Ganschow Foreign Language Learning Difficulties

Language Teaching
http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA
Additional services for Language
Teaching:
Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
Learning difculties and foreign language learning: A review of research

and instruction
Leonore Ganschow and Richard Sparks
Language Teaching / Volume 34 / Issue 02 / April 2001, pp 79 - 98
DOI: 10.1017/S0261444800015895, Published online: 12 June 2009
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444800015895

How to cite this article:
Leonore Ganschow and Richard Sparks (2001). Learning difculties and foreign language learning: A review of research
and instruction. Language Teaching, 34, pp 79-98 doi:10.1017/S0261444800015895
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 50.203.69.85 on 23 Dec 2014
Review article
Learning difficulties and foreign language learning: A review
of research and instruction
Leonore Ganschow, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Educational
Psychology, Miami University (OH)
Current address: 8570 East Bakely Circle, Minocqua, Wl 54548
e-mail: lganschow@aol.com
Richard Sparks, Ed.D. Professor, Department of Education, College of Mt.
St. Joseph, 5701 Delhi Rd, Cincinnati, OH 45233-1670
e-mail: richard_sparks@mail.msj.edu
In this paper, the authors present a review of

research on learning difficulties and the study of an
For a number of yean now, foreign language (FL) FL. Much of this research involves their studies with
educators have faced the perplexing issue of how to high school and university level at-risk students in
assist students who struggle to learn an FL. In the the U.S.; therefore, to a large extent, the review rep1960s Paul Pimsleur referred to this group as 'under- resents this perspective.The authors note evidence of
achievers' and estimated that 10-20% of students in a a small body of literature on FLs and dyslexia in
typical FL classroom in the United States (U.S.) are German-speaking countries dating back to the 1960s
likely to do considerably less well in languages than in and 1970s (Jung, 1980; Valtin, Jung & Scheerertheir other classes (Pimsleur, 1968, p. 98). The term Neumann, 1981). In the late 1970s, however, the
also was used in Europe (Valtin, Jung & Scheerer- German government withdrew funding and political
Neumann, 1981). More recently, in the U.S. several support for dyslexia as a disability, hence the authors
federal laws in special education have had an impact found few recent references from this perspective
on the FLfield.As a result of these laws, there has been (Ganschow & Schneider, 2000; Schneider, 1999).
increasing cross-disciplinary research on FLs by special
Though there are a number of studies about
and FL educators. Educators interested in language learning difficulties in other countries and in differissues are using models of native language literacy ent languages (see, e.g., Salter & Smythe, 1997), the
acquisition and instruction to help understand how main focus of the present article is on the study of a
learners acquire an FL. Across the world, there has 'foreign' language as it relates to individuals with
been increasing awareness about the special needs of learning difficulties. FL study is defined here as the
individuals with learning difficulties from minority formal study of another language that is not the officultures and/or from areas in which cultural expecta- cial language of the country in which the language is
studied (Oxford, 1997, p. 153). Throughout the artitions include the use of two or more languages.
cle, the term 'at-risk' is used to describe individuals
who have failed or exhibited inordinate difficulties
passing FL courses in school, whereas the term
Leonore Ganschow is Professor Emeritus of Special
'learning disabilities' is used to refer to individuals
Education, having retiredfrom Miami University (OH)
who have on record the diagnosis of the disability.
in 1998. She is currently Acting Editor of Annals of
Dyslexia and Newsletter Editor for Tlic International
Using an historical context, the authors divide
Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities. From
their review into four sections: (1) early research on
1992 to 1998 she served on the Board of Tlie
FL learning and learning difficulties (prior to 1980);
(2) emerging directions and early cross-disciplinary
International Dyslexia Association. She has published
extensively in the learning disabilities and FL literature. collaborations in FL learning and learning difficulties
(the 1980s); (3) expansion and integration of research
and thinking about FL learning difficulties in the
Richard L. Sparks is Professor of Education at the
1990s; and (4) their perspective on future directions
College of Alt. St. Joseph in Cincinnati, Ohio. He has
published extensively in both the learning disabilities for thefield.At various points throughout the article,
and FL literature. His research interests arc in FL learn- they make reference to related resources that address
ing problems, dyslexia and reading disabilities, and related issues, e.g., bilingualism and/or second
hypcrlcxia.
language learning and learning difficulties.
Introduction and purpose
Lang.Tcach. 34,79-98.
http://journals.cambridge.org
Printed in the United Kingdom
79
2001 Cambridge University Press
Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014
IP address: 50.203.69.85
Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

Early research on FL learning and
learning difficulties: Prior to 1980
According to Spolsky, a major question was

whether FL learning involved a special type of
aptitude or was part of general intelligence (p. 325).
In reviewing research and thinking about FL learning For example, in a 1926 survey of modern language
difficulties prior to 1980, the authors examine sepa- teachers in the U.S. and Canada, two-thirds of the
rately the perspectives from FL educators and educa- respondents mentioned that they had taught students
tors in special education. This early research from with "linguistic disability or incapacity not accompaboth perspectives laid the foundation for the changes nied by low general intelligence" (cited in Spolsky,
in thinking about at-risk FL learners that were to 1995, p. 315). Its authors raised questions about IQ
occur in the 1980s and 1990s. As much of the and best predictors of FL learning. Spolsky reported
research and thinking about FL learning difficulties that their findings established "the place of prognosis
occurred in the U.S., this perspective predominates.
as a central topic in language testing research"
The authors note a few related resources outside (p. 328).
the U.S. in articles about learning disabilities among
Spolsky went on to describe research on aptitude
students in French immersion programmes. Bruck
tests that were developed in the 1920s and 1930s.
(1978) found that primary 'language learning
Among the conclusions he reported were that IQ
disabled' children acquire the basics of their native
scores or English grades are likely to be better
language and proficiency in the second language
predictors of FL achievement than standardised FL
but at a slower rate.Trites and Price (1978) reported
aptitude tests; prognostic tests probably measure a
cases of children with learning disabilities in the
number of abilities that are of benefit in various lanimmersion programmes.
guage-learning situations, not just FL classes; and
aptitude is only one factor that accounts for FL
achievement.
Reflections from the FL field
He then described new directions in FL aptitude
Here the authors provide a brief overview of four testing in the 1940s and 1950s as a result of the
'trends' that were to have an impact on later research armed services' interest in locating individuals who
on FL and learning difficulties. Given space con- were likely to be the most successful in their
straints and the specific focus of this review on FL language schools. According to Spolsky, these new
learning difficulties, the authors provide only a efforts failed to reflect consideration of earlier
'sampling' of this research, and they refer the reader research on aptitude tests and they were not repreto other reviews.They first examine FL aptitude test- sentative of a linguists view about the process of
ing; second, Carroll's Model of School Learning; language learning. This early research on testing,
third, underachieves; and fourth, 'individual differ- however, paved the way for a major breakthrough in
ence' variables, with particular attention to the thinking about language aptitude in the 1950s with
affective domain, especially the research on attitudes, the work ofjohn Carroll and his colleagues.
motivation, and learning strategies.
In Spolsky's view, Carroll's work added several
FL aptitude. Spolsky (1995) reviewed research on important dimensions to the study of FL aptitude.
FL aptitude testing to the early 1960s. (For recent Carroll proposed that FL ability is a fairly specialised
reviews, see Parry & Stansfield, 1990; Sparks & talent (or group of talents) that is independent of
Ganschow, in press.) The concept of aptitude is intelligence and inferred that FL learning skill exists
necessary in a discussion about students who struggle on a continuum varying from very low to very high
to learn an FL because it raises questions about the (Carroll, 1962, 1990; personal communication,
importance of general ability (intelligence) in learn- 21/12/00). Carroll pointed out that aptitude is only
ing an FL and about the role of basic aptitude for one factor involved in a general theory of FL learnlearning FLs.
ing (Spolsky, 1995, pp. 334-5). Carroll and Sapon
According to Spolsky, 'prognostic' (aptitude) tests (1959) developed the Modem Language Aptitude Test
were developed in order to justify the exclusion of (MLAT), designed for individuals 9th grade and
'unqualified' students from high school FL classes. above in the U.S. {A nonstandardised version of the
Cheydleur (cited in Spolsky, 1995, p. 324) reported test was translated into German in the 1970s (Valtin,
results of a study on drop-outs and failure in FL Jung, and Scheerer-Neumann, 1981, pp. 53-5.)} The
classes at the University of Wisconsin in the 1930s MLAT identified four factors: phonetic coding,
and argued in favour of using intelligence (among grammatical sensitivity, rote memorisation ability,
other variables) to control student access to and and inductive language learning ability. From these
progress in FL courses. Henmon reported that a factors, Carroll and Sapon developed five tests that
Canadian Committee on Modern Languages was were said to measure distinct abilities:
trying to locate prognostic tests that would provide
"relief from the difficult and often hopeless situation
Part I. Number Learning: tests auditory rote memory for
created by the numbers and unfitness of students"
recall of numbers in an artificial language;
(cited in Spolsky, 1995, p. 325).
Part II. Phonetic Script: tests ability to identify distinctive
80
IP address: 50.203.69.85

sounds, to form associations between those sounds and theof FLs. Pimsleur and his colleagues (Pimsleur,
symbols representing them, and to retain these associations;
Sundland & Mclntyre, 1964) defined an underPart III. Spelling Clues: tests ability to select a synonym achiever as "a student whose grade in a modern
from pronunciation of a stimulus nonsense word;
foreign language is at least one grade-point lower
Part IV. Words in Sentences: tests ability to recognise thethan his average grade in other major subjects"
grammaticalfunctions of words or other linguistic entities (p. 115). Pimsleur cited a number of studies supportin sentence structures; and
ing the view that substantial numbers of students
Part V. Paired Associates: tests visual memory for have greater difficulty in FL study than they do in
other subjects. He, too, pointed out "lack of ability in
Kurdish vocabulary.
foreign languages does not seem to correlate highly

Pimsleur (1966a) developed the Pimslcur Language with intelligence" (p. 115).
Some FL educators studied components of
Aptitude Batter}' (P-LAB) for use with individuals ages
13 through 19 in the US.The P-LAB included Grade 'underachievement'. Skehan (1991) reported that
Point Average, Motivation (a 5-point interest scale), Pimsleur's and Carroll's conceptions of aptitude
Verbal Intelligence (English vocabulary and an analysisreflected the idea that there may be patterns of FL
of language forms), and Auditory Ability (sound dis- aptitude with independent component parts (p. 277).
crimination and sound symbol tasks). Pimsleur Pimsleur (1966b) stated that the MLAT and P-LAB
(1966b) reported that P-LAB (or MLAT) provided a were useful for diagnosing strengths and weaknesses
powerful predictor of FL achievement and this kind in particular FL skills, and he presented a variety of
of specialised test battery was particularly important case studies that showed 'patterns' of performance on
in audiolingual FL classes.
his instrument. In their studies of underachieving
Others developed related FL aptitude batteries for high school students, Pimsleur, Sundland & Mclntyre
different age groups and settings (see, e.g., Davies, (1964) found that underachievement often was due
1971; Green, 1975;Petersen &A1-Haik, 1976). In the to deficient auditory ability (difficulty with sound
1960s and 1970s, these batteries were used to counsel and sound/symbol discrimination), which suggested
students (Pimsleur, 1968) and to assign students that audiolingual methods of instruction may be difRecording to types of teaching methodologies ficult for underachievers. RothfuB (cited in Valtin,
Jung & Scheerer-Neumann, 1981, Ch. 4) made a
(Wesche, Edwards & Wells, 1982).
Carroll's Model of School Learning. In the 1960s, an similar observation about these students' 'auditory'
important contribution to the present authors' difficulties.
thinking about individual differences in ability to
Individual difference variables.The issue of individual
learn an FL was Carroll's'Model of School Learning' differences is important because it addresses affective
(Carroll, 1963; see also Carroll, 1981;Skehan, 1986a). variables (in addition to cognitive variables) in learnThis model is important because of its recognition of ing an FL, and the role of affective variables was to be
components besides aptitude that comprise FL questioned by some researchers, particularly in the
learning success and failure. Carroll posited that in 1990s. The individual difference variables are said to
examining school (FL) learning, one should consider include motivation, anxiety, self-esteem, tolerance of
two i variables: 'instruction' and 'individual differ- ambiguity, risk-taking, and language learning strateences'. The instructional variable includes time the gies. (Other individual difference variables include
more time devoted to language study, the higher the aptitude, age, and gender; for reviews, see Ehrman
accomplishments (i.e., there are differences in the & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Ehrman, 1993; Skehan,
pace or speed at which individuals learn a language) 1989, 1991.) The authors briefly describe three
and instructional excellence the better the quality of
affective variables that were to have an impact on
instruction, the higher the achievement (i.e., good later research on FL learning difficulties: attitudes/
teaching makes a difference). The individual differ- motivation, anxiety, and learning strategies.
ence variable includes general intelligence, aptitude, and
Key figures in research on attitudes/motivation prior
motivation. General intelligence refers to the individ- to the 1980s came from the field of social psycholoual's ability to profit from general instruction (e.g., as gy. (For recent reviews, see Dornyei, 1998; Gardner
assessed by an intelligence test). (For discussion on & Maclntyre, 1993; for earlier reviews, see Gardner
intelligence measures, see Anastasi, 1988.) Aptitude & Lambert, 1972; Gardner & Smythe, 1975). Gardner
for learning an FL refers to the components of the and his colleagues proposed four individual
MLAT; and motivation involves the individual's need difference variables: intelligence, language aptitude,
to learn the language and his/her willingness to motivation, and situational anxiety (Gardner, Lalonde &
persevere. In his review of the model, Skehan (1986a) Pierson, 1983). According to Gardner and Lambert
suggested that the model is interactive and provides a (1972), motivational factors can override aptitude,
high degree of'explanatory adequacy' (p. 193).
for example, in settings where the second language
Concept of underachievement. The term 'under- (L2) is the national language. In his review of
achievers' was sometimes used in the 1960s to Gardners research, Dornyei (1998) pointed out that
describe students who were unsuccessful in the study a basic assumption in a social psychological approach
81
IP address: 50.203.69.85

