Category: Dyslexia

Introduction

With abandoning IQ as a reliable assessment metric of literary abilities, the examination of dyslexia has shifted towards the study of phonological development. Contextualization of dyslexia as a language-based learning difficulty that compromises single-word decoding signifies gaps in the phonological development of a child. However, these gaps likely originate due to individual circumstances, not bilingualism, which supports phonological development through cumulative improvement and early acquisition of learning abilities.

Dyslexia and Bilingualism

The number of spoken languages does not appear to play a role in the interruption of phonological progress for both monolingual and multilingual children. The persistence of reading difficulties among phonologically comparable languages, such as English and Portuguese, indicates that dyslexia is “not language dependent but due to individual differences” (Durkin, 2000, p. 12). In other words, phonological processing challenges in English are symptomatic of similar challenges in the native tongue. Moreover, “personal, and environmental factors” play a significant role in the individual variability in multilingual phonological development (McLeod & Verdon, 2017, p. 2). This lack of uniformity in the patterns of language acquisition signifies the dependence of phonological development on individual characteristics. To substantiate, Drysdale et al. (2014) note that children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a neurological developmental disorder, from bilingual environments “did not exhibit additional language delays” (9). The inconsistencies between language difficulties and multilingualism indicate that phonological challenges might stem from individual circumstances.

Furthermore, bilingualism might be not just innocuous but also advantageous. “Significant differences in their onset-rime segmentation abilities” indicates bilingual children showed higher phonological awareness than their monolingual peers in kindergarten (Durkin, 2020, p. 12). The author also notes that these benefits were reflected in “superior performance on a number of phonological awareness tasks” when the children were at their novice low English proficiency levels (p. 13). In addition, phonological growth in one language reverberates across metalinguistic development in the other, suggesting a cumulative effect of bilingualism (Drysdale et al., 2014). Nonetheless, phonological difficulties develop cross-linguistically, indicating that learning improvements would also likely permeate multilingualism, as remarked by “intervention provided in all languages can produce positive results” (McLeod & Verdon, 2017, p. 1). Potential beneficial implications of bilingualism echoes in enhanced acquisition and cross-linguistic development of phonological abilities.

Conclusion

In summary, the current pediatric knowledge suggests that dyslexia likely results from a personal background unrelated to multilingualism. While language-based, phonological development challenges are not language-dependent, meaning that learning difficulties in English indicate difficulties in the first language. Multilingualism might, in fact, serve as an alleviating factor for these difficulties through early phonological awareness, cumulative and cross-linguistic effect of language improvements, and facilitated learning abilities.

References

Drysdale, H., Meer, L.V., & Kagohara, D.M. (2015). Children with autism spectrum disorder from bilingual families: a systematic review. Review journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2, 26-38.

Durkin C. (2000). Dyslexia and bilingual children–does recent research assist identification? Dyslexia, 6(4), 248–267.

McLeod, S., Verdon, S., & International Expert Panel on Multilingual Children’s Speech (2017). Tutorial: Speech assessment for multilingual children who do not speak the same language(s) as the speech-language pathologist. American journal of speech-language pathology, 26(3), 691-708.

Abstract

Background: Dyslexia is one of the most common learning disorders among students who might suffer from many problems such as stigma. Some nurses with dyslexia harm their practice, which might affect the patient’s safety.

Aim: This study aims to assess the awareness level of dyslexia and its relation to stigma among nursing students at King Abdulaziz University (KAU).

Methodology: It is a quantitative cross-sectional study using two self-administered questionnaires: the scale of anticipated stigma and Knowledge and Beliefs about Developmental Dyslexia Scale (KBDDS). Data will be collected virtually from nursing students of the Nursing Faculty at KAU using the online Google form. Data will be analyzed by conducting frequencies and Chi-square test was used to examine the relationship between the demographic variables and the research variables through the latest Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Conclusion: The study results will be the first to assess the awareness level of dyslexia and its relation to stigma among nursing students. Hence, findings will enhance the empirical evidence and raise the awareness of dyslexia among nursing students in Saudi Arabia.

Background

Dyslexia is one of the most common learning disorders among students, affecting up to 10% of the global population (Ali, 2020). Dyslexia is a learning difficulty in word-level reading skills that is not due to blindness, deafness, or intellectual disability and occurs despite sufficient effort and opportunity (Grimes, Southgate, Scevak, & Buchanan, 2020). Dyslexia is a lifelong condition; its particular course and clinical expression may vary according to task demands and support provided and the range and severity of the individual’s abilities and difficulties (Handler, 2016). Nevertheless, the practical problems on a child when learning how to read may persist into adolescence and adulthood (López-Escribano, Suro Sánchez, & Leal Carretero, 2018).‏ There are a lot of studies assessing the awareness level of dyslexia among teachers but little among students. For example, according to Ansari et al. (2019), there is a lack of awareness regarding dyslexia among sixteen teachers, and there were only four teachers were conscious of dyslexia disability.

Furthermore, the results from another study revealed that the level of teachers” training and their perception of their ability to manage dyslexia in their classrooms showed that teachers of elementary schools are well aware of dyslexia and most of the teachers were able to identify dyslexic students in their classrooms ( Khaliq, 2017). However, there is no study conducted in Saudi Arabia to assess the awareness level of dyslexia among the students themselves. In Saudi Arabia, about 31.4% of the students have dyslexia in primary schools (Ewaine, 2017). Students with dyslexia might suffer from many problems such as enacted stigma, anticipated stigma, and self-stigma (Grimes, Southgate, Scevak,& Buchanan,2020). Hence, assessing and raising the awareness level of dyslexia among students is of great importance.

Stigma is the impression of being imperfect and, along these lines, socially unsatisfactory given an individual or actual trademark (Stoeber,2021). There are three main types of stigma. Enacted stigma is the degree to which people have faced prejudice in the past (Grimes, Southgate, Scevak, & Buchanan,2020). Anticipated stigma, which will be our focus in this study, refers to the level at which an individual is being stereotyped and negatively discriminated by the public (Grimes, Southgate, Scevak, & Buchanan, 2020). Finally, a self-stigma refers to the individual’s feelings of embarrassment or shame due to their disability (Grimes, Southgate, Scevak, & Buchanan,2020).

Many students do not disclose their learning disability to their peers and teachers due to a lack of awareness about their disability and fear of being treated differently (Grimes, Southgate, Scevak, & Buchanan, 2020). Furthermore, there is a lack of studies that focus on students facing stigma on their learning disabilities, specifically dyslexia (Trunk, 2020). According to Mather, White, & Youman (2020), dyslexia is not fully known in certain countries, and individuals who have dyslexia are stigmatized. Another study conducted on 123 medical students showed that half of the students received negative comments, either in public or private, about people having dyslexia (Hennessy, Shaw, and Anderson, 2020). In addition, the results of a study that was conducted on 12 participants of nurse students to investigate the effect of dyslexia during clinical practice and their coping mechanism showed that the participants have helpful strategies to cope with the impact of dyslexia in clinical practice like memory joggers organizing strategies, documentation strategies, and poster guidelines (Crouch, 2019). According to Major & Tetley (2019), it is essential to promote disclosure about learning disabilities for both students and nurses to achieve patient safety. Therefore, awareness of dyslexia might support the early detection of the disability, which will benefit the therapeutic process. Although the literature on dyslexia is comprehensive, dyslexia is little recognized at the individual, family, and societal levels (Livingston, 2018). Therefore, it is evident that there is a need to explore the awareness of dyslexia among nursing students and its relationship to stigma.

Statement of the Problem

Dyslexia is a sensitive and prevalent learning disability affecting nursing students (Ali,2019). Dyslexia stresses the students and requires more time and effort to keep pace with lectures and in-class activities. Furthermore, there is a lack of awareness about the signs of dyslexia among teaching staff and the students themselves (Ali, 2019). On the other hand, students diagnosed with dyslexia fear to disclose their disability because of the possibility of being stigmatized by their colleagues (Ali,2019). There’s a gap in the literature exploring the awareness of dyslexia among nursing students and the possible stigma faced by nursing students diagnosed with dyslexia. Hence, it is worth exploring the awareness level of dyslexia and its relationship to stigma to enhance the empirical evidence and raise the awareness of dyslexia among nursing students in Saudi Arabia.

Study Aim

This study aims to assess the awareness level of dyslexia and its relation to stigma among nursing students at King Abdulaziz University (KAU)

Research Questions

• What is the awareness level of dyslexia among nursing students at KAU?
• What is the relationship between dyslexia awareness and anticipated stigma?

Method

Research Design

The proposed study has an exploratory nature, and since there is not much known about the topic yet, a quantitative descriptive, correlational, cross-sectional design will be implemented. This design will aid in assessing the awareness level of dyslexia and its relation to stigma among nursing students at KAU. The descriptive study attempts to define a population, condition, or phenomenon accurately and systematically (Polit & Beck, 2018). A correlation design is used to investigate the interrelationships between variables of interest without involvement or implementation by a researcher (Polit & Beck, 2018). Moreover, the cross-sectional design used to collect information at one stage and often used to infer shift over time as data is collected from multiple age or developmental groups (Polit & Beck, 2018). Thus, the purpose of choosing this research design is to assess the awareness level of dyslexia and to explore the relationship between stigma and dyslexia among nursing students at KAU.

Study Setting

This research study is affiliated with the Faculty of Nursing Jeddah, KAU, Saudi Arabia. Data will be collected virtually from nursing students of the Nursing Faculty at KAU using the google forms online tool.

