Youssef Tazouti
email: youssef.tazouti@univ-nancy2.fr

Caroline Viriot-Goeldel

Cornélie Matter

Anémone Geiger-Jaillet

Rita Carol

Dominique Deviterne

French nursery schools and German kindergartens: effects of individual and contextual variables on early learning

Keywords: Early learning, Kindergarten, Multilevel models, Preschool

. Although French nursery schools emphasise academic learning, we did not find any significant differences in overall performances between the French and German samples. However, significant differences were obtained for some subscale results. In addition, our results indicate that individual and contextual variables have an impact on the differences observed between children from the two countries.

Introduction

In its review of early childhood education and care across the world, the OECD (2006) distinguished two dominant currents: the "pre-primary" approach, which is widely used in many southern European and English-speaking countries, and the "social pedagogy" tradition that predominates in northern and central Europe. As their names suggest, the French nursery school (école maternelle) and German kindergarten systems epitomise these two approaches. France's decision to adopt a "pre-school" model and thus favour a scholarly approach to early learning was made over a century ago. Several other European countries, including Spain and Belgium, made similar choices (HCE: Haut Conseil de l'Evaluation de l'Ecole 2003). Conversely, many other countries, including Germany, chose to emphasise the all-round growth of their youngest citizens, adopting a system based on the horticultural metaphor of the "children's garden". Substantial differences remain between French nursery schools, with their school status and focus on learning, and German kindergartens, which put the accent on socialisation through "social pedagogy" (Sozialpädagogik), an idea that arose in Germany in the nineteenth century (OECD 2004b).

The two approaches differ in terms of both teaching methods and teaching content. French nursery schools favour preparatory learning through structured and progressive teaching situations, whereas German kindergartens exploit teaching situations that arise naturally when children interact (Situationsansatz) and make wide use of learning through play. In general, the methods used by kindergartens are child centred and focus on socialisation and developing personality. Preparing children for entry into primary school is only a marginal concern for kindergartens and purely academic learning is often "peripheral". Thus, in contrast to what happens in France, German children do not start formally learning the alphabet, numbers and how to write until they go to primary school [START_REF] Brougère | L'exception française: l'école maternelle face à la diversité des formes préscolaires[END_REF][START_REF] Faust-Siehl | Konzept und Qualität im Kindergarten[END_REF]. These two approaches to early childhood education also differ in the ways the schools operate, the length of the school day and the qualifications held by the teaching staff.

Consequently, it would seem reasonable to ask how these two approaches affect the ways in which young children acquire skills. The growing impact of international surveys has led countries to question the effectiveness and suitability of their chosen pre-school system. In Germany, the poor mean performances of German schoolchildren on the OECD's PISA survey1 (OECD 2001(OECD , 2004a) ) produced an unprecedented media outcry that was quickly followed by proposals for reforms at all levels. Fingers were pointed at several aspects of the system, including the role of pre-school education, and Germany's different states are now investigating a variety of solutions [START_REF] Buhlmann | PISA: Les conséquences pour l'Allemagne[END_REF][START_REF] Hohlmeier | PISA, IGLU und die Folgen-Die Notwendigkeit einer kindgerechten frühen Förderung, insbesondere im Kindergarten[END_REF]. In today's world, with its emphasis on performance and early learning, and given the results of the PISA survey, is there still a place for a model that even Germany is starting to doubt? Is the approach adopted by French nursery schools, which are traditionally considered to be a strong point of the country's education system, more suitable and more effective? In France, the difficulties experienced by a non-negligible number of children when they enter primary school have led the latest report from the HCE: Haut Conseil de l'Evaluation de l'Ecole (2007) to pose a number of questions about the nursery school system. Success at school is strongly linked to a child's skills on entering primary school. At a time when both countries are currently concerned about the limits of their respective models, an answer has yet to be found to the question of whether the basic skills needed for later stages in a child's education are best acquired at an institution in which children play and act freely or at a school in which they follow a structured syllabus and a regular schedule of morning and afternoon lessons for 3 or 4 years.

Despite the differences in learning environments offered by the two systems, they refer to both the Piagetian perspective and the Vygotskyian approach of development and learning. According to Piaget, human intelligence is a particular case of biological adaptation through a process involving the assimilation and accommodation of new experiences that must be suited to the child's level of development. In this orthogenetic vision, educators can only further a child's intellectual development if their awareness of the child's abilities is sufficient for them to be able to offer the right experiences at the right time. According to the Vygotskyian view, development is essentially epigenetic, and educators influence the proximal zone of development. This allows parents to anticipate and accelerate the child's development. In other words, educators can offer their children development opportunities.

Thus, most preschool programmes have a positive impact on later learning [START_REF] Goldring | Evaluating preschool programs: A meta-analytic approach[END_REF][START_REF] Hattie | Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement[END_REF]. However, the most effective are those most structured and managed by well-trained staff [START_REF] Innocenti | Are more intensive early intervention programs more effective? A review of the literature[END_REF]. Similarly, [START_REF] Fusaro | The effect of full-day kindergarten on student achievement: A meta-analysis[END_REF] found that children attending full-day kindergarten showed significantly greater achievement than those attending half-day.

Surprisingly, and despite the innumerable international surveys that have been carried out at all levels of elementary and secondary education, this question has not been widely addressed. Several studies describe how French nursery schools and German kindergartens function (e.g. [START_REF] Brougère | Jeu et éducation[END_REF][START_REF] Brougère | Jeu et objectifs pédagogiques: une approche comparative de l'éducation préscolaire[END_REF][START_REF] Brougère | L'exception française: l'école maternelle face à la diversité des formes préscolaires[END_REF][START_REF] Vaniscotte | Les Ecoles de l'Europe: systèmes éducatifs et dimension européenne[END_REF][START_REF] Vaniscotte | Une comparaison européenne des structures et des contenus[END_REF] and their effects on skills acquisition by children (e.g. [START_REF] Bressoux | Diversité des pratiques à l'école élémentaire[END_REF][START_REF] Cèbe | Education cognitive à l'école maternelle et apprentissage de la lecture en primaire[END_REF][START_REF] Leroy-Audouin | L'école maternelle entre la diversité des élèves et la continuité éducative: du passage anticipé au cours préparatoire au cycle des apprentissages fondamentaux[END_REF][START_REF] Suchaut | La gestion du temps à l'école primaire: diversité des pratiques et effets sur les acquisitions des élèves[END_REF]; however, we have not found any research that systematically compares the two approaches. Consequently, we decided to investigate how the French and German approaches to early learning affect the development of abilities that facilitate the acquisition of basic pre-school skills, notably in the fields of reading, writing and arithmetic.

We hypothesised that there would be differences between the cognitive acquisitions of French and German children at the end of nursery school or kindergarten. Three groups of variables were examined to explain any differences between French and German children.

First, the nature of the educational establishment (nursery school vs. kindergarten) might influence skills acquisition. Second, as shown in many studies [START_REF] Hattie | Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement[END_REF][START_REF] Hyde | The gender similarities hypothesis[END_REF], individual variables (social class, gender, etc.) can affect a pupil's performance. Finally, family characteristics may also explain the differences between French and German children; therefore, we measured parents' expectations of pre-school education and modelled possible repercussions of these expectations on their child's performance. We also looked at the effect of the family educational practices, which could difer between French and German countries in regard of the historical and philosophical backgrounds that forged French nursery schools and German kindergartens. In this respect, Prêteur andLouvet-Schmauss (1991, 1994) showed that family educational practices concerning reading, writing and arithmetic contribute to variations between pupils. For example, the correlation with improved performance is higher for a variety of less formal practices parents commonly use to help their children learn to read (reading children's books, going to libraries and use of writing in everyday situations) than it is with other more traditional and formal practices, such as teaching sound-spelling patterns.

