[senco-forum] Developing listening skills in secondary pupils- references and approaches (long)

Hi Eddie

I have just recalled reading [several years ago] a report in the TES that some
research had revealed that every classroom had a "deaf spot", where even those
with the sharpest hearing found it almost impossible to hear what the teacher
was saying.  Does anyone else know anything about this?  I usually ask if all
the children can hear my voice in a classroom, but had forgotten why I did so,
as it has become second nature!

Jean D

S Wales

Quoting clare north <clare at clarenorth.co.uk>:

> Hi Eddie
> Effective listening is dependent on outside influences as well as
> internal ones. Some classrooms are noisier than others, some contain a
> greater number of distracting individuals, some teachers have accents,
> some speakers have a more monotone delivery etc etc which is why
> listening skills can vary in different situations. Although effective
> listening is dependent on good auditory processing, pragnatics and good
> underlying language skills, environmental issues play a part. Presumably
> this is why many mainstream open-plan classrooms are replacing their
> walls. You might find some useful information under 'auditory
> processing' rather than 'listening'. Joy Stackhouse, Dorothy Bishop,
> Maggie Snowling and others make numerous references to this. There are
> also specific references, though, to 'listening' although I have
> recently discovered that 'Active Listening' is a term which is also used
> on Counselling courses - a fact which confused me when I first heard it.
> 'Active Listening' (as applied to learning) is an idea which has been
> around in this country for  10 + years. I went to a very good 3-day
> course (in 1997) given by Gillian Benson, Catherine Martin and Elizabeth
> Roberts. Their work was based on that of Paul Catherall who had come,
> from Canada, to work with them in 1987. Christine Dollaghan and Nomi
> Kaston (1986 )- a comprehension monitoring program for language impaired
> children: journal of speech and hearing disorders) provided some of the
> starting points for Catherall's work. Maggie Johnson also gives some
> excellent talks on Functional Language Skills which refer to listening
> skills. You may also have encountered an article which I wrote with
> Debbie Hollingsworth - 'Listening and Learning (Spring 2001 Special!).
> The educational supplier, Learning Materials (Wolverhampton) have also,
> for a number of years, supplied activities to develop auditory
> comprehension. For those of us who have worked on developing 'Listening'
> there are four strands 1. identify behaviours associated with listening
> 2. identifying and reacting to inadequate signals (background noise,
> accents etc) 3. identifying and reacting to ambiguous messages (e.g
> incomplete information, contradictory statemenst etc) 3. identifying and
> reacting to messages which are too complex for the listener to act on
> (e.g unknown vocabulary, too long etc)
> References which specifically mention 'listening'  (cited by Dollaghan
> and Kaston) include 'Generalization of training for children's listener
> skills' (Cosgrove & Patterson 1978: Child Development); 'Learning
> Disabled Children's conversational competence: an attempt to activate
> the inactive listener' (Dollaghan 1844: Applied Psycholinguistics).
> I hope you will find these references helpful. I realise that most stem
> from the field of research into children with speech and language
> impairment but, as often happens, there is a view that the research is
> applicable also to the 'normal' population. Certainly the work Debbie
> and I did was with mainstream classes although the starting point was
> with children in the S/L unit.
> Best Wishes - Clare
>
>
> ---
> This email and any attachments have been scanned by AVG AntiVirus 7.0.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of Eddie
> Carron
> Sent: 06 September 2006 11:43
> To: Senco Rik; 'dolfrog'
> Cc: 'Senco-Forum'
> 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)!
> >
>
>
>
>
>