Neurosciences, cognitive psychology and

the teaching of reading

João Batista Araujo e OliveiraLuiz Carlos Faria da Silva

Part I – Contributions to the study of literacy

Part II – The new paradigm: learning to read

and reading to learn

Part III – Policy implications

� Why phonemic awareness is required:

�0-2 - Conscious in the early stages

�2-5 Attention shifts to meaning of words

�Learn to read requires phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990)

� Early detection of possible difficulties (Snow, Burns & Griffins, 1998)

�Dyslexia only detected during first/second year of schooling

�Early warning: Difficulty with rhymes, word segmentation

�Phonological training helps wire the brain

1. Neurosciences/cognitive psychology: some relevant contributions

.68.005Income

.51.08Father occupation

.07-.21Father education

*.29Mother education

SOCIO-ECONOMIC

.12.20Hyperactivity

***-.41Lack of attention

.74.029Reasoning problems

.46.07Social problems

***.27BEHAVIORAL

.60.03Discrimination of language sounds

.80.01Verbal memory

*-.13Immediate identification of words

***.68Phonological awareness

.52-0.4Verbal

.37-.05Non-verbal

***.51COGNITIVE

pBeta coeff.R2Predictive variable

Fluss, J. and Bertrand, D. (2009)

� Sensitive periods: 5/6 years

�Frontal lobe, executive functions

�Ability to abstract (alphabetic principle)

� Specific areas for processing

�Phonemes

�Word meanings

�Word forms and morphemes

The visual forms The visual forms

of words and the of words and the

legal legal

orthographic orthographic

forms are forms are

represented in represented in

the left the left fusiformfusiform

gyrusgyrus..

Functional characteristics

The physical characteristics (upper or lower case letters) do not affect the area of activation: what is represented are the abstract linguistic units, not the physical forms of the words.

Entrées visuelles

Aire occipito-temporale ventrale

(forme visuelle des mots)

What brain circuits are mobilized for reading?

Learning to read consists of:

- creating an abstract visual representation of the written words

- establish a connection with the brain areas responsible for coding words and meanings.

� Bottom-up and top-down processing

�Both process at work

�Independent, parallel processing (Rummelhart)

�Sound identification always active

�Sound identification precedes other processing

� What readers read (Perfetti, 1982)

�Good readers:

�Poor readers:

�Use letters to identify word

�Use context to identify meaning

�Eye movement: saccades and fixations (4)

�Use context to identify words

�Difficulty to identify meaning

1. Neurosciences/cognitive psychology: some relevant contributions

Eye movements:

Fixations: 130 –

300 milliseconds

Saccades: 25 to 30

miliseconds, 7-8

letters(2ond and 3rd

visual angle)

� Socio-economic context (NIHCD longitudinal studies)

�More important to identify meaning (comprehension)

�Less important to identify words (reading).

� Reading fluency, working memory and comprehension (J. Morais)

�Reading fluency is crucial to reach understanding

�Quality (fluency) of reading affects understanding

�Hence: importance of proper teaching to read

� Importance of vocabulary/sintax

�Huttenlocher et al (1991): maternal speech and vocabulary acceleration

�Hart & Riley (1995)

� Overall:

�These findings helped move cognitive science of reading beyond speculation

1. Neurosciences/cognitive psychology: some relevant contributions

I – Introduction – The cognitive psychology of reading 2. Definitions

� Stanilas Dehahene (2007): To read is to create a visual abstract

representation of words AND to connect representations with brain

areas that code for sounds and meanings.

� Perfetti (1979)

�Learn to read: ability to sound out words, pronounce the words

�Learn to write: ability to graphically represent the words

�Read to learn: understand, meaning making.

� Why definition is important:

�For decades (70-90’s) the two concepts have been confused.