Methodology

Participants

We had the opportunity to recruit participants in two French regions (Alsace and Lorraine) and in two German regions (Baden-Württemberg and Sar). We chose to retain only the two most representative of the two systems of preschool (Kindergarten and Ecole Maternelle). Thus, Alsace and Sar were excluded because of their historical and cultural proximity.

Our study was based on 552 children. The French sample contained 299 children (166 girls and 133 boys) who were in their final year of preschool at 12 nursery schools in Lorraine. The German sample contained 253 children (121 girls and 132 boys) who were in their final year of preschool at 10 kindergartens in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg.2 Approximately 10% of parents in the French sample and about 20% of parents in the German sample were of foreign nationality. The mean ages of the children tested were 5 years 9 months for the French sample and 6 years 2 months for the German sample. This age difference is mostly due to differences in the school calendar between the two countries.

Measures

Evaluation scale for first learning abilities

For the purposes of the present study, first learning abilities are considered to be the abilities children need in order to assimilate the fundamental skills they will be taught when they enter primary school. Our evaluation scale is based on tools used to measure the skills involved in learning how to read, write and do basic arithmetic: NBA1-T scales [START_REF] Ravard | NBA1-T: Echelle d'évaluation des préalables pour les CP et Batterie analytique de lecture/orthographe[END_REF] and "Grande Section de Maternelle" (final year of nursery school) national evaluation scales [START_REF] Men | Connaissances et compétences: des atouts pour la vie[END_REF]. We measured children's performances in nine fields relating to arithmetic (spatial organisation, counting, rhythms), reading-writing (visual discrimination, auditory discrimination, sound-spelling patterns), and transversal learning (handwriting, visual memory, auditory memory). These tests do not claim to measure all the skills acquired by children at the end of nursery school; their aim was to examine some of the most important skills for the child's future school career.

The French and German versions of the scale were drawn up at the same time by members of our Franco-German research team. Our objective was to take into account the curricula used in the two countries and to ensure the French and German items were strictly identical, while respecting the cultural specificities of the two countries. Nevertheless, before undertaking a comparison of children from the two countries, we checked that the scale was not subject to Differential Item Functioning (DIF) effects. In other words, we checked that the items did not favour one group of participants over the other. In order to do this, we used the Mantel-Haenszel statistic [START_REF] Mantel | Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease[END_REF], which was used to study DIF by [START_REF] Holland | Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure[END_REF]. The procedure reveals the presence of DIF by testing whether or not two samples with the same skill level have different probabilities of success for an item. DIF occurs when the probabilities of success for an item are different for the two samples. From an inferential point of view, Mantel-Haenszel's chi squared statistic is used to test the null hypothesis that the success rates of two populations with similar levels of skill are homogenous. From a descriptive point of view, we calculated a Mantel-Haenszel delta statistic, which indicates the direction and size of the DIF.

Large DIFs were found for four items, which were consequently removed from the scale. As a result, our scale of first learning abilities contained 41 items (see Table 1) that presented a satisfactory internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach's alpha=.84). A principal components analysis of the scores for the nine tests allowed us to retain a single component that strongly saturated the nine scales and that explained 38% of the variance.

Measure of the families' social class

The social class of the children's families was measured by calculating a socioeconomic index combining three indicators: (1) the mother's level of education; (2) the father's level of education; (3) the size of the home, that is to say, the number of rooms in the home divided by the number of people living there. The relatively high correlations between the three indicators (they vary between .25 and .55 and are all significant at p<.01) justify their combination. Our socioeconomic index showed a high degree of variability (mean=2.25, standard deviation=.68). Questionnaire measuring educational practices within families and parents' expectations for their child's pre-school education

This questionnaire for parents was based on existing questionnaires (Prêteur andLouvet-Schmauss 1991, 1994;[START_REF] Tazouti | Education familiale et performances scolaires des enfants de milieu populaire[END_REF][START_REF] Tazouti | Comparaison des relations entre l'éducation parentale et les performances scolaires dans deux milieux socio-culturels contrastés (populaire et non populaire)[END_REF]. It first asked parents about their educational practices with respect to reading, writing and arithmetic. Then, it asked them about their expectations for their child's pre-school education. A principal components analysis of the items relating to the families' educational practices with respect to reading, writing and arithmetic allowed us to retain two components (Table 2). The first saturates items 1 to 4 and refers to "activities related to formal teaching of reading and arithmetic". The second saturates items 5 to 9 and corresponds to "book-related activities". These two components explain 25% and 18% of the total variance, respectively. The internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) of the items composing each of these two sub-scales were .72 and .52, respectively.

A principal components analysis for the items relating to parental expectations of pre-school education also allowed us to retain two components (Table 3): one that saturates the items related to socialisation expectations (items 1 to 9) and one that saturates the items relating to cognitive learning expectations (items 10 to 15). These two components explain 34% and 15% of the total variance, respectively. The internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) of the items composing each of these two sub-scales were satisfactory (.87 and .73, respectively).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 4 gives descriptive statistics of different variables of the study. Results show that French parents have higher scores than German parents regarding educational practices 'activities related to formal teaching of reading and arithmetic' and 'book-related activities'. Regarding expectations for the preschool, the French parents have high scores for 'learning expectations' while German parents get high scores on "socialisation expectations".

Concerning the tests of the first learning scale, Table 4 shows little difference between scores of children in France and Germany in two tests: 'handwriting' and 'auditory discrimination'. Children in France have higher scores in three tests: 'spatial organisation', 'rhythms' and 'visual discrimination'. In contrast German children have the best performance in four tests: 'visual memory'; 'auditory memory', 'sound-spelling patterns' and 'counting'. Do these differences between the two countries persist when individual and contextual variables are controlled for using multi-level regression models?

Multi-level analyses

Our research aimed to investigate the relationship between individual and family characteristics and the characteristics of the pre-school context. Our analyses incorporate statistical units that belong to different, stacked levels (pupils and establishments). Given the hierarchical structure of the data, it was necessary to apply multi-level regression models. Detailed descriptions of these models are provided by [START_REF] Bressoux | Modélisation statistique appliquée aux sciences sociales[END_REF] and by [START_REF] Snijders | Multilevel Analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling[END_REF]. An advantage of multi-level regression models is that they allow explanatory variables to be treated in a way that takes into account the hierarchical level they refer to. Thus, in our study, we were able to differentiate between level 1 variables that were measured for each pupil (e.g., socioeconomic index, sex) and level 2 variables that were measured for the class (e.g., country of residence, average socioeconomic index of the establishment). In the present study, the analyses were carried out using MLwiN version 2.02 software [START_REF] Rasbash | MLwiN Version 202: Centre for Multilevel Modelling[END_REF].

Impact of individual and contextual variables on the pupils' total scores

Several multi-level regression models were drawn up (see Table 5) in order to investigate the effects of the different individual and contextual characteristics on the variability of the children's performances. Multi-level modelling often begins with the construction of an "empty model" that does not contain any explanatory variables. This initial model is used to break down the total variance of the dependent variable into two parts3 : the variance between the level 2 units (intergroup variance), and the variance between the level 1 units (intragroup variance). The values given by the empty model serve as a reference point for the rest of the analysis and allow us to evaluate the impact of the explanatory variables introduced into subsequent models. Later models include the individual and contextual variables. Our goal was to explore the variability in the pupils' performance scores in the form of a mathematical relation between these scores and all the variables we chose to introduce into the analysis. We took into account nine level 1 explanatory variables: sex, nationality, marital status of the parents, age of the child, socioeconomic index of the family, family educational practices and parental expectations with respect to education. The use of multi-level modelling allowed us to measure the specific effect of "target variables" independently of other factors, that is to say, "all other things being equal". In this type of equation, the dichotomous variables are introduced into the analysis by fixing a reference modality and an active modality. For example, for the sex variable, the reference modality is "boy" and the active modality is "girl". Our study also included two level 2 variables: the country in which the pupil was educated (France or Germany) and the average socioeconomic index of the establishment. All the continuous variables were standardised (m=0, sd=1). Such standardisation facilitates the interpretation of the regression coefficients and the decomposition of the total variance. The contribution of the raw intergroup variance was 19% (Table 5, Model 1: the empty model). The largest contribution to the differences in children's performances was between children within establishments. Model 2, which included the individual and contextual variables, provides a significantly better adjustment of the data than the empty model (-2 log L decrement=541 for 11 df; p<.01). Introducing these variables allowed us to explain 95% of the intergroup variance (i.e., (.19-.01)/.19), and 22% of the intragroup variance (i.e., (.82-.64)/.82).

