Wider access to higher education: after the three R's — the three T's

Paediatric and Educational Issues 35 9

Wider access to higher education: after the three R’s - the three T’s CHRlS STEPHENS Universities of Leeds and York, UK and JOHN A GROEGER University of Surrey, UK

ABSTRACT Access to higher education has been greater in recent years than euer before. As a result, institutions are increasingly confronted with student populations with a broader range of abilities than would traditionally have been the case. The student with learning difficulties could experience unexpected hurdles, hauing been accepted o n to a course. This paper considers the assessment process available at Leeds Metropolitan University and describes the difficulties of students with specific learning problems and the challenge it poses for those working as specialist tutors. Of particular interest with this population is the fact that the median score on the Bangor Dyslexia Test (Miles, 1983) was 5.5 positive indicators with a range from 1.00 to 9.00. It is concluded that the issues of assessment addressed in our analyses highlight some specific learning problems experienced by a minority of students in higher education, where prouision of Therapy, specialist Teaching, and Technology (the three T’s) is inferred to meet their learning needs.

INTRODUCTION

There has been a growth in the number of students in the universities identified as having specific learning difficulties relating to the skills of reading and writing (Gilroy, 1993); an increase which may be due to the growing recognition of dyslexic students in universities or to a policy of enabling students with nonstandard qualifications (i.e. ‘A’ Levels) to gain access to higher education via access courses and BTEC qualifications. Whatever the reasons, there is national concern that students with dyslexia are recog- nised, their specific learning style identified, and their learning needs met. A National Working Party o n Dyslexia in Higher Education was set up in 1995 in response to the need for nationally agreed guidelines on the identification, assessment and support of dyslexic students at the higher education level (Singleton, 1996). Students with learning difficulties in higher education will be handicapped in their learning and are likely to have their efforts devalued if their difficulties (and strengths) are left unrecognised. A full diagnostic (or clinical) assessment, by a suitably qualified professional used to working with students with specific learning difficulties in higher education, can lead to relevant approaches in the teaching-learning situation which will help students to fulfil their expected potential. Without this, students may experience an uphill struggle.

360 Caring to Communicate

This paper seeks to provide an analysis of the process of assessing students sus- pected of having dyslexia. It is usually assumed that undergraduates will have highly developed skills of literacy and numeracy since these are necessary at this level of education. However, this would seem to be a false assumption as some of our results will demonstrate. In cases where a student has considerable difficulty in handling the written word, the ‘three T’s’ (Therapy, Teaching and Technology) may need to be offered as a means of complementing existing approaches to teaching. If the learning needs of students are catered for then they may be able to achieve a high level of success. Ideally, there will be a combination of institutional policy, academic tutor/ lecturer input and specialist dyslexia support coordinated in such a way that students can access what they need. In addition, the provision of technological aids and learning resources can help to maximise the students’ learning potential.

THE SAMPLE

In all, there were 270 students registered as dyslexic at the Leeds Metropolitan Univer- sity in the academic year 1994-1995. This represented 1.35% of the university population. The analyses reported are derived from a sample of 141 dyslexic students who received support from the Dyslexia Support Service. Of these, 45 students were female and 96 were male; the ages of the females and the males in the sample were similar (Table 1).

TABLE 1: Student sample

N Mean (SO) Median Mode (Range)

Female 45 25.28 (7.45) 21 20 (17-21) Male 96 23.72 (4.73) 22 20 (17-42)

The ratio of two males for every female is less extreme than the typical gender imbalance in the incidence of dyslexia in children, which is in the region of 4.25:1, but very close to that for the adult population described by Miles (1993) of 2.4:l.

Pre-university entry qualifications The pre-university entry qualifications of our group as compared to those not present- ing with learning difficulties were that most students with dyslexia arrive with reasonable GSCE performance, but are relatively less likely to have succeeded at ‘A Level’ compared to a random sample of 100 Leeds Metropolitant University students. The BTEC route allows dyslexic students with literacy difficulties, which are particularly apparent in timed tests, to achiveve a higher level of competence than they would be able to in timed examination conditions (tables 2 and 3).

Paediatric and Educational Issues 361

TABLE 2: Pre-university entry examination performance (students in random university sample*

~~

N Mean (SD) Median Mode (Range)

A Level 100 2.42 (1.36) 3.0 3.0 (0-5) BTEC 100 0.3 (0.5) 0.0 0.0 (0-3) GCSE 100 8.17 (1.48) 8.0 9.0 (3-11) ‘Males and females did not differ as to A levels, BTEC or GSCE.

TABLE 3: Pre-university entry examination performance (students with dyslexia)


A Level 62 1.18 (1.36) 0.5 0.0 (0-4) BTEC 62 0.94 (0.87) 1.0 1.0 (0-31 GCSE 62 6.63 i2.94j 8.0 8.0 io-11) ‘Males and females did not differ as to A levels, BTEC or GSCE.

ASSESSMENT OF DYSLEXIA

Diagnostic/clinical assessment

Screening There are various screening procedures that can be used, either questionnaires or checklists, which alert the professionals involved to the possibility of learning difficulties. They tend to pick out symptoms associated with dyslexia and are either self- adminsitered or included as part of the initial interview. The checklist is a systematic way of homing in quickly on a selection of relevant behavioural traits (Miles, 1983; Vinegrad, 1994; Nicholson & Fawcett, 1997; Zdzienski, 1996). However, such measures are inevitably subjective and are prone to distortion and misinterpretation. For example, some students with dyslexia are loath to fill in forms and ‘find them difficult and confusing’ (Vinegrad, 1994). Similarly, whilst a high number of positive indicators of dyslexia provides some grounds for further investigation the converse is not inevitably the case since some students may well have developed compensatory strategies to do well on a checklist yet still have specific learning difficulties.

The Bangor Dyslexia Test (Miles, 1983) was given to 128 students of our sample (Table 4).

~~ ~~~~~

TABLE 4: Results of Bangor Dyslexia Test given to students in study sample

N Mean (SO) Median Mode (Range) Index

128 5.38 (1.72) 5.5 6.0 (1-9) positive indicators


The sample was found to have an average of five positive dyslexia indicators, with females tending to have more indicators than males. It was felt that the screening device was useful, in particular with regard to being used as the basis for ‘sparking off’ relevant other information in the context of the students’ everyday functioning. The digit span test results are analysed later in the paper.

Student accounts As with the assesment of any disability, a wide range of considerations (physical, emotional, cognitive and linguistic) have to be taken into account. Different professionals and researchers view the manifestations of dyslexia from different standpoints. There is no one ‘dyslexia test’ which reveals all and there is a bewildering range of research perspectives in the field (Snowling, 1987; Thompson, 1989; Nicholson & Fawcett, 1990; Ellis, 1991; Miles, 1993). No one approach tells the whole story.

By far the greatest number of students in higher education have considerable intellectual capacity, high levels of motivation, a burning interest in their subject, and basi- cally want to succeed. Therefore, they are usually well able to express their doubts and difficulties, the amount of time it takes to complete an assignment (let alone a disserta- tion!) and their feelings about not achieving the standard they would expect to reach. Students with dyslexia are often hampered by low self-esteem, brought about by tortu- ous early life experiences in the education system (Edwards, 1994). They are likely to be disorganised and have difficulty with concentrating for long periods of time in language-loaded situations. They are more than likely to be forgetful, miss appointments and turn up on the wrong day for lectures. Tutors will confirm these traits and, underlying the students’/tutors’ accounts, will be specific difficulties in processing linguistic information at the speed required in higher education. There will also be restrictions in working memory (although the explanation for this differs with the particular theorectical account) (Baddeley, 1986; Nicholson & Fawcett, 1990). In addition to the cognitive traits there may be affective consequences of these underlying processing limitations, as manifested by, for example, severe lack of confidence. Nevertheless, it is felt that articulate students will be able to throw considerable light on specific areas of difficulty as well as their considerable ability in certain areas. An assessment which acknowl- edges the students’ personal accounts is thus an essential and informative part of the assessment process.

Detailed case history It is essential that all available information is assembled in a case history which looks at medical, educational, social and familial, and psychological factors which could account for difficulties in literacy. These include:

Medical factors (sensory impairment: hearing, vision; pre-, post- or perinatal trauma, medication, unusual accident or trauma, general fitness and wellbeing, sleeping and eating patterns). Educational factors (academic attainments: past and present; literacy history; educational experience, past and present; school experience; attendance record; motivation). Social and familial factors (evidence of any hereditary factors; attitude towards expected achievement; socio-emotional support; cultural background; language- learning background: mother tongue).


Psychological factors (motivation; perseverance; work patterns: time manage- ment and organisational skills; learning style; general study skills; level of self- worth and self-esteem; confidence).

Formal testing

Cogn i tiue ability There is an undoubted value in testing certain aspects of literacy and cognitive ability in order to provide evidence, by relatively objective means, of specific peaks and troughs in the student’s learning profile. If time permits, a number of different insights can be gained from psychological, therapeutic and educational standpoints with these being supplemented by detailed psychometric and functional assessments. This formal testing complements other aspects of the assessment process and should help to establish whether the learning difficulties that are being experienced by the student are ‘general’ in nature (lack of recent academic studyhelatively limited intellectual potential) or more ‘specific’ in nature. One should therefore employ some measure of intellectual capacity, where any potential difficulties with literacy skills are removed. Such measurements will help to establish the intellectual potential of the student and help to contextualise it in normative terms, although in most students in higher education one would expect that their cognitive ability to cope with degree-level study would be at least above average. In reality, however, the assessor will need to be selective, balancing a number of competing factors. One of the purposes of the current research was to evaluate the effectiveness in the diagnostic process of the formal tests that had been employed. It should be understood that many students, who have had experiences of failure, find the testing situation extremely stressful and will therefore under-achieve if over-tested (McLoughlin, Fitzgibbon & Young, 1994). Keeping testing to a minimum may also be justified where an individual’s academic achievements are clear evidence of considerable cognitive ability, although diagnosis may be impossible without formal tests.

Raven’s Standard Progressiue Matrices Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1958) is said to be a non-verbal measure of intelligence which requires a fair degree of visuo-spatial memory and anological reasoning. Although for this age-range in the university population the advanced progressive matrices would normally be used, the less-demanding version has been found to be more suited to the present population. This is demonstrated in part by the almost identical mean, median and mode, indicating a normal distribution, and the fact that 95% of those taking the test scored below 57 out of a possible 60 correct. The time taken is substantially less than that for normal users of this test. Males performed better than females (M-49.94 (mean 7.55); F=44.92 (mean 5.99); Student’s t-test (86) = 3.01; pcO.Ol), but took similar amounts of time to complete it (tables 5 and 6).

TABLE 5: Raven’s standard progressive matrices: raw score out of 60 and time (min)

N Mean (SDj Median Mode (Range)

Raven’s score 88 48.45 (7.45) 49 49 (13-60) Raven’s time 88 29.56 (10.28) 28 30 (14-75)


TABLE 6: Raven’s score: dyslexic and non-dyslexic student samples: percentiles

N 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th Index

Students with dyslexia 88 35.5 39.9 45.0 49.0 54.0 56.1 57.0 Number correct Raven’s sample 5867 23.0 28.0 37.0 44.0 49.0 54.0 55.0 Number correct

Short term auditory sequential memory A measure of digit span provides an index of the individual’s ability to encode and retrieve numerical auditory information. Since the digits are presented rapidly and re- trieved immediately after the presentation of the final one in the sequence, overt re- hearsal is relatively minimal. Thus, what is measured relfects the capacity of a passive auditory store, similar to that described by Baddeley (1986). Obviously, performance also reflects what Baddeley (1986) refers to as the articulatory loop, which subserves retrieval and articulation of the digits. Performance on digit span is reported separately here for the first and second attempt, as well as the composite form, which reflects the average of the two attempts (Table 7).

_ _ _ _ _ ~

TABLE 7: Digit span*


. Fwds 1 128 4.96 (1.08) 5 5 (3-9) Fwds 2 128 5/46 (1.02) 6 6 (3-9) Fwds Av 128 5.21 (0.92) 5.5 6 (3-8.5) ‘Numbers recalled forwards.

