Dyslexia, a condition associated with reading/writing in many children and adults, is considered by most (e.g., Bahamin, 2002; Faryar & Rakhshan, 2000; Silver & Hagin, 2002) to be a deficit in cognitive processes involved in reading and learning from text. However, Davis and Braun (1997) and others (e.g., Grant, 2001; Parkinson & Edwards, 1993) have taken a more positive and flexible stance by considering dyslexics as merely different from, if not superior to, nondyslexics. Given the stigma attached to being labeled as deficient or disabled in learning, promotion of the latter attitude could help both teachers and students to deal more constructively with the said condition. Furthermore, from a constructivist perspective, clarification of both aspects of the issue, especially in different cultural settings, could have ramifications for educational and curriculum planners. To this end, further elaboration of the more positive view on dyslexia, and of the general dyslexic scene in Iran, is necessary.

From the more positive view of dyslexia, Davis and Braun (1997) argue that it can be viewed as the result of a perceptual talent because most dyslexic people are highly creative individuals who think intuitively, visually, and multidimensionally. That is not to say they have no difficulty in learning. Because they think primarily in pictures, not words, difficulties in learning to work with symbols (i.e., letters and numerals) gradually develop. It is, thus, asserted by Davis that dyslexia is a developmental and, to some extent, self-created condition that brings about confusion about symbols and their meanings. The resultant confusion, compounded with frustration, causes the learner to experience distorted perceptions which, when continued, turn the learner into a full-fledged dyslexic. Dyslexic people repeat words and make additions, transpositions, and omissions when reading and writing. Moreover, they are easily distracted by sounds, have difficulty putting thoughts into words, hear things not said or apparent to others, and have poor memory for sequences, facts, and information that have not been experienced. Nevertheless, if dyslexia is diagnosed these negative aspects can be prevented or corrected (Davis, 2006). Another area in which dyslexics have shown themselves to be different is learning style in that dyslexics are more visually and spatially oriented (Davis, 2006; Davis & Braun, 1997; Parkinson & Edwards, 1993; Silverman & Freed, 1991).

Considering that visual imagery and holistic perception play important roles in the learning process, and that cognitive processing in the dyslexic is done with pictures rather than words, Davis and Braun (1997) concluded that, as they are easily pictured, dyslexics have fewer problems with words referring to concrete objects, compared to those referring to abstract concepts for which they have no pictures. When encountered, such words act as triggers for perceptual distraction and disorientation to set in. Spatially oriented learners are also holistic in their perception and thinking; they need to see the whole picture before they can understand the parts, and it is difficult for them to attend to details. Yet, perhaps that is why some researchers (e.g., Davis & Braun, 1997; Grant, 2001) have linked dyslexia with creativity. According to Grant, it is easy to hypothesize an association between dyslexia and creativity because the difficulties with the written language could make school subjects that emphasize other modes of expression more appealing to dyslexic pupils. Another key factor when considering a possible link between creativity and dyslexia is the fact that dyslexic children spend more time completing learning tasks than do nondyslexics. It is, therefore, possible that the extended time brings about certain work habits that are particularly beneficial in creative endeavors. However, given the different forms of dyslexia and the variations in their intensity, on the one hand, and the diversity in definition of – and approaches to – creativity on the other, Grant warns researchers against sweeping conclusions on the link between dyslexia and creativity. Of course, similar cautionary reminders are needed for practitioners dealing with dyslexics as well.

Given the special characteristics of dyslexics, practitioners, especially teachers, need to be careful in dealing with them and in the conclusions they may draw on their abilities. Teachers could misinterpret a student’s difficulties with the teaching methods as his/her inability to learn the concepts, or assume that the student simply needs more practice to grasp the material. Such tendencies overlook the special learning style of dyslexics and the fact that rote memorization and drills are actually detrimental to visual-spatial learners, because their strength does not lie in doing such activities. If teachers perceive dyslexics as visual-spatial learners capable of lateral and intuitive thinking, problem solving, making certain leaps, and spinning things in their head to see them from every angle (Everatt, 1999), then learning situations will be much more hospitable to dyslexics. In other words, it is the teachers’ attitudes – and in more general terms – the cultural environment, that determine not only how dyslexics are viewed and dealt with, but how they blossom or wilt.

