From: patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Patt Bromberger)
\nNewsgroups: misc.handicap
\nSubject: Paper on Reading Disabilities
\nMessage-ID:
\nDate: 8 Jan 93 20:00:12 GMT
\nOriginator: wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com
\nLines: 1736<\/p>\n
Index Number: 27023<\/p>\n
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL BASES OF EDUCATIONAL DISABILITIES<\/p>\n
Implications for Diagnosis and Remediation<\/p>\n
Expert Paper Submitted to the United Nations
\n Disability Unit, Vienna
\n February, 1990<\/p>\n
Robert Zenhausern, Ph.D.
\n Professor of Psychology
\n St. Johns University
\n Jamaica, NY 11439
\n USA<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
The paragraphs below are in the form of a satire based on the
\nessay by Jonathan Swift entitled “A Modest Proposal” in which he
\npresented a solution to the “Irish Problem”. The parallel here is
\nLearning Disability and the inflexible ways these children are
\ntaught. It is the objective of this paper to show that the problem
\nof the learning disenfranchised is one that can be solved by
\nincreasing the flexibility with which we teach.
\n Another Modest Proposal:
\n A Swift Response to an Old Problem
\n The purpose of this essay is to examine the possibility that we
\nare systematically doing a disservice to a large segment of the
\nschool population. Students who have auditory or visual
\nimpairments have been allowed to use artificial means, such as
\nglasses or hearing aids, to correct their deficits. Indeed, it is
\nconsidered praiseworthy to identify such problems early and then
\nuse the services of professionals who prescribe optical or
\nelectronic devices which alleviate the deficiencies.
\n The consequences of such actions, however, have not been
\nconsidered fully. Such children may become lazy and make no
\nattempt to overcome their problems. What motivation will they have
\nto strengthen their perceptual weaknesses when such devices make
\nit unnecessary for them to do so? What will such people do if, for
\nwhatever reason, such devices are not available? It is the
\ncontention of this paper that artificial devices are crutches which
\ninterfere with the complete development of the child. As such,
\nthey should be eliminated.
\n Some might argue (and not without a modicum of validity) that
\nby eliminating those “support systems,” such children may not
\nprogress beyond the elementary rudiments of learning. That,
\nhowever, should be secondary to the point that we are not dealing
\ndirectly with a serious problem. The fact that our present state
\nof knowledge does not allow us to correct such deficiencies should
\nnot dissuade us from this course of action. Eventually specific
\ntechniques will be developed to meet the problems of poor eyesight
\nand hearing in much the same way that techniques were developed to
\nalleviate reading and mathematical difficulties — and probably
\nwith as much success. There is a minor problem in the fact that
\nmany of the authority figures in the child’s environment use those
\nsame artificial devices and thus do not serve as good role models.
\n Aside from the educational wisdom of this proposal, it has the
\nadded advantage of eliminating the possibility of charges of
\ndiscrimination. Consider, for example, if someone raised the point
\nthat a deficit in vision or hearing might be compared to a deficit
\nin arithmetic computation. They might argue that if vision can be
\ncorrected by glasses why can a calculation deficit not be corrected
\nby the use of a calculator? It is difficult to counter these
\narguments since the two deficits have so much in common. Even the
\npoor role model problem has a parallel since most of the authority
\nfigures whom the children contact would have some difficulty in
\ntaking a square root or doing long division of decimals by hand.
\nThe conclusion is clear: take away glasses and hearing aids and
\ngive the children with sensory defects the same advantages given
\nto children with calculation defects!
\n * * *
\n The essay is clearly satirical, but its point is clear. In
\nthis Decade of the Disabled it is essential to consider the human
\nrights of the Learning Disabled to an education that more closely
\nfits their capabilities. The problems of the Learning Disabled are
\nunique because this is the only disabled group which is held
\nresponsible for its disability. “If he worked harder, he could do
\nit”, says the frustrated teacher. No one expects a blind person
\nto see, if he or she “worked harder”. Furthermore, to call a child
\n“learning disabled” is to put the burden of responsibility on the
\nwrong person! It is our responsibility to teach much more than it
\nis the responsibility of the child to learn. It is we who should
\nbe called teaching disabled. The purpose of this paper is to focus
\nattention on individual differences among both normal and learning
\ndisabled children and to consider alternative approaches to
\neducation and thus eliminate our teaching disability. The major
\nemphasis will be on the theory and remediation of reading
\ndisability based on a 10 year program of research within a
\nneuropsychological framework. The initial Chapter will introduce
\nthe concepts of cerebral asymmetry and hemisphericity and put them
\nin perspective for education today. The second Chapter will
\ndiscuss behavioral and physiological measures of individual
\ndifferences in neuropsychological functioning. The third Chapter
\nwill describe a study that underlines the importance of these
\nindividual differences in an educational setting. The fourth and
\nfifth Chapters will describe a series of studies dealing with the
\ntheory, diagnosis and remediation of reading disability that has
\nbeen based on these neuropsychological concepts. The final Chapter
\nwill be a summary that includes the basic information on the Direct
\nAccess approach to reading with specific recommendations. It can
\nserve as an abstract of the whole paper.
\n This Introduction ends with a short quote, found hanging on
\nthe walls of an elementary school in Greensboro, North Carolina and
\nattributed to Ken Dunn.<\/p>\n
If children cannot learn the way we are teaching them,
\nthen we must teach them the way they can learn.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 1
\n THE CEREBRAL HEMISPHERES OF THE BRAIN AND THE NEW PHRENOLOGY<\/p>\n
Recent work in the areas of neuropsychology, especially that
\nof Sperry who won the Nobel Prize, has popularized the notion of
\ncerebral asymmetry. That is, the two hemispheres of the brain are
\ndifferent in terms of the cognitive processes in which they excel.
\nThere is clear evidence that the Left Hemisphere has unique control
\nof expressive speech and operates using a sequentially organized
\nsystem. The Right Hemisphere, on the other hand, has systems that
\nare more capable of spatially and pictorially oriented processing.<\/p>\n
While there are clear differences between the hemispheres,
\nthese differences have been overgeneralized into a new phrenology
\nof brain functions. A typical list of “Left Hemisphere Functions”
\nreads something like: logical, verbal, analytic, inductive,
\ncontrolled; the Right Hemisphere is often called: synthetic,
\nemotional, deductive, intuitive, and abstract. Some of these
\nlabels are self-contradictory. The Left Hemisphere is called both
\nanalytic and inductive and the Right Hemisphere both synthetic and
\ndeductive. The term “abstract” has two diametrically opposed
\nmeanings: an article abstract versus abstract art. These
\ninconsistencies aside, this neo-phrenological approach must be
\nrejected on the grounds that it is atomistic. A hemisphere is
\nneither verbal, logical, emotional, nor creative; it is a person
\nwho has these characteristics! All behavior flows from the
\nintegrated functioning of the whole brain. This does not mean,
\nhowever, that there are no individual differences associated with
\nthe brain. The concept of Hemispheric Related Strategies provides
\na framework on which to base an individual difference variable.
\n For the most part, the two hemispheres do the same things but
\ndo them using different approaches. Cerebral asymmetries reflect
\nrelative efficiency rather than a “can do-can’t do” dichotomy.
\nThere seems to be one exception to this relative rather than
\nabsolute difference between the hemispheres: for most people, only
\nthe left hemisphere is capable of speech and of phonetic
\nrepresentation (Levy, 1974). The isolated Left Hemisphere can tell
\nwhether the two words “though” and “blow” rhyme but the isolated
\nRight Hemisphere can not, even though it may understand their
\nmeaning. Rhyming demands that the written word be converted to an
\nauditory form and only the left hemisphere has this capability.
\n A second factor that differentiates the two hemispheres is their
\ntype of processing systems: sequential for the left hemisphere and
\nparallel for the right hemisphere (see Bradshaw and Nettleton, 1981
\nfor a review.) Compare these two situations: 1) You are given a
\ndescription of someone and must then identify that person; and 2)
\nYou are shown a picture of the person and then must select the
\nperson. The first task demands the sequential system of the left
\nhemisphere–the words, descriptive of the various facial features,
\nare read in sequence and must be combined into an overall
\nperception. The latter situation reflects the parallel system of
\nthe right hemisphere — the picture is seen as a whole and various
\nfacial features can be extracted. The picture is seen all at once
\nin parallel while the verbal description must be sequentially
\nprocessed. The sequential processing system of the Left
\nHemisphere and its ability in speech production are the
\ncharacteristics that underlie the notion that the Left Hemisphere
\nis the verbal hemisphere. Language, by its very nature, is
\nsequential. Word order and syntax are essential to meaning–
\nlanguage cannot be easily processed in parallel. Thus the left
\nhemisphere has been labeled the “verbal” hemisphere because its
\nsequential processing system is compatible with the sequential
\nnature of language, and its control of auditory linguistic
\nprocesses makes it essential for speech.
\n For other tasks, even though the processing system of either
\nhemisphere is compatible with the task, one hemisphere is clearly
\nsuperior. The example of face recognition shows intuitively that
\nthe Right Hemisphere pictorial approach is better than a Left
\nHemisphere written description. Note, however, that the task can
\nbe done using Left Hemisphere strategies, but it takes a thousand
\nwords to describe one picture. Spatial relations tasks are
\nalso more easily handled using Right Hemisphere processes. Other
\ntasks can be handled equally well using the strategies of either
\nhemisphere. For example, a list of words could be learned by
\nconverting and storing them as visual representations or in an
\nauditory form. The term Hemispheric Related Strategies can be used
\nto describe this relationship between observable behavior and its
\nunderlying neuropsychological bases.<\/p>\n
Hemispheric Cognitive Style
\n Two individuals, when faced with the same task, do not
\nnecessarily use the same strategies, that is, people do things in
\ndifferent ways. Sometimes those different approaches can be
\nassociated with processing differences between the two cerebral
\nhemispheres. These different approaches can be termed Hemispheric
\nRelated Traits. Hemispheric Cognitive Style is the tendency of an
\nindividual to use distinct patterns of Hemispheric Related Traits.
\nIt does not imply that one hemisphere is used exclusively, but that
\nindividuals tend to approach tasks in unique and consistent ways.
\nFor example, if a group of individuals were asked to remember the
\nwords “dog, cat, tree, table, chair”, few would have difficulty.
\nIf these same individuals were asked what strategies they used,
\nthere would be wide variation. Some would report they repeated
\nthe words to themselves, others that they “saw” the written form
\nof the word, and others would create images of the words.
