DOCSLIB.ORG

Examining the Effectiveness of the Orton-Gillingham Reading

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Examining the Effectiveness of the Orton-Gillingham Reading Critical Review: Examining the Effectiveness of the Orton-Gillingham Reading Approach for Poor Readers in Elementary School John, N M.Cl.Sc (SLP) Candidate University of Western Ontario: School of Communication Sciences and Disorders This critical review examines the ability of the Orton Gillingham (OG) approach for teaching reading skills to poor readers in elementary school. A literature search was conducted and study designs included seven quasi-experimental studies and one systematic review. Findings indicate positive results for word reading, word attack/decoding, spelling and comprehension. Introduction instructional reading approach, which continues to be the backbone of the OG Recent estimates of reading disabilities approach today. in the United States range from 5-12% (Monsen, 2004). It has long been Objectives recognized that when classroom instruction is not effective or is The purpose of this paper is to critically insufficient, a high percentage of school- examine the existing literature regarding age students do not acquire literacy skills the effectiveness of the Orton- (Carroll, 1963). Further, poor Gillingham instructional approach to instruction in early elementary years has teaching reading to poor readers in a more direct impact on reading than in elementary school. The paper will seek the later years and therefore, poor to identify if the OG approach is readers need high quality reading effective and/or superior to other intervention in the early year of school approaches in teaching reading to poor (Joshi et al., 2002) readers. Evidenced-based recommendations and future research Samuel Orton, considered a pioneer in directions will be discussed. the developing principles of reading remediation beginning in the 1920s, Methods posited that an instructional approach for reading should “attempt to capitalize on Search Strategy their students’ auditory competence by Online database Proquest Education, teaching them the phonetic equivalence Google Scholar, PubMed, and CINHAL of the printed letters and the process of were searched using the search terms blending sequences of such equivalents (Orton-Gillingham) AND (reading) so that they might be able to produce for AND (instruction) AND (review). A themselves the spoken form of the word systematic review was found and the from its graphic counterparts” (as cited studies looking at elementary school in Ritchey & Goeke, 2006). Anna students were found. Gillingham created a curriculum by Selection Criteria which to teach Orton’s approach in The search was limited to studies that 1960, named the Orton-Gillingham (OG) examined to OG approach’s effectiveness to teaching reading in the control group who used the basal English-speaking elementary school reading instruction for the year. At the end students with reading problems only. of the school year each student was Data Collection assessed using the Metropolitan The results from the literature search Achievement Tests (MAT) and the Gates generated one systematic review and MacGinitie (GM) Reading Test. The from there seven quasi-experimental outcome measures examined increases in studies were found. All studies word knowledge, word analysis, compared the OG approach with one or comprehension, and total reading score on more other approaches to teaching the MAT and in vocabulary and reading. comprehension on the GM for both the experimental and control groups. Standard Results scores were used to calculate “t” for the first year of the study and the raw score was Of the seven studies included in this used for the last two years. Then “t” test review, two found that the OG approach on analyses were completed to compare treatment was more effective than the differences in the experimental and control control in all measures, four found the OG groups on the MAT and GM tests for approach was more effective than the assessing achievement in reading. The control in at least one, but not all measures, analysis determined that the OG approach and one study found no differences between was significantly superior to the basal interventions. reading approach on all subtests. The strengths in this study include having a The two studies that found the OG based matched control group, and completing this approach to be more effective on all study with 3 separate cohorts. Limitations measures than the control intervention include effects of the experimental teachers, approach are by Litcher & Roberge (1979) only comparing the OG approach to one and by Joshi et al. (2002). other method, and having an arbitrary Litcher & Roberge (1979) used a quasi- screening procedure. The authors provided experimental design to compare the fitting statistical analysis through effectiveness of OG instruction to a appropriate measurement techniques and controlled reading instruction of first grade description of procedures. Therefore, this children at risk for reading problems. This study provides persuasive evidence that the study was conducted over a 3-year period OG approach is beneficial in teaching in grade one classrooms, screening 600 reading to students at risk for reading children and identifying 20 students for problems. each of the 3 years. The screening procedure was employed in order to find Joshi et al. (2002) used a quasi- students who were only at risk for reading experimental design to compare the problems, eliminating effects from other Language Basics (OG) instruction to the variables. A student in the control group Houghton Mifflin reading program in first matched each of the 20 students in the grade general education classrooms. Two experimental group each year. The classrooms were taught with OG instruction experimental group was taught the OG and two classrooms at another school were reading and language instruction for three taught with Houghton Mifflin. Thirty-two hours a day for the year and compared to students made up the control group and 24 students made up the treatment group. All evidence that the OG approach is beneficial students had standard covariates (e.g., SES, in teaching reading to average grade one age). Children with below average IQ, students. uncorrected vision or hearing problems, those who had repeated a grade, and Four studies, by Stoner (1991), Foorman et students with cognitive impairments were al. (1997), Oakland et al. (1998), and Hook excluded from the study. et al. (2001) found that the OG approach to All students were assessed at the beginning teaching reading was more effective in at of the year for initial levels of phonological least one, but not all measures when awareness, decoding, and reading compared to the control intervention comprehension using the Comprehension approaches. subtest from the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT), the Word Attack subtest Stoner (1991) used a quasi-experimental from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- design to compare the effectiveness of Revised (WRMT-R), and the Test of Project Read (OG) to the previous year’s Phonological Awareness (TOPA). The cohort of students who were taught with the teachers in the treatment group received 42 traditional basal reading instruction for hours of OG training and teachers in both students in grades one to three. All treatment and control groups were observed students in grades one, two, and three from teaching once a week. Instruction was a school district who were believed to be at given 50 minutes a day for all groups for risk for reading problems as judged by the the year. The students were assessed at the school teacher, formed the population from end of the year with the same tests which the groups were formed. The previously used at the beginning, but the teachers, who had received training from a alternate test forms were used. Project Read teacher, taught the students in Analysis was completed using a repeated their regular classrooms. measures multivariate analysis of variance. A “recurrent institutional cycle design” was The study showed that the gains of the utilized to allow for comparison of the OG treatment group were significantly higher group to the previous year’s cohorts who than the control group. However, the were taught with basal reading instruction. control group also showed significant The students were assessed using subtests improvements in comprehension measures, from the Stanford Achievement Test. The but not phonological awareness or decoding outcome measures were examining measures. Strengths in this paper include increases in word study, word reading, having a control group and measuring pre comprehension, and total reading score for and post intervention with the same tests, both OG and traditional basal reading but different, equivalent test forms. Some groups. limitations of this study are that it only Data was analyzed for the full study and utilized grade one students, had a low also for a portion of the study controlling number of subjects, and since the study was for teacher variables. Multivariate analysis done in a natural setting, matching of variance, Tukey HSD, analysis of variables between groups was difficult. The variance, and effect sizes were utilized to authors provided fitting statistical analysis examine the differences between the through appropriate measurement groups. The study showed significant techniques and description of procedures. differences on all subtests for the grade one Therefore this study provides persuasive class, but not for grades two or three. The strengths in this study include having a measuring phonemic awareness, word control group, using
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beginning Reading: Influences on Policy in the United
