???s for O-G Certified Tutors

[Heathermomster]

...and you know who you are... :D 

 

How do you feel about SWR/WRTR/LOE type reading programs for reading remediation?

 

My son's Wilson teacher advised me to avoid that type of teaching material because there were too many rules.  This gal started teaching in 1976, is Wilson and Slingerland certified, and has helped countless students learn to read.  In my view, she has street cred.  

 

Is SWR/WRTR/LOE just as effective as Barton or should those programs be avoided when working with the dyslexic student?  I am just curious about other opinions..

 

Thank-you, 

Heather

[Timberly]

.

[OneStepAtATime]

Just for clarification, WRTR is Writing Road to Reading?  SWR and LOE I could probably figure out but I am currently drawing a blank.

 

I don't believe I have used any of those but I will just say that I think this entirely depends on the child and the parent and the circumstances.  Maybe for the bulk of dyslexics these would not be good programs.  I honestly don't know since i don't believe I have used them.  But having seen many things that were highly recommended be an utterly dismal failure here and other things that people swore would be an abysmal fit actually end up being quite successful I just have to say that a blanket statement probably isn't terribly accurate at all, even coming from a professional tutor.  We went through several of those, many with all kinds of certifications, and of the local ones even the one I liked actually was way off on several recommendations.

 

Barton is full of rules so I don't get the reference to those other programs being too full of rules.  But with Barton you are supposed to expose the child to the application of those rules in so many ways and with enough frequency and review that the rules internalize.  Perhaps she means that they just memorize rules in those programs, instead of working for automaticity?

[PeterPan]

Heather I'm glad you asked this, because I've been wanting to discuss it!!  I started with WRTR with dd and quickly went to SWR, which, with enough repetition and putting the words onto flashcards to build automaticity, worked for her.  She's an adequate, though not stellar, speller, and she does not test as dyslexic.  Her reading skills are AWESOME.  

 

I've been trying to figure this out for days, *why* SWR could be appropriate for her but not for ds, is the difference *just* his phonemic awareness or is it ALSO how he's going to process the info?  

 

With SWR we never did any decoding.  None.  Squat.  Nada.  Zilch.

 

So from my perspective, having watched how well it resulted in her reading, the whole idea that I'm supposed to move over to this decode your way into reading approach is scary to me.  I don't see how decoding your way into reading could EVER be a good method for a dc with a discrepancy in processing speed, low RAN/RAS, etc., kwim?  Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

But what specifically made SWR work for dd and would those same things happen in ds's brain?  THAT is the real question.  I don't have the answer yet and I want it!

 

SWR teaches words by frequency and not by pattern at all.  So what i haven't been really clear on is how it was dd actually started reading.  We weren't sounding out.  We were spelling words and then putting them onto flashcards to drill.  I THINK what happened during that is her brain *pieced together* the patterns, unlocked the code, and BAM she could read.

 

So if a dc's brain is NOT going to unlock patterns and apply them to new situations (which we agree would be asking pigs to fly in my ds), then that won't work.  So then I'm looking at Barton, LIPS, etc. curious to see how much emphasis they put on SPELLING your way into reading vs. DECODING your way into reading.  Because if we spelled our way in with more emphasis on making the patterns clear and then putting those words onto flashcards to build fluency, we'll still get the same effect.  I *think* this might be what I'm seeing in LIPS.  I don't know Barton well enough to say.  I put B1 up and haven't looked at it since I figured out how much we have to do in LIPS before we're ready to move on.

 

If Barton emphasizes decoding (vs. previsualization, analysis, and encoding/spelling), then I don't know.  I'd like to hear their logic on it, because truly decoding as a way of learning to read does NOT make sense to me.  Encoding and flashcards for fluency makes sense to me.

 

Now on to your dd.  You know at some point you're gonna break open that bank account and get the evals, right?  LOL  I mean, are you frustrated and wondering if she's dyslexic or just not liking the price of LOE?  I thought it was working??  I think the answer to that (as in what's going on in her brain, whether there's an LD) MATTERS.  I think you deserve those answers even if they do cost you Christmas and leaving you oatmeal 3 meals a day to get.  That's why I just did evals, cuz it's awful teaching through something when you don't know what it is.  

 

I don't get what this Wilson tutor was telling you.  She clearly doesn't understand SWR *at all* because the rules don't matter.  There can't possibly be less rules in there than in anything else, because they're just the basic rules.  And it doesn't matter AT ALL, because you NEVER DECODE in SWR.  You only encode.  Reading fluency is built with flashcards.  It is assumed the dc's brain will piece together things, figure out the patterns, and begin to read spontaneously.  This actually works for the majority of kids using SWR.  But I've seen people with dyslexics using SWR (not here, elsewhere) and complaining it's not working and I go back to my point that I'm not SURE whether it's appropriate.  I think the answer as to *why* it would or would not be appropriate for dyslexia is important.

 

Now, I want to say this because it's bugging me.  Dumb things Sanseri says about dyslexia?  I don't have quotes in front of me, so this is just the jist.  Drag it up if you want to see for yourself, because she has testified before Congress and has transcripts up, probably has her intro to SWR up somewhere, etc.  

 

-Reading programs cause dyslexia.--Well Obviously that's DUMB, because we can now identify dyslexia WELL BEFORE  a dc ever is taught to read.

 

-If we use the right reading program we can "prevent" dyslexia.--Again, can we continue to be dumb?  I didn't cause it and by definition dyslexia is reading disorder IN SPITE of appropriate instruction.

 

-SWR will prevent/cure/whatever dyslexia.--Ok, you judge.  I'm just asking.  

 

All I know as a consumer at the beginning of this process is that *I'm not impressed* when EXPERTS say that he WILL read slowly, no matter what I do, WILL have xyz problems, no matter what I do, etc. etc.  This DOES NOT make sense to me.  I say find the problem, treat the problem, intervene.  WHY does the path have to be a certain way JUST BECAUSE SOME EXPERT said it said IT CAN'T BE DONE???

 

So they say he'll read slowly because his RAN/RAS is low.  I ask why I can't drill RAN/RAS for a few minutes a day, every day, for years, and see if there's some improvement?  They're saying he'll read slowly because he won't build fluency from lack of practice.  Well again, WHY can't I shift that by giving him more practice??

 

WHERE IS IT WRITTEN that I can't succeed and that these things WON'T respond to therapeutic, targeted intervention???

 

It makes no sense to me.

 

So if these same experts are willing to prescribe Barton or Wilson or whatever and willing to say that no matter what I do he's going to read poorly and slowly and just to be thankful he's reading at all and STOP COMPLAINING, then WHY do I have to believe them? Why can't I question, try some other things, see if there are holes in the "expert" approaches, since I probably couldn't do WORSE?

 

But that's no good to you.   :lol:   

 

So why are you asking about SWR?  I love SWR for the right child.  It allows them to go quickly (at their own pace) and gets them to spelling and reading at their IQ level more quickly than grade leveled approaches.  My dd, with her poor processing speed and working memory, would have been a crappy reader forever with a grade-leveled approach like LOE, AAS, etc.  SWR left her with some holes, absolutely.  (Minor details like not being able to decode, lol.)  But you know, WHO GIVES A FLIP when my kid reads as well as she does?  And I only have one religion in this house besides G*d, and that's reading.  She can read.  I have succeeded where schools fail.

 

So if there are *no* phonemic awareness issues, no dyslexia, no LD, and your question is merely can you jump out of pain in the butt, incremental LOE and blast off with SWR, ABSOLUTELY!!!  Just because SWR wasn't right for your dyslexic ds doesn't mean it couldn't be AMAZING for your dd.  But you know, I don't know what's in her brain.  If you're really concerned about that, starve a bit and save up for evals.  You seem to have so many minor concerns that they really seem to add up and weigh on you.  Information will make you a better teacher.  

[Heathermomster]

OneStep, WRTR is the book that teaches the Spalding method.

OhE, I asked because I am genuinely curious. DD is fine. ETA: LOE is slow. I am currently weighing my options to jump the LOE train, but that is not what this question is about. <insert big grin...I am on an IPad>

A lady inquired yesterday about LOE Essentials, and it aroused a question that has been percolating for some time. SWR and even LOE are so much cheaper that Barton. When son's tutor shunned Spalding about the rules, well that did seem strange to me; however, I have never taught Wilson and I trust her. Please note too, that I selected LOE Foundations for DD in spite of whatever she thought. DD is bright too and acts so utterly different than her bro at that age.

