Research on homeschool versus public school

Homeschooling is an alternative education to public and private school that is increasing each year in the United States (Bielick, 2008). In 2007, 1.5 million students were homeschooled according to the National Center for Education Stastics -- a 74% relative increase from 1999 to 2007 (Bielick, 2008). In 2007, parents cited various reasons for choosing to homeschool:  Desires for religious or moral instruction (36%), concerns over school environment such as drugs, safety, or peer pressure (21%), discontent with school academics (17%), other reasons including family-time, finances, and travel (14%), desires for a nontraditional learning environment (7%), and because of a child’s health or special needs (6%) (Bielick, 2008). Educators, parents, and lawmakers take an interest in this segment of learning, often times disagreeing over the methods, results and rights. States are the governing arm that determines how parents can homeschool, and governments must work with educators and citizens to protect parental rights and the goals of educating it’s youth at the same time as meeting the state’s needs. This is a balance that requires an analysis of the research, including the positive aspects of homeschooling and not just the negative opinions and outlying cases of failure that reach the news media.
One educational researcher evaluated the academic achievements and demographic traits of homeschool students in a 2010 nationwide study, in hopes of providing more current information (Ray, 2010). Ray addressed an educational issue using qualitative and quantitative measures (Creswell, 2012). The study included  a large, nationwide sample of homeschooling students. The researcher conducted a review of literature noting the increase in homeschooling since 1970, when it was almost nonexistent to where it has reached almost two million in grades K through 12 (Ray, 2010). Ray (2010) identified various groups that have a concern in parent’s homeschooling – policymakers, educators, school administrators, and judges. The researcher used standardized test scores of academic achievement in various subjects; a total of 11,739 students responded across a broad target population (Ray, 2010). Statistical software was used for data analysis. The level of parental education (college and post-graduate) had an influence on the performance levels of the homeschooled students, with students of college graduates scoring higher, which is consistent with public school students (Ray, 2010). However, the scores for homeschooled students with parents who did not attend college were higher than their respective public school students and parents without college education. Major findings in achievement found that homeschooled student achievement test scores were notably higher than public school students in subtests and mean scores (which were at least 80th percentile) (Ray, 2010). Ray noted the limitations of the study were the cross section of homeschooled families, which may not be a cross section of all families in the United States (Ray, 2010).
Rothermel conducted a study in 2011 that provided insights into homeschooling by interviewing 100 United Kingdom-based homeschooling families (P. Rothermel, 2011). Interviews were conducted instead of questionnaires to gather more information that may not have come to light otherwise (P. Rothermel, 2011).  A review of the literature found a body of research, but none that included a large and extensive study size within the United Kingdom (P. Rothermel, 2011). The researcher was able to address previous research that identified “types” of parents who homeschool their children – “rebels, compensators, and competitors” – but found that due to the increase in the number of homeschoolers, these categories were no longer valid (P. Rothermel, 2011). The most recent UK study categorized homeschooling parents as “‘natural’, ‘social’, and ‘last resort’”(P. Rothermel, 2011). But the researcher of this study determined from her large sample that this was not valid either -- “Perhaps there is now, in the UK, too diverse a population pursuing home-education to be neatly categorized.” (P. Rothermel, 2011).
            Subjects were chosen using a broadly random approach from a previous questionnaire study of 1000 respondents (P. Rothermel, 2011). Parents came from a diverse socio-economic background, dispelling stereotypes (P. Rothermel, 2011).  Some of the topics discussed and addressed by the researcher included formal versus informal learning, tight structure versus disorganization, socialization and social effects,  and adaptation to children’s needs and the perceived moved from curriculum-centered to child-centered (P. Rothermel, 2011). Rothermel concluded that despite the UK government’s opinion “that home educated children were more likely to be receiving an unsuitable education and more likely to be at risk than children nationally” her research found otherwise (P. Rothermel, 2011).  This study noted other researchers who addressed government concerns, thinking that if they could determine the reasons parents homeschool, and address those needs, they would get homeschooled kids back where they should be – in government schools (P. Rothermel, 2011). This researcher felt a need to dispel the popularist thought that parents only homeschool because of school dissatisfaction. In this way, home education can be valued for other positives such as innovative approaches to learning (P. Rothermel, 2011).
