The Dyslexia Dilemma: A History of Ignorance, Complacency ... · Dyslexia is the most common and...

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26

iMedPub Journalshttp://www.imedpub.com

Opinion

DOI: 10.4172/2472-1786.100034

Journal of Childhood & Developmental DisordersISSN 2472-1786

1© Under License of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License | This article is available in: http://childhood-developmental-disorders.imedpub.com/archive.php

David P Hurford1,Jeremy D Hurford2,Kimberly L Head3,Michelle M Keiper4, Samantha P Nitcher1 and Lauren P Renner1

1 PittsburgStateUniversity,Pittsburg,Kansas,USA

2 NortheasternStateUniversity,Oklahoma,USA

3 TheDyslexiaProject,Oklahoma,USA4 DecodingDyslexia,Oklahoma,USA

Corresponding author: DavidPHurford

[email protected]

PittsburgStateUniversity,CenterforReading,1701S.Broadway,Pittsburg,Kansas66762,USA.

Tel: 620-235-4534Fax:620-235-6102

Citation:HurfordDP,HurfordJD,HeadKL,etal.TheDyslexiaDilemma:AHistoryofIgnorance,ComplacencyandResistanceinCollegesofEducation.JChildDevDisord.2016,2:3.

AbstractDyslexiaisthemostcommonandwidelystudiedlearningdisabilityaffectingnearly20%ofthechildrenintheUnitedStates.AlthoughtheScienceofReadingprovidesconsiderable informationwithregardtothenatureofdyslexia, itsevaluationandremediation,thereisahistoryofignorance,complacencyandresistanceincollegesof educationwith regard to disseminating this critical information to pre-serviceteachers. Information concerning weaknesses in the training of doctoral-levelfaculty which trickles down to graduate students in education and pre-servicesteachers is discussed along with potential solutions. Children with dyslexia andreadingdifficultiesarewaiting tobe taught to readand theknowledgeandskillsnecessarytodosoexist.ItisessentialthattheScienceofReadingbecomepartofthevocabulary,knowledgebaseandtrainingwithincollegesofeducation.

Keywords:Dyslexia;Education;TeacherTraining;ReadingDifficulties

The Dyslexia Dilemma: A History of Ignorance, Complacency and Resistance in

Colleges of Education

Received: May17,2016; Accepted: August10,2016; Published: August16,2016

IntroductionReadingacquisitionisoneofthemostcomplicatedandimportantskills in which humans engage. In our culture, the social andeconomicsuccess thatapersonenjoys isverymuchrelated tohisorherreadingskills.Thereishardlyacareerorjobthatdoesnotdependon some levelof readingproficiency. Thiswasnotalwaysthecase.Anexaminationofthepast150yearsindicatesthat the number of skilled labor jobs [1-3] and the number offamily-owned farms has declined [4], and the need for a highschooldiplomahasincreased[5,6].Inthepast,individualswhohaddifficulties learning to read couldfindgainful employmentthat did not require a high school education or the ability toread.This is simplynot thecase in contemporary society.Asaresult,allchildrenneedto learnhowtoreadandtheyneedtohave adequate reading skills as adults, beyond simply readingfor pleasure. Poor reading skills can act as a barrier for socialengagement and influence [7]. As a result, the developmentand maintaining of adequate reading skills are of paramountimportance.

Unfortunately, for the nearly 20% of individuals in the UnitedStateswhohavedyslexia,readingacquisitionispainfullydifficult[8,9].Dyslexiaisthemostwidelystudiedandcommonlearningdifference. In addition to the various academic problemsassociated with dyslexia and poor reading skills, individuals

with dyslexia also suffer poor self-esteem [10], can becomedepressed,suicidal,andexperiencepost-traumaticstress[11,12]are more likely to abuse substances, be victims of parentalphysical abuse [13],dropoutof school [14],beadjudicatedasjuveniles[15]andlaterasadults[14]andaremorelikelytoliveinpoverty [14].Dyslexia and readingdifficulties arenotonly avery serious academic issue, but are also very serious socialissues.Fortunately,readingscientistshavediscoveredthenatureof the fundamental systems involved in reading failure. ThetermtheScienceofReadingreferstothecorpusofknowledgethat includes what science has determined to be relevant toreading,readingacquisition,assessmentofpoorreadingandtheinterventionsavailableforpoorreaders.TheScienceofReadinginvolvespreciselywhatsciencehasdiscoveredtoberelevantnotonlytoreading,itssubskillsandreadingacquisition,buthowto

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26


2 This article is available in: http://childhood-developmental-disorders.imedpub.com/archive.php

modifyexperiencessuchthatstrugglingreadersandindividualswith dyslexia can become competent readers. This knowledgeincludes phonology, phonics, orthography, fluency, vocabulary,comprehension,neuro-processingasitrelatestoreadinganditsgenetic basis, visual, perceptual andmemorial processing, thevarious writing systems, the alphabetic principle, letter-soundcorrespondences,amongotherareas.

Insuring that pre-service teachers are competent in applyingtheirknowledgeoftheScienceofReadingiscriticalinreducingreading failure and poor performance in reading [16]. Thescientific evidence contained within the Science of Readinghas guided the creation of interventions that are successful inassisting individuals with dyslexia and reading difficulties tobecome competent readers. Given the potentially disastrousnegative effects of dyslexia and the likely loss of contributionthatanindividualwithdyslexiacanmaketowardsocietyduetothebarriersinherentinthecurrenteducationalsystem;utilizingstrategiestoassistindividualswithdyslexiatobecomecompetentreaders, and thus, able tomake a contribution to themselves,theirfamilies,communitiesandsocietyiscriticallyimportant.

Dyslexia is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent words recognition. These difficulties typically resultfromadeficit in thephonological componentof language thatis often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities andthe provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondaryconsequencesmayincludeproblemsinreadingcomprehensionand reduced reading experience that can impede growth ofvocabulary andbackground knowledge” (InternationalDyslexiaAssociation). Specifically, although the exact mechanisms arenotcompletelyelucidated,dyslexia involvesagreatdifficulty inmanipulatingthesoundsoflanguage,difficultiesinassigningthesoundsassociatedwiththeirrepresentativelettersanddecodinglettersintothesoundsthattheyrepresent.Thesedifficultiesposebarrierstofluentreadingwhichthencausescomprehensiontobelackingorabsent,spellingandwritingdifficulties,andahostofotherrelatedproblems.

Speech Acquisition and Learning to ReadTheabilitytolearntospeakisnaturalandrelativelyeffortlessfornearlyallinfantsandtoddlers.Formostinfants,simplyexposingthemtoalanguageguaranteesthattheywilllearnthelanguage.Regardless of nationality, infants are natural language learnersandaregenerallybornwiththeabilitytoutterallofthesoundsthathumansarecapableofproducing[17-21].Aftersometimeinaparticularlanguageenvironment,theinfantwillstopproducingsome sounds in favor of those that he or she is consistentlyhearing.Theinfantsandyoungtoddler'svocabularyalsoincreasesinleapsandbounds.Forthemostpart,thisprocessisseeminglysoautomaticandeffortlessthatNoamChomskytheorizedthatinfantsarebornwithaLanguageAcquisitionDevice[22,23].TheLADisatheoreticneurologicaldevicewhoseprimarypurposeistohelptheindividualtoacquirelanguagewithrelativeease.Theonlyrequirement isthatchildrenmustbeexposedto languageon a frequent and consistent basis. Their neurological systemsrecognize the patterns and conventions of the language andthe child appears to “learn” the language rather effortlessly.

Although individualsmaybebornwithLADsthathelpthemtoacquire spoken language skills, it seems to have a limited life.The LAD seems tobepresent at birth and remains intact untilthe individual acquires his or her spoken language. After earlychildhood,theabilitytoeasilyandeffortlesslyacquirelanguagesisdiminished.Thisrealityisexperiencedbyanyonewhoattemptstolearnasecondlanguageaftermiddlechildhood.Atthispoint,learninganadditionallanguagebecomesquiteeffortful.

Learning to read, on the other hand, is not a natural processandisataskinwhichchildrenmustexerttremendouscognitiveeffort[24,25].Providingyoungchildrenexposuretotextdoesnotresultinspontaneousreading.Childrenmustmapthesoundsforwhichtheyarealreadyfamiliartothelettersusedtorepresentthem. They must learn how to use the knowledge of theserelationshipstodecodewords,synthesizeindividualsoundsintowords, and then recognize theword as aword that theyhaveintheirvocabulary.Lastly,andmostimportantly,thechildmustbeabletocomprehendthewrittenmaterial.Comprehensionisthe goal of the reading process, but is typically dependent onall of the preceding skills any ofwhich could cause difficultiesfor comprehending text. As already noted above,many of ournation’schildrenhavegravedifficultylearningtoread.Learningtoreadiscertainlyaneffortfulactthatcanbedelayedifchildrendonothavetheprerequisiteskillstobecomeadequatereaders[26,27].

Speech evolved as a mechanism for humans to communicateand is aneurologically expectedevent [28].Anexaminationofaninfant’sdevelopmentincludestheprogressmadeinrelationtolearningtospeak.Reading,ontheotherhand,isaninventionof humans that took advantage of neurological systems thatevolvedforpurposesotherthanreading[29].Thespokenwordistranscribedintosymbolsthatrepresentthevariousaspectsofthelanguage.Anindividualmustlearntheassociationbetweenthosesymbolsandtheirsoundsandhowtoapplythatknowledgetotheprocessofreading.Thereadingprocessisnot“pre-wired”into thebrainashasbeenargued for speechdevelopment.Asanexample,atthetimeofbirth,infantsprocessspeechsoundsin a categoricalmannerwithout prior experience. Acoustically,speech is a continuous phenomenon. However, we hear eachsound or phoneme in words categorically. That is, we candistinctly hear the specific sounds in a word. However, whenviewing speech signals acoustically, it is difficult to determinewherethebeginningandendofasoundorwordis.InFigure 1 thesentence“Iliketoread.”ispresented.Oneofthereasonsthatitisdifficulttodeterminethedemarcationpointforsoundsandwordsisthatthesoundsoverlapeachothereventhoughwehearthesoundscategorically.

Human brains are able tomake sense of acoustic informationwithoutactuallylearningtodoso.Theyareuniquelypreparedfortheirlanguageenvironmentsandarereadytobegintheprocessofspeechacquisition.Thisissimplynotthecaseforreading.Tolearntoreadeffectively,onehastoexertconsiderableeffortandenergyandtocometounderstandthatthewrittenlanguageisacodethatrepresentsthespokenlanguage.

