Dyslexic Learners:

An Investigation into the Attitudes and Knowledge of

Secondary School Teachers in New Zealand

Rebecca Elias

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree

of Master of Professional Studies in Education
at the University of Auckland,
New Zealand, 2014
 Abstract

This dissertation addresses New Zealand secondary school teacher attitudes, knowledge and beliefs
surrounding the construct of dyslexia. It focuses on collating data on teacher attitudes towards and
awareness of dyslexia, as a significant fissure in research on the subject is apparent in New Zealand. A
survey was conducted which examines the nature of teacher attitudes about dyslexia, the extent of
teacher knowledge about dyslexic learners in New Zealand, the support provided to learners with
dyslexia and the perceived barriers to providing support for dyslexic students.

One hundred and forty-four secondary school teachers of varying ages and with an average of six to
nineteen years of experience, from different regions of the nation responded. Seventy-four percent of
the participants taught in Auckland. An online questionnaire was employed, querying the degree of
knowledge teachers had regarding dyslexia, their perception of the implications of the diagnosis, the
general attitude maintained by teachers towards it, and support currently provided when dealing with
dyslexic learners. Three open-ended questions were asked about the barriers teachers encountered,
additional support and information required and any further comments respondents wished to make
regarding dyslexic learners.

While respondents displayed a reasonable degree of awareness about what dyslexia is and were largely
positive in their perception of the disability, opinions began to diverge in the open-ended section of
the survey. Apart from time being cited as a perceived barrier with dyslexic learners, primarily, it was an
absence of knowledge as to what modality of teaching should be employed and the resources that
should be used. As a whole, the findings indicate that further support and training is necessary to
mitigate the obstacles and confusion experienced by teachers when providing instruction for students
with dyslexia.

i
ii
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the teachers who dedicated their time and thoughts to this study, my children who
provide continuing support and belief in my ability, and the Friedlander Foundation for their
continuing dedication to the field of education and without whom this study would not have been
possible. Finally, I would like to thank the children with dyslexia, who continue to motivate me, and
have the ability to succeed and achieve in education and life.

iii
 Table of Contents

Introduction 1

I Review of Literature

Section One: 4
The importance of investigating teacher knowledge of and attitudes towards students with
dyslexia

Section Two 6
Historical perspectives, definitions and characteristics of dyslexia

Section Three 9
The New Zealand Government’s recognition of dyslexia

Section Four 10
What is known about teacher recognition and support for dyslexic learners in New Zealand

Section Five 13
Theory of Planned Behaviour

Section Six 14
Teacher attitudes towards learning difficulties: Theory and Research

Section Seven 18
Gaps in the literature on dyslexia and pedagogy in New Zealand and research questions

II Methodology

Section One 22
Introduction

Section Two 22
Participants and Research Paradigm

Section Three 24
Survey

Section Four 27
Procedure

iv
III Results

Teacher Attitudes towards Dyslexia 30

Teacher Knowledge about Dyslexia 39

Open-ended Questions 43

IV Discussion

Section One 50
Summary of the study

Section Two 50
Discussion of findings

Section Three 53
Implications for practice

Section Four 54
Implications for policy

Section Five 55
Limitations and recommendations for future research

Section Six 55
Concluding statement

References 57

Appendix: Information letter to the principals 63

v
vi
 Introduction

Statement of the Problem

There is substantial and growing international research into teacher recognition and support for
dyslexic learners in mainstream educational settings. Comparatively, our understanding of teacher
attitudes and beliefs around learning difficulties and the severity of their impact on a student are limited
in New Zealand. According to the Dyslexia Foundation of New Zealand, classroom teachers often
have minimal knowledge or understanding of dyslexia (2007). The lack of widespread recognition of
the disability means families will continue to encounter difficulties in having their child assessed, having
the diagnosis of dyslexia recognised, and consequently having their child supported in schools.

Time-limited examination structures based on the expectation of high levels of literacy (Mortimore &
Crozier, 2006) continue to be the status quo and exacerbate the sense of failure for a dyslexic student.
Numerous educators continue to focus on the typical difficulties experienced - such as delayed reading
development and the memorisation of whole words attempting to correct the literacy predicament
through memorisation and drill. A well-crafted study could contribute to our understanding of where
teachers are currently situated in terms of knowledge and support us in devising strategies that may
improve the education of dyslexic students. The adoption of learning strategies specific to dyslexia, and
the endorsement of accomplishments in oral, visual or other areas, as signposts of achievement could
have a significant influence on educational outcomes for students.

Purpose of the Study

This study attempts to understand the attitudes of a sample of New Zealand secondary school
teachers: it determines whether educators’ beliefs are situated negatively or positively towards the
construct of dyslexia and provides insight into their conception of the disability, the perceived
‘helplessness’ of a dyslexic student and caregivers’ responses to the condition and finally, perceived
barriers in terms of supporting these students.

Examining international literature concerning the theories behind dyslexia indicates that it is primarily
an educator’s attitude that determines the course of a student’s behaviour and educational progress.
Similarly, international research suggests that a teacher’s capacity to deal with different forms of
learning difficulties is affected by their knowledge regarding those difficulties (Gwernan-Jones &
Burden, 2009). An exploration of this research is given in the literature review. Systematic research is
required to establish the extent of teacher knowledge and attitudes towards meeting the needs of
adolescents who are affected by dyslexia. By investigating New Zealand teacher attitudes and
experiences of teaching adolescents affected by dyslexia, insight may be gained into what support is
1
currently available and what action is required to best meet the needs of secondary students with
dyslexia.

Conducting a study into the current understanding of secondary school teachers about dyslexia is the
critical component of this dissertation. The analysis of this data will help inform recommendations
about changes that could be made in the public education system and to further education for teachers.

2
 Chapter I
Review of Literature

3
Section One
The importance of investigating teacher knowledge of and attitudes towards
students with dyslexia.

‘What teachers know and can do is one of the most important influences on what students learn’
(Darling-Hammond, 1998, p. 6).

The manner in which educators situate themselves in relation to students with dyslexia is critical to the
educational and behavioural development of these children. When their teachers cast dyslexic learners
in a negative light, it may have adverse ramifications on their future. According to Good and Brophy,
(1997) it has long been established that teacher attitudes and expectations can have lasting
consequences; particularly in the case of a classroom teacher who holds a less than positive attitude
towards students with a disability (cited in Campbell, Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2003). It is well documented
that if not properly addressed, dyslexia leads to alienation and disenfranchisement, places youth at risk
and potentially fuels depression and anti-social behaviour (Macdonald, 2012; Dyslexia Foundation New
Zealand; Becroft, 2004; Sutherland, 2011). Internationally, British, American and Swedish research
indicates that 30-52% of the prison population are dyslexic, and there is no reason to suggest that
statistics in New Zealand would differ (Becroft, 2004). The writer was unable to locate any New
Zealand research on this topic, as local studies are scarce even in relation to the number of dyslexic
children attending schools, and even more so, are investigations into the perceived barriers experienced
by teaching professionals who are responsible for the learners. The constellation of difficulties
categorised as ‘dyslexia’ in New Zealand warrants further research, due to the detrimental impact the
affliction has on the wellbeing of an individual as well as society.

Numerous correlation studies have been conducted, which investigate the relationship between
dyslexia, truancy and petty criminal behaviour (Becroft, 2004). Research evidence generally defines the
trajectory of the ‘route to offending’ as beginning with difficulties in the classroom. This devolves into
low self-esteem for the individual, loss of emotional attachment, substandard behaviour and social
exclusion - culminating in criminal offence (Sutherland, 2011).

To navigate past this negative trajectory, Burden and Jones (2009) emphasise the importance of positive
teacher beliefs towards students with dyslexia: ‘teachers with a higher degree of self-efficacy were
consistently found to be more open to new ideas and more willing to experiment with new methods to
meet the needs of their students’ (p. 66). This plays a crucial role in students’ educational experience
and achievement (Campbell et al., 2003). Research also suggests that when teachers have limited access
to information, training or support, a sense of learned helplessness (Kerr, 2001) develops in the teacher
and learner. This conversely affects the level of support teachers provide for dyslexics (Ade-Ojo, G. O.,

4
2012) due to the nature of the student - which has been inadvertently cultivated by the instructor.
Being well-versed in the signs of dyslexia would allow a teacher to identify its occurrence, and
additionally, develop the skills necessary to support a dyslexic child’s learning. Dyslexia should not be a
condition that disables a learner, nor should it be a condition that disables a teacher in the classroom
(Wadlington & Wadlington, 2005).

For students, differing perceptions may be experienced with dyslexia, due to the wide spectrum of the
condition. According to Rowan (2010), some may believe it is integral to their identity, burgeoning their
creativity and building strength and resilience (p. 75). On the other end of the spectrum, some
experience an innate struggle (p. 74). When dyslexia is discussed as a learning disability or disease,
blame is attributed to the individual and manifests itself negatively (Kerr, 2001, p. 83). Dyslexia turns a
seemingly simple task into a battleground of emotional, mental struggles, inevitably affecting self-
esteem and life choices (Rowan, p. 72). Handler explains, operating on the assumption that most
students with dyslexia require additional educational support, that students may struggle to succeed
academically in a mainstream teaching environment, when demands on a teacher are already high
([Link]). Caregivers must resort to specialists, a therapist or tutor, trained to deliver a
structured approach specific to the needs of dyslexia (Moats, 1994) - a costly intervention. However, a
child who grows detached through lack of engagement or support could eventually exhibit diminishing
self-belief and depression, inevitably causing anxiety and pain for parents (Dyslexia Foundation of
New Zealand). But it is the identification of the disability, which is the initial step in terms of
contending with dyslexia (McDonald, 2012).

The majority of teachers may not struggle with identifying indicators of dyslexia, although what is
required beyond this detection appears to be where the problem begins. Simply having an established
diagnosis does not necessarily provide a direct solution for support ([Link]).
According to research surrounding areas of literacy development; teacher-knowledge of the English-
language system is required in both general and special education teachers (Carreker, Joshi & Gooden,
2010). Knowledge and confidence with teaching, reading and spelling is requisite in recognising
specific areas of difficulties and furthermore in developing specific strategies for remediation and
success (Carreker, Joshi & Gooden, 2010). Recognition, diagnostic assessment, positive educational
experiences and emotional support are all necessary provisions for children with dyslexia; this enables
successful and confident learners and adults ([Link]). Many individuals with dyslexia, need
one-on-one help, or small groups of similarly-abled peers so that they can move forward at their own
pace, thus requiring smaller class sizes to gain the required time and support from the teacher
(International Dyslexia Association). Still pressing, are the adverse consequences if dyslexia is not
addressed correctly (Shaywitz, 2003; DFNZ; Ryan, M., 2004). In terms of the construct of dyslexia and
research into its characteristics, what follows is the examination of historical perspectives,

5
characteristics, social perceptions and research in relation to educators’ attitudes towards dyslexia is
essential to this project. Adjzen’s ‘Theory of Planned Behaviour’ has emerged as foundational in this
research.

Section Two
Historical perspectives, definitions and characteristics of dyslexia

Literature surrounding the history of reading disturbances and difficulties has been documented in
great depth (Harris, 1980). A common misconception about dyslexia is that it primarily involves reading
backwards - which is a common indicator, but only a small part of the continuum (International
Dyslexia Association). Despite abundant research (Guardiola, 2001) defining dyslexia continues to be a
complex and challenging process, providing no single, fixed definition (International Dyslexia
Association).

The origins of dyslexia in scientific literature date back to Pierre Paul Broca’s (1861, 1865) findings, in
which he identified the specific cerebral region where language functions potentially reside (Guardiola,
2001). This area of the brain now referred to as the Broca area, and in modern science, is recognised as
being responsible for learning language-based skills and speech production (Shaywitz, 2008). The ‘Case
Study of Congenital Word Blindness’ (Morgan, 1896), published by Dr. W. Pringle Morgan, in the
British Medical Journal (cited in Shaywitz, 2008) is equally significant in the medical history of the
disability. This was considered one of the first publications regarding congenial dyslexia (Guardiola, J.,
2001). It documented ‘children in Victorian society who were bright and motivated, who came from
concerned and educated families, and had interested teachers, but who could nevertheless, not learn to
read’ (Shaywitz, 2008, p.13).