to learning an FL is that students' attitudes toward
the FL influence their success and that FLs are not
like other school subjects in this respect (p. 122).
Motivation was thought to involve three necessary
components: attitudes toward learning a second
language, desire to learn the language, and effort
expended in learning the language (Gardner,
Gliksman & Smythe, 1978). Gardner and his colleagues developed the Attitude and Motivation Index
(AMI) to measure aspects of motivation, attitudes,
and anxiety (Gardner, Clement, Smythe & Smythe,
1979). Validity and reliability studies indicated a
moderate correlation between the AMI and measures of language-learning achievement. (For a
review of the AMI, see Skehan, 1991.) Motivation
was said to be relatively independent of FL aptitude
and high motivation was said to correlate positively
with strong FL achievement. Dornyei (1998), however,
indicated that Gardners theory has been misinterpreted as involving only the "social dimension of L2
motivation" (p. 123), whereas Gardner and his colleagues conducted research on other dimensions,
such as teaching factors and attitudes towards the
learning situation. Clement and colleagues conducted studies on linguistic self-confidence about L2
proficiency, which was later to be included in the
construct of motivation (Clement, Gardner &
Smythe, 1977; for discussion, see Dornyei, 1998,
p. 123).
for communication, and ability to monitor one's

own progress.
In sum, one might infer from the affective literature that poor FL learners were thought to be passive,
lack understanding of the rule systems of language,
lack motivation, and have high anxiety about FL
classes.
Summary
One might summarise findings from the FL field as
follows:
Tests were developed to assess FL aptitude and

motivation.
Carroll's model introduced 'interactive' variables
regarding FL aptitude: instruction (time, instructional
excellence) and individual differences (intelligence,
aptitude, motivation).
FL educators used the term 'underachiever'
to describe students in FL classrooms who had
difficulties learning an FL.
Motivation, anxiety, and learning strategies were
thought to influence performance in FL classrooms.
Reflections from the special education field

In order to provide a framework for understanding
the background that led to collaborative efforts
between special and FL educators in the 1980s, the
At the time, there were critics of motivation theo- authors focus on the impact of federal legislation and
ries. Chastain (1975), e.g., suggested that there was a early anecdotal references in the literature to learning
"lack of consistent research evidence" on the subject disabilities/dyslexia.Again, the perspective is predom(p. 154). Burstall ct al. (1974) reported that attitudes inantly from the U.S. The authors refer the reader to
and motivation were influenced by achievement in related work by educators in German-speaking
the language (i.e., success breeds success). In his countries (e.g., Valtin, Jung & Scheerer-Neumann,
review of research on measuring affective variables, 1981, Ch. 4).They note again that there were reports
Oiler (1981) indicated that self-report instruments in the 1970s of withdrawal of support for dyslexia in
on affective variables might be measuring language Germany by federal legislation (Schlee, 1976; Sirch,
proficiency.
1975).
Studies on anxiety showed that the relationship
Federal legislation and terminology. One cannot disbetween FL learning success and anxiety was un- cuss the current research on learning difficulties and
clear. In his review of the anxiety research, Scovel FL study in the U.S. without providing an historical
(1978) described attempts to define types of anxiety, perspective on the emergence of the concept of
e.g., facilitating (tension) vs. debilitating (tenseness) learning disabilities. The term 'specific learning dis(pp. 138-140). Scovel cautioned researchers to be abilities' became the legal terminology for identifying
aware of "the many intervening variables" that might a particular group of individuals after the passage of
interfere with the study of anxiety (e.g., intelligence, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975).
age, task, and so forth) (p. 140). However, he reported In 1990, the law was incorporated in the Individuals
that the "good news" is that researchers are able to unth Disabilities Education Act, re-authorised in 1997.
isolate affective variables, such as anxiety.
The law reads as follows:
In his review of the research on learning strategies
(techniques individuals use to learn an FL), Skehan
The term 'specific learning disability' means those
(1991) reported that in the 1970s FL educators.were
children who have a disorder in one or more of the
basic psychological processes involved in underinterested in developing a profile of the good lanstanding or in using language, spoken or written,
guage learner in order to understand how to work
which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect
with learners with difficulties. Naiman, Frolich,
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to
Stern, and Todesco (1978), e.g., identified several
do
mathematical calculations. The term includes
strategies of good FL learners: an active task
such
conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain
approach, realisation that language is a system and is
82
IP address: 50.203.69.85

injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia.The term does not include
a learning problem which is primarily the result of
visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental
retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
[Authors' italics]
Legal protection for students classified as having a
learning disability extended to college-age students
through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973)
(see also Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990). T h e
term also is included in the medical literature (i.e.,

the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM (1994),
which refers to the condition as 'learning disorders'.

The most common and well researched of the
learning disabilities is 'dyslexia', a written language
disability that is said to affect a substantial number of
individuals identified as having a learning disability
(Lyon, 1995). Individuals with dyslexia have particular difficulties with reading (spelling and writing also
are generally affected); tasks related to the phonological/orthographic (sound and sound/symbol)
elements of language are likely to pose considerable
difficulty (see, e.g., Brady & Shankweiler, 1991;
Catts, 1989).
The authors note here that though there is early
research on dyslexia dating back to the 1880s in the
U.S. and Europe (Anderson & Meier-Hedde, 2001),
interest in dyslexia began to spread rapidly across the
world in the 1950s and 1960s as a result of the formation of 'Word Blind' Centres (e.g., in London
and Copenhagen), the emergence of international
(and state/country-wide) organisations on dyslexia
{British Dyslexia Association and Orton Dyslexia
Society (now International Dyslexia Association)},
and interest in the topic by the International
Reading Association (e.g., IDA conference in
Hamburg in 1977). In 1968 the World Federation of
Neurology provided a definition of dyslexia, which
established international support for dyslexia as a
medical condition and not just a label. (For review,
see Miles & Miles, 1999, Ch. 1.) However, until
recently, the primary focus of dyslexia research
in most countries was on dyslexia in the native
language, not on FL study.
The legal classification of students as having learning disabilities in the U.S. resulted in an increasing
body of individuals receiving special services in
public schools across the country. By the time the
law was fully implemented in 1980, many students
were studying FLs in high school and college.
Suddenly, schools faced the dilemma of educating
students who carried the diagnostic label of'learning
disabled' in FL classrooms. Incidence figures grew in
the 1970s, and by the mid 1980s close to 4.5 % of
students were receiving learning disability services in
schools. At the college level, however, the incidence

of students recognised as having specific learning
disabilities was as yet minimal. Early on, however,
educators at a few universities made a connection
between learning disabilities and FL difficulties.
\ricwsfrom educators of students with histories of LD.
In the U.S., the first recorded reference to the FL

learning of students with symptoms of learning
disabilities was in 1971 when psychologist Kenneth
Dinklage described the plight of otherwise bright
and competent students at Harvard University.
Dinklage reported that "there are people all over the
country who failed to get their college degrees
simply because they could not meet the undergraduate language requirements. Though they were good
students in all other respects, their repeated efforts to
pass elementary foreign language courses were fruitless" (p. 185). He alluded to the term 'dyslexia' to
describe these students but said he was reluctant to
use the term because "the word seems to cause...
endless controversy among professionals" (p. 190).
Dinklage raised questions about the wisdom of a
college-wide FL requirement. He detailed a number
of case studies, described what FL instructors should
look for, and explained how his university provides
exemptions from FL courses.To the authors' knowledge, Dinklage was the first person to use the
MLAT to screen for students who might be potential
candidates for an FL exemption.
Around that same time, faculty at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison were dealing with a similar
issue (Keeney & Smith, 1984). Because of concerns
for the inability of students to fulfill the FL requirement, the Chancellor's Committee of the University
of Wisconsin requested that its Learning Disabilities
Subcommittee gather information on how the issue
was handled at other universities. In the 1970s,
Keeney and Smith conducted a survey to which 59
institutions responded. Findings showed that most
responding universities required an FL for at least
some majors; about 66% reported having (or
considering) procedures for modifying the FL
requirement; modifications included dropping the
requirement or taking FL course substitutions,
such as history or culture of a country; and most
institutions required documentation of a learning
disability in order to be eligible for FL substitution
coursework.
At the time the present authors began their search
of the special education literature, the two above
sources of information were the only references they
located prior to 1980. However, in 1993 the first
author received a letter from a professor at the
University of Illinois who reported having written
his undergraduate honour's thesis in 1963 on the
familial nature of specific language disabilities and
having used the MLAT and interview questions
related to learning an FL in his assessment battery
(Brewer, 1963).
83
IP address: 50.203.69.85

Summary
One might summarise findings from the special
education field as follows:
In the U.S., the term 'specific learning disabilities'

became the legal terminology used to describe a
subset of the school-age population who had
learning difficulties despite average to above average intelligence.
The term 'dyslexia' began to receive attention
across the world largely as a result of international
conferences and the formation of dyslexia organisations and centres.
There was recognition in other countries about the
difficulty dyslexics had learning English as an FL.
Faculty/staff at some universities in the U.S. were
aware of the difficulty of FL study for some
students and had developed procedures for addressing the problem.
Before the 1980s there was no empirical research
on FL learning difficulties from the perspective of
special educators in the U.S.
of the earlier discussions about university policies

and procedures to address FL requirements for students classified as having learning disabilities in the
U.S.They then point to some of the first collaborations between FL and special educators. Finally, they
describe programmes of instruction for failing
students.
FL aptitude and individual difference variables. Skehan
(1989) reported that "language aptitude has not been
a fashionable concept in the past few years", and he

outlined a number of criticisms of the language
aptitude concept. He summarised the findings about
language aptitude and individual differences as
follows: (a) People vary in their language aptitude

and that variation has considerable significance for
language learning success; (b) people with the same

overall aptitude may have different {language}
component abilities; and (c) individual differences
in second language learning components have
connections to first language learning components

(pp. 136-7).
With the movement away from language aptitude
testing came an increasing emphasis on variables
Emerging directions and early
such as motivation, language learning strategies, and
collaborations in FL learning and
other affective and cognitive influences (for review,
learning problems: The 1980s
see Gardner, 1990). One might speculate that this
Several themes continued into the 1980s and new emphasis coincided with the changes that took place
ones emerged. Again, because there was as yet little in FL teaching methodologies from approaches
collaboration between FL and special educators in that emphasised audio-lingual instruction, memorithe U.S., the authors separate the two perspectives. sation, and pattern drilling prior to the 1980s to
They reiterate that across the world there was communicative approaches that used real situations
increasing attention to learning difficulties among and 'authentic materials' (Krashen & Terrell, 1983)
nonEnglish speaking populations. For example, and the notion that language aptitude was "relevant
concerns were expressed about the disproportionate to formal teaching situations only" (Skehan, 1989, p.
numbers of immigrant and minority language 40).With these changes came greater attention to the
children being placed in special education classes communication setting as it relates to students' atti(see, e.g., Cummins, 1981,1984). At this juncture, the tudes, motivation, and approaches to learning (see
assessment of children in linguistic minority com- Gardner, 1985). In Individual Differences in Second
munities began to include consideration of learning Language Learning, Skehan (1989) described variables
disabilities in the identification process (Cummins, that were thought to affect language learning and
provided a framework for their investigation.
1984;Tucker,1980).
Regarding attitudes and motivation, Skehan (1991)
An area that was to become important in language
research in the 1990s was the role of orthography reported that Gardner extended his approach to
and orthographic differences across languages as they motivation by exploring the relationship between
might affect individuals with language learning the learning setting and the influence of motivation
difficulties. (For discussion, see, e.g., Aaron & Joshi, and by examining the value of causal modeling tech1989.) Among educators interested in other niques (p. 282). In Gardners view, aptitude only
languages, there was particular interest in how LI influences formal situations, whereas motivation
influences L2 reading and - paralleling the native influences both formal and informal settings and
language reading research ways in which phono- thus has greater explanatory power. Using a causal
logical awareness affects literacy development modeling statistical procedure (LISREL), Gardner
across languages (e.g., Alderson & Urquhart, 1984; categorised the two major influences on FL achievement into aptitude and motivation, which were said
Durgunoglu & Hancin, 1992.)
to be independent of one another (Gardner, Lalonde
& Pierson, 1983). In reviewing this work, Skehan
Reflections from the FL field
(1991) reported that the research of Gardner and his
From the FL field, the authors provide a brief review colleagues "clarified considerably the nature of motiof extensions of the earlier research on individual vational orientation and appropriate measurement
difference variables. Next, they describe expansions and statistical techniques" but that further research
84
IP address: 50.203.69.85

was still necessary (p. 283). Au (1988) criticised than individual differences in that the social context,
Gardners model for its ambiguous research findings learning opportunities, and the interplay between
and described problems with some of his conclu- learner and situation also were said to influence FL
sions. (See also response by Gardner, 1988.) learning.
Hermann (1980) and Strong (1984) argued that
Policies. In the 1980s, FL educators at colleges and
success and achievement are causal factors in motiva- universities in the U.S. began to hold discussions
tion to learn an FL. Skehan (1989) suggested that the about learning disabilities and FLs. In 1985 the
"direction of causation in motivation studies is Modern Language Association held a conference
unclear" (p. 138).
session on 'Exemptions from the Foreign Language
Also, in the FL field there was increasing interest Requirement'. That same year the New York State
in the relationship of learning strategics to successAssociation of FL Teachers prepared a special bulletin
and/or failure of students to learn an FL in classroom on the FL learner with special educational needs, and
settings. Learning strategies are defined as "the tools a colloquium on 'Learning Disabilities and FL Study'
for active, self-directed involvement that is necessary was presented at the University of Pennsylvania
for developing L2 communicative ability" (Oxford, (Freed, 1987).
1993, p. 175). Oxford (1989) developed techniques
Freed (1987) prepared a 'position statement' that
for gathering information on learner strategies appeared in a journal for chairs of FL departments in
through her Strategy Inventor}' for Language Learning. the U.S. She pointed to a "growing awareness of the
She suggested that successful FL learners use more need to establish procedures and policies for dealing
and' better learning strategies than unsuccessful with these students in FL courses"(p. 13) and outlearners and that good learners are able to combine lined a procedure for establishing accommodations
effective strategies (Oxford, 1993, p. 178). Skehan through language substitution courses.
(1989) indicated that although learners use a variety
In 1989, special and FL educators (Ganschow,
of strategies to learn a language, there was "less Myer & Roeger, 1989) replicated and extended an
agreement ... on what these strategies are..., how earlier survey by Keeney and Smith (1984) of FL
the findings of one investigation can be related to study and learning disabilities practices. Their findthose of another", and "the way in which strategy ings from 154 universities showed that sixty percent
data can be collected" (p. 138). He also suggested that of the respondents required an FL in at least one
evidence for the trainability of language learning programme area; seventy-five percent of the responstrategies was "not encouraging" (p. 139).
dents said they had a formal or informal policy
Another affective variable that received attention for FL waivers/substitutions; ninety-five percent of
in FL circles is the role of anxiety in learning an FL. the respondents recommended the identification of
(For reviews, see Horwitz & Young, 1991; Young, specific learning disabilities before permitting the
1999; Onwuegbuzie, Bailey & Daley, 1999.) Here students to waive or substitute FL courses; and most
discussion centred on whether there is an anxiety universities offered course substitutions rather than
that is specific to FL learning (Horwitz, Horwitz & FL course waivers.
Cope, 1986; Horwitz & Young, 1991; Maclntyre &
By the late 1980s, an estimated 1% of the college
Gardner, 1989). Horwitz and her colleagues devel- population self-identified as having specific learning
oped a self-report measure, the Foreign Language disabilities, and the number was thought to be rising
Classroom Anxiety Scale, to examine the role of FL (Astin ct al, 1988).Astin ct ah also reported that only
anxiety in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. 14% of all institutions of higher education require FL
They and others (e.g., Gardner, 1985; Krashen, 1980) training upon college entry, but close to half require
reported that anxiety is a good predictor of overall it for graduation.
achievement in FL courses; there are identifiable
Collaboration between FL educators and special educators.
'components' of anxiety, including communication As U.S. educators in both FLs and special education
apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative were becoming increasingly aware of the problems of
evaluation; and anxiety is related to self-esteem.
students classified as having learning disabilities, opporA more global perspective on FL learning that tunities arose for representatives from the two fields to
included individual difference variables is evident in begin a dialogue. Examples of these early exchanges
Spolskys (1986) model of second language learning, in include the aforementioned 1985 Modern Language
which the author drew attention to social, cultural, and Association conference session and the Colloquium at
other influences that he suggested are 'necessary' for the University of Pennsylvania (Freed, 1987). In the
learning an FL. Among the 74 conditions are 31 "nec- late 1980s, articles involving collaboration between FL
essary conditions", which he defined as "those condi- and special educators were published in FL journals
tions without which (language) learning is impossible" (Myer & Ganschow, 1988; Myer, Ganschow, Sparks &
(p. 14).The other conditions were described as either Kenneweg, 1989). The authors also note evidence of
"typically involved but not ...invariably required" or communication across disciplines about FL learning
"graded", that is, both necessary and typical (Clark & difficulties in German-speaking countries (e.g.,Jung,
O'Mara, 1991, p. 71). Spolsky's model involved more 1980).
85
IP address: 50.203.69.85

Innovative teaching strategies. The FL literature in the Coding Differences Hypothesis or LCDH, to which
1980s includes descriptions by a few FL educators of

the FL instructional needs of students classified as
having specific learning disabilities. At Boston
University, Demuth and Smith (1987) developed
an experimental course sequence to provide an
alternative to FL waivers. The course was largely an
introduction to general linguistics and emphasised
explicit attention to language structure, along with
contrastive analysis of either French or Spanish to
English.
Myer ct al. (1989) reported on a method of teaching
struggling FL learners the rule systems of an FL, based
on an instructional method that has been found to be
effective for students who have difficulties learning to
read, write, and spell in their native language.They used
the term 'Orton-Gillingham' to describe the approach
(Gillingham & Stillman, 1960). Later the authors were
to use the term 'multisensory structured language' or
MSL, the more general term used by special educators
(Sparks, Ganschow, Kenneweg & Miller, 1991; Sparks
& Miller, 2000). An assumption of the approach (for
alphabetic languages) is that the students have particular difficulties with the phonological/orthographic
system, e.g., difficulty making linkages between the
word one hears and the sounds within words and
problems breaking down, putting together, and
sequencing sound in words.The approach also includes
explicit instruction in grammar (Schneider, 1999) and
morphology (prefixes, suffixes, and roots) (Elbro &
Arnbak, 1996; Schneider, 1999).
One might summarise findings from the FL field
as follows:
Individual difference variables took on greater

prominence among FL researchers as causal factors
in learning an FL.
Awareness about the FL learning problems of
students classified as having learning disabilities was
increasing among FL educators.
There was an increase in the use of FL waivers/
course substitutions at colleges and universities in
the United States.
A few FL educators in the United States began to
develop instructional alternatives to FL waivers/
course substitutions.
There was evidence of cross-disciplinary attention
to the issue.
they devoted most of their attention in the 1990s.

The authors examine each of these themes here.
Anecdotal references. Early evidence for the connection between learning disabilities and FL difficulties
in the U.S. started with anecdotal descriptions.
Campbell and Butterworth (1986) and Rudel (1981)
described individual cases of adults with high IQs
but substantial difficulties learning an FL in school.
In a chapter on learning disabilities and college
students in the U.S., Cohen (1983) described native
language diagnostic indicators of potential FL learning
problems; these included childhood difficulties
learning to read and spell, poor memory for language, and weak auditory discrimination skills (p.
185). Goodin (1985) conducted a survey of learning
assistance staff at universities. On questions about FL
study, over 75% of the respondents strongly agreed
that students with learning disabilities should be
allowed to substitute alternative coursework in place
of the FL requirement. Lefebvre (1984) expressed
concern about the use of an audiolingual FL teaching method for students with learning disabilities
who may have auditory short-term memory difficulties. Levine (1987, pp. 375-8) described five barriers
to FL acquisition, based on Carroll's work: pronunciation problems (including memory for sounds),
native language interference (intrusion of the system
of sounds in the native language in learning sounds
of the FL), morphology problems (difficulty grasping
patterns of roots, suffixes, and prefixes in the new
language), vocabulary problems (remembering words
and their uses), and syntactic difficulties (mastering a
grammatical system). Educators alluded to the large
numbers of students not identified as having a learning disability until after they entered the university;
identification occurred primarily because of failure
to complete the FL requirement (Ganschow 8c
Sparks, 1987; Lefebvre, 1984; Pompian & Thum,
1988).
The authors also note continued interest in learning disabilities among students in French immersion
programmes in Canada. Trites (1984) reported that
children in a French immersion learning-disability

group had particular problems with the auditory
aspects of learning and that one could predict
accurately which children would drop out of early

immersion programmes. Wesche (1981) described
diagnostic indicators of FL learning problems of
Views from the special education field
adults in Public Service language training proIn the 1980s, interest in learning disabilities and FL grammes where anglophone students are required to
study in the U.S. occurred primarily at the college learn French. She reported that when students were
level. There was a proliferation of anecdotal refer- streamed into four ability groups, based on the
ences to the problems of students classified as having MLAT, about a third of the students in the lowest
specific learning disabilities. Special educators con- stream reached their required standard after 52 weeks
ducted the first exploratory research on the issue. As of training compared with 100% in the highest
the authors continued their own work on learning stream.
disabilities and FLs, they utilised ideas from Carroll
Early research. The present authors conducted the
and Pimsleur in the formation of their Linguistic first reported study in the U.S. that dealt specifically
86
IP address: 50.203.69.85

with students classified as learning disabled who
were studying FLs (Ganschow & Sparks, 1986). The
authors detailed the diagnostic histories of four
college students. From these cases, the authors began
to clarify a position they were to formulate more
clearly in their Linguistic Coding Deficit
(Differences) Hypothesis (LCDH), described in the
next section.
Gajar (1987) compared university students with
and without learning disabilities on the MLAT. Her
findings showed significantly poorer performance by
students classified as learning disabled on all five
subtests, with particularly poor performance on
sensitivity to grammatical structures and memory for
language. Gajar concluded that an examination of a
profile of performance on the MLAT was useful for
diagnosis and remediation.
In the mid 1980s, the authors developed an FL
screening instrument to predict a 'risk-factor' for
failure in FL learning, based on their knowledge of
characteristics of students classified as having specific
learning disabilities (see Ganschow & Sparks, 1991).
They also identified a group of students who were
likely to be at greatest risk for learning an FL and
reported results on a battery of native language and FL
aptitude assessments they had administered (Sparks,
Ganschow & Pohlman, 1989). In the latter study, they
proposed their LCDH, which they discuss next.
Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis
(LCDH).
The major premise underlying the LCDH is that the

primary causal factors in successful or unsuccessful
FL learning are linguistic; students who have difficulties learning an FL are likely to have overt or subtle
difficulties in their native language. They introduced
the LCDH into the learning disabilities literature in
1989 (Sparks, Ganschow & Pohlman, 1989) and into
the FL literature in the early 1990s (Sparks &
Ganschow, 1991, 1993a). The authors derived the
LCDH from native language research by Vellutino &
Scanlon (1986), who found that poor readers and
writers have problems primarily with the structural
(phonological/orthographic and syntactic) but not
meaning (semantic) aspects of language. In the
LCDH the authors proposed that native language
skills in the phonological/orthographic, syntactic,
and semantic codes form the basic foundation for FL
learning. Further, the authors speculated that the
phonology/orthography of the FL would likely pose
the most difficulty, a reported finding in the native
language literature (Stanovich, 1988).
One might summarise findings from special education as follows:
There was interest in learning disabilities and

linguistic minority communities.
Anecdotal reports included reference to the FL
learning difficulties of students classified as learning
disabled.
College learning assistance staff at universities
reported that most students with FL learning problems were being referred to them for suspected
learning disabilities after college entry.
Research studies about FL and students classified as
learning disabled were published in the U.S. and
Canada.
Sparks and Ganschow introduced the LCDH.
Expansion and integration of research

and thinking about FL learning
problems: 1990s to present (Parts I & II)
From the 1990s to the present, there has been an
expansion of information about FL learning and
learning disabilities across the world and in the U.S.
There has been increasing interdisciplinary communication about learning difficulties and FLs. The
present authors in collaboration with FL educators
have pursued a rigorous research agenda that
involved testing the LCDH.
In this section, the authors address separately this
expansion and their research. Part I provides a brief,
general review about FL (and related language)
problems across the world and in the U.S and
Canada. Part II presents the authors' research agenda,
including a rationale for the work they have conducted and the examination of six research questions. Wherever relevant, they also refer to related
work by others on a given question.
Parti
Across the world
Across the world, there was increasing access to
information about learning disabilities/dyslexia in
relation to a variety of languages. In June of 1999, the
British Dyslexia Association held the first conference
on 'Multilingualism and Dyslexia' (including the
Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages). (For
papers from this conference, see Cline, Ganschow &
Reason, 2000). The first book of readings on bilingualism/multilingualism and dyslexia appeared (Peer
& Reid, 2000).
There was a proliferation of publications about
orthographic differences across languages, including
nonalphabetic languages, and their implications for
individuals with learning difficulties (see, e.g.,
Durgunoglu &Verhoeven, 1998; Harris & Hatano,
1999; Leong, Cheng & Lam, 2000; Leong & Joshi,
1997; Miles, 2000; Perfetti, Rieben & Fayol, 1997).
There was also a rise in the availability of
assessment instruments across languages, including
instruments to assess individuals for whom English
was a second language.The Bangor Dyslexia Test was
translated and pilot-tested in German, Greek and
Japanese, (see Miles, 1993, Chs. 28-30). In the U.K.,
Fawcett and Nicolson (1996, 1998) developed two
dyslexia screening tests, parts of which were thought
to be suitable for use with individuals who were
87
IP address: 50.203.69.85

learning English as an additional language (Fawcett &
Lynch, 2000). Spanish versions of a number of
English standardised tests in special education were
developed in the U.S. by publishers such as American
Guidance Service, Inc., Educators Publishing Service,
and PRO-ED.
A growing body of information about learning
disabilities and FL study became available through
World Wide Web. sites. For example, Learning
rebuttals/rejoinders, see Horwitz, 2000; Maclntyre,

1995a, 1995b; Sparks & Ganschow, 1995a; Sparks,
Ganschow & Javorsky, 2000). Likewise, native
language researchers had reported that mismatch of
teacher-student learning strategies does not result in
difficulties learning to read and write; and instruction matched with students' learning strategies does
not improve reading and language skills (Liberman,
1985;Stahl, 1999;Stahl & Kuhn, 1995).
Disabilities and the Foreign Languages Treasure Chest
In the FL literature, educators continued to exam(unini'.jln.vcu.edu/Id/Id.html; site visited 1/01) has ine the role of motivation (Tremblay & Gardner,
articles on the topic.
1995), anxiety (Young, 1999), cognitive/learning
styles (Ehrman, 1990, 1996), learning styles and
personality (Ehrman, 1990), and learning strategies
FL issues in the United States & Canada
(Oxford, 1990). In his review of recent research on
By the 1990s, learning disabilities comprised the motivation in FL learning, Dornyei (1998) reported
fastest growing disability category at colleges and that there was a marked shift in thought about L2
universities in the United States, where the group motivation. He described facets of the construct,
represented about 3% of a given college freshman including conceptualisations of motivation in psyclass (Tliis Year's Freshmen, 1997). A survey of FL chological research and descriptions of attempts to fit
requirements at the university level indicated that the construct within current paradigms as well as
two-thirds of four-year institutions required FL developing new ones. Ehrman (1996) used findings
study in some degree programmes (Brod & Huber, from the individual difference literature in her case
1996). (For articles on policies and/or procedures for studies on diagnosing and serving students with FL
handling the university FL requirement, see, e.g., learning problems. She emphasised "learning styles,
Moore, 1995; Philips, Ganschow & Anderson, 1991; affective factors, and learning strategies", because, in
Sparks &Javorsky, 1999a).
her words, "I have found that these have permitted
Several legal cases related to FL study and students me to diagnose the bulk of the learning difficulties I
classified as learning disabled appeared in the courts. have encountered" (p. xiii). Ehrman also included
In the U.S., a lawsuit involved FL study at Boston MLAT subtests as diagnostic indicators.
University. Here the university won the right to
Criticism about affect, learning strategies, and
require FL study for all of its students, including cognitive/learning styles as explanations for FL
those with learning disabilities/dyslexia (Sparks & learning problems continued. For example,
Ganschow, 1999). In Canada, a civil service employee researchers had not explained how to measure or
won the right to maintain her government position effectively teach learning strategies, nor had they
despite inability to pass the French proficiency test explained how failure to use a particular learning
(Attorney Generalo/Canada,2Q00).
strategy might impact on FL learning but not on
native language learning (Skehan, 1991; Sparks,
1995). Skehan (1991) suggested that good language
Part II
learners "are the ones for whom the use of effective
Research directions
strategies are possible, while for poor learners they
In the 1990s the present authors pursued a rigorous are not" (p. 288). In his- review, Tiedeman (1989)
agenda of research studies on at-risk FL learners. reported a number of limitations of the evidence in
Based on their early case studies on students with support of cognitive styles. The present authors
classified learning disabilities who had failed FL found that FL researchers had not included measures
courses, the authors directed their attention to of native language skill or FL proficiency in their
research about the relationships between native and studies on affect, learning styles and personality, and
FL skill. Using models from native language research learning strategies. In their view, failure to control for
on literacy acquisition, they had found that native participants' levels of native language skill and FL
language researchers typically did not include anxi- proficiency in studies on affective variables has been
ety or motivation variables in research on language a methodological weakness, a finding reported by
learning problems. Rather, a large body of native lan- others (Au, 1988). (For a response to this argument,
guage research implicated cognitive variables, such as see Maclntyre, 1995a, 1995b.)
phonological processing and syntactic/grammatical
By now, native language researchers had solid evidifficulties as causal factors in poor reading, spelling, dence to support the position that the problems of
and writing (Stanovich, 1998).The authors note here students in learning to read, spell, and write their
that they do not deny that motivation for or anxiety native language are generally language-based (e.g.,
about any subject, including FL study, is important. see Brady & Shankweiler, 1991; Catts, 1989). The
Rather, they question the causal role of affect. (For present authors' preliminary studies with university
88
IP address: 50.203.69.85

exhibited significant differences on measures of
native language skill but not on measures of cognitive ability (IQ). In one study, the authors compared
low and high-risk FL learners on measures of IQ,
FL aptitude (the MLAT), and native language skill
(Sparks, Ganschow, Javorsky, Pohlman & Patton,
1992a). Findings showed significantly weaker performance by the high-risk learners on measures of FL
aptitude and native language phonology/orthography and syntax but not semantics (i.e., reading comprehension). The authors conducted another study
with not-at-risk FL learners and at-risk FL learners
in which the at-risk group received a year of specialised instruction in the phonology/orthography of
Spanish (Sparks, Ganschow, Pohlman, Artzer &
Skinner, 1992). Even after specialised instruction, the
at-risk learners scored significantly lower than notat-risk students on post-test measures of FL aptitude
and native language spelling. In a comparison study
with not-at-risk and at-risk students who were
taking Latin, the authors obtained similar results
(Sparks, Ganschow, Fluharty & Little, 1996).
The authors also examined FL teachers' and parents' perceptions of students' native language and FL
skills in relation to their performance on standardised
measures of native language skill and FL aptitude
Research Questions
(Sparks & Ganschow, 1995b, 1996). Findings showed
Question V.Are there native language and FL
that students who scored low on the native language
aptitude differences between good and poor
and FL aptitude measures were perceived by FL
FL learners?
teachers and parents as having weak FL skills and
achieved
low grades in FL courses.
In the 1990s, the authors began to conduct systematic
comparisons of good and poor FL learners on meaOther researchers also provided support for the
sures of native language learning and FL aptitude. In question of native language differences between
accordance with models of research on learning to good and poor FL learners. In a population of fifth
read, write, and spell in the native language, they were grade children attending bilingual classes, Humesinterested in the question of whether poor FL learn- Bartlo (1989) reported that the fast language learners
ers also would exhibit difficulties in the phonological had more highly developed native language skills
(sound) and orthographic (written symbol) systems of than the slow language learners. Olshtain ct ah
the native and FLs and be less proficient than good (1990) reported that proficiency in the native lanFL learners in the oral aspects (speaking and listening) guage played the most important role in FL learning
of the FL. They conducted their studies with high among a group of 11-12 year old Hebrew-speaking
school and college populations, as FL study primarily students who were studying English. Among Dutch
occurs at these school levels in the U.S.
students learning English, Hulstijn and Bossers
In one study, the authors compared test profiles of (1992) supported the hypothesis that some individsuccessful and university FL learners (Ganschow, ual differences in a second (foreign) language can be
Sparks, Javorsky, Pohlman & Bishop-Marbury, 1991). accounted for by individual differences in students'
Findings showed no significant differences between the first (native) language. Dufva and Voeten (1999)
groups on measures of IQ and reading comprehension found that proficiency in native language skills was
but differences favouring the successful FL learners on highly significant for learning English as an FL in
the MLAT and measures of native language oral and their study of 7 year old Finnish children!
written phonology/orthography, and written syntax.
In the 1990s, researchers conducted studies on the
In another study with college FL learners, the authors role of phonological and phonological/orthographic
found that students with relatively low scores on native skills in learning an FL. Among Finnish speaking
language phonological/ orthographic measures (i.e., children, Service (1992) reported that phonologiword recognition, pseudoword reading) achieved lower cal/orthographic tests along with the ability to
grades in FL courses than students with stronger scores predict syntactic-semantic structures in Finnish were
on the measures (Ganschow et al, 1994).
predictive of learning English. Service and Kohonen
In studies conducted with high school students, (1995), Cheung (1996), and Papagno, Valentine, and
findings also showed that good and poor FL learners Baddeley (1991) demonstrated that phonological
students who had FL learning problems had suggested that they exhibited" either overt or subtle
problems with aspects of their native language. Thus,
they reasoned that because FL learning is the learning of'language', the primary locus of FL learning
problems would be in the students' language learning
skills.
FL researchers also had supported the present
authors' hypothesis. Carroll (1973) had speculated
that FL aptitude is a 'residue' of native (first) language
ability. Skehan (1986b) had found that students'native
language ability correlated highly with their skill in
learning an FL. Cummins (1984) had argued for the
linguistic interdependence between languages.
Throughout the 1990s, the authors collaborated
with FL educators to investigate the relationship
between FL learning skill and native language skill, to
re-examine the concept of FL aptitude, and to study
the role of affective variables, particularly anxiety, in
relation to language variables. Their research questions
and thefindingsof themselves and others are described
next. (For other reviews of this research, see Ganschow
& Sparks, 2000; Ganschow, Sparks & Javorsky, 1998.)
89
IP address: 50.203.69.85

memory was important for learning FL vocabulary.
Crombie (1997) found that Scottish 11-16 year olds
classified as dyslexic performed significantly more
poorly than a comparison group on phonological
skills in both English and French. Downey, Snyder &
Hill (2000) found significantly poorer performance
on phonological tasks in a comparison study of
college students classified as learning disabled and
nondisabled students, both of whom were enrolled
in FL courses. Similar results have been reported in
related studies with bilingual and/or ESL children
(see, e.g., Durkin, 2000; Everatt, Smythe, Adams &
Ocampo, 2000). These findings suggest that native
language skills (especially phonological/orthographic
tasks) distinguish good and poor FL learners.
ing affective variables and FL learning (Sparks, 1995;

Sparks & Ganschow, 1995a).
Question 3: Are there FL proficiency

differences among students who differ in their
level of native language and FL aptitude?
Conversely, are there native language and FL
aptitude differences in students who differ in
their level of FL proficiency?
The authors examined FL proficiency and involved

