I started watching the interview with Maryanne Wolf while I was doing dishes this Sunday morning. I quickly realized I couldn’t multitask through this video, her message was so moving and beautiful it required my full attention.
I knew I would love Maryanne Wolf’s interview after the first minute. “The brain was here before reading” and “A beautiful brain that happens to be disadvantaged” were two quotes that I find to be very, very powerful. I haven’t had the opportunity to work with a child with dyslexia yet so my background knowledge on the subject is very weak. However, growing up a friend of mine who was a few years older had dyslexia. I wouldn’t say that he had a negative educational experience, he was well-liked by his peers and his teachers. He also participated in many school sports and activities. I do recall though statements being made about his inability to read and spell properly because of his dyslexia. The words I can remember were said by his friends after receiving a mixed-up text, I cannot remember if his teachers made remarks about it at school. Taking what Maryanne Wolf said throughout her short interview, I think we had very little knowledge and understanding of his learning disability. Wolf states that a dyslexic brain is still a fantastic brain that can learn, teachers just have to figure out how that brain learns best. I think the same can be said for all of our students, our job is to figure out how they learn best and how we can support that learning. However, I believe it is even more crucial for dyslexic learners. Wolf also talks about professional development. In my small school, I have never heard anyone talk about PD on dyslexia. I am not sure if that is out of ignorance or that it feels as though it is not needed. I, however, am quite intrigued! Most people think they have an understanding of what reading is but when we think about dyslexia being here before reading was, I don’t think we have a full understanding of what reading truly is. I would love to attend a PD session that focuses on reading and the fact that reading and intelligence do not go hand-in-hand. Definitions explained by Wolf: Phonology: understanding of sounds Meaning: the semantic system Syntax: how words work in sentences and stories Morphology: how parts of words play really important roles Orthography: how our understanding of letter patterns hooks up to the language system Reference: Embracing Dyslexia: The Interviews with Maryanne Wolf, Ed.D., a prominent Dyslexia Researcher Video found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyxRIVfrxJs
0 Comments
I am beginning to explore articles related to my individual research paper. The article I read this morning was “The Early Catastrophe” (2003) by Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley. This article focused on the vocabulary of 3-4 year olds. Their study found that children from low-income families had smaller vocabularies (and their vocabulary grew at a lower rate) than children from high-income families. This vocabulary growth was strongly related to language skills and reading comprehension scores of the students later in life. The early years experience for children is incredibly crucial to their later achievements in the school years.
While I believe this research and similar studies to be accurate, I also find them slightly frustrating. I find it disheartening that income has so much to do with a child’s educational success. Hart and Risley’s article also mentions that despite the family income, children were all raised similarly, with love and discipline (2003). It appears that regardless of how much love you give your child, if you are in a lower-socioeconomic standing, your child will develop vocabulary skills at a lower rate. Family income is not something a child can choose nor is it something that is easily changed by the parents. On the other hand, we are also looking at research that states all students can achieve grade level reading by the end of first grade (Allington, 2011). I believe students are capable of this achievement, but I also believe students are not entering their school years at the same starting point. When there is a 30 million word gap (Hart & Risley, 2003) by age 3, we can not assume that all children entering first grade are displaying the same ready-to-learn skills. When I think of literacy in my classroom, the students with the greatest success also seem to be the ones with the most home support. They do their nightly reading, visit the public library, and practice spelling words at home. Children have more than one teacher, their parents and family members are just as important (if not more-so) than the classroom teacher. Teachers cannot do it alone, they need home support to help students reach grade level reading scores. We cannot undermine the affect family involvement has on educational success. Regardless of income, we must find a way for all families to become involved in their child’s educational experience. References: Allington, R. L. (2001). Research on reading/learning disability interventions. In S. J. Samuels and A.E. Farstrug (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed.) Newark, DE: IRA. Hart, B. & Risley, T.R. “The Early Catastrophe:The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3” (2003, spring). American Educator, pp.4-9. Research on Reading/Learning Disability Interventions by Richard Allington (2011)
While Allington’s (2011) article referenced education in the United States, it still made me reflect on my experience with the Saskatchewan education system. Our provincial goal is to have all grade 3s reading at level by the end of the year. They have also moved to a play-based kindergarten where students are not expected to formally learn the alphabet, they are to be introduced to letters through play. The expectations have not changed, and some studies will show that a play-based kindergarten is what students need. However, my worry is that we are putting more pressure on students (and teachers) in the grades 1-3. Another similarity is the fact that scores are often portrayed as worse than they truly are. Is a test score or rubric enough to confirm a students’ reading or achievement level. Last year, all grade four students in Saskatchewan completed a writing piece that would be assessed and used for data. The marking standards were not consistent across the province. Students who were perceived as more capable or skilled writers scored less than students who were considered weaker. The teachers’ expectations of the students were taken into account. Unless the same person is to mark each writing piece anonymously, is there a way to ensure fair and consistent marking? One quote that particularly panicked me was on page 238 of the article, “Studies indicate that virtually all children entering kindergarten in a public school can achieve grade level reading proficiencies by the end of first grade” (Allington, 2011). This is shocking to me. Students enter kindergarten (and grade 1) at different levels and with different knowledge, skills, and capabilities. It also doesn’t take into account chronic attendance issues. Students who do not come to class regularly cannot be expected to make the same gains as a student who comes to school on time every day. Further into the article, Allington makes reference to a year’s growth. I appreciate this concept more as we should still expect students to make “adequate yearly academic progress” (2011) but we cannot expect that progress to look the same for every student or to be achieved at the same rate. A final piece that I hope will become more clear throughout this course is the topic of learning disability versus difficult reading acquisition. When do we know if a student is just experiencing difficulty or if they have an actual learning disability? What tests can be done or behaviours could be seen to help indicate one or the other? Stegemann’s article summarized the term “learning disability” and how it varies across Canada. Some of the information I found very interesting while other parts were less than surprising.
