This article was downloaded by: [Open University] On: 22 April 2015, At: 10:34 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20
Modern languages and Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD): implications of teaching adult learners with dyslexia in distance learning a
a
a
Matilde Gallardo , Sarah Heiser & Ximena Arias McLaughlin a
Faculty of Education and Language Studies, FELS, Department of Languages, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Published online: 17 Apr 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Matilde Gallardo, Sarah Heiser & Ximena Arias McLaughlin (2015): Modern languages and Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD): implications of teaching adult learners with dyslexia in distance learning, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2015.1031647 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2015.1031647
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Open Learning, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2015.1031647
Modern languages and Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD): implications of teaching adult learners with dyslexia in distance learning Matilde Gallardo*, Sarah Heiser and Ximena Arias McLaughlin
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
Faculty of Education and Language Studies, FELS, Department of Languages, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK In modern language (ML) distance learning programmes, teachers and students use online tools to facilitate, reinforce and support independent learning. This makes it essential for teachers to develop pedagogical expertise in using online communication tools to perform their role. Teachers frequently raise questions of how best to support the needs of their diverse groups of adult language learners. This is particularly relevant in the case of modern language students with learning difficulties, including dyslexia, whose previous experiences of language learning can sometimes be negative and frustrating. This case study relates to a staff development project which took place between December 2012 and June 2013 at the Department of Languages in the Open University, UK, and involved 12 ML teachers across a range of languages and levels. In the Dyslexia and Modern Language Learning project, teachers worked and learnt together to: (1) develop understanding of key issues in relation to ML learning and dyslexia, (2) share good practice and experiences through reflection and collaboration, (3) find effective methods and strategies to support adult ML learners with dyslexia and (4) facilitate the joint design of learning resources for the online environment. The study presents the findings and the outcomes of the project, including the set of teaching and learning resources produced by the teachers as well as their recommendations on good practice. It also discusses the impact of the project on developing ML teachers’ attitudes and practices when supporting adult students with dyslexia. Keywords: modern language learning and dyslexia; inclusive language teaching; blended and distance learning
Introduction The number of students in higher education registered under the wide spectrum of communication difficulties, including dyslexia, has risen in the last few years (Grove, 2014; Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), 2012/13). However, the literature dealing specifically with dyslexia at university level is limited (Hill & Roed, 2005). This consideration becomes even more relevant when we refer to adult learners (McLoughlin & Leather, 2013) and adult learners of modern languages (Kormos, Csizér, & Sarkadi, 2009). The term Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD) integrates a number of difficulties which may affect communication, such as dyspraxia, attention deficit disorder, autistic spectrum, dysphasia, Asperger’s disorder, dyscalculia and dyslexia. *Corresponding author. Email:
[email protected] © 2015 The Open University
2
M. Gallardo et al.
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
Sometimes the boundaries are unclear and some may overlap. Dyslexia is the most common learning difficulty affecting around 10% of the population in the UK (British Dyslexia Association, BDA). It is therefore important to consider its impact on educational needs at all levels. The definition of dyslexia varies from a focus on a learning disability or disorder and specific cognitive deficits (Fletcher, 2009) to ‘difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities’ (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003, p. 2) and a processing difference (Reid, 2009). Difference attempts to remove the focus from difficulties and barriers to embrace strengths and the positives. According to the BDA, ‘Dyslexia is really about information processing: dyslexic people may have difficulty in processing and remembering information they see and hear. This can affect learning and the acquisition of literacy skills’ (BDA website). On the other hand, the International Dyslexia Association defines dyslexia as follows: [… a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge. (IDA, November 12, 2002)
In a distance educational setting such as the Open University, UK, with about eleven per cent of students registered in the additional requirements category (OU Learning Accessibility) in which dyslexic learners are also included, the responsibility is to ensure inclusive teaching and learning in which reasonable adjustments to comply with current legislation (Equality Act, 2010) and accessibility to a range of study and test-taking strategies to manage study are discussed with students. The number of modern language (ML) students with dyslexia at the Open University remains low in comparison with other subjects.1 Many of these students have other learning needs in addition to dyslexia. They study a range of languages (French, Spanish, German, Chinese, Italian, English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Specific Purposes with some studying two languages at the same time). The end-of-year results show that many do progress and complete satisfactorily. The fundamental problem for many of these learners is their lack of confidence in their language ability, which affects their participation in class activities, and in developing appropriate study skills strategies. Also, since many students do not disclose their disability, teachers play a key role in detecting additional learning needs and encouraging individuals to request institutional support if appropriate (Crombie & Reid, 2009). In many cases, teachers are the opening door for these students to get a better chance of progression. However, ML teachers often raise questions of how to best support the needs of their diverse groups of adult language learners while also catering for those with SpLD. For this reason, it is not only important that they become fully aware of the range of resources and institutional support available, but that teacher training needs in this area are identified and addressed by academic institutions. This case study relates to a staff development project carried out in the Department of Languages, at the Open University, UK, between December 2012 and June 2013. The Dyslexia and Modern Language Learning project (DMLL)
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
Open Learning
3
emerged out of the identified need for professional development in this area among ML teachers in the Department. It involved 12 language teachers, 3 academic staff developers and 1 accessibility and disability adviser. The key questions at the basis of this project were raised by teachers themselves, How can we make adjustments in our teaching to accommodate the individual learning needs of dyslexic learners? How can we best support our dyslexic students in a blended context? What is the potential of IT tools to support dyslexic adult language learners? Also, questions identified by the academic developers included: How can teachers keep up-to-date with developments in the field of languages and SpLD? This study presents the findings of the project to these questions in relation to teaching strategies, perceived areas of difficulty for learners and teachers and the implications of teaching students with dyslexia using online communication tools. It also offers an insight into the key issues affecting second language acquisition (SLA), and dyslexia and what inclusive language teaching in distance learning conveys. Finally, it comments on the outcomes and the impact of the DMLL project on developing language teachers’ attitudes and practices in an area of ongoing research.
