I have come to learn that most of the people "shut down" when something different from their experience or understanding is mentioned. They do not read with an open mind. I believe one should listen to any suggestion and weigh it before accepting or discarding it.
Most people are not open to things they have not experienced. Just because most of the people I am talking about do not speak any language other than English they do not want to accept the fact that dyslexics do not have a problem with phonics and they keep saying that dyslexics are 'phonologically unaware'.
Doc, let us just stick with this one point for a while.
Every dyslexic child I have taught can read in Malay as it is phonologically consistent.
There are many research reports in my blog that says the same thing about Italian, and Spanish. Tamil is another language that I speak and know is phonologically consistent.
The question is, "Why is it that people who can read fluently in all these languages become phonologically unaware when it comes to English"? Is it therefore correct to say that dyslexics have a problem with phonics/ phonemic/ phonology?
Doc, please think about this and try and give an answer. I'll put all my money (like you say) and challenge anyone who says that dyslexics are phonologically unaware.
There are other things that I want to write about but let us not clutter this mail with those other things.
Yes, I understand that you are writing from the point of your clinical experience. However, do just give a thought to what I have written above. You, unlike most people, should be able to keep an open mind on what I am saying.
I will get back to you on other matters in your book.
Please also do read the relevant articles on my blog - reading from my first article - and give me your views. I know that what I write is very different from almost all the writers on dyslexia and that could be because I have the advantage of teaching dyslexic kids in more than one language.
Wish you well,
OK…you raise interesting points and I just want credit for taking your points seriously, as you say no one has entertained them before!
Let’s do what you say and not jump around and try and take it point by point. I agree to not clutter the email.
So what about this imaginary scenario?
Let’s say you had 100 children of known average intelligence entering first grade. You decide to give them two very quick screening tasks:
1. A phonemic awareness type of task (e.g., “Say Cat.” “Now say it again, but don’t say /C/” – that type of task)
2. A spoken digit span (forward and reverse) task.
(Note that I haven’t done any reading assessment in this experiment.)
I would say that of the population of kids screened you would get three results, roughly.
Group I: Fine- no problem with the task
Group II: Ok – not stellar, but not significantly off.
Group III: Weak – poor on these two tasks.
Now, I would put $1,000 on a bet that a significant number (not all) of children in the third group are going to be struggling with early reading development.
Doesn’t that make the argument that there is something contributing to the fact that they are weak in tasks we call “phonemic awareness” and auditory sequencing (digit span) and reading and that they are highly co-related?
I don’t care what you call it, but it seems that these kids are disposed to not learning how to read well.
Now stay on this question and don’t clutter as you say, but answer my scenario.
For lesson 39 click here: