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 mathematics achievement discrepancy between girls and boys, with its subsequent occupational consequences, is an issue that has received considerable attention in the literature. It is often referred to as the 'math‐gap' and favours boys. A major component of the explanation of this gap resides in determining its age of onset. We analyse here data from more than 10,000 (cross‐sectional study) and 2000 (longitudinal study) French students aged 4–7 years, tested in the framework of the Etude Longitudinale Française depuis l'Enfance (ELFE). The results allow to precisely determine the age of onset, since the gender difference, non‐existent (or even slightly in favour of girls) in kindergarten (4–5 years), is clearly in favour of boys in first grade (6–7 years). They could therefore provide an important element in the controversial debate on the origin of gender‐differentiated performance in mathematics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A live video was used to study the development of visual self-recognition in a cross-sectional sample of 152 typically developing French children aged between 15 months to 6 years. Three reactions to a mark placed on the child's cheek without their knowledge were studied: the touch of the mark with their hand, the ocular responsiveness to the mark they discovered on through the screen and, finally, their behavior when the experimenter silently unostentatiously proffered them a tissue. It was mainly shown that (1) the behavior of touching the mark increases until age 3 years, and then declines gradually, (2) from the age of 3, all children spot the mark within the first four seconds, and (3) the behavior of making use of the tissue to wipe the mark increases continuously, particularly from age 3. The latter behavior reveals a superior level of self-awareness: the emergence of a meta-consciousness of oneself. [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]

Background: Young children's mathematics abilities may be divided between symbolic and non‐symbolic skills. Lower performance of SES disadvantaged versus advantaged children has already been established in symbolic math. Aim: This study aimed to verify the effect of children's SES category on non‐symbolic mathematical (numerical) performance. Sample: The main sample comprises 4,955 children from the French longitudinal study, ELFE, tested when they were in the nursery school (4‐ to 5‐year‐olds). Method: The distinction between symbolic and non‐symbolic math skills based on the specific math assessment items used in the present study was verified on a larger sample. The SES‐related difference in non‐symbolic math skills was then examined in the ELFE sample only. Results: The children's performance in non‐symbolic maths is significantly and almost as strongly correlated with their family's income and their mother's level of education as their performances in symbolic maths. Linear regression mixed‐effects modelling shows that the score in non‐symbolic maths (out of 100) of children from families with below median income is 3.8 points lower than that of their peers from families with above median income. Conclusion: Children from disadvantaged SES backgrounds perform significantly lower than those from advantaged backgrounds in non‐symbolic maths. Even if non‐symbolic math skills retain an educational interest, they should not reduce the importance of symbolic math skills in young children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of teaching a standard written algorithm for the four arithmetical operations in the first years of elementary school is increasingly raised as a consequence of the possibility of using calculators, tablets, and computers. This article first presents arguments both against and for maintaining this teaching in the first school years. Then, it presents an analysis of the procedure—whether it implies the standard algorithm or not—used by second grade students to solve a subtraction verbal problem. The 4720 students involved in the research were divided in a control group (n = 2101) and an experimental group (n = 2619) in which the standard written algorithm (SWA) was taught, or not taught, respectively. The effectiveness of algorithm use was analyzed not only in terms of accuracy of the answers, but also for its influence on the choice of the correct arithmetical operation and for its choice by the students as a function of their ability. The SWA was strongly associated with the use of the false arithmetical operation (effect size ϕ = 0.79)—addition instead of subtraction—but was chosen by students of all levels of ability. The latter result suggests that the SWA is well suited for the most advanced students but far less for the others who use it mechanically and without reflection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ensuring students correctly understand the notion of equality is a fundamental problem in teaching mathematics. Is it possible to teach arithmetic in such a way that students do not misinterpret the equal sign "=" as indicating the result of an arithmetic operation and, consequently, viewing the arithmetic operation symbols (+, -, or x) as systematically meaning perform a computation? The present paper describes the implementation of an experimental arithmetic teaching program (called ACE) drawn up in conjunction with teachers and focusing on these issues. We assessed the program's impact via an experiment involving 1140 experimental group students and 1155 control group students, and using a pretest/posttest design. The experimental group students achieved higher composite arithmetic scores, combining all four subdomains (arithmetic writing, mental computation, word-problem solving, and estimation), than control group students. The effect size, computed using individuals' posttest scores adjusted for pretest scores was d = 0.559. The ACE program was effective in all four subdomains tested; however, it was particularly successful in the arithmetic writing subdomain, especially in writing equalities. The program's effect not only held one year later, it was cumulative, as the benefits produced by following the program in both first and second grade were almost double those of following the program in just one grade. [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]

