The Difficulties Dyslexic Students Experience Using Calculators

1. The Difficulties Dyslexic Students Experience Using Calculators By Clare Trott and Nigel Beacham Mathematics Education Centre Loughborough University HELM conference Thursday 15th September 2005

2. Introduction • University proposed restricting range of calculators used in examinations • Proposed ‘approved list’ included: • Casio FX83 series • Casio FX85 series • Sharp EL531 series • Texas Instruments TI-30 series

3. Dyslexic Difficulties and Calculators • Short-Term Memory • Poor sequencing • Symbolic processing • Visual perceptual difficulties

4. Features to Consider • Position of buttons • Button size, shape, colour • Position and range of functions • Colours of text • Font and size of text • Screen, size, font, colour • Background colour, contrast

5. Case Study • Dyslexic student lost calculator used since early school days • Replaced with new model, as old model no longer available • Caused anxiety • No recommendations re suitable calculators available

6. Aims of Project • Investigate and evaluate the range of currently available 2-line calculators • Recommendations for dyslexics • Draw up approved list for exams • To then carry out a series of experiments observing and timing students using familiar and unfamiliar calculators. • Compared the performance of dyslexics and non-dyslexics.

7. 4 Phases • Phase One • Background research • Literature search • Contacting others in the field • Initial investigation • Collecting information on 2-line calculators • Initial evaluation by project team

8. Phase Two • Pilot study - dyslexic students evaluating some 2-line calculators • Phase Three • Main research - trials comparing an unfamiliar provided calculator with students’ own familiar calculator • Phase Four • Further investigations - close observation of small 3 dyslexic students using 2 unfamiliar calculators

9. Methodology 11 dyslexic students 4 calculators Which would you buy and why? Evaluation 8 selected FX85 10 background colour 8 familiarity Button size, background contrast, power source Phase 1Evaluation

10. Casio FX85 • Looks standard, efficient, familiar • Dark background • Lettering clear • Shape, size good • Brand name

11. Sharp VH • Softer buttons • Poor visual • Orange shift • Light background • White numbers • Poor contrast

12. Sharp WB-WH • Larger screen • Larger screen font • Cluttered, fussy • Too many visuals • Green, orange lettering • Screen glare

13. Texet Albert 3 • Small, lightweight • Small buttons • Cramped • Yellowish screen • Too dotty • Brand name • Blue but transparent

14. Phase 2/3Methodology • 2 very similar tests written • 22 questions on each, no words • Range of mathematics applicable to 1st yr engineers • Shorter familiarisation task written • same functions as main tests • Tests were timed • End completion of questionnaire about their experience

15. Model P Test B Test A Familiarisation Unfamiliar Familiar Exercise Calculator Calculator Model Q TestA TestB Familiarisation Unfamiliar Familiar Exercise Calculator Calculator Unfamiliar Calculator: Casio FX85

16. Sample • 1st year engineering students, not with Casio FX82, 83 or 85 • Participants identified as dyslexic and non-dyslexic • Participants randomly divided into two groups: • Model P • Model Q

17. Results 1 - Time • Time difference = Unfamiliar Time – Familiar Time • Non-dyslexic = –153 seconds • Dyslexic = –59.5 seconds • Familiar > Unfamiliar • Learning Effect, increasing speed • Learning Effect greater for non-dyslexics

18. Results 2 - Time • Time difference = Unfamiliar Time – Familiar Time • Non-dyslexic = 161.5 seconds, • Familiar < Unfamiliar, Learning Effect • Dyslexic = –24 seconds • Familiar > Unfamiliar, Priming Effect

19. Learning Effect = Average of the median time differences • Non-dyslexics = 157 seconds • Dyslexics = 18 seconds Calculator Effect (adjusted Time Differences) • Non-dyslexics 4 seconds longer with unfamiliar • Dyslexics 42 seconds less with unfamiliar

20. Results 3 - Scores • Score difference = Unfamiliar Score – Familiar Score • Non-dyslexic = 1 mark • Dyslexic = 1 mark • Unfamiliar > Familiar • Learning Effect, increasing scores

21. Results 4 - Scores • Score difference = Unfamiliar Score – Familiar Score • Non-dyslexic = 0.5 marks • Unfamiliar > Familiar, Carelessness set in • Dyslexic = –1 mark • Unfamiliar < Familiar, Learning Effect, Automaticity

22. Learning Effect = Average of the median score differences • Non-dyslexics = 0.75 marks • Dyslexics = 1 mark Calculator Effect (adjusted Score Differences) • Non-dyslexics 0.25 marks more with unfamiliar • Dyslexics 0 marks, same score

23. Phase 4 Methodology • 3 dyslexics • unfamiliar calculator, Aurora SC582 • video

24. Student A • Pauses • “Hovering Finger” • Key positions not in WM • Sequencing, cannot locate numerical keys • Student B • Difficulty locating keys • Increasing frustration, stress, stop

25. Guidelines

27. Contact Details • Clare Trott (Mathematics Learning Support Tutor, Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University, Email: c.trott@lboro.ac.uk) • Nigel Beacham (Research Fellow, Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University, Email: n.beacham@lboro.ac.uk) • DDIG website: http://ddig.lboro.ac.uk/