Volume 1 Issue 1: Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education (ADSHE) June 2015

SAVE OFFLINE

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Issues for specialist academic support and formal assessment

Issue 1: June 2015

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Issue 1: June 2015

Foreword

Editorial Team The editorial team is comprised of ADSHE members based at Loughborough University and reviewers who are also ADSHE members from regional groups. Views expressed in the journal do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or of ADSHE. Accurate referencing is the responsibility of the authors. The editorial team holds the final editorial decisions for articles published. If you would like to submit an article for consideration please refer to the editorial guidelines available on the ADSHE website: http://adshe.org.uk/ All students named in these articles have pseudonyms and articles adhere to ethical guidelines. Further information can be found at [email protected] Editor: Karisa Krcmar Editorial Team: Tina Horsman Joan Knight

I would like to thank all my colleagues who have supported the idea, creation and development of this journal. It has taken a whole team of people to write, coedit, peer review, design and proof. We are all very excited about this first edition: the first of many. Editorial meetings have been lively as we debated issues about content; medical vs social model language; use of 1st or 3rd person in narratives; points of grammar and punctuation; referencing …. Opinions were expressed and decisions made. We received a huge number of suggestions for publication but we did not accept every article that was submitted. Our decision was to keep a focus on topics that we all believed to be of interest to specialist tutors in the higher education sector and which offered both theoretical and practical perspectives. I believe that we have a lively and interesting selection of research. If you want to write and debate any of these articles, please do so; I look forward to being able to include a Letters Page for the next issue. I believe this is just the start of a journal that will develop in breadth of publication and readership. It sits alongside ADSHE’s Quality Assurance drive and offers the opportunity for research, CPD and publication.

Karisa Krcmar Editor

Peer Reviewers: Catherine Black Kirstie Edward Christina Healey Pauline Sumner Jane Warren Freda Yeang Design: Sarah Wortley 1|Page

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Contents Welcome to ADSHE Online Journal .........................................................................................4 About the authors .....................................................................................................................5 Confidence Intervals, Significance and Discrepancy How do assessors establish ‘converging evidence’ of a specific learning difficulty in a diagnostic assessment for university students? Caroline Holden ........................................................................................................................8 Re-framing Feedback: A visual action research approach to explaining diagnostic reports - resource tools for specialist tutors Bob Burwell and Jacqueline Szumko. ...................................................................................26 Dyslexia, essay writing and the academic context: understanding difficulty and appropriate support Christine Carter .......................................................................................................................48 Case Study - The Problem of Dictating Academic Essays Ivan Newman ........................................................................................................................... 67 Important Issues in the Diagnostic Assessment and Specialist Support of Learners in Higher Education who speak English as an Additional Language and have Dyslexia Monica Pellegrini ....................................................................................................................86 Action Learning ADSHE-Style: from rhetoric to reality, an initial exploration Pauline Sumner, Tanya Zybutz, Shirley Dow, Janet Skinner and Julia Tait ...................... 102 The Impact of Dyscalculia on Students in Higher Education Victoria Mann, Eleanor Machin and Emma Woodrow......................................................... 115 Book Review Christina Healey and Christine Carter ................................................................................. 130 The Dyslexia Debate J. Elliott & E. Grigorenko 2014, Cambridge University Press, New York. ISBN 978-0-52111986-3 Hardback / ISBN 978-0-521-13587-0 Paperback .................................................... 130 About ADSHE ........................................................................................................................ 141 2|Page

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

3|Page

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Welcome to ADSHE Online Journal It gives me great pleasure to introduce the first edition of the ADSHE Online Journal. The dissemination of good practice has an impressive history; even before ADSHE was founded members of our profession were sharing information on jiscmail. The breadth and depth of experience and knowledge so freely shared has been an invaluable resource for practitioners. The natural progression for many ADSHE members has been to translate reflection on their practice into action research so that developments in their work with students can be supported by research. The ADSHE online journal will provide a platform for members’ research and encourage more tutors to research and publish. Dr Karisa Krcmar, the editor, has been the moving force behind the journal; we must salute her enthusiasm, depth of knowledge and her encouragement to the writers who have contributed to this first edition. All of you are to be congratulated. The articles in this first edition explore issues of interest to both tutors and assessors; they illustrate the scope of the work undertaken by specialist tutors; and they provide research evidence of the complexity of 1/1 support, a complexity which does not always fit readily with overly prescriptive goals and timescales. Dr Kate Dresser Chair, ADSHE

4|Page

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

About the authors Bob Burwell is a Specific Learning Differences Tutor at the University of Hull. He provides specialist one-to-one and group tuition, for students with a range of learning differences, including dyslexia, dyspraxia and AD(H)D. Bob also carries out staff development and training, promoting inclusive practice. He has a post graduate Diploma in Dyslexia and Literacy, and a M.A. in Education, specialising in inclusion and assessment. He has been a teacher for many years with a PGCE, (specialising in social sciences and SEN). He has been the ADSHE North East Coordinator for the last four years. Bob’s particular interests are working with academic departments to develop inclusive curriculum practice. He is currently working on an integrative model within a faculty at the University of Hull Christine Carter has a background in classics and French and worked as an adult literacy tutor in the 1980s and 90s. This led to an interest in dyslexia and work as an academic support tutor at Universities in the East Midlands. She has a particular interest in writing and how language works or does not work in different social contexts. She has recently completed a PhD study with HE student essay writers identified as dyslexic. Shirley Dow has worked with dyslexic students for nearly 20 years, currently as Coordinating Tutor at the University of Essex, working with individual students with SpLDs as well as raising awareness about dyslexia across the university. She has been a member of ADSHE since the early days and was on the working party that produced the ADSHE Guidelines for Quality Assurance and on Quality Assurance. Christina Healey worked as a specialist dyslexia tutor for five years in a pre-1992 university in the north of England. She now works for Equality Focus in London. She is also a long-time associate lecturer for the Open University and is active in the field of English for Academic Purposes. She has wide-ranging research interests in language and learning in higher education. Caroline Holden has thirty-seven years of teaching and assessment experience at primary, secondary, tertiary levels in the U.K. She is qualified as a specialist teacher and assessor for students with specific learning difficulties, holds a Practising Certificate and works as an assessor/tutor for a UK university. Eleanor Machin has worked in the field of Learning Difficulties and Disabilities for over 16 years and has been a Specialist Tutor and Assessor for students with SpLDs for the past 5. She currently works at the University of Sheffield and is studying for her doctorate in education with a specific research interest in dyscalculia. 5|Page

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Victoria Mann is a specialist SpLD tutor at the University of Sheffield. Her main interests are dyslexia and STEM subjects, dyslexia and multiple literacy practices, and dyslexia and English for academic purposes. She has presented at the BALEAP International Conference and been published in a number of academic journals, including ISEJ, Inform, and JIPFHE. Ivan Newman works at numerous Russell Group colleges, other HEIs and for companies. He brings science, managerial, general business and writing backgrounds to providing specialist study skills support, using particularly kinaesthetic and multisensory techniques in addition to storytelling and storymaking. Long familial exposure to SpLDs and other learning issues inform his practice. A keen triathlete, he has represented GB at numerous European and World Championships. He holds a BSc (Hons) Physics & Computing, MBA, Chartered Engineer, European Engineer, Certified IT Professional, PG Cert TADLHFE, PG Dip Assessing SpLDs and is currently researching the effectiveness of 1:1 tutorials for his MA dissertation. Monica Pellegrini has gained an MA equivalent in Modern Languages (Venice University), an MA in Applied Linguistics (London University) and an MA in Specific Learning Difficulties (London Metropolitan University). She is a qualified teacher (QTS) and specialist teacher assessor (APC). For 25 years Monica has taught English, Italian and French at various levels. For the last three years, she has been freelancing as a SpLD specialist tutor at various higher education institutions in the London area. Janet Skinner has worked in the dyslexia field for approximately 30 years, 12 years as Head of Dyslexia Services at the University of Southampton. She is currently working as a dyslexia consultant providing assessments for a variety of universities and dyslexia organisations. She regularly facilitates short CPD courses for tutors and assessors working in the post-16 sector. Pauline Sumner has worked in the dyslexia sector for 15 years. She co-ordinated the Dyslexia/SpLD support at Middlesex University for over five years and is currently working there as Senior Lecturer and Dyslexia/SpLD Support Tutor. She has been a member of ADSHE since its instigation, Membership Secretary in the early years and involved in various working parties including the production of the ADSHE Guidelines for Quality Assurance. Jacqueline Szumko is a Specialist Tutor for Students with Specific Learning Differences at Loughborough University. Jacqueline provides specialist one-to-one study support for students with a range of neurodiversities including dyslexia, dyspraxia and AD(H)D. She has a M.A. in Dyslexia Studies and holds AMBDA status (Associate Member of the British Dyslexia Association). She has been a specialist teacher since 6|Page

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

1998, previously teaching EFL, ESOL and French in F.E. and schools. She has been involved with designing staff development and teacher training courses, including the first post graduate Certificate in Mathematics Support and Dyslexia/Dyscalculia in FE/HE. Jacqueline has a particular interest in the emotional and metacognitive aspects of learning as reflected in the personal development of students. Julia Tait is the Manager of the Dyslexia/SpLD Team at Oxford Brookes University. She is also an adviser and assessor for students with SpLD. She became interested in peer supervision and action learning as a way of supporting tutors. She particularly likes the democratic and egalitarian approach in action learning. Julia is now studying for a PGDip in Coaching and Mentoring at Oxford Brookes. Emma Woodrow is an undergraduate student currently studying at the University of Sheffield. Tanya Zybutz has worked in the dyslexia sector for approximately 20 years. She worked as Dyslexia Coordinator at Queen Mary and London Metropolitan University as Senior Dyslexia Tutor. She has both run Ellen Morgan’s PG training course for 1:1 support in HE and lectured on subsequent courses. She currently co-ordinates the dyslexia service at Royal Central School of Speech & Drama. She has been an ADSHE Exec member and part of the original Working Party that produced the ADSHE Guidelines for Quality Assurance. She was a founder member of the Quality Assurance initiative, pioneering Action Learning for Professional Peer Supervision with Janet Skinner. .

7|Page

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Confidence Intervals, Significance and Discrepancy. How do assessors establish ‘converging evidence’ of a specific learning difficulty in a diagnostic assessment for university students? Caroline Holden With grateful thanks to Jane Galbraith, Honorary Senior Research Associate, Department of Statistical Science, University College London, for her invaluable input and advice.

Abstract Over the past few years assessors have been encouraged to make use of confidence intervals (CIs) in interpreting the results of a diagnostic assessment for dyslexia or dyspraxia. Several articles (Johnson, Ridsdale, Jones & Capener, 2011; Jones, 2011, 2012; McDermott & Ardley, 2014) have been published in PATOSS Bulletins concerning the use of statistics, including the calculation and use of confidence intervals. Renewal of a practising certificate now requires demonstration that the assessor has used confidence intervals appropriately.

This article argues that not only is the suggested use of confidence intervals based on a partial misunderstanding of the statistical purpose of confidence intervals but the accompanying emphasis on using confidence intervals to compare different test results within an assessment obscures a more fundamental question assessors in this field have been reluctant to address i.e. what it means to say that there is statistically significant evidence of a difference or discrepancy between test scores in an assessment, how this might relate to whether or not there is evidence of a clinically relevant difference or discrepancy and how, in turn, this relates to the identification of a specific learning difficulty.

8|Page

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Quoting standard errors of test scores or giving confidence intervals is valuable in reminding practitioners that the measured score is subject to error and should not be considered a ‘true value’ or over-relied upon but assessors are in danger of overfocusing on the mechanics of calculating confidence intervals and neglecting the more important question of how the interpretation of any single test score within an assessment contributes to an eventual identification of a person as having dyslexia.

The main focus of this article is on the identification of dyslexia for students in higher education but the arguments made could be generalised to assessment for other agegroups and to the identification of dyspraxia.

Confidence Intervals, Reliability and the Individual In the use of diagnostic tests for the identification of specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia, assessors are urged to derive confidence intervals from the test manual, using the individual’s test score, or calculate these from the standard error of measurement (SEM).

The 95% confidence interval is the most widely used in scientific literature and will be used for illustration in this article. However, within statistical theory, the definition and use of confidence intervals is widely debated. It turns out that the theoretical concept of a confidence interval is, in fact, rather complicated (Siegfried, 2014).

Since any measurement carries within it the possibility of inherent error, confidence intervals serve to provide interval estimates of a population parameter. For example, in testing an 18 year old for spelling accuracy, it would be useful to know what the average (or mean) score for spelling accuracy was for the total population of 18 year olds in the UK. If this mean was known, it would be possible to compare the score obtained for the person tested with this mean. However, we are unlikely to be able to test every 18 year old in the UK to obtain this mean score. Confidence intervals, therefore, take account of 9|Page

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

imperfect test reliability, sample size and population variability. In theory, a larger sample size is likely to give a better estimate of the population parameter.

One of the commonest misconceptions (and there appear to be many) about confidence intervals is, however, that they describe the range of scores a person ‘might’ achieve on a test. This is not correct. It is accurate to describe a generic 95% confidence interval as having a 95% probability of covering the ‘true’ value of a statistical measurement, but inaccurate to say that there is a 95% probability that the true value underlying a particular measurement falls within the calculated confidence interval. This may seem a question of semantics but it is important to grasp the difference between the two statements. Confidence intervals describe the uncertainty, inherent in any test, around a point estimate (such as a standardised score). Because measurements may contain inherent error, confidence intervals provide a way of assessing and reporting the precision of that point estimate. They refer to the inherent reliability of the test (derived from the sample tested), not to the range of scores a person tested ‘might’ obtain. For an accessible explanation of the statistical theory behind the calculation of confidence intervals see Chapter 5 of Rowntree (1991).

A second common misconception about confidence intervals is that it is a straightforward matter to use them to compare a range of scores derived from different tests at a single time point (e.g. an assessment session). During an assessment session each test is generally administered only once because to repeat tests would take too much time. What an assessor ends up with is a set of obtained scores for the individual tested, each derived from a different test or sub-test (where a test contains many sub-tests, composite scores are sometimes calculated). Raw scores are generally converted to standardised scores for purposes of comparison. Assessors are urged to report and compare the confidence intervals around each standardised score obtained.

Because a confidence interval is constructed to account for imperfect test reliability over time (i.e. the possibility that for any sample of individuals tested, scores might vary each 10 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

time the sample was tested), it might theoretically be appropriate to use CIs if re-testing an individual repeatedly over a number of sessions. In which case, the use of the CI could show what the best long-term stable measure of a person's functioning might be. For example, while a person might achieve a standardised score of 100 on a test carried out just once, if repeatedly tested, the inherently imperfect reliability of the test is likely to become more evident (because an individual’s scores would be likely to vary from the 100 achieved during the single testing session). The CIs could provide the rationale for the observed variation in performance over time because they are derived from the SEM, which describes the predicted standard deviation of a distribution of scores around an obtained score.

While a researcher, carrying out a longitudinal study investigating test performance over time, might be able to use confidence intervals in this way, the diagnostic assessor cannot. The set of scores obtained in a single assessment session presents a single 'snapshot' of performance, which has tapped into a diverse range of skills, using a diverse range of tests (covering, for example, a range of literacy skills, a range of cognitive skills such as phonological processing, working memory and visual-motor coordination, and skills in verbal and non-verbal reasoning).

Individual performance and its variability at any one session (including how the person might feel when taking the test) is accounted for in the design and standardisation of any single test by the construction of reliability coefficients which take account of the internal consistency, dependability and repeatability of a test's scores over items and across time. These coefficients are constructed from reliability studies such as interscorer reliability tests, test-re-test reliability studies, etc. and contribute to calculations of the SEM. The data relating to these tests is usually available in the test manual. A reliability coefficient of 1.00 would mean that the test was perfectly reliable. Coefficients of greater than 0.80 are generally held to indicate good test reliability. Where there is perfect test reliability the SEM would equal zero, i.e. there would be no errors of measurement and no possible variability in performance on the test. 11 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Confidence intervals, where they are available in test manuals, are derived from these reliability measures. Broadly speaking, they ‘flag up’ how reliable a test or sub-test is likely to be, based on the sampling used in reliability studies carried out as part of the standardisation of the test. The narrower the confidence interval, the greater the degree of reliability around any single point score obtained. When reading test manuals assessors could usefully ask questions about the studies used by the test authors to establish reliability coefficients. Do they seem adequate? Are the samples used large enough? How often were these studies repeated? Although many of the tests which are commonly used in the assessment of specific learning difficulties for students in higher education in UK have been standardised on large samples, it is often the case that the reliability studies carried out as part of that standardisation are carried out on much smaller sub-samples. For this reason alone, it might be useful to exercise caution in attributing too much weight to the information confidence intervals appear to provide.

To compare confidence intervals for two or more scores derived from different tests carried out in a single assessment session would need, therefore, to take into account how reliability was established in the standardisation of each of those tests. It would be necessary to calculate confidence intervals for the differences between the tests, a level of statistical analysis unavailable to assessors.

There may be some tests in a test battery which are more closely correlated than others because the inherent variability in performance on the tests may be of a similar nature. For example, there is likelihood that the variability in test performance on the Wide Range Achievement Test Fourth Edition (WRAT4) test of reading accuracy is positively correlated with variability in test performance on the Wide Range Intelligence Test (WRIT) Vocabulary subtest. Other tests are more difficult to compare because they test skills which may not be closely associated and factors which affect variability in performance may be dissimilar. For example, there may not necessarily be a positive correlation between variability in test performance on the WRAT4 spelling test and variability in test performance on the WRIT Matrices test. Tests of coding and 12 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

information processing speed (such as the Symbol Digit Modalities Test) may not be strongly correlated with tests of literacy or mathematical skill because the skills tested are dissimilar and, possibly, cognitively unrelated.

In the standardisation of many assessment tests, construct or correlational validity studies are used to establish whether a test measures what it purports to measure and whether or not it can usefully be compared to other tests. For example, in a new US test, the Academic Achievement Battery (AAB), standardised on a sample of 1,274 people aged 4 - 65+ years in 2014, a construct validity study was carried out on a subsample of 100 people, comparing performance on the AAB with performance on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (WAISIV). The correlational study revealed only moderately strong relationships between the WAIS-IV Verbal Comprehension Composite and many AAB composites, and weak relationships between the Processing Speed Composite of the WAIS IV and the AAB composites.

Assessors are likely to derive better information about how performance on different tests can be compared by a careful scrutiny of the validity studies described in the test manuals than they could from attempting, erroneously, to compare the confidence intervals of test scores from different tests.

Reporting Confidence Intervals If confidence intervals are reported in assessment reports or explained in feedback sessions to the person assessed, it is therefore vital to exercise caution in how they are described, interpreted and used, especially where the obtained score of the person tested is highly unusual compared to the mean of the group tested (Harvill,1991). The WRIT manual (: 66) suggests that ‘psychologists include one set of confidence limits in their reports’…and advises that they should be provided for the General IQ only. The manual argues that: 13 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

“The provision of one confidence limit will sensitize clients and lay-officials to the effects of imperfect test reliability. At the same time, the use of only one confidence limit (versus the presentation of multiple confidence limits) will not confuse participants and lay officials by overburdening them with information.”

This is an important point. Even if it were possible to compare confidence intervals derived from different tests, one of the practical problems in using confidence intervals is where and when should comparisons stop? Should assessors compare all tests of literacy skill and of underlying cognitive skills (such as phonological processing) with underlying general ability? Should assessors compare the results of subtests of certain test batteries such as the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Second Edition (CTOPP2) with other tests in the battery or with other separate tests? How could such comparisons help in reaching a conclusion that someone is dyslexic or dyspraxic?

Comparing Results using Standardised Scores In the one-off assessment session, comparing and interpreting the standardised scores obtained by the person tested is a preferable option because the assessment session can only hope to achieve a ‘snapshot’ of a person's current functioning, not an assessment of possible variability in performance over time. The consideration of standardised scores does provide, potentially, a transparent and accessible means of analysing the results of a test session.

In comparing standardised scores within an assessment, one of the first questions asked is whether any difference between observed test scores is large enough to be unlikely to have arisen from chance alone. So, for example, a standardised score within the ‘below average’ range in one test might be compared with a score in the ‘above average’ range in another test. The key question is: how significant, unusual or important is the difference between the two tests scores in the context of identifying a specific learning difficulty? 14 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The most difficult task the assessor faces is in trying to answer this question. Even where there is information in the test manual which suggests that a point difference between scores derived can be described as statistically significant (i.e. it did not arise by chance alone) a statistically significant point difference between scores obtained may still be accounted for by a number of factors, of which dyslexia might or might not be one. There is always a need to interpret what any difference between scores might actually mean in the context of identifying a SpLD.

One trend in the reporting of test results within a diagnostic assessment has been to simply present and describe test scores which fall below one standard deviation below the mean (15 points, or a standardised score of less than 85) as indicators of significant impairment in the skill tested and/or of a specific learning difficulty. For example, in assessments for access arrangements at secondary and F.E., level assessors are required by the JCQ regulations to demonstrate that the person tested achieved at least one standardised score of 84 or less. (JCQ Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments 2014-2015, p24).

Not all assessors and statisticians agree that one standard deviation below the mean indicates significant impairment of skill. Anwen Jones (2012) cites Grant that assessors should be looking at one and half standard deviations, around 22 points’ discrepancy, for any difference between the derived score and the mean to be regarded as rare and worthy of debate. Even where a large point difference is established between different tests in a profile, this might not necessarily be rare. Jones asserts that the WRIT manual (page 77) shows that a 29-point difference between the highest and lowest scores within a WRIT sub-test profile was found in 25% of the secondary school age population sample. The WRIT manual (p.71) also states that it is common for a person’s verbal reasoning/non-verbal reasoning discrepancy to be as large as 17.3 points.

15 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

There is, therefore, widespread confusion about how large any single difference between test scores needs to be to denote significance, impairment of skill and/or an underlying specific difficulty such as dyslexia.

A second trend in the reporting of test results within an assessment, has been to ask for a test which is divided into a series of sub-tests, where the separate sub-test results, if combined into a composite score, would obscure an important difference between the skills tested, which could contribute to the identification of a particular area of weakness or underlying difficulty. So, for example, calculating significance / difference levels for sub-tests of the WRIT could contribute to the decision as to whether to calculate a composite score. However, whether or not an assessor calculates and reports composite or separate test scores, there is still a need to interpret the scores.

Simply establishing that a score is significantly below a mean for the group tested or that there is significant variation in the pattern of scores obtained, does not, in itself, provide sufficient converging evidence for the identification of a specific learning difficulty such as dyslexia. There remains a tendency for the term ‘significance’ to be used in assessment reports without interpretation.

A third and arguably more valid interpretation of assessment test results would be to establish whether any difference between scores obtained in a diagnostic assessment was clinically significant. There is an important difference between the concepts of statistical and clinical significance. To discriminate between two groups it is essential to know how the test scores will vary (including the possibility of overlap) amongst the relevant “parent” populations (e.g. amongst dyslexic students and amongst non-dyslexic students). The information which is most useful to assessors relates to the differences between these groups.

If, in a hypothetical example, the mean standardised score on the WRAT4 spelling test at a Russell Group university for a random sample of non-dyslexic students is 109, and 16 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

for a sample of dyslexic students it is 96, there is an indication from the 13 point difference that a dyslexic student is likely to perform less well on this spelling test. On the other hand, if the mean score on a test such as the WRIT Vocabulary test for a random sample of non-dyslexic students is 111 and for a random sample of dyslexic students is 109, the probability is that there is no important difference in the performance of dyslexic and non-dyslexic students on this test of verbal ability.

