The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) (Endler & Parker, 1999) identifies three main behaviors in response to stress – trying hard to perform, blaming oneself or others for one’s failure, and avoiding exposure altogether.

It has been shown that, amongst pupils with dyslexia, these three behaviors are associated with different genders (Alexander-Passe, 2004a, 2006, in press) and different levels of self-esteem and depression (Alexander-Passe, 2004a, 2006) – in particular:

·         Trying hard to perform – mainly males, gaining academic self-esteem from teacher approval

·         Avoiding exposure – mainly females, shielding overall self-esteem

·         Blaming – mainly females, losing personal self-esteem and showing depression.

As it happens, these three behaviors are opposites to the three that make up the simplest possible, basic learning dialogue (Zimmer, 2001; Zimmer & Chapman, 2004; Zimmer, 2008):

·         Listening receptively rather than blaming, so as to invite thinking

·         Showing comprehension rather than just trying hard, so as to invite listening in return, and

·         Sharing one’s own thinking rather than avoiding exposure, so as to invite comprehension.

Evidence from the dyslexia literature shows that the three CISS behaviors are common amongst pupils with dyslexia, indicating that dyslexic pupils are often disengaged from the basic learning dialogue.

It was hypothesized that this non-engagement is due to teachers themselves not offering the basic learning dialogue.

Accordingly, the dyslexia literature was analyzed for reports of teachers’ not offering receptive listening, or comprehension of pupils’ thinking, or their own thinking in response.

Reports fitting this description were found in unfortunate abundance. In particular, teachers of dyslexic pupils were found often to impose:

·         Rote teaching in place of their own thinking

·         Judgmental discounting in place of receptive listening, and

·         Humiliation for failure in place of comprehension.

It is concluded that learning by dyslexic pupils is at risk from teaching that does not support the basic learning dialogue.

An implication is that, for support of dyslexic pupils, care for the learning dialogue itself may be what matters most.

·  Avoiding exposure – mainly females, shielding overall self-esteem

·         Blaming – mainly females, losing personal self-esteem and showing depression.

As it happens, these three behaviors are opposites to the three that make up the simplest possible, basic learning dialogue (Zimmer, 2001; Zimmer & Chapman, 2004; Zimmer, 2008):

·         Listening receptively rather than blaming, so as to invite thinking

·         Showing comprehension rather than just trying hard, so as to invite listening in return, and

·         Sharing one’s own thinking rather than avoiding exposure, so as to invite comprehension.

Evidence from the dyslexia literature shows that the three CISS behaviors are common amongst pupils with dyslexia, indicating that dyslexic pupils are often disengaged from the basic learning dialogue.

It was hypothesized that this non-engagement is due to teachers themselves not offering the basic learning dialogue.

Accordingly, the dyslexia literature was analyzed for reports of teachers’ not offering receptive listening, or comprehension of pupils’ thinking, or their own thinking in response.

Reports fitting this description were found in unfortunate abundance. In particular, teachers of dyslexic pupils were found often to impose:

·         Rote teaching in place of their own thinking

·         Judgmental discounting in place of receptive listening, and

·         Humiliation for failure in place of comprehension.

It is concluded that learning by dyslexic pupils is at risk from teaching that does not support the basic learning dialogue.

An implication is that, for support of dyslexic pupils, care for the learning dialogue itself may be what matters most.