Content uploaded by Erin Washburn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Erin Washburn on Mar 10, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Reading and Writing
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10264-8
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
TianyK.Peltier1· ErinK.Washburn2 · BenjaminC.Heddy1·
EmilyBinks‑Cantrell3
Accepted: 25 January 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022
Abstract
In recent years, many states have passed laws requiring dyslexia training for teach-
ers. Research suggests teachers hold both scientifically-based conceptions as well
as misconceptions of dyslexia, but there is little research regarding the specific con-
cepts of dyslexia in which teachers are unsure. Research on conceptual change sug-
gests a different teaching approach is needed if an individual holds a misconception
rather than an uncertainty. The purpose of this study was to examine the concepts of
dyslexia teachers know accurately as scientific conceptions, hold as misconceptions,
or are uncertain. We also examined if other factors, including teachers’ (a) amount
of previous training, (b) years of experience, or (c) confidence predicted their knowl-
edge of dyslexia. Teachers (n = 524) from a Midwestern state with recent legisla-
tion requiring dyslexia training for teachers and evidence-based structured literacy
instruction for individuals with dyslexia participated in this study. The Dyslexia
Knowledge Questionnaire-2 was administered, which includes 37 Likert scale items
regarding dyslexia informed by conceptual change theory. Results indicated a com-
plicated conceptualization of dyslexia. For some concepts, teachers either mostly
held scientific conceptions or held misconceptions. For other concepts, teach-
ers were either distributed between scientific conceptions, misconceptions, and/or
unsure or responded differently depending upon whether the item contained a term
versus an explanation of the term within the item. Although teachers’ amount of pre-
vious training and confidence did significantly predict dyslexia knowledge, years of
experience did not. Implications for teacher training in dyslexia are discussed.
Keywords Dyslexia· Literacy· Teacher knowledge
* Erin K. Washburn
ewashbu1@uncc.edu
1 University ofOklahoma, Norman, USA
2 Department ofReading andElementary Education, Cato College ofEducation, University
ofNorth Carolina atCharlotte, COED 367, Charlotte, NC28223, USA
3 Texas A&M University, CollegeStation, USA
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
Introduction
Many states have enacted laws or proposed initiatives aimed at requiring dyslexia
training for teachers and specialized instruction for students who are at-risk for
or identified with dyslexia (Youman & Mather, 2018). Though a handful of states
have had laws on the book for decades (e.g., Texas Dyslexia Law, House Bill 147,
69R, 1985), most states have passed legislation within the past decade. Many of
these laws and initiatives target dyslexia training for teachers in the context of
teacher preparation and initial licensure or in relation to professional develop-
ment for inservice teachers.
Expectations for teacher training vary across states. Some states (e.g., Con-
necticut and Indiana) have specified coursework requirements for pre-service
general and special education teacher preparation programs. For example, Con-
necticut House Bill 7254 (2017) requires that special education teachers seek-
ing initial, provisional, or professional certification must complete “a program of
study in the diagnosis and remediation of reading and language arts that includes
supervised practicum hours and instruction in the detection and recognition of,
and evidence-based structured literacy interventions for, students with dyslexia.”
Other states (e.g., Nebraska and Minnesota) have also placed a specific emphasis
on teachers learning about the nature and characteristics of dyslexia as well as
evidence-based instructional strategies and interventions for students with dys-
lexia, but have been broader in their scope of requirements for teacher training.
In addition to laws and initiatives, researchers, educators, and advocacy groups
have purported that in order for teachers to accurately identify characteristics of
dyslexia and provide appropriate and timely intervention, they need a scientific
understanding of dyslexia (International Dyslexia Association [IDA], 2018; Hud-
son etal., 2007; Moats, 2009, 2020). However, previous research suggests that
both preservice and inservice teachers may hold scientific conceptions as well as
misconceptions of dyslexia (e.g., Ness & Southall, 2010; Washburn etal., 2014a,
2014b), and there is little research regarding the concepts in which teachers are
unsure. Research in conceptual change, or the study of how individuals move
from holding misconceptions to understanding scientific conceptions regarding
a specific topic, suggests a different teaching approach is needed if an individual
holds a misconception compared to a lack of knowledge (Sinatra, 2005). Specific
studies examining these differing approaches are needed in order to design more
effective teacher training opportunities.
Conceptual change asaframework forteacher knowledge
Conceptual change is defined as the process of restructuring knowledge from a
misconception to a scientific conception that is accepted by experts in a respec-
tive discipline (Heddy et al., 2017). Individuals may (a) hold knowledge that
does not match scientific knowledge (i.e., hold a misconception), (b) not hold any
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
knowledge about a specific concept (i.e., lack knowledge, causing the individ-
ual to be unsure about a topic), or (c) hold knowledge that aligns with scientific
knowledge (i.e., hold a scientific conception) (Sinatra & Seyranian, 2015). In the
case of the current study, we define a misconception as knowledge that is inac-
curate or not accepted by experts. We define a lack of knowledge as neither hold-
ing a scientific conception nor a misconception, thus forming uncertainty about
a topic. If an individual holds some scientific conceptions, yet also has some
knowledge gaps, this person may benefit from further explanation of the concepts
in which they do not yet understand. In contrast, when an individual holds mis-
conceptions of dyslexia alongside scientific conceptions, this creates a cohesive,
yet faulty, conceptualization that impacts the entire structure of their dyslexia
knowledge. According to conceptual change theory, this person would need a dif-
ferent type of explanation to clarify the misconception from their current concep-
tualization, thereby assisting in the formation of a coherent and scientific concep-
tualization of dyslexia. To accomplish this, the individual’s misconception should
be addressed and contrasted with the scientific conception of dyslexia.
The process of conceptual change is complex and includes cognitive, moti-
vational, and affective factors (Gregiore, 2003; Lombardi et al., 2016; Murphy
& Alexander, 2016; Sinatra, 2005). There are many theoretical models that posit
factors that contribute to engagement in conceptual change (diSessa, 2007; Dole
& Sinatra, 1998; Kendeou etal., 2017; Nadelson etal., 2018; Posner et al, 1982;
Vosniadou, 1992). In the current study we utilize the Dynamic Model of Concep-
tual Change (DMCC) to drive our theoretical framework and in turn instrumentation
related to knowledge restructuring (Nadelson etal., 2018). The DMCC purports that
conceptual change happens when learners: (1) encounter and consider conflicting
knowledge, (2) recognize that their current knowledge is not aligned with the sci-
entific conception and become dissatisfied with their knowledge, (3) are motivated
to change their knowledge, and (4) have new knowledge available to replace their
misconceptions. In addition, engagement in conceptual change is influenced by the
individual’s confidence in the misconception (Nadelson etal., 2018; Sinatra, 2005).
That is, the more confident people are about their misconceptions, the less likely
they are to experience conceptual change (Cordova et al., 2014). Taken together,
these factors influence the extent to which people reconstruct their knowledge.
To design professional development aimed at promoting conceptual change
related to dyslexia, a first step is to understand teachers’ current scientific concep-
tions, misconceptions, and uncertainty regarding this concept. We report findings
from a research study in which we revised a measure, the Dyslexia Knowledge
Questionnaire (DKQ, Peltier etal., 2020a), to include the option of “unsure.” This
allows us to examine the difference between teachers’ misconceptions, scientific
conceptions, and uncertainty regarding the nature and characteristics of dyslexia
and to better align the measurement of teacher knowledge with conceptual change
theory.
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
Nature andcharacteristics ofdyslexia
Current scientific understandings about dyslexia have been informed by multiple
fields of study (e.g., special education, psychology, neuroscience, reading). As
such, researchers, government entities, and advocacy organizations have put forth
several definitions of dyslexia (see Kearns et al., 2019 for a synopsis). Though
one universal definition of dyslexia does not currently exist, there are shared
understandings about the nature and characteristics of dyslexia.
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability (SLD) that is neurobiological in origin
and characterized by persistent difficulty with accurate and/or automatic word read-
ing (Kearns etal., 2019; Lyon etal., 2003; Vellutino etal., 2004). U.S. federal spe-
cial education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act,
or IDEIA, (2004) lists dyslexia under the category of SLD. Considering dyslexia
is an SLD impacting the area of word reading accuracy and/or fluency, in public
schools the categories within SLD use to describe dyslexia include Basic Reading
Skills or Reading Fluency Skills; these category labels are synonymous with the
label of dyslexia (e.g., Miciak & Fletcher, 2020; Peltier et al., 2020a, 2020b) and
are used to identify students for special education services. Therefore, if a student
is identified with an SLD in Basic Reading Skills or Reading Fluency Skills, the
school is identifying that student with dyslexia whether they explicitly use the term
or not on the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) document. Research
in neuroscience has expanded our understanding that dyslexia is likely due to poor
language processing, specifically the phonological and orthographic processing of
words (Dehaene, 2009; Georgiou etal., 2021). For example, an individual without
dyslexia, when presented with the unknown, printed word “fish” may decode or
sound out the word by pairing each printed letter or letter combination (e.g., graph-
eme) with each corresponding sounds or phoneme (/f/ /i/ /sh/) and then blend or put
the word together quickly and accurately. If students are proficient in this process,
the word may become part of their sight word vocabulary. Thus, the next time this
reader encounters the written word “fish” they may be able to read it automatically
without having to sound out the word. For an individual with dyslexia, the process
of mapping graphemes and phonemes is more difficult and takes more repetitions
(e.g., Steacy etal., 2020), resulting in impaired levels of decoding and/or fluency.
