The Dyslexia Dilemma: The Role of Colleges of Education

Share This: Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Volume 7, Issue 2
April 2018

By David P. Hurford, Ph.D. and Lauren P. Renner, Ed.S.

The science of reading is the body of knowledge that researchers have determined to be relevant to reading, reading acquisition, the assessment of poor reading, and remediation. It includes instruction related to interventions for helping nonreaders and poor readers to become competent readers. In addition to phonology, phonics, orthography, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, the knowledge base contributing to the science of reading includes neuroprocessing and its genetic basis; visual, perceptual, and memory processing; the various writing systems; the alphabetic principle; and letter-sound correspondences.

The English writing system (EWS), an alphabet-based system that represents its speech sounds (phonemes) with letters (graphemes), is an opaque writing system—which means that the relationship between the sounds of the language and the letters representing those sounds in print is complex. Examples of this lack of transparency in the EWS are listed:

  • graphemes of more than one letter (digraphs, trigraphs) to spell a single phoneme
    • shop thus thin chap check stretch bridge; see book ouch night
  • same letter or letters (grapheme) to represent multiple phonemes
    • various vowel sounds and their spellings
      • sad father about; bead bread; snow cow
    • consonants c and g
      • cat cluster cut cotton; cent circle cycle cinder
      • glad gasp gust got; gentle gin gym; get give
  • same phoneme represented by multiple grapheme choices for spelling
    • /k/ represented by graphemes c k ck ch que
      • cat kettle black chorus unique
      • /ā/ represented by graphemes a_e a ai ay ea ey ei (and more)
        • safe bacon rain play break they vein
  • r-controlled vowel phonemes—pronunciation of vowel phoneme modified when vowel is followed by the letter r
    • ar er ir or ur
      • scar per first corn burn

In contrast to opaque writing systems, transparent writing systems offer consistent translation of graphemes (letters) to phonemes (speech sounds); each letter represents only one sound, and that sound is always represented by that particular letter.

Opaque writing systems are very challenging to learn to read, but they provide unambiguous information that supports vocabulary and reading comprehension to competent readers. For example, the reader does not need to consider context in defining the words fur or fir. However, if the same letters were used to spell both of these words, the reader would need to determine meaning by considering context. For a competent reader, there is efficiency in the information that is portrayed in homophones. The English writing system contains many homophones (e.g., threw— through; their—they’re—there; see—sea; hole—whole; etc.). For these words, the variation in spelling informs the reader of the meaning.

The science of reading provides essential information for teachers

The science of reading provides essential information concerning how to teach reading. Alphabetically based writing systems have both beauty and utility as they elegantly represent the phonemes of a language. The alphabet acts as a Rosetta Stone that allows individuals to transcribe letters (graphemes) into the speech sounds that they represent. It is crucial that children learning to read are taught that the EWS represents a code. Reading acquisition is first and foremost a process of learning how to decipher printed words into their respective sounds and synthesizing those sounds, once decoded, to read words. Reading acquisition is not a psycholinguistic guessing game.

Children are the casualties when the science of reading is not used to teach reading acquisition.

Children are the casualties when the science of reading is not used to teach reading acquisition. For the nearly 20% of individuals in the United States who have dyslexia, the most widely studied and common learning difference, reading acquisition is painfully difficult. In addition to the academic problems associated with dyslexia and poor reading skills, individuals with dyslexia may also suffer from poor self-esteem, depression, suicidal thoughts, post-traumatic stress, substance abuse, parental physical abuse, and school dropout. They are more likely to be adjudicated as juveniles or later as adults, and they are more likely to live in poverty. Although there are many individuals with dyslexia who are very successful in their lives and careers, even some of those individuals continue to have serious difficulties concerning reading, writing, and spelling. Many individuals with dyslexia may carry emotional scars from their experiences as students in educational institutions in which teachers lacked training in the science of reading.

Further evidence that the educational establishment is failing to appropriately teach reading acquisition is illustrated by the large percentage of fourth graders who are reading at below basic (33%) and proficient (58%) reading levels. These percentages have not changed appreciably since 1992 when they were 38%and 55%, respectively. Despite the passing of several pieces of legislation in an attempt to remedy this situation, reading performance has not changed. Educational critics argue that ineffective classroom instruction, particularly for very low-performing students, is responsible.

