Kinestema: Driving Bilingualism Through Innovation

Kinestema was present at the 2024 Conference of the Texas Association for Bilingual Education. At our booth, attendees could get a close look at our full range of products and services designed to facilitate bilingual literacy in Spanish.

But that wasn't all. We also organized a conference on 'Reading and Writing through Kinesthemas using our Kinestem program'. In this presentation, we explored how our unique methodology can help students learn to read and write effectively and enjoyably.

Did you know there are different types of bilingualism? In our entry, we'll delve deeper into this topic.

What is bilingualism?

Bilingualism is defined as the ability to use two languages alternately. This skill not only involves knowledge of two languages but also the ability to switch between them according to context and need.

Are all bilinguals the same?

There are several types of bilingualism:

• Compound vs. coordinate bilingualism: Compound bilingualism refers to the integration of two languages in the speaker's mind, where both languages are interrelated. In contrast, coordinate bilingualism involves the use of two languages separately, where each language is associated with specific contexts or situations.

• Simultaneous vs. successive bilingualism: Simultaneous bilingualism occurs when a person learns two languages from infancy, while successive bilingualism refers to the acquisition of a second language after mastering the first.

• Additive vs. subtractive bilingualism: In additive bilingualism, the acquisition of a second language adds to the mother tongue without the latter being affected. On the contrary, subtractive bilingualism can lead to the loss of the mother tongue, as the second language becomes dominant.

• Balanced vs. dominant bilingualism: Balanced bilingualism occurs when the speaker has a similar level of proficiency in both languages. In contrast, dominant bilingualism is characterized by greater mastery of one language over the other.

Is it cognitively beneficial?

Bilingualism not only has linguistic implications but is also associated with several cognitive benefits:

• Greater cognitive flexibility and creativity: Bilinguals tend to show a greater capacity for flexible and creative thinking, as switching between languages fosters innovation in thought.

• Better attentional control and executive functions (1): Bilingual speakers often have better attention control and executive skills, allowing them to manage multiple tasks more effectively.

• Superior metalinguistic development: Bilingualism promotes a deeper understanding of language structure and function, resulting in more advanced metalinguistic development.

• Possible delay in the onset of dementia symptoms: Some studies suggest that bilingualism may be related to a delay in the onset of dementia symptoms, indicating a protective effect on cognitive health in old age.

Factors Influencing Cognitive Effects

Several factors can modulate the cognitive effects of bilingualism:

• Age of second language acquisition: The age at which a second language is learned can influence fluency and associated cognitive benefits.

• Level of proficiency in both languages: A high level of proficiency in both languages can maximize cognitive benefits.

• Frequency of language use: Regular practice of both languages is crucial to maintain and develop linguistic and cognitive skills.

• Sociocultural context: The environment in which the language is learned and used also plays an important role in the development of bilingualism and its cognitive effects.

What are the Educational Implications?

Bilingual education programs can offer significant cognitive and academic benefits for students, provided they are implemented properly. Bilingual education not only improves language skills but can also enhance academic performance in other areas, promoting more comprehensive and effective learning.

1. Executive skills are a set of cognitive functions that allow people to plan, make decisions, solve problems, control impulses, and carry out complex tasks. These skills are fundamental for daily functioning and are primarily regulated by the frontal lobe of the brain.

Elements of a Kinestema

 A kinestema in the LEK method or Kinestem Program consists of two fundamental parts:

1. Multisensory Information Set

This part of the kinestema is a complete representation of a phoneme that includes:

• The sum of all sensations and mental representations associated with the emission of a specific speech sound.
• Information from multiple senses:
  - Auditory: how the phoneme sounds
  - Visual: how the mouth looks when pronouncing it
  - Kinesthetic: what movements are made to produce it
  - Proprioceptive: how the speech organs feel when forming it
  - Tactile: what tactile sensations are experienced

Important characteristics:

• Goes beyond a simple gesture
• Encompasses all perceptions and sensations involved in sound production
• Allows the learner to mentally manipulate phonemes, facilitating metaphonological awareness practice

2. The Connector

The connector is the element that links the multisensory information with a specific letter:

• It is associated with a body part where the student feels the sensory information
• This body part "draws" the shape of the letter
• Transforms the letter from an abstract symbol to an icon representing concrete sensations for the student

Key benefit:

• The letter becomes an icon with a lower degree of abstraction, which significantly facilitates its reading and comprehension.
• The use of kinestemas makes learning to read more accessible and fun for children. Instead of seeing letters as abstract symbols, they associate them with concrete sensory experiences.