    BEGINNING READING: INFLUENCES ON POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND 1998-2010 A Dissertation Submitted to the College of Education of Aurora University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education by Elizabeth Robins April 2010 Beginning Reading: Influences on Policy in the United States and England 1998-2010 by Elizabeth Robins [email protected] Committee members: Ronald Banaszak, Chair Carla Brown, Member Deborah Brotcke, Member Abstract The study investigated the divergence in beginning reading methods between the United States (US) and England from 1998 to 2010. Researchers, policy makers, and publishers were interviewed to explore their knowledge and perceptions concerning how literacy policy was determined. The first three of twelve findings showed that despite the challenges inherent in the political sphere, both governments were driven by low literacy rates to seek greater involvement in literacy education. The intervention was determined by its structure: a central parliamentary system in England, and a federal system of state rights in the US. Three further research-related findings revealed the uneasy relationship existing between policy makers and researchers. Political expediency, the speed of decision making and ideology i also helped shape literacy policy. Secondly, research is viewed differently in each nation. Peer- reviewed, scientifically-based research supporting systematic phonics prevailed in the US, whereas in England additional and more eclectic sources were also included. Thirdly, research showed that educator training in beginning reading was more pervasive and effective in England than the US. English stakeholders proved more knowledgeable about research in the US, whereas little is known about the synthetic phonics approach currently used in England.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    1 Introduction Phonics instruction has long been a controversial matter. Emans (1968) points out that the emphasis on phonics instruction has changed several times over the past two centuries. Instruction has shifted from one extreme—no phonics instruction— to the other—phonics instruction as the major method of word-recognition instruction—and back again. Emans also points out that “each time that phonics has been returned to the classroom, it usually has been revised into something quite different from what it was when it was discarded” (p. 607 ). Currently, most beginning reading programs include a significant component of phonics instruc- tion. This is especially true since the implementation of policies related to the No Child Left Behind Act and recommendations by the National Reading Panel (2000) for the use of both instruction and assessments related to explicit pho- nics instruction. It is also likely that the U.S. Department of Education’s initiative Race to the Top, funded as part of the Education Recovery Act of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (AARA), will continue to view phonics instruction as an integral component and focus of reading instruction. Phonics, however, is not the cure-all for reading ills that some believe it to be. Rudolph Flesch’s book Why Johnny Can’t Read (1955), although it did bring the phonics debate to the attention of the public, typifies the kind of literature that takes a naive approach to a complex problem. As Heilman (1981) points out, “Flesch’s suggestions for teaching were quite primitive, consisting pri- marily of lists of words each presenting different letter-sound patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Illiteracy?
    The End of Illiteracy? The Holy Grail of Clackmannanshire TOM BURKARD CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES 57 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL 1999 THE AUTHOR Tom Burkard is the Secretary of the Promethean Trust and has published several articles on how children learn to read. He contributed to the 1997 Daily Telegraph Schools Guide, and is a member of the NASUWT. His main academic interest is the interface between reading theory and classroom practice. His own remedial programme, recently featured in the Dyslexia Review, achieved outstanding results at Costessey High School in Norwich. His last Centre for Policy Study pamphlet, Reading Fever: Why phonics must come first (written with Martin Turner in 1996) proved instrumental in determining important issues in the National Curriculum for teacher training colleges. Acknowledgements Support towards research for this Study was given by the Institute for Policy Research. The Centre for Policy Studies never expresses a corporate view in any of its publications. Contributions are chosen for their independence of thought and cogency of argument. ISBN No. 1 897969 87 2 Centre for Policy Studies, March 1999 Printed by The Chameleon Press, 5 - 25 Burr Road, London SW18 CONTENTS Summary 1. Introduction 1 2. A brief history of the ‘reading wars’ 4 3. A comparison of analytic and synthetic phonics 9 4. Problems with the National Literacy Strategy 12 5. The success of synthetic phonics 17 6. Introducing synthetic phonics into the classroom 20 7. Recommendations 22 Appendix A: Problems with SATs 25 Appendix B: A summary of recent research on analytic phonics 27 Appendix C: Research on the effectiveness of synthetic phonics 32 SUMMARY The Government’s recognition of the gravity of the problem of illiteracy in Britain is welcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Learning Disabilities Explain Low Literacy Performance?
