di: Fwd: DI and multi-sensory methods?

Tue Sep 25 17:12:56 PDT 2018

Hi Robert,

I can understand your enthusiasm, but before recommending programs it is
expected that there be evidence to support such recommendations.

 "Two are Barbara Arrowsmith's program in Canada and a computer based
program called Fast Forward.  Both seem successful, and both sound very
similar to the techniques and principles of DI."

Seeming successful is not enough. Arrowsmith, for example, has been around
for more than 30 years, and there is not one refereed research article to
support the program's effectiveness. There are anecdotes and in-house
reports, but they do not constitute scientifically acceptable evidence.

“The *Arrowsmith Research Initiatives Report* dated March 2014 declared
that “Beginning in 1997, Barbara Arrowsmith Young in collaboration with
research colleagues, engaged in conducting research looking at the outcomes
of the Arrowsmith Program and some of the theoretical constructs of the
program.” This report describes a range of investigations, including
conference presentations, pilot studies, unpublished reports and research
in progress. So it appears that, some 35 years since the introduction of
the Arrowsmith Program, and 18 years after the declaration of intent to
research its effectiveness, not one single study has appeared in a
peer-reviewed journal.”

*Tim Hannan*
Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology

Head of School | School of Psychology

Charles Sturt University

Author (2014). Arrowsmith research initiatives report, March, 2014.
Retrieved from
http://www.arrowsmithschool.org/arrowsmithprogram-background/pdf/Arrowsmith%20Program%20Research%20Initiatives%20-%20March%202014%20-%20FINAL.pdf
.
------------------------------

See also attached piece by Castles and McArthur on Arrowsmith
------------------------------
And evidence for FastForWord:

“Fast ForWord is a suite of computer-based language intervention programs
designed to improve children's reading and oral language skills. The
programs are based on the hypothesis that oral language difficulties often
arise from a rapid auditory temporal processing deficit that compromises
the development of phonological representations. Methods: A systematic
review was designed, undertaken and reported using items from the PRISMA
statement. A literature search was conducted using the terms 'Fast ForWord'
'Fast For Word' 'Fastforword' with no restriction on dates of publication.
Following screening of (a) titles and abstracts and (b) full papers, using
pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria, six papers were
identified as meeting the criteria for inclusion (randomised controlled
trial (RCT) or matched group comparison studies with baseline equivalence
published in refereed journals). Data extraction and analyses were carried
out on reading and language outcome measures comparing the Fast ForWord
intervention groups to both active and untreated control groups. Results:
Meta-analyses indicated that there was no significant effect of Fast
ForWord on any outcome measure in comparison to active or untreated control
groups. Conclusions: There is no evidence from the analysis carried out
that Fast ForWord is effective as a treatment for children's oral language
or reading difficulties.”

Strong, G., Torgerson, C., Torgerson, D., & Hulme, C. (2011). A systematic
meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the 'Fast
ForWord' language intervention program. *The Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 52*(3), 224-235.
------------------------------

“Purpose: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the
language and auditory processing outcomes of children assigned to receive
the Fast ForWord Language intervention (FFW-L) with the outcomes of
children assigned to nonspecific or specific language intervention
comparison treatments that did not contain modified speech.

Method: Two hundred sixteen children between the ages of 6 and 9 years with
language impairments were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: (a) Fast
ForWord Language (FFW-L), (b) academic enrichment (AE), (c)
computer-assisted language intervention (CALI), or (d) individualized
language intervention (ILI) provided by a speech-language pathologist. All
children received 1 hr and 40 min of treatment, 5 days per week, for 6
weeks. Language and auditory processing measures were administered to the
children by blinded examiners before treatment, immediately after
treatment, 3 months after treatment, and 6 months after treatment.

Results: The children in all 4 conditions improved significantly on a
global language test and a test of backward masking. Children with poor
backward masking scores who were randomized to the FFW-L condition did not
present greater improvement on the language measures than children with
poor backward masking scores who were randomized to the other 3 conditions.
Effect sizes, analyses of standard error of measurement, and normalization
percentages supported the clinical significance of the improvements on the
Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (E. Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999).
There was a treatment effect for the Blending Words subtest of the
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (R. K. Wagner, J. K.
Torgesen, & C. A. Rashotte, 1999). Participants in the FFW-L and CALI
conditions earned higher phonological awareness scores than children in the
ILI and AE conditions at the 6-month follow-up testing.

