[senco-forum]Developinglistening skillsinsecondarypupils-Eddie'sCD

Dear Dolfrog -

I do agree with Eddie's suggestion that we should concentrate on identifying 
and dealing with children's lack of skills where they are impeding their 
progress.

I spent my later working life identifying children whose difficulties could 
be by-passed through using computer technology.  I would offer this as an 
additional approach which actually works very well with some children.  One 
of the groups we found it most useful with was for orally bright children 
who were approaching the "serious" stage of secondary school and despite 
much effort and teacher input were not making progress with acquring fluent 
literacy and/ or writing skills.

My colleagues and I had a wide experience of different children and the 
range of  disabilities.  This enlightened us as to what could be expected to 
work for different pupils-  but as Eddie says, the "medical" model of 
finding the cause was less useful than our  empirical observation of what 
each child could and could not do, and then our providing them with 
alternative way of working.  We judged the success of out intervention by 
collecting before and after samples of the children's written work and also 
listening to their  comments and those of of the staff who worked with them.

Elizabeth

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Eddie Carron
To: Senco Rik ; 'dolfrog'
Cc: 'Senco-Forum'
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [senco-forum]Developinglistening 
skillsinsecondarypupils-Eddie'sCD

Yes - its always a pity when a potentially interesting thread goes sour and
I have to  concede my contribution by responding badly to Aly' s blanket and
unsupported condemnation of work which has consumed a large portion of the
last two years of my life. What concerns in me particular about 'listening
skill' is whether or not there actually is such a skill or whether it is
simply a term coined by some whizz kid, which happened to catch on. I know
there is an empirical basis to 'attention deficit' because attention
deficit, like reading deficit, persists in every class with every teacher.

It is my experience that this is not always the case with 'listening skills'
I know of children with a reputation for having poor listening skills but
who pose no such problems with certain teachers.  Does anyone know the basis
or origin of the term 'listening skills' or any professional papers on the
subject?  Skills to me always have at least one mechanical component which
can be 'exercised' or 'practiced' I never did establish what the mechanical
components of 'listening skills' are. I really would apprectiate any
assistance here.

If a teacher tells me 'I could teach him to read if only I could get him to
listen' I tend to ignore this plea (because I dont know what to do about it)
and focus on why the child can';t read. Reading involves a subset of related
skills which are identifiable and in many cases, remediable. Just under one
child in five leaves school at 16 less than functionally literate. In real
numbers this is tens of thousands of children every year. I take the view
the reading difficulties of about three quarters of these children could
have achieved at least functional literacy if we ditch the medical model of
reading disability (diagnose - prescribe - cure) and focus on those areas of
skills deficit, we know we can resolve

If a child cannot decipher, decode or blend letters into coherent words,
surely that deficiency is what needs to be addressed by teachers since we
know we cannot resolve physical, social  or mental aspects of a childs
failure to become literate.

Eddie C.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Senco Rik" <senco_rik at ntlworld.com>
To: "'dolfrog'" <dolfrog at tiscali.co.uk>; "'Eddie Carron'"
<eddiecarron at btconnect.com>
Cc: "'Senco-Forum'" <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: [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)!
> 