Draft

Alotaibi, Khalid

4270104

Dyslexia labelling in inclusive

education: reality and consequences

MA Special Needs

Module: XX4920 UK - Debating Special and Inclusive Education

Marking tutor: Jackie Dearden

Word Count: 6,597

 Contents
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................3

1. INTRODUCTION:.............................................................................................4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW:......................................................................................5

2.1 Methodology:............................................................................................5

2.2 Labelling Dyslexia students in inclusive education:.........................................6

Understanding the concept of Labelling:............................................................6

TO LABEL OR NOT TO LABEL:...........................................................................6

2.3 THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LABELLING:....................7

2.4 Dyslexia label and academic achievement.....................................................8

2.5 Teachers attitudes towards labelling children with dyslexia...........................10

2.6 Parents attitudes towards labelling children with dyslexia.............................12

2.7 The impact of dyslexia on pupils self-esteem..............................................14

3. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:.......................................................................16

3.1 PROMOTING POSITIVE ATTITUDES:...........................................................16

3.2 DYSLEXIA-FRIENDLY SCHOOLS:................................................................17

3.3 COPING STRATEGIES FOR DYSLEXICS TO BOOST SELF-ESTEEM:..................18

4. CONCLUSION:..............................................................................................19

2
ABSTRACT

This paper is a debating reflection pertaining to dyslexic labels in the inclusive

educational setting. It highlights the argument that the apparent benefits of labelling
dyslexic students has underlying, contentious issues. The reality versus consequences
of dyslexic labelling has been assessed through different perspectives. The debate
addresses potential impacts of dyslexic labelling on the academic performance of
students; teachers negative attitudes towards labelled students, and the stigma
suffered by parents of dyslexic students. Additionally, the paper examines the life-long
impacts of labelling on the self-esteem of students. Signalling a shift away from previous
studies, the implications for practice highlight imperative interventions and a future
vision to be accommodated by inclusive educational authorities.

Keywords: labelling, dyslexia labelling, academic performance, teacher attitudes, self-

esteem

1. INTRODUCTION:

Labelling in an inclusive education setting is not a new phenomenon and always seems
to be in the spotlight for its positive or negative consequences. There are versatile
arguments among educationalists in relation to labelling; where its advocates assume it

3
to be a foundation and directory for the special educational needs of a child, and without
a label these needs cannot be assumed (Ho, 2004; Pumfrey and Reason, 2013; Cameron
and Bellington,2015). Goffman (1963) described labelling as a questioning attribute that
undermines the worth and discredits him as an unnoticed or discounted individual.

Critics who oppose the view of labelling deem it as being harmful for the child, leading to
stigmatisation and negative self-image (Quickie and Winter, 1994; Riddick, 2000). The
heated debates on the increasing use of disability labels in inclusive settings appear to
be pointing towards negative impacts on social identity, self-efficacy and academic
performance of students (Lauchlan and Boyle, 2007; Jodrell, 2010) and this negativity
leads to internalisation, which affects the child in their developmental quest (Taylor et al,
2010).

Relative to this, supporters claim that the consequent impact of the label is constructive
and can be employed by dyslexic students to access support in inclusive schools
(Cameron and Bellington, 2015) and can be built as a value label for the moral good of
dyslexic students. Dyslexia is a neurological learning disability that is associated with
considerable difficulties in reading, spelling, and word recognition and decoding. More
pertinent characteristics of this disability entail comprehension deficits and difficulty in
reading, thus disabling students to get the best grasp of vocabulary and knowledge
(Armstrong et al, 2009).

The varied conceptions of dyslexia labelling led to developing an argument for this
research. This research will outline the argument that either categorisation or labelling in
inclusive schools should be abhorred (Taylor et al, 2010) or adopted positively, to enable
provision of promised rights and facilities in inclusive schools (Solvang, 2007).

The underlying reason for this exploration of labelling or not labelling arises from the
fact that during the researchers academic and professional tenure personal assessments
have been made relating to the potentially negative consequences associated with
labelling. Despite the fact that the practice of finding the right methods and assessments
through labelling is significant, contrary to this is the researchers view that the
harrowing stigma of labelling seems to produce more negative than positive
consequences, (i.e. low self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy) (Taylor et al, 2010) and
extreme levels of social exclusion suffered by dyslexic students tend to lead to more
serious behavioural disorders (Lauchlan and Boyle, 2007).

This research will explore different perspectives of labelling dyslexia in inclusive schools
and it will assess the debate between critics and advocates of labelling dyslexia. The
critical analysis of literature and discussion will be followed by implications for future

4
practice. Furthermore, it will suggest the direction for future research and exploration in
this context.

An extensive number of e-journals have been accessed through the search engine of the
university e-library. In order to select the most appropriate articles, the keywords
labelling, dyslexia and inclusive education have been primarily used. The ethical
guidelines for research have been strictly adhered to, as prescribed by BERA (2011). The
conduct of research is maintained and constructive criticism is established, which is
aimed at improving the practice of labelling and knowledge enhancement.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW:

2.1 Methodology:

The literature review for this research has been collected by following the central
research argument, (dyslexia labelling in inclusive education: reality and consequences).
The literature review has interpreted and analysed comprehensive theoretical and
comparative concepts to assess this argument.

The relevant data and articles were accessed by scouring the university library,
NUsearch, also other databases including Google Scholar were used. NUsearch allowed
even more extensive research through separate options of advanced research,
databases, and e-Journals. The main databases that were used included CINAHLplus with
full text (Ebscohost), SAGE journal online, JSTOR, Wiley Online Library and many more.

The keywords labelling, dyslexia, inclusive education were of paramount significance,

in terms of finding content and driving our investigation. The discipline-specific
databases were employed to avoid irrelevant articles. Throughout the literature collection
and documenting the aspects of consistency, brevity, effective analysis and effective
synthesis have been considered critically.

2.2 Labelling dyslexia students in inclusive education:

Understanding the concept of Labelling:

Categorisation of individuals on the basis of their special educational needs started

around 30/40 years ago (Gold and Richards, 2012) after the authorisation of public law
in 1975. The notion behind categorising individuals on the basis of their physical,
psychological and emotional disabilities was to identify developmental and individualised
pedagogical needs of such individuals that would facilitate overcoming their disabilities
(Garrett and Crump, 1980; Stewart, 1991; Gill and Maynard, 1995).

5
Gallagher (1976) provided both images of labelling that have contributed to the
conflicting and much debated views in this area; he asserts that from a positive
perspective, labelling enables appropriate treatment and alternative solutions, eases
future research for effective treatment and preventions and can be used as a means of
generating funds for learning difficulties. The contrary view opposes the notion of any
apparent support in these areas, highlighting that labelling seems to be done for ease of
professionals and keeping minorities at a lower social level.

