Dyslexia My life - Blog on Dyslexia
Dyslexia and ADHD together can be a challenge. Here are However, these gifts only fully get expressed when the pitfalls are properly assessed and treated. Dyslexia does not reflect an overall defect in language, but, rather, a localized Dyslexics often have difficulty remembering dates, names. CrossRef citations to date Asher Hoyles NewVic Sixth Form College, London, UK & Martin Hoyles London, UK [email protected] . But reading and writing alone do not define dyslexia. . have documented: that black students feel they are unfairly treated by teachers (i.e. 'picked.
Dyslexic Gifts Dyslexics often enjoy and excel at solving puzzles. Dyslexics have excellent comprehension of the stories read or told them. Dyslexics are adept to excellence in areas not dependent on reading. Dyslexics typically have a large spoken vocabulary for their age.
Dyslexics often need to be taught to look at words linearly, left-to-right. Dyslexics have difficulty in learning and remembering the names of letters. Dyslexics will sometimes make reading errors that show no connection to the sounds of the letters; for example, the word "big" is read as "goat.
Dyslexics often have difficulty remembering dates, names, telephone numbers, and random lists. Dyslexics often have an extreme difficulty learning a foreign language. Often dyslexics are thought to be reading backwards because of what is called the "Recency Effect. Glenda Thorne stated, "Dyslexia is not a deficit in the visual processing system; however, it is a language processing problem. Dyslexics score significantly higher on test when they are given additional time and given the test orally.
Dyslexics do best when directions are two steps or fewer. The fact is that some people have difficulties with written language; these difficulties can exist in the absence of other identifiable "conditions" e. Calling it a "condition" does no harm and is a fair term for the, um, condition.
Calling dyslexia a condition in our culture implies a defined medical condition,and that definion can be a very narrow interpretation of dyslexia, which does not include the wider range of issues that can contribute to causing the dyslexic symptoms. This happens in the UK, where the tunnel vision of the British Dyslexia Association prevents any real understanding of the full range of underlying causes of dyslexia, due to this national lack of understanding of the wider issues that cause dyslexia, many in the UK are prevented from getting the correct type of help they need.
It is not a singular condition in its own right. There are many conditions or disorders a person may have that manifests as what we call "dyslexia". An analogy to show what I mean would be: A man cannot walk, so people decide to call his "condition" "Common walking disorder". There are many people who cannot walk, due to spinal injuries, mental impairment, atrophied leg muscles, arthritis, broken bones etc.
You can not label them all the "Common walking disorder" and try and apply the same singular treatment and attitude towards them all, as they are all VERY different things that happen to show very similar symptoms. So the fact he cannot walk is not a diagnosable "condition" in itself. The same applies to dyslexia, some people have problems with auditory stimuli and nothing else, some of the symptoms are what we call "dyslexia". Another person may have visual problems which manifest as some of the symptoms we call "dyslexia".
The treatment for one may be VERY different to the treatment for the other, as the underlying conditions causing dyslexic symptoms vary substantially. Just as when people have "common walking disorder" they all should not receive the same treatment, or even be classed as the same "condition".
There may be 10 or 20 different reasons for each of them being unable to walk. Dyslexia is a loose term for the symptoms of various conditions. Dyslexia does not cause, dyslexia is the symptom. An underlying condition causes dyslexia. So this sentence can easily lead to misunderstanding, as with most of the introduction.
I recommend the following replace the first paragraph of the introduction: It is characterized by difficulties with phonological processing automatic naming skills and working memory.
It's effects can be seen in spoken language as well as written language. Also suggest the adding of Category: Neurology as it supersedes Category: Disability, but I think both are important. Discuss if a disagreement arises I'm just trying to keep things objective and in accordance with Wiki standards of objectivity, which is why it makes sense to note the different viewpoints in their appropriate context, such as in the "Definitions" section or the "Controversy" section.
I'm just trying to keep things objective and in accordance with Wiki standards of objectivity What you have in the article is POV, so I agree that we need to remove it. The original line "Dyslexia is a condition or learning disability Unless you use "condition" in an extremely loose sense, which then could be used to mean symptom, but it could also mean disease and many other things besides.