\n These differences in memory strategies can be related to
\nHemispheric Related Traits. A person who would be more likely to
\nuse imaginal strategies could be said to use a right Hemispheric
\nRelated Trait, and a person who used auditory strategies could be
\nsaid to use a left Hemispheric Related Trait. Some individuals
\ntend to use the Hemispheric Related Traits associated with one
\nhemisphere more than those of the other hemisphere and others show
\nlittle or no bias. Those who do favor the Hemispheric Related
\nTraits of one hemisphere can be said to have a Right or Left
\nHemispheric Cognitive Style. It is important not to
\novergeneralize the scope of Hemispheric Cognitive Style. The fact
\nthat a person tends to use particular strategies implies neither
\na disuse nor deficiency in one hemisphere of the brain. On a very
\nsimple level, a right Hemispheric Cognitive Style individual has
\naccess to the speech centers of the left hemisphere just as a left
\nHemispheric Cognitive Style individual has access to the prosody
\ncenters of the right hemisphere. Thus both right and left
\nHemispheric Cognitive Style individuals rely on the integrated
\nfunctioning of both hemispheres for expressive speech, and, in
\nfact, all behavior. In an intact individual, no task can be
\naccomplished without the integrated functioning of both
\nhemispheres. To call an individual “left or right brained” is to
\nignore the fact that all activity depends on the integrated
\nfunctioning of the whole brain. These differences, however, can
\nbe related to different strategies with which people approach
\nspecific tasks. One purpose of this paper is to show how these
\nstrategy differences can affect the educational system. The next
\nchapter will describe how differences in Hemispheric Related Traits
\ncan be measured. The following chapters will focus on the
\napplication of these traits to mainstream and learning disabled
\neducation. <\/p>\n
CHAPTER 2
\n THE MEASUREMENT OF HEMISPHERIC COGNITIVE STYLE<\/p>\n
Two distinct tools have been used in the measurement of
\nHemispheric Cognitive Style, one behavioral and the other
\nphysiological. The behavioral measure is a self rating
\nquestionnaire and the physiological measure relies on the
\npredominant direction of Lateral Eye Movement (LEM).<\/p>\n
The Hemispheric Preference Questionnaire
\n There are many questionnaires that have been used to measure
\n“hemisphericity” including many from popular magazines. Over the
\npast 12 years I have developed an instrument that has been
\nsuccessfully used to separate right and left Hemispheric Cognitive
\nStyles. A copy of the questionnaire and its scoring key has been
\nincluded. The following studies used the instrument successfully.
\nColeman and Zenhausern (1979) compared those who used right and
\nleft Hemispheric Related Traits on a memory retrieval task. They
\nfound the two groups differed on processing speed and the extent
\nof a left hemisphere bias induced by a verbal memory load. The
\nbias was four times stronger for the those who use left Hemispheric
\nRelated Traits than for those who use right Hemispheric Related
\nTraits. Zenhausern and Nickel (1979) found that Right style
\nindividuals learned a finger maze in fewer trials, in less time and
\nwith fewer errors than Left style individuals. Zenhausern, Notaro,
\nGrosso, and Schiano (1981) presented right and left style
\nindividuals with auditory messages in which there was a conflict
\nbetween verbal content and emotional tone of voice. Overall, those
\nwho used right Hemispheric Related Traits responded significantly
\nmore often to the inflection cues and those who use left
\nHemispheric Related Traits significantly more often to the verbal
\ncontent. Zenhausern and Dunivin (1981) found that left style
\nsubjects were more obsessive compulsive, while right style subjects
\nhad more hysterical traits. Zenhausern and Parisi (1983) have
\nfound that schizophrenics rate themselves as using left while
\ndepressives rate themselves as using right hemisphere related
\nstrategies. The instrument has been used in the area of
\nreading disability to distinguish two separate syndromes. Oexle
\nand Zenhausern (1980), Golden and Zenhausern (1981), Zenhausern
\nand Sinatra (1983), Maxwell and Zenhausern (1983) have found that
\n85% of reading disabled children rate themselves as using more
\nright than left hemisphere strategies. A copy of the test and its
\nscoring key can be found in Table 2.1.<\/p>\n
Lateral Eye Movements
\n Research into the phenomenon of lateral eye movements (LEM)
\nas a behavioral measure of neuropsychological activity has been
\npursued along two separate dimensions. LEM have been considered
\na measure of both individual differences and task demands. From a
\nneuropsychological perspective, the individual difference aspects
\nhave been associated with the concept of cognitive style and the
\neffects of task demands with hemispheric asymmetry. There is,
\nhowever, considerable controversy as to whether LEM do indeed have
\nneuropsychological relevance. The importance of LEM has been
\novergeneralized to the point of faddism, which has led to a general
\nreluctance on the part of the scientific community to give them
\ncredence. In addition, researchers in the area have sometimes
\nfailed to distinguish between these two different aspects of LEM.<\/p>\n
Table 2.1
\n The Preference Test for Hemispheric Related Strategies<\/p>\n
Indicate your choice by assigning a number from 1 to 10 (with 1
\nbeing the lowest) on each question. To score the test, refer to
\nthe scoring key below. Add the ratings for all the items that are
\nto be scored right and those that are to be scored left, subtract
\nthe two and divide by 10. The larger number shows the predominant
\npreference and the greater the difference the larger the HRS
\npreference. You should then develop your own local norms, but as
\na rule of thumb a score of .7 or higher can be considered a clear
\nindication of a preference for a Hemispheric Related Strategy.<\/p>\n
Test Items<\/p>\n
1) Do you base your decisions on objective facts rather than
\n feelings?
\n2) Are you psychic?
\n3) Do you like using symbols or images in solving problems?
\n4) Are you artistically or musically creative?
\n5) Are you logical?
\n6) Are you good at solving crossword puzzles?
\n7) Can you read quickly?
\n8) Are your daydreams vivid?
\n9) Can you think of synonyms for words easily?
\n10) Do you remember dreams?
\n11) Are your dreams vivid?
\n12) Are you fluent in using words?
\n13) Are you good at using images in remembering and thinking?
\n14) Do you use a playful approach to problem solving?
\n15) Do you use a serious, all business approach to problem
\nsolving? 16) Do you like to keep experiences planned and
\nstructured?
\n17) Do you like to read or think while sitting upright?
\n18) How much does your thinking consist of words?
\n19) How much does your thinking consist of mental imagery?
\n20) Do you like to explain something using visual presentation?<\/p>\n
SCORING KEY<\/p>\n
Item Scoring
\n 1 L
\n 2 R
\n 3 R
\n 4 R
\n 5 L
\n 6 L
\n 7 L
\n 8 R
\n 9 L
\n 10 R<\/p>\n
Item Scoring
\n 11 R
\n 12 L
\n 13 R
\n 14 R
\n 15 L
\n 16 L
\n 17 L
\n 18 L
\n 19 R
\n 20 R
\nIndividual Differences and LEM
\n\tResearch into whether LEM
\nreflect individual personality differences was initiated by Day
\n(1964), who reported that the direction of LEM was related to
\nindividual styles of coping with anxiety. Bakan (1971) was the
\nfirst to propose that the direction in which a person consistently
\nshifted gaze was related to which of the cerebral hemispheres an
\nindividual used more often.
\n The relationship between LEM and various dimensions of
\nindividual differences has been explored. Tucker and Suib (1978)
\nfound that left-movers had higher scores on the Performance tests
\nof the WAIS and did better with imagery oriented questions while
\nright-movers had better scores on the Verbal subtests of the WAIS
\nand with questions that were letter and number oriented (e.g., how
\nmany letters are in the word house). Gur and Gur (1975)
\nshowed a relationship between direction of LEM and defensive style.
\nPredominantly rightward movers more often reported using projection
\nand “turning against others” as their main defenses, while
\npredominantly leftward movers reported using repression and denial
\nmore often. LEM were again shown to be related to defensive styles
\nin males as measured by the Defense Mechanism Inventory (Krikorian
\nand Rafales, 1983). This effect was not replicated with females,
\nhowever (Thompson, Greenberg, Fisher, 1982). In addition, subjects
\nwho moved their eyes bidirectionally rather than predominantly to
\nthe left or the right were shown to have better adaptive coping
\nstyles ratings on the adjective check list (Parrott, 1984).
\n Smokler and Shevrin (1979) showed that normal subjects with
\nhysterical tendencies made more leftward LEM than subjects with
\nobsessive compulsive tendencies. The latter group was more likely
\nto show rightward LEM. Gur (1978) and Schweitzer (1979) found that
\nschizophrenics had predominantly leftward LEM.
\n The relationship between LEM and cognitive styles has also
\nbeen explored. Subjects, who scored as left or right style
\noriented on the Laterality Preference Schedule, were shown to have
\nconsistent patterns of LEM, indicating the existence of consistent
\npatterns of information processing (Breitling and Bonnet, 1985;
\nBruce, Herman, and Stern, 1982). When using the Your Style of
\nLearning and Thinking Test (SOLAT) to measure style of thinking,
\nhowever, no relationship was found between LEM and thinking style
\npreference (Alberts and McCallum, 1982). In addition, Owens and
\nLimber (1983) found no relationship between cognitive style and
\nLEM.
\n One area of interest in the cognitive style research is the
\nrelationship between what are considered right style ways of
\nthinking (holistic and broad) and left style ways of thinking
\n(analytic and narrow) based on proposed functions of the individual
\nhemispheres. In support of the theory that eye movements indicate
\nhemispheric activation, and that left hemisphere activation is
\nassociated with more analytic and narrow styles, Huang and Byrne
\n(1978) showed that narrow categorizers based on the Pettigrew’s
\nCategory Width Scale made more leftward LEM than broad
\ncategorizers.
\n Another area of interest has been the relationship between the
\nability to recall dreams and LEM. Predominantly leftward LEM have
\nbeen associated with the ability to vividly recall dreams in male
\nsubjects (Leboeuf, Mckay, Clark, 1983), but the same has not been
\nfound with females (Van Nuys, 1985). A related issue is that of
\ncreativity and LEM. Leftward eye movement has been associated with
\nthinking of more uses of objects on the Uses Test, which is often
\nused as a measure of creativity (Falcone and Loder, 1984).
\nZenhausern (1987) has shown that LEM can differentiate between two
\ndifferent types of reading disabled children. Specifically,
\nrightward LEM are characteristic of reading disabled children who
\nare unable to derive meaning from the written word despite being
\nable to say it. Leftward LEM are characteristic of reading
\ndisabled children who are unable to pronounce the word despite
\nunderstanding what it means. This sampling of research indicates
\nthe scope of individual differences that have been associated with
\nLEM. In their critique of the LEM literature, Ehrlichman and
\nWeinberger (1978) concluded that LEM are reliable measures of
\nindividual differences. They found that despite differences in
\nmethodology and experimental situations the direction a person
\nmoves his or her eyes is a consistent behavior of that individual.
