PowerPoint · PDF file1 Interventions for ... • Biliteracy in Primary Literacy (Lit1) Kannada/Telugu; and Secondary Literacy (Lit2) English ... •Negative behaviour –off-task

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)

[email protected]

R. Malatesha Joshi (Texas A&M University, USA) [email protected]

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%


6/11/2017

5

Chinese (Cantonese)

• Hong Kong; grades 3-4

• Character Recog. + Fluency & LC = 74%

• Listening Comp. = 70%

• Char. Rec. & Reading Fluency= 42%


Hebrew (Joshi et al., 2015):

• 37% (Grade 6) to 70% (Grade 4)

Decoding (D):

Grades 2 = 27%; 4 = 26%; 5 = 20%; 6 = 8%


Grades 2 =17%; 3 = 26%; 9 = 60%


Persian (Sadeghi, 2015):

Decoding (D):

Grades 3 = 24%; 5 = 15%


Grades 3 =12%; 5 = 24%


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


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%


Punjabi/Hindi (Gautam, 2017):

Decoding (D):

Grades 3 = 26%; 5 = 7%


Grades 3 = 7%; 5 = 16%


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)


6/11/2017

7



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


• 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


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


• 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)


• Contrasting interventions with groups of

students with evidence of literacy learning

problems:

combining interventions: literacy plus

psychosocial

targeting psychosocial factors within the

literacy intervention


• 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


• 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


• Emotional upset – anxiety / depression

ensure experience success

maintain interest/motivation

• Self-esteem / self-concept – self-worth

use of age-appropriate material

build resilience


Literacy problems plus negative behaviours

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Baseline Literacy Literacy plusbehaviour

Behaviour

Num

ber

of corr

ect spelli

ngs


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


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


Reading measures

5

10

15

20

25

30

Accuracy Comprehension Rate

Pre-test Post-test


Psychosocial measures

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

Academic Self-esteem

Self-efficacy Resilience Reading Attitude

Pre-test Post-test


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


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


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


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

Documents

PowerPoint · PDF file1 Interventions for ... • Biliteracy in Primary Literacy (Lit1) Kannada/Telugu; and Secondary Literacy (Lit2) English ... •Negative behaviour –off-task