SLA and dyslexia The traditional lack of encouragement for students with dyslexia to study ML arises from the interpretation of studies in the 1960s and 1970s in the US (Vellutino, 1979) such as those of Pimsleur (1968) and Dinklage (1971) (Ganschow, Sparks, & Javorsky, 1998). It was not until the late 1980 (Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987) and early 1990s with the works of Sparks and Ganschow, among others, that ML learning difficulties focused on cognitive, affective and linguistic aspects. Investigating the reasons why some students failed in foreign language studies, they found that many were diagnosed with a ‘learning difficulty only after […] failure in foreign language classes’ which led to these students been commonly referred to by language educators as ‘underachievers’ (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, p. 3). Their argument that difficulties with ML learning had to be addressed within the context of native language learning difficulties led to the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (LCDH) as a model for understanding foreign language learning (Ganschow et al., 1998). The LCDH speculates that: (a) native language skills serve as the foundation for learning a ML; (b) difficulties with one component of language (e.g. phonology/orthography) are likely to have a negative effect on both native and ML learning; and (c) there are innate individual differences in students’ ability to use language (Sparks & Ganschow, 2001). More recent studies by one of these authors (Sparks, 2006) have identified a close link between overall language aptitude and primary difficulties with language functionality and processing (matching sounds/symbols, grammar structure, etc., in other words, difficulties with reading, writing and spelling), which appear at early stages of education, as the basis for developing other difficulties affecting language learning (Schneider, Ganschow, Sparks, & Miller, 2007). Although there might be an expectation that adult learners with dyslexia have acquired and developed the basic principles of phonology by the time they embark on HE that may not always be the case. This was confirmed by Lake (2012) who classified the five most common language issues that cause problems for at-risk ML students as ‘poor pronunciation, poor vocabulary knowledge, slow reading with
4
M. Gallardo et al.
incorrect word decoding, poor understanding of grammar, and poor comprehension of material’ (Lake, 2012, p. 3). Schneider also established that these primary symptoms often lead to a whole set of secondary symptoms (e.g. anxiety, short attention span, assessment of letter–sound awareness) that affect foreign language learning (Schneider et al., 2007). Similarly, the importance of students and teachers reviewing and assessing learning styles and learning processing needs has been highlighted by the IDA because of the crucial role they play in determining language learners’ success:
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
[…] with appropriate instruction most students can experience success. The keys to success are the responsibility of both teachers and students. Teachers need to provide appropriate, adapted instruction that meets a particular student’s needs. Students need to recognize their learning strengths and weaknesses and stay committed to the task. (IDA webpage)
The benefits of language learning for learners with SpLD and dyslexia in particular have now been widely recognised (Crombie & Reid, 2009; DiFino & Lombardino, 2004; Kormos et al., 2009; McColl, 2005), because it supports language development and study and organisational skills. It also promotes the values of cultural understanding through more effective communication, enhancing employability and social mobility (Common European Framework, CEF, 2001, p. 3). There are, however, areas which require further research. One of such areas is the assessment of accuracy, which for some researchers remains a problem (Hill & Roed, 2005, p. 3). Another aspect is the importance for appropriate training of language teachers in inclusive language education (Kormos et al., 2009; Schneider & Crombie, 2003) and the need to provide opportunities among language teachers for ‘the necessary training, knowledge and resources in terms of materials and specialist support staff’ (European Commission Report, 2005; Kormos et al., 2009; Vilar Beltrán, Abbott, & Jones, 2013, p. xii), so they can identify signs of potential learning needs among their learners, as many do not disclose or might even be aware of their disability. Inclusive language teaching in distance learning In the context of Widening Participation and Accessibility, universities make available a range of resources, including technology, to support and to facilitate access to students. In distance learning, students benefit from a range of learning patterns and technical tools which accommodate different learning styles and needs and facilitate flexibility of study. For example, the use of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) enables accessibility to study information and learning materials in different formats and styles (Rekkedal, 2011). In this scenario, the aim to develop online learning communities among students and teachers is essential to ensure the success of study programmes. This implies that collaboration is at the heart of the pedagogy that aims to integrate the use of network-based technology and also the contribution to a wider social inclusion (Working Towards E-Quality in Networked E-Learning in Higher Education, 2002), together with the need to prepare learners for employability and to equip them with the skills and strategies that will enable them to become lifelong learners. In distance ML learning, the use of web 2.0 technology facilitates student support as teachers and students may make use of synchronous (e.g. video and audio
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
Open Learning
5
conferences) and asynchronous online tools (e.g. forum, wiki, blogs) for group and/ or individual additional study support sessions (Price, Richardson, & Jelfs, 2007). The latter are particularly important in the case of those with dyslexia whose learning group experiences may be often negative because ‘they cannot keep up with the progress of their peers’ (Kormos et al., 2009, p. 123) due to problems in memorising and decoding words in the language of study, text comprehension, writing and spelling, as recognised by teachers themselves. However, new technologies applied to language learning may be perceived by many, including SpLD language students, as an obstacle rather than an opportunity which adds to ‘the complexities of engagement and participation that constitute the distance learner’s experience’ (Ross, Gallagher, & Macleod, 2013, p. 52). As the debate regarding internet-based accessible distance education continues ‘[…] institutions are in need of comprehensive training in order to work proactively to ensure that all learners can benefit’ (Roberts & Crittenden, 2009, p. 1). Teachers often recognise at an early stage when their learners struggle, but they may not feel sufficiently pedagogically