Learning Disabilities: Literacy - Literature review Example

Learning Disabilities: Literacy Describe how the MLOTP model can contribute to the RTI in effective identification and intervention for Dyslexia Submitted By: NAME: INSTITUTION: COURSE: INSTRUCTOR: DATE: © 2013 INTRODUCTION Literacy is an essential contributor to the economic growth of nations across the world. But more than often, this requirement is usually disrupted by certain factors that are particularly above the comprehension of most of us. In the views a majority of researchers such as Munro (2007) and Thomas et al (2007), achieving full literacy amongst the world’s populace is not possible in the foreseeable future. This has been variously attributed to the highest rates of learning disabilities found common in both children and adults alike. To begin with, the term learning disability has been defined variously by a majority of scholars and proponents alike. Baker and Baker (2008) for example define learning disability as those inadequacies that hinder a child and or an adult from accomplishing learning tasks that may be either written or spoken. Fletcher et al (2005) go ahead to concur with this definition by suggesting that learning disability is first and foremost a form of a disorder that largely affect an individual’s ability to comprehend text or even speak coherently. The same problem may be illustrated in the person’s inability to use auditory, verbal, or arithmetic processes well (Manolis et al, 2012). Researchers such as Pashler et al (2008) note that there are numerous types of learning disabilities that occur in affecting a small percentage of the population in the world. Among these noted learning disorders, dyslexia has been given prominence in this report. According to findings by Shaywitz (2003), dyslexia is a learning disorder that has existed since the 15th century. Scholars of that time and day considered people suffering from dyslexia to be very good artists full of imaginative ideas but very poor in the written word (Shaywitz, 2003). In support of this definition, Diamond and Zamora (2010) argue that dyslexia forms a major learning disability affecting literacy and language development in individuals. The condition is rampart in childhood but progresses in adulthood to manifest itself in general mental lapses particularly when concerned with phonological processes (Diamond and Zamora, 2010). Based on these illustrations, it is in order to conclude that dyslexia is more of a neurological problem affecting speech than clinical. Identification of dyslexia like any other learning disability is tasked to a number of models. But for the purposes of this report, the Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) and the Response to Intervention (RTI) models have been applied to identify dyslexia amongst the world’s populations. Additionally, the two models are largely reviewed and evaluated to determine their worth in causing intervention for dyslexia. Before concluding, the report enumerates the pertinent characteristics of dyslexia as a learning disability. THE MULTIPLE LEVELS OF TEXT PROCESSING (MLOTP) MODEL The Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) Model is indicated to be a tool that is used to measure an individual’s reading ability at different levels that may include mere words, a complete sentence, a concept or even the meta-cognitive (Munro, 2005). In this aspect therefore, MLOTP requires that readers considered to be experts must operate at numerous levels all at the same time. The model thus outlines the expectations of the reader while reading as well as guiding the practicing teacher to identify the level of learning difficulties occupied by the learner for appropriate intervention. Since the Multiple Levels of Text Processing model was designed to help in understanding the learning difficulties that are experienced by learners who attempt to read different levels of text processing, it has emerged that the model best placed to increase literacy levels in the society. This is achievable only when appropriate interventions are put in place after successful identification of learning inadequacies in the concerned individuals. This in the views of Gersten and Dimino (2006) is said to be most suited in helping teaches identify persons struggling to read. To say the least, the model has been very instrumental in intervening for anyone barely making it in written word. Research indicates that for a child to operate effectively at the level of word processing, the child must first of all be capable of doing so many other tasks at the same time (Munro, 2005). The MLOTP model in this instance suggests that the child can be helped to overcome the reading predicament by constantly going over a written text several times until perfection is obtained. This is in relation to study findings by Munro (2007) that show a reading recovery program for Year 2 pupils with word reading difficulties as having undergone vigorous classroom assistance in their previous year of study. The results of this attempt were enormous and the pupils were thus capable of fluently reading written texts at different levels including “word, sentence and even memory (Dickman, 2006). The children also had improved “basic building blocks in sentences to complete processing and decoding of words in text”. Following the application of the Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) model, Konza (2003) argue that the concerned learners show to have acquired new knowledge in arranging sounds and are thus better at pronouncing the words as well as rhyming them better than they did before. Similarly, the students are capable of manipulating multi-sound patterns that make up a word. In this instance, it is discovered that oral language is a very fundamental link in the process of a child’s learning and thinking development (Munro, 2005). This contribution is also highly valued when children come to learn how to speak. It is emphasized that language development in children is particularly enhanced by their ability and practice in storytelling. At this point, the children are capable of thinking in an organized manner as well as putting their ideas in focus. The model at this point underscores the importance of inculcating verbal language