Cognitive Preference and Spelling Difficulties.

• text

Dissertation

Cognitive Preference and Spelling Difficulties.

Squires, G

Doctorate in Educational Psychology

2003

University of Manchester

238

List of Contents..............................................................................................................2List of Figures ................................................................................................................5List of Tables .................................................................................................................6Abstract ..........................................................................................................................7Declarations ...................................................................................................................8Acknowledgements........................................................................................................9The Author .....................................................................................................................9Chapter 1 Introduction to the project ...........................................................................101.1 Introduction........................................................................................................101.2 The contribution made by this project ...............................................................121.3 Cognitive modelling...........................................................................................151.4 Cognitive preference..........................................................................................161.5 Limits of the current study.................................................................................181.6 Overview of the methodology used ...................................................................201.7 Organisation of the thesis...................................................................................22Chapter 2 The contribution of neuropsychology to understanding cognitive preference.....................................................................................................................................242.1 Introduction........................................................................................................242.2 Methods and techniques for studying brains .....................................................252.3 Brain differentiation – the link between morphology and function...................282.4 Areas of brain considered to be involved in dyslexia ........................................352.5 Difficulties with previous studies ......................................................................402.6 Conclusions and implications for the current study...........................................45Chapter 3 Sensory processing......................................................................................473.1 Introduction........................................................................................................473.2 The auditory channel and the phonological deficit hypothesis..........................483.3 The visual channel and the visual deficit hypothesis.........................................553.4 The magnocellular and parvocellular systems...................................................583.5 Transient magnocellular deficit hypothesis .......................................................633.6 Implications for the current study......................................................................66Chapter 4: Cognitive profiles and preferences derived from psychometric analyses..674.1 Introduction........................................................................................................674.2 Profiles with the WISC......................................................................................694.3 The BAS and DAS.............................................................................................714.4 Examples of cognitive profile studies using the BAS and DAS........................764.5 Recent studies using the BAS and DAS ............................................................814.6 Profiles in pupils referred to the author .............................................................854.7 Other psychometric approaches .........................................................................924.8 Critique of methodology used by different researchers .....................................924.9 Implications for the current study......................................................................95Chapter 5 Summary of literature review and research questions ................................975.1 Introduction........................................................................................................975.2 The focus of the investigations in this study....................................................1005.3 Cognitive preferences ......................................................................................1025.4 The research questions.....................................................................................103Chapter 6: Methodology ............................................................................................1056.1 Introduction and overview...............................................................................105Page 36.2 Selection of the participants.............................................................................1066.3 Teacher questionnaire methodology................................................................1096.3.1 Design of the questionnaire ......................................................................1096.3.2 Analysis of the pilot questionnaire ...........................................................1146.4 Q-sort methodology .........................................................................................1176.4.1 Design of the Q-sort..................................................................................1176.4.2 Administration of Q-sort...........................................................................1196.4.3 Scoring procedure .....................................................................................1196.4.4 Piloting the Q-sort.....................................................................................1216.5 The learning experiment ..................................................................................1226.5.1 Selection of words to be used ...................................................................1236.5.2 Procedure for administration during the pilot study .................................1266.5.3 General instructions ..................................................................................1276.5.4 Testing.......................................................................................................1286.5.5 Scoring ......................................................................................................1286.5.6 Changes after the pilot study.....................................................................1306.6 Analysis of spelling errors in naturalistic writing............................................1316.7 Summary of the methodology..........................................................................1336.8 Choice of data analysis ....................................................................................134Chapter 7 Results .......................................................................................................1367.1 Introduction......................................................................................................1367.2 Inter measure reliability ...................................................................................1387.3 BAS-II compared to pupil choices...................................................................1407.4 BAS-II compared to teacher ratings ................................................................1427.5 BAS-II compared to learning experiment........................................................1487.6 Case Studies .....................................................................................................1517.6.1 CM............................................................................................................1517.6.2 AW............................................................................................................1527.6.3 JS...............................................................................................................1537.6.4 JG..............................................................................................................1537.6.4 JM.............................................................................................................1547.6.5 DS .............................................................................................................1547.6.6 RH.............................................................................................................1557.6.7 AK.............................................................................................................1567.6.8 SH .............................................................................................................1577.6.9 SJ...............................................................................................................1577.7 Ecological Validity of BAS-II cognitive preferences ......................................158Chapter 8 Discussion .................................................................................................1618.1 Introduction......................................................................................................1618.2 Summary of the results ....................................................................................1638.3 Methodological issues......................................................................................1678.3.1 Development of the main part of the project and pilot studies .................1678.3.2 Sample recruited .......................................................................................1728.3.3 Laboratory type learning experiment versus longer term teaching ..........1768.3.4 Cued learning and recall and actual processing........................................1788.3.5 Different types of measures used..............................................................1798.3.6 Modality based assessment .......................................................................1848.4 Implications for assessment .............................................................................1858.5 Implications for teaching .................................................................................1918.6 Conclusions and implications for further research ..........................................199Page 4References..................................................................................................................202Appendix 1: Pilot Teacher Questionnaire..................................................................212Appendix 2: Modified Teacher Questionnaire ..........................................................216Appendix 3: Q-sort brainstorm questionnaire............................................................219Appendix 4: Q-sort cards ...........................................................................................220Appendix 5: Q-Sort Scoring sheet .............................................................................223Appendix 6: Word cards for learning experiment .....................................................224Appendix 7: S-Cue Card............................................................................................226Appendix 8: V-Cue Card ...........................................................................................226Appendix 9: Learning Experiment Record Sheet (version 1)....................................227Appendix 10: Learning Experiment Record Sheet (version 2)..................................228Appendix 11: Sentences for dictation ........................................................................229Appendix 12: Summary of measures .........................................................................230Appendix 13 Categories of spelling errors made by 7 pupils....................................232

This study draws upon research from a number of fields to investigate the role ofcognitive preference on spelling remediation. A cognitive preference is considered tobe a relative strength in processing one type of information compared to processinganother type of information. In this study a preference for auditory-verbal processingor visuo-spatial processing is explored. A preliminary study involving a sample of 99pupils referred for Statutory Assessment was analysed with approximately 20% beingfound to have one preference or the other. A small-scale study involving 17 pupilsaged between 8 and 11 years was conducted to explore the possibility of identifyingcognitive preference through a diagnostic questionnaire, q-sort methodology ofchoices of pastime activities and using the BAS-II. Some agreement was foundbetween the three approaches. A learning experiment was conducted with the samepupils to see whether a verbal cue or a visuo-spatial cue would lead to improvedlearning of letter position in graded spellings. This indicated that the BAS-II was themost predictive of the 3 assessment methods and correctly identified the best learningmethod for 12 pupils (Fischer’s Exact Test, p=0.032). A measurable difference wasfound after only five learning trials that suggests that the use of modality basedlearning improves performance when matched to cognitive preference (Wilcoxon,p=0.038). Observational data collected suggests that other factors also influencedlearning during the learning experiment (attentional focus, motivation, socialpriming). Further study involving the use of naturalistic samples of handwritingseemed to indicate that cognitive preference was identifiable in the types of errorsmade for a further sample of 7 pupils (Chi Squared, p=0.013).

• dyslexia
• spelling
• cognitive preferences
• learning style
• cognitive assessment

• Squires, Garry

• Faculty of Humanities
• School of Education
• School of Environment, Education and Development

uk-ac-man-scw:93175

Squires, Garry

26th October, 2010, 10:04:12

2nd August, 2013, 20:03:50