10 SES 14 D, Research on Professional Knowledge & Identity in Teacher Education: Difference and disability
Given that an estimated 5-10% of the worldwide population is said to have dyslexia, it is of great importance that teachers have an accurate understanding of what dyslexia is and how it effects their students. The Rose Report (2009), commissioned by the UK government, calls for all teachers to have a working knowledge of dyslexia, yet research has found that teachers hold seemingly stereotypical ideas about what dyslexia is, and are unsure of best practice when working with these students.
Government reports suggest a “lack of coverage in initial teacher training on dyslexia” (Department for Education, 2015, p.58). As teachers are expected to identify and intervene with their dyslexic students, this suggests that they may be entering the workforce without adequate knowledge to do so.
Furthermore, growing research suggests that individuals with dyslexia have a negative academic self-concept, it is important to understand where these feelings come from. Many sociological and psychological theories suggest that the views of those around us affect our own self-concept and identity. Teachers play a vital role in the academic development of a child. Therefore, it is important to know teachers opinions about the label of dyslexia and what may have impacted this.
Aims of this paper were to investigate: How teachers describe dyslexia, the training teachers have received on dyslexia and how this has impacted their knowledge and practice working with students with dyslexia.
An online survey was issued to teachers across the England and Wales (N≈2,600). The survey asked teachers to provide a definition of what they believe dyslexia to be and asked questions about their training experiences. Frith (1995) developed a causal model framework in which dyslexia can be explored through three different levels: biological, cognitive and behavioural. Teachers’ descriptions of dyslexia were coded according to this model in order to understand what they understand about dyslexia. Relationships between their understanding and training experiences were then explored.
This paper demonstrates that teachers held a basic understanding of dyslexia, based on the behavioural issues that it is associated with. Teachers lacked the knowledge of the biological (i.e. neurological) and cognitive (i.e. processing) aspects of dyslexia. Moreover, a number of teachers mentioned visual factors in their description of dyslexia, despite there being inconclusive evidence to suggest a relationship between visual functioning and dyslexia. Further findings demonstrate the importance of good quality teacher training in increasing teachers’ confidence working with those with dyslexia, whilst increasing their knowledge of the cognitive aspects of dyslexia. This paper argues that evidence-based teacher training, that informs teachers of the up-to-date research on the biological, cognitive and behavioural aspects of dyslexia, is essential to combat misconceptions and ensure that teachers have more nuanced and informed understandings of dyslexia.
Bell, S., McPhillips, T., & Doveston, M. (2011). How do teachers in Ireland and England conceptualise dyslexia? Journal of Research in Reading, 34(2), 171-192. Department for Eduation. (2013). Teachers’ Standards: Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283566/Teachers_standard_information.pdf Department for Education. (2015). Carter review of initial teacher training. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carter-review-of-initial-teacher-training Department for Education and Skills. (2013). A Review of Initial Teacher Training in Wales: Professor Ralph Tabberer. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from: http://gov.wales/docs/dcells/publications/131007-review-of-initial-teacher-training-in-wales-en.pdf Dyslexia-Action. (2012). Dyslexia Still Matters. Dyslexia in our schools today: Progress, challenges and solutions. Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The dyslexia debate: Cambridge University Press. Frith, U. (1995). Dyslexia: Can we have a shared theoretical framework? Educational and Child Psychology, 12, 6-17. Frith, U. (1999). Paradoxes in the Definition of Dyslexia. Dyslexia, 5, 192-214. Furnham, A. (2013). Lay knowledge of dyslexia. Psychology, 4(12), 940. Mortimore, T. (2013). Dyslexia in higher education: creating a fully inclusive institution. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(1), 38-47. 7. Riddick, B. (2001). Dyslexia and inclusion: time for a social model of disability perspective?. International studies in sociology of education, 11(3), 223-236. Rose, J., Schools, & Children, F. D. f. (2009). The independent review of the primary curriculum: Final report: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence‐based interventions for reading and language difficulties: Creating a virtuous circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 1-23. Snowling, M. J. (2013). Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: a contemporary view. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(1), 7-14. Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 45(1), 2-40. Washburn, E. K., Binks‐Cantrell, E. S., & Joshi, R. (2013). What do preservice teachers from the USA and the UK know about dyslexia? Dyslexia, 20(1), 1-18. Webster, R., & Blatchford, P. (2015). Worlds apart? The nature and quality of the educational experiences of pupils with a statement for special educational needs in mainstream primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 324-342.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.