    Now and Tomorrow Excellence in Everything We Do Can Learning Disabilities Explain Low Literacy Performance? By Gregory S. McKenna September, 2010 Learning Policy Directorate Strategic Policy and Research Human Resources and Skills Development Canada SP-959-07-10E Can Learning Disabilities Explain Low Literacy Performance? By Gregory S. McKenna July, 2010 Learning Policy Directorate Strategic Policy and Research Human Resources and Skills Development Canada The views expressed in papers published by the Learning Policy Directorate are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or of the federal government. Note: the departmental catalogue number is placed on the front cover, bottom left hand side. You can order this publication by contacting: Publications Services Human Resources and Skills Development Canada 140, promenade du Portage Phase IV, 12th Floor Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0J9 Fax: 819-953-7260 Online: http://www12.hrsdc.gc.ca This document is available on demand in alternate formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Cassette, Audio CD, e-Text Diskette, e-Text CD, or DAISY), by contacting 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232). If you have a hearing or speech impairment and use a teletypewriter (TTY), call 1-800-926-9105. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010 Paper Cat. No.: HS38-22/2010E ISBN: 978-1-100-16366-6 PDF Cat. No.: HS38-22/2010E-PDF ISBN: 978-1-100-16367-3 Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Mr. Mathieu Audet, Dr. Bagala Biswal, Dr. Urvashi Dhawan-Biswal and Dr. Satya Brink for their assistance and support in developing this line of research.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Issues in Phonics Instruction. Hempenstall, K
    Some Issues in Phonics Instruction. Hempenstall, K. (No date). Some issues in phonics instruction. Education News 26/2/2001. [On-line]. Available: http://www.educationnews.org/some_issues_in_phonics_instructi.htm There are essentially two approaches to teaching phonics that influence what is taught: implicit and explicit phonics instruction. What is the difference? In an explicit (synthetic) program, students will learn the associations between the letters and their sounds. This may comprise showing students the graphemes and teaching them the sounds that correspond to them, as in “This letter you are looking at makes the sound sssss”. Alternatively, some teachers prefer teaching students single sounds first, and then later introducing the visual cue (the grapheme) for the sound, as in “You know the mmmm sound we’ve been practising, well here’s the letter used in writing that tells us to make that sound”. In an explicit program, the processes of blending (What word do these sounds make when we put them together mmm-aaa-nnn?”), and segmenting (“Sound out this word for me”) are also taught. It is of little value knowing what are the building blocks of our language’s structure if one does not know how to put those blocks together appropriately to allow written communication, or to separate them to enable decoding of a letter grouping. After letter-sound correspondence has been taught, phonograms (such as: er, ir, ur, wor, ear, sh, ee, th) are introduced, and more complex words can be introduced into reading activities. In conjunction with this approach "controlled vocabulary" stories may be used - books using only words decodable using the students' current knowledge base.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading in the Twentieth Century. INSTITUTION Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Ann Arbor, MI
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 479 530 CS 512 338 AUTHOR Pearson, P. David TITLE Reading in the Twentieth Century. INSTITUTION Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Ann Arbor, MI. SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. PUB DATE 2000-08-00 NOTE 46p.; CIERA Archive #01-08. CONTRACT R305R70004 AVAILABLE FROM CIERA/University of Michigan, 610 E. University Ave., 1600 SEB, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259. Tel: 734-647-6940; Fax: 734- 763 -1229. For full text: http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/ 2001-08/0108pdp.pdf. PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070). Reports Research (143) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Educational History; *Educational Practices; Futures (of Society); Instructional Materials; *Reading Instruction; *Reading Processes; *Reading Research; Reading Skills; Teaching Methods IDENTIFIERS *Reading Theories ABSTRACT This paper discusses reading instruction in the 20th century. The paper begins with a tour of the historical pathways that have led people, at the century's end, to the "rocky and highly contested terrain educators currently occupy in reading pedagogy." After the author/educator unfolds his version of a map of that terrain in the paper, he speculates about pedagogical journeys that lie ahead in a new century and a new millennium. Although the focus is reading pedagogy, the paper seeks to connect the pedagogy to the broader scholarly ideas of each period. According to the paper, developments in reading pedagogy over the last century suggest that it is most useful to divide the century into thirds, roughly 1900-1935, 1935- 1970, and 1970-2000. The paper states that, as a guide in constructing a map of past and present, a legend is needed, a common set of criteria for examining ideas and practices in each period--several candidates suggest themselves, such as the dominant materials used by teachers in each period and the dominant pedagogical practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Corps Research Base – K-3 Model
