





































Microsoft Word - GRHE-V3N2-p52


Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

52 
 

Original Paper 

“A” for Attitude—Attitudes towards Dyslexia in Higher 

Education 

Jonathan P. Beckett1* & Judith A. Darnell2 

1 St Mary’s School (Education), Horsham, Sussex 
2 Bedford College, (Primary Education and Early Years) Bedford, Bedfordshire 
* Jonathan P. Beckett, St Mary’s School (Education), Horsham, Sussex 

 

Received: January 7, 2020      Accepted: January 21, 2020      Online Published: April 15, 2020 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v3n2p52             URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v3n2p52 

 

Abstract 

This paper makes the case for the importance of an empathetic approach to understanding dyslexia, in 

educational establishments, especially in Higher Education. An awareness of the implications that 

having dyslexia and how this affects both study skills (concentration, organisation, revision and so 

forth) and presentation skills (completion of assignments within academic language and structures and 

without grammar, punctation and spelling errors) is accentuated in this article. 

This research employs meta-ethnography, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and a 

grounded theory overlay to thematic critical analysis. In so doing, UK literature of both quantitative 

and qualitative format was examined through specifying inclusion criteria and using a filtering 

approach. 

The justification for this work is to challenge any institutional or individual indirect discriminatory 

practice towards students with dyslexia. 

Conclusions indicate the need for enhanced institutional understanding of dyslexia and associated 

provision for individual dyslexic learners within Higher Education in its entirety. For example, access 

to digitalised resources, individual tutorials, assistive technology and adjusted expectations in marking 

criteria (as not to penalise for issues concomitant with dyslexia). 

Keywords 

Dyslexia, Specific Learning Difficulties, provision, inclusion, Higher Education, meta-ethnography 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

53 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1. Introduction 

Attitudes towards dyslexia in universities have been widely studied and introduces some surprising 

findings. This article examines how effective the provision for dyslexia is at university level, since 

experiences and qualifications gained at this stage forge a path for students’ careers and ultimate 

success. Every year, students arrive at post 1992 universities, former polytechnic college universities, 

pre-1992 institutions and Russell Group universities with diagnosed or undiagnosed dyslexia. A 

considerable variable in the success of these students in obtaining a good degree outcome might well be 

related to where they choose to study as it is likely that there are differences for students regarding the 

amount and kind of support offered to students with dyslexia between institutions. Dyslexia support at 

university is a particularly important area of study, since most assessment within HEis related 

specifically to literature searching and essay writing which can be a struggle for many students with 

dyslexia, even if student knowledge and understanding is evident. 

Dyslexia can be understood in a variety of ways. Through a theoretical lens, one of these includes 

being defined as a hidden, non-evident specific learning disability (Riddick et al., 2002). Although 

dyslexia can affect individuals differently, it can include one’s difficulty in: organisation, literacy, 

memory, concentration, time keeping and spelling. Dyslexia can be defined in different ways and have 

different effects for individual students but rates of dyslexia within the population are reported to be up 

to 20% (Knight, 2018).  

 

2. Methods 

This work applies a meta-ethnographic approach to reviewing and synthesising data which addressed 

the research question: what is the provision like for those with dyslexia in Higher Education/at 

University? A Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) using grounded theory was applied to 

analyse the qualitative and quantitative data. Questions such as: “is the data still applicable?” and “will 

the results illuminate local or national issues?” were used and provided a framework for the 

methodology. Thus, relevant studies through an inclusion filter were sought. This filter consisted of: 

United Kingdom (UK) data and the key terms: dyslexia, provision, university/universities, Higher 

Education, staff/lecturer attitudes (towards dyslexia), inclusion and inclusive education. 

As studies were combined, key indicators, words, phrases and ideas were analysed to forge the links or 

disparities between various studies using inductive reasoning (Noblit & Hare, 1988). Subsequently, a 

thematic approach for summarising the literature was taken based upon Aveyard et al.’s (2016) notion 

of data extraction. This “is a process which enables you to extract the relevant information that are 

included in your study in preparation for subsequent analysis” (Aveyard et al., 2016, p. 93). This 

included summarising the content of papers selected and identifying underlying issues framing the 

discussion by producing a construction of theories based upon the emergent issues. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

54 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Although acknowledging the small-scale nature of this work, and the limitations this brings, such as 

how selective confounding variables may have an impact upon general is ability, this does not detract 

from the issues raised within the research. As a safeguard to ensure the veracity of the study, an 

effective quality control measure was taken-the implementation of CASP tool. This ensured that all 

important outcomes were considered. It also acted as a sounding board between authors to ensure the 

work comprised all applicable research, and the inferences drawn were indicative of combining studies. 

 

3. Discussion 

Large-scale research by Knight (2018) involving 2,600 participants, found that teachers lacked 

understanding of dyslexia in two main areas: biological (neurological) and cognitive (processing). 

Moreover, 71.8% of teachers reported that dyslexia was not well covered during their initial teacher 

training programme. If dyslexia is disregarded or the opportunities to enhance teachers’ understanding 

is insufficiently covered during training at school level, then the further lack of awareness in this area is 

likely to be present for academic HE staff. These staff might have chosen to lecture based on their high 

level of subject knowledge but may also have a less rigorous training programme in HE lecturing than 

school teachers. 

However, universities are aware of the notion of equality and have systems in place for supporting 

struggling students, as set out in the UK’s Equality Act (2010). Specifically, it also introduced an 

obligation for Higher Education Institutions (HEI)s to provide equality of access. Equality was sought 

by removing barriers and managing academic adjustments and services (Kirkland, 2009). Most 

universities allow HE students who are formally diagnosed with dyslexia additional time (normally up 

to a quarter of the scheduled time) to complete exams or allow additional time to submit assignments. 

This is rooted in research-Hatcher, Snowling and Griffiths (2002) found that dyslexia-specific 

problems at HE level were identified as “slowness” which also relates to the need for students to 

constantly re-read sentences in order to gain sufficient meaning. Some institutions also ask lecturers to 

mark the content of the written work (the salient points of the submission) rather than penalise for the 

likely grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and presentation of information (Singleton et al., 1999). 

However, the attainment gap between dyslexic students and non-dyslexic students is still of a sizable 

difference (Ferrer et al., 2015). Richardson (2015) notes that approximately 40 percent of 

undergraduate students with dyslexia achieve a 2:1 or above, compared to over 50 percent of 

non-dyslexic students achieving this. This raises questions as to why this 10 percent gap persists. 

Although each institution is unique, it is suggested (see below) that staff across HE institutions may not 

have an adequate awareness of dyslexia. Consequently, some lecturers saw dyslexia as a “disability” to 

help gain an unfair advantage (Mortimore, 2013). Furthermore, Byrne (2018) suggested that some HE 

academic staff fail to give adequate supervision or offer academic guidance to their students. Those 

with dyslexia, who (on account of having a Specific Learning Difficulty (SpLD)), may find study skills 

and assignment submission most challenging and would therefore be at greater risk of failure. In the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

55 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

same way, Tinklin et al. (2004) noted that some practitioners can be cautious about making “reasonable 

adjustments” for their students, due to perceptions that standards may be lowered. Indeed, Pino and 

Mortari (2014) suggested that across different HE institutions there is a considerable lack of awareness 

by lecturers and tutors regarding dyslexia. Students claimed that lecturers were unresponsive and 

unhelpful, and they struggled to obtain teacher attention which led to students strongly insisting on 

appropriate modifications to be made available for their needs. Moreover, Mortimore and Crozier 