Writing SystemsTherearemanydifferentwaystocommunicatemeaningthrough

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26


3© Under License of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

symbols. Logographic systems do so by representing words,phrasesorconceptstosymbols.TheChineselogographicsystemrepresentssyllables.Asanexample,twoChineselogographsareusedtorepresenttheword“reading;”Read.TobefullyliterateinJiantizi,anindividualwouldneedtoknowapproximately3,000-4,000 logographs. To learn this large number of logographs isextremely time-consuming and challenging. There have beenunsuccessful attempts to replace the logographic system withan alphabetic system as the alphabetic system is much moreeconomical when examining the mnemonic effort required tolearnlogographscomparedtoalphabets[30].

The English Writing System uses symbols as well, but ratherthan representingmorphemes ormeaning, letters are used torepresentthesoundsorphonemesoftheEnglishlanguage.Thegreat advantage of doing so concerns the enormous numberofwords that a readerof the EnglishWriting Systemcan readand, as a result, has access to from a very early time in theindividual’sreadingdevelopment.Additionally,whennewwordsare encountered, the proficient reader generally has the skillsto read the word successfully. Essentially, once the individualcomprehends that soundsare representedby letters, themostprobable combinations of particular letters, and the manyvariations in which specific sounds can be represented, thenumber of words that this individual could read is practicallylimitless. However, the writing system should represent thespokenlanguageintermsoffitaswell.Somelanguagesaremoreeasilyrepresentedbylogographs,syllablesoralphabets.

A transparentwritingsystem isawritingsystem inwhicheachsound of the language is represented by one and only onesymbol. In addition, each symbol representsoneandonlyonesound. There is a direct relationship between the sounds andtheir symbols.Examplesof transparentwritingsystems includeGreek,German,Finnish,Serbian,andTurkish.

Practice translating or decoding the symbols into their soundshelps the individualbecomemoreefficient.Oncean individualhas repeatedly practiced a skill it becomes increasingly moreproficientandcanbecomenearlyautomatic.Cognitivescientistsdefineanautomaticprocessasaprocessthatrequireslittleornocognitiveenergytoperform[31,32].Eachindividualhascognitiveskillsandabilitiesandafiniteamountofcognitiveenergy.Whena task is very difficult or effortfulmost or all of that cognitiveenergyisrequiredtoperformthattask.Practicebegetsefficiencyandefficiencyrequireslesscognitiveenergy.

When individualshavebeen reading formanyyears, it is likelythat the initial reading processes will become automatic. That

is, the reader may require little cognitive energy to performdecodingand synthesizing skills. For the skilled reader,what isbeing read seemingly and instantaneously transfers from texttomeaning. The beginning reader very carefully decodes eachletterintoitsrespectivesoundandthensynthesizesthosesoundsintowordsuntilheorshehasreadeverywordinthesentence.Thisprocess isdeliberateandtimeconsumingand requiresanenormousamountof cognitiveenergy.However, as individualspracticetheseskills,theybecomemoreefficient,andasaresult,require less cognitive energy. As the analysis (decoding) andsynthesis (blending) skillsbecomemoreautomatic, the savingsintheuseofcognitiveenergycanbeappliedtoothercognitivetaskssuchascomprehension[33].

Neurologically, individuals with dyslexia learning to read atransparentwritingsystemarejustlikechildrenwhoexperiencereadingfailurewiththeopaqueEnglishwritingsystem,butsincethe transparent writing system is less burdensome to decode,theirexperiencewithreadingfailureresultsinveryslowreadingratherthanbeingboggeddowninthequagmireasisthecaseforchildrenlearningtoreadanopaquewritingsystem.Additionally,students who are learning to read in languages that havetransparent writing systems begin formal reading acquisitiontraining later and end it sooner than those children who arelearningtoreadinwritingsystemsthatarenottransparent.

An opaquewriting systemdoes not have a one-to-one systemfor representing sounds like the transparent writing system.English employs one of themost opaquewriting systems, hasbeeninfluencedbymanylanguagesandcontinuestoevolveeachday. It is a dynamic and fluid language that embraces change.The English writing system has allowed each of the languagesthathaveinfluencedEnglish,suchasAnglo-Saxon,French,Latin,Greek,andDanish,toretaintheirwritingsystems.Someofthoselanguagesarealsoopaque.Asaresult,learningtoreadEnglishisanextraordinarilydifficultenterprise.J.R.Firth,in1937,stated,“Englishspellingissopreposterouslyunsystematicthatsomesortofreformisundoubtedlynecessaryintheinterestofthewholeworld.”MasteringtheEnglishwritingsysteminvolvesgreattimeandeffortonthepartofthe learnerbecauseoftheborrowingand using of other writing systems with their unique spellingprotocols.Asanexample,thereareseveralalternativespellingsfor the “ē” sound (e.g., “e,” “ee,” “ea,” “y,” “e-consonant-e,”“ie,”“ei,”“ey,”“i,”etc.)justastherearealternativespellingsforseveralsounds.Somesoundsarerepresentedbydigraphs(e.g.,“ow,” “ou,” “sh,” “th-voiced,” “th-unvoiced,” etc.) and vowelsaremodified if theyare followedby the letter“r” (r-controlledvowels,e.g.,“ar,”“ir,”“er,”“ur,”etc.).Tocomplicatethesystemfurther,therearedifferentspellingsofwordsbasedoncontext(e.g.,“to,”“too,”and“two;”“threw”and“through;”“tow”and“toe,” etc.). Children begin the process of learning to read anopaque writing system earlier than their transparent-writing-systempeersandtakemuchlongertolearnit.

It is necessary for beginning readers to acquire the alphabetprinciple [34-36]. That is, to understand that sounds arerepresented by letters. Reading an alphabetic writing systeminvolves translating the written code into its phonemes andsynthesizing those phonemes into words. Unfortunately,individualswithdyslexiahavegravedifficultydecodingthewritten

Figure 1 Illustrationoftheacousticviewofthesentence“Iliketoread.”

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



text into soundsand then synthesize them intowordsand thebasisforthisdifficultyappearstoberelatedtopoorphonologicalprocessingskills[37,38].Improvementinphonologicalprocessingrequires explicit instruction and intervention in childrenwith dyslexia [39,40]. Waiting to determine if the child willspontaneouslyacquiretheseskillsisproblematic[41].Achildwithdyslexiamusthaveexplicittrainingtodeveloptheskillsnecessarytolearntoread.Ithasbeenknownforsometimethatchildrenwhoarenotgivenexplicittrainingtoresolvetheirphonologicalprocessingdeficienciesbecomeadultswhoexperienceilliteracy[42].

The History of Ignorance, Complacency and ResistanceThe science is relatively clear on issues related to readingacquisition, how to teach reading, the causes of dyslexia andreading failure and how to identify and provide remediationstrategies for children with dyslexia and reading difficulties[43-45]. The history within colleges of education has been aresistancetotheScienceofReading,widespreadignoranceandcomplacency. In each case, colleges of education faculty haveignoredthescientificknowledgethatinformsreadingacquisitionand the identificationand intervention strategies for strugglingreaders. As a result, the pre-service teachers who are beingeducatedattheseinstitutionsfailtoreceivethenecessarytrainingthatwouldallowthemtobeeffectiveinprovidingremediationtostudentswithdyslexia[46].“Forthegreatestenemyoftruth isveryoftennotthelie—deliberate,contrivedanddishonest—butthemyth—persistent,persuasive,andunrealistic.Toooftenweholdfasttotheclichésofourforebears.Wesubjectallfactstoaprefabricatedsetof interpretations.Weenjoythecomfortofopinionwithoutthediscomfortofthought”[47].

Theresultsofthisignorance,resistanceandcomplacencycanbeseenatmanylevels.TheNation’sReportCardindicatedthat33%of fourthgraderswere readingata levelbelowBasicand58%arereadingatalevelbelowProficient.ReadingattheBasiclevelindicates partial mastery of the skills necessary for proficientworkataparticulargrade level.Readingat theProficient leveldenotes appropriate academic performance in which studentshave demonstrated their competency to read challengingmaterial[48].Thesepercentageshavenotchangedappreciablysince1992whenthepercentageofstudentsreadingbelowBasicand Proficient were 38% and 55%, respectively [48]. Althoughconsiderable concern and effort have been placed on issuesrelated to studentswho are performing poorly in reading, thedatasuggestthatnotmuchprogresshasbeenmadeinstudentperformanceeventhoughtheScienceofReadinghasestablishedhow reading acquisition occurs and how to remediate thedeficientskillsandsubskillsrelatedtoreading.

The concerns regarding reading are certainly not new. Threedecadesago,theNationalCommissiononExcellenceinEducationprovided ample evidence that many of our nation’s childrenexperiencedacademicdifficulties that resulted in poor readingandmathematicsproficiency.Thesedifficultieswerealsofoundtopersistintoadulthood[49].Sincethattimeseveralkeypiecesoflegislationwereenactedthatattemptedtorectifytheseissues

(Improving America’s Schools Act, 1994; Goals 2000: EducateAmerica Act, 1994; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). Althoughthese efforts provided illumination of the difficulty, and in thecase of the No Child Left Behind Act enormous accountabilityrequirements for school systems, academic performance hasnot changed and a nearly equal percentage of students arecontinuingtoexperiencereadingfailure.Educationalcriticshavearguedthatpoorclassroominstruction,particularlyforverylow-performing students, is responsible [50].One could argue thataccountabilityaspectsofthesepiecesoflegislation,particularlyNoChildLeftBehind, resulted inpoorperformanceon readingtests. The requirement that testing be used to determine theacademicprogressofstudentsnecessarilyreducedthetimethatteacherscouldspendteachingbasicskillsintheclassroomduetoincreasedneedtoteachstudentshowtopasshigh-stakestesting.Thisargumentseemsunlikelyforseveralreasons,mostnotablythat poor readingperformanceexistedprior to the enactmentof legislation and that the raison d’etre for the legislationwasspecificallytoincreasereadingskills.Asdiscussedabove,averylarge percentage of teachers lack the basic knowledge that isrequiredtoteachreadingacquisition[51,52].Thisunhappyfactwouldseemtoplayaverylargeroleinthereasonthatstudentsareperformingsopoorlyonhigh-stakesreadingtests.Infact,ifteachersweresuccessfulat“teachingtothetest,”performancewouldhaveincreasedonreadingtests.Thefactofthematteristhat teachersdonot receive training in theScienceofReadingwhichleadstoaninabilitytoprovideappropriateinstructionintheclassroom.

There is considerable scientific knowledge concerning readingacquisition and the strategies that are the most effective inteaching children to read [53-56]. Classroom instruction thatteaches these skills related to the Science of Reading is moreeffectivethanthosethatdonot.Unfortunately, itappears thatthese skills and the componentsof theScienceofReadingareoftennotdirectlytaughttomanypre-serviceteachers[57-59].