            Rothermel conducted another study after the previous qualitative research of 1000 homeschooling families (P. J. Rothermel, 2012). In this study, the researcher addressed the assertion that homeschooled children are at risk of having psychological problems.  Using two different tests, the Revised Rutter Scale (RRS) and the Goodman Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), Rothermel (2012) studied 83 homeschooled children between the ages of 4 and 11. In the ‘total difficulties score’ both tests were consistent in finding that the homeschooler did not exhibit behavior problems. However there was a discrepancy on the prosocial scale between the two tests. The RSS test determined the children to be psychosocially healthy, but the other test, the SDQ found them experiencing problems. The researcher, in analyzing the data noted that the RSS has 50 questions and the SDQ only 25 questions, and that this may limit the quality of the SDQ for homeschooled children (P. J. Rothermel, 2012). The children identified as having a problem did not match the results of the previous interview results. Rothermel (2012) identified problems within the SDQ test with wording that may not apply to homeschooled children and thus interfere with valid results. Homeschooled children have been found to identify friends among a wide range of ages – even calling adults their friends (P. J. Rothermel, 2012). This may impact the wording of questions bout sharing with other children versus sharing with friends. While mature adults share with friends, they are not expected to share their belongings with strangers or acquaintances (P. J. Rothermel, 2012).  Other questions that created problems, according to Rothermel (2012) were the SDQ questions about the child ‘being nervous or clingy in new situations’. The word ‘obedient’ was to be correctly paired to ‘good’ for a perfect score (P. J. Rothermel, 2012). One student asked, “were the Nazis good?” (P. J. Rothermel, 2012). In conclusion, Rothermel (2012) suggested that educators and professionals should be cautioned in using the rating scales for homeschooled children. These standard scales are more likely standardized for public school children where a different type of behavior is expected (P. J. Rothermel, 2012).
            An exploratory quantitative study examined the college outcomes of homeschooled students compared to traditional students at a Midwest doctoral college of the United States (Cogan, 2010). A regression analysis revealed that homeschooled students at this college, earned  higher GPAs in the first and fourth year, when controlling for demographics, pre-college, engagement and first term academic factors (Cogan, 2010). A binary logistic regression analysis revealed that there was no difference between homeschooled students and traditional students in fall-to-fall retention rates and four-year gradation rates, controlling for the same factors (Cogan, 2010). Homeschooled students had higher ACT scores, GPAs and graduation rates in a descriptive analysis (Cogan, 2010). Two of the limiting factors of this study were the sample size of the homeschooled student (N=76) and only one institution (Cogan, 2010). Cogan (2010) recommended further research over a broader range of college institutions and a larger sample group.
            Homeschooling does not receive the support of all educators or policy makers. In fact, Robin West writes about her opinions in the harms of homeschooling (2009). It is an emotional subject for many, and in her opening paragraph, her emotional bias is evident in claiming that homeschooling has been used by “parents of special needs children, parents in isolated parts of the country who live far from any public schoolhouse, as well as a smattering of parents of circus performers…” (West, 2009). This is the beginning of her unprofessional slant on unregulated homeschooling. West recounts that research shows homeschooled students often outperform traditional students in academics, but alludes to the “lack of socialization, diversity, training for citizenship and so on” of homeschooled students (West, 2009). West did not conduct any research in this article, and did not cite any references, though she included sources at the end of her paper. She merely stated her opinion that homeschooling should be regulated by the states to include home visits to check on the quality of life, immunization requirements, testing requirements, and if not met, state intervention to enroll students in a certified public school (West, 2009). West advised that states mandate testing to give “the state a way to ensure that the children who should be college bound are being prepared for that path…”            (West, 2009). She did not explain how the state would determine who should be college bound or how states would finance such a venture.
            In contrast to the last article by West (2009), a group of researchers reported on the evidence for homeschooling in light of social science research and constitutional rights (Dumas, Gates, & Schwarzer, 2010).  Dumas, et al., referenced the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on how states should handle homeschooling cases – that regulation must not impact the fundamental constitutional rights of parents to direct their children’s education unless it is ‘reasonable’ (Dumas, Gates, & Schwarzer, 2010). Of concern to those against homeschooling is that homeschooling does not advance the interests of the state (Dumas, Gates, & Schwarzer, 2010). These researchers were able to show through empirical results, homeschoolers successfully advance the state goals of a productive, engaged and educated citizenry (Dumas, Gates, & Schwarzer, 2010).  “Therefore, if the regulations do not serve the state interest, they are unreasonable.”(Dumas, Gates, & Schwarzer, 2010). The researchers examined a California case where the state was considering that homeschool parents must have a teaching credential. They cited references that included the strata of homeschooling parents to include a wide range across an entire spectrum of incomes, race, religion, and political affiliation (Dumas, Gates, & Schwarzer, 2010).  The reasons for homeschooling were diverse, as well as the methods, and materials used for teaching (Dumas, et al., 2010).  Studies supporting the success of homeschool students were cited, supporting the stance that these groups of educated at-home citizens contribute to the states needs (Dumas, et al., 2010).  The researchers included studies and data that showed that homeschooled students’ achievement scores were not related to the level of state regulation (Dumas, et al., 2010).  More regulation in states did not improve test scores (Dumas, et al., 2010). In fact, parent credentialing did not have any impact on the quality of education or the outcome of the students’ achievement tests (Dumas, et al., 2010). 
