patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Patt Haring) (03/06/90)
Index Number: 7093
Posted with author's permission:
THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL BASES OF EDUCATIONAL DISABILITIES
Implications for Diagnosis and Remediation
email: 72440.32@compuserve.com
Robert Zenhausern, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
St. Johns University
Jamaica, NY 11439
USA
INTRODUCTION
The paragraphs below are in the form of a satire based on the
essay by Jonathan Swift entitled "A Modest Proposal" in which
he presented a solution to the "Irish Problem". The parallel here is
Learning Disability and the inflexible ways these children are taught.
It is the objective of this paper to show that the problem of the
learning disenfranchised is one that can solved by increasing the
flexibility with which we teach.
Another Modest Proposal: A Swift Response to an Old Problem
The purpose of this essay is to examine the possibility that we are
systematically doing a disservice to a large segment of the school
population. Students who have auditory or visual impairments have been
allowed to use artificial means, such as glasses or hearing aids, to
correct their deficits. Indeed, it is considered praiseworthy to
identify such problems early and then use the services of professionals
who prescribe optical or electronic devices which alleviate the
deficiencies.
The consequences of such actions, however, have not been considered
fully. Such children may become lazy and make no attempt to
overcome their problems. What motivation will they have to strengthen
their perceptual weaknesses when such devices make it unnecessary for
them to do so? What will such people do if, for whatever reason, such
devices are not available? It is the contention of this paper that
artificial devices are crutches which interfere with the complete
development of the child. As such, they should be eliminated.
Some might argue (and not without a modicum of validity) that by
eliminating those "support systems," such children may not progress
beyond the elementary rudiments of learning. That, however, should be
secondary to the point that we are not dealing directly with a serious
problem. The fact that our present state of knowledge does not allow
us to correct such deficiencies should not dissuade us from this course
of action.
Eventually specific techniques will be developed to meet the problems
of poor eyesight and hearing in much the same way that techniques were
developed to alleviate reading and mathematical difficulties -- and
probably with as much success. There is a minor problem in the fact
that many of the authority figures in the child's environment use those
same artificial devices and thus do not serve as good role models.
Aside from the educational wisdom of this proposal, it has the
added advantage of eliminating the possibility of charges of
discrimination. Consider, for example, if someone raised the point
that a deficit in vision or hearing, might be compared to a deficit in
arithmetic computation. They might argue that if vision can be
corrected by glasses why can a calculation deficit not be corrected by
the use of a calculator?
It is difficult to counter these arguments since the two deficits
have so much in common. Even the poor role model problem has a
parallel since most of the authority figures whom the children contact
would have some difficulty in taking a square root or doing long
division of decimals by hand. The conclusion is clear: take away
glasses and hearing aids and give the children with sensory defects the
same advantages given to children with calculation defects!
In this Decade of the Disabled it seems fitting to consider the
human rights of the Learning Disabled to an education that more
closely fits their capabilities.
The problems of the Learning Disabled are unique because this is the
only disabled group which is held responsible for its disability. "If
he worked harder, he could do it", says the frustrated teacher. No one
expects a blind person to see, if they "worked harder".
Furthermore, to call a child "learning disabled" is to put the burden
of responsibility on the wrong person! It is our responsibility to
teach much more than it is responsibility of the child to learn. It is
we who should be called teaching disabled. The purpose of this paper
is to focus attention on individual differences among both normal
learning disabled children and to consider alternative approaches to
education and thus eliminate our teaching disability. The major
emphasis will be on the theory and remediation of reading disability
based on a 10 year program of research within a neuropsychological
framework. The initial Chapter will introduce the concepts of cerebral
asymmetry and hemisphericity and put them in perspective for Education
today. The second Chapter will discuss behavioral and physiological
measures of individual differences in neuropsychological functioning.
The third Chapter will describe a study that underlines the importance
of these individual differences in an educational setting. The fourth
and fifth Chapters will describe a series of studies dealing with the
theory, diagnosis and remediation of reading disability that has been
based on these neuropsychological concepts. The final Chapter will be
a summary that includes the basic information on the Direct Access
approach to reading with specific recommendations. It can serve as an
abstract of the whole paper.
This Introduction ends with a short quote, found hanging on the
walls of an elementary school in Greensboro, North Carolina and
attributed to Ken Dunn.
If children cannot learn the way we are teaching them, then we must
teach them the way they can learn.
CHAPTER I
THE CEREBRAL HEMISPHERES OF THE BRAIN AND THE NEW PHENOLOGY
Recent work in the areas of neuropsychology, especially those of Sperry who
won the Nobel Prize in 19-- has popularized the notion of the cerebral
asymmetry. That is, the two hemispheres of the brain are different in
terms of the cognitive processes in which they excel. There is clear
evidence that the Left Hemisphere has unique control of expressive
speech and operates using a sequential sequentially organized systems.
The Right Hemisphere, on the other hand, has systems that are more
capable of spatially and pictorially oriented processing.
While there are clear differences between the hemispheres,
these differences have been overgeneralized into a new
phrenology of brain functions. A typical list of "Left Hemisphere
Functions" reads something like: logical, verbal, analytic, inductive,
controlled; the Right Hemisphere is often called: synthetic, emotional,
deductive, intuitive, and abstract. Some of these labels are
self-contradictory. The Left Hemisphere is called both analytic and
inductive and the Right Hemisphere both synthetic and deductive. The
term "abstract" has two diametrically opposed meanings: an article
abstract versus abstract art.
These inconsistencies aside, this neo-phrenological approach must be
rejected on the grounds that it is atomistic. A hemisphere is neither
verbal, logical, emotional, nor creative; it is a person who has these
characteristics! All behavior flows from the integrated functioning of
the whole brain. This does not mean, however, that there is no
individual differences associated with the brain. The concept of
Hemispheric Related Strategies provides a framework on which to base an
individual difference variable.
For the most part, the two hemispheres do the same things but do
them using different approaches. Cerebral asymmetries reflect
relative efficiency rather than a "can do-can't do" dichotomy. There
seems to be one exception to this relative rather than absolute
difference between the hemispheres: for most people, only the left
hemisphere is capable of speech and of phonetic representation (Levy,
1974). The isolated hemisphere can tell whether the two words "though"
and "blow" rhyme but the isolated Right Hemisphere can not, even though
it may understand their meaning. Rhyming demands that the written word
be converted to an auditory form and only the left hemisphere has this
capability.
A second factor that differentiates the two hemispheres is
their type of processing systems: sequential for the left
hemisphere and parallel for the right hemisphere (see Bradshaw and
Nettleton, 1981 for a review.) Compare these two situations: 1) You
are given a description of someone and must then identify that person;
and 2) You are shown a picture of the person and then must select the
person. The first task demands the sequential system of the left
hemisphere--the words, descriptive of the various facial features, are
read in sequence and must be combined into an overall perception.
The latter situation reflects the parallel system of the right
hemisphere -- the picture is seen as a whole and various facial
features can be extracted. The picture is seen all at once in
parallel while the verbal description must be sequentially processed.
The sequential processing system of the Left Hemisphere and its
ability in speech production are the characteristics that
underlie the notion that the Left Hemisphere is the verbal hemisphere.
Language, by its very nature is sequential. Word order and syntax is
essential to meaning--language cannot be easily processed in parallel.
Thus the left hemisphere has been labeled the "verbal" hemisphere
because its sequential processing system is compatible with the
sequential nature of language, and its control of auditory linguistic
processes make it essential for speech.
For other tasks, even though the processing system of either
hemisphere is compatible with the task, one hemisphere is
clearly superior. The example of face recognition show intuitively
that the Right Hemisphere pictorial approach is better than a Left
Hemisphere written description. Note, however, that the task can be
done using Left Hemisphere strategies. It takes a thousand words to
describe one picture.
Spatial relations tasks are also more easily handled using
Right Hemisphere processes. Other tasks can be handled equally
well using the strategies of either hemisphere. For example, a list of
words could be learned by converting and storing them as visual
representations or in an auditory form. The term Hemispheric Related
Strategies can be used to describe this relationship between observable
behavior and its underlying neuropsychological bases.
Hemispheric Cognitive Style
Two individuals, when faced with the same task, do not
necessarily use the same strategies, that is, people do things
in different ways. Sometimes those different approaches can be
associated with processing differences between the two cerebral
hemispheres. These different approaches can be termed Hemispheric
Related Traits. Hemispheric Cognitive Style is the tendency of an
individual to use distinct patterns of Hemispheric Related Traits. It
does not imply that one hemisphere is used exclusively, but that
individuals tend to approach tasks in unique and consistent ways. For
example, if a group of individuals were asked to remember the words
"dog, cat, tree, table, chair", few would have difficulty. If these
same individuals were asked what strategies they used, there would be
wide variation. Some would report they repeated the words to
themselves, others that they "saw" the written form of the word, and
others would create images of the words.
