Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-02
Impact of a computer-based intervention in Chilean children at risk of manifesting reading difficulties / Impacto de una intervención basada en ordenador en niños chilenos con riesgo de manifestar dificultades lectoras
Reading difficulties have reached a prevalence of 3–10% in school-age children. Those who present these difficulties avoid reading and benefit very little from school-based learning opportunities, resulting in maladjustments, dropping out of school and having to repeat grades. Presented here are the results of an intervention based on a computer game intended for explicit phonic training in first-grade school children at risk of possessing reading difficulties. Fifty-six children from a low socioeconomic status (SES) and 31 children from a high socioeconomic status, divided into two groups (control and experimental), participated in the study. After the intervention, participants from the low-SES experimental group had enhanced their skills regarding letter sound recognition, whereas the high-SES experimental group had improved their naming speed. The results are discussed in light of the impact of interventions based on computer games and of the importance of the development of sublexical skills in children at risk of manifesting reading difficulties in transparent orthographies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J. (2005). Development of phonological awareness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 255–259. doi:10.1111/cdir.2005.14.issue-5
2.
BravoL.VillalónM.OrellanaE. (2006). Diferencias en la predictividad de la lectura entre primer año y cuarto año básicos. Psykhe, 15(1), 3–11.
3.
BremS.BachS.KucianK.GuttormT. K.MartinE.LyytinenH.RichardsonU. (2010). Brain sensitivity to print emerges when children learn letter–speech sound correspondences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 7939–7944. doi:10.1073/pnas.0904402107
4.
BridgesM. S.CattsH. W. (2011). The use of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict risk for reading disabilities in kindergarten children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 330–338.
5.
CaravolasM.LervågA.MousikouP.EfrimC.LitavskyM.Onochie-QuintanillaE.HulmeC. (2012). Common patterns of prediction of literacy development in different alphabetic orthographies. Psychological Science, 23, 678–686. doi:10.1177/0956797611434536
6.
CarrilloM.AlegríaJ. (2015). Mecanismos de identificación de palabras en niños disléxicos en español:¿ existen subtipos?/ Mechanisms of word identification in dyslexic children in Spanish dyslexic children: Do subtypes exist?Ciencias Psicológicas, 3, 135–152.
7.
CastejónL.González-PumariegaS.CuetosF. (2011). Adquisición de la fluidez en la lectura de palabras en una muestra de niños españoles: Un estudio longitudinal. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 34, 19–30. doi:10.1174/021037011794390139
8.
CastlesA.WilsonK.ColtheartM. (2011). Early orthographic influences on phonemic awareness tasks: Evidence from a preschool training study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 203–210. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.07.006
9.
CattsH. W.NielsenD. C.BridgesM. S.LiuY. S.BontempoD. E. (2015). Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 281–297. doi:10.1177/0022219413498115
10.
CheungA. C.SlavinR. E. (2013). Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: a best- evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 277–299. doi:10.1002/rrq.50
11.
CuadroA.MarínJ. (2007). Subtipos de lectores retrasados en español. Ciencias Psicológicas, 1, 133–148.
12.
DefiorS.SerranoF. (2014). Diachronic and synchronic aspects of Spanish: The relationship with literacy acquisition/Aspectos diacrónicos y sincrónicos del español: relación con la adquisición del lenguaje escrito. Estudios de Psicología, 35, 450–475. doi:10.1080/02109395.2014.974422
13.
DencklaM. B.RudelR. (1976). Rapid “automatized” naming (RAN): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471–479. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(76)90075-0
14.
EhriL. C. (2013). Grapheme—Phonerne Knowledge Is Essential for Learning to Read Words in English. In Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 1).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
EscobarJ.-P.MenesesA. (2014). Initial reading predictors in Spanish according to SES: Is semi-transparency sufficient to explain performance?/Predictores de la lectura inicial en español según NSE:¿ es suficiente la semi-transparencia para explicar su desempeño?Estudios de Psicología, 35, 625–635. doi:10.1080/02109395.2014.965458
16.
FarahM. J.SheraD. M.SavageJ. H.BetancourtL.GiannettaJ. M.BrodskyN. L.HurtH. (2006). Childhood poverty: Specific associations with neurocognitive development. Brain Research, 1110(1), 166–174. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.072
17.
FoulinN. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read?Reading and Writing, 18, 129–155. doi:10.1007/s11145-004-5892-2
18.
GeorgiouG. K.PapadopoulosT.FellaA.ParrilaR. (2012). Rapid naming speed components and reading development in a consistent orthography. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112, 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.11.006
19.
GeorgiouG. K.TorppaM.ManolitsisG.LyytinenH.ParrilaR. (2012). Longitudinal predictors of reading and spelling across languages varying in orthographic consistency. Reading and Writing, 25, 321–346. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9271-x
20.
GoswamiU. (2011). A temporal sampling framework for developmental dyslexia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 3–10. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.10.001
21.
GuzmánR.JiménezJ. E.OrtizM. R.Hernández-ValleI.EstévezA.RodrigoM.HernándezS. (2004). Evaluación de la velocidad de nombrar en las dificultades de aprendizaje de la lectura. Psicothema, 16, 442–447.
22.
HeikkilaR.NarhiV.AroM.AhonenT. (2009). Rapid automatized naming and learning disabilities: Does RAN have a specific connection to reading or not?Child Neuropsychology, 15, 343–358. doi:10.1080/09297040802537653
23.
HintikkaS.AroM.LyytinenH. (2005). Computerized training of the correspondences between phonological and orthographic units. Written Language & Literacy, 8(2), 79–102.
