miércoles, 25 de octubre de 2023




Transparent and opaque languages are concepts used in linguistics to describe the relationship between orthography (the written form) and pronunciation (the spoken form) of words in a given language.

A transparent language is one in which the pronunciation of words can be easily determined from their spelling. In other words, the relationship between letters and sounds is fairly predictable and consistent. For example, in Spanish, in general, each letter represents a specific sound and is pronounced consistently.

On the other hand, an opaque language is one in which the pronunciation of words cannot be easily deduced from their spelling. This can be due to a variety of historical factors, such as changes in pronunciation over time, influence from other languages, or specific features of the language's phonology. In these languages, pronunciation rules may be more complex and less predictable.

It is important to note that there is no strict division between completely transparent and opaque languages. Most languages have elements of both. Some words in an opaque language may follow clear and consistent patterns, while in a transparent language there may be exceptions and words with irregular pronunciations.

Grapheme-phoneme transparency in reading

Grapheme-phoneme transparency is the relationship between the written form of a word (grapheme) and its pronunciation (phoneme). In a transparent writing system, the relationship between grapheme and phoneme is direct and consistent. This means that, in general, each grapheme represents a single phoneme, and each phoneme is represented by a single grapheme.

Differences between English and Spanish

English and Spanish are two writing systems with different degrees of grapheme-phoneme transparency. English is a relatively opaque writing system, while Spanish is a relatively transparent writing system.

In English, the correspondence between grapheme and phoneme is less direct and consistent than in Spanish. This is due to the fact that English has a complex pronunciation system with many exceptions to general rules. For example, the grapheme "ough" can represent different phonemes in words such as "tough", "though", and "through". (Gough & Tunmer, 1986)

In Spanish, the correspondence between grapheme and phoneme is more direct and consistent than in English. This is because Spanish has a more regular pronunciation system. For example, the grapheme "a" always represents the phoneme /a/, regardless of the position of the letter in the word. (Alegría, 2006)

Explanation of the differences

The differences in grapheme-phoneme transparency between English and Spanish can have a significant impact on the learning of reading in these two languages. In English, students must learn to recognize and apply a series of complex pronunciation rules. This can make it difficult for students who are not native speakers of the language to learn to read.

In Spanish, students have a more solid foundation for learning to read. The correspondence between grapheme and phoneme is more direct and consistent, which makes it easier to recognize words. This can help students learn to read faster and more efficiently. (Alegría, 2006)

Grapheme-phoneme transparency is an important factor that affects the learning of reading. Writing systems with high grapheme-phoneme transparency make it easier for students to learn to read.

Castles et al. (2003) studied children ages 6 to 7 from Scandinavia and the U.S./Australia. The children were tested on their oral language skills and reading and writing in their respective languages. Children with reading and spelling difficulties were defined as those in the bottom 20% of their age group in reading and/or writing.

The study found that children with reading and spelling difficulties had lower phonological knowledge and phonological awareness than children without reading and spelling difficulties. However, the differences between the two groups were larger in English and Australian (opaque) orthographies than in Scandinavian (transparent) orthographies.

 This suggests that phonological knowledge and awareness are more important for predicting reading and spelling difficulties in opaque orthographies, which are more complex and have fewer grapheme-phoneme correspondences.

Sánchez-López et al. (2009) reviewed the literature on phonemic awareness and reading acquisition in Spanish. The authors concluded that phonemic awareness is an important factor in reading acquisition in Spanish, but that its importance is less than in English.

A study conducted at the University of California, Berkeley (Goldenberg et al. 2014) examined the relationship between phonemic awareness and Spanish reading acquisition in three groups of Spanish-speaking children: children in Mexico who received Spanish reading instruction, and children in the United States who received Spanish or English reading instruction. Children were assessed on their oral language and Spanish reading skills at the beginning and end of first and second grade.

Children in Mexico had the lowest phonemic awareness of the three groups and very low reading skills at the beginning of first grade. However, by the end of second grade, they had matched or exceeded the reading skills of U.S. students, despite maintaining lower phonemic awareness.

The study findings called into question whether teaching phonemic awareness is beneficial for children learning to read in Spanish. The authors suggested that Spanish reading instruction should focus on developing basic phonological knowledge and teaching grapheme-phoneme correspondences. However, they also suggested that teachers should be aware that phonemic awareness may not have been the most important factor for Spanish reading success.

