An Analysis of the Effects of Dyslexia Intervention Programs on Identified Dyslexic Students in the

1
An Analysis of the Effects of Dyslexia
Intervention Programs on Identified Dyslexic
Students in the State of Texas

• A Dissertation Defense
• By
• Leslie Faught

2
Defense Format

• I. Purpose of Study
• II. Review of Literature
• III. Significance of the Study
• IV. Research Questions/Findings
• V. Conclusions Recommendations
• VI. Recommendations for Further Study

3

• As virulent as any virus that courses through
  tissues and organs, dyslexia can infiltrate every
  aspect of a persons life. It is often described
  as a hidden disability because it is thought to
  lack visible signs, but dyslexia is hidden only
  from those who do not have to live with it and
  suffer its effects. (Shaywitz, 2003)

4
I. Purpose of the Study

• The purpose of the study was to find the most
  appropriate intervention programs and
  instructional strategies for dyslexic students.

5
II. Review of Literature
6
Dyslexia Defined

• A disorder manifested by a difficulty in
  learning to read, despite conventional
  instruction, adequate intelligence, and
  sociocultural opportunity. Dyslexia is dependent
  upon fundamental cognitive disabilities which are
  frequently of constitutional origin.
• World Federation of Neurology

7
National Scope

• On January 8, 2002 President
• Bush signed into law the No Child
• Left Behind Act of 2001. This Act
• redefines the role in K-12 education.
• By the year 2013 all children should pass
• the TAKS test. Children with specific
• reading disabilities must be taught using
• methods that provide them the most success.

8
Texas Scope

• The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)
  are used to support every student throughout
  their schooling in Texas. The Texas Student
  Success Initiative (SSI) ensures that children
  beginning in the third grade pass both the
  reading and math portions of the test and that
  100 of the students in Texas will pass the TAKS
  test by 2013.

9
III. Significance of the Study

• The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 changed
  public school accountability. Eight years from
  now, all children who attend public schools must
  be proficient in reading, math and science.
  Therefore, dyslexic children should receive
  appropriate interventions for their disability in
  order for school districts to be in compliance
  and meet the challenges of NCLB.

10
Research Design

• The methodology used was mixed-methods. The
  research consisted of both quantitative and
  qualitative data that was descriptive and
  comparative in design.

11
Population

• 93 Teachers surveyed
• 47 Teachers trained in the Orton- Gillingham
  Program
• 46 Teachers who teach dyslexic students in their
  classrooms but have had no specific formal
  training in area of dyslexia.

12
Instrumentation

• Qualitative
• Four open-ended questions on a questionnaire
  dealing with teacher preparedness
• Electronic communication

• Quantitative
• 5 point Likert scale
• Four part survey-
• ? Effects of training
• ? Factors of Quality Intervention
  Programs
• ? Assessment- Related Factors
• ? Teacher Preparedness

13
Data Analysis

• Qualitative
• Coding of data
• Data read, described and classified

• Quantitative
• Descriptive statistics
• Cross-tabs with chi-square was used to see if
  relationships exist between training and
  responses
• Scale constructs were utilized to test for
  differences among groups on measures
• Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

14
Quantitative Findings
15
Descriptive Statistics

• Table 4.7
• Descriptive Statistics for the Four Scale Items
  Perceived to Influence Instruction for Dyslexic
  Students, n 89
• Variable M SD
• Effects of Specialized Training 15.7 4.05
• Factors of Quality Intervention 16.6 3.19
• Assessment-Related Factors 15.9 2.65
• Teacher Preparedness 16.1 3.90

16
Research Question 1

• What are the effects of specialized dyslexic
  training provided through the Orton-Gillingham
  approach in the instruction of identified
  dyslexic students?

17
Is there a significant difference in the
perceived effects of specialized instruction
between teachers who have received the
Orton-Gillingham training and those who have not?

• One-Way ANOVA
• IV training-between and within groups
• DV Score of effects of specialized training
• The ANOVA was significant, F(1,90) 145.09, p
  .000. The M 15.7 and the SD 4.05. The
  relationship, as assessed by ?2, was strong, with
  specialized dyslexic training status accounting
  for 62 percent of the variance of the dependent
  variable.
• Therefore, the findings rejected the first null
  hypothesis.

18
(No Transcript)
19
Research Question 2

• What are the factors associated with quality
  intervention programs for dyslexic students?

