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.
AdamsM. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.
2.
AlsemM.AusemsF.VerhoefM.JongmansM.Meily-VisserJ.KetelaarM. (2016). Information seeking by parents of children with physical disabilities: An exploratory qualitative study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 60, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.11.015
3.
AnnammaS.ConnorD.FerriB. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
4.
BaglieriS.ValleJ. W.ConnorD. J.GallagherD. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510362200
5.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (HolquistM.EmersonC. Trans.). University of Texas Press.
BearD.TempletonS.InvernizziM.JohnstonF. (2011). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Prentice Hall.
8.
BishopD. (2013). Research review: Emanuel Miller memorial lecture 2012—Neuroscientific studies of intervention for language impairment in children: Interpretive and methodological problems. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 54(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12034
9.
BlakesleeS. (2004). The CRAAP Test. LOEX Quarterly, 31(3), 6–7.
BreakstoneJ.McGrewS.SmithM.OrtegaT.WineburgS. (2018, March). Why we need a new approach to teaching digital literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 99, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718762419
CassarM.TreimanR.MoatsL.PolloT.KesslerB. (2005). How do the spellings of children with dyslexia compare with those of nondyslexic children?Reading and Writing, 18, 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-004-2345-x
16.
ComptonD.MillerA.EllemanA.SteacyL. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability?Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.836200
ErevellesN. (2000). Educating unruly bodies: Critical pedagogy, disability studies, and the politics of schooling. Educational Theory, 50(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00025.x
30.
FrankelK.PearsonP.NairM. (2010). Reading comprehension and reading disability. In McGill-FranzenA.AllingtonR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 219–231). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203853016-30
31.
GabrielR. (2019). Converting to privatization: A discourse analysis of dyslexia policy narratives. American Educational Research Journal, 57(1), 305–338. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219861945
32.
GillinghamA.StillmanB. (2014). The Gillingham Manual: Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship (8th ed.). Educators Publishing Service.
HoffmanJ.DuffyG. (2016). Does thoughtfully adaptive teaching actually exist? A challenge to teacher educators. Theory Into Practice, 55(3), 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1173999
36.
HrubyG.GoswamiU. (2011). Neuroscience and reading: A review for reading education researchers. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(2), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.2.4
LeeJ.Al OtaibaS. (2017). End-of-kindergarten spelling outcomes: How can spelling error analysis data inform beginning reading instruction?Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1165639
40.
LindellA.KiddE. (2011). Why right-brain teaching is half-witted: A critique of the misapplication of neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(3), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01120.x
41.
LockiewiczM.BogdanowiczK. M.BogdanowiczM. (2014). Psychological resources of adults with developmental dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413478663
42.
MalchowH. (2014). Structured literacy: A new term to unify us and sell what we do. International Dyslexia Association. https://dyslexiaida.org/ida-approach/
43.
MandaliosJ. (2013). RADAR: An approach for helping student evaluate Internet sources. Journal of Information Sciences, 39(4), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513478889
McGrewS.BreakstoneJ.OrtegaT.SmithM.WineburgS. (2018). Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320
46.
MetzgerM.FlanaginA. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(Part B), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
MoatsL. (1983). A comparison of the spelling errors of older dyslexic and second-grade normal children. Annals of Dyslexia, 33, 121–140.
50.
MoatsL.LyonG. (1993). Learning disabilities in the states: Advocacy, science, and the future of the field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(5), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949302600501
51.
MorrisR.LovettM.WolfM. (2012). Multiple-component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355472
52.
MorsonG. (2004). The process of ideological becoming. In BallA.FreedmanS. (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 317–332). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755002.016
NassiriM.Bruce-BrandR.O’NeillF.ChenouriS.CurtinP. (2014). Surfing for hip replacements: Has the “Internet tidal wave” led to better quality information?The Journal of Arthroplasty, 29(7), 1339–1344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.009
PetersL.AnsariD. (2019). Are specific learning disorders truly specific, and are they disorders?Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 17, 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2019.100115
ReidD.ValleJ. (2004). The discursive practice of learning disability: Implications for instruction and parent-school relations. Journal of Learning Disability, 37(6), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370060101
RitcheyK.GoekeJ. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400030501
71.
RosenbergJ.PenningtonB.WillcuttE.OlsonR. (2012). Gene by environment interactions influencing reading disability and the inattentive symptom dimension of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(3), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02452.x
ScanlonD.AndersonK.SweeneyJ. (2017). Early intervention for reading difficulties: The interactive strategies approach. Guilford.
74.
ShaywitzS. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. Alfred A. Knopf. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126492
75.
ShaywitzS.EscobarM.ShaywitzB.FletcherJ.MakuchR. (1992). Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability. The New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199201163260301
SleeterC. E. (1987). Why is there learning disabilities? A critical analysis of the birth of the field with its social context. In PopkewitzT. (Ed.), The formation of school subjects: The struggle for creating an American institution (pp. 210–237). Palmer Press.
79.
SnowlingM. (2013). Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: A contemporary view. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01262.x
St. PierreE. (2006). Scientifically-based research in education: Epistemology and ethics. Adult Education Quarterly, 56(4), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713606289025
TanakaH.BlackJ.HulmeC.StanleyL.KeslerS.Whitfield-GabrieliS.HoeftF. (2011). The brain basis of the phonological deficit in dyslexia is independent of IQ. Association for Psychological Science, 22(11), 1442–1451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611419521
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities?The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030301
89.
VellutinoF.FletcherJ.SnowlingM.ScanlonD. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x
90.
VellutinoF.ScanlonD. (2002). Research for the future: The interactive strategies approach to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(4), 573–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00002-4
91.
WashburnE. K.JoshiR. M.Binks-CantrellE. S. (2011). Teacher knowledge of basic language concepts and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 17(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.426
WineburgS.McGrewS. (2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information (Stanford History Education Group Working Paper No. 2017-A1). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3048994
97.
WorthyJ.GodfreyV.TilyS.Daly-LeschA.SalmerónC. (2019). Simple answers and quick fixes: Dyslexia and the brain on the Internet. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 68(1), 314–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336919870265
98.
WorthyJ.SalmerónC.LongS. L.LammertC.GodfreyV. (2018). “Wrestling with the politics and ideology”: Teacher educators’ responses to dyslexia discourse and legislation. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 67(1), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336918786889
99.
WorthyJ.SvrcekN.Daly-LeschA.TilyS. (2018). “We know for a fact”: Dyslexia interventionists and the power of authoritative discourse. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(3), 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X18784759
100.
WorthyJ.VillarrealD.GodfreyV.DeJulioS.StefanskiA.LeitzeA.CooperJ. (2017). A critical analysis of dyslexia legislation in three states. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66(1), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336917718501
YoumanM.MatherN. (2018, Spring). Dyslexia laws in the USA: A 2018 update. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 37–41.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
