Pupils of Learning Difficulties - Essay Example

Assessment Approaches Available to Teachers In Detection of Learning Difficulties: An Evaluation1. Introduction Every self-respecting teacher should know how to recognize a dyslexic pupil and what remedial measures can be done so that the child involved is not effectively denied access to the curriculum. Teachers and nursery attendants need to be aware of the signs before a child gets formal schooling because the damage to be wrought by late recognition of dyslexia may be irreversible. Psychological and behavioral studies, however, warn against relying on signs and folk beliefs in detecting learning difficulties. If these patently unscientific methods are made as basis of instructional programs, it will create more harm than good. Thus, many state laws today compel the education sector to use systematic methods of assessment that would measure possible obstacles to learning with more confidence and accuracy. There is a good number of such assessment strategies now available to the classroom teacher in the detection of children's learning difficulties, especially dyslexia. Dyslexia is sometimes defined as an impaired word and non-word reading ability, which problem is often inherited or genetic in origin (Grigorenko, 2001). In these cases, the problems of dyslexia on lack of phonological awareness, balance and automaticity are perceptible at an early age, such that failure to attend to children predisposed to dyslexia is inexcusable. The relevant literature says early palliative measures are most beneficial to society by teaching at-risk children early phonological awareness, motor skills, memory strategies and visualization techniques through games. If dyslexia cannot be prevented, these measures should at least minimize the damage of this learning difficulty on human motivation and self-esteem, whose effects could be permanent (Crombie). The puzzle that drew the scientific and academic community into the study of dyslexia is the "unexplained" reading failure in children. For the most part, the puzzle remains unexplained insofar as scientific certitude and unanimity is concerned. As a result, the education sector is still unsure of how to detect and address dyslexia in a more efficient manner. One of the major difficulties is that children present inconsistent and contradictory profiles, such that there is no single test for dyslexia with a complete measure of certainty and reliability. What is being done is to build up innumerable bits of data until the picture becomes clear (Turner, 1997). With this method, assessment approaches have been developed to help teachers identify dyslexic children. This paper examines each of the available assessment packages to help classroom teachers detect dyslexia with more accuracy and confidence. 2. Learning Difficulties A child is said to be a candidate for dyslexia when he performs poorly in phonetic reading, the most common sign of word reading difficulties in dyslexic children. Most hypotheses on phonological deficit attribute poor reading to an impaired phonological segmentation skill, which is also called phonological awareness deficit. This is because a phonological awareness deficit may affect different aspects of phonological processing. Thus, difficulty with the output and input phonology is apt to delay the acquisition of letter-sound corresponding rules or impair phoneme blending. This accounts for the persistent occurrence of non-word reading deficit in dyslexic children (Rack, et al., 1979). The ability of children to read nonsensical words is more indicative of the ability to read regular than irregular words. This suggests that at certain stages in reading development, a phonological recording strategy may be used to let the child read regular words as well as non-words. When a child's phonological awareness is deficient, his phonological recording process is also likely to be flawed. Phonology refers to the sounds detectable in language. A study of Stuart & Masterson (1992) confirms that children who score well in phonological awareness tests read regularly spelled words better than irregularly spelled ones. Another explanation of this relationship between phonological awareness and reading is that performance on phonological awareness tasks is a reflection of phonological representations used in learning exercises and in other speech-based functions such as naming objects (Hulme & Snowing, 1992). Stainthorp & Hughes (1988) showed that precocious readers in the 5-year-old group who read with some fluency before school instruction score higher at phonological sensibility tests than non-reading children. There is as yet no consensus on how phonological awareness spells for success in reading development, but there is growing agreement that such awareness is essential for understanding the idea that the sounds making up a word are represented by combinations of individual letters. The reason for this divergence of opinions is that not all dyslexic children and even adults are found to have deficient phonological skills, which indicates that there is a wide range of phonological abilities among dyslexics. "Individual differences in reading that are predicted by phonological awareness span the whole range of reading skills," Ehri (1989) observes. This means that differences in phonological awareness are associated with both accelerated and retarded reading (Beaton, 2004). Most of the existing checklists on identifying dyslexics have