The manifestations of dyslexia vary among individuals; however, common characteristics include difficulties with phonological skills: low accuracy and fluency of reading and poor spelling; and/or difficulties with rapid visual-verbal response: difficulties with associating sounds with letters, reading dysfluencies, spelling difficulties, challenges with written expression and poor handwriting (Roitsch and Watson, 2019). Dyslexia is a neurodevelopmental disorder, with an estimated prevalence of 5–10% of the general population (Roitsch and Watson, 2019), while it is hard to estimate the number of dyslexic university students, as the data vary strongly from country to country or even depending on the specific institution (Sokolová and Lemešová, 2022). In addition, frequent comorbidities prevail, as dyslexia often occurs mainly with another neurodevelopmental disorder (Moll et al., 2020), like ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). They are both complex neurodevelopmental disorders with a high prevalence and mutual comorbidity (Boada et al., 2012; Kocurová, 2019). Other studies indicate that certain symptoms occur in various neurodevelopmental disorders., e.g., difficulties with switching attention (dyslexia and ADHD; Lonergan et al., 2019) or phonological deficits (dyslexia and stuttering; Elsherif et al., 2021). On the contrary, at the same time we can talk about the concept of neurodiversity (as an umbrella term, including dyslexia, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, etc., which are perceived as a naturally occurring difference, rather than a deficit). Unlike the medical model of dyslexia, which talks about deficits, the concept of neurodiversity questions the assumption that all humans must conform to the same expectations to flourish. Within this concept, neurodivergent individuals have valuable human differences in behavior and brain function, which are not perceived only as deficit, dysfunction, or impairment (Elsherif et al., 2022; Manalili et al., 2023). This approach is becoming increasingly prevalent in the context of higher education (Clouder et al., 2020; Hamilton and Petty, 2023). Studies focused on the experiences of dyslexic university students (Mullins and Preyde, 2013; Shaw et al., 2016; Serry et al., 2017; Shaw and Anderson, 2018; Stagg et al., 2018; Norris et al., 2019), indicate that their experience is highly dependent on university teachers and their own knowledge and beliefs about dyslexia, attitudes, and practices toward them as students with dyslexia. Although some studies indicate that neurodivergent community in general prefers identity, first language over a person, first language (Botha et al., 2021; Taboas et al., 2022), other studies draw attention to individual preferences within the community (Evans, 2013; Best et al., 2022). The discussion is also influenced by the specific context, which reflects linguistic and cultural differences. In this work, we decided to refer to dyslexic students and students with dyslexia interchangeably, hence, to alternate between identity first and person first language to reflect different preferences within the neurodivergent community and different linguistic and cultural differences, since this study is written in an international context.

University communities are becoming more diverse than we experienced in the past (Černickaja and Sokolová, 2022), with an increasing number of students with disabilities, incl. Dyslexic students entering higher education (Richardson, 2021). The relevance of this issue in the context of higher education is supported by recently published documents reflecting this increasing diversity (American Psychological Association, 2021; Mena, 2022) and reviews already conducted. However, many of these reviews issuing dyslexia do not reflect the latest research data, as they were published nine or more years ago (e.g., Murphy, 2009; Majumder et al., 2010; MacCullagh, 2014; Pino and Mortari, 2014), some focus on dyslexic students only in the context of a specific region (e.g., Asia: Majumder et al., 2010; Australia: MacCullagh, 2014), a specific field (Murphy, 2009; Majumder et al., 2010), or integration into the university environment (Pino and Mortari, 2014). During the past five years, we have identified two review studies (Clouder et al., 2020; Dobson Waters and Torgerson, 2020) on the topic of dyslexia in the context of higher education in the Web of Science Core Collection database. Dobson Waters and Torgerson (2020) focused on the effectiveness of higher education interventions for students with dyslexia, and Clouder et al. (2020) in their narrative synthesis pointed out the experience of students with various disorders, including dyslexic students, within the university environment. The experiences of neurodiverse students show that higher education institutions remain “neurodiversity cold spots” as Clouder et al. (2020) called them, with low levels of staff awareness, ambivalence, and inflexible teaching and assessment approaches. By a manual search on Google Scholar, we identified a synthetic review by Boileau et al. (2017) with the goal of helping mainly clinical teachers in their daily tasks of supervising struggling learners; and the study by Hamilton and Petty (2023) proposing compassionate pedagogy for neurodiverse students in higher education. They argued that the concept of compassion can be used as a template for educators working with neurodiverse students, for example, by harnessing individual strengths to increase students’ sense of competence. To our knowledge, no review has been conducted specifically focusing on the topic of dyslexia in higher education from the point of view of higher education teachers.

The aim of this scoping review is to explore how university teachers reflect on their knowledge and beliefs about studying with dyslexia in higher education and what their attitudes and practices are when working with dyslexic students. The authors set two research questions:

Since the focus of this study is on exploring and understanding the topic, deviating from the more typical objective of establishing one, as commonly seen in systematic reviews (Gutierrez-Bucheli et al., 2022), the scoping review approach was considered the most suitable. To be able to assess which literature is relevant for this review, we first set inclusive and exclusive criteria.

Inclusion criteria:

Exclusion criteria:

It is important to mention that university requirements for students are often more demanding than those at lower levels of school education, while the university settings have mostly been non-inclusive based on the student’s experience (Hopkins, 2011; Kendall, 2016). We draw attention to the fact that a university teacher can act as a facilitating factor in this mostly non-inclusive environment (Shaw et al., 2016; Stagg et al., 2018) but research warns us that the lack of awareness of teachers about the diagnosis of dyslexia and the implementation of various forms of inclusion based on the subjective preferences of the teacher are often barriers in the educational process of university students with dyslexia (Mullins and Preyde, 2013; Serry et al., 2017; Norris et al., 2019). The need for training turned out to be one of the strongest themes of the analysis, as it was identified not only in the teachers’ statements but also as a logical outcome of their experience and needs. However, we must emphasize that this training should be practical, it should not take only the form of passive transfer of basic knowledge about dyslexia to university teachers, as it seems that although teachers are knowledgeable about the topic of dyslexia, they lack skills regarding teaching dyslexic students, which they would be confident about (Mortimore, 2012; Evans, 2014; Gallego and Busch, 2015; Stampoltzis et al., 2017; Worthy et al., 2018; Ryder and Norwich, 2019; Schabmann et al., 2020; Magnin et al., 2021; Yphantides, 2022).

Within the specific practices (that could be taught during trainings) we recommend that ideally the goal would be not to accommodate every student individually, but the format of university courses should be inclusive. So, speaking about dyslexic students, we lean toward the concept of neurodiversity, as well as Clouder et al. (2020) and Hamilton and Petty (2023) in their review of the literature, perceiving dyslexia more as a difference than a deficit in the university environment (while not dismissing the lived experience of people with these disorders, who may perceive it as a deficit). We are talking about different types of assessment (e.g., not canceling a written test for a student who must be proven to be a student with specific needs, but allowing students to be evaluated by a test, oral exam, or other form, based on the student’s preference, without reducing the requirements to pass a particular course) or the form of lectures and seminars, which would be available to all students (use of on-line platforms, technical aids, inclusive language, creating safe space). Students are not obligated to report disorders (Brunswick, 2012) and many choose not to (Hanafin et al., 2006; Doikou-Avlidou, 2015; Serry et al., 2017; Jacobs et al., 2020) for different reasons. With an inclusive format, the need to disclose the student’s disability, differences, or deficit is minimized if the student does not feel comfortable telling it. It also includes help for students who are “borderline” with their symptoms that need support, but are not officially diagnosed with any disability. There is a need to adjust the practices for all.

To be able to create guidelines and trainings, future research should not only focus on “what could be potentially helpful” for students (incl. Dyslexic students), but also on what is effective and actually doable in higher education settings. Transforming universities into inclusive environments is a challenge that cannot be overcome without an interdisciplinary approach. Worthy et al. (2018, p. 140) pointed out that some educators “bristled at the way information about dyslexia is presented as scientifically and medically objective, often by people without teaching experience.” The educators (incl. Higher education teachers) must be brought to these discussions.

Recommendations for universities (faculty) and educators:

We acknowledge that stress, loneliness, and burnout are well-known phenomena in the teaching profession (Tabancali, 2016; Ortega-Jiménez et al., 2021), so again we emphasize the need for support from individual universities and faculties. In an ideal world, every higher education teacher would have much more (paid) time to prepare their course and sufficient support from their faculty, so their courses could become inclusive and welcoming for all students (not only for those with dyslexia). Although we are not yet there, each individual in the teaching staff has the potential to contribute to the building of an inclusive environment in universities. Meanwhile, when as educators we face challenges in building an inclusive atmosphere in our courses, we emphasize the persistent importance of individual support for students who need it, including dyslexic students (as well as Tobias-Green, 2014; Serry et al., 2017; Sumner et al., 2020). As educators, we must reflect on our own beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes toward students and reflect on those shaping and reshaping our daily teaching practices.

The purpose of this scoping review was to explore how university teachers reflect knowledge and beliefs about studying with dyslexia in higher education and what their attitudes and practices are when working with dyslexic students. This review showed that university teachers have a basic knowledge of dyslexia, are aware of the specifics of studying with dyslexia and, in general, their attitudes toward students with dyslexia are largely positive. However, dyslexia remains a gray area for them, associated with lack of information, confusion and some concerns, a feeling of unpreparedness and lack of support. Faculties should provide more support to their pedagogical staff so that these teachers can support their students to a greater extent.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

KČ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LS: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.