Notably, dyslexia is complex, developmental, and exists on a continuum (Peter-
son & Pennington, 2012; Shaywitz etal., 1992). Therefore, severity in dyslexia-
related difficulties is likely to differ across individuals. Researchers have also
noted that individuals with dyslexia often have trouble with spelling and, often
as secondary consequences, may have difficulty with other related skills such as
writing and/or text comprehension (Lyon etal., 2003). Studies in neurobiology,
however, have provided evidence that intensive, explicit, systematic instruction
paired with practice (i.e., time spent applying skills to text reading) in phonemic
awareness and decoding strategies can lead to more fluent reading for individuals
with dyslexia (Gabrieli, 2009, 2016).
Though a robust research base exists to inform our current understanding
of dyslexia, the general public often has misconceptions (Hudson etal., 2007;
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
Kearns etal., 2019). For example, Hudson etal. (2007) shared common miscon-
ceptions about dyslexia: (a) writing letters and words backwards are symptoms
of dyslexia, (b) reading disabilities are caused by visual perception problems, (c)
children will outgrow dyslexia, (d) more boys than girls have dyslexia, (c) dys-
lexia only affects individuals who speak English, (e) people with dyslexia will
benefit from colored text overlays or lenses, and (f) a person with dyslexia can
never learn to read.
Consequently, educators, researchers, and professional organizations have advo-
cated for teachers to have scientific conceptions about the nature and characteristics
of dyslexia (Berninger etal., 2008; IDA, 2018; Moats, 1999, 2020). Specifically,
IDA created and revised a set of standards, the Knowledge and Practice Standards
for Teachers of Reading (IDA, 2018), aimed at guiding teacher preparation in read-
ing with a specific emphasis on the knowledge needed to teach individuals with dys-
lexia. However, research focused on examining what teachers know about dyslexia
is a relatively small, but growing, body of study.
Teacher knowledge ofdyslexia
Interest in what teachers know about dyslexia is not new. In an article in The
Reading Teacher, Rutherford (1971) noted a new wave of interest in dyslexia and
acknowledged that “accompanying this resurgence of concern with dyslexia is the
expected number of questions, debates, and uncertainties” (p. 262). To help reading
educators think about their own accurate, scientific understandings about dyslexia,
Rutherford created a short questionnaire, titled “Dyslexia Quotient,” consisting of
seven true/false statements about the nature and characteristics of developmental
dyslexia (e.g., genetic etiology of dyslexia, relationship to IQ). Though Rutherford
did not formally collect data using this measure, subsequent measures have mim-
icked the measurement style. In fact, Wadlington and Wadlington (2005) developed
the Dyslexia Belief Index (DBI) which included an expanded true–false structure
(know it’s false, probably false, probably true, know it’s true) and 30 statements
about the nature of dyslexia including common myths. Adaptations of the DBI and/
or measures similar to the DBI have been used to assess a variety of educators’
knowledge of dyslexia including general and special education preservice and inser-
vice teachers (Peltier etal., 2020b; Washburn etal., 2014a, 2014b) and teacher edu-
cators (Ryder & Norwich, 2019). Researchers have also used open-ended response
items, interviews, and other more qualitative approaches to examine teacher knowl-
edge of dyslexia (e.g., Ness & Southall, 2010; Washburn etal., 2017; Worthy etal.,
2016). Along with knowledge assessment, some researchers have examined teacher
perceived preparedness to teach students with dyslexia (Wadlington & Wadlington,
2005), confidence to teach students with dyslexia (Jones etal., 2019), or perceived
responsibility for teaching students with dyslexia (White etal., 2020).
Across studies and measurement techniques, researchers have found that teachers,
regardless of teaching status and experience, hold a variety of understandings and
perceptions about dyslexia. This small but growing body of research includes stud-
ies published around the world (see Mather etal., 2020 for a review of international
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
studies) with a greater concentration in English speaking countries (e.g., Jones etal.,
2019; Knight, 2018; Ness & Southall, 2010; Peltier etal., 2020b; Washburn etal.,
2014a, 2014b). For the purposes of the current study, we have focused our attention
on the research literature that has been published within the U.S.
Teacher knowledge ofdyslexia intheU.S.
Teacher knowledge of dyslexia in the U.S. has been examined in an exploratory
nature with both preservice (PST) and inservice (IST) teachers. In a series of stud-
ies conducted with PSTs and ISTs using items adapted from the DBI (Wadlington
& Wadlington, 2005), Washburn and colleagues (Washburn etal., 2011a, 2011b)
reported that the majority of teachers understood that individuals with dyslexia have
difficulty with decoding and spelling. However, both PSTs and ISTs indicated that
techniques such as colored overlays and tinted glasses would be helpful for individu-
als with dyslexia. In a study with PSTs in the U.S. and in England, Washburn etal.,
(2014a, 2014b) noted similar findings in that both groups had seemed to hold scien-
tific conceptions about dyslexia not being caused by the home environment and that
spelling is a common characteristic. Both groups also indicated the misconception
that a common characteristic of dyslexia is seeing letters and words backwards.
More recently, White et al. (2020), used a measure that combined both open-
response and true–false items, the Knowledge and Insights of Dyslexia Survey
(KIDS), to examine the knowledge base of education majors (PSTs in general or
special education, school psychology) and non-education majors (architecture).
Interestingly, both education and non-education majors had similar misconceptions
(e.g., dyslexia is seeing and reading words backwards) about dyslexia and there
was not a significant difference in scientific conceptions between the two groups.
Both groups of participants were also asked to rate their perceived responsibility for
teaching students with dyslexia. Fifty percent of education majors rated themselves
as being moderately responsible and believed that special education teachers held
the greatest level of responsibility whereas non-education majors felt that general
education teachers held the greatest level of responsibility. White etal. (2020) noted
that this finding was particularly interesting because students with dyslexia are most
likely to spend much of their school day with a general education teacher.
Jones etal. (2019) also examined general and special education PST knowledge
of dyslexia after a state-mandated literacy course focused on teaching students
with dyslexia using the adapted DBI (Washburn et al., 2014a, 2014b). Two groups
of PSTs consisting of 62 elementary education majors participated in the study
in which one group (n = 23) completed the literacy course that included content
focused on dyslexia and the other group (n = 39) had not yet taken the course. At the
completion of the course, PSTs who completed the literacy course had significantly
higher scores of accurate knowledge than the group of PSTs who had not yet taken
the course. PSTs were also asked to rate their confidence to teach students with dys-
lexia. Confidence was not associated with overall knowledge and there was not a sig-
nificant difference in confidence ratings between the two groups of PSTs. Jones etal.
(2019) noted that “it is possible also that the students who took the class became
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
more aware of the complexity of this topic and realized how much they do not know
about dyslexia, even though their overall knowledge increased” (pp. 54–55).
Using a five-item open-ended response survey, Ness and Southall (2010) sur-
veyed 287 elementary and secondary PSTs from three preparation programs in three
states. The items asked PSTs to define dyslexia, identify characteristics of dyslexia,
identify effective instructional practices for dyslexia, and cite sources of informa-
tion. Ness and Southall reported that PSTs’ responses noted a “rudimentary knowl-
edge” (p. 41) of dyslexia as they, generally speaking, noted that dyslexia impacted
student reading ability in regard to the areas of decoding, fluency, comprehension,
spelling, and writing. However, the researchers also reported that the majority of
PSTs’ responses (74%) noted letter reversal as a defining characteristic of dyslexia—
“even after coursework in both literacy and special education” (Ness & Southall,
2010, p. 41).
Building upon the work of Ness and Southall (2010), Washburn etal. (2017) ana-
lyzed the responses of 271 novice teachers’1 enrolled in eight undergraduate and
graduate level general and special education preparation programs from five states.
