DYSLEXIA AND ACADEMIC WRITING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

AN EXPLORATION OF CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES FOR

STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT DYSLEXIA
DL7000 (Module A) Project David Hodgson

Rationale and Context

I've always been very bad essay writer and it's contributed to the spectacular failure
of my academic career. (Year 3 Philosophy)
(Leedham, 2014, p.5)
Academic writing is an unavoidable hazard in higher education. In spite of moves to
diversify the range of assessment techniques, written assignments remain the
predominant means by which judgements about student ability are made (Gilbert, 2012).
The product range has expanded to include formats such as the report, the case study
analysis, the reflective commentary and the literature review.
It is perhaps surprising, however, to discover that academic writing among students with
dyslexia in universities has largely escaped the attention of researchers.
Perhaps the narrow association of dyslexia with reading
(Lawrence, 2009) is to blame, though the impact of the
condition on various aspects of learning and organisation
in daily life has been well documented (Grant, 2010;
Mortimore, 2008). Quips and stereotypes, though illjudged, do appear to have connected dyslexia with writing
literacy in the public consciousness.
Concern about writing standards at tertiary level has only
recently gained real momentum. As the demographic,
cultural and technological landscape of higher education
has transformed, academic literacy has gradually been
problematized. Universities are now an explicit arm of employment and business policy
(Higher education - Topics - GOV.UK, n.d.) with academic writing framed as a
transferable skill (Haggis, 2009).

Project objectives
This study uses critical enquiry and literature review methodology to pursue three
objectives:
1. to identify the purpose of academic writing
2. to describe some of the challenges of academic writing for adults learners in higher
education, including those with dyslexia;
3. to suggest possible support strategies relevant to the role of the specialist dyslexia
tutor.
The study draws on a range of research perspectives including both quantitative and
quantitative studies. Reference is made wherever possible to the accounts of students
themselves alongside those of professionals in the field. These perspectives are
supplemented by reference to some of the authors own experience, though no direct
1

reference is made to individual colleagues or students. (Primary empirical data was not
gathered for the purpose of this study.)

How does the story unfold?

The study begins by asking what writing involves. We discover that it is quite a complex
process and that it is useful to explore the associated idea of literacy. It becomes clear
that this concept is not to be taken for granted either, because the form that literacy takes,
including the critical literacy that is associated with academic writing, seems to vary
according to the social and cultural context. It also has a political dimension because
literacy is both a means for self-expression and a mechanism to promote conformity.
(This combination of factors leads some theorists to talk about literacies in the plural, as a
kind of shorthand to highlight the not-to-be-taken-for-granted-ness of reading and writing.)
Dyslexia then enters, stage left, with its own distinctive tale to tell. But as the story
unfolds, the not-to-be-taken-for-granted-ness of dyslexia becomes increasingly apparent,
particularly when questions are raised about language and learning. Burdens (2005)
socio-cultural model helps to clarify some of these questions before the topic of academic
writing re-emerges to complicate matters.
A determined effort is then made to explain the purpose of practices in academic writing,
which turns out to have been quite worthwhile. The reason is that the research
subsequently reviewed indicates that it may be quite helpful for academic staff and
students.
Finally, brief suggestions are made about how tutors and students might approach the
challenges of academic writing together by paying attention to form, process and product.

What is writing and what is it for?

Writing has been defined as the penning or forming of letters or words; the using of
written characters for purposes of record, transmission of ideas, etc. (Oxford English
Dictionary online, n.d.) and, additionally, as the activity or occupation of composing text for
publication (Oxford Dictionaries online, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/writing
accessed 8/5/14) (emphasis added).
Writing is a format for the generation and communication of information and ideas in which
words are selected and placed according to semantic intent and applicable rules of syntax.
The word forms in Indo-European languages are abstract symbols, as distinct from iconic
images such as those found in Chinese. In English, several of these symbols lack
phonetic consistency, making additional demands on cognitive processing and memory
functions.
Writing takes place at different levels of cognitive complexity. Commentators have
distinguished between lower and higher writing operations (Kinder and Elander, 2011).
Low-level operations refer to mechanical aspects of writing such as, for example, the
formation of letters and words. Sentence construction and application of grammatical
rules might also fall under this heading.
There are two dimensions to the complexity of so-called higher order writing: firstly, the
difference between transcription and composition and, secondly, the distinction between
description and analysis.
2