features and habits that seem unusual but present in many normal children. For example, the literature lists the difficulties of tying shoelaces and copying geometric figures as characterizing dyslexia but almost everyone struggles through the same tasks in his early years. For this reason, the possibility is always there that normal children may be falsely diagnosed as dyslexics. Such uncertainty is not confined to behavioral science. A study of the Swedish Office of Health Care Technology, for example, found that three-quarter of 40,000 women pronounced as positive for breast cancer were falsely diagnosed. In this connection, medical screening is sometimes recommended as part of dyslexia assessment since a number of diseases, such as thyroid malfunction and phenylketonuria, may actually lead to mental retardation. Singleton (1995) and Fawcett & Nicholson (1992) set out to study the learning difficulties of separate groups of 5-year-old children, many of who were suspected to be dyslexic. The studies proceeded on the premise that dyslexia arises from a cerebellum dysfunction and undeveloped motor skills like balance. It was found that children with dyslexia failed consistently in 10 specific tests, which are: 1) rapid automatized naming of objects, 2) beads threading, 3) phonological discrimination, 4) postural ability, 5) rhyme detection and alliteration, 6) forward digital span, 7) naming of printed digits, 8) naming of printed letters, 9) sound order, and 10) shade copying. The above-cited studies are considered to have advanced efforts to identify and ameliorate dyslexia early. 3. Aims of Assessment The primary aim of assessment is to determine if a learning difficulty being exhibited by a child is a sign of dyslexia or just a difficult stage in normal intellectual development. This is because poor alphabetic knowledge springs from many causes other than dyslexia, and can even be caused by faulty teaching methods. A complex and irregular orthographic system, for example, can discourage a child from learning to use alphabetic strategy thus displaying a stark learning difficulty (Fawcett, 1996). For this reason, schoolteachers cannot do without a scientific assessment of a child's learning capability because it will enable them to pinpoint exactly where the learning difficulty lies. This information will then help them design and implement a suitable teaching and learning program that would not leave out the affected children. The aims of assessment are precisely to identify the learner's strengths and weaknesses, determine the learner's current level of performance and attainment, find out why if there is no progress and what learning strategies are appropriate for the child, and get an idea of what curricula and curriculum activities may interest and motivate learners (Reid, 2005). Without a systematic assessment, most teachers of in-school children who are supposed to know better because they are in daily contact with the children could not even confirm if there is a learning difficulty at all. Only an elaborate assessment procedure could ascertain whether a child has visual, auditory, memory or some other cognitive difficulties that retard learning (Ibid). Another specific objective assigned to assessment is to ascertain how a pupil compares with his peers in learning achievement. If the child is lagging behind, it is necessary to establish in assessment whether this is due to overall low ability or just a specific learning difficulty that could be easily overcome. The difficulty could also be traced to physical factors such as repeated absences due to illness and impaired hearing and sight, or emotional problems such as domestic troubles, bereavement and frequent changes of school. A combination of these factors may lead to learning problems, as when a child skips school often because of a hearing loss. In effect, there is always more than one factor involved. Thus, every situation calls for a different diagnosis. When assessing, it is important to ascertain the child's strengths and weaknesses, which knowledge is useful in teaching. Educators are advised to make a distinction between the child's underlying ability and performance, one the intelligence or academic potential of a child and the other, the literacy or numeracy levels. The discrepancy between these two factors will provide valuable insights into a child's skill deficit. In this regard, the principles of assessment set in the literature are an invaluable guide. Principles of Assessment (Townsend, 2002) 4. Assessment Approaches An assessment is accurate if the result of the tests shows reliability, validity and confidence. In the dyslexia literature, it is reliable if the test score obtained by a pupil matches his score on a different day. It acquires validity if the test was so designed that it measured what it intended to measure. The assessment exhibits confidence if the student gets the same score every time the same test is administered. For this reason, assessment aims to measure a child's ability on syllabic segmentation, polysyllabic word and non-word repetition and recognition, deletion of prefixes and suffixes, intra-syllable segmentation, and phoneme segmentation. Intra-syllable segmentation involves detection of onset and rime and judgment and production of rhyme, while phoneme segmentation has to do with blending, detection and deletion of initial and final phonemes. These methods, which are called Phonological Awareness Procedures by Gorrie & Parkinson (1995), provide a very detailed analysis of the child through three components: assessment, games and resources. Altogether, the system helps teachers obtain useful information on a child's phonological awareness. One of the most highly acclaimed types of assessment test is the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (Lindamood, 1979; Clark, 1988), which uses colored blocks to represent the sounds detectable in words. This is administered based on the theory that there is a strong correlation between a student's performance in tests and his recognition, reading comprehension and spelling ability. It also complies with policy guidelines on assessment of dyslexia and dypraxia by including inputs from parents, guardians and professionals such as health providers and aligning the assessment process with national curriculum attainment targets, checklists, standardized tests, diagnostic assessment measures and ongoing curriculum assessment. In assessing the underlying ability or learning potential of a child, educational psychologists use the Wechsler battery of IQ tests or the British Differential Ability Scales. Both methods yield an overall IQ score and separate scores for verbal and non-verbal ability, thus facilitating comparison with peers. A verbal IQ is considered the best gauge of future academic achievement, making these two testing methods extremely valuable in assessing dyslexia. However, the two processes are restricted only to chartered psychologists. For ordinary teachers, they can test a child's underlying ability through the Raven's Matrices or Matrix Analogies Test, which can be obtained from psychological companies. Other standard assessment tests for school-age children are the Differential Ability Scales, Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery, Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale, Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System, Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude, and Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Tests. All these include tests on word and non-word recognition. Some assessment tests are based on norms, others are criterion-referenced. The tests rely on norms if they relate to age as scores or as percentile, and they are based on selected criteria if success or failure in the tests is associated with skills. All the information gathered through the child's failure or criterion is useful in planning teaching programs (Townsend, 2002). There is a lingering debate on which of the individualized or standardized method of assessment is more ideal. The preponderant view is that since there is more than one factor involved in dyslexia, assessment should be done on a case-to-case basis. Lazear (1999) argues that since no students are exactly alike, the testing instruction should be individualized and varied. The assessment should also be comprehensive and consider various elements based on a multiple intelligence curriculum, and that it should be carried out along with learning and built into the curriculum. This ensures that the assessment process is relevant to the actual curricular work. By breaking the process into components - decoding or non-word reading, word reading, phonological awareness, listening comprehension and reading comprehension tests - assessment can be conducted by teachers with relative ease. The primary reason for this advocacy of individualized assessment is the fact that there are three different categories of reading disorders: dyslexia, hyperlexia and non-specific-reading disability (Ibid). Dyslexic readers are described as those with poor decoding skill but good comprehension, while hyperlexics have good decoding skills but poor comprehension. As for readers with non-specific-reading disability, they are poor in both comprehension and decoding skills. In opposition to an individualized method of assessment, Nunnally (1978) insists that this is mostly guesswork since it relies on personal judgment. Standardization is believed to be more in accord with the theory of scientific generalization, which is at the very heart of scientific work. He points to a key principle in science to the effect that any statement of fact by one scientist should be verifiable by other scientists, which principle is violated if that statement triggers a contentious debate among scientists. Without a standardized measure of "ego strength," for example, two psychologists are likely to disagree on the actual ego strength of a person. This makes it difficult to devise scientific tests of theories on ego strength, at least until satisfactory measurement methods are developed on which most scientists will agree. Among the advantages attributed to standardized measurement are: 1) test results arranged in numerical indices can be reported in finer detail than those based on personal judgment, and 2) it would be far more economical to use standardized measures than to have observers sit around for hours watching the activities of laboratory animals, in the case of experiments on the effects of drugs. In sum, standardized measurement methods are essential not only in the interest of science but also for freeing highly trained professionals for other more important work. 4.a. Screening Test There is some disagreement in the literature on the ideal age when screening should be done, what skills, abilities and attainments should be screened in children, and to what specific purposes should the screening results be used. There is also the issue of whether the costs of implementing screening procedures are justified in terms of staff and resources. But the bottom line is, early screening is especially important for children without benefits of nursery education (Crombie, 2002). A most favored curriculum-based multi-disciplinary approach to child screening is the one developed by Crombie, which screens children at risk of dyslexia in their nursery and early years so appropriate intervention strategies can be identified. This pre-school screening procedure focuses on five major areas: 1. Emotional, personal and social development - this looks at the child's home background and culture as a possible influence on his learning processes. 