Language Learners with Special Needs

An International Perspective

Judit Kormos, Edit H. Kontra, Judit Kormos, Edit H. Kontra

• Editorial: Multilingual Matters
• Año: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781783098286
• Categoría: Filología
• Categoría: Enseñanza de las artes lingüísticas

In this age of globalisation, people who do not speak a foreign language are at a serious disadvantage in the job market. It is therefore of great relevance that learners with learning disabilities are also provided with equal and appropriate opportunities to acquire a second or foreign language. The aim of the book is to give readers an insight into the language learning process of learners with disabilities. The articles discuss the learning process and the teaching of dyslexic as well as hearing impaired learners in various parts of the world, from the USA and Canada to England, Norway, Poland and Hungary. The intended audience of the book is language teachers, MA and MEd students, and researchers in the field of SLA, applied linguistics, or special education.

Chapter 1

L1 and L2 Literacy, Aptitude and Affective Variables as Discriminators Among High- and Low-achieving L2 Learners with Special Needs

RICHARD L. SPARKS, LEONORE GANSCHOW and JON PATTON

Introduction

In 1975 the United States government issued Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which guarantees individuals aged 3–21 with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate public education. (In the 1990s, the law was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.) Students classified as learning disabled (LD) and with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are covered under this act. Students classified as LD generally receive this classification because they exhibit a discrepancy between their IQ on a standardised measure of intelligence and their reading, writing, and/or math skills on standardised measures of academic achievement. Students diagnosed with ADHD are supposed to meet Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) criteria for this disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Students can be classified as LD or ADHD as early as first grade and receive services from teachers trained in special education. In the United States the study of an L2 generally does not begin until high school, that is, Grade 9. In most states, the study of an L2 is not required for graduation but is strongly recommended for those students who plan to attend college.

Since the early 1980s the authors have focused their research on studies of the relationship between L1 (native language) and L2 (foreign language) learning, and, especially the impact of L1 skills on L2 learning among students with special needs. Since the study of an L2 generally does not begin until high school (and sometimes continues in college), all of their studies have focused on these older populations. Early searches of the literature yielded few studies on this topic in the L1, L2 or special education literature, whereupon they began collaborating with educators across the disciplines of foreign language, linguistics and special education. There is now a substantial body of research on L1/L2 learning in older L2 learners, particularly students considered to be ‘at-risk’ for learning an L2. Some students in these studies were classified as LD or ADHD; many other students experienced learning difficulties in L2 classroom settings but were not classified as disabled. In the 1960s L2 educator Paul Pimsleur and his colleagues (Pimsleur et al., 1964) referred to the problem of L2 learners as ‘underachievers’; other terms, such as low-achieving and at-risk, have been used to describe students who struggle to learn an L2 in classroom settings. As the review of literature will show, students classified as LD and other at-risk learners enrolled in L2 classes share similar language profiles, whereas ADHD students enrolled in L2 classes, for the most part, do not exhibit language difficulties and often have more in common with not-at-risk L2 learners.

In the present study the authors were interested in further clarifying the nature of L2 difficulties among four distinct student groups of L2 learners in the United States: students classified as LD, students classified as having ADHD, low-achieving L2 learners, and high-achieving L2 learners. The investigation addressed the following question: How accurately does a battery of L1 and L2 tests distinguish the four populations? Decisions about which testing instruments (L1 and L2) to use for the study were based on research on best predictors of performance in L2 courses (see review by Ganschow & Sparks, 2001). A previous study conducted with the same population as the current study is described in the review of literature (Sparks et al., 2008a). However, the emphasis in this earlier study lay on examining similarities and differences among the four groups on the test battery, whereas the present study focuses on the ‘legitimacy’ of the categorisations of these four distinct groups and the testing measures that best identify group membership.

The Role of L1 for L2 Learning

In 1989, Sparks and Ganschow proposed the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis, or LCDH (Sparks et al., 1989) to explain why students beginning the study of an L2 might have difficulties with learning the L2 in classroom settings. In the L1 literature, it is well documented that most individuals who have difficulty learning to read and spell struggle with certain language rule systems: the phonological (phonological awareness), phonological/orthographic (sound-letter correspondences) and grammar systems (see Rayner et al., 2001). Thus, poor readers/writers/spellers are inefficient at decoding and encoding words (Snow et al., 1998), which in turn affects reading and writing fluency (Wolf, 2001).

