Essay Examples - Education Essays
A Perspective on Dyslexia in Mainstream Education
Background
Learning problems can be divided into two main groups involving auditory-visual processes that result in reading disorders (dyslexia) and other language-based learning problems or those involving visual and motor processes, resulting in poor handwriting (dysgraphia), problems with mathematics (dyscalculia) and deficits in social skills.
According to the Dyslexia Institute, and based on a broad definition of dyslexia, about ten percent of the British population have some form of dyslexia of whom four percent are severely dyslexic including some 375,000 schoolchildren. Dyslexia affects all kinds of people regardless of intelligence, race, or social class. (DI, 2005)
The word dyslexia itself is derived from the Greek and means difficulty with language and in the modern context broadly groups students who experience a specific difficulty with information processing that affects skills such as reading, writing, the use of symbols and carrying out calculations. The effects of dyslexia can largely be overcome by skilled specialist teaching and the use of compensatory strategies. (DfES, 2005)
The British Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) of 1995 makes it illegal to discriminate against disabled employees or job applicants. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) supplement of 2001 came into effect in September 2002 and became Part 4 of the 1995 DDA. Under this Act education providers have a responsibility to ensure that disabled students have real and enforceable rights against discrimination in education. Dyslexia is a registered disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and is defined as a specific learning difficulty in SENDA. There is therefore a statutory obligation to educators to respond to student needs. (DfES, 2005)
This has led to significant developments in research on dyslexia focussing on dimensions such as biological, cognitive, and behavioural characteristics. Accordingly, this paper considers dyslexia as a subset of learning disabilities and reviews these developments in the context of their impact in a mainstream classroom environment from both an educator and learner perspective.
Theory of Dyslexia
The traditional view of dyslexia as a problem is being challenged by research that suggests that neurological differences caused by dyslexia may in fact confer advantages in other areas. The implication from a definition perspective is a change in emphasis from a deficit (or disability) perspective to that of an emphasis in difference (or difficulty) perspective which takes account of positive talents such as creativity, problem solving and spatial skills that are associated with dyslexia. (DfES, 2005) Hammill, (1990) suggests that social interaction complicates a description of dyslexia because society's reactions make differences arising from dyslexia into disability by translating social values into deficits in the learner.
Paul (1996) p2 defines dyslexia as a disorder of constitutional origin manifested by difficulty in learning to read write or spell despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence, and socio-cultural opportunity. Critchley and Critchley (1981) provide an equivalent definition but qualify it as a difficulty despite commensurate intellectual abilities supporting the DfES perspective. Frith (1995) provides a causal modelling framework suggesting three levels of description for better understanding dyslexia: biological, cognitive, and behavioural.
Biological theories of dyslexia describe dyslexic differences in terms of genetics and the structure of the brain and form the basis for many other theories which acknowledge that biological differences resulting from hereditary factors play a role. New techniques in neuroscience, brain imaging, and genetics indicate that a deficiency in the magnocellular part of the brain's visual system may affect dyslexia. (Fawcett, 2001) Other biological theories include predictive gene markers and the analysis of hemispheric symmetry that indicate processing differences in phonological and short term memory tasks between dyslexic and non-dyslexic groups. (Reid, 2003) The implications for educationalists are the potential identification of early warning signs of a learner being at risk of being dyslexic.
Cognitive theories describe dyslexic difficulties in terms of the working of the brain and focus on dyslexia as a difference in information processing. According to the DfES (2005) educationalists tend to identify dyslexia principally as a difference at this level. This is not surprising given that learning depends on the ability to process information and the educator has no ability address biologically based factors. Phonological awareness in this context is both the explicit knowledge that words are made up of sounds and the ability to manipulate those sounds. The double deficit hypothesis suggests that the decoding of phonemes, the individual speech sounds in the alphabet, combined with difficulty in phonics, or sounding out words, is the major underlying problem because of the necessity to concentrate on the meaning rather than the processing of words. Other research shows that visual processing of incoming sensory information may also have a great impact on dyslexia. (Rice and Brooks, 2004) Similarly, the role of metacognition or the learner's awareness of thinking and learning and automaticity difficulties in assimilating literacy and numeracy input suggest that dyslexics may take longer to acquire new learning. (Fawcett, 2001)
At a behavioural level, the biological and cognitive factors translate into impairments across a wide range of skills including sensory deficit, such as flicker and motion sensitivity, motor factors such as postural stability and balance, and cognitive factors such as short term working memory and phonological issues. (Fawcett, 2001) The identification and intervention in inappropriate learning habits falls within the ambit of an educational setting.
Wadlington, Jacob, and Bailey (1996) also emphasise the distinction between developmental dyslexia, which affects learners in an educational setting, and whose origin is suspected to be congenital or genetic, and acquired dyslexia that occurs because of a brain injury after learning to read.
