dyslexic students in higher education and virtual learning environments: an exploratory study

Dyslexic students in higher education and virtuallearning environments: an exploratory studyjcal_486 1..11

L. Habib,* G. Berget,* F. E. Sandnes,* N. Sanderson,* P. Kahn,§ S. Fagernes* & A. Olcay‡*Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Technology, Art and Design, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway

§Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Science, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway

‡Centre for Educational Research and Development, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway

Abstract This paper presents the results of an interview-based study of the use of virtual learning envi-ronments (VLEs) among dyslexic students. Interviews were carried out with 12 informantswho had been formally diagnosed as dyslexic. The informants were either enrolled in a univer-sity or college programme, or had graduated less than a year before the interview. The findingsreveal that dyslexic students experience a number of challenges associated with VLE use,including information overload, imperfect word processing tools, inadequate search functions,and having to relate to more than one system at a time.

Keywords dyslexia, higher education, universal design, virtual learning environments.

Introduction

Higher education has evolved considerably in the lastcouple of decades, in particular with a new focus onwidening participation (Pumfrey 2008). Several poli-cies for a more inclusive higher education sector havebeen developed to promote equality of opportunities,and a large number of institutions have implementedstrategies to encourage and support the participation ofstudents with disabilities (Luna 2009; Vickerman &Blundell 2010). In particular, there has been anincreased focus on compensating for disabilities andensuring universal access to the learning environment ofstudents (Hampton & Godsen 2004).

Concurrently, the use of information and communi-cation technologies (ICTs) has pervaded all aspects ofhigher education, in particular as support for learningand teaching activities (Maddux & Johnson 2010). They

are also embraced as a way to enhance the student expe-rience, intensify student engagement, and support flex-ible study, thereby increasing student retention. ICTsare also meant to contribute to a widening participation,attracting students from non-traditional backgrounds(Hadjikakou & Hartas 2008).

Among the learning technologies used in higher edu-cation, virtual learning environments (VLEs) – alsoreferred to as learning management systems, onlinelearning environments, or course management systems– have grown to become quasi-ubiquitous in theWestern world. A VLE can be defined as a softwaresystem designed to support teaching and learning.These systems typically consist of a set of tools allow-ing for a number of educational and education-relatedactivities, including communication, information pro-cessing, content delivery, student assessment, courseevaluation, and the tracking of student activity. In theUK, the rate of market penetration of VLEs in highereducation institutions was 95% in 2010 (Brown 2010).

Despite an increased awareness of the need to makeeducation accessible to students with disabilities, there

Accepted: 11 January 2012Correspondence: Laurence Habib, Department of Computer Science,Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 4,St Olavs Plass, Oslo 0130, Norway. Email: [email protected]

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00486.x

Original article

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1

are indications that learning disabilities tend to remainhidden, and therefore under-prioritized in comparisonwith physical disabilities (Burns & Bell 2010;Madriaga & Goodley 2010). Dyslexia, together withmost cognitive disabilities, can also be characterizedas a ‘hidden’ disability. The term ‘dyslexia’ is not easilydefined, but we choose to define it as follows forthe purpose of this paper: ‘a learning disorder markedby impairment of the ability to recognize andcomprehend written words’ (Dittrich & Tutt 2008,p. 97). Unlike physical disabilities, which are oftenobvious to the observer, cognitive disabilities canrarely be seen directly. Dyslexia is among the mostwidespread disabilities, although estimates of its levelof prevalence vary according to which definition isused and which screening methods are employed. It is,however, generally accepted that between 5% and 10%of any adult population have dyslexia (Smythe et al.2004).

To our knowledge, little research has discussed theconsequences of the use of VLEs on dyslexic students,in particular in combination with increased demandsfor writing. Hence, our research question is how doesthe increased use of VLEs affect the learning experi-ence of dyslexic students? Our aim is to gain insights inhow best to cater for the needs of dyslexic students ina changing educational setting, where new types ofonline tools are developed and used, the content oflearning material is frequently modified and updated,and the sheer quantity of online resources is constantlyincreasing.

The study reported here took place within the specificcontext of Norwegian higher education, where theso-called Quality Reform, introduced in 2002–2003 inorder to comply with the Bologna process, has resultedin an extensive use of compulsory student writing, espe-cially as part of new forms of assessment, such as theuse of portfolios (Dysthe 2007), often supported byVLEs. Over the last couple of decades, Norwegianhigher education has also moved towards a more struc-tured and more intensive use of group work (Michelsen& Aamodt 2006).

This paper is structured as follows. First, a review ofthe relevant literature is provided. Second, the method-ology used is described, before presenting the datacollected through the interviews. Finally, the resultsare discussed, and some preliminary conclusionssuggested.

