Final dissertation cintron m

ii
THE IMPACT OF MUSIC USED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH
READING FROM SCRATCH PHONICS-BASED READING PROGRAM TO
ACCELERATE READING FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSION
FOR SPECIFIC AT-RISK STUDENTS
A Dissertation
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University/Phoenix Campus
In Fulfillment of
The Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
Marianne Philomena Cintron
February 21, 2014

iii
Copyright c2014
All Rights Reserved

iv
A Dissertation
Submitted to the
In Fulfillment of
Doctor of Education
by
February 21, 2014
Dissertation Committee Approval:
_____________________________________ ______________________________
Dr. James Mitchell, Ed.D, Chair Date
_____________________________________
Dr. Keyes Kelly, Ed.D, Member
______________________________________________
Dr. James Mitchell, Ed.D, Program Chair/Assistant Dean

v
Abstract of Dissertation
Submitted to the
In Fulfillment of
Doctor of Education
by
February 21, 2014
Dr. James Mitchell, Ed.D
Dr. Keyes Kelly, Ed.D
Dr. James Mitchell, Ed.D, Program Chair/Assistant Dean
Department: College of Education

vi
Abstract
This quasi-experimental study explored the effectiveness of enhanced lateralization to
expedite remediation in vocabulary, reading fluency, and reading comprehension in at-
risk students. Twenty-seven students in grades 2-6 in a suburban southern California
district received 12 weeks of lessons from the Reading from Scratch program. The
treatment group (n = 13) received music via the left ear and the phonics instruction via
the right ear. The nonequivalent control group (n = 14) received the phonics instruction
without music. Results revealed significant improvement for the overall sample in
vocabulary and reading fluency, but not for reading comprehension. There were no
significant difference in posttest performance by sex or by grade level, nor were there any
significant interaction effects. A multivariate analysis of covariance revealed that after
controlling for initial vocabulary, reading fluency, and reading comprehension, enhanced
lateralization with music had a significant effect on posttest vocabulary. Music, sex, and
grade had no effect on posttest reading fluency or posttest reading comprehension.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement.............................................................................................................. 1
Problem Background .......................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... 7
Research Question .............................................................................................................. 8
Null Hypothesis .................................................................................................................. 9
Limitations.......................................................................................................................... 9
Delimitations....................................................................................................................... 9
Definitions of Terms......................................................................................................... 10
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................................................. 13
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 13
Right and Left Hemisphere Brain Functions .................................................................... 13
The Role of the Corpus Callosum..................................................................................... 15
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRIs)........................................................... 16
Phonics, Grammar, and Syntax......................................................................................... 17
Dyslexia Defined .............................................................................................................. 17
Developmental Dyslexia................................................................................................... 19
The Plasticity of the Brain ................................................................................................ 20
Different Brain Parts Involved in Reading ....................................................................... 21
Auditory Sounds ............................................................................................................... 22

viii
Musical Intelligence.......................................................................................................... 22
Music with English Language Learners ........................................................................... 23
Research –Based Instruction............................................................................................. 24
Appropriate Age of Diagnosis .......................................................................................... 25
Significance of Research Topic ........................................................................................ 26
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 26
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 28
Research Design................................................................................................................ 28
Selection of Participants ................................................................................................... 29
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 30
Methodological Assumptions ........................................................................................... 30
Procedures......................................................................................................................... 31
Data Processing and Analysis........................................................................................... 32
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 33
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS........................................................................................ 34
Descriptive Statistics and Overall Results ........................................................................ 34
Descriptive Statistics and Results for Males and Females ............................................... 35
Descriptive Statistics and Results by Grade Level ........................................................... 36
Multivariate Analysis of Covariance Results ................................................................... 37
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 39
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 41
Discussion......................................................................................................................... 41
Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 42

ix
Implications for Practice................................................................................................... 45
Recommendations for Research ....................................................................................... 45
References......................................................................................................................... 47

x
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Department of Education Estimates by NAEP (National Assessment Education
Progress) and NEA (National Education Assessments) ......................................................3
Table 2. Overall Paired-Samples Statistics for Vocabulary, Fluency, and Comprehension.
............................................................................................................................................34
Table 3. Paired-Samples Statistics for Females for Vocabulary, Fluency, and
Comprehension ..................................................................................................................35
Table 4. Paired-Samples Statistics for Males for Vocabulary, Fluency, and
Comprehension ..................................................................................................................36
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics by Grade Level.................................................................37

xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my committee chair Professor James
Mitchell, and committee member, Professor Keyes Kelly, whose guidance in this process
made this all possible. In addition, thank you to Professor David Colachico who shares
my passion to help at-risk and dyslexic students and has journeyed with me over the
years with Reading from Scratch. I also thank my Azusa Pacific University volunteers
who each dedicated 60 to100+ hours in assisting with this study. I am also indebted to
Superintendent Michael Hendricks and Assistant Superintendent Jeanine Robertson of
the Charter Oak School District for their support in this undertaking and for finding a
way to allow my research to be completed in their district. I appreciate all the families
who agreed to have their students participate in this research. And above all, I thank the
Lord Jesus Christ who gave me this passion to help our at-risk and dyslexic students and
for His hand in every part of the process.

xii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my loving husband William, and to my children Randon,
Richard, and Laura, who have all been supportive of me during this educational journey.
I also dedicate this document to the Lord Jesus Christ who has called me and preserved
me throughout this entire process. This work is also dedicated to all the at-risk students
who require special help to achieve their full potentials.

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Problem
According to the International Dyslexia Association (IDA, 2007), 20% of students are
dyslexic and read from the right side of the brain, which is the wrong side (Shaywitz, 1998, Van
den Honert, 2011). One way to help people who are dyslexic learn to read using the left side of
the brain is enhanced lateralization via music (Van den Honert, 2011).
Problem Statement
Dorothy Van den Honert (2011), a special education teacher in Massachusetts,
demonstrated an effective way to help the dyslexic population read and comprehend by using
enhanced lateralization (EL). Enhanced lateralization retrains the dyslexic brain to read more
efficiently when one simultaneously sends phonics instruction directly to the left side of the brain
(via an earplug in the right ear) and sends music to the right side of the brain (via an earplug in
the left ear). Van den Honert (2011) says EL accomplishes three things: it prevents the right
hemisphere from usurping a job of reading intended for the left hemisphere, it strengthens the
left hemisphere for reading fluency and comprehension, and equally important, it bypasses the
central part of the brain called the corpus callosum (Van den Honert, 2011).
The issue addressed in this research was to determine if the Reading from Scratch
program developed by Van den Honert and the use of enhanced lateralization with music
improved vocabulary, reading fluency (speed and accuracy), and reading comprehension in
students in grades 2-6 identified as at-risk in a large suburban school district.
Problem Background
The national goal was to reduce special education class size from 14% to 10% over the
next 7 years (NCLB, 2004, IDEA, 2004). The Department of Education (2012) provides a

2
PowerPoint presentation of state ranking breaking down data according to racial, demographic,
and other subcategories. For purposes of this paper, scores at or above proficiency in reading at
fourth and also eighth grade are listed in five sub categories: all students, White, Black,
Hispanic, Students with Disabilities. Also, the NEA (National Education Assessment, 2012)
provides ranking of many subcategories and for this paper, the following four are used: largest
districts, largest population, student to teacher ratios, and teacher salaries. Five states were
compared in this report: California, Texas, and New York are close in population numbers, while
Massachusetts and Indiana both ranked in top 10 for students with disabilities (See
Table 1).
Dr. David Colachico, previous Director of Special Education at Azusa Pacific University
in California, commented that teachers face three challenges in educating students: increasing
class sizes, need for student achievement, and the need to teach to diverse learning modalities (D.
Colachico, personal communication, October, 2012). Their jobs may be in jeopardy if not all of
their students are achieving (D. Colachico, personal communication, October, 2012). California
ranks in the lowest 10 in reading for the following subcategories: all students at 4th
grade
reading, Hispanics at 4th
grade, all at 8th
grade, and students with disabilities (Department of
Education, 2012).
.

3
Table 1. Department of Education Estimates by NAEP (National Assessment Education
Progress) and NEA (National Education Assessments).
NAEP Progress Report 2011
Reading at level or proficiency Page
New
York CA TX MASS IN
All 4th 2 middle lowest 10 middle top 10 middle
White 4th 4 top 10 middle middle top 10 middle
Black 4th 6 middle middle top 10 top 10 middle
Hispanic 4th 8 middle lowest 10 middle middle middle
Student with Disabilities 4th 10 middle middle lowest 10 top 10 top 10
All 8th 22 middle lowest 10 middle top 10 middle
White 8th 24 top 10 middle top 10 top 10 middle
Black 8th 26 middle middle middle top 10 middle
Hispanic 8th 28 middle lowest 10 middle middle lowest 10
Students with Disabilities 8 30 middle lowest 10 lowest 10 top 10 middle
NEA National Research
Estimates 2011
Students (ADA) per Teacher 18 13.8 23.1 13.6 12.8 15.7
US Ranking 26 1 30 37 10
Average Salaries 2010-2011 19 72,708 67,871 48,638 70,752 50,801
US Ranking 1 4 31 2 24
Number of Operating School
Districts 11 695 1042 1228 392 354
US Ranking 2011 6 2 1 15 17
Public School Enrollment Fall 11 2,642,524 6,219,649 4,912,385 954,687 1,047,084
US Ranking 2011 3 1 2 17 14
*Special Education tests for Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and intervention vary from
state to state; in Texas, Balido-Dean (2010) found 85% of SLD students are classified as
dyslexic.
Twing (n.d.) contends that student growth defines the AYP model, but it’s the measure of
student proficiency that is important. Twing (n.d.) describes AYP stating

