User talk:Dolfrog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi dolfrog.
I made some recent edits to the ADP article (mainly 'definition'). I would like you to have a look and maybe give your input/critique, if you have the time of course, as I know you have much knowledge in this area.
Thanks
Gerard Duncan 22:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I hope you can work things out and are feeling better soon. Armarshall 15:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] New Navigation Template
Dolfrog -- your contributions to my Template:Dyslexia are very welcome, but Rosmoran has now suggested an alternative template which he is constructing in his user sandbox here: User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox. I much prefer a collaborative effort so I'd rather we all worked together following Rosmoran's lead. I wanted to let you know so that you don't waste time editing a template that may later be abandoned. You will see my comments about Rosmoran's suggestions on his user discussion page. Armarshall 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dolfrog,
- I'm not trying to create a USA only template. Quite the contrary. What would need to be included in the template to cover the areas you think have been left out?
- Best,
- Rosmoran 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dyslexia navigation template
Hi, Dolfrog.
I just noticed your comments in my dyslexia navigation sandbox. For some reason my "Watchlist" isn't always showing me when changes are made to my personal pages, so I missed them. Thank you for reviewing it and taking the time to respond.
I am not ignoring your comments --- I'm going through them now to try to figure out what changes you're suggesting. I'll probably have questions, and will be back to your Talk page to ask them.
Best,
Rosmoran 17:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your comments and suggestions
Hi, Dolfrog.
Thank you again for going through and detailing your concerns. It looks to me like your comments are mainly about the article and not so much about the navigation template itself --- yes?
Of course, the navigation template must reflect the content of the article, but I'm thinking it would be a good idea for me to get clear on your issues with the content of the article first. Is that OK with you?
To make sure I understand what you're saying, I created a summary of your comments, including my understanding of what you mean and any questions I have. These follow.
Definitions section
- Need definitions of developmental dyslexia and acquired dyslexia.
- I don't know what you mean by "Social dyslexia" and "Environmental dyslexia?"
- Keep the World Health Organization definition of dyslexia. Put national and other definitions on a separate Definitions page.
- We need a genaral defintion of dyslexia free from political and professionally skew input, something like:
- Dyslexia is about having problems using the cutlural visual notations of speech. There are many cultural variations in speech language, and is also reflected in the variations in the the Visual Notation of speech can present.
Names of theories
- There is duplication in these theories.
- Need to decide which names of theories to feature and which names to include in brackets as "AKAs".
- Question: I'm not quite following you here. Can you clarify? Which theories should I read, and where are they located? Or do you just mean the subsections on the Dyslexia page?
Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis a duplicate of APD
- Which term do you think we should use? should we put an "AKA" somewhere?
Include effect of Welsh language orthography
- Question: Where can I get information about this?
Speech, hearing and listening
- Question: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying on these, other than they need to be sorted out. I know that I don't really understand how all of the different speech skills and disorders inter-relate, so I definitely cannot sort this out on my own. Help!
- Can you help me figure out what info should be included in the article, and what info we should link out to?
Practical problems related to Dyslexia
- Create a section for topics reading, writing, spelling and maths.
- Question: I'm not sure whether these should be considered symptoms of dyslexia --- is that how they are addressed in the UK? In the US they are typically considered to be different, although related, disorders. Though even in the US many organizations and researchers are very vague on this point.
- How do you think we should handle this?
List of programs/ therapies should include:
- Description of what each program type could provide
- List all programs along with links to Wiki articles or external links to web pages.
- Make clear each program's country of origin, and alternative names if they have different names in different countries.
Facts and statistics
- This should be integrated in another section, most statisticsl always seem to be disputed especially accross international boundaries.
Legal and educational support issues
- Have a look at my old web site (still needs revamping, but some of the US linkls could be useful http://capdlinks.homestead.com/IEP_Law_LD_Resourses.html.
Does it seem to you that I'm getting the gist of your comments?
Look forward to your reply,
Best
Rosmoran 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response to comments
Hi, Dolfrog.
Thanks for the comments! I noticed a couple of them as I was browsing through my watchlist history. I'm very interested in your comments on the reading articles in particular. There are quite a few articles that have overlapping content, and I think it'll take a group of folks collaborating to address the issue in a global and non-partisan way. :-)
Talk with you soon,
Rosmoran 05:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dyslexia links
Dolfrog, thanks for the suggestion, but I am familiar with the web site you suggested - http://www.dys-add.com/ -- and I know from experience that it is full of all sorts of misinformation and false statements, especially about research. So it is NOT a good starting point for looking up research, because when you look things up... it turns out that a lot of the information is inaccurate. So it just is not a reliable source and you can end up wasting a lot of time trying to find a "study" it mentions only to find out that the study never existed. Anyway, the bottom line is that it is a commercial site trying to slant its information to the tutoring program it promotes.
So I personally would rather start directly from the journals -- I use a lot of RSS feeds & subscription services to keep me updated about new research - such as Science Daily or Eurekalert - and then when I see something interesting I just go directly to the journal where it has been published and pull off the full report. (You need access to an academic database to get the full studies; fortunately I have that -- but if you don't have it, when you find the abstracts to the articles they always list a contact person, and usually if you email that person and ask for a copy of the report, they will be happy to send it.)
I think the study that you were waiting for could be the one described here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/chb-str103007.php Armarshall 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I disagree with Arm's assessment of Bright Solutions' website that it slants information toward their program. It does describe O-G interventions and present information supporting their efficacy. It is true that Susan Barton developed an O-G intervention program --- the Barton Reading and Spelling Program -- that is very true to O-G principles. If that amounts to the site promoting her "commercial" program, OK. But since she provides information about a number of O-G programs, I cannot fault the site for mentioning her program as well.
- That said, I agree with Arm that her website isn't the place for updates on the most recent research. Her site is really targeted to the uninitiated. I would be interested in hearing what portions of her site she considers to provide false information. I'm no researcher, but I haven't seen any misrepresentation on her site, and I've known about it for years.
- Incidentally, the Barton program is unique in that it is designed so that parents and volunteer tutors can begin providing the needed intervention immediately without having years of O-G training *first*. Parents are often left in a bind because of the scarcity of trained academic language therapists, or because they cannot afford to hire one. This gives those parents with a kid who can't read a chance to help the child quickly. If your kid can't read, you don't have time to spend 2 years getting training. Barton's video-based training keeps the tutor a few lessons ahead of the student. Oh, and by the way, the program works beautifully.
- Rosmoran 22:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)