\nThe individual difference studies above indicate their behavioral
\nrelevance.<\/p>\n
Functional Hemispheric Asymmetry and LEM
\n A second perspective on the nature of LEM was introduced by
\nKinsbourne (1972) who proposed that LEM reflect the task demands
\non the subject. He suggested that those tasks that require input
\npredominantly from the left hemisphere resulted in rightward LEM,
\nthe direction away from the left hemisphere; those tasks that
\nrequired predominantly right hemisphere functions resulted in
\nleftward LEM, away from the right hemisphere. There has been
\nmixed support for this relationship between LEM and question type.
\nThe critical variable has usually been whether rightward LEM are
\nassociated with verbal questions, indicating a relationship between
\na verbal task and left hemisphere activation. A wide variety of
\nwhat have been called “verbal” questions have been used, however.
\n Galin and Ornstein (1974) reported a relationship between
\nrightward LEM and logical problems and leftward LEM and visual
\nimagery tasks. Proverb interpretation has been shown to be
\nrelated to rightward LEM (Kinsbourne, 1972; Gur, 1975). Schwartz,
\nDavidson and Maer, 1977, found a relationship between LEM and task
\ndemands. There have been recent reports of relationships
\nbetween both rightward LEM and verbal questions (Hugdahl and
\nCarlgren, 1981; Ogorman and Siddle, 1981) and leftward LEM and
\nvisual spatial tasks (Swinnen, 1984). In addition to the
\nverbal\/non-verbal dichotomy, emotionally laden questions were used
\nto elicit predominantly leftward LEM (Krikorian and Rafales, 1983;
\nJamieson and Sellick, 1985).
\n Not all studies have resulted in significant findings. In
\nfact, Ehrlichman and Weinberger concluded that the evidence for a
\nrelationship between LEM and question type was not convincing on
\nboth empirical and theoretical grounds. From the empirical point
\nof view, they noted that of the 21 studies reviewed, 10 resulted
\nin rightward movement in response to verbal questions, and 11
\nresulted in no difference in LEM to verbal and non verbal
\nquestions. The authors concluded that the literature thus did not
\noffer strong support that LEM were related to question type.
\n A re-evaluation of the empirical studies, however, indicates
\nthat there is a consistent relationship found between the type of
\nquestion asked and the direction of LEM. In only one of the 21
\nstudies reported by Erhlichman and Weinberger did verbal questions
\nlead to leftward LEM. While the conclusion that verbal questions
\nlead to rightward LEM may be in question, the conclusion that
\nverbal questions do not lead to leftward LEM is strongly supported.
\nThere may be a relationship between task demands and LEM, but it
\nis not a simplistic “verbal question leads to rightward LEM
\nrelationship”.
\n There is clear evidence that LEM are related to both the type
\nof question asked and individual difference factors. Therefore,
\nin any situation, LEM reflect the type of question asked
\ninteracting with the individual differences and it is essential to
\nseparate the two effects.
\n Two distinct tasks were used in a study by Zenhausern and
\nKraemer (1989) to investigage the dual nature of LEM. One task is
\npurely informational and cannot be uniquely connected with either
\nhemisphere of the brain. The second task involves rhyming of non-
\nwords which clearly demands the speech centers of the left
\nhemisphere. Two experimental questions were addressed. 1) Is the
\ndirection of LEM consistent within an individual both across time
\nand across tasks? 2) Does the type of question asked have an
\neffect on the direction of LEM?
\n A total of 50 adult subjects were tested. There were 16 males
\nand 34 females, with an average age of 27 and a range of 16 to 50.
\nThe stimuli for the rhyme task were four to five letter nonsense
\nwords printed in black ink on white index cards and a series of
\nprepared questions.
\n The subjects were informed that they were participating in a
\nstudy involving the different ways in which people think. They
\nwere asked two kinds of questions in a face to face encounter with
\nthe experimenter. The subject responded yes or no with a nod or
\nshake of the head and the initial direction of eye movement to each
\nof 40 questions was recorded for each subject. These non-verbal
\nresponses were used to eliminate left hemisphere involvement
\nthrough speech which was unrelated to the task. The 20
\ninformational questions did not call on any clearly defined brain
\nareas (Is Miami the capitol of Florida?). The 20 rhyme questions,
\non the other hand, clearly demanded the auditory linguistic
\ncapabilities of the left hemisphere. The subject was shown a
\nnonsense word on an index card and told to remember it. The card
\nwas removed and another nonsense word was verbally spelled by the
\nexaminer and the subjects were asked whether the two words rhymed.
\nThe subjects were tested in two blocks of 20 trials separated by
\n30 minutes. Within each block 10 informational and 10 rhyme
\nquestions were asked.
\n The data were first explored by means of a correlational
\nanalysis. Both test-retest and split half reliabilities for
\ninformational questions and for rhyme questions are shown in Table
\n2.2. In addition, the correlation between rhyme and informational
\nquestions is also presented. LEM are clearly a consistent measure
\nof individual differences with reliability coefficients averaging
\napproximately .80 for the same type of question. When the type of
\nquestion was changed, however, there was a dramatic drop in the
\nconsistency of LEM although the correlations were still
\nsignificant. The direction of LEM changed as a function of task
\ndemands, but not to the extreme that would result in no
\ncorrelation.<\/p>\n
Table 2.2
\nIntercorrelations Among LEM for Information and Rhyme Questions<\/p>\n
Split Half Test Retest
\nRhyme .85 .78
\nInformation .79 .83
\nRhyme with Information .59<\/p>\n
An initial analysis on the two 20 question blocks indicated
\nno significant differences and the two were collapsed into a single
\nset of questions. The data were then analyzed by means of a split-
\nplot analysis of variance with LEM Group (whether a subject had
\npredominantly rightward or leftward movement) as a between factor
\nand Task (Rhyme and Informational questions) and Direction of
\nMovement (Right, Left, and Stares) as between factors. Since the
\nscores are ipsative and the Grouping factor and dependent variable
\nare related, only the interactions are of interest in this design.
\nThere was a significant interaction between the Direction of
\nMovement and Task. The results are shown in Table 2.3 below.<\/p>\n
Table 2.3
\nNumber and Direction of LEM as a Function of Type of Question<\/p>\n
Task Direction of LEM
\n Right Left Stare<\/p>\n
Rhyme 6.82 7.64 4.92
\nInformation 5.50 7.50 6.50<\/p>\n
Simple effects analysis indicated that the number of leftward
\nLEM to informational and rhyme questions were not significantly
\ndifferent, but there were significantly more rightward LEM than
\nleftward LEM to rhyme questions. There were no interactions
\ninvolving the LEM Group factor, indicating that the effects of the
\ntype of question were the same for both groups.
\n These results lead to two conclusions. The first is a
\nverification of the Ehrlichman and Weinberger (p 1093) conclusion
\n“…that LEM patterns are reliable characteristics of persons.”
\nIndividuals do move their eyes in a consistent direction and
\ndirection of LEM is a reliable measure of individual differences.
\nThe questions, however, remain as to whether LEM differences can
\nbe related to behavior and whether these behaviors have
\nneuropsychological implications. Some of the research reported
\nabove has shown the scope of the variables that have been related
\nto differences in LEM. (A fuller listing can be found in Beaumont,
\nYoung, and McManus, 1984). Not every study has shown that LEM
\ndifferences were related to differences in performance, but no one
\nshould expect LEM to be related to all behavior.
\n The final question remains, however, as to whether LEM have
\nneuropsychological implications. In a very general sense, all
\nbehavior results from brain activity and thus all behavior has
\nneuropsychological implications. From a more focused point of
\nview, LEM have been related to behaviors that neuropsychologists
\nhave associated with the brain. The problem has been, however,
\nthat the association of the behavior with the brain has not always
\nbeen clearly specified. Logical problems, proverbs, and spelling
\nhave all been used as verbal tasks. These tasks are extremely
\ncomplex and clearly involve both hemispheres of the brain, even
\nthough there may be a portion of the task that is especially
\ndependent on left hemisphere processing. This was clearly shown
\nin the present study since the rhyming task demanded the unique
\nability of the left hemisphere to create the sound of the printed
\nword. The information task had no such clear connections to either
\nhemisphere of the brain. Both the correlations and analysis of
\nvariance results pointed to the fact that LEM were different for
\nthe two tasks, with an increase in the number of rightward
\nmovements for the rhyming task. This change, however, was
\nrelatively subtle. Even though the task demanded specific left
\nhemisphere input, subjects did not make predominantly rightward
\nLEM; there was only a shift in that direction. A subject who made
\npredominantly leftward movement continued to do so, but the number
\nof rightward movements increased and the number of stares
\ndecreased.
\n Lateral Eye Movements have been shown to be a reliable measure
\nof individual differences, as well as a response to the type of
\nquestions asked. The importance of both aspects, however, should
\nnot be overemphasized. The individual difference aspect must be
\ninvestigated from a more behavioral point of view. Rather than
\ncomparing a lawyer or a scientist with an artist, determine whether
\na courtroom lawyer has more in common with an actor or a corporate
\nlawyer, or whether a geometrician has more in common with an artist
\nor an algebraist.
\n The LEM response to task demands must also be considered in
\nconjunction with the fact that any task demands the integrated
\nfunctioning of the whole brain. The variable extent to which a
\ntask places special emphasis on one hemisphere must be considered
\nwithin this integrated functioning. LEM can be a useful tool, but
\ntheir value and meaning can be misunderstood all too easily. The
\nnext Chapter provides evidence of the usefulness of LEM within a
\nnormal classroom setting.
\n This chapter has presented the evidence that Hemispheric
\nRelated Strategies can be measured by means of questionnaires and
\nLEM. The following chapters will provide evidence that this
\nindividual difference variable has significance for education.<\/p>\n
Chapter 3
\n THE INTERACTION OF HEMISPHERIC RELATED STRATEGIES
\n AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES<\/p>\n
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide evidence that the
\nindividual difference aspect of LEM has meaningful behavioral
\ncorrelates in an educational setting. No assumptions were made as
\nto the neuropsychological substrate of LEM. They were used simply
\nas a means of dividing subjects into two groups: those who move
\ntheir eyes predominantly to the right and those who move them
\npredominantly to the left. Half of the right movers were taught
\na learning strategy involving verbal rehearsal and the other half
\na learning strategy involving imagery. The same procedure was
\nfollowed for the left movers. The question was whether there is
\na relationship between the typical direction of LEM and the
\neffectiveness of the two learning strategies.