Reid (2003) suggests a working definition such as that of the British Psychological Society that excludes causal explanation: dyslexia is evident when accurate and fluent word reading and/or spelling develops incompletely or with great difficulty. This allows educationalists to focus on literacy learning at the word level and suggests that the problem is severe and persistent despite appropriate learning opportunities.
This definition is useful because it focuses on actual difficulties experienced by the learner rather than possible causes. It allows for multiple underlying causes and accepts that dyslexia can occur across learners of all abilities. It also allows for a range of learning difficulties that may or may not include dyslexia.
The complexity of research and theory around dyslexia represents a challenge to the educationalist. This paper accepts the need for a simple working definition as basis for identification of dyslexic learners for the purpose of early intervention and support as part of mainstream learning.
Screening and Diagnosis of Dyslexia
The population of individuals identified as having learning disabilities varies by definition and description in both Britain and internationally. For example, functional literacy and the impact of culture from an environmental perspective may influence an individual's capacity to cope with daily living and hence direct the degree of intervention thought necessary. The importance of research is therefore the explanation of dyslexic conditions and an indication of the type of support that is required. (Reid, 2003)
Scruggs and Mastropieri (2002) however suggest that the American conceptualisation of learning disabilities and dyslexia in particular, maybe be overstated but argue that radically altering current practice to anticipate increasingly scarce budgetary resources may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The major problems associated with conceptualisation include over-identification due to imprecise definition, variability across agencies, specificity of separation between poor reading performers and dyslexics, conceptual issues, discrepancy issues in testing and the emphasis on early identification of dyslexia that may translate into misidentification of the condition.
In a similar vein, Wearmouth (2004) questions the approach of a technicist approach to special needs education provision in Britain. She argues that the notion of competency based education assumes that effective teaching can be reduced to certain quantities and types of behaviour that does not allow for differences in individual needs in the real world. It follows that the classification of dyslexia into severe, moderate, or mild forms reinforces this approach. Having said this, Reid, (2003) acknowledges that the educational environment for the dyslexic learner is amongst the best in the world and well ahead of America where policy remains fragmented.
The theoretical overview indicates that dyslexia can affect individual learners in different ways. As a generalisation, early signs of dyslexia may include difficulty in learning to speak, memory function, pronouncing words clearly, listening, or following directions. The implication is a difficulty in distinguishing between learners with dyslexia and those with learning difficulties that consistently under perform.
A body of opinion that suggests that children who are at risk of developing dyslexia can display indicators before they go to school, or shortly after they start primary education. (NITG, 2001) Miles and Miles (1984) investigated the effect of early intervention. They argued, if dyslexic children are caught early, less time is needed for catching up, while in many cases the children can be helped before frustration sets in. Schools may therefore represent the most critical period for diagnosis. Many researchers have adopted the deficit model to test dyslexia. This is based on the apparent link between intelligence and reading skill, whereby generally more able children learn to read more quickly. Using a statistical process it is possible to predict a child's expected reading age, given their chronological age and intelligence quotient (IQ). This can then be compared with their actual reading age, and the statistical significance of the difference calculated. (NITG, 2001) In contrast, poor readers are those pupils who have a measurable delay in their reading level but where the difference between their expected reading age and actual reading age is in line with what could be predicted given their age and IQ.
This approach has been the subject of considerable criticism. Snowling (2000) points out that it is open to be an over-inclusive definition, thus supporting Scruggs and Mastropieri (2002) description of the American experience and Wearmouth's (2004) concerns about a technicist approach. Snowling argues that a pupil who does no reading is unlikely to have a reading age in line with their predicted score. A discrepancy may be because of a lack of reading experience, as of dyslexia.
Similarly, Stanovitch (1991) argues against the use of IQ in the definition of dyslexia because the verbal skills of poor readers tend to decline because of their limited reading experience. The lowered verbal IQ will accordingly predict a lower expected reading age. The discrepancy model may fail to identify these pupils, even though they have real difficulty with reading. Equally, pupils who have learned to read, but continue to have significant spelling or writing difficulties will be missed, unless these skills are included in the criteria.
Fawcett, (2002) states that this arises from confusion between cause, symptom, and treatment and that grouping symptoms without understanding cause can lead to inappropriate treatment. She also suggests that any requirements for dyslexia test must be theoretically defensible, practically useable, and politically acceptable. She further argues that the tensions between the various requirements imply a compromise between thoroughness and cost. Typically a battery of tests are used that include an evaluation of developmental, medical, behavioural, academic and family history, a measure of general intellectual functioning, information on cognitive processing, tests of specific oral language skills related to reading and writing success, and educational tests to determine the level of functioning in basic skills areas. (DI, 2005)
Approaches and Programmes
The DfES (2005) framework describes a number of approaches and programmes and suggests that many of the methods are appropriate for both dyslexic and non-dyslexic learners. Reid (2003) observes that there is considerable activity in the study of phonological awareness in relation to dyslexia in educational settings that has been accompanied by the development of assessment and teaching materials such as the Phonological Abilities Test, the Phonological Awareness Training Programme, and the Multi-sensory Teaching System for Reading. Fawcett (2002) suggests a focus on motivation in terms of literacy and life support as a key to addressing successful support programmes.
