Studying with dyslexia

Edit would be nice. My typing isn't great, especially at this time! Must go to bed now. Don't want to say something I'll really want to edit! G'night.

OK Goodnight. Have found the page but yet to work out how to leave a message.

Twitter is bizarre. Not made up my mind about it. Keep stopping and starting it, but made a couple of new friends since a recent weekend away so it's good for some things!

Hi peeps

A few things to mention...

Firstly, the Platform moderators aren't on holiday (we wish!), we're always here but while we do follow the computing code of conduct we moderate with a very light hand and tend to find the forums are self-moderating. As far as we can see people are giving as good as they get - but if you do feel offended by comments on here, please email us at platform@open.ac.uk and we'll step in.

As for exchanging personal details or email addresses etc, that's fine too but we'd hate for you to get spammed. But we certainly won't bar anyone for doing it!

The option to delete posts will be available as part of phase two of the development of Platform and plans are afoot to create online profiles on here so you can talk to each other that way. We are listening to you guys but development takes time so hang on in there, please. In the meantime, free free to email us as we can put people in touch with each other as long as all parties agree.

Think that covers it!

Robyn (member of the Platform team)

Please accept my apologies Robyn; I was out of line with that comment about being on holiday. I realise now that we are all grown ups on here and can sort out our differences between ourselves! It is great that you offer a service that puts a greater degree of trust in the participants.

Some internet media do not like participants exchanging personal details and I was unsure of where Platform stood on this one. Thanks for clearing it up.

Again, I'm sorry for my remark. No offence was intended, it was just ill thought through.

Karen.

No problem at all @karenjc70, all part of the service. Good to see people debating on here!

Ooo, looks like i've started a debate; i'm glad that some others share the same views as me on this topic.

Anyway, to answer your post nimmy;
*Because the person is at a disadvantage at the start of the exam. what's difficult about that to understand?*

Say I did no work throughout the whole year, and therefore would be at a serious disadvantage when it comes to the exam, should I get extra time?

Clearly this is me making a pointless, unrelavant analogy due to your poor choice of words, so here's something better.

Say i'm a maths student (which I am), and because of the way i've learnt Maths since I was younger I can only fully understand and work with principles if I can derive them from first principles when i'm using them (which is pretty much what I do most of the time, although i'm getting better at not doing this); because of this it can take me much longer to obtain an answers than it would for most other people, therefore I am at a disadvantage at the start of the exam, I do not get extra time or help. Say I did get extra time, and i could now complete the exam in the given time, and get the same grade as someone else who did not get extra time; why should i get the same grade when they are clearly better than me at applying Mathematical knowledge at speed, something that could be a significant advantage in certain job areas yet to an employer we would look identical in terms of qualifications.

Also, I am prone to making stupid mistakes in simple calculations (like adding or subtracting single digit numbers), and a mistake like this early on in a calculation can have a significant impact on the result, therefore I am at a disadvantage...etc...

How's this for a radical suggestion. Allow anyone to have as much time as they like for any exam, as long as they don't confer or cheat in any other way. Record the time taken for the exam and take it into account in the final mark. The 'market' could then decide how important it is that the exam is done quickly. If time is not relevant, and it is important for a deep understanding of a subject to be shown, then no-one is disadvantaged. If it is important to demonstrate quick thinking, quick reading or whatever, then those that finish first will have demonstrated an advantage, and in those cases I think it's right that those with dyslexia or dyscalculia don't get an advantage since the exam is designed to assess what they're not good at, and as I posted before there are certain professions you wouldn't want someone with reading difficulties involved in.

**Say I did no work throughout the whole year, and therefore would be at a serious disadvantage when it comes to the exam, should I get extra time?**

Not working for the year is your fault. Dyslexia is not the fault of the person who has it.

**Clearly this is me making a pointless, unrelavant analogy due to your poor choice of words, so here's something better.**

MY poor choice of words? OK

Regarding your maths example, you seem to be misunderstanding a learning difficulty that is not, taught, learnt or the result of not working, but some problem with the way the organic brain works.

You mention that you make simple mistakes. You have absolutely no idea what your talking about with dyslexia your ignorance is breath taking.

Here's an example, I can read a page of text. I will have no idea what I have read, I can read it again and aganin, eventually, I will know what I have read, THEN I have the process of understanding it.

This takes more time then a few mistakes.

**Record the time taken for the exam and take it into account in the final mark.**

My responses in the dyslexia test where timed with a stop watch.

The difficulty with that approach, it wouldn't take a genious to work out they could take as much time as they like over an exam, dyslexic or not. could end up with none dyslexic spending more time than a dyslexic!

I assume time limits are there for a reason.

PS

I wouldn't have any problem with people allowed to take as long as they like to do there exam. A long time to do the exam would not give either party an advantage. But too short a time gives a definite disadvantage to someone with a learning difficulty.

It amazes me what perfectly able bodied and mentally sound people get bitter about.

This is like those people who moan at a person in a wheel chair if they get a blue parking pass.

>>The difficulty with that approach, it wouldn't take a genious to work out they could take as much time as they like over an exam, dyslexic or not. could end up with none dyslexic spending more time than a dyslexic! I assume time limits are there for a reason.

My point is that if time taken to do an exam is taken into account in the marking then it levels the playing field for everyone, regardless of labels. For example, if someone is extremely quick and finishes a 3 hour paper in half the time, double their mark. If someone is slow, and takes 6 hours for the paper, reduce their mark by 50%. This may be applicable in something like maths. In philosophy for example, speed of thought/reading/writing may be considered less important than what is actually written so give everyone as long as they like to do the best work they possibly can and perhaps reduce or increase the final mark by only a few %age points according to the time spent.

>>Here's an example, I can read a page of text. I will have no idea what I have read, I can read it again and aganin, eventually, I will know what I have read, THEN I have the process of understanding it.

In some walks of life the ability to read a page of text, understand it, and then act on that information, quickly, is important. As a barrister for example this could be crucial to the success or otherwise of your case. So, should dyslexic potential barristers be given extra time in exams that they only pass because of that extra time, and then struggle in the real world of work?

Should employers know that their dyslexic potential employees only passed their exams due to the extra time allowed, and that in the real world where that extra thinking time may not be always available they may have difficulties?

I appreciate it's a difficult area to regulate, and that dyslexia is a spectrum of disorders, but simply giving an extra 15 minutes to those with reading problems labeled as dyslexia is not the answer.

>>This is like those people who moan at a person in a wheel chair if they get a blue parking pass.

No, it's more like those people who moan at people with a blue parking pass for back pain, who are then seen working on a building site.

**>>No, it's more like those people who moan at people with a blue parking pass for back pain, who are then seen working on a building site.**

My mother has fybromyalgia and uses a wheel chair. Believe me people resent that fact she has one (blue badge). They don't even bother hiding their resentment, especially when she gets out of the wheel chair and gets in the car. The looks of horror and hate on the faces. They don't seem to realise that having a wheel chair doesn't mean cripple.

Tell you what, Wrighty, try and find a wheel chair and get a friend or even yourself and spend a day in it. You will see peoples attitude towards people in wheel chairs, it's breathtakingly bad. You will also find that they don't speak to the person in the wheelchair, but the one pushing it. They have that impatient atttitude in shops, especially if the shop is tight. Kids stare like they've seen a naked yeti unicycling down the high street with a plant pot on it's head playing a banjo.

Mum barely dare go out these days, she hates it.

By the way, the blue badge is used very rarely, there are a lot of restrictions even with that. For example, a lot of car parks have barriers now so a blue badge is useless there.

**So, should dyslexic potential barristers be given extra time in exams that they only pass because of that extra time, and then struggle in the real world of work?**

Funny you should mention work. I only ever wanted to be in the police force, but because of the type of entrance test I know I never could, because it is exactly those types of test that I would do poorly in.

Although i think these days it's different.

>>My mother has fybromyalgia and uses a wheel chair. Believe me people resent that fact she has one (blue badge). They don't even bother hiding their resentment, especially when she gets out of the wheel chair and gets in the car. The looks of horror and hate on the faces. They don't seem to realise that having a wheel chair doesn't mean cripple.

Prejudice is difficult to overcome, and no matter how hard we try with some people there is still a suspicion that they're faking it. I remember seeing a Porsche 911 with a disabled badge and thinking 'how the hell can you be disabled in any way and get in one of those'. I later heard about a man with ankylosing spondylitis (a condition causing pain, spinal arthritis and deformity resulting in an excessive curvature of the back) who could only drive little sports cars because in cars with normal seats he couldn't see out of the windscreen. Perhaps it was his car, perhaps it was some freeloader who was taking the pi$$ out of the system and taking up the disabled spaces. You never know.

In your mother's case, I can appreciate how someone with a painful condition may use a wheelchair quite legitimately even though they're not paralysed. Popular perception however is that you use a chair if your legs don't work, and if you can walk even short distances in pain then you shouldn't.

>>Funny you should mention work. I only ever wanted to be in the police force, but because of the type of entrance test I know I never could, because it is exactly those types of test that I would do poorly in.

Most people (perhaps not at the OU but almost certainly everywhere else) take exams in order to be able to do the job of their choice, or enhance promotion prospects. If that is why the exam is being taken, to prepare for a career, then I think exam timing is important. If it is study for personal mental enhancement then it is perhaps less so.

**I remember seeing a Porsche 911 with a disabled badge and thinking 'how the hell can you be disabled in any way and get in one of those'**

I know exactly what you mean. The amount of time people have got in a car who are clearly borrowing a badge is amazing, so is the amount of people parking in disabled places, I think it's a form of statement. Many a time I've had to wheel mum an hell of a lot further because some big ape decide that there abled bodied needs are greater.

**I remember seeing a Porsche 911 with a disabled badge and thinking 'how the hell can you be disabled in any way and get in one of those'**

You may be amazed at that but I once saw a women loading her ??mother into a tiny sports car. She (must have been in her 50's and the disabled woman in her 80's) just picked her up in one move from the wheelchair and put her in the car with a swift "sort yourself out then" the poor woman looked a bit shocked at the speed with which it was done.

Disabled badges aren't just for disabled drivers but for the disabled who need drivers to take them about.

But back to your original point some universities state that after a certain time education needs statements/ edpsych reports need to be re-done anyway. Have you considered applying to the access to learners fund for the needs assesment before then applying to the DSA office for the DSA award?

*Here's an example, I can read a page of text. I will have no idea what I have read, I can read it again and aganin, eventually, I will know what I have read, THEN I have the process of understanding it.*

I didn't realise that was dyslexia, I get that problem quite alot and just thought it was because I didn't read enough.

*You mention that you make simple mistakes. You have absolutely no idea what your talking about with dyslexia your ignorance is breath taking.*

It's pretty funny how angry you get about this. What you could've done, in reply to my first post, would be explain the condition and reasons why you think it's reasonable to give people with dyslexia extra time. Instead you just said "Because the person is at a disadvantage at the start of the exam. what's difficult about that to understand?"

I think Wrighty's suggestion about timed exams would be good.

Right, I've got to admit to be just a touch hurt at some of the replies in this post. It astounds me at how casually people are disregarding an actual learning disability. It isn't a matter of not studying sufficiently for an exam. Sincerely. And saying that a dyslexic person should not attempt to be a barrister due to needing that extra time on an exam is like telling a crippled person not to bother about any non-sedentary position that would require so much as going from one end of the room to the next in which their wheel-chair would clock-on precious extra minutes their non-handicapped co-workers wouldn't. People are disabled. They are given a little bit more lenience because, if they weren't, they might just be unemployed, not helping society nor economy, and would just veg for the rest of their days. I, for one, am not prepared to do that.

But truly, I don't think anyone is purposefully trying to be vicious here! I just don't believe people understand what dyslexia actually is.

The test you are put under is very long, rather comprehensive, and paying out the cost of taking it does not guarantee a diagnosis at the end. I've known scores of people who thought they were dyslexic, took the, what, day-long test, and found out it was actually gaps in their skill-set, the lingering impact of bad schooling, etc. No, I can promise there are checks and balances in place to weed out these instances and it's not that every kid who doesn't fancy themselves an Einstein can get a quick-fix diagnosis. No doubt there are those who fall through the cracks and do get diagnosed improperly, just like there are 'ADD' children on meds not for their own incapacity but due to parents not wanting to cope with an energetic child. Heck, look at benefit fraud - healthy individuals taking a walking stick to golf matches isn't unheard of. However, just because there are some 'bad seeds', does not mean those with genuine issues should be treated just the same.

My ability to read is hampered in that I interchange letters and words and read things backwards, as if trying to do so through a mirror reflection. My english proficiency is rather good, my vocabulary is staggering, and my IQ is admittedly high, but if you put a pen in my hand and told me to just get on with it you'd be amazed at the time that would be involved and the quality that would result. Coupled with the reading issues are my motor skills. I take a painstakingly long time to craft each letter, which still may come out written inverted anyway despite the effort, with the letters jumbled - tar for rat, for example. My brain simply does not process the written word, whether I'm the one writing or am taking in the works of others. The skill is there, but the dyslexia might mask it. This is where the evaluations come into play.

Yes, by the way, evaluations are individualized. I may have x amount of minutes extra time and use of a computer. Jim Bob might get a half hour more, or a half hour less. He may be writing it by hand, he may be using a computer, too. The worst I've seen is someone having to dictate to another person to type for them - this was not dyslexia, mind you, but to express the differing range of disability compensation in exams. The person evaluating you will make an educated recommendation after diagnosis based on how you performed during the test, as to what they believe would be fair.

I now only hope everyone reading this has just a little bit better understanding of what it means to be dyslexic now and that I've explained myself clearly. :)

I'm simply stunned and annoyed at the amount of ignorance and arrogance vented at people with genuine disabilities/difficulties needing extra time by the people in this forum, especially people from a medical background. I suppose it is true what they say - 'ignorance is bliss'.

In the real world, ie not just taking exams, you may not be able to get extra help to cope with disabilities, learning or otherwise. That has been my position on this thread.

I'm short-sighted, which could be considered a disability. Because of this I can't be a fighter pilot. Should I be given special dispensation, perhaps be allowed to stand a bit closer to the sight chart so I have more chance of passing the eyesight test?

Again, it's a ridiculous example, but the point is that not all disabilities can be accommodated in all professions. In some professions (perhaps my barrister example was not the best) dyslexia may mean that you will be at a significant disadvantage. Therefore, why allow extra exam time if the point of the exam is to allow potential employers to assess one's suitability for a job?

*I'm simply stunned and annoyed at the amount of ignorance and arrogance vented at people with genuine disabilities/difficulties...*

It's a debate, atleast we are giving reasons why we think what we do, all you've said is you're 'stunned and annoyed' and not given any reason for this whatsoever, and what's the relevance of 'medical background'? The main discussion here isn't even about the medical aspects of disabilities, the point here is we're discussing justifications as to whether disabilities should entitle you to help in obtaining a qualification.

Maybe I was ignorant to begin with, but I started the dicussion to attempt clear my ignorance on this topic, I was actually challenging my opinion and trying to get others' opinions on it to help justify either side of the argument and to give me a better formed opinion.

Anyway, i'm definetly agreeing with wrighty on this, and i'm glad someone actually understands this side of the argument, although i'm happy to consider any arguments against this.

Another point is, if you think that actually doing the exam is not relevant to the suitability of a particular job/career, why do a qualification that is graded by an exam? Perhaps it would be better to do an apprenticeship or a vocational qualification. Maybe the question here should be "Is a timed exam the best way of deciding the grade of the qualification in relevance to employment?" In most cases it would seem like it's probably not, so why is it usually a major component for a qualification?

Thinking about this i've actually thought of a reason supporting dyslexics being given extra time, take my Maths example;

Let's say that doing an exam in a given time is not really relevant to employment, but the understanding of principles is.

There are two people doing the qualification, one dyslexic with a brilliant understanding and quick application of appropriate principles, and someone who is not dyslexic who doesn't really have a quick application but can work things out if given alot of time to do so (using trial and error of different methods etc..).

Say both people were given equal amount of time in the exam with no extra help, the dyslexic may take a while to take in the question but once that's understood then the answer would come quickly, while the non dyslexic would take in the question straight away but take alot more time to answer the question. Say, they both got the same mark in the exam; i would suggest that in the case of either continuing the qualification or employment (in this case there's probably more relevance to the former) the dyslexic would be more suitable as they are better at maths, the subject in question, and the actually reading of the question is not the important part, as in employment or continuing the qualification the application of maths would be alot more involved, it would comprise of discussion ect... before using the technique; it wouldn't just be question and answer (in most cases).

So i'd say in this case, it's probably justified to give the dyslexic extra time. But what about more language, reading and writing based subjects? Does this still apply?

I'm still sticking with my view that everyone should be given equal help when it comes to getting a qualification, as extra help may not be given for disabilities in the 'real world'. But I think what needs to be done in order to obtain qualifications needs to change to better assess the suitability of a candidate to the subject in question.

Any more views on this subject would be appreciated, and if there's any flaws in my reasoning i'd be happy to be told.