Note: Kinestema(tm) is marketed in the USA as the KINESTEMA PROGRAM and in Spain as the LEK method (Lectura y Escritura por Kinestemas(tm)).

 Over 2,000 Visitors in the Last 30 Days!

We're thrilled to announce that our blog has reached a major milestone: over 2,000 people from around the world have visited our site in the past 30 days! This is a testament to the hard work we put into creating high-quality, informative content that resonates with our readers.

As you can see from the graph, we've had a steady stream of visitors from both the United States and Spain. It's amazing to see how our content is reaching people from different cultures and backgrounds. We're so grateful for your support and for taking the time to read our blog posts.

What does this mean for you?

More great content: We're committed to providing you with valuable and engaging content that you'll love.

A growing community: Join our community of readers and connect with like-minded individuals.

Opportunities to learn: Discover new things and expand your knowledge.

Thank you again for reading our blog. 

We're excited to see what the future holds!

Keywords: blog, visitors, international audience, USA, Spain, growth, community, content, thank you

Kinestema 2025: A Dynamic New Approach to Early Childhood Education

Discover what's new in the 2025 Edition:

Get ready to revolutionize your early childhood classroom! The all-new 2025 edition of Kinestema is here, and it's packed with exciting updates designed to make learning more engaging and effective for every child.

Whether you're teaching Pre-K, Kindergarten, or first grade, or working with students who have special needs, Kinestema 2025 offers a comprehensive and adaptable solution.

Updated kinestemas: Our iconic kinestemas have been refreshed with new designs and movements to spark curiosity and promote physical development.

Enhanced connectors: Strengthen connections between concepts with our improved connectors, fostering a deeper understanding of the material.

Redesigned font: Our easy-to-read font ensures optimal visual comfort and supports emerging readers.

More exercises: A variety of engaging exercises promote active learning and cater to different learning styles.

Improved design: The overall design has been streamlined for better readability and a more enjoyable learning experience.

Why Kinestema 2025 is a game-changer:

Inclusive design: Our materials are now even more inclusive, providing support for students with diverse needs.

Adaptable to individual needs: Kinestema can be customized to meet the unique requirements of each child, ensuring that every learner can succeed.

Engaging and effective: Our dynamic approach to learning keeps students motivated and promotes long-lasting learning.

Ready to experience the future of early childhood education?

Keywords: Kinestema, early childhood education, special needs, inclusive education, Pre-K, Kindergarten, first grade, updated, enhanced, redesigned, dynamic learning, engaging, effective

Basado en el libro de Andrés Marín · Based on the upcoming book by Andrés Marín

Próximamente en Amazon en dos ediciones independientes / Coming soon to Amazon in two separate editions:

🇪🇸 Mente Bilingüe: Neurociencia y lectoescritura 🇺🇸 The Bilingual Mind: Neuroscience and literacy

OPAQUE AND TRANSPARENT LANGUAGES

Why You Can’t Teach Reading in Spanish the Same Way You Do in English

A child reads the word "casa" smoothly and effortlessly in Spanish but freezes completely when facing "through" in English. Is it a lack of phonics practice? A focus issue? No. It’s the architecture of orthographic transparency.

If you teach, lead, or parent in a bilingual immersion environment, you’ve likely noticed that the process where reading finally "clicks" happens at drastically different speeds and in completely different ways depending on the language. The reason behind this phenomenon has nothing to do with intelligence levels, student motivation, or the quality of instruction; it is entirely due to the deep structure of the writing system itself.

Understanding the critical difference between transparent and opaque orthographies is the missing link that explains why literacy instruction cannot simply be copy-pasted from one language to the other.

