Eficacia del programa informatizado EPI.com para la mejora de la comprensión y expresión de estudiantes de entre 3 y 6 años

  1. Cueli, Marisol 1
  2. Rodríguez, Celestino 1
  3. González-Castro, Paloma 1
  4. Areces, Débora 1
  5. Álvarez, Ana Isabel 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Oviedo
    info

    Universidad de Oviedo

    Oviedo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/006gksa02

Journal:
Revista de psicodidáctica

ISSN: 1136-1034

Year of publication: 2017

Volume: 22

Issue: 2

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1016/J.PSICOD.2017.05.008 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista de psicodidáctica

Abstract

The acquisition of comprehension and expression abilities is a key issue in learning processes, particularly due to the difficulties students may come across. The computerized tool EPI.com is based on an adaptation of Hypertext to Early Childhood Education, aiming at an improvement in lexical, semantic and syntactic processes. This piece of work aims at analyzing the effectiveness of EPI.com in improving psycholinguistic and verbal aspects in a global way and depending on age. A total of 155 students (aged 3-6) participated, divided into an Experimental Group (EG; 93 students who worked with EPI.com) and a Control Group (CG; 62 students who followed the traditional methodology). They were all evaluated by means of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities and the Peabody test. Results show the effectiveness of the strategy used with the EG, with statistically significant scores in psycholinguistic factors if compared to those in the CG. Three-year olds were those obtaining grater benefits. It is concluded in this study that EPI.com is effective in the improvement of psycholinguistic abilities in the sample used.

Bibliographic References

  • Álvarez, L., y González-Castro, P. (2012). Programa de refuerzo para estimular el pensamiento y la inteligencia EPI.com. Madrid: EOS.
  • Álvarez, L., y Soler, E. (2005). ¡Ya entiendo! Con hypertexto. Madrid: Cepe.
  • Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., y Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitiveview (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Axpe, A., Acosta, V., y Moreno, A. (2012). Intervention strategies in preschool students with specific language impairments. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 17(2), 271–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/Rev.Psicodidact.2571
  • Ballesteros, S., y Cordero, A. (2011). Adaptación española del ITPA. Test Illinois de Aptitudes Psicolingüísticas. Madrid: TEA.
  • Berninger, V. W., y Abbott, R. D. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 635–651.
  • Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., y Austin, G. (2001). El proceso mental en el aprendizaje. Madrid: Narcea S. A. Ediciones.
  • Burin, D., Coccimiglio, Y., González, F., y Bulla, J. (2016). Desarrollos recientes sobre habilidades digitales y comprensión lectora en entornos digitales. Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad, 6(1), 191–206.
  • Carretti, B., y Motta, E. (2014). Oral and written expression in children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 65–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219414528539
  • Cobos, P. L. (2005). Conexionismo y cognición. Madrid: Pirámide.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • De Corte, E., Verschffel, L., y van de Ven, A. (2001). Improving test comprehension strategies in upper primary school children: A design experiment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 531–559. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1348/000709901158668
  • Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., y Arribas, D. (2010). Peabody. Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes. Madrid: TEA.
  • Finney, S. J., y DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. En G. R. Hancock y R. O. Muller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  • Gil, M. D., y Vicent, C. (2009). Análisis comparativo de la eficacia de un programa lúdico-narrativo para la enseñanza de las matemáticas en Educación Infantil. Psicothema, 21(1), 70–75.
  • González-Pienda, J. A., Álvarez, L., González-Castro, P., Núñez, J. C., Bernardo, A., y Álvarez, D. (2008). Estrategia hipertextual computerizada y construcción personal de significados. Psicothema, 20(1), 49–55.
  • González-Valenzuela, M. J., Martín-Ruiz, I., y Delgado-Río, M. (2012). Teaching literacy and decreased risk of learning disabilities. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 17(2), 253–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/Rev.Psicodidact.4502
  • Gutiérrez, R. (2016). Efectos de la lectura dialógica en la mejora de la comprensión lectora de estudiantes de Educación Primaria. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 21(2), 303–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.15017
  • International Association for the evaluation of educational achievement (2011). Resultados de las pruebas PIRLS y TIMSS de 2011 en España. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.
  • Kirk, S., McCarthy, J., y Kirk, W. (1986). ITPA Manual. Test Illinois de Aptitudes Psicolingüísticas. Madrid: TEA.
  • Lazakidou, G., y Retalis, S. (2010). Using computer supported collaborative learning strategies for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(1), 3–13.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (2013). PISA 2012. Programa para la evaluación internacional de los alumnos. Informe español. Volumen I: resultados y contexto. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.
  • Ponce, R., López, J., y Mayer, E. (2012). Instructional effectiveness of a computersupported program for teaching reading comprehension strategies. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1170–1183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.013
  • Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
  • Purvis, A., Aspden, L., Bannister, P., y Helm, P. (2011). Assessment strategies to support higher level learning in blended delivery. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(1), 91–100.
  • Ramus, F., Marshall, C., Rosen, S., y van der Lely, H. (2013). Phonological deficits in specific language impairment and developmental dyslexia: Towards a multidimensional model. Brain, 136, 630–645.
  • Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeau, P., y Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289–312.
  • Ripoll, J. C., y Aguado, G. (2014). La mejora de la comprensión lectora en español: un meta-análisis. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 19(1), 27–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/ RevPsicodidact.9001
  • Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., y Huang, J. S. (2008). Improving children’s reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1552–1571. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009
  • Swanson, H. L., Howard, C. B., y Sáez, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 252–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390030501
  • Watson, M. R., Gable, A., Gear, B., y Hughes, C. (2012). Evidence-based strategies for improving the reading comprehension of secondary students: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 79–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00353.x
  • Williams, J. R. (2008). Revising the Declaration of Helsinki. World Medical Journal, 54, 120–125.
Data source: Dialnet