(2007) indicate that some students reported feeling inadequately helped with study skills indicative of 

dyslexia, including note taking, organisation of assignments, expressing ideas coherently and structured 

logically in academic essays. Cameron (2016) reports on students who expressed sentiments in the 

themes of stress, feeling a misfit and not belonging within an academic world. In addition, the varied 

approaches, within neoliberalism of perspectives of fairness, meant that some students felt 

discriminated against on account of their dyslexia, chiefly dependent upon the strong voice of the 

power-relationship between the student and lecturer (Cameron & Billington, 2015). To illustrate this, 

research by Richardson (2015), found the treatment of students with dyslexia is likely to vary between 

individual lecturers and institutions, which does not allow for equal parity in outcomes between 

dyslexic students. Furthermore, in a singular study of one HE institution, Cowen’s conclusion of 

student experience was for a greater need of departmental appreciation of the need to support students 

by tutorials (Cowen, 2018). Interestingly, the amount of contact time that universities offer may also 

affect attainment for HE students with dyslexia. Richardson (2015) highlighted that long-distance 

learning offered by the open university recruited large numbers of students in 2012 (4,961) who had 

dyslexia or other learning difficulties but students with dyslexia were less likely to pass modules and 

also obtained poorer grades than non-disabled students. This, he reported, would have deleterious 

consequences for academic progression and may be due to a lack of appropriate remote support 

resources. 

As has been noted, one problem relates to lack of understanding for academic staff in HE institutions. 

Waterfield (2002) recommends teaching strategies to allow opportunities for dyslexic students to 

process information more effectively. She notes that dyslexic students benefit from access to teaching 

slides and handouts in advance of the teaching sessions, to allow them time to digest the subject content. 

Equally, recording lectures helped some students re-visit points they may have missed. This facilitated 

in some participants being able to form mind-maps and other visual representations to summarise 

session notes. Furthermore, a variety in assessment methods for dyslexic learners were endorsed; 

assistive technologies were found to benefit dyslexic students, in again, helping organise their thoughts, 

especially in assessed coursework (Waterfield, 2002). Likewise, Pino and Mortari (2014) found that 

computing packages were used by dyslexic students as a successful support mechanism (for example, a 

Pebble Pad) which supported their need for time to connect with the materials. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

56 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

However, there is an additional issue in regard to students’ decisions regarding testing for dyslexia 

when they are struggling. Due to the negative perceptions regarding dyslexia, students are-for the most 

part-reluctant to seek assessment and support in HE and only do so when they have reached a tipping 

point in their academic journey (Cowen, 2018). Another salient issue within study at HE level, is that 

many learners will no longer live at home with their parents. It is therefore likely that the experiences 

of dyslexic students, without parental support, are likely to be different than dyslexic learners of school 

age who may have parents willing to engage and speak on their behalf to gain support for dyslexia 

(Gwernan-Jones, 2010). Work by Henderson (2017) also found that support relating to dyslexia was 

more likely to be sought during the second/third year of study, partly due to students wishing to 

maintain a non-disabled student identity, which may also relate to the evidence relating to negative 

perceptions of and inadequate support given by academic staff (Byrne, 2018). Additionally, failure to 

attain study support early on may be likely to affect overall degree outcomes negatively. 

Against this background, the recommendations/points of note are: 

 The need for enhanced awareness for staff of the complex and varying, concomitant nature 

of dyslexia (challenging stigmatisation, negative attitudes or misconceptions). This may help 

students and applicants feel at ease in disclosing dyslexia when applying for courses or 

employment.  

 Clearly defined differentiated approaches across all institutions (preventing the university 

equivalent of a postcode lottery of provision). These approaches might include: 

a) Accessibility of teaching materials prior to the lecture 

b) A variety of assessment methods and teaching strategies 

c) A transparent, unambiguous shared marking criteria using non-complex language 

d) Access to recordings of teaching sessions 

e) Access to online support materials (e.g., Pebble Pad or a VLE (virtual learning 

environment)) alongside face to face support sessions 

 To provide opportunities for students to discuss and recognise the features of dyslexia so 

that those who are not yet diagnosed can access assessment and tailored support if required. 

 To offer access to regular tutorial sessions with academic staff so that emotional support 

can be offered where students may not have parental guidance/support from home 

In conclusion, this article has highlighted the differences in student experience between institutions, 

including the effect of long-distance study versus regular face-to-face contact. Problems associated 

with perceptions of academic staff and needs of dyslexic students at this level appear as iterative issues. 

