Reading Horizons recaps this episode to highlight what educators, parents, and literacy advocates can learn from one young man’s journey through dyslexia—and the mother who walked it with him.

A Story of Early Struggles and Discovery

Bridger’s story begins with early signs that reading and writing were not coming easily. Diagnosed with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia, Bridger’s academic journey often felt like a mismatch with how his brain worked. What emerged, however, was a remarkable ability to tell stories and connect emotionally with others through imagination and creativity.

Donell shares the emotional complexities of parenting a child who was misunderstood in school, even by educators who were aware of his diagnosis. She reflects on moments of helplessness, advocacy, and ultimately, pride in watching Bridger find his own voice.

From Misunderstood Learner to Emerging Writer

A powerful thread throughout the episode is Bridger’s lifelong connection to storytelling. Unable to access reading easily as a child, he developed a sharp sense of narrative and emotional tone by listening—and by telling stories himself. His mother recalls his early stories beginning with, “I’m going to tell you something you don’t know that is mostly true,” a phrase that captures both his curiosity and creativity.

Bridger discusses how, despite remediation and progress, he still felt like he straddled two worlds: not fully part of the dyslexic community anymore, but still different from typical learners. This in-between space, while sometimes isolating, has also fueled his creative drive.

Key Themes from the Conversation

This episode touches on several essential themes for educators and families:

Recognizing the Emotional Impact of Dyslexia

Dyslexia is more than a reading difficulty—it affects how students see themselves. Misunderstanding and under-support can lead to lasting emotional scars, as Bridger shares from his own experience.

The Power of Supportive Intervention

Donell credits intensive, early intervention—including sessions at the University of Utah Reading Clinic—as critical to Bridger’s success. Their story is a testament to the life-changing power of timely and evidence-based instruction.

Storytelling as Survival and Self-Expression

For Bridger, storytelling became a way to connect, be seen, and work through the world. He references story expert Brian McDonald as a mentor figure whose work helped him articulate what he had long understood intuitively: that story is about survival, teaching, and truth.

Viewing Struggling Readers Through a Different Lens

One of the episode’s strongest messages is that “different is not deficient.” Students who struggle with reading may be telling stories we don’t yet know how to hear.

Books and Resources Mentioned

• Brian McDonald – Bridger discusses how McDonald’s work helped him make sense of storytelling. McDonald is the author of:
  • Invisible Ink: A Practical Guide to Building Stories That Resonate (link)
  • The Golden Theme: How to Make Your Writing Appeal to the Highest Common Denominator (link)
  • Future of Storytelling Podcast with Brian McDonald (link)
• International Dyslexia Association (IDA) – Resource for understanding the definition and indicators of dyslexia. Visit IDA
• National Center on Improving Literacy – Evidence-based information on supporting dyslexic learners. Visit NCIL

Takeaways for Educators and Parents

• Students with dyslexia often experience school as emotionally challenging—even with support.
• Literacy instruction should be paired with empathy and attention to emotional development.
• Creative strengths may show up early and outside of traditional academic tasks.
• Understanding a student’s full story can lead to better connection and more effective teaching.

Listen to the Episode

To hear the full conversation, listen to Episode 13 of Literacy Talks:
Through the Eyes of Dyslexia: A Mother-Son Story
Listen here

This episode is a reminder that literacy is not just about reading—it’s about connection, compassion, and hearing the full story behind the learner.

The post The Emotional Impact of Dyslexia: A Mother-Son Conversation on Literacy Talks appeared first on Reading Horizons.

DYSLEXIA FACTS

Dyslexia ≠ low intelligence.

Many mistakenly link dyslexia to low intelligence. Research shows dyslexia is a unique brain organization with its own strengths and challenges, and it should never be associated with a lack of intelligence, talent, or effort. (Wolf et al., 2023)

Dyslexia affects 15–20% of the population.

Dyslexia is the most common learning difference. (National Library of Medicine, 2023) Characteristics include slow or inaccurate reading, poor spelling or writing, or mixing up similar words. (IDA Fact Sheet, 2020) 

Dyslexia is often hereditary. 

Parents with dyslexia are more likely to have children with dyslexia. “A child with an affected parent has a 40–60% risk of developing dyslexia. This risk increases when other family members are also affected.” (Schumacher et al., 2007)

Students with dyslexia can learn to read.

Research shows that students with dyslexia can learn to read when instruction aligns with these principles: 

• Explicit and Systematic
• Phonics-Based
• Multimodal
• Individualized
• Consistent and Frequent
• Emotionally Reinforcing

(Lovett et al., 2017; Lyon, G. R., & Goldberg, M., 2023; Morris et al., 2012)

References

• Wolf, M., Gotlieb, R. J. M., Kim, S. A., Pedroza, V., Rhinehart, L. V., Tempini, M. L. G., & Sears, S. (2024). Towards a dynamic, comprehensive conceptualization of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 74(3), 303–324. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-45803-001 
• Schumacher J, Hoffmann P, Schmäl C, Schulte-Körne G, Nöthen MM. Genetics of dyslexia: the evolving landscape. J Med Genet. 2007 May;44(5):289-97. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2006.046516. Epub 2007 Feb 16. PMID: 17307837; PMCID: PMC2597981. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17307837/ 
• Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181 
• Lyon, G. R., & Goldberg, M. (2023). Scientific research and structured literacy. Perspectives.
• Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Sevcik, R. A., Steinbach, K. A., Frijters, J. C., & Shapiro, M. B. (2012). Multiple-component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355472 

The post Dyslexia Facts Infographic appeared first on Reading Horizons.

BY Donell Pons, MAT, MEd

In recent discussions surrounding dyslexia, a pivotal question has emerged: should we rethink its definition? As we explore this conversation, it’s essential to consider how a more nuanced understanding of dyslexia could better support diverse learners and enhance instructional practices.

Revisiting Dyslexia at the Big Sky Literacy Summit

The question of a new definition of dyslexia recently surfaced as the subject of a panel discussion at the 2024 Big Sky Literacy Summit in Montana. I’ve had the pleasure of attending this relatively small gathering, around 700 participants, for two years, and this year was even better than the last. Dr. Danielle “Nell” Thompson and her team of extremely congenial volunteers deserve commendation for putting together a well-rounded program of presentations and grand-round discussions covering various topics, from leadership to the implications of defining or redefining dyslexia. 

As I mentioned, numerous fascinating topics of conversation emerged from this year’s conference. However, I want to focus on the panel discussion featuring the following speakers:

• Dr. Tim Odegard 
• Dr. Charles Hulme
• Dr. Julie Washington
• Dr. Tiffany Hogan
• Dr. Hugh Catts
• Dr. Margaret Snowling

This is an impressive line-up, by anyone’s estimation. Snowling and Hulme may be new names for some, as they are affiliated with the Oxford University ecosystem. Nevertheless, their work is extensive, particularly regarding the impressive language screener and intervention program called NELI (Nuffield Early Language Intervention). Dr. Hulme previously shared some compelling studies about NELI, and the results were impressive. However, here, I will confine my attention to the panel discussion.

Dr. Tim Odegard, a leading figure in reading instruction and dyslexia research, initiated the discussion by recounting a recent experience at this year’s Society for the Scientific Study of Reading Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. The “experience” involved a presentation arguing that dyslexia is a myth. Fortunately, some of the foremost experts in dyslexia research quickly refuted this claim. However, this incident was the basis for the Big Sky panel discussion about whether the definition of dyslexia should be altered. 

Exploring the Need for a New Definition

This is not a new conversation and will likely persist. The definition is important as it often functions as a touchpoint for so many people: researchers, clinicians, legislators, administrators, educators, parents, and most importantly, the folks who have dyslexia. Having a definition that meets the needs of all these groups is challenging. Currently, the International Dyslexia Association gives the following definition: 

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge. (IDA Board of Directors, 2002)

I don’t have room to pull this definition apart fully, but if you’re interested in understanding the rationale behind this definition, I recommend reading “Do We Need a New Definition of Dyslexia” by Emerson Dickman, J.D. (2016). The main point is this definition is widely used to define dyslexia in the United States and can be found in the wording of legislation in most states. But does this need to change? Is the definition helpful or harmful? Should a new definition be considered, and what should it include that isn’t already addressed by the current definition? 

