Articles by Eva Gyarmathy
Content
·
Guidelines - to English
teaching programmes for dyslexic individuals
·
Learning a Foreign Language
and Dyslexia
· Dyslexic Students and the Second Language
Learning. A study on the learning needs - European review
Other articles
Content
· Modern foreign language
learning
by Eva Gyarmathy
Dyslexic
individuals have many exellent abilities to use in learning. For example they
are visual, they are holistic. They are good in activities where visual stimuli
help the solution, they areeffective when they can manipulate, and stirring
events happens. They like intellectual challange if the tasks is by their
leading abilities.
On
the other hand dyslexics have some deficiencies. Most of the deficiences stem
from their different way of thinking. That is why their deficinecies sometimes
root from the same abilities which can be excellent. Dyslexics are holistic, so
they leave out of consideration details, thus they confuse similar things. They
are poor in the perception of directions, orientations, relations. Their
sequential abilities, the step by step information processing is weak. Their
poor phonological abilities don’t help them. These are traits that hinder
literacy skills. They make many mistakes and the incorrect forms rival always
with the correct forms. That is the reason they mustn’t produce anything before
they have learnt it properly.
The
materaial has to be as much as possible multi-sensorial, interactive and follow
the natural way of literacy skill’s learning. It has to be built up to lead a
slow, gradual progress. The material that has been learnt in a phase, has to
come again and again on a higher level. There are three main phases and many
sub phases in the teaching of the language.
Three phases:
1. No reading and no writing
2. Reading – phonological abilities to improve
3. Reading and writing – spelling and grammar to achieve the phonological awareness
Phase 1
No reading and no writing
The material consists of
situations, games and tasks where the learner can hear and see the words,
sentences and the short instructions and see pictures of the words and
situations of the communication .
Steps forward:
¨
The learner is not
expected to produce sentences or give any feed back in the first time.
¨
Production is the
learners decision.
¨
Production is expected
as repetition of the material.
¨
The learner answers
questions
¨
The learner creates
own sentences
Phase 2
Reading – phonological
abilities to improve
The learner mustn’t
pronounce incorrectly the words. The reading production is starting only when
it is 100% sure that the learner knows the pronounciation of the given
material. The matarial is based on the material of the first phase. The games,
situations and tasks should support the graduality.
Steps forward:
¨
The learner reads the
text together with the computer while follows the words. (Colours or any other
signing is good for it.)
¨
The learner repeats
the text after the computer, while follows it.
¨
The learner reads the
text, and the computer repeats. Thus the learner can check own production.
Phase 3
Reading and writing –
spelling and grammar to achieve the phonological awareness
The learner should write
only when the production is 100% surely correct. The learner mustn’t see the
words incorrectly written.
Steps forward:
¨
The learner copies the
words and sentences. The computer gives feed back.
¨
The learner writes
those words and sentences that are already in the inner lexicon. The computer
gives feed back.
¨
The learner writes
sentences. The computer gives feed back.
a. The material has to be
visual, auditive and verbal in the same time. The words and sentences have to
be seen in a picture, have to be pronounced and the written form has to be seen
together.
b. The material has to be
interactive. Games, situations, tasks, choices, decisions make the material
living.
c. The material cen be
improved by songs and ryhms. Karaoke is a very good tool.
d. The grammar tasks have
to be clear. Visual and auditive clues should help the understanding and usage
of the rules. Colours, shapes and drawings diagrames can be good aids. A good
sample sentence helps a lot.
e. The material should
contain links where other materials on a given level can be found.
SLD do not stem from a single reason. Specific
learning difficulty is a broad term that covers a pool of possible causes,
symptoms, treatments and outcomes. SLD can show up in many forms, and it is
difficult to diagnose or to pinpoint the causes. However we may decrease the
number of endangering factors, and compensate their injurious effects. The
earlier we start the more we can achieve.
Specific learning difficulty (SLD) is a summing name
of a syndrome which is controversial in its definition, origine and even
symptoms. Thus it is not surprising that more different names are used for the
concept – specific learning difficulties, learning disabilities, dyslexia. In the UK the term specific learning difficulties is
often regarded as synonymous with dyslexia. Indeed the British Dyslexia
Association states on its headed notepaper that it is “The national
organisation for specific learning difficulties”.
However, an increased understanding
that there are many different underlying cognitive modules (Anderson, 1992)
that affect the learning process has led to a plethora of different terms the
meaning of which will change depending on context and users. Examples include dyspraxia, dysgraphia and
dyscalculia, which are sybtypes and syndromes of SLD
Seeing that lack of a consistent name there are many
misunderstandings in the research, literature and in the practice, as well. For
the name “specific learning difficulties” describes to the best the syndrome,
that name is to be used in this work. However in citations we took the term
used by the authors.
Specific learning difficulties as a category is
rather new. Firstly Samuel Kirk used the term “learning disabilities” (Kirk
& Bateman, 1962), and it became generally accepted on a conference, where
specialist argued the issue (Kirk & Becker, 1963). However the syndrome under different terms has been
described already in the 19th century.
Berlin (1887) is accredited as the
first to use the term dyslexia, in his monograph “Dyslexia eine besondere Art
der Wortblindheit”, when referring to the acquired loss of reading ability,
though ten years earlier Kussmaul (1877) had proposed the term ‘word-blindness’
or ‘caecitas verbalis’ for an acquired loss of words.
Dejernine (1895) deduced that lesions
in the medial and inferior portions of the left occipital lobe could lead to
acquired dyslexia, and that fibres connecting the occipital lobes were also
significant.
Morgan (1896) referred to “congenital
word-blindness”, whilst Hinshelwood (1917) defined word blindness as a
pathological condition due to a disorder of the visual centres of the brain,
which produces difficulty in interpreting written language.
The Hungarian psychologist, Ranschburg
Pál whose work is still in advance of what is currently carried out now in the
name of dyslexia research, and his findings are still largely unknown,
described legasthenia and arithmetimia (Ranschburg, 1905). He worked out
the theory on homogeneous inhibition, which was an important point in the
understanding of memory and its mistakes (Ranschburg, 1939).