Focusing on the effects of individual and family variables4 (level 1) on the children's performances showed that:

-Girls performed better than boys.

-Children of parents living together performed better than children from single-parent families -Older children performed better than younger children -Children from families with a high socioeconomic index performed better than children from families with a lower socioeconomic index -The only family educational variable to have a significant effect on a child's performance was family educational practices related to books

The impact of the contextual variables (level 2) on the children's performances can be summarised as follows:

-The "country" variable did not have a significant effect on the children's overall performances.

-Conversely, the "mean socioeconomic index of the class" had a significant positive effect on the children's overall performances.

Impact of the individual and contextual variables on the scores for the nine tests

Multi-level analyses were carried out for each test (see Table 6). The largest differences in the children's performances were found within the establishments, although there were also significant differences between establishments. Models incorporating individual and contextual variables adjusted the data significantly better than the empty models (the -2 log L decrement was always significant). The introduction of these variables explained part of the intergroup variance (between 42% and 96%) and part of the intragroup variance (between 4% and 18%).

Focusing on the effects of certain individual and family variables (level 1) on the children's performances showed that:

-Girls performed significantly better than boys on four tests: rhythm, sound-spelling patterns, handwriting and visual memory. -Older children performed significantly better than younger children on six of the nine tests.

-Children from families with a high socioeconomic index performed significantly better on all the tests, except the handwriting and visual memory test.

The impact of the contextual variables (level 2) on the children's performances can be summarised as follows:

-French children obtained better results on the spatial organisation and rhythm tests, whereas German children performed better on the visual memory, auditory memory, sound-spelling pattern and counting tests. -The "mean social level of the establishment" variable had a significant positive effect on the children's performances on the auditory discrimination and auditory memory tests.

Discussion and conclusion

Performances on the different tests

All other things being equal, the mean performances of the 552 children for all the tests did not reveal any significant difference between the French children and the German children. Thus, the kindergarten approach, with its emphasis on socialisation and play, enabled the children in the German sample to attain similar overall performances to the nursery school approach, with its focus on formal teaching and work. This apparent equality in overall performances between France and Germany is confirmed in some fields tested, but masks significant differences in other fields. Thus, in -.14 (.12)

-.20 (.12)

-.04 (.12)

-.07 (.12)

.12 (.12)

-.03 (.12)

-.08 (.12) some fields such as handwriting and auditory discrimination, we did not find any significant differences between the performances of French and German children. This result is not surprising for the following reasons: (1) Handwriting is taught in both types of establishment, even if the teaching is less formal in kindergartens than in nursery schools, and the items proposed did not target a standardised style of handwriting. At this ability level, it is easy to imagine that kindergarten and nursery school activities can produce similar levels of performance.

(2) The auditory discrimination tests asked the children to identify syllables, rhymes, onsets and phonemes. Although some French teachers use formal exercises, the most commonly used ways of encouraging children to recognise different sounds are nursery rhymes, songs and other language games: methods that are also widely used in Germany. However, the French children obtained better results than the German children on the rhythm, visual discrimination and spatial organisation tests. These are activities that are frequently and systematically practised in French nursery schools.

Counting, which is an important element in the syllabuses of French nursery schools, is another key skill. Although French nursery school children are frequently asked to carry out counting exercises, this training does not seem to be particularly effective, as the German children performed significantly better in this domain. This result supports the findings of Flieller (cited by [START_REF] Bocéréan | Long-term comparison (1921-2001) of numerical knowledge in three to five-and-a-half year-old children[END_REF], who showed that German children obtain significantly better results than French children on the arithmetic tests of the K-ABC test. A similar observation can be made for the sound-spelling pattern tests. Reading picture books is part of the programme in both kindergartens and nursery schools, and German parents appear to read to their children at least as much, if not more, than French parents. Nevertheless, the emphasis placed on written language at French nursery schools, where children are taught to recognise the letters of their name and their sounds, to copy words and sentences, to build up a vocabulary of words they recognise (first names, days of the week, etc.) and even to do dictation, should allow French children to build up a better conception of the written language than their German counterparts. Manifestly, this is not the case: a surprising result that calls into question the teaching methods used in French nursery schools. German children also performed better on the visual memory and auditory memory tests, which raises the question of whether these skills may develop more quickly in the play situations that characterise kindergartens. Such a hypothesis is supported by other studies that show that some fundamental skills are learned better in spontaneous situations containing a large element of play [START_REF] Deviterne | Une recherche accompagnée pour "bâtir l'école du XXIe siècle[END_REF][START_REF] Deviterne | Intégration et accompagnement des enfants en difficulté à l'école maternelle par une prise en charge collégiale et diversifiée de tous les élèves[END_REF].

However, other explanations are also possible. For example, results can be affected by the importance given to evaluation in each of the two early learning systems and by the way the children perceive the evaluation situation and the tests they are asked to complete. In Germany, evaluations tend to be presented in a spontaneous, informal and formative way; in France, evaluations are generally formative, but official guidelines tend to mean that they are programmed and summative. This may explain the differences in the ways the children perceived the evaluation situation and the tests they were asked to complete. We observed that most of the French children found the taking of the tests stressful, whereas most of the German children seemed more relaxed. In addition, the fact that some of the tests were new was seen to be unsettling for the French children but motivating for the German children. These interpretations, based on informal observations by the researchers, need to be confirmed by empirical studies.

Influence of individual characteristics on performances

Within our study sample we observed a significant difference between the performances of the boys and the girls. Hence, this already widely documented phenomenon appears to occur before primary school and in both countries. The girls obtained better performances than the boys.

The effect of socioeconomic index on the children's performances could also be observed at this stage in their school careers. This effect was almost two times greater in our French sample than in our German sample. These results may at first appear surprising, as the PISA survey showed that Germany is one of the countries in which social class has the greatest effect on the performances of 15-year-old children. However, the PISA survey also revealed substantial differences between Germany's different states, and, although there are large social inequalities in Germany, these inequalities are smaller in Bavaria and Baden-Wurttemberg than in the other states of the west of the country (Deutsches Pisa-Konsortium 2002). Nor must it be forgotten that the inequalities in Germany tend to be amplified at the end of primary school, when pupils have to choose the orientation of their studies [START_REF] Artelt | PISA 2000: Die Studie im Überblick. Grundlagen, Methoden[END_REF].

Do the results of the present study allow us to conclude that French nursery schools amplify social inequalities and that German kindergartens do not? We believe that it would be premature to draw such a conclusion, as our study did not measure spoken language skills, despite the importance of this factor and its dependence on socio-cultural variables for German children [START_REF] Artelt | PISA 2000: Die Studie im Überblick. Grundlagen, Methoden[END_REF]. It should also be noted that 100% of French children attend nursery school at the age of 3 years [START_REF] Men | Connaissances et compétences: des atouts pour la vie[END_REF], whereas fewer than 89% of German children attend kindergarten at the same age [START_REF] Eurydice | Les chiffres clés de l'éducation en Europe[END_REF]. In addition, kindergarten attendance depends on social class, as attendance rates are much lower than average among children from disadvantaged or immigrant families (OECD 2006).