The first distinction (transcription and composition) is analogous to the contrast between
reading as decoding and reading for meaning or. Written language can be read and
copied without appreciation of semantic content, whereas composition requires
understanding and linguistic agility.
The second dimension differentiates descriptive writing (or knowledge-telling) from critical
writing (or knowledge-transforming) (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987 in Price, 2006). The
terms critical writing and academic writing are used more or less interchangeably. The
form and purpose of critical or academic writing are considered later.
Description entails a degree of cognitive complexity that might indicate higher order
activities. For example, the combined processes of composition, editing and correction
(micro-editing) make particular demands on working memory. Researchers investigating
the operation of a so-called monitor said to be responsible for executive functions in
writing found a strong tendency for writers to separate the processes of composition and
correction to avoid memory overload (Quinlan, Loncke, Leijten, & Waes, 2012).

Is literacy just reading and writing?

Literacy: the ability to read and write; competence or knowledge in a specified area.
Oxford Dictionaries online: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literacy , accessed 8/5/14
The term literacy is commonly associated with the ability to read and to write using textual
symbolic language. Increasingly, however, the word has come to be expressed in the
plural as literacies, denoting skill in a range of different fields of endeavour (for example,
scientific, musical, emotional literacies) (Goodfellow, 2011).
The multiplication of literacy has taken place in the midst of social, political and cultural
changes from the second half of the 20th Century onwards, particularly related to
technologies for the production and communication of information (widespread use of
electronic computers with global connectivity).
These developments have heightened awareness that conceptions of literacy are not
fixed but historically and culturally specific. This contingent view of literacy is summed up
in Streets description of literacies as 'social practices of using codes for making and
exchanging meanings' (1996, cited in Littlejohn, Beetham, & Mcgill, 2012, p.549). The idea
reflects what is known as a interpretivist view of knowledge and truth.

Interpretivism how do we know what we know?

Research: The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in
order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
Oxford Dictionaries online
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/research , accessed 14/5/14
Our attempts to understand the social world are informed by different viewpoints about
knowledge in the social sciences (Yilmaz, 2013). Positivism reflects the belief that
researchers should seek to establish objective truths about phenomena in the social world,
using approaches and methods used in the natural sciences. Interpretivism, on the other
hand, argues that although we exist in nature, as humans we construct our individual and
shared versions of knowledge through perceptions and interactions. This apparent
3

knowledge is subjective rather than absolute because it is made up of beliefs and

meanings. (These contrasting approaches also tend to prioritise different forms of data
collection, quantitative data for positivism and qualitative data for interpretivism.)
The individuals understanding of himself or herself and of the world is influenced by
unique personal characteristics and experience but is also shaped by the broader social
and cultural landscape. There is competition among different groups for recognition of
their beliefs or discourses as knowledge. People from marginalised and minority groups
that have limited access to sources of influence are less likely to gain acceptance of their
versions of reality (Ivanic, 1998).

So where does interpretivism leave literacy (literacies)?

This socio-cultural viewpoint recognises that literacy (or different versions of literacy)
perform functions at the individual and social levels. For the individual, literacy supports
personal development and the possibility of social advancement. It is regarded as having
the potential to enable individuals to operate as autonomous, self-determining human
beings. In this sense literacy provides a key marker of self-worth, a means by which we
judge ourselves to be of value, particularly in the context of formal education.
On the other hand, the interpretivist perspective reminds us that the literacy forms provide
a mechanism to promote conformity with culturally accepted ways of generating and
sharing information. We feel normal and knowledge-able if we can hold our own in this
sphere.
The dual aspect to the concept of literacy as both individual expressive ability and social
conformity provides a clue to understanding students personal encounters with cultural
and social practices in higher education. We will pick return to the socio-cultural
perspective when we consider the role of played by language in affecting learning
motivation, particularly among students with dyslexia.

What is dyslexia?
The study of dyslexia, although rooted in positivist sciences of medicine and subsequently
educational psychology, has increasingly been informed by socio-cultural perspectives,
which focus on the construction of meaning and the impact of beliefs at the level of the self
(as agent) and of social institutions (Burden, 2005).
Although dyslexia encompasses a diverse range of cognitive profiles (hence Grants
(2010) use of the term dyslexias), the condition almost invariably presents individuals with
difficulties in living and learning. This particular d word carries negative connotations
where the learning difficulty can be perceived as a fault in or of the individual. The term
difference is preferred, where it emphasises both the obligation on people and institutions
to respect individuality and to adopt practices that promote equal access to learning
opportunities.
'Dyslexia is a processing difference, often characterised by difficulties in literacy
acquisition affecting reading, writing and spelling. It can also have an impact on
cognitive processes such as memory, speed of processing, time management, coordination and automaticity. There may be visual and/or phonological difficulties
and there are usually some discrepancies in educational performances.

There will (be) individual differences and individual variation and it is therefore
important to consider learning styles and the learning and work context when
planning intervention and accommodations.'
(Reid, 2009, p.7)
Reids definition is helpful, firstly, in underlining the point that writing is affected as well as
reading (the main focus of attention in early studies (Mortimore, 2008) and still given
greater prominence in some accounts of dyslexia (Farrell, 2011)). Secondly, emphasis is
placed on the broader impact of dyslexia on underlying mechanisms, including working
memory (a temporary store for verbal information useful for immediate tasks) and
processing speed (capacity to manipulate visual symbols at a certain rate).
Furthermore, the reference to discrepancies is central to understanding that these
processing variations are not a representation of intelligence. Reasoning abilities (verbal
and visual-spatial) measured using Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS) are usually
impressive in comparison to the processing variations, producing a characteristically
spiky test profile (Grant, 2010).
This combination of processes can, individually or in combination, affect the operation of
short and long term memory, organisational capacities, sense of time, ability to relate ideas
sequentially and facility to perform procedural tasks automatically without conscious
thought (known as automaticity) (Mortimore, 2008).
In legal and policy, dyslexia is recognised as a form of disability that has a substantial and
long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities (Equality
Act 2010, s.6). The legislation requires public bodies in specified circumstances, including
education and employment, to make reasonable adjustments to avoid substantial
disadvantage connected with provisions, practices or the absence of auxiliary aids (s.20).
Reasonable adjustments include the Disabled Students Allowances (DSAs) (Disabled
Students Allowances (DSAs) - GOV.UK, n.d.), which make possible the provision of
additional equipment and tutorial support, along with stipulations about conditions for
learning and assessment.
The key legal concepts, enforcement mechanisms and services offered to remedy dyslexia
disadvantage operate primarily at the individual level. Broader systems and structures of
communication, learning and assessment remain relatively untouched as critical scrutiny is
limited to discrete appraisals of equality impact (as mandated by proactive duties on
public bodies to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity (s149)).
Students receiving individualised dyslexia services may not be convinced that their
struggles with the dominant modes of literacy and learning are being fully acknowledged.
A theoretical understanding of the personal impact of student encounters with formal
education from childhood onwards is conveyed in Burdens (2005 and 2009) analysis of
the role played by language both as a socio-cultural phenomenon and as a psychological
tool. The author explains that learning entails two kinds of processes: external interaction
with social, cultural, material environment and internal processes of information acquisition
and elaboration built on our existing linguistic and semantic store.
Three dimensions of learning operate through these external and internal processes: the
cognitive (knowledge & skills), the psycho-dynamic (motivation & emotions) and the
social (communication & cooperation). Motivation is regarded as a central component for
learning, providing the drive to explore and act in the social world.

Motivation itself can be understood as beliefs and feelings about the self developed
through social interaction, particularly related to the sense of personal agency or selfauthorship. Our locus of control refers to the sense of being in control of ones own
destiny or feeling at the mercy of external forces. At the positive end of the continuum are
optimistic attitudes and beliefs of self-efficacy (I can achieve my goals), while at the
negative extreme lies learned helplessness, a dispensation to give up on the grounds that
effort is pointless in the face of external obstacles. This pessimistic explanatory style is
associated with depressive thoughts and feelings.
A student described her current experience of writing as:
akin to suffering from bi-polar disorder. There are times when the writing isn't flowing
and I feel depressed and worthless. When I complete something I am happy with I feel
elated. (PhD in Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics)
(Leedham, 2014, p.6)
Using Burdens analysis, we can begin to appreciate that the concept of self-authorship
through academic writing may assume a potency that might not otherwise be evident 1. But
first it is necessary to focus on the academic aspect of academic writing.

What is the point of academic writing?

There are two reasons for asking this question. Firstly, clarifying the purpose of academic
writing may increase student motivation to stay the course. Secondly, if we can distinguish
form from purpose, the student and the tutor may be able to clarify how the necessary
tasks and practices might be adapted to the students own strengths and preferences.
Academic or critical writing, according Wingate (2012), is based on the development of
argument. (The author focuses primarily on essay writing but the core of the approach can
be applied more generally.) The purpose of academic argument is to establish your own
position on a particular topic or question, firstly, by evaluating claims contained in sources
selected for their relevance to that subject and, secondly, by presenting the position
reached in a coherent form. Various supporting components of the task follow from this
purpose. The framework (see below) maps the components of academic argument in a
form that should prove helpful to students across learning preferences (Mortimore, 2008).
Helpful though it is in mapping the terrain as well as the direction of argumentation, there
is arguably a more fundamental in critical writing that finds expression in critical pedagogy
(Goodfellow, 2011; Ivanic, 1998) and speaks to the way in which individuals position
themselves in relation to social and cultural practices.
According to Goodfellow (2011), critical awareness engendered through an explicit and
comprehensible analysis of power relations is convertible into action aimed at individual
and social transformation (p.138). Similarly, Ivanic (1998) argues that academic writing is
intimately bound up with the representation of self.

The common origins of the words author and authority emphasise connections between the activity of writing and the
sense of the self as creative, capable, confident and convincing to others. The addition of an h to the French word
autor is thought to have resulted from the association with authentic, thus reinforcing connotations of the author as
genuine, honest and truthful (Oxford Dictionaries online http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/author ).

Writing is an act of identity in which people align themselves with socio-culturally

shaped possibilities for self-hood, playing their part in reproducing or challenging
dominant practices and discourses, and the values, beliefs and interests which they
embody.
Ivanic,1998, p.32
This authors account suggests that discomfort among adults embarking on writing in
formal education arises not simply from cognitive strain and intellectual struggle, but also
from the psychological and emotional challenges of seeking to represent the self through
written, academic discourses experienced as discomforting, threatening and alien to ones
own expressive instincts and patterns of thought.
Wingates (2012) Framework for Argumentation

Goodfellow (2011) argues that the function of higher education in stimulating critical
debate and holding authorities to account has been undermined by the promotion of a
soft version of critical enquiry or critical thinking that focuses on the form and tools of
enquiry rather than their purpose and content. This approach reflects a positivist view that
the author suggests could be quite disempowering for students whose are motivated by a
combination of life experience and intellectual, creative curiosity to pursue questions that
have individual, social or political significance for them.

Academic writing a round peg in a square hole?

If we consider what academic writing entails in practical terms, the potential for designing
the process around student strengths and preferences becomes clearer. Academic writing
is a networked, multi-directional process dedicated to the development of a complex, multifaceted product. In visual and kinaesthetic terms, it is like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle
without any of the pieces or the finished picture. Students will need to be able to
manage and hold in memory the overall plan while working on specific parts of the essay
the macro (overall plan and structure) and micro (paragraph and sentence) levels of text
7

construction (Price, 2006, p23). The phrase multi-tasking might have been invented for
academic writing.
The table provided at Appendix A summarises questions about the form of academic
writing on the basis of common assumptions and conventions as to appropriate practices.
It outlines ideas and suggestions about the development process and product or content of
academic writing, suggesting ways in which tutor and student might address challenges
arising from possible tensions between conventions of academic writing and the students
learning purposes and preferences. It should be noted that all of the points made must
take full account of the student and tutor understanding as to assessment requirements
and subject tutor and disciplinary expectations.
If, in theory, it may be helpful to clarify the purpose, the process and the product of
academic writing, what does available research tell us about the extent to which these
theoretical approaches are attuned to the lived experience of students and tutors.

What is the point of academic writing from the perspective

of lecturers and tutors?
I dont know if craft is the right word so Im trying to think of something to replace
that, I think skill doesnt capture it either []
Lecturer quoted in French, 2011, p.232
Its pretty depressing really and I try my best but I dont seem to know what they
[academics] want and they dont all want the same thing.
Student quoted in Hill, 2011, p.216
Studies ranging across academic disciplines have suggested that university staff are not
always able to specify clearly what effective academic writing involves and that students
are frequently uncertain about what is required of them (French, 2011; Hill, 2011; Mitchell
et al., 2008; Wingate, 2012).
In particular, the evidence suggests that tutors either may not hold or may not
communicate to students a sufficiently clear / cogent grasp either of the components of
argumentation or how these components fit together, particularly in the essay form.
For example, in interviews and in evidence from feedback to students, tutors tended to use
terms such as critique, analysis, structure interchangeably. Concerns about coherent
argument were confused with complaints about evidence or the back up of argument.
[the concepts of analysis and evaluation were not distinguished clearly]
Wingate (2012) asserts that sources of advice to students, including study guides, writing
textbooks and feedback from teaching staff, tend to offer partial or inadequate and
explanations of what is involved in written academic argument. Moreover, lecturers may
have little direct experience of the writing formats required of their students. (The
formulation of essays, for example, tends to be regarded as a low-status enterprise
appropriate only for apprentices, rather than fully-fledged members of the academy
(Wingate, 2012.) Meanwhile, the increasing diversity of written assignment formats
(referred to earlier) make additional demands on staff as well as students, which can work
against the development of expertise in particular assessment modes (Gilbert, 2012).

Performance and experience among students with dyslexia

Empirical studies have examined both performance in written tasks (focusing on
quantitative data) and student experience, including views and attitudes towards academic
writing. Perceptions of difficulties with academic writing do not necessarily equate with
poor results. Researchers also utilise the distinction referred to earlier between high and
low level writing operations or tasks, though sometimes this differentiation appears to be
applied rather uncritically.
Performance-orientated research has tended to focus on the so-called lower level
elements, such as spelling, rather than the higher order aspects of writing aptitude.
A number of possible explanations have been offered for this state of affairs, including the
complexity of compositional writing as a research topic and assumptions that students with
dyslexia would not have progressed to a more advanced educational level if they had not
overcome any difficulties with writing (Riddick, Farmer, & Sterling, 2002).
Studies exploring the views of dyslexic and non-dyslexic students indicate that students
with dyslexia are more likely to report a lack of confidence and difficulties with the whole
range of writing tasks from spelling and sentence construction to organisation and
expression of ideas (Mortimore and Crozier, 2006 in Kinder and Elander, 2011).
In relation to writing performance, the distinction between lower level tasks and higherlevel tasks is relevant. Studies that have focused on the mechanical aspects of writing
indicate less fluency in the production of text among dyslexic students with a higher rate of
errors in spelling (eg. Connelly, Campbell, MacLean, & Barnes, 2006; Erskine, 1999;
Sterling, Farmer, Riddick, Morgan, & Matthews, 1998; Wengelin, 2007 all cited in Kinder
and Elander, 2011).
The interplay between the writing experience and measured performance in writing tasks
is captured well in some of the accounts of students and professionals who work with
them.
I know it in my head but I cant get it down on paper
(student quoted in Grant, 2010, p15).
It seems that problems with working memory can affect all levels of composition, from
single word selection, through sentence construction, paragraph development, and
through the broader architecture of the academic paper. Similarly, memory and
processing speed have an impact on the different compositional stages. According to
Grant (2010), students report that they find starting to write to be the worst part of the
essay-writing task. Writing an essay or report is like creating a complex story with lots of
characters. (Grant, 2010, p13) When working memory is stretched, the potential author
can be besieged by and buried under the various elements of character, plot, scenes,
incidents, and relationships.
The discrepancy between ability to generate ideas verbally and capacity to retain these
ideas in working memory can easily result in a bewildering and distressing sense of
disorientation. This state of mind may be manifested, for example, as blankness or white
sheet syndrome (Grant, 2010, p14) or, alternatively, as a confusing kaleidoscope effect,
where the picture changes every time you try to think about the details of a topic or a story.
A rapid stream of apparently connected ideas imposed on limited working memory can
result in excessively lengthy sentences that are subsequently difficult for the reader to
digest and the writer to amend or edit. A working memory flooded with ideas may have
9

