Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Reading is Not Easy Because Reading is Not Natural
Why Reading Is Not Natural
Reading is not natural, but speaking is. These simple facts, however scientifically sound, are some of the most difficult for both educators as well as parents to grasp.
Because of this widespread belief otherwise, the process of learning to read, write, and interpret text is seen as something that all children should just do. Rather than simply expecting reading to be learned on its own, reading intervention should be the norm, not the exception.
Why Speaking Is Natural
The human brain is hardwired for speech. From our earliest days, humans of all backgrounds and cultures will begin making speech sounds. These “coos” slowly evolve into words and, eventually, sentences. By the age of 16 to 24 months, most developmentally and neuro-typical children will form basic sentences regardless of any intervention or instruction by mom or dad. Basically, his or her immersion in language is enough to ensure that the human baby will acquire speech (Moats & Tolman, 2009).
Why Reading Is Not Natural
On the flip side, the process of decoding that speech is not a natural process for the human brain. This very fact is evidenced by the dozens of human cultures who have rich oral traditions and yet lack a written system of recording those traditions. And even in our culture, reading is a relatively new skill certainly for the broad population. Even in the 1600’s, 200 years after the invention of the printing press, only 30% of the population was literate.
And so, not surprisingly, while there are parts of the brain dedicated to understanding and expressing language, there is no reading lobe. Reading is not one of those natural skills we are born to do.
And unfortunately, reading is not easy – reading and writing involve several steps. First, the reader must be able to recognize the phonemes or the individual sounds inside words. Next, he or she must understand what is known as the alphabetic principal, or the written coding of those phonemes, a process which varies from culture to culture. Then, once acquired, these skills must be applied to written text in a rapid and fluent manner. This ability depends on the reader possessing a strong vocabulary as well as understanding the basic syntactic and grammatical rules of their language. Finally, the reader must also comprehend the words they have read by thinking critically about them and applying them to their own experiences and their understanding of the world. This final step is one that takes 8-16 years to develop after a young child initially learns his or her ABCs (Lyon, 2000).
Why We Need Intervention
Because reading is an unnatural, multi-step process, the only way to teach children and adults to read and comprehend what they are reading is through direct, individualized instruction and routine intervention. This translates to teachers and parents taking time to specifically address individual gaps in any of the above-mentioned steps. For many children, the only way to learn the decoding and comprehension process inherent in reading skills is through targeted work that many educational systems and programs lack.
If your child needs extra reading help, consider trying one of Gemm Learning’s individualized reading programs.
Article retrieved from: http://www.gemmlearning.com/blog/uncategorized/reading-is-not-easy-because-reading-is-not-natural/
Image retrieved from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE0QG2bshl1QiOOEyvg19ZcErjS-NzC4HRlj6mV0-A4NQL4lyU2n-QL9Kl-2TLUA4yuIIQFG1yWHiwYVSzLY0iXJh_2VDSnw_T1WlEf1ulOp_tk5rBQ-sO8f3XjYy857VxlWQ8HevCpLyg/s1600/34_x600_books__child-reading.jpg
Disliking School and Losing Confidence: The Matthew Effect and Your Child
January 16, 2013 by Geoff Nixon
Somewhere between second and
fourth grade, parents and teachers begin to observe a very noticeable
difference among kids when it comes to both their academic performance
and their feelings about school. Usually, the two go hand in hand.
Youngsters who perform well in school find it enjoyable while those who
struggle academically often dislike school. Makes sense, right? The
question is, which comes first: a child’s poor academic performance or
his disdain for school? Psychologist Keith Stanovich says it’s the
latter and pinpoints literacy issues as the main culprit for academic
failure in the early primary grades and beyond.
Stanovich was the first to
coin the term “the Matthew Effect” as a way of illustrating the negative
psychological effects a child experiences as a result of struggling to
acquire literacy. The term has its origins in scripture, namely the
verse in Matthew that reads, “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given,
and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him
shall be taken away even that he hath,” or in layman’s terms, the rich
get richer and the poor get poorer. Although you can probably think of a
dozen different ways that this adage can apply to our daily lives, the
way it impacts young school children is of particular concern.