prepared to address the needs of students with SpLD as these may vary from learner to learner. Some may not even be aware of the range of institutional resources available to them and their learners. This might come in the form of additional individual support, but the decision about how to use this resource in the best possible interest for the student often involves a great deal of preparation and discussion between the teacher, disability advisers and line managers. For teachers the task implies familiarisation with the resources and tools available in addition to developing pedagogical expertise in their subject. Teachers invest time and effort in finding out resources and information. In the distance learning environment, this is often not shared with colleagues, which renders their knowledge and experience invisible. The need for providing opportunities for teachers to share expertise and good practice is vital in this context. For academic line managers at institutions, with responsibility for the professional development of groups of teachers in distance education, the task involves identifying and addressing needs in relation to curriculum and student support and to organise training opportunities that enable teachers to fulfil their role and to respond satisfactorily to the needs of their students. A staff development project for modern language teachers in distance education. The DMLL 2013 The idea for a project on dyslexia and ML learning emerged out of the reported interest in the topic among teachers in the Department of Languages at the Open University. Academic line managers, staff developers, also identified the need for a better understanding of key issues in the field and to share good practice among the part-time and geographically disperse pool of language teachers in the Department. This project funded through the university’s staff development programme aimed to: • develop understanding of key issues in relation to ML learning and dyslexia, exploring institutional resources available to teachers and students and reviewing key studies from the literature on language learning and dyslexia to inform practice,
6
M. Gallardo et al.
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
• share good practice and facilitate knowledge exchange among all participants through reflection and collaboration, • find effective methods and strategies to support adult ML learners with dyslexia, • facilitate the joint design of learning resources for the online environment and produce a set of recommendations on good practice for fellow ML teachers. In summary, the aim was to develop confident practitioners and, by extension, to support students to achieve their learning goals. The project was set up by a team of three academic line managers and staff developers, and relied entirely on a VLE Moodle2 platform workspace to host the work. Specialist advice was provided by a member of the university accessibility and disability team. Communication between participants and with the project team was carried out through the online workspace, although an initial survey and a final evaluation questionnaire were conducted by email. Twelve language teachers with experience of teaching a range of languages (European languages but also Chinese and EAP) and levels (beginners to advanced) participated in this project, but some more were placed on a waiting list. Participation was on a voluntary basis, although teachers were paid a small fee to compensate for their time when attending briefings and meetings. After an initial call for expressions of interest among the around 300 part-time teachers in the Department, a selection process took place based on the following criteria: • interest in the subject, • experience of teaching language learners with dyslexia (preferable but not compulsory). A range of scenarios became evident here, for example experience with OU/non-OU students, previous study and/or training in the field, no previous training, personal experience with family, other. • interest in developing language Open Educational Resources, • commitment to engage with collaborative tasks, • availability to attend online briefings, • evidence of interest in their own professional development. As experienced teachers of ML in blended learning, which is an integrated combination of conventional classroom-based learning with online approaches, (Sharma & Barrett, 2007), all were competent users of Web-based communication tools for teaching. The initial survey aimed to find out teachers’ knowledge, experiences with dyslexia and/or other SpLD. It also served as an accurate indicator of their expectations from participating in the project, as shown in the following stated aspirations: To develop my own knowledge and awareness in relation to dyslexia and language learning, to share ideas and experiences, and to learn from others working on the project (A) Find out more about research in this area and share experiences with other tutors (B)
Open Learning
7
I would like to learn a bit about the theory behind it, and good practice when supporting students with dyslexia, as I am certain I will have students in the future who will benefit from this (C)
The survey also provided the context for an analysis of needs and identified the following relevant areas for discussion:
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
• The potential of virtual communication tools (forums, audio-conferencing, etc.) and the online environment in general to support dyslexic students. • The difficulties for adult learners with dyslexia of studying ML in distance learning. • The difficulties for distance learning teachers supporting adult dyslexic ML learners. • The approach to applying marking criteria and correcting speaking and writing assignments for dyslexic students. A framework for the different stages of the project was set up as illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1. Project framework. Stage
Dateline
Action
Online tools
Preparation
Over a period of time prior to launch Month 1
Academic staff developers/project team discussions and plan
Email, synchronous and asynchronous conferencing Email announcement Elluminate online room Elluminate online room Online forum and repository followup work Elluminate online room
Recruitment
Training, discussion and group work
Month 2
Months 3 to 4
Progress meeting
Completion
Month 4
Months 4 to 5
Invitation for expressions of interest Informative meeting for all interested teachers (1-h session) Project launch (participants and project team). Briefing with adviser. Group formation and planning discussion (2-h session) Discussion of key findings in the literature and resources. Identifying areas for collaborative work and design of resources. (2–h session) Presentation and discussion of work in progress. Peer review and feedback (2–h session) Presentation and discussion of resources. Guidelines for good practice (2–h session) Finalising and uploading resources to LORO, final evaluation questionnaires and interviews, dissemination
Online forum follow-up work Elluminate online room Wiki follow-up work Languages Open Resources Online (LORO) repository Elluminate online room