little room to attend to other aspects of sentence composition such as grammar and
punctuation, thus compounding the problem of sentence composition.
Alternatively, the development of an idea can be halted and then lost by the focus of
limited working memory on the detail of spelling or syntax.
The body of research that explores higher-level compositional tasks is less extensive and
the findings are not as clear-cut as those reported above. Performance studies have
reported lower scores for students with dyslexia in relation to structure (Hatcher, Snowling,
& Griffiths, 2002 in Kinder and Elander, 2011) and the density and diversity of written
language (Wengelin, 2007 in Kinder and Elander, 2011). However, other researchers
identified no significant differences between dyslexic and non-dyslexic students in relation
to compositional development, organisation and lexical diversity (Connelly et al, 2006 in
Kinder and Elander, 2011).
Methodological challenges can be encountered in relation to assessment of the higher
order aspects of written composition. For example, judgements about compositional
quality can be affected where spelling errors have been retained (as in the study by
Connelly et al, 2006) and where assessors read the original handwritten text. Some
researchers have attempted to counteract these factors by removing spelling errors and
using typed scripts (Tops et al, 2013).
It has been suggested that poorer performance in these higher order aspects of
composition, where demonstrated, may be accounted for partly by the extra demands on
memory and processing capacity in carrying out lower level tasks such as encoding of
individual words (Wengelin, 2007). On the other hand, there is also some evidence that
dyslexic students may write and edit more slowly as a deliberate compensatory strategy to
improve the end product (Kinder and Elander, 2011).
Kinder and Elander (2011) conducted a study with dyslexic and non-dyslexic students
exploring the concept of authorial identity, the sense a writer has of themselves and the
textual identity they construct in their writing (Pittam et al, 2009, quoted in Kinder and
Elander, 2011). This concept is linked to higher order elements of composition such as the
deployment of literature in the formulation and review of arguments. It has implications for
students confidence in their ability to manage sources and to avoid plagiarism. Data were
collected using questionnaires and qualitative interviews. The authors concluded that
authorial identity was weaker among students with dyslexia than those without. However,
students with dyslexia did not necessarily consider they were more likely to encounter
problems with plagiarism. Indeed, there is a suggestion that close attention to plagiarism
guidance represents one of the compensatory strategies used by these students.

Authoring, self-authorship and the learning context

Carter & Sellman (2013) emphasise the need to go beyond the focus on cognitive and
language processing issues in order to understand the academic writing experiences of
students with dyslexia. A detailed analysis of accounts by 11 students (some but not all of
whom were formally assessed as dyslexic) from various subject disciplines highlights the
significance of positive and negative beliefs and feelings associated with self-identity as a
writer. Students views and feelings were characterised from positive/enabled to
fragile/undermined (or a mixture).

10

The authors found that students with dyslexia reported experiencing many of the problems
that are commonly associated with dyslexia (for example, reading speed, word finding,
working memory, essay structuring, sentence composition, spelling, handwriting speed
and the sense of good days/bad days). However, attitudes and feelings about academic
writing were not determined by these difficulties. Rather, they were related to dispositional
perceptions of the self as student (self-identity and self-management of learning) and of
ones relationship to the educational context (for example, the conventions and
expectations of their subject discipline).
The analysis of attitudes drew a distinction between a solution-finding and a
problematizing approach (p160). The authors conclude that support strategies should
attend not only to the cognitive hurdles of dyslexia but also to the way students feel about
and make sense of the challenges they face (referred to as meta-affective and
metalinguistic awareness).

