Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

PeterPan

Growth curves in SLI

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Lecka said:

So my understanding is, that there are ways to track progress and use assessments to target skills...... but that a lot of testing is going to show lowering scores or no improvement, just because the child is out of the range of the testing.  

Also, different assessments or methods of progress monitoring can be more helpful, if a goal of testing is to monitor progress or choose appropriate goals.

Sometimes a goal of testing is to help determine if special services are needed, and then those low scores are what they want to see.  But that is a pretty limited use, really.  

I think this is all super relevant, but I have a personal frustration with this because my son defies all of these points in one way or another. But they are super valid points!

Range of testing--it is super hard to find testing for language past a certain age, so I think that illustrates very concretely exactly what you are saying. Furthermore, there are kids that struggle to categorize, label, etc. abstract information, but they can do so concretely. So, if they struggled with the concrete version, they get things like the ABBLS and VBMAPP, right? (Not sure I have those spelled correctly.) What about the kids who can't label, sort, and manipulate the LANGUAGE for abstract information, but they clearly understand abstract concepts? I feel like they need to make a parallel program for this that teaches the sorts of things they do with the early labeling programs. A lot of this falls to teaching critical thinking, but it's not the thinking that is a problem--it's putting words to the thinking. I have one family member that really doesn't think critically in some areas of life, but his language use is fine. He displays magical thinking, and the critical thinking stuff would be super appropriate. But my kiddo with ASD is a super good critical thinker if it's in a non-language domain. There are things he just KNOWS and can't tell you. He's doing a conceptual physics text this year as a 9th grader (Hewitt). My understanding is that this is what non-science majors in college would get for physics. Anyway, he is thriving in this text--they are taking concepts he already understands (he's always been scary good at understanding cause/effect and things like momentum, trajectory, etc. even as a toddler) and putting words to it. The concepts are more concrete than my abstract topics. He can ALMOST take notes!!! He can't take notes on ANYTHING, but he can almost take notes on this text. There are two things standing in his way: It's still super hard, so he has to be prompted and redirected (I'm hoping to do this with a timer vs. me over time), and he lacks confidence. But he can also answer non-multiple choice questions in this text!!! If he has a history text for middle school, he struggles to change a question into a statement and vice versa or to rephrase something to make sense of a SUPER STRAIGHTFORWARD question, but in this physics text, he can answer those kinds of questions without help. If I prompt him, he can also tell me the main idea of each section of the text, explain the nuances (with words), and then with explicitly prompting "What wh- question can you ask that this paragraph answers?") he can turn the information into a questions. He has NEVER been able to do this before. Anyway, the Mindwings stuff does do critical thinking with language, so it's helping slowly. I think I'm just discontent because, literally, with the beginner stuff, a "kickoff" can be the signal words, "It was a rainy day..." This is illogical to even me--I mean, it's great that people use signal words in text, but signal words do not equal an actual event. I know it has to frustrate him too, but moving on to text that has actual events for something like this also have other plot elements that complicate things too fast for him. So, we're teaching him that those words signal time to put on his thinking hat, but IRL, no one is going to say to him, "It was a rainy day..." to demonstrate that they are about to say something that requires critical thinking and interpretation!!! 

Anyway, back to the tests...the number of tests past a certain age/developmental stage are seriously limited, but there are a few tests that have come out with 11-ish to adult versions in recent years. TNL and TOPS both have. What's crazy is that my son with ASD can score all over the map even on these tests--some subtests are fine while others are tanked or least remarkable depressed compared to verbal IQ. But others, it wouldn't matter if the test was the right age span--his psych ordered the narrative language test just for him, and the company sent the wrong test! They sent the little kid version. Our choice due to time constraints and getting a report in time was to use it or not use it. We opted for her to run it--he hit near or at the ceiling on the receptive part of the test (he was too old), but he bombed the expressive part on a test that whose norms stopped well below his age. Ugh. And frustratingly, even though he tests fine on the receptive part of that test, he still struggles to interpret narratives in actual practice (but that has come out since the testing) in the same way that the test is supposed to ferret out. So the receptive part is accurate but limited for our purposes too! 

I really, really wish that I could get a list of appropriate progressions and goals that do show this in an alternative way as you suggest. My son has a lot of individual skills that absolutely do not combine to make a functional whole in regard to reading and writing, but when I point this out at the IEP meetings, I get stuff like, "A lot of freshman struggle with x task." I don't have words to show the difference between HOW he struggles vs. a typical freshman, so we don't get real answers on how to fix it. But when people actually try to work with him, they see it (eventually, which means, "too little, too late"). It's like there needs to be an entire set o qualifiers to distinguish between typical "this is hard while I'm learning it" and perpetual illusion of competence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kbutton said:

then with explicitly prompting "What wh- question can you ask that this paragraph answers?"

Is this a strategy you use to interact with textbooks? I guess it's that 4SQR or whatever it is where they're told to ask questions, yes? I can see why, given his language issues, this would be hard. 

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

If he has a history text for middle school, he struggles to change a question into a statement and vice versa or to rephrase something to make sense of a SUPER STRAIGHTFORWARD question,

Again, the same thing. So you're saying he struggles with forming a question about the given information (which seems like a very challenging skill to me) but is doing it BETTER in the text where he's already actively engaged and has significant background knowledge? The theory there is that 80% of comprehension is prior knowledge. I've had people describe it to me that the topic being of long-term interest means the thoughts have been chewed over for longer and the language is preloaded into their brains. 

So I definitely don't think it's your imagination. It just seems like you're going for pretty challenging skills. The task then would be to step back and see how much simpler you could make that task and work forward. You could either do the same task with more familiar history material OR you could break the task into smaller component steps or simpler precursor steps up and work up. For instance, when working through 100% Vocabulary Rothstein with ds I frequently had ds reframing statements as questions. We did sheets and sheets and sheets of this, every time it was a logical thing to do. So if the student isn't strong on that precursor skill of framing a question when given a single statement about something simple with controlled syntax that is being worked through sequentially, then it's going to be much harder to do the task given a paragraph.

Forming a question from a statement is actually very complex linguistically. I would make sure you completely have that skill before going forward to do it in an academic setting. There are many ways the questions can be formed (wh-, did, etc.), verb tenses to deal with, order to be changed. You might even take the non-fiction text and work up, selecting only a *small amount* to reframe as a question rather than jumping in with paragraphs and pages. You could enhance it by showing a *picture* and the caption and forming questions from that. You could practice the skill by using other types of pictures (artwork) and framing questions or using the artwork plus a brief bio paragraph. 