2. Communication and language - this takes the view that children with poor phonological skills who lack rhyme and rhythm will have later difficulties in learning how to read and write. 3. Knowledge and understanding of the world - a low level of this knowledge is likely to impair a child's interest and motivation to learn because it betrays inability to solve problems and cope with unusual or different situations. 4. Expressive and aesthetic development - this aspect of a child's development is identified with mental processing such that one who is slow to pick up simple dance sequences and songs has a short-term memory, which could inhibit his learning. 5. Physical development and movement - a child's coordination skills can be detected from his physical and writing activities. Children poor at balancing tasks, such as doing two things at the same time, are likely to encounter other learning problems. There are other commercially available screening models, such as the Bangor Dyslexia Test (BDT) and the Dyslexia Screening Test (DST). The BDT is a screening test of short duration developed at Bangor University (Miles, 1983) and is now used in many countries. It is primarily a screening device intending to see if a child's learning difficulties are not typically dyslexic. To do so, a child is observed on how he moves his body parts, how he repeats polysyllabic words, does subtraction and reacts to familiar incidents. It also tests the child's mental functions by asking him to identify the months and digits in forward-reverse pattern. As for DST, it was developed by Fawcett & Nicholson (1996) to determine if children have special educational needs. The diagnostic procedures under this test consist of rapid naming, bead threading, postural ability, phonemic segmentation, backward digits spanning, nonsense passage reading, verbal and semantic fluency. All these testing methods address the symptoms of dyslexia, which have to do with phonological representation, cerebellum research and rapid naming hypothesis. Another version of the DST is the Dyslexia Early Screening Test, which is specially designed for 6-year-old pre-school children. In developing this screening model, the authors demonstrated how it guides classroom teachers in adopting the appropriate teaching standards. A group of 6-year-olds suspected of dyslexia were asked to name 24 ordinary objects shown on a card. The "sound order" of the children seemed all right, so was their recognition of digits. But when it came to rapid naming, beads threading, shape copying, postural stability, phonological discrimination and rhyme and forwards span, most of the subjects fared poorly and so the children were labeled "at clear risk of dyslexia." 4.b. Miscue Analysis The miscue analysis theory goes by the assumption that reading miscues occur systematically, whether the reading exercise is done by silent or loud mode, and that the degree of sense the child makes of the material reflects his use of prior knowledge. The miscue analysis strategy in dyslexia assessment is based on a top-down approach developed by Goodman (1976), who argued that a reader makes predictions at the outset on the most likely meaning of the text. These predictions are based on how the reader perceives the graphic, syntactic and semantic information contained in the text. The process is called "psycho-linguistic guessing game" in which a reader engages in hypothesis testing to either confirm or disprove the prediction. In conducting an assessment based on miscue analysis, teachers are advised to look out and mark the signs of learning difficulties. These include the following: Omission - as the reading speed increases, so does omission of words. Additions - when a reader adds another meaning to the text, this suggests lack of interest and even misplaced overconfidence on the text cues. Substitutions - these miscues can be visual for younger readers and semantic or contextual for older readers. Repetitions - these indicate a poor directional attack and some uncertainties about a word in the text. Hesitations - when the reader is unsure of the text and lacks confidence in reading ability he hesitates before every sentence or word. The reader may also be anticipating a different word later in the sentence. Another action to watch out for in miscue analysis are self-corrections, which a reader makes when he becomes aware of the meaning and is less dependent on simple word recognition. It is possible to obtain useful data on the child's reading pattern by observing his errors and the significance of these oral errors. The child's ability to correct himself may indicate that his miscues produce syntactically or semantically acceptable text, in which case there is no dyslexia. The child is a potential dyslexic if his miscues are semantically unacceptable, which happens when such words as pigeons is read as pigments, owner becomes over and present is read as parent. It is poor syntactical miscues if the words devoid, both sides and glitter come out as devote, besides and greater, respectively (Goodman, 1969). The literature says that if a learner is not responsive to miscue analysis, he has a reading problem that could lead to dyslexia. This can be measured through the various marking systems in the miscue analysis approach. For example, if the learner substitutes words that are far from the original meaning and replaces even small common words, this shows poor grapho-phonic or word attack skills and a weak sight vocabulary. If he omits whole lines, he also has poor eye tracking kills. Substitutions and omissions are believed not a cause for alarm if these appeared to be made impulsively and the learner is reading a bit too fast, also if the omission or substitution does not compromise the meaning of the text. What is needed in these cases is to simply make the learner slow down. When the learner keeps repeating words, which is common among dyslexics, it may also mean that the learner is just searching and consolidating the meaning of the text in his mind, a habit often seen among good readers. Otherwise, it could mean that the text is too hard for the learner's skill level, or he is just buying time to prepare to decode. Reversing words and phrases, on the other hand, may distort grammar but this is not much cause for concern since it has no serious effects on the overall meaning of the text. The same can be said of inserting different words into the text: if the words inserted do not distort the meaning, the miscue can be forgiven as normal. There are specially designed assessment materials that specify the use of miscue analysis. One of these is the set of graded passages developed by Arnold (1984), which is designed to test the reading skill levels of children from 6 to 12-year-old. They vary in length according to reading level and written in autobiographical, narrative and informational styles to grab the attention of children. Miscue analysis, however, is not recommended for absolute beginners since these children still lack knowledge of phonics such that they rely on semantic cues. Thus, any information gathered from miscue analysis would be of little help. 4.c. Non-word Reading Test Non-word reading tests determine how well learners can decode words they have never seen before. The non-word reading tests are the most stressful but the shortest duration of the assessment methods developed so far. In essence, non-word reading is conducted to see how well readers can decode words they have never seen before. Non-words are letter strings that resemble English words in sound, spelling and structure but hardly make sense, such as SLNT and CRIDGE. They can also be culled from real words but one or more letters in them are changed to trick the learner and detect his letter-name knowledge. For example, "pumpkin" is changed into "lumpkin." Letter-name knowledge has proven to be a good determinant of eventual reading and spelling attainment, since children who demonstrate letter-naming ability are likely to have good phonological skills. Early readers can use letter names to decide which sound does a letter represent. If the learner guesses that the sound represented by, let us say, the letters F, M and N is E and that Y and W are similar in sound, he is good at non-word reading. In terms of exact scientific measurement, this strategy may be unreliable but it's a good base from which to foster the ability to identify the relationships between sound and letter. Letter-naming knowledge, according to the literature, can be used in dyslexia assessment by placing each letter on a blank card, shuffling the card and then asking the child to name each letter. Practitioner may use the Graded Non-word Reading Test, a standardized test of non-word reading developed by Snowling, et al. (1996) that employs the same procedure. The teacher tells the pupil: "I want you to read make-believe words. They don't make sense but it is possible to read them. See how many words can you read." The children who will need specialized instruction are those who read a pitiful few of the letter names as well as those who demonstrate good letter name knowledge but could not extrapolate sounds from letter names. Two of the more popular screening tests - the Test of Awareness of Language Segments (Sawyer, 1987) and Test of Phonological Awareness (Torgesen & Bryant, 1994) - use different approaches in conducting non-word reading tests. The Test of Awareness of Language Segments starts from word reading and ends at non-word reading. Children are given the task of language segmentation by progressing from sentences to words, then from words to syllables and finally from words to sounds. As for the Test of Phonological Awareness, it employs pictorial materials to measure the child's non-verbal reading skill. If the test is conducted for pre-school children, the objective is see how they identify initial sounds, while it is the end sounds that are sought to be identified if the test is administered to children in the elementary grades. Validation studies showed that these test methods predict with consistent accuracy the reading skill level of a child up to the third grade. 