Background

Much of the research on dyslexia has focused on pre-school and school-age children (Mortimore & Crozier2006; Price 2006). However, the issue of dyslexia inhigher education has become more prominent in the lit-erature, in particular after various legislations aboutnon-discrimination of disabled students have beenenacted. Legislations and institutional practices gener-ally aim to ensure that disabled students are giventhe same opportunities as non-disabled students, forexample, the Special Education Needs and DisabilityAct, passed in the UK in 2001, and the Americans withDisabilities Act, passed in 1990 in the USA. Such poli-cies aim at forcing institutions to provide disabled stu-dents with the possibility to compensate for theirdisability, including making what is referred in the UKas ‘reasonable adjustments’ to forms of assessment.This has raised the question of what can be considered‘reasonable’, and whether there is a risk that academicrigour and standards are compromised (Riddell &Weedon 2006; Pavey et al. 2010). The fact that dyslexiais ‘non-visible’ or ‘hidden’ may contribute to it beingperceived as illegitimate, which may reduce access tocompensating measures and concessions in terms ofassessment (Faulkner & Blyth 1996; Riddick 2003).More generally, the literature suggests that dyslexia andother reading disabilities are associated with anxietyand fear of discrimination and stigmatization, espe-cially for students in work-based placements (Blank-field 2001) or graduates applying for jobs (Greenbaumet al. 1996). This concern is particularly prominent inprofessions where there exists prejudice – albeit unsub-stantiated – that dyslexia might compromise publicsafety, for instance in the field of nursing (Morris &Turnbull 2007).

A number of study skills have been identified aspotentially problematic for dyslexic students, includingnote taking while watching and listening to a lecturer,and writing texts for the purpose of assessment (Morti-more & Crozier 2006). In particular, structuring andorganizing a coherent text in order to demonstrateknowledge effectively have been identified as a majorproblem among dyslexic learners (MacKay 1997;Riddick et al. 1997). Impairments in terms of phono-logical decoding, phonological analysis, and phono-logical processing have been described as commonamong dyslexic adults (Felton et al. 1990; Pennington

2 L. Habib et al.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

et al. 1990; Hatcher et al. 2002), all of which normallyimpact negatively on academic performance. Dyslexiais often associated with problems with semantics,grammar, and mechanics, which have a negative effecton written syntax (Gregg et al. 2007). In addition, bothpreparing a précis and proof-reading have been shownto cause difficulties to dyslexic students (Hatcher et al.2002). Deficits in arithmetic fact fluency and in opera-tions among dyslexic students have also been reported(Vukovic et al. 2010).

Anxiety and self-esteem are recurrent themes in theliterature on dyslexic student experience in higher edu-cation (Price 2006; Price & Gale 2006; Madriaga 2007).A number of sources, including Carroll and Iles (2006)and Riddick (2010), report higher levels of anxietyamong dyslexic students than among their non-dyslexicpeers, both in terms of academic work and in social set-tings. The frequent occurrence of low self-esteemamong dyslexic students is also an issue, especiallybecause low self-esteem is often connected with lowacademic achievement (Banks & Woolfson 2008). Inparticular, the fact that disabled learners are repeatedlyconfronted with negative comments regarding theirlearning and thinking competence may result in themperceiving themselves as inadequate as learners andthinkers (Burke 2002).

Despite the existence of legislation and guidelinesaimed to make technological products and resourcesaccessible to all, there are indications that many of thetechnologies used in a learning context are not univer-sally designed (Hepworth 2007). One way to bridgethis gap would be to ensure that all technology-basededucational tools and resources, including VLEs, aredesigned to be usable by all people, to the greatestextent possible, without the need for adaptation or spe-cialized design (Centre for Universal Design 1997). Forinstance, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines(WCAG), which contain a range of recommendationsfor making web pages accessible to users with disabili-ties, recommend that hyperlinks should indicate thecontent of their destination (W3C 2008). Nevertheless,several web pages that offer learning content containhyperlinks that do not indicate in any way what will beshown when activating the hyperlink. For example,hyperlinks that only display unspecific text such as‘read more’ or ‘click here’ are quite common. Whentaken out of context, which may occur with the use ofscreen readers, these labels do not provide the user with

sufficient information to make a decision on whichhyperlink to select. The WCAG 2.0 list several addi-tional criteria related to content, such as mechanisms foridentifying specific pronunciation of ambiguous words,definitions of special words, expanded forms of abbre-viations, and supplemental content or versions, all ofwhich are meant to make content accessible to readerswho do not have a reading ability beyond lower second-ary education level. Few VLEs satisfy these criteria,which would have made the content more accessible forpersons with dyslexia who generally struggle withreading comprehension. Consequently, VLEs are notalways easily accessible to dyslexic users.

Methodology

This study was conducted within the realm of a widerresearch on students with dyslexia and their use ofVLEs, including interviews, questionnaires, and labora-tory experiments. The study consisted of gatheringqualitative data through semi-structured interviewswith 12 adults with dyslexia who either were enrolled asstudents in an institution of higher education or hadgraduated during the past year. All the interviewees hadbeen formally diagnosed with dyslexia during theirprimary or secondary schooling, through an officialpsycho-assessment procedure. This procedure normallyincludes a series of Norwegian language-specificdyslexia screening tests, and is routinely carried out by aspecial needs educator or a psychologist when suspi-cions arise that a student may have learning disabilities.The respondents were recruited via various channels,including a mailing list of students registered with dys-lexia within the researchers’ institution, variousdyslexia-related websites, and social media. The age ofthe informants ranged from 19 to 36.