in children before making them experts in the written language (Mortimore et al, 2012). Proponents of child development hold that the child’s developmental stage is very important in determining the child’s level and ability of word reading (Gersten and Dimino, 2006). In this connection, a younger child will not be as good as an older child in word reading as well as manipulating of other levels of text processing as observed by Dickman (2006). This observation further becomes important to teachers who must therefore realize that children of different age cohorts must be given different sets of instructions at the classroom level. These instructions must be commensurate with the children’s stage of development. This again is guided by the fact that children start linking spoken and written words as they advance in age until they perfect their word reading. The Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) model at this point contends that children are professionals at classifying sounds into long and short sounds among other multi-complex tasks. It is not uncommon to note that children who find it difficult to process text at the word level must not have done well in oral language development. This is reiterated by Konza (2003) who confirm that such children may have skipped rhyming sounds during storytelling, very common in young children learning the art of speaking. It is again at this point that children are able to learn “common letter-clusters as individual rime units” (Munro, 2005). ‘Rime’ here refers to a component of a syllable and is usually the part of the syllable from the first vowel onward as illustrated by Wanzek and Vaughn (2007) in the word “DOG”. Thus ‘OG’ is the rime. It is essential from this illustration that children first learn to segment spoken syllables before attempting to comprehend the written text. This way, MLOTP model provides that children will grow into really confident, competent and independent readers after the right interventions are put in place. THE RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI) MODEL Just like the Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) model, the Response to Intervention (RTI) model is a framework for addressing the individual needs of struggling students through the different modalities that student acquires skills through. This argument was forwarded by Hoover and colleague (cited in Gersten et al, 2008) who underlined the significance of the framework in finding interventions for individuals with learning disabilities or those at risk of learning difficulties. In fact the framework has become instrumental in formal settings in the formulation of school curriculum and other aspect of the school culture as whole. Thus the model has become a critical tool for school principals to consider while assessing the learning – teaching process in their school. The Response to Intervention (RTI) model has been defined variously by researchers and other groups of individuals. Dickman (2006) for instance define RTI as a “framework for promoting access to high-quality core instruction and providing increasingly intensive educational interventions in a timely manner for students who struggle in core instruction” (quoted in Gersten et al, 2008). Simply put therefore, the RTI model purposes to function as a tool that guide school managers and principals in selecting the most appropriate mitigating measure for children at risk of developing learning disabilities. The chosen measures must always be according to the particular situation in each school setting. But this must not go beyond the confines of the provisions of the RTI framework whose application should include all areas of the curriculum where students have difficulties (Gersten and Dimino, 2006). This provision again according to Mortimore and associates (2012) give school principals more mandate to include as many struggling students within their institutions as possible. This was a fact largely missing in the earlier definition of RTI proposed by Hoover and partner (quoted by Munro, 2007). Hoover’s idea of RTI only pivoted around reading comprehension, largely ignoring other aspects of the learning process. In reviewing the current standpoint of the RTI model, it emerges that all the stakeholders in the school environment have been brought on board. This in retrospect encompasses the school principal and other managerial staff, the teaching staff, students as well as the school culture, including values and norms found therein (Konza, 2003). In this respect, the new RTI framework is set to face major challenges emanating from the diversity displayed by the myriad languages and cultural backgrounds brought in by the numerous students. These challenges are more so found resident in curriculum that has already been printed and can thus not easily accommodate all the changes brought in the classroom by new cultures (Gersten et al, 2008). In fact new updates to include this observation are currently underway, and the improved RTI model is deemed very promising. This is so because the said RTI will give a school principal the autonomy to include as many viable programs or curricula as possible to be used in the classroom for effective intervention (Wanzek and Vaughn, 2007). The fear of the challenges brought by culture and stakeholder engagements will become a thing of the past as noted by Gersten and Dimino (2006). To implement the RTI framework effectively and efficiently, Dickman (2006) advises that all stakeholders must go back to drawing board and rethink why that which is proposed to be done should be done and how. This question raises three important elements of RTI model according to Mauro et al (2008). To have any substantial intervention in education, Gersten and colleagues (2008) suggests that there must be the presence of an informed program. This program on the other hand must be delivered by a competent instructor, thus calling for the serious training of teachers. Finally, these two aspects must be supplemented by the presence of a very informed environment (Konza, 2003), in terms of space and time. Combination of these three elements has been lauded as the driving force behind any successful intervention process in the education system. Apart from the foregoing suggestions, it