Cognitive Skills’ Outcome-Based Intervention Revealed the Latency Effect for Struggling Learners

Published October 22, 2010 by
The Special Education Advisor http://bit.ly/9FYsZv

What are the learning pathways? Research tells us that learners absorb new information through the primary sensory visual, auditory, kinesthetic-tactile pathways, (VAKT: Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic-Tactile teaching method, http://www.dyslexia-parent.com/VAKT.html) and these entrances must be in working order. They also should optimally function together, or integrate.

One or two pathways may be stronger than the others, and can compete with the weaker ones, creating an out-of-sync learning input structure. Visual processing speed may be faster than a lagging auditory (listening) processing speed, creating a conflict between the two. (Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986). Without auditory-visual integration, (Hessler, 1982) the result is a “slow, inattentive learner” although the student is highly intelligent (Erland, July 1983).

Parents, unaware of the foundational cause of their child’s learning problems, flounder with eliciting expensive tutors, which do some good. Practice “Drill and Skill” software training also helps to some degree, although it is like handing an energizing coke to a runner with a broken leg. Like information processing, the race can not be won until the leg is repaired and mended.

The Role of Cognitive Skills Measurement and Training. Cognitive skills’ retraining of Guilford’s select mental abilities (Guilford, 1984, 1967) can be elected so the student can absorb, learn, understand, and apply new information. Many cognitive skills training programs have been developed by private companies and textbook companies have not absorbed such programs into their product lines. Unfortunately, this sensory integration, or “opening up the learning pathways” should be trained before the child learns basic skills.

Not only does the average parent or young adult learner not understand the relevance of cognitive skills training programs, but locating an efficient one is difficult. Many programs exist, and vary in their testing-measurement, evaluations, and applied methodologies. Those in populated areas may drive miles to obtain training, pay large, ongoing fees for a program that takes years of application to see results. The solution lies in remediating cognitive skills in the classroom, like a teaspoon of sugar to raise student ability levels.

The Latency Effect Revealed. Learning improvement results may not be evident because there is a “Latency Effect” for problem learners to show academic achievement results on national standardized achievement scores. This latency effect was discovered with a two school, eleven classroom experimental, longitudinal study. (Erland, Fall 2000).

Intervention Training Results of Two Fourth Grade Classrooms. I implemented a cognitive skills intervention and measurement study of two classrooms of low-achieving fourth grade parochial school students, (n=44) tracking their test results for the subsequent two years, with minor attrition. (Erland, Fall 2000). The gains can not be attributed to the subsequent teachers’ instruction, because the students were dispersed between three different classes each following year, and their subsequent test scores were reconfigured as the original experimental group. Longitudinal studies are difficult to implement because of transient students. If the students are not present, they can not be subsequently tested.

Most of the students had auditory (listening) weaknesses, and a few had severe visual processing deficits. In other words, they had learning, information processing issues, and their previous the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS, Riverside, 2000) low scores reflected this, falling below the norms as individual classrooms (Erland, Fall 2000, table 1, p. 16). If would be a case where the teacher(s) could have been fired. But, they were, in fact, excellent teachers, and willing to apply a promising methodology that would possibly correct these student processing deficiencies.

The results showed a scaled variation of when, and at what point, the student began to “learn new information.” The fourth grade students in two classes in the ITBS subtests of Reading Comprehension, Math Total, Math Problems, Spelling, language, and Science (Erland, Fall 2000, pp. 32-34) revealed not only some immediate results, but also indicated a range of marked learning growth over a two-years of post-testing standardized measurements.

There was strong change for many at the one-year longitudinal point, and another group showed gains the second year following the intervention. This indicates that once the information sensory pathways are opened, the student can then begin understanding and applying classroom instruction. (Erland, Fall 2000) http://www.memspan.com/jalt.html

Academic Achievement Results Now Expected. School administrators and districts are now increasingly demanding outcome-based academic achievement results. Unfortunately, the pressure is applied to the teacher, who may not have the necessary intervention tools at her fingertips. It is difficult to teach an entire classroom, where many of the students have info processing blockages, and can not, and subsequently do not, attend to instruction.