4
When the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 was first introduced, it
carried with it a simplistic goal: to ensure that all children reach "rigorous"
standards of performance by the year 2014 without exception. While the merits of
such a goal are debatable, NCLB established a clear expectation for all schools.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) further delineated the measures by which
schools would have to achieve interim goals to ensure that they would meet NCLB
by 2014. (para 1)
Reviewing Table 1 will demonstrate how the nation is achieving proficiency status defined by
NCLB.
Several national and international organizations specialize in the intervention of students
with SLD. Two in California are the Association of Educational Therapists (AET) and the
International Dyslexic Association (IDA). Cawthon and Maddox (2011) acknowledge the
success of AET where students receive individual therapy. They report on a study by the
National Institute for Learning Development (NILD) of increasing competence and confidence
of students who struggle to learn by training educators and developing programs (Cawthon &
Maddox, 2011). The field of special education stirs up controversy and conflict due to the
frequent changes in the definition and diagnosis of students with Specific Learning Disabilities
(Cawthon & Maddox, 2011).
Sandra Mosk, past president of AET, claims students with special needs require
specialized intervention and not general intervention (S. Mosk, personal communication,
October, 2012). She uses an eclectic approach to teaching special needs students and believes
that using enhanced lateralization will help those with auditory processing issues (S. Mosk,
personal communication, October, 2012). The International Dyslexia Association is making

5
great efforts to keep the diagnosis of dyslexia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM IV) (IDA, personal communication, July 2012). There is an effort to remove the
mention of dyslexia from the newer version of the DSM V (IDA, personal communication, July
2012).
In Table 1, NAEP reposts students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) in
Massachusetts rank in the top 10 states at 4th
and 8th
grade levels (Department of Education,
2012). Indiana is ranked in the top 10 states for students with disabilities at the 4th
grade level,
and in the middle range at the 8th
grade level (Department of Education, 2012). Here the students
with dyslexia are classified as SLD but are not under the umbrella of Special Education (Moxley,
2012). The schools remediate on a one-on-one basis; families pay privately up to $400 a month
for additional intervention (Moxley, 2012).
In contrast, Texas ranks the lowest 10 states in scores for students with disabilities in both
4th
and 8th
grade reading scores (Department of Education, 2012); Texas ranks just behind CA in
population but ahead of California in operating schools (See Table 1). Balido-Dean (2010)
reports that in Texas, dyslexic students are under the umbrella of Special Education and have
mandated testing and a mandated intervention; she found that 85% of students classified as SLD
are dyslexic. The Department of Education (2012) ranks California in the middle of states for
students with learning disabilities at the 4th
grade level and in the lowest 10 states for students
with learning disabilities at the 8th
grade level. In New York, student population ranked third and
operating schools ranked sixth; students with disabilities rank in the middle range in both 4th
and
8th
grade reading (Department of Education, 2012).
NCLB, aimed at high academic standards for all students, requires that all students
become “proficient” in reading and mathematics by the 2012/13 school year” (Lee, 2010, p.

6
207). Ed Data (2011) reports, “Statewide, students did not meet all requirements for 2011
Adequate Yearly Progress as determined by the California Department of Education” (para. 1).
Furthermore, “Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), students in the state as a
whole must make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) in several areas, based primarily on student
performance and participation” (Ed Data, 2011, para.4).
The National Dissemination Center for Children Disabilities (NICHCY, 2010) states that
since each student is unique, it is difficult to provide a simple definition of special education. A
full evaluation defined by our nation’s education law, Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), is required before a student can be placed in special education (NICHCY, 2010).
Parents or the school may request an evaluation be made once they have a concern about their
student; however, the school’s principal and teacher or the Director of Special Education must
agree (NICHCY, 2010).
The IDA (n.d.) reports that general education and special education teachers seek
accommodations for heterogeneous groups of students, which provides a framework to support
those with specific learning disabilities (SLD). Some of those accommodations include using a
tape recorder, simplifying directions, presenting smaller assignments, covering extra print on a
page, highlighting, allow practice activities to review lesson, and providing reading guides to
outline reading material to access essential information IDA (n.d.). Van den Honert (1999)
suggests a more efficient way to help a specific portion of SLD students is one-on-one
intervention combining inputs of phonics and input of music to retrain the brain; this intervention
process is called enhanced lateralization (EL).
The IDA (2007) claims the left side of the brain is the linguistic center of the brain, yet
dyslexics read from the right side of the brain. Kuhl (2011) reports that functional magnetic

7
resonance imaging (fMRIs) indicate that strong readers are using the left side of the brain.
Information normally would cross quickly from the right hemisphere to the left hemisphere
where it belongs except the central part of the brain called the corpus callosum is smaller in
dyslexics (D. Van den Honert, personal communication, October 2012).
Roger Sperry (1968) won a Nobel Prize for his research on his split brain theory on
seizure patients. He and Gazzaniga (1977) proved that the corpus callosum, the central part of
the brain between the two hemispheres, could be bypassed, and their brains could be retrained.
They showed how the left and right sides of the brain could work independently or in concert to
benefit the patient (Sperry & Gazzaniga, 1977). In using EL in this study, bypassing the corpus
callosum is the phenomenon of interest.
Purpose of the Study
This research seeks to determine if EL shows improvements in vocabulary, reading
fluency, or reading comprehension of SLD students. Recall, EL sends music to the right angular
gyrus. When EL is used, Van den Honert contends, the right side of the brain is given a job it
loves (i.e., listening to music), enabling the left angular gyrus to learn phonics (Van den Honert,
2011). Furthermore, Van den Honert (2011) describes EL as bypassing the central part of the
brain, the corpus callosum, which allows faster training of the left hemisphere. Groussard et al.
(2010) conducted a study supporting the study of music associated with development of specific
memory abilities. They also found that the corpus callosum is larger in musical students versus
non-musical, indicating the benefits of music (Groussard et al, 2010). As mentioned above, Van
den Honert reports that dyslexic students have a smaller corpus callosum than normal readers
Van den Honert (2011).

8
The current research studied students classified with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD)
and identified as at-risk in grades 2-6. This study is a methodological replication of a state-
funded study conducted twenty years ago on adults (age 18-30) in Massachusetts (Smith &
Dalheim, 1990). Kuhl (2011) advocates for early diagnosis and intervention of dyslexia. When
school-aged children with dyslexia are identified they can be remediated and will not suffer self-
esteem issues that cause many of them to drop out of school (D. Van den Honert, personal
communication, October, 2012). According to Van den Honert, there is no difference in the
ability of children to learn using EL compared to the success of the 18-30 year old adults who
used it (D. Van den Honert, personal communication, October, 2012).
The adults in Project Read (Smith & Dalheim, 1990) were taught for two years and
reported the improvements in their reading abilities, attitudes, and self-esteem. Carlopoli, one of
the students who benefited from that research, claimed that the word “fun” returned to his
vocabulary after this intervention (M. Carpoli, personal communication, February 2008). He
claimed that he used to feel like a liar, an actor, and a cheater because he would apply for jobs
and leave to fill out his application, getting others to help him apply (M. Carpoli, personal
communication, February 2008). He had a bad attitude towards everything until he could read
and write stating, “Learning to read and write wasn’t a magic pill that changed my life overnight,
but it did give me what it took to stand up tall enough to look others in the eye, which was a
choice I never had” (M. Carpoli personal communication, February 2008).
Research Question
Is there an effect on vocabulary, reading fluency, or reading comprehension of
elementary students at-risk in a suburban community when given treatment of using a specific

9
reading program (Reading from Scratch) without music, then using the same program with
enhanced lateralization using music?
Null Hypothesis
There are no effects on vocabulary, reading fluency, and reading comprehension of
elementary students at-risk in a suburban district when given treatment of using a specific
reading program (Reading from Scratch) without music, then using the same program with EL
using music.
Alternative Hypothesis
The use of EL with music will improve vocabulary, reading fluency, and reading
comprehension of elementary students identified as at-risk in a suburban district compared to
similar students receiving the Reading from Scratch program without music.
Limitations
1. This study is limited to a suburban district and to 27 students.
2. This study is being limited to students in grades 2-6.
3. This study is limited to a 12-week remediation program.
Delimitations
1. Students were classified as at-risk if they required specific intervention in order to pass their
current grades, however the range of at-risk varied from one student to another.
2. Although tutors of the program were trained in the use of it, some may had a tutoring
background, therefore, greater ease using the program.
3. Sessions ranged from 30-60 minutes and one to four days a week for various reasons:
minimum week days, early out days, tutor scheduling conflicts, students’ alternate

10
commitments, and sick days. As discussed in Chapter 3, the number of sessions attended
varied by student.
4. A shortage of tutors created the need for some students at similar grade level to be doubled
up and even tripled up with one tutor until more tutors were available.
5. Location of tutoring classroom was on opposite end of campus causing challenges (for
example the bathroom was in the office, and daycare was on opposite end of campus).
Definitions of Terms
This section defines terms used throughout the study and which may be familiar to those
in the educational sector, but may not be familiar to those not associated with education.
 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Schools’ expected growth percent determined by the state and
mandated by NCLB. If schools do not achieve their AYP goals three years in a row, they are
entered into Program Improvement. After three years of additional support, the schools suffer
major consequences if improvement is not made (Department of Education, 2002).
 Dyslexia: specific learning disability that affects reading. The word dyslexia means lack of or
poor verbal language and is characterized by an abnormal difficulty in learning to read and spell,
caused by a central nervous system dysfunction. In this research, the terms learning disabled
(LD) and dyslexia will be used interchangeably (International Dyslexia Association, 2007).
 Enhanced Lateralization (EL): music enters the student’s right hemisphere of the brain
simultaneously via an earplug in the left ear while phonics instruction enters the left side of the
brain via an earplug in the right ear (Van den Honert, 2011).
 Inclusion: the act or practice of including students with learning disabilities in the regular school
classes (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 2005).