            In continuing to look at the academic achievements of homeschooled students, Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse (2011) studied the outcomes of traditionally schooled students versus homeschooled students. Since parents often choose their own curriculum and methods of teaching, academic achievement scores will vary. Students in public schools are prepared for standardized tests each year, with teachers prepping their students with practice tests and learning methods (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011). The researchers presented previous results from studies conducted and in light of the lack of empirical investigations, proposed to compare the academic achievements of homeschooled children with public school children (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011).  Methods included using standardized tests administered by researchers to the two groups of students and conducted by an independent entity with no affiliations with homeschool organizations (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011). The researchers were careful to select their students for the two pools of subjects – 37 public school students and 37 homeschooled students between the ages of 5 and 10 years (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011). While the researchers made efforts to match the two groups from similar backgrounds, with parents of equal education, notable differences may have influenced their results. For example, 65% of the mothers of homeschooled children had college degrees versus 54% for public school educated children (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011). Mothers with postgraduate training differed as well – 11% of homeschooled children versus 30% of public school educated children (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011). The median income for the two groups was also significantly different. The researchers divided the homeschooled group into two subgroups of 1) structured learning and 2) unstructured learning. These two groups were not equal in size, 25 in the first group and 12 in the second. A questionnaire was used to determine demographics. The researchers were aware of the limitations in the study, the size of the sample, for example, but they continued to report on their results. They wanted to know if the two main groups differed in scores on standardized tests. Their results found that children homeschooled in a structured environment scored higher than the children enrolled in public school. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed, including all subtests as dependent variables and with the kind of school group as the independent variable (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011). Family income and education of the mother was accounted for in the MANOVA and found not to be an influence in the final results (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011). The researchers used exploratory analyses to understand the differences in educational achievement between the structured homeschoolers and the unstructured (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011).  Because of the sample size of this group of unstructured homeschoolers, the results were not statistically significant, even though it showed that they scored below their equivalent public schooled students (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011). Of course this is to be expected, and does not rule out the abilities of these students ability to perform at the same level as public school students given the opportunity to learn the information and how to test. However, this information could prove important to homeschooling parents when selecting a curriculum and method of teaching. Structured homeschoolers outperformed the public school students and showed to be rated at higher-grade levels than their public school comparisons (Martin-Chang, Gould, & Meuse, 2011).
            Homeschooling continues to increase in numbers each year, and it is expected to draw attention from educators, colleges, and policy makers at the national and state level. While it is important to provide research about homeschooled students, results are often skewed by policy makers that seem to have a preconceived opinion of the parents who embrace homeschooling. The articles that were published in law journals summarized findings of educators and psychologists who conducted research. There seems to be a great divide between the educators who want to genuinely understand the homeschooling phenomenon and provide the research and the lawmakers who want to keep the status quo of public school. Lawmakers are not conducting studies, but instead finding information that supports their claims. Before 1970 there were few parents who embarked on the homeschooling journey, but as the numbers increase, states become more interested in protecting their rights. While the government schools struggle with issues of school safety and meeting the needs of the many, parents have stepped in to provide solutions for their own families by homeschooling. Even though it is not a choice that all will make, parents choices for their children are a fundamental right under the constitution. Research will continue and as homeschool students graduate from college with higher degrees and contribute to society in a satisfactory way, their numbers will help dispel disbelief. There will always be an outlying statistic where homeschooling is failing, but that will be the case within the public school system as well. Education is one of the important aspects of a productive society and citizens and parents will always have an interest in creating the best scenarios for learning – which will be as varied as the people.