Administrators and school districts, eager to show academic achievement improvement, should recognize the problematical slow learner-latency effect even having strong classroom instructional input by the teacher. They also might consider accepting and adopting effective cognitive skill programs as a helpful classroom tool to raise the proficiency learning levels of the students. This would systematically raise achievement test scores without resorting to “teaching how to take the test,” which replaces hours of valuable classroom instructional-skills-learning time.

Classroom Partnered Learning. Consequently, with a room with many learning problems, teachers often resort to small group “partnering teams” in a differentiated classroom, where the slow learner copies the information from the more adept processing student leader. Unfortunately, the struggling student is not “learning”, but merely completing an assignment, to receive a grade, which will be an A or B to appease the parent. This student is subsequently, “passed through the system” with perhaps a limited career future.

Response To Intervention. Once students understand the teacher’s classroom instruction, it can be then applied; although this changing-evolutional process may be immediate or take one-two years. But, even with this latency effect, it is important that gains can be made by even the most problematical learner, rather than minimally or not at all, and then firing the teacher.



Erland, J. K. (Fall, 2000). Brain-Based accelerated learning longitudinal study revealed subsequent high academic achievement gain for low-achieving, low-cognitive skill fourth grade students. The Journal of Accelerated Learning and Teaching, 25, (3&4).

Erland, J. K. (July 1983). Methods and techniques of Cognitive Behavior Modification for accelerating both visual and auditory memory in learning disabled adolescents and young adult through inter-hemispheric specialization strategies. An instructional workshop session and manuscript.

Guilford, J. P. (1984). An odyssey of the SOI model: An autobiography of Dr. J. P. Guilford. Tokyo: Japan Head Office International Society For Intelligence Education.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.

Hessler, G. (1982). Use and interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources.

Riverside 2000. (1994). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Integrated Assessment Program, Technical Summary I. Chicago, IL: The Riverside Publishing Co.(a subsidiary of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt).

Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. and the PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the micro structure of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

VAKT: Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic-Tactile teaching method, http://www.dyslexia-parent.com/VAKT.html

"INTENSIVE SENSORY INTEGRATION INSTRUCTION TRANSFORMS HANDWRITING”

Pub. Special Education Advisor 10-17-10 http://www.specialeducationadvisor.com/intensive-sensory-integration-instruction-transforms-handwriting/

A recent Wall Street Journal article, “How Handwriting Trains the Brain” (Bounds, G.) could conversely be stated that “Brain Training Changes Handwriting.” Technically speaking, increased and retrained brain activity can transform handwriting following twenty hours of intensive multi-sensory integration instruction (Erland, 2000).

What is Multi-Sensory Integration? Sensory integration can be defined as a successful combination of the visual, auditory, and tactile input processes to the brain. Early pioneer researcher and occupational therapist, Anna Jean Ayres, (1920–1989) wrote several books on the topic describing how deficits in sensory perception blocked informational input to the brain inhibiting motor output (Ayres, 1972, and Wikipedia, Ayres, J.).

Her forward-thinking work stirred controversy for a number of years. She wrote, quoted in the 1980s, Wikipedia, “It has not been easy for the helping professions to conceive of human behavior as an express of the brain, and they are still struggling to do so.” Unfortunately, these brain-learning, theory-practice amalgams remain today.

Which Cognitive Abilities are Required for Handwriting and Written Communication? Handwriting requires right-brain visual closure and spatial perceptual ability, with left-brain sequencing of letters combined with fine motor coordination.(Reid & Hresko, 1981) The connection of visual (seeing) and auditory (listening) learning are required for understanding, or the “integration of information (Hessler, 1982).”

Was Penmanship Taught? It is important to note that penmanship was not trained in my classes; per se. Students were instructed to “Think, Say, Do,” following the renowned Bandura’s 1971, Social Learning Theory, and the Gillingham & Stillman early reading-phonics multi-sensory model, 1970, which later became the recognized Orton-Gillingham Dyslexia training program.

