I really need to survey the popular literature to determine what the interval is between instances of this sort of bunk. In this one, a teacher is hyping some tried-and-found-wanting teaching procedures, according to a report by Jessica Keller in the Argus Observer (Ontario, OR, US). The story ran at the top of the front page (see illustration). Here’s a description of the intervention:
In her classroom last week, [Rhonda] Erstrom helped two elementary students work through “trigger” words. She said because people with dyslexia are visual thinkers and learners, they have trouble conceptualizing words they can’t visualize, called trigger words. She said because her students can’t visualize those words, 216 of them, such as “up,” “down” and “nearly,” they often register to students in their reading. Erstrom helped her two students recognize and understand the word “almost” Wednesday afternoon using one of the techniques she has learned in her training. Under her watchful eye, the two students found the word in dictionaries specifically geared toward dyslexic students, read the meaning out loud, spelled the word, spelled it backwards and used it in a sentence.
She then helped them conceptualize what “almost” - defined as “nearly, but not quite” - meant by having them build a model of their sentence. One boy’s model showed him being “almost” finished with a car restoration project by standing over the hood of the car preparing to install the last engine component. Her other student “almost” got a cookie from a cookie jar before being stopped by building a model of him standing over a cookie jar as if he was going to reach in to grab a chocolate chip treat.
Once they completed their model and spelled the word “almost” out with clay, they repeated the earlier process, explained their model to Erstrom, then traced the word with their fingers, spelling it front and back, before doing the same successfully without looking. The lesson was complete.
O.K. One more time: Show me the data, please. Please? How about just some weekly probes of words read per minute. Are these children’s levels of reading competence increasing? Do they have IEPs and do those IEPs specify measurable means of assessing their progress? Are they progressing on any objective scale at a rate needed to meet reasonable objectives or goals? Pretty please? How about some simple tests such as those administered repeated over a school year with a random selection of 20 kids getting Ms. Erstom’s ministrations and another 20 getting say, Orton-Gillingham, Corrective Reading, or just about any not-visual approach? Pretty pretty please? Might the principal and the school board want to see some evidence about this before endorsing it? Who’s watching out for these kids? How much time do they have to devote to this if they’re already behind? Sugar on top?
O.K. I’ve got to change this from a “news” post to a “musing” post—and I don’t mean “amusing.” At least it’s talk-like-a-pirate day, so I can say, “Arrrrrrgh.”
Link to Ms. Keller’s story.
Sphere: Related Content