[NIFL-LD:4639] Re: Dyslexia Research

From: VB (veb8899@fastmail.fm)
Date: Sat Mar 12 2005 - 10:44:20 EST


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 j2CFiJC15743; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:44:20 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:44:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20050312154300.40AB575E@frontend2.messagingengine.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: "VB" <veb8899@fastmail.fm>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-LD:4639] Re: Dyslexia Research
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 3846
Lines: 82

Hi Andrea,

Hi Andrea,

<<I think that most "learning disabilities" would be caught by a test for a
phonological deficit. >>

Not to beat a dead horse but as an FYI, people with non verbal learning
disabilities usually do not have a phonological deficit.  Their main reading
difficulties have to do with comprehension.  Sorry, I am still sensing this
belief on this list that Dyslexia is the only learning disability when
nothing could be further from the truth.

Not as common but it exists more than you might think, are people like me
who have both NLD and Dyslexia.  

As reading instructors, this is important for you to know, because people
with NLD do not have good visual special skills usually.  In English, that
the usual methods you might teach regarding compensation such as
visualization, are not going to usually work for this particular population.

<<But a skillful teacher  may be able to remediate the problem; the brain's
plasticity in many cases enables the learner to construct alternate pathways
to the goal of being able to read and write better.>>

Not to sound doom and gloomish but even though a learner constructs
alternate pathways in reading and writing, they are still never going to be
as proficient as people without a disability.  The definition of a
disability to me as someone who experiences LD every day is that if I have
impairments that prevent me from doing something as well as most people in
our society, that is a disability.  I realize that everyone has strengths
and weaknesses but the difference between someone like me and someone
without LD is that the gaps between my strengths and weaknesses are a lot
greater than if for a person who doesn't have LD.

In other cases, I may be able to do something as well as someone without a
disability but it takes me several times as long to do it.

The exception I will make is that with dyslexia kids around 6 years old,
research has shown that after intense remediation, their brains looked just
like brains without dyslexia.


<<The language here trips us all up.  When I think "disability" I think of a
problem that arises in fetal development:  ectopias, when the neurons don't
hook up properly to their targets. Albert Galaburda, a neuroscientist at
Boston's Beth istrael Hospital, described what he found when doing post
mortem studies on "dyslexics"--ectopias.  

And even neuroimaging isn't fool proof, as the brain may "light up" the same
way for a person with ectopias as that of a person  who had poor teaching in
school.>>

Fair point and Sally Shaywitiz mentions that also by saying that she found
in her research that the imprint for teaching people to read was there in
their brains but for some reason, it was never activated.  If I remember
correctly, she really didn't elaborate on that but it sure sounded like
dysteachia to me.

<<So I think it all goes back to the teacher's "tool kit," experience, as
much knowledge as possible of neuroscience, and understanding, also, of the
legal consequences of saying a person is "learning disabled.">>

What legal consequence are you talking about?  The worst devastation in my
opinion is minimizing someone's difficulties by claiming they really don't
have a disability when they definitely do.  There are legitimate arguments
for suggesting that someone's reading problems might be due to the person
having been taught incorrectly but there are lot of problems due to LD that
have nothing to do with dysteachia.  They are neurological in nature and
nothing can change that fact.  

That doesn't mean we should all throw our arms up and say it is hopeless
because obviously, it isn't.  But at the same, to deny that LD is a real
disorder and is simply an overused label also is not very helpful.  I
realize it is a delicate balancing act but it is one we need to strive for.

Vivian



Andrea



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:47 EST