Can Visual and Auditory Abilities Be Reliably Measured through Formal and Informal Assessments? Recognized norm-referenced, valid and reliable cognitive skills test batteries readily measure these sensory processing areas, The Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude (DTLA) v. 1, 2 Visual Closure, Letters Sequences,, Auditory Memory for Words, and Oral Directions subtests; v. 3, & 4 subtests came later (Hammill, 1985; Baker and Leland, 1967, 1935, Pro-Ed). Additionally, Visual and auditory memory subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (1978) were also applied to obtain student baselines.

When I first began testing and retraining cognitive abilities in 1980,(Erland, 1980) it became an ongoing incubation project covering many years of test-teach-test-publish iterations applying my puppetry and choral speech methodology to these recognized research and practice models. The sensory integration interventions revealed pre-posttest training change on the visual closure and letter sequencing DTLA subtests, beginning in 1981 following my program instructional interventions.

Can Handwriting Change Reliably Indicate Changes in Learning Capability? Notable handwriting changes were consistently and immediately evident with a perceptual “turning point” after twenty hours of daily, intensive, multi-sensory training. Fourth and fifth grade students with additional adult pre-to-posttest handwriting and testing cumulative compilations exist, documenting perceptual and fine motor change. With school classroom 48-Day, 24-hours of prescribed sensory integration implementation, following the same twenty hours of media-based instruction, revealed improved perception, thought, handwriting, and test-taking (Special Education Advisor, 2010).

One experimental study evidenced posttest change with one-two-year marked longitudinal student improvement with two classrooms of low-achieving/low auditory processing fourth graders on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills CogAT Quantitative (pretest 58%-posttest 71%; 2-yr. 70%) and Nonverbal (pretest 59%-posttest 72%; 2-yr. Long 76%) areas. (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, CogAT and Erland, J. K. 2000, p.20). The CogAT test was externally administered by the school and scored by the Princeton Educational Testing Service (ETS). These results have a high correlation with reading comprehension and mathematical learning. Individual student three-year CogAT trending is on pp. 22-23 of this published report (Erland, 2000).

A sampling from the handwriting perceptual and sequencing change exhibits is available on: http://www.memspan.com/handwriting2.pdf

Early on, it was determined through continuous, in-depth assessment and monitoring of all levels of learners and ages; children, business adults, and college students, that most individuals have information processing weaknesses or cognitive gaps ranging from mild- to- moderate- to- severe. And, unidentified, they are forced to cope with them.

Seeing continuous formal assessment outcome success, the ongoing research was continuously documented (1989-2000) in a scientific publication, The Journal of Accelerated Learning and Teaching. Needing a nominal reference for this research intervention, the edutainment methodology of using puppetry and choral speech was given the name: The Bridge to Achievement® (The BTA). The accompanying continuous formal assessment regulated that trained students were not merely “motivated’, or thus transformed through positive thinking, but had outcomes of improved reading and math scores (Erland, 1994). Yet, this overt handwriting transformation also operated as positive personal feedback and as an incentive for learners to “keep trying.”

To eliminate the possible motivational contamination of using puppets as “novel stimuli,” an eleven classroom experimental study was conducted using an “alternate media activity” for the control groups (Erland, 1999).

Discovering Learning Issues: Problems in these cognitive and fine motor areas show up in the early grades when basic skills are initially taught, indicating visual perceptual difficulties or directed as ADHD. While many children are formally referred and tested for Special Education from classroom observations, many are not, and subsequently fall through the cracks, missing important inter-sensory training during the critical early years.

Parents should show advocacy and watch for faulty handwriting symptoms and seek professional guidance and direction. Ignoring these critical perceptual symptoms, leads to a life-time of potential auxiliary written communication set-backs and other social-educational learning issues.

