Dear Glen,
My approach to research into LD is coloured by my position as teacher of stu=
dents - some diagnosed as LD, some not, but suspected and others seemingly w=
ith more mild LD. 
For a teacher, there is not only the question of diagnosing LD and choosing=
 appropriate teaching models, but also the fact that the class is in front o=
f you and you have to do something. Hence teachers do "grab and try" hopeful=
 ideas.
This year I will work on an action research project - the team will consist=
 of the Literacy teachers at my school, a few university education students=
 doing their pre-service teaching practicum and a university teacher as crii=
cal friend. 
As mentioned in my earlier posting, this year my school will put in place a=
 model of teaching Literacy that we hope will meet the learning needs of all=
 students. If we are successful, our LD students - officially diagnosed or n=
ot - will bebefit. 
Our reasearch project will be a study of this model in operation and the lea=
rning outcomes achieved by the students.
Would like opinions on the usefulness of such a study.
 
Regards,
Jennifer Clancy
Literacy teacher, coordinator
Hoppers Crossing Secondary College
Melbourne, Australia

________________________________

From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Glenn Young
Sent: Tue 16/01/2007 1:07 AM
To: 'The Learning Disabilities Discussion List'
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 863] Re: Priorities for Research inthe LDFiel=
d



I would suggest that any university level book on what is needed in human
research and how to control for all the various factors involved in doing
research would be helpful for anyone concerned with the field to look and
consider

However ... As I have read and seen ... Almost all works on LD are based in
gender, race and class  myths ... However some works have been developed
through the Hampton Institute years ago on how to better evaluate African
American students ...

This jumping to the article about noise and having almost no one reply to my
posting to me once again shows that this list serve seems to be driven by
emotions and hope rather then logic and solid research ...

Until this fields stop chasing the latest fade based in bad research ... The
field will continue to fail themselves and all the students they are looking
to help

-----Original Message-----
From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Andrea Wilder
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 3:41 PM
To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 859] Re: Priorities for Research inthe
LDField

Hi Glenn,

Sorry to be so late in replying to this.

i wonder if there are articles, books, that you have found particularly
good?  As a person with LD, your knowledge of the field can be very useful
to us.,

Andrea


On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Glenn Young wrote:


> To the List

>

> All the points raised in the discussion of research are valid and

> needed --- however there are clearly things that need to be addressed

> in research that is not being mentioned in this discussion so far ---

> so while all the points are needed .. And I agree with them -- we need

> to look at bigger picture stuff first.

>

> The basic reason for looking at the bigger piece first is that unless

> we do, we will continue the "selection bias" that is inherent in

> almost all research on LD ... And this selection bias is based on

> myths about LD that continue to persist and therefore taint the

> selection and assignment pools into any research project ... In

> addition using the current systems of LD identification (which the US

> Dept of ED no longer supports) continues the myth that schools are

> appropriately identifying the LD population and that we can rely on

> their selections for the follow up research ... The Shaywitz and other

> studies have proven that we can not rely on the schools for proper or

> complete LD identification ... Which is often based more on money than

> anything else, and historically has miss extensive numbers of persons

> who are LD and who are females, poor, ELL (English Language Learners)

> and persons of color ....

>

> Therefore -- in order to know what works for persons with LD ... We

> need to properly identify those with LD - All those with LD, not based

> on school identifications  ...  And include them in the research pools

> (as NICHD did in their studies). We simple must stop having studies

> that say  ... We looked at 47 white middle class boys and 4 girls ...

> And say that the findings of the study have any validity for anything

> more then 47 white middle class boys ....

>

> And we can not properly identify those with LD based on the out of

> date, racist and sexist "expectation models" nor on the racist and

> sexist "discrepancy model" which has historically failed to identify

> so many females with LD and also would classify a person of color with

> the same profile as a white person as being MR and the white LD ...

>

> So --- in other words --- the first thing we really need to do is

> develop LD identification tools that eliminate racist sexist, classist

> and language issues from the process (MIR's for ALL would be great)

> but there are other ways ... At least we need to develop means that

> lessen the racist, sexist and classist determinations by using such

> tools as regression scales

> -- but

> the main point is that first piece of research that we really need is

> to develop ways and means of properly identifying all those with LD

> and to make sure that all those with LD are included in selection

> pools for testing of theories ....

>

> As a real starting point in research we need to test what we think we

> know based on the old models and what we think we know from more

> current research of the past decades.  What we think we now know from

> the more current research is that those with LD fall into 9 general

> categories, with subsections for each and also a 10th subsection of

> "outliers" who don't fit into the general categories.

>

> These broad categories are:

>

> 1) Those with LD identified in schools and get proper and successful

> services and go on to achieve a productive academic and vocational

> life

> 2) Those with LD identified in schools and get moderately successful

> services and go on to achieve a moderately successful academic and

> vocational life

> 3) Those with LD who interventions in school are unsuccessful and they

> go to a relatively unsuccessful academic and vocational success

> 4) Those with LD not identified in schools, nor later in life, and

> receive no services for LD and go on to achieve a highly productive

> academic and vocational life

> 5) Those with LD not identified in schools, nor later in life, and go

> on to achieve a moderately successful academic and vocational life

> 6) Those with LD not identified in school, nor later in life, who go

> to a relatively unsuccessful academic and vocational success

> 7) Those with LD not identified in schools, and receive no services

> for LD and go on to achieve a highly productive academic and

> vocational life, and identified with LD later in life.

> 8) Those with LD not identified in schools, and receive no services

> for LD and go on to achieve a moderately successful academic and

> vocational life and identified later in life.

> 9) Those with LD not identified in school, and receive no services for

> LD who go to a relatively unsuccessful academic and vocational success

> and are identified later in life.

