Promoting Letter-Naming and Initial-Phoneme Detection Abilities Among Preschoolers at Risk for Specific Learning Disorder Using Technological Intervention With Two Types of Mats: With and Without Target Letter Forms
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2025
Promoting Letter-Naming and Initial-Phoneme Detection Abilities Among Preschoolers at Risk for Specific Learning Disorder Using Technological Intervention With Two Types of Mats: With and Without Target Letter Forms
This study tested the potential of a technological intervention procedure for promoting letter-naming and initial-phoneme detection skills among preschoolers at risk for Specific Learning Disorder. The study rational is based on evidence for paired associated learning of visual-verbal stimuli, integrated with the use of a tangible technological device (educational floor robot) as means for promoting letter knowledge. Two intervention groups (N = 60) participated. The intervention lasted for eight sessions of phonological training; each dedicated to one target letter. Participants were asked to navigate the robot’s path from a current stopping point to the next according to phonological information processing. Both groups went through the same procedure, but using a different type of mat (one with and one without a visual form of the letter). A control group (N = 30) of at-risk preschoolers received no intervention except for their preschool educational routine. We found that children who participated in phonological training with linkage to the visual form of the letter scored higher in post-intervention tests. Among other proposed explanations, we mention the advantages of using a tangible robot and seemingly three-dimensional letters, along with the tendency to consider visual features while processing language stimulus among children with dyslexia.
AchaJ.RodriguezN.PereaM. (2023). The role of letter knowledge acquisition ability on children's decoding and word identification: Evidence from an artificial orthography. Journal of Research in Reading, 46(4), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12432
2.
American Psychological Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
3.
Apelboim-DushnitzkyG.ShamirA. (2024). Promoting emergent literacy skills among children at risk for specific learning disorder: General vs. Specific vs. Combined metacognitive interventions. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2024.2354604
4.
Asli-BadarnehA.LeikinM. (2019). Morphological ability among monolingual and bilingual speakers in early childhood: The case of two Semitic languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(5), 1087–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918781079
5.
Atman UsluN.YavuzG. Ö.Koçak UsluelY. (2022). A systematic review study on educational robotics and robots. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5874–5898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2023890
6.
BackesW.VuurmanE.WennekesR.SpronkP.WuismanM.van EngelshovenJ.JollesJ. (2002). Atypical brain activation of reading processes in children with developmental dyslexia. Journal of Child Neurology, 17(12), 867–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/08830738020170121601
7.
BersM. U.GovindM.RelkinE. (2022). Coding as another language: Computational thinking, robotics and literacy in first and second grade. In Ottenbreit-LeftwichA.YadavA. (Eds.), Computational thinking in prek-5: Empirical evidence for integration and future directions (pp. 30–38). Computational Thinking in PreK-5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3507951.3519285
BraininE.ShamirA.EdenS. (2022). Promoting spatial language and ability among SLD children: Can robot programming make a difference?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(7), 1742–1762. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221083224
10.
BrownL.SherbenouR. J.JohnsenS. K. (1997). Test of nonverbal intelligence, examiner’s manual. Pro-Ed.
11.
CaseyJ. E.PenningtonL. K.MirelesS. V. (2021). Technology acceptance model: Assessing preservice teachers' acceptance of floor-robots as a useful pedagogical tool. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09452-8
12.
CiesielskiE. J. M.CreagheadN. A. (2020). The effectiveness of professional development on the phonological awareness outcomes of preschool children: A systematic review. Literacy Research and Instruction, 59(2), 121–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2019.1710785
13.
EdenS.ShmilaL. (2023). Improving vocabulary in English as a foreign language among students with dyslexia using hybrid technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(2), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221117084
14.
EhmJ. H.LonnemannJ.BrandenburgJ.HuschkaS. S.HasselhornM.LervågA. (2019). Exploring factors underlying children’s acquisition and retrieval of sound–symbol association skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 177, 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.07.006
15.
ElimelechA.AramD. (2020). Using a digital spelling game for promoting alphabetic knowledge of preschoolers: The contribution of auditory and visual supports. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.264
16.
GarvisS.KeaneT. (2023). A literature review of educational robotics and early childhood education. In Technological innovations in education: Applications in education and teaching, 71–83. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2785-2_6
17.
GeorgiouG.LiuC.XuS. (2017). Examining the direct and indirect effects of visual–verbal paired associate learning on Chinese word reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.011
18.
GreenM.McNairC. L. (2020). Steamsational writing: An investigation into using robots to inspire children's narrative skills. In Handbook of research on integrating digital technology with literacy pedagogies (pp. 175–191). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0246-4.ch008
19.
