User talk:Rosmoran
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Reverting on Phonics Page
Hello again Rosmoran. I am reverting your "needs citation" and "original research" tags to the phonics page. Synthesizing extant information is not the same as creating new claims. In Adams' book, she gives a detailed history of the controversy to that point. In the NRC book, Snow, Burns, and Griffin again give a history of the controversy to that point, so the claim of original research is unfounded. Those sources are the sources from which the information was taken.
Let me be frank that I am a little concerned about the frequency with which you are tagging articles as unreferenced or as original research. I think that in many cases you are correct, but that in others, it does not seem appropriate. If you are concerned about a lack of references, I might humbly suggest that you find these references yourself so that these articles are not consumed and abased by these tags. It seems to me that you know a great deal about these topics, so this seems perfectly appropriate. If we want people to use Wikipedia as a source of information about literacy, and I think that they should, given the quality of some of the articles in this area, we need to fix articles instead of merely marking them up with tags that make them look like the work of amateurs, which in many cases they are not.
If you would like to examine a page that contains original research, you might look at NuEnglish or Reading education, both of which--in my view--embody the problem with original research. In fact, I have long considered rewriting the reading education page, but have not yet done so. As you recommended on the literacy page, the literacy instruction section could be separated and, I think, could replace the original research (and the non-encyclopedic style) on the Reading Education page. I would be interested in your views on this, but I think it is most important for you to see a page that exemplifies that "Original research" problem regardless of whether you think the literacy instruction content could replace the OR on the reading education page.
Best, Kearnsdm 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additional request
It would also be most helpful if you added some commentary on the talk page of the article to which you were adding OR tags. I believe we discussed the importance of this before, and you seemed to take the idea seriously then. It would be great for everyone if you were able to explain your rationale for your tags. Unlike a "no source" tag, an OR tag is ambiguous without explanation. Many thanks and best, Kearnsdm 15:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] [Alphabetic principle]
Hi there. I wanted to let you know that I am going to revert your edits to that page because they're incomplete. They don't seem incorrect, but it is probably not appropriate to leave a half-written page there instead of that is, however incomplete, not inaccurate. I look forward to seeing the complete rewrite! Best, Kearnsdm 06:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Follow up
Rosmoran, thank you also for your message. Let me first clarify that I did not intend the reversion as permanent. As soon as you find the time to complete the edit, you should do so! It seemed, by way of logic rather than merely by policy, that it makes sense to have pages look finished so that readers and not discouraged about their content by way of their appearance.
With regard to editing policy, Wikipedia also states that
-
- With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments.
To clarify, it is not my habit to cite or rely only on policy. I am a proponent of conversation--just like this one!--but I added this because you asked. Now that we've had the conversation, I imagine you are more earnest about finishing the edit anyhow and all of this discussion will shortly be irrelevant. I look forward to a more detailed explanation of the alphabetic principle! Take care and feel free to write, Kearnsdm 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC).
Information about qualifying for special education. Need to create a subordinate article to Special Education in the US.
[edit] Dyslexia Table of Contents
Hi Rosmoran
I've been doing a quick edit to the contents table of the dyslexia article in my sandbox [[1]] (something to work towards?). I was wondering if you would like to take a look at it if you have the time and give some input as to what I may have missed, what can be taken out and what sections could possibly be merged etc., before it is proposed in the talk section of the Dyslexia article. If you think it is completely off, that's fine, just let me know!
--Orbidsku 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Orbidsku. I hope you really did want feedback! :-)
I'll start with the Condensed version:
Collapsed version:
>Before the overview would be the "lead section," right? Or is the lead section what you call the overview?
