Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia

May be useful information

From History of developmental dyslexia

Wydell and Butterworth reported the case study of an English-Japanese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia . Suggesting that any language where orthography-to-phonology mapping is transparent, or even opaque, or any language whose orthographic unit representing sound is coarse (i.e. at a whole character or word level) should not produce a high incidence of developmental phonological dyslexia, and that orthograpy can influence dyslexic symptoms

— Preceding unsigned comment added by dolfrog (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting research reviews listed as i find them

I am cataloging the research papers on my hard dis and adding more as I go, all fun, so i will add the reviews i come across them here for all to read, and can be use where appropriate in the series of articles dolfrog (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. "Paying attention to reading: the neurobiology of reading and dyslexia." Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA. 2008 PMID 1883804
2. "Management of dyslexia, its rationale, and underlying neurobiology" Shaywitz SE, Gruen JR, Shaywitz BA. 2007 PMID 17543912
3. "Developmental dyslexia: an update on genes, brains, and environments." Grigorenko EL. PMID 11205626
4. "[The reader brain: natural and cultural story] Valdois S, Habib M, Cohen L. 2008 PMID 18675051
5. "The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia" Stein J. 2001 PMID 11305228
6. "The cognitive deficits responsible for developmental dyslexia: review of evidence for a selective visual attentional disorder." Valdois S, Bosse ML, Tainturier MJ. 2004 PMID 15573964
7. "Developmental and acquired dyslexias." Temple CM. 2006 PMID 17131596 (appears to be from an acquired dyslexia researchers perspective - dolfrog)
8. "Phonological dyslexia and phonological impairment: an exception to the rule?" Tree JJ, Kay J. 2006 PMID 16879843 (Alexia)
9. "Two types of phonological dyslexia - a contemporary review." Tree JJ. 2008 PMID 18472039 (Alexia again) dolfrog (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
10. "The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood." Shaywitz SE, Morris R, Shaywitz BA. 2008 PMID 18154503 (This only an abstract of the review, Is it possible to find a copy of the full text) dolfrog (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
11. "Neuroanatomical markers for dyslexia: a review of dyslexia structural imaging studies" Eckert M. 2004 PMID 15271263 another abstract free only dolfrog (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
12. "[Survey of fMRI results regarding a phonological deficit in children and adults with dyslexia: fundamental deficit or indication of compensation?]" Ligges C, Blanz B. 2007 (main article in German we need a translator) PMID 17608280 dolfrog (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
13. "Converging evidence for triple word form theory in children with dyslexia" Richards TL, Aylward EH, Field KM, Grimme AC, Raskind W, Richards AL, Nagy W, Eckert M, Leonard C, Abbott RD, Berninger VW. 2006 PMID 16925475 (need to get a copy of full paper)
14. "A multidisciplinary approach to understanding developmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture: genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction." Berninger VW, Raskind W, Richards T, Abbott R, Stock P. 2008 PMID 19005912 (again need to find a copy of full paper) dolfrog (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
15. "From cognitive to neural models of working memory" D'Esposito M. 2007 PMID 17400538 dolfrog (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
16. "Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain" Postle BR. 2006 PMID 16324795 dolfrog (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Use of auditory learning to manage listening problems in children 2009 PMID 18986969 (at last an APD review) dolfrog (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

dolfrog (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, dolfrog, for listing these. May I suggest that we place the list in the dyslexia Wikiproject structure? If you don't mind, I'd suggest creating a new subordinate page and placing a link to it on the Main Project page, right up front so it's easy to find .....

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we talk about how to approach the worldwide view aspect of these articles?

Hi, all.

I'd like for us to talk about how we handle the globalization / worldwide view issue for the dyslexia series. I'm starting to see sections where the information is contorted, because we're attempting to provide this "worldwide view" for all articles.

Bear with me, if you will. Here's what I'm thinking.

Regarding research: The vast majority of dyslexia research has been done on English-speakers. The vast majority of secondary source "analysis" has been written about English-speaking dyslexics. There is some information about dyslexia in European languages, and there is a growing base of information about dyslexia in Chinese speakers.

Where "globalizing" is easy: There are some topics where differences between English speaking countries is required, for example differences between the US and UK, especially in terminology. That's pretty easy to deal with. There are a couple of articles where we have a reasonable amount of information unrelated to the US/UK (see Orthographies and dyslexia -- where there are discussions about how different writing systems affect how dyslexia manifests in individuals). That's pretty straightforward also.