Does he visualize well? Have you gone through V/V with him? Many people are using V/V for comprehension bumps. I'm connecting that with picture study, because I'm saying if he can frame questions from information in pictures, the visualizing gives him a picture to work from with the texts. The physics, as you're finding, is much easier for him to visualize, so he has more data to work from, making it more intuitive. It's a challenge to make history visualizable. I'm using the new Gander Publishing history series with ds, and frankly it's brilliant. I don't know that you'd want it for a 9th grader, but if you did all three books in a year I'm not sure it would be such a crime. It's beautifully written to promote visualization and critical thinking from your imagery. I think it would be obvious how to take it farther. Maybe not open and go obvious, but they start to do it enough that it might be a way to get there.

Most history texts are basically just dictionaries of terms, a flood, without thought. Using a simpler text that has the focus on visualization and critical thinking via your constantly engaged imagery might raise his own mental bar for how it should be, so that then he would know when he's reading a less engaging text to turn it on and seek out sources to make that happen (videos, etc.). I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think it could work.

I have read about that 4SQR thing or whatever it is, and it never seemed like a really useful thing. That's a whole other question, because if this is so all-fired useful then I ought to be doing it with ds, lol. We've laid enough grammatical foundation that he could probably do it as a *task*, a linguistic task, so then it would be the upped challenge of doing it when given more content. But, like I said, I guess I've never cared to interact with text that way. I must be a very superficial reader. I probably am, lol. I also totally, totally sucked at history. You could just decide he could live his whole life without history and move on. You could just do it in a way he does get and move on. It's laudable too to want all these goals. I'm just saying you could, alternately, just chuck some. Or, as one homeschooler (Tammy Duby of the Tobin's Lab company from way back in the day, haha) put it, decide to have some holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kbutton said:

"A lot of freshman struggle with x task."

It's TRUE lots of kids struggle with xyz task, but they don't have deep underlying deficits that are preventing them from responding to intervention. So if you give intervention to a kid with less deficits, things click, they start moving forward. With a kid with deeper deficits, peel back and there's more and more and more going on. Like you want him to form questions to improve comprehension when reading and taking notes on texts, but then you have this wicked underlying issue that he may struggle to form questions AT ALL!!! That kid is therefore in a much more challenging position than the kid who just had EF issues and needed explicit structures to get the click.

So the question is what is underlying it, not merely what is happening. That would be like saying my ds with ASD2 who is having x behavior needs the same response or is only as afflicted or difficult to help as a typically developing dc who has that behavior. That's totally absurd. When my ds does that same thing another person's dc does, he has a WHOLE BUNCH more deficits factoring in that have to be worked with to get him where we're going.

The school at that point is no longer talking about solving underlying problems. Their goal is get him in, get him out. You're still in but I want to fix underlying problems if I can mode. That's really good, but that's why there's the disconnect. I personally also think as homeschoolers that we each reach a point where we're like ok, we've done what we can, this is what it is. It might not be *now* but you'll hit that. You might reframe your own goals or decide there are walls this direction and to focus on strengths, etc.Now it might be worth it to pound those walls, but it's also ok to reach a point where you're like oh well, let's go make a tunnel and approach this a totally different way. The world does not end if you go a totally different way and scrap something the world thought was important.

This is just my sorta btdt opinion. Think about the dc and where this is going and what is really important. Focus on what is really important to them as a human being and for where they're probably going. 

Also, things have changed for college. If he were taking that class in college, he could get the powerpoint notes ahead of time, prestudy them. Do you have something like that for the text? It might even have the questions already on there. The whole way he'd interact with the text might be different. I think what you're doing is good, and I think having the ability to TALK about your topic is vital. I just also see things changing with how people interact with text. If he *writes* those questions, does it go differently from trying to *say* them? A lot of courses are online now or have an online component (hybrid) and online courses frequently want discussion or expansion of topics/prompts. It would be a skill to work on. If he goes into a program that requires courses that are not strengths for him, he might decide to take those courses online over the summer, whatever. So if he's taking them online, he'll need to be able to do the skills for online classes. There will be a LOT of writing from prompts, discussion posts.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=conceptual+physics+powerpoint&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kbutton, did they run the SPELT on him? The only reason it ages out is because at 8/9 kids basically get EVERYTHING RIGHT on the test! So that might show up some fascinating holes. It might not, I don't know. Just saying it blew my mind. I want to go back and redo our testing next spring and quantify our progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Is this a strategy you use to interact with textbooks? I guess it's that 4SQR or whatever it is where they're told to ask questions, yes? I can see why, given his language issues, this would be hard. 

I am afraid to answer your question, and that's not the point of my post. I really don't want my teaching methods picked apart right now. In this actual context, what is exponentially difficult for him shrunk to "little bitty difficult" even though the level of the text shot up to exponentially more difficult. I am comparing this with history. I am also trying to observe that for an abstract topic, this particular topic is more concrete than other abstract topics. 

I chose this strategy because I saw significant possibilities with using it as a tool for figuring out what he can and can't do as well as having "something" other than a lab notebook that he can point to as "output." For output, I am looking for the shortest distance between two points--if he can do this, then one, I have output without a huge amount of effort (rare with this child), and two, I can say, "Why can he do this here, but not here?" and extrapolate from that.

Quote

Again, the same thing. So you're saying he struggles with forming a question about the given information (which seems like a very challenging skill to me) but is doing it BETTER in the text where he's already actively engaged and has significant background knowledge? The theory there is that 80% of comprehension is prior knowledge. I've had people describe it to me that the topic being of long-term interest means the thoughts have been chewed over for longer and the language is preloaded into their brains. 

Okay, I feel a little like you are reformulating my facts and then asking me to agree to it, lol! This is not my point AT ALL. I am saying that my son has a problem switching from concrete to abstract language on top of issues with narrative language, and the closer we can get to nonverbal reasoning and words that describe concrete processes, the better he is at actually picking up that abstract language and bridging that gap. It has NOTHING to do with prior knowledge, but it does have something to do with his reasoning skills in these areas being better. He has similar levels of background knowledge about other subjects that just goes to waste in helping him once we hit and abstract level of language in those subjects. Poof, it's gone. 