Approximately 53% of pre-service and 60% of in-serviceelementary teacherswhowillbemost responsible forassistingstudents with reading acquisition, were unable to correctlyanswerhalf of thequestions regarding knowledgeof languagestructure [60].Only20%of722 teacherscouldsegmentwordsintospeechsounds;only30%correctlyidentifiedthenumberofphonemesinhalftheitems;andonly60%positivelyidentifiedtheirregularwordsinalistof26words.Duringdebriefing,teachersreportedthattheyhadnotreceivedformalinstructionregardingthe complex structure of phonological processing during theiracademictraining[52].

Despite being experienced and well-educated, teacherparticipants generally demonstrated low levels of the explicit,specialized knowledge necessary to effectively provide readinginstructiontostudents[61].Pre-serviceteacherswerealsofoundtooverestimatetheirknowledge[52].

Teacher training programs generally fail to provide adequateinstruction and acceptable resources regarding how to teachstudents to read. Instead, teachers must rely on their ownskills and on other resources to learn how to teach reading.Most colleges of education encourage pre-service teachers to

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



“develop their own personal philosophy of reading” [58]ratherthanteachpre-serviceteachersthemechanicsoftheScienceofReading.Suchmisguidedencouragementresultsin a considerable variety of positions regarding teachingreading,mostofwhichareinconsistentwiththeScienceofReading,andthuswithreality.

Not only are teachers not receiving adequate preparation,they also are not provided with appropriate resources duringtheir training. In a 2006 examination by the National CouncilonTeacherQuality(NCTQ)ofcollege-levelreadingcourses,theauthorsconsidereda textbook tobeanacceptableexampleofacoreresourceforthecourseifitthoroughlypresentedthefivecomponentsofreadinginstructionwhichwereidentifiedbytheNationalReadingPanelasphonemicawareness,phonics,fluency,vocabulary and comprehension [59]. The four textbooks foundtobeacceptable inasurveyof227wereused in lessthanfivepercentofthecoursesexamined.Often,inaccurateinformationwaspresentedinwidelyusedtextbooks[62].

Ithasbeendocumentedthatteachersarenotprovidingbeginningreaders with consistent and adequate reading instruction.Reading failure rates have not changed appreciably in severaldecadeseventhoughthescientificliteratureregardingreading,itssubskillsandproperteachingtechniqueshavebeenrepeatedlysubstantiated.Itisclearthatpre-serviceteachersarenotreceivingproperinstructionregardingtheScienceofReading.Pre-serviceteachers, experienced teachers, and university instructors allperform poorly on measures of constructs relating to readingacquisitionandliteracy.Thus,thelackoftheknowledgerelatedtotheScienceofReadingcouldbethereasonfortheresistanceinteachingtheseconceptstofuturegenerationsofteachers.Analarminglysmallnumberofteachereducationprogramsprovidecoursework that presents the appropriate knowledge base ofthe Science of Reading to its students, hence the impetus ofGreenberg,McKeeandWalsh’s[58]worktolinkevaluativescoresto colleges of education so that individualswho have a desireto become teachers can make informed decisions regardingmatriculation.

Intheireight-yearstudytodevelopandimplementamethodtoexamineteachereducationprograms,only22%ofthe594teachercertification programs involved in the study received scores ofthree or higher on a four-point rating scale [58]. Additionally,78%of the elementary education programs received scores of0(“programcourseworkdoesnotadequatelyaddressstrategiesforstrugglingreaders,”p:41)forStandard4(StrugglingReaders)whichisthestandardmostgermanetothisdiscussion.

ThelackofknowledgeregardingtheScienceofReadingwitnessedinpre-serviceteachers, in-serviceteachersandtheirprofessorsisparamounttocomplacency,ignoranceandresistanceandfallsfullyoncollegesofeducationwhowillfullyandknowinglyresistdisseminatingtheScienceofReadingtotheirstudents.Facultyincollegesofeducationoftenhave insufficient training in scienceand researchmethods such that theyarenot able to read theresearchavailablethatwouldinformthemofthecontentoftheScience of Reading. As an example, theweaker the training inresearchthemorelikelythataninstitutionoffersanEd.D.ratherthanaPh.D.ineducation[63].Further,Townsend[64]expressed

thatmanyEd.D.programslackvalueandare“seenasawatereddown version of the Ph.D. in Education and seemingly fail toprovide practitionerswith the knowledge, skills, andbehaviorsfor effective leadership in educational settings” [64]. Faculty incollegesofeducationoftendonotpossesstheskillsnecessarytoread, understandand critically evaluate the scientific literatureconcerningthecognitive,linguistic,neurological,etc.componentsofreading.BooteandBeile[65]discoveredthatliteraturereviewsfordissertationsenroutetotheEd.D.weregenerallyweak,lackedsubstance and failed to demonstrate that the candidate had afirmgraspofhisorherfield.Withouttraininginresearchwhichincludes first and foremost an understanding of the literaturein one’s field, individuals cannot be consumers or contributorsto this literature. When faculty lack training in research andscience, they are susceptible to strategies that are not alignedwithscienceandthereforenotappropriate.Asaresult,parent-led-grass-rootsorganizationsareleadingthechargetotransformcollegesofeducationandtorequirethattheyteachtheScienceofReadingsothatidentificationandinterventiontechniquescanbeusedtoteachchildrenwithdyslexia.

An approach that has permeated the education of pre-serviceteachersandisantitheticaltotheScienceofReadingreferstoanapproachreferredtoaswholelanguage(WL).Goodman[66,67],who developed the WL approach, conceptualized learning toread in a similar fashion as language acquisition described byChomsky.Goodmanarguedthat learningtoreadisnaturalandshould mirror the development of language acquisition [68].Itwasarguedthatexposuretoprintshouldresult in literacy inthe sameway that exposure to a language results in languageacquisition.Unfortunately,readingdevelopmentdoesnotoccuras a functionofmereexposure toprint as languagedoes; noris readingacquisitiona functionofa“psycholinguisticguessinggame.” Smith [69,70] suggested that focusing on phonemesdeterredchildrenfromlearningtoreadandthat“childrenlearntoreadonlybyreading”[70].Learningtoreadrequiresexplicitand systematic instruction, language acquisition does not. Analphabetically-basedwritingsystem,suchas thatwhich isusedin English, represents the sounds of the languagewith letters.TheEnglishWritingSystem,likeallalphabeticwritingsystems,isacode.Accesstophonologyoccursasafunctionofdecipheringthe symbols into their respective phonemes. Once an initialunderstanding of the relationship between sounds and theirsymbolshasbeendeveloped,decodingandreadingacquisitiontrainingcommences.Itsreciprocalprocess,encoding,isusedtorepresent the spoken language with words conveyed throughletters so that thoughts can be made permanent. Completecomprehension of the code requires both decoding (reading)and encoding (writing). With intense and sustained practice,individuals who do not have dyslexia become able to developa high level of skill such that these processes become nearlyautomatic.IndividualswithdyslexiawhoarelearningtoreadtheEnglishWritingSystemstruggletremendously.Learningtoreadanalphabetically-basedwritingsystemspecificallyandemphaticallyrequires attending to and learning about the smallest units oflanguage.

Sophisticated eye movement technologies examining skilledadultreadershaveindicatedasmanyas15-25%ofwordsare

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



notinitiallyfixatedduringreading[71];thuswordsthatareshort,high-frequency, predictable and are acquired early in readingdevelopmentarelikelytobeskippedand,therefore,notfixated.Inaddition,comparedtoadults,childrenaremorelikelytohavemorefixations(fixatingonmorewordsthanadults),havefixationsoflongerduration,haveshortersaccades,havemorerefixations(fixatingonawordthatwaspreviouslyfixated),andmakemoreregressions [72]. Eyemovement studies only included childrenwhowerecapableofreadingsimplesentenceswithouttheneedfor decoding [73]. For children beginning reading acquisition,attentiontoeachletterinawordisnecessary.Theunitofanalysisintermsofreadingistheletter.Itistheletterthatholdsthekeytodecipheringwordsintotheirsoundssuchthatreadingcantakeplace.

As an example of the difficulties associated with utilizing asystemthatdoesnotemploytheScienceofReading,Californiain1987embracedtheconceptualframeworkofWL.Theschoolsystems used WL textbooks and the phonics approach waslargely deemphasized if not eliminated. By 1994, the fourth-grade readingscores fromCaliforniaweretiedwithLouisiana’sand Guam’s as the worst of the 39 states and territories thatparticipated in thenational standardized reading test (NationalAssessment of Educational Progress). As a result, legislativehearingsoccurredandataskforcewascommissioned.Granted,there were likely other ancillary reasons for the poor readingskillsobservedin1994,buttheircombinedreportsdeterminedthattheWLapproachwasaninappropriatereadingacquisitionstrategy.

Soon thereafter, the Australian Government in 2005recommended systematic instruction of synthetic phonics andarguedthatWL,“onitsown,isnotinthebestinterestofchildren,particularlythoseexperiencingreadingdifficulties."[74]andalsoreportedthat“directsystematicinstructioninphonicsduringtheearly yearsof schooling is anessential foundation for teachingchildrentoread"(p:11).

TheWLframeworkhasbeenthepersistentpersuasivemythofourtime.Itsoundssoorganicandliberating.Simplyexposechildrentogoodliteratureandtocommonwordsconsistentlyandallowthemtogrownaturallyintostrongreadersattheirownpaceandtheywill become competent readers.No need to first instructchildrenhowthewritingsystemactuallyworks,thatwordsneedto be decoded before they can be read. Simply guess at thepronunciationoftheword.Obviously,eventotheindividualwhohasnobackgroundinreadingacquisition,thissoundsludicrousanditis.ItiscrucialthatchildrenengagedinreadingacquisitionhaveaccesstothemeaningandpurposeoftheEnglishwritingsystemandthatitrepresentsacode.Readingacquisitionisfirstandforemostaprocessoflearninghowtodecipherprintedwordsintotheirrespectivesoundsandsynthesizingthosesoundsoncedecoded to readwords.TheEnglishWritingSystemwasbasedonanalphabet,whichactsasaRosettaStonesothatindividualscan transcribe sounds into symbols and directing the symbolrepresentationofthesounds. It iscrucialthatchildrenlearningtoreadaretaughttherelationshipbetweensoundsandsymbols,decodingandsynthesizing.

Manychildrenareable tocomprehend thenatureof thecode

and are able to appreciate that the English writing system isindeedacodetobeusedtodeciphertext.Oncethisnotionhasbeencomprehended,moreadvancedstrategiescanbedeployed.Unfortunately,thechildwithdyslexiaandmanychildrenwhodonotnaturallydivinetherelationshipbetweensoundsandlettershavegravedifficultieslearningtoread.Mostchildrenrequirethecodetobeexplicitlytaught.Instructionalstrategiesthatinitiallyassist beginning readers to understand the nature of the codeand thenbuildupon that foundationalknowledgeemphasizingcomprehensionandotherstrategies,becomecompetentreaders[75]. Failure to present this vital information results in a largenumber of children who experience reading failure. Collegesof education are complicit in this conspiracy and arenegligentwhentheyforsaketoeducatepre-serviceteachersintheScienceofReading.Failure todoso results in teacherswhoknowverylittleaboutthespecificnatureofreadingacquisitionandwhoareunabletoassiststrugglingreaders.ItisimperativethatstudentswhodesiretobeteachershaveastrongknowledgebaseintheScienceofReading.Thecontinuedfailuretoadequatelypreparefuture teacherswith regard to the ScienceofReading, readingacquisition,thenatureofdyslexia,assessmentandinterventionswill result in a continuation of reading acquisition failure. Thisis extremely unfortunate in that the knowledge, skills andtechnology exist so that reading failure can be prevented orattenuated.