Bielick, S. (2008). 1.5 million homeschooled students in the united states in 2007. (). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education (National Center for Education Statistics).

Cogan, M. F. (2010). Exploring academic outcomes of homeschooled students. Journal of College Admission, (208), 18-25. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=52253079&site=eds-live

Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Dumas, T. K., Gates, S., & Schwarzer, D. R. (2010). Evidence, for homeschooling: Constitutional analysis in light of social science research. Widener Law Review, 16(1), 63-87. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=502141523&site=eds-live

Martin-Chang, S., Gould, O. N., & Meuse, R. E. (2011). The impact of schooling on academic achievement: Evidence from homeschooled and traditionally schooled students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 43(3), 195-202. doi: 10.1037/a0022697

Ray, B. D. (2010). Academic achievement and demographic traits of homeschool students: A nationwide study. Academic Leadership (15337812), 8(1), 1-26. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=57804347&site=eds-live

Rothermel, P. (2011). Setting the record straight: Interviews with a hundred british home educating families. Journal of Unschooling & Alternative Learning, 5(10), 20-57. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=82214991&site=eds-live

Rothermel, P. (2012). Home educated children's psychological well being. Estudios Sobre Educacion, (22), 13-36. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=77896038&site=eds-live

West, R. L. (2009). The harms of homeschooling. Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly, 29(3), 7-12. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=504307071&site=eds-live


What if We Look at the Positive Aspects of Dsylexia?

