Dyslexic Students and the Second Language Learning

A study on the learning needs - European review

 

by Eva Gyarmathy, Chris Mahlerbe, Paula Pichel, Borislav Stoyanov, Tiziana Tartari,

 

 

 

 

 

A)    Developing the research material

B)    Questionnaires

C)   Students’ view

D)   Trainers’ view

E)    Learning needs of the dyslexic students

F)    Suggestions for an internet based language learning programme

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November, 2009

 

A)    Developing the research material

 

In preparing for the study, the project partners familiarized themselves with the fields of dyslexia and foreign language learning. In this, we used materials developed in several other projects, namely: Include, Adytrain, CallDysc.

The partners synchronised their understanding of the concepts of the field and their professional points of view. These steps constituted the preparatory phase of the whole of the project, itself.

 

The point of the present study was to explore in each country the foreign language learning conditions of dyslexic students in tertiary education, their views, as well as their foreign language trainers’ knowledge of and views on this topic.

 

Topics studied:

 

 

We collected data in the above topics using questionnaires. We drew up separate questionnaires for trainers and students, but rougly the same questions were asked in both, so that we could compare their views.

The test groups were formed by selecting English trainers and dyslexic and non-dyslexic students. We found the participants for the questionnaire through centres for dyslexia and professionals dealing with dyslexics.

We did not assess dyslexia, but simply asked the students to indicate on the questionnaire whether they were dyslexic on a 1–3 score scale (not dyslexic, mildly dyslexic and severely dyslexic). Other international projects (Include, Adystrain) provided questionnaires to assess dyslexia, identifying the signs of dyslexia, with the help of which the students had the possibility of self-assessment.

 

The study was carried out in five countries:

 

 

Given that we sought to gain information from students with difficulties in reading and writing, we had to plan the means of collecting the data very carefully. The partners came to an agreement on the criteria that the questionnaires would definitely have to meet:

 

1.      As much information as possible should be gained from as few questions as possible.

2.      The questionnaires should be easy to fill in.

3.      The results should provide numerical data as well as textual information.

4.      The questionnaires should be easy to understand an fill in for dyslexics, as well.

 

The questionnaires were prepared in agreement with all project partners. We constantly updated the preliminary versions until they finally complied with everyone’s requirements.

 

 

B)    Questionnaires

 

Both the questionnaire for trainers and that for students could be filled in electronically, as well as with paper and pen. The partners collected the data in their home countries according to the local opportunities. The data were then unified in a spreadsheet file. In processing the information, we made no distinction according to the local differences in the way the questionnaires were filled in, as these did not affect the content seriously.

 

To guarantee accurate data collection and processing, a questionnaire comprising a data collection guide was compiled for both the trainers’ and the students’ questionnaire. This warranted that the partners entered the data into the spreadsheet file correctly, and based on the same rule.

 

Attached to this report are the questionnaires and the spreadsheet files for unifying the data:

 

1.      Questions for trainers

2.      Questions for students

3.      Questions for trainers - template

4.      Questions for students - template

5.      Trainer - Blank form

6.      Student - Blank form


C)   Students’ view

 

One of the most important questions in processing the data obtained by the questionnaires was whether the dyslexic students differed from the non-dyslexic students in their views on language learning. According to the results, dyslexic students have somewhat different difficulties in language learning as do non-dyslexic students. The views of mildly and severely dyslexic students, however, do not differ significantly in this respect. This means that the group of dyslexics can be regarded as homogeneous with respect to the areas under investigation, independently of how severe their dyslexia is. In the analysis, therefore, we compared the groups of dyslexic and that of non-dyslexic students.

 

Table 1 shows that the greatest difficulty for dyslexics is learning new words. In this, they differ significantly from non-dyslexic students, for whom this constitutes the least difficulty in language learning. Learning the pronunciation comes second for dyslexics. This is also only one of the minor problems for non-dyslexics.

 

The results indicate that language learning is significantly different in the case of dyslexics, as compared to non-dyslexics.

 

 

Table 1  Difficulties in foreign language learning, ranked from 1 to 5, where 1 is the most difficult task.

 

 

Average ranks of difficulties in second language learning

Students

Pronunc.

