There is comparatively little research into dyslexia and the essay writing of HE students identified as dyslexic (Farmer, Riddick, & Sterling 2002; Gregg, Coleman, & Lindstrom 2008). Gregg et al. (2008) suggest that more work is needed on the underlying reasons for difficulties. The purpose of this section therefore is to review research into essay writing and dyslexia or work that is pertinent to it and to consider its usefulness to this study in terms of purpose, methods and findings.
Farmer, Riddick and Sterling (2002), in order to establish an appropriate way of assessing the writing difficulties of students identified as dyslexic, compared the free writing, proofreading and speed of handwriting of dyslexic and control groups. Significant differences were found in handwriting copying speed (but not in number of words in essays), in the percentage of words of more than three syllables, percentage of spelling errors, some aspects of grammar and success at identifying errors. The study also
compared handwritten and word-processed sections of the essays. They found no differences on any of the dimensions between the two formats in either group.
Hatcher, Snowling and Griffiths (2002) compared the cognitive skills of a sample of dyslexic university students and their non- dyslexic peers. They used this data to inform their investigation
into the study problems of dyslexic students in one university and to establish the most sensitive tests for identifying dyslexia in this setting. The dyslexic students, in spite of comparable verbal and non-verbal cognitive ability, performed less well on tests of literacy, phonological processing and speed of processing. They also
performed less well in speed of handwriting (copying), proofreading and a timed précis. In the proofreading task, the dyslexic group were slower and found fewer errors than the control group. In the précis task, their scores were lower for time to read the passage, time to write the précis and for content, structure and legibility.
Both studies also attempt to capture affective and motivational dimensions, Farmer et al. (2002) through a survey requiring Likert scale responses and Hatcher et al. (2002) by using Brown Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) scales. On the ADD scales, the dyslexic group showed the largest effect in affect, attention and effort. Both studies showed heightened anxiety about writing in the dyslexic groups. They also conducted interviews in which students in both studies expressed concerns about structuring writing and being able to write in ways that reflected their understanding. This same concern was found in a study by Mortimore and Crozier (2006).
The purpose in both studies required differences between dyslexic and non-dyslexic students to be identified. Control group
comparisons were therefore made using quantitative data and the writing tasks were controlled in terms of setting, time and topic. Tools for exploring more affective factors revealed trends rather than individual profiles. Whilst these methods may have been appropriate for the purpose, they are less so for a study of coursework that aims to incorporate the effects of context. One problem is that the different writing dimensions (e.g. structure, grammar, vocabulary) needed to be comparable and measurable between groups and it could be argued that this led to their being over-simplified and lacking context. The term ‘structure’ seems particularly problematic. Farmer et al. (2002) attempt to examine the organisation of ideas and the quality of argument, but they acknowledge the limitations of the small sample, impressionistic ratings and the writing setting and suggest the need for agreed
criteria. Hatcher et al. (2002:126) report that the marking schedule for structure included ‘marks for the succinct use of words and phrases’. This seems limited in its conception of structure.
Grammar and vocabulary pose similar problems of definition. The terms are not defined by Hatcher et al. (2002) but addressed in detail by Farmer et al. (2002). In grammar for example, they found differences between groups at the word level (errors in word
endings or omission) but not in disordered sequencing of clauses, nor in incomplete sentences, in verb tense, nor in noun/pronoun or subject/verb reference. They found differences in vocabulary use in terms of the number of syllables in words and use of colloquialisms. However, in their discussion of language issues, they raise concerns more pertinent to the context such as the literacy background of the participants and strength of identity with the context. This implies more far-reaching conceptions of grammar and vocabulary in the academic setting, for which terms such as style and register and identity become important (Halliday 1994). Overall, it suggests a difficulty with taking adequate account of the contextual effects on writing. This is supported by the fact that discussion in both papers included contextual elements such as differences in course requirements and different coping strategies.
A US study places more emphasis on functional language use in context in an analysis of linguistic features used by college writers in expository writing (Gregg, Coleman, Stennet, & Davis 2002). In a study designed to evaluate the discourse complexity of writers with and without disabilities, Greg et al. (2002) identify the co- occurrence of lexical and syntactic features in the expository texts of four groups in a 30 minute essay writing task. One group is identified with learning disabilities (LD), the second with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the third with combined LD and ADHD, and the fourth with no disability. A key point in this study is that errors were corrected so that only discourse
complexity was analysed. Using a recognised model, they identified four linguistic factors that contributed to the discourse complexity of their expository texts. They then calculated how these factors loaded onto the dimensions of verbosity (number of words), quality
(content/organisation, style, sentence structure, conventions, following the criteria and scoring rubric of the high school writing proficiency examination) and lexical complexity (calculated by the percentage of different word forms or types in relation to the
number of different words). In all of these dimensions, raters found significantly different loadings between the groups with disabilities and the fourth group without; the group with combined effects of LD and ADHD were the most compromised. They emphasise the difference in quality ratings even after errors have been corrected.
A further study (Gregg, Coleman, Davis, & Chalk 2007) examines the implications of dyslexia for writing performance in essays assessed for US postsecondary entry. In a 30 minute essay writing task, they examined the influence of handwritten, typed and
typed/edited essay formats on the marks received by 65 dyslexic and 65 non-dyslexic students. They were assessed according to quality; verbosity and lexical complexity; spelling and handwriting; and the same quality criteria as in the previous study were applied. Measurements of vocabulary complexity, verbosity, spelling and handwriting accounted for more variance in quality scores in the dyslexic group than in controls. They discuss the importance to writing of fluent access to spelling patterns and vocabulary and how word knowledge relies on the ‘reciprocal relationships with topic knowledge, oral language, and reading comprehension abilities’ (Gregg et al. 2007:313). It is also of note that differences in quality scores were apparent even in the typed/edited versions of the essays. They suggest therefore that spelling and handwriting alone cannot explain variation in quality. Of interest in these studies is the perception that there is a relationship between the effects of dyslexia and the linguistic and syntactic processes associated with particular types of text. There is discussion of whether there is ‘an additive effect’ (Gregg et al. 2007:314), that difficulty in recalling spelling and syntactic patterns impacts on cohesion between sentences and hence overall coherence of a text.
Two further US studies situate the problems differently. These explore how the cognitive processes underlying spelling and handwriting have an effect on composing. In the first study
(Berninger et al. 2008b), a randomised control design was used to explore the effects of orthographic versus morphological spelling interventions and the effects when the different spelling approaches were taught alongside written composition. Both groups received phonological interventions. In order also to assess whether writing instruction was influenced by age, both ‘treatments’ were carried out with different age groups. In the second part of the same study, Berninger et al. (2008b) used a randomised control design to explore differences between explicit language work on spelling (phonological working memory and phoneme – grapheme
correspondence) and report writing compared with an intervention that involved non-verbal activities only (virtual reality (VR) science problem solving). This was on the basis that VR has been show to enhance attention, presence and engagement with task and previous research had suggested that attention training had influenced improvement in composition. In the first part of the study, it was found that, regardless of spelling conditions, transcription and composition skills improved when taught in integrated lessons. The composition skills, of the older age group improved more than those of the younger, suggesting the
possibility of developmental delay. In the second part, both explicit language instruction and science problem-solving improved
composition.
A second study (Berninger, Nielson, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind 2008a) explored the patterns of relationships between handwriting, spelling and composing to see whether they are the same in
dyslexic children and adults as in typically developing writers. Their participant groups were drawn from an on-going longitudinal genetics study and consisted of 122 children, 115 fathers and 85 mothers. In contrast to typically developing writers, they found that spelling rather than automatic letter writing contributed uniquely to the written composition of children and adults with dyslexia. They raise the possibility that there may be an orthographic loop in working memory which connects grapho-motor planning with word form. They also suggest that automaticity is involved in automatic letter naming and writing, which in turn has an influence on spelling in children and adults. This requires the inhibition of what is
irrelevant and fluent access to verbal information in long-term memory.
Three further studies conclude differently on where difficulties are situated. In the first (Connelly, Campbell, MacLean, & Barnes 2006), differences in quality between dyslexic university writers and controls were attributed mainly to spelling and handwriting fluency and it was concluded that higher order writing skills are not affected by dyslexia. In the second, (Sterling, Farmer, Riddick, Morgan, & Matthews 1998) in a study with 16 adult dyslexic university students and 16 controls significant differences were found in output; number of spelling errors, including number of phonologically based errors; number of words of three syllables or more, but no differences in sentence length or accuracy of sentence boundaries. These studies therefore focus on lower level writing problems as the basis of difficulty. In contrast, in a study with 100 dyslexic university students and controls, in a précis exercise written in Dutch, (Tops, Callens, & Van Cauwenberghe 2013) differences were found between dyslexic writers and controls in spelling and punctuation but also in quality assessments when errors were removed. Quality was judged according to conciseness, structure, agreeability, vocabulary and sentence structure. No significant difference was found in the quality of handwriting.
In these studies, findings differ on whether difficulties occur only with spelling and handwriting and not with higher level writing processes, whether spelling and handwriting difficulties load onto higher level processes or whether dyslexia related problems with higher level processes occur independently. As suggested
previously, it is possible that the methods, while suitable for purpose, do not allow the full picture to emerge. The essays are timed, which may replicate examination but not coursework conditions; the topic is set and does not demand the knowledge- making depth of the students’ own subject areas; and the setting is both devoid of context and unlikely to motivate effort or
The problem with the definition and measurement of some writing dimensions is again apparent and definitions sometimes contain assumptions. For example, lexical complexity is measured by number of words, number of syllables in words, number of types of words. This assumes that longer words and more words are likely to lead to higher quality texts; similarly with longer sentences or more subordinate clauses. However, research into text
comprehension and discourse processing (Kintsch 1994; Oakhill 1994) suggests that it is the clear signalling of the relationships between words and sentence parts that allows readers to make connections, not necessarily length and quantity. Similarly, theories of cohesion suggest that repeating the same or synonymous word creates lexical cohesion (Halliday 1994). Experience further suggests that for some dyslexic writers the problem is too many words and over long sentences used in an attempt to say what they mean. The methods therefore do not capture the full dimensions of word and sentence use.
A study by Price (2006) goes further towards addressing the lack of context and, in a case study of real-world coursework essay writing behaviours, she adopts a qualitative methodology with university student writers identified as dyslexic. The purpose of the study is to explore the ways in which students use technology to address their dyslexia-related difficulties. The data included reading and spelling performance; writing speed; semi-structured interviews, a writing log, which involved real time audio recording of writing activities during writing, hard copy of draft assignment work, hard copy of final assignment, marks/grades received. A working memory definition of dyslexia was operationalised, i.e. that dyslexia-related working memory limitations undermine the simultaneous processes necessary for writing at HE level and that low-level writing
operations need to be automatic in order that resources for essay structuring are not diminished. The study succeeds in capturing a range of essay writing processes, drawing on writing process models (Bereiter & Scardamalia 1987; Hayes & Flower 1980). It also captures the student voice, the differently creative ways with which the students address their writing problems and the
is given about the subject areas and the very different writing tasks, the possible effects of these are not discussed. Also, the study is framed within a conception of dyslexia as a cognitive deficit and this is disputed by some (Herrington & Hunter-Carsch 2001; Singleton 1999).
A further study that includes qualitative methods takes the perspective of exploring authorial identity and approaches to learning and writing. Kinder and Elander (2011) use a Student Authorship Questionnaire (SAQ) to explore confidence in writing, understanding authorship, knowledge to avoid plagiarism and approaches to writing (top-down, bottom-up, pragmatic). They also use an Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students
(ASSIST) to explore deep, surface or pragmatic approaches to learning. They are interested in possible correlations between the findings in each of these tools and whether correlations might differ between dyslexic and control groups. They also conduct semi- structured interviews with six dyslexic students with the highest and lowest SAQ scores. Findings suggest that sense of authorship is lower in students identified as dyslexic and that approaches to learning and writing were less congruent. In the interviews, all felt that dyslexia made writing more difficult, but there was no
difference in high or low SAQ scores in whether they thought dyslexia increased the risk of plagiarism. Their findings were
different from a Canadian study (Kirby, Silvestri, Allingham, Parrila, & La Fave 2008) which found that university students with dyslexia were more likely to report a deep approach to learning. Their study, however, referred to reading.
The focus on authorial identity is of interest here. They use a definition by Pittam, Elander, Lusher, Fox and Payne (2009:154): ‘the sense a writer has of themselves and the textual identity they construct in their writing’ (discussed further in Part 2). However, the discussion centres on its relationship to plagiarism. Also, the use of tools such as SAQ and ASSIST might identify broad trends and serve their purpose to develop approaches to academic writing of benefit to this group as a whole, but they are not appropriate for
the interest in this study to understand how individual difference is constituted.
In summary, the reported studies usefully identify areas of difference between dyslexic and non-dyslexic writers and make links with known characteristics of dyslexia. However, control group methodology risks influencing definitions of different writing
dimensions such as structure and grammar and controlled writing conditions seemed limited in achieving an in-depth understanding of essay writing in context. It seems that the individuality of
approaches and difficulties and the effects of contextual factors are lost. The qualitative study by Price (2006) was more effective in this regard, but seemed not to account fully for differences in contextual writing requirements. The conception of dyslexia as a within person deficit is also questionable. Price makes clear that a working memory definition of dyslexia informs the study. Others refer indirectly to different theories of dyslexia, including
phonological difficulties, fluency and automaticity. In the following section therefore, this is taken further, in order to explore how different theories of dyslexia might inform understandings of essay writing for this group.