Over the past three years, Dr. Alice Latimier (D.E.C, Ecole Normale Supérieure) has studied which learning practices best promote long-term memory retention. In this blog post, she tells us about her PhD project and her main findings. 

My supervisor Franck Ramus and I wanted to know which learning practices best promote long-term retention, based on the science of learning. A review of the literature indicated that commonly used learning strategies, such as reading, blocked studying (e.g. studying the same content in a given session instead of interleaving with other contents), and massed studying (e.g. having a long session instead of multiple, shorter ones that are spaced through time) are not necessarily the most efficient ones. Retrieval practice and spaced learning, although less frequently used (e.g., Dunlosky et al. 2013; Weinstein et al., 2018), have been shown to promote better long-term retention among a great variety of populations and pedagogical contents (Brown, Roediger & McDaniel, 2014).

We first focused on retrieval practice. Over the past decade, research in psychology has demonstrated that practicing retrieval methods is particularly efficient because it creates a testing effect (e.g., Roediger & Karpicke, 2006): retrieving newly learned information from memory is an active process that consolidates information. It can be done via free recall (i.e. recovering as much information on a given topic as possible), cued recall (i.e. recovering information from memory via cues, often given by teachers), Multiple Choice Questions (i.e. either factual MCQ for definitions or inference-based MCQ), or flashcards (i.e. presenting one question on one side, the answer on the other). Whatever the format of the practice session, the learner should try to retrieve the information that has just been presented in the context of a new lecture (see for recent meta-analyses: Rowland, 2014; Adesope et al., 2017). My question of interest was ‘How can we optimize the benefits of retrieval practice when exposed to the content of a lecture?’.

My project was lead in partnership with the start-up company Didask, which designed an “evidence-based” teaching platform. On this platform, each course consists of a set of modules organised in a logical order. A module is an elementary learning unit, including both learning material (text, videos, pictures) and a corresponding training quiz (e.g. multiple choice, pairwise matching, ordering, sorting into categories etc.), lasting in total between 5 and 15 min. To carry out our experiments, we used a modified version of Didask that allowed us to specify several learning conditions and to control the learning environment, in particular, the order in which the pedagogical content and the quiz were arranged with each other. We designed three experiments investigating the benefits of different placements and schedules of retrieval practice episodes on the long-term retention of new information.

Experiment 1 – Retrieval practice is best used after, rather than before being exposed to a course

In the first experiment, we studied whether students should use retrieval practice before or after a learning session (Latimier et al., 2019). Recent research found that taking a test even before being exposed to learning content enhances memory retention compared to having no retrieval practice at all. For the first time, our experiment directly compared the benefits of using quizzes for memory consolidation, before (Quiz-reading group) and after (Reading-quiz group) reading an online course, relative to an extended reading condition (Reading-reading group). We used material from a course on DNA. The retention of information was asssessed seven days after the learning session (composed of the reading only or reading and quizz components).

Final performances revealed a significant advantage in memory retention for the Reading-quiz group over the Quiz-reading group and the Reading-reading group. The Quiz-reading group out-performed the Reading-reading group. This pertained to both trained and untrained information. Thus, using a retrieval practice after being exposed to new knowledge appears to bring both specific and general learning benefits. Overall, our results do not support the specific idea that a pre-test on the information of the subsequent text passage improves learning more than a post-test.

Experiment 2 – The length of the retrieval practice episode does not impact its efficiency

The second experiment went a step further and investigated the optimal lengths of both the learning units and the retrieval practice episodes. In other words: In how many chunks should the learning content be separated?. This question is less explored in the literature despite being very relevant to students and teachers. Our experiment demonstrated that the granularity of the learning contents is particularly of interest when learning with successive readings: short reading passages led to a better retention than longer readings. However, when learning with retrieval practice, granularity did not matter for long-term retention.

