Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fA65GZ025083; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 00:16:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 00:16:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011105235929.0277c700@mail> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Clifton Willard <clifwillard@home.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3737] re: Cliff Willard's letter X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Status: O Content-Length: 6228 Lines: 131 Patricia, That is exactly what I am saying. The greater question is," Is the reading disability the disability or the symptom of something else?" If you think of it as a symptom then we need to determine what is causing this symptom, not treat the symptom. There are many different causes for the same symptom. A person with a developmental delay will exhibit the same symptoms to the observer as a person with a reading disability. We need to know that it is a developmental delay and treat the developmental delay, not the symptom of difficulty reading. A reading disability caused by a perceptual deficit in printed words would be treated differently than a developmental delay or low functioning. A perceptual deficit in receptive language would be treated differently then someone who had not learned phonetics. We need to get below the symptom and stop treating a symptom. Treating symptoms has little real benefit. Treating the pain of a broken leg with not heal the leg. We need to know more about the individuals with the symptoms to really get a handle on the possible causes. There are over 30 different neural pathways for visual stimuli. How can this be ignored? I encourage your research it is the type of effort that brings real benefits. Remember that when reading disabilities were first recorded in the 19th century, they were referred to as, "word blindness." I think they had something. Clif At 02:36 PM 11/1/01 -0500, you wrote: >Patricia Rosen wrote: > > > Cliff, > > > > Are you saying that you do not agree with the idea that work in > phonological > > awareness can benefit those with learning disabilities? > > > > I have often thought the same myself. Yes, I agree that phonological > > awareness is an indicator of reading ability - but can it effectively be > > 'taught' to those who have learning disabilities? After only 3 years of > > research and practice I am starting to have my doubts. I am beginning to > > realize that what I am actually teaching my students with learning > > disabilities are 'tricks' in how to locate and organize the information > that > > they need in order to be successfull at whatever task they are undertaking. > > > > The teaching of phonological awareness skills does have an important role. > > It quickly distinguishes between those students who are simply taking > longer > > to learn how to read with those who have learning disabilities. > > > > That's my opinion, and I will be researching this very issue during the > next > > few years through the University of Toronto and at my place of work in > > Montreal, Quebec where I work as a resource teacher with middle school > > students. > > > > I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts. > > > > Patricia Rosen > > prosen@oise.utoronto.ca > > > > >From: Clifton Willard <clifwillard@home.com> > > >Reply-To: nifl-ld@nifl.gov > > >To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> > > >Subject: [NIFL-LD:3625] No support for Phonetic awareness as cause of > > >reading > > >Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:28:34 -0400 (EDT) > > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > > >Received: from [192.188.111.2] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id > > >MHotMailBD9A3A65003A40043222C0BC6F02A5DE0; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:28:54 -0700 > > >Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1])by literacy.nifl.gov > > >(8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f9K3SY020045;Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:28:34 -0400 > > >(EDT) > > >From nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:28:57 -0700 > > >Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011020101832.00a00080@mail> > > >Errors-To: listowner@nifl.gov > > >Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov > > >Sender: nifl-ld@nifl.gov > > >Precedence: bulk > > >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas > > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > > > > > >As an introduction, My name is Clif Willard and I am a Licensed > > >Professional Mental Health Service Provider in Tennessee. I have a masters > > >degree in communications and a second masters degree in educational and > > >counseling psychology. I also spent 2 years in a graduate program for > > >special education, multiple disabilities. I read on a third grade > level and > > >have ADHD myself. I attended thirteen different elementary schools and > > >dropped out of high school after six weeks in the ninth grade. I am an > > >adjunct assistant professor and teach a graduate class in ADHD and > Language > > >Based Disabilities. I am in private practice and concentrate on young > adult > > >and adult clients with language based disabilities and > > >Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Most clients participate in > > >counseling on a weekly basis for several years rather then short term > > >therapy. Several years ago I participated in this list. At that time I > felt > > >that there was no real support for the idea that a lack of phonetic > > >awareness was the cause of a reading disability. Over the last 10 years I > > >have not found any research that supports this theory. > > > > > >My clinical experience does however support the notion that a reading > > >disability is caused by a perceptual deficit and that this perceptual > > >deficit is caused by a timing problem of one of the processors being > out of > > >sync with the other processors in the system. It is a timing problem and > > >dynamic. Because it is dynamic, people with a reading disability can > appear > > >to "do it" one minute but can't ten minutes later. It is part of the > > >disability, not an indication that they are "getting it." A broken clock > > >tells the correct time twice a day. > > > > > >I am aware that 98 percent of the research supports phonetic awareness as > > >does Sally Shaywits at Yale. I have looked at much of the research and > find > > >that it makes all kinds of assumptions that are not supported in the > > >experience of those with the disabilities. Dr. Shaywits' research seems to > > >epitomize the folly of the research on reading disabilities/dyslexia. > I was > > >wondering what you think?? > > > > > >Clif > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:04 EST