Now, I do have an adult friend with dyslexia and dyscalculia. She homeschooled her five children and swears by SWR. She is totally convinced that SWR headed off her eldest DD's dyslexic tendencies.

Basically, I am just interested.

[OneStepAtATime]

Edited:  Crossposted with you Heathermomster.  THanks for the clarification.  Cool that you are asking about this.  I have been wondering about a lot of programs and why some work and some don't for kids that seem to be so similar.

 

And agreed, OhE, on many things in your post.  I just don't think there can be blanket statements like the Wilson teacher was saying.

 

FWIW, I learned to read without any phonics.  I didn't need to be explicitly taught how to decode or encode for that matter.  I cannot remember a time when I wasn't reading.  It came as naturally as breathing.  Spelling was more challenging, though.  I actually got good grades in spelling but I had to study to pass spelling tests.  I didn't have to study nada to pass reading tests.  I just read.  Duck to water.

 

Now that I am doing Barton with the kids, I do wish someone had run me through something like this program, though.  It wouldn't have taken very long at all, I don't think, but man does spelling make more sense now!  I wouldn't have had to study for hardly any spelling tests at all.   :laugh:

 

From what you are describing, OhE, it sounds like SWR (what does that stand for exactly?) would be a poor fit for both of my kids, by the way.  I do NOT think that means it is automatically a poor fit for every dyslexic child, though.  Goodness I just don't see how I could say that.  Experiences at home and on this and other boards have proven to me over and over that every child and ever family and every circumstance is unique.  Even when there are common variables that does not mean automatically that the same things will work.  I think we have all seen that proven untrue, KWIM?   :)

[Heathermomster]

SWR as written by Wanda Sanseri and means Spell to Write and Read.

[OneStepAtATime]

SWR as written by Wanda Sanseri and means Spell to Write and Read.

Thanks!  :)

[OneStepAtATime]

Oh, and OhE, Barton does a lot of decoding and encoding.  And there ARE flashcards, and there is also finger spelling and analysis of the structure of words and sentences and a whole host of things that go on in each lesson.  It makes spelling/writing and reading all kind of part of the same process, just from different sides of the same coin, as you move through each part of each lesson at each level.  You don't only decode.  The student does both decoding and encoding.  Not sure that helps you any, but I thought I would share.

[Heathermomster]

Ok, I found this link,,,

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/116897-dyslexia-and-spalding/

[PeterPan]

OneStep, WRTR is the book that teaches the Spalding method.

 

OhE, I asked because I am genuinely curious. DD is fine. ETA: LOE is slow. I am currently weighing my options to jump the LOE train, but that is not what this question is about. <insert big grin...I am on an IPad>

 

A lady inquired yesterday about LOE Essentials, and it aroused a question that has been percolating for some time. SWR and even LOE are so much cheaper that Barton. When son's tutor shunned Spalding about the rules, well that did seem strange to me; however, I have never taught Wilson and I trust her. Please note too, that I selected LOE Foundations for DD in spite of whatever she thought. DD is bright too, but acts so utterly different than her bro at that age.

 

Now, I do have an adult friend with dyslexia and dyscalculia. She homeschooled her five children and swears by SWR. She is totally convinced that SWR headed off her eldest DD's dyslexic tendencies.

 

Basically, I am just interested.

Dyslexic tendencies?  You mean like ADHD?  Fine, I hear you.  But that's not dyslexia.  SWR doesn't have the tools to go in and remediate serious, clinically low, stubborn, neurological problems with phonemic awareness.  It just doesn't, and I like it.  If it did, I wouldn't be using LIPS and buying Barton.  

 

SWR starts by throwing the main phonograms at the dc upfront and telling them to write, all in the first week.  Wouldn't fly with ds.    :svengo: 

 

I'm just saying people can SAY anything they want.  Yes, if the kid has adhd and somewhat low CTOPP and the type of brain that needs a LOT of repetition to nail things, SWR is golden.  I've already said that's what it did for my dd.  But SWR doesn't help me for ds.  It just leaves too much to assumption.  I'd basically have to finish LIPS, do B1, maybe more, before he'd even have ANY ability to do ANYTHING SWR wants them to.  And if I went over to SWR, I don't know that it would actually work.  That's what I've been trying to sort out.

 

So yes, I think this grade-leveled thing in LOE, the AAR levels, etc. is, um, not the most efficient for kids who, with more practice, will be able to congeal the concepts more quickly.  My dd was reading 4th-9th gr material by the end of 1st, and that's all SWR.  Grade-leveled materials didn't make sense for her.  If you want to jump, jump.  

[OneStepAtATime]

Ok, I found this link,,,

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/116897-dyslexia-and-spalding/

Wish some of those fonts weren't so darn small but that was a very interesting read!  Thanks for sharing Heathermomster.

[Slache]

Just for clarification, WRTR is Writing Road to Reading?  SWR and LOE I could probably figure out but I am currently drawing a blank.

 

I don't believe I have used any of those but I will just say that I think this entirely depends on the child and the parent and the circumstances.  Maybe for the bulk of dyslexics these would not be good programs.  I honestly don't know since i don't believe I have used them.  But having seen many things that were highly recommended be an utterly dismal failure here and other things that people swore would be an abysmal fit actually end up being quite successful I just have to say that a blanket statement probably isn't terribly accurate at all, even coming from a professional tutor.  We went through several of those, many with all kinds of certifications, and of the local ones even the one I liked actually was way off on several recommendations.

 

Barton is full of rules so I don't get the reference to those other programs being too full of rules.  But with Barton you are supposed to expose the child to the application of those rules in so many ways and with enough frequency and review that the rules internalize.  Perhaps she means that they just memorize rules in those programs, instead of working for automaticity?

 

And LOE is Logic of English. They're all OG.

[OneStepAtATime]

And LOE is Logic of English. They're all OG.

Thanks.  :)

 

And when you say they are all OG, it sounds like some are sort of OG but not pure OG?  Maybe based on it?  Like Barton is based on OG but is not pure OG as I understand OG, although it breaks things down far more extensively than some other OG based programs.  Maybe I am wrong?  Not sure how clear I am on the definition of true OG since some programs I was told were OG turned out not to really be what I was told was OG.  Can anyone clarify the definition of a true OG program?

[PeterPan]

Ok, I found this link,,,

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/116897-dyslexia-and-spalding/

Ooo, that was VERY helpful!!!  It confirmed some things I was trying to figure out.  Siloam used to post here a lot and she used to hang at SL.  I don't know where she is now.  

 

OneStep, did you see what Laurie4b said in that thread?  

 

I tutor kids with reading difficulties and am trained as an Orton Gillingham tutor using Wilson materials. I've used Merrill Linguistics, Reading Reflex, and SWR as well as Wilson. I have two kids of my own with dyslexia. SWR lacks many of the methods that work fastest with dyslexic children. It's not that it can't work, it's just that it's more likely to take longer or not work than some of the other methods. One might say that it's a very streamlined OG approach. It would not be on my list of recommendations for a child with dyslexia. 

 

She then goes on to recommend Reading Reflex or Phonographix tutor, Wilson/Barton, or REWARDS, depending on the situation.  Laurie is a seriously well-researched poster, so that has a lot of cred with me.  It makes sense to me to say that it's not what SWR has but what it's *missing* that we don't realize our kids need.  So, sigh, back to being content, lol.  

 

Awesome find on that thread, Heather.   :thumbup1: 

[PeterPan]

Thanks.   :)

 

And when you say they are all OG, it sounds like some are sort of OG but not pure OG?  Maybe based on it?  Like Barton is based on OG but is not pure OG as I understand OG, although it breaks things down far more extensively than some other OG based programs.  Maybe I am wrong?  Not sure how clear I am on the definition of true OG since some programs I was told were OG turned out not to really be what I was told was OG.  Can anyone clarify the definition of a true OG program?

Just because they all studied under O or G or studied under someone who studied under O or G or copied and rebadged the program from someone who studied under someone who studied under O or G (yes, you read all that right!) *doesn't* mean they'll all be appropriate for dyslexics just because OG is.  They all tweaked, changed, modified, brought things in, dropped things out along the way.  We really have to use our heads on this.  

 

Something can be great for one situation and not for another.  

