Hello Robin, and everybody,

Here is some more information about the Clackmannanshire study, sent to me a 
few days ago by Jennifer Chew.  Note that there WAS an 'at risk' group, 
which would have included latent dyslexia, but this group was taught to read 
well, despite their problems.  One could claim that dyslexia was 
'prevented', but that is misleading, because dyslexia manifests itself 
through other things besides poor reading (as I know from personal 
experience).

BTW, "LEA" means Local Education Authority.

Cheers,

John Nissen
Cloudworld Ltd - http://www.cloudworld.co.uk
maker of the assistive reader, WordAloud.
Tel: +44 208 742 3170  Fax: +44 208 742 0202
Email: info at cloudworld.co.uk



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jennifer Chew
To: John Nissen
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:16 AM
Subject: RE: [LearningDisabilities] Re: [NIFL-LD:4953] Re: LD and 
intensivephonics


Hi John -

This has to be a brief reply - ...

The main point is that there was no selection for the Clackmannanshire 
project - it's a very small LEA and all children (even those with special 
needs) in all primary schools participated. If your correspondent gets hold 
of the Johnston and Watson study published in 'Reading and Writing: An 
Interdisciplinary Journal' in about August 2004 (I don't have the exact ref. 
here with me) she will probably find answers to her questions about 
phonological processing etc. An 'at-risk' group WAS identified on the basis 
of weak phonological awareness, but the synthetic phonics teaching enabled 
them to do well in spite of this.

I am due to return home on 16 Nov. If your correspondent wants to get in 
touch again after that I may be able to say more.

Jenny.


----- Original Message ----- 
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 8:40 PM
Subject: [LearningDisabilities] Re: [NIFL-LD:4953] Re: LD and
intensivephonics



> John-- what were the criteria for inclusion in the Clackmannanshire study?

> Were students screened for phonological processing skills before

> instruction, or were they merely beginnning readers? If the latter, who

> is to say there were any at risk for being non-readers (which is a whole

> lot different from being an impaired reader) at all? Why then would a

> 100% success rate mean the synthetic phonics prevents reading

> difficulties? I'd like to know more about the base lines of the group you

> started with, please.

>

> rclaims about rhyming contrast sharply with studies on reading

> difficulties in English learners and others where weakness in phonological

> awareness, which includes a significant awareness of rhyme structures, is

> seen as THE key factor in reading problems. I certainly have seen a

> high correlation between difficulty rhyming and difficulty reading in

> reading impaired adults, both English language learners and native English

> speakers. And I have seen the reading improve, sometimes dramatically,

> where sensibility to rhyme was strengthened.

>

> Have you tested your young readers before and after instruction with your

> system as to their sensitivity to rhyme and rhyme structures? It would

> seem to me that if they have developed the blending skills you maintain,

> they would increase their sensitivity to onset-rime as well. Robin

> Schwarz


[I had written]

> Let us summarise our argument.

>

> "Phonological awareness" can be divided into the analytic aspect and the

> synthetic aspect. Robin, you have concentrated on the analytic skill, for

> breaking a spoken words into constituent sounds. This can be a barrier

> for writing, but not for reading, we argue. On the other hand, the 

> analytic

> or "blending" skill, required to put the sounds of letters together to 

> make

> the sound of the whole word, is the major barrier for reading which has

> to be surmounted. There are of course other barriers that can hamper

> people, like visual problems, memory problems, hearing problems and

> comprehension problems. But, we claim, it is a difficulty in blending 

> which

> is the major cause of poor reading. The fact that in the Clackmannanshire

> study there were no non-readers is testament to our claim.

>

> Furthermore, we argue that anything which encourages the learner to adopt

 > a whole word recognition approach, is going to detract from the learning 
of

> the blending skill. So the fewer the sight words the better, during

> initial learning.

>

> Cheers from Chiswick,

>

> John