Foreign Language Learning Problems Research Articles

Foreign Language Learning and Learning Disabilities: An Historical, Empirical, and Cultural Perspective for Policies and Procedures

Twenty-five years ago, the author contributed a historical review of evidence on the foreign language (FL) learning problems of low-achieving and learning disabled (LD) students. Educators had proposed a new disability, FL learning disability, and developed policies permitting LD students to substitute courses or waive the FL requirement. The introduction of this new disability was premature because empirical evidence found no relationship between FL learning problems and LDs. Even so, several misguided assumptions about a unique disability for FL learning and a special relationship between FL learning problems and LDs persisted, and an LD diagnosis became the de facto criterion for FL course substitution/waiver policies. In this updated review, these assumptions and evidence falsifying them are examined. Cultural reasons for the assumptions about FL learning and LDs and the adoption of course substitution policies are proposed. The author concludes with recommendations for policymakers.

How Many U.S. High School Students Have a Foreign Language Reading “Disability”? Reading Without Meaning and the Simple View

Conventional wisdom suggests that students classified as learning disabled will exhibit difficulties with foreign language (FL) learning, but evidence has not supported a relationship between FL learning problems and learning disabilities. The simple view of reading model posits that reading comprehension is the product of word decoding and language comprehension and that there are good readers and 3 types of poor readers—dyslexic, hyperlexic, and garden variety—who exhibit different profiles of strengths and/or deficits in word decoding and language comprehension. In this study, a random sample of U.S. high school students completing first-, second-, and third-year Spanish courses were administered standardized measures of Spanish word decoding and reading comprehension, compared with monolingual Spanish readers from first to eleventh grades, and classified into reader types according to the simple view of reading. The majority of students fit the hyperlexic profile, and no participants fit the good reader profile until they were compared with first- and second-grade monolingual Spanish readers. Findings call into question the practice of diagnosing an FL “disability” before a student engages in FL study.

Barriers Experienced by Middle School Students in the Process of Learning English

English has gained a significant role in technological, business, economic or political areas and has been a part of educational policies in different countries. However, many learners of English have difficulties in learning and using the language effectively due to a number of reasons. Accordingly, a descriptive study was conducted in order to investigate what kind of foreign language (English) learning problems the middle school students experience in Turkey. A total of 164 (92 female and 72 male) middle school students (5th, 6th, 7th, 8th grade) in 4 public schools in Sakarya, Turkey participated in the study. The data were collected through an open-ended question and semi-structured interviews. The collected data were analyzed and coded thematically. The results have indicated that middle school students mostly face linguistic, instructional, affective barriers as well as lack of assistance and useful resource. Considering the findings, some possible reasons and suggestions were also provided to help teachers and learners overcome the relevant barriers in learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in Turkey

If You Don't Know Where You're Going, You'll Wind up Somewhere Else: The Case of “Foreign Language Learning Disability”

Abstract: Despite the lack of empirical evidence, the term foreign language learning disability (FLLD) has become popular in the learning disabilities (LD) and foreign language literature. I contend that there is not a unique “disability” for foreign language learning and suggest instead that foreign language skills run along a continuum of very strong to very weak foreign language learners. To support my positions, I review problems with the definition and diagnostic criteria for LD. Then, I cite problems with the development and use of a logically consistent, easily operationalized, and empirically valid definition and diagnostic criteria for the FLLD concept and explain how proponents of this “disability” misuse the foreign language aptitude concept. Last, I detail implications for identifying students who exhibit foreign language learning problems, address policies that permit students to obtain waivers from or course substitutions for foreign language requirements, and describe issues hidden from foreign language educators because of the LD and FLLD concepts.

Evidence‐Based Accommodation Decision Making at the Postsecondary Level: Review of the Evidence for Foreign Language Learning

Abstract This article reviews empirical evidence related to college students classified as learning disabled (LD) and foreign language (FL) learning by examining whether there are differences between: (a) students classified and not classified as LD enrolled in FL courses; (b) LD students with and without IQ‐achievement discrepancies and FL aptitude, proficiency, and achievement; and (c) students classified as LD who pass FL courses or receive course substitutions. Findings show that there are no cognitive and achievement differences between students classified as LD and non‐LD students enrolled in FL courses or between students classified as LD who pass FL courses or receive course substitutions. Findings have shown that there are no differences in FL outcomes between students classified as LD with and without discrepancies. Research findings over several years show that classification as LD is unimportant for determining whether or not a student will exhibit FL learning problems or fail FL courses.