Experiment 3 – Spaced retrieval practice is not better than crammed retrieval practice at short term exams

Finally, the last experiment raised the question of the optimal schedule of repeated retrieval practice and reading. Indeed, decades of research in the science of learning demonstrated that inserting a time interval between the study sessions promotes better consolidation than massed practice, where learning the same piece of information in a repetitive fashion occurs without inter-study interval (i.e., spacing effect, Cepeda et al., 2006, Kang, 2016). In this experiment, we wanted to compare 4 learning strategies that mimicked the ones students would use to review a course before an exam: crammed re-reading, spaced re-reading, crammed retrieval practice, and spaced retrieval practice. The hypothesis was that combining both retrieval practice and spacing might enhance long term retention better than the other three strategies. Our main results provided a replication of the well-known testing effect (retrieval practice was better than just reading) but not of the spacing effect. Moreover, and contrary to our predictions, the combination of both learning strategies did not lead to significantly better retention compared to crammed retrieval practice. This result suggests that further research should focus on the parameters that promote a spacing effect (e.g., inter-study interval, retention interval, type of contents, learners’ characteristics…).  Overall, the results of my thesis provide a better understanding to how learners should use retrieval practice to aid memory retention, and suggest new research questions in optimizing learning.

Practical implications for the learners and teachers

 Throughout my studies, it was particularly important to find a balance between (a) realism, using real life learning contents extracted from the French high school curriculum and from professional training, and (b) experimental rigor, by designing well-controlled and randomized set up as well as recruiting a large sample of adult participants with a great diversity of socio-demographic characteristics. By being realistic yet rigorous, it is possible to derive practical recommendations.

My results suggest to try and implement retrieval practice, because it can be considered as a real learning tool to consolidate new knowledge as well as to promote knowledge transfer (Agarwal, Bain, & Chamberlain, 2012). Concrete examples on how to implement retrieval practice can be found here. While being tested after the exposure to pedagogical resources is optimal to consolidate and assess what is understood and what is not, being tested before could be very useful for the teacher to assess prior knowledge, and for students to be introduced to new learning concepts.

Digital learning tools seem very appropriate to integrate retrieval practice in the routine of the classroom. There is an amazing diversity of platforms for teachers and learners to develop formative assessment and self-testing (Plickers, Quizlet, Polleverywhere, SuperMemo, Google forms, Kahoot!). These digital tools do not replace the expertise of the teachers but help them to promote active learning. Furthermore, apart from the benefits on memory retention, retrieval practice promotes self-regulated learning by stimulating students’ metacognitive abilities. They can better estimate their feeling of knowing, to avoid the illusion of mastery and planning relevant reviewing activities (Littrell‐Baez, Friend, Caccamise, & Okochi, 2015, Fernandez & Jamet, 2017). It also fosters motivation and attentional focus on complex and lengthy contents. It should be mentioned that retrieval practice is even stronger with rich and elaborative feedback – without it the learners can’t properly identify how to improve their knowledge (Butler & Roediger, 2008). A combination of learning strategies for which we have robust proof of efficacy can therefore be particulary efficient !

Alice’s project was funded by the Programme d’Investissement d’Avenir (call for proposals e-FRAN for “Espaces de formation, de recherche et d’animation numérique” in French) launched by the mission on the digitalisation of education in France.  This educational funding program aims at supporting different innovation projects to improve education based on research. The project gathered the association Synlab, which promotes the link between research and actors from education; the start-up company Didask; and 3 research teams in the field of cognitive psychology and machine learning.

Alice is now a postdoctoral researcher at the University Bourgogne Franche-Comté, in France, studying the impact of expertise on musical reading (Laboratory for Research on Learning and Developement). You can follow her @AliceLatimier.

For more resources on retrieval practice, and to learn more about strategies for effective learning, you can download pedagogical material on the Learning Scientists’ website.

References

Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta Analysis of Practice Testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659-701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306

Agarwal, P. K., Bain, P. M., & Chamberlain, R. W. (2012). The value of applied research: Retrieval practice improves classroom learning and recommendations from a teacher, a principal, and a scientist. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9210-2

Brown, P. C., Roediger (III), H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make It Stick. Harvard University Press.

Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition, 36(3), 604–616. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.3.604

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

Fernandez, J., & Jamet, E. (2017). Extending the testing effect to self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9163-9

Kang, S. H. K. (2016). Spaced Repetition Promotes Efficient and Effective Learning Policy Implications for Instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624708

Littrell‐Baez, M. K., Friend, A., Caccamise, D., & Okochi, C. (2015). Using Retrieval Practice and Metacognitive Skills to Improve Content Learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(8), 682–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.420

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-Enhanced Learning Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559

Weinstein, Yana, Madan, C. R., & Sumeracki, M. A. (2018). Teaching the science of learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0087-y

Articles from the project

Latimier, A., Riegert, A., Ly, S. T., Ramus, F. Do spacing and retrieval practice effects interact? (in prep).

Latimier, A., Rierget, A., Ly, S. T., & Ramus, F. (2020, March 10). Retrieval practice promotes long-term retention irrespective of the placement. PsyArXiv, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dk63q

Latimier, A., Peyre, H., & Ramus, F. (2020, March 5). A meta-analytic review of the benefit of spacing out retrieval practice episodes on retention. PsyArXiv, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kzy7u

Latimier, A., Riegert, A., Peyre, H., Ly, S.T., Casati, R., & Ramus, F. (2019). Does pre-testing promote better retention than post-testing? Npj Science of Learning, 4(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0053-1

Hi Keri,

You are a Lecturer in Psychology at the Institute of Education (University College London), and you are the Principal investigator of the Global Covid-19 Study of Social Trust and Mental Health.

Can you tell us what drove you to create this study, and why it is necessary?

I had a few personal motivations to run this study. I am from Hong Kong and when I visited my family in December, I could see the early development of the Covid-19 crisis. As a teenager, I also lived through the 2003 SARS pandemic, which had a significant impact on my generation. I was old enough to remember the situation – I sat at my exams with a face mask. This experience with SARS gave me the impetus to start looking at how people are currently affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, especially in terms of mental health.

It started with a conversation with my collaborator at Penn, Professor Adrian Raine. It was early March, he was in London, before the UK lockdown. I had participated in a few COVID-19 surveys to see what other researchers were addressing. None of these (I believe) tackled social trust, which is my research area.

We’ve heard and seen people behave differently during the pandemic – I certainly behave differently too. In particular, I am interested in whether people may become less trusting of others, more suspicious about who has coronavirus or not, and feel more anxious given that the respect for lockdown guidelines vary across individuals. The virus is like an invisible enemy, circulating between people, and there is lots of uncertainty surrounding COVID-19. All of this, rightly so, can be very stressful! And individuals in a persistent state of stress are probably not operating at their best.

So I wanted to capture this right now, and to follow-up with people in 6 months and 12 months’ time, to see whether their experience has changed for the better (fingers crossed). Our survey is currently available in English, Chinese, French, German, Greek, Italian and Spanish.

I really want to understand what people are going through personally, because understanding people’s reactions, thoughts and emotions, can inform policies. The physical efficacy of public health guidelines (e.g. Which types of masks are efficient and when should we wear them?) has associated mental health concerns too (e.g. Does seeing other people wear face masks reduce or increase stress levels?). So it is important to adopt a multicultural approach to see how people’s experiences differ given that different countries have different policy responses to COVID-19.

Anyone 18+ years and resident of any country can take part as long as they can access the link www.GlobalCovidStudy.com (available in Chinese, Italian, Greek, French, German, Spanish). The survey takes most people 20 to 40 mins to complete. By taking part you are helping us understand the impact of COVID-19 on people’s health and how we can best support people moving forwards. So do contribute to the survey!

Do you have any other ongoing projects ?

 Outside of this Covid-19 study, my research focuses on young people’s mental health. I currently have two projects.

