Single Paper Session 34

Session Page

Session Information

This page shows the session details and the presentations assigned to this session.

Back to programme overview
Add this session to calendar

Dynamics of writing of students with dyslexia: relating writing online indicators with eye movements

Keywords
experimental approaches;eye tracking;handwriting;writing impairment
Domain
Learning and Special Education

Abstract

In France, the number of students with disabilities who report having a language disorder increases every year. Among them, students with dyslexia-dysorthographia seem to be the most represented. Beyond 18 y.o., these individuals still have difficulties with reading and writing. When reading, they make many mistakes and take longer than control groups (Elbro, et al., 1994). When writing, they continue to have difficulties with spelling, syntax, vocabulary, and identifying and correcting errors (among others, Farmer et al., 2002; Hatcher et al., 2002). International literature also points to their atypical writing dynamics, for example, making more long pauses and more intra-word pauses (among others, Sumner and Connelly, 2020).The aim of this presentation is to present the preliminary results of a pilot study focusing on the impact of dyslexia-dysorthography on the reading and writing processes of young adults, taking into account two types of analysis based on: on-line (including eye movement, pauses, duration, etc.) and off-line (word choice, errors, etc.) indicators. Twenty-two students with dyslexia (DD) and 22 controls matched for age and academic level took part in a reading and writing experiment. Data was collected using an innovative device incorporating a graphics tablet, an eye tracker and associated software.We propose to present and discuss preliminary results concerning the dynamics of writing, and more specifically pauses during written production associated to eye movements: are the indicators of atypical writing dynamics associated with atypical eye movements as well? Are both atypical phenomena correlated? Do they occur with the same words? This could make it possible to target specific difficulties during the writing process. This presentation could be combined to a demonstration. Farmer, M., Riddick, B., and Sterling, C. (2002). Dyslexia and inclusion: assessment and support in higher education. London and Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers.Hatcher, J., Snowling, M., and Griffiths, Y. (2002). Cognitive assessment of dyslexic students in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 119–133.Sumner, E. and Connelly, V. (2020). Writing and Revision Strategies of Students With and Without Dyslexia. Special Series: The Interaction of Reading, Spelling and Handwriting Difficulties with Writing Development–Part 2, 189-198.

Synergies between languages at school: learning to write persuasive texts in several languages

Keywords
corpus linguistics;language-specific and cross-linguistic studies;writing at school;writing in a foreign or second language
Domain
-

Abstract

Calls for a stronger pedagogical connection between teaching the languages taught at school have been made for years due to potential benefits from synergies. Despite extensive research on transfer, however, the core question of which conditions affect transfer remains, particularly in written productions. This project therefore examines if and under which conditions lower secondary school learners can transfer their knowledge to facilitate writing persuasive texts in the L1 and L2/L3. The focus lies on conceptual aspects of texts, so-called text procedures, i.e., text type specific patterns that consist of a language-specific expression (e.g. “because”) which are linked to a cross-linguistic schema (e.g. reasoning) (Marx/Steinhoff, 2021). The first phase of the project sought to determine to what extent knowledge of text procedures is transferred prior to explicit instruction. To answer this question, 265 persuasive texts by lower-secondary school pupils based on the same task from the SWIKO corpus were annotated using EXMARaLDA and analyzed regarding similarities and differences across the three languages (German, French, English), two learning contexts (language of schooling and foreign languages), and two regions (German- and French-speaking Switzerland). Results suggest that learners indeed started to exploit synergies between their languages, with similar patterns across all texts. Regional differences were evident with French-speaking learners arguing more explicitly than German-speaking learners across all languages. Proficiency played a crucial role: learners used a wider variety of and more cognitively challenging procedures with increasing linguistic proficiency, in line with age-related acquisition trajectories observed in the L1. Furthermore, learners used more implicit reasoning in their weak as opposed to their strong foreign languages, suggesting that cross-linguistic schemata can be transferred even before a corresponding language-specific expression is learned.Our presentation concludes with an outlook on the second phase of the project (intervention study), which will examine a) whether explicit instruction can enhance transfer, and b) whether transfer can be promoted from L2 to L1 and/or vice versa.Marx, N., & Steinhoff, T. (2021). Können einzelsprachliche Interventionen sprachenübergreifende Effekte haben? Wie die schulische Majoritätssprache Herkunftssprachen fördern kann. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24(4), 819–839.

The functional use of graphematic forms in German–French biliterate writing

Keywords
corpus linguistics;learning and learner characteristics;writing in a foreign or second language;writing models
Domain
Teaching and Teacher Education

Abstract

Studies have shown that children use the resources of their first written language when writing a language with which they have had less experience (Sürig et al., 2016). While some studies have measured text skills in two languages using global metrics (Usanova & Schnoor, 2021), only a few have examined specific language and graphematic resources of writing in multiple languages (Díez-Bedmar & Papp, 2008; Weth & Wollschläger, 2020).This paper presents analyses of writing (narratives, dictations) in German and French produced by 273 biliterate students (Grades 5─6) with various language backgrounds. The analyses focus on the differentiation of graphematic resources, including cross-linguistic transfer, using methods from usage-based approaches (Verspoor et al., 2012). Graphematic forms are examined at the levels of types and tokens as well as sub-lexical units, including grapheme-phoneme correspondences, syllables, and morphemes. By focusing on these fine-grained patterns, the study provides insights into the dynamic use of graphematic resources within students’ multilingual repertoires at the transition from primary to secondary education. Díez-Bedmar, M. B., & Papp, S. (2008). The use of the English article system by Chinese and Spanish learners. Language and Computers Studies in Practical Linguistics, 66. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204Sürig, I., Şimşek, Y., Schroeder, C., & Boneß, A. (2016). Literacy Acquisition in School in the Context of Migration and Multilingualism. John Benjamins.Usanova, I., & Schnoor, B. (2021). Exploring multiliteracies in multilingual students: Profiles of multilingual writing skills. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2021.1890649Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 Weth, C., & Wollschläger, R. (2020). Spelling patterns of German 4th graders in French vowels: Insights into spelling solutions within and across two alphabetic writing systems. Writing Systems Research, 11(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2020.1754997