FL educators trained to use ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines (American Council on the Teaching of
FLs, 1989). They examined the oral and written FL
proficiency of not-at-risk and at-risk FL learners after
two years of high school FL study (Sparks, Ganschow,
Artzer & Patton, 1997). The at-risk learners were
Question 2: Are there native language and FL enrolled in a special section of a Spanish course
aptitude differences in students with differing because they had either exhibited a history of language learning problems, failed a previous FL course,
levels of motivation? Anxiety?
or been classified as learning disabled.The two groups
Sparks and Ganschow raised the question of whether exhibited significant differences favouring the not-ataffective differences, such as high anxiety about and/or risk learners on native language and FL aptitude mealow motivation for FL learning, are a causa or conse- sures. Results did not show quantitative differences
quence of differences in FL achievement.They conduct- between the groups on the FL proficiency measures.
ed a pilot study on the perceptions of low and high risk Informal observations on the proficiency measures,
students and students classified as learning disabled however, showed that all of the not-at-risk students
about high school FL courses (Sparks, Ganschow & but only 71% of the at-risk students met or exceeded
Javorsky, 1993). Findings showed that the high risk and the expected range of performance on the FL writing
learning disabled groups were generally less positive task after two years of FL study; 75% of the not-atthan the low risk group in their attitudes toward FL risk students but only 43% of the at-risk students met
learning.Yet, all three groups reported positive attitudes or exceeded the expected range of performance on
about wanting to learn an FL, which suggested that the FL speaking/ listening task.
motivation was not the issue. A study with college stuThe authors conducted another study on FL
dents classified as learning disabled and non learningproficiency
with a group of not-at-risk FL learners
disabled showed similar findings (Javorsky, Sparks &
and
three
different
groups of at-risk learners who
Ganschow, 1992).Responses from a retrospective study
had
completed
two
years of Spanish in high school
of perspectives of college students classified as learning
(Sparks,Artzer,
Patton,
Ganschow ct al., 1998). Scores
disabled who were granted FL course substitutions at
on
standardised
tests
showed
significant differences
one university suggested that they were motivated to
between
the
not-at-risk
and
at-risk groups on
study an FL but were unsuccessful in their attempts
measures
of
native
language
achievement
and FL
(Ganschow, Philips & Schneider, in press).
aptitude. The authors also found significant differThe authors used Homntz's Foreign Language ences in FL proficiency between the not-at-risk
Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope,group and two of the three at-risk groups.
1986) to determine whether there would be language
The authors divided a group of high school
skill differences among college FL learners identified
students
into three groups according to their FL
as high, average, and low anxious (Ganschow ct al.,
proficiency
level after two years of FL study in
1994). Their findings showed significant differences
French,
German,
and Spanish (Sparks, Ganschow,
favouring low and average anxious groups on both
Artzer,
Siebenhar,
Plageman
& Patton, 1998). Using
native language and FL aptitude (MLAT) measures.
tests
of
native
language
and
FL
aptitude and final FL
They replicated this study with high school FL learngrades
as
dependent
measures,
findings showed
ers (Ganschow & Sparks, 1996) and obtained similar
significant
differences
favouring
low-risk
learners on
results. In a follow-up after two years of FL study, there
most
measures.These
findings
indicate
a
relationship
were significant differences in oral and written FL
proficiency favouring the average and low anxious between native language skill and FL proficiency.
groups (Sparks, Ganschow, Artzer, Siebenhar &
Plageman, 1997).Though these studies did not resolve Question 4: What are the best predictors ofFL
the 'causal' issue, the authors began recommending grades and FL proficiency?
that measures of native language skill and FL aptitude The authors conducted two studies to determine
be included as variables to consider in studies involv- best predictors of performance in FL classrooms and
90
IP address: 50.203.69.85

proficiency in the FL as-measured by FL course FL aptitude (MLAT) and native language phonology/
grade (Sparks, Ganschow & Patton, 1995). The first orthography, grammar and syntax, and semantics
study involved 154 ninth and tenth grade girls in a after one year of FL study (Sparks ct al, 1992b).
single-sex private high school; the second study Findings showed no differences between students
involved a co-ed population of 100 ninth grade classified as learning disabled and at-risk learners on
students in a public school. Best predictors of end- most measures; exceptions were native language
of-year FL grades were students' scores on an FL spelling and word recognition, where the learning
aptitude test (MLAT) and their eighth grade English disabled group scored significantly more poorly. An
grade. In the first of the aforementioned studies, investigation of the learners over two years of FL
native language spelling was also a significant predictor study in high school also showed similar results
a new finding in the literature.
(Sparks, Artzer,Javorsky ctrt/.,1998).
The authors also examined best predictors of
The authors determined whether there were difoverall (oral + written) FL proficiency after follow- ferences in performance when students were grouped
ing a subset of students from each group through a according to the severity of their learning disability.
second year of FL study (Sparks, Ganschow, Patton, Using only students classified as learning disabled
Artzer, Siebenhar & Plageman, 1997). Best predictors from the aforementioned study (Sparks, Artzer,
in both groups were end of first-year grade in the FL Javorsky ct <?/., 1998), they determined each students
course and a measure of phonology/orthography, FL IQ-academic achievement discrepancy and split the
students into two groups: those with at least a 1.0 SD
word decoding.
The authors examined the results of a factor analysis (15 standard score points) IQ-achievement discrepanof the battery of native language and FL aptitude mea- cy and those with less than 1.0 SD IQ-achievement
sures that they had used to predict the FL proficiency discrepancy. Findings showed no significant differof the aforementioned groups combined (Sparks, ences between the groups on measures of FL
Javorsky, Patton 8c Ganschow, 1998). Three indepen- proficiency after two years of high school FL study.
dent components emerged from the principal compoThe authors examined the testing profiles, course
nents analysis. They labelled them Verbal Manor}' grades, and histories of 97 university students classi(consisting of MLAT Parts I and V and native language fied as learning disabled who had been permitted to
vocabulary); Phonological Coding/Rccoding (native lan- substitute courses for the colleges FL requirement
guage pseudoword reading, word recognition, phone- (Sparks, Philips & Ganschow, 1996). (In the U.S.,
mic awareness, spelling, and MLAT Subtest II); and generally students are excused from FL study only if
Cognitive Speed Phis (timed tests of reading comprehen- they are classified as learning disabled.) Findings
sion and group achievement and MLAT Subtests III showed that about a third of the students had been
and IV, also timed). Multiple regression analyses classified as learning disabled prior to college; almost
showed that the aforementioned factors were signifi- two-thirds had been classified after experiencing FL
cant in predicting end-of-year FL grades; two of the learning problems in college, a finding similar to
three factors were significant in predicting students' FL anecdotal reports from the 1980s. Results of their
word recognition performance.
examination of test profiles showed that less than half
A recent study conducted with Hebrew-speaking of the students exhibited at least a 1.0 SD IQchildren in the third grade who were learning to speak achievement discrepancy, generally considered a
English supports the above findings. Kahn-Horwitz minimum criterion for classification as learning dis(2000) found that phonological awareness and ortho- abled. (For guidelines, see Association on Higher
graphic skill in Hebrew predicted their skill in learning Education and Disability, 1997.)
to read English; also, Hebrew morphological awareness
.The authors conducted a follow-up study with
was a strong predictor of English reading comprehen- the group of students classified as learning disabled in
sion and word recognition.These findings suggest that order to determine whether students who had been
researchers studying predictors of FL learning should allowed to substitute related culture courses for the
include native language variables in their test batteries.
college FL requirement would display significant
cognitive and academic achievement differences
when grouped by level of IQ-achievement and
Question 5: Are there native language and FL achievement-achievement (e.g., between reading and
aptitude differences in students classified as mathematics) discrepancy, and by level of perforlearning disabled and at-risk students not
mance on phonological/ orthographic measures, on
classified as learning disabled, both of whom the MLAT, and in FL courses (Sparks, Philips,
have FL learning problems?
Ganschow & Javorsky, 1999a). Among students with
The authors conducted studies comparing high differing levels of discrepancy, findings showed no
school FL learners classified as learning disabled with significant group differences on the MLAT, college
students having FL learning problems but not classi- entrance exams, overall graduating grade point
fied as learning disabled (i.e., at-risk students). In one average, or college FL grade point average. Results
study, they compared the two groups on measures of also showed no significant differences on these
91
IP address: 50.203.69.85

measures when the students were grouped by level
of performance on phonological/orthographic measures, the MLAT, or performance (grades) in FL
courses. A replication study at another university
yielded similar results (Sparks & Javorsky, 1999b).
The authors examined differences in performance
between students classified as learning disabled who
fulfilled the FL requirement by passing FL courses
and a comparable group of students who received FL
course substitutions in place of the requirement
(Sparks, Philips, Ganschow & Javorsky, 1999b).
Results showed no significant group differences.
From these studies, the authors inferred that students classified as learning disabled do not exhibit
more severe native language and FL learning problems than at-risk FL learners who are not so classified; many students classified as learning disabled do
not meet legal or traditional research criteria for this
classification; and IQ-achievement discrepancies and
classification as learning disabled are not reliable
indicators of whether students can pass FL courses.
These studies provide questions about the wisdom of
using the label of a learning disability as a basis for
granting FL course substitutions.
the other MSL group was taught only in Spanish.The

third group received instruction using traditional FL
teaching methods. The MSL group taught in both
Spanish and English made significant gains on measures of native language phonology/orthography,
vocabulary, and verbal memory, as well as FL aptitude
(MLAT). The MSL group taught only in Spanish
made significant gains only on the FL aptitude test,
and the performance of the group taught in the traditional manner did not change. A partial replication
study with another group of at-risk students showed
similar results (Sparks & Ganschow, 1993b). Followed
over two years, the participants from the study by
Sparks, Ganschow, Pohlman ct ah (1992) maintained
their original gains.
In another study, the authors determined how the
MSL Spanish-only cohorts from the two aforementioned studies performed in relation to not-at-risk
learners in regular Spanish classes (Ganschow &
Sparks, 1995). Findings on pre- and post-test scores
over one year showed that both groups improved significantly on the FL aptitude test. The at-risk students who had received MSL instruction also
showed significant improvement on native language
measures of phonology/orthography, whereas there
was no improvement in the not-at-risk group.
Question 6: Do students with FL learning
The authors examined FL proficiency over two
problems benefit from multisensory structured years on a representative sub-sample of the aforemenlanguage (MSL) instruction in the FL?
tioned groups. Findings showed that the students in
the
at-risk group, who had received MSL instruction,
In the native language, a multisensory, structured
achieved
the expected levels of oral and written prolanguage (MSL) approach has been used successfully
ficiency,
according to ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
to teach students with learning difficulties to read
(Sparks,
Ganschow,
Artzer & Patton, 1997).
and spell (Mclntyre & Pickering, 1995). {For MSL
instruction in the U.K., see, e.g., Miles (1998), Miles
The authors conducted a study to determine
& Miles, (1999), and Reid (1993); in German-speak- whether MSL instruction would be superior to other
ing countries, see, e.g., Briigelmann (1986) and instructional approaches for at-risk learners (Sparks,
Meyer-Schepers (1991); in other languages, see, e.g., Artzer, Patton, Ganschow et al, 1998). They comPeer & Reid (2000).} In this approach, educators pared not-at-risk FL learners with at-risk learners in
explicitly teach the phonological/orthographic three settings: a) MSL instruction in a self-contained
(sound and sound-symbol), syntactic (grammar), and class; b) traditional Spanish instruction in a self-conmorphological systems of that language. The approach tained class; and c) traditional Spanish instruction in
emphasises skill development and conscious attention regular classes with supportive tutoring. Findings
to language structures (metacognition). Instruction showed that all three at-risk groups made significant
is 'multisensory', i.e., students hear, see, and write gains on some native language measures regardless of
language elements (sounds/symbols, words, phrases, teaching method. However, the MSL and not-at-risk
etc.) simultaneously. Language rules are carefully groups made greater gains than the other groups on
sequenced from easy to difficult, and students master several measures, including measures of FL proficiena given concept before moving to new ones.
cy, and there were no significant differences in FL
Though there is research on the effectiveness of proficiency between the MSL and not at risk groups.
the approach in the native language, it has received These findings suggest that MSL instruction in the
limited attention as a teaching approach for at-risk FL phonological and phonological/orthographic aspects
learners (Schneider, 1999). Sparks, Ganschow, of an FL has a positive impact on learning an FL.
Pohlman et al. (1992) examined the pre- and post-test
scores on native language and FL aptitude measures Summary
of three groups of at-risk high school students who
One might summarise Part I as follows:
had enrolled in special, self-contained sections of
first-year Spanish. Two groups were instructed with The issue of learning disabilities/dyslexia and multilingualism, including FL study, attained international
an MSL approach over one year. One of the MSL
recognition.
groups was taught in both English and Spanish, while
92
IP address: 50.203.69.85
Educators interested in language and linguistics

showed increasing interest in the study of language
in relation to disabilities/dyslexia.
Educators examined issues of assessment and learning disabilities in languages besides English, and
assessments were translated from English.
Access to information about FL and learning
disabilities became available through the worldwide
web.
Ehrman, 1996; Gajar, 1987; Pimsleur, 1968; for

general discussion, see Carpenter & Just, 1989;
Cowan, 1996; Harrington & Sawyer, 1992;
McLaughlin, 1992; Siegel & Ryan, 1989). There is a
need for empirical studies on working memory in
relation to at-risk FL learners.
Early identification
Few studies have been conducted with at-risk

learners who begin FL study in their early years.
Students classified as learning disabled and at-risk There is a need to examine the best time to begin FL
students not so classified showed poorer perfor- study and to determine whether early instruction in
mance than good FL learners on native language an FL will prevent or promote later difficulties.
~" measures, particularly measures of phonological/ Longitudinal studies, in particular, would be useful
orthographic processing and FL aptitude.
for prediction of later FL success or failure. Bilingual
High anxious FL learners performed more poorly or multilingual settings, such as the French immerthan low anxious students on the above measures. sion programmes in Canada, provide excellent
Self-reported surveys indicated that both good and opportunities for continuing this exploration.
poor FL learners wanted to learn an FL but that
poor FL learners had less positive attitudes about
their ability to learn a language.
Affect
Best predictors of FL grades and FL proficiency
Findings suggest that language variables may be a
were tasks of native language phonological/orthoconfounding problem in FL studies on affect. Future
graphic skill and the MLAT.
Students classified as learning disabled and at-risk research should include native language and FL
students not so classified performed similarly on measures of phonological/orthographic processing
(e.g., spelling, word identification, and pseudoword
native and FL aptitude measures.
reading)
in studies on afTective variables and at-risk
Students with FL learning problems benefited from
FL
learners.
MSL instruction.
One might summarise Part II as follows:
Future directions
Cross-linguistic variables
The authors draw upon findings from their review to