Influence of family characteristics on performances

The French families were characterised by higher expectations with respect to cognitive learning, whereas the German families were characterised by higher expectations with respect to socialisation. This difference between the expectations of parents in the two countries is perfectly coherent with the priorities each country gives to its pre-school education system. Neither of these types of expectation had a significant effect on the mean performances of the children on the first learning evaluation tests.

The only family educational practices that had a significant positive effect on the mean performances of the children on the first learning evaluation tests were "book-based practices". This effect was noted for both countries, although it was slightly stronger in Germany.

To the best of our knowledge, most of the results of the present study are new. Our research also shows the value of multi-level models, as they enable us to analyse complex relations between variables while respecting the hierarchical structure of the data. Nevertheless, our work can only be considered an exploratory and heuristic study that has suggested new research directions that may be followed by other researchers.

Table 1

 1 Analysis of the items of the nine tests included in the first learning evaluation scale

		Number of items	Cronbach's alpha
	Handwriting	4	.50
	Spatial organisation	4	.52
	Rhythm	3	.59
	Visual discrimination	3	.55
	Auditory discrimination	4	.51
	Visual memory	6	.61
	Auditory memory	9	.56
	Sound-spelling patterns	4	.48
	Counting	4	.43
	Whole scale	41	.84

Table 2

 2 Principal components analysis of the items relating to family educational practices with respect to reading, writing and arithmetic

	Component
	1	2

Table 3

 3 Principal components analysis for the items relating to parents' expectations with respect to preschool education

	Component
	1	2

Table 4

 4 Descriptive statistics from the study variables

	Variables	French (N=299)		Germany (N=253)
		Mean	SD	SE	Mean	SD	SE
	Family educational practices
	With respect to formal teaching of reading	0.67	0.33	0.02	0.56	0.34	0.02
	With respect to books	0.65	0.25	0.02	0.62	0.22	0.02
	Expectations for pre-school education
	Cognitive learning expectations	2.90	0.21	0.01	2.69	0.35	0.02
	Socialisation expectations	2.70	0.38	0.02	2.84	0.25	0.02
	Tests of the first learning scale
	Handwriting	2.14	1.24	0.07	2.18	1.19	0.07
	Spatial organisation	2.97	1.07	0.06	2.62	1.21	0.08
	Rhythm	2.03	1.02	0.06	1.64	1.05	0.07
	Visual discrimination	2.50	.83	0.05	2.31	.88	0.06
	Auditory discrimination	1.98	1.30	0.08	2.07	1.20	0.08
	Visual memory	5.17	1.16	0.07	5.64	.83	0.05
	Auditory memory	7.31	1.50	0.09	8.36	1.12	0.07
	Sound-spelling patterns	2.67	1.12	0.06	3.00	.96	0.06
	Counting	3.22	.94	0.05	3.58	.70	0.04
	Whole scale	29.99	6.45	0.37	31.40	5.53	0.35

Table 5

 5 Multi-level models measuring the impact of the individual and contextual variables on the total scores obtained by French and German children

	Parameters	Model 1 (empty)	Model 2
	Constant	-.01 (.10)	-.27 (.11)
	Level 1 variables
	Sex of the child (boy=0; girl=1)		.34 (.08) **
	Nationality (native=0; foreign=1)		-.20 (.11)
	Matrimonial situation (single parent=0; couple=1)		.20 (.09) *
	Age		.20 (.05) **
	Socioeconomic index		.23 (.05) **
	FEP with respect to formal teaching of reading		.01 (.04)
	FEP with respect to books		.12 (.05) **
	Cognitive learning expectations for pre-school education		-.08 (.05)
	Socialisation expectations for pre-school education		.01 (.05)
	Level 2 variables
	Country (Germany)		.20 (.12)
	Mean socioeconomic index of the establishment		.17 (.05) **
	Variance
	Intergroup	.19 (.07)	.01 (.01)
	Intragroup	.82 (.05)	.64 (.05)
	-2 log L	1,500	959
	N=552
	FEP family educational practices
	*p<.05; **p<.01

Table 6

 6 Multi-level models measuring the impact of the individual and contextual variables on the scores for the nine tests obtained by French and German children

	Auditory memory		Model 11a		.23 (.08)	.80 (.05)	1487	Model 11b	.14 (.09)
	Visual memory		Model 10a		.08 (.04)	.93 (.06)	1553	Model 10b	.23 (.10) *
	Handwriting		Model 9a		.12 (.05)	.87 (.05)	1521	Model 9b	.46 (.09) **
	Sound-spelling	patterns	Model 8a		.10 (.04)	.91 (.06)	1543	Model 8b	.28 (.09) **
	Auditory	discrimination	Model 7a		.12 (.05)	.89 (.05)	1532	Model 7b	.12 (.09)
	Visual	discrimination	Model 6a		.08 (.04)	.91 (.06)	1541	Model 6b	.07 (.09)
	Rhythms		Model 5a		.12 (.05)	.88 (.05)	1526	Model 5b	.36 (.09) **
	Counting		Model 4a		.11 (.05)	.89 (.06)	1535	Model 4b	.12 (.09)
	Spatial	organisation	Model 3a		.07 (.03)	.93 (.06)	1547	Model 3b	.08 (.09)
	Parameters		Empty models	Variance	Intergroup	Intragroup	-2 log L (1)	Level 1 variables	Sex of the child (boy=0; girl=1)	Nationality (native=0; foreign=1)

It should also be noted that there are substantial differences between Germany's different states (Länder). For example, Bavaria and Baden-Wurttemberg obtained good results.

Germany is a federal country composed of 16 states (Länder). Education is the responsibility of the individual states.

This is true in the case of a two-level model, but not for a model with three or more levels[START_REF] Snijders | Multilevel Analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling[END_REF].

The significance of the regression coefficients was tested using Z tests for the level 1 variables, where N was equal to

For the level 2 variables, we used a t test with 19°of freedom. The number of degrees of freedom was calculated using the formula described by[START_REF] Snijders | Multilevel Analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling[END_REF]: df=N-q-1 where N=the number of units at level 2 and q=the number of explanatory variables at level 2.


Virginie Leclercq

Caroline Viriot-Goeldel

Corinne Gallet

READING DIFFICULTIES IN PRIMARY SCHOOL: PRECOCIOUS REMEDIATION

Keywords: reading, written-word identification difficulties, primary school, evaluation, remediation

In France, more than 14% of students entering middle school present written-word identification difficulties. This acutely raises the question of how to help struggling readers. Researchers agree that early intervention is the key to preventing learning difficulties from getting more severe with time. The objective of this research is to assess the effectiveness of a plan, combining written-word identification level evaluation and remediation, to reduce written-word identification difficulties among primary school students. Two experimental sessions were conducted over two school years. The written word identification performance of 913 students from grade 2 to grade 5 was evaluated at the beginning of school year. Then, students identified as having difficulties (408 students) benefited from remediation sessions. Based on double path reading models and depending on the problems identified, students with difficulties in written-word identification attended remedial sessions focusing either on graphosyllabic conversion abilities (the syllable is a prominent sublexical unit in French) or on building and strengthening the orthographic lexicon. Progress in written-word identification performance made by students who benefited from this program was compared to that of a control group. For the control group, the written-word identification performance of students from grade 2 to 5 was evaluated at the beginning (391 students including 184 students identified as having reading difficulties) and the end of the school year, but none of them took the specific remediation sessions. The results indicate a larger increase in written-word identification performance for students benefiting from the specific remediation program than for students who did not. Thus, accessible solutions exist to address some forms of reading difficulties encountered by students in primary school.

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this research is to assess the effectiveness of a program, combining reading abilities evaluation and remediation sessions, to reduce reading difficulties in written-word identification among primary school students. The results show that solutions accessible to all teachers exist allowing primary school students from 2 nd to 5 th grade to reduce their difficulties in identifying written words.

