IDENTIFYING STUDENTS Ashley Ryan

Post
WITH DYSLEXIA University
 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.

 For example, 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)

 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.
 PROBLEM STATEMENT

 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).

 The problem is that with an estimated one and 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 order to solve this problem, educators need to be more

informed and given clear cut guidelines.
 RESEARCH QUESTION

What assessments should be given to determine if a

student has SLD/Dyslexia and why will it help
educators identify these students?
LITERATURE REVIEW: COGNITIVE PROFILE

 Common Cognitive Profile

 Performance Intelligence Quotient (PIQ)
 nonverbal tasks
 Verbal Intelligence Quotient (VIQ)
 Verbal tasks
 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).
LITERATURE REVIEW: COGNITIVE PROFILE

 Working Memory
 Student’s ability to temporarily store and process of
information while also maintaining, integrating, and
manipulating information from various sources (Smith -
Spark & Fisk, 2007).
 A Full Scale IQ of a student suspected of having dyslexia
may have a deficit in their working memory when
compared to other scores within the profile
 Processing Speed
 The amount of time it takes to complete a mental task
 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.
 LITERATURE REVIEW: EDUCATIONAL
ASSESSMENT AREAS

 Phonological Processing
 A large component of basic reading and spelling skills
 A difficultly in this phonological component of language is often
unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities (Proctor, Mathers,
Stephens-Pisecco, & Jaffe, 2017).
 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).
 Through their 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.
 LITERATURE REVIEW: EDUCATIONAL
ASSESSMENT AREAS
 Decoding/Word Recognition
 Word recognition can be broken into three domains or steps;
triggering, configuration, and engagement.
 Children with dyslexia often have trouble in the configuration stage of
word recognition which prohibits 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.
 LITERATURE REVIEW: EDUCATIONAL
ASSESSMENT AREAS
 Rapid Naming
 Also known as rapid automatized naming (RAN).
 RAN tasks assess the speed that students are able name highly
familiar visual stimuli that is continuously presented.
 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).
 Double Deficit Hypothesis
 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.
 LITERATURE REVIEW: SPEECH AND
LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS
 Language Impairment or Dyslexia?
 Criteria for a language impairment and dyslexia can overlap.
 For example, based on a case study of 381 second grade 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 ).
 Determining the difference between the two types of disabilities
takes specialized training and guidelines to determine which is more
prominent.
 Students with language impairments typically have a difficult time
with both reading comprehension and oral comprehension because
they have a difficult time understanding the pats of language.
 Whereas, students with dyslexia often have difficulties with strictly
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.
 LITERATURE REVIEW: SPEECH AND
LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS
 Linguistic Strengths in 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).
 Speech Perception and Dyslexia
 The way an individual hears, interprets, and understands the sounds
of language.
 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).
 LITERATURE REVIEW: CONCLUSION

As educators it is impor tant to understand the common

correlations between cognitive, educational, and speech and
language characteristics that are of ten representative of many
students with dyslexia. It is also impor tant to take caution
when analyzing data found within a par ticular profile because
each student is going to have their own strengths and
weaknesses that may var y away from common trends in
dyslexia.
 RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODOLOGY

 Participants
 18 special education teachers
 2 from each of the 9 elementary schools in the district
 9 speech and language pathologists
 1 from each of the 9 elementary schools
 5 district wide school psychologists
 32 total participants that are all
 All females ranging from 24 to 40 years old.
 RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODOLOGY

 Baseline data
 A survey is created using an online software
program using a numerical scale that targets
different levels of familiarity with the topic. (This
is to be collected prior to participating in the
workshop)
 https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BM89QB
 Six observations of randomly selected
participants during testing sessions .
 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.
 RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODOLOGY

 Individual interviews with observation

participants.
 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 interview;
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.
 RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODOLOGY

 Professional Development Workshop

 Overview of dyslexia
 Common deficit areas
 Assessment tools
 Steps to identify students with dyslexia
 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.
 RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODOLOGY

Poster Board Activity

 Count out to make groups of 5.
 Ones go to word recognition.
 Twos go to decoding.
 Threes go to spelling.
 Fours go to phonological processing.
 Fives go to fluency.
 For the next 5 to 7 minutes your task is to brainstorm the following and
record it on your poster. Be creative!
 How might this look in students with dyslexia?
 How can it be measured?
 What are some other characteristics or skills that go with it?
 Af ter each group has worked for about 5 -7 minutes; there will be a
silent activity where each per son 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.
 Once each group gets back to their star ting spot a group leader will
repor t out to the whole group.
 RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODOLOGY
A ssessment Tools Activity
 D i v i d e t h e r o o m i n to f o u r e q u a l g r o up s .
 E a c h g r o up g o e s to a d i f fe r e n t c o r n er.
 I n e a c h c o r n e r t h e r e w i l l b e t h r e e d i f fe r e n t a s s e s s m e n t s .
 Randomly placed.
 Goal:
 Each group must analyze the tests in their corner.
 Fill out the question sheet.
 T h e f o l l ow i n g te s t s w i l l b e s p l i t u p :
 Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP -2)
 Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE -2)
 Phonological Awareness Test (PAT-2)
 Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJIV)
 Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-5)
 Rapid Automatized Naming and Rapid Alternating Stimulus Test (RAN/RAS)
 Test of Written Language (TOWL -4)
 Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS)
 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC -V)
 Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF -5)
 Woodcock Reading Master y Test (WRMT)
 Test of Written Spelling (TWS -5)
 G r o u p w o r k w i l l l a s t f o r a b o u t 3 0 to 3 5 m i n ute s b a s e d o n t h e n e e d s o f t h e g r o up s
 D i s c us s i o n o f f i n d i n g s w i l l o c c ur i m m e d i a te l y a f te r t h e a c t i v i t y.
 RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODOLOGY

 Data Collection
 Give the same survey that was given to determine
growth.
 The survey answers will be grouped by the question
and compared by the question to determine if there
was an overall increase of knowledge
 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.
 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.
 The use of quantitative data can determine the
direction the workshop needs to take and
qualitative data can provide specific examples and
specific needs of those that need to partake in the
workshop.
 EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

 Self-Assessment
 Completed using a rubric that was tailored to the end goals of the
action research project.
 Focused on the following areas:
 The final report.
 The deliverable.
 The presentation
 Project completion
 Based on the rubric it can be determined:
 Major strength found within authentic and original work for deliverable
component and the content of the report itself
 Area of weakness was time management
 EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

 Panel of Experts
 Three experts were able to provide feedback in the form of a
questionnaire.
 Two special education teachers and one speech and language pathologist .
 Overall the experts agreed that the project was:
 well organized
 easy to follow
 supported with accurate and valid information .
 Examples of suggestions:
 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 ?
 Overall, the experts gave authentic and valuable feedback that
can be used to make this project stronger for future
implementation.
 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.
 DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION

The first Master of Education Outcomes that was met is

designing and delivering instruction that suppor ts the
achievement of a diverse population of learners .
 My Capstone Project focuses 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.
 DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION

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.
 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.
 DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION

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.
 Throughout the development 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.
 The main goal of this project is to better educate and prepare educators
who are directly responsible for identifying students with dyslexia .
 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.
 FINAL THOUGHTS/TAKEAWAYS

 Creating an action research project was a great way to tie all of

the ends of each of the courses I took.
 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.
 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.
 REFERENCES

A l t , M . , H o g a n , T. , G r e e n , S . , G r ay, S . , C a b b a g e , K . , & C o w a n , N . ( 2 017 ) . Wo r d l e a r n i n g

d e f i c i t s i n c h i l d r e n w i t h d y s l ex ia . J o u r n a l O f S p e e c h , L a n g u a g e , A n d H e a r i n g
R e s e a r c h , 6 0 ( 4 ) , 1 01 2 - 10 2 8 . d o i : 10 .10 4 4 / 2 016 _ J S LH R - L - 16 - 0 0 3 6

A d l o f , S . M . , S c o g g in s , J . , B r a z e n d a l e , A . , B a b b , S . , & Pet s c h e r, Y. ( 2 017 ) . I d e n t i f y in g

C h i l d r en a t R i s k f o r L a n g u a g e I m p a i r m e n t o r D y s l ex i a W i t h G r o u p -
A d m i n i s ter ed M e a s u r e s . J o u r n a l O f S p e e c h , L a n g u a g e & H e a r i n g
R e s e a r c h , 6 0 ( 1 2 ) , 3 5 07. d o i :10 .10 4 4 / 2 017 _ J S L H R - L - 16 - 0 47 3

