‘It’s really hard, this dictationbusiness’; observations on the useof an amanuensis in examinations

ELIZABETH COLLINS

Background

In the range of special arrangements for public examinations,the use of amanuenses beyond GCSE is comparatively rare.The Joint Council for Examinations (2000) recommendsthat the candidate should have practice in dictation, butgives no guidance on the extent of practice that might benecessary. As a special educational needs coordinator(SENCO), contact with other SENCOs suggested that therewas little consistency in provision. In the summer 2000examination series I had two A level candidates whoneeded alternative arrangements for recording their scripts.In both cases the examination boards granted permissionfor the use of an amanuensis or a voice-activated wordprocessor. One of the candidates, C, who was approachingA levels, had similar provision made for GCSE and hadregular practice in this method of working. However, in thecourse of working with her I became increasingly aware ofthe inherent difficulties of producing an examination scriptat advanced level through the medium of a scribe. She wasable to write for a short while by hand and often used acombination of dictation to scribe, manuscript, and dictationto computer in the completion of a non-examination essay,but had to rely on the use of an amanuensis when workingunder timed conditions.

The other key informant, J, was a mature student takingFrench A level and a member of the teaching staff who haddeveloped multiple sclerosis in midlife and whose motor

control had deteriorated to such an extent that she no longerhad control over her hands, but was able to manipulate acomputer mouse through a mouth-operated stick.Fortunately her speech had not been affected and she wasable to use a voice-activated programme for the majority ofcoursework, but needed an amanuensis for examinations.

Through observing and managing the preparation of boththese students, I became interested not just in the practicalitiesbut also in the theoretical differences between producingessays in both dictated and written mode. Interestingly,there were two different reactions from outsiders to the ideaof using an amanuensis: the majority thought it would bevery difficult, while some fellow students felt that it gave anunfair advantage. The Joint Council for General Qualificationsproduces advisory notes for heads of examination centres whichstate that the use of an amanuensis, as for other specialarrangements, ‘should neither give a candidate an unfairadvantage nor should it disadvantage the candidate’ (2000,p. 53). They do not, however, give any guidance as to whatconstitutes an advantage or disadvantage. This prompted astudy (Collins, 2000) that set out to examine whether theprovision of an amanuensis compensates for a difficulty inproducing written language or compounds the difficulty.

Study of the literature and observation of the students hadled to an expectation that the quality of language producedwould be affected by the lack of visual feedback and thedemands on working memory. What emerged was that it ispossible, given sufficient opportunity for developing literarylanguage, for the quality of language produced via dictationto be indistinguishable from that of written equivalents.However it was clear from the experience of all the subjectsthat the writing through dictation process makes a heavydemand on working memory, and the lack of the visual andsensory feedback which forms part of the normal writingprocess is disconcerting and inhibiting. Reported difficultiesin word retrieval could also result in limited use of vocabulary,with ‘safe’ alternatives being utilised. Key issues thatemerged and related to the social context of the dictationprocess, posed questions about how as professional adviserswe can help to minimise those disadvantages.

Ensuring that their students have appropriate‘special arrangements’ for their public examinationscan be a very rewarding aspect of the SENCO role.Elizabeth Collins’ illuminating study based on herown experience with two A level students will beread with great interest by all those who haveever had to plan and oversee the work of anamanuensis and pondered, as she does here, ontheir observations.

U S I N G A N A M A N U E N S I S

66 Support for Learning • Volume 18 • Number 2 • 2003 © NASEN 2003

Data sources

The foundation for the investigation was a case study of thesixth form student, C. As I had been working with her fromthe beginning of her GCSE course, I had data in the formof reports and teaching notes that, although not collectedfor research purposes, were useful as a record of change overtime. Other information collected more formally consistedof transcriptions of recordings of practice sessions, interviewswith the student and the scribe both in general terms andabout specific sessions, and analysis of comments fromteaching staff about the quality of written work. I was also ableto record my observations of both practice and examinationsessions, as well as my experiences of acting as scribe.

