Dyslexia and visual learners

[LittleBird66]

I am new to MN and have noticed how many threads there are about dyslexia, so I am adding mine. I work in a school attached to an adolescent psychiatric unit and support young people who struggle in school for a variety of reasons. We do a simple VAK(visual auditory kinaesthetic) assessment on them when they arrive and find the majority to be visual learners. However the majority of teaching in schools is more auditory...but also having a 14 year old son who is dyslexic and not diagnosed til Y5, I am very interested in this area. He always felt he was 'thick' as he struggled with literacy and numeracy, but had IMMENSE knowledge about things that caught his imagination-principally wildlife, and now bikes! I have come to realise he learns in a very specific way, largely visual, and that pictures stimulate his memory where words just float on by. He has just learnt his phone number using pictures he drew as a prompt. Check out Oliverwestfootnotes.com and his book -In Search Of Words-for invaluable insights and practical help from one who has been there. I am using his ideas at home and at work-good stuff!

Ooh that video's interesting mrz, though so is what you say LittleBird. My DS is dyslexic and I find it fascinating trying to work out how to help him learn / fix things into his head. His year 4 teacher told me he was a hugely visual learner, but his current yr5 teacher seems to be agreeing with the man on the clip, so says it's more complex than that. She thinks a range of approaches work, so across the auditory/ visual/ kinaesthetic and he is thriving this year. Thanks for posting OP, I will go and look at that book you refer to.

Interesting, I have a dyslexia-type issue, my problem is I'm not at all visual, I find visual information really really difficult to retain, interestingly I do find mind maps useful, not sure why, possibly it's the lack of detail? My dd seems similar to me, fantastic vocabulary but really struggles to write, can't recall how letters look or which way round they go.

I have just had a v.quick look, LittleBird. Seems in lots of ways similar to something we were recommended called 'Mind Maps for Kids' by Tony Buzan. It does definitely help our DS and I'm guessing would help any child or adult. Having said that other methods definitely do help him too.

That is a really interesting video. My guess is that if he is talking for the majority of students, i.e. students who have largely neurotypical brains, then it is good advice. However, he does acknowledge that there are individual differences, and whilst the learning style theory may not be accurate, I think that it isn't unreasonable to make modifications to presentation of material if people have a specific difficulty in one area. Although Dyslexia is a slightly confused term because it can describe different types of difficult - auditory or visual, it does seem to describe differences in brain organisation/function. So, for example, very poor short term auditory memory, compared to much better visual memory. It isn't to say that everything needs to be translated into a visual modality, but it would potentially mean that high volumes of auditory information would not be as effectively processed.

So, what I'm trying to say is that whilst the simplistic classification of people as one type of sensory learner may well be inaccurate, it doesn't mean that all people learn equally well with one styles of information delivery.

community.tes.co.uk/tom_bennett/b/weblog/archive/2014/04/23/zombie-bollocks-world-war-vak-isn-39-t-over-yet.aspx#.U1jYxdbTdW5.twitter

Just to clarify, I'm not remotely suggesting that VAK is meaningful. It isn't something I have come across before (I'm not a teacher), and I have no idea how it is taught or how it is applied.

But, that doesn't mean that people learn exactly the same way - it is slightly nuts to say that they do. In real terms, it may make no measurable difference (and I think that is the point of refuting VAK).

However, accepting that VAK is nonsense does not automatically imply that people learn in exactly the same way. They are two different hypotheses, with different predictions.

There ARE differences in the way that people's brains work. People do use different strategies for learning and behaving. Take spatial processing. The 'averages' suggest that men are better at spatial processing/navigation than women are. The 'averages' also suggest that this is because men are more likely to use global spatial information (like North, South, East West), and women are more likely to use landmarks and route information (e.g. you go to the end of the road, turn left past the garage etc). Although these are generalisations, and some women do use global spatial information, and some men rely on route information, overall, it is true that men are more likely to be better at spatial processing (probably because they are more likely to use global coordinates). As such, women and men are likely to learn to navigate from A to B using different methods.

How much of the 'difference' you cite between men/women is nature and how much is nurture?

If you asked someone whether they think they are good at spatial processing, and they said they were rubbish, I would say that is likely to have a nurture component. In the same way a huge number of adults will tell you they can't draw, or can't do maths. They probably started not finding it as easy (nature component) and then societal influence kicks in and nurture convinces them they can't. However, when it comes to peoples choice of strategy in spatial navigation, I don't think it is as much nurture as nature. We don't teach girls and boys to process spatial information differently. Different types of navigation strategy involve different brain processes. And whilst men and women have way more similarities than differences in terms of brain function, there are differences. Considering our physical appearances are different, their is no reason to assume that it is not possible for our brain chemistry to be slightly different too.

Luckily thanks to modern science we don't have to make assumptions about our brains allyfe.

Modern science is still very much in it's infancy when it comes to looking at brains mind you Mrz. It is still very much hypotheses, predictions and developing understanding.

and neuroimaging techniques

Yes, are very much in their infancy and driven by hypothesis testing, predictions and developing understanding. Indeed for most of it (fMRI, EEG) it is simply correlational and so it is all to do with assumptions. TMS gives us causality, but again, it is very imprecise because as a technique, it is very much in it's infancy.

Should have read, Yes, they are...

Well the history of neuroimaging dates back to the 19th C and developing all the time

It is developing, which is great. Technologies are developing and analysis techniques are improving. It has revolutionised psychology and we are very definitely moving into age of neuroscience. But a lot of work needs to be done before the findings from neuroscience are clear. It is exciting how understanding is developing, but it is very much developing on very tentative grounds.

This explains your point about spacial ability www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html

There is a neuroscience article which explains maizieD's point I'll try and look it out later

Mrz saw these and thought of you. You may have seen them already, but I thought you'd find them interesting:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04273.x/pdf

class="underline">etal2008learning%20styles.pdf

I am just going to reiterate that I was in no way saying that learning styles do exist. The point about spatial processing wasn't related to learning styles.
The research is clear that different strategies can be more efficient than others. In terms of MasieD's point, there is never a simple explanation of the nature/nurture debate. Whilst there is certainly a degree of societal influence involved in our learning and the way we perceive each other and ourselves, what I do know of the literature on allocentric and egocentric spatial processing leads me to think that it is much more to do with differences in underlying brain structure than societal influence. It is certainly the case that fMRI data supports the claim that difference brain structures underlie the different strategies. In fairness, it was perhaps a red herring to include the comment on a debate on learning styles. I was just trying to make the point that there are differences in brain function which result in difference performance outcomes. However, I wasn't intending to relate it to learning because it isn't my area.

Mrz: there are differences in brain function which result in difference performance outcomes.
There are indeed: some children are far better able to cope with something as illogical as the irregularities of English spelling,
with different sounds for identical letters (an - any, apron; on - only, once) and
different spellings for identical sounds (blue, shoe, flew, through, too).

Anglophone countries have higher levels of dyslexia than nearly all others. This is undoubtedly largely a function of English spelling irregularities.

Dyslexics are deemed to have above average difficulties with linking sounds to spellings. A spelling system which links them as erratically as the English one, clearly makes this especially difficult.

The International Dyslexia Association adopted the following definition for dyslexia:
" Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.

The International Dyslexia Association recognizes that the term dyslexia often is used inaccurately to describe other conditions associated with reading difficulties. That usage adds confusion and a lack of specificity to the diagnosis of dyslexia."

posted too soon

notice masha their definition has nothing to do with the orthographical features of a language

I haven't seen Masha for ages. This thread has everything :o