Non-pathological, spontaneous mirror writing, whether complete or partial, has long been associated with writing with the left hand and attributed to the fact that abductive writing, which most people find easier, is from right to left when people write with their left hand. However, recent research suggests another explanation: children who do not know the orientation of the letters and digits may apply an implicit right-writing rule which causes them to invert mainly left-oriented characters (e.g., J, 3). But would left-hand writers apply such a rule? The present study examines the relationship between these two explanations of mirror writing and asks whether they coexist in children who write with their left hand. Is the abductive writing explanation specific to mirror writing by left-hand writers and the implicit right-writing rule specific to right-hand writers? A comparison of 59 children who wrote with their left hand and 59 children who wrote with their right hand (matched for age and school experience) provided clear evidence against the abductive-writing explanation and in favour of the right-writing rule for both groups. Therefore, spontaneous mirror writing in typical 5- to 6-year-olds does not seem to be a function of preferred writing hand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This article presents a simple theory according to which the left–right reversal of single digits by 5- and 6-year-old children is mainly due to the application of an implicit right-writing or -orienting rule. A number of nontrivial predictions can be drawn from this theory. First, left-oriented digits (1, 2, 3, 7, and 9) will be reversed more frequently than the other asymmetrical digits (4, 5, and 6). Second, for some pairs of digits, the correct writing of the preceding digit will statistically predict the reversal of the current digit and vice versa. Third, writing hand will have little effect on the frequency of reversals, and the relative frequencies with which children reverse the asymmetrical digits will be similar regardless of children’s preferred writing hand. Fourth, children who reverse the left-oriented digits the most are also those who reverse the other asymmetrical digits the least. An empirical study involving 367 5- and 6-year-olds confirmed these predictions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Most studies of mirror writing have focused on specific populations (e.g., pathological cases) or conditions (e.g., right-handed individuals writing with their left hand); hence, many simple questions about mirror writing in typically developing 5-year-old children remain unanswered. The present study addresses 2 simple but important issues concerning the relation between (a) mirror copying single characters (digits and capital letters) and mirror writing the same characters from memory and (b) mirror writing single characters and mirror writing whole words (e.g., 1st name). To shed light on these issues, the authors carried out 3 experimental studies of children at écoles maternelles in France. The results offer new insights into the phenomenon of mirror writing. A copying task generated considerably fewer mirror writings than a writing-from-memory task, and there was a significant but weak correlation (rs = .22) between single-character mirror writing and name mirror writing. Academic level correlated positively with the mirror writing of characters (rs = .15); however, it correlated more positively with correct writing (rs = .32) and negatively with no (or other incorrect) writing (rs = -.45). This suggests that the mirror writings may occur (depending on the context) between some other incorrect writings (or absence of writing) and correct writings in the development of almost all children. In addition, contextual or situational factors, such as the preceding writing or the position of the writing on the page, had a much stronger influence on mirror writing than individual factors, such as writing hand or gender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study contributes to the debate about the Flynn effect by proposing a long-term comparison (1921-2001) of the numerical knowledge of two cohorts of three- to five-and-a-half year-old children. In 1921, Beckmann (1923) assessed the numerical development of children using four tasks (Production, Distinction, Recognition, and Naming). In 2001, we used these same tasks to test 400 children equally divided into five age groups spaced six months apart. The main results are as follows: (1) the order of difficulty of the four tasks was the same in 2001 and 1921; (2) the 2001 cohort significantly outperformed the 1921 cohort with an advance in numerical development ranging from six months to one year, depending on the task; (3) the superiority of the 2001 children showed up by the age of 3; (4) the magnitude of the rise in scores varied across tasks (the greatest gain was found for the Naming task); and (5) the children in the two cohorts used the same number-evaluation strategies, but the 2001 children used more mature strategies on the Naming task than did same-age 1921 children, particularly subitizing for apprehending small numbers. The rise in scores seems to correspond to a genuine gain in numerical ability, apparently promoted by parental child-raising practices (cross-generational transmission). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The development of early literacy skills in preschoolers is an important predictor of future academic performance. Four main domains of early literacy are currently observed: letter knowledge, vocabulary, phonological awareness and oral comprehension. A multiplicity of tasks or tests measures these domains in English language. However, there are currently no French‐language tools for evaluating and monitoring the early literacy abilities of young children in francophone contexts. Methods: This paper addresses this lack by presenting a new French‐language scale – the Echelle Préscolaire de Littératie Emergente (EPLE) – for assessing the early literacy skills of preschoolers. In addition to examining the EPLE's psychometric properties, we used path analysis to determine possible links between different dimensions of early literacy and children's characteristics (sex, age and socioeconomic status). Results: This study involves 167 French preschoolers (mean = 5.17 years, standard deviation = 0.59) attending kindergarten. All the participants were tested individually, and a specific entry in the tasks was proposed depending on the age of the children. First, the EPLE had good psychometric properties. Then, factor analysis of the data collected revealed a similar hierarchical factor structure as found in the literature. In addition, we found links between the four dimensions of early literacy measured by the EPLE and both children's age and socioeconomic status. Conclusion: The EPLE creates several new opportunities for early literacy research in French‐speaking contexts. First, this tool reduces the gap in the field of testing young children skills. Then, it allows the comparison with worldwide researches. Moreover, this tool proposes pedagogical implications. In the next few years, the EPLE will be used by teachers or school psychologists to test the early competences of French children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes a French research project to co-design an early literacy/early numeracy tablet app for kindergarten students. In order to create an app that takes into account classroom/teaching constraints and the results of recent research, we adopted a theoretical co-design framework and followed a methodology involving researchers, education professionals and software engineers. We describe the design process and the app's educational content, together with the results of an initial trial of the app on a small sample of preschoolers, which showed that it is ready for larger scale testing. We conclude by discussing the specificities of our project and its contribution to the literature on the development of classroom apps for preschoolers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]