The dynamics of English as a foreign language for Italian and Croatian learners with dyslexia Maja Kelić a Croatian speech and language therapist and Michela Bettinelli, an Italian specialist teacher and adviser present their research into the characteristics of their respective language orthographies and the impact this has for second language learners of English with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. Summary The research team of two specialists in dyslexia therapy in Croatia and Italy worked on a small action-research project looking at the dynamics of the home language (referred to as L1) and how these affected the way in which English was taught to learners with dyslexia in each setting. The tasks undertaken are described below and examples are taken from the children’s work to illustrate their performance, and to draw out points that are of interest to anyone working in the field of literacy-related specialist teaching or specialist assessment. In particular the findings demonstrate the exceptionally complex issues of speech perception and production, the characteristics of different orthographies and the linguistic heritage and educational practices within different settings which combine to influence second language-learning, in both beneficial and detrimental ways. The aim of the action-research project In this project we wanted to explore how the Home Language (referred to as L1) shapes the way learners master writing in English as a foreign language as taught in school. Both the Italian and the Croatian languages differ phonologically from English but even more importantly they significantly differ from English in the way language sounds are captured in the written form. These differences affect the way Croatian and Italian learners cope with the complex English writing system. The children that took part in the study had a diagnosis of dyslexia (according to ICD-101 it is F81.0 specific reading disorder,) or language impairment (F80.1 or F80.2) in comorbidity with reading impairment. Children from the Croatian sample are all included in speech and language therapy in clinical settings. Description of the tasks Three tasks were used. All the target words used were taken from textbooks used by the learners in both countries and are common and frequently used by the children who participated in the tasks. It took some time to come up with the tasks and to find out how best to deliver them. Some of the things we considered were: • Should the words be read by someone whose first language was English? This is particularly important if you consider the further variables that the teacher’s accent/pronunciation can have upon learners’ perception of sounds and understanding of the target phoneme etc. • Should we use images to support understanding? • Should we use words embedded in sentences to support understanding? 1 International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en • How should we support the children if they did not immediately recognise the English word? (Should they be given support in their L1?) • How can we give sufficient support to encourage learners to form sentences and write independently? The final description of the tasks is given below. Task One (writing a target word): Target words were presented by picture within a sentence. This was done so that the contextual information within the sentence could facilitate lexical retrieval. See Figure 1 for an example sentence designed to trigger the target word ‘ice-cream’. William is eating ________________. Figure 1 If the learner did not remember the target word, or did not know the word, the examiner would dictate the word to the student and check the learner’s knowledge of it. Responses were classified as follows: 1. Learner wrote the word independently 2. Learner could not remember the word, but knows the word (lexical retrieval problem) 3. Learner does not know the word - the word is completely new to the learner Task Two (writing a sentence including a target topic): Images representing the target subject area were presented to the learner, and the learner had to describe the pictures using a sentence. If the student did not know what to write, the examiner would describe the picture in the mother tongue to give the context. The examiner also supplied the word, if the learner could not remember the word in English. Thus, the results were classified as in the first task. While the first task focused mainly on nouns, the second task allowed us to examine other words classes (verbs, auxiliary verbs, pronouns, etc.) Task Three (independent writing): This was a free writing task where learners were asked to describe their family. If the learner did not know what to write, the examiner provided some ideas in the mother tongue to elicit a written response from the learner. If the learner was not able to write a sentence, they were encouraged to write at least a couple of isolated words connected to the topic. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Although our action-research project focused upon the writing skills of language learners in Italy and Croatia, the results do demonstrate the readiness and willingness of the children in the sample to communicate in English in both written and spoken form. To contextualise some of the results from our research it is worth looking briefly at the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 2. The framework was developed from over twenty years of research into second (foreign) language learning. It was designed to provide a transparent, coherent and comprehensive foundation for: • The development of syllabuses and curriculum guidelines • The design of teaching and learning materials • The assessment of foreign language proficiency The global representation of three CEFR levels (Basic User, Intermediate User and Proficient User) is given in Table 1 below. This table has been developed to give reference or orientation points for teachers and curriculum planners. Table 1 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent C2 presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations. PROFICIENT USER Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for C1 social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices. Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with B2 native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects INDEPENDENT and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages USER and disadvantages of various options. Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, B1 etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal 2 See https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks A2 requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in BASIC areas of immediate need. USER Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can A1 ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help. The Italian Ministry of University, Education and Research (MIUR3; 2012) makes direct reference to the framework when stating the competences children must have at the end of primary school for ‘scuola media’4 English language: At the end of primary school MIUR affirms in the document that the competences of English language must be on the level A1 (p. 39). At the end of “Scuola media” MIUR affirms in the document that the competences of English language must be on the level A2 (p. 40). The Croatian National Educational Standard (2005, p.82) explicitly states that children after eight years of studying foreign language, thus at the end of what is in Croatia elementary school, should achieve competences at the level A2. Current teaching methods of teaching English as a second language in Italy In Italy at present, children learn words and phrases by heart, not by any type of phonological instruction. They copy new words from the board (please see Figure 7 and Figure 8 in the Appendix) or books or learn through mnemonics and/or songs. Most children, when they are learning how to write, will pronounce an English word as if it is an Italian word: for example, if they have to write ‘beautiful’ they will say bay/a/oo/tifol. This way of writing, although methodologically wrong for all students, is even more confusing for learners with dyslexia as it does not give any direct, explicit systematic route for converting English speech sounds to graphemes.