This subject has Just Enough teasers in it that he can summon his strengths and apply them to an area of weakness with some success. I would like to harness that.

Quote

So I definitely don't think it's your imagination. It just seems like you're going for pretty challenging skills.

Nope, I saw vestiges of the actual skills in a new context, coaxed them out, and now I'm quantifying what I'm seeing. For the record this is how I've always done things with him--I've led to strengths that seem to be there and either succeeded and built or didn't succeed and ended up in deep weeds. Even his math tutor sees this--it's not a language problem with math--it's pure autism weirdness. The problems he has with math sometimes literally flow out of an area of strength! And they also show that super, super good logic plus strong basic concrete information gets him a lot farther than it gets other people, and he can "seem" to do abstract stuff (and IQ for nonverbal shows this to be true), but the actual practice of making that conceptual leap, topic by topic, to the abstract stuff gets stuck. It just gets Super Super stuck when it relates to language because there are so many ways to interpret and use language, and you can't systematically compare it all like you can with, say, math. His brain compares, compares, compares, all without words. I know this. I've observed this in him from infancy--it's what turned that baby rage talked about in another thread into, "I can trust Mom--she gets me and can help me understand this." Except that at some point, I've run out of novel ideas for making those connections or something.

Quote

The task then would be to step back and see how much simpler you could make that task and work forward. You could either do the same task with more familiar history material OR you could break the task into smaller component steps or simpler precursor steps up and work up. For instance, when working through 100% Vocabulary Rothstein with ds I frequently had ds reframing statements as questions. We did sheets and sheets and sheets of this, every time it was a logical thing to do. So if the student isn't strong on that precursor skill of framing a question when given a single statement about something simple with controlled syntax that is being worked through sequentially, then it's going to be much harder to do the task given a paragraph.

No, that's what the SLP can do. I cannot. And it's not a vocabulary thing. If you want to use a vocabulary book to reframe statements into questions, knock yourself out, but I cannot turn every resource on its head and sing the Star Spangled Banner. I have a freshman who has sucked enormous amounts of time and "talent" (tutors, etc. who are effective for the vast majority of kids), and things aren't working. He is not the audience for this material. I would posit that even if he has a glitch in those areas, he doesn't glitch in the place those resources are targeting!!! (Now, SGM is targeting some.) My entire point is that I would like to compare what's working and not and harness what works not constantly try to elicit something out of him that's NOT THERE. He has the majority of the pieces, but you never believe me on that. He's missing connections. I am trying compare working pathways to the broken down pathways and learn something. You are in a situation where both the skills and the pathways are not there. That's not my situation.

I would also posit that someone can literally have all or most of the skills they need when the information is concrete but struggle when they hit abstract stuff. Many kids struggle with the concrete and get help. Some never leave the concrete stage. Some do, and they are able to harness (with help) the same strategies to make that concrete to abstract leap. If someone had figured out that my son had issues years ago when he was trying to MAKE THAT LEAP HIMSELF (and he was), I think we'd have had better odds. But now? It's like taking a teenager who was born with*** (oops, without) a leg and learned to walk on a prosthesis and giving him donated, normal legs (I know that's not real yet--we're at maybe saving bio legs that have been lopped off accidentally.) He's developmentally programmed to have learned how to do things he shouldn't be able to do because he used those prosthetic devices for so long. Putting real legs on him would be a step back, and one that is no longer worth it. If he was 2 or 5, maybe it would be awesome, but he's not. He's nearly fully grown. You can theorize all day about neuroplasticity, but for my son that means pruning as much as programming. Programming and pruning/reprogramming are different beasts.

Quote

Forming a question from a statement is actually very complex linguistically. I would make sure you completely have that skill before going forward to do it in an academic setting. There are many ways the questions can be formed (wh-, did, etc.), verb tenses to deal with, order to be changed. You might even take the non-fiction text and work up, selecting only a *small amount* to reframe as a question rather than jumping in with paragraphs and pages. You could enhance it by showing a *picture* and the caption and forming questions from that. You could practice the skill by using other types of pictures (artwork) and framing questions or using the artwork plus a brief bio paragraph. 

Actually, what you are describing is harder for him to do than when he "gets" the big picture. If he gets the big picture, he doesn't have trouble making the connection. Sure, it's not as smooth as it is for someone else, but it's exponentially easier than doing it detached from a big picture. 

He does terrible with describing pictures. Captions? Ha! 

He's not having trouble summarizing, explaining, and labeling the physics book, so I don't want suggestions on that. I want to figure out how to use what's working about physics to see why history is not working and how to bridge. If they require totally separate strategies, fine, but at some point it would seem to be reasonable to find MORE stuff like physics so he can enjoy SOMETHING about school. 

Quote

The physics, as you're finding, is much easier for him to visualize, so he has more data to work from, making it more intuitive. It's a challenge to make history visualizable. 

Most history texts are basically just dictionaries of terms, a flood, without thought. Using a simpler text that has the focus on visualization and critical thinking via your constantly engaged imagery might raise his own mental bar for how it should be, so that then he would know when he's reading a less engaging text to turn it on and seek out sources to make that happen (videos, etc.). I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think it could work.

Well, he visualizes concrete stuff from history, fiction, etc. He does well with floods of concepts and terms if it's something not people-oriented, like government or economics. I think he would do well with the social sciences, believe it or not--sociology or pyschology. It's just that when we're talking story-ish stuff, he latches on to completely irrelevant details. In some disciplines, the details are the point, lol!

Quote

I have read about that 4SQR thing or whatever it is, and it never seemed like a really useful thing. That's a whole other question, because if this is so all-fired useful then I ought to be doing it with ds, lol. We've laid enough grammatical foundation that he could probably do it as a *task*, a linguistic task, so then it would be the upped challenge of doing it when given more content. But, like I said, I guess I've never cared to interact with text that way. I must be a very superficial reader. I probably am, lol. I also totally, totally sucked at history. You could just decide he could live his whole life without history and move on. You could just do it in a way he does get and move on. It's laudable too to want all these goals. I'm just saying you could, alternately, just chuck some. Or, as one homeschooler (Tammy Duby of the Tobin's Lab company from way back in the day, haha) put it, decide to have some holes.

