I've been reading 20+ year old book on Dyslexia edited by Norm Geschwind, struck by the changes that have taken place clinical neurological papers, and realizing what we have lost in the process.
Take a look at this excerpt from Martha Denckla's paper on Motor Coordination in Dyslexic Children. In this study, Dr. Denckla tested dyslexic children (and followed them over time) on a map-walking test that involved drawing a similar pathway as one outlined in dots on a floor.
"The younger dyslexic children, that is children below the age of 10 years...had the worst performance of hte three groups, as measured by walking these routes correctly. A startling "late blooming" effect, however, shone forth in the data on children over 10 years old. The teenaged dyslexic group, and in particular the familial dyslexic adolescents demonstrated superior (my italics added) performance on this test, averaging better scores than the nondsylexic, otherwise learning-disabled and normal groups.
What could these results possibly mean, and what do they have to do with the history of good athletic ability, which is so startlingly disassociated from the office coordination studies? In addition, what do they have to do with the "outgrowing" poor Bender-Gestalt copying?..."
Information such as this is so valuable because Denckla is open to observing and reporting everything - recurring patterns as well as surprises that she may not be able to fully explain. Clinical and educational understandings of dyslexia would really benefit from more astute observers reporting their experiences in discourses such as these.
Today, the pressures on most academic clinicians are to focus their time and energies on the testing of narrow and preferably quantifiable results. While no one doubts the value of such an approach for many aspects of clinical science, it's not the best way to comprehend dyslexia in whole people.
Denckla can make the observations that she can because:
- she follows children over years
- she tests and observes children herself, and doesn't just delegate testing to residents or non-M.D.'s
- she questions the limitation of her tools (for instance, dyslexics students who perform poorly on clinical motor coordination tasks may be excellent athletes)and looks for clues to understanding beyond the clinic visit
- information is not thrown out - like observations that may be inconsistent with theories or negative results
- practical implications of wiring differences are sought out
As an example of the latter, here's a quick discussion of mixed-dominance: "In terms of practical implications, it is clearly not a cause in and of itself of failure to acquire skills of reading, but it does appear to be a factor requiring an additional level of conscious activity in the reading processing in the early years...One first-grader explained to me that each time he wants to write a number, 'I think of the way I like to see the numbers go and then write it in the opposite direction.'"
There's a lot we could learn from a wide angle lens view of the children in front of us.
How many parents or professionals currently working with dyslexics know about this late-blooming paradox of motor function? It could certainly reduce unreasonable motor-related expectations in the early elementary school years, and perhaps avoid some of the common social and emotional burdens of dyslexic students (shame, self-blame, depression).
BTW: Little late notice, but we will be speaking tomorrow at:
Lake Washington Technical College April 20th 9:45-10:30 am
as part of their Literacy and Parent Education In-Service.
It looks like a great line-up...other guest include Jack Prelutsky and Virginia Berninger. For more information, click here
Technorati tags: dyslexia, motor, learning disabilities, spatial, late bloomers, learning styles, dysgraphia, writing, neurology, visual, brain, mixed dominance, social-emotional
Thanks ZenPundit for tapping us for a Thinking Blogger Award. We are honored and have learned quite a lot from your blog and comments here.
Posts