These differences in memory strategies can be related to Hemispheric
Related Traits. A person who would be more likely to use imaginal
strategies could be said to use a right Hemispheric Related Trait, and
a person who used auditory strategies could be said to use a left
Hemispheric Related Trait. Some individuals tend to use the
Hemispheric Related Traits associated with one hemisphere more than
those of the other hemisphere and others show little or no biases.
Those who do favor the Hemispheric Related Traits of one hemisphere can
be said to have a Right or Left Hemispheric Cognitive Style.
It is important not to overgeneralize the scope of Hemispheric
Cognitive Style. The fact that a person particular strategies
does not imply either a disuse or deficiency in one hemisphere of the
brain. On a very simple level, a right Hemispheric Cognitive Style
individual has access to the speech centers of the left hemisphere just
as a left Hemispheric Cognitive Style individual has access to the
prosody centers of the right hemisphere. Thus both right and left
Hemispheric Cognitive Style individuals rely on the integrated
functioning of both hemispheres for expressive speech, and, in fact,
all behavior.
In an intact individual, no task can be accomplished without
the integrated functioning of both hemispheres. To call an
individual "left or right brained" is to ignore the fact that all
activity depends on the integrated functioning of the whole brain.
These differences, however, can be related to different strategies with
which people approach specific tasks. One purpose of this paper is to
show how these strategy differences can affect the educational system.
The next chapter will describe how differences in Hemispheric Related
Traits can be measured. The following chapters will focus on the
application to these traits to mainstream and learning disabled
education.
CHAPTER 2
THE MEASUREMENT OF HEMISPHERIC COGNITIVE STYLE
Two distinct tools have been used in the measurement of
Hemispheric Cognitive Style, one behavioral and the other
physiological. The behavioral measure is a self rating questionnaire
and the physiological measure relies on the predominant direction of
Lateral Eye Movement (LEM).
The Hemispheric Preference Questionnaire
There are many questionnaires that have been used to measure
"hemisphericity" including many from popular magazines. Over
the past 12 years I have developed an instrument that has been
successfully used to separate right and left Hemispheric Cognitive
Styles. A copy of the questionnaire and its scoring key has been
included. The following studies used the instrument successfully.
Coleman and Zenhausern (1979) compared those who used right and left
Hemispheric Related Traits on a memory retrieval task.
They found the two groups differed on processing speed and the extent
of a left hemisphere bias induced by a verbal memory load. The bias
was for times stronger for the those who use left Hemispheric Related
Traits than for those who use right Hemispheric Related Traits.
Zenhausern and Nickel (1979) found that Right style individuals learned
a finger maze in fewer trials, in less time and with fewer errors than
those with Left style individuals. Zenhausern, Notaro, Grosso, and
Schiano (1981) presented right and left style individuals with auditory
messages in which there was a conflict between verbal content and
emotional tone of voice. Overall, those who use right Hemispheric
Related Traits responded significantly more often to the inflection
cues and those who use left Hemispheric Related Traits significantly
more often to the verbal content. Dunivin and Zenhausern (1983) found
that left style subjects were more obsessive compulsive, while right
style subjects had more hysterical traits. Zenhausern and Parisi
(1983) have found that schizophrenics rate themselves as using left
while depressives rate as using right hemisphere related strategies.
The instrument has been used in the area of reading disability
to distinguish two separate syndromes. Oexle and Zenhausern
(1980), Golden and Zenhausern (1981), Zenhausern and Sinatra (1983),
Maxwell and Zenhausern (1983) have found that 85% of reading disabled
children rate themselves as using more right than left hemisphere
strategies.
The Preference Test for Hemspheric Related Strategies
Indicate your choicd by assigning a number from 1 to 10 with 1 being
the lowest your score on each question. To score the test, refer to
the scoring key below. Add the ratings for all the items that are to
be scored right and those that are to be scored left, subtract the two
and divide by 10. The larger number shows the predominant preference
and the greater the difference the larger the HRS preference. You
should then develop your own local norms, but as a rule of thumb a
score of .7 or higher can be considered a clear indication of a
prefernce for a Hemispheric Related Strategy.
Test Items
1) Do you base your decisions on objective facts rather than
feelings?
2) Are you psychic?
3) Do you like using symbols or images in solving problems?
4) Are you artistically or musically creative?
5) Are you logical?
6) Are you good at solving crossword puzzles?
7) Can you read quickly?
8) Are your daydreams vivid?
9) Can you think of synonyms for words easily?
10) Do you remember dreams?
11) Are your dreams vivid?
12) Are you fluent in using words?
13) Are you good at using images in remembering and thinking?
14) Do you use a playful approach to problem solving?
15) Do you use a serious, all business approach to problem solving?
16) Do you like to keep experiences planned and structured?
17) Do you like to read or think while sitting upright?
18) How much does your thinking consist of words?
19) How much does your thinking consist of mental imagery?
20) Do you like to explain something using visual presentation?
SCORING KEY
Item Scoring
1 L
2 R
3 R
4 R
5 R
6 L
7 L
8 R
9 L
10 R
11 R
12 L
13 R
14 R
15 L
16 L
17 L
18 L
19 R
20 R
Research into the phenomenon of lateral eye movements (LEM) as
a behavioral measure of neuropsychological activity has been
pursued along two separate dimensions. LEM have been considered a
measure of both individual differences and task demands. >From a
neuropsychological perspective, the individual difference aspects have
been associated with the concept of cognitive style and the effects of
task demands with hemispheric asymmetry. There is, however,
considerable controversy as to whether LEM do indeed have
neuropsychological relevance. The importance of LEM has been
overgeneralized to the point of faddism, which has led to a general
reluctance on the part of the scientific community to give them
credence. In addition, researchers in the area have sometimes failed to
distinguish between these two different aspects of LEM.
Individual Differences and LEM
Research into whether LEM reflect individual personality
differences was initiated by Day (1964), who reported that the
direction of LEM was related to individual styles of coping with
anxiety. Bakan (1971) was the first to propose that the direction in
which a person consistently shifted gaze was related to which of the
cerebral hemispheres an individual used more often.
The relationship between LEM and various dimensions of
individual differences has been explored. Tucker and Suib
(1978) found that left-movers had higher scores on the Performance
tests of the WAIS and did better with imagery oriented questions while
right-movers had better scores on the Verbal subtests of the WAIS and
with questions that were letter and number oriented (e.g., how many
letters are in the word house).
Gur and Gur (1975) showed a relationship between direction of
LEM and defensive style. Predominantly rightward movers more
often reported using projection and "turning against others" as their
main defenses, while predominantly leftward movers reported using
repression and denial more often. LEM were again shown to be related to
defensive styles in males as measured by the Defense Mechanism
Inventory (Krikorian and Rafales, 1983). This effect was not
replicated with females, however (Thompson, Greenberg, Fisher, 1982).
In addition, subjects who moved their eyes bidirectionally rather than
predominantly to the left or the right were shown to have better
adaptive coping styles ratings on the adjective check list (Parrott,
1984).
Smokler and Shevrin (1979) showed that normal subjects with
hysterical tendencies made more leftward LEM than normal
subjects with obsessive compulsive tendencies. The latter group was
more likely to show rightward LEM. Gur (1978) and Schweitzer (1979)
found that schizophrenics had predominantly leftward LEM.
The relationship between LEM and cognitive styles has also been
explored. Subjects, who scored as left or right style oriented
on the Laterality Preference Schedule, were shown to have consistent
patterns of LEM, indicating the existence of consistent patterns of
information processing (Breitling and Bonnet, 1985; Bruce, Herman, and
Stern, 1982). When using the Your Style of Learning and Thinking Test
(SOLAT) to measure style of thinking, however, no relationship was
found between LEM and thinking style preference (Alberts and McCallum,
1982). In addition, Owens and Limber (1983) found no relationship
between cognitive style and LEM.
One area of interest in the cognitive style research is the
relationship between what are considered right style ways of
thinking (holistic and broad) and left style ways of thinking (analytic
and narrow) based on proposed functions of the individual hemispheres.
In support of the theory that eye movements indicate hemispheric
activation, and that left hemisphere activation is associated with more
analytic and narrow styles, Huang and Byrne (1978) showed that narrow
categorizers based on the Pettigrew's Category Width Scale made more
leftward LEM than broad categorizers.
Another area of interest has been the relationship between the
ability to recall dreams and LEM. Predominantly leftward LEM
have been associated with the ability to vividly recall dreams in male
subjects (Leboeuf, Mckay, Clark, 1983), but the same has not been found
with females (Van Nuys, 1985). A related issue is that of creativity
and LEM. Leftward eye movement has been associated with thinking of
more uses of objects on the Uses Test, which is often used as a measure
of creativity (Falcone and Loder, 1984).
