Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Articles/Articoli

Vol. 13 No. 2 (2022): Special Pedagogy and Special Didactics for an innovative school and an inclusive education

Characterization of gaze in handwriting of High and Low Frequency Word of Schoolchildren with Dyslexia

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ess2-2022oa14527
Submitted
agosto 30, 2022
Published
2022-12-20

Abstract

Writing is extremely important for our academic and professional life and can affect our performance in productive educational activities, favouring us or not. Schoolchildren with dyslexia bring difficulties and reduced school performance due to their condition of deprivation in written production. This is because schoolchildren with dyslexia have difficulty acquiring spelling knowledge and show poor phonological skills. This study aimed to characterize the performance of schoolchildren with dyslexia in “gaze” for the handwriting of High and Low-frequency words. A total of 24 schoolchildren participated in the study. They were between 8 to 11 years and 11 months of age, of both sexes, and they were attending the 3rd to the 5th year of Elementary School in the city of Marília-SP. The schoolchildren were divided into groups: GI, composed of 12 schoolchildren with an interdisciplinary diagnosis of developmental dyslexia, and GII, composed of 12 schoolchildren with good academic performance, paired with GI according to the school grade level. These schoolchildren were submitted to computerized handwriting evaluation using a Brazilian adaptation of the Software Ductus. All schoolchildren were submitted to a copy of words already selected according to Brazilian Portuguese criteria of frequency and codification rule. A measure of “gaze” was used, that is, when the schoolchildren stopped their handwriting to search/look up at the screen to confirm the information about the words. The results indicated a significant difference between GI and GII, with GI schoolchildren performing more gaze when compared with GII, i.e., taking longer motor breaks to perform the gaze. Therefore, there was a rupture in the central processing with the peripheral when the child performed the gauze more times since he had to confirm the characteristics of this word during the writing process (difficulty in accessing the orthographic lexicon) and with that, there was a break in the movement of handwriting (since there was not enough information in the central plane to complete that motor memory and finish the word). It was concluded that there were gaps between the central (orthographic) and peripheral (motor pauses) processes, suggesting deficits in the formation of motor programs for GI and the lack of automation of motor processes.

References

  1. Afonso O., & Álvarez C. J. (2019). Constituent frequency effects in the written production of Spanish compound words. Memory & cognition, 47: 1284-1296. Doi: 10.3758/s13421-019-00933-5.
  2. Afonso O., Álvarez C. J., & Kandel S. (2015). Effects of grapheme-to-phoneme probability on writing durations. Memory & cognition, 43: 579-592. Doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0489-8.
  3. Afonso O., Suárez-Coalla P., González-Martín N., & Cuetos F. (2018). The impact of word frequency on peripheral processes during handwriting: A matter of age. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71: 695-703. Doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1275713.
  4. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.
  5. Biname F., & Poncelet M. (2016). The development of the abilities to acquire novel detailed orthographic representations and maintain them in long-term memory. Journal of experimental child psychology, 143: 14-33. Doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.10.010.
  6. Bosga-Stork I. M., Bosga J., & Meulenbroek R. G. (2015). Dysgraphic handwriting development and inclusive education: the role of interdisciplinary counseling. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3(08): 35.
  7. Bosse M.-L., Kandel S., Prado C., & Valdois S. (2014). Does visual attention span relate to eye movements during reading and copying? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(1): 81-85. Doi: 10.1177/0165025413509046.
  8. Castles A., & Coltheart M. (1993). Varieties of developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 47: 149-180.
  9. Ehri L. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Sci Stud Read., 9: 167-188. Doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4.
  10. Ellis A. W., & Young A. W. (1988). Human Cognitive Neuropsychology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. Germano G. D. (2018). Cultural adaptation of the Ductus software for the study of the writing production of Brazilian elementary school students. Research Report. The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). Process number 455208/2014-0, 2018.
  12. Germano G. D., & Capellini S. A. (2019). Use of technological tools to evaluate handwriting production of the alphabet and pseudocharacters by Brazilian students. Clinics, 74. Doi: 10.6061/clinics/2019/e840.
  13. Guinet E., & Kandel S. (2010). Ductus: A software package for the study of handwriting production. Behavior research methods, 42(1): 326-332. Doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.326.
  14. Jeffries S., & Everatt J. (2004). Working memory: Its role in dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties. Dyslexia, 10(3): 196-214.
  15. Kandel S., & Perret C. (2015). How do movements to produce letters become automatic during writing acquisition? Investigating the development of motor anticipation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(2): 113-120.
  16. Kandel S., & Perret, C. (2015a). How do movements to produce letters become automatic during writing acquisition? Investigating the development of motor anticipation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39: 113-120. Doi: 10.1177/0165025414557532.
  17. Kandel S., & Perret C. (2015b). How does the interaction between spelling and motor processes build up during writing acquisition?. Cognition, 136: 325-336. Doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.014.
  18. Kandel S., & Valdois S. (2006). Syllables as functional units in a copying task. Language and cognitive processes, 21(4): 432-452.
  19. Lallier M., Valdois S., Lassus-Sangosse D., Prado C., & Kandel S. (2014). Impact of orthographic transparency on typical and atypical reading development: Evidence in French-Spanish bilingual children. Research in developmental disabilities, 35(5): 1177-1190. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.01.021.
  20. Purcell J., Turkeltaub P. E., Eden G. F., & Rapp B. (2011). Examining the central and peripheral processes of written word production through meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 2: 239. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00239.
  21. Reid G. (2016). Dyslexia: A practitioner’s handbook. John Wiley & Sons.
  22. Roux S., McKeeff T. J., Grosjacques G., Afonso O., Kandel S. (2013). The interaction between central and peripheral processes in handwriting production. Cognition, 127(2): 235-241. Doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.009.
  23. Scliar-Cabral L. (2003a). Princípios do Sistema Alfabético do Português do Brasil. São Paulo: Contexto.
  24. Scliar-Cabral L. (2003b). Guia prático de alfabetização, baseado em princípios do sistema alfabético do português do Brasil. São Paulo: Contexto.
  25. Sumner E., Connelly V., & Barnett A. L. (2013). Children with dyslexia are slow writers because they pause more often and not because they are slow at handwriting execution. Reading and writing, 26(6): 991-1008. Doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9403-6.
  26. Van Galen G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human movement science, 10(2-3): 165-191. Doi: 10.1016/0167-9457(91)90003-G.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 4 > >>