The principle
of homogenous inhibition (Ra-effect named after its describer) says that
the more different the adjoining contents and processes of the mind are, the
least they interfere with each other’s development. Uniformity according to the
degree of the uniformity endeavour to merge into a joint unit. This phenomenon
operates among others, in our perception, speech and in our memory errors.
The worldblindness, the specific reading difficulty
is called dyslexia in the literature recently. If it is caused by a known
injury, it is called acquired dyslexia, contrary to the case, when there aren’t
diagnosable neurological injuries, and the syndrome is caused by hardly
identifyable congenital differences in the nervous system. In this case the
term we use is developmental dyslexia (Chase & Tallal, 1992).
From the different types of SLDs dyslexia got the
greatest attention. Most of the studies on SLD deal with dyslexia, though there
are many different types of SLD. The child whose development is normal
otherwise, but the acquisition of speech seems to be difficult suffers in
developmental speech disorder. Similarly the developmental writing, counting
and social skill, conduct disorder describes the deficit on the given area.
Abbreviated as ADHD, the attentional
deficits/hyperactivity disorders is related in its origine and in some of its
symptoms to the above mentioned syndromes (there is neurological disorder in
its background, and SLD can be concomittant), yet usually it is treated
separatelly from other SLDs, and it is considered rather medical than
educational problem, as medicine is an important factor in its cure. However
behaviour therapy and appropriate rearing are more and more significant in the
treatment of ADHD.
There are four main trends in the research of the
syndrome according to the researchers viewpoint. The four trends draw four
aspects of the concept:
Neuropsychological
theories represent the first widely accepted theory. Neuropsychological
approaches describe various brain injuries that cause the problem. Children
with SLD show symtomps very similar to symtoms of persons with cerebral
lesions.
The idea that the SLD steams from minimal ogranic
injury is based on the similarity between the symptoms of children withh SLD
and brain injured persons. The injury is slight enough not to cause general
mental retardation, thus it has only selective consequences. The POS
(psycho-organic syndrome) name became general very quickly especially on the
German language area. This expression emphasizing the psychogen factors drove the
attention to the need of psychological intervention.
The specialists hve drawn attention to the fact that
the early injury of the brain does not lead to local deficits, but causes
unusual processing. According to Wewetzer (1959) the brain-injured children are
characterized rather by the deficits in processing, control and activational
abilities, than by deficiencies in whole functions or difficulties in izolated,
well-defined functions.
Wolfensberger-Haessing (1985) analyzis a less known
weakness of the POS children, which causes learning problems. The learning and
memory difficulties of the ‘serially weak’ children are caused by the
disability of storing the successive information. These children have serial
problem because thay can grasp only a limited time-Gestalt. Tasks requiring no
serial, time processing are solvable for them. Slowed down speech makes the
speech more difficult to understand for the ‘serially weak’ child, because the
short time-Gestalt doesn’t allow him to connect the next word. Rather small
units and longer breaks before the next unit should be used to help these
children in the processing of the information.
However provable organic damages are very rarely,
thus increasingly the SLD is explained by brain-disfunctioning (Kirk &
Becker, 1963). The term MCD (minimal
cerebral dysfunction) arose with this change of the viewpoint. There are
two approaches to this term. The “continuum notion” hypotesis argues that the
seriousness of the functional damages is accordance to the degree of the damage
caused by the brain trauma.
The “syndrome notion” theories attribute the
disfunctions to genetically defined biochemical deviations (Rutter, 1982). The
new findings back up this theory. Familiar accummulation was proved in the
appearance of the SLD (Pennington, 1990; Smith, et al, 1990), and genes
responsible for the deficits were found. (Cardon et al, 1994).
Already at the beginning of the eighties according
to his foetus studies Geschwind (1979) assumed that the
temporal area of the brain develops differently in the children with SLD. The
brain structure of these children doesn’t facilitate enough the verbal
processes, more concretely they are not inclined to acquire reading, writing,
etc. verbal abilites. Geschwind
analogized this phenomenon to the poor inclination for drawing or singing,
which are more widely accepted disabilites, and nobody assumes neurological
dysfunctions behind these difficulties.
The perceptional and
perceptuo-motor theories can be classified in three groups according to the
emphasized dysfunction.
Some specialists deal only with the perception and
its deficits. They don’t examine the background factors, they deal with the
adjustment of the perceptional deficits, and try to work out methods and
programmes to improve the weak abilities (eg. Frostig).
Theories emphasizing the role of the visuo-motor
integration and eye-motion consider the reason of the SLD the deficit of the
eye-movements and balance system. There are more information of
these theories eg. in the book edited by Rayner (1983).
The perceptuo-motor theories
consider the insufficient integration of the perceptuo-motor functions the
cause of the learning problems (Hallahan és Cruickshanck, 1973). In the lack of
the order of the perceptual and motor system, the visual processes can’t
provide well-structured patterns for the motor activity.
Among other also Ayres (1972; 1979)
see the senso-motor integration as the cause of the SLD. According to her
therapic conception a continous interaction must to be built between the sensory
input and the motor output. Her program is to develop adaptive behavior with
the help of tactile, vestibular and proprioceptive stimuli in children with
SLD.
Brigitte Sindelar considers important
the proper functioning and synergy of the partabilities. Her program aims to
develop the senso-motor system (Sedlak & Sindelar, 1993). The program is based on Affolter’s three dimensional
perception developing modell (Affolter, 1972).
The modell describes the development
of the higher cognitive functions. The visual, auditive and tacto-kinestetic
perception leads to the superior abilites through three cognitive areas,
memory, perception and attention and on three different developmental level,
modality specific, intermodal and serial processing. The achieved higher
abilites make possible the acquirement of the reading writing and counting. A
deficit on any point of the trestlework may be the impediment of the
development of the abilities and cause SLD. Sindelar’s assesment methods are to
discover these weak points, and the exercises serve to strengthen or restore
the problematic partabilities.
In the eighties Porkolábné Balogh
Katalin started a widerange research on early identification of SLD. She
considered the prevention the most important in the impairment of SLD. As the
sensitve period of the senso-motor functions falls mainly to the nursery
period, she concentrated to this population. She worked out a programme which
can be built into the nursery activities. The programme provides an enhanced
level sensory and kinestetic sensation for the children (Porkolábné Balogh,
1981; 1992).