Sampling and Sample Size

Participants will be nursing students recruited from the Nursing Faculty at KAU. Inclusion criteria will be (a) male and female nursing students from any level, (b) master’s degree nursing students, and (c) able to speak and read English. Because of the limited time in conducting this study, exclusion criteria will be nursing students (a) not from King Abdulaziz University and (b) unable to speak and read English.

The relationship between dyslexia and stigma has not been studied; hence, the relevant published effect size is not available. Therefore, the estimation for medium effect size was considered. According to Cohen (1992), the estimated medium effect size is.30 for correlations with two-tailed tests at a.05 level of significance and power of.80. Given the effect size of 0.3 and a power of 0.8, the required sample size for correlation is 84, calculated by G*Power 3.1.

Tool

Data on demographics will be collected, which include the age of nursing students, gender, the level of education (baccalaureate or master’s), level of education in the nursing program (second, third, or fourth-year nursing students), marital status, and two questions, which are: have you ever been diagnosed with dyslexia, and do you know anyone with dyslexia. Moreover, two instruments will be utilized in this study.

The first instrument is a scale of Knowledge and Beliefs about Developmental Dyslexia Scale (KBDDS) developed by Ferrer and Bengoa (2014). The KBDDS measures knowledge and misconceptions about dyslexia in three specific areas: general information about the nature, causes, and outcome of dyslexia; symptoms/diagnosis of dyslexia; and the treatment of dyslexia (Ferrer, & Bengoa, 2014). The instrument consists of a 36-item scale to assess the awareness level of dyslexia rated on a 3-point Likert scale, which is 1=” true,” 2= “false”, and 0= “don’t know” (Ferrer, & Bengoa, 2014). This rating will make it possible to differentiate between what students do not know and their incorrect beliefs. The instrument’s items were reviewed by 89 teachers and established the instrument’s content validity (Ferrer & Bengoa, 2014). Furthermore, the scale had.76 internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha achieved sufficient reliability (Ferrer & Bengoa, 2014).

The researchers developed the second instrument to assess anticipated stigma related to dyslexia. The instrument’s items were derived from the Consciousness Questionnaire-Learning Disabilities (SCQ-LD) that is valid and reliable (Daley, & Rappolt-Schlichtmann, 2018). The measure demonstrates stability across time, with test-retest reliability of =.76 Cronbach’s alpha (Daley, & Rappolt-Schlichtmann, 2018). External validity is demonstrated through a strong positive correlation with overall self-consciousness and a negative correlation with measures of self-concept or self-perception (Daley & Rappolt-Schlichtmann, 2018). Because the SCQ-LD was developed to assess the individual experiences of stigma consciousness, a determination of the used questions in the current study was made of which items comprised the anticipated stigma. There are 5 items/questions developed, which are: people treat individuals with dyslexia. Differently, people have negative views about individuals with dyslexia; people judge individuals with dyslexia, make negative assumptions about individuals with dyslexia, and think there is something wrong with individuals with dyslexia. the items/questions will be rated on a 3-point Likert scale, which is 1=“true”, 2=“false”, and 0=“don’t know ”. The higher mean indicates greater levels of anticipated stigma.

Data Collection Procedure

There are several methods of collecting primary data; one of them is using a questionnaire, which is the one that was used in this study. The participants will be approached online using social media, including (WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter). The questionnaire will be distributed using an online Google Forms tool. The questionnaire will be composed of demographics, the scale of anticipated stigma, and the KBDDS scale.

Ethical Considerations

The study’s ethical approval will be obtained from the ethics and research committee from the Faculty of Nursing Jeddah, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. Study enrollment will be voluntary, and data collection will be completely anonymous, as participants’ identities will not be requested. Detailed information about the study will be included on the first page of the online survey tool. Hence, before the participant starts filling the survey, he/she will have the chance to read the information provided and decide whether interested or not to be enrolled in the study. The informed consent will then be implied by the participants completing and submitting the survey.

Data Analysis

Statistical Package (IBM SPSS Statistics 25) software was used for data entry and analysis. Cronbach’s Alpha test was used to check for the reliability and internal consistency of the study variables. The Cronbach Alpha scores for KBDDS with 36 variables was (0.73) and 0.77 for SCQ-LD with 5 variables.

Results

There were 154 participants enrolled in the study, 92.2% of them female and 7.8% were male. Most participants (66.9) were from the age group of 18 to 21 and 88.3% of them were single. The highest percentage (44.2%) of the participants enrolled was 4^th year nursing students, while the lowest (10.4%) was master’s students. Tables 1 summarize the demographics and the characteristics of the study participants.

Table 1

About 150 out of 154 participants (97.4%) noted that they have never been diagnosed with dyslexia, and 123 participants (79.9%) indicated not knowing any family members, friends, colleagues, community staff, or anyone in general suffering from dyslexia.

KBDDS Analysis

Overall, the number of correctly responded statements whither “false” or “true” was 18 (50%) out of 36, which was acknowledged by the percentages of the participants’ responses being more than 50%. However, (50%) of the other statements were new to the participants as they got the response of “do not know” by most of the participants.

Nearly (58.8%) understand that dyslexia is a neurological disorder but do not know the root cause, as indicated by the (45.5%) response provided. About 63.3% of the participants noted that children with dyslexia suffer from mental and social disabilities but are equally gifted and successful. The participants’ attitudes toward whether there is a brain difference between ordinary people and those with dyslexia was ranging between was ranging between false (31%), do not know (38%), and true (30%). Similarly, there was an equal attitude of true and do not know (26%) toward if dyslexia is hereditary higher number, whereas, (47%) stated not knowing. However, 61.7% participants acknowledge that dyslexia is a neurological condition in society, while 13.6% of the participants believe it is a mythical belief. Roughly 34.4% of the participants believed that the condition is most prevalent in males than females, while 54.8% indicated that they do not know the most affected gender.

Almost 46% of the participants believed that “seeing letters and words backwards is a basic characteristic of dyslexia” is true, while only 10% stated the statement is false and 44% did not know. There were 51.3%, 53.2%, and 50.6% of participants do not know whether colored lenses, medication, and the use of multisensory instructions, respectively, are suitable for people with dyslexia. However, (49.4%) acknowledged that the use of a modeled reading strategy as an effective method. Around 23.4% of participants disagreed that people with a reading disability should be classified as dyslexic, while 59.1% of the 154 participants who agreed with the statement. Approximately 63% of the 154 participants supported that it is essential to apply a reading test to fully diagnose the disorders. The majority of the 154 participants noted that people with dyslexia have low self-esteem (59.7%) and have a problem in spelling and decoding words correctly, as indicated by 54.5% and 60.4% of participants (Table 2)

Table 2

SCQ-LD Analysis

Nearly 70% of the participants believed that people have negative assumptions about individuals with dyslexia, judge and treat them differently. (Table 3)

Table 3

KBDDS and SCQ-LD Association

The Chi-square test was used and revealed P-value < 0.001, therefore, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative, which is there is a difference regarding the knowledge level between Dyslexia scale and Stigma scale, as explained by Table 4 and the following figure.

Table 4

Discussion

Dyslexia is a learning disorder which is common among the general population, and nursing students, as well as practicing doctors, also experience its symptoms. The current explored the level of awareness among nursing students at King Abdulaziz University (KAU) about dyslexia and its association with stigma. The level of awareness was analyzed with the help of the Knowledge and Beliefs about Developmental Dyslexia Scale. In general. The respondents demonstrated a moderate level of awareness of dyslexia, with only 50% correct answers on average. The result is similar to the findings of studies conducted among other groups such as teachers (Echegaray-Bengoa, Soriano-Ferrer, & Joshi, 2017; Soriano-Ferrer, Echegaray-Bengoa, & Joshi, 2016). Such evidence demonstrates the fact that there are still problems with dyslexia awareness in many countries.

It is important to highlight the main misconceptions which students had about the disorder. One of them concerned a belief held by the majority of the students that dyslexia entailed perception of letters and words as reversed, which is incorrect. Yet, such misunderstanding of the issue is common and has been demonstrated by participants in other studies (Washburn et al., 2017; Wery & Diliberto, 2017). More than forty percent of the students did not know that dyslexia was a hereditary disorder, while 26% provided the wrong answer. It should be noted that such misconception has been demonstrated to be more prevalent in other research, such as one involving preschool teachers, where 54% of the respondents were incorrect (Ramli et al., 2019). The majority of students said that teachers received intensive training in working with dyslexic children, which is not true, but such a result is also present in a study conducted in India (Hemadharshini et al., 2020). It possible that respondents in both studies do not have an understanding of the situation due to not being involved in it.

Additionally, on several occasions, the majority of respondents choose the “Don’t know” option. For instance, 55.8% did not provide their answer to the question about the occurrence of the disorder among males and females. Moreover, 51.3% of students did not know about the efficacy of colored lenses as therapy and 53.2% of the respondents also did not know whether there are medications to counter dyslexia. All of the three results are similar to those discovered by Yin, Joshi, and Yan (2020) in early literacy teachers in China. Based on the fact that the respondents universally struggled to answer the last two questions, it is possible to assume that there is a common lack of knowledge concerning dyslexia treatments. Large numbers of people also did not answer the questions about the problems with establishing laterality as the cause of dyslexia and the efficacy of multisensory instruction. Similar findings were identified by Soriano-Ferrer, Echegaray-Bengoa, and Joshi (2016), who studied dyslexia awareness among Spanish-speaking teachers. The reason behind this phenomenon can concern the complexity of the aforementioned questions.