New words

Gram underst

Gram use

Understand

Ndys         (55)     score:  1.00

3,62

4,02

2,11

2,20

2,85

Dys           (64)     score:  2.00

2,76

2,57

3,38

3,16

2,76

Sdys         (20)     score:  3.00

3,15

2,80

2,85

2,45

3,85

Sdys+Dys  (84)    score:  2.24

2,86

2,63

3,25

2,99

3,02

Ttest   Dys:NDys

0,0010

0,0000

0,0000

0,0001

0,7371

Ttest   Dys:SDys

0,3134

0,4917

0,1056

0,0411

0,0088

Ttest (Dys+Sdys):NDys

0,0020

0,0000

0,0000

0,0004

0,5291

 

 

One of the Italian dyslexic students wrote: "I have problems in remembering how words are written and I forgot also soon what I just studied." A number of dyslexics reported similar problems, but they agree that learning foreign languages is important: "Foreign languages are difficult for dyslexics but correct methods can help learning them quickier."

 

 

Table 2  Difficulties in using a foreign language, ranked from 1 to 5, where 1 is the most difficult task.

 

 

Average ranks of difficulties of aspects of foreign language use

Students

Reading

Writing

Understanding

Speaking

Grammar

Ndys         (55)     score:   1.00

4,29

3,09

2,98

2,35

1,95

Dys           (64)     score:   2.00

3,11

2,27

2,92

2,92

2,98

Sdys         (20)     score:   3.00

2,37

2,30

4,26

3,75

2,80

Sdys+Dys  (84)    score:   2.24

2,94

2,28

3,23

3,12

2,94

Ttest   Dys:NDys

0,0000

0,0001

0,8235

0,0227

0,0000

Ttest   Dys:SDys

0,0268

0,9222

0,0009

0,0243

0,6157

Ttest (Dys+Sdys):NDys

0,0000

0,0001

0,3445

0,0012

0,0000

Table 2 shows what difficulties dyslexics have in using foreign languages. Students were required to rank from 1 to 5 the five aspects of language use listed, where 1 constitutes the greatest and 5 the least difficulty. The most difficult task for dyslexics is writing and reading in a foreign language. In this, too, they differ from non-dyslexic students, for whom the greatest problem is the proper use of grammar.

 

The results indicate that dyslexics have significantly different problems than non-dyslexics in using a foreign language.

 

According to the results in Table 3, it is the severely dyslexics who least feel that they get the support they need for learning. Non-dyslexics feel most that they get enough support. The differences are not significant, but the tendency is evident. Whether this is because the dyslexics need more support, or because they feel they do not receieve enough support, or perhaps because they indeed do not get suitable support in learning, provision is clearly unsatisfactory.

 

 

Table 3 The support they got (Most=1, None=4) and the wish to learn a second language through e-learning (Yes=1, No=3) 

 

Students

Support

E-learning

Ndys         (55)    score:    1.00

1,04

1,42

Dys           (64)     score:   2.00

2,30

1,38

Sdys         (20)     score:   3.00

2,35

1,28

Sdys+Dys  (84)    score:   2.24

2,31

1,35

Ttest   Dys:NDys

0,0000

0,7480

Ttest   Dys:SDys

0,8878

0,4950

Ttest (Dys+Sdys):NDys

0,0000

0,5993

 

 

Those who received support enumerated several kinds thereof. Some of the examples:

 

 

Typically, dyslexics get support in the primary school, but later they are left alone, as it transpires from this remark:

 

"When I was at the primary school, someone read me the text and helped me understanding and writing; now that I'm at the university I don't know how to do.

Personal trainer both for italian and foreign languages, multimedia and cds can help."

 

A Hungarian dyslexic, who went through several foreign language teachers remarked: "Teachers who teach English have methods, but do not fit them to the individual. What is needed is a method with which one can learn in their own way and at their own pace."

 

The answers show that all groups of studens would be glad to use e-learning in foreign language learning (Table 3), and as the remarks indicate, they are already searching for a learning opportunity like this.

 

The results indicate that the dyslexics do not receive appropriate support in foreign language learning and that the students would willingly use e-learning to help them master a foreign language.

 

Nevertheless, e-learning is not the most preferred mode of learning. It is, instead, personal contact.

 

The examples of support they gave reveal that students do not think exclusively of trainers as support:

 

Students rank e-learning and CD’s as learning methods right after personal contact, but at this point, differences start to emerge (see Table 4).

 

 

Table 4  Ranks of different learning tools, ranked from 1 to 6, where 1 is the most preferred method.

