HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA?

How Should We Teach English Language Learners With Dyslexia?

Hannah Gookstetter

Washington State University

HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 2

Learning disabilities are more common than often thought and can impact a person’s

schooling and life in a variety of ways. These disabilities can also impact many people spread

over a swath of demographics. Despite the impacts of learning disabilities, there is not a plethora

of information and research available to the public that can be applied to each demographic

population in existence, thus why some populations are not receiving the accommodations for

their schooling that are necessary for their success. These research gaps have more of an impact

than once thought. For example, there is a lack of research on English Language Learners with

dyslexia and how to most effectively teach this population. There appears to be methods and

approaches that work splendidly for teaching English Language Learners with dyslexia;

however, more research is needed in order to find the crème de la crème of methods for teaching

this population of students.

Dyslexia, for example, is a rather common learning disability that is neurological in

origin (Alvarado, 2009). When one thinks of learning disabilities, this is the one that usually

comes to mind. Dyslexia is often characterized by “spatial reversals and shifts” along with

difficulties in reading, spelling, writing, and occasionally, math (Davidson, T., Nelson, K., &

Cataldo, L. J., 2013). Specifically, dyslexia is characterized by “significant disparity between an

individual’s general intelligence and his or her language skills” (Davidson, T.,, et al, 2013). The

effects of dyslexia can be seen in school performance. Boys tend to be slightly more likely to be

dyslexic than girls. Currently, dyslexia impacts 2-15% of the entire population of the United

States (Davidson, T., et al, 2013). A multitude of people can suffer from dyslexia, including

English Language Learners (ELLs).

What is an ELL? An ELL is anyone – young or old, male or female – who is learning

English as a second language; however, this term is typically used when discussing school-aged
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 3

kids who are learning English as a second language. According to Wayne Wright, author of the

textbook Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners, an ELL is “a student who is in

the process of attaining proficiency in English as a new, additional language” (2015, 1). These

students come from a variety of backgrounds and origins: they speak different languages and

dialects, celebrate differing holidays, and have many other varying aspects of culture integrated

in their lives. All of these aspects impact their ability to learn English and how fast they develop

English proficiency.

As previously stated, ELLs can be impacted by dyslexia. Dyslexic ELLs make up a

miniscule proportion of the population: according to a recent survey, only 27.6% percent of

teachers –those who teach in the state of Washington – had experience with ELLs who have

dyslexia in their classroom (Appendix A). ELLs with dyslexia struggle more than non-dyslexic

ELLs when learning English. This struggle has an increased difficulty not only because the ELL

has dyslexia, but because the components that make up the English language – syntax,

phonemes, syllables, and word structure – are vastly different than a lot of other languages

around the world. It is believed that “students who show dyslexia in their first language (L1) are

prone to similar difficulties in their second language (L2) based on the transfer from one

language to the other” (Chung & Ho, 2010, 195). Because of this, ELLs with dyslexia have more

hurdles to get over than the average ELL. The dyslexic tendencies they show in their first

language will carry over and affect how they will learn their second language, which can slow

the rate at which the student develops English proficiency.

Research has shown that dyslexia negatively impacts learning a second language. For

example, Chinese children who have dyslexia were found to have difficulties in learning English

as their second language (Chung & Ho, 2015, 206). These students specifically struggled in the
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 4

following areas: rapid naming, visual-orthographic knowledge, and phonological and

morphological awareness. They struggled in these areas amongst both their first and second

language. In addition, it was discovered that students with dyslexia have a more limited

vocabulary in their second language and are less accurate in reading and spelling words in their

second language (Lockiewicz & Jaskulska, 2016, 258-259). Dyslexia clearly impacts how ELLs

acquire a second language and these impacts can be minimized by using certain methods,

strategies, and approaches in the classroom. But what method works best?

Why should teachers even bother caring about dyslexic ELLs? They make up such a

small portion of the population of students so why do they deserve special treatment? Dyslexic

ELLs deserve the same treatment as native English-speaking students who have dyslexia. Just

because ELLs do not speak complete English or English at all for that matter, does not mean they

should not receive a proper education that utilizes methods, strategies, and approaches to assist

them in progressing in their schooling. In addition to the fact that it is morally correct to care

about this population of students’ education, there is a federal law that states that all students

must receive the same treatment, accommodations, and resources. The 1974 Supreme Court case,

Lau v. Nichols, required school districts to offer bilingual education programs for ELL students,

which is referred to as the Lau Remedies (Wright, 2015, 84). The case regarded Chinese students

in San Francisco, California who were placed into mainstream classes and were forced to sink or

swim (Wright, 2015, 84). The school district in question argued that the students were receiving

treatment that was equal to that of the other students when in fact they were not receiving a

meaningful education (Wright, 2015, 84). The Lau v. Nichols decision was later coded into

federal law as part of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974. Section 1703(f)

of the EEOA states that “no state shall deny educational opportunities to an individual on
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 5

account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin by…the failure of an educational agency

to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its

students in its instructional programs.” (Wright, 2015, 84). Because there is federal policy in

place that declares that ELLs no matter their background have a right to an education that is as

meaningful as their peers’ education, we should care about the education of ELLs with dyslexia.

It is their right to have a proper education and it is the job of the teachers in the United States to

provide them with just that.

Second language acquisition education is made up of a variety of theories that help

construct the basis for teaching ELLs a second language. One of these theories is the Natural

Approach Theory, which was developed collaboratively in the 1970’s betwixt Stephen Krashen –

a linguist and former professor at the University of Southern California – and Tracy Terrell, an

education theorist and former professors at the University of California, San Diego. The Natural

Approach Theory is based on five hypotheses: the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the natural

order hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the comprehension hypothesis, and the affective filter

hypothesis. The Natural Approach theory is based on the idea that acquisition – “the process

which is said to lead to subconscious knowledge about language” – and learning – the “result

from conscious attention to some part of the target language” – are two drastically different

things (Terrell, 1986, 213). The purpose of this theory is to replicate the natural manner students

acquire a second language by using a technique known as comprehensible input, which is “oral

or written language that is slightly above a second language learner’s current level of

proficiency…and provides linguistic input that leads to second language acquisition” (Wright,

2015, 51).
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 6

The first of the Natural Approach theory’s five hypotheses is the acquisition-learning

hypothesis. The acquisition-learning hypotheses explains that language and acquisition and

language learning are two different concepts, which is the foundation of this theory. Language

acquisition occurs in a subconscious manner while language learning occurs in a conscious

manner (Krashen, 2013, 1). The second hypothesis is the natural order hypothesis, which states

that the components of a language are acquired in a predictable order; however, this order is

varied for each individual and cannot be altered (Krashen, 2013, 2). Next, is the monitor

hypothesis. This hypothesis claims that language that is learned in a conscious manner is only

available to the individual as a Monitor, or the mental editor of one’s speech (Krashen, 2013, 2).

The Monitor may only be used under certain conditions. The comprehension hypothesis is the

fourth hypothesis of the theory. It states that an individual can acquire a language when that

individual can understand what they are reading or listening to. Comprehensible input is a

component of this hypothesis; it is manifested by the use of gestures, movement, or slowing

down speech in order for the listener to understand what the individual who is speaking is

attempting to convey. These methods of obtaining understanding assist the listener in

comprehending what the speaker is saying. In addition, the comprehension hypothesis states that

language can only be acquired via comprehensible input, not comprehensible output (Krashen,

2013, 4). The fifth and final hypothesis of the Natural Approach theory is the affective filter

hypothesis, which claims that there are certain factors – stress, fear, anxiety, etc. – that can

prevent comprehensible input from reaching the portion of the brain that is responsible for

language acquisition: the Language Acquisition Device (Krashen, 2013, 4). These five

hypotheses construct the theory that is rather appealing to second language teachers; however, it

does have its criticisms.

HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 7

In general, the Natural Approach theory fails to provide the components that are

necessary in order to have a functioning, useable system (Romeo, 2017). Neither Krashen nor

Terrell ever provide any detail on how one should go about implanting the Natural Approach

theory in the classroom. This could be because Krashen is a linguist, Terrell is a theorist, and

they were both professors at one point. Without proper experience in a K-12 classroom, it would

be challenging for them to come up with any ideas in regards to how a teacher should implement

this theory in his or her classroom. In addition, Ken Romeo points out that Krashen continuously

contradicts himself throughout his description of the theory (2017). For example, when Krashen

describes the monitor hypothesis, he restricts the concept of the Monitor to uses that pertain only

to “learned” grammar and production of language. This restriction causes the monitor hypothesis

to contradict the acquisition-learning hypothesis (Romeo, 2017).

