and reading acquisition

Report
Early identification and prevention of difficulties
in the acquisition of basic scholastic skills –
reading and math
Heikki Lyytinen
Agora Centre & Department of Psychology
University of Jyväskylä
Niilo Mäki Institute
Finland
Stockholm, 25. October, 2012
Overview of the content of this presentation
• Learning to read highly transparent orthography
• The developmental association between spoken
and written language skills – highlights from the
Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia (JLD)
•
•
•
Introduction to the JLD: goals and design
Overview of the predictive relations and their modelling
Early identification of children in need of support
• Supporting reading acquisition
.. Learning the connections between spoken and written language
using a learning game - Graphogame
The concept of reading skill
• Basic reading skill – ability to pronounce
written words accurately
• Literacy – readiness to comprehend fluently
written language; requires
– sufficient mastery of the spoken language meant
to be learned to read
– accurate and fluent basic decoding skill
– a lot of reading to acquire functional reading skill
– appropriate vocabulary knowledge, motivation
and strategy to comprehend the written language
Development of nonword reading accuracy
during 1st Grade in different orthographies
(Scottish data up to 2nd grade)
100
% Correct
80
Greek
Portuguese
French
Finnish
Scottish
Spanish
60
40
20
0
TP0
TP1
TP2
TP3
TP4
TP5
Before school and then in equal time steps to the end of the 2.grade
Results from COST A8, Seymour, et al. 2003
Reading acquisition and the consistency of the
connections between spoken and written language
• If the reading instruction is organized as it should…
the time child needs for the acquisition of the basic
reading skill is the shorter
– the smaller the number of connections one has to
learn (Finnish, Swedish.. < 30 letter-sounds)
– the more consistent are the connections, ie. the
fewer complexities/alternatives need to be learned
and
– the more optimally built phonics instruction is
available for successfully engaging the child in
training the skill
..when biological factors compromise reading acquisition..
Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia
(JLD; 1993-)
The JLD research group
Mikko Aro, Timo Ahonen, Kenneth Eklund, Tomi Guttorm, Jarmo Hämäläinen,
Ritva Ketonen, Marja-Leena Laakso, Seija Leinonen, Matti Leiwo, Paavo
Leppänen, Paula Lyytinen, Kurt Muller, Anna-Maija Poikkeus, Anne
Puolakanaho, Ulla Richardson, Paula Salmi, Asko Tolvanen, Minna Torppa,
Helena Viholainen
The goals of the JLD
to identify (from children at familial risk for dyslexia)
•precursors of dyslexia
•predictors of compromised acquisition
•developmental paths leading to dyslexia
The last step: the development of
preventive measures
DEFINING FAMILIAL RISK IN THE
JYVÄSKYLÄ LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF
DYSLEXIA (JLD)
SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THE AT-RISK FAMILIES: parents
• At least one parent with diagnosed dyslexia from multiple criteria
• Reported dyslexia among at least one of the first degree
relatives
• IQ at least 85 (Raven matrices)
• No reported language problems in childhood or later
• No neurological or psychiatric symptoms
• No hearing problems
For detals, see Leinonen et al. Reading and Writing, 2001
I Screening
Born at
the
hospitals
of Central
Finland
during
01.04.9331.07.96
Short
questionnaire
administered
at the
maternity
clinics
N= 9368
infants
N=8427
parents
II Screening
Number of children who have
attended the last originally agreed
assessment phase at the 3rd
grade
III
Screening
CompreAssessment
hensive
of parents’
questionnaire
reading and
spelling
skills
N=3146
parents
N=410
parents
AT -RISK
GROUP
AT -RISK
GROUP
N=108
N=117
infants
children
CONTROL
GROUP
CONTROL
GROUP
N=105
infants
N=92
children
Collection of the data continues
Neonata
l
6
14
18
2
2½
3½
4½
5
5½
6½
I
II
III
VII
VIII
IX
month
month
month
years
years
years
years
years
years
years
grade
grade
grade
grade
grade
grade
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
85
101
76
107 112 108 108 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 108 108
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
N
=
96
94
94
95
96
94
95
93
93
93
93
92
92
92
66
81
73
CLASSMATES
N=
N=
N=
N=
1515
2859
1537
1508
Criteria of dyslexia among children
Measures taken at the end of the 2th grade at the averate age of 8 y. 9 months
Reading speed
• Reading 3 and 4 syllabic words and non words – mean response time
• Reading text – read words / minute
• Reading non word text – read words / minute
• Reading word list, standardized test – correctly read words in two minutes
Reading and writing accuracy
• Reading 3 and 4 syllabic words and non words – correct / 40
• Reading text – percentage of correctly read words
• Reading non word text – percentage of correctly read words
• Spelling words and non words – correct / 18
Criteria
A child was diagnosed as dyslexic, if he / she scored below or at
the 10 percentile of the contol group in at least
1.