recommend future directions for research and thinking about at-risk students in FL classrooms. They
consider the following topics: aptitude; proficiency;
memory; early identification; affective, cross-linguistic, and literacy variables; instruction; and interdisciplinary communication.
To the authors' knowledge, no one has conducted

studies on cross-linguistic variables in relation to
students with classified learning disabilities/dyslexia.
(For related discussions about cross-linguistic transfer, see Durgunoglu & Oney, 2000; Durgunoglu &
Vorhoeven, 1998; MacWhinney, 1992). There is a
need to examine differences across languages that
might facilitate or hinder learning an FL for at-risk
learners.
Aptitude
Neither the MLAT nor the P-LAB has been renormed since they were introduced in 1959 and
1966, respectively. There is a need to update and
standardise these measures.
Literacy variables
To date, there is only a handful of studies on the role

of phonological awareness and word recognition in
learning an FL (or second language) (Bruck &
Genesee, 1995; Geva, 2000; Geva 8c Siegel, 2000;
Proficiency
Koda,
1992; Sparks & Ganschow, 1997; for related
In the U.S., few studies on at-risk FL learners have
discussion
across languages, see Durgunoglu & Oney,
utilised FL proficiency measures (as defined in the
1999).Yet
research
in the native language shows that
ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, 1989). There is a need
these
variables
are
among the most important preto devise ways to quantify current measures of FL prodictors
of
later
reading
performance. Their role in
ficiency in order to compare students more effectiveand
across
languages
needs
further exploration.
ly in empirical studies.
Memory
Instruction
Educators have alluded to the difficulties at-risk FL

learners have with verbal memory, (Dinklage, 1971;
In recent years, FL educators primarily have worked

with 'top-down' models of instruction in which
93
IP address: 50.203.69.85

meaning is primary (Skehan, 1998). There is a need
for more research on 'bottom-up' approaches for
at-risk learners, in particular, MSL; the approach has
been shown to be effective for these learners in their
native language and shows promise in FL study.
Likewise, there is a need to design and evaluate new
experimental FL classrooms and modified instructional approaches for at-risk FL learners. (For recent
innovations, see, e.g., Aries, 1994; Block, Brinckerhoff
& Trueba, 1995; Downey, Snyder & Hill, 2000;
Pritikin, 1999; Schneider, 1999; Schneider &
Ganschow, 2000; and Simon, 2000; for student perspectives on instructional needs, see Ganschow,
Philips & Schneider, in press.)
BRADY, S. & SHANKWEILER, D. (Eds.) (1991). Phonological processes

in literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
BREWER, W. (1963,). Specific language disability: Rei'icu> of the literature andfamily study. Social Relations Honors Thesis, Harvard
College.
BROD, R. & HUHER, B. (1996). The MLA survey of foreign
language entrance and degree requirements, 1994-95.
Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL)
Bn//efm, 28,35-43.
BRUCK, M. (1978). Suitability of early French immersion
programs for the language disabled child. Canadian Modern
Language Rcvicu', 35,884-7.
BRUCK, M. & GENESEE, E (1995). Phonological awareness in young
second language learners Journal of Child Language, 22,307-24.
BROGELMANN, H. (1986). Kinder auf dem ]Vcg zur Schrift: Einc
Fibcljiir Lchrer und Laien (2nd ed.). Faude:Verlag Libelle.
BURSTALL, C , JAMIESON, M., COHEN, S. & HARGREAVES, M.
(1974). Primary French in the balance: A report of the National

Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.
NFER Publishing Col. Ltd.,Windsor, Berks.
CAMPBELL, R. & BUTTERWORTH, B. (1986). Phonological
dyslexia and dysgraphia in a highly literate subject: A
developmental case with associated deficits of phonemic
processing and awareness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology,37A,A35-75.
CARPENTER, P. A. & JUST, M. A. (1989). The role of working
memory in language comprehension. In D. Klahr & K.
Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: Tlic impact of
Herbert A. Simon (pp. 31-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
CARROLL, J. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training and
research in education (pp. 87136). Pittsburgh, PA: University
References
of Pittsburgh Press.
AARON, P. G. & JOSHI, R. (1989). Reading and writing disorders inCARROLL.J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers' College
different orthographic systems. Dordrecht: Kluvver Academic Rrron/, 64,723-33.
CARROLL.J. (1973). Implications of aptitude test research and
Publishers.
psycholinguistic theory for foreign language teaching.
ALDERSON.J. C. & URQUHART, A. H. (Eds.) (1984). Reading in a
InternationalJournal of Psychoiinguistics, 2,5-14.
foreign language. NY: Longman.
CARROLL.J. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON THE TEACHING OF FOREIGN
LANGUAGES (ACTFL) (1989). American Council on the
language aptitude. In K.Diller, pp. 83-118.
Teaching of Foreign Languages Proficiency Guidelines. HastingsCARROLL.J. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aption-Hudson, NY.
tude:Then and now. InT. Parry & C. Stansfield, pp. 11-29.
AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION (1994). Diagnostic and sta- CARROLL.J. & SAPON, S. (1959). Modem Language Aptitude Test.
tistical manual of mental disorders IV. Washington, DC:
NY: Psychological Corporation.
American Psychiatric Association.
CATTS, H. (1989). Defining dyslexia as a developmental language
Americans unth Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990), P. L. 202-336, 42 disorder. Annals of Dyslexia,39,50-67.
U.S. C. Sec. 12101.
CHASTAIN, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in secondlanguage acquisition. Language Learning, 25,153-61.
ANASTASI, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th Ed.) New York:
CHEUNG, H. (1996). Nonword span as a unique predictor of
Macmillan.
ANDERSON, P. & MEIER-HEDDE, R. (2001). Early case reports of
second-language vocabulary learning. Developmental Psychology,
dyslexia in the United States and Europe. Journal of Learning
12,867-73.
Disabilities,34,9-2\.
CLARK, J. & O'MARA, F. (1991). Measurement and research
implications of Spolsky s conditions for second language
ARIES, J. (1994). An experimental Spanish course for learning
disabled students. Hispania,77,110-17.
learning. Applied Language Learning, 2,71-113.
Communication across disciplines and

languages
The issues surrounding study of an FL by individuals
with learning disabilities/dyslexia and other at-risk
populations are complex. Interdisciplinary collaborations should be expanded to include linguists (crosslinguistic, sociocultural perspectives), psycholinguists,
speech/language specialists, and FL/special/bilingual
educators.
ASSOCIATION
ON
HIGHER
EDUCATION
AND DISABILITY
CLEMENT. R., GARDNER, R. C. & SMYTHE, P. C. (1977).
(AHEAD) (1997, July). Guidelines for documentation of a learn- Motivational variables in second language acquisition: A
ing disability in adolescents and adults. Columbus, OH. Author.
study of francophones learning English. Canadian Journal of
ASTIN.A., GREEN, K., KORN.W., SCHALIT, M. & BERZ, E. (1988).
Behavioural Scicncc,9t 123-33.
Tlie American freshman: National norms for 1988. University of
CLINE, T , GANSCHOW, L. & REASON, R. (Guest Eds.) (2000).
California: Los Angeles.
Multilingualism and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 6, Parts 1 & 2.
COHEN, J. (1983). Learning disabilities and the college student:
Attorney General of Canada/Nancy Green and Canadian Human
Identification and diagnosis. In M. Sugar (Ed.), Adolescent
Rights Commission (2000). DocketT-1529-98,June 2.
psychiatry: Davlopmental and clinical studies (Vol. 2, pp.
Au, S. (1988). A critical appraisal of Gardner's social-psychologi177-98). San Diego: College-Hill.
cal theory of second language (L2) acquisition. Language
COWAN, N. (1996). Short-term, working memory, and their
Learning, 38,75-100.
importance in language processing. Topics in Language
BLOCK, L., BRINCKERHOFF, L. &TRUEBA, C. (1995). Options and
Disorders, 17,1-18.
accommodations in mathematics and foreign language for
college students with learning disabilities. Information from CROMBIE, M. (1997). The effects of specific learning difficulties
(dyslexia) on the learning of a foreign language in school.
HEATH (Higher Education and the Handicapped), 14
D)'*/r.v/<7,3,27-47.
(2&3), 1-5.
94
IP address: 50.203.69.85

CUMMINS, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children.GANSCHOW, L., PHILIPS, L. & SCHNEIDER, E. (in press).
Experiences with the university foreign language requireToronto:The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
CUMMINS, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in ment: Voices of students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities:A A tultidisdplinaryJournal.
assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, Ca: College-Hill Press.
DAVIES.A. (1971). Language aptitude in thefirstyear of the U.K. GANSCHOW, L. & SCHNEIDER, E. (2000). Dyslexia services and
training in Germany. Tlialamus, 18,19-33.
secondary school. RELCJoumal, 2,4-19.
DEMUTH, K. & SMITH, N. (1987).The foreign language require- GANSCHOW, L. & SPARKS, R. (1986), Learning disabilities and
foreign language difficulties: Deficit in listening skills?Journal
ment: An alternative program. Foreign Lanquaqc Annals, 20,
of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 2,
66-77.
DiLLER, K. (Ed.) (1981). Individual differences and univcrsals in lan- 305-19. '
GANSCHOW, L. &: SPARKS, R. (1987). The foreign language
guage learning aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
requirement. Learning Disabilities Fonts, 2,11523.
DINKLAGE, K. (1971). Inability to learn a foreign language. In G.
DIaine 8c C. McArthur (Eds.), Emotional problems of the student GANSCHOW, L. & SPARKS, R. (1991). A screening instrument for
the identification of foreign language learning problems:
(pp. 184-206). NY:Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Evidence for a relationship between native and second lanD6RNYEI, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language
guage learning problems. Forciqn Lanquaqc Annals, 24,
learning. LanguagcTcaching,Z\, 11735.
383-98.
DOWNEY, D., SNYDER, L. &r HILL, B. (2000). College students
with dyslexia: Persistent linguistic deficits and foreign GANSCHOW, L. &: SPARKS, R. (1995). Effects of direct instruction
language learning. Dyslexia, 6,10111.
in Spanish phonology on the native language skills and forDUFVA, M. & VOETEN, M. (1999). Native language literacy and
eign language aptitude of at-risk foreign language learners.
phonological memory as prerequisites for learning English as
Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 28,107-20.
a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics,20,329-48.
GANSCHOW, L. &: SPARKS, R. (1996). Foreign language anxiety
DURGUNOGLU, A. & HANCIN, D. (1992). An overview of crossamong high school women. Modem Lanquaqe Journal, 80,
language transfer in bilingual reading. In R. J. Harris, pp.
199-212.
391-411.
GANSCHOW, L. & SPARKS, R. (2000). Reflections on foreign
DURGUNOGLU.A. & ONEY, K. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparlanguage study for students with language learning probison of phonological awareness and word recognition.
lems: Research, issues, and challenges. Dyslexia, 6,87-100.
Reading andlVriting:An InterdisciplinaryJournal, 11,281-99. GANSCHOW, L., SPARKS, R., ANDERSON, R., JAVORSKY, J.,
DURGUNOGLU.A. &: ONEY, K. (2000). Literacy development in tuv
SKINNER, S. & PATTON.J. (1994). Differences in anxiety and
languages: Cognitive and sodoailtural dimensions of cross-languagelanguage performance among high- and low-anxious
transfer. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual
college foreign language learners. Modern Lanquaqe Journal,
Education and Minority Language Affairs, Reading
78,41-55.
Research Symposium.Washington, D C .
GANSCHOW, L., SPARKS, R. & JAVORSKY, J. (1998). Foreign
language learning problems: An historical perspective.Journal
DURGUNOGLU.A. &VERHOEVEN,L. (Eds.) (1998)./lftjiiwifion of
literacy in a multilingual context: A cross-cultural perspective.of Learning Disabilities, 31,248-58.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
GANSCHOW, L , SPARKS, R., JAVORSKY.J. POHLMAN, J. & BISHOPMARBURY, A. (1991). Identifying native language difficulties
DURKIN, C. (2000). Dyslexia in bilingual children - Does recent
among foreign language learners in college: A 'foreign'
research assist identification? Dyslexia, 6,248-67.
language learning disability? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975). Public Law 9424,530-41.
142.
EHRMAN, M. (1990). The role of personality type in adult lan- GARDNER, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: Tlic role of attitudes and motinuion. London:Arnold.
guage learning: An ongoing investigation. In T. Parry & C.
Stansfield, pp. 126-78.
GARDNER, R. (1988). The socio-educational model of secondEHRMAN, M. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficul- language learning: Assumptions,findings,and issues. Language
Learning,^, 101-26.
ties. London: SAGE Publications.
EHRMAN, M. & OXFORD, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of GARDNER, R. (1990). Attitudes, motivation, and personality as
predictors of success in foreign language learning. InT. Parry
language learning success. Modern Langtiagejournal, 79,67-89.
& C. Stansfield, pp. 179-221.
ELIIRO, C. & ARNBAK, E. (1996).The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of GARDNER, R., CLEMENT, R., SMYTHE, P. & SMYTHE, C. (1979;.
Attitude and mothution test battery Revised manual (Research
Dyslexia, 46,209-40.
Bulletin No. 15). London, Ontario: Language Research Group,
EVERATT, J., SMYTHE, I., ADAMS, E. & OCAMPO, D. (2000).
Department of Psychology', University ofWestern Ontario.
Dyslexia screening measures and bilingualism. Dyslexia, 6,
42-56.
GARDNER, R M GLIKSMAN, L. & SMYTHE, P. (1978). Attitudes and
behaviour in second language acquisition: A social psychoFAWCETT, A. & LYNCH, L. (2000). Systematic identification and
logical interpretation. Canadian Psychological Rcvieii', 19,
intervention for reading difficulty: Case studies of children
173-86.
with EAL. Dyslexia, 6,57-71.
FAWCETT, A. & NICOLSON, R. (1996). Vie Dyslexia Screening Test. GARDNER, R., LALONDE, R . & PIERSON, R . (1983).The socioLondon: Psychological Corporation.
educational model of second language acquisition: An investigation using LISREL causal modeling. Journal of Language
FAWCETT, A. & NICOLSON, R. (1998). Tltc Dyslexia Adult
and Social Psychology, 2,1-15.
ScrceningTcst. London: Psychological Corporation.
FREED, B. (1987). Exemptions from the foreign language GARDNER, R. & LAMBERT, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in
second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
requirement: A review of recent literature, problems, and
GARDNER, R. C. & MACINTYRE, P. D. (1993). On the measurepolicy. Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL)
ment of affective variables in second language learning.
Bulletin, 18,13-17.
Language Learning, 43,15794.
GAJAR, A. (1987). Foreign language learning disabilities: The
identification of predictive and diagnostic variables.Journal of GARDNER, R. & SMYTHE, P. (1975). Motivation and secondlanguage acquisition. Tlic Canadian Modem Lanquaqe Rcvim;
Learning Disabilities, 20,327-30.
31,218-30.
GANSCHOW, L., MYER, B. & ROEGER, K. (1989). Foreign
language policies and procedures for students with specific GEVA, E. (2000). Issues in the assessment of reading disabilities in
L2 children beliefs and research evidence. Dyslexia, 6,13-28.
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5,50-8.
95
IP address: 50.203.69.85