Students with dyslexia often feel inferior and not as smart as their peers (Burden, 2008). One of the first educational concepts for young children is learning how to read. If this first feat is met with difficulty and a lack of understanding from teachers and among peers, the young student may begin to feel discouraged (Glazzard, 2009).  Even if a teacher or parent can identify the problem early enough to intervene, the child often becomes labeled. Children with dyslexia are identified as “learning-disabled” and often suffer from low self-esteem and under-achievement ( Gibson & Kendall, 2010). Further complicating the matter is the fact that research in the diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia remains controversial (Smythe, 2011). Some researchers define dyslexia as being developmental and possibly hereditary, experimenting with genetic mapping (Smythe, 2011). With confusion over the definition of dyslexia, schools differ in their understanding of it and their methods of intervention (Smythe, 2011). A 2010 study examined pre-service teachers’ knowledge of and beliefs about dyslexia, finding that there was confusion and misinformation about it (Ness & Southall, 2010).  Only 4% of the pre-service teachers were aware that dyslexic students had normal or above normal intelligence (Ness, 2010). When a Texas school system learned that students with dyslexia had normal or above average IQs they decided to keep them on task within the regular classroom, adding an additional class for dyslexia intervention (Culbertson, 2012).
Researchers report that teachers have an influence in their students’ confidence level – and negative treatment of pupils with dyslexia lowers self-esteem (Glazzard, 2010). Studies have found that students with dyslexia have suffered teasing and bullying when they cannot read well, further contributing to problems of confidence (Glazzard, 2010). Dyslexic children who have supportive and good relationships with their parents have been shown to have a high level of self worth (Terras, et al, 2009).  There seems to be a strong connection between self –esteem and academic success as noted by Rhodes & Nevill, 2004; Pollak, 2005 in Gibson & Kendall (2010).
The literature on dyslexia has not addressed the possibility of improving self-esteem and scholarly performance of dyslexic children by omitting the classification of dyslexia as a disability and calling dyslexia a different way the brain processes information that requires a different learning style for reading, but has positive aspects in other areas of learning. Studies that measured the spatial ability of children in a real-life spatial test, found that dyslexic children performed statistically higher than children without dyslexia (Attree, et. Al, 2009). By looking at the giftedness of dyslexia, and approaching reading and spelling as requiring more training, perhaps those with dyslexia will learn to read, write and spell without the stigma of feeling stupid or disabled. What is the impact of labeling kids with dyslexia as being intelligent, with a different learning style instead of classifying them as having a learning “disability” in school settings? There’s a possibility that treating them as “gifted” in some areas of processing data, rather than handicapped in all educational pursuits may positively influence a dyslexic child’s self-esteem and improve his confidence. The purpose of this proposed study is to explore the impact of treating kids with dyslexia as not “disabled” as part of the dyslexic intervention in education. What if teachers begin to see dyslexia as a different way that intelligent children process information, requiring reading intervention from traditional methods? What if students with dyslexia are taught that dyslexia requires different learning methods for reading, but also has positive attributes in areas of spatial learning? What if parents of children with dyslexia learn that their children are gifted in some areas and yet require different methods of learning for reading? How will students with dyslexia feel about their ability to be successful when they view it as a difference instead of a disability? How will teachers see their dyslexic students when viewed in light of being gifted in other areas of learning?
Burden (2008) reviewed the literature associating dyslexia with negative feelings of self-worth and noted that while there is strong evidence that there is a relationship between dyslexia and a “low academic self-concept, there are also signs that this relationship is by no means immutable.” (p. 194). In 2005, Burden followed 50 dyslexic adolescent boys that attended a specialist school for dyslexics. He found that at first the boys academic self-concept was lower than those in the mainstream sample, but as they attended the school and improved in their reading skills, their self-concept increased as well. He noted that these boys developed a high degree of self-efficacy. When he looked at the school situation in which the boys were being taught Burden reported that it was focused on success in effort and agency (Burden, 2009). He concluded that research in this area is needed to better understand how those with dyslexia develop a positive or negative view of themselves (Burden, 2009).
A study in 2009 – 2010, looked at how students with dyslexia feel about the transition to higher education, as commissioned by the Higher Education Academy of Britain (Gibson & Kendall, 2010). In the course of the study they gathered information from their respondents about how dyslexia impacted their self-esteem and academic achievement in their school experiences (Gibson, 2010). Four first-year college students with dyslexia were followed by the researchers to identify how they internalize their disability within an academic setting. They based their direction on works that have pointed out the lack of information about how dyslexic students handle their learning from the dyslexics point-of-view rather than from a neuropsychological viewpoint (Gibson, 2010).  One student commented that she was not diagnosed with dyslexia until her first year at college, and looking back at her school years, she saw that it was there. She preferred to call it a “learning difficulty” that was created by the educational system (Gibson, 2010). The school always said she was doing fine, but in her personal life she reported working longer hours, attending after school sessions, and pushing herself. It is interesting to note that she had plenty of drive to do well, and that although she recognized that she had to study harder, she did not see herself as disabled, even though teachers said she would never get higher than a C or D in English. This is a two-edged sword, in that she escaped the label, but did not receive the instruction that could have helped her achieve her goals easier. Students at the Texas school who were identified with dyslexia were given alternate methods of learning within the classroom: books on tape, buddy-readers or books with highlighted text (Culbertson, 2012). Teachers modified assignments for their dyslexic students, using mind-mapping instead of formal essays (Culbertson, 2012). Gibson (2010) reported on another student who said that when she was in school, they moved her into classes that were identified with students who did not do well in their courses. She explained that the educational system, the teachers, made the decisions about her direction and made her take the lower academic track without sciences and foreign languages – the track that peers said were for people who are “dumb and stuff.” (Gibson, p. 190, 2010). Another student had positive experiences with a teacher in secondary school. She reported that her teacher always knew that she would be coming up for help after an assignment, and instead of becoming irritated with her, looked forward to the time to help her. This student shared that the teacher would bring tea and coffee, and make it a positive experience – “it made me feel really better, I never felt self-conscious or anything, they were always more than happy to help me…” (Gibson, p. 190, 2010).  
The early diagnosis of dyslexia appears to be essential for a positive outcome – both self-esteem and academic success (Glazzard, 2010). But it is not just the diagnosis that helps, it is how it is handled by the students, the parents, and the teachers. Some students became aware of their difficulty while in school, amongst peers – either reading aloud in class, spelling or writing. Often they compared themselves to other students in a negative light, feeling stupid or inferior (Glazzard, 2010). The importance of early detection comes out with another student who explained that he was disappointed with his inability to write when compared to his peers, and thus just “gave-up,” not doing his work (Glazzard, 2010). He knew he would fail, so he didn’t do the work. Later when he was diagnosed with dyslexia he realized there was no point in purposely avoiding assignments (Glazzard, 2010). Students with dyslexia reported feeling isolated because they could not keep up and were always last to finish their work (Glazzard, 2010). There was significant influence by the teachers of these dyslexic students. Some of the students reported that teachers humiliated them in front of class and told their parents that they were too slow (Glazzard, 2010). This negatively impacted the children with dyslexia. Whereas those students who had teachers that supported them and understood their needs and difficulties, reported feeling better about themselves. One student reported that her teacher would print things up for her instead of requiring her to copy questions down – she still had to answer the questions, and she did the work, responding, “I’m not lazy,” – a positive outlook (Glazzard, 2010).
That students with dyslexia may have positive qualities that can be emphasized is in need of further research. Attree, et. al (2009) studied the visual spatial strengths of adolescents with dyslexia and found they had a superior ability when compare to those without dyslexia. By focusing on the whole person and approaching dyslexia intervention in a holistic manner, students and teachers may have a more positive and successful outcome. Researchers have speculated that dyslexia may include enhancements in other cognitive functions that control visual spatial abilities, creativity and artistic talents (Attree, et. al, 2009). Children with dyslexia performed significantly higher than children without dyslexia in real-life spatial tests that measured their spatial recognition memory (Attree, 2009).  This may indicate that people with dyslexia have superior talents in some real-world tasks (Attree, 2009). The researchers noted that the test was given on computer and was more engaging than a pencil and paper task – suggesting further research is needed to see if children with dyslexia perform better with interesting and exciting spatial assessments (Attree, 2009). There seems to be a need to look for the positive aspects of dyslexics – “holistic, 3D thinking and problem solving, keeping the big picture in mind, and often do well on tasks with spatial components.” (Attree, p. 167, 2009). Dyslexia may contribute to creative ability (Gobbo, 2012). This knowledge would help develop an approach to learning that addresses the needs of students with dyslexia and improve their overall self-esteem. By providing students with the whole picture of learning something, and not just the parts, teachers will be addressing the learning styles of this often left-out group of students.


