Jump to content

Menu

???s for O-G Certified Tutors


Recommended Posts

OhE -- looking back at your earlier posts.  

 

www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/wolf/htm

 

She specializes in children who have the RAN/RAS and processing issues, but do not have the phonological issues.  

 

Maybe you will see it as stuff that clicks with you as far as your daughter who did not have phonological issues.  

 

It is still -- here is this woman's model of how she conceptualizes reading problems and/or dyslexia.  She does not conceptualize it the same way as everyone else exactly (the Eides, Sally Shaywitz, etc) but I think if it clicks with people then it clicks.  

 

And if there is some idea that they use that I can use to work with my son -- then I am happy to read about it :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

I'm going to just post real quickly to this message--for all-- I see I need to spend some time with this thread and replies, but I have to leave for a meeting shortly, and won't get back to this until this evening--probably until supper time!  If you "like" this, I'll get a notification and it will remind me to come back here and check later. ;-)  

 

I'm going to read through the rest of the replies here so I'll have them in mind when driving.. Then I can post good answers when I get back home. ;) 

 

:D Off to the races shortly! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Actually in re-reading up thread I realized as I was going to bed that I misunderstood what was being referred to as visualization.  And I was basing my assumption about Wilson on something someone else said on another thread.  Sorry.  I don't mean pictures on something.  I was referring to picturing something in your head.  Barton only does this in limited fashion.  There are no actual pictures used in the program.  Spelling Success cards DO have pictures but they were not created by Barton, they were created by a Barton certified tutor.  They are still really useful, but the games use a bit different approach.  I apologize for the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

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.

OneStep, THANK YOU for this warning!!!  You've confirmed for me what I'm thinking.  I just didn't realize how FAR the problem was going to go.  So basically LIPS takes you physically (for mouth feel) through B3, but without complete, thorough, tight lessons, and B1-3 cover the material more thorough/tightly without enough (read ANY) kinesthetic.  I got out B1 last night and spent some time with it.  I feel certain my ds could go into it, and I feel certain, like for your ds, that it woudl be a HUGE MISTAKE.  LIPS is *right* for him with the way it forces him to slow down and FEEL the steps and using the feeling to improve his tracking, segmentation, analysis.

 

So basically what I concluded is I need to take the nitpicky steps of B1, outline them, and DO them with LIPS methodology.  I don't need Barton's dialogues, mercy.  He's not that kind of slow, patient student anyway.  He EARNS his ADHD label, lol.  Psych called him "bright and tight" and said he has so much motion he was right on the line for going from inattentive to combined.  Working with him is like trying to hold back greyhounds in front of a rabbit! So whether he gets an idea in his head from his brightness or impulsivity or his engineering/problem-solving or whatever, it's like WHOOSH to slow down and reign in!  So the more flexible the methodology, the better.  The scripting of Barton is just not at all useful to him.  Her gestures are worthless with him.  They don't dig in on his need to FEEL it in his mouth and they're neither tactile nor kinesthetic.  I mean, Barton, lauded though it is, is bringing NOTHING to the table except these nitpicky thorough lesson plans.

 

It's really left me wondering if I need Wilson or that Gillingham Manual Sandy recommended or what.  Basically I'm gonna be buying Barton levels for lesson outlines, because beyond that they aren't useful to me, not right now.  He's just all over the place.  He really needs to INTEGRATE the LIPS methodology and the orthography.  He can actually do more things at once and nail them and I know he's nailing them because I see the click.

 

Grrr.  Nothing is ever simple.  No curriculum has EVER worked straight for my kids.  I'm always like modifying and jumping and blending.  But I know I'm right on this.  It's about not doing it thoroughly.  It's that he got the click on certain more advanced things and needs the next step in those while being nitpicky careful on the lower things to make sure everything gets nailed while not getting bored.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Thanks Merry, that makes sense!  I think I might wait, get us farther in this LIPS + B1-B3 progression, THEN get into Seeing Stars.  I'm definitely drawn to it, but it's timing.  I honestly wasn't sure if it would *substitute* for Barton, but it doesn't sound like it's going to, not for my ds.  That's fine.  

 

Man this is crazy!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yup, that's what I wondered.  Sanseri was VERY attentive to details like that.  I was surprised when I saw pictures on the cards for the Spelling Success game.  They could actually have a really good purpose (working on word retrieval, very challenging) but I wondered how carefully it was thought through.  And for my ds, recognizing the sound in isolation isn't the same as hearing it in initial or final positions.  He can identify /b/ and tack it to the letter B, but he struggles to hear it in positions in words.

 

Time's up, sigh.  Shark Week episode is over.  :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it happens, my son did do drills of words ending in -le.  I thought it was helpful.  -le was harder for him and we did a lot of practice. 

 

There is a thing where if there are two consonants, then the vowel in the first syllable is short.  If it is one consonant, the vowel in the first syllable is long.  We did a lot of work on that in various ways. 

 

We did not only drill the words, but we did drill the words. 

 

I did not teach my son to memorize rules, I gave him explanations that included rules and would explain things to him.  But I did not teach him to name a rule and then apply a rule.  I used Abecedarian at that point, and you do not teach the child to memorize and apply a rule, it is more like you are teaching strategies and working and working on using the strategies. 

 

But I also told him about the rules and gave him the explanations, and did a lot of that with word building and comparing words. 

 

There was a ton of building a word "table" with tiles and then sliding in another b, and comparing the two words.  That took a lot.  But it was not like we only did that, and then bam, there was no need to do fluency drills. 

 

But it was also not like I could show him a flashcard with "ble" and expect it to do much for him.  He is not a good flashcard learner, I do not know why.  I tried a program that drilled common syllables and I wanted it to work, but it didn't work so well.  But it did let me see where he needed more work and I could use the information to work on some common syllables. 

 

But I could not just skip working on phonemic awareness and understanding that letters represent sounds that blend together to form a word, related to the sounds we say as we say a word...... I don't believe I could have bypassed that by drilling syllables, and expected him to understand what is happening when we read a word -- he had an extremely hard time grasping that words are made up of sounds, and those sounds are related to the sounds in words we say.  It is something hard to explain to people whose kids have all made this connection fairly easily. 

 

But really -- personally I did not worry about -le until after my son had already mastered one-syllable words.  I did not try to throw 2-syllable words in there! 

 

Sorry..... I had a deep relationship with two-syllable words ending in -le.  Lol.  We worked on them a long time, in a lot of ways.  I have a deep antipathy to anything that makes it seem like they are easy.  I also agree -- of course we want kids to have automatic recognition of syllable chunks of -ble, -dle, -tle, -gle, -fle, -zle and any others I am not coming up with right now.  I do not think there is one right way to get from Point A (not having automatic recognition) to Point B (having automatic recognition).  I do not think I could have just done flashcards of these.  But -- does that mean I never did fluency drills ------ it does not.  I did a lot of fluency drills.  It is just reducing it down to one thing when it took 20 things.  But I think a lot of people do not have the long, long relationship with -le 2-syllable words that I have had.  I think a lot of kids do not take 20 ways, maybe they take 1 way or 3 ways or 5 ways, and that is enough to really get it (I am also probably exaggerating when I say 20, but it is not a huge exaggeration). 

 

He is reading Harry Potter now!  It helps that he already knows the plots, they are a significantly higher level than he can read when he has to follow the plot/characters totally independently, I don't think they are really his total-package reading level, but he is able to decode them.  Just to look on the bright side :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also -- on cues or key words.... I had a huge problem with my son, he could see an "s" and say snake, but b/c he could not segment the blend "sn" he could not tell you that "snake" starts with the "ssss" sound.  I despised Zoo Phonics over that.  But now my little daughter is doing Zoo Phonics (it is used in the public schools here, and incidentally by a lot of homeschoolers -- lots of people love it) and she is doing great with Zoo Phonics. 

 

I like Phonics A-Z by Wiley Blevins.  He is, iirc, in favor of cue words/pictures but NOT for all kids.  He is in favor if they seem helpful.  He is not in favor if kids are having a hard time memorizing the one-to-one correspondence between a symbol and meaning.  (Iirc).  But -- within cue words/pictures, he had a lot of thoughts about *what words to use.*  He has a list of words he thinks are appropriate -- where the word used is going to be able to be very clear to the child, not confusing (b/c it is cute or there was not thought put into it).  I would expect all the better reading programs to have appropriate word/picture choices.  I don't think that means that it is a good idea to really focus on that way of learning the sound-symbol connections with every child.  I think it is something where it will depend. 

 

One of the purposes of these cues, though, is to let the child be more independent.  Why?  B/c the child can be taught to look on their cue card when they forget a sound.  They can look on their cue card and figure it out themselves.  When this is an appropriate level, that is a nice and independent thing for a child to do.  It is appropriate when the child is doing pretty well and not needing to consult it too much. 