GEVA, E. & SlEGEL, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive faclearning disabled adults. Journal of College Student Personnel,
tors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in
25,361-2.
two languages. Reading and Writing: An InterdisciplinaryLEONG, C. K., CHENG, P-W. & LAM, C. (2000). Exploring readJournal, 12,1-30.
ing-spelling connection as locus of dyslexia in Chinese.
GlLLlNGHAM, A. & STILLMAN, B. (1960J. Remedial training for
Annals ofDyslexia,50,239-59.
cliildrcn with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship.
LEONG, C. K. & JOSHI, R. (1997). Cross language studies of learning
Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing.
to read and spell. Boston, MA: Kluwcr.
GOODIN, S. (1985). Academic adjustments for students with LEVINE, M. (1987). Dcivlopmcntal variation and learning disorders.
learning disabilities. In Support services for LD students in post- Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
secondary education: A compendium of readings. AssociationLIUERMAN,
on
I. (1985). Should so-called modality preferences
Handicapped Student Service Programs in Postsecondary
determine the nature of instruction for children with readEducation, Columbus, OH.
ing disabilities? In F. Duffy & N. Geschwind (Eds.), Dyslexia
GREEN, P. (1975). Tlie language laboratory in school:TJtc York study.(pp. 93-104). Boston: Little, Brown.
Edinburg: Oliver & Boyd.
LYON, R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of
Dyslexia, 45,13-30.
HARRINGTON, M. & SAWYER, M. (1992). L2 working memory
capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language MACINTYRE, P. (1995a). How does anxiety affect second lanAcquisition, 14,25-38.
guage learning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. Modern
LanguageJournal, 79,90-9.
HARRIS, M. & HATANO, G. (Eds.) (1999). Learning to read and
ivrite:A cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
MACINTYRE, P. (1995b). On seeing the forest and the trees: A
University Press.
rejoinder to Sparks and Ganschow. Modern Language Journal,
HARRIS, R. J. (Ed.) (1992). Cognitive processing in bilinguals. 79,245-8.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
MACINTYRE, P. & GARDNER, R. (1989). Anxiety and second language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language
HERMANN, G. (1980). Attitudes and success in children's learning
Learning,39,2S\-75.
of English as a second language. English Language Teaching
Journal,34,247-54.
MclNTYRE, C..& PICKERING.J. (1995). Clinical studies ofmultisenHORWITZ, R. (2000). It ain't over until it's over: On foreign lansory structured language education. International Multiscnsory
guage anxiety, first language deficits, and the confounding of
Structured Language Education Council, Suite 346, 1118
variables. Modern LanguageJournal, 84,256-9.
Lancaster Drive, NE, Salem, OR.
HORWITZ, E., HORWITZ, M. & COPE.J. (1986). Foreign language MCLAUGHLIN, B. (1992). Working memory capacity as a
classroom anxiety. Modern LanguageJournal, 70,125-32.
constraint on L2 development. In R.J. Harris, pp. 123-35.
HORWITZ, E. &YOUNG, D. (1991/ Language learning anxiety: From
MACWHINNEY, B. (1992). Competition and transfer in second
theory and research to classroom implications. Englewood Cliffs, language learning. In R.J. Harris, pp. 371-90.
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
MEYER-SCHEPERS, U. (1991). Linguistik und Problematik des
Schriflspracherwcrbs. Von der Sachlogik des Zusammenhangs von
HULSTIJN, J. & BOSSERS, B. (1992). Individual differences in L2
Laut' und Schriftsprachc iibcr die Logik der Ancignung von
proficiency as a function of LI proficiency. European Journal
Schriftsprachkompetenz zur Diagnose und Tlierapic von
of Cognitive Psychology, 4,341-53.
Fehlersyndromen. Frankfurt:Verlag Peter Lang.
HUMES-BARTLO.M. (1989).Variation in children's ability to learn
second languages. In K. Hyltenstam & L. Obler (eds.), MILES, E. (1998). Tlie Bangor dyslexia teaching system (3rd Ed.).
Bilingualism across the life span (pp. 4154). Cambridge, MA: London:Whurr.
Cambridge University Press.
MILES, E. (2000). Dyslexia may show a different face in different
Individuals ivith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1990). PL 101- languages. Dyslexia, 6,193-201.
476.
MILES, T. R. (1993). Dyslexia:Tlie pattern of difficulties (2nd Ed.).
JAVORSKY,J., SPARKS, R. & GANSCHOW, L. (1992). Perceptions of
London:Whurr.
college students with and without specific learning disabili- MILES..T. R. & MILES, E. (1999). Dyslexia a hundred years on (2nd
ties about foreign language courses. Learning Disabilities:
Ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Research and Practice, 7,31-44.
MOORE, F. (1995). Section 504 and the Americans with
JUNG, U. (1980). Dyslexia and the foreign-language teacher. In
Disabilities Act: Accommodating the learning disabled
R. Grotjahn &. E. Hopkins (Eds.), Empirical research on lan- student in the foreign language curriculum. Association
guage teaching and language acquisition (pp. 17398). Bochum: of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL) Bulletin, 26,
Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.
59-62.
KAHN-HORWITZ,J. (2000,July). Identifying the best reading related preMYER, B. & GANSCHOW, L. (1988). Profiles of frustration: Second
dictor ixiriablesfor English foreign language reading achievemettt in
elelanguage
learners with specific learning disabilities. In J.
mentary school age Hebrew speakers. Paper presented at the Society Lalande (Ed.), Shaping the future of foreign language education:
for the Scientific Study of Reading, Stockholm, Sweden.
FLES, articulation, and proficiency (pp. 32-53). Lincoln wood,
IL: National Textbook Co.
KEENEY, L. & SMITH, N. (1984). Foreign language modifications
for disabled students - the campus response. Association on MYER, B., GANSCHOW, L., SPARKS, R. & KENNEWEG, S. (1989).
Handicapped Student Service Programs in Post-Secondary
Cracking the code: Helping students with specific learning
Education (now called Association on Higher Education and disabilities. In D. McAlpine (Ed.), Defining the essentials for the
Disability), 2,4-5.
foreign language classroom (pp. 112-20). Lincoln wood, IL:
National Textbook Co.
KODA, K. (1992). The effects of lower-level processing skills on
FL reading performance: Implications for instruction. Modern NAIMAN,N.,FR6LICH,M.,STERN, H &TODESCO,A. (1978). Tlie
LanguageJournal, 76,502-12.
good language learners (Research in Education Scries, 7).
KRASHEN, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.),
Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Current issues in bilingual education: Gcorgetowtt Unhvrsity
OLLER.J. (1981). Research on the measurement of affective variRound Table on Language and Linguistics (pp. 168-80).
ables: Some remaining questions. In R. Anderson (Ed.), Ncu>
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
dimensions in second language learning (pp. 1427). Rowley,
KRASHEN, S. & TERRELL, T. (1983). Tlie Natural Approach:
MA: Newbury House.
Language acquisition in the classroom. Heyward, CA: Alemany/
OLSHTAIN, E., SHOHAMY, E., KEMP, J. & CHATOW, R. (1990).
Janus Press.
Factors predicting success in EFL among culturally different
LEFEBVRE, R. (1984). A psychological consultation program for
learners. Language Learning, 40,23-44.
96
IP address: 50.203.69.85

