foreign language learning difficulties: an historical ... · foreign language learning...

Foreign Language LearningDifficulties: An HistoricalPerspectiveLeonore Ganschow, Richard L. Sparks, and James Javorsky

Abstract

For 10 years, the authors of this article have examined cognitive, affective, and linguistic influences on foreign language learning.They have proposed the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (LCDH) as a model for understanding foreign language learningproblems. The authors review their empirical support for the LCDH and explain the diagnostic, pedagogical, and policy implicationsof their research.

I n a global economy and increas-ingly multilingual society, the ac-quisition of a foreign language

(FL) has emerged as one of the majorgoals for children of the next century(Agresto, 1985). Public schools anduniversities often require their stu-dents to demonstrate this competencyin FL coursework prior to graduation(Ganschow, Myer, & Roeger, 1989;Ganschow & Sparks, 1987). However,this requirement is difficult for manystudents of average to above-averageability who do not perform well in FLcourses (Freed, 1987). Numerous ex-planations have been proposed anddebated concerning w hy some stu-dents who do well in other courses(e.g., mathematics, science, social stud-ies) do not perform well in or fail FLcourses.

In the 1960s Paul Pimsleur and hiscolleagues (Pimsleur, 1968; Pimsleur,Sundland, & Mclntyre, 1964; ) stud-ied FL "underachievers," or studentswho performed less well in FL coursesthan in their other courses. They pro-posed that a factor called "auditoryability" (the ability to deal with soundsand sound-symbol learning) was of-ten responsible for differences in FLlearning that could not be explainedby low motivation or intelligence.

Dinklage (1971) documented cases ofcollege students at Harvard who ob-tained overall GPAs of 3.5 or higherin their coursework yet failed in theirattempts at fulfilling the FL require-ment. He noted that these studentshad tried to perform well in their FLcourses and thus their learning diffi-culties were not due to lack of moti-vation or poor attitude. Dinklagesuggested that many of the studentsseemed to have learning difficultiessimilar to dyslexia; that is, the stu-dents exhibited histories of difficul-ties with learning to read and spell,letter/symbol reversals, sound confu-sions, discrimination of sounds andsyllables in the FL, and verbal memory.In 1986 we presented detailed casestudies of college students who expe-rienced FL learning difficulties (Gan-schow & Sparks, 1986). We proposedthat students' FL learning difficultieswere related to their problems withnative language learning (e.g., prob-lems with reading, spelling, writing,oral language). Others also have de-scribed the native language learningproblems of students with FL learn-ing problems (see Cohen, 1983; Fisher,1986; Lefebvre, 1984; Levine, 1987;Pompian, 1986; Pompian & Thum,1988).

In the 1980s, with our backgroundas special educators, we began a lineof research on the etiology of these FLlearning difficulties, focusing on cog-nitive, affective, and linguistic do-mains. In our studies we have foundthat students with and without FLlearning problems do not exhibit sig-nificant differences in intelligence (IQ;see, e.g., Ganschow & Sparks, 1995;Ganschow, et al., 1994; Ganschow,Sparks, Javorsky, Pohlman, & Bishop-Marbury, 1991). In the affective do-main, our research suggests that poorattitude and lack of motivation are aresult of difficulties with language,rather than a cause of FL learrung prob-lems. We argue that one's level of lan-guage skill and aptitude for learninga foreign language should be consid-ered when examining the role of af-fect in FL learning (Sparks & Gan-schow, 1995a). Au (1988) supportedthis view in his admonition to the FLfield that failure to control for students'language skills in studies involvingFL learning and affect was a "seriousmethodological weakness" (p. 91).

A major premise underlying ourwork is our hypothesis that the pri-mary causal factors in successful orunsuccessful FL learning are linguis-tic; that is, students who exhibit FL

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIESVOLUME 31, NUMBER 3, MAY/JUNE 1998, PAGES 248-258

VOLUME 31, NUMBER 3, MAY/JUNE 1998 249

learning problems have overt or subtlenative language learning differencesthat affect their learning of a foreignlanguage. In our Linguistic CodingDifferences Hypothesis (LCDH) wepresent our position that languageskills influence the acquisition of, andplay a critical role in, FL learning(Sparks & Ganschow, 1991; Sparks,Ganschow, & Pohlman, 1989). Thepurpose of this article was to review adecade of research we and our col-leagues have conducted on the LCDH.To assist the reader in understandingsome of the terminology we use herein,we have provided abbreviated defini-tions of key terms in the Appendix.We begin by describing our LCDH andreviewing research supporting the roleof linguistic variables in FL learningproblems. We then examine teachingmethodologies and describe researchwe have conducted supporting a di-rect instructional approach that em-phasizes the phonological/orthograhicand grammatical rules of the FL. Weconclude our article with the diagnos-tic, pedagogical, and policy implica-tions of this research.

The Linguistic CodingDifferences Hypothesis

In 1989 Sparks and Ganschow in-troduced the Linguistic Coding Dif-ferences Hypothesis into the learningdisabilities (LD) literature (Sparks etal., 1989) and in 1991 into the FL lit-erature (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991; seeNote) The LCDH is derived from na-tive language research, especially thework of Vellutino and Scanlon (1986),who found that poor readers and writ-ers had problems primarily with thestructural (phonological/orthographicand syntactic) but not meaning (se-mantic) aspects of language. Poor read-ers have been found to have particulardifficulty with the phonological/orthographic, or sound and symbol,"code" of language (see Bradley &Bryant, 1985; Stanovich, 1988; Wagner& Torgesen, 1987). Initially, our inter-est was in describing difficulties that

students with learning disabilities havewith learning a foreign language.However, as we began to find thatlarge numbers of students without LDexhibited FL learning difficulties (seeGanschow & Sparks, 1995, 1996;Ganschow et al., 1994; Ganschowet al., 1991; Sparks & Ganschow, 1993a,1993b, 1993c, 1996; Sparks, Ganschow,Javorsky, Pohlman, & Patton, 1992a,1992b), we changed our original termfrom deficits to differences. The changewas meant to reflect the notion of acontinuum of difficulties with FLlearning that ranges from mild to se-vere.

In the LCDH we proposed that skillsin the native language components—phonological / orthographic, syntactic,and semantic—provide the basic foun-dation for FL learning. Both Carroll(1973) and Skehan (1986) asserted thatbasic language aptitude is a "residue"of first language skill. Spolsky (1989)included intact language skills (e.g.,phonology/orthography, grammar) as"necessary" for learning a foreignlanguage in his model of languagelearning. We speculated that both na-tive and FL learning depend on basiclanguage mechanisms and that prob-lems with one language skill (e.g.,phonology/orthography) are likelyto have a negative effect on both thenative language and the FL system.Thus, the focus of the LCDH is onlanguage variables in FL learning be-cause FL learning is the learning oflanguage. Furthermore, we speculatedthat the majority of FL underachiev-ers have the most difficulty with thephonological/orthographic aspects ofFL learning.

Research on NativeLanguage Skill and Foreign

Language Aptitude inForeign Language Learning

Since the publication of our 1991article on the LCDH, we and our col-leagues have conducted a number ofempirical studies on various facetsof FL learning among good and poor

FL learners. Results of our researchhave provided strong support for theLCDH, in that good FL learners havebeen found to exhibit significantlystronger native oral and written lan-guage skills and FL aptitude (as mea-sured by the Modern Language Apti-tude Test or MLAT; Carroll & Sapon,1959) than poor FL learners. Thesedifferences have been demonstratedat both the secondary and the post-secondary level of education. All ofthe studies have used native languageskill and FL aptitude measures tostudy differences in the language skillsof good and poor FL learners. Someof our studies have also used affec-tive measures (e.g., anxiety) to explorethe relationship between languageskills and affect. In this article webriefly review findings from studiesexamining (a) native language skill andFL aptitude differences; (b) FL grades;(c) students' self-perceptions, teach-ers' perceptions, and parents' per-ceptions of FL learning; (d) anxietyand FL learning; (e) FL proficiency;and (f) factor analyses.

Native Language Skill andForeign Language AptitudeDifferences

In one study, Ganschow et al. (1991)administered measures of native lan-guage skill (e.g., reading, spelling,vocabulary, writing) and FL aptitude(the MLAT) to 15 postsecondary stu-dents who had successfully passedcollege FL courses with a grade of Aor B and 15 students who received apetition to waive or substitute the FLrequirement. Results showed thatsuccessful FL learners exhibited sig-nificantly stronger native languageskills on measures of phonological/orthographic processing (but not se-mantics) and greater FL aptitude thanunsuccessful FL learners.

In another study. Sparks et al.(1992a) administered a similar batteryof native language and FL aptitude mea-sures to first-year FL learners in highschool. Students were divided intogroups based on their first-quarter

250 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

FL grade (i.e., 36 low-risk learnersachieved A or B, 29 high-risk learn-ers achieved D or F) and their FL teach-ers' recommendation. Results showedthat the low-risk FL learners exhibitedsignificantly stronger phonological/orthographic and syntactic, but notsemantic, skills and greater FL apti-tude than did the high-risk FL learn-ers. In a related study (Sparks et al.,1992b), a group of 15 students diag-nosed as LD who were enrolled in first-year FL classes were compared to thelow- and high-risk learners on the sametesting measures. Results showed thatthe low-risk FL learners exhibitedsignificantly stronger phonological/orthographic and syntactic, but not se-mantic, skills and greater FL aptitudethan the low-risk FL learners. No sig-nificant differences were found onmost native language and FL aptitudemeasures between the high-risk andLD groups; only a measure of spell-ing differentiated the two groups. Wespeculated that high-risk, non-LD FLlearners and students diagnosed as LDand enrolled in FL classes exhibit simi-lar language and FL aptitude difficul-ties.

FL educator Humes-Bartlo (1989)found that poor FL learners show milddeficits in their native language skillswhen compared to good FL learners.Skehan (1986) also reported that chil-dren who "make more rapid progressin their first language tend to do bet-ter in foreign language learning atschool" (p. 196). Service (1992) foundthat phonological/orthographic tasksand the ability to compare syntactic-semantic structures predict skill insecond language learning.

Foreign Language Grades

An examination of the FL grades ofgood and poor FL learners in relationto their native language skills and FLaptitude has also provided support forthe LCDH. A recently published studyby Sparks and Ganschow (1996)showed significant differences on mea-sures of native language skill and FLaptitude among 154 students who

achieved final grades of A, B, C, andD/F in first-year, high school foreignlanguage courses (i.e., students whoachieved A's scored higher on thosemeasures than students who achievedB's, B's scored higher than C's, etc.).Other studies we have conducted haveconsistently shown that students whoachieve higher FL grades have signifi-cantly stronger native language andFL aptitude skills than students whoachieve lower FL grades (Ganschow& Sparks, 1996; Ganschow, et al.,1994; Ganschow et al., 1991; Sparks &Ganschow, 1995b).

Two related studies involved de-terminating the best predictors ofFL grades in first-year high school FLcourses (Sparks, Ganschow, & Patton,1995). There were 154 women in onestudy and 100 co-ed learners in theother study. In both, students' eighth-grade English grade and their scoreon an FL aptitude measure (the MLAT)were the best predictors; native lan-guage spelling was also a significantpredictor of FL grade in one experi-ment. We speculated that the presenceof these variables in the predictionmodels provided support for theLCDH because both English class andthe MLAT require a student to use orallanguage skills (listening and speak-ing) and written language skills (read-ing and writing) for classroom success.Also, the appearance of native lan-guage spelling as a predictor variablein one model suggested the impor-tance of phonological/orthographicskill for FL learning.

Students', Teachers', andParents' Perceptions ofFL Learning

Several investigations have beenconducted on students' self-perceptionsabout their FL learning, teachers' per-ceptions about their students' FL learn-ing skills and affective characteristics,and parents'perceptions about theirchild's language learning skills. All ofthe studies support our contention thatbasic native language skills and FLaptitude are important for success in

FL learning. In one study, for example,we designed a self-report instrumentto measure college students' percep-tions about learning a foreign languageand administered it to 60 students withLD and 144 students without LD whowere enrolled in FL courses Qavorsky,Sparks, & Ganschow, 1992). We foundthat both groups reported equal moti-vation to learn a foreign language;however, the students diagnosed asLD perceived themselves as less capa-ble and possessing fewer skills to mas-ter the oral and written language re-quirements and content of FL courses.These students also reported them-selves as being more anxious whentaking tests in and studying for theFL. We concluded that the students'self-reports reflected their weakernative language skills.

In a study of 373 college students(Ganschow & Sparks, 1991), we useda self-report screening instrument de-signed to examine potential linksbetween native and FL learning toidentify students who were at risk forFL learning problems. The instrumentasked questions about students' his-tories of native language learning (e.g.,reading, spelling, language develop-ment), and the results showed thatquestions relating to native languagegrammar, spelling, writing, and read-ing were the best discriminators ofstudents at risk for FL learning diffi-culties.

In a study of 79 high school stu-dents (Sparks, Ganschow, & Javorsky,1993), we used the same self-reportquestionnaire but modified the in-strument for secondary-level FLlearners. Here, we compared the self-perceptions of low- and high-risk stu-dents and students diagnosed as LDenrolled in first-year FL courses re-garding their academic skills and atti-tudes toward FL learning. Resultsindicated that the low-risk studentsreported significantly higher estimatedFL grades and expressed more posi-tive attitudes about their languagelearning skills than the high-risk andLD groups. The high-risk studentsand students diagnosed as LD perceived


themselves as lacking the academicskills to master a foreign language.All three groups, however, expressedequally positive attitudes about want-ing to learn a foreign language. Wespeculated that the less positive per-ceptions of the high-risk and LDgroups were the result of their signifi-cantly weaker native language skillsand FL aptitude.

In another study of high school stu-dents, the relationship between FLteachers' perceptions of 168 students'FL academic skills (i.e., listening,speaking, reading, writing) and affec-tive qualities (i.e., motivation, attitude,anxiety) and their performance onmeasures of native language skill andFL aptitude was examined (Sparks &Ganschow, 1996). Students were di-vided into high, average, and lowgroups on the basis of their scores oneach of the native language and FLaptitude tests. Teachers' perceptionswere compared by group. Resultsshowed that teachers perceived stu-dents who scored lower on the testingmeasures as having weaker FL aca-demic skills and less positive affec-tive characteristics (i.e., higher anxiety,lower motivation, less positive atti-tude) than students with stronger na-tive language skills and FL aptitude.

In a study on parent perceptions oftheir child's language ability. Sparksand Ganschow (1995b) used an author-designed self-report instrument to askparents about their child's history ofnative language learning. All of the79 students, who were enrolled in first-year high school FL courses, wereadministered a battery of native lan-guage skill and cognitive measures andan FL aptitude test. Students weredifferentiated into low-risk, average-risk, and high-risk groups on the basisof scores on the parent questionnaire,and we looked for group differenceson the test battery. Results showedoverall significant group differencesfavoring the low- and average-riskgroups over the high-risk group onall but one of the native language, FLaptitude, and cognitive measures.

These studies provided empirical

support for our speculations that af-fective differences are the result ratherthan the cause of FL learning prob-lems, and that language aptitude dif-ferences account for differences in FLlearning (Sparks, 1995a; Sparks &Ganschow, 1991, 1993c, 1995a).

Anxiety and ForeignLanguage Learning

Ganschow et al. (1994) investigatedthe relationship between FL aptitudeand native language skills and anx-iety among 36 low-, moderate-, andhigh-anxious college FL learnersgrouped by scores on the Foreign Lan-guage Classroom Anxiety Scale (Hor-witz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). Sig-nificant group differences by anxietylevel were found on measures of nativelanguage phonology/orthography,overall reading, oral language, and FLaptitude. No differences were foundamong the three groups on native lan-guage semantic and short-term ver-bal memory measures. We replicatedthese results in a study with a largergroup (N = 154) of postsecondary stu-dents (Ganschow & Sparks, 1996). Ina recent study. Sparks, Ganschow,Artzer, Siebenhar, & Plageman (1997)found that students with lower levelsof anxiety about FL learning, strongernative language skills, and greater FLaptitude scored significantly higher onmeasures of FL proficiency than stu-dents with higher levels of anxietyabout FL learning, lower native lan-guage skills, and less FL aptitude.

Foreign Language Proficiency

We have also conducted studies onoral and written proficiency, which isdefined by the American Council onthe Teaching of Foreign Languages(ACTFL) as "what an individual canand cannot do [with an FL], regardlessof where, when, or how the languagehas been learned or acquired" (ACTFL,1989). In one study with two experi-ments. Sparks, Ganschow, Artzer,Siebenhar, et al. (1997) examined theextent to which there would be differ-

ences in native language skill and FLaptitude among two groups of highschool students (n = 60, n = 36) whowere completing their second yearof FL study. In both experiments thestudents were divided into high-,average-, and low-proficiency groupsaccording to their scores on oral (lis-tening, speaking) and written (read-ing, writing) FL proficiency measuresdesigned according to ACTFL guide-lines and administered/scored bytrained evaluators. The results of bothstudies showed overall differencesamong the three proficiency groupson the native language and FL apti-tude measures. The majority of groupdifferences were between high- andlow-proficiency FL learners. The re-sults of the studies were supportiveof the LCDH, in that native languageskill and FL aptitude differences werefound among students who exhibiteddifferent levels of oral and writtenproficiency in a foreign language.

In a related study. Sparks, Gan-schow, Patton, et al. (1997) examinedbest predictors of overall oral andwritten proficiency in a foreign lan-guage among the above two groupsof high school students who were com-pleting their second year of an FLcourse. The best predictors of overall(oral and written) FL proficiency inboth experiments were end-of-first-year FL grade and FL word recogni-tion, a phonological/orthographicmeasure. The results of these studiesreinforced the notion that basic lan-guage skills serve as the foundationfor FL learning. Support from the FLfield came from Olshtain, Shohamy,Kemp, and Chatow's (1990) findingthat academic proficiency in students'first language plays the most impor-tant role in predicting success in FLlearning in the classroom. Koda (1992)reported that lower level verbal pro-cessing skills (i.e., word recognition)are important for FL proficiency.

Factor Analyses

Three factor analysis studies alsolend support to the LCDH. One study


was conducted with a high schoolpopulation of 80 high- and low-riskFL learners and students with identi-fied LD (Ganschow, Sparks, Patton, &Javorsky, 1992). Results of the factoranalysis of a battery of native languagemeasures and an FL aptitude test in-dicated three factors, which the au-thors labeled Phonology/Syntax, FLAptitude, and Cognition/Semantics.

In a second study (Sparks, et al.,1995), factor analyses were conductedon two high school populations, onea class of 154 ninth- and tenth-gradefemales and the other a co-ed popula-tion of 100 ninth graders who had beenadministered a battery of native lan-guage measures and an FL aptitudetest designed to predict FL grade.Again, a three-factor solution emerged.The factor solutions were similar tothose in the aforementioned analysis,though we replaced the Phonology/Syntax factor label with a factor wecalled Phonology/Orthography. Inthis second study, knowledge of spell-ing rules emerged as an importantfactor, and the study did not includemeasures of syntax. Here all three fac-tors contributed significantly to thevariance in FL grade.

In a recently completed study.Sparks and Ganschow (in press) con-ducted a factor analysis of a test bat-tery administered to 96 students anddesigned to predict oral and writtenFL proficiency. A three-factor solutionemerged from the analysis: Language/Memory, Phonological Recoding, andSpelling/Word Recognition. The Lan-guage/Memory and PhonologicalRecoding factors accounted for thelargest part of the variance in FL pro-ficiency, and only these two factorscontributed significantly to the vari-ance in overall FL proficiency. Theauthors hypothesized that the Lan-guage/Memory component in theirstudy was similar to the Meaning andCognition/Semantics factors in theirtwo previous studies and that thePhonological Recoding and Spelling/Word Recognition (a factor composedof only native language phonological/orthographic measures) factors in this

study were similar to the Phonology/Syntax and Phonology/Orthographyfactors in their two previous studies.Although the Phonological Recodingfactor was represented by measuresof phonology/orthography, thesemeasures comprised tasks to whichthe students had infrequent exposure(i.e., low-frequency words, unfamil-iar words, pseudowords, FL words).

The results of the three-factoranalyses suggest that all componentsof language, including phonology/orthography—a "lower level" lan-guage skill—are important for bothoral and written FL proficiency.

Research on TeachingMethods

In the 1990s we conducted a seriesof studies on instructional methodsthat might be successful for at-risk FLlearners. In light of our hypothesisthat these students have particulardifficulties with the phonological/orthographic and syntactic codes oflanguage, we turned to a teachingmethodology that has been found tobe successful in working with studentswho have native language learningdifficulties in these areas, the Orton-Gillingham method for teaching read-ing and spelling (Gillingham &Stillman, 1960). Initially we located twoFL teachers at private high schoolswho had learned the method inEnglish and adapted it for teachingSpanish to their students with iden-tified language problems. The Orton-Gillingham method emphasizes"cracking" the language code via astructured, multisensory approach inwhich the students simultaneouslyhear, see, and write sounds/symbolsand are directly taught rules for wordendings, word order, subject-verbagreement, and declensions. The teach-ing of these principles involves care-ful sequencing of materials, con-trolled pacing, board drills, flash cards,and integration of reading, spelling, andwriting. (For a detailed description ofthe approach, see Ganschow, Sparks,

& Schneider, 1995; Myer, Ganschow,Sparks, & Kenneweg, 1989; and Sparks,Ganschow, Kenneweg, & Miller, 1991.)

To date, we have conducted a seriesof pilot studies to test the efficacy ofthe Orton-Gillingham approach. Find-ings of four studies (including repli-cation and cohort designs) indicate thatdirect teaching of the sound andsound-symbol system of the FL sig-nificantly improves both the FL apti-tude (on the MLAT) and the nativelanguage sound and sound-symbolperformance of at-risk FL learners(Ganschow & Sparks, 1995; Sparks &Ganschow, 1993b; Sparks, Ganschow,Artzer, & Patton, 1997; Sparks,Ganschow, Pohlman, Artzer, & Skin-ner, 1992). The results of a recentlycompleted longitudinal study (Sparks,Artzer, et al., 1998) showed that thismethodology is effective in helping at-risk learners become as proficient asnot-at-risk FL learners in reading,writing, spelling, and listening to aforeign language after 2 years of study.

Related support has been generatedfor the potential of the approach to beeffective in languages other than Span-ish. One study on Latin (Sparks, Gan-schow, Fluharty, & Little, 1996) dem-onstrated that students diagnosed asLD made significant progress in bothFL aptitude (on the MLAT) and thenative language sound-symbol systemwhen taught the Latin sound-symbolsystem. Schneider (1997) adapted theOrton/Gillingham methodology intoGerman and developed materials toteach phonology/orthography, gram-matical rules, and morphological prin-ciples. Her pilot study with severalat-risk students of German suggestedthat the approach holds promise inthat language, as well.

Implications

A number of implications for FLteaching and learning can be drawnfrom this research. We discuss impli-cations of our work in three areas:diagnosis of FL learning problems, FLinstruction for students with FL learn-


ing problems, and school policies forstudents with FL learning problems.

Diagnosis ofFL LearningProblems

Sparks and colleagues have recom-mended that diagnosticians use acomprehensive evaluation procedurefor the assessment of students withFL learning problems (Ganschow &Sparks, 1993; Sparks, 1995b; Sparks& Ganschow, 1993d; Sparks, Ganschow,& Javorsky, 1992). This procedure in-volves four components: (a) a reviewof the student's developmental history;(b) a review of his or her academic(native language) learning history;(c) a review of the student's FL learn-ing history; and (d) administration ofstandardized measures of native lan-guage skill (i.e., reading, phonological/orthographic processing, grammar,spelling, writing, vocabulary, orallanguage) and FL aptitude (i.e., theMLAT). In the evaluation process, di-agnosticians should focus primarily ondetermining whether a student has adocumented history of, and current,difficulty with native language learn-ing as well as a verifiable record offailure in, or inordinate struggle with,FL courses. Test results should revealovert or subtle difficulties with nativelanguage learning in the phonological/orthographic, syntactic, and/or seman-tic components and low FL aptitude onthe MLAT. Students' records shouldindicate grades in previous FL coursesthat were well below average or fail-ing (i.e., D's and F's).

Some colleges and universities havepermitted students to substitute othercourses for (or, in a few cases, waive)the FL requirement because theywere diagnosed as LD. However, inour study of one institution (Sparks,Philips, & Ganschow, 1996), we foundthat slighly less than half of the peti-tioning students met the minimumcriteria for the diagnosis of LD. Werecommend that neither the diagno-sis of a learning disability nor FLcourse failure alone should be the sinequa non for waiver or substitution of

the FL requirement if the universitypermits these options. We also rec-ommend that a student's score on theMLAT, an FL aptitude test, should notbe used as the sole criterion in deter-mining whether he or she should en-roll in or withdraw from an FL course.In addition, we do not recommendusing a discrepancy between astudent's IQ and his or her score onthe MLAT as either the basis for adiagnosis of LD or an indicator ofa student's inability to learn a foreignlanguage. Such a procedure is psy-chometrically and theoretically un-sound because both the MLAT andIQ tests are aptitude tests.

If university policy allows studentsto apply for a substitution or waiverof the FL requirement, we recommendthat they present a verifiable historyof native language and FL learningdifficulties. Unverifiable data (self-reports of learning difficulties with-out other substantiated data) shouldnot be used as the basis for recommend-ing FL course substitutions or waiv-ers (or for the diagnosis of LD). If theuniversity has a waiver/substitutionpolicy, we suggest that petitioning stu-dents present to the university a veri-fiable record of recent testing by aqualified diagnostician. We also rec-ommend that universities and theirservice providers insist that petition-ing students meet currently acceptedcriteria for the diagnosis of LD. Webelieve that a record of withdrawal(s)from FL courses should not be thedetermining factor as to whether ornot a student continues in FL courses.Instead, we suggest that a studenthaving difficulty with FL learning tryto remain in the FL course. The stu-dent should be candid with the FLinstructor about his or her need forextra assistance (and describe the kindsof problems she or he is having), takeadvantage of in-class accommodations,and seek help from qualified tutorslong before considering a course sub-stitution or waiver (if this option ismade available). Rather than droppingout and trying first one and then an-other FL, the student should consider

retaking the same language he or shehad in high school and starting againin college with the first semester ofthat language.

Teaching a Foreign Language toStudents with FL LearningProblems

Stern (1983) reported that untilrecent years, direct teaching of thephonological/orthographic (sound-symbol) and grammatical rule systemsof an FL was an integral componentof most FL teaching methodologies.In the last decade, however, most FLeducators have advocated teaching aforeign language through "naturalcommunication" approaches to learn-ing, which emphasize the contextualand meaning aspects of FL learningand deemphasize the teaching of thesound, sound-symbol, and grammati-cal rule systems (Omaggio, 1986).Sparks et al. (1995) have observed thatnatural communication approaches toFL teaching are similar to whole lan-guage approaches to teaching read-ing and writing in native languageeducation (see, e.g., Goodman, 1986).However, research evidence has failedto demonstrate that whole languageapproaches to literacy are more effec-tive than other approaches to the teach-ing of reading and writing; further-more, the basic tenets of whole languagemethods of teaching reading (e.g., stu-dents learn to read "naturally," in thesame way that they learn to speak)have been found to be demonstrablyfalse (Adams & Bruck, 1993; Foorman,1995; Liberman & Liberman, 1990;Stahl & Kuhn, 1995; Vellutino, 1991).Likewise, FL educators have not gen-erated evidence demonstrating thatnatural communication methodologiesare more effective in teaching the writ-ten and oral aspects of an FL than areother methodologies (e.g., the audio-lingual method). Rather, studies seemto indicate that for poor FL learners,direct teaching of the phonological/orthographic (and grammatical rule)system is essential.


School Policies for Studentswith FL Learning Problems

The FL requirement at the second-ary and postsecondary levels of edu-cation often poses difficulties forstudents with FL learning problems.At the postsecondary level, Ganschowet al. (1989) surveyed colleges anduniversities to determine their FL re-quirements. They found that 60% ofthe institutions required an FL in atleast one program, 75% had a formalor informal policy for substitution orwaiver of the requirement, and 80%required and 15% strongly encouragedthat the diagnosis of a handicap (e.g.,LD) precede any course substitution.

Sparks and his colleagues have rec-ommended to both FL and LD audi-ences that school policies include acontinuum of interventions to assiststudents with FL learning problems,and they have provided detaileddescriptions of such a continuum(Ganschow & Sparks, 1993; Ganschowet al., 1995; Sparks & Ganschow,1993d). One intervention on this con-tinuum is the use of in-class accom-modations, such as offering untimedtests, slowing the pace of verbal in-struction, and pairing oral languagein the FL with a visual example (e.g.,writing the FL words on an overhead).A related intervention is the use oftutorial support. Another interventionon the continuum is separate courseplacement with intensive focus on thestructure of the native language (seeDemuth & Smith, 1987) or the use ofspecialized techniques for teaching anFL (Hill, Downey, Sheppard, &Williamson, 1995; Sparks et al., 1991).In some cases, FL teachers could evalu-ate the student on his or her skill inlistening to and speaking, but not read-ing and writing (or vice versa), theFL, or make allowances for spelling.These accommodations and adjust-ments would allow the student withFL learning problems to take an FLcourse and, quite possibly, be success-ful in the endeavor. The most restric-tive intervention on the continuum issubstitution or waiver of the FL course

requirement. We recommend that ifsecondary and postsecondary institu-tions allow for waiver or substitutionof their FL requirement, they makeavailable clearly articulated policiesand procedures for the process bywhich a student petitions for the sub-stitution or waiver. (Ideas for consid-eration in formulating such policiescan be found in Freed, 1987; Ganschowet al., 1989; and Philips, Ganschow, &Anderson, 1991.)

Recent findings (Sparks, Philips,Ganschow, & Javorsky, 1998a) havesuggested that in terms of test scoreson cognitive and achievement mea-sures, there is virtually no differencebetween students who had difficul-ties learning an FL and yet pursuedand completed the college FL require-ment, and those who had difficultieslearning an FL and received petitionsto substitute the FL requirement. Otherfindings (Sparks, Philips, Ganschow,& Javorsky, 1998b) have shown thatstudents classified as LD who werepermitted to substitute courses for oneuniversity's' FL requirement did notdisplay statistically significant differ-ences on cognitive and achievementmeasures when grouped by level ofdiscrepancy between IQ and achieve-ment (i.e., < 1.0 SD, 1.0 to 1.49 SD,> 1.5 SD) . In the same study the stu-dents were divided into two groupsaccording to whether they had passedor not passed at least one college FLcourse and then compared on mea-sures of IQ, academic achievement,graduating GPA, FL aptitude, andSAT/AGT scores. Results of the com-parisons showed no significant differ-ences between students who hadpassed and those who had not passedat least one college FL course on anyof the aforementioned measures. Simi-lar results were obtained when thepetitioning students were divided intotwo groups (i.e., < 25th percentile, > 25thpercentile) on the basis of their scoreson the MLAT and phonological/orthographic measures (i.e., word rec-ognition, pseudoword reading, spell-ing). The authors speculated that, instudies of learners who exhibit FL

learning problems, students identifiedas LD and those who exhibit IQ-achievement discrepancies (and/or adiscrepancy between two achivementmeasures) may not perform signifi-cantly differently from non-LD stu-dents without IQ-achievement orachievement-achievement discrepan-cies. Rather, a key distinction betweenthose who do and do not pass an FLcourse may be the degree of persever-ance exhibited by those who suc-ceeded. We therefore encourage stu-dents who experience FL learningproblems to use the strategies de-scribed in this section. FL instructorscan make accommodations in orderto meet the needs of students whoexperience difficulties in their class-rooms. Conversations with an LD spe-cialist at the particular institutionwould be useful in helping the instruc-tor decide on appropriate accommo-dations, as would attention to thestudent's specific concerns. Sometimesa few minutes privately with a stu-dent can help the instructor determinewhat poses the most difficulty for himor her in the classroom, after whichthe instructor can assist the student inmaking the appropriate accommoda-tions. (For additional suggestions foraccommodations for teachers and in-stitutions, see, e.g., Bilyeu, 1982; Hillet al., 1995; Mase, 1989.)