Based on the studies presented, we can conclude that phonemic awareness is a relevant predictor of reading in Spanish, although it is not as important as in English for student literacy. It is essential that Spanish reading programs use phonemic awareness exercises in a balanced way, to help students acquire reading more fluently and without excessive effort.


Alegría, J. (2006). La lectura en la primera infancia: Un enfoque psicolingüístico. Madrid: Síntesis.

Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Davis, C., & Martin, M. (2003). Predicting reading and spelling difficulties in children from different orthographies. Child Development, 74(4), 1140-1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00582

Goldenberg, C., Tolar, T. D., Reese, L., Francis, D. J., Bazán, A. R., & Mejía-Arauz, R. (2014). How important is teaching phonemic awareness to children learning to read in Spanish? American Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 604-633. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214529082

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 7(1), 6–101

Sánchez-López, M., Pérez-Pereira, M., & Cuetos, F. (2009). The role of phonemic awareness in the acquisition of reading in Spanish: A literature review. International Journal of Psychology and Education, 2(1), 67-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.05.001

sábado, 7 de octubre de 2023




The Kinestema Program by Andrés Marín is based on a multisensory approach that utilizes different senses to facilitate student learning. Research findings demonstrate that multisensory strategies are effective in improving learning, particularly in the realm of literacy. The studies analyzed in this section support the hypothesis that multisensory learning is more effective than unisensory or bisensory learning.

The research of Slavin and Cheung (2003) together with the meta-analysis of Claessens and Harlaar (2008), support the view of Shams and Seitz (2008) on the efficacy of multisensory versus unisensory or bisensory learning. All of them found that multisensory instruction significantly improved the reading skills of students with learning difficulties.

Shams and Seitz argue that multisensory learning is more beneficial because it is more similar to how we experience the world and activates the brain’s multisensory learning mechanisms. According to these authors, training protocols that utilize unisensory stimuli may not be optimal for learning. Instead, they contend that training protocols incorporating multisensory stimuli can better replicate natural environments and are more effective for learning.

Kuo and Anderson (2010) examined the impact of multisensory instruction on learning the meanings of words. They found that multisensory instruction significantly improved students' ability to learn and remember new words, concluding that it is an effective strategy for enhancing word learning. On the other hand, DeClercq et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of 16 studies that assessed the impact of multisensory instruction on reading skills in children with dyslexia. The authors found that multisensory instruction significantly improved reading abilities in children with dyslexia, compared to those who received unisensory or bisensory instruction. Overall, they concluded that multisensory instruction is an effective strategy for improving reading skills in children with dyslexia.

To highlight the idea, Syahputri (2018) designed an experimental study with seventh-grade and second-year high school students in Indonesia and found that the multisensory teaching method had a significant positive effect on students' reading achievement. The multisensory teaching method accounted for 82% of the change in students' reading achievement, while the remaining 18% was influenced by other factors. The pretest and posttest results showed that students who received the multisensory teaching method performed better on reading comprehension tests than students who received traditional instruction.

To conclude, I would like to cite a literature review by Gómez and López (2020) where they explored how multisensory teaching can optimize literacy learning. The authors examined various studies and found that multisensory teaching improved reading comprehension, spelling, and handwriting. Additionally, the authors concluded that students who received multisensory instruction also improved their ability to identify and manipulate language sounds. Overall, they concluded that multisensory teaching is an effective strategy for literacy learning.




Claessens, A., & Harlaar, N. (2008). The effects of multisensory instruction on the reading comprehension of children with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 143-161.

DeClercq, N., Van Keer, H., & Desoete, A. (2011). The effects of multisensory instruction on the reading skills of children with dyslexia: A meta-analysis. Dyslexia, 17(4), 331-344.

Gómez, A., & López, M. (2020). La enseñanza multisensorial en el aprendizaje de la lectoescritura: una revisión de la literatura. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 247, 60-65.

Kuo, L.-J., & Anderson, R. C. (2010). The effect of multisensory instruction on the learning of word meanings. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 389-404. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.67

Shams L, Seitz AR. Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Nov;12(11):411-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.006. PMID: 18805039.  

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading instruction for students with learning disabilities: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 447-484.