Another recent Special Education Advisor article by Claire Nissenbaum, M.A. (2010), “Messy Handwriting is a Predictor of ADHD in Girls," also indicates perceptual-penmanship red flags, because boys have spatial and coordination advantage over girls, Durden-Smith and DeSimone, 1984. Yet, boys outnumber girls in Special Education referrals and many parents do not want labeling stigma, “Once In, Never Out.” p. 115 Turnbull, Stowe, Huerta, 2007.

The bottom line is that perceptual and fine motor skill problems, as evidenced in handwriting samples, can be retrained through cognitive skill sensory integration instruction. Many well-known programs have existed for some time that offers this type of training in varying methodology formats and time requirements, obtaining a range of outcome results.


Ayres, J. A. (1972). Sensory integration and learning disorders. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Corporation. Wikipedia: Anna Jean Ayres biography.

Baker, H. & Leland, B. (1967). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude - 1. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Bandura, A. K. (1971). Social learning theory. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press

Bounds, G. (October 5, 2010). How handwriting trains the brain. The Wall Street Journal. Health and Wellness.

Durden-Smith and DeSimone, D. (1984) Sex and the Brain. New York: Warner Books.

Erland, J. K. (Fall, 2000). Brain-Based accelerated learning longitudinal study revealed subsequent high academic achievement gain for low-achieving, low-cognitive skill fourth grade students. 25, (3&4).

Erland, J. K. (Fall, 1999). Brain-Based accelerated learning and cognitive skills training using interactive media expedites high academic achievement. Journal of Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 24, (3&4).

Erland, J. K. (1994). Video-taped instruction creates listening and visual memory integration for higher reading and math scores. Journal of the Society for Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 19, (2), 155-227.

Erland, J. K. (1980). Vicarious modeling using peers and puppets with learning disabled adolescents in following oral directions. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1970). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service, Inc.

Hammill, D. D. (1985). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-2. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Hessler, G. (1982). Use and interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources.

Nissenbaum, C. (September 30, 2010). “Messy Handwriting is a Predictor of ADHD in Girls,” Special Education Advisor; The IEP and Special Education Social Network.

Reid, D. K., & Hresko, W. P. (1981). A cognitive approach to learning disabilities. New York: McGraw Hill.pp.16-17.

Riverside 2000. (1994). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Integrated Assessment Program, Technical Summary I. Chicago, IL: The Riverside Publishing Co.(a subsidiary of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)

Turnbull, H.R., Stowe, M.J., and Huerta, N.E. (2007). Free Appropriate Public Education. Denver: Love Publishing.

Woodcock, R. W. (1978). Development and standardization of the Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery. Higham, MA: Teaching Resources Corp.

Don't Fire the Teachers - Retrain the Kids' Learning Abilities

Teachers are in a hotbed now. Not only are salaries and teaching positions frozen, but many are being fired due to budget constraints. School Districts and Schools, not knowing how to get a handle on whom to show the door, have tied standardized testing classroom scores to teacher worthiness and instructional excellence.

Teachers are being asked to “re-teach” what children have not learned: like basic math facts, generally taught in the third grade. With specific curriculum requirements for each grade level, it is difficult to go back and continually review, and then have enough time to teach the necessary basic skills for that particular grade level.

To top it all off, teachers, grades four and up, are forced to spend several hours daily, four days a week, to teach the standardized test mechanisms. This is not subject matter-content instruction; it is merely test-taking mechanics on how to choose a multiple choice answer and move through the exam in a certain amount of time. Struggling students often sit with a higher-ability level peer and mimic test-taking actions, not understanding the concept.

What is not taken into consideration is that classroom student ability level composition varies from room to room. One class may have more “struggling” students than another, placing that teacher at a disadvantage compared to another class of higher ability students.

What is missing here is that each student’s ability level should be pre-tested in the early elementary grades, and carefully followed by the parents and teachers. That way, learning progress can be tracked.

Private assessment consultants can be identified for parents’ engagement, and brief group cognitive skills standardized test batteries can be administered by the school in early elementary years. Listening and visual deficiencies can be pinpointed as to severity. Classrooms can then have a fair distribution of ability levels dispersed between classes.