 

 

SL  learning preferences

Students

Book

CD

E-learning

E-mail

Forum

Personal

Ndys         (55)    score:    1.00

3,27

3,11

3,45

4,20

5,40

1,64

Dys           (64)     score:   2.00

4,23

2,70

2,98

4,34

4,50

1,89

Sdys         (20)     score:   3.00

4,89

2,58

2,05

4,32

4,79

2,47

Sdys+Dys  (84)    score:   2.24

4,38

2,67

2,77

4,33

4,57

2,02

Ttest   Dys:NDys

0,0029

0,0901

0,1003

0,5700

0,0002

0,2755

Ttest   Dys:SDys

0,1152

0,7445

0,0256

0,9485

0,4600

0,1237

Ttest (Dys+Sdys):NDys

0,0002

0,0558

0,0119

0,5550

0,0003

0,0950

 

 

Dyslexics like e-learning more than non-dyslexics do, and using books comes at the end for them significantly, while it is ranked second best in the case of non-dyslexics (Table 4). However, even among dyslexics, not everyone dislikes books: "I am 21 years old and personally I feel at my ease using books; I experienced cd (not for dyslexics) but did not liked them."

 

The results show that e-learning is by more important as a method for foreign language learning for dyslexics than it is for non-dyslexics. Non-dyslexics feel they can learn well from books, which is not true for dyslexics.

 

The results do not differ significantly by country. The small differeces that do appear are due to the fact that the ratio of dyslexics was different in the test group in different countries.

 

In the analyses that follow, we will only be using the results of the dyslexic students, because it is their way of learning we aim to study.

 

 

D)   Trainer's view

 

We asked teachers of English as a foreign language in all five countries about dyslexics and their language learning. Most of the teachers had experiences with dyslexic students. From 123 teachers only 11 stated that had no experiences with dyslexic student. It is the tenth of the teachers who had no dyslexic student or could not identify the dyslexia. While awarness of dyslexia is more and more evident in young children age, teachers don't know about dyslexia in higher education. It is not widely know that dyslexia is a special way of thinking, which is the base of a lot strengths and weaknesses for the dyslexic person trough the whole life span.

 

We examined whether teachers who had already taught dyslexic students had different views than those who so far had not, or who did not know for sure if they had taught dyslexics. The results indicate that the trainers’ views on dyslexics and their foreign language learning are independent of whether they have already had some experience with dyslexic students.

 

The point at which significant differences emerged was that trainers who had already taught dyslexic students were familiar with more teaching methods and could, consequently, name more of them. Independently of previous experience with dyslexics, teachers regard e-learning as a useful tool in foreign language learning (see Table 5).

 

 

Table 5  Experience with dyslexic students and methods used (Yes=1)

 

 

Experience with dyslexic students (1–3)

Has methods (1–4)

Number of methods listed

Preference for e-learning (1–3)

Average

1,32

2,36

1,49

1,20

Has had dyslexic student (N=112)

1,15

2,20

1,64

1,17

Hasn't had dyslexic student (N=11)

3,00

3,91

0,00

1,44

Ttest

0,0000

0,0000

0,0001

0,0806

 

 

We examined the relevant differences accross countries, but we found no significant differences between countries. The majority of trainers from Hungary and Spain indicated that they had already had dyslexic students. Significant difference only showed in the case of Bulgarian trainers in comparison to others. They had much less experience with dyslexic students and they also have less tools and methods for teaching them. The latter, however, is characteristic of most of the other teachers, as well. The German trainers proved to be the most experienced in the sample, and statistically, they differ significantly from the others having more methods than the teachers from the other countries. (see Table 6.)

 

 

Table 6 Differences in the trainers' experiences accross the four countries

 

TRAINERS (87)

Experience with dyslexic students (Yes=1, No=3)

Has methods

(Yes=1, No=4)

BG

2,05

3,09

GER

1,13

1,40

HUN

1,09

2,03

ITALY

1,32

3,24

SPAIN

1,22

2,70

Average

1,32

2,36

 

 

The trainers’ view did not differ significantly accross countries. Although there were some differences, these were most probably due to the differences in teaching experience.

 

The Bulgarian trainers use lots of useful methods, like audio and visual aids, native speaker sessions, role-play games, group work, multisensory teaching, music, interactive methods, multimedia. However there are many trainers who make remarks like the following:

 

 

In Italy most of the teachers use images and voice recordings. Another poupular method is listening and repeating. Very few of the trainers use pc and internet, dialogues and explanations.

 

The Hungarian teachers also try to use a variety of solutions, some of them even utilizing the Mind Map method.

 

The German teachers have the most experience with dyslexic students and most of the teachers have special methods to treat the special students. They can name methods like

 

 

 

Table 7 Trainers' views on the difficulties in second language learning, ranked from 1 to 5, where 1 is the most difficult task.

 

TRAINER (N=87)

Difficulties in SL learning

Average ranks

Pronunc.