Labelling has far reaching consequences, not only limited to the bearer, but for the
policies of inclusive education as well as other practices. Tracing its history back to the
70s when interchangeable terminologies were used for labelling; where individuals with
a mental deficit were labelled as feeble-minded, imbeciles and idiots (Kirk and Gallagher,
1997) that were replaced by the mental deficiency in 1961.

The different definitive constructs of labelling hardly pose any positive dimension or
consequences for the bearers. The distinguishing function that a label serves appears to
be of a discriminatory purpose, as it isolates an individual or individuals from the rest of
the community and attaches information that has no significant precision (Kirk and
Gallagher, 1997).

TO LABEL OR NOT TO LABEL:

Labelling refers to assigning a description on the basis of peculiar traits that are physical,
psychological or behavioural to distinguish an individual from others. Labelling thus
categorises an individual to a specific group having common characteristics (Smith et al,
1986). Hobbs (1975) identified labelling as the classification that has the connotation of
stigma as it categorises an individual and assigns them to a separate position. Sowards
(2015) argues that labelling refers to the justification of unique needs required in a
special education setting; serves as a convenient mode for educationalists to adopt the
right communication and learning interventions for the bearer.

Adding to this, Keogh (1987) advocated learning disability labels serves as a call for
seeking attention to their particular problem and drives mechanisms of treatment and
services through scientific means (diagnostic labels). In the same vein, another
argument in favour of labelling by Kuther (1994), supported diagnostic labels as a mean
of proliferating research towards more effective improvement interventions.

In contrast to this largely positive view, some have suggested that the acceptance of a
label by an individual develops a self-fulfilling prophecy that breeds alleviated self-image
and performance expectations, impaired self-esteem and worthless self-conceptualisation

6
(Rosenthal, 2002; McGrew and Evans, 2003). Hunt (2010) indicates that "labelling is
more like disabling" (p, 3) when learning disabilities are labelled on an individual they
believe in what they are told, and live up to that label or description.

Likewise, opposing the exclusion of LD labels, Hallahan and Kauffman (1994) advocate
stimulation of culture of diversity which they believe will help eliminate the negative
conspiracies of stigma and labelling through esprit de corps in disabling individuals.
Smith (2001) suggests labelling as the necessity for determining the right care for
people and as a social and economic parameter of improvement.

2.3 THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LABELLING:

Looking in more detail at the criticisms of labelling, Osterholm et al (2000) propose that
labelling students is representative of a conventional paradigm. Becker (1963) and
Hebding and Glick (1987) provide the insight on labelling theory, which is that appointing
an individual as different connotes negatively and influences adversely the perceptions of
the bearer, parents, teachers and peers.

The underlying notion of labelling theory reflects the empirical pattern associated with
labelling, and assumes that the stigmatisation originating from labelling is consequent of
substantial alteration in identity, compelling lower self-image and increased social
distancing due to segregation faced by special students (Osterholm, et al, 2000) thus,
reinforcing that label to respond in a certain way impedes all future interactions of the
individual (Hebding and Glick, 1987).

The social constructionist approach to labelling endorses the view that labelling aims
more at categorisation and thus re-individualism, rather than focusing on enhancing
their abilities (Soder, 1989). Moreover, this view argues that theoretical structures of
labelling emphasise categorisation that underline the learning disabilities, and thus the
fading chances of the individual's development (Boyle, 2013).

The anti-labelling movements of the 1960s placed more of an emphasis on healing

tactics of individuals rather than labelling; this also put forth considerations for
educational labelling, and deemed recognising characteristics of labelled individuals
rather than undermining their personalities through labels (Holliman, 2013). This
movement condemned using labels in the educational context and opposes Keoghs
(1987) learning disability labels by highlighting that the overuse of these tags
depersonalises the individuality; this also opposes Sowards (2015) justification for
labelling as Holliman (2013) condemned overusing labels as a means of putting an end
to individuality.

7
In addition to this, attribution theory has significant linkage to labelling too. Attribution
theory espouses that social beliefs influence the thinking of individuals. Labelling ascribes
or assigns to an individual the perception that he cannot excel because he/she is
inadequate and labelled dyslexic; thus the label represents the reason for their failures
(Graham, 1991; Woolfson and Brady, 2009). Likewise, attribution theory also points
toward the locus of control, which highlights that an individuals self-esteem, guilt and
shame are based on the triggers that are attributed to these factors(Woolfson and Brady,
2009).

2.4 Dyslexia label and academic achievement

Dyslexia is a well-known learning disability that is stressful, not only for the individual
but also for educationalists and family (Lyon et al, 2003; Reid, 2012). Dyslexia is a
multifaceted learning deficit that hinders an individuals ability to understand and
interpret words, symbols and letters due to an undefined cause (Stein, 2008).

Sameulsson et al (2004) highlighted their understanding of dyslexia as a complex

learning difficulty that impedes an individual from appropriate word recognition, a deficit
in phonological awareness and inadequate linguistics and literacy skills; having its origin
from genetic and biological reasons. In an inclusive setting, there are considerable
efforts being undertaken to address and facilitate the learning needs and requirements of
dyslexic students (Reid, 2012).

Duggan et al (1996) highlighted that labelling dyslexic and other students with learning
disabilities is a means of creating an inferiority complex towards academic achievements.
Contrary to this view, advocates of labelling claim that if inadequate support for dyslexic
students in inclusive settings is not notified and recognised, this may lead to
insufficiencies that could have serious consequences for students (Riddick, 2000; Lyon et
al, 2003).

Proponents of labelling believe that once identified, dyslexic students can be empowered
to fight with their inabilities and overcome the negative impact that would have occurred
through non-labelling. Others disagree with this view; Riddicks (2000) research provides
an insight from students who revealed that it was the act of labelling that excluded them
from participating in an inclusive setting with their peers. Boyle (2013) identified that
students felt highly stressed and inferior when their intelligence was questioned after
being labelled dyslexic; thus others having a negative view of their academic proficiency.
Others also recorded their views of facing significant social judgments on being labelled
for their learning disabilities, specifically dyslexia (Dunn et al, 2004).

8
The stigma associated with the categorisation of dyslexic students in inclusive settings
leads to many serious considerations (Boyle, 2013; Reid, 2016). Different empirical
studies have shown inconsistent results, but the majority of quantitative studies have
revealed the potentially negative impact of dyslexic labels on the academic performance
of the student (Riddick, 2000). Several qualitative types of research focusing specifically
on this issue, revealed some negative notions where students revealed extreme criticism
and the insensitive behaviour of peers on their classroom performance, thus diminishing
their desire to learn more (Riddick, 2000; MacDonald, 2010). Moreover, in an inclusive
setting, the labelled students also reported some inhumane behaviour from the teacher
or instructor, public insulting and the use of disapproving or derogatory terms, which
created an impediment in terms of academic efforts expended and overall achievement.