Key issues to emerge from these sources included:

Affective

• initial reluctance or antagonism towards the process• ambivalence about the role of the scribe; feelings of

inhibition• difficulties with starting, organising thoughts and word

finding• emotional strain and fatigue• an evolving relationship between student and amanuensis,

with C gradually taking more control.

Procedural

• a tendency to lapse into conversational mode/informalregister

• difficulty in maintaining relevance and cohesion.

In contrast to C’s case, issues emerging from J’s experiencewere less to do with the social context than the procedural.The role of the scribe was an issue in both cases, as was thedifficulty of waiting for the scribe: ‘I probably knew whereI was going much further than I was saying.’ She hadinitially been unaware that her language in dictation tendedto lapse into informal register, but following discussionafter an observation session, she ‘consequently took moretrouble over the actual form of the written work.’ She alsomentioned the difficulty of not verbalising thoughts whendictating. This reflected C’s difficulty with avoiding lapsesinto conversational mode as she became more tired. Aswith C, there was ambivalence over the role of the scribe.

In order to examine these emerging issues, the dictationprocess was tried with two comparison groups.

Comparison groups

The first was a group of C’s contemporaries. Eight studentstaking classical civilisation A level were asked alternatelyto dictate essays and to act as scribes for their fellowstudents. This was arranged within the course of a normal

lesson, with a follow-up group discussion about theirperception of the process. The rationale for using C’s peergroup was twofold: firstly it was to try to dispel theirperception that dictation was somehow an ‘easy option’ forC, and secondly to collect information on their perceptionsof the process.

Five members of staff who all had some interest orinvolvement in C’s teaching later took part in a comparisonof dictated and written essays. Each subject completed twoessays on a general subject, one dictated and one written. Inthe case of the dictated essays I acted as scribe and thedictation was carried out under formal examinationconditions within a forty-minute time period. Each sessionwas recorded to allow for later analysis of the dictation itselfas well as the ensuing discussion. Although all teachers ofarts subjects, the staff involved had a range of teaching – andpresumably learning – styles and ranged in experiencefrom a PGCE student to one approaching retirement. Aswith the students, there was a dual purpose in working withstaff: firstly for C’s benefit because she felt that staffunderestimated the difficulty and effort involved, and secondlyas a source of information about the processes involved.

Summary of findings – student sample

Following the dictation session, the students as a groupwere asked about any particular problems they found withdictation. The responses were considered and showed signsof introspection and also of learning from the process.Several mentioned difficulty in keeping track of their trainof thought and the perceived need to think more carefully:

I think as I go along, and when I have to speak thatdoesn’t happen so I get lost.

Not being able to think ahead was mentioned by several ofthe students:

I couldn’t think in advance what I was going to say next.

Another difficulty mentioned frequently was the difficultyof keeping the essay ‘connected and relevant to the title’.This had an interesting corollary in that the experienceshowed several students the importance of having a plan torefer to, and the four students who said that they would beprepared to repeat the process saw it as useful in ‘forcing[me] to sort out ideas when writing an essay’ or ‘made memore cautious of points I was making’. It seemed that theseparation of the secretarial and compositional aspectsforced the students to be more aware of the processesinvolved and to be more introspective about the processes –one mentioned that she found she had to ‘link sentencestogether more effectively’, while another commented, ‘Ihad to be careful what I said and pay attention to thelanguage.’ It is possible that practice in producing essays inthis way could be an effective way of helping any studentwho is not yet proficient in the use of language at this levelto think about the processes involved.

© NASEN 2003 Support for Learning • Volume 18 • Number 2 • 2003 67

Seven out of these eight students had been formally identifiedas having specific literacy difficulties and had extra timeallowance for examinations, so essay writing was notnecessarily a comfortable process for them. It might havebeen supposed that they would welcome the removal of thesecretarial element of writing, but there was no indicationof that, with one notable exception. This student had asevere spelling difficulty and the examination boards hadgranted production of a transcript of her examinationanswers. She found the process of dictation considerablyeasier, because in writing ‘it takes too long to write whenyour brain’s two paragraphs ahead. Then you miss thingsout and have to start back-tracking and spelling.’ On theother hand, the non-dyslexic member of the group wasmost aware that she found it difficult to maintain the flowof thoughts without the physical writing process.