If a (hypothetical) Russell group student achieves a standardised score of 87 on the spelling test and a score of 100 on the vocabulary test, it can be stated that that the student has achieved a spelling test score 9 points below the mean compared to the sample of dyslexic students and 22 points below the mean compared to the sample of non-dyslexic students. In comparison, the student’s score for vocabulary was 9 points below the mean for dyslexic students and 11 points below the mean for non-dyslexic students. In other words, while the spelling test score was lower than expected, even for dyslexic students, the vocabulary test score was also lower than expected for either the non-dyslexic or the dyslexic student at a Russell group university. The lower than expected spelling test score might therefore be an important piece of evidence which contributes to the overall identification of dyslexia for this student but the comparison between the spelling and the vocabulary tests also reveals that this student‘s expressive vocabulary knowledge is weaker than generally expected at this academic level. Could there be other factors, besides dyslexia, which have contributed to both lower than expected scores?

A fundamental consideration in assessing the importance of any discrepancy between scores is the extent to which the discrepancy would be rare amongst the majority of university students, but relatively common for students with dyslexia. In the hypothetical example used above the student’s vocabulary knowledge would be weaker than expected compared to his peers, but not at a level of weakness that could be described as rare. His spelling ability shows weakness typical of many dyslexic students at Russell group universities. 17 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Before reaching the conclusion that the student in the above example has dyslexia the test results must be interpreted and questions asked about other factors which could provide explanations for the results achieved. The student’s vocabulary and spelling ability might also be typical of EAL learners at Russell Group universities. He might be studying science rather than humanities subjects. Ideally studies which compare the performance of dyslexic and non–dyslexic students would tell us something about the variability in performance between science, arts and humanities student groups on these tests. Also relevant would be the variance in other scores the student achieved at the assessment session as well as factors such as a history of developmental and educational difficulty.

Discrepancies between scores are most helpful to an assessor when the assessor has information about both the clinical group tested (e.g. students with dyslexia) and a nonclinical group (non-dyslexic students). Ideally it would be useful to have information about other relevant sub-groups such as, in this case, students with English as an additional language. However, as Jones (2012) says, even where discrepancies are identified, ‘they should be considered a starting point to construct an argument for a diagnosis rather than firm, stand-alone evidence’.

Questioning the Diagnostic Value of Discrepancy Nonetheless, a discrepancy between intelligence and literacy skill and / or cognitive processing skills such as information processing, is still, despite guidelines which advise to the contrary (SpLD Working Group DfES Guidelines 2005), sometimes used as stand-alone evidence of dyslexia and is stated as the sole diagnostic criterion in assessment reports.

18 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

In Thinking Fast and Slow (2011) The Princeton University psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, describes how we can easily produce biases in our thinking because of the human tendency to want to generate simpler and more coherent views of the world than is actually the case (what he calls System 1 thinking…essentially a ‘lazier’ sort of thinking). One of these classic biases is called the ‘halo’ effect. This is when someone who is very good at some things is falsely assumed to be good at everything. The discrepancy model of assessment in dyslexia seems imbued with the ‘halo effect’. Because psychologists tend to administer fuller IQ tests than are available to specialist teachers, there has been a tendency in their reports to expect other test results (e.g. for literacy skill) to be in line with the assessed IQ….the halo effect working here to increase the weight of the first impression made through administering the IQ test. The assumption that a person’s IQ score is, under normal circumstances (i.e. in the absence of a developmental condition such as dyslexia) closely correlated with skill levels in literacy and in other underlying cognitive processing skills, is largely untested although it has long been assumed that there should be a relationship between academic achievement and intellectual ability. There have been some attempts to demonstrate such a relationship. A small sample (360) from the WRIT standardisation sample for 19+ year olds (pp 129-131 WRIT manual) were also administered the WRAT3 and just moderate (but not high) correlations between reading, spelling and mathematical achievement and performance on the WRIT were drawn, with a higher level of correlation between the verbal IQ scale (.60) than the Visual IQ scale (.38). For general IQ the correlation was .56 and .54 for Reading and Spelling respectively.

Even if a correlation exists, correlation does not mean that one factor causes the other, i.e. that high verbal IQ determines high literacy achievement. Good verbal skills could be related less to ‘innate’ IQ and more to access to good education, or to middle class cultural norms -‘cultural capital.’ The assumption cannot therefore be made that a discrepancy between, for example, verbal IQ and literacy skill signifies dyslexia. To say 19 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

that there is a statistically significant difference between scores, i.e. that the difference did not occur by chance alone, is not the same as saying that because of that discrepancy, the person must be dyslexic.

To expect people to perform at roughly the same level in every cognitive or skill or attainment test administered to them (producing a ‘flat, rather than ‘spiky’ profile of test results) during a diagnostic assessment is, it could be argued, based on an untested assumption….an example of the ‘halo effect.’ It is possible that many people without specific learning difficulties, if tested on the battery of tests we use to diagnose dyslexia, would produce ‘spiky’ profiles. This might be more evident if a battery of tests routinely included tests of mathematical and numeracy skills. University students could potentially score highly on tests of non-verbal ability but show just moderate, low average or even below average skills in mathematics and numeracy. This discrepancy between the skill areas would not mean they were dyscalculic; only that their numeracy skills were less developed than, say, their literacy skills. Kahneman (2011) says that ‘to derive the most useful information from multiple sources of evidence you should always try to make these sources independent of each other.’ In diagnostic assessment it is not necessarily helpful to compare two test results from entirely different sorts of tests, e.g. a test of working memory with a test of reading comprehension, without information about which elements in those tests’ results are being compared. Reading comprehension might in part depend on good working memory but it also depends on many other factors. Performance on a test of working memory can be affected by anxiety, previous practise of similar tests, awareness of how chunking techniques can improve performance etc. Observation and questioning during the assessment process can inform qualitative interpretation and reporting. However, it is important that the diagnostic assessor considers and interprets each assessment score separately before looking for patterns within test scores which could contribute towards converging evidence of a specific learning difficulty such as dyslexia. 20 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Interpretation of Results: The Nub of the Matter It can therefore be argued that the focus on confidence intervals does not help make the interpretation of performance at an assessment clearer. It can detract from the most important issue in identifying dyslexia or dyspraxia, which is to provide sufficient converging evidence of long-term, underlying difficulties in cognitive skills such as phonological processing and working memory, i.e. to establish that there is a basis, linked to the research evidence for the cognitive underpinnings of specific learning difficulties, for explaining the literacy problems someone has been experiencing.

To this end, Jones (2012) suggests: •

Looking for statistical deficits in performance, i.e. test scores 2 or more standard deviations below the mean (which would equate to a prevalence rate, for the population as a whole, of 5%...unusual but not rare).

•

Looking at the variability between scores and asking whether any statistical differences between them are rare and not simply attributable to normal variation of skills.

•

Asking whether and how any areas of weakness have a substantial, long-term impact on aspects of daily living.

•

Balancing evidence from qualitative and quantitative data, and background information supplied by the person being assessed.

To this it seems important to add that the more information the assessor has regarding the performances of dyslexic students across a range of tests compared to the typical performances of non-dyslexic students, the better able they are to interpret the test results obtained. There is a need for research to address these issues, in the form of large, controlled randomised studies where the same battery of diagnostic tests is applied to a particular group such as adults in higher education with and without dyslexia. What is needed above all is a set of measures of the typical performances of

21 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

dyslexic students across a range of tests compared to the typical performances of nondyslexic students.

The Importance of Diagnostic Criteria and Diagnostic Labels The skill of the SpLD assessor lies in linking any diagnostic decision firmly to a set of diagnostic criteria based on the best current research about the cognitive underpinnings of SpLDs. Both the underlying cognitive difficulties associated with dyslexia and dyspraxia and the effects of those underlying difficulties on levels of literacy skill may present on a continuum from mild to severe. However, there will also be many people with difficulties which can, on the surface, look similar to those presented by students seeking assessment, but which are not related to dyslexia or dyspraxia. Critical questions should be asked about the concepts of intelligence enshrined in conventional IQ tests, (Adee, 2013). However, unless assessors have a clear idea of what distinguishes the test score pattern of someone with dyslexia from someone without dyslexia, the profession can remain vulnerable to critiques which seek to demonstrate that dyslexia does not exist (Elliott & Grigorencko, 2014).

Where discrepancies occur between standardised scores on tests there is a need to be clear about the basis on which the discrepancy is considered to be clinically significant, taking into account knowledge about the distributions of scores for students with dyslexia or dyspraxia and for those without. Where information about the distributions of scores is unavailable, as is most often the case, caution should be exercised in ascribing significant differences between test scores, but it should not inhibit assessors from using diagnostic labels such as dyslexia and dyspraxia where they feel the evidence supports their use. Tests, which, in their standardisation, have included validity studies investigating the performance of people with and without a specific learning difficulty, can help assessors judge, in their interpretation of test results, how much weight to attach to a set of test scores. For example, the authors of the AAB test carried out a small study (AAB Professional Manual p.109) looking at the performance of people with a Specific Learning 22 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Disorder (SLD) compared to the normative sample. The largest subtest discrepancy between the normative sample and the specific learning disorder sample was on the Reading Fluency subtest. While approximately 2.7% of the ‘normal’ distribution sample would typically obtain a score less than or equal to a standard score of 69, on average 32.4% of the SLD sample obtained a score in this range across all AAB subtest and composite scores with 47.3% achieving a score in this range for the reading fluency subtest. In deciding whether or not a set of test scores indicates a specific learning difficulty such as dyslexia, a difficulty in reading fluency would therefore appear to be a key criterion.

For the reasons outlined in the article above, using confidence intervals to compare test results is likely to be unproductive and at worst misleading. The use of confidence intervals to justify a diagnosis of dyslexia in ‘borderline cases’ is likely to be particularly unreliable and vulnerable to challenge.

The issue of the use of confidence intervals needs further consideration, which will open up a much needed wider discussion about understanding of the difference between clinical and statistical significance, of ‘discrepancy’, and of correlation and causation in the diagnosis of specific learning difficulties. There is an urgent need to develop a better and more informed protocol for the interpretation of test results in the identification of specific learning difficulties.

23 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

References Adee, S. (2013). Stupidity: Why are humans so varied in their mental abilities? New Scientist 30/03/2013 Elliott, J.G. & Grigorenko, E.L. (2014.) The Dyslexia Debate. Cambridge University Press. Harvill, L. M. (nd). An NCME Instructional Module on Standard Error of Measurement, East Tennessee State University. Instructional Topics in Educational Measurement http://ncme.org/linkservid/6606715E-1320-5CAE-6E9DDC581EE47F88/showMeta/0/ JCQ Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments 2014-2015, p24 http://www.jcq.org.uk/exams-office/access-arrangements-and-special-consideration/regulationsand-guidance Johnson, B., Ridsdale, J., Jones, A & Capener, J. (2011). The standard error of measurement and confidence intervals. Patoss Bulletin, Volume 24 No.2. Winter 2011 pp.34-41. Jones, A. (2011). Underlying Ability – Painting a Picture. Patoss Bulletin, Volume 24. No.1 Summer 2011 pp.36-41 Jones, A. (2012). Statistics for the terrified – a review for Specialist Teacher Assessors. Patoss Bulletin, Volume 25. No.1 Summer 2012 pp.30-31 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux McDermott, J. & Ardley, D. (2014). Turning the Tables. Patoss Bulletion, Volume. 27. No.1. Summer 2014 pp.38-49 Messer, M.A. (2014). Academic Achievement Battery. Lutz, Florida. PAR PATOSS - The Professional Association for Teachers and Assessors of Students with Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD) https://www.patoss-dyslexia.org/ Rowntree, D. (1991). Statistics Without Tears A Primer for Non-mathematicians. Penguin. (Now out of print but available second-hand and in most academic libraries). Siegfried, T. (2014). ScienceNews Blogpost 9:30am, July 3 2014. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/scientists%E2%80%99-grasp-confidence-intervalsdoesn%E2%80%99t-inspire-confidence SpLD Working Group DfES Guidelines 2005: http://www.sasc.org.uk/SASCDocuments/SpLD_Working_Group_2005-DfES_Guidelines.pdf The Russell Group of Universities: A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales under company number 6086902. Registered office: Kett House, Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2JY 24 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

TESTS: WRAT4 – Wilkinson, G.S. & Robertson, G.J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test. Lutz, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. WRIT – Glutting, J., Adams, W. & Sheslow, D. (2000). Wide Range Intelligence Test. Lutz, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. SDMT- Smith, A. (1982). Symbol Digit Modalities Test. East Lansing, Michigan: Western Psychological Services. WAISIV – Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition. Pearson 2008. CTOPP2 – Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K. & Rashotte, C.A. Pearson NA (2013) Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing- Second Edition. Austin Texas: PRO-ED Inc.

25 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Re-framing Feedback: A visual action research approach to explaining diagnostic reports - resource tools for specialist tutors Bob Burwell and Jacqueline Szumko.

Abstract Reviewing the Diagnostic Assessment Report with students can be tricky. However, developing students’ understanding of their cognitive profile leads to better metacognition, self-esteem and self-advocacy skills. We present two practical, visualdiscursive approaches to this process which are currently being trialed in our two different institutions. Both approaches reflect the social model of neurodiversity.

Introduction The two teaching tools presented in this article, the “Assessment Feedback Map” and the “Plus, Minus and Interesting Points” map (PMI) were created in response to the authors’ own difficulties in communicating and feeding back diagnostic assessment reports (DARs) to students. This is considered an essential activity by ADSHE (2009, Section 1.5). However, these reports are written for different audiences and are therefore technical, wordy and lengthy and, from our experience, they are generally not inclusive in communicating to the student their profile. We both felt that we wanted to develop a format and process that are accessible, understandable and thus inclusive. We wanted to bridge the gap in the students’ understanding and move from a textbased to a visual-discursive approach. We work in two different universities and began to address these learning barriers in different practical ways. However, both of the feedback maps are based on the same philosophical and pedagogical approaches, i.e., themes such as developing metacognition, self-esteem and self-advocacy, and promote a social model view of neurodiversity. 26 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

It should be noted that whilst in this paper we strongly recommend making time to review the assessment reports with students as a visual-discursive process, we recognise that the benefits gained are related to the enthusiasm of the student (and tutor) of working through this process. Although we advocate completing the maps at an early stage in the support process, we are mindful that some students might still be sensitive about their diagnostic report and may need more time.

The Assessment Feedback Map (Bob Burwell) I sat in my office waiting for my student to arrive for his first appointment with me. The first appointment has a number of possible and arguably ambitious aims: giving practical advice about applying for DSA, discussing new exam arrangements, but also the significant task of offering feedback on the student’s recent Diagnostic Assessment Report (DAR). As a specialist tutor I often find these appointments a challenge. I flick through the 34 pages of the student’s report and ask myself: how do I summarise all this information! Much of the important information is written in technical specialist language, which is meaningful to specialist tutors and assessors, but reads like a foreign language to many students. This is primarily due to the fact that assessment reports by their nature are written based on the science of psychology and psychometric testing (Turner, 2000). Put simply, students do not fully understand this language. Significantly, my professional training as a specialist tutor, at the time, did not provide any meaningful guidance on how to provide effective feedback for students regarding their reports. Therefore I have used an Action Research approach to create a tool which specialist tutors can use to aid students’ understanding.

In my experience, students often come to these tutorials with a sense of relief that they have a name which now explains some of their learning and literacy experiences. This is supported by extensive recent research by Pino (2014) who carried out a review of dyslexia, including the initial identification of dyslexia in higher education. Pino found that for the majority of students surveyed, their identification of an SpLD ultimately had a 27 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

positive impact, as the assessment report confirmed they were not “simply stupid” or “disorganised” (2014: 359). However, when I gently ask students if they have any questions about the contents of their report, unsurprisingly, they often look somewhat passive and bewildered by it all. I then do my best to give students a working understanding of the test rationale and outline assessment tests in literacy, underlying ability and cognitive processing. I accompany this explanation by using a diagram of a bell curve, illustrating the distribution of their scores which helps tutor and student decode each score in some laymen terms. Both these techniques seem to go some way in explaining the report. However, from my perspective as a tutor, I often thought that these sessions were not very satisfying because I felt my teaching was not connecting enough. Even in a more successful tutorial, there is a lot of information for students to process and understand. Furthermore, if they had acquired some knowledge of their report, their weak auditory memory is likely to lead to them to forgetting details, with only the rather daunting lengthy written report for reference. There was also a sense of unease that I might be perpetuating what students experience when they undertake their diagnostic assessment. For example, arguably, for many students with specific learning differences (SpLDs) the assessment process is what Herrington (2001) warns against as a technicist approach; something ‘done to them’, by an expert. Consequently, many students find the whole process a challenging, bewildering and rather stressful experience. Also, assessment reports by their nature tend to highlight students’ literacy and cognitive deficits.

How could I turn this feedback session into an informative, positive and even empowering experience? Moreover, I think this first appointment is significant, as it is an important first stage in the teaching and support process. Therefore, as I embarked on this project I wanted to address the following aims:

28 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

•

To provide practical guidance - understanding the tests’ rationales summary/synthesis of test scores.

•

Re-frame interpretation of the report’s findings. Perceive SpLD profile as less of a deficit but more in terms of a specific difference in learning.

•

To initiate students’ metacognitive awareness.

•

Explain how the support recommendations/DSA package relates to the SpLD profile, supporting students to become confident and independent learners.

To articulate these aims, I wanted to create a visual, inclusive alternative to the textbased, diagnostic assessment report. This led to the creation of the following: SpLD ‘Assessment Feedback Map’ - a user-friendly summary of “Gary”: a case study of a student’s SpLD profile, as shown in Figure 1.

29 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Figure 1 and appendices 1 & 2. SpLD Feedback Map

30 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Initial teaching and decoding of a student's test scores Firstly, I verbally summarise the report by using a 'bell curve' diagram, illustrating the normal distribution standard scores and percentile rankings to explain three broad categories found in all assessment reports: attainment, underlying ability (IQ) and cognitive processing. I start with explaining the student's ability scores. I then contrast these tests with their literacy scores, for example, reading, spelling and writing. I then explain and outline the student’s cognitive processing scores. Students like this practical summary strategy, as they can start to decode a whole range of scores, whilst condensing a 30+ page report of dense text. Significantly, with guidance, students start to see what is an emerging but distinct SpLD profile pattern. Possibly, for the first time, they start to gain a working understanding of the relationship between what is often a good to average IQ, in contrast to some low performance scores in literacy. This discrepancy is primarily due to weaknesses in cognitive processing (e.g. auditory and visual) and phonological difficulties. The verbal exposition and demonstration starts the process of a positive and informative learning experience. The next stage is the introduction of a copy of their 'Student Assessment Feedback Map'.

Teaching about Ability Scores: re-framing from a model of deficit to learning difference. The aim was to create a map which students understood, in a visual format that made sense to them, forming a bridge between the written report and their understanding of their SpLD profile. Visual maps provide an excellent framework for displaying overviews, making connections, providing key messages and developing in this case, a ‘big picture’ of students’ understanding of their reports (Cooper, 2009:74). David Grant makes a compelling case for choosing a visual approach for SpLD students, as alternative to reading or writing linear text. Grant comments on one student after using mind-mapping software, who simply said, “that’s the way I think” (2010:14). The strength in using this alternative format is that for many SpLD students who have a 31 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

limited working memory, the feedback map works because it visually summarises, organises, and captures their assessment report. Interestingly, the creation of an assessment map is what has recently been promoted as good assessment feedback practice: by providing a simple operational model which is graphically illustrated that utilizes the student’s strengths and weaknesses (McLoughlin and Leather, 2013). Tutors are advised to build the content of the map together with the student. On a practical note, tutors may well need more than one session to complete all the boxes, and therefore tutors are encouraged to take a flexible, developmental, and unrushed approach. The text-boxes summarising the assessment scores are fairly small. Their small size, guides the tutor to write a user-friendly summary, which students can understand. The aim of these summaries is to avoid the technical language register used in reports which often alienates students. Working from the top of the diagram you can start summarising their ability profile. This is strategically placed near the top of the diagram, to visually highlight the positive news that their IQ is either good or a least average, and therefore, significantly, not a weakness! Here you can explicitly state whether a student has good verbal ability or particular visual strengths such as visual spatial skills, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Gary’s Verbal Ability Score.

32 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The IQ summary is important because it highlights to the student, in an empowering way, that they have strengths, as they often interpret the text-based report in terms of a list of cognitive and literacy weaknesses. In effect, revealing their strengths can often be the initial platform for building the student’s self-esteem regarding their learning and literacy: This philosophical approach to assessment, based on a social model, is advocated by Cooper (2009) who argues that diagnostic assessment should be about a discussion, not just focused on difficulties which imply a deficit. Importantly, this stage is significant pedagogically because by highlighting the student’s strengths you are initiating a reframing of the student’s perceptions of seeing their SpLD more in terms of a learning difference, rather than a deficit.

Teaching Cognitive Processing Scores: the initial stages in metacognitive awareness The next stage is the written summary explanation of the student’s cognitive scores and profile. Again, tutors are encouraged to write a user-friendly summary to aid understanding. Significantly, you can synthesise their cognitive profile, whilst highlighting any particular weaknesses. This stage enables you to detail how a particular cognitive weakness impacts on their literacy and learning. Indeed, this stage is important because it is the initial process in developing the student’s metacognitive awareness. For example, Figure 3 illustrates how Gary’s slow visual processing speed is the main reason for his slow performance in reading and writing. By highlighting this point, Gary is building a conscious awareness of his own cognition, and how it impacts on the learning process. (Fernandez-Duque, Baird & Posner, 2000; Gartside, 2010).

33 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Figure 3: Gary’s Visual/Motor cognitive profile.

The student’s understanding of their SpLD learning style It is at this stage you can teach students a deeper metacognitive understanding of their SpLD. Tutors can work collaboratively with student and scaffold their understanding of the previous scores. Then the tutor and student can write up a summary of their particular SpLD profile, as suggested in the example shown in Figure 4: Figure 4: Gary’s SpLD profile.

You may notice that emphasis is placed on highlighting the student’s ability strengths with practical examples. However, this is also combined with the realities of the SpLD and its impact, whilst providing solutions to overcome specific literacy barriers. Again, this stage reinforces messages about students understanding that their SpLD is not all about deficits, but more about adopting a different learning approach. 34 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

How the DSA support package supports students’ SpLD learning Style The final section of boxes provides a clear outline of the type of support they will receive. This section is a useful tool for the tutor, as it provides the opportunity to outline in a clear, practical and visual way, the sheer range of support which will be on offer to the student, once their DSA funding is in place. The box shown in Figure 5 has a particular role to play: Figure 5: Summary of Gary’s tutorial support.

This box enables the tutor to summarise some of the particular areas of tuition from which the student will benefit. Tutors can aid students to make clear connections between the earlier boxes highlighted, to show how the tuition will directly address their learning style and particular cognitive weaknesses. Moreover, it is recommended that the tutor can guide the student in negotiating the priorities for tuition. Students will be encouraged to make metacognitive connections as in the above example: planning time is the key to my literacy development. The overriding message from this box is that the targets set are based on understanding Gary’s SpLD learning style, and support priorities. This is also a positive stage in the teaching process, as it consolidates to the student the continued psychological message that their SpLD is not necessarily a deficit, as the 1:1 tutorials will nurture a different approach to learning. Finally, this final stage of the assessment map promotes and encapsulates the philosophy of “a wellinformed neurodiverse student is one who becomes his or her own best advocate for change” (Grant, 2009:59). 35 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The Plus, Minus and Interesting Points Map (Jacqueline Szumko) At the same time as Bob was developing the Assessment Feedback Map, we started to use a Plus, Minus and Interesting Points (PMI) model for reasons similar to those Bob has already outlined. Currently we are also trialling a version of the Assessment Feedback Map and are finding that each idea has its own merits. The structure and procedures at my institution are different from Bob’s in that the Study Support Service team will see students for screening for neurodiversity and after that not until DSA has been agreed and the student has requested study support. By the time we see a student there is often a pressing deadline or muddle that is the student’s priority and they do not always see the point in resurrecting the assessment report. Some students need persuading to spend ten minutes per session on it. However, the point is that the report can be used as a tool to acknowledge strengths and weaknesses and as a springboard to better self-understanding and self-esteem. The key factors that we want to address in this process are: •

Developing a partnership learning relationship with the student

•

Developing the student’s self esteem

•

Communicating a social model understanding of neurodiversity, whilst at the same time being realistic

•

Acknowledging the difficulties, but not being defeated by them

•

Giving grounded positive messages instead of encouragement such as, “Einstein was dyslexic” (Maybe he was, but can we prove it? And is that why he was a genius?)