In the first, I work with Dr. Marta Francesconi and Prof. Eirini Flouri on the ALSPAC study. We have a paper in preparation for submission looking at children’s and adolescents’ internalising (emotional) and externalising (behavioural) problems. In this paper we want to better understand when these emotional and behavioural problems best predict the occurrence of psychotic-like symptoms in adulthood. The findings from this paper can help identify windows for early interventions.

In the second, I work with the World bank to identify which behaviours promote effective teaching in developing countries. Most observational teaching tools (such as the Classroom Assessment Scoring System) are developed in Western countries, and what we might conceive as effective practices in these countries might not be the same elsewhere. It is therefore important to come up with comprehensive assessments that reflect the pedagogical and cultural reality in developing countries. The World Bank has developed the Teach observation tool with this purpose in mind.

This all looks very exciting Keri. A final word: How do you do to look after your mental health when you are researching other people’s mental health?

Well, I practice yoga! And I go for a walk or run every now and then – respecting social distancing, of course.

The Global Covid Study is open to anyone above 18 years of age.

The research team has also put together key resources about mental health, and publications on Covid-19.

Twitter: @DrKeriWong; @GlobalC19Study

As part of the Collection ‘Everything you and your teacher need to know about the learning brain’, Lana Vedelago has published an article explaining teenagers how cannabis affects the developing brain. In this interview, she shares her experience writing for a young audience, and she tells us more about her current area of research.

Thank you Lana for taking the time to answer our questions. Why was it important to write an article for adolescents about cannabis and the learning brain?

 We know that the teen years are a time when the brain is developing rapidly, so during this time it is especially susceptible to neurotoxins like cannabis. Because of the changing laws around cannabis and its various uses, teens are given a lot of mixed messages about the risks and benefits associated with its consumption. I wanted to summarize the neuroscience literature on cannabis use in adolescents in a way that is easily understandable and accessible to teens, so that they can be equipped with the information they need to help make the best decisions for themselves. I was especially excited to write an article for a Frontiers for Young Minds collection because the journal is open access, and I think it’s important for teens to be able to access quality information without barriers such as needing to pay for access.

How did it feel to write for adolescents? Did you learn any new skills, or did you adopt a new perspective on the topic?

Writing for adolescents was definitely something new for me! As researchers we are used to writing for other academics who are familiar with our area of research, so it was a really rewarding challenge for me to explain cannabis research in a way that would be relevant to an adolescent reading this article. I also wanted to find a balance between presenting the research in a matter-of-fact way but avoiding telling adolescents that they should be doing this or that. Adolescents are the experts of their own experiences, and I wanted to provide them with information so that they can make the best choices for themselves.

What are you working on at the moment?

I am currently working on finishing up my Masters degree in Neuroscience! My thesis looks at computer-based decision-making and impulsivity tasks among offenders in federal prisons, and whether these measures can tell us anything useful about their risk for reoffending. I published an article a little while back that reviews the literature in the field. I’m also very excited to be starting a PhD in Clinical Psychology this fall, so that in the future I’m able to help people who are experiencing problems with alcohol and drugs in a more direct and individualized way.

Thank you Lana and congratulations on this new position! This is a particularly strong example of how research can serve people’s wellbeing.

You can follow Lana @LanaVedelago

Professor Michael Thomas, Head of the Centre for Educational Neuroscience, and Dr. Victoria Knowland wrote an article for primary school children to debunk three common neuro-myths:

• Neuro-myth (1) ‘Intelligence is Fixed’
• Neuro-myth (2) ‘Girls and Boys Think Differently’
• Neuro-myth (3) ‘Some children are left-brained and some are right-brained’

By explaining why these ideas are wrong, the authors are encouraging children to believe in their own learning abilities, outside of ready-made categories.

This article has been published in Frontiers for Young Minds, as part of the Collection ‘Everything you and your teachers need to know about the learning brain’. This Collection aims at providing children with all the relevant knowledge about the brain to understand themselves and their learning processes better, and to equip them to distinguish myths and facts. All the articles are in open access.

