University Instruction on Dyslexia: Implication of Legislative Bill 1052
Advisor Information
Amanda Kern
Location
MBSC 201
Presentation Type
Poster
Start Date
6-3-2020 2:00 PM
End Date
6-3-2020 3:15 PM
Abstract
Legislative Bill 1052 (April 2018) aims to improve teacher and teacher candidates understanding of dyslexia, in the state of Nebraska. The purpose of this study was to examine efficacy of Legislative Bill 1052, as well as identify possible limitations. Participants were enrolled in UNO undergraduate teacher preparation and speech-language pathology programs. Participants completed a survey assessing the three areas Bill 1052 address, including education on: evidence-based intervention, characteristics of dyslexia, and best practices for literacy education. Responses were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively to address the following questions: (A.) The effectiveness of Bill 1052 in promoting knowledge of dyslexia in each of the three contexts identified in the bill. (B.) If teacher program students’ knowledge improved, was it improved enough for these future professionals to effectively serve students with dyslexia? (C.) Is it valid to integrate speech-language pathology candidates into this mandate? (D.) Identify possible themes which may implicate ways this bill may be improved in order to derive explicit instruction to better prepare future educators when serving this population.
University Instruction on Dyslexia: Implication of Legislative Bill 1052
MBSC 201
Legislative Bill 1052 (April 2018) aims to improve teacher and teacher candidates understanding of dyslexia, in the state of Nebraska. The purpose of this study was to examine efficacy of Legislative Bill 1052, as well as identify possible limitations. Participants were enrolled in UNO undergraduate teacher preparation and speech-language pathology programs. Participants completed a survey assessing the three areas Bill 1052 address, including education on: evidence-based intervention, characteristics of dyslexia, and best practices for literacy education. Responses were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively to address the following questions: (A.) The effectiveness of Bill 1052 in promoting knowledge of dyslexia in each of the three contexts identified in the bill. (B.) If teacher program students’ knowledge improved, was it improved enough for these future professionals to effectively serve students with dyslexia? (C.) Is it valid to integrate speech-language pathology candidates into this mandate? (D.) Identify possible themes which may implicate ways this bill may be improved in order to derive explicit instruction to better prepare future educators when serving this population.