A View Of Dyslexia In Context Implications For Understanding Differences In Essay Writing Experience Amongst Higher Education Students Identified As Dyslexic

■ A View of Dyslexia in Context:
Implications for Understanding
Differences in Essay Writing Experience
Amongst Higher Education Students
Identified as Dyslexic
Christine Carter and Edward Sellman*
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
This article applies socio-cultural theories to explore how differences in essay writing expe-
rience are constituted for a group of students identified as dyslexic. It reports on a qualitative
study with eleven student writers, seven of whom are formally identified as dyslexic, from
the schools of archaeology, history and philosophy in a ‘traditional’ UK university.
Semi-structured interviews before, during and after writing a coursework essay revealed
well-documented dyslexia-related difficulties and also strong differences in how writing
was experienced. The multiple and fluid dimensions that construct these differences suggest
the importance of position within the context, previous and developing writing and learning
experience, and metacognitive, meta-affective and metalinguistic awareness. They also sug-
gest tensions between specialist and inclusive policies in relation to writing pedagogy for stu-
dents identified as dyslexic. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: writing; support; dyslexia; adults
INTRODUCTION
Research into essay writing with Higher Education (HE) students identified as dys-
lexic focuses mainly on descriptions of differences in the texts and processes of
dyslexic and non-dyslexic writers rather than causes of difficulty (Gregg, Coleman,
& Lindstrom, 2008). Farmer, Riddick, and Sterling (2002) compared the free writ-
ing, proofreading and speed of handwriting of a dyslexic and control group of uni-
versity students. Significant differences were found in the free writing essay task.
These included the percentage of polysyllabic words, percentage of spelling errors,
some aspects of grammar and success at identifying errors. A study by Hatcher,
Snowling, and Griffiths (2002) identified how cognitive difficulties associated with
dyslexia persist into adulthood and affect university study, including writing. They
show how students identified as dyslexic performed less well than controls on
tests of short-term memory, phonological processing, reading and spelling. A
précis test was used to assess academic competency and students identified as
*Correspondence to: Dr Edward Sellman, School of Education, Jubilee Campus, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK. E-mail: edward.sellman@nottingham.ac.uk
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 149–164 (2013)
DYSLEXIA
Published online 18 June 2013 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/dys.1457

dyslexic differed in time to read the passage, time to write the précis and in scor-
ing of content, structure and legibility.
Descriptions of difficulties with ‘higher level’ writing processes (development of
macrostructure and argument) have been more difficult to capture (Farmer et al.,
2002), even though, based on students’ own descriptions, they are an important area
of concern (Farmer et al., 2002; Hatcher et al., 2002; Mortimore & Crozier, 2006). In
three case studies, Price (2006) captures students’ writing processes as they produce,
read and revise their own texts and thus analyses the patterns of strengths and weak-
nesses, and the creative ways with which they cope with their dyslexic difficulties,
with particular interest in their use of technology. Gregg, Coleman, Stennet, and
Davis (2002) found differences in discourse complexity between students with and
without learning disabilities (US term retained). This was after errors had been removed.
Discussion amongst theories of dyslexia also gives scant attention to higher
level sentence and text composition. This means that understanding for practi-
tioners of difficulties with higher level writing processes is mainly based on extrap-
olation from research into reading, handwriting and spelling. For example, a
phonological deficit that affects phoneme/grapheme (and grapheme/phoneme)
mappings, verbal short-term memory and retrieval from long-term memory
(Hulme & Snowling, 2009; Snowling, 2000) is likely to affect spelling, verbal re-
hearsal during sentence composition and word retrieval. It might be expected that
slower speed and integration of the different processing systems required for flu-
ent reading (Wolf, Bowers, & Biddle, 2000; Wolf & O’Brien, 2001) will also apply
to writing composition. The requirement for multitasking in writing might equally
be affected by lack of automatization of cognitive, linguistic and motor skills asso-
ciated with the cerebellum (Fawcett & Nicolson, 2001; Nicolson & Fawcett, 2008).
The capacity to read source material and review text already produced is likely to
be affected by visual distortion and attentional problems (Stein, 2001).
Firmer research-based evidence can be found within theories of dyslexia as a
working memory inefficiency (Jeffries & Everatt, 2004; McLoughlin, Leather, &
Stringer, 2002; Swanson & Siegel, 2001). In work with children and adults identified
as dyslexic, there is some evidence that the more automatic the development of
transcription skills (e.g. spelling and handwriting), the more resources available
for higher level writing processes (Swanson & Berninger, 1996; Swanson &
Sachese-Lee, 2001). This is also supported by a firm research base in the literature
on writing for the role of different components of working memory in different
parts of the writing process (Kellog, 1999; Vanderberg & Swanson, 2007).
Although this linking of cognitive characteristics of dyslexia with essay writing
problems is compelling as an explanation of difficulty, it is somewhat limited in
scope. It does not account for the variation in the nature, prevalence or severity
of difficulty found by practitioners working with students on their essays. A possi-
ble reason for these gaps in understanding is the failure to embed the essay writing
of students identified as dyslexic within broader theories of academic writing. Al-
though dyslexia-related difficulties have been embedded within mainstream theo-
ries of reading development, this has not occurred in academic writing. A brief
view of current thinking in this area opens up many different dimensions.
The provision of support to assist the development of writing for all students is
increasingly acknowledged as necessary, in response to a perceived crisis in student
writing standards (Ganobcsik-Williams, 2004). This is set against the increasing
diversity in the student population and the blurring of disciplinary boundaries in
150 C. Carter and E. Sellman