New words

Gram. underst

Gram. use

Undrstand

BG

2,82

1,36

3,27

3,68

3,18

GER

3,93

4,03

1,83

1,67

3,53

HUN

3,87

2,55

2,56

2,48

3,48

ITALY

4,56

3,72

1,56

1,52

3,64

SPAIN

2,00

2,56

3,00

3,44

3,78

SUM

3,69

2,96

2,33

2,37

3,50

Ranks

Pronunc.

New words

Gram. underst

Gram. use

Undrstand

BG

2

1

4

5

3

GER

5

3

1

2

4

HUN

5

2

3

1

4

ITALY

5

4

2

1

3

SPAIN

1

2

3

4

5

SUM

5

3

1

2

4

 

Apparently, there is an increasing call for the use of methods efficient for dyslexics. The trainers’ familiarity with dyslexia is, however, rather contingent. It is mostly through experience that they gain knowledge about the problems of dyslexics and they generally also only enrich their methodological repertoire through practice and experience. There is thus no principled training behind their knowledge to supply them with a firm basis for teaching dyslexics. During our research, we found that most of the trainers do not even understand properly exactly what problems these students face.

 

The results of the present study show that trainers in general believe that the greatest problems for dyslexic students are understanding grammar, learning new words and using grammar rules (see Table 7), but it will turn out that the students themselves are of a different opinion. In other words, trainers do not focus their support on aspects of teaching where it would truly be needed.

Table 8 shows that trainers fairly consistently regard writing and reading as the most difficult for dyslexic students. It is especially writing which many of them think of as the number one problem. It scores under 2 even in average ranking. This fits in with the fact that dyslexics in general have poor literacy skills.

 

Table 8   Difficulties in using a second language - trainers' view, ranked from 1 to 5, where 1 is the most difficult task.

 

TRAINER (N=87)

SL usage

 

Average ranks

Reading

Writing

Understanding

Speaking

Grammar

 

BG

2,82

2,14

3,50

2,18

3,68

 

GER

1,77

1,70

4,23

4,07

3,23

 

HUN

2,87

1,90

3,65

3,84

2,74

 

ITALY

2,20

1,88

3,88

4,88

2,16

 

SPAIN

2,38

1,44

4,13

3,75

3,88

 

SUM

2,40

1,85

3,85

3,80

3,00

 

Ranks

Reading

Writing

Understanding

Speaking

Grammar

 

BG

3

1

4

2

5

 

GER

2

1

5

4

3

 

HUN

3

1

4

5

2

 

ITALY

3

1

4

5

2

 

SPAIN

2

1

5

3

4

 

 

SUM

2

1

5

4

3

 

 

As regards teaching methods, as it has already become apparent, trainers tend to have a preference for technical tools. They are also aware that language learning is essentially a form of communication and the most important aspect thereof is personal contact. All other methods come far below personal contact, including e-learning. Crucially, however, trainers rank electronic tools and solutions utilizing audiovisual representations higher than books (Table 9).

 

 

Table 9 Tools for second language learning - trainers' view, ranked from 1 to 6, where 1 is the most preferred method.

 

TRAINER (N=87)

SL  teaching

Averages

Book

CD

E-learning

E-mail

Forum

Personal

BG

3,77

3,50

3,55

3,86

4,32

1,05

GER

4,93

4,47

3,73

3,30

4,83

1,07

HUN

5,45

3,58

2,69

3,57

3,75

1,38

ITALY

5,24

2,56

2,92

4,16

3,88

2,16

SPAIN

4,00

4,38

3,63

4,00

2,38

2,56

SUM

4,84

3,63

3,25

3,72

4,08

1,49

Ranks

Book

CD

E-learning

E-mail

Forum

Personal

BG

4

2

3

5

6

1

GER

6

4

3

2

5

1

HUN

6

4

2

3

5

1

ITALY

6

2

3

5

4

1

SPAIN

5

6

3

4

1

2

SUM

6

3

2

4

5

1

 

 

 

E)    Learning needs of the dyslexic students

 

According to the results of our study on the English language learning of dyslexic students, the trainers and the dyslexic students have somewhat different views on the difficulties therein. The greatest difficulty for students is learning new words. Trainers rank this as second most difficult. For trainers, understanding grammar rules comes first among the difficulties dyslexics face. The students, however, regard not so much the understanding, but the use of grammar as difficult. Again, trainers do not regard memorizing the correct pronunciation as difficult, while students rank this difficulty very high. The averages of the ranks of the difficulties do not differ substantially, which means that all of the problems are real and existing; it is merely the focus that is different (see Table 10).

