Running head: IDENTIFYING STUDENTS WITH DYSLEXIA

Ashley Ryan

Identifying Students with Dyslexia

Post University

2018
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 2

Abstract

Students with dyslexia are often under diagnosed in many school systems. Dyslexia is a

common reading disorder with phonological roots that affects children and adults alike. In a

Connecticut elementary school there are a total of 65 students identified as special education

students from pre-kindergarten to fifth grade. In this school there are only four students

identified as having dyslexia (Ryan, 2018). This number falls well below the average of one in

five students falling in this category. This problem was addressed through the use of mixed

methods research in order to determine the overall need of staff in this school. This project was

not implemented however; there is a grave importance for future execution of this plan that is

supported within the report. Through various forms of data collection, such as surveys,

observations, and interviews, a workshop/professional development was created in order to

address the needs of the staff. The end goal of this report was to develop a set of guidelines to

follow that allowed educators be more effective when identifying and assessing students with

dyslexia. The content of this project and report is important to understand due to the large

amount of students with dyslexia that are under identified in school systems and the lack of

general knowledge surrounding this issue.

IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 3

Problem Statement

In January 2015, the primary disability section was revised to include SLD/Dyslexia as a

primary disability for students (Bureau of Special Education, 2017). It can be estimated that

about one in five students or 80-90% of students identified as having a learning disability are in

fact dyslexic in grades K-12 (The Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity, 2017). This means

that educators need to be more informed on how to diagnosis students with SLD/Dyslexia

because many of the students are misdiagnosed as having just a learning disability. The problem

is that with an estimated one in five students with dyslexia, there needs to be better guidelines as

to how to properly identify the students who are actually dyslexic in order to provide proper

supports. In one Connecticut elementary school there are a total of 65 students identified as

needing special education services, however only four of them are identified as students with

dyslexia (Ryan, 2018).

In order to solve this problem, educators need to be more informed and given clear cut

guidelines. These resources need to provide educators with appropriate assessment tools and

correlations to look for across various evaluations. This will assist educators when identifying

students in the new primary disability category of SLD/Dyslexia.

This project will address the following question:

1. What assessments should be given to determine if a student has SLD/Dyslexia and why

will it help educators identify these students?

IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 4

Literature Review

Many students are unfortunately misdiagnosed when they are labeled as having a specific

learning disability or speech and language impairment instead of dyslexia. There are three major

components when identifying students with dyslexia. The research is broken into three main

areas: cognitive profiles, educational profiles, and speech and language implications. First

educators need to have a firm understanding of a student’s cognitive profile along with the areas

that often lend themselves to a higher probability of having dyslexia. Then educational

assessments need to be completed, specifically in the phonological awareness/memory, word

recognition, and rapid naming, as these areas are common deficit areas in students with dyslexia.

Speech and language evaluations also need to be completed in conjunction with the others in

order to determine the primary disability. The literature provides an overview of the different

components that are commonly found in children with dyslexia. The literature mainly consists

of peer reviewed, academic journals that are comprised of various case studies. The case studies

are mentioned to give some examples of performances that are commonly found in students with

dyslexia when compared to same aged peers without dyslexia.

Cognitive Profile

Common Cognitive Profile(s)

Cognitive profiles are used as a main component of testing when determining eligibility

for special education services. A cognitive profile consists of nonverbal measurement scales,

verbal measurement scales, working memory subtests, and processing speed subtests. It is

important to look at the strengths and weaknesses of a student’s cognitive profile and then

compare it to other assessments that are given. There are two major components that make up a

cognitive profile which results in a Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ). The first component
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 5

is a Performance Intelligence Quotient (PIQ) which focuses on nonverbal tasks while the second

component, Verbal Intelligence Quotient (VIQ) focuses on verbal tasks.

One particular case study looked at 100 students between the ages of 8 and 12; half of

these students were identified as having dyslexia. The purpose of this research was to determine

commonalities between cognitive profiles for children who were identified with dyslexia. In this

case study, approximately 55% of children with dyslexia had scores that resulted in a higher PIQ

when comparted to their VIQ (30% in normal readers) and about 21% had discrepancy scores of

21 which are categorized as statistically significant (Moura, Simões, & Pereira, 2014). The

purpose of this information is used to inform educators on what to look for when analyzing a

cognitive profile when dyslexia is the disability in question. While this pattern was prominent

throughout this particular case study it can be determined that strengths and weaknesses within

these areas will vary on a student to student basis.

More research was conducted in this area to further examine how children with dyslexia

perform in comparison to students with other disabilities that impact their learning. In this case

study 83 students with various disabilities with educational implications were compared to a

control group of 40 children. This research was chosen because it allows educators to compare

cognitive profiles across disability areas which will provide better evidence when looking

specifically at children with dyslexia. In this particular case study, one major component for

children with dyslexia was their ability to perform higher on the PIQ sections of psychological

evaluations such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Many of the students were

most successful in tasks that required spatial memory skills (Everatt, Weeks, & Brooks, 2008).

This is an important finding in this research because this is often an area of difficulty for children

with global learning disabilities or other impairments that have educational implications.
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 6

Through various pieces of research it can also be determined that many students with dyslexia

have average to high average FSIQ scores with deficits in working memory and processing

speeds.

Working Memory

Working memory is an area that many students with dyslexia tend to have a deficit when

compared to control groups of same aged peers without dyslexia. Working memory involves a

student’s ability to temporarily store and process information while also maintaining, integrating,

and manipulating information from various sources (Smith-Spark & Fisk, 2007). There are two

domains that fall within a student’s working memory ability which target phonological

components and visual-spatial components. Visual spatial components when assessing working

memory abilities typically comes out higher when compared to skills which require phonological

components. The case study conducted by Smith-Spark and Fisk (2007), consisted of 44

participants in which half of them were identified as being dyslexic. This research provided

pertinent information about the different components that are found within working memory

abilities and these participants had difficulties storing and processing information in working

memory tasks.