All the informants were interviewed twice: oncebefore and once after an experiment where they per-formed a series of tasks on the VLE Fronter, wherebytheir eye movements were recorded with the help of aneye-tracking device. All first interviews lasted between30 and 60 min, and were conducted by one of tworesearchers responsible for this part of the study. Theinterviews were carried out with the help of an interviewguide designed by the whole group of researchersinvolved in the research project. The guide for the firstinterview consisted of four sets of 40 questions in total,including follow-up questions, covering four broad

Dyslexic students in higher education and VLE 3


areas: general digital literacy, experience with VLEs,use of assistive technology, and psychological issues.The questions were relatively open, and gave the par-ticipants an opportunity to discuss aspects of VLEs theyconsidered important, for instance ‘How often do youuse VLEs?’, ‘Which tasks are problematic?’, and‘Which tasks are unproblematic?’. The intervieweeswere also asked to estimate their own competence andlevel of experience, but no formal scale was used(although a Likert scale was used in the questionnaires).The second interview was carried out according toanother guide consisting of 10 relatively open questionsrelated to what had happened during the experiments. Inparticular, the informants were given the opportunity toreflect and comment on the tasks they had been asked tocarry out as part of the experiment, their level of diffi-culty, and the type of problems encountered. Within therealm of the experiment, the students performed 12 dif-ferent tasks in a fictive room in the VLE Fronter,designed to match the students’ ordinary use of VLEs asrealistically as possible. Examples of tasks were down-loading documents, finding lecture presentations, andusing discussions forums. The students’ interactionwith the system was observed by one or two researchers,and their eye movements were registered by an eyetracker.

All the interviews were audio-recorded and tran-scribed in full, except for two, due to defective audioequipment. The analysis of the data was performed bothon the basis of the broad categories that had been identi-fied when forming the interview guide, and on the basisof new categories that emerged from the interviewsthemselves. Those categories were developed andrefined throughout the analysis process, which led tosome of them being joined while others were split intotwo or more subcategories. In addition, some of the newthemes emerging from the data had to be left asidebecause they did not contribute directly to sheddinglight on the problem at hand.

All the respondents were also given a questionnaireto fill in, as did 12 non-dyslexic respondents. The ques-tionnaire focused on gathering quantitative data on therespondents’ age, educational level, academic disci-pline, as well as their familiarity with and general use ofICT, including VLEs and social media.

The research project within which this study wascarried out has obtained an official license delivered bythe Data Inspectorate within the realm of Norwegian

Social Science Data Services, which acts as the privacyombudsman for all the Norwegian institutions ofhigher education. Such a license entails adhering to anumber of legal and ethical guidelines for research, allof which have been followed strictly for the wholeresearch project. In particular, all the participants in thestudy have been explicitly given the opportunity towithdraw from the study at any time without having toprovide any reason, and to see the transcript of theirinterviews.

Presentation of the data

In this section, we present data that have been gatheredfrom the interviews with dyslexic students. It is to benoted that we have chosen to focus on the issues thatseem to be recurring among dyslexic students, and havepurposely left aside issues that emerged from the ques-tionnaires as being problematic for both dyslexic andnon-dyslexic respondents.

General digital proficiency

Some of the interviewees evaluate their digital profi-ciency as better than the average student. Those who dofeel more proficient and confident vis-à-vis computertechnology are mostly students who have had an earlydyslexia diagnosis, and have been allowed to use com-puters more than their non-disabled counterparts, as away to compensate for their disability. Those inter-viewees who have received most positive feedback withregard to their own digital skills report that they haveexperienced that being unusually digitally proficient(one interviewee refers for example to himself as ‘acomputer genius’) has been a source of status amongpeers. As one of the interviewees expresses it, ‘When itcomes to computing, I am not as dyslexic as many think’.It is to be noted, however, that several of the intervieweeshad been recruited from a bachelor programme in com-puting at a faculty of engineering, and their computerskills are, therefore, not representative of those of theaverage student in Norwegian higher education.

Nevertheless, the majority of dyslexic intervieweesbelieve that their computing skills can best be describedas average or lower than average. When asked to guesswhy this is the case, most of those mention a lack ofinterest as part of the problem.

4 L. Habib et al.


Some [of my co-students] are very much interested [incomputers] and have found plenty of shortcuts and thingsgo really fast [for them]. Myself, I’m not that interested.

Reading skills

It is interesting to note that there is no unanimityamong the interviewees as to whether they experiencereading on screen or on paper as most functional. Someprefer reading books and paper-based compendiarather than a text on a screen. Those explain that having‘the whole text in front’ of them allows them to get abetter comprehension of what the text is about and howit is structured. It also makes it easier to mark theimportant passages. Reading on screen is often experi-enced as difficult, especially when it comes to keepingthe focus on a text that is crowded with picturesand links, and where navigation requires the use ofthe scrollbar. In addition, commercials that are morecommon on online texts than on books are reported tobe disruptive, especially when they include elementsthat are blinking or moving.