Zenhausern (1987) has shown that LEM can differentiate between
two different types of reading disabled children.
Specifically, rightward LEM are characteristic of reading disabled
children who are unable to derive meaning from the written word despite
being able to say it. Leftward LEM are characteristic of reading
disabled children who are unable to pronounce the word despite
understanding what it means. This sampling of research indicates the
scope of individual differences that have been associated with LEM.
In their critique of the LEM literature, Ehrlichman and
Weinberger (1978) concluded that LEM are reliable measures of
individual differences. They found that despite differences in
methodology and experimental situations the direction a person moves
his or her eyes is a consistent behavior of that individual. The
individual difference studies above indicate their behavioral
relevance. One purpose of this study is to investigate the reliability
of LEM and determine if they have neuropsychological implications.
Functional Hemispheric Asymmetry and LEM
A second perspective on the nature of LEM was introduced by
Kinsbourne (1972) who proposed that LEM reflect the task
demands on the subject. He suggested that those tasks that require
input predominantly from the left hemisphere resulted in rightward LEM,
the direction away from the left hemisphere; those tasks that required
predominantly right hemisphere functions resulted in leftward LEM, away
from the right hemisphere.
There has been mixed support for this relationship between LEM
and question type. The critical variable has usually been
whether rightward LEM are associated with verbal questions, indicating
a relationship between a verbal task and left hemisphere activation. A
wide variety of what has been called "verbal" questions have been used,
however.
Galin and Ornstein (1974) reported a relationship between
rightward LEM and logical problems and leftward LEM and visual
imagery tasks. Proverb interpretation have been shown to be related
to rightward LEM (Kinsbourne, 1972; Gur, 1975).
Schwartz Davidson and Maer, 1977, found a relationship between LEM and
task demands.
There have been recent reports of relationships between both
rightward LEM and verbal questions (Hugdahl and Carlgren, 1981;
Ogorman and Siddle, 1981) and leftward LEM and visual spatial tasks
(Swinnen, 1984). In addition to the verbal/non- verbal dichotomy,
emotionally laden questions were used to elicit predominantly leftward
LEM (Krikorian and Rafales, 1983; Jamieson and Sellick, 1985.)
Not all studies have resulted in significant findings. In fact,
Ehrlichman and Weinberger concluded that the evidence for a
relationship between LEM and question type was not convincing on both
empirical and theoretical grounds. From the empirical point of view,
they noted that, of the 21 studies reviewed, 10 resulted in rightward
movement in response to verbal questions, and 11 resulted in no
difference in LEM to verbal and non verbal questions. The authors
concluded that the literature thus did not offer strong support that
LEM were related to question type.
A re-evaluation of the empirical studies, however, indicates
that there is a consistent relationship found between the type
of question asked and the direction of LEM.
In only one of the 21 studies reported by Erhlichman and Weinberger
did verbal questions lead to leftward LEM. While the conclusion that
verbal questions lead to rightward LEM may be in question, the
conclusion that verbal questions do not lead to leftward LEM is
strongly supported. There may be a relationship between task demands
and LEM, but it is not a simplistic "verbal question leads to rightward
LEM relationship".
Purpose
There is clear evidence that LEM are related to both the type
of question asked and individual difference factors.
Therefore, in any situation, LEM reflect the type of question asked
interacting with the individual differences and it is essential to
separate the two effects. The purpose of this Chapter is to clarify
the differences between the individual difference and task demand facet
of LEM and to examine the evidence as to whether or not either or both
have neuropsychological relevance.
Two distinct tasks will be used. One task is purely
informational and can not be uniquely connected with either
hemisphere of the brain. The second task involves rhyming of non-words
which clearly demands the speech centers of the left hemisphere.
Two experimental questions were addressed. 1) Is the direction of LEM
consistent within an individual both across time and across tasks? 2)
Does the type of question asked have an effect on the direction of
LEM?
METHOD
Subjects. A total of 50 adult subjects were tested. There were 16
males and 34 females, with an average age of 27 and a range of 16 to
50. Materials. Stimuli for the rhyme task were four to five letter
nonsense words printed in black ink on white index cards and a series
of prepared questions. Procedure. The subjects were informed that
they were participating in a study involving the different ways in
which people think. They were asked two kinds of questions in a face
to face encounter with the experimenter. The subject responded yes or
no with a nod or shake of the head and the initial direction of eye
movement to each of 40 questions was recorded for each subject. These
non verbal responses were used to eliminate left hemisphere involvement
through speech which was unrelated to the task.
There were two distinct types of questions asked. The 20
informational questions did not call on any clearly defined
brain areas (Is Miami the capitol of Florida?).
The 20 rhyme questions, on the other hand, clearly demanded the
auditory linguistic capabilities of the left hemisphere. The subject
was shown a nonsense word on an index card and told to remember it. The
card was removed and another nonsense word was verbally spelled by the
examiner and the subjects were asked whether the two words rhymed. The
subjects were tested in two blocks of 20 trials separated by 30
minutes. Within each block 10 informational and 10 rhyme questions
were asked.
RESULTS
The data were first explored by means of a correlational
analysis. Both test-retest and split half reliabilities for
informational questions and for rhyme questions are shown in Table 1.
In addition, the correlation between rhyme and informational questions
is also presented. LEM are clearly a consistent measure of individual
differences with reliability coefficients averaging approximately .80
for the same type of question. When the type of question was changed,
however, there was a dramatic drop in the consistency of LEM although
the correlations were still significant. The direction of LEM changed
as a function of task demands, but not to the extreme that would result
in no correlation.
Table 1
Intercorrelations Among LEM for Information and Rhyme Questions
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Split Half Test Retest
Rhyme .85 .78
Information .79 .83
Rhyme with Information .59
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD0
An initial analysis on the two 20 question blocks indicated no
significant differences and the two were collapsed into a
single set of questions. The data were then analyzed by means of a
split-plot analysis of variance with LEM Group (whether a subject had
predominantly rightward or leftward movement) as a between factor and
Task (Rhyme and Informational questions) and Direction of Movement
(Right, Left, and Stares) as between factors. Since the scores are
ipsative and the Grouping factor and dependent variable are related,
only the interactions are of interest in this design. There was a
significant interaction between the Direction of Movement and Task
(F2,92 = 4.92,p<.01).
Table 2
Number and Direction of LEM as a Function of Type of Question
2DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Direction of LEM
Task Right Left Stares
Rhyme 6.82 7.64 4.92
Information 5.50 7.50 6.50
2DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD0
Simple effects analysis indicated that the number of leftward
LEM to informational and rhyme questions were not significantly
different, but there were significantly more rightward LEM than
leftward LEM to rhyme questions. There were no interactions involving
the LEM Group factor, indicating that the effects of the type of
question were the same for both groups.
DISCUSSION
These results lead to two conclusions. The first is a
verification of the Ehrlichman and Weinberger (p 1093)
conclusion "...that LEM patterns are reliable characteristics of
persons." Individuals do move their eyes in a consistent direction
and direction of LEM is a reliable measure of individual differences.
The questions, however, remain as to whether LEM differences can be
related to behavior and whether these behaviors have neuropsychological
implications. Some of the research reported above has shown the scope
of the variables that have been related to differences in LEM. (A
fuller listing can be found in Beaumont, Young, and McManus, 1984). Not
every study has shown that LEM differences were related to differences
in performance, but no one should expect LEM to be related to all
behavior.
The final question remains, however, as to whether LEM have
neuropsychological implications. In a very general sense, all
behavior results from brain activity and thus all behavior has
neuropsychological implications. From a more focused point of view,
LEM have been related to behaviors that neuropsychologist have
associated with the brain. The problem has been, however, that the
association of the behavior with the brain has not always been clearly
specified. Logical problems, proverbs, and spelling have all been used
as verbal tasks. These tasks are extremely complex and clearly involve
both hemispheres of the brain, even though there may be a portion of
the task that is especially dependent on left hemisphere processing.
This was clearly shown in the present study. The rhyming task demanded
the unique ability of the left hemisphere to create the sound of the
printed word. The information task had no such clear connections to
either hemisphere of the brain. Both the correlations and analysis of
variance results pointed to the fact that LEM were different for the
two tasks, with an increase in the number of rightward movements for
the rhyming task. This change, however, was relatively subtle. Even
though the task demanded specific left hemisphere input, subjects did
not make predominantly rightward LEM; there was only a shift in that
direction. A subject who made predominantly leftward movement
continued to do so, but the number of rightward movements increased and
the number of stares decreased.