 

If a child is struggling more, I think -- give the child the sound.  Don't make them hunt for it.  They will not have the concentration to make the sound-symbol connection, if it is not given to them in a really efficient way (if they are struggling to make the connection).  Then maybe this is one efficient way, but it might be time to just hone in on the best ways to make the sound-symbol connection, and do many multisensory things. 

 

But in a hierarchy of prompts -- I think it is very appropriate when it is an appropriate thing for the child. 

 

With Abecedarian, they use a thing where there are cue words (this is for advanced phonics, to say which sound of "ou" to use) where once the child knows "house, tour, whatever," you can point them to those words on the cue sheet, and they can use that to remember "these are the sounds to try for ou."  It is different than having giving them phonogram flashcards and asked them to spit out "ou, ou, ou" -- the three sounds of "ou."  But it is also asking them to do the same thing.  If my son could have done the "spit out the sounds when you see the phonogram card" and done well with it -- I think it would be a faster way to go about things.  But he did more of an "overlearn the first sound it can make, then move on to the second sound, get pretty good at that, then apply that knowledge to new words" and it was not really like I chose that from my preference, it just seemed like I needed to do it that way (or another way -- I am sure there are more out there) b/c phonogram cards just did not click with him.  And we did still do a lot to see the patterns and notice the patterns etc. etc.  It is not even like it was just one thing. 

 

But then, too, if something is introduced one way or another, but then the same various, multisensory drills/practices are done ------ it may not necessarily matter which way something was introduced. 

 

I think when I was trying phonogram cards, I may have expected too much from them, and not had the expectation that "of course this is not the only practice/teaching he will need."  Maybe if I had added in all the extras, it would have worked. 

 

But I cannot stand anything that makes it seem like "oh, it will be easy, you just have them memorize these phonogram cards and then teach them to apply this knowledge to words."  Like -- oh, that is so easy, it is as easy as that.  Even though --  I agree that is the ultimate goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(separately)

 

I think all these programs are somewhat expecting teachers/tutors to say "hey, my child needs more practice on this" or "hey, I am going to make this small change here" or maybe a larger change.  I don't think any of them expect you to just be able to go through the program going "page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5."  Sure some kids will be able to, but I don't think anyone expects every child to sync perfectly with any curriculum. 

 

I don't think that takes anything away from a program, though.  They are providing what they provide, and what they provide is good.  There is still a need for someone to tweak in probably any program, I would think, at least with some kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...  The scripting of Barton is just not at all useful to him.  Her gestures are worthless with him.  They don't dig in on his need to FEEL it in his mouth and they're neither tactile nor kinesthetic.  I mean, Barton, lauded though it is, is bringing NOTHING to the table except these nitpicky thorough lesson plans.

 

It's really left me wondering if I need Wilson or that Gillingham Manual Sandy recommended or what.  Basically I'm gonna be buying Barton levels for lesson outlines, because beyond that they aren't useful to me, not right now.  He's just all over the place.  He really needs to INTEGRATE the LIPS methodology and the orthography.  He can actually do more things at once and nail them and I know he's nailing them because I see the click....  

 

Don't underestimate the value of those Barton motions and gestures, especially if the child has underlying attention issues and/or auditory processing issues!  I use and am now certified in Barton, after trying a variety of other approaches. Barton didn't just teach my son, it taught me how to teach him.  It slowed me down and helped me shut up.  I wrote earlier that I thought SWR and LOE gave too much, too fast.  Left to my own devices, I did that same thing.  I used a dozen words to explain what Barton covers in a simple hand gesture.  My spoken words took up some of that valuable memory space in his brain-- and got in the way of his retaining other words and sounds.

 

LiPS was tough, tough, tough for my son.  We spent a few months learning those lip positions and distinguishing the different sounds from their counterparts. He was a little older than your boy at the time when we did it, but we jumped from LiPS as soon as he was able to move onto Barton--at my son's request. That was fine with me because that scripting helped me a great deal. The script also caused me to limit what I said to the bare essentials.  If we ran into any troubles that LiPS could address, we reviewed as we worked through Barton.  I still sometimes go off script and borrow from LiPS.  But that Barton hand motion to direct the child's eyes to my mouth is often enough.  I don't even have to say, "Look at my lips" which would be more words and sounds in addition to the word and sounds he is trying to break down. Once we started Barton, it took my ds over a month to get through Barton 1.  To put that in perspective for non-Barton users, his non-dyslexic twin sister got through Barton 1 in a little over an hour.  My son was having enough trouble trying to break apart and build together two or three simple sounds--he didn't need me adding more "blah, blah, blah, mom's talking again" in addition to the sounds he was trying to process.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only parent or tutor here who tends to say more than needed.  For many dyslexics, the problem isn't that people haven't given them enough information--it's that they've given them too much for the child to process all at once.  The reason why I think a program like Barton is superior to some of the other programs is precisely because it does not overload a dyslexic child's brain with TMI.  Those Barton gestures and script help.  I do go off script sometimes, but I'm careful when I do not to overload him with more information than he can process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.k once again Heathermomster we are just totally hijacking your thread.  Sorry!  I owe you tons of chocolate and a big hug, though, since i really love this thread and OhE seems to be getting something out of it too.  :)

 

Don't underestimate the value of those Barton motions and gestures, especially if the child has underlying attention issues and/or auditory processing issues!  I use and am now certified in Barton, after trying a variety of other approaches. Barton didn't just teach my son, it taught me how to teach him.  It slowed me down and helped me shut up.  I wrote earlier that I thought SWR and LOE gave too much, too fast.  Left to my own devices, I did that same thing.  I used a dozen words to explain what Barton covers in a simple hand gesture.  My spoken words took up some of that valuable memory space in his brain-- and got in the way of his retaining other words and sounds.

 

LiPS was tough, tough, tough for my son.  We spent a few months learning those lip positions and distinguishing the different sounds from their counterparts. He was a little older than your boy at the time when we did it, but we jumped from LiPS as soon as he was able to move onto Barton--at my son's request. That was fine with me because that scripting helped me a great deal. The script also caused me to limit what I said to the bare essentials.  If we ran into any troubles that LiPS could address, we reviewed as we worked through Barton.  I still sometimes go off script and borrow from LiPS.  But that Barton hand motion to direct the child's eyes to my mouth is often enough.  I don't even have to say, "Look at my lips" which would be more words and sounds in addition to the word and sounds he is trying to break down. Once we started Barton, it took my ds over a month to get through Barton 1.  To put that in perspective for non-Barton users, his non-dyslexic twin sister got through Barton 1 in a little over an hour.  My son was having enough trouble trying to break apart and build together two or three simple sounds--he didn't need me adding more "blah, blah, blah, mom's talking again" in addition to the sounds he was trying to process.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only parent or tutor here who tends to say more than needed.  For many dyslexics, the problem isn't that people haven't given them enough information--it's that they've given them too much for the child to process all at once.  The reason why I think a program like Barton is superior to some of the other programs is precisely because it does not overload a dyslexic child's brain with TMI.  Those Barton gestures and script help.  I do go off script sometimes, but I'm careful when I do not to overload him with more information than he can process. 

Yes, yes, yes!  100% yes to the above.  Well said!  :)

 

 OhE, I admit I got frustrated with all the scripting in Barton, too.  DS and DD need to move to learn and just sitting there through all the lessons and hand gestures seemed like it would be a terrible fit.  I opened that box, read that manual, tried hard to stay awake through the DVD and was heart sick that we had made a bad choice.  And the hand gestures just seemed so annoying and repetitive and babyish and overkill, etc.  And I was DEAD WRONG.  

 

Those hand gestures ended up being a HUGE help, enormous help.  It streamlined all those complex lessons in higher levels.  It helped the kids move through the material at a much more efficient pace and it kept me from babbling on when we got stuck.  There are very clear reasons for the scripting and hand gestures that are started in Level 1, but until you get to higher levels those reasons are not readily apparent.

 

As merry gardens said so well, do not underestimate those hand gestures and the way the lessons are scripted.

 

That isn't to say that your ds is ready for Barton or that I guarantee Barton will be a good fit (obviously none of us have any guarantees with our kids), but I don't want you to make the same erroneous assumptions I did just based on what I saw when I first read through Level 1.  Once we completed Level 1 and moved to Level 2, things became clearer.  Then we hit Level 3 and I finally started really understanding the whys of so many things.   And it was working beautifully, especially for DD.

