using pupil perspective research to inform teacher pedagogy: what caribbean pupils with dyslexia say...

Using pupil perspective research to inform teacherpedagogy: what Caribbean pupils with dyslexia sayabout teaching and learningjrs3_1197 178..185

Stacey BlackmanUniversity of the West Indies, Barbados

Key words: Caribbean pupils, dyslexia, pedagogy, pupil voice, secondary school.

The transformative potential of pupils’ voices is welldocumented in past research by Pedder and McIn-tyre; and Cooper and McIntyre. In this qualitativeresearch, I utilise a social constructivist frameworkby Vygotsky to ask pupils with dyslexia about thekinds of teacher strategies that they find helpful totheir learning at secondary school in Barbados. Thisstudy utilised direct observations and individualinterviews as part of a multiple case study strategyof 16 pupils with dyslexia from two secondaryschools in Barbados. Findings suggest that thereare regular teachers’ strategies like more detailedexplanations, demonstrations, drama and role play,storytelling, asking questions and enquiry-basedapproaches that pupils find facilitative of theirlearning. This research is guided by the followingquestions: (1) what do pupils mean when they referto teacher strategies as helpful?; and (2) what peda-gogical approaches do pupils with dyslexia findhelpful to their learning at secondary school?

IntroductionDyslexia has been described as a neurobiological condition,which persists into adulthood and which mainly affects anindividual’s ability to develop proficiency in reading, use oflanguage and other psychological processes. Research byLyon, Shaywitz and Shaywitz (2003) outlines some of thedifficulties associated with dyslexia; they note that:

‘dyslexia is a specific learning disability that isneurobiological in origin. It is characterised bydifficulties with accurate and or fluent wordrecognition and by poor spelling and decodingabilities. These difficulties typically result from adeficit in the phonological component of language thatis often unexpected in relation to other cognitiveabilities and the provision of effective classroominstruction. Secondary consequences may includeproblems in reading comprehension and reducedreading experience that can impede growth ofvocabulary and background knowledge.’ (Lyon et al.,2003, p. 2).

Although dyslexia and its effects on students’ ability to readand learn have been widely researched at the internationallevel, the same cannot be said of the Caribbean region. Fewstudies to date have been conducted on the linguistic mani-festations of dyslexia among Caribbean peoples whose lan-guages are diverse. Within the Caribbean setting, a numberof influences can be identified with respect to the develop-ment of language, and these include: African, English,French and Spanish heritages. In spite of this, pedagogicalwork in the area of dyslexia has begun with research byBlackman (2010) on grouping students with dyslexiafor instruction, the difficulties that students with dyslexiaexperience with learning at secondary school in Barbados(Blackman, 2009) and doing research in the classroomsetting with students with dyslexia (Blackman, 2007). Itseeks to understand the links between pedagogy and theways that Caribbean students with dyslexia engage at thesecondary school level. Much of this work is in its embry-onic stages but represents an attempt to engage in criticalenquiry in an area that is of great importance to teachersand the students they teach. This seminal piece of researchmay be described as a series of work that emanates from amultiple case study done with secondary school studentswith dyslexia. It is premised on the idea that they are regularteacher strategies that facilitate the learning of thesestudents (Davis and Florian, 2004; Hart, 1996; Lewis andNorwich, 2005; Thomas and Loxley, 2001), and these strat-egies can be used to inform best practices in regular educa-tion settings. It seeks to debunk teachers’ notions that onlyspecialist training is needed to teach students with dyslexiaat secondary school. It also assumes that what students saycan help inform teacher pedagogy so that teacher practicedoes not amplify students with dyslexia weaknesses duringinstruction. This observation has been made by Rudduck,Chaplain and Wallace (1996), who indicate that pupils arequite capable of articulating factors that they feel exert agreat influence on their learning.

Theoretical contextThis research utilises social constructivism to understandhow students with dyslexia view teaching and learning atsecondary school in Barbados. In particular, the work ofLev Vygotsky (1978; 1981) is influential in that it suggeststhat the two most powerful factors influencing student

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs · Volume 11 · Number 3 · 2011 178–185doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01197.x

178© 2011 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

achievement and learning are teachers and the environmentcreated for learning. According to Vygotsky (1978), chil-dren’s cognitive development is shaped by the kinds ofinteraction they have within the socio-cultural context ofschool. Within the school setting, this suggests that thekinds of events, activities, approaches to teaching, strate-gies, conversations and tools that teachers expose pupils todirectly influence their cognitive growth. Social interactionand dialogue are accorded some prominence in Vygotskiantheory because they are vehicles that promote and inspirechildren to think about their learning in more complexways. The zone of proximal development describes how thelearning potential of weaker students can be scaffolded andexpanded by more able peers and teachers through class-room interaction. In addition, Vygotsky (1981) also sug-gested that pupils are not mere recipients of information,but through a process of internalisation, children activelyengage with learning and seek to make their learning moremeaningful. Internalisation is facilitated by dialogue inclassroom forums where pupils’ beliefs are challenged bytheir peers, and they are forced to consider perspectivescontrary to their own.

In recent times, there has been a greater focus on using aconstructivist framework to inform pedagogies for studentsin the classroom. Studies by Murphy, Murphy andKilfeather (2010) in Ireland have drawn on constructivismto investigate how children understand and respond to theirteacher’s approaches to teaching science. In the UK,Duckett, Kagan and Sixsmith (2010) have used construc-tivist ideas to elicit participation from stakeholders includ-ing children with respect to designing and creating healthyschool environments. In South Africa, Stears (2009) hasalso investigated how social and critical constructivism caninform developments in the science curriculum. Researchby Powell and Kalina (2010) suggests that optimum teach-ing conditions can be created by utilising strategies, toolsand practices associated with constructivist schools ofthought. This research is congruent with previous pedagogi-cal studies, for example, by Watson (2001), which identified12 principles developed by Brooks and Brooks (1993) thatembodied social constructivist ideas for use in classroomsin Great Britain for students described as having moderatelearning difficulties. One of the principles highlighted inthis social constructivist framework to classroom teachingwas the importance of engaging students in dialogue. In theBrooks and Brooks (1993) model, principle six stated that:‘constructivist teachers encouraged students to engage indialogue with the teacher and with each other’. Watson(2001), in her qualitative research, was able to show thebenefits that accrued for students with learning difficultiesin the classroom context; she notes that: ‘the social aspectsof social constructivism is vitally important . . . especiallyfor students who have learning difficulties, whose metacognitive awareness, use of effective learning strategies andself regulation strategies are likely to be relatively undevel-oped. . .’. Her observations revealed that (1) dialoguehelped to enrich pupils’ learning when ideas were sparkedoff from their peers’ opinions; (2) pupils were stimulatedintellectually when they defended their views against peers’

opposition; (3) pupils’ meta-cognitive awareness increasedwhen they understood varying points of view; (4) pupils feltmore comfortable expressing themselves in groups; and (5)pupils found their learning more engaging and fun.

I document student’s views or, rather, evaluations of thepedagogical context of classrooms in Barbados and suggestthat this kind of feedback can assist teachers in makingdecisions about how to instruct students with dyslexia atsecondary school. This kind of research is importantbecause past studies, for example, by Lopes, Monteiro andSil (2004) in Portugal and Vaughnn and Schumm (1993) inthe USA report that general education teachers usuallyexpress low levels of self-efficacy about their ability toteach students with learning disabilities (Lopes et al.,2004). In the next section, I discuss the benefits to bederived from consulting pupils about teaching and learningin the classroom.

Literature review on pupil perspective researchA great deal of research has been conducted at the interna-tional level on pupil perspective research. To illustrate, inthe UK, studies have been done in the past by Flutter andRudduck (2004) on using pupil perspective to improveschools and inform teacher decision-making, by Pedder andMcIntyre (2004) on consulting pupils about teachingand learning, by Cooper and McIntyre (1996) on pupil’sand teacher’s craft knowledge, and by Rudduck et al.(1996) on pupil participation and school improvement.More recent work has been conducted by Morgan (2009) inthe area of curriculum and Flutter (2007) on the benefits ofpupil perspective to teacher development. Flutter (2007) hasexamined how pupil perspective research can assist pre-service teachers in developing their craft knowledgethrough engaging their pupils in dialogue. Flutter’s (2007)research presents two case studies that were conducted aspart of a larger project at the University of Cambridge inEngland. The study utilised an action research framework torecruit teachers from Exmouth Community College andHastingbury Upper School. Data collection techniques dif-fered at both schools, with the former utilising question-naires, and the latter utilising focus groups to gather pupils’perspectives. Findings unearthed pupils’ views about whatteachers do in the classroom that facilitated their learning,pupils’ preferences for working and aspects of subjects thatpupils enjoyed. The research revealed that pupils hadgenuine concerns about wider school issues like assessmentpractices and school management.

In another study by Kormos, Csizer and Sarkadi (2009) inHungary, pupil perspective research was used to documenthow a group of students – average age of 18 years old – feltabout learning English as a first foreign language. Thisqualitative study collected interview data from 15 students,5 females and 10 males, who received instruction in threedifferent kinds of school settings: a regular educationsetting with and without special language programmes forstudents with Learning Disabilities (LDs), a special com-bined primary and secondary school for students with LDs,and a special secondary school for learners with LDs.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11 178–185

179© 2011 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

The subthemes that emerged from the study suggested thatstudents were concerned about how teachers managed thecognitive and affective domains of learning. Students notedthat teacher attitudes influenced their participation andengagement across all settings in negative and positiveways. A second theme that emerged implicated instructionand assessment strategies. Researchers noted that studentswho received their instruction within the mainstream settingwith a language learning group for students with LDsreported a number of challenges. These included: unclearexplanations about the linguistic rules associated withlearning English, use of rote memorisation of grammarrules, the quick pace of instruction and uninteresting textsand tasks. In addition, peers also did not understand thedifficulties that these students experienced with learningEnglish.

Kormos et al. (2009) note, however, that students’ experi-ences differed in the other two settings. They note thatteachers explained the rules associated with English welland encouraged meaningful rather than superficial process-ing of information. Three participants who received theirinstruction at a special secondary school for learners withLDs found the multi-sensory techniques helpful: like step-by-step, slow and constant revision.

In the USA, the term ‘student voice’ as opposed to pupilperspective is utilised to investigate the contribution thatpupils can make to schooling. As with studies done in theUK and Europe, student voice is used in a variety of waysand to address a number of challenges in the school setting.For example, it has been used to help teachers understandhow students might respond to new teaching approaches. Arecent study conducted by Bernhardt (2009) used autobio-graphical narratives in a ninth-grade social studies class tohelp students explore their own socio-cultural narratives inlight of its relationship to history, new ideas, experiences,cultural beliefs and values espoused within their own con-texts. According to Bernhardt (2009), use of autobiographyenabled him to reflect on his own pedagogical approacheswhile simultaneously affording his students the opportunityto engage in self-enquiry.

In this research, I engage in dialogue with 16 secondaryschool pupils with dyslexia who attend two regular educa-tion settings in the island of Barbados. I investigate whetheror not regular teacher strategies are facilitative of pupils’learning and how teachers’ pedagogical decisions canremain responsive to the needs of all students in the class-rooms. More importantly, I use what students say to informbest practices at the secondary school level. The researchquestion is: What pedagogical approaches do pupils withdyslexia find helpful to their learning at secondary school?

MethodologyProcedures used in the studyThe researcher sought permission from students and theirparents (Masson, 2000) as a condition of participation in thestudy. A Bangor Dyslexia Game (Miles and Miles, 1990),teacher nominations and a statement of dyslexia from a

psychologist were used to establish whether difficultiessuggested by teachers were consistent with those in theliterature. In order to ensure that students’ conversationsand identities remained confidential, interviews were con-ducted in private rooms, and pseudonyms were given toboth teachers and students in the study.

Ethical issues in the researchAccording to Lindsay and Lewis (2000), qualitativeresearch can be intrusive so a timetable was devised forstudents to inform them about the time of observations andto organise data collection and minimise the discomfort ofthe research period. Students were told that they could exitthe study at anytime or indicate more convenient times forobservations if they felt uncomfortable.

The research contextBarbados is an island located off the most eastern part of theWindward Island chain in the Caribbean. It is 166 m2 andhas a population of over 270 000 persons. There areapproximately 23 government secondary schools on theisland, 21 of which are co-educational with the remaining 2being single sexed (Ministry of Education, 2009). The edu-cation system is very similar to that of England, with chil-dren completing 4 years of primary and 5 years ofsecondary education before leaving school at age 16. Intheir last 2 years of secondary education, students areassessed by the Caribbean Examination Council to acquirecertification for entry into a tertiary level institution.

The caseThis research is a case study of 16 pupils ages 14–16 yearsold at two secondary schools, one located in a busy businessdistrict and the other located in a very developed suburbanparish in close proximity to an upscale tourist-orientedmarket. Mallory High is a single-sex girls’ secondaryschool located near the city with a roll of just over 1000students. South West High is a co-education school with apupil roll of 1444 students. All students follow a traditionalhumanities, science or business curriculum.

Data collection proceduresThis research utilised a number of data collection proce-dures to investigate the teaching and learning context, andthese included semi-structured interviews, focus groups,observations and documentary evidence. Focus groupsfamiliarised students about the aims and purpose of thestudy, whereas in-depth one-to-one and peer interviews(Eder and Fingerson, 2000) excavated pupils’ socially con-structed views of their classroom experiences.

Documentary evidence included: students’ academicrecords, classified as private documents by Jupp (1996), andsamples of students’ assignments, and these helped me tomake decisions about what subject areas to observe.

Participant observation and narrative forms of recordingwere used to capture interaction in classroom settings.

Analysing the dataTranscripts were analysed using data reduction proceduresrecommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). This processis outlined in Table 1.


180 © 2011 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

Table 1 describes Miles and Huberman’s (1994) approachto analysing qualitative data.

Descriptive codesDescriptive codes were grounded in the data as suggestedby Miles and Huberman (1994). A start list of 35 codes wasproduced from a sample of pilot study transcripts andapplied to phrases and sentences in the other transcriptscollected in the study. When all the transcripts were coded,a final count of 90 descriptive codes was produced.

Inferential or pattern codingThe next stage of the analysis clustered the descriptivecodes into more abstract categories based on inferences thatemerged from students’ responses to certain questions inthe transcripts; usually, phrases and ideas were repeatedsometimes, and these similarities were later abstracted at amore general level.

The audit trailRigour during the qualitative process was determined byutilising an audit trail that includes the name of the schooland year in school.

MemosMemos were used at the descriptive and inferential stages ofthe analysis to document information about codes and theirrelationships, link ideas in the data together and capture theviews and intuitions of the researcher.

Partially ordered meta-matricesData were visually displayed in a master chart called ameta-matrix, which provides an overview of cases studiedand compressed data in a precise format. These matricesalso mark the first attempt at understanding the linkages,patterns and ideas in the data.

Trustworthiness of data collectedAccording to Mertens and McLaughlin (2004), trustworthi-ness is important to ensuring the credibility of data in quali-

tative research. Member checking (Mertens andMcLaughlin, 2004) was done with contact summary sheets,which helped me to gain pupils’ feedback on observationsand follow-up questions I had from interview sessions.

A reflective journal enhanced transferability of findings andfurther enable member checking procedures in the study.Other measures used in the study to ensure the credibilityand to facilitate cross-checking of data included: audittrails, electronic copies of transcripts, field notes and codingfor the study.

FindingsRegular teacher strategies work too?Students in the study commented on aspects of teacherstrategies that they believed most enhanced their ability tolearn at secondary school. These strategies have been pre-sented in the meta-matrix and compare what pupils said atboth schools. A thematic discussion of the data is producedto show teacher strategies that facilitated learner autonomy,pupil engagement and understanding, and pupils’ preferredmode of communication.

Table 2 presents the meta-matrix findings on teacher strat-egies that students in the study report to be facilitative oftheir learning at Mallory High.

Table 3 presents the meta-matrix findings for students atSouth West High on teacher strategies that they find facili-tative of their learning.

Results from this section of the study about the kinds ofstrategies that pupils find helpful are by no means surpris-ing. As suggested by Flutter and Rudduck (2004), pupils areindeed acutely aware of those teacher strategies that facili-tated their learning, and these can be used to establishbest practices for teaching students with dyslexia in theclassroom.

What is interesting, however, are the meanings that pupilsconvey when they speak about their teachers’ strategies asbeing helpful. These meanings transcend the functionalaspects of teaching and how information is disseminated inthe classroom. They also describe the social milieu of theclassroom and the affect that is created when teachers’personality characteristics are embedded in the strategiesthey employ in the classroom. To illustrate, teacher strate-gies are described as helpful when they:

1. Effectively communicate information so that pupilsovercome any challenges with their learning.

2. Manage teaching and learning environment so that itsupports the cognitive, affective and social aspects oflearning in (1) above.

3. Trigger pupils’ thinking and build a sense of personalagency with respect to thinking and learning

Tables 2 and 3 classify teachers’ strategies in three ways,that is, those that promote learner autonomy, those that

Table 1: Miles and Huberman’s approach to analysingqualitative Data

Data analysis procedure

Procedure Description

Descriptive codes – first

level of analysis

Codes applied to specific phrases,

expressions and paragraphs in the

data

Inferential/pattern coding

framework – first-level

analysis

Superordinate categories based on

the relationships found in

descriptive codes

Memoing – first-level

analysis

Memos documented ideas about

themes that emerged and their

relationships

Partially ordered meta-matrix

– level 2 analysis

The data were further reduced to a

display format to allow for

cross-case analysis

Partitioning of themes Themes that emerged were

discussed



promote engagement and understanding, and the mode ofcommunication and presentation used in the classroom.These are discussed next.

Teacher strategies that facilitate understandingHelping pupils to overcome obstacles through relatingpersonal experiencesPupils in the study were able to identify teacher strategiesthat promoted their understanding; these included: usingsteps, asking questions and giving pointers. However,teacher explanations were the most frequently cited strategythat assisted with clarification of difficult points. Natalie’s,

a year 3 pupil at South West High, account is typical of whatpupils in the study noted; she suggests that explanationswere enriched when teachers revealed techniques that theyutilised to help them manage difficult tasks.

She states that:

‘the teacher makes it really fun and she explains it abit better and also she knows what, how hard it wasfor her to learn when she was younger so she useslike techniques she had to get, and she gives usexamples of them.’ (Natalie, year 3 pupil)

Table 2: The Meta Matrix display for students at Mallory High

Student Learner autonomy Engagement and understandingMode of presentation/

communication

What personalitycharacteristics are

liked by pupils

Lynn Do things for ourselves; didn’t tell

us (answers)

Explanation; tours; use outlines;

give instructions

Demonstrations; maps

Carrie Let us – think and reason for

ourselves

Asks us questions and gives her

notes to class

Charlene Let us – practise; see how much we

know

Questions to do; notes; examples;

discussion

Diagrams – easier to

understand and less words

Acting funny and

cracking jokes

Sue Like how we have to set it up and

put important points

Drama; read and explain; use steps Diagrams; step-by-step

process

Dawn Gives us exercises to do Give notes; explain on board;

correct us; review

Demonstrations on the board

Melanie Gets us to think; see how much we

know

Review; teacher repeating points;

lets them try things first

Annabelle Do comprehension and passages;

she went through the class

Review; explains; gives examples;

reads through; gives points

Margaret Recaps/review work

Table 3: The Meta Matrix display for students at South West High

Student Learner autonomy Engagement and understandingMode of presentation/

communication

What personalitycharacteristics are

liked by pupils

Madge Explanation in detail; giving examples Comparison to everyday life

experiences

Nichole Get students to do work on board;

conduct practical in class

Drama and interaction in class; gives

her notes; storytelling

Makes class lively

Natalie Testing memory in class Ask questions and participation; share

strategies to overcome challenges

Demonstration and diagram Teacher makes class fun

Trae Teacher explanation; helps you speak

English

Charlie Teachers who keep

classes quiet

Andrew Asking questions; asking what

pupils thought; make class fun

Drama; teacher giving keys(pointers) Comparison to everyday life

experiences

Kurt Teachers description helpful

Sean Reading through Handouts, videos



Explanations that give more information andprecise details

‘What are some of the things that (Teacher’s Name)did that made that particular exercise easier to do?Madge: Like explaining it properly and going throughit . . . and the examples, so it was quite easy. Q: yousaid explaining it properly what do you mean by this?Madge: like giving, explain to detail . . . like thedetails.’ (Year 4 pupil)

Understanding was also facilitated through building pupils’skills, and reviewing previous skills taught in class aidedthis process. Dawn’s comments illustrate how this wasaccomplished in English.

Building skills – teacher reviews skills

‘What did you find helpful in today’s class?

Dawn: [The] way she reviewed the essay [writing]was helpful, you see how she did that, that washelpful. [She] does that every time we have essaywriting to do. [the] English language teacher just saysdo it. I actually improved with her . . . [before I wouldwrite and write and write and then at the end give theanswer] . . . this gives me an idea of how compare andcontrasting (essay type questions) was to be done.’(Year 4 pupil)

Pupils also described how demonstrating concepts providedopportunities for them to understand what they needed tolearn.

Demonstrations

‘Q: Tell me what would you prefer instead of just ateacher going on or having somebody read about itand then at the end of that you get homework, tell mewhat kind of structure you would prefer the lesson totake.

Natalie: If they did like, just like the fluctuations, likeif they do a bit of reading and then like they explainedwhat you read, explain what it is supposed to meanand then like show you what it is supposed to mean aswell. Say like in geography today and he was liketalking about the core and we were like reading it.After they read he could have said “do youunderstand”, this is what she meant and diagramshowing what he meant. And then he could havedemonstrated, like say he could have bought in a balland demonstrated, or use like a book to show theplates moving. It would have been a bit better thanhim just reading and giving us homework and writingon the board.’ (Year 3 pupil)

‘Q: Let’s go back to when you say that the geographyteacher could have bought in a ball or drew diagrams,

something to make it more interesting . . . Howimportant is it to you that teachers demonstrate theideas to you.

Natalie: well it’s pretty important . . . a demonstrationmay help it to be easier for you to understand causesay you didn’t understand that the core was thehottest place then the demonstration would have show,okay this is the centre this right in the middle and saythe ball was red then the redness show that this washotter and the green would show that this is not ashot. And if the ball was like a light ball then thiswould be the outside cause this was nice and light am,the demonstration would have helped.’ (Year 3 pupil)

Teacher strategies that promoted autonomyPupils in the study suggested that when teachers allowedthem to practise work on their own, delayed in giving themanswers and gave them experiments or projects to do, thisassisted them with becoming independent learners. Infer-ences about teachers’ use of question and answer sessionssuggested that this strategy allowed teachers to draw pupilsinto classroom activity, as opposed to merely allowingpupils to be spectators within the classroom.

Charlene’s comments were typical of what pupils said; shenoted that answering questions provided her with an oppor-tunity to test her knowledge and practise what was taught.

‘Q: do you think it was enough for him just to bereading out notes or you think it could have been donea different way?

Charlene: He could have gave us questions to do andlet us practice. . . .’ (Year 4 pupil)

Teacher strategies that promoted engagementDrama, storytelling and demonstrations were also men-tioned by pupils as conducive to their learning because itpromoted activities that made pupils engage with theirlearning and the classroom environment fun. Andrew’s, ayear 4 pupil at South West High, comment is typical of whatpupils in the study noted:

‘Andrew: Yeah I find those (drama and storytelling)interesting. Because at one point in time right, shehad the whole class together, like everyone was givingtheir opinions, everyone was mainly together. . . .’(Year 4 pupil)

Physics – the story of the eureka can

‘Q: . . . in terms of physics and the way it was taughtwhat did you find helpful?

Natalie: [Teachers name] . . . she told us like thisstory about the “eureka can” and it was really funnyand it made you remember things. . . .’ (Year 3 pupil)



Sue describes how drama and storytelling make the charac-ters come alive so you can empathise with them.

‘Q: How helpful was the session in helping you tounderstand the section on reaction? Sue: Because itlike shows you how the people reacted more, cause wewere acting so we could see how he was reactingbecause of it.’ (Year 3 pupil)

These comments about drama and storytelling point to theimportance of the affective characteristics of learning andsuggest that learners are not simply stoic characters thatvisit classrooms; they want to enjoy what they are learning.

ConclusionAccording to Neanon (2002): ‘we need to move away fromthe idea that teaching [pupils with dyslexia] is differentfrom teaching other children’ (p. 28). This research suggeststhat there are some regular teacher strategies that are facili-tative of Barbadian pupils with dyslexia’s learning at sec-ondary school. These ideas are supported in the literature byRix, Hall and Nind et al. (2009), Lewis and Norwich (2005)and Davis and Florian (2004), whose research critiquesnotions that radically different teaching approaches areneeded for students with dyslexia and students with specialneeds for them to be successful in mainstream settings(Lewis and Norwich, 2005). On the contrary, Rix et al.(2009) note that there is a growing focus on how regularteaching pedagogies can support the learning of all studentsin the classroom and, in particular, those with dyslexia.

This research utilised a social constructivist framework toidentify teaching pedagogies that are facilitative of pupilswith dyslexia’s learning at secondary school. Barbadianpupils identified helpful teacher strategies like those thatpromoted learner autonomy, understanding and engage-ment. These included: more detailed explanations, questionand answer sessions, and other kinds of enquiry-basedapproaches to learning like project work (Klinger andVaughn, 1999). Other strategies that supported understand-ing and learner engagement included: demonstrations,drama and role play, storytelling and suggesting importantpoints. These strategies are in keeping with those associatedwith social constructivist principles noted in the Brooks andBrooks (1993) model and Watson’s (2001) research, and aresimilar to the ‘dyslexia friendly’ approaches noted by Peerand Read (2001).

Research by McPhillips and Shevlin (2009) and Rix et al.(2009) suggests that there is a common feeling among prac-titioners and teachers that pupils with dyslexia requireintensive remediation by specialist teachers. Although thefindings of this research challenges the notion that teachersin regular settings are not capable of instructing studentswith special needs, it does not contradict the view thatpupils on the more severe end of the spectrum of dyslexiawill need literacy support (Davis and Florian, 2004). Theseassertions are in keeping with those of Klinger andVaughn’s (1999) research, which investigated pedagogiesfor pupils with learning disabilities in inclusive settings.

Their research is evidence that if appropriate practices areidentified and implemented by teachers in general educa-tion settings, then this can concomitantly increase pupils’involvement, understanding and, ultimately, motivation tolearn Klinger and Vaughn (1999).

Address for correspondenceStacey Blackman,School of Education,University of the West Indies,Cave Hill Campus,Bridgetown,BB 11000,Barbados.Email: [email protected].

ReferencesBernhardt, P. (2009) ‘Opening up classroom space:

student voice, autobiography and the curriculum.’ TheHigh School Journal, 92 (3), pp. 61–7.

Blackman, S. (2007) ‘Utilising “low tech” analyticalframeworks to analyse dyslexic students’ classroomnarratives.’ Perspectives in Education, 25 (4), pp.93–7.

Blackman, S. (2009) ‘Learning is hard work andsometimes difficult: what pupils with dyslexia sayabout the difficulties they experience with learning atsecondary school in Barbados.’ CaribbeanCurriculum, 16 (1), pp. 1–16.

Blackman, S. (2010) ‘Who I work with is important:dyslexic students’ narratives about the benefits ofgrouping for instruction in the Caribbean.’ Support forLearning, 25 (1), pp. 4–10.

Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993) In Search ofUnderstanding: The Case for ConstructivistClassrooms. Beauregard St, Alexandria, VA, USA:Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Cooper, P. & McIntyre, D. (1996) Effective Teaching andLearning: Teachers and Students’ Perspectives.Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.

Davis, P. & Florian, L. (2004) Teaching Strategies andApproaches for Children with Special EducationalNeeds: A Scoping Study. Research Report 516.London: DfES.

Duckett, P. K., Kagan, C. & Sixsmith, J. (2010)‘Consultation and participation with children inhealthy schools: choice, conflict and context.’American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, pp.167–78.

Eder, D. & Fingerson, L. (2000) ‘Interviewing childrenand adolescents.’ In J. E. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein(eds), Handbook of Interview Research, pp. 181–201.London: Sage Publications.

Flutter, J. (2007) ‘Teacher development and pupil voice.’The Curriculum Journal, 18 (3), pp. 343–54.



Flutter, J. & Rudduck, J. (2004) Consulting Pupils:What’s in It for Schools? London: Routledge Falmer.

Hart, S. (1996) Beyond Special Needs: EnhancingChildren’s Learning through Innovative Thinking.London: Paul Chapman.

Jupp, V. (1996) ‘Documents and critical research.’ InR. Sapsford & V. Jupp (eds), Data Collection andAnalysis, pp. 298–316. London: Sage Publications.

Klinger, J. K. & Vaughn, S. (1999) ‘Students’ perceptionsof instruction in inclusion classrooms: implications forstudents with learning disabilities.’ ExceptionalChildren, 66 (1), pp. 23–37.

Kormos, J., Csizer, K. & Sarkadi, A. (2009) ‘Thelanguage learning experiences of students withdyslexia: lessons from an interview study.’ Innovationin Language Learning and Teaching, 3 (2), pp.115–30.

Lewis, A. & Norwich, B. (2005) Special Teaching forSpecial Children? Pedagogies for Inclusion.Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

Lindsay, L. & Lewis, A. (2000) Researching Children’sPerspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lopes, J. A., Monteiro, I. & Sil, V. (2004) ‘Teachers’perceptions about teaching problem students in regularclassrooms.’ Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), pp. 394–419.

Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E. & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003) ‘Adefinition of dyslexia.’ Annals of Dyslexia, 53, pp.1–14.

Masson, J. (2000) ‘Researching children’s perspectives:legal issues.’ In L. Lindsay & A. Lewis (eds),Researching Children’s Perspectives, pp. 35–45.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

McPhillips, T. & Shevlin, M. (2009) ‘Evaluating theteaching and learning experience for the childwith dyslexia in special and mainstream settingsin Ireland.’ Support for Learning, 24 (2), pp.63–72.

Mertens, D. M. & McLaughlin, J. A. (2004) Researchand Evaluation Methods in Special Education.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) An ExpandedSourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis. (2nd edn).London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miles, T. R. & Miles, E. (1990) Dyslexia: A HundredYears on. Buckingham, UK: Oxford UniversityPress.

Ministry of Education (2009) Secondary Education FAQs.[Online at http://www.mes.gov.bb/category.cfm?category=18]. (accessed July 10 2009).

Morgan, B. (2009) ‘ “I think it’s about the teacherfeeding off our minds, instead of us learning off them,sort of like switching the process around”: pupils’perspectives on being consulted about classroomteaching and learning.’ Curriculum Journal, 20 (4),pp. 389–407.

Murphy, C., Murphy, C. & Kilfeather, P. (2010) ‘Childrenmaking sense of science.’ <http://www.springerlink.com/content/kg35r25332t2374t/> (accessed 1December 2010).

Neanon, C. (2002) How to Identify and Support Childrenwith Dyslexia. Wisbech, UK: LDA.

Pedder, D. & McIntyre, D. (2004) ‘The impact of pupilconsultation on classroom practice.’ In M. Arnot, D.McIntyre, D. Pedder & D. Reay (eds), Consultation inthe Classroom: Developing Dialogue about Teachingand Learning, pp. 7–43. London: Pearson Publishing.

Peer, L. & Read, G. (2001) Dyslexia and SuccessfulInclusion in Secondary School. London: David FultonPublishers.

Powell, K. C. & Kalina, C. J. (2010) ‘Cognitive andsocial constructivism: developing tools for an effectiveclassroom.’ Education, 130 (2), pp. 241–50.

Rix, J., Hall, K., Nind, M., Sheehy, K. & Wearmouth, J.(2009) ‘What pedagogical approaches can effectivelyinclude children with special educational needs inmainstream classrooms? A systematic review of theliterature.’ Support for Learning, 24 (2), pp. 87–94.

Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. & Wallace, G. (eds) (1996)School Improvements: What Can Pupils Tell Us?London: David Fulton Publishers.

Stears, M. (2009) ‘How social and critical constructivismcan inform science curriculum design: a study fromSouth Africa.’ Educational Research, 51 (4), pp.397–410.

Thomas, G. & Loxley, A. (2001) Deconstructing SpecialEducation and Constructing Inclusion. Buckingham,UK: Open University Press.

Vaughn, S. & Schumm, J. (1993) ‘What do students withlearning disabilities think when their general educationteachers make adaptations.’ Journal of LearningDisabilities, 26 (8), pp. 545–55.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. Boston, MA:Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1981) ‘The development of higher forms ofattention in childhood.’ In J. V. Wertsch (ed.), TheConcept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, pp.189–240. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

Watson, J. (2001) ‘Social constructivism in theclassroom.’ Support for Learning, 16 (3), pp. 140–7.

