The science of literacy – Recommended reading

CDBC/BCAAN Research Bite: Originally emailed February 9, 2024

Book recommendation: Language at the Speed of Sight. The author, Mark Seidenberg, is a major advocate for translating the science of reading into education. He explains things such as the science behind the “Cambridge hoax” where we can easily read words with mixed up letters. Try some of his reading demos. Listen to Seidenberg talk about the science of reading in a video on his website. A couple of important points:

  1. Language development is essential for reading development.
  2. Explicit instruction is necessary to scaffold reading, but implicit learning plays an important role, and implicit learning speeds up the process of learning to read.
  3. Phonemic awareness develops in conjunction with learning about print; it is a result of being a skilled reader, not a precursor. He details this here,  also available in a recording.
  4.  To show the impact of reading on phonological awareness, he points to research which shows that when asked to say “sword” without the “s” good readers often say “word.” He makes the point that phonological awareness training should be paired with print/letters.

For more high quality information on the science of reading, check out – Reading Rockets: “A national public media literacy initiative offering information and resources on how young kids learn to read, why so many struggle, and how caring adults can help.”

Executive functioning intervention – Research review

CDBC/BCAAN Research Bite: Originally emailed March 8, 2024

Adele Diamond’s group published a systematic mega-review of 179 studies up to 2015 (Diamond & Ling 2019) on intervention to improve EFs. Importantly, this paper required each study to have at least one behavioural measure, include a measure of generalization, include a control group, and not be purely correlational.

Mindful movement practices (e.g., taekwondo & t’ai chi) showed the strongest results for improving EFs. Mindful movement exercises did better than more sedentary mindful practices. 30-40 minute sessions were more helpful than those less than 30 minutes. School-based programs such as Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies, the Chicago School Readiness Project, and Tools of the Mind came in second, and were particularly good for improving inhibitory control. Both types of approaches showed better results than computerized cognitive training (e.g., CogMed).

Some key principles the paper summarized:

  1. EF can be improved.
  2. Generalization to untrained tasks usually occurs for similar tasks, but rarely improves on unpracticed tasks. Broader transfer effects happen with practice of a wider range of skills.
  3. EF training must include continued challenge, where the task adapts to keep challenging the person.
  4. Effects can last over time, but generally grow smaller (use it or lose it).
  5. Those with more EF challenges benefit the most from intervention.
  6. More training is generally better, with the exception of aerobic exercises with no evidence of greater EF benefits from longer programs.
  7. For the most part, length of the sessions matters, with sessions > 30 minutes showing better results than those less than 30 minutes.
  8. Spaced (distributed) practice produces better long-term outcomes than massed practice.
  9. Benefits are mostly clearly seen on complex, multi-component EF tasks

In addition, there seems to be strong evidence for the role of physical activity in improving EF in individuals with ADHD. A PLoS One meta-analysis (Song et al., 2023)   found a significant impact of physical interventions on inhibitory control, working memory and cognitive flexibility in children and teens with ADHD. While there was a benefit to all kinds of physical activity, results were in line with the first paper above in that moderate exercise and those which require adaptive/flexible skills, and which endure over time show the most promise.

UPDATE: ‘debate and request for further dialogue’ for the research from a group of researchers https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6969305/

References

Diamond, A. & Ling, D. S. (2019). Review of the evidence on, and fundamental questions about, efforts to improve executive functions, including working memory. In J. Novick, M.F. Bunting, M.R. Dougherty & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Cognitive and working memory training: Perspectives from psychology, neuroscience, and human development, (pp.143-431). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (pdf)

Song, Y., Fan, B., Wang, C., & Yu, H. (2023). Meta-analysis of the effects of physical activity on executive function in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PloS one, 18(8), e0289732. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289732

 

DSM-5 Revisions to ASD definition

Two small wording changes for clarity have been made in the revision of the DSM-5 (DSM-5-TR) entry for ASD released March 2022.

Quoting from the spectrum news article from March 17, 2022 (https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/dsm-5-revision-tweaks-autism-entry-for-clarity/)

The DSM-5, released in 2013, indicated that an autism diagnosis requires “persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following”: deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, and in developing, maintaining and understanding relationships. The first text revision in the new DSM-5-TR adds two words to that description: “as manifested by all of the following.”

The second change swaps out a single word describing the “specifiers” that can accompany an autism diagnosis. Whereas the DSM-5 wording instructs clinicians to specify if a person’s autism is “associated with another neurodevelopmental, mental or behavioral disorder,” the DSM-5-TR version reads: “associated with a neurodevelopmental, mental, or behavioral problem.” It still instructs clinicians to use additional diagnostic codes whenever appropriate, but it no longer requires specifiers to be diagnosable conditions.

Changes have also been made to Intellectual Disability. The new terminology is “intellectual developmental disorder (intellectual disability)”.

Please see the APA fact sheets for more information: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/educational-resources/dsm-5-fact-sheets