 

 If DS had stayed with LiPS longer I think Level 3 would have been a lot smoother for him, too, but we absolutely needed those hand gestures and scripting in the early levels of Barton for both kids or the higher Levels would be a total nightmare now.  And I wish I had done the LiPS tutoring with DS because I think what merry gardens did makes sense.  Keep scaffolding with LiPS where needed while working through Barton.  Her post is awesome.  But I didn't do LiPS, Mom did, so I am not as familiar with the processes involved.  I may have to dig into this and try doing some LiPS along with Barton for DS.

 

Best wishes to all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OneStep, THANK YOU for this warning!!!  You've confirmed for me what I'm thinking.  I just didn't realize how FAR the problem was going to go.  So basically LIPS takes you physically (for mouth feel) through B3, but without complete, thorough, tight lessons, and B1-3 cover the material more thorough/tightly without enough (read ANY) kinesthetic.  I got out B1 last night and spent some time with it.  I feel certain my ds could go into it, and I feel certain, like for your ds, that it woudl be a HUGE MISTAKE.  LIPS is *right* for him with the way it forces him to slow down and FEEL the steps and using the feeling to improve his tracking, segmentation, analysis.

 

So basically what I concluded is I need to take the nitpicky steps of B1, outline them, and DO them with LIPS methodology.  I don't need Barton's dialogues, mercy.  He's not that kind of slow, patient student anyway.  He EARNS his ADHD label, lol.  Psych called him "bright and tight" and said he has so much motion he was right on the line for going from inattentive to combined.  Working with him is like trying to hold back greyhounds in front of a rabbit! So whether he gets an idea in his head from his brightness or impulsivity or his engineering/problem-solving or whatever, it's like WHOOSH to slow down and reign in!  So the more flexible the methodology, the better.  The scripting of Barton is just not at all useful to him.  Her gestures are worthless with him.  They don't dig in on his need to FEEL it in his mouth and they're neither tactile nor kinesthetic.  I mean, Barton, lauded though it is, is bringing NOTHING to the table except these nitpicky thorough lesson plans.

 

It's really left me wondering if I need Wilson or that Gillingham Manual Sandy recommended or what.  Basically I'm gonna be buying Barton levels for lesson outlines, because beyond that they aren't useful to me, not right now.  He's just all over the place.  He really needs to INTEGRATE the LIPS methodology and the orthography.  He can actually do more things at once and nail them and I know he's nailing them because I see the click.

 

Grrr.  Nothing is ever simple.  No curriculum has EVER worked straight for my kids.  I'm always like modifying and jumping and blending.  But I know I'm right on this.  It's about not doing it thoroughly.  It's that he got the click on certain more advanced things and needs the next step in those while being nitpicky careful on the lower things to make sure everything gets nailed while not getting bored.  

Read my post up thread before you read this OhE, but I wanted to address this further.  I do think that DS would have benefited from going further in LiPS.  But what I think would have benefited him even more was if Mom had reviewed a lot and gone slower or repeated lessons in LiPS.   I don't think everything was internalized from LiPS when we started Barton.  Therefore, when he hit Level 3 in Barton and things were more complex, he didn't have all the tools readily available that LiPS should have given him.  

 

It would be like building a house and using high quality materials and proper tools for most of it, but kind of skimping in other areas.  House may hold up fine at first, but add additional weight, more stress on the structure, and the house starts needing a lot of repairs.  You can go in and make those repairs but if they aren't done right, the structure is still less than sound.  Building it right the first time would have been better.  Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OhE -- looking back at your earlier posts.  

 

www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/wolf/htm

 

She specializes in children who have the RAN/RAS and processing issues, but do not have the phonological issues.  

 

Maybe you will see it as stuff that clicks with you as far as your daughter who did not have phonological issues.  

 

It is still -- here is this woman's model of how she conceptualizes reading problems and/or dyslexia.  She does not conceptualize it the same way as everyone else exactly (the Eides, Sally Shaywitz, etc) but I think if it clicks with people then it clicks.  

 

And if there is some idea that they use that I can use to work with my son -- then I am happy to read about it :)  

What a fascinating article!!!  Here's that article, in case the link doesn't work for people  http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/wolf.htm

 

I'm going to have to take more time to finish it (I'm on break again and rushing), but WOW so interesting.  I love her approach to dyslexia: if it can go wrong, it will.   :lol:   THAT is ds.  It's like all these places where you go hmm, something could go wrong there in regards to reading, and BAM sure enough it does!  So that explains why these simplistic approaches (just one program, just whatever) don't resonate with me.  

 

Btw, did you see me mention (or did I mention?) what I read in Sousa's math book?  He says the language center for math is in the Broca's Area, the same part of the brain involved in apraxia and decoding!!  In other words, when I said ds literally had no meaning for THREE, that it oculd have been dog or blue or anything else, I was right!!!  

 

So really the question to *me* has become what does *dyscalculia* refer to?  And if they're so adept at figuring out what dyslexia is caused by (not, they're still sorting and arguing), then have they nailed down the math disorder?  

 

Just my little mental back burner thing I've got going, trying to piece together.

 

So I'm excited to read the rest of that interview.  Like you, I'm fascinated by the idea of how we can intervene therapeutically and build the wiring for these processes to get the things going that are typical of more mature reading and not just STOP with decoding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES to visual/gestural cueing!  When it is easier for kids to be able to see that kind of cue, it is SO much easier. 

 

It is always helpful to my younger son.

 

For my older son -- it is best for when he is *thinking* and he is doing *a lot* with his auditory system on the inside (to sound out a word, or just to make sense of something).  If I say something, then I am only messing him up. 

 

I do a lot with him with pointing.  Or, he would just know what to do, I might not need to even really gesture too much, for him to know what I wanted him to do.

 

But "be quiet, he looks like he is getting overloaded" is still something I tell myself and remind myself.  Also "give him time, he is thinking." 

 

There is no reason to rush or for me to feel like I am doing more if I am giving an explanation.  I may be *doing* more but it may not be as effective as doing something that feels "less" to me but is more efficient or helpful to my kids. 

 

I like the narrative style myself, and so does my daughter -- I am free to talk with her as much as I like, but it is not like it is "better." It is just different, and when I am acting as a teacher/tutor, it is my job to adapt to what will most help my kids, not to do what is most natural to me, or to teach in a way that I like to be taught.  These are things I tell myself a lot.  Of course my kids need to be able to do things in different ways, but maybe that is Step Q instead of Step A.  I can't just skip to Step Q, it doesn't make sense.

 

Separately -- my younger son is doing Reading Mastery (it makes sense for him).  There is a pre-test thing where there is a simple word and you say it slow (but without gaps).  It was like:  ssssiiiit.  You say ssssiiiiit slow, and ask the child "what word."  My daughter knew, my son didn't know (this is my twins).  If you can just blend the word, you skip to something like lesson 65.  You skip through a massive amount -- there is no need to do those lessons with that child, they already know those skills well enough to start in lesson 65 -- where they still work on those skills, but not at the very beginning level.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually in re-reading up thread I realized as I was going to bed that I misunderstood what was being referred to as visualization.  And I was basing my assumption about Wilson on something someone else said on another thread.  Sorry.  I don't mean pictures on something.  I was referring to picturing something in your head.  Barton only does this in limited fashion.  There are no actual pictures used in the program.  Spelling Success cards DO have pictures but they were not created by Barton, they were created by a Barton certified tutor.  They are still really useful, but the games use a bit different approach.  I apologize for the confusion.

Oh no problems!  It's been fascinating to think through!  And I did figure out that the games in the back of B1 and very similar to the Spelling Success sound games that she marks as level 2.  Of course B1 only uses colored tiles, no letters, and B2 probably adds the letters, which is why SpSs probably marks her sounds deck for B2, DUH...  

 

And yes, you may shoot me now over my acronyms.  It's gonna get ugly, cuz I'm way lazy... If there's a more common abbreviation for the Barton levels, better tell me now before I get habits entrenched.  :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically what I concluded is I need to take the nitpicky steps of B1, outline them, and DO them with LIPS methodology.

 

:iagree:    When I saw OneStep's post this is immediately what I thought.  I bought Barton 1 too late for this but if I had this is what I would have done.     Even the LIPS program itself IMO drops the mouth/lip positions too quickly (for my DD anyway) - I suppose this is because it is a program that relies on the teacher knowing when and what to focus on rather than a scripted program.   .

 

OTH I really wish I had seen (or understood) the whole idea of less words  (and love the idea of hand movements instead) -- because for DD the too many words was just too much ("Wah, wah, wah - as in Peanuts cartoon).    As she puts it - "So many words makes me feel like my head is going to explode".      

 

I also wish I had given her the correct response much more quickly back when first working with DD.    Because the push to get her to figure it out herself created a horrible learned behavior -  once you start struggling then might as well give up.      I think I need to treat this more like verbal flash cards or something -  give the answer right away and 're-test' later.  