In general, the students often chose the “don’t know” option and did not give their answers to the questions. For instance, the majority of respondents refused to say whether dyslexia could be chronic and identifiable using intelligence tests and did not answer whether dyslexic children were impaired in phonemic awareness. In other studies, participants were more likely to choose “yes” and “no” in these questions (Echegaray-Bengoa, Soriano-Ferrer, & Joshi, 2017; Soriano-Ferrer, Echegaray-Bengoa, & Joshi, 2016). The second part of the research involved conducting the SCQ-LD analysis to identify stigma related to dyslexia. The majority of respondents exhibited an opinion that dyslexic people were subject to negative assumptions by others. Moreover, the Chi-square test to determine a KBDDS and SCQ-LD association demonstrated that there was a difference regarding the knowledge level between the Dyslexia scale and Stigma scale. The findings of the study contribute to the understanding of the perception of dyslexia by nursing students and show that anticipated stigma depends on the level of knowledge of the disorder.

Reference

Ali, K., Kisielewska, J., Subhan, M. M. F., & Tredwinmenta, C. (2020). How does dyslexia impact the educational experiences of healthcare students? A qualitative study. European Journal of Dental Education, 24(1), 154-162.

Ansari, S. A., Memon, F., & Khan, I. (2015). Exploring the level of awareness of dyslexia among private school teachers. The reason, 9.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.

Crouch, A. T. (2019). Perceptions of the possible impact of dyslexia on nursing and midwifery students and of the coping strategies they develop and use to help them cope in clinical practice. Nurse education in practice, 35, 90-97.

Daley, S. G., & Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G. (2018). Stigma consciousness among adolescents with learning disabilities: Considering individual experiences of being stereotyped. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(4), 200-212.

Echegaray-Bengoa, J., Soriano-Ferrer, M., & Joshi, R. M. (2017). Knowledge and beliefs about developmental dyslexia: A comparison between pre-service and in-service Peruvian teachers. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 16(4), 375–389.

Ewain, N. S., Alkhleb, A., Alhoshan, A., Qahtani, G. Al, Alotaibi, L., Kleib, L. Bin, Alatrash, M., Alqartun, N., Alomairi, R., & Alanazi, S. (2017). The Prevalence of Learning Difficulties and Its Academic Impact Among Elementary School Students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3(6), 263–265.

Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., & Buchanan, R. (2020). University Student Experiences of Disability and the Influence of Stigma on Institutional Non-Disclosure and Learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(1), 23-37.

Handler, S. M. (2016). Dyslexia: What you need to know. Contemporary Pediatrics, 33(8), 18.‏

Hemadharshini, S., George, N., Malaidevan, E., Britto, R., & George, M. (2020). Dyslexia: Literacy among school teachers in Perambalur, Tamil Nadu, India. International Journal of Medical Health Development, 25, 101–105.

Hennessy, L. R., Shaw, S. C. K., & Anderson, J. L. (2020). Medical Students’ Attitudes towards and Beliefs about Dyslexia : A Single-Centered Survey Study. 7(4), 69–79.

Juneja, P. (2018). Dyslexia: Challenging behaviors and characteristics. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 9(7), 964-967.

Khaliq, S., Ramzan, I., & Aslam, J. (2017). Study about awareness of dyslexia among elementary school teachers regarding Pakistan elementary educational institutes. Int J Res Bus Stud Manag, 4, 18-23.

Lambert, R., Chun, M., Davis, J., Ceja, K. L., Aguilar, K., Moran, P., & Manset, L. (2019). “My Dyslexia is Like a Bubble”: How Insiders with Learning Disabilities Describe Their Differences, Strengths, and Challenges. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(1).

Livingston, E. M., Siegel, L. S., & Ribary, U. (2018). Developmental dyslexia: Emotional impact and consequences. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 23(2), 107-135

López-Escribano, C., Suro Sánchez, J., & Leal Carretero, F. (2018). Prevalence of developmental dyslexia in Spanish University Students. Brain sciences, 8(5), 82.‏

Major, R., & Tetley, J. (2019). Effects of dyslexia on registered nurses in practice. Nurse education in practice, 35, 7-13.

Mather, N., White, J., & Youman, M. (2020). Dyslexia Around the World: A Snapshot. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(1), 1–17.

Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2018). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. 9th ed. Lippincott. W&W: New York.

Ramli, S., Idayu, I., Khairani, O., Dzalani, H., Shahlan, S., Yusni, M., & Nor, Z. (2019) Preschool teachers’ knowledge on dyslexia: A Malaysian experience. Malaysian Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences, 15, 134–139.

Soriano-Ferrer, M., & Echegaray-Bengoa, J. A. (2014). A scale of knowledge and beliefs about developmental dyslexia: Scale development and validation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 132, 203-208.

Soriano-Ferrer, M., Echegaray-Bengoa, J., & Joshi, R. M. (2016). Knowledge and beliefs about developmental dyslexia in pre-service and in-service Spanish-speaking teachers. Annals of Dyslexia, 66(1), 91-110.

Stoeber, J., & Rountree, M. L. (2021). Perfectionism, self‐stigma, and coping in students with dyslexia: The central role of perfectionistic self‐presentation. Dyslexia, 27(1), 62-78.

Trunk¹, D. J., Russo, C. J., & Trammell, J. (2020). Disability Stigma on Campuses: Helping Students with Psychiatric Impairments to Succeed. AHEADAssociation on, 33(2), 115.

Wagner, R. K., Zips, F. A., Edwards, A. A., Wood, S. G., Joyner, R. E., Becker, B. J.,… & Beal, B. (2020). The prevalence of dyslexia: a new approach to its estimation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 354-365.

Washburn, E. K., Mulcahy, C. A., Musante, G., & Joshi, R. M. (2017). Novice teachers’ knowledge of reading-related disabilities and dyslexia. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15(2), 169–191.

Wery, J.J., & Diliberto, J.A. (2017). The effect of a specialized dyslexia font, OpenDyslexic, on reading rate and accuracy. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 114–127.

Yin, L., Joshi, R. M., & Yan, H. (2019). Knowledge about dyslexia among early literacy teachers in China. Dyslexia, 26(3), 247–265.

Introduction

As noted by Undheim (2009), dyslexia as a learning disability has affected many students in today’s education system especially in elementary levels and high schools. The American High Schools have not been exceptional in experiencing the problem of this learning disorder (Catone and Brady, 2005). Many researches have shown that there is no absolute cure for this disability but the educators have the mandate of making instructional adjustments to ensure that students suffering from Dyslexia excel in an academic environment (Aaron, Joshi, Regina & Kwesi, 2008).

The manner in which the students with Dyslexia are taught to read and write should be the first adjustments instructors should adjust in their methodology. The teachers find a big problem in providing for the needs of all students in school to ensure that they do not lag behind in understanding. Dyslexia is one of the learning disorders that every instructor must be concerned about and address in the best way possible (Wadlington and Wadlington, 2005).

According to Givens, et al. (2007), “the student who struggles with reading and spelling often puzzles teachers and parents” (p. 10). Diagnosis of Dyslexia becomes a problem when the students are suffering from other disorders that affect their leaning. According to Enns and Lafond (2007), learning to read and write for the students with ear problems is a big challenge not only to themselves but also to the teachers themselves.

The problem becomes worse when the difficulty of dyslexia accompanies hearing problems. Enns and Lafond (2007) states that “although debate continues over the exact definition of dyslexia and the appropriate diagnostic criteria, it can be narrowly defined as difficulty with word identification, or an inability to read words correctly” (p. 2). However, for the sake of this research, the federal definition of dyslexia and other terms are adopted.

Understanding Learning Disability: Federal Definitions

The United Stated department of Education has for years struggled to design means of identifying specific learning disabilities in school (David, 2008). On December 3^rd 2004, the former US head of state George W. Bush assented to make Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) law. The Act has regulations that indicated how the students with specific learning disabilities should be identified. It stated that the stated will only adopt criteria for determining a student with disability based on 34 CFR 300.8(c) (10) definition of learning disability and must also allow other criteria based on Child’s response to scientific, research based intervention.

The other alternative research based criteria may also be adopted in determining a specific learning disability of a child. The federal definition of learning disability, as stated by the US Department of Education, states that “the child will be deemed to have a learning disability if the child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade–level standards” (U.S. Department of Education, 2006, p. 2).

The areas are basic reading skills, reading comprehension, reading fluency skills, mathematics computation, problem solving in mathematics, written and oral expression and listening expression. The criteria also extend to state that the student should not be in a position to make sufficient progress to attain the grade level standards that are set by the state as stated above. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) makes every effort to improve performance of students with disabilities in primary schools in United States. It provides leadership and financial to the relevant authorities to ensure they have enough resources to support the students struggling with learning and reading due to disabilities.

According to the U.S. Government Printing Office (n. d, p. 446), the child with disability mean a child has mental retardation, impairment on hearing, visual, speech among others that can hamper their ability to learn well. Such a child is also deemed to have special educational needs and related services in order to boost their reading and reading.

Understanding Dyslexia

Learning to read is a problem that is affecting most children in primary schools in the US today. This problem in some cases is evident even when the students have the normal intelligence and the required educational opportunities. The reading age of these children is behind their chronological age by 2-3 years (Mortimore and Crozier, 2006). This kind of disorder is called Dyslexia.

According to Wajuihian and Naidoo (2012), Dyslexia is defined as a neuro-developmental disorder in students that gives them learning and reading difficulties. The students portray such characteristics despite having been taken through conventional instructions, adequate intelligence and their sociocultural orientation is balanced. This learning has become very common in students, especially in high schools in United States today.