To assess knowledge, Washburn and colleagues included two open-ended items
(What are characteristics of reading disability? and What are characteristics of dys-
lexia?) situated in different parts of a larger survey of teacher knowledge reading-
related constructs. Qualitative analysis of responses revealed ~ 20 different codes for
each item that included both characteristics aligned with scientific understandings
about dyslexia and with common misconceptions about dyslexia. When asked about
characteristics of reading disability, 75% of teachers were able to identify at least
one language and literacy-related characteristic that is a scientific conception (e.g.
difficulty with decoding; not fluent readers; poor phonological awareness). Whereas,
when asked about characteristics of dyslexia, 40% were able to identify at least one
scientific conception related to language and literacy. Notably, common misconcep-
tions (e.g., letter reversals, visual perception, sequencing issues) were produced by
over 50% of teachers when asked about dyslexia but only 12% of teachers when
asked about reading disability. Washburn etal. (2017) also reported that factors such
as certification type (general or special education), certification grade level (elemen-
tary or secondary), and exposure to reading content did not predict scientific con-
ceptions of reading disability or dyslexia but that certification grade level did predict
misconceptions about dyslexia.
Worthy and colleagues (2016) conducted a series of interviews with 32K-5 ele-
mentary ISTs, including specialists and special educators, in Texas with the goal
of including teachers’ voices and to “bring their understandings, perspectives,
and experiences into conversations about dyslexia” (p. 442). Worthy etal. (2016)
reported the most salient theme from their research was that teachers communi-
cated a “strong sense of responsibility to provide appropriate, supportive instruction
geared toward their students’ strengths and needs” (p. 442). However, Worthy etal.
also noted that teachers expressed barriers such as receiving conflicting information
about dyslexia and dyslexia identification. In addition, when defining dyslexia in the
1 Washburn etal. (2017) defined novice teachers as teachers with 0–5years of teaching experience.
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
interviews, teachers shared a mixture of scientific conceptions and misconceptions
as well uncertainty. This research brings to light a need to provide teachers with
professional learning experiences that provide consistent and scientifically aligned
information about dyslexia, elevate and honor their knowledge and experiences, as
well as work to dispel common misconceptions.
In summation, different instruments and approaches have been used to elicit
teacher knowledge of dyslexia with true–false Likert-type scale surveys or ques-
tionnaires used most frequently. Consequently, this body of research has found that
teachers have both scientific conceptions and misconceptions about the nature and
characteristics of dyslexia. However, what is less clear from this research is which
aspects of dyslexia teachers are unsure. Because true–false construction is dichoto-
mous in nature (even with the inclusion of probably or possibly true/false options),
participants are forced to make a choice, even if they are unsure. Qualitative anal-
yses have also highlighted that teachers may be unsure about dyslexia. Thus, this
beckons the question, is what researchers have interpreted as misconceptions about
dyslexia really a lack of knowledge or uncertainty about the concepts? Moreover, if
we are tasked with preparing and developing knowledgeable teachers, how might we
use information gleaned from the assessment of teacher knowledge of dyslexia to
inform the ways in which we prepare teachers to teach students with dyslexia? These
questions fueled the current study.
The current study
Our aim in the current study was to explore teacher knowledge related to dyslexia.
However, unlike previous studies, we sought to better understand which concepts
teachers hold scientific conceptions and misconceptions, as well as which concepts
teachers are lacking knowledge (i.e., are uncertain). Using the lens of conceptual
change theory (Gregoire, 2003; Nadelson etal., 2018; Sinatra, 2005) as a theoreti-
cal framework guiding this work, we sought to answer the following research ques-
tions related to teacher knowledge of dyslexia: (1) To what extent do teachers have
misconceptions, scientific conceptions, or uncertainty regarding the concept of
dyslexia? (2) To what extent, if any, does the reported amount of previous training
predict teachers’ knowledge about dyslexia? (3) To what extent, if any, does years
of experience predict teachers’ knowledge about dyslexia? and (4) To what extent,
if any, does confidence in understanding dyslexia predict teachers’ knowledge of
dyslexia?
Method
Participants
Teachers from a Midwestern state in the U.S. that recently enacted legislation requir-
ing dyslexia training for teachers and evidence-based structured literacy instruction
for individuals with dyslexia participated in this study. We obtained an email list
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
from the state department website for all general or special education K-3 teach-
ers from the previous year. We then recruited participants by a direct email in fall
of 2019 after approval from the university’s institutional review board by sending
out an email with the survey link to 9979 teachers in the state. Participants who
consented then completed the Dyslexia Knowledge Questionnaire-2 (DKQ-2) online
using QualtricsXM. Participants (n = 524; 503 identified as female) included teachers
from: (a) early childhood/elementary general education settings (n = 400), (b) early
childhood/elementary special education settings (n = 103), or (c) secondary gen-
eral or special education settings (n = 21). Some teachers may have switched roles
between years, which may account for a small number of participants reporting their
current position as a secondary teacher. The survey completion rate was 5.25% and
the demographic information reported by participants was representative of teachers
Table 1 Demographic
information Variable Frequency (Percent)
Sex
Women
Men
503 (96.0%)
21 (4.0%)
Highest degree
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctorate
175 (33.4%)
347 (66.2%)
2 (0.4%)
Current position
EC or Elem GE
EC or Elem SE
Secondary GE
Secondary SE
400 (76.3%)
103 (19.7%)
13 (2.5%)
8 (1.5%)
Race
White
Black/African American
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Two or More
No Answer
499 (95.2%)
3 (0.6%)
5 (1.0%)
2 (0.4%)
10 (1.9%)
5 (1%)
Route to certification
Traditional
Alternative
Not Currently Certified
No Answer
489 (93.3%)
32 (6.1%)
1 (0.2%)
2 (0.5%)
Years of experience
0–4years
5–9years
10–14years
15–19years
20–24years
25–29years
30 + years
No Answer
55 (10.6%)
80 (15.3%)
97 (18.5%)
83 (15.8%%)
63 (12.0%)
63 (12.0%)
79 (15.1%)
4 (0.8%)
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
in the state (Nebraska Department of Education, 2019). See Table1 for more infor-
mation on participant demographic information.
Measure
The DKQ-2 consists of 37 dyslexia-related Likert scale items (Cronbach’s ɑ = 0.79)
presented in random order within each survey. The following supplemental questions
were also included at the end of the pre-assessment administration: three items that
elicit information about preparedness (amount of prior training, perceived source
of knowledge), one confidence related to understanding of dyslexia, and six demo-
graphic items. We developed this survey by revising and adding questions to the 20
questions from the DKQ (Peltier etal., 2020a) in order to capture more nuance in
participant understanding. For example, one dyslexia-related concept we expanded
questions on due to expert feedback was phonemic awareness. Although two ques-
tions were included using the term phonemic awareness, we added one question
on the topic without using the term, as previous studies (e.g., Binks-Cantrell etal.,
2012) have shown this term may not be fully understood by teachers (i.e., “Diffi-
culty manipulating sounds in spoken language is one of the major deficits found in
students with dyslexia.”). Each of the 37 dyslexia items represented four categories:
origins/prevalence, characteristics, instruction/treatment, and identification. See
Table2 for a breakdown of the 37 dyslexia items within each of the four categories.
The option of “unsure” was also added to the Likert-type scale in order to bet-
ter measure if teachers held a misconception, scientific conception, or had a lack
of knowledge (i.e., were unsure) on a specific concept. Participants were asked to
rate the extent they thought an expert in dyslexia would agree with each statement,
choosing from seven options (strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, unsure,
slightly agree, agree, strongly agree). The survey included additional items that were
not included in the present analyses.
Before the dyslexia items were presented, participants provided information on
their current teaching position. After the dyslexia items were completed, participants
provided demographic information on their highest degree completed, sex, race,
years of experience, and route to certification. Participants provided information on
the amount of dyslexia training they had attended in the past (viz., The amount of
training I have had on the topic of dyslexia is: 1 = a great deal, 2 = a lot, 3 = a mod-
erate amount, 4 = a little, or 5 = none at all. Participants also responded to the confi-
dence item: “I am confident that I understand dyslexia and could explain it to others”
by choosing one of the following options: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = slightly
agree, 4 = unsure, 5 = slightly disagree, 6 = disagree, or 7 = strongly disagree.
After survey responses were collected, we recoded the 37 dyslexia items to
align all scientific conceptions to the higher end of the scale (i.e., 5 = slightly
agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree) and all misconceptions to the lower end (i.e.,
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree) with “unsure” coded as
“4.” All analyses, both descriptive and inferential, were conducted using SPSS sta-
tistical software (Version 26.0; IBM SPSS, 2019).
