This is a summary of the second half of an online video seminar entitled “Assessment and Highly Effective Intervention in Light of Advances in Understanding Word-Level Reading” (the first half I recently summarised here), which I hope encourages you to watch the whole thing.
It’s by Dr David Kilpatrick, was recorded at the 2017 Reading in the Rockies conference, and is on the Colorado Dept of Education website. Thanks so much to all those involved in putting this great information in the public domain.
The talk’s summary and conclusions are a good place to start:
- We have not been working from a scientifically-established understanding about how words are learned.
- Our intervention approaches have been around for decades, but are not informed by word-learning research.
- The “culprit” in poor word-level reading is phonology.
- Skilled readers have letter-sound proficiency and phonemic proficiency, weak readers do not.
- Interventions that address these skill deficits have the best results, by far.
You might have seen recent marketing about a “Dyslexia Drive” now under way in towns across Victoria and NSW. The website on which this is promoted says their sessions are about “How You Can Help Your Child Read”, so the target market seems to be parents of struggling readers.
I was chatting to one of the excellent Dyslexia Victoria Support people, who thought this might be the latest incarnation of the Davis Dyslexia program, for which neither of us are aware of any credible evidence.
I once went to a rather underwhelming information night about this program, and wrote a blog post about it here. There is a MUSEC Briefing which concludes there is no scientific evidence to support its efficacy, the AUSPELD Understanding Learning Difficulties for Parents website concurs, and it’s on the “no convincing evidence” list in the 2017 book Making Sense of Interventions for Children with Developmental Disorders by Caroline Bowen and Pamela Snow (p339).
So I decided to find out from the horse’s mouth. I rang the phone number on www.dyslexia.com.au this afternoon, and asked if they use the Davis Dyslexia program.
The person who answered said that she used to be a Davis Dyslexia program facilitator, but is now no longer licensed as one, so can’t mention the Davis program on her website. Continue reading
There’s some free online learning that I’d recommend to anyone who works with beginning or struggling readers/spellers. You’ll find it on the Colorado Dept of Education website and was recorded at the 2017 Reading in the Rockies conference (thanks to the organisers!).
However, it’s three videos, each more than an hour long. Teachers are time-poor. They understandably aren’t keen to watch long work-related videos unless they know what they’re about, and believe they and their students will benefit.
So I’ve decided to write a blog about each video, summarising what I think are the key points, and recording the time on the video clock each is made, to assist those skimming to find topics of interest. I hope people will then be motivated to go back and watch the whole thing. Continue reading
I’ve just read a new e-book called Reading the Evidence: Synthetic Phonics and Literacy Learning, edited by Margaret M Clark OBE, a UK Visiting and Emeritus Professor who the About The Editor section says “has undertaken research on a wide range of topics and has developed innovate (sic) courses”.
Its announcement elicited some e-eye-rolling from members of the Developmental Disorders of Language and Literacy Network, and jovial suggestions that others buy, read and comment on it, but apparently I’m the only one with nothing more important to do (sigh).
Also on my reading list at the moment is The Influential Mind, about how to persuade people in the face of Confirmation Bias, our tendency to ignore or dismiss evidence that’s not consistent with what we already believe. Confirmation Bias is why presenting scientific data to the climate sceptic in your life never works. You can watch a video about it here.
Reading the Clark et al e-book thus also became an interesting exercise in thinking about my own thoughts. I’d set aside time to read the book in order to write what I hoped would be a thoughtful, informed response, but my brain kept coming up with other ideas. Did it keep switching off because of my own confirmation bias, or because of the standard of what I was reading? Continue reading
The Australian Literacy Educators Association (ALEA) and the Primary English Teaching Association Australia (PETAA) have just released an “infomercial” about the proposed Year 1 Phonics test. They oppose it, but watching their infomercial left me with more questions than answers.
What’s the point of the Year 1 Phonics test?
Given the way NAPLAN data have been used to encourage schools to compete not collaborate, and teachers’ often crazy workloads, I completely understand that many teachers are wary of yet another mandatory test.
However, the point of the Year 1 Phonics test is to help teachers better identify which children are struggling to read words, in order to provide early, well-targeted intervention. NAPLAN only starts in Year 3, so can’t do this.
Nonsense words are included on the phonics test because they clearly show which children can crack words open by matching sounds to letters/spellings and then blending, and which can’t. Not having ever seen the words before, kids can only tackle them by sounding out.
Early years teachers can try such a test for themselves by downloading the 2016 UK version, available free online. Many Aussie teachers already are, apparently. Continue reading
The Arrowsmith program has been going for about 35 years, and had a research program for about 18 years.
In all that time, not one study has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal providing reliable scientific evidence that it works. Not one.
Perhaps the Australian Education Union didn’t realise this when giving Canada’s Barbara Arrowsmith-Young (AKA The Woman Who Changed Her Brain) a platform to promote her program here last week.
Radio National also interviewed her but failed to ask her hard questions, like whether her program has actually been shown to work. Continue reading
A recent TES article says a new UK report reveals a “Silent army of 40,000 ‘lost girls’ struggling with reading”.
Great, attention-grabbing headline. Shades of Boko Haram. But we already know that many girls can’t decode, or can’t comprehend language very well, or have both problems.
There are fewer struggling girls than struggling boys, and girls are more likely to shrink into themselves than attract attention by behaving badly when they’re struggling. But struggling girls exist in schools everywhere, which should already be identifying and assisting them.
An over-reliance on phonics?
What made me sit up and pay attention in the TES article was its statement that the report it discusses “suggests that an ‘over-reliance on phonics’ is obscuring deeper problems with reading in primary schools – where children can read words but may not understand them”. Continue reading