16
advocates are able to rebrand this vague, confusing, and seemingly rare construct. First,
by branding it as neurobiological instead of cognitive or behavioral in nature, Gabriel (2018a) argues that advocates are able to point to proof (i.e., brain scans) that it exists, thus debunking claims that it is a vague construct excluded from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Second, Gabriel (2018a) notes that by making dyslexia continuum-based it becomes recognizable like other familiar spectrums such as attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD) and autism. This continuum analogy also makes dyslexia appear to be more commonly occurring, creating the perception that everyone could be “a little bit dyslexic” and fall somewhere along the continuum (Gabriel, 2018a). Third, by connecting dyslexia to positive associations and individuals who are creative and high performing with above average intelligence, Gabriel (2018a) states that advocates are able to normalize it and differentiate it from the negative associations thought of when describing “struggling readers” and more general reading challenges. References to IQ and other factors used to diagnose dyslexia based on environmental and economic issues invite subjective perceptions and raise concerns of equity (Elliot, 2020).
Advocates have been successful at rebranding dyslexia and having their concerns heard by legislators. They believe that reading difficulties are the result of an under-identification of students with dyslexia and the failure of schools to provide them with the type of instruction they believe is needed (Gabriel, 2020a). Across popular and social media platforms, advocates have been vocal in their criticism of teachers and teacher educators pointing to “dis-teach-ia” not dyslexia as the “problem” and the dyslexia laws as the “solution” (Gabriel, 2018a). At the heart of what advocates promote as the “answer” is a specific approach to phonics instruction (explicit, systematic, synthetic, multi-sensory approach) using “structured literacy” lessons, despite lack of evidence that this approach is superior to all others (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020; NRP, 2000).
Professional Learning Suggestion for K-12 Teachers
The following provides a professional learning activity that can be used by those responsible for conducting science of reading (SOR) and dyslexia professional learning. It can help lead teachers in a discussion about key terms and concepts commonly used and rebranded within the SOR and dyslexia movement. Dyslexia advocates have crafted a narrative that does not align with a broader more inclusive review of the existing professional literature and literacy research. Also, it does not necessarily match practices teachers have found to be successful when working with all types of students who experience challenges learning to read. It is important for teachers to consider the current legislation in light of advocates' agenda, including an accurate understanding of key terms and concepts connected with it. Doing so helps teachers make sense of the current laws and better equips them to provide all students with appropriate reading instruction. Providing teachers with the opportunity to engage in conversations about what they do and do not know and understand about the SOR is an important first step. It is key that professional learning (PL) related to the current dyslexia legislation begins with teachers’ existing knowledge-base and opportunities to unpack key terms and concepts relative to their existing practices. Equally as important is that PL opportunities present information across a broad research-base and not just the narrow slice advocates describe as the SOR. It is crucial for teachers to be able to discern between what’s research and what’s narrative. It is especially important since teachers’ voices were largely excluded from the advocates efforts and the dyslexia discourse used by advocates may confuse or intimidate those outside their “closed circles” of tightly connected dyslexia organizations (Worthy et al., 2017).
The following professional learning activity is adapted from vocabulary and concept development work by Allen (2007). It is divided into pre-, during, and after reading phases. The pre-reading phase is intended to determine
teachers’ existing background knowledge of terminology and concepts about SOR, dyslexia, and reading instruction. The pre-reading phase
is a bridge to the second phase, during reading, which includes use of one or more related of suggested articles is included. The articles were selected to represent different viewpoints and usage of key terminology and concepts within the science of reading. During the final phase, after reading, teachers engage in conversations about key terms and concepts encountered within the articles in order to define, redefine, and build upon their existing knowledge. This introductory SOR and dyslexia PL is intended to set the stage for continued conversations, further study, and professional reflections on current practices for classroom teachers and school leaders. The following instructions are intended as suggestions and can be modified as appropriate.
Pre-Reading Activity (adapted from Allen, 2007).
Divide teachers into small groups or pairs. Provide each group with a blank copy of the below graphic organizer (see Figure 1) to determine prior knowledge about the SOR and the related dyslexia movement. Instruct participants to circle three to five letters of your choice (i.e., B, M, P, and S). Ask them to record in each box an example of at least one key term or concept that begins with the same letter for each of the circled letters that they know, read or heard is associated with the SOR and the current dyslexia legislation. For example, participants might list Balanced Literacy for B, MRI brain scans for M, phonics for P, or structured literacy for S. Some participants may have limited existing background knowledge or may be unable to list any accurate or related examples at the pre-reading phase, and that is acceptable.
Next, have participants share within their group a definition or comment on what they know about each of the words they listed on their graphic organizer. Call on a representative from each group to share with all participants one of the words their group listed that is different from what other groups have already shared. Use chart paper with each letter in the alphabet listed from top to bottom to record the terms provided by the various groups. A sample list of possible terms participants may share is included (see Figure 2).
.