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
Table 2 Dyslexia items represented categorically
Origins/Prevalence Characteristics Treatment/Accommodations Identification/Diagnosis
Q1 Parents with dyslexia are likely to
have children with dyslexia
Q4 Dyslexia is primarily a language-
based reading disability
*Q25 Eye tracking exercises are usually
effective in remediating dyslexia
Q2 Dyslexia is recognized as a type of
specific learning disability that can
receive special education services by the
federal government
*Q3 Dyslexia is not hereditary Q11 Difficulty manipulating sounds in
spoken language is one of the major
deficits found in students with dyslexia
*Q26 Colored lenses and colored over-
lays are research-based accommoda-
tions to help students with dyslexia
*Q6 It is usually not possible to identify a
child with dyslexia until the third grade
Q5 If you put average to poor readers
with a similar IQ on a scale, those
with dyslexia would mostly represent
the readers scoring at the lower end of
that scale
*Q12 Students identified with dyslexia
usually have difficulty with listening
comprehension
Q27 Colored lenses or overlays usually
do not help improve reading accuracy
in people with dyslexia
Q7 Another name for a specific learning
disability in basic reading skills is
dyslexia
*Q9 Dyslexia identification has a clearly
well-defined cut-off. Students either
have dyslexia or they do not
Q13 Students identified with dyslexia
usually have difficulty with phonemic
awareness
*Q28 Students with dyslexia need spe-
cialized dyslexia fonts in order to read
printed words more accurately
*Q8 Dyslexia is not recognized in public
schools as a learning disability eligible
for special education services
Q14 Students with dyslexia have dif-
ficulty with reading and spelling words
Q29 After effective reading interven-
tion, the brain activation patterns of a
student reading with dyslexia changes
to more like that of a typically devel-
oping reader
*Q10 Most pediatricians are trained to
perform diagnostic evaluations to deter-
mine if a child has dyslexia
*Q15 Students identified with dyslexia
usually have average to above-average
listening comprehension
*Q30 Students with dyslexia normally
learn to read most quickly with
methods that focus on memorizing the
shape of whole words
*Q20 Dyslexia should usually be diag-
nosed by a pediatrician
*Q16 Students identified with dyslexia
usually have average to above-average
phonemic awareness
Q31 Students with dyslexia primarily
need instruction in phonemic aware-
ness and phonics
Q21 Dyslexia should usually be identified
by a school psychologist
*Q17 Dyslexia is primarily a visually-
based reading disability
*Q32 Students with dyslexia normally
learn to read most quickly through the
exposure to audio recordings while
following along in the printed text
Q23 Visual-perceptual deficiencies are not
components of the dyslexia diagnosis
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
Table 2 (continued)
Origins/Prevalence Characteristics Treatment/Accommodations Identification/Diagnosis
*Q18 Seeing letters and words back-
wards is a characteristic of dyslexia
*Q33 Students with dyslexia primarily
need instruction in reading compre-
hension strategies
Q19 Students with dyslexia do not see
words jumping around on the page
*Q34 Students with dyslexia should be
taught coping strategies, such as using
context cues or pictures to help decode
words
*Q22 Dyslexia is a condition in which
individuals see words jumping around
on the page
*Q35 If a student with dyslexia hasn’t
learned to read efficiently by third
grade, intervention should focus
primarily on coping mechanisms like
screen readers and learning high-
frequency words by sight
*Q24 Students with dyslexia have poor
word-level reading skills typically due
to poor visual processing skills
*Q36 Teaching phonics is not a help-
ful approach to teaching reading to
students with dyslexia
*Q37 Teaching spelling to students with
dyslexia is not recommended since
spelling is an area of great difficulty
*Item was worded as a misconception and therefore recoded to align to accurate knowledge
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
Results
Teacher knowledge ofdyslexia concepts
Descriptive statistics were calculated to identify overall trends and patterns in
participants’ responses to answer research question 1: To what extent do teachers
have misconceptions, scientific conceptions, or uncertainty on various dyslexia
concepts? Table3 is organized from items with the highest percent of misconcep-
tions to items with the least percent of misconceptions for each of the 37 dyslexia
items on the DKQ-2.
The table includes percent of responses within each knowledge category (i.e.,
misconceptions, unsure, and scientific conceptions) and mean scores for each
item for those responses categorized as a misconception (i.e., values of 1–3) and
as a scientific conception (i.e., values of 5–7) in order to illustrate the intensity of
responses within each category. For example, we found that the majority of teach-
ers (78%) said an expert would agree with the misconception, “Students with dys-
lexia should be taught coping strategies, such as using context cues or pictures to
help decode words.” Of the 78% who incorrectly indicated that an expert would
agree with this statement, the mean value selected (after recoding to values of
1–3) was 2.05; most teachers who held this misconception reported they believed
an expert in dyslexia would agree (i.e., value of 2 after recoding) with the state-
ment; although it is slightly leaning toward some teachers stating they believe an
expert in dyslexia would slightly agree (i.e., value of 3 after recoding). Of the
only 11% who correctly indicated that an expert would disagree with the state-
ment, the mean value selected was 5.78, between slightly disagree (i.e., 5) and
disagree (i.e., 6). Finally, 11% of teachers stated they were unsure (i.e., 4) if an
expert would agree or disagree with this statement.
For some concepts, a majority of teachers either held misconceptions (e.g.,
“Seeing letters and words backwards is a characteristic of dyslexia” [81%]) or
held scientific conceptions (e.g., “Students with dyslexia have difficulty with
reading and spelling words” [96%]). For other concepts, teachers were either split
between scientific conceptions, misconceptions, and/or unsure meaning that no
one response was in the majority or teachers responded differently based on how
the item was worded. Teachers were split on the items, “Students with dyslexia
need specialized dyslexia fonts in order to read printed words more accurately”
and “Students with dyslexia normally learn to read most quickly with methods
that focus on memorizing the shape of whole words” (see Table3). Teachers
responded differently based on how the item was worded when presented with
items containing the term or definition of phonemic awareness. For the item,
“Students identified with dyslexia usually have difficulty with phonemic aware-
ness,” 66.2% of teachers responded an expert would agree, whereas on the item in
which the definition of phonemic awareness was included (viz, “Difficulty manip-
ulating sounds in spoken language is one of the major deficits found in students
with dyslexia.”) 39.7% of teachers responded an expert would agree.
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
Table 3 Breakdown of results by category and percent of misconceptions
Item Misconception Unsure Scientific conception
(Mean of 1–3) (4) (Mean of 5–7)
Origin
Q5 If you put average to poor readers with a similar IQ on a scale, those with dyslexia would mostly repre-
sent the readers scoring at the lower end of that scale
41% 23% 37%
2.08 5.63
Q1 Parents with dyslexia are likely to have children with dyslexia 17% 37% 46%
2.35 5.64
Q3 Dyslexia is not hereditary 13% 37% 50%
2.18 5.87
Q9 Dyslexia identification has a clearly well-defined cut-off. Students either have dyslexia or they do not 10% 20% 70%
2.25 5.98
Characteristics
Q18 Seeing letters and words backwards is a characteristic of dyslexia 81% 5% 14%
2.16 5.86
Q24 Students with dyslexia have poor word-level reading skills typically due to poor visual processing
skills 61% 21% 18%
2.27 5.61
Q17 Dyslexia is primarily a visually based reading disability 53% 17% 30%
2.27 5.77
Q19 Students with dyslexia do not see words jumping around on the page 49% 28% 24%
2.26 5.87
Q4 Dyslexia is primarily a language-based reading disability 49% 22% 29%
2.28 5.78
Q22 Dyslexia is a condition in which individuals see words jumping around on the page 48% 20% 33%
2.48 5.82
Q11 Difficulty manipulating sounds in spoken language is one of the major deficits found in students with
dyslexia
35% 25% 40%
2.26 5.92
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
Table 3 (continued)
Item Misconception Unsure Scientific conception
(Mean of 1–3) (4) (Mean of 5–7)
Q16 Students identified with dyslexia usually have average to above-average phonemic awareness 21% 34% 45%
2.33 5.88
Q13 Students identified with dyslexia usually have difficulty with phonemic awareness 18% 16% 66%
2.47 6.00
Q12 Students identified with dyslexia usually have difficulty with listening comprehension 9% 12% 79%
2.31 5.92
Q15 Students identified with dyslexia usually have average to above-average listening comprehension 7% 16% 77%
2.46 5.97
Q14 Students with dyslexia have difficulty with reading and spelling words 1% 3% 96%
3.00 6.23
Identification
Q23 Visual-perceptual deficiencies are not components of the dyslexia diagnosis 59% 30% 11%
2.12 5.85
Q7 Another name for a specific learning disability in basic reading skills is dyslexia 42% 22% 36%
2.04 5.79
Q8 Dyslexia is not recognized in public schools as a learning disability eligible for special education
services 38% 14% 47%
2.08 6.09
Q21 Dyslexia should usually be identified by a school psychologist 29% 26% 45%
2.24 5.74
Q20 Dyslexia should usually be diagnosed by a pediatrician 22% 30% 48%
2.36 5.81
Q2 Dyslexia is recognized as a type of specific learning disability that can receive special education ser-
