EARLY IDENTIFICATION: Play Patterns in 4 Year Olds & Later Literacy Difficulties.

1. EARLY IDENTIFICATION: Play Patterns in 4 Year Olds & Later Literacy Difficulties. Kath Kelly & Mike Johnson Manchester Metropolitan University UK

2. EARLY IDENTIFICATION 1995 – 2001 Reception Observation of Play Patterns: (26 Pupils) 1995-6 Year 3 Balance Test. Reading & Spelling Tests (24 Pupils) Dec.1998 Year 5 Balance Test N.C. Levels Reading & Spelling Tests, Questionnaires (20 Pupils) June 2001

3. ABSTRACT • 6 year longitudinal study • Reception class observed in free play for six months. • Time spent on ‘reading-type-tasks’ at age 4 with reading attainments at age 7 and scores on Dyslexia Automaticity Deficit test. • Pupil profiles built up on same children at age 10.

4. Introduction • Results of earlier 4-year investigation using screening device for automaticity deficit in balance suggested earliest age for identification as dyslexic around 8 years. • The test produced unacceptable level of false positives at age 7.

5. This study attempts to find an alternative method of identifying younger children, based on the same theoretical principles .

6. Hypotheses • ‘Avoidance tactics’ noted in older dyslexic children develop at an early age. • Young children who ‘avoid’ ‘reading-type’ activities later develop literacy difficulties. • Also exhibit dyslexic automaticity deficits.

7. The Design • Observation of class of 24 4-year olds in free play • Results compared with age 7 UK SATs & test scores in Year 3 • Pupil profiling in Year 5 • Reading attitude at Year 10 compared with age 4

8. The Observation Schedule • Developed autumn 1995. • Observations carried out spring and summer 1996. • Free play situations observed for periods of 15 minutes • Length of time spent on each activity recorded. • Class teacher made on going notes.

9. Class teacher commented on: • Limited number of places for some activities e.g. Sand play. • Choice might be influenced by availability. • Friendship groups might influence selection. • Particularly so for some boys who worked together on large construction projects.

10. Cultural differences and lack of play opportunities in the home may be responsible for some individual children finding it hard to settle to any one activity. • There were ‘sex differences’ and she speculated that the results might not show anything conclusive.

11. Pupil Profiling at Age SevenAutumn 1998 • Standardised reading test (Macmillan). • Standardised spelling test (Young). • National Curriculum levels (SAT’s) in English, Maths and Science. • English Language Stages from the annual Needs Analysis Survey. • Dyslexia Automaticity Deficits in balance.

13. Informal Observations • Results confirm a difference in play patterns between boys and girls but • No obvious ‘dyslexic pattern’

14. Boys Most time on: • construction Less time on: • jig-saws • Sand play • fine motor activities Least time on: • reading- & writing-type activities

15. Girls Most time on: • reading & writing activities. Less time on: • jig-saws. • fine motor activities. (Rarely had time for sand play as they tended to get ‘pushed out’ by the boys). Least time on: • construction.

16. Closer examination of the two distinct groups showed: • Only one girl at age 4 avoided reading consistently. Spent a lot of time in construction following pattern established for boys. • At age 7 only girl with uneven profile on NC levels. One of two girls with automaticity deficit on screening test in Year 3.

17. Although time spent on reading generally lower, only five boys consistently avoided reading at age 4. • At age seven, all five more than a year behind their chronological age in reading. • Only two had uneven NC profiles. • These two were amongst four found to have automaticity deficits in Year 3.

18. Early play patterns might predict later literacy difficulties, • but • More likely to pick up problems of a more specific nature in girls rather than boys.

19. The boys more likely to be influenced by friendship groups • Relationship between time spent on reading at age 4 and reading scores at age 7 not as strong in boys. • Only through statistical analysis that the strength of relationship quantified.

20. Statistical Analysis • Relationship between % scores of time spent on reading tasks at age 4 and the reading scores on standardised tests at age 7: • Girls 0.755 (sig. 0.01) • Boys 0.776 (sig. 0.005)

21. Link between % reading scores at age four and automaticity deficit scores at age 7?

22. Two separate analyses : • Reading patterns of Dyslexics and Non-Dyslexics were compared at age 4. • Automaticity deficits of Dyslexics and Non-Dyslexics were compared at age 7.

23. Results Three pupils uneven profiles on NC levels and high scores balance tasks at age 7. (Dyslexics). • Difference between time spent on reading tasks was significant at the 0.1 level. • The difference in Dyslexic Automaticity Deficit scores was significant at the 0.01 level.

24. Accuracy of screening test. • Age 7.5 - no false negatives, three false positives (N= 24). • Accuracy level 87.5% in this sample.

25. Pupil Profiling Age 10Summer 2001 • Standardised Reading Test (Neale Analysis) • Standardised Spelling Test (Young). • NC levels in English, Maths and Science. • English Language Stages from the annual Needs Analysis Survey. • Pupil questionnaire. • Dyslexic Automaticity Deficits in balance.

26. Results • Three children with uneven profiles profiles and automaticity deficits at age 7 continued to show them at age 10.

27. Results • Three children with uneven profiles profiles and automaticity deficits at age 7 continued to show them at age 10. • Four out of the 5 children who spent 0% time on reading at age 4 had automaticity deficits at age 7.5 and dyslexic type profiles at age 10.

28. Results • Three children with uneven profiles profiles and automaticity deficits at age 7 continued to show them at age 10. • Four out of the 5 children who spent 0% time on reading at age 4 had automaticity deficits at age 7.5 and dyslexic type profiles at age 10. • Five out of the 6 children with automaticity deficits in balance at age 7.5 had uneven profiles and dyslexic automaticity deficits at age 10.

29. Results • Three children with uneven profiles profiles and automaticity deficits at age 7 continued to show them at age 10. • Four out of the 5 children who spent 0% time on reading at age 4 had automaticity deficits at age 7.5 and dyslexic type profiles at age 10. • Five out of the 6 children with automaticity deficits in balance at age 7.5 had uneven profiles and dyslexic automaticity deficits at age 10. • One child with uneven profile and automaticity deficits in balance at age 10 did not have an uneven profile at age 7 but did have an automaticity deficit in balance and had avoided reading tasks at age 4.

30. Statistical Analysis • Six pupils at age 10 had uneven NC profiles, reading and spelling ages more than a year below chronological age, and highlighted scores on the Dyslexia Automaticity Deficit test. These were accepted as being Dyslexic. • The difference in Dyslexia Automaticity Deficit scores between Dyslexics and Non-Dyslexics significant at the 0.005 level.

31. Relationship between % time spent on reading at 4 and reading scores on standardised tests at age 10: • Girls 0.993 sig. (0.005) • Boys 0.773 sig. (0.005).

32. The observation of children at free play in the reception class, when used as a technique to predict specific learning difficulties (dyslexia), produced one false positive and one false negative. Accuracy level 91.5% Pupil questionnaires suggested that children with dyslexia continued to dislike reading tasks at the age of 10.

33. Conclusions • Informal observations showed that young children who avoid reading tasks are at risk of developing later literacy difficulties.

34. Conclusions • Informal observations showed that young children who avoid reading tasks are at risk of developing later literacy difficulties. • Significant relationship found between length of time spent on reading tasks at age 4 and reading scores at age 7 and 10.

35. Conclusions • Informal observations showed that young children who avoid reading tasks are at risk of developing later literacy difficulties. • Significant relationship found between length of time spent on reading tasks at age 4 and reading scores at age 7 and 10. • Relying on reading habits alone at age 4 to identify dyslexia appeared at first to over identify, but pupil profiling at age 10 suggests ‘observation’ to be an effective technique with an acceptably high level of accuracy.