Abstract
E-Learning systems can support real-time monitoring of learners’ learning desires and effects, thus offering opportunities for enhanced personalized learning. Recognition of the determinants of dyslexic users’ motivation to use e-learning systems is important to help developers improve the design of e-learning systems and educators direct their efforts to relevant factors to enhance dyslexic students’ motivation. Existing research has rarely attempted to model dyslexic users’ motivation in e-learning context from a comprehensive perspective. The present work has conceived a hybrid approach, namely, combining the strengths of qualitative and quantitative analysis methods, to motivation modeling. It examines a variety of factors that affect dyslexic students’ motivation to engage in e-learning systems from psychological, behavioral, and technical perspectives, and establishes their interrelationships. Specifically, the study collects data from a multi-item Likert-style questionnaire to measure relevant factors for conceptual motivation modeling. It then applies both covariance-based (CB-SEM) and variance-based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approaches to determine the quantitative mapping between dyslexic students’ continued use intention and motivational factors, followed by discussions about theoretical findings and design instructions according to our motivation model. Our research has led to a novel motivation model with new constructs of Learning Experience, Reading Experience, Perceived Control, and Perceived Privacy. From both the CB-SEM and PLS-SEM analyses, results on the total effects have indicated consistently that Visual Attractiveness, Reading Experience, and Feedback have the strongest effects on continued use intention.
- D. Gooch, A. Vasalou, L. Benton, and R. Khaled. 2016. Using gamification to motivate students with dyslexia using gamification to motivate students with dyslexia. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). 969--980. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. J. Rose. 2009. Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties. An independent report to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. Retrieved from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//14790/.Google Scholar
- R. Wang, L. Chen, I. Solheim, T. Schulz, and A. Ayesh. 2017. Conceptual motivation modeling for students with dyslexia for enhanced assistive learning. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Intelligent Interfaces for Ubiquitous and Smart Learning (SmartLearn’17). 11--18. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. E. Blank and S. Harwell (Eds.). 1997. Promising Practices for Connecting High School to the Real World. University of South Florida, Tampa. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED407586.Google Scholar
- P. C. Dev. 1997. Intrinsic motivation and academic achievement: What does their relationship imply for the classroom teacher? Remedial Spec. Educ. 18, 1 (1997), 12--19.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Walker and D. Prytherch. 2008. How is it for you? (a case for recognising user motivation in the design process). In Affect and Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction: From Theory to Applications, C. Peter and R. Beale (Eds.). Springer Berlin, 130--141. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Gefen, 2000. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun. AIS 4 (2000).Google Scholar
- S. Amaro, C. Seabra, and J. L. Abrantes. 2015. Comparing CB-SEM and PLS-SEM results: An empirical example. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Partial Least Squares Path Modeling.Google Scholar
- M. E. Civelek. 2018. Comparison of covariance-based and partial least square structural equation modeling methods under non-normal distribution and small sample size limitations. Euras. Econ. Stat. Empir. Econ. J. 10, 39--50.Google Scholar
- I. Ajzen and T. J. Madden. 1986. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22, 5 (1986), 453--474.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 1 (2000), 54--67.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. H. Shroff and D. R. Vogel. 2009. Assessing the factors deemed to support individual student intrinsic motivation in technology supported online and face-to-face discussions. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 8 (2009), 59--85.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Sun. 2008. An examination of disposition, motivation, and involvement in the new technology context computers in human behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 6 (2008), 2723--2740. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 4 (2002), 227--268.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Bandura. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- A. Bandura. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Worth Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
- J. M. Keller. 2010. Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach. Springer, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- J. Daki and R. S. Savage. 2010. Solution-focused brief therapy: Impacts on academic and emotional difficulties. J. Educ. Res. 103 (2010), 309--326.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Glazzard. 2010. The impact of dyslexia on pupils's self-esteem. Supp. Learn. 25, 2 (2010), 63--70.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Burden and J. Burdett. 2005. Factors associated with successful learning in pupils with dyslexia: A motivational analysis. Brit. J. Spec. Educ. 32, 2 (2005), 100--105.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Derbali and C. Frasson. 2012. Assessment of learners’ motivation during interactions with serious games: A study of some motivational strategies in food-force. Adv. Hum.-comput. Interact. — Special Iss. User Asses. Se. Games Technol.-enhanc. Learn. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/624538. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Z. Dörnyei. 2001. Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- L. Barolli, A. Koyama, A. Durresi, and G. De Marco. 2006. A web-based e-learning system for increasing study efficiency by stimulating learner's motivation. Inf. Syst. Front. 8 (2006), 297--306. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. A. Alias. 2012. Design of a motivational scaffold for the Malaysian e-learning environment. Educ. Technol. Soc. 15, 1 (2012), 137--151.Google Scholar
