An Audit of the Processes Involved in Identifying and Assessing Bilingual Learners Suspected of Being Dyslexic: a Scottish Study Pamela Deponio*, John Landon, Kirstine Mullin and Gavin Reid Moray House Institute of Education, University of Edinburgh, UK

The Commission for Racial Equality (Special Educational Needs Assessment in Strathclyde: Report of a Formal Investigation, CRE, London, 1996) highlighted the significant under-representation of bilingual children among pupils assessed as having specific learning difficulties/dyslexia. In this present study an audit was undertaken in order to explore issues arising from the Commission’s report, initially using 53 schools from one education authority. This revealed an extremely low incidence of suspected dyslexia among bilingual pupils. A second study was carried out in a further nine education authorities, surveying 91 schools with bilingual pupils. The incidence of suspected dyslexia in bilingual pupils was found to be extremely low. Twenty-seven cases were examined. Most cases concerned pupils aged 7:0–9:0. Difficulties associated with conventional indicators of dyslexia are discussed. A wide variety of assessment approaches were reported and the use of first language (L1) assessment varied. The process of assessment tended to be lengthy and inconclusive. However, this report suggests that caution is necessary when considering dyslexia in the early stages of second language (L2) development. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords: dyslexia; bilingual learners; assessment; multilingualism

INTRODUCTION

T

he Commission for Racial Equality (1996) reported that in one Scottish region there was ‘a significant under-representation of bilingual children among pupils assessed as having specific learning difficulties/

* Correspondence to: Pamela Deponio. Department of Equity Studies and Special Education, Moray House Institute of Education, University of Edinburgh, Charteris Land, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ, UK. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

30

P. Deponio et al.

dyslexia’. They also reported that ‘assessment practice fell short of reasonable goals, as it failed to look at the whole child within the context of home, language, culture and community’. These factors motivated this present research study which sought to audit the process followed by teachers from the initial suspicion of dyslexia in a bilingual pupil to the establishment of an individualized educational plan (IEP) or a record of needs/statement. The research explores issues arising from this audit, namely the steps taken to test the original suspicion of dyslexia, including the types of assessment used and their interpretation and the difficulties faced by professionals in gathering and interpreting data. It also considers factors which influenced the initial suspicion of dyslexia which may be related to other issues, for example, culturally inappropriate reading materials, second language development or lack of maintenance of first language. This study identifies elements for consideration if appropriate assessment, identification and intervention protocols are to be developed for bilingual pupils who are suspected of being dyslexic. LITERATURE REVIEW A significant factor for this study is the increase in acceptance and identification of dyslexia among Scottish local education authorities. This is reflected in the development of local authority policies on identification, support and provision for dyslexic children (Fife Education Authority, 1996; East Renfrewshire Education Authority, 1999). This has coincided with a greater commitment to establish different levels of training, from awareness raising to Masters level awards in dyslexia, at both school and national level, resulting in highly trained learning support teachers having the knowledge and ability to assess for dyslexia (Reid, in press). It is therefore recognized by many authorities that dyslexia assessment is not the exclusive responsibility of the psychologist, but rather a team responsibility which may well see the learning support teacher rather than the educational psychologist play the lead role. This view is in fact incorporated in a seminal paper on the working practices of educational psychologists in Scotland (Kirkcaldy, 1997) which suggests that empowerment of teachers through specialized training and consultancy can provide an effective means of identifying and managing dyslexic difficulties in the classroom. Much of this training has emphasized the importance of the early school years in literacy development, and considerable funding has accompanied this initiative (Fraser, 1999). The Scottish context is appropriate for developing more sophisticated mechanisms for assessment and support because of the current emphasis on early intervention. Despite this, it is likely that the identification of dyslexia in bilingual pupils is a neglected area because of the often mistaken assumption that the primary difficulty is second language learning and not dyslexia. Recent studies (Bialystock, 1988; Campbell and Sais, 1995) of biliteracy have demonstrated that experience of two different phonological systems enhances phonological awareness as literacy skills develop. Thus bilingual pupils are likely to be good decoders (Gregory, 1996). Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