5. Evaluation and Conclusion Studies after studies on dyslexia and other learning difficulties in children have turned up with scientific explanations on what used to be an unexplained phenomenon. Now we know that learning difficulties are associated with heredity, certain diseases, poor motor skills and balance, and a dysfunctional brain. Even a faulty teaching method, according to the literature, can contribute to dyslexia among in-school children. The previous belief was that if a child had a learning deficiency, this was a biological problem that no one can do anything about. This folklore was often accompanied by the conviction that the signs of dyslexia were detectable only in afflicted children. A mountain of data now shows that learning difficulties are not confined to dyslexics but also observable in many normal school beginners and that if proper intervention measures are carried out, the affected children can acquire literacy and lead healthy, normal lives without being left out in the cold. Along these lines, the various assessment methods suggested in the literature come in handy for classroom teachers. However, given the widely acknowledged unreliability of existing diagnoses, assessment of children's learning capability must remain provisional and tentative rather than categorical, as Turner (1997) suggests. Despite the impressive advances made in the study of dyslexia, there is as yet no consensus among professionals as to which of the individualized or standardized method of assessment is the more ideal approach. One view holds that since dyslexia involves more than one factor and that no afflicted children are completely alike, assessment should be done on a case-to-case basis. This position is contested by behavioral scientists who favor standardization, saying an individualized approach to assessment boils down to guesswork. From the vantage point of teachers, standardized assessment looks more appealing because it would entail less work. It should be noted that teachers put up with one of the most delicate and heaviest workloads of all the professions. On an individualized approach to assessment, one more challenging task is laid on their shoulders. For this reason, there is a need to develop a standardized assessment model that can be applied universally. In the meantime, classroom teachers and nursery administrators can use the assessment methods set by experts as guide to see which children need special assistance. The importance of detecting learning defects early cannot be overemphasized because this could prevent unnecessary costs and pains later. Parents and other care providers at home can help by introducing their wards early to the world of words. According to the studies of Stainthorp & Hughes (1988), pre-school children who were asked to do reading exercises perform better when they go into formal schooling. In conducting miscue analysis, screening and non-word reading tests, teachers should try to avoid the trap of labeling normal children as dyslexic and vice versa. There is enough empirical evidence to show that not all dyslexics have deficient phonological skills and not all normal children have good phonological skills. The best thing teachers can do is to hew as close as possible to the yardsticks set on accurate assessment: reliability, validity and confidence. The test result has some measure of reliability if the pupil's score on a testing day matches his score on another testing day, while it has validity if the test achieved its specific purpose. The test exudes confidence if the student's score is consistent no matter how many times the assessment is conducted. Educators would also do well to remember that assessment is only one of three components in measuring the phonological awareness skill of children. The other two components identified in the literature are games and resources. There is no quarrel on the usefulness of games in assessment because children everywhere are attracted to learning tasks made out as games. However, there are doubts on whether expending valuable time and resources on assessment is worth it. This paper takes the view that dyslexia deserves as much attention and resources given to such debilitating public health problems as cancer, heart diseases and tuberculosis. If children with learning difficulties are left unattended, the social and economic costs would be as enormous. 6. Reference List Beaton, A. (2004). "Dyslexia, Reading and the Brain: A Sourcebook of Psychological and Biological Research." Taylor & Francis Group: New York. Crombie, M. "Dealing with Diversity in the Primary Classroom: A Challenge For Teachers." Goodman, K. (1969). "Analysis of Oral Reading Miscues: Applied Linguistics." Reading Research Quarterly 5. Fawcett, A. "Dyslexia and Literacy: Key Issues for Research." Klein, C. (1993). "Diagnosing Dyslexia." Basic Skills Agency. Nunnally, T. (1978). "Psychometric Theory." 2nd edition, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York. Reid, G. & Wearmouth, J. (2006). "Dyslexia and Literacy: Theory and Practice." John Wiley & Son Ltd., UK. Reid, G. "Dyslexia: A Practitioner's Handbook." Moray House of Education, University of Edinburth: Wiley. Snowling, M. &Stackhouse, J. (2006). "Dyslexia, Speech and Language: A Practitioner's Handbook." Whurr Publishers: London and Philadelphia. Townsend, J. (2002). "Principles of Assessment." The Dyslexia Institute. Webpage available at: http://www.dyslexia-inst.org.uk/articles/prin_ass.htm Turner, M. (1997). "Psychological Assessment of Dyslexia." Whurr Publishers Ltd., New York. Read More