ELearning Needs Analysis for Soldiers with Dyslexia

Image: https://goo.gl/images/ERDH1M

Learners with Dyslexia: Overview

Atypical cognitive processes

Dyslexia is a hereditary condition in which atypical brain functioning creates challenges for pattern recognition, verbal decoding and memory recall (Barden, 2012, 124; Károlyi, 2001, 380; Shaywitz, 1996, 104; Rose & Strangman, 2007, 382). Learners with dyslexia are defined according to a broad spectrum that ranges from high compensating, or mild, dyslexia to low compensating, or severe, dyslexia (ADA, 2014).

Left-hemispheric abnormalities, when performing phonological and semantic tasks, lead to challenges with reading, spelling and language acquisition (Károlyi, 2001, 380). Simultaneously the atypical brain functioning enhances particular cognitive abilities such as visual-spatial processing of global or wholistic information (Károlyi, 2001, 388). Shaywitz explains that deficits in phonological processing are accompanied by ‘significant strengths in reasoning, problem-solving, concept formation, critical thinking and vocabulary.’ (Shaywitz, 1996, 104). She argues that learners with dyslexia often have superior reasoning and comprehension skills to learners without the condition (Shaywitz, 1996, 104). It is unknown whether these enhanced abilities result from mitigation strategies for difficulties with memory recall and decoding or whether they result from the atypical neurological function of dyslexia (Barden, 2012, 123; Károlyi, 2001, 381).

Dyslexia is therefore atypical brain functioning which presents challenges with decoding the written word and memory recall but enhanced global visual-spatial processing abilities, critical thinking and comprehension skills.

Gender differences

While dyslexia is equally prevalent in males and females (Shaywitz, 1996, 103), neurological functioning differs in each gender. In Wolff and Lundberg’s study, females with dyslexia performed better than males with dyslexia in an orthographic or spelling choice activity (Wolff & Lundberg, 2003, 337). Wolff and Lundberg hypothesise that the females’ superior performance is due to females having higher exposure to print media (Wolff & Lundberg, 2003, 337). Shaywitz also acknowledges that males with dyslexia have greater difficulties developing reading strategies, and argues that this is due to biased research (Shaywitz, 1996, 103). Both Shaywitz and Wolff and Lundberg, therefore, draw on environmental and social, rather than biological, explanations for gender differences.

By contrast, Károlyi suggests that neurological differences between males and females may explain contrasting literacy abilities. She explains that ‘compared to girls, boys have more lateralized brain functions (and boys with dyslexia may even have hyperlateralized functions compared to typical boys)’ (Károlyi, 2001, 386–387). In

her study, males with dyslexia performed better than females with dyslexia at selecting an identical image of a celtic symbol from four similar images. She speculates that the more lateralised brain functions of males may have enhanced their performance (Károlyi, 2001, 387).

The select research, therefore, suggests that females with dyslexia perform better at spelling tasks, while males with dyslexia perform better at identifying identical images. While it is undetermined whether performance variables between males and females with dyslexia are caused by biological or environmental factors, gender differences clearly exist.

Elearning Accessibility Issues

Cooper defines accessibility as the design qualities that ‘make online learning available to all’ (Cooper, 2006, 103). Gerrard emphasises that accessibility requires designers to focus on learning, not just technical, barriers (Gerrard, 2007, 201). For learners with dyslexia, technical barriers do exist, but it is the attitudinal barriers which have the greatest impact on learning accessibility.

Technical accessibility

Online programs which do not use dyslexia-friendly fonts, such as Dyslexie or Arial, compressed spacing between words, stark colour contrasts and multiple animations can make reading the content difficult for learners with dyslexia (Beacham & Alty, 2006, 90; Marinus et al., 2016, 239–240). Synchronous text based activities (Woodfine et al., 2008, 704), minimal use of podcasts (Harris & Park, 2008, 549) and a lack of voice to text and multi-sensory assistive technologies (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 2007, 155) also create technical barriers to learning. Removing technical barriers, however, will not provide access to learning without simultaneously dismantling attitudinal barriers arising from the medical model of disability and a dominant cultural concept of literacy .

Medical model of disability

The medical model of disability views learners with disabilities as being impaired or deficient. The medical response is to attempt to cure the individual to return them to ‘normal’ functioning. Where no ‘cure’ is available, as with dyslexia, the individual, rather than society, is responsible for managing the condition under the direction of medical professionals (Cocks, 2006). The medical model, therefore promotes the view that learners with disabilities are abnormal and, therefore, deficient. There is no expectation that society is deficient in addressing the diverse needs of its members.

