Stevenson?

[ElizabethB]

So, I searched Stevenson and found a few of you that use it and like it, but not too much about it.

 

Do you all think it is a true OG program for dyslexia like Barton or Wilson and not OG adapted for the masses like AAR or LOE?

 

I am making a long vowel first beginning phonics program because my students with speech problems have a lot easier time blending them than short vowels.  Also, it is less confusing because the name is the sound with the long vowels.  Don Potter sent me info about Stevenson when I mentioned long vowels first.  The samples look good but I don't buy anything expensive just to check it out and recommend to people.  (Not as expensive as some, but more than I want to spend just to see it.  It does look pretty good from the samples.  I did find a few cheap teacher's guides used, I'll get those and look through their samples for other material.)

 

http://www.stevensonlearning.com

 

Also, here is free long vowel first old Open Court, good but not enough repetition for a struggling student.

 

http://wigowsky.com/school/opencourt/opencourt.htm

  

You can make far better sentences with open vowels first!  If you look, by page 55/ 59 they have stories that actually read like a story!  (Shakespeare on the level of bad beginning phonics book sentences and stories: not the writer's fault, it is hard to write a decent story with a limited stock of words and sounds.)

 

http://wigowsky.com/school/opencourt/bluebook/blue2.htm

[PeterPan]

I guess to me the really curious thing is why you say the kids are finding it easier to blend and articulate with long than short vowels. The long vowel sounds, properly articulated, are actually more complicated from a speech perspective. For instance, /A/ requires and jaw drop *and* retraction, two steps blended into one. Whereas your short vowels, (/a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/) are merely jaw drops. So to me, from a motor planning perspective, if the dc is having problems articulating and blending from a jaw drop (short vowel) to a consonant (jaw up, something with the lips or rounding or plosives), then that's really telling you a lot about where his motor planning is and fundamental deficits in jaw control. 

 

So to me, I would be working on jaw control, get their ability to get their jaw up and do the articulation. But that's just me and PROMPT speaking. I might be missing what you're saying.

 

Have you looked at LIPS? It's such a powerful tool. To me, for actual blending, what they're blending shouldn't matter if they actually have representation of it to manipulate and put together and feel. If you have LIPS, you don't need any other program. In reality, everything of Barton 1 and 2 can be done with LIPS. Now Barton has word lists and is useful, sure. But I'm saying the program you use is irrelevant, because it's just for word lists. LIPS is the tool you do everything with to get over that issue of not connecting how it feels, how it looks, how it blends. We did everything with the LIPS faces. First with tokens (place holders) then with the faces, then trading faces for letters, then with letters. Every word, every stage.

[ElizabethB]

I guess to me the really curious thing is why you say the kids are finding it easier to blend and articulate with long than short vowels. The long vowel sounds, properly articulated, are actually more complicated from a speech perspective. For instance, /A/ requires and jaw drop *and* retraction, two steps blended into one. Whereas your short vowels, (/a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/) are merely jaw drops. So to me, from a motor planning perspective, if the dc is having problems articulating and blending from a jaw drop (short vowel) to a consonant (jaw up, something with the lips or rounding or plosives), then that's really telling you a lot about where his motor planning is and fundamental deficits in jaw control. 

 

So to me, I would be working on jaw control, get their ability to get their jaw up and do the articulation. But that's just me and PROMPT speaking. I might be missing what you're saying.

 

Have you looked at LIPS? It's such a powerful tool. To me, for actual blending, what they're blending shouldn't matter if they actually have representation of it to manipulate and put together and feel. If you have LIPS, you don't need any other program. In reality, everything of Barton 1 and 2 can be done with LIPS. Now Barton has word lists and is useful, sure. But I'm saying the program you use is irrelevant, because it's just for word lists. LIPS is the tool you do everything with to get over that issue of not connecting how it feels, how it looks, how it blends. We did everything with the LIPS faces. First with tokens (place holders) then with the faces, then trading faces for letters, then with letters. Every word, every stage.