The problem I see: Trying to globalize *every article* is becoming very awkward. There are lots of places where the only verifiable information is about dyslexia in English, but it's easy to see that this is an area where there are probably differences for dyslexia in other languages --- there's just no comparable information for dyslexia in other languages. And trying to organize sections to accommodate placeholders for global information, or calling out information that is only about alphabetic writing systems, is so awkward that we're ending up with sections that are pretty contorted. This means a much less usable article for the vast majority of our audience.

For an example of what I mean, see the "Signs and symptoms" section of dyslexia. Most of the research we have about symptoms is based on alphabetic languages, and most of that is specifically about the English writing system. Someday there will be a significant amount of comparable information about dyslexia in other languages/writing systems, but it's not there today. Take a look and I think the organization problem will be pretty obvious. I think this kind of thing really reduces the quality of the article for most readers.

I placed a question about this on Village Pump, and someone said this:

This is English Wikipedia, if there isnt anything, or very little, published on dyslexia among non-English language speakers, written in the English language then it isnt notable enough in the English speaking world for you to "globalise" the entire article, a small section noting that in English there hasnt been much published on the dyslexia in other languages (if this has indeed been verified through the use of a published source stating that) would suffice and no further globalizing of the article is needed, anything more would be OR in my eyes.

A couple of the best books about dyslexia (well, they're among the best IMHO) write about dyslexia in the English-speaking world -- English-speakers are their primary audience after all -- and then they include a section or chapter called something like "Dyslexia Around the World" that addresses the available information about dyslexia in languages other than English and writing systems other than the one we use. Would this be a defensible approach for Wikipedia articles?

Proposed solution: Here's a stab at trying to define our globalizing "strategy" as we write/edit these articles.

• Assume that our primary subject matter is dyslexia among English-speakers, and write from this perspective.
• Where there is a significant amount of information about dyslexia in another language or another writing system, include that information in context. (As in the Orthographies and dyslexia article.)
• Add a section in the main dyslexia article -- or if the section gets too big, create another article == title the section or article "Dyslexia around the world" or something similar. Summarize what we know about dyslexia in languages other than English and writing systems other than the one we use.
• Over time, as more secondary sources become available about dyslexia in other languages, add more "worldly" information then.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support You have an excellent grasp of the goal. Globalization does not mean that we have to represent every single possible country/language/etc without fail; it means that we give due weight according to reliable sources, without excluding sources as being about the "wrong" country/language/etc.
  Since dyslexia is a bigger problem in English than any other language, and nearly all of the reliable sources discuss English, then a properly balanced article must focus more on English/English-speaking countries. (It must also include some information about other languages/countries/etc, just like our reliable sources do.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree that you have a good understanding of the problem and I think that you've put forth a well-thought way to resolve it. What are some of the sources you had in mind? I wouldn't mind having a try at them,Synchronism (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of broad-based information, the best are Dyslexia: Theory & Practice of Instruction by Clark and Uhry, Multisensory Teaching Of Basic Language Skills by Birsh, Overcoming Dyslexia by Shaywitz, and Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Adams (the mother of all early reading acquisition texts). Second tier are Proust and the Squid: Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain by Wolf (this is absolutely fascinating) and Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers by Moats. There are lots of others, of course, but these are the ones I turn to repeatedly. Rosmoran (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sami look at your list of references, all would appear to be secondary sources, not primary sources, all books not peer reviewed, and the authors are able to include their own personal opinions. Many are also pre 2000. The only one which could possibly a primary source is Overcoming Dyslexia by Shaywitz. The others would appear to be "what works books" nothing wring in that but not encyclopedia reference material. Shaywitz has more recent review research papers available in PubMed. As WhatamIdoing is fond of telling mew we need review research papers, which are available from PubMed and other sources to support the content of our articles. The research papers are there we just have to find them in whatever language they are written in. dolfrog (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Books are fine, too, so long as they are secondary sources instead of primary sources (e.g., personal experiences, original experimental reports, etc.). Research papers are wonderful, of course, but the important part is the review (secondary source) part, not the "paper" part. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

==Clearing up the confusion about my frequently used references==

All of these books are, in fact, secondary sources. That is what we're looking for, are we not? All of them focus on the science of reading/dyslexia/intervention, and synthesize information gleaned from the research literature in their analysis. As for publishing dates and content, please see below:

• Dyslexia: Theory & Practice of Instruction by Clark and Uhry is dated 2005.
  The first 216 of its 320 pages consists of research surveys on critical topics relative to dyslexia interventions. These topics include the nature of dyslexia, assessment for dyslexia, principles of instruction for teaching dyslexics, phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling, vocabulary, etc etc. This book is listed as recommended reading by the IDA, Florida Center for Reading Research, every major school for dyslexics in the US (Swift, Gow, Kildonan, Brehm, Landmark College, etc), and many many universities. It is so ubiquitous among orton-gillingham based reading programs that Academic Language Therapists commonly refer to it as "the red book."