20
Is there a significant difference in the factors
perceived to be associated with quality
intervention programs between teachers who have
received the Orton-Gillingham training and those
who have not?

• One-Way ANOVA
• IV training-between and within groups
• DV Score for factors of quality intervention
• The ANOVA was significant, F(1,91) 53.11, p
  .000. The M 16.6 and the SD 3.19. The
  relationship, as assessed by ?2, was strong, with
  specialized dyslexic training status accounting
  for 37 percent of the variance of the dependent
  variable.
• Therefore, the findings rejected the second null
  hypothesis.

21
(No Transcript)
22
Research Question 3

• What assessment-related factors are associated
  with the monitoring of the dyslexic students
  progress?

23
Is there a significant difference in the
perceived assessment-related factors with
monitoring dyslexic students progress between
teachers who have received the Orton-Gillingham
training and those who have not?

• One-Way ANOVA
• IV training-between and within groups
• DV Score for assessment-related factors
• The ANOVA was significant, F(1,89) 38.20, p
  .000. The M 15.9 and the SD 2.65. The
  relationship, as assessed by ?2, was strong, with
  specialized dyslexic training status accounting
  for 30 percent of the variance of the dependent
  variable.
• Therefore, the findings rejected the third null
  hypothesis.

24
(No Transcript)
25
Research Question 4

• What are the differences in preparedness between
  teachers who participate in the Orton-Gillingham
  training and those who have no specialized
  training?

26
Is there a significant difference in the
preparedness of teachers who have received the
Orton-Gillingham training and those who have not?

• One-Way ANOVA
• IV training-between and within groups
• DV Score for teacher preparedness
• The ANOVA was significant, F(1,89) 144.11, p
  .000. The M 16.1 and the SD 3.90. The
  relationship, as assessed by ?2, was strong, with
  specialized dyslexic training status accounting
  for 62 percent of the variance of the dependent
  variable.
• Therefore, the findings rejected the fourth null
  hypothesis.

27
(No Transcript)
28
Qualitative Findings
29
Is there a significant difference in
preparedness of the teachers between teachers who
have received the Orton-Gillingham training and
those who have not?

• The qualitative portion of the study revealed
  that the teachers trained in the
  Orton-Gillingham program were more prepared with
  instructional strategies and techniques to better
  serve dyslexic students in their classrooms. The
  non-trained teachers, through their responses,
  knew what types of techniques were successful
  with dyslexic students but had not received
  specific training in dyslexia intervention and
  teaching strategies.

30
Conclusions

• Teachers who received intensive dyslexia training
  perceived different effects of specialized
  instruction than teachers who received no
  training.
• Teachers who received intensive dyslexia training
  through the Orton-Gillingham program perceived
  the factors associated with quality intervention
  programs differently than the teachers who
  received no training.

31
Conclusions Continued

• Teachers who received intensive dyslexia training
  were more adept at recognizing assessment-related
  factors in identified dyslexic students than
  teachers who received no training.
• Teachers who received intensive dyslexia training
  were more prepared and gave explicit examples of
  how to successfully instruct identified dyslexic
  students than teachers who received no training.

32
Recommendations

• Ensure teachers with identified dyslexic students
  are trained in an intensive dyslexic remediation
  program.
• Provide yearly training updates to teachers with
  dyslexic students.
• Monitor the programs used in districts to ensure
  dyslexic student success.
• Monitor the self-esteem of dyslexic students
  through out the year.

33
Recommendations

• At the secondary level, notify all teachers of
  identified dyslexic students. Provide support to
  these teachers as necessary.
• Use screening tools to identify dyslexic students
  early in their educational careers so they
  receive appropriate modifications.
• Have an assessment person in the school district
  trained to correctly test and identify dyslexic
  students.
• Provide continual support and resources for the
  teachers throughout the year.

34
Recommendations for Further Study

• What makes an intervention program effective for
  dyslexic students?
• What components must an intervention program
  contain to be effective for dyslexic students?
• How well do dyslexic students do on the TAKS
  test?
• Does having dyslexia affect other subject areas
  other than reading?

35
Recommendations for Further Study

• How can brain research help in the remediation of
  dyslexia?
• What is the relationship between dyslexia and
  disgraphia?
• How does dyslexia affect a childs social life?
• How does dyslexia affect bilingual children?

36
An Analysis of the Effects of Dyslexia
Intervention Programs on Identified Dyslexic
Students in the State of Texas A Dissertation
DefenseByLeslie Faught