Estão os futuros professores a ser preparados para detetar e lidar com as dificuldades na aprendizagem da leitura?

Abstract

In this presentation we will address how prospective Portuguese teachers are being prepared to teach students with difficulties in learning to read and write. Reading and writing are the first, and most probably, the most important mission of school. Therefore, teacher training for detecting the students who are struggling to learn to read and write and helping them to overcome their difficulties is determinant to improve the educational system efficiency and raise students’ literacy levels (e.g., Moats, 2014, 2020; Petscher et al. 2020). In Portugal, in spite of the consistent improvement across the years of students performance in reading, the number of low performers is still high. In the last PISA edition, in 2018, around 20% of students didn’t reach level two in literacy. Data from PIRLS reveal a similar percentage of 9-10 years-old students with reading difficulties (IAVE, 2017; Lourenço et al., 2018). These are worrying data when extrapolating the total number of young Portuguese people who in 2018 may not have reached an elementary level of reading competence: around 20,692 individuals (DGEEC, 2020). Moreover, this is a matter of concern because in the long-term although it is not impossible, it is unlikely that low performers will recover or that make significant progress in their reading and writing abilities as revealed by longitudinal studies (e.g., Gustafsson, 2016): performance in PISA is strongly correlated to performance in PIAAC (r = 0.70) and this relation persists even when the attained level of schooling (β = 0.55) and the countries’ level of social and cultural development (β = 0.48) are introduced as covariant. The comprehensive reviews published in different countries reveal a strong scientific consensus, clarify part of the hotly contested issues on how best to teach reading and writing and present a significant body of reliable knowledge that is essential for educators to teach effectively and help those who have difficulties in learning to read and write (e.g., Castles, Rastle Nation, 2018; Education Endowment Foundation, 2018, 202; National Reading Panel, 2000; Petscher et al., 2020; Rayner et al., 2001; Rose, 2006; Rowe, 2005). Knowing the most common profiles of learning difficulties and the factors that can hamper reading acquisition is essential to identify at risk students. Teachers also need to know how to assess student’s performance in order to understand how each learner is evolving and how to help those who are struggling to learn (e.g., Castles, Rastle & Nation, 2018; Moats, 2014, 2020; Petscher et al., 2020). In this study we focused on one part of teacher preparation: the content and pedagogical knowledge that is necessary to effectively address the difficulties in reading and writing acquisition. We analyzed the study plans of the undergraduate programs in Basic Education and masters degrees required for teaching in primary school to identify i) the courses related to the cognitive processes involved in learning to read and to special educational needs, ii) the courses of specific didactics and iii) the courses related to clinical practice at the undergraduate and post-graduate level. The last two sets of courses are relevant because the development of pedagogical skills requires the opportunity to observe more experienced teachers and to practice teaching students with different levels of performance, including those with specific learning difficulties (e.g., Boyd et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Feiman Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Hudson et al., 2021; Jensen et al., 2016). Undergraduate programs in Basic Education (n=20) and master’s degrees (n=40) from public Universities and Polytechnic Institutes were analyzed, as well as undergraduate programs (n=5) and master’s degrees (n=12) from private HEIs. The objectives, syllabus contents and evaluation of each course were examined to verify to what extent the learning difficulties in reading and writing are studied. The documentary analysis was complemented with case studies. Course coordinators and professors from different HEIs, responsible for teaching at different CUs, were interviewed. Most courses do not address learning difficulties in reading and writing. This omission, found in the documentary analysis, was confirmed by the interviewees, and justified with the following arguments: the option to address other contents (e.g., other disorders that compromise cognitive and motor development); the dependence on students’ ability to identify learners with difficulties in learning to read and write; and school practices (e.g., working individually or in small groups with special education teachers).