KirkS. A.KirkW. D. (1971). Psycholinguistic learning disabilities: Diagnosis and remediation. University of Illinois Press.
20.
KolinskyR.TossonianM. (2023). Phonological and orthographic processing in basic literacy adults and dyslexic children. Reading and Writing, 36(7), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10347-6
21.
KoureaL.FellaA. (2023). Integrating educational robotics for teaching early literacy skills to students at risk for reading failure. In SofologiM.KougioumtzisG.KoundourouC. (Eds.), Perspectives of cognitive, psychosocial, and learning difficulties from childhood to adulthood: Practical counseling strategies (pp. 133–154). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8203-2.ch008
22.
LayesS.LalondeR.RebaiM. (2023). Visuo-spatial abilities and phonological awareness as predictors of reading accuracy in Arabic children with and without dyslexia. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 70(6), 1024–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1952936
23.
LevinI. (2007). The role of Hebrew letter names in early literacy: The case of multiphonemic acrophonic names. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 98(4), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.09.001
24.
LyytinenH.ErskineJ.HämäläinenJ.TorppaM.RonimusM. (2015). Dyslexia—early identification and prevention: Highlights from the jyväskylä longitudinal study of dyslexia. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 2(4), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-015-0067-1
25.
MayerC.WallnerS.Budde-SpenglerN.BraunertS.ArndtP. A.KieferM. (2020). Literacy training of kindergarten children with pencil, keyboard or tablet stylus: The influence of the writing tool on reading and writing performance at the letter and word level. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3054. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03054
26.
MingozziA.TobiaV.MarzocchiG. M. (2024). Dyslexia and dyscalculia: Which neuropsychological processes distinguish the two developmental disorders?Child Neuropsychology, 30(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2023.2170997
27.
NathanielU.WeissY.BarouchB.KatzirT.BitanT. (2022). Start shallow and grow deep: The development of a Hebrew reading brain. Neuropsychologia, 176, Article 108376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108376
28.
Ne'emanA.ShaulS. (2023). The association between emergent literacy and cognitive abilities in kindergarten children. Child & youth care forum (2nd ed), Vol. 52, pp. 467–488). Springer US.
29.
NeumannM. M. (2018). Using tablets and apps to enhance emergent literacy skills in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.006
30.
PackY. H.ChoiN. Y.KimB. (2023). Impact of cognitive load and working memory on preschoolers’ learning effectiveness. Asia Pacific Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09898-2
31.
RinaldiP.BelloA.SimonelliI.CaselliM. C. (2023). Is specific learning disorder predicted by developmental language disorder? Evidence from a follow-up study on Italian children. Brain Sciences, 13(4), 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13040701
32.
SchneiderW.RothE.EnnemoserM. (2000). Training phonological skills and letter knowledge in children at risk for dyslexia: A comparison of three kindergarten intervention programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.284
33.
SeckelM. J.SalinasC.FontV.Sala-SebastiàG. (2023). Guidelines to develop computational thinking using the Bee-Bot robot from the literature. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 16127–16151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11843-0
34.
ShanyM.LachmanD.ShalemZ.BahatA.ZeigerT. (2006). Aleph-Taph—a test for the diagnosis of reading and writing disabilities, based on national Israeli norms. Yesod.
35.
ShareD. L.Bar-OnA. (2018). Learning to read a Semitic abjad: The triplex model of Hebrew reading development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(5), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417718198
36.
Smit-GlaudéS. W.van StrienJ. W.LichtR.BakkerD. J. (2005). Neuropsychological intervention in kindergarten children with subtyped risks of reading retardation. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-005-0012-9
37.
SunL.HuL.ZhouD. (2022). The bidirectional predictions between primary school students' STEM and language academic achievements and computational thinking: The moderating role of gender. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, Article 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101043
38.
TempleE.DeutschG. K.PoldrackR. A.MillerS. L.TallalP.MerzenichM. M.GabrieliJ. D. (2003). Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: Evidence from functional MRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(5), 2860–2865. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0030098100
39.
TohL. P. E.CausoA.TzuoP. W.ChenI. M.YeoS. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 19(2), 148–163.
ZascavageV. S.McKenzieG. K.BuotM.WoodsC. (2012). The effect of visual-spatial stimulation on emergent readers at risk for specific learning disability in reading. International Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 176–187.
42.
ZemlockD.Vinci-BooherS.JamesK. H. (2018). Visual–motor symbol production facilitates letter recognition in young children. Reading and Writing, 31(6), 1255–1271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9831-z
