It is important that social workers consider their own beliefs about dyslexia as they work with so-called “dyslexic” clients, and it would behoove researchers to do so as well. We make commitments to our clients, and we need to honor those commitments with respect for their individuality. Interventions can only be effective if we have a sound basis of knowledge on which to formulate our intervention strategies for those unique clients. In this way, we can assist them in finding learning techniques that foster both literacy and self-esteem in their lives. Otherwise, we are simply holding on to an outdated “us” against “them” education paradigm, where there exists a “gold standard” that discriminately isolates some and rewards others. If the
…show more content…
Dunlosky, et. al (2013) argues that the current system has worked against students as they reach for their learning goals. The researchers conducted extensive evaluations on 10 language-learning techniques developed by cognitive and educational psychologists to determine the efficacy of each one. The techniques were generalized across four variables, namely: learning conditions (alone or in group), student characteristics (age, ability, prior knowledge), materials (single concepts, math, complex science), and criterion tasks (tapping memory and/or problem-solving). Dunlosky, et. al (2013) found that the techniques (namely elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting, keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, re-reading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice) varied widely in terms of generalizability and promise. Among these techniques, practice testing and distributed practice were the most generalizable for age and ability. Elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice were not evaluated adequately enough to draw definitive conclusions about their efficacy. Summarization, highlighting, the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, and re-reading were found to be the least effective of the 10 techniques. Students had already been employing many of these techniques before they were so explicitly defined by researchers (namely re-reading, summarization, and highlighting), and they did not positively impact learning for these students. However, Dunlosky, et. al (2013) encourages future research on these techniques in different educational contexts and/or in conjunction with more effective techniques. Throughout the article, they reiterate that one’s childhood learning techniques are carried into college and career, so there should be an urgency in the cognitive and
Dunlosky, et. al (2013) argues that the current system has worked against students as they reach for their learning goals. The researchers conducted extensive evaluations on 10 language-learning techniques developed by cognitive and educational psychologists to determine the efficacy of each one. The techniques were generalized across four variables, namely: learning conditions (alone or in group), student characteristics (age, ability, prior knowledge), materials (single concepts, math, complex science), and criterion tasks (tapping memory and/or problem-solving). Dunlosky, et. al (2013) found that the techniques (namely elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting, keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, re-reading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice) varied widely in terms of generalizability and promise. Among these techniques, practice testing and distributed practice were the most generalizable for age and ability. Elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice were not evaluated adequately enough to draw definitive conclusions about their efficacy. Summarization, highlighting, the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, and re-reading were found to be the least effective of the 10 techniques. Students had already been employing many of these techniques before they were so explicitly defined by researchers (namely re-reading, summarization, and highlighting), and they did not positively impact learning for these students. However, Dunlosky, et. al (2013) encourages future research on these techniques in different educational contexts and/or in conjunction with more effective techniques. Throughout the article, they reiterate that one’s childhood learning techniques are carried into college and career, so there should be an urgency in the cognitive and