Behavioral and neurophysiological effects of morphological awareness training on spelling and reading

Behavioral and neurophysiological effects of a computer-aided morphological training protocol were examined in German-speaking children from Grades 3 to 9. Study 1 compared morphological awareness, reading, and spelling skills of 34 trained children with an untrained control group of 34 children matched for age, sex, and intelligence. All participants in the training group showed increases in morphological awareness, but only students from secondary school improved significantly in reading and spelling competences. In Study 2, a subsample of 8 trained children with poor spelling and reading abilities and 10 untrained children with higher language competencies underwent an electroencephalography testing involving three different language tasks. The training resulted in decreased theta-activity and increased activity in lower (7-10Hz) and upper alpha (10-13Hz). These findings reflect more effortful and attention-demanding processing after the training and suggest that children with poor spelling and reading abilities use the acquired morphological knowledge in terms of a compensatory strateg

Differences in Brain Function and Changes with Intervention in Children with Poor Spelling and Reading Abilities

Previous fMRI studies in English-speaking samples suggested that specific interventions may alter brain function in language-relevant networks in children with reading and spelling difficulties, but this research strongly focused on reading impaired individuals. Only few studies so far investigated characteristics of brain activation associated with poor spelling ability and whether a specific spelling intervention may also be associated with distinct changes in brain activity patterns. We here investigated such effects of a morpheme-based spelling intervention on brain function in 20 children with comparatively poor spelling and reading abilities using repeated fMRI. Relative to 10 matched controls, children with comparatively poor spelling and reading abilities showed increased activation in frontal medial and right hemispheric regions and decreased activation in left occipito-temporal regions prior to the intervention, during processing of a lexical decision task. After five weeks of intervention, spelling and reading comprehension significantly improved in the training group, along with increased activation in the left temporal, parahippocampal and hippocampal regions. Conversely, the waiting group showed increases in right posterior regions. Our findings could indicate an increased left temporal activation associated with the recollection of the new learnt morpheme-based strategy related to successful training

Morphematik im Kontext der Rechtschreibförderung – Chancen und Grenzen eines besonders effizienten Förderansatzes

Gerade im Bereich der Störungen im Schriftspracherwerb ist eine effektive Förderung von besonderer Bedeutung, um den Betroffenen die Möglichkeit zu geben, den massiven Problemen, die mit einer derartigen Lernstörung verbunden sind, vorzubeugen. Der morphematische Förderansatz bietet die Möglichkeit auf Basis vergleichsweise weniger Morpheme (Präfixe, Wortstämme, Suffixe) einen umfassenden Schreibwortschatz aufzubauen. Wird etwa die Schreibung des Wortstammes „fahr“ beherrscht, lassen sich davon mehr als 1500 Wörter (z.B. ab-fahr-en, Ge-fähr-t, Ge-fähr-te, …) ableiten. Auf Basis dieses sehr ökonomischen Prinzips wurde in Zusammenarbeit mit der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz ein multimediales Rechtschreibtrainingsprogramm namens MORPHEUS für die 4.-8. Schulstufe entwickelt. Hier lernen die Kinder nach einem festgelegten Stufenaufbau von einzelnen Wortstämmen Einzelwörter abzuleiten und richtig zu verschriftlichen. Dafür stehen ein Übungsbuch, ein PC-Programm sowie ein Wortbaukasten zur Verfügung, die ein Üben auf unterschiedlichsten Ebenen ermöglichen sollen. Das Förderprogramm wurde sowohl behavioral als auch neurophysiologisch durch die Universität Graz evaluiert. Sämtliche Daten belegen einen positiven Trainingseffekt für die morphematische Bewusstheit und die Rechtschreibleistung. Aufgrund der positiven Ergebnisse wurde das morphematische Prinzip auch für die Förderung im Bereich „Deutsch als Zweitsprache“ und „Englisch als Fremdsprache“ adaptiert. Auch hier liegen erste positive Daten vor. Insgesamt handelt es sich also beim morphematischen Förderansatz um einen vielversprechenden Zugang mit vielen Möglichkeiten für die Praxis der Lese-Rechtschreibtherapie

Behavioral and neurophysiological effects of morphological awareness training on spelling and reading

ISSN:0922-4777ISSN:1573-090

Correlation: Increase of activation×less behavioral improvement in the TG.

<p>Coordinates (in MNI standard space) and Activation Significance (Z statistics) of Local Maxima of Clusters, Z>2.0, P corrected P = 0.05.</p

Baseline Comparison of the TG and WG during misspelled words.

<p>(Z>2.0; P corrected; P = 0.05). R = right.</p

Performance during fMRI (correctly solved tasks as percentage and reaction time in seconds (RT).

<p>Means and Standard Deviations (in brackets).</p

Descriptive Statistics of Behavioral Measures (sex, age, non-verbal intelligence, reading- and spelling skills).

<p>Means and Standard Deviations (in brackets).</p><p><u>Pre-Intervention:</u> Reading Skills: SLS Reading Quotient: Average Scores range from 85–115 (<i>F</i>_(2,27) = 8.52; <i>p</i><.001; <i>η_p²</i> = .39); Reading Comprehension: ELFE T-scores: (<i>F</i>_(2,27) = 9.57; <i>p</i><.001; <i>η_p²</i> = .42); Spelling Skills: HSP Percent Rank: (<i>F</i>_(2,27) = 53.26; <i>p</i><.001; <i>η_p²</i> = .80).</p><p><u>Post-Intervention:</u> Reading Skills: SLS Reading Quotient (<i>F</i>_(1,18) = 0.25; <i>p</i> = .62; <i>η_p²</i> = .01); Reading Comprehension: ELFE T-scores (<i>F</i>_(1,18) = 0.42; <i>p</i> = .53; <i>η_p²</i> = .02); Spelling Skills: HSP Percent Range (<i>F</i>_(1,18) = 4.83; <i>p</i><.05; <i>η_p²</i> = .21).</p>*<p>Three out of the 20 comparatively poor spellers and readers showed below average reading scores (Reading Quotient: 83,75, 73).</p

Baseline Comparison of Poor Spellers (Readers) vs. Controls.

<p>Pre-Intervention: 1: Activation during the condition misspelled words (relative to rest), 2: Activation during the condition pseudowords (relative to rest). Figures on the left represent contrasts between controls and the TG, and figures on the right contrasts between controls and the WG (Z>2.0; P corrected; P = 0.05). R = right. A more detailed representation of these contrasts is presented in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0038201#pone.0038201.s002" target="_blank">Figure S2</a> and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0038201#pone.0038201.s003" target="_blank">Figure S3</a>.</p

Behavioral Effects of the Training.

<p>Spelling (percentile rankings of the HSP) and reading comprehension (ELFE T-scores). For descriptive reasons, the pre-test scores of the CG group are presented.</p