Although researchers have studied dyslexia for over a century, there is still much debate about how dyslexia differs from other reading difficulties and how to support students labeled dyslexic. Nevertheless, dyslexia policy and practice are steeped in authoritative discourse that speaks of a definitive definition, unique characteristics, and prescribed intervention programs that are not well supported by research. In Texas, and increasingly in other states, only educators trained in these programs are considered qualified to provide intervention for students identified as dyslexic. In contrast to earlier research, which found that the word dyslexia decreased teachers' confidence and feelings of self-efficacy, the dyslexia interventionists we interviewed expressed a high degree of confidence and certainty about dyslexia and the interventions they used. Bakhtin's notion of authoritative and internally persuasive discourse helped us think about the reasons for these findings and how to initiate a broader and more inclusive conversation about dyslexia. Keywords inservice teachers, interventions, teacher beliefs, discourse/discourse analysis, policy Recently, there has been a vast increase in attention to dyslexia in policy, practice, and the media. Although researchers have studied dyslexia for over a century, there is still much debate about how it differs from other reading difficulties and how to support students identified as dyslexic. Some children struggle to decode print, which is the central issue in what is termed dyslexia. However, researchers have failed to consistently identify characteristics or patterns of reading that distinguish dyslexia

Today’s world requires attention to all aspects of initial literacy teacher preparation, including how and what preservice teachers learn about the component processes of reading. To address this imperative, a review was conducted of articles published from 2000 to 2018 identified through the CITE-ITEL database ( https://cite.edb.utexas.edu ) that reported findings related to reading processes and initial teacher preparation. After an inductive analytic process, the authors organize findings into five focus areas: (a) definitions and delimitations of reading processes, (b) studies of preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching reading processes, (c) research identifying preservice teachers’ knowledge gaps and misconceptions, (d) intervention studies aimed at increasing preservice teachers’ knowledge, and (e) studies detailing the application of knowledge about reading processes into contexts of pedagogical practice. The discussion considers the current gaps in how reading processes and literacy are conceptualized and possible areas of inquiry related to preservice teacher education and reading processes.

The internet is a common source of information for parents, educators, and the general public. However, researchers who analyze the quality of internet sources have found they often contain inaccurate and misleading information. Here, we present an analysis of dyslexia on the internet. Employing disability studies in education (DSE), disability critical race studies (DisCrit), and Bakhtin’s construct of ideological becoming, we examined the credibility of sources, the quality of information, and the discourse in which the information is presented. We found the majority of webpages do not meet basic source credibility criteria, much of the content contradicts or is unsupported by research, and most pages convey information in an authoritative discourse, making it seem irreproachable. Building on the findings, we offer criteria for evaluating dyslexia information and suggestions for research and practice. We focus on the need for less divisive, more collaborative dialogue, along with research among stakeholders with multiple perspectives.

After well over a century of research about dyslexia, there is still no consensus about how it differs from other decoding difficulties, how it is identified, and its causes. Nevertheless, there is an abundance of research about dyslexia, mostly conducted outside of education, and much of it focused on the brain. This attention to the brain and dyslexia is also reflected on the Internet. In the study reported here, we analyzed information on the Internet focusing on dyslexia and the brain, grounding our examination in varying perspectives about the connections between neuroscience and education. We found that many of the sites include distortions, simplifications, and misinterpretations of neuroscience research, and some sites used this misinformation to bolster claims for the efficacy of the so-called brain-based interventions. We suggest that educators who become familiar with the limitations and affordances of neuroscience research, while maintaining a focus on the broad range of factors that influence literacy learning, can help to moderate the spread of misinformation.

Teachers enter schools equipped with values, beliefs, and an understanding of pedagogies explored in their preparation programs, but with limited connection to the universities that prepared them. With an increased importance placed on standards and standardized testing, schools are faced with a narrowing of what is taught and what counts in schools (e.g., Dyson, 2013;Milner, 2013;Yoon, 2013). Part of the experience of being new teachers is negotiating tensions between reforms and their own beliefs and values (e.g., Broemmel & Swaggerty, 2017;