Developmental dyslexia has typically been defined as a difficulty with reading and spelling that cannot
be accounted by sensory or neurological damage, lack of educational opportunity, or low cognitive
capacity (Stanovich, 1986; Vellutino, 1979). It is important to note that the constellation of difficulties
also encompass problems with accurate or fluent word recognition, poor handwriting, difficulties with
reading comprehension or math reasoning (Lowell, 2014). However, children with dyslexia are often
reported to be bright and able in other intellectual domains (Shaywitz, 2003; Fawcett & Nicolson, 2005,
p. 29). This phenomena relates to the ‘discrepancy criterion’, which has come under attack in recent
years (Lucid, 2006; Stanovich, 2005).

6
Discrepancies of intelligence in measure with ability have been discussed in-depth. This is the
‘aptitude-achievement discrepancy’ referred to by Stanovich (2005). Siegel (1989) has also argued that
‘intelligence should play no part in defining dyslexia’ (cited in Fawcett & Nicolson, 2005). According to
Kersting (2004), ‘in an issue of the APA Monitor published in October 2004, a leading figure in learning
disability diagnosis, is quoted as saying that the intelligence test is our stethoscope, like it or not’ (cited
in Stanovich, 2005, p. 103). There is a significant lack of consensus that a learning disorder diagnosis
employing intelligence as a proxy for aptitude is useful or conceptually justified (Siegel, 1989, 1992).
Stanovich (1989) has pointed out serious conceptual problems that arise from the use of intelligence-
based definitions (Rack, Snowling & Olsen, 1992). Countering the Stanovich debate over the legitimate
use of the discrepancy criterion, Lucid Research (2006) state, ‘nevertheless, in the classroom it is often
the case the discrepancy between a pupil’s expected levels of attainments (based on judgements of their
overall ability) and their actual attainment (especially in reading, writing and spelling) which first draws
the teacher’s attention to the possibility that the pupil may have dyslexia’ (p.8).

Currently, the accepted definition, adopted by the International Dyslexia Association

([Link]) - the leading professional group researching and providing information regarding
dyslexia - reads as follows:

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological (a difference in the brain) in

origin. It is characterised by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition
and by poor spelling and decoding (sounding words out) abilities. These difficulties
typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language (matching
sound(s) and letters) that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and
the provision of effective classroom instructions. Secondary consequences may include
problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede
the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.

According to Lucid Research (2006) there is ‘little disagreement that the condition is a neurological one,
despite multiple theories existing in relation to dyslexia’ (p. 3) among them are the ‘Phonological Deficit
Theory’, the ‘Cerebellar Deficit Theory’ and the ‘Magnocellular Deficit Theory’.

The Phonological Deficit theory is the predominant and universally recognised conceptualisation of
dyslexia, explaining difficulties dyslexic individuals display in associating sounds with symbols in
reading and spelling (MoE Literature Review, 2008; Miles & Miles, 1999). The ‘Cerebellar Deficit’ and
‘Magnocellular Deficit’ theories are fringe theories concerning dyslexia and are believed to be of lesser
relevance, requiring further research (MoE, 2008, p. 86). The Cerebellar Deficit Theory proposes that
the cerebellum is the region of the brain, which facilitates automatic cognition. This theory suggests
that in the case of dyslexia, there is a problem in central processing linked to learning and automaticity
7
(Lucid, 2006). The Magnocellular Deficit Theory suggests that problems arise as a result of visual or
auditory deficits (MoE Literature Review, 2008, p. 5).

Integral to fundamental language ability is phonological awareness - widely accepted as being the
primary difficulty for a dyslexic learner - a set of skills and explicit understanding of the different ways
in which spoken language can be broken down and manipulated (Washburn, Malatesha & Binks-
Cantrell, 2011). Phonemic awareness (an aspect of phonological awareness) is the capacity to identify
and manipulate individual sounds into words. Phonics is an understanding of how letters (graphemes)
are systematically related to spoken sounds (phonemes) and an understanding of how its application in
decoding text, dyslexia’s nemesis (Adams, 1990; Moats, 1994). Also affecting students with dyslexia is a
weakness in morphological awareness, which plays a significant role as children progress through the
upper levels of education, understanding of meaningful word parts (affixes, base words, and
derivatives) and their role in both reading and spelling (Washburn, et al.).

The array of linguistic difficulties dyslexics encounter requires comprehensive understanding and
expertise on the part of educators, to ensure they employ the appropriate intervention strategies
(Moats, 2010). Greater intensity and duration of instruction is required because of the increased
specificity of instruction for children at risk of reading failure (Torgesen, 2002; Tunmer & Greaney,
2008). An important factor is ensuring that teachers have thorough knowledge of the course of literacy
development and access to a wide range of instructional techniques and the necessary knowledge to
deploy them (Lowell, 2104).

In the absence of this mode of pedagogy, a teacher’s deficit of knowledge in co-occurring factors
could contribute to confusion and frustration when trying to work on reading barriers alone. For
example, lack of teacher knowledge of characteristics and difficulties experienced as a result of
working memory impairment, may cause significant issues, as additional time strategies fail to succeed
due to limited retention. The impact on cognitive retention relates to the major co-occurrence between
dyslexia and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Bradley, 2008). According to the MoE Literature
Review: An International Perspective on Dyslexia (2007) co-morbidity factors of students with dyslexia
experience symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or ADHD are said to range within 30 and
70% (p. 57).

The overarching consequences for children and adolescents if the issues remain unaddressed are that
they will continue to fail in an institutional sense and this may precipitate social and emotional
problems as previously stated (Kirk & Reid, 2001). Returning to the ramifications of the negligence of

8
or uninformed educators, research data demonstrates that educational and socially recognised
accomplishments are key protective factors in prevention of young offenders (Gottfredson 2001;
Hirschi 1969; Maughan 1994; Sprott et al., 2000). It is important to reiterate that a number of
longitudinal studies substantiate the fact that academically struggling adolescents have a greater
propensity towards criminal activity in comparison to those who are performing adequately (e.g.
Dishion et al., 1991; Elliot & Voss 1974; Flannery 2000; Seydlitz & Jenkins. 1998). This is supported by
evidence that the cognitive function of young offenders is at the low to average range and have
significant deficits in reading, written and oral language, and maths compared to their non-offending
peers (Leone et al., 2003).

In terms of further definitions, the Dyslexia Foundation of New Zealand states:

When defining dyslexia, it is important to note that this is best thought of as a continuum of
abilities and difficulties, rather than a distinct category. Although, problems can often lie in ways
dyslexia is habitually used as a blanket description (some see it as just a label or an excuse) for a
collection of learning on a continuum of difficulties. This means that students with dyslexia
may experience issues manifested in many different ways, from the well publicised
understanding with reading difficulties, writing (dysgraphia) and spelling (Orthographic and
Morphological Awareness) through to issues with a much wider (and lesser known) range of
co-occurring deficiencies (working memory index, maths and information processing).

Section Three
The New Zealand Government’s recognition of dyslexia

Prior to November 2007, recognition of dyslexia as a clinical disorder was absent in the educational
field, no training was offered or available for teachers (Bradley-Artis, 2008). The official ministerial
response to dyslexia at that time was: ‘the Ministry of Education does not wish to develop an education
system which defines and categorises students in terms of their learning disabilities, but prefers a
system that makes assessments on their needs for additional support…In this regard, the Ministry of
Education do not specifically recognise the use of the term dyslexia in the school context because of
the issues associated with labelling students, and instead, individual needs are identified and appropriate
interventions across a range of learning difficulties are implemented’ (MoE literature review 2007, p.
12). Failing to officially legitimise dyslexia as a developmental disorder despite its biological and
neurological origins, the Ministry generalised the spectrum of conditions as a ‘specific learning
disability’ (Ministry of Health, 2006) to describe children struggling with literacy problems. Capital was
targeted at generic intervention programs to aid the increase of literacy skills (Marshall, 2008). Only
after 2007 did the New Zealand government’s recognition and policy in terms of dyslexia shift.
9
By 2008, the Ministry of Education reconfigured its policy, formally recognising dyslexia as a specific
learning disability (Marshall, 2008). This was a positive step for children with learning difficulties.
Significant amounts of taxpayer money was expended into research on international literature (DFNZ,
2008), as well as the development of online resources for parents and teachers via the Te Kete Ipurangi
website ([Link]). The Ministry of Education published ‘Breaking Down the Barriers’ and redefined
‘(d)yslexia (a)s a term used to describe a range of persistent difficulties with reading and writing, and
often including spelling, numeracy or musical notation’ ([Link], 2008, p. 1). The author
wrote, ‘by acknowledging and defining “dyslexia” the basis has been set for action to reduce the
difficulties faced by students who have persistent difficulties learning to read and write and students
identified as dyslexic’ ([Link], 2008, p. 7).

With regard to targeting funding, the Special Education Grant (SEG) was introduced (Marshall, 2008).
This continues to be paid directly to schools, assisting in the provision of instructional adaptations to
improve the achievements of students with learning difficulties. However, the direction of the funding
is at the discretion of each school’s management. Resultantly, the variation of actual assistance provided
derives from the attitudes and perceptions of those responsible for the distribution of funding (Peer, L
& Reid, G., 2001). It is also dependent on the priorities of the institution for the academic year. SEG
funding requires careful and realistic allocation, as all needs cannot be met (Marshall, 2008). In terms of
the analysis of achievement trends of the newly implemented changes to dyslexia in schools and
subsidy, only The Neilson Group survey in 2008 can be located. This scarcity of data makes it difficult
to obtain a truly accurate account of how schools actually allocate funding. Despite the Ministry of
Education’s effort in initial policy stages - their collation of research and provision of website content
for parents and teachers of children with dyslexia - they inadequately provide information about
realistic measures that help, or that alter the outcomes for students who require additional specialist
support (Dyslexic Foundation of New Zealand).

Section Four
What is known about teacher recognition and support for dyslexic learners in
New Zealand

In contrast to the laboured policy deliberations of the Ministry of Education, teachers appear to be
relatively aware about dyslexia. The Dyslexia Foundation of New Zealand employed The Neilson
Group (2008) to design a study with the intention of better understanding education professionals’
exposure to dyslexic students, what schools currently do for their dyslexic students, awareness of
Government support, need for specific funding and behavioural traits of dyslexic students (Neilson,
2008). Two hundred and forty-six teachers, twenty-six principals, eight teacher aides, fifty-three
Resource Teachers of Learning and Behaviour, and fourteen Literacy Resource teachers from across

10
New Zealand responded to the Neilson’s online survey. The degree of response demonstrated the level
of recognition of the condition within the educational community, with 94% stating they had taught a
dyslexic student and that 77% had used their teaching experience to identify these students (p. 10).
Nearly all of the respondents (95%) believed that funding would benefit these learners and 54% of the
participants advocated funding specifically targeted towards further education with regard to dyslexia.
These responses evince a positive mindset regarding learning, research and development in the
educational community. Understanding teacher training in, recognition and support of dyslexia is
pivotal in evaluating the treatment of the condition in New Zealand (Williams & Lynch, 2012).

Looking at the statistics of success rates in education, according to international surveys (Progress in
International Reading Study), reading abilities of New Zealand children are falling in comparison to
their Organisation of Economic Co-operation Development counterparts (Arrow, Chapman, Greaney,
Prochnow, & Tunmer, 2013). Professor Chapman says, ‘New Zealanders generally do not have as good
an understanding of dyslexia as in other countries where the disability has been recognised for
decades’ ([Link]). Professor Tunmer from Massey University (School of Educational
Studies) avers that the Ministry of Education’s reading recovery programme is ineffective (Arrow,
Chapman, Greaney, Prochnow, & Tunmer, 2013). He argues that certain students are not suited to the
programme - particularly those at the highest risk of illiteracy - and that many teachers are not
equipped to cope with the challenges; ‘(t)he teaching of literacy skills is different to other areas of
education,’ (p. 5). However, effective teaching and support is inextricable from attitudes and beliefs held
towards learning disorders (Ajzen, 1985).

A teacher’s specific beliefs about dyslexia have numerous implications in a classroom. Teaching is the
primary factor that determines if actual learning takes place for students (Ford, 1997; NICHD, 2000;
Richardson et al., 1985; Rubin, 2002). Early intervention and treatment are paramount for children who
are at risk (Shaywitz, 2003) and as is often the case, those who first identify a problem are educators at
school (Wadlington, P. L. & Wadlington, E. M. 2005). Evidence indicates that a flexible teacher
possessing the willingness to employ new modalities of teaching with positivity will have an efficacious
impact on their students (Gwernan-Jones & Burden, 2009). However, Bos, Mather, Dickson,
Podhajski, and Chard (1999) state that general education teachers may not be adequately prepared to
teach students with dyslexia. They are emphatic that even special education teachers - to a degree - are
insufficiently equipped to effectively instruct children with learning disabilities. Chard (1999) laments
that special education teacher programmes have grown increasingly unspecific and unfocussed. He
insists that making reading certifications requisite to a special education degree will make a profound
difference in the treatment of dyslexia.

