Controversial Dyslexia Interventions

Comparison of controversial, unproven interventions for dyslexia and accredited, professional recognized interventions.

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Controversial Dyslexia Interventions by Mind Map: Controversial Dyslexia Interventions

1. Fast ForWard Language

1.1. Facts

1.1.1. Used by over 570,000 students in 3,700 schools.

1.1.2. Used to remediate language and reading disabilities.

1.2. Theory

1.2.1. Language and reading issues stem from an underlying auditory perception deficit.

1.2.2. 4-8 weeks of intervention will reap immediate and lasting results in both language and reading development.

1.2.3. Does not directly train reading skills.

1.3. Methodology

1.3.1. Practice on temporal order judgments for nonverbal tones and syllables.

1.3.2. Practices the discrimination of speech sounds.

1.4. Findings

1.4.1. No evidence that the program is effective. Especially when compared to other, reading-focused intervention programs.

2. Accredited Programs

2.1. What These Programs Have in Common

2.1.1. Diagnostic - verbal, nonverbal, and written student responses are constantly monitored. The next lesson is planned based on student's progress and problems.

2.1.2. Multisensory - Uses sight, sound, touch, and awareness of motion to help with student understanding and learning.

2.1.3. Uses direct teaching of sounds and phonemic awareness.

2.1.4. Student instruction is based on individual student needs to match their learning differences

2.1.5. Interventions are intensive and build confidence in students through increasing successes

2.2. Programs

2.2.1. Orton-Gillingham

2.2.2. Academic Language Therapy

2.2.3. National Institute for Learning Development

2.2.4. Neuhaus Education Center

2.2.5. Wilson Reading System

2.2.6. Bibliography Alta - about alta. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2019, from ALTA - About ALTA Box. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://app.box.com /s/eztvfm1j7h8ii8evaoke2uhnyg803dn5 Imslec - imslec’s mission, vision, purpose, and benefits. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2019, from https://www.imslec.org/mission-vision-purpose-benefits.asp Joshua Huson. (n.d.). Orton gillingham reading strategy. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO6GUs45Y7o&t=29s NILD Canada. (n.d.). Nild teachers. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQl1TPEyv18&t=35s N, J. (n.d.). Critical Review: Examining the Effectiveness of the Orton-Gillingham Reading Approach for Poor Readers in Elementary School. Retrieved from https://www.dyslexia-reading-well.com/support-files/orton_gillingham_literature_review.pdf NeuhausEdCtr. (n.d.). Neuhaus education center early childhood literacy program. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp7h41gBLhc&t=11s Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: a review of the literature. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2019, from https://www.asha.org/ArticleSummary.aspx?id=8589952471 Rawson Saunders School. (n.d.). Explicit multisensory instruction in academic language therapy. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1KxQ-9bIVQ&t=28s Caylee Carmichael. (n.d.). Wilson reading program powerpoint. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz2j4sXc2Qs&t=6s

3. Movement-Based Interventions

3.1. Facts

3.1.1. Improves cognitive and executive functions in adults.

3.1.2. No evidence that it improves academic performance.

3.2. Theory

3.2.1. Learning disabilities are the results of 1. neurological disorganization 2. delay in the establishment of right/left brain hemisphere dominance 3. problems with response to visual, auditory or motor simuli

3.2.2. These deficiencies can be fixed through regular prescribed sequences of movement.

3.3. Methodology

3.3.1. Movements range from mimicking prenatal and infant activities, walking on balance beams, bouncing a ball from one hand to another.

3.3.2. Most of the programs involve daily therapy involving parental help.

3.4. Findings

3.4.1. The theories these methods are based on have been discredited.

3.4.2. Children would benefit more from reading and exercising with their parent rather than doing expensive, unproven activities.

4. Vision Efficiency Interventions

4.1. Facts

4.1.1. The ability to read requires accurate visual acuity.

4.1.2. These visual interventions may make reading more comfortable.

4.2. Theory

4.2.1. Difficulties with visual acuity or with eye movement coordination can result in reading disabilities.

4.2.2. Individuals' ability to easily decode written words is impeded by visual problems.

4.2.3. Deficits may include contrast sensitivity, position encoding of letters, eye movement control, or sluggish temporal processing.

4.3. Methodology

4.3.1. Vision Therapy

4.3.2. Low magnitude yoked prisms

4.3.3. Near point stress and low-plus prescriptions

4.3.4. Behavioral treatments for myopia, strabismus, amblyopia, and peripheral awareness

4.3.5. Colored lenses and overlays

4.4. Findings

4.4.1. Remediating visual problems may make reading more comfortable, it does not improve decoding or comprehension.

4.4.2. Any claims of benefits from these therapies are not evidence based and are not advocated by professionals nor supported by research.

4.4.3. Children diagnosed with a well-defined reading disability will not benefit from these therapies.