* Overview * History * Definition * Research * Characteristics * Theories of Developmental Dyslexia * Political-Social Issues * Controversy * See also * References * External links
I like your overall organization, and you've certainly covered the main aspects of the topic. The only thing I would question at this level is the order of the first 3 sections. Here's why:
One of the things I keep running up against is defining our audience for this article. There's a contingent on the dyslexia talk page who feel strongly that the primary audience will be people who are dyslexic. Not to put too fine a point on it, they're wrong. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. In the Wiki principle and guideline articles, you see again and again references to a typical print encyclopedia. One guideline that I personally find useful is, when you wonder whether some piece of information should be included, ask yourself, "Is it something I would expect to see in an encyclopedia?" Another one is, "Remember that, although you will be familiar with the subject you are writing about, readers of Wikipedia may not be ....."
While I agree that dyslexic individuals may well come to Wikipedia for "deep" information, that doesn't mean that we should present the detailed or theoretical information right up front. People coming to the topic don't need full theoretical or historical background to understand the basics: what dyslexia is and how it typically manifests itself in terms of visible symptoms. Even this will be a revelation for most of the general public, >70% of whom still define dyslexia as "seeing things backwards."
Likewise, the experience of the dyslexic is an important topic. Again, that's not likely to be the first thing needed by someone who is not already familiar with dyslexia.
That said, we don't have to limit ourselves to the scope of a print encyclopedia. The beauty of the online encyclopedia is that it doesn't have the physical limits that a paper encyclopedia does, so you can plan to go very deep into the topic. The beauty of the series/Summary Style structure is that it makes it very easy to layer information --- beginning with the most general, basic information, followed by "intermediate" topics in summary style, with in-context links to the really complex information right there for easy access.
One solution to this would be to include the very basic information in the Overview section.
Expanded version:
Dyslexia article
* Lead section * Overview
o Include the most basic information for the truly uninformed. The "birdseye" view.
o Dispel the myth that dyslexia is "seeing things backward." Explain that, the basis of the problem is that brain processing information differently.
o Most common manifestations.
o No cure, but there are interventions that can remediate basic academic skills, and other treatments that can reduce the impact dyslexia has on day-to-day life.
* History
* Definition
o Commonly Accepted Definitions
unBiased summary, which can be somewhat of an amalgamation of the current ones
Yes! I am most definitely with you on this one! May be tough to get consensus on, though.
o Nominal Types of Dyslexia
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "nominal."
Minimal summary paragraph with link/s to other article/s if needed.
Another big "yes!"
+ Phonological Issues
+ Visual Issues
+ Rapid Automatic Naming
* Research
Minimal summary of each with link/s to other article/s if needed.
+ 3.2.1 Genetic Factors
+ 3.2.2 Physiology
+ 3.2.3 Effect of language orthography
* Characteristics
What level of information are you thinking of here? If you're talking about primary manifestations, this might be better placed higher in the structure.
* Theories of Developmental Dyslexia
Minimal summary of each with link to main "theory article/s".
+ The Phonological Theory
+ The Rapid Auditory Processing Theory
+ The Visual Theory
+ The Cerebellar Theory
+ The Magnocellular Theory
+ Perceptual Noise Exclusion Hypothesis
* Political-Social Issues
>Possible new section: I would also like to see a section that discusses the overall impact on the affected individual, at the highest level. Long term effects of academic failure, including loss of self-esteem, believing that you are "stupid," sense of shame at being unable to do what most other people do easily, anxiety about being "exposed", fear of humiliation, social difficulty with peers, etc. Longer-term impact on adults, how it affects day-to-day life, jobs, parenting, etc.
* Controversy
Breif summary of the issues.
* See also
* References
* External links
Needs to be looked at as some of the links seem to be comercial?
Most definitely, anything that's for sale shouldn't be on the page.
o 13.1 Historical
o 13.2 Research Papers and Articles
o 13.3 Regional associations and organizations
o 13.4 Support Groups and Organisations
o 13.5 Remedial Program Providers
">Before the overview would be the "lead section," right? Or is the lead section what you call the overview?" Yes of course, the "lead section" would go before the overview. I guess I took that for granted. The overview would be as you said, "Include the most basic information for the truly uninformed. The "birdseye" view."
Your first point about "defining the audience" I don't think that is something that is up for debate, as you say, Wikipedia is first and foremost a wikipedia, which is for everyone as the guidelines clearly state. Which I guess people need to understand does not mean exluding dyslexics, which I get the slight impression some people on the talk page may think that entails, but its not valid and wiki is for all.
Second point, yes ofcourse, most obvious and pertainent information up front, as said before, its for everyone with the option to learn more, with linked articles etc.
I think we can remove "Nominal" from types of dyslexia, that is an artifact from the old ToC.
Characteristics What level of information are you thinking of here? I was thinking along the lines of similar information that is in the that section of article at the moment, but MUCH shorter and as nuetral as possible, seondary manifestations rather than primary, if the sources are good enough. I would hope the primary manifestations would be covered in the preceding sections.
I said unBiased summary, which can be somewhat of an amalgamation of the current ones under Definition, should that be sourced with all the current definitions?
>Possible new section: Yes, that sounds relivant, could that be included as a sub-section to "Political-Social Issues" or do you think it would be better with its own section? I imagine that could be covered with a short but acceptible summary with good cites for further explaination?
--Orbidsku 13:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Project
I'm guessing the project you mentioned on my talk page is the Dyslexia project proposal. I can understand how the Medicine project might consider itself undermanned, given the breadth of its scope. I also appreciate your interest in trying to work as a subproject of another project, and would like to see it work if you got the two additional members to show sufficient evidence to set up as a workgroup/task force. I'm guessing the best way to proceed right now, according to the note you mentioned, would be to wait until the group gets the five members. Then, according to the rules, even Medicine might be willing to set you up as a subproject, particularly if by doing so they could potentially increase their own membership. But I do think existing groups would look upon the request much more favorably if they saw that the group already had enough members to function. John Carter 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
[edit] Wikiprojects
Hello Rosmoran! Sorry for the late answer, I've been away for a while due to my exams... So the main problem with Wikipedia (especially with the medical part of it) is the lack of enthusiasm. If you get some comments about not to create a child project for your tasks, then describe on the talk page of Wikiproject:Medicine what your plans are exactly about. If you won't get a negative answer in a week, I think you can start the work. You know well: be bold!. :) NCurse work 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dyslexia Page
I'm still around and interested in continuing work on the dyslexia page. I was just letting things gel in my mind for awhile - the "research" section needs a rewrite but I'm not quite sure of the best way to approach it. Armarshall 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sami, Thanks for your message to me in regards to asking me to stay on the Dyslexia wikipedia project. You made me feel very welcome. As a person with a history of Dyslexia and other conditions(Dyspraxia and ADHD) that often comorbid with it,I want to contribute in some way to help my fellow Dyslexic. However, just one person who is hostile,rants,and is condescending to others is making difficult for me to contribute. I admit that I am person who can be a bit of a hothead,and so I can anger easily. I am extremely sensitive,and so the bad side of that is that my feelings get hurt easily. I am not sure if that's part of my Dyspraxia or ADHD or my INFP(Introverted Intuitive Feeling Perceiver) personality profile or my need for Omega 3 fatty acids. I just can't stand people condescending,patronizing people who ran their views down people's throats,and that is what dolfrog does. I am glad that I am not the only person who thinks that he is doing that. I have diagnoses of Dyslexia,Dyspraxia,and ADHD, and I don't need dolfrog telling me what I have and don't have. I know what I have,and I have read articles and books about my conditions. I have talked to professionals,and they listened. I got my diagnoses. I even believe in Dr. Levinson's inner ear disorder connection to Dyslexic Syndrome,and I was diagnosed as having cerebellar vestibular dysfunction by him. He understood me very much. It was his testing results that got the Veteran Affairs neurologist to test me for Dyslexia and Dyspraxia and got me diagnosed as having those conditions. I am sorry that dolfrog