Challenging pockets of current disability provision for dyslexia, understanding present practice and 

ascertaining some prevailing staff attitudes, has been the framework for the positionality of this paper. 

Against this backdrop, suggestions for enhancing student experience and success in a “non-dyslexic” 

world are offered as ways of ensuring the inclusion of students with dyslexia. By greater awareness of 

indirect exclusion, those with SpLDs are more likely to feel supported by staff with an appreciation of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

57 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

some of the difficulties dyslexia can bring. Moreover, by being offered differentiated forms of 

assessment, or given allowances for the concomitant issues associated with dyslexia, these forms of 

support can make all the difference to the academic success and associated holistic wellbeing of 

students. 

 

References 

Aveyard, H. (2014). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. Maidenhead: 

McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. 

Byrne, C. (2018). Why do dyslexic students do worse at university? Retrieved from 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/dec/06/why-do-dyslexic-students-do-worse-at-unive

rsity 

Cameron, H. & Billington, T. (2015). “Just deal with it”: Neoliberalism in dyslexic students’ talk about 

dyslexia and learning at university. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1358-1372. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1092510 

Cameron, H. E. (2016). Beyond cognitive deficit: The everyday lived experience of dyslexic students at 

university. Disability and Society, 31(2), 223-239. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1152951 

Cowen, M. D. (2018). An exploration of factors which influence university students’ decisions whether 

or not to be tested for dyslexia (Unpublished Thesis). University of Southampton. 

Equality Act. (2010). London: Stationary Office. 

Ferrer, E., Bennett, S., Holahan, J., Marchione, K., Michaels, R., & Shaywitz, S. (2015). Achievement 

Gap in Reading Is Present as Early as First Grade and Persists through Adolescence. The Journal of 

Paediatrics, 167(5), 1121-1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.07.045 

Gwernan-Jones, R. (2010). Making sense of Dyslexia (PhD degree thesis). University of Exeter. 

Hatcher, J., Snowling, M., & Griffiths, Y. (2002). Cognitive assessment of dyslexic students in higher 

education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 119-133. 

https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158801 

Henderson, P. (2017). Are there delays in reporting dyslexia in university learners? Experiences of 

university learning support staff. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(1), 30-43. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1023563 

Kirkland, J. (2009). The development of protocols for assessment and intervention at university for 

students with dyslexia. In G. Reid (Ed.), The Routledge companion to dyslexia (pp. 261-264). New 

York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. 

Knight, C. (2018). What is dyslexia? An exploration of the relationship between teachers’ 

understandings of dyslexia and their training experiences. Dyslexia, 24(2), 1-13. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1593 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

58 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Marco Pino, M., & Mortari, L. (2014). The Inclusion of Students with Dyslexia in Higher Education: A 

Systematic Review Using Narrative Synthesis. Dyslexia, 20, 346-369. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1484 

Mortimore, T. (2013). Dyslexia in higher education: Creating a fully inclusive institution. Journal of 

Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(1), 38-47. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01231.x 

Mortimore, T., & Crozier, R. (2007). Dyslexia and difficulties with study skills in higher education. 

Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 235-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572173 

Noblit, G., & Hare, R. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. London: Sage. 

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985000 

Richardson, J. T. (2015). Academic Attainment in Students with Dyslexia in Distance Education. 

Dyslexia, 21, 323-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1502 

Riddick, B., Wolfe, J., & Lumsdon, D. (2002). Dyslexia: A Practical Guide for Teachers and Parents. 

London: David Fulton Publishers. 

Singleton, C. H., Cottrell, S. N. G., Gilroy, D., Goodwin, V., Hetherington, J., Jameson, M., … 

Zdzienski, D. (1999). Dyslexia in Higher Education: Policy, Provisions and Practice. Hull: 

University of Hull. 

Tinklin, T., Riddell, S., & Wilson, A. (2004). Disabled Students in Higher Education. Disability, 32, 

1-4. 

Waterfield, J. (2002). Dyslexia: Implications for Learning, Teaching and Support. Planet, 6(1), 22-24. 

https://doi.org/10.11120/plan.2002.00060022  

 

 


