I don’t know if the following comment
in LinkedIn refers to me but allow me to assume it is meant for me and see how
I will respond if it was directed at me.
“I find the tone in how one argues
makes a difference. Often it sounds as if the tones have a subtext of accusing
the other person of moral failure, so it's not blatantly ad hominem but the
"music" of the argument makes it so, and that just makes the other
more entrenched, because they might lose face. But if you just ask a lot of
questions with genuine inquiry, they might go away and change their minds, but
do so privately. This way it doesn't become about winning or losing, but about
discovery.”
The following was my off the cuff
comment to the above.
I quote Annaleese
McNamara : "But if you just ask a lot of
questions with genuine inquiry, they might go away and change their minds, but
do so privately. This way it doesn't become about winning or losing, but about
discovery."
I don't understand why tone is that
big an issue on important matters. Way back in 2010 I wrote about 'Phonological
awareness deficit not being the cause of dyslexia'. I honestly do not know if
the 'tones' were wrong. I wrote to more than 20 professors over several months.
There were professors who had simply echoed what one revered professor had said
about 35 years prior to 2010 and everyone latched on to his research paper
without thinking.
Despite logical explanations, in my emails to them, none of the professors accepted
what I had 'discovered'. I wrote to more than 30 universities to no avail.
After a few years new research reports were out singing the same song I had
sung.
Additional comment now:
“…subtext of moral failure…………” This appears interesting but I will come
back to this another day and would be grateful for comments.
I quote “But if you just ask a lot of
questions with genuine inquiry, they might go away and change their minds, but
do so privately. This way it doesn't become about winning or losing, but about
discovery.”
The emails to David Boulton and many
other professors in 2010 have not surfaced until now. As of now they are still
undisclosed.
i.
Was mine not
genuine inquiry?
ii.
Were my emails not
private?
iii.
Is my case a
matter of winning or losing? If it was, would I have not written to the more
than 20 professors saying or rather singing “I am the winner, I am the winner”.
Did I write to anyone and say “I told you so”?
No, I did not as it is not important anymore. I wanted the
world to accept my discovery and it has been accepted. Yes, it is about
discovery. Sadly it is not Luqman’s discovery but so what? What does it matter?
Now, let us look at Timothy Shanahan's blog in
2015 – that is 5 years after my emails
to all the experts who had echoed what one guy had told the world more than 35
years ago.
“The term dyslexia has been,
justifiably, controversial, and has consequently been avoided by most reading
educators—including me.
There are scads of studies revealing that dyslexia is
phonological in nature. That is, students with this disorder have a
particularly difficult time perceiving phonemes and coordinating this
perception with the letters on the page.
…. NICHD research
suggests that when elementary kids have reading problems, they tend to be
problems with phonological awareness and decoding about 86% of the time.”
My comment: Don’t forget “Scads (numerous) of studies
revealing that dyslexia is phonological in nature”.
Also, please remember this
was in 2015 when what I wrote was in 2010.
What does Timothy Shanahan say in September 2017 in his blog above?(Revision of his 2015 blog post)
“This explanation of dyslexia seems especially pertinent …..
and the only thing I would change in it now is the estimate of the
phonological/phonemic awareness role in reading problems. There are some more recent data in relatively large studies
suggesting a somewhat lower incidence of these problems at least with some
populations; that wouldn't change the overall thrust of this much, but it would
be, perhaps, more accurate.”
My comments: Look at the dates – I wrote extensively to
professors, universities, Dyslexia Associations, Ministers of Education in UK, US, NZ and Australia and in comments in blogs and
anywhere I could write in 2010. I wanted the misguided definition that
dyslexics could not read because of phonological awareness deficit to be done
away with.
Many of the professors who just echoed what one guy had told
many years ago did not respond to my emails but one did and apologised saying
that she is not an expert in this and referred me to Dr.Sharon Vaugn whom she
had quoted.
I wrote to Sharon Vaugn an introductory email which received
an immediate response.
I then immediately wrote and asked her about her stand on
Phonological awareness and its role in dyslexic kids and said that I disagree
with what I have read and gave her reasons for my disagreement. There was no
response.
Were my emails to Sharon Vaugn private or not? I am
disclosing about this email only now to let you all know that it was private.
Wouldn’t it
be better to admit a mistake for the benefit of the kids of the future? Is face saving more important than Millions of children all over the world who are classified wrongly as dyslexics?
Not responding to questions appears to be a practice among
many professors in US. There are a few exceptions like Prof Joe Togerson and Dr. Richard Selznick
and our Prof.James Chapman in NZ.
Note: See how our Timothy Shanahan covers his mistake in 2015 with “suggesting
a somewhat lower incidence of these problems at least with some populations;
that wouldn't change the overall thrust of this much, but it would be, perhaps,
more accurate.”
What is my purpose of writing all this now?
1.
To request educators to use common sense and
think for the benefit of our future generation.
2.
To not blindly rely on past research reports. If
what is informed makes sense and appears contradictory to what is commonly
believed then do a research without being biased.
3.
To listen to those who are speaking from
experience.
4.
To ask yourself as to why one – Luqman - would
spend so much time writing to various universities, professors etc. Does he
have an agenda? Did he subsequently write to all the universities and
professors and say “I told you so”?
5.
To inform those who had commented in the page
above about ‘wrong tone’ that they should not just look at the current event
and make a wrong conclusion. Like I said I have been writing on two issues. One
(Phonological awareness deficit being the cause of dyslexia) has been resolved
and one more which is even more important than the one resolved and needs to be
discussed by all concerned educators – ‘Why kids disengage from learning to
read?’
This is getting too long. Let me come back next week with
the balance of comment in the post above and my response.
I had kept my emails private. I used courteous language. I
wrote again to David Boulton in 2015 without reminding him of the emails in
2010.
I did not write to any of the professors or University
asking them for some acknowledgement of my contribution. (Perhaps I should have
requested for an honorary degree of some kind as I see many educators viewing
my profile in LinkedIn and then not bothering to respond to my comment in their
posts.)
If I have to say so
myself:
1.
I am the
first person in the world to say that ‘phonological awareness deficit’ is not
the cause of dyslexics not being able to read.
2.
I am the first person in the world to come up
with an answer to the frequently asked question as to why the illiteracy level
is as high as it has been for decades.
The important matter is the future of our children and that
is all that matters to me right now. This is not a matter of revenge or making
people ‘lose face’. I have asked again and again to be grilled on what I have
found.
For those who come mid way of discussions and comment
without knowing what is going on, I would urge you to read my past posts before
jumping in.
My contention is that a majority of kids who are classified
as dyslexics are classified wrongly. These kids are unable to read because they
have been taught phonics in the wrong way which confuses them. Read my past
articles carefully and grill me.
