Advertisement

Annals of Dyslexia

, 43:186 | Cite as

Spelling improvement for college students who are dyslexic

  • Barbara Priddy Guyer
  • Steven R. Banks
  • Kenneth E. Guyer
Part II In the classroom and beyond

Abstract

Academic problems of the dyslexic child often persist in adult life. Such problems as spelling can interfere with the performance of such adult learners in college. Federal legislation requires reasonable accommodation for these students. At some colleges, this consists of allowing use of tape recorders in lectures and sometimes allowing extra time on examinations. Remediation of reading, writing, and spelling among dyslexic college students is often not addressed. This study reports the use of a modified Orton-Gillingham approach in comparison with a nonphonetic approach and with a group receiving no remediation. The results indicate a significant increase in spelling performance for the group receiving the modified Orton-Gillingham remediation. This contrasts with no significant change in the group receiving nonphonetic remediation and in the control group (no remediation), and indicates that adulthood is not too late for appropriate intervention for the dyslexic student. Colleges offering such intervention and the students receiving it will benefit from improved performance.

Keywords

Learn Disability Dyslexia Dyslexic Child Reasonable Accommodation Spelling Performance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bruck, M. 1985. The adult functioning of children with specific language disabilities: A follow-up study.In I. Siegel (ed.).Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology. New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
  2. Bruck, M. 1987. The adult outcomes of children with learning disabilities.Annals of Dyslexia 37: 252–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crank, J. N. 1985. Crucial learning and instructional skills for skill-deficient college students. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. MF01/PC01.Google Scholar
  4. Dalke, C. 1988. Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Test Battery profiles: A comparative study of college freshmen with and without learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities 21(9): 567–570.Google Scholar
  5. Enfield, M. L. and Greene, V. E. 1983. An evaluation of the results of standardized testing of elementary Project Read and SLD students based on district-wide tests administered in October, 1983. Bloomington, MN: Bloomington Public Schools.Google Scholar
  6. Finucci, J., Gottfredson, L., and Childs, B. 1985. A follow-up study of dyslexic boys.Annals of Dyslexia 35:117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gerber, P., Schneiders, C., Paradise, L., and Reiff, H. 1990. Persisting problems of adults with learning disabilities: Self-reported comparisons from their school-age and adult years.Journal of learning Disabilities 23(9): 570–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gillingham, A. and Stillman, B. 1960.Remedial Training for Children with Specific Disabilities in Reading, Spelling, and Penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  9. Goodman, B. 1987.Spelling Power. Providence, RI: Jamestown Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Guyer, B. P. 1985. Higher education for learning disabled college students: They deserve it. Clearinghouse on Higher Education/ERIC.Google Scholar
  11. Guyer, B. P. and Sabatino, D. 1989. The effectiveness of a multisensory alphabetic phonetic approach with college students who are learning disabled.Journal of Learning Disabilities 22(7): 430–434.Google Scholar
  12. Hallahan, D. and Kauffman, J. 1991.Exceptional Children: Introduction to special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Jastak, S. and Wilkinson, G. S. 1984.Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Joyner, S. P. (ed.). 1986. SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers (6th ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Lerner, J. 1988.Learning Disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  16. Liberman, I. and Shankweiler, D. 1985. Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write.Remedial and Special Education 6: 8–17.Google Scholar
  17. Mangrum, C. T. and Strichart, S. S. 1984.College and the Learning Disabled Student. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
  18. Mercer, C. and Mercer, A. R. 1987.Teaching Students with Learning Problems (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  19. O’Hearn, C. 1989. Recognizing the learning disabled college writer.College English 51(3): 294–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reinhardtsen, J. M. 1982. Special education courses for the learning disabled: Alternative techniques for teaching special education and education courses to learning disabled students in the university. Ellensburg, Washington: Central Washington University.Google Scholar
  21. Traub, N. 1982. Reading, spelling, handwriting: Traub systematic holistic method.Annals of Dyslexia 32:135–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wechsler, D. 1981.Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, B. 1988.The Wilson Reading System. Hopedale, MA: Educomp Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Zink, K. E. 1982. Let me try to make it clearer: Alternative techniques for teaching traditional English grammar to learning disabled students in the university. Ellensburg, Wash.: Central Washington University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Dyslexia Association 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Priddy Guyer
    • 1
  • Steven R. Banks
    • 1
  • Kenneth E. Guyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Marshall UniversityHuntington

Personalised recommendations