[senco-forum]Developinglistening skillsinsecondarypupils-Eddie'sCD

Dear Dolfrog -
I read the APD booklet - along with other references, as it
has I hope obvious interest to me as a teacher for children
in a specialist speech & language school.  Hopefully saving
others the time, the definition you refer to is, I believe,
the following:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ihr.mrc.ac.uk/products/leaflets.php#apd
What is Auditory Processing Disorder?
Most of us hear well and so don't give much thought to how
we hear. Hearing starts with a very complex set of actions
within the outer, middle and inner
ear. These actions send the sounds to our brain, and our
brain interprets them so we can understand. For example, it
tells us the whistling we hear is a bird singing. This is
what we call LISTENING. The medical term for it is AUDITORY
PROCESSING. When a child's ears are working well, but the
child cannot understand the sounds they hear, the child may
have an 'auditory processing disorder' (abbreviated to
'APD').
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So far, so good - the booklet has given one definition of
"listening".
Unfortunately, my dictionary, quite a reputable one, has a
different definition - "Act of concentrating on hearing
something, taking heed, paying attention". Eddie Carron has
given another, which you appear to have taken a dislike to.

My own personal working definition is "making sense of what
you hear". Many of my speech/language impaired children can
"hear well" - they can hear quiet sounds at many frequencies
- but are unable to filter out other noises and/or remember
sounds for long enough to comprehend, or process the sounds
fast enough etc. Rather like a Head Teacher I worked with
once, who would ask us for our views and then say "Please
tell me what you think: I will hear you, but may perhaps
choose not to listen"!

Language is an organic, changing phenomenon - and part of
its interest is that we all define words and concepts in
different ways. Most of us accept that we should not have a
"thought police" to launch a diatribe against anyone who
happens not to share our own particular definition of a
given word or concept. Your email feels to me, perhaps
incorrectly, as a diatribe written by someone who has
read(heard) but not listened

Are you saying that my dictionary, and my own working
definition, are each confusing for everyone else with whom I
wish to communicate, given that neither concur exactly with
the APD booklet definition above? 

I happen to believe that APD exists. Granted, I also think
it is a jargon three-letter acronym equivalent to a
phenomenon that was certainly around when I was learning
about speech and language: Then, we called it "receptive
aphasia", and reading the booklet it is at least 95% the
same thing, though at least APD is easier to spell!

Your email to Eddie below sounds to me more like a diatribe
against anyone who might wish to disagree with "APD is
King". You also seem to have managed, like Aly, to "hear but
not listen" to what Eddie is writing.  I do agree with Eddie
on one thing. He states:

"I suspect that her motive is simply to get the word APD on
the screen of often as possible. This is a harmful and not a
helpful ploy which is damaging the undoubted cause of APD. I
know that many other, former and current list contributors
have expressed the same sentiment."

As a current list occasional contributor I will openly agree
with him. I would be a natural supporter for APDUK but for
the tone of so many of the emails from yourself and Aly. It
is difficult to "listen" to your useful postings on APD when
we "hear" so much else ("noise") in your emails.  I do hope
that you will moderate your "thought police" controlling
tendencies before I, too, add you to the "junk sender" list.

Cheers

Rik
(Original postings snipped, as they are at least a yard
(almost a metre for younger colleagues) long)!