Search

Background: Learning which letters correspond to which speech sounds is fundamental for learning to read. Based on previous experimental studies, we developed a serious game aiming to boost letter‐speech sound (L‐SS) correspondences in a motivational game environment. Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine the efficacy of this game in training L‐SS correspondences in pre‐readers. Additionally, an extended version of the game was developed given the importance of handwriting in audio‐visual integration. We established whether including a motoric component in the game boosted the letter‐speech sound training on top of the effect of the game without the motoric component. Methods: One‐hundred forty‐five kindergartners were randomly allocated to play either the standard audio‐visual version of the game, the motoric version or a control math game. All children were pre‐ and post‐tested on L‐SS knowledge and reading accuracy. Results and conclusions: We found that playing the game enhanced pre‐readers' L‐SS knowledge, but not reading accuracy, after a short, intensive intervention period of 3 weeks. However, children who played the motoric version of the game did not differ significantly from either the standard or the control condition. Implications: This game was efficient in training L‐SS correspondences in pre‐readers. These results suggest that this game might be useful as a preventive evidence‐based intervention for at‐risk children in kindergarten who might benefit from a head start before learning how to read. Future studies are needed to examine whether a longer intervention period results in L‐SS knowledge being translated into reading skills. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Automatised and fluent reading requires much exposure and practice, but intensive teacher support for all at‐risk readers is economically and practically unfeasibleHandwriting movement likely to enhance coupling of auditory and visual informationOne way to provide high exposure is with game‐based interventionsLack of studies examining the efficacy of these interventions What this paper adds: Serious game enhances letter‐speech sound knowledge in pre‐readers after 3 weeks of intensive interventionThis effect did not transfer to reading performanceNo additional effect of the handwriting movement, possibly due to the short intervention periodIn‐game measures slightly mediated intervention progress Implications for practice and/or policy: Growing evidence of game‐based interventions as promising tools to support reading developmentGame can possibly serve as evidence‐based intervention for at‐risk children in kindergarten who might benefit from a head start before learning how to read [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Occupational therapy often involves handwriting acquisition practices that include the non‐dominant hand when improvements in the dominant hand function are not possible because of trauma or stroke. This study explored whether character tracing and using a pegboard can effectively improve the handwriting of the non‐dominant hand. Methods: A randomised controlled trial involving 60 healthy university students aged ≥18 years was conducted. Participants were randomly assigned to the writing group, peg group or control group. The character recognition rate was evaluated by computer software. Furthermore, character quality and writing speed were evaluated by humans using global legibility scales. Evaluations were performed before the intervention (baseline) and on days 5 and 10 of the intervention. Using the non‐dominant hand, the writing group traced characters on paper with a ballpoint pen, and the peg group used a pegboard for 15 min/day for 10 days. Results: Compared with the peg and control groups, the writing group showed significant improvements in the character recognition rate and global legibility scale score. However, the global legibility scale score did not improve to the same level as that achieved with the dominant hand. None of the evaluation scores of the peg group showed significant improvements compared with those of the control group. There were no significant differences in improvements in the writing speed of the writing and peg groups compared with the control group. Conclusion: Tracing characters can improve the handwriting ability of the non‐dominant hand, but using a pegboard may be less effective. Future research is needed to examine how much practice is necessary to improve the handwriting ability of the non‐dominant hand sufficiently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]