In his research, Jones (1972) and Wearmouth et al (2002) assessed students with
learning disabilities, specifically dyslexic students who had been placed in a special
educational setting. The students revealed feelings of shame and reluctance towards
inclusive settings to avoid mocking, having difficulties in keeping pace with the
educational curriculum, with their peers, and having significant concerns about their
results and future professional career.

Fredrickson et al (2001) identified that extreme embarrassment and shame is faced by

the labelled dyslexics, as during their academic assessments the students conceal their
identities and prefer excluding themselves from regular students to avoid shame and
distress resulting from their impaired spellings, impaired vocabulary and reading. In
addition to this, the segregation they faced from non-labelled students in special
educational settings in pullout programs was also an embarrassment for them
(Fredrickson et al, 2001; Riddick, 2000). Thus, this reveals that segregation, labelling
and stigmatising on the whole, can be disheartening for dyslexics (Barga, 1996).

Higgins et al (2002) conducted an elaborate piece of research incorporating 41 students

with learning disabilities - primarily dyslexia; this 20-year longitudinal study identified
the academic performance patterns of students from their childhood up until adult age.
Higgins (2002) posited the discrediting faced by dyslexic students, specifically in terms
of their reading deficiencies, spellings mistakes and vocabulary impairments . This needs
to be improved through compensatory strategies to overcome significant social
challenges in the academic context faced by dyslexic students (Rollins, 2014)

The comparative arguments reveal that labelling dyslexic students is one of the
contributing extrinsic factors that can impede their academic development (Wearmouth
et al 2002), and it is also a potential cause of stigmatisation; leading to an exaggerated
fear of being judged (Lisle, 2011). Fredrickson et al (2001) and Carver (2000)

9
highlighted psychological triggers of dyslexic non-performance and labelling is one of
those factors.

Sheppard (2009) reflected on different labels imposed on dyslexic students including

moderate learning disability, compensated and non-compensated; these labels
contribute adequately to their overall development with an underlying feeling of being
incompetent. Moreover, this study conforms with the views of Tafti et al (2009), which is
that labelling dyslexia appears to trigger perceptual images of the persons disability;
avoiding these can lead to a more positive stance and greater potential in terms of
academic performance.

2.5 Teachers attitudes towards labelling children with dyslexia

There is extensive evidence on teachers attitudes and expectations in regard to

students learning disabilities (Madon et al, 1997; Jussim and Harber, 2005). Teachers
expectations in an inclusive setting refers to anticipated performance, and judgments
about students with respect to their competencies they exhibit academically (Jussim and
Harber, 2005) Meharie et al (2012). Jussim and Harber (2005) described attitude as a
mode of thinking, behaving and dealing; and a teacher's attitude is something that has
significant concerns for different social groups including students, teachers, and inclusive
educational establishments. Consequently, teacher attitudes are critical in successfully
implementing inclusive practices (Norwich, 1994) but the problem is that attitudes vary
from teacher to teacher (Fakolade et al, 2009) which shows the complexity of this issue.
Nevertheless, the positive attitude of teachers is critical if inclusive education policies are
to be successfully realised (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).

There is significant evidence of the biases that exist in teachers attitudes towards
selective students that reflects their detrimental interaction with those students; thus
undermining their effective academic performance (Paterson, 2007). There is a strong
subtext of teachers attitudes towards dyslexic students; where instructors hold low
expectations and show a hostile attitude towards students compared to non-dyslexic
students (Hornstra et al, 2010; Rollins, 2014).

Jones and Burden (2009) have identified that if the teachers expertise level and
knowledge is appropriate; they tend to exhibit a positive attitude and perception towards
helping dyslexic students (Jones and Burden, 2009; Reid, 2012). Furnham (2013) also
reflected extensively the positive attitudes of both teachers and students towards the
dyslexic construct and label, particularly amongst new teachers who showed confidence
in supporting dyslexic students (Furnham, 2013), perhaps indicative of a shift in teacher
attitudes towards such students.

10
At the other end of the scale, extensive findings on negative attitudes and perceptions of
teachers are found relating to dyslexic labelling (Gibbs and Elliott, 2015). Ysseldyke and
Foster (1978) identified negative perceptions and attitudes of teachers when notified
about the learning disabilities of students in an inclusive setting; a more recent study by
Hornstra et al (2010) concurred with this view in terms of behaviour and level of
academic performance. Burdg and Grahams study (1984) also revealed rather negative
attitudes on vague labels, thus misjudging student performance.

The results obtained from the Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale (RGEPS) by
Gillung and Rucker (1977) reflected that children described with labels were perceived as
behaviourally unsatisfactory and academically weak, and considered more complicated in
terms of meeting their special academic needs. This indicates that educationalists need
to assess the negative impacts of teacher attitudes on dyslexic students and take
cautionary measures.

Considering all of the arguments above, it can be inferred that teacher attitudes towards
inclusive education vary widely, as identified by Avramidis and Norwich (2002). What is
apparent is that some teachers are lowering their expectations of dyslexic students in
terms of overall academic performance, vis-a-vis other students (Hornstra et al, 2010),
whilst others are looking at respective characteristics and deficiencies.

Moreover, there is a concurring with views that the stigmatisation and stereotyping
linked to dyslexic labelling can contribute towards shaping teachers judgments of
dyslexic students (Jussim & Harber, 2005; Schwartz, 2008; Jorden et al, 2009).
Teachers subconscious or conscious attitude towards dyslexic students can directly or
indirectly reflect negative behaviour towards them, impacting their academic
performance. In an inclusive setting, there should be more effort put into increasing
teacher awareness on how to deal with labelled students; and how negative attitudes
and unequal treatment can affect such students (Rosenthal, 1994).

The wait and see policy adopted in some inclusive settings highlighted in different
studies (Petterson, 2007; Sward, 2012) reflects a lack of teacher competence, increasing
their irresponsible attitude towards dyslexic students (Sward, 2012). This further
confirms their negative attitude towards tackling and improving reading and learning
deficits (Petterson and Mattson, 2007). Students complain that the academic attitude
towards their label as professional bureaucracies, where they are handed over to special
group teachers, can lead to more inflexibilities, uncooperativeness, and covert
involuntary exclusion (Mattson and Petterson, 2007).This lack of knowledge amongst
teachers involved with dyslexic students highlights a clear and urgent warning sign for
the teacher training process (Pettersson and Mattson, 2007; Sward, 2012).