By contrast, the social model of disability views impairment as a normal part of the human condition and is, therefore, a social rather than an individual responsibility. Society is, therefore, required to adapt to learners’ needs by providing ‘appropriate services and support structures’ to ensure that the potential of all learners can be realised (Cocks, 2006).

As Barden points out, ‘the dyslexia discourse is still overwhelmingly conducted in the psycho-medical language of ‘deficits’, ‘weaknesses’ and ‘difficulties’.’ (Barden, 2012 124) The International Dyslexia Association, for example, refers to dyslexia as ‘a deficit in the phonological component of language’ and refers to ‘poor spelling’ and

‘problems with reading comprehension’ (IDA, 2012). The Australian Dyslexia Association, attempts to move beyond the deficit model by adapting the IDA definition and changing the phrase ‘dyslexia is a specific learning disability’ to ‘dyslexia is a specific learning difference’ (ADA, 2014). The British Dyslexia Association, by contrast, retains the deficit model by stating that ‘dyslexia is a specific learning difficulty’ (Barden, 2012, 124).

By conceiving dyslexia as deficient, rather than atypical, brain functioning, the medical model of disability promotes attitudinal barriers to learning. In UK higher education institutions, for example, many applicants with dyslexia do not disclose their condition, fearing social discrimination will jeopardise their admission chances (Richardson & Wydell, 2003, 480). Their fears arise from the widespread view in higher education that ‘to be a ‘normal’ student is to be a self-sufficient student.’ (Seale, 2013, 266) The extra supports required by learners with dyslexia can be perceived as providing them with an unfair advantage. Some learners, for example, feel stigmatised by their peers for using a dedicated library PC (Seale, 2013, 264). Such social attitudes arise from the view that dyslexia is deficient brain functioning and the learner with dyslexia is inferior to their peers. Under the deficit model, reasonable adjustments can be seen as unfair advantages provided for less able students.

Dominant cultural concepts of literacy

Learners with dyslexia also face attitudinal barriers arising from culturally dominant literacy models (Barden, 2012, 124). Barden argues that the socio-cultural context which privileges the written text defines dyslexia as a disability (Barden, 2012, 124). His study of sixth-formers with dyslexia reveals their greater ease with pictographic literacies such as eastern alphabets, Egyptian hieroglyphs and neolithic cave-drawings (Barden, 2012, 129). In a society of multiple literacies, therefore, dyslexia would not be viewed as a disability, but a cognitive characteristic of a particular group of learners.

To highlight the limitations of culturally dominant literacy models, Ventimiglia and Pullman recall Socrates’ complaint when oral communication was replaced by written text. He claimed that the written word would degrade the human intellect, which, as Ventimiglia and Pullman point out, is similar to current anxieties about the transition from traditional written communication to digital literacies (Ventimiglia & Pullman, 2016, 12). As the anecdote about Socrates demonstrates, a mode of literacy is simply the form in which human thought is expressed; it does not define the quality of human thinking. It is social attitudes that privilege the written word, not the written word itself, which, therefore, present barriers to learning for individuals with dyslexia.

The dominance of the written word in traditional curricula poses technical barriers for learners with dyslexia (Rose & Strangman, 2007, 385). A study by Mortimer and Crozier demonstrates that 78% of learners with dyslexia had difficulties with note-taking compared to 18% of learners without dyslexia (cited in Maydosz & Raver, 2010, 180). A study by Kirby et al. reveals that learners in timed assessments have a reading speed and comprehension of approximately three quarters behind that of their peers without dyslexia (Kirby et al., 2008, 94). The slower reading speed resulted in learners either developing superior time management skills, use of study aids, such as text highlights and summaries, and deeper learning outcomes than peers without dyslexia; or, conversely, ‘relatively impoverished learning and test taking strategies.’ (Kirby et al., 2008, 94). Learners with dyslexia, therefore, require assistive technologies and reasonable adjustments to facilitate reading comprehension, note-taking and essay-writing. Unless social attitudes to dyslexia and literacy models are transformed, however, such supports on their own will not eliminate learning barriers.

Self-identity

Negative social attititudes to dyslexia impact on the learners’ self-perception regarding their intellectual abilities and academic potential. Shaywitz’s case study of a high achieving medical student with dyslexia, for example, reveals that despite winning scholarships to multiple institutions, ongoing literacy challenges made him doubt his own competence (Shaywitz, 1996, 99). While he excelled at

‘comprehending the intricate relations among physiological systems or the complex mechanisms of disease’, he struggled with pronouncing long medical terminology and rote-learning new material (Shaywitz, 1996, 99). Consequently he was feeling discouraged (Shaywitz, 1996, 98), and his self-efficacy as a learner was adversely impacted.

