Search

Because reading/writing is a fundamental tool for children's development, the main failure in its learning—developmental dyslexia—gives rise to many attempts to remediate. A recent remedy proposed by Mather (2022), published in Perceptual and Motor Skills [129(3), p. 468], is impressive through its radical nature and the extent of its consequences. It consists of delaying the teaching of writing to the age of 7–8 years, whereas, at present, most children in Western or comparable cultures learn to write even before compulsory school (generally at age six). In this article, I present a set of arguments whose addition and possible interaction lead, if not to reject, at least to restrict Mather's proposal. My arguments show both the inefficiency of Mather's proposal through two observational studies, its practical inapplicability in contemporary society, the importance of learning to write at least in the first year of elementary school, and the stinging past failure of a math reform of similar scope (i.e., learning to count). I also question the neurological theory underlying Mather's proposal, and, finally, I point out that, even if delaying learning to write were limited to students who Mather expects (at age six) to experience future dyslexia, this remedy would be inapplicable and probably ineffective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The French National Cohort of Children Study (Etude Longitudinale Française depuis l'Enfance— ELFE) tested the literacy and numeracy skills of 4- to 5-year-old typically developing children in the second year of école maternelle. Tasks were administered by more than 4,000 teachers at schools across France. One of the study's numeracy tasks required participants to write the number of ducks (up to 5) they had counted. Analyzing the digits written by 14,904 children showed that miswritings were much more common for the digit 3 than for the digit 4. This result is consistent with the right-orienting rule, which young children in Western cultures apply when they do not know a digit's orientation, and which leads them to write, for example, ε instead of 3.The nature and frequency of miswritten digits did not differ significantly between the 466 children presumed to have written with their left hand and the 3,531 children presumed to have written with their right hand. However, a logistic mixed-effects regression showed that two other factors—age of entry to école maternelle and very early smartphone use—had a (modest) influence on the percentage of digits that were miswritten. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research has found that children reverse mainly the left-oriented characters when writing from memory (e.g. they write ɩ and ε instead of J and 3). In order to obtain an objective definition of the left-orientation of a character, the ratings of the level of left-orientation of all the asymmetrical capital letters and digits by 142 adult students was analysed in Study 1. Study 2, on 298 five-six-year-old children, examined an immediate prediction of Study 1, namely that the children reverse mainly the digits that the adult students have rated left-oriented. Other predictions, both of the posited representation of the writing during the reversal stage and the neurological process of mirror generalisation, were verified: the simplicity of the representation of the symmetrical digits 0 and 8 makes incorrect writings very rare; the mirror generalisation, which operates only in the left-right direction, makes other transformations (inversion or 180° rotation) very rare. Finally, the explanatory power of some putative individual factors of reversal (e.g. writing with the left hand) is shown to be far lower than that of the left-orientation of the characters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined the development of mirror writing in typically developing children using a longitudinal design involving 166 children initially aged 4–5 years. The children were tested three times, with approximately one year between tests. The main predictions were that: (i) mirror copying of characters at T1 (4- to 5-years old) will be less frequent than mirror writing from memory at T2 (5- to 6-years old), (ii) an implicit right-writing rule—which holds that children orient single characters toward the right and hence most frequently reverse the left-oriented characters (e.g., 3, J)—explains well both character reversal at T2 and T3 and changes between T2 and T3 (6- to 7-years old), and (iii) name-mirror writing is possible as soon as children start learning to write. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research into character reversals in writings produced by occidental children has shown that they mainly reverse the left-oriented digits (1, 2, 3, 7, and 9) and therefore appear to apply a right-orienting rule. But do they produce similar reversal errors when asked to recognize the digits? In an experiment, based on eye-tracking observations of 50 children (Mage = 5.4 years), children had to point towards a target digit in a 2 × 2 matrix also containing three distractor digits, one of which was the mirror-reversed writing of the correctly written target digit. This recognition task led to a true "battle" in children's memory between the two writings of the target digit. This battle is shown in the graphical abstract that represents a heat map from a sub-sample of children (on the left side) and the fixation points map from an individual child (on the right side). Rather than following the predicted right-orienting rule, the children's responses appeared to be biased towards digits in the right-hand column of the 2 × 2 matrices (when the reversed target digit was not in the same column as the correctly written target digit). As a whole, these findings support the hypotheses that many 4- to 6-year-old's representations of the digit writings are unoriented in their memory and that these children may adopt different solutions to overcome this lack of orientation depending on whether they write or read. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reversing characters (digits and letters) when writing, and complete mirror writing, raise one of the oldest and most mysterious questions in developmental and educational psychology: Why do five-year-old children write symbols (e.g., ꓱ for E) they have neither learnt nor seen? Attempts to draw up a complete explanatory theory of character reversal in writings by typically developing children were long hindered by the existence of a seemingly satisfactory explanation (left-hand writing), the failure to bring together research in neuropsychology and educational psychology, and the failure to consider the shape and structure of the characters. The present paper remedies this situation by describing a new, comprehensive theory based on recent neuropsychological findings and extensive empirical observations. The theory assumes that a character's orientation, detected in the early visual processing area, is deleted (or made inaccessible) by the mirror generalization process during transfer to memory. Consequently, there is a period, usually around age five, during which children have representations of the characters' shapes but not their orientations. Hence, when asked to write a character, children have to improvise its orientation, and the orientation they choose (implicitly, non-consciously) is often derived from the writing direction in their culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]