 

Sometimes when you're reading about someone getting xyz program to work, it's because of budget, not because it was ideal.  Doesn't mean you'd be happy with their results either.  People can SAY anything.

[Slache]

Thanks.   :)

 

And when you say they are all OG, it sounds like some are sort of OG but not pure OG?  Maybe based on it?  Like Barton is based on OG but is not pure OG as I understand OG, although it breaks things down far more extensively than some other OG based programs.  Maybe I am wrong?  Not sure how clear I am on the definition of true OG since some programs I was told were OG turned out not to really be what I was told was OG.  Can anyone clarify the definition of a true OG program?

 

I'm not sure that would go well.  ;)

 

When I met Wanda she said that her program wasn't OG, it was Orton-Spalding. I have no idea what she means by that. It was crowded when we met and I hogged her enough as it was. Everyone I've met calls SWR and LoE OG.

[PeterPan]

I'm not sure that would go well.  ;)

 

When I met Wanda she said that her program wasn't OG, it was Orton-Spalding. I have no idea what she means by that. It was crowded when we met and I hogged her enough as it was. Everyone I've met calls SWR and LoE OG.

THAT is actually a very accurate family tree!  It means Orton began Spalding, Spalding begat Sanseri, and Sanseri begat SWR.  Or put another way: Orton mentored Spalding, Spalding mentored Sanseri, and Sanseri took her version of Spalding and created SWR.  So yes, Orton-Spalding would be a very accurate description.

[PeterPan]

And you know, thanks to this thread I now know whose posts I'm going to be reading late into the night some night, hehe...  

[OneStepAtATime]

I have had such delight in reading this thread and the link.  I admit that after all the copious research I did early on a lot of that info seemed to end up in a kind of soup in my head.  Barton seemed to make the most sense for our situation and I kind of junked everything else into "study this in more depth later" mental file folders which apparently got dumped into "refile this later" piles as time went on.  :)  Things are starting to come back to me and there has been some great clarification here.   :thumbup1:

[FairProspects]

Ooo, that was VERY helpful!!!  It confirmed some things I was trying to figure out.  Siloam used to post here a lot and she used to hang at SL.  I don't know where she is now.  

 

 

She is on the Heart of Reading Yahoo Group now. :)

[Heathermomster]

I'm not sure that would go well.  ;)

 

When I met Wanda she said that her program wasn't OG, it was Orton-Spalding. I have no idea what she means by that. It was crowded when we met and I hogged her enough as it was. Everyone I've met calls SWR and LoE OG.

I read that a lot as well, and it irritates me.  I read a handful of chapters from WRTR and distinctly recall the author mentioning Orton.

[Heathermomster]

Dyslexic tendencies?  You mean like ADHD?  Fine, I hear you.  But that's not dyslexia.  SWR doesn't have the tools to go in and remediate serious, clinically low, stubborn, neurological problems with phonemic awareness.  It just doesn't, and I like it.  If it did, I wouldn't be using LIPS and buying Barton.  

 

SWR starts by throwing the main phonograms at the dc upfront and telling them to write, all in the first week.  Wouldn't fly with ds.    :svengo: 

 

I'm just saying people can SAY anything they want.  Yes, if the kid has adhd and somewhat low CTOPP and the type of brain that needs a LOT of repetition to nail things, SWR is golden.  I've already said that's what it did for my dd.  But SWR doesn't help me for ds.  It just leaves too much to assumption.  I'd basically have to finish LIPS, do B1, maybe more, before he'd even have ANY ability to do ANYTHING SWR wants them to.  And if I went over to SWR, I don't know that it would actually work.  That's what I've been trying to sort out.

 

So yes, I think this grade-leveled thing in LOE, the AAR levels, etc. is, um, not the most efficient for kids who, with more practice, will be able to congeal the concepts more quickly.  My dd was reading 4th-9th gr material by the end of 1st, and that's all SWR.  Grade-leveled materials didn't make sense for her.  If you want to jump, jump.  

At least three of her children are dyslexic.  She didn't bother to get the DD tested. ( I need to speak with her and get the story straight.)  As I understand it, she taught explicit phonics slowly using SWR to ensure no mumbo jumbo down the road.

 

I don't understand what you mean by grade leveled in LOE.  Are you calling them grade leveled because LOE Foundation sells product in books A-D?   LOE Foundations teaches one phonogram per lesson.  Up until about a month ago, I have appreciated the pace of LOE Foundations.  LOE B-ish recommends Bob books. I am not a fan of those with their six second life cycle.  Although not specifically recommended by LOE, I picked up some controlled books from the American Language Series instead.  We started that last spring.  She also reads McGuffey and Pathway readers.  

 

For trade books, I can now look at one and tell if there might be a problem.   I mark any tricky word.  I'm using the Scholastic Book Wizard to gauge where she is and that is anywhere between a grade level of 2.2 and 4.4.  Basically, I am not worried about my girl, though I will be happy when we are through the remaining phongrams and she reads some carefully screened Chaucer.  I'll be satisfied then. 

 

I have noted a major distinction between Wilson and LOE Foundations, and that is the emphasis on marking syllables.  Someone else pointed that out in the thread I linked.  DS was taught to mark syllables.  LOE thus far has not taken that tack, and I wish that it would.  I mark syllables for unknown words, and then DD can correctly read with the proper vowel sound.  

 

This did turn out to be an interesting thread.  I just want to understand...

 

ETA:  With LOE, DD could not handle the handwriting.  She's been in OT and fell completely off the LOE handwriting grid.  She is only now copying sentences and not complaining of hand pain.  

[OneStepAtATime]

At least three of her children are dyslexic.  She didn't bother to get the DD tested. ( I need to speak with her and get the story straight.)  As I understand it, she taught explicit phonics slowly using SWR to ensure no mumbo jumbo down the road.

 

I don't understand what you mean by grade leveled in LOE.  Are you calling them grade leveled because LOE Foundation sells product in books A-D?   LOE Foundations teaches one phonogram per lesson.  Up until about a month ago, I have appreciated the pace of LOE Foundations.  LOE B-ish recommends Bob books. I am not a fan of those with their six second life cycle.  Although not specifically recommended by LOE, I picked up some controlled books from the American Language Series instead.  We started that last spring.  She also reads McGuffey and Pathway readers .  

 

For trade books, I can now look at one and tell if there might be a problem.   I mark any tricky word.  I'm using the Scholastic Book Wizard to gauge where she is and that is anywhere between a grade level of 2.2 and 4.4.  Basically, I am not worried about my girl, though I will be happy when we are through the remaining phongrams and she reads some carefully screened Chaucer.  I'll be satisfied then. 

 

I have noted a major distinction between Wilson and LOE Foundations, and that is the emphasis on marking syllables.  Someone else pointed that out in the thread I linked.  DS was taught to mark syllables.  LOE thus far has not taken that tack, and I wish that it would.  I mark syllables for unknown words, and then DD can correctly read with the proper vowel sound.  

 

This did turn out to be an interesting thread.  I just want to understand...

 

ETA:  With LOE, DD could not hande the handwriting.  She's been in OT and fell completely off the LOE handwriting grid.  She is only now copying sentences and not complaining of hand pain.  

This is interesting.  When I started DD on Barton, I had no idea she didn't know what a syllable was.  She had heard the term.   She had already completed 5th grade. It apparently never had any meaning to her.  I don't know why I thought she had picked it up in school but I remember being so shocked when I realized she didn't have a clue what I was talking about.  I am grateful that Barton addresses syllables because I really wasn't sure how to go back and systematically teach something that just kind of was intuitive to me.  I really never realized how important breaking down words into syllables was until I realized part of my child's struggles with reading was her inability to even recognize syllables existed.

 

Handwriting has been challenging for DS.  Thankfully, he does well with a dry erase.  We have done a lot of Barton (not all but a lot) with a dry erase board.  If I hadn't had that option to give him I have no idea where we would be right now.  I still have to break up the Barton lessons based on where the heavy handwriting is, though.  It cannot all be in the same session or his hand aches badly and he gets overwhelmed trying to focus on proper formation.

 

Is OT helping your dd's handwriting?

 

I wish a lot of certified O-G tutors would respond to this thread, by the way.  I find your questions and this thread interesting and would love to hear more feedback.

