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)

0

20

40

60

80

100

TP0 TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5

% C

orr

ec

t

Greek

Portuguese

French

Finnish

Scottish

Spanish

Results from COST A8, Seymour, et al. 2003

Before school and then in equal time steps to the end of the 2.grade

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

Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia (JLD; 1993-)

The JLD research groupMikko 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

..when biological factors compromise reading acquisition..

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

N=

108

N=

107

N=

107

N=

107

N=

107

N=

107

N=

95

N=

96

N=

94

N=

95

N=

93

N=

93

18 month

2 years

2½ years

3½ years

4½ years

5years

5½ years

N=

107

N=

93

Collection of the data continues

N=

108

N=

107

N=

112

Neo-nata

l

6 month

14 mont

h

N=

96

N=

94

N=

94

6½ years

N=

107

N=

93

Igrade

IIgrade

N=

108

N=

92

IIIgrade

N=

107

N=

92

I Screening II Screening III Screening

Short questionnaire administered

at the maternity

clinics

N=8427 parents

Compre-hensive

questionnaire

N=3146 parents

Assessment of parents’

reading and spelling

skills

N=410 parents

AT -RISK GROUP

N=117 infants

CONTROL GROUP

N=105 infants

Born at the

hospitals of Central Finland during

01.04.93-31.07.96

N= 9368 infants

Number of children who have attended the last originally agreed assessment phase at the 3rd grade

AT -RISK GROUP

N=108 children

CONTROL GROUP

N=92children

N = 1515

N=

108

N=

92

CLASSMATES N = 2859

VIIgrade

N=

85

N=

66

VIIIgrade

N=

101

N=

81

N = 1537

IXgrade

N=

76

N=

73

N = 1508

Criteria of dyslexia among children

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 minutesReading 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

Measures taken at the end of the 2th grade at the averate age of 8 y. 9 months

CriteriaA child was diagnosed as dyslexic, if he / she scored below or at

the 10 percentile of the contol group in at least1. Three out of four speed measures OR2. Three out of four accuracy measures OR3. 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

N=108

N = 38

1st gr 2nd gr

At risk group

Children with reading disability

3rd gr 8th gr

N=92

1st gr 2nd gr

Control group

3rd gr 8th gr

N = 38 N = 36 N = 42

N = 10 N = 9 N = 10 N = 12

Age Variable

7 - yrs Reading accuracy & speed D

5 - yrs Naming speed P & D

4 - 6 yrs Phonological manipulation P & D

5 - 6 yrs Letter knowledge P & D

5 - yrs Verbal memory P & D

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

IDENTIFYING & PREDICTING RISKa summary of significant measures

P = Predictors D = Differences between groups

Lyytinen et al., Annals of Dyslexia, 2004; Dyslexia, 2004; Sage Handbook of Dyslexia, 2008

From: F3, F4, C3, C4, P3, P4 (Ag/AgCl-electrodes), referred to ipsilateral mastoid

Bandpass: 0.5-35 Hz, sampling rate 200 Hz

METHODS – ERP recording

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

/ba/ /da/ /ga/

Guttorm, et al. (2005) Cortex 41, 291-303.

F4

C3 C4

P3 P4

EogL

500ms

EogR

5 µV _+

F3

540-630 ms

Writing letters 6.5 y -.336*

Reading 6.5 y -.329*

Audio-phonemic associations 5.5 y-.451*

Boston Naming Test 5.5 y-.311*

Word identification 6.5 y-.308*

Word identification 6.5 y-.339**

Letter identification 6.5 y-.339*

Phoneme Deletion 6.5 y-.339*

Naming 1st Phoneme 6.5 y-.342*

Rapid Naming: Faults 6.5 y.414*

Word identification 6.5 y-.415**

3.5 4.5 5 5.5 6.5

Age (years)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0,85

2,68

3,74

6,21

14,03

3,09

10,41

13,57

16,59

25,41

Reading acquisition fails during 1. grade

Reading acquisition normal during 1. grade

The letter knowledge of 3.5-6.5 year olds (JLD) and reading acquisition

Lettter

names known

Lyytinen et al., (2007)Nordic Psychology

Reading composite 2. gr.

Reading composite, 1. gr.

IQ, 5 y.

Letter knowledge 5.5 y.

Letter knowledge, 5 y.

Letter knowledge, 4.5 y.

Letter knowledge, 3.5 y.

Rapid naming, 6.5 y.

Rapid naming, 5.5 y.

Phonological skills, 5.5 y.

Phonological skills, 4.5 y.

Phonological skills, 3.5 y.

Pseudoword repetition, 3.5 y.

Receptive speech, 2.5 y.

-3 -2 -1 0 1

z-score (mean = 0, sd =1)

Individual profiles of the prediction measures of the JLD children whose reading acquisition was most severely compromised

Lyytinen, et al.Scand. J. ofPsychology,2009.

From the JLD-follow-up from birth to school age of reading-related development

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

childrenAn enjoyable learning game:

Graphogame

GraphogameThe task: Catch the letter that matches the sound you hear!

Competitor’s catcher

Player’s catcher

Falling letters

Correctly chosen letters

Player’s resultsCompetitor’s results

Mouse pointer

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%)

The cumulative number of learned items

Hours of playing

Exemplary learning curves of 4-8 year olds (N=726)

Modelling: Janne Kujala

After 2. trainingsession

After 1. trainingsession

Before training

Cor

rect

ly a

sse

mb

led

soun

dst

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

Order of training sessions:

1.Math game – 2.Letter-sound g.

1.Letter-sound g.– 2. Math game

Ability to assemble sounds on the basis of letters

Screeningtest

(N=166)

CARRIgroup(n=25)

Main-streamgroup (n=116

)

RRI group (n=25)

Subtest2

Subtest3

Subtest4

Subtest5

Post test

Follow-up 1

IQ Estimatio

n

Remedial reading intervention (RRI)(T1-T6)

Remedial reading intervention and computer-

assisted instruction (CARRI) (T1-T6)

Screening

August Grade 1

Groupping

September

Grade 1

T1OctoberGrade 1

T2Decembe

r Grade 1

T3JanuaryGrade 1

T4March

Grade 1

T5May

Grade 1

T6August

Grade 2

T8August Grade 3

CARRI group = Computer assisted remedial reading intervention groupMainstream group = Mainstream reading instruction groupRRI group = Remedial reading intervention group

T7May

Grade 2

Follow-up 2

Saine et al., Child Development, 2011

(=1/4 of the remedial reading support session)

Saine et al., Child Development, 2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

T5 T6 T7 T8

Num

ber

of W

ords

Spe

lled

Cor

rect

lySpelling

RRI

CARRI

Mainstream

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

Pre-Post GG: Children (n=15) before and after playing with Graphogame

BA18/19

LG-FG, IFG

No difference Condition differences

Post-pre interaction between groups playing Graphogame vs Mathgame (same with numbers): p<0.005

Condition differences Increased activation in occipito-temporal areas

Words-False fonts

HL and UR in collaboration with Swiss colleagues Daniel Brandeis, Sylvia Brehm

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): heikki.lyytinen@psyka.jyu.fi

• 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!