What do adult literacy providers believe about dyslexia, how do they deal with it and does it matter?
In 1999 I administered a 39-item, in-depth, postal questionnaire survey (Kerr 1999) to twelve experienced teachers and providers of Adult Basic Education (ABE). The questionnaire explored respondents’ attitudes towards, and beliefs about, dyslexia in considerable detail, focussing particularly on their reported educational behaviours in respect of students in ABE who had been diagnosed as ‘dyslexic’. All respondents were students on the same M.Ed. (literacy) course as the author; all twelve were employed in the field of adult literacy. Two worked in the prison service, one in workplace literacy, six within FE colleges, two had recently moved into ABE management from the chalkface, one was a volunteer ABE tutor in Washington. Their responses to this questionnaire were analysed horizontally (between respondents) and vertically (within respondents). Analysis was almost entirely qualitative and theory was grounded, arising from the data itself and from its analysis. (Denzin & Lincoln 1994, Silverman 1993)
There is considerable research exploring teachers’ belief systems and attitudes. Much of this research confirms the important effects these have upon teachers’ behaviours, philosophies and even their effectiveness. (Agne et al 1994, Bar-Tal 1984, Chan 1994, Chan 1996, Dirkx & Spurgin 1992, Fang 1996, Muthukrishna & Borkowski 1995, Ross & Smith 1990, Schumm et al 1994, Westwood 1995, Westwood et al 1997) I was, however, unable to find previous research exploring the specific question whether, and how, teachers and providers in ABE might be affected, theoretically or practically, when faced with a student diagnosed as ‘dyslexic’. Although this research rests on a relatively small sample and a single, though searching, survey tool it appears to be the first of its kind and particular interest is therefore claimed for its findings, though clearly such a preliminary study can only be suggestive and exploratory.
Findings:
I intended ‘dyslexia’ to mean developmental dyslexia, in other words a difficulty in acquiring or managing literacy skills which is caused by an innate neurological deficit of some kind. Responses indicated that respondents all concurred with this definition, in particular that dyslexia would entail an unspecified neurological deficit.
The survey appeared clearly to reveal two broad findings. First, and very striking, was the high degree of variance of opinion and attitude among respondents in respect of dyslexia. Responses revealed almost universal, and very considerable, confusion and uncertainty as to what dyslexia might be, what might indicate it, what might cause it, what to do about it and even whether it existed at all. The level of confidence in relation to ‘the facts’ about dyslexia was low. This uncertainty was almost universally overtly recognised by respondents themselves, most of whom were apparently very much concerned by it. Confusion was found between, but also within, respondents, many of whom revealed internal inconsistencies in respect of dyslexia, these inconsistencies also often overtly recognised and remarked upon. Six respondents (50%) were unsure whether dyslexia was a real syndrome or not; 25% of respondents were firmly persuaded that it was a genuine condition while a further 25% were equally firmly persuaded that it was not; they stated clearly that, in their opinion, dyslexia did not exist. Respondents’ estimates of the prevelance of dyslexia varied from 0% (from an unpersuaded respondent) to over 25% (from a persuaded respondent working in the prison service). 42% of respondents reported a gender difference in prevelance (generally 3:1 male:female) though 25% specifically reported that they found no such gender bias. All respondents reported that they were obliged to deal professionally with students diagnosed as ‘dyslexic’.