🔍 What "Transparent" and "Opaque" Really Mean

First, a fundamental scientific clarification: transparency refers strictly to the writing system (the orthography), never to the spoken language. Both Spanish and English are equally rich, complex, and governed by precise rules in their auditory spectrums. The divergence lies in the predictability with which written letters map to sounds:

Type of Orthography	Key Characteristic	Examples
Transparent (Shallow)	Highly consistent grapheme-phoneme relationship. Students accurately decode almost any word upon first exposure.	Spanish, Italian, Finnish
Opaque (Deep)	A dense web of historical irregularities and borrowings. Requires memorizing morphological patterns and relying on the stored lexicon.	English, French

💡 Important nuance: Transparency is not binary; it is a spectrum. Even in Spanish, there are subtle irregularities (silent h, the g/j ambiguity, and contextual rules for c/z). Similarly, in English, a considerable proportion of words follow predictable patterns. Nevertheless, the density of exceptions radically redefines how the brain processes and automates reading (Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005).

📊 The English–Spanish Divide: A Comparative Study

Cross-linguistic empirical research demonstrates that Spanish operates at an estimated grapheme-phoneme regularity rate of 90% to 95%, whereas English sits closer to 45% to 50% (Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). This structural disparity brings unavoidable pedagogical consequences:

Dimension	Spanish (Transparent Orthography)	English (Opaque Orthography)
Decoding Strategy	Systematic and explicit phonic-syllabic instruction at the beginning leads to rapid and accurate decoding. Practice quickly shifts toward blending syllables into full words and automating the visual route.	Sustained explicit phonics + instruction on irregularities. Decoding requires more time and lexical support.
Common Error Profile	Minimal accuracy errors; "initial slowness" reflects the normative transition from the phonological (syllabic) route to the lexical (visual) route.	Frequent incorrect phonetic guesses (e.g., pronouncing tough as /tuff/) and substitutions in irregular words.
Instructional Pacing	Rapid mastery of basic correspondences (< 1 year) pivoting toward fluency and comprehension. Reading itself feeds back into phonological awareness.	Extended phonics instruction (2–3 years) + explicit teaching of high-frequency irregular words.

As Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) Simple View of Reading model reminds us, reading comprehension is defined by the equation:

Reading Comprehension = Decoding × Language Comprehension

While decoding acts as the gateway to meaning in both languages, the degree of orthographic transparency determines how many years that gate will remain "locked" for the student.

🎯 The Role of Phonemic Awareness Under a Cross-Linguistic Lens

⚠️ Key terminological clarification: In this text, phonological awareness is the umbrella term (the ability to manipulate spoken sound units). Phonemic awareness is the finest level: isolating and manipulating individual phonemes. The study by Goldenberg et al. (2014) specifically measures this foundational level.

Phonemic awareness is a universal core skill. However, its predictive weight and instructional lifespan vary radically depending on the orthography:

In Opaque Systems (like English)

Phonemic awareness is a robust, long-term predictor. Due to the inconsistency in letter-sound correspondences, children must retain phonological representations in their working memory longer to decode, blend, and self-correct. This demands explicit and sustained instruction over time.

In Transparent Systems (like Spanish)

Phonemic awareness remains an indispensable prerequisite, but its development hits an early "ceiling". Once a child masters the alphabetic principle in Spanish, reading within a transparent system naturally feeds back into and develops phonological awareness—something that does not happen with the same efficiency in English (Goldenberg et al., 2014; Han et al., 2014).

✨ Core Idea: "Phonemic awareness is the launchpad, not the destination."

Key Studies Confirm This:

01

Han et al. (2014)

Observed in early childhood environments that Spanish-speaking children develop early literacy skills along different trajectories than their English-speaking peers, aided by the regularity of the system.

02

Goldenberg et al. (2014)

Conclusively demonstrated that children learning to read in Spanish reach optimal levels of reading proficiency and independent decoding while scoring significantly lower on explicit phonemic awareness tests than their English-speaking peers.

Why does this happen? Goldenberg et al. (2014) point out that the transparent orthography of Spanish acts as a built-in cognitive scaffold: once basic grapheme-phoneme correspondences are internalized, the system immediately rewards accurate decoding. This drastically reduces the working memory load required for abstract, phonological manipulation compared to English.

Pedagogical Conclusion

Context	Recommended Pedagogical Approach
Spanish Classroom	"Phonemic awareness is the launchpad, not the destination." Systematic and explicit phonics instruction at the start leads to a rapid consolidation of correspondences, swiftly pivoting toward text fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Reading itself continues to develop phonological awareness.
English Classroom	Phonemic awareness must be systematically reviewed, deepened, and broken down, alongside explicit instruction in spelling patterns and morphological irregularities for several consecutive years.

🛠️ Practical Implications for Bilingual & Dual Language Immersion (DLI) Classrooms

Do not teach reading in Spanish using English frameworks

Students learning to read in Spanish DO benefit from systematic and explicit phonics instruction at the beginning (the phonetic-syllabic method). What they DO NOT need is:

• Over-training in multiple, complex phonetic rules.
• Artificial exceptions or repetitive "isolated" phonics drills beyond initial consolidation.

What DOES work:

Explicit mapping of the core grapheme-phoneme correspondences + immediate, massive exposure to decodable texts rich in context to catalyze speed and lexical automation (orthographic mapping).

In English, embrace and systemize irregularity

• Introduce high-frequency irregular words (the, said, were, colonel) using specific methodologies like "heart words" or spelling pattern families.
• Isolate complex vowel teams or r-controlled vowels before exposing students to unsystematized exceptions.

Leverage strategic cross-linguistic transfer

• Design explicit bridges for skills that successfully transfer: general metalinguistic awareness, syllabic segmentation, comprehension strategies, and cognate awareness through Latin roots.
• Avoid trying to transfer language-specific orthographic or phonetic rules; they are mutually exclusive.

Adjust your diagnostic assessment criteria

• Spanish: A student who reads accurately but slowly is going through a normative consolidation process—transitioning from the phonological (syllabic) route to the lexical (visual) route. Intervention should focus on fluency and exposure to meaningful text.
• English: A reader who reads quickly but makes arbitrary substitutions in irregular words reveals an underdeveloped lexical route. This student requires reinforcement in orthographic patterns and high-frequency sight words.

Both profiles require completely different types of intervention.

💡 Conclusion

The human brain employs the same underlying neurocognitive machinery to learn to read, regardless of the language: phonological processing, orthographic mapping, and executive control. However, the "rules of the game" and preferred processing routes shift drastically depending on the orthographic transparency of the writing system (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005; Seymour et al., 2003).

Respecting and integrating this difference into daily practice does not mean lowering rigor or expectations; it is about aligning instruction with the actual way the human mind acquires literacy in each language. When we teach Spanish as Spanish and English as English, we stop fighting the internal architecture of the linguistic code and begin working in perfect harmony with it.

The direct result:

• Faster confidence building.
• Elimination of artificial frustration.
• Bilingual students who genuinely master the core of both languages.

Download the Orthographic Transparency Guide for DLI Teachers

💬 Your Turn: What distinct milestones or challenges have you observed when teaching reading in Spanish versus English in your own classroom or with your children? What strategies have helped you bridge both worlds? Let's discuss in the comments below! 👇

🔎 References

Goldenberg, C., Tolar, T., Reese, L., Francis, D., Ray, A., & Mejia-Arauz, R. (2014). How important is teaching phonemic awareness to children learning to read in Spanish? American Educational Research Journal, 51, 604-633.

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.

Han, M., Silva, L., Vukelich, C., Buell, M., & Hou, L. (2014). Development of early English language and literacy skills among Spanish-speaking children: does preschool make a difference? Early Child Development and Care, 184(4), 537–552.

Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 143–174.

Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29.

 

MULTISENSORY LEARNING

 

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.

 

 References

 

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.

El desarrollo de la escritura alfabética

 

El primer sistema de escritura alfabético se desarrolló en Fenicia (1) 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.

NEW TOOLS TO DIAGNOSE DYSLEXIA

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.

TO LEARN MORE

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).

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.

 

REFERENCES

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.

ANDRES MARÍN AND HIS KINESTEMA © READING AND WRITING PROGRAM

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.

 

PROGRAMA KINESTEMA 

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.

 Referencias

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