\n The subjects were drawn from a pool of 120 average or above
\naverage fifth and sixth graders in a suburban school system. A
\nseries of verbal, spatial, imaginal, and informational questions
\nwere asked in a face to face situation and the 72 subjects who had
\nthe most extreme number of left movements and the most extreme
\nnumber of right movements participated in the study. The subjects
\nwere divided into equal numbers of male and female right and left
\nmovers.
\n Seventy-two words appropriate to fifth and sixth graders and
\nmatched for abstractness, concreteness, and imagery were chosen
\nfrom the list provided by Pavivo, Yuille, and Madigan (1968). Two
\nequivalent sets consisting of 18 pairs, created from this list,
\nserved as the learning stimuli. Two distractor lists of 12 pairs
\neach were also created using the same procedure. Each pair was
\nthen photographed and developed as 35mm slides.
\n Each subject, tested individually, was seated approximately
\n4 ft. from a screen on which the 18 pairs of words were presented
\nby means of a slide projector for 4 sec. The child was then asked
\nto recall as many pairs of words as possible and the number of
\ncorrect pairs served as one dependent variable. The subjects were
\nthen shown 24 pairs of words, half of which they had already seen
\nand half of which were distractors. These slides were then
\npresented and the subject had to indicate by switch closure whether
\nthey had seen the word pair. Both accuracy and response time (in
\nmilliseconds) were measured. Following this pre-training
\nprocedure, half of the subjects whose LEM were predominantly
\nleftward and half whose LEM were predominantly rightward, were
\ntaught a verbal rehearsal strategy in order to improve performance.
\nThey were instructed to repeat the pairs of words as many times as
\npossible during the 4 sec interval between pairs. They were then
\ngiven six practice trials. The remaining subjects were instructed
\non how to form an integrated image from the word pairs. They were
\nalso given six practice trials. The subjects were then tested on
\n18 new pairs of words using the same procedures as in the pre-
\ntraining condition. This effectively created four groups: right
\nmovers taught to use either imagery or verbal rehearsal strategies
\nand left movers taught the same strategies.
\n There were three dependent measures that were analyzed in this
\nstudy: the number of pairs recalled, the number of pairs
\nrecognized, and the response time for recognition. The design for
\nall three variables was a split plot factorial with Direction
\n(leftward or rightward LEM) and Strategy (verbal rehearsal or
\nimagery) as the between factors and Time (before or after
\ntraining) as the within factor. The mean number of correct pairs
\nrecalled under all conditions is shown in Table 3.1.<\/p>\n
Table 3.1
\nMean Number of Word Pairs Recalled for Right and Left Movers Under
\nVerbal Rehearsal and Imagery Instructions<\/p>\n
Set Pre Test Post Test<\/p>\n
Verbal
\n Left Movers 3.39 1.78
\n Right Movers 1.89 2.61
\nImagery
\n Left Movers 2.61 3.28
\n Right Movers 2.39 2.56<\/p>\n
The analysis of variance indicated no significant differences
\ninvolving Direction or Strategy, but there was a significant
\ninteraction of Direction, Strategy. and Time. Simple effects
\nanalysis indicated that children with rightward LEM did not change
\nas a result of imagery instructions, but made a significant
\nimprovement as a result of verbal rehearsal instructions. Children
\nwith leftward LEM made a significant improvement as a result of
\nimagery instructions, but showed a significant decrement as a
\nresult of verbal rehearsal instructions.
\n Mean performance for the recognition scores is presented in
\nTable 3.2. The analysis of variance again indicated a significant
\ninteraction between Direction, Strategy and Time.<\/p>\n
Table 3.2<\/p>\n
Set Pre Test Post Test<\/p>\n
Verbal
\n Left Movers 29.28 27.61
\n Right Movers 28.11 29.44
\nImagery
\n Left Movers 29.56 30.67
\n Right Movers 29.89 29.44<\/p>\n
The simple effects analysis indicated that children with
\nrightward LEM showed a significant improvement using a verbal
\nrehearsal strategy and children with leftward LEM showed a
\nsignificant decrement using a verbal rehearsal strategy. The mean
\nreaction times for the recognition task is shown in Table 3.3. The
\nanalysis of variance indicated that there was an overall decrease
\nin reaction time from pre to post testing and the same significant
\nthree way interaction of Direction x Strategy x Time.<\/p>\n
Table 3.3
\nMean Reaction Times (in milliseconds) for the Recognition Task<\/p>\n
Set Pre Test Post Test<\/p>\n
Verbal
\n Left Movers 2059 2118
\n Right Movers 2447 1894
\nImagery
\n Left Movers 2244 1829
\n Right Movers 1846 1627<\/p>\n
Statistical analysis indicated that children with rightward
\nLEM were significantly faster using a verbal rehearsal strategy and
\nchildren with leftward LEM were significantly slower using a verbal
\nrehearsal strategy. The analyses of the three variables lead to the
\nsingle conclusion that children who have predominantly leftward LEM
\nshould not be taught by a verbal repetition strategy.
\n From the theoretical perspective, these results support the
\nfindings of Ehrlichman and Weinberger that LEM are a reliable
\nmeasure of an individual difference variable. It also provides
\nevidence of the validity of LEM; individuals who differed on LEM
\nshowed differences on a relevant behavioral measure — verbal
\nlearning. The most important question, however, is whether LEM
\nhave any relationship to brain organization. Individuals who had
\npredominantly rightward LEM showed better retention when using the
\nleft hemisphere oriented strategy of verbal rehearsal and
\nindividuals who had predominantly leftward LEM showed decreased
\nretention when using the left hemisphere oriented strategy. These
\nare the facts, and while it is premature to draw firm conclusions,
\nthese facts are consistent with the existence of a relationship
\nbetween LEM and brain organization. The clearest conclusion
\nfrom these findings is that children differ in the extent they can
\nbenefit from a verbal repetition strategy in learning. From the
\neducational perspective it is clear that there are children in
\nschools who not only do not benefit from a verbal rehearsal
\nstrategy, but whose performance is actually decreased. Spelling
\nand arithmetic tables are examples of subjects that usually stress
\na rote memorization based on oral repetition. One alternative
\nwould be to have the child repeatedly image the letters of the word
\nor number facts without verbalizing them. When it came time to use
\nthe word or number fact the child would recall the image.
\nEducators must become more aware of the individual differences in
\nthe way people learn. This becomes even more evident in the next
\nchapter where these individual differences can be seen to be at the
\nheart of what has been called reading disability.<\/p>\n
Chapter 4
\n THE DIAGNOSIS OF READING DISABILITY<\/p>\n
Although there is general agreement that reading disability
\nis not a single entity, there is considerably less than a consensus
\nas to the number of different syndromes that actually exist.
\nNeuropsychological assessment, the types of errors made with verbal
\nmaterial, cognitive tests, and differences in processing strategies
\nhave all been used in the classification of the reading disabled
\ninto symptom-related subtypes. As many as five different subtypes
\nof reading disability have been found through the use of
\nneuropsychological tests.
\n For example, Mattis, French and Rapin (1978) reported three
\ngroups and Doehring, Honshko, and Byans (1979) distinguished four
\ntypes. Fisk and Rourke (1979) Petroskas and Rourke (1979) have
\nidentified subgroups which were consistent. These subtypes,
\nhowever, can be considered in terms of the presence or absence of
\nauditory linguistic deficits, a distinction reported throughout the
\nreading disability literature. Subtypes that include auditory
\nlinguistic deficits comprise 80 to 90 percent of the total
\npopulation of reading disabled children. The smaller group has
\nusually been reported to show deficits in visual spatial
\nprocessing.
\n Boder (1973) examined the nature of the spelling errors made
\nby reading disabled children. She used the term dysphonetic to
\ndescribe the type of reading disability marked by linguistic and
\nphonetic difficulties; and the term dyseidetic to describe the type
\nwhich had difficulties with the overall visual spatial aspects of
\nthe written word. Boder estimated that the dysphonetic group was
\nfour to five times more prevalent than the dyseidetic group.
\nPirozzolo (1979) used ratings, writing samples, and psychological
\nand neuropsychological tests to separate two reading disability
\ngroups that were similar to those suggested by Boder. Bakker
\n(1982) proposed a similar distinction that he related to
\nhemispheric functioning. The auditory linguistic disabled reader
\nwas not effective in the use of left hemisphere related tasks.
\nThere was also an association of the visual spatial disabled reader
\nand the effective use of right hemisphere related strategies.
\n Zenhausern (1987) distinguished these two types on the basis
\nof both reading related tasks and the predominant direction of
\ntheir lateral eye movements. He found that the majority of
\nchildren with leftward lateral eye movements had difficulty
\ndetermining whether words in their sight vocabulary did or did not
\nrhyme. He also found that a group of children with predominantly
\nrightward lateral eye movements had no difficulty in determining
\nwhether two words rhymed, but were deficient in determining whether
\nwords and pictures represented the same concept. The auditory
\nlinguistic group had difficulty converting a word to its sound and
\nthe smaller group showed deficits in converting a word to its
\nmeaning. He used the terms Phonetic and Semantic to describe this
\ndistinction. From a behavioral perspective, phonetic disabled
\nreaders are the children who struggle with every word when they
\nread aloud and thus lose continuity in the text. They are
\nfrequently anomic and have a general difficulty with the auditory
\nlinguistic aspects of reading, especially the grapheme to phoneme
\nconversion. The Semantic disabled reader, on the other hand, is the
\nchild who will give a perfect word for word rendition of text, but
\nhas no comprehension of the meaning of that text. The Semantic
\ndisabled readers can convert words into their phonetic
\nrepresentation, but this representation is not converted into its
\nmeaning. They have no problems with the sound of a word but are
\nat deficit for tasks involving the meaning of words.
\n The original study was based on 13 Phonetic and 13 Semantic
\nreaders from the second to fourth grades. One purpose of this
\nresearch was to determine whether these Phonetic and Semantic
\nsubtypes would replicate across the entire elementary school
\npopulation. A second goal of this study was to replicate the
\nsecond finding of the original study. The Phonetic disabled readers
\nmoved their eyes predominantly to the left and Semantic disabled
\nreaders predominantly to the right. This second purpose was an
\nattempt to determine whether lateral eye movements can be used as
\na marker variable for the two types of reading disability.
\n The subjects in this study were 160 children from the second
\nto the eighth grades. All were of at least average intelligence.
\nForty children were selected at grades 2 or 3, grades 4 or 5,
\ngrades 6 or 7, and grade 8. Of the 40 children at each age level,
\n20 were at or above grade level and 20 children were at least one
\nyear below grade level in reading. Half of each group were chosen
\non the basis of showing rightward LEM and half leftward LEM. The
\npredominant direction of LEM was determined individually for each
\nchild. A series of 20 informational questions were asked in a face
\nto face situation and the predominant direction of LEM was noted.