The psycholinguistic theories attribute the
learning and behavior problems to abnormal psycholinguistic processes.
According to Francis-Williams (1970) difficulties in the articulation can
indicate the later arising problems. For example she experienced at many
children at whom later SLD had been manifested that they don’t use the language
as a symbolic process. Based on such theories developmental programmes were
worked out to decrease the linguistical disadvantages. Dyslexia prevention and
therapy was built on psycholinguistic bases in Hungary. Meixner and her
colleagues used linguistic improvement to prevent and treat dyslexia (Meixner & Justné Kéri, 1967; Meixner, 1974).
The behavior theories consider SLD a kind of
behavioral abnormality, and they refuse to deal with the background factors.
They consider behavior therapy the most appropriate treatment. They deal with
the symptoms, though it never could bring real succes. The treatment of the
impulsivity and attention deficit brought very few outcome. Leary and others
(1976) dealt with the school achievement and the social behavior of children
with SLD. They set achievable requirements, and the children were rewarded when
they carried out the academical and social goals. That way the right behavior
were reinforced while the incorrect actions were inhibited. However the effect
of a symptom-level treatment with the total ignorance of the basic causes is
questionable.
Many changes happened in the research of SLD in the
last decades. Wiederholt (1974) analyzing the history of the SLD investigations
attributes the changes in the definition to the integration of the different
theories on roots, effects and possible treatments. From the sixties the
specialists of the different fields – brain injuries, developmental disorders,
supportive programmes, perceptuo-motor trainings, etc. – made a united effort
to understand the phenomenon. For a long time there was no specialist for SLD,
but reading therapist, speech therapist, psychiatrist, etc. dealt with the
different symptoms of the SLD.
However the integration is formed very slowly, the
different specialists work on different fields, which makes difficult the
shaping of a generally acceptable definition. As we already mentioned, even the
name of the phenomenon is questionable. Still the expression ‘dyslexia’ is
widespread among specialist dealing with the reading disorders, but also the
‘legasthenia’ is used for the same syndrome. In the North-American literature
the name ‘learning disability’ is used, which is the expression in the UK
literature for the rather mentally retarded children, who have an overall
learning problem. In the UK the phrase ‘specific learning difficulties’ is in
use.
As far as
the definitons, over forty different definitions of the syndrome have been
collected in the literature (Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Wesson, Algozzine & Deno, 1983).
For decades theorizers and practitioners have been trying to form useful
definition for this syndrome with manyfolded appearance and diverse
origine, yet, not too much has been changed since Kirk’s first definition: Learning disabilities are caused by
neurodevelopmental disorders affecting academic learning in otherwise normal
children. Specific learning disabilities are different from general learning
difficulties caused by low IQ, sensory, physical, or emotional deficits, or
socioeconomic disadvantage. (Kirk &
Bateman, 1962).
The definition emphasizes the disorder’s connection
to the school-behavior and its manifestation to the injured psychological
processes. Essentially this definition is the base of all later definitions.
We have chosen one of the most frequently cited
definition to use for our work. The definition of Berk (1983) is the following:
“Learning disabilities is a generic term that refers to a heterogeneous
group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition
and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning or mathematical
abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be
due to central nervous system dysfunction.
Even though a learning disabiilty
may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g., sensory
impairment, mental retardation, social or emotional disturbance) or
environmental influences (e.g., cultural differences,
insufficient/inappropriate instruction, psychogenic factors), it is not the
direct result of those conditions or influences” (Berk, 1983)
Berk’s definition is appropriate for the
identification of specific learning difficulties in older children and adults,
but we should work out a definition that could help us in the early
intervention – prevention and therapy. Thus we need a definition that helps to
identify the early signs of specific learning difficulties and shows the basic
disturbances we have to cease or at least reduce.
We supplemented the definition with going into
details about the central nervous system dysfunction: In the background of
the syndrome different degree of disturbances in motor, perceptional,
sensomotor functions and information processing can be identified. The
disturbances can appear in the behaviour as one or more of the following
problems: disturbed body scheme, poor balance, poor spatial orientation,
impairment in visual, auditive, tactile perception, poor sequential information
processing.
To complete our view of the SLD we argue that: In
most of the cases SLD can be considered as a special way of information
processing. Appropriate stimulation and instruction can impede the formation of
the disturbances and the consequently developing learning problems. That is why
we suggested to call these children ‘different learners’ insteed of any other
label which suggests disfunctioning (Gyarmathy, 1996).
Since the cut-off point used to
determine if an individual dyslexic or not is arbitrary, it is impossible to
objectively justify any stated statistics on the occurrence of SLD. This issue
is further clouded when one considers if the statistics refer to an entire
population, or are restricted, such as to a geographic area. The measure
methods will also affect the outcomes.
The research of Vellutino et al (1996)
looked at 1407 children. Of those, around 9% were reported to be showing signs
of specific reading difficulties. Six months intervention reduced that to 1.5%.
The criteria used were that the child fell below the 15th centile in word
identification or word attack, with had an IQ of at least 90.
This raises several issues including
asking if those who improved were still, or were ever, dyslexic, but knew how
to find strategies, the nature of the intervention procedure, as well as
questions about the norms used and statistical procedures.
(Based on information in Maggie
Snowlings book.)
The Health Council of the Netherlands
suggested that the prevalence depends upon educational support provided, which
suggests that dyslexia is not inate but environmentally dependent. Their report
says that they do not wish to suggest how many children there are with dyslexia
(as opposed to those requiring helped because of it or those assessed as being
dyslexic). However, they noted that “a few projects in the (Dutch) educational
system indicate a figure in the region of 1% to 3% of children who should be
referred.” That is “approximately 6000 out of 200,000 new students per year who
would qualify for the specialist diagnosis and possible treatment.”
Shaywitz et al (1992) noted: Our
findings indicate that dyslexia is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, but like
hypertension and obesity, occurs in varying degrees of severity.Although
limitations on resources may necessitate the imposition of cut-off points for
the provision of services, physicians must recognise that such cut-offs may
have no biological validity. It is often suggested that dyslexia affects 4% of
the population severely, and a further 6% show some dyslexic characteristics.