also emerges that RTI can be effectively used to identify students with learning difficulties in good time to forestall any nasty eventuality where students are waited to fail in order to be considered as to presenting learning disabilities as is the case in some countries (Dickman, 2006). This ‘model’ is not cost-effective as it is not proactive but only reactive, responding after results have already occurred. The use of RTI again becomes beneficial in that the model provides intervention intended to address an identified deficit that places a child at risk for failing to develop a functional ability. This way, no mistake can occur in the form of an omission on the part of executor of the framework. Using an RTI approach to teaching helps teachers to identify anyone in need of intervention and thus provide the extra help needed until results are achieved. If unfortunately the student’s needs exceed the teacher’s capability, then the RTI model calls for consultative forums on the way forward (Gersten et al, 2008). In fact, this constitutes the requirement of professionalism on the part of the implementers of the RTI framework. Professionals in the education sector are further encouraged to shun earlier methods of identifying students in need of intervention in their educational growth based on some ad hoc cut point formulas coined to favor the administration of the day (Konza, 2003). Instead, they are now encouraged to take heart and exercise clinical judgment in making key decisions on matters touching on the education of children. This according to Dickman (2006) is the basis of RTI framework and should be upheld by all professional educationists in the service of the children in their various states. This in my view is in line with the need for training and retraining teachers for foster this much hyped about ‘professionalism’. As one researcher puts it, “RTI is doomed if teachers are not given the tools to deliver instruction as intended” (Gersten and Dimino, 2006). This in one way or the other will help in avoiding every “Tom and Dick” from claiming to be an authority on RTI and its implementation as has frequently happened in the past Munro (2007). CHARACTERISTICS OF READING DIFFICULTIES DISPLAYED BY DYSLEXICS Dyslexia has a long history as demonstrated by the following background information. As early as 1440, it is indicated that the first printing press for dyslexics was invented by Johannes Gutenberg (cited by Mauro et al, 2008), implying that the condition had been known to exist even before then. This invention led to mass production of books and thus greatly increased the rapid dissemination of ideas and information. But this advancement incidentally exposed and highlighted the dyslexics’ reading deficits in a more pronounced way as noted by Shaywitz (2003). As a result, people with dyslexia mysteriously struggled to gain reading skills. A variety of causal relationships were hypothesized then questioning the possible factors that led to the development of dyslexia. Majority of those concerned with this argued that people suffering from dyslexia had low intelligent quotient and were probably not very motivated in life (Mauro et al, 2008). This debate ranges even to date, arguing that the few very successful dyslexics in modern times is due to escapism behavior in an effort to ‘leave’ the condition rather than due to any abilities they possess. The condition is also thought to be genetic, having higher chances of being passed on from parents to offspring. Nevertheless, interventions in the field of clinical medicine have realized successful strides in the treatment of dyslexia due to early diagnosis as reported by Shaywitz (2003). From the introductory paragraph of this report, dyslexia was indicated to be common in ‘right brained’ thinkers who are very poor in reading written text and oral communication but very good in artistic work and imaginations (Mauro et al, 2008). People suffering from dyslexia are thought to have more weaknesses as opposed to their strengths. But whatever the case, the underlying characteristics of dyslexia are resident in the association that victims have difficulty in learning how to read or reading fluently (Shaywitz, 2003), and majority are left pondering what might be missing in the brain of these dyslexics and strive to discover this via the deficit model suggested by Mauro and colleagues (2008). One very widely spread characteristic of dyslexics despite being slow in pronunciations is found in their unequalled abilities to solve problems in the most creative and imaginative manner. This is manifested in their ability to reproduce icons and paintings in the most extraordinary ways as illustrated by Dickman (2006). In addition to the foregoing, dyslexics are known to draw pictures of individuals and places in unusual expertise that the products appear too real to be true. This ability has rubbed many people the wrong way, some arguing that dyslexics are not that talented but merely overstretch their meager abilities in an effort to overcome their inadequacies. But Dickman (2006) counteracts this by proposing that the key to any person’s success is more closely tied to areas in which he or she excels, rather than those in which he or she struggles. This therefore holds that people with dyslexia are simply excelling in what they do best and are thus not struggling as allayed by their detractors. People the world over have held protracted discussions in arguments over the numerous extraordinary talents possessed by people with dyslexia with no consensus. It is also very unfortunate that going through extant literature, no substantial research work has been found to have been conducted in the area of dyslexics and their talents. But despite this looming absence of this essential information, reliable observations have indicated that a great percentage of individuals diagnosed with dyslexia have a knack for expressing themselves artistically (Mauro et al, 2008). This therefore places them a bar above the rest because of their expertise in building models as well as possessing strong social and problem-solving skills. Shaywitz (2003) concurs that these skills constitute what majority in the mainstream don’t want to accept as talents but are quick to dismiss as mere “compensatory