Introduction – 3. Why literacy was included in this seminar

� PISA: 56% of 15-year old Brazilians at or below Level I

�Males over 60%

� IAB study:

�Over 400,000 students grades 1-5

�360 municipalities

�50% cannot write words or 5 word sentences (dictation)

�20% cannot write a sentence (stimulus)

�20% cannot write a composition

�Only 10% at grade level

� Brazil:

�Authorities and academe:

�do not acknowledge existing literature

�do not take existing evidence into consideration

II - Cumulative evidence on literacy acquisition (1)

� From Sumerians to 18th Century:

�Teaching to read as unproblematic

�Intuition: letters and syllables

� 18th Century:

�Global methods used to teach children with mental problems

� XIX Century:

�Romanticism- natural methods. Freinet

� XX Century

�Child-centered; progressivism; Dewey

�Traditional pedagogy under suspicion

� 1953 – Why Johnny can t read

�First warning about poor methods

II - Cumulative evidence on literacy acquisition (1)

� 1966

�In spite of evidence concluded that there was no significant difference

between methods.

� 70s and 80s

�Coleman report: schooling under suspicion

�Jeanne Chall: The war on methods:

�Teaching for meaning took over “teaching the code”

�Kenneth Goodman: “reading is a guessing game, the constructive

search for meaning”.

�Whole language, constructivism

Cumulative evidence on literacy acquisition - The last 30 years

� 1990 – Marilyn Adams

�Decoding and fluency at the core

�Must be taught (are not discovered)

�Methods make difference

�Seminal work: Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print

�The skills of reading

�The evidence about the development and teaching of these skills

�Major conclusions:

�First impact: was “expelled” from the International Reading Association

Cumulative evidence on literacy acquisition - The last 30 years

� 1998 – Preventing Reading Difficulties (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998)

�Need for prevention/early interventions

�Differential impact of methods on at-risk children

�Confirms and reinforces Adams’ findings

�Strong emphasis on:

Cumulative evidence on literacy acquisition - The last 30 years

� 2000 – National Reading Panel Report

�Phonemic awareness

�Decoding

�Fluency

�Vocabulary

�Comprehension

�Focus on critical skills (< Adams)

�100,000 studies reviewed

�Less than 80 studies retained for analysis

�Major findings

Questions Answers

Are phonic methods more effective? YES.

Average effect size (E.S.): .44

Variation: from .31 to .51

What type of phonic method is more effective? Synthetic phonic methods

E.S. from .27 to .45

No difference among synthetic phonic methods

Are phonic methods more effective with younger children? YES

E.S.: .56, .54 and .27 for 5, 6 and 7 year-olds

Results strong suggests “windows of opportunity” to start the process

Corroborates findings that latter start is more difficult and less effective.

Are phonic methods adequate for children with learning difficulties? YES

E.S. .58 and .74 for 6 and 7 year old high-risk children

Do phonic methods help to develop reading comprehension? YES

E.S. .51 for 6 year old children

Do phonic methods help to develop orthographic competences? YES

E.S. .67

Are phonic methods effective for children from different SES? YES

E.S. .66 and .44 for low and middle SES, respectively.

Do more rigorous studies present differences in relation to lessrigorous studies using phonics?

NO

Results are similar in experimental and quasi-experimental studies (.45 and .43)

Is the evidence sufficient to recommend the systematic use of phonic methods in schools?

Quote from the conclusion of the NRRP:

“These facts should persuade educators and the public that systematic

instruction is a valuable part of a successful classroom reading

program. The

Panel’s findings summarized above serve to illuminate the conditions that make

phonics instruction especially effective”.

National Reading Panel Report – Synthesis of the findings

� Comments:

�Compromising, but clear

�Major impact

Cumulative evidence on literacy acquisition - The last 30 years

� Linnea Ehri et alia (2001, 2002)

�Reviewed data on methods

�Confirmed conclusions about phonics

� McGuinness (2004, 2004)

�Reanalysis of data

�Used individual scores vs. average of averages

�Stronger conclusion about phonics

�Even stronger about synthetic phonics

Means and grade-level equivalence in the Stanford Reading sub-tests

GroupReading of

wordsGrade-level

Meaning ofParagraph

Grade-level Vocabulary Grade-level Spelling Grade-level Word Study Grade-level

Basal

1.028220.1 1.7 19.6 1.7 222.0 1.9 111.4 1.9 335.9 1.9

I.T.A.