What is the Matthew Effect?At some point during the early elementary years, students have to make the transition between learning to read and reading to learn. Those students who have yet to learn to read fluently begin to lag behind as more and more subject matter content is delivered through textbooks. They suddenly find themselves struggling not just in the area of Language Arts but in Science and Math as well, subjects that they may have otherwise excelled in had they not been required to read a textbook in order to learn the information. Unfortunately, once students begin to fall behind, some of them never catch up. That’s why it’s imperative that parents learn to recognize the signs of the downward side of the Matthew Effect, so that they can intervene to stop the cycle of failure and defeat that many elementary children experience.
What are the Signs of the Matthew Effect?
Although every child is different, there are some general signs of the Matthew Effect that all parents should be aware of. These include:
- Resists new things, no longer a learning risk-taker
- Anxiety over assignments, homework, tests
- Suddenly dislikes school
- A drop in grades or standardized test scores
If you notice signs of a negative spiral and are worried that it may be impacting your child’s academic success or emotional wellbeing, rest assured that there are steps you can take to turn the proverbial ship around and get your child back on the path to calmer waters. That doesn’t mean there is a one-size-fits-all solution, however.
While some experts argue that retention is the answer, the data doesn’t clear show that retention makes a difference. Most parents turn to tutoring to help their children cope, but tutoring does not address the source of declining confidence and skill that is at the heart of a downward trend. The best answer is grade-level remediation (either at home or school, but ideally both!) that gets at the source of confidence erosion, the reading or learning delays that are undermining performance at school. Fast ForWord software by Gemm Learning is one such program.
Nearly everyone agrees that something must be done, though. Crossing your fingers and hoping that your child catches up with his peers simply isn’t an option.
Article retrieved from: http://www.gemmlearning.com/blog/uncategorized/the-matthew-effect-your-child/
Image retrieved from: http://thewellorganizedwoman.com/files/2011/12/children-reading.jpg
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Mistaking OCD For ADHD Has Serious Consequences
Article Date: 28 Dec 2012 - 0:00 PST
On the surface, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) appear very similar, with impaired attention, memory, or behavioral control. But Prof. Reuven Dar of Tel Aviv University's School of Psychological Sciences argues that these two neuropsychological disorders have very different roots - and there are enormous consequences if they are mistaken for each other.
Prof. Dar and fellow researcher Dr. Amitai Abramovitch, who completed his PhD under Prof. Dar's supervision, have determined that despite appearances, OCD and ACHD are far more different than alike. While groups of both OCD and ADHD patients were found to have difficulty controlling their abnormal impulses in a laboratory setting, only the ADHD group had significant problems with these impulses in the real world.
According to Prof. Dar, this shows that while OCD and ADHD may appear similar on a behavioral level, the mechanism behind the two disorders differs greatly. People with ADHD are impulsive risk-takers, rarely reflecting on the consequences of their actions. In contrast, people with OCD are all too concerned with consequences, causing hesitancy, difficulty in decision-making, and the tendency to over-control and over-plan.
Their findings, published in the Journal of Neuropsychology, draw a clear distinction between OCD and ADHD and provide more accurate guidelines for correct diagnosis. Confusing the two threatens successful patient care, warns Prof. Dar, noting that treatment plans for the two disorders can differ dramatically. Ritalin, a psychostimulant commonly prescribed to ADHD patients, can actually exacerbate OCD behaviors, for example. Prescribed to an OCD patient, it will only worsen symptoms.
Separating cause from effect
To determine the relationship between OCD and ADHD, the researchers studied three groups of subjects: 30 diagnosed with OCD, 30 diagnosed with ADHD, and 30 with no psychiatric diagnosis. All subjects were male with a mean age of 30. Comprehensive neuropsychological tests and questionnaires were used to study cognitive functions that control memory, attention, and problem-solving, as well as those that inhibit the arbitrary impulses that OCD and ADHD patients seem to have difficulty controlling.
