Departing from the theoretical perspective on education policy of most volumes in the series, the main contributors here are social science researchers and bring empirical approaches to the debate over current dyslexia research. Elliott and Nicolson have debated the status of dyslexia for many years, both in popular venues such as television and in academic settings such as conferences. Elliott contends that people with dyslexia are no different than other poor readers and need no special treatment. Nicolson argues that dyslexia is a reading disorder, and that dyslexics exhibit different neurological features in the brain. Annotation ©2016 Ringgold, Inc., Portland, OR (protoview.com)
Read More
Dyslexia is often presented as a clearly delineated condition that can be diagnosed on the basis of appropriate cognitive tests with corresponding forms on intervention. However, this approachable text explores the issues behind this assertion in bringing together leading figures in the field to debate dyslexia.Julian Elliott shows that understandings and usage of the dyslexia label vary substantially with little consensus or agreement and in putting forward his critique draws upon research in several disciplinary fields to demonstrate the irrationality of these arguments. Roderick I. Nicolson demonstrates that current approaches to understanding, identification and support of dyslexia are catastrophically flawed in terms of their failure to consider the developmental nature of dyslexia. He develops two themes: first that the underlying cause of dyslexia is 'delayed neural commitment' for skills and neural circuits, and second that the cause of the reading disability is the introduction of formal instruction before the dyslexic child's neural circuits for executive function are sufficiently developed. He argues that a more effective and cost-effective approach to identification and support involves 'assessment for dyslexia' rather than 'of dyslexia'. Elliott and Nicolson respond to the points each other raise before Andrew Davis investigates how far the key claims of Elliott and Nicolson can withstand close conceptual investigation, and explores the inherent limitations of scientific research on this topic, given the value and conceptual issues concerned.
Read Less