Conclusion: Fast ForWord Language, the intervention that provided modified
speech to address a hypothesized underlying auditory processing deficit,
was not more effective at improving general language skills or temporal
processing skills than a nonspecific comparison treatment (AE) or specific
language intervention comparison treatments (CALI and ILI) that did not
contain modified speech stimuli. These findings call into question the
temporal processing hypothesis of language impairment and the hypothesized
benefits of using acoustically modified speech to improve language skills.
The finding that children in the 3 treatment conditions and the active
comparison condition made clinically relevant gains on measures of language
and temporal auditory processing informs our understanding of the variety
of intervention activities that can facilitate development.” (p.97)

 Gillam, R.B., Loeb, D.F., Hoffman, L.M., Bohman, T., Champlin, C.A.,
Thibodeau, L., Widen, J., Brandel, J., & Friel-Patti, S. (2008). The
efficacy of Fast ForWord language intervention in school-age children with
language impairment: A randomized controlled trial. *Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 51*, 97-119.
------------------------------

“To examine the efficacy of Fast ForWord Language (FFW-L) and 2 other
interventions for improving the phonemic awareness and reading skills of
children with specific language impairment with concurrent poor reading
skills. A total of 103 children (age 6;0 to 8; 11 [years;months]) with
language impairment and poor reading skills participated. The children
received either FFW-L computerized intervention, a computer-assisted
language intervention (CALI), an individualized language intervention
(ILI), or an attention control (AC) computer program. The children in the
FFW-L, CALI, and ILI conditions made significantly greater gains in
blending sounds in words compared with the AC group at immediate posttest.
Long-term gains 6 months after treatment were not significant but yielded a
medium effect size for blending sounds in words. None of the interventions
led to significant changes in reading skills. The improvement in phonemic
awareness, but not reading, in the FFW-L, CALI, and ILI interventions
limits their use with children who have language impairment and poor
reading skills. Similar results across treatment conditions suggest that
acoustically modified speech was not a necessary component for improving
phonemic awareness.”

 Loeb, D., Gillam, R.B., Hoffman, L., Brandel, J., & Marquis, J. (2009).
The effects of Fast ForWord Language on the phonemic awareness and reading
skills of school-age children with language impairments and poor reading
skills. *American Journal of Speech - Language Pathology,18*(4), 376-87.
------------------------------

“The picture presented by the peer-reviewed research synthesized here is
less optimistic than that presented by the FFW-Language vendors on the
Scientific Learning Corporation website (2009). The published data does not
support a strong claim that FFW-Language is more effective than other tools
available to educators or that FFW Language is necessarily the best choice
for all students reading below grade level.” (p.6)

 Mocan, S. B., & Leacock, T. L. (2009). *Using Fast ForWord® to support
learning to read: A review of the literature*. In E-‐Learn 2009:
Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, & Higher Education, 1-8.
------------------------------

A useful summary of research into a range of interventions is attached.

Finally, neither program you mention is "similar to the techniques and
principles of DI."  They are based on very different principles -
Arrowsmith on 19 hypothesised faulty brain regions, and FastForWord on an
assumption concerning faulty auditory processing. DI emphasises the design
and implementation of instruction in specific academic areas, such as
reading, language, maths etc. It involved direct instruction, whereas FFW
and Arrowsmith emphasise indirect instruction. That is, they attempt to
address presumed faulty processes underlying academic skills. Thus far,
this latter approach has not led to evidence of improved learning of the
academic skills. That doesn't imply that indirect approaches can never be
successful - simply that they have not been thus far, and their promotion
wastes the time, energy, and money of families whose children are
struggling academically. Additionally, there is the opportunity cost of
time lost that could have been devoted to the type of effective instruction
that DI offers.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 02:03, ROBERT <bhullinghorst at comcast.net> wrote:

