Ps- also take a look at page 50 which is quite good. I think brain training and working memory training is all the rage in some quarters now- not that memory can’t be improved with cognitive strategies but
working memory itself is pretty stable over time and resistant to change and relates also to cognitive load and task complexity.
Unfortunately, we are in a field dominated by fads and BS practices that often don’t stand up when scrutinized- and sometimes unforgivably, differentially impacts those who need support the most.
MDB
Ineffective Treatment for Dyslexia Interventions that claim to treat dyslexia in the absence of print are generally ineffective. Claims of ineffective treatments for dyslexia may use terms or techniques described
as “brain training,” “crossing the midline,” “balance therapy,” and others. While some treatments may ameliorate conditions other than dyslexia, their use for students with dyslexia has not been proven effective. Figure 4.2 addresses some commonly advertised
interventions that may be purported to treat dyslexia, but scientific, peer-reviewed research has demonstrated ineffective results for students with dyslexia.
Figure 4.2. Treatments Ineffective for Dyslexia Examples
What Research Has Found Citation Colored Overlays and Colored Lenses “Consistent with previous reviews and advice from several professional bodies, we conclude that the use of colored overlays to ameliorate
reading difficulties cannot be endorsed and that any benefits reported in clinical settings are likely to be the result of placebo, practice, or Hawthorne effects.”
Griffiths, P.G., Taylor, R.H., Henderson, L.M., & Barrett, B.T. (2016). The effect of colored overlays and lenses on reading: a systematic review of the literature. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, 36, 519–544.
https://doi. org/ 10.1111/opo.12316
Specialized fonts designed for people with dyslexia “Dyslexie font did not lead to improved reading compared to normal ‘Arial’ font, nor was it preferred by most students.” Kuster, S. M., van Weerdenburg,
M., Gompel, M., & Bosman, A. M. (2018). Dyslexie font does not benefit reading in children with or without dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 68, 25-42.
https://doi. org/10.1007/s11881-017-0154- 6
Vision Therapy “Scientific evidence does not support the claims that visual training, muscle exercises, ocular pursuit-and-tracking exercises, behavioral/ perceptual vision therapy, ‘training’ glasses, prisms,
and colored lenses and filters are effective direct or indirect treatments for learning disabilities. There is no valid evidence that children who participate in vision therapy are more responsive to educational instruction than children who do not participate.”
Handler, S.M., Fierson, W.M., et al. (2011). Joint technical report - learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision. Pediatrics, 127, e81856.
https://doi.org/10.1542/ peds.20103670
Specific Working Memory Training Programs “The authors conclude that working memory training programs appear to produce short-term, specific training effects that do not generalize to measures of ‘real-world’
cognitive skills. These results seriously question the practical and theoretical importance of current computerized working memory programs as methods of training working memory skills.” Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. & Hulme, C. (2016).
Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer”: Evidence from a metaanalytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 512-534.
https://DOI: 10.1177/1745691616635612
From:
Burke, Mack <Mack_Burke@baylor.edu>
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 11:27 AM
To: project.diverse@lists.it.utsa.edu <project.diverse@lists.it.utsa.edu>, project.leer@lists.it.utsa.edu <project.leer@lists.it.utsa.edu>
Subject: [Project.leer] Dyslexia handbook
See link on dyslexia handbook from TEA. It is quite good and data based and am familiar with most the people they cite…although it is an on ongoing discussion how the conception of dyslexia and “garden variety”
learners with reading problems are different- which has dyslexia and which has a “curriculum disability”- ideally the non-responders to a decent curriculum would be those you would take a look at in RTI at least until 3rd grade when things shift
a bit and might become more complicated (from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”). And given the disparities in reading with minoritized learners…it is worth thinking about…here is the section on language and emergent bilinguals from it.
Language Proficiency
Much diversity exists among EB students. A student’s language proficiency may be impacted by any of the following: native language, English exposure, parent education, socioeconomic status of the family, amount
of time in the United States, experience with formal schooling, immigration status, community demographics, and ethnic heritage (Bailey, Heritage, Butler, & Walqui, 2000). EB students may be students served in bilingual and English as a second language (ESL)
programs as well as students designated as EB whose parents have denied services. In addition to the information discussed in the previous section of this chapter, the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) maintains documentation (19 TAC §89.1220(g)-(m))
that is necessary to consider when identifying EB students with dyslexia. The LPAC is required to meet annually to review student placement and progress and consider instructional accommodations and interventions to address
the student’s linguistic needs. Since the identification and service delivery process for dyslexia must be aligned to the student’s linguistic environment and educational background, involvement of the LPAC is required.
Additional data sources for EB students are provided below in Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3. Additional Data Sources for Emergent Bilingual Students • Home Language Survey • Designation of the student's level of
language proficiency • Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) information for four language domains (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) • Instructional interventions provided to address language needs • Information regarding
previous schooling inside and/or outside the United States • Type of language program model provided and language of instruction
MDB
From:
SPEDTex <inquire@spedtex.ccsend.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 10:13 AM
To: Burke, Mack <Mack_Burke@baylor.edu>
Subject: Stay Connected!
Special Education Information, Updates, and Resources
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|