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 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!