In France, the formal teaching of reading begins around the age of 6 and is one of the basic skills of primary school. Access to reading is a key issue, which will depend on the school career of the child and his social integration. In alphabetic language, learning to read requires students to recognize the graphemes and to create a link between those and spoken language [START_REF] Dehaene | Les neurones de la lecture[END_REF]. As suggested by the simple model of reading of Hoover and Gough [START_REF] Hoover | The simple view of reading[END_REF], good reading proficiency requires good skills in identifying written words associated with good skills in understanding spoken language. In this article, we will focus on written-word identification abilities.

Different models have been proposed to account for the mechanisms of written words identification. Among them, dual-path models are still widely used. These models [START_REF] Coltheart | The DRC model: A model of visual word recognition and reading aloud[END_REF] suggest the existence of two procedures (paths) to identify written words among expert readers: a lexical procedure and an analytical procedure. The lexical procedure allows for the identification of all known words by direct activation of their phonological and orthographic representations in the mental lexicon. Via this procedure, readers can recognize, identify all the words they remembered. The second procedure, called "analytic" (or sublexical procedure), allows for the identification of words that are not registered in the mental lexicon (unknown words, pseudowords...). Identification of written words using this procedure requires to decompose written words into sublexical units and to apply the graphemephoneme conversion rules. This procedure requires more attention than the lexical one. In the dual-path models, when a written word is presented to the system, both procedures are activated in parallel. In the case of a frequently known word, phonological representation of the word is activated quickly via the orthographic representation before the analytical procedure is completed. On the contrary, when an unknown word is presented, its identification is achieved via the analytic procedure.

The first developmental models of reading postulated a development in successive stages, each stage being characterized by the use of different procedures. In Frith's model [START_REF] Frith | Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia[END_REF], an initial logographic phase, during which children recognize words based on salient visual and contextual features, is followed by an alphabetic phase in which a letter-to-sound translation strategy comes into play. The final stage is fluent orthographic reading, with the installation of a mental lexicon. In these developmental models, a strict succession of the stages is postulated. Nowadays, this assumption is questioned. Other developmental models, derived from connectionist models of expert reading, focus on early interaction between phonological and orthographic units. Indeed, experimental data suggest a simultaneous development of alphabetic and lexical knowledge when students begin to read [START_REF] Martinet | Lexical knowledge develops from the beginning of literacy acquiusition[END_REF]. In this context, the acquisition of orthographic knowledge is no longer conditioned by a certain level of alphabetic knowledge, but initiated early, from the moment students start learning to read. However, it does not mean that the two reading procedures are also equally effective at the start of reading development [START_REF] Valdois | Evaluation des difficultés d'apprentissage de la lecture[END_REF]: the analytical procedure develops rapidly whereas the lexical procedure is still little effective. Thus, for beginning readers, though memorizing the words encountered is possible as soon as they start learning, this stock is not sufficient and the large majority of reading is achieved via the analytical procedure.

Children with reading difficulties

Several studies conducted in France indicate that 14 to 20% of children have reading difficulties when they enter middle school [START_REF] Bonjour | Profils de lecteurs à l'entrée en sixième[END_REF]. These studies point to the composite nature of reading difficulties. They show that there is no homogeneous category of struggling readers, but a variety of non-performance. Thus, 5% of students have dyslexia, a neurodevelopmental disorder. According to the dominant hypothesis, this trouble leads to a deficit of the system of phonemic representation disrupting the learning of grapheme-phoneme correspondences, their manipulation in real time while reading and the acquisition of orthographic lexicon [START_REF] Snowling | From language to reading and dyslexia[END_REF]. Other children encounter reading difficulties due to environmental causes -leading to difficulty in controlling the decoding, in particular due to nonautomatisation which can be related to insufficient practice ... -and / or difficulties in building orthographic lexicon. Finally some children have reading difficulties that are related to other types of disorders.

Difficulties in written words identification and remediations.

Identifying written words implies acquiring grapho-phonological correspondences (the analytic procedure, decoding). It implies the ability to identify phonemic units in speech and to link them to visual units. In this context, phonological awareness, the ability to orally manipulate the different sound components of words (syllable, attack, rhymes and phonemes) is important. Many studies have shown a link between phonological awareness and reading performance (for a review, see [START_REF]Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups (00-4754)[END_REF]); it is, with the knowledge of letters, one of the best predictors of reading success [START_REF] Bradley | Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling[END_REF]. At-risk students and students experiencing reading difficulties have more problems than others perceiving and manipulating phonemes [START_REF] Bradley | Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling[END_REF][START_REF] Juel | Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade[END_REF]. Moreover, numerous studies have shown that phonological awareness training improved reading scores [START_REF] Bradley | Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling[END_REF]. But, most of all, many studies converge on the conclusion that the effect of phonological training is greatly amplified if an explicit work on grapheme-phoneme correspondence is also proposed [START_REF] Ehri | Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis[END_REF]. For Share [START_REF] Share | Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the selfteaching hypothesis[END_REF], developing and mastering grapho-phonological correspondences is a prerequisite for learning to read. This hypothesis is supported by studies showing that good decoder children are those who made the most progress in reading [START_REF] Sprenger-Charolles | Development of phonological and orthographic processing in reading aloud, in silent reading and in spelling: A four years longitudinal study[END_REF]. Consequently, a default in the acquisition and/or the automatisation of grapheme-phoneme correspondence can be a major source of difficulty for beginning readers. In France, studies suggest that training based on syllabic units could also improve word reading [START_REF] Ecalle | Computer-assisted learning in young poor readers: The effect of grapho-syllabic training on the development of word reading and reading comprehension[END_REF] and reading speed [START_REF] Heikkilä | Does training in syllable recognition improve reading speed? A computer-based trial with poor readers from second and third grade[END_REF]. Indeed, in French, the syllable is a prominent unit for word recognition [START_REF] Maïonchi-Pino | The nature of the phonological processing in French dyslexic children: Evidence of the phonological syllable and linguistic features' role in silent reading and speech discrimination[END_REF], and it appears that working on those units, compared to phonemic units will be interesting for poor readers [START_REF] Magnan | Une aide informatisée auprès de jeunes apprentis lecteurs en difficulté. Effet d'un entraînement grapho-syllabique[END_REF]. In summary, it appears that specific work on the acquisition of the correspondences between written and oral units is important for students with difficulties in written-word identification. Moreover, in French, relying on a grapho-syllabic (rather than grapheme-phoneme) procedure seems to be interesting for struggling readers.

Learning to read requires acquiring specific decoding procedures for reading, but above all it requires a certain level of automaticity to ensure that written-word identification does not require too much attention. Automatisation of written-word identification is important because it frees attentional resources which are available for understanding what is read. Thus, as emphasized by Torgesen [START_REF] Torgesen | The prevention of reading difficulties[END_REF], in addition to learning decoding skills, it is also necessary to increase the stock of words that can be read automatically by the lexical route, a prerequisite for fluent reading (see [START_REF] Zorman | Entraînement de la fluence de lecture pour les élèves de 6e en difficulté de lecture[END_REF]). Thus, for students mastering the specific decoding procedures, but still having difficulties in written-word identification, work that focuses on fluency appears interesting. One of the most effective techniques to enhance fluency is the repeating reading technique [START_REF] Meyer | Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions[END_REF] (see [START_REF] Zorman | Entraînement de la fluence de lecture pour les élèves de 6e en difficulté de lecture[END_REF] for a study on French 6 th graders).