- I. Arroyo, J. Johns, T. Dragon, and H. Mahadevan. 2007. Repairing disengagement with non-invasive interventions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts That Work. 195--202. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Hurley. 2006. Intervention strategies to increase self-efficacy and self-regulation in adaptive on-line learning. Adapt. Hypermed. Adapt. Web-based Syst. 440--444. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Chang, C. Chang, and J. Shih. 2016. Motivational strategies in a mobile inquiry-based language learning setting. System 59, (2016), 100--115.Google Scholar
- L. Cidrim and F. Madeiro. 2017. Information and communication technology (ICT) applied to dyslexia: Literature review. Rev. CEFAC 19, 1 (2017), 99--108.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Dawson, P. Antonenko, H. Lane, and J. Zhu. 2018. Assistive technologies to support students with dyslexia. Teach. Except. Child. 51, 3 (2018), 226--239.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Lindeblad. 2017. Assistive technology as reading interventions for children with reading impairments with a one-year follow-up. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 12, 7 (2017), 713--724.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Verhagen, F. Feldberg, B. Van Den Hooff, S. Meents, and J. Merikivi. 2012. Understanding users’ motivations to engage in virtual worlds: A multipurpose model and empirical testing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 2 (2012), 484--495. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. D. Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 13, 3 (1989), 319--340. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. C. Chang, C. Liang, C. F. Yan, and J. S. Tseng. 2013. The impact of college students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on continuance intention to use English mobile learning systems. Asia-Pacif. Educ. Res. 22, 2 (2013), 181--192.Google ScholarCross Ref
- V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 27, 3 (2003), 425--478. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. El-masri and A. Tarhini. 2017. Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the unified theory. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 65 (2017), 743--763.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Singh, N. Sinha, and F. J. Liébana-Cabanillas. 2020. Determining factors in the adoption and recommendation of mobile wallet services in India: Analysis of the effect of innovativeness, stress to use and social influence. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 50 (2020), 191--205.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Park, H. Chang, and S. (Steven) Park. 2019. Adoption of digital devices for children education: Korean case. Telemat. Inform. 38 (2019), 247--256.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. M. Tawafak, A. B. T. Romli, R. Bin, and A. Arshah. 2018. Continued intention to use UCOM: Four factors for integrating with a technology acceptance model to moderate the satisfaction of learning. IEEE Access 6, (2018), 66481--66498.Google Scholar
- T. C. Herrador-Alcaide, M. Hernández-Solís, and R. S. Galván. 2019. Feelings of satisfaction in mature students of financial accounting in a virtual learning environment: An experience of measurement in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 16, 20 (2019).Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Hanif, F. Q. Jamal, and M. Imran. 2018. Extending the technology acceptance model for use of e-learning systems by digital learners. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 73395--73404.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. A. Kimathi and Y. Zhang. 2019. Exploring the general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach on student's usage intention on e-learning system in University of Dar es Salaam. Creat. Educ. 10 (2019), 208--223.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C.-T. Chang, J. Hajiyev, and C.-R. Su. 2017. Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach. Comput. Educ. 111 (2017), 128--143. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Mehta, N. Morris, B. Swinnerton, and M. Homer. 2019. The influence of values on e-learning adoption. Comput. Educ. 141 (2019), 103617.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. He and S. L., 2019. A comparative study of digital informal learning: The effects of digital competence and technology expectancy. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 50, 4 (2019), 1744--1758.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Al-Emran, V. Mezhuyev, and A. Kamaludin. 2018. Technology acceptance model in M-learning context: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 125 (2018), 389--412.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Y. Alsobhi, N. Khan, and H. Rahanu. 2015. DAEL framework : A new adaptive e-learning framework for students with dyslexia. Procedia Comput. Sci. 51, (2015), 1947--1956. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Griffiths and M. Stuart. 2013. Reviewing evidence-based practice for pupils with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. J. Res. Read. 36, 1 (2013), 96--116.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Wang, L. Chen, and I. Solheim. 2017. A conceptual system architecture for motivation- enhanced learning for students with dyslexia. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-education, E-business and E-technology. 13--19. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. J. Larsen, A. M. Sørebø, and Ø. Sørebø, 2009. The role of task-technology fit as users’ motivation to continue information system use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25, 3 (2009), 778--784. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Martins, T. Oliveira, and A. Popovič. 2014. Understanding the Internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 34 (2014), 1--13. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Moon and Y. Kim. 2001. Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Inf. Manag. 38, 4 (2001), 217--230. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Venkatesh. 2000. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11 (2000), 342--365. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Lee, J. Lee, and Y. Hwang. 2015. Relating motivation to information and communication technology acceptance: Self-determination theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51 (2015), 418--428. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. A. Mills, G. A. Knezek, and J. S. Wakefield. 2013. Understanding information seeking behavior in technology pervasive learning environments of the 21st century. Turk. Onl. J. Educ. Technol. 12, 4 (2013), 200--208.Google Scholar
- G. S. Leng, S. Lada, and M. Z. Muhammad. 2011. An exploration of social networking sites (SNS) adoption in malaysia using technology acceptance model (TAM), theory of planned behavior (TPB) and intrinsic motivation. J. Internet Bank. Commer. 16, 2 (2011).Google Scholar
- M. Standage, J. L. Duda, and N. Ntoumanis. 2003. A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. J. Educ. Psychol 95, 1 (2003), 97--110.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. B. Ullman. 2001. Structural equation modeling. In Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.), B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell (Eds.). Allyn 8 Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, 653--771.Google Scholar
- J. B. Schreiber, F. K. Stage, J. King, A. Nora, and E. A. Barlow. 2006. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research 99, 6 (2006), 323--338.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. F. Hair Jr., L. M. Matthews, R. L. Matthews, and M. Sarstedt. 2017. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 1, 2 (2017), 107--123.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. J. Reinartz, M. Haenlein, and J. Henseler. 2009. An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Int. J. Mark. Res. 26, 4 (2009), 332--344.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. L. Arbuckle. 2013. Amos (Version 22.0). IBM SPSS, Chicago.Google Scholar
- C. M. Ringle, S. Wende, and J.-M. Becker. 2015. SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS, Bönningstedt.Google Scholar
- D. L. Goodhue, W. Lewis, and R. Thompson. 2012. Does PLS have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data?. MIS Quart. 36, 3 (2012), 981--1001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. W. Marsh, J. R. Balla, and R. P. McDonald. 1988. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychol. Bull. 103, 3 (1988), 391--410.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2012. Partial least squares: The better approach to structural equation modeling? Long Range Plann. 45, 5--6, (2012), 312--319.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. F. Hair Jr, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 1 (1981), 39--50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Kock. 2015. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 11, 4 (2015), 1--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. K. Chellappa and P. A. Pavlou. 2002. Perceived information security, financial liability and consumer trust in electronic commerce transactions. Logist. Inf. Manag. 15, 5/6, (2002), 358--368.Google Scholar
- M. A. Patton and A. Jøsang. 2004. Technologies for trust in electronic commerce. Electron. Commer. Res 4, 1--2, (2004), 9--21. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H.-L. Chou and C.-H. Chen. 2016. Beyond identifying privacy issues in e-learning settings—Implications for instructional designers. Comput. Educ 103, C, (2016), 124--133. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Terzis, C. N. Moridis, and A. A. Economides. 2012. How student's personality traits affect computer based assessment acceptance: Integrating BFI with CBAAM. Comput. Hum. Behav 28, 5 (2012), 1985--1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Wheaton, B. Muthén, D. F. Alwin, and G. F. Summers. 1977. Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociol. Methodol. 8 (1977), 84--136.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. M. Byrne. 2006. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
- I. Hu and P. M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 6, 1 (1999), 1--55.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics. 2009. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing), Vol. 20. 277--319.Google Scholar
- J. F. Hair Jr., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2013. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plann. 46, 1--2 (2013) 1--12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Stone. 1974. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. R. Stat. Soc. 36, 2 (1974), 111--147.Google Scholar
- S. Geisser. 1974. A predictive approach to the random effects model. Biometrika 61, 1 (1974), 101--107.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. K. Wong. 2013. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using smartPLS. Mark. Bull. 24 (2013).Google Scholar
- W. W. Chin. 1998. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research, G. A. Macoulides (Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 295--336.Google Scholar
- J. Cohen. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
- X. Zhao, J. G. Lynch Jr., and Q. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 37, 2 (2010), 197--206.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. A. Nikou and A. A. Economides. 2017. Mobile-based assessment: Integrating acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of self-determination theory and technology acceptance. Comput. Educ. 109, C (2017), 56--73. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Fetscherin and C. Lattemann. 2008. User acceptance of virtual worlds. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 9, 3 (2008), 231--242.Google Scholar
- J. Merikivi. 2009. What Habbo goers do in practice? Decomposing attitudinal beliefs. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
- S. A. Eroglu, K. A. Machleit, and L. M. Davis. 2001. Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: A conceptual model and implications. J. Bus. Res. 54, 2 (2001), 177--184.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Zhao, J. Ye, and T. Henderson. 2016. The effect of privacy concerns on privacy recommenders. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 218--227. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Liaw. 2008. Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. 51 (2008), 864--873. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. R. Plouffe, J. Hulland, and M. Vandenbosch. 2001. Research report: Richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decisions—understanding merchant adoption of a smart card-based payment system. Inf. Syst. Res. 12, 2 (2001), 208--222. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. C. Roca and M. Gagne. 2008. Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24 (2008), 1585--1604. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Malhotra, D. Galletta, and L. Kirsch. 2008. How endogenous motivations influence user intentions: Beyond the dichotomy of extrinsic and intrinsic user motivations. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 25, 1 (2008), 267--300. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Stienen-Durand and J. George. 2014. Supporting dyslexia in the programming classroom. In DSAI 2013, Procedia - Procedia Computer Science 27 (2014), 419--430.Google Scholar
- R. A. Taj and M. A. Malik. 2010. Conclusive study to uncover the attributors for success and failure of learning disabled children. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 16, 4 (2010), 590--592.Google Scholar
- R. M. Klassen and S. L. Lynch. 2007. Self-efficacy from the perspective of adolescents with LD and their specialist teachers. J. Learn. Disabil. 40, 7 (2007), 494--507.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Alexander‐Passe. 2008. The sources and manifestations of stress amongst school‐aged dyslexics, compared with sibling controls. Dyslexia 14, 4 (2008), 291--313.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Mweli. 2012. Exploring learners’ experiences of inclusive education: The voice of the voiceless. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544051.Google Scholar
- N. Humphrey. 2002. Self-concept and self-esteem in developmental dyslexia. Brit. J. Spec. Educ. 29, 1 (2002), 29--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. P. Woodfine, M. Baptista Nunes, and D. J. Wright. 2008. Text-based synchronous e-learning and dyslexia: Not necessarily the perfect match! Comput. Educ. 50 (2008), 703--717. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Goldstein. 2003. Multilevel Statistical Models (3rd ed). Hodder Arnold, London.Google Scholar
- M. Goudas and S. J. H. Biddle. 1994. Perceived motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in school physical education classes. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 9, 3 (1994), 241--250.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Athanasios. 1994. Development of a questionnaire to measure achievement orientations in physical education. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 65, 1 (1994), 11--20.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. C. Treasure and G. C. Roberts. 2001. Students’ perceptions of the motivational climate, achievement beliefs and satisfaction in physical education. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 72, 2 (2001), 165--175.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. L. Oliver. 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 17, 4 (1980), 460.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Modeling Dyslexic Students’ Motivation for Enhanced Learning in E-learning Systems
Recommendations
Conceptual Motivation Modeling for Students with Dyslexia for Enhanced Assistive Learning
SmartLearn '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Workshop on Intelligent Interfaces for Ubiquitous and Smart LearningStudents with dyslexia often suffer from the lack of academic self-worth and frustration that can even lead to learned helplessness. However, few studies have investigated the impact of incorporating users' motivational factors into user modeling to ...
An approach to development of personalized e-learning environment for dyslexic pupils' acquisition of reading competence
CompSysTech '09: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies and Workshop for PhD Students in ComputingThe dyslexic pupils have specific learning difficulties in acquiring of basic competences in reading and writing. Their education is successful, if it is personalized and individual. It can be achieved by development of personalized e-learning ...
Dyslexic students in higher education and virtual learning environments: an exploratory study
This paper presents the results of an interview-based study of the use of virtual learning environments (VLEs) among dyslexic students. Interviews were carried out with 12 informants who had been formally diagnosed as dyslexic. The informants were ...
Comments