It is clear that pre-service and seasoned teachers along withprofessors of education who teach these individuals haveinsufficientknowledgewithregardtotheScienceofReading;theunderlying principles related to reading and it subcomponentsthat guide reading instruction, evaluation and interventionstrategies.Thisisjustnottruewithregardtoreadingacquisitionin general, but training individuals with dyslexia to read. Theroot cause of this deficiency of knowledge rests squarely oncolleges of education in two very important ways. The firstinvolvesthe lackofappropriatetrainingof individualspursuingthe educational doctorate and the second involves the lack ofdisseminationofthescientific literaturetopre-serviceteachersby colleges of education facultywho lack exposure to science,researchmethods,designandanalysis.

Higher Education’s Contribution to Reading FailureDoctoral trainingShulmanetal., [76]wrotethat“theproblemsoftheeducationdoctorates [Ed.D. and Ph.D.] are chronic and crippling. Thepurposesof preparing scholars andpractitioners are confused;asaresultneitherisdonewell.”.Purinton[77]arguedthat“Ed.D.programs—even highly ranked ones—have a long way to goin establishing their indispensable value; by far, such degreeshavestillnotliveduptothestandardssetbyotherprofessionaldoctoralprograms”(p:25).Themajordeficiencywitheducationdoctorates is that theyappear to lackthenecessarytraining inresearchmethods,designandanalysis.Althoughthesedegreesoftenincludecourseworkthatincluderesearchmethods,designand analysis, the incorporation of these courses into othercontentareasislacking.“Ineducation,thejudgmentsof‘experts’

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



frequentlyappeartobeunconstrainedandsometimesaltogetherunaffected by objective research. Many of these experts areso captivated by romantic ideas about learning or so blindedby ideology that theyhaveclosed theirminds to the resultsofrigorous experiments. Until education becomes the kind ofprofessionthatreveresevidence,weshouldnotbesurprisedtofindsitsexpertsdispensingunprovenmethods,endlesslyflittingfromonefadtoanother.Thegreatestvictimsofthesefadsaretheverystudentswhoaremostatrisk.”[78].Asaresult,itiscriticalthatthosepursuingeducationdoctoraldegreeshaveaverygoodworkingabilitytoengageinconsumingresearch.Thereappearstobeaseriouslackofqualityineducationalresearchwhich[65]arguedisdirectlyrelatedtoweaknessesindoctoralpreparation.Infact,theCarnegieProjectontheEducationDoctorate(CPED)was created to redesign the doctoral preparation to addressthe growing criticism regarding this lack of preparation. TheCPEDpresentlyconsistsof83collegesandschoolsofeducationwhose goal is to critically examine the doctorate in education.In particular, one of the initial goals was to differentiate theEd.D.,whichwasconsideredapractitionerdoctoratepreparingcandidatestosolveeducationalissues,fromthePh.D.,whichwasconsideredaresearch-baseddoctoratethatpreparescandidatestobeuniversityfacultyandeducationalscholars.Unfortunately,these two degrees fail to be differentiated in this manner.Frequently,neitherdegreeprovides theappropriate training inscienceforeitherofthemtogeneratescientificknowledgethatcanbeusedtosolveeducationalissues[79].Thisismostcertainlythe casewhen reading acquisition failure is considered. Lastly,thecurriculumoften lackspractical relevance inrelationtotheeducationalissuesthatexist[80].

TheseconddimensionofsuggestedpedagogyfromtheCPEDisthat “teaching and learning are grounded in theory, research,and in problems of practice.” [81]. There is no doubt that thisshouldbethecase,teachingandlearningshouldunequivocallybegroundedinresearchandtheory;however,thestatusquoinfar toomanydoctorateprograms ineducation is that researchis not seriously emphasized, taught or integrated into doctoralprogram course content. The redesign of doctoral training ineducation must be framed around a scientist-practitioner orscholarly-practitionermodel in which the process and contentof science are firmly established. Otherwise, the discipline isdoomed tocontinue followingunsubstantiatednotions thatdonotallowpractitionerstofirmlyunderstandeducationalrealities.Infact,theCPEDsuggeststhatthe“scholarlypractitioner”modelbeusedbycollegesofeducationusetobuildorredesignEd.D.degreeprograms.Thescholarlypractitionershouldhaveaveryfirmgraspof theprocess and content of science including thescientific method, understand the importance of science insolving educational issues and should consult the scientificliteraturewhenaddressingeducationalproblems.

Doctoralprogramsineducation,whethertheprogramprovidestraining for the Ed.D. or the Ph.D. degree, should providecandidates considerable background in science which wouldinclude research methods, design and analysis with emphasisplacedonincorporatingtheseconceptswithineachcontentareaandcourse.Doctoralstudentsshouldengagetheprimarysourceliteratureineachclassandbecomeveryproficientinitscontent.

StudentsinPh.D.programsshouldalsoberequiredtodeveloparesearchproposalineachcontentareaandcoursethatisstronglybasedonthescientificliteraturerelevanttothecourse.Thisnotonlyhelpsthestudentunderstandtheimportanceandnecessityofbecomingproficientinaliterature,butalsohelpsthemtolearnthe craft of the literature review and the research enterprise.Students pursuing the Ed.D. should be provided courseworkthat strongly emphasizes the importance of science in solvingeducational issues.Studentsshouldalwayssearch forsolutionstoeducationalissuesfromthescientificliterature.Tobeabletodosorequiresthatthestudenthaveafirmgraspofhowtoreadscientificmaterialanditsimportance.Afterstudentshaveabasicunderstandingofscience,researchmethods,designandanalysis,allstudentsmustalsobeproficientintheScienceofReading.Thiscognateshouldbepartofeachdoctorateineducationprogram.Beforereadingfailurecanbeadequatelyaddressed,acommonthread of knowledge must be present in all of the followingpersonnel; superintendents, principals, reading specialists,teachers,schoolsupportpersonnel,andparaprofessionals.Thisknowledge is necessary so that all have a common languagein which to converse and have a reasonable expectation ofproviding appropriate interventions. This conversationmustbeled by those engaged in doctoral training so that the doctoralcandidatewillgraduatewiththeappropriateknowledge.Othercognate areas should bedeterminedby the specialization thattheprogramwishestooffer,butitshouldbenonnegotiablethatall doctorate in education programs include a substantial coreofknowledgethatemphasizestheimportanceofscienceinthepursuit of educational knowledge, presents researchmethods,designandanalysisasstand-alonecoursesinadditiontoinfusingthis content into each course. These science-based coursesshould be presented at the very beginning of the student’scoursecontentandperformanceinthesecoursescouldactasalitmustestforcontinuingthedegree.Additionally,theScienceofReadingcognatemustbepartofeachdoctoralprogram.Thisistheonlywaythatreadingfailurecanbeadequatelyaddressed.Failuretoprovideessentialknowledge inscienceandexposuretoitsliteraturecontinuestopromulgateignorancewithregardtoeducationalknowledge,whichisparticularlythecasewithregardtoreading,readingacquisitionandreadingfailure.Binks-Cantrellet al., [82] refer to this lack of knowledge as the Peter Effect[83] inwhich individuals cannot teachwhat theydonot knowthemselves.Thereisnospecializationareathatwouldleadtoadoctorate ineducationthatcould forgotheScienceofReadingcontent.Onemightarguethatthis informationisnotpertinenttothedoctorofeducationdegree(e.g.,curriculumanddesign,administration or leadership), but this is simply not accurate.Understanding the nature of reading acquisition and how torectifyacquisitionfailure isvitally important.Thiscontentmustbefirmlyaddressed in the curriculaofboth theEd.D.orPh.D.Failure to do otherwise continues the trend of failing tomeettheneedsofchildrenwithdyslexia,theirfamiliesandsocietyingeneralthatrequiresthatitcitizensreadandreadwell.

Itiscriticallyimportantthatindividualswhowillbecomefacultymembersincollegesofeducationhavetheknowledgecontainedwithin the Science of Reading. The great failure has been thelackoftrainingintheScienceofReadingincollegesofeducation

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



facultymembers. The current stateof affairs of the ScienceofReading has provided considerable information regarding theacquisition of reading skills, particularly in children who havedyslexia and reading difficulties, the nature of evaluation andassessment,andscience-basedinterventionsandcurricula.Theabysmal performance of pre-service and in-service teachersand collegeofeducation facultyon the contentof theScienceofReadingtricklesdowntothestudentswhoaresufferingdueto the lack of training of all of these individuals. The Scienceof Reading needs to be requisite for both doctor of educationdegrees.

Giventhevitalimportanceofcorrectingthedilemmafacingournation’s colleges of education, public and private elementaryand secondary schools with regard to reading failure, it isrecommended thatcollegesofeducationonlyhire facultywhohavebeentrainedintheScienceofReadingduringtheirdoctoraltraining. For thosewhohavenot, it is also recommended thatcolleges of education provide post-doctoral training in theScienceofReading.Therewillbethosewhoarguethatthisisnotnecessary,butthefactthatnearly20%ofournation’schildrenhavedyslexiaandthat32%offourthgraderswerereadingatalevelbelowBasicand65%werereadingatalevelbelowproficient[84] are very strong counter arguments for this position. It isessential that colleges of education faculty have the requisiteknowledge to dispense the science-based and appropriateknowledgetoteachreadingtopre-serviceteachers.Failuretodosowillonlyprolongtheinabilityofstudentstoacquireproficientreadingskills.AsarticulatedbyLouisaMoats,“EverydayI’minaschoolandworkingwithteachersIcontinuetobeastoundedbythegulfofknowledge,thegulfbetweenourknowledgebaseinthescientificcommunityandthepracticesthatgooninteachertraining”[85].

Graduate trainingThe sameargumentsasarticulatedabove shouldalsoapply toanygraduatetrainingineducation,beitthemaster’sineducationdegreeortheeducationalspecialistdegree(Ed.S.).Itiscriticallyimportantthatthesedegreeshavecontentwithregardtoscience,researchmethods,design, statistics,and thenatureofdyslexiaand reading failure which should include coverage of etiology(genetic and neurological), characteristics related to childrenwho experience dyslexia and reading failure, characteristicsof dyslexia, evaluation tools, and science-based interventionsand curriculawith practicumexperience based on the contentconcerningtheScienceofReading.Agraduatedegreeinreadingabsolutely must comprehensively and specifically cover thesecontentareas.