36 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The Plus, Minus and Interesting Points chart (PMI) For a number of years we worked with educational psychologist, Michael Lock, who always included at the end of his reports a PMI chart with instructions to the report recipient regarding how to use it. We have based our PMI on this, with the addition of an Action Points section. A blank PMI can be found in Appendix 3, and the way I use it is as follows: Preparation: It is important to read the report before seeing the student as some are not easy to interpret on the hoof. I tend to print a copy of the assessment report which I later give to the student. I highlight key points, including all strengths and positive qualities mentioned by the assessor either in the background information or from their observations. This has the dual purpose of speeding up the process of reviewing the report with the student and avoiding any nasty surprises when the student is with me. It also means I can look up anything I need to, and think about how I am going to explain it to the student. During the session: As we are now a “paperless” office, I use an electronic version of the PMI that can be emailed to the student after each session when notes are added, although some of my colleagues prefer to make notes by hand. Where the student can fill in the information themselves, this enhances a feeling of ownership to the process (an example is shown in Figure 6). The student and I look through the report, picking out the highlighted information which we discuss. As yet, all of my students have been happy to limit the discussion in this way. (A student has not yet come prepared, with highlighted salient points, but if it happens I will be delighted.) As we go along we both pick out key points that are typed into the PMI in the form of bullet points. We alter technical language and use the student’s phrasing where possible. It is usually selfevident whether a point is Plus, Minus or Interesting. The discussion of the report may take place over several weeks, as usually we are working on other things alongside it.

37 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Figure 6: A work in progress – the PMI of a 1st Year Aeronautical Engineering student.

We talk about the student’s neurodiversity label(s), definitions and how they are tested. This includes describing different tests and using a Bell Curve to talk about the results. Students do not usually realise “...what has long been known in the field of learning disabilities: that a majority of tests described as measuring a single process actually sample a multiplicity of processes across the attentional, cognitive, and emotional domains” (Meltzer & Krishnan, 2007:85). This is worth pointing out, particularly where there are few good scores.

I ask the student about their experience of the assessment

process and this may lead to talking about attention spans, working memory or anxiety. Students often assume that the assessment tests all of their capabilities and it is important that they understand that this is not so. A discussion of Gardner’s multiple intelligences (2011) is useful at this point in order for the student to realise that there are

38 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

other ways of learning and doing which are not dependent on the cognitive skills that they find difficult. As the opportunity arises, I point out that university education being dependent on higher order reading and writing skills is not necessarily neurodiversity friendly: “irrespective of my ability in a hundred different curriculum areas, my progress will almost certainly be judged by reading something and writing about it” (McNaught & Mill, 2010:5). A discussion of which situations are more or less friendly in terms of the student’s neurodiversity may ensue, which in turn can lead to discussing the social model verses the medical model of neurodiversity. David Pollak (2005:152) points out that an awareness of discourses of dyslexia may empower students and help them to question how they are described in assessment reports. The identification process involves testing skills we expect to be weaknesses and therefore the reports are bound to contain negative information that shows the student in a poor light, however much the assessor tries to put a positive spin on it. Where the assessor has mentioned qualities such as determination and perseverance these are also noted in the PMI. In his case studies of higher education students Pollak found, “… the experience of being formally identified as dyslexic and receiving a report about their cognitive and academic weaknesses is likely to give [students] a sense of being flawed. The resultant self-concept depresses their academic selfesteem, and this can even lead to poor social self-esteem too” (2005:143). A start at trying to address this is to highlight the student’s positive attributes if stated in the report as it helps to build their confidence to see these in writing, both in the assessment report and in the PMI. We are aiming to develop an exploratory partnership with students, where they are listened to and we as tutors remember that the students are the experts about themselves.

We are aiming to “… re-connect learners with their own resourcefulness

and to develop their own voices” (Herrington, 2001:173). This is to do with developing the student’s skills in self-understanding and self-advocacy and is explained very well 39 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

by Ginny Stacey, “We need to have full recognition of how the SpLD we have affects our thinking and our interaction with people and the situation around us. We need to know how to get our minds to think well...The students often become more confident as a result of knowing how their minds work” (2010:16). In this way the neurodiversity can be reframed. The exploratory partnership is important on another level too. By treating the student’s contribution to the discussion as equally important to ours or the assessor’s, we are acknowledging the student as an intelligent adult with worthwhile contributions to make to the discussion. In this way we are modelling confidence in the student and, due to our role as ‘experts’, this has value. This level of communication could be described as hidden and we may not consciously realise that it is taking place, but it is very important. McLoughlin & Leather (2013:27) note how difficult it is to improve confidence and write, “Even highly successful dyslexic people express doubts about their ability. Their confidence always remains fragile and setbacks can be enormous.” From my experience, I concur with this view and believe that every opportunity to develop students’ confidence should be exploited. After the discussions about the report: We review the Action Points. I have found that what the students choose to work on can be surprising. For example, in Figure 7 it can be seen that the student wants to work on spelling and cursive handwriting, which in this digital age are often assumed to be areas students are uninterested in. After agreeing the Action Points, I then email the PMI document to the student, some of whom process it into a format that makes more sense to them and reinforcing a sense of ownership. Two examples of completed PMIs are shown in Figures 7 and 8. This whole exercise is more effective if the final PMI is regularly referred to and built upon. At the moment we are trialing ways to do this.

40 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Figure 7: The completed PMI processed by a 1 st Year Textiles student.

41 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Figure 8: The completed PMI processed by a 1 st Year Graphic Design student.

The PMI makes the discussion of the assessment report more focussed than with previous practice. This is not all one-way and I find that I learn a great deal during these discussions with students, both about the neurodiversities and about the individuals. This builds on my own professional knowledge and is of immense help when working with the student. Following the PMI process, my knowledge about a 42 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

student extends beyond an academic understanding of their cognitive skills, and includes knowledge about their life experiences, hopes and dreams, which is helpful in contextualising our work together. By the end of the PMI process the student has a more positive understanding of their cognitive profile and has the knowledge and language to develop self-advocacy skills. These two factors should act to build their self-esteem.

Conclusion Interestingly, both the Assessment Feedback Map and PMI were developed by two different specialist tutors working separately, but we both arrived at providing a visual summary and discursive process as an attempt to bridge the gap in student understanding. Significantly, these tools also provide a tutor with a platform for a developmental approach with the learner covering the crucial themes of metacognition, self-esteem and self-advocacy. Furthermore, these tools provide a framework for initiating a good inclusive working relationship with students. We would like readers to note that these are fairly new tools. Although we have had very favourable feedback anecdotally from students and professional colleagues on the respective maps, our next stage in this project is to collect and collate some more formal feedback and data from students and colleagues. Finally, although this is an early stage in using these maps, we have found these very useful and we believe that specialist tutors will find them helpful in their practice. Please see Appendix 1, Blank Assessment Feedback Map, Appendix 2, example of completed Feedback Map and Appendix 3, Blank Plus Minus and Interesting Points Map. To access blank Feedback Map and blank Plus Minus and Interesting Points Map in word format which you can use, please follow the link to ADSHE free resources.

43 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

References ADSHE: Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Specialist Support for Students with SpLDs in Higher Education (Revised June 2009). Published by ADSHE Cooper, R. (2009). Dyslexia . In: D. Pollak (ed.), Neurodiversity in Higher Education, Positive responses to Specific Learning Difference. Chichester, John Wiley, pp. 63-89. Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird J.A. & Posner, M.I. (2000). 'Consciousness and Cognition'. Executive Attention and Metacognitive Regulation. Volume 9, (Issue 2, June), pp. 288–307. Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books a Member of the Perseus Books Group, Gartside, B. (2010). Specific Learning Needs of Student. In A. McIntosh-Scott, J. Gidman & E. Mason-Whitehead (eds), Key Concepts in Healthcare Education. London: Sage, pp. 183-189. Grant, D. (2009). The Psychological Assessment of Neurodiversity. In D. Pollak (ed.) Neurodiversity in Higher Education , Positive responses to Specific Learning Difference. C. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Herrington, M. (2001). An approach to specialist learning support in higher education . In: M. Hunter - Carsch and M. Herrington (eds), Dyslexia & effective learning in secondary & tertiary education. London: Whurr, pp. 170-192. McLoughlin, D. & Leather, C. (2013). The Dyslexic Adult Interventions and Outcomes An Evidence-based Approach. Second Edition. British Psychological Society and John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester McNaught, A. & Mill, C. (2010). Supporting dyslexic learners – tails wagging dogs? Dyslexia Review. October 2010, Volume 21 No. 3 Meltzer, L. & Krishnan, K. (2007). Executive Function Difficulties and Learning Disabilities Understandings and Misunderstandings in L. Meltzer (Ed.) Executive Function in Education from Theory to Practice. The Guildford Press, New York Pino, M. & Mortari, L. (2014). The Inclusion of Students with Dyslexia in Higher Education: A Systematic Review Using Narrative Synthesis. Dyslexia, Issue 4, Volume 20. pp. pages 346– 369. Pollak, D. (2005). Dyslexia the self and Higher Education, learning life histories of students identified as dyslexic. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books Ltd. Stacey, G. (2010). Personalised Strategies for Effective Study in Dyslexia Review Spring 2010, Volume 21 No. 2 Turner, M. (2000). Psychological Assessment of Dyslexia. 2nd Edition. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd .

44 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Appendix 1: Blank Feedback Map 1

45 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Appendix 2: Example of completed feedback

46 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Appendix 3: Blank PMI

Shared reading of diagnostic assessment report Plus Points

Minus Points

Interesting Points

Action Plan 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

47 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Dyslexia, essay writing and the academic context: understanding difficulty and appropriate support Christine Carter

Abstract This article is based on a qualitative PhD study with eleven student writers, seven of whom are identified as dyslexic. Interviews carried out during the writing of an assessed essay revealed well-documented dyslexia related difficulty, but also strong differences in how writing was experienced that seemed unrelated to dyslexia. Analysis of evolving and final texts showed great variety in how essays were constructed and in the ways that communication could be compromised. Academic writing is theorised within an academic literacies framework and questions are asked about how this affects our understanding of the difficulty experienced by students identified as dyslexic and how we might best work with them. Embedding these writers within a theoretical framework of academic writing shows how well-recognised features of dyslexia interact with, and are mediated by, dilemmas faced by many student writers. It also emphasises the importance of meta-cognitive, meta-affective and meta-linguistic awareness. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to understanding essay writing difficulty and the most appropriate support for writing for these students.

Introduction Essay writing is still viewed as a proportionally significant element in student assessment and learning (Hodgson & Harris, 2012; Hyland, 2009). However, despite its importance in the HE sector in the UK, it is difficult to define as a genre (Hyland, 2009) and tends not to be theoretically well-founded (Ganobcsik-Williams, 2006). Dyslexia is similarly difficult to define (Pavey, Meehan, & Waugh, 2010): definitions are beset by different theoretical perspectives, different purposes and different fundamental 48 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

conceptualisations of it (Reid, 2009; Riddick, 2010). Different discourses and agendas are applied by, and to, a variety of stakeholders. Debates continue about the boundaries of identification. At the same time funding gate-keepers create clear cut-off points in an attempt to offer guidance and allocate financial support. This slipperiness in the definitions of both essay writing and dyslexia is reflected in the actual experience of supporting students identified as dyslexic with their essays. We find a range of different problems at word, sentence, paragraph or global levels of the essay (see, for example, Singleton,1999 for descriptions), and these occur in numerously different combinations. We find a stilted struggle for words but also obfuscating verbosity. We see struggle to understand what is expected in an essay and sometimes high levels of anxiety and confusion. Alongside this we find creative problem solving, and sometimes beautiful, polished texts written without our support. All of this variation is set alongside UK funding requirements for Disabled Students’ Allowances (DSA) that lean towards deficit medical models of dyslexia (Hurst, 2009): clear boundaries are set for dyslexia assessment (SpLD Working Group 2005) and funding is justified only for specifically dyslexia-related difficulty. It was the dichotomy between these DSA discourses and the actual experience of working with student writers that prompted my PhD study with a group of HE essay writers identified as dyslexic. Can dyslexia really explain all the differences in essay-writing that we find and if not, what are the other mediating factors?

Dyslexia and academic essay writing: connections, disconnections and blurred boundaries It is clearly possible to make connections between well documented cognitive features of dyslexia and essay writing difficulty, even though research into dyslexia and writing, particularly higher level writing processes is sparse (Gregg, Coleman & Lindstrom, 2008). We can see how problems in verbal short-term memory (Hulme & Snowling, 2009) might interfere with the verbal rehearsal necessary for sentence composition. We 49 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

might say that slower speed and less-efficient integration of the processes necessary for fluent reading (Wolf, Bowers & Biddle, 2000) will also interfere with composition of complex sentences and paragraphs. Research into working memory suggests that lack of automaticity in spelling and handwriting leaves fewer resources for managing the multiple processes necessary for developing a clear structure (Berninger, 1999; SmithSpark & Fisk, 2007; Skellariou & Price, 2010). These lines of research offer compelling explanation of difficulty. However, they do not explain the great variation in the nature, prevalence and severity of difficulty with essay writing. Some explanation of this variation might feasibly arise from dyslexia research that focuses on interactions between genes, environment and development over time. For example, Snowling (2008), in a longitudinal study including those at family risk of dyslexia, suggests that risk and protective factors interact at different stages of development to give different literacy outcomes. Gilger and Kaplan (2008) similarly consider that an approach they term as Atypical Brain Development (ABD) allows for changes over the lifespan and interactions amongst different brain areas as opposed to a modular approach. The concept of neurodiversity is also helpful here (Pollak, 2009). Whilst these ways of thinking can account to some extent for the variation we find in these student writers, some of this research is associated with essentially deficit, medical language (with dyslexia as a within-person problem) and this sits uncomfortably with our avowed support of social models of disability and with social interactive models of dyslexia (Herrington & Hunter-Carsch, 2001). From this perspective understandings of dyslexia arise from culturally constructed concepts of disability, literacy and intelligence (Herrington & Hunter-Carsch, 2001; Cooper, 2006; Chanock, 2007; Burden, 2008). According to social interactive models of dyslexia and a social model of disability, the context is viewed as a potential source of difficulty with writing. It is not my intention to suggest choices between these different conceptions: all have a role in our understanding of the writing needs of this group. However the picture becomes even more interesting if we set these different conceptions of dyslexia 50 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

alongside current thinking about academic writing across the HE sector. Discussion of academic writing pedagogy amongst writing researchers increasingly leans towards the social practices of writing (Ganobcsik-Williams, 2006), the ways in which writers are enabled or constrained by different disciplinary knowledge-making practices (Hodgson & Harris 2012). It is suggested that this interest has arisen in response to increased diversity in the student population and an increased number of modular courses where students are working across disciplines (Ivanic & Lea, 2006). However, in terms of support for writing across the HE sector, tensions prevail amongst deficit-laden remedial approaches and calls for more explicit acknowledgement of the effects of different cultural and contextual expectations for writing, particularly in the light of the increasing diversity of the student population (Wingate & Tribble, 2012). A well-researched and increasingly ‘mainstream’ perspective on social practice approaches is the field of ‘academic literacies’ (Ganobcsik-Williams, 2006; Lillis & Scott, 2007). Researchers in this field take a critical stance towards the ways in which elitist conventions of language, reasoning and argument inherent in HE writing culture become treated as the norm. Their research demonstrates how its unquestioned acceptance disadvantages certain groups of writers. My study drew particularly on the work of Ivanic (1998) and Lillis (2001). Both researchers work in depth with students on their essays and their thinking about academic writing is theorised in detail. Their work shows how different disciplinary discourses construct knowledge differently, invoke different writing identities and have different expectations about how writers should relate to their audience and the literature. Language both constructs, and is constructed by, these different cultural positions and writers have to subtly combine others’ voices with their own to achieve a balance appropriate for their discipline. They emphasise the differences between disciplines in these respects and the struggle for students to understand these agendas: a key issue for these researchers is that the agendas remain implicit. Ivanic (1998), with a particular interest in academic writing identity, suggests that students have to create a discoursal identity that is socially appropriate but they also bring to this identity their ‘autobiographical selves’. They bring 51 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

to each act of writing their previous experience of other discourses, other language; they have values and allegiances that influence who they are, who they are able to be or who they aspire to be in a particular writing context. Rather than viewing language as a cognitively driven transparent representation of meaning, they draw on Halliday & Hasan (1989), who see the functional organisation of a text as influenced both by its wider cultural setting (context of culture) and the immediate situation of the text (context of situation). Texts therefore have to be coherent with socially defined expectations. The term coherence is frequently used, but rarely unpicked. According to Grabe and Kaplan (1996), coherence relies on the presence of an overall discourse theme; a set of relevant assertions that relate to each other and to the discourse theme; and an information structure that effectively guides the reader in understanding the writer’s intended meaning. It seemed that these ways of thinking about language and writing went beyond essentially cognitive understandings of language difficulty often presented in the dyslexia literature. However, they chimed with the difficulties expressed by the students I worked with. Understanding how to be and the language to use, how to construct an argument and use the literature are interwoven with their dyslexia-related issues. With this in mind, my study set out to unravel in more detail what these interrelated factors were.

Outline of study The study was conducted with eleven students from the schools of Archaeology, History and Philosophy at a pre-1992 university. Seven were identified as dyslexic and four not. Ethical guidelines were followed as set out by the British Educational Research Association (BERA) and clearance was given by the University Ethics Committee. Students were interviewed before during and after writing a single assessed coursework essay. Their essay texts were also analysed at the planning stage, as they evolved and

52 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

at the point of submission. Table 1 shows the main categories generated in the analysis of the interviews. Table 1: Key categories in analysis of interview data SELF Self-Identity

Self-Management

Learning History

Self-awareness (strong/fragile)

Writing voice (Confident or fragile)

Sense of control (strong/fragile)

RELATIONSHIPS with Disciplinary ways of being; institutional conventions; audience for writing; source material; language expectations; dyslexia-related ‘voices’ ESSAY PRACTICES Understandings

Strategies

Based on this framework vignettes of each writer were created and overarching categories were developed. Students were further categorised as positive/enabled as writers, fragile/undermined or a mixture of the two. Relationships with the context were identified as concordant, strategic, ambivalent, resistant or alienated. The selfmanagement category identified different approaches to strategies and responses to difficulty. The essay practices category identified how the writers understood what they were expected to do in terms of developing argument, having an independent view, using appropriate language and using the literature. Students also described the strategies they attempted in order to achieve these understandings. It was evident that all the students identified as dyslexic included in their accounts dyslexia-associated difficulties described in the literature (Singleton,1999; Price & 53 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Skinner, 2007), for example, spelling, speed of reading, essay structure, sentence composition, word-finding, good day/bad day. However the difficulties they described did not reflect how they experienced essay writing. More dyslexia-related difficulty did not necessarily lead to feeling fragile/undermined as writers and vice-versa. The data were then further examined to determine in detail what constituted feeling positive/enabled or fragile/undermined and how the different relationships with the context came about. Plans (where used) and essay texts were also analysed and most striking were the subtle differences amongst all the students in how they constructed their essays. Only two overarching categories could be consistently identified (Table 2) (Forster 2005:99; Taylor 1989:1). The remaining categories in Table 2 arose from the students’ detailed descriptions of how they set about developing a coherent line of thought and my analysis of their plans and evolving and final texts. My interest was in why what seemed to be the same approach worked for some and not for others. Of further interest was the balance between so-called visual/holistic and linear/analytic approaches suggested by the categories. Connections to dyslexia were evident. The different approaches in Table 2 are partly about managing, in working memory, the multiple processes involved in generating content, composing appropriate sentences and deciding order and argument. The differences are also about managing reading and note making. Students in the first category (How do I know what I think till I see what I say) were interleaving reading and writing, but for different reasons. For some, using headings and writing in ‘blocks’ was an attempt to organise in terms of the content. Being able to cover enough reading was of course also crucial. For others the emphasis was on gradually being able to make conceptual links that develop an argument. Vocabulary, word-finding and sentence composition were an important part of this process.

54 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Table 2: Variation in ways of constructing essays ‘How do I know what I think till I see what I say?’ Strategy enabled

‘How do I know what I’ll say till I see what I think?’ Strategy enabled

limited A B* I*

Organise under headings Organise under headings Write to articulate links and finalise order

limited enabled enabled

Ja*

Je

Organise as sections or ‘blocks of information’

Ra*

Ru

So

Su

Organise as sections or ‘blocks of information’ Write to articulate links and finalise order Organise as sections or ‘blocks of information’

Organise as sections or ‘blocks of information’ *Students not identified as dyslexic

Whole line of thought pre-formed: linear development

enabled

Whole line of thought pre-formed: holistic Whole line of thought pre-formed: linear development

enabled

not known but text suggest limited

L

Ro

limited

enabled

enabled towards being enabled felt limited but may be more successful than recognises limited

55 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Although we can link difficulty in these areas to dyslexia, it was apparent from the students’ accounts that their decisions were also linked to their understanding of context requirements. Three archaeology students were writing essays that required detailed description of artefacts from the archaeological record. This was a ‘bottom-up’ process that was necessary before drawing out ‘top-down’ analytical points in relation to the title. Essays therefore required transfer from the detail to the general. One student used content-based headings to organise the detail, but struggled to adapt to making the overarching points that answered the question. In part therefore his difficulty is created by the kind of essay he has to write. It is this mix of dyslexia-related and context-related issues that were of interest throughout the study and which are relevant to how we understand essay-writing difficulties for this group.

Understanding of difficulty The study showed how culturally driven dilemmas shared by all student writers interact with the students’ individual experience of dyslexia and how cultural factors intervene to mitigate or exacerbate potential cognitive disadvantage. For example, slow reading (Hatcher, Snowling & Griffiths, 2002) and a colloquial writing style (Farmer, Riddick & Sterling, 2002) are suggested to be problematic for HE students identified as dyslexic. However, one philosophy student experienced his slow reading as an asset. His subject does not require him to cover a wide area of literature for each essay. Slow reading and re-reading enables him to gain in depth knowledge of key arguments and then insert his own views. Similarly, the ability to present complex arguments clearly and simply is so valued in his department that colloquialisms such as ‘don’t’, ‘it’s’, ‘hasn’t’, ‘on dodgy ground’ are not criticised. For a student in archaeology, where a range of reading is expected, the choice of essay title is driven by the fact that the material has already been covered in a previous essay (in cultural terms therefore the course organisation allows this). She constantly struggles to cover the reading and often has to start writing before she has fully understood the content of the essay. She starts writing where she

56 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

has ‘most information’. She struggles to find ‘sophisticated’ words, often using a thesaurus, resulting in stilted forms of expression that she does not really own. The study also identified students’ different relationships with the context and suggested that transition to university interacted differently with previous experience to affect the experience of writing. A student with very negative school experience, with severe early literacy problems and a feeling that success was down to chance experienced writing positively at university. He enjoyed the ways of learning at university (‘just being left to get on with it’), was enthusiastic about his subject and pro-active in managing his array of dyslexia-related difficulties. In contrast, a student with a positive school experience was disoriented in the new context, did not know what was expected, felt very negatively about the learning context and consequently could not recognise the positive qualities in her writing. Her relationship with the context impeded her capacity to develop strategies where they were needed. The examples given show how dyslexiarelated difficulties can be mitigated or exacerbated by the context. They also suggest differences in where difficulties are situated. The difficulties of the archaeology student in the previous paragraph are more strongly associated with her dyslexia whereas for the above student, it would be more appropriate to address her relationship with and understanding of the context as a starting point.