The negative self-worth exhibited by Shaywitz’ case study example is not unique. Richardson and Wydell’s review of the academic achievement of UK higher education students with dyslexia reveals that they are more likely to discontinue their studies than students without dyslexia and are less likely to achieve first-class degrees (Richardson & Wydell, 2003, 500). Barden’s study of dyslexic sixth-formers also refers to the low self-esteem and negative self-perception that is characteristic of many learners with dyslexia. The learners generally viewed themselves as intellectually deficient, but through the course of the experiment they were able to ‘positively reframe’ their self-identities as expert-helpers and scientist-researchers (Barden, 2012, 130). Learners with dyslexia are, therefore, likely to manifest feelings of negative self-worth, low learning self-efficacy and self-esteem and high levels of learning anxiety.

Military Learning Context

The learning context is an essay-writing short course for military members. The target group are mid-career soldiers who require instruction in writing timed essays for career progression. In order to be selected as officers, or to be competitive for promotion as senior non-commissioned officers, soldiers must pass the Effective Writing Diagnostic Assessment (EWDA). The EWDA examination requires candidates to complete various writing tasks of increasing complexity in 150 minutes.

Candidates are assessed against the Australian Core Skills Framework (ACSF) writing skill descriptors. The ACSF presents five levels of performance against two writing indicators: audience, purpose and meaning-making; and the mechanics of writing (DEEWR, 2008, 65). To successfully pass the EWDA examination, candidates must achieve a minimum of level three against both writing indicators.

Electronic resources

The course has access to training rooms with a litepro projector, large screen and PCs connected to the Defence Restricted Network (DRN). The DRN is a restricted intranet with access to internal webpages; the Defence Moodle site, ADELE; the Defence eLearning application, CAMPUS; and the Defence social networking webpage, Forcenet. The DRN provides limited access to the world wide web as certain webpages are blocked that breach Defence security or Defence appropriate content guidelines. Access is therefore denied to web-based emails, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter. For security reasons, no unauthorised plug-ins may be used on DRN terminals, so external material must be burned onto CDs or DVDs.

The training room has wifi access which trainees and staff may use with personal mobile devices. All staff and trainees are advised of departmental policy guidelines regarding the use of social media and administrative action is initiated if inappropriate usage is identified.

The DRN, its operating system, security and connectivity restrictions, therefore, imposes some limitations on the types of applications, software, programs and hardware that can be used during instruction. These limitations can be partially mitigated by using unclassified material that is burned onto a CD or downloaded onto mobile devices using wifi.

Instructors are encouraged to be innovative and flexible in applying eLearning tools. The 2016 policy document on the Army’s educational and training requirements acknowledges ‘synchronous communication; massive open online courses; flipped classrooms; and learning analytics’ are drivers of change in learning delivery (Ryan, 2016, 15). Consequently the document encourages the use of BYOD, games and gamification, social media and augmented reality (Ryan, 2016, 83–4). While most formal Army training and education is delivered via face-to-face instruction, the document advocates blended learning as a means to enhance digital literacy in the Army, present more flexible training options and develop a professional military education data-base (Ryan, 2016, 40).

Curriculum

The short course consists of two 60-minute sessions per week over a six-week period. In line with the organisation’s emphasis on blended learning, the course structure, with regards to the ratio of face-to-face to online learning, is flexible. While there is no set curriculum, the course is designed to prepare candidates for the EWDA examination. It, therefore, delivers instruction in writing skills such as grammar, punctuation, essay structure, time management strategies, Defence writing conventions, document layout and word processing. The course also explores current affairs topics in order to expand the learners’ knowledge base.

Organisational Goals

Developing soldiers’ writing skills underpins the Australian Army’s capability goals. As the Australian Army’s key document on land-based warfighting, Land Warfare Doctrine 1: The Fundamentals of Land Power, states: ‘a key element in developing the intellectual component of fighting power is a robust approach to professional military education’ (LWD 1, 2014, 49). The document further stipulates that all soldiers should ‘contribute to and interact with Army’s knowledge base.’ (LWD 1, 2014, 49)