• Multisensory Teaching Of Basic Language Skills by Birsh is dated 2005.
  It is a compendium of articles by major researchers or practitioners in the field according to their area of expertise. These include such people as Louisa Cook Moats, Joanna Uhry, Graham Neuhaus, Marcia K. Henry, and Barbara Wilson.

• Overcoming Dyslexia by Shaywitz is dated 2003.
  This is by Sally Shaywitz. 'Nuff said.

• Proust and the Squid by Wolf is dated 2007.
  Maryanne Wolf is one of the "grande dames" of reading research in the US.

• Speech to Print by Moats is dated 2000.
  Louisa Cook Moats is another grande dame.

• The oldest book is Beginning to Read:Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams (yet another grande dame), which is dated 1994.
  I defy anyone to find a better or more masterful explanation of early reading acquisition. The "hot off the press" reading research papers published in peer reviewed journals use this landmark book as a key reference. I have seen no research in the area of beginning reading that refutes her analysis.

Sorry if I seem defensive, but these are books written by major researchers in this field. What more reliable information sources can be found?

Rosmoran (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a great deal of research from other countries in Europe :_ Germany, France, Spain, Poland, Italy, Finland, the Netherlands, etc which may need translating. There is also some research from south America especially Brazil. There are also sources from around Asia including India, and China. But the problem is find the research papers and then translating them into English. dolfrog (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The other issue which is coming from these other countries is that the dyslexia will be diagnosed by medically identifying the cognitive deficits that cause the dyslexic symptoms, and the current educational test will only be a screen process and an aide for teachers to access how best to help an individual dyslexic in the education system. The cognitive deficits or disorders will have range of other symptoms and the dyslexia symptom may only be of minor importance in comparison. dolfrog (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that, if the dyslexia symptom isn't the most important symptom (the primary symptom, if you will), they would call the condition something other than dyslexia. As the information you describe is translated and available in secondary sources, we can revise the articles as appropriate. Rosmoran (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct -- within the confines of the formal literature. A parent or affected person might, on the other hand, reject accurate labels (e.g., high-functioning autism, which will present with reading difficulties as well as many other cognitive and language problems) and choose to self-identify as having "dyslexia" instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

before I have to leave again to sort out issues in my real life. another thought. As you all know I have Auditory Processing Disorder (APD), which is the cause of my dyslexia. It is easier for me to tell others that I am dyslexic as they will have some idea of what dyslexia is. If I tell them that I have APD they have no idea what I mean, and usually I have to provide a long detailed explanation, which is not what I or they really want. The primary symptom of having APD is processing what people say in conversations, and verbal instructions. Expressing my own feeling and intentions can be a problem because of my poor auditory memory I have word recall problems, and due to coping with APD my working memory is nearly always close to overload. So for me dyslexia comes way down the list of important symptoms. dolfrog (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Two project banners

Is your project abandoning the former template to start this new one {{DyslexiaProject}}? Prapsnot (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The former template is at Template:WikiProject Dyslexia. Dolfrog created Template:DyslexiaProject on 30 June 2009. The new one does not seem to be used outside of Dolfrog's own pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive bot set up

If I've done everything correctly, a bot will archive anything more than 90 days old before long. You can find (and search) the archives in the talkheader's box. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

didn't program in time.

I accept that there is difficulty in defining dyslexia and in the main column "occasionally mathematics".

At primary school I had a whole series of teachers who taught me the alphabet and I was able to read at an early age. Missing from this was any kind of figure/ number training.

I then went to a junior school where the male teacher was an embittered bully. He used to shout at me when I couldn't understand the figures. Things were so bad that my parents removed me from the school but far too late.

The "fresh start" was a completely different experience but I was thirteen before the figure lessons began again and it was equally too late for these to imprint mentally although algebra with letters proved relatively easy.

For many years after leaving school I was thought to be figure dyslexic as it took me time to remember a telephone number. Only after the invention of the calculator did my life improve.

Late in life I now wonder if I ever was really dyslexic or whether my problem was probably a combination of lack of early figure training followed by a bullying teacher who crushed my efforts.