11
The ramifications of teacher behaviour towards labelled students (good or bad) cannot
be underestimated. A teachers pedagogical identity is reflected in the way they treat,
behave, teach and value their students; therefore, negative attitudes towards dyslexia
should be addressed by teacher educational programs to counteract subjective
judgments that impede the academic growth of dyslexic students.

In the next section, parental contribution and attitude towards dyslexia labelling will be
assessed, and its impact on overcoming the challenges involved.

2.6 Parents attitudes towards labelling children with dyslexia

Being the parent of a dyslexic student is another perspective that contributes to

significant issues and challenges. Parents face a wide range of issues and bad practices,
but the way in which they deal with insults, exclusion and violent behaviour towards
dyslexic students can have significance (Mullins, 1987; Broke and Shute, 2001; Reid,
2011) Parents can face psychological pressure due to social stigmas and lack of potential
support for their child rearing (Stoel, 1990; Riddle et al, 1994). Amongst other
challenges faced by parents of dyslexic children are: monitoring and managing their
childs self-esteem, helping him/her with academic work, developing his/her confidence
through therapy sessions, helping the child with personal organisation, helping him/her
counter insensitivities from teachers and peers and dealing with the imposed label of
dyslexia (Broke and Shute, 2001; Reid, 2011).

Different studies, like Isaksson et al (2010), have highlighted the struggles encountered
by parents in trying to achieve academic recognition for their children Runswicks study
(2007)highlighted how parents disclosed feelings of disappointment when confronted
with labels of learning disabilities. Being the parent of a disabled child makes the whole
family disabled exclaimed the father of a dyslexic student (Runswick, 2007). Parents of
labelled children have increasingly reported exclusion and barriers to inclusion from
society as well as educational facilities for their child (Murray and Penman, 1996).

Previous literature has also identified what appears to be a deeper malaise with
diagnostic dyslexia labelling that seemingly promises to fulfil provisions required for the
child. Broomhead (2013) has identified the controversies of labelling and parental views
on the negative aspects of this, as parents feel that the labelling process downplays the
positive traits and competencies the child might possess, instead selectively focusing on
negative aspects which are attributed to him/her for much of their life.

12
According to a study conducted by Blum (2007), parental anxiety related to the
maltreatment of their child is reflected in their perception on label as stigmatisation. As
identified by Riddick (2000), parents consider labels as a means of self-fulfilling
prophecies in educational settings; that deteriorate the educational and personal
reputation of their child and also leads to maltreatment by peers and teachers. Blamiers
et al (2013) identified parental dilemmas and input on their child being labelled dyslexic.
Parents have reported issues with labelling for their children such as restricted
opportunities, effects on academic performance, and having to face negative attitudes
and bullying by peers.

On the other hand, prior research has also recorded positive experiences of parents with
dyslexia labels. Riddick (2000) found that parents reveal positive perceptions on labelling
as they consider it a way of specifying the general educational needs of their child.
Additionally, Bogdanowicz (1996) also identified parents taking ownership of their childs
dyslexia label as they preferred these defined labels rather than other negative
attributes.

Reid et al (2013) have recorded positive experiences of parents towards dyslexic

labelling as they found the "label" as an "enabler" for access to effective inclusive
services for their child, addressing the right medical diagnosis and treatment as well as
determining good parental strategies to avoid poor parenting. Moreover, these parents
believe that dyslexic labelling is a means of determining "response to intervention"
approaches in inclusive educational settings for appropriate reading and spelling
strategies.

This divergence in views on dyslexic labelling expressed by parents can be attributed to

several underlying factors, some of which will be highlighted here. The help and
provision of academic resources in inclusive settings has generally led to a positive
attitude, whereas the lack of support, facilitation of inclusive services and hostile
behaviour of teachers has led to a negative attitude of parents towards dyslexic labelling.
Frederickson (2010) suggests that negative stereotypes and public stigma cause parents
more worry, adding to the controversy of labelling of their child.

Ho (2004) identified another dimension, that of parents being unable to deal with the
social exclusion suffered by their child as a result of being labelled. The social and
emotional consequences that lead to the disruptive behaviour of their child can also
make parents resist labelling (Riddick, 2009; MacDonald, 2010). It seems therefore, that
the presence of adequate support can help parents in adopting the right attitude towards
dyslexia labelling.

13
In the next section, the importance of self-esteem is highlighted and how labelling
dyslexia impedes or enhances the self-esteem of students.

2.7 The impact of dyslexia on pupils self-esteem

Behind the apparent promised provision of special needs in inclusive settings lies the
reality of disproportionate efforts which are triggering lower self-esteem in labelled
dyslexic students (Renick and Harter, 1989; Singer, 2005). Self-esteem refers to the
personal interpretation of being worthy and this judgment is reflected in an individuals
behaviour and attitude towards himself (Singer, 2005). Additionally, Gurney (1988)
defined self-esteem as the extent of acceptability and self-concept possessed by an
individual. Morgan (1996) revealed that children countering issues pertinent to some
learning disability become victim to significantly lower self-image and self-esteem
(Singer 2005; Green, 2014). Being in an inclusive setting and labelled as dyslexic, the
stress encountered by the student from teachers and peers for not performing up to the
mark highlights their perception of being different. This leads to internalisation of
negative attributes that shapes lower self-esteem (Schafer et al, 2004; Veenstra et al,
2007). This can also be affected by a lack of support and required academic provisions,
which leads to a decline in performance, and a diminishment of self-image and self-
esteem (Morgam, 1996). Lack of recognition for dyslexic students substantially declines
their interest level in studies and also enhances their social exclusion aptitude
(Humphrey, 2002).

Other negative aspects of labelling have been identified by Reid (2001), whose study
highlighted higher levels of frustration and anxiety, which led to anti-social attitudes and
deviance (Green, 2014); the end result being alarmingly lower levels of self-esteem
(Terras et al, 2009).

The spontaneous observation conversation with labelled dyslexic students, recorded by

Gilroy (1995), highlighted deep rooted poor self-image and self-esteem. Gilroy (1995)
reported that dyslexic students responded with a desperate notion towards being
labelled by using the phrases hopeless at, never been good at, could never and
messed up which revealed the inherent negativity of self-concept. Additionally, other
contributing factors to low self-esteem included peer teasing and bullying, which
proliferates social exclusion (Humphrey, 2001; Riddick, 2000). Furthermore, negative
teacher attitudes and disproportionate treatment in an inclusive setting persistently adds
to lower self-esteem (Humphrey, 2003). Moyle (2016) has approved the significance and

14
reliability of observation conversation as a means of deliberate improvement in self-
esteem and trust between teacher and student.