1.055223.2 1.9 20.9 1.8 221.9 1.9 110.8 1.9 338.6 2.0

Basal

722119.0 1.7 16.7 1.7 220.2 1.7 88.7 1.7 332.8 1.7

Basal +

phonics

1.022

220.9 1.8 20.5 1.8 221.1 1.8 110.8 1.9 335.3 1.8

Basal

1.523220.0 1.7 20.7 1.8 221.2 1.8 112.1 2.0 336.6 1.9

ECL

1.431221.5 1.8 21.1 1.8 222.1 1.9 112.3 2.0 337.3 1.9

Basal

597119.1 1.7 19.2 1.7 221.5 1.9 110.8 1.9 336.3 1.9

Lingüistics

760119.0 1.7 15.8 1.6 119.6 1.7 99.3 1.7 333.8 1.8

Basal525

119.6 1.7 19.6 1.7 222.2 1.9 110.8 1.9 336.1 1.9

Lippiccott488

226.6 2.2 24.4 1.9 223.7 2.2 114.1 2.2 441.4 2.2

Basal total4.405

119.6 1.7 19.2 1.7 221.4 1.8 110.8 1.9 335.6 1.9

McGuinness, 2005, p. 95

Obs. O número abaixo dos grupos refere-se ao tamanho das respectivas amostras.

Grupo NGilmore

PrecisionGilmoreRythm

FryWords

GatesWords

Basal 149 23.3 59.0 7.4 13.3

I.T.A. 163 26.0 60.0 17.2 19.3

Basal 161 21.6 59.2 6.2 12.1

Basal + Phonics 204 23.5 59.9 9.9 14.5

Basal 138 18.9 52.2 5.9 12.1

Language experience 134 21.8 53.0 9.1 13.8

Basal 120 23.3 59.1 6.5 12.1

Lingüistics 146 17.9 43.8 7.8 10.5

Basal 97 24.4 56.2 6.0 12.3

Lippincott 94 29.5 62.4 18.4 20.5

Mean Basal 22.3 57.2 6.4 12.4

Means in the individual tests

NRPR: Controversies and convergences

� Camilli et. alia (2003, 2006, 2008) and Hammil and Swanson (2006)

� Stuebing et alia (2008)

Major issues:

� Methodological arguments about meta-analysis

� Use of multilevel regression analysis

Major conclusions:

� Phonics plus, not phonics versus: Emphasis on phonics instruction is

confirmed, but must be understood in the context of the need for

comprehensive approaches to reading instruction.

� Effects are additive: When phonics is systematic, additional well-

conceived literacy activities plus tutoring yields larger effect sizes than

comparing components in isolation.

National Early Literacy Panel (2008)

� Chapter 3: new studies confirm importance of phonics

� Confirm importance of early detection of potential reading disabilities

English: 1120 ways to represent 40 phonemes

Italian: 33 ways to represent 25 phonemes

Paulesu et al. (2000): reading time (ms) Technical and non-technical texts

English

Italians

Difference

P PP(it) PP(Ing)

443 526 529

410 437 486

33 89 43

Fonte: Les Neurones de la Lecture. Stanislas Dehahene, p. 306.

Taux d’erreurs de lecture de mots en fin de première année Évolution des taux d’erreurs en lecture de pseudo-mots

80

60

40

20

0

7 ans 8 ans 9 ans

Anglais Français Espagnol

23%6%

28%

67%29%

7%3%

3%5%

8%6% 2%

3%

Fonte: (Seymour, Aro e Erskine, 2003, p. 146).