vices by the federal government
20% 21% 59%
2.09 6.20
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
Table 3 (continued)
Item Misconception Unsure Scientific conception
(Mean of 1–3) (4) (Mean of 5–7)
Q6 It is usually not possible to identify a child with dyslexia until the third grade 14% 24% 62%
2.58 5.93
Q10 Most pediatricians are trained to perform diagnostic evaluations to determine if a child has dyslexia 13% 34% 53%
2.49 5.94
Treatment
Q34 Students with dyslexia should be taught coping strategies, such as using context cues or pictures to
help decode words 78% 11% 11%
2.05 5.78
Q26 Colored lenses and colored overlays are research-based accommodations to help students with dys-
lexia 47% 37% 16%
2.26 5.97
Q27 Colored lenses or overlays usually do not help improve reading accuracy in people with dyslexia 41% 40% 19%
2.30 5.85
Q25 Eye tracking exercises are usually effective in remediating dyslexia 41% 39% 20%
2.50 5.79
Q32 Students with dyslexia normally learn to read most quickly through the exposure to audio recordings
while following along in the printed text 39% 42% 19%
2.48 5.79
Q30 Students with dyslexia normally learn to read most quickly with methods that focus on memorizing the
shape of whole words 35% 41% 24%
2.46 6.00
Q33 Students with dyslexia primarily need instruction in reading comprehension strategies 29% 15% 56%
2.28 5.8
Q28 Students with dyslexia need specialized dyslexia fonts in order to read printed words more accurately 28% 39% 33%
2.48 5.74
Q35 If a student with dyslexia hasn’t learned to read efficiently by third grade, intervention should focus
primarily on coping mechanisms like screen readers and learning high-frequency words by sight 27% 32% 42%
2.49 5.88
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
Table 3 (continued)
Item Misconception Unsure Scientific conception
(Mean of 1–3) (4) (Mean of 5–7)
Q31 Students with dyslexia primarily need instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics 26% 20% 55%
2.56 5.85
Q29 After effective reading intervention, the brain activation patterns of a student reading with dyslexia
changes to more like that of a typically developing reader
19% 33% 49%
2.31 5.68
Q36 Teaching phonics is not a helpful approach to teaching reading to students with dyslexia 13% 21% 66%
2.39 5.9
Q37 Teaching spelling to students with dyslexia is not recommended since spelling is an area of great dif-
ficulty 13% 17% 70%
2.44 5.96
Italics indicate the item was worded as a misconception and was recoded for scoring
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
We also calculated a total knowledge score for each participant by recoding
answers aligned with the scientific conception as one, answers of unsure as zero,
and answers aligned with a misconception as negative one. This is in line with the
most recent dyslexia survey (White et al., 2020) and congruent with findings from
conceptual change theory categories of misconceptions, unsure, and scientific con-
ceptions. Therefore, each participant could have a minimum possible value of -37
points (all misconceptions) and a maximum possible value of 37 points (all scientific
conceptions). This approach is consistent with previous research that subtracts the
misconceptions from scientific conceptions to determine if the teacher holds more
scientific knowledge or more misconceptions (Heddy & Sinatra, 2013). We removed
the middle score, unsure, by giving it a score of zero, which allowed us to look only
at misconceptions versus scientific conceptions in the total knowledge score. This
will help us to look at the total score even among a prevalence of responses report-
ing a lack of knowledge when determining the amount of scientific conceptions and
misconceptions held by participants. Creating a total knowledge score by comparing
misconceptions to scientific conceptions also provides another metric by which to
evaluate dyslexia knowledge, giving a broad overview of dyslexia understanding.
The actual range in our sample was −13 points (participant held mostly misconcep-
tions) to 31 points (participant held mostly scientific conceptions). The mean in our
sample was 4.06 points out of the possible 37 points with a standard deviation of
8.37 points, indicating many participants’ responses were inconsistent with scien-
tific conceptions regarding dyslexia. The mode of our sample was 1 point out of
the possible 37 points, indicating most participants were very mixed or unsure in
their understanding of dyslexia. See Fig.1 for the distribution of all participant total
knowledge scores.
Because many teachers held misconceptions around the visual-perceptual abili-
ties of students with dyslexia, this negatively impacted their overall total knowledge
score. Refer to Table3 for a breakdown of items listed by category and percentage
of misconceptions held by teachers. For example, four out of the five questions in
which over 50% of participants held a misconception included a visual-perceptual
misconception. Figures2, 3, and 4 display frequencies with which participants held
misconceptions, held scientific conceptions, and reported unsure responses, respec-
tively. With a mean of 11.85 misconceptions, 15.91 scientific conceptions, and 7.15
unsure responses per participant, teachers’ understanding of dyslexia is compli-
cated–scientific conceptions, misconceptions, and uncertainty are all present. This
should be taken into account when interpreting the total knowledge scores reported
in Fig.1.
The relation betweenprevious training andteacher knowledge ofdyslexia
concepts
To answer research question 2, to what extent, if any, does the reported amount
of previous training predict teachers’ knowledge about dyslexia?, we asked teach-
ers to respond to a Likert-scale item regarding the amount of previous training
received on dyslexia (i.e., a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, none at
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
all). The majority of teachers’ responses to this item were split between “a lit-
tle” (n = 251), and “none at all” (n = 186) with “a moderate level” (n = 73), “a lot”
(n = 8), and “a great deal” (n = 5) to a lesser extent. We performed a Chi-square
test to determine if perceived amounts of training differed between general and
Fig. 1 Frequencies of participants’ total knowledge scores. Note. Total Knowledge Scores were calcu-
lated by subtracting each participant’s number of misconceptions from number of scientific conceptions.
Unsure values were coded as zero. Therefore, a score of zero indicates the same number of misconcep-
tions as scientific conceptions. Total knowledge scores in our sample ranged from − 13 to 31
Fig. 2 Frequencies of participants’ number of misconceptions. Note. Although 37 items were included
on the DKQ-2, total misconceptions in this sample ranged from zero to 23
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
special education teachers. The Chi-square test between general and special educa-
tion teachers reported amounts of training was nonsignificant (p = 0.612) indicating
teachers, regardless of position, perceived they had experienced a similar amount of
training on dyslexia.
To examine the extent to which the reported amount of previous training pre-
dicted teachers’ knowledge of dyslexia, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Fig. 3 Frequencies of participants’ number of scientific conceptions. Note. Although 37 questions were
included on the DKQ-2, total scientific conceptions in this sample ranged from zero to 33
Fig. 4 Frequencies of participants’ number of unsure responses. Note. In this sample, total responses
indicting unsure ranged from zero to 37
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
was conducted using SPSS with the total knowledge score as the dependent variable.
A statistically significant difference between groups was found (F [4,518] = 19.75,
p < 0.001) with higher amounts of reported training predicting higher total knowl-
edge scores (partial η2 = 0.16). Because Levene’s test was statistically significant
(p < 0.001), Games-Howell post-hoc comparisons were run to compare all pos-
sible combinations of group differences when the assumption of homogeneity was
not present. Post-hoc results reveal teachers who reported having “A great deal,”
“A lot,” or “A moderate amount” of training did not statistically significantly differ
from one another on their total knowledge score. However, teachers who reported “A
moderate amount” of previous training on dyslexia had a total knowledge score sta-
tistically significantly higher than those who reported “A little” previous training on
dyslexia (p = 0.035; mean difference of 3.70 points higher) and those who reported
“None at all” (p < 0.001; mean difference of 6.98 points higher). Also, teachers who
reported participating in “A little” previous training on dyslexia had a statistically
significantly higher total knowledge score than those who reported having “None at
all” (p < 0.001; mean difference of 3.28).
This suggests, in our study, teachers’ reported amounts of previous training pre-
dicted their total dyslexia knowledge score; however, there was not a difference
detected between the three options that represented the highest amounts of training.
This may be due to the small number of teachers in our sample who reported “A lot”
or “A great deal” of training about dyslexia.
The relation betweenyears ofexperience andteacher knowledge ofdyslexia
concepts
A linear regression analysis was used to answer research question 3: To what extent,
if any, does years of experience predict teachers’ knowledge about dyslexia? Years
of experience was not a statistically significant predictor of teacher knowledge as
determined by a linear regression (p = 0.714, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.09]) with the total
knowledge score as the dependent variable. This suggests the amount of years in the
classroom did not predict teachers’ understanding of dyslexia.
