Dataset Information

Behavioral and brain evidence for language by ear, mouth, eye, and hand and motor skills in literacy learning.

ABSTRACT: Two studies were conducted of students with and without persisting Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs-WL) in Grades 4 to 9 (M = 11 years, 11 months) that supported the hypotheses that CELF 4 parent ratings for listening (language by ear), speaking (language by mouth), reading (language by eye), and writing (language by hand) were correlated with both (a) normed, standardized behavioral measures of listening, speaking, reading, and writing achievement (Study 1, 94 boys and 61 girls); and (b) fMRI connectivity or DTI white matter integrity involving brain regions for primary motor functions or motor planning and control, or motor timing in a subsample of right handers who did not wear metal (Study 2, 28 boys and 16 girls). Results of these assessment studies, which have implications for planning instruction for three SLDs-WL (dysgraphia, dyslexia, and oral and written language learning disability [OWL LD]), show that more than multisensory instruction is relevant. Language by ear, by mouth, by eye, and by hand, as well as motor planning, control, and output skills and motor timing should also be considered. Research is also reviewed that supports other processes beyond multisensory input alone that should also be considered for students with SLDs-WL.

SUBMITTER: Berninger VW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7050657 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Behavioral and brain evidence for language by ear, mouth, eye, and hand and motor skills in literacy learning.

Berninger Virginia W VW Richards Todd L TL Nielsen Kathleen H KH Dunn Michael W MW Raskind Marshall H MH Abbott Robert D RD

International journal of school & educational psychology 20180815 Suppl 1

Two studies were conducted of students with and without persisting Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs-WL) in Grades 4 to 9 (M = 11 years, 11 months) that supported the hypotheses that CELF 4 parent ratings for listening (language by ear), speaking (language by mouth), reading (language by eye), and writing (language by hand) were correlated with both (a) normed, standardized behavioral measures of listening, speaking, reading, and writing achievement (Study 1, 94 boys and 61 girls); and (b) fM ...[more]

PMID: 32123644

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStrong associations between infant vocabulary and school-age language and literacy skills would have important practical and theoretical implications: Preschool assessment of vocabulary skills could be used to identify children at risk of reading and language difficulties, and vocabulary could be viewed as a cognitive foundation for reading. However, evidence to date suggests predictive ability from infant vocabulary to later language and literacy is low. This study provides an investigation into, and interpretation of, the magnitude of such infant to school-age relationships.MethodsThree hundred British infants whose vocabularies were assessed by parent report in the 2nd year of life (between 16 and 24 months) were followed up on average 5 years later (ages ranged from 4 to 9 years), when their vocabulary, phonological and reading skills were measured.ResultsStructural equation modelling of age-regressed scores was used to assess the strength of longitudinal relationships. Infant vocabulary (a latent factor of receptive and expressive vocabulary) was a statistically significant predictor of later vocabulary, phonological awareness, reading accuracy and reading comprehension (accounting for between 4% and 18% of variance). Family risk for language or literacy difficulties explained additional variance in reading (approximately 10%) but not language outcomes.ConclusionsSignificant longitudinal relationships between preliteracy vocabulary knowledge and subsequent reading support the theory that vocabulary is a cognitive foundation of both reading accuracy and reading comprehension. Importantly however, the stability of vocabulary skills from infancy to later childhood is too low to be sufficiently predictive of language outcomes at an individual level - a finding that fits well with the observation that the majority of 'late talkers' resolve their early language difficulties. For reading outcomes, prediction of future difficulties is likely to be improved when considering family history of language/literacy difficulties alongside infant vocabulary levels.

Project description:Spanish-speaking language-minority (LM) children are at an elevated risk of struggling academically and display signs of that risk during early childhood. Therefore, high-quality research is needed to identify instructional techniques that promote the school readiness of Spanish-speaking LM children. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention that utilized an experimental curriculum and two professional development models for the development of English and Spanish early literacy skills among LM children. We also evaluated whether LM children's proficiency in one language moderated the effect of the intervention on early literacy skills in the other language, as well as whether the intervention was differentially effective for LM and monolingual English-speaking children. Five hundred twenty-six Spanish-speaking LM children and 447 monolingual English-speaking children enrolled in 26 preschool centers in Los Angeles, CA participated in this study. Results indicated that the intervention was effective for improving LM children's code-related but not language-related English early literacy skills. There were no effects of the intervention on children's Spanish early literacy skills. Proficiency in Spanish did not moderate the effect of the intervention for any English early literacy outcomes; however, proficiency in English significantly moderated the effect of the intervention for Spanish oral language skills, such that the effect of the intervention was stronger for children with higher proficiency in English than it was for children with lower proficiency in English. In general, there were not differential effects of the intervention for LM and monolingual children. Taken together, these findings indicate that high-quality, evidence-based instruction can improve the early literacy skills of LM children and that the same instructional techniques are effective for enhancing the early literacy skills of LM and monolingual children.

Project description:The current study investigated how individual differences among children affect the added value of social robots for teaching second language (L2) vocabulary to young children. Specifically, we investigated the moderating role of three individual child characteristics deemed relevant for language learning: first language (L1) vocabulary knowledge, phonological memory, and selective attention. We expected children low in these abilities to particularly benefit from being assisted by a robot in a vocabulary training. An L2 English vocabulary training intervention consisting of seven sessions was administered to 193 monolingual Dutch five-year-old children over a three- to four-week period. Children were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: 1) a tablet only, 2) a tablet and a robot that used deictic (pointing) gestures (the no-iconic-gestures condition), or 3) a tablet and a robot that used both deictic and iconic gestures (i.e., gestures depicting the target word; the iconic-gestures condition). There also was a control condition in which children did not receive a vocabulary training, but played dancing games with the robot. L2 word knowledge was measured directly after the training and two to four weeks later. In these post-tests, children in the experimental conditions outperformed children in the control condition on word knowledge, but there were no differences between the three experimental conditions. Several moderation effects were found. The robot's presence particularly benefited children with larger L1 vocabularies or poorer phonological memory, while children with smaller L1 vocabularies or better phonological memory performed better in the tablet-only condition. Children with larger L1 vocabularies and better phonological memory performed better in the no-iconic-gestures condition than in the iconic-gestures condition, while children with better selective attention performed better in the iconic-gestures condition than the no-iconic-gestures condition. Together, the results showed that the effects of the robot and its gestures differ across children, which should be taken into account when designing and evaluating robot-assisted L2 teaching interventions.

Dataset Information

Behavioral and brain evidence for language by ear, mouth, eye, and hand and motor skills in literacy learning.

Publications

Behavioral and brain evidence for language by ear, mouth, eye, and hand and motor skills in literacy learning.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets