Medios y condiciones de cultivo

In pursuit of research objective 1, it is important to consider established definitions of dyslexia. Early definitions of dyslexia, informed by the medical model of disability, focussed on norms of brain function and regular educational instruction resulting in failure. These exclusionist definitions labelled individuals as having dyslexia if no alternative explanations could be attributed to their reading and writing difficulties. For example, Critchley, described dyslexia as:

A disorder manifested by difficulty in learning to read despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence, and sociocultural opportunity. It is dependent upon fundamental cognitive disabilities which are frequently of constitutional origin (Critchley, 1970, p.11).

28

Exclusionist definitions are problematic on several grounds. First, they are based on assumptions regarding factors which might affect an individual’s ability to learn to read. Arguably, ‘adequate intelligence’ is one of the most problematic exclusionary criterion as questions can be raised with regard to who defines these perimeters and what constitutes adequate intelligence. While intelligence quotient (IQ) can correlate with reading ability, a low IQ is not a defining characteristic of all individuals who have dyslexia (Open University Learning Space, 2011). The criterion of

‘sociocultural opportunity’ implies that children with parents who for financial, cultural or linguistic reasons, read to them less, and people from lower income households with limited access to books, can also be expected to fail to learn to read. Dyslexia transcends all social classes and levels of intelligence and occurs at similar rates in all countries and cultures where written literacy is given high status (Fabio, 2014). This is not to say that social, economic, cultural and personal factors do not influence the rate and extent of someone's development in literacy skills however, these

factors may also be quite independent of the predisposition to dyslexia.

Definitions using exclusionary criteria are also seen as problematic by Catts (1989). Catts asserts that such definitions provide limited descriptions of the characteristics present in this cognitive condition and therefore the identification of people as dyslexic becomes a difficult process. If a sufficient definition of dyslexia, by using exclusionary definitions is desired, then a list of the factors that are known to be present in the disorder need also to be presented (Catts, 1989). However, Prior (1996), suggests that some parents and teaching professionals prefer definitions using exclusionary criteria because of a need to feel that the problem is medical and so a medical explanation and cure can be applied. This may explain why dyslexia is a term that has, in some instances, been used to ‘explain away’ reading failure amongst children whose background does not conform to desired standards, hence dyslexia being coined as, “a label used by middle-class parents who fear their children are being branded stupid” (Elliott, 2004).

29

For others, a defining feature of dyslexia is one of a discrepancy between potential and actual achievement (Siegel, 2006). Such definitions, by their nature, and

origins, reflect the statistical approach to defining ‘abnormality’. Essentially, age and level of intelligence is compared to poor performance in reading and writing (Riddick, 1996). This model embodies the view that diagnosis of dyslexia is based on the notion of discrepancy between what the pupil is achieving in literacy and what they can reasonably be expected to achieve on the basis of age and intellectual ability. It is assumed that the pupil has experienced ‘normal’ education and that the problems are not primarily due to any emotional or medical cause. This was particularly the case in the 1970s and 1980s when it was assumed that poor readers with high aptitude (as ascertained by IQ test performance) were cognitively different from poor readers of low aptitude (Stanovich, 1994).

In critique of discrepancy definitions, Siegel (1992) reports that research findings demonstrate there are no cognitive differences occurring between those children with poor reading and high aptitude and those with poor reading and low aptitude. A further concern with discrepancy definitions is highlighted by Geurin-Burns (2013) who claims that, for a formal diagnosis to be considered valid, a child must fail to learn to read for two years. For a child to have the crucial early years at school blighted by failure to acquire one of life’s fundamental skills, is potentially destructive and unethical. Snowling (2006) also views such definitions as problematic, as they cannot be used for young children, who are unable to read due their development stage, making their identification by these means impossible.

A further critique of discrepancy definitions relates to the assessments that are used. Rudel (1985) found significant differences in the results of two reading tests given to the same children. Hall (2009) suggests that different reading tests can measure different aspects of reading. For example, where one may measure word

identification, another may measure levels of comprehension. Upon the basis of this variation, allied with variations in boundary ‘cut offs’ and procedures employed, reading tests are not a reliable indicator of a child’s ability or even attainment at a particular point in time.

30

Perhaps an equally fundamental difficulty lies in the concept of IQ itself which, like intelligence, remains a controversial concept (Stanovich, 1991). Limitations of historical concepts of ‘intelligence’ and IQ are explored by critics such as Stanovich (1991) who argue that whilst IQ tests may measure the notion of IQ they are not an accurate measure of intelligence in its broadest sense. To base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability, creativeness and emotional intelligence.

In more recent years, broader definitions have been provided. The BDA (2007) describes dyslexia as:

A specific learning difficulty that mainly affects the development of literacy and language related skills. It is likely to be present at birth and to be life-long 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 effect can be mitigated by appropriately specific intervention, including the

application of information technology and supportive counselling.

This definition whilst descriptive in nature still puts an emphasis on reading ability and as such is rather limiting. Other issues such as speech, writing, co-ordination and organisational difficulties are omitted (MacDonald, 2009). Sir Jim Rose’s Report on 'Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties’ (2009) defined dyslexia as:

 A learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and spelling.

 Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and verbal processing speed.

 Dyslexia occurs across the range of intellectual abilities.

 It is best thought of as a continuum, not a distinct category, and there are no clear cut-off points.

 Co-occurring difficulties may be seen in aspects of language, motor co- ordination, mental calculation, concentration and personal organisation, but these are not, by themselves, markers of dyslexia.

31

 A good indication of the severity and persistence of dyslexic difficulties can be gained by examining how the individual responds or has responded to well- founded intervention.

Although a comprehensive definition, some of the key characteristics remain omitted. These include visual processing (which can lead to words appearing jumbled and moving on the page – see Appendix 1 for examples of visual processing issues experienced by some with dyslexia) and poor short-term memory. It is clear that Rose perceives dyslexia, not as a distinct category but rather as a continuum, much like a number of other disorders (Rack, 2009). Indeed, Dyslexia Action's chief executive, Shirley Cramer, has further to Rose’s definition, described dyslexia as a "basket of issues" (cited in Smith 2009, p.3), stating that whilst reading difficulties are a classic symptom of dyslexia other difficulties are often also involved, and some could occur together.

An analysis of these descriptive definitions reveals that they seek to inform people about the different characteristics and manifestations of dyslexia. They avoid exclusionary criteria and use more explanatory elements to help individuals

understand the term (Elliott and Place, 2004). Such definitions try to incorporate the varied nature and range of symptoms that can be experienced by individuals with dyslexic tendencies, although neither definition gives any explanation of the possible causes. Both are highly descriptive in nature, and appear almost checklist like of possible difficulties with no strengths identified. Attree et al (2009) assert that people with dyslexia show abilities such as creativity and visuospatial abilities which are actively sought by employers and the same factors that cause literacy difficulties may also be responsible for highlighting positive attributes - such as problem solving which can lead to more originality and creativity (Schloss, 1999).

Having considered the plethora of definitions provided within the literature, I propose that dyslexia is characterised by potential discrepancies in educational outcomes, linked to difficulties in literacy acquisition. Cognitive processes, including

organisation, speed of processing, time management, automaticity, memory and coordination may also be affected with potential phonological and visual processing

32

difficulties. These characteristics exist on a spectrum from mild to severe and can be influenced, both positively and negatively, by the learning/work context and instructional methods.