11
Both professionals and parents believe that teacher education programs are lacking in preparing
teachers to teach reading (Chard, 1999; Ford, 1997; Richardson, 1996). According to the National
Institute of Child Health and Development (2000), many teachers have not had the instruction and
experience necessary to develop substantive knowledge about the structure of English language,
reading development, and reading difficulties. Rubin (2002), alongside Spear-Swerling and Brucker
(2002) argue that teachers themselves, sometimes lack good reading skills and attitudes toward reading,
affecting their capacity to teach this core subject. Moats and Lyon (1996) state that teachers do not
naturally arrive at an explicit cognisance of linguistic structure simply because they are literate
themselves, asserting that teacher knowledge is predictive of their competence in literacy instruction
for students with dyslexia. Also examining teacher training, Clark and Uhry (1995) believe that the fact
that reading education, special education, and remedial reading education are often treated as three
autonomous domains without integration is hugely problematic. Such discrepancies in literacy training
and knowledge constrain students’ achievement in classes (Carlisle & Andrews, 1993), leading to the
social and emotional problems previously discussed (Currie & Wadlington, 2000; Riddick, 1995; Rubin,
2002; Ryan, 1994; Shaywitz, 2003). These situations are exacerbated when parents are not perceived as
partners in the educational process of their children (Hunter-Carsch, 2001; Riddick, 1995; Shaywitz,
2003).

When studying beliefs and perspectives, Wadlington and Wadlington (2005) found that numerous
groups of educators (primary school teachers, secondary school teachers, special educators, school
counsellors, administrators, university faculty) have significant misconceptions about dyslexia.
Additionally, many feel inadequate working with students with dyslexia, and profoundly believe learning
how to provide effective instruction to these students is a pressing necessity. A potential solution in
increasing awareness and education is Reback’s (1999) proposal that teacher unions specific to learning
disabilities should become involved in teacher education. Wadlington and Wadlington (2005) advocate
intensive, hands-on, instructional experience for educators with dyslexic students in their university
programmes. In particular, meta-linguistics plays a factor in learning for dyslexics, and this absence of
specialist knowledge may be contributing to a struggling percentage of pupils, both in New Zealand
and internationally (Carreker, Joshi & Gooden, 2010; PIRLS, 2010; Moats, 2000). Further study in this
area could potentially aid students. In summation, teacher education is an ongoing, lifelong process that
only begins with initial certification programmes. Experienced teachers’ require additional training
appropriate to their fields and specific to dealing with learning disorders as their careers progress
(National Reading Panel, 2000; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2003; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2002;
Wadlington & Wadlington, 2005).

12
Still the effective instruction of dyslexic students necessitates more than an abstract knowledge of the
disorder; teachers need to be empathetic towards students. Consistently, the effective teachers display
empathy, which is intrinsically to linked compassion. Understanding how it feels to experience the
learning frustrations a dyslexic faces daily is vital in ameliorating the struggles presented in a classroom
context for a learner (Currie & Wadlington, 2000; Jordan, 2002; Ryan, 1994; Wadlington & Wadlington,
2005). Research is required to evaluate teacher attitudes and gauge the extent of their knowledge
concerning the support of dyslexic learners in New Zealand. Through qualitative and quantitative
investigation into the perspectives and experiences of educators teaching children with dyslexia, insight
may be gained into the general stance maintained by the educational community and the support
currently available. This enables us to determine what further action and policy changes are required to
fulfil the needs of dyslexics in the New Zealand educational system.

Section Five
Theory of Planned Behaviour

There is considerable evidence to support the contention that a person’s attitudes towards a particular
activity, individual or group will have a significant impact on the manner in which that person or group
are likely to behave when required to carry out that activity (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The most
thoroughly researched theory in this regard has been Icek Ajzen’s (1985) Theory of Planned Behaviour
(TPB) and provides a useful framework through which to explore teacher attitudes surrounding
dyslexia. For Ajzen, intention emerges as a functionary of the ways in which behavioural beliefs and
values relate to normative beliefs and compliance, shaping attitudes and subjective norms (Gwerwan-
Jones & Burden, 2011).

Developed from Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) original Theory of Reasoned Action, TPB is based on the
premise that intentionality is a key determinant in sociality, governing both actions and social behaviour
(Flay & Petraitis, 1994). These intentions are preceded by attitudes, self-efficacy (the perceived ease or
difficulty of behavioural performance) and subjective norms (Marcoux & Shope, 1997). Subjective
norms are the individual’s perception of the social pressure to enact certain behaviours. These norms
are comprised of beliefs about how other people - who may have emotional significance - would like
them to behave (normative beliefs) and the strength of the individual’s desire to attain approval from
these other individuals (motivation to comply) (Darker & French, 2009). Generally, TPB posits that if
the attitude and subjective norm of the individual are more favourable, there is a greater likelihood of
self-efficacy and intention to execute a given behaviour. Application of this theory in the classroom
context, suggests that these attitudes and norms are, in turn, shaped by educators’ personal beliefs and
values about teaching children with different needs and the degree to which they are influenced by the
beliefs of others (Gwernan-Jones & Burden, 2009). Naturally, a teacher’s ability in dealing with various

13
forms of learning difficulties will derive from their knowledge about and attitudes towards those
difficulties (Gwernan-Jones, & Burden, 2009, p. 67).

Gwernan-Jones and Burden conducted a study on the basis of Adjzen’s theory in Southwest England.
Two surveys were utilised to investigate the relationship between student-teacher attitudes concerning
dyslexia both prior to, and subsequent to a school practicum taking place. Primarily, the study focussed
on a group of teacher trainees completing a Post Graduate Diploma, exploring attitudes towards the
construct of dyslexia. The survey questions were crafted to encompass a broad range of matters
relating to the complex of challenges dyslexia presents to teachers in the classroom. Through this
investigation, rich information about perceived normative attitudes was obtained (p. 69). Prior to their
placement, the majority of student teachers already held a positive attitude toward the construct, feeling
confident in their ability to support dyslexic students. Findings revealed that teachers with a higher
degree of self-efficacy were found to be more creative and willing to experiment with new methods to
meet the needs of their students (p. 67). Intriguingly, female participants were also found to exhibit
higher degrees of self-efficacy, except in terms of confidence in supporting students’ actual learning (p.
78). Although the outcome was encouraging (with pre-service teachers holding positive views both
prior and post-field experience), the need for substantive study of all-inclusive instructional practice
and strategies in a degree of education was evident (p. 80).

According to Gwernan-Jones and Burden, it can be assumed new teachers will enter the profession
with a sense of direction and motivations aligned with personal beliefs and normative views within the
teaching profession (2010, p. 67). The study proposes that a new generation of teachers may be
entering the educational profession with constructive, enthusiastic beliefs about their capacity to aid
dyslexic pupils, but remain unclear as to how this can be accomplished (Gwernan-Jones & Burden,
2010). Crombie (2002) argues: ‘While definitions may change over time there are little doubts that
children with special learning difficulties remain a challenge’ (cited in Gwernan-Jones & Burden (2010,
p. 68).

Section Six
Teacher attitudes towards learning difficulties: theory and research

Despite international study of teacher attitudes and beliefs towards learning difficulties and the
unfolding benefits or consequences for students with dyslexia (Ade-Ojo, 2011; Burden & Gwernan,
2009), little research has been conducted in New Zealand. This dearth of research makes it difficult to
formulate with any certainty, how educators are situated. However, the overwhelming statistics of the
occurrence of learning disabilities are available: According to Dyslexia Foundation of New Zealand,
one in ten New Zealanders have dyslexia, including over 70,000 school children
14
([Link]). Research undertaken in relation to New Zealand teachers’ beliefs and
values, would be a worthwhile investment in students’ learning, and indispensable considering the
findings overseas.

‘Teacher attitudes toward dyslexia: effects on teacher expectations and the academic achievement of
students with dyslexia’, published in the Journal of Learning Disabilities, examines teacher attitudes
towards students with dyslexia. This paper is a major publication in terms of perceptions surrounding
the continuum of dyslexia. Although reading and spelling were known barriers, Hornstra, Denessen
and Bakker investigated further risk factors for education and achievement outcomes (2010). The
article is helpful for those requiring insight into theory of teacher attitude and beliefs. There are also
connections to TPB, and how a person’s values will affect their intentions towards a specific group or
minority. The research was situated in the Netherlands, involving thirty classroom mainstream
classroom teachers. Findings observed a significant correlation between a negative attitude towards
students with dyslexia and poor teacher-student interactions, compared to teachers who were receptive
to innovative practices and had open beliefs around learning disabilities. Teacher expectations were
categorised as judgments, and the consequences of bias potentially affected curricular activities,
resulting in less interpersonal engagement at a lower cognitive level. A teacher’s knowledge, behaviour
and underlying values will subtly impinge on their teaching practice, affecting relationships with their
students.

A wide range of international research sees a continuation of educators’ negative and confused
positioning when teaching learners with dyslexia in mainstream schools (Riddick 2005; Rowan, 2010;
Campbell, Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2014). This creates a climate of unaware teachers that are inclined to
induce what Kerr describes as a ‘sense of learned helplessness’ (2001). For Kerr, ‘learned helplessness’
in the classroom is cultivated in the learner due to their own incapacity and the educator’s response to
it. It conversely affects and disempowers the teacher’s own efficacy, resulting in a negative dualistic
relationship (Kerr, 2001).

One survey exploring teacher attitudes towards dyslexia, involving twelve teachers completing a Masters
of Education, revealed two broad findings (p. 82). The first and ‘very striking was the variance of
opinion and attitude by respondents in respect to dyslexia’ (p. 82). Kerr cites the second as the ‘most
immediately and practically significant’. Two-thirds of respondents, when faced with a student with
(diagnosed) dyslexia felt disempowered (p. 86). A sense of ‘learned helplessness’ occurred and language
used by respondents ‘grew grey and pessimistic’ (p. 86). The concept of learned helplessness coined by
Kerr (2001) is an ongoing debate, seemingly universal, and rooted in the confusion of what dyslexia
might be, what might indicate it, what might cause it, whether it exists, but most importantly what to do
about it (Hornstra, Denessen, E., Bakker, Van Den Berg, K., & Voeten, M., 2010).

15
Further scrutinising perception, in Kerr’s (2001) small study on Adult Basic Education teachers,
attitudes towards students with dyslexia and the construct of dyslexia itself were investigated. All
respondents agreed that dyslexia ‘is caused by a difficulty in acquiring or managing literacy skills which
are caused by an innate neurological deficit’ (p. 82). Kerr’s (2001) paper revealed an alarming consensus
in attitude, wherein the ability and potential progress of students with a diagnosis of dyslexia was
regarded negatively (p. 82). This substantiates the notion that teachers lacking in adequate knowledge of
dyslexic students and learning needs, Becroft of access to support, may inadvertently express negativity
towards these learners (Agne, Greenwood, & Miller, 1994; Fang, 1996).

Kerr suggests that while a diagnosis may provide access to funding and open educational doors, he
further states, ‘however, on quite another level the diagnosis may also act as a profoundly maladaptive
attribute, inducing learned helplessness, teacher and student alike’ (p. 84). According to Kerr’s study, the
majority of respondents shared the attitude that dyslexic students’ incapacity to grasp literacy concepts
realised itself as ‘an arduous and formidable task, that real victory was improbable’ (p. 82). Alongside
Kerr’s research, it has been evidentially proven that an educator’s assessment of and faith in a student
will have a substantial impact on their success in the classroom (Agne, et al., 1996).

Anecdotally, there are many uncertainties about the extent to which teachers are aware of and provide
learning support for dyslexic learners in New Zealand. The findings in Kerr’s (2001) research and
others, which evince a ‘universal’ confusion and uncertainty in educators surrounding what dyslexia
may be, its indicators, what to do about it and whether the condition exists at all are clearly established
(p. 82). Without adequate information and comprehension of dyslexia, the assumption could be made
that the child needs to ‘try harder’ or has low ability (Torgesen, 1998). Considering international
research, and as has been discussed above, the prevailing theme is that a teacher’s capacity to deal with
dyslexia stems from their knowledge about and attitudes towards those difficulties (Gwernan &
Burden, 2009).