The academic performance of the students is adversely affected by reading difficulties (Welker, 2009). Dyslexia is said to be a specific reading disability because the children suffering from it have the normal development except for reading.

Wajuihian and Naidoo (2012) present three definitions of dyslexia by three distinct authorities (World Federal Nuerologists in 1968 and British Dyslexia Association). WFN states that dyslexia is a disorder that is characterized by the inability of students to read given the normal leaning environment. The students have the right intelligence, sociocultural background balance and the right instruction but still exhibit difficulties in reading (Tami, Young-Suk, Maryanne, Robin, and Maureen, 2008).

For BDA, the disorder is characterized by either difficulty to read, spell, or write words. The other weaknesses associated with this disorder include slow speed of processing, short-term memory, and organization weakness among others (Burden & Burdett, 2005). The presence of intellectual ability and educational opportunity does not preclude the occurrence of Dyslexia.

Wajuihian and Naidoo (2012) also distinguish between dyslexia and general reading abilities, both of which affect students’ performance in US secondary schools. They state that “Dyslexia is a mild neurological disorder that causes a deficit affecting an individual’s ability to interpret the symbols of written language, and it is independent of intelligence” (Wajuihian and Naidoo, 2012, p. 2). Dyslexia is a specific disorder while general reading disability is non-specific and that arises due to factors like “low intelligence, educational deprivation, socio-cultural deprivations, primary emotional problems, sensory impairments, poor motivation, or attention problems” (Wajuihian and Naidoo, 2012, p. 2).

Prevalence of Dyslexia in United States Primary Schools

80% of the students that are identified as having learning disability are diagnosed with dyslexia (Wajuihian and Naidoo, 2012, p. 3). This portrays dyslexia as the most common form of learning disability. The level of prevalence of dyslexia varies depending on the literature obtained and the country. In the United States of America, for example, dyslexia in in school aged children was found by Wajuihian and Naidoo as ranging from 5% – 17%.

The prevalence rate in the United Kingdom reveals that 3 – 6%. According to Shaywitz and Shaywitz (2005), the prevalence rate of dyslexia in the Unites States is estimated to be 5 – 17% among the students at school age while considering the entire population, 40% were found to have reading ability that is below the grade level. They revealed further that the disorder is the most common problem that affects both children and adults in the United States of America.

They also found that 80 percent of the individuals identified as having reading disability are diagnosed with dyslexia. Commenting on the cause of dyslexia, Shaywitz, S and Shaywitz (2005) also stated that dyslexia can be inherited by children from their parents. About 23 to 65 percent of students whose parents are suffering from dyslexia, 40% inherit the disorder. The research revealed that 27-49 percent of the parent whose children are dyslexics also have the disorder.

The findings of Shaywitz and Shaywitz (2005) seem to rhyme with that of Wajuihian and Naidoo (2012). According to International Dyslexia Association, as cited by Balido, Kupczynski, and Fedynich (2007), the population of Unites States people who have reading disability range from 15% to 20%. It is also stated that 85% of this group suffer from dyslexia. They further states that the problem is not a disease but a processing deficiency and cannot be cured but can be coped with using multisensory teaching methods.

Response to Intervention (RTI)

Response to intervention, according to Carreker and Malatesha (2010), was introduced following the enactment of Individual with Disabilities Act in 2004 in the United States of America. Following this enactment, RTI has been developed in primary schools in the US and it employs a 3 tier system (Lenski, 2012). According to Givens et al (2007, p. 14), the intervention that should be provided to the students with reading disabilities must adopt the principles stipulated in NCLB laws.

The laws states that scientifically based reading research (SBRR) should be used by schools to design reading programs to assist students who have difficulties in reading. The federal Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA 2004) that was enacted and passed in the same year fully complies with NCLB in addressing the quality of instruction in an environment with students suffering from dyslexia. It includes in its criteria “a process based on the student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention” (Givens et al (2007, p. 14).

Givens et al (2007, p. 14) defines RTI as a practice that seeks to address the academic and behavioral needs of students by offering services with the following elements:

1. High-Quality instruction interventions that address the individual needs of students
2. Students should be monitored frequently in order to reach at result-based decisions.
3. The student response data should be considered extensively in the educational decision making (Kavale, Holdnack and Mostert, 2006).

In general, the instructional approaches that are used by the must ensure that the academic and behavioral progress of most of the students in the country is improved (Burton, 2004). Vaughn et al (2008) defines RTI as an “approach to enhancing classroom instruction and systematically implementing more intensive interventions to meet the instructional needs of struggling learners” (p. 1).

The process involves conducting an accurate universal screening in order to ensure that all students with reading disabilities are identified and given attention that they deserve (Ghelani, Sidhu, Jain and Tannock (2004). There is also continuous monitoring to ensure that there is positive response to interventions that are made. Vaughn et al (2008) describes two forms of interventions that may be appropriate to the students in high schools and other levels to mitigate the problem of dyslexia. The first type of intervention is standard protocols intervention.

Standardized Intervention

This type involves entails empirically validated interventions to all the students suffering from dyslexia. In this case, the materials and instruction are adapted to the student’s current reading level. The implementation of this strategy is the same for all the students that are targeted by the intervention. The standardized intervention is difficult when implemented to older students because reading difficulty is harder to deal with in older students. For the primary schools in the United States, this method is applicable because they are younger students it is not problematic to implement the program among them (Beth, 2009).

The solution in the case of the older students is to employ standardized intervention in small groups of 3 to 18 students. This case will require the parties implementing to take some factors into consideration. Firstly, each student should be diagnoses to make sure that critical elements of the problem are addressed by the intervention. The texts that are motivating and interesting students should also be taken into consideration. The social and behavioral support is the other factors to be considered to engage the students in the intervention period.

Individualized interventions

Extensive research has been conducted concerning standardized intervention but too little is done about the individualized intervention. According to Vaughn et al (2008), “Particularly with older students, individualized interventions may be necessary because the range of reading difficulties is likely to vary based on the learning needs of students, the reasons for their reading difficulties, and the gap between their performance and grade-level expectations” (p. 4). The method addresses the reading needs on individual students.

RTI Vs. Discrepancy Model

In this model four criteria must be employed before eligibility for the SLD. Firstly, a discrepancy must be established between cognitive or intellectual ability and the child’s academic achievement. This recognizes that intellectual ability may not always replicate in academic achievement. Secondly, determination of any cognitive or psychological processing difficulty or deficit must be done (O’Donnell and Miller, 2011). Thirdly, an assessment must be conducted to determine whether child’s education must or must not be necessarily met through special education. Educational needs for a child must be categorized whether are such that they must only be provided through special means. Lastly, exclusionary considerations must be factored.

Discrepancy model has been met with criticism for its numerous shortcomings. The problems of discrepancy model have been unearthed by many writers over the past thirty years. Its use has made it difficult to identify children with learning difficulties early enough. This has consequently barred early interventions. Therefore, it is common for such students to progressively fail in before their academic achievement falls far way below their IQ (Restori, Katz, and Lee, 2009).

It, therefore, means that it is only after much time has elapsed that they are recognized as needing special education. It is actually evident that the number classified as having learning disability increase significantly in the third grades. This is because the model has an altitude of wait to fail something that does not argue well. This model culminates into a loss instructional time. Was this not the case there would have significant differences to the overall number of the victims.

The model has given a room for those children at risk for learning disability not to be identified at earlier stages something that would have made things be mended to mitigate the condition. Because of this shortcoming then approach such as RTI would be appropriate in cases where early identification and intervention is necessary. Another criticism leveled against this model is its inconsistent way in which medical practitioners apply it. According to a study by Sheri, Ozgul and Leah (2004), it was discovered that half of those identified as children with learning disabilities had not actually met the threshold of so being considered and therefore were not eligible.

A good number of researchers have discovered that eligibility criteria for SLD are not applied uniformly across the states. Such inconsistency negates the objectivity of the discrepancy model which was well intentioned. This also is likely to lead to a situation whereby the schools will be using their own perceptions in rating students as one with learning disabilities. This will not go well for the United State especially in implementing any policy regarding LD. When there lacks clear guidelines in identifying LD then schools will a leeway to act anyhow.

According to Higgin and Raskind (2004), the third criticism of IQ-achievement discrepancy model appears due to the fact that students who have long-term achievement problem do not receive adequate attention from educators since they are considered to be slow learners. For instance, a child may have 85 in IQ score and 70 in reading decoding- he or she will likely not receive any specialized education. In this case student IQ does not warrant a special education (Restori, Katz, and Lee, 2009).

Although it may appear as if a child with a reading decoding score of 70 as warranting special education this might not always be the case (Hruby and Hynd, 2006). Psychologists are in a kind of dilemma on whether such children need special education especially in the light of legal constrains. They try to navigate between doing what is seemingly the right thing and what actually the law stipulates. Discrepancy model has largely been considered inappropriate in helping the situation.

This is especially because of the way it tackles the early identification and the time taken to initiate an intervention (Stone, 2010). Moreover, the misinterpretation of its approach and the inconsistent manner in which it is applied not only within but also across the states. Medics have been so ignorant in implementing it such that the end result is to achieve the intended objectives. The model seems to focus more on the issues to do with eligibility which again could have time lags because of different identification stages. While some can be identified as those with learning disabilities at an advanced stage some may take a little while only for the necessary measures to be taken when it is too late (Vaughn et al., 2008).

Assistive technology

Dyslexia is a condition that is now well known by people and appreciated as ways of helping individual with such condition live a normal healthy life. Assistive technology is one such intervention aimed at helping the persons with dyslexia cope with the condition. Dyslexia is a condition whose basis is a problem with the neural system and it has nothing to do with the student’s ability or intelligence (Kenneth, 2013).