didn't get diagnosed until he was 42 years old,and so didn't get early intervention. I was diagnosed as having auditory dyslexia at 4 years old,and I got early intervention and that's why I am able to use words. I have had special education,auditory therapy,speech therapy,and phonics. They helped correct most of the Dyslexia that I became competent in language. It didn't correct all the Dyslexia..I still had the memory,organization,left/right confusion,and sequention,direction issues which dolfrog says has nothing to do with Dyslexia but it does. It also has to do with Dyspraxia too. I have the problems with eye coordination,tracking including problems with saccades,pursuits that are connected to Dyslexia. Like Dyslexics, I do think in pictures. The Veteran Affairs neuropsychologist confirmed that I am a strong visual thinker. The veteran affairs neurologists confirmed that I have Dyslexia and Dyspraxia. dolfrog thinks that he knows more about me than myself and the people that tested me. I know what are my issues in regards to my Dyslexia and my Dyspraxia. I don't need him telling me and preaching to the choir. here is my testing that I had done from 2004 to 2006 in regards to my Dyslexia,Dyspraxia,and ADHD. http://astynaz.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album01 I just don't feel welcome on the Dyslexia wikipedia site as long as dolfrog is on it. I wish you and the other contributors the best of luck in making Dyslexia wikipedia the best. Thanks again for your kindness. I also want to show how dolfrog has been patronizing and condescending to me on alt.support.Dyslexia. He talks to me like I am ignorant child. Then he references me in a different post. He uses me as an example of how a person needs to find the causes of his Dyslexia and how I got APD. http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.support.dyslexia/browse_thread/thread/2245ecbb7f42d8d1?hl=en http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.support.dyslexia/browse_thread/thread/7bdd3f4045c0aaf7?hl=en I just feel that people need to see that dolfrog is condescending,patronizing on not just Dyslexia wikipedia but other sites as well. People with strong ideological views who disregard other's views and hurts people with their words are people that I prefer not to deal with. Raymond Andrews Satabishara 14:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Learning Disabilities template
I really like your template and would definitely be fine with withdrawing mine in favor of yours, but there are some topics left off of yours that I would want included, and here are my reasons:
1) Vision: Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome - Asfedia - Visual Dyslexia - Tinted Lensesn
I don't think that the vision issues are strictly "learning disabilities" but I did see that the "dyslexia" topic seemed like a magnet for all sorts of proponents of vision therapy/specialized lenses -- and I think that the only way to keep them separate is to provide them with a place to go and a way to navigate to them. When it comes to the issue of reading difficulties, vision really is an important part of the process -- I mean, if your eyes can't focus on the page because you are sensitive to glare or contrast or color, then reading is tough. So I think it should be part of the "broader scope" topic.
2) Treatments: Brain Gym - Special education - Orton-Gillingham - Lindamood LiPS - Davis Dyslexia Correction - Fast ForWord - Dore/DDAT - Auditory integration training - Neurofeedback
I do think it is important to include links to therapies (or "treatments" or "interventions") - since an important part of the issue of dealing with learning disabilities is to know what the common treatments are. FWIW, the criteria I used in coming up with the above list was simply those therapies that had existing Wikipedia articles to link to -- although I think the Lindamood LiPS article is only a stub. Some of the articles do a good job of laying out pros & cons of controversial treatments as well - so there is a value in linking to them even if some people are skeptical. (For example, see the Dore/DDAT article)
3) Scientific Research Phonological deficit - Magnocellular Deficit - Perceptual noise exclusion
I think this is badly titled, but I did want a way to link to the articles about the various research trends, especially since the dyslexia article got rather bogged down with dolfrog's attempt to summarize the various research views. I'd rather see the dyslexia article summarize the theories in a briefer fashion.
Additionally, there could be a value to linking to articles on reading instruction or reading education -- the reason I haven't included them is that there are a bunch, but they seem to be poorly written in terms of wikipedia standard. See, for example, Reading Education - I think that article is a mess -- so I don't want to include poor quality articles in the navigational template.