I am not asking for help with history. I am really just trying to say that language in one area is not always language in another, and I think that might be one of the reasons that kids stall out at a certain level. There are people who can analyze a story really well, but they can't tell their boss what they did all week long in a status report. There are people that can give all the reasons for a problem (like my son), but not be able to stitch it together with ties that make someone see the importance. We act like this is all the same stuff and that the breakdown is always in x direction and based on x skills. I am trying to point out that my son's issues seem to defy that, and I am wondering if that explains some of the drop off in progress for some kids.

I am not attempting those school-y methods with this kiddo until something is solid with SGM. Then, I can help him make the leap from SGM to those other methods, if we ever get that far. What we've seen is that those methods (when a tutor has used them) have the same result. Individual skills are there, can't string it together, gives illusion of competence, and we're back to "work on this skill" and it will magically translate to whatever. Nope. Doesn't happen. Except in physics, lol! At least with the SGM stuff, he's slowly acquiring more language-based critical thinking skills.

Edited by kbutton
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

It's TRUE lots of kids struggle with xyz task, but they don't have deep underlying deficits that are preventing them from responding to intervention. So if you give intervention to a kid with less deficits, things click, they start moving forward. With a kid with deeper deficits, peel back and there's more and more and more going on. Like you want him to form questions to improve comprehension when reading and taking notes on texts, but then you have this wicked underlying issue that he may struggle to form questions AT ALL!!! That kid is therefore in a much more challenging position than the kid who just had EF issues and needed explicit structures to get the click.

So the question is what is underlying it, not merely what is happening. That would be like saying my ds with ASD2 who is having x behavior needs the same response or is only as afflicted or difficult to help as a typically developing dc who has that behavior. That's totally absurd. When my ds does that same thing another person's dc does, he has a WHOLE BUNCH more deficits factoring in that have to be worked with to get him where we're going.

The school at that point is no longer talking about solving underlying problems. Their goal is get him in, get him out. You're still in but I want to fix underlying problems if I can mode. That's really good, but that's why there's the disconnect. I personally also think as homeschoolers that we each reach a point where we're like ok, we've done what we can, this is what it is. It might not be *now* but you'll hit that. You might reframe your own goals or decide there are walls this direction and to focus on strengths, etc.Now it might be worth it to pound those walls, but it's also ok to reach a point where you're like oh well, let's go make a tunnel and approach this a totally different way. The world does not end if you go a totally different way and scrap something the world thought was important.

This is just my sorta btdt opinion. Think about the dc and where this is going and what is really important. Focus on what is really important to them as a human being and for where they're probably going. 

Also, things have changed for college. If he were taking that class in college, he could get the powerpoint notes ahead of time, prestudy them. Do you have something like that for the text? It might even have the questions already on there. The whole way he'd interact with the text might be different. I think what you're doing is good, and I think having the ability to TALK about your topic is vital. I just also see things changing with how people interact with text. If he *writes* those questions, does it go differently from trying to *say* them? A lot of courses are online now or have an online component (hybrid) and online courses frequently want discussion or expansion of topics/prompts. It would be a skill to work on. If he goes into a program that requires courses that are not strengths for him, he might decide to take those courses online over the summer, whatever. So if he's taking them online, he'll need to be able to do the skills for online classes. There will be a LOT of writing from prompts, discussion posts.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=conceptual+physics+powerpoint&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

He has to take a comp class to be a car mechanic. I kid you not. All I can say is that I hope they see a fraction of his talent in other areas and go, "Hey we have to GET THIS KID through COMP because we've got a "should be an engineer with multiple degrees" brain, and that means we'll have an amazing mechanic to make our school look good."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could care less if he does "real" history, but it's expected that he'll have real history on a transcript. I would rather fill him up with social sciences. He voluntarily watches history documents and listens to history podcasts, so he won't be ignorant. He just can't answer open-ended questions about it or write stupid essays.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Kbutton, did they run the SPELT on him? The only reason it ages out is because at 8/9 kids basically get EVERYTHING RIGHT on the test! So that might show up some fascinating holes. It might not, I don't know. Just saying it blew my mind. I want to go back and redo our testing next spring and quantify our progress.

No, and IIRC, there was only one area on what I saw that I thought "might" turn up something interesting. Maybe. Don't remember right now what it was. Don't have time to figure it out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is where he is with expository correlating at all to where his narrative development is? Have you seen the charts where MW connects expository and narrative development? The manuals show what connector words are logical to expect for each stage.

I like your strategy here and your logic behind it. It's reminiscent of Cornell notes and something I think I could bring in with ds right away as we begin our ReadWords notebooking. I think it's something we could tackle at the sentence, paragraph, and whole article level. 

The factoid about reading comprehension being 80% prior knowledge is from No Mind Left Behind iirc.

I feel like I ought to know what you mean by abstract language and I don't. Is it abstract language or language about abstract content? Like we have abstract nouns and concrete nouns, but other than that I'm not familiar with the idea of abstract language.

I'll make the connection then that he might be visualizing what is abstract. Physics is inherently visualizable.

There also might be a component of this difficulty that he has to figure out for himself. You're at the ugghy age of transference of ownership (14-18), where he may begin to sort that out for himself. With my dd, she finally got old enough that she could research and put into words for herself what was wrong. She was literally seeing concepts as colors and shapes. So to write, she's translating a concept that is some kind of funky imagery to language which she then gets on paper. He could have funkiness like this going on. Could be anything. 

So maybe take heart that what you can't solve, he might be able to figure out for himself. But I think SGM/SKILL, working on narrative, connecting it to expository, this stuff is all really good!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kbutton said:

He has to take a comp class to be a car mechanic. I kid you not. All I can say is that I hope they see a fraction of his talent in other areas and go, "Hey we have to GET THIS KID through COMP because we've got a "should be an engineer with multiple degrees" brain, and that means we'll have an amazing mechanic to make our school look good."

Sometimes those classes are geared to be more applicable to their profession. Like they might be doing writing that correlates to useful writing in the profession.

I've wondered about that with ds, like what would he need to physically be able to write to be successful and are there tech ways to get around it? Like usually service guys write up a form and sign it and later send a bill, stuff like that. 

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

I could care less if he does "real" history, but it's expected that he'll have real history on a transcript. I would rather fill him up with social sciences. He voluntarily watches history documents and listens to history podcasts, so he won't be ignorant. He just can't answer open-ended questions about it or write stupid essays.