When looking at a FSIQ of a student with dyslexia, working memory is a common

deficit area when compared to other scores within the profile. One of the many challenges when

looking at cognitive profiles to determine eligibility for SLD/Dyslexia is that each student is

going to have a profile that is unique to them which means that educators need to be flexible in

their thinking while also keeping in mind common deficit areas such as working memory.
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 7

Processing Speed

A second area of difficulty that is consistently seen in students with dyslexia when

analyzing their cognitive learning profile is their processing speed. This is basically how long an

individual takes to complete a mental task. A case study looked at small group of 24 children,

half of which were dyslexic, and compared their processing speed abilities amongst the groups

with various tasks that targeted this skill. It was found that students with dyslexia had a

processing speed score that was about 2.48 standard deviations below the average range (Bogon,

Finke, Schulte-Körne, Müller, Schneider, & Stenneken, 2014). For example if average scores

fall between 90 and 110, scores that fall two standard deviations below the average range would

be about 70. Scores that fall within this range are typically considered moderate to high deficit

areas when compared to other cognitive scores. Poor performances in processing speed are

directly related to difficulties in reading accuracy and reading rate.

A student’s cognitive profile needs to be analyzed by knowledgeable individuals who

understand common characteristics that are found in the profiles of children with dyslexia. They

need to understand the implications that an individual’s working memory and processing speed

abilities can have on their overall cognitive profile. These cognitive profile areas need to be

taken into consideration when analyzing all of the results that comprise an educational

assessment.

Educational Assessment Areas

The next step is to conduct educational assessments to further explore the common deficit

areas of students with dyslexia. A better understanding of these areas and the assessments that

provide accurate measures will better assist educators when identifying students with dyslexia.

The areas that must be examined when determining eligibility for SLD/Dyslexia are
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 8

phonological processing/awareness, rapid naming abilities, and word recognition skills. The

most commonly known out of these three deficit areas is phonological processing and awareness.

Phonological Processing/Awareness

This is one of the most common deficit areas found in students with dyslexia. A

difficultly in this phonological component of language is often unexpected in relation to other

cognitive abilities (Proctor, Mathers, Stephens-Pisecco, & Jaffe, 2017). This deficit area can

ultimately lead to difficulties with phoneme/grapheme correspondence, decoding, and spelling.

Overall phonological awareness is a large component of basic reading and spelling skills.

Students with dyslexia have a difficult time holding onto sounds and manipulating them in some

type of way. For example, segmenting words into individual phonemes, blending phonemes to

make a word, and adding, deleting, or substituting phonemes are all typical deficit areas for

students with dyslexia. This difficulty can be explained by the phonological deficit hypothesis.

This hypothesis suggests that reading deficits can be due to a core deficit in manipulating

linguistic information, at the phonological level or the ability to determine the basic sounds

found in spoken language (Navas, Ferraz, & Borges, 2014). This hypothesis has been researched

extensively is believed to be one of the largest contributors when determining eligibility for

dyslexia. Navas et al. (2014) analyzed and synthesized over 100 articles, which focused on

various languages, in order to determine if it was in fact a deficit or if the complexity of the

native language played a role in the deficit. Through this research it was determined that, the

phonological deficit hypothesis is prevalent across various languages which can lead to the

notion that it is a large contributor to why children with dyslexia are struggling readers.

Decoding
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 9

Word recognition is another area that children with dyslexia often have a deficit in when

compared to same aged peers. Word recognition can be broken into three domains or steps;

triggering, configuration, and engagement. These three domains work together simultaneously

and quickly when students are efficient in word recognition strategies. Children with dyslexia

often have trouble in the configuration stage of word recognition which prohibits them from

being able to reach the third domain. The configuration stage of word recognition requires the

ability to apply lexical and semantic representations to unknown words (Alt, Hogan, Green,

Gray, Cabbage, & Cowan, 2017). This directly relates back to the phonological deficits that are

commonly found in children with dyslexia.

In one case study of 184 second grade students, 68 of these students were identified as

dyslexic; word learning deficits in the configuration stage are directly attributed to phonological

deficits (Alt et al., 2017). This means that deficits in word recognition in this case study were

directly related back to the main component of phonological awareness and memory. When

students in this case study were asked to manipulate or change written language in anyway their

performance on these tasks were much lower compared to same aged peers. This research was

conducted in order to determine whether or not children with dyslexia are less accurate in their

word recognition abilities when they are required to apply phonological and visual

representations within their reading abilities.

Rapid Naming

Rapid naming is also referred to as rapid automatized naming (RAN). RAN tasks assess the

speed that students are able name highly familiar visual stimuli that is continuously presented.

This is often in the form of letters digits, colors, and familiar objects that are reviewed with the
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 10

student to ensure that the stimuli are in fact familiar. Students with dyslexia often require more

time to complete an RAN task when compared to same aged peers.

Based on a case study that was conducted on 117 students, 86 of which were dyslexic,

the performance of all students with dyslexia was substantially below the average range in their

word reading fluency and text reading fluency (Bexkens, Van Den Wildenberg, & Tijms, 2014).

These skills all have to do with their ability to automatically and quickly recognize highly

familiar stimuli. This is another characteristic that is commonly found in children with dyslexia.

Difficulties that are found in both phonological processing, especially phonological memory, and

RAN is considered to be large contributors to dyslexia. This can be referred to as the double-

deficit hypothesis of dyslexia, which means that either impairments in RAN or a phonological

deficit can cause dyslexia (Bexkens et al., 2014). Students who have this type of double-deficit

are considered to have more severe reading disabilities than those with one of the deficits.

These areas need to be thoroughly analyzed by educated individuals, in conjunction with

the cognitive profile, when determining eligibility for dyslexia. While phonological, word

recognition, and RAN deficits are commonly found in students with dyslexia possible

implications of a speech and language impairment must be investigated in order to systematically

continue with a diagnosis of SLD/Dyslexia.

Speech and Language Impairments

Often times it is difficult to discern whether or not a student has language impairment or

is in fact dyslexic. It is important to understand the difference and correlations between these

types of disabilities. This is also an important area to rule out when considering a student’s

primary disability that impacts their learning. This is a very fine line of understanding because
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 11

dyslexia is considered to be language based reading disability therefore, educators need to

thoroughly analyze all evaluations to determine the primary disability.