There is the normative expectation that all citizens should function in the same (able) way, the
establishment of a norm of being and that individuals must adapt, rather than accepting a mode of
‘difference’ (Riddick, 1995, p. 225). The majority of respondents in the study conducted by Riddick had
minimal or were entirely bereft of knowledge in terms of accommodating learners with dyslexia; there
was a general consensus that an alternative curriculum would benefit. Unfortunately there was no
understanding of how to construct this alternative curriculum or its requirements. There is no doubt
that there are numerous obstacles for dyslexic individuals throughout their lives, or for any student
perceived as ‘different’. However, they should encounter positive engagement in the classroom
([Link])

16
There is no single formula guaranteeing a fool-proof outcome or efficacious learning environment for
every student, although there is evidence of certain modalities of teaching that have a wide-reaching
and positive impact ([Link]). Students may have learning difficulties for a variety of
reasons, some intrinsic to the child (e.g., below-average mental ability; attention deficits; hearing or
vision problems; learning disability), but others are due to outside influences including inappropriate
school curriculum or methods of teaching (Westwood, 2008). Mills (2006) suggests that what matters
most for the learning of children with learning disabilities are the commitments and capabilities of
their teachers. However, highly specialised knowledge involving intervention and remediation is often
entailed in the effective instruction of a dyslexic child, and is perhaps not a realistic expectation in
terms of the pressure on teachers in mainstream classrooms. Offering the most beneficial solution for
students with diverse needs is the social model of disability; or special education view.

It is important to emphasise that self-efficacy for the teacher is essential to empowering and negotiating
with diversity in the classroom. Issues around literacy and dyslexia are not only a neurological issue;
therefore, enabling opportunities for teachers to cope with forms of learning diversities is necessary.
The capacity to create purposeful, relevant skills from evidence-based interventions along with a
positive disposition equates to a brighter future for both student and teacher. However when in a class
on a daily basis, these same teachers may not be consistently motivated to conceal their opinions or
attitudes (Hornstra, Denessen, Bakker, et al.). Although the effects on student achievement outcomes
could not be established in their foundational study, negative attitudes towards any individual or group
incontrovertibly have a negative impact on achievement.

In terms of the ‘Teacher attitudes towards dyslexia’ paper, and their definition of attitudes as
‘judgements’ regarding learners’ academic potential, Hornstra et al., speak of how biased teacher
perceptions of students affect classroom interaction. The report says the outcome legitimises
exploration into teacher responses to adult learners with dyslexia - the primary focus of the study. This
is suggestive that teachers of adult literacy are more likely to encounter dyslexic learners. Many studies
have (Hornstra) reported the problems faced by teachers of learners with dyslexia or dyslexic
difficulties. The participants in this research revealed that they had limited confidence in the long-term
benefits of tuition they provide for their students, which is alarming considering these are individuals
who are responsible and entrusted with accommodating learning needs and difficulties. Evidence also
supports that a student’s capacity to acquire information is at its optimum when there is willingness
from the teacher (Peer & Reid, 2001). This requires responsiveness and flexibility on the part of the
educator to make reasonable adjustments as to the way students are taught and assessed. This would
include personalised learning, and much alternative evidence of achievement in a supportive learning
environment is substantiated (Westwood, 2004).

17
‘Moving from adults to youths, children begin school full of curiosity and eagerness to learn, but can
quickly become disillusioned through unanticipated failure in the classroom’ (DFNZ). Given that
students with dyslexia (however not all) show low achievement in reading and/or spelling, it is blatant
that the failure to identify other risk factors that may contribute to low achievement rates (Hornstra, et
al.) One such risk factor is low teacher expectations; the label dyslexia alone can evoke a negative
attitude in some teachers (Hornstra). Research has also revealed that having a specific learning need
such as dyslexia may result in reduced interaction from the teacher, limiting learning opportunities
compared to neurologically ‘normal’ students. In the study by Kerr (2001), he states that six (out of
twelve) participants responded that their tuition was severely impaired in the case of a dyslexic student.

Narrowing the gap between the abilities of dyslexic students and that of their peers is often of major
concern to teachers. Biased teachers’ perceptions of dyslexic students under their instruction can affect
their classroom interaction overall and influence the curricular and instructional opportunities offered
to dyslexics (Alvidrez & Weinstein, 1999; Paterson, 2007), curtailing their education. If efficacious
teaching methods are based on principles, procedures or strategies implemented to attain desired
learning results in students (Liu & Shi, 2007), should it not be of upmost importance to also narrow
the gap with teacher knowledge to improve attitudes towards and beliefs in students with dyslexia?

Section Seven
Gaps in the literature on dyslexia and pedagogy in New Zealand
There is uncertainty regarding the extent to which secondary teachers in particular, are aware of and
provide learning support for dyslexic students. Systematic research is urgently required to establish the
extent of teacher knowledge and attitudes towards meeting the needs of adolescents who are affected
by dyslexia. As earlier stated, international research suggests that teachers’ abilities in dealing with
different forms of learning difficulties will be affected by their knowledge about attitudes towards
those difficulties (Gwernan-Jones & Burden, 2009). However, this kind of investigation does not
appear to have been conducted in New Zealand.

Regardless of efforts on the part of the Dyslexic Foundation of New Zealand (see Neilson Group
Survey, 2008), further research is required. Through the investigation into New Zealand teacher
attitudes and experiences of teaching adolescents affected by dyslexia, insight may be obtained into
what support is currently available and what action is required to best meet the needs of secondary
students with dyslexia. The absence of research - as only the Neilson study, now six years old, can be
located - communicates the fact that this is a pressing issue, which must be addressed here in New
Zealand.

The dissertation addresses the following research questions:

18
 1. What is the nature of teacher attitudes about dyslexia?
2. What is the extent of teacher knowledge about dyslexic learners in New Zealand?
3. What support is provided to learners with dyslexia?
4. What are the perceived barriers to providing support for dyslexic students?

Response to these queries would provide a significant degree of cognisance into the state of affairs
regarding dyslexia in mainstream New Zealand secondary educational settings, and enable
recommendations to be made about the educational changes to accommodate the diverse learning
range of these students.

19
20
 Chapter II
Methodology

21
Section One
Introduction

This chapter introduces the research methods and conceptual framework utilised for the research. The
aim of the study was to assess the proposed research questions relating to teacher attitudes surrounding
the construct of dyslexia. The methodology employed to test the questions is presented in the
following sections: participants and research paradigm, survey, procedure and data analysis.

Section Two
Participants and Research Paradigm

Demographic data was collected about gender and age of the teacher, years of experience, curriculum
area, city the participant resided in, and highest academic qualification. One hundred and forty-four
teachers participated: ninety-five females and fifty-five males ranging from 21 to 68 years of age.
Participants were from a range of urban and rural regions in New Zealand. Consistent with population
density, the largest number of respondents were from Auckland (75.8%). Primarily, respondents were
female (63.3%), and the largest number of participants were in the age range of 40-59 (46%), reflective
of the atypical New Zealand teacher population. The predominant length of service was six to
nineteen years (46.6%).

The highest numbers of participants (30%) taught in Language Arts (English and International
Languages), followed by social sciences (17.1%). This is unsurprising as the study relates closely, if not
directly to Language Arts and Languages (including TSOL). A Bachelor’s degree was the most common
qualification reported (32.8%) followed by a Bachelor’s degree with Honours, a Post Graduate
Certificate or a Post Graduate Diploma (25.7%). Data regarding respondents is visible in Table 1 on the
following page.

22
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants

Variables Categories Number Percentage

Gender Male 55 36.7

Female 95 63.3

Age 20-30 25 16.7

30-39 43 28.7

40-59 70 46.7

60-69 12 8.0

Teaching Experience - 6 years 29 20.7

6-19 years 65 46.4

20+ years 45 32.1

No Response 1 0.7

City Auckland 106 75.8

Nelson 8 5.7

Otago 1 0.7

Wellington/Kapiti 20 10

Whangarei 1 0.7

London 2 1.4

No Response 2 1.4

Subject Area Maths 14 10

Language Arts 42 30

Social Sciences 24 17.1

Science 23 16.4

Commerce 6 42.2

P.E./Health 4 2.8

Visual Arts 11 7.8

Technology 10 10

Learning Support 4 2.8

No Response 2 1.4

Highest Qualification Masters Degree 32 22.8

Bachelor Degree 46 32.8

B(Hons)/PG Cert./PG Dip. 36 25.7

Graduate/Graduate Dip. 19 13.5

Doctorate 2 1.4

Diploma 3 2.1

No Response 2 1.4

23
In terms of the research paradigm, an anonymous online survey was deployed to obtain both
quantitative and qualitative data from New Zealand secondary school teachers specifically - due to the
author’s training in teaching this age group. A mixed method design was adopted as this study seeks to
understand perspectives of participants in various interpretative ways, and thoroughly explore the
perceived barriers to teaching students with developmental dyslexia. The survey was based on the
Theory of Planned Behaviour model, using questions developed by Gwernan and Burden (2009). The
survey was comprised of three sections: one relating to teacher attitudes towards dyslexia, one related
to knowledge about dyslexia and three open-ended questions developed specifically for the survey. The
Likert scale and multiple choice questions were utilised for the first, dichotomous responses were
required for the second section, and the qualitative research took place in the open-ended questions.
This set of enquiries were directed into the perceived barriers encountered with dyslexic students, what
support was needed and any other comments the respondents wished to add.

Section Three
Survey

The survey was administered using Survey Monkey, a free online survey application
([Link]). Once the participant clicked on the link enclosed in their email, they could access
the first page of the survey. This included verification that they were providing consent and
acknowledgement of having read and understood the information describing the aim and content of
the questionnaire, and confirming they held a current New Zealand teacher registration and were a
practicing teacher at the time of the study. The participant could skip any question and had the option
of responding to the next, they were also able to exit the survey at any time.

Teachers wishing to proceed clicked ‘agree’ and were directed to the next section of the survey. The
online survey was anonymous; no IP addresses were traceable. It took approximately fifteen minutes to
complete. The data was downloaded from Survey Monkey into a Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) to analyse the resulting data.

Survey questions in the first section investigated areas of attitudes, competencies and barriers, covering
five key areas. Participants were asked to rate their responses to these questions on a five-point scale,
ranging from ‘Strongly Agree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’. The second section of the survey covered teacher
knowledge about dyslexia based on questions developed by Gwernan and Burden (2009) and teacher
attitudes and beliefs in relation to their experience of the characteristics of dyslexia. Respondents were
also given the opportunity to discuss in an open-ended manner, what strategies they might draw upon,
what support they felt most useful and any additional comments supporting their response to the
survey. The five key areas of the survey in the first section are listed and discussed below.

24
 1. The strengths of participating teachers’ positive or negative beliefs about the
existence of dyslexia, as measured by two items:

I think dyslexia is a myth.

The word dyslexia is really an excuse for laziness.

The first statement above, prompted by The Dyslexia Myth, a documentary attempting to expose myths
and misconceptions surrounding dyslexia, (2005) investigated general attitudes. The second statement
related to conversations overheard by teaching professionals as reported by Gwernan and Burden
(2009) therefore further probing was of interest.

2. Teachers’ beliefs about the general implications of the use of the term
‘dyslexia’, as measured by the following three items:

Dyslexic children often don’t succeed as adults.

Usually, dyslexic children have low ability.
Calling a child dyslexic makes it sound as if they have a problem that cannot be cured.

As described by Gwernan-Jones and Burden (2009), teacher attitudes towards the potential of dyslexic
students were investigated in the first statement as a direct link to their application of the Theory of
Planned Behaviour. Gwernan and Burdon (2009). The second was to discover whether teachers
believed there was strong correlation between dyslexia and intelligence. In the third statement, an
attempt to determine a teacher’ propensity to succumb to a ‘sense of learned helplessness’ when
confronted with a dyslexic student was made, in consonance with Kerr’s findings (2001).

3. Teacher’s opinions about the potential efficacy or helplessness induced by the

label ‘dyslexia’, as measured by three items:

The label ‘dyslexia’ can help a child know they are not stupid.
The label ‘dyslexia’ can help a teacher understand how to support the learner.
The label ‘dyslexia’ can be an excuse for a child to stop trying.