Three out of four speed measures OR
2.
Three out of four accuracy measures OR
3.
Two speed AND two accuracy measures
The reading status of children
born at familial risk for dyslexia
at school age
• Expectation of the genetic influences
– > 1/2 would be affected (due to 1 parent’s dyslexia)
• The observed result: 42 /107
– compromised initial reading acquisition 48 / 107
– severe, persistent reading disorder 42 / 107
Children with reading disability
At risk
group
1st gr
2nd gr
3rd gr
8th gr
N = 38
N = 38
N = 36
N = 42
1st gr
2nd gr
3rd gr
8th gr
N = 10
N=9
N = 10
N = 12
N=108
Control
group
N=92
IDENTIFYING & PREDICTING RISK
a summary of significant measures
P = Predictors
D = Differences between groups
Age
Variable
7-
yrs Reading accuracy & speed
5-
yrs Naming speed
D
P&D
4 - 6 yrs Phonological manipulation P & D
5 - 6 yrs Letter knowledge
P&D
5-
P&D
yrs Verbal memory
3 - 6 yrs Phonological sensitivity
P&D
3 - 5 yrs Inflectional skills
P&D
2 - 3 yrs Articulation accuracy
P
2 yrs
Maximum sentence length
P&D
6 mth
Speech perception
P&D
Birth
ERP to speech sound
P&D
Lyytinen et al., Annals of Dyslexia, 2004; Dyslexia, 2004; Sage Handbook of Dyslexia, 2008
METHODS – ERP recording
From: F3, F4, C3, C4, P3, P4 (Ag/AgCl-electrodes),
referred to ipsilateral mastoid
Bandpass: 0.5-35 Hz, sampling rate 200 Hz
Prediction for the very early
ERPs
Predictors:
ERP responses to speech sounds which significantly
differentiate children with and without risk
Criterion measures:
The most important language measures that predict
early reading skills and early reading
Newborn ERPs
in the at-risk group
EogL
EogR
_
Boston Naming Test 5.5 y
-.311*
Audio-phonemic
associations 5.5 y
-.451*
500ms
F3
F4
C3
C4
P3
P4
Word identification 6.5 y
-.339**
Writing letters 6.5 y -.336*
Reading 6.5 y
-.329*
540-630 ms
/ba/
/da/
/ga/
5 µV
Rapid Naming: Faults 6.5 y
.414*
Word identification 6.5 y
-.308*
Phoneme Deletion 6.5 y
-.339*
Letter identification 6.5 y
-.339*
+
Naming 1st Phoneme 6.5 y
-.342*
Word identification 6.5 y
-.415**
Guttorm, et al. (2005) Cortex 41, 291-303.
The letter knowledge of 3.5-6.5 year olds (JLD) and reading acquisition
L
e
t
t
t
e
r
n
a
m
e
s
k
n
o
w
n
30
25,41
25
Reading
acquisition
normal during
1. grade
20
16,59
15
Reading
acquisition
fails during
1. grade
14,03
13,57
10,41
10
6,21
5
3,74
3,09
2,68
0,85
0
3.5
4.5
5
Age (years)
5.5
6.5
Lyytinen et al., (2007)
Nordic Psychology
From the JLD-follow-up from birth to school age of reading-related development
Receptive speech, 2.5 y.
Pseudoword repetition, 3.5 y.
Phonological skills, 3.5 y.
Phonological skills, 4.5 y.
Phonological skills, 5.5 y.
Rapid naming, 5.5 y.
Rapid naming, 6.5 y.
Letter knowledge, 3.5 y.
Letter knowledge, 4.5 y.
Letter knowledge, 5 y.
Letter knowledge 5.5 y.
IQ, 5 y.
Lyytinen, et al.
Scand. J. of
Psychology,
2009.
Reading composite, 1. gr.
Reading composite 2. gr.
-3
-2
-1
z-score
0
1
(mean = 0, sd =1)
Individual profiles of the prediction measures of the JLD children
whose reading acquisition was most severely compromised
Precursors/predictors: conclusions
• Familial background increases the risk of dyslexia
substantially – relatively the more so, the more severe
reading difficulties are attended
• Speech perception is predictive from 6 months and does so
at school age still after controlling for other known predictors
• Among at risk children very early language delays can be
informative, both in the expressive and receptive language
domains but receptive language may be more important
• Poor letter name learning predicts without false negatives
(false positives should be accepted)
• Naming fluency predicts the most persistent difficulties
…also when the phonological skills revealed by traditional assessment tools fail to predict
How to support reading
acquisition among at risk
children
An enjoyable learning game:
Graphogame
Graphogame
The task: Catch the letter that matches the sound you hear!
