01 NRDC Dyslexia 1-88 update - Texthelp

14
Research Report
be no surprise that ‘the body of research associated with reading disability is unusually
complex and confusing’ (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1994) and that the confusion is
widespread in almost every quarter. Teachers in schools are likely to be familiar with the
argument that ‘dyslexia’ has become a diagnostic label of convenience (Smith, 1997), applied
to learners ‘who are so confused by their poor reading instruction that they can’t overcome it
without special help’ (McGuinness, 1998).
In adult education, the perplexity may be greater. Adult life-histories are more complex than
those of children. Although every developmentally dyslexic adult was once a dyslexic child, the
dyslexic adult is not simply a child with a learning disability grown up (Ott, 1997). Among
teachers and providers in adult basic education, a survey into attitudes and beliefs about
dyslexia has 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’ (Kerr, 2001)—which is an astonishing state of affairs after a
decade of dyslexia awareness campaigning.
Confusion among members of the general public is made worse by policy-makers’ inability to
resolve the tension between value-driven submissions from advocacy groups and evidencedriven
submissions from scientists. The evidence itself is problematic because the actual
mechanisms of dyslexia ‘are still mysterious and currently remain the subject of intense
research endeavour in various neuroscientific areas and along several theoretical
frameworks’ (Habib, 2000). Elucidation of those mysteries may take a long while, since ‘one of
the difficulties that significantly impedes progress in the field of dyslexia is the absence of
consensus over the “correct” research questions’ (Richards et al., 2002). Therefore, for the
time being, the field of learning disabilities may be ‘more than ever dominated by advocacy
rather than science’ (Stanovich, 2000), with ‘an ongoing power struggle’ (Tønnessen, 1997) in
an atmosphere of ‘highly-charged melodrama’ (Nicolson, 2002).
Pupils, parents, politicians and professionals might be ‘well-advised to learn to live with
legitimate doubts’ concerning the nature, identification, prevalence, prognosis and alleviation
of dyslexia (Pumfrey, 2001). Meanwhile, it is sometimes unclear whether ‘dyslexia’ is used as
a term of diplomacy or of science.
What is clear in all the copious literature on dyslexia is that most of it concerns reading and
reading difficulty; a little concerns spelling; and very little concerns other aspects of literacy –
handwriting, punctuation and above all writing as composition, hardly figure. In much of what
follows, therefore, ‘reading’ is discussed and even when ‘literacy’ is being discussed, reading
is usually, although not always, meant.
In the wider fields of learning to read and reading difficulty beyond dyslexia, there has been
debate for more than half a century. At issue have been questions of culture (Feagans &
Farran, 1982; Luke, 1988; Olson, 1994); social exclusion (Cox & Jones, 1983; Davie et al., 1972;
Hurry, 1999; Locke et al., 2002; MacKay, 1999; MacKay & Watson, 1999); teacher training
(Brooks et al., 2001a; Brooks et al., 1992; Mather et al., 2001; Moats, 1994; Morris, 1993);
curriculum and teaching method (Adams, 1990; Byrne, 1998; Coles, 2000; Department for
Education and Employment, 1998; Goodman, 1978; McGuinness, 1998; Rayner et al., 2001;
Smith, 1978, 1997; Stuart, 1998; Turner, 1990); and remedial practice (Fawcett, 2002; National
Reading Panel, 2000).
In the teaching of reading, many positions are partisan, not least those positions taken with