 

For students with severe problems, I have them do something like that.  But, I have had a number of students with lower level issues who find it easier to discriminate long vowel sounds--maybe not make them, but blend them, discriminate between them, and remember them.  Perhaps because it's the name as well as the sound?  I really have no idea.  Also, all of the long vowel sounds are more different than one another than the short vowels, especially e and i, that could be another reason.   

 

I currently have no students with speech issues, but have had many in the past.  Working on long vowels allowed them to progress with phonics while getting speech therapy for their problems, using the sounds they can make and blend.  

[Lecka]

I don't think it is.

 

But here is some context in general.

 

My younger son isn't doing OG. He is doing a more blended kind of reading program with sight words. He can blend CVC, he does know letter sounds. There is phonics involved.

 

But OG programs aren't realistic for him right now ---- like, they can be a good component, but he isn't going to make usual or expected progress with them.

 

From school testing last year, his average IQ is 88, but his vocabulary score is 70.

 

By school testing last year -- he is less than a year behind grade level in math.

 

But in reading he is a lot farther behind.

 

It is hard to explain -- but I did a very solid OG approach with my older son, but it just wouldn't work for my younger son right now.

 

I do think I can use it later maybe, as his language continues to improve.

 

But he has such a hard time with words, it is very hard for him to connect to reading anything that doesn't make sense to him, and that really limits what is a good idea.

 

And he can read some word lists, and have it not really transfer to having him connect the word he is reading to the meaning of the word.

 

All the OG materials I have seen assume a pretty sophisticated grasp of language and ability to pick up new words and comprehend them in reading.

 

Anyway -- I have never seen Stevenson but my impression is it isn't OG, it is more for kids who wouldn't necessarily do an OG program if a teacher had access and knowledge of OG programs and thought "this is not the best choice for this child."

[Lecka]

It is odd actually -- I am reading aloud to him right now some Kingdom of Wrenly. They are easier chapter books with pictures.

 

There are places where there are sentences and paragraphs he doesn't understand and he starts to lose interest.... but then he will have pages and pages where he understands and is following along, even though there are some words and some more complicated sentences he doesn't understand.

 

It just doesn't fit with OG programs where kids are assumed to be able to comprehend what they can decode, if they can decode it fluently.

 

And imo where kids are expected to be able to pick up a new word with one explanation and remember it at least for a while.

 

Things where I could say to my older son "this means this" and give either a synonym or a short explanation ---- and he has got it ---- it just doesn't happen that way with my younger son. If it is a name of an object then it is that way for him, but that isn't the kind of thing he has trouble with. Adjectives are really hard for him, though, for example, and right now he doesn't pick it up if you just say "this adjective means the same thing as this other adjective." He doesn't know very many adjectives in the first place, bc they are hard words for him.

[PeterPan]

...My younger son isn't doing OG. He is doing a more blended kind of reading program with sight words. He can blend CVC, he does know letter sounds. There is phonics involved.

 

But OG programs aren't realistic for him right now ---- like, they can be a good component, but he isn't going to make usual or expected progress with them.

 

From school testing last year, his average IQ is 88, but his vocabulary score is 70.

 

By school testing last year -- he is less than a year behind grade level in math.

 

But in reading he is a lot farther behind.

 

It is hard to explain -- but I did a very solid OG approach with my older son, but it just wouldn't work for my younger son right now.

 

I do think I can use it later maybe, as his language continues to improve.

 

But he has such a hard time with words, it is very hard for him to connect to reading anything that doesn't make sense to him, and that really limits what is a good idea.

 

And he can read some word lists, and have it not really transfer to having him connect the word he is reading to the meaning of the word.

 

All the OG materials I have seen assume a pretty sophisticated grasp of language and ability to pick up new words and comprehend them in reading.

 

Anyway -- I have never seen Stevenson but my impression is it isn't OG, it is more for kids who wouldn't necessarily do an OG program if a teacher had access and knowledge of OG programs and thought "this is not the best choice for this child."

 

Lecka, actually this does make sense. Ds, even with his higher scores in some areas, had the same thing happening. We got him decoding, which I'll bet your ds could do, given his overall IQ, but he didn't UNDERSTAND what he was reading. And reading without comprehension really sucks. 