[PeterPan]

At least three of her children are dyslexic.  She didn't bother to get the DD tested. ( I need to speak with her and get the story straight.)  As I understand it, she taught explicit phonics slowly using SWR to ensure no mumbo jumbo down the road.

 

I don't understand what you mean by grade leveled in LOE.  Are you calling them grade leveled because LOE Foundation sells product in books A-D?   LOE Foundations teaches one phonogram per lesson.  Up until about a month ago, I have appreciated the pace of LOE Foundations.  LOE B-ish recommends Bob books. I am not a fan of those with their six second life cycle.  Although not specifically recommended by LOE, I picked up some controlled books from the American Language Series instead.  We started that last spring.  She also reads McGuffey and Pathway readers.  

 

For trade books, I can now look at one and tell if there might be a problem.   I mark any tricky word.  I'm using the Scholastic Book Wizard to gauge where she is and that is anywhere between a grade level of 2.2 and 4.4.  Basically, I am not worried about my girl, though I will be happy when we are through the remaining phongrams and she reads some carefully screened Chaucer.  I'll be satisfied then. 

 

I have noted a major distinction between Wilson and LOE Foundations, and that is the emphasis on marking syllables.  Someone else pointed that out in the thread I linked.  DS was taught to mark syllables.  LOE thus far has not taken that tack, and I wish that it would.  I mark syllables for unknown words, and then DD can correctly read with the proper vowel sound.  

 

This did turn out to be an interesting thread.  I just want to understand...

 

ETA:  With LOE, DD could not hande the handwriting.  She's been in OT and fell completely off the LOE handwriting grid.  She is only now copying sentences and not complaining of hand pain.  

You realize I've spent the whole evening, when I could have been cleaning toilets, watching a movie, quilting, whatever, PONDERING this?   :lol:   You've totally got me lost in thought when I had been DETERMINED to take a break!  Clearly my determination is worth nothing.   :D

 

Ok, so here's my problem, and you can see my quandry.  Ds' CTOPP scores on the day of testing were 25th percentile.  So at that point it's dyslexia relative to IQ.  Thing is, 3-4 months before, when we started LIPS and the DeGaetano workbooks, he had NO rhyming, NOTHING.  The ONLY reason he had rhyming is because I was doing these therapy/intervention materials with him.  Nothing NORMAL was developing it at all.  I know that and have it documented on the boards.  

 

But what I also have is this idiot psych who didn't listen, didn't want to slow down and talk, who never really ENGAGED on any of that.  He just gave me the worried mother routine (like the first SLP we went to, grrr) and did his thing.  Now he was GREAT with ds, but he SO blew me off that he made NO EFFORT to understand what I had done with him.  And you know he had no respect for me, because then he laid into his whole "parents can't tutor" mantra CRAP.  

 

SO.  

 

So with that said, is my ds profoundly dyslexic with scores that went up because of my efforts, or is he mildly dyslexic and I'm just all screwy?  Or does the apraxia somehow explain it?  The apraxia and the phonemic awareness and decoding are in the exact same part of the brain (Broca's Area).  So we're not talking rocket science here to say he's affected.

 

So here's my problem.  If it's so mild that the only way to call it dyslexia is relative to IQ, then whatever works for "mild" dyslexia OUGHT to be adequate for my ds.  But if it's actually more severe and the IDIOT PSYCH didn't think through it that way because he had no RESPECT for me because he's a SNOB, well that changes things.

 

So that's what I've spent the evening pondering as I read Laurie's back posts on the board, the idea of severity and where ds falls in that and what we're seeing and to what extent that would explain the discrepancies in what I'm seeing in ds vs. what someone else is seeing.  

 

I'm saying it is finally occurring to me (duh, yes, I'm slow) that ds is either more severe than I realized or A-TYPICAL even for a dyslexic.

 

And once you get there, it means I can't extrapolate my experience with him to any other dyslexic whose situation doesn't line up very closely (apraxia plus dyslexia).  So then I'm back to lonely, sniff, cuz that's not a very common scenario.  

 

 Did ANY of that make sense?   :lol:

 

So as far as SWR for dyslexics, Siloam went into the major difference and Laurie4b said the same thing, that there are going to be some things in Barton/Wilson that SWR is not going to have that helps dyslexics proceed more quickly.  If she got SWR to work, it only means her kids didn't need those things or she brought them in herself.  What would interest me greatly (if Laurie or anyone was around to comment) is WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE...

 

SWR only has the most cursory approach to syllables.  You clap/count them when you dictate the word.  There's never any discussion of how to divide, etc.  The tm has the answers.  You leave a space between the syllables as you write the word.  SWR NEVER focuses on decoding, never ever ever, so the whole idea of marking text to make it easier to read is foreign.  

 

I don't know, I never had to mark anything for dd.  We did SWR, and she started reading.  Her first book was Calvin and Hobbes.  She never read easy readers and refused the Bob books.  She just started reading.  

 

In reality, SWR is just a word list with great sample sentences and enrichment activities.  What you DO with that word list is the magic, and your friend may be bringing a lot to the table.  It can also be a lot of work for moms.  SWR's emphasis is actually on spelling, where reading is then the byproduct.  It doesn't work out that way for all kids.  

 

You do know the LOE chick used to be an SWR trainer, right?  

 

CBD has samples for the Wise Guide probably.  Remember, the concepts behind LOE are going to be almost IDENTICAL to SWR.  So the only thing that is fundamentally changing is what tm is in front of you.  You don't use the SWR manual most of the time but actually just the Wise Guide.  So the real question is, when you look at the Wise Guide, is that a great next step for your dd or a horror ride?

[PeterPan]

Ok, I'm having a moment here.  I *think* the psych said that ds is going to need to write as part of his learning to read, because of course writing is one of the pathways into the brain.  I can tell you that right now I have him doing his letters with sandpaper and spelling with tiles and magnets.  I *think* when we switch over to spelling we'll probably use a sand tray or go vertical.  I *think* I'll probably keep him off paper for spelling for a while.  We'll see.  I just think it's ok to spell other ways besides on paper.  Chalkboard while standing, sand tray, whatever.

 

Also, you could divide it up and only do 3-5 words at a time.  Is her hand pain improving with the OT?  

[Heathermomster]

The dyslexics I meet locally are nothing like my son outside of the struggling to read part. He has dysgraphia and dyscalculia with the IQ. None of his friends struggle that way. My son's strengths and deficits set him apart. DS reads and gets by in school. After 5 years of remediation, DS still earns his labels based upon IQ scores and achievement, and I am so grateful because he seriously needs his testing accommodations.

 

Try not to compare so much. The early stages of reading remediation are a challenging circumstance under the best conditions. Your np sounds like a prat. Your DS may be atypical but the remediation starts the same. Eta: Supposing you think your DS has more of a deficit than the NP thinks. This circumstance proves that your DS is responsive to your instruction and that is a good sign. NPs are human like the rest of us. He is not psychic and sees a ton of people who do no remediation with their kids. It would be atypical of your NP to not suggest hiring a pro for helps.

 

LOE Foundations has the student take dictation for five words per lesson, and DD uses a dry erase board. Copywork has been her challenge lately, not the spelling words. She has also used the phonogram cards, the giant dry erase board, and letter tiles to spell words. DD has worked her way up to sentences. Her hand did not hurt last week. I feel like she is turning a corner with the handwriting. She started LOE in Kindie so has been using the materials for 14 months.

 

I don't know whether we will use Wise Guide. I own it, It is sitting in the back of my car.

 

Eta: LOE doesn't tell the user to mark text for reading...Only spelling. I mark texts because that is what DS did in Wilson to read difficult words. Once DD gets a difficult word, she practices reading without the word marked. That is all me, not LOE.

[Heathermomster]

This is interesting. When I started DD on Barton, I had no idea she didn't know what a syllable was. She had heard the term. She had already completed 5th grade. It apparently never had any meaning to her. I don't know why I thought she had picked it up in school but I remember being so shocked when I realized she didn't have a clue what I was talking about. I am grateful that Barton addresses syllables because I really wasn't sure how to go back and systematically teach something that just kind of was intuitive to me. I really never realized how important breaking down words into syllables was until I realized part of my child's struggles with reading was her inability to even recognize syllables existed.

 

Handwriting has been challenging for DS. Thankfully, he does well with a dry erase. We have done a lot of Barton (not all but a lot) with a dry erase board. If I hadn't had that option to give him I have no idea where we would be right now. I still have to break up the Barton lessons based on where the heavy handwriting is, though. It cannot all be in the same session or his hand aches badly and he gets overwhelmed trying to focus on proper formation.

