2019
DOI: 10.1177/2381336919870265
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simple Answers and Quick Fixes: Dyslexia and the Brain on the Internet

Abstract: 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 examin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Misunderstandings have been fueled by the internet, where neuroscientific research on dyslexia is frequently characterized by “distortions, simplifications, and misrepresentations” (Worthy, Godfrey, Tily, Daly‐Lesch, & Salmerón, 2019, p. 314). An absence of criticality reflects a form of neuroseduction, whereby neuroscientific accounts increase the likelihood that one will be persuaded by explanations or conclusions that are not justified by the facts (Fernandez‐Duque, Evans, Christian, & Hodges, 2015; Schwartz, Lilienfeld, Meca, & Sauvigné, 2016; Weisberg et al, 2015).…”
Section: Why Is Scientific Knowledge Treated So Unscientifically?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Misunderstandings have been fueled by the internet, where neuroscientific research on dyslexia is frequently characterized by “distortions, simplifications, and misrepresentations” (Worthy, Godfrey, Tily, Daly‐Lesch, & Salmerón, 2019, p. 314). An absence of criticality reflects a form of neuroseduction, whereby neuroscientific accounts increase the likelihood that one will be persuaded by explanations or conclusions that are not justified by the facts (Fernandez‐Duque, Evans, Christian, & Hodges, 2015; Schwartz, Lilienfeld, Meca, & Sauvigné, 2016; Weisberg et al, 2015).…”
Section: Why Is Scientific Knowledge Treated So Unscientifically?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We found that the pages include some research-supported information as well as many inaccurate or misleading claims, often within the same page. Claims concerning visual symptoms, motor skills, and the right brain appear tied to early, now debunked, theories of dyslexia concerning visual perception and hemispheric dominance (Lindell & Kidd, 2011; Worthy, Godfrey et al, 2019). Common characteristics of early literacy learners, including challenges with rhyming, naming letters, and sounding out words, are identified as dyslexia warning signs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the quality and credibility of internet sources is variable, and common resources for evaluation have been widely critiqued (Breakstone et al, 2018). In an earlier study (Worthy, Godfrey et al, 2019), we analyzed internet information about dyslexia and the brain, finding that many sources included distortions and simplifications of neuroscience research, and some sources used this misinformation to bolster efficacy claims for “brain-based” interventions. Such findings are troublesome for educators and caregivers seeking to support students with reading challenges.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%