Is There a “Disability” for Learning a Foreign Language?

Recently, talk of a new type of learning disability (LD)--a foreign language learning disability, or FLLD--has made its way into the LD and foreign language (FL) literature. However, no empirical evidence has been published to support the concept of a "disability" for FL learning by those professionals who use the term. In this article, the author takes the position that there is not a distinct "disability" that can be called an FLLD. He reviews several years of research evidence indicating that any proposal for such a distinct entity is problematic. To support his position, he reviews problems with the current definition and diagnostic criteria for LD. He then cites the many difficulties inherent in the development and use of (a) a logically consistent, easily operationalized, and empirically valid definition of and (b) diagnostic criteria for the FLLD concept. The author then discusses how FL learning problems occur along a continuum of very strong to very poor language learners, and he explains how the proponents of an FLLD misuse the concept of FL aptitude. Finally, the author cites implications resulting from the research evidence on FL learning problems and use of the term FLLD.

Learning Styles—Making Too Many “Wrong Mistakes”: A Response to Castro and Peck

The notion that attention to students' learning styles is useful for classroom teaching has been proposed by educators for more than 40 years (Willingham, 2005). The learning styles concept is based on the premise that in individual processing capabilities create significantly different requirements in learning environments. Once identified, advocates argue, it becomes possible to improve the academic achievement of each individual by matching instruction and the learning environment with their individual (Stahl & Kuhn, 1995, p. 396). Over the years, a number of learning styles models have been proposed but most hold that learners exhibit differences in information processing (e.g., visual vs. auditory or global vs. analytic learners), or vary in dimensions such as their environmental preferences, physiological characteristics, and sociological preferences (see reviews by Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004; Keefe & Farrell, 1990; O'Neil, 1990; Stahl, 1999).' Despite their differences, each of the models proposes the matching of instruction with a student's style (preference) for learning. In a recent article published in this journal, Castro and Peck (2005) examined whether a particular learning style is favored by students enrolled in regular and modified sections of foreign language classes. They administered the KoIb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (1993) to students enrolled in modified Spanish classes who had encountered serious difficulties with foreign language learning and to students without a history of foreign language learning problems enrolled in regular sections of Spanish at a large university in the United States. The authors reported that regardless of any specific learning deficit, students' preferred styles either helped or hindered their performance in the foreign language classroom. Castro and Peck suggested that having knowledge of college foreign language learners' preferred styles is important for both the instructors and students. In my view, the emphasis on examining students' learning styles in relation to foreign language learning is unfounded. Using the example of Castro and Peck's article, I respond to styles advocates by illustrating the types of problems with the learning styles concept that they leave unstated in their work. Most notably, styles advocates fail to take into account: (a) the preponderance of empirical evidence since the 1970s which has shown that learning styles models have a host of conceptual and empirical problems and that matching students' preferred styles with a compatible teaching method does not improve academic achievement; (b) research studies which have found that learning styles instruments, including the LSI, lack appropriate psychometric properties; and (c) the evidence that shows that students' aptitude (ability) is confused with their style (preference).2 In their study, Castro and Peck also make unsupported assumptions about the use of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) and about the importance of styles for foreign language learning. In my response, I focus on the aforementioned problems. Problems with the Learning Styles Concept and Styles Instruction In his review of learning styles models, Stahl (1999) acknowledged that the idea of all children learning differently seems intuitive and plausible. In his work, he found that the large majority of teachers believe it is appropriate to take learning styles into account and that tailoring instruction to individual styles enables students to learn more easily and effectively. However, a preponderance of evidence over time has found that the learning styles concept has numerous flaws. In retrospect, there were special education researchers who early on cited problems with the learning styles concept (e.g., see Hammill & Larsen, 1974; Mann, 1970; Mann & Goodman, 1975). Originally, the notion of learning styles was embraced by professionals in the learning disabilities (LD) field (see Mann, 1971). …

Intelligence, Learning Disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Foreign Language Learning Problems: A Research Update

Intelligence, Learning Disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Foreign Language Learning Problems: A Research Update

Foreign Language Learning Problems of Students Classified as Learning Disabled and Non-Learning Disabled

Foreign Language Learning Problems of Students Classified as Learning Disabled and Non-Learning Disabled

Foreign Language Learning Problems of Students Classified as Learning Disabled and Non-Learning Disabled

Foreign Language Learning Problems of Students Classified as Learning Disabled and Non-Learning Disabled

Selected References on Foreign Language Learning in Relation to At-Risk Students and Students with Foreign Language Learning Problems

Selected References on Foreign Language Learning in Relation to At-Risk Students and Students with Foreign Language Learning Problems

Comparison of Students Classified as LD Who Petitioned for or Fulfilled the College Foreign Language Requirement

In this study, we compared the cognitive, academic achievement, and demographic profiles of 46 students from one university who had been classified as learning disabled (LD) and had received permission to substitute courses for the university's foreign language (FL) requirement (petition group) with the profiles of 21 students from the same university who had been classified as LD and had fulfilled the university's FL requirement by passing FL courses (nonpetition group). Results showed no significant differences between the two groups on measures of reading, mathematics, written language, American College Testing score, and graduating grade point average when IQ was used as a covariate. More petition than nonpetition students had at least a 1.0 SD discrepancy between IQ and achievement and had been referred only for FL learning problems. More nonpetition than petition students had taken an FL in college and received accommodations in the FL. The two groups together appeared to constitute a heterogeneous group of learners, with more than half failing to meet a minimum discrepancy criterion for classification as LD. The discussion addresses the classification system for LD, the process for determining the presence of FL learning problems and how to address them, and directions for further research.

Students Classified As Learning Disabled and Non‐Learning Disabled: Two Comparison Studies of Native Language Skill, Foreign Language Aptitude, and Foreign Language Proficiency

ABSTRACT Proponents of the concept of learning disabilities (LD) assume that students classified as LD and those with IQ‐achievement discrepancies have more severe native language and foreign language learning problems than students not classified as LD. Two studies that included high school students classified as “at‐risk” for learning a foreign language (FL) investigated these assumptions. The first study compared “at‐risk” students classified as learning disabled (LD) with “at‐risk” students not classified as LD. Results showed no significant differences between the two groups on measures of native language skill, FL aptitude, and FL learning and proficiency. The second study examined only the students classified as LD and compared students with and without discrepancies between their scores on measures of intelligence (IQ) and academic achievement. Results showed no significant differences between the two groups on measures of FL learning and proficiency. Findings suggest that students classified as LD and non‐LD do not exhibit cognitive, academic achievement, and FL aptitude differences, or differences in their FL learning and proficiency after two years of FL study. The findings of both studies are contrary to the LD concept. The studies demonstrate the importance of providing verifiable evidence to substantiate claims that a student meets criteria for classification as LD. Implications focus on use of the LD label and IQ‐achievement discrepancies for determining which students may have problems with FL learning.

Foreign language learning difficulties: an historical perspective.

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

I Know One When I See One (Or, I Know One Because I Am One): A Response to Mabbott

ABSTRACT Educational institutions have witnessed an explosive growth in the numbers of children, adolescents, and adults labeled as learning disabled (LD). The term LD is used increasingly by both educators and the general public. Recently, the term has also appeared in the foreign language literature. However, the LD concept has come under increasing criticism because of the problems of finding an acceptable definition and the concept's lack of scientific validity. In a recent article in this journal, Ann Mabbott describes as LD five adults, all of whom have achieved degrees of proficiency in a foreign language. In this response to Mabbott, the authors take issue with her diagnosis of the subjects as LD because she provides neither substantive standardized testing evidence of the subjects' intellectual ability and academic achievement nor corroboration of the subjects' self‐reports of their native and foreign language learning problems. The importance of using objective criteria to diminish heterogeneity in research samples is examined in the context of Mabbott's case studies.

Parent Perceptions in the Screening of Performance in Foreign Language Courses

ABSTRACT Parents' perceptions are not commonly used to assist educators in understanding students' foreign language learning problems. Here, a questionnaire designed to measure parents' perceptions of their child's developmental and academic histories, classroom learning characteristics, and previous foreign language learning was administered to 79 parents of children enrolled in first‐year high school foreign language courses. Students were differentiated into low risk, average risk, and high risk groups based on questionnaire results and were administered a battery of native language tests and a foreign language aptitude measure. Final foreign language course grades were also obtained. Results showed overall group differences favoring the low and average risk groups over the high risk group on most items on the questionnaire on all but one of the native language, foreign language aptitude, and cognitive measures, and foreign language grades. Results suggest that parents' perceptions of their children's developmental and academic learning histories may provide helpful screening information to foreign language teachers.

Examining the linguistic coding differences hypothesis to explain individual differences in foreign language learning

In this paper, it is suggested that foreign language learning problems result from difficulties with native language learning and hypothesized that difficulties with phonological processing may be the locus of foreign language learning difficulties for some poor foreign language learners. Evidence is described that supports these positions. It is argued that conceptualizing foreign language learning problems as alanguage problem allows researchers to more clearly specify deficits related to the learning of a foreign language. Research evidence which shows that good and poor foreign language learners exhibit significantly different levels of native language skill and phonological processing is summarized. Finally, potential challenges to my hypotheses as an explanation for foreign language learning problems are reviewed.

Perceptions of Low and High Risk Students and Students with Learning Disabilities About High School Foreign Language Courses

ABSTRACT This study compared the perceptions of low (LR) and high risk (HR) students and students with learning disabilities (LD) enrolled in first year high school foreign language courses on a questionnaire‐the Foreign Language Attitude and Perceptions Survey (FLAPS)‐designed to elicit responses to questions relating to their foreign language academic history, learning attitudes, and academic skills. LR and HR students were identified by an author‐designed screening instrument, foreign language grade, and teacher recommendation. Students with LD were enrolled in special, self‐contained sections of a foreign language course. Using a MANOVA procedure, results showed overall significant differences among the three groups on the FLAPS. Individual ANOVA results showed that LR students reported significantly higher estimated grades in the foreign language courses and expressed more positive attitudes about their academic skills than HR andLD students. HR and LD students perceived themselves as lacking the academic skills to master a foreign language, and their attitudes about foreign language learning were generally less positive than the LR group. Differences between HR and LD students were found on only two questions, relating to perceived levels of distractibility and spelling. All three groups expressed positive attitudes about wanting to learn a foreign language. Findings are interpreted in light of the Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis (Sparks, Ganschow, and Pohlman, 48), which speculates that students with foreign language learning problems have underlying but subtle native language learning difficulties, and that affective differences are, most likely, consequences of these native language differences.

The effects of multisensory structured language instruction on native language and foreign language aptitude skills of at-risk high school foreign language learners: A replication and follow-up study

According to research findings, most students who experience foreign language learning problems are thought to have overt or subtle native language learning difficulties, primarily with phonological processing. A recent study by the authors showed that when a multisensory structured language approach to teaching Spanish was used with a group of at-risk high school students, the group's pre- and posttest scores on native language phonological processing, verbal memory and vocabulary, and foreign language aptitude measures significantly improved. In this replication and follow-up study, the authors compared pre- and posttest scores of a second group of students (Cohort 2) who received MSL instruction in Spanish on native language and foreign language aptitude measures. They also followed students from the first study (Cohort 1) over a second year of foreign language instruction. Findings showed that the second cohort made significant gains on three native language phonological measures and a test of foreign language aptitude. Follow-up testing on the first cohort showed that the group maintained its initial gains on all native language and foreign language aptitude measures. Implications for the authors' Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis are discussed and linked with current reading research, in particular the concepts of the assumption of specificity and modularity.

The effects of multisensory structured language instruction on native language and foreign language aptitude skills of at-risk high school foreign language learners

Research findings suggest that most students who have foreign language learning problems have language-based difficulties and, in particular, phonological processing problems. Authors of the present study examined pre- and posttest scores on native language and foreign language aptitude tests of three groups of at-risk high school students enrolled in special, self-contained sections of first-year Spanish. Two groups were instructed using a multisensory structured language (MSL) approach. One of the groups was taught in both English and Spanish (MSL/ES), the other only in Spanish (MSL/S). The third group (NO-MSL) was instructed using more traditional second language teaching methodologies. Significant gains were made by the MSL-ES group on measures of native language phonology, vocabulary, and verbal memory and on a test of foreign language aptitude; the MSL/S group made significant gains on the test of foreign language aptitude. No significant gains on the native language or foreign language aptitude measures were made by the NO-MSL group. Implications for foreign language classroom instruction of at-risk students are discussed.