 

And I have found both talking too much and making her struggle through to the answer behaviors that I have a very hard time trying to change in myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it also took me too long to get to just giving the sound.  I had a "testing" mentality and not a "teaching" mentality.  A lot of it was, I thought it was easy, and he should be picking up on it faster.  I had an attitude that was not the right attitude.  It was also because I did not know about some techniques. 

 

I was not "meeting him where he was at" or able to understand where the breakdown was occurring. 

 

I am really into prompt hierarchies now -- you start with the highest prompt needed so the child can be successful and not frustrated.  Then you reduce the prompts to lesser and lesser prompts, and then no prompts. 

 

Right now with my older son -- I consider it a kind of prompt if I talk about books with him, talk about plots with him, tell him how some things fit together, etc, b/c it is with books he likes, it is just too hard for him to put it all together.  He still needs a little help, but it is not a lot of help. 

 

He just read a book totally by himself with no help (Hardy Boys Undercover Brothers Feeding Frenzy) for school, and I am so happy to know, that he is able to read it with no help.  It seems like a pretty formulaic book to me, but it also is a real chapter book.  I helped him do his project on it, and he could tell me so much about it.  I am so proud.  But -- it is very far below the level of books he is interested in and reading with support.  It did take him quite a while to read this book, but he did it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:    When I saw OneStep's post this is immediately what I thought.  I bought Barton 1 too late for this but if I had this is what I would have done.     Even the LIPS program itself IMO drops the mouth/lip positions too quickly (for my DD anyway) - I suppose this is because it is a program that relies on the teacher knowing when and what to focus on rather than a scripted program.   .

 

OTH I really wish I had seen (or understood) the whole idea of less words  (and love the idea of hand movements instead) -- because for DD the too many words was just too much ("Wah, wah, wah - as in Peanuts cartoon).    As she puts it - "So many words makes me feel like my head is going to explode".      

 

I also wish I had given her the correct response much more quickly back when first working with DD.    Because the push to get her to figure it out herself created a horrible learned behavior -  once you start struggling then might as well give up.      I think I need to treat this more like verbal flash cards or something -  give the answer right away and 're-test' later.  

 

And I have found both talking too much and making her struggle through to the answer behaviors that I have a very hard time trying to change in myself.

 

Yep.

Yes, it also took me too long to get to just giving the sound.  I had a "testing" mentality and not a "teaching" mentality.  A lot of it was, I thought it was easy, and he should be picking up on it faster.  I had an attitude that was not the right attitude.  It was also because I did not know about some techniques. 

Ran into the same issues and made the same mistakes as the two of you are posting about.   :glare:  Heavy sigh.  Why couldn't we have all just automatically been given some sort of mandatory training program when the kids were born?  Give us time to get over our misconceptions before we ever had to teach the kids?  Goodness, that would have saved so much time and effort!  :thumbup1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has helped me a lot with my younger son, at least.  And there are so many teaching practices with my younger son, that help with my older son.

 

I am very into errorless learning with my younger son (giving the answer instead of waiting for them to guess or sitting there and not knowing the answer, and some more things like that).  It is an autism thing but I think it is SO good.  There is also very little saying "no, you are wrong," and it turns out there are so many ways to give positive feedback without saying "no, you are wrong."  It is hard to explain b/c a lot of it is at a really low level, but it is like a mindset in some ways.  I have had parent training for how to do it with my younger son, but with my older son, it just comes down to not letting him flounder, and avoiding pointing out that he has done something wrong, just skipping on to the positive "here is how you do it" or "what about this" or whatever is possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my post up thread before you read this OhE, but I wanted to address this further.  I do think that DS would have benefited from going further in LiPS.  But what I think would have benefited him even more was if Mom had reviewed a lot and gone slower or repeated lessons in LiPS.   I don't think everything was internalized from LiPS when we started Barton.  Therefore, when he hit Level 3 in Barton and things were more complex, he didn't have all the tools readily available that LiPS should have given him.  

 

It would be like building a house and using high quality materials and proper tools for most of it, but kind of skimping in other areas.  House may hold up fine at first, but add additional weight, more stress on the structure, and the house starts needing a lot of repairs.  You can go in and make those repairs but if they aren't done right, the structure is still less than sound.  Building it right the first time would have been better.  Does that make sense?

 

I think that one thing it took me a long time to understand about my DD is how much she needs a spiral approach instead of a mastery approach.  I don't mean no mastery but that once you do get to the tipping point (ready to move to the next program) -- then keep doing a quick review every day or every week or so.   That is what I wished I had kept doing with LIPS as we moved into the next program - kept it right there in front of her in a "1 minute" kind of approach.   

 

And in regards to Barton Level 1, I think B1 lends itself very well to this - since it is a more in depth version of the next portion of what the LIPS program does next as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has helped me a lot with my younger son, at least.  And there are so many teaching practices with my younger son, that help with my older son.

This is WAY OT - but it makes me so sad as I work with my NT younger DD - she is reading so quickly AND she has the additional advantage of getting my experienced self.     I want a "do-over" with older DD :crying:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that one thing it took me a long time to understand about my DD is how much she needs a spiral approach instead of a mastery approach.  I don't mean no mastery but that once you do get to the tipping point (ready to move to the next program) -- then keep doing a quick review every day or every week or so.   That is what I wished I had kept doing with LIPS as we moved into the next program - kept it right there in front of her in a "1 minute" kind of approach.   

 

And in regards to Barton Level 1, I think B1 lends itself very well to this - since it is a more in depth version of the next portion of what the LIPS program does next as well.

Yes!!!!  Exactly this!  :iagree:

 

I knew DD needed some review, in nearly everything, but I didn't realize how desperately she needed a really tight spiral until we started working in CLE for math.  I worked so hard to get her to mastery in things, with brief review upon occasion and it wasn't enough, not nearly enough.  Thank goodness Barton has a ton of review.  But CLE Math finally helped me realize just how much constant tight spiral DD needs for anything to stick long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is WAY OT - but it makes me so sad as I work with my NT younger DD - she is reading so quickly AND she has the additional advantage of getting my experienced self.     I want a "do-over" with older DD :crying:

I want a do over with both.  I made so many mistakes.  I totally understand.   :grouphug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has helped me a lot with my younger son, at least.  And there are so many teaching practices with my younger son, that help with my older son.

 

I am very into errorless learning with my younger son (giving the answer instead of waiting for them to guess or sitting there and not knowing the answer, and some more things like that).  It is an autism thing but I think it is SO good.  There is also very little saying "no, you are wrong," and it turns out there are so many ways to give positive feedback without saying "no, you are wrong."  It is hard to explain b/c a lot of it is at a really low level, but it is like a mindset in some ways.  I have had parent training for how to do it with my younger son, but with my older son, it just comes down to not letting him flounder, and avoiding pointing out that he has done something wrong, just skipping on to the positive "here is how you do it" or "what about this" or whatever is possible. 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But it was also not like I could show him a flashcard with "ble" and expect it to do much for him.  He is not a good flashcard learner, I do not know why. 

 

 

Just wanted to say - I remember ages ago OhE saying how something the Eides said about flashcards turned out to be great for her DD and I was like "flashcards don't work for my DD" --- and then recently suddenly they do work for her.   She has been using flashcards for various things (stereotypical flash card kinds of memory work) and they have been great.   I wonder if that is an age thing - that the brain just needs to get to a certain point.  Or maybe it is just that she is testing herself now and before it was me testing her -- as I have read/seen numerous places lately, the strongest learning comes from an attempt to recall followed by re-encoding the correct info.  Before I think  using flashcards with DD brought forth the attempt to recall - but not the attempt to re-encode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But I cannot stand anything that makes it seem like "oh, it will be easy, you just have them memorize these phonogram cards and then teach them to apply this knowledge to words."  Like -- oh, that is so easy, it is as easy as that.  Even though --  I agree that is the ultimate goal. 

Just for your trivia, I taught my dd with SWR, and with SWR there is no sounding out (decoding).  You encode and then put the words on flashcards.  So your perspective on using pictures and guides to make them more independent fits with a decoding approach.  I mean, in retrospect it's kind of wild that she learned to read.  It really worked for her and was sort of magical and mysterious.  With her working memory problems, decoding wouldn't have been an effective way for her to learn to read.  That's why I've questioned it with ds.

 

So yeah, the idea that you just teach them the sounds for the letters and they start reading would be totally warped, lol.  My ds has been able to say the sounds for the letters for years.  (consonants, not the vowels)  However he can't go from /b/ in isolation to /b/ at a location in a word.  THAT is what we're busting through with LIPS.