24.
HulmeC.SnowlingM.CaravolasM.CarrollJ. (2005). Phonological skills are (probably) one cause of success in learning to read: A comment on Castles and Coltheart. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 351–365. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0904_2
25.
JiménezJ. (2012). Dislexia en español: Prevalencia e indicadores cognitivos, culturales, familiares y biológicos. Madrid: Ediciones Pirámide.
26.
JiménezJ.RosqueteR. G.RodríguezC.HernándezC. A. (2009). Prevalencia de las dificultades específicas de aprendizaje: La dislexia en español. Anales de Psicología, 25, 78–85.
27.
JiménezJ. E.RodríguezC. (2008). Experiencia con el lenguaje impreso e indicadores socioculturales asociados a los diferentes subtipos disléxicos. Psicothema, 20, 341–346.
28.
JiménezJ. E.RojasE. (2008). Efectos del videojuego Tradislexia en la conciencia fonológica y reconocimiento de palabras en niños disléxicos. Psicothema, 20, 347–353.
29.
KyleF.KujalaJ. V.RichardsonU.LyytinenH.GoswamiU. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of two theoretically motivated computer-assisted reading interventions in the United Kingdom: GG Rime and GG Phoneme. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 61–76.
30.
LeppänenU.AunolaK.NiemiP.NurmiJ.-E.. (2008). Letter knowledge predicts Grade 4 reading fluency and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 18, 548–564. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.11.004
31.
LoniganC. J.PurpuraD. J.WilsonS. B.WalkerP. M.Clancy-MenchettiJ. (2013). Evaluating the components of an emergent literacy intervention for preschool children at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 111–130. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.08.010
32.
LyytinenH.ErskineJ.KujalaJ.OjanenE.RichardsonU. (2009). In search of a science‐based application: A learning tool for reading acquisition. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 668–675. doi:10.1111/sjop.2009.50.issue-6
33.
Melby-LervågM.LysterS. A. H.HulmeC. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin,138, 322. doi:10.1037/a0026744
34.
MuterV.HulmeC.SnowlingM. J.StevensonJ. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, 663–681. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.665
35.
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Rockville, MD: NICHD Clearinghouse.
36.
NicolsonR.FawcettA.NicolsonM. (2000). Evaluation of a computer-based reading intervention in infant and junior schools. Journal of Research in Reading, 23, 194–209. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00114
37.
NobleK. G.FarahM. J.McCandlissB. D. (2006). Socioeconomic background modulates cognition achievement in reading. Cognition Development, 21, 349–368. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.01.007
38.
NortonE.WolfM. (2012). Rapid automatized naming and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 427–452. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100431
39.
PerfettiC. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. doi:10.1080/10888430701530730
40.
PiastaS. B.WagnerR. K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta‐analysis of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 8–38. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.1.2
41.
RamusF.SzenkovitsG. (2008). What phonological deficit?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 129–141. doi:10.1080/17470210701508822
42.
RichardsonU.LyytinenH. (2014). The GraphoGame method: The theoretical and methodological background of the technology-enhanced learning environment for learning to read. Human Technology: an Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 10, 39–60. doi:10.17011/ht/urn.201501071031
43.
RobertsT. A. (2003). Effects of alphabet-letter instruction on young children’s word recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 41. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.41
44.
RonimusM.RichardsonU. (2014). Digital game-based training of early reading skills: Overview of the GraphoGame method in a highly transparent orthography/Entrenamiento de habilidades de lectura tempranas basado en un juego digital: Visión general del método GraphoGame en una ortografía altamente transparente. Estudios de Psicología, 35, 648–661.
45.
SaineN. L.LerkkanenM. K.AhonenT.TolvanenA.LyytinenH. (2011). Computer- assisted remedial reading intervention for school beginners at risk for reading disability. Child Development, 82, 1013–1028. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01580.x
46.
SeymourP. H.AroM.ErskineJ. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174. doi:10.1348/000712603321661859
47.
ShareD. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an outlier orthography. Psychologycal Bulletin, 134, 584–615. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584
48.
ShareD. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2
49.
SIMCE. (2016). Resultados nacionales. Santiago de Chile: Ministerio de Educación.
50.
StanovichK. E.SiegelL. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.24
51.
Suárez-CoallaP.García-de-CastroM.CuetosF. (2013). Variables predictoras de la lectura y la escritura en castellano. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36, 77–89. doi:10.1174/021037013804826537
52.
TorgesenJ.WagnerR. (1998). Alternative diagnostic approaches for specific developmental reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 220–232.
53.
TorgesenJ.WagnerR.RashotteC.BurgessS.HechtS. (1997). Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming ability to growth of word-reading skills in second- to fifth-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 161–185. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0102_4
54.
TorppaM.PoikkeusA. M.LaaksoM. L.EklundK.LyytinenH. (2006). Predicting delayed letter knowledge development and its relation to grade 1 reading achievement among children with and without familial risk for dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1128. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1128
55.
TreimanR.TincoffR.RodriguezK.MouzakiA.FrancisD. J. (1998). The foundations of literacy: Learning the sounds of letters. Child Development, 69, 1524–1540. doi:10.1111/cdev.1998.69.issue-6
56.
WolfM.BowersP. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.415
57.
ZieglerJ.BertrandD.TóthD.CsépeV.ReisA.FaíscaL.BlomertL. (2010). Ortographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross language investigation. Psychological Science, 21, 551–559. doi:10.1177/0956797610363406