 

Yes, a program like Barton makes the assumption that kids will understand what they're reading after they can decode it. We've talked about that. But I don't think it has to be the reverse, where people don't teach decoding because the kid doesn't understand. You have to build his language AND give him the decoding. I think that's waiting around unnecessarily to let the ps use a non-decoding based approach. And I haven't really seen a reading program that would have brought up ds' language comprehension anyway. That took speech therapy materials. 

 

Give that your ds *can* blend and decode CVC words, it's a shame they're not teaching him decoding more. You could have both. It wouldn't have to be doing whole word while you wait for language.

 

I'm hearing a lot of stories about kids with autism getting to high school and STILL being unable to read. When I look at the autism sites and see so much emphasis on whole word, I pair that with the results and kinda whack my head. Like it has to be BOTH, kwim? For my ds, there were separate pieces. There's the decoding piece, the language comprehension piece, the can you stay calm and choose to read this piece. And no ONE program was the solution to all that.

[PeterPan]

It is odd actually -- I am reading aloud to him right now some Kingdom of Wrenly. They are easier chapter books with pictures.

 

There are places where there are sentences and paragraphs he doesn't understand and he starts to lose interest.... but then he will have pages and pages where he understands and is following along, even though there are some words and some more complicated sentences he doesn't understand.

 

It just doesn't fit with OG programs where kids are assumed to be able to comprehend what they can decode, if they can decode it fluently.

 

And imo where kids are expected to be able to pick up a new word with one explanation and remember it at least for a while.

 

Things where I could say to my older son "this means this" and give either a synonym or a short explanation ---- and he has got it ---- it just doesn't happen that way with my younger son. If it is a name of an object then it is that way for him, but that isn't the kind of thing he has trouble with. Adjectives are really hard for him, though, for example, and right now he doesn't pick it up if you just say "this adjective means the same thing as this other adjective." He doesn't know very many adjectives in the first place, bc they are hard words for him.

 

Ok, so are you working on language at home? I've found our language work to be so super valuable. Maybe focus on speech therapy and language materials instead of reading aloud? Yes, ds will do that too. He's listening to Great Courses (Teaching Company) which are college lectures on military blunders. Do you REALLY think he's understanding everything? Who knows. He still recites lines from tv shows, so I think he's probably memorizing and taking in language. I think the F&P readers have been interesting for him because they've been letting him put pictures to words. A lot of your therapy materials for some of these problems, like understanding adjectives, etc., would be pictures and games played with pictures. Vocabulary, lexicon, same deal, lots of pictures. Actually I'm wondering how ds would do with adjectives, hmm. I find there's a big stretch between what they sorta recognize and what they actually USE. There's a lot of room for development there. As I see how he needs the pieces to go from receptive to expressive to strong enough that he can use them in academics (a progression), I've become more confident at going back and doing things in a nitpicky way and not thinking it's wasting my time. Like yeah, I'll bet if I really dug in, he has some holes and weakness, somewhere in that progression, on using adjectives. Now I'm interested to. :)

 

I don't remember how we got on this, sorry, hehe. But really, I don't think it means decoding is bad or not useful. I think it just means there are so many components that have to come together to make reading work. And I don't expect one program to do it all. The closest thing would be N2Y, and that doesn't teach any decoding, right, only whole word. 

 

Any OG program is going to shoot the level of reading material way beyond our kids' comprehension almost immediately. It doesn't mean the decoding instruction itself is bad. For ds, it just meant I needed to keep the reading requirement to phrases and maybe sentences. It means I've had to be patient. I like the F&P books, now that ds can basically decode anything within reason. If he hadn't had that decoding instruction, F&P would just be whole word, memorizing. You can only memorize so many words before they peter out. It's not a sustainable way to learn to read. And with an IQ of 88, he's really bright enough to learn to decode.

[Lecka]

He has a lot of trouble blending 4 sounds.  That is the hang-up.  He is working on it.  He has memorized some consonant blends, too. 