The second attempt is substantially better than the first (Student’s t-test (127)=5.63; p<O.OOl) and, in the case of the first, (M-5.125 (mean 1.04); F=4.51 (mean 1.02); Student’s t-test (126)=3.42, p<O.Ol, second span (M=5.57 (mean 1.03); F=5.21 (mean 0.95); Student’s t-test (126)=1.98, p<0.05), and average forward digit span (M=5.36 (mean 0.93); F=4.86 (mean 0.8); Student’s t-test (126)=2.95, pcO.Ol), males score more highly than females.

Reverse digit span requires the same operation as forward digit span, but the additional requirement to retrieve and articulate them in reverse to the order in which they are presented would seem to implicate some kind of control process similar to that envisaged by Baddeley (1986) in his description of the central executive. Because of the additional scope for error caused by having to carry out another mental operation, reversed digit span is generally expected to be worse than forward digit span (Table 8)

As with the forward digit span, the second attempt was more successful (Student’s t-test (127)=4.32; p<O.OOl). This time also, with regard to the first span (M=3.62 (mean 0.96); F=3.15 (mean 0.88); Student’s t-test (126k2.59, p<O.Ol), second span (M=3.93 (mean 0.92); F=3.56 (mean 1.07); Student’s t-test (126)=1.99, p<0.05), and average reverse digit span (M=3.78 (mean 0.84); F=3.36 (mean 0.82); Student’s t-test (126)=259, p<O,Ol), males again scored more highly than females.


TABLE 8: Reverse digit span*

N Mean (SD) Median Mode (Range)

Bwds 1 128 3.48 (0.96) 3 3 (2-6) Bwds 2 128 3.82 (0.98) 4 3 (2-6) Bwd Av 128 3.65 (0.85) 3.5 3 (1.5-6) 'Numbers recalled in revearse order.

Comparison between normal and dyslexic groups By combining the digit span forwards and reverse scores it is possible to achieve a scaled score which is equivalent to those employed on The Wechsler Adult lntelli- gence Scale - Revised (WAIS-R) (Wechsler, 1981) and the following results occur (Table 9).

TABLE 9: Comparison of normal versus dyslexic groups: digit span performance

N 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th Centiles

Random sample' 200 5.0 6.5 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 15.0 Scaled score

Dyslexic students** 128 2.5 3.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 10.0 Scaled score 'A random sample of the population aged 20-24 years (WAIS-R) (Wechsler. 1981). "In higher education.

Having made a comparison between our dyslexic group of students and a normal population sample by use of the WAIS-R (Wechsler, 1981) it can be seen that the dyslexic group do less well than one would expect given their age and intellectual ability. The WAIS-R scaled score of 5.0 in the dyslexic sample is at the 50th centile, whereas in the normal population a scaled score of 5.0 would place that person at the 5th centile. Nonetheless, there is a statistically reliable positive correlation between the scores on the Raven's Progressive Matrices and the score on both digit span (r=0.366; N=88; p<O.Ol) and reverse digit span (r=0.269; N-88; pcO.01). A high score on the Raven's progressive matrices is a good predictor of a high centile score on the digit span memory tests.

Reading Ideally, one would wish to investigate an individual's ability to read across a number of contexts (oral and silent reading, reading an academic text with new material, and reading a familiar text with a storyline, word and non-word reading). Once again, however, time does not often allow such detailed investigation and thus only the most crucial aspects of reading are generally formally assessed. Most reading activity in higher education is 'silent' reading and there is obvious value in testing speed of reading as well as retention and comprehension of the text. Many courses require reading of substantial portions of academic texts as an essential part of the coursework. Whether


a student has difficulty retaining information from bookdjournals or where the busi- ness of processing the information is slow, students’ will be handicapped if they are spending hours reading non-essential material. Many students report no difficulty with reading (Gilroy & Miles, 1996):

... but i t takes me a long time to get through my reading and I cannot concentrate ... I don’t th ink I’ve ever read a book from cover to cover.

