What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Studies in Cognitive and Perceptual Development
The Dyslexia Debate
The Dyslexia Debate examines how we use the term “dyslexia” and questions its efficacy as a diagnosis. While many believe that a diagnosis of dyslexia will shed light on a reader's struggles and help identify the best form of intervention, Julian G. Elliott and Elena L. Grigorenko show that it adds little value. In fact, our problematic interpretation of the term could prove to be a major disservice to many children with difficulties learning to read. This book outlines in detail the diverse ways in which reading problems have been conceptualized and operationalized. Elliott and Grigorenko consider the latest research in cognitive science, genetics, and neuroscience, and the limitations of these fields in terms of professional action. They then provide a more helpful, scientifically rigorous way to describe the various types of reading difficulties and discuss empirically supported forms of intervention.
- GenresNonfiction
296 pages, Hardcover
First published February 28, 2014
10 people are currently reading
79 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 26, 2014
"The Dyslexia Debate" by Julian Elliott and Elena Grigorenko is excellent. To summarize the book:
There is a “ group of children who experience a difficulty in learning to read that cannot be accounted for by limited ability or by emotional or extraneous factors. The term ‘dyslexia’ is commonly applied to these children. We believe that this term serves little useful purpose other than to draw attention to the fact that the problem of these children can be chronic and severe. It is not susceptible to precise operational definition; nor does it indicate a clearly defined course of treatment.”
This was a report written for the UK government in 1976. The dyslexia debate is whether there exists two conditions: a) dyslexia and a b) ‘garden variety” reading disability. The latest edition of the standard psychiatric manual - ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5)’ - now prefers to describe the condition as a ‘Specific Learning Disorder – reading – word reading accuracy’ (or some such description depending on the specific reading difficulty encountered).
There is a wide range of definitions of dyslexia’. A brief summary would be:
a) difficulty in reading,
b) difficulty in reading even when the student is provided with high-quality, evidence-based help
c) reading ability is way out of line to their IQ and development
d) reading ability contrasts significantly with other academic strengths,
e) poor spellers,
f) reading difficulty with poor motor, arithmetical, or language skills, visual difficulties, and low self-esteem
g) a marked difference between reading and listening comprehension
h) people with a number of symptoms which can include ‘compensated’ dyslexics who no longer present with a severe reading difficulty.
In 2010, academic researchers noted that the New Zealand Ministry of Education's definition was so broad that a diagnosis of dyslexia could be applied to a student who has no problems with reading, writing, or spelling but who has difficulties in numeracy or musical notation.
For many years, the discrepancy between reading accuracy and IQ was the predominant diagnostic test. This is now discredited. Studies have repeatedly shown that IQ scores are useless to differentiate poor readers who can be successfully re-mediated and those who are resistant to intervention.
Explanations of dyslexia at the cognitive level are disparate and none seems to account completely for dyslexia. The Phonological Deficit hypothesis is a favourite of the literature, as studies have repeatedly shown it to be associated with “poor decoding.” However, a significant number of children diagnosed with a phonological deficit, as pre-readers, become normal readers.
“Despite more than thirty years of research into the phonological deficit…we still don’t know what it is [precisely].”
Researchers, also, frequently find difficulties in Rapid Naming in poor readers. However, researchers now believe that the suspected deficits in poor readers are more likely to be multi-factorial; that is, it isn't simply one problem. And, except, for Phonological awareness, the literature of various possible cognitive deficits – while large -- seems to have not translated into high-quality, evidence-supported interventions.
Reading disability has a genetic component. The relationship is stronger in those whose reading disability is more severe. The literature counts 20 susceptibility loci that mark locations in the genome that research has linked to reading disabilities. Researchers know of at least six candidate genes. However, genetic knowledge of reading disability is unable to inform a differential diagnosis (ie. possible dyslexia, reading disability, or something else), or point to a successful form of intervention applicable to a diagnosis.
Brain studies have localized the “reading” brain to areas of the left side of the brain. Adults with reading difficulties seem to read with less reliance on their left side and with more activation of the right. There have been very few studies of children. The brain observations seem to be true for a number of brain imaging techniques, although details do differ. Brain studies, to date, have not been able to inform diagnosis or intervention. Neuroscience has yet to resolve the dyslexia debate. That is, brain science cannot separate different types of poor readers, or show that a certain intervention is best.
“To date, work in genetics, neuroscience, and cognitive science is not sufficiently advanced to be able to generate additional guidance for educational practice with such children. At the current time, other than recommending 'more of the same', researchers are uncertain about how to assist those with the most complex and intractable reading difficulties.”
Steven Pinker, the best-selling neuroscientist, notes (1998):
“Language is a human instinct, but written language is not. Language is found in all societies, present and past….All healthy children master their own language without lessons or corrections. When children are thrown together without a usable language, they invent one of their own. Compare all this with writing. Writing systems have been invented a small number of times in history…Until recently, most children never learned to read or write; even with today’s universal education, many children struggle and fail. A group of children is no more likely to invent an alphabet than it is to invent the internal combustion engine...
Children are wired for sound, but print is an optional accessory that must be painstakingly bolted on. This basic fact about human nature should be the starting point for any discussion of how to teach our children to read and write.”
The argument that dyslexia is more than a reading disability; that it has other positive symptoms or correlates, such as particular creative gifts, has not been found by researchers. A recent 2013 study of successful high performing dyslexic adults, found that the success "is unlikely to be a function of particular cognitive factors (supposedly superior creative and visuo-spatial abilities were not found in a sample of university students and graduates)” Their outstanding success seems attributable to personality and motivational factors.
“Contrary to the beliefs of many, once a reading difficulty is identified, a diagnosis of dyslexia offers little or nor further benefit for guiding the nature of any intervention.”
“There is little evidence to support the use of any special approaches for dyslexia, as key elements of dyslexia teaching programs are typically the same as those routinely employed in the reading disability literature. Complementary approaches such as motor training, auditory and visual interventions, the use of fatty acids, and biofeedback have yet to demonstrate significant evidence of effectiveness.”
The point being that where dyslexia means a reading disability for the student, then intensive interventions – guided by the student’s individual reading difficulties and deficits – should be employed; that is, systematic instruction, incorporating a strong emphasis on phonemic awareness, and phonics, as part of a broad range of reading-related activities, in small groups or individually.
There is a “ group of children who experience a difficulty in learning to read that cannot be accounted for by limited ability or by emotional or extraneous factors. The term ‘dyslexia’ is commonly applied to these children. We believe that this term serves little useful purpose other than to draw attention to the fact that the problem of these children can be chronic and severe. It is not susceptible to precise operational definition; nor does it indicate a clearly defined course of treatment.”
This was a report written for the UK government in 1976. The dyslexia debate is whether there exists two conditions: a) dyslexia and a b) ‘garden variety” reading disability. The latest edition of the standard psychiatric manual - ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5)’ - now prefers to describe the condition as a ‘Specific Learning Disorder – reading – word reading accuracy’ (or some such description depending on the specific reading difficulty encountered).
There is a wide range of definitions of dyslexia’. A brief summary would be:
a) difficulty in reading,
b) difficulty in reading even when the student is provided with high-quality, evidence-based help
c) reading ability is way out of line to their IQ and development
d) reading ability contrasts significantly with other academic strengths,
e) poor spellers,
f) reading difficulty with poor motor, arithmetical, or language skills, visual difficulties, and low self-esteem
g) a marked difference between reading and listening comprehension
h) people with a number of symptoms which can include ‘compensated’ dyslexics who no longer present with a severe reading difficulty.
In 2010, academic researchers noted that the New Zealand Ministry of Education's definition was so broad that a diagnosis of dyslexia could be applied to a student who has no problems with reading, writing, or spelling but who has difficulties in numeracy or musical notation.
For many years, the discrepancy between reading accuracy and IQ was the predominant diagnostic test. This is now discredited. Studies have repeatedly shown that IQ scores are useless to differentiate poor readers who can be successfully re-mediated and those who are resistant to intervention.
Explanations of dyslexia at the cognitive level are disparate and none seems to account completely for dyslexia. The Phonological Deficit hypothesis is a favourite of the literature, as studies have repeatedly shown it to be associated with “poor decoding.” However, a significant number of children diagnosed with a phonological deficit, as pre-readers, become normal readers.