Orthographic depth

Shallow Deep

Simple

Finnish Greek Portuguese French

Italian

Spanish

Complex

German Dutch Danish English

Norwegian Swedish

Icelandic

Syl

lab

icst

ruct

ure

Hypothetical classification of participating languages relative to thedimensions of syllabic complexity (simple, complex)

and orthographic depth (shallow to deep)

III – Policy

� Why evidence is not taken into consideration in Brazil

�Seminar 2003

�ABC report

� Question: what can be done to improve the impact of the present report?

�Neuroscience, cognitive psychology

�Educators

Considerations:

� Problem not unique to Brazil

� Problem not unique to education

� In part: communication between different groups

� Some examples

Policy – Example I

� Example 1: Teacher vs. student-centered instruction:

�Project Follow-Through

�Longitudinal study 1968/1995

�Variety of SES, from K to 12

�Study involved over 10,000 students per year, 120 locations,

�between 1968 and 1976.

�Three major “approaches” compared + control group

�Achievement and socio-emotional tests

�Results

Policy – Example I – concurrent evidence

�Robert Slavin – effectiveness of structured methods

�Jeanne Chall (2000)

�The Academic Achievement Challenge

�Student vs. teacher centered approaches

�Reynolds et. Al. 2002

�9 countries involved

�Quantitative and qualitative measures

�Effective schools: use similar teaching methods (structured)

�Gauthier: Teacher Effectiveness

�Synthesis of 11 meta-analysis including 362 studies published

between 1963 and 2006

�Over 30,000 students involved

Predominant teaching strategy Effect size

A-Reading

Explicit teaching for comprehension (Senelbaugh, 2007) 1.18

Direct teaching and strategies: comprehension (Swanson, 1999) 1.15

Direct teaching: word recognition (Senelbaugh, 2007) 1.06

Teaching of visual strategies: comprehension (Senelbaugh, 2007) 0.95

Explicit teaching of phonemic awareness (Ehri et. al 2001) 0.53

Systematic phonic methods (Ehri et al. 2001) 0.41

Effect size variation: (0.41 to 1.18)

B-Reading: double reciprocal teaching (Elbaum et al. 1999) 0.40

C- Reading: Whole language (Jeunes & Linell, 2000) - 0.65

D- Writing – explicit teaching (Gersten and Baker, 2001) 0.81

Synthesis of 8 meta-analysis studies about the effectiveness

of different teaching strategies

Fonte: Gauthier (2009)

(0.01 to 0.34)Effec size variation

0.01Contextualized learning (Baker et al. 2003)

0.34Guided teaching

Constructivist instruction

0.57Reciprocal teaching (Baker et al 2007)

0.66Reciprocal teaching (Baker et al. 2002)

Reciprocal teaching

(0.58 to 1.45)Effect size variation:

0.58Explicit teaching (Baker et al. 2002)

0.91Basic skills (Kroesberten & Van Luit, 2003)

1.45Problem solving (Kroesberten & Van Luit, 2003)

Direct instruction

Effect sizePredominant teaching strategy

Synthesis of major results of 3 meta-analysis about mathematics teaching for at-risk students

Gauthier (2009)

Proportion of publications with words or expressions related to teacher- or student–centered teaching - La vie Pedagogique

38.443.742.849.649.2Teacher-centered

71.768.252.251.845.4Student-centered

2000 – 2005N = 237

1995-1999N = 277

1990-1994N = 276

1985-1989N = 224

1979-1984N = 185

Year No of papers

Source: Gauthier (2009)

Components recommended by the National Reading Report Panel included in the teaching program of over 72 schools of education (early literacy teachers)

307222None

2372171-2

1872133-4

1572115

%Total number of

institutions

Number of institutions that include the

componentsN of components

Source: Walsh, Glaser and Wilcox (2006)

National Mathematics Panel

� Major conclusion about teaching methods: not relevant issue.

� Bissonnette (Université de Laval).

�Reviewed the evidence presented

217Negative Effect-Sizes

178Positive Effect Sizes

Teacher-centered approachStudent-centered approach

� Two members of Panel (Bark Rosenshine and Russell Gersten agreed

with Bissonnette’s interpretation.