View
217
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
6/11/2017
1
Interventions for children with dyslexia from
different language backgrounds and with
additional emotional/behavioural difficulties
John Everatt (University of Canterbury, NZ)
john.everatt@canterbury.ac.nz
R. Malatesha Joshi (Texas A&M University, USA) mjoshi@tamu.edu
Literacy and Learning Symposium 2017
• About 1 Billion (UNESCO - 2015) = Unable to read a
book or sign their names
• Approximately 25% (60 million) of adults and school-
age children in the U.S. have difficulty acquiring
reading and spelling skills
New Zealand (4 to 5 million) ≈ 1 million?
Introduction
• Reading difficulties among minority, inner-city
children about 2/3rd
• 25% of adults are unable to read a newspaper
• ≈ 15% drop out of high school and over 75% report
difficulties in learning to read
Introduction Introduction
• > 70% prison inmates cannot read above 4th grade
level
• However, provide literacy help, about 16% chance of
returning
• Without help in literacy, 70% chance of returning to
prison
6/11/2017
2
Introduction
• (NIH) Illiteracy is a public health issue
• Health care expenses (USA)
• Read at 3rd grade or below: 3 times costs in services
(Weiss et al., 2004)
• Illiteracy costs > 1 trillion USD each year (WLF,
2015)
Instruction/Experience
• Ehri (1989): Inadequate instruction spawning limited
reading and spelling development and limited phonological
awareness is the primary cause of reading disability
• Juel (1988): Children who read poorly at the end of the first
grade were likely to remain poor readers at the end of the
fourth grade
• Lyon et al. (1993): 74% of reading disabled in the third
grade continue to exhibit reading and spelling problems even
at the ninth grade level
• Oral language Development (Hart & Risley, 1995)
• Number of books available at home (Chiu &
McBride-Chang, 2006)
• Parents reading to children (Feitelson, 1964)
• Enjoyment of reading (Chiu & McBride-Chang, 2006)
• Good readers read 4 nights a week – poor readers
read one night a week
Instruction/ExperienceOrthographies
En
gli
sh
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% c
orr
ect
Word reading after 1 year of instruction
Gre
ek
Ge
rma
n
Fin
nis
h
Au
str
ian
Ita
lian
Sp
an
ish
Sw
ed
ish
Du
tch
Ice
lan
dic
No
rwe
gia
n
Fre
nc
h
Po
rtu
gu
ese
Da
nis
h
Seymour, Aro, Erskine (2003), British Journal of Psychology
6/11/2017
3
Orthographies
Simple Finnish Greek
Italian
Spanish
Portugue
se
French
Comple
x
German
Norwegi
an
Icelandic
Dutch
Swedish
Danish English
Shallow Deep
Sylla
ble
str
uc
ture
Based on Seymour, Aro, Erskine (2003)
OrthographiesWriting
Systems
Syllabic AlphabeticLogographic
(Morpho-syllabic
No phonemic
representation
Potential
phonemic
representation
Kanji
Chinese
Roman alphabet
Cyrillic alphabet
Kana
ba vs bi
ti vs gi
Korean Hangul
Devanagari
ba vs bi
ti vs gi
Componential Modelof Reading
Componential
Model of Reading
Domain I Domain II Domain III
Cognitive
Components
Psychological
Components
Ecological
Components
Word recognition
Comprehension
Motivation and Interest
Teacher Expectations
Gender Differences
Learned Helplessness
Home Environment
Parental Involvement
Classroom Environment
Dialect
Orthography
Three kinds of poor readers:
1. those with decoding deficit only
2. those with comprehension deficit only
3. those with deficits in both decoding and
comprehension
• R = D x C (Simple View of Reading) (Gough & Tunmer,
1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Joshi & Aaron, 2000)
Reading processes
6/11/2017
4
Distribution of different types of reading