SUMMARY
Lateral Eye Movements have been shown to be a reliable measure
of individual differences, as well as a response to the type of
questions asked. The importance of both aspects, however, should not
be overemphasized. The individual difference aspect must be
investigated from a more behavioral point of view. Rather than
comparing a lawyer or a scientist with an artist, determine whether a
courtroom lawyer has more in common with an actor or a corporate
lawyer, or whether a geometrician has more in common with an artist or
an algebrist.
The LEM response to task demands must also be considered in
conjunction with the fact that any task demands the integrated
functioning of the whole brain. The variable extent to which a task
places special emphasis on one hemisphere must be considered within
this integrated functioning. LEM can be a useful tool, but their value
and meaning can be misunderstood all too easily. The next Chapter
provides evidence of the usefulness of LEM within a normal classroom
setting.patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Patt Haring) (03/06/90)
Index Number: 7094 CHAPTER 3 THE INTERACTION OF HEMISPHERIC RELATED STRATEGIES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES The purpose of this Chapter is to provide evidence that the individual difference aspect of LEM has meaningful behavioral correlates in an educational setting. No assumptions were made as to the neuropsychological substrate of LEM. They were used simply as a means of dividing subjects into two groups: those who move their eyes predominantly to the right and those who move them predominantly to the left. Half of the right movers were taught a learning strategy involving verbal rehearsal and the other half a learning strategy involving imagery. The same procedure was followed for the left movers. The question was whether there is a relationship between the typical direction of LEM and the effectiveness of the two learning strategies. Method Subjects The subjects were drawn from a pool of 120 average or above average fifth and sixth graders in a suburban school system. A series of verbal, spatial, imaginal, and informational questions were asked in a face to face situation and the 72 subjects who had the most extreme number of left movements and the most extreme number of right movements participated in the study. The subjects were divided into equal numbers of male and female right and left movers. Stimuli Seventy-two words appropriate to fifth and sixth graders and matched for abstractness, concreteness, and imagery were chosen from the list provided by Pavivo, Yuille, and Madigan (1968). Two equivalent sets consisting of 18 pairs, created from this list, served as the learning stimuli. Two distractor lists of 12 pairs each were also created using the same procedure. Each pair was then photographed and developed as 35mm slide. Procedure Each subject, tested individually, was seated approximately 4 ft. from a screen on which the 18 pairs of words were presented by means of a slide projector for 4 sec. The child was then asked to recall as many pairs of words as possible and the number of correct pairs served as one dependent variable. The subjects were then shown 24 pairs of words, half of which they had already seen and half of which were distractors. These slides were then presented and the subject had to indicate by switch closure whether they had seen the word pair. Both accuracy and response time (in milliseconds) were measured. Following this procedure half of the subjects whose LEM were predominantly leftward and half whose LEM were predominantly leftward were taught a verbal rehearsal strategy in order to improve performance. They were instructed to repeat the pairs of words as many times as possible during the 4 sec interval between pairs. They were then given six practice trials. The remaining subjects were instructed on how to form an integrated image from the word pairs.They were also given six practice trials. The subjects were then tested on 18 new pairs of words using the same procedures as the in the pre-training condition. This effectively created four groups: right movers taught to use either imagery or verbal rehearsal strategies and left movers taught the same strategies. Results There were three dependent measures that were analyzed in this study: the number of pairs recalled, the number of pairs recognized, and the response time for recognition. The design for all three variables was a split plot factorial with Direction (leftward or rightward LEM) and Strategy (verbal rehearsal or imagery) as the between factors and Time (before or after training) as the within factor. The mean number of correct pairs recalled under all conditions is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Mean Number of Word Pairs Recalled for Right and Left Movers Under Verbal Rehearsal and Imagery Instructions _______________________________________________________________________ Set Pre Test Post Test _______________________________________________________________________ Verbal Left Movers 3.39 1.78 Right Movers 1.89 2.61 Imagery Left Movers 2.61 3.28 Right Movers 2.39 2.56 ________________________________________________________________________ The analysis of variance indicated no significant differences involving Direction or Strategy, but there was a significant interaction of Direction x Strategy x Time. Simple effects analysis indicated that children with rightward LEM did not change as a result of imagery instructions, but made a significant improvement as a result of verbal rehearsal instructions. Children with leftward LEM made a significant improvement as a result of imagery instructions, but showed a significant decrement as a result of verbal rehearsal instructions. Mean performance for the recognition scores is presented in Table 2. The analysis of variance again indicated a significant interactions between Direction x Strategy x Time. Table 2 Mean Number of Correct Recognitions ________________________________________________________________________ Set Pre Test Post Test _________________________________________________________________________ Verbal Left Movers 29.28 27.61 Right Movers 28.11 29.44 Imagery Left Movers 29.56 30.67 Right Movers 29.89 29.44 ________________________________________________________________________ The simple effects analysis indicated that children with rightward LEM showed a significant improvement using a verbal rehearsal strategy and children with leftward LEM showed a significant decrement using a verbal rehearsal strategy. The mean reaction times for the recognition task is shown in Table 3. The analysis of variance indicated that there was an overall decrease in reaction time from pre to post testing and the same significant three way interaction of Direction x Strategy x Time. Table 3 Mean Reaction Times (in milliseconds) for the Recognition Task ___________________________________________________________________________ Set Pre Test Post Test ___________________________________________________________________________ Verbal Left Movers 2059 2118 Right Movers 2447 1894 Imagery Left Movers 2244 1829 Right Movers 1846 1627 ___________________________________________________________________________ Simple effects analysis indicated that children with rightward LEM were significantly faster using a verbal rehearsal strategy and children with leftward LEM were significantly slower using a verbal rehearsal strategy. The analyses of the three variables lead to the single conclusion that children who have predominantly leftward LEM should not be taught by a verbal repetition strategy. Discussion >From the theoretical perspective, these results support the findings of Ehrlichman and Weinberger that LEM are a reliable measure of an individual difference variable. It also provides evidence of the validity of LEM; individuals who differed on LEM showed differences on a relevant behavioral measure -- verbal learning. The most important question, however, is whether LEM have any relationship to brain organization. Individuals who had predominantly rightward LEM showed better retention when using the left hemisphere oriented strategy of verbal rehearsal and individuals who had predominantly leftward LEM showed decreased retention when using the left hemisphere oriented strategy. These are the facts, and while it is premature to draw firm conclusions, these facts are consistent with the existence of a relationship between LEM and brain organization. The clearest conclusion from these findings are that children differ in the extent they can benefit from a verbal repetition strategy in learning. From the educational perspective it is clear that there are children in schools who not only do not benefit from a verbal rehearsal strategy, but whose performance is also decreased. Spelling and arithmetic tables are examples of subjects that usually stress a rote memorization based on oral repetition. One alternative would be to have the child repeatedly image the letters of the word or number facts without verbalizing them. When it came time to use the word or number fact the child would recall the image. Educators must become more aware of the individual differences in the way people learn. This becomes even more evident the next chapter where these individual differences can be seen to be at the heart of what has been called reading disability. CHAPTER 4 THE DIAGNOSIS OF READING DISABILITY Although there is general agreement that reading disability is not a single entity, there is considerably less than a consensus as to the number of different syndromes that actually exist. Neuropsychological assessment, the types of errors made with verbal material, cognitive tests, and differences in processing strategies have all been used in the classification of the reading disabled into symptom-related subtypes. As many as five different subtypes of reading disability have been found through the use of neuropsychological tests. For example, Mattis, French and Rapin (1978) reported three groups and Doehring, Honshko, and Byans (1979) distinguished four types. Fisk and Rourke (1979) Petroskas and Rourke (1979) have identified subgroups which were consistent. These subtypes, however, can be considered in terms of the presence or absence of auditory linguistic deficits, a distinction reported throughout the reading disability literature. Subtypes that include auditory linguistic deficits comprise 80 to 90 percent of the total population of reading disabled children. The smaller group has usually been reported to show deficits in visual spatial processing. Boder (1973) examined the nature of the spelling errors made by reading disabled children. She used the term dysphonetic to describe the type of reading disability marked by linguistic and phonetic difficulties; and the term dyseidetic to describe the type which had difficulties with the overall visual spatial aspects of the written word. Boder estimated that the dysphonetic group was four to five times more prevalent than the dyseidetic group. Pirozzolo (1979) used ratings, writing samples, and psychological and neuropsychological tests to separate two reading disability groups that were similar to those suggested by Boder. Bakker (1982) proposed a similar distinction that he related to hemispheric functioning. The auditory linguistic disabled reader were not effective in the use left hemisphere related tasks. There was also an association of the visual spatial disabled reader and the effective use of right hemisphere related strategies. Zenhausern (1987) distinguished these two types on the basis of both reading related tasks and the predominant direction of their lateral eye movements. He found that the majority of children with leftward lateral movements had difficulty determining whether words in their sight vocabulary did or did not rhyme. He also found that group of children with predominantly rightward lateral eye movements had no difficulty in determining whether two words rhymed, but were deficient in determining whether words and pictures represented the same concept. The auditory linguistic group had difficulty converting a word to its sound and the smaller group showed deficits in converting a word to its meaning. He used the terms Phonetic and Semantic to describe this distinction. >From a behavioral perspective, phonetic disabled readers are the children who struggle with every word when they read aloud and thus lose continuity in the text. They are frequently anomic and have a general difficulty with the auditory linguistic aspects of reading, especially the grapheme to phoneme conversion. The Semantic disabled reader, on the other hand, is the child who will give a perfect word for word rendition of text, but has no comprehension of the meaning of that text. The Semantic disabled readers can convert words into their phonetic representation, but this representation is not converted into its meaning. They have no problems with the sound of a word but are at deficit for tasks involving the meaning of words. The original study was based on 13 Phonetic and 13 Semantic readers from the second to fourth grades. One purpose of this research was to determine whether these Phonetic and Semantic subtypes would replicate across the entire elementary school population. A second goal of this study was to replicate the second finding of the original study. The Phonetic disabled readers moved their eyes predominantly to the left the left and Semantic disabled readers predominantly to the right. The second purpose of this research was to be to determine whether lateral eye movements can be used as a marker variable for the two types of reading disability. METHOD Subjects The subjects in this were 160 children from the second to the eighth grades. All we of at least average intelligence. Forty children were selected at grades 2 or 3, grades 4 or 5, grades 6 or 7, and grade 8. Of the 40 children at each age level, 20 were at or above grade level and 20 children were at least one year below grade level in reading. Half of each group were chosen to have rightward LEM and half leftward LEM. The predominant direction of LEM was determined individually for each child. A series of 20 informational questions were asked in a face to face situation and the predominant direction of LEM was noted. Normal readers split evenly between right and left movers, but 84% of the disabled readers were left movers. Materials and Procedure There were four kinds of reading related tasks that used words selected from the individual sight vocabulary of each child. A rhyme task stressed the auditory linguistic aspects of the written word and the remaining three tasks placed more emphasis on the meaning of the words. 1) The rhyme stimuli consisted of 10 each of four types of word pairs: a) words which neither rhymed nor had similar orthography (tree/eats); b) words which were both phonetically and orthographically similar (pool/cool); c) words which were orthographically similar, but did not rhyme (bone/gone); and d) words which were orthographically dissimilar, but rhymed (by/tie). 2) The word match stimuli consisted of 20 word pairs, one in upper case the other in lower case which did or did not represent the same word (TREE/tree, TREE/eats). 3) The word/picture stimuli consisted of 20 word and picture pairs, in which the word and picture did or did not represent the same concept. 4) The synonym/antonym pairs consisted of words which meant either the same or the opposite. Each stimulus was presented on 35 mm slides and projected for 130 ms. The subjects were tested individually and responded verbally as to the whether the words rhymed in the rhyme condition and whether they matched or meant the same in each of the three other conditions. All words used in the study were determined to be in the sight vocabulary of all subjects on the basis of prior testing. RESULTS The number of correct responses for all children on the four grade levels was subjected to an analysis of variance for each of the four tasks. The grouping factors included Grade Level, Reading Ability, and Eye Movement Direction. The normal readers achieved virtually perfect performance on all tasks and their results were not included in the tables. The interaction of eye movement group and the rhyme task was significant (F (3,432 = 29.29, p < 001). The mean number of correct responses for the interaction are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Mean Number Correct on the Rhyme Task for Disabled Readers with predominately Right and Left LEM at Four Grade Levels _______________________________________________________________________ LEM Grade Similar Dissimilar Rhyme Non-Rhyme Rhyme Non-Rhyme _______________________________________________________________________ Right 2-3 17.80 15.20 14.80 14.00 4-5 17.80 17.80 16.40 17.89 6-7 17.80 18.60 18.60 19.30 8 19.90 19.80 19.10 19.70 Left 2-3 16.10 5.90 7.40 14.40 4-5 16.10 10.30 10.20 17.30 6-7 16.80 13.60 12.50 18.50 8 9.60 12.00 10.40 17.60 _______________________________________________________________________ On the basis of the simple effects analysis, those children who had predominantly leftward eye movements were significantly more impaired than those who moved predominately to the right. This was particularly true on those conditions for which the orthography and phonology of the words were inconsistent (bye/tie or bone/gone). Those children with predominantly leftward lateral eye movements are the Phonetic disabled readers who have difficulty with the auditory linguistic aspects of reading. The analyses of variance for the semantic tasks indicated a significant difference between disability groups. The results from the three tasks are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Mean Number Correct on the Uppercase/lowercase, Word/picture and Synonym/antonym tasks for Disabled Readers with Right and Left LEM at Four Grade Levels _______________________________________________________________________ LEM Grade Case Word Synonym _______________________________________________________________________ Right 2-3 15.70 7.90 8.65 4-5 17.50 7.80 6.55 6-7 18.80 13.40 13.05 8 15.90 15.90 15.00 Left 2-3 19.00 17.50 17.15 4-5 19.30 19.30 17.45 6-7 18.10 19.10 18.75 8 17.40 19.70 17.40 ________________________________________________________________________ Again the normal readers performed almost flawlessly and the disabled readers were inferior at every grade level. It was the reading disabled readers with predominately rightward LEM who were the significantly more disabled group for these.tasks. They were significantly inferior on the word matching task (F (1,144) = 4.81, p <.02), the word picture task (F (1,144) = 76.17, p < .001), and the synonym antonym task (F (1,144) = 47.04, p<.001). These children could create the sound of a word from its orthography, but did not understand the meaning of that word. This is a replication of a second type of disabled reader, a Semantic subtype whose deficit involves the meaning of words rather than their phonology. Rightward lateral eye movements is a marker for this subtype. In the past, this subtype has often been identified with visual spatial and perceptual problems. This may be true but it is incidental to their reading disability since they had no difficulty in perceiving the words in the rhyme task. These results support the existence of two subtypes of reading disability. The Phonetic disabled reader has difficulty converting the written form of a word to its phonetic counterpart. The Semantic disabled reader can convert word to its sound, but not its meaning. There were two distinct patterns of errors made by the Phonetic and Semantic disabled readers, but what is the relationship between these patterns and reading disability? The answer to this question lies in the way we teach reading. The next Chapter is a discussion of how these two deficits interact with current reading methods and the effectiveness of a different approach to the reading process. CHAPTER 5 THE THEORY AND REMEDIATION OF READING DISABILITY Current teaching methods almost invariably use an indirect phonological route to meaning in which the written word is converted to its phonological counterpart so that meaning derives from auditory comprehension. In practice, a child comes to school with auditory comprehension, that is, hearing the word "ball" leads to the concept of "a round, bouncy thing". In reading, the letters b-a-l-l must lead to the concept of "a round, bouncy thing". In virtually every case, the child is taught to see the word, say it, and understand it from its sound. This is an effective technique for two reasons. First, it takes advantage the existing auditory comprehension of children; second, it provides the background for the future decoding of new words. As effective as this procedure is for most children, a significant number of individuals are not able to learn under this protocol and they comprise the majority of the children we term "reading disabled." The Phonetic disabled reader has difficulty with the first step of this indirect phonological route to reading -- converting the graphemic form of the word into its phonological counterpart. The Semantic reading disabled readers have no difficulty with this first step; they can make the grapheme to phoneme conversion. For whatever reason, however, the sound of the word does not lead to its comprehension. The standard methods of teaching reading are well-entrenched and educators sincerely believe that this indirect phonological route to meaning is the best. Therefore, remediation for these "disabled readers" means an intensification of what was not successful in the past. Extensive drilling in phonetic skills has led to an emphasis on teaching to weakness, rather than strength. The imbalance is reflected in reading curricula and standardized tests that stress phonetic decoding at the expense of comprehension. Phonetic decoding is a means to the end of comprehension; it has become an end in itself. The purpose of, this Chapter was to investigate the effectiveness of an approach to reading which does not depend on an indirect phonological approach to comprehension. The Direct Access method has one basic principle: the meaning of the printed word should not be derived from the sound of that word. Any procedure that avoids the grapheme to phoneme conversion