The label of being dyslexic and deficient in literacy skills breeds in dyslexic students,
which adds to their lack of understanding (Glazzard, 2010) that leads to increased levels
of anxiety and frustration; thus hopelessness to improve academically adds to their
deteriorated self-esteem and self-fulfilling prophecy with constant triggers of failure
(Riddick, 2000). Taylor et al (2010) reflected on the notion that an increase in dyslexic
labels by educators is focusing more on educational outcomes rather than the personal
influences these labels are causing. Wood et al (2006) revealed that dyslexic students
were deficient in reading, phonological processing and motor skills. These limit ones
tendencies to experience the excitement of learning, thus the resultant lack of
motivation and interest disturbs self-esteem.

In contrast to these negative dimensions, Riddick (1995, 1997, and 2000) asserted
positive association between dyslexia and self-esteem claiming it to be highly
influential in facilitating educational issues of students. Riddick (2000) recorded students
views that when labels are well-acknowledged and their academic facilities are
appropriately fulfilled, they develop a strong self-image and self-esteem. Likewise, Taylor
(2009) highlighted positive impacts of dyslexia on self-esteem; control groups who were
provided with basic educational facilities had higher self-esteem, and they considered
being labelled as an opportunity to fight back with their disability.

Based on the issues raised, there are two dimensions that facilitate low self-esteem.
Previous research reveals more negative associations of the dyslexia label and self-
esteem; the reasons being the negative attitudes, social stigma and stereotyping faced
by students in educational settings (Singer, 2005; Taylor et al, 2010). Juxtaposed to this
is the view, effective pedagogical measures can help alleviate academic difficulties,
bolster self-image and self-esteem (Riddick, 2000).

Considering the underlying notion of this correlation, (i.e. the impact of the label on self-
esteem), it seems that labels can hold potential impact for dyslexic students. When this
is done through early diagnosis, as posited by Riddick (2000) and Reid (2016), the
objective must be, not only to fulfill educational interventions but also enhance self-
esteem which may lead to a better academic future.In correspondence to this, the future
studies should entail a more holistic methodological perspective with respect to dyslexia
labelling. Future researches should also focus on assessing the impact of labelling on
self-construct and its attribution to overall academic and professional success of
individual and it substantiate their relative success or failure on the whole. Future
researches should also entail a chronological profile of labelled dyslexic students and

15
then assessing how they develop over period of time through different life stages
academically and professionally. Moreover, following implications for practice are
presented to help overcome the prevailing challenges to dyslexia labelling

3. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:

3.1 PROMOTING POSITIVE ATTITUDES:

In order to overcome the prevailing beliefs and stigmas associated with labelling, there is
a need for reforms in interventions, attitudes and the way in which dyslexic students are
treated (Reid, 2016). There is a burgeoning call for substantial action through policies
and subsequent legislation in inclusive educational settings aimed at improving attitudes
(Riddick, 2000; Taylor et al, 2010). According to the Rose report (2009), national
strategies should be updated and different governmental agencies should work to
facilitate provisions and enhancing teaching competencies for dyslexic students.

Regarding the above debate, the dyslexia organisation for Special Educational Need and
Disabilities (SEND) should direct their efforts towards enhancing diagnostic support and
intervention for dyslexia; facilitating cooperative and supportive activities of dyslexic
students with their peers in inclusive settings. Pearson (2009) added to the required
interventions and identified that promotion of effective teaching practices is crucial to
overcome current negative stigmas with dyslexic students.

This debate has also identified the critical difficulties countered by dyslexic students with
respect to the negative attitudes of their teachers (Madon et al, 1997; Riddick, 2000;
Jussim and Harber, 2005) Negative attitudes amongst teachers and society should be
dealt with through effective teaching interventions, regular monitoring of teacher
behaviour and feedback from students on teachers interaction with them.

In order to minimise the difficulties faced by dyslexic labelled students, the individual
differences should be all the more celebrated (Green, 2014). Despite being in an
inclusive setting, the peer pressure and negative stereotypes labelled dyslexic students
faced in academic platform impeded their social growth. Therefore, there should be
easier access to every basic facility that enhances their self-concept (McMahon, 2012).
Recognition of their competencies and special traits should be acknowledged by teachers
(Riddick, 2000), as teacher approval can impact confidence levels.

Negative teacher attitudes towards dyslexic students appears to be linked with their
inadequate competence level (Fakolade et al, 2009; Reid, 2012), thus the evidence on
biased teacher attitudes triggers the need for improvement in teacher training (Paterson,

16
2007). Moreover, adequate literacy teaching skills will help dyslexic learners assess the
positive aspects of their label (Taylor, 2012).

In addition, negative teacher attitudes also lead to poor academic performance of the
student, indicating a need to assess progress and improvement in speaking, listening,
writing and spelling (Green, 2014). The disproportionate rating of students by teachers
should be strictly addressed, as this makes the dyslexic student feel further isolated
(Gibbs and Elliott, 2015). So, appropriate support programs should aim towards constant
monitoring of teaching practices in inclusive schools (Furnham, 2013).

The misgauging of dyslexic students performance leads to their lack of interest in

academic pursuits and social exclusion (Reid, 2016). To mitigate this concern, advocates
of inclusive education recommend supportive activities for students, such as effective
counselling sessions, parental coaching and developing cooperative groups that help
combat the stigma of uselessness suffered by dyslexic students (Singer, 2005).
Moreover, peer support sessions should be set up to help dyslexic students through
mentoring and attitude transition services. The academic curriculum should also address
the learning deficits of dyslexics that will help them understand the labelling process and
its positive consequences (Riddick, 2000).

There are certain constraints that may impede the successful adaptation of some of the
abovementioned recommendations - a lack of teacher support towards cultivating the
right attitude, and greater parental input, which goes beyond primarily seeing the label
as a means of accessing the right medical help (Reid, 2016).

3.2 DYSLEXIA-FRIENDLY SCHOOLS:

Despite the provision of pedagogical services to dyslexic students, the negative

stereotypes they face leads to the feeling of worthlessness and lower self-esteem. The
above debate highlighted that dyslexic students array of negative experiences at school
added to their frustration. Many reported unhelpful comments by teachers; lack of
appreciation by teachers on content; discouraging comments in front of the class on
wrong spellings; embarrassing comments and mocking by peers (Taylor, 2012; Green,
2014; Reid, 2016). Considering these considerable impediments, dyslexia associations
should promote the development of Dyslexia Friendly schools (DFS). These schools need
to focus on recognising the underlying needs of dyslexic students that are overlooked by
non-specialist teachers in inclusive settings. Furthermore, the practices in a DFS should
trigger customised and flexible teaching methods that cater to the learning and academic
needs of dyslexic students, helping them with developing phonological impairments,
writing and literacy skills (Riddick, 2006).

17
Through the collaboration of school authorities and parents, some dyslexia friendly
teaching techniques should be devised that will help shape positive attitudes of parents,
teachers and peers. These techniques should address motivating the confidence level of
dyslexic students and promoting their academic inclusion (Norwich et al, 2005). Dyslexia
friendly teaching needs to emphasise and appreciate dyslexic students strengths
frequently, downplaying their deficiencies as this can help them realise their potential.

There should be opportunities recognising the success of dyslexic students and this
should accommodate regular positive feedback on their effort, thus, building an
appropriate picture of their capabilities too. In order to divert the focus away from the
differences and ease peer-pressure, dyslexia friendly classrooms should accommodate
multi-sensory techniques that would provide students with alternate ways to read and
write tasks (McKay, 2001; Norwich et al, 2005; Riddick, 2006).

3.3 COPING STRATEGIES FOR DYSLEXICS TO BOOST SELF-ESTEEM:

This discussion has highlighted how inadequate faculty support and the stigma of being
dyslexic deteriorate self-image of dyslexics (Humphrey, 2002). As a coping strategy,
counselling provides an effective means of reviving self-esteem (Scott, 2004). Potential
counselling groups can help dyslexics with avoidance and emotional distress through
remedial education (Hales, 2004). Counselling has not been recognised prior to this as a
potential means of encouraging dyslexia (Hales, 2004); but Burden (2005) has
highlighted its positive effects. It can enable them to alleviate emotional shock and
hopelessness through criticism and negative remarks from teachers. Positive signs and
improvements in reading skills have been reported in students who received remedial
treatment through therapeutic techniques, with self-esteem also being boosted (Burden,
2008).

Supporters of dyslexia like The Dyslexia Action Organisation (2014) are working towards
reforms and developmental practices designed to help dyslexic students in inclusive
settings. Their "Literacy and Dyslexia Professional Development Framework" is
developing programs to boost academic needs which can positively affect self-esteem.
The program aims to endorse transformation in values, resources, ethos and policies for
dyslexic students. This will inculcate the fact that targeted values in a dyslexic inclusive
class should recognise that dyslexic learning tendencies are different; so adaptive
teaching and techniques should motivate them to learn and acquire new skills rather
than undermining their potentials. The program aims to accomplish 100% success
through resource-based learning and incorporating services of specialist consultants
(Dyslexia Action, 2014).

18
Inclusive dyslexia friendly practice is another intervention aiming at staff commitment,
enhancing imagination of dyslexics and cultivating a fuller atmosphere of opportunities to
raise their self-image. Intervention strategies also need to consider the key aspect of
enhancing student-teacher relationships which should entail empathy, appreciation, and
acknowledgment (Green, 2014).

Communication difficulties for dyslexic students should be improved through positive

relationships and integration with peers. In order to overcome serious consequences of
lowering self-esteem, positive thinking strategies should be facilitated by educationalists
(Dyslexia Action report, 2014). The emotional blocking that alleviates confidence in self
should be fostered through positive self-talk techniques or use of adult role models in the
classroom. External attribution should be avoided by the teacher as dyslexic students
cannot control factors beyond their control. Rather they should be motivated through
internal attribution and working on factors that can help shape their success (Dyslexia
Action report, 2014).

Future studies have a wider platform to assess in the dyslexia labelling context. This
research hopefully lays the foundation for analysing more positive or controversial
aspects to a dyslexics labelling. Future research can bring forward positive and potential
aspects of labelling as highlighted by Taylor (2009), who highlights that the dyslexic label
can lead to much higher levels of self-esteem and the struggle towards academic
improvement.

Other implications to consider involve authorities looking critically into the labelling
process critically. Incentives relevant to dyslexia labelling should be considered,
particularly if the labelling process stays with the individual throughout their life. The
hindered academic performance of students in inclusive settings due to labelling must be
addressed. The claims of enhanced treatment access through the labelling process are
not doing justice to the well-being of dyslexic students. There is a vital need to
reconsider the focus for the appropriateness of labelling, so that it manifests some
benefits to dyslexic students, their parents and society.

4. CONCLUSION:

The dyslexic labelling debate has revealed both positive and negative aspects of inclusive
education. The dimensions of academic performance, teacher attitudes, parental
attitudes and self-esteem were assessed. The extensive literature has addressed the
prevailing use of labelling, but failed to address the requisite strategies to show some
considerable positive aspects of labelling. The majority of students appear to be suffering

19
impediments in academic performance due to lack of adequate provision and support,
thus leading to their social exclusion and withdrawal behaviours. Moreover, teacher
attitudes is found to have serious ramifications, in terms of shaping perceptions of
dyslexic students. From the parental view, the negative aspects suffered by parents was
their child's undermining self-image and lifelong label that impedes potential future
learning opportunities.

Considering the complex and delicate nature of the issues raised through this study,
advocates of the labelling process oppose its abolition. They assert that failing to label
dyslexic students will limit their abilities to determine the right support. The discussion
also manifested the view that advocates of the labelling process will cultivate an
impartial system towards learning disabilities of dyslexics that will highlight objectively
the return of the labelling process, rather than criticising the basic academic provisions
for labelled dyslexic students.

In analysing the debate outlined in this paper, the author has highlighted evidence that
contradicts views on labelling, providing significant grounds for future research. This
paper has shown that labels can have a significant impact on the perceptions of all
stakeholders involved. Labelling reinforces certain behaviours and the bearer reflects the
enforced label, thus inhibiting him to overcome his deficits. However, the few positive
aspects of labelling that have been identified cannot be overlooked as the unbiased
interpretation of positive aspects reveals some sensible benefits of labelling as well. In
general, the literature reviewed has not revealed a definite argument for or against
dyslexia labelling.

To conclude, this debate has enhanced the researchers learning whilst having had the
opportunity to consider the opposing views of previous studies. The changing educational
platform and challenging inclusive setting provides a compelling case for a proper
framework to provide a dyslexic friendly inclusive platform.

20
 REFERENCES:

Alexander-Passe, N. (2015) The Dyslexia Experience: Difference, Disclosure, Labelling,

Discrimination, and Stigma. Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences 2(2),
pp.202-233.

Armstrong, D. and Humphrey, N. (2009) Research section: Reactions to a diagnosis of

dyslexia among students entering further education: development of the resistance
accommodation model. British Journal of Special Education 36(2), pp.95-102.