As to your suggestion as to withholding the dyslexia template from other articles - that is fine with me -- I believe that there is a way with wikipedia that we can make one article automatically refer to another, so that if we had the incorporation of Template:Dyslexia could automatically pull up Template:Learning Disabilities instead. So I won't undo what I already have done unless you feel it is important -- though I have no objection to your deleting the template from the articles where you think it is inappropriate.
One more thing: feel free to change the color scheme if you want. I have noticed that many of the navigational templates follow a more muted scheme than the colors I chose -- so it may be more appropriate to wikipedia standard to go for a different set of colors. I'm a web designer and tend to go with brighter colors on my own sites, but that's a habit not a preference and I certainly don't want to detract from wikipedia standard by an inadvertent choice.
-Abigail
[edit] Reply to message (family metaphor)
I understand what you are getting at with the metaphor of different levels of family -- though I am not quite sure how to incorporate it into navigational templates. I think part of the problem is that there are a lot of overlapping disciplines and points of view when we try to define dyslexia. From a practical standpoint, I'm just looking at a tool to unite various topics without having to include them all in the same article.
An no, I don't live in Austin - sorry. Austin area IDA is one of the larger, more influential branches & I know some people actively involved with them, but no direct connection. Armarshall 08:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Arm
I must apologise for my absence but I am having problems with my arm injuries, which has alnmost stopped my from typing just recently.
Regarding your comment above regarding the Template, I wouls agree with much of what you have saids, but may be for different reasons at times.
First your comments 2) regarding programs i would agree that we need to include programs that do provide some support for some dyslexics, and even thought I loath the marketing tactics etc of Dore/DDAT, the program does help a small group of dyslexics and therefore shopuld be included somewhere. But direct links to these companies web sites could infer that we endorse the program which is something completely different. So how toi gewt around this could be a problem. This why I tend to look to the independent peer reviewed research community to provide a clearer defintion of the all the potential underlying causes of the dyslexic symptoms, so that the program providoers have to stipulate which of these underlying causes that thier particular program addreses.
Next 3)The Scientific part. The scientific researchers always want their particular theory or hypothesis to be the one and on;ly theory of dyslexia, which is where they all go wrong. There are multiple causes of the dyslexic symptoms an this will always be the case because text is the visual njotation of an auditory communication system, and so there will always be a visual and/or an auditory element to having problems using and accessing text. So dyslexia is only a learning difficulty while we use taxt as our main form of communication especially for teaching and learning. However the underlying issues that may cause the dyslexic symptoms suxh as Scoptic Sensitivity, APD, and other medicla issues will be a barrier to learning regardless of whether we retain text as our main form of communication. So we need to explain the various Peer Reviewed Scientific Theories of Dyslexia. They all have some relevance. And some try to unify some previous theories, So it would serve us well toi include some of the older theories which may serve to inform as to how the newer unifying theory was derived, and link up with the understanding of waht many may have had regarding dyslexia so that they cam follow thw progress being made by researchers. (Personally I do not favour one theory over another, I just want to demonstrate the diversity of causes of dyslexia and get away from the marketing ideal of one single cause of dyslexia, which causes untold harm and expense to millions who pay out for the various support programs many of which do not measure up to or come closeto their marketing claims) So we need to differentiate between science used to support marketing, and Peer Reviewed Scientific Research. And yes we have companies in the UK that make outragious claims to be THE cure for dyslexia, when intruth they only help about 5 - 10% of dyslexics at best. ( There are a few of these programs discussed on a UK adult dyslexic forum at http://beingdyslexic.co.uk/forums/index.php?showforum=34 ) So may be there is a need for seperate "The Science of Dyslexia" article
which come back to your point 1) There are many underlying causes of dyslexia, so we should include a bref description of each type, even if they are not part of the developemtal variation of dyslexia so that there is at least an initial broad defintion of waht dyslexia can encompass, we can the state that the rest of the article will concentrate on waht is called developemtatal dyslexia, while providing links to articles for the other potential underlying issues. The only altenative it to change the title of the article to "Developmental Dyslexia". So may be the first question to be decided is, the title of the article either the present "Dyslexia" or "Developmental Dyslexia".
