Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Multisensory Structured Learning Klári&Ivett
Transcript of Multisensory Structured Learning Klári&Ivett
MSL=Multisensory Structured Learning
GOOD for Teaching reading and spelling for dyslexics (LD) in the native language.
BUT: what about FLL?
highlight inferring meaning from the context
de-emphasize direct teaching of sound, sound-symbol and grammatical rules
transferred the OG methodology (MSL)
into the field of FLL
Multisensory Structured Learning
Learning Disabled - referring to dyslexics
Foreign Language (Learning)
Modern Language Aptitude Test
Is it suitable for LD students?
Of course NOT!
Quite the contrary:
Sparks et al., Kahn-Horwith et al:
Early direct and explicit instruction in the orthographic (sound-symbol) system of a FL is highly recommended
for all foreign language learners
Further suggestions by Sparks et al.
emphasis on phonology
classroom instruction in L2 (L1 for clarification only)
On the effects of MSL approach on L1 and L2
L1: English, L2: Spanish
MSL/ES - use of MSL, instruction in both languages
MSL/S - use of MSL, instruction in Spanish
NO-MSL - traditional approach
improvement both in L1 and L2
sts find it helpful to use their L1 to support L2 instruction (esp. phonology&syntax)
simultaneous use of oral and written instruction is beneficial
Further findings and other languages
Supporting evidence from researches on Latin and German as L2
Ganschow and Sparks (1995):
MSL approach to teaching phonology/orthography improved L1 performance
FLL with MSL can help the students in their native language too
MSL effective both for at-risk and non-at-risk sts
at-risk sts sill tend to fall behind non-at-risk sts
Sparks et al. 1992
Why don't FL teachers apply explicit multisensory instruction in phonolgy and grammar?
Teachers - good language learners. They don't feel the need.
Collaboration bw special educators & FL teachers
Small-scale intervention study in dyslexia and foreign language teaching
L1: Polish, L2: English
Subject: the effectiveness of MSL in improving word-reading and spelling skills in English
Participants: high-school students, in 3 groups
(5 Ss with dyslexia, MSL tutoring session in phonology and orthography)
control group with dyslexia
(10 Ss, no additional tutoring session at all)
control group without dyslexia
(10 Ss, no additional tutoring session at all).
6 months, one 90-min MSL-session / week for the experimental group
pre-tests in reading (R) and spelling (S),
post tests 1 in R and S immediately after treatment;
post-tests 2 in R and S two weeks after treatment.
reading silently with comprehension,
Hypotheses & Results 1/4
1. Dyslexic Ss experience greater difficulties in English phonology/orthography with the use of traditional teaching methods than non-dyslexic Ss. :pre- and post-test results
2. MSL instruction in selected English grapheme-phoneme correspondences and spelling rules would improve reading and spelling. (results: see in hypothesis 3)
3. Pre- and post-test results in the experimental group would indicate significant gains. pre-S: 27,6%, post-S 1 and 2: 71,7%, 82,8%; pre-R: 57,4%, post-R 1 and 2: 87,6%, 83,8%
Hypotheses & Results 2/4
4. Pre- and post-test results in the control group with dyslexia would not indicate significant gains.
5. Pre- and post-test results in the control group without dyslexia would indicate significant gains.
ONLY PARTLY SUPPORTED! – significant improvement in spelling only; reading skills unaffected!
6. The two groups with dyslexia would have similar results in R and S pre-tests, but the post tests would show significant differences: greater gains for the experimental group.
Hypotheses & Results 3/4
7. The experimental group and the control group without dyslexia would achieve significantly different results on both pre- and post-tests. Despite considerable progress, the experimental group would still lag behind the non-dyslexic control group
ONLY PARTIALLY VERIFIED!
Hypotheses & Results 4/4
8. The control group without dyslexia would show more pre- and post-test gains than the control group with dyslexia.
Implications of the results
dyslexic sts take advantage of MSL methods in teaching the phonological / orthographical features of a language
the outcome must be treated cautiously bc of: small sample size & absence of comparison approach in tutoring sessions
Implications of the results
Suggestion for further studies:
MSL vs other non-traditinal methods
MSL for non-dyslexics, too
Qs: here we are...