Posts
Anyone interested in reading and discussing this article? (I haven't read the whole article yet -- just the abstract). I think I can get a PDF of the whole article, which I'd share with anyone interested in participating. The discussion would be in the form of comments on a blog post.
If this idea appeals, it can be a regular feature here.
Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:451-75.
The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood.
Shaywitz SE, Morris R, Shaywitz BA.
Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06510, USA. sally.shaywitz@yale.edu
Abstract
The past two decades have witnessed an explosion in our understanding of dyslexia (or specific reading disability), the most common and most carefully studied of the learning disabilities. We first review the core concepts of dyslexia: its definition, prevalence, and developmental course. Next we examine the cognitive model of dyslexia, especially the phonological theory, and review empiric data suggesting genetic and neurobiological influences on the development of dyslexia. With the scientific underpinnings of dyslexia serving as a foundation, we turn our attention to evidence-based approaches to diagnosis and treatment, including interventions and accommodations. Teaching reading represents a major focus. We first review those reading interventions effective in early grades, and then review interventions for older students. To date the preponderance of intervention studies have focused on word-level reading; newer studies are beginning to examine reading interventions that have gone beyond word reading to affect reading fluency and reading comprehension. The article concludes with a discussion of the critical role of accommodations for dyslexic students and the recent neurobiological evidence supporting the need for such accommodations.
PMID: 18154503 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
====
13 comments:
I would love to do this. I tried to find it on Medline myself, but I am a weak searcher.
I'd like to do it too. The abstract is here. You can't access the full text without a subscription. If you get the full article, please email me.
I would participate. Abstracts always leave me wanting more. As an example here ,if neurological dyslexia data is just suggestive, then how can neurological evidence support the need for accommodation.
I understand why neurological data is just suggestive of dyslexia . There isn't anyone that will diagnose someone as being dyslexic based on neurological data alone.
As far as I know , neurological testing of individuals for dyslexia would yield both false negatives and false positives as well as being cost prohibitive.
Since accommodations come with a financial cost and compete with other needed educational resources I am sure a better argument needs to be made. I would hope the article would be more informative on the issue,as is usually the case, than the abstract.
It could be that the article discusses the concept rather than implementation of accommodation being justified by neurological data. If so , I would argue that without a means to determine who should or should not receive accommodation, progress in accommodation funding would be hard to justify.
I'd love to see something like this become a standard part of the repertoire here.
Dr. Shaywitz wrote a 2003 book Overcoming Dyslexia that I read. Her emphasis on how MRI shows the dyslexic brain functioning differently made me think of Jane Healy's books.
If a child hasn't been taught the phonetic code and has never read much because it is such a struggle without automaticity, it makes sense that an MRI would show a brain processing print differently from a fluent reader.
I'm not sure the different MRIs should be seen as anything other than proof that what children do and don't do may well affect the brain's abilities.
It seems a shame to accommodate a deficit while there still may be time for remediation if understanding the reasons for it would allow a long term fix instead.
I've got it! (Turns out I already had it, but hadn't read it...)
If you'd like me to email a copy, email me at: cijohn @ verizon.net
anonymous
That was a big problem with brain scans back when I was on the board of NAAR. I remember being shocked the first time one of our scientific advisors scoffed at the use of brain scans to tell you anything of value.
I've somewhat lost track since then, but I think we now have prospective brain scans, don't we? (If someone knows, chime in - I'm on shaky ground.)
That is to say, I think we now have scans showing particular brain differences before reading difficulties show up... or, at least, I recall Willingham saying we were about to have them...
I may have to seriously modify this comment when I finally read more of the literature.
A great phrase re: over-valuing of technology in medical and research fields: "gizmo idolatry." Haven't read the article yet.
When I was involved in funding research, behaviorists were having to include a brain scan component to get funding. The brain scan had nothing to do with what they were studying & showed nothing the child's behavior didn't show, but they had to work with a brain scan person so as to appear "scientific."
That is a whole, long saga of unintended consequences (in this case, parents raising money for biological research. The NIH shifted all the money from the behaviorists, who were the only people actually treating autism, teaching autistic kids, and improving the lives of autistic children, to "wet" scientists, who had nothing to offer the actual children. It's an awful story I may have to tell sometime.)
I remember one behaviorist - this was one of the top people in the country, a major, major figure - telling Ed and me he would refuse to include a brain scan component in his study if it was going to scare the children.
If you know anything about autistic children, you know that subjecting them to a painless brain scan could be a gigantic trauma.
Catherine, if you have a full-text copy, that's great! I can't seem to access my university library from this connection and won't be able to until tomorrow.
If you would be so kind to email it to me, I can read it and set up a discussion structure.
I might not get to that till Wednesday as I am travelling and don't have access to some of the reference works.
@richard -- yes, I think something like "peer-reviewed Monday" would be a good addition to the discussions here.
I agree, absolutely, about "peer-reviewed" Monday.
Though I may have to post a link to Arnold Kling's take-down of peer review. (Ed and I had our own episode re: peer review....)
Liz - I just sent you Shaywitz & an article on visual phonics (of relevance to me, not necessarily to this thread).
Haven't read either, yet.
Count me in, I have heard both the Drs. Shaywitz speak and have followed some of her articles in medical journals subsequent to the "Overcoming Dyslexia" book publication.
The fMRI work is interesting but still (IMO) provisional in that it clearly shows effects of good instruction (or its absence) but does not, so far as I can tell, provide a way of differentiating between those who have some neurologically-based learning difficulty and those who are untaught or poorly taught -- a very important issue, in diagnostic terms.
I am wary of labeling children -- or adults for that matter -- as having a "brain condition" that is congenital without some compelling evidence of same. There is the danger of promoting a defeatist or helpless attitude on the part of the student, the family, and those who work with the student ("oh well, s/he has 'dyslexia' so s/he can't learn to read").
We know from working with individuals with identified brain trauma that indeed reading skills can be mastered, albeit with a lot more effort and individualization than normally needed.
Fortunately, in school situations, it rarely matters what the cause is (or is deemed to be) -- the student's "reading disability" can be addressed instructionally. The weakness in the IDA/NIH definition of "dyslexia" is that it presumes that the student is struggling in spite of effective instruction, but rarely has effective, research-validated instruction been provided.
Shaywitz may not have been aware of instructional issues when she began the first Connecticut Longitudinal Survey, but she is now. I do not know (but would like to find out) if some of her follow-up studies are now controlling for instructional variables.
bad news - my email is screwed up; can't send or receive
will see if I can figure that out & then send palisadesk the article...
Post a Comment