Identifying Bilingual Learners Suspected of Being Dyslexic

31

However, access to the meaning of second language texts is often impeded because of the different cultural schemata in which they are framed (Steffensen, Joag-Dev and Anderson, 1979; Carrell, 1988). This discrepancy between ability to make phoneme – grapheme correspondences and inability to access meaning is the inverse of that found in many monolingual pupils who experience reading difficulties and who may be characterized as dyslexic (Stanovich, 1988; Snowling, 1995). It has been suggested (Landon, 1998) that teachers and others are conditioned to look for poor phonological awareness as the major indicator of reading difficulties and may be confused when a learner who appears to be an expert decoder also experiences comprehension difficulties. The confusion is compounded when other indicators of dyslexia, e.g. discrepant performance in subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), are also present for the bilingual pupil but are not associated with poor decoding (Cummins, 1984; Landon, 1996). Also, as Cline and Reason (1993) have suggested, dyslexia tends not to be considered as the sole cause of reading difficulties where other variables such as low socio-economic status or bilingualism can be adduced to account for poor literacy performance. Consequently, there appears to be a reluctance to confirm specific learning difficulties/dyslexia in bilingual pupils, as revealed by their under-representation in provision compared with monolingual native speakers of English in England (Inner London Education Authority, 1985) and Scotland (Curnyn et al., 1991). Additionally, appropriate assessment procedures for dyslexia seem to be lacking for bilingual pupils. There appears to be little knowledge of those which are available. Sutherland et al. (1998) have produced assessment and support materials for adults and young people for whom English is an additional language. These include diagnostic interviews, reports and a wide range of strategies that can be used to support dyslexic bilingual learners. A British standardization of the Phonological Assessment Battery has been conducted which included children for whom English is an additional language (Frederickson and Frith, 1997, Frederickson, Frith and Reason, 1997). The present study is therefore a timely initiative to explore practice in identifying and supporting dyslexic bilingual pupils. METHODOLOGY Questionnaires were distributed in two stages. Nineteen local education authorities in which the 1991 (General Register Office, Scotland, 1991) census indicated the presence of bilingual learners other than Gaelic speakers were invited to be involved in the study. Ten responded positively and their EAL (English as an additional language) support services supplied the names of schools in which they worked. These schools were asked the numbers of bilingual pupils on their rolls and how many were suspected of being dyslexic. Indications of age, gender, first language (L1) and whether or not the pupils were literate in L1 were also requested. An attempt was made to ascertain who first suspected dyslexia, what indicators led to this suspicion, Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

32

P. Deponio et al.

what approaches were taken to confirm or reject the suspicion and whether an L1 assessment was carried out. Schools were also asked whether or not initial suspicions were confirmed, what recommendations were made for intervention and finally to rate the levels of difficulty encountered by teachers or other professionals during the assessment process. An explanation of the term ‘bilingual’ was provided but no definition of dyslexia was offered because of the previously mentioned focus on dyslexia within the local educational authorities. It was felt prudent to allow each authority to work within their understanding of dyslexia. STAGE 1—PILOT In order to verify the format of the questionnaire, a pilot study was carried out. Fifty-three schools from one major urban education authority were contacted. Thirty-seven (70%) schools responded, all of which had bilingual pupils (26 primary schools, nine secondary schools, two special schools). Bilingual pupils comprised roughly 2% of the total school population. Scrutiny revealed an extremely low incidence of suspected dyslexia among bilingual pupils within this authority (0.8%). Although there is some controversy regarding the incidence of dyslexia amongst the monolingual population (Stanovich, 1996), most estimates would be in excess of 0.8% (Miles and Miles, 1991; Pumfrey and Reason, 1991). Table 1 shows the incidence of suspected dyslexia amongst bilingual children in the authority’s schools. A subsequent questionnaire, stage 2, was devised in order to investigate the low incidence of suspected dyslexia further. An additional question was inserted to discover how many bilingual learners were judged to have general literacy difficulties (Lit Diffs). STAGE 2—RESULTS Three hundred and fifty-one schools from nine Scottish education authorities were sent copies of the survey. One hundred and six (30%) schools responded. Ninety-one (26%) had bilingual pupils on their rolls and were used for the audit (66 primaries, 22 secondaries, three special schools, i.e. schools for children with a range of special educational needs).