Summary and FutureDirections

Over the past decade, with the helpof our colleagues, we have developedan empirically based theory that hasdiagnostic, pedagogical, and policyimplications for students with FLlearning difficulties. Empirical evi-dence has been generated to supportthe positions that FL learning perfor-mance is related to native languagelearning, that most poor FL learnershave overt or subtle problems withthe phonological/orthographic (andsyntactic) components of language,that affective differences are likely tobe a consequence of successful or un-


successful FL learning, and that di-rect and explicit instruction of the lan-guage codes holds promise for thesestudents. During a decade of research,we have built an empirical founda-tion to support our theoretical posi-tions as well as our diagnostic, instruc-tional, and policy recommendations.

A number of issues remain unre-solved. Questions such as the follow-ing need further exploration: (a) Aresome languages easier to learn forsome students than others? Can wematch a student with a specific for-eign language? (b) Most of ourstudies to date have investigated thephonological/orthographic system.What kinds of difficulties do poor FLlearners have with grammatical rulesystems, and what instructional meth-ods should be developed to assistthem? (c) How might instructors bestaddress the needs of students enrolledin FL classes who do not qualify forservices but nevertheless experiencecontinued learning problems in FLclassrooms? and (d) To what extentcan poor learners become proficientin an FL without the use of special-ized teaching methodologies and in-structional accommodations in FLcourses?

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Leonore Ganschow, EdD, is professor of spe-cial education in the Department of Educa-tional Psychology at Miami University, Oxford,Ohio, where she teachers courses in learningdisabilities and gifted education. Richard L.Sparks, EdD, is associate professor of educa-tion at the College of Mount St. Joseph inCincinnati, Ohio, where he teaches coursesin learning disabilities, reading, and diagnosticassessment. James Javorsky, MEd, is a doc-toral fellow at Purdue University, where he iscompleting a doctoral degree in special educa-tion, with a specialization in attention-deficit Ihyperactivity disorder. Address: Leonore Gan-schow, Department of Educational Psychol-ogy, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056.

AUTHORS' NOTE

The authors contributed equally in the prepa-ration of this manuscript.

NOTE

Several years ago, the authors changed the termdeficit to differences in order to highlight theidea that there are individual differences inbasic language skills, to clarify that languageperformance exists on a continuum, and toemphasize their hypothesis that there is not adistinct entity of a "foreign language learningdisability" (see Sparks & Ganschow, 1995a).

REFERENCES

Adams, M., & Bruck, M. (1993). Word rec-ognition: The interface of educationalpolicies and scientific research. Readingand Writing, 5, 113-139.

Agresto, J. (1985). In commemoration of the20th anniversary of the national endowmentfor the humanities. Unpublished manuscript.

American Council of the Teaching of For-eign Language. (1989). Proficiency guide-lines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.

Au, S. (1988). A critical appraisal of Gard-ner's social-psychological theory of sec-ond language (L2) learning. LanguageLearning, 38, 75-100.

Balmuth, M. (1992). The roots of phonics: Ahistorical introduction. Baltimore: YorkPress.

Bilyeu, E. E. (1982). Practice makes closer toperfect: Alternative techniques for teachingforeign languages to learning disabled stu-dents in the university. EUensburg, WA:Central Washington University.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme andreason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

Carroll, J. (1973). Implications of aptitudetest research and psycholinguistic theoryfor foreign language teaching. Interna-tional Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2, 5-14.

Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern lan-guage aptitude test (MLAT): Manual. SanAntonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

Cohen, J. (1983). Learning disabilities andthe college student: Identification and diag-nosis. In M. Sugar (Ed.), Adolescent psy-chiatry: Development and clinical studies(Vol. 2, pp. 177-179). San Diego: College-Hill.

Demuth, K., & Smith, N. (1987). The for-eign language requirement: An alterna-tive program. Foreign Language Annals,20, 67-77.

Dinklage, K. (1971). Inability to learn aforeign language. In G. Blaine & C.Me Arthur (Eds.), Emotional problems ofthe student (pp. 185-206). New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Fisher, E. (1986). Learning disability spe-cialist looks at foreign language learn-ing. Hilltop Spectrum, 4,1-3.

Foorman, B. (1995). Research on the "greatdebate": Code-oriented versus wholelanguage approaches to reading instruc-tion. School Psychology Review, 24, 376-392.

Freed, B. (1987). Exemptions from the for-eign language requirement: A review ofrecent literature, problems, and policy.ADFL Bulletin, 18, 13-17.

Ganschow, L., Myer, B., & Roeger, K.(1989). Foreign language policies andprocedures for students with specificlearning disabilities. Learning DisabilitiesFocus, 5, 50-58.

Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1986). Learn-ing disabilities and foreign language dif-ficulties: Deficit in listening skills?/ourna/of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabili-ties International, 2, 305-319.

Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1987). Theforeign language requirement. LearningDisabilities Focus, 2, 116-123.

Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R., (1991). Ascreening instrument for the identifi-cation of foreign language learningproblems. Foreign Language Annals, 24,383-397.

Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1993). "For-eign" language learning disabilities: Is-sues, research, and teaching implications.In S. A. Vogel & P. B. Adelman (Eds.),Success for college students with learningdisabilities (pp. 283-322). New York:Springer-Verlag.

Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1995). Effectsof direct instruction in Spanish phonol-ogy on the native language skills andforeign language aptitude of at-risk for-eign language learners. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 28, 107-120.

Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1996). For-eign language anxiety among high schoolwomen. Modem Language Journal, 80,199-212.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Anderson, R.,Javorsky, ]., Skinner, S., & Patton, J.(1994). Differences in anxiety and lan-guage performance among high- andlow-anxious college foreign languagelearners. Modern Language Journal, 78,41-55.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J.,Pohlman, J., & Bishop-Marbury, A.(1991). Identifying native language dif-ficulties among foreign language learn-ers in college: A "foreign" language


learning disability? Journal of LearningDisabilities, 24, 530-541.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Patton, J., &Javorsky, J. (1992). Factors relating tolearning a foreign language among highand low risk high school students andstudents with learning disabilities. Ap-plied Language Learning, 3, 37-63.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., & Schneider, E.(1995). Learning a foreign language:Challenges for students with languagelearning difficulties. Dyslexia, 1, 75-95.

Gillinghan:i, A., & Stillman, B. (1960). Re-medial training for children with specificdisabilities in reading, writing, and penman-ship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publish-ing.

Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in wholelanguage? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Henry, M. K. (1988). Beyond phonics: In-tegrated decoding and spelling instruc-tion based on word origin and structure.Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 258-275.

Hill, B., Downey, D. M., Sheppard, M., &Williamson, V. (1995). Accommodatingthe needs of students with severe lan-guage learning difficulties in modifiedforeign language classes. In G. K. Crouse(Ed.), Broadening the frontiers of foreignlanguage education (pp. 46-56). Lincoln-wood, IL: National Textbook Co.

Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986).Foreign language classroom anxiety.Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.

Humes-Bartlo, M. (1989). Variation inchildren's ability to learn second lan-guages. In K. Hyltenstom & L. Obler(Eds.), Bilingualism across the life span(pp. 41-54). Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Javorsky, J., Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L.(1992). Perceptions of college studentswith and without learning disabilitiesabout foreign language courses. Learn-ing Disabilities Research and Practice, 7,31-44.

Koda, K. (1992). The effects of lower-levelprocessing skills on foreign languagereading performance: Implications forinstruction. Modern Language Journal, 76,502-512.

Lefebvre, R. (1984). A psychological con-sultation program for learning disabledadults. Journal of College Student Person-nel, 25, 361-362.

Levine, M. D. (1987). Developmental varia-tion and learning disorders. Cambridge,MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Liberman, I., & Liberman, A. (1990). Wholelanguage vs. code emphasis: Underly-

ing assumptions and their implicationsfor reading instruction. Annals of Dys-lexia, 40, 51-76.

Mase, J. (1989). Teaching foreign languageto students with learning disabilities. InDebra L. Knapke (Ed.), Instructional issuesfor students with learning disabilities: Prepa-ration for education (pp. 8-11). Colum-bus: Ohio State University.

Myer, B., Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., &Kenneweg, S. (1989). Cracking the code:Helping students with specific learningdisabilities. In D. McAlpine (Ed.), Defin-ing the essentials for the foreign languageclassroom (pp. 112-120). Lincolnwood, IL:National Textbook Co.

Olshtain, E., Shohamy, E., Kemp, J., &Chatow, R. (1990). Factors predictingsuccess in EFL among culturally differ-ent learners. Language Learning, 40, 23-44.

Omaggio, A. (1986). Teaching language incontext: Proficiency-oriented instruction.Boston: Heinle.

Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Anderson, R.(1991). The college foreign language re-quirement: An action plan for alterna-tives. National Academic Advising Associa-tion Journal, 11(1), 51-56.

Pimsleur, P. (1968). Language aptitude test-ing. In A. Davis (Ed.), Language testingsymposium: A linguistic approach (pp. 98-106). London: Oxford University Press.

Pimsleur, P., Sundland, D., & Mclntyre, R.(1964). Underachievement in foreign lan-guage learning. International Review ofApplied Linguistics, 3, 43-50.

Pompian, N. (1986). Like a Volvo lifted offmy chest. The Undergraduate Bulletin(Dartmouth College), 3, 1-2.

Pompian, N., & Thum, C. (1988). Dyslexic/learning disabled students at DartmouthCollege. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 276-284.

Schneider, E. (1997). Multisensory structuredmetacognitive instruction: An approach toteaching a foreign language to at-risk col-lege students at an American college. Un-published manuscript.

Service, E. (1992). Phonology, workingmemory, and foreign language learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy, 45A, 21-50.

Skehan, P. (1986). The role of foreign lan-guage aptitude in a model of schoollearning. Language Testing, 3, 188-221.

Sparks, R. (1995a). Examining the Linguis-tic Coding Deficit Hypothesis to explainindividual differences in foreign lan-guage learning. Annals of Dyslexia, 45,187-214.

Sparks, R. (1995b). Foreign language learn-ing problems and the at-risk learner.Research and Teaching in DevelopmentalEducation, 12, 39-53.

Sparks, R., Artzer, M., Patton, J., Ganschow,L., Miller, K., Hordubay, D., & Walsh,G. (1998). Effects of multisensory structuredlanguage instruction in Spanish on the nativelanguage skills, foreign language aptitude,and foreign language proficiency of at-risklearners: A comparative study. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreignlanguage learning difficulties: Affectiveor native language aptitude differences?Modern Language Journal, 75, 3-16.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993a). Theimpact of native language learning prob-lems on foreign language learning: Casestudy illustrations of the linguistic cod-ing deficit hypothesis. Modern LanguageJournal, 77, 58-74.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993b). Theeffects of a multisensory structured lan-guage approach on the native languageand foreign language aptitude skills ofat-risk learners: A follow-up and repli-cation study. Annals of Dyslexia, 43,194-216.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993c). Search-ing for the cognitive locus of foreign lan-guage learning problems: Linking firstand second language learning. ModernLanguage Journal, 77, 289-302.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993d). Iden-tifying and instructing at-risk foreignlanguage learners in college. In D. Ben-seler (Ed.), The dynamics of language pro-gram direction (pp. 173-199). Boston:Heinle & Heinle.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995a). Astrong inference approach to causal fac-tors in foreign language learning: A re-sponse to Maclntyre. Modern LanguageJournal, 79, 235-244.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995b). Par-ent perceptions in the screening for per-formance in foreign language courses.Foreign Language Annals, 28, 371-391.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1996). Teach-ers perceptions of students' foreign lan-guage academic skills and affectivecharacteristics. Journal of Educational Re-search, 89, 172-185.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (in press). Wordrecognition as a predictor of FL profi-ciency. Thalamus.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Artzer M., &Patton, J. (1997). Foreign language pro-ficiency of at-risk and not-at-risk learn-