    Reading Corps Research Base – K-3 Model This document provides the evidence-base for the Reading Corps K-3 model. Specifically, research supporting the assessment tools and strategies, reading interventions, and the importance of coaching, are presented within a Response to Intervention (RtI) framework. Response to Intervention: Response to Intervention (RtI) is an instructional framework that systematically utilizes assessment data to make instructional decisions, as well as decisions regarding resource allocation (Burns & Gibbons, 2008; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012). As such, RtI is placed within the general education context because it requires quality core instruction for all students (Tier 1), and calls for universal screening for all students. The assessment data collected in Tier 1 allows educators to determine whether students require additional support to reach proficiency in a particular academic skill area (i.e., reading and math). The Reading Corps model aligns well with the RtI framework because students who are served by Reading Corps members are essentially receiving Tier 2 support; students are eligible for the program based on screening data. Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach at reducing special education referral rates (Marston, et al., 2003; Bollman, Silberglitt, & Gibbons, 2007; Burns & Gibbons, 2008; VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007), and improving reading outcomes (Callender, 2007; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007; O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2005; Vellutino, et al.,
    [Show full text]
  • Ebook Download Teaching Literacy to Learners With
    TEACHING LITERACY TO LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA: A MULTI-SENSORY APPROACH PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Kathleen S. Kelly, Sylvia Phillips | 424 pages | 14 Oct 2011 | Sage Publications Ltd | 9780857025357 | English | London, United Kingdom Teaching Literacy to Learners with Dyslexia: A Multi-sensory Approach PDF Book Key Takeaways Orton—Gillingham is a well-regarded approach to teaching kids who struggle with reading. With tried and tested strategies and activities this book continues to provide everything you need to help improve and develop the literacy skills of learners in your setting including;. Immediate online access to all issues from This creative kind of teaching doesn't have to be that unorthodox, since counting on your fingers is multisensory, but it definitely goes beyond the traditional approach to education that relies almost exclusively on vision reading text and hearing listening to the teacher talk. Teachers should demonstrate and model appropriate learning strategies for all their pupils. Teaching the confusing letter B from Sight and Sound Reading! Affective behaviours include personality variables such as persistence and perseverance, frustration and tolerance, curiosity, locus of control, achievement motivation, risk taking, cautiousness, competition, co-operation, reaction to reinforcement and personal interests. Quick Facts about Multisensory Learning. Have you ever danced in mathematics, sung a song in science or painted in phys. The development of word reading skills and reading comprehension skills can be facilitated by morphological awareness. Buy the book. Dyscalculia Learning Support Formative Assessment. It is an acquired ability that requires effort and incremental skill development. Dyslexic author and champion Ben Foss is fond of distinguishing "eye reading" from "ear reading" which we think is a great idea, because your can indeed read with your ears using audiobooks and text to speech applications.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Teaching Phonics and Phonemic Awareness Training To
    The Effect of Teaching Phonics and Phonemic Awareness Training to Adolescent Struggling Readers by Stephanie Hardesty Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Education December 2013 Goucher College Graduate Programs in Education Table of Contents List of Tables i Abstract ii I. Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Hypothesis 3 Operational Definitions 3 II. Literature Review 6 Phonemic Awareness Training and Phonics 6 Reading Instruction in the High School Setting 7 Reading Remediation 10 Summary 13 III. Methods 14 Participants 14 Instrument 15 Procedure 16 IV. Results 19 V. Discussion 20 Implications 20 Threats to Validity 21 Comparison to Previous Studies 22 Suggestions for Future Research 24 References 25 List of Tables 1. Pre- and Post-SRI Test Results 19 i Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of teaching phonics and phonemic awareness training to adolescent struggling readers. The measurement tool was the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI). This study involved the use of a pretest/posttest design to compare data prior to the implementation of the reading intervention, System 44, to data after the intervention was complete (one to two years). Achievement gains were not significant, though results could be attributable to a number of intervening factors. Research in the area of high school reading remediation should continue given the continued disagreement over best practices and the new standards that must be met per the Common Core. ii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Advanced or proficient reading abilities are one of the primary yet essential skills that should be mastered by every student.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Literacy Intervention on Achievement Outcomes of Children with Developmental Language Disorders: a Systematic Review