Summary of findings – staff sample

Interviews following the dictated essay sessions wererelatively unstructured, as all involved were keen to analysethe process and needed little more than the occasionalprompt.

The common theme of all the interviews was the distinctdifference between dictation and writing in producingessays: ‘massively different, massively different’; ‘it’sreally hard, this dictation business’. Although all had beenexpecting it to be a different experience, they were surprisedby the extent of the difficulty and discomfort theyexperienced. Having an audience was inhibiting. Loss oftrain of thought, as with the students, was a common worry,as was difficulty in maintaining focus. ‘When you have todictate … you’re not progressing with your thoughts’; ‘it’sso easy to lose the thread;’ ‘you want to get it out and geton to the next bit’.

Resulting from this sense of the difficulty of the task andfear of losing track was an aspect that had not beenapparent in responses from the students: a consequentsense of urgency and panic and loss of confidence innormally confident and academically successful subjects.The discomfort and unease was exacerbated by theawareness of the scribe as an audience: ‘having to say italoud also makes you doubt yourself much more – youknow, sounds much more rubbish when you have to say it.’

Difficulties with word retrieval and getting started werealso a common issue: ‘the hardest bit was the starting, Ithink … that really panicked me, trying to think of anintroduction’; ‘I knew that the moment I stopped for a wordthat I went “Oh God, what’s that word?” and you can feelthe panic inside you start to rise.’

Although all said that they had found the dictation processinteresting and illuminating, they all felt that the quality aswell as the quantity of their essays under these conditionswas inferior to what they could achieve in writing. Theseconcerns were later found to be unfounded (Collins, 2000).

Implications

Language development

The different experiences and responses of the twocomparison groups, together with observations of thedifficulties experienced by C in making the transition to Alevel work, suggested that at A level and above the qualityof oral language may be influenced by experience ofwritten language. This relates to the theories of Perera(1990), Smith (1982) and Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993).At GCSE level, an awareness of formal versus informalregister is sufficient, but at a higher level practice inproducing literary language is needed. This has twoimplications: one being the need for activities that allow forthe development of the knowledge transformation processand the other being the need for practice in producingessays in this way to overcome the discomfort factor. Atthis level, a physically disabled student could be doublydisadvantaged unless consideration is given to ways ofgaining this experience.

It is not sufficient to provide a scribe for a candidate andthen assume that this provides equal access to examinations.In order to allow the student as equal an opportunity aspossible of achieving an A level grade which reflects theirpotential, the process of dictation needs to be started asearly in the syllabus as possible. Wherever possible avariety of means of recording should be employed to givethe student practice in composing discursive text. Howeverthese – as with producing manuscript essays – allow forleisurely correction and editing, which is not possible in theexamination session. Therefore it is also essential to havepractice in producing essays under examination conditions.All students at this level need practice in producingtimed essays – this chance must be equally available to thedisabled student.

Consideration of alternatives

This makes it vital to ensure that all alternatives have beenconsidered. Of those suggested to the subjects in the study,only voice recognition software, with its potential forvisual feedback, was seriously considered. Tape recorders anddictaphones, although useful for note-taking, do not providethe feedback necessary in examinations. This is reflected inthe advice from examination boards that recorded answersare not considered to be in the best interests of candidates.However, until the software has developed sufficiently togive users confidence that they can use it confidently inexaminations, human transcribers will continue to be thenext best option – unlike the computer, they can filter outthe ‘thinking aloud’ which is often a feature of dictation.