\nNormal readers split evenly between right and left movers, but 84%
\nof the disabled readers were left movers.
\n There were four kinds of reading related tasks that used words
\nselected from the individual sight vocabulary of each child. A
\nrhyme task stressed the auditory linguistic aspects of the written
\nword and the remaining three tasks placed more emphasis on the
\nmeaning of the words.
\n 1) The rhyme stimuli consisted of 10 each of four types of
\nword pairs: a) words which neither rhymed nor had similar
\northography (tree\/eats); b) words which were both phonetically
\nand orthographically similar (pool\/cool);
\n c) words which were orthographically similar, but did not
\nrhyme (bone\/gone); and d) words which were orthographically
\ndissimilar, but rhymed (by\/tie). 2) The word match stimuli
\nconsisted of 20 word pairs, one in upper case the other in lower
\ncase which did or did not represent the same word (TREE\/tree,
\nTREE\/eats).3) The word\/picture stimuli consisted of 20 word and
\npicture pairs, in which the word and picture did or did not
\nrepresent the same concept.
\n 4) The synonym\/antonym pairs consisted of words which meant
\neither the same or the opposite.
\n Each stimulus was presented on 35 mm slides and projected for
\n130 ms. The subjects were tested individually and responded
\nverbally as to the whether the words rhymed in the rhyme condition
\nand whether they matched or meant the same in each of the three
\nother conditions. All words used in the study were determined to
\nbe in the sight vocabulary of all subjects on the basis of prior
\ntesting.
\n The number of correct responses for all children on the four
\ngrade levels was subjected to an analysis of variance for each of
\nthe four tasks. The grouping factors included Grade Level, Reading
\nAbility, and Eye Movement Direction. The normal readers achieved
\nvirtually perfect performance on all tasks and their results were
\nnot included in the tables. The interaction of eye movement group
\nand the rhyme task was significant. The mean number of correct
\nresponses for the interaction are presented in Table 4.1. <\/p>\n
Table 4.1
\nMean Number Correct on the Rhyme Task for Disabled Readers with
\npredominately Right and Left LEM at Four Grade Levels<\/p>\n
LEM Grade Similar Dissimilar
\n Rhyme Non-Rhyme RhymeNon-Rhyme<\/p>\n
Right 2-3 17.80 15.20 14.80 14.00
\n 4-5 17.80 17.80 16.40 17.89
\n 6-7 17.80 18.60 18.60 19.30
\n 8 19.90 19.80 19.10 19.70
\nLeft 2-3 16.10 5.90 7.40 14.40
\n 4-5 16.10 10.30 10.20 17.30
\n 6-7 16.80 13.60 12.50 18.50
\n 8 9.60 12.00 10.40 17.60<\/p>\n
On the basis of the simple effects analysis, those children who
\nhad predominantly leftward eye movements were significantly more
\nimpaired than those who moved predominately to the right. This was
\nparticularly true on those conditions for which the orthography and
\nphonology of the words were inconsistent (bye\/tie or bone\/gone).
\nThose children with predominantly leftward lateral eye movements
\nare the Phonetic disabled readers who have difficulty with the
\nauditory linguistic aspects of reading. The analyses of
\nvariance for the semantic tasks indicated a significant difference
\nbetween disability groups. The results from the three tasks are
\npresented in Table 4.2. Table 4.2
\nMean Number Correct on the Uppercase\/lowercase, Word\/picture and
\nSynonym\/antonym tasks for Disabled Readers with Right and Left LEM
\nat Four Grade Levels<\/p>\n
LEM Grade Case Word Synonym<\/p>\n
Right 2-3 15.70 7.90 8.65
\n 4-5 17.50 7.80 6.55
\n 6-7 18.80 13.40 13.05
\n 8 15.90 15.90 15.00
\n Left 2-3 19.00 17.50 17.15
\n 4-5 19.30 19.30 17.45
\n 6-7 18.10 19.10 18.75
\n 8 17.40 19.70 17.40<\/p>\n
Again the normal readers performed almost flawlessly and the
\ndisabled readers were inferior at every grade level. It was the
\nreading disabled readers with predominantly rightward LEM who were
\nthe significantly more disabled group for these tasks. They were
\nsignificantly inferior on the word matching task, the word picture
\ntask and the synonym antonym task. These children could create the
\nsound of a word from its orthography, but did not understand the
\nmeaning of that word. This is a replication of a second type of
\ndisabled reader, a Semantic subtype whose deficit involves the
\nmeaning of words rather than their phonology. Rightward lateral
\neye movements are a marker for this subtype. In the past, this
\nsubtype has often been identified with visual spatial and
\nperceptual problems. This may be true but it is incidental to
\ntheir reading disability since they had no difficulty in perceiving
\nthe words in the rhyme task. These results support the existence
\nof two subtypes of reading disability. The Phonetic disabled
\nreader has difficulty converting the written form of a word to its
\nphonetic counterpart. The Semantic disabled reader can convert a
\nword to its sound, but not its meaning.
\n There were two distinct patterns of errors made by the Phonetic
\nand Semantic disabled readers, but what is the relationship between
\nthese patterns and reading disability? The answer to this question
\nlies in the way we teach reading. The next chapter is a discussion
\nof how these two deficits interact with current reading methods and
\nthe effectiveness of a different approach to the reading process.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 5
\n THE THEORY AND REMEDIATION OF READING DISABILITY<\/p>\n
Current teaching methods almost invariably use an indirect
\nphonological route to meaning in which the written word is
\nconverted to its phonological counterpart so that meaning derives
\nfrom auditory comprehension. In practice, a child comes to school
\nwith auditory comprehension, that is, hearing the word “ball” leads
\nto the concept of “a round, bouncy thing”. In reading, the letters
\nb-a-l-l must lead to the concept of “a round, bouncy thing”. In
\nvirtually every case, the child is taught to see the word, say it,
\nand understand it from its sound. This is an effective technique
\nfor two reasons. First, it takes advantage of the existing auditory
\ncomprehension of children; second, it provides the background for
\nthe future decoding of new words. As effective as this procedure
\nis for most children, a significant number of individuals are not
\nable to learn under this protocol and they comprise the majority
\nof the children we term “reading disabled.”
\n The Phonetic disabled reader has difficulty with the first step
\nof this indirect phonological route to reading, converting the
\ngraphemic form of the word into its phonological counterpart. The
\nSemantic reading disabled readers have no difficulty with this
\nfirst step; they can make the grapheme to phoneme conversion. For
\nwhatever reason, however, the sound of the word does not lead to
\nits comprehension.
\n The standard methods of teaching reading are well-entrenched and
\neducators sincerely believe that this indirect phonological route
\nto meaning is the best. Therefore, remediation for these “disabled
\nreaders” means an intensification of what was not successful in the
\npast. Extensive drilling in phonetic skills has led to an emphasis
\non teaching to weakness, rather than strength. The imbalance is
\nreflected in reading curricula and standardized tests that stress
\nphonetic decoding at the expense of comprehension. Phonetic
\ndecoding is a means to the end of comprehension; it has become an
\nend in itself.
\n A new approach, Direct Access, has been developed which achieves
\ncomprehension without the necessity of decoding. The Direct Access
\nmethod has one basic principle: the meaning of the printed word
\nshould not be derived from the sound of that word. Any procedure
\nthat avoids the grapheme to phoneme conversion is consistent with
\nthis approach. The child is never required to read aloud, but
\nasked to explain what a passage meant. Trivial deviations in
\nverbiage, e.g., “jet” for “plane”, are de-emphasized. The stress
\nis on comprehension rather than a slavish word for word decoding.
\n One of the simplest procedures used in the method involves
\npairing words and pictures until the written word triggers a
\nconcept directly, rather than indirectly through its sound. The
\nchild can then construct sentences composed of pictures in parallel
\nwith sentences composed of words. Children automatically fill in
\nwords like “a”, “the”, “in”, etc. when they comprehend the
\nsentence. In a very short period, the pictures are no longer
\nneeded and the written word is understood on its own.
\n Several techniques are available for more abstract concepts.
\nOne possibility involves a class discussion of, for example, our
\nlegal system. The teacher can then show the class the word
\n“justice” and ask the children to draw a picture of justice. It is
\nnot the picture itself that is important, but it serves as a link
\nbetween the written word and its conceptualization by the child.
\nAnother possibility is a homework assignment requiring the child
\nto bring pictures to school that represent specific concepts.
\nDirect Access places only one constraint on the creativity of
\nteachers: Do not teach reading by deriving the meaning of a word
\nfrom the way it sounds. Phonic decoding is a skill that should be
\ndeveloped, but it should not serve as the usual reading strategy
\nfor these two groups of readers.
\n Maxwell and Zenhausern (1983) applied the method to First Grade
\nchildren who were “at risk” during the second semester. After 25
\nhalf-hour sessions, the children increased their comprehension
\nscores from the 26th to the 56th percentile on the Metropolitan
\nAchievement Test and increased their sight vocabulary by over 100
\nwords. A comparable control group showed no gain in comprehension.
\nMinardi, Zenhausern, and Maxwell (1984) found similar results with
\nJunior and Senior High School children. Using the same regimen of
\n25 half-hour sessions, the Junior High School students gained an
\naverage of 7 months and the Senior High School students an average
\nof 1.4 years.
\n The previous research on the Direct Access method of reading has
\nbeen limited to a small number of children taught by a single
\nteacher. The purpose of this study was to apply the method in a
\nlarge scale basis, using a broad range of grades and teachers.
\nA total of 209 children from grades 1 through 10 (with the
\nexclusion of Grade 9) who were at least one year below grade level
\nin reading and 240 children who were reading at least on grade
\nlevel were the subjects in this study.
\n A workshop explaining the theory and practice of the Direct
\nAccess reading method was presented to teachers throughout a 32
\nschool District in suburban North Carolina. After the workshop was
\ncompleted, those teachers who were interested were given further
\nexperience. There were no absolute procedures specified, but the
\nteachers were shown various possibilities and were told to use any
\ntechniques that did not depend on the indirect phonological route
\nto meaning. Following these sessions the children in the classes
\ntaught by the teachers were given the Metropolitan Achievement Test
\nForm L as a pretest measure of their reading ability. The teachers
\nthen used the Direct Access method exclusively for 10 weeks, after
\nwhich time the children were retested on the Metropolitan
\nAchievement Test Form M.
\n The results of the reading disabled children and a control group
\nare presented in Table 3. The average gain across the whole group
\nwas almost 1 year and several grades showed gains of over 2 years.