Attree, E. A., Turner, M. J., & Cowell, N. (2009). A virtual reality test identifies the visuospatial strengths of adolescents with dyslexia. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 12(2), 163-168. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0204

Burden, R. (2008). Is dyslexia necessarily associated with negative feelings of self-worth? A review and implications for future research. Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 14(3), 188-196. doi: 10.1002/dys.371

Culbertson, D. (2012). Uncovering the many misconceptions of dyslexia. CEDER Yearbook, , 51-65. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67714829&site=eds-live

GIBSON, S., & KENDALL, L. (2010). Stories from school: Dyslexia and learners' voices on factors impacting on achievement. Support for Learning, 25(4), 187-193. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2010.01465.x

GLAZZARD, J. (2010). The impact of dyslexia on pupils' self-esteem. Support for Learning, 25(2), 63-69. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2010.01442.x

Gobbo, K. (2010). Dyslexia and creativity: The education and work of robert rauschenberg. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(3), 2-2. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=53909988&site=eds-live

Ness, M. K., & Southall, G. (2010). Preservice teachers' knowledge of and beliefs about dyslexia. Journal of Reading Education, 36(1), 36-43. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=57311383&site=eds-live

Smythe, I. (2011). Dyslexia. British Journal of Hospital Medicine (London, England: 2005), 72(1), 39-43. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mnh&AN=21240117&site=eds-live

University of Michigan. (2013). University of michigan development of language and literacy, dyslexia help starts here. Retrieved January/18, 2013, from http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/

Yale center for dyslexia and creativity. (2013). Retrieved January/2013, 2013, from http://dyslexia.yale.edu/

Disqus for Online Learning