As Prof. Dar and Dr. Abramovitch predicted, both the OCD and ADHD groups performed less than a comparison group in terms of memory, reaction time, attention and other cognitive tests. Both groups were also found to have abnormalities in their ability to inhibit or control impulses, but in very different ways. In real-world situations, the ADHD group had far more difficulty controlling their impulses, while the OCD group was better able to control these impulses than even the control group.
When people with OCD describe themselves as being impulsive, this is a subjective description and can mean that they haven't planned to the usual high degree, explains Prof. Dar.
Offering the right treatment
It's understandable why OCD symptoms can be mistaken for ADHD, Prof. Dar says. For example, a student in a classroom could be inattentive and restless, and assumed to have ADHD. In reality, the student could be distracted by obsessive thoughts or acting out compulsive behaviors that look like fidgeting.
"It's more likely that a young student will be diagnosed with ADHD instead of OCD because teachers see so many people with attention problems and not many with OCD. If you don't look carefully enough, you could make a mistake," cautions Prof. Dar. Currently, 5.2 million children in the US between the ages of 3 and 17 are diagnosed with ADHD, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, making it one of the most commonly diagnosed neuro-developmental disorders in children.
The correct diagnosis is crucial for the well-being and future trajectory of the patient, not just for the choice of medication, but also for psychological and behavioral treatment, and awareness and education for families and teachers.
Article retrieved from:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/254275.php
Image retrieved from:
http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x3915848/students_in_classroom_jape29684nn00.jpg
On the surface, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) appear very similar, with impaired attention, memory, or behavioral control. But Prof. Reuven Dar of Tel Aviv University's School of Psychological Sciences argues that these two neuropsychological disorders have very different roots - and there are enormous consequences if they are mistaken for each other.
Prof. Dar and fellow researcher Dr. Amitai Abramovitch, who completed his PhD under Prof. Dar's supervision, have determined that despite appearances, OCD and ACHD are far more different than alike. While groups of both OCD and ADHD patients were found to have difficulty controlling their abnormal impulses in a laboratory setting, only the ADHD group had significant problems with these impulses in the real world.
According to Prof. Dar, this shows that while OCD and ADHD may appear similar on a behavioral level, the mechanism behind the two disorders differs greatly. People with ADHD are impulsive risk-takers, rarely reflecting on the consequences of their actions. In contrast, people with OCD are all too concerned with consequences, causing hesitancy, difficulty in decision-making, and the tendency to over-control and over-plan.
Their findings, published in the Journal of Neuropsychology, draw a clear distinction between OCD and ADHD and provide more accurate guidelines for correct diagnosis. Confusing the two threatens successful patient care, warns Prof. Dar, noting that treatment plans for the two disorders can differ dramatically. Ritalin, a psychostimulant commonly prescribed to ADHD patients, can actually exacerbate OCD behaviors, for example. Prescribed to an OCD patient, it will only worsen symptoms.
Separating cause from effect
To determine the relationship between OCD and ADHD, the researchers studied three groups of subjects: 30 diagnosed with OCD, 30 diagnosed with ADHD, and 30 with no psychiatric diagnosis. All subjects were male with a mean age of 30. Comprehensive neuropsychological tests and questionnaires were used to study cognitive functions that control memory, attention, and problem-solving, as well as those that inhibit the arbitrary impulses that OCD and ADHD patients seem to have difficulty controlling.
As Prof. Dar and Dr. Abramovitch predicted, both the OCD and ADHD groups performed less than a comparison group in terms of memory, reaction time, attention and other cognitive tests. Both groups were also found to have abnormalities in their ability to inhibit or control impulses, but in very different ways. In real-world situations, the ADHD group had far more difficulty controlling their impulses, while the OCD group was better able to control these impulses than even the control group.
When people with OCD describe themselves as being impulsive, this is a subjective description and can mean that they haven't planned to the usual high degree, explains Prof. Dar.
Offering the right treatment
It's understandable why OCD symptoms can be mistaken for ADHD, Prof. Dar says. For example, a student in a classroom could be inattentive and restless, and assumed to have ADHD. In reality, the student could be distracted by obsessive thoughts or acting out compulsive behaviors that look like fidgeting.