In the analysis of difficulties, it became evident that responses to, and management of, difficulties were more important than what the difficulties were. Codes such as ‘solutionfinders’/ ‘problematisers’ and ‘capacity to create a comfort zone’ were developed to describe these responses. Different levels of self-awareness and hence capacity to manage self and difficulty were evident. A student categorised as ‘strategic’ in his relationship with his department carefully worked out what his tutor required in an essay and then was able to manage potentially debilitating discomfort with reading by writing the core of the essay and gradually building further ideas and references around this core. Hence he could read in short bursts as he gradually built his essay. His capacity to 57 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

do this was also influenced by cultural factors such as the kinds of essays he had to write and the close match between essays and lectures.

The importance of self-awareness was evident therefore not only in terms of metacognitive but also meta-affective and meta-linguistic development (Hunter-Carsch, 2001). There was a disassociation between level of difficulty and affective response to writing. Those categorised as ‘solution-finders’ and able to ‘create a comfort zone’ could have an array of dyslexia-related difficulties, but had both the self-understanding to know what worked for them and why, and also the confidence to experiment with and adapt the ways that they worked. There were also differences in the students’ awareness of their own language, both in terms of having the meta-language to talk about language and in their capacity to monitor meaning and recognise in language terms why what they had written was unclear. Once we recognise, therefore the complex interacting web of individual experience and contextual requirements, the relationship between dyslexia and difficulty with essays becomes similarly complex.

How we understand difficulty with essays is further complicated if we consider findings based on the analysis of strategies and essay texts. The codes in Table 2 show the dangers of making stark divisions between visual/holistic and verbal/linear planning strategies. This way of thinking does not represent the complexity and subtlety of the constructive processes adopted by the students. Factors other than strategy affected feelings of being enabled or limited. It seemed that decisions are subject to a variety of influences that go far beyond internally determined learning style. Decisions are influenced by understanding of what is expected and adjusted according to previous writing experience and assessment feedback. They are also influenced by the nature of the essay itself. Students described writing slightly differently in different disciplines and even for different tutors. One student described having more scope for his own ideas in archaeology essays than in history and used tables in the research essay because his tutor liked them, though he did not. 58 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Research in the dyslexia literature is predominantly concerned with the cognitive processes necessary for efficient language use and where they might be compromised by dyslexia. Research from a social practice perspective focuses on how language is recruited to serve a particular social purpose. Most students saw ‘academic language’ as something separate from themselves – they described it as “posh”, “clean”, “elevated”, “sophisticated”, “university writing”. Some saw their own writing as inadequate in comparison, “mine’s a bit basic for university”; others were confused, “I try and make mine too posh, when really I should be trying to simplify”. The philosophy student previously described was proud that he could express complex ideas in a simple way. Once we see language as constructing, and being constructed by, the job it has to do in a particular social context, then understanding the relationship between language and dyslexia becomes much more multi-layered.

Implications for support As discussed in the previous section, the findings showed how interactions between dyslexia and cultural writing settings exacerbated or mitigated the effects of dyslexia. They also showed the importance not only of metacognitive, but also meta-affective and meta-linguistic development. In addition, the different dimensions of achieving social and textual coherence in different disciplines were shown to be important for in-depth understanding of problems with essay structure, academic language and using the literature. The findings further suggest the possibility of a ‘cultural clash’ between the appropriate writing support that we all aspire to for these students and discourses of skill and deficit that prevail within funding requirements for DSA. Within these discourses also is an assumption that dyslexia-related difficulties can be ‘ring-fenced’. All of this has implications for how we describe the content and concept of support.

59 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Content of support Experienced tutors of course have their own ‘tool box’ of practical strategies for working with students. However, discussed here are the more intangible elements of support that go alongside practical strategies that were shown as important in the findings of the study. The students’ attempts to write according to discipline requirements means that we need to have knowledge not only of dyslexia but also what discipline and even module and individual tutor expectations are for a particular essay. This is emphasised even more strongly where students are writing in different disciplines or indeed writing in the same discipline but with different module or tutor requirements. Some students in this study describe difficulty with acquiring these understandings, of ‘reading between the lines’ or a process of ‘trial and error’ in meeting expectations. An important part of our role therefore involves helping students to gain this understanding in the face of not only their dyslexia but also writing agendas that remain implicit and have to be teased out. This is more than acting as advocate, or building the confidence to ask. Research suggests that this implicitness is inherent in academic culture and that academic tutors themselves struggle to spell out what they mean by ‘structure’ or ‘argument’ (Lea & Street, 1998; Wingate, 2012). Discussion with students therefore can raise awareness, reduce the onus on the student and help them to formulate questions accordingly. Our role might also include attempts to be involved in cross-sector discussions on writing development and to resist attempts to view ‘dyslexia support’ as something separate. A further more intangible element of support is the tutor’s role in the development of self-awareness and in understanding how each individual experiences the context. Students explained the reasons for working in particular ways as ‘making me feel better’, ‘it makes me more comfortable’. Or negative relationships with the learning context ‘makes me feel as though I can’t do it’. From this perspective, making an ‘imaginative attempt to identify what each student is doing and where it might come from.’ (Scott 1999:181) seems just as important as the tool box of strategies.

60 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

A detailed understanding of what makes texts coherent was also important. Using a model of coherence forced me in my analysis to understand precisely the subtle reasons why communication could become difficult. The writing of a student who thought the main problem was with punctuation actually lacked cohesion. His girlfriend’s ‘corrections’ not only inserted full stops, but also important signals that gave the reader direction. We were then able to discuss this. The student who thought she tried to make her writing too ‘posh’ over-used very compacted noun phrases and in her attempts not to repeat the same words used several different words for the same concept, which was very disorienting for the reader. The analysis for research purposes therefore made me think beyond often-used descriptions such as ‘awkward expression’ ‘grammatical errors’ or ‘lack of clarity’.

It is not my intention to suggest that there is anything new in these aspects of support, nor that we do not already address them in our work. Guidelines from the Association of Dyslexia Specialists in Higher Education (ADSHE) include reference to metacognition and the academic context (http://adshe.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/specialist_support.pdf). However, of interest was the fact that the study made visible the importance of these more subtle aspects. This then raised questions about the concept of support and, because these aspects are difficult to measure in terms of ‘progress’, there is possible conflict with some national discourses surrounding dyslexia.

Concept of support If we see our role as empowering students within the academic writing context, and if we understand difficulties as interactions between dyslexia and context we have to ask questions about the direction of thinking about support. The tone in DSA guidance documents (e.g. SFE guidance 2013-14), for example, appears to minimise the effects of context and treat essay writing difficulty as a problem within the individual that can be taught as a skill, with definable goals and timescales for their achievement. Reference is 61 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

made to ‘extra tutorial support to improve study skills’ with ‘essay construction’ as an example of one of the ‘skills’. This appears to follow a remedial approach to support and is one that should be challenged.

Pollak (2005) aligns models of study support for dyslexia with models of student writing as stated by Lea and Street (1998) in their seminal research introducing the concept of academic literacies. They differentiate between a deficit model of student writing, an enculturation model and an academic literacies model. In the first, students lack the necessary skills to achieve a pre-defined norm. Support from that perspective is remedial, designed to remediate that lack. In the second, writers are encultured into disciplinary ways of being. Support then is concerned with maintaining the status quo without adequate recognition of the effects on writers of different disciplinary expectations. The third acknowledges the interacting effects of different knowledge constructions, different writing identities and different relationships within the writing context. Writing support includes ‘analysis of linguistic practices and their social meanings’ (Pollak, 2005:147). If we apply this to our support setting, we can see parallel choices between deficit models of dyslexia with support designed to remediate that lack and one in which our role is to empower students to understand the values that underlie their disciplinary environment and to develop their own position within it, a part of that position being that they are identified as dyslexic.

Embedding writers identified as dyslexic within a wider framework of academic writing can also be said to question one of the basic tenets of dyslexia support, that of specialism. The approach to support discussed here raises tensions between specialist and inclusive conceptions of writing support and makes it more difficult to identify the specifically dyslexic nature of it. Offering the opportunity for students identified as dyslexic to participate in wider discussions about the nature of academic writing may help pinpoint those with extreme dyslexia-related difficulties and reduce the risk of attributing to dyslexia problems which are rooted in the writing context. 62 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Conclusion

In summary, findings from the study show how: •

Recognised characteristics of dyslexia were mitigated or exacerbated by the writing culture.

•

Meta-affective and meta-linguistic factors were as important as metacognitive

•

A more nuanced understanding of problems with communication in a text is needed

•

Time and emotional investment and persistence of difficulty were made visible.

All of these have implications for how we understand difficulty with essay writing in relation to dyslexia and how we can support these student writers appropriately.

References ADSHE (2014). Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Specialist Support for Students with SpLDs in Higher Education. Accessed from http://adshe.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/specialist_support.pdf March 2015. Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 99-112. Burden, R. (2008). Is dyslexia necessarily associated with negative feelings of self-worth? A review and implications for future research. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 188-196. Chanock, K. (2007). How do we not communicate about dyslexia? The discourses that distance scientists, disabilities staff, ALL advisers, students and lecturers from one another. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, vol. 1, no. 1, p. A33-A43. Cooper, R. (2006). A social model of dyslexia. Language Issues, vol. 18, no. 2 pp. 24-26. Farmer, M., Riddick, B. & Sterling, C. (2002). Dyslexia and inclusion: Assessment and support in higher education. Whurr Publishers, London and Philadelphia. 63 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Forster, E. M. (2005). Aspects of the novel. Penguin, London. Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2006). Responding to the call for academic writing theory and pedagogy. In Teaching academic writing in UK higher education: Theories practices and models. L. Ganobcsik-Williams, ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, p. xxi-xxvi. Gilger, J. & Kaplan, B. (2008). The concept of atypical brain development (ABD) as applied to developmental learning disorders. In Adult learning disorders: Contemporary issues. L. Wolf, H. Schreiber, & J. Wasserstein, eds., Psychology Press, New York Hove, pp. 55-79. Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. Longman, London and New York. Gregg, N., Coleman, C., & Lindstrom, L. (2008). Assessment of written expression in the adult population. In Adult Learning Disorders: Contemporary issues. L. Wolf, H. Schreiber, & J. Wasserstein, eds., Psychology Press, New York Hove, pp. 301-331. Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language context and text: Aspects of language in a socialsemiotic perspective. 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hatcher, J., Snowling, M., & Griffiths, Y. (2002). Cognitive assessment of dyslexic students in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 72, pp. 119-133. Herrington, M. & Hunter-Carsch, M. (2001). A social-interactive model of specific learning difficulties, e.g. dyslexia. In Dyslexia: A psychosocial perspective. M. Hunter-Carsch, ed., Whurr Publishers, London and Philadelphia, pp. 107-133. Hodgson, J. & Harris, A. (2012). Improving student writing at HE: Putting literacy studies to work. English in Education, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 8-21. Hulme, C. & Snowling, M. (2009). Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Hunter-Carsch, M. (2001). Beyond meta-cognition: The integration of meta-affectivity as a component of meta-comprehension. In Dyslexia: A psychosocial perspective. M. Hunter-Carsch, ed., Whurr Publishers, London and Philadelphia, pp. 85-106. Hurst, A. (2009). Neurodiversity, disability, legislation and policy development in the United Kingdom. In Neurodiversity in higher education: Positive responses to specific learning differences. D. Pollak, ed., Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 13-32. Hyland, K. (2009), Academic Discourse. Continuum International Publishing Group, London New York. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

64 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Ivanic, R. & Lea, M. (2006). New contexts, new challenges: The teaching of writing in UK higher education. In Teaching academic writing in UK higher education: Theories practices models. L. Ganobcsik-Williams, ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 6-15. Lea, M. & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 157-172. Lillis, T. (2001). Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. Routledge, London and New York. Lillis, T. & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 5-32. Pavey, B., Meehan, M., & Waugh, A. (2010). Dyslexia-friendly further and higher education. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC. Price, G. & Skinner, J. (2007), Support for learning differences in higher education: The essential practitioners' handbook. Trentham Books, Stoke on Trent. Pollak, D. (2005). Dyslexia the self and higher education: Learning life histories of students identified as dyslexic. Trentham Books, Stoke on Trent UK and Sterling USA. Pollak, D. (2009). Introduction. In Neurodiversity in higher education: Positive responses to specific learning differences. D. Pollak, ed., Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 1-11. Reid, G. (2009). Dyslexia: A practitioner's handbook. 4th edn, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Riddick, B. (2010). Living with dyslexia: The social and emotional consequences of specific learning difficulties/disabilities. 2nd edn, Routledge, London and New York. Scott, M. (1999). Agency and subjectivity in student writing. In Student writing in the university: Cultural and epistemological issues. C. Jones, J. Turner, & B. Street, eds., John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 171-190. Singleton, C. (1999). Dyslexia in higher education: Policy provision and practice, Report of the National Working Party on Dyslexia in Higher Education, The University of Hull. Skellariou, E. & Price, G. (2010). The contribution of the working memory system and other cognitive processes to the written composition of secondary school students with and without dyslexia. Patoss Bulletin, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 16-22. Smith-Spark, J. & Fisk, J. (2007). Working memory functioning in developmental dyslexia. Memory, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 34-56. Snowling, M. (2008). Specific disorders and broader phenotypes: The case of dyslexia. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 142-156. SpLD Working Group (2005). DfES guidelines on the assessment of dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia and attention deficit disorder (ADD) in Higher Education, SpLD Working Group. Accessed from www.patoss-dyslexia.org/ June 2006. 65 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Student Finance England, (2013). Guidance chapters: Disabled Students' Allowances 2013/14. Accessed at www.practitioners.slc.co.uk/policyinformation/guidance-chapters.aspx on 17th April 2013. Taylor, G. (1989). The student's writing guide for the arts and social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’: Helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 11 no. 2, pp. 145-154. Wingate, U. & Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic purposes/academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 481-495. Wolf, M., Bowers, P. & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming speed processes, timing and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 387-407.

66 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Case Study - The Problem of Dictating Academic Essays Ivan Newman Thanks are due to Anne Morris for permission to publish this case study plus her unstinting enthusiasm and support during my course, PG Certificate in Teaching Adult Dyslexic Learners in Higher & Further Education at London Metropolitan University, in part completion of which the original version of this case study was submitted. I must also thank ‘Alice’ for her patience, willingness to participate and permission to publish.

Abstract Psychology undergraduate ‘Alice’, forced by a degenerative condition to dictate essays, could not do so effectively, attributing the problem to her speech-to-text software. Alice also had an assessment of dyslexia and dyspraxia plus Meares-Irlen Syndrome. This case study isolated potential causes of Alice’s dictation problems in a series of five dictations. Cognitive overload was identified as the ‘culprit’. The solution was for Alice to split the essay planning process from the act of dictation and to drive the dictation by pre-formulating a series of detailed questions which she could then answer. Subsequent success in her essays shows the solution to be effective.

Introduction Alice, a 3rd year psychology undergraduate at a Russell Group university, had multiple specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) plus physical disabilities preventing lengthy handwriting or typing. She had to dictate essays. However, Alice only sustained dictation, using speech-to-text software, for a few minutes before 'drying- up' nor could she find a ‘professional’, academic voice. Consequently, her academic performance was below both her expectations and prior achievement. Alice, herself, characterised her problem as caused by poorly functioning speech-to-text software. However, as her study skills tutor I was not convinced this was the root cause of her problems, so a case study approach was adopted to investigate the issue and, ideally, to find a solution. 67 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The essay writing process comprises numerous steps – decoding the question, planning and executing the research, planning and drafting the essay, proofing and finally that sublime moment of submission. Typically, in the context of supporting students with SpLDs, there are techniques and software to support the process – SQ3R, Cornell note taking, writing frames, concept mapping software, text-to-speech software, speech-to-text software and so on. Even with a number of these in use, Alice still had problems in creating her essays using dictation. The case study design comprised three main elements, first the issue itself was triangulated using Alice’s educational psychologist's (EP) report, a student answered questionnaire and a baseline dictation. Second, a full literature review was undertaken to understand the nature of dictation and the steps required to build a discourse; sentences, paragraphs, sections and essays as a whole. Lastly, separate elements in the discourse and essay creation processes were isolated and observed. Whilst the literature revealed nothing addressing dictation per se, with or without text-tospeech software, investigating the cognitive processes involved in creating a discourse and considering the effect SpLDs might have on them proved more fruitful. A range of potential causes were identified and a series of interventions made. The case study showed cognitive overload as the likely cause of Alice’s difficulties not software. A strategy was identified to enable Alice to sustain dictation for 9 times as long, comprising 11 times as many words, as the original baseline. This strategy separated essay planning and detailed structural design from the act of dictation; crucially the planning and design was constructed from self-posed, self-answered questions.

68 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

How we dictate – theoretical considerations Dictation is defined as “say...for exact reproduction by another on paper.” (OED, 1970). Alice needed to speak a fully formed essay; or, if not fully formed, sufficiently formed so that she could subsequently make amendments resulting in a fully formed essay.

The literature was silent about dictation’s cognitive processes per se. However, Du Pre acknowledged that reading aloud can be a “real ordeal” for students (Du Pré, Gilroy & Miles, 2008:57). Du Pré mainly considered oral communication, students contributing to class discussion, and did not address dictation. Du Pré further acknowledged that there may be pronunciation difficulties but omitted a discussion of mispronunciation’s potential impact. However, she cited the case of a student who, whilst she excelled orally, performed poorly in her written work (Du Pré, et al., 2008). As is clear, below, Alice’s profile is the other way around, she had achieved in written work but poorly in dictated work.

In the foreword to Miles & Varma (1995), actress and well-known dyslexic Susan Hampshire gave a useful, relevant insight, “one of the worst aspects of being dyslexic is the vicious circle caused by stress. As soon as I make a mistake I panic, and because I panic I make more mistakes”. Combining Du Pré’s comments about mispronunciation with Hampshire’s, that mistakes lead to panic, suggested one possible explanation to test against Alice’s performance - that it was her fear of making mistakes that caused her to panic and so be unable to dictate.

Whilst a good deal of planning will (or at least should) precede dictation, as speakers dictate they need to develop the structure of what they are saying, from the single word, to phrases, to sentences to paragraphs, sections and finally the whole. Miles and Varma (1995:59) noted the stress arising from “difficulties of structuring, organising and timing”.

69 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

They also referred to emotional factors, particularly unfamiliarity with the university environment, contributing to stress (Miles & Varma, 1995:60). The act of dictation is, of course, unfamiliar; it is not a skill generally required, nor taught, in the contemporary world. Miles and Varma (1995:58) also identified the issue of “cluttered brains” citing Stacey (1994) “...our minds are wired differently, so that we think in unexpected ways. The result is that we’ve ended up with muddle in our minds.” This, together with the need for clear thinking expressed in a complex discourse gives rise to a significant phonological load, potentially an overload. The acceptance of a cognitive deficit in people with dyslexia is well established, McLoughlin (2002:13) cites eleven authorities describing this characteristic. A typical essay, is ‘book-ended’ by an introduction and conclusion, the intervening body comprising sections and/or paragraphs. Paragraphs are constructed from sentences, the production of which “include[s] a number of complex, highly integrated processes” and theoretical models “place these processes in a largely serial, top-down architecture that precedes from the speaker’s communicative intent to overt speech” (Thompson & Faroqi-Shah, 2002:311). Their analysis rests heavily on Bock & Levelt’s model of sentence production (Bock & Levelt, 1994), see Figure 1. This envisages a linear, sequential and fast process, potentially a problem for people with dyslexia who typically display weak sequencing skills and slow processing (Kelly & Phillips, 2011:21). However, none of these authors, Thompson; Faroqi-Shah; Bock; Levelt, considered the way in which sentences are assembled into paragraphs and so on upwards in the hierarchy of either spoken or written speech. Nevertheless, it is a truism to say that if sentence production alone comprises a series of “complex, highly integrated processes” (Thompson & Faroqi-Shah, 2002:311) paragraph, section and essay assembly are unlikely to be less so.

70 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Figure 1 Bock and Levelt (1994) sentence production model

71 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Some investigatory work on sentence production in a cohort aged between 8-22 years has shown that for a written task requiring three simple words to be assembled, in unchanged form, into a sentence those with dyslexia produced more “dysfluent, ungrammatical and incomplete responses than normal readers” (Altmann, Lombardino & Puranic, 2008). Altmann and colleagues and the authorities they cite, confirm that dyslexia causes “slower rates of phonological ... processing and deficits in working memory, word retrieval, naming speed and cross modal integration” and that these “have been associated with sentence formulation difficulties in the psycholinguistic literature” (Altmann et al., 2008:57).

Caplan (1996), apparently alone, identifies how discourse develops - discourse being an assemblage of sentences constituting a line of argument. Citing Johnson-Laird (1983), he reports that: “[T]he more a person knows about an item, the more information he will have to present. Assuming that representing information takes up mental “space”, this would imply that the more a person knows about the items in a discourse, the more costly it is for him to represent the discourse and the harder it is for him to represent it.” (Caplan, 1996:382). Caplan referred to the highly sequential nature of a discourse; the typical weakness in sequencing, presented by people with dyslexia, impacts on their ability to construct a discourse. Similarly, dyslexics’ deficit in short term working memory - possibly what Caplan is calling mental “space” - will also adversely affect their ability to develop a discourse. The literature suggests a number of potential contributory factors for Alice’s essay dictation difficulties - poor capability with subject specific language, stress due to unfamiliarity with dictation, fear of making a mistake whilst dictating and cognitive overload. These are in addition to any potential problem causation due to the way Alice’s speech-to-text software might have been working. 72 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Case Study Design To identify the underlying cause and potential solutions for Alice’s essay dictation difficulties, each potential cause was isolated and tested to confirm or eliminate it. These dictations took place in warm, well lit rooms. Alice was comfortable and relaxed.

The issues addressed were: i.

As Alice felt that her speech-to-text software might underlie her problems, to support or reject this possibility, a dictation was made into a passive recorder, operated by the observer and placed out of sight. Indeed, this unobtrusive recorder was used throughout the case study.

ii.

Dictation could be thought of as formal and stressful, hence a dictation was run informally, as a ‘chat’ over coffee.

iii.

Alice had frequently mentioned in previous tutorials that she was unconfident with subject-specific vocabulary. One dictation was therefore run after a tutorial where we conversed using specialist words appertaining to psychology.

iv.

Dictation could be thought of as imposing a high processing load, combining, as it might, planning, argument structuring and the act of speaking in a stylised academic language. One dictation was run after the whole process was ‘chunked’ into two stages. In the first, Alice planned what she wanted to say to a high level of detail, encapsulated into a series of questions which she then answered during the dictation stage. This dictation was repeated but now with the questions being posed at a more detailed level.

These dictations, their methods and aims are summarised in Table 1.

73 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Table 1 Potential cause and experimental interventions summary Potential cause AT not working as expected.

Experimental intervention Remove AT, substitute a passive recorder.

Formality & stress of dictation.

Remove formality, discuss topic informally.

Unfamiliarity in speaking subject specific vocabulary.

Practise vocabulary then dictate.

Processing overload.

Separate planning from production.

Out of scope Alice’s essays needed to be written in academic language. However, Cottrell (2008); Hargreaves (2007); Gillett, Hammond & Martala (2009) and Beech (2009) all make it clear that developing an academic voice is a longer term project than this study’s timescale. It was therefore placed out of scope.

Alice’s Background A chartered educational psychologist assessed Alice in February 2011. The EP gave an assessment of dyslexia and dyspraxia coupled with Meares-Irlen syndrome. The discussion, below, takes Alice’s lowest scores from that diagnostic report (extract in Table 2 below), expressed as percentiles, identifies likely impacts on dictation, crossreferring them to Alice’s questionnaire responses. The whole discussion is informed by Wechsler’s work on adult intelligence (Wechsler, 1958). Table 2 An extract from Alice's diagnostic assessment report Test Percentile Result Sight reading 2nd Reading comprehension

16th

Numeracy operations

2nd

Perceptual reasoning

6th

Working memory

6th

Processing speed

4th 74 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Sight reading: 2nd %ile. Alice reported that although she does make notes, she has difficulty reading them at the same time as trying to dictate her ideas into a discourse. Alice’s sight reading was further impeded by Meares-Irlen syndrome. Together, these strongly suggest that the cognitive load implied by sight-reading could be responsible for reducing the cognitive capacity available for the other tasks involved in developing her discourse. Reading comprehension: 16th %ile. This score may have compounded the effect of poor sight reading. Alice might have struggled to understand the notes she read. However, given that the material being read was already familiar, Alice had written her notes, this score may not have had such a negative impact. Numeracy operations: 2nd %ile. No dictations in this study involved numeracy. This result should not have directly impacted Alice’s performance. However, elsewhere in her studies, Alice’s weakness in this area had a major impact on her academic results. Perceptual reasoning: 6th %ile. Alice’s essays required the construction or evaluation of general propositions, derived from specific examples. This test result indicates that Alice would need to work very hard to construct and develop propositions, a point made by Alice in her questionnaire response. However, she felt she had little difficulty in understanding her assignment questions, rather it was following and synthesising lines of reasoning. Working memory index: 6th%ile. Working memory is a key functional component in cognitive ability “allow[ing] performance of several tasks at once” (McLoughlin, 2002:98). Bock and Levelt ‘s (1994) model implies near simultaneity of cognitive functioning across all four stages and this is reinforced by Thompson & Faroqi-Shah’s (2002) and Caplan’s (1996) descriptions of what is required to produce a sentence and a discourse. If, in addition, Alice refers to her notes during the dictation, her working memory would be overwhelmed and cause her to lose either or both her thread and 75 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

ability to marshal her notes’ content. This low score is very likely to have been significant in this case study. Alice reported that she often loses the thread of conversations or lines of thought. Processing speed: 4thile. With so many processes contributing to the production of the discourse, poor processing speed is likely to have had a cumulative negative impact on Alice’s overall outcome. Every step in producing the discourse using the Bock & Levelt (1994) model would be affected, resulting in slowness speaking the dictation, gaps in speaking and losing the thread.

Alice noted other points in her questionnaire. She felt she could not dictate academic essays in a “professional” voice. The problem does not exist when first writing by hand then copy-typing. However, Alice is increasingly unable to handwrite essays due to physical limitations. When she was still able to handwrite essays and copy-type them, Alice’s marks ranged between upper 60s - low 70s. However, when she speaks her essays, her marks ranged in the 50s. Alice also reported making notes orally but they did not “stick” in the same way that handwritten notes did.

With regards her approach to essay planning, Alice reported that she planned by using sketched concept maps then used concept mapping software. The planning went down as far as section level and at that level Alice gave herself a series of topics which she wished to address. In summary, Alice’s diagnostic test results are amply borne out in her reported experiences of producing her oral discourse in producing essays.

76 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The Dictations The investigation proceeded by Alice taking part in five dictation exercises. Each was designed to isolate a potential cause of her difficulties with dictation, as described in Table 2. Dictation 1 – Eliminating Assistive Technology

In this dictation, instead of using voice-to-text software, dictation was made into a passive recorder. Alice spoke some of the speech-to-text software’s instructions (e.g. full stop, new paragraph). Alice chose a familiar essay topic: Discuss the importance of the Anna O case for psychoanalysis.

Alice dictated 154 words in 2m:01s before drying up, unable to continue. Alice expressed extreme frustration, saying this performance was typical of how she “got on” with her software.

Whilst she was able to start a line of thought, Alice only sustained it for a short time. She appeared highly challenged by the combination of dictation and simultaneous developing of her argument. Her body language revealed this, particularly anguished facial expression and slow talking speed.

Alice, although familiar with the topic, forgot it, contributing to her inability to continue; she noted that it was posed orally and that she did not remember oral instructions. Even though Alice had notes open in front of her, she could not simultaneously access these and dictate.

Possibly the most telling aspect of this dictation was that Alice declared her frustration with the software, even blaming it. However, none was being used. This dictation took place into a passive recorder, hence the results show that the AT, per se, played little or no part in Alice’s problems. 77 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Dictation 2 - Informal conversation

The purpose of this dictation was to put Alice at ease by removing constraints on her ability to talk. This was achieved by holding an informal ‘chat’ across a table, over coffee. Alice’s topic was the same as in the previous dictation: Discuss the importance of the Anna O case for psychoanalysis. Alice had prepared by deconstructing the essay title, conducting research and making notes using concept maps.

Alice responded with fluency and animation. The content flowed smoothly for some 9 minutes over 1,169 words. Alice engaged in eye contact and structured the conversation in such a way that the researcher was brought into the conversation. From time to time the student reached the end of an idea, at which point she was prompted with a follow-on question.

Alice was clearly at ease in this environment. She spoke the content with familiarity, confidence and at length. The structure was not as precise as one might find in written work but far more so than unrelated facts. Alice used relatively simple language sprinkled with specialist terms.

This informal conversation showed that when Alice is responding to single topics where no structure is required, she can sustain a subject-specific conversation.

Dictation 3 - Practise subject-specific vocabulary, then dictate

This dictation tested whether greater familiarity with the subject specific vocabulary would improve dictation ability; it was preceded by a study skills tutorial dedicated to practising vocabulary. Alice’s course gives no scheduled opportunities to practise subject specialist language and Alice does not seek informal opportunities to do so.

78 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Alice was free to use, or not use, the commands used with her speech-to-text software. Again, the subject was: Discuss the importance of the Anna O case for psychoanalysis. Alice dictated 261 words lasting 3m:02s before drying-up, unable to continue, again expressing extreme frustration. This dictation’s results were not substantively different from the first dictation, albeit both word count and duration increased by 50%. The content addressed the barest of subject introductions, maintaining a simple line of thought, with little argument development. Language was fluent but structure absent. There was little use of the practised vocabulary.

This dictation showed that unfamiliarity with vocabulary was not the main issue. Dictation 4 - Dictate to a pre-prepared set of questions

The object of this dictation was to investigate Alice’s ability to answer specific questions, achieving a separation of the planning and dictation stages.

To achieve this, Alice prepared a set of questions, the responses to which would answer the essay question What was the importance of the Anna O case for psychoanalysis? – note that the essay title is now expressed as a question. Alice prepared notes to support each answer. The questions were then posed in a relaxed way for Alice to answer. [author’s note: the emphasis on the word ‘question’ is intentional].

This dictation ran for 11m:52s and 1,147 words. Alice was fluent and required little thinking time before speaking the answers. She hesitated only once. The speech style was conversational but could be characterised as ‘an intelligent lay-person talking to a peer’.

79 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

This dictation demonstrated a significant improvement over previous ones. Whilst Alice considered this a ‘dictation’ the barriers she had previously reported, which the earlier dictations exhibited, were mainly absent, meaning Alice was ‘freed’ to talk. The relaxed way the questions were asked may have led Alice to reply in like fashion.

In observing Alice, it was obvious from her expression and delivery speed that she was working hard mentally. Even though Alice had originated the questions and prepared notes, their structure was mostly absent in her answers; in fact, Alice was still structuring as she spoke. This dictation did not, therefore, achieve its aim of fully separating structure from content. Consequently, the next dictation would require Alice to provide more finely detailed questions constituting a line of argument to achieve a more effective split between planning and production. Post discussion, Alice continued talking, at length, about Anna O’s case, at one point originating, from memory, a list of 37 key psychological words.

Dictation 5 - Fully separate planning from dictation

This final dictation built on Alice’s success in answering pre-prepared questions. Alice was told the purpose of this exercise, to dictate answers to a series of detailed questions, the collective answer to which would form her line of argument, her essay plan. For this dictation, Alice selected a new title: What are the clinical characteristics of schizophrenia and their importance?

As with all the other dictations, no speech-to-text software was used, the passive voice recorder was placed out of sight.

Alice dictated 1,743 words lasting 18m:27s, using numerous technical words over which she hardly hesitated, indeed, she spelt out a number fluently. At one point Alice stated that she had “totally forgotten” a word, but continued without further hesitation. Post 80 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

session, Alice said she was frustrated with her poor expressivity compared to written answers.

This dictation lasted nearly 9 times as long as her first in number of words and 11 times in duration. The longest answer was 264 words, versus a total 154 words in her first dictation exercise. This time, dictation was fluent, assured and used subject specific phraseology throughout. The majority of the content was spoken without reference to notes, demonstrating a good level of knowledge stored in long term memory and ready accessibility. There was no drying-up. Alice’s performance was significantly more effective than at any other time in this case study, Had there been more time and questions the session could have continued. Alice’s knowledge was not exhausted nor was she fatigued.

Prior to this final dictation there was a slight concern that changing the essay topic to the less familiar one of schizophrenia might negatively affect the results. Whilst there may have been a negative effect, Alice’s performance was sufficiently ahead of her prior dictations that these worries appeared unfounded.

In summary, this dictation showed that by answering her own pre-prepared and preorganised detailed questions which conformed to a plan Alice achieved a sustained and effective verbal response.

81 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Conclusions Alice progressed from dictating 154 words in 2m:01s to 1,743 words in 18m:27s. General fluency and specialist language usage both increased markedly. Confidence was significantly higher whilst overt signs of frustration were lower. In the final dictation, work was emerging that addressed the subject and started to demonstrate command of the topic. The results are summarised in Table 3. Table 3 Experimental actions and results Experimental action

Result

1st dictation – baseline

154 words in 2m:01s

2nd dictation - Informal discussion

1,169 words in 9m:10s

2nd dictation – after vocabulary session

261 words in 3m:02s

3rd dictation – high level prompted questions

1,147 words in 11m:52s

5th dictation – point-by-point/detailed prompted questions

1,743 words in 18m:27s

The final dictation proved the effectiveness of splitting planning from production and then ensuring the planning was carried out to a detailed level resulting in a series of questions to which Alice dictated the answers. Figure 2 shows this separation graphically together with the points at which the questions need to be asked and is based upon the four level Bock and Levelt (1994) model. Overall, the results clearly showed cognitive overload as the primary source of Alice’s problem with dictating essays.

82 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Figure 2 Essay writing technique separating structure from content,

Next steps for Alice Alice still needed to extend her new-found abilities to submit a complete academic essay. Whilst, this Case Study used a passive voice recorder, in the ‘real world’ of essay writing transcription and editing/proofing would still be required which could be achieved by: 1. Importing into speech-to-text software without formatting instructions, then format. 2. Recording a dictation into speech-to-text software, including formatting instructions. 3. Transcription by Alice herself or a third party. 4. Using an amanuensis. 83 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Given Alice’s frequent problems with her speech-to-text software, the recommendation was that initially she should perfect the new technique with an amanuensis, upon becoming confident she could progress to using speech-to-text software. If no amanuensis were available, Alice could use her dyslexia support tutorials, with her specialist tutor as amanuensis, given sufficient DSA hours.

Potential alternative approaches Together with Alice’s HEI’s disability officer alternatives to essay-based assessment could be investigated. For example, a form of viva voce might be available. That said, if Alice were able to gain a concession that involved her speaking responses, she would still need to develop the capability of marshalling her content, thoughts, lines of argument and structure prior to responding to any questions posed. The technique proposed in this study, expressed in Figure 2, would still need mastering.

Post Script At the time of writing, Alice has progressed successfully into her final year achieving more than acceptable marks for her essays. Alice chose to transcribe her full essay dictations herself. She is now making good progress with the research phase of her dissertation. The technique uncovered during this case study will soon be further tested as Alice creates the narrative elements of her dissertation.

84 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

References Altmann, L. J., Lombardino, L. J. & Puranic, C. (2008). Sentence production in students with dyslexia. International Journal of Language Communication Disorders, Volume 43 , pp. 55-76. Beech, J. R. (2009). How to write in psychology. A student guide. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Bock, K. & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In: M. Gernsbacher, ed. Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press p.946 Cambridge Dictionaries Online, 2012. Case Study. [Online] Available at: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/case-study?q=case+study [Accessed 20 December 2012]. Caplan, D. (1996). Language. Structures, processing and disorders. 1st ed. London: Bradford. Cottrell, S. (2008). The Study Skills Handbook. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Du Pré, L., Gilroy, D. & Miles, T. (2008). Dyslexia at college. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. Gillett, A., Hammond, A. & Martala, M. (2009). Successful academic writing. Harlow: Pearson. Hargreaves, S. (2007). Study skills for dyslexic students. 1st ed. London: Sage. Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Kelly, K. & Phillips, S. (2011). Teaching literacy to learners with dyslexia. London: Sage. McLoughlin, D. (2002). The Adult Dyslexic. 1st ed. London: Whurr. Miles, T. R. & Varma, V. (1995). Dyslexia and stress. London: Whurr. OED (1970). Pocket Oxford English dictionary. 5th ed. London: Oxford University Press. Thompson, C. K. & Faroqi-Shah, Y. (2002). Handbook of adult language disorders. Ed Hillis, A.E.. Hove: Psychology Press. Wechsler, D., 1958. The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Wlliams Wilkins. Yin, R., 1994. Case study research: design and methods. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

85 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Important Issues in the Diagnostic Assessment and Specialist Support of Learners in Higher Education who speak English as an Additional Language and have Dyslexia Monica Pellegrini Thank you to Anne Morris (London Metropolitan University) and Caroline Holden (University College London) for their time and expert advice, and to all the Specialist Teacher Assessors and Educational Psychologists who took part in this research - without their contribution this research would not have been possible.

Abstract The diagnostic assessment of learners who speak English as an additional language (EAL) is becoming a pressing issue, given both the yearly increase of EAL students in higher education (HE) and the difficulties of assessing for dyslexia. Rose (2009) suggests that specific learning differences may be masked by and confused with EAL issues.

The following article, taking into account a recent small-scale study on the matter (Pellegrini, 2014), considers what some diagnostic assessors look for to identify dyslexia in students who have a complex cultural/linguistic background and the type of recommendations that these assessors put forward to support EAL learners in HE. It confirms that the assessors’ collection of qualitative information on the EAL learners’ educational and linguistic backgrounds plays a fundamental role in the understanding of the manifestations/indications of dyslexia in EAL learners and is important in both the analysis and interpretation of diagnostic test results and in the provision of tailor-made recommendations.

86 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Finally, it looks at the recommendations for skills development and adjustments put forward in some diagnostic assessments, so as to enable EAL learners to develop their learning strategies and improve academic outcomes. It is clear that the emphasis is on strategies aimed at the development of reading and spelling skills (thus enhancing phonological awareness), sentence structures, memory, planning and organisation. A multisensory approach for the input of information, and the development of metacognition, alongside the use of technological aids, are considered as particularly effective in supporting EAL students with dyslexia to take control of their own learning skills, and achieve their full learning potential – as is the case with all students with SpLDs.

Introduction “They spell it Vinci and pronounce it Vinchy; foreigners always spell better than they pronounce.” (Mark Twain)

A dyslexia diagnostic assessment in the case of speakers of English as an additional language (EAL) is not straightforward (Elbro, Trebbien-Daugaard & Gellert, 2012). In fact, the Testing and Assessment Guidance (TAG, 2014) and other relevant literature (Rose, 2009; Mortimore, Hansen, Hutchings, Northcote, Fernando, Horobin, Saunders & Everatt, 2012) point out that assessing EAL students is challenging for various reasons, including cultural/linguistic differences; language interference mistakes (related to the learner’s level of English language proficiency); the simultaneous cognitive processing of two or more languages (Marian and Shook, 2012) and subsequent overload on memory which, in turn, affects language fluency and comprehension (Gollan, Montoya, Fennema-Notestine & Morris, 2005). Literature acknowledges that the acquisition of EAL is likely to be negatively affected by a specific learning difference such as dyslexia (Colledge, 2012; Crombie, 1999), so the development of some learning strategies (including a multisensory input of information) to support such students may be more relevant than others (Mann, 2013). 87 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

So, why does the dyslexia diagnostic assessment in students with EAL in HE matter? What do diagnostic assessors look for to identify such a learning difference in students who have a complex cultural/linguistic background? Are there any special recommendations to support EAL students’ learning? This article attempts to answer these questions by referring to some current literature on the matter and by considering the opinions of some experienced diagnostic assessors of dyslexia in adults who were interviewed as part of a Master’s research project (Pellegrini, 2014).

Why does the diagnostic assessment of EAL learners in HE matter? The number of students with EAL in the United Kingdom (UK) is on the increase. According to some media sources and organisations (Grove, 2012; British Council, 2013; the UK Council for International Students Affairs, nd), in 2012-13 there were 425,265 international students in higher education (HE). The highest number of students came from China, India, Nigeria, Germany and Malaysia. This figure is set to rise by a further 30,000 by 2020. Also, the number of home students with EAL is on the increase. Between 2008 and 2011, the percentage of pupils with EAL in secondary education went from 10.8% to 12.3% (Mortimore et al., 2012). In 2012 in state schools in England, pupils with EAL exceeded one million and, while in rural areas of the UK learners with EAL may be lower than 1%, in some parts of London this figure rises to 77% (Lightfoot, 2013). At present, over 300 languages are spoken in London, the most established being Bengali, Gujarati, Punjabi, Cantonese and Mandarin (BBC, 2013).

As for the occurrence of dyslexia in the general population, some researchers and organisations (Thomson, 2009; Riddick, 2010; British Dyslexia Association, 2013; European Dyslexia Association, 2013) report that dyslexia affects about 8-10% of people, 2-4% of whom may be strongly dyslexic. However, others (Hulme & Snowling, 2009; Zorzi, Barbiero, Facoetti, Lonciari, Carrozzi, Montico, Bravar, George, PechGeorgel, & Ziegler, 2012) maintain that the overall occurrence of dyslexia is around 36%. If in line with these estimates, it may be assumed that a percentage of international 88 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

and home EAL learners is likely to have some form of dyslexia which, due to increased demands on their literacy and organisation skills (Everatt, 2011; Kindersley, 2005), will be aggravated when these students enter HE (Pellegrini, 2014).

Although international EAL students may not be entitled to the Disabled Students’ Allowances (DSA), HE institutions have to implement UK government policy on equality and access to education (Equality Act, 2010) and, when necessary, provide in-house assessment and tutoring support to accommodate these students by meeting them at their point of need and enabling them to achieve their full learning potential (Mortimore et al., 2012; Rose, 2009).

Rationale and methodology of this study In the context of this information on EAL student demographics, combined with substantial literature pointing to the difficulties in detecting dyslexia in EAL learners and then supporting them in their studies, I felt the need to gain a better understanding of the EAL assessment procedures and ensuing recommendations for learning support. This understanding was gained by interviewing some experienced assessors on what they looked for and what challenges they were likely to encounter, when assessing EAL learners. Information on these assessors’ recommendations to support EAL students was obtained by taking into account their observations on learners’ compensatory skills development, as well as accommodating measures, as discussed in some samples of the diagnostic reports that they had provided for this investigation.

What do assessors do and look for when assessing learners with EAL in HE? With regard to the procedure that participants followed for DSA purposes when EAL was present, assessors reported using diagnostic tests standardised on an English speaking population for both native English and EAL speakers (TAG, 2014), 89 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

emphasising the importance of flexibility, depending on the test-taker’s level of English. Also, based on their professional experience, they reported having set their own guidelines and, prior to the actual assessment, they undertook an interview/questionnaire with their test-takers to gather detailed qualitative information on the student’s linguistic and educational background history and to build a holistic picture of the test-taker’s cognitive profile. Such qualitative information covered: language difficulties (i.e. problems with reading, spelling and writing) in the learner’s native and additional language(s); level of education in both dominant language(s) and English; organisation and time management problems; and history of dyslexia/SpLD in their families (Pellegrini, 2014:12). Also, the length of time that an individual had spent practising his/her additional language mattered greatly to assessors and their questionnaires/interviews probed this issue. In fact, Cummins (1984) recommends a minimum of five to seven years of immersion in an additional language to attain cognitive and academic language fluency. Additionally, Cummins’ (2000:38) ‘common underlying proficiency’ principle maintains that learners’ cognitive and academic competence in their dominant language influences the development of literacy in any additional language while, to some extent, similar cognitive disadvantages manifest across languages (Cummins, 1979; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005; Mortimore et al., 2012). As for the actual assessment, assessors adapted “test administration procedures and instructions to meet” (TAG, 2014:3) the test-takers’ needs by speaking more slowly, simplifying the language of instruction, repeating information when necessary, encouraging ‘students to seek clarification’, providing some ‘printed information’, and, when possible, introducing some spoonerisms based on vocabulary drawn from the test-taker’s dominant language (Pellegrini, 2014:13). Also, when the test-taker displayed difficulties with word retrieval in English, some assessors asked the student to read one of the two trials of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing* (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen & Rashotte, 1999) rapid letter naming and rapid digit naming in the student’s dominant language. Assessors noticed that, in such cases, there was no difference between the two trials (Pellegrini, 2014). Arguably, the test-taker’s slow word 90 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

retrieval and slow phonological processing speed were probably the result of his/her brain anatomical make-up and experience of language acquisition. Indeed, research has shown that “… when a [non-impaired] bilingual person uses one language, the other is active at the same time” (Marian & Shook, 2012:2); as a consequence, the brain activity of any speaker juggling two or more languages simultaneously is slower and subject to increased (picture) naming difficulty (Gollan et al., 2005), when compared to monolingual speakers, independently of the presence of dyslexia. This slowness derives from the brain automatically processing sounds in sequential order. This means that even before the word is finished, the brain is engaged in guessing which word corresponds to a sequence of sounds by accessing words that match that sound signal (e.g., can-> candy/candid/candle/etc.; Marian & Shook, 2012). This sequential and automatic interpretation process takes place any time a bi/multilingual speaker tries to match any acoustic input with potential words that correspond to that sound sequence; Marian & Shook (2012:3) refer to this interpretation procedure as “language co-activation” and point out that “understanding a message in one language can be difficult if your other language always interferes”. Arguably, accessing two or more languages at the same time constitutes “a double challenge” for learners who have underlying dyslexia (Tudhope, 2014:9). Hence, the use of one of the two trials for rapid digit and rapid letter naming of the CTOPP in the test-taker’s dominant language might be worthwhile investigating further, through a legitimate standardisation process.

Many bilingual speakers will have had the opportunity, during formative language learning years, to develop awareness of a greater range of sounds. This may allow them to score more highly on the CTOPP phonological awareness test than would otherwise be expected. However, this apparent lack of difficulty with phonological awareness has to be compared with other test results, including measures of naming speed and reading and writing fluency, which, once integrated with qualitative information and observations on test performance, provided the basis for a valid diagnosis and recommendations for adequate support (TAG, 2014). 91 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

In summary, all participants acknowledged that all tests, including non-verbal tests, bore some cultural weight and that it was difficult to separate one type of test from another (Pellegrini, 2014). Therefore, when doing a full diagnostic assessment, they always considered all the qualitative and quantitative information they had on the student and looked for a spiky profile in the learner’s test scores, as an indicator of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses typically associated with dyslexia. Participants also put a caveat in their reports specifying that test results had to be interpreted with a degree of caution because of the presence of EAL (Pellegrini, 2014).