 

They do teach sounding-out to him at school.  But it isn't like an only sounding-out, decodable readers kind of thing. 

 

And honestly he can't do the kind of decodable readers that don't really make sense or that use uncommon words, to stay decodable. 

 

I don't think there is a way to jumpstart him past the blending 4 sounds thing.  He is working on it.  He has been working on it.  It is better, he has made progress.  But it isn't just exploding. 

 

At some point he will get it, and have a good foundation to move forward!  He has got a really good foundation up to this point, and he is broadening his base. 

 

I also really don't want him to get into guessing, and he tends that way with sounding out 4 sounds.  Sometimes he does get it, but when he doesn't, it gets into ugly guessing.

 

They don't let him guess at school, and model sounding out.  I actually just talked to his teacher about that, and she said they also don't want guessing and will model sounding out, or will just give some words (which I think is fine in context, depending on what they are working on). 

 

He has a history of tuning out language that he doesn't understand, so we have to be more careful about things he doesn't understand. 

[Lecka]

Also you have to keep in mind ----- him getting an 88 is basically the result of getting average scores in some areas, and then really really low in some language-related areas.

 

Well, reading is a language-related area.  He doesn't have an "88" equivalent level in reading, because his higher areas aren't doing much to help him with reading. 

 

It isn't the kind of thing that we could fix by just working on it really hard. 

 

Some things are like that, and some things aren't.

 

He will improve but he has got other important goals plus he needs to be able to live his life. 

[PeterPan]

I'm just curious are they giving an explanation for why blending four is so hard for him?

[Lecka]

He has autism and global developmental delay. He has auditory processing issues related to autism.

 

He just does.

 

But really there is a way where he has a chunk of things that are all consistent with each other ----- and I think to a great extent it is just where he is developmentally in this chunk of areas.

 

It comes across developmental to me bc the pieces fit.

 

It isn't like ---- x, y, z are so good, why is this other thing inexplicably not working?

 

And it fits in with his history too, which is of really severely delayed auditory processing that has slowly slowly gotten better..... and while therapy is good and everything and I would never not do it; the gains seem more related to maturity than to "therapy = input; result from therapy = output." It seems more like ---- therapy helps with gains when he is ready; but if he isn't ready then he just isn't ready.

 

I am on a waiting list for another eval -- maybe there will be some more information then.

 

But really at this point I would say ---- it is really consistent with some things about him that have always been there. A chunk of things have always been delayed and then seemed to have maturity gains together.

 

We are just coming up on the 5-year anniversary of me being told he was considered functionally non-verbal, and you would never know that now. With that context -- his progress is very nice. But everything language-related takes him longer.

[PeterPan]

Yeah if you think it's the overall delay, that makes sense. I was just thinking if it was something easy like working memory deficit, that would actually be fixable. With ds, that working memory and holding those sounds and putting them together was wicked hard. We did the 4, 5, and 6 letter words with LIPS. He never would have gotten it if we had just been doing it with letters. It was too abstract. Barton makes the assumption that if you did it with 3 letters with LIPS, that boom it would generalize and be there for longer words. With ds, I knew that wasn't going to work. 

[Lecka]

His working memory scored in the average range. Iirc it was one of his highest scores. So that is an area of strength for him, and he is good at following directions and some things like that.

[Pen]

So, I searched Stevenson and found a few of you that use it and like it, but not too much about it.

 

Do you all think it is a true OG program for dyslexia like Barton or Wilson and not OG adapted for the masses like AAR or LOE?

 

I am making a long vowel first beginning phonics program because my students with speech problems have a lot easier time blending them than short vowels.  Also, it is less confusing because the name is the sound with the long vowels.  Don Potter sent me info about Stevenson when I mentioned long vowels first.  The samples look good but I don't buy anything expensive just to check it out and recommend to people.  (Not as expensive as some, but more than I want to spend just to see it.  It does look pretty good from the samples.  I did find a few cheap teacher's guides used, I'll get those and look through their samples for other material.)

 

http://www.stevensonlearning.com

 

Also, here is free long vowel first old Open Court, good but not enough repetition for a struggling student.