Use of planning

Despite evidence from the literature that planning essaysin examinations can be unhelpful for the majority of

68 Support for Learning • Volume 18 • Number 2 • 2003 © NASEN 2003

candidates (Torrance, Thomas and Robinson, 1991), all thesubjects in this study felt the need for some form ofaide-mémoire to keep them on track. It was particularlysignificant that all staff felt the need for a written plan whendictating, but did not use one when writing, despite the factthat they would all recommend that their examinationcandidates use one. It appears that this is partly a result oflack of confidence when working in an unfamiliar mediumand, again, practice is needed to find the most effectiveformat for this planning.

The social context

Use of a scribe involves conflict between cognitiveprocesses and the socio-cultural situation in which thedictation takes place. Gubern (1999) has argued that allwritten composition should be considered within theparameters of the teaching and learning situation, such asthe social setting, the intervention of teachers and peers,and the nature and development of tasks. However, thereare additional factors in the scribing process that need to beaddressed, including the relationship between student andscribe, and the conduct of the invigilator who will hear thecandidate’s answers. The mere presence of a scribe wasconsidered inhibiting by the subjects experiencing it for thefirst time. Discussion with C and J, as well as with the staffsubjects, made it clear that the choice of scribe was crucialand that it was not a task that could be arbitrarily allocated.It was noticeable that both C and J managed to overcometheir inhibitions as they developed a professional relationshipwith their scribes, although in the case of C this onlyapplied with her designated scribe – the self-consciousnessand awareness of another presence returned if this werechanged. It is this need to develop a working relationshipwhere the scribe becomes a partner, but also an instrument,which underlies the need for practice sessions. It was easierfor J, who had greater confidence and maturity, although atone point she commented ‘both my scribes were quite usedto me, having had practice beforehand. I think with astranger it might not be so easy.’ For a student workingwith an adult it involves a degree of role reversal. It wasnoticeable that the students who dictated to their peersmentioned self-consciousness less than either C or the staff,who had a more vested interest in maintaining face.

It is important to remember that the focus for this study wasthe use of an amanuensis in examinations, and that anyfindings have to be viewed in that context. A certain levelof stress and rise in adrenalin levels is desirable in improvingperformance. It was noticeable that the staff involved actuallyenjoyed the challenge of writing under exam conditions,but it has to be remembered that they are successes of thesystem. However, it is important to maintain a balancebetween minimising additional stress as a result of thespecial arrangements and retaining a sufficient sense ofurgency to allow the candidate to rise to the occasion. In adiscussion of the appropriateness of applying for separatearrangements for candidates with special educationalneeds, Pumfrey and Reason (1991) make the point: ‘the

nature of the difficulty might limit the candidate’s opportunityto demonstrate his or her skills to the best advantage but isthis not an experience many others have had at examinationtimes for quite different reasons?’ (p. 264). When consideringwhether the candidate is actually disadvantaged by havingto dictate essays it is necessary to distinguish betweenstress caused by the examination itself that can affect anystudent, and that which is caused by the process.

There is no doubt that both students and staff whoundertook the dictation process considered it stressful. Thesource of additional stress for the dictating candidatecomes from the load on working memory and the feeling ofbeing out of control, which can be exacerbated by thepresence of the scribe and an additional observer in theform of an invigilator.

Role of assistants

The ideal scribe, apart from the obvious requirement to beable to write clearly and quickly, needs to be able to adaptto the student’s pace of working, to empathise with thestudent, giving feedback where necessary in practicesessions without being seen as judgemental, while allowingthe student to feel that s/he is in control of the process.Learning support assistants may well be ideally placed toundertake this role; teachers may be seen as too inhibiting,although retired teachers may be a valuable resource asthey have the familiarity with the subject matter withoutthe direct involvement. However, it is useful for all thestudent’s teachers to observe dictation sessions in order toadvise on the structure of the process and be aware of thedifficulties involved.

Sensitive selection of invigilators is also an issue, withcareful consideration being given to the seating arrangementsto minimise the sense of an unwelcome audience.

Practical considerations

The provision of rest breaks is likely to be essential. One ofthe results of the pressure in the case of C was extremetiredness. It is important also not to underestimate the amountof strain reported by scribes. If a designated person is to actas scribe for all the candidate’s examinations, they alsohave a need for rest breaks to be built in to the timetable.