Language Impairment or Dyslexia?

Based on a case study that consisted of group administered and individual assessments

on 381 second grade students it can be determined that the criteria for a language impairment and

dyslexia can overlap. For example, of the 381 students, 135 students met the criteria for a

language impairment, however 73 (54%) of these students also met the criteria for dyslexia

(Adlof, Scoggins, Brazendale, Babb, & Petscher, 2017). This data means that it can be very

difficult to discern whether or not a student’s primary disability is either a language impairment

or dyslexia. There has been other data collected that also demonstrates how closely these

disabilities are related. It was found that 18% -36% of kindergarten students with a specific

language impairment later met the criteria for dyslexia in the later grades (Adlof et al., 2017).

This supports the notion that determining the difference between the two types of disabilities

takes specialized training and guidelines to determine which is more prominent.

The main component that is often different in students with a language impairment and

students with dyslexia is the type of impact the disability has on reading comprehension.

Students with language impairments typically have a difficult time with both reading

comprehension and oral comprehension because they have a difficult time understanding the

parts of language. Whereas, students with dyslexia often have difficulties strictly with reading

comprehension because of their difficulty recognizing printed words. There are many students

with dyslexia who actually have strengths in regard to their linguistic abilities.

Linguistic Strengths in Dyslexia

IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 12

While there are many similarities between children with speech and language

impairments and those with dyslexia there are some common linguistically based strengths in

children with dyslexia. Children with dyslexia have overall strengths in expressive/receptive

vocabulary, grammar, and narrative retell abilities when compared to same aged peers with

speech and language impairments (Wong, Ho, Au, McBride, Ng, Yip, & Lam, 2017). This

means that when most children with dyslexia are given language based instructions or the ability

to follow orally presented instructions they were able to do so. Ultimately it means that skills

that don’t require large amounts of processing, working memory, phonology skills, and word

recognition children with dyslexia are able to be successful. This is because children with

dyslexia tend to have impairments in their word reading abilities not their oral language abilities.

However, children with dyslexia have difficulties manipulating orally presented language when

phonology skills such as phoneme manipulation or phoneme blending are required.

Speech Perception and Dyslexia

Another topic that often comes up when determining eligibility for dyslexia is speech

perception. Speech perception is basically the way an individual hears, interprets, and

understands the sounds of language. This topic often comes up because of the deficits that are

seen in phonological awareness and memory when looking at learning profiles of children with

dyslexia. It is hard to discern whether or not speech perception is an underlying issue that

contributes to the deficits seen in phonology. In one case study of 113 participants, 62 with

dyslexia and 51 average readers, it showed that children with poor performance in one speech

perception task did not show a consistent weakness in similar tasks (Messaoud-Galusi, Hazan, &

Rosen, 2011). This was true for all participants in this case study. This can mean that speech

perception is not a contributor to deficits seen in phonological awareness and memory skills.
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 13

When looking at overall speech perception ability it can be determined that the results

found are inconsistent when discerning whether or not this is a main contributor that causes

dyslexia. It can be hypothesized that poor abilities in phonological processing and memory can

attribute to many of the reading deficits that are seen in children with dyslexia. Through most of

the research found on the correlation between speech and language deficits and dyslexia it can be

determined that they are closely related to each other. However, it is important to understand

some of the differences associated with each when determining a child’s primary disability. One

of the main areas to consider is their ability to understanding oral language. This is because

many students with a language impairment have a significant deficit in their ability to understand

oral language while a child with dyslexia has a significant deficit in word reading abilities

(Wong et al., 2017). This word reading deficit areas relates directly back to the difficulties

associated with phonological awareness which ultimately impacts a student’s basic reading

abilities.

Conclusion

Overall, there is much to be considered when determining whether or not a child qualifies

under the primary disability of SLD/Dyslexia. As educators it is important to understand the

common correlations between cognitive, educational, and speech and language characteristics

that are often representative of many students with dyslexia. It is also important to take caution

when analyzing data found within a particular profile because each student is going to have their

own strengths and weaknesses that may vary away from common trends in dyslexia.

The purpose of analyzing these pieces of literature was to determine the major areas that

comprise a typical learning profile of a student with dyslexia. Some strengths that were found

within the literature where in the areas of phonological skills, word recognition abilities, and
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 14

rapid naming. The literature thoroughly discussed these topics and provided ample case studies

to be analyzed in order to better understand this deficit area. The literature that focused on the

speech and language impairments was strong; however it was difficult to discern the importance

of collecting the research and how to apply it to the diagnosis of dyslexia. There were strengths

and weaknesses found within the literature that focused on the cognitive profiles. Deficit areas

were accessible to find, however it was difficult to find case studies that thoroughly explained

the rationale. Future research needs to be conducted on how each of these areas combine to

create a learning profile that is often typical of a student with dyslexia.

Given this review of literature it can be concluded there is a need for a more cohesive

view of how to identify students with dyslexia. There is a plethora of compartmentalized

research that paints a picture of what dyslexia looks like in students. However, there is a lack of

interrelated resources and forms of research that provides educators a complete list of what to

look for in all of these components when identifying students with dyslexia. This project will

take each of these separate components and fuse them together to paint the complete picture for

educators to use during this difficult and intricate process.

IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 15

Research Design and Methodology

Introduction

The problem to be solved is based on a statistic from The Yale Center for Dyslexia and

Creativity (2017), that there is an estimated one in five students with dyslexia. Therefore, there

needs to be better guidelines as to how to properly identify the students who are actually dyslexic

in order to provide proper supports. To solve this problem, educators need to be more informed

and given clear cut guidelines. In one Connecticut elementary school there are a total of 65

students receiving special education services but only four are identified as students with

dyslexia (Ryan, 2018).