\nIndividual gains of 4 or more years were not uncommon. Given that
\nthese results were obtained during only a 10-week period, the
\nDirect Access approach is clearly an effective strategy to use with
\nPhonetic and Semantic reading disabled children. In addition to
\nthese objective gains, the teachers reported an extremely positive
\nreaction on the part of the students and have commented on the
\neffects of the method on both spelling and writing composition.
\n During the past year (1988-89) Greensboro and High Point, North
\nCarolina used the Direct Access approach. The average gain on the
\nState mandated California Achievement Test was over 20 percentile
\npoints for those children. As a result, High Point has mandated
\nthe Direct Access approach as the treatment of choice for children
\nwho are “at risk” for reading. The approach has been used in
\nCurrituck, North Carolina since September, 1989 and at Public
\nSchool 102 in New York City since January, 1990. There are plans
\nfor incorporating Direct Access into a psychiatric hospital for
\nchildren, a Parochial school in New York City, and a school system
\nin East Greenwich, Rhode Island by February, 1990.<\/p>\n
Table 1
\nTotal Gains in Percentile and Grade Equivalent Scores for Direct
\nAccess and Controls<\/p>\n
Pre Post Gain
\n Per Grade Per Grade Per Grade<\/p>\n
Grade 1
\nDA (38) 7 1.09 32 1.55 25 0.46
\nControl (27) 46 1.79 56 2.13 10 0.34
\nGrade 2
\nDA (21) 17 1.76 32 2.15 15 0.39
\nControl (36) 54 2.89 58 3.19 40 0.3<\/p>\n
Grade 3
\nDA (28) 16 2.33 31 2.99 15 0.66
\nControl (28) 56 4.49 61 4.94 5 0.45<\/p>\n
Grade 4
\nDA (52) 15 2.59 31 3.28 16 0.69
\nControl (53) 60 5.82 61 5.97 1 0.15
\nGrade 5
\nDA (20) 21 3.63 38 5.01 17 1.38
\nControl (38) 56 6.53 60 7.09 4 0.56<\/p>\n
Grade 6
\nDA (13) 3 2.36 15 3.68 12 1.32
\nControl (17) 71 9.58 74 9.9 3 0.32
\nGrade 7
\nDA (21) 8 3.39 26 5.45 18 2.068
\nControl (18) 35 6.57 36 6.64 1 0.07
\nGrade 8
\nDA (9) 5 3.38 21 5.61 16 2.23
\nControl (10) 34 6.94 35 7.36 1 0.42
\nGrade 10
\nDA (7) 17 5.58 26 6.65 9 1.07
\nControl (13) 15 5.25 18 5.6 3 0.35<\/p>\n
Total
\nExper.(209) 12 2.27 29 3.22 17 0.95
\nControl (240) 52 5.35 56 5.71 4 0.36<\/p>\n
This chapter has outlined some of the successes that have been
\nattributed to the Direct Access approach. The next Chapter is a
\ndiscussion of some of the methods that are consistent with Direct
\nAccess.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 6
\n SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
\nSummary
\n Current teaching methods almost invariably use an indirect
\nphonological route to meaning in which the written word is
\nconverted to its phonological counterpart so that meaning derives
\nfrom auditory comprehension. A child comes to school knowing that
\nthe sound “ball” means the concept “a round, bouncy thing”. In
\nreading, the letters b-a-l-l must lead to the concept of “a round,
\nbouncy thing”. In virtually every case, the child is taught to see
\nthe word, say it, and understand its meaning from its sound. This
\nis an effective technique for two reasons. First, it takes
\nadvantage of the existing auditory comprehension of children;
\nsecond, it provides the background for the future decoding of new
\nwords. As effective as this procedure is for most children, a
\nsignificant number of individuals are not able to learn under this
\nprotocol and they comprise the majority of the children we term
\n“reading disabled.”
\n Kaliski, Zenhausern, and Andrews have shown that there are two
\ngroups of children who have unique deficits that interact with
\nthese standard strategies used for teaching reading. It is this
\ninteraction that directly leads to reading disability. All the
\nchildren in grades 1 to 8 who were reading at least one year below
\ngrade level were screened for inclusion in the study. The majority
\nof the reading disabled group (85 per cent) fall into the category
\nof children who have to struggle to pronounce every word and thus
\nlose all continuity in reading. They were termed Phonetic disabled
\nreaders. The smaller group of reading disabled children can “read”
\naloud fluently, but do not comprehend what was “read”. These
\nchildren were called Semantic disabled readers. The final sample
\nconsisted of 80 children, 40 Phonetic and 40 Semantic disabled
\nreaders, spread evenly across the 8 grades. The authors showed
\nthat the Phonetic children could not determine whether two words
\n(which were known to be in their sight vocabulary) did or did not
\nrhyme. The Semantic group had no difficulty with a rhyme task, but
\nmade considerably more errors than the normal readers and Phonetic
\ndisabled readers in determining whether a word and a picture
\nrepresented the same concept. These two deficits can be directly
\nrelated to the indirect phonological approaches to the teaching of
\nreading. The Phonetic disabled reader can not convert the word to
\nits sound and thus can not take the first step required by these
\nreading methods. The Semantic disabled reader can perceive the
\nwords and translate them to their sound but has difficulty in
\ncomprehending the meaning of the written word from this sound. This
\ndisabled reader can take the first step and convert the written
\nword to its phonological counterpart, but the sound does not lead
\nto meaning. The results of this study can be seen in Figures 1 and
\n2.<\/p>\n
The standard methods of teaching reading are well-entrenched
\nand educators sincerely believe that this indirect phonological
\nroute to meaning is the best. Therefore, remediation for these
\n“disabled readers” means an intensification of what was not
\nsuccessful in the past. Extensive drilling in phonetic skills has
\nled to an emphasis on teaching to weakness, rather than strength.
\nThe imbalance is reflected in reading curricula and standardized
\ntests that stress phonetic decoding at the expense of
\ncomprehension. Phonetic decoding is a means to the end of
\ncomprehension; it has become an end in itself. An alternative
\napproach to reading which does not depend on an indirect
\nphonological approach to comprehension, called Direct Access, has
\none basic principle: the meaning of the printed word should not be
\nderived from the sound of that word. Any procedure that avoids the
\ngrapheme to phoneme conversion is consistent with this approach.
\nThe child is never required to read aloud, but is asked to explain
\nwhat a passage meant. Trivial deviations in verbiage, e.g., “jet”
\nfor “plane”, are de-emphasized. The stress is on comprehension
\nrather than a slavish word for word decoding. Specific Direct
\nAccess techniques will be discussed later in this chapter.
\n The first study involving Direct Access was by Maxwell and
\nZenhausern (1982) who applied the approach to First Grade children
\n“at risk” in reading by the second half of the year. After 25 half-
\nhour sessions, the children increased their scores from the 26th
\nto the 56th percentile on the Metropolitan Achievement Test and
\nincreased their sight vocabulary by over 100 words. A comparable
\ncontrol group showed no gain. Minardi, Zenhausern, and Maxwell
\n(1983) found similar results with Junior and Senior High School
\nchildren. Using the same regimen of 25 half-hour sessions, the
\nJunior High School students gained an average of 7 months and the
\nSenior High School students an average of 1.4 years on the Reading
\nComprehension scale of the Metropolitan Achievement Test.
\n During the Spring of 1988, over 200 reading disabled children
\nin grades 1 through 10 from 8 schools within the Guilford County
\nSchool System in Greensboro NC used the Direct Access approach.
\nThe children were tested on the Metropolitan Achievement Test
\nbefore and after 10 weeks of using the approach. The average gain
\nwas .95 years and every grade from Grade 6 onward gained at least
\n1 year, with the 7th and 8th grades showing gains of over 2 years.
\nIn the Fall of 1988, High Point NC used the approach with 73
\nreading disabled children. After 7 weeks, there was an average
\ngain on the Woodcock Johnson of 15 months. The Kindergarten group
\nshowed a 12 month gain; the primary, a 7 month gain, and the middle
\nschool a 21 month gain. Both Greensboro and High Point, North
\nCarolina used Direct Access for the past year. On their State
\nmandated California Achievement Test, those children on Direct
\nAccess instruction showed an average gain of 17 percentile points
\nabove last year’s scores.<\/p>\n
SELECTED DIRECT ACCESS TECHNIQUES
\n The results of the demonstration project and the use of Direct
\nAccess in the past year in North Carolina clearly show that reading
\ndisabled children can benefit from the Direct Access method of
\nteaching reading. To be able to read means that one can get
\nmeaning from the printed word. The indirect phonological route
\nattempts to accomplish this by having the reader convert the
\nwritten word to its phonological counterpart and from this sound
\nderive meaning. Converting the word to its sound is a means to the
\nend of comprehension, not the comprehension itself. Direct Access
\nattempts to derive the meaning of the printed word not via its
\nsound, but directly. The stress is on comprehension, not decoding.
\n One of the first and most basic Direct Access techniques
\nconsists of pairing an index card which contains a word and one
\nthat contains a picture so that the child can consistently make the
\npairing. At that point the child can read the word, that is, the
\nchild can comprehend the printed word. Note that this is true
\nwhether or not the child can say the word correctly or not. The
\npictures can be provided by the teacher, cut from magazines for
\nhomework by the child, or even drawn by the child. The question
\nof abstractions and hard to picture words at first seems
\ninsurmountable, but it is surprising how easily a child will
\ndevelop and remember appropriate pictures. In connection with this
\naspect, games can be developed to strengthen the connection between
\nthe words and the pictures. Variations of Concentration and Old
\nMaid have been used successfully.
\n This pairing, however, is only the beginning of the Direct
\nAccess approach. The typical reaction at this point is, “This is
\nnothing new.” or “We tried that 20 years ago and it did not work.”
\nThe next step is the most critical. The words and pictures must
\nbe combined into sentences. A word sentence can be covered by the
\nappropriate picture and vice versa. The child should not be asked
\nto read the sentence aloud, word for word. Rather, have the child
\nsummarize the sentence, point to a picture from a series that
\ncorresponds to it, or even draw a picture of the sentence. The
\nstress should always be on whether the child has understood the
\nbasic meaning of the sentence rather than a word for word rendition
\nof it.
\n There are two important side benefits of this approach. One
\nis an increase in spelling skills. The second advantage is the
\nease with which children can do creative writing using the cards.
\nIt is a simple way to separate penmanship from writing. The child
\ncould be asked to write the funniest (most exciting, etc.) sentence
\nthey can from their words. The step from sentences to paragraphs
\nis minimal.
\n There are two basic approaches to class recitation within a
\nDirect Access framework. The phonetic disabled reader would be
\nasked to summarize a passage for the class and the teacher and
\nclassmates could discuss the errors of omission and commission.