... I often misinterpret questions in examinations. (pp. 74-78)

We consider that in dyslexia assessments, and probably many others, there is an important balance to be struck between making the task so difficult that failure is assumed, or so easy that the individual being assessed feels demeaned. Ultimately, the test should challenge the ability of an average adult to read and retain information.

The Buzan ‘Self Test 1’ (Buzan, 1989) was used to reveal the following results from our sample in terms of speed and comprehension of reading. With a Fogg (Klein, 1993) readability index of around 18 years, it was felt to be at an appropriate level of difficulty. The ‘normal’ rate of reading referred to is derived from Buzan (1989) and is the expected rate of the ‘man in the street’ of between 200-240 words per minute. To be ‘functionally literate’ a person would have to read at around 400 words per minute in order to digest the ‘bulk of written material that we are faced with in our daily lives’ (recent correspondence with speed reading teacher, Lynne Collins). Whilst neither defi- nition can be fully substantiated at present, we feel that the figures act as a useful guide to the performance one might expect. Reading ability was assessed by considering both the rate at which students read and the level of comprehension and retention of the passage (Table 9).

TABLE 9: Reading: Buzan ‘Self Test 1’ (Buzan, 1989)


Comprehension 78 61.21 (12.17) 60 60 (33-86%) Speed 89 142.21 (54.97) 135 122 words/min

Spelling A frequent manifestation of dyslexia is a persistent difficulty with spelling where there are errors of letter omission, letter reversal, and spelling as the word sounds (over- reliance of the sound of the word and poor memory of spelling rules).

Spelling tests were given to our student sample, with some unexpected results given the levels of cognitive ability already mentioned. Three spelling tests were given:

Diagnostic spelling tests (Tests 4 a 4 , Cotterell, 1993) which might be quite difficult for GCSE or A Level candidates, containing 52 words in all, with silent letters (25% of sample), for example, honest, rhubarb, psalm, scented; double consonants (34.5% of sample); difficult endings, for example, -cia/, -cient, -cian, -cede, -ceed).

Paediatric and Educational Issues 36 7

A list of 10 words with silent letters (Stephens, 1994), for example, subtle, campaign, mortgage. A list of 10 words with a different number of syllables in the spelling to that in the pronunciation (Stephens, 1994), for example, contemporary, monastery, extraordinary.

A frequent symptom of a specific learning difficulty is a persistent difficulty with spelling. It is pertinent that dyslexic students are very inefficient at spotting their errors. Whilst no norms are available on these tests, the following have emerged through analysis (tables 11, 12 and 13).

TABLE 11: Cotterell spelling test (tests 4a-d)

N 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th

Centiles in a group of dyslexic students (%I error score) 125 78.8 70.8 58.0 40.0 26.0 14.0 10.6

TABLE 12: Syllabification test (Stephens, 1994)


Centile for %I error score 105 100.0 100.0 90.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 30.0

TABLE 13: Silent letter test (Stephens, 1994)


Centiles for o/o error score 104 100.0 100.0 80.0 70.0 40.0 27.5 12.0

When the correlation between the student’s Raven’s Progressive Matrices performance and their performance on the Cotterell spelling test is considered, the strong relationship between intellectual capacity and spelling ability (r=0.369; N=83; p<O.OOl) is evident. Thus, the brighter the student, the fewer spelling errors are made. The Stephens tests, on the other hand, although related to Cotterell performance (Syllabi- fication: r=0.613; N=105;p<0.001; Silent letter: r=0.717; N=105; p<O.OOl) do not correlate reliably with scores on the Raven’s progressive matrices (Syllabification: r=0.022; N=72;p>0.8; Silent letter: r=0.107; N=71; p>0.4). Thus, whilst scores on the Cotterell test reflect both spelling ability and intellectual ability, the Stephens tests appear to provide more pure measures of spelling ability. This interpretation is further


supported by examining the correlation between Cotterell performance and Raven’s progressive matrices, when students’ performance on the Stephens spelling tests is statistically controlled. What this procedure does is to measure the relationship that is unique to intelligence and the Cotterell test. The result is that the correlation increases substantially (r=-0.428; N=67; p<O.OOl). If the Cotterell test were only measuring the spelling abilities tapped by the Stephens tests then the correlation should be closer to zero rather than further away.