modular courses (Ivanic & Lea, 2006). As a result, there has been a rapid develop-
ment in writing initiatives for university students (Ganobcsik-Williams, 2006), which
have been characterized by writing pedagogies that move away from a culture of skill
deficit towards one of writing as social practice or indeed as a plurality of practices
(Ivanic & Lea, 2006; Lea & Street, 1998).
Ivanic (1998), in her work on the construction of identity in academic writing,
applies Vygotskian precepts to the balance between social and psychological func-
tions in writing. Writers reach a particular ‘intramental’ state, which determines
what they can write. She understands this as a fluid state, which changes according
to life experiences and values. This intramental state can derive only from
‘intermental’ experience in the social world. Ivanic further associates these
intermental functions with the Bakhtinian idea that language is ‘interanimated’ with
the voices of others (Bakhtin, 1981). From a social practice perspective, language
has a social role in the construction of individual writing identities and the negoti-
ation of different disciplinary expectations (Hyland, 2009). Writers are
constrained in the decisions they make by the practices of powerful, institutional
and disciplinary discourses (Lillis, 2001). They are nevertheless not wholly deter-
mined by them (Hall, 1997); they make individual choices that draw upon expo-
sure to and experience of a range of other discourses and are expected to
demonstrate independent critical thought (Scott, 1999). It is in this way that their
individual voices are populated by the voices of others (Hyland, 2004; Lillis, 2003).
Of course there have long been conceptions of dyslexia that acknowledge the im-
portance of context and individual experience. It is recognized that the cognitive pro-
files identified as part of dyslexia assessment are mediated by differences in course
requirements (Farmer et al., 2002; Hatcher et al., 2002; Singleton et al., 1999) and per-
sonal experience (Riddick, 2010). Frith’s causal framework (1999) emphasizes the ef-
fects of environment on biological, cognitive and behavioural processes. Burden (2005,
2008a) proposes that socio-cultural approaches showing how self-efficacy and positive
attribution are generated are more important than measures of self-esteem and ques-
tionable correlations with dyslexia. A social interactive model of dyslexia emphasizes
the importance of a whole person approach that includes interaction with cultural be-
liefs about literacy and disability practices (Herrington & Hunter-Carsch, 2001).
In contrast to the predominantly cognitive research reported in this journal, the
study reported here takes a view of dyslexia in the context of a specific study set-
ting. It explores how social practice perspectives on academic writing and on dys-
lexia might contribute to understandings of the essay writing experience of HE
students. The study takes a holistic view of the participants as writers rather than
focusing only on the effects of dyslexia. The study is in two parts: the first explores
how the students identify themselves as writers and how they understand and ap-
proach the task; and the second explores what their evolving and final essay texts
reveal. It is the first part of the study that is reported here.
THE RESEARCH
Context
The research was conducted within an academic support setting where the lead
author was a member of staff, already experienced at working with students
Supporting Student's Writing 151

identified as dyslexic. The setting can be said to have enhanced the quality of the
interaction during interviews as the students identified as dyslexic were familiar
with the student centred ethos and with talking about their learning with support
tutors (Miller & Glassner, 2004).
The Participants
The profile of participants is shown in Table 1.
Students identified as dyslexic were recruited from the academic support data-
base. All had had prior contact with the service, but no attempt was made to seek
participants who had sought help specifically with essays. All those identified as
dyslexic had signed university documentation allowing disclosure of their dyslexia
to defined groups of people, and all gave written consent to being involved in the
research.
A theoretical sampling strategy (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Mason, 2002) was
adopted as most appropriate for the research question. In accordance with this
strategy, decisions about the make-up and number of the participant group were
made as the research progressed. From the outset, first year students were ex-
cluded so that all had some experience of essay writing at the university. Also,
those identified as dyslexic had post 16 educational psychologist reports identifying
dyslexia, which complied with regulations for accessing Disabled Students Allow-
ances (DfES working group, 2005). Disciplinary diversity emerged as an important
factor as the data set developed. Archaeology students doing modules in history
and philosophy showed sensitivity in their descriptions of different disciplinary
writing expectations. It was therefore decided to actively seek participants in these
disciplines as well.
The decision to include participants not identified as dyslexic was to indicate
where concerns were shared or whether factors clearly attributable to dyslexia
might be revealed. There was no intention to make generalizable comparisons,
and it was recognized that the boundaries between shared and dyslexia-related is-
sues were likely to be blurred. Decisions about the number of participants were
taken as data analysis proceeded (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Decisions were based
on having enough ‘cases’ to make comparisons, with the possibility of non-typical
cases (Seale, 2004), and to capture the heterogeneity of dyslexia (Singleton et al.,
1999). The final participant group consisted of ‘traditional’ aged students
whose first language was English. Consideration was given to whether to seek
‘non-traditional’ students, or those with different language histories. This was
rejected on the grounds that their input would not significantly add to the emerg-
ing concepts of relevance to this study, although their importance to understand-
ings of dyslexia (Goulandris, 2003; Morgan & Klein, 2000) and to writing (Ivanic,
1998; Lillis, 2001) suggests these are areas for future study.
Table 1. Overview of participants
Subject Number Identified dyslexic Not identified dyslexic
Archaeology 7 5 (at the university) 2
History 2 1 (at school, age 16) 1
Philosophy 2 1 (at school, age 6) 1
Total 11 7 4