How is he with lists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heathermomster said:

Ok, how did I miss this? What you're linking is very different from the way I had seen it integrated into other curriculum. I'll look deeper.

My little mind is reeling with ideas here. I had that idea I had read online to notebook ReadWorks articles, but we've already done it at that random level. We could take it up a step with some sort of organization to it, organization that bridges to language and allows him to SAY what he learned. That would be super brilliant. And, like this pdf is saying, the 4 squares might actually be just enough at this stage. But that idea of drawing into an organizer that you then use to express is really smart! 

I need to keep reading the pdf, as obviously they go a LOT farther. The materials I had seen using 4SQR ideas were at the 6th grade level, and by then it was so different. But you're right that missing the underpinnings and foundational ideas misses the point.

Edited by PeterPan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some birdies online are saying to look into Nancy McKinley, who I think may be deceased, and her work on adolescents and language intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 13, 2018 at 10:52 AM, kbutton said:

If I prompt him, he can also tell me the main idea of each section of the text, explain the nuances (with words), and then with explicitly prompting "What wh- question can you ask that this paragraph answers?") he can turn the information into a questions. He has NEVER been able to do this before.

If you want a laugh, I was going through my stash of ebooks last night, looking for more things to use with ds (things I had bought on sale and hadn't used yet) and these two ebooks both go crazy with explaining this whole questioning thing you're doing. 

https://www.carsondellosa.com/products/704902--Spectrum-Reading-for-Central-Message-and-Details-in-Literature-Workbook-704902

https://www.carsondellosa.com/products/704903--Spectrum-Reading-for-Main-Ideas-and-Details-in-Informational-Text-Workbook-704903

It's specifically the 3rd grade books, because it looks like later levels lose that explicit instruction. I read through the intro/instructional sections of each last night, and it was mind-boggling the level of questioning they thought a typical person should easily do. We'll see if ds can get there. It's impressive that you've made gains at all with this. Is this something that goes through the minds of typical people naturally when they read? Do they naturally have these questions?

Edited by PeterPan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s hard to say exactly without seeing all of the books, but what I see called “active reading” that is expected for students with good comprehension ———— yes, they are expected to generate a “dialogue” with the book as they read/listen, thinking about what they are reading/hearing, relating it to information they already know, thinking about what they expect to find out, and ————— this is how they are expected to “repair” their reading and notice they have misread something or gone off track.  

But when you hear about kids reading through and not noticing when they are misreading or going off track, or they are not putting together (“making connections”) everything they are expected to glean....... yes — there is a huge amount of active reading, inferencing, making connections, etc., that is expected, and requires these internal reading practices.  

Also you are supposed to be flexible (cough, cough) about how you have first read something, so you can notice if you have misread and make a repair.  This requires noticing that something is not happening as expected, based on the thoughts you had previously.  

But this is famously hard if flexibility is difficult, because kids famously read through with their first impression and try to just fit what they read/head to their first impression.  

But I think this is overwhelming information at first, but kids do make progress with comprehension strategies.  It might be slow progress but I definitely hear about kids making gains.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

It's impressive that you've made gains at all with this. Is this something that goes through the minds of typical people naturally when they read? Do they naturally have these questions?

My main point is that I haven't, really. It just "happened" with this topic, and it's not just because my son is interested in the topic. He's interested in a lot of things, including history. But he "can" in this context, and he "can't" in others...and he's always had glaring contradictions like that.

Worse yet, I am not sure he's actually asking himself questions when he reads physics--I don't think he's using the strategies. It's like it just works, and the strategies help one tiny bit when he does form the actual question--but by then, he knows he has the information and just has to manipulate it a bit in a fairly predictable way. And those strategies have had to come from the SLP most of the time. I have done a little work on them with him, but we end up in the weeds--either the text has "more" than the skills we are working on (oops, there's a subplot, so this doesn't follow the pattern), or it's "too easy" in that we're using words like, "Once upon a time" as a kick-off event (drives me crazy too!), or in the case of non-fiction that is supposed to be written specifically to teach these concepts, the text is poorly written--I keep looking for the main idea and think, "They haven't been on topic this entire time--they just switched from this main idea to that one, abruptly, and there is no reason to do this except that they want to include some sideways details that make the topic more interesting. Those details are totally off-topic."

One thing about the physics books and about more complicated subject matter in general--they expect it to be more complicated, and they explain things from multiple angles. Maybe that is the entire answer for why it works in physics (and sometimes other science). They logically give definitions and then state what kinds of things we can an can't assume about the facts of the information. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://view.joomag.com/newsletter-october-2018-dyslexic-advantage-newsletter/0360832001537913364?short Most recent newsmag from the Eides/Dyslexic Advantage has an article on the role of SLPs in reading intervention. They're sourcing from this ASHA article http://leader.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=2705756  and then they give examples of research you can access through the ASHA Portal. Now I thought you couldn't dig in on that unless you were a member, but we could check. Anyways, one study they list explores the effect of pre-teaching vocabulary vs. using text-based strategies (semantic mapping, self-questioning, etc.). Vocabulary, pre-loaded, was much more effective at bumping reading comprehension than the rest.

So that was kind of on-topic, but it goes back to what No Mind Left Behind says, that reading comprehension is still 80% prior knowledge. I've used some books with ds to bump science vocabulary, etc. And I definitely don't think they're saying you don't NEED the text-based strategies, only that it will only get them part of the way, that the bulk of it was still the knowledge they bring to the table.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Lecka said:

kids do make progress with comprehension strategies.  It might be slow progress but I definitely hear about kids making gains.

Oh I definitely think there's progress to be made! That's what Kbutton's experience shows. But the data is showing it's only a part of reading comprehension (meaning it's not a hill we're going to die on and not going to cover up other deficits), and I'm not sure that focusing on a non-native strategy using someone's WEAKNESS is ever going to make that strategy become a STRENGTH. Maybe our intervention is that good, but I don't know.

I finally printed the resources for the Jan Richardson guided reading stuff to get those strategies up and going for our reading time. This stuff in the workbooks I'm using is much more detailed and pushes much harder. Richardson uses the same question strategies for both mainstream and intervention instruction (because it's all aimed at a mainstream classroom?). Actually the thing I thought was noteworthy there was that she only does literally comprehension on day 1 of the reading. Day 2 they reread the day 1 reading and go for the deeper comprehension questions. They're also doing guided writing prompts that are more comprehension work. With WTM and narration we sort of compartmentalize reading and narration in our minds, reading frequently and narrating occasionally, but she pilfers off parts to narrate for every day and calls it guided writing.It's narrating and the stuff homeschoolers already do, but she's just listing parts and saying do the parts more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is a lot of unspoken assumption that “low-income kids don’t get the right kind of education, that is why they don’t have the background knowledge.”  