11
 Intervention: providing remedial services to improve academic achievement. To interfere with
the outcome or course especially of a condition or process (as to prevent harm or improve
functioning (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 2005).
 Learning Disabled (LD): Students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), dyslexic.
(Department of Education, 2004).
 Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD): Often students with dyslexia are in this category. It is a
catchall phrase used by the Department of Education to categorize students with deficits in
cognition, attention, processing, and/or working memory (Department of Education, 2004).
Significance of the Study
This study determined whether EL results in practical effects with at-risk students in a
suburban district in California, and could become a model for other districts in the state as well
as in other states. The California Department of Education reports the cost per student or
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) for general education students ranges from $6945 - $8319 in
districts in this research. Samuels (2011) reports that special education costs, while an
untouchable expense, may be twice as much as general education costs. Educating students with
disabilities is federally mandated, one of the highest cost services school districts must provide,
and the last that can be cut Samuels (2011).
Cawthon and Maddox (2011) claim that the field of special education stirs up controversy
and conflict due to the frequent changes in the definition and diagnosis of students with Specific
Learning Disabilities. The National Dissemination Center for Children Disabilities (NICHCY,
2010) states that since each student is unique, and thus it is difficult to provide a simple
definition of special education. A full evaluation defined by our nation’s education law,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is required before a student can be placed in

12
special education (NICHCY, 2010). Parents or the school may request an evaluation be made
once they have a concern about their student; however, the school’s principal and teacher or the
Director of Special Education must agree (NICHCY, 2010).
The Reading from Scratch curriculum was used 20 years ago on adults (18-30) with SLD
in a study was funded by the Department of Education in Massachusetts. The evaluation of the
study was entitled Project Read (Smith & Dahleim, 1990) proving practical effects were found in
reading fluency and comprehension in these adults. The curriculum is still used today in
Massachusetts and by private Educational Therapists. This study on students in grades 2-6
replicated the methodology of Project Read.

13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
In Chapter 2, the research literature is reviewed in order to place the current research in
the context of previous research on the functioning of the brain, especially the separate and
combined functioning of the right and left cerebral hemispheres. This literature from
neuroscience is integrated with the literature on the brain functioning of people who are dyslexic.
The role of the corpus callosum is considered, and research on the plasticity of the brain is
reviewed. Dyslexia is defined, including developmental dyslexia, and various connections are
drawn between the parts of the brain used in reading and how they may be used differently by
dyslexic readers. The role of auditory sounds, and especially music, in language development is
explored. The chapter ends with the description of a phonics-based structured reading program
called Reading from Scratch (Van den Honert, 2011) that bases instruction on the findings from
neuroscience, and used a research-based intervention to deliver phonics instruction with
enhanced lateralization (EL).
Right and Left Hemisphere Brain Functions
Roger Sperry’s (1968) split-brain research involved patients whose seizures were
uncontrollable via medication. Sperry severed the bundle of nerve fibers, known as the corpus
callosum, which connects the two cerebral hemispheres. This surgery effectively controlled
seizures, and as a byproduct, created a group of split-brain persons, thus providing Sperry and his
colleagues the opportunity to study the brain functioning of this group. Although the split-brain
patients appeared quite normal in everyday activities, in the laboratory, the absence of the corpus
callosum allowed the separate stimulation of the left and right hemispheres, and the study of their
independent functioning. These research findings won Sperry the Nobel Prize in 1981.

14
Sperry’s graduate student, Michael Gazzaniga (1997) claimed his work with Sperry on
split brain theory made it entirely clear that a particular neurological structure can greatly vary in
what it transfers and in its functional role; brain structures are responsible for this huge variety in
style of brain diversity Gazzaniga (1977). He contends that the ordering or assigning of duties of
differing circuits may be affected by experiences, brain damage, or a variety of other influences
to which the developing organism is subjected (Gazzaniga, 1977).
Bellis and Wilber (2001) found that left-right differences in dichotic tasks (or similar
tasks in any modality) may be explained by the manner in which the brain scans the information
presented. Bellis and Wilber (2001) contend that the brain has a tendency to scan information
serially, which leads to one ear or visual hemifield having "superiority" over the other; they
caution that this directional bias should not be taken as evidence of the existence of the
hemispheric dominance for these tasks but, rather, evidence for serial processing in the brain.
Males may begin to experience binaural processing difficulties earlier than do females;
visuomotor interhemispheric transfer is affected by aging in the same manner as is auditory
interhemispheric transfer (Bellis & Wilber 2001).
Gazzaniga (1977) found that the right hemisphere comprehends some simple nouns but
cannot process verbs nor grasp adjectives; it is also syntactically weak, could recognize negative,
could not make plurals, comprehend tense, failed of many syntactic tests, could not rhyme, and
did poorly with tasks requiring phonemic analysis. Gazzaniga’s series of tests strongly suggest
that the right hemisphere in the normal brain carries out little or no language processing; a three
word segment sent to the right hemisphere suggests that it was first assembled in the left
hemisphere and scanned from left to right (Gazzaniga, 1977). Furthermore, this suggests that the

15
right hemisphere does no processing of information, but rather sends it over to the left for the
assembly of language analysis (Gazzaniga, 1977).
Carreiras et al. (2009) found white matter in the brain evidencing interhemispheric
transference of left and right hemispheres. The study was conducted on 10 adults showing
linkage between the right angular gyrus and left angular gyrus (Carreiras et al., 2009). Similarly,
Gazzaniga (1977) found the linguistic functions occupy the left hemisphere while manipulative
skill occupies the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere fills up, synaptically speaking, as a
result of little remaining neural space; executing skills involved in manipulating items in external
space matures later (Gazzaniga, 1977). Language matures in the left hemisphere, leaving the
right principally responsible for acquiring these manipulative spatial skills in later life
(Gazzaniga, 1977).
The Role of the Corpus Callosum
Bellis and Wilber (2001) found the corpus callosum appeared to play a role in many
higher-level cognitive tasks, including selective and sustained attention, phonological (speech-
sound) processing, auditory verbal learning and memory, and syntactic pragmatic and semantic
language functions. The ability of the two hemispheres of the brain to communicate with one
another via the corpus callosum is important for a wide variety of sensory, motor and cognitive
functions, many of them communication related (Bellis and Wilber, 2001). Age affects auditory
behavioral and temporal measures of interhemispheric integrity which appears to remain
relatively stable from young adulthood through approximately the age of 40 years (Bellis &
Wilber, 2001). Bellis and Wilber (2001) found that because the language-dominant (usually left)
hemisphere is required for the perception and verbal labeling of auditory linguistic stimuli,
information presented to the left ear requires a transfer from the right hemisphere to the left via

16
the corpus callosum for the subject to make a verbal report, whereas input to the right ear does
not.
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRIs)
A breakthrough came in the 1990s with the development of a technique called functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Basically, fMRI allows researchers to see which parts of
the brain are getting the most blood—and hence are the most active—at any given point in time.
New Science of Dyslexia (2003) says using fMRIs, scientists have determined that beginning
readers rely most heavily on the phoneme producer and the word analyzer; brain scans suggest
that a glitch in their brain prevents them from easily gaining access to the word analyzer and the
automatic detector.
Brain Imaging of Reading Disorders (1998) claims the results of studies of the
asymmetry of various language-related structures, including the corpus callosum, have been
inconsistent. It is reported that PET (Positron Emission Tomography) (i.e. brain scans) of
regional cerebral blood flow have demonstrated the failure in men with development of dyslexia
to show normal activation of the left side of the brain during a phonological, rhyme detection
tasks (Brain Imaging of Reading Disorders, 1998). Furthermore, while performing a variety of
word recognition tasks, dyslexic men similarly showed abnormalities in task-related activations
of the left and right cortexes, while again showing normal activations of the left inferior frontal
cortex; these results suggest brain portions affected in those with dyslexia (Brain Imaging of
Reading Disorders, 1998).
Shaywitz, Shaywitz, and Pugh (1998) found that brain activation patterns differed
significantly between the groups with dyslexic readers. The conclusion was that the impairment
with dyslexics is phonological in nature and that brain activation patterns may provide a neural

17
signature (Shaywitz et al., 1998). Dyslexics are largely missing the ability to make the
connection from words, to phonologic segments; not being able to connect letter strings to
corresponding units of speech which they represent (Shaywitz et al., 1998). Shaywitz et al (1998)
claimed the angular gyrus is pivotal in carrying out those cross-modal integrations necessary for
reading. Under activation contrasted with over activation may provide a neural signature for the
phonological difficulties characterizing dyslexia (Shaywitz, et al., 1998).
Phonics, Grammar, and Syntax
Gilger and Hynd (2008) document that children with learning disorders and learning gifts
all displayed developmental exceptionalities; they say students with dyslexia are twice-
exceptional individuals because they typically have high skills in talent, creativity, or intellectual
domains. They propose programs that specifically develop the brain to develop learning and
simply call a developmental reading disability, dyslexia (Gilger & Hynd, 2008).
Dryer, Beale, and Lambert (1999) claim that the relative participation of left and right-
hemisphere functions are altered during the developmental process of learning to read;
as the focus of reading shifts from accuracy to fluency, the "balance" of hemispheric
involvement in reading shifts from the right hemisphere (RH) to the left hemisphere (LH).
Reading disabilities develop when deviations occur in the hemispheric shift of reading control
(Dryer et al., 1999). Furthermore, Dryer et al. (1999) found that the reader remains focused on
the perceptual features of the text, which leads to an accurate but relatively slow and fragmented
style of reading.
Dyslexia Defined
Bower (2008) found a genetic link affecting brain development and a range of reading
problems known as dyslexia; the specific gene sequence affects the human chromosome 6.