8
M. Gallardo et al.
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
The project workspace This online project relied on a designated Moodle workspace located within the Department training website and, therefore, easily accessible by participants. The different elements of the workspace facilitated the work, including the knowledge transfer and the collective production of peer-reviewed teaching and learning ‘dyslexia-friendly’ resources, as shown in Figure 1. Discussions, group work and peer evaluation of jointly produced resources took place in asynchronous forums and in online Elluminate audio-conference meetings, while an online repository and a wiki provided spaces for the sharing and the collaborative production of teaching resources. Participants worked in groups of four according to language, level and also interest and engaged in the joined production of teaching and learning ‘dyslexia-friendly’ resources, but also in peer feedback and evaluation. The following sections illustrate how the different elements of the workspace were used in this project. The repository The Moodle repository served for the collecting, sharing and collaborative review of references and scholarly publications of existing research on SLA and dyslexia. It also included information about non-language related relevant publications, including university guides and resources for students. At a later stage, the repository was used for storing work in progress and sharing of materials. The online repository continues being a well-used source of reference available to all ML teachers at the OU. It consists of the following resources (Figure 2): • References to literature on dyslexia and language learning (e-books, articles, YouTube clips, power point presentations, videos and websites). • OU generic resources for students with dyslexia (dyslexia toolkit and study skills advice).
Project workspace in OU Moodle platform
Online repository
Teaching materials, subject literature, resources.
Synchronous communication (Elluminate)
Peer critical review and feedback, joint presentations, group discussions
Figure 1. The DMLL project workspace.
Text-based asynchronous forum
Collaborative task design, sharing, exchange and discussion
Wiki
Collaborative writing: the Guide to Good Practice
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
Open Learning
9
Figure 2. The DMLL online repository.
• Critical review of some of the above with tips for teaching materials design. • Samples of participants’ own resources with instructions. • Participants’ reflective logs.
The Elluminate room A schedule for meetings at key steps of the project was set up in a designated Elluminate room. Introducing the real-time interaction element was fundamental to improve communication and enhance the social presence (Heiser, Stickler, & Furnborough, 2013). This was supported by the fact that all participants were competent users as this audio-synchronous conference system was widely used for teaching and communication purposes across the Open University at the time. The Elluminate room was available for small groups to meet less formally outside scheduled meetings to share progress on re-versioning materials and/or plan their work-in-progress presentations to the whole group. Attendance was excellent, and at a later stage, some teachers were able to engage with virtual peer observation of teaching in this medium. The Elluminate meetings set the direction and tone of the project and were points of engagement and community building. Figure 3 illustrates the process and the stages in which meetings took place. Elluminate also enabled participants to work together on activity-design presentations and give critical feedback on each other’s teaching resources and strategies, as shown in Figure 4. The text-based asynchronous forum The forum served as the spine of the project and the tool to be its point of reference and maintain its direction. As with Elluminate, all teachers had experience of forum use through their teaching and also as members of the OU languages community. Responsibility for moderating the forum was shared within the project team who
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
10
M. Gallardo et al.
Figure 3. Synchronous online meetings in the DMLL project Elluminate room.
Figure 4. Example of Elluminate meeting.
posted welcome and information messages through the duration of the project. Teachers were encouraged to organise themselves in working groups according to areas of interest, language and/or level expertise. These groups were actively involved in creating their own strands to discuss first findings from the literature review and later on to discuss their production and re-versioning of dyslexia-friendly teaching materials. The various strands were not closed, so all participants could read them and postcomments if they wished. As the project progressed, the exchange was extended to new relevant threads to accommodate new discussions. The wiki The wiki was set up at a much later stage to facilitate the collaborative writing and to establish the structure and the contents of the set of recommendations on good
Open Learning
11
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
practice, which were the basis for the Guide to Good Practice reference handbook, as it enables all those involved being able to work collaboratively on a single version of a document. Participants used the Elluminate meetings to discuss findings and key learning from the literature review, to exchange views on and to identify areas for collaborative work. Feedback from evaluation suggests that some teachers did not really use the wiki, while others did not think it is suitable for collaborative working in this context. The forum, on the other hand, was preferred for collaborative work, as they could re-visit messages, postinformation and add to existing exchanges. Subsequently to the main project activity, the forum remained a place for continued discussion on the topic of dyslexia and language learning, with postings about relevant articles, conferences and exchange of slides for presentations given by participants to peers in varied UK locations. Key findings and outcomes of the project Teachers’ feedback and self-evaluation of their interactions and task production in the online tools were captured in final questionnaires and in a small number of structured interviews’ set up by the project team members. A total of twelve questionnaires were received, and six individual interviews were conducted in the online room. Spontaneous informal reflective comments also appeared in the forum and in the online meetings. A few teachers decided to do a reflective log on their experience in the project, but this practice was not generalised. The data identified a number of important aspects for consideration regarding the difficulties for adult learners with dyslexia of studying ML in distance learning and the potential of the online environment to support these students. It also provided an insight into the difficulties encountered by teachers supporting adult dyslexic ML learners. A summary of these aspects is given in Table 2. In addition, information on teaching strategies based on what is considered good practice for dyslexic students was provided in a number of key areas as follows: (1) The importance of focusing and identifying the positives in relation to language learning and students with dyslexia. Emphasis on strengths (creativity, conceptual intelligence and memory, visual, intuitive, etc.), rather than weaknesses, when giving feedback, to build up confidence and reduce learner’s anxiety. I now know that dyslexic students’ characteristics and needs may vary and that they also have much strength which should be tapped. Their performance may also vary depending on the type of support received over the years and coping techniques and study skills already developed. This means that some dyslexic students will do quite well on their own and some will need a great deal of support and may fail their courses (D)
(2) The multisensory structured language (MSL) approach (Birsh, 2005; Schneider & Crombie, 2003; Sparks & Ganschow, 1993) of teaching pronunciation and letter–sound pattern and word and sentence pattern directly and explicitly, although favoured by most teachers came under analysis in the context of the online medium:
12
M. Gallardo et al.
Table 2. Teachers’ areas of consideration. Challenges for students • • • • •
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
• • • • •
Accuracy Coping with extensive and complex texts Following instructions: abstract words Low participation in tutorials Need for reassurance as low self-esteem and poor academic skills (in some cases) Need more time with pronunciation Often repeating errors after correction Worried about referencing conventions Profound effect on performance in speaking tasks Those who have been supported from an early-age progress satisfactorily
Challenges for teachers •
•
•
•
•
•
• • • •
There are clear expectations that teachers will be able to help Not always easy to give more personal attention and support Teachers need to know about previous support given to students Not always easy to take into account learner’s emotional baggage It is more difficult to prepare activities for advanced learners Teachers should be told about available alternative forms of assessment More individual additional support sessions needed Difficult to adapt the online medium to student’s needs Over preparing in advance can defeat the purpose More training in dyslexia awareness for colleagues
Recommendations for course providers • •
•
• • • •
• •
•
Provide course material in Pdf Incorporate more MSL and online collaborative learning Remove institutional barriers (type of task, presentation of information) Provide choice of technologies Facilitate a Dyslexic Support Group Provide study skills non-text-based video clips, audio. Practical tips catering for different learning preferences Specific teaching of pronunciation in course materials Short videos by dyslexic students in the Induction website Section on speaking test in generic assessment guidelines
Multisensory Structured Language seems a step back to behaviourism (highly structured presentation of new language items, explanations, drills, from controlled practice to freer production) and even the translation method (compare differences and similarities in both languages). It draws on students’ perceived deficits (phonological awareness, decoding) but does not tap into their strengths (holistic learning, visual thinking). It is teacher-centred and seems to only apply to beginner levels (E)
(3) Differentiated marking criteria in assessment were unanimously not accepted: There should be no difference in marking between a dyslexic and a non-dyslexic student. Giving them special consideration […] is just setting them up for failure on the exam (B). No differentiated marking criteria for assessment but extra and targeted
Open Learning
13
support (ST). Need to maintain academic standards is equally crucial (F). Students need to know exactly where they stand and what they need to achieve in order to gain a degree … they also need to know exactly what they cannot do despite their best efforts (so that they can avoid it) and how they can make the most of the many skills they have (D). Marking guidelines should remain the same for all students irrespective of their abilities, circumstances and additional requirements (E)
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
(4) The importance of phonological awareness as phoneme segmentation relevant in the acquisition of written language and in the development of oral language (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, p. 8) is explained by a teacher of Spanish: […] It would appear that dyslexic students may need more time on this area for a start. In my experience, as they had more and more exposure to the target language during the year, things improved in this area too (LPM C). In Spanish it is not so much about the pronunciation of the actual sounds, […] the biggest obstacle can be the overlong polysyllabic unfamiliar words, and the syllabic structure, for instance, how mate (a word existing in both English and Spanish) is said. In English it is /meit/, in Spanish it is /mate/. Vowels followed by -r are another area, or endings in -ción, which are very common. I have noticed they tend not to have problems if the long Spanish words are already familiar to them, for instance, if they are already in the British culture (names of Spanish cities, food, etc.) (C)
(5) What is good practice for dyslexia learners is good practice for all learners. This supports the findings of other researchers (Schneider & Crombie, 2003). What was most important for me to learn was the good practice for dyslexic students means good practice for all. It was crucial to understand that there are no different sets of rules for students with different needs … but there is a need to adjust practice for all. (G)
(6) The level of difficulty that some languages might involve for dyslexic learners is explained in the following comment in relation to Chinese and English speakers: There is some evidence that dyslexia ‘operates’ differently in different languages and that a single person might exhibit dyslexia in one language more than in another. […] To some extent, students coming from an English/similar linguistic background are dyslexic/display certain symptoms of dyslexia when they study Chinese: difficulties differentiating between similar characters, remembering characters and certainly writing characters, even ones they have no trouble recognizing. They also have trouble repeating short sentences they’ve just heard. (B)
(7) Also, the importance of using appropriate fonts and colours, the amount and organisation of text in slides and handouts, as well as the need for clear instructions, careful staging of tasks, pre-teaching of key content and the use of visualisers was considered as explained below:
14
M. Gallardo et al. […] I think she should need to see the words written on a coloured flashcard to help her memorise the sound. You need to be a strong auditory learner to be able to cope with sounds only (that is what our students get in our course materials) so it is good they get something else during their tutorials (E)
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
(8) Teachers understood the potential of the online medium to support ML students with dyslexia. However, they also raised concern about the need to familiarise students with the tools and the possible limitations of some of these: Students with dyslexia need to be made aware of how technology can help, e.g. recording vocab. On mp3 files, via audacity […] for listening on mobile devices or text-tospeech programmes (G). I generally find it difficult to adapt the medium (Ell) to the needs of dyslexic students […] I found much more difficult to come up with an activity for higher levels (G)
Questionnaires also gave participants the opportunity to make constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement in relation to the project. For example, some missed the opportunity to ‘have at least one personal meeting with other colleagues’, while others commented on ‘the lack of time and the need to sometimes do a lot in one go where I would have wanted to work on this more consistently’. Some would have liked to have ‘additional guidance from psychologists and/or learning material designers’ and some others mentioned the possibility of producing ‘a starter pack for each language […] to be given to dyslexic students who wish to embark on studying this language’. These are important considerations for future initiatives of this kind. Project outputs One of the aims of the DMLL project was the production of teaching and learning resources, as well as a set of recommendations for fellow ML teachers, course designers and student support teams at the university and beyond. Eighteen resources and their corresponding teachers’ notes were produced in this project. Their subject matter is a reflection of the teaching interests of the participating teachers, and where they identified opportunities and gaps in existing materials. These range from absolute beginners to Open University Level 3 (CEF B2/C1). They reflect the diverse teaching provenance of the teachers who participated in the project: Italian, Spanish, French, German, Chinese and EAP. The outcome ranges from beginners language, for example pronunciation exercises, to more advanced, for example clearly staged exploitation of a poem or text, with learning designs containing a fun or cultural element well represented. An example of some resources can be seen in Figure 5. These resources show teachers deploying the techniques they have read about and discussed. Typical attributes are clear, uncluttered slides with very clear task sequencing, and use of images with evident purpose. There are individual author characteristics and style features, for example, the use of colour to emphasise a word ending or element of grammar, or a particular way of using pictures (Figure 6). These resources were uploaded by participants under the ‘dyslexia-friendly’ tag in the Languages Open Resources Online (LORO) website, http://loro.open.ac.uk. This is a free-access online repository widely used by ML teachers at the university,
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
Open Learning
Figures 5.
Example – Spanish grammar http://loro.open.ac.uk/3340.
Figures 6.
Examples – German diphthongs http://loro.open.ac.uk/3353.
15
16
M. Gallardo et al.
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
in which they can upload re-version and download teaching materials. The resources have been showcased by participants themselves in presentations at Open University events. They have also featured in papers and workshops delivered by the teachers to wider audiences. Participants also produced the Guide to Good Practice on Dyslexia and Modern Languages a reference document with guidelines and suggestions for teachers, course designers and educational advisers based on the ideas and strategies developed in the project. The Guide, edited by the project team, is structured around the following key themes to reflect the perspective of the experienced practitioners who participated in the project: • • • • • • • • •
pre-registration support: information, advice and guidance, pre-module start support, teaching and learning materials: key principles, tutorial preparation, tutorial delivery, maximising the potential of audio-visual online conferences, support through feedback on assignments, study skills support and resources, and IT and assistive technology resources.
It also contains appendices on academic writing, language learning tips visual card for students and references and resources on dyslexia and ML. The Guide, which is available as a free-access interactive unit in the OpenLearn Hub, http:// www.open.edu/openlearn/education/teaching-dyslexic-language-students has been included in the University Accessibility web page as a reference for staff. Further afield, the Dyslexia Association of Ireland has made use of the Guide in its advice information for students starting college (see newsletter autumn 2014). Impact of the project The implications of this project for teachers’ practice with the consequent benefits for learners have been positive. The analysis of participants evaluation and feedback revealed how the experience of online collaboration and open shared practice helped to shape their perceptions about dyslexia. ‘This is an ongoing process which needs more time for reflecting on usefulness and feasibility in practice’ (G). ‘It has however opened some new issues that I feel need to be looked into’ (H). ‘I have developed a better understanding and I believe I’ve got a better awareness of the main issues surrounding teaching MLL to DS’ (I). ‘I definitely learnt about well-established strategies used by other tutors as exemplified in some of the activities they shared. In particular, in the literature I learnt about a multisensory approach to teaching, which was completely new to me’ (C). ‘I enhanced my understanding of all the various aspects of dyslexia and how it can affect language learning. [The disability adviser’s] presentation was invaluable, and the literature and resources shared by colleagues were also extremely useful. Over the whole process we gathered a huge amount of tips and ideas that constitute good practice’ (C).
It also raised awareness of SpLD and encouraged them to rethink their approach to designing inclusive teaching language activities to support adult language learners more effectively.