 

http://wigowsky.com/school/opencourt/opencourt.htm

  

You can make far better sentences with open vowels first!  If you look, by page 55/ 59 they have stories that actually read like a story!  (Shakespeare on the level of bad beginning phonics book sentences and stories: not the writer's fault, it is hard to write a decent story with a limited stock of words and sounds.)

 

http://wigowsky.com/school/opencourt/bluebook/blue2.htm

 

 

I'd never known of Stevenson prior to your title, but (unless it is quite new) maybe that is significant insofar as when I was given a list of programs for children with dyslexia it was not on that list so far as I recall.

 

I can understand how saying a long vowel sound would be easier for some students.

 

But I think a problem for a number of students might be that there are so many ways to spell long vowel sound words in English. And also so very many words with the same vowel pair not sounding the same in two different words.

 

Still, having a lot of options can perhaps help to have something that will end up being what can work for various groups of students who find one or another approach meets their needs better than others.

 

Please take a look at the Sound Out Chapter Books from High Noon--the first level ones by Matt Sims, with almost exclusively short vowel decodable words. I'd be curious what you think about them as "stories."  Or at least take a look at the free samples if cost is too high for what you would buy, but I don't think any of the whole books is available free, unless through a library or interlibrary loan perhaps. Maybe if you were to call and explain that you are a teacher they would send you just one book to look at, gratis.

 

 

But, if you are working on a program to help students with speech issues, does it matter if it is, or another program is, OG?  That is, if you can find something excellent for a subset of students who need it, it seems like that would be good regardless of whether it fits some other model.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Pen

[ElizabethB]

Here is a post about Kinsa and another mom using Stevenson from 2014:

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/528111-for-kinsa/?hl=%2Bstevenson&do=findComment&comment=5926126

[Guest]

Here is a post about Kinsa and another mom using Stevenson from 2014:

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/528111-for-kinsa/?hl=%2Bstevenson&do=findComment&comment=5926126

Just piping in to say that we are still using Stevenson. We are in the final stretches of the Blue level. He is reading pretty well now, and I've been so very happy with the program.

 

However, I can't answer the OP. Our diagnosis is not solely dyslexia, but rather global learning disorder, ie, intellectual disability. So I have never investigated O-G methods to know if Stevenson falls under that umbrella or not. I'm no help, other than to say that I've been very pleased with the program.

[ElizabethB]

Just piping in to say that we are still using Stevenson. We are in the final stretches of the Blue level. He is reading pretty well now, and I've been so very happy with the program.

 

However, I can't answer the OP. Our diagnosis is not solely dyslexia, but rather global learning disorder, ie, intellectual disability. So I have never investigated O-G methods to know if Stevenson falls under that umbrella or not. I'm no help, other than to say that I've been very pleased with the program.

Thanks for the update! I found the manuals used for a reasonable price, so I will be able to check it out and compare. I have not bought Barton, but moms who used it have shown me the program.

[AHASRADA]

Just FYI, I have 3 or 4 Stevenson manuals I am no longer using, if anyone is interested.

[ElizabethB]

Just FYI, I have 3 or 4 Stevenson manuals I am no longer using, if anyone is interested.

Did you like it? Do you think it is a true OG program?

[ElizabethB]

Yeah if you think it's the overall delay, that makes sense. I was just thinking if it was something easy like working memory deficit, that would actually be fixable. With ds, that working memory and holding those sounds and putting them together was wicked hard. We did the 4, 5, and 6 letter words with LIPS. He never would have gotten it if we had just been doing it with letters. It was too abstract. Barton makes the assumption that if you did it with 3 letters with LIPS, that boom it would generalize and be there for longer words. With ds, I knew that wasn't going to work.

I think Stevenson is OG based but designed for students with a low IQ or who have extreme trouble remembering sounds and vocabulary, they use a lot of mnemonics to teach the sounds and make actions and mnemonics for words like boar that are not naturally in a young child’s vocabulary. You should get the green and blue manuals, I think they have things that would help you with your son and I’d be interested to see how you would categorize the program given your experience with Barton.