B ex ke n s , A . , v a n d e n W i l de n b e r g , W. M . , & T i j ms , J . ( 2 01 5 ). R a p i d A u to ma t i z e d
N a m i n g i n C h i l d r e n w i t h D y s l ex i a : I s I n h i b i to r y C o n t r o l I nv o l v e d ? . D y s l exi a
( C h i c h e s te r, E n g l a n d ) , 21 ( 3 ) , 21 2 - 2 3 4 . d o i :1 0 .10 0 2 / d y s .14 87

B o g o n , J . , F i n ke , K . , S c h ul te - K ö r n e , G . , M ü l l er, H . J . , S c h n e i d er, W . X . , &

S te n n e ke n , P. ( 2 01 4 ) . P a r a m ete r - b a s e d a s s e s s m e n t o f d i s t ur b e d a n d i n t a c t
c o m p o n e n t s o f v i s u a l a t te n t i o n i n c h i l d r e n w i t h d ev e l o p me n t a l
d y s l ex ia . D eve l o p me n t a l S c i e n c e , 17 ( 5 ) , 6 97 - 71 3 . d o i : 10 .1 1 1 1 / d e s c .1 21 5 0

M e s s a o ud - G al us i , S . , H a z a n , V. , & Ro s e n , S . ( 2 01 1 ). I nv e s t i g a t in g s p e e c h p e r c e p t io n i n
c h i l d r e n w i t h d y s l ex i a : i s t h e r e ev i d e n c e o f a c o n s i s te n t d e f i c i t i n
i n d i v i d ua l s ? . J o u r n a l O f S p e e c h , L a n g u a ge , A n d H e a r i n g R e s e a r c h , ( 6 ) ,
16 8 2 .
 REFERENCES

M o u r a , O . , S i m õ e s , M . R . , & Pe r e i r a , M . ( 2 01 4 ) . W I S C - I I I c o g n i t i v e p r o f i l e s i n children
w i t h d e v e l o p m e n t a l d y s l e x i a : s p e c i fi c c o g n i t i v e d i s a b i l i t y and diagnostic
u t i l i t y. D y s l ex i a ( C h i c h e s t e r, E n g l a n d ) , 2 0 ( 1 ) , 1 9 - 37. d o i : 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / d y s . 1 4 6 8

N av a s , A . P. , Fe r r a z , É . C . , & B o r g e s , J . A . ( 2 01 4 ) . P h o n o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s i n g d e f i c i t s a s
a u n i v e r s a l m o d e l fo r d y s l e x i a : e v i d e n c e f r o m d i f fe r e n t
o r t h o g r a p h i e s . C o d a s , 2 6 ( 6 ) , 5 0 9 - 51 9 . d o i : 10 . 1 5 9 0 / 2 317 17 8 2 / 2 01 4 2 01 41 3 5

P r o c to r, C . M . , M a t h e r, N . , S te p h e n s - P i s e c c o , T. L . , & J a f fe , L . E . ( 2 017 ) .
A s s e s s m e n t o f D y s l e x i a . C o m m u n i q u e ( 016 477 5 X ) , 4 6 ( 3 ) , 1 - 2 3 .

R ya n , A . ( 2 01 8 ) . S p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c a s e l o a d s t u d y e l e m e n t a r y m a g n e t s c h o o l . S p e c i a l
education.

S m i t h - S p a r k , J . H . , & F i s k , J . E . ( 2 0 07 ) . Wo r k i n g m e m o r y f u n c t i o n i n g i n d e v e l o p m e n t a l
d y s l e x i a . M e m o r y ( H o ve , E n g l a n d ) , 15 ( 1 ) , 3 4 - 5 6 .

T h e Ya l e C e n te r fo r D y s l e x i a a n d C r e a t i v i t y. ( 2 017 ) . T h e ya l e c e n te r f o r d y s l ex i a a n d
c r e a t i v i t y. Re t r i e v e d f r o m : http://dyslexia.yale.edu /

Wo n g , A . a . , H o , C . , Au , T. , M c B r i d e , C . , N g , A . , Y i p , L . , & L a m , C . ( 2 017 ) . Re a d i n g
c o m p r e h e n s i o n , wo r k i n g m e m o r y a n d h i g h e r - l e v e l l a n g u a g e s k i l l s i n c h i l d r e n
w i t h S L I a n d / o r d y s l e x i a . R e a d i n g & Wr i t i n g , 3 0 ( 2 ) , 3 37 - 3 61 .
d o i : 10 . 1 0 07 / s 1 1 1 4 5 - 016 - 9 6 7 8 - 0