Drs. Snowling and Hulme address this very question in a recent article, “Do we really need a new definition of dyslexia? A commentary,” published in The Annals of Dyslexia, March 2024. From the beginning, Snowling and Hulme point this out: 

We agree that dyslexia is best thought of as a dimensional disorder, with the best established causal risk factor being a deficit in phonological processing. (Snowling and Hulme, 2024)

Dyslexia as a Spectrum

Dimensional focuses on the extent to which the person will manifest a disorder, thus acknowledging the spectrum or continuum that represents the different levels of presentation associated with dyslexia. 

For example, in my own household, the variation between my husband and son with dyslexia is quite significant. Where my husband could come close enough to a spelling or pronunciation through years of effort, my son wasn’t coming close. Dyslexia is a spectrum, and my son presented as a more severe case than my husband. However, my husband recognized the familiar struggles with seeing and hearing letter names and sounds and still laboring to reproduce them. He also relied heavily on the alphabet song to orient him to the letters. They never became “automatic.”

This nuance is important when discussing the usefulness and utility of a diagnosis that relies on a definition of dyslexia. 

Knowing dyslexia is “particularly common in children from families with a history of dyslexia and in children with preschool language difficulties” may be useful in an early education setting and for couples planning on having children. Additionally, Snowling and Hulme argue that having definitions that differ depending on their purpose may be useful. Snowling brought this up during the panel discussion, and I found it compelling. With this in mind, there could be a definition that provides more insight in the clinical space, while another definition may provide more guidance for parents who need to drive the instruction and support for their child. It opened my mind to this approach’s potential when discussing dyslexia with different groups. 

A Personal Perspective

As a parent, I had no idea what dyslexia actually meant until I stumbled blindly toward challenges that the definition and diagnosis simply didn’t prepare me to handle. For example, the diagnosis never helped me understand what needed to happen in the most important early years of instruction. In Snowling’s explanation of definitions, she gave the example of telling parents in her clinical setting that their child has the profile of someone with dyslexia and focused more on what can be done during instruction to change a fixed outcome. This is hugely important in terms of moving from a fixed notion of what having the profile of dyslexia means.

For my husband, Curtis, who was an adult when he finally received an explanation for his life-long challenges with reading and spelling, the definition didn’t offer resources and support for what was impacting him most: engaging with learning environments that could lead to better job outcomes and supports that could help with everyday literacy needs like reading real estate documents or sending emails. However, the definition freed him from feeling “stupid,” something the word dyslexia finally explained, but what to do from there was still unclear.

Rethinking How We Approach Dyslexia

I’d never envisioned an understanding of dyslexia that could allow for different definitions given the individual student profile. Maybe this is where we should focus: providing enough of a definition of dyslexia to broadly screen and provide intervention for students who are “at risk” because of various identifying factors for reading difficulty. This would align with what Hulme presented regarding NELI, the language screener. 

What harm is there in an initially broader idea of reading and spelling challenges that become more specific based on the student’s performance in educational settings? As Steve Dysktra is fond of reminding us, teachers can spot kids with dyslexia faster than diagnosticians, who have to simulate the activities that allow us to see dyslexia. In other words, the classroom is where dyslexia manifests itself most apparently.  

So, we begin to sweep more students more broadly to get excellent instruction in foundational skills, and then we think about specific definitions for narrower purposes. What I’ve just taken a few paragraphs to describe is excellent tier 1 instruction with a well-trained educator supported by a tiered system allowing for more intensive instruction for students who need it. 

I think we need to have this “Do we need a new definition of dyslexia?” conversation more often because it brings us back to the fundamentals of excellent language instruction. 

Download Donell’s e-book: Dyslexia—What Every Educator Needs to Know.

About the author: Donell Pons, MAT, MEd, is president of the International Dyslexia Association Utah Chapter, a dedicated reading specialist, and dyslexia screener and advocate.

The post Does the Definition of Dyslexia Need to Change? Insights from Experts appeared first on Reading Horizons.