Open Learning
17
I learnt a lot too through the literature and the collaborative process, a better way to devise resources, to use tools available. I now record all my tutorials, I avoid tables because I didn’t know that dyslexic students quite often don’t appreciate them. I put colour coding into place and I am more attentive in unfolding information and break instructions into tasks and exercises. As a consequence of this project, all of my students have benefited (F)
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
I only wanted to say that this project has been fundamental in my professional development as a teacher […]. It has already had a big impact in the way I create material and in the way I approach planning and delivering tutorials in general. For example, I am now reviewing the resources for the summer school and one of my ideas is to introduce poems (sounds and repetition) specifically aimed to students with dyslexia. I am in a much better position to help and tutor a dyslexic student (I)
The project has also reinforced teachers’ positive attitudes to widening participation and advocacy for their at-risk students. The experience had a positive impact on their professional development, making them more confident practitioners, as explained below: I participated […] developing materials for supporting dyslexic OU students and tutors. Based on the research, I also completed an accredited pilot project with the British Dyslexia Association entitled: Practical Solutions for Multilingualism and Dyslexia. The project work has had an impact on my own practice in that I now design materials that are more inclusive, applying the principle of ‘overlearning’ and thus catering for different learning styles. I am also keen this year to explore how dyslexic students on higher level courses can be supported in their academic writing. As a result of my work, I have co-presented our work to OU language colleagues and have facilitated a 3 week CPD course to secondary teachers as part of a Routes into Languages initiative. (G)
A year on after the project concluded, we developed a small-scale follow-up scholarship project with 6 teachers to review how tutors might have used the outcomes of the project in their practice and to assess the impact of the work. At institutional level, the DMLL project has raised awareness of the issues that ML students face in their studies. As a result of that, there is further guidance on assessment guidance for teachers and course designers in the University Accessibility web page. Also, a follow-up scholarship project to investigate what teaching and learning strategies and resources students with SpLD and those with dyslexia use and what works for them is currently under way. Conclusions This case study represents an example of institutionally led professional development for part-time teachers of modern languages in higher education. The desire to gain expertise and develop practical student support strategies arose from discussions between teachers and their academic managers about possible adjustments to support students with dyslexia in a blended, distance context and possible affordances of the IT tools available. The project provided opportunities for collaboration and knowledge exchange through the use of online tools, as well as relieving the sense of isolation, an intrinsic feature of the distance education environment in which students and teachers perform their role. With the focus of a dedicated online project space, guidance was given through the recruitment process and in synchronous discussion meetings. The synchronous forum served to exchange information, further the project tasks and provide a
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
18
M. Gallardo et al.
community space. At the outset, participants identified difficulties faced by students with dyslexia and their teachers; they gathered and shared their new knowledge through the forum and repository and explored how online tools could be turned to advantage to support students with SpLD, for example the ready availability of recording. They identified MSL possibilities and applied new styles to teaching resources. They shared and critiqued the new exemplar resources. Some tested these materials with peer observation of teaching sessions. Ultimately, these were shared in the LORO repository for a much wider audience. With new and re-versioned teaching materials, students with SpLD and dyslexia, and in fact all students, have benefited from greater clarity, focussed and refreshed strategies to facilitate success. The online project area continues providing a space for peer support to participants and all ML teachers at the university. The substantial guidelines in the Guide to Good Practice, have been made available within the Open University, UK, and more widely, though accessibility, eLearning and other scholarship groups. The outcomes of the project have been disseminated by project team members internally at the Open University and also in external events. Some participants have successfully delivered cross-faculty staff development workshops, online and faceto-face, on Designing multisensory pronunciation activities for online synchronous tutorials and Running Dyslexia Friendly Online Tutorials, while others have engaged with further professional development and acquired specialist support tutor status and other recognised qualifications. Some have also led online career professional development training workshops for secondary ML teachers in a number of schools with a few actively engaging in further research on this topic. This has brought the impact of the project to a new dimension with teachers becoming fully involved in peer training and also in action research. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes 1. Registration figures for the Language Studies Programme at the OU show 103 students in 2012–2013 and 97 students in 2013–2014. 2. Moodle https://moodle.org/ is an open source learning platform. It was adopted by the OUUK in 2005 for all module websites and workspaces. For a detailed discussion of Moodle partnerships in HE see Costello (2013).
Notes on contributors Matilde Gallardo is a senior lecturer in the Department of Languages at the Open University, where she has academic line management and teacher development responsibilities for the team of part-time language teachers in the south-east region. She has extensive experience of MFL teacher professional development and has carried out scholarly activity and research into motivating factors of online collaboration and teachers’ perceptions of their professional identity in blended contexts. She has led a collaborative staff development project on Dyslexia and Modern Language Learning. She is co-author of the section on teacher development in Teaching Languages in Blended Contexts (Murphy, Nicolson and Southgate, eds., 2011). Sarah Heiser is a senior lecturer in the Department of Languages at the Open University. She is based at the Open University in London and is responsible for the academic line management and teacher development of the London languages team of part-time teachers. Her interests
Open Learning
19
include Open Educational Resources and Open Educational Practices (OER/OEP), staff development by experiential learning in online spaces, student strategies for language learning and young students in higher education. She has been an active member of the DMLL Team. She is co-author of the section on teacher development in Teaching Languages in Blended Contexts (Murphy, Nicolson and Southgate, eds., 2011). Ximena Arias McLaughlin is a lecturer in the Department of Languages at the Open University. She is based in Belfast and is responsible for the academic line management and teacher development of the Northern Ireland languages team of part-time teachers. Her interests include collaborative and inclusive language teaching.
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
References Birsh, J. (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. British Dyslexia Association (BDA). Retrieved November 27, 2014, from http://www.bdady slexia.org.uk/dyslexic/dyslexia-and-specific-difficulties-overview#WhatisDyslexia Costello, E. (2013). Opening up to open source: Looking at how Moodle was adopted in higher education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28, 187–200. doi:10.1080/02680513.2013.856289 Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crombie, M., Reid, G. (2009). The role of early identification: Models from research and practice. In G. Reid (Ed.), The Routledge companion to dyslexia (pp. 71–80). Abingdon: Routledge. DiFino, S. M., & Lombardino, L. J. (2004). Language learning disabilities: The ultimate foreign language challenge. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 390–400. doi:10.1111/j.19449720.2004.tb02697.x Dinklage, K. (1971). Inability to learn a foreign language. In G. Blaine & C. Me Arthur (Eds.), Emotional problems of the student (pp. 185–206). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. European Commission. (2005, January), Special education needs in Europe. The teaching and learning of languages, teaching languages to learners with special needs. European Commission. DG EAC 23 03 LOT 3. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Dyslexia: The evolution of a scientific concept. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 501–508. Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1998) Foreign language learning difficulties: An historical perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 248–258. Grove, J. (2014, March 6). Dyslexic label being applied too widely, expert argues. Times Higher Education, (online). Retrieved June 6, 2014, from http://www.timeshighereduca tion.co.uk/news/dyslexic-label-being-applied-too-widely-expert-argues/2011802.article Heiser, S., Stickler, U., & Furnborough, C. (2013). Ready, steady, speak-online: Student training in the use of an online synchronous conferencing tool. CALICO Journal, 30, 226–251. Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). (2012/13). 2012/13 first year students by disability. Retrieved June 6, 2014, from http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dataTables/stu dentsAndQualifiers/download/Disab1213.xlsx Hill, J., Roed, J. (2005). A survey of the ways universities cope with the needs of dyslexic foreign language learners and, in consultation with tutors and learners, the piloting of appropriate assessment methods. LLAS, The HEA. Retrieved January 12, 2014, from http://www.llas.ac.uk/projects/2307 IDA. (2002, November 12). Fact sheet revised March 2008. Retrieved November 27, 2014, from http://www.interdys.org/EWEBEDITPRO5/UPLOAD/DEFINITION.PDF and http:// www.interdys.org/ewebeditpro5/upload/AtRiskStudentsForeignLanguage2012.pdf. Kormos, J., Csizér, K., & Sarkadi, Á. (2009). The language learning experiences of students with dyslexia: Lessons from an interview study. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 115–130. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://dx/doi.org/10.1080/ 17501220802638306
Downloaded by [Open University] at 10:34 22 April 2015
20
M. Gallardo et al.
Lake, M. (2012, March 3). Inclusion strategies in Foreign Languages. Wikispaces. Retrieved June 6, 2014 from http://inclusionstrategiesmonw12.wikispaces.com/Lake,±Matt,±Inclu sion±strategies±foreign±language Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14. McColl, H. (2005). Foreign language learning and inclusion: Who? why? what? and how? British Journal of Language Support, 20(3), 103–108. McLoughlin, D., & Leather, C. (2013). The dyslexic adult: Interventions and outcomes – An evidence-based approach (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley. Nicolson, M., Murphy, L., & Southgate, M. (2011). Language teaching in blended contexts. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press. Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI). (2010). Equality Act 2010 (online). Retrieved June 13, 2014, from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents Pimsleur, P. (1968). Language aptitude testing. In A. Davis (Ed.), Language testing symposium: A linguistic approach (pp. 98–106). London: Oxford University Press. Price, L., Richardson, J. T. E., & Jelfs, A. (2007). Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in distance education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 1–20. Reid, G. (2009). Dyslexia: A practitioner’s handbook. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley. Rekkedal, T. (2011). Local support for online learners with possible learning disabilities. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 14(1). Retrieved December 16, 2014, from http://www.eurodl.org/?p=current&article=428 Roberts, J., & Crittenden, L. (2009). Accessible distance education 101. Research in Higher Education Journal, 4. Retrieved December 18, 2014 from http://www.aabri.com/manu scripts/09141.pdf Ross, J., Gallagher, M. S., & McLeod, S. (2013). Making distance visible: Assembling nearness in an online distance learning programme. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4). Athabasca University. Retrieved October 15, 2013 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1545 Schneider, E., & Crombie, M. (2003). Dyslexia and foreign language learning: Gaining success in an inclusive context. London: David Fulton Publishers in association with the BDA. Schneider, E., Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., & Miller, K. (2007). Best practice in differentiating instruction; Identifying and teaching learners with special needs. In R. McCarthy (Ed.), Best practices tool kit, ¡Avanza!, ¡Avançemos! (pp. A35–A42). Boston, MA: McDougal Littell, a division of Houghton Miffin Company. Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Oxford: Macmillan. Sparks, R. (2006). Is there a “disability” for learning a foreign language? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 544. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from http://moodle2.unifr.ch/plugin file.php/166792/mod_resource/content/2/Texte/05a_Sparks_2006_-_is_there_FLLD.pdf Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning differences: Affective or native language aptitude differences? The Modern Language Journal, 75, 3–16. Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993). The effects of multisensory structured language instruction on native language and foreign language aptitude skills of at-risk high school foreign language learners: A replication and follow-up study. Annals of Dyslexia, 43. The Orton Dyslexia Society. Retrieved December 3, 2014 from http://link.springer.com/article/10. 1007%2FBF02928182#page-2 Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90–111. Vellutino, F. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321–363. Vilar Beltrán, E., Abbott, C., & Jones, J. (Eds.). (2013). Inclusive language education and digital technology. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Working towards e-quality in networked e-learning in higher education: A manifesto statement for debate. (2002, March). Report of UK economic and social research council seminar series. Retrieved December 18, 2014, from http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/esrc/manifesto.pdf