 

Is OT helping your dd's handwriting?

 

I wish a lot of certified O-G tutors would respond to this thread, by the way. I find your questions and this thread interesting and would love to hear more feedback.

Yes, OT helped. DD uses the LOE whiteboard for dictation and is now copying sentences with her name, day of the week, and date daily. While learning the phonograms, she never really wrote and stated the phonogram sounds as she was supposed to. She did that in the air for a time though.

 

DD can reliably tell me the correct number of syllables.

[PeterPan]

 Your np sounds like a prat.  I don't know what prat means, but I like it.  :D

 

 I feel like she is turning a corner with the handwriting.  :hurray: :hurray:  :hurray:

I don't know whether we will use Wise Guide. I own it, It is sitting in the back of my car.   Shocking!  Get that baby out and use it!!  I'll bet you know enough to just jump right in.  That's really how anyone learns anyway.  And if you get stuck, you can go to Lulu and get my free Quick & Dirty Guide to Getting Started...  :)  

 

Eta: LOE doesn't tell the user to mark text for reading...Only spelling. I mark texts because that is what DS did in Wilson to read difficult words. Once DD gets a difficult word, she practices reading without the word marked. That is all me, not LOE.

Ahh, so now the markings thing makes sense.  You're definitely bringing a lot to the table.  

 

Now here's my question, thing to ponder, whatever.  IF your dd actually has a fuzz of a reading issue going on (hence the need for the markings and bringing in the Wilson techniques), will switch to SWR backfire?  I like SWR a LOT.  I mean, dude, I wrote my Q&D Guide to help people get started using it, lol.  But I'm just wondering if what's nagging at you is always this bit of *something* that you're seeing.  I don't know, you've clearly got the genes.  I don't even remember what your original question was, lol.  If it's is SWR good, yes it's good.  If it's is it adequate for a dyslexic, well wouldn't it be easier to find out if she IS dyslexic and then decide that?

 

I think you're more cognizant of the issues and recognizing more this time around than you did with your ds as a novice to all this.  This is not some yes/no lightswitch thing where you either are or aren't.  There could be degrees.  She could present differently.

 

Ok, so I went back to your op.  You asked about SWR/WRTR/LOE for reading remediation.  You mean for the general, non-dyslexic population or once you start talking dyslexia?  Usually the people I've seen on the boards over the years who were dealing with dyslexia moved on.  You bring a lot to the table now because of your Wilson experience.  If you're talking general population, adhd kids who need a lot more connections to get things to click/stick, yeah SWR is great. It has a terrific track record of getting as much as a 4 year bump in reading with one year of normal use.  But that's not with dyslexics, just more run of the mill situations.

 

So now I'll ask you, since you're familiar with Wilson.  When you look at the Wise Guide for SWR, what's MISSING?  I'm genuinely curious.  See I didn't know about this word chunking thing.  The syllable instruction I already knew was missing.  I assume the way words are presented (order, frequency vs. pattern) is different.  Anything else?

[PeterPan]

Yes, OT helped.  DD uses the LOE whiteboard for dictation and is now copying setences with her name, day of the week, and date daily.  While learning the phonagrams, she never really wrote and stated the phongram sounds as she was supposed to. She did that in the air for a time though.

 

DD can reliably tell me the correct number of syllables.

Are you still working on phonograms as you add more?  Are you writing them as you say them NOW?  That motor planning and connecting it with the sound is so essential.  It's part of the multi-sensory approach and frankly it's part of why SWR works, because they hear the sound, say it, write it, read it.  

 

Now for my dirty secret!  Well it's not really a secret, but maybe it will inspire you?  I went through every list *3 times* with dd, as in three years in a row.  And actually, the first year I STARTED OVER with SWR three times!!  As in we went back to the beginning and did everything AGAIN so she could see it fresh.  One of the major tenets of SWR is that analysis builds understanding at that doing a simple thing while making a lot of connections can be as beneficial as covering new, harder words.  So any time we hit a while, I just went SCHOOP right back to the beginning!  That first year we went back three times.  Now Sanseri says to repeat every word list twice, the first year slowly and the 2nd year as review and more quickly.  We went through all those word lists *3* times.  Two just would not have been adequate.  

 

My impression is with dyslexia it's a bit different, where you're always trying to keep going incrementally forward.  I really don't know how they handle that.  With a more typical child, you actually EXPECT to have to circle back.  When you do that and go through the material quickly, things click that hadn't before, and they're able to approach the words in a more sophisticated way. So you'll be doing review words, but you'll discuss their grammar (how to form plurals or possessives, etc.) or do more analysis/application with them.  

 

So did Wilson do that kind of cycling back or was it always plow forward, plow forward?  How did they handle that?

[Heathermomster]

http://www.learning-inside-out.com/wilson-reading-program.html

 

I read the above link about Wilson yesterday.  DS did not move forward with Wilson until he achieved a certain percentage of mastery.  I don't move forward with DD until I am confident that she understands.  Currently, I try to select trade books that don't require any books to be marked.

 

Generally speaking, I suspect parents push their kids forward with reading before the student has mastered whatever they happen to be studying at the moment.  This is why I selected early readers that specifically addressed whatever phonograms we were working on to ensure nothing has been missed.  DD progressed out of those books because there are too many three letter words and they don't sound natural.  She is good for now and I don't know yet how we will proceed into the new year.

[Princess Ariel]

I will begin by saying I am not officially "trained" as an OG tutor.  But in all my  years of homeschooling I have attended numerous workshops addressing various reading programs.  I tend to think most OG  tutors are loyal to and recommend the method they were trained in and very often are not even aware of other methods (unless perhaps they are homeschool moms who have done the research!)

[OneStepAtATime]

Ran out of likes but agree with Princess Ariel.  :)

[SandyKC]

I'm late to this thread, but received an invitation to comment (thank you, inviter--you know who you are ;-) ).  I have completed O-G training and O-G is just a method.  There is no "pure" O-G program, so to speak because the method does not dictate multisensory aspects of the teaching, nor does it dictate the specific hierarchy of teaching the phonemes, rules, etc.

 

The main differences from program to program have to do with the way in which the creator approached the progress through the sounds and the multisensory nature of their program--- some start with vowels because they're "critical," some start with single-sound phonemes because they're easier.  Like the sound of /b/ is only one sound.  No matter what, "b" always makes the /b/.

 

One person wondered earlier why the program she used worked for one of her kids and not the other... The difference usually stems from the multisensory nature of the program.  For example, Wilson.. It uses a lot of air writing, which isn't exactly visual.. Not as much as writing with a finger in fingerpaint. It's kinesthetic, but maybe not as kinesthetic-tactile as writing huge letters on a traditional chalkboard.  Whether or not a program works well for any individual child is sometimes rooted in how well the teaching methods in the program work with the specific child's learning style.

 

In other words--a child whose primary learning style is visual needs a program that is highly visual, often colorful program. 

A child who is highly tactile, needs a lot of textured teaching materials (velvet, carpet, sand tables, sand paper, etc.)

A child who is highly kinesthetic needs LARGE movements.. (writing with a big toe in carpet, writing body-sized letters on a wallboard, etc.)

 

Some programs are more paper oriented.. and those programs are easier for visual kids, although, I have always preferred the tactile materials for highly visual AND tactile simultaneously. 

Some programs are "light-weight" O-G, IMHO.  They don't incorporate a LOT of multisensory work.. they have more flashcards and paper-based materials.  

 

SWR-- HATED IT!! Even though I am O-G trained, for some reason, I found SWR difficult to work with in regard to precisely where my guys needed to be.

 

WRTR-- We used several elements of this program, particularly the phoneme teaching sequence. Yes, it is heavily "rules based," but that is part of the O-G methodology--kids who are taught the rules to the point of automatic recall do better with self-correction of spelling when it comes to writing refinement.  Kids who haven't been drilled in the rules to the point of mastery, often can't recall the rules when they need them.

 

We didn't use LOE.. We used The Language Toolkit (Link takes you to CBD) as the main "drill and practice" portion of our program with the frequency rules.  Frequency rules are, for example, if you have the sound of /s/ -- is that an "s," a "ce," "sc" (as in scene)? The frequency rules helps the child know which it is MOST likely to be, which helps with spelling.