It is ill-defined and out of place here. I recommend using the term " syndrome " " In recent decades the term has been used outside of medicine to refer to a combination of phenomena seen in association.
Dyslexia is a syndrome which is CAUSED by an underlying neurological condition be that phonological, visual or something else. So if we want to remain objective, we cannot assert that Dyslexia is a condition, we can not assert that it is a cause in itself.
If there is a disagreement, please state the reasons specifically. Otherwise what I said stands. Again, I'd like to work toward an improved definition -- I agree with the criticisms leveled at the old definition, I just did not with the replacement, because I felt it was inaccurate in other respects.
Also, while I personally do not feel that dyslexia is a "condition" I would not go so far as to say that others don't disagree. For example, see this interview quoting Thomas Viall, executive director of the International Dyslexia Association, "The work Sally and Bennett Shaywitz are doing at Yale is particularly important, Viall says, to validating dyslexia as a medical condition" -- http: So how can we possibly disregard their point of view and still be "objective"?
So yes, lets change the wording I feel strange because I really am arguing for inclusion of points that I don't particularly agree with, but I know they are viewpoints that are held by many leading educators and researchers in the field. But it does give an example of how I managed to avoid words like "condition", "syndrome", "disability" or "deficiency" - and also avoided any sort of techno-babble. I never said dyslexia was a "deficiency in reading" as that would imply a negative level of comprehension in the overall sense but the ability as that implies to learning, so I can see why you thought I was talking about the discrepancy modelwhich I see now as open ended, maybe to much room for interpretation.
I see where you are coming from and accept that what I said does not work in that sense. I am aware of the Shaywitz's work and I am impressed, but must say they are quite loose with their terminology, referring to the brain abnormalities they find with dyslexic people as "dyslexia", so I see what you mean about the problem as whether to call it a condition or syndrome, etc.
So I think semantics is the problem here. So dyslexia IS a condition if you are referring to the brain abnormalities, and dyslexia IS a syndrome if you are referring to the symptoms. The problem with referring to the brain abnormalities as dyslexia condition is that the abnormalities have other symptoms other than the "basic" syndrome of dyslexia. So how shall we approach this with the article? I agree with your points and looking at The International Dyslexia Association's web site, maybe we could use their definition, or a similar approach when referring to dyslexia they are not talking about the specifics of the medical conditions brain abnormalitiesbut the syndrome symptoms: Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin.
These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction.
Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge. It affects the underlying skills that are needed for learning to read, write and spell.
Brain imaging techniques show that dyslexic people process information differently.
Should I kill myself because I've got autism and dyslexia? | Yahoo Answers
In a report on the House of Lords Dyslexia debate which took place on December 7,the government confirms that dyslexia is not a myth. It appears to be a part of a statment realeased in repsonce to a show discrediting dyslexia and not their offical definition.
I'm going to replace the un-cited quote in the article with the correct version from their site. Which refers to the syndrome.
Are there any up-to-date offical statments that actually refer to dyslexia as a medical condition, in the proper context, and not broad usage of disease? There is also some politics involved.
The IDA used to have the following definition on their site: Dyslexia is a learning disability characterized by problems in expressive or receptive, oral or written language. Problems may emerge in reading, spelling, writing, speaking, or listening.
About the Author
Dyslexia is not a disease; it has no cure. Dyslexia describes a different kind of mind, often gifted and productive, that learns differently. Dyslexia is not the result of low intelligence. Intelligence is not the problem. An unexpected gap exists between learning aptitude and achievement in school. The problem is not behavioral, psychological, motivational, or social. It is not a problem of vision; people with dyslexia do not "see backward.
People with dyslexia are unique; each having individual strengths and weaknesses. Many dyslexics are creative and have unusual talent in areas such as art, athletics, architecture, graphics, electronics, mechanics, drama, music, or engineering. Dyslexics often show special talent in areas that require visual, spatial, and motor integration. Their problems in language processing distinguish them as a group. This means that the dyslexic has problems translating language to thought as in listening or reading or thought to language as in writing or speaking.