18
According to the International Dyslexia Association (IDA, 2007), dyslexia is a specific learning
disability that affects reading. In this research, the terms specific learning disabilities and
dyslexia may be used interchangeably. The word dyslexia means lack of or poor verbal language
and is characterized by an abnormal difficulty in learning to read and spell, caused by a central
nervous system dysfunction (IDA, 2007). Pennington et al. (2012, citing the IDA, 2002) say,
“Dyslexia is defined as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by a deficit in the accurate
or fluent decoding of single printed words that is not accounted for by a specific sensory deficit
or more general intellectual impairment” (para. 1).
Balido-Dean (2010) found that 85% of SLD students are dyslexic. Texas screens for
dyslexia amongst its non-readers and mandates an intervention of two specific reading programs
designed for dyslexics (Balido-Dean, 2010). The programs showed most dyslexic students in
grades 3-5 achieved proficiency each year in reading fluency and reading comprehension, over a
three year study (Balido-Dean, 2010). .
Shaywitz, Shaywitz, and Pugh (1998) and the IDA (2007) claim the left hemisphere is the
linguistic center of the brain, yet dyslexics read from the right side of the brain. To complicate
matters, even though the information normally would cross quickly from the right hemisphere to
the left hemisphere, where it belongs, a lazy or faulty corpus callosum, typically found in
dyslexics, slows down this process (Kappers, 1977). Kappers discusses the shifts in cerebral
hemispheres, stating:
The ability to identify unfamiliar words plays an important role in learning to read…
Beginning and advanced reading are predominantly mediated by the right and left
cerebral hemispheres. The development of the reading process must be accompanied by a
shift in hemispheric subservience from right to left. (Kappers, 1977)

19
Developmental Dyslexia
Investigators do not agree on measures of reading, and reading disabilities exist on a
continuum with no readily accepted cutoff score below which an individual can be considered
for diagnosis (Siegel & Smythe, 2005). Most researchers and practitioners agree that dyslexia is
a neurologically based difference that manifests itself as a reading and writing difficulty; the
most recent conceptualizations of dyslexia view it as a significant difficulty in the acquisition of
accurate and fluent word reading skills (Siegel and Smythe, 2005). Siegel and Smythe (2005,
citing Liederman) believe a reading disability and dyslexia are the same with a higher male
population. They define dyslexia as a discrepancy between IQ scores and measured achievement,
where reading is significantly lower than what would be predicted by IQ (Siegel & Smythe,
2005).
Odegard, Ring, Smith, Biggan, and Black (2008) replicated a study using functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRIs) on dyslexic students who received reading intervention.
Individually administered battery of tests of achievement were conducted revealing deficits in
grapho-phoenemic knowledge, decoding, word recognition, fluency, comprehension and spelling
were all assessed. “The diagnosis of dyslexia was made when the child’s reading subskills were
determined to be deficient as a result of poor phonological processing and were unexpected
given the child’s age/grade and other cognitive abilities” (Odegard et al, 2008, p. 4). Finally,
Odegard et al (2008) reported that six of the twelve students showed improvement after
treatment while six showed no improvement; however, there was increased activity in the left
temporal parietal lob equivalent to that of non-impaired readers when performing the phoneme-
grapheme mapping tasks” (p. 11).

20
The Plasticity of the Brain
Molfese, D. L, Molfese, V. L., et al. (2002) found the role of phonological processing in
the development of language and reading abilities has received much research and attention.
Phonological processing refers to the ability to discriminate phonetic contrasts, and includes
discrimination of speech sounds and categorical perception (voice-onset-time, place of
articulation) as well as the ability to segment and manipulate phonemes and larger units
(Molfese, D. L, Molfese, V. L., et al., 2002). They found that research by numerous groups have
involved longitudinal studies of early speech perception abilities and subsequent language and
reading skills (Molfese, D. L, Molfese, V. L., et al., 2002). Furthermore, the influence of
biological factors on brain processing can be modified through learning; even brief periods of
stimulation and opportunities for learning can produce changes in the brain's ERP (exposure and
response prevention) responses (Molfese, D. L, Molfese, V. L., et al., 2002). If early
identification in fact is possible, there will be a greatly increased opportunity to intervene much
earlier in development than is currently possible (Molfese, D. L, Molfese, V. L., et al., 2002).
Molfese, D. L, Molfese, V. J., et al. (2002) found that if early identification of SLD is
possible, there will be a greatly increased opportunity to intervene much earlier in development
than is currently possible. They claim that even brief periods of stimulation and opportunities for
learning can produce changes in the brain's responses; the role of phonological processing in the
development of language and reading abilities has received much research and attention
(Molfese D. L., Molfese, V. J., et al, 2002). Phonological processing refers to the ability to
discriminate phonetic contrasts, and includes discrimination of speech sounds and categorical
perception as well as the ability to segment and manipulate phonemes and larger units (Molfese
D. L., Molfese, V. J., et al, 2002). Research by numerous groups have involved longitudinal

21
studies of early speech perception abilities and subsequent language and reading skills; the
influence of biological factors on brain processing can be modified through learning. (Molfese
D. L., Molfese, V. J., et al, 2002).
Different Brain Parts Involved in Reading
Horowitz, Rumsey, and Donahoe (1998) state the dyslexic is not using his left angular
gyrus. It is functionally disconnected from other brain regions that are part of the normal brain
reading network in many cases (Horowitz et al, 1998). They also attribute alexia to faulty left
angular gyrus and visual association in the occipital and temporal lobes (Horowitz et al, 1998).
Shaywitz, Shaywitz, and Pugh (1998) found in the Wernicke area of the brain,
phonologic tasks produced significant increases in activation relative to orthographic tasks,
implying that this region processes information in a more abstract phonological form. The
angular gyrus is of particular interest because this portion of association cortex is considered
pivotal in carrying out those cross-modal integrations necessary for reading, (mapping the visual
precept of the print onto the phonologic structures of language (Shaywitz et al (1998). An
imperfectly functioning system for segmenting words, under activation in posterior brain
regions, contrasted with over activation in anterior regions, may provide a neural signature for
the phonological difficulties characterizing dyslexia (Shaywitz et al (1998).
Harris (1979) states that the corpus callosum is the bundle of nerve fibers that connects
the two hemispheres; receptive and expressive language, analytical, reasoning and sequential
processing seem to be left hemisphere functions, while simultaneous perception of the visual
forms such as faces, geometrical figures, perception of music, and other non-linguistic sounds,
seem to be right hemisphere functions. The right hemisphere is not totally nonverbal; it is
capable of limited understanding of language, primarily nouns, but cannot produce speech

22
(Harris citing Gazzaniga and Sperry, 1979). Direct measures of cerebral hemisphere functioning
indicate that the left hemisphere is dominant for speech, sequential processing and logical
thinking in nearly all right-handers and the majority of left-handers; this interest is based on the
fact that the cerebrum of forebrain consists mainly of two cerebral hemispheres (Harris, 1979).
Auditory Sounds
Podolak (2011) researched how the brain processes words and the interconnectedness
between sound and sight when trying to understand language. She shared that while dyslexia is
believed to be more of a visual problem, dyslexics are also struggling to connect auditory sounds
that build syllables, words, and eventually sentences (Podolak, 2011). She found that only 50%
of dyslexics would match a voice to the corresponding avatar regardless of language (Podolak,
2011).
Harris (1979) suggests that dichotic listening (two inputs at once to opposite sides of the
brain), which requires instrumentation, has theoretical justification and needs further study and
development. He emphasized the importance of early reading, saying the right hemisphere form
of perception is important, while left hemisphere verbal and reasoning abilities are required, once
recognition skills in reading are well established (Harris, 1979). Other tests used to demonstrate
this were the electroencephalograph (EEG), with many limitations, which amplifies and records
tiny electrical currents of the brain (Harris, 1979).
Musical Intelligence
McDevitt and Ormond (n.d.) describe how Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences guides
teachers in practices which improve learning, significantly helpful to the Dyslexic population.
Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences are Musical, Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Spatial, Bodily-
Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and Naturalist. Musical Intelligence is defined as “the

23
ability to create, comprehend, and appreciate music with relevant behaviors as playing a musical
instrument, composing a musical work, or showing a keen awareness of the underlying structure
of music” (McDevitt & Ormrod, 1990).
According to Music Education Online (n.d.), music has been key element to help
developing learning stating:
One of the most notable studies on music and the brain, the Mozart Effect, began as a
college research experiment. College students were given the chance to listen to ten
minutes of a piano sonata before completing a test. The assessment involved tasks such
as finding the patterns in both numbers and objects. The result showed that with just ten
minutes of music, their skills were improved greatly. Education Online (n.d.)
Music Education online (n.d.) reports, “Data from the National Education Longitudinal
Study of 1988 showed that music participants received more academic honors and awards than
non-music students, and that the percentage of music participants receiving As, As/Bs, and Bs
was higher than the percentage of non- participants receiving those grades.” Lamb (2007)
describes his success with music in the classroom saying, “Music played in the back of the
classroom at a slow pace will allow their brains to slow down to the beat of the music” and
recommends music with the beat of 60 beats per minute.
Music with English Language Learners
Krashen (2007) believes the best teaching methods supply comprehensible input in low
anxiety situations. These methods do not force learning the second language, but allow students
to learn when they are ready, recognizing that growth comes from supplying the right input in a
timely manner (Krashen, 2007). Schuilwerve (2011) conducted quantitative research to
understand K-12 teachers’ attitudes to ELL in the mainstream classroom stating that,

24
“increase(d) amounts of comprehensible input leads to increased amounts of language
acquisition; language growth is an important element of the classroom environment for ELL
students” (p. 13). Griffin (2008, citing Youngs) says, “Due to the great influx of ELL in the
United States, an increasing number of mainstream teachers face this population in their
classrooms; the academic success of ELL could depend on teacher attitudes and perceptions” (p.
29).
Bilash Watkin (1996) believes that communication competence may be enhanced by
music integration with second language learners. “Children appear to use their musical
intelligence in learning and are naturally responsive to it” (Bilsah Watkin, 1996, p. 3).
Research –Based Instruction
Reading from Scratch is a phonics-based program written with dyslexics in mind. New
Science of Dyslexia (2003) claims that dyslexia (a percentage of SLD) is a handicap that affects
up to 1 in 5 school children and is a flaw not of character but of biology—specifically, the
biology of the brain; cerebrums are perfectly normal. They discovered that the most successful
programs actively teach phonics and focus on strengthening the brain's aptitude for linking letters
to the sounds they represent (New Science of Dyslexia, 2003). New Science of Dyslexia cites
Robert Pasternack, Special Ed and Rehab Services Reading, claiming that the majority of
students who get identified with SLD get identified between the ages of 11 and 17 (2003).
Music is a key component in this study described as enhanced lateralization (EL). Using
separate earplugs, music is sent to the right side of the brain while phonics is sent to the left side
of the brain. The phonics is in the form of a basic language skills reading program with
prerecorded spelling tests on tapes and CDs. Groussard et al. (2010) have researched the positive
effects of music on brain memory function, specifically in the right angular gyrus. All the

25
students in this used the same phonics based reading program entitled “Reading from Scratch”;
the control group used EL. Classical music or a favorite iPod selection played softly was used as
the musical component. Helping SLD students achieve proficiency and building strong self -
esteem were other motivating factors of this research. Saving special education costs would be
an expected result if students in Special Education classrooms achieve proficiency allowing them
to be mainstreamed.
Appropriate Age of Diagnosis
Pennington et al. (2012) believe at least two deficits must exist in order to diagnose
dyslexia. Pennington, et al (2012) found that phonological awareness must exist to be diagnosed
as dyslexic. Additional deficits are processing speed, rapid naming speed, and language skills
(Pennington, et al, 2012). School aged children are learning phonological awareness, so it
makes sense that the age of testing (grade 3) is the appropriate age for diagnosis (Pennington, et
al, 2012).
Cogn (2012) studied events related to dyslexics, ages 9-13 years, which impact the –
specific processing, orthographic familiarity, and phonological structure. Cogn (2012) reports
that these are reading tasks with letter specific processing, orthographic familiarity, and
phonological structure. He suggests the brain mechanisms which support literacy skills in
dyslexics are delayed and follow an abnormal developmental path compared to brains of non-
dyslexic students, and attributes this to hemispheric differences between the dyslexic and non-
dyslexic groups (Cogn, 2012).
New Science of Dyslexia (NSD), (citing Robert Pasternack, Special Ed and Rehab
Services 2003) found the majority of students who get identified with SLD are identified

26
between the ages of 11 and 17 (grades 5-11). Using fMRI, scientists have determined that
beginning readers rely most heavily on the phoneme producer and the word analyzer (NSD,
2003). Brain scans suggest that a glitch in their brain prevents them from easily gaining access to
the word analyzer and the automatic detector (NSD, 2003).
Significance of Research Topic
Four issues in this study address the psychosocial needs of students: the mandates by
NCLB to have all students at proficiency by 2013, the high costs of intervention or Special
Education, the question of whether or not SLD students are being educated at a rate to help them
achieve proficiency, and mainstreaming, if possible, before self-esteem issues escalate.
Macalaster (n.d.) addresses the psychosocial aspects of students with SLD. Some of the issues
faced by students with SLD are underachievement, inconsistency in daily tasks and abilities, not
reading, writing, or concentrating. These issues lead to rejection, isolation, feelings of inferiority,
discouragement, and low self-esteem (Macalaster, n.d.). As stated previously, The Department of
Education (2012) ranks California in the middle of states for students with learning disabilities at
the 4th
grade level and in the lowest 10 states for students with learning disabilities at the 8th
grade level.
Conclusion
The IDA (2007) says that one in five students has dyslexia or SLD. The word dyslexia
means lack of poor verbal language characterized by an abnormal difficulty in learning to read
and spell, caused by a central nervous system dysfunction (IDA, 2007). Horowitz, et al (1998)
state the dyslexic is not using his left angular gyrus. It is functionally disconnected from other
brain regions that are part of the normal brain reading network in many cases (Horowitz et al,
1998). Bellis and Wilber (2001) found that because the language-dominant (usually left)

27
hemisphere is required for the perception and verbal labeling of auditory linguistic stimuli,
information presented to the left ear requires a transfer from the right hemisphere to the left via
the corpus callosum for the subject to make a verbal report, whereas input to the right ear does
not.
The Department of Education (2012) ranks California in the middle of states for students
grade level and in the lowest 10 states for students with
learning disabilities at the 8th
grade level. Twing (n.d.) contends that student growth defines the
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) model and Average Performance Index (API), but it is the
measure of student proficiency that is important. Samuels (2011) claims Special Education costs
are estimated to be twice the cost of general education, yet offering Special Education services
mandated, and has little room to cut costs.
Van den Honert (1977, 2011) suggests that the time is ripe for a thorough study of the
role of the corpus callosum in dyslexia; she found one very effective way to treat SLD persons is
to send visual tasks to one hemisphere while distracting the other with qualitatively different
input. This supplies the missing focus and bypasses the corpus callosum and its degraded
secondary signals (Van den Honert, 1977, 2011). According to Music Education Online (n.d.),
music has been key element to help developing learning. If early identification is possible, there
will be a greatly increased opportunity to intervene much earlier in development than is currently
possible (Molfese, D. L, Molfese, V. L., et al, 2002). School aged children are learning
phonological awareness, so it makes sense that the age of testing (grade 3) is the appropriate age
for diagnosis (Pennington, et al, 2012).

28
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
According to the International Dyslexia Association (IDA, 2007), 20% of students are
dyslexic and read from the right side of the brain, which is the wrong side (Shaywitz, 1998; Van
den Honert, 2011). Dorothy Van den Honert (2011), a special education teacher in
Massachusetts, demonstrated that there is an effective way to help the dyslexic population read
and comprehend by using enhanced lateralization (EL). Enhanced lateralization retrains the
dyslexic brain to read more efficiently when phonics instruction is sent directly to the left side of
the brain (via an earplug in the right ear) and music is sent to the right side of the brain (via an
earplug in the left ear). The present quasi-experimental study was a methodological replication of
a study conducted more than twenty years previously with 18-30 year olds in Massachusetts
(Smith & Dalheim, 1990).
Research Design
The primary research question addressed in this study was, “Is there significant
improvement in vocabulary, reading fluency, or reading comprehension of at-risk elementary
students in a suburban community when given the treatment of using a specific reading program
(Reading from Scratch) without music, versus a group using Reading from Scratch with
enhanced lateralization with music?” Secondarily, the researcher desired to determine whether
overall vocabulary, reading fluency, or reading comprehension improved over the course of 12
weeks because of the Reading from Scratch program, regardless of the presence or absence of
enhanced lateralization. Finally, the researcher addressed whether there were gender, sex, or
grade level effects on the dependent variables, or any significant interactions among gender, sex,
or grade level.

29
Selection of Participants
Institution Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained from Argosy University prior to
parental consent forms being sent. The Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of
Education at a suburban school district signed a promissory letter to invite families with at-risk
students to receive the intervention.
Diana Adames, member of Human Resources, reports the district has 5,470 primary
enrollment students, 424 English Language Learners, 475 Special Education students, 805
Limited English Proficiency students, and 1,060 Socio-Economically Disadvanged students (D.
Adames, personal communication, June 15, 2012).
Selection of participants was accomplished by inviting more than 60 students in grades 2-
6. Grade 2 was selected because students can receive intervention this young, and 6th
grade was
included in order to help these students before they enter middle school. The invited at-risk
students were in the “urgent intervention” and “intervention” sections of the school’s
standardized testing and reporting (STAR) outcomes who also met other conditions to be invited:
not English Language Learners, good attendance, good behavior, availability 4 days a week after
school, and motivated to participate. Of the 38 who responded initially, 37 were selected, and of
those, 27 remained in the program after the first month and throughout the remainder of the
program.
To increase representation and diversity, the researcher attempted to select both males
and females from all ethnicities. The self-nomination process, however, resulted in a majority of
students of Hispanic origin (n = 19), followed by Black (n = 3) and White (n = 3) students. There
was also one student of Asian origin and one student of Middle Eastern origin. For this reason,

30
ethnicity was eliminated as an independent variable due to the lack of representation and balance
in the small sample.
There were nine female students and 18 male students in the final sample. The students
were roughly equally divided among grades, with six 2nd grades, five 3rd graders, four 4th
graders, six 5th graders, and six 6th graders. The ages of the students ranged from 7 to 11 years
(M = 8.93, SD = 1.517).
Not all students attended all available tutoring sessions. Attendance ranged from a low of
15 to a high of 44 sessions (M = 29.78, SD = 7.41). However, the number of training sessions
attended was not significantly correlated with any of the dependent variables or covariates, so the
number of sessions attended was not included in the analysis.
The confidentiality of participants was protected by the assignment of an identifier to
each participant, rather than the use of names. Student identities were not included in the data
entry or analysis.
Instrumentation
The researcher conducted pre- and posttests of vocabulary, reading fluency, and
comprehension, using nationally normed tests with proven reliability and validity, the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT – III, 2007) and the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT – 4).
Each participant received lessons from the Reading from Scratch phonics-based program
developed by Van den Honert (1977).
Methodological Assumptions
Although the study used direct manipulation of the treatment (enhanced lateralization via
music versus the absence of enhanced lateralization via no music), it was necessary to work with
a convenience sample of children of parents who responded to the information letter. As

31
mentioned above, an attempt was made to achieve ethnic and gender diversity, but the self-
nomination process made this difficult, especially for ethnicity. Because the study involved
comparisons of males and females as well as comparisons by grade level, and because all
students were not randomly selected, the research design is best descripted as a quasi-
experimental, specifically causal-comparative design.
Independent variables included the treatment intervention (listening to music through the
right ear while receiving phonics instruction versus receiving phonics instruction without music),
the students’ sex, and the student’s grade level. Enhanced lateralization for the treatment group
was assumed to occur by the transfer of music to the right cerebral hemisphere and phonics
instruction to the left hemisphere. Because of technical difficulties, five of the students in the
control group did not use earplugs. When these students were compared to the remainder of the
students, there were no significant differences in any of the pretest or posttest scores for the two
groups, so these students’ scores were included in the data analysis.
Pretests for the GORT - 4, which measures reading fluency and reading comprehension,
and the PPVT - III were used as covariates in the data analyses. Dependent variables included
posttest scores on vocabulary, reading fluency, and reading comprehension using the same tests
mentioned above.
Procedures
Students were randomly assigned to the control and treatment conditions. At the
completion of the study, there were 14 students in the control group and 13 students in the
experimental group. The tutoring took place on school grounds Monday through Thursday, 2:30-
4:30 pm. for 12 weeks. To eliminate bias, the researcher did not participate as a tutor. Volunteer
tutors, all undergraduates at Azusa Pacific University, were on campus for 12 weeks providing 2-

32
4 tutoring days each week. There were 12 volunteer tutors, who were trained and supervised by
the researcher. Daily presence of the researcher allowed for questions to be answered, and
monthly meetings were held to address student progress and concerns.
Students in the experimental group received the phonics instruction via an earplug in the
right ear, bypassing the corpus callosum and stimulating the language areas of the left cerebral
hemisphere. These students simultaneously heard music through an earplug in the left ear, once
again bypassing the corpus callosum and stimulating the right cerebral hemisphere. Students in
the control condition listened to the phonics instruction either with earplugs (n = 9) or without
earplugs (n = 5). As previously stated, there were no differences in pretest or posttest scores for
the students without earplugs and the remainder of the students, so these five students were
included in the data analysis.
Data Processing and Analysis
Data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and then exported to the IBM SPSS Statistics 21
program. Data fields included an identifier (ID), presence or absence of music (0 = No, 1 = Yes),
sex (labeled as male or female), grade, age, ethnicity, number of sessions completed, vocabulary
scores pre- and posttest, fluency scores pre-and posttest, and reading comprehension scores pre-
and posttest.
Paired-samples t tests with Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels were used to determine whether
there were overall improvements in vocabulary, reading fluency, and reading comprehension.
Independent-samples t tests were used to compare the dependent variable scores for males and
females. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the dependent variable
scores by grade level.

33
A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to determine the
effects of music, sex, and grade level on the students’ posttest vocabulary, fluency, and
comprehension scores after controlling for the covariates of pretest vocabulary, fluency, and
comprehension. Prior to the MANCOVA, the data were examined for normality of distribution
and the possible presence of multivariate outliers.
Conclusion
The present research was a quasi-experimental study replicating a study done previously
with adults. Present participants were male and female at-risk students in grades 2-6 in a large
urban school district. Chapter 3 was a summary of the research design, the selection of
participants, the instrumentation, the methodological assumptions, the data processing and
analysis, and the procedures used in the current research. In Chapter 4, the results of the
statistical analysis of the results are reported.

34
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
All statistical tests were performed at the customary alpha level of .05, with Bonferroni
adjustments for post hoc (follow up) comparisons.
Descriptive Statistics and Overall Results
Descriptive statistics for the dependent variables (posttest vocabulary, posttest reading fluency,
and posttest reading comprehension) and the covariates (pretest vocabulary, posttest reading
fluency, and posttest reading comprehension) are presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Overall Paired-Samples Statistics for Vocabulary, Fluency, and Comprehension
Variable Mean N Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
VocabPre 35.41 27 21.105 4.062
VocabPost 48.26 27 25.742 4.954
FluencyPre 29.81 27 21.193 4.079
FluencyPost 50.00 27 27.792 5.349
CompPre 38.85 27 20.821 4.007
CompPost 50.70 27 22.695 4.368
A paired-samples t test using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .017 revealed
significant improvement for vocabulary (pretest M = 35.41, SD = 21.11; posttest M = 48.26, SD
= 48.26; t(26) = –3.99, p < .001). There was also a significant improvement in reading fluency
(pretest M = 29.81, SD = 21.19; posttest M = 50.00, SD = 27.79; t(26) = –6.27, p < .001). There
was no significant improvement in reading comprehension (pretest M = 38.85, SD = 20.82;
posttest M = 50.70, SD = 22.70; t(26) = –2.21, p = .036.

35
Descriptive Statistics and Results for Males and Females
Descriptive statistics for females (n = 9) are displayed in Table 3, and descriptive statistics for
males (n = 18) are shown in Table 4.
Table 3
Paired-Samples Statistics for Females for Vocabulary, Fluency, and Comprehension
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
VocabPre 41.00 9 20.433 6.811
VocabPost 56.44 9 26.292 8.764
FluencyPre 28.33 9 21.829 7.276
FluencyPost 51.67 9 30.000 10.000
CompPre 42.33 9 24.819 8.273
CompPost 60.89 9 19.284 6.428
A paired-samples t test revealed significant improvement for females in vocabulary
(pretest M = 41.00, SD = 20.43; posttest M = 56.44, SD = 26.29; t(8) = –2.37, p = .045). Females
also showed a significant improvement in reading fluency (pretest M = 28.33, SD = 21.83;
posttest M = 51.67, SD = 30.00; t(8) = –3.28, p = .011). There was no significant improvement in
reading comprehension for females (pretest M = 42.33, SD = 24.82; posttest M = 60.89, SD =
19.28, t(8) = –1.60, p = .149).

36
Table 4
Paired-Samples Statistics for Males for Vocabulary, Fluency, and Comprehension
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
VocabPre 32.61 18 21.445 5.055
VocabPost 44.17 18 25.199 5.939
FluencyPre 30.56 18 21.470 5.061
FluencyPost 49.17 18 27.487 6.479
CompPre 37.11 18 19.066 4.494
CompPost 45.61 18 23.030 5.428
A paired-samples t test showed that males had a significant improvement in vocabulary
(pretest M = 32.61, SD = 21.45; posttest M = 44.17, SD = 25.20, t(17) = –3.14, p = .006. Males
also showed a significant improvement in reading fluency (pretest M = 30.56, SD = 18; posttest
M = 49.17, t(17) = –11.48, p < .001. There was no significant improvement for males in reading
comprehension (pretest M = 37.11, SD = 19.07; posttest M = 45.61, SD = 23.03; t(17) = –1.49, p
= .154.
Descriptive Statistics and Results by Grade Level
Descriptive statistics for the three dependent variables are shown by grade level in Table
5. One-way analyses of variance revealed there were no significant differences among grade
levels for posttest vocabulary, F(4, 22) = 1.56, p = .219, posttest fluency, F(4, 22) = 1.49, p =
.240, or posttest comprehension, F(4, 22) = 1.51, p = .233.

37
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics by Grade Level
Variable Grade N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
VocabPost
2 6 37.00 26.069 10.643
3 5 72.20 23.690 10.594
4 4 46.75 20.791 10.395
5 6 44.17 21.160 8.639
6 6 44.67 29.111 11.885
FluencyPost
2 6 32.50 20.097 8.205
3 5 46.20 38.700 17.307
4 4 65.75 11.927 5.963
5 6 64.50 27.501 11.227
6 6 45.67 26.786 10.935
CompPost
2 6 42.50 25.665 10.478
3 5 71.00 22.528 10.075
4 4 53.25 21.422 10.711
5 6 48.00 14.886 6.077
6 6 43.00 23.212 9.476
Although there was an attempt to achieve diversity in the ethnic representation of the
study participants, this attempt failed, and the lack of balance and representation prevented the
examination of ethnicity as an independent variable.
Multivariate Analysis of Covariance Results
To determine whether music, sex, or grade had any effect on the dependent variables
collectively after controlling for the covariates, a multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) was performed with vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension posttest scores as
the dependent variables; music, sex, and grade as the fixed factors, and vocabulary, fluency, and
comprehension pretest scores as covariates. Before the MANOVA was conducted, the data were
examined for normality and the possible presence of multivariate outliers by the use of the

38
Mahalanobis distance statistic. Results indicated no significant departure from normality for any
of the three dependent variables, and examination of the Mahalanobis statistic indicated there
were no multivariate outliers.
The multivariate test revealed the pretest reading fluency score was a significant
covariate, Wilks’ Λ = .195, F(3, 6) = 8.23, = .81, p = .015. Pretest vocabulary (p = .177) and
pretest reading comprehension (p = .283) were not significant covariates. There was a significant
multivariate effect of music on the combined dependent variables, Wilks’ Λ = .235, F(3, 6) =
6.52, = .77, p = .026.
Post hoc F tests revealed a significant effect of music on posttest vocabulary scores, F(1,
8) = 8.79, = .523, p = .018. There was no effect of music on posttest reading fluency (p =
.459) or posttest reading comprehension (p = .118). There was no effect of sex on posttest
vocabulary (p = .231), posttest fluency (p = .751), or posttest reading comprehension (p = .219).
Grade had no effect on posttest vocabulary (p = .502), posttest fluency (p = .463), or posttest
reading comprehension (p = .580). There were no significant music × sex, music × grade, sex ×
grade, or music × sex × grade interactions (p > .05). Posttest vocabulary scores for students who
were exposed to music and those who were not are shown graphically in Figure 1.

39
Figure 1. Mean posttest vocabulary scores as a function of listening to music were significantly
higher than those for students who did not listen to music.
Conclusion
All statistical tests were performed at the customary alpha level of .05, with Bonferroni
adjustments for post hoc comparisons. A paired-samples t test using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha
level of .017 revealed significant overall improvement for vocabulary and fluency, but not in
comprehension. Both males and females had significant improvement overall for vocabulary and
fluency, but not for reading comprehension.

40
To determine whether music, gender, or grade had any effect on the dependent variables
collectively after controlling for the covariates, a MANCOVA was performed with vocabulary,
fluency, and comprehension posttest scores as the dependent variables; music, gender, and grade
as the fixed factors, and vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension pretest scores as covariates.
The Reading from Scratch showed significant improvement in these at-risk students resulting in
gains in vocabulary and fluency, but not comprehension. Students who listened to music attained
significantly higher posttest vocabulary scores than those who did not.
In conclusion, the Reading from Scratch program worked overall (regardless of whether
the students experienced enhanced lateralization or not). Vocabulary and fluency both improved
significantly from pretest to posttest. The experimental group who used enhanced lateralization
reflected significant improvement over the control group, specifically in vocabulary, but not in
reading fluency or reading comprehension. There were no significant gender or grade
differences, and no significant interactions for any of the dependent variables in the multivariate
test.

41
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
As mentioned previously, the International Dyslexia Association (IDA, 2007) claims that
20% of students are dyslexic and read from the right side of the brain, which is the wrong side
(Shaywitz, 1998, Van den Honert, 2011). One way to help people who are dyslexic learn to read
using the left side of the brain is enhanced lateralization via music (Van den Honert, 2011). The
present research was conducted with at-risk students because the dyslexic population is not
easily accessible. The students who participated in this research were identified as being at risk
of failing Language Arts. The findings of this research proved to be generally positive, with
students showing significant improvement in vocabulary and reading fluency, but not reading
comprehension.
Dorothy Van den Honert (2011) demonstrated an effective way to help the dyslexic
population read and comprehend by using enhanced lateralization (EL). Enhanced lateralization
retrains the dyslexic brain to read more efficiently when one simultaneously sends phonics
instruction directly to the left side of the brain (via an earplug in the right ear) and sends music to
the right side of the brain (via an earplug in the left ear). Van den Honert (2011) says EL
accomplishes three things: it prevents the right hemisphere from usurping a job of reading
intended for the left hemisphere, it strengthens the left hemisphere for reading fluency and
comprehension, and equally important, and it bypasses the central part of the brain called the
corpus callosum (Van den Honert, 2011).
To assist students with dyslexia, Van den Honert (2011) developed The Reading from
Scratch curriculum by integrating the research in neuroscience with phonics instruction. This
curriculum was used 20 years ago on adults (18-30) with specific learning disabilities (SLD) in a

42
study funded by the Department of Education in Massachusetts. The evaluation of the study was
entitled Project Read (Smith & Dahleim, 1990), and demonstrated significant improvements in
reading fluency and comprehension in these adults. The curriculum is still used today in
Massachusetts and by private educational therapists. The present study on students in grades 2-6
partially replicated the methodology of Project Read.
The issue addressed in this research was to determine if the Reading from Scratch
program and the use of enhanced lateralization with music improved vocabulary, reading fluency
(speed and accuracy), and reading comprehension in students in grades 2-6 identified as at-risk
in a large suburban school district.
Conclusions
The research addressed the question: Was there a significant improvement in vocabulary,
reading fluency, and reading comprehension of elementary students at-risk in a suburban
community when given treatment of using a specific reading program (Reading from Scratch)
without music, compared to the use of the same program with enhanced lateralization using
music? This study determined whether EL results in practical effects with at-risk students in a
suburban district in California, and could become a model for other districts in the state as well
as in other states. The California Department of Education reports the cost per student or
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) for general education students ranges from $6945 - $8319 in
districts in this research. Samuels (2011) reports that special education costs, while an
untouchable expense, may be twice as much as general education costs. Educating students with
disabilities is federally mandated, one of the highest cost services school districts must provide,
and the last that can be cut Samuels (2011).

43
Cawthon and Maddox (2011) claim that the field of special education stirs up controversy
and conflict due to the frequent changes in the definition and diagnosis of students with specific
learning disabilities. The National Dissemination Center for Children Disabilities (NICHCY,
2010) states that since each student is unique, and thus it is difficult to provide a simple
definition of special education. A full evaluation defined by our nation’s education law,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is required before a student can be placed in
special education (NICHCY, 2010). Parents or the school may request an evaluation be made
once they have a concern about their student; however, the school’s principal and teacher or the
Director of Special Education must agree (NICHCY, 2010).
The word dyslexia means lack of or poor verbal language characterized by an abnormal
difficulty in learning to read and spell, caused by a central nervous system dysfunction (IDA,
2007). Horowitz et al (1998) state the dyslexic is not using his left angular gyrus. It is
functionally disconnected from other brain regions that are part of the normal brain reading
network in many cases (Horowitz et al, 1998). Bellis and Wilber (2001) found that because the
language-dominant (usually left) hemisphere is required for the perception and verbal labeling of
auditory linguistic stimuli, information presented to the left ear requires a transfer from the right
hemisphere to the left via the corpus callosum for the subject to make a verbal report, whereas
input to the right ear does not.
The Department of Education (2012) ranks California in the middle of states for students
grade level and in the lowest 10 states for students with
learning disabilities at the 8th
grade level. Twing (n.d.) contends that student growth defines the
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) model and Average Performance Index (API), but it is the
measure of student proficiency that is important. Samuels (2011) claims Special Education costs

44
are estimated to be twice the cost of general education, yet offering mandated Special Education
services, and has little room to cut costs.
The results of this study are as follows: All statistical tests were performed at the
customary alpha level of .05, with Bonferroni adjustments for post hoc comparisons. A paired-
samples t test using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .017 revealed significant overall
improvement for vocabulary and fluency, but not in comprehension. Both males and females had
significant improvement overall for vocabulary and fluency, but not for reading comprehension.
To determine whether music, gender, or grade had any effect on the dependent variables
collectively after controlling for the covariates, a MANCOVA was performed with vocabulary,
fluency, and comprehension posttest scores as the dependent variables; music, gender, and grade
as the fixed factors, and vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension pretest scores as covariates.
The Reading from Scratch showed significant improvement in these at-risk students resulting in
gains in vocabulary and fluency, but not comprehension. Students who listened to music attained
significantly higher posttest vocabulary scores than those who did not.
In conclusion, the Reading from Scratch program worked overall (regardless of whether
the students experienced enhanced lateralization or not). Vocabulary and fluency both improved
significantly from pretest to posttest. The experimental group who used enhanced lateralization
reflected significant improvement over the control group, specifically in vocabulary, but not in
reading fluency or reading comprehension. There were no significant gender or grade
differences, and no significant interactions for any of the dependent variables in the multivariate
test.
The significance of this research was to demonstrate the benefits of a specific phonics-
based intervention program, created with the dyslexic in mind, and the significance of using