Undergraduate trainingAttheundergraduatelevel,manyteachereducationprogramsdonotprovideadequatetrainingforpre-serviceteachers[59,86,87].As mentioned above, pre-service teachers perform poorly ontheir knowledge of the Science of Reading. Reorganizing andrestructuringcollegesofeducationcoursestoincludetheScienceofReadingisnecessary.Acorecurriculumforpre-serviceteachersshould include coursework covering reading psychology anddevelopment,thestructureoflanguage,applyingbestpractices

inreading instructionandusingvalidated,reliableandefficientassessmentstoinformclassroominstruction[44].Unfortunately,onlyaverysmallnumberofcollegesofeducationincludesuchcoursework.Thisled[58]todevelopastrategywherecollegesofeducationcouldberatedontheirabilitytoprovideinstruction.AnalarminglygreatmanyofthecollegesofeducationprovidedminimaltonotrainingintheScienceofReading.Thisiscertainlydisappointingasresearchhasdeterminedinterventionsthataresuccessful in improving reading skills of students experiencingreading failure [88]. The vast majority (78%) of elementaryeducation programswere found to have curricula that did not“adequately address strategies for struggling readers” [58] forStandard4: StrugglingReaders. The authors indicated that thecriterionusedtodetermineifaprogrammetthisstandardwasquitelow.Evenso,nearly80%oftheprogramsfailedtomeetthisstandard.

What specifically should be taught?Pre-service teachers must be provided with a curriculum thatincludestheScienceorReading.TheScienceofReadingcorpusincludes thenatureof reading, how reading should be taught,evaluationtoolsfordeterminingappropriateprogressinreadingand interventions that are useful to assist struggling readersto become competent readers. However, prior to students’exposuretotheScienceofReading,theymustalsohaveexposuretoprerequisitecoursesthatwouldallowthemtounderstandthemechanicsoftheScienceofReading.

Averyusefulguideindevelopingthecurriculumforpre-serviceteacherscanbefoundintheKnowledgeandPracticeStandardsforTeachersofReadingthatwasdevelopedbytheInternationalDyslexiaAssociation(Tables 1 and 2). TheKnowledgeandPracticeStandardsforTeachersofReadingincludesessentialknowledge(Section I) in addition to standards concerning demonstratingthe knowledge and skills that teachers should have to provideservicestostudentswithdyslexiaorreadingdifficulties(SectionII).ThestandardsinSectionIcompriseoralandwrittenlearning,knowledge of the structure of language, phonology, phonicsand word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension,handwriting,spelling,writtenexpression,assessmentforplanninginstruction, and knowledge of dyslexia and other learningdisorders.ThestandardsinSectionIIconcernthedemonstrationthattheteacheriscompetenttoteachreading(LevelI)andforspecialists who intend to provide services to individuals withdyslexiaandotherlearningdisorders.

It is recommended thatpre-service teachers fulfill prerequisitecourses before exposure to the content of the Knowledge andPracticeStandards.Theseprerequisiteswouldbecomprisedofresearchmethods, linguistics, cognition and a course outliningtheScienceofReading.SectionIIoftheKnowledgeandPracticeStandardslistspracticumexperiencesthatarerecommended.IftheKnowledgeandPracticeStandardsarenotusedasaguidefor developing the sequence of courses, then two differentpracticum experiences should be included (Table 3). Therationale for the prerequisite courses concerns providing theappropriatebackgroundknowledgesothatpre-serviceteacherscould benefit from the courses designed from the KnowledgeandPracticeStandards.Thecoursewouldbeanoverviewofthe

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



Section 1 Knowledge and Practice StandardsAreas Examples

Foundation Concepts about Oral and Written Learning

This sectionoutlines the standards regarding theknowledgeandapplication related to the influence thatoralandwrittenlanguagecontributestoreadingandwriting,cognitionandbehaviorthataffectreadingandwriting,environmental,culturalandsocialfactors,typicaldevelopment,causalrelationshipsoftheabove,andreasonablegoalsandexpectationsforlearning.Phonological,orthographic,semanticsyntacticanddiscourseprocessing;attention,executivefunction,memory,processingspeed,graphomotorcontrol;developmentoforallanguage,phonologicalskill,printedwordrecognition,spelling,readingfluency,readingcomprehension,writtenexpression.

Knowledge of the Structure of Language

Thissectionoutlinesthestandardsthatrefertotheindividualsteachingreadingshouldhaveregardingthestructureoflanguagewithregardtophoneticallyregularandirregularwords,commonmorphemesandsentencestructure.Phonology(conceptsregardingvowelsandconsonants),orthography(graphemes,highfrequencyandirregularwords, orthographic rules, syllable types), morphology (commonmorphemes in the EnglishWriting System),semantics(semanticorganization),syntax(distinguishphrases,dependentandindependentclausesinsentences,partsofspeech)anddiscourseorganization(narrativeandexpositorydiscourse,constructexpositoryparagraphs,identifycohesivedevicesintext).

Structured Language Teaching: Phonology

Thissectionoutlinesthestandardsthatrefertoteachingphonology.Underdevelopedphonologicalprocessinghasbeenidentifiedasacoreweaknessinindividualswhohavedyslexia.Teachingphonologicalprocessingskillsisaveryimportantcomponentinremediatingpoorreadingskills.Identifygoalsofphonologicalskillinstruction,knowtheprogressionofphonologicalskilldevelopment(rhymes,syllables,onset-rimes,phonemes),principlesofphonologicalskillinstruction(brief,multisensory,conceptualandauditory-verbal),understandthereciprocalnatureofphonologicalprocessing,reading,spellingandvocabulary,andunderstandhowthephonologicalfeaturesofasecondlanguagemightinterferewithEnglishpronunciationandphonics.

Structured Language Teaching: Phonics and Word Recognition

Thissectionoutlinesthestandardsthatrefertoteachingsystematicphonicsandaccurateworddecodingskills.Recognizehowtoorderphonicsconcepts,understandexplicitanddirectteaching,understandmultisensoryandmultimodal techniques, understand lesson format from word recognition to fluent application in meaningfulreadingandwriting,understandresearch-basedadaptationsofinstructionforstudentswhohaveweaknessesinworkingmemory,attention,executivefunctioningorprocessingspeedandtheapplicationoftheaboveconcepts.

Structured Language Teaching: Fluent, Automatic Reading of Text

Thissectionoutlinethestandardsthatrefertoteachingfluency.Underdevelopedorpoorfluencyisacharacteristicofdyslexiaandinhibitsotherreadingprocessingincludingcomprehension.Understand the roleoffluency in reading, thatfluency is a stageofnormal readingdevelopmentoccurswithpracticeandmaybeasymptomofsomereadingdisorders,understandtheconceptsoffrustration,instructionaland independent reading levels,what instructionalactivitiesare likely to improvefluency, techniques thatwillassist inreadingmotivation,andunderstandtheappropriateuseofassistivetechnologyandtheapplicationoftheseconcepts.

Structured Language Teaching: Vocabulary

Thissectionoutlinesthestandardsthatrefertovocabularyanditsimportancewithregardtoreadingcomprehensioninadditiontoprovidingteachersinformationwithregardtotheimportanceofvocabularyinreadingandlisteningandhowtoprovideaclassroomenvironmentthatisrichinaccesstovocabulary.Understandtheroleofvocabularydevelopmentandknowledgeincomprehension,understandtheroleofdirectandindirectmethodsofvocabularyinstruction,knowthetechniquesusedtoteachvocabularybefore,duringandafterreading,understandthereasonsfortheconsiderablevariabilityinstudents’vocabularies,andteachingwordmeaning.

Structured Language Teaching: Text Comprehension

Thissectionoutlinesthestandardsthatrefertoreadingcomprehension,particularlyteachingcomprehensionandidentifyingweaknessesthatrequireintervention.Befamiliarwithteachingstrategiesthatareappropriatebefore,duringandafterreading,contrastthecharacteristicsofmajor text genres including narration, exposition and argumentation, understand the relationship betweentextcomprehensionandwrittencomposition,identifypotentialmiscomprehensionintext,understandthelevelsofcomprehensionincludingsurfacecode,textbaseandmentalmodel/situationmodel,understandfactorsthatcontributetodeepcomprehension.

Structured Language Teaching: Handwriting, Spelling and Written Expression

Thissectionoutlinesthestandardsthatrefertohandwriting,keyboarding,spellingandwrittenexpressionincludingcapitalizationandspelling.Know research-based principles for teaching letter naming and letter formation, techniques for teachinghandwritingfluency,recognizeandexplaintherelationshipbetweentranscriptionskillsandwrittenexpression,identifystudents’levelsofspellingdevelopmentandorthographicknowledge,beabletoexplaintheinfluencesof phonological, orthographic andmorphemic knowledge on spelling, understand themajor components andprocessesofwrittenexpressionandtheirinteractions,knowgradeanddevelopmentalexpectationsforstudents’writingandunderstandappropriateusesofassistivetechnologyinwrittenexpression.

Table 1Section1oftheknowledgeandpracticestandardsforteachersofreading.

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



Interpretation and Administration of Assessments for Planning Instruction

Thissectionoutlinesthestandardsthatrefertointerpretingandadministeringassessmentsforplanninginstruction.Thissectionincludesstandardsthatmustbedemonstratedfornotonlythecontentknowledgeanditsapplication,butalsocompetenciesforteachingstudentswithdyslexiaandrelateddifficulties.Understandthedifferencesbetweenscreening,diagnostic,outcomeandprogress-monitoringassessments,thebasicprinciplesoftestconstruction,includingreliability,validityandnorm-referencingandknowthemostwell-validatedscreeningtests,understandtheprinciplesofprogress-monitoringandtheuseofgraphstodemonstrateprogress,knowtherangeofskillstypicallyassessedbydiagnosticsurveysofphonological,decoding,oralreading,spelling andwriting skills, recognize the content and purposes of themost common diagnostic tests used bypsychologistsandeducationalevaluators,interpretmeasuresofreadingcomprehensionandwrittenexpression.

Knowledge of Dyslexia and Other Learning Disorders

Thissectionoutlinesthestandardsthatrefertounderstandingthenatureofdyslexiaandotherlearningdisorders.Understand themost common intrinsic differences between good and poor readers, the tents of theNICHD/IDAdefinitionofdyslexia,thatdyslexiaandotherreadingdifficultiesexistonacontinuumofseverity,beabletoidentify thedistinguishingcharacteristicsofdyslexiaand related readingand learningdisabilities, identifyhowsymptomsofreadingdifficultymaychangeovertimeinresponsetodevelopmentandinstruction,andunderstandfederalandstatelawsthatpertaintolearningdisabilities,especiallyreadingdisabilitiesanddyslexia.