Avramidis, E. and Norwich, B. (2002) Teachers attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A

review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education 17, 129147

Barga, N.K. (1996) Students with Learning Disabilities in Education Managing a

Disability. Journal of learning disabilities 29(4), pp.413-421

Becker, H.S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free
Press

Becker, H.S. (1974) Labelling theory reconsidered. Deviance and social control. London:
Tavistock, pp.41-66.

British Educational Research Association (2011) Ethical guidelines for educational research
[online] available from: <https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BERA-
Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf> [20th December 2016]

Boyle C., (2013) Labelling in special education: Where do the benefits lie?. in Educational
Psychology: An international perspective. ed. by Holliman, A. London: Routledge

Brock, A. and Shute, R. (2001) Group coping skills program for parents of children with
dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 6, 15
25.

Broomhead, K. (2013) Blame, guilt and the need for labels; insights from parents of
children with special educational needs and educational practitioners. British Journal of
Special Education 40(1), pp.14-21.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American

psychologist 34(10), p.844.

Dowling, M. and Dolan, L. (2001) Families with children with disabilitiesinequalities and the
social model. Disability and Society 16(1), 2235

21
Dunn, C., Chambers, D. and Rabren, K. (2004) Variables affecting students' decisions to
drop out of school. Remedial and Special Education 25(5), pp.314-323.

Dyslexia Action (2014) Dyslexia Still Matters. [online] available from:

http://www.dyslexiaaction.org.uk/files/dyslexiaaction/dyslexia_still_matters.pdf. [20th
December, 2016]

Earey, A. (2013) Parental experiences of support for pupils with dyslexia: ignoring the effect
on parents. Support for Learning 28(1), pp.35-40.

Fakolade, O.A., Adeniyi, S.O. and Tella, A. (2009) The attitude of Teachers towards the
Inclusion of Special Needs Children in General Education Classroom: The Case of
Teachers in Some Selected Schools in Nigeria. International Electronic Journal of
elementary education, 1(3), pp.155-169.

Farrell, P. (2001) Current issues in special needs: Special education in the last twenty years:
have things really got better?. British Journal of Special Education 28(1), pp.3-9.

Frederickson, N. and Jacobs, S. (2001) Controllability Attributions for Academic Performance

and the Perceived Scholastic Competence, Global Self-Worth and Achievement of
Children with Dyslexia. School Psychology International 22(4), pp.401-416

Frederickson, N. (2010) The Gulliford lecture: Bullying or befriending? Children's responses

to classmates with special needs. British Journal of Special Education 37(1), pp.4-12

Furnham, A. (2013) Lay knowledge of dyslexia. Psychology 4(12), p.940.

Garrett, M.K. and Crump, W.D. (1980) Peer acceptance, teacher preference, and self-
appraisal of social status among learning disabled students. Learning Disability
Quarterly 3(3), pp.42-48.

Gibbs, S., & Elliott, J. (2015). The differential effects of labelling: how do dyslexiaand
reading difficulties affect teachers beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 30(3), 323-337.

Gill, V.T. and Maynard, D.W. (1995) On labeling in actual interaction: Delivering and
receiving diagnoses of developmental disabilities. Social Problems 42(1), pp.11-37.

Gilroy, D. (1995) Stress factors in the college student. in Dyslexia and Stress. eds. by Miles,
T.R. and Varma, V. London: Whurr Publications.

22
Glazzard, J. (2010) The impact of dyslexia on pupils' selfesteem. Support for
Learning 25(2), pp.63-69.

Goswami, U. and Bryant, P. (1989) The interpretation of studies using the reading level
design. Journal of Literacy Research 21(4), pp.413-424

Graham, S. (1991) A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. Educational

Psychology Review, 38, 5-39.

Green, R. (2014) Reflecting on Dyslexia and its Effects on Learning in Regards to Self-
Esteem, in a Technology-Based Mainstream School Maintained by the Local Authority in
the South East of England. The Step Journal 1(1), pp.3-10.

Griffiths, C.B., Norwich, B. and Burden, B. (2004) The parental agency, identity and
knowledge: mothers of children with dyslexia. Oxford review of education 30(3),
pp.417-433.

GwernanJones, R. and Burden, R.L. (2010) Are they just lazy? Student teachers' attitudes
about dyslexia. Dyslexia 16(1), pp.66-86.

Heading, D.E. and Glick, L. (1987) Introduction to sociology. Random House.NewYork

Higgins, E.L., Raskind, M.H., Goldberg, R.J. and Herman, K.L. (2002) Stages of acceptance
of a learning disability: The impact of labeling. Learning Disability Quarterly 25(1), pp.3-
18.

Ho, A. (2004) To be labelled, or not to be labelled: that is the question. British Journal of
Learning Disabilities 32(2), pp.8692.

Holliman, A.J. (2013) The Routledge international companion to educational psychology.

Routledge.London

Hornstra, L., Denessen, E., Bakker, J., van den Bergh, L. and Voeten, M. (2010) Teacher
attitudes toward dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic
achievement of students with dyslexia. Journal of learning disabilities.

Humphrey, N. (2002) Self-concept and self-esteem in developmental dyslexia: implications

for theory and practice [online] PhD dissertation. The University of Manchester. available
from <http://self.uws.edu.au/Conferences/2002_CD_Humphrey.pdf>(20th December
2016).

23
Hunt, F.G. (2006) The Effects of Labeling and Social Desirability on Perceived Success of a
Learning Disabled Student. Journal of Undergraduate Psychological Research 1(3). Pp.
45-56

Isaksson, J., Lindqvist, R. and Bergstrm, E. (2010) Struggling for recognition and inclusion
parents' and pupils' experiences of special support measures in school. International
journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being 5(1).

Jones, R.L. (1972) Labels and stigma in special education. Exceptional Children 38(7),
pp.553-564.

Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., and McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009) Preparing teachers for inclusive
classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education 25, 535542

Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005) Teacher expectancies and self-fulfilling prophecies:
Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social
Psychology Review 9, 131155.

Kayama, M. and Haight, W. (2013) Disability and stigma: How Japanese educators help
parents accept their children's differences. Social work p.swt027.

Keogh, B.K. (1990) Definitional assumptions and research issues. Learning disabilities:
Theoretical and research issues pp.13-19

Lauchlan, F. and Boyle, C. (2007) Is the use of labels in special education helpful?. Support
for learning 22(1), pp.36-42.

Lisle, K. (2011) Identifying the negative stigma associated with having a learning disability.
[online].Available from: http://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1021&context=honors_theses

Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E. and Shaywitz, B.A. (2003) A definition of dyslexia. Annals of
dyslexia 53(1), pp.1-14.