Despite its criticisms, the Natural Approach theory is a great theory and its methods are

applied in classrooms around the globe. Specifically, the use of comprehensible input is an

excellent technique to use while teaching ELLs and may be especially helpful for teaching ELLs

with dyslexia. The use of gestures and slowing down speech gives these students the time to

comprehend what the teacher is conveying to them, which can help them better understand what

is going on in the classroom and help teach them English. Also, the Natural Approach theory is

very similar to the multisensory, multi-cognitive approach (MMA), an approach that will be

described later: both MMA and the Natural Approach theory strive to foster second language

acquisition in the most natural way possible. Because MMA is possibly one of the more effective

ways to teach ELLs with dyslexia and the Natural Approach theory is so similar to it, utilizing

components of the Natural Approach theory may in fact be beneficial and effective.
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 8

The Good Start for English Method; the Multisensory, multi-cognitive approach (MMA);

Sheltered English Immersion (SEI). These three methods and approaches have arisen out of

countless hours of research on how to teach ELLs with dyslexia as methods that could possibly

be the most effective for teaching ELLs with dyslexia. The first method, The Good Start for

English method, aims to “simultaneously stimulate visual, auditory, touch, and kinesthetic-motor

function, to develop the integration of all psychomotor functions…which contribute to the

process of learning to read and write” (Bogdanowicz & Borgdanowicz, 2016, 265). This method

involves combining language units [syllables, etc.] with visual, graphic, and motor elements. For

example, while singing a song a student may simultaneously draw a pattern on a piece of paper.

One specific component of this method is the utilization of nursery rhymes in order to teach a

second language. Nursery rhymes are thought to be “a sample of authentic language material full

of rhymes and rhythm” (Bogdanowicz & Borgdanowicz, 2016, 267). The nursery rhymes that

are selected for use in the Good Start for English curriculum are ones that involve topics that

would be considered of interest to children and use songs that consist of a simple structure. Two

lessons are dedicated to each nursery rhyme because the nursery rhymes that are chosen are too

challenging for children to remember in just a single lesson. This method faces criticism because

it is not considered a “typical approach” to learning a second language for multiple reasons. First

of all, the Good Start for English method does two functions at once: it provides a new method

of teaching English intended for small children and guaranteesd support for mental and moo=tor

development (Bogdanowicz & Borgdanowicz, 2016, 267). Secondly, the language material that

is utilized in the curriculum is based on nursery rhymes, as previously described; this material is

not sorted into levels that a student is able to progress through. In addition, each lesson is

unrelated to the previous and upcoming lesson which makes it challenging for ELLs to make
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 9

continuous connections with what they are learning and may rupture their English proficiency

development.

The second plausible method is the Multisensory, multi-cognitive approach (MMA). The

goal of this method is to replicate the manner in which children normally acquire language. It is

based on the belief that “language is in the brain before being in the mouth”, meaning that we are

predisposed to learn language (Odisho, 2007, 7). Speech is a cognitive phenomenon; the nature

of acquisition and learning is complementary; perception, recognition, and production; phonetic

and phonological awareness. These are the four basic principles upon which MMA is built. In

addition, MMA relies on auditory, visual, and kinesthetic modalities in order to teach ELLs a

second language. “Students with dyslexia often exhibit weaknesses in underlying language skills

involving speech sound and print processing and in building brain pathways that connect speech

with print” (International Dyslexia Association, 2017). MMA allows dyslexic students to

overcome these weaknesses by learning these skills by utilizing different modalities. When

students are taught with a multisensory approach, they have an advantage of learning alphabetic

patterns in words through the engagement of many learning modalities (International Dyslexia

Association, 2017). A multisensory, multi-cognitive approach would consist of students learning

hand gestures to memorize certain words or letters, manipulating words to form sentences or to

classify them, reording sentences to construt paragraphs, and so on and so forth. This approach is

similar to the Good Start for English method; however, the Good Start for English Method relies

heavily on nursery rhymes whereas this approach does not. In general, a multisensory, multi-

cognitive approach consists of hand and body movements that aid in the comprehension or

production of language (International Dyslexia Association, 2017).

HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 10

The final plausible method is Sheltered English Immersion (SEI), which consists of “self-

contained grade-level classrooms for ELLs with teachers who are trained and certified to provide

language and content instruction for ELLs” (Wright, 2015, 109). Instruction is done solely in

English; a student’s home language is only used if its use is absolutely necessary. Because of

this, students may be left to sink or swim: either figure it out on their own or be unsuccessful and

make no progress. There are a few benefits to this approach: increased language acquisition,

additional training opportunities for teachers, students receive more attention from teachers, and

students are reclassified to new proficiency levels at higher rates. Along with these benefits are

some challenges, which include the following: areas of academic content are overlooked, ELL

students are isolated and segregated from other students, students take longer to graduate from

high school and are unprepared for college, and students lack proper peer role models. In

addition to these challenges, SEI is in ways similar to submersion – “the process of placing

ELLS in a classroom where they do not receive any…primary language support” (Wright, 2015,

325). This is an approach that is illegal and violates federal law. For a teacher to use this method,

they would have to be very cautious of how they implement it in their classroom to avoid

accidentally implementing submersion rather than SEI.

Applying the three methods previously mentioned along with utilizing some of the

components of the Natural Approach theory may be effective, but it could possibly be just as

effective to implement the methods teachers are currently using to teach native English-speaking

students who have dyslexia. Perhaps it could be even more effective than attempting to

implement new methods in one’s classroom.

Teachers in today’s classrooms use a multitude of methods to teach their dyslexic

students. When teacher who are mainly located in the state of Washington were asked what
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 11

methods they have been used or are currently using to teach dyslexic students, the following

methods were the most commonly used: one-on-one work, a multisensory approach, and

providing students with accommodations (Appendix A). One-on-one work typically consists of

the teacher working with one student at a time. The teacher works individually with the student.

This allows the teacher to differentiate their instruction in order to work with the student on skills

that they specifically need extra assistance with. Also, this provides teachers with an opportunity

to observe the student and determine if they have progressed. A multisensory approach would be

similar to MMA. Implementing this approach would require stimulating the senses in a variety of

auditory, visual, and kinesthetic modalities. Finally, providing students with proper

accommodations would require collaboration with the teacher and the special education

department at the school. This may require establishing an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

for the student and providing them with more time on tests, allowing them to use manipulatives

during tests, and other various types of accommodation. These accommodations would vary for

each student.

In addition to the varying methods teachers are employing to teach dyslexic students,

they are implementing the methods in differing ways. The most common ways teachers are

implementing their methods are through one-on-one work, small group work, and whole group

work (Appendix A). Implementing a method by using one-on-one work would simply require the

teacher to take some time out of their day to work individually with the student in need.

Implementing a method through small group work would perhaps require predetermined groups

and ensuring that the activities that the small groups are participating in follow the basic

principles or guidelines of the desired method. Implementing a method through whole group

would require planning activities that are consistent with the implications and objectives of said
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 12

method that involve the entire class. Planning activities require large amounts of people could be

challenging, however.

Out of the various methods, approaches, and strategies that have been previously

described in this paper, it has become apparent that some methods would be more effective than

others. The methods that appear to be the most effective out of the ones described include the

following: MMA or a very similar multisensory approach and one-on-one work. MMA or a

similar multisensory approach could be effective because it stimulates a variety of the student’s

senses which could stem language growth because each student learns differently. By utilizing a

variety of sensory modalities – auditory, visual, touch, kinesthetic – students get the opportunity

to learn in a variety of ways. One modality may work best for one student and a different may

work better for a different. In addition to this factor, using multiple sensory modalities could be

considered a form of comprehensible input. According to the Natural Approach theory,

comprehensible input itself will stimulate second language development. By using a variety of

sensory modalities, the teacher is providing the student with a variety of ways to comprehend

what he or she is teaching, therefore the teacher is utilizing comprehensible input. Perhaps a

combination of MMA or another multisensory approach and comprehensible input may be what

is most effective for teaching ELLs with dyslexia. One-on-one work may also be an effective

method to teach ELLs with dyslexia because it allows the teacher to provide the dyslexic ELL

with individualized teaching that is specific to what the student needs assistance with. One-on-

one work provides the teacher with an opportunity to utilize the comprehensible input technique,

also. Working individually with the student provides the teacher with a great opportunity to

observe how the student is progressing and adjust their teaching to the constantly changing needs

of the student. Similar to MMA or a multisensory approach, perhaps a combination of one-on-

HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 13

one work and comprehensible input would be more effective. Either way, utilizing

comprehensible input will be of great benefit. In regards to how these methods should be

implemented, it will be best for them to be implemented in different ways. One-on-one work can

only be implemented by setting aside time to do one-on-one work. As for MMA or a

multisensory approach, these could be implemented through small group work or by involving

the whole class. Involving the whole class avoids singling out the dyslexic ELL and provides the

whole class with an opportunity to learn a unique way. Because of this, it may be best to

implement MMA or a multisensory approach via involving the whole class.