But does that apply to my son?  

It’s not that it doesn’t apply to him, but it’s not something where “if we just make sure he has access to audiobooks then he will have the background knowledge.”

It’s just not his situation.

That is a very real situation for kids with decoding issues or who do not get exposure to solid lessons in history, science, etc.  

But those are not primary issues for my son, as far as comprehension.  

I do see vocabulary as extremely important.

But verbal processing (or whatever it would be called) where he has those internal thought processes where he is thinking about what he is reading and how it fits together — that is his biggest issue.  Having the language and the framework to do those processes is his biggest issue.  It is Mindwings (just for an example) type stuff, not “lets make sure kids are exposed to a rich curriculum” type stuff.  

I totally agree that is important, it is just not my son’s primary issue with comprehension.

And then — the thing is, how he does comprehend goes into building his background knowledge, and the complexity of the connections he is making that are a big part of background knowledge.  

Backgroind knowledge isn’t just facts, it is also how things connect, and being able to build that up over time.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I am not sure he's actually asking himself questions when he reads physics

Is he asking other questions? Like I'd be surprised if he's reading and asking NO questions if he's engaged. They just might not be the questions that help him do what he needs to do with the materials, lol. He might be thinking about how it relates to Star Trek or whether he could use that to win at Portal 2 (which I have no clue about but heard mentioned somewhere), etc. I mean, there is that sort of divergent, over-connected autistic thinking that goes for the quickest connection and has lots of connections and then doesn't make the longer-route connection to some other place.

Maybe some seeding would help? I don't know, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Oh I definitely think there's progress to be made! That's what Kbutton's experience shows.

With WTM and narration we sort of compartmentalize reading and narration in our minds, reading frequently and narrating occasionally, but she pilfers off parts to narrate for every day and calls it guided writing.It's narrating and the stuff homeschoolers already do, but she's just listing parts and saying do the parts more often.

I don't think my experience really shows that. I just don't. I think that we might have some traction, slowly, with specific work, but I don't think the physics thing is evidence of anything specific working because he didn't USE those approaches to do it. When he takes the actual notes, that work might have made it easier, but I can guarantee he's not using it purposefully. The physics things just HAPPENs.

3 hours ago, Lecka said:

But verbal processing (or whatever it would be called) where he has those internal thought processes where he is thinking about what he is reading and how it fits together — that is his biggest issue.  Having the language and the framework to do those processes is his biggest issue.  It is Mindwings (just for an example) type stuff, not “lets make sure kids are exposed to a rich curriculum” type stuff.  

I totally agree that is important, it is just not my son’s primary issue with comprehension.

And then — the thing is, how he does comprehend goes into building his background knowledge, and the complexity of the connections he is making that are a big part of background knowledge.  

Backgroind knowledge isn’t just facts, it is also how things connect, and being able to build that up over time.  

Yeah, my son doesn't make those connections either, and I am just really concerned that our efforts in this direction are very much too little, too late. We are overcoming entrenched coping strategies to even begin to shore this up.

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Is he asking other questions? Like I'd be surprised if he's reading and asking NO questions if he's engaged. They just might not be the questions that help him do what he needs to do with the materials, lol. He might be thinking about how it relates to Star Trek or whether he could use that to win at Portal 2 (which I have no clue about but heard mentioned somewhere), etc. I mean, there is that sort of divergent, over-connected autistic thinking that goes for the quickest connection and has lots of connections and then doesn't make the longer-route connection to some other place.

Maybe some seeding would help? I don't know, lol.

I think he makes unusual connections to nowhere. I do. I HIGHLY DOUBT he does that by asking questions. He rarely asks questions for any reason at all. Like, maybe, what are we eating for dinner. But it's more likely to be...Hey, no one has fixed dinner yet. I'm hungry. 

But divergent? Definitely. Not that it's helpful. I don't know about quickest connection though, lol! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the physics be from nonverbal reasoning?

I think there are some different things that go on.

I do think there are things that, by their nature, are using nonverbal reasoning, and then there is translating from nonverbal reasoning into verbal reasoning.  So the translating part can be very difficult, to get it into words, when words are needed. 

Then there are other things that, by their nature, do need verbal reasoning.  

I think there’s a lot of overlap, but then there are some things where verbal reasoning *is* needed, and converting to nonverbal reasoning and then translating to verbal reasoning isn’t going to be enough.  

With Temple Grandin books, there’s a lot where nonverbal reasoning is so strong, and often can stay nonverbal (with the answer being a drawing or diagram or something like that).  That is a great skill to have.  

Then she does a lot of translate verbal reasoning into nonverbal reasoning whenever she can, because then she can think it through, and understand it.  

I think some things she talks about definitely get from abstract to concrete and back to abstract.  That is really powerful.  

I’m not sure it is the tool for reading and picking up on inferences (etc) when it’s hard to even identify what concept the verbal reasoning is supposed to be building up, because there is just so much verbal-ness to it.  

I think it’s good to focus on strengths, but sometimes there are barriers that have to be breached to get to a point where the strengths can come into play.  The strengths can be utilized in their own time and place, but they can’t just take the place of the weak strategies at times when those are intrinsically the strategies needed. 

And a lot of times things are mixed together and then even when the strength is there, so is the weakness, and the strength just can’t accomplish things that aren’t in the nature of the strength.  

I have seen a lot where attention to weak areas isn’t just “oh, we focus too much on weak areas.”  It can let strengths come into play, it can be really effective in opening up the potential of strengths.  There is a balance, but I do see times for sure when working on weak areas allows strengths to blossom more naturally (compared to the unnatural-ness of the weak areas, taking so much work and effort).  

Edit:  sometimes I also feel like the question is “what is the bare minimum needed in the weak area, before the strength can take over.”  This can be a lot, to get to that point.  But then at that point, the strengths can take over.  I feel like this for my older son and some of his “weak procedural learning” type things.  Procedural learning is needed!!!!!!!!  But once he gets to a minimum level (at great expense of time and effort) then it’s good enough and his strengths can come into play.