 

 

Table 10 Comparision of the students’ and the trainers’ view of second language learning, where 1 is the most and 5 the least difficult task.

 

Difficulties in SL learning

Pronunc.

New words

Gram. unders.

Gram. use

Understand

Average – dyslexic student

2,86

2,63

3,25

2,99

3,02

Ranks - dyslexic student

2

1

5

3

4

Average – trainer

4,84

3,63

3,25

3,72

4,08

Ranks – trainer

5

2

1

3

4

 

 

The biggest problem for dyslexic students is learning words and the correct pronunciation. The trainers are not aware of the latter as a problem, and rank understanding grammar higher as a difficulty.

 

As regards difficulties in using a foreign language, trainers and students set up a fairly similar ranking. The results differed only by a few decimals at most in the areas constituting the greatest difficulties (see Table 11).

 

 

 

Table 11 Comparision of the students’ and the teachers’ view of second language usage, where 1 is the most and 5 the least difficult task.

 

SL usage

Reading

Writing

Understanding

Speaking

Grammar

Average - dyslexic student

2,93

2,28

3,23

3,12

2,94

Ranks - dyslexic student

2

1

5

4

3

Average - trainer

2,40

1,85

3,85

3,80

3,00

Ranks – trainer

2

1

5

4

3

 

 

The greatest difficulty for dyslexcs in using a foriegn language is writing. The trainers see this correctly, as well.

 

Regarding the best methods in foreign language learning, dyslexic students and trainers, again, set up a fairly similar ranking. Personal contact is ranked far above any other solution by all two groups (see Table 12). This does not only mean personal contact between the trainer and the student, but also, as the comments to this question reveal, it is of immense help to spend a longer time in a foreign language speaking area and to use the language to communicate with friends and acquaintances. CD and e-learning also rank high as useful tools. All other methods, including learning from a book, are ranked far below these.

 

 

Table 12 Comparision of the students' and the trainers' view of second language learning tools, where 1 is the most and 6 the least preferred method.

 

SL tools

Book

CD

E-learning

E-mail

Forum

Personal

Average - dyslexic student

4,38

2,67

2,77

4,33

4,57

2,02

Ranks - dyslexic student

5

2

3

4

6

1

Average - trainer

4,84

3,63

3,25

3,72

4,08

1,49

Ranks - trainer

6

3

2

4

5

1

 

Learning language through personal contact is considered the most efficient method by both the students and the trainers. E-learning and CD’s also appear to be popular tools. Teachers and students agrees that after the personal relationship these are the most usable tools.

 

 

 

 

 

F)    Suggestions for an internet based language learning programme

 

In light of the results of the study, e-learning appears to be a suitable method in foreign language learning for dyslexic students. Few have had the opportunity to try this form of learning, but both the students and the trainers are open to such a solution.

 

The programme should primarily lay stress on writing and the use of grammar rules. Grammar should not simply be taught. Instead, students should get help in how to use grammar through appropriate examples and exercises.

 

The e-learning method provides an opportunity for dyslexic students to receive support in learning new words and the correct pronunciation. Multichannel learning is the basis for efficient learning, and in the case of dyslexics, it is, in fact, a basic obligation to provide a learning material that can be processed in a multichannel way.

 

Seeing that personal contact is extremely important for students, it is worth using materials that facilitate and incite communication. Indeed, this is a basic rule in language learnig.

 

It is vital that dyslexics always receive ample help in spelling and correct pronunciation. These are their weak points, and they need plenty of practice in these areas.

 

Summary of methodological recommendations:

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgement

 

Special thanks for their contributions to:

Bulgaria

Езиков Център "Орхидея", Пловдив

Пламена Михайлова

Румяна Ангелова

(Language Centre Orhidea, Plovdiv

Plamena Mihajlova

Rumiana Angelova)

 

Germany

Dachverband Legasthenie Deutschland e.V.

German Dyslexia Association


Hungary

Dyslexia Centre of the Sun Circle Mental Health Foundation,

Eotvos Lorand Univerrsity,

University of Debrecen,

University of Szeged,

Budapest Technical Collage (now University of Óbuda)

 

Italy
Sonia Piangerelli, Researcher in Didactics of Foreign Languages, with specialisation in Learning Difficulties
AID (Italian Dyslexia Association) - Ascoli Piceno
Regional Centre for Language and Learning Disabilities - Local Health Unit of Bologna
University of Bologna - Dyslexics Students Service

 

Spain

Dna. Manuela Escobar Montero

Department of English at the University the Sevilla