is consistent with this approach. The child is never required to read aloud, but asked to explain what a passage meant. Trivial deviations in verbiage, e.g., "jet" for "plane", are de-emphasized. The stress is on comprehension rather than a slavish word for word decoding. One of the simplest procedures used in the method involves pairing words and pictures until the written word directly triggers a concept, rather than indirectly through its sound. The child can then construct sentences composed of pictures in parallel with sentences composed of words. Children automatically fill in words like "a", "the", "in", etc. when they comprehend the sentence. In a very short period, the pictures are no longer needed and the written word is understood on its own. Several techniques are available for more abstract concepts. One possibility involves a class discussion of, for example, our legal system. The teacher can then show the class the word "justice" and ask the children to draw a picture of justice. It is not the picture itself that is important, but it serves a link between the written word and its conceptualization by the child. Another possibility is a homework assignment requiring the child to bring pictures to school that represent specific concepts. The Direct Access places only one constraint on the creativity of teachers: Do not teach reading by deriving of the meaning of a word from the way it sounds. Phonic decoding is a skill that should be developed, but it should not serve as the usual reading strategy for these two groups of readers. Maxwell and Zenhausern (1983) applied the method to First Grade children who were "at risk" during the second semester. After 25 half-hour sessions, the children increased their comprehension scores from the 26th to the 56th percentile on the Metropolitan Achievement Test and increased their sight vocabulary by over 100 words. A comparable control group showed no gain in comprehension. Minardi, Zenhausern, and Maxwell (1984) found similar results with Junior and Senior High School children. Using the same regimen of 25 half-hour sessions, the Junior High School students gained an average of 7 months and the Senior High School students an average of 1.4 years. The previous research on the Direct Access method of reading has been limited to a small number of children taught by a single teacher. The purpose of this study was to apply the method in a large scale basis, using a broad range of grades and teachers. Method Subjects A total of 209 children from grades 1 through 10 (with the exclusion of Grade 9) who were at least one year below grade level in reading and 240 children who were reading at least on grade level were the subjects in this study. Materials and Procedure A workshop explaining the theory and practice of the Direct Access reading method was presented to teachers throughout a 32 school District in suburban North Carolina. After the workshop was completed, those teachers who were interested were given further experience. There were no absolute procedures specified, but the teachers were shown various possibilities and were told to use any techniques that did not depend on the indirect phonological route to meaning. Following these sessions the children in the classes taught by the teachers were given the Metropolitan Achievement Test Form L as a pretest measure of their reading ability. The teachers then used the Direct Access method exclusively for 10 weeks, after which time the children were retested on the Metropolitan Achievement Test Form M. Results The results of the reading disabled children and a control group are presented in Table 3. The pre and post scores were subjected to dependent t tests for each grade. The average gain across the whole group was almost 1 year and several grades showed gains of over 2 years. Individual gains of 4 or more years were not uncommon. Given that these results were obtained during only a 10-week period, the Direct Access approach is clearly an effective strategy to use with Phonetic and Semantic reading disabled children. In addition to these objective gains, the teachers reported an extremely positive reaction on the part of the students and have commented on the effects of the method on both spelling and writing composition.
patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Patt Haring) (03/06/90)
Index Number: 7095
Table 3
Total Gains in Percentile and Grade Equivalent Scores
for Direct Access and Controls
Pre Post Gain
Per Grade Per Grade Per Grade
_______________________________________________________________________________
Grade 1
DA (38) 7 1.09 32 1.55 25 0.46
Control (27) 46 1.79 56 2.13 10 0.34
Grade 2
DA (21) 17 1.76 32 2.15 15 0.39
Control (36) 54 2.89 58 3.19 40 0.3
Grade 3
DA (28) 16 2.33 31 2.99 15 0.66
Control (28) 56 4.49 61 4.94 5 0.45
Grade 4
DA (52) 15 2.59 31 3.28 16 0.69
Control (53) 60 5.82 61 5.97 1 0.15
DA (20) 21 3.63 38 5.01 17 1.38
Control (38) 56 6.53 60 7.09 4 0.56
Grade 6
DA (13) 3 2.36 15 3.68 12 1.32
Control (17) 71 9.58 74 9.9 3 0.32
Grade 7
DA (21) 8 3.39 26 5.45 18 2.068
Control (18) 35 6.57 36 6.64 1 0.07
Grade 8
DA (9) 5 3.38 21 5.61 16 2.23
Control (10) 34 6.94 35 7.36 1 0.42
Grade 10
DA (7)17 5.58 26 6.65 9 1.07
Control (13) 15 5.25 18 5.6 3 0.35
_______________________________________________________________________________
Total
Exper. (209) 12 2.27 29 3.22 17 0.95
Control (240) 52 5.35 56 5.71 4 0.36
_______________________________________________________________________________
During the past year (1988-89) Greensboro and High Point, North
Carolina used the Direct Access approach. The average gain on
the State mandated California Achievement Test was over 20 percentile
points for those children. High Point has mandated the Direct Access
approach as the treatment of choice for children who are "at risk" for
reading. The next Chapter is a discussion of some of the methods that
are consistent with Direct Access.
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
There are two basic types of reading disabled children, the
Phonetic and the Semantic. The Phonetic disabled reader is the
child who struggles with every word and has great difficulty decoding.
The Semantic disabled reader is the child who will read aloud
perfectly, but does not comprehend what was read.
One way to identify these children is by observing the
direction their eyes tend to move when asked questions about
which they have to think of an answer. The Phonetic child will tend to
move their eyes to the left and the Semantic to the right. This
measure is called Lateral Eye Movements (LEM).
One study compared the two groups on a rhyme, case,
word/picture matching, and a synonym/antonym tasks. All the
words used in the tasks were determined to be in the sight vocabularies
of the children. The results of those tasks are shown in Figures 1 and
2. It is clear that the Phonetic disabled children made more errors on
the rhyme task which involves the sound of the words. Semantic
disabled children, on the other hand, made more errors on the tasks
that involved the meaning of the words. There were two graphs on this
page which will not be usable in ascii format.
THE TYPES OF READING DISABILITY AND READING METHODS
Current teaching methods almost invariably use an indirect
phonological route to meaning in which the written word is
converted to its phonological counterpart so that meaning derives from
auditory comprehension. A child comes to school with auditory
comprehension, that is, hearing the word "ball" leads to the concept of
"a round, bouncy thing". In reading, the letters b-a-l-l must lead to
the concept of "a round, bouncy thing". In virtually every case, the
child is taught to see the word, say it, and understand it from its
sound. This is an effective technique for two reasons. First, it
takes advantage the existing auditory comprehension of children;
second, it provides the background for the future decoding of new
words. As effective as this procedure is for most children, a
significant number of individuals are not able to learn under this
protocol and they comprise the majority of the children we term
"reading disabled."
There are two major types of reading disability which flow
directly from the indirect phonological techniques that are
typically used to teach reading. The Phonetic disabled reader has
difficulty in converting the letters of a word to its sound and thus
cannot make the first step in that method. The Semantic disabled
reader can take that first step, but the sound of the word does not
lead to its meaning.
The standard methods of teaching reading are well-entrenched
and educators sincerely believe that this indirect phonological
route to meaning is the best. Therefore, remediation for these
"disabled readers" means an intensification of what was not successful
in the past. Extensive drilling in phonetic skills has led to an
emphasis on teaching to weakness, rather than strength. The imbalance
is reflected in reading curricula and standardized tests that stress
phonetic decoding at the expense of comprehension. Phonetic decoding
is a means to the end of comprehension; it has become an end in
itself.
An alternative approach to reading which does not depend on an
indirect phonological approach to comprehension, called Direct
Access, has one basic principle: the meaning of the printed word should
not be derived from the sound of that word.
Any procedure that avoids the grapheme to phoneme conversion is
consistent with this approach. The child is never required to read
aloud, but asked to explain what a passage meant. Trivial deviations
in verbiage, e.g., "jet" for "plane", are de-emphasized. The stress is
on comprehension rather than a slavish word for word decoding.
Specific Direct Access techniques will be discussed later.
RESULTS USING DIRECT ACCESS
Maxwell and Zenhausern in 1983 applied the method to First
Grade children who were "at risk" during the second semester.
After 25 half-hour sessions, the children increased their comprehension
scores from the 26th to the 56th percentile on the Metropolitan
Achievement Test and increased their sight vocabulary by over 100
words. A comparable control group showed no gain in comprehension.
Minardi, Zenhausern, and Maxwell in 1984 found similar results with
Junior and Senior High School children. Using the same regimen of 25
half-hour sessions, the Junior High School students gained an average
of 7 months and the Senior High School students an average of 1.4
years.
It has only been in the past two years that the Direct Access
approach has been used on a full time basis. The results from
a 10 week study in Greensboro, North Carolina are show below. The
average gain was .95 years or 17 percentile points. Note that the
older the child the greater the gains. From the fifth grade on, the
children showed gains of at least one year and seventh and eight grade
children gained over 2 years on the average. Direct Access is not just
for younger children.
Both Greensboro and High Point, North Carolina used Direct
Access for the past year. On their State mandated California
Achievement Test, those children on Direct Access instruction showed an
average gain of 17 percentile points above last years scores.