The DfES (2005) framework groups approaches to dyslexia into six broad categories including structured cumulative approaches, person centred approaches, physiological approaches, approaches using technology, approaches used in mathematics and approaches used in higher education. Most programmes in Britain follow a variation of a structured multi-sensory learning approach as a basis for staff development, learner assessment, and classroom practice. These integrate visual, aural, tactile, and kinaesthetic modalities to consolidate the learning experience in a well structured, sequential, and cumulative basis. Of importance is the need for curriculum materials that support differentiation to facilitate access to the full educational curriculum in mainstream education. (Reid, 2003)
Back to: Essay Examples
Conclusion
Rice and Brooks (2004) suggest that dyslexia is often commandeered to invest unsuccessful learners with the responsibility for the shortcomings of their teachers. The counterargument is often a failure of the system to invest knowledge and support in educators faced with the need for skills that were formerly perceived to be the ambit of remedial teachers.
The paper has considered the theoretical foundations of dyslexia in education and the approaches to policy, screening, diagnosis, and support in education. The challenge for the inclusive approach to dyslexia in the mainstream classroom is the provision of information and training to educators within a defined framework that is properly resourced to meet the needs of both educator and learner. An integrated approach is required if SENDA requirements are to be met. An early screening process without appropriate support in the classroom will not benefit learners unless an appropriate, properly resourced, and timely intervention is available.
The challenge for the educator is therefore to understand dyslexia in the classroom from a practical perspective and to meet the needs of the learner in a balanced and fair way whereby their peers are understanding and sympathetic of a modified learning environment and have access to comprehensive pastoral care.
Lastly, the complexity of practice should not lose sight of the learner as an individual with unique needs, strengths, and areas of support.
Reference List
DfES (2005) A Framework for Understanding Dyslexia. www.dfes.gov.uk/ Accessed 24 May 2005.
DI (2005) Dyslexia Facts. www.dyslexia-inst.org.uk. Accessed 24 May 2005.
Heaton, P. and Winterson, P. (1996) Dealing with Dyslexia Second Edition. Singular Publishing Group.
Fawcett, A. J. (2001) Dyslexia: Theory and Good Practice. Whurr Publishers.
Frith, U. (1995) Dyslexia: Can We Have A Shared Theoretical Framework? Educational and Child Psychology. Volume 12, 1.
Hammill, D. D. (1990). On Defining Learning Disabilities: An Emerging Consensus. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Volume 23, 2.
Miles, T. R. and Miles, E. (1984) Teaching Needs Of Seven Year Old Dyslexic
Pupils. Department for Education and Science, London
NITG (2001) Northern Ireland Task Group on Dyslexia. Department of Education.
Ott, P. (1997) How to Detect and Manage Dyslexia. Heinemann Ltd.
Paul, S. (2000) Students with Disabilities in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature. College Student Journal. Volume 34, 2.
Reid, G. (2003) Dyslexia: A Practitioner's Handbook, Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons.
Rice, M. and Brooks, G. (2004) Developmental Dyslexia in Adults: A Research Review. National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy
Scruggs, T. and Mastropieri, M. A. (2002) On Babies and Bathwater: Addressing the Problems of Identification of Learning Disabilities. The Learning Disability Quarterly. Volume 25, 3.
Snowling, M. J. (2000) Dyslexia Second Edition. Blackwell Publishing.
Stanovitch, K. E. (1991) Discrepancy Definitions Of Reading Disability: Has
Intelligence Led Us Astray? Reading Research Quarterly. Volume 26.
Thomson, M. and Watkins, E. (1998) Dyslexia, A Teaching Handbook, Second Edition. Whurr Publishers.
Snowling, M. J. and Thomson M. E. (Eds) (1991) Dyslexia: Integrating Theory and Practice. Whurr Publishers.
Wadlington, E., Jacob, S. and Bailey, S. (1996) Teaching Students with Dyslexia in the Regular Classroom. Childhood Education. Volume 73, 1.
Wearmouth, J. (2000) Special Educational Provision: Meeting The Challenge In Schools. Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Wearmouth, J. (2004) Learning from James: Lessons about Policy and Practice for Schools' Special Provision in the Area of Literacy Difficulties. British Journal of Special Education. Volume 31, 2.
More Free Education Essays...
Get free education essays from our extensive online resource library. Hundreds of example essays available from all the major essay topics to help you with your research...
Please note: The above essay was written by a student and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted work to us.