 

I'm pretty happy today using B1 to expand how we're applying LIPS.  That seems to be working for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(separately)

 

I think all these programs are somewhat expecting teachers/tutors to say "hey, my child needs more practice on this" or "hey, I am going to make this small change here" or maybe a larger change.  I don't think any of them expect you to just be able to go through the program going "page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5."  Sure some kids will be able to, but I don't think anyone expects every child to sync perfectly with any curriculum. 

 

I don't think that takes anything away from a program, though.  They are providing what they provide, and what they provide is good.  There is still a need for someone to tweak in probably any program, I would think, at least with some kids. 

You would think that, but that isn't how Barton is presented.  Barton is fully, completely scripted.  You CAN use her awesome notes and codes on the sides and do it your own way, but it's NOT trying to build you as a teacher the way SWR, Wilson, these kinds of programs do.  And so, because that's not it's goal, you have the limitations that come with that.

 

I'm just realizing I HAVE to wrap my brain around stuff to teach him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't underestimate the value of those Barton motions and gestures, especially if the child has underlying attention issues and/or auditory processing issues!  I use and am now certified in Barton, after trying a variety of other approaches. Barton didn't just teach my son, it taught me how to teach him.  It slowed me down and helped me shut up.  I wrote earlier that I thought SWR and LOE gave too much, too fast.  Left to my own devices, I did that same thing.  I used a dozen words to explain what Barton covers in a simple hand gesture.  My spoken words took up some of that valuable memory space in his brain-- and got in the way of his retaining other words and sounds.

 

LiPS was tough, tough, tough for my son.  We spent a few months learning those lip positions and distinguishing the different sounds from their counterparts. He was a little older than your boy at the time when we did it, but we jumped from LiPS as soon as he was able to move onto Barton--at my son's request. That was fine with me because that scripting helped me a great deal. The script also caused me to limit what I said to the bare essentials.  If we ran into any troubles that LiPS could address, we reviewed as we worked through Barton.  I still sometimes go off script and borrow from LiPS.  But that Barton hand motion to direct the child's eyes to my mouth is often enough.  I don't even have to say, "Look at my lips" which would be more words and sounds in addition to the word and sounds he is trying to break down. Once we started Barton, it took my ds over a month to get through Barton 1.  To put that in perspective for non-Barton users, his non-dyslexic twin sister got through Barton 1 in a little over an hour.  My son was having enough trouble trying to break apart and build together two or three simple sounds--he didn't need me adding more "blah, blah, blah, mom's talking again" in addition to the sounds he was trying to process.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only parent or tutor here who tends to say more than needed.  For many dyslexics, the problem isn't that people haven't given them enough information--it's that they've given them too much for the child to process all at once.  The reason why I think a program like Barton is superior to some of the other programs is precisely because it does not overload a dyslexic child's brain with TMI.  Those Barton gestures and script help.  I do go off script sometimes, but I'm careful when I do not to overload him with more information than he can process. 

That's fascinating!  We've sort of already been through that drill with ST, because she forced me to slow down, be very precise, use specific words, focus on verbal routines (saying the same thing every time so he can get the pattern of what's expected), etc.  So it has been a habit for 4 years now, lol.  I started reading the scripts last night and did some more this morning.  Some of them were really interesting.  (wash your tiles?  :)  )  

 

Well interesting.  With ds, a lot of that really challenging blending work I do while giving him the physical input of the prompts we use with our speech therapy.  So I'll get his eyes, say the word, do the prompts for the word with him three times, letting him think, and then he'll select the faces.  So the way we're doing it creates that focus, control, etc.  Does that make sense?  

 

And you know, it may just be the stage we're in.  It's not really fair to criticize Barton when we're not really DOING Barton, lol.  But what I am doing that makes sense to me is bringing down some of the B1 skills into our LIPS time and letting him FEEL them.  That's really helping me a lot, give our time more structure and direction.  And that way B1 will be the next step in abstraction, doing it with just colored tiles rather than the mouth pictures.

 

It seems like this messy step inbetween to make him memorize the mouth pictures and be able to connect them to sounds, connect them to letters, track words with the mouth pictures, but it DOES seem to be working.  

 

We started LIPS back in the spring btw.  We did it for several months, far enough that we had covered most of the consonant pairs.  The vowels weren't clicking AT ALL and his SLP had a cow over what it did to his speech.  At her request I stopped so she could repair his speech and focused on some auditory discrimination worksheets by DeGaetano instead.  That was when his rhyming started and he started distinguishing vowels.  So now as we're going back, he REMEMBERS a lot but also lost a lot.  Makes him really impatient, mercy!  He wants to be so impulsive and rush, rush, rush.  Being incremental is SO hard for me, because of course I want to rush too, lol!  It's this great discipline to slow down, keep the field small, and work within the 3 or 4 target skills.  

 

So anyways, it's not like it's all of a sudden.  It's more that we laid a foundation months ago, did other stuff to continue working on it, and now have a bunch of pieces that he seems more able to pull together.  But it's how physical we are, with the prompt inputs from his speech therapy, that makes the LIPS work.  LIPS by itself wasn't enough.  It's LIPS *plus* the PROMPT.  The PROMPT helps him feel it and isolation it and the LIPS gives him a way to explain it or put a name on what he's feeling.

 

There's new MRI research btw, showing the brain changes PROMPT makes.  I think the research *might* be on the PROMPT Institute website.  Technically you could use it on any dyslexic who would benefit from the sensory input.  It's just you wouldn't know how to do it.  It's a pain in the butt, because for instance /ch/ and /j/ are the same place just held for slightly different lengths of time and with different pressure intensities.  So you'd need that training.  But yeah, that's what we're doing with the LIPS to make it work.  Without it, I can't imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 If DS had stayed with LiPS longer I think Level 3 would have been a lot smoother for him, too, but we absolutely needed those hand gestures and scripting in the early levels of Barton for both kids or the higher Levels would be a total nightmare now.  And I wish I had done the LiPS tutoring with DS because I think what merry gardens did makes sense.  Keep scaffolding with LiPS where needed while working through Barton. 

Thank you, and yes I'm listening!!   :bigear:   And you know, that's an interesting point that you could scaffold LIPS into Barton.  Sorta messes up the serene smoothness of it.  With your ds, would it be possible just to spend a day or two and go back through the mouth pictures and see where his holes are and be done with it?  

 

So Merry, what do you advise as far as how FAR to take LIPS and how to know when it's time to move on?  Right now what I've got in my mind, rightly or wrongly, is that I need to make sure ds can hear every sound we're covering in every position.  Until we can do that with LIPS, I don't think we should leave LIPS.  It seems like B1 is actually the next level, which is could you take that more abstract and *manipulate* the sounds you identify in your mind...  So anyways, that's all I can figure out.  He can already hear most of the sounds and distinguish them in isolation, but it's that ability to hear the /b/ in a cvc word, in all the locations.  And I thought what I'd do is pull down some B1 skills and do them with the mouth pictures.  He can do break/replace with the pictures, so I thought the next step would be the break/replace/remove and then the compare 2 words.  I thought if we do those with our narrower fields (vertical path of LIPS), and every time we add more letters go BACK through that litany, then he'd be pretty solidly ready to go into B1 and do it more abstractly.  Good?

 

 The thing I was *uncertain* on is whether we're supposed to be doing the tracking mouth pictures to letters step in LIPS.  I mean, I feel sort of naughty doing that!   :lol:  We did some at the end of last week with his tiny field of mouth pictures and letters.  So at that point we had been through everything for 19 sessions and I had him form the words with the mouths then *trade* them for the letters.  I've been using sandpaper letters and have him tracing them, saying the sounds, and finding brother pairs and matching them to the mouths.  I'm just thrown by B1 *not* using any letters.  Am I NOT supposed to be doing that?  I don't want to overshoot.  To me I needed to work on the automaticity of the handwriting, so it seemed as good a way as any.  We could just do the handwriting motor planning as a separate session during B1.  I'm just trying to make sure it's all connected in his mind (mouth feel, motor planning, sound, visual).

 

And yes, it's super awesome having someone to talk through all this with!  I think it's important to ask and challenge ideas, even if you come back to the same place you started, because you have to know WHY you're doing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my post up thread before you read this OhE, but I wanted to address this further.  I do think that DS would have benefited from going further in LiPS.  But what I think would have benefited him even more was if Mom had reviewed a lot and gone slower or repeated lessons in LiPS.   I don't think everything was internalized from LiPS when we started Barton.  Therefore, when he hit Level 3 in Barton and things were more complex, he didn't have all the tools readily available that LiPS should have given him.  

 

It would be like building a house and using high quality materials and proper tools for most of it, but kind of skimping in other areas.  House may hold up fine at first, but add additional weight, more stress on the structure, and the house starts needing a lot of repairs.  You can go in and make those repairs but if they aren't done right, the structure is still less than sound.  Building it right the first time would have been better.  Does that make sense?