A significant number of French primary school children have difficulties in written-word identification, and those difficulties may persist in middle school. Thus, it is crucial to find solutions accessible to all teachers to enable these students to acquire reading skills. Considering the researches succinctly presented, it will be interesting to offer those students training on decoding abilities, through the syllable and not the phoneme, and training on fluency. Moreover, as highlighted by several studies, since reading and writing develop in parallel and influence each other, it will be important to propose writing activities. Finally, a consensus exists on training methods to be proposed to struggling readers: the work must be explicit, repetitive, intensive and frequent. It must be proposed to small homogeneous groups of students [START_REF] Coltheart | The DRC model: A model of visual word recognition and reading aloud[END_REF][START_REF] Frith | Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia[END_REF][START_REF] Martinet | Lexical knowledge develops from the beginning of literacy acquiusition[END_REF] or individually, and it must be rewarding and offer positive reinforcements [START_REF]Expertise collective -Dyslexie, dysorthographie, dyscalculie[END_REF].

The objective of this research is to propose a remediation program to primary school students with difficulties in written-word identification and to study the impact of the remediation program over a control group. Two experiments were conducted over two different school years. For the first experiment, collaboration was established with several schools in the same school district. In those schools, upon request from the National Education inspector, since 4 years, the level of written-word identification of 2 nd to 5 th graders is systematically evaluated at the beginning of the school year. Then, students identified as having difficulties receive training focused on decoding and / or fluency depending on the problems they meet. The second experiment consisted in the introduction of our remediation program in new schools to verify its impact and to more deeply explore the results of the first experiment.

EXPERIMENT 1 2.1 Method

Participants

Experimental Group: Four schools (including two listed Réseau Éclair -RE, i.e. schools targeted for special help) participated to this experiment. Thus, 237 second graders, 121 third graders, 117 fourth graders and 86 fifth graders took a written-word identification assessment at the beginning of the school year.

Control Group: Four schools (including two listed RE), in which the remediation plan was never implemented, participated to this experiment. Thus, 81 second graders, 117 third graders, 94 fourth graders and 99 fifth graders took a written-word identification assessment at the beginning of the school year.

Procedure

Performance on written-word identification was evaluated at the beginning of the school year (in October) using the ELFE protocol (Cogni-Sciences, www.cognisciences.com) for 2nd, 3rd and 4th graders and with the ROC protocol (Cogni-Sciences, www.cognisciences.com) for 5th graders. Students were identified as having written-word identification difficulties when their score was below the 30th percentile. Students had to take a syllable and pseudoword dictation test (2nd graders) or a sentence dictation test (3rd and 4th graders). For 5th graders, a dictation test is included in the ROC protocol. The objective of this dictation exercise was to enable teachers to identify students with difficulties mainly focusing on decoding and those with difficulties mainly focusing on the construction of the orthographic lexicon.

According to their difficulties, students then received training sessions focusing either on decoding or on building / constructing orthographic lexicon (fluency), or both.

For students with decoding difficulties, training sessions were proposed with the Impregnation Syllabic [START_REF] Garnier-Lasek | L'imprégnation syllabique. Isbergues : Ortho-Edition[END_REF]. The objective of these sessions was to consolidate decoding skills through the syllable and not the phoneme [START_REF] Magnan | Une aide informatisée auprès de jeunes apprentis lecteurs en difficulté. Effet d'un entraînement grapho-syllabique[END_REF]. The principle was to propose a progressive training with increasing difficulty adapted to the students: training on simple syllables, and then on more complex spellings (trigraphs -"ian", "ein" for example, contextual spellings -'g' contextual for example). Activities proposed during the training sessions always combined reading and writing syllables, words and pseudowords containing worked syllables. Immediate feedback was given to the students after each answer for them to assess their knowledge and memorize the correct forms (for more information on feedback, see [START_REF] Gibbs | Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning[END_REF]).

For students with correct decoding abilities, but presenting difficulties in the automatisation of written word identification, remediation sessions, inspired by Fluence using repeating reading techniques [START_REF] Lequette | Fluence[END_REF], have been proposed. The objective of these training sessions was to increase the orthographic lexicon, then to promote automatisation to read fluently. The principle was to have students perform repeated and timed readings of texts adapted to their level. The objective of the students was to read the texts fluently, without hesitation and with the correct intonation. After each reading task, feedback was given to the students: while repetition improves reading fluency, it is necessary to give feedback to the students to correct their mistakes, so that the level of word identification improves. Writing tasks were also proposed to strengthen words memorization (flash copy…).

These training sessions, organized in small groups of 3 to 5 students, were proposed by the teacher and took place between the months of November and May. To potentiate the efficacy of the training sessions, the objectives were clearly presented to the students and the sessions were highly structured, short but intense and frequent (2-3 times a week for at least 20 minutes).

At the end of the school year (June), performances in written-word identification were once again evaluated with the same test as earlier in the year.

For the Control Group, written-word identification performances were evaluated at the beginning and the end of school year, but students did not receive our remediation sessions. Indeed, the objective was to evaluate the progress made by the group that received the remediation compared to a group that did not, in order to evaluate the impact of the intervention [START_REF] Torgesen | Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness[END_REF]. However, teachers of the Control Group were informed which students presented difficulties in written-word identification

Teachers' training course

The Experimental Group's teachers received a 6-hour training course at the beginning of the school year in order to understand the interest of the remediation program and to be able to process the data from the evaluation. Meanwhile, they were presented with an update on theoretical basis about learning to read and its difficulties, followed by a presentation of the remediation program with numerous examples. They were also given practical guidebooks. In this course, we stressed the need to read and write, to give feedback to correct errors and to enhance progress.

Results

Information on the composition of the Experimental and Control groups are presented in Table 1. The results obtained in written-word identification at the beginning and end of school year for students identified as having difficulties at the beginning of the school year were entered into analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Evaluation Period (beginning, end of the year) as within-subjects factor, and the Grade (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th), the Group (Experimental, Control) and School Category (RE, no-RE) as between-subjects factors.

The significant effect p<.001) indicated that written-word identification scores increased when the level of grade increased. The significant effect of the Evaluation Period factor (F(1,443)=945.3; p<.001) indicated better scores in written-word identification at the end (average of 77.7 words identified in 1 minute, standard error (SE)=1.1) than at the beginning of the year (53.8, SE=0.8). Most importantly, the double interaction Evaluation Period x Group was significant (F(1,443)=18,2; p<.001). This result revealed that the increase in written-word identification abilities between the beginning and the end of the year was more important for the Experimental group (increase of 27.3 words identified in 1 minute, SE=0.96) than for the Control Group (increase of 20.6, SE=1.11). More precisely, planned comparisons indicated that both Groups did not differ at the beginning of the year -respectively for the Experimental and Control Groups: 52.9 (SE=1.0) vs 54.8 (SE=1.2), p=.212 -but significantly differed at the end of the year -respectively for the Experimental and Control Groups: 80.1 (SE=1.5) vs 75.5 (SE=1.8), p<.05. The significant interaction Evaluation Period x Grade (F(3,443)=12,7; p<.001) revealed an increase in written-words identification abilities for the four grade levels (respectively for 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th graders an increase of 29.4, 18.6, 25.9 and 21.9), with however a lesser increase for 3rd graders.

The significant effect of the School Category factor (F(1,443)=19,5; p<.001) indicated better scores in written-word identification for students in no-RE schools (69.8, SE=1.3) than for students in RE schools (61.8, SE=1.2). Moreover, the interaction School Category x Evaluation Period (F(1,443)=4,1; p<.05) revealed a larger increase in written-word identification abilities between the beginning and the end of the year for students in no-RE schools (25.5, SE=1.3), than for students in RE schools (22.4, SE=1.0). Planned comparisons indicated that a difference in written-word identification abilities existed between students in RE and no-RE schools at the beginning (respectively, 50.6, SE=1.1 and 57.0, SE=1.1; p<.001) and still at the end of the year (respectively, 73.0, SE=1.6 and 82.6, SE=1.7; p<.001). However, the double interaction School Category x Evaluation Period x Group was not significant (F(1,443)=2,5; p=.11). Thus, the effect of the remediation program will not be different in the RE and the no-RE school; only a smaller increase in word identification abilities is observed for the students in RE-schools regardless the Group (Experimental vs Control).

