Effective Strategies for Dyslexic Students

Introduction:

This academic paper provides a rationale for an educational support plan for children with specific learning disabilities (SpLD). The paper will evaluate the effectiveness and evidence base behind the use a nominated education support plan for use in mainstream schools. The paper will refer to various practice guidelines for rolling out the plan in a work-based context while identifying various strategies useful in overcoming the learning difficulties associated with this group of children. According to Specific Learning Difficulties Framework (2015), specific learning difficulties refers to conditions that hinders a child or an adult from effectively processing information to an extent that it affects their developmental and educational learning. While there are many co-morbid conditions that can be classified under SpLD, a child can only be diagnosed with one of the conditions (Tunmer & Greaney, 2010). However, Tunmer & Greaney (2010) observes that the traits of one co-morbid condition can be found in another condition. Against this backdrop, this academic rationale will only focus on dyslexia.

Hurry & Sylvia (2007) define dyslexia as a learning disability that primarily affects an individual’s spelling and reading abilities especially memory, verbal processing speed, and phonological awareness. However, this conceptualization of Dyslexia is disputed by some scholars such as Finn et al (2014), who claims that dyslexia emanates from neurological connectivity deficiency that occurs within the areas responsible for language acquisition but affects all types of learning. However, Dunn (2008) claims that the lack of consensus on what defines dyslexia emanates from the existence of different theoretical backgrounds (i.e. social models and medical models) as well as the availability of a wide range of different symptoms associated with dyslexia. Regardless, it is vital to have a proper definition of dyslexia when developing an intervention plan considering the fact that conflicting research on what defines dyslexia has hindered the development of effective intervention for dealing with it the barriers associated with it (Boyle, 2014). Similar remarks are echoed by Wu (2014) who asserts that when providing educational support for dyslexic children, much focus should on the child’s needs rather than their current label. Thus, intervention plans for dyslexia should target dyslexia itself and how it affects the child’s abilities.

It is important to understand the needs of each child within the classroom setting before developing interventional plans that consider these needs while also identifying and implementing effective strategies that address the general barriers caused by dyslexia. According to Pinzon, Vega, Sanchez, & Zheng (2017), including the child’s voice into planning and strategy development is one of the most effective ways of addressing child-specific needs; and this can be achieved by not only asking the child about their strengths and weaknesses but also by asking them about their interests. As practiced in WBRT 2, this will help identify the areas where the child believes she/he needs much help (Ibrahim & Hussein, 2015).

A review of academic evidence on teaching dyslexic students also reveal that teachers can adopt strategies that takes advantage of the students’ preferred learning styles to achieve positive results. Exeley (2003) conducted a study to identify whether dyslexic students would have improved academic results if the teacher adopted teaching styles that matched their preferred learning styles. The researcher worked with a sample of 7 English dyslexic students and identified each student’s preferred learning style.

Upon establishing that most of the students preferred kinesthetic and visual learning styles, the researcher adjusted the learning sessions to match these learning styles. At the end of the study, Exeley (2003) realized significant academic gains evidenced by quantifiable results for five students; even though observations showed that the other two students developed better understanding of mathematical concepts and spelling patterns. Exeley (2003) concluded that adopting teaching strategies that match students’ preferred learning styles contributes to improved academic outcomes. Nonetheless, it may be difficult to practically apply the findings of this study considering that it only involved seven participants.

Janakiraman (2018) suggest that to develop effective learning interventions for dyslexic students, practitioners should be keen on identifying any support that the child is currently receiving, as well as the future supports that they might need. Upon identifying the child’s current and future support needs, the practitioner can identify the best way of supporting the child’s learning.

Janakiraman (2018) suggest that it is the responsibility of all teachers to ensure that pupils engage in all multisensory learning points within a structured phonic program, particularly due to the importance of multisensory learning among dyslexic pupils. There are numerous multisensory learning programs that teachers can adopt in this case depending on its impact on the child and ease of use (IDA, 2014). However, some approaches might require certain modifications before implementation. This was particularly observed in WBRT 3, whereby despite being a fully structured program, it has proven incapable of meeting the pupil’s learning needs without some modifications. Wu (2014) notes that the WBRT 3’s inability to meet specific pupil needs may be because it takes a one-size-fit all approach and therefore it takes a better understanding of each pupil to modify an approach that addresses each pupil’s individual need.

Research evidence by Thompson-Schill et al (2009) and Coffield et al (2004) reveal that educational interventions for dyslexic students can only be effective when delivered by trained and qualified professionals in dyslexic care. Thompson-Schill et al (2009) add further that professionals are the most preferred for such programs because it is the professionals’ vast skills and experience that are useful for the pupils’ literacy development and not the literacy program itself. This supports assertions by Firth et al (2013) that each child has the right to receive quality education from highly skilled and experienced teachers in every subject area – in line with the regulator’s ‘quality first’ approach. This implies that any support plan must give priority to the educational professional delivering it, as well as the type of intervention delivered.

Apart from the professionals’ experience, the location of delivery is also important. Firth et al (2012) insist that practitioners must consider the suitability of the location where the support program is delivered because best practice evidence show that most effective programs are those delivered within the classroom environment where here is minimum disruption to the learning routine. From a theoretical perspective, Firth et al (2012) assert that the educational support programs should be perceived by both pupils and teachers as part of a continuum. This means that typically, the curriculum and pedagogy is accessible to all the pupils although the pupils access it at different points through a well-planned and executed approach that ensures consistency. Furthermore, Karten (2015) adds that when the program is delivered based on existing teaching standards, it is easier to achieve a holistic impact of the program. On the same note, Firth et al (2012) assert that the support interventions can be more effective when they are integrated and referenced in normal classroom timetable because both the teachers and other supporting adults become aware of the most appropriate time for pupils to work on their targets and overcome the learning barriers. With enough support, students can take ownership of the program and use the available support tools within the classroom environment. Contrariwise, as observed by Karten (2015), pupils are less likely to transfer their skills to a wider learning context when they the intervention is delivered in an external environment than when they receive the intervention within the classroom environment.