Funding One area that I can’t help but focus on is the difference in funding between provinces and territories. I live in a town on the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border. I live on the Manitoba side but teach at a school on the Saskatchewan side. When I first started work in 2014, the funding difference between the two provinces was drastic. At that time Manitoba was able to receive funding for students diagnosed with learning disabilities. While it does little for those students with undiagnosed learning disabilities, it was still more than Saskatchewan received. My school received x amount of money regardless of the number of exceptional learners enrolled. Stegemann mentions a change that took place in 2015, stating that Manitoba has also “move[d] away from categorical funding models in favour of a needs-based approach.” I have yet to see these changes affect the schools on the Manitoba side of our border town. While Saskatchewan has undergone huge budget cuts, I hope Manitoba is able to find savings by correcting inefficiencies as opposed to taking austerity measures. Labelling Stegemann clarifies the difference between learning disabilities and global intellectual deficiencies. Learning disabilities often affect oral language, reading, written language, and mathematics. They are due to genetic factors and occur at birth though may go undiagnosed for many years. In my Personal Report for Module 1 I wrote about a student who struggled with decoding. I mentioned that he could not see well and never came to school with his glasses. Stegemann addresses the notion that vision problems, home life, cultural differences, etc. may contribute to the severity of the learning disability but they can not be blamed for it’s existence. One question I am struggling with after this article is on the topic of labelling and stigmatization. Parents are reluctant to have their children diagnosed out of fear of stigmatization. I believe classroom teachers are differentiating and adapting/modifying lessons based on the needs of their students. How necessary is the “label” or paper work for the IEP if the student will remain in the general education classroom anyways? While I believe strongly in inclusion I worry that our form of inclusion is not allowing students with learning disabilities to reach their full potential. Is there a time and a place for inclusion as there would be a time and a place for time in the resource center? The school I work at recently implemented a life skills program for students in grades six to nine. They work on everyday activities such as grocery shopping, sending/receiving mail, and developing social skills. How do we decide when a student is needed to be removed from the classroom for long periods of time or when a differentiated program is sufficient? Findings While Stegemann’s findings weren’t the least bit surprising, they were still very unfortunate. Children with learning disabilities and their families are at a huge disadvantage in school and throughout their lives. They are more likely to suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts, lower self-esteem, and higher rates of unemployment. By raising awareness and educating ourselves on the various learning disabilities and how we can better support these learners is the first step in the right direction. The concept of learning disabilities is a fairly new phenomenon, less than 100 years old. I am optimistic that as we continue to learn and understanding learning disabilities, we can improve the lives of those students. What Reading Research Says: The Promises and Limitations of Applying Research to Reading Education by Timothy Shanahan (2002)
I have always taken research findings with a grain of salt. I am not one of those teachers who jumps on a “program bandwagon” full force because research says that it’s the best one. I believe in using programs that are effective but also tweaking and taking bits and pieces from other areas to meet the needs of our students. I found Shanahan’s article to be very interesting. He explains the discrepancies and the disillusion that comes with the term “research based”. Research based: a “term reserved for those instances when there was strong evidence that a particular type of instruction intervention worked in the past” (Shanahan, 2002) Research related: an instructional program where the ideas have been drawn from descriptive and correlational studies. The instructional design is related to research. Research proven: “specific programs or procedures that have been tested successfully in experimental research” (2002). I appreciate Shanahan’s mention that just because research shows a program to be effective for one classroom, it does not necessarily mean the same results will be duplicated in another classroom. Students, teachers, classrooms, and entire schools are so diverse I wonder how research can take all of these factors into account fully. This article has confirmed my skepticism to buying in fully to the “research proven” programs. Research in reading intervention is extremely useful and informative. However, the results must be examined carefully and used in a thoughtful way to improve our teaching practice. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2018
Categories |