CONCLUSIONS

At the end of any assessment which takes place in an educational setting there should be sufficient information to enable the staff to be better equipped to cater for the functional learning needs of that student. It is, however, important to establish a profile which confirms a diagnosis of dyslexia before proceeding with a functional assessment of student needs. In our sample there were students whose difficulties with spelling and a slow speed of reading could be partly accounted for by factors such as low level of intelligence, learning English as a second language, evidence of brain damage, lack of recent academic study, or relatively weak academic profile. None of these students have been excluded from our sample, but most displayed a more typical dyslexic profile. The diagnosis of dyslexia was arrived at on the basis of test results as well as qualitative evidence gleaned from the interview. There was evidence of above-average intellectual capacity for analogical reasoning in most of the sample (see Table 6 above) as well as an academic profile considered reasonable for a person studying in higher education. However, short term memory skills were less efficient relative to their intellectual capacity. They also displayed persistent spelling problems and a slow speed of reading. Spelling errors were characterised by letter omissions, letter ordering problems and words spelled as they sound. Frequently, students were poor at organising their time and prioritising their workload. Commonly, whilst the students gained good understanding of written texts, it took much longer than one would expect for them to retain and absorb the information; they usually disliked reading ‘out loud’. Most reported a history of difficulty with mental arithmetic, pronunciation of unfamiliar poly- syllabic words, literacy skills and some familial incidence of similar difficulties.

REFERENCES

Baddeley AD (1986). Working Memory. London: Oxford University Press. Buzan T (1989). Speed Reading. Newton Abbott: David & Charles. Cotterell G (1993). The Phonic Reference File. Wisbech: LDA. Edwards J (1994). The Scares of Dyslexia: Eight Case Studies in Emotional Reactions. London: Cassell. Ellis A (1991). Reading, Writing and Dyslexia: A Cognitive Analysis. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Gilroy D (1993). A Survey of Dyslexic Students in Higher Education (1991-1993). University of North Wales: Bangor Dyslexia Unit. Gilroy D, Miles T (1996). Dyslexia at College (second edition). London: Routlege. Klein C (1993). Diagnosing Dyslexia: A Guide to the Assessment of Adults with Specific Learning Diffi- culties. London: Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit. McLoughlin D, Fitzgibbon G, Young V (1994). Adult Dyslexia: Assessment, Counselling and Training. London: Whurr Publishers. Miles TR (1983). The Bangor Dyslexia Test. Wisbech: LDA. Miles TR (1993). Dyslexia: The Pattern of Difficulties (second edition). London: Whurr Publishers. Nicholson RJ, Fawcett AJ (1990). Automaticity: a new framework for dyslexia research? Cognition 33, 159-1 82.


Nicholson RJ, Fawcett AJ (1997). Dyslexia in adults, new developments in diagnosis and screening. Journal of Research in Reading. Raven J C (1958). Standard Progressive Matrices. London: HK Lewis. Singleton C (1996). Dyslexia in HE: issues for policy and practice. In: C Stephens (Ed.). SKILWnioersity of Huddersfield Conference Proceedings. Huddersfield: Northern Branch of National Bureau for Students with Disabilities - SKILL. Snowling M (1987). Dyslexia: A Cognitive Developmental Perspectioe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Stephens C (1994). Syllabification and Silent Letter Tests. In preparation, contact the author for information. Thompson M (1989). Developmental Dyslexia (third edition). London: Whurr Publishers. Vinegard M (1994). A revised adult dyslexia checklist. Educare 48, 21-23. Wechsler D (1981). The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Reuised). New York: Psychological Corpora- tion. Zdzienski HED (1996). Studyscan: An Initial Screener and Full Diagnostic Dyslexia Self-assessment. Com- puter-based assessment program. Dublin: Interactive Services Ltd.

Wider access to higher education: after the three R's — the three T's

Documents

Transcript of Wider access to higher education: after the three R's — the three T's