There really is no reasoning with the ignorant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo

I’ve found most of the above to be interesting and illuminating, so thanks to jon.bombadil for provoking the debate, but I’m a bit puzzled by the last contribution. I certainly wouldn’t want to misconstrue nimmy’s position, so perhaps he could clarify exactly what he intends us to infer from the video in terms of this discussion?

Oh look, the other one.

**I certainly wouldn’t want to misconstrue nimmy’s position, so perhaps he could clarify exactly what he intends us to infer from the video in terms of this discussion?**

It's quite obvious.

You just can't seem to explain something simple to some people.

Dyslexia does not really prevent someone from DOING a job or exam, but it can handicap a person from GETTING a job or doing justice to themselves due to time restraints.

A dyslexic person can understand and answer any question a none dyslexic person can, can do any job a non dyslexic can, but due to the condition, it takes longer to register and digest the information.

When there is a time constraint a none dyslexic will comfortably able to answer questions in the time allowed. Also, they will be able to take tests for a job without worrying about about any literacy, or what ever. So in terms of 'fairness', which seems to be the gripe here, the none dyslexic will have the advantage and their result would look a lot better, it may mean the difference between a B or a C grade, getting a job or not getting a job.

To reiterate, dyslexia DOES NOT mean that a person is ANY LESS capable of doing a job or an exam, through no fault of their own it takes them longer than the average. This is quite different from being short sighted (which would effect a fighter pilot) or not doing the work (self induced).

An example:

I stated on a different post I wanted to join the police force. I have an high IQ and can 'read people like a book' and all the other things useful for a police officer, but the test (back then anyway) really hit dyslexics really badly, therefore game over. This fundamentally means that I was unable to have a career and the only job I only ever wanted to do; because I read a little slower. When in real life and 'on the street', whether you can read at a normal pace really wouldn't come into it. This may lead to a situation that there maybe someone out there in police uniform who may be less competent at the job because they have excellent literacy skills.

As regarding an exam, all you none dyslexics out there, imagine having to do a a three hour exam and having to complete it in one and half hours. That's what it would be like. As some one stated what time you are given depends on the severity of your dyslexia, my self at uni I only got 15 mins more. The invigilator toward the end just came over and ask if I needed the extra time.

I can see where your coming from, but believe you me, the extra time is really no real advantage to say the lest. It just equals things out.

Any how, I'll leave people to their ignorance.

Liked the video Nimmy. May be a bit obvious to say, but that's how arguing with you feels to me.

>>A dyslexic person can understand and answer any question a none dyslexic person can, can do any job a non dyslexic can, but due to the condition, it takes longer to register and digest the information.

How about a job as a proofreader. Could a dyslexic do that, even if they had an extra 15 minutes in the test? Perhaps they could, but may take twice as long to do an effective job as a non-dyslexic. This is the whole point of my thread.

Regarding your police officer suggestion, you may well read people well and be able to catch villains, but then when it comes to getting your paperwork right afterwards you're going to have to take longer (and therefore leave your poor colleagues out alone to hold the fort) or you'll make mistakes which a clever (non-dyslexic) barrister will spot and get the criminal off on a technicality. Perhaps that's why the police make the test difficult for dyslexics.

It would not be any longer to do the paper work (due to spell checks on computers), in those days it may have involved (in my case) some spelling mistakes. Which would be more important? Apparently now there are three or four stages. Unlucky for me the emphasis as moved from the literacy to the IQ. Firstly, finding the vacancies, police don't tend to advertise the job now, so you have to keep checking a site and they tell you where the application form is. You are shown films and asked questions about it, then in the more extended interview you have role play where it's more important to react on your wits. I assume this was as a response to literacy good people being accepted, but who where not the brightest creatures on earth. The third the medical fitness.

As regarding your predictable comment regarding the clip (it's from the TV programme Jam by the way, i should look it out if I was you, twisted, sick but very funny). I wasn't the one who claimed to be right (I'm agnostic that sways to theism), I wasn't the one who was determined there was no God, I was the one trying to say things aren't as simple and straight forward as a lot of atheist assume, I was the one trying to reason with the closed minded.

Think about it.

Adieu

My predictable comment about the clip wasn't about who is closed minded or not, it was that you always seem to miss points, no matter how clearly they are made. When the woman in the clip completely misunderstood about the money in the meter I thought of you.

Specifically, what was all these points I was ALWAYS missing?