In the LCDH, Sparks and Ganschow speculate that L2 learning is built largely on L1 skills and that problems in L1 will carry over into the L2 (Sparks, 1995; Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, 1993a, 1995a). In the L2 literature, Cummins (1984) has made similar claims with his Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis. Thus, in both Cummins’ hypothesis and the LCDH, proficiency in the L2 is thought to be partially dependent on comp etence in the L1.

Most of Sparks et al.’s studies over the years have focused on verifying the LCDH hypothesis. The studies include short- and long-term prediction studies (Sparks et al., 1995, 1997c, 2006); comparisons of good and poor L2 learners (Ganschow & Sparks, 1995; Ganschow et al., 1991; Sparks & Ganschow, 1993b; Sparks et al., 1998b, 1992a, b); teacher and parent perception studies (Sparks & Ganschow, 1995b, 1996; Sparks et al., 2004a); and studies on the efficacy of direct instructional methods in the phonological and grammatical systems for at-risk learners in the L2 (Ganschow & Sparks, 1995; Sparks & Ganschow, 1993c; Sparks et al., 1992c, 1996, 1997, 1998a).¹ What is clear from these studies is that individuals who have difficulties with the phonological, phonological/orthographic and syntactic components of the L1 as reflected on tests of word decoding, spelling, phonological awareness and grammar are likely to experience related difficulties in the L2. Low levels of L2 aptitude as reflected in scores on the Modern Language Aptitude Test (Carroll & Sapon, 1959) also differ entiate good and poor L2 learners. The origins of L2 learning difficulties of low-achieving students have not been found to lie in the areas of intelligence and vocabulary learning or verbal short-term memory. Other educators have reported similar findings in younger populations. Dufva and Voeten (1999) found that the L1 literacy and phonological processing skills of Finnish children in first grade predicted performance in English in the third grade. Hulstijn and Bossers (1992) showed that individual differences in L2 learning could be accounted for by individual differences in L1 skills among Dutch elementary age students. In two different studies, Kahn-Horwitz et al. (2005, 2006) reported that L1 skills in Hebrew were strong predictors of L2 skills in English among elementary age students. Likewise, cross-linguistic studies have also found relationships between L1 phonological/orthographic skills, especially word decoding, and L2 reading skill. In these studies, L1 phonological awareness has been found to be a good predictor of L2 decoding and reading skills (Cisero & Royer, 1995; Comeau et al., 1999; Lindsey et al., 2003). For a comprehensive review of L2 reading, see Koda (2005).

Commonly Used Predictors of Success in L2 Learning

Specific L2 measures have been instrumental in shaping research on the prediction of L2 performance in classroom settings. In particular, they include measures of L2 aptitude, learning styles and L2 affective factors, such as motivation and anxiety. In the present study the authors used only aptitude and motivation measures, as their earlier studies have shown that anxiety and learning styles instruments have numerous conceptual and measurement problems (Au, 1988; Ganschow & Sparks, 1996; Ganschow et al., 1994; Sparks, 2006a; Sparks & Ganschow, 2007, Sparks et al., 1997b).

L2 aptitude tests were among the earliest predictors of FL proficiency and achievement (Carroll, 1990). One of the most common L2 aptitude tests is the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) (Carroll & Sapon, 1959). Based on factor analytic studies conducted by Carroll (1962), the MLAT measures four aspects of language aptitude: learning and remembering sound/symbol relationships (phonetic coding), inferring grammar rules (grammatical sensitivity), native language vocabulary (inductive language learning ability) and rote learning capacity (rote memory). In the 1980s, Skehan conducted a longitudinal study of first language development with children initially tested at age three to examine the origins of L2 aptitude and determine whether L2 aptitude was related to L2 achievement (Skehan, 1986). In that study, he used subtests from an elementary version of the MLAT as well as other L1 measures and tests of L2 aptitude. His results showed strong correlations between early indices of first language development and both L2 achievement and L2 aptitude. Further analysis of the data showed that the L2 aptitude measures accounted for most of the success in L2 achievement. More recent findings have suggested that the MLAT is a strong predictor of L2 proficiency and achievement (see e.g. Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Skehan, 2002; Sparks & Ganschow, 2001).

Non-cognitive variables (anxiety, personality, motivation, attitudes) have been studied extensively in L2 research. Researchers have speculated that motivation, in particular, may play a role in predicting success or failure in L2 learning. Generally, motivation is described as students’ attitudes about, interest in, and efforts towards learning a L2 (Gardner et al., 1997). Gardner and his colleagues (Gardner, 1985a; Gardner & Lambert, 1965) have conducted extensive research into the construct of motivation and its relationship to L2 learning. In his socio-education...