Section 2: Guidelines pertaining to Supervised Practice of Teachers Who Work in School Settings

Level Description and Requirements

I

Description:Thislevelisintendedfornoviceteachersintrainingwhoimplementanappropriateprogramwithfidelity,formulateandimplementanappropriatedifferentiatedlessonplan,anddemonstrateproficiencytoinstructindividualswithreadingdisabilityordyslexia.

Requirements:1. Passanapprovedbasicknowledgeproficiencyexam.2. Demonstrate,overtime,instructionalproficiencyinallLevel1areasoutlinedintableabove.3. Documentsignificantstudentprogresswithformalandinformalassessmentsasaresultoftheinstruction.

II

Description:Thislevelisintendedforspecialistswhomustdemonstrateadditionalexpertiseandabilitiestoprovideservicestoindividualswithdyslexiaandotherlearningdisorders.

Requirements:1. Passanapprovedbasicknowledgeproficiencyexam.2. Completeaone-to-onepracticumwithastudentorsmallgroupofonetothreewell-matchedstudentswhohaveadocumented

readingdisability.Arecognized,certifiedinstructor*providesconsistentoversightandobservationsofinstructiondeliveredtothesamestudent(s)overtime,andthepracticumcontinuesuntilexpectedproficiencyisreached.**

3. Demonstrate(overtime)instructionalproficiencyinallLevel1and2areasoutlinedabove.4. Provide successful instruction to several individualswith dyslexiawho demonstrate varying needs and document significant

studentprogresswithformalandinformalassessmentasaresultoftheinstruction.5. Completeanapprovededucationalassessmentofastudentwithdyslexiaand/or language-basedreadingdisability, including

studenthistoryandcomprehensiverecommendations.

Table 2Section2oftheknowledgeandpracticestandardsforteachersofreading.

Note.*Arecognizedorcertifiedinstructorisanindividualwhohasmetalloftherequirementsoftheleveltheysupervise,butwhohasadditionalcontentknowledgeandexperience in implementingandobserving instruction forstudentswithdyslexiaandother readingdifficulties invariedsettings.Arecognizedinstructorhasbeenrecommendedbyorcertifiedbyanapprovedtrainermentorshipprogramthatmeetsthesestandards.ThetrainermentorshipprogramhasbeenreviewedbyandapprovedbytheIDAStandardsandPracticesCommittee.

**Documentationofproficiencymustbe:1)Completedbyarecognized/certifiedinstructorprovidingoversightinthespecifiedprogram;2)Completedduringfull(notpartial)lessonobservations;and3)Mustoccuratvariousintervalthroughouttheinstructionalperiodwithstudent.

technical aspectsof the scientificmethod,design, analysis andhowscientificresultsarecommunicated.Itisimportantthatpre-serviceteachersareprovidedwithaframeworktocomprehendnotonlytheknowledgecontainedwithintheScienceofReading,but to appreciate the procedures in which data are collectedand analyzed. The suitability of pre-service teachers to engagein teaching readingwill be determined by their understandingofthemethodsbywhichdataaregeneratedtoanswerspecificquestions that lead to practical applications. The course in

linguistics will include phonology, phonetics, morphology,syntax,semanticsandgrammarsothatthepre-serviceteacherwill have specific knowledge regarding language. Having aworking knowledge of language and its subparts is critical tounderstanding reading acquisition. The lastprerequisite courseshould include content in cognition asmuch of the Science ofReading content was developed from cognitive science. As aresult,afamiliaritywiththeconcepts,strategiesandtheoriesinthisdomainwillprovetobeessential.Thecontentofthiscourse

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



Course Title Course Content

Research Methods BasicsofscientificprinciplesLinguistics/Psycholinguistics Introductiontolinguistics

CognitionIntroductiontocognitivescienceswhichwouldincludeempiricalmethods,models,anddata

Science of Reading SeeTable4

Science-based Reading Evaluation and Interventions

Theoreticalbasisofassessmentinstrumentsandtheirresultsin

additiontodevelopingindividualizedinterventionsbasedonassessment

protocols

Practicum in Reading I

Evaluationofreadingandcomprehensionutilizingphonologicalprocessing,

phonics,fluencyandvocabulary.Developstrategiestoassistinthedevelopmentofreadingacquisition

Practicum in Reading II

Evaluationofreadingandcomprehensioninstrugglingreadersutilizingphonologicalprocessing,phonics,fluencyandvocabulary.Developstrategiestoassistinthedevelopmentofreadingacquisition

Table 3 Potential required courses to be included in an elementaryeducationprogramtopromotethescienceofreading.

should include attention, memory, perception, language andmetacognition.Thesethreeprerequisitecoursesshouldprovidea working knowledge of the content that will prepare themfor understanding the content within the Science of Readingcourses.Otherpotentialprerequisitecoursescouldalsoincludean introductiontohumanneuropsychology,memory,sensationandperception,andadditionalcourseworkinresearchmethods.

TheScienceofReadingmaterialcouldbeofferedasasinglecourseoraseriesofcourses;thematerialisvoluminous(Table 4).Thereisenoughcontentthatseveralcoursescouldbeofferedtooutlinethespecificdetails.Othertopicscouldbeincludedaswell. It isessentialthosepre-serviceteachersarenotonlyfamiliarwiththecontent,butcanapply it.ThetwopracticumcourseswouldbedesignedtoaddresstheapplicationofthemateriallearnedintheScienceofReading courseor courses, thefirst ofwhichwouldinvolveassessmentandevidence-basedstrategiestoassistwithreading acquisition while the second practicum course wouldinvolve assessment and intervention strategies specifically forstruggling readers. The instructor would observe and evaluateeachstudent’stechniqueprovidingfeedbackduringandaftertheprocess.Theseriesofcoursesoutlinedabovewouldprovidepre-serviceteacherstheknowledgeandskillsnecessaryforthemtoappropriatelyteachreadingtotheirstudents,itwouldalsoprovidethemwiththeabilitytoidentifychildrenatriskforreadingfailureandtoprovidethenecessaryintervention.Pre-serviceteachersdesperatelywantthis informationastheywanttobethebest-possibleeducatorspossible.Thosewhobelievedthattheirpre-servicepreparationwaslessthansatisfactoryweremorelikelytoleaveteaching[89].Thereisalsoevidencethatteacherturnoverharmsstudentachievement[90].Teacherpreparationprograms

Course ContentWritingSystems

Alphabetically-BasedWritingSystemsHistoryofEnglishWritingSystem

OrthographyLanguagesthatcontributedtotheEnglishWritingSystem

HistoryofTeachingReading1880topresentMechanicsofEnglishWritingSystem

Letter-SoundCorrespondencePhonics

VisualProcessingandReadingPhonologyandPhonologicalProcessing

LexicalAccessFluency

MorphemesandSyllableStructureInterdependenceofPhonologicalProcessing,Fluency,andVocabulary

ComprehensionLiteracy

AssessmentofDyslexiaandReadingDifficultiesInterventionsforDyslexiaandReadingDifficulties

TheRoleofAttentioninReadingAttentionDeficitHyperactivityDisorder

AppropriateassessmentPotentialinterventions

TheEffectofADHDonReading

Table 4Potentialcontent forascienceof readingcoursedesigned forundergraduatepre-serviceteachers.

mustprovidepre-serviceteacherswithalloftheknowledgeandskills thatwill be needed to provide quality education to theirstudents. Those who are ill-prepared to begin their teachingcareersarelikelytoharmtheirstudents’academicachievementby first not knowing the appropriate reading acquisition andremediationstrategiestoprovidetotheirstudentsandthenbyleavingtheirprofession.Studentswhostruggletolearntoreadaremore likely todropoutofschool.Anenormousamountofhuman potential is not being realized due to the weaknessesthroughouttheeducationalprocessbeginningwithlackofrigorwith regard to the Science of Reading during doctoral trainingwhich tricklesdown topre-service teachers, readingspecialistsandmasters-leveleducators.Collegesofeducationarebehoovedtodeveloptherecommendationslistedabove.

Continuing education strategiesItisrecommendedthatcollegesofeducationdevelopcontinuingeducationstrategiesforin-serviceteacherstobeexposedtotheScienceofReading.Thiscanbeintheformofapotentialmaster’sdegreeinwhichthemajorfocusisontheScienceofReading,orcoursesandactivitiestomirrorwhatwasrecommendedabovewith the training sequence of pre-service teachers. Successhas occurred in professional development strategies to assistin-service teachers understand various aspects of the Scienceof Reading [91]. If in-service teachers are provided with theappropriatecontentinprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities,they can become proficient in their knowledge of the Scienceof Reading [92] outlines the issueswith regard to professionaldevelopment and the variables that must be addressed forpositivechangetooccur.Itwasalsofoundthatwhenuniversity

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



instructorswereprovidedwithprofessionaldevelopment,theirknowledge of the Science of Reading significantly improved aswellastheirpre-serviceteacherswhotheywereteaching[93].

An exampleThe79thTexasLegislatureenactedHouseBill1,the“AdvancementofCollegeReadinessinCurriculum.”ThegoalofSection28.008oftheTexasEducationCodewastoincreasethenumberofhighschoolgraduateswhowerereadytobegincollegeorcareers.Inthebill,theTexaslegislaturerequiredtheTexasHigherEducationCoordinating Board (THECB), which oversees post-secondaryeducation in Texas, and the Texas Education Agency (TEA),whichoverseespubliceducation, todeterminehowtheycouldacttogethertopreparestudents forpost-secondaryeducation.TheactalsorequiredtheTHECBandtheTEAtocreateVerticalTeams, which were comprised of faculty from secondary andpost-secondary institutions and was the organization thatdeveloped theCollegeandCareerReadinessStandards (CCRS).TheTHECBestablishedtheTexasFacultyCollaborativesInitiativeso that facultywhowerepreparingpre-service teacherswouldhave access to current information regarding the CCRS so thattheycouldtrainpre-serviceteacherswhich,inturn,wouldallowpre-serviceteacherstomoreeffectivelypreparetheirstudentstobecomecollegeandcareerready.

