Knowledge and Beliefs About Developmental Dyslexia: A Comparison Between Pre-Service and In-Service Peruvian Teachers

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the knowledge, misconceptions, and knowledge gaps of Peruvian pre-service teachers (PSTs) and in-service teachers (ISTs). To do so, 112 PSTs and 113 ISTs completed the Knowledge and Beliefs About Developmental Dyslexia Scale (KBDDS). Results show that ISTs scored significantly higher than PSTs. Moreover, misconceptions and lack of information were higher in PSTs. The most noteworthy misconceptions were that dyslexia is due to poor visual perception and that letter or word reversals are the most important criterion in the identification of dyslexia. Age, years of teaching experience, prior exposure to a child with dyslexia, and self-efficacy were positively correlated with knowledge about dyslexia in ISTs. Resumen El propósito de éste estudio ha sido investigar el conocimiento, las creencias erróneas y las lagunas de conocimiento de profesores Peruanos en formación (PF) y profesores en ejercicio (PE). Para ello, 112 PF y 113 PE completaron la Escala de Conocimientos y Creencias acerca de la Dislexia Evolutiva. Los resultados mostraron que los PE puntuaron significativemente más alto que los PF. Además, las creencias erróneas y las lagunas de conocimiento fueron más altas en los PF. Las creencias erróneas más destacadas fueron que la dislexia es debida a una pobre percepción visual y que las

Dyslexia Seen Through the Eyes of Teachers: An Exploratory Survey

“…Finally, results for beliefs about dyslexia showed that the vast majority of teachers and leaders did not agree with some common misconceptions people have about dyslexia, except for the misconception that students with dyslexia reverse numbers and letters. It is a prevalent misconception in the media and common among teachers (Echegaray‐Bengoa et al, 2017; Ness & Southall, 2010; Serry & Hammond, 2015; Soriano‐Ferrer et al, 2016; Yin et al, 2020). It is a definite misconception because while the number of reversal errors among people with dyslexia may be higher, the proportion of reversal errors as compared to total errors is no greater.…”

“…The fourth misconception was that students with dyslexia have parents who push for more resources for their children—but this does not seem to be the case (Riddick, 1995). The fifth misconception was that students with dyslexia reverse letters and numbers—even though the research says otherwise (Echegaray‐Bengoa et al, 2017; Knight, 2018; Ness & Southall, 2010; Serry & Hammond, 2015; Soriano‐Ferrer et al, 2016; Yin et al, 2020). When reversals persist through the school grades, it seems to be a result of long periods of not reading very well (Krafnick et al, 2014).…”

Informal preparation and years of experience: Key correlates of dyslexia knowledge among Massachusetts early elementary teachers

“…Other studies have found that additional teaching experience is positively associated with a better understanding of dyslexia, but these findings are not consistent across all studies or all types of skills and knowledge (Yin et al, 2020); this is reviewed in more detail by Washburn et al (2011). In a study of preservice and in-service teachers in Spain and Peru, in-service teachers had fewer misconceptions than pre-service teachers, demonstrating the benefit of teaching experience and especially experience working with students with dyslexia, in understanding dyslexia (Echegaray-Bengoa, Soriano-Ferrer, & Joshi, 2017;Soriano-Ferrer et al, 2016).…”

K‐2 principal knowledge (not leadership) matters for dyslexia intervention

“…Subsequent studies using the KBDDS found this instrument to be an internally consistent measure of knowledge of dyslexia. Soriano‐Ferrer, Echegaray‐Bengoa, and Joshi (2016) found the reliability of the total scale to be .84, with subscale scores from .68 to .73, and Echegaray‐Bengoa, Soriano‐Ferrer, and Joshi (2017) found reliability of the total scale to be .81, with subscale scores from .67 to .75. The coefficients for Cronbach's alpha for the individual subscales were lower than that of the total scale due to fewer items on each subscale than on the total instrument (Echegaray‐Bengoa et al, 2017; Soriano‐Ferrer et al, 2016).…”