The best research method for the Capstone Project is a mixed methods approach that focuses

on the principles associated with action research design. It would be beneficial to include both

qualitative and quantitative research methods within the project to reach the end goal. Both of

these methods have the ability to add to the understanding of the phenomenon that is being

studied (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Walker, 2013). The phenomenon, in this case, is the problem

of efficiently identifying students with dyslexia. The outline created below is step by step plan

of how to use both quantitative and qualitative research methods within the Capstone Project.

Participants

The participants for this project would consist of a mixture of those who are directly

responsible for evaluating and identifying students with Dyslexia. This group would consist of

eighteen special education teachers, two from each of the nine elementary schools in the district.

Nine speech and language pathologists from each of the nine elementary schools and five district

wide school psychologists would also be included as participants. This would result in 32 total

participants that are all females ranging from 24 to 40 years old.

IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 16

Plan of Action

The first step is to gather baseline data that has the potential to measure the amount of

learning the participants achieve through the professional development workshop. A survey is

created using an online software program using a numerical scale that targets different levels of

familiarity with the topic. This survey would then be sent out to the 32 participants in order to

determine their current level of understanding of the targeted learning content. The survey can

be found in Appendix A. It is important to ensure that the format follows the quantitative

method of using surveys that will be able to run statistical reports based around numerical data.

Once the survey has been sent out there will be six observations of randomly selected

participants during testing sessions. However, in order to get a general view of needs within the

district two will be conducted during cognitive testing, two will be conducted during academic

achievement testing, and the final two will be conducted during speech and language evaluation.

These observations sessions also include audio recording that can be analyzed at a later point.

The observations include the following: length of sessions(s), types of assessments(s), age and

gender of the student (for statistical purposes), and examiner/student interactions. This form can

be found in Appendix B.

After the observations are analyzed and recorded individual interviews with the

participants who were observed will take place. These interview sessions will also include audio

recordings so that they can be referenced at a later time. The interview will be led by using

probe questions: Why did you choose the assessment(s)? What did you hope to learn from the

assessment(s)? Do you think the length of the testing session impacted student performance? Did

the age of the student impact the assessments you selected? What is the student’s current reading

level? Why were they referred to special education? These questions must be included in the
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 17

interview and can be found in Appendix C. However, additional questions can be asked based on

the responses of the participants. Similar responses will be categorized under each question to

determine correlations among responses across different people.

A professional development workshop will then be created (Appendix D). This will

include: an overview of dyslexia, common deficit areas, assessment tools, the steps to identify

students with dyslexia, and the creation of a checklist that can be used district wide.

Collaborative group activities will also be included that targets the following areas: common

deficit areas, assessment tools, and creating a checklist. A description and directions for these

activities can be found in Appendices E, F, and G.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data as to whether or not the project is effective will be collected in a couple of ways.

Reuse the exact same survey that was given to determine the baseline data. Post interviews and

observations will be conducted that follow the same pattern previously identified and discussed

to determine if there was an impact on practice. Data will be analyzed by first comparing and

contrasting the baseline data survey and the post data survey. The survey answers will be

grouped by the question and compared by the question to determine if there was an overall

increase of knowledge. The observational and interview data will then be compared and

contrasted. This can be done by coding the information into themes in order to see changes

between the pre and post data.

In closing, action research will be used to continuously monitor the needs of the

individuals who are responsible for assessing and identifying students with dyslexia. The

workshop that was developed can easily evolve to meet the current needs of a targeted group of

participants. The use of quantitative data can determine the direction the workshop needs to take
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 18

and qualitative data can provide specific examples and specific needs of those that need to

partake in the workshop.

Evaluation and Assessment

Self-Assessment

The evaluation of this project took place in two forms, a self-assessment evaluation and a

review from a panel of experts. Each of these evaluation forms plays a pertinent role in

determining the effectiveness of the overall design of the project. The self-assessment was

created and completed in the form of a rubric, which can be found in Appendix H. This

assessment focused on all aspects of the project from the report, the deliverable, the presentation,

and the actual completion of the project itself. The rubric was created using a numerical scale

and provided an option to add notes to explain why a score was given. Overall, the main

strengths of this project were found within the individual components of the self-assessment.

Through this self-evaluation it was determined that the literature review added high validity and

reliability to the project. The strength of the deliverable component is the large amount original

work that was created and attached as appendices. The presentation itself reflected the project by

using precise wording and phrasing.

One area of weakness through the self-assessment was the use of time management over

the course of the eight week time frame. The project management plan that was created can be

viewed in Appendix I. This was completed in a previous course to be applied in the final steps

of completing the Capstone Project. The plan needed to be changed due to certain aspects of the

project that took longer than anticipated.

Panel of Experts
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 19

The review from a panel of experts was conducted through the use of a questionnaire that

targeted the main components of the workshop. Three experts were able to provide feedback on

the project and can be found in Appendix J. These experts consisted of two special education

teachers and one speech and language pathologist. The perspective of these individual was

highly valued due to their level of involvement and overall knowledge in this particular field.

They also provided an outsiders perspective of the project especially because they could be

potential future participants of the project. Their feedback is respected and gives opportunities

for future areas of growth for the project in general.

Overall the experts agreed that the project was well organized, easy to follow, and

supported with accurate and valid information. They also agreed that problem was clearly

identified and an appropriate plan was put into place to help alleviate the problem. Some

examples of some suggestions and questions from the panel were:

 The inclusion of case studies would be helpful in determining eligibility.

 More interaction during the activities amongst the groups.

 Information regarding early warning signs/the use of universal screeners.

 Is this the first time they are working with/seeing these assessments?

 Maybe use a TED talks video as an introduction to the topic?

These suggestions and questions are valid for next steps of the project. A video was added to

the professional development as it was a great suggestion to hook the participants into the

workshop. It can be used to get the conversations started. The use of case studies could be used

in the future once a checklist is developed so that the checklist can be utilized in real life

scenarios. Also, the suggestion of learning about universal screeners is great; however that

would be more beneficial when discussing the early intervention process and wouldn’t
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 20

necessarily fit into the targeted group of participants for this project. Overall, the experts gave

authentic and valuable feedback that can be used to make this project stronger for future

implementation.
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 21

Discussion and Reflection

Through the completion of this program, I have learned several skills, strategies, theories,

and practices that have presented themselves in various forms throughout the program. I have

learned that each course taken throughout the program had its own role in purpose that ultimately

helped me create my final project.