Syahputri, D. (2018). The Effect of Multisensory Teaching Method on The Students' Reading Achievement. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 8(11), 1-4.

martes, 8 de agosto de 2023

El desarrollo de la escritura alfabética


El primer sistema de escritura alfabético se desarrolló en Fenicia alrededor del siglo X a.C. (DeFrancis, 1989). El alfabeto fenicio tenía solo 22 letras, cada una de las cuales representaba un sonido (Olson, 1994). Esto hizo que el alfabeto fenicio fuera mucho más fácil de aprender que los sistemas de escritura anteriores, que a menudo usaban cientos o incluso miles de símbolos. Se cree que el alfabeto fenicio se inspiró en el sistema de escritura egipcio, ya que los fenicios eran un pueblo de comerciantes que viajaban por todo el Mediterráneo, y habrían estado expuestos al sistema de escritura egipcio en sus viajes. Es factible que los fenicios simplificaran el sistema de escritura egipcio para hacerlo más fácil de aprender y utilizar.

Alfabeto fenicio (De Luca)
El alfabeto fenicio fue adoptado por los griegos, quienes agregaron cinco letras para representar sonidos que no existían en el idioma fenicio (/φ/, /χ/, /ψ/, /ω/ y /ξ/). Esta adaptación del alfabeto fenicio resultó crucial en el desarrollo de la escritura y la comunicación en la antigua Grecia.

La inclusión de estas nuevas letras permitió a los griegos expresar una gama más amplia de sonidos y palabras en su idioma (Albright, 2004). En particular, estas adiciones fueron especialmente relevantes para el desarrollo de la filosofía y la literatura griega, al facilitar la transmisión de ideas complejas y destacadas (Cohen, 2000).

Además, las letras añadidas al alfabeto griego también influirían en otros sistemas de escritura, como el latino y el cirílico, que son utilizados ampliamente hoy en día. Mediante la introducción de nuevas letras para representar sonidos específicos, los griegos sentaron las bases para la alfabetización y el intercambio de conocimientos en sociedades posteriores: habían creado el principio alfabético, una letra para cada sonido y un sonido para cada letra.

Cuando se sigue la evolución del alfabeto griego al latino, llama la atención que las grafías no sean iguales. Esto se debe a que la adopción del sistema alfabético griego por parte de los romanos no fue directa, sino que se introdujo a través del alfabeto etrusco (Wachter, 2001). Etruria se encontraba situada al norte de Roma y fue integrada gradualmente en el imperio durante el siglo IV a. C. El alfabeto etrusco no era una copia exacta del alfabeto griego, ya que los etruscos habían modificado algunas letras (Daniels, 1996), aunque tanto en fenicio, griego, etrusco y latín la letra A se escribía prácticamente igual. Otra razón es que los alfabetos griego y latino fueron evolucionando, y la forma de las letras ha cambiado con el tiempo. Por ejemplo, la letra griega "phi" se escribía originalmente de una manera diferente a la forma en que se escribe hoy en día (Naveh,2005).

De todos modos, la conversión del abecedario de origen griego al romano implicó la adición de tres nuevas letras para adaptarse a la fonología de su idioma (Cohen, 2000). Estas letras adicionales fueron "Y" (ipsilon en griego), "Z" (zeta en griego) y "W" (omega en griego), y se sumaron a las 23 letras originales del alfabeto griego.

Su uso por parte del Imperio Romano y su posterior difusión han dejado un impacto duradero en la cultura y la comunicación escrita (Albright, 2004). El desarrollo del alfabeto fue una innovación importante en la historia de la comunicación; hizo que la lectura y la escritura fueran más fáciles de aprender, lo que condujo a un aumento en la alfabetización en todo el mundo (Daniels, 1996; Naveh, 2005).

El alfabeto romano sigue siendo utilizado en la actualidad en muchas lenguas (Albright, 2004). El desarrollo del alfabeto ha tenido un impacto profundo en la historia de la humanidad. Ha permitido que la información se comparta y conserve de una manera más eficiente, lo que ha contribuido al progreso científico, cultural y tecnológico.



Albright, W. F. (2004). From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. Doubleday.

Anthony, David W., and John W. Hoopes. "The Kurgan hypothesis: archaeological evidence and linguistic reconstruction." Current Anthropology 27.4 (1986): 437-450.

Bahn, Paul G., and Jean Vertut. "Ice Age art." London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988.

Cohen, D. (2000). The Development of Writing in Ancient Greece. Cambridge University Press

Conard, Nicholas J. "Symbolic behavior in the Middle Paleolithic: a review of evidence and interpretations." Current Anthropology 38.4 (1997): 511-537.

Daniels, P. T. (1996). The invention of writing: A history of the earliest scripts. London: Thames & Hudson.