However attempts to trace back to the origins of this figure have been futile.
Table 1.
Percentages of dyslexia reported in different countries and languages From
The International Book of Dyslexia.
Country |
Incidence |
Author |
Belgium |
5% |
Grammaticos |
Britain |
4% |
Matty |
Czech Republic |
2-3% |
Matacejcek |
Finland |
10% |
Lyytinen |
Greece |
5% |
Mazi
& Everatt |
Italy |
1.3-5% |
Smythe |
Japan |
6% |
Yamada |
Nigeria |
11% |
Olusanya |
Norway |
3% |
Bogetvedt |
Poland |
1,3-5% |
Bogdanowicz |
Russia |
10% |
Boldyreva
& Inshakova |
Singapore |
3,3% |
Daruwalla |
Slovakia |
1-2% |
Mesarosova |
USA |
8,5% |
Young |
Gaddes (1985) examining international data estimated
the prevelance of SLD in the average primary school 15%, however there are
large differencies between the countries in his database, too.
The strongly varying rates can be attributed to the
methodological difficulties in the definition and consequently in the
identification of SLD, however the different language and cultural background
makes the international and crosscultural comparative studies very difficult,
too. Smythe (19??) started a wide-range croos-linguistic study on the dyslexia
in different languages, and found that dyslexia touches slightly different
abilities in different language.
Beyond the language differences the various
insruction and educational policy of the countries makes the comparision very
hard. A good example is Hungary, where the rate of dyslexics were estimated
about 3%, but after the introduction of the global reading method the number of
the dyslexics arose to tenth of the former rate. As the Hungarian language is
rather phonetic, the most suitable reading instruction were the former
analyzer-syntethizer method. And indeed, most of the dyslexics were curable by
the traditional method used by speech-therapists.
The connection to the intelligence is a cardinal and
very neuralgic point of the definition of the SLD. Since Kirk (1963) the name
of the syndrome suggests much more positive approach of the syndrome than the
former, rather the brain and sense injury centered definitions.
The deviation in the neural system which influences
the mental abilities appears in the intelligence tests, too. Yet, the overall
mental retardation must be strictly differentiated from the SLD. The
differentiation of the mentally retarded and children with low overall mental
abilities joint with SLD is not unsolvable task. The mentally retarded
individuals show an overall and usually unified backwardness, but those with
SLD show a rather unbalanced cognitive profile (Gaddes, 1985)
Sarkady and Zsoldos (1992/93) on the basis of their
investigation found the group of mentally retarded children with SLD
separatable from the population of the mentally retarded. They regard as SLD
the academic achievement which is significantly lower than it can be expected
on the basis of the intelligence level. It evolves on the neurological
functional disturbances, and shows a typical cognitive syndrome. Thus SLD can
appear as joint symptom with mild mental retardation, sense organ injuries and
speech defections.
The differentiation has very important consequences.
On one hand it is very important to identify correctly the problem for the
planning the therapy. On the other hand it is not the same for the children
with SLD and their parents what kind of label the children get: (prefarably
nothing), SLD, ‘different learner’ or mentally retarded.
The development of the children’s abilities can be
very seriously influenced by their judgement. It is understandable that those,
who has a high or at least average intelligence wish to differentiate
themselves from those with low intellectual level or mental retardation.
However children with poor intellect need correct provision, too, and if they
have SLD beyond their low mental abilities, they have to get special
remediation therapy. If we left out this population from the definition, they would
have less chance to get the right provision.
It is obvious that while defining the SLD many
factors, and sometimes not clearly scientific facts, should be considered.
The difficulties of the identification of SLD begins
with the shakiness of the definition of the syndrome. The uncertainty is
heigthend by the different appearance of SLD. Karvale és Nye (1985-86) found in
their large volume investigation that the SLD hasn’t got a one dimension base,
it is rather a mixure of more deficits. Thus it is crucial to classify the
different types of SLD, and identify their symptoms.
To make easier the identification of SLD specialists
created different classifications. SLD was classified mainly on symptom level,
like dyslexia, dyscalculia, etc., but beyond this traditional grouping
different combinations and further subtypes were described.
A subtyping which turned out to be useful
in the everyday practice was created by Boder (1973). It has two principle
components of dysphonetic and dyseidetic which reflect the possible failures of
the two routes in the dual route model of reading. However, Boder also noted
that whilst there were 67% she categorised as dysphonetic, and 10% as
dyseidetic, there was also a mixed group which represented 23% of the cohort.
The difference is based on the system that are disabled in children with
literacy difficulties. If the child is not able to use phonetic transcription,
that is the phoneme-grapheme correspondence (PGC) system is incompletely
developed, they would be classified as dysphonetic. However, if they have
problems with irregular words such as ‘yacht’, then their orthographic lexicon
is incomplete, and they are said to be dyseidetic.
Bakker, Bouma, & Gardian (1990) uses a classification based on Boder’s work. They tried
to bound the reading mistakes to neuro-psychological processes. There are three
types of dyslexia based on the speed and accuracy of reading:
·
Linguistic – reads fast but makes many
mistakes.
·
Perceptual – reads with acceptable
accuracy, but very slow.
·
Mixed – mixis the characteristic of
the former two types.
The research evidence suggests that in
certain individuals it may be possible to classify them in accordance with this
theory by analysis of reading errors, yet it is not as widely accepted as other
systems.
Masutto et al. (1994) worked with
groups of dylexic children selected by Bakker’s classification and control
groups. All the dyslexics showed poor Performance Quotient in the WISC-R. They
were significantly worse than the control in Digit Span, in non-verbal tasks
and short term memory. In coding the perceptual and mixed groups were poor.
However the authors have skated over
the fact that the dyslexics were significantly better than the control in the
Vocablary test. That way the very low score in Digit Span were compensated in
the verbal quotient.