Such students have difficulty in learning and have characteristics such as reading words in the wrong order. According to Kenneth (2013), there is need for a tutor to fully understand the student and the condition that they are suffering from for an effective learning to take place. The tutor should also spend time with the student to know their specific needs and therefore get the most effective approach for learning. According to Conway and Amberson (2011), Learning for the students with the condition has been made easier by the use of technology where devices are made with special features.

One such device is the Apple’s iPod touch device which can be used at various capacities by student with different level of learning ability (Skyler and Ashley, 2008). Smart board is another technology that has been developed to aid in the learning process. The smart aids the users to manipulate and use data as images, texts, drawings and other forms that may be relevant for the learning process (Skyler and Ashley, 2008). It therefore is better and advanced that the traditional board but the iPod touch is superior to it. The major reason for this is due to the portability of the iPod and its better multifunction ability.

Assistive technology aids in easing the functional ability of the student with disability but it is crucial to know the level that they are in. the reason for this is because as much as a group of students may have dyslexia, they may be at different level and severity (Alper and Sahoby, 2006). Assistive technology is well appreciated as a solution for the students with the learning disability (Alper and Sahoby, 2006). However they describe several challenges that make the idea not to be in use and such is the financial limitations of the families with such students. The equipments are expensive and many families cannot afford them no matter how helpful they are.

Additionally the education system has not been fully adapted for use in such a level and thus anyone using such will either custom make or get it at a high price. Another challenge is that the tutor themselves may not have the ability to use the technology and therefore the use of the devices may prove hard for them (Alper and Sahoby, 2006). In a study conducted by Draffan, Evans and Blenkhorn (2007) involving students in the post-secondary level showed that the majority, up to 90% were satisfied with the technology that they used. Those used in the survey had received and used various software and hardware for use during their learning process.

The fact that these people appreciated the use of the technology is a clear indicator that assistive technology is really helpful. The oxford reading pen is another example of assistive technology that can be used by the people with dyslexia. This tool as described by Ian (2008), in his study, aids the students to better their skills in reading and comprehension. The tool was shown to increase the user’s ability to comprehend, better their reading skills and read for meaning at the level of the student’s age. Mathew, Jamie, Amanda & Gerhard (2010) carried out a survey that showed technology is very helpful for students in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.

Since this field involves a lot of mastery of content, the study showed the use of limiting the content to be read can help such students. Assistive technology can be defined as a great break for students with dyslexia but necessary mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that it is effective.

Reading intervention

Intervention is crucial for children with learning disabilities and if done in a timely manner it may reduce the severity of the disability. It can be however given at different times but at whatever time this is started, it is very crucial for the leaning development of the child with learning disability especially for those diagnosed early. Frank, Donna & Diane (2006) in their study in 2006 showed that early intervention is a good remedy for children who are suspected or seen with signs of learning disability. Their study focused their intervention to children as young as those in kindergarten and continued into first grade (Swanson, 2009).

Children who were intervened for at such an early age showed lesser severity in the learning disability after review. All students who attend school receive a certain level of intervention to aid them learn. However students who receive additional intervention other than what is provided in the school were seen to perform better (Sharon et al., 2010). These students performed better in comprehension, vocabularies and word fluency.

Alot of research has been done in the area of providing intervention especially in the elementary schools. It is important to ensure continuity of the learning process for these students as they proceed to the secondary level. For this reason researches has been done to ensure academic success and even the ability to recognize learning disabilities in the secondary school level. The administrators of such institutions should therefore consider the use of intervention for their students.

These may be the first time they are identified or they are transitioning to a higher grade. The reason this is because secondary school level has more advanced needs as compared to the ones in the elementary schools and thus the need for a tailor made intervention for these students. How students respond to intervention has long been used to determine whether they have the learning disability or not (Kenneth, James and Mark, 2006). This is very crucial so that those identified as having the disabilities are intervened for early enough to prevent deterioration of their condition and aid in faster initiation of progressive learning.

Deborah and Jerry (2007), explains that due to the increasing interest in the issue surrounding dyslexia, more research has been done in the area. They further found out that intervention such as using scripted reading has come a long way to help the issue of the learning process. It is therefore necessary for the teachers of special education with such students to adopt such interventions for their students (Sansosti, Noltemeyer and Goss, 2010).

Additionally, the federal laws have helps in ensuring that such facilities are availed to such student. Students with learning disabilities are not lesser that others and should therefore not be discriminated against when they should be offered education (Swanson, and O’Connor, 2009). An equal chance to read means that the necessary facilities for learning are availed to aid in the learning according to the individual’s capacity (Higgins and Marshall, 2004).

Proper mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that students with dyslexia get due help such as through goal setting (Louise, Sean and martin, 2007). Such students are very productive when assisted to make reasonable goals and helped in the journey to achieve them. Colleagues and tutors of such students should also be aided in how to handle and help them towards their goal. Models showing the response to any intervention given to students should be developed with special emphasis to students with visual impairment (Hannan, Holbrook and Ricci, 2012).

This helps to reduce the likelihood of student with impaired vision from not excelling in the academics. According to them, the tutors of such students should be actively involved in the development of such models. This way, what is produces will meet the actual needs of such students. In a commentary to a previous article, Sharon and Jack (2010), clarified that intervention at the secondary school level need not be a fresh start but can be a buildup on what was already done in the elementary school.

Direct instruction

According to Voit (2008), it is important to recognize that dyslexia is a learning disability requiring specialized intervention and approach to deal with it. According to him, the federal law provides for specialized learning and teaching methods to be developed so as to deal with the issue within the learning institutions. There is need for the involvement of the school heads as well as the tutors themselves for the successful development of such models (Margaret & Jenifer, 2007).

This will ensure that the model produced will be effective for the purpose for which it was created in the first place. Direct instruction is one such model or approach to teaching which has been used and proven useful. It has been shown to be positively related to the learning process of the students with learning disabilities (Margret and Jennifer, 2007). The studies showed that this approach to teaching was highly effective and the students whose tutors used it had better response in regards to their learning. Learning was majorly done by the use of examples, facts and analogies which proved very resourceful.

Elizabeth (2008) proved that the use of instruction as an approach to learning was positive especially in the area of general introduction for the student. The teacher is able to walk with the student at every stage of their development thus progress. In a study that was done by Amy, Deborah, and Kristine (2006) showed that the aspect of corrective reading had a positive effect on the reading abilities of the students.

The study further showed that the students and their tutors did not mind the approach and they considered an important aspect for the reading to be done. Asha, Edwards, Gabriel and Lisa (2004), conducted a study to determine the importance of the use of direct instructions of key words in enhancing comprehension. The results showed that when the key words were introduced before the whole text was, and then comprehension was increased (King, Lemons and Hill, 2012). The reason for this was because the key works gave a general understanding of the text which was further enhanced with the reading of the whole text.

Learning disability does not have a link with the intelligence level of the person and therefore they should not be treated as persons with lower intelligence (Dimitris and Stavroula, 2009). In their study, Sheri, Ozgul and Leah (2004), describes a model of reading that would be more effective in identifying the levels of learning disability as opposed to the use of intelligence as a measure for the same. This will help to remove the discrepancy that has existed in identifying these persons early. This will further help in treating the learning disability since once a person is identified as unable to ready measures can be taken. The faster and earlier the interventions can be done the easier the ability to deal with the problem.

Instructing students with dyslexia has continued over a long time and it is important to note that this has been successful to a great extent so far. However, certain skills, as noted by Tilly and Ray (2006), have not focused on some important aspects such as academic writing for such students. Therefore teaching approaches should be improved to ensure that such skills and others like ideas organization can be done by the students. Direct instruction can thus be said to be a highly rewarding approach to learning for the people with learning disabilities (Wahlberg & Magliano, 2004).

Peer tutoring

In a study that conducted by Dufrene et al (2010), it showed that peer tutoring had significant positive effect on the reading capabilities of the person. The students used in this study showed that the students ability to read and was improved when remedial peer tutoring sessions were introduced above what they were given in the class. Another reason for the success of the peer tutoring according to the study is due to the manner in which the tutoring were conducted (Provost, LaMbert and Babkie, 2010).

The fellow students who were giving their students the training did it with a lot of respect and did not sideline the student for failure to learn. This was probably due to the fact they well understood that it is difficult since they also have the same condition. David, Tracey and Elizabeth (2008) in their study indicated that learning for the persons with learning disabilities is made easier in an environment of sensory calm. Such is the environment that is created when peers are used as educators.

Since these people are free and used to each other thus they can easily interact in a way that ease the atmosphere and, therefore, learning takes place better. This when compared with when students are only taught by their classroom teacher shows results for the students. According to Snow, Burns & Griffin, 2009), different students have varied levels of control and ability to fit in new or unfamiliar situations and it is necessary to avoid such situations especially for learning to take place. Remedial classes have been shown to improve the reading and spelling of such students and such is the one that is offered in peer tutoring.

Kathleen (2013) did a study in this topic and gave a guide on how to deal with students with learning disabilities other than for the normal classroom times. The guide can be easily be used by the parents or even other students can still use it. If this is put into use it can prove very useful for the process of learning. Louise, Sean and Martin (2007) further demonstrated how the use of an enabling environment in the school can ease the learning process for these students.

