Abstract
Teachers are the foundational component of the educational system, yet many enter the classroom without adequate knowledge of dyslexia -- a specific learning disability affecting up to 17.5% of the student population. Despite growing legislative mandates requiring teacher training on dyslexia, recent research confirms that misconceptions and knowledge gaps persist among both preservice and inservice teachers, and the question of which professional development models most effectively address those gaps remains largely unanswered. This study compared three two-hour professional development approaches -- simulation only, lecture only, and a mixed-method combining both -- using a quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test design with 58 elementary general education teachers. Results from a repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that simulation-only training produced significantly less declarative knowledge gain than either lecture-only or mixed-method training. Lecture-only and mixed-method approaches produced comparable, statistically significant knowledge increases. With 49 states now carrying some form of dyslexia legislation, these findings offer practical, evidence-based guidance for educators, administrators, and policymakers selecting cost- and time-effective dyslexia training models.
Recommended Citation
Steltenkamp, Kayla
(2026)
"What Works for Dyslexia Training? A Comparative Study of Three Professional Development Approaches for Elementary General Education Teachers,"
Kentucky Teacher Education Journal: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Kentucky Council for Exceptional Children: Vol. 12:
Iss.
2, Article 5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.61611/2995-5904.1084
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/ktej/vol12/iss2/5
Included in
Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Special Education and Teaching Commons, Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons