Norwegian classroom teachers’ and specialized “resource” teachers’ dyslexia knowledge

IF 2 2区教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Reading and Writing Pub Date : 2023-10-30 DOI:10.1007/s11145-023-10486-4

Oddny Judith Solheim, Julie Arntzen, Njål Foldnes

{"title":"Norwegian classroom teachers’ and specialized “resource” teachers’ dyslexia knowledge","authors":"Oddny Judith Solheim, Julie Arntzen, Njål Foldnes","doi":"10.1007/s11145-023-10486-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Students with reading difficulties such as dyslexia receive most of their instruction in mainstream classrooms, but many teachers feel inadequately prepared to teach students with dyslexia and/or report that dyslexia was inadequately addressed in their training. However, depending on a school’s organization, it may be sufficient that classroom teachers know enough to realize when to ask for support with identification and accommodation from specialized teachers with greater knowledge. In the present study we first investigate dyslexia knowledge in a sample of Norwegian upper-elementary-school teachers (N = 269). Second, we examine whether specialized (“resource”) teachers are more knowledgeable about dyslexia than classroom teachers. Finally, we explore whether teaching experience and having encountered reading-related themes in formal training predict dyslexia knowledge. Overall, we find that only a small share of teachers holds misconceptions about dyslexia. However, a notable proportion of them are uncertain , especially regarding the role of visual deficits in dyslexia. Somewhat surprisingly, resource teachers have only marginally higher dyslexia knowledge than classroom teachers. Finally, neither experience nor reading-related course content in formal training are substantial predictors of dyslexia knowledge. The large extent of uncertainty concerning dyslexia suggests a need to reconsider teacher training curriculum and opportunities for teacher professional development.","PeriodicalId":48204,"journal":{"name":"Reading and Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading and Writing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10486-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Students with reading difficulties such as dyslexia receive most of their instruction in mainstream classrooms, but many teachers feel inadequately prepared to teach students with dyslexia and/or report that dyslexia was inadequately addressed in their training. However, depending on a school’s organization, it may be sufficient that classroom teachers know enough to realize when to ask for support with identification and accommodation from specialized teachers with greater knowledge. In the present study we first investigate dyslexia knowledge in a sample of Norwegian upper-elementary-school teachers (N = 269). Second, we examine whether specialized (“resource”) teachers are more knowledgeable about dyslexia than classroom teachers. Finally, we explore whether teaching experience and having encountered reading-related themes in formal training predict dyslexia knowledge. Overall, we find that only a small share of teachers holds misconceptions about dyslexia. However, a notable proportion of them are uncertain , especially regarding the role of visual deficits in dyslexia. Somewhat surprisingly, resource teachers have only marginally higher dyslexia knowledge than classroom teachers. Finally, neither experience nor reading-related course content in formal training are substantial predictors of dyslexia knowledge. The large extent of uncertainty concerning dyslexia suggests a need to reconsider teacher training curriculum and opportunities for teacher professional development.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

挪威课堂教师和专业“资源”教师的阅读障碍知识

有阅读困难的学生，如失读症，大部分的教学都是在主流课堂上进行的，但许多教师觉得自己没有为教有失读症的学生做好充分的准备，或者报告说，在他们的培训中，失读症没有得到充分的解决。然而，根据学校的组织，课堂教师有足够的知识来意识到什么时候应该向知识更丰富的专业教师寻求支持和帮助就足够了。在本研究中，我们首先调查了挪威小学高年级教师(N = 269)的阅读障碍知识。其次，我们考察了专业(“资源”)教师是否比课堂教师更了解阅读障碍。最后，我们探讨教学经验和在正式训练中遇到的阅读相关主题是否能预测阅读障碍知识。总的来说，我们发现只有一小部分教师对阅读障碍有误解。然而，其中很大一部分是不确定的，特别是关于视觉缺陷在阅读障碍中的作用。有些令人惊讶的是，资源教师的阅读障碍知识只比课堂教师高一点点。最后，无论是经验还是正式培训中与阅读相关的课程内容都不是阅读障碍知识的实质性预测因素。阅读障碍的不确定性表明需要重新考虑教师培训课程和教师专业发展的机会。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Reading and Writing Multiple-

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

16.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Reading and writing skills are fundamental to literacy. Consequently, the processes involved in reading and writing and the failure to acquire these skills, as well as the loss of once well-developed reading and writing abilities have been the targets of intense research activity involving professionals from a variety of disciplines, such as neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics and education. The findings that have emanated from this research are most often written up in a lingua that is specific to the particular discipline involved, and are published in specialized journals. This generally leaves the expert in one area almost totally unaware of what may be taking place in any area other than their own. Reading and Writing cuts through this fog of jargon, breaking down the artificial boundaries between disciplines. The journal focuses on the interaction among various fields, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Reading and Writing publishes high-quality, scientific articles pertaining to the processes, acquisition, and loss of reading and writing skills. The journal fully represents the necessarily interdisciplinary nature of research in the field, focusing on the interaction among various disciplines, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Coverage in Reading and Writing includes models of reading, writing and spelling at all age levels; orthography and its relation to reading and writing; computer literacy; cross-cultural studies; and developmental and acquired disorders of reading and writing. It publishes research articles, critical reviews, theoretical papers, and case studies. Reading and Writing is one of the most highly cited journals in Education, Educational Research, and Educational Psychology.

文献相关原料

公司名称	产品信息	采购帮参考价格