et
Muthén.
Nikolopoulos, D., Goulandris, N., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2006). The cognitive bases of learning to read and spell
in Greek: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of experimental child psychology, 94(1), 1-17. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.11.006
Pfost, M., Blatter, K., Artelt, C., Stanat, P., & Schneider, W. (2019). Effects of training phonological awareness on children’s reading
skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 65, Article 101067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101067
Pienaar, A. E., Barhorst, R., & Twisk, J. W. R. (2014). Relationships between academic performance, SES school type and
perceptual-motor skills in rst grade S outh A frican learners: NW-CHILD study. Child: care, health and developent,
40(3), 370-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12059
Ouellette, G., & Sénéchal, M. (2017). Invented spelling in kindergarten as a predictor of reading and spelling in Grade 1: A
new pathway to literacy, or just the same road, less known? Developmental Psychology, 53(1), 77–88. https://doi.
org/10.1037/dev0000179
Ruotsalainen, J., Soodla, P., Räikkönen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., Kikas, E., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2022). Literacy instruction activities
and their associations with rst graders’ reading performance in two transparent orthographies. Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education, 52(1), 92-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.17420
Sandoval, AA, Briceño, ED, & Bargas, RO (2014). Phonologıcal awareness and readıng competence: a foster model. In edulearn14
Proceedings (pp. 4737-4745). IATED. Retreived from https://library.iated.org/view/ACOSTASANDOVAL2014PHO
Scarborough, H. S., Ehri, L. C., Olson, R. K. & Fowler, A. E. (1998). The fate of phonemic awareness beyond the elementary
school years. Scientic Studies of Reading, 2(2), 115-142. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_2
Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., & Foorman, B. R. (2004). Kindergarten Prediction of
Reading Skills: A Longitudinal Comparative Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 265–282. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.265
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the t of structural equation models: Tests of
signicance and descriptive goodness-of-t measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74. https://
www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/mpr_Schermelleh.pdf
Share, D. L. (2004). Knowing letter names and learning letter sounds: a causal connection, Journal Experimental Child
Psychology, 88(3), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.03.005
Speece, D. L., Ritchey, K. D., Cooper, D. H., Roth, F. P., & Schatschneider, C. (2004). Growth in early reading skills from
kindergarten to third grade. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(3), 312-332. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2003.07.001
Stahl, S. A., & Murray, B. A. (1994). Dening phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86(2), 221-234. ERIC Number: EJ490263
Traverso, L., Viterbori, P., Gandol, E., Zanobini, M., & Usai, M. C. (2022). The contribution of inhibitory control to early
literacy skills in 4-to 5-year-old children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 59, 265-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecresq.2021.11.010
Trawick-Swith, J. (2013). Erken çocukluk döneminde gelişim çok kültürlü bir bakış açısı. [Early childhood development a
multicultural perspective]. (Berrin Akman, çev.). Nobel publishing. (1
st
edit.) (B. Akman, çev. edt.). Ankara: Nobel
Yayıncılık.
Treiman, R. (2017). Learning to spell words: Findings, theories, and issues. Scientic Studies of Reading, 21(4), 265-276.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1296449
Treiman, R., Hulslander, J., Olson, R. K., Willcutt, E. G., Byrne, B., & Kessler, B. (2019). The unique role of early spelling in
the prediction of later literacy performance. Scientic Studies of Reading, 23(5), 437-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/108
88438.2019.1573242
Treiman, R., Kessler, B., & Pollo, T. C. (2022). Prephonological spelling and its connections with later word reading and spelling
performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 218, 105359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105359
Tsai, C. L., Wilson, P. H. & Wu, S. K. (2008). Role of visual-perceptual skills (non-motor) in children with developmental
coordination disorder. Human Movement Science, 27, 649-664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.10.002
Turna, C. & Guldenoglu, İ. B. (2019). İnvestigation of the relationship between phonological decoding and word reading speed
and accuracy in developmental perspective. Education and Science, 44(198), 413-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/
EB.2019.7891
Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2013). The cognitive linkage and divergence of spelling and reading development. Scientic
Studies of Reading, 17(2), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.614665
Watkins, M. W., & Edwards, V. A. (2004). Assessing early literacy skills with the mountain shadows phonemic awareness scale
(MS-PAS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290402200101
Zhang, X., & Lin, D. (2018). Cognitive precursors of word reading versus arithmetic competencies in young Chinese children.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.08.006
Zarić, J., Hasselhorn, M., & Nagler, T. (2021). Orthographic knowledge predicts reading and spelling skills over and above
general intelligence and phonological awareness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(1), 21-43. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00464-7