If we opt for Dyslexia than we have to define all types of dyslexia, including developmental dyslexia
If we opt for "Developmental Dyslexia" then there would be a need for a new Dyslexia article to cover all dyslexic issues, and then we can the newly defined develop mental dyslexia article can continue and concentrate only on Developmental Dyslexia.
best wishes
dolfrog 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] sorry
i guess that was not the forum to ask my question. thank you for your response.
[edit] visited some of your to do listed articles
Hi sami
I have been around many of the articles listed on your to do list and I have left some ideas on the discussion pages of these articles
best wishes
dolfrog 01:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Categories are not automaticly created
Please see talk entry at Talk:National Reading Panel#Categories Dbiel (Talk) 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The mechanics for creating new categories is easy, but the policy for creating them is still over my head. Dbiel (Talk) 19:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Developmental Dyspraxia Edit
Feel free to explain on the discussion page why you'd like the template you added included. By reading the previous comments on here you want some sort of "umbrella template" for dyslexia/dyspraxia/dysgraphia etc. Arthmelow 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template formatting help
In answer to your question, I am a web designer, but I'm not really familiar with the Wikipedia-style of table formatting, so I probably can't help much with spacing. Also I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind or if you have in fact been able to work on it some more since you left the message for me.
My opinion only: I don't really think that the extra line "And Related Disorders" is necessary, as to me the placement of the topic heading "Related Conditions" at the top of the navigation table is clear enough. Also, I personally don't like the use of the word "Disorders" because I view dyslexia and issues like dysgraphia or dyscalculia as being different learning profiles, not "disorders". My objection isn't strong enough for me to make an issue -- that is, I'm not inclined to go about deleting your change or sidetracking everything into a debate over it... but I just thought I'd mention it if you are seeing the subtitle as being problematic.
I do see why you might want that if you are thinking of adding that nav bar to pages like "Auditory processing disorder" -- if you were to stick "Dyslexia" up as a sidebar there you would be sure to get an outcry or an argument. So I do see why you would want to expand it somewhat. Armarshall 23:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
You wrote:
- I don't have a huge issue either way with the disorder/difference terminology, although there is a case to be made that dyslexia is an actual brain dysfunction --- the differences in brain structure shown in many postmortem assessments makes that clear (eg ectopias, etc).
Actually - for what its worth, a primary researcher that did the postmortem assessments was Galaburda, and he has been quoted as saying the differences "a normal variation of the human brain" and "should not be viewed as a disorder." (Google Galaburda and "normal variation" and you'll find the quotes). The structural differences are real but they are relatively minor and may be associated with different strengths as well as weaknesses. But as noted, I really don't want to get into that debate when we are talking about a navigation bar. (I just personally feel rather strongly because I like my decidedly dyslexic son just the way he is - I wouldn't change a thing about his brain, though I would be happy to travel back in time and change the brains of his 1st, 2nd & 5th grade teachers into something more tolerant and respectful of individual differences.)
You wrote:
- I think at the highest level, what I'm struggling with is how broad an umbrella we want this navigation template to be. I don't really want to put the dyslexia template on auditory processing disorder, unless we are considering that article to be part of our "core" article series on dyslexia. Would you consider it to be part of that core set?
No, my inclination right now would be for us to focus only on putting the navigation bar on subsidiary articles to dyslexia. I don't want to broaden the umbrella unless we have consensus & participation from those who are actively involved in editing the other topics. Otherwise we'll just manage to get people ticked off at us for messing up their territory.
You wrote:
- Also, is it appropriate to try to implement a navigation box that covers other closely related disorders that are often co-morbid with dyslexia? Eg, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, etc.