The first Master of Education Outcomes that was met is designing and delivering

instruction that supports the achievement of a diverse population of learners. This outcome was

the main focus of EDU 604 Diversity in the 21st Century; however I would say it was apparent in

all of the courses in the program. This outcome was reached by completing the Memoir,

Memory, and Mastery presentation. This presentation was driven by the coursework the directly

correlated to a memoir we chose to read. This presentation was eye-opening to me because it

made the topic of multicultural education more real because I was reading about first hand

experiences. While the main focus of this course was multicultural education, it is important to

understand that diversity extends to learning styles and ability.

One example of how this is apparent in the completion of my Capstone Project is that it

focuses solely on the dyslexic population. This is a group of learners that don’t learn how to

read in the same way that their peers learn to read. This is an example of how teachers need to

be informed to meet the needs of all students in the classroom and special education teachers

need to be well versed on how to teach these diverse readers their foundational reading skills.

The purpose of my Capstone Project is to better inform those who are directly responsible for

identifying these students so that they can more easily target their learning needs in the

classroom.
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 22

The second Master of Education Outcomes that was met was to develop a vision for the

future of education, a personal critical and creative perspective on issues and changes in

education, and several means to adapt to future realities. This outcome was first introduced to me

in my first graduate school course, EDU 505 Future of Education. While this outcome was

formally focused on in EDU 505, it has been an underlying focal point throughout the entire

program. Through actually writing a paper that focused on my own future vision of education, I

can confidently say that I have been able to set up long term goals for myself that will hopefully

positively impact the future direction of education. All of the courses in this program have the

same ultimate goal; which is to educate current and future educators of the importance of

understanding the different facets found within the education umbrella. This program outcome

has been thoroughly developed throughout my completion of all courses within the program

including those that focused on teaching and learning.

I believe the completion of my Capstone Project is a perfect example of how I have

learned to develop a future vision that targets the needs of educators. There is a need for more

professional learning and understanding of assessing and identifying students with dyslexia.

Therefore, I took the time to read current research, develop an action research project (in the

form of a professional development workshop), and seek the advice from a panel of experts to

make my project the best version of itself. Through the development of my action research

project I can honestly say that it was the first step of being an agent of change for the future of

education by targeting a problem that needs immediate attention.

The third Master of Education Outcomes specific to my concentration of teaching and

learning that was met was to use selected advanced instructional strategies appropriate for

specific learning outcomes. This outcome was primarily addressed in EDU 605 Differentiated
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 23

Instruction because this course focused on using various instructional strategies in order to read

specific learning outcomes. This was mainly reached by completing the Applied Instruction

project at the end of the class. This project was a great way to tie the course objectives together

within one cohesive project that translated into a true understanding of one of the concentration

outcomes of the program.

Through the completion of my Capstone Project this core outcome was further met and

explored. My project focuses on the needs of a specific group of learners that requires extensive

differentiation when it comes to reading tasks within the classroom. So, how can these students

receive appropriate accommodations and modifications within the classroom if they aren’t

properly identified? The purpose of my Capstone Project is to help alleviate this problem. It

aims to target the under identification of this group of learners and therefore will allow teachers

to appropriately differentiate the materials in their classroom. The main goal of this project is to

better educate and prepare educators who are directly responsible for identifying students with

dyslexia. This will, in turn, result in a more accurate identification of students with dyslexia in

the school which will ultimately allow these students to access the reading curriculum with

appropriate differentiation strategies put into place and practice.

The completion of my Capstone Project was broken into three stages. Each of these

stages focused on a chunk of the project and was later extended in the next stage. This was

extremely helpful in the overall completion of the project. I will say that the first two stages

were the most challenging as far as course load however, the final stage was challenging due to

the role of time management. This has always been a difficult area for me for as long as I can

remember. Even though I wasn’t as strict with myself as I should have been, I do think that I

made progress on my ability to manage my time when compared to my undergraduate studies.

IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 24

Quite honestly, creating an action research project through as my Capstone Project was

the best experience I had in my graduate school career. It was a great way to tie all of the ends

of each of the courses I took while earning my Master’s Degree in Education together in one

cohesive project. I learned that action research should be a part of every educators practice. It is

a pertinent and intricate part of how to grow professionally and collaboratively. Through

completing this project I learned the importance of constructive criticism and how it can make

me a better educator. This was especially helpful when reaching out to a panel of experts. They

were able to give me feedback that will allow me to further expand on my action research project

in the future. Action research is a living, breathing project that needs to change with time and

the needs of the targeted groups of participants. Creating an implementation reading Capstone

Project was one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences I have had in my learning

career to date as it is applicable, real, and needed to change the future of education.
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 25

References

Adlof, S. M., Scoggins, J., Brazendale, A., Babb, S., & Petscher, Y. (2017). Identifying Children

at Risk for Language Impairment or Dyslexia With Group-Administered

Measures. Journal Of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 60(12), 3507.

doi:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-16-0473

Alt, M., Hogan, T., Green, S., Gray, S., Cabbage, K., & Cowan, N. (2017). Word learning

deficits in children with dyslexia. Journal Of Speech, Language, And Hearing

Research, 60(4), 1012-1028. doi:10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-16-0036

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. (2013). Introduction to research in education.

Cengage Learning.

Bexkens, A., van den Wildenberg, W. M., & Tijms, J. (2015). Rapid Automatized Naming in

Children with Dyslexia: Is Inhibitory Control Involved?. Dyslexia (Chichester,

England), 21(3), 212-234. doi:10.1002/dys.1487

Bogon, J., Finke, K., Schulte-Körne, G., Müller, H. J., Schneider, W. X., & Stenneken, P.

