Editor’s Afterwords: On Editing the Annual Annals of Dyslexia

Abstract

It seems odd to have the editor's comments coming at the very end of the series of papers. This is by necessity and not by choice. Readers of Volume 52 for 2002 of this Journal will note that I wrote a detailed commentary, as is my practice, to provide the context and to look ahead in what may come in the field. This is what it should be for an editor. Alas, this attempt at analysis and synthesis of the papers is just not possible this year because of the severe page limitation. For this volume every available page is utilized so as to accommodate more accepted papers. I am also obliged to abandon my already written detailed commentary in favor of this short note. With this apologia, I want to emphasize the joys of being the editor of this great Journal. I am privileged to work with a very supportive IDA Board, its officers and staff, creative authors and dedicated reviewers, both on and off the Editorial Board and from different disciplines and many countries. In reading the manuscripts and the reviews many times throughout the year I learn much. Sometimes the reviews are as illuminating as the papers being reviewed, but all professionally rewarding. As scientists-practitioners, we are all dedicated to "the best that science has to offer" (Lyon, S. Shaywitz & B. Shaywitz, this volume). Gopnik, Meltzoff and Kuhi also make this clear in their meticulously researched and beautifully written book on child development The Scientist in the Crib (1999). They state that as parents and citizens we need to understand "what science tells us (and what it doesn't)" and that to get "public policies about children right depends on getting the science right." (p. ix). Their conviction borne out from their research that "... children can do so much because they have the help of people who care about them" (p. x) neatly sums up the mission of IDA. The papers in Part I focus on advances in the science of dyslexia and evidence-based instruction. The paper by Lyon, S. Shaywitz and B. Shaywitz further clarifies some basic concepts and terms in the 1995 operational definition (originally developed by the IDA Research Committee under the guidance of G. Emerson Dickman) in the light of current advances in neurobiological and intervention studies. The paper clarifies the nature and locus of single word decoding, discusses the consequences of phonological difficulties, eschews the IQ-discrepancy concept for instruction and brings to the fore the importance of effective classroom instruction. The next two papers corroborate on the comorbidity of dyslexia with other disorders with an update on genetics aspects (Pennington); and teachers' understanding of speech sounds, words, sentences and principles of instruction for better student learning (Moats & Foorman). The papers in Part II educe further evidence on effective instruction from teachers' knowledge of English word structure and the need for educators to acquire a sound knowledge base of the English language (Spear-Swerling & Brucker); from experienced remedial teachers' evaluation of the potential effectiveness of spelling exercises for poor Dutch spellers (Bos & Reitsma); and from suggestions for learning word structure in relation to speech by unitizing "word