> Dear Diane:
>
> For some reason, I can find nobody in neuroplasticity who references Zig's
> research behind Direct Instruction.  However, there are several educational
> programs supposedly using techniques that are based on neuroplasticity
> research.  Two are Barbara Arrowsmith's program in Canada and a computer
> based program called Fast Forward.  Both seem successful, and both sound
> very similar to the techniques and principles of DI.  Here is a general
> discussion, but you can easily find more information about each online.
>
> (http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/content/download/81162/664344/file/Eden
> Chapman - neuroplasticity - sabbatical report 2017.pdf
> <http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/content/download/81162/664344/file/Eden Chapman - neuroplasticity - sabbatical report 2017.pdf>).
>
>
> Sorry for the long link.
>
> If I were not retired, I would make it a project to get the
> neuroplasticity folks together with the DI folks and see what happens.
>
> Here is my take on what is happening in the brain of a child (probably
> anyone from birth up to the age when the brain becomes less plastic--say
> 25?).  This is just speculation, based on my reading broadly, but there is
> some good science buried in it.
>
> 1.  The Hippocampus is producing lots of t-cells (a process called
> auto-genesis) that are becoming differentiated into specialized neurons in
> the cortex.  (Auto-Genesis can extend into old age, but the rate seems
> slower and much of the cortex is already specialized.)
>
> 2.  If these t-cells, and especially their mitochondria, are properly
> nourished with a lot of specialized nutrients (especially Omega3 but many
> others too numerous to mention), then the neurons will specialize into
> structures in response to the environment based on the senses, including
> those in the muscles.   Call this "education."
>
> 3.  It has been proven (especially in animal models, mice to chimps and
> some human brain studies) that "education" influences this specialization.
> Focused attention and repetition have been proven to be critical to
> influence specialization of neurons and even relative growth of parts of
> the brain.
>
> 4.  Excessive stress and anxiety (from poverty, domestic violence,
> bullying) and poor nutrition have been proven to interfere with the health
> of mitochondria, the auto-genesis of T-cells, and the specialization of
> neurons.  (Of course, can an excessively competitive school environment
> contribute?)
>
> 5.  Brain malfunctions or diseases (like viral encephalitis and other
> illnesses) can also interfere with needed specialization, but there is
> evidence that many neuroplasticity treatments can reduce or reverse the
> impact of these issues.  For example, there is exciting research on direct
> energy application to the tongue to treat some deficiencies. Again, see the
> two books by Norman Doige that I mentioned before--easily available from
> Amazon.  It may well be that DI is a neuroplasticity treatment for brain
> malfunctions, but the two disciplines have not coalesced.
>
> 6.  Given the research on neuroplasticity and the research on DI, it seems
> undoubtable that DI techniques are superior in helping student brains to
> develop productive neural specialization at a time when their t-cells are
> developing normally in the cortex.
>
> 7.  In my opinion, if the educational institution was not such a cesspool
> of administrative inefficiency, we would have made much more progress.
>
> At least that is the result of my rather limited reading and research, as
> well as my experience in public policy, and my biases.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bob Hullinghorst
> Boulder, CO
> .
> Sent from XFINITY Connect App
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
>
> From: DIANE M GRABOWSKI
> To: di at lists.uoregon.edu list
> Sent: September 24, 2018 at 10:38 AM
> Subject: di: Fwd:  DI and multi-sensory methods?
>
> Dear Listmates,
>
> Still wondering if there are any *new* developments since this last
> thread on multi-sensory methods? Is there currently any published evidence
> that the O-G programs are effective? There are a number of private schools
> here in PA that advertise O-G programs as an integral part of their
> curriculum for students with language and learning differences.
>
> Thanks for your feedback!
>
> Best,
> Diane in PA
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Carol Pio <cpio at kcsd96.org> wrote:
>
>> According to a students' outside evaluation, programs such as Wilson or
>> Orton-Gillingham are common reading programs that match this learner's
>> specific needs. Per this evaluation, learning more about how mutli-sensory
>> methods are applied in the offered Direct Instruction curriculum will be
>> critical in determining the best fit for this student.
>>
>> Can anyone help me to answer whether or not there is any research that
>> proves DI programs to be more effective than Wilson or Orton-Gillingham?
>>
>> Can any hands-on, multi-sensory approaches be added to our DI programs to
>> enhance learning for this student?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Carol
>>
>> --
>> Carol Pio
>> Individualized Learning Community, Grades 6-8
>> Twin Groves Middle School
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> di mailing list
>> di at lists.uoregon.edu
>> https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>> <https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ di mailing list
> di at lists.uoregon.edu https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
> <https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di>
> _______________________________________________
> di mailing list
> di at lists.uoregon.edu
>
> https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>

-- 
Regards,

Kerry

Dr Kerry Hempenstall
Senior Industry Fellow,
School of Education,
RMIT University,
Melbourne Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20180926/cc3c0255/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Behavioural Interventions to Remediate Learning Disorders.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1108366 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20180926/cc3c0255/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Arrowsmith Castles McArthur.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 442880 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20180926/cc3c0255/attachment-0001.doc>