Yup, that's what I'm keenly aware of.  It's like Ronit Bird, where we keep doing these incredibly "simple" things and he makes these leaps.  You HAVE to have those foundational pieces.  

 

Did you already sell your LIPS?  It's not nearly rocket sciency and scary as comments make you think.  Have you thought about just picking it up again?  Hack job would be better than no job.  You could even have HIM help YOU learn, hehe.  (Wow, what does THIS mouth mean?  And what letters does that connect to?  You're amazing!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:    When I saw OneStep's post this is immediately what I thought.  I bought Barton 1 too late for this but if I had this is what I would have done.     Even the LIPS program itself IMO drops the mouth/lip positions too quickly (for my DD anyway) - I suppose this is because it is a program that relies on the teacher knowing when and what to focus on rather than a scripted program.   .

 

OTH I really wish I had seen (or understood) the whole idea of less words  (and love the idea of hand movements instead) -- because for DD the too many words was just too much ("Wah, wah, wah - as in Peanuts cartoon).    As she puts it - "So many words makes me feel like my head is going to explode".      

 

I also wish I had given her the correct response much more quickly back when first working with DD.    Because the push to get her to figure it out herself created a horrible learned behavior -  once you start struggling then might as well give up.      I think I need to treat this more like verbal flash cards or something -  give the answer right away and 're-test' later.  

 

And I have found both talking too much and making her struggle through to the answer behaviors that I have a very hard time trying to change in myself.

Thank you for sharing that.  Well good, then I'm not crazy!  I've read a number of your LIPS posts and think about them often, so I'm glad to know you think we're on track.  Thanks for the tips!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, and yes I'm listening!!   :bigear:   And you know, that's an interesting point that you could scaffold LIPS into Barton.  Sorta messes up the serene smoothness of it.  With your ds, would it be possible just to spend a day or two and go back through the mouth pictures and see where his holes are and be done with it?  

 

So Merry, what do you advise as far as how FAR to take LIPS and how to know when it's time to move on?  Right now what I've got in my mind, rightly or wrongly, is that I need to make sure ds can hear every sound we're covering in every position.  Until we can do that with LIPS, I don't think we should leave LIPS.  It seems like B1 is actually the next level, which is could you take that more abstract and *manipulate* the sounds you identify in your mind...  So anyways, that's all I can figure out.  He can already hear most of the sounds and distinguish them in isolation, but it's that ability to hear the /b/ in a cvc word, in all the locations.  And I thought what I'd do is pull down some B1 skills and do them with the mouth pictures.  He can do break/replace with the pictures, so I thought the next step would be the break/replace/remove and then the compare 2 words.  I thought if we do those with our narrower fields (vertical path of LIPS), and every time we add more letters go BACK through that litany, then he'd be pretty solidly ready to go into B1 and do it more abstractly.  Good?

 

 The thing I was *uncertain* on is whether we're supposed to be doing the tracking mouth pictures to letters step in LIPS.  I mean, I feel sort of naughty doing that!   :lol:  We did some at the end of last week with his tiny field of mouth pictures and letters.  So at that point we had been through everything for 19 sessions and I had him form the words with the mouths then *trade* them for the letters.  I've been using sandpaper letters and have him tracing them, saying the sounds, and finding brother pairs and matching them to the mouths.  I'm just thrown by B1 *not* using any letters.  Am I NOT supposed to be doing that?  I don't want to overshoot.  To me I needed to work on the automaticity of the handwriting, so it seemed as good a way as any.  We could just do the handwriting motor planning as a separate session during B1.  I'm just trying to make sure it's all connected in his mind (mouth feel, motor planning, sound, visual).

 

And yes, it's super awesome having someone to talk through all this with!  I think it's important to ask and challenge ideas, even if you come back to the same place you started, because you have to know WHY you're doing something.

 

Hopefully merry gardens will have time to respond.  I'm curious what Sandy thinks too.  

 

But I wanted to address this bolded in particular.  I can't give you a scientific analysis of why Barton does not use letters in Level 1 but I can say that while I thought it was ridiculous that my 6th grader was having to go so far back that she wasn't even allowed to use letters to learn to read and write, I was wrong.  It wasn't ridiculous at all.  For whatever reason, that first Level, with no letters. started unlocking things that just had not been there before.  And she passed the Barton screening with flying colors.  She never needed LiPS.  But she very much did need to work with tiles with no letters for a bit before she could move on to Level 2 and the letter tiles.   DS also needed that step after LiPS.  I just wish he had done LiPS with more depth first.  

 

The bottom line is that just like with subitization skills in math, for some kids there is this missing component that isn't even easily explained or recognized as being necessary, but it IS necessary and for whatever reason they just didn't get that part intuitively.  It has to be taught explicitly instead.  LiPS is part of that.  Barton Level 1 is the next part of that.  For some kids, without one or the other or both the rest of it just never gels that well, KWIM?

Yup, that's what I'm keenly aware of.  It's like Ronit Bird, where we keep doing these incredibly "simple" things and he makes these leaps.  You HAVE to have those foundational pieces.  

 

Did you already sell your LIPS?  It's not nearly rocket sciency and scary as comments make you think.  Have you thought about just picking it up again?  Hack job would be better than no job.  You could even have HIM help YOU learn, hehe.  (Wow, what does THIS mouth mean?  And what letters does that connect to?  You're amazing!!)

Agree, it is like what Ronit Bird does for math skills.  So much more critical than we realized, right?

 

I have not sold LiPS so pulling it back out makes sense.  Just need to do it, KWIM?   :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it also took me too long to get to just giving the sound.  I had a "testing" mentality and not a "teaching" mentality.  A lot of it was, I thought it was easy, and he should be picking up on it faster.  I had an attitude that was not the right attitude.  It was also because I did not know about some techniques. 

 

I was not "meeting him where he was at" or able to understand where the breakdown was occurring. 

 

I am really into prompt hierarchies now -- you start with the highest prompt needed so the child can be successful and not frustrated.  Then you reduce the prompts to lesser and lesser prompts, and then no prompts. 

 

Oh mercy, that is SO a mistake I made with dd!!!  And you know, I realized about halfway through teaching her (maybe around 4th) that we had a messed up dynamic, but I didn't see it quite as adeptly as you guys.  I'm really glad for the clearer explanation of it.  It's the feeling we've had with RB, that little steps are ok, that it all comes eventually.  I wanted to carry over that positive work method into our Ears time and I didn't really know how to do it even though we've sorta been getting it.  It's like accidentally getting it vs. realizing what you're doing part of the time that is working, lol.

 

So yes, with the way you're explaining it more clearly, yes that's what I'm doing with him and I REALLY appreciate people taking the time to explain that dynamic.  Cuz when you understand the WHY, you can do it more intentionally.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.

Ran into the same issues and made the same mistakes as the two of you are posting about.   :glare:  Heavy sigh.  Why couldn't we have all just automatically been given some sort of mandatory training program when the kids were born?  Give us time to get over our misconceptions before we ever had to teach the kids?  Goodness, that would have saved so much time and effort!  :thumbup1:

I was lamenting to my dh last night that you become a really great homeschooler right about the time you retire.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very into errorless learning with my younger son (giving the answer instead of waiting for them to guess or sitting there and not knowing the answer, and some more things like that).  It is an autism thing but I think it is SO good.  There is also very little saying "no, you are wrong," and it turns out there are so many ways to give positive feedback without saying "no, you are wrong."  It is hard to explain b/c a lot of it is at a really low level, but it is like a mindset in some ways.  I have had parent training for how to do it with my younger son, but with my older son, it just comes down to not letting him flounder, and avoiding pointing out that he has done something wrong, just skipping on to the positive "here is how you do it" or "what about this" or whatever is possible. 

:hurray: Love, love, love this explanation!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that one thing it took me a long time to understand about my DD is how much she needs a spiral approach instead of a mastery approach.  I don't mean no mastery but that once you do get to the tipping point (ready to move to the next program) -- then keep doing a quick review every day or every week or so.   That is what I wished I had kept doing with LIPS as we moved into the next program - kept it right there in front of her in a "1 minute" kind of approach.   

 

And in regards to Barton Level 1, I think B1 lends itself very well to this - since it is a more in depth version of the next portion of what the LIPS program does next as well.