Concluding comments
This project has attempted gain a theoretical and empirical understanding of the
challenges that academic writing presents for students with dyslexia, and those without,
through exploring our understandings of literacy, language and learning.
The suspicion that the experiences of students with and without dyslexia may differ in
degree but otherwise have much in common tends to be confirmed by the limited available
evidence.
This attempt to clarify the point of critical writing is, for me, worthwhile, partly because I
count myself among those members of the academy who have struggled to make this
purpose clear to students.
More importantly, however, developing a narrative about this particular version of literacy is
potentially helpful in two very practical ways. Firstly, it can increase awareness of the
profound intellectual, cultural and emotional journey towards confident and competent
authorship that tutors may travel with adult students, and the ways in which they can help
to make it more rewarding. Secondly, recognising the distinction between purpose,
process and product allows us to generate a framework for the development of practical
strategies to meet the unique learning experiences and preferences of our students.
Future research and development work lies in the potential for exploring new literacies in
the networked age that are consistent with the ideals of a rigorous, critical pedagogy.

11

Bibliography
Barkas, L. A. (2011). The Paradox of Skills: Widening Participation, Academic Literacy &
Students Skills Centres.
Bloch, M. (2012). Anthropology and the Cognitive Challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Burden, R. (2005). Dyslexia and Self-Concept: Seeking a Dyslexic Identity. London;
Philadelphia: Wiley-Blackwell.
Carter, C., & Sellman, E. (2013). A View of Dyslexia in Context: Implications for
Understanding Differences in Essay Writing Experience Amongst Higher Education
Students Identified as Dyslexic. Dyslexia, 19(3), 149164. doi:10.1002/dys.1457
Disabled Students Allowances (DSAs) - GOV.UK. (n.d.). Retrieved May 19, 2014, from
https://www.gov.uk/disabled-students-allowances-dsas/overview
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language.
Routledge.
Farrell, M. (2011). The Effective Teachers Guide to Dyslexia and other Learning Difficulties
(2 edition.). Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.
French, A. (2011). What am I Expecting and Why? How can Lecturers in Higher
Education Begin to Address Writing Development for their Students? Journal of
Academic Writing, 1(1), 228238.
Gilbert, F. (2012). Written assignment types in assessment: a varied and healthy diet?
BROOKES eJOURNAL OF LEARNING AND TEACHING. Retrieved May 14, 2014,
fromhttp://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/paper/written_assignment_types_in_assessment_a_v
aried_and_healthy_diet/
Goodfellow, R. (2011). Literacy, literacies and the digital in higher education. Teaching in
Higher Education, 16(1), 131144. doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.544125

12

Grant, D. (2010). Thats the Way I Think: Dyslexia, Dyspraxia and ADHD Explained (2
edition.). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon,; New York: Routledge.
Haggis, T. (2009). What have we been thinking of? A critical overview of 40 years of
student learning research in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4),
377390. doi:10.1080/03075070902771903
Higher education - Topics - GOV.UK. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2014, from
https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/higher-education
Hill, P. (2011). Invisible Writing: An Exploration of Attitudes towards Undergraduate Use of
Standard Written English in UK Higher Education. Journal of Academic Writing,
1(1), 212221.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic
writing. John Benjamins Publishing.
Judy Seligmann, S. G. (2010). Literacy development as a marginalised pedagogical
service enterprise or as social practice in the disciplines? Education As Change,
14, 107120. doi:10.1080/16823206.2010.494340
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5),
810824. doi:10.1002/sce.20395
Lawrence, D. (2009). Understanding Dyslexia: A Guide For Teachers And Parents: A Guide
for Teachers and Parents. McGraw-Hill International.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic
literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157172.
doi:10.1080/03075079812331380364
Leedham, M. (2014). Enjoyable, okay, or like drawing teeth? Chinese and British
Students Views on Writing Assignments in UK Universities. Journal of Academic
Writing, 4(1), 111.

13

Lillis, T. (2011). Legitimizing dialogue as textual and ideological goal in academic writing for
assessment and publication. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 10(4), 401
432. doi:10.1177/1474022211398106
Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & Mcgill, L. (2012). Learning at the digital frontier: a review of
digital literacies in theory and practice.(Report). Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning.
Mitchell, S., Prior, P., Bilbro, R., Peake, K., See, B. H., & Andrews, R. (2008). A reflexive
approach to interview data in an investigation of argument. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 229241.
doi:10.1080/17437270802416806
Mortimore, T. (2008). Dyslexia and Learning Style, Second Edition: A Practitioners
Handbook (2nd Edition edition.). West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nesi, H. (2012). Laughter in university lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
11(2), 7989. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.12.003
Odonovan *, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student
understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education,
9(3), 325335. doi:10.1080/1356251042000216642
Price, G. A. (2006). Creative solutions to making the technology work: three case studies
of dyslexic writers in higher education. ALT-J, 14(1), 2138.
doi:10.1080/09687760500479894
Quinlan, T., Loncke, M., Leijten, M., & Waes, L. V. (2012). Coordinating the Cognitive
Processes of Writing The Role of the Monitor. Written Communication, 29(3), 345
368. doi:10.1177/0741088312451112
Riddick, B., Farmer, M., & Sterling, C. M. (2002). Dyslexia and inclusion : assessment and
support in higher education. London: Whurr. Retrieved from
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1861563140.html