ers over two years of foreign languageinstruction. Journal of Learning Disabili-ties, 30, 92-98.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Artzer, M.,Siebenhar, D., & Plageman, M. (1997).Anxiety and proficiency in a foreign lan-guage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 185,559-562.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Artzer, M.,Siebenhar, D., Plageman, M., & Patton,J. (in press). Differences in native lan-guage skills, foreign language aptitude,and foreign language grades among high,average, and low proficiency foreign lan-guage learners: Two studies. LanguageTesting.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Fluharty, K., &Little, S. (1996). An exploratory studyon the effects of Latin on the native lan-guage skills and foreign languageaptitude of students with and withoutlearning disabilities. Classical Journal, 91,165-184.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J.(1992). Diagnosing and accommodatingthe foreign language learning problemsof college students with learning disabili-ties. Learning Disabilities Research andPractice, 7, 150-160.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J.(1993). Perceptions of high- and low-riskstudents and students with learning dis-abilities about high school foreign lan-guage courses. Foreign Language Annals,26, 491-510.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J.,Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992a). Testcomparisons among students identifiedas high-risk, low-risk, and learning dis-abled in high school foreign languagecourses. Modern Language Journal, 76,142-159.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J.,Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992b). Identi-fying native language deficits in high-and low-risk foreign language learnersin high school. Foreign Language Annals,25, 403-418.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Kenneweg, S., &Miller, R. (1991). Use of an Orton-Gillingham approach to teach a foreignlanguage to dyslexic/learning disabledstudents: Explicit teaching of phonologyin a second language. Annals of Dyslexia,41, 96-118.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Patton, J.(1995). Prediction of performance in first-year foreign language courses: Connec-tions between native and foreignlanguage learning. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 87, 638-655.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Patton, J., Artzer,M., Siebenhar, D., & Plageman, M. (1997).Prediction of foreign language profi-ciency. Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 549-561.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Pohlman, J.(1989). Linguistic coding deficits in for-eign language learners. Annals of Dys-lexia, 39, 179-195.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Pohlman, J.,Artzer, M., & Skinner, S. (1992). The ef-fects of a multisensory, structured lan-guage approach on the native and foreignlanguage aptitude skills of high risk,foreign language learners. Annals of Dys-lexia, 42, 25-53.

Sparks, R., Philips, L., & Ganschow, L.(1996). Students classified as learningdisabled and the college foreign languagerequirement: A case study of one univer-sity. In J. Liskin-Gasparro (Ed.), Patternsand policies: The changing demographics offoreign language instruction (pp. 123-159).Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., &Javorsky, J. (1998a). Comparison of studentsclassified as learning disabled who petitionedfor or fulfilled the college foreign languagerequirement. Manuscript submitted forpublication.

Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., &Javorsky, J. (1998b). Students classified aslearning disabled and the college foreign lan-guage requirement: A quantitative analysis.Manuscript submitted for publication.

Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second lan-guage learning. Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.

Stahl, S., & Kuhn, M. (1995). Does wholelanguage or instruction matched to learn-ing styles help children learn to read?School Psychology Review, 24, 393-404.

Stanovich, K. (1988). The right and wrongplaces to look for the cognitive locus ofreading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 38,154-177.

Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental concepts oflanguage teaching. Oxford, England: Ox-ford University Press.

Vellutino, F. (1991). Introduction to threestudies on reading acquisition: Conver-gent findings on theoretical foundationsof code-oriented versus whole-languageapproaches to reading instruction. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 83,437^43.

Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, D. (1986). Lin-guistic coding and metalinguistic aware-ness: Their relationship to verbal andcode acquisition in poor and normalreaders. In D. Yaden & S. Templeton(Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and begin-ning literacy (pp. 115-141). Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1987). The na-ture of phonological processing and itscausal role in the acquisition of readingskills. Psychological Bulletin, 101,192-212.

APPENDIXTerminology of the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis and Reiated Research

Foreign language (FL) aptitudeFor the purposes of the studies in this article, FL aptitude

refers to one's basic propensity for learning an FL in class-room settings (rather than via immersion in the culture).Carroll and Sapon's (1959) Modern Language Aptitude Testmeasures FL aptitude via the administration of five subtestsfound through factor analytic studies to be important for FLlearning: Number Learning, Phonetic Script, Spelling Clues,Words in Sentences, and Paired Associates.

FL proficiencyFL proficiency as defined by the American Council on the

Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) refers to "what anindividual can and cannot do [with an FL], regardless ofwhere, when, or how the language has been learned oracquired" (ACTFL, 1989).

Linguistic Coding Difference Hypothesis (LCDH)This hypothesis, developed by the authors, proposes that

students who exhibit FL learning problems have overt or


subtle native language learning difficulties that affect theirlearning of a foreign language. Thus, the primary factors insuccessful or unsuccessful FL learning are thought to belinguistic, not affective (e.g., low motivation or high anxiety).

Grammatical (syntactic) rulesThese rules govern the syntax of the language (e.g., word

order, subject/verb agreement, parts of speech and theirfunctions).

Morphological rulesThese rules govern the use of prefixes, suffixes, and roots,

that is, individual or combinations of morphemes and units ofmeaning (see Balmuth, 1992).

Phonological recoding "factor"In this article the authors describe this factor as one in-

volving the ability to reflect on the sound-symbol system ofthe language; it includes such abilities as reading low-frequency FL words, native language pseudowords, and unfa-

miliar words by extrapolating the phonological "rule" frommore familiar instances.

PhonologyPhonology refers to phonemes, individual sound units,

and sequences of phonemes that make up words (seeBalmuth, 1992).

Phonological/orthographic rulesThese rules govern the sounds and their representation

by letters and letter sequences in words.

OrthographyThese spelling rules govern one's language, in particular,

the permissible letters and letter sequences in words (seeHenry, 1988).

Semantic rulesThese rules govern the meaning aspects of language.

pro-ed BOOKS and Teacher MaterialsProfessional

Issues in LearningDisabilities

Practical Strategies andRelevant Research Findings

Edited by William Bender

The most up-to-date professional perspectives by leadersin the field of learning disabilities—people such as: DianePedrotty Bryant, Brian R. Bryant, Edwin S. Ellis, Phillip J.McLaughlin, H. Lee Swanson, Sharon Vaughn, and manyothers! This book pulls together the cutting-edge researchand practical applications of that research in a user-friendlyformat for the practicing professional, university professoror graduate-level student.

est. 550 pages, 1998#8554, hardcover

ISBN 0-89079-781-1$43.00

Exceeding ExpectationsSuccessful Adults

with Learning DisabilitiesHenry B. Reiff, Paui J. Gerber, and Rici< Ginsberg

This book addresses the confluence of two issues—successful outcomes of adults with learning disabilitiesand a pragmatic analysis of the process leading to thoseoutcomes. The authors interviewed 71 successful adultswith learning disabilities. The open-ended questionsallowed the individuals to share their perspectives and lifestories, uncovering common patterns to help explain theirsuccesses. Exceeding Expectations differs from most pop-ular literature about success because it relies not largelyon opinion, conjecture, and informal observations, butrather on systematic research.

234 pages, 1997#7474, paperback

ISBN 0-89079-705-6$27.00

PRO-ED, Inc. • 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd. • Austin, TX 78757-6897 • 800/897-3202 or 512/451-3246 • Fax 800/FXPROED

All PRO-ED products are sold on 30-day approval. Shipping and handling: US add 10%; Canada add 15%; others add 20%.

Visit our Web site: www.proedinc.com.

foreign language learning difficulties: an historical ... · foreign language learning...

Documents