Transcript The Project Proposal

The Difficulties Dyslexic
Students Experience Using
Calculators
By Clare Trott and Nigel Beacham
Mathematics Education Centre
Loughborough University
HELM conference
Thursday 15th September 2005
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
Dyslexic Difficulties and
Calculators
• Short-Term Memory
• Poor sequencing
• Symbolic processing
• Visual perceptual difficulties
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
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
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.
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
• 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
Phase 1
Evaluation
Methodology
Evaluation
• 11 dyslexic students
• 4 calculators
• Which would you buy
and why?
•
•
•
•
8 selected FX85
10 background colour
8 familiarity
Button size,
background contrast,
power source
Casio FX85
• Looks standard,
efficient, familiar
• Dark background
• Lettering clear
• Shape, size good
• Brand name
Sharp VH
•
•
•
•
•
•
Softer buttons
Poor visual
Orange shift
Light background
White numbers
Poor contrast
Sharp WB-WH
•
•
•
•
•
Larger screen
Larger screen font
Cluttered, fussy
Too many visuals
Green, orange
lettering
• Screen glare
Texet Albert 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Small, lightweight
Small buttons
Cramped
Yellowish screen
Too dotty
Brand name
Blue but transparent
Phase 2/3
Methodology
• 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
Model P
Test A
Familiar
Calculator
Familiarisation
Exercise
Test B
Unfamiliar
Calculator
Model Q
Familiarisation
Exercise
Test A
Unfamiliar
Calculator
Test B
Familiar
Calculator
Unfamiliar Calculator: Casio FX85
Sample
• 1st year engineering students, not with
Casio FX82, 83 or 85
• Participants identified as dyslexic and nondyslexic
• Participants randomly divided into two
groups:
– Model P
– Model Q
Results 1 - Time
Test A
Familiar
Calculator
Familiarisation
Exercise
Test B
Unfamiliar
Calculator
• 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
Results 2 - Time
Familiarisation
Exercise
Test A
Unfamiliar
Calculator
• Time difference
= Unfamiliar Time – Familiar Time
• Non-dyslexic = 161.5 seconds,
• Familiar < Unfamiliar, Learning Effect
• Dyslexic = –24 seconds
• Familiar > Unfamiliar, Priming Effect
Test B
Familiar
Calculator
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
Results 3 - Scores
Test A
Familiar
Calculator
Familiarisation
Exercise
• Score difference
= Unfamiliar Score – Familiar Score
• Non-dyslexic = 1 mark
• Dyslexic = 1 mark
• Unfamiliar > Familiar
• Learning Effect, increasing scores
Test B
Unfamiliar
Calculator
Results 4 - Scores
Familiarisation
Exercise
Test A
Unfamiliar
Calculator
Test B
Familiar
Calculator
• Score difference
= Unfamiliar Score – Familiar Score
• Non-dyslexic = 0.5 marks
• Unfamiliar > Familiar, Carelessness set in
• Dyslexic = –1 mark
• Unfamiliar < Familiar, Learning Effect,
Automaticity
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
Phase 4
Methodology
• 3 dyslexics
• unfamiliar
calculator,
Aurora SC582
• video
• Student A
• Pauses
• “Hovering Finger”
• Key positions not in WM
• Sequencing, cannot locate numerical
keys
• Student B
• Difficulty locating keys
• Increasing frustration, stress, stop
Guidelines
Background
colour
Dark, opaque, not metallic or
transparent. Blue = optimum
colour.
Background
contrast
Keys clearly visible against
backgrounds.
Button size and Large, regular
shape
Font type and
colour
primary and secondary fns in
large clear fonts. Avoid colours
like orange
Layout
Uncluttered. Avoid too many
second/third functions
Screen
Large, Good contrast between
background and digits, smooth
pixel display not reflective.
Coloured
screens
Symbols
If available (not red)
familiar symbols e.g. ^ or yx
Contact Details
• Clare Trott (Mathematics Learning Support Tutor,
Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough
University, Email: [email protected])
• Nigel Beacham (Research Fellow, Mathematics
Education Centre, Loughborough University,
Email: [email protected])
• DDIG website: http://ddig.lboro.ac.uk/