 

Any O-G program that is truly O-G is going to teach each and every phoneme explicitly, and directly to the child.  The instruction will include multisensory teaching, using seeing, hearing, feeling and moving simultaneously (saying the sound aloud as you write it on some material). All of the rules will be taught, how to divide syllables, blending, etc., and everything will be taught to the point of mastery, which is CRITICAL.

 

My guess is the professional who said not to use WRTR and SWR probably didn't think those programs would be viable for someone who is not trained.  They are not "scripted" programs.. They don't tell you what to say, what to do when, or when to move to the next item.  Some of them don't even really emphasize the multi-sensory nature of the instruction--which is required.  If the child could learn from ordinary print-based teaching, he probably would have already!!  The Multisensory instruction is the avenue into the child's learning pathways.

 

That said, Barton is excellent for moms because it is well-scripted.  SPIRE Reading is a choice that a lot of teachers LOVE because it is similarly scripted, as is All About Reading.  The scripted programs are more step-by-step, do this, then this, then this types of programs that spell out each and every phoneme and rule to teach.  SWR and WRTR are more what I consider "directive" programs.. They'll say, "Teach these phonemes next," and will provide rules governing the phonemes, but they don't necessarily spell out exactly what to say, do, how to pronounce the phonemes, etc.

 

The Language Toolkit I used above is very "cryptic".  It assumes the user has had O-G training and doesn't really need much explanation.  The 32 page manual is pretty much a listing of what to teach with very little in the way of instruction about HOW to teach it.

 

A LOT of ground was covered in this conversation before I got here, and my read-through was not detailed, so let me know if there are specific questions still dangling in the air that I might help with.  I may or may not know the answer, but I'm certainly willing to answer what I can. ;-)

 

 

[PeterPan]

SandyKC, thanks, you've expanded my perspective on what makes programs work!  What is your take on the drilling of chunks like "fr", "ble", etc. ?  Recommend, don't recommend?   Also, is there a resource you can suggest for us to find these multisensory suggestions?  Are they in the tm for some of these curricula or is there a website or booklet you've found?  Are they in that Gillingham Manual you linked to me earlier?  

 

Do the students find it *confusing* to go through frequency rules to spell?  Wouldn't it be easier to use visualization?  Freed discusses this and suggests that dyslexics should be right-brain dominant (I know, that stupid phrase) and therefore VSL and have that visualization ability to tap into.  But if they have visual processing issues, their visual memory wouldn't be STRONG enough to make that effective.  Or maybe you *blended* visualization and rules with your student?  Do you put stock in it?

[FairProspects]

SandyKC, thanks, you've expanded my perspective on what makes programs work!  What is your take on the drilling of chunks like "fr", "ble", etc. ?  Recommend, don't recommend?   Also, is there a resource you can suggest for us to find these multisensory suggestions?  Are they in the tm for some of these curricula or is there a website or booklet you've found?  Are they in that Gillingham Manual you linked to me earlier?  

 

Do the students find it *confusing* to go through frequency rules to spell?  Wouldn't it be easier to use visualization?  Freed discusses this and suggests that dyslexics should be right-brain dominant (I know, that stupid phrase) and therefore VSL and have that visualization ability to tap into.  But if they have visual processing issues, their visual memory wouldn't be STRONG enough to make that effective.  Or maybe you *blended* visualization and rules with your student?  Do you put stock in it?

 

Not Sandy, but all of these strategies have been used in AAS/AAR materials. AAR uses "pickle" syllables so there is a pictoral visualization recall that goes along with consonant-l-e words.We haven't had visualization issues at all, but AAS does have visualization listed as a primary strategy on the list that is practiced regularly especially in the later levels (4+).

[OneStepAtATime]

Not Sandy, but all of these strategies have been used in AAS/AAR materials. AAR uses "pickle" syllables so there is a pictoral visualization recall that goes along with consonant-l-e words.We haven't had visualization issues at all, but AAS does have visualization listed as a primary strategy on the list that is practiced regularly especially in the later levels (4+).

Same with Barton. Probably Wilson, too.

[PeterPan]

FP--Thanks for the info on AAR.  I haven't seen it enough to know much about it, so that's interesting.  We did AAS after VT, but we went through the levels SO quickly.  

 

And yes, I wondered about the thought process of including images on the cards for the Spelling Success games that OneStep mentioned.  Sanseri was so ANTI-pictures, I was really curious to hear what the reasoning was with Barton, Rippel, etc. allowing/using them.

 

So when I said visualization, I had in my mind Freed's comments on using visualization for spelling (as in to bring the whole word into your mind).  People have mentioned spelling was weak with Barton, and I wondered how effective Freed's visualization methods for spelling (for the whole word) actually were for dyslexics.  

 

It also brings up the question of Seeing Stars, which also uses visualization but seems more focused on the parts.  I guess seeing a picture of a pickle to prompt you that the letters on the card say a certain sound didn't really strike me as visualization.  To me visualization is about being able to bring up the orthography itself (the written form, an image of the letters) in your mind.  Since LIPS is turning out to be so good for ds and so, frankly, essential, I've wondered if Seeing Stars also would be.  It seems like this connection between the kinesthetic (air writing) and the visualization of the code which seems like it would be highly effective for him.  The irony is, they're using a top 500 and top 1000 words list, which is basically what SWR is.  So I'm back to figuring out what Seeing Stars is doing, whether those strategies are hit in Barton, what in the world Seeing Stars accomplishes and how it fits together with other remediation, etc.  

 

So that's what I meant by visualization, the ability to pull up the written form of either chunks or the whole words from your visual memory.

 

 

 

Same with Barton. Probably Wilson, too.

 

OneStep, what does Barton have you visualizing?  Or you're saying Barton chunks?  Yes, learning those chunks to automaticity seems to be something that differentiates the intervention programs from the more mainstream spinoff programs like SWR, WRTR, etc.

[OneStepAtATime]

I am puzzled by the reference that spelling is weak in Barton.  I haven't found that to be true at all.  Spelling and reading are both covered in every single lesson.  They are two sides of the same coin.  The child learns rules and uses those rules to read and spell in many different ways, over and over, in different approaches, until the rule is internalized for both reading and spelling.

 

 I realize that this approach is not successful for every child. As we all know, though, different kids have a different combination of issues.  For some, no matter what the approach, spelling will probably always be a challenge.  And for others, maybe additional underlying issues make the Barton approach to spelling less effective than perhaps another way.  But spelling is definitely covered quite thoroughly in Barton.  It is a huge part of the program.

 

Although this is obviously anecdotal, FWIW, both DD and DS have improved in their spelling dramatically since we started the program.  DD especially has really blossomed in spelling after years and years of not being able to retain nearly ANY spelling rule/pattern/site word while in 7 years of brick and mortar school.

 

Spelling in particular makes me puffy heart love Barton.  DD and I spent countless torturous hours studying spelling lists.  They started introducing site words (no real phonics) in 4k and giving spelling tests in Kinder.  It breaks my heart to think of all the wasted years trying to help DD rote memorize those words.  She is highly visual.  But just trying to visualize those words was the most ineffective way to teach her to spell.  

 

In fact, I get nauseated at the thought of how much time we spent trying to do what the school said we needed to do.  We would get the new list on a Friday.  We would study that list in all kinds of ways, using visualization, flash cards, word associations, bouncing on a trampoline, just anything to try and help them stick (except phonics).  We did this Friday night, Saturday, Sunday, Monday....every single day, sometimes 2-3 times a day, all the way to the next Friday morning before the test.  

 

Some days she would get in the 90's.  Some days she would get less than a 50.  On one test in particular she got an 8.  Out of 100.  After studying for 7 days.  And by the next week, after every test, she had lost nearly everything from the previous week.  All that work and almost nothing retained.  Week after week.  Year after year.  Think about how demoralizing that would be.  She got so depressed.  Where would she be now if we had taken all those hours over all those years and put her in an OG based program instead?

 

After Level 2 of Barton, and possibly a few lessons in Level 3 (I can't recall how far along she was), a tutor friend of mine in another state issued a couple of criterion referenced spelling tests to DD.  DD did not see the words ahead of time.  She had no idea what would be on those lists.  She spelled every single word correctly on the first test and only missed one on the second.  This was NOT a Barton test.  This was a test issued by an OG trained tutor but she did not use a Barton test.   These were criterion referenced tests. The look on DD's face when she realized she genuinely knew how to spell those words without having studied AT ALL will stay with me for the rest of my life.  It was one of those truly precious moments that are burned into a mother's heart forever.