DeFrancis, J. (1989). Visible speech: The invention of writing and its impact on human development. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Gamble, Clive. "The Palaeolithic settlement of Europe." Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Gimbutas, Marija. "The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe." Journal of Indo-European Studies 1.1 (1973): 1-26.

Leroi-Gourhan, André. "The art of the Upper Paleolithic." Scientific American 208.4 (1963): 44-53.

Naveh, J. (2005). Early history of the alphabet: From the Phoenicians to the Greeks. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Norman, Jerry. (1988). Chinese. Cambridge University Press.

Ogden, Daniel. "The Vinča Script." Journal of World Prehistory 7.2 (1993): 157-208.

Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive development of writing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sampson, Geoffrey. (1985). Writing systems: A linguistic introduction. London: Routledge

Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. "The earliest writing." Scientific American 246.3 (1982): 50-59.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wachter, R. (2001). Altitalische Dialekte. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

lunes, 7 de agosto de 2023


Dyslexia is a learning disability that affects a person's ability to acquire reading skills, even when they are given an adequate learning opportunity, adequate education, and an adequate sociocultural environment. Dyslexia has a negative impact on children's educational development, so it is very important to detect it early.

 What is a neural network?

 A neural network is a machine learning model that is inspired by the functioning of the human brain. It is composed of a set of interconnected nodes. Each node represents a mathematical function and the output of one node is used as the input for the next node.

 What is a convolutional neural network?

 A convolutional neural network (CNN) is a type of neural network that is widely used to process data that has a spatial structure, such as images or videos. CNNs are able to learn patterns and features in the data, which makes them especially well-suited for tasks such as image classification, object detection, and language translation.

 Why are 1D CNNs useful?

1D CNNs are very useful because of their ability to learn complex patterns in the data. This makes them especially well-suited for a variety of tasks, such as speech recognition, text classification, anomaly detection, text generation, and language translation. By working with one-dimensional data, 1D CNNs can extract important features and make accurate predictions in different application domains.

What is an electrooculography?

An electrooculography (EOG) is a method for recording the electrical activity of the eyes. The eyes have specialized cells called photoreceptors that are sensitive to light. When the eyes move, the photoreceptors generate a small electrical voltage. This voltage can be measured by an EOG.

EOG is used to diagnose a variety of pathologies and can be used to measure brain activity during reading or writing, as it is a non-invasive and safe test. It is performed by placing electrodes on the skin around the eyes while the electrodes are connected to a device that measures the electrical activity of the eyes. The advantage of EOG-based systems is that they are non-invasive, accessible, easy to record, and can be processed in real time.

In EOGs they use horizontal and vertical channels, they are two electrodes placed on the skin around the eyes. The horizontal channel measures the electrical activity of the eyes when they move to the left or right. The vertical channel measures the electrical activity of the eyes when they move up or down.

Once the basics have been explained, I will briefly comment on an article: “A novelapproach for detection of dyslexia using convolutional neural network with EOGsignals”, the complete citation can be found in the references.

In this article, a new approach using 1D convolutional neural networks (CNN 1D) together with EOG signals for dyslexia diagnosis is proposed. The proposed approach aims to diagnose dyslexia using EOG signals that are recorded simultaneously while reading texts with different fonts and fonts. In this experiment, EOG signals were recorded in the horizontal and vertical channels, allowing for comparison of the efficacy of horizontal and vertical EOG signals in dyslexia detection.

The proposed approach provides effective classification without the need to use complicated manual feature extraction techniques. The method proposed a classification with an accuracy of 98.70% and 80.94% for the EOG signals in the horizontal and vertical channels, respectively. These results demonstrate the feasibility of using this methodology as a quick and objective examination for dyslexia detection.

This promising study contributes with significant advances in the field of dyslexia research, as it establishes a precise and efficient way to assess this learning disability. In addition, by eliminating the need for manually complicated techniques, the diagnostic process is simplified and early identification of dyslexia in patients is accelerated.

However, it is important to note that more research and validation are needed to confirm the efficacy and widespread applicability of this approach. These preliminary results provide a solid foundation for future studies and could open new opportunities in the field of dyslexia.


Abu-Elhanna, A., & Abu-Bader, S. (2019). A novel 1D CNN approach using EOG signals for dyslexia diagnosis. Journal of Medical Systems, 43(1), 1-10.

Badre, S., & Abu-Bader, S. (2019). The effect of dyslexia on visual attention. Journal of Ophthalmology, 2019, 1-9.