Iran, with a student population of nearly 20 million in k-12 (general education from preschool to grade 12), has a large subpopulation of students with special needs. However, when it comes to dealing with this subpopulation, it is not referred to as such. Instead, terms like exceptional, disabled, and learning disabled are used, and as a result, it is likely that some of those who desperately need special help are overlooked. Chief among the overlooked are dyslexics. A look at the organizational chart of the governmental body responsible for this aspect of education, that is, the Organization for the Education of the Exceptional (OEE), reveals this oversight. This organization, formed in 1991, pursues the lofty goals of “compensating the physical and cognitive disabilities of exceptional children and students with special needs at all levels of schooling, by emphasizing vocational training in order to prepare them for a fitting socio-economically successful life”. There is no mention of dyslexia unless we consider it as one of “the special learning difficulties” for which there exist three posts for diagnosis, planning, and rehabilitation. Most posts are assigned to educational planning for students with learning/behavioral problems, within which low ability students are prominent (OEE, 2008b). Yet, a perusal of the programs undertaken by the subdivision inclusive of the special learning difficulties reveals that there is only one item dealing with dyslexia and that is “follow up on the purchase and evaluation of the dyslexia test”, just as there is an item on the autistic students. This would appear significant considering the fact that 80% of those labeled as students with learning difficulties are dyslexic or have difficulty in reading (OEE Statistics, 2008a). Such a high percentage could stem from the very nature of Farsi, the official instructional language.

Farsi (Parsee), is an Indo-European language, and as such a much closer relative of English than of the Semitic languages like Arabic; it is written from right to left and mostly in the Arabic alphabet. As a result, there is more than one letter for many of the sounds used by Parsee speakers. These linguistic characteristics, in addition to any of the individual characteristics of the students with special needs, could cause them additional difficulty when learning to read and write. Given these characteristics, the organizational realities of dyslexia in Iran, and the abovementioned theoretical framework, it was deemed worthwhile to ask if, within the Iranian context, the difference-oriented perspective of dyslexia prevails over the deficit-oriented perspective; a question that leads the way to reviewing previous research in this area.

Most research on dyslexia deals with the verbal-memory problems that dyslexics experience, while few studies deal with their visual-spatial mode of thought. Smith-Spark and Fisk (2007) are among the very few researchers who have focused on both. In their study they compared working memory for verbal and spatial tasks in adult dyslexics and nondyslexics and the former group was found to have a significantly shorter memory span for both simple and complex verbal tasks as well as for complex spatial memory tasks. These researchers concluded that, in addition to the storage problems, attention system deficit and central executive dysfunction in dyslexics may be causes of the difference. Kakavand (2003) also reported that both Mishet, and Gordon and Simpson found no difference between dyslexic and nondyslexic children in their ability to learn and recall episodic experiences. Boden and Brodeur (in Alizadeh, 1994) report dyslexics being slower in visual processing of both verbal and nonverbal stimuli than nondyslexics. However, they were also slower on the verbal tasks compared to the nonverbal ones. Farrokh (2001, as cited in Smythe, Everatt, & Salter, 2004) who investigated the relationship of Farsi reading to synaptic awareness, phonological processes, orthographic awareness, working, and long-term memory, concluded that Farsi reading is significantly related to all cognitive processes except for those involved in long-term memory. Hoseini Guranbadi (1997, as cited in Kakavand, 2003) also reported that his sample of Iranian dyslexic children had more difficulties with visual differentiation in verbal tasks than did the nondyslexics, but did equally well on visual-differentiation in spatial/picture tasks. Many researchers have concluded that dyslexics’ creativity is at least within the same range as that of nondyslexics, if not greater. However, dyslexics seem to be more creative in artistic areas than in the language arts (Davis, 2002). Rivera, Murdock, and Sexton (1995, as cited in Kakavand, 2003) reported that not only can dyslexics reason abstractly and solve problems, but they can also demonstrate a sophisticated sense of humor. Baum (1998, as cited in McEachern & Bornot, 2001) reported that dyslexics often prefer creative activities and usually have many interests or hobbies outside of the school setting. Ferri et al. (1997, as cited in McEachern & Bornot, 2001) also found that divergent thinking and novel approaches to problem-solving are often present in dyslexics. Thus, in response to the previously posed question regarding the prevalence of the difference-oriented perspective on dyslexia in Iran, it was hypothesized that while the general characteristics of dyslexics could be universal, differences in some aspects of memory and creativity between dyslexic and nondyslexic students could be in favor of the former.

Members of both groups were tested separately in their respective schools and classrooms. Initially they took the reading test to confirm the official screening of dyslexic students (there was a significant difference between the two groups in reading speed, accuracy, and comprehension). Next their creativity − that is, fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration skills − was measured. Finally, the participants’ verbal and pictorial memory (recognition and recall) were assessed using two tasks, one spatial (recognizing the place of the pictures and words in the matrix) and the other verbal (recalling the words/pictures shown to them). Thus, each participant received two scores on the final test.

Given the alternative perspective on dyslexia (Davis & Braun, 1997) in which dyslexics are regarded as different rather than deficient, and the known facts about the dyslexic scene in Iran, the posed question on the prevalence of differences rather than deficits was tentatively answered following the review of the literature. In other words, it was hypothesized that dyslexic students would perform differently on memory and creativity tests, however, these differences may be in favor of dyslexics in some of the subtests. The collected data support this hypothesis since the dyslexic students showed superiority in one of the memory subtests and one of the creativity subtests. While the other observed differences were all in favor of the nondyslexics, there were areas in which there was no difference between the two groups; thus portraying the dyslexic students in a more favorable light. The areas in which the dyslexics proved superior were pictorial-spatial subtests of memory and the originality/synthesis subtest of creativity. They also showed superiority, though not to a significant extent, on the fluency and flexibility subtests of creativity. Similarly, the dyslexics performed slightly better, though not significantly, in the verbal-auditory memory task using words referring to concrete objects. In only one area of the creativity test (elaboration skills), did the dyslexics score lower, and the difference compared with nondyslexics was not significant. The areas in which the observed differences were significant and in favor of the nondyslexic students included verbal-visual memory for both types of words, and verbal-auditory memory for words referring to abstract concepts. These findings are in line with those of Gordon and Simpson (2000; as cited in Kakavand, 2003), and Hoseini Guranbadi (1997; as cited in Kakavand, 2003).

With regard to the comparison of the dyslexic students’ performance on different memory tasks, the data show them to be significantly better at remembering words referring to concrete objects when presented to them both visually and aurally, and likewise to be significantly better at doing pictorial-spatial memory tasks compared to visual-semantic tasks. These results are also compatible with the theoretical framework cited earlier.

Both the superiorities and similarities of the two groups, as well as their differences, can be explained by the fact that dyslexics use different methods of cognitive processing. The thought processes that are the essence of their creativity are also the root of their difficulties with the printed, and sometimes spoken, word. This notion is further supported by the fact that the visual-pictorial memory of the dyslexic person is superior and – in all likelihood – helps him or her to solve problems and hence to be regarded as a creative thinker, just as, according to Davis (2006), were Da Vinci, Edison, and Einstein!

Despite the shortcomings of our study, notably its lack of optimal control, the special status of dyslexics is the most outstanding finding. Dyslexics have special needs that require special attention. Appropriate educational programs and curricula that would provide constructive educational experiences, while promoting creativity, would help dyslexic students to grow and expand on the gifts they have. Such programs would need to be based on the view that dyslexia is only a different way of thinking and learning and not a defect that cannot be remedied. By promoting such a nondeficit-oriented perspective, a more constructive understanding of the condition could emerge and this, in turn, would help with the development of effective educational and occupational tools for dyslexics; thus altering the cultural settings so that stigmatization of, and discrimination against, dyslexics will no longer take place.