This is no longer on the main IDA site, but can still be seen on the Austin-area branch site at http: Anyway, I agree that it is largely semantic and I am going to try to look at the various definitions and see whether we can come up with a version that incorporates all the good stuff and gets rid of all the questionable stuff.
I really do like the quotation from the BDA, so that might also be something to incorporate as well. The BDA is not a non profit organisation, it has products and services to sell and is therefore a commercial body There are many peer reviewed UK Resaerch papers regarding Dylexia over the last decade or more that the BDA choose to ignore and does not discuss even withs its own membership. So the BDA is not the defining source on this subject.
And large organisations tend to be good at selling their product or agenda, which historically may not be in line with the best current research, and it is not a realistic recommendation follow the output of members of that organisation just because of its size, most large organisations have their own internal agenda, especially if not a non-profit organisation. And some non profit organisationsd are influnced by their fundraising agendas. And from this perspective it is better to have dyslexia defined as a medical condition as funding and research sponsorship is easier.
So unfortunately you have to question the motives behind these statements made by large organisations and their members dolfrog Anyway, I've had a go at trying to redraft things, with suggested changes in topic 53 New definition - introductory paragraph at the bottom of the page -- can you have a look at it?
I'd like to get a consensus as to how to best word it, and would really like your input as you raised concerns about words like "condition". However I have managed to edit most of the "condition" references out and replaced them with "syndrome". I have also added a few links to the auditory processing disorder APD Wiki which i helped to edit sometime ago. Something like "Evidence that dyslexia is caused by a neurological disorder is substantial. Disorder would relate to the physicalities of the brain evidence, whereas "syndome" is dyslexia itself.
Let me know how you feel about that. In other words, a person with long legs can run faster than a person with short legs, but that doesn't mean that having shorter legs is a "disorder" - it just means that some bodies are better suited for running than others. So I'd favor leaving off the noun, for example: He was first diagnosed as being dyslexic some 5 years before. So far my own dianosis for both of these issues has always followed a few years after my sons initial diagnosis.
Most of the web sites' initial content was links to UK peer reviewed research papers regarding dylexic researcg that identified and recognised Visual and Auditory factors as contributory causes of dyslexia so our first main web pages were http: And it is the big agencies who refuse to move with modern day research. Yet where do we locate many who have APD, on Adult Dyslexia forums, adults trying to find out the true nature of their problems. These forums have dyslexics with a wide variety of issues that cause their dylexia, and many find different coping strategies or programs can help.
Many of these researchers have worked with, or are the leading UK dyslexia researchers. There is a new line of research which is still an ongoing project, to evaluate whether APD is an underlying medical cause of Dyslexia.
I am alsoaware that there has ben a great deal of discussion on this topic in the UK, the USA, and Australia, as the leading researchers in these countiess do have many lines of communication.
So it could be that the research regarding a medical condition could relate to APD, the coresponding visual processing disoder, and the other medical sonditions that can cause dyslexia. I created a new topic called "New definition - introductory paragraph" which is the last topic on the page.
It happens to have the number 53 in the Table of Contents that appears at the top of the page, which is why I referred to the number. In any case, I would like your input to the ideas on how the first few paragraphs of the page should be amended.
I posted a suggestion, Gerard made some changes, etc. I guess when an organization has been around awhile, they get kind of entrenched in their ways and slow to adapt to change. I agree with rewording to exclude the noun.
I also like what dolfrog wrote afterwords. I must say it has helped me a lot with all the information. My teachers were telling me I probably have dyslexia, but the term had no concrete meaning, and I was getting misinformation from everywhere about it, so I was left dazed and confused until I found your site purely accidentally which lead on to much extensive but very slow: And take your advice seriously. I find it quite depressingwhen trying too look at the available information on dyslexia and causes of dyslexia or lack thereof that our educational system has available.
So if my wording sounds biased in one way or another in the articleI assure you it is not intentional as I am trying to present as neutral a view as possible, given the lack of official information even if I think something is OBVIOUS. Sure it can be separate disorder from Dyslexia, but it can be a part of Dyslexia.