THE DATA
The data consisted of three semi-structured interviews with each student, before,
during and after writing one essay. In the first interview participants gave accounts
of their school experience, of having dyslexia identified (where relevant) and their
understandings of and approaches to the essay writing task. The brief for the sec-
ond interview asked participants to choose an essay that they wished to use for
the research process and to make contact again when they were ready to begin
writing, following their usual ways of working. The third interview took place after
the essay was finished. The interaction in each of the interviews was slightly differ-
ent: the first followed an expected interview pattern of question/answer/elabora-
tion; the second involved listening and observing as they talked about the essay
whilst exploring with them how they seemed to be approaching the task; and
the third asked how they felt about the finished essay (answering the question,
structure and language) and any unforeseen issues. It also involved reading the text
with them. In the second and third interviews, there were occasional overlaps
with the ‘support’ role. All interviews were recorded and transcribed, so any role
switching was captured and could be analysed.
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Analysis drew on concepts of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), in par-
ticular constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2000), which emphasizes values,
beliefs and ideology rather than factual realities. It followed the procedures of line
by line coding of interview data, assisted by NVIVO (NVIVO qualitative data analysis
software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Melbourne, Australia ), a software package
for the analysis of qualitative data. Codes were refined and categorized under
progressively more abstract conceptual headings (Mason, 2002; Miles &
Huberman, 1994) as data generation and analysis progressed. Contrary to early
versions of grounded theory, which rejected the influence of literature and prior
knowledge (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), the codes were informed by an iterative
process between the data, the literature and experience (Dey, 2004).
The data were categorized under three main headings: ‘Self’, ‘Relationships’
and ‘Essay Practices’, drawing on the theories of writing as social practice
already discussed. The ‘Self’ category was sub-divided into ‘Self-identity’ and
‘Self-management’. The main sub-codes beneath ‘Self-identity’ were ‘learning and
writing history’ and ‘strength of own voice’ in writing. These codes drew on stu-
dents’ accounts of previous experience, transition to university, how they viewed
and set about presenting an independent argument in their essays and how they
viewed themselves as dyslexic. ‘Self-management’ alludes to feelings of self-efficacy,
the expectation of success or failure at a particular task and locus of control,
how learning success or failure is explained to the self (Burden, 2008b). Self-
management is also related to self-awareness; McLoughlin, Fitzgibbon, and Young
(1994) links this with different stages of compensation, but at the same time the
term can mask the effort involved in sustaining the appearance of compensation
(Herrington & Hunter-Carsch, 2001). In the ‘Self-management’ category, students
were categorized as being self-aware and in control or not. Strategies were
categorized as effective, costly, ineffective, non-existent or not recognized.

The difficulties they described were grouped as resolved or unresolved. In this
first part of the study, focus is on approaches to strategies rather than what
the strategies were.
Within the ‘Relationships’ category, data were gathered on how the students
related to ‘disciplinary ways of being’, ‘institutional conventions’, ‘audience for
writing’, ‘source materials’, ‘genre expectations’ and ‘dyslexia-related voices’.
These categories were generated from the data.
‘Essay practices’ refer to the students’ strategies, what they did rather than how
they understood the task and perceived themselves in relation to it. The data in
this category consist of the students’ accounts of their strategies, essay plans and
evolving and final essay texts. Analysis of this category is reported in the second
part of the study, not included here.
Based on the coding framework, vignettes of the students as essay writers were
constructed by tracing the responses of individual students within the different
codes. This could be viewed as slicing the data horizontally (Miles & Huberman,
1994). The vignettes were then surveyed for further emerging concepts and pat-
terns. Students were grouped into feeling ‘positive/enabled’, ‘fragile/undermined’
or a mixture of both (Table 2). The terms are not intended to classify individuals
as stable ‘types’, but rather a state of being at a point in time. Barnett (2007) de-
scribes this as a dynamic process of ‘becoming’. Strengths and difficulties can be
constituted differently for students in the same category and a number of students
are at a point of change.
Part of feeling ‘positive/enabled’ or ‘fragile/undermined’ was determined by
‘Relationships’ with the different elements of the context. These relationships
were categorized as follows:
Concordant: achieving ‘authenticity’ as writers in their context (Barnett, 2007) and
being comfortable in the role they wish to take up (Ivanic, 1998).
Strategic: foregrounds meeting assessment criteria by selecting specific methods to
achieve a goal (Riding & Rayner, 1998).
Ambivalent: A slightly jaundiced view of the immediate context because of the
struggle with understanding implicit agendas (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Hyland,
2009), but does not exclude strong engagement with disciplinary values.
Table 2. Student self identities and relationships with context
Positive/enabled Fragile/undermined Concordant Strategic Ambivalent Resistant Alienated
A √ √ √ x x x x
B* √ x √ x √ x x
C* √ x x √ x √ x
D* √ x √ √ x x x
E x √ x x x √ √
F √ x √ x x x x
G* √ xx√ √ x √ x x
H √ x x √ x x x
I √ x√ √ x √ x x
J x √ x x x x √
K x √ x x x x √
*Students not identified as dyslexic.
xx√, strengths slightly at risk; x√, strengths at risk.

Resistant: conscious rejection of disciplinary values and deliberate choice about
whether or not to conform to disciplinary requirements (cf Ivanic, 1998 feigning
a writing identity).
Alienated: Difficulty with understanding or identifying with requirements and values
– not knowing how to be or what to do (Barnett, 2007; Bartholomae, 1985).
The labels described the most predominant position(s) taken up at a point in
time and are open to change. Table 2 sets out the position of each student.
All the students identified as dyslexic included in their accounts dyslexia-associated
difficulties described in the literature: spelling, working memory, speed of reading,
essay structure, sentence composition, word finding, handwriting speed and good
day/bad day (Gregg, 2009; Hatcher et al., 2002; Singleton et al., 1999). However,
the difficulties they described did not reflect how they experienced essay writing.
Feeling positive and enabled was not associated with less difficulty. This raised
questions about the strength of direct association between dyslexia and essay
writing difficulty and about what the mediating factors might be that changed
how difficulty was experienced.
In the next part of the analysis, therefore the data were further examined to un-
derstand what constituted feeling positive/enabled or fragile/undermined, and how
the different relationships with the context came about. Each sub-code, with its
accompanying data were reappraised (a process facilitated by NVivo software)
and dimensions that contributed to feeling positive/enabled or fragile/undermined
were noted. A similar process was carried out to establish the dimensions that
constituted their relationship with the context.
Table 3 shows the dimensions that emerged from this process to construct
positive/enabled or fragile/undermined self perceptions as writers. It is important
to note that all of the dimensions were not shared by all students in a category.
The purpose was to identify all the dimensions applicable to one or more students.
This would then suggest how different constellations of these dimensions might
construct different essay writing experiences. My suggestion is that the different
dimensions within the sub-categories of ‘Self’ and ‘Relationships’ provide a struc-
ture for understanding essay writing differences within this group. The social
rather than cognitive nature of these dimensions has implications for how we un-
derstand the relationship between essay writing and dyslexia.
FINDINGS
1. It was found that the dimensions identified in Table 3 under the headings of ‘Self’
(Self-identity and Self-management) and ‘Relationships’ provide a framework for
understanding differences in essay writing experience, which both captures and
structures the wealth of variation that exists amongst these writers.
2. Analysis according to these dimensions changes the way we understand the re-
lationship between dyslexia and essay writing difficulty.
3. It also changes the way we conceptualise the relationship between difficulties,
strategies and the role of metacognition.
The different constellations presented by three students (Table 4) exemplify
discussion of the findings.

Table 3. Dimensions that construct positive/enabled, fragile/undermined or mixed/at risk self-perceptions as writers
Self
Relationships
Self-identity Self-management
Positive/enabled Fragile/undermined Positive/enabled Fragile/undermined Positive/enabled Fragile/undermined
• Positive school
experience even if
dyslexia is unidentified
• Negative school
experience related to
unidentified dyslexia
• Aware of problems
and knows why strategies
work (self-understanding)
• Development of
strategies impeded or
misdirected by lack of
understanding of
requirements
• Concordance between
personal and disciplinary
ways of being
• Contextual voices
experienced as hostile
or unclear
• Early identification and
appropriate support
• Self-belief damaged • Ability to articulate
thoughts about writing
• Not understanding
reasons for success
• Reader not perceived
as a threat
• Reader perceived as a
threatening challenge
• Self-belief maintained • Negative experience
of transition
• Confidence to
experiment
with solutions
• Good self-awareness
but few productive
strategies
• Implicit agendas not
a barrier – find
alternative sources
of information
• Own language not
good enough in
relation to
expectations
• Positive experience
of transition
• Dislike of writing essays • Flexibility to adapt to
context change
• No recognition of
productive strategies
• Strategic approach to
reader as assessor
• Deadlines and word
count are undermining
• Enthusiasm for subject • Struggle to gain
understanding of content
material
• Capacity to create
‘comfort zone’ –
difficulties not
problematized
• No awareness or no
strategies leads to lack
of ‘comfort zone’ –
stress and anxiety
• Concordance
between perceptions
of own language and
that required
• Uses of support not
understood
• Authoritative on
content
• Bury own ideas beneath
references
• Dyslexia awareness as
prompt to change in
self-understanding
Strategies experienced as
costly in time and effort
even if successful
• Successful management
of deadlines and
word count
• Dyslexia-associated
voices either not
developed or not
acknowledged
(Continues)
156
C.
Carter
and
E.
Sellman
Copyright
©
2013
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
Ltd.
DYSLEXIA
19:
149–164
(2013)

Table 3. (Continued)
Self
Relationships
Self-identity Self-management
Positive/enabled Fragile/undermined Positive/enabled Fragile/undermined Positive/enabled Fragile/undermined
• Confident about
expressing own ideas
and incorporating into
essay
• Dislike or unaware of
how writing sounds
• Assertive use of
support
• Liking for own writing
or awareness of how
it should be
• Dissatisfied with final
essay or avoid reading
through
• Dyslexia-associated
voices experienced
as positive
• Satisfied with final essay • Not yet come to terms
with dyslexia: lack of
opportunity or emotional
barriers
• Comfortable with
understanding of dyslexia
• Understanding of
effects and how to
deal with it
Supporting
Student's
Writing
157
Copyright
©
2013
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
Ltd.
DYSLEXIA
19:
149–164
(2013)

Table 4. Constellations of difficulty and dimensions of ‘Self’ and ‘Relationships’
Students
(as identified in Table 2)
Self
Relationships
Self-identity Self-management and difficulties
Student F philosophy
(positive/enabled,
concordant)
Positive school experience, early
identification, self-belief maintained,
authoritative on content, confident
about expressing own ideas and
knowing how, awareness of own
writing, understanding of effects of
dyslexia and how to deal with them
Difficulty with automatic spelling accuracy
and reading speed, pronounced good days
and bad days for reading (visual discomfort
and maintaining concentration)
Concordance between personal and
disciplinary ways of being; reader not a
threat; concordance of perceptions
between own language and that required;
and successful management of deadlines
and word count
Aware of problems and knows why
strategies work; can create ‘comfort
zone’; ability to articulate thoughts about
writing; and flexibility to adapt to
context change
Student A archaeology
(mixed positive/enabled,
fragile/undermined and
concordant)
Negative school experience related
to unidentified dyslexia, self-belief
damaged, positive experience of
transition, enthusiasm for subject,
confident about expressing own ideas
and knowing how, authoritative on
content, liking for own writing and at
point of change in understanding of
dyslexia
Severe early literacy problems; self-perception
as ‘stupid’; attributed later academic success
to chance; difficulties with spelling, word
retrieval, reading speed, maintaining
concentration, memory, developing argument
and structure; and perceptions of own writing
Concordance with personal and
disciplinary ways of being; reader not
perceived as a threat; own language not
good enough in relation to expectations;
and potential of support services not fully
taken up
Aware of problems and knows why strategies
work, confidence to experiment with solutions,
capacity to create ‘comfort zone’, difficulties
not problematized, dyslexia as prompt to
change in self-understanding
Student J archaeology
(fragile/undermined and
alienated)
Positive experience of school (dyslexia
unidentified), negative experience of
transition, dislike of writing essays at
the university, struggle to gain
understanding of material, unaware of
how own writing sounds and little
understanding of dyslexia
Difficulties with referencing, using the literature
and understanding the title; development of
strategies impeded by negative feelings about
context; no recognition of productive strategies;
and lack of awareness/recognition leads to ‘no
comfort zone’
Contextual voices experienced as hostile
and unclear; reader perceived as a threat;
own language not good enough in
relation to expectations; undermined by
word count; uses of support not
understood; dyslexia-associated voices
not developed
158
C.
Carter
and
E.
Sellman
Copyright
©
2013
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
Ltd.
DYSLEXIA
19:
149–164
(2013)

Finding 1
The dimensions in Table 3 can explain variation in writing experience. For exam-
ple, different relationships with ‘voices’ in the context meant that potential difficul-
ties were experienced differently. For student F, there was concordance between
his ways of working and the requirements of his department and dyslexia-related
difficulties were not experienced as problems; for student A, concordance came
about through his enthusiasm for his subject and involvement in fieldwork with
staff in his department. Negative school experience was mitigated by his enjoy-
ment of the ways of learning at the university, ‘just being left to do it’. For student
J, relationships had a negative effect. She felt tutors were putting her to the ‘test’;
whatever she did ‘got red-penned anyway’. She was unsure about what was
expected and consequently of what she was trying to achieve in her writing. In ad-
dition, positive or negative experience of transition to university was found to im-
pact on feelings about writing. For student F, coming to university maintained his
previously established academic self-belief; for student A, it marked a significant
positive change and for student J the opposite occurred.
Positions in relation to the ‘voices’ of dyslexia also varied amongst these three
students. Student F saw his dyslexia ‘as part of who I am’ and he accepted his ways
of working in the same terms. His contact with support services was only to
access exam arrangements. For Student A, contact with support services in iden-
tifying and discussing his dyslexia began to change negative self-belief. Student J did
not yet understand the implications of dyslexia. This was partly because it had only
recently been identified and its role in her overall struggle with writing had not
been explored.
Finding 2
Analysis along these dimensions suggests a tendency to overemphasize the rela-
tionship between within-person cognitive difficulties and writing. This is discussed
in relation to reading and language use; two areas whose association with dyslexia
in HE is well-documented. Dyslexia specific reading problems for university stu-
dents are identified mainly as slowness (Hatcher et al., 2002) and the need to
reread for meaning (Simmons & Singleton, 2000). For student writers in general,
dilemmas are expressed as the need to demonstrate knowledge of the literature,
while at the same time presenting their own opinion and meeting the expectations
of the marker about relevance and expected knowledge (Bartholomae, 1985;
Groom, 2000). For student F, the concordant relationship with his department
transforms what would generally be perceived as a dyslexia-related ‘problem’. In
spite of the reading difficulties he describes, he does not experience reading neg-
atively. He says that ‘slow reading is good for philosophy’. He describes repeatedly
rereading arguments and counter arguments in one or two articles; he is required
to present an independent viewpoint, rather than synthesize a broad range of lit-
erature. His reading style is attuned to what is valued in his department.
Even though students expressed concerns over speed and frustration at
rereading, with the exception of student K (Table 2), these difficulties were man-
aged. A number also had very effective ways of identifying and retrieving key
points. The problems they foregrounded were associated with dilemmas around
the contextual requirements of reading. Student J described difficulty in terms of