The relation betweenconfidence onteacher knowledge ofdyslexia concepts
To answer research question 4, to what extent, if any, does confidence in understand-
ing dyslexia predict teachers’ knowledge of dyslexia?, we asked teachers to respond
to a Likert-scale item regarding their confidence in their knowledge of dyslexia. The
item, “I am confident that I understand dyslexia and could explain it to others” was
presented to teachers. Participants selected either (a) “Strongly agree” (n = 6), (b)
“Agree” (n = 47), (c) “Somewhat agree” (n = 167), (d) “Unsure” (n = 52), (e) “Some-
what disagree” (n = 98), (f) Disagree (n = 104), or (g) Strongly disagree (n = 50). As
determined by a linear regression with the total knowledge score as the dependent
variable, teachers who reported higher confidence in their understanding of dys-
lexia scored statistically significantly higher on their total knowledge score than
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
teachers who reported lower confidence in their understanding of dyslexia (β = 0.31,
p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.09, CI [1.18, 2.04]).
Discussion
Teacher knowledge ofdyslexia concepts
Results indicated a complicated conceptualization of dyslexia. According to concep-
tual change theory (Kendeou, 2017; Nadelson etal., 2018; Shtulman, 2009), teach-
ers may hold both scientific conceptions as well as misconceptions about the same
concept, especially if they do not see how the two or more conceptions held are
incompatible ideas. This can become problematic when attempting statewide train-
ing; if misconceptions are not directly refuted when new information is presented,
teachers may continue to hold scientific conceptions (e.g., 94% of teachers indicated
experts would agree with the scientific conception “Students with dyslexia have
difficulty with reading and spelling words”) as well as previously held misconcep-
tions (e.g., 81% of teachers indicated an expert would agree with the misconception
“Seeing letters and words backwards is a characteristic of dyslexia”). If the miscon-
ceptions are not directly addressed, even after training participants may continue to
believe their former misconception is the basis for the child’s reading and spelling
difficulties.
We also found these conflicting conceptions within patterns of teachers’
responses. For example, the seemingly incompatible ideas of dyslexia as a visual
disability and appropriate intervention consisting of more language-based instruc-
tion (i.e., phonics) is illustrated by the majority of teachers in our study agreeing
with the misconception that “Students with dyslexia see letters and words back-
wards” alongside the scientific conception that “Students with dyslexia would ben-
efit from phonics instruction.” With only 29% of participants understanding the sci-
entific conception that “Dyslexia is primarily a language-based reading disability,”
we see corroboration in this underlying misconception of word reading as a visual
skill (49%) or uncertainty of its nature (22%) among teachers. Future professional
development should include information to help teachers understand the founda-
tion of word recognition as a language-based task rather than one of visual acuity
or memory. Subsequently, this may lead to dissatisfaction with their current under-
standing of dyslexia as a visual-based disability, providing an opportunity ripe for a
deeper conceptual change (Gregiore, 2003; Posner etal., 1982).
Referring back to Table3, this underlying theme of dyslexia as a visual disability
stands out, regardless of item category (i.e., origin, characteristics, treatment, iden-
tification); we found a high percentage of teachers agreeing with items that specifi-
cally referred to this misconception. For example, four out of the five items in which
over half of teachers held a misconception included this theme: (1) “Seeing letters
and words backwards is a characteristic of dyslexia”, (2) “Students with dyslexia
have poor word-level reading skills typically due to poor visual processing skills”,
(3) “Visual-perceptual deficiencies are not components of the dyslexia diagnosis”,
and (4) “Dyslexia is primarily a visually-based reading disability.” In line with
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
conceptual change theory, we posit that teachers would benefit from training that
specifically refutes this underlying misconception in order to guide them toward a
deeper, ontological shift (Chi, 2008) in their understanding of the nature and charac-
teristics of dyslexia. Future studies should also seek to determine if holding this mis-
conception predicts differing practices for identifying students at-risk and the types
of intervention and accommodations chosen.
Other concerning findings include teachers being uncertain or holding miscon-
ceptions regarding methods of effective treatment for students with dyslexia. In our
sample, 39% of teachers indicated an expert would agree with the misconception,
“Students with dyslexia normally learn to read most quickly through the exposure
to audio recordings while following along in the printed text” and another 42% of
teachers reported being unsure. In addition, over a third of teachers (35%) indicated
an expert in dyslexia would agree with the misconception, “Students with dyslexia
normally learn to read most quickly with methods that focus on memorizing the
shape of whole words” and another 41% of teachers reported being unsure. Finally,
a majority of teachers, 78%, indicated an expert in dyslexia would agree with the
misconception, “Students with dyslexia should be taught coping strategies, such as
using context cues or pictures to help decode words” and another 11% of teachers
reported being unsure. These misconceptions about how students with dyslexia are
best taught to read are concerning; future research should seek to determine if these
instructional misconceptions extend to practices beyond teaching students with dys-
lexia. Future training should ensure these misconceptions are directly addressed
along with introducing information on why appropriate interventions are beneficial,
as about only two-thirds of our sample also indicated an expert would agree with
scientifically consistent approaches, such as teaching phonics (66%), spelling (70%),
and phonemic awareness (66%).
We also found that teachers’ responses differed when the term phonemic aware-
ness was used rather than an explanation of the term within the item. For example
in the item, “Students identified with dyslexia usually have difficulty with phonemic
awareness,” 66% of teachers indicated an expert would agree (i.e., held a scientific
conception), 18% said an expert would disagree (i.e., held a misconception), and
16% reported being unsure. However for the item, “Difficulty manipulating sounds
in spoken language is one of the major deficits found in students with dyslexia,”
only 40% of teachers indicated an expert would agree (i.e., held a scientific concep-
tion), 35% indicated an expert would disagree (i.e., held a misconception), and 25%
of teachers said they were unsure. This 26% difference in reported scientific con-
ceptions suggests that although teachers may have heard the term phonemic aware-
ness and associate it with dyslexia, they may not actually understand what phonemic
awareness is or how it relates to classroom instruction. With phonemic aware-
ness being one of the “Big Five” instructional practices supported by the National
Reading Panel (2000), this suggests a possible disconnect from research findings
and what was or was not learned about phonemic awareness during initial teacher
preparation and/or inservice professional development. In the future, teacher edu-
cators and professional development providers should ensure teachers understand
terms commonly used regarding reading and dyslexia that are widely misunder-
stood or phonologically similar (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonological awareness,
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
phonological processing, and phonics). Moreover, in future studies, researchers
should also ensure instruments measure teachers’ understanding of these terms used
within the items to measure teacher conceptions more accurately.
Another notable finding emerged in the category of dyslexia identification. Only
about a third (36%) of teachers seemed to understand the relation of the term “dys-
lexia” to SLD in basic reading skills (42% held a misconception, 22% were unsure),
less than half of teachers seemed to understand dyslexia can be identified by a
school psychologist (38% held a misconception, 14% were unsure), and only 59%
of teachers indicated an expert would agree that dyslexia is recognized as a type of
SLD that can receive special education services (20% held a misconception, 21%
were unsure). If teachers hold a misconception that dyslexia cannot be identified
by a school psychologist or that dyslexia is not recognized in public schools as a
disability that can receive special education services, they may not refer a student
they suspect has dyslexia for an initial evaluation or they may recommend parents
to get an outside evaluation. This may highlight procedural and substantive viola-
tions of IDEIA (2004), specifically referring to the mandated child-find component,
and prevent students from receiving intervention services to which they are legally
entitled. In alignment with effective interventions on conceptual change (e.g., Peltier
etal., 2020b), future teacher training should address these misconceptions teachers
hold, refute them, and provide information on how dyslexia relates to IDEIA (2004).
Future research may also consider examining the source of these misconceptions
surrounding the topic of identification, as well as school psychologist and adminis-
tration conceptions regarding dyslexia.
Previous training, teaching experience, andconfidence
We found teachers’ reported amount of previous training on dyslexia did statisti-
cally significantly predict their dyslexia knowledge scores on the DKQ-2. This find-
ing, however, differs from other studies where previous training was not a significant
predictor of teacher knowledge (e.g., Washburn etal., 2017; White etal., 2020). We
found years of experience teaching did not statistically significantly predict teacher
knowledge of dyslexia. Knight (2018), in a large-scale study in England and Wales,
examined teacher knowledge of dyslexia and the effect of years of teaching experi-
ence on teachers’ descriptions of dyslexia. Years of teaching experience did not have
an effect on teacher inclusion of biological and behavioral characteristics of dyslexia
in their descriptions. However, there was a significant effect of the number of years
teaching on whether cognitive or visual descriptors were included in their descrip-
tion of dyslexia. Specifically, teachers with five or less years of teaching were more
likely to include visual descriptors and less likely to include a cognitive descriptor in
their description of dyslexia than teachers with more than 10years of teaching expe-
rience. Moreover, studies of teacher knowledge of reading-related concepts in the
U.S. have reported similar results in that teaching experience, as defined by num-
ber of years teaching, is not associated with teacher knowledge (e.g., Binks-Cantrell
etal., 2012; Washburn etal., 2011a, 2011b). Thus, when assigning novice teachers
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
or teachers in training to mentor teachers, it is important to consider that years of
experience does not necessarily equate to expertise in dyslexia.