45
enhanced lateralization. We learned that an at risk population benefits from the combination of
EL and using Reading from Scratch, and that it is beneficial to begin this intervention as early as
2nd grade. The research showed that bypassing the corpus callosum in students with SLD was a
key component to the student’s success. Because the right side of the brain loves music and the
left side is the language center, bypassing a slow, smaller, or faulty corpus callosum supports the
findings of Nobel Prize winner Roger Sperry and his associates. Working independently with
the right and left sides of the brain, with Reading from Scratch and EL for 20 minutes a session
will help students with SLD. Significant improvement was found in vocabulary and reading
fluency with Reading from Scratch, and additionally, when students used the music component
with EL, vocabulary showed even a greater improvement.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this research imply that a student with learning challenges in vocabulary,
reading fluency, or reading comprehension, will benefit from the one-on-one intervention of a
phonics-based reading program. It also appears that a student will show greater improvement in
reading vocabulary if the input of music is entered in the left ear while the student studies.
Recommendations for Research
Van den Honert (1977, 2011) suggests that the time is ripe for a thorough study of the
role of the corpus callosum in dyslexia; she found one very effective way to treat SLD persons is
to send visual tasks to one hemisphere while distracting the other with qualitatively different
input. This supplies the missing focus and bypasses the corpus callosum and its degraded
secondary signals (Van den Honert, 1977, 2011). According to Music Education Online (n.d.),
music has been key element to help developing learning. If early identification is possible, there
will be a greatly increased opportunity to intervene much earlier in development than is currently

46
possible (Molfese, D. L, Molfese, V. L., et al, 2002). School aged children are learning
phonological awareness, so it makes sense that the age of testing (grade 3) is the appropriate age
for diagnosis (Pennington et al, 2012).
It would appear that students struggling with complicated tasks, whether language arts or
mathematics, could potentially benefit from the input of music in the left ear. Some research has
found that music with lyrics is not as effective as instrumental music for this purpose, because
the lyrics can be overly distracting. It would be recommended to research whether the type of
instrumental music (for example, classical music or jazz) would make a difference for students
versus songs with lyrics. Simply 20 minutes per day of this music listening would seem to be
potentially beneficial.
This research used at-risk students identified as having specific learning disabilities
(SLD), but not necessarily specifically identified as dyslexic. Additional research should be
conducted to locate a sample of students with dyslexia, and to use EL and the Reading from
Scratch program. Parents should be advised to seek out this intervention privately for the schools
are not equipped to provide one on one for so many. In addition, trying different types of
instrumental music may benefit the student more than music with lyrics, so additional research
should systematically vary the type of music used with enhanced lateralization to determine any
such benefits.

47
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th
ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Balido-Dean, L. (2010). Dyslexia: An analysis of dyslexic students at the elementary level. Texas
A&M University - Kingsville. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/902033275?accountid=34899
Bellis T. J., & Wilber L. A. (2001, April). Effects of aging and gender on interhemispheric
function. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 44, 246-263.
Bower, B. (2008). Genetic link to dyslexia. Science News, 174(9), 17.
Brain imaging of reading disorders. (1998, January). Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 12.
California Department of Education. (2011). Average daily attendance (ADA). Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/currentexpense.asp
Carreiras, M., Seghier, M. L., Baquero, S., Estévez, A., Lozano, A., Devlin, J. T., . . . Price, C. J.
(2009). An anatomical signature for literacy. Nature, 461(7266), 983-986.
Cawthon, C., & Maddox, J. (2011). Small-group versus one-on-one educational therapy for
struggling readers and writers. Retrieved from http://www.nild.net
Cogn, B. (2012). Electrophysiological correlates of impaired reading in dyslexic pre-adolescent
children. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22466501
Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind act. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Department of Education. (2004). No child left behind (NCLB) act of 2001. Washington DC:
Author.

48
Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with disabilities education act.
Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html
Department of Education. (2011). National assessment of education progress (NAEP).
Measuring status and change in NAEP inclusion rates of students with disabilities results
of 2007-2009. Washington DC: Author.
Department of Education. (2012). The state of states in education. Washington DC. Retrieved
from http://www.ed.gov/blog/2011/09/newly-released-state-by-state-snapshot-of-
educational-performance/
Dunn, L., & Dunn, D. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test, third edition (PPVT-4),
American Guidance Service, Circle Pines, Minnesota
Dryer R., Beale I. L., & Lambert A. J. (1999, March/April). The balance model of dyslexia and
remedial training: An evaluative study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), 174-86.
Gazzaniga, M.S. (1977). Consistency and diversity in brain organization. Annals of New York
Academy of Sciences, 299, 415-424.
Gilger, J. W., & Hynd, G. W. (2008). Neurodevelopmental variation as a framework for thinking
about the twice exceptional. Roeper Review, 30(4), 214-228.
Griffin, N. E. (2008). Elementary teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward the inclusion of
English language learners in mainstream classrooms. Tennessee State University.
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from
Groussard, M., La Joie, R., Rauchs, G., Landeau, B., Chételat, G., Viader, F., . . . Platel, H.
(2010). When music and long-term memory interact: effects of musical expertise on

49
fictional and structural plasticity in the hippocampus. Plus ONE, 5(10), 1-8.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013225
Harris, A. J. (1979). Lateral dominance and reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
12, 5.
Horowitz, B., Rumsey, J. M., & Donahoe, B. C. (1998). Functional connectivity of the angular
gyrus in normal reading and dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
95.
International Dyslexia Association. (2007). Demystifying dyslexia [DVD]. Riverside, CA.
Retrieved from http://www.thinkbright.org/dyslexia/parents/default.asp
International Dyslexia Association. (n.d.). Accommodating students with dyslexia in all
classroom settings. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/28551/
Kappers J. E. (1997, January/February). Outpatient treatment of dyslexia through stimulation of
the cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 100-25.
Krashen, S. (2007). Stephen Krashen's theory of second language acquisition. Retrieved from
http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html
Kuhl, P. (2011). Who’s talking? Science, 333, 529.
Lee, J. (2010). Dual standards of school performance and funding? Empirical searches of school
funding adequacy in Kentucky and Maine. Education Economics, 18(2), 207-228.
doi:10.1080/09645290902796415
McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (n.d.). Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/Gardners-multiple-intelligences/
Merriam-Webster. ( (2005). Inclusion. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inclusion

50
Merriam-Webster. (2005). Intervention. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Retrieved
from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intervention?show=0&t=1381611768
Molfese, D. L., Molfese, V. J., Key S., Modglin, A., Kelley, S., & Terrell S. (2002). Reading and
cognitive abilities: Longitudinal studies of brain and behavior changes in young children,
Annals of Dyslexia, 5, 99-119.
Moxley, E. (2012). Why parents of students with dyslexia say Indiana schools need to rethink
reading. Retrieved from stateimpact.npr.org/Indiana/2012/09/27
Music Education Online. (n.d.). NELS: 88 first follow-up, 1990. National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington DC. Retrieved from
http://www.childrensmusicworkshop.com/advocacy/benefits.html
NEA. (2012). National assessment of education progress (NAEP). Ranking estimates: Ranking
of the states 2011 and Estimates of School Statistics 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates_FINAL_20120209.pdf
National Dissemination Center for Children Disabilities (NICHCY). (2010). Evaluating children
for disability. Retrieved from
http://nichcy.org/schoolage/iep/iepcontents/specialeducation
NCES. (n.d.). Highlights. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2011457.asp
New Science of Dyslexia. (2003, July 28). Time, 162(4), 52-59.
Odegard, T., Ring, J., Smith, S. Biggan, J, & Black, J. (2008). Differentiating the neural response
to intervention in children with developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 58(1), 1-14.

51
Pennington, B. F., Santerre–Lemmon, L., Rosenberg, J., MacDonald, B., Boada, R., Friend, A., .
. . Olson, R. K. (2012). Individual prediction of dyslexia by single versus multiple deficit
models. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(1), 212-224.
Podolak, E. (2011). Dyslexics struggle with processing auditory sounds, not word meaning.
Retrieved from http://www.geekosystem.com/spoken-language-dyslexia
Samuels, C. (2011). Special education costs seen as costly service. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.necn.com/01/19/11/Special-education-costs-seen-as-costly-
s/landing.html?&blockID=3&apID=05de81391a6744739571a8ed24f265a1
Schuilwerve, J. A. (2011). Teachers` attitudes toward ESL students in mainstream classrooms.
Walden University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from
Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., & Pugh, K. R. (1998). Functional disruption in the organization
of the brain for reading in dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of
the United States of America, 95, 2636-2641.
Siegel L. S., & Smythe I. S. (2005, September/October). Reflections on research on reading
disability with special attention to gender issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5),
473-77.
SPSS Inc. (1998). SPSS base 8.0 for Windows user's guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL
Smith, M., & Dalheim, Z. (1990). Project read: A study of twenty reading disabled adults.
Unpublished paper. Massachusetts Department of Education, Bureau of Adult Education.
Sperry, R. (1968). Split-brain study: Hemispheric disconnection and unity in conscious
awareness. American Psychologist, 23, 723-33.

52
Twing, J. (n.d.). Pearson: Growth, gains, and progress under NCLB. Retrieved from
http://www.pearsonschool.com/index.cfm?locator=PSZ1Az
United Stated Government. (2004). Individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) of 2004.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html
Van den Honert, D. (1977). A neuropsychological technique for training dyslexics. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 10.
Van den Honert, D. (2011). Wiping out dyslexia with enhanced lateralization; musings from my
forty years of wiping. Bloomington, IA: Authorhouse.
Watkin, D. A. (1996). An instructional model for facilitating second language acquisition
integrating the Suzuki philosophy of learning and Krashen’s natural approach. The
University of Manitoba (Canada). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/
Wiertelak, E. (2003). Psychosocial aspects of SLD. Retrieved from
http://www.macalester.edu/academics/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/dyslexia/index.html

Final dissertation cintron m

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Final dissertation cintron m