{"title":"挪威课堂教师和专业“资源”教师的阅读障碍知识","authors":"Oddny Judith Solheim, Julie Arntzen, Njål Foldnes","doi":"10.1007/s11145-023-10486-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Students with reading difficulties such as dyslexia receive most of their instruction in mainstream classrooms, but many teachers feel inadequately prepared to teach students with dyslexia and/or report that dyslexia was inadequately addressed in their training. However, depending on a school’s organization, it may be sufficient that classroom teachers know enough to realize when to ask for support with identification and accommodation from specialized teachers with greater knowledge. In the present study we first investigate dyslexia knowledge in a sample of Norwegian upper-elementary-school teachers (N = 269). Second, we examine whether specialized (“resource”) teachers are more knowledgeable about dyslexia than classroom teachers. Finally, we explore whether teaching experience and having encountered reading-related themes in formal training predict dyslexia knowledge. Overall, we find that only a small share of teachers holds misconceptions about dyslexia. However, a notable proportion of them are uncertain , especially regarding the role of visual deficits in dyslexia. Somewhat surprisingly, resource teachers have only marginally higher dyslexia knowledge than classroom teachers. Finally, neither experience nor reading-related course content in formal training are substantial predictors of dyslexia knowledge. The large extent of uncertainty concerning dyslexia suggests a need to reconsider teacher training curriculum and opportunities for teacher professional development.","PeriodicalId":48204,"journal":{"name":"Reading and Writing","volume":"31 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Norwegian classroom teachers’ and specialized “resource” teachers’ dyslexia knowledge\",\"authors\":\"Oddny Judith Solheim, Julie Arntzen, Njål Foldnes\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11145-023-10486-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Students with reading difficulties such as dyslexia receive most of their instruction in mainstream classrooms, but many teachers feel inadequately prepared to teach students with dyslexia and/or report that dyslexia was inadequately addressed in their training. However, depending on a school’s organization, it may be sufficient that classroom teachers know enough to realize when to ask for support with identification and accommodation from specialized teachers with greater knowledge. In the present study we first investigate dyslexia knowledge in a sample of Norwegian upper-elementary-school teachers (N = 269). Second, we examine whether specialized (“resource”) teachers are more knowledgeable about dyslexia than classroom teachers. Finally, we explore whether teaching experience and having encountered reading-related themes in formal training predict dyslexia knowledge. Overall, we find that only a small share of teachers holds misconceptions about dyslexia. However, a notable proportion of them are uncertain , especially regarding the role of visual deficits in dyslexia. Somewhat surprisingly, resource teachers have only marginally higher dyslexia knowledge than classroom teachers. Finally, neither experience nor reading-related course content in formal training are substantial predictors of dyslexia knowledge. The large extent of uncertainty concerning dyslexia suggests a need to reconsider teacher training curriculum and opportunities for teacher professional development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reading and Writing\",\"volume\":\"31 3\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reading and Writing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10486-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading and Writing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10486-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Norwegian classroom teachers’ and specialized “resource” teachers’ dyslexia knowledge
Abstract Students with reading difficulties such as dyslexia receive most of their instruction in mainstream classrooms, but many teachers feel inadequately prepared to teach students with dyslexia and/or report that dyslexia was inadequately addressed in their training. However, depending on a school’s organization, it may be sufficient that classroom teachers know enough to realize when to ask for support with identification and accommodation from specialized teachers with greater knowledge. In the present study we first investigate dyslexia knowledge in a sample of Norwegian upper-elementary-school teachers (N = 269). Second, we examine whether specialized (“resource”) teachers are more knowledgeable about dyslexia than classroom teachers. Finally, we explore whether teaching experience and having encountered reading-related themes in formal training predict dyslexia knowledge. Overall, we find that only a small share of teachers holds misconceptions about dyslexia. However, a notable proportion of them are uncertain , especially regarding the role of visual deficits in dyslexia. Somewhat surprisingly, resource teachers have only marginally higher dyslexia knowledge than classroom teachers. Finally, neither experience nor reading-related course content in formal training are substantial predictors of dyslexia knowledge. The large extent of uncertainty concerning dyslexia suggests a need to reconsider teacher training curriculum and opportunities for teacher professional development.
期刊介绍:
Reading and writing skills are fundamental to literacy. Consequently, the processes involved in reading and writing and the failure to acquire these skills, as well as the loss of once well-developed reading and writing abilities have been the targets of intense research activity involving professionals from a variety of disciplines, such as neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics and education. The findings that have emanated from this research are most often written up in a lingua that is specific to the particular discipline involved, and are published in specialized journals. This generally leaves the expert in one area almost totally unaware of what may be taking place in any area other than their own. Reading and Writing cuts through this fog of jargon, breaking down the artificial boundaries between disciplines. The journal focuses on the interaction among various fields, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Reading and Writing publishes high-quality, scientific articles pertaining to the processes, acquisition, and loss of reading and writing skills. The journal fully represents the necessarily interdisciplinary nature of research in the field, focusing on the interaction among various disciplines, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Coverage in Reading and Writing includes models of reading, writing and spelling at all age levels; orthography and its relation to reading and writing; computer literacy; cross-cultural studies; and developmental and acquired disorders of reading and writing. It publishes research articles, critical reviews, theoretical papers, and case studies. Reading and Writing is one of the most highly cited journals in Education, Educational Research, and Educational Psychology.