“Despite more than thirty years of research into the phonological deficit…we still don’t know what it is [precisely].”
Researchers, also, frequently find difficulties in Rapid Naming in poor readers. However, researchers now believe that the suspected deficits in poor readers are more likely to be multi-factorial; that is, it isn't simply one problem. And, except, for Phonological awareness, the literature of various possible cognitive deficits – while large -- seems to have not translated into high-quality, evidence-supported interventions.
Reading disability has a genetic component. The relationship is stronger in those whose reading disability is more severe. The literature counts 20 susceptibility loci that mark locations in the genome that research has linked to reading disabilities. Researchers know of at least six candidate genes. However, genetic knowledge of reading disability is unable to inform a differential diagnosis (ie. possible dyslexia, reading disability, or something else), or point to a successful form of intervention applicable to a diagnosis.
Brain studies have localized the “reading” brain to areas of the left side of the brain. Adults with reading difficulties seem to read with less reliance on their left side and with more activation of the right. There have been very few studies of children. The brain observations seem to be true for a number of brain imaging techniques, although details do differ. Brain studies, to date, have not been able to inform diagnosis or intervention. Neuroscience has yet to resolve the dyslexia debate. That is, brain science cannot separate different types of poor readers, or show that a certain intervention is best.
“To date, work in genetics, neuroscience, and cognitive science is not sufficiently advanced to be able to generate additional guidance for educational practice with such children. At the current time, other than recommending 'more of the same', researchers are uncertain about how to assist those with the most complex and intractable reading difficulties.”
Steven Pinker, the best-selling neuroscientist, notes (1998):
“Language is a human instinct, but written language is not. Language is found in all societies, present and past….All healthy children master their own language without lessons or corrections. When children are thrown together without a usable language, they invent one of their own. Compare all this with writing. Writing systems have been invented a small number of times in history…Until recently, most children never learned to read or write; even with today’s universal education, many children struggle and fail. A group of children is no more likely to invent an alphabet than it is to invent the internal combustion engine...
Children are wired for sound, but print is an optional accessory that must be painstakingly bolted on. This basic fact about human nature should be the starting point for any discussion of how to teach our children to read and write.”
The argument that dyslexia is more than a reading disability; that it has other positive symptoms or correlates, such as particular creative gifts, has not been found by researchers. A recent 2013 study of successful high performing dyslexic adults, found that the success "is unlikely to be a function of particular cognitive factors (supposedly superior creative and visuo-spatial abilities were not found in a sample of university students and graduates)” Their outstanding success seems attributable to personality and motivational factors.
“Contrary to the beliefs of many, once a reading difficulty is identified, a diagnosis of dyslexia offers little or nor further benefit for guiding the nature of any intervention.”
“There is little evidence to support the use of any special approaches for dyslexia, as key elements of dyslexia teaching programs are typically the same as those routinely employed in the reading disability literature. Complementary approaches such as motor training, auditory and visual interventions, the use of fatty acids, and biofeedback have yet to demonstrate significant evidence of effectiveness.”
The point being that where dyslexia means a reading disability for the student, then intensive interventions – guided by the student’s individual reading difficulties and deficits – should be employed; that is, systematic instruction, incorporating a strong emphasis on phonemic awareness, and phonics, as part of a broad range of reading-related activities, in small groups or individually.
December 25, 2024
(Optional Reading for my degree)
Exactly what I needed for my essay, learnt a lot and references were usefull.
I found the discussion really interesting.
Exactly what I needed for my essay, learnt a lot and references were usefull.
I found the discussion really interesting.
March 2, 2016
Being a person who works with assessing reading, writing and language difficulties, I found this book to be a very helpful overview of the ever ongoing debate concerning the term of dyslexia. The text is very clear with its goals and all arguments are well reasearched. It really hits on the head the biggest problems with dyslexia; the lack of consensus, nationally and internationally, on what dyslexia is; as well as bringing to attention what happens to people with reading difficulties who don't get the diagnosis following assessment.
In short, this is a book that's given me a lot to think about.
In short, this is a book that's given me a lot to think about.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews