See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/37143866

The effects of dyslexia on student achievement in secondary education

Thesis · January 2009

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

2 6,342

1 author:

Anne Sheppard
The University of Warwick
23 PUBLICATIONS   2,329 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anne Sheppard on 03 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

In memory of my father

William Cunningham

1925-1992
The Effects of Dyslexia on Student Achievement in

Secondary Education

by

Anne L S Sheppard

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the

degree of

Master of Arts by research

University of Warwick, Institute of Education

January 2009
Table of Contents Page no

List of Tables.......................................................................................... 6

List of Figures......................................................................................... 9

Acknowledgements................................................................................ 11

Declaration............................................................................................. 12

Poem – The Blind Men and the Elephant.............................................. 13

Abbreviations......................................................................................... 15

Abstract.................................................................................................. 16

Chapter 1. Introduction.......................................................................... 17

Chapter 2. Literature review

2.1 Definition of Dyslexia................................................................. 29

2.2 Indicators of Dyslexia................................................................ 43

2.3 Genetic Basis of Dyslexia.......................................................... 46

2.4 Biological Basis of Dyslexia....................................................... 47

2.5 Cognitive Basis of Dyslexia....................................................... 50

2.6 Assessment............................................................................... 52

2.7 Student Achievement................................................................ 67

2.8 Conclusions............................................................................... 78

2.9 Research Questions.................................................................. 79

Chapter 3. Methods

3.1 Participants................................................................................ 81

3.2 Data Collection Measures......................................................... 86

3
 3.3 Procedures................................................................................ 94

3.4 Analyses................................................................................... 98

3.5 Case Studies............................................................................. 99

3.6 Ethical Considerations.............................................................. 103

Chapter 4. Results

4.1 The Students............................................................................. 105

4.2 Data Structure and Normality.................................................... 106

4.3 Gross Differences between Dyslexic and Non-Dyslexic

Students................................................................................... 108

4.4 Differences within CAT Subtests............................................. 112

4.5 Differences within Dyslexia Level............................................. 114

4.6 Gender Differences................................................................... 116

4.7 Changes with Time................................................................... 120

4.8 GCSE Final Outcomes.............................................................. 126

4.9 Influence of Media Studies on GCSE Results.......................... 129

4.10 LASS Results............................................................................ 132

4.11 Case Studies............................................................................. 137

4.12 Case study 1 – Compensated dyslexic with poorer than

expected GCSE outcomes – James........................................ 139
4.13 Case Study 2 – Compensated dyslexic with better than
expected GCSE outcomes – Emma................................. 152
Chapter 5. Discussion

5.1 Introduction............................................................................... 161

4
 5.2 Differences between Dyslexic and Non-Dyslexic Students...... 161

5.3 Differences within the Dyslexic Group...................................... 163

5.4 Gender Differences................................................................... 164

5.5 Changes with Time................................................................... 168

5.6 Predictors of GCSE Attainment................................................ 169

5.7 Assessment Methods................................................................ 170

5.8 Lessons from the Case Studies................................................ 174

5.9 Conclusion................................................................................ 178

Chapter 6. Influences on the Data and Results

6.1 Introduction............................................................................... 182

6.2 Non-compensated dyslexic data............................................... 182

6.3 Borderline cases....................................................................... 183

6.4 Extreme cases.......................................................................... 184

6.5 Skewed data due to changed examinations............................. 185

6.6 Group equivalency measures................................................... 186

6.7 Self esteem measures.............................................................. 186

6.8 Recommendations and future research.................................... 186

References............................................................................................. 189

Appendix 1 Emma case study transcript.............................................. 213

Appendix 2 Case studies interview questions prompt sheets.............. 235

Appendix 3 Spreadsheet showing correlations between test results... 241

Appendix 4 Spreadsheet with raw data............................................... 244

5
List of Tables Page no

Table 1 A’ and ‘AS’ level grades with corresponding UCAS tariff

scores, and GCSE grades with the corresponding

numerical scores used in this study...................................... 92

Table 2 LASS Secondary validity measure correlation

coefficients.......................................................................... 93

Table 3 The various assessment tests used by the dyslexia

specialist teacher for the assessment and identification of

dyslexic students................................................................. 97

Table 4 Discrepancies in standard score points between Cognitive

Ability Test results and reading or spelling test result and

related ‘dyslexia levels’........................................................ 98

Table 5 Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality on

comparison and dyslexic groups......................................... 107

Table 6 Results for Levene’s test for equality of variances.............. 108

Table 7 Comparison of mean scores for the dyslexic and

comparison groups.............................................................. 109

Table 8 Results of effects size measures on differences between

mean score for dyslexic and non-dyslexic groups............... 110

6
Table 9 T-values for differences between CAT scores for

non-dyslexic students.......................................................... 111

Table 10 T-values for differences between CAT scores for

dyslexic students................................................................. 112

Table 11 The mean, median and mode of the differences in CAT

non-verbal and verbal subtest scores for the dyslexic and

non-dyslexic groups............................................................ 113

Table 12 The mean, median and mode of the differences in CAT

non-verbal and quantitative subtest scores for the dyslexic

and non-dyslexic groups..................................................... 114

Table 13 Difference between male and female results for dyslexic

and non-dyslexic students in language based tests.......... 118

Table 14 Mean KS2 and KS3 SAT scores for the dyslexic group

and the comparison group................................................... 121

Table 15 T-test results of difference in gains made between KS2

and KS3 SAT subjects for the dyslexic and non-dyslexic

groups................................................................................ 125

Table 16 Differences in GCSE achievement with the different

dyslexia levels..................................................................... 127

Table 17 Results of Bonferroni’s post hoc test showing the

significance of the between groups relationships in GCSE

outcomes........................................................................... 128

7
Table 18 Correlation ‘r’ values for LASS subtests and GCSE total

point score for dyslexic students....................................... 133

Table 19 Simultaneous regression coefficients for LASS subtests

and GCSE outcomes for dyslexic students......................... 134

Table 20 The two models from the hierarchical regression of LASS

variables with GCSE total points score............................... 136

Table 21 Case Study James’ psychometric data............................... 139

Table 22 GCSE grades achieved by James...................................... 146

Table 23 Case Study Emma’s psychometric data.............................. 152

Table 24 GCSE grades achieved by Emma....................................... 157

8
List of Figures

Page no

Figure 1 A Venn diagram illustrating a way in which the different

specific learning difficulties may overlap manifesting a

mixture of symptoms 41

Figure 2 Diagram showing the various and different levels of

environmental influences and interactions on a child’s

development........................................................................ 72

Figure 3 ‘ Morton and Frith’ diagram showing the explanation

and interrelationships of the three different aspect

of dyslexia.......................................................................... 76

Figure 4 Histogram showing the relative percentage of significant

correlations, by dyslexia level, for all the variables............ 116

Figure 5 Mean GCSE results for the three dyslexia levels for males

and females......................................................................... 120

Figure 6 Comparison of English results for the dyslexic and non-

dyslexic groups of students at KS2 and KS3...................... 122

Figure 7 Comparison of maths results for the dyslexic group and

non-dyslexic group of students at KS2 and KS3................... 123

Figure 8 Comparison of science results for the dyslexic group and

non-dyslexic group of students at KS2 and KS3................... 124

9
Figure 9 Difference between GCSE total point score for the

dyslexic group and non-dyslexic comparison group............ 126

Figure 10 Data from the Office of National Statistics illustrating that

boys consistently attain lower results than girls.................. 166

10
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Professor Geoff Lindsay for his support

and help throughout this project. He always gently and patiently made me

confront my many preconceptions.

Secondly, I would like to thank all the dyslexic students who, although

unwittingly, took part in this project. They were often inspiring to work with

and initiated my interest in dyslexia and how it personally affects students’

lives.

Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful family; my husband Charles for

his support, encouragement and help with statistics, and my children,

Andrew and Kirsten, for persuading me to do this. Without their

persistence, support and sometime badgering, I would never have started

this project, and would still be meaning to get around to it some day.

11
Declaration

All material contained in this thesis is my own work. It has not been
submitted for a degree at any other university.

Signed

Anne Sheppard
January 2009

12
 The Blind Men and the Elephant

It was six men of Indostan,

To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach’d the Elephant,

And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me!, but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, “Ho!, what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ‘tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approach’d the animal,

And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he- “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee:
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he,-
“’Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

13
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said- “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he,- “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL

So, oft in theologic wars

The disputants, I we’en,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

John Godfrey Saxe

14
List of abbreviations used

A level Advanced level

ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
BPS British Psychological Society
BTEC Business and Technology Education Council
CAT Cognitive Abilities Test
GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education
GNVQ General National Vocational Qualification
IQ Intelligence Quotient
JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications
KS1 Key Stage 1 – infant years 1 & 2
KS2 Key Stage 2 – primary years 3, 4, 5 & 6
KS3 Key Stage 3 – secondary years 7, 8 & 9
KS4 Key Stage 4 – secondary years 10 & 11
KS5 Key Stage 5 – sixth form years 12 & 13
LA Local Authority
LASS Lucid Assessment for Secondary Schools
MLD Moderate Learning Difficulties
NC National Curriculum
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
NVQ National Vocational Qualification
SAT Standard Attainment Test
SEN Special Educational Needs
SES Socio-Economic Status
SpLD Specific Learning Difficulties
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
TMG Target Minimum Grade
UCAS Universities and Colleges Admission Service
WAG Working At Grade

15
Abstract

This thesis investigates final exam outcomes for a sample of dyslexic

students and compares these with outcomes of paired, non-dyslexic
students of matched non-verbal ability.

A literature review explores definitions of dyslexia and difficulties arising

from these, within the context of dyslexic students’ achievements within the
study school. Controversy over dyslexia assessment, definitions, and the
use of psychometric data in the process of identification of dyslexia are
discussed.

Data for a comparative study of 104 dyslexic and non-dyslexic students

were obtained from a comprehensive school of approximately 1600
students. Much of the data used are from public and statutory
examinations, the rest being from dyslexia assessment results.

The dyslexic students, even well compensated ones, achieved lower results
than their non-dyslexic peers for all SAT, CAT and GCSE examinations, as
well as a lower overall GCSE points score. Further, the disparity between
the groups increased over time.

An attempt to assign students to a level of dyslexia (inferred by degree of

discrepancy between cognitive ability scores and literacy scores) showed no
differences in achievement between different levels; the designation of
being dyslexic or not was the factor associated with outcomes.

Gender differences in attainment were greater for dyslexics than for non-
dyslexics.

Media Studies GCSE, which uses an iterative assessment method, was

given to one cohort instead of English. This significantly improved
outcomes for these dyslexic students, such that in this cohort only there was
no difference between dyslexic and non-dyslexic groups in GCSE total
points score.

GCSE outcomes were analysed along with psychometric data collected

during assessments of students, with respect to determining which aspects
of a student’s difficulties have most effect on future examination outcomes.
Phonological processing ability had the greatest and most significant effect.

Case studies were carried out with two students, one who achieved better
than expected GCSE results and one who achieved poorer than expected
GCSE results and who are perhaps extreme examples of compensated
dyslexic achievement.

16
Chapter 1 Introduction

Students are assessed in schools for a variety of reasons; to provide

baseline information about the student, against which to measure their

progress through the education system; to assess the school’s delivery of

the national curriculum and to measure various cognitive and attainment

strengths and weaknesses in students who may be performing outside

accepted norms. These data can be used to measure much about the

student’s progress through their education.

They are also used to measure the success of the school in teaching the

student, for example in attaining the targets set at a national level. This is

either as measured against their peers in a national context or in a ‘value

added’ context (Goldstein, 2001 p433). These data are used by the

government to provide accountability measures and are released in the

‘Autumn Package’, which is issued each year (DfES, 2004). These data are

also released in the media as the ‘league tables’ which have been much

criticized, but are used by parents when choosing which school to send their

child to. They are also used ‘as a means of allocating resources towards

individual schools and teachers via appraisal and promotion procedures’

(Goldstein, 2001 p433). The need for schools to be as highly placed as

possible in these tables, therefore, is often an important factor in deciding

school policy.

17
Schools are keen to help students achieve the best possible examination

results for the benefit of the students but also, importantly, for the benefit of

the school’s position. For students with Special Educational Needs (SEN),

this may require applying for the student to be granted special access

arrangements for examinations. In the school where this study was carried

out, this was especially important for dyslexic students and those who had

had access arrangements told me that they felt that they had helped them in

their exams, in large part due to increased confidence through having extra

time (Backhouse, Dolman, & Read, 2004; Woods, 2000, 2007) .

Access arrangements for GCSEs are awarded to dyslexic students through

the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) (Backhouse, et al., 2004), which is

formed by representation from the seven largest examination boards in the

UK. These awarding bodies have jointly agreed the regulations

administered through the JCQ, and the various arrangements are

dependant on the individual needs of the student, but the most commonly

requested in this school were for 25% extra time and the use of a word

processor. Occasionally, a reader or a scribe may have been required. In

order to be granted the access arrangements, certain data have to be

collected from tests in addition to the data collected from statutory tests.

These tests are carried out by a specialist teacher holding an approved

qualification.

18
Most dyslexic students have told me that they feel that they do less well in

exams than they are capable of. A pilot study of two forms of assessment,

by written examination and by coursework, showed that dyslexics indeed

did less well than their non-dyslexic peers in both, and did significantly less

well in the written examinations (Osborne, 1999). Few other data exist to

indicate whether dyslexic students do, in fact, achieve lower results than

their non-dyslexic peers of comparable cognitive ability at GCSE level. One

of the aims of this study is to test this.

This study aims to use much of the available statutory data in addition to the

data collected in the process of the assessment of dyslexic students, to see

if it can be ascertained what effect dyslexia may have on the student’s

GCSE outcomes within the study school. All references to dyslexia in this

study refer to developmental dyslexia and not to acquired dyslexia.

The data held by the school on each student exist commonly in the form of

Standard Assessment Tests (SATs), Cognitive Abilities Tests (CATs),

Target Minimum Grades (TMGs), National Curriculum Working at Grades

(WAGs) and in national qualifications examination outcomes such as

GCSEs, GNVQs etc. On top of this data are accumulated within the school:

reading levels, spelling levels and psychometric data obtained for access

arrangements etc.

19
For many schools in the UK, and certainly in the school where this author

was teaching and where these data were collected, final outcomes of Key

Stage 4 public examinations are an important marker of the schools’

success. The need to be as well placed in the ‘league tables’ as possible

means that there is sometimes more emphasis by the school in improving

examination results than in improving the students’ overall learning. In

many cases these are not mutually exclusive, but in some cases they are,

and this is not always to the benefit of the student. In the school where this

study was carried out, the identification of dyslexic students in order to allow

them 25% extra time in exams, and the use of a word processor if they

merited it, to allow them to get the best mark possible, was a high priority for

the specialist teacher. While this certainly benefited the dyslexic students in

the short term, it was not the ideal situation.

The majority of the dyslexic students in this study received little remedial

instruction. Primary school SEN records of intervention were available for

all students who were on the SEN register and all students who had had

any intervention were normally on the SEN register in their school. The

amount of intervention given to students varies tremendously from school to

school. In the study school, some of the dyslexic students attended a 6

session course on study skills aimed at dyslexics, and the very weak

readers and spellers had some extra intervention for literacy. There was no

particular timing for this intervention and students were usually timetabled to

20
attend soon after assessment resulting in their identification. As students

who receive extra support in school, both at primary level and secondary,

are placed on the special needs register, and all support and intervention

given to that student is recorded in the student’s special needs file, it could

be seen that generally only dyslexic students with very weak reading ability

had a history of literacy support. Well compensated dyslexics who could

read adequately usually never had any support at all and this was often

corroborated by the students themselves. The literacy intervention for

dyslexic students was the same as that designed for non-dyslexic weak

readers, with the result that this frequently led to some discontent from

those dyslexic students who had higher, sometimes much higher, cognitive

abilities. Often, dyslexic students refused intervention as they did not want

to be seen as “thick”, which they considered would be the consequence of

being seen to be having special lessons with the much lower ability

students, or attending a special needs class, although most were happy to

have intervention with myself as the dyslexia support teacher, which they

perceived to be different.

In the opinion of this author, there was much less intervention provided for

dyslexic students than was needed. It was not necessarily because of lack

of funding, because a lot of intervention was available for dyslexic students

with behaviour, emotional and social difficulty (BESD), primarily because

21
these students disrupted normal lessons. For well behaved, dyslexic

students however, little intervention was provided.

The study of dyslexia is difficult because it covers so many disciplines:

medical, from genetics through neurology and educational, including

pedagogy and educational psychology. It also has an interested following in

popular culture, not only by dyslexics themselves but also the parents of the

dyslexic students and their teachers too, as well as others who are

fascinated by the fact that otherwise intelligent people cannot do something

‘simple’ like reading. In our society it is highly suspect not to be able to

read. It is not difficult for an individual, on an evening out with friends for

example, to admit to not being good at maths and indeed self-deprecation of

one’s own maths skills is common. However it is very different to admit to

not being good at reading.

Dyslexia is a controversial subject partly because what actually constitutes

dyslexia is still hotly debated amongst researchers. However there is little

doubt that there are young people whose literacy capabilities are less than

would be expected from their general cognitive abilities. This is typically

called dyslexia, and in this study I shall refer to it as such. It is recognised

as a syndrome (Miles & Miles, 1990) with a long list of signs and symptoms

ascribed to it. Possibly because of this controversy, it has only relatively

recently been recognised within the UK by many local authorities (LAs) as a

22
valid learning difficulty separate from general learning difficulties, and it is

still not recognised in some other countries, New Zealand being a

conspicuous example (Tunmer & Chapman, 2006). In a review of some of

the literature discussed in this study, I try to present some of these various

viewpoints. In the end I have taken the position which I have developed

mainly due to the experience which I have had with working with a large

number of dyslexic students and also because of the situation which I

inherited within the school.

Not surprisingly, given its complexity, there is also a lot of contention and

debate about the methods of assessment for dyslexia. One method, the

discrepancy model, has many critics; yet most commercially available

assessment material uses discrepancy either implicitly or explicitly at some

stage. The discrepancy model may be considered a version of the medical

model. It is a diagnostic approach which attempts to detect, quantitatively,

differences between actual and expected norms. It is also my impression

that the discrepancy model is commonly used possibly primarily for its

convenience. If an alternative which was easy to administer and interpret,

was approved by educational psychology services and was available in

schools, it would probably be widely used. The LA educational psychology

services covering the school where this study was carried out used the

discrepancy model for exam access arrangements. The subject of

discrepancy and assessment is discussed further in the next chapter.

23
Assessment of students for access arrangements for national examinations,

by for example the JCQ, accepts use of the discrepancy model (Backhouse,

et al., 2004), as does the National Assessment Agency (NAA) (QCA, 2005a,

2005b), for the national Standard Assessments Tests (SATS). Whatever

the assessment tests used, it is the detection of a discrepancy between

some aspect of a student’s performance and some other measure, be it

cognitive ability in some form, or average scores, or different aspects of

reading ability, which is the signal that something is amiss.

In this study, dyslexia has been assumed to be apparent when there is a

significant difference between an individual’s intelligence and their literacy

performance. This is the criterion that has been used in the assessment of

the test students in this study. In this model, it is possible for individuals to

be dyslexic to a greater or lesser degree, independent of their level of

intelligence (Singleton, 2003). Dyslexics can therefore be assumed to have

different academic outcomes, dependent on the interplay of both their

degree of dyslexia and their level of intelligence and academic ability as well

as the other criteria which affect all student achievement outcomes whether

they are dyslexic or not.

It must also be considered whether it is desirable to ‘diagnose’ dyslexia.

How useful is it to give a single description for this syndrome? Should

researchers be looking at the degree of similarity between the different

24
indicators or at the degree of dissimilarity? Views change with advancing

research. Historical identification included indicators like left-handedness

and cross-laterality, but subsequent research has shown that these

indicators are no more prevalent amongst dyslexics than non-dyslexics

(Satz & Fletcher, 1987).

I have worked for the past eight years as a dyslexia support teacher in a

large comprehensive school. During that time, I became aware that many

dyslexic students were not achieving the GCSE results which teachers, and

the students, felt that they had the ability to attain. There did not seem to be

a straightforward pattern to the level of achievement and it was unclear if

this was due to how dyslexic the student was, the particular pattern of

difficulties which the student had, the gender of the student, how supportive

the parents were or how determined the students were.

Difficulties in identification of dyslexia are compounded in that problems with

reading and spelling can result from other causes with which dyslexia can

be conflated, and given that dyslexia itself is a graded condition, not one

which is either ‘on’ or ‘off’; unlike pregnancy, one can be a little bit dyslexic.

In my experience, while researching methods of assessment for use in

school, it would seem that disproportionate emphasis has been devoted to

attempts at such clarifications. So much emphasis on this difficult and

contentious issue has led to education authorities in the past stating that

25
there is no such thing as dyslexia, (the LA covering the school where this

study took place only recognised dyslexia six years ago) leading to

dyslexics receiving the same intervention as students with general learning

difficulties with whom they were then pooled, even though different teaching

strategies are usually required for each. It is now generally recognised that

dyslexia is a continuum, that both very able and less able students can be

dyslexic to varying degrees. The school where this study took place tried to

operate by differentiating between students identified as dyslexic and those

identified with moderate learning difficulties (MLD), with reading difficulties

due to other reasons, and tried to provide intervention, however limited, for

the two different groups to optimise their education. However the boundary

is not clear cut and there is bound to be an overlap between these groups.

It would seem likely that the largest numbers of assessments for dyslexia

are performed in schools, not only, or even primarily, by educational

psychologists. While it is possible that there will be no unanimous

agreement on the ‘best’ assessment method, it would be beneficial, at least

to schools, if a consensus could be reached. This study came about partly

because of what I have seen in practice and because of frustration at a

system which made things more difficult for students who already had to

deal with a difficulty. This difficulty made most things in school harder for

them and made them feel different to their peers. The reality, certainly in

this school and probably in many schools, is that schools typically have

26
limited resources and are unable to have the services of an educational

psychologist to the extent required, thus they have to use their own

resources. The discrepancy model was the easiest method, which has

some research basis, for use by usually untrained school staff in the

assessment of often large numbers of young people, certainly in the period

when this author was working in this school. This method is also one of the

criteria used by the National Assessment Agency (NAA) for KS2 and KS3

SAT examination access arrangements, the online application for has these

has one section (QCA, 2005a, 2005b),

“A5 Significant discrepancy between cognitive ability and performance, shown by:

 A difference of 20 points or more between verbal and performance IQ and/or

 At least average verbal reasoning, non-verbal reasoning or quantitative scores

alongside below average literacy scores. ‘At least average’ here refers to

standardised scores of 90 or above, and ‘below average’ to a standardised score

of below 85.”

The question of whether dyslexic students do less well in examinations than

their non-dyslexic peers, to cause a need for access arrangements, has not

been discussed at much length in the literature. If they do indeed do less

well, then arrangements need to be effective and in place for all dyslexic

students. This thesis will examine, quantitatively, the achievements of

dyslexic and non-dyslexic students at key stage 2 (KS2), KS3 and KS4 and

other public examinations to determine if the dyslexic students do indeed

27
achieve lower grades than their non-dyslexic peers. It will also examine the

effects of dyslexia on outcomes in relation to other criteria, such as gender,

degree of dyslexia and also the effect dyslexia has on examination

outcomes over time.

28
Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Definition of Dyslexia

It is first necessary to define what is meant by the term ‘dyslexia’. This is

not an easy task as many people, including several government and non

governmental organisation (NGO) committees, have tried to do so for the

last century, with varying degrees of success and failure. The condition was

first described as a medical condition (Hinshelwood, 1900; Pringle-Morgan,

1896) and referred to as ‘word-blindness’. This was seen as a congenital

and neurological disorder and research in the field continued in the medical

domain. The World Federation of Neurology (1968 (in Critchley and

Critchley, 1978 p7)) produced the first widely used definition of ‘dyslexia’ as,

“A disorder manifested by difficulty in learning to read despite

conventional instruction, adequate intelligence and socio-cultural

opportunity. It is dependent upon fundamental cognitive disabilities

which are frequently of constitutional origin”.

A wider definition based on this was proposed by Critchley and Critchley

(1978 p149)

Developmental dyslexia is a learning disability which initially shows

itself by difficulty in learning to read, and later by erratic spelling and

lack of facility in manipulating written as opposed to spoken words.

29
 The condition is cognitive in essence, and usually genetically

determined. It is not due to intellectual inadequacy or to lack of

socio-cultural opportunity, or to emotional factors, or to any known

structural brain defect. It probably represents a specific maturational

defect, which tends to lessen as the child gets older, and is capable

of considerable improvement, especially when appropriate remedial

help is afforded at the earliest opportunity.”

These definitions have been widely and vociferously criticised by

educationalists and psychologists for various reasons, for being definitions

by exclusion and perhaps primarily for being defined by a ‘medical model’.

The conceptual difference between the different models which have been

put forward for these literacy difficulties or ‘problems’ are due to the different

way that they are perceived by researchers in different fields. The main two

models can be described as the medical model and the social model

(Lindsay, 2003), with recent focus being on the social model which has lead

to the inclusive education system in all schools in the UK today. At an early

stage Rutter (1978a) spoke against focussing so much on the medical

model, arguing that there was no evidence for it, stating that “the

presumption of a neurological basis is just that – a presumption”, (Rutter,

1978b p5) . However, many authors have since provided evidence that

dyslexia does indeed have a neurological basis (Eden & Zeffiro, 1998;

Habib, 2000; Karpathiou, Dalla, Kapetanios, & Papa, 2004; Nicolson,

30
Fawcett, & Dean, 2001; Stein, 2001). Rutter also says of the World

Federation of Neurology definition that, “as a piece of logic this definition is

a non-starter… begging a whole series of other questions. What is

‘conventional instruction’... What is adequate intelligence”? He condemns

these definitions as “negative”, and “unsatisfactory and unworkable”.

Thomson (1990 p12) calls it “a definition by exclusion”.

Eisenberg (1978) voices an appropriate concern that these definitions may

exclude some dyslexics for various reasons. He believes that there will be

too many “false negatives” and that some who are dyslexic will be “excluded

because they are dull or suffer social disadvantage”, (1978 p34). He

makes a distinction between the identification of “purer” dyslexia, (1978 p34)

for research purposes, and a clinical assessment for the purpose of

intervention. On the other hand, Eisenberg (1978) disagrees that the terms

used in the World Federation of Neurology definition are unusable, citing

logical explanations and definitions for the criteria.

A search has continued since then for an inclusive definition of dyslexia and

the most recent in the UK is the British Psychological Society (BPS) (1999

p18) working definition which reads,

“Dyslexia is evident when accurate and fluent word reading and/or

spelling develops very incompletely or with great difficulty. This

focuses on literacy learning at the ‘word level’ and implies that the

31
 problem is severe and persistent despite appropriate learning

opportunities. It provides the basis for a staged process of

assessment through teaching.”

This is the definition which is currently officially in use within many local

education authorities; in particular, it is used by the education authority

covering the area of the school where this study was carried out. An

examination of about a dozen LA websites also suggests that it is commonly

in use. It would seem however, that Rutter might have disagreed with this

definition also, as logically there is little difference between the “appropriate

learning opportunities” of the British Psychological Society definition and the

“conventional instruction”, of the World Federation of Neurology definition;

using Rutter’s own arguments, what are ‘appropriate learning

opportunities’?

Benton (1978) stated that ”in order not to confuse dyslexia with other forms

of reading behaviour, one must first establish it as a clinical entity in

negative terms and then finally provide more detailed classifications and sub

types.” This is again working with the medical model and is analogous to

Eisenberg’s (1978) comparing the identification of dyslexia with the

separation and definition of thalassemia from a group of childhood

anaemias, reducing down the definition in a hierarchical manner, and

becoming more specific with each step.

32
The criticism of exclusionary definitions need not be a ‘logical non-starter’.

A road sign which instructs ‘No Right Turn’ is a very positive instruction.

Other choices may then need to be made, and these can be made by

further exclusionary decisions, does one want to turn left or go straight on,

in order to reach a final conclusion? Excluding outcomes can be equally

definite, and no less valid. Groups can be separated by inclusion and

exclusion, both are positive instructions. The question is, how useful are

exclusionary criteria? Are they inherently wrong, or can they be useful in

defining the criteria or indicators. They may be useful in the identification of

dyslexia where we do not yet know the inclusionary criteria sufficiently well.

One of the problems with using exclusionary criteria is that there seems to

be wide variability in the indicators or ‘symptoms’ of dyslexia and different

criteria fit different dyslexics better than others.

With all the controversy over the definition of dyslexia, some people began

to question whether it was not just some figment of middle class parent’s

minds (Nicolson, 1996; Riddell, Brown, & Duffield, 1994), to explain in a

more acceptable way the difficulties which their children had with literacy.

During the Special Standing Committee debate on the Education Bill in

1981, the Secretary of State for Education stated,

“…I am hopeful …will end the arguments which have taken place

over what is dyslexia. Whatever the cause or nature of the condition

33
 commonly called dyslexia, its manifestation is that a child has

difficulty in reading, writing and spelling.”

Later in the debate, the Under Secretary of State for Education stated that

dyslexia was a condition “which is difficult to define” and “certain educational

psychologists presume that it does not exist”.

Despite the Secretary of State’s hopes, many educational psychologists still

“had serious reservations concerning the validity of the concept of dyslexia”,

(Pumfrey & Reason, 1991). Miles & Miles (1990) commented that in Britain,

the attitude to dyslexia was such that,

“In the 1970’s the reaction of the educational establishment to the

concept of dyslexia was largely hostile and in some quarters it

continues to be so, even though, overall, this hostility is becoming

less.”

The most important point from the perspective of the child is surely in

helping the individuals who suffer from this difficulty, whatever it may be

called. Many educational psychologists prefer to use the term a ‘Specific

Learning Difficulty’ (SpLD) and argue that the two conditions are not the

same but the British Dyslexia Association (2008:p1) present the two terms

as synonymous, but perhaps this is just to avoid confusion amongst the

public. Their description of dyslexia from the ‘What is Dyslexia’ page in their

34
website is, “dyslexia is a specific learning difficulty which mainly affects the

development of literacy and language related skills”, and continues,

“It is likely to be present at birth and to be lifelong in its effects. It is

characterised by difficulties with phonological processing, rapid

naming, working memory, processing speed, and the automatic

development of skills that may not match up to an individual’s other

cognitive abilities.

It tends to be resistant to conventional teaching methods, but its

effects can be mitigated by appropriately specific intervention,

including the application of information technology and supportive

counselling.

A working definition of dyslexia by the working group of the International

Dyslexia Association in the USA, calls dyslexia a specific learning disability

(Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003) and the authors use this term to

distinguish dyslexia from general learning disabilities (LD).

A completely inclusive definition which describes 100% of dyslexics is

probably not possible until we understand what dyslexia is at the most basic

level; this may even be that of molecular genetics (Fisher & DeFries, 2002).

When even simple hair colour involves many genes, however, even the

most basic genetic definition of dyslexia is likely to be very complex. At the

moment, trying to define dyslexia is like trying to define a blackberry and

35
apple crumble by addressing only the blackberries. A different school of

thought might feel that definition of the apple fits the understanding better,

while a third might argue for a definition of the topping. Much of the debate

has been emotional and strongly worded, but then, as Gulliver discovered,

wars have been fought over which end of an egg to open!

Because of the specialisations required, researchers from different

disciplines have focussed on different aspects of dyslexia and have different

criteria for what they view as dyslexia. The BPS report by the Division of

Educational and Child Psychology working party (1999 p8) states that, “It is

important to consider, however, the extent to which available empirical

evidence suggests that different theories should be regarded as alternative

accounts of a unitary construct of ‘dyslexia’, as opposed to being regarded

as accounts of different types of dyslexia.” While the term dyslexia is used

in cognitive and psychomedical research and among the public, a dislike of

a single focus on “within-child causative factors”, means that, in the field of

education, practitioners have been reluctant to use the term dyslexia,

preferring instead the term ‘specific learning difficulty’ in the UK and ‘reading

disability’ in the USA, (Reason, 2001). ‘Within-child causative factors’ are

disliked because they do not fully account for the progress made as a result

of the within-child strengths and weaknesses. A child in an environment

with supportive parents and an effective teacher will make more progress

than one without, so the child’s performance is not just ‘within’. These

36
external or environmental conditions are possibly what lead to some

children becoming ‘compensated’ dyslexics while others do not.

Compensated dyslexics are those dyslexics who “compensate for their

difficulties in some way, so that as adults they are no longer diagnosably

dyslexic” (Lefly & Pennington, 1991 p141). However it may be argued that

even though they may not be ‘diagnosed’ by the same tests or methods

usually employed, i.e. reading difficulty, they may still be identified by other

difficulties, e.g. reading fluency. A research programme carried out by

Miller-Shaul (2005) indicates that dyslexic adults still have difficulties in

phonological tasks as well as differences in processing speed in verbal and

non verbal tasks. According to Snowling, (2006) the term specific learning

difficulty should not be used synonymously with dyslexia, as the term does

not give any indication of the difficulties which an individual may still

possess after reading difficulties have been largely overcome in adulthood.

Frith (1999 p192) suggests that “Dyslexia can be defined as a neuro-

developmental disorder with a biological origin and behavioural signs which

extend far beyond problems with written language.”

Compensation occurs in students as well as adults, and there are many

students in the present study who have reading scores in the average range

yet still have difficulties associated with their dyslexia. Miles (1993) states

that dyslexia is not synonymous with reading difficulty and so even though

37
compensated dyslexics learn to read adequately, they may still retain some,

or many, other difficulties.

Dyslexia is the name used for a specific condition. When the term SpLD

was originally introduced it was used to describe psychometrically defined

criteria, in particular discrepancy: causality was not assumed. The use of

this term has changed over the years and it is now generally used

synonymously with dyslexia. While the term specific learning difficulty is the

one commonly designated by local authorities for use in schools, in practice,

this author found that the term dyslexia is more commonly used by staff and

students. Fawcett and Nicholson (2001) suggest that this diversity of

different specialisations and motivations is the source of the confusion

which exists within dyslexia research.

Further complications arise due to the existence of a high degree of co-

morbidity of related conditions under the specific learning difficulties

umbrella (Penketh, 2007; Ramus, 2008; Snowling, 2005). Snowling (2006)

lists various forms of specific learning difficulty, citing dyslexia, dysgraphia,

dyscalculia and dyspraxia: and all having contentious issues as is the case

with dyslexia. Dyscalculia is defined by the Department of Education and

Skills (DfES, 2001) as

“A condition that affects the ability to acquire arithmetical skills.

Dyscalculic learners may have difficulty understanding simple

38
 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.”

Dyspraxia, also known as developmental co-ordination disorder or DCD, is

a condition where, according to (Gillberg & Kadesjo, 2003 p60)
“performance in daily activities that require motor coordination is

substantially below that expected given the person’s chronological

age and measured intelligence. This may be manifested by marked

delay in achieving motor milestones (e.g. walking, crawling, sitting),

dropping things, "clumsiness", poor performance in sports or poor

handwriting.”

The definitions given above for dyscalculia and dyspraxia, along with the

BPS definition of dyslexia (p 30) are not discrepancy based definitions.

While these definitions give good representations of the conditions, without

using exclusionary elements, they do not easily allow schools to present

criteria for access arrangements for students who show indications of these

conditions, without the student having to be examined by an educational

psychologist.

39
The symptoms of all the ‘different’ types of specific learning difficulty have a

very large overlap and it is possible that they are, in fact, one family of

conditions or even one condition which has a wide range of possible

symptoms and manifestations (Amesbury, 2008), Miles (1983) calls this the

profile of difficulties associated with dyslexia, Stackhouse and Snowling

(1966) call it the dyslexia spectrum, which has obvious comparisons with

the autistic spectrum and Kaplan, Wilson, Dewey and Crawford (1998 p471)

state that the degree of co-morbidity between DCD and other

developmental disorders prompted them to “re-evaluate the usefulness of

diagnostic categories and to consider a reconceptualization of childhood

disorders in general”. Nicholson (2002) refers to the dyslexia ecosystem, a

useful metaphor for describing the inter-relatedness of all the complex

aspects of dyslexia, because the various external, or environmental,

influences on the dyslexic child will have significant impact on how their

dyslexia affects them and on their academic achievement. The collection of

symptoms which are manifest in an individual will indicate if they are entirely

or largely dyslexic, or dyslexic and a bit dyspraxic, or have a bit of dyslexia,

dysgraphia, dyscalculia and dyspraxia, or various other combinations of

these (Figure 1). To carry on Nicholson’s metaphor, these are all like

different habitats within the single ecosystem. The metaphor also allows for

description and comparison of the different influences on the dyslexic, the

within the individual and the environmental, as described later in this thesis.

40
 Dyslexia

Dyspraxia Dyscalculia

Figure 1 A Venn diagram illustrating a way in which the different specific

learning difficulties may overlap manifesting a mixture of symptoms, from G.

Lindsay (pers.com).

This would explain why some dyslexics are excellent at mathematics

(Einstein is a good example), or are very poor at mathematics, having some

degree of dyscalculia. In other words, there may be a single condition,

which has a very wide range of symptoms, and depending on which of

these symptoms are present, the individual will have: dyslexia, dyspraxia,

dyscalculia or dysgraphia or a combination of these and others. It is

possible that these different symptoms may be a function of differences at a

genetic level. Williams and O’Donovan (2006 p681) show that “strong

41
evidence has now emerged for the presence of genes influencing DD

[developmental dyslexia] at several chromosomal loci” and it is possible that

these different loci are responsible for the different aspects of the condition.

McGrath, Smith & Pennington, (2006 p333) believe that “when causal

variants are identified, they will need to be considered within a multifactorial

framework, which is likely to involve gene-gene and gene-environment

interactions”. These interactions may be a reason for the different

symptoms in the dyslexia spectrum. There may be other conditions which

are shown in future to also come under the term specific learning disability,

ADHD for instance, and possibly also central auditory processing disorder.

If this is the case, then the term specific learning difficulty would no longer

be appropriate as there is more than just a difficulty with learning involved,

the specific learning difficulty in fact being only another one of the

symptoms. For example, Comings & Comings (1987) show a high

correlation in the co-morbidity between Tourettes syndrome and dyslexia,

two conditions which appear to be quite different. Kaplan, Wilson, Dewey

and Crawford (1998 p484) suggest that

“there is growing evidence that it is the nature of the disorders

themselves which explains the large degree of overlap between

conditions. In the area of childhood disorders, co-morbidity is the rule

rather than the exception. This state of affairs is really very odd.

When co-morbidity is the rule in physical health, a single underlying

disorder is usually assumed.”

42
The compartmentalisation of research topics, motivations and viewpoints

within dyslexia research has, like the blind men and the elephant, held back

our understanding of the system. Habib (2000 p2373) points out that “one

attractive interpretation of available evidence points to dyslexia as a multi-

system deficit”. Nicholson (2002 p56) states,

“One would be hard pressed to find a clear consensus within the

dyslexia community to such fundamental questions as how best

dyslexia is diagnosed, whether we need to split dyslexia into different

sub-types, whether the concept of discrepancy is a valuable one, and

whether the appropriate methods for teaching dyslexic children are

the same as those for teaching other poor readers.”

2.2 Indicators of Dyslexia

The term ‘dyslexia’ is commonly used in the UK to describe a condition

which results in reading ability being behind that which would be expected

for an individual. It is a multi-symptomatic and heterogeneous syndrome,

recognised by a variable collection of identifiable symptoms which include;

difficulty with reading and spelling, left-right confusion, weak memory,

slower processing speed, poor handwriting, poor sequencing skills, poor

organisation ability and poor time management, amongst many others

(Singleton, 2003). Many of these indicators are used in the Bangor Dyslexia

Test (Miles, 1982). Some other postulated early indicators such as left

43
handedness or cross laterality have now, in epidemiological studies, been

shown not to be indicative (Satz & Fletcher, 1987). Some authors have

said that dyslexia is more prevalent amongst boys than girls (Rutter, et al.,

2004) but other authors have indicated that there is no gender difference

(Shaywitz, 1998) and that previous research which showed a prevalence

amongst boys was as a result of boys being more commonly identified as

dyslexic (Share & Silva, 2003).

There is an attempt by some authors to try to show the positive aspects of

dyslexia, Singleton (2003 p1), calls it “an unusual balance of skills”, Davis,

(1995) calls it “the gift of dyslexia” and Everatt (1997; 1999 p28) discusses

the “abilities and disabilities” of dyslexics, their “eye for the creative” and

“consistent evidence of greater creativity in tasks requiring novelty or insight

and more innovative styles of thinking”. Miles and Miles (1990 p22) state

that,

“It is in fact widely agreed (though the matter has not been

conclusively demonstrated) that dyslexics excel in certain areas – for

instance in art, architecture and engineering – and it makes good

sense to suppose that there are anatomical reasons for this.”

This ability may be apparent in one of the students whose case study is part

of this research. Emma believes that her dyslexia has given her a strong

ability to visualise material, from drawings to plans, which has made her

44
very good at art and is helping her in her studies in architecture. Most of the

students in this study however, are not aware of any particular benefit which

they may have due to their dyslexia and would much prefer not to be

dyslexic.

Reading ability as a straight measure is not always a good indicator of

dyslexia, as there are students, who, for various reasons, learn to read

adequately, or even well, yet may still be dyslexic. According to Snowling

(2001 p37) “their prognosis … depends upon the balance of strengths and

difficulties they show, with better language skills being a protective factor.”

Frequently their dyslexic difficulties are more generally recognised by their

poor spelling. Spelling is closely linked to reading and is in fact harder for

most dyslexics as it involves encoding of sounds instead of merely decoding

them (Lyon, et al., 2003). These compensated dyslexics, who may even

perform at above average levels in reading assessments, still have difficulty

reading and comprehending text, especially when it is a lengthy tract and if

it is read under pressure, either due to time constraints in an exam or by

having to read it aloud (Lyon, et al., 2003; Osborne, 1999). Dyslexic

students in schools and even undergraduates often find that they have to

read material several times to extract the meaning from the piece and words

can often be misread (Hatcher, Snowling, & Griffiths, 2002; Simmons &

Singleton, 2000).

45
2.3 Genetic Basis of Dyslexia

Dyslexia, has been shown to be familial in nature (Thomas, 1905), to have

heritable characteristics (Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Escobar, 1990)

and to have a genetic basis (Olson, 2002; Schulte-Korne, et al., 2004;

Williams & O'Donovan, 2006). Unlike spoken language, reading and

literacy are recent skills in terms of evolution, and there are no genes

specifically for these skills; instead, “there can be genetic influences on

evolved cognitive and behavioural traits necessary for proficiency in such

cultural inventions.”, (Pennington & Olson, 2005 p453). Tracking of

chromosomal regions in families affected by dyslexia allow mapping of

potentially responsible genes. The study of the genetic influences on

dyslexia is complicated by the fact that it is not a single gene which is

implicated, but several, and also by the fact that environmental influences

commonly also have a bearing on the person’s outcome (Fisher & Smith,

2001). Because it is still not understood what causes dyslexia on the

biological level, it is not considered likely that there will be a single

candidate gene for dyslexia (Fisher & DeFries, 2002). However evidence

now exists showing the presence of genes influencing dyslexia on several

chromosomes at several loci (Snowling, 2005), with chromosomal loci 6p21-

p22, 15q21 and 18p11 being some of the many being studied (Schulte-

Korne, et al., 2004). Genes DYX1C1, KIAA0319, DCDC2, and ROBO1

have been proposed as candidate genes for dyslexia susceptibility

46
(McGrath, et al., 2006), however the involvement of gene DYX1C1 has not

been replicated by several authors (Bellini, et al., 1996; Marino, et al., 2005)

although Marino et al. (2005) acknowledge that this is still a likely candidate

gene for dyslexia susceptibility.

2.4 Biological Basis of Dyslexia

This genetic influence leads to neurophysiological deficits (Collins & Rourke,

2003; Menghini, Hagberg, Caltagirone, Petrosini, & Vicari, 2006; Stein,

2001). The term neurobiological in the American definition of dyslexia,

according to Lyon et al (2003), “recognises the great advances in

understanding the neural basis for dyslexia”. Although the

neurophysiological mechanisms through which dyslexia is manifest are still

under debate, the main contenders include the magnocellular deficit theory

(Stein, 2001) and the cerebellar deficit hypothesis (Eckert, et al., 2003;

Fawcett & Nicolson, 2001; Nicolson, et al., 2001). It has been suggested by

both Stein (2001) and Nicholson et al (2001) that there may be some

overlap in these theories because magnocells systems project into the

cerebellum. Both of these theories give explanations of the cause of many

aspects of the problems associated with dyslexia, while perhaps not

explaining the root biological cause. Stein has shown that correcting the

visual difficulties associated with magnocellular impairment in some

dyslexics improves reading ability. Reynolds, Nicholson and Hamley (2003)

47
have argued, in a much criticised study (Snowling & Hulme, 2003), that

improvements can be made in some aspects of difficulties experienced by

some dyslexics using an exercise based treatment to remediate deficits in

the cerebellum.

Richardson (2004) also suggests that there is considerable evidence

showing that deficiencies in highly unsaturated fatty acids (fatty acids which

contain more than one double bond) may contribute to dyslexia as well as

other developmental disorders (Portwood, 2006). This again may link with

the other two biological theories by virtue of the fact that these highly

unsaturated fatty acids are essential for the healthy formation of cell

membranes in the magnocellular neurones. Randomised controlled trials

were carried out on a group of dyslexic children, who also had ADHD, using

fish oils as a source of essential fatty acids (omega 3 and 6). The

participants showed significant improvement after 12 weeks. Richardson

(2004 p384) suggests that with such

“multi-dimensional, behaviourally defined conditions such as ADHD,

dyslexia, dyspraxia or the autistic spectrum, where the causes are

almost inevitably complex and multi-factorial, and even the rigorous

use of formal diagnostic criteria will usually identify a very

heterogeneous population. Given this variability, it seems a priori

unlikely that fatty acid abnormalities would be a pre-dominant cause

48
 of the behavioural and learning difficulties that define these

conditions in more than a subset of cases.”

He suggests that the results of these trials have shown significant results

even after having controlled for placebo effects and that increasing the

intake of these highly unsaturated fatty acids (containing several of these

highly unsaturated fatty acids are the Omega 3 fatty acids group,

predominantly comprising Alpha-linolenic acid, and the Omega 6 fatty acids

group, predominantly comprising Linoleic acid) can significantly improve

reading levels as well as other cognitive functions. However other authors

suggest that the evidence from randomised controlled trials does not

“demonstrate a consistent benefit for intakes of 0.34–0.67 g DHA + EPA,

perhaps due to wide differences in supplementation regimes” (Ruxton,

Reed, Simpson, & Millington, 2004 p454). Remediation based on all three

of these theories has produced positive results so it is possible that either

the theories are all related or that they are all components of another

mechanism.

Post mortem dissections of brains of known dyslexics have revealed

differences between dyslexic brains and non-dyslexic brains: the dyslexic

brains showing greater symmetry (Galaburda, Corsiglia, Rosen, & Sherman,

1987). This leads Miles (Miles & Miles, 1990 p23) to comment,

49
 “What is clear is that in the case of the eight brains so far studied

there have been marked abnormalities; and this finding provides

some degree of support for the more general view that the difficulties

of the dyslexic are constitutional in origin.”

There is very little recent literature on this topic and so it is unclear how

secure these finding are. It is possible that the subject has been

superseded by more modern techniques such as fMRI, PET and others.

2.5 Cognitive Basis of Dyslexia

Vicari, Marotta, Menghini, Molinari, & Petrosini, (2003), suggest that the

neurophysiological condition caused by the above genetic influences

manifests itself in many of the different cognitive deficits described earlier as

well as other physiological deficits (Brookes & Stirling, 2005; Fawcett &

Nicolson, 2001). Of all these cognitive and physiological deficits, reading

difficulty is the most widely known and studied. It is now commonly

accepted by many researchers that difficulty with phonological processing

lies at the root of the reading difficulty experienced by dyslexics and recent

findings continue to strengthen the case that phonological processing

difficulties are the cause of the dyslexics’ difficulties with reading (Artigas-

Pallares, 2002; Johnston & Morrison, 2007; Lyon, et al., 2003; Snowling,

2000, 2001). However the mechanism through which this deficit manifests

50
itself is still the subject of ongoing debate (Habib, 2000). Stein (2001) has

shown that impairment of the magnocellular system is responsible for visual

difficulties, and that these difficulties, poor visual motion sensitivity, and

unstable binocular fixation, impact upon the ability to acquire the good

orthographic skills needed to attain the flowing, confidant and effortless

reading that most of us enjoy. Fawcett and Nicholson (2001), hypothesise

that impairment in the cerebellum, although previously regarded as the

motor area of the brain, causes dyslexia symptoms due to deficits in the

automatisation of certain skills necessary for fluent reading .

The phonological deficit hypothesis suggests that “the deficit in dyslexia is in

the way in which the brain codes or ‘represents’ the spoken attributes of

words” (Snowling, 2001 p35). Even well compensated readers are known

to have a deficit in their phonological skills, often evidenced by poor ability

to read aloud, slowness in reading and weaker reading comprehension. The

association between lack of phonological awareness and failure in learning

to read and write is, “one of the most robust findings in developmental

cognitive psychology”, (Lundberg & Hoien, 2001 p112). Ramus (2008)

suggests a “neurological model of dyslexia which explains how a specific

phonological deficit might arise, and sometimes occur together with a more

general sensorimotor syndrome”, this description might account for the

other dysfunctions which frequently accompany the most common difficulty

of phonological difficulties. The fact that phonological awareness is a

51
‘metacognitive ability’ (Gombert, 1992) requiring the accessing of multiple

phonological systems: memory, semantic and phonological processing,

motor coordination for speech and visual coordination, concurs with the

cerebellar deficit hypothesis which suggests that multi tasking is difficult for

dyslexics. It is possible that the use of these different skills for reading is

controlled through the cerebellum at least in part.

Wolf and Bowers (1999) suggest that dyslexics suffer from a ‘double deficit’

in that they have not only a core deficit in phonological processing but also a

deficit in their central processing speed. It is suggested that it is this

processing speed deficit which makes it more difficult for dyslexic readers to

gain fluency in word retrieval, which, along with the phonological deficit,

results in less fluent reading.

2.6 Assessment

As stated before, researchers studying the various aspects of dyslexia have

different criteria for what constitutes dyslexia, therefore the assessment

methods vary in different fields. Dyslexia is mainly assessed through its

most widely recognised cognitive symptoms, primarily reading and/or

spelling difficulty, although there are some researchers who use other

presented symptoms in assessment, namely postural stability (Fawcett &

Nicolson, 1999; Reynolds, et al., 2003), neurological and developmental

52
symptoms (Blythe, 2000; 2005; Karpathiou, et al., 2004) and visual

symptoms (Stein, 2001).

There is continuing controversy regarding the assessment of dyslexia in

individuals. The first hurdle is: to test or not to test. Many educational

psychologists choose not to rely exclusively on a test, but additionally use a

more inclusive evidence based assessment (Woods, 2000), also eliciting

parent reports to inform, and advise on remediation for the difficulties which

the learner faces irrespective of any label attached to the student’s

difficulties (Lindsay, 2007). Recent research has shown that these parental

reports can be just as accurate as psychometric screening tests (Dewey,

Crawford, & Kaplan, 2003; Glascoe, 2000).

There are advantages and disadvantages to ‘labelling’ an individual as

dyslexic. Some educationalists believe that labelling is harmful,

(Wearmouth, Soler, & Reid, 2002) and that a label causes stigmatisation.

However, stigmatisation can occur even without a formal label (Wearmouth,

et al., 2002), also, some labels carry more stigma than others, The Spastics

Society changed their name to Scope because of the negative association

with the term spastic, although the term cerebral palsy does not carry the

same connotation. The term dyslexic also does not carry the same

associations that the term spastic does and it has been my experience that

most students respond well to being informed that they are dyslexic,

53
although individuals with dyslexia may choose in the future to hide the fact

that they are dyslexic (Morris & Turnbull, 2007). Attitudes to labels change

with time and fashion. In the 1960s, children with learning difficulties were

labelled educationally sub-normal, and in the 1970s children with reading

difficulties were termed ‘reading retardates’ (Rutter & Yule, 1975) which was

presumably acceptable at the time but is not today. A label of dyslexia is

considered to be better than most alternatives, more than once, the

response from a student on being told of the diagnosis has been, “thank

goodness, I thought I was just stupid!” (student ref no 26), as the, often self

imposed, label ’stupid’ has much more negative connotations. A student

who fails repeatedly is likely to assign the failure to his own lack of ability. It

will be perceived as an uncontrollable attribution. If the child is identified as

dyslexic it will allow the attribution to be controllable, i.e. externalised, and

the students sense of self worth may improve. Research by Frederickson

and Jacobs (2001 p401) showed that,

“Children with uncontrollable attributions had significantly lower

perceived scholastic competence than children with controllable

attributions, even when actual reading attainment was taken into

account. The relationship between controllability attributions for

academic performance and perceived scholastic competence was

found to be similar for children with dyslexia and their normally

achieving classmates”.

54
This would indicate that there is a benefit in informing students that they are

dyslexic.

As a result of the label and the associations with it, dyslexic students have

been able to tell teachers that they are dyslexic and this has allowed the

teacher to make informed decisions, albeit generalised ones, about ways to

help the student. The alternative would be to have the student have to carry

instructions to teachers around with them and whereas this would have

been more specific to the individual student, practically this sort of

information would often not be read in a busy classroom. The dyslexia

‘label’ alerts the teacher to the student’s need and the teacher can confer

with the student how they can best be supported, it also allows awareness

of other difficulties as part of the condition. Many parents have informed me

that they are now more tolerant of what they had considered to be a

teenage lack of concentration when their dyslexic child went upstairs to

fetch an item and came down again having forgotten it. While in some

instances forgetfulness may in fact be the case, as poor memory is often a

feature of dyslexia, knowledge of this can lessen frustration for both the

student and their parents.

There are, however, also some disadvantages to the dyslexia ‘label’, and

one which this author has noticed with a small number of students is a

tendency to ‘give up’. The response being along the lines of: I can’t do it,

55
I’m dyslexic! Another disadvantage might be a tendency to make

assumptions about the individual: as discussed above, a teacher could

make informed decisions about how to support a student but it could also

work the other way and the teacher could make the wrong assumptions.

Is the argument one of identifying dyslexia or identifying need? Are these

two issues really very different? If a student is identified with dyslexia using

an effective assessment method then need is also identified in a general

sense. If only language based needs are identified, then other needs such

as memory support, slower rate of working and organisational skills support

may not be met. There is a choice of which sort of assessment to use;

psychometric assessment using the IQ discrepancy model (Lucid Research,

1999), responsiveness-to-intervention assessment (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan,

& Young, 2003) and assessment of phonological difficulties (Frederickson,

Frith, & Reason, 1997) are the most common of the many proposed

cognitive methods of assessing dyslexia and are discussed here in turn.

IQ Discrepancy Assessment

The IQ discrepancy assessment is based on the premise that dyslexia is

characterised by an unexpected difficulty in reading (Shaywitz & Shaywitz,

2005). It is also based on the assumption that there is a correlation

between an individual’s IQ and their reading ability: a student with an

average IQ is expected to obtain an average reading score and an above

56
average IQ student is expected to achieve an above average reading score.

The assessment aims to show, if present, a statistically significant difference

between the student’s IQ score, in the form of a cognitive ability test score,

and their literacy score in the form of a reading or spelling score.

This model has many critics. These critics are mainly unhappy about the

use of measures of intelligence, which are the basis of the assessment, for

a variety of reasons (Frederickson & Reason, 1995; Meyer, 2000; Siegel,

1992; Stanovich, 1991). One of the problems with discrepancy possibly

stems from the early definition of dyslexia by the World Federation of

Neurology, (1968)

“A disorder manifested by difficulty learning to read, despite

conventional instruction, adequate intelligence and sociocultural

opportunity. It is dependent upon fundamental cognitive

disabilities which are frequently of constitutional origin.”

The term “adequate intelligence” is the source of much of the disagreement

(Gustafson & Samuelsson, 1999). It has been assumed to mean at least

average intelligence and the contention is that individuals of lower than

average intelligence who are also poor readers are excluded from the

diagnosis. The exclusionary nature of this term led to the British

Psychological Society definition of dyslexia which took great care not to use

exclusionary terms (Reason, 2001). If a poor reader is of below average

57
intelligence, for example obtaining a standard score of 85 or less in an IQ

test, and had a reading or spelling standard score of 65, then this individual

could be diagnosed as dyslexic using the discrepancy model. The level of

intelligence assumed to be ‘adequate’ is not the same as ‘average’ (which

for this purpose is assumed to be the average range, which in standard

scores, is 85 -115) because many individuals with a lower than average IQ

score are, in fact, good readers. Therefore the level of intelligence assumed

to be ‘adequate’ can be assumed to be much lower than average, in fact

there is no ‘level’ as such and it is only the discrepancy which is relevant.

Stanovich (1996) appears to diminish the difference between poor reading

and discrepant poor reading. He says (1996 p154),

“... the statement then entices us into the next error – the assumption

that some other explanation is needed for high IQ poor readers. And

there we have it: poor readers of high and low intelligence need

different explanations for their reading difficulties.”

This is not necessarily the case, as it is not poor reading per se which is the

problem, but discrepant poor reading. Low IQ discrepant poor readers can

also be dyslexic. Stanovich then goes on to say (p155),

“we are now in a position to ask where intelligence comes in as an

explanation of reading difficulty. The answer is nowhere.”

58
It is true that intelligence itself is not an explanation of reading difficulty;

intelligence is only useful in the establishment of an unexpected difficulty.

If a test exists which can distinguish between dyslexic poor readers, and

others who are poor readers for any other cause, without measuring

intelligence, then it is likely that it would be commonly used in schools.

In the field of research, a failure to differentiate between dyslexic poor

readers and non-dyslexic poor readers can lead to inconsistencies of

results. Gustafson and Samuelsson (1999 p127) show that “high and low

IQ poor readers show the same reading performance patterns, indicating

that both groups might benefit from the same remedial activities.” More

recently Johnston & Morrison (2007 p66) conclude that, “the high IQ poor

readers experienced difficulty in taking a phonological approach to reading,

whereas the low IQ poor readers had much less marked phonological

problems”. Johnston and Morrison’s (2007) high IQ poor readers were

discrepant as regards their IQ and their reading ability while their low IQ

poor readers were not, in other words the low IQ poor readers were not

dyslexic, and their poor reading skills were possibly a result of general

learning difficulties or insufficient learning opportunities. In this study,

therefore, they were comparing above average IQ, dyslexic, poor readers

and below average IQ, non-dyslexic, poor readers. It is therefore not

surprising that they found that one group (the dyslexics) had markedly

poorer phonological skills than the other non-dyslexic group, as poor

59
phonological skills have been shown by many authors to be a good indicator

of dyslexia (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2005; Snowling, 2001; Stein, 2001).

Another point made by Gustafson and Samuelsson, however, is that there is

the risk of diagnosing as dyslexic, individuals who merely have not had

sufficient experience with written language, primarily as a result of

educationally or socially deprived backgrounds, rather than as a result of

any cognitive deficit. They use as their example studies of the high

prevalence of dyslexia in prison inmates and juvenile delinquents.

In this study, a couple of the students who have been diagnosed as dyslexic

have IQ scores of less than 90. The difficulty with using the discrepancy

model to diagnose below average intelligence dyslexics is that it is difficult

to have a discrepancy which puts the results outside an average range, i.e.

a discrepancy of greater than one standard deviation below the IQ score,

especially in older children and adults as, by that stage, most have attained

a degree of literacy which would give a standard score of above 60, unless

the individual were very dyslexic indeed.

What is most commonly considered to be the greatest difficulty for dyslexics

is the decoding of the written word, i.e. reading. However the majority of

dyslexics have more difficulty with the encoding, or spelling. Even well

compensated dyslexics may still have spelling skills well below what would

60
be expected for their level of intelligence (Fink, 1998). Using a discrepancy

between IQ, and either reading or spelling can help reduce this difficulty.

For a secure assessment result, a battery of tests is needed to come to a

reliable conclusion. IQ needs to be measured in more than just one way;

verbal, non-verbal, spatial and numeric cognitive tests need to be used

individually, rather than combined, to give the most comprehensive picture

of the individual’s abilities. Reading should be assessed in a series of tests,

contextual reading, single word reading, timed reading and nonword

reading. Spelling and phonological skills should also be assessed using

standard tests. This then would enable a picture to emerge: an individual

with cognitive strengths in a particular aspect of ability, who has difficulty

with particular aspects of reading and can possibly have above average

scores for contextual reading, but who may have difficulty with spelling and

also with phonological processing. This picture could be of an individual of

above average or below average intelligence. Educational psychologists

who may be looking for a more holistic assessment may also examine the

type of difficulties experienced by the student and a history of the student’s

difficulties in order to provide appropriate remedial help. Reid (2005 p4)

reports on a Working Party convened in 2003 to “make recommendations in

relation to appropriate tests, appropriate report format and appropriate

training and qualifications for specialist assessors”, and that “ a recurrent

theme in the working party discussions was that assessments require

61
interpretation of test results and integration of this with other relevant

information in order to reach a conclusion.” The different reasons for

carrying out the assessment need also to be considered, for remediation,

access arrangement application and research. Snowling (2005 p110)

states,

“It has become conventional in clinical practice to distinguish children

who have specific reading difficulties from children who have reading

difficulties in the context of more general learning problems. A child is

deemed to have a specific problem with reading if their reading

attainment is significantly below that predicted from their mental age

on the basis of the correlation between reading and IQ in the same

population. Such children show a discrepancy between expected and

actual attainment.”

Siegel, (1992) disagrees that there is a need to differentiate between

dyslexic readers and non-discrepant poor readers. This is possibly true in

the terms of remediation, but even here this author believes that there is a

difference. In my experience of working with both dyslexic and non-dyslexic

poor readers in a secondary school, there is often a substantial difference in

the remedial methodology required. Children of below average IQ who are

not dyslexic are often failing in many subjects and need remedial help in a

range of areas, including reading, and usually respond well to good

intervention. Below average intelligence dyslexic children are in the same

62
category and also need help in a range of subjects but do not respond as

well to reading remediation (Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000; Vellutino, et

al., 1996). On the other hand, average to above average intelligence

dyslexics have a range of different difficulties. They may be confused and

frustrated by the apparent differences in their abilities: able in some aspects

of study, for example a good understanding of science but an apparent

inability to achieve examination marks consistent with proven classroom

ability. They may have had remedial reading which has not produced

significant improvement. A different sort of support in which they are taught

strategies to allow them to work around their difficulties has often been very

beneficial to these students.

Responsiveness-to-Intervention Assessment

Responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) assessment possibly offers a solution

to the IQ discrepancy problem. Fuchs, Mock, Morgan and Young (2003)

describe how the method is carried out in the following stages.

1. Students are provided with “generally effective” instruction by their

classroom teacher;

2. Their progress is monitored;

3. Those who do not respond get something else, or something more,

from their teacher or someone else;

4. Again, their progress is monitored; and

63
 5. Those who still do not respond either qualify for special education or

for special education evaluation.

According to Fuchs et al., (2003) this method focuses on helping the

students’ difficulties immediately, it provides for an individualised

intervention programme, it eliminates the ‘adequate instruction’ problem

discussed earlier, it is not IQ dependant and finally it does not stigmatise the

students with a label. In parts of the USA this method is “vigorously

promoted” as a “problem solving” approach, (Fuchs, et al., 2003).

This method also has its critics. Some research has shown that RTI has

“failed to produce evidence that classroom-based interventions (1) are

implemented with fidelity and (2) strengthen students’ academic

achievement or classroom behaviour” (Fuchs, et al., 2003 p163).

Vellutino et al (1996) carried out a longitudinal study where a very rigorous

regime related to responsiveness to intervention showed excellent results.

This required a very structured approach which required that the

practitioners be thoroughly trained in good remedial techniques. The results

of this study (Vellutino, et al., 1996 p633) concluded that

“although reading difficulties in most children from middle- to upper

middle-class backgrounds are quite likely caused by experiential and

instructional deficits, there are substantial numbers of these children

whose reading difficulties may be caused by basic phonological

64
 coding deficits that may well be of constitutional origin. The data, in

effect, validate the highly convergent findings from previous research

implicating phonological coding deficits as a probable cause of

reading disability in such children.”

This intervention would possibly have greatest benefit in primary schools.

This is illustrated in a very successful study carried out in Scotland, MacKay

(2008) describes how a thorough intervention and analysis study was

carried out in all of the primary schools in an LA area. The method would be

difficult in secondary schools where students have to be removed from other

subjects for any remedial intervention, to the detriment of the student’s

learning in that subject. On top of this, poor readers are more easily

remediated if that remediation takes place at an early age (Fawcett & Lynch,

2000). Hartas (2008 p2) also suggests that “good quality early years

intervention is central to children’s learning development” and Lloyd (2002)

considers that early years education is “doubly critical” for young children

with SEN. Hartas (2008 p14) also suggests that “early identification and

acknowledgement of potential literacy difficulties has important practical

implications with regard to the effectiveness of early intervention.” As the

majority of dyslexic students in this study came to secondary school without

having been identified as dyslexic by their primary school, one cannot be

sure that responsiveness to intervention assessment would be implemented

65
any more effectively without a degree of expert help which is not generally

available in schools.

Assessment of Phonological Difficulties

A third assessment method, that of the assessment of phonological

difficulties, is possibly the method which is becoming most accepted in the

UK. One which is well known, the Phonological Assessment Battery (PhAB)

(Frederickson, et al., 1997), as the name suggests, is a battery of

phonological tests which will give a profile of students’ phonological

strengths and weaknesses. The results of these tests can also be used to

guide appropriate intervention. Some of the PhAB tests were used by this

author to provide data for applications for access arrangements, but the

data were not complete enough to use in this study. This type of

assessment is likely to become a standard method of assessment in

schools as new access arrangement application forms allow this data to be

used (Joint Council for Qualifications, 2007).

As it is generally agreed that phonological difficulties lie at the heart of the

reading difficulties experienced by dyslexics (Johnston & Morrison, 2007;

Snowling, 2001; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994), this would seem to be a logical

area in which to assess and identify dyslexia in an individual.

66
2.7 Student Achievement

Most of the literature which discusses achievement refers to achievement or

failure in reading ability specifically, rather than referring to a more

encompassing or overall picture of the educational achievement of students.

Difficulties with reading are likely to lead to difficulties in other academic

outcomes and different factors linked with the difficulty in reading may lead

to greater or lesser levels of achievement. Various features are suggested

to be causative factors in reading failure. Carver (2000) notes that, “The

root causes of high and low reading achievement involve influences within

the individual (aptitude) and influences outside the individual (instruction).”

In the same vein, Thomson (1990) describes these as being “either

environmental or intrinsic” and Eisenberg (1966) describes them as ‘socio-

psychological’ and ‘socio-physiological’. These issues are discussed by

Stanovich, (1991) who suggests that it is a “reciprocal relationship” that “the

efficiency of a cognitive process is bidirectional” and that there is an

“organism-environment correlation”.

One of the most obvious factors which influence a student’s academic

achievement is that of the student’s own degree of intelligence. Deary,

Strand, Smith, & Fernandes (2007) show that there is a highly significant

correlation between a student’s measured IQ, measured by the Cognitive

Abilities Test (CAT) data, and educational achievement, as measured by

67
GCSE outcomes. However, it has long been understood that many other

factors influence the educational achievement of students in various

academic skills which can confound the simplistic picture of the relationship

between intelligence and achievement (Strand, 2007).

Eisenberg (1966), however, argues in his study that socio-economic class

is, in his view, one of the biggest contributing factors to reading failure. His

research showed that with children in a lower socio-economic metropolitan

district the incidence of reading disorder was three times that of those living

in an affluent suburban district. The author notes that the areas compared

in the study differed extremely in socio-economic class structure. Other

authors also ascribe socio-economic status (SES) as the biggest

contributing factor, “One of the most widely expected and described

‘causes’ of reading failure is that of the social background of the child.”,

(Thomson, 1990), although he goes on to say that other authors e.g.

Myklebust (1978) suggest that poor reading ability might be due to a wide

variety of factors.

Another of these additional factors is suggested to be that of the mother’s

educational level (Holloman, Dobbins, & Scott, 1998) although this may also

be related to SES, as is described in the study by Strand & Demie (2005) of

student mobility and achievement. Recent research focuses more on wider

causes, often outside of the child’s education, for reading difficulty, for

68
example Rabiner & Coie (2000) suggest that attention problems are a

contributing factor, Gilger, Hanebuth, Smith, & Pennington (1996) suggest

that having at least one parent with persistent reading difficulty means that a

child is more likely to have a similar difficulty, if this is the case this could be

the result of several different causes; genetics, or environmental influences,

or both. Fieder, Prossinger, Iber, Schaefer, Wallner and Huber (2006)

suggest that season of birth is a significant contributory factor to

achievement, due to the school year structure. It is likely however, that all

these different factors are, in fact, contributory. Stanovich (1986) used the

term ‘Matthew effect’ to describe the fact that “rich-get- richer and poor-get-

poorer patterns of reading achievement” are created. Something like this

may be the case for some students, especially when two or more of these

situations come together.

Strand and Demie (2005) show that initial results showing that pupil mobility

was negatively correlated with pupil attainment in KS2 tests was eliminated

when other factors such as SES, special educational need (SEN) and

previous attainment were accounted for. This may mean that a more

analytical approach to examining the inter-relatedness between associated

factors by exploring the causal pathways and relationships, will allow a more

accurate picture of the factors contributing to student achievement to be

built. Gender is another factor, which, it has been suggested, plays a

significant role in GCSE underachievement. Burgess, McConnell, Propper,

69
& Wilson (2004) suggest that much of this underachievement is generated

by poorer performance differences in English, as boys and girls obtain

similar results in math and science . Warrington, Younger, & Williams

(2000), however, discuss how different pressures on young males, notably,

peer pressure, image and social grouping, account for the differences in

GCSE outcomes ascribed to gender. A rigorous analysis of GCSE

outcomes by Goldstein & Sammons (1997) shows that, in their view, the

effectiveness of the junior school attended is a significant contributory factor

in GCSE examination achievement; but again, this may be related to the

varying affluence of the areas which the different schools serve.

Most of the studies citing SES as the main contributing factor perhaps also

need to be refined to illustrate what it is, exactly, within the low socio-

economic status of the family that causes the reduced achievement, as it is

probably not the low SES per se, which is the cause. Other associated

factors such as poor diet, lack of parental control, lack of parental ambition

for the child, peer influences and poverty, which inhibits access to material

such as reading material and computer and internet facilities, are all

important. Zimbardo (2007) calls this the ‘situational’ approach to the

problem rather than the more common ‘dispositional’ approach. He

describes how this might affect a child with learning difficulties.

“For example, in the dispositional approach a child who exhibits

a learning disability may be given a variety of medical and

70
 behavioural treatments to overcome the handicap. But in many

cases, especially among the poor, the problem is caused by

ingesting lead in paint that flakes off the walls of tenement

apartments and is worsened by conditions of poverty – the

situational approach.” (Zimbardo, 2007 p8)

It can be seen that all these authors, Zimbardo, Carver, Thomson and

Eisenberg, suggest that there is something within the individual and

something outside of the individual which causes the reading difficulty. There

has been a lot of research attempting to differentiate between the two

influences, with authors trying to evaluate which is the most important; which

has the greatest contributory effect on the individual’s reading ability.

71
Figure 2 Diagram showing the various and different levels of environmental

influences and interactions on a child’s development. (Source Dockrell and

Messer 1999 p139)

So whether it is the socio-psychological / socio-physiological, (Eisenberg,

1966); intrinsic / environmental, (Thomson, 1990); influences within the

individual / influences outside the individual, (Carver, 2000) or dispositional /

situational, (Zimbardo, 2007) approaches, it would seem that the difficulty in

separating each of the two may mean that they are both irrevocably linked.

This also seems to be the case for the students in the group being studied in

this thesis. All are dyslexic – the dispositional, intrinsic, socio-physiological

72
influence within the individual, but the actual academic achievement will

depend on a variety of factors, the situational, environmental, socio-

psychological influences outside the individual.

Bronfenbrenner (1979) suggests that children are not merely a tabula rasa

awaiting the impact of the various environmental influences on their

development. Rather, that there is interaction between the various

environmental influences and the intrinsic nature of the child and that this

process is dynamic, with the interactions being two ways; the child is able to

influence his environment and be influenced by it (Figure 2). This suggests

that environmental effects probably have a varying influence on a dyslexic

child’s academic development, depending on the makeup of that

environment and how the child interacts with it.

In terms of overall achievement rather than specifically reading

achievement, it is probably fair to say that all children with reading

difficulties are liable to be disadvantaged academically, and that they could

be expected to have lower levels of achievement than students without a

reading difficulty. These students then fall into several categories, those

categorised within the education system with moderate learning difficulties

(MLD), those with social disadvantage, those with dyslexia, those with MLD

who are also dyslexic and those with social disadvantage, MLD and

dyslexia and many others including poor attenders and those with emotional

73
and behavioural difficulties. The dyslexic group can be further separated

into compensated and non-compensated dyslexics, that is, those who have

learned to read adequately and those who have not adequately developed

this skill. Students in each group will have different expectations; it is

conceivable that an intelligent student who is well compensated and has

good home and school support may expect to do as well as a similarly able

non-dyslexic student. An intelligent but non-compensated student may

have lower expectations due to repeated failure or difficulty and may

become frustrated and angry, leading to rejection of conventional school

education and possibly become one of the large percentage (British

Dyslexia Association, 2004; Kirk & Reid, 2001; Wheldall & Watkins, 2004),

of dyslexic young offenders.

Students are assigned target grades in each subject at the start of each

school year. These target grades assigned to the students are calculated

from SATs and CATs tests results and may possibly contribute to the

achievement expectations of many of the students. All of these students will

have a wide range of expectations for academic achievement, with able,

compensated dyslexics possibly having high expectation because of

achievements in other academic subjects, for example maths. It is possible

that the compensated dyslexics’ other exam results may also be lower and

therefore have reduced the students’ expectations of their abilities; however

dyslexics, particularly able dyslexics, often find that their difficulties increase

74
as they proceed through secondary school and the work becomes more

demanding and their intelligence in no longer enough to carry them through.

Focussing on the particular reading difficulties experienced by dyslexics, the

many different suggested reasons for the causes of their explicit difficulties

are within the individual and intrinsic, as opposed to environmental, these

include: phonological processing difficulties (Miles & Miles, 1990; Snowling,

2001; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994); the double-deficit in phonological

processing and central processing speed (Wolf & Bowers, 1999); impaired

magnocellular development (Stein, 2001) and cerebellar deficit (Fawcett &

Nicolson, 1999; Nicolson, et al., 2001).

The links between the different influences on the achievement of a dyslexic

student are illustrated clearly in the diagram below (Figure 3). The different

within child aspects, comprising the biological, cognitive and

behavioural/educational are influenced by overriding environmental

controlling factors and need to be addressed on all these levels.

Frith (1999 p192) states that “At all three levels, interactions with cultural

influences occur. These influences have a major impact on the clinical

manifestation of dyslexia, the handicap experienced by the sufferer, and the

possibilities for remediation. When all these factors are considered

together, paradoxes disappear and a satisfactory definition of dyslexia can

75
be achieved.” Fawcett and Nicholson (2007 p306) “advocate the

establishment of the new discipline of 'pedagogical neuroscience' designed

to combine psychological, medical, and educational perspectives”.

Figure 3 Dyslexia model showing the interrelationship between the

biological (brain and genetic), cognitive (phonological deficit) and
behavioural (difficulties with reading and spelling) aspects of
dyslexia. It also shows how the environment influences all aspects of
dyslexia. From Snowling (2005), adapted from Morton & Frith (1995)

These literacy difficulties are likely to be one of the biggest causes of

examination underachievement in dyslexic students. Simmons & Singleton

76
(2000) show that dyslexic students in higher education also have reading

comprehension difficulties even when the decoding of the text is not a

problem. It can be assumed that many dyslexic 16 year old GCSE students

will show similar difficulties to those in higher education and this may be a

contributing factor to exam underachievement at GCSE level as well. Some

of the latter students may actually have higher than average levels of

general reading ability, but the stress and time constraints of examinations

may cause reading inaccuracies or a slowing of reading speed in order to

avoid these inaccuracies. There are also other dyslexia associated

difficulties which can be contributory factors; short term memory difficulties,

poor concentration, poor handwriting, organisation problems and above

average levels of anxiety because of their dyslexia, are all symptoms which

have been reported from the students with whom this author has worked.

Richardson & Wydel (2003) show that dyslexic students in higher education

do significantly less well than non-dyslexic students, both in terms of

completion of their studies and in the grades attained and this supports

similar research by Simmons and Singleton (2000). There has been very

little similar research done for secondary school students and their GCSE

attainments. It is likely from my experience working with these dyslexic

students, that while reading comprehension may be the main problem for

most of these individuals, it is not the only one. It is possible that there is a

type of negatively synergistic effect from the various combinations of

difficulties experienced by these students.

77
2.8 Conclusions

It has been shown in the preceding sections of this thesis that there has

been a very large amount of research into many different aspects of

dyslexia, what is discussed here is only a very small part of what has been

done. Recent research has been working to produce a more holistic view of

dyslexia. Although there is still some contentious debate over the definition

of dyslexia and over the various names which have been put forward for

unexpected reading difficulties, an evaluation of all fields of research should

be seen to enrich the debate and not just confuse it. The medical model of

dyslexia could and should be incorporated into the psychological and

educational models to produce a comprehensive picture. It is recognised

that this may pose some difficulties as the different fields are very diverse:

from genetics to neurology to educational psychology. However, this

‘ecosystem’ of incorporated models would then generate a more complete

understanding of the complex interactions of the internal and the external

difficulties experienced by dyslexics. When these internal and external

difficulties are better understood, then the complex physio-psycho-socio-

educational problems can be addressed after a full assessment involving all

these aspects and appropriate, comprehensive and individual intervention

can be instigated. For everyone working in this field, the ultimate goal is to

produce solutions for the dyslexic students, and research has shown that

the younger the child is when the dyslexia is identified and remediated, the

78
better (Hartas, 2008; Reid, Deponio, & Davidson Petch, 2005; Reschly,

2005; Schatschneider & Torgesen, 2004).

Although schools may be able to provide access arrangements and

educational intervention for dyslexic students to improve their academic

outcomes, it would be better if these difficulties were remediated before the

child starts school and starts to fail. Perhaps one day in the not too distant

future we will indeed have the scenario put forward by Nicholson (2001 p29)

in his futuristic portrayal of the identification and remediation of dyslexia in a

young child. His description of the integrated medical and educational

approach is enlightening and something to aspire to. We might also hope

that we have an equally enlightened method of ensuring that all children can

have the external influences on their education and their dyslexia so easily

remediated.

2.9 Research Questions

This thesis will examine the effects of the previously discussed difficulties

and influences on the dyslexic secondary school student’s GCSE outcomes.

It will explore if these literacy and other difficulties lead to underachievement

at GCSE level of the dyslexic students through the medium of a case study

of an average comprehensive school. The school in question is of average

size, average SES intake and average attainment and so provides an

79
exemplar that may be more widely generalised to cover the many similar

comprehensive schools in the UK. The questions posed are those which, if

answered, can be addressed within the school as part of the teaching

policy.

 Does dyslexia affect the GCSE attainments of the dyslexic students

compared to their non-dyslexic peers?

 Does the extent to which a student is dyslexic, as measured by the

degree of discrepancy between their performance and attainment,

affect their outcomes?

 Is there a gender difference in GCSE outcomes for dyslexic students

compared to non-dyslexic students?

 What tests can be used to indicate a dyslexic student’s potential in

order to ascertain if they are failing to reach this potential?

80
Chapter 3 Methods

3.1 Participants

Data used for this study was from 102 participants from one school. Half of

the participants were the dyslexic students and the non-dyslexic participants

were matched on three criteria.

The School

The school where this study was carried out is an average mainstream,

comprehensive and inclusive school in central England. It is a moderately

sized school with about 1650 students. Many of the buildings are very old

and in very poor repair, a fact about which the students regularly complain,

leading to little pride in the fabric of the school, evidenced by the frequent

low and high level vandalism which takes place. A large percentage of the

student intake is from a nearby, large, low SES, council estate.

Approximately 15% of the students are eligible for free school meals which

is comparable with the national secondary school average.

Identification of dyslexic students

All of the dyslexic students in this study were known to me and have been

taught by me. They have all been identified as dyslexic by a qualified

dyslexia specialist teacher, holding the Oxford Dyslexia Foundation; Oxford

81
Certificate in SpLD accredited by Middlesex University, and employed by

the school for that purpose.

All students in the school have a reading assessment, carried out by

teaching assistants using the Salford revised reading test (Bookbinder,

Vincent, & Crumpler, 2002), during the first week of entry. Students who

have a reading age of three years below their chronological age are

screened for potential dyslexia by me, using the Lucid Assessment for

Secondary Schools computer software (LASS) (Lucid Research, 1999).

Also, students who had a Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT) (Thorndike, Hagen,

& France, 1986) verbal module result of two or more stanine below their

non-verbal module result were also assessed by me using the LASS

software. Individual students were also referred by class teachers

throughout the year and all new student who enrolled during the school year

were assessed on entry. The results of the LASS tests were used to

identify students who were potentially dyslexic. These students were then

referred to the specialist teacher for more formal assessment and

identification.

Identification of dyslexia by the specialist teacher was done on the basis of

a discrepancy between either verbal or non-verbal intelligence and expected

and attained reading or spelling ability. It is recognised that the discrepancy

model is not universally accepted amongst the educational psychology

82
community for various reasons (Lindsay, 2001; Meyer, 2000; Siegel, 2003).

These include “poor validity, specificity, and sensitivity” (Cotton, Crewther, &

Crewther, 2005) but, as this is the method required by the different

examination boards (AQA, OCR and Edexcel) (Backhouse, et al., 2004;

QCA, 2005a, 2005b), this was the method that was used to identify the

students and therefore this was the data which was available for use in this

study. Reid and Wearmouth (2002) term this ‘formal diagnosis’ for

formal/legal purposes as opposed to ‘support diagnosis’ for personal

development/treatment purposes.

As the assessments of different students were done over a period of time

and some tests changed when either new or updated tests have been

introduced, or when better tests were found, students in this study may

therefore have been assessed using different tests. All the dyslexic

participants are native English speakers as it was felt that, in the school,

there were not the resources to distinguish between dyslexic poor literacy

skills and poor literacy skills due to English being a second, or third,

language as was sometimes the case. This does not imply that there were

no bilingual dyslexics in the school, in fact several Asian heritage students

were suspected by this author to be dyslexic, only that the assessment

practices were not, as was hoped by Cline and Frederickson (1999),

available in the school.

83
The students were all aged between 11 and 16 when assessed, apart from

the KS2 SAT tests.

Selection of comparison students

The non-dyslexic comparison students were matched on a range of criteria;

age, (the same year group); non-verbal cognitive ability, using CAT NV

scores; gender and ethnicity.

In the choice of control comparison or non-dyslexic participants, the option

of either using the entire year cohort for each of the dyslexic cohorts in the

study, or using matched pairs was considered. The latter was decided for

several reasons:

 To compare the dyslexic students only with others of similar ability,

between whom the only difference is that they are not dyslexic.

 There was less likelihood of introducing other confounding factors

such as significantly different numbers of males and females, a wider

range of abilities or a different balance of ethnic groups.

 There would be a more direct comparison with students of similar

level of intelligence.

 The dataset would be more manageable. There are 102 cases in the

study, whereas if the entire cohort year groups were used, the

dataset would have over 1200 cases.

84
Comparison participants were matched with each dyslexic subject firstly

using the Cognitive Abilities Tests (CAT) non-verbal test results. It is an

area of debate (Beech & Singleton, 1997 p3) “that the correlation with

reading is less for full-scale IQ than for verbal IQ”. In this study it has been

assumed that the non-verbal CAT test results would be less impacted by the

student’s dyslexia than would the verbal test, this difference is something

which has been noticed over the years by this researcher, during the

collation of information about the dyslexic students. Further, because

several of the dyslexic students showed evidence of dyscalculia, the

quantitative module was not used. These assumptions are tested using the

dataset and the results are given in the results section of this thesis. The

dyslexic subjects generally had a lower verbal test result than non-verbal

result so each comparison participant was chosen firstly on the basis of

having the same non-verbal CAT test result and having a similar or higher

verbal result and quantitative result. For example, for non-verbal,

quantitative and verbal tests the dyslexic subject may have the results, in

stanine, of 5, 5, 3; the comparison participant would be selected by having

5, 5, 5, the verbal module not being lower than the other two tests to reduce

the chance that the comparison participant had any cognitive difficulties.

Occasionally, a result such as 5, 6, 5 had to be used, especially where there

were several dyslexic students in the cohort with the same non-verbal score

and there were not sufficient matched scoring controls.

85
The next criterion was that the comparison and test participants should,

where possible, be of the same gender. In a few cases this was not

possible when there was no student of the same gender with a matching

result.

The third criterion was that the comparison participant should be of the

same ethnic group as the test subject. This was possible in most cases,

with only two exceptions. In one, the only possible comparison student with

a comparable result on the CAT tests was of Pakistani heritage, but it was

ascertained that this student came from a household where English was the

common spoken language. In the second case, the dyslexic student was of

black Caribbean heritage and a similar control did not exist, so a white

British comparison was used instead.

The dataset (N=102) comprises a total of 51 dyslexic participants and 51

comparison participants. Of the dyslexic students, 33 are male and 18 are

female.

3.2 Data Collection Measures

The data used in this study were taken from several different databases in

the school where the study was carried out. The results are from four

school cohorts, which started secondary school over the period 1999 – 2002

86
and whose students completed their compulsory education 2004 – 2007.

These databases are stored within the school’s network and access to them

is available to all members of staff. However, the General Certificate of

Secondary Education (GCSE) results data are stored separately and had to

be obtained from the school examinations officer.

Several difficulties arose with archive data, which, due to the Data

Protection Act, were not stored on the network. When a student leaves the

school after age 16, the various data for that student are withdrawn from the

databases accessible to teaching staff. This occasionally affected the

choice of control participants, as it meant that sometimes data could only be

sourced for the control participants if they were still attending school in the

sixth form. The data manager was on long term leave of absence and no

one else was able to access the data. Much of the data was located in

widely scattered locations

These data were used by the school to measure the students’ progress

through their secondary education. They exist in the form of key stage 2

Standard Assessments Tests (SATs) results, key stage 3 SATs results,

Cognitive Abilities Tests (CATs) results, Target Minimum Grades (TMGs) for

each year, national curriculum Working At Grades (WAGs) for each year,

and in national qualifications examination outcomes such as GCSEs,

National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) and the new Business and

87
Technical Education Council National exams (BTECH National). In

addition, collections were used of less formal data accumulated within the

school such as reading levels and spelling levels.

Strand (2006) provides data of the correlations and inter-connectedness of

the results between different tests that might be expected from a normal

sample. These data are used here to illustrate the validity of the

comparison between the different tests used in this study.

The SATs tests are completed at the end of key stage 2, in May of year 6,

by 10-11 year old primary school students (QCA, 2005a), and in secondary

school at the end of key stage 3 in year 9 by 13-14 year olds (QCA, 2005b).

They comprise an assessment of the three core subjects: English, which

covers reading, writing, handwriting and spelling; maths which has three

papers, one which allows the use of calculators, one which does not, and a

mental maths paper; and science. Scores for each are given in the form of

national curriculum (NC) grades which range from 2-6 for key stage 2, with

4 being the expected attainment grade, and from 2-8 for key stage 3

students, with 5-6 being the expected attainment grade. There is typically a

high correlation between KS2 SAT results and KS3 SAT results (Strand,

2006) with a correlation of 0.81 between KS2 average point score and KS3

average point score in his study. There is also typically a correlation

between KS2 SAT average points score results and GCSE outcomes

88
(Strand, 2006), with a correlation of 0.70 for KS2 average points score and

‘Best 8’ GCSE results. This will be investigated in this study to see if it holds

true for dyslexic students.

Cognitive Abilities Tests (CATs) are a battery of tests designed to assess

the reasoning abilities of students aged 7:06 – 15:09. They comprise a

series of 10 subtests comprising three measures of reasoning ability,

namely a non-verbal reasoning test, a quantitative reasoning test and a

verbal reasoning test. The CAT tests, completed by the students at the

beginning of year 7 aged 11-12, are the NFER-Nelson CAT2E test, level D.

and are designed to “assess a cluster of the cognitive variables that

research has consistently shown to have significant positive correlations

with a wide range of important societal and educational criteria” (Smith,

Fernandes, & Strand, 2001). Strand (2006) shows that there is a high inter-

correlation between all three CAT tests and KS2 and KS3 SAT results with

a correlation of 0.84 between the mean CAT score and the KS3 SAT

average point score and a correlation of 0.82 between mean CAT score and

KS2 SAT average point score and, as is shown above, there is a correlation

between KS3 SAT average point score and KS2 SAT average point score of

0.81. There is a slightly higher correlation between CAT tests results and

GCSE results than there is between KS2 SAT results and GCSE results.

The correlation for mean CAT score and ‘Best 8’ GCSE results is 0.72. This

89
would indicate that the CAT test results have high validity when used as

predictors of GCSE outcomes.

The CAT outcome measures are generally reported as standard scores with

an average score being 100 and a standard deviation of 15. However in

this case the scores are reported as stanine, as these were the scores used

by the school, with the average score being 5, although a total combined

score for all three tests is given as a standard score. As with the KS3 SAT

tests, there is a high correlation between CAT tests and GCSE outcomes

(Strand, 2006) and this will also be investigated in this study to see if it holds

true for dyslexic students.

Target Minimum Grades are the minimum expected attainment set for each

student, and are calculated on their KS2 SAT results and their CAT results.

There is little empirical evidence to compare the predictive validity of these

two tests, (Strand, 2006) and while there is some evidence that the SAT

results have been rising steadily for some years, the CAT results have

remained fairly constant (Massey, Green, Dexter, & Hamnett, 2003). Strand

(2006 p223) shows that a combination of KS2 SAT results and CAT results

“provide the most reliable basis for predicting future performance.” In this

school it is simply the higher of the two grades which is used as the

student’s target grade. These target grades are calculated as NC levels,

from 2-8 with sub levels of c-a within each numeric grade. In this study

90
these NC grades are converted to a points score using the Autumn Package

Decoder (DfES, 2002) in order to have numeric values to use in the

calculations.

GCSE public examinations are sat by students at the end of key stage 4, in

May and June of year 11 (age 15-16). Some students may sit a

combination of GCSE and other public examinations such as the NVQ and

BTEC National exams. The results for all of these are announced in August

each year and are in the form of an alphanumeric grade from A* - G. In

order to obtain a numeric total for analysis the GCSE grades were

converted using a similar approach to that used by the Universities and

Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) tariff system. The UCAS tariff system

uses a regular increase in points with grade. The similar system used here

for GCSE, increases in steps of 1, instead of steps of 10 as is used for the

AS levels, or 20, as for the A2 levels (Table 1). These scores were totalled

automatically in an Excel spreadsheet, used to collate all student scores

and tests, using a macro written for that purpose. This total score is used

as the overall final outcome score for all students.

91
 Table 1 ‘A’ and ‘AS’ level grades with corresponding UCAS tariff
scores, and GCSE grades with the corresponding numerical scores
used in this study.

‘A2’ UCAS ‘AS’ UCAS GCSE GCSE point

level tariff level tariff grade score used
grade score grade score in this study
A 120 A 60 A* 8
B 100 B 50 A 7
C 80 C 40 B 6
D 60 D 30 C 5
E 40 E 20 D 4
F 20 F 10 E 3
F 2
G 1
U 0

Added to this are the data collected over the past few years during

assessment of students for possible dyslexia. Students were screened

using the Lucid Assessment for Secondary Schools (LASS) software (Lucid

Research, 1999), which is a software package designed to assess literacy

capability in 11-16 year olds. It measures visual/spatial memory, auditory

sequential memory, phonological processing, nonword reading, single word

reading, reading comprehension, spelling and non-verbal reasoning through

different modules. Each of the LASS tests have been compared with

another comparable validation test (Table 2) and the results indicate that the

LASS tests correlate significantly with the validation measures (Horne,

2002).

92
 Table 2 LASS Secondary validity measure correlation coefficients
(from Horne 2002)

LASS test Validation test N r Significance

Sentence Reading NFER Sentence 71 0.75 p<0.001
Completion
Spelling BSTS 3 70 0.88 p<0.001
Reasoning MAT 71 0.52 p<0.001
Visual Memory WMS-III Spatial Span 70 0.37 p<0.01
(total)
Auditory Memory WISC-III Digit Span (total) 71 0.55 p<0.001
Non-word Reading PhAB Non-word Reading 69 0.43 p<0.001
Syllable PhAB Spoonerisms 70 0.45 p<0.001
Segmentation

In the school, it is the results of this screening test which determine whether

a student needs further assessment for dyslexia. The data from these

LASS assessments for visual memory, digit recall, nonword reading,

phonological processing (segmenting), contextual reading and spelling were

examined in this study, to determine whether the results from any of the

modules gave any indications regarding the student’s future

GCSE/NVQ/BTEC results. These data were in the form of z scores and

were converted to standard scores using the formula, (z-score x 15 +100) to

be the same as all other scores used.

All these datasets exist as Excel spreadsheets, which were then combined

to create the complete working dataset which was used. This dataset was

then imported into SPSS version 14 for the analysis. Individual exam

results can be identified within the dataset, allowing complete information

about the subjects studied by the participants.

93
3.3 Procedures

Lindsay (2001), states that “on the basis of the statistical properties of the

tests, discrepancies need to be substantial before they can be considered

significant”. Of the students identified with dyslexia chosen for inclusion in

this study, only those with a discrepancy of at least 1.5 SD between one of

the cognitive ability tests and either a reading score or a spelling score are

used. That is equal to a discrepancy in standard score points of at least 21.

In the literature, discrepancies of either 1 or 2 SD are commonly used. In

this study 1.5 SD is used to give a more substantial discrepancy margin

than a SD of 1, and an SD of 2 would have resulted in too small a sample.

Because of the problem of regression to the mean, where the retesting of

subjects, whose results are towards the extremes of both sides of the

normal distribution, will, on retesting, tend to obtain results closer to the

mean, this substantial discrepancy bracket should ensure that any retest

results should still be within the discrepant range. Although this discrepancy

bracket should help solve the problem of over-identification of higher

cognitive ability dyslexics (Francis, et al., 2005) it will not solve the problem

of under-identification of lower cognitive ability dyslexics. However, for this

study, under diagnosis of dyslexics is not an issue, because the study is not

about finding all dyslexics but is examining outcomes of students who have

been identified. It is recognised that this may mean that some dyslexics

with lower cognitive ability test results may be under represented in the

94
study, however some authors maintain that for research purposes, “one

would normally use a cut-off point of something like 90”, (Beech &

Singleton, 1997 p4).

Identification of dyslexia was not made on a single measurement of

cognitive ability, or on a single attainment test. No IQ measurement per se

was available. All the students in this study were assessed using one non-

verbal ability test (one of either, British Ability Scales Matrices (BAS) (Elliott,

1997), Ravens Progressive Matrices (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1977) or

Wide Range Intelligence Test (WRIT) Matrices (Glutting, Adams, &

Sheslow, 1999) and two verbal ability tests (one vocabulary and one

similarities). They were also assessed using two reading tests (one timed

and one untimed) and a spelling test, i.e. by a suite of tests required by the

examination boards (Backhouse, et al., 2004). Some dyslexics may be

diagnosed as reading discrepant dyslexics, i.e. with a discrepancy between

their cognitive ability test results and their reading test results, and others as

spelling discrepant dyslexics, with a discrepancy between their cognitive

ability test results and their spelling test results. By far the majority of the

participants in this study were those diagnosed as spelling discrepant

dyslexics or spelling and reading discrepant; there are no students who

were discrepant in reading but not spelling. The various tests used in the

assessment and identification of dyslexia by the specialist teacher are

shown in Table 3. The discrepancy was calculated using the difference

95
between either the verbal or the nonverbal cognitive ability score and either

the reading or the spelling score. If the discrepancy in either of these cases

was 1.5SD or more, then the student was identified as dyslexic. In order to

avoid over identification, several other steps were taken. A history of the

student’s medical background, whether school was missed through long

periods of illness, if the student suffered from any ear problems, or had any

history of speech and language difficulties were recorded. A history of the

student’s education and familial literacy difficulties were also recorded,

where known. A timed reading test (TOWRE – see Table 3) was used as

further indication of dyslexic reading difficulties.

96
 Table 3 The various assessment tests used by the dyslexia specialist
teacher for the assessment and identification of dyslexic students.

Name of test Assessing

WRAT3 Reading
BAS Reading
Wordchains Reading
Letterchains Reading
TOWRE Reading
Vernon Spelling
WRAT3 Spelling
BAS Similarities Verbal Cognitive Ability
BPVS Verbal Cognitive Ability
WRIT Vocabulary Verbal Cognitive Ability
WRIT Analogies Verbal Cognitive Ability
BAS Similarities Verbal Cognitive Ability
WRIT Matrices Non-Verbal Cognitive Ability
Ravens Progressive Matrices Non-Verbal Cognitive Ability
BAS Matrices Non-Verbal Cognitive Ability

Dyslexic students were placed in categories of ‘dyslexia level’ according to

the degree of discrepancy in their assessment results. This information was

used mainly to determine the severity of need in the school for purposes of

providing intervention and the bands are arbitrary but practical. The

information was used in this format in the dataset as it was felt that,

although individual test result scores are more precise, the bands were

more appropriate to the data especially with the possible day to day

97
variability of test results. The scores were therefore grouped into three

bands, (Table 4).

Table 4 Discrepancies in standard score points between

cognitive ability test result and reading or spelling test result and

related ‘dyslexia levels’.

Dyslexia Discrepancy (in standard Dyslexia Level

Level score points) (name)
1 Discrepancy 15-22 mild dyslexic
2 Discrepancy 23-30 moderate dyslexic
3 Discrepancy 31+ severe dyslexic

3.4 Analyses

Analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) v14 software. A printout of the full dataset used is given

in Appendix 4. The data were collected and compiled using Microsoft Excel

and were then imported into SPSS. A scatter plot of standardised residuals

was plotted to check for outliers. The dataset was examined using the

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality and the Levene’s test for equality of

variances. T-tests were used to investigate differences in scores between

groups and variables, and tests of the effect size of these differences were

measured using Cohens’ ‘d’, which was calculated using an online

98
calculator (Becker, 1999). Pearson’s Correlations were used to determine

similarities between the different variables. Where more than two

independent variables were being investigated analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was used, in this instance a two-way ANOVA. Bonferroni’s post

hoc test was used to explore the significance of the comparisons.

A simultaneous multiple regression was used to determine the ability of

several independent variables to predict the outcome of a dependant

variable. A hierarchical multiple regression was then used to further explore

the amount of unique contribution by certain variables which were selected

using a Pearson’s correlation and the simultaneous regression.

3.5 Case Studies

The research method of this study is a case study of the achievements of

dyslexic students in an average school in England. Within this case study

are the case studies of two individual students.

The case study method of gathering experiential data has it proponents and

its detractors. According to Cohen, Manion, & Morrison (2000 p183),

“case studies have several claimed strengths and weaknesses... Its

sympathy to the interpretive paradigm has rendered case study an

object of criticism, treating peculiarities rather than regularities.”

99
Burawoy (1991), contends that “the extended case method in social

research, deepens and enriches research in the social sciences”, whereas

Smith (1991 p375) states that case study research, “is the logically weakest

method of knowing.” Cohen, Manion, & Morrison (2000p 183) accuse this

stance of, “prejudice and ideology rather that critique, but signifies the

problem of respectability and legitimacy that case study has to conquer

amongst certain academics.” Stake (1978 p7) believes that,

“because of the universality and importance of experiential

understanding, and because of their compatibility with such

understanding, case studies can be expected to continue to have an

epistemological advantage over other inquiry methods as a basis for

naturalistic generalisation.”

Nisbet and Watt (1984) list some of the weakness of case study research.

These weaknesses are; that the results may not be generalised, that they

are not open to cross checking, and that they are open to observer bias.

While much information can be gathered and analysed to give an accurate

description of an event or situations, in complex systems, only in depth

knowledge of the system can allow an understanding of that system as a

whole. For example, in ecology it is necessary to know and understand in

some depth the system or habitat being studied, in order to assess whether

conclusions which are reached are likely to be sensible. Similarly, when

100
studying people, who are complex entities in a complex interacting system,

it is necessary to understand the role of the individual within their

environment. This then is the role of the case study.

Several researchers in the field have employed the use of case studies in

their research. Goulandris & Snowling (1991), base an entire hypothesis on

a single case study, as does Cooke (2002). Ramus et al (2003), employ a

case study of 16 participants and 16 controls to investigate the current

theories of dyslexia. In this study, case studies are used to look for other

factors not accounted for in the quantitative analysis, which might influence

the students’ outcomes.

Most of the research in this study is based on quantitative procedures.

However, it must not be forgotten that these ‘participants’ are young people

who are experiencing often extreme difficulty in their education. In order to

understand some of the difficulties which many of these young people are

going through, an idiographic approach using case studies was used to

identify difficulties actually experienced by identified dyslexic students, as

well as investigating predicted outcomes at school. In order to build up a

more complete picture of the difficulties that these students may have found

during their school education, case studies were carried out on two students

who represented different achievement at GCSE despite having similar

cognitive ability scores. These case study students are: a well

101
compensated dyslexic with poorer than expected GCSE outcomes and a

well compensated dyslexic with better than expected GCSE outcomes.

Students fitting these criteria were easy to choose from the numerical data.

and were chosen on the basis of being at home when telephoned to ask

them if they would participate in the study and with them agreeing to

participate. Several students who were asked declined to do so, and so

another was asked in their place. Both of the students who did participate

were keen to do so. It had been hoped that it might be possible to interview

a non-compensated dyslexic student but this proved impossible for two

reasons, there are very few diagnosed non-compensated dyslexics in the

study to ask and those whom I did ask were unwilling to be interviewed.

This is due, in a substantial part, to the fact that many potentially non-

compensated dyslexics at the school had significant behaviour issues and

were often not assessed by the school for dyslexia, often because the

students refused to co-operate with the assessment. In this study, there are

no non-compensated dyslexics who did well or achieved better than

expected GCSE outcomes.

The students and their parents were interviewed at home, having first

obtained the student’s agreement and consent from both the student and a

parent to take part in the study. The students and their parents were

assured of complete anonymity. The case study interviews were recorded

with an Olympus WS-300M digital voice recorder in case any information

102
was missed while writing down student and parent answers on a pre-

prepared sheet. The recordings were transcribed after the interview and a

copy of one of the transcripts is in Appendix 1. The sheets were not given

to the student or their parents but retained by myself as a prompt/recording

sheet. The prompt sheets are in Appendix 2.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

When working with potentially vulnerable young people and their parents,

great care had to be taken in order to ensure their well being. Ethical

approval for the study was sought from the University of Warwick, Institute

of Education; and approval for the study was obtained. In order to maintain

confidentiality and assure anonymity for the research subjects, all the

students’ names in the dataset have been anonymised by replacing them

with numbers. The names of the students interviewed for the case studies

are fictitious. The names of the school and the town have not been

revealed to further ensure complete confidentiality. Consent to use the data

was not sought from the individual students but permission for the use of the

data was obtained from the school principal.

During the case studies the possibility of the parents discovering that their

child had dyslexia was not an issue, as all parents were informed about the

finding at the time and a copy of the specialist’s report was sent home.

103
However it was possible that something might be said by either the student

or the parent which was not known by the other and which might have been

distressing. This was accepted as a minimal risk and if the occasion did

arise it was felt that the opportunity to give advice and remedy the situation

might even be beneficial. The students and the parents gave their fully

informed consent to the case study interview and signed a consent form.

All data will be stored securely at the end of the study, having been written

to cd and stored under lock and key. All data will be removed from laptop

computers and other portable devices.

104
Chapter 4 Results

4.1 The students

Results from 102 students were examined in this study: 51 of whom had

been diagnosed as dyslexic to some degree and categorised in groups 1-3

depending on the discrepancy level between their literacy scores and their

cognitive ability in standard score points; level 1 had a discrepancy of 15-22,

level 2 had a discrepancy of 23-30 and level 3 had a discrepancy of 31+.

They were paired with 51 non-dyslexic comparisons. There were 24

students at dyslexia level 1, 19 at level 2 and 8 at level 3. The comparison

group were matched on the basis of identical CAT non-verbal scores for the

two groups, as described in Methods. Of the dyslexic students, the mean

non-verbal cognitive ability score, in standard scores was 110.5, SD 10.06,

(range 83 to 133).

The gender makeup of the dyslexic group was unequal; 18 of the dyslexic

students were female and 33 were male. This is significantly different from

an expected even ratio (χ2 = 4.41, p=.035).

105
4.2 Data structure and normality

There are 13 sets of data (eg SATs, CATs etc) for both dyslexic and non-

dyslexic students. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for normality of each series

showed that 11 of the 26 series were not normally distributed and 15 were

normal (Table 5).

106
Table 5 Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of the data for the comparison and dyslexic groups.

SAT SAT SAT KS2 SAT SAT SAT KS3 CAT CAT CAT GCSE CATs
Dyslexic KS2 KS2 KS2 Av Pt KS3 KS3 KS3 Av Pt N-V Q V NUM Triple
Eng Ma Sci Score En Ma Sci Score TOT SAS

N 49 49 49 45 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
No
K-S Z 1.91 2.21 2.80 .906 1.76 1.23 1.54 .682 1.13 1.53 1.19 .690 .577

Sig. .001 .000 .000 .384 .004 .097 .017 .741 .153 .019 .116 .728 .893

N 49 50 51 47 48 51 49 51 51 51 51 51 51
Yes
K-S Z 2.14 2.15 2.57 .912 1.99 1.11 1.58 .825 1.13 1.13 1.13 .620 .482

Sig. .000 .000 .000 .376 .001 .169 .014 .504 .153 .155 .158 .837 .974

107
Levene’s test for equality of variances shows that for all results except one,

SAT KS2 Maths, the ‘F’ value is non significant (Table 6).

Table 6 Results for Levene’s test for equality of variances. * indicates

that SAT KS2 Math equal variance not assumed.

Test F Sig.
SAT KS2 Eng Equal variances assumed .710 .401
SAT KS2 Math Equal variances not assumed 8.538 .004*
SAT KS2 Science Equal variances assumed .215 .644
SAT KS2 Pt Av Equal variances assumed .174 .678
SAT KS3 En Equal variances assumed 3.859 .052
SAT KS3 Ma Equal variances assumed .210 .648
SAT KS3 Science Equal variances assumed .728 .396
SAT KS3 Pt Av Equal variances assumed .914 .341
CAT non-verbal Equal variances assumed .000 1.000
CAT quantitative Equal variances assumed .020 .887
CAT verbal Equal variances assumed 3.197 .077
CATs Triple SAS Equal variances assumed .001 .971
GCSE Num Total Equal variances assumed 1.342 .249

Because of the number of cases in the study, the proportion of series with

normal distributions and the number with equal variances, it was considered

appropriate to use parametric tests for the analysis of these data.

4.3 Gross differences between dyslexic and non-dyslexic students

Independent samples t-tests were used to determine whether differences

occurred between dyslexic and non-dyslexic students for each data type,

namely KS2 SAT, KS3 SAT, CAT and GCSE data, appropriate t-values

108
were selected on the basis of Levine’s test. Significant differences (two-

tailed) between the dyslexic group and the non-dyslexic comparison group

occur for all test results except SAT KS2 Science results (Table 7). (NB.

There is also no difference between the CAT non-verbal scores, because

that is the criterion upon which the two groups were paired.)

Table 7 Comparison of mean scores (SDs) for the dyslexic and

comparison groups

Test Mean score SD Mean SD t-test Sig

comparison score t p
group dyslexic
group
KS2 SAT English 4.31 .65 3.49 .71 -5.93 <.0005
KS2 SAT Maths 4.00 .61 3.62 .73 -2.82 .006
KS2 SAT Science 4.31 .51 4.12 .62 -1.66 NS
KS3 SAT English 5.30 .74 4.56 .94 -4.31 <.0005
KS3 SAT Maths 5.92 1.21 5.16 1.29 -3.07 .003
KS3 SAT Science 5.49 .90 4.96 1.06 -2.69 .008
CAT Verbal 5.51 1.45 4.16 1.92 -4.02 <.0005
CAT Quantitative 5.45 1.47 4.41 1.53 -3.499 .001
CAT Non-Verbal 5.39 1.59 5.39 1.59 0 NS
CAT Triple 103.20 10.59 97.24 10.76 -2.821 .006
GCSE Num Tot 49.97 16.48 38.63 18.91 -3.229 .002
Note: using the ‘t’ value for unequal variances where applicable.

Although the differences between the two groups for all but the KS2 SAT

science results are significant, the highest values of ‘t’ are seen for KS2

English, KS3 English, and CAT verbal, in other words the differences are

greater with the most literacy dependant subjects.

109
A further finding from Table 7 is that in every case, the dyslexics’ scores

show greater variability in the form of consistently higher standard

deviations than that of their comparison groups.

This is further illustrated using the test of effect size measure, Cohen’s ‘d’.

The result, ‘d’, presents differences between the groups in terms of standard

deviation units and are classed as small (.2), medium (.5) or large (.8)

effects and show the percentage of non-overlap of the scores of the two

groups.

Table 8 Results of effects size measures on differences between

mean score for dyslexic and non-dyslexic groups.

Subject Cohen’s d Effect size Percentage

non-overlap
KS2 SAT English 1.20 Large 35
KS2 SAT Maths 0.57 Medium 19
KS2 SAT Science 0.33 Small 10
KS3 SAT English 0.87 Large 27
KS3 SAT Maths 0.61 Medium 20
KS3 SAT Science 0.54 Medium 17
CAT Verbal 0.79 Large 30
CAT Quantitative 0.69 Medium 23
CAT Non-Verbal - - -
GCSE Num Tot 0.64 Medium 22

The large effect size shown for KS2 English, KS3 English and CAT verbal

and the medium effect size for the other subjects, except KS2 science

110
(Table 8), confirms that the greatest difference between the dyslexic and

non-dyslexic groups is shown in the three most literacy dependant subjects.

A paired samples t-test was conducted to examine possible differences in

the results between the three different CAT sub tests. This was done

separately for the dyslexic group and the non-dyslexic comparison group.

T-test results show non-significant differences in means for the non-

dyslexic comparison group (Table 9).

Table 9 T-values for differences between CAT scores for non-dyslexic

students.

CAT verbal CAT quantitative

CAT non-verbal 0.973 0.830

CAT verbal 0.453

(* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001)

In contrast, for the dyslexic group, there is a significant difference between

the CAT non-verbal scores and the CAT verbal scores (t=5.073, p<0.001,

d=0.70) and between the CAT non-verbal and the CAT quantitative scores

(t=5.501, p<0.001, d=0.63) (Table 10); both of these have a medium effect

size. There is no statistical difference between the CAT verbal and CAT

quantitative scores.

111
 Table 10 T-values for differences between CAT scores for dyslexic
students.

CAT verbal CAT quantitative

CAT non-verbal 5.073*** 5.501***

CAT verbal 1.207

(* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001)

This indicates that the dyslexic students are underperforming in both the

verbal and quantitative subtests compared to the non-verbal subtest. This

is not the situation with the non-dyslexic comparison group.

4.4 Differences within CAT subtests

Within the study school, screening of students’ CAT data indicated that

there were frequently greater difference between the CAT non-verbal score

and the verbal score for the dyslexic students than existed for the non-

dyslexic students. This is indicated in Tables 9 and 10.

To examine this further, for each student in the dyslexic group and for each

in the non-dyslexic group, the verbal score was subtracted from the non-

verbal score and this score difference was analysed. This was repeated for

the quantitative score compared with the non-verbal score.

112
Analysis of the score differences for the dyslexic group and the non-dyslexic

group show differences in the relationship between the non-verbal subtest

and both the verbal and quantitative subtests. The difference between the

mean non-verbal subtest and the mean verbal subtest scores for the

dyslexic and the non-dyslexic students is shown in Table 11. A paired

samples t-test of the means shows that these are very significantly different

with a large effect size (t=-4.98, p< 0.001, d=-0.99). The median and the

mode of the differences in the scores are also different for the two groups.

Table 11 The mean, median and mode of the differences in CAT non-

verbal and verbal subtest scores for the dyslexic and non-dyslexic

groups.

CAT non-verbal and CAT verbal

Mean Difference Median Mode

Non-dyslexic group -0.118 0 0

Dyslexic group 1.235 1 1

Note: the scores are in stannines.

The same pattern of differences is seen for the two groups between the

CAT non-verbal and quantitative subtests (Table 12). A paired samples t-

test of the differences in the means again shows the results to be very

significant with a large effect size (t= -5.418, p<0.0005, d = -1.07).

113
 Table 12 The mean, median and mode of the differences in CAT non-

verbal and quantitative subtest scores for the dyslexic and non-

dyslexic groups.

CAT non-verbal and CAT quantitative

Mean Difference Median Mode

Non-dyslexic group -0.059 0 0

Dyslexic group 0.980 1 2

Note: the scores are in stannines.

For the majority of the non-dyslexic students, the stanine scores for the

three subtests are the same. However, for the dyslexic group the majority

of students have a difference of one stanine between the non-verbal subtest

result and the verbal subtest result and a difference of two stanines between

the non-verbal subtest and the quantitative.

4.5 Differences within dyslexic levels

For the dyslexic group alone, examining the effect of level of dyslexia, of

greatest interest is the fact that there is no statistically significant correlation

between dyslexia level and any of the test results (Appendix 3). There is

also no correlation between dyslexia level and either of the two non-verbal

114
cognitive ability scores: that as administered in the dyslexia assessment

(r=0.191, p=.180) and the CAT non-verbal test results (r=0.090, p=.528).

For the dyslexic group alone, non-verbal cognitive ability is correlated highly

with all other test results, namely KS2 SATs English (r=0.452, p=.001),

maths (r=0.437, p=.002) and science (r=0.387, p=.005), with KS3 SATs

English (r=0.529, p<001), maths (r=0.622, p<.001) and science (r=0.591,

p<.001), CAT non-verbal (r=0.650, p<.001), CAT quantitative (r=0.655,

p<.001), and CAT verbal (r=0.531, p<.001) and GCSE total (r=0.476,

p<.001). This result for dyslexics alone is also consistent with the national

findings for all students (Strand, 2004, 2006).

The three dyslexia levels were then examined separately. The results for

each dyslexia level were correlated with the 14 different test results (non-

verbal IQ score, SAT KS2 Eng, SAT KS2 maths, SAT KS2 science, SAT

KS2 average point score, SAT KS3 Eng, SAT KS3 maths, SAT KS3

science, SAT KS3 average point score, CAT non-verbal, CAT quantitative,

CAT verbal, CAT triple and GCSE total points score). For the non-dyslexic

comparison group, which was dyslexia level 0, 100% of the correlation

coefficients were significant at p<.001 and for the entire dyslexic group it

was the same with 100% significant correlations. However, for the level 1

dyslexic group alone, only 77% of the coefficients were significant at

p<0.05. For the level 2 dyslexic group, 72% were significant and for the

115
level 3 dyslexic group 76% were significant (Figure 4). It is likely that the 20

- 30% of variables which do not correlate significantly are different for each

group as there is 100% significant correlation for the combined dyslexic

groups

100

80
Percent of total

60

40

20

0
Not All Dyslexia Dyslexia Dyslexia
Dyslexic Dyslexia level 1 level 2 level
levels

Figure 4 Histogram showing the relative percentage of significant

correlations, by dyslexia level, for all the variables.

The main point is that there is a similarity of results for the different dyslexia

levels in percent of significant between subject correlations and a difference

between the three dyslexia levels and the non-dyslexic group.

4.6 Gender differences

There were gender differences for literacy based subjects, namely KS2

English, KS3 English and CAT verbal (Table 13) where girls had

116
consistently higher scores than boys. There was no gender difference for

any of the other variables. For KS2 English results, there were non-

significant gender differences for both the dyslexic and non-dyslexic groups,

at the p<0.1 level (p=0.081 and p=0.059 respectively), with girls achieving

higher scores than boys; showing a trend towards a gender difference. At

KS3 English the gender difference is strongly significant for both dyslexics

(p=0.006) and non-dyslexics (p=0.007), again with girls achieving higher

scores.

For CAT verbal results there are significant gender differences for the

dyslexic group (p=.006), with females scoring higher, but not for the non-

dyslexic comparison group (p=.471). This pattern is the same with GCSE

total scores where the difference between the dyslexic group males and

females is significant (p=.028) while in the non-dyslexic group there is again

no significant difference (p=.335).

117
 Table 13 Difference between male and female results for dyslexic

and non-dyslexic students in SAT and CAT tests.

Dyslexic
Subject Mean Female Mean Male t-value Sig
score Score (2 tailed)
KS2 English 3.72 3.35 -1.784 .081
KS2 Maths 3.72 3.56 -0.744 .461
KS2 Science 4.22 4.06 -0.886 .380
KS3 English 5.06 4.29 -2.906 .006**
KS3 Maths 5.33 5.06 -0.720 .475
KS3 Science 5.11 4.87 -0.761 .450
CAT Verbal 4.89 3.76 -2.074 .043*
CAT Non-verbal 5.44 5.36 -0.172 .864
CAT Quantitative 4.28 4.48 0.460 .648
GCSE Total pt score 46.417 34.379 -2.260 .028*
Non-Dyslexic
KS2 English 4.50 4.15 -1.931 .059
KS2 Maths 3.94 4.04 -0.465 .644
KS2 Science 4.36 4.26 0.711 .481
KS3 English 5.58 5.04 -2.793 .007**
KS3 Maths 6.00 5.88 0.331 .742
KS3 Science 5.64 5.37 1.012 .317
CAT Verbal 5.67 5.37 -0.726 .471
CAT Non-verbal 5.36 5.37 -0.015 .988
CAT Quantitative 5.50 5.41 0.217 .829
GCSE Total pt score 52.354 47.852 -0.973 .335

118
Tests of language skills are the only ones to show this gender difference,

maths and science do not. There is also a gender difference in the dyslexic

group for GCSE total point score, but it is not within the sphere of this study

to investigate if it is any particular subjects in which the dyslexic students

are underachieving or if it is due to overall lower grades being achieved.

A two-way between-groups analysis of variance was performed to analyse

the impact of gender and dyslexia level on the GCSE total point score. The

interaction between dyslexia level and gender was not statistically

significant F (2, 51) = 0.924, p=0.404 but there was a statistically significant

main effect for gender F (1, 51) = 5.467, p=0.024, and the effect size was

moderate, with a partial eta squared of 0.108.

A graph of these results shows the difference in GCSE total point score for

males and females with dyslexia level (Figure 5). The pattern for males

mirrors that of females for dyslexia levels 1 and 2 albeit at a lower score but

dyslexia level 3 dyslexic group show a marked divergence between males

and females.

119
 Estimated Marginal Means of GCSE NUM TOT

60.0
Gender
Female
Male
55.0
Estimated Marginal Means

50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

1 2 3

Dyslexia level

Figure 5 Mean GCSE results for the three dyslexia levels for males

and females.

4.7 Changes with time

Progress over time for the two groups of students can be plotted for all three

SATs subjects: English, maths and science. The mean scores for the three

SAT tests for each group, for both KS2 and KS3 (Table 14), were used to

plot the different rates of progress of each group.

120
 Table 14 Mean KS2 and KS3 SAT scores for the dyslexic group and

the comparison group.

Dyslexic Comparison t Sig

group group p
KS2 English 3.49 4.31 -5.925 .000
KS2 maths 3.62 4.00 -2.819 .006
KS2 science 4.12 4.31 -1.663 NS
KS3 English 4.56 5.30 -4.305 .000
KS3 maths 5.16 5.92 -3.072 .003
KS3 science 4.96 5.49 -2.692 .008

A t-test shows that the differences between the dyslexic group and the non-

dyslexic comparison group for the different SAT subjects at KS2 and KS3

are all significant with the exception only of KS2 science (Table 14).

121
For English, the dyslexic students progress at a similar rate to the non-

dyslexic comparison group, albeit at a lower overall level, from KS2 to KS3

(Figure 6). The difference between the means of the two groups is 0.82 at

KS2 and this gap narrows to 0.74 at KS3.

5.5

5
Comparison
NC levels

4.5
group

4 Dyslexic group

3.5

3
1 2
KS2 KS3

Figure 6. Comparison of English results for the dyslexic and non-

dyslexic groups of students at KS2 and KS3.

122
With maths, the dyslexic group and the comparison group start more evenly

matched, but the dyslexic group progress at a slower rate than the

comparison group (Figure 7), so that divergence occurs. The difference

between the means of the two groups is 0.38 at KS2, but has doubled to

0.76 at KS3.

6.5
6
5.5
Comparison
NC levels

5 group
4.5 Dyslexic group
4
3.5
3
1 2
KS2 KS3

Figure 7 Comparison of maths results for the dyslexic group and non-

dyslexic group of students at KS2 and KS3.

123
The science results show an even greater divergence with time. There is an

even smaller difference between the groups at KS2, but this nearly triples at

KS3, diverging from 0.19 to 0.53 (Figure 8).

5.5

5 Comparison
NC levels

group
4.5
Dyslexic group
4

3.5
3
1 2
KS2 KS3

Figure 8 Comparison of science results for the dyslexic group and

non-dyslexic group of students at KS2 and KS3.

The test results for the dyslexic group appear to be diverging further from

the comparison group on both the maths and science over time. With

English results, however, the difference between the two groups decreased

marginally.

It was seen before in Table 7 that there are significant differences between

the dyslexic group and non-dyslexic group for English and maths at KS2

124
and KS3 and for science at KS3 but not at KS2. An independent samples t-

test was done to determine whether the gains that the students made

between KS2 and KS3 were statistically different for the dyslexic group and

the non-dyslexic group.

Table 15 T-test results of difference in gains made between KS2 and

KS3 SAT subjects for the dyslexic and non-dyslexic groups

SAT subject t

English 1.04
Maths -2.06*
Science -2.29*

The difference in gains for English between the two groups is not

statistically significant (Table 15), (t=1.04, p=0.15, d=0.22), and this is

different from the findings of other studies where it has been found that SEN

students results continue to diverge from that of typical students, for

example Dockrell, Lindsay, Palikara & Cullen (2007). This may mean that

dyslexic students’ results differ from those with other types of SEN.

For maths (t=-2.06, p=0.021, d=0.42) and science (t=-2.29, p=0.012,

d=0.46) the difference in gains is statistically significant and the effect size is

small verging on medium.

125
4.8 GCSE final outcomes

The important results from the student’s perspective are their GCSE results.

The GCSE total points scores for dyslexic students ranges from 0 to 86 with

a mean of 38.63 (SD 18.91) and the range for non-dyslexic students is 0 to

85 with a mean of 49.97 (SD 16.48). Although the ranges of each are

almost identical, the mean scores are significantly different (t=-3.229,

p=0.002) (Figure 9). The Cohen’s ‘d’ statistic of 0.64 indicates a moderate

effect size.

60
Average GCSE number total

50

40

30

20

10

0
Non Dyslexic Dyslexic

Figure 9 Difference between GCSE total point score for the dyslexic

group and the non-dyslexic comparison group. Bars are error bars.

The differences in GCSE achievement within the three different dyslexia

levels were examined (Table 16). Unsurprisingly the non-dyslexics (level 0)

126
had the greatest mean GCSE total. However, the achievement in GCSE

total point score within the three dyslexia levels shows no progressive

deterioration in performance, rather the reverse. Unexpectedly, the dyslexia

level 1 group have a much lower GCSE score than do the dyslexia levels 2

and 3 students. This may be partly explained by the fact that they also have

a slightly lower non-verbal CAT score, other reasons for this are put forward

in the Discussion. This suggests again that the degree of dyslexia is not

important in determining GCSE outcome, rather it is the fact of being

dyslexic or not dyslexic that is important.

Table 16 Differences in GCSE achievement with the different dyslexia

levels.

Dyslexia Min GCSE Max GCSE Mean GCSE Mean CAT

level number number number Non-verbal
total total total score
Level 0 0 85 50.0 5.39
Level 1 0 75 32.7 5.21
Level 2 11 67 43.7 5.58
Level 3 15 86 44.4 5.50
All dyslexics 0 86 38.6 5.39
Note: CAT Non-verbal score in stannines

A two tailed t-test showed that the GCSE total point score for the entire

dyslexic group was significantly different from that of the non-dyslexic group

(t=2.23, p=0.002). The different levels of dyslexia were examined using a

one way ANOVA , which shows an overall difference within the different

dyslexia levels in this data set.

127
The between groups ANOVA was significant: F (3, 101) = 5.34, p=0.002,

showing that within the data there is at least one variable which is

significantly different. Using Bonferroni’s post hoc test (Table 17) the

significant difference is seen to be between the non dyslexic group (level 0)

and the dyslexic level 1 group. There were no significant differences

between any of the other pairs. The dyslexia level one group is the least

dyslexic group and at first sight this appears counterintuitive. However one

reason is possibly in the different nature of the GCSEs taken by the different

dyslexic groups, and this important point is returned to later in the section on

scores obtained with media studies GCSE.

Table 17 Results of Bonferroni’s post hoc test showing the

significance of the between groups relationships in GCSE outcomes.

Dyslexia Dyslexia Mean Std.

level level Difference Error Sig.
0 1 17.28(*) 4.32 .001
2 6.26 4.69 1.000
3 5.60 6.64 1.000
1 0 -17.28(*) 4.32 .001
2 -11.02 5.36 .254
3 -11.69 7.13 .625
2 0 -6.26 4.69 1.000
1 11.02 5.36 .254
3 -0.67 7.36 1.000
3 0 -5.60 6.64 1.000
1 11.69 7.13 .625
2 0.67 7.36 1.000

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

128
4.9 Influences of media studies on GCSE results

The 2002 cohort in this dataset consists of 36 students, 15 of whom were

given the opportunity of taking media studies as a GCSE option instead of

English. The school assigned students to take this GCSE when the

student’s target grade for GCSE English was a grade D or below. Of the 15

students in this study who took the media studies GCSE, 10 were dyslexic

and 5 were not dyslexic. It was noticed while entering the data that those

students taking media studies frequently obtained very much higher grades

for this subject than for their other subjects. Of the 36 students in this

cohort, 15 did media studies and 21 did not. Further, media studies is a

quadruple GCSE, so potential consequences to this study of taking this

subject were explored further.

Firstly, a paired samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the difference that

the inclusion of this GCSE course might have on the overall outcomes of

those students’ that took media studies. The average grade achieved by

each of the students who took media studies was calculated using the

GCSE grade numerical equivalents shown in Table 1 (e.g. A* =8, A=7, B=6

etc). The average grade achieved for those students who took media

studies was statistically significantly higher (M=5.9, SD=1.2) than for the

average grade of all their other subjects calculated minus media studies

129
(M=3.6, SD=0.72), t (14) = 9.02, p<0.0005 (two-tailed). The Cohen’s ‘d’

statistic of 2.36 indicates that this is a very large effect size.

Comparing the results for the students in this cohort who did media studies

with those who did not do media studies, average grades are statistically

significantly higher for the group who sat media studies (M=5.9, SD=1.2)

than those who did not (M=4.23, SD=1.34), t (48) = 4.16, p<0.0005 (two-

tailed). The Cohen’s ‘d’ statistic of 1.31 indicates that this is again a very

large effect size.

Finally, for the students who sat media studies, their mean scores for all

subjects other than media studies, excepting English which these students

did not sit (M=3.57, SD= 0.72) were compared with the mean scores for

their cohort who did not take media studies (M=4.72, SD=1.49). Scores for

all other subjects for those who sat media studies were significantly lower

than the group which did not do media studies, t (33) = -2.77, p= 0.009 (two-

tailed). The Cohen’s ‘d’ statistic of 0.98 indicates that this is again a large

effect size.

Comparing now the mean GCSE grade obtained by the dyslexic group with

the non-dyslexic group, again using the data only from this 2002 cohort,

there is no statistical difference in GCSE average grade between the

130
dyslexic group (M=4.22, SD=0.98) and the non-dyslexic group (M=4.49,

SD=0.7), t (13) = -0.63, p=ns.

The last analysis was repeated using GCSE total points score, instead of

mean GCSE grade, in order to be consistent with analyses done earlier.

The result shows that the difference in GCSE total points score between the

2002 cohort dyslexic group and the non-dyslexic comparison group, is not

statistically significant, t (34) =0.58, p=ns. This mirrors that for the mean

grade for this cohort of students, with the dyslexic group (M=49.31,

SD=21.47) achieving in fact a slightly higher mean GCSE total point score

than the non-dyslexic comparison group (M=45.69, SD=15.23). In contrast,

for the entire dataset this comparison showed a statistically significant

difference (see Table 7). In conclusion, for the entire dataset the dyslexic

group does less well than their non-dyslexic peers for GCSE total point

score, but for those who do media studies the dyslexic group do as well as

their non-dyslexic peers.

Therefore, inclusion of the quadruple GCSE media studies has had a

disproportionate effect on these results in this cohort, greatly increasing

their overall or mean results. The results of this course, which was

assigned to students who were expected to achieve only a grade D or below

in their English GCSE, create an interesting complication, which is

discussed later.

131
4.10 LASS results

All dyslexic students in the school were screened using the Lucid

Assessment for Secondary Schools (LASS) computerised assessment

software and the question arises whether the students’ performance in one

or more of these assessment sub-tests are possible indicators of the GCSE

outcome. It should be pointed out that it is not these raw scores per se

which are used to indicate dyslexia in the LASS test, but the discrepancy

between various subtests. In other words some dyslexic students can

obtain high scores on these sub-tests.

The relationship between each of the LASS sub-test variables and between

these and the GCSE total point score was explored using Pearson’s

correlation.

The results of this show a positive and significant (1-tailed) relationship

(Table 18) for all the sub-tests except visual memory. Both the Segments

and Spelling subtests have the highest correlation with GCSE total points

score. Using Cohen’s interpretation (1988) of the strength of the value of a

correlation coefficient, both Segments and Spelling have a large value (>.5),

Reading, Nonwords and Digit Recall have a medium value (>.3) and Visual

Memory has a small value (>.1). In other words, with the exception of visual

132
memory, the better the students do in these LASS subtests the better they

do in their GCSEs.

Table 18 Correlation ‘r’ values for LASS subtests and GCSE total

point score for dyslexic students.

Digit Nonwords Segments Reading Spelling Visual

recall memory

GCSE total .418** .453** .600*** .388** .556*** .114

point score
Digit recall
.428** .480*** .343* .525*** .202
Nonwords
.636*** .645*** .531*** .381**
Segments
.655*** .513*** .442**
Reading
.483*** .569***
Spelling
.051
(* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001)

To determine which of the six variables are important, or most important, in

terms of their ability to predict the outcome of the dependant variable GCSE

total point score, regression analyses were used. Firstly, a simultaneous

multiple regression was used, to obtain an idea of the relative level of

importance of each variable (Visual memory, Digit recall, Nonwords,

Segments, Reading and Spelling), followed by a hierarchical multiple

regression, to explore the question of how much each of the important

independent variables contributed to the prediction of the dependant

133
variable (GCSE total point score) after the other independent variables have

been controlled for (Pallant, 2007).

The simultaneous multiple regression with all six variables together gives an

R2 of 0.460, F (6, 37) = 4.389, p=0.001; therefore 46% of the variance in the

dependant variable, GCSE total point score, is explained by these variables

(Table 19).

Beta values for each of the independent variables are used to compare the

unique contribution of each to the overall result (Table 19).

Table 19 Simultaneous regression coefficients for LASS subtests and

GCSE outcomes for dyslexic students.

Standardised t Sig. Correlations

Model Coefficients
Beta Zero- Partial Part
order
(Constant) -2.661 .012
Digit
Recall
.058 .356 .724 .418 .064 .047
Nonwords .048 .250 .805 .453 .045 .033
Segments .478 2.387 .023 .600 .394 .315
Reading -.050 -.230 .819 .388 -.041 -.030
Spelling .285 1.519 .139 .556 .263 .201
Visual
Memory
-.114 -.651 .520 .114 -.116 -.086

The Beta value of Segments (0.478) is substantially greater than the others,

indicating that this sub-test makes the greatest unique contribution to the

prediction of GCSE outcomes, and is the only one which is statistically

134
significant, p=0.023. The Beta value for Spelling is the next highest at 0.285

and although this result is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level, it is

still much greater than the other four variables.

The correlations between the LASS subtests and GCSE total point score for

dyslexic students (Table 18) show that all of the LASS subtests, with only

the exception of the visual memory subtest, are co-correlated with each

other and so have shared variance, with Segments and Spelling having the

highest correlation with GCSE outcomes. The simultaneous regression

(Table 19) indicates that Segments makes the largest contribution to the

GCSE outcomes, followed by Spelling, but this result possibly

underestimates the results of Spelling because of their shared variance.

These two variables are explored further, and a regression of Segments

alone with GCSE total point score gives an R2 of .36, while regression of

both Segments and Spelling with GCSE total point score gives an R2 of .44.

This would seem to confirm that these two variables explain the greatest

amount of variance in the dependant variable.

Using a hierarchical multiple regression to explore this further, the four

variables with the least unique contribution to the prediction of the

dependant variable, GCSE total point score, were entered in one block

(Model 1), to statistically control for these variables. The other two

135
variables, Segments and Spelling, were then entered in the second block

(Model 2). This has the effect of ‘removing’ possible effects of the first four

variables, Visual memory, Digit recall, Nonwords and Reading, which would

then reveal whether the two variables Segments and Spelling were still able

to explain some of the variance in the dependant variable.

Table 20 The two models from the hierarchical regression of LASS

variables with GCSE total points score.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

R Square Change
1 .544 .296 .210 .296

2 .678 .459 .355 .164

The four variables entered in Model 1; Visual memory, Digit recall,

Nonwords and Reading, explained 30% of the variance in GCSE total points

score (Table 20). After entry of Segments and Spelling in Model 2, the total

variance explained by the model as a whole increased to 46%, F(6, 31)

=4.39, p=.003. The R2 change = .164, F change (2, 31) =4.69, p=.017,

which indicates that the two variables, Segments and Spelling, explain an

additional 16% of the variance of the GCSE total point score after controlling

for Visual memory, Digit recall, Nonwords and Reading.

136
In a scatter plot of standardised residuals, no points have a standardised

residual greater than 2. According to Pallant (2007) outliers are cases that

have a standardised residual greater than 3.3. Thus there are no outliers in

this dataset.

4.11 Case Studies

The original plan was to have had 10 case studies but only a few of the

dyslexic students were willing to discuss the difficulties which they had

experienced due to their dyslexia with me. Only the most able of students

who did at least reasonably well were willing to. This means that it is not

possible to make any deductions or implications from them, yet, as can be

seen, the experiences of these two individuals are very much in line with

conclusions which can be drawn from the quantitative data and are

presented as examples.

The names used in the case studies are fictional, but names are used for

ease of reading rather than referring to the student number used in the

datasets. They are both students whom this author has taught and so has

an even wider understanding of their abilities than might be gleaned from

just one interview. Both of the students attended the school where the

study is carried out; James however only attended sixth form at that school.

137
A fairly structured interview process was used in order to obtain results that

could be contrasted and compared. A list of questions was compiled which

covered questions to be discussed with the participants. This list of

questions was fairly extensive but done to maximise the data collected

during the interview. Both participants seemed to enjoy the experience of

discussing their difficulties and their successes with me on first name terms,

outside of my role as a teacher.

138
4.12 Case study 1 – Compensated dyslexic with poorer than expected

GCSE outcomes – James

Background

Table 21 James’ psychometric data

Test Test used Result (standard

scores, stanine
or NC grades)
Dyslexia level This study 3
Verbal reasoning No data
Non-verbal reasoning LASS Secondary 131
Spelling WRAT3 99
Reading WRAT3 105
Reading No data
KS2 SAT English QCA No data
KS2 SAT Maths QCA No data
KS2 SAT Science QCA No data
CAT Non-verbal NFER CAT 2E No data
CAT Quantitative NFER CAT 2E No data
CAT Verbal NFER CAT 2E No data
KS3 SAT English QCA 4
KS3 SAT Maths QCA 3
KS3 SAT Science QCA 6

James is not one of the students in the study. The same background data

are not available for him as he went to a different school for his KS3 and

KS4 education. He finished KS5 education four years before the year

groups included in the study but is included in these case studies because

there was the chance to interview him and discuss what he has done in the

seven years since he finished his GCSEs. He was 24 years old at the time

139
of this interview. His parents have always been interested in his education,

his father went to public school and his mother went to a grammar school.

James’ mother told me that she often went to the school to discuss James’

progress and difficulties. James said that at the time did not like this, feeling

that his mother fussed about his schooling more than his friend’s mothers

did. James’ mother said that she feels very guilty that she did not get to the

bottom of James’ difficulties sooner, but she said that it wasn’t for the lack of

trying.

“I phoned a University Education Department and asked if I could

speak to someone who knew about ways to help a child with maths

and spelling difficulties. I was put through to a very helpful

gentleman who told me about dyscalculia but wasn’t able to tell me

what I could do about it, or find out if that was what James’ problem

was.

I couldn’t get information from anywhere. This was the days before

the internet and Google! I really wish we had had that then. The

schools were no use at all, if anything they knew less than me.”

Early school experience

James’s mother told me that James was looking forward to starting school

as a child, and ran all the way there on his first day. He was a very sociable

140
little boy and enjoyed having friends to play with. By the second week he

was starting to display signs of reluctance to go to school and looked

forward to weekends and holidays. His mother said that she had suspected

that he was dyslexic from when he was about 4 years old as he showed

very good intelligence yet had difficulties learning to read.

His parents are both professionals who value literacy highly and had tried to

teach James to read before he started school, they read a lot to James

when he was young and they were surprised that he did not learn to read

more easily.

“I bought something called the ‘Teach Your Baby to Read Kit’ and

tried to teach James to read when he was 3, but he didn’t learn to

read any of the words at all. I know now that it wasn’t a good way to

teach reading, but both my husband and I could read before we went

to school and so we ... well I ... wanted James to have that

advantage too. We had the house plastered with labels, like ‘bed’ on

James’ bed and ‘door’ on his bedroom door.”

James’ mother said that James did learn to read shortly after his peers (a

little less than a year) but when he did he rapidly caught up and

subsequently became a good reader. She asked every teacher who taught

him if they thought that he might be dyslexic and was always told that he

was doing fine and not to worry, that he couldn’t be dyslexic because he

was a good reader. During the interview James revealed that, at primary

141
school, he often had to spend lunchtimes sitting at a desk outside the

headmistress’s office to finish work that he had not completed during class.

This was unknown to his mother who looked upset and said that she felt

guilty that she had not known at the time, she said that she would have

spoken to the headmistress about it at the time. She feels that all teachers

were very ill informed about the difficulties James was experiencing.

James’ mother said that although James loved books, when he was

younger he always chose those with substantial pictorial content, spending

hours pouring over non fiction books, like the abundantly illustrated

children’s encyclopaedias published by Dorling Kindersley. His favourite

books for a while were the Where’s Wally books with very detailed and busy

drawings. According to his mother, James loved to be read to and

displayed a very lively imagination.

At his mother’s insistence, James was assessed when he was 11 years old,

when his primary school teacher decided that he might have a problem after

all, although she was more concerned about his difficulty with mathematics.

The results of the dyslexia assessment reported to the school that James

did not have dyslexia but did have difficulties with spelling and that it was

probable that he had missed some teaching of some of the basic spelling

rules, although James’s mother did not receive a copy of the report. James

had six months of private tuition to remedy these gaps in his knowledge but

142
according to James’ mother, this did not produce any noticeable

improvement and certainly did not help his difficulties with mathematics.

James’ mother said that homework was always difficult for James and he

took much longer than the allotted time to complete it. It was not that he did

not understand the work but had great difficulty in committing it to paper.

He would happily dictate essays to her to write. James just remembers that,

“I hated it”.

Secondary school experience

At secondary school James said that it became much harder and the only

support that the school offered was to attend a spelling catch-up class for

twenty minutes before school started. James started off in a top set for

science and humanities and middle sets for other subjects. His mother said

that he was very tired when he came home from school every day and went

to bed earlier than he had done before. As time progressed, he went down

sets in all subjects and James said that he began to hate school. He was in

a remedial class for maths and was extremely unhappy about this,

especially as, in James’ opinion, the class offered no remedial help. James

said that this was mainly because many other students in the class

misbehaved so much that no work was ever done. James’ mother said that

the impression she got was that such sets were

143
 “just dumping grounds for all poorly achieving kids that the school

didn’t know what to do with, the teacher was more of a babysitter

than a teacher. James came home from school one day, really

down, he told me he was fed up with being dumped with other kids

whose main achievement in the class was to create disturbance and

get their pencil stuck up their nose. I was really unhappy for him and

my husband and I made an appointment to see the head of the

maths department.”

After a meeting between his parents and the head of department, he was

moved up to bottom set where he felt that he was at least getting some work

done.

Sometime during year 10, when he was 14-15, James says that he “gave

up”.

“I didn’t come to any sudden decision or anything like that; I just

started to feel that there wasn’t any point struggling any more. I

realised that when I wrote down notes in class it didn’t help so I didn’t

bother. I then realised that I could learn as much by not writing it

down and just listening. I think at the time that I had intentions of

doing it on my own at home or getting my parents to go over it. But

when I got home the last thing I wanted to do was schoolwork so it

never got written down.”

144
James said that modern languages, in the form of German, were also very

difficult for him. At the beginning of year 11, before his GCSEs, he asked to

drop the subject and use the time to revise other subjects. He says that his

ability in this subject was so poor that this was agreed to even though it was

not normal school policy. When asked what the biggest difficulty he

experienced at school was, James told me,

“The worst thing was my friends were all in top sets and I was in

bottom sets. I didn’t get on with the kids in bottom sets and I could

tell that I was more intelligent than they were. What set you were in

was considered absolute proof of how intelligent you were and if you

were in bottom set you were thick.”

James was very disappointed with his achievements at GCSE even though

he suspected that they results were not going to be good. His predicted

grades were encouraging but very wide ranging, in geography for instance,

James said he was predicted anything between a B and an E. James’

GCSE results were –

145
 Table 22 GCSE grades achieved by James on his first attempt.

Subject Grade achieved

English literature C
English language/speaking and listening D/B
Maths E
Science DD
Geography D
Design and Technology E
Art D
RE (short course) E
German Not entered

James then attended sixth form in the school where this study is taking

place. He re-sat his GCSE double award Science and English language

having again had some private tuition and attained C grades for these and

also re-sat his GCSE maths and achieved an F grade. He sat intermediate

GNVQ business studies and achieved a merit grade, equivalent to 5 GCSEs

at grade B; he said that he found this course easier than GCSEs because it

was assessed by coursework rather than by exam.

At this point James told me that he felt that he had had enough of his

difficulties at school and was determined to join the army. He said that his

parents were unhappy about this and his mother told me that because she

was worried that he might just come home one day and tell them that he

had joined up, she took him to the nearest army careers office. James now

146
had GCSEs, or their equivalent, totalling 5 at grade B, 4 at grade C, 2 at

grade D and 2 at grade E. James said that because of this the army

careers office very persuasively encouraged him to go on and take his ‘A’

levels and apply for entry at officer level. James said that he reluctantly

agreed to do this and having attained enough GCSEs, started on the ‘A’

level courses at the sixth form centre.

Half way through his second and final year James came to my attention and

I arranged for him to be assessed. He achieved a standard score of 130 in

the non-verbal reasoning assessment and the conclusion after the

assessments was that he had mild dyslexia, an undetermined degree of

dyspraxia, and moderate dyscalculia. He was extremely relieved to hear

that was why he had had difficulties and told me at the time that “I thought

that I was just stupid”. According to James, when he was diagnosed as

dyslexic,

“Well it wasn’t a sudden relief thing; you can’t just undo 5 years of

being ‘thick’. I had to rethink everything, sort out every incident

where you are categorised as stupid, even in a social context as well,

like in the playground.

I didn’t really have to come to terms with being dyslexic; I had to

come to terms with being misread at school, and mistreated and

miseducated. When I found out I had dyslexia I wasn’t particularly

surprised, I just thought, well yeah, that makes sense.”

147
The only intervention that could be put in place with the short time available

was to arrange for him to have extra time in his exams and for him to use a

word processor. With this extra help James achieved grade BB in

Advanced GNVQ ICT and grade D in A level History.

When asked if anything could have been done that might have made things

easier, James replied,

“Well maybe I wouldn’t have had the loss in confidence of my abilities

if I hadn’t been put in bottom sets.

I might have had a TA [teaching assistant] or something but she

would only have done a bit of reading or writing, but it wouldn’t have

done anything. It wouldn’t have made any difference. Because no

one knew why I was underperforming, well they thought they knew,

they thought I was just the level that some poor, unfortunate kids

perform at.”

University education

James said that he was encouraged by this success and the knowledge that

there would be support for him in future exams, and so applied for, and was

offered, a place at university reading International Relations and Politics.

He said that he enjoyed the course and loved university but still struggled to

148
write good essays even though he received extra time and was allowed use

of a word processor.

“At uni I thought it [dyslexia] was a nuisance, I would have liked not to

have had it. But I didn’t want to use a computer for exams I just had

the extra time.”

He achieved a lower second class degree, having obtained a mark of 59.3%

i.e. a shade short of an upper second class degree. He said that although

he was very pleased to graduate at that level, he felt slightly frustrated,

feeling that his dyslexia stopped him getting an upper second class degree.

After a year out when he took part in a wildlife conservation expedition

overseas, James said that he decided to do an MSc in Conservation

Science. He completed this with merit, even though he had done no

science since his GCSEs, and he has written up his results for publication.

He still received extra time and was offered use of a word processor in his

exams.

“If I mentioned I was dyslexic people would be interested and listen

about what it meant. It was quite nice actually, different from school.

I had the best of both worlds because I was doing well and I was

dyslexic, when I needed it least, I had the excuse of being dyslexic,

when I was at school and needed it most I didn’t have it.”

149
The difficulties caused by his dyslexia were illustrated when, on one

occasion, he had gone to see one of his lecturers because he had received

a lower mark for an essay than he had expected, James told me,

“she said, I can see that you must be dyslexic because you are easily

the most intelligent on the course, yet you wouldn’t know that going

by your written work.”

Some of his written essays earned him marks between 45-55%, whereas for

oral presentations he received over 80%.

Present time

James has now just started working for the RSPB as an ornithologist. He

says that he is very grateful for the support he has had and acknowledges

that things would be very different if we had not discovered that he was

dyslexic but is quite bitter that this support was not available when he was

younger when he felt that he really needed it.

James’ mother feels that it was harder for James than it need have been.

“James didn’t, and still doesn’t, have much self confidence in his

(pause) academic ability, so he would tend to give up rather than

struggle and overcome a problem. That was really his biggest

problem, his pride and his tendency to give up. He really hated

having a ‘difficulty’ and he wouldn’t ask for help when he should

150
 have. He wouldn’t persevere at school, but he would do the

minimum that he could get away with, because he really, really hated

writing. He is much more confidant now that he has these

achievements behind him. In fact I nearly fell over the other day

when he said that he wouldn’t mind doing a PhD”.

James says that he is quite reluctant to let people know that he is dyslexic,

although he feels that there is little stigma attached to it. The same goes for

dyscalculia. Mostly because he enjoys outdoor pursuits such as climbing

and hiking, he said is less keen to talk about being dyspraxic. However, he

says that he would be much more embarrassed to use the term specific

learning difficulty as he feels that it has different connotations from dyslexia

and definitely has more stigma attached to it. At the end of the interview,

James told me,

“In a generations time I think people will be proud to be dyslexic.

Because it does affect your identity at quite a fundamental level, it

shapes who you are and how you learn and how well you do at

school. If it shapes your education it shapes how you see the world.

I don’t think it will be a stigma.”

151
4.13 Case Study 2 – Compensated dyslexic with better than expected

GCSE outcomes – Emma

Background

Table 23 Emma’s psychometric data

Test Test used Result (standard

scores, stanine
or NC grades)
Dyslexia level This study 3
Verbal reasoning BPVS 133
Non-verbal Ravens Prog 119
reasoning Matrices
Spelling WRAT 3 91
Reading WRAT 3 92
Reading (timed) TOWRE 76
KS2 SAT English QCA 4
KS2 SAT Maths QCA 5
KS2 SAT Science QCA 6
CAT Non-verbal NFER CAT 2E 7
CAT Quantitative NFER CAT 2E 8
CAT Verbal NFER CAT 2E 8
KS3 SAT English QCA 7
KS3 SAT Maths QCA 7
KS3 SAT Science QCA 7

Emma is 19, she finished school in 2007, and was in her first year at

university at the time of the interview, where she is studying architecture;

she has a very placid, easy going nature. She is student number 17 in the

SPSS spreadsheet. In Emma’s verbal ability assessment when she was 15

152
years old, she obtained a standard score of 133, putting her 2 standard

deviations above average.

Although Emma’s mother said that she now suspects that she is also

dyslexic, they did not suspect that there was a particular problem until

Emma was identified with dyslexia at age 15. Emma has a sister 17 months

younger who is also dyslexic. Emma has always had poor handwriting, and

throughout her schooling, one of her assigned targets was always to

improve her handwriting. She says that she was always a bit clumsy and

not good at games, so she possibly also has a degree of dyspraxia. She

now benefits from an hour a week study skills sessions at university where

one of the skills that she is working on and finds particularly useful is time

management.

Early school experience

When asked about her early school experience Emma thought that she had

found it “Ok” but she remembered that it was very tiring. She found the

social side the hardest and didn’t enjoy playtime as she found that she had

few interests in common with her classmates and feels that she was more

mature than the other children, however she “didn’t not get on with them, as

they were all nice children in the school, but the other children were boring”.

She preferred to play on her own or with her one close friend. Academically

153
Emma started off well as she had attended nursery school but didn’t stand

out particularly as she had very low confidence. She achieved one grade

below average for English in her KS1 SATs and one grade above average

for maths. Her parents were not worried about the result and thought that

she just wasn’t very good at English. They knew that she was an intelligent

and that she had done well in her maths.

Emma did not like learning to read. According to Emma it was,

“not one of my main interests... the reading and writing was awful, it

was boring and tiring. I remember getting the year 6 SATs results, I

got a 3 and 5 for English, it was two papers sort of thing, anyway it

gave me a 4, and I got a 5 for maths and a 6 for science which I was

very proud of.

I remember actually getting put down in English, I used to be on the

top, sort of table, and they put me down and I don’t think I understood

why because you know I could get it, I understood it.

However, according to Emma’s mother, Emma, “hated reading and wouldn’t

do it”. The books which Emma looked at by herself were all, “real books

and stuff like science and history and encyclopedias and stuff”.

Emma said that when she did read fiction she always read books for a much

younger age group; that although she was very mature for her age she

154
enjoyed reading these books because she “could enjoy them”. Her parents

valued reading and read to her often. When she was younger one of them

would read her a bedtime story almost every night. When asked how much

she valued reading Emma said that “it’s quite important to allow you to

understand things”. She stressed that she still found no enjoyment in it.

Secondary school experience

Emma did not realise that she had particular difficulty until she was

diagnosed when she was 15.

“I think it was only like, when I was actually diagnosed as being

dyslexic that I became aware that, you know, that it was more difficult

than for others. I kind of assumed that maybe it was the same for

everyone else that the difference between my reading and everyone

else was well, my friend she is, you know a kind of bookworm and I

just assumed that she was well kind of above rather than me behind.”

She thought that it was normal to have difficulty reading and that everyone

was the same and that it was just that “some people were better at some

things than others.”

Emma’s mother said that she is a very conscientious girl and studies hard

for her exams. In secondary school she never had to be told to do her

155
homework and according to her mother Emma “spent hours” doing it and

even when her parents suggested that she leave it she wouldn’t do so.

According to Emma, with homework,

“You adapt, I don’t think I really had any problems. I remember sort

of after being in secondary school for a little bit just sort of not having

time to go out and to play and this kind of stuff. It was never a case

of not understanding it, it was a case of speed really, it took a long

time.”

Emma’s mother said that when Emma was in primary school, they were

more concerned that the school wasn’t pushing her as much as they should

have with her maths and science: that they were resigned to Emma’s poor

English and did not pursue the matter. In primary school and in secondary,

art, maths and science have always been Emma’s strengths. Her

weaknesses have always been English,

“I guess, you know, the whole kind of concept of being creative

through words was not something that I sort of understood.”

In secondary school Emma continued to have only very few close friends.

She felt that she was often “in my own little world a bit” and that “people are

quicker to judge when you are a teenager” so she kept to herself even

more. It was in secondary school that she was diagnosed with dyslexia.

Her sister was diagnosed first after a teacher noticed the difference between

156
her spoken answers and her written ones. When Emma’s parents received

her sister’s dyslexia report they contacted the school and informed them

that Emma actually had even worse difficulties than her sister.

Emma was “pleased and surprised” at her GCSE results. She worked hard

for these results though, and said “that amount of revision I did compared to

other people was off the scale”. She was given 25% extra time in all her

exams and she felt that this helped a great deal. Emma’s achievements at

GCSE were –

Table 24 GCSE grades achieved by Emma

Subject Grade achieved

English literature A
English language A
Maths A*
Science A*A*
Spanish B
Business studies A*
Art and Design AA
RE (short) A
French A
Statistics A

Emma said that she had always found English very difficult and did much

less well in that subject in KS1and KS2 SATs and had always “hated essays

and reading”. However, for KS3 SATS she obtained 7’s for English, maths

157
and science. She also obtained A’s at GCSE for both English language and

English literature. She and her parents put this down to sheer hard work on

her part.

University education

Emma and her parents said that they were surprised when Emma and her

sister were assessed and found to be dyslexic, but that when they

discussed it, they felt that a lot of things now made sense, and Emma then

talked to friends and discovered that they didn’t all find reading so difficult.

They said that they were very pleased that the school found out about the

dyslexia and put the support in place for her and arranged the exam

concessions. Surprisingly, unlike other dyslexic students and their parents,

they said that they do not feel angry that the schools failed to detect the

dyslexia earlier. About the schools’ input, Emma’s mother felt that,

“I kind of felt that, as a parent, the fact that it was recognised it was

easier to get things and you were there if we did want to come and

talk to you. My friend’s son was dyslexic and he was at [another

school] and they had to fight for everything and pay for every test, it

made it much more stressful for her, whereas I just felt you were

there and understood the problem.”

158
When asked what they would change if they could go back in time and do

so, Emma and her mother both felt that it would have helped if they had

known about the dyslexia when Emma was much younger, although they

don’t feel that the school could have done much different. Emma said,

“It was just a kind of well done on your science and commiserations, I

guess, on your English.... I guess to have sort of acknowledged it

earlier would have been helpful. ... One of the things I sort of talk

about at uni [with the study support tutor] is like the holistic kind of

learning, using different learning styles and not just learning one

style. I guess more visual as that’s one of my strengths. They were

just like, that’s how it’s done and you just have to learn it”

Present time

Emma feels that it would be good if schools were not so rigid in the way

they taught literacy.

“Lower down school there was a right way and a wrong way to learn,

now I can use my own different way. It’s not a learning difficulty; it’s

just a difficulty learning a particular way”.

She is not too worried about people knowing that she is dyslexic but is not

keen to volunteer the information as she doesn’t want to be stereotyped. “I

just do things my way and it happens to be called dyslexia”.

159
Emma feels that her dyslexia has affected her career choice and will help

her with her career in architecture. She has a strong capacity to visualise

and can ‘see’ a building from the plans.

“Architecture is very, like, you don’t need to do stuff [goes quiet]... I

enjoy doing architecture.... [My study skills support tutor says]...my

like, non-verbal thought is very good. My ability to like think in your

head, like the minds eye and to be able to see images and stuff is

very strong in my head. Even though I can’t catch a ball but in my

head it’s good. It’s quite strange ‘cos like they were going through all

the different like you know if your this kind of learner and I’m like well

I can’t catch a ball and I bump into things but in my head I can

imagine stuff ”

She told me that there is an architect’s practice in America where they only

employ dyslexics and she was excited about the idea of working with people

who think the way she does. “People who demand words can get really

frustrated; if you can imagine anything you are not frustrated” she said.

160
Chapter 5 Discussion

5.1 Introduction

The Introduction to this thesis discussed the difficulties which a dyslexic

student might have and the need to understand how these effects might

impact on a dyslexic students’ academic outcomes. These results and

outcomes will be influenced to a certain extent by what intervention a

student received and need to be regarded in the context of the school’s

intervention policy. The research questions posed are now considered in

the light of the results of the analyses carried out and are answered in the

context of the results from these students in this school.

5.2 Differences between dyslexic and non-dyslexic students

The focal question of the thesis is whether dyslexic students’ academic

achievements at GCSE are less that those of their non-dyslexic peers of

comparable non-verbal ability. The results of this study show that, in all but

one of the test results (CAT non-verbal) leading up to GCSE, non-dyslexic

students of matched non-verbal ability significantly outperform dyslexic

students. KS2 and KS3 English and the CAT verbal tests have the highest

differential; analysis using Cohen’s ‘d’ effect size measures show that these

three tests had a large effect size compared to a medium effect size for all

161
the other tests (see Table 8). Science would appear to be the subject least

affected by dyslexia, with no significant difference and a small effect size

between the dyslexic group and the non-dyslexic group at KS2 and,

although there was a very significant difference and a medium effect size

between the two groups at KS3 (p = 0.008), it was the least significant of all

the results with the smallest percent overlap of 17%, compared to a medium

effect size with 20% overlap for maths and a large effect size and 27%

overlap for English.

Within the non-dyslexic group of students, there was no significant

difference between any of the CAT subtest scores. For the dyslexic group

however, the fact that there is a significant difference between the non-

verbal subtest and either the verbal or the quantitative subtests indicates a

potentially useful method of screening a school cohort for students who may

be dyslexic. This author used this as a coarse screening method for

identifying students for assessment. Where there was a discrepancy of 2 or

more stanines between the CAT non-verbal sub-test and the CAT verbal

sub-test, then the student was screened using the LASS computerised

assessment for possible dyslexia and, if there was a discrepancy of 2 or

more stanines between the CAT non-verbal sub-test and the CAT

quantitative subtest, then the student was assessed for possible dyscalculia

as well

162
Dyscalculia was not normally assessed in the school, yet it is suggested

from some of the results in this study that many of the dyslexic students also

appear to possibly be dyscalculic as well (see Tables 7, 10 and 12), and

according to Butterworth (2003 p9) “dyscalculia frequently co-occurs with

dyslexia”. If dyslexic students also have unidentified dyscalculia this may

cause confusion in the indicators which are used to identify dyslexia.

Additionally, some of the dyslexic students were recorded in the school

special needs register as having been identified as having dyspraxia,

especially some of those who had statements of special educational needs,

where dyspraxia was one of the reasons for the statement. Because

schools have very poor means of identifying this condition (Payton &

Winfield, 2000) in the wider school population, there are no data for this in

this study. Altogether, the indicators of these three conditions are conflated,

(Butterworth, 2003) adding to the confusion in identification of dyslexia and

specific learning difficulties.

5.3 Differences within the dyslexic group

No statistically significant correlation was found between dyslexia level, as

defined in this study, and any of the variables used. The different dyslexia

levels were devised by the specialist dyslexia teacher and were used in the

school to try to give an indication of how much support the newly identified

dyslexic would need. Because of this lack of correlation between students’

163
dyslexia level and any test result, it is likely that classifying the dyslexic

students in relation to the degree of discrepancy does not usefully indicate

how much support the students might need. It is possible that some other

method of measuring the severity of an individual’s dyslexia might give a

different result, but it would seem that so long as the student is a

compensated dyslexic (i.e. that they have attained an ability to read at an

adequate level, here considered a level which would to allow them to

access curricular material), the degree of dyslexia is not important, it is the

fact that they are dyslexic at all that affects their examination outcomes.

5.4 Gender differences

The literature review discussed diverging opinions regarding whether there

is a gender difference in the number of dyslexics. Share and Silva (2003)

and Shaywitz (1998) indicate that there is no gender difference and Rutter

et al (2004) indicate that there is a difference. The Connecticut longitudinal

study (Shaywitz, et al., 1999) showed that there are even numbers of boys

and girls with dyslexia and Snowling (2005) suggests that the greater

number of boys who come to the notice of teachers with reading problems is

perhaps due to the fact the boys compensate less well and are more

disruptive. The present study has found a difference in the number of boys

and girls identified with dyslexia, with more boys than girls affected, the ratio

being almost 2:1. But this study analysed the results only of students who

164
have been identified as being dyslexic, which is not necessarily all the

students in the school who are in fact dyslexic. In this school, the dyslexia

unit was small and some students are very likely to have been missed.

Those students who were not identified may include more girls (Snowling,

2005) due to the fact that girls in general are more likely to read along with

their peers (Warrington, et al., 2000), so that girls with dyslexia will perhaps

be more likely to develop the ability to read at an adequate level, and are

therefore less likely to be recognised as possibly being dyslexic by the

classroom teacher and referred for assessment. Case study participant

Emma is an interesting example here; she was referred for testing by her

class teacher who felt that, although here reading and spelling were

acceptable, they were not as good as the teacher would have expected

when Emma’s very high ability in other academic subjects was taken into

account. Had she not been so academically able, her difficulty might not

have been recognised

Again discussed in the literature review, studies have shown that boys

generally perform less well than girls in academic outcomes (Demack,

Drew, & Grimsley, 2000; Warrington, et al., 2000; Yang & Woodhouse,

2001; Younger & Warrington, 1996). This is underpinned by data from the

Office for National Statistics (2008) (Figure 9).

165
 Figure 10 Data from the Office of National Statistics showing
percentages of boys and girls achieving 5 or more A* to C GCSEs over
the periods 1995/96, 2000/01 and 2005/06.

This gendered inequality in GCSE attainment in the wider student

population, with girls again achieving higher grades than boys, is supported

by the results of this study. For the non-dyslexic comparison group, the

means of the KS2 and KS3 SATs, CAT verbal and GCSE total points score

are higher for girls (Table 13), but the difference is not significant. Younger

and Warrington (1996), show that during the period of 1991 – 1994 the gap

in gender attainment reduced from a 21% differential to an 8% differential

and the Office of National Statistics data show that this has remained at

about 10% for the past decade or more. The results of this study are in line

with these results as the non-dyslexic girls’ scores are approximately 10%

higher than the boys’ scores, and not statistically different.

166
However, for the dyslexic group of students, the gender differential is

statistically significant. For the non-dyslexic students the mean difference in

the male/female GCSE total points score is 4.5 or approximately 10%; for

the dyslexic students the girls’ mean score is greater by 12 or approximately

30% greater. The girls in the non-dyslexic group have a slightly higher

mean CAT verbal score than boys and also a higher GCSE total points

score; the girls in the dyslexic group have a significantly higher mean CAT

verbal score than the boys and a significantly higher GCSE total point score

(see Table 13). As will be discussed later, the CAT verbal subtest has the

highest correlation with GCSE outcomes.

In the wider population, girls generally achieve better results than boys in

language based subjects (Burgess, et al., 2004; Warrington, et al., 2000).

In the present analysis, the same was true of both the dyslexic and non-

dyslexic groups of students, and the results show that at KS2, girls did

slightly better than boys in English for both the dyslexic and the non-dyslexic

group, while by KS3 the gap had increased such that girls did significantly

better than boys, again for both groups (see Table 13). Thus the dyslexic

students show the same pattern as the non- dyslexic students, and with the

increased difficulties in reading experienced by the dyslexic boys as

compared to the non-dyslexic boys it is possible that the same factors of

reading difficulties and peer pressure cause what some authors call the

‘gender gap’ for both groups.

167
However, for the non-dyslexic group, there was no statistically significant

gender difference in this study for the CAT verbal subtest. This is perhaps

because the CAT verbal is a test of verbal cognitive ability rather than a test

of literacy skills, and it is perhaps in aspects of literacy skills where boys

score less highly than girls. For the dyslexic students however, there was

still a gender difference in the CAT verbal scores, with girls again scoring

significantly higher than boys.

5.5 Changes with time

By KS2 dyslexic students were already significantly underachieving in

national assessments compared to their non-dyslexic peers. The dyslexic

students’ KS2 SAT results show that the dyslexic students’ results are

significantly lower than those of the non-dyslexic comparison group, except

in science, where they are lower but not significantly so. By the time these

students reach KS3 this difference in achievement is even greater. In this

study dyslexic students progressed in English at a similar rate to the non-

dyslexic students but at a lower level. Dockrell, Lindsay, Palikara and

Cullen (2007) showed that English results for students with non-language

related SEN continued to diverge from those of typically developing

students, but Shaywitz & Shaywitz (2005 p1301) show that a consistent gap

is maintained between dyslexic readers and non-dyslexic readers such that

“over time poor readers and good readers tend to maintain their relative

168
positions along a spectrum of reading ability.” The difference between

those results may be that in the Dockrell et al study, the group is of SEN

students who may mostly be non-dyslexic SEN poor readers, while the poor

readers in the Shaywitz and Shaywitz study are dyslexic.

This difference in achievement continues throughout secondary education

and includes GCSE results, with dyslexic students attaining lower grades in

subjects, and an overall lower GCSE total point score.

5.6 Predictors of GCSE attainment

Comprehensive studies have been done which show how SATs and CATs

results can be used to predict GCSE success for the general population

(Strand, 2004, 2006). This study shows that the SATs and CATs results are

also predictors of dyslexic students’ outcomes, although the dyslexic

students achieved at a lower level, in particular in the literacy dependant

subjects. It may be reasonable to assume that dyslexic students do less

well in literacy dependant subjects, therefore it is perhaps reasonable to

assume that they will do less well in GCSE subjects which are heavily

literacy dependent, unless, as will be shown later, these subjects are

assessed in a ‘dyslexia friendly’ way.

169
Psychometric tests can be used to give a picture of dyslexic students’

literacy capabilities, and these are used in this study in the form of the LASS

computer test results. In this study, it has been shown that the LASS sub-

test Segments has the single highest unique contribution to GCSE

outcomes, although, in light of the small sample size, caution should be

exercised in generalising this result to the general student population. The

Segments sub-test is a test of phonological knowledge, and this knowledge

is an important factor in a students’ ability to read (Snowling, 2000, 2001)

and reading at an adequate level is required to achieve a GCSE grade

commensurate with their knowledge of the subject being tested.

The fact that Segments was shown to be the most significant contribution to

GCSE outcomes is consistent with the phonological model of dyslexia

(Johnston & Morrison, 2007; Nicolson & Fawcett, 2005; Snowling, 2000),

and shows that those dyslexic students who have a better grasp of

phonology do better than those who do not.

5.7 Examination Assessment Methods

An extra finding which arose during the analysis of the data in this study,

and not from the research questions posed, was how dyslexic students in

the most recent cohort differed when a new type of KS4 assessment was

introduced.

170
While studying the data during the analyses it appeared that the final cohort,

who sat GCSE media studies, had very different outcomes from the

previous cohorts who sat GCSE English. The GCSE media studies course

is worth four GCSEs and is assessed by coursework, drafts of which can be

marked by the teacher and redrafted by the student as many times as the

teacher considers appropriate. Exploration of the data showed that the

dyslexic students achieved very significantly better results, measured as

GCSE total points score, taking this course than the normal GCSE English,

to the extent that analyses shows that they achieved the same, or better

results than their non-dyslexic peers. The question of how dyslexia affects

students GCSE outcomes is therefore complicated by the question of how

dyslexic students should be assessed. Would it perhaps be better to

change the assessment method rather than give extra time or use of a

reader, scribe or word processor. The policy of the case study school

requires that all dyslexic students be assessed in order to provide the

student with appropriate access arrangements for their examinations.

However, the question arises, are these arrangements the best and fairest

that can be provided for the dyslexic students?

This result concerning media studies indicates one of two possibilities. The

first is that the GCSE media studies exam results are not comparable with

other GCSE results; the assessment may or may not be easier, but in any

171
case the students’ grades can become high because they are continually

improved by teachers correcting and re-correcting student’s draft

assessments and the fact that this course is worth the equivalent of 4

GCSEs. The second is that this may be a much fairer way of assessing

dyslexic students’ capabilities.

Osborne (1999) showed that dyslexic students did less well than their non-

dyslexic peers in both formal examinations and in coursework assessments,

but that they did significantly less well in the formal examinations than in the

coursework assessment. This is not borne out in this study. The dyslexic

students’ coursework assessment results were as good as the non-dyslexic

students. This may be because, in this case, errors were pointed out by the

teacher and corrected by the student before submission. It is not known to

what extent the errors were pointed out, were they only the sort of errors

and omissions that might be expected from a dyslexic, or were they also

more global errors? If it was that global errors were pointed out then this

may not be considered to be fair form of assessment, if it is only dyslexic

types of errors then it points out rather dramatically how dyslexic students

are being under rated in exams.

This second possibility is very important. If the assessment scheme for

marking the media studies GCSE is in fact fair and comparable with other

GCSEs, then it must be concluded that this type of exam allows dyslexic

172
students to attain comparable results with their non-dyslexic peers. If this

type of assessment was used for assessment of other subjects then

dyslexic students would no longer be disadvantaged in academic outcomes.

A third possibility is that the content of the media studies GCSE is much

more practical and more relevant to everyday the experiences of the

students. It involves study of newspapers and websites, films, television

and other sources which perhaps bear more relevance to the students than

does Shakespeare, poetry and literature.

The school is very likely to retain this type of assessment as it allows the

school, and the student, to optimise the outcomes. What is it better for the

student, to fail or to attempt only the subjects in which they might succeed?

Or is it better for them to be assessed in the manner of the media studies

GCSE. Is this a case of manipulating the system to optimise the school

results, or improve the outcomes for the students? With the media studies

assessment both the school and the student are winners and it can be

envisioned that other subjects which are assessed this way will be used by

the school. What are the losses with this system? The most obvious one is

that eventually this type of assessment will lose credibility amongst

employers and higher education establishments and will eventually be

disregarded. However if the standard is maintained comparably with

173
GCSEs, then this type of assessment should be explored for dyslexics to

use in all subjects.

5.8 Lessons from the Case Studies

James gave the impression of having given up at some point, whereas

Emma did not. James was sociable and was concerned about how he

stood in the eyes of his peers, a common feature of the boys in the study by

Warrington, Younger, & Williams (2000). Emma was less sociable and kept

much more to herself or with a small group of like minded friends.

Warrington et al (2000), suggest that this peer pressure has more effect on

boys than on girls. Emma therefore worked hard and did not suffer from the

peer pressure not to be a ‘nerd’. James however did suffer from peer

pressure not to be seen to work hard, did not put in extra effort which may

have been needed to overcome difficulties and therefore did not achieve as

well as he might have.

According to his mother, James was doing well at the start of secondary

school but as he moved down sets and his self confidence correspondingly

declined, he gave up, according to his own account. Emma in contrast was

less sociable, she was a loner who was happy with her own company or

that of one close friend, very much like the girls described in the Warrington,

174
Younger, & Williams (2000 p402) study, “... and the ‘squares’ who did all

their work, were really quiet and got on with their teachers.”

Interestingly, Emma did far better than James, although they are both

classed in this study at the same dyslexia level. Other difficulties however

must be taken into consideration, and James also had dyspraxia and

dyscalculia which possibly affected his achievement too. Emma’s strength

lay in her verbal cognitive ability, whereas James’ strength was his non-

verbal cognitive ability, although his verbal cognitive ability was not tested

and may also have been high. Stanovich (1989) suggests that there is a

higher correlation between verbal IQ and reading ability than between

performance IQ and reading ability and for the case study participants in this

study this seems to be bourne out. Another point to consider is that

although the CAT verbal sub-test is termed ‘verbal’ it is in fact not an oral

test but a written one using verbal items. It has been shown in this study

that the CAT verbal subtest is the best predictor of students’ GCSE

achievements and this is illustrated well in this case, Emma with her high

verbal CAT score did well and James with his high non-verbal cognitive

ability score did not.

Emma was very good at maths and science and this knowledge, and more

importantly, achievement, along with her determined nature, possibly gave

her the self confidence to keep working and allowed her to succeed

175
(Alexander-Passe, 2006; Amesbury, 2008; Carroll & Iles, 2006). Her self

perception of her academic competence was good, as her achievement in

non language related work was extremely good and there is a strong

relationship between self-concept and achievement (Weiner, 1980)

James did not start to succeed academically at the level he felt he was

capable of until after his dyslexia diagnosis, and after access arrangements

allowed him to achieve a more realistic grade. This achievement increased

his self confidence and allowed him to consider higher education and

achieve both of his degrees. It is also possible that age and maturity is a

factor and Emma did consider herself to be mature for her age. Lindsay

and Dockrell (2008) discuss the chronosystem as part of the environmental

influences on a child’s development, which relates to changes over time in

the child’s environment or the changes as a child gets older. As a dyslexic

child becomes a dyslexic adult they develop many strategies to help

themselves overcome their difficulties. Also, possibly more significantly with

boys that with girls, after adolescence the perceived stigma or worry about

appearance may decrease, allowing the dyslexic student or young adult to

make better use of strategies and support to achieve their potential. James

said that at university, “If I mentioned I was dyslexic people would be

interested and listen about what it meant. It was quite nice actually,

different from school.”

176
My observation during the interviews was that James was very articulate; he

told me that at both school and university he had received his best marks by

far for oral presentations – over 80% in at least one case during his MSc

course. Emma on the other hand was not articulate as can be seen from

the transcript of her interview; she often did not finish sentences and did not

use complex language in her speech. From her ‘A’ level results, though, it

is clear that she is competent in written language. Although Emma’s

strength lay in her verbal cognitive ability, this strength seems to be

manifested in her written language. As she said during the interview,

“People who demanded words can get really frustrated; if you can imagine

anything you are not frustrated”; it is possible that it is Emma who is

frustrated by words.

Although it is not possible to make any generalisations from only two case

studies, it is interesting to see that both of these young people follow

patterns which have been discussed in other research, notably that of

Warrington, Younger and Williams (2000) and in this research. It is clear

that support to increase the self confidence of dyslexic students is very

important. This, along with appropriate access arrangements could make a

great deal of difference to the dyslexic student. Both of these young people

said that they improved in some way after being told that they were dyslexic.

Emma was reassured by the knowledge and James self confidence

improved to the extent that his academic achievement improved. Although

177
this quantitative study did not measure or address self esteem in the

dyslexic students, the case studies provide evidence that the self esteem of

young people, especially in regard to their academic abilities, is raised by

the knowledge of their dyslexia. This is very much in keeping with the

findings of Frederickson & Jacobs (2001) where the knowledge of having

dyslexia changed the student’s difficulties from uncontrollable attributes to

controllable attributes, thus empowering and motivating the students. This

is further illustrated in this study by the observation by this author that

dyslexic students were reluctant to attend remedial classes for general SEN

students, but were willing, and in fact were keen, to attend special dyslexia

support classes.

5.9 Conclusion

In conclusion, what has this study found to be the effect of dyslexia on

students’ achievement? It is no surprise to discover that they do less well

than those students who are not dyslexic, but the degree to which they do

less well is very significant. That they start to underachieve by KS2 shows

the immense importance of early identification and intervention (Hartas,

2008; Lloyd, 2002) as discussed in the Literature Review chapter of this

thesis. The degree of underachievement increases by KS3 and GCSE.

This underachievement continues on into higher education where students

typically achieve a lower level degree than their non-dyslexic peers

178
(Richardson & Wydell, 2003). This is underpinned by the case study

interviews.

Although dyslexia significantly affects the students’ examination outcomes,

this study has found that the degree of dyslexia is not a contributing factor,

so long as the student is a compensated dyslexic. This has important

implications for intervention policies in school. All dyslexic students are

likely to need support in some form, not just the ‘most’ dyslexic students.

The desirable intervention is likely to take many different forms depending

on the needs of the student.

Although the disparity in achievement between genders has been reduced

for non-dyslexic students in the general population from that of two decades

ago, it does not appear to be so for dyslexic students in this study. This

also has implications for school policy and, although many schools are

working to improve literacy in boys, perhaps a different sort of support is

also needed to help boys who are underachieving due to peer pressure,

lack of confidence and possible embarrassment at having a difficulty.

In this study dyslexic students frequently have a different CAT profile from

the non-dyslexic students. Commonly, there is a discrepancy between their

CAT verbal score and their CAT non-verbal and/or their CAT quantitative

score. This is different from non-dyslexic students and therefore CAT

179
scores, apart from their normal use in schools, can be used by schools as a

rough screening tool for dyslexia.

The dyslexic students’ grasp of phonology is a good indicator of their

potential outcomes. It would seem reasonable therefore, that instruction in

phonological knowledge and awareness at an early age would be beneficial

for the students. Assessment at an early age has its difficulties (Lindsay,

2001; Lindsay & Lewis, 2003 p258) for many different reasons. Because of

the experience in this study school where most dyslexic students come up

from primary school, not only not having been assessed for dyslexia or

literacy difficulties, but not having had any intervention, then it is obvious

that some change is needed. Lindsay (2001 p258) suggests that early

intervention should include “screening, assessment through and for

teaching, and investigation of a range of factors related to literacy

development.” Although Lindsay (2001 p258) also suggests that, “unless

action is to occur then assessment is redundant”, it is possible that suitable

action may not be immediate but happen at some later time. The skills of

teachers vary and if a child is assessed and found to need literacy

intervention then it is possibly more likely that intervention will be given at

some point if it has previously been found to be necessary, especially if this

is written into an education plan for the child.

180
Where subjects are assessed in a way which allows for the difficulties

experienced by dyslexic students, as with the GCSE media studies exam,

the dyslexic students can achieve at a level equal to the non-dyslexic

students and may in fact achieve higher total scores if all subjects were

assessed this way.

181
Chapter 6 Limitations and recommendations for future research

6.1 Introduction

The main intention of this thesis is to explore the difference in outcomes for

dyslexic students in one mainstream secondary school. These outcomes

will vary depending on several different factors; the SES status of the

students (Muter, Snowling, & Carroll, 2007; Strand, 2007) and the amount

and quality of the intervention and support put in by the school (Fuchs, et

al., 2003; Mathes & Denton, 2002) being two of the main ones. Another,

and perhaps even more important, factor is the recognition and identification

of dyslexia and the intervention and support put in place by the feeder

primary schools.

6.2 Non-compensated dyslexic data

For almost every one of the dyslexic students identified by myself at the

school where this study took place, the primary school had failed to identify

them as such because they were not on the special needs register;

therefore no early and important intervention had taken place. A

complicating factor in this study is the fact that there are no data for non-

compensated dyslexics. Up until the time when this study was carried out,

no non-compensated dyslexic students were formally identified or assessed,

182
or received appropriate intervention for dyslexia at the school although there

were several students in the school who had extremely poor literacy

capabilities and it is considered likely by this author, from some

conversations with most of them, that some of them were dyslexic. This is

possibly because the non-compensated dyslexics had had such a difficult

time throughout their primary education that they almost invariably came

into secondary school with an attitude which was not conducive to learning.

As a result, most regularly were disruptive and unwilling to participate in any

assessment, and so although the students may have been identified as

being non-compensated dyslexics by this author or colleagues, no data are

available for them. For example, one student with whom I worked

intensively for a year when he was 13, using synthetic phonics, improved

his reading age from 5.7 years to 6.9 years in the ten months. He was very

pleased indeed with this but, when it still was not enough to let him access

the work in the classroom, he gave up completely and refused to do any

more.

6.3 ‘Borderline’ cases

Another complication with this data set is that some of the students who

were identified as being dyslexic by the specialist teacher were ‘borderline

dyslexic’ (Backhouse, et al., 2004) and may not necessarily be identified as

dyslexic by another assessor. Pressure was placed on the specialist

183
teachers to identify these students as dyslexic, as it allowed the school to

apply for extra time for them in their formal examinations, with consequently

improved scores and league table position. Therefore, in the data

presented here, it is likely that some of those categorised as level 1 are

borderline dyslexic, and would be placed in this overlap area where dyslexia

is not clearly defined.

6.4 Extreme cases

A third consideration is that there were a few students identified as dyslexic

who were very intelligent indeed. One girl in particular, case study student

‘Emma’, was very hard working, conscientious and ambitious and had been

used to succeeding academically in subjects which interested her, i.e.

maths science and history. This success may have led to further success

because research has shown positive relationships between self-concept,

achievement and attributional style, (Humphrey & Mullins, 2002). This

particular student was in the level 3 dyslexia group because of the high

discrepancy between her literacy skills and her cognitive abilities. However,

because of her high cognitive abilities score, the discrepancy of more than

31 standard score points means that she still has a reading ability in the

normal range, and this, along with her very good cognitive ability and

attitude, and her very good results in her SATs, CATs and GCSEs, including

184
the literacy modules, has perhaps skewed the results of the analyses, given

that there were relatively few in the level 3 dyslexia group.

6.5 Skewed data due to changed examinations

A final complication for the results of this study was caused by the

replacement of double English by the quadruple media studies GCSE

course for many of the last cohort in this study. In the Results it is shown

that, in that year, the dyslexic students in that group achieved a similar

GCSE total point score as the non-dyslexic comparison group. This was

unlike the situation in the other years where the dyslexic group sat the same

English GCSE exam as everyone else, when the dyslexic group did

significantly less well than their non-dyslexic comparisons (see Table 7).

Because the results for that cohort are included in all the analyses, their

results will effectively reduce the overall difference in GCSE outcomes

normally associated with dyslexia. Had this method of assessment not

changed, the differences between the dyslexic and non-dyslexic groups

would have shown far greater difference. In other words, where dyslexic

students normally sit GCSE English, they will generally be expected to show

an even greater disparity with their non-dyslexic peers for their GCSE

outcomes.

185
6.6 Group equivalency measures

Non-dyslexic comparison students were matched on four criteria for which

quantitative data existed. However, other factors such as SEN, attendance,

attitude and behaviour were not matched, primarily because quantitative

data are not available for these criteria.

6.7 Self esteem measures

As has been shown here, struggling with academic tasks has a deleterious

effect on students, while knowledge of their dyslexia improves the students

self esteem and confidence. A limitation of this study is that no measures of

self esteem were carried out, something which should be considered in

future research.

6.8 Recommendations and future research

From the results of the research carried out here, are several

recommendations for action which should be considered by the school and

one recommendation for future research.

Recommended school actions –

186
 As most of the dyslexic students come to the school from primary

schools unidentified as having dyslexia, the school should set up an

arrangement with partnership schools to develop assessment and

remediation strategies.

 A number of girls who are dyslexic are probably not being picked up

by the screening and assessment system in place in the school. The

assessment procedures need to be reassessed.

 Gendered inequalities in GCSE attainment should be addressed.

Most schools are, however, already trying to address this issue, but

should be aware that that the problem is much greater for dyslexic

boys.

 There is no value in trying to identify dyslexia level by degree of

discrepancy. As it appears from this study that it is the fact of being

dyslexic which is limiting, all dyslexics need to be given support.

 From the case studies, it appears that self confidence is an important

factor. Consideration needs to be given to counselling for dyslexic

students, particularly boys.

187
Recommended future research –

As the difference in GCSE achievement between dyslexic students who sat

GCSE English and GCSE media studies is dramatic, an investigation should

be made into whether this form of assessment is a fairer way of allowing

dyslexic students to demonstrate their full ability.

188
References

Alexander-Passe, N. (2006). How dyslexic teenagers cope: an investigation

of self-esteem, coping and depression. Dyslexia, 12(4), 256-275.

Amesbury, L. (2008). Dyslexia: a holistic review of the strengths and

difficulties. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2436/18072

Artigas-Pallares, J. (2002). Problems associated with dyslexia. Rev Neurol,

34 Suppl 1, S7-13.

Backhouse, G., Dolman, E., & Read, C. (2004). Dyslexia: Assessing the

need for Access Arrangements during Examinations. Evesham:

PATOSS, The Professional Association of Teachers of Students with

Specific Learning Difficulties, in association with the JCQ Joint

Council for Qualifications.

Becker, L. A. (1999). Effect size calculators, from

http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/Psy590/escalc3.htm

Beech, J. R., & Singleton, C. (Eds.). (1997). The Psychological Assessment

of Reading. London: Routledge.

Bellini, G., Bravaccio, C., Calamoneri, F., Cocuzza, M., Fiorillo, P.,

Gagliano, A., et al. (1996). No evidence for association between

dyslexia and DYX1C1 functional variants in a group of children and

adolescents from Southern Italy. Journal of Molecular Neuroscience,

27(3), 311-314.

189
Benton, A. L. (1978). Some conclusions about dyslexia. In A. L. a. P.

Benton, D. (Ed.), Dyslexia: An Appraisal of Current Knowledge. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Blythe, S. G. (2000). Early learning in the balance: priming the first ABC.

Support for Learning, 15(4), 154-158.

Blythe, S. G. (2005). Releasing educational potential through movement: A

summary of individual studies carried out using the INPP test battery

and developmental exercise programme for use in schools with

children with special needs. Child Care in Practice, 11(4), 415-432.

Bookbinder, G. E., Vincent, D., & Crumpler, M. (2002). Salford Sentence

Reading Test (Revised) (3rd ed.). London: Hodder and Stoughton.

British Dyslexia Association (2004). Unrecognised dyslexia and the route to

offending. BDA Publication.

British Dyslexia Association (2008). Retrieved 12/09/2008, from

http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/whatisdyslexia.html

British Psychological Society (1999). Dyslexia, Literacy and Psychological

Assessment. Leicester: Report by a Working Party of the Division of

Educational and Child Psychology of the British Psychological

Society.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development:

Experiments by Nature and Design Cambridge Massachusetts:

Harvard university Press.

190
Brookes, R. L., & Stirling, J. (2005). The cerebellar deficit hypothesis and

dyslexic tendencies in a non-clinical sample. Dyslexia, 11(3), 174-

185.

Burawoy, M. (1991). Ethnography Unbound. Berkeley and Los Angeles,

California: University of California Press.

Burgess, S., McConnell, B., Propper, C., & Wilson, D. (2004). Girls rock,

boys roll: An analysis of the age 14-16 gender gap in English

schools. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51(2), 209-229.

Butterworth, B. (2003). Dyscalculia Screener. London: nferNelson.

Carroll, J. M., & Iles, J. E. (2006). An assessment of anxiety levels in

dyslexic students in higher education. Br J Educ Psychol, 76(Pt 3),

651-662.

Carver, R. P. (2000). The Causes of High and Low Reading Achievement.

United States: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Cline, A., & Frederickson, N. (1999). Identification and assessment of

bi/multilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education

and Bilingualism, 2(2), 81-93.

Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences

(2nd ed.). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in

Education (5th ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Collins, D. W., & Rourke, B. P. (2003). Learning-disabled brains: a review of

the literature. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 25(7), 1011-1034.

191
Comings, D. E., & Comings, B. G. (1987). A controlled study of Tourette

syndrome. I. Attention-deficit disorder, learning disorders, and school

problems. American Journal of Human Genetics, 41(5), 701-741.

Cooke, A. (2002). Case study: a virtual non-reader achieves a degree.

Dyslexia, 8(2), 102-115.

Cotton, S. M., Crewther, D. P., & Crewther, S. G. (2005). Measurement

error: Implications for diagnosis and discrepancy models of

developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia, 11(3), 186-202.

Critchley, M., & Critchley, E. (1978). Dyslexia Defined. London: Heinemann

Medical Books.

Davis, R. D. (1995). The Gift of Dyslexia: Why Some of the Smartest People

Can't Read and How They Can Learn. London: Souvenier Press.

Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and

educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13-21.

Demack, S., Drew, D., & Grimsley, M. (2000). Minding the Gap: ethnic,

gender and social class differences in attainment at 16, 1988± 95.

Race Ethnicity and Education, 3(2), 117-143.

Dewey, D., Crawford, S. G., & Kaplan, B. J. (2003). Clinical Importance of

Parent Ratings of Everyday cognitive Abilities in Children with

Learning and Attention Problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

36(1), 87-95.

DfES (2001). Guidance to support pupils with dyslexia and dyscalculia.

London: Department for Education and Skills.

192
DfES (2002). The Autumn Package Retrieved 17th May, 2004

DfES (2004). The Autumn Package Retrieved 17th May, 2008

Dockrell, J. E. & Messer, D. (1999). Understanding children's language and

communication difficulties. London: Continuum International

Publishing Group Ltd.

Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., Palikara, O., & Cullen, M.-A. (2007). Raising the

Achievements of Children and Young People with Specific Speech

and Language Difficulties and other Special Educational Needs

through School to Work and College. Nottingham: DfES.

Eckert, M. A., Leonard, C. M., Richards, T., Aylward, E. H., Thomson, J., &

Berninger, V. W. (2003). Anatomical correlates of dyslexia: frontal

and cerebellar findings. Brain, 126(2), 482-494.

Eden, G. F., & Zeffiro, T. A. (1998). Neural Systems Affected in

Developmental Dyslexia Revealed by Functional Neuroinaging.

Neuron, 21, 279-282.

Eisenberg, L. (1966). The epidemiology of reading retardation and a

program for preventive intervention. In J. Money (Ed.), The Disabled

Reader: Education of the Dyslexic Child. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Eisenberg, L. (1978). Definition of dyslexia: implications and policy. In A. L.

Benton & D. Pearl (Eds.), Dyslexia: An Appraisal of Current

Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

Elliott, C. D. (1997). British Abilities Scale II. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

193
Everatt, J. (1997). The Abilities and Disabilities Associated with Adult

Developmental Dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 20(1), 13-

21.

Everatt, J., Steffert, B., & Smythe, I. (1999). An eye for the unusual: creative

thinking in dyslexics. Dyslexia, 5(1), 28-46.

Fawcett, A. J., & Lynch, L. (2000). Systematic identification and intervention

for reading difficulty: case studies of children with EAL. Dyslexia,

6(1), 57-71.

Fawcett, A. J., & Nicholson, R. I. (2001). Dyslexia: the role of the

cerebellum. In A. J. Fawcett (Ed.), Dyslexia. Theory and Good

Practice (pp. 89-105). London: Whurr.

Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (1999). Performance of Dyslexic Children on

Cerebellar and Cognitive Tests. J Mot Behav, 31(1), 68-78.

Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (2001). Dyslexia: the role of the cerebellum.

In A. J. Fawcett (Ed.), Dyslexia. Theory and Good Practice (pp. 89-

105). London: Whurr.

Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (2007). Dyslexia, learning, and pedagogical

neuroscience. Dev Med Child Neurol, 49(4), 306-311.

Fieder, M., Prossinger, H., Iber, K., Schaefer, K., Wallner, B., & Huber, S.

(2006). Season of birth contributes to variation in university

examination outcomes. Am J Hum Biol, 18(5), 714-717.

Fink, R. P. (1998). Literacy development in successful men and women with

dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 48(1).

194
Fisher, S. E., & DeFries, J. C. (2002). Developmental dyslexia: Genetic

dissection of a complex cognitive trait. Nature, 3(October), 767-780.

Fisher, S. E., & Smith, S. D. (2001). Progress towards the identification of

genes influencing developmental dyslexia. In A. J. Fawcett (Ed.),

Dyslexia Theory and Good Practice (pp. 39-64). London: Whurr.

Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Reid Lyon, G., Shaywitz, B.

A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric Approaches to the

Identification of LD: IQ and Achievement Scores Are Not Sufficient.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(2), 98-108.

Frederickson, N., Frith, U., & Reason, R. (1997). Phonological Assessment

Battery. London: nferNelson.

Frederickson, N., & Jacobs, S. (2001). Controllability attributions for

academic performance and the perceived scholastic competence,

global self-worth and achievement of children with dyslexia. School

Psychology International, 22(4), 401-416.

Frederickson, N., & Reason, R. (1995). Discrepancy Definitions of Specific

Learning Difficulties. Educational Psychology in Practice, 10(4), 195 -

205.

Frith, U. (1999). Paradoxes in the definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia, 5(4), 192-

214.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003).

Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and

195
 Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct. Learning

Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171.

Galaburda, A. M., Corsiglia, J., Rosen, G. D., & Sherman, G. F. (1987).

Planum temporale asymmetry: reappraisal since Geschwind and

Levitsky. Neuropsychologia, 25(6), 853-868.

Gilger, J. W., Hanebuth, E., Smith, S. D., & Pennington, B. F. (1996).

Differential risk for developmental reading disorders in the offspring

of compensated versus noncompensated parents. Reading and

Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 407-417.

Gillberg, C., & Kadesjo, B. (2003). Why bother about clumsiness? The

implications of having developmental coordination disorder (DCD).

Neural Plasticity, 10(1-2), 59-68.

Glascoe, F. P. (2000). Evidence-based approach to developmental and

behavioural surveillance using parents’ concerns. Child: Care, Health

and Development, 26(2), 137-149.

Glutting, J., Adams, W., & Sheslow, D. (1999). Wide Range Intelligence

Test. Wilmington: Wide Range Inc.

Goldstein, H. (2001). Using pupil performance data for judging schools and

teachers: scope and limitations. British Educational Research

Journal, 27(4), 433-442.

Goldstein, H., & Sammons, P. (1997). The Influence of Secondary and

Junior Schools on Sixteen Year Examination Performance: A Cross-

196
 classified Multilevel Analysis. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 8(2), 219-230.

Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic Developments. London: Harvester-

Wheatsheaf.

Goulandris, N. K., & Snowling, M. (1991). Visual Memory Deficits: A

Plausible Cause of Developmental Dyslexia? Evidence from a Single

Case Study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8(2), 127 - 154.

Gustafson, S., & Samuelsson, S. (1999). Intelligence and dyslexia:

implications for diagnosis and intervention. Scand J Psychol, 40(2),

127-134.

Habib, M. (2000). The neurobiological basis of developmental dyslexia. An

overview and a working hypothesis. Brain, 123, 2373-2399.

Hartas, D. (2008). Dyslexia in the early years: a practical guide to teaching

and learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hatcher, J., Snowling, M. J., & Griffiths, Y. M. (2002). Cognitive assessment

of dyslexic students in higher education. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 72, 119-133.

Hinshelwood, J. (1900). Congenital word-blindness. Lancet, 1, 1506-1508.

Holloman, H. A., Dobbins, D. R., & Scott, K. G. (1998). The Effects of

Biological and Social Risk Factors on Special Education Placement:

Birth Weight and Maternal Education as an Example. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 19(3), 281-294.

197
Horne, J. (2002). Development and Evaluation of Computer-based

Techniques for Assessing Children in Educational Settings University

of Hull, Hull.

Humphrey, N., & Mullins, P. M. (2002). Personal Constructs and Attribution

for Academic Success and Failure in Dyslexia. British Journal of

Special Education, 29(4), 196-203.

Johnston, R. S., & Morrison, M. (2007). Toward a resolution of

inconsistencies in the phonological deficit theory of reading disorders:

phonological reading difficulties are more severe in high-IQ poor

readers. J Learn Disabil, 40(1), 66-79.

Joint Council for Qualifications (2007). Regulations and guidance relating to

candidates who are eligible for adjustments in examinations GCSE,

GCE, GNVQ, AEA, entry level, basic skills & key skills access

arrangements and special consideration.

Kaplan, B. J., Wilson, B. N., Dewey, D., & Crawford, S. G. (1998). DCD may

not be a discrete disorder. Human Movement Science, 17(4-5), 471-

490.

Karpathiou, C., Dalla, V., Kapetanios, V., & Papa, A. (2004). Objective

diagnostic scale for dyslexia, through neuropsychological data by

using EEG mapping. Retrieved 31/01/08, from

http://www.bdainternationalconference.org/2004/presentations/mon_

p2_c_10.shtml

198
Kirk, J., & Reid, G. (2001). An examination of the relationship between

dyslexia and offending in young people and the implications for the

training system. Dyslexia, 7(2), 77-84.

Lefly, D. L., & Pennington, B. F. (1991). Spelling Errors and Reading

Fluency in Compensated Adult Dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41,

143-162.

Lindsay, G. (2001). Identification and intervention in the primary school. In

A. J. Fawcet (Ed.), Dyslexia: Theory and Good Practice. (pp. 256-

280). London: Whurr.

Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: a critical perspective. British

Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 3-12.

Lindsay, G. (2007). Personal Communication.

Lindsay, G., & Dockrell, J. E. (2008). Language intervention in the school

years: A systemic approach. Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología.

Lindsay, G., & Lewis, A. (2003). An Evaluation of the Use of Accredited

Baseline Assessment Schemes in England. British Educational

Research Journal, 29(2), 149-167.

Lloyd, C. (2002). Developing and changing practice in special educational

needs through critically reflective action research: a case study.

European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 109-127.

Lucid Research (Producer). (1999) LASS Secondary. retrieved from

http://www.lucid-research.com/index.htm

199
Lundberg, I., & Hoien, T. (2001). Dyslexia and phonology. In A. J. Fawcett

(Ed.), Dyslexia Theory and Good Practice (pp. 109-123). London:

Whurr.

Lyon, G., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2003). A definition of dyslexia.

Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 1-14.

MacKay, T. (2008). Can psychology change the world. The Psychologist,

21(11), 928-931.

Marino, C., Giorda, R., Luisa Lorusso, M., Vanzin, L., Salandi, N., Nobile,

M., et al. (2005). A family-based association study does not support

DYX1C1 on 15q21.3 as a candidate gene in developmental dyslexia.

Eur J Hum Genet, 13(4), 491-499.

Massey, A., Green, S., Dexter, T., & Hamnett, L. (2003). Comparability of

national tests over time: key stage test standards between 1996 and

2001. Final report to the QCA. London: QCA Publications.

Mathes, P. G., & Denton, C. A. (2002). The prevention and identification of

reading disability. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 9(3), 185-191.

McGrath, L. M., Smith, S. D., & Pennington, B. F. (2006). Breakthroughs in

the search for dyslexia candidate genes Trends in Molecular

Medicine, 12(7), 333-341.

Menghini, D., Hagberg, G. E., Caltagirone, C., Petrosini, L., & Vicari, S.

(2006). Implicit learning deficits in dyslexic adults: an fMRI study.

Neuroimage, 33(4), 1218-1226.

200
Meyer, M. S. (2000). The Ability–Achievement Discrepancy: Does it

Contribute to an Understanding of Learning Disabilities? Educational

Psychology Review, 12(3), 315-337.

Miles, T. R. (1982). The Bangor Dyslexia Test. Wisbech: Learning

Development Aids.

Miles, T. R. (1983). Dyslexia: the pattern of difficulties. London: Granada.

Miles, T. R. (1993). Dyslexia: the pattern of difficulties (2nd ed.). London:

Whurr.

Miles, T. R., & Miles, E. (1990). Dyslexia: A Hundred Years On. Milton

Keynes: OUP.

Miller-Shaul, S. (2005). The characteristics of young and adult dyslexics

readers on reading and reading related cognitive tasks as compared

to normal readers. Dyslexia, 11(2), 132-151.

Morris, D., & Turnbull, P. (2007). A survey-based exploration of the impact

of dyslexia on career progression of UK registered nurses. J Nurs

Manag, 15(1), 97-106.

Morton, J., & Frith, U. (1995). Causal modelling: a structural approach to

developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.),

Manual of developmental psychopathology. New York: Wiley.

Muter, V., Snowling, M. J., & Carroll, J. (2007). Children at family risk of

dyslexia: a follow-up in early adolescence. J Child Psychol

Psychiatry, 48(6), 609-618.

201
Myklebust, H. R. (Ed.). (1978). Progress in Learning Disabilities (Vol. IV).

New York: Grune & Stratton.

Nicholson, R. I. (2001). Introduction. In A. J. Fawcett (Ed.), Dyslexia.

Theory and Good Practice (pp. 1-35). London: Whurr.

Nicolson, Fawcett, & Dean (2001). Dyslexia, development and the

cerebellum. Trends Neurosci, 24(9), 515-516.

Nicolson, R. I. (1996). Developmental Dyslexia: Past, Present and Future.

Dyslexia, 2(3), 190-207.

Nicolson, R. I. (2002). The dyslexia ecosystem. Dyslexia, 8(2), 55-66.

Nicolson, R. I., & Fawcett, A. J. (2005). Developmental dyslexia, learning

and the cerebellum. J Neural Transm Suppl(69), 19-36.

Nisbet, J., & Watt, J. (1984). Case Study. In J. Bell, T. Bush, A. Fox, J.

Goodey & S. Goulding (Eds.), Conducting Small-scale Investigations

in Educational Management (pp. 79-92). London: Harper & Row.

Office for National Statistics (2008). Retrieved September 2008, from

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1003

Olson, R. K. (2002). Dyslexia: nature and nurture. Dyslexia, 8(3), 143-159.

Osborne, P. (1999). Pilot Study to Investigate the Performance of Dyslexic

Students in Written Assessments. Innovations in Education and

Teaching International, 36(2), 155 - 160.

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual. Maidenhead, UK: Open

University Press.

202
Payton, P., & Winfield, M. (2000). Interventions for pupils with dyspraxic

difficulties. Dyslexia, 6(3), 208-210.

Penketh, C. (2007). Supporting pupils with dyspraxia in the visual arts: Does

drawing from observation function as an official and discriminatory

discourse? International Journal of Art & Design Education, 26(2),

144-154.

Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2005). Genetics of Dyslexia. In M. J.

Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The Science of Reading: A Handbook

(pp. 453-472). Oxford: Blackwell.

Portwood, M. (2006). The role of dietary fatty acids in children's behaviour

and learning. Nutrition and Health, 18(3), 233-247.

Pringle-Morgan, W. (1896). A case of congenital word blindness. British

Medical Journal, 2, 1378.

Pumfrey, P. D., & Reason, R. (1991). Specific Learning Difficulties

(Dyslexia): Challenges and Responses. London: NFER-Routledge.

QCA (2005a). Key Stage 2 Assessment and Reporting Arrangements 2006

QCA (2005b). Key Stage 3 Assessment and Reporting Arrangements 2006

Rabiner, D., & Coie, J. D. (2000). Early Attention Problems and Children's

Reading Achievement: A Longitudinal Investigation. Journal of the

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(7), 859-

867.

Ramus, F. (2008). A neurological model of dyslexia and other domain-

specific developmental disorders with an associated sensorimotor

203
 syndrome. In G. D. Rosen (Ed.), The Dyslexic Brain: New Pathways

in Neuroscience. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Ramus, F., Rosen, S., Dakin, S. C., Day, B. L., Castellote, J. M., White, S.,

et al. (2003). Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a

multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain, 126(4), 841-865.

Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1977). Raven's Progressive

Matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press Ltd.

Reason, R. (2001). Educational practice and dyslexia. The Psychologist,

14(6), 298-301.

Reid, G. (2005). Dyslexia and Higher Education: Guidelines for Training

Assessors Retrieved 15th March, 2008, from

http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:YoogWk4CT8cJ:ww

w.universell.no/uploads/files/file_61.pdf+dyslexia+psychometric+asse

ssment

Reid, G., Deponio, P., & Davidson Petch, L. (2005). Identification,

assessment and intervention--Implications of an audit on dyslexia

policy and practice in Scotland. Dyslexia, 11(3), 203-216.

Reid, G., & Wearmouth, J. (Eds.). (2002). Dyslexia and Literacy. Chichester:

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Reschly, D. J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: primary

intervention, secondary intervention, and then what? J Learn Disabil,

38(6), 510-515.

204
Reynolds, D., Nicolson, R. I., & Hambly, H. (2003). Evaluation of an

exercise-based treatment for children with reading difficulties.

Dyslexia, 9(1), 48-71; discussion 46-47.

Richardson, & Wydell, T. N. (2003). The representation and attainment of

students with dyslexia in UK higher education. Reading and Writing:

An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 475-503.

Richardson, A. J. (2004). Clinical trials of fatty acid treatment in ADHD,

dyslexia, dyspraxia and the autistic spectrum. Prostaglandins,

Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids, 70(4), 383-390.

Riddell, S., Brown, S., & Duffield, J. (1994). Parental Power and Special

Educational Needs: the case of specific learning difficulties. British

Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 327 - 344.

Rutter, M. (1978a). Prevalence and types of dyslexia. In A. L. a. P. Benton,

D. (Ed.), Dyslexia: an appraisal of current knowledge. (pp. 3-28).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Rutter, M. (1978b). Prevalence and types of dyslexia. In A. L. Benton & D.

Pearl (Eds.), Dyslexia: an appraisal of current knowledge (pp. 3-28).

London: Oxford University Press.

Rutter, M., Caspi, A., Fergusson, D., Horwood, L. J., Goodman, R.,

Maughan, B., et al. (2004). Sex Differences in Developmental

Reading Disability: New Findings From 4 Epidemiological Studies.

JAMA, 291(16), 2007-2012.

205
Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of specific reading retardation.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16(3), 181-197.

Ruxton, C. H. S., Reed, S. C., Simpson, M. J. A., & Millington, K. J. (2004).

The health benefits of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids: a review

of the evidence. Journal of Human Nutrition & Dietetics, 17(5), 449-

459.

Satz, P., & Fletcher, J. M. (1987). Left-Handedness and Dyslexia: An Old

Myth Revisited. J. Pediatr. Psychol., 12(2), 291-298.

Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Using our current

understanding of dyslexia to support early identification and

intervention. J Child Neurol, 19(10), 759-765.

Schulte-Korne, G., Manthey, M., Koenig, I. R., Grimm, T., Schumacher, J.,

Duell, M., et al. (2004). Linkage and linkage-disequilibrium (LD)

analyses on chromosomal regions 6p21-p22, 15q21 and 18p11 in

reading and spelling disorder (dyslexia) Retrieved 31/01/08, from

http://www.bdainternationalconference.org/2004/presentations/tue_s

2_b_5.shtml

Share, D. L., & Silva, P. A. (2003). Gender bias in IQ-discrepancy and post-

discrepancy definitions of reading disability. J Learn Disabil, 36(1), 4-

14.

Shaywitz, S. E. (1998). Dyslexia. The New England Journal of Medicine,

338(5), 307-312.

206
Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., Shneider, A. E., Marchione,

K. E., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: the

Connecticut Longitudinal Study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104(6),

1351-1359.

Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2005). Dyslexia (specific reading

disability). Biol Psychiatry, 57(11), 1301-1309.

Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Escobar, M. D. (1990).

Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls. Results of the

Connecticut Longitudinal Study. JAMA, 264(8), 998-1002.

Siegel, L. S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia.

J Learn Disabil, 25(10), 618-629.

Siegel, L. S. (2003). IQ-Discrepancy Definitions and the Diagnosis of LD:

Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

36(1), 2-3.

Simmons, F., & Singleton, C. (2000). The Reading Comprehension Abilities

of Dyslexic Students in Higher Education. Dyslexia, 6, 178-192.

Singleton, C. (2003). Understanding Dyslexia Retrieved 25/02/2008, from

http://www.lucid-research.com//documents/factsheets/FS19-

Understandingdyslexia.pdf

Smith, H. W. (1991). Strategies of Social Research (3rd ed.). Orlando, Fl:

Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Smith, P., Fernandes, C., & Strand, S. (2001). Cognitive Abilities Test 3

Technical Manual. Windson: nferNelson Publishing Company Ltd,.

207
Snowling, M. J. (2000). Dyslexia. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Snowling, M. J. (2001). From language to reading and dyslexia. Dyslexia,

7(1), 37-46.

Snowling, M. J. (2005). Specific learning difficulties. Psychiatry, 4(9), 110-

113.

Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2003). A critique of claims from Reynolds,

Nicolson & Hambly (2003) that DDAT is an effective treatment for

children with reading difficulties--'lies, damned lies and

(inappropriate) statistics'? Dyslexia, 9(2), 127-133; discussion 134-

125.

Stackhouse, J., & Snowling, M. J. (1966). Dyslexia, Speech and Language:

A Practitioner's Handbook. London: Whurr.

Stake, R. E. (1978). The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry. Educational

Researcher, 7(2), 5-8.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences

of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy. Reading

Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.

Stanovich, K. E. (1989). Learning disabilities in broader context. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 22, 287-297.

Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy Definitions of Reading Disability: Has

Intelligence Led Us Astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 7-

29.

208
Stanovich, K. E. (1996). Toward a More Inclusive Definition of Dyslexia.

Dyslexia, 2(3), 154-166.

Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). The phenotypic performance profile

of reading-disabled children: a regression based test of the

phonological core variable-difference model. . Journal of Educational

Psychology, 86, 24-53.

Stein, J. (2001). The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia.

Dyslexia, 7(1), 12-36.

Strand, S. (2004). Consistency in reasoning test scores over time. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 617-631.

Strand, S. (2006). Comparing the predictive validity of reasoning tests and

national end of Key Stage 2 tests: which tests are the ‘best’? British

Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 209-225.

Strand, S. (2007). Minority ethnic pupils in the longitudinal study of young

people in England (LSYPE). Nottingham: Department for Education

and Skills.

Strand, S., & Demie, F. (2005). Pupil mobility, attainment and progress in

primary school. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 551-

568.

Thomas, C. J. (1905). Congenital 'word-blindness' and its treatment.

Opthalmoscope, 3, 380-385.

Thomson, M. (1990). Developmental Dyslexia. London Whurr.

209
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E., & France, N. (1986). Cognitive Abilities Test

(2nd edn). Administration Manual Windsor: nferNelson

Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2006). Language-Related Differences

between Discrepancy-Defined and Non-discrepancy-Defined Poor

Readers: A Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia in New Zealand. Dyslexia.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating

between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers:

more evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of

reading disability. J Learn Disabil, 33(3), 223-238.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen,

R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily

remediated poor readers: early intervention as a vehicle for

distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic

causes of specific reading disability Journal of Educational

Psychology, 88(4), 601-638.

Vicari, S., Marotta, L., Menghini, D., Molinari, M., & Petrosini, L. (2003).

Implicit learning deficit in children with developmental dyslexia.

Neuropsychologia, 41(1), 108-114.

Warrington, M., Younger, M., & Williams, J. (2000). Student Attitudes,

Image and the Gender Gap. British Educational Research Journal,

26(3), 393-407.

210
Wearmouth, J., Soler, J., & Reid, G. (2002). Addressing difficulties in

literacy development: responses at family, school, pupil and teacher

levels: Routledge.

Weiner, B. (1980). Human Motivation. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson.

Wheldall, K., & Watkins, R. (2004). Literacy levels of male juvenile justice

detainees. Educational Review, 56(1), 3-11.

Williams, J., & O'Donovan, M. C. (2006). The genetics of developmental

dyslexia. Eur J Hum Genet, 14(6), 681-689.

Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the

developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology 91(3),

415-438.

Woods, K. (2000). Assessment Needs in GCSE Examinations: some

student perspectives. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16(2), 131-

140.

Woods, K. (2007). Access to General Certificate of Secondary Education

(GCSE) examinations for students with special educational needs:

what is 'best practice'? British Journal of Special Education, 34(2),

89-95.

World Federation of Neurology (1968). Report of research group on dyslexia

and world illiteracy. Dallas: World Federation of Neurology.

Yang, M., & Woodhouse, G. (2001). Progress from GCSE to A and AS

Level: institutional and gender differences, and trends over time.

British Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 245-267.

211
Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (1996). Differential Achievement of Girls and

Boys at GCSE: Some Observations from the Perspective of One

School. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(3), 299-313.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect. London: Rider.

212
APPENDIX 1

Transcript of the case study interview with student ‘Emma’. AS is this

researcher and *** is an inaudible word from the recording.

AS Ok, uh, we’re going to do it fairly chronologically, so I’d like to start off
with your very first experience of school. Can you remember it?
Emma I can, I can remember the nursery that I used to go, and play
group. Then I went to primary school.
AS Primary school, can you remember it?
Emma I can kinda remember a little bit.
AS Ok, can you remember if you enjoyed it?
Emma Umm
AS Were you looking forward to going to school?
Emma I think I did, I found it very tiring
AS Did you?
Emma Because I used to sleep a lot when I was younger, and I would
still have an afternoon nap before I started school, so I used to come home
and sleep [laughs].
AS Uh huh.
Emma But I think it was, you know, generally I found it ok. I do
remember when my sister was, you know, we were in different education or
whatever and I remember one snow day when she didn’t have to go in and I
did. I was a bit depressed.
AS [Laughs] and she got to stay home, and that was… Right, so you
would have liked the day off?
Emma Umm, yeah but then I think I would have been happy just, you
know, sat at home, and yeah, umm, I think most kids are like that though.
AS Yes. Especially when your sister doesn’t have to go in, and I think it
was snowing, so… Right, umm before you actually started school, were

213
you looking forward to going to school? Some kids are really looking forward
to going to school and some kids are very nervous of going to school.
Emma Uhh, I don’t really remember, sort of, either, sort of.
AS Ok, how well do you think you did in primary school?
Emma Uhh, well, umm, my, the sort of reading and writing was awful,
umm I remember getting my year six SATS, I got, umm a three and a five in
English, the three was, maybe, there were two parts of English then so… I
think speaking and listening and… The comprehension and stuff so, but it
brought it down to a four anyway, but then I got a five in maths and a level
six in science, which I was very proud of.
AS Right.
Emma Because that was, it was like an extra paper.
AS That’s an extension paper.
Emma Yeah, yeah, so that’s quite good.
AS So, five in maths and six in science.
Emma Yeah. I think like, as far as the sort of educational thing went,
you know, I was quite happy and I was, I could do, like I remember getting,
actually getting put down on a class in English. I used to be like in the top
table and getting put down, and then I don’t think I really understood why,
cos you know, I could get it, I understood it. Thinks like you know, we’d have
a weekly spelling test, and stuff like that ***. But I think, like, the social side
of it I found, you know, the probably the hardest.
AS The social side?
Emma Hmm, yes its like, uh, I remember I had a best friend, and then
one of her friends from um, Guides started at school, and they sort of
started being friends and I sort of found it very hard to integrate someone
else…
AS Did you have many friends?

214
Emma Umm, I was alright, I sort of, in primary school everyone was
kinda friendly. You didn’t get nastiness at all, but I only had the one close
friend, and I still, really only a few friends, close friends, and, yeah.
[pause]
AS Would you think that just having a small number of close friends was
because you prefer it that way, you…
[interruption] Hi sorry, hello.
AS Hello.
AS Is it because you chose to keep a small close group of friends of
because you find it hard to make friends?
Emma Umm, I think may be a bit of both, sort of finding it hard to find
people to who understand you, and sort of on the same wave length, is
really quite difficult, and umm, you know I think when I was younger I wasn’t
interesting in things that, you know children my age group were interested
in. Like sort of what I thought were quite boring.
AS [laughs] Were you the nerdy kid?
Emma I was nerdy, but I was mature I think…
AS Yes
Emma …is a better way to put it. I had a mature outlook, and I think,
some things I thought were a bit pointless, and you know, young.
AS Right. Yes, umm. ***
Emma Yes, and especially things like sport at lunchtime, people
would go out and play like that and run around, I’d rather sit and chat. We’d
always sort of just hide in the cloak room so we could just sort of sit in the
warm than go out in the cold. Yeah it was better.
AS Right, umm, so can you remember when you first learn to read in
primary school,
Emma Mmm.
AS When you were first learning to read, did you enjoy it at the very very
beginning, when everyone was learning?

215
Emma It wasn’t, sort of, one of my interests. You know, I don’t think I
hated it, but I would have rather have been painting, or, you know, going
out. We used to go on little school trips to The Warriner farm, so, that was
more interesting.
AS Which school did you go to?
Emma Harriers.
AS Oh right.
Emma Yeah? Umm, and yeah. Uh, I’d rather just sort of, I think I’d
rather have played on my own as well, than having to sort of, play with other
children at school. And all through, right, I remember a bit, when we were a
bit older we used to have reading time, and I would just like sit there and
play, cos it was really quite boring, because I just really wasn’t interested.
AS You didn’t, you didn’t read or you found reading boring?
Emma Um, boring and tiring and just, it didn’t interest me, and yeah,
but I think other than learning to read, I kind of, I don’t remember struggling
but I think I was just sort of aware of it, more than actually may be
struggling.
AS So you didn’t read much as a child?
Emma I used to be read to a lot, and I liked being read to, and I
remember until I was at secondary school my mum used to always read to
us, and I really enjoyed being read to, about stories and stuff. But, um, I
wouldn’t particularly read to myself.
AS One of my questions was do your parents read to you!
Emma Yes, and I used to like the, you know, the difference in what
they would read aswell. Umm, it was quite good.
AS How often did your parents read to you?
Emma Umm, It would depend, when we were younger they would
sort of, read bed time stories or whatever, and quite often if we were out
somewhere and needed to be quiet we would sit and read. Cos it was good
keep us quiet. But we used to read the famous five stories, and so if we

216
were in the middle of the book me and charlotte would be like ‘can you read
us another chapter’ [laughs] and stuff so it was often more as often as we
could get them to read. Which was good, good fun.
AS So you parents value reading highly?
Emma Mmm (agreeing).
AS Do they read a lot themselves?
Emma Umm, yeah, my dad used to do it cos he quite often reads,
and my mum’s sort of, she likes reading but she’s, sort of, on holiday and
stuff cos when she reads she’ll sit there and read, kinda of the whole book.
You know, so…
AS Right.
Emma So she gets carried away.
AS So your mum reads mostly on holiday?
Emma Yeah. Umm, I think my dad probably reads harder books than
my mum. [laughs].
AS What sort of books did you enjoy when you were little?
Emma Um, real stuff.
AS Real stuff?
Emma Like science, I used to have, like little science books. Like an
encyclopaedia.
AS That’s interesting, my son had all the encyclopaedias.
Emma Yeah, and history.
AS Dorling Kindersley books with all these nice pictures?
Emma Yeah the pictures were good. Umm when I was really little I
used to love the little um, on farm with a little duck on each page.
AS My kids had that and loved it! Find duck?
Yes!
AS Right, did you know the Where’s Wally books?
Yeah.
AS Did you like that?

217
Emma Uh, I don’t think I ever owned one, but, uh they were quite
good fun. Better than reading [laughs].
AS Yes.
Emma But I mean, I used to read, I remember reading books that
were well below, you know, well, I think, one of my friends, she read above
our age, so the difference was bigger, but I remember the kind of books I’d
be reading were quite young. But I enjoyed it because, you know, I could
understand it so, was happy.
AS Yes, it was more comfortable for you to read…
Emma Yeah, that’s enjoyable.
AS Yes.
Emma But I think I just, I’d rather be doing stuff rather than sat
reading.
AS So when did you first realise that you had difficulties with reading?
Emma Umm, I think I only when, like, I was diagnosed with being
dyslexic that I kind of became aware that you know, it was difficult than
others.
AS Right, so that wasn’t until year 10 or 11?
Year 10 I think it was.
AS So you weren’t aware of problems before then?
Emma No, I kind of assumed that maybe it was the same with
everyone else, you know, and that, you know, the difference between my
reading and other people’s was, you know, my friend she’s a book worm as
it were, so I kinda assumed that she was just above rather than that I was
behind, and I just didn’t have time for books so, um. Reading in class I
guess I just subconsciously made, you know, adjustments or whatever.
AS That’s interesting. So once you became aware of it, you were
diagnosed, did you start to put things together, put two and two together?
Emma Yeah, um, well just when people would point out that’s not the
way they would see it or whatever, and, you know, most people they’re

218
reading faster and stuff, and then understanding or what your reading as
well. You know, quite often, umm, when I had my latest umm, assessment,
they do a thing when you read out loud and they ask you questions and I
can answer any of the questions about what I just read, and that, kinda
looking back I guess makes a lot of sense in that I read and read and read
and stuff. *** (mumbles something)
AS Right then, so when I say what did the school do about it, I know
what the school did about it because it was what I put in place. [laughs] so
that’s it. Ok, so um, so that was really just exam concessions wasn’t it?
Emma Mmm (agreeing).
AS Umm, what else did you get to do in school?
Emma It was just the exam…
AS It was just the exam concessions, ok. So when you were infants what
were your strengths?
Emma Art.
AS Art?
Emma Yes.
AS And what was your difficulty then was reading? Or writing?
Emma Yes reading and writing. I guess just that, the kinda, the whole
concept of being creative through words, was not something that I, sort of,
understood.
AS And it was the same in primary?
Emma Yeah.
AS Yes.
Emma But the maths and the science were fine, it was just the
English.
AS Right, and at secondary again art is your main… art more than
science or maths?
Emma Mmm (agreeing) uh, I struggled at the very beginning in um,
secondary school, because they did set us, and our classes had been set

219
since maybe year 5 so I was used to working with people at my same level,
so I found it very frustrating because I could understand concepts, you
know, quicker and then, you know, I’d be like ahead and that’s not good. So
no, so my um, my science, I started off a level six and then I think I was
only, maybe a, I think I was an eight in year 9, when we did our SATS again,
but I really should have been higher, they just didn’t, you know, we had to
go the speed of the slowest, or the average, you know, in the first couple of
years so I just lost interest.
AS That was bad then, because if you were in that set class your
teachers should have given you extension work.
Emma Well, I mean, they’d set me extension work, I’d still complete it,
cos I could understand it so, you know, whereas people they were going
over it and trying to get them to understand it, I was like- I get it, you know.
Cos especially the first year was level six stuff so I’d covered it already, and,
but then English I think, I don’t remember struggling, but I think I just sort of
ignored it in some ways, if I did struggle.
AS How did you cope with homework?
Emma Umm.
AS First of all in infants when you first started getting homework, how did
you cope then?
Emma I don’t really remember getting, I mean we did get homework,
but, I think my problem was always with speed rather than understanding.
You know, I didn’t have a problem understanding, but, you know, I was tired
cos I’d had school all day long and didn’t really want to do homework. I don’t
sort of remember there being any problems with it, ***. I remember my
mum, you know, she never really approved of homework, you know, she’d
thought I’d had enough after 6 hours of school and I should be going off and
playing with friends or whatever. And I did, at some point you know, I was
doing *** as well, so it was a long day.

220
I don’t think we got homework until we were slightly older away, but I think
we must have got reading homework, I don’t ever remember doing my
reading homework, but I guess maybe I might have done [laughs] and
spelling was worse, we always used to do our spelling on the way to and
from school, and this kind of stuff. My mum did help us with it a lot, she
cared about our spelling homework. I, sort of don’t think I did that well I don’t
think.
AS What about secondary then with homework? You had a lot more
homework in secondary?
Emma Yes it was yeah, it got quite crazy. Hmm, I mean, I kinda, you
adapt, I don’t think I ever really remember having problems. I remember sort
of after being in secondary school for a little bit and not having time to go
out and play. ***. It was actually proper homework then. Its quite strange I
don’t remember to much about it.
AS Really? It was such a long time ago! [laughs].
Emma Yeah, especially with education your sort of always in the next
thing.
AS Yes, right. Umm, so what, if any, steps did you parents take with the
school? In primary school you were having difficulties with English, with
reading and writing, did your parents speak to the school at all?
Emma Umm. Not that I’m aware. Umm. I don’t really think. I don’t
really know what other people thought about my reading. I certainly wasn’t
sort of informed that there was any problem or whatever, its just that I was
better at other subjects, you know.
AS Primary schools should have picked it up so easily with you, because
you did so well in maths and science.
Emma Hmm (agreeing).
AS Obviously struggling in English someone should have twigged. In
secondary school it is harder because the teachers don’t compare what’s
happening in the other subjects so easily but at primary school you have the

221
same teacher teaching science and English, they should have twigged.
Umm, so the school, didn’t... did they do anything to help you with your
English? When they…
Emma No, it was well done on your science, and commiserations, I
guess on your English. But, umm, I didn’t like English then, I never have
done. [laughs] I guess I kind of just did it.
AS So, thinking back, thinking back now, is there something you would
have liked the school to have done?
Emma Well umm, I guess just sort of acknowledge it earlier would
have been very helpful. Umm, and one of the things we sort of talk about a
lot at uni is the holistic learning, not just learning one style of learning the
ordinary approach. I guess more visual is kinda my strengths. And things
like when you’re teaching younger children like the spelling and you can
kinda make the letters out of playdough and all this stuff.
AS That’s the Davies approach isn’t it. Have your read the book the Gift
of Dyslexia?
Emma No, no. I have like my study skills and support sessions or
whatever and we talk a little bit about it. Yeah I guess they sort of, are very
like, this is how it’s done and you’ve just got to learn it.
AS How has dyslexia affected you life outside of school?
Emma Umm, well I guess like the social side of school I didn’t have
many friends.
AS Do you think that was dyslexia?
Emma Well, I don’t, it was sort of my mature outlook so whether that
was dyslexia. Umm, I did have, well I had a few friends and to me that was
enough, so, but I think I quite, I didn’t always understand what children sort
of were doing, umm, maybe in my own little world a little bit aswell. Umm,
but mmm. I think maybe more, umm, when you sort of in secondary school I
think you notice it more, because you sort of, get a bigger pool of people.
Yeah just sort of your understanding of stuff or whatever is different from

222
people. I think people are sort of quicker to judge when you’re teenagers
and don’t like the differences when you’re teenagers, whereas when you’re
little children don’t really mind and it’s not too bad. I guess being, getting
tired as well ***. I didn’t really want to go out and play, which then, you
know, had a bad effect, umm but I think I was you know, happy most or the
time.
AS So, think carefully about this one here, has it affected you career
path?
Emma I think so, yes.
AS Yes?
Emma Because architecture it very like, you don’t need to do reading
and stuff for that.
AS Have you considered that it may have affected your career path in a
positive way?
Emma Umm, yeah I think, you know, I enjoy doing architecture so.
Umm yeah.
AS But have you maybe considered that your abilities and strengths in
the visual and artistic side are down to dyslexia?
Emma Umm, yeah, we talk about that in the support sessions, you
get the sort of, where you get the disadvantages you get the advantages
and she says that my like, my non-verbal thought, of whatever it is, being
able to like think in your head, the minds eye and being able to like see
images and stuff is very strong in my head.
AS Visual spatial awareness.
Emma Yeah, you know I can’t catch a ball but in my head its good
[laughs]. Umm yeah, its quite strange, cos like they were going through all
the different you know, if your this kind of learner and what other abilities,
and I was like well I cant catch a ball, I bump into things yet in my head I
can imagine stuff and I can you know…
AS What’s your hand writing like?

223
Emma Its better. One of, we always used to in primary school, we
always used to have sort of targets of what we’d like to do and mine was
always improve my handwriting. If I get tired its illegible and I cant read it.
AS It sounds like you have a degree of dyspraxia as well then.
Emma Yeah.
AS Have discussed that with your study support?
Emma Umm no, I don’t think we’ve discussed that. I mean its better
now.
AS Yes it does get better as you get older, because you develop
strategies and you don’t have to catch a ball so much when you get older,
and you haven’t got anyone pulling you up on your handwriting as you get
older.
Emma Yes and you have computers.
AS Yes and you can use computers and things. I would guess you have
a degree of dyspraxia aswell. There’s a very high comorbidity between
these things. Emma Right.
AS Just different aspects of it.
Emma Cos yeah, it’s sort of like the umm, sort of *** or whatever like
umm, Aspergers syndrome and that’s on a, what’s that scale called?
AS Autistic spectrum.
Emma So there’s like different disorders but it’s on the same
spectrum, so dyslexia is maybe, kind of, dyspraxia it’s all on the same
spectrum.
AS Yes. That’s one of the things, but I guess we won’t really know until
we’ve got the genetics sorted out but, the genetics of it is pretty difficult.
Emma But like with education and stuff, when you kind of meet little
kids or whatever who haven’t been affected by the education, and like ***
adapted of whatever cos its, like when they were doing my assessment and
stuff they were like well you’ve compensated so in the assessment you’re
still gonna compensate.

224
AS Yes you are obviously a very compensated dyslexic.
Emma Yeah, so they never will truly know cos your always going to
have that compensation.
AS You’re not going to truly know what?
Emma Like the effects or whatever of dyslexia, because you’re going
to compensate.
AS It depends not so much on the individual, but what your parents have
done. If your parents, if reading is important to your parents and your
education has been important for your parents, then they will push you.
Umm, and you will compensate, but it has to be done at a very early age,
and there are other children, there are others I’ve worked with who are very
intelligent, above average intelligence, but have not had the background of
support and have not compensated and have huge problems because
they’re bright but can’t achieve - its very difficult.
Emma Mmm [agreeing] it’s very frustrating as well which is the worst.
AS So, umm, right way back to GCSE results. Were they what you
expected?
Emma Mmm [agreeing] I was really surprised. I mean I got...
AS You were surprised?
Emma I was good surprised. Umm, I did maybe fourteen subjects and
looking back that’s a lot. But I got four A*, the rest were As and I got a B and
a C. My C was in ICT which was like a one year course or whatever, and no
one sits GCSE’s at year 10 you know, umm and then my B was in Spanish
because I didn’t really like Spanish.
AS So you got an A in English?
Emma Yes! And an A in English lit. And I was very surprised cos I
had my doubts, but, yeah. So it was quite a surprise. But I think I just, like I
remember the amount of revision I did compared to people was just off the
scale. It really was quite amazing. Umm, but then with English lit, we had to

225
do a book, to kill a mocking bird or whatever it was, and I didn’t read it
[laughs]. Umm we read bits in class umm…
AS Which book was it?
Emma To kill a mocking bird?
AS Oh right, yes.
Emma And it’s actually quite a good book when you understand all
that sort of stuff about, but I didn’t read it, we were supposed to read it
twice. I didn’t even read it once. Umm, but I sort of watched the film, and we
did go through bits of it in class.
AS You’ve got to watch because sometimes the films aren’t the same. I
don’t know if it would have been your year, it could have been your year, or
around about your year. Umm, the Leonardo Di Caprio film about Romeo
and Juliet.
Emma Right yes I’ve seen it.
AS It has a completely different ending to the Shakespeare book, and
some people made the mistake of just watching that film [laughs].
Emma But we did a lot in class around the book, so I did kind of know
what it was about.
AS You’ve looked at audio books and things?
Emma Yeah, I had it on audio book as well. Yeah, so. But I didn’t
enjoy it, so that’s why I was surprised.
AS So knowing what you do now, if you could go back in time would you
change anything?
Emma Umm, well I think like, my grades and stuff were ok, but you
know, I would have liked to have done stuff quicker. Or at least, you know, it
was all pretty quick in my brain, but getting it out wasn’t quite quick. So like I
could understand it, and then when you had to like write essays, I hated
writing essays. I just, I couldn’t do it. Umm, and I remember like English was
the one thing I physically couldn’t do, I just, I could do any other subject, but
I couldn’t do English, but I did it enough.

226
AS So there wasn’t anything you would change?
Emma Well, you know, like if you change bad, you end up changing
the good and all this stuff so [inaudiable section] I think the whole knowing
earlier would have made a difference. Um, but I don’t think like, there was
much I could have done to improve my reading or sort of make any, umm
maybe if I had done it earlier I would have enjoyed it.
AS If you had done what earlier?
Emma Like if I had known about being dyslexic earlier and done
something about it.
AS So being assessed, knowing about your dyslexia, has that helped?
Emma Hmm I think so, you know, because you kind of understand
sort of, it’s because of something, or, and you suddenly know that if you do
stuff differently it’s ok, yeah.
AS How do you feel about letting friends and possible employers know
that you’re dyslexic?
Emma Umm, most of my friends at secondary school knew because I
already knew them and so, but like, not many, I haven’t really told people at
uni about it because, I just never really kind of. Umm, and also I think
there’s a lot of, sort of, stereotyping, so I guess I’m maybe worried that, you
know, that’s kind of one of the first things they know about you there gonna
stereotype you. Umm, and with employees, umm, I think in my field, you
know, as an architect it’s not as bad. You know. But I think definitely if I was
going into something else I would be concerned because people, they sort
of, depending on what kind of person they’re looking for ***. Yeah but umm,
there’s an architect firm in America and they only employ dyslexic kind of
people because that’s the kind of person they want working for them. In my,
in the architecture world I’m not kind of worried.
AS I had read that some people, some dyslexics, were architects, and
can look at plans and actually visualise the thing, do you think you can do
that?

227
Emma Uh huh, yeah that’s one of the things we talk about in the
support things cos I kind of, it was quite strange cos she was telling me
about it and was like not many people can do that, and I was just like well, I
was like what would they, you know, I find it really hard to imagine not being
able to do that kind of stuff because I can’t help it, you know. I was talking to
one of my friends and we were looking through a book of buildings and stuff,
and I was like you know, can you kind of imagine this place in your head?
And she was like, yean I can kind of see it. And I was like, can you imagine
being inside it? And she said well said no, because I don’t know what it’s
like. Well I can kind of, you can just make it up, you know? You can imagine
it, but apparently she can’t, so. I find that quite hard to see.
AS So, in a way it’s what happened first, the chicken or the egg. Your
dyslexia has helped what you’re doing, helped your career, it’s going to give
you great help in your career, but have you chosen that career because you
can do it? You know?
Emma Yeah, it’s sort of, you just don’t know, but like I’m reading a
book, in the mind’s eye. Umm, and that’s quite interesting about, you know,
visual thinking, and stuff, and how umm, when your dyslexic and you do get
sort of areas where you cant do stuff but you’re compensated by being
really strong in the visual field, but because most people are strong in the
linguistics visual isn’t considered a strong point or whatever. It’s quite
interesting.
AS Yes I mean we all have strengths and we tend to work towards them,
umm, my strength is taxonomy (explains taxonomy) I am good at identifying,
giving Latin names to things and so that’s what I work in, that’s my field.,
and I suppose its not any different in dyslexia, it gives you a strength and
you work with it.
I think it’s like anyone, you know. They sort of, you do like what you can do
because it makes sense that way.
AS Yes.

228
Emma It just happens that the dyslexic thing, you know, makes your
brain stronger in another way, so that’s what you do.
The, I think on of the games with dyslexia, the whole left and right side of
the brain and what each, you know the left is the logical and the right is like
the more visual or whatever and like the left, or one part is um like seeing
bits in detail and the other side is seeing the whole, very much the whole
thing. I think that’s why I struggle, maybe in learning, because when you’re
learning in bits, I’m like, I need the whole thing and once you get the whole
thing I understand everything but when you’re learning it in detail I just can’t
see it.
AS Specific learning difficulty is another term for dyslexia. How do you
feel about using this term, as compared to dyslexia?
Emma Well, I, sort of, I don’t know. I just, dyslexia is what I have so
you don’t really need to give it another name. I guess well, it’s not a learning
difficulty, its just you have a difficulty learning in a particular kind of way. I
don’t think I have trouble learning ***. It’s just the way, you know, you’re
taught to learn, it’s just not the way my brain learns. If everyone had to
learn, you know, the whole picture and had to learn in pictures they would
be really like, oh I can’t do it. So, yeah.
Yes, I don’t know if I gave you this one at school but I explain it to some
children who were a bit upset because they thought was something wrong
with them to be dyslexic. I’d just explain that there’s nothing wrong, it’s just
different and if you’re left handed there’s nothing wrong with being left
handed, its just different, but it’s awkward for you if your left handed…
because you’re in a right handed world. And the right handers are the
majority so what they say goes.
Emma Which is fair enough but.
AS Yes, my daughter is left handed
Emma I’m left handed.

229
AS She has hounded the bank to give her a left handed cheque book,
because writing in that little bit with your left hand is impossible and they
actually got her a left handed cheque book.[laughs]. My son’s kind of
ambidextrous, he’s a bit left handed and a bit right handed, he’s left handed,
right eyed, right footed. This cross laterality is quite typically dyslexic.
Emma Hmm, cos the, sort of, the left. If you’re right handed the left
side is dominant, it’s like the opposite isn’t it.
AS Yes.
Emma And so like if you left handed normally you’re right side is
dominant because it’s like weaker you’re normally, you know, its not always
as dominant so you normally can do both, you know, but if your right
handed, I think more right handed people can write better with their right
than right handed can with their left.
AS My daughter is very left handed. Umm, will you use anything you’ve
learned about your dyslexia, and how you learn and work best, to help you
in the future?
Emma Hmm, umm that’s one of the things we do in the support
sessions is to build on our strengths and stuff but definitely, in architecture
my strengths, luckily are good strengths to have.
AS Yes.
Emma Umm, and you know, the way I can go about projects is better,
and I think just knowing that is not the wrong way to go about stuff. Lower
down in school there was a right way to learn and a wrong way and its like,
my way happened to be the sort of, wrong way, but it’s not it’s just different.
Umm, but you still, like in lectures and stuff you have to translate the way
they teach to the way you learn, and that’s where the problem is. So, umm,
because with the learning with the pictures, with the imagery and having
someone writing on the board he said that that, you know is something you
have trouble with, umm, cos the best lecturers are the ones who do all the
kinds of learning when they’re lecturing.

230
AS Yes. When I asked earlier about, how did you feel about letting
people know you’re dyslexic, uh, you have a scribe, a note taker in lessons,
so how do you feel in classes having a note taker with you?
Emma Umm well it’s sort of anonymous in that we don’t necessarily
have to sit together and all this stuff, you know, they just go into the lecture
and take the notes and I pick them up from learning support and all this
stuff. But it’s up to me you know if I want to see them and stuff I can, but its
all done very anonymously but I mean, I’m not, I came across sort of
questions in the being in different exam rooms and stuff but I don’t really,
sort of, like lying, because its not, you know you don’t need to lie but you
sort of, I don’t know.
AS But you don’t go around shouting about it.
Emma No, well sort of I think then people if you kind of make a big
deal of whatever, then people are gonna think well, I don’t know, like you
said they stereotype you or whatever, yeah and its more I do go that way
and it happens to be called dyslexia or whatever, rather than like what
people think of dyslexics. I don’t know. I guess it depends if people have a
good understanding then it’s ok but, and people who know me its just sort of
that’s the way I am, which is quite sweet [laughs] whereas people who are
sort of getting to know me maybe I come across as not strange but different.
Umm, one of the case studies in the book, she said that she came across
something quite funny because she knows she’s saying is wrong that she
didn’t mean to say because her brain got the words jumbled up she’d just
kind of, tried to make a joke out of it and people would just think she was
funny, and stuff like that. I think I’m very like that people think I’m a bit funny,
if you’re not serious then ***.
AS Right, what are your plans for the future?
Emma How far into the future?
AS It’s up to you.

231
Emma Ummm, well hopefully I will do ok at uni, um I enjoy it so I think
it’s going to be good fun and then once I’ve been at uni I’ll kind of, I’ll know
what kind of architecture I’ll want to go into because it’s a big field in itself.
Whether I enjoy working with big firms or whether I want to go into smaller
practice. Umm, I’d like to travel. I’d have enjoyed a year out I think but being
an architect you’ve got to nail down and get the work done at some point
cos it’s a long course. I want to work abroad as well. But I think my kind of
ambition is to sort of own my own practice and be able to do what I like and,
or just to be part of a practice that sort of thinks the way I do. Because I
think that, you know I can do the best when you’re sort of with people who
think the way I do. I think that will be good fun. Yeah. I hope I’ll be a
successful architect one day, um yeah.
AS If you had your own practice would you employ only dyslexics?
Emma No.
AS No?
Emma But I would sort of employ people who sort of could think the
way that my ethos of my practice you know, cos I think people who didn’t
would get frustrated and you know, people who need the words, sort of
demanded the words would get frustrated and you know, in an environment
where pictures were enough or this kind of thing and because one of the
things we were talking about with the pictures is like that if you’re talking in
words and stuff you can only sort of build something you have already with
the words to describe umm, whereas if you can imagine something where
you’re not restrained to words you know can just imagine anything which I
thinks pretty fun, but umm yeah I think just, you don’t have to be dyslexic to
be able to think like that, its just its more common maybe. But I think it
would be good fun cos then you can sort of bounce off of each other and
yeah, umm.
AS Ok well that’s it, is there anything else you think that we should add
that maybe I haven’t covered that you, any insights you’ve have?

232
Emma I think the education is like as you said the thing with the
young, doing stuff when your young, like the reading and, or being aware of
it and being able to sort of learn in the right way for you, maybe umm, but
like in the book, in the minds eye they sort of talk about our world of
computers and images and stuff and how people like dyslexics are gonna
do better in the future because of the pattern recognition and stuff like this
and the sort of our time is to come and stuff like this.
AS Yes, there you are, very much so.
Emma But I think school sort of, its important ***.
AS You’re actually a very lucky girl.
Emma Mmm [agreeing]
AS Because you’re very dyslexic but you’ve compensated well, you’ve
obviously not have the traumas that some dyslexics have had.
Emma Hmm, I think I’ve been quite lucky, but I always sort of think
you know if I wasn’t dyslexic it would be quite interesting, just for a day
maybe.
AS To see what you’d have done otherwise?
Emma Yeah
AS You might have become an author.
Emma Yeah [laughs] words, lots of words! But then you know, I enjoy
the visual things so… but then I did, umm, when we do, umm, the
assessment they do, um, IQ and I was like the 90th percentile of whatever,
which I’m pretty proud of that, but she said that’s with being dyslexic and
that brings that down a lot so, but just the reading bits.
AS Yes, it depends what sort of score you were using I mean the, one of
the tests I was doing which was purely non-verbal, you came out with a
standard score of 133.
Emma What percentile is that? I should have brought my report with
me.
AS You’re more than 2 standard deviations above the average.

233
Emma So above the 50th percentile.
AS (explaining SD and percentile).
Emma The IQ was 131 which apparently put me on the 98th
percentile. I think I’m quite lucky with the high IQ so I have this sort of
learning ability I can learn to learn. But I always think it would be quite
interesting, my friends always say if I wasn’t dyslexic I would be scary and
my speed and all this stuff and I think that’d be quite fun.
AS Ah, well you can’t tell if you’d have exactly the same abilities.
Emma Maybe I’d go into verbal work rather than non-verbal.
AS You might do.

Right ok, umm, would one of your parents be willing to answer some
questions?

55mins

234
APPENDIX 2

Questions for case studies - Student questions

Name Date

1. What was your earliest experience of school like?

Did you enjoy it?

How well do you think that you did there?

Did you have many friends?

2. Did you enjoy reading when you first learned?

Did you read much?

What sort of books did you enjoy?

3. Did your parents read to you?

How often?

Do your parents value reading highly?

4. When did you first realise that you had difficulties with reading?

235
What were they?

What did the school do about it?

5. What were your strengths and/or difficulties when in

Infants?

Primary?

Secondary?

6. How did you cope with homework?

Infants?

Primary?

Secondary?

7. What, if any, steps did parents take with school?

Primary?

Secondary?

How do you feel that the schools helped?

Did they do enough?

What more would you have liked them to do?

8. How has the dyslexia affected your life outside of school?

Has it affected your career path?

236
9. How do you feel about your GCSE results? Are they what you
expected?

10. Knowing what you do now, if you could go back in time would you
change anything?

11. Has being assessed and knowing about your dyslexia helped in any
way?

12. How do you feel about letting friends, and possible employers know
that you are dyslexic?

13. Specific learning difficulty is another term for the same thing. How
would you feel about using this term?

14. Will you use anything that you have learned about your dyslexia and
how you learn and work best to help you in the future?

15. What are your plans for the future?

16. Are there any other relevant points you would like to make?

237
 Questions for case studies – Parent questions

Name Date

1. What was your son / daughter’s earliest experience of school like?

Did s/he enjoy it?

How well do you think that s/he did there?

Did s/he have many friends?

2. Did they enjoy reading when s/he first learned?

Did s/he read much?

What sort of books did s/he enjoy?

3. Did you read to them?

How often?

How highly do you value reading?

4. When did you first realise that s/he had difficulties with reading?

What were they?

What did the school do about it?

5. What were his/her strengths and/or difficulties when in

Infants?

Primary?

Secondary?

238
6. How did s/he cope with homework?

Infants?

Primary?

Secondary?

7. What steps, if any, did you take with school?

Primary?

Secondary?

8. How do you feel that the schools helped?

Did they do enough?

What more would you have liked them to do?

9. Did you take any steps outside of school?

10. How do you think the dyslexia has affected his/her life outside of
school?

Has it affected his/her career path?

11. How do you feel about his/her GCSE results? Are they what you
expected?

12. Knowing what you do now, if you could go back in time would you
change anything?

13. Has being assessed and knowing about his/her dyslexia helped in any
way?

239
14. How does s/he feel about letting friends, and possible employers know
that you are dyslexic?

15. Specific learning difficulty is another term for the same thing. How
would you feel about using this term?

16. Are there any other points you would like to make?

240
 APPENDIX 3

Correlation results for all tests and all students

Non- CAT CATs

verbal Dyslexia SAT KS2 SAT KS2 SAT KS2 SAT KS2 SAT KS3 SAT KS3 SAT KS3 KS3 Av Pt CAT n- CAT verbal Triple GCSE
IQ score level Eng Math Sci Pt Avg Eng Math Sci Score verb stan quant stan stan SAS NUM TOT
Non- Pearson
verbal Corr 1 .191 .452(**) .437(**) .387(**) .628(**) .529(**) .622(**) .591(**) .659(**) .650(**) .655(**) .531(**) .693(**) .476(**)
IQ score
Sig. (2-
.180 .001 .002 .005 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
51 51 49 50 51 47 48 51 49 51 51 51 51 51 51
Dyslexia Pearson
.191 1 -.384(**) -.166 -.107 -.272(**) -.328(**) -.232(*) -.141 -.261(**) .033 -.259(**) -.283(**) -.212(*) -.161
level Corr
Sig. (2-
.180 .000 .100 .288 .009 .001 .020 .161 .008 .740 .008 .004 .032 .106
tailed)
N
51 102 98 99 100 92 98 101 100 102 102 102 102 102 102
SAT Pearson
KS2 Corr .452(**) -.384(**) 1 .565(**) .580(**) .881(**) .753(**) .657(**) .666(**) .742(**) .532(**) .606(**) .729(**) .707(**) .562(**)
Eng
Sig. (2-
.001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
49 98 98 98 98 90 94 97 97 98 98 98 98 98 98
SAT Pearson
KS2 Corr .437(**) -.166 .565(**) 1 .434(**) .777(**) .507(**) .724(**) .640(**) .689(**) .607(**) .725(**) .597(**) .704(**) .496(**)
Math
Sig. (2-
.002 .100 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
50 99 98 99 99 91 95 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99
SAT Pearson
.387(**) -.107 .580(**) .434(**) 1 .763(**) .533(**) .514(**) .668(**) .629(**) .404(**) .475(**) .645(**) .569(**) .525(**)
KS2 Sci Corr
Sig. (2-
.005 .288 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
51 100 98 99 100 92 96 99 98 100 100 100 100 100 100
SAT Pearson
KS2 Pt Corr .628(**) -.272(**) .881(**) .777(**) .763(**) 1 .765(**) .787(**) .826(**) .857(**) .637(**) .770(**) .823(**) .828(**) .655(**)
Avg
Sig. (2-
.000 .009 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
47 92 90 91 92 92 88 91 90 92 92 92 92 92 92
SAT Pearson
.529(**) -.328(**) .753(**) .507(**) .533(**) .765(**) 1 .592(**) .670(**) .816(**) .507(**) .581(**) .748(**) .684(**) .630(**)
KS3 En Corr
Sig. (2-
.000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
48 98 94 95 96 88 98 97 97 98 98 98 98 98 98

241
 Non- CAT CATs
verbal Dyslexia SAT KS2 SAT KS2 SAT KS2 SAT KS2 SAT KS3 SAT KS3 SAT KS3 KS3 Av Pt CAT n- CAT verbal Triple GCSE
IQ score level Eng Math Sci Pt Avg Eng Math Sci Score verb stan quant stan stan SAS NUM TOT
SAT Pearson
.622(**) -.232(*) .657(**) .724(**) .514(**) .787(**) .592(**) 1 .789(**) .918(**) .728(**) .816(**) .681(**) .830(**) .634(**)
KS3 Ma Corr
Sig. (2-
.000 .020 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
51 101 97 98 99 91 97 101 99 101 101 101 101 101 101
SAT Pearson
.591(**) -.141 .666(**) .640(**) .668(**) .826(**) .670(**) .789(**) 1 .924(**) .595(**) .660(**) .743(**) .739(**) .697(**)
KS3 Sci Corr
Sig. (2-
.000 .161 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
49 100 97 98 98 90 97 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
KS3 Av Pearson
.659(**) -.261(**) .742(**) .689(**) .629(**) .857(**) .816(**) .918(**) .924(**) 1 .676(**) .777(**) .794(**) .839(**) .740(**)
Pt Score Corr
Sig. (2-
.000 .008 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
51 102 98 99 100 92 98 101 100 102 102 102 102 102 102
CAT n- Pearson
verb Corr .650(**) .033 .532(**) .607(**) .404(**) .637(**) .507(**) .728(**) .595(**) .676(**) 1 .760(**) .607(**) .868(**) .409(**)
stan
Sig. (2-
.000 .740 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
51 102 98 99 100 92 98 101 100 102 102 102 102 102 102
CAT Pearson
quantit Corr .655(**) -.259(**) .606(**) .725(**) .475(**) .770(**) .581(**) .816(**) .660(**) .777(**) .760(**) 1 .737(**) .919(**) .497(**)
stan
Sig. (2-
.000 .008 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
51 102 98 99 100 92 98 101 100 102 102 102 102 102 102
CAT Pearson
verbal Corr .531(**) -.283(**) .729(**) .597(**) .645(**) .823(**) .748(**) .681(**) .743(**) .794(**) .607(**) .737(**) 1 .880(**) .609(**)
stan
Sig. (2-
.000 .004 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
51 102 98 99 100 92 98 101 100 102 102 102 102 102 102
CATs Pearson
Triple Corr .693(**) -.212(*) .707(**) .704(**) .569(**) .828(**) .684(**) .830(**) .739(**) .839(**) .868(**) .919(**) .880(**) 1 .561(**)
SAS
Sig. (2-
.000 .032 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
51 102 98 99 100 92 98 101 100 102 102 102 102 102 102
GCSE Pearson
NUM Corr .476(**) -.161 .562(**) .496(**) .525(**) .655(**) .630(**) .634(**) .697(**) .740(**) .409(**) .497(**) .609(**) .561(**) 1
TOT
Sig. (2-
.000 .106 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
51 102 98 99 100 92 98 101 100 102 102 102 102 102 102

242
 Non- CAT CATs
verbal Dyslexia SAT KS2 SAT KS2 SAT KS2 SAT KS2 SAT KS3 SAT KS3 SAT KS3 KS3 Av Pt CAT n- CAT verbal Triple GCSE
IQ score level Eng Math Sci Pt Avg Eng Math Sci Score verb stan quant stan stan SAS NUM TOT
Visual Pearson
.301 -.062 .315 .330(*) .329(*) .310 .384(*) .205 .437(**) .326(*) .189 .182 .274 .263 .113
Memory Corr
Sig. (2-
.062 .704 .057 .043 .041 .062 .017 .205 .006 .040 .244 .261 .087 .101 .489
tailed)
N
39 40 37 38 39 37 38 40 38 40 40 40 40 40 40
Digit Pearson
Recall Corr .344(*) .014 .238 .483(**) .423(**) .616(**) .376(*) .542(**) .304 .508(**) .375(*) .568(**) .514(**) .543(**) .416(**)

Sig. (2-
.032 .933 .156 .002 .007 .000 .020 .000 .063 .001 .017 .000 .001 .000 .008
tailed)
N
39 40 37 38 39 37 38 40 38 40 40 40 40 40 40
Nonwor Pearson
ds Corr .420(**) .045 .467(**) .558(**) .398(*) .492(**) .541(**) .685(**) .588(**) .647(**) .509(**) .498(**) .468(**) .574(**) .451(**)

Sig. (2-
.009 .786 .004 .000 .013 .002 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .003 .000 .004
tailed)
N
38 39 37 38 38 36 37 39 38 39 39 39 39 39 39
Segmen Pearson
.563(**) .126 .502(**) .477(**) .409(*) .594(**) .550(**) .727(**) .666(**) .736(**) .658(**) .502(**) .565(**) .678(**) .600(**)
ts Corr
Sig. (2-
.000 .446 .002 .002 .011 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
38 39 37 38 38 36 37 39 38 39 39 39 39 39 39
Reading Pearson
.506(**) .186 .679(**) .507(**) .472(**) .672(**) .571(**) .588(**) .622(**) .659(**) .595(**) .542(**) .706(**) .719(**) .386(*)
Corr
Sig. (2-
.001 .258 .000 .001 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .015
tailed)
N
38 39 37 38 38 36 37 39 38 39 39 39 39 39 39
Spelling Pearson
.306 .008 .461(**) .435(**) .529(**) .540(**) .386(*) .511(**) .360(*) .548(**) .389(*) .480(**) .579(**) .547(**) .552(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-
.062 .963 .004 .006 .001 .001 .018 .001 .027 .000 .015 .002 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N
38 39 37 38 38 36 37 39 38 39 39 39 39 39 39

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

243
 APPENDIX 4

Spreadsheet of all raw data

SAT KS2 Av Pt Score

SAT KS3 Av Pt Score

LASS Visual Memory

GCSE Total Pt Score
Target Grade GCSE

LASS Digit Recall

Target Grade Yr7

Target Grade Yr8

Target Grade Yr9

CATs Triple SAS

LASS Nonwords

LASS Segments
CAT n-verb stan

CAT verbal stan

CAT quant stan

GCSE 13 Short
GCSE 14 Short

LASS Reading
SAT KS2 Math

SAT KS3 Math

LASS Spelling
Dyslexia level
SAT KS2 Eng

SAT KS3 Eng

SAT KS2 Sci

SAT KS3 Sci

NV IQ score

GCSE 10
GCSE 11
Dyslexic

GCSE12
GCSE 1
GCSE 2
GCSE 3

GCSE 4
GCSE 5
GCSE 6
GCSE 7
GCSE 8
GCSE 9
Gender

Cohort

F 1999 N 5 4 4 6 6 5 37 5 6 5 105 31 33 37 C
A A B B A A B B B C B 63.5
M 1999 Y 118 2 3 4 3 4 5 4 29 5 5 3 95 27 31 35 D E E E E F D F F F F 24.0 105 108 91 108 95 95
M 1999 Y 114 3 3 3 3 4 5 4 29 6 5 3 97 27 29 33 D E F B E E E E G F 24.5 72 116 86 91 94 92
F 1999 N 5 4 5 7 6 5 39 6 6 6 108 33 37 39 B C B A B E D D E C A 44.0
M 1999 Y 106 1 4 3 4 6 5 4 33 6 4 5 99 27 29 33 D C C B C C B D D D C 44.5
M 1999 N 4 4 4 6 5 5 35 6 6 6 105 29 33 37 C C B A A B D E C C E C 52.0
F 2000 N 5 5 5 33 6 7 6 41 6 6 9 115 35 39 41 B B B A C D C C B B C D E 58.5
F 2000 N 5 4 5 31 6 7 7 43 6 6 6 110 33 37 39 A B B A C A C B B B B C C B 70.5
M 2000 Y 117 2 4 4 5 29 6 7 7 42 6 6 9 114 33 37 41 B B B B D B C B A A D C B 62.5
F 2000 N 5 4 4 29 6 5 5 33 5 5 5 99 31 33 37 D C C C C E D D D D E D 42.5
F 2000 N 4 4 4 27 6 6 6 38 6 6 6 107 29 33 37 B C C C C D E C C C D 41.5
M 2000 Y 116 1 3 3 5 4 5 6 33 5 5 6 102 27 31 35 C C C C E E E C C F D 37.0
M 2000 N 4 4 4 27 6 5 6 36 6 6 6 105 29 33 37 C C C B B A D C D D D E 49.5
F 2000 N 5 5 5 33 6 8 7 45 7 7 7 114 35 39 41 A B B C A B A* B B C B D B 66.0
M 2000 N 4 4 4 27 5 6 6 37 5 5 7 104 29 33 37 C C C C E C C B B D E 43.5
M 2000 N 4 4 4 27 4 7 6 38 5 5 4 99 29 31 35 C D D E E D E D C C G F 36.5
F 2000 Y 133 3 4 5 6 33 7 7 7 45 7 8 8 114 35 39 41 A A* A A A A* A A A* A* B A C A 86.0 110 128 110 113 111 105
F 2000 N 5 4 5 31 6 8 7 45 7 8 7 116 33 37 39 A A* B B A C B B A* A* A C C 74.5
M 2000 Y 104 1 2 3 4 21 4 3 4 23 4 2 1 81 23 25 27 E E D D E F F E E 22.5 125 98 99 96 94 87
M 2000 Y 100 1 3 3 3 21 4 5 3 26 5 6 3 99 25 29 31 D U 0.0
F 2000 N 4 4 4 27 5 5 5 32 5 6 5 103 29 31 35 C D C C C B C D D D F E 44.5
F 2000 Y 119 2 5 4 5 31 6 7 6 41 7 6 7 112 33 37 39 B C B C C B D B B B C E 53.0

244
 SAT KS2 Av Pt Score

SAT KS3 Av Pt Score

LASS Visual Memory

GCSE Total Pt Score
Target Grade GCSE

LASS Digit Recall

Target Grade Yr7

Target Grade Yr8

Target Grade Yr9

CATs Triple SAS

LASS Nonwords

LASS Segments
CAT n-verb stan

CAT verbal stan

CAT quant stan

GCSE 13 Short
GCSE 14 Short

LASS Reading
SAT KS2 Math

SAT KS3 Math

LASS Spelling
Dyslexia level
SAT KS2 Eng

SAT KS3 Eng

SAT KS2 Sci

SAT KS3 Sci

NV IQ score

GCSE 10
GCSE 11
Dyslexic

GCSE12
GCSE 1
GCSE 2
GCSE 3

GCSE 4
GCSE 5
GCSE 6
GCSE 7
GCSE 8
GCSE 9
Gender

Cohort

F 2000 N 4 4 4 27 5 5 5 32 4 4 4 89 29 31 35 D C C C D E D E E D D B D 48.0
F 2000 Y 113 1 3 4 4 25 5 7 5 37 6 5 3 98 27 29 33 C B C B C B C C C C C C 53.0 89 116 108 107 98 105
M 2000 Y 116 1 4 3 4 25 5 4 4 29 5 5 4 98 27 29 33 D F D E E E D D G D 25.5 110 84 97 104 101 99
F 2000 Y 114 2 4 4 5 29 6 7 6 41 6 6 6 109 31 33 37 B B B B B B A* C A A C C C 67.0 95 125 126 116 106 108
M 2000 Y 97 1 3 3 4 23 4 3 4 26 4 3 2 86 25 27 29 E G F F F F U 9.0 107 79 94 85 104 98
M 2000 N 4 3 4 25 4 4 4 26 4 3 4 90 27 29 33 D C C C D D D D D D C 44.0
M 2000 Y 110 1 4 4 5 29 5 6 6 37 6 4 5 102 31 33 37 C C C C C C D C C C D E 47.5
M 2000 Y 100 1 3 3 4 23 4 5 4 28 5 4 3 93 25 29 31 D F D D D G B E E E 28.5 105 109 94 114 102 97
F 2001 Y 108 2 4 3 4 26 4 4 27 6 4 4 98 27 31 33 E E E F C F E F F 22.0 94 94 81 91 98 96
M 2001 N 5 4 5 31 5 7 7 41 8 8 8 121 35 39 41 B B B C A C C C B B F C 58.0
F 2001 N 5 4 4 29 6 7 6 41 6 6 6 108 33 37 41 B B B A A* A* A C C C C B 65.0
M 2001 Y 117 1 4 3 4 24 4 5 4 29 7 4 3 97 27 29 31 E C D D C G E D D D 34.0 97 109 105 103 95 103
M 2001 N 5 4 5 30 5 5 33 7 6 7 113 35 39 41 D B D C D D D F G C C 40.0
M 2001 N 5 5 5 34 6 7 6 41 7 7 7 113 39 41 43 A B A A* A B A* A A A C B 74.0
F 2001 Y 111 2 3 4 3 22 4 5 4 29 6 4 4 96 25 29 31 E C D D D E C B C C 41.0
M 2001 N 4 5 4 30 5 7 6 39 7 6 5 108 33 37 41 C B C D C C D C C C 44.0
M 2001 N 4 4 5 27 5 5 5 33 5 5 5 100 31 33 37 D F D D F F E C E E 28.0
F 2001 Y 121 1 4 4 4 28 5 6 5 35 7 5 5 106 31 35 37 C B C D B D E B B D D 48.0 115 84 101 110 115 103
F 2001 N 6 7 6 41 8 7 7 118 33 39 41 B B A A A* A* A* A B A A B A 80.5
M 2001 N 4 4 4 27 5 6 5 35 6 6 6 107 29 33 37 C B D C C C C E F C C 45.0
M 2001 N 5 5 5 32 6 7 6 41 7 7 7 115 37 41 45 B B B B A* C C C A C C C A 66.5
M 2001 N 5 4 4 5 6 6 37 6 6 6 106 33 37 41 C B C C C B B D F D D 47.0
F 2001 Y 112 1 4 4 4 27 5 6 5 35 8 4 4 101 29 33 37 C D C F G E E 18.0
M 2001 Y 117 1 4 4 4 27 4 6 5 33 7 5 3 99 29 33 35 D E E C U U G G D E E 23.0 94 94 98 100 95 96
F 2001 Y 111 1 5 5 5 32 6 8 7 45 8 6 8 117 37 41 41 A B A B A* B A* B B A* A* B 75.0 126 135 114 128 117 107
M 2001 Y 100 2 2 3 3 19 3 3 19 5 2 2 83 21 23 25 G F F C D G G 15.0
F 2001 N 4 4 4 28 6 6 6 39 6 6 6 106 31 35 39 C B C B B B C A A C C 58.0

245
 SAT KS2 Av Pt Score

SAT KS3 Av Pt Score

LASS Visual Memory

GCSE Total Pt Score
Target Grade GCSE

LASS Digit Recall

Target Grade Yr7

Target Grade Yr8

Target Grade Yr9

CATs Triple SAS

LASS Nonwords

LASS Segments
CAT n-verb stan

CAT verbal stan

CAT quant stan

GCSE 13 Short
GCSE 14 Short

LASS Reading
SAT KS2 Math

SAT KS3 Math

LASS Spelling
Dyslexia level
SAT KS2 Eng

SAT KS3 Eng

SAT KS2 Sci

SAT KS3 Sci

NV IQ score

GCSE 10
GCSE 11
Dyslexic

GCSE12
GCSE 1
GCSE 2
GCSE 3

GCSE 4
GCSE 5
GCSE 6
GCSE 7
GCSE 8
GCSE 9
Gender

Cohort

F 2001 Y 116 2 4 4 4 26 6 6 6 39 6 4 5 100 29 31 35 C B D E C C D C E C C B 48.0 106 91 114 102 105 93

M 2001 N 3 4 4 24 4 6 5 33 5 6 5 103 27 31 33 D D D C D E E D D D 35.0
M 2001 Y 108 1 3 3 4 25 4 6 4 31 6 6 4 103 27 31 33 D E D C F E D D D 29.0 69 99 95 97 101 97
F 2001 N 5 4 4 30 5 7 6 39 6 6 5 106 33 37 41 C B B B D B B C C C C B 57.0
M 2001 Y 122 3 3 3 4 23 3 5 4 27 4 3 1 81 25 27 29 E E E F D F F E D D 27.0
M 2001 Y 105 1 3 3 4 23 4 5 5 31 4 4 6 97 25 29 31 D E D D E E F F D D 29.0 94 84 91 95 102 94
F 2001 Y 131 2 4 4 4 27 6 6 6 39 7 6 7 113 31 35 37 C E B F F C D D D D B 37.0
F 2001 N 4 3 4 26 5 5 5 33 4 4 4 94 29 31 33 D E C D D C C D D D 38.0
M 2001 N 4 3 4 26 5 6 5 35 4 4 4 92 29 33 35 C B E C C C E D D 35.0
M 2001 Y 113 1 3 4 4 25 4 6 5 33 5 6 3 98 27 31 33 D E D F E E F G D D 26.0 113 94 98 103 100 94
M 2001 N 3 3 4 23 4 4 4 27 4 4 4 92 25 27 29 E F D E F C E D E E 29.0
M 2001 N 4 4 4 28 5 6 5 35 6 6 5 103 31 35 37 C E D E F E D F E E 27.0
F 2001 N 4 3 4 25 5 4 4 29 4 4 6 99 27 31 33 E F C B B E C D D D 39.0
M 2001 Y 94 3 B B 4 19 3 4 A 24 6 2 1 85 27 29 33 F F D G G E F F 15.0 92 65
M 2001 Y 123 2 3 3 4 25 5 6 6 37 6 4 5 102 27 31 33 C B C D C B E C D C C 48.0 105 84 105 114 100 95
F 2001 Y 98 1 3 3 4 22 4 4 4 27 4 2 3 85 23 25 27 E D D C E B B E E E 37.0 65 79 98 105 90 102
M 2001 Y 109 1 4 4 4 26 A 4 A 21 4 4 3 90 29 31 33 F F E G G 7.0 102 79 103 93 96 90
F 2002 N 4 3 4 26 5 5 5 33 3 3 5 90 27 31 33 D D F E E D C D E E E 32.5
F 2002 Y 101 1 3 3 4 24 5 3 4 27 3 2 4 85 25 27 31 E D F D C C C C C C F F 44.0 65 79 75 80 82 96
F 2002 Y 110 3 4 3 4 26 5 4 5 31 5 3 4 93 29 31 33 D C E B C C A* A* A A D D 62.0 97 84 91 104 97 97
F 2002 Y 102 3 4 3 4 26 4 5 5 31 4 4 5 94 29 31 33 D E D E E D D D D D D F 38.0 97 87 107 97 108 100
M 2002 Y 110 2 4 4 5 30 5 5 6 35 6 5 5 103 31 35 37 C G U E E F G G 11.0 102 101 88 95 97 95
M 2002 N 3 3 4 23 4 4 4 27 3 3 3 86 25 27 29 D D E E D C C C C D E E 44.0
M 2002 N 4 4 4 26 5 6 5 35 2 3 3 82 29 31 33 C D C D C A* A* A* A* C C C E 66.5
M 2002 Y 132 3 5 5 5 32 6 7 7 43 9 7 8 123 39 43 45 A B B A A A* D C D A A 61.0 122 108 118 125 135 106
F 2002 N 5 4 5 31 4 4 5 94 29 31 33 D C F B E E C D E E 34.0 100 100 100 100 100 100
M 2002 Y 106 2 3 3 5 24 3 3 4 23 2 3 3 81 27 29 31 E E F D G C C C C F F 34.0 99 99 84 89 88 99

246
 SAT KS2 Av Pt Score

SAT KS3 Av Pt Score

LASS Visual Memory

GCSE Total Pt Score
Target Grade GCSE

LASS Digit Recall

Target Grade Yr7

Target Grade Yr8

Target Grade Yr9

CATs Triple SAS

LASS Nonwords

LASS Segments
CAT n-verb stan

CAT verbal stan

CAT quant stan

GCSE 13 Short
GCSE 14 Short

LASS Reading
SAT KS2 Math

SAT KS3 Math

LASS Spelling
Dyslexia level
SAT KS2 Eng

SAT KS3 Eng

SAT KS2 Sci

SAT KS3 Sci

NV IQ score

GCSE 10
GCSE 11
Dyslexic

GCSE12
GCSE 1
GCSE 2
GCSE 3

GCSE 4
GCSE 5
GCSE 6
GCSE 7
GCSE 8
GCSE 9
Gender

Cohort

M 2002 Y 118 1 3 3 4 25 4 5 6 33 5 4 4 94 29 31 33 D E D D D D D A* A* A A D D E 62.5 99 107 98 114 103 102

M 2002 N 4 4 4 26 A 4 4 27 2 2 4 84 27 29 33 D E D E E E E A A B B F F E 50.5
F 2002 N 4 3 4 26 5 5 5 33 5 5 5 99 29 33 35 C D E D C D B B E E 38.0
M 2002 Y 117 2 3 4 4 24 5 6 6 37 5 5 2 92 27 29 31 C B D C C F C C C C D D E 51.5 104 74 92 104 91 96
F 2002 Y 104 2 3 3 4 24 5 3 5 29 3 2 5 88 27 29 31 D D F C C C A* A* A A E E 57.0 106 101 88 96 95 96
F 2002 N 5 4 5 30 6 7 6 41 5 5 5 98 31 35 37 B B B C B B B A A C C C D 66.0
M 2002 Y 93 2 N 3 3 21 4 4 5 29 3 2 1 76 23 25 27 D D D D D C C C C E E F 43.0 92 79 98 93 94 93
M 2002 Y 111 1 3 5 4 26 4 6 4 31 6 7 5 107 31 35 37 C D E E E D E E D 27.0 94 114 107 90 100 106
M 2002 N 5 5 5 32 6 8 7 45 8 8 8 123 43 45 47 A B A A C C B C B A A C 63.5
F 2002 N 3 3 4 25 4 4 4 27 3 3 3 85 27 29 31 D E F F F F C C C C G G 33.0
M 2002 Y 119 2 5 4 5 31 5 6 6 37 7 5 6 108 33 37 39 B B C B C A* C B B C C D C 63.5 98 108 105 114 111 102
M 2002 N 3 4 3 23 4 5 4 29 3 4 3 89 27 29 31 D E E E D D F C C C C E E F 46.0
M 2002 N 4 4 4 28 5 6 5 35 6 7 5 107 31 35 37 C B D D C C D C D D D C 47.5
F 2002 N 4 4 4 28 5 4 5 31 3 4 4 90 29 31 35 D X X 0.0
M 2002 Y 116 2 3 4 4 27 4 6 5 33 8 6 4 108 31 35 37 C C C B B C D D D D C D 50.0 77 99 98 107 86 97
F 2002 N 5 5 5 34 6 8 7 45 9 8 9 127 35 39 41 A B A A* A A* A* A A* A* A A* B 85.0
M 2002 N 5 5 4 30 6 6 6 39 7 7 7 115 35 39 41 B B C C B C B C E C C D E 56.5
M 2002 Y 108 2 3 4 4 25 4 5 5 31 5 4 2 89 27 29 31 D D D C E A A B B C D D 55.0 94 101 101 95 97 94
M 2002 N 5 4 5 31 6 7 6 41 6 6 6 107 33 37 39 B B A A A B B B B A A B A 74.5
M 2002 N 4 4 4 29 5 7 6 39 5 5 5 101 31 33 35 C B C B C C B C C D D D 53.0
M 2002 Y 111 1 3 3 4 24 4 4 5 29 3 4 3 89 27 29 31 D D E C D D C C C C D D E 49.5 94 94 98 90 91 101
F 2002 N 5 5 5 33 6 7 7 43 7 7 6 113 35 39 41 B B A A A A B A A A A B B 77.0
M 2002 N 4 4 5 29 5 6 6 37 5 5 5 100 29 33 35 C B D E D D F U C D D 36.0
F 2002 Y 83 1 3 3 4 23 4 4 4 27 2 2 3 81 25 27 29 E F F F F 8.0 107 107 95 96 91 97
M 2002 Y 111 2 4 6 4 31 4 7 6 37 7 7 6 112 35 39 41 B B D C D C D C C D D D 48.0
F 2002 Y 92 3 3 4 4 25 3 4 4 25 3 4 3 86 27 29 31 D D F D E C C C C D F F G 41.5 81 99 92 97 93 100

247

View publication stats