Macdonald, S.J. (2010) Towards a social reality of dyslexia. British Journal of Learning
Disabilities 38(4), pp.271-279.

Mackay, N. (2001) Dyslexia friendly schools. Dyslexia: successful inclusion in the secondary
school p.166.

Mackenzie, S. (2011) Yes, but...: rhetoric, reality and resistance in teaching assistants'
experiences of inclusive education. Support for learning 26(2), pp.64-71.

24
Madon S., Jussim, L. and Eccles, J. (1997) In search of the powerful self-fulfilling
prophecy. Journal of personality and social psychology 72(4), p.791.

Mattson, E.H. and RollPettersson, L. (2007) Segregated groups or inclusive education? An

interview study with students experiencing failure in reading and writing. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research 51(3), pp.239-252.

McMahon, S. E. (2012) Doctors diagnose, teachers label: the unexpected in pre-service

teachers talk about labelling children with ADHD. International Journal of Inclusive
Education 16(3), pp.249-264.

Moyle, K., (2016) Using data, conversations and observations for school improvement.
[Online]. Available from: https://works.bepress.com/kathryn_moyle/42/

Mullins, J. B. (1987) Authentic voices from parents of exceptional children. Family Relations
36, 3033.

Murray, P., & Penman, J. (1996). Let our children be: A collection of stories. Sheffield, UK:
Parents with Attitude.

Osterholm, K., Nash, W.R. and Kritsonis, W.A. (2007) Effects of Labeling Students Learning

Disabled: Emergent Themes in the Research Literature 1970 Through 2000. Focus on
colleges, universities, and schools.1(1).

Pearson, S. (2009) Using activity theory to understand prospective teachers' attitudes to and
construction of special educational needs and/or disabilities. Teaching and Teacher
Education 25(4), pp. 559-568

Pettersson, L. and Mattson, E.H., 2007. Perspectives of mothers of children with dyslectic
difficulties concerning their encounters with school: A Swedish example. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), pp.409-423.

Pumfrey, P., & Reason, R. (2013). Specific learning difficulties (dyslexia): Challenges and
responses. Routledge.

Reid, D.K. and Knight, M.G. (2006) Disability justifies exclusion of minority students: A
critical history grounded in disability studies. Educational Researcher 35(6), pp.18-23.

Reid, G. (2012) Dyslexia and inclusion: classroom approaches for assessment, teaching and
learning. Routledge.London

Reid, G. (2016) Dyslexia: A practitioner's handbook. John Wiley & Sons

25
Reid, R. (1996) Three faces of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child &
Family Studies 5(3), 249-265

Renick, M.J. and Harter, S. (1989) Impact of social comparisons on the developing self-
perceptions of learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology 81(4),
p.631.

Riddell, S., Brown, S. and Duffield, J. (1994) Parental power and special educational needs:
the case of specific learning difficulties. British Educational Research Journal 20, pp.
327344.

Riddick, B. (2000) An examination of the relationship between labelling and stigmatisation

with special reference to dyslexia. Disability & Society 15(4), pp.653-667.

Riddick, B. (2009) Living with dyslexia: The social and emotional consequences of specific
learning difficulties/disabilities. Routledge.London

Riddick, B. (1996) Living with dyslexia. London: Routledge. Riddick, B. (2000). An

examination of the relationship between labelling and stigmatisation with special
reference to dyslexia. Disability and Society 15(4), 653667.

Riddick, B. (2000) An examination of the relationship between labelling and stigmatisation

with special reference to dyslexia. Disability & Society 15(4), pp.653-667.

Riddick, B. (2006) Dyslexia friendly schools in the UK. Topics in Language Disorders 26(2),
pp.144-156.

Riddick, B. (1995) Dyslexia: Dispelling the myths. Disability & Society 10(4), pp.457-474

Rollins, N.M. (2014) Self-Esteem and Compensatory Strategies for Reading: Understanding
Successful Students With Dyslexia. Doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State: Bowling
Green State University

Rosenthal, R. (1994) Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current

Directions in Psychological Science 3, 176179.

RunswickCole, K. (2007) The Tribunal was the most stressful thing: more stressful than my
sons diagnosis or behaviour: the experiences of families who go to the Special
Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDisT). Disability & Society 22(3), pp.315-
328.

26
Samuelsson, S., Lundberg, I. and Herkner, B. (2004) ADHD and Reading Disability in Male
Adults Is There a Connection?. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37(2), pp.155-168.

Schwarz, N. (2008) Attitude measurement. in Attitudes and Attitude Change. by Crano, W.

D. and Prislin, R. New York: Psychology Press, 4160

Swrd, A. K. (2012). Improve students' self-esteem through Re-learning in Reading and

Writing. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Science, 2(2), 317-338.

Scimecca, J.A., (1977) Labeling theory and personal construct theory: Toward the
measurement of individual variation. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
(1973) 68(4), pp.652-659

Simmons, K. (1996) Parents, legislation and inclusion. in Special education reformed:

beyond rhetoric? London

Singer, E. (2005) The strategies adopted by Dutch children with dyslexia to maintain their
self-esteem when teased at school. Journal of learning disabilities 38(5), pp.411-423

Smith, R.W., Osborne, L.T., Crim, D. and Rhu, A.H. (1986) Labeling theory as applied to
learning disabilities: Survey findings and policy suggestions. Journal of Learning
Disabilities 19(4), pp.195-202.

Solvang, P. (2007) Developing an ambivalence perspective on medical labelling in education:

Case dyslexia. International Studies in Sociology of Education 17(1-2), pp.79-94.

Sowards, A.K. (2015) Labeling: Student Self-Esteem and the Stigma of a Label.
[Online].Available from: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd/976/

Stewart, C.C. (1991) Labels and the attitudes of undergraduate physical education students
toward disabled individuals. Physical Educator 48(3), p.142.

Stoel, S. (ed.) (1990) Parents on Dyslexia. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Tafti, M.A., Hameedy, M.A. and Baghal, N.M. (2009) Dyslexia, a deficit or a difference:
Comparing the creativity and memory skills of dyslexic and nondyslexic students in
Iran. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 37(8), pp.1009-1016

Taylor, L.M., Hume, I.R. and Welsh, N. (2010) Labelling and selfesteem: the impact of using
specific vs. generic labels. Educational Psychology 30(2), pp.191-202.

27
Woolfson, L. M., and Brady, K. (2009) An investigation of factors impacting on mainstream
teachers beliefs about teaching students with learning difficulties. Educational
Psychology 29, 221-238

Wearmouth, J., Soler, J., and Reid, G. (2002) Addressing difficulties in literacy development:
responses at family, school, pupil and teacher levels: Routledge.NewYork

28