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 j92IulG14894; Sun, 2 Oct 2005 14:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 14:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <049b01c5c782$cc642c00$0202a8c0@Tomschoice> 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: "John Nissen" <jn@cloudworld.co.uk> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4914] Re: LD and intensive phonics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 13373 Lines: 337 Hello Lucille, I have looked at the IDA site you recommend, and their FAQ does seem to embody conventional wisdom about dyslexia. But there are some issues that are a bit clouded over. I suspect that it is important for IDA to concur with the idea of the dyslexic person as a basically intelligent person who is liable to underachieve unless given special help. I absolutely sympathise with this idea, because both my eldest (Oliver) and youngest (Clara) of three children have been diagnosed as dyslexic and received help in their education, with extra time in exams. However there is no evidence that so-called dyslexics are any different from other poor readers and spellers, as regards the difficulties they have in reading in writing, or in the effectiveness of remediation. This point was strongly made in a programme on Channel 4, provocatively called "The Dyslexia Myth", see http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dyslexia_myth/. So I come back to one of my three questions that started this thread: "Is poor reading simply a result of poor teaching?" Last night I discussed this with my wife. She remembers Oliver's primary school teacher saying how difficult Oliver was to teach, because he didn't seem to be taking in the instruction in class, and not participating actively. This is a characteristic of Oliver - he finds it difficult to take in instructions. He also lacks a sense of the passage of time, and a certain organisational ability. It is a combination of these which makes it difficult for teachers to give adequate tuition, and which makes exams so difficult for him. This set me thinking. Perhaps Oliver's difficulty with reading and writing, for which he was branded "dyslexic", was a result of him not taking in the instruction, rather than poor teaching as such. Perhaps, if he had been given intensive one-to-one tuition, where the teacher made sure that he was taking in every step, he would be as good a reader and speller as the average child of his age and intelligence. And perhaps his neural pathways would have developed as for the average child. An alternative explanation, provided by the programme I mention above, is that reading problems most often arise from a audio processing disability or difficulty. See "View 2" in http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dyslexia_myth/dyslexia.html. The past view was that dyslexia arose from a visual processing difficulty (hence the advocacy of tinted spectacles, etc.). This new explanation would suggest that to teach reading, one would need to concentrate on phonological awareness, as this is otherwise a block on successfully learning to read for up to 20% of children. I do not know whether this explanation could apply to Oliver. It seems to me vital that we find the correct explanation of dyslexia. The brain research clearly shows that there are marked differences in how people read - because different parts of the brain are in play. We need to establish whether the observed differences are cause or effect: the cause of differences in reading ability, or the effect of the way the people were taught. My hypothesis is that they are effect. It could be tested by fMRI on the Clackmannanshire kids. If they have all developed the pathways used by good readers, then we have: 1. evidence that dyslexia arises from inadequate teaching; 2. a new tool for diagnosis of reading problems; 3. a new tool to establish the effectiveness of teaching methods; 4. proof beyond reasonable doubt of the effectiveness of synthetic phonics in the teaching of reading. Cheers, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lucille Cuttler" <l.cuttler@comcast.net> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 2:15 AM Subject: [NIFL-LD:4908] Re: LD and intensive phonics > The International Dyslexia Association is a reliable source for many > questions recently expressed - www.interdys.org Membership brings > professional journals, newsletters, and a chance to meet with other > professionals in your area. Techniques appropriate for severe dyslexics > can > certainly help anyone struggling with decoding and spelling. > > As a tutor with 20 years I have used structured, kinesthetic, explicit > direct instruction. I know it does the job. A tutor/teacher to be > effective > needs a well equipped tool box. Creative ways of teaching, reaching both > sides of the brain, work. > > Also, always keep in mind that the rate of learning varies. Students go > as > fast as they can but as slow as they must. Lucille Cuttler > > -----Original Message----- > From: nifl-ld@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-ld@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of John Nissen > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 11:04 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-LD:4906] Re: LD and intensive phonics > > > > Hello Aaron, > > Thank you for the references. I had a good read of the article on > Neurobiology, and it is very informative and well written. > > However I have some problems with it. From what I have seen, none of the > research on dyslexia has taken into account a key environmental factor - > how > the subjects had been taught to read. Moreover none of the researchers, > to > my knowledge, have looked at children who have been given intensive > phonics > training at the start of primary school, by either explicit phonics or > synthetic phonics. Perhaps the patterns of brain activation would be > different, if the subjects had been taught in a different way. In the > Clackmannanshire study, all the children were taught to read successfully > using synthetic phonics, and there was little or no "dyslexia" apparent. > And I have heard of reseach suggesting that the left brain can indeed by > "activated" to help people overcome reading problems. > > Therefore, I am suspicious when the article says that "dyslexia is a > persistent and chronic condition". It seems there might be effective > remediation that could activate the parts of the brain that are used by > normal readers. A key giveaway in the article is as follows: > > [quote] > The awareness that all words can be decomposed into these basic elements > of > language (phonemes) allows the reader to decipher the reading code. In > order > to read, a child has to develop the insight that spoken words can be > pulled > apart into phonemes and that the letters in a written word represent these > sounds. This so-called phonemic awareness is largely missing in dyslexic > children and adults. Results from large and well-studied populations with > reading disability confirm that in young school-aged children, as well as > in > adolescents, a deficit in phonology represents the most robust and > specific > correlate of reading disability. > [end quote] > > The explicit phonics and synthetic phonics are designed to give this > phonemic awareness from the start. The other skill these methods impart > is > "blending" - the ability to put the phonemes together to form (spoken) > words. This skill is not mentioned in the article but is a key skill for > reading. > > There is a great danger of looking at the brain of a dyslexic person, and > saying the brain has been "disrupted" or "impaired", when in fact it may > be > just the way the person was taught. Is there any evidence to the > contrary? > > What I'd like to see is brain scans of the Clackmannanshire pupils > reading, > to see which parts of the brain they are using, especially for those > pupils > with dyslexic genes. > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > John > > P.S. Ian, I'm copying this to you, because I read you'd done some fMRI > with > researchers at Bristol. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Aaron Kohring" <akohring@utk.edu> > To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:00 PM > Subject: [NIFL-LD:4893] Re: LD and intensive phonics > > >> John, >> >> Yes, there is research into some of these areas you mention. >> >> I'd recommend taking a look at the Focus on Basics article: The >> Neurobiology of Reading and Dyslexia: http://www.ncsall.net/?id=278 >> >> Also, look at the resources under the section on Teaching/Learning >> related >> to instruction: http://ldlink.coe.utk.edu/research.htm >> >> Other good instructional guides are found here: >> http://ldlink.coe.utk.edu/ld_instruction.htm >> >> Aaron >> >> >> At 11:26 AM 9/29/2005 -0400, you wrote: >>>Hello everybody, >>> >>>It seems I was too late for Christopher, and a bit off topic, since my >>>questions were not related to technology. But I'd be interested to have >>>answers to these questions. >>> >>>Concerning the first question I asked, what kind of particular problems >>>do >>>people with LD have with reading. Is there anything different from the >>>"specific" learning difficulty, which is dyslexia (or at least embraces >>>dyslexia)? Is the difficulty in phonological awareness, or in blending >>>skills, or in spelling/decoding rules, or in comprehension, or a mixture >>>of >>>all these? If it is a mix, is there a characteristic mix? Has any >>>research >>>been done on this? >>> >>>On the second question, I have heard of people with LD being taught to >>>recognise whole words by associating them with symbols. This seems to be >>>a >>>denial of the fact that letters represent sounds, and they should be >>>taught >>>how to decode words, by sounding out the letters and blending those >>>sounds >>>together. But one person I asked said that "phonics was not suitable for >>>children with LD". I cannot believe this. Is there research evidence on >>>whether intensive phonics teaching is effective or not for people with >>>LD, >>>regardless of age? >>> >>>The third question is about cause and effect. If poor readers are >>>utilising >>>their right brain when they should be using their left brain, they could >>>end >>>up with underdeveloped left brains, i.e. not as relatively large >>>(compared >>>to right brain) as normal. That would be an _effect_ of lack of use. >>>Alternatively a left brain problem (e.g. damage) could be the _cause_ of >>>their poor reading, from a young age, and they would grow up with a >>>relatively small left brain. So is it cause or effect? What does the >>>research say? And is there anything that can be done for the older child >>>or >>>adult person to help in left brain development? >>> >>>---------- >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "John Nissen" <jn@cloudworld.co.uk> >>>To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> >>>Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:26 PM >>>Subject: [NIFL-LD:4872] LD and intensive phonics >>> >>> >>> > >>> > Hello Christopher, >>> > >>> > I am sorry I coming into this session rather late. I hope I am not >>> > too >>> > late >>> > to join in with some questions. >>> > >>> > 1. Do people with LD have different teaching requirements? >>> > >>> > I am trying to find out whether there is any difference in the >>> > teaching >>> > requirements for teaching people with LD to read, and teaching people >>> > with >>> > dyslexia to read. I haven't found any factor to distinguish them, as >>> > regards their reading (dis)ability. >>> > >>> > 2. Is poor reading due to poor teaching? >>> > >>> > Also I want to find out to what extent the poor reading, or >>> > non-reading, >>> > is >>> > due to misguided teaching. I often see that there are attempts to >>> > teach >>> > whole word recognition rather than word decoding, especially for >>> > people >>> > with >>> > LD, who may be considered incapable of the necessary phonological >>> > awareness. >>> > In the Clackmannanshire study, it was shown that a 'phonics first and >>> > fast' >>> > approach worked marvels for all the children, and by the end of >>> > primary >>> > school they were three years ahead in reading age compared to their >>> > peers >>> > taught by the 'conventional' teaching of a mixture of methods >>> > (including >>> > an >>> > element of phonics, together with guessing strategies, etc.). I >>> > suspect >>> > that anybody who has learnt to speak is also capable of the >>> > phonological >>> > awareness required for reading and writing, given appropriate >>> > teaching. >>> > >>> > 3. Left brain development for rapid decoding >>> > >>> > Finally I wonder whether the right brain development in some poor >>> > readers >>> > is >>> > because they have developed skills for whole word recognition, and >>> > with >>> > the >>> > right teaching, their left brain would be developed to enable rapid >>> > decoding, even in older children. >>> >>>BTW, I've written about the teaching of a brand of intensive phonics >>>called >>>"synthetic phonics" here: >>>http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/teaching-synthetic-phonics.htm >>>and I'd be grateful for comments. >>> >>>Cheers from Chiswick, >>> >>>John >>> >>>John Nissen, >>>director Cloudworld Ltd >>>maker of the WordAloud assistive reader >>>http://www.cloudworld.co.uk >> >> Aaron Kohring >> Coordinator, LINCS Literacy & Learning Disabilities Special Collection >> >> Center for Literacy Studies, University of Tennessee >> EFF Center for Training and Technical Assistance >> Phone:(865) 974-4109 main >> (865) 974-4258 direct >> Fax: (865) 974-3857 >> e-mail: akohring@utk.edu >> >> > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:54 EST