14

Tops, W., Callens, C., Van Cauwenberghe, E., Adriaens, J., & Brysbaert, M. (2013).
Beyond Spelling: The Writing Skills of Students with Dyslexia in Higher Education.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(5). doi:10.1007/s11145-0129387-2
Wingate, U. (2007). Doing Away with Study Skills. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4).
Wingate, U. (2012). Argument! helping students understand what essay writing is about.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145154.
doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001
Yarbrough, S. R. (2006). Inventive Intercourse: From Rhetorical Conflict to the Ethical
Creation of Novel Truth. SIU Press.
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions:
epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of
Education, 48(2). doi:10.1111/ejed.12014

15

Appendix A
USING

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FORM OF ACADEMIC WRITING TO DEVELOP

STRATEGIES FOR PROCESS AND PRODUCT

Form?

Process of Development

Product (Content) of Paper

Language
textual, abstract,
formal, precise and
literal preferred minimal use of
metaphor /
analogy?

Multiple metaphors eg.

visual, kinaesthetic, musical,
humorous, poignant etc

Engaging the reader is crucial.

Use iconography, visual imagery, maps, tables,
diagrams etc.
Metaphorical content can fire imagination and
assist memorability support exploration of this
creative aspect of writing. No conflict between
between poetry and precision.
Clarity is important. Does the metaphor
match? The world is like a peach ripe for
change.
Reference to feelings may be highly pertinent
depending on topic (see personal experience
below).
Humour can be a powerful rhetorical tool.
Pathos and Ethos are two of the Three
Rhetorical Muskateers of the persuasive
argument (Yarbrough, 2006) the other is
Logos.
Personal experience a rich source of data and
insight apply principles associated with
specifying your source clearly (referencing and
distinguishing textual voice in use) and
(self)evaluating information.

Fact orientated,
dispassionate
Feeling
inappropriate?
Faith irrelevant?
Belief should be
supported by firm
evidence?
Depersonalised
use of third person
to promote stance
of objectivity?

Monological
(prolonged
discourse
presented by a
single voice)?
Structure Linear,
sequential?

Support the use of analogy

and metaphor to develop
ideas, connections,
structures, solutions for
conceptual challenges and
mental blocks
Recognition of feelings is
central to the development of
understanding and dialogue
between tutor and student.
Impact on learning
motivation can be highlighted
Humour is a powerful
learning device (Nesi, 2012)
The students own personal
stance, beliefs, attitudes
ideas and experience
represent the beginning and
continuing reference points
for the development of
critical writing
See also feelings above.
Dialogue / critical
conversation is central to the
tutor role in supporting to the
students development of
argument, creation and
editing of text
Stages of composition are
non-linear, multi-directional,
multi-tasking. Mind mapping
helpful (especially flexibility
of digital format).
Argumentative structure is a
sequence of interlinked
claims and reasons
(Toulmin, Reike, and Janik,
1984, quoted in Wingate,
2012, p.146) (italics added
for emphasis).

16

I can be repetitive but so can the author

This approach is odds with the tradition of
critical dialogue.
Explore possibilities for development of textual
dialogue (but possibly not yet in the more
radical forms textual juxtaposition suggested by
eg. (Lillis, 2011)
Critical writing is not suited to a linear structure
imposed by the internal logic of written text.
Connectedness across the text and clarity of
connection are important features.
Textual connectors, signposting words and
phrases are needed to circumvent limitations of
linear text.
Use iconography, visual imagery, maps, tables,
diagrams etc. (See language above.)

17