Research Based, Research Driven, and Field Tested

Why you must use all three!


The Learning Success System exercises are designed on one or more of the three following criteria:


  • Research Based
  • Research Driven
  • Field Tested


Using all three areas creates a huge advantage for users of the Learning Success System. Read below to learn why. First let's define what these mean.


Research Based - This is when the exact exercises used have been through critical review by researchers. Obviously is something has been proven to work then it's a good idea to use it. And we certainly do


Research Driven - This is when a concept has been researched and proven effective. We then develop exercises based upon this concept. We constantly monitor the research for these new findings. Not only in the field of educational research but also in neuroscience and positive psychology. These new findings happen on a very regular basis and by following the research we are able to keep our system at the forefront. This is cutting edge science. Many of the most important findings are very recent and are not even in the textbooks yet.


Field Tested - It is very common for those in the field to come up with the best ideas and to make realizations that are critical to the process. Many of these concepts have simply not caught the eye of the researchers or have not had the time to be researched. But they can have big value and be very effective. If something has been observed once or twice this is not a reason to get excited over the idea. In that case we would not use it. But if the idea has been observed independently by hundreds or even thousands of practitioners in the field then leaving it out would be foolish. 


You may have seen many systems or people speaking of using systems that are wholly researched based. This sounds laudable but keep in mind that this might be a synonym for "behind the times". It takes decades for research to filter down to academia. Textbooks are notoriously behind. So unless a practitioner keeps up with the new research it is possible that they are actually decades behind the true knowledge base. Keeping on mind that the most important discoveries are barely a decade old this is very important. Many of the most popular systems used today are based on research that is over 80 years old. This doesn't necessarily mean the system is bad, just that it may be incomplete and not ive you the full advantages you will want to help your child.


Because the Learning Success System derives its concepts from all three it bundles the advantages of all. Obviously, you want a system that gives you the most advantages and makes helping your child as easy as possible for you. Right?


Get the Learning Success System here.

Found 28 results
Author Title [ Type(Desc)] Year
Filters: Keyword is Dyslexia  [Clear All Filters]
Journal Article
S. Franceschini, Gori, S., Ruffino, M., Viola, S., Molteni, M., and Facoetti, A., Action video games make dyslexic children read better., Curr Biol, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 462-6, 2013.
S. Karande, Kumbhare, N., Kulkarni, M., and Shah, N., Anxiety levels in mothers of children with specific learning disability., J Postgrad Med, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 165-70, 2009.
R. I. Nicolson and Fawcett, A. J., Automaticity: a new framework for dyslexia research?, Cognition, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 159-82, 1990.
T. Raberger and Wimmer, H., On the automaticity/cerebellar deficit hypothesis of dyslexia: balancing and continuous rapid naming in dyslexic and ADHD children., Neuropsychologia, vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 1493-7, 2003.
A. J. Fawcett and Nicolson, R. I., Automatisation deficits in balance for dyslexic children., Percept Mot Skills, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 507-29, 1992.
G. Leisman, Coherence of hemispheric function in developmental dyslexia., Brain Cogn, vol. 48, no. 2-3, pp. 425-31, 2002.
R. Savage, Frederickson, N., Goodwin, R., Patni, U., Smith, N., and Tuersley, L., Evaluating current deficit theories of poor reading: role of phonological processing, naming speed, balance automaticity, rapid verbal perception and working memory., Percept Mot Skills, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 345-61, 2005.
J. E. Fagan, Kaplan, B. J., Raymond, J. E., and Edgington, E. S., The failure of antimotion sickness medication to improve reading in developmental dyslexia: results of a randomized trial., J Dev Behav Pediatr, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 359-66, 1988.
E. S. Norton, Black, J. M., Stanley, L. M., Tanaka, H., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Sawyer, C., and Hoeft, F., Functional neuroanatomical evidence for the double-deficit hypothesis of developmental dyslexia., Neuropsychologia, vol. 61, pp. 235-46, 2014.
N. Alexander-Passe, How dyslexic teenagers cope: an investigation of self-esteem, coping and depression., Dyslexia, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 256-75, 2006.
K. S. H. Rochelle and Talcott, J. B., Impaired balance in developmental dyslexia? A meta-analysis of the contending evidence., J Child Psychol Psychiatry, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 1159-66, 2006.
C. J. Stoodley, Fawcett, A. J., Nicolson, R. I., and Stein, J. F., Impaired balancing ability in dyslexic children., Exp Brain Res, vol. 167, no. 3, pp. 370-80, 2005.
A. Elnakib, Soliman, A., Nitzken, M., Casanova, M. F., Gimel'farb, G., and El-Baz, A., Magnetic resonance imaging findings for dyslexia: a review., J Biomed Nanotechnol, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 2778-805, 2014.
T. Waterston, Managing the clumsy and non-reading child., Practitioner, vol. 243, no. 1602, pp. 675-7, 1999.
T. Qi, Gu, B., Ding, G., Gong, G., Lu, C., Peng, D., Malins, J. G., and Liu, L., More bilateral, more anterior: Alterations of brain organization in the large-scale structural network in Chinese dyslexia., Neuroimage, vol. 124, no. Pt A, pp. 63-74, 2016.
S. Iversen, Berg, K., Ellertsen, B., and Tønnessen, F. - E., Motor coordination difficulties in a municipality group and in a clinical sample of poor readers., Dyslexia, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 217-31, 2005.
V. Harrar, Tammam, J., Pérez-Bellido, A., Pitt, A., Stein, J., and Spence, C., Multisensory integration and attention in developmental dyslexia., Curr Biol, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 531-5, 2014.
Z. Xia, Hoeft, F., Zhang, L., and Shu, H., Neuroanatomical anomalies of dyslexia: Disambiguating the effects of disorder, performance, and maturation., Neuropsychologia, vol. 81, pp. 68-78, 2016.
P. Quercia, Seigneuric, A., Chariot, S., Vernet, P., Pozzo, T., Bron, A., Creuzot-Garcher, C., and Robichon, F., [Ocular proprioception and developmental dyslexia. Sixty clinical observations]., J Fr Ophtalmol, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 713-23, 2005.
O. L. Hurley, Perceptual integration and reading problems., Except Child, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 207-15, 1968.
S. E. Shaywitz, Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., and Escobar, M. D., Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls. Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study., JAMA, vol. 264, no. 8, pp. 998-1002, 1990.
M. McPhillips and Jordan-Black, J. - A., Primary reflex persistence in children with reading difficulties (dyslexia): a cross-sectional study., Neuropsychologia, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 748-54, 2007.
P. Quercia, Seigneuric, A., Chariot, S., Bron, A., Creuzot-Garcher, C., and Robichon, F., [Proprioception changes induced by prismatic glasses wear in children suffering from developmental dyslexia]., J Fr Ophtalmol, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 380-9, 2007.
K. E. Waldie, Wilson, A. J., Roberts, R. P., and Moreau, D., Reading network in dyslexia: Similar, yet different., Brain Lang, vol. 174, pp. 29-41, 2017.
D. J. Bakker, Sensory dominance in normal and backward readers., Percept Mot Skills, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1055-8, 1966.