\nIt also opens the door for class discussion on any relevant issues.
\nThe semantic disabled reader would read aloud, but be required to
\ndo so with expression to assure that the meaning and not only the
\nwords were being read. Of course, any child could be given the
\nopportunity to use either approach.
\n Flash cards are a standard part of the classroom and can be
\nused within a Direct Access framework. Let the children have their
\npictures in front of them when the words are flashed. They will
\nserve as a cue and minimize the chance of failure. As the children
\nprogress, they can turn the pictures face down on the desk and only
\nturn them over as needed. This will strengthen skills and continue
\nto minimize the chance of failure. This technique could easily be
\nconverted into a game where more points accrue if a card is not
\nturned over, but the child will always get some points.
\n What happens when children come across a word they have never
\nseen before? This is the usual response of people who first
\nencounter Direct Access. There are several approaches to this.
\nFirst and foremost, the child should be encouraged to determine the
\nmeaning of the word from the context of the whole passage.
\n Second, the teacher can tell the child the word and immediately
\nhave the child cut out or draw an appropriate picture for that
\nword.
\n Third, the child can be encouraged to look it up in the
\ndictionary just like anyone else who comes across a word with which
\nthey are unfamiliar. The child may not be able to pronounce the
\nword, but its meaning will be known.
\n Fourth, phonetic decoding should be an essential part of any
\nreading program. It is an important skill and should not be
\nneglected. On the other hand, it should not be the main approach
\nto deriving meaning from the printed word for some children.
\nThere is a temporary remediation procedure to use with Semantic
\ndisabled readers. Have the child read aloud into a tape recorder.
\nThen the child can play back the tape while reading from the text
\nmaterial. Although this is an awkward procedure it will allow the
\nchild to get meaning from the printed word. Direct Access has a
\ntechnique for the teaching of spelling and number facts. It has
\nbeen shown that some children not only do not learn by verbally
\nrepeating the word and letters (e.g. “cat, C-A-T, cat”, “6 times
\n3 is 18”) but this procedure can actually interfere with learning.
\nAs an alternative have the child look at the word and practice
\nforming an image of the letters without saying anything (This is
\nessential!!). When it comes time to spell the word, have the child
\nbring back the image of the letters and copy them.
\n The Direct Access approach does not depend on a rigid structure
\nthat the teacher must follow slavishly, but is a general principle
\nthat can lead to unique and creative techniques. Furthermore, the
\nmethod is not limited to the disabled population, but may be an
\neffective strategy for all readers since it has some similarities
\nto “speed reading” techniques.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
\nSummary
\n Reading Disability is as much a physical disability as
\nblindness, deafness and paralysis but a person with such a
\ndisability has not received the help offered to those suffering
\nfrom the latter disorders. The reading disabled child is
\nconsidered responsible for the disability. The purpose of this
\npaper is to point out that these children can learn to read if only
\nwe are willing to change the methods with which we teach reading.<\/p>\n
The standard approaches to reading demand that the child
\nconvert the written word to its sound and, from that sound, derive
\nthe meaning. It was shown that 85% of the children we call reading
\ndisabled have difficulty making that first step and the remaining
\n15% can convert the word to its sound, but this still does not give
\nthem meaning. The Direct Access approach to reading can help both
\ntypes of children because meaning is not derived by converting the
\nprinted word to its sound. Rather, the sound of the word is
\nderived from its meaning. Several specific techniques using this
\napproach have been discussed earlier in this Paper.
\n Our brain is capable of many fascinating and wondrous things.
\nOur conscious awareness of our surroundings is somehow derived from
\nlight of various wavelengths falling on our retina and causing
\nneurons to fire and not fire. It is this pattern of neuronal
\nactivity that gives us conscious experience. Even more amazing is
\nthe ability to create literary, musical, and visual works of art.
\nIt is the brain that is responsible for all of this. The brain
\nalso has a rather obscure function. It can take an arbitrary
\nseries of symbols (printed words) and convert them into an equally
\narbitrary set of sounds (spoken words). This function pales
\nalongside literary and artistic masterpieces. Why have we made it
\nthe basis of our educational system?
\nRecommendations
\n There are two major administrative recommendations that flow
\nfrom this paper. The first concerns the establishment of a centre
\nfor learning disability to be associated with the Centre for Social
\nDevelopment and Humanitarian Affairs. The second concerns the
\ndevelopment of a pilot project to investigate the effectiveness of
\nthe Direct Access approach to reading.
\n1) A center for the dissemination of information and training in
\nlearning disabilities should be established which would be called
\nthe Learning Enhancement Centre of the Disabled Persons Unit.
\n The purpose of the Learning Enhancement Centre would be to
\nresearch and disseminate information on the theory and remediation
\nof educational disabilities and to provide training in the
\nremediation of these disabilities. The scope of this training
\nwould include all educational approaches that stress the individual
\nstyles of learning with a particular emphasis on the Direct Access
\napproach in reading. There would be two main educational foci:
\n 1) ongoing workshops open to teachers from all member
\ncountries; and 2) visiting teams which would provide on-site
\ntraining for those teachers who cannot travel to the Centre. In
\naddition, new teaching techniques would constantly be developed
\nand evaluated in real classroom situations. These teaching
\ntechniques would take advantage of the latest technology, but the
\neffective use of more basic strategies would also be investigated.
\nThe Centre would publish a newsletter to promulgate its activities
\nand share the latest innovations in teaching techniques.
\n2) A large scale pilot study should be initiated by the Learning
\nEnhancement Centre to evaluate the effectiveness of the Direct
\nAccess approach across a wide variety of cultures. The Learning
\nEnhancement Centre would provide a series of workshops to train
\nteachers in the theory and practice of Direct Access. These
\nteachers would consist of individuals from various countries who
\nwould then develop Direct Access projects in their country.
\nConsultants from the Learning Enhancement Centre would visit the
\nproject sites to provide ongoing feedback to the teachers. These
\nsame teachers can provide on site training for countries who are
\nunable to send teachers to the Centre. In addition to these
\nadministrative recommendations, there are several educational
\nrecommendations that are aimed at eliminating all forms of learning
\ndisability. The aim of the Learning Enhancement Centre is to
\nimplement these recommendations. 3) Individual preferences in
\nlearning strategies should be taken into consideration in selecting
\nteaching strategies.
\n Both lateral eye movements and Hemispheric Preference Test data
\nshould be collected on all children. Strategies of teaching that
\nare compatible with the learning strategies associated with these
\nHemispheric Related Strategies should be incorporated into the
\nclassroom. In addition, other measures of individual differences
\nin learning styles should be incorporated into the framework of the
\nCentre.
\n 4) A testing program aimed at identifying individual differences
\nin learning styles should be developed at the Centre and
\ndisseminated among the various member nations. Children can be
\ntested for Phonetic and Semantic reading disability by means of a
\ntest derived from the results presented in Chapter 4. The Phonetic
\nSemantic Reading Scale (PSRS) requires a child to match written and
\npictorial material on the basis of their sound or on the basis of
\ntheir meaning. The point would be to identify individuals who do
\nwell on one portion of the test and poorly on the other to make a
\ndifferential diagnosis between the Phonetic and Semantic disabled.<\/p>\n
5) The techniques described in the Selected Direct Access Technique
\nsection above should be applied to these children.
\n These would include, but not be limited to:
\na) Alternative forms of class recitation
\nb) De-emphasis of phonics
\nc) Use of word picture vocabulary cards
\nd) Emphasis on comprehension rather than decoding
\n6) The criteria for success should reflect the capabilities of the
\nchild in conjunction with the demands of the culture rather than
\nartificial restrictions.
\n These would include, but not be limited to:
\na) Speed should be de-emphasized
\nb) Tests should be given on an “open book” basis.
\nc) Calculators should be allowed on mathematics tests.
\n Note that these changes actually reflect the way people operate
\nin the real world. No successful business places unrealistic time
\nlimits on workers or denies them use of tools and references.
\n7) An essential aspect of the Centre will be to develop new and
\ncreative techniques aimed at the elimination of all forms of
\nlearning disabilities.
\n While the emphasis at present is on developmental disabilities,
\nit is expected that this will expand to cover acquired
\ndisabilities, especially those related to head injuries. The same
\nprinciples of educational remediation will be applied to cognitive
\nremediation. The major recommendation of this paper is that
\nlearning disability should be recognized as a true disability and
\ntreated in the same way as the more physical disabilities such as
\ndeafness, blindness and paralysis. The learning disabled child
\nshould not be considered at fault for the disorder, but should be
\nrecognized as a person in need of special help. It is our
\nresponsibility to supply that special help.
\n The emphasis must be on individualizing instruction rather than
\nfinding the “one true method”. The good from all approaches must
\nbe used with those who find it good and avoided for those who find
\nit not good. Only by tailoring our teaching to the unique style
\nof each student do we maximize their strengths rather than trying
\nto strengthen their minima.<\/p>\n
BIBLIOGRAPHY<\/p>\n
Alberts, F. L., & McCallum, R. S. (1982). The relationship among
\nthree measures of cognitive style. Clinical Neuropsychology,4,
\n70-71.<\/p>\n
Bakker, D. (1982) Cognitive deficits and cerebral asymmetry.
\nJournal of Research and Development in Education, 150, 49-54.<\/p>\n
Beaumont, J., Young, A., & McManus (1984) Hemisphericity: A
\ncritical review. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1, 191-212.<\/p>\n
Boder, E. (1973) Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach
\nbased on three atypical reading-spelling patterns.
\nDevelopmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15, 663- 687.<\/p>\n
Bradshaw, J. & Nettleton, N. (1981) The nature of hemispheric
\nspecialization in man. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 4, 51-97<\/p>\n
Breitling, D., & Bonnet, K. (1985). Lateralization of GSR, lateral
\neye movements and a visual half-fields recognition task.
\nInternational Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 7, 140-143<\/p>\n
Bruce, P. R., Herman, J. F., & Stern, J. (1982). Lateral eye
\nmovements and the recall of spatial information in a familiar,
\nlarge-scale environment. Neuropsychologica, 20, 505-508.<\/p>\n
Coleman, S. & Zenhausern, R. (1979) Processing speed, laterality
\npatterns, and memory encoding as a function of hemispheric
\ndominance. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14, 357-360.<\/p>\n
Day, M. E. (1967) An eye-movement indicator of individual
\ndifferences in the psychological organization of attentional
\nprocess and anxiety. Journal of Psychology, 66, 51-62.<\/p>\n
Denckla, M.B. (1979) Childhood learning disabilities. In. K.M.