The double interaction Evaluation Period x Group x Grade did not reach significance (F(3,443)=1,3, p=.271). However, in order to verify that an impact of the remediation program existed in each grade level, for each grade level, we compared the progress in written-word identification scores between the Experimental and the control Groups (Student's t test were used or Mann Whitney test when the homogeneity of variances and / or a normal distribution were not observed).

First of all, for the four grades level, at the beginning of the year, scores in written-word identification test did not differ between the Experimental Group (respectively from 2nd to 5th: 28.3, 47.6, 71.7 and 64.5) and Control Groups (respectively from 2nd to 5th: 25.8, 50.5, 68.8 and 72.8).

However, at the end of the school year, for 2nd, 3rd and 5th graders, comparisons tests attested to a larger increase in written-word identification abilities for the students of the Experimental Group than those of the Control Group. A numerical difference between Experimental and Control Groups for the 4th graders existed, but it did not reach significance (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Progress in written-word identification (difference in scores at the beginning and the end of school year) for Experimental and Control groups according to grade level.

Table 2 indicated the percentage of students from the Experimental and Control groups who are no longer considered as having difficulties in written-word identification at the end of the year whereas their score was below the 30th percentile at the beginning of the year

Discussion Experiment 1

The results of this Experiment indicate that students who benefit from the remediation program make more progress than students who do not, in the identification of written words. This positive effect is observed among second graders, but also among higher-level graders (third and fifth) indicating that specific work on the identification of written words is possible and beneficial beyond the second year of primary school.

Concerning the fourth graders of the Experimental group, their progress in written-word identification is not significantly better than that of the fourth graders of the Control group. This result is difficult to interpret. One hypothesis is that teachers at this grade level can feel less concerned with reading and thus have followed the proposed protocol less.

Consequently, in order to verify the reproducibility of the obtained results and to understand the results obtained for the fourth graders, a second experiment including new schools was conducted. Schools classified RE and no-RE were inserted into the second experiment, to verify the result of an equivalent effect of the remediation program for RE and no-RE schools

EXPERIMENT 2

In this second experiment, in order to have a clearer idea of the implementation of remediation during the year, additional exchanges were organized with teachers at the end of the school year. From the information collected, only students whose teachers respected the protocol and actually proposed training sessions at least 2 to 3 time per week were included.

Method

Participants

Experimental Group: Initially four new schools (including two classified RE) participated to this experiment. Thus, 174 second graders, 116 third graders, 109 fourth graders and 118 fifth graders took a written-word identification test at the beginning of school year.

However, after interviews with teachers, some classes were eliminated. All classes of a no-RE school, one class of 4th graders in a no-RE school and one class of 2nd graders in a RE school were eliminated because training sessions were only proposed once a week. Two classes of 3rd graders and one class of 4th graders class in a RE school were eliminated as a theater project was set up from the reading remediation project (students were practiced reading theater texts which were then performed). Finally, results from 102 second graders, 73 third graders, 59 fourth graders and 118 fifth graders were included and analyzed.

Control Group: Same as in Experiment 1.

Procedure

Same as in Experiment 1.

Results

Information on the composition of the Experimental and Control groups are presented in Table 3. The results obtained in written-word identification at the beginning and the end of school year for students identified as having difficulties at the beginning of the school year were entered into analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Evaluation Period (beginning, end of the year) as within-subjects factor and the Grade (2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th ), the Group (Experimental, Control) and School Category (RE, no-RE) as between-subjects factors.

The significant effect of Grade F(3,301)=97,92; p<.001) indicated that written-word identification scores increased when the level of grade increased. The significant effect of the factor Evaluation Period indicated better scores in written-word identification at the end (82.6, SE=1.4) than at the beginning of the year (54.9, SE=0.9). The significant effect of the Group factor (F(1,301)=11,0; p<.01) revealed better score in written-word identification in the Experimental Group (72.4, SE=1.7) than in the Control Group (65.1, SE=1.4). Most importantly, as in Experiment 1, the double interaction Evaluation Period x Group was significant (F(1,301)=49,5; p<.001). This result revealed that the increase in written-word identification abilities between the beginning and the end of the year was more important for the Experimental Group (increase of 34.8, SE=1.7) than for the Control Group (increase of 20.6, SE=1.1). More precisely, planned comparisons indicated that both Groups did not differ at the beginning of the year -respectively for the Experimental and Control Groups: 55.0, SE=1.4 vs 54.8, SE=1.1; p=.921 -but significantly differed at the end of the year -respectively for the Experimental and Control Groups: 89.8, SE=2.3 vs 75.4, SE=1.8; p<.001. The significant interaction Evaluation Period x Grade (F(3,301)=3,77; p<.05) revealed an increase in written-word identification abilities for the four grade levels (respectively for 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th graders an increase of 30.4, 24.6, 31.4 and 24.4).

As in Experiment 1, the interaction School Category x Evaluation Period (F(1,301)=9,5; p<.01) revealed a larger increase in written-word identification abilities between the beginning and the end of the year for students in no-RE schools (30.8, SE=1.7), than for students in RE schools (24.6, SE=1.2). Planned comparisons indicated that a difference in written-word identification abilities existed between students in RE and those in no-RE schools at the end of the school year (respectively for RE and no-RE schools: 79.0, SE=1.9 and 86.2, SE=2.2; p<.05), but not at the beginning (respectively for RE and no-RE schools: 54.4, SE=1.2 et 55.4, SE=1.4; p=.58). In this analysis, the double interaction School Category x Evaluation Period x Groups was significant (F(1,301)=7,5; p<.01). Planned comparisons indicated a training effect (more important progress in written-word identification for the Experimental than the Control group) for students in RE schools (p<.001) and students in no-RE schools (p<.0001) with a larger effect for students in no-RE schools (progress difference of 19.7 between the Experimental and Control groups) compared to students in RE schools (progress difference of 8.6 between the Experimental and Control groups).

As in Experiment 1, the double interaction Evaluation Period x Group x Grade did not reach significance (F(3,301)=1,8, p=.149). However, in order to verify that an impact of the remediation program existed in each grade level, especially for 4th graders, for each grade level we compared the progress in written-word identification scores between the Experimental and the control Groups (Students' t tests were used, or a Mann Whitney test when the homogeneity of variances and / or a normal distribution were not observed).

First of all, for the four grade levels, at the beginning of the year, scores in written word identification tests did not differ between the Experimental Group (respectively from 2nd to 5th: 29.3, 50.0, 68.9 and 73.7) and Control (respectively from 2nd to 5th: 25.8, 50.5, 68.8 and 72.8).

However, at the end of the school year, for 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th graders, comparisons tests showed a larger increase in written word identification abilities for students of the Experimental than those of the Control Group (Fig. 2). Fig. 2: Progress in written-word identification (difference in scores at the beginning and the end of school year) for and Control groups according to grade level.

Table 4 indicated the percentage of students from the Experimental and Control groups who are no longer considered as having difficulties in written-word identification at the end of the year whereas their score was below the 30th percentile at the beginning of the school year. Some classes of the Experimental group were deleted because they did not respect the protocol. Analysis of the results of the two 3rd grade classes which included a theater project into the remediation protocol revealed very small progress in written-word identification abilities for the students of these classes (12.6), which is tendentiously lower than progress made by the control group (p = .051). In those two classes, all students identified as struggling readers at the beginning of the school year are still in the same situation at the end of the year.

