*ESSENTIAL READING: Behavioural Interventions to Remediate Learning Disorders: A Technical Report

[Susan Godsland]

Behavioural Interventions to Remediate Learning Disorders: A Technical Report

The following interventions are covered in this recent report from New Zealand.

Arrowsmith Programme

Brain Gym

Cellfield

Cogmed Working Memory Training

Coloured Overlays and Lenses (including those from Irlen and The Institute of Optometry)

Danks Davis Dyslexia Tutoring

Davis Dyslexia

Dore Programme

Fast ForWord

Lexia Reading

Lumosity

Orton-Gillingham

The Slingerland Approach, as used in New Zealand by The Learning Key

Steps

The Tomatis Method for Auditory Retraining

http://www.speld.org.nz/downloads/Repor ... ntions.pdf

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Thanks to Susan Godsland for flagging up literature which endeavours to provide the evidence for various programmes and practices - or should I say for some programmes the lack of high-quality transparent evidence! Notably, such programmes are commonly extremely expensive - and they are in danger of duping parents of children with learning difficulties into both false hope and parting with a large sum of money - take, for example, the notorious DORE programme!

As I post this message, this topic of - grave worries concerning promotion of some programmes and practices - is the thrust of conversations taking place via the DDOLL network as the 'Arrowsmith' programme (in particular) gains increasing attention and promotion in Australia - much to the consternation of people in the field of reading instruction and special needs - people who regard the findings of research on reading instruction and intervention extremely seriously.

I have permission to post the following message written by Professor Kevin Wheldall originally for the *DDOLL network:

While very few folk really understand the science of climate change and global warming, most people have assumed that the vast majority of climate change scientists must know what they are talking about and hence that the implications of their scientific research must be seriously addressed by political action. The climate scientists may not have it exactly right and they might disagree among themselves about some of the fine print, but, basically, their central premise has been accepted by society at large.

By the same token, there is widespread agreement among reading scientists about the basics of how children learn to read and how best to teach reading. We do not agree about every detail but there is ample evidence of reading scientists, as a group, making clear their opposition to methods and practices about which they have serious concerns. Reading Recovery, for example; the inadequacy of whole language instruction and the need for phonics instruction; the Dore program; to name but a few …

But the same respect is not paid to reading scientists as it is to climate scientists. Even though certain methods and interventions fly in the face of everything we know about reading, we are accused of being closed minded about loopy interventions for which there is no evidence of efficacy and for which there could never be any such evidence because reading doesn’t work that way. Spending hours on a balance board or playing with clocks on a computer screen will not make one jot of difference; as the history of our discipline has repeatedly demonstrated over the past decades. Old wine in new bottles appears every few years.

I ask you this. Do you really think that if programs like Arrowsmith were the answer, that there would not be unequivocal evidence to demonstrate its efficacy by now; after 30 years? Do you really think that we reading scientists would not be totally delighted if there were such a ‘cure' for dyslexia? That we would be so stupid, mean-spirited, arrogant or petty as to deny the benefits to children struggling to learn to read?

Who was it who said that we should not be too open-minded lest our brains fall out? I think that this may have happened in education already.

You can learn about Professor Kevin Wheldall here:

http://www.iferi.org/cmt-management-tea ... australia/

*DDOLL: Development Disorders of Language and Literacy network group

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Readers and contributors to the IFERI message forum may already be aware of IFERI's alarm regarding the continued international promotion and uptake of the expensive Reading Recovery programme for intervention.

You can read about critiques of the research on Reading Recovery via further threads here:

2014 Reading Recovery study - can we believe the results?

http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

The International Dyslexia Association (IDA) provides a warning to parents via its website - please note there is a downloadable pdf describing the Association's concerns:

When Educational Promises Are Too Good to Be True

http://eida.org/when-educational-promis ... o-be-true/

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Dorothy Bishop via her 'BishopBlog' expresses concern about the 'Arrowsmith' programme - reflecting more widespread concern amongst some academics and teachers:

http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/ ... g-for.html

Sunday, 30 August 2015

Opportunity cost: A new red flag for evaluating interventions for neurodevelopmental disorders

Back in 2012, I wrote a blogpost offering advice to parents who were trying to navigate their way through the jungle of alternative interventions for children with dyslexia. I suggested a set of questions that should be asked of any new intervention, and identified a set of 'red flags', i.e., things that should make people think twice before embracing a new treatment.

The need for an update came to mind as I reflected on the Arrowsmith program, an educational approach that has been around in Canada since the 1980s, but has recently taken Australia and New Zealand by storm. Despite credulous press coverage in the UK, Arrowsmith has not, as far as I know, taken off here. Australia, however, is a different story, with Arrowsmith being taken up by the Catholic Education Office in Sydney after they found 'dramatic results' in a pilot evaluation.

For those who remember the Dore programme, this seems like an action replay. Dore was big in both the UK and Australia in the period around 2007-2008. Like Dore, it used the language of neuroscience, claiming that its approach treated the underlying brain problem, rather than the symptoms of conditions such as dyslexia and ADHD. Parents were clamouring for it, it was widely promoted in the media, and many people signed up for long-term payment plans to cover a course of treatment. People like me, who worked in the area of neurodevelopmental disorders, were unimpressed by the small amount of published data on the program, and found the theoretical account of brain changes unconvincing (see this critique). However, we were largely ignored until a Four Corners documentary was made by Australian ABC, featuring critics as well as advocates of Dore. Soon after, the company collapsed, leaving both employees of Dore and many families who had signed up to long-term financial deals, high and dry. It was a thoroughly dismal episode in the history of intervention for children with neurodevelopmental problems.

With Arrowsmith, we seem to be at the start of a similar cycle in Australia. Parents, hearing about the wondrous results of the program, are lobbying for it to be made more widely available. There are even stories of parents moving to Canada so that their child can reap the benefits of Arrowsmith. Yet Arrowsmith ticks many of the 'red flags' that I blogged about, lacks any scientific evidence for efficacy, and has attracted criticism from mainstream experts in children's learning difficulties.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

This is an interesting development re the modern tendency to make claims about 'brain training' that are not properly evidenced:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016 ... ng-claims/

Lumosity pays $2 million to FTC to settle bogus “Brain Training” claims

FTC said company "simply did not have the science to back up its ads."

Lumos Labs, the company behind the popular Lumosity "Brain Training" program, is agreeing to pay $2 million to settle deceptive advertising claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission.

“Lumosity preyed on consumers’ fears about age-related cognitive decline, suggesting their games could stave off memory loss, dementia, and even Alzheimer’s disease," Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. “But Lumosity simply did not have the science to back up its ads.”

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Flagged up on the DDOLL network thanks to Max Coltheart:

http://www.willatworklearning.com/2016/ ... -says.html

TUESDAY, 05 JANUARY 2016

Brain Based Learning and Neuroscience – What the Research Says!

The world of learning and development is on the cusp of change. One of the most promising—and prominent—paradigms comes from neuroscience. Go to any conference today in the workplace learning field and there are numerous sessions on neuroscience and brain-based learning. Vendors sing praises to neuroscience. Articles abound. Blog posts proliferate.

But where are we on the science? Have we gone too far? Is this us, the field of workplace learning, once again speeding headlong into a field of fad and fantasy? Or are we spot-on to see incredible promise in bringing neuroscience wisdom to bear on learning practice? In this article, I will describe where we are with neuroscience and learning—answering that question as it relates to this point in time—in January of 2016.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

By the way - I've cross-referenced this thread on the 'General Forum' because I think it is relevant there too:

http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewto ... ?f=2&t=512