Writing is the Army’s central mode of knowledge interaction. Many units, for example, expect senior non-commissioned officers to produce Defence papers for their Commanding Officers on combat-related issues. Experienced soldiers are also encouraged to discuss ‘lessons learnt’ by writing articles for the Centre of Army Lessons monthly publication, Smart Soldier. Passing the EWDA examination, therefore, provides evidence that senior soldiers possess the required literacy skills to contribute to the Army’s knowledge base. Consequently the Army prioritises ‘foundational to functional literacy across a number of domains.’ (Ryan, 2016, 35) The Army’s renewed emphasis on literacy education is acknowledged in the 2016 Defence White Paper when it states that ‘joint military education across the ADF is growing in importance.’ (2016 Defence White Paper, 6.29)

Potential eLearning Barriers

Attitudinal barriers to learning for EWDA course participants with dyslexia arise from the overriding military focus on combat-effectiveness. The rigourous entry and retention medical standards are designed to ensure that all soldiers are physically and mentally prepared for battle. This creates a culture with low tolerance for impairment and high expectations of self-sufficiency. Consequently soldiers with dyslexia are a small and largely invisible minority whose condition and needs are broadly misunderstood.

The Australian Army’s medical classification system determines medical fitness of all personnel. Known as the Medical Employment Classification (MEC) system, it is the key personnel management tool to determine fitness for military duties. The MEC system has five classification levels: MEC 1—Fully Employable and Deployable; MEC 2—Employable and Deployable with Restrictions; MEC 3—Rehabilitation;

MEC 4—Employment Transition; and MEC 5—Medically Unfit for Further Service (Health Manual, 2014, 1.14). To determine individual MEC ratings, the Army uses the PULHEEMS system which gives an alphanumeric rating for six categories: physical capacity, upper limbs, locomotion, hearing, right eye visual acuity, left eye visual acuity, mental capacity and emotional stability (Health Manual, 2014, Annex B to Chap 1). To maintain medical fitness, all soldiers must achieve a ‘2’ in the mental ability category, meaning that the soldier ‘is able to assimilate training and successfully perform combat or combat-related duties.’ (Annex B to DI (A) Pers 159–1).

Soldiers with dyslexia, therefore, need to prove that they have the mental capacity to assimilate training and operate effectively in a combat environment. For that reason applicants with dyslexia are given an initial classification rating of 3R, meaning their medical fitness cannot be confirmed until specialist reports clarify that they can achieve a level 2 rating for mental capacity. This means that only mild or highly compensating applicants with dyslexia are permitted entry into the ADF.

As a result of the rigourous screening process only 0.5% of the permanent workforce in the Australian Army has a disability (Department of Defence, 2015, 156). These low statistics contrast with the Australian Dyslexia Association’s estimation that 10% of the Australian population is affected by dyslexia (ADA, 2014). Either high numbers of applicants are rejected on entry or the actual instances of dyslexia are under-reported.

The latter explanation is highly likely as many individuals with dyslexia are not identified until late adolescence or adulthood (Richardson & Wydell, 2003, 482), so many soldiers are unaware of their condition. Those soldiers who are aware of their condition may choose not to disclose it, fearing that the MEC system will jeopardise their recruitment and promotion opportunities. Such concerns were evident when the author was offering literacy support to a soldier undergoing Special Forces selection in early 2016. The stark contrast between his spelling difficulties and high intelligence suggested he may have dyslexia. He admitted this possibility was raised when he was in high school, but was reluctant to seek a formal diagnosis as he believed it would make his Special Forces application less competitive. Policy guidance for education officers posted to regional education detachments states that dyslexia is ‘the most frequently occurring disability’ (Department of Defence, n.d., 16) suggesting that the prevalence of dyslexia is higher than official figures.

If actual figures are higher than reported, then soldiers with dyslexia are a significant, but largely invisible, minority. Consequently they face two barriers to learning: they are not accessing or being provided with appropriate support structures and their isolation creates erroneous self-perceptions about their value as soldiers.

The Army relies on teamwork to overcome the extreme conditions of battle. A section commander, when discussing the personal problems of his team members, for example, states that:

In the first instance I’ll offer a helping hand – suggestions, counselling. If it’s serious then the Army has systems in place which can help them. My concern is that the problem can’t affect our team. (Lindsay, 2003, 29)

Teamwork is, therefore, one of the Army’s four core values and is inculcated in soldiers from their first day in recruit training and throughout their career. Consequently no soldier wants to endanger his or her teammates due to any physical or mental impairment. As former Chief of the Australian Defence Forces, General Peter Cosgrove, explains one of the worst insults is for a soldier to be considered a ‘Jack’ who only looks out for him or herself. He elaborates that this is because ‘our men and women are so interrelated, so mutually dependent on each other.’ (Lindsay, 2003, 30)

A work environment in which self-sufficiency, teamwork and physical and mental robustness are critical for battlefield success, creates a culture with low tolerance for disability and few opportunities for specialised supports. While a six-week writing course offers greater potential for wide-ranging supports, the impact of the battlefield culture suggests that learners with dyslexia will not request them and be resistant to using them.