A further review of academic literature reveals that certain external factors can hinder children from effectively learning the skills even in a classroom environment. For instance, according to Amstrong & Squires (2012), in a typical primary school classroom, factors such as visual glare, noise and movement can disrupt pupil’s attention and hinder them from successfully acquiring the necessary skills. More importantly, Tunmer & Greaney (2010) notes that these factors have a greater effect on dyslexic pupils with memory problems especially considering that one of the most significant indicators of learning difficulties is memory problems (Tunmer & Greaney, 2010). Tunmer & Greaney (2010) add that pupils may develop more symptoms of memory deficits when their environment is full of distractions such as noise or movements. However, Karten (2015) emphasizes that despite the ineffectiveness of learning interventions in busy classrooms, pupils can be more attentive alongside their peers with the use of tools such as now-and-next board or visual timetables. This means that when implementing any learning intervention, all the necessary tools and resources are available so that pupils can find it easier to overcome their learning barriers.

Other studies have examined and recommended early interventions for pupils with learning disabilities. In a study by Amstrong & Squires (2012), the researchers concluded that when educational interventions are delayed, the pupils are likely to develop low self-esteem, poor behavior and general lack of well-being. Consequently, the pupils can develop long term mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. In a similar study, Karten (2015) realized that dyslexic pupils are at a higher risk of developing mental health and self-worth issues when interventions are taken at adolescence. However, findings by Amstrong & Squires (2012) indicate that if the pupils understand the conditions and difficulties associated with dyslexia, they are more likely to be motivated or have the self-esteem to overcome their challenges. This highlights the importance of teaching the students coping strategies as highlighted by other pieces of evidence. For instance, two studies (Firth et al 2013 & Firth et al 2012) explored the effectiveness of teaching the students various strategies for dealing with challenges and frustrations of having dyslexia. The studies were based on the premise that dyslexic students experience various challenges as a result of their learning difficulties, consequently encountering numerous hurdles in the classroom environment. Similar observations are made by Tunmer & Greaney (2010) who assert that dyslexic students experience repeated failures that contribute to negative self-perception of ability and consequently lack of effort.

To address these issues, Firth et al (2012) evaluate the effectiveness of Success & Dyslexia Program, which focuses on helping dyslexic students to replace negative self-perception of ability with positive coping strategies. To execute their study Firth et al (2012) asked the students to take note of all the negative behaviors that they exhibited when they faced a challenge and were taught assertiveness, positive thinking, problem solving and goals setting skills.

Ultimately, teachers who participated in the study by Firth et al (2012) reported various positive outcomes including a sense of engagement and inclusion by all students, an increased sense of self-confidence, and increased awareness of disabilities. Whereas the study only involved 100 participants, of whom 23 were dyslexic, the authors recommended follow-up studies with large population samples. Nonetheless, the study’s main contribution to evidence-based practice was that developing a support system for dyslexic students and building their positive self-esteem are some of the effective strategies that can be adopted to help dyslexic students cope with the challenges they face within the classroom environment. Interestingly, these findings were further supported by the findings of Karten (2015) and Amstrong & Squires (2012).

To conclude, there are many considerations that must be made when developing an educational support for pupils with dyslexia. As highlighted in this write-up, the main consideration that must be made is the student’s voice, which entails understanding the pupil’s need and preferences, then developing interventions that addresses those specific needs and preferences. Upon identifying the students’ voice as to the difficulties, they encounter, the other considerations that must be made are skills and experience of professionals delivering the program. Failure to consider the professional capabilities of the practitioner delivering the problem can have massive ramifications on the success of the program. Furthermore, this paper has established that environmental factors can impact on the pupils’ working memory and therefore there must be efforts to minimize stress and distractions experienced by dyslexic pupils. It is also important to provide a well-being portion of the program whereby the pupils are taught about the difficulties associated with dyslexia as well as the strategies and strengths they can use to overcome these difficulties.

References

Exeley, S. (2003). The effectiveness of teaching strategies for students with dyslexia based on their preferred learning styles. The British Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 213-220.

Firth, N., Frydenberg, E., & Bond, L. (2012). An evaluation of success and dyslexia – a multi component school-based coping program for primary school students with learning disabilities: Is it feasible? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 17(2), 147-162.

Firth, N., Frydenberg, E., Steeg, C. & Bond, L. (2013). Coping successfully with dyslexia: An initial study of an inclusive school-based resilience program. Dyslexia, 19(2), 113-130.

Hurry J. & Sylva, K. (2007) Long-term outcomes of early reading intervention. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 227-248.

Kirtley, C., Bryant, P., Maclean, M. & Bradley, L. (1989) Rhyme, rime and the onset of reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 224–245.

Karten, T. (2015). Inclusion strategies that work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Marzano, R.J. (1998). A theory-based meta-analysis of research on instruction. Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory, Aurora, CO.

Sylva, K. & Hurry, J. (1995a) The effectiveness of Reading Recovery and phonological training for children with reading problems: Full report. London: Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

Sylva, K. and Hurry, J. (1995b) Early Intervention in Children with Reading Difficulties: an Evaluation of Reading Recovery and a Phonological Training, SCAA Discussion Papers, No.2, London, SCAA.

Tunmer, W., & Greaney, K. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 229-243.