I'm happy to learn from your errorless learning experience!   :)  Thanks for the advice!  And yes, you're right, it would be such a simple thing to keep those faces and the connections fresh, just a quick run through once a day, just to have it as a familiar tool they're willing to use when you need to pull it out, rather than something they want to move beyond and reject.  That is super fab advice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say - I remember ages ago OhE saying how something the Eides said about flashcards turned out to be great for her DD and I was like "flashcards don't work for my DD" --- and then recently suddenly they do work for her.   She has been using flashcards for various things (stereotypical flash card kinds of memory work) and they have been great.   I wonder if that is an age thing - that the brain just needs to get to a certain point.  Or maybe it is just that she is testing herself now and before it was me testing her -- as I have read/seen numerous places lately, the strongest learning comes from an attempt to recall followed by re-encoding the correct info.  Before I think  using flashcards with DD brought forth the attempt to recall - but not the attempt to re-encode. 

Can you say that again?  I think I'm like so close to what you're getting at but I want to make sure.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so I went back to Barton's site, and she says keep with LIPS till he can track CVC words with ease and tell what changed in a 10 word chain.  That actually makes SENSE now that I've skimmed through B1, so cool!  So then what does she want you to do with the written letters?  LIPS says to have them connect the mouth and the written. That's what I'm doing.  LIPS has you do mouth, colored squares, then letters.

 

Well good, then I'm NOT crazy.  Basically you DO need to carry down a chunk of the B1 skills and apply them to LIPS in order to be ready for B1.  She should give up and write her own user manual for LIPS, mercy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so I went back to Barton's site, and she says keep with LIPS till he can track CVC words with ease and tell what changed in a 10 word chain.  That actually makes SENSE now that I've skimmed through B1, so cool!  So then what does she want you to do with the written letters?  LIPS says to have them connect the mouth and the written. That's what I'm doing.  LIPS has you do mouth, colored squares, then letters.

 

Well good, then I'm NOT crazy.  Basically you DO need to carry down a chunk of the B1 skills and apply them to LIPS in order to be ready for B1.  She should give up and write her own user manual for LIPS, mercy.

:iagree:

 

I also wish she gave some sort of overview of how it all ties together so as a parent you aren't trying to second guess her all the time based on past knowledge and experience but instead either accepting what she says because it makes sense or second guessing her based on concrete knowledge of how the program is actually supposed to work.   :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would think that, but that isn't how Barton is presented.  Barton is fully, completely scripted.  You CAN use her awesome notes and codes on the sides and do it your own way, but it's NOT trying to build you as a teacher the way SWR, Wilson, these kinds of programs do.  And so, because that's not it's goal, you have the limitations that come with that.

 

I'm just realizing I HAVE to wrap my brain around stuff to teach him.

I don't know about the other programs but I know with Wilson and Lindamood Bell they were basically saying to me that to do the program true justice I needed to come in and do a ton of specialized training, in some cases for YEARS, before I would be considered a really good tutor in their system.  They honestly seemed a bit snooty about it, although perhaps that was not their intention.  The implication was that I could probably do the program without any specialized training but the results wouldn't be nearly as good as if I had had the training and it would take lots of experience trying to implement the program before I became even remotely proficient at it (and they were probably right).

 

So I don't think their programs are really set up for me to build myself up as a teacher by just using the program on my own so much as they are set up so that I need to get their training before I would be considered truly good enough to be a really good teacher/tutor or I would need to use their program over a long period of time and perhaps with multiple students before I reached a real level of proficiency.   

 

Barton just assumes you probably haven't had all that training so you are going to need more scripting to function at the level of someone who did do some specialized training.  The only limitations, really, seem to be that if you have never had any training there will be a greater learning curve but at least with the scripting you can still survive and your first student won't be a true guinea pig.  As you get more adept at implementing the system, the scripting isn't as necessary and you can add flexibility into the program as you gain understanding.  I do wish there were more explanation of the why's behind it all but I admit I did not go through and read every single word in every single manual multiple times.  I may easily have missed something while trying to get over my deer in headlights look.   :)  And I know there are quite a few things for tutors on the Barton site so maybe the explanations are there and I didn't dig deep enough.

 

With the other systems, if you use them without any training, you may eventually develop great skills as a teacher/tutor, but the learning curve seems like it would be much, much steeper initially than with Barton since things aren't as clearly laid out.  Does that make any sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

 

Ah, gotcha!

 

I had in mind pictures on letters or words that some programs use, which is more controversial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 The thing I was *uncertain* on is whether we're supposed to be doing the tracking mouth pictures to letters step in LIPS.  I mean, I feel sort of naughty doing that!   :lol:  We did some at the end of last week with his tiny field of mouth pictures and letters.  So at that point we had been through everything for 19 sessions and I had him form the words with the mouths then *trade* them for the letters.  I've been using sandpaper letters and have him tracing them, saying the sounds, and finding brother pairs and matching them to the mouths.  I'm just thrown by B1 *not* using any letters.  Am I NOT supposed to be doing that?  I don't want to overshoot.  To me I needed to work on the automaticity of the handwriting, so it seemed as good a way as any.  We could just do the handwriting motor planning as a separate session during B1.  I'm just trying to make sure it's all connected in his mind (mouth feel, motor planning, sound, visual).

 

You know the 'next' part of LIPS after learning all the letters/sounds is also letterless, right?   This is why I think B1 and LIPS are such a close match.     Learn the mouth/pictures matched to sounds/letters morphs into split words into sounds using blank tiles/felts (moving into more complex words to splitting 1st via syllable and then maybe 1 syllable into sounds).  The way I understand it you are supposed to move from needing the mouth pictures to using the actual movement of your mouth/tongue to decide which sound it is.   Only lastly does LIPS split the words using letter tiles (and a section adding unusual endings such as -tion).  

 

The blank tile/felts part is the part where I spent WAY more time using mouth pictures instead of colored squares.  DD just really needed the extra practice with that.  What I did not do was spend enough time morphing from mouth picture to not needing the picture and practice without the pictures.  

 

But B1 is all about splitting words up - you could definitely start that with using mouth pictures instead of colored squares once he knows all the sounds (and possibly before even?? I don't remember how the order goes in Barton - do you need all the sounds for the first lessons?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the other programs but I know with Wilson and Lindamood Bell they were basically saying to me that to do the program true justice I needed to come in and do a ton of specialized training, in some cases for YEARS, before I would be considered a really good tutor in their system.  They honestly seemed a bit snooty about it, although perhaps that was not their intention.  The implication was that I could probably do the program without any specialized training but the results wouldn't be nearly as good as if I had had the training and it would take lots of experience trying to implement the program before I became even remotely proficient at it.

 

So I don't think their programs are really set up for me to build myself up as a teacher by just using the program on my own so much as they are set up so that I need to get their training before I would be considered truly good enough to be a really good teacher/tutor or I would need to use their program over a long period of time and perhaps with multiple students before I reached a real level of proficiency.    

 

Barton just assumes you probably haven't had all that training so you are going to need more scripting to function at the level of someone who did do some specialized training.  The only limitations, really, seem to be that if you have never had any training there will be a greater learning curve but at least with the scripting you can still survive and your first student won't be a true guinea pig.  As you get more adept at implementing the system, the scripting isn't as necessary and you can add flexibility into the program as you gain understanding.  I do wish there were more explanation of the why's behind it all but I admit I did not go through and read every single word in every single manual multiple times.  I may easily have missed something while trying to get over my deer in headlights look.   :)  And I know there are quite a few things for tutors on the Barton site so maybe the explanations are there and I didn't dig deep enough.

 

With the other systems, if you use them without any training, you may eventually develop great skills as a teacher/tutor, but the learning curve seems like it would be much, much steeper initially than with Barton since things aren't as clearly laid out.  Does that make any sense?

Well I'll just tell you the flipside.  I'd *like* to think my level of involvement with ds' ST is the norm, but in fact our SLP has said people almost NEVER do that.  Most people want to drop off and walk away.  I think our psych was a bit snooty, yes, but EVEN THEN I really tried to figure out where he's coming from.  I think his point was that this is a game you DON'T want to fail at and that it IS more complex than people anticipate.  I mean, look at how many variables we have here (this is working, that's not, go do this step first, etc.).  So for MOST parents in fact (not the parents on this board generally!!) outsourcing HAS to be it.  

 

Barton wasn't snooty with me at all.  She said LIPS was challenging to pick up and use.  I said I had studied linguistics and attended all of his ST and taught a phonogram-based spelling program for 8+ years and I wasn't worried.  She said no biggee and that if you needed the help you could always get it.  I wasn't offended.  

 

So yeah, they sorta get a complex, but it's also true that a reasonable chunk of the population is going to be OVERWHELMED by these materials or not want to dig in and do them for ANY NUMBER OF VALID REASONS.  And all we care about is results!  If *I* hadn't taught through SWR for 8 years, *I* probably be sitting here gasping too.  Big learning curve!!

 

Sounds like I need to spend more time digging on Barton's site!  I didn't realize she had more info on there, though it makes sense, duh...  