Regarding confidence, we found teachers’ responses were significant predictors
of teachers’ knowledge of dyslexia. We also recognize that this question was asked
after the 37 dyslexia items, thus placement of this item may have helped teachers to
better calibrate their understanding (or lack thereof) of dyslexia. Within the larger
body of research on teacher knowledge of reading-related constructs, research-
ers have reported that teachers’ confidence to teach specific content is not always
associated with their measured knowledge of that content (e.g., Cunningham etal.,
2004; Spear-Swerling etal., 2005) regardless of number of years teaching and prior
training (e.g., Washburn etal., 2011a, 2011b). However, given the role that an indi-
vidual’s confidence is believed to play in conceptual change theory, this item is
important to assess. In addition, though some other studies have examined teach-
ers’ confidence to teach students with dyslexia (e.g., Jones etal., 2019), it does not
appear that teachers have been asked the extent to which they believe they could
explain dyslexia to others. Therefore, this finding is novel to the larger body of
research on teacher knowledge of dyslexia.
Limitations andimplications
The results of the current study should be interpreted within the scope of its
limitations.
First sampling, although purposeful in nature, may not fully represent teachers
in the state. Participants may represent teachers who are more interested in teaching
reading, dyslexia, and/or who may be more willing to participate in such initiatives.
Thus, because sampling was not random, generalizations about the results should not
be made. Second, the extent to which teacher knowledge predicts instructional deci-
sions for students with dyslexia was not examined. Therefore, claims about teach-
ers’ knowledge and/or use of instructional practices for students with dyslexia can-
not and should not be made from the current study. Third, we acknowledge that the
DKQ-2, like previous measures of teacher knowledge of dyslexia, contains various
domain-specific vocabulary associated with reading (i.e., phonemic awareness) that
may or may not have impacted teachers’ responses depending upon their familiarity
with the terms. Last, including the option of “unsure” in the middle of the scale may
have been interpreted by participants in one of two ways: (a) the expert in dyslexia is
unsure of the answer or (b) the participant themself is unsure of the answer. Future
studies may consider either including the option of unsure outside of the scale with
wording that specifies participant uncertainty or as different categories of options to
better understand participant intentions in selecting an answer.
With limitations in mind, we believe that the findings from this study have implica-
tions for both educators and researchers. First, as educators act upon enacted legislation
in their states and work to provide preservice and inservice teachers with training on
dyslexia, we encourage the use of pre-assessment to identify which dyslexia concepts
teachers (1) have scientific conceptions, (2) hold misconceptions, and/or (3) are unsure.
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
This approach to pre-assessment should then inform the ways in which educators inter-
vene to promote conceptual change of misconceptions or alleviate uncertainty.
Second, there are many established interventions aimed at facilitating concep-
tual change of commonly held misconceptions including concept mapping (Liu,
2004), argumentation (Nussbaum & Sinatra, 2003), experiential approaches (Heddy
& Sinatra, 2013), plausibility judgement (Lombardi etal., 2016), and refutation texts
(Tippett, 2010). One instructional method that has shown to be effective for facilitat-
ing conceptual change with dyslexia related misconceptions is refutation texts (Peltier
etal., 2020b). These texts align with conceptual change theory because they describe
each misconception, state why it is considered inaccurate, then describe the scien-
tific concept, and why scientists accept this information as accurate (Broughton etal.,
2010). Thus, they refute misconceptions, making learners dissatisfied with their exist-
ing knowledge; then they provide learners with information to replace their miscon-
ceptions. In addition, the texts are written in a way that helps learners recognize the
credibility, coherence, plausibility, and usefulness of the new knowledge. Therefore,
refutation texts were designed using active ingredients of conceptual change and have
shown to be effective for facilitating conceptual change.
We suggest that teacher educators create trainings using a refutation format or use
an existing refutation text on dyslexia (Peltier etal., 2020b) consistent with most preva-
lent misconceptions (e.g., the misconception of dyslexia as a visual difficulty), to bet-
ter facilitate conceptual change. This could lead to improved accuracy and coherence
of dyslexia knowledge among teachers, improved reading instruction for students with
dyslexia, more valid identification practices, and improved student outcomes. For top-
ics in which teachers are mostly unsure without holding prior misconceptions (e.g.,
the hereditary aspect of dyslexia), the new information could be presented in a typi-
cal expository format, without introducing a contradictory view through the refutation
style. Table4 provides a summary of misconceptions or knowledge gaps teachers com-
monly held in our research to help inform future dyslexia training practices.
Regarding continued research efforts, we recommend that research using the
DKQ-2 be expanded to include a nationally representative sample across states to
provide a clearer picture of teacher knowledge of dyslexia in the US. In addition,
future research could include studies that scale up the use of refutation texts with
pre- and post-DKQ-2 administration to better understand the extent to which teacher
misconceptions about dyslexia change after training. Moreover, the use of quali-
tative data sources such as interviews and focus groups could also provide deeper
insight into why and how teachers’ misconceptions do or do not change in the con-
text of dyslexia training. Studies should also examine to what extent varying con-
ceptualizations of dyslexia impact instruction and intervention, identification rates,
and student achievement.
Conclusion
This study provided a new lens in which to measure and interpret teacher knowledge
of dyslexia, an aspect of teacher knowledge that has not been widely studied; yet, has
garnered much attention as more states require teacher training in dyslexia (Youman
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
Table 4 Common misunderstandings to include in dyslexia training
Misunderstanding Current scientific understanding Training approach
The definition of phonemic awareness Many students with dyslexia have difficulty with phonemic awareness,
or the ability to distinguish and manipulate the sounds in words
Present and explain scientific conception
The origin of the disability Dyslexia is hereditary. Having a parent or sibling with dyslexia
increases risk
Present and explain scientific conception
The nature of the disability Dyslexia is not a categorical difference. Dyslexia exists at the lower end
of a continuum of decoding ability
Address misconception and present scientific conception
The type of disability Dyslexia is not a visual disability. Dyslexia is a language-based dif-
ficulty, impacting the mapping of sounds to letters in the brain
Address misconception and present scientific conception
How dyslexia relates to IDEIA and
US public school procedures
SLD in basic reading skills or reading fluency skills are the school-
based terms for dyslexia. A school psychologist and IEP team are
responsible for finding and identifying students within public schools
under IDEIA
Address misconception and present scientific conception
Types of accommodations Colored lenses, eye-tracking or brain balancing exercises, and special
fonts are not research-based accommodations
Address misconception and present scientific conception
Types of intervention Students with dyslexia should not be taught to use pictures or context
clues to decode words; instead, intervention should provide systematic
and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics
Address misconception and present scientific conception
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
& Mather, 2018). Unlike previously published work on teacher knowledge of dys-
lexia, we used conceptual change theory (Vosniadou & Skopeliti, 2014) to underpin
the development of our research instrument and interpretation of its findings. Con-
sidering research in conceptual change suggests different teaching approaches are
needed if an individual holds a misconception compared to having a lack of knowl-
edge (Sinatra, 2005), measuring concepts in which teachers already align with sci-
entific conceptions of dyslexia, hold misconceptions about dyslexia, or are unsure
about dyslexia may help to more appropriately design trainings to efficiently and
effectively impact understanding. We found teachers’ understanding of dyslexia is
complicated, with many holding broad scientific conceptions (e.g., dyslexia describ-
ing a reading and spelling difficulty), alongside misconceptions (e.g., dyslexia as
caused by a visual difficulty) and some uncertainty (e.g., dyslexia as genetic). Hold-
ing these broad scientific conceptions alongside misconceptions leads to an overall
inaccurate conceptualization, with misconceptions complicating their understanding
of the scientific conception of dyslexia. However, by using data to illuminate pat-
terns of misconceptions and uncertainty (e.g., Table4), we can better inform future
dyslexia training practices and improve the facilitation of conceptual change.
References
Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Writing prob-
lems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychol-
ogy, 46(1), 1–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jsp. 2006. 11. 008
Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the prepara-
tion of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 526–536.
Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. E. (2010). The nature of the refutation text effect:
An investigation of attention allocation. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(6), 407–423.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00220 67090 33831 01
Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transforma-
tion, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change
(pp. 61–82). Erlbaum.
Cordova, J. R., Sinatra, G. M., Jones, S. H., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2014). Confidence
in prior knowledge, self-efficacy, interest and prior knowledge: Influences on conceptual change.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 164–174.