anxiety about referencing and how she was supposed to use the literature, and this
overwhelmed her awareness of her strengths and difficulties with reading. This
shows the importance of understanding where the difficulty is situated and illus-
trates the negative effects of seeing problems only as within the dyslexic individual.
It is only by wider discussion of the tacit writing agendas causing her alienation and
by fully exploring her dyslexia that her problems would be addressed.
Also associated with reading was the variation around the dimension ‘confident
about expressing own ideas and incorporating into essay’ (Table 3). Both students
F and A have this confidence. Those categorized as ambivalent expressed frustra-
tion at ‘having to read between the lines’ to find out what was expected. They
were uncertain how to combine the voices of source material with their own.
Two students were sensitive to what was ‘allowed’ in different disciplines, saying
that archaeology ‘gave more scope for own opinion’ than history. This further
demonstrates the problems of isolating dyslexia-specific reading difficulties from
context-related reading issues experienced by many students.
Analysis of language use revealed similar layers of complexity that suggest the
inadequacy of purely cognitive connections between language issues and dyslexia.
Language use was analysed in terms of how students perceived expectations, how
they viewed their own language in relation to them and in the second part of the
study their actual language use. Descriptions of what was expected included ‘so-
phisticated’, ‘posh’, ‘clean’, ‘concise’, ‘long words’ and ‘university writing’. The ex-
amples in Table 4 illustrate differences in how they perceive their own writing in
relation to expectations and also how their perceptions are interwoven with
relationships with the context. Student F confidently uses informal expressions
(don’t, it’s, and dodgy ground), explaining that not only does this ‘suit him’, but that
it is acceptable in his department, where explaining complex ideas independently
and simply is valued. Student A struggles, but ultimately succeeds, in reworking
what he sees as ‘small child writing’ into ‘university writing’ and has a sense of
pride in his achievement. Student J considers her writing ‘too basic for university’,
but actually writes with a clear straightforward style that is valued by her tutor.
Therefore, once language is viewed as socially constructed, as defined by the values
of the discipline and representative of different experiences and identities, under-
standings of language difficulty become multilayered, rather than emerging only
from the cognitive processes of the dyslexic individual.
Finding 3
The social nature of the dimensions in Table 3 changes how we conceptualize the re-
lationship between difficulties, strategies and metacognition. Work with students
identified as dyslexic can be viewed as assisting with the development of strategies
that address or circumvent dyslexia-related difficulties, and metacognitive awareness
is seen as important in this process. However, approaches to difficulty seemed as im-
portant as what the difficulty was or the strategy applied.
The dimensions in Table 3 suggest that meta-affective and metalinguistic aware-
ness are equally important (Hunter-Carsch, 2001). For example, some students
were categorized as having a ‘solution-finding’ approach, others as having a
‘problematizing’ approach. Both student F and student A experienced many typical
dyslexia-related difficulties (Table 4), but did not experience them as ‘problems’.
Student F had to apply conscious strategies to spelling to maintain accuracy, but

could say, ‘It’s only spelling, I can sort that out afterwards’. Student A
experimented with voice activated and note-making software and developed good
strategies for identifying key points in reading. Those with a ‘problematizing’ ap-
proach were more likely to describe their failures, with negative emotional conse-
quences. All the students categorized as ‘alienated’ had this approach.
Affective factors were further revealed in descriptions of strategies as making
them feel ‘more comfortable’ or it ‘suits me better’. This was categorized as being
able to ‘create a comfort zone’ for writing and, in spite of problems, students
retained feelings of being enabled. Meta-affectivity was apparent in students A
and F, who successfully dealt with concentration difficulties. They understood
their own emotional responses and could set up environments that minimized
negative effects. Student A described finding silence distracting, he therefore did
reading in the library and writing in a city centre coffee shop where he could work
for 10 min, enjoy his surroundings for a few moments and then return to work.
Student F could recognize days when he could not read effectively and did other
things. On other days, he could concentrate intensely.
The dimensions in Table 3 also suggest the importance of metalinguistic aware-
ness to understanding of difficulty. Differences were apparent in the capacity to
judge whether and/or why writing communicated successfully or not and also in
the capacity to use the metalanguage to talk about language. Student F could de-
scribe how he evolved a structure and recognize the language that indicated it. Stu-
dent A could only say, ‘it doesn’t flow’, but could not explain further. Some could
not separate recounting their ideas (the semantics) from the ways their language
did or did not express it (language structures). Based on evidence in literature
on both writing and dyslexia, working memory issues are also likely to be involved
in composition processes. However, addressing problems requires more than de-
veloping strategies to circumvent working memory issues or learning how to
structure or improve grammar. It involves individual language experience and his-
tory of learning about language; knowing the ways of arguing and presenting evi-
dence that are valued in a discipline; having a sense of audience and of the
reader’s needs; and being able to switch perspective between actual and intended
meaning. This is in addition to the different positionings in relation to language use
discussed previously.
CONCLUSION
It can be suggested that the dimensions that were developed using the frame-
work of ‘Self’ (Self-identity and Self-management) and ‘Relationships’ provided
a framework for understanding differences in the essay writing experience of this
group. The findings suggest a problem with isolating within-person dyslexia-
related difficulties from the social practices of writing and of dyslexia; dyslexia-
related difficulties alone offer inadequate explanation of essay writing problems.
Findings suggest that setting the social practices of writing alongside a view of
dyslexia as socially constructed is a more productive way of addressing the writ-
ing needs of this group. This generates tensions between inclusive and specialist
pedagogies for supporting students identified as dyslexic with their writing. This
is problematic in the light of the requirements of Disabled Students’ Allowances
to have clear links between difficulty and dyslexia. It could be argued that the

systems designed to support dyslexic students risk distorting the curriculum
for writing development, when specialist rather than inclusive agendas have
to be foregrounded to justify funding. This is not to dismiss the significance
of dyslexia-related barriers and the need for specialist support. The study
suggests, however, that acknowledgement of writing dilemmas shared by all
students and hence a more inclusive approach to writing support would be
of benefit to all.
REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barnett, R. (2007). A will to learn: being a student in an age of uncertainty. Maidenhead, New York: Open
University Press.
Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (ed.), When a writer can’t write: studies in
writer’s block and other composing-process problems (pp. 134–165). New York, London: The Guildford
Press.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Buckingham, Philadelphia:
The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Burden, R. (2005). Dyslexia and self-concept: seeking a dyslexic identity. London and Philadelphia: Whurr
Publishers.
Burden, R. (2008a). Dyslexia and self-concept: a review of past research with implications for future
action. In G. Reid et al. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of dyslexia (pp. 395–410). Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage Publications.
Burden, R. (2008b). Is dyslexia necessarily associated with negative feelings of self-worth? A review
and implications for future research. Dyslexia, 14(3), 188–196.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed, pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks London
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Part III: strategies of enquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 367–378). Thousand Oaks London New Delhi:
Sage Publications.
Dey, I. (2004). Grounded theory. In C. Seale et al. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 80–92).
London Thousand Oaks New Delhi: Sage Publications.
DfES working group. (2005). The assessment of dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia and attention deficit
disorder (ADD) in Higher Education, DfES Working Group.
Farmer, M., Riddick, B., & Sterling, C. (2002). Dyslexia and inclusion: assessment and support in higher
education. London and Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers.
Fawcett, A., & Nicolson, R. (2001). Dyslexia: the role of the cerebellum. In A. Fawcett (Ed.), Dyslexia:
theory and good practice (pp. 89–105). London and Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers.
Frith, U. (1999). Paradoxes in the definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia, 5, 192–214.
Ganobcsik-Williams, A. 2004. A report on the teaching of academic writing in UK higher education,
The Royal Literary Fund.
Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2006). Responding to the call for academic writing theory and pedagogy. In
L. Ganobcsik-Williams (Ed.), Teaching academic writing in UK higher education: theories practices and
models (pp. xxi–xxvi). Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.
Goulandris, N. (2003). Introduction: developmental dyslexia, language and orthographies. In N.
Goulandris (Ed.), Dyslexia in different languages: cross-linguistic comparisons (pp. 1–14). London and
Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers.
Gregg, N. (2009). Adolescents and adults with learning disabilities and ADHD: assessment and accommo-
dation. New York London: The Guilford Press.

