Brant,

As a secondary special educator, my experiences re: progress monitoring for reading fluency parallel yours.  At first students are a bit anxious but reading to the teacher and seeing the results are very rewarding to them and they definitely remind me if I forget.  I also usually see a nice steady (although slow) improvement, even with my extremely low readers (reading at 20-30 cwpm).

In the area of processing speed, I see this issue a lot with my students with fetal alcohol and fetal drug issues.  Do you know of any research in this area?  It does seem to be related to what I consider to be "connectivity problems".  Will you share with us how you're defining that term?

Thanks,

Jeanette Schandelmeier

Lake Pend Oreille Alternative School

Sandpoint, ID 83864

 

 

 

________________________________

From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Brant Hayenga
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 10:47 AM
To: 'The Learning Disabilities Discussion List'
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4179] Re: Learning expectations

 

Nora:

Your program sounds really great to me. I'll work through some of the questions.

I am interested in your thoughts about non-academic interventions for processing speed.

Processing speed is not a unitary function. There are many different processing speed sub-sets (speed of apprehending, speed of decision, speed of reacting, movement speed, speed of thinking, perceptual speed) that have been identified by factor analytic studies of very large data sets of IQ testing results (military testing and other very large data sets). There are many ways to measure those different aspects of cognitive speed; 1) motor tasks, 2) visual, 3) lexical, 4) grammatical, 5) and phonological. So the question seems to be how do those different skills correlate with learning to read? The narrow ability of perceptual speed (ability to search for and compare visual symbols) has been shown to be strongly related to reading achievement throughout the elementary years. 

 

There is also research into the contribution of white matter and connectivity problems to processing speed deficits. See the Klingberg lab web page link below and locate the white matter article.

 

In his chapter in Contemporary Intellectual Assessment, John Horn addresses the relationship between processing speed, attention, and cognition. He states, "the relationship of chronometric measures to cognitive capacity is not due primarily to speed per se, but to the fact that speeded measures require focused and sustained attention. It is not cognitive speed that is at the core of cognitive capability; it is a capacity for focusing maintaining attention. This is required in speedy performance, and it is required in solving complex problems." That would appear to implicate attentional/executive deficits also. See the Klingberg article on computerized training to improve attentional skills. Klingberg T, Fernell E, Olesen P, Johnson M, Gustafsson P, Dahlström K, Gillberg CG, Forssberg H, Westerberg H (2005) Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD - a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(2): 177-186. http://www.klingberglab.se/pub.html This looks promising to me.

 

We have found that the weekly progress monitoring of fluency in struggling readers (those at an intensive or strategic level) has resulted in a spike in anxiety in students with reading, especially being timed. 

 

I have had a different experience with repeated reading for fluency, in regards to the motivational aspects. Lots of research points to the difficulty in acquiring fluency gains, and my experience is that students only increase in speed by a few words per month. But, my students loved to do repeated reading, and in fact if I forgot to have it in a days activities they would often raise their hands and beg to do it. We charted our daily growth, so each day they would be a little better than the day before and that was clear for all to see on the chart. For my dyslexic students this was often the only positive reading experience they had ever had. I like the manual from the University of Texas http://www.meadowscenter.org/vgc/materials/primary_fluency.asp#se 

 

Often learners with slow processing speed - and also attention and focusing issues - have bad handwriting habits (writing bottom to top, right to left, crazy pencil hold, reversals) and motor planning

 

There is the comorbidity so often seen. Virginia Berninger's book Brain Literacy for Educators and Psychologists has a couple of really good chapters on writing instruction in relation to self-regulation, attention, reading, and affect.

 

in your response, you talk about average being in the 25%-75% range

 

This point often comes up in IEP meetings. A student can be at the 25% compared to their peers and be considered average performing, and not be eligible for services. The middle 50% of students is from 25% to 75%. When I was a teacher I had a student who did not qualify for services because of this, because she was at about the 32%. She did not pass the state exam, not even close. So there is a big difference between normative average and passing the state exams.

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

Brant Hayenga

Educational Diagnostician 

Stapleton Elementary/Rio Rancho Middle School

(505) 896-0667 ext. 226 (District Office)

(505) 891-8473 ext. 519 (Stapleton Elementary)

bhayenga at rrps.net

 

-----Original Message-----
From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Nora Chahbazi
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 9:19 AM
To: 'The Learning Disabilities Discussion List'
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4174] Re: Learning expectations

 

Hi Brant, Mary, and all,

I have been working out of town since Tues and am trying to catch up on the multitudes of emails in general and specifically, on this discussion!  Thank you for your detailed response(s).  

 

Brant, in your response, you talk about average being in the 25%-75% range, which I never really thought of.  I must say I've looked at 50% as average/grade level with a goal of getting students well above that.  We did an interesting informal study where 2 districts I work in looked at their grade level tests of students (then the Iowa) and at the MEAP (State of Michigan test) to see how the students who were reading 'on grade level (at the 50%ile on the Iowa) did on the MEAP.  My experience has been that students testing at the 50th %ile ('at grade level) on group tests like the Iowa or individual standardized tests are often struggling with their grade level content in reading.  Both schools found that about 50% of students at grade level were passing the MEAP while 100% of those a year or more above were passing.  So, we always have our sights set on 75% or higher....a lofty goal, I know.  We are also always following the transference of our instruction with students to 'real life' such as their feedback of changes in how school is going, grades on their report card, grades on spelling tests (which go up dramatically, even after 1 hour of instruction at our center), and especially choosing to read on their own when they've never done so previously.  I am all for following their test scores but the authentic changes to real life is even more important, in my opinion. 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20091030/ce5f7e3b/attachment.html