Davis goes on tour

Ron Davis, whose arguments that dyslexia is something worth having ring hollow and whose claims to have discovered the answer to dyslexia deserve strong challenge, will begin a speaking tour of the US and CA in May. If the lectures are like the public relations materials promoting them and Mr. Davis’ views, they will be heavy on a recounting of his terrific childhood triumphs, when he overcame Autism, taught himself to read, and learned to speak during his late adolescence. He will also provide a first-person account of what it is like to have dyslexia—one is likely to resonate with others’ views—and tout his books, The Gift of Dyslexia and The Gift of Learning, as well as his methods, “Davis Dyslexia Correction®,” “Davis Math Mastery®,” and “Davis Learning Strategies®.”

Davis Dyslexia Correction facilitators and specialists help children learn to direct their attention and show children how to model letters, symbols, and high-frequncy words in clay. Of course, they also have children look up words in dictionaries. Here are selected descriptions:

• Davis Orientation Counseling® teaches dyslexic students how to recognize and control the mental state that leads to distorted and confused perceptions of letters, words and numerals. Through a simple mental technique, the students learn to turn off the thought processes that cause misperceptions. Instead, they are able to restore their minds to a relaxed and focused state, suitable for reading and other studies.
• Davis Symbol Mastery® gives dyslexic students the ability to think with symbols and words, so they can learn to read easily and with full comprehension. Using clay, students first work with the alphabet, numerals, and punctuation marks, to make sure that they have an accurate perception and understanding of these symbols. Students then use clay to model the trigger words–the short abstract words, frequently encountered in reading, such as and, the, to, or it.

In a post of October 2006 here on LD Blog I expressed reservations about the arguments Mr. Davis advanced. The very argument that dyslexia is both a gift and something worthy of correction (but not “cured”) makes the main point. I continue to harbor doubts simply on the logical foundation of the recommendations.

There is also the matter of evidence, however. Mr. Davis’ exensive Web presence refers to a couple of studies, both of which are reported in full. Readers are welcome to examine the reports of these studies (see links at the end of this post).

1. Group	Pre	Post
   Exper.	56.30	47.10
   Contl.	48.20	45.70

   Engelbrecht (2005) randomly assigned 20 fifth-to-seventh graders to groups, gave one group 14 hours of Davis intervention while the other group received no intervention, and reported that the experimental group’s score on the Schonnel silent reading test improved (the “score” was the difference between the child’s age in months and his test score in months) but were not significantly different from the controls’ scores at posttest. (Interestingly, it may be that the experimental group’s scores on other measures were, in fact, worse; I need to reanalyze the data.) Although the study has strengths (e.g., random assignment) it provides substantial reasons for regarding it cautiously (e.g., small, noequivalent groups; use of derived scores; regression effects favoring the experimental condition).

2. In Reading Improvement, Pfeiffer and colleagues (2001) presented the results of a study of the Davis method with 86 children in the primary grades. Combining results from a pilot study and two comparisions with matched control groups, they reported that children receiving the Davis method had higher scores on number of sight words read correctly (ES ≈ .56 for posttest across groups) and, three years later, fewer special education placements and more gifted education placements than those in the control group. Although this report involves more children than the Engelbrecht study, it suffers from problems with the design (matching is both a weak strategy and the basis for it is not clearly explained) and the measurement (few would contend that students’ skill in reading from a limited list of high-frequency words constitutes a vlauable test of reading outcomes).

The Internet is chock-a-block with references to the Davis methods. One will find lots of pages using words and phrases such as these: Creative talents; Famous People with the Gift of Dyslexia; known world wide; visual-spatial learners; nonverbal learners; aligned with the way dyslexics process information; helping thousands; individualized; professional; licensed; dramatic results; breakthrough; whole-child; life-changing; 97% success rate; deals with the root cause; students gain confidence; internationally recognized; multi-dimensional thinkers; creative learning style; and etc.

Although I shan’t be attending any of Mr. Davis’ lectures, I suspect many will. In addition those hearing language such as I’ve listed here and about the supporting research, folks who attend will almost surely have an opportunity to buy the books, maybe including something new about using the Davis methods with individuals with Autism. And the local purveyors of the Davis methods will almost certainly be on hand to provide quick tests or other enticing tidbits.

Are they selling anything worthwhile? Well, hope seems to be one of the most valuable products; the method offers people the chance, the possibility that they or their children can succeed. But I’m skeptical about whether hope is sufficient. Of course, the response will be that there are 1000s of satisfied customers, ergo, the therapy must work. I’m not buying that line.

I hope that people will ask questions:

• What is the scientific basis for the assertion that individuals with dyslexia think in pictures, that “dyslexia is a result of perceptual talent” (Davis, 1997, p. 6)?
• What scientifically rigorous evidence do you have that there is a higher incidence of giftedness among individuals with dyslexia than among the general popultion? How is the relative degree of giftedness determined in your view?
• What plans do you have to subject your methods to rigorous field trials of their effects on student’s reading, spelling, and writing outcomes? Would you be willing to provide free materials and training for scores of randomly selected teachers in a comparison with two or three compehensive reading instructional programs?

To see how Mr. Davis is represented by his advocates, see press release for one of the talks, a Web site entitled “Discover the Answer to Dyslexia! The Ron Davis Cross-Country lecture tour,” and other Web sites called “Dyslexia.com” and “Davis Learning Strategies.” To read one study offered as support for the Davis methods, follow this link; although I find the study wanting, I note that a colleague whom I admire (T. F. McLaughlin) is a contributing author. Another study from By Rene Engelbrecht South Africa is also offered as research evidence of effectiveness.

A Web search will reveal many testimonials as well as many clinicians offering the Davis therapies. There are, however, a few folks who have reservations about these methods. Here is a non-exhaustive list of links for resources questioning the utility of the Davis methods:

• The Learning People think dyslexia is a gift, I think they are idiots from Gimpy’s Blog;
• A Civilized Discussion from Liz Ditz;
• Regina Cecci’s critique of the Davis methods.