Seating arrangements need to be carefully thought out inorder to allow the candidate easy access to view the scriptwith minimum disruption. It is also important to make surethat the amanuensis always has a separate copy of thequestion paper. The invigilators need to be seated out ofdirect eye contact with the student and to be as unobtrusiveas possible. Ideally they should be allowed to have somethingto work on so that their attention is not seen to be on thecandidate’s answers. However, there is a fine balancebetween wanting to make the conditions as comfortable aspossible and maintaining a certain amount of urgency.

© NASEN 2003 Support for Learning • Volume 18 • Number 2 • 2003 69

Equal opportunities

The difficulties and anxieties registered by the subjects ofthis study were mainly related to the social context. Theworking relationship between scribe and student is anevolving process involving a shift of control from the scribeas adult to the student as dictator. However, getting to thisstage is a process that requires careful preparation andsympathetic handling in order to allow candidates to dojustice to their potential. This raises serious concerns aboutthe need for funding the provision of a scribe, not only forthe examination period, but also for the duration of thecourse preceding the examinations. Those responsible forarranging alternative provision need to consider whetherthe use of an amanuensis is the only feasible alternative. Ifso, then, in order to allow equality of access to examinations,consideration must be given to the provision of regularpractice sessions with a designated amanuensis, togetherwith instruction in the process for both parties.

Limitations

The findings of this study are mainly related to candidateswith a physical disability requiring use of an amanuensis.Although all but one of the dyslexic students in thecomparison group said they would not want to dictate inexaminations, their difficulties were not at the extremelevel of some students for whom removal of the secretarialelement might prove liberating: recent experience withsuch a student suggested that this may be the case. In orderto confirm the hypothesis that experience of writtencomposition is a necessary part of successful dictation, itwould be necessary to study the language use of studentswho have never had experience of writing.

Given more time, it would have been helpful to haveundertaken a study of the range of practice in relation tothe training of students with amanuenses at A level. It is,however, not surprising that there is little information or

standardisation when some schools will only infrequentlyhave students needing such provision at this level. With thegreater numbers involved in higher education establishments,it is easier to build up a bank of expertise and goodpractice. It would be beneficial if closer links betweenschools and higher education learning support departmentscould be established in order to share some of this expertise.In the meantime, it is hoped that the findings from thisstudy will be of assistance to those faced with planning theuse of an amanuensis at this level for the first time.

References

BEREITER, C. and SCARDAMALIA, M. (1993) Composing andWriting. In R. Beard (ed.) Teaching Literacy, Balancing Perspectives.London: Hodder and Stoughton.

COLLINS, E. (2000) Use of an amanuensis at A level and above: does itcompensate for a disability or introduce further advantages?Unpublished MA dissertation. Oxford Brookes University.

GUBERN, M. M. (1999) Strategies for effective research on the teachingand learning of writing. Learning and Instruction, 9, 223–228.

JOINT COUNCIL FOR GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS (2000)Examinations and Assessment for GCSE & GCE: Regulations andguidance relating to candidates with special requirements.Manchester: JCGQ.

PERERA, K. (1990) Grammatical differentiation between speech andwriting in children aged 8 to 12. In Beard, R. (ed.) Teaching Literacy,Balancing Perspectives. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

PUMFREY, P. and REASON, R. (1991) Specific Learning Difficulties(Dyslexia). London: NFER-Nelson.

SMITH, F. (1982) Writing and the Writer. London: Heinemann.TORRANCE, M., THOMAS, G. V. and ROBINSON, E. J. (1991) Strategies

for Answering Examination Essay Questions: Is it helpful to write aplan? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 46–54.

CorrespondenceElizabeth CollinsBerins RidgeReading RoadLower BasildonReading RG8 9NNEmail: lizcollins@catdev.com

70 Support for Learning • Volume 18 • Number 2 • 2003 © NASEN 2003