Greetings,

After reading the article (New Dyslexia Theory blames "Noise") I 
thought back on a series of workshops LIFT-MO provided (Reading 
Difficulties & Learning Disabilities: Instructional Strategies and 
Learning Accommodations). Drs. Jim Russell and Mary Bevel presented the 
LD portion of the 3 day series, Dr. Tom Schnell and I did the reading 
content. A variable such as excessive noise in the classroom would have 
been covered by the LD side with suggestions for noise reduction 
headphones, voice amplification mikes for instructors and grouping 
strategies. Jim grounded his suggestions for instructional 
accomodations on the brain reserach of the time (Shaywitz and others) 
noting the scatters of brain activity on the fMRI slides showing 
"dylexic brains work harder and less efficiently compared to 
nondyslexic brains". The reading folks agreed with suggestions for 
accommodations to amplify sound and minimize distractions, yet 
acknowledged learning phonemes naturally takes place in a noisy 
environment (natural speech and classroom conversations). Learning to 
decode print involves lots of repetition where the students are taught 
directly, with explicit explanations of how print and sounds relate and 
how reading works.

In a nutshell, the missing "noise" for many struggling readers, with 
reading difficulties and learning disabilities is "noise" generated by 
a competent teacher who consistently shows and tells students exactly 
how reading works in all five essential reading components (phonemic 
awareness, decoding, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency). My 
discussion will focus on print knowledge skills.

LIFT took the workshops a step further a year later and set up a small 
study to determine the extent to which adult educators felt confident 
of their professional knowledge about direct and explit instruction of 
the five reading components. The April 2004 (volume 47, no. 7) issue of 
the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, included the article, “What 
Adult Educators Know Compared with What They Say They Know About 
Providing Research-Based Instruction (Bell, Ziegler, & McCallum). The 
study used a survey to address the question “Are adult educators 
prepared to provide effective reading instruction for a diverse group 
of adults who have widely varying reading goals, skill levels, and 
learning difficulties?” I contacted the researchers and received 
permission to replicate the survey with Missouri adult educators 
attending two LIFT Reading Workshops.

The participants ranged in experience but were typical of adult 
educators who attend professional development sessions. The two full 
day, sequential workshops were sponsored by the state's Department of 
Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and provided at no charge to 
the adult educators. Participants completed a survey about their 
background and knowledge pertaining to reading instruction. The 
workshop began with a brief survey (which participants perceived as a 
reading test) about teaching adults to read. At the end of the two day 
workshop a post measure was administered. The model was, a)here's how I 
feel about my professional knowledge and skills about teaching reading, 
b) here's how I respond to questions about teaching adults to read, and 
c) after two full days of training on teaching reading, here's how I 
respond to questions about teaching adults to read.

Data was broken into the essential reading skills identified by the 
National Reading Panel. LIFT’s findings indicate that while many adult 
learners score at the lowest two levels of the National Assessment of 
Literacy Skills (NALS), and print skills are best learned through 
systematic, direct instruction, nearly three quarters (74%) of the 
adult and early educators predicted that they had minimal or less 
understanding of the terms and practices associated with alphabetics. 
According to the National Reading Panel, knowledge about print skills 
(alphabetics), which include; sight words, word analysis, spelling 
(orthography), oral rate and fluency, are critical components of early 
literacy.

This trend was repeated across skill areas. Nearly two-thirds (61%) of 
the teachers felt minimally or less competent about vocabulary 
knowledge and practices. When the two reading teachers attending LIFT’s 
workshops were deleted from the sample, 89% of workshop participants 
were only somewhat or less familiar with fluency instruction. A full 
69% of the workshop participants were minimally or not at all 
knowledgeable about how to teach readers to construct meaning from 
print.

This self report finding was confirmed by a 40 item instrument that 
measured educators’ knowledge about SBRR reading instruction and 
assessment. The sample of adult and early education teachers scored 
only 52% of the items correctly.

In conclusion, if we want to talk about “noise exclusion theory” – it 
may be struggling readers don't hear enough direct, explicit 
instruction, with ample opportunities for guided and independent 
practice, that is reinforced with meaningful teacher feedback. If we 
want to “train them in noise” – we need to provide extensive 
professional development for teachers so that they can and do show and 
tell struggling readers how to become more successful readers.

Jeri Levesque, Ed.D.
Evaluator, LIFT-MO

________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and 
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from 
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.