I think we have that with the current structure under "Related Conditions"... and obviously some are more "related" than others. I think it makes sense to have those topics on our navigation bar, but I would not necessarily put the navigation bar on those pages. Instead, I might add a "see also" reference on an appropriate part of those pages. You might visualize this as being like a Venn diagram of intersecting and overlapping topics, with only those topics that fall within the center area of the most overlap having the navigation box on their page. Armarshall 08:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether the students are learning by the whole language or the phonics method, in the final analysis, they are learning the English spelling or the "appearance" of WORDS. Using phonics they may learn the phonemes that the graphemes represent and then blend these into WORDS--IF THE WORD BEING LEARNED HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE 20 PERCENT OR SO THAT ARE SPELLED PHONEMICALLY.
I would be very interested to know what method of becoming fluent readers you believe students use other than learning every word in their reading vocabulary one-at-a-time by rote memory or repeated use. 72.8.78.128 22:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't signed in when I sent that message two minutes ago. Bob C. Cleckler 22:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Responses at WT:SCH
Hello, though it is little late - I and others have responded to your comment to set up a child WikiProject at the above linked talk page. Camaron1 | Chris 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Literacy Template
Thanks for adding to the Literacy Template, Rosmoran. I appreciate that you expanded it. Because I don't know that much about literacy, I'm hoping that you can find appropriate places for the template in other articles relating to this subject, and will place it in those articles. Is that something you are willing to do? Thanks! Hires an editor 14:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw the Reading Template, but thought that Literacy was its own sub-category of reading, since there are non-reading definitions of literacy, such as musical or cultural literacy. I agree that there is overlap, and like you, I'm not sure of where the line should be. Thanks for your help!
- And I like the Reading Template a lot, by the way. I realized that more literacy stuff in that template would rob it of its elegance, and appropriate brevity.
Hires an editor 14:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to question about IDA conference
Sorry -- I won't be there. Armarshall 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bright Solutions
Rosmoran, it was a while back, but I believe that one of the statements on the Bright Solutions web site that I found inaccurate was the statement about longitudinal research by the NIH here- http://www.dys-add.com/nowknow.html#LongiRsrch -- I looked all over for that 1994 study and it turned out that out that there was no such "study" or findings -- I think I did ultimately find a possible source document but it was not a research study. (If I'm mistaken, I'd love to see the article she refers to). Anyway, the main problem I have is that there is a lot of merging of opinion with fact, and I simply would not rely on that site, or most others, for research.
I always make a point of looking up actual research and trying to get the journal article - not an abstract or summary - before quoting from it - so I find it particularly frustrating when someone quotes to "research" without a citation. I would never refer to a "study" without citing the source (author, title, publication), either on wikipedia or any other web site or blog - so that is also a pet peeve of mine. (I.e., people who refer to a "study" or "research" without citation). It doesn't bother me so much when its easy to find, but it drives me bats when I spend hours & hours looking... especially if it turns out to be inaccurate. So in any case I look for web sites that include citations if I want to do research.
In that respect I found a wonderful resource: http://www.acer.edu.au (Australian Council for Educational Research) - You might want to explore what is there. Armarshall 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Rosmoran, I think you read to much into my statement that "Anyway, the bottom line is that it is a commercial site trying to slant its information to the tutoring program it promotes." I just meant that generally - it would apply to any commercial web site -- that is, I meant that all commercial sites tend to cherry pick information and present whatever helps their programs. So they do not make a good source for a Wikipedia article; since Barton doesn't source her material it is not a good research starting point either (hence my frustration - if someone says "research says x" I want to see the name of the study). There are government sites that do a better job -- for example, in addition to the one I cited above, there is the Florida Center for Reading Research web site at http://www.fcrr.org/.