"It's more likely that a young student will be diagnosed with ADHD instead of OCD because teachers see so many people with attention problems and not many with OCD. If you don't look carefully enough, you could make a mistake," cautions Prof. Dar. Currently, 5.2 million children in the US between the ages of 3 and 17 are diagnosed with ADHD, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, making it one of the most commonly diagnosed neuro-developmental disorders in children.
The correct diagnosis is crucial for the well-being and future trajectory of the patient, not just for the choice of medication, but also for psychological and behavioral treatment, and awareness and education for families and teachers.
Article retrieved from:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/254275.php
Image retrieved from:
http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x3915848/students_in_classroom_jape29684nn00.jpg
Thursday, December 6, 2012
What is Number Sense and How Does it Relate to Math Skills?
April 20, 2010 by Bill Jenkins, Ph.D
Let’s talk about the Approximate Number System, or just "the ANS." The ANS is the instinctive ability to nonverbally represent numbers. We constantly use this capability in every day decision making, such as choosing the shorter checkout line at the store or wanting to try a meal at a crowded restaurant. In these situations, our gut decisions are mathematically based. Evidence shows that many different species not only share this capacity, but use it to guide everyday behaviors such as foraging and judging time and distance.
So how does the ANS work in non-humans? Let’s do a little study of my two labs, Bella and Buddy. Both love to chase tennis balls, love to swim, and are highly competitive in the ball-chasing department. Buddy clearly exercises his ANS judgment routinely when I throw the ball into the water. If he and Bella approach the water’s edge at about the same time, they both jump in. On the other hand, if Bella beats him to the water by a significant distance, he recognizes instinctively that he can’t beat her to the ball in the water, so he’ll stop and wait until she brings it nearly to the shore. At that point, he jumps in and goes for the steal.
Why is the ANS important for math skills? It is believed that human mathematical competence comes from two representational systems. One is the "symbolic representations" that must be explicitly taught and are the basis for calculus and geometry. The other–the same one that Buddy uses above–is the older approximate number system. The evidence suggests that very young babies can use this ANS to make approximate number judgments, differentiating one item from two, two items from three and three items from greater than three. Further, a growing body of evidence indicates that individual differences in math achievement are related to variations in the acuity of an evolutionarily ancient, unlearned approximate number sense. Interestingly, evidence also suggests that this ANS may be subject to influence by early learning.
If you’d like to dig deeper into understanding the science of the ANS, I recommend reading Halberda and Feigernson’s 2008 study, "Developmental Change in the Acuity of the ’Number Sense’: The Approximate Number System in 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-Year-Olds and Adults." For an overview, The New York Times published a write up on the article and even included a link to an interactive, online activity that demonstrates the ANS in action.
Article retrieved from: http://www.scilearn.com/blog/number-sense-math-skills.php
Image retrieved from: http://www.georgeeliotdaycare.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/kids_counting_numbers.jpg
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Ultrasound and Autism
Written by: Dr. Michael Merzenich
A former UCSF medical student, Carolyn Rees, now a doc in rural Idaho, wrote me a very informative letter — and raised several interesting questions — that are definitely worth a little discussion here.
Dr. Rees asked: Is there any evidence that ultrasound examination can affect brain development?
In fact, that evidence is mixed. Over the past 10-15 years, a number of smaller studies conducted principally in North America recorded cognitive and language impairments in children that were attributable to ultrasound examination — while results in several other subsequent large studies conducted principally in the public health systems in Europe were negative.
On the other hand:
1) Elegant studies conducted in monkeys by an eminent brain scientist at Yale (Dr. Pasko Rakic) have shown that ultrasound exams result in an alteration of the normal, detailed organization of the cerebral cortex that specifically applies for neurons that are migrating into the cortex at the time of the exposure. In other words, across roughly the 2nd trimester of pregnancy when cortical layers are being formed, you can actually determine the time of administration of the ultrasound exam post hoc, by looking at the location of abnormally oriented neurons in the layers of the cerebral cortex.
Does this have a functional consequence for the brain?! No one really knows.