 

As for visualization, I wasn't meaning the pictures on the Spelling Success cards.  The pictures on the cards are not what are used during normal lessons at all.  There are NO pictures during a lesson, except for "key word" visualization in a child's own head to help remember short vowel sounds (like remembering an apple when trying to remember what the short vowel sound is for "a").  Pictures are not used in the lessons.  I guess you could say there is visualization through constant association of the rule to words is part of the program, but not pictures.

 

But visualization of site words is definitely used.  Yes, Barton does teach site words.  But not tons of lists of words that could actually be sounded out if you knew and had internalized the rules for decoding and encoding.  

 

There were three site word lists in Level 3.  The first was introduced in the first lesson.  You test the child on the list in two ways and track the results.  First, can they read the site word?  Second, can they spell the site word?  If they are shaky on either, a flash card is created for the child's reading deck and/or spelling deck.  Through several different approaches, including various types of visualization of the word, tracing of the word on surfaces with their finger, etc. the child internalizes reading and/or spelling of the word.  It is done in groups of three site words at a time.  The next list isn't started until all of the words from the current list are internalized.  There is inclusion of this process in every lesson in Level 3 and beyond.  (Pretty sure this process began in Level 3, not Level 2).

 

Not sure I explained anything terribly well.  Sorry.  

[PeterPan]

OneStep, thank you, that's incredibly helpful and interesting.  Gives me a lot to chew on.  I think I might be stuck with some hopes of miracle cures that may or may not pan out.  It's hard to see them dispelled and see that hope go out the window.  Well not hard, but that's what it is, letting go of these little "wouldn't this work?" ideas...  

 

So you're basically saying visualization gets you the final 20% and doesn't remove the need for the other 80%...  That story with your dd's spelling is amazing and heartbreaking.  How sad to be THAT defeated and frustrated!

 

Ok.  I think you made things make more sense.  So instruction gets us most of the way there and visualization is just to polish it off.  Not the other way around.  That would be pipe dreams.

 

So I was meaning to ask you, do you like ALL the Spelling Success cards?  It seems to me my ds could almost do the sounds game deck right now if we got it.  I was trying to decide what we would order, if they're of so limited use I should just make my own or so great a use that I'll wish I had just bought them for the better durability, etc...  And if we're paying the shipping, order more decks?

 

 

[OneStepAtATime]

OneStep, thank you, that's incredibly helpful and interesting.  Gives me a lot to chew on.  I think I might be stuck with some hopes of miracle cures that may or may not pan out.  It's hard to see them dispelled and see that hope go out the window.  Well not hard, but that's what it is, letting go of these little "wouldn't this work?" ideas...  

 

So you're basically saying visualization gets you the final 20% and doesn't remove the need for the other 80%...  That story with your dd's spelling is amazing and heartbreaking.  How sad to be THAT defeated and frustrated!

 

Ok.  I think you made things make more sense.  So instruction gets us most of the way there and visualization is just to polish it off.  Not the other way around.  That would be pipe dreams.

 

So I was meaning to ask you, do you like ALL the Spelling Success cards?  It seems to me my ds could almost do the sounds game deck right now if we got it.  I was trying to decide what we would order, if they're of so limited use I should just make my own or so great a use that I'll wish I had just bought them for the better durability, etc...  And if we're paying the shipping, order more decks?

I polished my response up thread, by the way.  Not sure which version you read.  :)

 

And yes, at least for DD, visualization only works as the polishing at the end, as you say.  The rest came with OG based lessons.  Without that, the visualization was useless, especially long term.

 

I love all the Spelling Success cards but I don't think they would be of too much use without pairing them with Barton.  MAYBE the unit cards and contraction cards could be used without Barton, but IMHO the others would be pretty useless.  Not sure even the unit cards would be all that helpful until the student has actually studied the unit lessons.  Honestly, I wouldn't waste money on them if you haven't done or are not going to do Barton.  They are really set up to reinforce Barton rules in particular.  They do a great job of that but I just don't think they would be helpful without tying them to Barton.  Sorry.  :sad:

[PeterPan]

I polished my response up thread, by the way.  Not sure which version you read.   :)

 

And yes, at least for DD, visualization only works as the polishing at the end, as you say.  The rest came with OG based lessons.  Without that, the visualization was useless, especially long term.

 

I love all the Spelling Success cards but I don't think they would be of too much use without pairing them with Barton.  MAYBE the unit cards and contraction cards could be used without Barton, but IMHO the others would be pretty useless.  Not sure even the unit cards would be all that helpful until the student has actually studied the unit lessons.  Honestly, I wouldn't waste money on them if you haven't done or are not going to do Barton.  They are really set up to reinforce Barton rules in particular.  They do a great job of that but I just don't think they would be helpful without tying them to Barton.  Sorry.  :sad:

Yes, the bolded is what hadn't occurred to me.  

 

Yeah, we're pretty much on-path to do Barton.  I've already got B1.  It's more just a question of when we jump out of LIPS and go into Barton.  At the beginning of last week I retested him and his working memory was holding him back.  We're working HARD on OT, etc., etc. and moderately but explicitly (only once or twice a day) on the working memory.  It *is* inching a little.  I just think LIPS is SO powerful with him, because it digs into the kinesthetic and mouth feel aspect of it, I'm reluctant to move on until I have to.  I don't know what I'm going to do about that because the latter part of LIPS and B1 overlap.  We've finished the vertical path in LIPS for our first time through with a limited field of letters, so now it's going back for more.  I'm concerned that if I go into B1, where we're trying to feel them in all the locations, and we don't have enough practice feeling them, B1 will be a struggle.  Maybe I could get brilliant about this?  I don't know.  

 

So I guess what confused me is the Spelling Success sounds game said it goes with level 2 of Barton, when it seems like you could play it with level 1.  That confused me.  

 

Well thanks for gabbing.  I'm hitting that HAY!

[OneStepAtATime]

Sorry Heathermomester.  We seem to have hijacked your thread.  Do you still like us?  Or maybe you never liked us and this has just confirmed for you that we are annoying and a waste of your time  :laugh: . Sorry!

Yes, the bolded is what hadn't occurred to me.  

 

Yeah, we're pretty much on-path to do Barton.  I've already got B1.  It's more just a question of when we jump out of LIPS and go into Barton.  At the beginning of last week I retested him and his working memory was holding him back.  We're working HARD on OT, etc., etc. and moderately but explicitly (only once or twice a day) on the working memory.  It *is* inching a little.  I just think LIPS is SO powerful with him, because it digs into the kinesthetic and mouth feel aspect of it, I'm reluctant to move on until I have to.  I don't know what I'm going to do about that because the latter part of LIPS and B1 overlap.  We've finished the vertical path in LIPS for our first time through with a limited field of letters, so now it's going back for more.  I'm concerned that if I go into B1, where we're trying to feel them in all the locations, and we don't have enough practice feeling them, B1 will be a struggle.  Maybe I could get brilliant about this?  I don't know.  

 

So I guess what confused me is the Spelling Success sounds game said it goes with level 2 of Barton, when it seems like you could play it with level 1.  That confused me.  

 

Well thanks for gabbing.  I'm hitting that HAY!

OhE, my mom, IMHO, did not go far enough or review long enough before she stopped LiPS with DS and had me move him into Barton.  While he breezed through Level 1 and Level 2 of Barton, and LiPS absolutely made an impact, the areas he tripped up in during Level 3 might have been less of an issue if he had done more with LiPS.  I really believe that.  But Mom was doing the same thing you are doing, wondering when to switch since there is overlap.  Neither one of us knew where to leap.  I think we made a bad call by switching when we did.  He hates the idea of going back to LiPS now.  He sees it as failure to go back to LiPS since DD is still moving forward in Barton.  

 

My advice?  Stick with LiPS for a while.  Overlap won't hurt at all I don't think, at least not at this level.  Don't pull out of LiPS too soon.  It takes the baby steps that Barton does not.  If he needs those baby steps, give him those baby steps.  Repeat as needed.  Barton will be there when he is ready.  He is still very young.  You have time.  Best wishes.