Discussion Experiment 2

Results from this second experiment indicate larger progress in written-word identification for students in the Experimental group than for students in the Control group. This result is obtained for all grade levels, including 4th graders. Thus, when the protocol is respected and when training sessions are frequent (2 to 3 times per week) all year long, significant progress in written-word identification is observed for all grade levels.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Overall, the results of these two experiments indicate that the implementation of a remediation program, combining an early evaluation of written-word identification abilities followed by training sessions focused on specific difficulties all over the year allows students to make progress in writtenword identification. Tables 2 and4 showed that a significant number of students identified as having difficulties at the beginning of the school year are no longer in difficulty at the end of the year, and this is the case in the Experimental group more than in the Control One characteristic of our research is to propose the remediation program to 2nd graders, but also to older students, up to 5th grade. Indeed, when the various aspects of reading cannot be mastered before the end of the second year of primary school, this learning must be consolidated in the following classes. The results of our study show that our remediation program is still effective for 5th graders. Besides written-word identification training, students should also take advantage of courses aimed at enriching vocabulary and developing comprehension [START_REF] Pressley | Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching[END_REF] [START_REF] Pressley | Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching[END_REF]. To support the results of this research, we plan to retest students from a school of the Experimental group to verify that progress in reading is maintained over the long term.

It is important to stress once more that in the Control group, following the written-word identification evaluation done at the beginning of the year, teachers were informed about the difficulties of their students. Some teachers had designed activities to address them. However, it seems that the implementation of a clear protocol, taking into account the theoretical knowledge on the acquisition of reading is more effective. This data is supported by the results obtained by the two 3rd grade experimental classes that included a theater project into the protocol program. For the students of these classes, possibly the objective "learning to read" was masked by its inclusion in a theater project. Studies indicate that explicitly learning to read would be more effective than project-based learning, especially for struggling students [START_REF] Bissonnette | Quelles sont les stratégies d'enseignement efficaces favorisant les apprentissages fondamentaux auprès des élèves en difficulté de niveau élémentaire ? Résultats d'une méga-analyse[END_REF]. Furthermore, in these two 3rd grade classes, no work on decoding abilities were proposed while this work is important, especially for the most disadvantaged students. Teachers of experimental schools were trained prior to the introduction of the remediation program. This is important because it allows teachers to understand the objectives of the program, but also its theoretical foundations. Indeed, applying a device without understanding cannot guarantee its success. Failure by some teachers to follow the protocol raises the question of how to support the implementation of such programs. Possibly, for some teachers, a more personalized follow-up would have been beneficial. Schools classified RE were included in this research. These schools are located in areas of low socioeconomic level. Children in disadvantaged areas as 10 times as likely to experience reading difficulties as those in wealthier areas [START_REF] Fluss | Troubles d'apprentissage de la lecture : rôle des facteurs cognitifs, comportementaux et socio-économiques[END_REF]. Students in these schools are those in greatest need for their difficulties to be detected and addressed early on, so that they do not last. The results of our study indicates that for schools classified RE, if the results indicate greater progress for students who benefited from the remediation program compared to those who did not (in particular Experiment 2), this progress in written-word identification is smaller than the one observed among students in schools not classified RE. Many hypotheses could be proposed to explain this result. One of them concerns the students' vocabulary level. Various studies indicate that often, children from socioeconomically disadvantaged families know two to three times fewer words than children from privileged families [START_REF] White | Growth of reading vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning[END_REF]. Yet, a condition for quickly learning to read words is that the student already knows the words and their meaning. Without this, the workload is very important. While in the proposed training sessions, the teacher had to ensure that children knew the proposed language, this variable might have had an impact on the results of our study. However, interviews with teachers conducted at the end of Experiment 2 could bring other elements of understanding. Some teachers of schools classified RE expressed that a lot of projects are implemented in their schools, including cultural projects. But a study by Bautier and collaborators [START_REF] Bautier | Rapport de recherche pour la DPD / MEN Novembre[END_REF] put in question all these projects that would blur priorities on school issues by putting very different skills at the same level, and this is especially the case for students in difficulty. Still, other assumptions could be made to interpret this result. Indeed, data from this study do not allow us to understand the result of a lesser effect of our protocol on students of schools listed RE compared to students in schools not listed RE. To understand this result, it would be necessary to follow students in schools listed RE for one year and to have more data on students, including their linguistic level. This project is underway.

Finally, it is possible that teachers' motivation and the involvement of the school's headteacher played a role. Indeed, it is interesting to note that for one of the schools of Experiment 2 (school not classified RE), students' progress has been particularly important. In this school, the headteacher was heavily involved in the protocol and the teachers were very eager to obtain solutions to allow their students to improve their reading skills. The remediation program got very good reception and was followed scrupulously. In this school, given the very positive results in reading, it has been decided to place the remediation program at the center of the school's project.

One point of criticism in this study relates to the Control group. Our objective was to evaluate the progress made by the group that benefited from the remediation program compared to a group that did not, in order to evaluate the impact of the intervention [START_REF] Torgesen | Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness[END_REF]. It would be interesting, in future research, to compare our remediation program with another program, especially to check the impact of the management of students in small groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that solutions accessible to all teachers exist to address some forms of reading difficulties encountered by students in primary school. However, to be efficient, it seems important to provide teachers with specific professional development. Moreover, a significant advantage of the remediation program for students after 2nd grade shows the interest and importance to continue training on written-word identification after this grade. This type of training is already found in international literature, but French language and school specificities required to conduct such experiment in a French environment to prove the effects and limitations of this type of training in France. The generalization of this type of program consisting of an initial evaluation test of reading abilities for all students and then the implementation of remediation sessions, could thus be implemented, just like what is done in Finland for example [START_REF] Takala | Effects of history and culture on attitudes toward special education: A comparison of Finland and Norway[END_REF].

Table 1 :

 1 Characteristics of Experimental and Control groups at the beginning of the school yearSecond and third graders evaluated with reading difficulties at the beginning of the school year took training sessions focusing on decoding abilities, based on grapho-syllabic conversion. When they reached a sufficient level of decoding abilities, training sessions on fluency were integrated. Fourth and fifth graders received training sessions focusing on fluency, but also training sessions on decoding abilities, especially for complex graphs when necessary.

	4	2 nd graders	3 rd graders	4 th graders	5 th graders
	Nb of students with reading difficulties	118	66	57	34
	Percentage of the starting group	50	55	49	40
	Average Age months (stand. deviation)	87,3 (4,3)	100,6 (5,3)	112,7 (5,5)	125,6 (5,4)
	Number of students in RE / no RE	70/48	28/38	26/31	15/19
	Number of boys / girls	60/58	35/31	32/25	17/17
	CONTROL GROUP	2 nd graders	3 rd graders	4 th graders	5 th graders
	Nb of students with reading difficulties	48	71	40	25
	Percentage of the starting group	59	61	43	25
	Average Age months (stand. deviation)	88,2 (4,6)	100,5 ( 5,2)	112,7 (5,3)	127,6 (6,2)
	Number of students in RE / no RE	27/21	33/38	21/19	16/9
	Number of boys / girls	28/20	43/28	27/13	18/7

Table 2 :

 2 percentage of students no longer considered in difficulty at the end of the school year

	2	nd grade 3rd grade	4th grade 5th grade
	EXPERIMENTAL Group	50	42	40	59
	CONTROL Group	38	17	38	48

Table 3 :

 3 Characteristics of Experimental Control groups at the beginning of the school year.

	EXPERIMENTAL GROUP	2	nd graders 3	rd graders	4	th graders	5	th graders
	Nb of students with reading difficulties		44		31		33		25
	Percentage of the starting group		43		42		56		19
	Average Age months (stand. deviation) 87,8 (4,0)	100,0 (5,4)	112,4 (3,5)	127,6 (7,5)
	Number of students in RE / no RE		18/26		13/18		12/21		21/4
	Number of boys / girls		25/19		16/15		19/14		13/8

Table 4 :

 4 percentage of students no longer considered in difficulty at the end of the school year.

	2	nd grade 3rd grade	4th grade 5th grade
	EXPERIMENTAL Group	52	58	52	80
	CONTROL Group	38	17	38	48

Proceedings of ICERI2015 Conference 16th-18th November 2015, Seville, Spain ISBN: 978-84-608-2657-6