disabilities (Grades 3, 4, & 6; 198 participants)
8% = Poor Decoding + Adequate Comprehension
7% = Adequate Decoding + Poor Comprehension
8% = Poor Decoding + Poor Comprehension
Aaron & Joshi (1999). JLD, 32, 120-137. Aaron, Joshi, et al. (2008). JLD, 41,67-84. Also: Leach et al. (2003); Stothard & Hulme (1994); Oakhill & Bryant (2003)
Reading processes
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
Decoding
deficits
Comprehension
deficits
Reading processes
PRE-TEST
POST-TEST
Influence varies with age/grade level
Reading processes across orthographies
Language Predictors of Reading Comprehension
English
(Tilstra et al., 2009)D: 4th grade = 42% / 7th grade = 13%
LC: 4th grade = 19% / 7th grade = 35%
French
(Megherbi et al., 2006)D: 1st grade = 27% / 2nd grade = 16%
LC: 1st grade = 39% / 2nd grade = 44%
Norwegian
(Hoien-Tengesdal, 2012)For 9 year olds, LC explained most
variance, with decoding having minimal
contribution
Dutch
De Jong & can der Leij, 2002)After grade 1, LC explained most
variability
Chinese (Mandarin)
• Grade 2: Character recognition & LC = 25%
• Grade 4: Character recognition & LC = 42%
Character recognition:
Grade 2 = 22% ; Grade 4 = 32%
Listening Comprehension (LC):
Grade 2 = 11%; Grade 4 = 31%
Reading processes across orthographies
6/11/2017
5
Chinese (Cantonese)
• Hong Kong; grades 3-4
• Character Recog. + Fluency & LC = 74%
• Listening Comp. = 70%
• Char. Rec. & Reading Fluency= 42%
Reading processes across orthographies
Hebrew (Joshi et al., 2015):
• 37% (Grade 6) to 70% (Grade 4)
Decoding (D):
Grades 2 = 27%; 4 = 26%; 5 = 20%; 6 = 8%
Listening Comprehension (LC):
Grades 2 =17%; 3 = 26%; 9 = 60%
Reading processes across orthographies
Persian (Sadeghi, 2015):
Decoding (D):
Grades 3 = 24%; 5 = 15%
Listening Comprehension (LC):
Grades 3 =12%; 5 = 24%
Reading processes across orthographies
Spanish (Joshi et al., 2012):
• Participants: 38 in grade 2 and 42 in grade 3
• (Home language and classroom instruction –Spanish)
• Tests administered: Woodcock-Muñoz Batería III
• Decoding, reading comprehension and listening comprehension
• comparative group of English speaking children in Grades 2-4
Reading processes in Multilinguals
6/11/2017
6
Reading processes in Multilinguals
Grade English Spanish
2 LC & D = 47% LC & D = 57%
LC = 33% & D =
35%
LC = 45% & D =
25%
3 LC & D = 48% LC & D = 60%
LC = 37% & D =
35%
LC = 47% & D =
15%
4 LC & D = 50%
LC = 41% & D =
14%
Reading processes in Multilinguals
Punjabi/Hindi (Gautam, 2017):
Decoding (D):
Grades 3 = 26%; 5 = 7%
Listening Comprehension (LC):
Grades 3 = 7%; 5 = 16%
Reading processes in Multilinguals
Nakamura, Joshi, et al (2014, 2016, 2017)
• N = 556
• Grades 2-5
• Schools from urban ‘slum’ communities and rural
villages
• Biliteracy in Primary Literacy (Lit1) Kannada/Telugu;
and Secondary Literacy (Lit2) English
• Mother Tongues: Kannada (N= 78); Telugu (N=132);
Marathi (N=6); Tamil (N=45); Hindi (N=3); Urdu
(N=10)
Reading processes in Multilinguals
6/11/2017
7
Nakamura, Joshi, et al (2014, 2016, 2017)
Reading processes in Multilinguals
Low Elementary High Elementary
B SE B β B SE B β
PA .11 .12 .13 -.11 .10 -.11
Dec .69 .17 .56*** .68 .14 .53***
LC .08 .21 .08 .41 .15 .28**
Total RC R2 = 45% R2 = 49%
Note. PA = Phonological Awareness; Dec = Decoding; LC = Language
Comprehension; RC = Reading Comprehension; ** p < .01; ***p < .001
Nakamura, Joshi, et al (2014, 2016, 2017)
• Approximately 50% of the variance was
explained by the two factors
• Decoding in ‘akshara’ plays a stronger role
even at the fifth grade level.