To get a sense of what I mean by "slant" you might want to compare what FCRR (state-funded) says about Orton-Gillingham - http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRreports/PDF/Orton_Gillingham_Approach.pdf and compare that to what Barton says: http://www.dys-add.com/teach.html#ogmethod (Barton has a bunch of links which she claim provide research support for O-G, but none actually lead to a study of O-G, which is not surprising as the FCRR report says that as of 2006 they couldn't find one). But I don't really care what she says on her own site; it just isn't a very reliable source of research for a Wikipedia article and can't be used for fact checking. Armarshall 11:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- You said:
-
-
- It is a commercial site trying to slant its information to the tutoring program it promotes." I just meant that generally - it would apply to any commercial web site -- that is, I meant that all commercial sites tend to cherry pick information and present whatever helps their programs. So they do not make a good source for a Wikipedia article...
-
-
- I don't understand how you reconcile this statement with other statements you have made elsewhere ...... For example, would you agree that the Davis Dyslexia site "cherry picks" and thus is not a good source for a Wikipedia article? It promotes the Davis approach, doesn't it?
-
- Rosmoran 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I have never advocated or used a link to the Davis web site as a source for any sort of information other than descriptive information about the Davis program or factual information about Davis - such as a source of information about how many Davis Facilitators are licensed or how many languages they speak. Obviously Barton's web site would be a primary source for descriptive information about her program, just as you would go to the Dore web site for that reason or Lindamood Bell site to find out what programs LMB offers.
-
-
-
- If you look at my edits and the sources I've added, you will see that I generally use primary sources for references -- usually references to research journal articles if I can find them.
-
-
-
- I know that OTHERS have added material to the dyslexia article that came from the Davis site, such as a list of symptoms of dyslexia, and if I saw something that I knew to be copyrighted material, I sourced it. The stuff on the Davis web site is copyrighted so it cannot be copied without attribution. But if you would like to go and delete all the text in the dyslexia article that was ripped off by others from the Davis site without permission -- that's fine with me.
-
-
-
- I would note that there is no place on the Davis web site that claims or refers to "research" without specifically citing to the research or the source of that claim. Some sites are just better than others when it comes to internal structure and attribution.
-
-
-
- The dyslexia article is such a mess that it would take me weeks to go through everything in it that I don't think belongs there -- that's why a project was set up. I think 90% of my time is spent combating the constant vandalism -- the people who go on and scramble letters or insert made-up facts. Armarshall 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think I may have misunderstood what you said before. I was referring to your comment that "any commercial web site -- that is, I meant that all commercial sites tend to cherry pick information and present whatever helps their programs. So they do not make a good source for a Wikipedia article." I was interpreting this comment to include references to commercial websites about particular program. But I see now that you're drawing a distinction between referencing a commercial website describing a program and citing a commercial website as a "source" for factual information. Am I understanding you correctly now?
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree that the dyslexia article is a mess. I'm ready to start doing the migration to an article series. Are you ready to start on this mission, or not quite yet?
-
-
-
-
-
- Rosmoran 04:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] dyslexia project
Hi Rosmoran - thanks for the invitation to participate in the dyslexia project. I'm a little hesitant to do so at the moment, with the on-going COI/N stuff and related accusations, so I'm just trying to stick to small, non-controversial edits at the moment--Vannin 18:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Direct instruction
You were asking about merging Direct instruction. I think my edit was only to categorize the article and did not relate to any proposed merge. Possibly the previous editor posted a merge template. Nesbit (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dyslexia page, etc.
Hi Rosmoran --
I don't usually edit the dyslexia page myself, but I do track it, and I noticed that AVManzo made some unusual changes to it. This user has also edited a number of other pages I watch in ways that seem inappropriate. You seem to be very good at gently encouraging editors to change their ways. Perhaps you'd be willing to work on this particular one. Best wishes for a Happy New Year. Kearnsdm (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] MfD nomination of User:Sami moran/Sandbox dyxlexia
User:Sami moran/Sandbox dyxlexia, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sami moran/Sandbox dyxlexia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Sami moran/Sandbox dyxlexia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --jonny-mt 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