Table 1. Stage 1 (pilot): incidence of suspected dyslexia in bilingual pupils School type

Bilingual pupils

No. of dyslexic bilinguals

Incidence of dyslexia (%)

Primary Secondary Special Total

243 114 4 361

3 0 0 3

1.23 0 0 0.83

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

33

Identifying Bilingual Learners Suspected of Being Dyslexic

Table 2. Stage 2: incidence of general literacy difficulties and suspected specific learning difficulties/dyslexia in bilingual pupils School type

Bilingual pupils (N)

No. of bilinguals with Lit Diffs

Incidence of Lit Diffs (%)

No. of dyslexic bilinguals

Incidence of dyslexia (%)

Incidence of dyslexia in Lit Diffs group (%)

Primary Secondary Special Total

1023 579 9 1611

201 66 9 276

19.65 11.40 100 17.13

19 5 0 24

1.86 0.86 0 1.49

9.45 7.58 0 8.70

INCIDENCE Bilingual pupils comprised 4% of the school population. The incidence of suspected dyslexia among bilingual pupils was very low (between 1% and 2%). Table 2 shows the characteristics of the surveyed population. Twenty-seven cases of suspected dyslexia were reported (20 primary pupils, seven secondary pupils; 14 male, 12 female, one not given). Pupil age ranged from 5:0 to 16:0 (Figure 1). Most pupils were aged between 7:0 and 9:0, but there was also a small cluster aged 14:0 to 16:0.

Figure 1. Age distribution of suspected bilingual dyslexics. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

34

P. Deponio et al.

ASSESSMENT: CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES Schools were asked who had first suspected dyslexia. In 52% of cases one teacher, usually the LS (learning support/support for learning) teacher, had first expressed concern. In 41% of instances LS and EAL (English as an additional language) teachers had jointly raised concerns, with the class teacher featuring also in many of these cases. Parents and educational psychologists featured to a lesser degree (22%). Schools were asked what indicators led to the suspicion of dyslexia. Results are shown in Figure 2. The most frequently used indicators were difficulty or pronounced difficulty with reading and/or spelling, perceptual and organizational difficulties, discrepancies in performance and phonological awareness. Schools were asked to indicate what approaches were used to confirm or reject the suspicion of dyslexia. Classroom-based monitoring was undertaken by all schools, with an equal distribution of monitoring undertaken between class, LS and EAL teachers. The differing forms of monitoring are displayed in Figure 3. Observation, ongoing assessment and teacher consultation were popular strategies for monitoring. Less popular strategies were parental consultation, pupil consultation and screening tests/checklists.

Figure 2. Indicators. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

35

Identifying Bilingual Learners Suspected of Being Dyslexic

Figure 3. Forms of monitoring used.

Formal assessments were used in 17 cases (63%). Those administering such assessments are shown in Table 3. In some cases assessments were carried out by more than one professional category. The wide variety of assessments used is shown in Table 4. An L1 assessment was carried out in 37% of cases. Where an L1 assessment had taken place, the EAL teacher had conducted this, but in two cases (7%) pupils were confirmed in their country of birth. Those who had undertaken L1 assessment used a variety of means, including administering the Sandwell Bilingual Screening Assessment, asking the pupil to listen to Table 3. Categories of staff undertaking formal assessment Staff category

No. of cases

Cases (%)

Educational psychologist LS teacher (school based) EAL teacher Class teacher Speech and language therapist Network support (area LS consultant) Head teacher Total

9 13 12 1 2 1 1 39

33.33 48.15 44.44 3.70 7.41 3.70 3.70

N= 27.

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

36

P. Deponio et al.

Table 4. Assessments used Type of test

Name of test

No. of cases

Cases (%)

Reading

Burt Vernon Reading Test Neale Analysis of Reading Ability Individual Reading Analysis GAP NFER Graded Word Reading Test Edwards Reading Test Unspecified Spelling Test Burt Inglis Parallel Spelling Test MIST Baseline Assessment Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) Sandwell Bilingual Screening Assessment QUEST British Ability Scales (BAS) Phonological Assessment Battery (PhAB) EYES Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices IBPVS British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS) Aston Index

3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2

11.11 7.41 7.41 3.70 3.70 3.70 7.41 3.70 3.70 7.41 7.41 7.41

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7.41 7.41 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70

Spelling

Other

N =27.