    Impact of Literacy Intervention on Achievement Outcomes of Children With Developmental Language Disorders: A Systematic Review Jaumeiko J. Coleman and Rebecca A. Venediktov National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Rockville, MD Gary A. Troia Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Beverly P. Wang National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Rockville, MD ASHA’s National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders • July 2013 ABSTRACT The American Speech-Language-Hearing Purpose: In this systematic review, the Association’s National Center for Evidence- authors examined the impact of literacy Based Practice (N-CEP) was charged with intervention on achievement outcomes of developing an evidence-based systematic school-age children with developmental review (EBSR) of studies reporting on the language disorders. impact of written language (i.e., reading and writing) interventions on achievement Method: Databases containing peer- outcomes of school-aged children with reviewed academic studies were searched developmental language disorder (DLD). for randomized and nonrandomized The relatively recent adoption of the controlled trials that reported efficacy and Common Core State Standards by the bulk comparative efficacy findings in English. of the United States and its territories Methodological quality and strength of underscores the importance of this topic evidence were also evaluated. (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012). The standards were created to Results: Nine reading intervention studies promote quality and consistency in were accepted; no writing intervention education for all students so as to adequately studies were identified that met the inclusion prepare them for college and the workforce.
    [Show full text]
  • Concerning the Folly of Teaching the Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary
    A Study Concerning the Folly of Teaching the Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary In which we will prove that it is unnecessary and undesirable to teach any sight-words with whole-word memorization techniques to beginning reading students Using Samuel L. Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics (2005) Program as Our Intensive Phonics Standard of Comparison Copyright © 2010 by Donald L. Potter www.donpotter.net Recommendations Concerning Teaching Sight-Words I suggest that all teachers in America immediately quit teaching the Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary with whole word memorization for the following reasons: 1. It creates a blockage against seeing words phonetically. Once the sight-word habit is established, it becomes difficult to develop a good phonics reflex for accurate and fluent reading and spelling. 2. It is totally unnecessary since the vast majority of the words will be learned naturally in their spelling-family as the students learn to read and spell with Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics. This is the focus of this study. 3. Student who read by sight-words and context guessing are severely limited when it comes to building vocabulary independently from general reading because they cannot get to the sounds of the words without the teacher telling them the pronunciation of the words. 4. There is no need to waste valuable instructional time to teach 220 Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary when we could be teaching 3,033 separate words in Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics words in even less time. 5. The reading ability of students taught to read with Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics is significantly higher than students trained in Dolch sight-vocabulary memorization.
    [Show full text]
  • Dyslexia Or Ld in Reading: What Is the Difference?
    DYSLEXIA OR LD IN READING: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? Anise Flowers & Donna Black, Pearson Dyslexia or LD in Reading? TCASE 2017 Image by Photographer’s Name (Credit in black type) or Image by Photographer’s Name (Credit in white type) International Dyslexia Association Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is characterized by Dyslexia or LD in Reading: What difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word is the Difference? recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of Presented by effective classroom instruction. Secondary Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Donna Black, LSSP consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience TCASE that can impede growth of vocabulary and January 2017 background knowledge. Presentation Title Arial Bold 7 pt 1 2 Dyslexia Identification and Services in Texas Dyslexia Definition (in Texas) Texas Education Code (TEC)§38.003 defines Texas Education Code (TEC)§38.003 definition: dyslexia and mandates testing and the provision of 1. “Dyslexia” means a disorder of constitutional instruction origin manifested by a difficulty in learning to State Board of Education (SBOE) adopts rules and read, write, or spell, despite conventional standards for administering testing and instruction instruction, adequate intelligence, and TEC §7.028(b) relegates responsibility for school sociocultural opportunity. compliance to the local school board 2. “Related disorders” include disorders similar to or 19 (TAC)§74.28 outlines responsibilities of districts related to dyslexia such as developmental auditory and charter schools in the delivery of services to imperceptions, dysphasia, specific developmental students with dyslexia dyslexia, developmental dysgraphia, and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §504, establishes developmental spelling disability.
    [Show full text]