SupporZng Students with Visual Perceptual

0 downloads 0 Views 4MB Size Report
... of books i.e. black print on a white page' (Meares, 1980, p. 14). ... be a credibility issue. – Irlen as a business? .... overlays and/or lenses. The issue of MIS may ...
Suppor&ng  Students  with  Visual   Perceptual  Difficul&es  in  Schools:   Avoidance  or  Ignorance    

 

Dr.  Chris    Boyle   Senior  Lecturer  in  Educa&onal  Psychology   University  of  New  England  

Background   •  Secondary  teacher   •  School  psychologist   •  Teaching  teachers!    

w o g s Gla a g g a W a g Wag e n r u o b l e M e l a d Ar m i

2  

Ar&cle  Published  

3  

Historical   Difficul&es  with  vision  in  rela&on  to  reading   have  been  documented  over  a  number  of   decades  and  this  is  exemplified  in  the  following   quota&on:     ‘Dick  was  able  to  recognise  a  word  printed  on  a   yellow  sight  card,  but  not  the  same  word  when   printed  on  a  white  one,  or  when  the  print  varied’.   (Jansky,  1958,  p.  112).  

4  

Original  Meares  Ar&cle   ‘blurring,  moving,  jumping,  flickering,  print   distor>ons  are  indeed  a  visual  reality  for  many   children  .  .  .  This  is  due  to  perceptual  instability   stemming  from  and  induced  by  the  conven>onal   figure/ground  organisa>on  of  books  i.e.  black   print  on  a  white  page’  (Meares,  1980,  p.  14).  

5  

Credibility  Gap  

6  

Issue  with  Evidence  

7  

Research   Study  

Strengths  

Bouldoukian  et   Randomised  control;   al.,  (2002)   Ophtha  and  Physiolog   Op&cs  (IF2.6)  

Weaknesses  

Results  

N=33;  through  a  reading    People  with  MIS   clinic   showed  sig  gains   while  using  coloured   overlays  

Jeanes  et  al.,   (1997)  

BJ  Psych(IF3.3);  N=130+;   Two  schools;  not   8%  improvement  in   follow  up   randomised;  overuse  of   reading  speed   %s  

Ritchie  et  al.,   (2011)  

Pediatrics  (IF5.29);  n=61;   One  School;  low  socio-­‐ sta&s&cally  strong   economic  demographic;   poor  randomisa&on;  no   follow  up  

No  clinical   improvement  in   reading  of  poor   readers  

8  

Ritchie  et  al.  Ar&cle   •  Major  reputa&onal  damage  from  this  ar&cle   •  No  longitudinal  aspect  to  studies   –  All  seems  to  be  quite  short  focus  

•  A  more  in  depth  longer  term  study  may  be   more  viable/credible   •  An  Australian  based  study  should  be   considered   •  Seems  to  be  a  credibility  issue   –  Irlen  as  a  business?   9  

What’s  in  a  name  (label)?   •  Discussion  from  Boyle  &  Jindal-­‐Snape  (2011)   considered  the  issue  of  Visual  Dyslexia  or  MIS   •  However,  is  this  debate  actually  important   anymore?   “The  no&on  of  whether  a  par&cular  label  is  actually   useful  or  not  is  a  moot  point  and  may  miss  the   important  aspect  which  is  that  the  underlying  difficulty   with  reading  s&ll  exists  no  mamer  the  terminology  that  is   used;  ergo  it  is  the  iden&fica&on  and  future   improvement  that  is  key,  not  a  label”  (p.  167).   10  

Labelling  in  Educa&on   •  Has  been  necessary  to  categorise  in  order  to  fund   •  Labelling  leads  to  awareness  raising  and   promotes  understanding  of  par&cular  difficul&es   •  Can  provide  explana&on  to  a  person  as  to  why  a   difficulty  is  thus   ‘If  the  use  of  the  label  does  not  lead  to  improved,   or  more  appropriate  and  targeted  educa8onal   interven8on,  then  one  may  legi8mately  ques8on   its  value’  (Lauchlan  &  Boyle,  p.  37).     11  

Labelling  –  Legal  Case   •  2003  a  English  High  Court  Judgement     •  failure  to  label  a  child  as  ‘dyslexic’  did  not   necessarily  mean  that  the  child’s  difficulty  went   unaddressed     •  judge  found  that  the  important  aspect  was  that   the  child’s  needs  had  been  addressed   irrespec&ve  of  an  amached  label     •  Verdict:  it  was  not  the  label  that  was  the  issue,   but  whether  the  child’s  needs  could  be  met  by  an   appropriate  programme  of  interven>on.     12  

My  Concern  as  a  Psychologist   •  Misdiagnosis/iden&fica&on  of  dyslexia  instead   of  a  visual  difficulty  impac&ng  on  reading   •  highlight  the  issues  of  the  visual-­‐perceptual   aspect  of  reading  difficul&es  and  to  ensure   that  this  possibility  is  considered  when  a   student  is  having  difficul&es  with  reading   •  Frustra&ng  element  is  that  simple  checks   could  help  iden&fy  MIS  type  issues   13  

Concerns  (cont.)   •   Unlikely  that  the  usual  language-­‐based   dyslexia  interven&ons  would  make  any   difference  to  students  who  have  MIS  type   difficul&es,  so  teachers  should  take  cognisance   of  this  in  their  general  prac&ce.  

14  

Simple  Steps   •   The  ques&on  of  teachers  and  school   psychologists  being  fully  aware  of  this  type  of   difficulty  and  the  simple  methods  of  iden&fying   and  rec&fying  the  situa&on  to  a  reasonable  level   •  There  is  scant  coverage  of  MIS  in  journals   targe&ng  prac&sing  teachers  or  university   lecturers  working  in  the  area  of  teacher  training,   which  is  clearly  an  issue  vis-­‐à-­‐vis    teacher   knowledge  of  this  type  of  difficulty   15  

Big  Steps   •  More  radical  approach  is  necessary   “…there  s&ll  exists  a  clear  argument  that  widescale   screening  for  MIS  should  take  place  in  schools,  probably   at  an  important  transi&on  point  such  as  between   primary  and  secondary.”  (p.  169)    

•  What  is  done  by  your  group  to  educate  teachers,   school  psychologists,  special  ed  teachers?   16  

School  Psychology  Interven&on   •   The  nature  of  MIS  would  suggest  that  direct   interven&on  by  a  school  psychologist  in   conjunc&on  with  the  class  teacher  is  relevant  and   appropriate  as  both  are  best  placed  and  qualified   to  iden&fy  difficul&es  such  as  visual  percep&on   affec&ng  reading  (Boyle  &  Lauchlan,  2009)   •   It  should  follow  that  school  psychology  services   are  at  the  forefront  of  assis&ng  schools  in   screening  all  children  at  various  stages  of  in  order   to  pick  up  these  types  of  difficul&es.   17  

Amribu&ons  for  Learning  

(Chodkiewicz  &Boyle,  2015)     18  

Mo&va&on   •  If  the  perceived  consequences  of  an  ac&on  are   good  e.g.  reward  then  the  likelihood  is  that   the  ac&on  will  be  carried  out.     •  However,  if  the  expecta&on  is  that  no  benefit   will  be  forthcoming  then  the  mo&va&on  to   complete  the  task  is  lowered.  

19  

Mo&va&on  in  Learning   •  Self-­‐efficacy   –   nobody  no&ces  when  I  score  high  

•  Self-­‐-­‐confidence   –   I  got  most  of  these  wrong  the  last  &me,  I  will  get   them  wrong  this  &me  too  

•  Self-­‐mo&va&on   –  Why  should  I  bother  

20  

Sec&on  22  -­‐  Educa&on   • 

(1) It is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person's disability: (a) by refusing or failing to accept the person's application for admission as a student; or (b) in the terms or conditions on which it is prepared to admit the person as a student.

• 

(2) It is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a student on the ground of the student's disability: (a) by denying the student access, or limiting the student's access, to any benefit provided by the educational authority; or (b) by expelling the student; or (c) by subjecting the student to any other detriment.

• 

(2A) It is unlawful for an education provider to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person's disability: (a) by developing curricula or training courses having a content that will either exclude the person from participation, or subject the person to any other detriment; or (b) by accrediting curricula or training courses having such a content.

 

In  essence  the  DDA…   Prohibits education systems and schools from refusing enrolment to a student, on the grounds of their disability, in a school. It also prohibits denial of access to any benefit provided by the school.

 

Disability  Standards  for  Educa&on  

 

To  ensure  that  educa&on  systems  clearly   understand  their  legal  obliga&ons  under  the   Disability  Discriminia&on  Act  1992,  the   Australian  Government  released  the   Disability  Standards  for  Educa>on  2005   (referred  to  as  the  DSE)  -­‐  an  explicit   interpreta&on  of  the  legisla&ve  document   for  educa&on  systems,  schools  and   educators.      

Media  release  –  15th  June,  2004   The  then  Amorney-­‐General,  the  Hon  Phillip   Ruddock  MP  said…    

‘People with disabilities face barriers in their education which simply do not arise for other students,…The Standards, when implemented, will assist in removing these barriers and enabling people with disabilities to participate in education and training to the same extent as the rest of the community’. (SOURCE - http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/MinisterRuddockhome.nsf/Page/ RWP3B2F01CEEAF21280CA256EB400812BDE?OpenDocument)

 

Different  Approach  

25  

Why  has  the  Na?onally  Consistent  Collec?on  of   Data  on  School  Students  with  Disability  been   introduced?     •  There  hasn’t  been  a  na&onally   consistent  picture  

of  Australian  school  students  with  disability  as   the  type  of  informa&on  currently  collected  by   Australian  schools  has  varied  between  each  state   and  territory.   •  The  Na&onally  Consistent  Collec&on  of  Data  on   School  Students  with  Disability  will  mean  for  the   first  &me,  this  informa&on  is  transparent,   consistent  and  reliable  at  a  na&onal  level.   26  

Model  for  the  Na&onally   Consistent  Collec&on  of  Data  on   School  Students  with  Disability  

27  

28  

29  

Two  Important  Ques&ons   What  does  that  student    

What  does  that  student  

30  

The  Need  of  the  Individual   •  The  decision  is  then  about  whether  more   resources  are  needed  in  order  to  deliver  the   adjustment  or  whether  it  can  be  delivered   within  the  exis&ng  flexible  resourcing  model   already  available  to  schools.     •  The  addi&onal  funding  is  only  provided  to   enable  students  to  access  and  par&cipate  on   the  same  basis  -­‐  that's  it.       31  

Fight’s  Over     •  Forget  the  fight  about  funding  for  the   category     •  The  new  fight  is  about  what  the  students’   need     –  what  can  a  school  be  reasonably  expected  to   provide  the  student  in  terms  of  adjustments  to   enable  the  student  to  access  and  par&cipate  in   learning  on  the  same  basis  as  their  peers?  

32  

Conclusions   •  Publicity  in  some  form  to  schools  and  psychologists   •  MIS  is  easily  iden&fiable  if  teachers  and  other  professionals   consider  this  as  one  criterion  in  their  guiding  hypotheses   when  amemp&ng  to  alleviate  reading  problems.   •  A  heightened  level  of  awareness  of  this  issue  is  necessary   when  working  with  students  who  have  difficul&es  accessing   the  curriculum  due  to  issues  with  reading.   •  Focus  on  adjustments  not  the  category   •  Conduct  a  robust  study  on  benefits  to  people  of  using   overlays  and/or  lenses.  The  issue  of  MIS  may  no  longer  be   important.  

33  

AVOID

 Closing  Statement  

ANCE

O N G I

E C RAN

 

34  

References   1. 

2. 

BPS  (Bri&sh  Psychological  Society)  (2004).  Dyslexia  –  A  Landmark  High  Court  Judgement.  hmp://www.psychtes&ng.org.uk.  

Bouldoukian,  J.,  Wilkins,  A.  J.,  &Evans,  B.  J.  W.  (2002).  Randomised  controlled  trial  of  the  effect  of  coloured  overlays  on   therate  of  reading  of  people  with  specific  learning  difficul&es.  Ophthalmic  and  Physiological  Op>cs,  22(1),  55–60.   3.  Boyle,  C.  (2014).  Labelling  in  special  educa&on:  Where  do  the  benefits  lie?  In  A.  Holliman  (Ed.)  The  Routledge  Interna>onal   Companion  to  Educa>onal  Psychology  (pp.  213-­‐221).  London:  Routledge.     4.  Boyle  C.,  &  Jindal-­‐Snape,  D.  (2012).  Visual  Perceptual  Difficul&es  and  the  impact  on  children's  learning:  Are  teachers  missing   the  page?  Bri>sh  Journal  of  Support  for  Learning,  27(4),  166-­‐171.  doi:  10.1111/1467-­‐9604.12001   5.  Boyle,  C.  &  Lauchlan,  F.  (2009).  Applied  psychology  and  the  case  for  individual  casework:  some  reflec&ons  on  the  role  of  the   educa&onal  psychologist.  Educa>onal  Psychology  in  Prac>ce,  25(1),  71-­‐84.  doi:  10.1080/02667360802697639   6.  Chodkiewicz,  A.,  &  Boyle,  C.  (2015).  Believing  you  can  is  the  first  step  to  achieving.  A  CBT  and  AUribu>on  Retraining  Program   to  improve  self-­‐belief  in  students  aged  8-­‐12.  London:  Jessica  Kingsley  Press.   7.  Jansky,  J.  (1958)  A  case  of  severe  dyslexia  with  aphasic-­‐like  symptoms.  Annals  of  Dyslexia,  8(1),  8–11.   8.  Jeanes,  R.,  Busby,  A.,  Mar&n,  J.,  Lewis,  E.,  Stevenson,  N.,Pointon,  D.,  &  Wilkins,  A.  (1997).  Prolonged  use  of  coloured   overlaps  for  classroom  reading.  Bri>sh  Journal  of  Psychology,  88(4),  531–548.   9.  Lauchlan,  F.,  &  Boyle  C.  (2007).  Is  the  use  of  labels  in  special  educa&on  helpful?  Support  For  Learning,  22(1),  36-­‐42.  DOI:   10.1111/j.1467-­‐9604.2007.00443.x   10.  Meares,  O.  (1980)  Figure/background,  brightness/contrast  and  reading  disabili&es.  Visible  Language,  14,  1,  13–29.   11.  Ritchie,  S.  J.,  Sala,  S.  D.,  &  McIntosh,  R.  D.  (2011).  Irlen  colored  overlays  do  not  alleviate  reading  difficul&es.  Pediatric,  128(4),   932-­‐938.  doi:10.1542/peds.2011-­‐0314          

35