Our ‘Neuro-hit / Neuro-myth’ resources provides corresponding articles for adult readers:

• Neuro-myth (1) ‘Intelligence is Fixed’
• Neuro-myth (2) ‘Girls and Boys Think Differently’
• Neuro-myth (3) ‘Some children are left-brained and some are right-brained’

Jane, you’re a leading practitioner in the treatment of dyslexia and dyscalculia, and through your books “The Dyscalculia Assessment” and “The Dyscalculia Solution: Teaching number sense”.  You’re a Freelance SEN advisor to Independent School Groups. You’re also involved in Learnus, a think tank that supports the translation of educational neuroscience research into the classroom. What keeps you busy at the moment?

Currently, I’m informally assessing undiagnosed primary pupils, investigating evidence for diagnoses of dyslexia, dyscalculia and other related conditions such as dyspraxia and attention deficit disorder. For the undiagnosed pupils, my goal is to triage what are the best interventions given the spikes in their profiles and attainments, sometimes involving reports from educational psychologists, when parents need advice on where to go from these, and what interventions to select.

At the CEN, we’re really interested in how the characteristics of individual children link to the best interventions to alleviate their difficulties. Based on your extensive experience, can I ask how you’ve addressed that challenge in your own practice?

Well, I taught many dyslexic pupils to read and spell and dyscalculics to achieve basic mathematical skills over the years, with many successes. I adapted my approach from an extensive toolbox to refine my approaches, depending on what I observed in the pupils. I was fortunate enough to teach most individually, so few compromises were necessary as would be needed teaching even two pupils or small groups. Classroom interventions tend to encompass a more scattergun approach, which might lead to some positive results but would be achieved more slowly.

I think a good starting point is always an analysis of what type of difficulty a dyslexic or dyscalculic pupil presents. In the past, I saw many pupils who could not read, or spell and so had the chance to really start from the beginning with the non-reader. Here’s a link to a resource describing different types of dyslexia put together from the blogs delivered regularly from www.readandspell.com, a touch-typing programme long used at Emerson House.

Identifying dyslexia types is intended to make treatment easier. Six are often distinguished: (1) phonological (problems breaking words into sounds), (2) surface (problems processing language when children move beyond the decoding stage, (3) visual (trouble reading and remembering what has been seen on the page), (4) primary (runs in families, more often in males and left-handers), (5) secondary / developmental (due to problems in early development, responds best to treatment such as targeted phonics work through computer programs), (6) trauma / acquired dyslexia (due to disease or brain damage).

The touch-typing (i.e. typing on a keyboard) programme used currently at Emerson House provides an opportunity to overlearn the spelling of common vocabulary and other words that reinforce sound-letter correspondence, and for dyslexic children to build achieve confidence in an academic environment, which may have been dented by their struggles in learning to read. It takes a multi-sensory approach, combining spoken words, visual words, and breaking each into their components during the touch-typing task.

Most dyslexics respond well to technology that breaks learning down into bite-size units. It allows them to proceed through a course at their own pace, learning one step at a time and repeating modules until they are ready to move on.

This type of overlearning is very helpful and can also benefit children with attention deficit disorder/ attention hyperactive disorder and other specific learning difficulties.

Cuisenaire Rods

In the case of dyscalculia, it is essential to combine multi-sensory teaching of numerical quantitative approaches with the use of concrete materials such as counters, a Slavonic Abacus, Cuisenaire Rods, Base Ten Number Concept material to reinforce place value understanding, as well as other more advanced visual learning approaches. A useful reference here is the book of Tandi Clausen May, Teaching Mathematics Visually and Actively, for pupils 7 to 16 years.

Is the use of multi-sensory approaches best in disorders? Isn’t there a risk of confusion, of information overload?