Any teacher should not be unlucky enough to inherit a classroom full of low performers, and then be fired because they were tough to teach and failed to obtain immediate test results.

My own research demonstrated that a classroom of low performing fourth graders did not obtain a change in standardized test scores immediately following a strong intervention. The results appeared a year later, when the students’ scores were reconfigured, and it was discovered there was sometimes a latency effect with slow learners. Two years’ later these two low-achieving classes passed up a group of gifted students, achievement score-wise because of my intervention.

Moreover, should we fire the unlucky teacher who had to wait a full year to see results from her own excellent teaching? And, ironically, the subsequent teacher receives applause and a bonus for the work the former teacher conducted?

Concurrently, students’ learning abilities are not predetermined, and the myriad of drill and practice subject matter computerized programs while they do some good, do not remedy the information processing shortcomings. That is why we are caught up in this academic achievement dilemma.

We spend time practicing the mechanics for standardized tests, do not learn the subject matter, nor are we retraining cognitive abilities so every child can be an efficient learner. With systematic early student ability retraining, teachers would be able to teach, students would learn what they are taught, achievement test scores would systematically raise, and teachers will not have to be fired.

“Rushed and Connected: Why Do We Crave Social Networking?”

Do you get an adrenalin rush viewing a snippet of unimportant information on your social networking page? Perhaps an incredibly accessible internet with our sense of personal isolation promotes our craving for social networking. Why do we exist in a state of continual “hurry and worry” with a need to be connected remotely rather than personally face to face? Do we live sheltered within our pressing moments, a click away from our next connection?

Have you ever wondered, while out in traffic, why cars are racing, darting in and out of traffic lanes, their drivers hurriedly talking on their cell phones? When we reach our intended destination, have we completed a purposeful objective? Or, do we rush on to another scheduled commitment?

Why do we stay in constant communication with a distant voice and texting, adding simple remarks on social networks, remain available to chat with online strangers or people you knew years ago, yet not know the name of your next-door neighbor?

Nevertheless, the list is almost endless with positive online social networking opportunities: gaming, dating, learning, business, health, social, shopping, blogging, job searching, and health; they still remain as abstract social connectedness.

Online networking can be meaningless, even inane; compared to time spent reading good literature, sitting down visiting with a friend, or writing expressive discourse. Some captured remarks off my page: “We need rain.” “I will enjoy buying school crayons.” “My dog misses me.” “I hear thunder.”

This is first-rate conversation?

Yet, virtual social urgency somehow feels safe, a consoling part of us, less judgmental, and we don’t have to find ourselves feeling self-conscious in front of others. There is no body language to read.

Happily, social net pages lack traditional societal income level pecking orders, and rely more on meritorious achievement connecting “like minds.”

Subsequently, we are all in there together, and can easily remove ourselves by touching the off button. Or “X’ them off our list. Done. Chats can be unanswered. Nothing is justifiable, or has to be explained, no commitments.

Today’s Gen Y generation is “I want it now – and I will get it now.” That means, they have to hurry to get it, or at least they think they do. And, they remain connected online. Is the internet the perpetrator, or is it merely a fast-tract social avenue?

Those that seem to be in the biggest hurry are Gen Y, people ages 18-32 and are 30% of the internet population. Those younger, ages 12-17, are online 92% of the time, whether it is communicating through texting, locked in entertainment, or researching on netbooks or smart phones. (Pew Internet Research, January 2009. “Generations Online, 2009.”)

This younger group, our teens rush also, especially when going out for fun or shopping, expecting the next moment to change their reality. Staying in a constant state of “trivial busyness,” they receive instant gratification from the internet’s beckoning social opening, their virtual world. Do social pages satisfy their inner insecurities and nervous anxieties?

Maybe it is time to step back and spend less time with the addictive social connectedness rush. Quietly consider future objectives and how we might reach them. There is a saying, that all comes to fruition in the “fullness of time.” Unfortunately, creating a sense of purpose takes patience, with directed focus. It is something to contemplate.