(2014). Parameter-based assessment of disturbed and intact components of visual

attention in children with developmental dyslexia. Developmental Science, 17(5), 697-

713. doi:10.1111/desc.12150

Bureau of Special Education. (April 2017). IEP manual and forms. Retrieved from:

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/IEPManual.pdf

Everatt, J., Weeks, S., & Brooks, P. (2008). Profiles of Strengths and Weaknesses in Dyslexia

and Other Learning Difficulties. Dyslexia, 14(1), 16-41.

IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 26

Messaoud-Galusi, S., Hazan, V., & Rosen, S. (2011). Investigating speech perception in children

with dyslexia: is there evidence of a consistent deficit in individuals?. Journal Of

Speech, Language, And Hearing Research, (6), 1682.

Moura, O., Simões, M. R., & Pereira, M. (2014). WISC-III cognitive profiles in children with

developmental dyslexia: specific cognitive disability and diagnostic utility. Dyslexia

(Chichester, England), 20(1), 19-37. doi:10.1002/dys.1468

Navas, A. P., Ferraz, É. C., & Borges, J. A. (2014). Phonological processing deficits as a

universal model for dyslexia: evidence from different orthographies. Codas, 26(6), 509-

519. doi:10.1590/2317-1782/20142014135

Proctor, C. M., Mather, N., Stephens-Pisecco, T. L., & Jaffe, L. E. (2017). Assessment of

Dyslexia. Communique (0164775X), 46(3), 1-23.

Ryan, A. (2018). Special education case load study elementary magnet school. Special

education.

Smith-Spark, J. H., & Fisk, J. E. (2007). Working memory functioning in developmental

dyslexia. Memory (Hove, England), 15(1), 34-56.

The Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity. (2017). The yale center for dyslexia and creativity.

Retrieved from: http://dyslexia.yale.edu/

Wong, A. a., Ho, C., Au, T., McBride, C., Ng, A., Yip, L., & Lam, C. (2017). Reading

comprehension, working memory and higher-level language skills in children with SLI

and/or dyslexia. Reading & Writing, 30(2), 337-361. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-9678-0

IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 27

Appendix A

Survey
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 28
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 29

Appendix B

Testing Observation Form

Teacher Name:
___________________________________
Role:
___________________________________
Age of Student:
___________________________________
Reason for Testing:
___________________________________
Duration of Observation:
___________________________________
Number of Assessments Given:
___________________________________
Names of Assessments:
___________________________________
Targeted Areas:
___________________________________

Additional Observations:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 30

Appendix C

Interview Form

1. What is your name?

________________________________________________________________________
2. What is your current role?
______________________________________________________________________________
3. How many years of experience do you have?
______________________________________________________________________________
4. What age levels have you worked with?
______________________________________________________________________________
5. How many students are on your caseload?
______________________________________________________________________________
6. How many of those students are identified with dyslexia?
______________________________________________________________________________
7. What is dyslexia?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
8. Have you ever been trained to better understand dyslexia? If so what? If not why?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
9. What are common deficit areas of students with dyslexia?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
10. What assessments would you give to a student suspected of being dyslexic?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
11. How do you go about identifying/determining eligibility for students with dyslexia?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
12. Any additional information you would like to provide?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 31

Appendix D

Dyslexia Professional Development Workshop

IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 32

Appendix E

Poster Board Activity

Directions:

1. Count out to make groups of 5.

a. Ones go to word recognition.
b. Twos go to decoding.
c. Threes go to spelling.
d. Fours go to phonological processing.
e. Fives go to fluency.
2. For the next 5 to 7 minutes your task is to brainstorm the following and record it on your
poster. Be creative!
a. How might this look in students with dyslexia?
b. How can it be measured?
c. What are some other characteristics or skills that go with it?
3. After each group has worked for about 5-7 minutes; there will be a silent activity where
each person gets a stack of sticky notes and spends at least one minute at each poster.
They need to add one comment and one question to each poster board.
4. Once each group gets back to their starting spot a group leader will report out to the
whole group.
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 33

Appendix F

Assessment Tools Activity

Directions:

1. Divide the room into four equal groups.

2. Each group goes to a different corner.
3. In each corner there will be three different assessments.
a. Randomly placed.
4. Goal:
a. Each group must analyze the tests in their corner.
b. Fill out the question sheet.
5. The following tests will be split up:
a. Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP-2)
b. Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2)
c. Phonological Awareness Test (PAT-2)
d. Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJIV)
e. Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-5)
f. Rapid Automatized Naming and Rapid Alternating Stimulus Test (RAN/RAS)
g. Test of Written Language (TOWL-4)
h. Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS)
i. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V)
j. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-5)
k. Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT)
l. Test of Written Spelling (TWS-5)
6. Group work will last for about 30 to 35 minutes based on the needs of the groups
7. Discussion of findings will occur immediately after the activity.
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 34

Assessment Tools Worksheet

Name of Test:

Target Area(s):

Age Group:

Pros Cons

Summary:

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 35

Appendix G

Brain Storm Activity Worksheet

 IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 36

Appendix H

Self-Assessment Rubric
Exemplary Proficient Approaching Does Not Meet Comments
Expectations
Final Report 3 points 2 points 1 point 0 points
Problem: The problem is The problem is The problem is The problem is not Clear and uses two
Clear identification, clearly identified clearly identified clearly identified clearly identified or statistics (global
brief explanation, and is supported and is supported by but is missing missing. and individual to
supported with with statistical one piece of statistical data to school)
evidence. evidence or data statistical evidence support the
from more than one or data. problem.
source.
Abstract: Abstract is well- Abstract is Abstract consists of Abstract is missing Contains a
Clear and sufficient written and sufficient. It a few short or incomplete. summary and gives
summary of the project professional and describes the sentences. Abstract reasons for the
is given that is contains a thorough overall idea of the is lacking data to importance of the
straightforward and to but straightforward project and support the project.
the point summary of the provides data to problem.
project. support problem.
Research Design: Incorporates more Uses one logical Uses one logical Section is Two types of
Implements effective than one style of style of research style of research completely missing research. Contains
and logical research research design and design and method design and method or does not meet a step by step
methods that reflect an method that clearly that has a clear however, it lacks the specified process to
understanding and the has purpose in the purpose and is logical steps for the requirements in any complete the
usefulness of using project. This accompanied by project to be a way. project.
them in educational section incorporates logical steps for the success.
research. logical steps project to be a
needed for the success.
project to be a
success.
Reflection/Discussion: Analyzes, Analyzes, Reflection and Section is Contains future
Analyzes, discusses, discusses, and discusses, and discussion is completely missing next steps for the
and summarizes the summarizes the summarizes the relevant to the or does not meet project to be
most important aspects information in the information in the project. However, it the specified implementation
of the action research action research action research is limited and does requirements in any ready. Highlights
project and provides project that goes project that goes not provide enough way. the importance of
evidence of how the beyond the basic beyond the basic thoughtful evidence action research.
learning reflects the requirements. requirements and of learning and next
program outcomes. There is a clear contains thoughtful steps.
understanding of next steps and new
the learning and learning.
changes that can be
made to make the
project a reality.
Course Outcomes: Three or more Three programs Connections were No connections to Each program
Demonstrates a core programs outcomes outcomes were made to only two of program outcomes outcome was
understanding of at were demonstrated. identified and the program were demonstrated. identified. Two
least three program Showed mastery of supported. outcomes. One of from the program
outcomes one of which the program which targets and one
targets teaching and outcomes through teaching and specifically about
learning. the connections that learning. teaching and
were made. learning.
Literature Review: Literature Literature review Literature review Literature review I believe this is an
Applicable and surpassed the basic was sufficient and was adequate but was missing or area of strength in
 IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 37

professional pieces of requirements. All contained valid contained some incomplete. this report. The
literature including content was sources that were errors in describing literature is
scholarly, peer- properly analyzed correctly analyzed. and analyzing the thorough, well-
reviewed articles were and supported by information. Some rounded, and
chosen and thoroughly research. of the literature summarized using
analyzed. chosen was not precise
applicable to the information.
subject matter.
APA & Formatting: There are no errors One to two minor Three to four Major and
Skilled and cohesive in APA style. errors in APA style. consistent errors in consistent errors in
writing is evidenced There are no errors One to two minor APA style as well APA style, spelling,
throughout the paper. in spelling, errors in spelling, as consistent errors capitalization,
capitalization, capitalization, in spelling, punctuation, and
punctuation, or punctuation, or capitalization, grammar.
grammar. grammar. punctuation, or
grammar.
Deliverable
Program The course The course The course There are no Connections are
Connections: outcomes are outcomes are outcomes are connections made made through the
Clear connections are identified and are identified and are identified however to the course use of the
made to a minimum of accompanied by a accompanied by a limited evidence outcomes. workshop that ties
three program clear and explicit brief explanation and connection are together all parts of
outcomes. explanation and/or and/or evidence of made to the outcomes
evidence of how how they were met. demonstrate an discussed in the
they were met that understanding. report.
Rational/Reasoning: There is a clear There is a clear There is a limited There is no clear Concepts and
Integration of integration and integration of at amount of integration of key theories are used
concepts, theories, application of two least two concepts, concepts, theories, concepts, theories, through the
models, and/or or more concepts, theories, models, models, and/or models, and/or completion of the
frameworks from theories, models, and/or frameworks frameworks that frameworks. checklist. Also the
various courses and/or frameworks that support the were integrated into assessment tools
throughout the that are well project. the project. activity will
program. thought out and provide further
relevant to the information
project. regarding the
different types of
research that went
into creating the
assessments.
Original Work: There is extensive There is some There is limited There is an overall Workshop is
Evidence of substantial and substantial evidence of evidence of original lack of original original.
original work that original work that substantial and work that has been work that Accompanied by
reflects a commitment demonstrates an original work that created to solve the exemplifies a extensive
to solving the problem. overall demonstrates an problem. commitment to worksheets and
commitment of overall commitment solve the problem. activities to foster
solving the of solving the collaborative
problem. problem. learning.
Professional: Overall, this section Overall, this section Overall, this section This section lacks Overall
Demonstrates Master’s is professional and is of professional continues to need many components professional
level work that goes clearly depicts the quality and depicts additional work in needs for it to be quality.
beyond the general ability to analyze the ability to order for it to reach considered
experience. and develop analyze and professional quality professional quality
components that develop multiple work. work.
work together to components to
solve a problem. solve a problem.
 IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 38

There is a clear
evidence of
professional skill.
Presentation
Applicable & The presentation is The presentation is The presentation The presentation
Descriptive: completed in its completed in its has been completed does not represent
Precise and entirety and is entirety and is in its entirety the project in a
accompanied by clearly supported accompanied by however it lacks logical and precise
appropriate and by all the necessary data and descriptive data and way. The project is
descriptive language. components that language that appropriate incomplete in some
support the supports the descriptive way.
development of a project. language that
precise and provides an
descriptive accurate summary
presentation. of the project.
Professional: Clear, professional, One to two minor Some errors that Multiple major
Free from errors and and error free. errors that do not are consistent but errors that
uses APA Style. compromise the do not compromise compromise the
professionalism of the professionalism professionalism of
the presentation. of the presentation. the presentation.
Accessible: Available to a large Available to a large Limited availability Not available to a
Available to a large audience and has audience and useful to a large audience large audience.
audience. exemplary communication and there is limited
communication skills are used evidence of
skills are apparent throughout the appropriate
throughout the presentation that communication
presentation that fit shows skills.
the educational professionalism.
context of the
presentation.
Overall
Time Management: Project All parts of the All parts of the One or more Not the best area
The project management plan project were project were aspects of the for me. While I
management plan was was followed completed. The completed. Capstone Project had to edit my
followed. The final (making edits when project However, time are missing due to project
report, deliverable, and necessary). All management plan management was lack of time management plan,
presentation were aspects of the was loosely not done properly. management. I had a difficult
completed in a timely project were followed and some Rushing to time effectively
and sufficient fashion. created using aspects of the complete the managing my time
appropriate time project were rushed project all at once. over the 8 week
management and to complete. period.
allocation of time.
Total:
__39___/45
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 39

Appendix I

Project Management Plan

IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 40

Appendix J

Panel of Experts
Panel of Experts Questionnaire
Name: Beth Owen-Mishou_____ Date:__6-4-18_________

Role:__Speech-Language Pathologist__________________

Please take some time to review my action research project that focuses on assessing and
identifying students with dyslexia.