A minority of interviewees report having problemsreading text that spans over several columns, whichprompts them to choose to read newspaper articlesonline to avoid having to relate to column-based text.However, they report that the problem remains unsolved(and may even be augmented) if the online version ofthe text also spans over several columns, which is oftenthe case in portable document format (PDF) versions ofjournal articles.

Writing skills and writing activities

Close to all the interviewees report that they experiencetrouble with writing. Here again, there is a notablevariety of experiences as far as computer-based writingis concerned. Some interviewees report that using akeyboard reduces their speed of writing. The kind ofdifficulties they describe is known from, for exampleLongcamp et al. (2010), who explain that the type ofeye–hand coordination acquired in primary schoolwhen learning how to handwrite is of a very differenttype from what is required when using a keyboardand a screen. One interviewee also pinpoints thatshe experiences writing with a computer as difficultbecause ‘it is not my handwriting there’, which makesit difficult for her to recognize the texts she has typed asher own.

However, many interviewees report that writingusing a word processor is positive in that it saves themtime, notably because the spellchecker and the grammarchecker highlight mistakes that they would not havedetected by themselves without rereading their writtentext several times. One informant explains that sheprefers to use a word processor when writing assign-ments because she has developed an ‘ugly’ handwritingas a strategy to mask her spelling mistakes in school,preferring to get scolded for her handwriting than losingpoints over spelling mistakes. The majority of the dys-lexic informants (although not all) use assistive technol-ogy for dyslexia such as writing support tools includinga talking word processor. Such tools are routinely usedby those students who wish to quickly identify andcorrect errors that may have occurred in their texts.

Some of the interviewees recount having experiencedthat the chat functions, which are available both withinand outside the VLE, are awkward to use. The mainproblem they are confronted with when using chat-based tools is not being able to keep up with the speed ofcommunication both as far as writing and reading areconcerned. Another problem is that chat terminology isexperienced as confusing due to the significant amountof acronyms, abbreviations, and other types of Internetjargon, which are frequently and matter-of-factly usedby non-dyslexic users. As one of the informantsexplains:

When I [realize that I] had to get acquainted with ‘LOL’and [other] abbreviations . . . Goodness me! . . . ThereI’m way behind! I hate . . . What is all that about anyway?. . . I’m really far from being familiar with this chat lan-guage. I have to write whole sentences, otherwise it [thetext] makes no sense to me. . . . Isn’t it possible to makethings easier: just writing everything in full?

Most of the interviewees report using social media.However, many of them are reluctant to post written textthat is directly linked to them on pages that can poten-tially be accessed by anyone or by a large amount ofunknown readers. Their reluctance is generally due todisinclination towards making their difficulties relatedto writing known to the outside world.

I’m not like super active (on social media). I don’t likewriting. [I see] that many people are updating [theirstatus] several times every day. I’m not that interested [indoing the same] because in a way I have the feeling thatthere will be spelling mistakes [in what I write]. So then Ican’t be bothered.



Although group work is getting an increasinglycentral place in Norwegian higher education, there areindications that students with dyslexia would prefer notto have to engage in assessed collaborative work asoften as is currently required. Many describe feelingshame at not being able to contribute to the writing of acollaborative assignment as much as their non-dyslexicco-students.

I am generally reluctant to write when I know that aco-student is going to read [what I have written]. BecauseI know that this person is not going to understand [what Imeant with it]. [. . .] I dread group work because there isgoing to be someone who will be sitting and reading atext that I would have hoped Mum or Dad could havegone through before they see it.

Those findings are in line with the literature on highereducation students with dyslexia (Madriaga 2007) orother disabilities (Madriaga et al. 2010), such as forexample Asperger’s syndrome (Madriaga & Goodley2010).

Psychological factors

There are indications that, despite a clear anti-discrimination legislative apparatus and pro-inclusionpolicies at the institutional levels, these dyslexic stu-dents find that their special needs are ignored or disre-garded due to attitudinal barriers. In particular, manyinformants relate stories about not having had the helpthey require within the educational system, which sug-gests that some mainstream educators might not havein-depth knowledge about the educational needs of dys-lexic students. Some even relate cases of verbal abusefrom teachers or peers, which we choose not to relate indetail here to preserve the anonymity of the informants.The following quotes, however, are illustrative of thedistress experienced by some dyslexic students in anacademic environment.

In order to get help from the teacher, you have to resort tothreats about getting them sacked.

People react so ruthlessly to misspelling that it’s not funto get the feedbacks you easily can get from randomreaders.

I am dependent on being in situations where those I meetaren’t extremely focused and kind of fanatic about spell-ing, that one doesn’t judge others’ intelligence onthe basis of their spelling. Because there are quite a fewthat do.

It is apparent from the interviews that several infor-mants are concerned about being labelled or branded.Many are reluctant to disclose their dyslexia diagnosisfor fear of discrimination and social stigmatization. Forexample, one interviewee remarks that:

One doesn’t want others to know that one has a dyslexiadiagnosis when looking for a job and stuff, so it’s anadvantage that people don’t know about it. But at thesame time you don’t want to end up in an environmentwhere it’s considered a major problem.

The existence of a social stigma associated withdyslexia has abundantly been documented in the litera-ture (Mortimore & Crozier 2006). The fact that studentswith dyslexia are being deterred from making theirdisability known to others is also in line with the litera-ture (Tinklin & Hall 1999; Fitzgibbon & O’Connor2002).

Several informants in our study have struggled withtheir disability many years before being diagnosed ashaving dyslexia. For some of those, not having a cleardiagnosis has led to their being branded with negativeattributes, such as laziness, obtuseness, and feeblemind-edness, which they in turn have internalized as truth, aprocess that is well known from the literature (Burke2002).

However, not all depictions of the dyslexic learner’sdaily experiences are unilaterally negative. Severalinformants describe how the special skills that they havedeveloped despite and perhaps partly because of theirdisability provide them with an auspicious reputationand an undeniable status within their peer group. Forexample, one informant recalls feeling gratified andvaluable when his computer–technical skills enable himto be a help to others within the realm of a course.

In some cases, openness about one’s diagnosis isused as a strategy to increase general awareness andunderstanding about dyslexia. Some informants,although they are a minority, express that they pur-posely make their dyslexia known to others. In particu-lar, one of them deliberately chooses not to correct herspelling mistakes when writing on open forums, such asweb pages and blogs:

I write a lot of reader comments there [on a politicalparty’s webpage]. And those I purposely try not tocorrect, so that they [the readers] will get an understand-ing that I actually am dyslexic. I have fought a lot for thecase of dyslexics in [my political party].

6 L. Habib et al.


Use of the VLE

At the outset, it must be noted that VLE use variesgreatly according to which study programmes the inter-viewees are following or have followed. Some coursesrely more heavily on the VLE than others both in termsof content publishing and in terms of communicationforms. In particular, a few departments are activelyencouraging teaching staff to use the VLE in order tofoster various forms of online student–student interac-tion, such as collaborative writing, providing feedbackto co-students’ drafts, discussing academic matters onmessage boards, etc.

Some of the functions of the VLE are described asawkward and counter-intuitive by the dyslexic inter-viewees. In particular, the upload function of one of theVLE used, although it is crucial for handing in assign-ments online, is often described by the interviewees asfar from straightforward. They report not being able toremember ‘where to click’ and in what order, whichoften makes them dependent on their co-students tohand in their assignments, especially during the firstsemesters of their programme. Another feature of theVLE that causes problems to several informants is thatthe password they are provided with may be difficult toinput:

[Amajor difficulty] was to manage to enter this passwordof theirs properly. Because there were a lot of ups anddowns and you had have upper-case letters and lower-case letters . . . so it was a bit tricky.

Introductory courses to the VLE are offered at severalof the institutions and faculties to which the informantsbelong, but they are often described as ineffective,either because they are scheduled at the very beginningof the course, long before actual use of the VLE isrequired, or because they only provide help with func-tions that are little used in the course.

All the interviewees mention that they experience theVLE as chaotic or confusing to a greater or lesser extent.Many interviewees report that parts of the VLE, espe-cially the welcome page, contain an overload of irrel-evant information, for example, a calendar, a numbershowing how many people are logged in, etc. Also,several interviewees recount getting confused in anenvironment that provides them with information aboutclasses, courses, or programmes that are not relevant totheir own study programme. They call for a more indi-

vidualized set-up, where only information related to auser’s own classes and seminars would be visible on theVLE. Such issues of individualization or personaliza-tion are also at the core of much of the literature onaccessibility (e.g. Cremers & Neerincx 2004).

The very interface of the VLE is the source of anumber of problems. Some interviewees describe theterminology used in the VLE as illogical and counter-intuitive, for example the use of the word ‘room’ to des-ignate a course (as reported also in Sandnes et al. 2008).Also, some of the courses followed by the informantsuse a particular menu set-up in English, which is anextra challenge for dyslexic students in Norway, forwhom English generally is a second language. This is inline with the literature, which indicates that the use of asecond language is often problematic for persons withdyslexia (Ganschow & Sparks 1995). In particular, thelack of transparency that characterizes English orthog-raphy can have a negative impact on dyslexic learners(Csizér et al. 2010).

The interviewees mention that the word processingtools in the VLEs used in their courses do not normallycome with a built-in spellchecker. This significant short-coming results in the interviewees shunning the VLEs’word processing functions, and favouring the standardword processing software available outside the VLE. Inaddition, several informants reveal that they keep awayfrom the search functions on the VLE that are experi-enced as inadequate to their needs since they do notmake any allowances for typological or spelling mis-takes. This is particularly problematic as the searchfunctions of the VLE are often the only alternative toexploring a complex folder structure requiring exten-sive use of the mouse.

The VLEs used by the informants of this study have afolder structure with an unbounded number of subfolderlevels that are often deep. This structure comes across asconfusing to all the dyslexic interviewees, especiallywhen they are looking for information that is located inone of the subfolders that are not visible from the frontpage. As one of the interviewees tellingly illustrates,‘[the VLE] is a big jungle with many small folders hereand there’. An additional difficulty is that some of thefolder or subfolder names do not reflect their content, oronly do so partly. Issues of menu structures have alsobeen discussed more generally in the literature onhuman–computer interaction (Landauer & Nachbar1985; Cockburn et al. 2007). In particular, Hick’s law,



which predicts that humans prefer broad shallow menustructures and dislike deep structures (Hick 1952), isuseful to understand preferred pattern of use of menu-based software such as VLEs.

It is common within a university programme that lec-turers make course material available on the VLEthroughout the courses. However, as many of the infor-mants remark, lecturers rarely provide precise enoughinformation about which folder or subfolder the files arelocated in. This results in students having to spend whatthey experience as unreasonable amounts of time navi-gating the folder structure to find the required material.One of the interviewees suggests using colour, forexample making a folder icon change colour from blackto red when it contains a document that has not yet beenopened by the user. However, it is important to note that,from a general universal design perspective, an infor-mation signal that would be solely based on a colourscheme would need to be combined with another, non-colour-dependent clue so as not to exclude colour-blindusers.

Another pedagogical practice reported as confusingis that different lecturers use different platforms topublish information and material related to theircourses, for example their faculty’s web page as well asthe VLE. Several interviewees express a clear prefer-ence for having all the information in one place, forexample on the VLE. Another difficulty described bysome interviewees is that the VLE is, in some courses,used both for social and for academic purposes, result-ing in both types of information being displayed in thesame place, and rendering the filtering process more dif-ficult for dyslexic users.

Some of the informants underline the lack of flexibil-ity of the VLE, for example with regard to deadlines.When a deadline is set for handing in assignments on theVLE, it generally applies to the whole class. Extendingthe deadline in order to cater for students with addi-tional needs requires for the course tutor to implementspecifically a separate deadline for those students. Itemerges from the interviews that such a procedure is notalways followed, resulting in students with additionalneeds having to circumvent the systems by using e-mailor even physically delivering a hard copy of the assign-ment to the course tutor, which makes the process ofhanding in assignments unnecessarily cumbersome.

Changes in the class schedule seem to be a recurrentproblem, and the fact that some courses use exclusively

the VLE to register those changes is experienced asproblematic. Some informants, although they are aminority, report that they have gone through a period ofreluctance towards using the VLE, mostly when con-fronted with an unfamiliar system, or a system that theydid not feel they mastered adequately. Such a disinclina-tion to use the VLE has had consequences on their learn-ing experience. Several informants have experiencednot receiving information because they could not copewith logging onto the VLE every day or because theyfailed to check for updates after working hours.

Several informants that have used VLEs in differentinstitutions have also experienced having to adapt to anew VLE, which is often portrayed as challenging:

If you have a system which you know [well], it’s reallynot a terribly good idea to take the whole thing apart andstart from scratch. It requires so much energy and timefor someone [. . .] who has learning disabilities.

Discussion and conclusion

The study described herein has been exploratory innature and was carried out only on a modest scale. Weare aware that there is an unavoidable bias associatedwith a process of self-selection of respondents, as indi-viduals who have experienced much difficulty related todyslexia may be more inclined to participate in such astudy. It, therefore, needs to be stressed that this study isin no way intended to be comprehensive or even repre-sentative, and that it is part of a bigger study wherequantitative data will play a major role. In particular, thepresence of students enrolled in a computer science pro-gramme among the respondents is to be noted, as thoseare not typical of higher education students in their atti-tude towards technology. However, the interview datapresented here do provide some insights in VLE useamong a particular group of dyslexic students. Thepicture that emerges from the interviews, althoughit is multifaceted, points towards a number of generalchallenges as far as dyslexic student use of VLEsis concerned.

The data from this study suggest that many of theVLEs used for the courses taken by our informants tendto display an overload of irrelevant information, render-ing it difficult for dyslexic users to access the informa-tion concerning them. The fact that the search enginesintegrated in VLEs normally do not compensate forspelling mistakes also contributes to making the process

8 L. Habib et al.


of information retrieval cumbersome and time-consuming. The ‘deep’ folder structure that character-izes many VLEs is not always conducive to effectiveinformation retrieval, and may contribute to alienatingstudents that are experiencing difficulties navigatingthrough a ‘jungle’ of folders and subfolders.

Different institutions use different VLEs, and it alsohappens that two or more VLEs are used within thesame institution. It is, therefore, to be expected that stu-dents will have to get acquainted with different VLEsthroughout their academic journey. The data from thisstudy suggest that the transition from one VLE toanother is not straightforward for students with dys-lexia. In particular, moving from one VLE to anotheroften means having to get used to a new logic, a new ter-minology, and a new graphic design, all of whichrequires a significant investment in terms of time andenergy for a dyslexic user. Those findings suggest thatintroductory courses that are provided as close in timeas possible to actual academic work with VLEs andhands-on support when carrying out VLE-based assign-ments might be required for dyslexic students who arenot familiar with the particular VLE used for their studyprogramme.

In addition, the fact that different lecturers within asame programme have different patterns of use of aVLE, ranging from using it as the sole informationchannel for the course to totally ignoring it, appears tobe challenging for some dyslexic students. Such find-ings point to the necessity of thinking thoroughlythrough the way VLEs are used as a communicationchannel, and of investigating possibilities of harmoniz-ing VLE use within a course or a study programme.

In sum, the data point towards a need for improve-ments not only in the actual physical design of VLEs,but also in the pedagogical and didactical design ofcourses, including offering practical support in the earlyphases of VLE use, ensuring that the VLE-basedcourses are presented in a consistent and transparentmanner, and working towards as much homogeneity aspossible in terms of VLE use across the same study pro-gramme.

Among the study skills that are identified in the litera-ture as problematic for dyslexic students, identifyingrelevant material and writing text for the purpose ofassessment (as mentioned in Mortimore & Crozier2006) appear to be among the main areas of difficultyfor the dyslexic interviewees. The findings in the study

suggest that problems with relating to large amounts ofmaterial and with organizing complex ideas in text formcan be augmented for dyslexic students who have torelate to a VLE. It may, therefore, be suggested thatstudy programmes that rely heavily on VLEs offerintroductory courses that focus particularly on develop-ing the students’ proficiency in effectively navigatingthe programme’s VLE or VLEs, as well as their skills increating and building the various types of online textdocuments that are required in the programme.

The insights related here will form the basis of furtherinvestigations of qualitative and quantitative nature onthe topic of VLE use among dyslexic and non-dyslexicstudents within the realm of the wider project withinwhich this study is inscribed. Related diagnoses such asdyspraxia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia have not beentaken into account within this study, and may be thefocus of further research into VLEs and learningdisabilities.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by an Oslo University Collegegrant within the realm of the Technology, Design andEnvironment programme. The authors are grateful tothe volunteers who participated in the study.

References

Banks M. & Woolfson L. (2008) Why do students think theyfail?: the relationship between attributions and academicself-perceptions. British Journal of Special Education 35,49–56.

Blankfield S. (2001) Thick, problematic and costly?: the dys-lexic student on work placement. Skill 70, 23–26.

Brown S. (2010) From VLEs to learning Webs: the implica-tions of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. InteractiveLearning Environments 18, 1–10.

Burke P. (2002) Accessing Education: Effectively WideningParticipation. Trentham Books, Stoke on Trent.

Burns E. & Bell S. (2010) Voices of teachers with dyslexia inFinnish and English further and higher educational settings.Teachers and Teaching 16, 529–543.

Carroll J.M. & Iles J.E. (2006) An assessment of anxietylevels in dyslexic students in higher education. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology 76, 651–662.

Centre for Universal Design (1997) The Principles of Univer-sal Design. Available at: http://www.ncsu.edu/project/design-projects/udi/center-for-universal-design/the-



principles-of-universal-design/ (last accessed 22 February2012).

Cockburn A., Gutwin C. & Greenberg S. (2007) A predictivemodel of menu performance. Proceedings of the SIGCHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.April 28-May 03, San Jose, California, USA.

Cremers A.H.M. & Neerincx M.A. (2004) Personalisationmeets accessibility: towards the design of individual userinterfaces for all. In User-Centered Interaction Paradigmsfor Universal Access in the Information Society: LectureNotes in Computer Science (eds C. Stary & C. Stephanidis),pp. 119–124. Springer, Berlin.

Csizér K., Kormos J. & Sarkadi Á. (2010) The dynamics oflanguage learning attitudes and motivation: lessons from aninterview study of dyslexic language learners. The ModernLanguage Journal 94, 470–487.

Dittrich W.H. & Tutt R. (2008) Educating Children withComplex Conditions: Understanding Overlapping andCo-Existing Developmental Disorders. Sage, London.

Dysthe O. (2007) How a reform affects writing in higher edu-cation. Studies in Higher Education 32, 237–252.

Faulkner J. & Blyth C. (1996) Dyslexia in higher education:an abuse of the system? Educational Studies 22, 357–366.

Felton R.H., Naylor C.E. & Wood F. (1990) Neuropsychologi-cal profiles of adult dyslexics. Brain and Language 39,485–497.

Fitzgibbon G. & O’Connor B. (2002) Adult Dyslexia: A Guidefor the Workplace. John Wiley, Chichester.

Ganschow L. & Sparks R. (1995) Learning a foreign lan-guage: challenges for students with language learning diffi-culties. Dyslexia 1, 75–95.

Greenbaum B., Graham S. & Scales W. (1996) Adultswith learning disabilities: occupational and social statusafter college. Journal of Learning Disabilities 29, 167–173.

Gregg N., Coleman C., Davis M. & Chalk J.C. (2007) Timedessay writing: implications for high-stakes tests. Journal ofLearning Disabilities 40, 306–318.

Hadjikakou K. & Hartas D. (2008) Higher education provi-sion for students with disabilities in Cyprus. Higher Educa-tion 55, 103–119.

Hampton G. & Godsen R. (2004) Fair play for students withdisability. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Man-agement 26, 225–238.

Hatcher J., Snowling M.J. & Griffiths Y.M. (2002) Cognitiveassessment of dyslexic students in higher education. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology 72, 119–133.