Competitor’s results
Player’s results
Falling letters
Correctly chosen letters
Mouse pointer
Player’s catcher
Competitor’s catcher
Programming: Tuomo Hokkanen
GraphoMath
A learning environment for L1 and L2
spoken and written languages: Graphogame
Introduces reading skill of any wanted language
Teaches the phonetic basis of language with the
help of written language
– Tunes the speech perception for the use of a
wanted language
– Helps in training correct pronunciation of the
sounds of a language
– Introduces spoken words (vocabulary) via
written language
How and where Graphogame works
• Applies phonics: trains the connections
between spoken and written items in optimized
order:
from easy to differentiate to more similar
phonemic units…
from letter-sounds to syllables and words
• Adapts automatically to child’s actual skill level
• Guarantees experience of success (80%)
Exemplary learning curves of 4-8 year olds (N=726)
The cumulative number
of learned items
Hours of playing
Modelling: Janne Kujala
22
Ability to assemble
sounds on the basis
of letters
Correctly assembled soundst
20
18
16
Order of training sessions:
14
1.Math game – 2.Letter-sound g.
12
1.Letter-sound g.– 2. Math game
10
Before
training
After 1. training
session
After 2. training
session
Remedial reading
intervention and computerassisted instruction (CARRI)
(T1-T6)
CARRI
group
(n=25)
Screeni
ng
test
(N=166)
Mainstream
group
(n=116
)
IQ
Subtes
t
2
Subtes
t
3
Subtes
t
4
Subtes
t
5
Post
test
Followup 1
Estimatio
n
Followup 2
RRI
group
(n=25)
Remedial reading intervention (RRI)
(T1-T6)
Screenin
g
August
Grade 1
Grouppin
g
Septemb
er
Grade 1
T1
October
Grade 1
T2
Decembe
r
Grade 1
T3
January
Grade 1
T4
March
Grade 1
T5
May
Grade 1
T6
August
Grade 2
T7
May
Grade 2
T8
August
Grade 3
CARRI group = Computer assisted remedial reading intervention group (=1/4 of the remedial reading support session)
Mainstream group = Mainstream reading instruction group
RRI group = Remedial reading intervention group
Saine et al., Child Development, 2011
Saine et al., Child Development, 2011
Spelling
35
Number of Words Spelled Correctly
30
25
20
RRI
CARRI
15
Mainstream
10
5
0
T5
T6
T7
T8
Saine et al., Child Development, 2011
Successful preventive practice
Effective if not used too early, starting just before
child enters school
– practiced > 1 times per day in subsequent days
– short < 12 minutes’ sessions
– playing in so ”active” form as possible (by e.g. repeating
the sounds)
– the task of parents: to show that they are happy when
child plays
– playing long enough (2-20 hours)
See: www.lukimat.fi (where Finnish children play) or
www.graphogame.com for description and
demo in English
For explanations, see Lyytinen et al., 2009
Illustration of the game developed byJanne Kujala
GG training of <5 hours affects brain
HL and UR in collaboration with Swiss colleagues Daniel Brandeis, Sylvia Brehm
Pre-Post GG: Children (n=15) before and after playing with Graphogame
LG-FG, IFG
WordsFalse fonts
No difference
Condition
Conditiondifferences
differences
Increased activation in
occipito-temporal areas
BA18/19
Post-pre interaction between groups playing Graphogame
vs Mathgame (same with numbers): p<0.005
Brem et al., PNAS, 2010, 107(17), 7939-7944.
Potential assessment use of
Graphogame
• Dynamic assessment:
– Online follow-up of the proceedings of the
training of the letter-sound connections
– Application of the observed results to guiding
the next steps of the practice towards contents
still in need of further practice
i.e. integrating assessment and intervention as
made in the response-to-intervention model
…note, the cycle of refocussing the intervention
can happen in seconds
Supporting Finnish children
• All children entering school this autumn are
screened
– for familial risk and/or letter knowledge < 7
Motivating children showing such a risk
to play dynamic assessment version of Graphogame
> resistance to training with optimal phonics
Children showing resistance (1-2%) followed
individually for testing the limits of the Graphogame
Note: percentiles 3-15% trained successfully
GRAPHOLEARN model
• Ekapeli/Graphogame used under the responsibility
and funding of the Ministry of Education in Finland
• > 200.000 users (2006-)
• Centralized automatized
feedback from our servers
• Could work as main model
for implementations
elsewhere as well
The basic principles of Graphogame
development for a new writing system
• Careful study of the written language environment
with local experts for developing and
implementing an appropriate content
• Evidence-based documentation of the efficiency of
the game of the content before any distribution
• Distribution and use under the responsibility of the
local Ministry of Education after research has
shown its efficiency in a new orthographic/cultural
environment
For more.., please,
• Call: +358 50 552 4892
• Have a look of our research: heikki.lyytinen.info
• Ask for reprint(s): [email protected]
• The service for Finns: http://www.lukimat.fi/
• ..in English: http://www.graphogame.com
• See also grapholearn.info for the whole approach
Thank you for your attention!

similar documents