SERVICE, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign
ciated with foreign language anxiety. Applied Psycholinquistics,
language learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
20,217-39.
Psychology, 45 A, 21-50.
OXFORD, R. (1989). Strategy Inventor)' for Language Learning.SERVICE, E. & KOHONEN, V. (1995). Is the relation between
Alexandria.VA: Oxford Associates.
phonological memory and foreign language learning
OXFORD, R. (1990). Styles, strategies and aptitude: Connections
accounted for by vocabulary acquisition? Applied
for language learning. InT. Parry & C. Stansfield, pp. 67-125.
Psycholinguistics, 16,155-72.
OXFORD, R. (1993). Research on second language learning SIEGEL, L. & RYAN, E. G. (1989). The development of working
strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13,175-87.
memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning
disabled children. Child Daxlopmcnt, 60,975-80.
OXFORD, R. (1997). Personality type in the foreign or second
language classroom: Theoretical and experimental perspec- SIMON, C. (2000). Dyslexia and learning a foreign language: A
personal expericnce./lHHdk of Dyslexia, 50,155-87.
tives. In A. Horning & R. Sudol (Eds.), Understanding literacy:
Personality preference in rhetorical and psycholinguistic contexts
SIRCH, K. (1975). Dcr Unfug mit dcr Legasthenic. Stuttgart,
(pp. 153-79). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Germany: Klett-Verlag.
OXFORD, R. & EHRMAN, M. (1993). Second language research SKEHAN, P. (1986a). The role of foreign language aptitude in a
on individual differences./lmMd/ Rci>ieu> of Applied Linguistics, model of school learning. LanguageTesting.Z, 188-221.
-13,188-205.
SKEHAN, P. (1986b). Where does language aptitude come from?
PAPAGNO, C.VALENTINE.T. &T BADDELEY,A. (1991). Phonological
In P. Meara (Ed.), Spoken language (pp. 95-113). London:
short-term memory and foreign language vocabulary learnCiLT (Centre for Information on Language Teaching and
ing.Joumal ofA lemory and Language, 3 0,331-47.
Research).
PARRY.T., & STANSFIELD, C. (Eds.) (1990). Language aptitude recon- SKEHAN, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning.
sidered. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
London: Edward Arnold.
PEER, L. & REID, G. (Eds.) (2000). Multilingualism, literacy, andSKEHAN, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language
dyslexia: A challenge for educators. London: David Fulton learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13,275-98.
Publishers.
SKEHAN, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Rei>icu> of
PERFETTI, C , RIEIJEN, L. & FAYOL, M. (Eds.) (1997). Learning to
Applied Linguistics, 18,268-86.
spell: Research, theory and practice across languages. New Jersey:
SPARKS, R. (1995). Examining the Linguistic Coding Differences
Erlbaum.
Hypothesis to explain individual differences in foreign lanPETERSEN, C. &: AL-HAIK, A. (1976). The development of the
guage learning. Annals of Dyslexia, 45,187-219.
Defense Language Battery (DLAB). Educational and SPARKS, R., ARTZER, M.JAVORSKYJ., PATTON.J., GANSCHOW, L.,
Psychological Measurement, 36,369-80.
MILLER, K. & HORDUBAY, D. (1998). Students classified as
learning disabled (LD) and non learning disabled students:
PHILIPS, L., GANSCHOW, L. & ANDERSON, R. (1991).The college
Two comparison studies of native language skill, foreign lanforeign language requirement: An action plan for alternaguage aptitude, and foreign language proficiency. Foreign
tives. NACADA Journal, 11,51-6.
PlMSLEUR, P. (1966a). Tlie Pintslcur Language Aptitude Battery. NY: Language Annals, 31,535-51.
SPARKS, R., ARTZER, M M PATTON.J., GANSCHOW, L., MILLER, K.,
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
HORDUBAY, D. & WALSH, G. (1998). Benefits of multisensory
PlMSLEUR, P. (1966b). Testing foreign language learning. In A.
Valdman (Ed.), Trends in language teaching (pp. 175-214). New language instruction in Spanish for at-risk learners: A comparison study of high school Spanish students. Annals of
York: McGraw-Hill.
D^/CYM, 48,239-70.
PlMSLEUR, P. (1968). Language aptitude testing. In A. Davies.
(Ed.), Language testing symposium: A psycholinguistic approach
SPARKS, R. & GANSCHOW, L. (1991). Foreign language learning
(pp. 98-106). London: Oxford University Press.
difficulties: Affective or native language aptitude differences?
Modem LanguageJournal, 75,3-16.
PIMSLEUR, P., SUNDLAND, D. & MCINTYRE, R. (1964). Underachievement in foreign language learning. International SPARKS, R. & GANSCHOW, L. (1993a). Searching for the cognitive
locus of foreign language learning problems: Linking first
RciHew of Applied Linguistics, 2,113-50.
and second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 77,
POMPIAN, N. &THUM, C. (1988). Dyslexic/learning disabled stu289-302.
dents at Dartmouth College. A nnals of Dyslexia, 38,276-84.
SPARKS, R. & GANSCHOW, L. (1993b). The effects of a multisenPRITIKIN, L. (1999). A policy of inclusion: Alternativeforeign language
curriculum for high-risk and learning disabled students. ERIC sory structured language approach on the native language
and foreign language aptitude skills of at-risk learners:A folClearinghouse on Language and Linguistics, Center for
low-up and replication study. Annals of Dyslexia, 43,
Applied Linguistics. ED 428 586 (15 pp.).
194-216.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504, P. L. 93-112,29US C. Sec
SPARKS, R. & GANSCHOW, L. (1995a). A strong inference
794 (1977).
approach to causal factors in foreign language learning: A
REID, G. (Ed.) (1993). Specific learning difficulties (dyslexia):
Perspectives on practice. Edinburgh: Moray House Publications. response to Maclntyre.Modern LanguageJoumal,79,235-44.
RUDEL, R. (1981). Residual effects of childhood reading disor- SPARKS, R. & GANSCHOW, L. (1995b). Parent perceptions in the
screening for performance in foreign language courses.
ders. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 31,89-102.
Foreign Language Annals, 28,371-91.
SALTER, R. & SMYTHE, I. (Eds.) (1997). Tltc international book of
dyslexia. London:World Dyslexia Network Foundation.
SPARKS, R. 8C GANSCHOW, L. (1996).Teachersf perceptions of students' foreign language academic skills and affective characSCHLEE, J. (1976). Legasthenicforschung am Ende} Miinchcn,
teristics.Journal of Educational Research, 89,172-85.
Germany: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
SPARKS, R. & GANSCHOW, L. (1997). Word recognition as a preSCHNEIDER, E. (1999). Multiscnsory structured metacognitive instruction: An approach to teaching a foreign language. Frankfurt a.M., dictor of foreign language proficiency. Tlialamus, 16,20-24.
SPARKS, R. & GANSCHOW, L. (Guest Eds.) (1999). The Boston
Germany: Peter LangVerlag.
University lawsuit: Introduction to the special series.Journal
SCHNEIDER, E. & GANSCHOW, L. (2000). Dynamic assessment
of Learning Disabilities, Z2,2%4-5.
and instructional strategies for learners who struggle to learn
SPARKS, R. & GANSCHOW, L. (in press). Aptitude for learning a
a foreign language. Dyslexia, 6,72-82.
foreign language. Annual Rci'icw of Applied Linguistics.
SCOVEL, P. (1978).The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28, SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L., ARTZER, M. & PATTON.J. (1997).
Foreign language proficiency' of at-risk and not-at-risk
129-42.
ONWUEGHUZIE, A.J., BAILEY, P. & DALEY, C. (1999). Factors asso-
97
IP address: 50.203.69.85

learners over two years of foreign language instruction.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30,92-8.
SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L., ARTZER, M M SIEBENHAR, D. &
PLACEMAN, M. (1997). Language anxiety and proficiency in

a foreign language. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85,559-62.
SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L., ARTZER, M., SIEBENHAR, D.,
PLAGEMAN, M. & PATTON, J. (1998). Differences in native

language skills, foreign language aptitude, and foreign language grades among high, average, and low proficiency
learners:Two studies. LanguageTesting, 15,181-216.
fied as learning disabled and the foreign language requirement. In J. Liskin-Gasparro (Ed.), Patterns and policies: Tltc
changing demographics of foreign language instruction (pp.
123^59). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinfe. '
SPARKS, R., PHILIIS, L., GANSCHOW, L. & JAVORSKY.J. (1999a).
Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement: A quantitative analysis. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 32,566-80.
SPARKS, R., PHILIPS, L., GANSCHOW, L. & JAVORSKY, J. (1999b).
Comparison of students classified as learning disabled who

petitioned for or fulfilled the college foreign language
exploratory study on the effects of Latin on the native lanrequirement.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32,553-65.
guage skills and foreign language aptitude of students with SPOLSKY.B. (1986). Conditionsfor second language learning. Oxford:
and without learning disabilities. ClassicalJournal, 91,16584.
Oxford University Press.
SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L. & JAVORSKY,J. (1993). Perceptions of SPOLSKY, B. (1995). Prognostication and language aptitude testlow and high risk students and students with learning dising, 1925-62. LanguageTesting, 12,321-40.
abilities about high school foreign language courses. Foreign STAHL, S. (1999). Different strokes for different folks? A critique
Language Annals, 26,491-510.
of learning styles. American Educator, 23,2731.
SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L. & JAVORSKY, J. (2000). Deja vu all
STAHL, S. & KUHN, M. (1995). Does whole language or instrucover again: A response to Saito, Horwitz, and Garza. Modern
tion matched to learning styles help children to learn to
LanguageJournal, 84,25155.
read? School Psychology Review, 24,393-404.
SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L.JAVORSKYJ., POHLMANJ. & PATTON,
STANOVICH, K. (1988). The right and wrong places to look for
J. (1992a). Identifying native language deficits in high- and
the cognitive locus of reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia,
low-risk foreign language learners in high school. Foreign
38,154-77.
Language Annals, 25,40318.
STANOVICH, K. (1998).Twenty-five years of research on the readSPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L.JAVORSKY.J., POHLMAN.J. & PATTON,
ing process: The grand synthesis and what it means for our
J. (1992b). Test comparisons among students identified as
field. InT. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-sci'high-risk, low-risk, and learning disabled in high school forenth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 44-58).
eign language courses.Modern LanguageJournal,76,142-59.
Chicago: National Reading Conference.
SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L M KENNEWEG, S. & MILLER, M. (1991). STRONG, M. (1984). Integrative motivation: Cause or result of
successful second language acquisition? Lanquaqc Learning,
Using Orton-Gillingham methodologies to teach foreign
34,1-14.
language to learning disabled/dyslexic students: Explicit
teaching of phonology in a second language. Annals of This year's freshmen: A statistical profile. (1997, January 17). The
Dyslexia,41,96-\\S.
Chronicle of Higher Education, P. A42.
SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L. & PATTON, J. (1995). Prediction of TiEDEMANN, J. (1989). Measures of cognitive styles: A critical
review. Educational Psychologist, 24,26175.
performance in first-year foreign language courses:
Connections between native language and foreign language TREMBLAY, P. F. & GARDNER, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motilearning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 638-55.
vation construct in language learning. Tlie Modern Language
Journal, 79,505-18.
SPARKS, R M GANSCHOW, L., PATTON.J., ARTZER, M., SIEBENHAR,
D. & PLAGEMAN, M. (1997). Prediction of proficiency in a TRITES,R. L. (1984). Anglophone pupils with learning difficulforeign language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, ties in French immersion programmes. In P.Williams (Ed.),
549-61.
Special education in minority communities (pp. 68-76). Milton
Keyncs, England: Open University Press.
SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L. & POHLMAN.J. (1989). Linguistic
coding deficits in foreign language learners. Annals of TRITES, R. & PRICE, M. (1978). Learning disabilities in immersion. Canadian Modern Language Rei'icu',34,888-89.
Dyslexia, 39,179-95.
SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L., POHLMAN.J.,ARTZER, M. & SKINNER,
TUCKER,J. (1980). Ethnic proportions in classes for the learning
S. (1992). The effects of a multisensory structured language
disabled: Issues in nonbiased assessment. Journal of Special
approach on the native and foreign language skills of high-risk
Education, 14, 93-105.
foreign language learners.Annals ofDyslexia,42,25-53.
VALTIN, R., JUNG, U. & SCHEERER-NEUMANN, G. (1981).
Lcgasthcnie in Wisscnschaft mid Untcrricht: Lcseprozefimodcll,
SPARKS, R. & JAVORSKY, J. (1999a). Section 504 and the
Fremdsprachenlegasthcnic und Erstlesedidaktik. Darmstadt,
Americans with Disabilities Act: Accommodating the learnGermany: WissenshaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.
ing disabled student in the foreign language curriculum: An
update. Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL)
VELLUTINO, F. & SCANLON, D. (1986). Linguistic coding and
B//rtm, 30,36-44,
metalinguistic awareness: Their relationship to verbal and
SPARKS, R. & JAVORSKY.J. (1999b). Students classified as learning
code acquisition in poor and normal readers. In D.Yaden &
disabled and the college foreign language requirement:
S.Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literac
Replication and comparison studies. Journal of Learning
Y (PP-115-41). Portsmouth, NHrHeinemann.
Disabilities,32,329-49.
WESCHE, M. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming,
SPARKS, R.,JAVORSKY,J., PATTON.J. & GANSCHOW. L. (1998).
matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning
Principal components analysis of a test battery to predict
problems. In K. Diller (Ed.), pp. 119-53.
proficiency in a foreign language. Applied Language Learning, WESCHE, M., EDWARDS, H. & WELLS, W. (1982). Foreign lan9,71-106.
guage aptitude and intelligence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3,
SPARKS, R. & MILLER, K. (2000). Teaching a foreign language
127-40.
using multisensory structured language techniques to at-risk YOUNG, D. (Ed.) (1999). Affect in foreign language and second lanlearners: A review. Dyslexia, 6,12432.
guage learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom
SPARKS, R., PHILIPS, L. & GANSCHOW, L. (1996). Students classiatmosphere. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
SPARKS, R., GANSCHOW, L., FLUHARTY, k . & LITTLE, S. (1996).An
98
IP address: 50.203.69.85

Ganschow Foreign Language Learning Difficulties

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ganschow Foreign Language Learning Difficulties

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Language Teaching

Email alerts: Click here

Learning difculties and foreign language learning: A review of research

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444800015895

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 50.203.69.85 on 23 Dec 2014

In this paper, the authors present a review of

Introduction and purpose

Printed in the United Kingdom

2001 Cambridge University Press

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

According to Spolsky, a major question was

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

foreign languages does not seem to correlate highly

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

for communication, and ability to monitor one's

Tests were developed to assess FL aptitude and

Reflections from the special education field

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

term also is included in the medical literature (i.e.,

which refers to the condition as 'learning disorders'.

schools. At the college level, however, the incidence

In the U.S., the first recorded reference to the FL

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

In the U.S., the term 'specific learning disabilities'

of the earlier discussions about university policies

(1989) reported that "language aptitude has not been

a fashionable concept in the past few years", and he

follows: (a) People vary in their language aptitude

language learning success; (b) people with the same

connections to first language learning components

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

1980s includes descriptions by a few FL educators of

Individual difference variables took on greater

they devoted most of their attention in the 1990s.

children in a French immersion learning-disability

accurately which children would drop out of early

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

The major premise underlying the LCDH is that the

There was interest in learning disabilities and

Expansion and integration of research

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

rebuttals/rejoinders, see Horwitz, 2000; Maclntyre,

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

ing affective variables and FL learning (Sparks, 1995;

Question 3: Are there FL proficiency

The authors examined FL proficiency and involved

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

Downloaded: 23 Dec 2014

Learning difficulties and foreign language learning

the other MSL group was taught only in Spanish.The