In reference to Gwernan-Jones and Burden’s study (2009), the first item was included to interrogate
teachers’ perceptions of whether the label ‘dyslexia’ had the potential to aid a child in understanding
their difficulties (Gerber, Reiff, & Ginsberg, 1996). The second was in response to contradictory
comments about the impact of labelling on teachers (Elliott, 2005; Kerr, 2001), and the third item to
investigate perceptions of children’s locus of control (Frederickson & Jacobs, 2001; Humphrey &
Mullins, 2002).
25
 4. Teacher’s assumptions about typical parental reactions to the term ‘dyslexia’ in
describing their child’s difficulties, evaluated by two items:

Parents often want to call a child dyslexic when the child is actually immature.
Parents want to call their child dyslexic when actually the child has low ability.

These statements were included as they reflect educators’ comments as often reported by parents.

5. Teacher’s feelings of competence in supporting dyslexic children was

measured by two items:

I feel confident that I could support a dyslexic child’s learning.

I feel more training should be given to teachers about dyslexia.

Both these items again directly apply to the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

The three open-ended questions were included in the survey in order to provide the participants the
opportunity to freely express opinions not covered by the multi-choice questions. In the structure of
the survey itself, these were numbered as questions 34 to 36 and will be referred to as such in the rest
of this project. Recurring themes in the responses were identified and the number of thematic
instances were tallied according to similar wording or meaning. These questions are listed below:

34. What barriers do you face in providing support for a dyslexic student’s
learning?

35. What additional support or resources would you try to access for a student
with dyslexia?

36. Do you have additional comments that relate to your answers, or on your
experiences teaching a student with dyslexia?

This set of questions elicited the most productive and intriguing results in terms of the study as a
whole, and diverged significantly from the Likert Scale, multiple choice and dichotomous responses.

26
Section Four
Procedure

A list of New Zealand secondary schools was generated via an education statistics website. This data
was imported into an excel spreadsheet and categorised by decile ratings and structure of the school
(e.g. co-educational, single sex). The author then used email addresses sourced from a government web
address to contact principals requesting teacher participation via email, describing the study and
intentions of the survey. When agreement to participate was received from a principal, a consent letter
was forwarded via email (see Appendix), requesting the form to be signed and returned by post, fax, or
email. Full description of the research and an electronic survey link, with a request that it be forwarded
to all classroom teachers at the school was then sent to the principal via email.

Sixty-seven schools were initially approached to participate. According to email responses, twenty-six
schools agreed to take part in the survey and fifteen declined to participate. Many schools failed to
respond. It is uncertain whether all consenting principals forwarded the survey on to their staff. Finally,
the study was approved in accordance with recommended ethical practice, the University of Auckland
‘Code of Ethical Conduct for Research’ ([Link]
[Link]). The results of the study can be found in the tables and figures in the following chapter.

27
28
Chapter III
Results

29
Teacher Attitudes towards Dyslexia

Table 2. I think dyslexia is a myth

The results in Table 2 show that over 95% of the respondents either disagreed (25%) or strongly
disagreed (70%) with the statement ‘I think dyslexia is a myth’ with 74.1% of female and 66% males
strongly disagreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=85) Male (n=53) Total (n =140)

N % N % N %

Strongly agree 0 0.0 2 3.8 2 1.4

Agree 1 1.2 0 0.0 1 0.7

Neutral 1 1.2 2 3.8 4 2.9

Disagree 20 23.5 14 26.4 35 25.0

Strongly disagree 63 74.1 35 66.0 98 70.0

Table 3. The word ‘dyslexia’ is really just an excuse for laziness

The results in Table 3 show that over 90 % of the respondents either disagreed (44%) or strongly
disagreed (67.4%) with the statement ‘The word ‘dyslexia’ is really just an excuse for laziness with
71.6% of female and 53.9% males strongly disagreeing with this statement. Female teacher were
significantly more likely than male teacher to strongly disagree with this statement.

Responses Female (n=88) Male (n =54) Total (n =144)

% N % N % N

Strongly 71.6 63 59.3 32 67.4 97

Disagree

Disagree 27.3 24 37.0 20 30.6 44

Neutral 1.2 1 1.9 1 1.4 2

Agree 1.9 1 0 0 0.7 1

Strongly 0 0 1.9 1 0.0 0

Agree

30
Table 4. Dyslexic people often do not succeed as adults

The results in Table 4 show that over 85% of the respondents either disagreed (36.4%) or strongly
disagreed (50.3%) with the statement ‘Dyslexic people often do not succeed as adults’ with 52.9% of
females and 46.3% of males strongly disagreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=87) Male (n=54) Total (n =141)

N % N % N %

Strongly agree 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Agree 3 3.4 3 5.6 6 4.2

Neutral 8 9.2 5 9.3 13 9.1

Disagree 30 34.5 21 38.9 52 36.4

Strongly disagree 46 52.9 25 46.3 72 50.3

Table 5: Usually dyslexic students have low ability

The results in Table 5 show that over 85% of the respondents either disagreed (43%) or strongly
disagreed (45%). Female teachers (50.6%) were significantly more likely than male teachers (35.8%) to
strongly disagree with the statements ‘Usually dyslexic students have low ability’.

Responses Female (n=87) Male (n=53) Total (n =140)

N % N % N %
Strongly agree 3 3.4 0 0.0 3 3.2

Agree 0 0.0 2 3.8 2 1.4

Neutral 8 9.2 4 7.5 12 8.5

Disagree 32 36.8 28 52.8 61 43.0

Strongly disagree 44 50.6 19 35.8 64 45.1

31
Table 6: Calling a student ‘dyslexic’ makes it sound as if they have a problem that cannot be cured

The results in Table 6 show that over 60% of the respondents either disagreed (51%) or strongly
disagreed (10.5 %) with the statement ‘Calling a student “dyslexic” makes it sound as if they have a
problem that cannot be cured’ with 10.3% of female and 11.1% males strongly disagreeing with this
statement.

Responses Female (n=87) Male (n=54) Total (n =141)

N % N % N %

Strongly agree 0 0.00 4 7.4 4 2.8

Agree 15 17.2 10 18.5 27 18.9

Neutral 12 13.8 12 22.2 24 16.8

Disagree 51 58.6 22 40.7 73 51.0

Strongly disagree 9 10.3 6 11.1 15 10.5

Table 7: Dyslexic students rarely learn to read well

The results in Table 7 show that over 70% of the respondents either disagreed (52.1%) or strongly
disagreed (21.1%) with the statement ‘Dyslexic students rarely learn to read well’ with 20.7% of female
and 22.6% males strongly disagreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=87) Male (n=55) Total (n =140)

N % N % N %

Strongly agree 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Agree 2 2.3 5 9.4 8 5.6

Neutral 16 18.4 14 26.4 30 21.1

Disagree 51 58.6 22 41.5 74 52.1

Strongly disagree 18 20.7 12 22.6 30 21.1

32
Table 8: The label ‘dyslexia’ can help a child know they are not lazy or stupid

The results in Table 8 show that over 80% of the respondents either agreed (55.6%) or strongly agreed
(24.6%) with the statement ‘The label “dyslexia” can help a child know they are not lazy or stupid’ with
28.7% of female and 18.9% males strongly agreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=87) Male (n=53) Total (n =140)

N % N % N %

Strongly agree 25 28.7 10 18.9 35 24.6

Agree 50 57.5 28 52.8 79 55.6

Neutral 9 10.3 9 17.0 19 13.4

Disagree 2 2.3 5 9.4 7 4.9

Strongly disagree 1 1.1 1 1.9 2 1.4

Table 9: The label ‘dyslexia’ can help a teacher understand how to support the learner

The results in Table 9 show that over 75% of the respondents either agreed (53.5%) or strongly agreed (24.6%)
with the statement ‘The label “dyslexia” can help a teacher understand how to support the learner’ with 27.9% of
female and 20.4% males strongly agreeing with this statement. Results clearly show more female teachers
agreeing with this statement than male teacher.

Responses Female (n=86) Male (n=54) Total (n =140)

N % N % N %
Strongly agree 24 27.9 11 20.4 35 24.6

Agree 48 55.8 27 50.0 76 53.5

Neutral 9 10.5 8 14.8 17 12.0

Disagree 5 5.8 6 11.1 12 8.5

Strongly disagree 0 0.0 2 3.7 2 1.4

33
Table 10: The label ‘dyslexia’ can be an excuse for a student to stop trying

The results in Table 10 show that over 45% of the respondents either agreed (45.1%) or strongly
agreed (2.8 %) with the statement ‘The label “dyslexia” can be an excuse for a student to stop trying’
with 46.5% of female and 40.7% males agreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=86) Male (n=54) Total (n =140)

N % N % N %
Strongly agree 1 1.2 3 5.6 4 2.8

Agree 40 46.5 22 40.7 64 45.1

Neutral 15 17.4 13 24.1 28 19.7

Disagree 24 27.9 12 22.2 36 25.4

Strongly disagree 6 7.0 4 7.4 10 7.0

Table 11: Parents often want to call a child dyslexic when they are just actually immature

The results in Table 11 reveal that over 55% of the respondents either disagreed (44.4%) or strongly
disagreed (10.6 %) with the statement ‘Parents often want to call a child dyslexic when they are just
actually immature’ with 48.8% of female and 38.9% males disagreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=86) Male (n=54) Total (n =140)

N % N % N %
Strongly agree 0 0.0 1 1.9 1 .07

Agree 8 9.3 6 11.1 14 9.9

Neutral 29 33.7 18 33.3 49 34.5

Disagree 42 48.8 21 38.9 63 44.4

Strongly disagree 7 8.1 8 14.8 15 10.6

34
Table 12: Parents want to call their child ‘dyslexic’ when actually the child has low ability

The result in Table 12 shows that over 55% respondents either disagree (46.2%) or strongly disagree
(13.3%) with the statement ‘Parents want to call their child “dyslexic” when actually the child has low
ability’ with 13.2% of females and 13.3% of males strongly disagreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=88) Male (n=53) Total (n =141)

N % N % N %
Strongly agree 0.0 0 3 5.7 3 2.1

Agree 14 15.9 7 13.2 21 14.7

Neutral 20 22.7 13 24.5 34 23.8

Disagree 42 47.7 23 43.4 66 46.2

Strongly disagree 12 13.6 7 13.2 19 13.3

Table 13. I feel confident I could support a dyslexic student’s learning

The result in Table 13 shows that overall 50% respondents either agreed (42%) or strongly agree
(10.5%) with the statement ‘I feel confident I could support a dyslexic student’s learning’ with 12.5%
female and 7.5% male strongly agreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=88) Male (n =53) Total (n =141)

N % N % N %

Strongly agree 11 12.5 4 7.4 15 10.5

Agree 37 42.0 22 40.7 60 42.0

Neutral 24 27.3 11 20.8 35 24.5

Disagree 14 15.9 15 27.8 30 21.0

Strongly disagree 2.3 2 1 1.9 3 2.1

35
Table 14: I feel more training should be given to teachers about dyslexia

The results in Table 14 show over 85% of the respondents agreed (38.5%) or strongly agreed (50.3 %).
Female teachers (59.8%) were significantly more likely than male teachers (37.0%) to strongly agree
with the statement ‘I feel more training should be given to teachers about dyslexia.’

Responses Female (n=87) Male (n=54) Total (n =141)

N % N % N %
Strongly agree 52 59.8 20 37.0 72 50.3

Agree 30 34.5 23 42.6 55 38.5

Neutral 4 4.6 9 16.7 13 9.1

Disagree 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 1.7

Strongly disagree 0 0.0 2 3.7 2 1.4

Table 15: Dyslexic people are sometimes known for their superior creative thinking, visual-spatial skills and/or
intuitive understanding

The result in Table 15 shows that over 70% respondents either agreed (47.2%) or strongly agree
(22.9%) with the statement ‘Dyslexic people are sometimes known for their superior creative thinking,
visual-spatial skills and/or intuitive understanding’ with 27.3% of female and 14.8% males strongly
agreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=88) Male (n=54) Total (n =142)

N % N % N %
Strongly agree 24 27.3 8 14.8 33 22.9

Agree 42 47.7 26 48.1 68 47.2

Neutral 16 18.2 17 31.5 34 23.6

Disagree 6 6.8 3 5.6 9 6.3

Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

36
Table 16: Dyslexic children can learn to spell

The results in Table 16 show that over 70 % of the respondents either agreed (55.6%) or strongly
agreed (15.3%) with the statement ‘Dyslexic children can learn to spell’ with 12.5% of female and
20.4% males strongly agreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=88) Male (n=54) Total (n =142)

N % N % N %
Strongly agree 11 12.5 11 20.4 22 15.3

Agree 55 62.5 25 46.3 80 55.6

Neutral 17 19.3 14 25.9 33 22.9

Disagree 5 5.7 4 0 9 6.3

Strongly disagree 0 0.0 4 7.4 0 0.0

Table 17: Poor readers often have average or high ability

The results in Table 17 reveal 44.4% of all respondents were neutral, with 27.9% of female participants
disagreeing and 33.3% of male with the statement ‘Poor readers often have average or high ability’.

