Exploring Chinese EFL teachers\u27 knowledge and beliefs relating to the teaching of English reading in public primary schools in China

© 2019 The Authors. Dyslexia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd The present study explored knowledge and beliefs about reading instruction of Chinese teachers teaching English as a foreign language (EFL). Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile and the Survey of Basic Language Constructs Related to Literacy Acquisition were administered to 262 EFL teachers in the south-eastern part of China. Additionally, three teachers were interviewed, and their instructional practices were observed. The results showed that there was no correlation between teachers\u27 self-efficacy beliefs and the performance on the knowledge of basic language construct survey. However, it was found that teachers\u27 knowledge, beliefs, and instructional practices were mediated by the Chinese EFL contextual factors. Educational and practical implications are discussed

Psicothema

Resumen tomado de la publicaciónCon la reautorización de la Ley de Educación para Individuos con Discapacidades en 2004, el modelo Respuesta a la Intervención (RTI) fue presentado oficialmente. A diferencia del modelo de discrepancia, que determina que para ser elegible en educación especial el alumno ha de presentar una discrepancia entre el rendimiento y la capacidad intelectual, RTI fue diseñado para ofrecer una instrucción intensiva a los estudiantes en el aula ordinaria tan pronto se comience a detectar la presencia de dificultades para la adquisición de la lectura. Los objetivos que se proponen en la intervención incluyen la mejora del rendimiento en lectura y la identificación de los alumnos con dificultades específicas de aprendizaje (DEA). A pesar de que RTI es un modelo prometedor para el primer objetivo cuando se cumplen ciertas condiciones, en cambio no lo es para el segundo objetivo. El Modelo de Componentes de la Lectura (CMR) se presenta en este trabajo como una alternativa al modelo de discrepancia y al modelo RTI. CMR, que contempla tres dominios, evalúa el desempeño de un lector desde una perspectiva multidimensional, lo que facilita que se pueda proporcionar una instrucción más adecuada al lector con mayor garantía de éxito. Evidencia empírica a favor del modelo CMR se presenta en este trabajo.AsturiasColegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Asturias; Calle Ildefonso Sánchez del Río, 4-1 B; 33001 Oviedo; Tel. +34985285778; Fax +34985281374;Universidad de Oviedo. Facultad de Psicología; Plaza Feijoo, s. n.; 33003 Oviedo; Tel. +34985104146; Fax +34985104126;ES

Handbook of Arabic Literacy : Insights and Perspectives

XXIII, 422 p. 134 illus.online resource

Using Spelling Error Analyses to Examine Individual Differences in German Students From Diverse Linguistic Backgrounds: A Latent Class Approach

The current study examined German spelling errors among students with German as their first (L1) and those with German as their second language (L2) in Grades 3-4 (elementary school students; n = 127) and Grades 5-7 (secondary school students; n = 379). Five hundred and six students participated in the study. We performed two separate latent class analyses on elementary and secondary school students. Results indicate that elementary school students can be categorized as good (Class 1), consonant error dominant (Class 2), or poor spellers (Class 3). However, secondary students can be categorized as addition and sequence error dominant (Class 1), substitution and omission error dominant (Class 2), or poor spellers (Class 3). The three-step multinomial logistic regression analyses suggested that decoding was associated with the highest chances of being poor spellers in both elementary and secondary schools. Speaking German as L1 or L2 was a significant predictor of heterogeneities in secondary but not elementary school students. Polish L1 secondary students had the highest possibility of being poor spellers. The results suggest heterogeneities of student profiles. In addition, special attention should be given to secondary school students with the Polish L1 background in their spelling struggles associated with German orthography

Teacher Knowledge of Dyslexia

The past year has been important for individuals with dyslexia and for those in positions of advocacy. On October 23, 2015, just five days before the International Dyslexia Association’s (IDA) annual conference meeting, the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) released a policy guidance letter on dyslexia to state and local education agencies. In this letter, OSERS noted that “there is nothing in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA evaluation, eligibility determinations, or IEP (individualized education program) documents” (Yudin, 2015, p. 1). Three days after the release of the policy guidance letter, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Research Excellence and Advancements for Dyslexia Act (READ Act, 2015). The READ Act was passed into law on February 18, 2016, and requires the National Science Foundation to allocate at least $5 million annually to dyslexia research. Furthermore, in a recent Perspectives article, Youman and Mather (2015) noted that more than half of the states in the U.S. have enacted dyslexia laws and a growing number of states have dyslexia initiatives and resolutions to promote dyslexia awareness in K–12 settings (see Youman & Mather, 2015 for a full list). Recent federal guidelines, research initiatives, and a push for state laws outlining expectations for dyslexia awareness are steps in the right direction to ensuring that all individuals, including those with dyslexia, are provided with access to research-based reading instruction. Given this impetus, we believe it is vital to understand the current knowledge base of teachers, teacher educators, and teacher candidates regarding research-based reading concepts and dyslexia. In this article, we aim to do two things: (a) present an overview of the existing research base on teacher knowledge of reading concepts and dyslexia, and (b) provide suggestions for ways the IDA community can help bridge the gap across dyslexia research, teacher preparation and professional development, and advocacy

Novice Teachers’ Knowledge of Reading-related Disabilities and Dyslexia

Current understandings about the nature of persistent reading problems have been influenced by researchers in numerous fields. Researchers have noted that a current and accurate understanding of reading disabilities, such as dyslexia, can be helpful in assessing, teaching and supporting individuals with persistent reading problems. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine novice teachers’ knowledge about characteristics of reading disability and dyslexia and whether or not certification type, certification grade level and/or exposure to reading content predicted teacher knowledge. Participants (n=271) were enrolled in undergraduate and graduate teacher preparation programs across the United States, and were asked to identify characteristics of reading disability and dyslexia. Responses were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Findings revealed that teachers had accurate understandings when asked about reading disability, but misconceptions when asked about dyslexia. Certification type, certification grade level, and exposure to reading content did not predict accurate understandings of reading disability or dyslexia; however, certification grade level did predict misconceptions about dyslexia