> 10) Outliers from each of the groups and others who don't fit into any

> of the profiles

>

> In addition, in section 7, 8 and 9 there would be subsets for each in

> which late life LD identification has little, moderate and extensive

> impact on the person's academic and vocational life.

>

>       Also -- the exogenous factor of co-morbidity with other disabilities

> needs to be incorporated into each of the     groups (ADHD, OCD, etc)

>

>       Also - the exogenous factor of family structure and support, and

> family wealth need to be incorporated for each        group

>

> Based on the conflicts that currently exist in LD identification and

> the need for programs such as schools to protect themselves there

> would be great controversy on what percent of the LD population fits

> into each of these categories.

>

> However, from what we can tell from the existing research when looked

> at in total, - not just following those identified in schools, but

> looking at the total population of LD, including those found in

> welfare programs, adult literacy, etc who have never been identified, 

> ... It would appear (and this is best guess - not solid)

>

>       That the vast minority of those with LD fall into categories 1 and 4



> ...

>

>               It appears the most likely upwards of 90% of those with LD

> fall into the moderately successful or those not              achieving

> success categories ...

>               And upwards of 66% falling into the categories dealing with

those

> never 4-6 - never identified ....

>

> This is a best guess --- so the key research that really needs to be

> done it to test this concept that under the current system of support

> the overwhelming persons with LD are not being successful - or to

> prove the opposite ...

>

> If the findings show that the projection is true (most persons with LD

> are not doing well) the question needs to be asked

>

>       What is the economic impact of this "LD failure" -  This question is

> actually far more paramount then all others -         since if we can show

> extensive economic impact, then resource will be forth coming ... If

> we can

> not show economic     impact there would be no reason to increase support

> for efforts.

>

> Then if we can show economic impact then we need to ask -- what can we

> do differently to increase outcomes? So the next research questions

> needs to

> be:

>

>       What are the interventions, at what age and under what conditions,

> that can increase success for all persons with        LD, and how do the

> factors

> of race, gender, age, class, language and other factors (family

> support,

> informed      consumer, etc)impact various approaches

>

> Then, only then, can we start to ask the questions being asked in the

> other responses to this research questions ... So ... The research

> agenda must deal with the "Macro" first  --- who pays for this? ...

> Well you didn't ask that question, just what was needed ....

>

> As a final plea, we need to change the paradigm, filled with racism,

> sexism and such, that has got us into this mess.  Unless we do, we

> will only waste money on research that will continue to re-enforce

> myths about LD.

>

> OK --- enough .. Look forward to response ...

>

>

> Glenn Young

> 530 Auburn Ave.

> Buffalo, New York 14222

> Ph. and Fax 716-882-2842

> Cell 703-864-3755

> e-mail gyoungxlt at adelphia.net

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov

> [mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Susan

> Jones

> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:31 AM

> To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List

> Subject: [LearningDisabilities 838] Re: Priorities for Research in the

> LDField

>

> Personally I think public and professional awareness is lagging behind

> the research... so I'd love some research about that just to shed more

> light on whether I"m right or not :)

>

>

> Susan Jones

> Academic Development Specialist

> Academic Development Center

> Parkland College

> Champaign, IL  61821

> sujones at parkland.edu

> Webmastress,

> http://www.resourceroom.net <http://www.resourceroom.net/> 

> http://bicyclecu.blogspot.com <http://bicyclecu.blogspot.com/> 

>

>

>>>> Andrea Wilder <andreawilder at comcast.net> 1/4/2007 8:14 PM >>>

> Rochelle--

>

> This would be a subheading under a purpose of , say, "Increasing

> literacy."

>

> You are being kind--I'm trying to think this through.  What would we

> say about learning disabilities?  First would be something like: 

> "test

>

> and diagnose any learning disabilities."  This might be good to start

> with.

>

> Now, on the research part--actually, we should compile what we DO

> know,

>

> so we know what we don't  have, what questions still need to be

> researched.

>

> (Maybe i should go to bed.)

>

> Thanks for asking this, an excellent exercise.

>

> OK--literacy--do we need to define this?

>

> Andrea

>

> On Jan 4, 2007, at 8:38 PM, RKenyon721 at aol.com wrote:

>

>>

>> Andrea,

>>

>> Why don't we look at Literacy and Learning Disabilities, the topic of

>

>> our Discussion List.  That will narrow the "field" considerably.

>>

>> What do you think?

>>

>> Rochelle

>>

>>

>>

>> Hi Rochelle

>>

>> This is a great question.  First, it seems to me, we need to define

>> the scope of the field, its purpose, then we will be able to figure

>> out research questions.

>>

>> Andrea

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Rochelle Kenyon, Ed.D., Project Trainer LD Academies Project

>> 6315 Capstan Court

>> Rockledge, Florida 32955-5765

>> Telephone: 321.637.1319

>> Fax: 321.637.1920

>> Email: RKenyon721 at aol.com

>>  ----------------------------------------------------

>> National Institute for Literacy

>> Learning Disabilities mailing list

>> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

>> Message sent to andreawilder at comcast.net.

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Learning Disabilities mailing list

> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

> Message sent to GYOUNGXLT at comcast.net.

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Learning Disabilities mailing list

> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

> Message sent to andreawilder at comcast.net.

>


----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Learning Disabilities mailing list
LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
Message sent to GYOUNGXLT at comcast.net.

----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Learning Disabilities mailing list
LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www=
.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
Message sent to clancy.jennifer.c at edumail.vic.gov.au.



Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received=
 in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using=
 attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, dam=
age or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, r=
esulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liabi=
lity is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations=
 or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessari=
ly those of the Department of Education.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20070116/33ebb09d/attachment.html