strengths” that develop out of necessity due to other deficits. The foregoing characteristics and talents resident in people with dyslexia have emerged from the victim’s own personal accounts of the struggles and endeavors they’ve gone through. This has formed a good supplement to the lacking research data in this area as illustrated earlier sections of this report. Some of the victims’ personal accounts of their experiences with dyslexia that have been accessed by the author of this report indicate a grim picture of their early years in school. This is attributed to first and foremost the fact that they themselves are at a loss of not understanding their situation, leave alone the stigma they get from their peers in the society. Driven by this hostility and isolation, a large number of these people suffering from dyslexia has turned into being “dare-devils” in live threw caution to the air as assumed by Munro (2007). This great risk-taking nature is thought to have propelled these victims into the enormous successes and confidence majority of them are enjoying to date. This seriously puts to rest the claim that dyslexics have more weaknesses than strengths. Whether existent or non-existent, the Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) Model discussed in an earlier section of this report can be used in conjunction with the Response to Intervention (RTI) model to identify the characteristics of reading difficulties displayed by people with dyslexia as demonstrated in the section below. IDENTIFYING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF READING DIFFICULTIES DISPLAYED BY PEOPLE WITH DYSLEXIA USING THE MLOTP AND RTI MODELS Research has variously indicated that despite being very poorly adapted to conventional education, the dyslexic brain has been considered a very powerful engine of insight and innovation (Konza, 2003). Because of this, most dyslexics have been variously referred to as ‘visual-thinkers’ since their brains think ‘openly’ and see what others don’t usually see’ and thus perceive the world quite differently. In spite of these extraordinary achievements and characteristics, individuals with dyslexia experience a lot of difficulties in dealing with areas that are perceived as simple by almost every other person in the mainstream. This is more so noticeable in the lower levels of education as concurred by Dickman (2006). All these characteristics among many others can easily be identified using the Response to Intervention (RTI) model assisted by the Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) Model, both described earlier in this report. Firstly, the Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) Model will assist in improving speech and word reading in dyslexics. This will be important because speech and spelling are major problems of the individual with dyslexia. After this, careful training programs in phonological awareness will achieve long-life benefits as illustrated by Munro (2007). In addition to this, there should be a strong focus on phonological decoding, followed by vigorous reading of texts of different levels of difficulty which is done loudly to encourage the learner to overcome his or her dyslexic characteristics. It is further suggested that the learner should not be left idle but given enough practice tasks on comprehension while still reading the texts loudly. The aim here is involve the learner in multilevel of reading process. Of course these tasks need to be conducted by a trained educational practitioner like the teacher. Since MLOTP model advocates for the involvement of the child wholesome, it is important to determine the classroom entry behavior of the child suffering from dyslexia to note the number of languages the child is capable of speaking. If the child is bilingual, RTI will then be used to establish the two languages are clashing and hence causing the child to have the learning difficulty. This whole process will require the child’s parents to give full background information about the child’s acquisition and subsequent use of the first language. Research has clearly demonstrated that poor response to intervention RTI has largely contributed to the presence of dyslexia in children and other individuals who are bilingual, and as such care should be taken to ensure that such a child does not fail to make it in life. This report suggests that institution of clear monitoring and investigation programs using both the Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) and the Response to Intervention (RTI) models to prevent identified skills of children in this situation from going to waste. IMPLEMENTING INTERVENTION FOR DYSLEXIA Again using the Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) Model and the Response to Intervention (RTI) model, it is really possible to implement interventions for people suffering from dyslexia. This intervention process has been recommended to be conducted through a variety of ways including some the following enumerated below. First, it is important to note that the Response to Intervention (RTI) model suggests three tier interventions for dyslexia learning disability in both children and adults. These three levels of interventions are deemed critical in enabling arresting of the problem, partly if not fully (Tunmer and Greaney, 2008). The first level of intervention in the general education system is termed as ‘instruction’ which is offered to all students in the classroom. The instruction here is based on the reading of the text by the students, and must be balanced. Tier two interventions are provided only to students who demonstrate problems based on screening measures or weak progress from regular classroom instruction as shown by Sweller (2009). Tier one instructions can be supplemented by additional small group reading instructions offered to tier two students. Additionally, tier three interventions are the ultimate and are provided to students who do not progress after a reasonable amount of time with the tier two interventions in the preceding level. This third level of intervention requires more intensive assistance to ensure that all the learners are interacted with at personal level. In fact, it is recommended that in tier three, “one-on-one” tutoring is offered with a mix of