2) Seven or eight years ago, Sandy Blakeslee, a science reporter for the New York Times (and a long-time friend), sent me the reference to a study from a Mayo research team in Phoenix in which scientists had measured the levels of audible sound stimulation that bombards the fetus during an ultrasound exam. It turns out that in one part of an ultrasound examination the very high (“ultra”) frequency sound is “modulated” at low frequencies to generate the sharpest images. That modulation creates an audible sound that is very intense (greater than 100 decibels). It is not surprising that the third-trimester fetus — whose hearing is intact across this period — writhes in the womb when the beam moves onto the head! For the ultrasound machines investigated by the Mayo scientists, the highest sound energies transmitted to the fetus were centered in the range of frequencies that are most crucial for resolving the sounds of aural speech. You might note that any untoward consequence of an audible sound-induced exam would be limited to the third trimester, because the baby has no effective hearing until roughly the beginning of the 7th month of gestation.
I talked a doctoral student on a rotation project in my laboratory into studying the neurological impacts of simulating 1) a single exam in the third trimester; or 2) five exams — in both cases using the rat infant as our model. Simulation was relatively simple in the rat because, relative to the human baby, rats are born at a young age; their hearing is not intact until they are 11-12 days old. Sound stimuli designed to mimic sounds received by human fetuses in ultrasound exams were created with the help and advice of the Mayo Research Institute scientists. We played them to our rat babies shortly after they acquired hearing, exposing them for the measured times that would apply in a real exam(s).
Even these brief exposures to these loud sounds degraded the representation of sound frequencies in both rat groups. That degradation was especially striking in the multiply-exposed rats. Strong negative consequences of this exposure endured into adulthood. We were surprised by the magnitudes of these recorded effects. A single exposure was limited to 2 minutes (simulating the time the beam might be directed toward the human fetus’ head); multiple exposures involved only 10 minutes of total, intense-sound exposure, delivered in 5 time-separated epochs.
Five points to emphasize:
1) Given this outcome, ultrasound exposure may plausibly add to the risk of onset of a more devastating condition (e.g., autism) in an already-genetically-vulnerable fetus. It should be put on that short list of possible (unfortunately, STILL UNPROVEN) contributors to the increased rates of incidence of autism. As with the exposure to chemical poisons (non-coplanar PCBs; PBDEs), the use of ultrasound has increased dramatically over the past two decades, and third-trimester exams have become routine.
2) Ultrasound examinations have been shown to have little or no medical value in the third trimester. I was surprised to learn from the medical literature that they do not make any key contribution to medical decisions or significantly change medical outcomes over this period. It can be argued that they have considerable sociological value strengthening doctor-patient and parent-fetus relationships — which are undeniably important. But beyond that, excepting a tiny percentages of cases, they are an unnecessary aspect of prenatal care — unless you want a picture of fetal-Sissie or fetal-Junior hanging above the mantlepiece!
3) Boutique photography shops with ultrasound machines that can provide you with a crystal-clear picture of little Sally-fetus or Jerry, Jr-fetus would seem to this scientist to be more than a little bit over the top.
4) Guess who is in line for MULTIPLE ultrasonic exams? Those kids already at greatest risk for cognitive problems are high on this list. Alas.
5) Different ultrasound manufacturers use different strategies for modulating the ultrasound stimulation to generate the most-resolved images, and some generate more intensely audible sounds than others. I’ve had trouble running down these specs before writing this entry. I’ll contact the scientists in Phoenix and provide a table in a future entry.
A former UCSF medical student, Carolyn Rees, now a doc in rural Idaho, wrote me a very informative letter — and raised several interesting questions — that are definitely worth a little discussion here.
Dr. Rees asked: Is there any evidence that ultrasound examination can affect brain development?
In fact, that evidence is mixed. Over the past 10-15 years, a number of smaller studies conducted principally in North America recorded cognitive and language impairments in children that were attributable to ultrasound examination — while results in several other subsequent large studies conducted principally in the public health systems in Europe were negative.