The TexasHigher EducationCollaborative (HEC)was created in2000toensurethatscientificallybasedreadingresearch(SBRR)andscientificallybasedreadinginstruction(SBRI)werecontainedwithin pre-service teacher education programs, alternativecertification programs, and community teacher preparationclasses. The objectives of the HEC are to support the ReadingFirst Initiative by insuring that college of education facultypresentSBRItopre-serviceteachers,assistcollegeofeducationfacultytoincorporateSBRRmaterialsintotheircourses,establishacollaborativesothatcollegeofeducationfacultywhopreparepre-service teachers could support each other, to addressReadingFirstInitiativesandtoprovideprofessionaldevelopmentfor elementary and special education teachers to insureappropriatereadingachievementofstudents.TheHECprovidesopportunities for teacher preparation faculty from colleges,universities, community colleges and alternative certificationprogramstocommunicateanddiscussissuesrelatedtoreadinginadditiontoprovidinginformationalmaterials.HECalsoprovidesan online collaborative; HEC Online. Interestingly, the HECencourageseducationaladministratorstoactasliteracyleaders.HEC also supports and encourages Educational Leadership andEducational Administrator faculty to embed SBRR into theircoursesaswell.ThemajorfocusisnotonlytoensurethatSBRRisintegratedincoursessothatpre-serviceteacherslearnabouttheScienceofReading,butalsoensuring thatallhighereducationfacultyareproficientintheScienceofReadingandthattheyaredisseminatingthatinformationtoalloftheirstudentsregardlessofdegreeorprogram.

HEC provides seminars, assists in revising syllabi and courserequirementstoreflectSBRR,participatesinsitevisitstoensureimplementation of SBRR, provides online discussion groups,examines implementation of HEC initiatives with faculty andpre-service teachersurveysandexaminespre-service teachers’

knowledge throughsurveys.Resultsof theHEC initiativeshaveindicated that higher-education faculty found participatingin HEC activities to be highly beneficial. Not surprisingly, pre-service teachersweremore knowledgeablewith regard to theScienceor Reading [94]. The success of theHEC initiatives areduetolegislativeactionthatcompelledchangetooccur,strongandcollaborativeleadershipindevelopingprograms,secondaryandpost-secondaryfacultycollaboratingtodevelopappropriatestandards, providing the support for higher-education faculty,many of whom had little to no knowledgewith regard to theScience of Reading, the opportunity to learn, to change theirthinkingandtochangecoursecontent.Thesatisfactionofhigher-educationfacultyinthesupportandmaterialsthatweregainedfrom HEC led to changes in course content which then led toincreased knowledge of the Science of Reading in pre-serviceteachers.

TheTexasexperience is amodel forother states and indicatesthatitispossibletoprovidethetypesofchangeoutlinedabove.An enormously important component that contributed to thesuccessofTexas’ initiativewasthattheknowledgeandskillsofresearchscientistswereutilizedinpresentingatconferencesandseminars hosted by HEC,many ofwhom are cited above. ThecontentwasdrivenbytheScienceofReading(SBRRandSBRI),which is essential.Other states thatattempt to create suchaninitiat, should model their programs very carefully to Texas’HEC. Imperative inthisapproach is tohavea legislaturethat isappropriately informedregardingthenecessityof the inclusionoftheScienceofReadingincludingSBRRandSBRI.Therewillberesistanceashasbeendocumentedthoroughlyabove,andthetypical legislator will need to be educated on the importanceof the Science of Reading rather than be persuaded by thosewho fear and resist change. Developing a goal with regard toreading success and then assisting faculty in and outside ofcollegesofeducationtoparticipateinthecreationofprogramsto address embedding the Science of Reading into courses forpre-service teachers is also important. The main focus shouldbeonthestudents,particularlystrugglingreaders,allofwhomare dependent on colleges of education to create appropriatecoursework so that pre-service teacher can become in-serviceteacherscompetentintheirabilitytoteachallstudentstoread.

ConclusionsApproximately 20% of our nation’s students are experiencingreading difficulties and the percentage of fourth-gradestudentswhoare readingbelowBasicandProficient (33%and58%, respectively) has not appreciably changed since 1992.Fortunately, there is a solution. First and foremost the historyofignorance,resistanceandcomplacencyneedstobeexposed.Secondly, there is a scientific literature that prescribes how toimprovereadingabilitiesinyoungstudents.Thesolutioninvolvesprovidingpre-serviceteacherswiththeknowledgethatwillassistthemtoprovidetheirstudents,particularlystrugglingreaders,thetypesofassessmentandinterventionsthatwillleadtoimprovedreadingskills.Readingcoursesmustbedevelopedorrevampedto include the Science of Reading. In addition, pre-serviceteachersmustbeprovidedwiththeappropriatecourseworksuchthattheywillbeabletounderstandthemechanicsoftheScience

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



of Reading prior to their exposure to that information. Therereallyisnoreasonthatindividualswithdyslexiacannotbecomecompetentreaders.

For there to ever be gained and sustained any social progressregardlessoftheultimateideal;forasChomskyobserves,socialrevolutionarychange isgradualand incremental,buildinguponprevious gains; the population must be better educated. Atminimal,peoplemustbeabletoreadbothinprintandonline.

One of the primary goals of social progress has always beenmass education. Education begins with reading, and learningto read begins with a proper understanding and applicationof the Science of Reading. Children not only need not resignthemselves to perpetual literacy difficulty and only partakingin a limited envisioned future. There exists in the immediatepresent a corpus of knowledge represented in the Science ofReading that is being stifled and opposed by the uninformed,educational social structures and educational power elite. Itis necessary that a revolution begin such that the Science ofReadingispresentedincollegesofeducationsothatpre-serviceteacherscanbecomecompetenttoteachreadingtoalloftheirstudents.Thisis,infact,whatpre-serviceteachersactuallydesireand should demand; to become themost competent teacherspossible.Themostpromisingwaytoensurethatstudentswith

dyslexia and those who are experiencing reading failure canbecomecompetentreaders is toexposethecurrenttragedyofignorance, complacency and resistance on the part of facultywithinmanycollegesofeducation. Itwillbenecessarytobuildstronger doctoral degrees in education with an emphasis onscience, research methods, design and analysis along withsubstantialcontentwithintheScienceofReading.Thesefacultywill then be competent to teach pre-service teachers readingacquisition strategies so that children will learn to read, eventhosewithdyslexiaandpotentialreadingdifficulties.“Asocietycannot afford to continue funding teacher training institutionswhose educational philosophy promotes a bankrupt theoryand its associated pedagogy in the name of social justice (or‘inquiry’) inordertodisguisetheirownintellectualbankruptcy.Alternatives to dysfunctional institutions must be created. Acivicallyhealthysocietyneedsasystemforteacherpreparationthatrespectsandhonorsrationalapproachestoissuesincurriculumandinstruction”[95].TheabilitytocreatestrongcollegesofeducationwhosemissioninvolvesutilizingsciencetosolveeducationalissuesandtodisseminatethecontinuedandgrowingknowledgecontainedwithintheScienceofReadingisessential.Childrenwithdyslexiaandreadingdifficultieswillcontinuetosufferuntilthisisaccomplished.

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



References1 GallmanRE,WeissTJ(1969)Theserviceindustriesinthenineteenth

century.In:RuchsVR(ed.)Productionandproductivityintheserviceindustries,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,pp:287-352.

2 Kendrick JW (1961) Productivity trends in the United States.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

3 BureauofEconomicAnalysis-USDepartmentofCommerce,NationalIncomeandproductaccounts.

4 ConkinPaul(2008)RevolutionDownontheFarm:TheTransformationof American Agriculture since 1929 (1st edn.) University Press ofKentucky.

5 U.S.CensusBureau(1990)U.S.Census.

6 U.S.CensusBureau(2013)AmericanCommunitySurvey.

7 CoxKE,GuthrieJT(2001)Motivationalandcognitivecontributionstostudents'amountofreading.ContempEducPsychol26:116-131.

8 Shaywitz SE (2003) Overcoming dyslexia: A new and completescience-basedprogramforreadingproblemsatanylevel.Knopf.

9 TallalP,MillerSL,BediG,BymaG,WangX,etal. (1996)LanguageComprehension in Language-Learning ImpairedChildren ImprovedwithAcousticallyModifiedSpeech.Science5:81-84.

10 Terras MM, Thompson LC, Minnis H (2009) Dyslexia and psycho-socialfunctioning:inexploratorystudyoftheroleofself-esteemandunderstanding.Dyslexia15:304-327.

11 Alexander-PasseN(2016)InvestigatingPostTraumaticStressDisorder(PTSD)TriggeredbytheExperienceofDyslexiainMainstreamSchoolEducation.JPsycholPsychother5:215

12 Alexander-Passe N (2016) Dyslexia: Investigating Self-Harmand Suicidal Thoughts/Attempts as a Coping Strategy. J PsycholPsychother5:224.

13 Fuller-Thomson E, Hooper SR, KennedyM (2014) One third ofadultswith dyslexia report theywere physically abused duringtheirchildhood.UniversityofToronto30.

14 CortiellaC,HorowitzSH(2014)Thestateoflearningdisabilities:Facts,trendsandemergingissues.NewYork:NationalCenterforLearningDisabilities.

15 Literacy Development for Juvenile Offenders: A Project of Hope(2003)NationalCriminalJusticeReferenceService,pp:1-7.

16 Hurford DP, Fender AC, Swigart CC, Hurford TE, Hoover BB, etal. (2016) Pre-service teachers are competent in phonologicalprocessing skills: How to teach the science of reading. ReadPsychol37:885.

17 AslinRN,NewportEL(2012)Statisticallearningfromacquiringspecificitemstoforminggeneralrules.CurrDirPsycholSci21:170-176.

18 OllerDK,WiemanLA,DoyleWJ,RossC(1976)Infantbabblingandspeech.JChildLang3:1-11.

19 ManiN,PätzoldW(2016)Sixteen-month-oldinfants’segmentwordsfrominfant-andadult-directedspeech.LangCognitiveProc,pp:1-10.

20 PhillipsL,PearlL(2015)Utility-basedevaluationmetricsformodelsoflanguage.

21 PlanteE,PattersonD,GomezR,AlmrydeKR,WhiteMG,etal.(2015)The nature of the language input affects brain activation duringlearningfromanaturallanguage.JNeurolinguistics36:17-34.

22 ChomskyN(1965)Aspectsofthetheoryofsyntax.MITPress.

23 ChomskyN(1968)Languageandmind.NewYork:NT:HarcourtBrace&World.

24 Liberman IY, Liberman AM (1990) Whole language vs. codeemphasis:Underlyingassumptionsandtheirimplicationsforreadinginstruction.AnnDyslexia40:51-76.

25 RaynerK,PollatsekA(2013)Basicprocessesinreading.In:ReisbergD (ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Psychology, Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversityPress,pp:442-461.

26 GoughPB,HillingerML (1980)Learning to read:Anunnaturalact.AnnDyslexia30:179-196.

27 LyonGR(1997)OnlineGames.

28 McLeod S, Bleile K (2013) Neurological and developmentalfoundations of speech acquisition. American Speech-Lanugage-HearingAssociationConvention,Chicago.

29 DehaeneS(2009)Readinginthebrain:Thenewscienceofhowweread.Penguin.

30 Baroni A (2011) Alphabetic vs. non-alphabetic writing: Linguisticfit and natural tendencies. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista diLinguistica23:127-159.