But I think it’s a lot harder to be like “oh, yeah, well, we need to build up language and a framework for verbal reasoning.”  That’s a lot more work.  That’s a lot harder.  

Edited by Lecka
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kbutton, can your son draw picture notes as he reads?  Does he mindmap at all?  Also, can he look at a labeled data table and make logical statements?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piggybacking on what Lecka said, I would guess that his greater success with physics is that the content engages his nonverbal thinking strengths, and because that taxes his brain power less, he is more able to apply his thoughts to expressing things about physics verbally.

The same way that trouble with decoding can result in lower comprehension -- the brain is so absorbed by the decoding task that the other tasks are less efficient. Remove the decoding barrier by having the text read aloud, and the dyslexic student's brain can comprehend more easily and be less tired for the other thinking tasks that are needed.

Or remove the need to write something for the dysgraphic student, and their expression of thoughts can be more complex.

I know that the physics text is verbal input, but he may be understanding it using his nonverbal skills, which then makes the output easier. Just as a dysgraphic or dyslexic student may have better output when typing. It's still verbal output, yet it's easier than writing it by hand.

Just a theory, but if that is what is going on, it seems the key is tapping into the nonverbal thinking for other subjects. Which is easier said than done, of course.

Edited by Storygirl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Heathermomster said:

Kbutton, can your son draw picture notes as he reads?  Does he mindmap at all?  Also, can he look at a labeled data table and make logical statements?  

 

I have a difficult time persuading him to draw even geometric stuff. 

Mindmapping--not at all. 

Labeled data table--I think he would understand it and answer questions. I am not sure about making statements--it would probably depend on the data and the context. I have often wished more things were presented this way!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2018 at 3:20 AM, Lecka said:

Could the physics be from nonverbal reasoning?

I think there are some different things that go on.

I do think there are things that, by their nature, are using nonverbal reasoning, and then there is translating from nonverbal reasoning into verbal reasoning.  So the translating part can be very difficult, to get it into words, when words are needed. 

Then there are other things that, by their nature, do need verbal reasoning.  

I think there’s a lot of overlap, but then there are some things where verbal reasoning *is* needed, and converting to nonverbal reasoning and then translating to verbal reasoning isn’t going to be enough.  

With Temple Grandin books, there’s a lot where nonverbal reasoning is so strong, and often can stay nonverbal (with the answer being a drawing or diagram or something like that).  That is a great skill to have.  

Then she does a lot of translate verbal reasoning into nonverbal reasoning whenever she can, because then she can think it through, and understand it.  

I think some things she talks about definitely get from abstract to concrete and back to abstract.  That is really powerful.  

I’m not sure it is the tool for reading and picking up on inferences (etc) when it’s hard to even identify what concept the verbal reasoning is supposed to be building up, because there is just so much verbal-ness to it.  

I think it’s good to focus on strengths, but sometimes there are barriers that have to be breached to get to a point where the strengths can come into play.  The strengths can be utilized in their own time and place, but they can’t just take the place of the weak strategies at times when those are intrinsically the strategies needed. 

And a lot of times things are mixed together and then even when the strength is there, so is the weakness, and the strength just can’t accomplish things that aren’t in the nature of the strength.  

I have seen a lot where attention to weak areas isn’t just “oh, we focus too much on weak areas.”  It can let strengths come into play, it can be really effective in opening up the potential of strengths.  There is a balance, but I do see times for sure when working on weak areas allows strengths to blossom more naturally (compared to the unnatural-ness of the weak areas, taking so much work and effort).  

Edit:  sometimes I also feel like the question is “what is the bare minimum needed in the weak area, before the strength can take over.”  This can be a lot, to get to that point.  But then at that point, the strengths can take over.  I feel like this for my older son and some of his “weak procedural learning” type things.  Procedural learning is needed!!!!!!!!  But once he gets to a minimum level (at great expense of time and effort) then it’s good enough and his strengths can come into play.

But I think it’s a lot harder to be like “oh, yeah, well, we need to build up language and a framework for verbal reasoning.”  That’s a lot more work.  That’s a lot harder.  

I think it's non-fiction, technical stuff (science) that I'd like to be able to harness the non-verbal reasoning and do that sort of translation you reference. I know it will be iffy with history, though maybe making some data charts (not just timelines and such) would help with history. 

But yeah, the non-verbal reasoning only goes so far. However, I know that there are discussions in certain fields (or at least there have been discussions) about communicating through graphics and visuals with the recognition that we don't do as well with this as we could. I used to see a lot of that in the technical writing field--more graphics to support or replace explanation. Maybe I need to have him help me make infographics for some subjects. 

20 hours ago, Storygirl said:

Piggybacking on what Lecka said, I would guess that his greater success with physics is that the content engages his nonverbal thinking strengths, and because that taxes his brain power less, he is more able to apply his thoughts to expressing things about physics verbally.

The same way that trouble with decoding can result in lower comprehension -- the brain is so absorbed by the decoding task that the other tasks are less efficient. Remove the decoding barrier by having the text read aloud, and the dyslexic student's brain can comprehend more easily and be less tired for the other thinking tasks that are needed.

Or remove the need to write something for the dysgraphic student, and their expression of thoughts can be more complex.

I know that the physics text is verbal input, but he may be understanding it using his nonverbal skills, which then makes the output easier. Just as a dysgraphic or dyslexic student may have better output when typing. It's still verbal output, yet it's easier than writing it by hand.

Just a theory, but if that is what is going on, it seems the key is tapping into the nonverbal thinking for other subjects. Which is easier said than done, of course.

I keep forgetting about the working memory stuff with this--his working memory is nowhere close to his IQ though it's pretty decent WM. It can be a problem, but he handles it better than he used to. I think that his ability to handle it better behaviorally and with overall fatigue might be masking how much of a problem it still is.

Our psych has mentioned that he presents in some ways like a dyslexic (but had zero phonemic awareness issues that we ever noticed, etc.), and I wonder if this is the kind of thing she's talking about--the difference in handling input and output and manipulating ideas that are new or not yet mastered. He does have dysgraphia as well, but other than embossing six layers of paper when he writes, you wouldn't really know. He is legible, and he doesn't appear to be slow at writing anymore. It doesn't seem to help him a lot to type--it's somewhat easier, but not shockingly so. Maybe if other things improve, maybe the typing will allow those improvements to snowball, but it's just not that helpful when other stuff is so hard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes there is really cool stuff on google if you google:  “mindmap” then the topic, then click on “image.”  There are student assignments, there are teacher-created mindmaps.  