and retell a story in L1, monitoring the pupil following instructions in L1, parental consultation and the use of materials to stimulate discussion. Teachers were asked to rate levels of difficulty encountered during the assessment process. The presence or absence of an L1 assessment was used to analyse these difficulty ratings. Lack of provision for first language assessment and liaison between support personnel caused significantly more difficulty for cases where an L1 assessment was not conducted (H corrected for ties= 11.929, p B0.005 and H corrected for ties= 6.667, p B0.05 respectively). It is interesting to note that when examining all 27 cases together, liaison between support staff was rated one of the least difficult factors. Therefore lack of provision for L1 assessment and the need for liaison between support personnel appeared to be the two significant features in L1 assessment. The initial suspicion of dyslexia was confirmed in approximately 7% of cases. In approximately 15% of cases the initial suspicion was rejected, but in each case additional comments from the LS/EAL teacher indicated that there were ongoing uncertainties. A conclusion had yet to be reached in around 30% of cases, and no answers were recorded in roughly 48% of cases. Taking all the cases together, the lack of the learner’s English language competence in literacy skills, the lack of provision for first language assessment and the level of staff awareness of issues relating to bilingualism and dyslexia caused the greatest levels of difficulty during the assessment process. The lack of the learner’s English language competence in oral skills and teachers’ difficulties in gaining access to/knowledge of appropriate Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

37

Identifying Bilingual Learners Suspected of Being Dyslexic Table 5. Modal ratings of difficulty levels encountered during the assessment process Rating factor

Modal rating

Lack of learner’s English language competence in literacy skills Lack of provision for first language assessment Level of staff awareness of issues relating to bilingualism and dyslexia Level of staff awareness of issues relating to dyslexia Contact with parents Liaison between support personnel Lack of learner’s English language competence in oral skills Access to/knowledge of appropriate approaches to assessment

1 1 1 3 5 5 2, 5* 1, 4, 5*

Range: 1–5, where a rating of 1 indicates extreme difficulty and a rating of 5 indicates no difficulty. * Bimodal/trimodal distribution of scores.

approaches to assessment caused problems in some cases. However, ratings for these varied. Low levels of difficulty were associated with contact with parents and liaison between support staff (see Table 5). Difficulty levels were not affected by type of school.

INTERVENTION AND SUPPORT Recommendations for intervention were for classroom-based or small-group withdrawal support/continued support by the LS teacher in two-thirds of cases. Slightly less than half recommended support/continuing support by EAL, and around one-third recommended support by parents to reinforce class work and undertake paired reading. One-third intended to introduce an IEP, and a few indicated that an L1 assistant would support. Speech and language support, classroom assistant (L2), special exam arrangements and the use of a voluntary tutor were also mentioned. It should be noted at this point that a formal assessment, undertaken by such staff as described in Table 3, can occur before an IEP has been established and may in fact not result in the establishment of an IEP.

DISCUSSION The results suggest an under-representation of bilingual dyslexics. Dyslexia can be a sensitive, occasionally emotive issue in monolingual pupils (Riddell et al., 1992; P. Deponio and G. Reid, paper submitted). From the low numbers of confirmed cases it would appear there is an uncertainty surrounding this issue in bilingual pupils, or an unwillingness to confront it. Although this caution is understandable, it may be that dyslexic bilingual pupils are being denied access to specialist provision and extra resources. The wide range of assessments used could reflect the various assessment approaches used by different authorities but could also indicate uncertainty as to exactly what the best assessment instrument may be. It would be necessary to ascertain whether or not tests which were standardized on monolingual populations were used normatively with bilingual pupils or Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

38

P. Deponio et al.

merely used to provide an individual baseline. The extensive use of observation and informal classroom assessment suggests that teachers appreciate the difficulties involved and tend to carefully monitor the situation rather than immediately attempt to confirm dyslexia. However, results show that there is a tendency not to reach a final decision. The ‘high profile’ of dyslexia and the requirement to accurately assess are compounded by the sensitivity of working with pupils from other cultures and the difficulty of selecting appropriate assessment tools. As one school reported: Nobody knows anything about bilingualism and dyslexia. Anecdotal evidence has suggested that many bilingual pupils experience a literacy lag around the third year (P3) of primary schooling (Landon, 1998). An age peak for possible identification consistent with such evidence was identified in this study. In monolingual populations this can reflect the difficulty encountered by some pupils in the move from the alphabetic and logographic to the orthographic approach in reading, indicating a lack of phonological awareness (Frith, 1995). Phonological awareness emerged as a main indicator in this study. It has been suggested that phonological awareness is not usually an area of difficulty for bilingual pupils (Campbell and Sais, 1995), therefore this may well be an indicator of dyslexia. However, difficulties encountered by bilingual pupils around this time may be due to unfamiliar cultural schemata (Steffensen, Joag-Dev and Anderson, 1979; Carrell, 1988). The peaks of assessment activity occur at the same age but are triggered by very different factors. Caution is therefore required when considering difficulties at this stage to avoid the possibility of some bilingual pupils being misdiagnosed as dyslexic and of others slipping through the assessment net. One school reported: . . . father is dyslexic . . . class teacher would have tended to assume that difficulties were related to bilingualism if EAL had not expressed concern.’ Another main area which indicated dyslexia was found to be that of discrepancies. In monolingual pupils discrepancies between performance for example in reading/written work and verbal skills are recognized as possible indicators of dyslexia. However, discrepancies in bilingual pupils, especially in the early stages of L2 acquisition, are viewed as part of normal development, since verbal skills require five to seven years to reach monolingual norms (Cummins, 1984). There was no mention of the discrepancy between reading and listening comprehension, which the literature suggests is one of the most relevant indicators in the monolingual population (Aaron, 1989; Stanovich, 1991). If appropriate access to the cultural context is limited, bilingual pupils’ listening skills do not always develop ahead of reading skills. Therefore the development of listening skills in bilingual pupils may be suppressed and the search for a discrepancy becomes irrelevant. The importance of L1 assessment in identifying dyslexia requires further exploration. There is a need to investigate the extent to which L1 assessment is taken into account when reaching a final decision, as this information could help to clarify confusing indicators observed in bilingual pupils. Research shows that where there is L1 intervention in early years for pupils having difficulties, many are greatly supported. Pupils not responding to such intervention may be more likely to be experiencing a specific learning difficulty (Landon, 1998). Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

39

Identifying Bilingual Learners Suspected of Being Dyslexic

Although collaboration between LS and EAL staff seemed to be the norm, it must be questioned whether more pupils would have emerged if there had been greater collaboration in order to have a flow of knowledge and a challenging of initial suspicions between teachers. There may be a lack of appreciation that in some cases bilingual pupils have multiple needs and therefore require support from a number of agencies. One school reported: We have access to agencies and current assessment material but co-ordination of these seems to be missing. This study suggests that EAL and LS teachers collaborate in a reactive rather than a proactive way. They tend to adapt to the school situation rather than act as change agents within the school (Landon, 1998; Woldringh, Landon and Horst, 1998). One school comments: LS [is] reluctant to assess and label pupils but will offer support usually recommended for specific learning difficulties in monolingual children if enough concern is expressed.

IMPLICATIONS Two main issues appear to arise from the research findings. On the one hand it would appear that bilingual dyslexics are not being identified. This audit indicates that schools in some authorities appear to require guidance on assessment. Indeed, one school stated: . . . no guidelines are available or set procedures. If such guidelines were available and screening procedures were in place, it is likely that the peaks in assessment activity would be avoided. Today many schools have dyslexia screening procedures appropriate for monolingual pupils. It is apparent from our evidence that procedures appropriate to bilingual pupils are also required. The second issue relates to bilingual pupils who are suspected of being dyslexic but who may well not be. It is a reasonable inference that this may occur if screening procedures for bilingual pupils are as inadequate as the study suggests. In these cases difficulties may relate to cultural schemata and might be confused with lack of phonological awareness. In order for assessment to become more effective, teachers could place more emphasis on non-literacy-based indicators such as memory, speed of processing and organizational skills in conjunction with L1 assessment. Family background should also be considered, although this may be problematic in some cultures where dyslexia is either not recognized or recognized negatively and therefore kept hidden. This audit has provided considerable justification for further studies and has confirmed the view that difficulties experienced by L2 pupils can lead to dyslexia being undiagnosed. References Aaron, P.G. (1989) Dyslexia and Hyperlexia. Boston, MA: Kluwer. Bialystock, E. (1988) Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology, 24, 560–567. Campbell, R. and Sais, E. (1995) Accelerated metalinguistic (phonological) awareness in bilingual children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 61 – 68. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