SELECTED DIRECT ACCESS TECHNIQUES
The results of the demonstration project and the use of Direct
Access in the past year in North Carolina clearly show that
reading disabled children can benefit from the Direct Access method of
teaching reading. To be able to read means that one can get meaning
from the printed word. The indirect phonological route attempts to
accomplish this by having the reader convert the written word to its
phonological counterpart and from this sound derive meaning.
Converting the word to its sound is a means to the end of
comprehension, not the comprehension itself. Direct Access attempts to
derive the meaning of the printed word not via its sound, but
directly. The stress is on comprehension, not decoding.
One of the first and most basic Direct Access techniques
consists of pairing an index card which contains a word and one
that contains a picture so that the child can consistently make the
pairing. At that point the child can read the word, that is, the child
can comprehend the printed word. Note that this is true whether or not
the child can say the word correctly or not. The pictures can be
provided by the teacher, cut from magazines for homework by the child,
or even drawn by the child. The question of abstractions and hard to
picture words at first seems insurmountable, but it is surprising how
easily a child will develop and remember appropriate pictures. In
connection with this aspect, games can be developed to strengthen the
connection between the words and the pictures.
Variations of Concentration and Old Maid have been used successfully.
This pairing, however, is only the beginning of the Direct
Access approach. The typical reaction at this point is, "This
is nothing new." or "We tried that 20 years ago and it did not work."
The next step is the most critical. The words and pictures must be
combined into sentences. A word sentence can be covered by the
appropriate picture and vice versa. The child should not be asked to
read the sentence aloud, word for word.
Rather, have the child summarize the sentence, point to a picture from
a series that corresponds to it, or even draw a picture of the
sentence. The stress should always be on whether the child has
understood the basic meaning of the sentence rather than a word for
word rendition of it.
There are two important side benefits of this approach. One is
an increase in spelling skills. The second advantage is the
ease with which children can do creative writing using the cards. It
is a simple way to separate penmanship from writing. The child could
be asked to write the funniest (most exciting, etc.) sentence they can
from their words. The step from sentences to paragraphs is minimal.
There are two basic approaches to class recitation within a
Direct Access framework. The phonetic disabled reader would be
asked to summarize a passage for the class and the teacher and
classmates could discuss the errors of omission and commission. It
also opens the door for class discussion on any relevant issues. The
semantic disabled reader would read aloud, but be required to do so
with expression to assure that the meaning and not only the words were
being read. Of course, any child could be given the opportunity to use
either approach.
Flash cards are a standard part of the classroom and can be
used within a Direct Access framework. Let the children have
their pictures in front of them when the words are flashed. They will
serve as a cue and minimize the chance of failure. As the children
progress, they can turn the pictures face down on the desk and only
turn them over as needed. This will strengthen skills and continue to
minimize the chance of failure. This technique could easily be
converted into a game where more points accrue if a card is not turned
over, but the child will always get some points.
What happens when a child comes across of word they have never
seen before? This is the usual response of people who first
encounter Direct Access. There are several approaches to this. First
and foremost, the child should be encouraged to determine the meaning
of the word from the context of the whole passage.
Second, the teacher can tell the child the word and immediately
have the child cut out or draw an appropriate picture for that word.
Third, the child can be encouraged to look it up in the
dictionary just like anyone else who comes across a word with which
they are unfamiliar. The child may not be able to pronounce the word,
but its meaning will be known.
Fourth, phonetic decoding should be an essential part of any
reading program. It is an important skill and should not be
neglected. On the other hand, it should not be the main approach to
deriving meaning from the printed word for some children.
There is a temporary remediation procedure to use with Semantic
disabled readers. Have the child read aloud into a tape
recorder. Then the child can play back the tape while reading from the
text material. Although this is an awkward procedure it will allow the
child to get meaning from the printed word. Direct Access has a
technique for the teaching of spelling and number facts. It has been
shown that some children not only do not learn by verbally repeating
the word and letters (e.g. "cat, C-A-T, cat", "6 times 3 is 18") but
this procedure can actually interfere with learning. As an alternative
have the child look at the word and practice forming an image of the
letters without saying anything (This is essential!!). When it comes
time to spell the word, have the child bring back the image of the
letters and copy them.
The Direct Access approach does not depend on a rigid structure
that the teacher must follow slavishly, but is a general
principal that can lead to unique and creative techniques.
Furthermore, the method is not limited to the disabled population, but
may be an effective strategy for all readers since it has some
similarities to "speed reading" techniques.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Reading Disability is as much a physical disability as
blindness, deafness and paralysis but a person with such a
disability has not received the help offered to those suffering from
the latter disorders. The reading disabled child is considered
responsible for the disability. The purpose of this paper was to point
out that these children can learn to read if only we are willing to
change the methods with which we teach reading. The standard
approaches to reading demand that the child convert the written word to
its sound and, from that sound, derive the meaning. It was shown that
85% of the children we call reading disabled have difficulty making
that first step and the remaining 15% can convert the word to its
sound, but this still does not give them meaning. The Direct Access
approach to reading can help both types of children because meaning is
not derived by converting the printed word to its sound. Rather, the
sound of the word is derived from its meaning. Several specific
techniques using this approach have been discussed earlier in the
Chapter.
Our brain is capable of many fascinating and wondrous things.
Our conscious awareness of our surroundings is somehow derived
from light of various wavelengths falling on our retina and causing
neurons to fire and not fire. It is this pattern of neuronal activity
that gives us conscious experience. Even more amazing is the ability
to create literary, musical, and visual works of art. It is the brain
that is responsible for all of this. The brain also has a rather
obscure function. It can take an arbitrary series of symbols (printed
words) and convert them into an equally arbitrary set of sounds (spoken
words). This function pales alongside literary and artistic
masterpieces. Why have we made it the basis of our educational
system?
Recommendations
1) Children who are not doing well in school should be tested to
determine if they fall into the Phonetic or Semantic disabled reader
categories.
Children can be tested for Phonetic and Semantic reading
disability by means of a test derived from the results
presented in Chapter 4. The Phonetic Semantic Reading Scale (PSRS)
requires a child to match written and pictorial material on the basis
of their sound or on the basis of their meaning. The point would be to
identify individuals who do well on one portion of the test and poorly
on the other to make a differential diagnosis between the Phonetic and
Semantic disabled.
2) Individual preferences in learning strategies should be taken into
consideration in selecting teaching strategies.
Both lateral eye movements and Hemispheric Preference Test data
should be collected on all children. Strategies of teaching
that are compatible with the learning strategies associated with these
Hemispheric Related Traits should be incoporated into the classroom.
3) Children who are identified as Phonetic or Semantic disabled should
be given appropriate alternative approaches to the teaching of
reading.
The techniques described in the Selected Direct Access
Technique section above should be applied to these children.
These would include, but not be limited to: a) Alternative forms of
class recitation b) De-emphasis of phonics c) Use of word picture
vocabulary cards d) Emphasis on comprehension rather than decoding
4) The criteria for success should reflect the capabilities of the
child in conjunction with the demands of the culture rather than
artificial restrictions.
These would include, but not be limited to:
a) Speed should be de-emphasized
b) Tests should be given on an "open book" basis.
c) Calculators should be allowed on mathematics tests.
Note that these changes actually reflect the way people operate
in the real world. No business places unrealistic time limits
on workers or denies them use of tools and references.
The major recommendation of this paper is that learning
disability should be recognized as an true disability and
treated in the same way as more the physical disabilities such as
deafness, blindness and paralysis. The learning disabled child should
not be considered at fault for the disorder, but should be recognized
as a person in need of special help. It is our responsibility to
supply that special help.
The emphasis must be on individualizing instruction rather than
finding the "one true method". The good from all approaches
must be used with those who find it good and avoided for those who find
it not good. Only by tailoring our teaching to the unique style of
each student do we maximize their strengths rather than trying to
strengthen their minima.
REFERENCES
Alberts, F. L., & McCallum, R. S. (1982). The relationship among three
measures of cognitive style. Clinical Neuropsychology,4, 70-71.
Bakker, D. (1982) Cognitive deficits and cerebral asymmetry.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 150, 49-54.
Beaumont, J., Young, A., & McManus (1984) Hemisphericity: A critical review.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1, 191-212.
Boder, E. (1973) Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach based on three
atypical reading-spelling patterns. Developmental Medicine and Child
Neurology, 15, 663-687.
Breitling, D., & Bonnet, K. (1985). Lateralizationof GSR, lateral eye
movements and a visual half-fields recognition task. International
Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 7, 140-143
Bruce, P. R., Herman, J. F., & Stern, J. (1982). Lateral eye movements
and the recall of spatial information in a familiar, large-scale
environment. Neuropsychologica, 20, 505-508.
