Edyburn's article "Learning from Text" examines the poor fit between the skills that students with disabilities bring to their education and the approach schools take to learning through text. Edyburn believes that assistive technology can support students to learn when they have difficulty reading and that teachers and schools should value students' ability to learn over their ability to read by providing the support they need to understand new information, even if it is received in forms other than text. Reading isn't everything or at least it doesn't have to be! Edyburn gives the example of a junior high student in a science class who cannot read the textbook because he is reading at a grade 3 level. If we know he is unable to access the primary material for learning (the textbook), we know he will not be able to meet the outcomes. So we can predict in advance that he will fail. Why are students put in positions where we know they will fail and yet we still fear that implementing assistive technology will become a form of 'cheating' or take away from the student's learning? Their success may look different than others, but it does not mean that their learning was not authentic.
I really appreciated Edyburn's discussion of the implicit and rarely explicit question about the balance of remedial and compensatory strategies for students. This question is often the unspoken or unexpressed concern of teachers and parents. How much time should be devoted to remediation (teaching to read) and how much to compensation (working around the student's difficulty or inability to read)? If we use speech-to-text or adapt the work etc., how will my child learn to read? Edyburn suggests considering the 'core task'. Is the goal that students learn to read or read to learn? If the former, then remediation should surely be the focus, but if the latter, then compensation will make the learning significantly more accessible. When difficulty reading becomes a disability to students and a barrier to their education, we need to provide tools which give them the ability to access their education. When students have compensatory strategies, they are able to experience success with the curriculum and complete their tasks more quickly, which allows more time to devote to remediation as well. Edyburn says there are currently no guidelines about what percentage of time to devote to compensatory or remedial strategies at the time of publication. I wonder if any further research has been done in this area. In any case, these questions and decisions about the balance between the two approaches should be made explicit so that teachers can plan accordingly and teach effectively.
Edyburn describes five categories of compensatory strategies for reading and instruction and assistive technology tools which can help to implement them. The five categories of compensatory strategies are as follows:
1) Bypass reading
2) Decrease reading
3) Support reading
4) Organize reading w/graphic organizers
5) Guide reading
Each could have their place in supporting specific students or particular types of disability. Again, I am reminded at how quickly the landscape of technology changes. This article was published in 2003. I am certain that most if not all recommended technologies in the article are now antiquated and greater, cheaper, and more accessible apps and programs are available as we saw last class. Yet, many of the challenges (textbook-heavy instruction) and unanswered questions (how much focus to put on remedial and compensatory strategies) remain, at least in my school.
Comments