According to them, the students in the same school with the ones with learning disability play a major role in their goals. Since the students are aided to achieve goals they set to achieve in their leaning and this way it is easier for the students. The teachers on the other hand were involved in the students learning process but not in the capacity of teachers but as mentors for the students with the disability. As seen above, peer tutoring is one of the approaches that need to be used as a strategy for learning to compliment classroom learning (Richard, 2006). This has been shown to work well in the various studies described and have positive effect on the students learning.

Computer assisted technology

A lot of research has been put in the technology world to aid the students with dyslexia have an easier time learning. One such a function is by the use of iPod for learning with the various applications that are available (Joshua, 2013). Students use the applications depending on their level and severity of the condition. Most of these applications are free and others are available online at a very subsidized cost thus making them easily accessible.

Some of these read to the user and others has facilities such as different colors and figures that the learner can even touch. Poor ability to express oneself in writing is a major feature noted in students with dyslexia and therefore use of electric means of communication is easier for them and the recipient (Stephen & Alden, 2006). Computer programs have been developed to aid students who have severe reading and speech recognition problems and this has proved very efficient (Higgin and Raskind, 2004). These prove very resourceful in helping such to read and recognize sounds without which this was also most impossible for them.

Wajuihian and Naidoo (2012) noted that children with dyslexia can either have reading, writing or comprehension disorder or have a combination of this and therefore any technology that would be used to help is very vital. Initiatives to use technology have been embraced by many and such is the laptop use in classrooms initiative as described by Paul and Jessica (2011). The use of the laptops eased the learning process especially due to its ability to be used anywhere since they are portable. Rosemarie, Jeanine and Ludo (2005) did a study to determine the effect of automation on the learning ability of students with learning disability.

There results showed that students who were taught using automated methods leant faster especially in reading and text than their counterparts who used the traditional manual approach to learning. Use of other automated tools such as one to assess comprehension is now being adopted to assess the ability (Joseph and Keith 2010). They showed that such a tool was just as effective in assessing the ability of learners with learning disability for their comprehension. Use of computers cannot be over emphasized and in the current era of information technology, a lot of progress has been done. This has not left out persons with learning disabilities as is evident from the text which has partly solved their problem.

Reference List

Aaron, P., Joshi, M., Regina, G. & Kwesi, E. (2008). Diagnosis and Treatment of Reading Disabilities Based on the Component model of reading. The Learning Disabilities, 41(1). 67-76.

Alper, S. & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities A Review and Synthesis of the Literature. The journal of special education technology, 21 (2), 47-64.

Amy, L., Deborah, B., & Kristine, J. (2006). Effects of corrective reading on the reading Abilities and classroom behaviors of middle school students with reading deficits and challenging behavior. Journal of Behavioral Disorders 31(3), 265-283.

Asha, J., Edwards, L., Gabriel, S., and Lisa, J. (2004). What Research Says about Vocabulary Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70 (3), 299-322.

Balido, L., Kupczynski, L and Fedynich, L. (2007). An analysis of dyslexic students at The elementary level. Journal of Case Studies in Education, 1(1), 1-11.

Beth, A. (2009). Videotaped Oral Reading Fluency Lab: An Alternative Approach to One-On-One Intervention for Intermediate Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities. U.S: ProQuest LLC.

Burden, R. & Burdett, J. (2005). Factors associated with successful learning in pupils with dyslexia: A motivational analysis. British Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 100-104.

Burton, S. (2004). Self-esteem groups for secondary students with dyslexia. Educational Psychologyin Practice, 20(1), 55-73.

Carreker, S and Malatesha, R. (2010). Response to Intervention: Are the Emperor’s Clothes really new? Psicothema, 22(4), 943-948.

Catone, W and Brady, S. (2005).The Inadequacy of Individual Educational Program (IEP) Goals for High School Students with Word-level Reading Difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(1), 2005: 1-27.

David, H. (2008). Accurate for all: Universal design for learning and the Assessment of students with learning disabilities. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 34 (4), 23-25, 28.

David, R, Tracey, H. & Elizabeth, M. (2008). Accurate for All: Universal Design for Learning and the Assessment of Students with Learning Disabilities. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 34 (4), 23-25, 28.

Deborah, C and Jerry, A. (2007). Rethinking Dyslexia, Scripted Reading, and Federal Mandates: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same. Instructional Psychology, 34(1), 3-12.

Dimitris, A and Stavroula, P. (2009). Identification and Over identification Of Specific Learning Disabilities (Dyslexia) In Greece. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(2), 55-69.

Draffan, A., Evans, D. & Blenkhorn. (2007). Use of assistive technology by students with Dyslexia in post-secondary education. Informa health care; Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2(2), 105 – 116.

Dufrene, B., Reisener, C. Olmi, D. Martell, K., Mcnut, M. & Horn, D. (2010). Peer Tutoring for Reading Fluency as a Feasible and Effective Alternative in Response to Intervention. Informa health care; Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2(2), 105 – 116.

Elizabeth, A. (2008). Observing reading instruction for students with learning disabilities: A Synthesis Learning Disability. Quarterly, 31(3), 115-133.

Enns, C and Lafond, L. (2007). Reading against All Odds: A Pilot Study of Two Deaf Students with Dyslexia. AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF, 152(1), 63-73.

Frank, R. Donna, M. & Diane, F. (2006). Response to Intervention as a Vehicle for Distinguishing Between children with and without learning disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39 (2),157.

Ghelani, K., Sidhu, R., Jain, U and Tannock, R. (2004). Reading Comprehension and Reading Related Abilities in Adolescents with Reading Disabilities and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. DYSLEXIA, 10 (1), 364–384.

Givens, A., Torres-Martinez, N., Martinez, M., Callaway, K., Crippen, S and Miller, K. (2007). Procedures Concerning Dyslexia and Related Disorders. Dyslexia Handbook, 1(1), 1-113.

Conway, F and Amberson, J. (2011). Laptops meet schools, one-one draw: m-learning For secondary students with literacy difficulties. Support for Learning, 26(4), 1-10.

Hannan, K. Holbrook, M. & Ricci, A. (2012). Applying a response to intervention modelTo Lit eracy instructions for students who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(2), 71.

Higgins, E and Marshall, R. (2004). Speech Recognition-based and Automaticity Programs to Help Students with Severe Reading and Spelling Problems. Annals Of Dyslexia, 54 (2), 365-92.

Hruby, G and Hynd, W. (2006). Decoding Shaywitz: The modular brain and its Discontents. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 544-556.

Ian, J. (2008). Does the Oxford Reading Pen Enhance Reading Accuracy and Comprehension in Secondary Schools. Considerations for administrators, 9(1), 36.

Joseph, M. & Keith, M. (2010). Assessing comprehension during reading with the Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (RSAT). Metacognition Learning, 6(1),131–154.

Joshua, J. (2013). IPads: Tools/Apps that Help the Learning Process. The Yale centre Of dyslexia and creativity. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47-64.

Kathleen, D. (2013). Smart Kids with Learning Difficulties: Overcoming Obstacles and Realizing Potential. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30 (3), 396-403,415.

Kenneth, J. (2013).Teaching a student with dyslexia. Journal of Singing, 69(4), 429-435.

Kenneth, A., James, H. & Mark, M. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention and the Identification of specific learning disability. A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29 (2), 113.

Kavale, K., Holdnack, J and Mostert, M. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention and the Identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(1), 1-15.

King, S., Lemons, C and Hill, D. (2012). Response to Intervention in Secondary Schools: Considerations for Administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 96(1), 5 –22.

Lenski, S. (2012). What RTI Means for Content Area Teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55 (4), 276-283.

Louise, L., Sean, M. & Martin, M. (2007). Supporting students with dyslexia at the secondary level: An emotional model of literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2), 124-134.

O’Donnell, P and Miller, D. (2011). Discrepancy Model versus Response to Intervention Identifying Students with Specific Learning Disabilities: School Psychologists’ Acceptability of the Acceptability of the Discrepancy Model versus Response to Intervention. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(83), 1-13.

Margaret, B. & Jenifer, B. (2007). Effectiveness of Direct Instruction for Teaching Statement Inference, Use of Facts, and Analogies to Students with Developmental Disabilities and Reading Delays. Focus on autism and other developmental disabilities, 22 (4), 244-251.

Mathew, H., Jamie, K., Amanda, H., & Gerhard. (2010). Using Technology to SupportSTE M Reading. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25 (3), 21-33.

Mortimore, T and Crozier, W. (2006). Dyslexia and difficulties with study Skills in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 235–251.

Paul, F. & Jessica, A. (2011). Laptops meet schools, one-one draw: m-learning for Secondary Students with literacy difficulties. British journal for learning disabilities, 69 (2), 235–251.

Provost, M., LaMbert, M and Babkie, A. (2010). Informal Reading Inventories Creating Teacher-Designed Literature-Based Assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45 (4), 211-220.

Restori, A., Katz, G and Lee, H. (2009). A Critique of the IQ / Achievement Discrepancy Model for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 128-145.

Richard, O. (2006). Genes, Environment, and Dyslexia the 2005 Norman Geschwind Memorial Lecture. Annals of Dyslexia, 56(2), 205-38.

Rosemarie, S. Jeanne, D & Ludo, V. (2005). Benefits of Computer-presented Speed Training for Poor readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(2), 261.

Sandra, A and Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47-64.

Sansosti, F., Noltemeyer, A and Goss, S. (2010). Principals’ Perceptions of the Importance and Availability of Response to Intervention Practices within High School Settings. School Psychology Review, 39 (2), 286–295.

Sheri, A., Ozgul, Y and Leah, W. (2004). Middle and High School Students with Learning Disabilities: Practical Academic Interventions for General Education Teachers: A Review Of the Literature. American Secondary Education, 32(2), 19-38.

