[SENco-forum] learning styles

basis,

Sorry about resending your posting, Philip.  I intended deleting all but
your reply before writing anything and clicked "send" instead!  Senior
moment?!

Thank you for reminding me of some of the first words that our course
director instilled into us when we embarked on the SEN Diploma:

"Never forget that you cannot change the child; if something doesn't work,
you have to change the way you are teaching it."

That is something I tried to remember and do; it works.

Regards

Jean

 I am not critiquing multi sensory approaches, I use them on a daily
>> basis,
>> what I am critiquing is yet another educational 'diagnosis' that at
>> present
>> does not stand up to empirical scrutiny and probably never will.   Why
>> are
>> we always looking for the fault to lie within the child or the learner,
>> we
>> should bend our practice to take into account the learner's needs and
>> that
>> could be little to do with 'learning styles' but more to do with
>> teaching
>> styles.   The problem with learning styles is that the bulk of the data
>> is
>> correlational and experimental controls are notable by their absence.
>> Correlation is not necessarily causation. Educational research has a
>> predilection for qualitative correlational approaches, it shys away from
>> the
>> causal.  If you doubt me then read the report of the National Reading
>> Panel
>> (2000) and the Brooks report (2002).  Education is full of fads and
>> quick
>> fixes that do not work once they are removed from the context in which
>> they
>> were developed.  How many school cupboards are full of unused whiz bang
>> programmes or worse still programmes that did work but did not fit in
>> with
>> the 'pedagogical' philosophy of  practitioners and so learners were
>> denied
>> access to what the research says works.  If a medical practitioner
>> ignored
>> 'best practice' he would soon be up before the GMC.  Education, and that
>> includes LEA's HMG, academics and teachers, needs to get its house in
>> order
>> and start to take a more rigourous approach to what they do to other
>> peoples
>> children with other peoples money.
>>
>> A case in point, the Government recently trumpeted a £10 million grant
>> spread over many LEA's to once again trial Reading Recovery.  This
>> despite
>> a
>> whole slew of reports that questioned the effects of reading recovery
>> and
>> the fact that it faded so that 3 years later the 'recovered' children
>> were
>> no further forward than similar children who had not been recovered, see
>> Shanahan & Barr (1995). Other research has questioned the ways in which
>> progress was measured. which basically was that it taught to the test,
>> those
>> who failed or were unlikely to progress were dropped from the
>> statistics,
>> all very ethical I am sure.  I do not know what the cost per 'recovered'
>> child is in the UK, in the US a cost of $10,000 per child was given.
>> The
>> approach used in RR has been refuted by the Rose Report (paid for by the
>> government = the taxpayer) and yet the same department that paid for and
>> responded to the Rose Report by altering the early literacy curriculum
>> is
>> spending £10M on RR which uses a curriculum and approaches that go
>> against
>> their own advice, as the say in the US - go figure.
>>
>> As to the chalk face, well I am there too with children and adults on a
>> regular basis.  With the adults I am working with those who have, to
>> some
>> extent or another, been through the education system and still cannot
>> read
>> and write to a level that will allow them to function adequately in our
>> present society.  If we assume a cost of say £3,000 per year for
>> education
>> and 10 years in it then £30,000 has been spent with little return.  Try
>> that
>> in a business setting and see how long you last.
>>
>> You say you have some difficult pupils, well get your school to pay my
>> travel and living expenses for a week (B&B is fine) and I will do you a
>> demo
>> for your poorest readers at no additional cost. I taught in Herts many
>> years
>> ago.   If I get results then you can buy me in at local EP rates and I
>> will
>> train up 4 of your staff to deliver the programme.   It is awfully
>> simple
>> to
>> learn and deliver, nothing very high tech involved although I am working
>> on
>> porting it to a PC as all schools have them in abundance.
>>
>> As to typical EP, well I am not your typical EP as several of my ex
>> employers will no doubt confirm.  I left school at 15 with no
>> qualifications
>> but a good grounding in literacy and numeracy and no I am not sunken
>> middle
>> class, I was born and bred in the less salubrious parts of Glasgow -
>> Anderston (the docks) and the Gorbals.   I thank my teachers for what
>> they
>> gave me, basic skills and the fact that I was made to work whether I
>> liked
>> it or not,  If I was not learning the way they wanted they did something
>> for
>> and to me, they did not look for a learning disability or other label to
>> explain my failure to learn as they expected.  ust look at theenormous
>> expansion of 'Special Education' over the years.  We now have more and
>> more
>> 'diagnoses'  based on identifying the problem within the child (child
>> centred) and the number and variety of diagnoses is increasing.
>> Accomodations and amendments are made to provide for these 'conditiions'
>> and
>> yet the problems remain. It really is time to dump the medical model.
>>
>> Until the education system starts to involve rigorous emprical research
>> we
>> are going to go round in circles to the detriment of the population we
>> are
>> paid to serve.
>>
>> There that feels much better.
>>
>> Philip EP
>>
>> Shanahan, T. & Barr, R. (1995) "Reading recovery: An independent
>> evaluation
>> of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at risk
>> learners".
>> Reading Research Quarterly, 30,  p. 958-996.
>>