 

Hit our 4th "ears" session today with ds.  We're having such a nice time and I love seeing his progress.  It's SO hard to hold back and slow down and do that repetition over and over to let it all cement!  I'm super excited about this week, because we're really digging in on /sh/ and /s/.  I'm going ahead and doing them and teaching him the spelling option "sh" because I'd like to see if we can get the carryover to his speech.  For a while now I haven't been clear whether he's mixing them up in his speech because of phonemic awareness or motor planning or both.  Of course the one can lead to the other, but still we've been working on them for an unusually long amount of time.  So we'll see!  He and I even talked about the idea of him reading someday and when he'd like to be able to read.  I told him he'd probably be able to read sometime in the next year, and he decided August.  We'll see, but it was cute.  We've never actually talked about it as it never seemed in reach.  Kind of an interesting change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you say that again?  I think I'm like so close to what you're getting at but I want to make sure.   :)

When DD was little we did lots of flash cards for sight words and math facts and I never saw improvement from them.

Now DD does flash cards for vocab, science facts (and other such memory work) and it works for her.

 

I think the difference is -- flash cards 'work' by making you "recall" what you know AND if you get it wrong, then you take the 'right' information and attempt to attach it to what you recalled (encode it)  eventually replacing the wrong information - so you can remember it for next time.     Now, with her older brain, DD is doing that 2nd part of trying to stick the information in her brain but when she was younger I don't think she was doing that part.     

 

I still see that sometimes - she gets the same wrong answer a bunch of times in a row, and only when I point out to her that she is missing it the same way every time does she start being able to get it right.  As if she has to make a manual effort to do the 'encoding' part rather than it happening more or less subconsciously  when she missed the word and then saw the right answer.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the 'next' part of LIPS after learning all the letters/sounds is also letterless, right?   This is why I think B1 and LIPS are such a close match.     Learn the mouth/pictures matched to sounds/letters morphs into split words into sounds using blank tiles/felts (moving into more complex words to splitting 1st via syllable and then maybe 1 syllable into sounds).  The way I understand it you are supposed to move from needing the mouth pictures to using the actual movement of your mouth/tongue to decide which sound it is.   Only lastly does LIPS split the words using letter tiles (and a section adding unusual endings such as -tion).  

 

The blank tile/felts part is the part where I spent WAY more time using mouth pictures instead of colored squares.  DD just really needed the extra practice with that.  What I did not do was spend enough time morphing from mouth picture to not needing the picture and practice without the pictures.  

 

But B1 is all about splitting words up - you could definitely start that with using mouth pictures instead of colored squares once he knows all the sounds (and possibly before even?? I don't remember how the order goes in Barton - do you need all the sounds for the first lessons?)

Ohhhh... (see me getting all somber, deep, and pensive here)  You are GOOD!  Ok, so you're saying reread that chapter?  Here's what tripped me up.  We're doing vertical path, so on the vertical path the first time through you have this crazy limited field and you go ALL THE WAY.  So first time through, with literally just a few pictures, yes he could go all the way to letters.  But hmm, going to felts/tiles WITHOUT the mouth pictures, THAT might get interesting.  Dunno.  It would be very abstract.  He seemed ok with the limited, limited field.  We just did it on the last day last week, maybe like 19 sessions in from this round 2, so things were really clicking on that limited field of pictures, kwim?  

 

Now with more things added (because for vertical you go back and add more), yeah things could definitely get more complex in his brain.  You can see it now, where he's having to work really hard to discriminate and think how is this mouth we added this week different from what we did last week, etc.  Lots of thinking.  He didn't push to meltdowns today.  In fact, I think I might have been able to push him to 5.  I thought about it.  But he's playing outside so gloriously, hammering and jousting and whatever.  Who wants to disturb him...  :)

 

Ok, so I will go reread that chapter.  There's clearly something there that SEEMED really easy and obvious with a small field that might not be as we add more.  I'm not planning to get back to that stage till the end of this week anyway.  We're just going to get those faces and all the connections solid.  Right now we're tracking with faces and doing the break/replace/remove, chains, etc.  I'm really pleased with how that's going, bringing those B1 skills down and using them with the mouth pictures.  That's a really good point though that basically until he's ready to analyze and track WITHOUT the mouth pictures AT ALL, he's not ready for B1.  Until then, just hang in LIPS and do the skills there.  

 

So yes, yes, thank you for sorting that out for me Laughing Cat!  It's almost like it was so obvious I was missing it, lol.  It's not that I need to bring the mouth pictures up.  It's that I need the reverse, to work with them so much that he doesn't NEED them anymore to move up.  I think, like OneStep is finding, it's not a crime to bring them up.  I'm just thinking it's better for us, since we're here, to bring down the B1 skills, nail them with mouths, and do them until he can do them with just felts/tiles.

 

So cool, the brilliance of the Hive. Thanks!!!  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'll just tell you the flipside.  I'd *like* to think my level of involvement with ds' ST is the norm, but in fact our SLP has said people almost NEVER do that.  Most people want to drop off and walk away.  I think our psych was a bit snooty, yes, but EVEN THEN I really tried to figure out where he's coming from.  I think his point was that this is a game you DON'T want to fail at and that it IS more complex than people anticipate.  I mean, look at how many variables we have here (this is working, that's not, go do this step first, etc.).  So for MOST parents in fact (not the parents on this board generally!!) outsourcing HAS to be it.  

 

Barton wasn't snooty with me at all.  She said LIPS was challenging to pick up and use.  I said I had studied linguistics and attended all of his ST and taught a phonogram-based spelling program for 8+ years and I wasn't worried.  She said no biggee and that if you needed the help you could always get it.  I wasn't offended.  

 

So yeah, they sorta get a complex, but it's also true that a reasonable chunk of the population is going to be OVERWHELMED by these materials or not want to dig in and do them for ANY NUMBER OF VALID REASONS.  And all we care about is results!  If *I* hadn't taught through SWR for 8 years, *I* probably be sitting here gasping too.  Big learning curve!!

 

Sounds like I need to spend more time digging on Barton's site!  I didn't realize she had more info on there, though it makes sense, duh...  

 

Hit our 4th "ears" session today with ds.  We're having such a nice time and I love seeing his progress.  It's SO hard to hold back and slow down and do that repetition over and over to let it all cement!  I'm super excited about this week, because we're really digging in on /sh/ and /s/.  I'm going ahead and doing them and teaching him the spelling option "sh" because I'd like to see if we can get the carryover to his speech.  For a while now I haven't been clear whether he's mixing them up in his speech because of phonemic awareness or motor planning or both.  Of course the one can lead to the other, but still we've been working on them for an unusually long amount of time.  So we'll see!  He and I even talked about the idea of him reading someday and when he'd like to be able to read.  I told him he'd probably be able to read sometime in the next year, and he decided August.  We'll see, but it was cute.  We've never actually talked about it as it never seemed in reach.  Kind of an interesting change.

I agree completely.

 

Barton just gives you a lot of hand holding (in the early levels especially) so that a layman can implement a solid OG based program without extensive training right from the very beginning.  You train as you go but you get a lot of scaffolding and hand holding so you don't fail your student while you are going through the process.  The other programs are not really designed that way, and that's fine, but I think it is selling Barton kind of short to say it is not trying to build you up as a teacher.  It just does that building in a gentler fashion over a period of time since the program assumes you probably haven't had extensive training yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely.

 

Barton just gives you a lot of hand holding (in the early levels especially) so that a layman can implement a solid OG based program without extensive training right from the very beginning.  You train as you go but you get a lot of scaffolding and hand holding so you don't fail your student while you are going through the process.  The other programs are not really designed that way, and that's fine, but I think it is selling Barton kind of short to say it is not trying to build you up as a teacher.  It just does that building in a gentler fashion over a period of time since the program assumes you probably haven't had extensive training yet.

Ahh, gotcha!!  And you know, that's a good point, that working with a master teacher (which is essentially what you're doing) WILL make you a better teacher by rubbing off like that.  For me, what I'm always looking for is does the apraxia change things.  But you know, Barton seemed to have experience with apraxic kids when I called her.  If I get stuck, I'll call her.  I think I could end up bugging her WAY too much if I don't try to solve problems here first.  Can you imagine?  She'd be like "Not THAT woman again!"  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, gotcha!!  And you know, that's a good point, that working with a master teacher (which is essentially what you're doing) WILL make you a better teacher by rubbing off like that.  For me, what I'm always looking for is does the apraxia change things.  But you know, Barton seemed to have experience with apraxic kids when I called her.  If I get stuck, I'll call her.  I think I could end up bugging her WAY too much if I don't try to solve problems here first.  Can you imagine?  She'd be like "Not THAT woman again!"   :D

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...