What challenges were assessors likely to encounter when assessing learners with EAL in HE? The challenges that participants faced included: EAL test-takers’ cultural differences (e.g. experience of taking timed tests and the stigmatisation and/or recognition of dyslexia as a SpLD by the test-taker’s family and community); the presence of anxiety which could affect working memory and undermine test performance; and levels of English proficiency which could be a problem in some cases (Pellegrini, 2014). As for the challenges involved in the actual use of the diagnostic tests, some participants reported as follows. For one specialist teacher assessor (STA), assessors felt “reasonably comfortable with the visual testing available”, but it would be helpful if there was a tool that measured “auditory input”. One educational psychologist, however, observed that for “some people” whose education background is “very formal”, even non-verbal tests are “difficult”. For another STA: “non-literacy indicators on memory and organisation were very important, and she ‘did not feel that [training courses for assessors] had really grasped the fundamental issue of separating the language proficiency component from the underlying cognitive performance.” However, with regard to assessing students in HE, another STA was of the opinion that: “if you really understand what dyslexia is when dealing with adults – i.e., a working memory problem and a processing problem. This should enable you to 92 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

use … the framework of tests… [and] if you are asking the right questions, obtaining a history and picture from the students themselves - the way they learn, the way they process information, seen in the learning context and in life in general – that understanding of dyslexia should be sufficient, I think, to determine whether what you’re seeing is a processing difficulty related to dyslexia rather than failure to acquire a certain standard of language [proficiency].”

So, when assessing EAL learners in HE, some participants considered the detection of language interference mistakes as important and took special care in either commenting on and/or discounting such errors to ensure valid interpretations of data. They did so in the light of research on phonological processing which is implicated in the acquisition of literacy skills across languages (Geva, Wade-Woolley & Shany 2004; Ho & Bryant 1997; Siegel, 2006; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005; Jamieson & Holden, 2012) and is a key indicator of dyslexia. So, for instance, these assessors considered the fact that EAL learners could potentially transfer phonological features from their own dominant language into English phonology, thus mispronouncing words and non-words in the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) (Torgesen, Wagner & Rashotte, 1999), and displaying pronunciation/intonation problems when reading a passage in English. But they also look at syntactical and morphological constructions in the test-taker’s writing tests.

With regard to language interference mistakes, as way of example, three languages that involve the use of different phonological, orthographic, syntactical and morphological systems, when compared to English, are briefly discussed here. Arabic has 8 vowels and diphthongs, compared to 22 in English, and Arabic-speaking students may not hear and, therefore, not be able to pronounce slightly different short-vowels such as in ‘bit‘ /bɪt/ and ‘bet’ /bet/ or in ‘cot’ /kɒt/ and ‘caught’ /kɔ:t/; the Arabic script runs from right to left and typical mistakes include misreading mirror-shaped letters such as ‘d’ and ‘b’ (Swan & Smith, 2001:197,199). Similarly, German-speaking students may pronounce both ‘caught’ /kɔ:t/ and ‘coat’ /kəʊt/ with a closed vowel as in /ko:t/; the German 93 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

language is highly inflected and thus its word order within the sentence is freer than in English (Swan & Smith, 2001:38,41). Chinese-speaking students, when speaking and writing in English, may leave out the ‘-s’ morpheme of the plural and the ‘-ed’ morpheme of tenses, as Chinese is a non-inflected language that rarely expresses the plural of nouns and does not conjugate verbs for time relations (Swan & Smith, 2001:318). So, aware of the functioning of other language systems, some participants took care in distinguishing obvious interference errors from other typical dyslexia-related difficulties, such as “slow reading speed and difficulty … in decoding unfamiliar letter sequences” (Pellegrini, 2014:12) which the test-taker might have already experienced in his/her dominant language (Scott & Manglitz,1997).

Recommendations for specialist support For those who have underlying dyslexia, the acquisition of EAL presents compound challenges (Tudhope, 2014; Mann, 2013) due to the high degree of orthographic opacity and syllabic complexity that English has when compared to other languages (see Table 1). Subsequently, in order to master accurate reading and spelling, the learner needs to assimilate letter-sound mappings that deviate from the norm, and this process may further impinge on his/her phonological processing. To improve EAL learners’ reading/spelling strategies, and enhance phonological awareness, sentence structure and memory functions, assessors put forward a plan aimed at developing learning strategies that were appropriate to the student’s needs. They recommended the development of memory strategies, metacognition (for a better understanding of the way the individual learns; Crombie, 1999) and a multisensory input of information, while learning interventions should be cumulative, progressive, sequential, and anchored on the learner’s previous knowledge (Thomson, 2010; McLoughlin, Leather & Stringer, 2003).

94 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Indeed, the most affected areas of additional language acquisition are working memory, phonological processing, syntax (Crombie, 1999) and morphology (Helland & Kaasa, 2005), especially when the learner already has difficulties in processing his/her dominant language (Cummins, 2000; Mann, 2013), and is unable to hold and manipulate various aspects of language functions (e.g., phonology, syntax and morphology) in working memory (Colledge, 2012). With regard to phonological processing, Thomson (2010:6) advocates the ‘explicit training in phonological awareness’ supported by ‘phonological decoding’. At the word level, this involves the learner’s sounding out and blending new words, following the tutor’s modelling when beneficial. This word-level-up approach, in combination with both aided and independent reading, facilitates students’ understanding of how certain sound-letter combinations are pronounced, thus improving their grapheme-phoneme mapping strategies, while reducing their memory load (Crombie, 1999; Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison & Lacroix, 1999; Thomson, 2009; Mann, 2013). So, for instance, to help the learner’s decoding skills, it is useful to practise groups of words that have similar pronunciation patterns or rimes (e.g., bake, take, flake, etc.) as well as sound discrimination (e.g. correction of errors such as /desktɒp/ vs */desktɒk/) by listening to and identifying sounds and then using a series of pictures of words containing such sounds to be sorted into different piles (Crombie, 1990).

As for the acquisition of new course-specific terminology and the development of reading fluency, these should be pinned onto the learner’s existing vocabulary and assimilated by rehearsing new words aloud within meaningful and relevant contexts, analysing prefixes and suffixes rules, classifying word into groups, and creating a glossary. This word-level-up process should be accompanied by the development of automatic reading skills through regular ‘practice and review’ (Thomson, 2010:8), tapping into the learner’s metacognition and reasoning skills to facilitate his/her understanding of language structures and functions (Crombie, 1999). So, a multisensory approach to teach explicit phonology, enhancing phonological decoding 95 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

and phonological awareness at the word level, should be supported by the development of reading comprehension strategies of progressively complex texts (Thomson, 2010:6). A multisensory input of information, engaging visual and kinaesthetic abilities, and involving the use of colour coding to identify subject, verb and object (Mann, 2013), could be used when analysing sentence structure.

In particular, assessors recommended: the development of memory techniques, such as the learner’s creation of mnemonics for irregular words and of visually sensational/outlandish imagery for facts; the use of concept maps to practise brainstorming, make quick connections between ideas, develop critical thinking and prepare for reading, thus enhancing speed of comprehension, skimming and summarising; and the careful planning of tasks (e.g. essays) by chunking/cutting/pasting information through the use of computer software to make it more manageable.

As for the use of assistive technology, this included: mind-mapping software to organise ideas when planning assignments; text-to-speech software to focus on listening, while improving comprehension, written accuracy, proofreading skills, spelling and homophone checks; voice-recognition software, enabling the student to put together ideas and compose an essay orally, thus freeing him/her from the need to write, while facilitating the matching of verbal abilities with written work; and the use of a digital recorder in lectures and seminars to minimise note-taking, to focus on understanding, and give the opportunity to listen again. Clearly, participants’ recommendations and use of assistive technology was aimed at enabling the learner to process information through various sensory channels so as to facilitate “overlearning” (Crombie, 1999:4), the transfer of information into long-term memory (McLouhlin et al., 2003; Mann, 2013), and thus the consolidation of learning.

96 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Table 1 Classification of some languages in relation to syllabic complexity (simple/complex) and orthographic depth (transparent/opaque)

Orthographic depth

Very Transparent Opaque Transparent

Simple

Finnish Turkish Hungarian

Increasingly Very Opaque Opaque

Greek Italian Spanish

Portuguese French

German Norwegian Icelandic

Dutch Swedish

Syllabic Structure Complex Czech Serbian/ Croatian Hebrew

Danish

English

(Source: adapted from Seymour et al., 2003:146 and Mortimore et al., 2012:20)

97 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Conclusion By referring to relevant literature and providing figures relative to the steady yearly increase of students with EAL entering HE, this article considered some of the reasons why the assessment of these students is becoming a relevant matter. It also explored the issues considered by a small number of experienced assessors of dyslexia/SpLD in adults when assessing EAL learners. These assessors’ collection of qualitative information on the EAL learner’s educational and linguistic background, through interviews/questionnaires, played an important role in the understanding of the indications of dyslexia in EAL learners and was fundamental in the interpretation of diagnostic test results. Finally, this article looked at participants’ recommendations for EAL students’ skills development and adjustments to enable them to develop their learning strategies and improve learning outcomes. It was clear that emphasis was on a multisensory, structured and cumulative input of information, through the use of learning techniques focussing on phonological awareness, memory, planning and organisation, alongside the use of technological aids, so as to help EAL students to achieve their full learning potential.

*This study was conducted in 2013, when the CTOPP 1999 edition was still in use. The new CTOPP2 (2013) edition only offers one trial for digit naming and one trial for letter naming.

98 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

References B.B.C. (2013). Languages across Europe, Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/european_languages/definitions.shtml (Accessed: 26 Sept 2013) British Council. (2013). Available: http://www.britishcouncil.org/search/node/10%25%20increase (Accessed: 4 December 2013) British Dyslexia Association. (no date). Available: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/aboutdyslexia/further-information/dyslexia-research-information-.html (Accessed: 26 January 2013) Colledge, M. (2012). Approaches to Teaching Dyslexic Students, InForm, Issue 9: 8-10, Available at http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/inform/B04924-web-Inform-9-v5.pdf Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, É. & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vo. 91, No.1, pp. 29-43 Crombie, M. (1999). Foreign Language Learning and Dyslexia, Available: http://hilarymccoll.co.uk/resources/Dxa1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2014) Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 222-251 Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingual Education and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy, San Diego: College Hill Cummins, J. (2000). Language Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Disabled Students’ Allowance. (no date). Available: https://www.gov.uk/disabled-studentsallowances-dsas (Accessed: 22 December 2014) Elbro C., Trebbien-Daugaard, H. & Gellert, A. S. (2012). Dyslexia in a second language?-a dynamic acquisition may provide a fair answer, Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 172-185 Equality Act. (2010). Implication for higher education institutions, Available: http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/files/equality-act-2010-briefing.pdf/view (Accessed: 27 January 2013) Everatt, J. (2011). Dyslexia in adult students with English as an additional language, Journal of Inclusive Practice in Further and Higher Education, National Association of Disability Practitioners, Sheffield Hallam University, No. 3.1, pp. 5-17 European Dyslexia Association. (2013). Available: http://www.eda-info.eu/en/dyslexia-incidenceand-emotional-effects.html (Accessed: 29 January 2013) Helland, T. & Kaasa, R. (2005). Dyslexia in English as a second language, Dyslexia, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 41–60 Geva, E., Wade-Woolley, L. & Shany, M. (2004). Issues in the Assessment of Reading Disability in Second Language Children in Smythe, I., Everatt, J. & Salter, R. (Eds), International Book of Dyslexia – A cross language comparison and practice guide (2nd ed.), Chichester: Wiley, pp. 196-206 99 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Fennema-Notestine, C. & Morris, S. K. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming but not picture classification, Memory and Cognition, Vol. 33, No. 7: 1220–1234 Grove, J. (2012). Overseas student numbers ‘to rise by 30,000, The Times Higher Education, 13 March 2012, Available: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/419325.article (Accessed: 4 December 2013) Ho, C. S. H. and Bryant, P. (1997). Learning to read Chinese beyond the logographic phase, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 276-289 Hulme, C. & Snowling, M. (2009). Developmental Disorders of Language Learning and Cognition, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell Jamieson, C. &Holden, C. (2012). Assessing Students with English as an Additional Language, Seminar and PowerPoint Presentation at the Association of Dyslexia Specialists in Higher Education Conference, 21 June 2012 Kindersley, K. (2005). Higher Education in Backhouse, G. & Morris, K. (Eds), Dyslexia? Assessing and reporting –The Patoss Guide, London: Hodder Education, pp. 108-118 Lightfoot, A. (2013). Mentors support children with limited English but 'gaps' in specialist skills remain, The Guardian Weekly, Tuesday 26 March 2013, Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/mar/26/english-language-support-uk-schools (Accessed: 27 May 2013) McLoughlin, D, Leather, C. & Stringer, C. (2003). The Adult Dyslexic – Interventions and Outcomes, London: Whurr Publishers Ltd Mann, V. (2013). Dyslexia and International Students: supporting international students with dyslexia in English for academic purposes, InForm, Vol. 11, pp. 9-11 Marian, V. & Shook, A. (2012). The Cognitive Benefits of Being Bilingual, © 2014 The Dana Foundation - All Rights Reserved, Available: https://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39483 (Accessed: 19 October 2014) Mortimore, T., Hansen, L., Hutchings, M., Northcote, A., Fernando, J., Horobin, L., Saunders, K. & Everatt, J. (2012). Dyslexia and Multilingualism: Identifying and supporting bilingual learners who might be at risk of developing SpLD/Dyslexia, Research Report, Bath Spa University, British Dyslexia Association, Lottery Funded Scott, S. & Manglitz, E. (1997). Foreign language learning and learning disabilities, Available: http://www.ldonline.org/article/6066, (Accessed: 4 Nov 2014) Pellegrini, M. (2014). Diagnoses of Dyslexia in Higher Education Learners with English as an Additional Language, Patoss Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 10-18 Riddick, B. (2010). Living with Dyslexia - The social and emotional consequences of specific learning difficulties/disabilities (2nd ed.), Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties – An independent report from Jim Rose to the Secretary of State for Children, schools and families, June 2009, Available: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/00659-2009DOM-EN.pdf (Accessed: 16 February 2013) 100 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Seymour, P.H.K., Aro, M. & Erskine, J.M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 94, No. 2, pp. 142-174 Scott, S. & Manglitz, E. (1997). Foreign Language Learning and Learning Disabilities – Making the college transition, LD Online, © 2014 WETA, Available: http://www.ldonline.org/article/6066?theme=print (Accessed: 22 December, 2014) Siegel, L. (2006). Perspectives on dyslexia, Paediatrics and Child Health, Vol. 11, No. 9, pp. 581-587, Pulsus Group Inc, Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528651/pdf/pch11581.pdf (Accessed: 19 April 2013) Swan, M. & Smith, B (2001). Learner English, A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (2nd ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Testing and Assessment Guidance. (2014). Suitable Tests for the Assessment of Specific Learning Difficulties in Higher Education (Revised December 2014), Available: http://www.sasc.org.uk/SASCDocuments/REVISED%20guidelines-December%202014.pdf (Accessed: 8 March 2015) Thomson, M. (2009). The Psychology of Dyslexia - A Handbook for Teachers (2nd ed.), Oxford: Wiley Thomson, J. (2010). Good Practice in interventions for teaching dyslexic learners and in teacher training in English-speaking countries, Dyslexia in the UN Literacy Decade, Available: http://www.dyslexia-international.org/WDF/Files/WDF2010-Thomson-Report.pdf (Accessed: 18 November 2014) Torgesen, J., Wagner, R. & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency - TOWRE, Austin, Texas: PRO-ED Inc Tudhope, E. (2014). How can dyslexia negatively impact upon acquiring English as an additional language and what can dyslexia/SpLD tutors do to address these issues?, Patoss Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 9-18 UK Council for International Students Affairs. (no date). Available: http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/about/statistics_he.php#table1 (Accessed: 27 October 2014) Wagner, R., Torgesen, J. & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing – CTOPP, Austin, Texas: PRO-ED Inc Ziegler, J. C. & Goswami, U. C. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp. 3-29 Zorzi, M., Barbiero, C., Facoetti, A., Lonciari, I., Carrozzi, M, Montico, M., Bravar, L., George, F., Pech-Georgel, C. & Ziegler, J. C. (2012). Extra-large letter spacing improves reading in dyslexia, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 109, No. 28, pp. 11455-11459

101 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Action Learning ADSHE-Style: from rhetoric to reality, an initial exploration. Pauline Sumner, Tanya Zybutz, Shirley Dow, Janet Skinner and Julia Tait

Abstract Action learning is one approach to a relatively new quality assurance initiative for professional practice introduced by the Association of Dyslexia Specialists in Higher Education (ADSHE). This article draws on the first-hand experiences of dyslexia/SpLD support practitioners who have actually participated in the action learning process. The participants’ preliminary reflections provide a valuable insight into the professional and personal development resulting from the process and their feedback provides practical and useful guidance for those wanting to participate in action learning practice.

Introduction The Association of Dyslexia Specialists in Higher Education (ADSHE, 2014) advocates Professional Peer Supervision (PPS) as a key element of quality assurance in maintaining high professional standards in the provision of 1:1 specialist support for university students with dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties. PPS provides an opportunity for practitioners to reflect on their work with fellow professionals in an informed and supportive environment. Action learning (AL) is one approach to PPS which fits well within the ADSHE ethos as it provides a useful framework within which “small groups (sets) of professionals work together on real life issues/situations to examine and challenge current ways of working” in order to enhance professional practice (ADSHE, 2014). 102 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Within the AL group, each member is provided with a negotiated time to reflect on and present to the other members a particular challenge that may be affecting their work. The other members provide facilitative support in the form of open questions to aid the presenter in working towards a clearer understanding of their presented issue and future actions she/he may want to take. The group facilitator keeps the focus of the group on the presenter’s issues and provides the necessary organisational elements such as time-keeping. It is a democratic process where roles are negotiated between group members and each person takes it in turn to present their issues (see ADSHE Quality Assurance Handbook, 2014 for further details).

Action Learning was introduced by Revans (1982) in the 1940s for the business world. Whilst there have been numerous variations of his original process, the basic principles are still relevant. AL group members “share the elements of real people resolving and taking action on real problems in real time, and learning through questioning and reflection while doing so” (Revans, 1982 cited in Marquardt & Waddill, 2004:186). Different training and problem solving approaches to AL have been developed to suit the private and public sector.

However, despite Revans (1982) advocating the

benefits of action learning in higher education, he received little encouragement and it took much longer to be accepted within the academic sector.

Bourner and Frost

(1996) suggest a reason for this was that learning which required interrogating experience did not sit well within the more traditional processes of teaching and learning which rely on the imparting of knowledge via lectures and text books, nor could it be easily assessed or certificated. The growth in importance of student centred learning and experiential learning methods has brought with it an increased interest in the embedding of reflective practice in a milieu where the responsibility for learning is shared within a facilitative process, rather than being dictated by the lecturer (Brockbank & McGill, 2007).

103 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Furthermore, in acknowledging the benefits of AL for students and staff alike, Brockbank and McGill (2007:289) argue that the traditionally held notion of university staff development being restricted to research and scholarly activity is no longer practicable. Rather there has been a growing realisation of the importance of recognising teachers as reflective practitioners, who in questioning and evaluating their own practice within an AL group can draw on peer support to consider “key issues relating to emergent and existing roles at the frontier of their work rather than working on them in isolation”. The reflective and collaborative process of AL is strongly reflected in the ethos of quality assurance and professional development for ADSHE members. This article provides an exploration of what happened in a number of ADSHE AL groups in practice. There is considerable advice on setting up and running an AL group in the literature (e.g. McGill & Brockbank, 2004; McGill & Beaty, 2002; Dick, 2010). The aim of this case study is to provide more practical and reflective guidance by drawing on the actual experiences and feelings of fellow practitioners who have participated in action learning.

The reflective case study is broken down into two sections. The first section draws on the feedback and reflections from ADSHE members regarding the practical and organisational issues that can usefully be considered in the early stages of establishing and running a group. The second section draws on the ADSHE Principles of Action Learning (ADSHE, 2014a) to consider some additional insightful reflections that have been gathered from ADSHE members who have been involved in AL groups.

104 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Practical considerations in establishing and running an AL Group The evidence from both being involved in an AL group and from feedback received from ADSHE practitioners emphasises the importance of establishing clear protocols and boundaries from the start. With the hindsight of experience over the first few meetings, these can be adapted where necessary. McGill and Brockbank (2004:67) point out that there will be a higher level of commitment and ownership of the AL group by members who have developed the ground rules themselves. One of the first considerations in establishing initial ground rules is timing, be it setting time aside for AL, frequency of meetings, timing of sessions or time-keeping within sessions. One of the key points raised by the ADSHE respondents is the difficulty in taking time out from work to commit to a group. One found that because it is difficult to find regular times to meet it is necessary to record an issue she may wish to raise at future meetings “at risk of forgetting the urgency it may have had at the time”. A freelance tutor reported on how difficult it was to allocate time during the term because of other work commitments. In stressing the importance of good planning to overcome the issues of time constraints, McGill and Beaty (2002) emphasise the need for members to commit to booking times in advance in their diaries; it is easier to plan subsequent dates at the end of a meeting when all members are present. Time-keeping factors within AL sessions were raised by a number of respondents. Clearly it takes additional time in initial meetings to discuss and establish the ground rules; however, this is time well spent. In consideration of allocating time within a session, McGill and Beaty (2002) suggest that roughly equal time be provided for members to present. One ADSHE member felt that their AL group had possibly tried to cover too much within the allocated session time; another member from the same group had reported similarly that she had felt mentally exhausted at the end of the session. For their first meeting, this group had trialled a longer session than usual because of the distance members had to travel, and whilst it was beneficial to have the time to discuss 105 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

ground rules and protocols, trying to provide equal time for each of the five members to present became difficult to manage both practically and mentally. However, this had been a useful learning experience in planning for future meetings. McGill and Beaty (2002:30) have learned from experience to “spread set member participation over a few sets so that each set member has significant time in a particular session but each has rough equality over a few set meetings”. Each member should still be provided with time though to check in on their progress following their presenting at a previous meeting. It is reiterated that members should experiment with what is useful within any particular group and a flexible approach should be taken in recognising where negotiation may be necessary to provide extra time for say a particularly emotive issue. Further issues raised from the feedback from ADSHE respondents included the necessity for a quiet and confidential space within which to meet, which is away from the possibility of interruptions. This, of course, is not always easy to find. There was reflection on the dynamics of AL group members, with a number of respondents describing how important it was for them to be working with trusted and professional colleagues. The advantages of working within “a very democratic process” afforded by the AL process were emphasised, as was the “value of working in a completely nonhierarchical way”. One suggestion provided was that “managers should think about the pairings/teams to encourage a genuine fostering of mutual support”. As most of the respondents were in the exploratory stages of setting up and running groups, the majority appreciated the need to gain more experience in learning how to make the best use of the AL process that would suit their own needs or in the case of managers, those of their team.

106 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The ADSHE Principles for Action Learning: In building on the foundations of Revans’ (1982) concept of action learning and in meeting best practice objectives, ADSHE (2014a) advocate the following principles:

1) Active listening 2) Reflective practice 3) Facilitative questioning 4) Professionalism: confidentiality; mutual respect; valuing difference 5) Taking responsibility for own learning 6) Belief in the individual’s capacity to find their own solutions 7) Belief that the listener’s role is not to advise or problem solve (a particular challenge to the orientation of the 1:1 dyslexia tutor) 8) Non-judgemental 9) Non-supervisory (in the traditional sense) 10) Don’t offer advice! These principles are drawn on within the reflective focus for the second part of the case study.

Active listening, presenting and facilitative questioning McGill & Brockbank (2004:164) emphasise active listening as the core skill of AL and cite Maslow (1969) in highlighting how rare it is to be able to “really wholly, passively, self-effacingly listen – without presupposing, classifying, improving, controverting, evaluating, approving or disapproving”.

