Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i8UIpI821237; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <007101c4a71d$fb5b4790$2500a8c0@DDQPYT21> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Art LaChance" <arthur@ellijay.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1632] Re: Integrating computer technology X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 4309 Lines: 110 Andrea, Bob, + If I can add my take on this. It appears to me that once the erroneous engrams or neural pathways develop and become reference operating procedures for the stimulus that created them they remain in place until changed and therefore continue to refine themselves in terms of response time and application. Therefore when we look at MRI's of malfunctioning brain processes they will not appear "normal" as the patterns are not being generated along energy pathways in areas that are commonly utilized for those specific purposes. Therefore malfunctioning, ie not normal, processes must be corrected via repetetion accompanied by appropriate feedback, which necessarily means positive as any form of negative feedback will bring forth the emotional block that has been generated by the self protection system ingrained in flight/flight. The actual onset or origination of the misdirected impulses that govern the malfunctioning brain processes must be localized and addressed at it's lowest level to ensure efficacy. Should the initial response patterning not be addressed, ie induce change in midstream somewhere, the automatic functions will retain control and actually replace the change with standard patterns, and continue in the manner they've been allowed to until the actual response trigger mechanism is changed. Good computer programming that performs it's own analysis and then redirects the student back to that lowest level will be effective in the redirect process - IF the program allows for appropriate continuation of skill repetetion designed to continually reinforce the newer pathways until the entire response roadmap has changed to whatever is desired. Current diagnostics only appear to be able to identify that there is in fact a dysfunction, and unfortunately labels that dysfunction as permanent and unchangeable. There are certain genetic traits that do limit the brain in some of the higher level multi-dimension functioning, however I think most of what we see in the adult literacy classroom is changeable. To compare experiential activities with children vs adults: the child's brain patterning can be changed readily and doesn't require anywhere near the feedback, repetetion, and time that it takes to change an adult's patterning. art Art LaChance Gilmer Learning Center Ellijay, GA ----- Original Message ----- From: <AWilder106@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1628] Re: Integrating computer technology > Bob-- > > I don't have a test--yet. > > "Yet" because I may be able to dig one up. > > The major deficit is due to "mixing" problems in the temporal lobe of the brain--sound and symbol don't match up as well as they should. This will show up in normal spelling as a distinctive pattern, this is an informal diagnostic which a knowledgeable teacher could perform. > > This type of diagnostic is confounded by some other possible problems: > > 1) a beginning reader > 2) poor teaching in the past > 3) other deficits > > However, this type of learner can probably keep in mind very simple spelling patterns, like CVC or CVCe words. They are stored visually, not auditorily. As soon as the learner has longer and more complex phonologically words to deal with, the memory goes into overload; the sound system which couldn't manage the easier words is dysfunctional. > > What I am interested in is whether the computer programs through repetition and auditory means, whatever, can remediate this problem, which is the characteristic "dyslexic" problem. > > Where should the knowledge be, in the machines or in the teachers? How knowledgeable are the people who write the programs? > > I wish I were in a room with multiple programs set up so I could see for myself perhaps why something is "working." > > As there seem to be programs that "work," I am wondering about the sequencing of reading skills. > > The Wilson program, for example, still in a paper version as far as I know, has a very specific sequence built first on phonetic principles and then on "greatest regularity" principles when phonetic principles aren't enough. > > I'd be interested in any of your thoughts on this. > > Thanks. > > Andrea > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:55 EST