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 g0HEnV020708; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:49:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:49:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3C46E467.7D529579@ellijay.com> 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: Art LaChance <arthur@ellijay.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3848] RE: NIFL-LD:3810 NO Support for phonetic X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Status: O Content-Length: 4666 Lines: 87 Maria, You're right, "Diagnostic Tests" very often only identify the obvious, specified in terms of symptoms. Most testing that I'm familiar with that intend to identify "IQ" make several assumptions, one of which is that the person being evaluated has been exposed to a perfect learning opportunity for the mental skills required by the "test", either that which is 'tested' or associated skills ie all those included in 'verbal reasoning' or 'spatial concepts'. I've used the McCarron-Dial Perceptual Memory Task (PMT) on several occasions at a local level in the adult literacy classroom to verify that the visual, auditory, and spatial capabilities were not dysfunctional in order to rule out limitations in data handling / 'learning'. Administration of this instrument is not beyond the capability of the adult lit teacher. The McCarron-Dial is very user-friendly and very explicit in terms of capacity. It was normed using input from the 'disabled' and 'normal' populations, so the results are the most accurate I've seen in terms of identifying actual mental processing 'capability'. It is used quite extensively in the field of Rehabilitation in the Evaluation processes to identify brain capacity. Then the question becomes "If the capability is intact, where is the blockage?" The question that confronts each and every one of us as adult educators every day is "Is this person able to learn, or not?", and there's not much help out there. That's why we end up "using what works". Well what happens to the "disability" when we find something that "works". Did we do a lobotomy or something? We've all taught students who just never got it. But why didn't they get it? They could do a bunch of other stuff, why can't they do long division? Years of practicing erroneous procedures in long division, or any other brain dependent skill, sets up indelible neural pathways that interfere with new information. That's why I indicated that children can be brought back on track much quicker than adults because the pathways are not so strong. Adults require much support and much repetetion of new skills simply to build the trust of usage required before they will incorporate the new as replacements for the old. And even then, in times of stress (testing), they will often revert back to the old, because it has stronger influence, even though it may be incorrect and they know it. One question that we need to answer is why is it that a high percentage of LD kids are of above average "intelligence". Could it be that they learn so efficiently that they learn the mistakes, both their own and the teachers, as well as the good stuff?? And then the whole process becomes increasingly more complex and confounded because it's all interconnected within?? This does not cover as an explanation for all adult lit or LD situations nor is it a canned answer for all student conditions BUT, I'll bet it fits more often than not. I'm NOT looking for an argument here, "discussion" yes. I am sorry Clif left the discussion and the list. And I do respond quite well to "Shut-up Art". Art Art LaChance Gilmer Learning Center Ellijay, GA "Thiel, Maria" wrote: > Cliff wrote: > > "Many educators do diagnosis. The problem is that they often use a > discrepancy formula to diagnosis. A discrepancy formula does not diagnose > anything. It is relative and at best only exposes symptoms. It often does > not even do that. But it is in no way diagnostic. Many problems are caused > by this error in diagnosis that would otherwise be avoided. Many are the > very problems Art has presented. There are others however." > > Interesting observations- I agree that often tests do not indicate how a > student reads or where he/she is having difficulty. I also have seen > "diagnostic evaluations" with just a reading grade level identified, then a > paragraph added about whether the student was cooperative during testing. > Hmmmm... > > I think if we were to honestly evaluate all that is done to and for students > under the guise of educating them, we would find many areas in need of > improvement- ok, in some cases in need of a complete overhaul. I also feel > that as program coordinators, directors, educators, etc. we need to be aware > of different points of view. I viewed the discussions between Cliff and > Art as very informative. I did not see either get seriously rude- both were > asking the other to prove his point & I think we all should be able to > examine why we accept certain views. Perhaps if we examined our own > philosophies more closely, we would be more apt to chose methodology that > worked for our students.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:13 EST