Talk:Research in dyslexia

Ninahexan

What do you not understand please elaborate and stop deleting parts of the article and use the discussion page here to discuss your issues

Controversy section

The recent edits and reverts of those edits aren't adding anything to this page, so perhaps it is best to discuss it here. "More recently Julian Elliot has also made reference to the 28 Definitions of Dyslexia which were documented in the Appendices of the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy report on Developmental dyslexia in adults: a research review by Michael Rice with Greg Brooks May 2004. [8] [9]" This is worded in such a way that nothing can be gleaned from it. It should be reworded so as to explain WHY Elliot was referencing the definitions, or removed since it in itself means nothing. Is there some suggestion that referencing 28 definitions of dyslexia somehow imparts an implicit understanding of why it was done? Whoever wrote these words should explain what Elliot was wanting to do by referencing the 28 definitions. That is the point of referencing, not just to say that something was mentioned, but explaining the point of the reference. Do you now understand why this section needs rewording? It is a failure to explicitly state Elliot's point, and should be corrected. Ninahexan (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Rice & Brooks study should not be included as a citation made by Elliot, since his reference to it means nothing. Instead it should form part of a new subsection towards the beginning of the page discussing definitions, as used by researchers, clinicians, the media and the public. This more directly addresses the topic of the page, which is research in dyslexia. The section referencing Elliot is more appropriate to the main page of dyslexia, since it more addresses perceptions of dyslexia, rather than the research of the area. In fact it would seem that Elliot was suggesting that research should not be done on dyslexia, since blanket early interventions would have the same benefit without the costs of diagnosis. Elliot's work is contentious, and as such should be approached in a way that clearly states the topics that are being discussed. I have all the copies of the articles stated in this page so far, and would be happy to more thoroughly represent them on this page if no-one else has the energy. Ninahexan (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

May be you should have a go at rewording this yourself instead of just deleting everything. I am dyslexic, Auditory Processing Disorder is the cause of my dyslexia, and this disability causes me to have word recall problems, which makes it difficult for me to paraphrase the work of others and coy edit, so i have to rely on others like you to do that for me. I am very good at doing the research and understanding what it means, but I need others to do the copy editing etc. Are you volunteering to do that dolfrog (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I Spent 2 months this year editing the main dyslexia article and then creating the most of the new sub articles. Which turned into a WIKI war, concerning the implications of the last decade of scientific dyslexia research. personally I have a skill cognitive skill deficit, which prevents me from contributing in a the WIKI way of doing things, and to avoid all of the stress that working on wiki involved for me I have stopped being an active WIKI editor. I still research Dyslexia and the related issues and I have posted links to most of my research paper collection on my user page, which could be useful for future editors of these articles. dolfrog (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you say that you are good at researching the information but not at presenting the information, why do you react so personally to an attempt to clarify the information presented on this page? If you state that a researcher referenced something then you must state the purpose of the reference. This is why I am going to remove this reference, and more explicitly explain how the word "dyslexia" is understood in differing spheres, as well as how it is defined by various researchers. This retains the Rice and Brooks review paper, and builds upon it in such a way that a reader of this page will not be left with more questions than they started with. Ninahexan (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two interventions by Julian Elliot. The first was in 2005 regarding the Myth of dyslexia, and his subsequent research paper "Does Dyslexia Exist" 2009. The second intervention was as part of a second media discussion 2009 in which Julian Elliot made reference to the 28 definitions of dyslexia included in the Rice and Brooks review paper to support his case. As I have tried to explain to many Wikipedia editors over the last few months. I can do the research, I understand the research, but due to the nature of my auditory processing disorder which is the cause of my dyslexia, I lack the ability to paraphrase the work of others or research papers, and to copy edit. There are others like you good self who have these skills which I lack. I can provide the research but i can not write the articles. So although much of the original content is my poor attempts to explain these issues, I do rely on other editors to rephrase or add to what i had originally put. I have long since stopped even attempting to add new content to Wikipedia articles as few other editors seem willing to understand how i have to work. For me it is all too stressful, understanding my own limitations, while others seem unwilling to understand the nature my communication limitations, which is strange as this article is about my disability. dolfrog (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation

Whereas the actual subject for the article is quite compelling and interesting, the manner in which the information (or lack thereof) is laid out is confusing and uninformative. The first issue that I noticed would be in the lead section. The description provided of dyslexia, first and foremost, is too simple and layman. As well, it provides no clear form for where the article will be taking you. It provides no background into dyslexia research, for example, as to why this article is even being written. It should provide a bit of detail into the reason this article is of importance, perhaps by highlighting the potential controversies surrounding it and the origins of the research of the topic itself. Although it does not have to be laden with data, the introduction would be better off if it provided more detail to clarify the subject of the article, and provide an outline as to where the article will be taking them in their reading. After reading the initial section, I felt, as perhaps other readers did, that I had no idea where the author was going with the subject, and that I didn't even fully understand the topic of the article.

Aside from the introduction, I found that the following subsections were lacking in information. For example, under "Language and Orthography," it would have been useful to provide more information about the importance of understanding orthography and its effects on language, and perhaps delve into why dyslexics can comprehend regular spoken language, but not the written orthography. This concern carried over into subsequent sections, where it appeared that the author was regurgitating random facts and quotes rather than actually providing a cohesive and informative article. As well, what little information was provided appeared to be heavily weighted towards the controversy side. Almost no information was actually provided on the actual topic of the article, Dyslexia Research, and almost all of the information was about how dyslexia is considered by some to be a mere reading disability. To improve this section, I'd recommend that the author provide more information regarding:

• The definition of dyslexia, including the psychology behind it
• The importance of researching dyslexia, including controversy surrounding learning disabilities
• Previous and modern methods for researching dyslexia
• Significant findings

As well, the information and sources being cited for these apparent subsections should primarily use empirical data from studies and research, rather than the articles and television citations provided. The reasoning for this is that, whereas these articles can provide good information and arguments, they can also be weighted with bias, whereas empirical articles provide more neutral, fact-based information. Yes, these other sources can be used, but there should also be a solid presence of research, especially considering the scientific nature of the topic.

With regard to structure, the article needed a bit more flow it it. There was no rhyme or reason for placing the sections in said particular order, and it seemed as if I was having random data and information thrown at me, rather than being show a smooth, transitional article. It should be structured in a manner something like what is mentioned in the bullet points above, where we are provided with background information that helps us realize the importance of the subject, and then presented with arguments.

All in all, this article has the potential to be a very interesting read, but lack of relevant information and structure make it fall flat.

--JuliannaIvanyi (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dyslexia research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020051112/http://www.nrdc.org.uk/projects_details.asp?ProjectID=75 to http://www.nrdc.org.uk/projects_details.asp?ProjectID=75

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)