I think it’s possible that the comment he has similarities to dyslexia “could” mean he would do good with this.  

The thing is — maybe you’re jumping in at a high level, because some kids are starting in graphic organizers at a low level and with lots of support.  It’s hard to know if it would be worth trying, but it can be the kind of thing that can be good for kids but also requires them to be heavily taught/supported at the beginning.  I don’t know if you can get any kind of confirmation that it would be worth the effort, from anyone who knows him.  

It would be great if he is able to verbalize any of his thought processes, or have insight into what is helpful to him.  I think it can be worth asking every so often even if in the past there has been no capability.  Sometimes talking about it a little can start wheels turning and then maybe they are aware of it as something to notice.  

I think this has helped my older son some with taking some ownership of studying and needing to study in a way effective for him.  He does have some insight and when he was in resource I think he got a lot of feedback about “doing things this way works good for you.”  But then he has to act on that.  

I don’t think he is intuitive.  

But it’s more like conversations about — when he failed a math quiz, what did he do differently than when he did well on a math quiz.  He doesn’t seem to intuitively know what study strategies are more helpful to him.  But he can look back at what he did, and see what he did when he got a better score or a worse score, and use this to determine what led to a better score.  Which of course there is some randomness involved because maybe one topic was just harder for him!  But it is a step in the right direction.  

I also can’t remember if you have said he has a hard time evaluating things that way (I think you have).  

I have seen “self-management” forms where they try to have kids (or kid plus teacher) fill in a form to try to quantify “did that go well.”  My impression is when the form is filled out (like circling numbers 1-5 for a few questions) if the student circles “5” and the teacher doesn’t think it was a “5,” they can have the conversation in that context.  

It’s just something I have heard of.

Separately — I had a big a-ha moment wrt background knowledge.  I watched the Social Thinking video for “The Group Plan” and it talks about (not in these words) how understanding the group plan can be like a background knowledge that is needed for comprehension.  If an understanding of the group plan is needed for comprehension of something, then it is part of the background knowledge that is needed.  Even though it’s not factual information or vocabulary, which are what I usually think of as background knowledge.  

Edit:  the group plan was kind-of talked about in context of recognizing the main idea of a situation, and needing to fill in unstated details based on.... what they categorize as the group plan, as an area of social information.  

Edited by Lecka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lecka said:

Sometimes there is really cool stuff on google if you google:  “mindmap” then the topic, then click on “image.”  There are student assignments, there are teacher-created mindmaps.  

I think it’s possible that the comment he has similarities to dyslexia “could” mean he would do good with this.  

The thing is — maybe you’re jumping in at a high level, because some kids are starting in graphic organizers at a low level and with lots of support.  It’s hard to know if it would be worth trying, but it can be the kind of thing that can be good for kids but also requires them to be heavily taught/supported at the beginning.  I don’t know if you can get any kind of confirmation that it would be worth the effort, from anyone who knows him.  

 

But it’s more like conversations about — when he failed a math quiz, what did he do differently than when he did well on a math quiz.  He doesn’t seem to intuitively know what study strategies are more helpful to him.  But he can look back at what he did, and see what he did when he got a better score or a worse score, and use this to determine what led to a better score.  Which of course there is some randomness involved because maybe one topic was just harder for him!  But it is a step in the right direction.  

I also can’t remember if you have said he has a hard time evaluating things that way (I think you have).  

His mindmaps are wheels with spokes. Over and over. There is no hierarchy. People have been trying on and off for years, not just me. It's utterly pointless to try to do a mindmap with him. Now, he could potentially use individual thoughts and organize them into groups and label them, etc., but that's easier to do with text annotation (colors or even the stamps from MW). He sees the structure better with annotation, color-coding, etc. 

My experience with graphic organizers is that there are so many ways for them to go wrong, or the answers supplied in pre-made activities for them make me go, 'Huh?" (I am really good at breaking things, lol!) Anything at a fairly low level is usually gibberish to me, though I don't have much trouble with organizers for, say, high school level. With other people, he can often do the organizer with prompts, but not really use it. I also am fine with something like The Reader's Handbook and their graphic organizers--you basically draw them on the fly to suit the work you are doing vs. shoehorning a random organizer into a situation. They have multiple levels of books with multiple levels of being detailed about this. When my son was younger, he seemed capable of doing these things. We would get into deep weeds, but it would seem to be for some reason not related to comprehension. Unfortunately, I can't go back in time and fix that. Even now, most people really struggle to believe he has comprehension issues without some serious digging.

However, the MW stuff is helping to change this--it's consistent, which is a BIG HELP. It also has multiple ways of showing the same things--like icons paired with tools for expansion, summarizing, or icons paired with wh- questions. So, I think that the using graphic organizers thing as a frustrating strategy will eventually be moot. He will make his own organizers with parts and pieces of MW or else use the ones they have and be able to customize them (which is what I have wanted for him all along--it's very clear that generic graphic organizers always feel too specific or too generic for him).

He can troubleshoot why things go wrong sometimes but not others. In real life, he's much better than with academics. Also, his "not doing well" on something is usually that he bombed an open-ended thing because he can't do open-ended things vs. failing a vocab quiz. He is smart enough that if he goes through the motions of completing an assignment, he has enough information to do reasonably well on anything not requiring sentence or short response answers. I've been giving him vocab tests for a couple of years, and failing to study vs. studying might change a letter grade, if that. And most of the time, if he's stuck, his number one problem is not starting and not being willing to start or even guess. He'll leave something blank rather than guess (but he will try with multiple choice). He has always needed prompting for that kind of thing, and it's very entrenched. It's open-ended output that is the biggest problem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Interesting! I was thinking more about making them, but he'd probably need more exposure to know what I mean by making them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kbutton said:

However, the MW stuff is helping to change this--it's consistent, which is a BIG HELP. It also has multiple ways of showing the same things--like icons paired with tools for expansion, summarizing, or icons paired with wh- questions. So, I think that the using graphic organizers thing as a frustrating strategy will eventually be moot. He will make his own organizers with parts and pieces of MW or else use the ones they have and be able to customize them

Yay!!!!!!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...