• L2 much better after a threshold (0.6) is
reached in L1
Reading processes in Multilinguals
Componential Modelof Reading
Domain I Domain II Domain III
Cognitive
Components
Psychological
Components
Ecological
Components
Word recognition
Comprehension
Motivation and Interest
Teacher Expectations
Gender Differences
Learned Helplessness
Home Environment
Parental Involvement
Classroom Environment
Dialect
Orthography
Part 2 of talk
Consequences
Literacy learning difficulties can lead to
problems across school subjects
poor educational qualifications/experiences +
reduced job opportunities
Poor school experiences may lead to poor
behaviour and negative affect
Low levels of self-esteem, increased anxiety, off-
task behaviours, anti-social behaviours
6/11/2017
8
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9Dyslexic group
Non-dyslexic group
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
• Early identification and intervention most
successful, but not always possible
• Severity of the difficulty – increased problems
may require longer to overcome
• If range of problems, will also need additional
types of support
• Background may influence impact (eg, Socio
Economic Status or second language user)
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
• Contrasting interventions with groups of
students with evidence of literacy learning
problems:
combining interventions: literacy plus
psychosocial
targeting psychosocial factors within the
literacy intervention
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
• literacy interventions:
focus on phonological awareness linked to
written text
phonological and morphological decoding
strategies - key words in text
vocabulary and comprehension
repetition for fluency and practice
6/11/2017
9
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
• Negative behaviour – off-task behaviours
cognitive-behavioural strategies –
strategies for self-regulation of behaviours
avoid distraction / boredom
provide opportunities for movement and
training in relaxation
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
• Emotional upset – anxiety / depression
ensure experience success
maintain interest/motivation
• Self-esteem / self-concept – self-worth
use of age-appropriate material
build resilience
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
Literacy problems plus negative behaviours
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Baseline Literacy Literacy plusbehaviour
Behaviour
Num
ber
of corr
ect spelli
ngs
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Cognitive-behaviourwith repeated copying
Cognitive-behaviourwith multisensory
learning
Pre-test Post-test
Number of correct spellings
6/11/2017
10
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Cognitive-behaviourwith repeated copying
Cognitive-behaviourwith multisensory
learning
Pre-test Post-test
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Cognitive-behaviour with repeatedcopying
Cognitive-behaviour withmultisensory learning
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Number of correct spellings
Number of negative
(off-task) behaviours
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
Reading measures
5
10
15
20
25
30
Accuracy Comprehension Rate
Pre-test Post-test
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
Psychosocial measures
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Academic Self-esteem
Self-efficacy Resilience Reading Attitude
Pre-test Post-test
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
Pre-intervention psychosocial influences
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
High resilience group Low resilience group
Pre Post
6/11/2017
11
Psychological aspects of literacy learning difficulties
Word Reading
Reading Comprehension30
35
40
45
50
55
60
High resiliencegroup
Low resiliencegroup
Pre Post
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
High resiliencegroup
Low resiliencegroup
Pre Post
English Additional Language + literacy learning difficulties
Phonologicalsaying sounds within wordsbreaking up words into sounds changing sounds within wordsspelling words via sounds
Vocabulary/Morphologydiscussing meaning of word in textchange words/word-parts – new meaningemphasis on frequent word-parts
English Additional Language + literacy learning difficulties
Word Reading
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Pre Post
Phono+Vocab
PairedRead
Control15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Pre Post
Phono+Vocab
PairedRead
Control
Non-word Reading
English Additional Language + literacy learning difficulties
VocabularyReading Comprehension
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
Pre Post
Phono+Vocab
PairedRead
Control80
85
90
95
100
105
Pre Post
Phono+Vocab
PairedRead
Control
6/11/2017
12
Combined literacy and psychosocial interventions
Phonological emphasis linked to literacy
most likely to show benefits
Multisensory allows repetition and may
also allow targeting of success via skills
May need phased approach to
intervention (limited resources)
Also need combined approaches to target
different areas of difficulty
Concluding comments
Understanding processes involved in literacy
Language and orthography
Influence of learning experience
Consequences of experience of failure
Appropriate support – early and follow-up
Consider whole individual
Literacy and Learning Symposium 2017
Recommended