Works Cited:

Adeoye B, and Wentling, R. (2007). ‘The relationship between national culture and the usability of an e-learning system’. International Journal on ELearning, 6, 119–146.

Anderson-Inman, L., and Horney, M. (2007). ‘Supported eText: assistive technology through text transformations’. Reading Research Quarterly, 153–160.

Australian Dyslexia Association (ADA). (2014). What is Dyslexia? Retrieved from http://dyslexiaassociation.org.au/how-is-dyslexia-evaluated.

Barden, O. (2012). ‘“…If we were cavemen we’d be fine”: Facebook as a catalyst for critical literacy learning by dyslexic sixth-form students’. Literacy, 46, 123–132.

Beacham, N., and Altby, J. (2006), ‘An investigation into the effects that digital media can have on the learning outcomes of individuals who have dyslexia’. Computers & Education, 47, 74–93.

Cocks, K. (2006). ‘Models of disability’. Retrieved from http://www.adcq.qld.gov.au/resources/newsletters/best-of-balancing-the-act/models-o f-disability.

Cooper, M. (2006).’Making online learning accessible to disabled students: an institutional case study’. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 14, 103–115.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2008). Australian Core Skills Framework, Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Defence. (2016). 2016 Defence White Paper. Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Defence. (2015). Defence Annual Report 2014–15: Volume 1 Performance Governance and Accountability. Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Defence. (2014). Health Manual: Volume 3 Retention Standards. Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Defence. (2014). Land Warfare Doctrine 1: The Fundamentals of Land Power. Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Defence (2011). Defence Instructions (Army) PERS 159–1: The

Application of the Medical Employment Classification System and PULHEEMS Employment Standards in the Australian Army. Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Defence (n.d). Regional Education Detachment: Literacy and Numeracy Development Program. Commonwealth of Australia.

Gerrard, C. (2007). ‘Virtual learning environments: enhancing the learning experience for students with disabilities’. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24, 199–206.

Gregg, N, Coleman, C, Davis, M, and Chalk, C. (2007). ‘Timed essay writing: implications for high-stakes test’. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 306–318.

Harris, H, and Park, S. (2008), ‘Educational uses of podcasting’. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 548–551.

International Dyslexia Association (IDA). (2012). Definition of Dyslexia. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/definition-of-dyslexia/.

Károlyi, C. (2001). ‘Visual-spatial strength in dyslexia: rapid discrimination of impossible figures’. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 380–391.

Kirby, J, Silvestri, R, Allingham, B, Parrila, R, and LaFave, C. (2008). ‘Learning strategies and study approaches of postsecondary students with dyslexia’. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 85–96.

Lindsay, Patrick. (2003). The Spirit of the Digger: Then & Now, Macmillan, Sydney.

Marinus, E., Mostard, M., Segers, E., Schubert, T., Madelaine, A., and Wheldall, K. (2016). ‘A special font for people with dyslexia: Does it work and, if so, why?’ Dyslexia, 22, 233–244.

Maydosz, A, and Raver, S. (2010), ‘Note taking and university students with learning difficulties: what supports are needed?’ Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 177–186.

Richardson, J, and Wydell, T. (2003). ‘The representation and attainment of students with dyslexia in UK higher education’. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 475–503.

Rose, D, and Strangman, N. (2007). Universal Design for Learning: meeting the challenge of individual learner differences through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access Information Society, 5, 381–391.

Ryan, M. (2016). (unpub.) ‘A Study of Army’s Education,Training and Doctrine Needs for the Future’. Australian Army, Commonwealth of Australia.

Ventimiglia, P, and Pullman, G. (2016). ‘From written to digital: the new literacy’. Educause Review. Retrieved from

http://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/3/from-written-to-digital-the-new-literacy.

Wolff, U, and Lundberg, I. (2003). ‘A technique for group screening of dyslexia among adults’. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 324–339.

Woodfine, B., Baptista Nunes, M., & Wright, D. (2008), ‘Text-based synchronous e-learning and dyslexia: Not necessarily the perfect match!’. Computers & Education, 50, 703–717.

Seale, J. (2013). 'When digital capital is not enough: reconsidering the digital lives of disabled university students.' Learning, Media and Technology, 38, 256–269.

Seale, J. (2006). ‘Disability, technology and e-learning: challenging conceptions’. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 14, 1–8.

Shaywitz, S. (1996). ‘Dyslexia’. Scientific American, November, 98–104.