31 Posner MI, Snyder CR (2004) Attention and Cognitive Control 1.Cognitivepsychology:Keyreadings205.

32 Tzelgov J (1999) Automaticity and ProcessingWithout Awareness.AssociationfortheScientificStudyofConsciousness.

33 Samuels SJ, Flor RF (1997) The importance of automaticity fordevelopingexpertiseinreading.ReadWritQ13:107-121.

34 ByrneBJ(1998)Thefoundationofliteracy:Thechild'sacquisitionofthealphabeticprinciple.PsychPress,pp:1-162.

35 Byrne B (2013) The Alphabetic Principle. Learning To Read: BasicResearchandItsImplications75.

36 Liberman IY, Shankweiler D, Liberman AM (1989) The alphabeticprinciple and learning to read.Haskins Laboratories StatusReport101:1-13.

37 Carroll JM, Snowling MJ (2004) Language and phonological skillsin children at high-risk of reading difficulties. J Child PsycholPsychiatry45:631-640.

38 VellutinoFR,FletcherJM,SnowlingMJ,ScanlonDM(2004)Specificreadingdisability(dyslexia):whathavewelearnedinthepastfourdecades?JChildPsycholPsychiatry45:2-40.

39 DuffFJ,ClarkePJ(2011)PractitionerReview:Readingdisorders:Whataretheeffectiveinterventionsandhowshouldtheybeimplementedandevaluated.JChildPsycholPsychiatry52:3-12.

40 Snowling MJ, Hulme C (2011) Evidence-based interventions forreading and languagedifficulties: Creating a virtuous circle. Brit JEducPsychol81:1-23.

41 Al Otaiba S, Wagner RK, Miller B (2014) “Waiting to Fail” Reduxunderstandinginadequateresponsetointervention.LearnDisabilQ37:129-133.

42 Bruck M (1992) Persistence of dyslexics' phonological awarenessdeficits.DevelopmentalPsychology28:874.

43 Lyon GR (2002) Reading development, reading difficulties, andreading2 instruction: Educational and public health issues. J SchPsychol40:3-6.

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



44 MoatsLC(1999)Teachingreadingisrocketscience.Washington,DC:AmericanFederationofTeachers,pp:1-35.

45 Moats LC (2014)What teachers don’t know and why they aren’tlearningit:Addressingtheneedforcontentandpedagogyinteachereducation.JournalAustralianJournalofLearningDifficulties19:2.

46 Moats LC (1995) The missing foundation in teacherpreparation.AmericanEducator19:43-51.

47 KennedyJF(1962)CommencementaddressatYaleUniversity.

48 National Center for Education Statistics (2011) The Condition ofEducation.

49 GoldbergM,HarveyJ(1983)Anationatrisk:Thereportofthenationalcommissiononexcellenceineducation.PhiDeltaKappan65:14-18.

50 ReutzelDR,SmithJS(2004)Acceleratingstrugglingreaders’progress:A comparative analysis of expert opinion and current researchrecommendations.ReadWritQ20:63-89.

51 BosC,MatherN,DicksonS,PodhajskiB,ChardD(2001)Perceptionsand knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about earlyreadinginstruction.AnnalsofDyslexia51:97-120.

52 Cunningham AE, Perry KE, Stanovich KE, Stanovich PJ (2004)Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge ofcalibration inthedomainofearly literacy.AnnDyslexia 54: 139-169.

53 AdlofS,PerfettiC(2014)Individualdifferencesinwordlearningandreadingability.In:StoneCA,SillimanER,EhrenBJ,WallachGP(eds.)Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders,NewYork,NY:Guilford,pp:246-264.

54 ElliottJG,GrigorenkkoEL(2014)Thedyslexiadebate.NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.

55 FletcherJM,LyonGR,FuchsL,BarnesM(2007)Learningdisabilities:Fromidentificationtointervention.NewYork:Guilford,pp:1-324.

56 National Reading Panel (2000) Report of the National ReadingPanel.Teachingchildrentoread:Anevidence-basedassessmentofthescientificresearchliteratureonreadinganditsimplicationsforreadinginstruction.(NIHPublicationNo.00-4754).Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.

57 Brady S (2011) Efficacyof phonics teaching for readingoutcomes:Implications from Post-NRP research. In: Brady S, BrazeD, FowlerC (eds.) Explaining individual differences in reading, London:PsychologyPress,pp:69-96.

58 GreenbergJ,McKeeA,WalshK(2013)Executivesummary:Areviewof the nation’s teacher preparation programs.New York:NationalCouncilonTeacherQuality.

59 WalshK,GlaserD,Dunne-WilcoxD(2006)Whatelementaryteachersdon’tknowaboutreadingandwhatteacherpreparationprogramsaren’tteaching.Washingon,DC:NationalCouncilforTeacherQuality.

60 Joshi RM, Binks E, HougenM, DahlgrenME, Ocker-Dean E, et al.(2009)Whyelementaryteachersmaybeinadequatelypreparedtoteachreading.JournalofLearningDisabilities42:392-402.

61 Piasta SB, Connor CM, Fishman BJ, Morrison FJ (2009) Teachers’knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and studentreadinggrowth.SocStudSci13:224-248.

62 JoshiRM,BinksE,GrahamL,Ocker-DeanE,SmithDL,etal.(2009)DotextbooksusedinuniversityreadingeducationcoursesconformtotheinstructionalrecommendationsoftheNationalReadingPanel?JournalofLearningDisabilities42:458-463.

63 Levine A (2005) Educating school leaders. New York: EducationSchoolsProject.

64 Townsend BK (2002) Rethinking the Ed.D., or what’s in a name?Paperpresented to theAnnualMeetingof theAssociation for theStudyofHigherEducation,Sacramento,CA.

65 Boote DN, Beile P (2005) Scholars before researchers: On thecentrality of the dissertation literature review in researchpreparation.EducationalResearcher34:3-15.

66 Goodman KS (1967) Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game.LiteracyResearchandInstruction6:126-135.

67 Goodman KS (1970) Psycholinguistic universals in the readingprocess.VisibleLanguage4:103-110.

68 Goodman KS, Goodman YM (1976) Learning to read is natural.Paper presented at the Theory and Practice of Beginning ReadingInstructionConference,Pittsburgh,PA,pp:1-48.

69 SmithF (1971)Understandingreading:apsycholingvuistiganalysisof reading and learning to read. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,Incorporated.

70 Smith F (1973) Psycholinguistics and reading. Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

71 BrysbaertM,DriegheD,VituF (2005)Wordskipping: Implicationsfortheoriesofeyemovementcontrolinreading.In:UnderwoodG(ed.)Cognitiveprocesses ineyeguidance,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,pp:53-77.

72 Reichle ED, Liversedge SP, Drieghe D, Blythe HI, Joseph HS, et al.(2013)UsingEZReadertoexaminetheconcurrentdevelopmentofeye-movementcontrolandreadingskill.DevRev33:110-149.

73 Blythe HI (2014) Developmental changes in eye movements andvisual informationencodingassociatedwith learning to read.CurrDirPsychol23:201-207.

74 TeachingReading.AustralianGovernmentDepartmentofEducation,ScienceandTraining.

75 Hurford DP, Neidhardt K, Lasater KA, McMahon AB, Kiesling NE,et al. (2013) The results of a scripted linguistic phonics readingcurriculum implemented by kindergarten teachers. Journal ofEducationalResearchandPolicyStudies13:33-50.

76 Shulman LS, Golde CM, Bueschel AC, Garabedian KJ (2006)Reclaimingeducation’sdoctorates:Acritiqueandaproposal.EducRes35:25-32.

77 PurintonT(2012)TheEd.D.dilemma.EducationWeek31:24-25.

78 CarnineD (2000)Why Education Experts Resist Effective Practices(AndWhatItWouldTakeToMakeEducationMoreLikeMedicine).

79 Perry JA, Imig DG (2008) A stewardship of practice in education.Change:TheMagazineofHigherLearning40:42-49.

80 Dunlap J, Li J, KladifkoR (2015)Competencies foreffective schoolleadership: Towhat extent are they included in Ed. D. leadershipprograms?.EducationalLeadershipandAdministration26:14.

81 ShulmanLS(2005)Signaturepedagogiesintheprofessions.Daedelus134:52-59.

82 Binks-CantrellE,WashburnEK,JoshiRM,HougenM(2012)Petereffectinthepreparationofreadingteachers.SciStudRead16:526-536.

83 ApplegateAJ,ApplegateMD(2004)ThePeterEffect:Readinghabitsandattitudesofpreserviceteachers.ReadTeach57:554-563.

2016Vol. 2 No. 3: 26



84 National Center for Education Statistics (2013) The Condition ofEducation.

85 MoatsLC(2003)InterviewwithDavidBoulton,ChildrenoftheCode.

86 American Council on Education (1999) To touch the future:Transformingthewayteachersaretaught.Washington,DC:Author.

87 Washburn EK, Mulcahy CA (2014) Expanding preservice teachers'knowledgeof theEnglish language:Recommendations for teachereducators.ReadWritQ30:328-347.

88 BlaunsteinP,LyonR,RiccardsPR,(2014)Thelastword.In:RiccardsPR,BlaunsteinP,LyonR (Eds.),Whykidscan’t read:Continuing tochallengethestatusquoineducation.Lanham,Maryland:Rowman&LittlefieldEducation,pp:139-141.

89 DeAngelis KJ, Wall AF, Che J (2013) The impact of preservicepreparation and early career support on novice teachers’ careerintentionsanddecisions.JTeachEduc64:338-355.

90 RonfeldtM,LoebS,WyckoffJ(2013)Howteacherturnoverharmsstudentachievement.AmEducResJ50:4-36.

91 McCutchen D, Green L, Abbott RD, Sanders EA (2009) Furtherevidence for teacher knowledge: Supporting struggling readers ingradesthreethroughfive.ReadWrit22:401-423.

92 Moats LC (2004) Science, language, and imagination in theprofessionaldevelopmentof reading teachers. In:McCardlePandChhabraV(eds.)Thevoiceofevidenceinreadingresearch.BrookesPublishing,pp:269-287.

93 BinksES(2008)Anassessmentofuniversityinstructorsandtheirpre-serviceteachers’knowledgeofbasiclanguageconstructsbeforeandafter university instructor professional development (Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation).TexasA&MUniversity.

94 Scheffel D, Hougen M (2010) Establishing a higher educationcollaborative:Perilsandpearls.PaperpresentedattheInternationalDyslexiaAssociationAnnualConference,Phoenix,AZ.

95 Stotsky S (2005)Why Reading Teachers AreNot Trained toUse aResearch-BasedPedagogy:IsInstitutionalReformPossible?CourantInstituteofMathematicalSciences,NewYorkUniversity,USA.

The Dyslexia Dilemma: A History of Ignorance, Complacency ... · Dyslexia is the most common and...

Documents

Transcript of The Dyslexia Dilemma: A History of Ignorance, Complacency ... · Dyslexia is the most common and...