The linguistic and mixed groups showed
left hemisphare dominance alike to the control group, but the perceptual group
did not gave such unanimous result. The authors explain the low performance
results of this group by their possible left hemisphare injury, which caused
the transfer of the left hemisphare’s functions to the right hemisphare. That
would push into the background some right hemisphare cognitive functions
(Masutto, Bravar & Fabbro, 1994).
Summarizing the studies on
subtypes Shafrir and Siegel (1994) show different trends of classification of
the specific learning difficulties. Verbal and non-verbal sybtypes are
differentiated in many studies. By the school achievement there are reading,
counting and writing difficulties, and attention deficit. Shafrir and Siegel
introduce their examinations and describe the reading, counting and
reading/counting difficulties. They found these subgroups homogeneous, and the
groups differ from each other in the test results.
Affolter, F. (1972) Aspekte der Entwicklung und
Pathologie von Wahrnehmungsfunktionen. In. Sindelar, B. (1994)
Teilleistungsschwächen. Eigenverlag, Wien.
Ayres,
A. J. (1972) General principles and methods of intervention. In. Sensory
Integration and Learning Disorders. Western Psychological Services, Los
Angeles. 113-133.
Ayres,
A. J. (1979) Sensory Integration and the Child. Western Psychological Services,
Los Angeles.
Bakker,
D. J., Bouma, A. & Gardian, C. (1990) Hemisphere-specific treatment of
dyslexia subtypes: A field experiment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol 23
433-438.
Barton,
J. M.; & Starnes, W. T. (1988) Distinguishing characteristics of gifted and
talented/learning disabled students. Special Issue: Gifted students with
disabilities. Roeper-Review, Vol 12(1) 23-29.
Berk, R.A.
(1983) Learning disabilites as a category of underachievement. In. Fox, L. H.,
Brody, L. & Tobin, D. (1983) Learning disabled gifted children:
Identification and programming. University Park Press, Baltimore. (51-76)
Boder,
E. (1973) Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach based on three atypical
reading-spelling patterns. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15,
663-687.
Cardon,
L.R., Smith, S.D., Fulker, D.W. Kimberling, W.J., Pennington, B.F. &
DeFries, J.C. (1994) Quantitative trait locus for reading disability on chromosome
6. Science 266, 276-279.
Chase,
C. & Tallal, P. A. (1992) Learning disabilities: Cognitive aspects. In.
Squire, L. R. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Learning and Memory, Macmillian Publishing
Company, New York.
Dejernine J. (1895) Anatomie
des Centres Nerveux. J. Reuff, Paris.
Frances-Williams
(1970) Children with Specific Learning Difficulties. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Gaddes,
W. H. (1985) Learning Disabilities and Brain Function. A Neuro-psychological
Approach. Springer, New York.
Ganschow,
L. (1985) Diagnosing and remediating writing problems of gifted students with
language learning disabilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9(1)
24-43.
Gerebenné
Várbíró K. (1996) A tanulási zavar jelenségkörének gyógypedagógiai
pszichológiai értelmezése. In. (szerk.) Szászeczky Péter: Önmagában véve
senkisem . . . .. Tanulmányok a gyógypedagógiai pszichológia és határtudmányai
körébôl. Bárczi Gusztáv Gyógypedagógiai Tanárképzô Fôiskola, Budapest.
Geschwind,
N. (1979) Asymmetries of the brain. New developments. Bulletin of the Orton
Society, 29, 67-73.
Gósy, M. (1995) GMP Diagnosztika. Nikol. Budapest.
Gyarmathy
É. (1991) Játékkatalógus: tanulási zavarokkal küzdô gyerekek. In:
(szerk.) P. Balogh K.: Iskolapszichológia, 20. ELTE, Budapest.
Gyarmathy
É. & Telegdi Á. (1995) Ceruzaforgató. Segédanyag a tanulási zavarok
azonosításához és megelôzéséhez. MTA Pszichológiai Intézete, Budapest.
Gyarmathy É.(1996) Tanulási zavarokkal küzdô
tehetséges gyerekek azonosítása. (Identifying gifted children with specific learning
difficulties) Ph.D. thesis. Kossuth Lajos Tudományegyetem, Debrecen.
Hallahan,
D. P. & Cruickshank, W. M. (1973) Psychoeducational foundations of learning
disabilities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Healy,
J. M. (1990) Endangered Minds: Why our Children Don’t Think. Touchstone, New
York.
Hinshelwood,
J. (1895) Wordblindness and visual memory. Lancet 2. In. Hinshelwood, J. (1917)
Congenital word-blindness. Lewis, London.
Kirk,
S. A. & Bateman, B. (1962) Diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 29, 73-78.
Kirk, S. A. & Becker, W. (Eds.) (1963) Conference on
children with minimal brain impairment. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Kósáné
Ormai V., Porkolábné Balogh K., Ritoók Pálné (1987): Neveléslélektani vizsgálatok.
Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest.
Leary,
K. D. O. & Rosenbaum, A. (1976) Hipermotil gyerekek viselkedésbeli kezelése
hasznosságának kísérleti kiértékelése. in. Clinical Pediatrics, 13. 275-279.
ELTE BTK Neveléslélektani Tanszék anyaga.
Masutto,
C., Bravar, L. & Fabbro, F. (1994) Neurolingvistic Differentiation of
Children with Subtypes of Dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities Vol 27(8)
520-526.
Meixner
I., & Justné Kéri H. (1967) Az olvasástanítás pszichológiai alapjai.
Pszichológia a gyakorlatban. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Meixner
I. (1974) Új segédanyagok a dyslexia korrekciójához. Gyógypedagógia, 3. 88-90.
Meixner I. (1993) A dyslexia prevenció, reedukáció
módszere. (Method of dyslexia prevention and reeducation.) BGGYTF. Budapest,.
Miller,
M. (1982) Stability of WISC-R subtest profiles for learning disabled children.
Psychology in the Schools, 15(1), 90-94.
Morgan,
W. P. (1896) A case of congenital word-blindness. British Medical Journal, 2.
48-53.
Pennington,
B.F. (1990) The genetics of dyslexia. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 31 193-201.
Porkolábné Balogh K. (1981) A tanulási nehézségek korai
felismerése. Kézirat.ELTE, Budapest.