On the other hand:
1) Elegant studies conducted in monkeys by an eminent brain scientist at Yale (Dr. Pasko Rakic) have shown that ultrasound exams result in an alteration of the normal, detailed organization of the cerebral cortex that specifically applies for neurons that are migrating into the cortex at the time of the exposure. In other words, across roughly the 2nd trimester of pregnancy when cortical layers are being formed, you can actually determine the time of administration of the ultrasound exam post hoc, by looking at the location of abnormally oriented neurons in the layers of the cerebral cortex.
Does this have a functional consequence for the brain?! No one really knows.
2) Seven or eight years ago, Sandy Blakeslee, a science reporter for the New York Times (and a long-time friend), sent me the reference to a study from a Mayo research team in Phoenix in which scientists had measured the levels of audible sound stimulation that bombards the fetus during an ultrasound exam. It turns out that in one part of an ultrasound examination the very high (“ultra”) frequency sound is “modulated” at low frequencies to generate the sharpest images. That modulation creates an audible sound that is very intense (greater than 100 decibels). It is not surprising that the third-trimester fetus — whose hearing is intact across this period — writhes in the womb when the beam moves onto the head! For the ultrasound machines investigated by the Mayo scientists, the highest sound energies transmitted to the fetus were centered in the range of frequencies that are most crucial for resolving the sounds of aural speech. You might note that any untoward consequence of an audible sound-induced exam would be limited to the third trimester, because the baby has no effective hearing until roughly the beginning of the 7th month of gestation.
I talked a doctoral student on a rotation project in my laboratory into studying the neurological impacts of simulating 1) a single exam in the third trimester; or 2) five exams — in both cases using the rat infant as our model. Simulation was relatively simple in the rat because, relative to the human baby, rats are born at a young age; their hearing is not intact until they are 11-12 days old. Sound stimuli designed to mimic sounds received by human fetuses in ultrasound exams were created with the help and advice of the Mayo Research Institute scientists. We played them to our rat babies shortly after they acquired hearing, exposing them for the measured times that would apply in a real exam(s).
Even these brief exposures to these loud sounds degraded the representation of sound frequencies in both rat groups. That degradation was especially striking in the multiply-exposed rats. Strong negative consequences of this exposure endured into adulthood. We were surprised by the magnitudes of these recorded effects. A single exposure was limited to 2 minutes (simulating the time the beam might be directed toward the human fetus’ head); multiple exposures involved only 10 minutes of total, intense-sound exposure, delivered in 5 time-separated epochs.
Five points to emphasize:
1) Given this outcome, ultrasound exposure may plausibly add to the risk of onset of a more devastating condition (e.g., autism) in an already-genetically-vulnerable fetus. It should be put on that short list of possible (unfortunately, STILL UNPROVEN) contributors to the increased rates of incidence of autism. As with the exposure to chemical poisons (non-coplanar PCBs; PBDEs), the use of ultrasound has increased dramatically over the past two decades, and third-trimester exams have become routine.
2) Ultrasound examinations have been shown to have little or no medical value in the third trimester. I was surprised to learn from the medical literature that they do not make any key contribution to medical decisions or significantly change medical outcomes over this period. It can be argued that they have considerable sociological value strengthening doctor-patient and parent-fetus relationships — which are undeniably important. But beyond that, excepting a tiny percentages of cases, they are an unnecessary aspect of prenatal care — unless you want a picture of fetal-Sissie or fetal-Junior hanging above the mantlepiece!
3) Boutique photography shops with ultrasound machines that can provide you with a crystal-clear picture of little Sally-fetus or Jerry, Jr-fetus would seem to this scientist to be more than a little bit over the top.
4) Guess who is in line for MULTIPLE ultrasonic exams? Those kids already at greatest risk for cognitive problems are high on this list. Alas.
5) Different ultrasound manufacturers use different strategies for modulating the ultrasound stimulation to generate the most-resolved images, and some generate more intensely audible sounds than others. I’ve had trouble running down these specs before writing this entry. I’ll contact the scientists in Phoenix and provide a table in a future entry.
Article retrieved from: http://merzenich.positscience.com/?p=52#more-52
Image retrieved from: http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2012/08/sarah_parenting/ultrasound.jpg