As dyslexia support practitioners we are

trained and have gathered considerable experience in listening actively and attentively to our students. However, one respondent reflected “although I feel experienced in listening skills, I was surprised to find myself nervous about the process …”. It is likely that a dyslexia tutor is more at ease with listening in preparation for giving advice say on planning, writing, revision, or finding a solution, rather than employing the listening skills required for action learning, where the presenter is allowed space to talk through issues 107 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

in order to find their own solution. Managing the desire of the dyslexia tutor to “solve” is an impulse that could benefit from some time in the AL process. Reflecting on our role within the AL group can lead to a greater awareness of our generic role within higher education. Other responses referred to initial anxieties about taking part in an AL group. For example, one person reflected that whilst the shared environment with colleagues can be “quite cathartic” it “might feel a bit threatening at first as you feel you open yourself to possible criticism”, although she concluded that “if the process is managed well, this should not happen”. This person added that “it took a couple of meetings for some of the team to believe that the process is supportive, not punitive. It does help us to believe in ourselves and that, yes, we are actually doing a good job most of the time”. Another respondent mentioned that she was “a bit apprehensive” and not sure whether what she was bringing to the group would be a “waste of time”, or if she would be able to be open about something she was so concerned about; in fact she went on to express that the facilitative questioning from the other members had been helpful in her gaining a clearer sense of perspective regarding the issues at hand. As stressed by McGill & Brockbank (2004:130) such anxieties, common when working in any type of group, can take the form of “self-talk” in asking “will I be accepted, wanted, liked? Will I understand what’s going on? Will I be able to do what’s required?” Such anxieties become even more “real” when all members are “given voice” as presenters. In order to accommodate such fears, McGill & Brockbank (2004) go on to emphasise how important it is early in the process of forming a group to establish an “atmosphere of trust and safety, so that learners can contribute and all can benefit”. In considering the rare opportunity of thinking about herself afforded by AL, one ADSHE respondent explained that “doing work on myself and my own practice seems to be a shift of focus for me – I’m so used to giving all my focus to the student in my 1:1 session. Being a recipient of my peers’ focus can at times be uncomfortable – valuable 108 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

but also uncomfortable!” It is only when people step out of their comfort zones that they will learn more, and as advocated by Bourner & Frost (1996:25), the “encouragement and optimism provided by action learning sets seem to give participants the confidence to take such steps” An important element of active listening is not being fearful of silence. From her experience of being involved in an AL group, one ADSHE respondent reflected on the insight gained of “the power of silence and giving the presenter the space to think through their own solutions”. She related this to useful practice within her dyslexia tutorial work in enabling the student to have reflection time to think things through in order to find their own solutions rather than the tutor always “trying to fix things”. McGill and Beaty (2006:56) emphasise the need in the AL set to “leave space for thought between questions and comments”. The group members may find it frustrating to remain silent when there is an issue they are burning to explore, but it is important to remember that the presenter “may find silence the most liberating and useful part of the whole exercise”.

Interestingly, one AL team comprising of ADSHE members found it more effective to allow feedback and advice from colleagues in the group, adapting the process accordingly. The group meet regularly to “discuss an issue that has arisen about supporting a student” and are able to share their experiences about themselves as tutors and “explore issues together”. This has led to closer collaborative team working. In considering the virtues of reflective practice as the “bedrock of professional identity”, Finlay (2008:10) asserts the importance of not fixing on one model, but generating different approaches to reflection according to varying levels, disciplines and context, emphasising that “models need to be applied selectively, purposefully, flexibly and judiciously”. Adapting to the diverse working roles and institutional remits of dyslexia/SpLD practitioners, flexibility and experimentation is core to the ADSHE ethos of AL practice. 109 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Reflective practice As dyslexia/SpLD support tutors we spend much of our time within tutorials teaching our students how to develop critical reflective practice for their own development and in meeting the criteria for their studies, and yet it appears we have little time ourselves to participate in reflection on our professional practice. Action Learning provides a useful opportunity and space to reflect on practice, within a collaborative, supportive, confidential, informed and non-judgemental milieu. In considering the reflective practice encouraged by AL, a number of respondents provided very positive feedback on their experiences. One said how “the process allows us to stop for a moment and have time to reflect in a professional manner” and another reported how the “experience of participating could be consolidated by personal reflective time” and how extremely valuable this was to her. A further reflection highlighted how the experience of participating in the group helped the person to more clearly “reflect on what was actually causing discontent”.

In providing such a valuable opportunity for sharing dialogue with colleagues who work in similar professions, AL is particularly useful for dyslexia/SpLD practitioners who often work in isolation within large universities or as freelancers. One participant referred to the isolation of working for a large organisation and emphasised the importance of how “knowing that there will be a carved out time to meet with peers to address issues relevant to either my own work or theirs (which is relevant to my own), takes the pressure off grabbing moments in a corridor with colleagues”. Brockbank & McGill (2007:285) highlight the “added value of finding that set members are likely to share the same or similar concerns and problem searching and solution”. This provides the required conditions for effective reflective discourse which can help to reframe an issue and/or to see a different way to consider future actions.

Such clarity of thought may not happen until after the AL group meeting. For example, one ADSHE respondent reported that “on my way home I was able to unpick the issues 110 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

considered with the AL team more clearly, rethink them and feel more confident in following the pathway I had chosen to take”. The strong dynamics that had built up in one group resulted in one of the members stating that even when away from the group, she found that she was reflecting on how the other members might support her in the difficulties she was experiencing: “I created a virtual AL group in my mind where I have raised the issues with the group members and thought through the types of facilitative questions they might raise – this has helped me to clarify the issues and take control in sorting out my feelings about the situation”. What stands out from the positive reflections received is the pride the tutors take in working with thoughtful, motivated, professional and trusted peers.

Professionalism Wilson, Keachie & Engelsmann (2003:23) cite Revans (1998) in noting the benefits of using reflection to link past actions to future action which may be more effective, stating that in AL this “process is slowed down in order to allow time for reflection and is enabled through effective questioning embedded within a high challenge, high support framework”.

The type of supportive framework advocated by Wilson, Keachie &

Engelsmann (2003) can only be successful if individuals have confidence, trust and mutual respect in the group members they are working with. One ADSHE respondent reflected on what she had gained from participating in an AL group: “I feel part of a reassuringly supportive and non-judgemental professional group and have been reminded that sharing concerns does not mean revealing weakness”. Having felt vulnerable in a previous institution she had worked in, another participant reported on how working with AL colleagues she had great respect for, had helped her to find her own solutions in identifying what she wanted from her workplace and had increased her confidence in her own abilities and skills. Working together within the AL ethos has also assisted the respondent and her fellow group members with further peer staff development plans and a collaborative research project. 111 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

In an AL group of ADSHE practitioners from varying workplaces, one reflected on the value of gaining knowledge of the wider context and fresh perspectives, saying that she was “curious to know whether my issues would be similar or different to those of colleagues”. A number of the respondents reflected on how AL alleviated the isolation of working as a dyslexia support tutor. One tutor said that “participating in AL groups has given me deeper insight into solutions and problems that other tutors face and handle, and has helped me to feel less isolated in the job”. Another tutor referred to similar challenges, whilst also highlighting the ever important issue of respect for the profession itself: “tutoring can be very isolating; creating a group helps to minimise the feeling of isolation. Giving time to develop good practice makes me feel like I am giving the role the status and respect it deserves which does not always feel the case with the institutions we work in”.

Such reflections and the importance of professional development and effective collaborative working become all the more poignant in a climate where it is not clear how the proposed changes in Disabled Students’ Allowance funding will affect the 1:1 tutorial provision for students with specific learning difficulties, and strongly reaffirm the emphasis on continuing to work to raise understanding about the valuable work of the specialist dyslexia/SpLD support tutor, particularly outside the sector.

Conclusion This case study has focused on the exploratory stages of setting up and running ADSHE- style action learning groups. As already identified from examples of good practice within the literature, it is clear from feedback provided from respondents that setting up and running an AL group is well worth the initial planning, effort and time required. Whilst this study has provided useful and insightful preliminary information 112 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

regarding action learning within the dyslexia/SpLD sector, it is important that further research be carried out on a larger number of AL groups when they have had time to establish themselves, as this should provide a more reliable evaluation and wealth of useful insights.

Unusually in our profession, the reflections in this case study have mainly focused on the development of practice for the dyslexia/SpLD practitioner rather than the student, but it is evident from the reflections that the value of participating in AL will in turn be of benefit for students. Whilst not covered within the limitations of this article, the literature provides effective examples of setting up action learning groups for university students (e.g. Brockbank & McGill, 2007; Beaty, 2003), and it is clear that such practice could be of particular value to the students with dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties we work with – certainly a useful project for the future, if not already in place.

A common issue raised by ADSHE members is the feeling of isolation and need for additional support, and the feedback gathered from this study has clearly demonstrated the benefits of action learning in helping with such factors. Useful recommendations taken from the responses included the possibility of regional group meetings offering time for AL sessions, setting up virtual groups (say by Skype) for those who cannot get to meetings or named groups where members know it is possible to make contact via email or phone with a colleague for discussion. The flexibility of AL lends itself to such varying practices and it is hoped that many more ADSHE AL groups will be established and the ones already in place will continue to flourish. Further guidance and advice on organising an action learning group can be obtained from the members of the ADSHE action learning training team (and authors of this article).

113 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

References ADSHE (2014). Quality Assurance Handbook, available from: www.adshe.org.uk [accessed 16.12.14] ADSHE (2014a). Reading for the PPS/Action Learning Workshop ADSHE Conference Birmingham June 2014 [available on request] Beaty, L. (2003). Action Learning: Continuing Professional Development Series, York: LTSN available from: www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/id291_action_learning.pdf Bourner, T. & Frost, P. (1996). In their own words: the experience of action learning in higher education, Education and Training 38 (8) Brockbank, A. & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education (Society for Research into Higher Education) 2nd Ed. Berks: Open University Press Dick, B. (2010). Action research literature 2008–2010: Themes and trends Action Research 9(2) 122-143 Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on ‘Reflective practice’, Berks: Open University Marquardt, M. & Waddill, D. (2004). The power of learning in action learning: a conceptual analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the practice of action learning, Action Learning: Research and Practice 1 (2) McGill, I. & Beaty, L. (2002). Action Learning: a guide for professional, management and educational development, Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer McGill, I. & Brockbank, A. (2004). The Action Learning Handbook, Oxon: Routledge Revans, R. (1982) The Origins and Growth of Action Learning, Industrial and Commercial Training, 14(7) 248-249 Wilson, V., Keachie, P. & Engelsmann, M. (2003). Putting the action into learning: the experience of an action learning set, Collegian 10 3

114 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The Impact of Dyscalculia on Students in Higher Education Victoria Mann, Eleanor Machin and Emma Woodrow

Abstract Dyscalculia is a specific learning difficulty that affects a person’s ability to acquire mathematical skills. This can have an effect on both a person’s everyday living and academic achievement. This article considers how dyscalculia impacts the acquisition of mathematical skills, and uses the voice of an undergraduate student to explore how dyscalculia can impact students in higher education. Further it discusses current theoretical concepts and considers ways lecturers can support students with dyscalculia.

It finds that the use of multi-sensory techniques can support students in developing understanding of mathematics concepts and that approaches such as the use of manipulatives, scaffolding learning, and experiential learning can be particularly useful.

Introduction Dyscalculia is a specific learning difficulty that affects a person’s ability to acquire mathematical skills. It affects both daily living and academic achievement and around 57% of the population has dyscalculia (Butterworth, Varma & Laurillard, 2011:1049). This is similar to dyslexia; however, no definitive link between dyslexia and dyscalculia has been identified. Whilst, in the authors’ experience, dyslexia is widely recognised and supported in educational institutions, dyscalculia is less well researched and there is frequently limited provision for dyscalculia support in higher education HE institutions. To illustrate this, up to 2007, studies in dyslexia outnumbered those in dyscalculia by 14:1 (Gersten, Clarke & Mazzacco, 2007:2).

115 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

This paper will discuss dyscalculia and how it affects the acquisition of mathematical skills and everyday living, how dyscalculia can impact students in higher education, and ways lecturers can support students with dyscalculia.

Definition The DfES (2001:2) provides a definition which details the areas of mathematical ability that are impacted: “[Dyscalculia is] a condition that affects the ability to acquire arithmetical skills. Dyscalculic learners may have difficulty understanding simple number concepts, lack an intuitive grasp of numbers, and have problems learning number facts and procedures. Even if they produce a correct answer or use a correct method, they may do so mechanically and without confidence.” This is useful to the practitioner as the difficulties can be matched to mathematical components; namely carrying out mathematical functions, understanding arithmetical facts, understanding and using arithmetical principles, and applying mathematical knowledge (Dowker, 2004). This, therefore, provides an insight into the specific difficulties arising from a dyscalculic profile and creates a differentiation between dyscalculia and other mathematical difficulties.

Difficulties associated with Dyscalculia For many years, Piaget’s theories were at the root of the understanding of the development of numerical cognition in children (Piaget, 1964). In recent times, however, an increasing interest in the biological foundations of mathematical difficulties and the increasing availability and affordability of functional magnetic resonance imaging has led to further theories of numerical cognition being developed and researched further. Notions of ‘cognitive characteristics’ of dyscalculia vary slightly amongst the research. Some cite more general areas of cognitive function; Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich & Early, 116 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

(2007) discuss the differences in visual-spatial and reading skills, along with working memory function, and some describe more mathematics specific areas of ability; Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, Nugent & Numtee, (2007) claim to provide a ‘continuation’ of Murphy et al.’s research, but instead consider six areas of numerical cognition: number sets, estimation, counting, arithmetic, working memory and processing speed. In earlier work, Geary (1993) looked into long-term memory issues which may be a contributing factor, and was able to identify three possible sources of ‘retrieval difficulties’. These were the ability to represent phonetic/semantic information in long term memory, a deficit in the ability to ignore irrelevant information when learning problem solving and/or a disturbance in the development or function of the cognitive system responsible for the representation and retrieval of mathematical facts; however, since this was published, more research has focused on visuo-spatial working memory and suggests that long term memory may not be a primary area of difficulty, as originally suggested (Faramarzi & Sadri, 2014).

The Triple Code Model of mathematical cognition (Dehaene et al. cited in Kroeger, Brown and O’Brien, 2012) has been credited with being the most prominent and current neuroscientific theory of number processing and suggests three very distinct codes of mathematical representation when undertaking different types of task: The ‘AuditoryVerbal Code’, which processes number words and is used in retrieving rote-learned facts and sequences; the ‘Visual Arabic Code’, which processes numerical information in written digit format and is used in written calculations; and The Analogue Magnitude Code, which represents quantities along a mental number line, requiring semantic knowledge of numbers being closer to/further from and bigger/smaller than other numbers. This ‘quantity’ system equates to what be referred to as ‘number sense. These three distinctive areas may support the notion of different subtypes of dyscalculia. It seems reasonable to hypothesise that different combinations of neurological areas of weakness would give rise to the different cognitive sub-categories of dyscalculia. Researchers have argued that a deficit within the area of analogue 117 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

function is far more common in dyscalculia, with a ‘visual-Arabic’ deficit being relatively rare (Szucs, Devine, Soltesz, Nobes & Gabriel, 2013). A basic outline of the cognitive difficulties in the six areas outlined by Geary (1993) which occur as a result of a deficit in ‘number sense’ is given below. •

•

•

•

•

Magnitude and ordinality: related to the 'analogue' code, learners with dyscalculia do not develop their 'internal number line' as others do. The knowledge about where a number appears on the number line has to be explicitly taught. Estimation and approximation: the deficit in the ability to place numbers onto the mental number line adversely affects the learner's ability to estimate and approximate. They are likely to have no idea whether or not an answer they have given is sensible. Counting: learners with dyscalculia may exhibit 'odd' counting strategies; there are five basic principles of counting that, again, most children do not need teaching explicitly: one-to-one correspondence, stable order, cardinality, abstraction and order-irrelevance (Gelman & Gallistel, 1978). In our experience learners with dyscalculia may not have ever inferred one or more of these principles and so counting procedures will be awkward, slow and possibly more inaccurate. Processing speed and information retrieval: more and more research (Geary, Hoard & Bailey, 2011; Geary, Hoard, Nugent & Bailey, 2012; Proctor, 2012) is suggesting a deficit in the ability to retrieve information about mathematical processes. Findings appear to centre on three aspects of information retrieval which affects speed of processing: a deficit in the ability to represent particularly visuo-spatial information in short term and working memory (WM), a deficit in the ability to inhibit irrelevant associations from entering WM during calculations and disruption in the development of a cognitive system for the representation and retrieval of arithmetical knowledge (Doyle, 2010). Arithmetic: mainly linked to the 'auditory verbal' and 'visual arabic' codes, the completion of calculations, both mentally and on paper, is slower and more inaccurate in those with dyscalculia (inaccuracy occurs primarily in mental calculations). In our experience, difficulties with working memory, processing speed and magnitude representation all serve to make the process of any calculation more arduous than would normally be expected.

118 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

‘Number sense’ is considered to be innate in neurotypical individuals; it integral to survival as well as to performing specific mathematical tasks. Before language developed, a concept of number was required in ‘fight or flight’ situations; a concept of ‘more’ or ‘less’ would be required in order to decide whether to stay and fight an invading horde or relinquish the land and take ’flight’. Although the situations are very different, the underlying principle remains in our society. ‘Survival’ in our modern society could refer to being ‘functionally numerate’.

When considering this definition of being numerate, in conjunction with the aforementioned cognitive difficulties associated with a deficit in number-sense, it becomes clear how far reaching the effects can be in everyday life; for example, many HE institutions require a potential student to have obtained a grade C in GCSE mathematics (Gayle & Playford, 2014). If this is not the case, then, despite the likelihood of having excelled in the subject(s) of interest, the individual may be unable to obtain a university education. This can then have an adverse effect on their employability and earning potential. A compounding factor in the perception of an individual’s employability is time-management, which is a common area of weakness associated with dyscalculia. Various factors feed in to time-management issues; for example, continuing lateness could be due to a difficulty in reading and interpreting bus timetables, which may be caused by a difficulty in interpreting tabular numerical information. This can then be further exaggerated by difficulties/inaccuracies in telling the time and even reading the bus numbers correctly. In addition, the inherent difficulties in estimation make preparation for the day difficult; a seemingly simple question such as ‘how long will it take me to get ready’ can be exceedingly difficult to answer accurately. Even when this question has been resolved, there is still the task of subtracting the answer from the required departure time to find out what time the alarm needs setting for (a calculation which uses base 60 instead of base 10), and then the inconvenience of double-checking that the alarm has been set correctly.

119 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The points mentioned above, are just a few of the potential practical difficulties faced every day by individuals with dyscalculia, so it seems unsurprising that increasing levels of anxiety are experienced by HE students with dyscalculia.

The impact of dyscalculia on students in higher education begins before the student even picks up a pen, or sees an equation. Anxiety about the mathematical element of a course can result in a student avoiding a course with this element, which means that students limit their degree choices considerably (Mann, Ashton & Rowlands, 2013).

Alternatively, this narrowing of choice may not be self-selected, but rather will be because students do not meet the pre-requisites for a course. Mann et al. (2013) cite this as being particularly pertinent to students using an ‘access’ route to university when lacking an A-level.

The student’s voice Now we present the perspective from student and co-author, Emma Woodrow. In her experience, difficulty with initial arithmetic, because of dyscalculia, resulted in her being unable to create solid mathematical foundations.

Most issues with dyscalculia, for the majority who have it, seem to relate to arithmetic, especially mental arithmetic and when under time constraint and distraction. There are a good proportion of people with dyscalculia who are advanced mathematicians. Unfortunately arithmetic is presented as mathematics initially and many who fail never progress with the subject long enough to get to a level of understanding. They have been so emotionally beaten down. It is quite possible that there is a mathematical ability which is to dyscalculia as hyperlexia is to dyslexia. There is 'advanced' number pattern recognition and learning, as exhibited by people with calendar and other calculator skills. This need not be an idiot savant type special ability, but a special cognitive and neurotically attribute. It is a mistake to judge the few by the standards of the many. 120 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

There are some otherwise neurologically fairly typical students who lack access to mathematical 'module' and clearly others who have problems with time functions. Some dyscalculics, such as me, have advanced spatial functions (as long as left / right problem is not invoked.

In addition to dyscalculia impacting on the choice of academic course, individual modules may also be avoided if they are perceived to have a mathematical element. Ashcraft & Moore (2009) found that if students had a high level of anxiety surrounding mathematics, they were likely to avoid further mathematical courses. When students are required to engage with mathematics, the anxiety and tension can interfere with number manipulation and use of mathematical equations (Ashcraft & Krause, 2007). This interaction between dyscalculia and anxiety can affect learning in a variety of ways.

I think that there is a timing element to many neurological differences which interferes with learning and recall as well as calculating. If you have ever played with those toys where marbles or ball bearings are moved by a bucket system, if the flow is not regulated to the speed of the process, it will not function efficiently. Some mental processes take too long and overflow the holding capacity of working memory, because of a failure in rote learning - supply speed and or working memory - carrying capacity. This is why the problem is worse under situations of pressure.

Another difficulty for students with dyscalculia in higher education is the need to go beyond using formulas and principles to apply and adapt mathematic knowledge. Hewson (2011) identifies two interrelation issues. Firstly, students do not have the required underpinning mathematic foundations and, secondly, they find it difficult to apply knowledge in different contexts.

Hewson found the reason for being unable to apply knowledge included over procedural thinking, which is described as an inability to translate mathematical thinking to real 121 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

world thinking and vice versa; a lack of multi-step problem solving skills and a lack of confidence. Finally, dyscalculia can impact students like me in terms of wider academic challenges. House (2014) for example, finds that students also can experience difficulty with abstract concepts like time and directions, linear sequences and even. We can become confused my timetables which results in us being late for lecture, missing meetings or confusions over time and place of exams. Remembering and sorting module codes can be a nightmare. We can get lost easily so the change in timetables and lecture halls at each semester can cause many problems.

As a personal example: I could not keep up during lectures because I could not find things or work them out quickly enough as information was given in speech, not writing with different screens flicked between and shifting up and down and different displays to speech. PowerPoint slides were unnumbered so I could not find where I was to make notes or refer to my own computer.

Suggested approaches for tutors A multi-sensory approach is useful in supporting students with dyscalculia (Emerson & Babtie, 2014). One multisensory technique is to move from concrete examples to abstract concepts. The concrete examples involve the use of kinaesthetic activities, such as handling currency when working on understanding money, which allows the student to explore the task and make connections. A student may, however, be competent in the concrete representation, but find it difficult to make the transition to the abstract. In order to move from the concrete to the abstract, manipulatives can be employed. The picture below demonstrates how manipulatives bridge the gap from concept to abstract. Figure 1 demonstrates how manipulatives enable a student to move from the concrete (a pizza cut into quarters) to the abstract mathematical representation of a quarter. 122 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Figure 1 Manipulatives

Manipulatives enable students develop conceptual understanding of mathematical ideas by representing ideas in multiple ways (Shaw 2002). An example of this is Cuisenaire rods shown in Figure 2, which can be used to demonstrate fractions. Figure 2 (taken from Petti, 2007)

123 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The manipulatives are on a continuum from the concrete to the abstract, to attempt to bridge the gap. Clements’ (1999:270) research found that these “play a role in [the] construction of meaningful ideas [and can be] used before formal symbolic instruction.” He pointed out, however, that the manipulative itself does not carry the meaning of a mathematical idea and it is the role of the tutor to support the students in grasping the concept being considered. The resources, therefore, do not provide standalone teaching; rather they are used to allow the students to explore ideas and experiment, using concrete ideas.

Alongside kinesthetic tools, visual approaches can be extremely useful to explain concepts to students. Trott (2011:57) uses non-mathematical approaches to help support learning and memory. She devised images like those shown in figures 3 and 4 to help explain tables of information to make calculations. One student mixed up rows and columns and these simple pictures helped to place and hold these in his mind. Figure 3 Row

Figure 4 Column

This demonstrates how using techniques such as visualisations allows the student to explore the problem from different angles. In this way the student has the opportunity to 124 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

view the new information within their existing schemata in that “schemata are always organized meaningfully, can be added to, and, as an individual gains experience, develop to include more variables and more specificity” (Anderson, 1977: 418-419). Schemata are the existing frameworks that the student uses to understand concepts. This use of schema to incorporate new information is most effective once a foundation of concrete understanding has been developed (Schalert, 1982), thus demonstrating the how the use of kinesthetic resources can underpin the acquisition of abstract concepts.

Further evidence of the benefits of multi-sensory learning is considered by Tacon, Atkinson & Wing, (2004). They found that the students were encouraged to make connections between classroom activities and the real world, to learn experientially using practical multi-sensory activities, and to scaffold learning to that the students were not tackling a number of new ideas at the same time; scaffolding in this case being using instructional techniques build on existing learning to enable students to progress towards stronger understanding of concepts. Thus, the teacher enables students to reach a level of understanding that they wouldn’t be able to reach on their own. The findings of the research were generally positive, namely that the students had developed a range of strategies to solve mathematical problems. Whilst the study focused on primary school children, it demonstrates how allowing students to space to explore ideas experientially can support them in understanding number concepts and devise problem solving strategies This can be demonstrated in Figure 5 as a learning cycle( Kolb, 1984:38). Figure 5: Learning Cycle

125 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Concrete Experience (doing)

Active Experimentation (e.g. planning how new information is to be used)

Reflective Observation (observing your discovery)

Abstract Conceptualisation (thinking & drawing conclusions)

An example of this would be understanding triangulation, for example, the relationship between adding, subtracting and equals. At its most basic, an example is a student being given three apples and experimenting taking one away, looking at what is left and then adding one to return to the original number. Thus, through experimentation the student determines how addition and subtraction relate to each other and can reverse calculations to check answers and use equations to suit their purposes

Conclusion The experiences discussed by students in higher education highlight how dyscalculia is not just an issue for students who encounter mathematical elements of their course, rather it impedes progress in terms of meeting deadlines, organising time and interpreting timetables. Equally, dyscalculia and maths’ anxiety can put limitations on students, both in terms of course choice and module choice within their selected programme of study.

In summary, the Triple Code Model of math cognition has demonstrated three different codes of mathematical representation In the visual Arabic code, numbers are processed and manipulated in their Arabic numeral form; the analogue magnitude code 126 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

involves the representation of numbers along a ‘mental number line’, enabling a person to perceive the relative ‘size’ (magnitude) of a number in comparison with others; and the Auditory Verbal code represents numbers as number words, is involved in rote learned sequences and is language dependent.

The article has highlighted just a few of the potential practical difficulties faced by students with dyscalculia every day, such as anxiety, difficulty interpreting timetables and time management. It is, therefore, up to us, as practitioners, to enable our students to identify their individual strengths, difficulties and needs and help them achieve their potential. The multisensory approaches suggested in this article enable students to move from concrete examples to abstract concepts via the use of manipulatives, and to build a framework of understanding via use of experiential learning and existing schemata. Not only will this improve their numeracy skills, but this will, in turn, increase their confidence and motivation.

References Ashcraft, M. H., & Krause, J. A. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243-248. Ashcraft, M. H. & Moore, A. M. (2009). Mathematics Anxiety and Affective Drop in Performance. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 27, 197–205. Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: from brain to education. science, 332(6033), 1049-1053. Clements, D. H. (1999). 'Concrete' Manipulatives, Concrete Ideas, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45-60 DfES (2001). The National Numeracy Strategy. Guidance to support pupils with dyslexia and dyscalculia. Dowker, A. (2004) Dyscalculia in children: its characteristics and possible interventions, Paper presented at OECD Literacy and Numeracy Network Meeting, El Escorial, Spain, March 2004 Emerson, J., & Babtie, P. (2014). The dyscalculia assessment. Bloomsbury Publishing. Gayle, V. & Playford, C. J. (2014). The concealed middle? An exploration of ordinary young people and school GCSE subject area attainment. 127 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Geary, D. (1993), Mathematical Disabilities: Cognitive, Neuropsychological and Genetic Components, Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), p. 345-362 Geary, D.C., Hoard, M.K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L. & Numtee, C.( 2007). Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Achievement Deficits in Children with Mathematical Learning Disability. Child Development, 78(4), pp. 1343-1359 Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K. & Bailey, D. H. (2011). Fact retrieval deficits in low achieving children and children with mathematical learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 0022219410392046. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L. & Bailey, D. H. (2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five-year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206. Gelman, R. & Gallistel, C. (1978). The Child's Understanding of Number. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA Gersten, R., B. Clarke, and M. M. M. Mazzocco. (2007). Historical and contemporary perspectives on mathematical learning disabilities. Why Is Math So Hard for Some Children?, ed. D. B. Berch and M. M. M. Mazzocco. Brookes Publishing. Heddens, J. (1986). Bridging the Gap between the Concrete and the Abstract. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 14-17. Hewson, S. (2011). The Mathematical Problems faced by Advanced STEM Students University of Cambridge. Available from: http://nrich.maths.org/6458 (Accessed 14 April 2015) House, O.P. (2014). Focus on Specific Learning Difficulties. Crested. London Kolb, David A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Kreoger, L.A., Brown, R.D. & O'Brien, B.A. (2012). Connecting Neuroscience, Cognitive, and Educational Theories and Research to Practice: A Review of Mathematics Intervention Programs. Early Education and Development, 23(1), pp. 37-58. Mann, V., Ashton, J. & Rowlands, J. (2013). Students Experiences of Maths elements of STEM subjects. Inclusive Practice, 81. Murphy, M.M., Mazzocco, M.M.M., Hanich, L.B. & Early, M.C. (2007). Cognitive Characteristics of Children with Mathematics Learning Disability (MLD) Vary as a Function of the Cut-off Criterion Used to Define MLD. Journal of learning disabilities, 40(5), pp. 458-478. Petti, W. (2007). A Math Toolbox in Every Home. Mathcats. http://www.mathcats.com/mathtoolbox/ Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176-186.

128 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Proctor, B. (2012). Relationships between Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and math achievement within a sample of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 278-287. Shaw, J. (2002). Manipulatives enhance the learning of mathematics. Houghton Mifflin Mathematics. Retrieved April, 2, 2009. Szucs, D., Devine, A., Soltesz, F., Nobes, A., & Gabriel, F. (2013). Developmental dyscalculia is related to visuo-spatial memory and inhibition impairment, Cortex: A Journal Devoted To The Study Of The Nervous System & Behavior, 49, 10, pp. 2674-2688 Tacon, R., Atkinson, R. & Wing, T. (2004). Learning about Numbers with Patterns, Beam Education, London Trott, C. (2011). Dyscalculia in Further and Higher Education, Loughborough University, [available from] https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspacejspui/bitstream/2134/8879/1/C%20Trott%20Article%20Bulletin %20Summer%202011.pdf

129 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Book Review by Christina Healey and Christine Carter The Dyslexia Debate J. Elliott & E. Grigorenko 2014, Cambridge University Press, New York. ISBN 978-0-521-11986-3 Hardback / ISBN 978-0-521-13587-0 Paperback

National scandal or critical debate?

This book presents a debate on the value of the dyslexia concept as a construct for diagnosing and remediating reading difficulties in children. The focus is on word reading difficulty amongst school age children and the search is for a scientifically rigorous definition of dyslexia that can differentiate between struggling readers identified as dyslexic and those not. The authors emphasise that they do not dispute the presence of neurobiological markers of reading difficulty, but consider dyslexia not to be a useful concept for diagnosis* or intervention. A more pressing concern for HE practitioners is Elliott’s view that “current practices for supporting students considered to have dyslexia are wholly flawed and urgently require radical reform” (Conference Flyer The End of Dyslexia in Higher Education? May 7th, 2014). The fact that the statement is set beside an image of this book suggests that Elliott wishes to apply the same scientific rigour to HE as to children with reading difficulties. Setting aside concerns about this transfer of thinking, the book provides an extensive, clearly structured and balanced survey of research in the field, of benefit to researchers and those in training.

Chapter 1 focuses on difficulties with definitions and different perspectives on dyslexia. The authors review four main approaches: 1) Inclusive definitions that include as dyslexic all those with word reading difficulties as in those given by the British Psychological Society (BPS) (1999) and the Rose Review (2009); 2) Discrepancy 130 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

definitions that seek discrepancy between IQ and reading or listening; 3) Approaches that identify as dyslexic those that fail to respond to intervention; 4) causal explanations such as phonological processing, visual deficit or other language and sensory related problems.

Chapter 2 looks at explanations of reading difficulty at the cognitive level, including the phonological deficit hypothesis, rapid naming and the double deficit, short-term and working memory, low-level sensory processing, attentional factors and psycho-motor processes. They acknowledge the predominance of phonological theories and areas of agreement and doubt are discussed. Their ultimate conclusion is that theoretical understandings of phonological processes still remain unclear and that a phonological deficit is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause reading disability. This is particularly the case, they say, when recent studies on visual perception and attention suggest relationships to phonological awareness. They make brief mention of studies involving adults in their summary of research suggesting that phonological awareness may be less important for adult struggling readers than for children. Whereas for children difficulty may be related to problematic phonological representations, for adults, broader phonological skills requiring effective verbal and working memory may be involved. This alludes to suggestions that changes in cognitive architecture occur over the lifespan (Ransby & Swanson, 2003) and also ties in with those working mainly with adults who prioritise memory inefficiencies as explanation of difficulty (e.g. McLoughlin, 2002). Nevertheless, the authors’ treatment of memory is comprehensive and helpfully differentiates clearly between research in short-term, verbal and working memory.

Chapter 3 discusses the neurobiological basis of reading disability. They make no apology for the level of technical detail, but this is somewhat mitigated by the clear structure they impose on the material. There are two main sections to the chapter: ‘The reading brain’ and ‘Genetic bases of reading (dis)ability’. They divide brain studies into four categories: those that focus on typical reading in adults; those tracing brain changes during reading acquisition; those comparing the structural and functional 131 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

properties of ‘the reading brain’ between typical readers and those with reading disability; and those conducting brain imaging studies alongside behaviour intervention. Brain studies are further grouped into those involving brain structure and anatomy and those involving brain function. Of interest to those working with adults is their assertion that language and reading are highly plastic and can be re-organised throughout the lifespan in response to systematic intervention (and can we assume experience?) and events such as acquired lesions. They consider that, at this time, knowledge is not specified clearly enough to inform criteria for a specifically dyslexic sub-group. Gene studies are dealt with equally effectively with a similar conclusion to above. They suggest that findings are inconsistent and contrasting, that gene/environment interactions complicate the picture further and multiple interacting genes may be involved. They conclude that “…we now have far greater insight into the biological bases of reading and reading failure. However, this has highlighted the immense complexities involved and the inappropriateness of simple explanations or recommendations…. The more we learn the more we appreciate the limits of our understanding” (:122). Nevertheless, the authors are positive about the potential of neuroscience and genetics to help resolve the dyslexia debate. Chapter 4 starts with an historical account from the 1960s to the 1990s of the ‘reading wars’ i.e. fluctuations between a top-down whole language approach and a bottom-up emphasis on phonics. This is of little direct relevance to HE, but provides a concise summary for anyone wishing to include something of the topic in a literature review, for example. Much of the research reviewed in this chapter is firmly rooted in debating the value of a dyslexia diagnosis and specialist intervention for early-stage struggling readers. The authors review literature debating whether early systematic instruction in phonics can reduce numbers who go on to have reading difficulty. They conclude that while early intervention is important there is evidence that initial gains might not be maintained as children’s circumstances and reading demands change. This concurs 132 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

with students we meet in HE who have received early phonics instruction and sometimes had minimal difficulty with decoding in the early stages, but whose reading in HE is still neither fast nor fluent enough for them to manage the volume of reading under time pressure. The fact that ‘atypical’ readers at this stage of their education continue to have problems surely suggests the presence of a group that needs to be identified and supported.

The authors quote with approval a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report (2009), which states that “the techniques used to teach a child diagnosed with dyslexia to read are exactly the same as the techniques used to teach other struggling readers” (:161). This raises issues of interest to HE also concerning the specialist nature of dyslexia intervention. In their review of the literature on learning programmes, they quote the generally accepted importance of structure, overlearning, metacognition and multi-sensory approaches. However, they suggest that there is little evidence in the literature to support multi-sensory learning and these approaches are not specific to dyslexia-related programmes. They do however end the chapter with a statement that makes sense to us, that “…the crucial task is to identify the individual’s particular strengths and weaknesses and address these directly” (:165). We would not dispute the fact that this is important for all learners, as they argue, but that does not in itself, in our view, preclude the importance of identifying a group that has a continuous genetic risk of difficulty, which may manifest differently at different points in time and in different contexts (Snowling, 2001).

Chapter 5 draws together arguments from previous chapters and readers may be well advised to begin with this chapter and Vellutino’s foreword to gain a rapid flavour of the book. The conclusion towards which the previous chapters have inevitably been leading is that the concept of dyslexia should be discontinued. Overall, their recommendations disappoint. Their key point appears to be that the term ‘dyslexia’ should be replaced by ‘reading disability’, and should only be applied to difficulty with 133 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

single word reading. This category is dimensional rather than categorical i.e. it can disappear and reappear at different points in development and these transitional points and interventions can be assessed effectively. Relationships between this kind of reading disability and intelligence and laziness should be “wholly severed” (:181). Difficulty with fluency, comprehension and spelling are considered to be reading difficulties (our italics) and they recommend that more needs to be known about appropriate assessment and intervention and the relationship between the different elements of reading. A key concern in this debate is their unquestioned assumption of the value of ‘scientific rigour’ to a definition of dyslexia. Their interpretation requires evidence to be quantitative and predictive and to rely on empirical studies within a positivist paradigm. Reducing the concept of dyslexia to difficulties with single word decoding allows them to demand quantitative evidence of differences in intervention and in outcome between dyslexic and non-dyslexic struggling readers. The absence of this kind of evidence is inevitable, but it nevertheless allows their conclusion. The attainment of a particular standard of reading is not related in any way to wider language and cognitive skills. The focus is on an expected level of achievement at a particular age. This is in contrast to Hulme and Snowling (2009) who also focus on single word reading as a source of difficulty, but argue that the emphasis should now be on how environmental conditions at different points in development interact differently with word decoding difficulties, leading to different literacy outcomes (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). Hulme and Snowling (2009) also recommend that research should begin to unravel more clearly the interactions between co-existing learning difficulties, whether certain difficulties commonly co-exist, and where the reoccurring points of genetic and brain interaction might be. The authors here do not very fully discuss the implications of frequently coexisting difficulties. The numerous variables introduced by this way of thinking do not lead Hulme and Snowling to discount the usefulness of dyslexia as a concept: they suggest in fact that the cognitive picture for dyslexia is well specified. 134 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

The authors in this book and Elliott (2014) in a contemporaneous article reject broad definitions of dyslexia: “The key problem is that dyslexia diagnoses have moved far away from their original focus (severe reading difficulty) to incorporate an everincreasing range of cognitive and self-regulatory deficits including poor working memory, processing speed limitations, attention/concentration problems, difficulties in analysing and synthesising complex information, and in organising and expressing ideas.” (Elliott, 2014) Presumably by “original focus” Elliott refers to the earliest ideas of ‘word blindness’ as set out in the introduction to the book. Since then others have promoted this wider definition (e.g. Miles, 1993; Reid, 2009). This kind of thinking takes as its starting point observations on the experience of learners, often struggling readers, but also struggling writers and those for whom everyday organisation is difficult.

The difference of opinion rests therefore on a fundamentally different philosophical position on what counts as evidence. The authors criticise the ways in which decisions about dyslexia are not value-free, that personal and professional identities are involved. They play with the idea that: “….perhaps we should accept that there are many types of dyslexia, social constructs that are each created by, and reflect the values and agendas of, differing groups?” (:177) However, once again, they come back to their view that “such a position must surely be to dispense with any suggestion of scientific rigour” (:177). From our perspective of working with adults in HE, attempts to be value free are pointless when we are dealing three of the most complex unknowns in human experience: how the brain works, how learning happens and how language relates to thought. It seems to us that we can 135 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

accept the perspective in the above quotation without negating the possibility of withinperson genetic, brain and cognitive differences that can lead to disadvantage, but which can change with experience and environment to construct different narratives of ‘being dyslexic’. This cannot be measured quantitatively, but not listening to evidence from adult learners themselves and not allowing findings from robust qualitative research to contribute to knowledge in this area seriously distorts the picture of dyslexia. The authors further support their argument for scientific rigour by portraying dyslexia as a ‘meme’, a culturally transmitted artefact (:182). Dyslexia is unavoidably a cultural phenomenon in the same way that reading and writing are; those who struggle with these activities in a culture where they are so highly valued, and particularly so in HE, are likely to be at a major disadvantage and as a culture we have named that phenomenon (Burden, 2008). Science has puzzled over it and made great strides in understanding, but we need not think in terms of either science or culture; to attempt to reduce such a complex phenomenon to ‘pure science’ in positivist terms cannot be helpful.

As HE practitioners and researchers, a major concern for us is the way in which the authors’ position is applied to HE and this is apparent in articles published around the same time as this book. In an article in the Times Higher Education (March 6 th, 2014:), Elliott is quoted as saying: “Students who read perfectly well are being labelled as dyslexic, and IQ tests and colour perception are wrongly taken into account when diagnosing the condition” (Grove, 2014). Elliott continues to equate dyslexia with reading difficulty and we must assume with decoding problems. This unwillingness to acknowledge a broader definition of dyslexia continues to be a problem. There is evidence suggesting that difficulties manifest differently for adult readers (Ransby & Swanson, 2003) and the main reading issue for university students is speed (Simmons & Singleton, 136 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

2000): for some there may still be decoding issues, for others difficulty may be associated with fluency and comprehension. Clearly context is an influencing factor, and, for some, changes in reading demands in the HE context and lack of experience of those demands are important. The fact that a predisposition to difficulty might be triggered in one setting but not in another is not adequate grounds to discount dyslexia.

In these articles, Elliott moves beyond the bounds of academic argument, using terms such as ‘national scandal’ (Elliott, 2014: ), implying misappropriation of funds and making accusations of misdiagnosis: “Students, parents, universities and educational psychologists are complicit in the misdiagnosis of dyslexia because each party has an interest in a positive diagnosis given the extra disability funds available, Professor Elliott said.” (Grove, 2014: ) He takes issue with the way diagnostic assessment is carried out for Disabled Students Allowances, alleging that some clinicians still employ IQ and visual stress as a basis for diagnosis (Grove, 2014). Consistent identification procedures have been required across the HE sector since 2008 as stipulated by the SpLD Working Group (2005). This group explicitly discounts discrepancy definitions of dyslexia but justify the use of cognitive tests, not to demonstrate discrepancy between IQ and literacy attainment, but to indicate the possibility of broader ranging difficulties that might impact on the take-up of strategies to address learning problems. Visual stress may also be mentioned if it is of relevance to the individual concerned. We would not dispute the point the authors make in the book that IQ still hovers over dyslexia in all sorts of ways. However, neither IQ nor visual stress is cited or permitted as a diagnostic determiner.

137 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Elliott further discusses concerns about equity in HE between “those diagnosed dyslexic” and those who are “academically weaker performers” (Elliott, 2014: ). These categories seem simplistic. It is assumed that “those diagnosed dyslexic” fall into the same group as “academically weaker performers”. His use of the term “weaker performers” suggests that “performance” (does he mean grades??) is the main aim and the concept of weakness insults those who arrive in HE lacking experience or early opportunity and many, many students who struggle with working out the implicit culturally defined differences in expectation between disciplines, modules and individual tutors. Of course, we all have concerns about equity. We do not support policy that differentiates in resource terms between early stage struggling readers who are and are not dyslexic. In the same way, we do not support resource and support differences in HE between those who are dyslexic and others who are struggling. Perhaps it is not that those identified as dyslexic are over-resourced, but other learners are under-resourced. Taking away from one group will not improve the situation overall and these issues are not enough to dismiss the usefulness of the concept of dyslexia. We cannot pretend that the boundaries between who is and is not dyslexic are not complex and sometimes blurred, whether in the early stages of reading acquisition or in HE. We share concerns about this. It is right that we question our practice by entering into debate about what dyslexia is, by identifying which teaching methods work best, by clarifying what we mean by ‘specialist’. It is important that we have robust research programmes that attempt to clarify these issues. This book contributes importantly in its comprehensive research review and it is far better set in the role of stimulating critical debate than creating a national scandal. *Healey and Carter note: we retain the ‘medical’ terms used by the authors to illustrate their extensive use. This is not the language preferred by us.

138 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

139 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

References: British Psychological Society (BPS) (1999). Dyslexia literacy and psychological assessment. Leicester UK, British Psychological Society. Burden, R. (2008). Dyslexia and self-concept: A review of past research with implications for future action. In The Sage handbook of dyslexia. G. Reid, A. Fawcett, F. Manis, & L. Siegel, eds., Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, pp. 395-410. Elliott, J. (2014). Is it time to rethink dyslexia? Times Higher Education (THE), 6 March 2014. Accessed from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/is-it-time-to-rethinkdyslexia/2011751.article Grove, J. (2014). Dyslexia label being applied to widely expert argues. Times Higher Education (THE), 6 March 2014. Accessed from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/dyslexiclabel-being-applied-too-widely-expert-argues/2011802.article Hulme, C. & Snowling, M. (2009). Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. McLoughlin, D., Leather, C., & Stringer, P. (2002). The adult dyslexic: Interventions and outcomes. Whurr Publishers, London. Miles, T. & Miles, E. (1993). Dyslexia a hundred years on. Open University Press, Milton Keynes Philadelphia. Ransby, M. & Swanson, H. (2003). Reading comprehension skills of young adults with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 36, no. 6, p. -538. Reid, G. (2009., Dyslexia: A practitioner's handbook. 4th edn, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia and literacy difficulties: An independent report from Sir Jim Rose to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. Accessed from www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/news/rose-review.html on 12th April 2012. Simmons, F. & Singleton, C. (2000). The reading comprehension abilities of dyslexic students in higher education. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, Volume. 6, Number. 3, pp. 178-192. SpLD Working Group (2005). DfES guidelines on the assessment of dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia and attention deficit disorder (ADD) in Higher Education, SpLD Working Group. Accessed from www.patoss-dyslexia.org/ June 2006. 140 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

About ADSHE ADSHE was formed in 2001 by a group of dyslexia specialists working in higher education in order to share knowledge and inform good practice. It is the leading organisation for specialist tutors in higher education and is there for both freelance specialist tutors and assessors and specialist tutors within institutions. It is a member of the Disabled Students Stakeholder Group and thus feeds into the DSA consultation process. ADSHE offers: • • • • • •

Quality Assurance Scheme and Register of Quality Assured Practitioners available to those holding specialist qualifications and engaged in CPD an annual Conference every June which gives all members an opportunity to meet, share ideas and concerns and to attend a number of specialist workshops professional development days in London & York each year [members only] professional indemnity insurance [members only] regional group meetings specialist training and CPD events.

To find out more visit our website: http://adshe.org.uk/

Quality Assurance ADSHE is leading the way on quality assurance within the sector. Find out how to become a quality assured specialist tutor: http://adshe.org.uk/adshe-quality-assurancescheme/

Regional Groups ADSHE offers a focused network for SpLD specialists in HE with supportive regional groups.

141 | P a g e

Journal of Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Find and join your local group: http://adshe.org.uk/about-us/

@ADSHeDyslexia

:

142 | P a g e