Porkolábné Balogh K. (1987) Készségfejlesztô eljárások
tanulási zavarral küzdô
kisiskolásoknak. Iskolapszichológia Módszertani füzetek 4.sz. ELTE, Budapest.
Porkolábné Balogh K. (1992) Kudarc nélkül az iskolába. Alex-Typo, Budapest.
Ranschburg P.
(1905) A gyermeki elme fejlõdése és mûködése, különös tekintettel a
lelki rendellenességekre, ezek elhárítására és orvoslására. (Development and
functioning of the child’s mind, especially mental abnormalities, their
prevention and therapy) Budapest, Atheneum.
Ranschburg P. (1939) Az emberi tévedések
törvényszerűségei. (Principles of the human mistakes.) Novák Rudolf és Társa,
Budapest.
Rayner, K. (Ed) (1983) Eye Movements in Reading:
Perceptual and Language Processes. New York, Academic Press.
Rosta K., Rudas Zs. & Kisházi G. (1995)
Hüvelykujjam . . . (A kézügyesség fejlesztésének játékos lehetôségei. Logopédia
Kiadó GMK, Budapest.
Rutter,
M. (1982) Syndromes attributed to “Minimal Brain Dysfunction”. In. Childhood
Journal Psychiatry, 139. 1. 21-33.
Sarkady
K. & Zsoldos M. (1992/93) Koncepcionális kérdések a tanulási zavar körül.
Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle, (3-4) 259-270.
Sedlak, F. & Sindelar, B. (1993) „Hurra, ich kann’s.“
Frühforderung für Vorschüler und Schulanfanger. ÖBV Pädagogischer Verlag, Wien.
Shafrir,
U. & Siegel, L. S. (1994) Subtypes of learning diabilities in adolascents
and adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 23(2) 123-134.
Sindelar, B. (1994) Teilleistungsschwächen. Eigenverlag, Wien.
Smith,
S.D., Pennington, B.F., Kimberling, W.J. & Ing, P.S. (1990) Familial
dyslexia: use of genetic linkage data to define subtypes. J. Am Acad Child
Adolesc Psychiatry, Mar; Vol. 29 (2), 204-213.
Yewchuk,
C. & Lupart, J. L. (1993) Gifted Handicapped: A Desultory Duality. In:
(Eds.) Heller, Mönks & Passow: International Handbook of Research and
Development of Giftedness and Talent. Pergamon, Oxford. 709-726.
Ysseldyke,
J. E., Thurlow, J., Wesson, C., Algozzine, B. & Deno, S. (1983)
Generalizations from five years of research on assessment and decision making:
the University of Minessota Institute. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4,
75-93.
Wewetzer, K. H.
(1959) Das hirngeschädigte Kind. Stuttgart.
Wiederholt,
J. L. (1974) Historical perspectives on the education of the learning disabled.
In. Mann, L. & Sabatino, D. A. (Eds.) The second review of special
education. PRO-ED, Austin. 102-152.
Wolfensberger-Haessing,
C. (1985) A szeriális észlelés gyengeség, egy kevéssé ismert zavar POS
gyermekeknél. In. Ehrat & Mattmüller-Frick: POS Kinder in Schule
und Familie. Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern-Stuttgart. In. szerk. Torda Ágnes:
Szemelvények a tanulási zavarok körébôl. ford. Huba Judit. 1991, Tankönyvkiadó.
133-138.
Written by Eva Gyarmathy
There are two comprehensive
models to describe teaching and learning with technology:
1.
constructivist
2.
conversational
1. Constructivist
According to
the constructivist model, knowledge is constructed by the learner by drawing on
prior knowledge and personal experience. It finds its diametric opposite in the
objectivist epistemology according to which knowledge is external to the
learner and is imposed upon him or her and then replicated under controlled
condition (ALLADIN, 2001).
It is the process, not the
product, which is crucial to the learner’s construction of knowledge, the way
in which the learner arrives at the solution is of more important than the
solution itself.
The process requires the active
use of a wide variety of materials to support the learning process, e.g. raw
data, secondary sources, interactive materials.
Real tasks, including case
studies and problem-based learning methods, are used to anchor the learning
process in realistic contexts.
Rather than being simply
spoonfed ‘answers’ by the teacher, the learner is prompted to relate concepts
to pre-existing knowledge and experience in order that new ideas become
meaningful in the learner’s own frames of reference (Jonassen et al, 1999).
“Learning is active mental
work, not passive reception of teaching.” (Woolfolk, 1993: 485)
ICT and constructivists
Using ICT the teacher plays
the role of task designer and knowledge facilitator. The teacher creates the
learning environment in such a way as to enable the acquisition of new
knowledge.
“From a
constructivist perspective, the primary responsibility of the teacher is to
create and maintain a collaborative, problem-solving environment, where
students are allowed to construct their own knowledge, and the teacher acts as
facilitator and guide.” (Tam, 2000: 53)
2. Conversational
At the start the learner
comes in the learning process with his or her own preconceptions of thegiven
subject. By setting a task, the teacher then engages the learner in further
exploration of the subject. Having the teacher’s feedback on the task, the
learner will then reconsider prior understandings and knowledge and form new
conceptions of the subject matter. The final part of the first ‘cycle’ of this model
is the setting of a new task to guide the learner toward the next stage of
subject enquiry. This stage is formulated in such a way as to account for the
learner’s response to the initial task (Pask, 1975; Entwhistle and Ramsden,
1983).
Teacher and learner must make their conceptions of
the topic and task meaningful to one another. They must respectively generate
and receive feedback on these descriptions. The teacher must adapt his or her
tasks in light of the learner’s actions to enable knowledge to be constructed
in meaningful terms.
The learner must receive feedback on his or her
carrying out of the task in order for understanding to be achieved. The teacher
must reflect on the way in which his or her feedback to the student is linked
to the original task. The learner must
be able to control the pace of the learning process in order for him or her to
consider feedback and reformulate a new response (Laurillard, 1999).
By educational media means
also technological tools and programs which must be conceived in such a way as
to simulate the tutorial-type exchanges we discussed earlier. Teacher could
therefore be replaced by educational medium.