I believe that the brain works as one entity with specialist areas responding more to different types of stimulations, and surely a brain that is wired differently in a dyslexic or dyscalculic learner, might then select and respond to which particular modalities makes sense. If you deprive a pupil from some auditory, visual or tactile inputs, then you might be removing the very modality that they can use to process information. Do you teach to strengths or weaknesses?

Some programmes target only weaknesses and leave the pupils struggling. Surely it’s better to follow strengths to develop compensatory strategies, but not to ignore weaknesses either. A combined approach is necessary.

In The Dyslexia Project at Stanford, Professor Bruce McCandliss found that Sound/Letter reading increases neural input activity in areas best adapted for reading. Apart from my own positive experience with it, the touch-typing approach may be worth evaluating more systematically to explore its effectiveness. It addresses phonics from the very beginning in terms of pure letter by letter correspondence which then develops into orthographic patterns (such as silent ‘e’ or split vowels) quite quickly. I have seen pupils with virtually no literacy, learn to read and spell almost on this programme alone, although they did also combine this with carefully selected reading books.

Are there any further programmes for dyslexia that you recommend?

I have recently trained for 4 days on one of the most up to date programmes, with the latest edition from 2018, called Sounds-Write. It is a highly structured programme that teaches pupils to precisely analyse the sounds in each word and then moves from the sounds to the written word. It is a reversible programme in that the route develops initially from the sounds to the letters for spelling, and then from the letters back to the sounds for reading.

Another current programme that I have found useful is Phonics Hero. I tried the beginning of this on my grandson age 4 years old, and I thought it was a well-designed and enjoyable programme. It is a phonic programme but adds in sight/red words such as ‘the/was’, right from the start, which I like. I count ‘and’ as a phonic word, but ‘the’ is particularly difficult because of the possible f/th confusion, as well as the voiced feature in ‘the’ versus voiceless in ‘thin’.

What is it you check for in pupils to guide what work you do with them?

Going back to types of dyslexia, in my current work I tend to check if pupils can spell basic regular words that are phonically transparent, with success. This would include regular three letter words such as ‘cat’, up to complex triple blends such as ‘strap‘. I also see how they are getting on with alphabet names of the vowels as in ‘he/no’ and if successful, go on to look at ‘day/my‘. This is because many schools don’t teach the names of the vowels very early on, even though they are needed for basic word such as ‘day’, ‘he’, ‘my’, and ‘no’. Looking at these gives clues as to auditory analysis versus the first evidence of spelling with visual memory for ‘my’ rather than ‘mi’ for example. The words ‘moon’ and ‘look’ are always good ones to check as they are hard in terms of ‘oo’ and ‘k/ck’ choices as well as developing memory for digraphs ‘sh’ and ‘ch’ which are often confused.

Currently, in terms of diagnosis, I have been looking at spelling for the so-called classic dyslexics who have marked phonological difficulties, so can’t even spell basic words phonetically. This is in contrast to those who can’t visually recall basic words where there are orthographic choices to be make even with ‘sh/ch/th’, for example, as well as ‘k/ck’ choices as on ‘look‘ and ‘back‘. I have been calling these visual dyslexics who I see as having poor visual recall.

In my view, spelling is the avenue for quickly analysing where the pupil has got to and if they can be seen as phonological dyslexics or visual dyslexics.

So you view spelling as telling you more about the child than reading?

Yes I do. Of course, one can also analyse their reading and see if they have developed only phonetic reading or have also developed visual recognition skills for common and irregular words.

Reading conceals exactly how pupils are decoding as they may be able to read using strong oral language skills as well, or guess from the pictures. One can see exactly what a pupil has grasped from spelling, along with analysing errors precisely to notice if they are spelling phonetically, or by visual recall or a combination.

I quite like the Ruth Miskin approach of calling regular words ‘green words’ and irregular words ‘red words’, as it seems to be a clear and simple guide for the pupils to predict what type of word it is.