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge
of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dys-
lexia, 54(1), 139–167.
Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The science and evolution of a human invention. Viking.
diSessa, A. A. (2007). Changing conceptual change. Human Development, 50(1), 39–46. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1159/ 00009 7683
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of
knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2–3), 109–128. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 6985e
p3302 &3_5
Gabrieli, J. D. (2009). Dyslexia: A new synergy between education and cognitive neuroscience. Science,
325(5938), 280–283. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 11719 99
Gabrieli, J. D. (2016). The promise of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). Psycho-
logical Review, 123(5), 613–619. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ rev00 00034
Georgiou, G. K., Martinez, D., Vieira, A. P. A., & Guo, K. (2021). Is orthographic knowledge a strength
or a weakness in individuals with dyslexia? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Annals of Dyslexia,
71(1), 5–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11881- 021- 00220-6
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and
appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147–179.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/a: 10234 77131 081
Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Transforming misconceptions: Using transformative experience
to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning about biological evolution.
Science Education, 97(5), 723–744. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sce. 21072
Heddy, B. C., Danielson, R. W., Sinatra, G. M., & Graham, J. (2017). Modifying knowledge, emotions,
and attitudes regarding genetically modified foods. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(3),
513–533. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00220 973. 2016. 12605 23
Hudson, R. F., High, L., & Otaiba, S. A. (2007). Dyslexia and the brain: What does current research tell
us? The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 506–515. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1598/ rt. 60.6.1
IBM Corp. Released 2019. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
International Dyslexia Association. (2018). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading.
Retrieved from International Dyslexia Association website: https:// app. box. com/s/ 21gdk 2k1p3
bnagd fz1xy 0v98j 5ytl1 wk.
Jones, A. L., Holtgraves, T. G., & Sander, J. B. (2019). Attitudes and knowledge of future teachers to
identify struggling readers. The Teacher Educator, 54(1), 46–59. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08878 730.
2018. 14908 42
Kearns, D. M., Hancock, R., Hoeft, F., Pugh, K. R., & Frost, S. J. (2019). The neurobiology of dyslexia.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 51(3), 175–188. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00400 59918 820051
Kendeou, P., Butterfuss, R., Van Boekel, M., & O’Brien, E. J. (2017). Integrating relational reasoning
and knowledge revision during reading. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 27–39. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s10648- 016- 9381-3
Knight, C. (2018). What is dyslexia? An exploration of the relationship between teachers’ understandings
of dyslexia and their training experiences. Dyslexia, 24(3), 207–219. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ dys.
1593
Legislature of Connecticut, HB7254 (2017). https:// www. cga. ct. gov/ 2017/ cbs/H/ pdf/ HB- 7254. pdf
Legislature of Texas, HB147, 69R (1985). https:// senate. texas. gov/ cmtes/ 81/ c804/ c804. Inter imRep ort81.
pdf.
Liu, X. (2004). Using concept mapping for assessing and promoting relational conceptual change in sci-
ence. Science Education, 88(3), 373–396. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sce. 10127
Lombardi, D., Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2016). Plausibility judgments in conceptual change
and epistemic cognition. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 35–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00461 520.
2015. 11131 34
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dys-
lexia, 53(1), 1–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11881- 003- 0001-9
Mather, N., White, J., & Youman, M. (2020). Dyslexia around the world: a snapshot. Learning Disabili-
ties: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(1), 1–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18666/ ldmj- 2020- v25- i1- 9552
Miciak, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia
and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 343–353.
Moats, L. (2020). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and
be able to do. American Federation of Teachers.
Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing, 22(4),
379–399. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11145- 009- 9162-1
Moats, L. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and
be able to do. American Federation of Teachers.
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Interrogating the relation between conceptual change and epis-
temic beliefs. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sanoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of Epistemic Cognition
(pp. 439–459). Routledge.
Nadelson, L. S., Heddy, B. C., Jones, S., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Johnson, M. (2018). Conceptual change in
science teaching and learning: Introducing the dynamic model of conceptual change. International
Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(2), 151–195. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17583/ ijep. 2018. 3349
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel-teaching children to read: An evi-
dence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for read-
ing instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Nebraska Department of Education (2019). Nebraska education profile: Teachers snapshot. Retrieved
from https:// nep. educa tion. ne. gov// State? DataY ears= 20182 019
T.K.Peltier et al.
1 3
Ness, M. K., & Southall, G. (2010). Preservice teachers’ knowledge of and beliefs about dyslexia.
Journal of Reading Education, 36(1).
Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Edu-
cational Psychology, 28(3), 384–395. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0361- 476X(02) 00038-3
Peltier, T. K., Heddy, B. C., & Peltier, C. (2020a). Dyslexia Knowledge Questionnaire. https:// doi. org/
10. 17605/ OSF. IO/ 8AYVX
Peltier, T. K., Heddy, B. C., & Peltier, C. (2020b). Using conceptual change theory to help preser-
vice teachers understand dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 70, 62–78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11881- 020- 00192-z
Peterson, R. L., & Pennington, B. F. (2012). Developmental dyslexia. The Lancet, 379(9830), 1997–
2007. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s0140- 6736(12) 60198-6
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sce. 37306 60207
Rutherford, W. L. (1971). What is your DQ (Dyslexia Quotient)? The Reading Teacher, 25(3),
262–266.
Ryder, D., & Norwich, B. (2019). UK higher education lecturers’ perspectives of dyslexia, dyslexic
students and related disability provision. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,
19(3), 161–172. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1471- 3802. 12438
Shaywitz, S. E., Escobar, M. D., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Makuch, R. (1992). Evidence that
dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability. New England
Journal of Medicine, 326(3), 145–150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1056/ nejm1 99201 16326 0301
Shtulman, A. (2009). Rethinking the role of resubsumption in conceptual change. Educational Psy-
chologist, 44(1), 41–47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00461 52080 26162 75
Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The “warming trend" in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R.
Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 107–115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 6985e p4002_5
Sinatra, G. M., & Seyranian, V. (2015). Warm change about hot topics. Handbook of Educational
Psychology, 245.
Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge and
self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(2), 266–296.
Steacy, L. M., Fuchs, D., Gilbert, J. K., Kearns, D. M., Elleman, A. M., & Edwards, A. A. (2020).
Sight word acquisition in first grade students at risk for reading disabilities: An item-level explo-
ration of the number of exposures required for mastery. Annals of Dyslexia, 70(2), 259–274.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11881- 020- 00198-7
Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 951–970. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s10763- 010- 9203-x
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability
(dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1046/j. 0021- 9630. 2003. 00305.x
Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Applied Psychology, 41(4),
347–357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1464- 0597. 1992. tb007 11.x
Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence.
Science & Education, 23(7), 1427–1445. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11191- 013- 9640-3
Wadlington, E. M., & Wadlington, P. L. (2005). What educators really believe about dyslexia. Read-
ing Improvement, 42(1), 16–33.
Washburn, E. K., Binks-Cantrell, E. S., & Joshi, R. M. (2014a). What do pre-service teachers from
the USA and the UK know about dyslexia? Dyslexia, 20(1), 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ dys.
1459
Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Cantrell, E. B. (2011a). Are pre-service teachers prepared to teach
struggling readers? Annals of Dyslexia, 61(1), 21–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11881- 010- 0040-y
Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Binks-Cantrell, E. S. (2011b). Teacher knowledge of basic language
concepts and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 17(2), 165–183. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ dys. 426
Washburn, E. K., Binks-Cantrell, E. S., & Joshi, R. M. (2014b). What do preservice teachers from the
USA and the UK know about dyslexia? Dyslexia, 20(1), 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ dys. 1459
Washburn, E. K., Mulcahy, C. A., Musante, G., & Joshi, R. (2017). Novice teachers’ knowledge of
reading-related disabilities and dyslexia. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15(2),
169–191.
1 3
What doteachers know aboutdyslexia? It’s complicated!
White, J., Mather, N., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2020). Preservice educators’ and noneducators’ knowledge and
perceptions of responsibility about dyslexia. Dyslexia, 26(2), 220–242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ dys.
1653
Worthy, J., DeJulio, S., Svrcek, N., Villarreal, D. A., Derbyshire, C., LeeKeenan, K., Wiebe, M. T., Lam-
mert, C., Rubin, J. C., & Salmerón, C. (2016). Teachers’ understandings, perspectives, and experi-
ences of dyslexia. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65(1), 436–453. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1177/ 23813 36916 661529
Youman, M., & Mather, N. (2018). Dyslexia laws in the US: A 2018 update. Perspectives on Language
and Literacy, 37–41. Retrieved from https:// dysle xiaida. org/ dysle xia- lawsin- theusa- an- update/.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Reading and Writing
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