De Stefano, C., & Facoetti, A. (2018). Eye movements in dyslexia: A review. Dyslexia, 24(1), 1-18.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., Barnes, M. L., & Stuebing, K. K. (2004). Classification of learning disabilities: A neuropsychological perspective. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(4), 188-203.

Graves, A., Jaitly, N., Mohamed, A. R., & Hinton, G. E. (2013). Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (pp. 2661-2669).

Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735-1780.

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 125-132.

Ileri, R., Latifoğlu, F. & Demirci, E. A novel approach for detection of dyslexia using convolutional neural network with EOG signals. Med Biol Eng Comput 60, 3041–3055 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-022-02656-3

James, C., & Chen, Y. (2018). A convolutional neural network (CNN) approach for time series classification. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 30(3), 569-582.

LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. (1998). Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 22-30).

Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Chhabra, S. (2001). Reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 19, pp. 13250-13255). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S., & Dean, J. (2010). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 3111-3119).

martes, 1 de agosto de 2023

The Global Method of Reading for Children

The global method is a method of teaching reading that is based on the global recognition of words, without breaking them down into syllables or letters. This method was developed in the 19th century by the Swiss pedagogue Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746-1827).

Pestalozzi believed that children learn best through practical experience and exploration. Therefore, his method of teaching reading was based on the recognition of complete words, instead of the analysis of the syllables or letters that compose them. This methodology continued to be applied and developed by Ovide Decroly (1871-1932), a Belgian pedagogue who founded the New School of Brussels in 1907.

One of the main problems with the global method is that it does not help children to develop phonological awareness. Phonological awareness is the ability to identify and manipulate the sounds of language. This skill is essential for learning to read, as it is necessary to relate the sounds to the letters.

Without phonological awareness, children may have difficulty learning to read. This is because they will not be able to break down words into syllables or letters, and they will not be able to associate the sounds with the letters. As a result, they may have difficulty recognizing the words, pronouncing them correctly, and understanding what they read.

Another problem with the global method is that it does not help children to learn spelling rules, which is essential for writing correctly. If readers do not know how to break down words into syllables or letters, they will face future spelling difficulties.

On the other hand, the global method can lead to problems with reading fluency and comprehension. Without learning to recognize and pronounce words correctly individually, there will be difficulties in reading fluency and comprehension.

In conclusion, the global method of teaching reading has a number of serious problems:

  • It does not promote phonological awareness.
  • It does not help children to learn spelling rules.
  • It can affect reading fluency and comprehension.
  • It can favor the appearance of dyslexia symptoms.

If you are considering using the global method to teach your child to read, it is important to be aware of the potential risks involved. There are other more effective methods of teaching reading that do not present the same risks.

One  of the most effective methods of teaching reading is:

  • Phonics-based methods: This method teaches children the relationship between letters and sounds, which helps them to decode words.

This method is more effective than the whole-language method because it helps children to develop phonological awareness, learn spelling rules, improve their reading fluency, and understand what they read better.



Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Asensi, M. J. (2019). El método global: una propuesta para la enseñanza de la lectura. Madrid: Síntesis.

Decroly, O. (1920). The new education in Belgium. New York: E.P. Dutton.

Ehri, L. C. (2005). Reading comprehension instruction that works. New York: Guilford Press.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447.

Lyon, G. R. (1998). Learning disabilities: A coming of age. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(1), 101-102.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151-218.

Snow, C. E. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

miércoles, 26 de julio de 2023


Reading and Writing with Kinestemas

The Kinesthema© Program, also known as LEK (Lectura y Escritura por Kinestemas ©), was created by Spanish neuropsychologist Andrés Marín at the end of the 20th century and published in 2016.This literacy methodology is based on neuroscience and focuses on the use of kinesthetic techniques to enhance learning and increase information retention.

Kinesthetic techniques involve body movement and their use can improve brain plasticity and long-term memory. The Kinestem Reading Method (Lectura y Escritura por Kinestemas© in Spain), or Kinestema© Program (in USA), focuses on using structured body movements to relate abstract concepts to physical action, which facilitates information retention.

According to research conducted by Marín and his team, the Kinestema Program is effective in improving the learning of language-related skills such as writing and reading, both when learning difficulties exist and when they do not. Additionally, students participating in the program report a higher degree of motivation and enjoyment in the learning process.

The program is designed to help children learn to read and write, starting at three years of mental age, in a way that is fun and effective.