I have seen many pupils who arrive at 6 or 7 who are applying only phonic decoding approaches and clearly have virtually no ‘sight’ vocabulary – that is, red words are difficult for them. I used to call these pupils ‘phonically constipated’ 🙂 These children need taking back to the beginning, to develop fluency from the start. So I do believe in including some basic red words from the start to achieve fluency more quickly.

The Sound-Write system supports the foundations of reading as a sound based system they call The Initial Code which is transparent, and moving on to the Extended Code involving the orthographic stages for decoding and encoding words that are not immediately transparent, such as ‘rain’ and ‘night’ for example.

I was never keen on ‘Tom ran up the hill to the red van’, which can be taught without much context whatsoever. Instead I always used some sort of story, to make things meaningful for the child from the start. This doesn’t necessarily mean using ‘predictable’ text but including decodable text from the start, with some meaning added in, such as pictures and characters names that carry through, rather than changing with the next book. This has led me to question what I mean by phonological dyslexics and visual dyslexics, as different specialists use different terms. In the past I thought that Uta Frith made the distinction clear with her work on the alphabetic (phonic) stage, followed by the orthographic stage.

Could you give us some more specific guidance in terms of how spelling errors map to dyslexia type?

One good source was the introduction to Sacre and Masterton’s The Single Word Spelling Test. It might be possible to buy it second hand now. I used this test quite a lot and am keen on it as it’s straightforward and yet gives complex analysis. Not only does it analyse spelling errors but also provides a teaching plan based on the errors found. In addition it is standardised so you might find it very useful as a basis of looking at spelling for research purposes. The authors looked at phonological errors versus visual errors. They see phonological errors in three categories: non-phonetic errors: ‘hit’ for ‘hot‘, phonetically simple errors: ‘mac‘ for ‘make‘, and phonetically complex errors: ‘maik‘ for ‘make‘.

As a matter of fact, I don’t categorise homophone errors ‘make/maik‘ as phonetic errors, but instead visual/orthographic errors that involve visual recall skills in the visual dyslexic, who can’t proof read after they have written the word either. In my opinion, ‘make/maik’ are both phonetically accurate/plausible rather than wrong, as far as making visual recall choices. There’s a debate in the making.

Sacre and Masterton go on to classify visual errors as ‘ambiguous’, because it’s hard to know if it’s a phonological error or a visual error. I believe that plausible spellings such as ‘stashun’ for station are visual errors because the auditory processing has worked perfectly, but the visual recall has not. The pupils I see often have good visual recognition for reading, so read quite well, but very poor visual recall for spelling.

The Sound-Write programme would classify by error analysis which would indicate the needed revision of the Extended Code for the different ways of spelling ‘shun’ for example in station, mansion etc.

Do you remember how you learned to read?

Well, I am not dyslexic and do remember learning to read, perfectly visually. The words ‘Peter and Jane’ were seen as ‘pictures’ of a word rather than sounds. I also spelt very well, as I could recall the appearance of the words very easily. I may have had some early alphabetic teaching but I can’t remember that at all. I certainly only became explicitly aware of phonics, and word patterns, when training on The Hornsby Course for specialist teaching of dyslexics.

What would your diagnostic tips be for reading, rather than spelling?

As far as looking at reading, I don’t usually use a test in order to analyse visual errors versus phonetic errors. I judge visual errors as confusing visually similar words and phonetic errors as making errors with the letter to sound correspondences, so that a nonsense word might be produced if the phonetic decoding of unknown words is poor.

Where can we find out more about current debates in reading research and teaching methods?

In order to see what is currently debated, I can recommend Mark Seidenberg’s Language at the Speed of Sight from 2017 and Lyn Stone’s work from Australia, Reading for Life, from 2019. I am following the Australian debate via Spelfabet (where the topic is heated at present, with arguments about decodable versus predictable texts). Reading was thought by many in the past as a Psycholinguistic Guessing Game. The term ‘balanced’ teaching seems to be a no-go area now and the debate can still be polarised. I think the baby might be thrown out with the bath water, as it is perfectly possible to use many tools from a tool box without ignoring certain ones.