I feel that a lot of people don't see the big picture when it comes to Dyslexia. Too many focus on one part of Dyslexia,and they name it a disorder corresponding to that disorder part of Dyslexia.
A lot of Dyslexics have numerous problems that is all connected through the difficulty of processing words. I had my child tested outside of the school system. They said it was: What dyslexia is called depends upon the type of specialist who did the testing, and their knowledge of dyslexia. Dyslexia affects many different areas, but some testers only check one area.
They find one weakness and come to the wrong conclusion. The one who discovers the trunk describes the animal very differently than the one who finds the tail, than the one who finds the leg, the tusk, etc. Too many people do focus on one thing and just label it without seeing the big picture.
It's ironic, it is said that we Dyslexics are good at seeing the big picture. You would think that people would see the big picture about our Dyslexia and not just label bits and pieces of it. It's not like they diagnose Dyslexia and don't explain about it.
They often go over the issues with people. For instance, I was told that I have problems with string of words,auditory processing issues,mild dysarthric speech,impaired immediate visual memory,borderline impaired immediate memory,borderine impaired sentence repetition,abnormal cerebellar system, poor saccadic,pursuit eye movements,and strong visual spatial thinking skills with lack of comparabable verbal facility that makes it hard for me to express my ideas in a highly verbal society.
Levinson diagnosed me as having cerebellar vestibular dysfunction which he believed is root of Dyslexic Syndrome. Levinson's testing that got the Veteran Affairs neurologists to examine me.
Do once the dyslwexic symptoms are diagnosed you then have to find out which of theses underlying causes are the cause of your dyslexia. We are not saying that dyslexia does not exist as a set of symptomsbut that it can not be a codition. The so called remedial programs have to address these underlying cuases to have any chance of providing any benefit.
50 Interesting Facts About Dyslexia - Reading Horizons At-Home
And this is why not all remedial programs help all dyslexics. And why some agencies deny the existance of more than one cause of dyslexia because some groups of dyslexics do not respond to their favoured program.
This done on pure greed their agenda is "our program is for all dyslexics, our program defines dyslexics, so they have to buy our products". So we have to include all dyslexics whatever the underlying cause and whatever remedial program helps. So dyslexia can only be a syndrome of symptoms that indicate that you need to find oput the real cause which could be on that list.
This does not deny the existance of dyslexic problems or symptomsbut dispells the myth that dyslexias a condition, which is almost impossible for just having problems using a man made communication system. I removed this statement which was the leading sentence of the "Facts and Statistics" section. A citationless statement saying as many as 1 in every 5 people has dyslexia is a little too outlandish I think.
Find a source and it would be a very interesting fact. It repeats the claims of the discrepancy model in different forms over and over.
Have average or above average intelligence, yet may have poor academic achievement. It literally states that someone with dyslexia can't have below average intelligence.
Please stop adding rubbish to this artcile. Stick to encyclopedic facts. Of course those who have treated dyslexia may be able to, but no one is diagnosed dyslexic if they have no dyslexic difficulties reading or writing.
It also keeps just talking about "education"? Why doesn't it have the different methods which have been used effectively? The methods are well-established and used in combination in public schools. In additon, where is the section about protection as a disability? Is it somewhere in the article but the article is so long I just have missed it? I would edit it but I would wipe most of it out, since a lot of it is misinformed and badly organized.
Where are our experts? I have a fair amout of knowledge on the subject. We count Sally and Benet Shaywitz, Dr. Please contact me though wikipedia or this board if you have comments on this Newbie's edits.
I say, just keep doing what you're doing and the page will be all the better for it. This article should be better than it is, and I'm sure it will be after you work on it. Maybe it needs someone to really organize the article, to separate what is scientically founded and what is more based on personal experience and intuition. Where are all the studies showing it? Also, the statement about the dyslexic being a "three dimensional thinker", while it may have some basis in truth, seems far more reductive and simplistic than the rest of the article.