Hepworth M. (2007) Knowledge of information behaviourand its relevance to the design of people-centred informa-tion products and services. Journal of Documentation 63,33–56.

Hick W.E. (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Quar-terly Journal of Experimental Psychology 4, 11–26.

Landauer T.K. & Nachbar D.W. (1985) Selection from alpha-betic and numeric menu trees using a touch screen: breadth,depth, and width. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 1985 Con-ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (eds L.Borman & B. Curtis), pp. 73–78. ACM, NewYork.

Longcamp M., Lagarrigue A. & Velay J.-L. (2010) Contribu-tion of eye movements to visual recognition of letters. Psy-chologie Francaise 55, 181–194.

Luna C. (2009) ‘But how can those students make it here?’:examining the institutional discourse about what it means tobe ‘LD’ at an Ivy League university. International Journalof Inclusive Education 13, 157–178.

MacKay N. (1997) Study skills for dyslexics: how to helpindividuals without always giving individual help. Dyslexia3, 235–239.

Maddux C.D. & Johnson D.L. (2010) Information technologyin higher education: tensions and barriers. Computers in theSchools 27, 71–75.

Madriaga M. (2007) Enduring disablism: students with dys-lexia and their pathways into UK higher education andbeyond. Disability and Society 22, 399–412.

Madriaga M. & Goodley D. (2010) Moving beyond theminimum: socially just pedagogies &Asperger’s syndromein UK higher education. International Journal of InclusiveEducation 14, 115–131.

Madriaga M., Hanson K., Heaton C., Kay H., Newitt S. &Walker A. (2010) Confronting similar challenges?: dis-abled and non-disabled students’ learning and assessmentexperiences. Studies in Higher Education 35, 647–658.

Michelsen S. & Aamodt P.O. (2006) Kvalitetsreformen møtervirkeligheten: rvaluering av Kvalitetsreformen, Delrapport1 (The Quality Reform meets reality: evaluation of theQuality Reform, Report no. 1). NIFU STEP/University ofBergen, Oslo.

Morris D.K. & Turnbull P.A. (2007) The disclosure of dys-lexia in clinical practice: experiences of student nurses inthe United Kingdom. Nurse Education Today 27, 37–42.

Mortimore T. & Crozier W.R. (2006) Dyslexia and difficultieswith study skills in higher education. Studies in HigherEducation 31, 235–251.

Pavey B., Meehan M. & Waugh A. (2010) Dyslexia-FriendlyFurther & Higher Education. Sage, London.

Pennington B.F., Orden G.C.V., Smith S.D., Green P.A. &Haith M.M. (1990) Phonological processing skills and defi-cits in adult dyslexics. Child Development 61, 1753–1778.

Price G.A. (2006) Creative solutions to making the technol-ogy work: three case studies of dyslexic writers in highereducation. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 14,21–38.

10 L. Habib et al.


Price G.A. & Gale A. (2006) How do dyslexic nursing stu-dents cope with clinical practice placements?: the impact ofthe dyslexic profile on the clinical practice of dyslexicnursing students: pedagogical issues and considerations.Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 4, 19–36.

Pumfrey P.D. (2008) Moving towards inclusion? The first-degree results of students with and without disabilities inhigher education in the UK: 1998–2005. European Journalof Special Needs Education 23, 31–46.

Riddell S. & Weedon E. (2006) What counts as a reasonableadjustment?: dyslexic students and the concept of fairassessment. International Studies in Sociology of Educa-tion 16, 57–73.

Riddick B. (2003) Experiences of teachers and trainee teach-ers who are dyslexic. International Journal of InclusiveEducation 7, 389–402.

Riddick B. (2010) Living with Dyslexia: The Social and Emo-tional Consequences of Specific Learning Difficulties/Disabilities, 2nd edition. Routledge, London.

Riddick B., Farmer M. & Sterling C. (1997) Students and Dys-lexia: Growing up with a Specific Learning Difficulty.Whurr, London.

Sandnes F.E., Jian H.L. & Hagen S. (2008) Student evaluationof a learning management system from an HCI perspective.In Innovations 2008: World Innovations in EngineeringEducation and Research (eds W. Aung, J. Mecsi, J. Moscin-ski, I. Rouse & P. Willmot), pp. 473–486. iNEER, BegellHouse Publishing, Arlington, MA.

Smythe I., Everatt J. & Salter R. (2004) International Book ofDyslexia: A Guide to Practice and Resources. John Wiley &Sons, Chichester, UK.

Tinklin T. & Hall J. (1999) Getting round obstacles: disabledstudents’ experiences in higher education in Scotland.Studies in Higher Education 24, 183–194.

Vickerman P. & Blundell M. (2010) Hearing the voices of dis-abled students in higher education. Disability & Society 25,21–32.

Vukovic R.K., Lesaux N.K. & Siegel L.S. (2010) The math-ematic skills of children with reading difficulties. Learningand Individual Differences 20, 639–643.

W3C (2008) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)2.0. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (lastaccessed 10 March 2011).



dyslexic students in higher education and virtual learning environments: an exploratory study

Documents