If you fit your teaching to the pupil in front of you, as an experienced teacher can, then that is the way to go, in my opinion. If binary arguments persist, then the fiery debates will continue without compensatory routes being considered.

Plan help based on the pupil, rather than pick a programme for everyone. However, the Sound-Write programme would be ideal for the less experienced as it has clear teaching protocols. Once the newly qualified become familiar with it, then judgements can be made, based on experience and designed to fit pupil profiles more precisely, depending on error analysis and the stage they are at in literacy.

Thank you so much for your time!

Jane was being interviewed by Michael Thomas, Director of the Centre for Educational Neuroscience.

Useful Books:

• Reading in the Brain by Stanilas Dehaene.
• Proust and the Squid by Maryanne Wolf
• Reader Come Home by Maryanne Wolf
• English Spellings, A Lexicon by David Philpot et al. (Sounds-Write based)

Applications are now invited for a PhD studentship in educational neuroscience at UCL Institute of Education and Birkbeck, open to UK or EU students. This studentship is funded by the Bloomsbury Colleges scheme, for a project entitled ‘The relationship between executive function skills, technology use, and educational outcomes in a cohort of 6,000 UK adolescents’. The project is in collaboration with the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Imperial College London (project description below).

The closing date for applications is 10 May 2020.

For enquiries about the project, please contact Professor Andy Tolmie (UCL Institute of Education) or Professor Michael Thomas (Birkbeck).

To apply, visit https://ucl.fluidreview.com. (You will be able to see this studentship among the list of studentships once you create an account and log in.)

Project Description:

This PhD studentship project will involve secondary data analysis of the relationship between adolescent executive function skills, technology use (mobile phones and gaming), and educational outcomes. It will use data from the SCAMP (Study of Cognition, Adolescents, and Mobile Phones) cohort, a Department of Health funded project led by Mireille Toledano at Imperial College, on which Michael Thomas is a co-investigator, and to which Andy Tolmie is educational advisor.

The project will take place in the context of the Centre for Educational Neuroscience, a cross-institution research centre spanning UCL Institute of Education and Birkbeck, of which Michael Thomas and Andy Tolmie are both members, and in collaboration with staff at Imperial. Data have been collected at two time points on technology use, health, lifestyle data, and cognitive abilities of 6,000 11-14-year-old adolescents living within the M25 area. Sensitive measures of cognitive skills were collected for: cognitive control (“executive functions”), intelligence, speech processing, visuospatial attention, and focus/distractibility, skills that mostly continue to develop across adolescence. An application has also been made to the Department for Education for further data on the cohort, including GCSE results, within-school academic assessments, SEN information, and school attendance.

This will yield the largest dataset in this area ever collected for a young adolescent age group – a group that has been less studied compared to early and mid-childhood. Executive function skills, the main focus of the cognitive battery, continue to develop across adolescence and have been linked to educational achievement, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Differences in executive function skills are also linked to mental health issues, though the direction of causality remains unclear. Analysing the link between the existing SCAMP cohort data and educational outcomes will allow us to answer the following questions:

• Does technology use make teenagers more distractible, impacting on educational outcomes?
• Do smart phones serve as study aids, improving academic achievement?
• Are early executive function skills a direct predictor of educational outcomes? Is this a general effect or specific to particular outcomes? Which tests are most sensitive, and therefore capable of providing a basis to identify children who need extra help?
• Do early executive function skills predict later health behaviours (alcohol, drugs, diet, sleep), which subsequently impact on educational outcomes?

As well as receiving generic training in research skills in line with the UK Researcher Development Framework, the successful candidate will be offered training in the use of linear mixed modelling and structural equation modelling, to evaluate the relationship between the key measures of executive functioning, technology use, mental health, and educational outcomes, particularly focusing on technology as moderating or mediating factors. Analyses will explore the combination of large-scale cross-sectional and longitudinal data.