Sharon, V and Jack, M. (2010). Thoughts on rethinking response to intervention with secondary Students. School Psychology Review, 2010, 39(2), 296–299.

Sharon, V., Paul, T., Jeanne, W., Jade, W., Jack, M., Carolyn, D., Amy, B., Mellissa, R. & Francis, D. (2010). Response to Intervention for Middle School Students With Reading Difficulties: Effects of a Primary and Secondary Intervention. School Psychology Review, 39 (1), 3–21.

Shaywitz, S and Shaywitz, B. (2005).The Neurobiology of Reading and Dyslexia. Focus On Basics, 1(2), 10-14.

Skyler, A. and Ashley, M. (2008). Assistive technology. Special education technology, 23 (2), 45-49.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (2009). Preventing reading difficulties in young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stephen, C. & Alden, P. (2006). The advantages of using electronic processes for Commenting on and exchanging the written work of students with learning disabilities and/ orad/hd. Composition Studies, 34 (2), 43-57,154.

Stone, A. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of strategy training for learning disabled students: The role of communicational dynamics. Remedial and Special Education, 10 (1), 35-41.

Swanson, H. L. (2009). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of Intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(1), 504-53.

Swanson, L and O’Connor, R. (2009).The Role of Working Memory and Fluency Practice on the Reading Comprehension of Students Who Are Dysfluent Readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(6), 548-575.

Tami, K., Young-Suk, K., Maryanne, W., Robin, M and Maureen, L. (2008). The Varieties of Pathways to Dysfluent Reading: Comparing Subtypes of Children With dyslexia at letter, word, and connected text level of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 47-66.

The U.S. Government Printing Office. (n. d). Public Law 108-446, 108th Congress. Web.

Tilly, M and Ray, C. (2006). Dyslexia and difficulties with study skills in higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 235–251.

Undheim, A. (2009). A Thirteen-year Follow-up Study of Young Norwegian Adults with Dyslexia in Childhood: Reading Development and Educational Levels. DYSLEXIA, 15(1), 291–303.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities. US: Office of Special Education Programs. Web.

Vaughn, S., Fletcher J., Francis, J., Denton, A., Jeann, W., Cirino, P., Barth, A., Romain, M and Wexler, J. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 338–345.

Voit, S. (2008).The Importance of Recognizing Dyslexia as an Educational Condition: A Parent-Professional’s View Perspectives. Language and Literacy, 34(1), 11-14.

Wadlington, E and Wadlington, P. (2005). What Educators Really Believe About Dyslexia? Reading Improvement, 42(1), 16-33.

Wahlberg, T. & Magliano, P. (2004). The ability of high functioning individuals with Autism to comprehend written discourse. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 119-144.

Wajuihian, S & Naidoo, K. (2012). Dyslexia: An overview. African vision research Institute: A Research paper, 38(1), 119-144.

Welker, W. (2009). The road signs of reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(8), 644-647.

Dyslexia is a learning disorder which manifests itself through difficulty in reading and writing. Dyslexics best visualize pictures hence have a problem using letters. It thus becomes difficult for them to learn as quickly as other students. Several measures have been developed to assist the students. This paper discusses Kurzweil 3000 a computer program used to assist such students.

Kurzweil 3000 is a computer program which allows user to scan a page and view it on a computer screen. It reads the scanned text aloud therefore the user can read and hear the text at the same time. It also offers critical study skills, file management as well as editing skills. This is very helpful to a student who cannot read or write fast as it combines the two senses of hearing and seeing to improve clarity and speed (Kurzweil 3000 Para 2)

The program is run on a computer. All the available features are clearly displayed on the top bar of the default screen supplemented with pictures. When the document is scanned, it appears on the screen. The user can then opt to read through the text continuously or at a comfortable pace with the help of the voice features. Each word when voiced out is highlighted on the screen. The user can also choose the reading unit. A reading unit could be a phrase, line, sentence, Heading, word or a highlight. In addition, the software understands words in French Spanish, German, Dutch and Italian. The program even has the options of using different regional inflections in speaking the language. Schools can use the server based version which is able to support different needs for hundreds of students (Kurzweil 3000 Para 3).

Interestingly, the software is very adaptable and can be used by children in the school starting age as well as adults. The cost of the Kurzweil 3000 software ranges from $ 1,995 to $ 1,495 depending on the additional features in the software. This may be considered costly but considering the programs ability to help learners, the investment is very viable.

The program has been very successful in assisting dyslexics especially children in the school going age to keep pace with other students. This is very important in boosting their self confidence.

Williams performed a review of the software and was stunned to realize the extreme simplicity in use of the software. The user is able to perform all tasks easily and very fast. He concludes that the program adopts a multisensory approach to the process of learning and has the ability to improve reading speed as well as comprehension for dyslexics and other people with learning disabilities (Williams, Para 4).

Joyce Johnson a mother of four daughters with learning disabilities has used the program and attests to the positive contribution towards her daughters learning. Before discovering Kurzweil 3000, her eldest daughter was to be put in a slow learner’s class as she could not match the learning speed of other children. She however knew her daughter could easily absorb information but could not easily read. The only option was for her to learn by hearing. While in middle school, her two daughters relied on human readers which meant that they had to be isolated from their classmates and put on special schedule which made them feel isolated (Johnson, Para 3).

On discovering Kurzweil 3000, the girls could read and do homework speedily and were not isolated from others. They became happier as they could find time to play with other children an at the same time get hope to pursue their dreams (Johnson, Para 4).

Indeed, Kurzweil has proven to be a very handy tool towards the education of dyslexics and persons with other disabilities and should be made more affordable and available to a wider range of users.

Works Cited

Johnson, J. Mother of Four Daughters Using Kurzweil 3000. Customer Profile Kurzweil Educational Systems. 2006. Web.

Kurzweil 3000. Solutions for struggling Readers. Kurzweil Educational Systems. 2006. Web.

Williams, J. Kurzweil 3000: Pay a Lot, Get a Lot. Assistive Technology. BusinessWeek. 2001. Web.

Introduction

Educationists and policymakers have been working on ways to ensure inclusion in education whereby students with special needs are fully integrated into the mainstream system (Buli-Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban 2016). However, in some cases, such students require special attention to ensure that they get a quality education.

Discussion

According to Huag (2016), inclusive education requires a change of attitude by teachers as they play a central role in determining how students perceive and interact with learning contents and materials. Carrington (1999) highlights the need to foster a culture that allows students with special needs to function optimally in the mainstream education system. For instance, dyslexic students may not perform well when subjected to normal testing methods.

Therefore, teachers need to adopt multiple ways as alternatives to written tests. In the theory of multiple intelligences, Howard Garber proposes a model whereby human intelligence is differentiated into specific modalities (Sener & Cokcaliskan 2018). This approach departs from the conventional way of thinking where intelligence is assumed to be dominated by a general ability. Teachers working in fully inclusive schools have formed a value base that offers a platform for students with special needs to enjoy quality education in the mainstream system (Suprapto, Lui & Ku 2017).

Some of the multiple ways that teachers can adopt when testing dyslexic students include creative art, dance, oral dialogue, multimedia presentations, projects, and tape recording. For instance, instead of requiring dyslexic students to write down answers during tests, learners can be allowed to give oral answers. This way, the teacher saves such students the trouble of having to write down answers, which is a problem for them. If the answers must be written down, a teacher can read the test questions to students, allow them to respond orally, and write the answers himself or herself. Alternatively, students can be allowed to record test answers on tapes.

Conclusion

Additionally, dyslexic students can be allowed to take tests in quiet locations with minimal distractions away from classrooms. In other cases, dyslexic students with sensory processing challenges can be allowed to make physical movements in the classroom during tests. This approach improves their attention through physical stimulation. Therefore, teachers should tailor testing approaches based on the individual student’s needs. However, Paliokosta and Blandford (2010) note that one of the barriers to ensuring fully inclusive education is teachers’ knowledge and conceptualizations. This problem can be addressed by ensuring that teachers are involved in policymaking together with being given requisite skills to empower them conceptually and practically for inclusive teaching.

Reference List

Buli-Holmberg, J & Jeyaprathaban, S 2016, ‘Effective practice in inclusive and special needs education’, International Journal of Special Education, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 119-134.

Carrington, S 1999, ‘Inclusion needs a different school culture’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 257-268.

Haug, P 2016, ‘Understanding inclusive education: ideals and reality’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 206-217.

Paliokosta, P & Blandford, S 2010, ‘Inclusion in school: a policy, ideology or lived experience? Similar findings in diverse school cultures’, British Journal of Learning and Support, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 179-186.

Sener, S & Cokcaliskan, A 2018, ‘An investigation between multiple intelligences and learning styles’, Journal of Education and Training Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 125-132.

Suprapto, N, Lui, W-Y, Ku, C-H 2017, ‘The implementation of multiple intelligence in (science) classroom: from empirical into critical’, Pedagogy, vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 214-227.

Dyslexia is a fairly well-known condition, about the details of which, however, most people know practically nothing. Therefore, a detailed study of this topic can be shocking, eye-opening. In my case, learning about dyslexia, the difference in reading, and how to evaluate and teach children with dyslexia was a somewhat humiliating but gratifying experience for me. The more I studied this topic, the more I realized how big the knowledge gap is and how important it is to fill it. Despite my initial ignorance, being honest with myself helped me effectively assess the missing knowledge and grow professionally by observing such students’ lives.