Responses Female (n=86) Male (n=54) Total (n =140)

N % N % N %
Strongly agree 1 1.2 2 3.7 3 2.1

Agree 21 24.4 7 13.0 29 20.4

Neutral 37 43.0 26 48.1 63 44.4

Disagree 24 27.9 18 33.3 43 30.3

Strongly disagree 3 3.5 1 1.9 4 2.8

37
Table 18: All classes should be dyslexic friendly

The results in Table 18 show that over 75% of the respondents either agreed (54.5%) or strongly
agreed (23.1 %) with the statement ‘All classes should be dyslexic friendly’ with 25.3% of female and
20.4% males strongly agreeing with this statement.

Responses Female (n=87) Male (n=54) Total (n =141)

N % N % N %

Strongly agree 22 25.3 11 20.4 33 23.1

Agree 49 56.3 28 51.9 78 54.5

Neutral 11 12.6 8 14.8 20 14.0

Disagree 5 5.7 6 11.1 11 7.7

Strongly disagree 0 0.0 1 1.9 1 0.7

38
Teacher Knowledge about Dyslexia

Table 19: Dyslexia primarily refers to...

The results in Table 19 reveals over 86% of all respondents agreed with the statement ‘Dyslexia
primarily refers to “both a and b option”’ with 56.3% of female and 57.4% males strongly agreeing
with this statement.

Responses Female (n=87) Male (n=54) Total (n=141)

N % N % N %
a. Difficulty with letter 7 8.0 3 5.6 10 7.0
and/or number
reversals

b. Difficulty with 3 9.2 5 9.3 13 9.1

written language

c. Difficulty with 23 26.4 15 27.8 38 26.6

learning the
sequences of letters,
syllables or numbers

d. Both a. and b. 49 56.3 31 57.4 82 57.3

Table 20. Dyslexia is characterised by difficulty with:

The results in Table 20 show that over 86% of the respondents agreed with the statement ‘Dyslexia is
characterised by difficulty at All of the above option’ with 82.8% of female and 90.7% males strongly
agreeing with this statement.

Categories Female (n=83) Male (n=54) Total (n=140)

N % N % N %
a. Text level 5 5.7 1 1.9 6 4.2

b. Sentence level 1 1.1 1 1.9 2 1.4

c. Word level 9 10.3 3 5.6 12 8.4

d. All of the 72 82.8 49 90.7 123 86.0

above

39
Graph 1. Dyslexia is not inherited

The results in Graph 1 show that over 50% respondents thought that the statement ‘Dyslexia is not
inherited’ is True (females: 46.4 %; males: 65.3%).

True False

47.4% 52.6%

Graph 2. Difficulties with fluency and automaticity are common in dyslexia

The results in Graph 2 show that over 75% respondents thinks that the statement ‘Difficulties with
fluency and automaticity are common in dyslexia’ is True (females 75.9%; males 78.4%).

True False

24.3%

75.7%

40
Graph 3. A person who is dyslexic is more likely to also have ADHD, dyspraxia, and/or specific language
impairment than a non-dyslexic person

The results in Graph 3 show that over 68 % respondents think the statement ‘A person who is dyslexic
is more likely to also have ADHD, dyspraxia, and/or specific language impairment than a non-dyslexic
person’ (female 72.1%; male 63.5%).

False True

31.4%

68.6%

Graph 4. A dyslexic person is likely to have an excellent auditory working memory

The results in Graph 4 show that over 70% respondents think the statement ‘A dyslexic person is likely
to have an excellent auditory working memory’ is True (74.4% of female; 63.5% males).

True False

29.9%

70.1%

41
Graph 5. There is a general consensus that difficulty with phonological coding is the core deficit in
dyslexia

The results in Graph 5 show that over 60% respondents think the statement ‘There is a general
consensus that difficulty with phonological coding is the core deficit in dyslexia’ is True (female 61.3%;
male 61.9%).

True False

38.7%

61.3%

Graph 6. Multi-sensory teaching methods are considered to be particularly helpful to dyslexic students.

The results in Graph 6 show over 90% respondents agree with the statement ‘Multi-sensory teaching
methods are considered to be particularly helpful to dyslexic students’ is True (female 96.4%; male
94.1%).

True False

4.4%

95.6%

42
Open-Ended Questions

In the qualitative research, the key points that emerged are presented above the quotes illustrative of
each theme. The first open-ended question respondents were asked was: ‘What barriers do you face in
providing support for a dyslexic student’s learning?’ (n=) This question was deliberately placed directly
after the multi-choice questions. The following issues emerged in one hundred and thirty of the
teachers’ answers.

The most frequent response (from fifty-seven participants, representing 44% of the total sample who
answered this question), regarded time as the biggest barrier when teaching students with significant
learning difficulties. This involved a lack of time in the context of resource development and
production, and lack of access to specialised knowledge as to how to create these teaching resources.

• ‘Time for personal attention in large classes.’

• ‘Time to develop dyslexic friendly resources.’

• ‘More preparation time is needed to scaffold course work accordingly.’

• ‘There are often too many other students in the class to offer the help a dyslexic child needs. At times
it is not possible to change a task to suit because it is driven by national assessment. The student’s
themselves don’t want extra help because they don’t want to be seen as different.’

Additionally, six teachers indicated large class sizes also impinged on time that could be spent one-on-
one with higher-needs students. Eighteen participants mentioned large class sizes had a negative impact
on their ability to better support dyslexic students, and that large students numbers impede on teaching
opportunities to master or extend teaching concepts. This also affected their knowledge of what
scaffolding would look like. They cited:

• ‘Large class sizes with students of varying ability so finding the time to prepare documents and sit down with
dyslexic students is very hard.’

• ‘Class size - too big lack of technology time to adapt tasks.’

• ‘Challenge of large class sizes.’

43
Certain respondents were aware that teacher attitudes towards students with dyslexia are an integral
part of support, substantiating the TPB model, and were mentioned in five instances. Samples of these
comments are below.

• ‘Negative staff attitudes can be present and limit dyslexic student success.’

• ‘Negative staff attitudes that they don’t have time or can’t be bothered to differentiate can affect everything....thank
you for trying to put it together.’

Thirty-two respondents stated access to resources is problematic.

• ‘Not well educated/informed of the condition, do not have the knowledge to adapt resources for learning. Do not
have the time to adapt any resources required for individual learning’.

Fourteen believed inadequate training and institutional provision of professional learning present
significant barriers. These respondents emphasised the lack of training offered throughout the course
of pre-service teacher training and called for further education.

• ‘More professional development is needed, more professional development to better develop an understanding of the
construct/dyslexia; more staff supporting one another is needed.’

• ‘I had no training about dyslexia when I trained as a teacher. Lack of training and information now. Difficulty as
a secondary teacher with information being passed on the beginning of the year’.

• ‘...it was never covered in my undergrad or post-grad...’

Another barrier was absence of knowledge; mentioned forty-one times. Seventeen respondents
commented on their limited understanding of dyslexia, while twenty-two teachers were uncertain how
to best aid learners. A lack of knowledge of what strategies to implement were also cited as obstacles
when teaching students with dyslexia.

• ‘A lack of knowledge...My school has provided token gesture videos but never covered this in staff PD.’

• ‘I would love more information on how to best support dyslexic students.’

• ‘Knowledge, time to prepare/use appropriate resources.’

• ‘Other than verbal instruction, lack of knowledge on how else to help them learn.’

44
The second question asked was: ‘What additional support or resources would you try to access for a
student with dyslexia?’ (n=123) From the survey it is apparent that teacher aides are of major support
in mainstream schooling; this was the most common theme in response to the question. Sixty-three
teachers were desirable of this additional support.

• ‘Teacher aide especially for assessments; school issued laptop, additional time for assessments.’

• ‘Teacher aide working with them when possible.’

• ‘Preferably a teacher aide.’

Additionally, fifty-five respondents referred to dyslexic-friendly resources they would try to access.
Specific resources for students described were primarily technology-based; in particular, laptops,
software, extended access to school computers, and multi-sensory ‘stuff ’, as well as coloured lenses.
These participants’ responses demonstrate some knowledge of tools and modalities of learning that
can be employed to encourage dyslexic students, but are generic and some of these have been
discredited. These teachers also suggested that specialised education with experts could aid them in the
development of resources and learning strategies.

• ‘Resources intended specifically for dyslexic students. Textbooks are not helpful.’

• ‘5 computers and a printer in the classroom, a smart board, teacher aides, reader-writers for exams, SPELD,
Danks Davis Dyslexia, mentors at school to offer support and encouragement.’

• ‘All notes are electronic; these are supplied to dyslexic students in advance. Incorporate a range of teaching methods
to allow students time to process information rather than expecting them to keep up with board work. Use the
students support services the school provides to help scaffold students into written work and allow students to use
laptops where applicable.’

• ‘Access to the special “dyslexic friendly” weighted font that has been invented.’

• ‘More training and help with resources related to curriculum that are available to use.’

• ‘I guess I’d like to know want I can do to help a student. Currently, it would be fair to say I don’t do much.’

Time was again raised by eighteen teachers in response to this question, but as a means of providing
support for their dyslexic students, and allocating time to try and remediate dyslexic difficulties.

• ‘Time to work through issues for them, so problems can be worked on.’
45
The final open-ended question asked: ‘Do you have additional comments that relate to your answers, or
on your experiences teaching a student with dyslexia?’ (n=75) Knowledge, or lack thereof, of the
construct of dyslexia was broached twenty-one times and was the most frequent issue raised in this
final question.

• ‘Not something I have had direct contact with (or ever been made aware of a student that I taught as having
dyslexia) which I find interesting as I have taught for many years.’

• ‘Only know we have to cater for them, not how to cater for them.’

Five teachers again remarked on time constraints as a predicament. The issue of resources was again
raised as well as further education and specialised knowledge due to the number of students suffering
from dyslexia and their inability to recognise it, as its occurrence is often greater than they realise.
Relationship building was mentioned sixteen times, which is significant, as this is a central issue in
ensuring positive outcomes for students with dyslexia.

• ‘The most important is the relationships built to assist learning, often the students are very negative to all formal
learning.’

This final question proved to the most productive in exposing teacher beliefs in relation to dyslexia,
evidenced by the following quotes. A glaring divergence in the perspectives of educators is evinced.
Analysis of these findings is undertaken in the following chapter.

• ‘Yes and thank you for providing the opportunity. I am not going to dispute the fact that some people are dyslexic
and that dyslexia exists. However here in New Zealand we tend to label students to come up with a name for
everything every occasion. I am pretty convinced that the majority of students with dyslexia are nothing but the
victims of incompetent teachers and low-level quality teaching at primary level. Those kids are the casualties and the
Ministry itself is responsible for all those young children who are not taught how to read, not taught proper teaching
strategies, phonetic alphabet, reading with understanding and are note taught related skills, like retelling,
summarising, comprehension etc. As a former Ministry’s employee I feel competent to make such statement. The
quality of teaching reading and writing at primary level is below every standard.’

• ‘More students suffer from dyslexia than a lot of us realise so up skilling.’

• ‘Often dyslexic kids use the label as an excuse, they need to learn strategies to cope with their handicap. I am mildly
dyslexic and have developed strategies to use.’

• ‘It’s just a tag/excuse I treat everyone as equals; some just have more talent than others. I do agree that top pupils
are disadvantaged in exams e.g. Often "dyslexic" pupils are given extra time when if "top" pupils were also given

46
extra time they might score 100% as opposed to only 96%, my own daughter was a case in point, straight
discrimination.’

47
48
Chapter IV
Discussion

49
Section One
Summary of the study

The purpose of this study was to better understand the extent of recognition and attitudes that
teachers have of dyslexia in mainstream New Zealand secondary education settings. Perceived barriers
teachers experienced in the classroom were also investigated. The following questions were addressed:

What is the nature of teacher attitudes about dyslexia?

What is the extent of teacher knowledge about dyslexic learners in New Zealand?
What support is provided to learners with dyslexia?
What are the perceived barriers to providing support for dyslexic students?

This chapter focuses on a discussion of the findings, the implications these have for teachers’ practice
in the classroom alongside governmental and institutional policy in relation to dyslexia. The limitations
of the study itself are identified alongside recommendations for future research - considering the gaps
in literature - and a concluding statement are made.