40

P. Deponio et al.

Carrell, P.L. (1988) Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading. In P.L. Carrell, J. Devine and D.E. Eskey (Eds), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading, pp. 101–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cline, T. and Reason, R. (1993) Specific learning difficulties (dyslexia): equal opportunities issues. British Journal of Special Education, 20, 30–34. Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) (1996) Special Educational Needs Assessment in Strathclyde: Report of a Formal Investigation. London: CRE. Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Curnyn, J.C., Wallace, I., Kistan, S. and McLaren, M. (1991) Special Educational Need and Ethnic Minority Pupils. Edinburgh: Scottish Office Education Department. East Renfrewshire Education Authority (1999) Guidelines in Dyslexia. Giffnock: East Renfrewshire Education Authority. Fife Education Authority (1996) Partnership: Parents, Professionals and Pupils. Glenrothes: Fife Education Authority. Fraser, H. (1999) Early intervention: what are the issues for specific groups of children? Paper presented at Scottish Dyslexia Forum Conference ‘Early Intervention, Dyslexia and Related Issues’, Edinburgh, 4 March. Frederickson, N. and Frith, U. (1997) The Phonological Assessment Battery: findings from the British standardisation. Paper presented at Fourth International Conference of the British Dyslexia Association ‘Dyslexia: Biological Bases, Identification and Intervention’, York, 1 – 4 April. Frederickson, N., Frith, U. and Reason, R. (1997) The Phonological Assessment Battery. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Frith, U. (1995) Dyslexia: can we have a shared theoretical framework? Educational and Child Psychology, 12(1), 6–17. General Register Office Scotland (1991) 1991 Census Monitor for Scotland. Edinburgh: General Register Office Scotland. Gregory, E. (1996) Making Sense of a New World: Learning to Read in a Second Language. London: Paul Chapman. Inner London Education Authority (1985) Educational Opportunities for All? Research Studies. Fish Report Vol. 2. London: ILEA. Kirkcaldy. B. (1997) Contemporary tasks for psychological services in Scotland. Educational Psychology in Scotland, Spring/Summer(5), 6–16. Landon, J. (1996) Reading between the languages: bilingual learners and specific learning difficulties. In G. Reid (Ed.), Dimensions of Dyslexia: Vol. 2, Literacy, Language and Learning, pp. 217–228. Edinburgh: Moray House Publications. Landon, J. (1998) Early Intervention with Bilingual Learners: Evaluation Report on a Research Project Funded by the City of Edinburgh Education Department. Edinburgh: Moray House Publications. Miles, T.R. and Miles, E. (1991) Dyslexia: a Hundred Years On. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Pumfrey, P.D. and Reason, R. (1991) Specific Learning Difficulties (Dyslexia) Challenges and Responses. Windsor: NFER Nelson. Reid, G. (in press) Specialist teacher training in specific learning difficulties (dyslexia): issues, considerations and future directions. In M. Hunter-Carsh and M. Hetherington (Eds), Dyslexia and Effective Learning in Secondary Schools, Higher and Further Education. London: Whurr. Riddell, S., Duffield, J., Brown, S. and Ogilvy, C. (1992) Specific Learning Difficulties: Policy Practice and Provision. Stirling: University of Stirling. Snowling, M.J. (1995) Phonological processing and developmental dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 132–138. Stanovich, K.E. (1988) Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: the phonological–core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590–612. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)

41

Identifying Bilingual Learners Suspected of Being Dyslexic Stanovich, K.E. (1991) Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 7–10. Stanovich, K.E. (1996) Towards a more inclusive definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia, 2(3), 154–166. Steffensen, M.S., Joag-Dev, C. and Anderson, R.C. (1979) A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(1), 10 – 29. Sutherland, H., Klein, C., Savinson, R. and Partridge, T. (1998) Dyslexia and the Bi-lingual Learner. London: London Language and Literacy Unit. Woldringh, C., Landon, J. and Horst, C. (1998) Second Language In-service Teacher Training (Primary Education in the Netherlands, Scotland and Denmark). Nijmegen: ITS, Stichting Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen.

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 6: 29 – 41 (2000)