\nHeilman and E.M. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical Neuropsychology,
\nNew York: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n
Dunn, R., Price, G., Bacilious, Z., & Zenhausern, R. (1983)
\nLearning Style — a predictor of school achievement. Momentum,
\n13, 47-48.<\/p>\n
Dunn, R., Zenhausern, R., Cavanaugh, D., & Eberle, B. (1982)
\nHemispheric preference the newest elements of learning style.
\nJournal of the National Association of Biology Teachers, 44,
\n291-294.<\/p>\n
Dunn, R, White, R. & Zenhausern, R. (1984) Do educators create some
\ndiscipline problems? Illinois School Research and Development
\nJournal, 34, 56-67.<\/p>\n
Ehrlichman, H., & Barrett, J. (1984) Right
\nhemisphere specialization for mental imagery: A review of the
\nevidence. Brain and Cognition, 2, 55-76.<\/p>\n
Ehrlichman, H., & Weinberger, A. (1978) Lateral eye movements and
\nhemispheric asymmetry: A critical review. Psychological
\nBulletin, 86, 1080-1101.<\/p>\n
Falcone, D. J., & Loder, K. (1984). A
\nmodified lateral eye movement measure, the right hemisphere,
\nand creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 823-830.<\/p>\n
Fisk, J. & Rourke, B. (1979) Identification of subtypes of learning
\ndisabled children at three age levels: A neuropsychological,
\nmultivariate approach. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1,
\n289-310.<\/p>\n
Furst, C. EEG asymmetry and visuospatial performance. Nature,
\n260, 254-255. Galin,D., & Ornstein, R. (1972) Lateral
\nspecialization of cognitive mode: An EEG study.
\nPsychophysiology, 9, 412-418.<\/p>\n
Galin, D., & Ornstein, R. (1975) Hemispheric specialization and
\nthe duality of consciousness. Laterality and brain function.
\nSpringfield, IL: C.C.Thomas.<\/p>\n
Golden, M., & Zenhausern, R. (1983)
\nGrapheme to phoneme conversion: The basis of reading
\ndisability? International Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 229-240.<\/p>\n
Gur, R.E. (1978) Left hemisphere dysfunction and left hemisphere
\noveractivation in schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal
\nPsychology, 87, 226-238.<\/p>\n
Gur, R. E., & Gur, R. C. (1975). Defense mechanisms,
\npsychosomatic symptomatology, and conjugate lateral eye
\nmovements. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
\n43, 416-420.<\/p>\n
Gur, R.E., Gur, R.C., & Harris (1975) Cerebral activation, as
\nmeasured by subjects’ lateral eye movements is influenced by
\nexperimenter location. Neuropsychologia, 13, 35-44.<\/p>\n
Gur, R.C., Packer, I, Hungerbuhler, J., Reivich, M., Obrist, W., & Amarner,
\nW.(1980) Differences in the ion of grey and white matter in the
\nhuman cerebral cortex. Science, 207, 1226-128.<\/p>\n
Huang, M. S., & Byrne, B. (1978). Cognitive style and lateral eye
\nmovements. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 85-90.<\/p>\n
Hugdahl, K., & Carlgren, H. E. (1981). Hemispheric asymmetry as
\nindexed by differences in direction of initial conjugate
\nlateral eye movements (CLEMS) in response to verbal, spatial,
\nand emotional tasks. Journal of Mind and Behavior 2, 259-270.<\/p>\n
Jamieson, J. L., & Sellick, T. B. (1985) Effects of subject-to-
\nexperimenter distance and instructions on lateral eye movement.
\nPerceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 155-159.<\/p>\n
Kaliski, M., Zenhausern, R., Andrews, R. (1989) The direct
\naccess method of teaching reading and the diagnosis and
\nremediation of reading disability. International Journal
\nof Neuroscience, 44, 103-109.<\/p>\n
Kinsbourne, M. (1972) Eye and head turning indicate cerebral
\nlateralization. Science, 176, 539-541.<\/p>\n
Kinsbourne, M., & Warrington, E. (1963) Developmental factors in
\nreading and writing backwardness. British Journal of
\nPsychology, 54, 145-156.<\/p>\n
Krikorian, R., & Rafales, L. (1983). Emotional stimulation,
\ndefensive orientation, and hemispheric activation. Brain and
\nCognition, 1, 371-380.<\/p>\n
Leboeuf, A., McKay, P., & Clarke, K. (1983). Lateral eye movements
\nand dream recall in males: a reappraisal. Imagination,
\nCognition, and Personality, 3, 61-68.<\/p>\n
Lenhart, R. E. (1985) The effects of distance between interactants
\nand subject anxiety on conjugate lateral eye movements.
\nBrain and Cognition, 4(3), 328-337.<\/p>\n
Levy, J. (1974) Psychobiological implications of bilateral
\nasymmetry. In S. Dimond & J. Beaumont (Eds.) Hemispheric
\nfunction and the human brain. New York: Wiley<\/p>\n
Markman, S. & Zenhausern, R. (1988) The interaction of hemispheric related
\nstrategies and individual differences in learning.
\nInternational Journal of Neuroscience, 43, 165-170.<\/p>\n
Mattis, S., French, J., & Rapin, I. (1975) Dyslexia in children and young
\nadults: three independent neuropsychological syndromes.
\nDevelopmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 17, 150-163<\/p>\n
Maxwell, M. & Zenhausern, R. (1983) Teaching reading to disabled
\nreaders by eliminating the necessity for grapheme to phoneme
\nconversion. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological
\nAssociation, Philadelphia.<\/p>\n
Minardi, A., Zenhausern, R., & Maxwell, M. (1984) The remediation
\nof reading disability: a new approach. Paper presented at the
\nInternational Neuropsychology Convention, Houston.<\/p>\n
Oexle, J. & Zenhausern, R. (1981) Differential hemispheric
\nactivation in good and poor readers. International Journal of
\nNeuroscience, 15, 31-36.<\/p>\n
Ogorman, J. & Siddle, D. (1981). The effects of question type and
\nexperimenter position on bilateral differences in electrodermal
\nactivity and conjugate lateral eye movements. Acta
\nPsychologica, 49, 43-51.<\/p>\n
Owens, W., & Limber, J. (1983). Lateral eye movement as a measure
\nof cognitive ability and style. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
\n56, 711-719.<\/p>\n
Parrott, C. A. (1983). Personality characteristics associated with
\nlateral eye movement patterns. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
\n58, 867-874.<\/p>\n
Paivio, A., Yuille, J., & Madigan, S. (1968) Concreteness, imagery
\nand meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of
\nExperimental Psychology Monographs, 76, (1 pt. 2).<\/p>\n
Petroskas, R. & Rourke, B. (1979) Identification of subtypes
\nof retarded readers: A neuropsychological, multivariate approach.
\nJournal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1, 17-37.<\/p>\n
Pirozzolo, F. (1979) The neuropsychology of developmental reading
\ndisorders. New York: Praeger.<\/p>\n
Schwartz, G., Davidson, R., & Maer, F. (1977). Right Hemisphere
\nLateralization for Emotion in the Human Brain: Interactions
\nwith cognition. Science, 190, 286-288.<\/p>\n
Schweitzer, L. (1979). Differences of cerebral lateralization
\namong schizophrenic and depressed patients. Biological
\nPsychiatry, 14, 721-733.<\/p>\n
Smokler, I. A., & Shevrin, H. (1979). Cerebral lateralization and
\npersonality style. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36,
\n949-954.<\/p>\n
Swinnen, S. (1984). Some evidence for the hemispheric asymmetry
\nmodel of lateral eye movements. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
\n58, 79-88.<\/p>\n
Thompson, M., Greenberg, R. P., & Fisher, S. (1982). Defense
\nmechanisms, somatic symptoms, and lateral eye movements in
\nfemales. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 939-942.<\/p>\n
Tucker, D. M., Antes, J. R., Stenslie, C. E., & Barnhardt, T. M.
\n(1978). Anxiety and lateral cerebral function. Journal of
\nAbnormal Psychology, 87, 380-383.<\/p>\n
Tucker, G. H., & Suib, M. R. (1978). Conjugate lateral
\neye movement (CLEM) direction and its relationship to
\nperformance on verbal and visuospatial tasks.
\nNeuropsychologica, 16, 251-254<\/p>\n
Tucker, D. (1981) Lateral brain function, emotion, and
\nconceptualization. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 19-46.<\/p>\n
Van Nuys, D. (1985) Lateral eye movement and dream recall: II sex
\ndifferences and handedness. International Journal of
\nPsychosomatics, 31, 3-7.<\/p>\n
Weiten, W., & Etaugh, C. F. (1974) Lateral eye movement as related
\nto verbal and perceptual-motor skills and values. Perceptual
\nand Motor Skills, 36, 423-428.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R. (1978) Imagery, cerebral dominance, and
\nstyle of thinking: A unified field model. Bulletin of
\nthe Psychonomic Society, 12, 381-384.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R. (1982) Rights and lefts and how they learn. Early
\nYears, 12, 51-67.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R. (1983) Lateralized presentation
\nand hemispheric integration. American Psychologist, 38.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R. (1987) The relationship of reading disability and
\nthe techniques of teaching reading. International Journal of
\nNeuroscience, 34, 55-62.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R. (1988) Eyes Right. Teaching K through 8, 23, 76-78.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R. & Dunivin, D. (1981) Differential hemispheric
\nactivation and handedness and hysterical and obsessive
\npersonality styles. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17,
\n23-25.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R., & Dunn, R. (1984) How brainy are you about the
\nbrain? Early Years, 15, 46-49.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R., Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D. & Eberle, B. (1981) Do
\nright and left brained students learn differently. Roeper
\nReview, 4, 35-39.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R. & Nickel, M. (1978) Hemispheric dominance in recall
\nand recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 50-54.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R. & Gebhard, M. (1979) Hemispheric dominance in recall
\nand recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14, 71-73.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R., Notaro, J. Grosso, J. & Schiano, P. (1980) The
\ninteraction of hemispheric preference, laterality, and sex in
\nthe perception of emotional tone and verbal content.
\nInternational Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 121-126.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R. & Parisi, I. (1981) Brain dis-integration in
\npsychosis. Paper presented at International Neuropsychology
\nSociety, Atlanta.<\/p>\n
Zenhausern, R. & Sinatra, R.(1983) The rapid identification of poor
\nreaders with a grapheme to phoneme deficit. Eastern
\nPsychological Association, Philadelphia.<\/p>\n
—-
\nFor more information contact:
\nRobert Zenhausern, Ph.D. Internet: drz@sjuvm.stjohns.edu
\nSt. John’s University Bitnet: drz@sjuvm.bitnet
\nSB 15 Marillac Phone: 718-990-6447
\nJamaica, NY 11439 Fax: 718-990-6705<\/p>\n