Overall there was a degree of variability in participants’ responses. Although most seem to be positive
towards the general construct of dyslexia, the data indicates uncertainty among certain teachers about
what dyslexia actually is, how it manifests in children, and how to address it in their teaching. The
principal consensus gleaned from the data was that teachers require specific training and further
education to deal with dyslexia. The high percentage of teachers that strongly agreed serves as an
acknowledgement that educators feel they have insufficient knowledge, and this is potentially a
disservice for dyslexic learners in classrooms.

Section Two
Discussion of the findings.

The results substantiate other studies such as Gwernan-Jones and Burden’s (2010). These academics
have established that while teachers may be situated positively towards the construct of dyslexia, its
efficacy is subject to a readiness to provide support. The findings indicate differing degrees of
recognition of dyslexia in New Zealand - sometimes accompanied by inadequate support for dyslexic
learners in the public school system. Teachers appear to feel under-qualified and too overworked to
integrate effective learning strategies for dyslexic students in the classroom. This difficulty is
compounded by a deficit in: specific education concerning dyslexia in teacher training; knowledge of
the classroom adjustments needed for children with learning difficulties; and the large size of
classrooms which impact teachers’ capacity to assist learners with dyslexia.
50
In terms of knowledge, significant confusion and misconceptions about dyslexia in the data is
demonstrative of the lack of education that teachers undergo throughout their degrees. The
contradictory nature of participants’ responses in the findings is evidence of this. A divergence of
opinion and knowledge was apparent as participants proceeded through the survey. In the initial
sections of the survey, teacher attitudes towards the existence of dyslexia were investigated. Overall,
the majority of teachers responded positively. Findings show over 95% of teachers disagreed or
strongly disagreed with the statement, ‘dyslexia is a myth’, while a similar number (90%) did not believe
that dyslexia was an excuse for laziness. Eighty-five percent of the respondents disagreed with the
assertion that dyslexic children do not succeed as adults, evincing hope for their futures. This operates
to dispute Kerr’s theory of ‘learned helplessness’. When teachers were asked about their views on
caregivers’ statements that their child is dyslexic, findings were positive overall, with over half
disagreeing that parents use dyslexia as an excuse for their child’s educational difficulties.

The general assumption underpinning dyslexia is that dyslexics struggle to read - suggesting teachers
have a positive belief system and would, with adequate training, feel equipped to develop literacy skills
for dyslexic students. Constructing dyslexic-friendly classroom environments was advocated by over
75% of respondents, with many suggesting that difficulties could be alleviated through further
placement of teacher aides in their classrooms. The majority of teachers believed that dyslexic students
are capable of attaining literacy skills. Responses to the stereotype that dyslexics have low academic
ability were nearly unequivocal in their rejection of the assumption, as over 85% of the respondents
either disagreed (43%) or strongly disagreed (45%). Female teachers (50.6%) were significantly more
likely than male teachers (35.8%) to strongly disagree with this particular statement. The findings from
the study are indicative that teachers believe that learning difficulties are beyond an individual’s control
and not caused by a lack of ability or effort. Alongside this knowledge, these behavioural beliefs and
values exhibited are in consonance with a positive instance of TPB, suggesting that dyslexic learners
potentially can have constructive learning experiences.

However, polarised attitudes towards the label dyslexia and its implications were also evident in the
results. On the other spectrum of the theory of planned behaviour the label dyslexia can result in the
student and educators reducing their expectations and goals for what can be achieved in the classroom
(Ajzen, 2005). A focus and emphasis on the construct of disability may not necessarily prepare
practitioners for productive engagements with dyslexic learners (Ade-Ojo, 2011). While the findings
revealed just over 60% of teachers disagreed (51%) or strongly disagreed (10.5%) with the statement
that ‘calling a child dyslexic makes it sound as though they have a problem that could not be fixed’,
almost 18.9% did agree and 16.8% were unsure.

51
A number of respondents were extremely inimical about ‘labelling’ students as dyslexic, particularly in
the open-ended responses, where teachers could freely express themselves. One respondent stated:
‘Often dyslexic kids use the label as an excuse...’ while another said, ‘here in New Zealand we tend to
label students, to come up with a name for everything, every occasion. I am pretty convinced that the
majority of students with dyslexia are nothing but the victims of incompetent teachers and low-level
quality teaching at primary level.’ Kerr (2001) writes that when dyslexia is discussed as a learning
disability or disease, ‘blame is attributed to the individual and manifests itself negatively.’ Contradictions
in the findings are apparent in terms of the deployment of the label, in contrast to earlier in the survey
where teachers displayed positive attitudes towards the construct of the disability. When
conceptualising dyslexia, teachers perceived barriers to academic progress as a result of the disability
and not innate to the individual. Seventy percent of participants were aware that dyslexic students are
capable of attaining literacy skills. These conflictual responses in terms of the dyslexic label in
comparison to a general knowledge of it, reflect the confusion surrounding the condition for
educators.

A marked absence of knowledge and education was exhibited as the survey progressed into a more
exploratory territory and an increased percentage of respondents were ‘neutral’ to statements in the
questionnaire, demonstrating uncertainty towards dyslexia and its impact on a learner. Almost 20% of
respondents were ambivalent about the claim that: ‘Some children may use the label “dyslexia” as an
excuse to stop trying,’ and nearly 50% agreed. A third of the respondents were ‘neutral’ on whether or
not they accept a caregiver’s claim that their child suffered from the disability, suggesting that teachers
did not feel educated enough on the subject to make a qualified assessment. A significant reliance on
stereotypes was evident when teachers responded to the statement: ‘Dyslexic people are sometimes
known for their superior creative thinking, visual-spatial skills and/or intuitive understanding’,
demonstrating the lack of education teachers possess. Only half of the participants felt confident in
supporting a dyslexic learner. One teacher explicitly lamented the absence of professional development
and cited that she ‘had no training about dyslexia when [she] trained as a teacher’.

In terms of stereotypes, the questions regarding teacher knowledge (Tables 19 and 20) show that
participants had a reasonable level of understanding concerning literacy problems. However the queries
were deliberately targeted to assess the degree of specific knowledge teachers had of a dyslexic learner.
They asked what dyslexia referred to and what problems a student would encounter with the learning
difficulty. A multiple choice methodology was employed in this section. When asked what dyslexia
referred to, options b (difficulty with written language) and c (learning sequences of letters, syllables
and numbers) would have been the optimal answer, as they are a more accurate representation of the
difficulties a dyslexic learner experiences. Participants mostly selected options a and b, reflecting a
dependence on general knowledge, and the typical issues dyslexics encounter with literacy. More than

52
86% of the respondents selected the ‘All of the above’ option, with 82.8% of female and 90.7% males
agreeing these are the correct manifestations of dyslexia when characterising the disability.
When it came to the cognitive and neurological nature of dyslexia in the survey, a cursory
understanding of is reflected as 75% of respondents agreed that difficulties with fluency and
automaticity are common in dyslexia. However, more than half of the teachers believed it was true that
dyslexia is not congenital, which is is at odds with research evidence about the neurological nature of
dyslexia (Shaywitz, 2003; Lucid 2001). Over 68% respondents did not believe that a person who is
dyslexic is more likely to have ADHD, dyspraxia, and/or specific language impairment than a non-
dyslexic person. This is cause for concern as research has established co-occurrence of interconnecting
disorders is often the case with dyslexics. For example, a common co-morbidity factor with ADHD
sufferers have dyslexia, and 30-52% of dyslexic individuals have ADHD. The lack of awareness of co-
morbidity disorders only further serves to negatively affect the academic future and self-esteem of a
child. (International Dyslexia Association, 1997). Similarly, two-thirds of respondents believed a
dyslexic person is likely to have an excellent auditory working memory. A working memory index
deficit can be a debilitating impairment and is present in a range of medical conditions including those
who have been diagnosed with dyslexia ([Link]).

Section Three
Implications for practice

Professional development in the area of dyslexia can help educators understand dyslexia is a problem
with reading and not of intelligence (Humphrey, 2002). In many ways, trust underlies much of what
happens in school each day. The task of aiding young people to grow into well-educated and
independent adults is dependent on the relationship between teachers and students. A proposal could
be made that sees the Post Primary Teacher Association becoming more involved in a discussion
relating to learning disabilities, dyslexia, and promote or lobby for changes to teacher education. In
particular, linguistics plays a factor in learning for dyslexics, and an absence of specialist knowledge
may be contributing to a struggling percentage of pupils, both in New Zealand and internationally
(Carreker, Joshi & Gooden, 2010; PIRLS, 2010; Moats, 2000).

What should be clear is that without appropriate intervention, the absence of adequate literacy skills
and abilities will create problems which persist into adulthood, and engender limitations in individuals’
futures. The backbone of education and learning is a suitable level of linguistics, word recognition
knowledge and comprehension; without this children will be penalised in all areas of secondary school
and is included in the discussion as to why it is significant ([Link]). In facilitating this learning,
findings in the open-ended items saw a high frequency of respondents mentioning time as being a
significant barrier. This was the most recurrent theme throughout the entire survey. Teachers felt they

53
had limited time to spend one-on-one with students, largely due to increasing class sizes. Teachers felt
they had limited time to access resources, and limited time to develop new dyslexic specific resources.
Over 90% of the respondents agreed with the statement: ‘Multi-sensory teaching methods are
considered to be particularly helpful to dyslexic students’. This involves multi-sensory, auditory, visual
and kinesthetic methods to develop better understanding and embed knowledge in ways a didactic
approach will not (Herrel & Jordon, 2008). However, without the time to develop or educate
themselves in these modalities of teaching, teachers are unable to constructively engage with dyslexic
learners.

Hypothetically, if measures were taken to reduce class sizes and additional in-class support was
provided (resource teachers, teacher aides and Learning Support teachers as stated in respondents’
comments), the issue of time would no longer be a perceived barrier. However, according to the data
from the study, knowledge would still absent in relation to the characteristics of dyslexia. The logical
question at this juncture is how and where educators would access information in order to develop
resource materials that would remediate dyslexic difficulties. Many teachers stated that access to
computers, electronic devices and the internet would aid them in the open-ended responses of the
survey. Reliance on the internet should not be regarded as a reliable source, as evidence-based methods
should be structured on substantiated research (for example, Orton Gillingham methods). If adequate
changes were made to the way professional learning and collaborative efforts were implemented in
school, teachers may benefit by sharing and exchanging resources, ideas and workload to produce
instructional aids to support students with dyslexia.

Section Four
Implications for policy

Targeted teacher training, in special education programs, in particular pre-service teacher education is
one effectual way to stimulate growth and understanding in schools and will prepare teachers new to
schools. The findings of this study suggest that teachers in secondary school settings in New Zealand
remain professionally unequipped to effectively handle the inclusion and at times high demands of the
unique needs of students with dyslexia. Changes to the way we approach the diverse needs of all
children and adolescents in our training programs, and provision of additional learning for experienced
teachers will not only facilitate positive mindsets towards learning, it will open doors for further
research and develop a healthier society of learners.

Understanding teacher training in recognition and support of dyslexia is pivotal in evaluating the
treatment of the condition in New Zealand. Literacy and learning difficulties are not just a dyslexic
issue; the provision of opportunities for teachers to learn how to confront different forms of learning

54
diversities and difficulties is urgently needed, and apparent in this study. The opportunity to develop
purposeful, relevant skills from evidence-based interventions alongside a positive disposition will afford
brighter futures for both student and teacher. Targeted funding needs to take place and specialised
learning environments or specialised teachers are needed as well as broader knowledge for teachers.

Section Five
Limitations and recommendations for future research

Questions were at times limited in their scope and depth. Gauging what degree of knowledge teachers
actually had was restricted and participation of teachers was at the discretion of the principals at each
school. Future research could include personal interviews with teachers to acquire more in-depth
information. Additionally, a large number of participants came from the Auckland region and the
Christchurch earthquake limited access to the biggest city in the South Island. A larger South Island
sample size would be recommended for future studies to obtain data more representative of the
national teacher population.

For future research, ascertaining class sizes, the statistics of dyslexic teachers and assessing the
knowledge of reading and linguistics in teachers would provide more qualitative research. Examining
what is actually covered in the curriculum of pre-service teachers would be of use as well as
investigating teachers’ openness to assess students in varied forms outside of traditional written
assessments. Studies of teacher attitude and knowledge involving larger and more varied sample sizes
would be essential to establishing exactly where educators are situated with regard to the disability.