The idea of technology as a
total replacement for a human being – complete with an indeterminate range of
epistemologically and empirically reflexive and adaptive behaviours – is the
stuff of cyberfiction (Davies, 1997). Laurillard (1999) admits that certain
educational media are not susceptible to operating on all of all the levels
mentioned here, and that functional add-ons would be required to engage a
learner in higher cognitive skills development. A poorly designed language
teaching program, for example, would require no more of the learner than a
flexible index finger with which to click his or her way through a given task
towards the correct answer.
ICT and conversationals
The Internet has gained a place in almost all of our
lives and has also basicly changed the language teacher’s resource base in the
teaching. The challenge which the aspiring techno-teacher faces today is no
longer that of mastering program languages in order to fashion the teacher’s
tools, but rather, of manipulating and exploiting pre-existing technological
resources.
When we speak of designing courses which integrate
ICT today therefore, we refer to the type of tasks we will set to facilitate
academic learning and the technological tools we will select to carry out these
tasks, as well as the type of technical and administrative support mechanisms
required for this to take place (Davies, 1997).
Foreign language learning technology
I found 17.300.000 matches
in a web search for the words: foreign
language learning technology.
The area of
technology-based learning is assigned by different acronyms. Originally
referred to as CALL (Computer
Assisted or Aided Language Learning), it is now also known as TELL (Technology Enhanced Language
Learning). WELL (Web Enhanced Language Learning) is a component of CALL and
TELL, with an exclusive focus on web-based resources (Delcloque, 2000).
Technical equipment in the
assistance of the daily work of learning and teaching is well-known to language
teachers. Over the years, they have battled variously with tape machines and
the acquipments of language laboratories, audio and video cassette recorders
later dictaphones. While some of these tools are by no means outmoded, the
multimedia capabilities of the networked PC are at once more practical to the
teacher and more appealing to the student.
The constructivist nature
of technology for language learning is characterised by knowledge developed
through the negotiation of meanings through dialogue with the target language
and its many socio-cultural expressions.
The successful language
learning can’t be attributed merely to communicative skills, but also to
intercultural competence which is developed through exposure to language use in
authentic contexts (Warschauer and Healey, 1998).
Independent Learning
The concept of the independent
learning is known in many forms: autonomous learning, flexible learning, open
learning, resource-based learning, self access learning, or self-directed
learning to mention but a few. While
some of them privilege the arrangement of the resources or the resources
themselves, others focus on the role of the learner. These terms are by no
means mutually exclusive. Indeed, they emphasise different aspects of the same
phenomenon.
Recent research in the
field of language education describes independent learning variously as the
following:
·
situations in which
learners study alone
·
skills associated with
self-directed learning
·
inherent capacity
suppressed by institutional teaching
·
students’
responsibility for their own learning
·
students’ right to
choose how to proceed with their own learning
While providing motivation,
collaborative modes of independent learning engender certain key skills such as
interpersonal, communicative and learning management skills and increased
metacognitive awareness. On the level
of target language learning, pair and group work can also promote an
environment conductive to knowledge construction through dialogue and
negotiation. As such, this mode is
entirely consistent with the conversational and constructivist theories of
learning (Benson and Voller, 1997).
Researchers have identified
the following barriers on successful CALL use in the fostering of learner
independence (Jones, 2001):
·
low level of learner
ICT skills
·
lack of learner
interest in ICT
·
lack of learner
motivation for autonomy
·
poor interaction
between learners
While it appears from this
list that the responsibility falls very much to the student, these barriers
serve as the stimulus for a discussion of the role of the teacher in
independent language learning (Laurillard, 1993):
·
absence of technical
support
·
lack of integration
into the former teaching and learning process
·
lack of adequate
learner training
·
lack of administrative
and senior management support
·
lack of electronic
materials for the advanced language learner
·
unreliability of live
online resources and technical equipment
However carefully conceived
the independent learning programme, and however abundant the technological
resources available, students and staff alike may show resistance to it if they
do not understand the rationale behind it. This can be particularly true if
this part of the language course attracts no formal credit. Learners and
teachers need time to adapt to the new responsibilities which independent
learning involves (Esch, 1994).
There are necessary
elements for independent ICT language learning. Language teachers should
·
attend staff
development meetings as necessary to update ICT and learner training skills
·
familiarise with the
available resources
·
consider how feedback
will be delivered to students
·
contact with resources
and technical staff
In the absence of smart tutoring programs for
language learning, one of the most exciting uses of electronic resources for
language learning purposes is the use of communication technology or CMCs
(Computer-Mediated Communications). The rapidly growing body of research and
case studies into student email exchanges, IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and MOO
(text-based virtual reality environment) bears witness to this (Bowers and
Churcher, 1989).
References
ALLADIN
(2001) Background - Aspects of Theory and Practice. Elements of Course Design.
Benson,
Ph and Voller, P (eds) (1997) Autonomy and Independence in Language
Learning. New York and London, Longman.
Bowers,
J and Churcher, J. (1989) Local and Global Structuring of Computer Mediated
Communication: Developing Linguistic Perspectives on CSCW in Cosmos. Office:
Technology and People, 4(3): 197-227.
Davies G. D. (1997) "Lessons from the past, lessons for the future:
20 years of CALL". In Korsvold A.-K. and Rüschoff B. (eds.) New Technologies in Language Learning,
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Available at:
http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/coegdd1.htm
Delcloque,
Ph (2000) ‘History of CALL’, http://www.history-of-call.org
Entwhistle,
N and Ramsden, P (1983) Understanding Student Learning. London: Croon Helm
Esch,
Edith (1994) (ed) Self-Access and the Language Learner: London: CILT, 1–4.
Fox,
J (1994) ‘Demystifying IT in Second Language Learning’. In Esch, E (ed.) Self-Access and the Adult
Language Learner, London: CILT, 19–27.
Jonassen,
D H. et al (1999). Learning With Technology: A Constructivist Perspective.
Columbus, Ohio: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Jones,
J (2001) ‘CALL and the Teacher's Role in Promoting Learner Autonomy’, CALL-EJ
Online, 3 (1)
Available
at: http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/6-1/jones.html
Kesten,
C. (1987) Independent Learning, Saskatchewan Education.
Laurillard,
Diana (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use
of Educational Technology. New York and
London: Routledge.