Not being an expert, though, I don't know how to qualify it properly Max Frisk writes in Ericson from Swedish: In such cases the right hemisphere can become dominant and more developed which may imply an increased creative imagination and artistic talent of the subject Goldman-Rakic et al.
The biological foundations, pp. Some have disagreed with these findings, however, and believe that while dyslexia may sometimes be inborn it is often attributable to lack of phonics training when learning to read and the preponderance of the whole language system. I don't know a lot about this issue, but this sentence looks like POV to me. There might be people who say dyslexia is often caused by "a lack of whole language training.
The article on Einstein talks about this. He seems to have been regarded as having some sort of deficit early on, and got in some trouble with liberal-arts subjects later. But there's also a legend that he received poor grades in mathematics which is a result of biographers' confusion over a change in the grading system; he was actually an excellent math student. I'd say the jury is still out on whether this indicates any sort of diagnosable learning disability.
We misread Breakfest as Breakfast with a preconcieved notion that it is breakfast. Time and again some portions of my articles have been removed as "copyrighted"!!! Please do not do that again: I indeed pasted it ready-made; however, I pasted it from my own article http: Please feel free to expand upon this text, but I would appreciate if you would leave this note intact. One reason is that I would not like anyone ever think that I steal material from Wikipedia to write my own articles!
I just thought this would be a nice contribution. If you can read this, you may have dyslexia. I am frustrated somewhat by seeing categorical statements about issues that are subject to debate.
I don't even buy into these theories, but it simply is misleading to ignore this research. Of course I included citations for these. I also added some paragraphs trying to summarize some of the various approaches to dyslexia. Again, I realize that there is a lot of controversy surrounding different theories and approaches, but that certainly is no reason to ignore them. I think this topic will be improved if users try to word things in a way that acknowledge other points and view.
In other words, we can avoid saying "all" research supports X, or there is "no" research to support Y. It seems to me to make more sense to acknowledge the controversy "some researchers claim" - and if appropriate to create a linked topic to explore the issues related to whatever theory or method is worthy of debate, or to edit an already existing topic.
Anyway, that's how I feel and why I made the initial changes that I did.
Can we really state that definitively? Many people believe it is often or even always! Reworded to mention that people disagree, but I think it still needs to have the big bold faced sentence that pronounces the "truth" that dyslexia is inborn NPOVed.
First, This article does not clearly come out and say that dyslexia can affect hearing and touch but that is an accepted scientific view of dyslexia. While citing Gazzaniga I wonder why the writer did not also read Margaret Livingstone? Secondly, this article ignores in visual dyslexia the common difficulty with seeing depth for dyslexics.
Hence the larger issue of the magno-cellular pathway and what it does. Therefore the connection to damage arising in Alzheimers wherein the affected person gets lost because they are motion blind is not connected to the same issue that affects dyslexics.
Thirdly, Dyslexics have trouble with web pages that have flash elements in them animated graphics. A focus strictly on reading therefore can't pick up the disability issues that also affect dyslexics.
Fourth, There is no sense in this paper why some dyslexics seem so bright. This might have been explored by looking at primate evolution and the rise of the color seeing channel in vision parvo-nuclear. The relative difference between seeing motion and seeing stationary surfaces seems to correspond to what intelligence is usually ascribed to.
Correlations to experiments with blind people whose cortex seems to have re-mapped from visual centers to touch centers is highly suggestive of the intelligence factors in Dyslexics.
Should I kill myself because I've got autism and dyslexia?
Fifth, In referring to script issues the author ignores Japanese scripts Kanji that are much easier for dyslexics to absorb. All scripts to some extent reproduce sounds, but some scripts are more easily seen than others.
Sixth, In describing the areas of the brain where visual processing occurs the sense of visual pathways is much more muddled than need be. A description of the motion sensing areas and the paths from there to the parietal lobe and temporal lobe would make more sense than the current allusions. I couldn't find anything to corroborate this, and suspect that this isn't part of dyscalculia.
Basically, Doyle is right: Incidentally, why are all these words so friggin' hard to spell? You can't tell me that it's not deliberate, man. Stupid G r eeks.