Table 2.
Description of studies (N = 15)
| Study # | Author(s) | Year/country | Methodology | Sample | Method of data gathering | Method of data analysis | Weight of evidence (WoE) and main elements bearing on critical appraisal | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carter & Sellman | 2013/UK | Constructivist Grounded Theory | 11 students (4 with dyslexia) | Semi-structured interviews | Coding and categorizing using NVivo | Internal soundness: medium (interpretations not always supported through quotes). | Concordance between one's own way of working and contextual expectations is important to account for differences between students' experiences of writing. |
| Relevance for the review question: high. | ||||||||
| WoE: medium-high | ||||||||
| 2 | Cornett-DeVito | 2005/USA | Phenomenology | 21 students with learning difficulties (LDs) (number of students with dyslexia unspecified; the results section reports the views of 3 students with dyslexia) | In-depth interviews | Description, reduction and interpretation (iterative process). Meaningfulness of themes confirmed through a focus group | Internal soundness: medium (interpretations not always supported through quotes). | In the view of students, competent instructors provide individualized instruction, build rapport, demonstrate knowledge about LDs, are alert to alternatives to assist student learning, and are accessible outside the classroom. |
| Relevance for the review question: medium (it is unspecified how many participants were dyslexic). | ||||||||
| WoE: medium | ||||||||
| 3 | Diraä, Engelen, Ghesquière & Neyens | 2009/Belgium | Survey | 32 students with dyslexia | Semi-structured interviews | Unspecified | Internal soundness: low (data analysis not described; aspects of intervention delivery left unspecified). | Difficulties in assistive technology (AT) use were related to software configuration and disclosure of dyslexia. Students' use of AT was limited to low order functions. |
| Relevance for the review question: high. | ||||||||
| WoE: medium | ||||||||
| 4 | Dixon | 2004/UK | Mixed methods | 25 students (2 disclosed dyslexia) | Questionnaire, participant observation, video recording of students using the software and informal interviews | Descriptive statistics; qualitative data analysis of video recordings | Internal soundness: medium (no details on how the software improved students' understandings). | The animation software tool moderately increased the students' learning. The dyslexic students valued the following components: explicit visual model, one-to-one support, repetition and formative feedback. |
| Relevance for the review question: low (only one dyslexic student informally interviewed). | ||||||||
| WoE: medium-low | ||||||||
| 5 | Dziorny | 2012/USA | Mixed methods | Online survey: 92 students | Online survey, observations and two semi-structured interviews | Descriptive statistics; Grounded Theory | Internal soundness: high (interpretations grounded in quotes; traceable research process). | The students enrolled in an online course using Second Life reported both technical difficulties and benefits (including learning through concise and multiple-format materials). The study describes students' difficulties, coping strategies and views of support in HE. |
| Observation and interviews: 8 students (3 with dyslexia) | Relevance for the review question: high. | |||||||
| WoE: high | ||||||||
| 6 | Farmer, Riddick & Sterling | 2002/UK | Survey | 74 students with dyslexia | Questionnaire | Descriptive statistics; procedure for qualitative analysis unspecified | Internal soundness: medium (procedures of qualitative analysis left unspecified). | The study describes the experience of being identified as dyslexic. |
| Relevance for the review question: medium (the study design provides only limited access to students' views). | ||||||||
| WoE: medium | ||||||||
| 7 | Griffin & Pollak | 2009/UK | Unspecified (qualitative) | 27 students with LDs (13 with dyslexia) | Semi-structured interview | Thematic analysis using both NVivo 7 and a traditional paper-based approach; constant reviewing of emergent themes | Internal soundness: medium (interpretations not always supported through quotes). | The study describes the emotional and identity implications of being formally identified as neurologically diverse individuals. Students reported difficulties with lecturers and accessibility issues with HE courses. |
| Relevance for the review question: medium (responses from students with different LDs are not always differentiated). | ||||||||
| WoE: medium | ||||||||
| 8 | Hadjikakou & Hartas | 2008/Cyprus | Unspecified (qualitative) | 10 students with disabilities (2 with dyslexia), 4 tutors and 10 Heads | Semi-structured interviews and focus groups | Thematic analysis | Internal soundness: medium (interpretations not always supported through quotes). | Students described lecturers' lack of awareness of dyslexia. |
| Relevance for the review question: medium (findings primarily based on tutors' views and only secondarily on students' views). | ||||||||
| WoE: medium | ||||||||
| 9 | Hanafin, Shevlin, Kenny & Mc Neela | 2007/Ireland | Unspecified (qualitative) | 16 students (7 with dyslexia) | Semi-structured interview | Textual readings of transcripts and identification of categories | Internal soundness: low (research process not clearly traceable and only limited space granted to students' views through quotes). | Students described accessibility issues and lecturers' lack of awareness of dyslexia. |
| Relevance for the review question: high. | ||||||||
| WoE: medium | ||||||||
| 10 | Hughes, Herrington, McDonald & Rhodes | 2011/UK | Ethnography | 2 students with dyslexia and 1 tutor | Interviews | Construction of a retrospective narrative; collaborative analysis in which the participants are co-researchers; reflexivity | Internal soundness: high (interpretations grounded in quotes; coherent and highly traceable research process). | The e-portfolio tool (based on the system PebblePad) enabled the students to gain control of the medium and, hence, of their own learning process. |
| Relevance for the review question: high. | ||||||||
| WoE: high | ||||||||
| 11 | Palfreman-Kay | 2000/UK | Grounded theory | 8 students with dyslexia | Semi-structured interviews | In vivo coding, identification of themes, reflexivity | Internal soundness: high (interpretations grounded in quotes; coherent and highly traceable research process). | The findings cover students' views of peer support, professional support, ATs and identification as dyslexic. |
| Relevance for the review question: high. | ||||||||
| WoE: high | ||||||||
| 12 | Pollak | 2005/UK | Unspecified (qualitative) | 33 students with dyslexia | Interviews | Coding of transcripts using NUD.IST; member checks | Internal soundness: low (research process not clearly traceable; interpretations not clearly grounded in quotes). | The study describes how the students came to terms with a formal diagnosis of dyslexia. |
| Relevance for the review question: high. | ||||||||
| WoE: medium | ||||||||
| 13 | 13a) Riddell, Tinklin & Wilson | 2005/UK | Case study | 48 students with dyslexia | In-depth interviews | Unspecified | Internal soundness: low (data collection and analysis procedures not traceable). | The study describes (1) students' experiences with being identified as dyslexic and (2) their views on the meaning of disability and access to reasonable adjustment in assessment. |
| Relevance for the review question: high. | ||||||||
| 13b) Riddell & Weedon | 2006/UK | WoE: medium | ||||||
| 14 | Riddick, Farmer & Sterling | 1997/UK | Unspecified | 16 students with dyslexia | Interviews | Unspecified | Internal soundness: low (no data analysis is provided by the authors). | The study presents students' narratives about being identified as dyslexic, coming to terms with the label of dyslexic, attitudes of relevant others and institutional support. |
| Relevance for the review question: high. | ||||||||
| WoE: medium | ||||||||
| 15 | Taylor & Palfreman-Kay | 2000/UK | Critical ethnography and Grounded Theory | 10 students with dyslexia and 4 deaf students | Semi-structured interviews | Grounded theory | Internal soundness: low (data collection and analysis not clearly traceable). | Students with dyslexia received more support by non-disabled peers than deaf students did. |
| Relevance for the review question: high. | ||||||||
| WoE: medium |