Pask,
Gordon (1975) Conversation, Cognition, and Learning. New York: Elsevier.
Tam,
M (2000) ‘Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications
for Transforming Distance Learning’, Educational Technology and Society, 3 (2),
50–60.
Warschauer,
M and Healey, D (1998) ‘Computers and Language Learning: An Overview’, Language
Teaching, 31, 57–71. Available at:
http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/overview.html and
http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/overview2.html
Woolfolk,
A. E. (1993) Educational Psychology, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Written
by Eva Gyarmathy
When students are studying
a foreign language that is based on the same linguistic properties as their native
language, they use the same skills as they do in their first language for new
word recognition.
Students with
dyslexia often find they are unable to fulfill high school and college foreign
language demands. In their review of research on the characteristics of
students who have trouble in the learning foreign languages, Ganschow, Sparks,
and Javorsky (1998) mention a number of studies recirding how one's native
language learning ability influences one's potential for learning a foreign
language. In addition, they dicsovered similarities between the linguistic
profiles of students who fell into the "high risk" category on
foreign language aptitude tests and later did poorly in foreign language
courses, and students who had a history of language difficulties, including
difficulty in learning to read.
Both groups
had troubles making connections between phonemes and graphemes and remembering
and applying spelling rules. The researchers found that students who did poorly
in foreign languages had a corporate profile of weaknesses similar to the
profile typically described for students with dyslexia.
Students who have
inordinate difficulties meeting foreign language may not have been formally
diagnosed as being dyslexic or suffering of specific learning difficulties, or
possessed academic records marked by repeated failures. For example, Dinklage
(1971) described that certain students who had been accepted at Harvard and who
obtained overall GPAs of 3.5 or higher had failed to fulfill their foreign
language requirement at the university. However, in revaluation the educational
histories of these students, he found that many had experienced learning
difficulties in earlier grades that were similar to dyslexia, such as learning
to read and spell, letter/symbol reversals, sound confusion, poor
discrimination of sounds and syllables in words, and poor verbal memory.
TPR classes as a solution?
In
most traditional foreign language classes, the underlying organization of the
course is a progression through the grammar and syntax rules of the language,
from simple to complex. In a TPR class, grammar and syntax are not taught
directly. Rather, the teacher designs activities that expose the student to
language in context, especially in the context of some kind of movement. With
enough exposure, the grammar and syntax of any language will be internalized by
the students through synthesis, not analysis.
Typically,
the initial TPR lessons are commands involving the whole body - stand up, sit
down, turn around, walk, stop. Those actions are demonstrated by the teacher,
who then invites students to participate with her as she continues to say the
words. Fairly soon, the teacher quietly stops demonstrating, and the students
realize that they somehow just know what to do in response to the words. There
is no translation. There is no such thing as cheating - you're encouraged to
look at what others are doing if you're not sure what to do. You're also
encouraged to trust your body, because sometimes it knows what to do before your
brain does!
As
class proceeds, nouns, adverbs, prepositions are added until before you know
it, Students are performing commands like, 'Stand up, walk to the door, open
it, stick your tongue out, close the door, turn around, hop to Jessica's desk,
kiss your right knee four times, and lie down on Jessica's desk." In
fairly short order, students begin to create their own commands and order one
another around the room. There's a lot of laughter, and a lot of learning
taking place.
It's
not always and forever commands. An expert TPR teacher can teach the
indicative, all tenses, idiomatic expressions - everything covered in a
traditional class, using these techniques and others that dovetail nicely with
them. It's just that the instruction is designed to facilitate language
acquisition, not learning a language through analysis, memorization and
application of rules (Ascher, 2007).
References
Asher, James J.(2007) A language
classroom that works for high-speed learning
http://www.tpr-world.com/high-speed-learning.html
Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and
Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. San Diego: College Hill
Press.
Dinklage, K. (1971) Inability to
learn a foreign language. In G. Blaine & C. McArthur
(Eds.), Emotional Problems of the
Student. New York: Appleton–Century-Crofts
Dufva, M. & Voeten, M.J.M. (1999). Native language
literacy and phonological memory as prerequisites for learning English as a
foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 329-348.
Dufva, M. & Vauras, M. (2002). Promoting at-risk
pupils’ foreign language literacy learning. In L.Verhoeven, C.Elbro, &
P.Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 317-337). Amsterdam;
John Benjamins.
-
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R.L., Javorsky,
J., Pohlman, J., & Bishop-Marbury, A. (1991).
Identifying native language
difficulties among foreign language learners in
college: A “foreign” language
learning disability? Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 24(9), 530-541.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R. L., &
Javorsky, J. (1998). Foreign language learning
difficulties: An historical
perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(3),
248-258.
Kahn-Horwitz, Janina,
Shimron, Joseph, Sparks, Richard L (2006) Weak and Strong Novice
Readers of English as a Foreign Language: Effects of First Language and
Socioeconomic Status. Annals of Dyslexia, Jun
Nation, K. & Snowling, M. J.
(2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the
development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 342-356.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L. &
Javorsky, J. (1992). Diagnosing and accommodating the
foreign language learning
difficulties of college students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 7(3), 150-160
Sparks, R.L., Ganschow, L., Artzer,
M., & Patton, J. (1997). Foreign language
proficiency of at-risk and
not-at-risk learners over 2 years of foreign language
instruction: A follow-up study.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 92-98.
Sparks, Richard L, Patton, Jon, Ganschow,
Leonore, Humbach, Nancy, Javorsky, James (2006) Native Language
Predictors of Foreign Language Proficiency and Foreign Language Aptitude.
Annals of Dyslexia, Jun
Sparks, Richard L. (2006) Is there a "disability"
for learning a foreign language? Journal of Learning
Disabilities, Nov
Swanson, H.L., & Alexander,
J.E. (1997). Cognitive processes as predictors of word
recognition and reading
comprehension in learning-disabled and skilled readers: Revisiting the
specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 128-158
Content
·
Guidelines - to English teaching programmes for
dyslexic individuals
· Learning a Foreign Language and Dyslexia