There is a gulf of knowledge between the science and practices

Pre-service and experienced teachers and university instructors all perform poorly on measures of constructs relating to reading acquisition and literacy. Less than 25% of the teachers assessed could accurately segment words into their individual speech sounds (phonemes), identify the number of phonemes in words, or recognize words with unpredictable spellings. Teachers themselves report that they did not receive formal instruction regarding phonological processing during their academic training in teacher preparation.

The National Council of Teacher Quality examines the quality of teacher training programs; NCTQ found that only 22% of the 594 teacher certification programs received scores of “3” or higher on a 4-point rating scale. Nearly 80% of the elementary education programs received scores of “0,” indicating that the program coursework does not adequately address strategies for struggling readers.

Faculty in colleges of education with insufficient training in science and research methods do not possess the skills necessary to read, understand, and critically evaluate the components of the science of reading—which leaves them susceptible to using (and teaching) strategies that are not valid. Colleges of education are complicit in the deficiency of knowledge of pre-service, in-service, and college of education faculty. Doctoral candidates often lack exposure to and expertise in the science of reading. They need to be provided with coursework that strongly emphasizes the importance of science in solving educational issues and searching for solutions to educational issues from the scientific literature. They need a basic understanding of science, research methods, design, and analysis—so they will be able to read and comprehend scientific literature. “Until education becomes the kind of profession that reveres evidence, we should not be surprised to find its experts dispensing unproven methods and endlessly flitting from one fad to another. The greatest victims of these fads are the very students who are the most at risk.”1

Before reading failure can be adequately addressed, all educators—from teachers to superintendents—must possess a common knowledge base and be competent to converse on issues related to evaluation and intervention.

All doctoral candidates should be proficient in the science of reading. This cognate should be part of every education degree program. Before reading failure can be adequately addressed, all educators—from teachers to superintendents—must possess a common knowledge base and be competent to converse on issues related to evaluation and intervention. The abysmal performance of pre- and in-service teachers and college of education faculty regarding the content of the science of reading trickles down to the students who suffer due to their teachers’ lack of training. As articulated by Louisa Moats, “Everyday I’m in a school and working with teachers I continue to be astounded by the gulf of knowledge, the gulf between our knowledge base in the scientific community and the practices that go on in teacher training.”2

Pre-service education students (e.g., master’s and doctoral students, education specialists, etc.) must master a curriculum that includes the science or reading. These students should demonstrate mastery of the content of the courses outlined in Table 1 and the suggested content of the science of reading courses listed in Table 2. The Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading, developed by the International Dyslexia Association, is a very useful guide for developing curricula for pre-service teachers. Included are standards for essential content knowledge (Section I) plus standards related to the demonstration of the knowledge and skills that teachers need to provide effective instruction to students with dyslexia or other reading difficulties (Section II).

It is necessary for a revolution to begin to ensure that the science of reading becomes part of the curricula in colleges of education. Pre-service teachers must be competent to teach reading to all of their students, especially those who are at risk or experiencing reading failure.

It is necessary for a revolution to begin to ensure that the science of reading becomes part of the curricula in colleges of education. Pre-service teachers must be competent to teach reading to all of their students, especially those who are at risk or experiencing reading failure. This is, in fact, what pre-service teachers actually desire and should demand. The mission of colleges of education must be to use science to solve educational issues and to disseminate the knowledge contained within the science of reading. Across the nation, children with dyslexia and reading difficulties are waiting for competent teachers who can teach them to learn to read.

Notes

1Carnine, D. (2000). Why education experts resist effective practices (and what it would take to make education more like medicine. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

2Children of the Code. (2003, October 30). An interview of Dr. Louisa Moats – teaching teachers to teach reading. Retrieved from https://childrenofthecode.org/interviews/moats.htm

 

 

David P. Hurford, Ph.D. is a professor of psychology and counseling at Pittsburg State University. He directs the Center for Research, Evaluation and Awareness of Dyslexia (Center for READing) and is the founder and manager of the Center for the Assessment and Remediation of Reading Difficulties (CARRD, Inc.), a nonprofit dedicated to assisting individuals with dyslexia become competent readers.

Lauren P. Renner, Ed.S. is a school psychologist in the Shawnee Mission School District. During her graduate training, she was the head graduate assistant for the Center for READing at Pittsburg State University.

Copyright © 2018 International Dyslexia Association (IDA). Opinions expressed in The Examiner and or/via links do not necessarily reflect those of IDA.

We encourage sharing of Examiner articles. If portions are cited, please make appropriate reference. Articles may not be reprinted for the purpose of resale. Permission to republish this article is available from info@dyslexiaida.org.