First of all, my lack of detailed understanding of the topic prevented me from realizing the number of components that dyslexia consists of. Contrary to common stereotypical misconception, this condition is associated with many more problems than just seeing letters or words backward. I obtained helpful insight and detailed information through a thorough study of a specialized test designed for a child with dyslexia. According to Dr. Cruger, tests for assessing the condition of a student are divided into five categories, evaluating the main groups of knowledge that are vital for any person (Understood, 2017). These include all possible ways of obtaining information and communication: speaking skills, reading, pronunciation, writing, and an overall assessment of background knowledge.

A detailed study of each of these groups allows drawing up a general portrait of the child, describe their situation, and give an idea of ​​possible ways to solve problems. For example, checking the general level of knowledge can show how a student is lagging behind due to their problems, not having time to master the material (Understood, 2017). The study of spelling and oral language skills allows assessing the issues with the perception of speech and sounds. As Dr. Cruger demonstrates, using both conventional and “nonsense” words, identifying and manipulating individual sounds is critical to the entire learning process, both reading and writing.

Studying and observing a detailed assessment of the child’s condition allowed me to identify a considerable amount of helpful information for myself, which can be used in my future work. For example, knowing how dyslexia is assessed, what symptoms and factors can be used to conclude speech problems, one can notice these moments right in the learning process. Such an analysis will require constant attention to children and concentration, which, of course, is a challenging process. However, for children’s sake, it is necessary to try to introduce such elements into the educational process, thereby helping both the children themselves and their parents pay attention to difficult moments in time.

In addition, to simply highlighting the problems, an additional alternative is to introduce various kinds of exercises into the educational process. For example, the Orton-Gillingham program, discussed in one of the videos, helps children with dyslexia through special activities (PRIDE Reading Program, 2020). Before reading this material, I had no idea how vital things like kinesthetic movements or physical interaction through play can be in learning and correcting problems like this. However, from a logical point of view, it makes sense. Children with dyslexia need a different approach to learning that will enable them to overcome difficult moments, such as words that cannot be sounded out phonetically (PRIDE Reading Program, 2020). Knowing at least the basics of such curricula will allow me, if necessary, to modify the learning process for students with dyslexia, offering them an alternative task that meets their requirements.

Thus, a detailed study of this course, analysis of student assessment tools and special training programs allowed me to rethink my approach to teaching children in many ways and realize the problems of children with dyslexia. However, timely analysis of this topic and recognition of knowledge gaps allowed me to grow significantly and become a more qualified specialist. In the future, I will put this knowledge into practice, being more attentive to the problems of students with dyslexia.

References

PRIDE Reading Program. (2020). The Orton Gillingham lesson [Video]. YouTube. Web.

Understood. (2017). Inside a dyslexia evaluation [Video]. YouTube. Web.

Introduction

The Local Education Agencies are public authorities that legally provide administrative control and service functions for schools in a state, county, city, and school districts. LEAs provide services or employment for professionals who provide services to children included in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which may include occupational, physical, and speech therapy. TEA is the Texas Education Agency overseeing secondary public education by providing guidance, leadership, and support for school systems (“The Dyslexia Handbook,” 2021). This paper aims to analyze, how the Dyslexia program in the Houston school district can be aligned with the TEA’s latest requirements, and how this program correlates with IDEA.

How Students Are Referred to Suspected Dyslexia

Dyslexia is a reading disability when the student cannot map sounds into letters to read and spell the words automatically. Currently, if a student is referred for suspected dyslexia under IDEA particular tests or screening is made to determine the condition. Aspects like parental refusal to permit their child to further participate in dyslexia-related interventions can trigger a referral. The determinants of dyslexia and the procedures for its evaluation are described in the TEA Handbook, which is based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504 (2008), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act.

To be referred to suspected dyslexia, the students pass the screening and evaluation procedures. The evaluation process is based on federal and state requirements; the evaluation and identification of the condition are based on the guidance described in IDEA. No less important, the testing for dyslexia should be made under the program provided by the State Board of Education. The screening is usually performed at the end of the school year for students in kindergarten and first-grade students. According to the TEA Handbook, the screening is seen as “a universal measure administered to all students by qualified personnel to determine which students are at risk for dyslexia or reading difficulties and/or a related disorder” (“The Dyslexia Handbook,” 2021, p. 21). Noteworthy, the screening and its results are not considered as an automatic referral for suspected dyslexia.

The data obtained from screening and evaluation does not lead to suspicion if the evaluation team does not find enough evidence. Otherwise, if the IDEA-guided evaluation procedure based on the data collected regarding the student’s reading and comprehension abilities proves dyslexia, the student is then referred to participate in the instruction and intervention program based on their educational institution. The instruction and intervention may be provided by the student’s teacher, or by the employee specially trained to provide such instructions and interventions.

Parental Consent

Parental consent is required to submit the student with the suspected dyslexia to participation in intervention and instruction programs outlined by IDEA and Section 504. According to the TEA Handbook, if the LEA suspects that a student has dyslexia, it should seek parental informed consent to receive a Full Individual Initial Evaluation (FIIE) developed in the framework of IDEA (“The Dyslexia Handbook,” 2021). In particular, in the analysis showing that the student exhibits the features of reading or other learning disabilities, the educational service provider should seek parental consent.

If the school gets such consent, the FIIE is conducted within 45 school days, and the ARD committee that includes the parent meets and reviews the FIIE results. If the parent does not give consent for FIIE, the LEA should seek parental consent for a Section 504 evaluation. If the parent still does not give their consent both under FIIE and Section 504, dyslexia can still be identified through Section 504. Along with the evaluation, the LEA should continue providing educational services, including evidence-based core reading instruction and any other tiered interventions.

Criteria of Dyslexia under SPED

There are several simple criteria determined in the TEA Handbook that must be met to identify dyslexia. In particular, the students are evaluated, according to their academic skills – letter knowledge, reading words in isolation, decoding unfamiliar words accurately, reading fluency (rate, accuracy, and prosody), reading comprehension, and spelling. The cognitive processes are also seen as criteria for evaluation – phonological awareness and rapid naming of symbols or objects are required. No less important, there are possible additional areas that can be used as criteria – vocabulary, listening comprehension, verbal expression, written expression, handwriting, memory for a letter of symbol sequences (orthographic processing), mathematical calculation and reasoning, phonological memory, verbal working memory, and processing speed.

The criteria used for screening instruments also differ for first graders and kindergarten students. The kindergarten students should demonstrate phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, sound-symbol recognition, letter knowledge, decoding skills, spelling, and listening comprehension (“The Dyslexia Handbook,” 2021). At the same time, the first graders are required to show additionally the reading rate and reading accuracy. Behaviors like lack of automaticity, difficulty sounding out words left to right, guessing, self-correcting, inability to focus on reading, and avoidance behavior should be paid particular attention.

What Specific Data is Collected to Identify the Dyslexia

Various instruments are used to collect the data on which the evaluation will be based. The additional quantitative information is obtained from the current screening instruments, previous screening instruments, formal and informal classroom reading assessments, brief and targeted skill assessments (“The Dyslexia Handbook,” 2021). The qualitative information is retrieved from observations of students during screening, teacher observations, parent or guardian input, current student work samples, work samples from earlier grades, and intervention history.

It should be specifically mentioned that the data are reviewed by the qualified team that subsequently makes the informed decision if the student shows the characteristics of dyslexia. The team should include people who know the student and their abilities, are appropriately trained to administrate the screening tools, and interpret the results of the screening process, including the quantitative and qualitative results. The supposed participants of such a team are the classroom teacher, the screener, the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee representative, the administrator, and the parent if the evaluation is performed under the IDEA guidelines. The team may also include the dyslexia specialist or interventionist, parents, and a diagnostician who understands the testing and evaluation processes. Notably, the ARD provides another team of specialists, which is called the Section 504 committee, although these people from the evaluation team may take part in the ARD committee if the dyslexia is identified.

How the ARD/IEP Committee Determines Future Instructional Services

The ARD Committee is a special team that discusses which further interventions and instructions should be provided for the student with the identified dyslexia. The ARD Committee also develops an individualized educational program to determine the eligibility for dyslexia-targeted interventions. This committee must include the regular education teacher of the child, preferably the one who will be responsible for implementing a part of the educational program. Other parties that should be present are the parent, special education teacher of the child, the school representative, a person trained to interpret the instructional implications of the evaluation, and a child, if that is appropriate. After the parental consent was received to hold the FIIE, the ARD committee meets to review the results of the FIIE and determine the proper interventions.

Training for the Dyslexia Interventionists

The dyslexia interventionists should receive specific training to provide high-quality and adequate interventions. According to the TEA Handbook, the interventionist should be certified or licensed in dyslexia, or be a classroom teacher with a certificate for K and 1 (“The Dyslexia Handbook,” 2021). The best interventionist practice can be made in the student’s current classroom, by the teacher or other specialist; it is emphasized that screening is not enough intervention. The teachers providing the intervention educational service can be reading specialists, master reading teachers, special education teachers, and general education classroom teachers; notably, these specialists are not required to have a specific certificate.

Thus, it was analyzed, how the Dyslexia program in the Houston school district can be aligned with the TEA’s latest requirements, and how this program correlates with IDEA. IDEA regulates the procedures of the evaluation and identification of reading and learning disabilities in students of kindergarten and first grades. The TEA Handbook, which is mainly based on IDEA, presents the guidelines for dyslexia evaluation and describes the related procedures. Interestingly, dyslexia is approved by the ARD Committee that develops the interventions that are further implemented by certified specialists or general education teachers on the ground of the LEA.

Reference

The Dyslexia Handbook. (2018). Texas Education Agency. Web.