The Kinestema© Program is based on a series of principles that are well-supported by the scientific literature.

First, the program is multisensory, which means that it uses a variety of sensory stimuli and their respective memories, such as sound, sight, touch, and movement, to facilitate learning and make it more enjoyable for children.

Second, the program focuses on the development of procedural skills, i.e., those skills necessary to perform specific tasks. This includes skills such as hand-eye coordination, spatial orientation, and motor memory, which benefit from this approach.

In addition, the program uses the trial-and-success method, which gives children the opportunity to learn by doing, thus developing confidence and self-regulation.

Finally, the program is tailored to the needs of each individual child, using the zones of proximal development as a guide. In this way, each child is provided with a level of support appropriate to their developmental level, maximizing their learning and progress in the program.

In summary, the Kinesthema program uses a series of principles, based on scientific literature, that seek to improve children's learning in an effective and personalized way.

lunes, 3 de julio de 2023



Kinestema literacy program

Aprendizaje de lectura con el programa kinestema

La eficacia del programa Kinestema en las habilidades de aprendizaje de lectura en estudiantes de escuela primaria.

La eficacia del programa Kinestema en las habilidades de aprendizaje de lectura en estudiantes de escuela primaria ha sido un tema de interés. El programa Kinestema está diseñado para dividir todo el aprendizaje necesario para la alfabetización en diferentes procedimientos, y cada procedimiento se centra en un aspecto específico de la adquisición de la lectura [1]. Se han realizado estudios para examinar el impacto de este programa en el logro de comprensión de lectura. Un estudio encontró que había una diferencia significativa en el rendimiento de comprensión de lectura entre los estudiantes a los que se les enseñó con el programa Kinestema y los que no [2]. 

Además, la investigación ha explorado los efectos de los programas de aprendizaje basados ​​en el lenguaje en el rendimiento de lectura en estudiantes de jardín de infantes. Estos estudios han mostrado resultados positivos en la mejora de las habilidades de lectura en los jóvenes estudiantes [3]. Para mejorar el éxito de lectura de los niños, se han examinado varios enfoques, incluido el programa Kinestema, y ​​se han realizado revisiones sistemáticas para evaluar su eficacia [4]. Además, la investigación ha resaltado la importancia de las lecturas en voz alta y el apoyo de los adultos para brindar acceso a los libros a los niños de jardín de infantes con habilidades limitadas de lectura independiente [5]. En general, el programa Kinestema se muestra prometedor en la mejora de las habilidades de aprendizaje de lectura en los estudiantes de escuela primaria, como lo demuestra su impacto positivo en el logro de la comprensión de lectura y su alineación con enfoques efectivos de aprendizaje basados ​​en el lenguaje.

Kinestema literacy program

The effectiveness of the Kinestema program in reading learning skills in primary school students.

The effectiveness of the Kinestema program in reading learning skills in primary school students has been a topic of interest. The Kinestema program is designed to divide all the necessary learning for literacy into different procedures, and each procedure focuses on a specific aspect of reading acquisition [1]. Studies have been conducted to examine the impact of this program on reading comprehension achievement. One study found that there was a significant difference in reading comprehension performance between students who were taught with the Kinestema program and those who were not [2]. 

In addition, research has explored the effects of language-based learning programs on reading performance in kindergarten students. These studies have shown positive results in improving reading skills in young students [3]. To enhance children's reading success, various approaches have been examined, including the Kinestema program, and systematic reviews have been conducted to evaluate its effectiveness [4]. Furthermore, research has highlighted the importance of read-alouds and adult support in providing access to books for kindergarten children with limited independent reading skills [5]. Overall, the Kinestema program shows promise in improving reading learning skills in primary school students, as demonstrated by its positive impact on reading comprehension achievement and its alignment with effective language-based learning approaches.


1. Kinestems program. (n.d.) Recuperado July 3, 2023, de http://kinestemus.com/kinestems-program/

2. EJ1304478 - The Effectiveness of K-W-L Technique to ... - ERIC. (n.d.) Recuperado July 3, 2023, de eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1304478

3. the effects of the language for learning program - ScholarWorks. (n.d.) Recuperado July 3, 2023, de scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/zp38wd53r

4. (PDF) Effective Reading Programs for the Elementary Grades. (n.d.) Recuperado July 3, 2023, de www.researchgate.net

5.  Modeling Reading Ability Gain in Kindergarten Children .... (n.d.) Recuperado July 3, 2023, de www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6371