Workshop Focus/Problem:
There needs to be better guidelines as to how to properly identify the students who are actually dyslexic
in order to provide proper supports. In order to solve this problem, educators need to be more informed
and given clear cut guidelines.

Please answer the questions 1-5 using the key provided.

Scoring Key:
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Agree
4 = Strongly Agree

1. The problem was clearly identified and supported with accurate information. __4__
a. Comments: The information was clear and well defined.

2. The poster board activity was well-prepared and purposeful to the learning in the
workshop. _4____
a. Comments: The activity was engaging and encouraged the participants to engage
in professional conversations that will assist with their retaining the information.

3. The assessment tools activity would be beneficial to the learning of the targeted
audience. __4___
a. Comments: There was a comprehensive list of materials that were current and
allowed for a greater understanding of the magnitude of difficulty a student with
dyslexia can present with.
4. The brainstorm activity would be beneficial to foster individual growth and
reflection on the topic. _4____
a. Comments:
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 41

5. The professional development workshop provided a useful set of guidelines to use

when assessing and identifying students with dyslexia. _4____
a. Comments: __The guidelines would be very helpful to professionals regardless
of their level of experience in the area of dyslexia.

6. The professional development workshop fostered collaborative learning amongst the

targeted audience. _4____

7. What are some strengths of the workshop?

_comprehensive__________________________________________________________
_engaging_______________________________________________________________
__informative____________________________________________________________

8. What are some weaknesses of the workshop?

none noted

9. What suggestions do you have that can improve the workshop?

It was well done and would be beneficial to all regardless of their level of understanding of the
topic.

Panel of Experts Questionnaire

Name:____Keelan Lefebvre_______________ Date:________6/8/18___________

Role:_______Special Education Teacher_____________

Please take some time to review my action research project that focuses on assessing and
identifying students with dyslexia.

Workshop Focus/Problem:
There needs to be better guidelines as to how to properly identify the students who are actually dyslexic
in order to provide proper supports. In order to solve this problem, educators need to be more informed
and given clear cut guidelines.

Please answer the questions 1-5 using the key provided.

Scoring Key:
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Agree
4 = Strongly Agree

1. The problem was clearly identified and supported with accurate information.
_3____
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 42

a. Comments:

2. The poster board activity was well-prepared and purposeful to the learning in the
workshop. _3____
a. Comments: incorporate a little more interaction.

3. The assessment tools activity would be beneficial to the learning of the targeted
audience. __3___
a. Comments: Suggestion, provide case studies of students with different profiles of
dyslexia and reading disabilities and have the group analyze scores and determine
whether or not the student would qualify. I also think it might be difficult to look
through that many assessments and review.

4. The brainstorm activity would be beneficial to foster individual growth and

reflection on the topic. __3___
a. Comments: A suggestion could be to reflect on how the brain works with a
dyslexic brain vs a normal brain and how one vs the other sees text. Also
comparing the pathway one brain takes over the other with a dyslexic diagnosis.

5. The professional development workshop provided a useful set of guidelines to use

when assessing and identifying students with dyslexia. __4___
a. Comments: Well organized and easy to understand/follow.

6. The professional development workshop fostered collaborative learning amongst the

targeted audience. __4___

7. What are some strengths of the workshop?

_4__Very knowledgeable about the topic, well organized

8. What are some weaknesses of the workshop?

More interaction with the activities, they seemed tedious and dull.

9. What suggestions do you have that can improve the workshop?

Provide activities that are appropriate to each department; elementary, middle and
secondary that touch upon the language system: phonology, orthography, morphology,
syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse.
Case studies and Assessment Data.
Talk about universal screeners that can be used or find early warning signs

Panel of Experts Questionnaire

Name:____Jessica Quintero_______________ Date:________6/6/18___________
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 43

Role:_______Special Education Teacher_____________

Please take some time to review my action research project that focuses on assessing and
identifying students with dyslexia.

Workshop Focus/Problem:
There needs to be better guidelines as to how to properly identify the students who are actually dyslexic
in order to provide proper supports. In order to solve this problem, educators need to be more informed
and given clear cut guidelines.

Please answer the questions 1-5 using the key provided.

Scoring Key:
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Agree
4 = Strongly Agree

1. The problem was clearly identified and supported with accurate information.
_4____
a. Comments: Topic named with descriptive terms to support.

2. The poster board activity was well-prepared and purposeful to the learning in the
workshop. _3____
a. Comments: Suggestion- more visuals, defining areas of reading being
brainstormed, share out information rather than just writing (more interactive)

3. The assessment tools activity would be beneficial to the learning of the targeted
audience. __3___
a. Comments: Is this the first time they are seeing/working with these assessments?
Great list of assessments- is 30 minutes enough time to develop pros and cons and
suggestions? More interaction within groups may make sharing the materials a bit
easier.

4. The brainstorm activity would be beneficial to foster individual growth and

reflection on the topic. __4___
a. Comments: Multiple choice responses for activity to narrow down activity and
for people to use as a guideline to remember all of the new information.

5. The professional development workshop provided a useful set of guidelines to use

when assessing and identifying students with dyslexia. __4___
a. Comments: very well organized, easy to follow
IDENTIFYING DYSLEXIA 44

6. The professional development workshop fostered collaborative learning amongst the

targeted audience. __4___

7. What are some strengths of the workshop?

_4__great descriptions and use of resources, interactive with pictures and questioning,
not just informative.

8. What are some weaknesses of the workshop?

N/A

9. What suggestions do you have that can improve the workshop?

Maybe use TED Talks video from school presentation?