Although it appears that some methods may be more effective than others, it is difficult to

come to precise conclusion in regards to which method is actually the most effective. In order for

this to happen, more research needs to be performed on ELLs with dyslexia. Currently, there is

no statistics regarding how many ELLs with dyslexia there are in the world or how many are

even enrolled in United States schools. There is also no basic demographic information about

these students. Because of this, more research needs to be done. It is hard to make a judgement

and decision about a population when there is limited to no research about it. This means that it

is necessary to have more extensive discussions about students with dyslexia and extend those

discussions to include ELLs with dyslexia and perhaps other populations of students who may

have dyslexia, too.

HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 14

Appendix A

Gender of Participants

Female Male

Location of Participants

Western WA Eastern Wa Outside of Wa

HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 15

45.00%
Gradeof
Years Levels Taught byExperience
Teaching Participants
40.00%
16
35.00%
14
30.00%
12
25.00%
10
20.00%
8
15.00%
6
10.00%
4
5.00%
2
0.00%
0 P K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 45-49 50+

Grade Levels Taught by Participants

45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
P K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 16

How Often Participants Have Had Students With

Dyselxia in Their Class

Very often Often Sometimes Occasionally Never

Have You Had ELLs With Dyslexia in Your

Classroom?

Yes No
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 17

Methods Used to Teach Students with Dyslexia

12
# of Participants Who Use This Method

10

How Participants Have Implemented Their Methods

12
# of Participants Who Implemented Methods This Way

10

Implementation Methods
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA? 18

Works Cited

Alvarado, Criselda Guajardo. (2009). Dyslexia and the Spanish Speaking and Bilingual
(English/Spanish Speaking) Student. Retrieved from: http://www4.esc.net/…/DA-
Dr_Alvarado-Dyslexia-ELL-Evalutation-Guidance-2009.doc.

Bogdanowicz, Katarzyna M., & Marta Borgdanowicz. (2016). “The Good Start Method for
English” or how to support development, prevent and treat risk of dyslexia in children
learning English as a second language. Polish Psychology Bulletin, 47, 265-269. doi:
10.1515/ppb-2016-0032.

Chung, Kevin Kien Hoa, & Connie Suk-Han Ho. (2010). Second Language Learning Difficulties
in Chinese Children With Dyslexia: What Are the Reading-Related Cognitive Skills That
Contribute to English and Chinese Word Reading?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43,
195-211. doi: 10.1177/0022219409345018.

Davidson, T., Nelson, K., & Cataldo, L. J. (2013). Dyslexia. In The Gale Encyclopedia of
Nursing and Allied Health (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1140-1143). Detroit, MI: Gale. Retrieved
from:
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?resultListType=RELATED_DOCUMENT&user
GroupName=pull21986&inPS=true&contentSegment=9781414498959&prodId=GVRL
&isETOC=true&docId=GALE|CX2760400350#.

International Dyslexia Association. (2017). Multisensory Structured Language Teaching.

Retrieved from: https://dyslexiaida.org/multisensory-structured-language-teaching/.

Krashen, Stephen. (2013). Second Language Acquisition: Theory, Applications, and Some
Conjectures. Mexico City, MX: Cambridge University Press.

Lockiewicz, Maria, & Martyna Jaskulskaa. (2016). Difficulties of Polish students with dyslexia
in reading and spelling in English as L2. Learning and Individuals Differences, 51, 256-
264. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.037.

Odisho, Edward Y. (2007). A Multisensory, Multicognitive Approach to Teaching

Pronunciation. Linguística – Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade de Porto,
2, 3-28. Retrieved from: https://doaj.org/article/ce8735d2d8bf4f049221763b45d40d17.

Romeo, Ken. (2017). Krashen and Terrell’s “Natural Approach”. Retrieved from:
https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm.

Terrell, Tracy. (1986). Acquisition in the Natural Approach: The Binding/Access Framework.
The Modern Language Journal, 70(3), 213-227. Doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
4781.1986.tb05266.x.

Wright, Wayne E. (2015). Foundation for Teaching English Language Learners: Research,
Theory, Policy, and Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.