instructional interventions (Tunmer and Greaney, 2008). Moreover, ongoing analysis of student performance data is critical in this level of intervention. Vellutino et al (2006) advice that systematically collected data should be used to identify successes and failures in instruction for individual students. If students still experience difficulty after receiving intensive services in this level, then it is suggested that they get evaluated for possible special education services (Sweller, 2009). Other interventions that can be used were mentioned earlier in the report and include teacher training and retraining as well as being professional on the part of the educational practitioners. CONCLUSIONS Literacy as indicated throughout this discourse is an important component for the growth and development of the economy of any country. This is so because an educated population in a country is more beneficial in all aspects than the one that is very illiterate. Research has demonstrated that such a population falls sick less often and if it does is capable of seeking medical intervention immediately and appropriately. Similarly, an educated population is more productive in terms of quality and quantity of products as compared to a less educated one. When all these factors are considered together, it is found that literacy level in the citizens of a certain country need to be addressed properly. Notwithstanding all this, it is noted that levels of literacy remains low due to increased rate of learning disabilities found among children and adults of the population. This report has addressed such a learning disability found in the form of dyslexia afflicting children more than adults. According to Vellutino et al (2006), dyslexia usually presents itself by having an individual who is very good in artistic designs and imaginations but have debilitating factors in reading, speech and other literary word processes that are deemed very simple by the other children in the mainstream school setting. To identify children with this learning disability has been made easy by use of two models namely the Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) Model and the Response to Intervention (RTI) model which have both been clearly illustrated throughout this text. After identification, both models also suggest intervention measures that can be instituted to address dyslexia. Gersten and Dimino (2006) for instance claim that the Response to Intervention (RTI) model has grown in popularity in enabling successful intervention for dyslexic individuals. The approach has been incorporated in many school administrative systems and has become protected by state laws particularly the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act” (IDEA) as cited by Vellutino et al (2006). Passing of this legislation has enabled the Response to Intervention (RTI) model to be the favorite of many school principals who want to help children with and at the risk of dyslexia in their learning institutions as well as the community at large. After the Multiple Levels of Text Processing (MLOTP) Model assists in identifying learners with learning disabilities, the Response to Intervention (RTI) model on the other hand provides interventions to help the victims. This has been recommended to be conducted through ‘three tier interventions’ for maximum achievement of results. REFERENCES Baker, S. K., and Baker, D. L. (2008). English learners and response to intervention: Improving quality of instruction in general and special education. New York: Springer. Diamond, T and Zamora, G. D. (2010) Essential Components of RTI – A Closer Look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention Dickman, G. E. (2006). RTI and reading: Response to intervention in a nutshell. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 32, 33-34. Fletcher, J.M., Denton, C. and Francis, D. (2005) ‘Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38: 545–552. Gersten, R. and Dimino, J. A (2006) RTI: Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Instructional Research Group, Signal Hill, California, USA. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., and Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. Konza, D. (2003). Teaching Children with Reading Difficulties, N.S.W. Australia. Social Science Press Manolis, C., Burns, D., Assudan, R., China, R. (2012). “Assessing experiential learning styles: A methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb learning style inventory”. Learning and Individual Differences Mauro, R. F., Douce, D., Green, J., and Ryan, M (2008) Resilience and Resourcefulness: Life with Dyslexia. Perspectives on Language and Literacy. The International Dyslexia Association; Volume 34, No. 3. Mortimore, T., Hansen, L., Hutchings, M., Northcote, A., Fernando, J., Horobin, L., Saunders, K., and Everatt, J (2012). Dyslexia and Multilingualism: Identifying and supporting bilingual learners who might be at risk of developing SpLD/dyslexia. A Research Report. Munro, J. (2005) Multiple Levels of Text Processing Model. Lecture Handouts. Post Graduate Literacy Intervention Strategies Course. Melbourne University Melbourne, Australia Munro, J. (2007). Literacy Intervention Strategies Course notes. The University of Melbourne Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., and Bjork, R. (2008). “Learning styles: Concepts and evidence”. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9: 105–119. Pressley, M. (2006) Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: The Guilford Press. Shaywitz, S. (2003) Overcoming dyslexia. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Sweller, J. (2009). What Human Cognitive Architecture Tells Us About Constructivism. London, UK. Routledge Publishing. Thomas, F., Hawk, A., and Shah, J. (2007) “Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education Tunmer, W. E and Greaney, K. T. (2008) Reading Intervention Research: An Integrative Framework, Educational Influences. The Sage Handbook of Dyslexia Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S. and Fanuele, D. P. (2006) ‘Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39: 157–169. Wanzek, J., and Vaughn, S. (2007). Research based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–562.o. 3, Summer Edition, 2008 Read More