Coleman, S. & Zenhausern, R. (1979) Processing speed, laterality
patterns, and memory encoding as a function of hemispheric dominance.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14, 357-360.
Day, M. E. (1967) An eye-movement indicator of individual differences in the
psychological organization of attentional process and anxiety.
Journal of Psychology, 66, 51-62.
Denckla, M.B. (1979) Childhood learning disabilities. In. K.M. Heilman
and E.M. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical Neuropsychology, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dunn, R., Price, G., Bacilious, Z., & Zenhausern, R. (1983) Learning Style -- a
predictor of school achievement. Momentum, 13, 47-48.
Dunn, R., Zenhausern, R., Cavanaugh, D., & Eberle, B. (1982) Hemispheric
preference the newest elements of learning style. Journal of the
National Association of Biology Teachers, 44, 291-294.
Dunn, R, White, R. & Zenhausern, R. (1984) Do educators create some discipline
problems? Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 34, 56-67.
Ehrlichman, H., & Barrett, J. (1984) Right hemisphere specialization for mental
imagery a review of the evidence. Brain and Cognition, 2, 55-76.
Ehrlichman, H., & Weinberger, A. (1978) Lateral eye movements and hemispheric
asymmetry: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1080-1101.
Fisk, J. & Rourke, B. (1979) Identification of subtypes of learning
disabled children at three age levels: A neuropsychological, multivariate
approach. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1, 289-310.
Falcone, D. J., & Loder, K. (1984). A modified lateral eye movement measure,
the right hemisphere, and creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 823-830.
Furst, C. EEG asymmetry and visuospatial performance. Nature, 260, 254-255.
Galin,D., & Ornstein, R. (1972) Lateral specialization of cognitive
mode: An EEG study. Psychophysiology, 9, 412-418.
Galin, D., & Ornstein, R. (1975) Hemispheric specialization and the
duality of consciousness. Laterality and brain function. Springfield,
IL: C.C.Thomas.
Golden, M., & Zenhausern, R. (1983) Grapheme to phoneme conversion:
The basis of reading disability? International Journal of Neuroscience,
20, 229-240.
Gur, R.E. (1978) Left hemisphere dysfunction and left hemisphere overactivation
in schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 226-238.
Gur, R. E., & Gur, R. C. (1975). Defense mechanisms, psychosomatic
symptomatology, and conjugate lateral eye movements. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 416-420.
Gur, R.E., Gur, R.C., & Harris (1975) Cerebral activation, as measured by
subjects' lateral eye movements is influenced by experimenter location.
Neuropsychologia, 13, 35-44.
Gur, R.C., Packer, I, Hungerbuhler, J., Reivich, M., Obrist, W., & Amarner,
W.(1980) Differences in the ion of grey and white matter in the human
cerebral cortex. Science, 207, 1226-128.
Huang, M. S., & Byrne, B. (1978). Cognitive style and lateral eye
movements. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 85-90.
Hugdahl, K., & Carlgren, H. E. (1981). Hemispheric asymmetry as indexed by
differences in direction of initial conjugate lateral eye movements (CLEMS)
in response to verbal, spatial, and emotional tasks. Journal of Mind
and Behavior 2, 259-270.
Jamieson, J. L., & Sellick, T. B. (1985) Effects of subject-to- experimenter
distance and instructions on lateral eye movement. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 60, 155-159.
Kaliski, M., Zenhausern, R., Andrews, R. (1989) The direct access method of
teaching reading and the diagnosis and remediation of reading disability.
International Journal of Neuroscience, 44, 103-109.
Kinsbourne, M. (1972) Eye and head turning indicate cerebral lateralization.
Science, 176, 539-541.
Kinsbourne, M., & Warrington, E. (1963) Developmental factors in reading and
writing backwardness. British Journal of Psychology, 54, 145-156.
Krikorian, R., & Rafales, L. (1983). Emotional stimulation, defensive
orientation, and hemispheric activation. Brain and Cognition, 1, 371-380.
Leboeuf, A., McKay, P., & Clarke, K. (1983). Lateral eye movements and dream
recall in males: a reappraisal. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 3, 61-68.
Lenhart, R. E. (1985) The effects of distance between interactants and subject
anxiety on conjugate lateral eye movements. Brain and Cognition,
4(3), 328-337.
Levy, J. (1974) Psychobiological implications of bilateral asymmetry. In S.
Dimond & J. Beaumont (Eds.) Hemispheric function and the human brain.
New York: Wiley
Mattis, S., French, J., & Rapin, I. (1975) Dyslexia in children and young
adults: three independent neuropsychological syndromes. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 17, 150-163
Markman, S. & Zenhausern, R. (1988) The interaction of hemispheric related
strategies and individual differences in learning. International Journal
of Neuroscience, 43, 165-170.
Maxwell, M. & Zenhausern, R. (1983) Teaching reading to disabled readers by
eliminating the necessity for grapheme to phoneme conversion. Paper
presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia.
Minardi, A., Zenhausern, R., & Maxwell, M. (1984) The remediation of reading
disability: a new approach. Paper presented at the International Neuropsychology
Convention, Houston.
Oexle, J. & Zenhausern, R. (1981) Differential hemispheric activation in good
and poor readers. International Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 31-36.
Ogorman, J. & Siddle, D. (1981). The effects of question type and experimenter
position on bilateral differences in electrodermal activity and conjugate
lateral eye movements. Acta Psychologica, 49, 43-51.
Owens, W., & Limber, J. (1983). Lateral eye movement as a measure of cognitive
ability and style. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 711-719.
Parrott, C. A. (1983). Personality characteristics associated with lateral eye
movement patterns. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 867-874.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J., & Madigan, S. (1968) Concreteness, imagery and
meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology
Monographs, 76, (1 pt. 2).
Petroskas, R. & Rourke, B. (1979) Identification of subtypes of retarded
readers: A neuropsychological, multivariate approach. Journal of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 1, 17- 37.
Pirozzolo, F. (1979) The neuropsychology of developmental reading disorders.
New York: Praeger.
Schwartz, G., Davidson, R., & Maer, F. (1977). Right Hemisphere Lateralization
for Emotion in the Human Brain: Interactions with cognition. Science, 190,
286-288.
Schweitzer, L. (1979). Differences of cerebral lateralization among
schizophrenic and depressed patients. Biological Psychiatry, 14, 721-733.
Smokler, I. A., & Shevrin, H. (1979). Cerebral lateralization and personality
style. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 949-954.
Swinnen, S. (1984). Some evidence for the hemispheric asymmetry model of
lateral eye movements. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 79-88.
Thompson, M., Greenberg, R. P., & Fisher, S. (1982). Defense mechanisms,
somatic symptoms, and lateral eye movements in females. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 55, 939-942.
Tucker, D. M., Antes, J. R., Stenslie, C. E., & Barnhardt, T. M. (1978).
Anxiety and lateral cerebral function. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
87, 380-383.
Tucker, G. H., & Suib, M. R. (1978). Conjugate lateral eye movement (CLEM)
direction and its relationship to performance on verbal and visuospatial
tasks. Neuropsychologica, 16, 251-254
Tucker, D. (1981) Lateral brain function, emotion, and conceptualization.
Psychological Bulletin, 89, 19-46.
Van Nuys, D. (1985) Lateral eye movement and dream recall: II sex differences
and handedness. International Journal of Psychosomatics, 31, 3-7.
Weiten, W., & Etaugh, C. F. (1974) Lateral eye movement as related to
verbal and perceptual-motor skills and values. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 36, 423-428.
Zenhausern, R. (1978) Imagery, cerebral dominance, and style of thinking:
A unified field model. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 381-384.
Zenhausern, R. (1982) Rights and lefts and how they learn.
Early Years, 12, 51-67.
Zenhausern, R. (1983) Lateralized presentation and hemispheric integration.
American Psychologist, 38.
Zenhausern, R. (1987) The relationship of reading disability and the techniques
of teaching reading. International Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 55-62.
Zenhausern, R. (1988) Eyes Right. Teaching K through 8, 23, 76-78.
Zenhausern, R. & Dunivin, D. (1981) Differential hemispheric activation and
handedness and hysterical and obsessive personality styles.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 23-25.
Zenhausern, R., & Dunn, R. (1984) How brainy are you about the brain?
Early Years, 15, 46-49.
Zenhausern, R., Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D. & Eberle, B. (1981) Do right and left
brained students learn differently. Roeper Review, 4, 35-39.
Zenhausern, R. & Gebhard, M. (1979) Hemispheric dominance in recall and
recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14, 71-73.
Zenhausern, R., Notaro, J. Grosso, J. & Schiano, P. (1980) The interaction of
hemispheric preference, laterality, and sex in the perception of
emotional tone and verbal content.
--ooOoo--