Gregg, N., Coleman, C., & Lindstrom, L. (2008), Assessment of written expression in the adult pop-
ulation. In L. Wolf, H. Schreiber, & J. Wasserstein (Eds.), Adult learning disorders: contemporary issues
(pp. 301–331). New York Hove: Psychology Press.
Gregg, N., Coleman, C., Stennet, R., & Davis, M. (2002). Discourse complexity of college writers
with and without disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 23–56.
Groom, N. (2000). A workable balance: self and sources in argumentative writing. In S. Mitchell & R.
Andrews (Eds.), Learning to argue in higher education (pp. 65–73). Portsmouth NH: Boynton/Cook
Heinemann.
Hall, S. (1997). Foucault: power, knowledge and discourse. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: cultural rep-
resentations and signifying practices. London: Sage in association with the Open University. In Discourse
theory and practice: a reader (2001, pp 72–81). M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), London
Thousand Oaks New Delhi: Sage Publications in association with the Open University.
Hatcher, J., Snowling, M., & Griffiths, Y. (2002). Cognitive assessment of dyslexic students in higher
education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 119–133.
Herrington, M., & Hunter-Carsch, M. (2001). A social-interactive model of specific learning difficulties,
e.g. dyslexia. In M. Hunter-Carsch (Ed.), Dyslexia: a psychosocial perspective (pp. 107–133). London and
Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers.
Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2009). Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Hunter-Carsch, M. (2001). Beyond meta-cognition: the integration of meta-affectivity as a component of
meta-comprehension. In M. Hunter-Carsch (Ed.), Dyslexia: a psychosocial perspective (pp. 85–106).
London and Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: The University
of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: the discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ivanic, R. & Lea, M. (2006). New contexts, new challenges: the teaching of writing in UK higher
education. In L. Ganobcsik-Williams (Ed.), Teaching academic writing in UK higher education: theories
practices models (pp. 6–15). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jeffries, S. & Everatt, J. (2004). Working memory: its role in dyslexia and other specific learning
difficulties. Dyslexia, 10(3), 196–214.
Kellog, R. (1999). Components of working memory in text production. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery
(Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing (pp. 43–61). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach.
Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172.
Lillis, T. (2001). Student writing: access, regulation, desire. London and New York: Routledge.
Lillis, T. (2003). Student writing as ’academic literacies’: drawing on Bakhtin to move from critique to
design. Language and Education, 17(3), 192–207.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London Thousand Oaks New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
McLoughlin, D., Fitzgibbon, G., & Young, V. (1994). Adult dyslexia: assessment counselling and training.
London: Whurr Publishers.
McLoughlin, D., Leather, C., & Stringer, P. (2002). The adult dyslexic: interventions and outcomes. London:
Whurr Publishers.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks London New Delhi:
Sage Publications.
Miller, J., & Glassner, B. (2004). The ’inside’ and the ’outside’ of qualitative research. In D. Silverman
(Ed.), Qualitative research: theory method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 125–139) London Thousand Oaks
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Morgan, E., & Klein, C. (2000). The dyslexic adult in a non-dyslexic world. London and Philadelphia:
Whurr Publishers.

Mortimore, T., & Crozier, W. R. (2006). Dyslexia and difficulties with study skills in higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 235–251.
Nicolson, R., & Fawcett, A. (2008). Learning cognition and dyslexia. In G. Reid et al. (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of dyslexia (pp. 192–211). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC:
Sage Publications.
Price, G. (2006). Creative solutions to making the technology work: three case studies of dyslexic
writers in higher education. ALT-J, 14(1), 21–38.
Riddick, B. (2010). Living with dyslexia: the social and emotional consequences of specific learning difficulties/
disabilities (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Riding, S., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Scott, M. (1999). Agency and subjectivity in student writing. In Student writing in the university: cultural and
epistemological issues (pp. 171–190). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Seale, C. (2004). Quality in qualitative research. In C. Seale et al. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice
(pp. 379–389). London Thousand Oaks New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Simmons, F., & Singleton, C. (2000). The reading comprehension abilities of dyslexic students in
higher education. Dyslexia, 6(3), 178–192.
Singleton, C. C., Cottrell, S., Gilroy, D., Goodwin, V., Hetherington, J., Jameson, M., Laycock, D.,
McLoughlin, D., Peer, L., Pumfrey, P., Reid, G., Stacey, G., Waterfield, J., & Zdzienski, D. 1999. Dyslexia
in higher education: policy provision and practice. The National Working Party on Dyslexia in Higher
Education, The University of Hull.
Snowling, M. (2000). Dyslexia (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Stein, J. (2001). The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia, 7(1), 12–36.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks London New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Swanson, H., & Berninger, V. (1996). Individual differences in children’s working memory and writing
skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358–385.
Swanson, H., & Sachese-Lee, C. (2001). Working memory in children with reading disabilities:
Domain-general or domain-specific deficiency? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3), 249–263.
Swanson, H., & Siegel, L. (2001). Learning disabilities as a working memory deficit. Issues in Education,
7(1), 1–48.
Vanderberg, R., & Swanson, H. (2007). Which components of working memory are important in the
writing process? Reading and Writing, 20, 721–752.
Wolf, M., & O’Brien, B. (2001). On issues of time fluency and intervention. In A. Fawcett (Ed.), Dyslexia:
theory and good practice (pp. 124–140). London and Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers.
Wolf, M., Bowers, P., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming speed processes, timing and reading: a conceptual
review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 387–407.

A View Of Dyslexia In Context Implications For Understanding Differences In Essay Writing Experience Amongst Higher Education Students Identified As Dyslexic

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A View Of Dyslexia In Context Implications For Understanding Differences In Essay Writing Experience Amongst Higher Education Students Identified As Dyslexic

Similar to A View Of Dyslexia In Context Implications For Understanding Differences In Essay Writing Experience Amongst Higher Education Students Identified As Dyslexic (20)

More from Sabrina Baloi

More from Sabrina Baloi (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A View Of Dyslexia In Context Implications For Understanding Differences In Essay Writing Experience Amongst Higher Education Students Identified As Dyslexic