Section Six
Concluding statement

On the whole these findings provide strong evidence of positive attitudes of the vast majority of
participating teachers. However the reality is that the average education teacher is unprepared to handle
the increasing demands of students with learning difficulties in mainstream educational settings; they
are unequipped to handle the academic and emotional characteristics of dyslexia within a regular
education classroom. With the inclusion of special education students in mainstream classrooms,
teachers must have access to professional development and additional teacher support to provide
quality education for society’s most vulnerable students. What was most evident in the findings was the
need recognised by the majority of teachers for further professional development.

55
56
 References

Ade-Ojo, G. O. (2011). Practitioners’ perception of the impact of the vision of policy-makers on

practice: the example of the recommendations of the Moser Commission. Research Papers in
Education, 26(1), 53-77. doi:10.1080/02671520903257997

Asia-Pacific Centre of Educational Innovation for Development. (1996). Education in action series:
Research information for teachers. Practical, innovative strategies and their implications for teachers. Bangkok,
Thailand. Retrieved from: [Link]

Becroft, A. (2004). Youth justice in New Zealand: Future challenges. Paper presented at the New Zealand
Youth Justice Conference “Never Too Early, Never Too Late”, Wellington, New Zealand.

Bourassa, D. C. & Treiman, R. (July, 2001). Spelling development and disability: The importance of
linguistic factors. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 172-181. doi:
10.1044/0161-1461

Bowey, J. A. (1995). Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and first-
grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 476-487. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.476

Campbell, J., Gilmore & Linda. & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers’ attitudes towards
disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 28(4), 369-379. doi:
10.1080/13668250310001616407

Carreker, S., Joshi & R. M., Boulware-Gooden, R. (2010). Spelling related teacher knowledge: The
impact of professional development on identifying appropriate instructional activities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 148-158. doi:10.1177/073194871003300304

Clark, D.B. & Uhry, J.K. (1995). Dyslexia: Theory and practice of remedial instruction (2nd ed.). Baltimore,
MD: York Press.

Duranovic, M., Dedeic, M., Huseinbasic, D., & Tinjic, E. Teachers’ attitudes about dyslexia: Evidence
from Bosnia, Herzegovina and Montenegro (n.d.). University of Applied Sciences and Arts of
Italian Switzerland. Retrieved from [Link]
2011/04/DURANOVICH-DEDEIC-HUSEINBASIC-TINJIC_Teachers-attitudes-about-
[Link]
57
van Hasselt, C. (2002). Oral reading achievements, strategies and personal characteristics of New
Zealand primary school students below normal expectation (Unpublished master’s
dissertation). University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., Miles, J. N. V., Carroll, J. M., Hatcher, J., Gibbs, S., Smith, G., Bowyer-
Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2006). Efficacy of small group reading intervention for beginning
readers with reading-delay: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
47(8), 820-7. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01559.x

Gillon, G. T. (2004). Theoretical background. In Phonological awareness: From research to practice (pp. 13-35).
New York, NY: The Guillford Press.

Gillon, G.T. (2007). Monitoring development: Phoneme awareness assessment probes for 5-7 year old
children [Workshop handout]. Canterbury, New Zealand: University of Canterbury.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1997). Looking in classrooms (7th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Gwernan-Jones., R. & Burden, R. L. (2009). Are they just lazy? Student teachers’ attitudes about
dyslexia. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 16, 66-86. doi:10.1002/dys.393

Handler, S. M. What Parents Need to Know About Dyslexia (Reading Disability) (n.d.). American Association
for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. Retrieved from [Link]
learning_disabilities_/

Henry, M. K. (2010). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MA:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Hobgood, B., & Ormsby, Lauren. (2011). Inclusion in the 21st-century classroom: Differentiating with technology.
UNC School of Education. Retrieved from [Link]
6776

Humphrey, N., & Mullins, P.M. (2002). Self-concept and self-esteem in developmental dyslexia. Journal
of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2(2), 1-13. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2002.00163.x

The International Dyslexia Association. (September, 1997). Informed instruction for reading success:
Foundations for teacher preparation. A position paper. Baltimore, MA: Brady, S. & Moats, L. Retrieved
from [Link]

58
The International Dyslexia Association. (November, 2008). Multisensory structured language teaching.
Baltimore, MD: Henry, M. K. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]

Kerr, H. (2001). Learned helplessness and dyslexia: A carts and horses issue? Reading, Literacy and
Language, 35(2), 82-5. doi:10.1111/1467-9345.00166

Kirk, J., & Reid, G. (2001). An examination of the relationship between dyslexia and offending in
young people and the implications for the training system. Dyslexia, 7(2), 77-84. doi:10.1002/
dys.184

Kirk, C., & Gillon, G. T. (2007). Longitudinal effects of phonological awareness intervention on
morphological awareness in children with speech impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 38, 342-352. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2007/036)

McArthur, G. M. (2010). Dyslexia-friendly practice in the secondary classroom. Australian Journal of

Learning Difficulties, 15(1), 111-112. doi:10.1080/19404151003731109

Macdonald, S. J. (2009). Windows of reflection: Conceptualising dyslexia using the social model of
disability. Dyslexia, 15(4), 347-362. doi:10.1002/dys.391

MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. M. Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children
with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: An application of the
theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 46-52. doi: 10.1016/[Link].
2012.08.006

Marcoux, B. C., & Shope, J. T. (1997). Application of the theory of planned behavior to adolescent use
and misuse of alcohol. Health Education Research: Theory & Practice, 12(3), 323-331. doi:10.1093/her/
12.3.323

Massey University. (2012). Reading Recovery not the solution. Massey University Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa
University of Auckland. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]?mnarticle=reading-recovery-not-the-solution-10-09-2012#

59
McNeill, B. & Kirk, C. (2014). Theoretical beliefs and instructional practices used for teaching spelling
in elementary classrooms. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 535–554. doi:
10.1007/s11145-013-9457-0

Ministry of Education. (2010) Literature review: An international perspective on dyslexia. Wellington, NZ.
Retrieved from [Link]
special-education-needs/Dyslexia

Moats, L. C., (2005). How spelling supports reading and why it is more regular and predictable than you
may think. American Educator, 29(4), 12-22;42-3. Retrieved from [Link]
default/files/periodicals/[Link]

Moats, L. C. (2009). Spellography for teachers: How English spelling works. Module 3 (2nd ed.). Dallas, TX:
Sopris West Educational Services.

Moats, L. (2010). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MA: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.

Mortimore, T. & Crozier, W.R. (2006). Dyslexia and difficulties with study skills in higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 32(2), 235-251. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.06.798

Nicholson, T. (2005). Phonics handbook. West Sussex, UK: Whurr Publishers Ltd.

Norwich, B., Ylonen, A. & Gwernan-Jones, R. (2014). Moderate learning difficulties: Searching for
clarity and understanding. Research Papers in Education, 29(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1080/
02671522.2012.729153

Petraitis, J., Flay, B. R., & Miller, T. Q. (1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use:
Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 67-86. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.67

Reid, Gavin. (2009). Dyslexia: A practitioner’s handbook (4th ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.

Revenue and expenditure of schools - updated (12 March 2012). Education Counts. Retrieved from
[Link]

60
Riddick, B. (2001). Dyslexia and inclusion: Time for a social model of disability perspective?
International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11(3), 223-236. doi: 10.1080/09620210100200078

Rowan, L. (2010). Learning with dyslexia in secondary school in New Zealand: What can we learn from
students’ past experiences? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15(1), 71-79. doi:
10.1080/19404150903524556

Seacombe, P. (2012). Teacher perceptions of socially withdrawn children (Unpublished master’s thesis). Massey
University, Albany, New Zealand.

Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Annotation: Does dyslexia exist? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(4),
579-595. doi:0021-9630(93)E0012-Q

Steinberg, L., & Lerner, R. M. (2004). The scientific study of adolescence: A brief history. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 24(1), 45-54. doi:10.1177/0272431603260879

Tankersley, K. (2003). Phonics and decoding. In The threads of reading: Strategies for literacy development (pp.
31-51). Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]

Torgesen,J. K. (1997). The prevention and remediation of reading disabilities: Evaluating what we know
from research. Journal of Academic Language Therapy, 1, 11-47.

Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment
to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, 22, 32-9. doi:[Link].4892.

Tunmer, W. E. (2008). Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the

special issue. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 299-316. doi:10.1007/
s11145-007-9108-4

Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., Greaney, K. T., Prochnow, J. E. & Arrow, A. W. (2013). Why the New
Zealand National literacy strategy has failed and what can be done about it: Evidence from the
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and Reading Recovery monitoring
reports. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18(2), 139-180. doi:10.1080/
19404158.2013.842134

61
The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee. (2011). Code of Ethical Conduct.
Auckland, NZ. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]

Westwood, P. (1996). Effective teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 66-84. doi:
10.14221/ajte.1996v21n1.5

Williams, J. A. & Lynch, S. A. (2010). By understanding the characteristics of dyslexia and

implementing specific strategies, teachers can effectively address their students’ instructional needs.
Dyslexia: What Teachers Need to Know, 46(2), 66-70. doi:10.1080/00228958.2010.10516696

Spelling the vowel sound /ā/ (n.d.). Spellzone: The online English spelling course. Retrieved from
[Link]

Teacher strategies for dyslexics (2006.) Victoria Independent School District. Retrieved from http://
[Link]/depart/specialPrograms/dyslexia/dyslexia_handbook_teacherstrategies.pdf

What is a grapheme? (n.d.). TheSchoolRun. Retrieved from [Link]

.com/what-is-a-grapheme

Who is affected by working memory (n.d.). Cogmed. Retrieved from [Link]

is-affected-by-working-memory

62
 Appendix

Information Letter to Principals

63
 School of Learning, Development & Professional Practice

Te Kura Whakatairanga i te Ako Ngaio me te Whanaketanga

Ph: +64 (09) 623 8899

[Link]

The University of Auckland

Private Bag 92601

Auckland 1035, New Zealand

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET (PRINCIPAL/BOARD OF TRUSTEES)

Project title: Teacher knowledge and attitudes towards supporting dyslexic learners in mainstream
secondary school education settings.

Researcher: Rebecca Elias

Dear Principal
Name to be inserted

My name is Rebecca Elias and I am conducting a dissertation project towards my Masters degree at the
University of Auckland. I would like to invite your school to assist with a research project looking at the level of
teacher recognition and support for dyslexic students across a range of curriculum areas. The project involves a
survey in which teachers answer some questions about their knowledge about and attitudes towards dyslexic
learners. Teachers will also be asked for their own thoughts on providing support for dyslexic learners.

The online survey will take about 15 minutes. No identifying information, such as names, schools, emails or IP
addresses will be collected. The information will be used for research purposes only. All electronic data will be
secured by a password system, accessible only to the researcher and her supervisor. All data will be erased six
years after publication in academic journals. I intend to publish the anonymised and generalised findings of the
study in my dissertation and education journals. The thesis and publications will not identify any individual or
schools.
I am seeking your willingness to send an electronic survey link via email, to teachers at your school. I will send
the link to the school’s office email address on the XX/X/13. 100 teachers in urban and provincial cities will
be surveyed. I believe teachers will find the survey interesting and it may help them reflect on some of the
students they teach. If you would prefer your school not to participate, it would be appreciated if you could
contact me by e-mail or phone so that I can approach another school. Please also contact me if you wish to
discuss any aspects of the study. Thank you very much for considering this request.

Yours sincerely,
Rebecca Elias

Principal  [Link]  and  Supervisor: Researcher:

Dr.  Louise  Keown Rebecca  Elias
School  of  Learning,  Development  &  Professional   Phone:  09  820  4177
Prac?ce  –  Faculty  of  Educa?on Mobile:  021  473  904
Email:  reli005@[Link]
University  of  Auckland
Ph:  09  623  8899  ext.  86435
Email:  [Link]@auckland  .[Link]

The  Head  of  School  of    Learning,  Development   For  queries  regarding  ethical  concerns,  contact:
&  Professional  Prac?ce  is: The  Chair,  the  University  of  Auckland  Human  
Dr  Chris?ne  Margaret  Rubie-­‐Davies Par?cipants  Ethics  Commi[ee
Faculty  of  Educa?on The  University  of  Auckland
The  University  of  Auckland Office  of  the  Vice  Chancellor
Private  Bag  92601 Private  Bag  92019
Symonds  St,  Auckland  1150 Auckland  1142
Ph:  09  3737  599  ext.  82974 Ph:  09  373  7599  ext.  83761

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on

13/03/2013 for 3 years. Reference 2013/9090.