[merry gardens]

To quickly answer the original question, I'm rather familiar with SWR and a little familiar with LOE, (not so much with WRTR.)  They were/would have been "too much, too fast" for  my son. Barton starts with a screen, which some dyslexics (such as my son) can not pass without some fundamental remediation.  Phonograms mean very little to someone who is not detecting the individual sounds within words or recognizing syllables. While those other programs might be fine for some, they can be frustrating to some people with dyslexia.

 

As to Seeing Stars, Oh E, you sound a bit like me!  I liked LiPS so much that I wanted to try other Lindamood-Bell programs too.  I duplicated a lot of what we eventually got to in Barton. It was probably worthwhile for other reasons.  Some of the Seeing Stars workbooks were simple and attractive workbooks that he could do that looked like school work. Seeing Stars has a bit of a "younger" feel than Barton, with the animated cat, etc.  The Star Word cards we used to work on common words, both phonetically regular and not.  Barton addressed most of them with the fluency drills or sight words as we went through the levels.  Reading those Star Words daily was helpful for my son's speech too.  We worked on both reading--and he needed to see some those words 100+ times before learning them-- and also on correcting his strange vowel substitution. 

 

The op didn't ask about Seeing Stars, but I don't think that would be enough for some dyslexics either--but it's enough for some. 

 

 

It also brings up the question of Seeing Stars, which also uses visualization but seems more focused on the parts.  I guess seeing a picture of a pickle to prompt you that the letters on the card say a certain sound didn't really strike me as visualization.  To me visualization is about being able to bring up the orthography itself (the written form, an image of the letters) in your mind.  Since LIPS is turning out to be so good for ds and so, frankly, essential, I've wondered if Seeing Stars also would be.  It seems like this connection between the kinesthetic (air writing) and the visualization of the code which seems like it would be highly effective for him.  The irony is, they're using a top 500 and top 1000 words list, which is basically what SWR is.  So I'm back to figuring out what Seeing Stars is doing, whether those strategies are hit in Barton, what in the world Seeing Stars accomplishes and how it fits together with other remediation, etc.  

 

 

[FairProspects]

FP--Thanks for the info on AAR.  I haven't seen it enough to know much about it, so that's interesting.  We did AAS after VT, but we went through the levels SO quickly.  

 

 

So when I said visualization, I had in my mind Freed's comments on using visualization for spelling (as in to bring the whole word into your mind).  People have mentioned spelling was weak with Barton, and I wondered how effective Freed's visualization methods for spelling (for the whole word) actually were for dyslexics.  

 

It also brings up the question of Seeing Stars, which also uses visualization but seems more focused on the parts.  I guess seeing a picture of a pickle to prompt you that the letters on the card say a certain sound didn't really strike me as visualization.  To me visualization is about being able to bring up the orthography itself (the written form, an image of the letters) in your mind.  Since LIPS is turning out to be so good for ds and so, frankly, essential, I've wondered if Seeing Stars also would be.  It seems like this connection between the kinesthetic (air writing) and the visualization of the code which seems like it would be highly effective for him.  The irony is, they're using a top 500 and top 1000 words list, which is basically what SWR is.  So I'm back to figuring out what Seeing Stars is doing, whether those strategies are hit in Barton, what in the world Seeing Stars accomplishes and how it fits together with other remediation, etc.  

 

So that's what I meant by visualization, the ability to pull up the written form of either chunks or the whole words from your visual memory.

 

 

The bolded is what AAS has as a strategy as well. AAR has more pictures for recall probably because it is intended to be used with a younger audience. AAS is just the straight orthography. :)

 

[MerryAtHope]

Part of what can make SWR a challenging approach for students with dyslexia boils down to the approach more than the actual contents, though there are some content differences (for example, the difference in emphasis on syllables--O-G typically does a lot more syllable work).

 

SWR teaches all of the phonograms up front. That's too much info for kids with dyslexia to assimilate at once.

SWR introduces words based on frequency of use--asking kids with dyslexia to try to analyze too many different patterns at once. It doesn't work for their personal "funnel."

 

If a teacher really "gets" SWR or a student has a very mild dyslexia, these things might not be insurmountable (the difference, then, will be in the teacher)--but many kids just need something that presents concepts more incrementally, which programs that are directly O-G usually do. Kids with dyslexia generally need to learn phonograms slowly, need to be shown directly how to apply them to words for spelling and reading, need practice spelling and reading them before encountering "mixed" practice with other patterns, and need more direction in learning how to analyze words. 

 

 

 

 

[MerryAtHope]

The bolded is what AAS has as a strategy as well. AAR has more pictures for recall probably because it is intended to be used with a younger audience. AAS is just the straight orthography. :)

 

 

Only AAR Pre-reading uses pictures on the phonogram cards, as a sort of scaffolding approach for young students to learn letters and sounds. The regular levels don't do this because you do want students to make that quick connection from seeing the letter to saying the sounds (and from hearing the sounds to writing the letters). Students who start with AAS generally already know letters and sounds and have basic reading skills (having completed at least Pre-reading and AAR 1, or the equivalent). Students starting AAR 1 would typically know first sounds of letters. 

 

As far as visualization for spelling, AAS has students focus on visualizing the tricky parts of words (circling, highlighting parts of words that are rule-breakers), or using visual strategies for times that other strategies don't apply (ee vs. ea for the long E sound, for example), through the use of word banks, scratch-paper spelling, and so on. (They teach 4 main strategies--phonetic, rules-based, visual, and morphemic.) 

[FairProspects]

Only AAR Pre-reading uses pictures on the phonogram cards, as a sort of scaffolding approach for young students to learn letters and sounds. The regular levels don't do this because you do want students to make that quick connection from seeing the letter to saying the sounds (and from hearing the sounds to writing the letters). Students who start with AAS generally already know letters and sounds and have basic reading skills (having completed at least Pre-reading and AAR 1, or the equivalent). Students starting AAR 1 would typically know first sounds of letters. 

 

As far as visualization for spelling, AAS has students focus on visualizing the tricky parts of words (circling, highlighting parts of words that are rule-breakers), or using visual strategies for times that other strategies don't apply (ee vs. ea for the long E sound, for example), through the use of word banks, scratch-paper spelling, and so on. (They teach 4 main strategies--phonetic, rules-based, visual, and morphemic.) 

 

I was meaning the syllable label tiles in AAR. They do have pictures on them - pickles, birthday hats, etc. It is enough of a picture to help with recall in our house at least. We've used AAR Pre, 1, 3, and AAS 1-5 now. :)

[Heathermomster]

Same with Barton. Probably Wilson, too.

I don't recall seeing any pictures to help prompt phonogram sounds with Wilson, but I did not teach Wilson. It seemed like Wilson purposefully stayed away from picture phonograms as a memory aid, unless the student drew a picture for their own usage. Wilson and LOE ladies, please correct me if I am wrong. I don't want to give the wrong impression about either reading program.

[Heathermomster]

Part of what can make SWR a challenging approach for students with dyslexia boils down to the approach more than the actual contents, though there are some content differences (for example, the difference in emphasis on syllables--O-G typically does a lot more syllable work).

 

SWR teaches all of the phonograms up front. That's too much info for kids with dyslexia to assimilate at once.

SWR introduces words based on frequency of use--asking kids with dyslexia to try to analyze too many different patterns at once. It doesn't work for their personal "funnel."

 

If a teacher really "gets" SWR or a student has a very mild dyslexia, these things might not be insurmountable (the difference, then, will be in the teacher)--but many kids just need something that presents concepts more incrementally, which programs that are directly O-G usually do. Kids with dyslexia generally need to learn phonograms slowly, need to be shown directly how to apply them to words for spelling and reading, need practice spelling and reading them before encountering "mixed" practice with other patterns, and need more direction in learning how to analyze words.

Thank-you for pointing out that SWR teaches all the phonograms up front. LOE Foundations does this too but spreads the actual phonogram teaching out with one phonogram per lesson and only six readers per manual. I don't feel like there is enough actual reading practice in books A to C. Mastery of phonograms is taught through games, high frequency word lists, the recommended BOB books, and the six readers which cover 40 lessons per level.

 

My DS required much more review and practice. Wilson was very good with providing phonics controlled workbooks that were not babyish. I recall some stories were about crime or getting busted, but the creator of Wilson Reading used inmates as her Beta testers. Anyways, I appreciate the variety of fluency practice that DS received in Wilson.