This study examined the effect of an academic year of direct instruction in the phonology/orthography of Spanish on the native-language skills and foreign-language aptitude of high school women identified as at risk (n = 14) and not at risk (n = 19) for experiencing problems with learning a foreign language. At-risk students received a specialized teaching approach; not-at-risk students received traditional foreign-language instruction. Pre- and posttest results showed that both groups improved significantly on a foreign-language aptitude test, and the at-risk group made significant gains on native-language phonology/orthography measures. Pretest comparisons showed significant between-group differences on several phonological/orthographic measures and the foreign-language aptitude test. Posttest comparisons showed that the not-at-risk subjects still scored significantly higher than at-risk subjects on the foreign-language aptitude measure; no differences were noted on two native-language phonological/orthographic measures. Pre- and posttest comparisons between groups showed that the at-risk group made significantly greater gains than the not-at-risk group on phonological/orthographic measures. Implications for instruction are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aaron, P. G., & Baker, C. (1991). Reading disabilities in college and high school: Diagnosis and management.Parkton, MD: York Press.
2.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Arter, J., & Jenkins, J. (1977). Examining the benefits and prevalence of modality instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 11, 282–298.
4.
Bilyeu, E. E. (1982). Practice makes closer to perfect: Alternative techniques for teaching foreign languages to learning disabled students in the university (Project No. 116CH 10305). Ellensburg: Central Washington University.
5.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 310, 419–421.
6.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Carroll, J. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training and research in education (pp. 87–136). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
8.
Carroll, J. (1973). Implications of aptitude test research and psycholinguistic theory for foreign language teaching. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2, 5–14.
9.
Carroll, J. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
10.
Carroll, J. (1985). Second language abilities. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Human abilities: An information processing approach (pp. 83–102). New York: Freeman.
11.
Carroll, J. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now In T. Parry & C. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 1–29). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern language aptitude test (MLAT): Manual.San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
13.
Cooper, T. (1987). Foreign language study and SAT-Verbal scores. Modern Language Journal, 71, 381–387.
14.
Corbett, S., & Smith, F. (1984). Identifying student learning styles: Proceed with caution!Modern Language Journal, 68, 212–221.
15.
Demuth, K., & Smith, N. (1987). The foreign language requirement: An alternative program. Foreign Language Annals, 20, 67–77.
16.
Detschelt, F. (1993). The relationship of learning modality, reading achievement and foreign language aptitude to selected foreign language achievement tests of second-year high school students of German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
17.
Downey, D. M., Bever, K., & Hill, B. (1991, November). Foreign language modification program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The Orton Dyslexia Society, Portland, OR.
18.
Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
19.
Ganschow, L., Myer, B., & Roeger, K. (1989). Foreign language policies and procedures for students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5, 50–58.
20.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1987). The foreign language requirement. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2, 116–123.
21.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1991). A screening instrument for the identification of foreign language learning problems. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 383–398.
22.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1993). “Foreign” language learning disabilities: Issues, research, and teaching implications. In S. Vogel & P. Adelman (Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 283–320). New York: Springer-Verlag.
23.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Anderson, R., Javorsky, J., Skinner, S., & Patton, J. (1994). Differences in anxiety and language performance among high, average, and low anxious college foreign language learners. Modern Language Journal, 78, 41–55.
24.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., & Patton, J. (1992). Factors relating to learning a foreign language among hi- and low-risk high school students and students with learning disabilities. Applied Language Learning, 3, 37–63.
25.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Bishop-Marbury, A. (1991). Identifying native language deficits among foreign language learners in college: A “foreign” language learning disability? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 530–541.
26.
Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. (1960). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, writing, and penmanship.Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
27.
Griffiths, R., & Sheen, R. (1992). Disembedded figures in the landscape: A reappraisal of L2 research on field dependence/independence. Applied Linguistics, 13, 133–148.
28.
Guyer, B., & Sabatino, D. (1989). The effectiveness of a multisensory alphabetic phonetic approach with college students who are learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 430–434.
29.
Herron, C. (1982). Who should study a foreign language? Foreign Language Annals, 15, 441–449.
30.
Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. (1984). Wide range achievement test-Revised.Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
31.
Kampwirth, T., & Bates, M. (1980). Modality preference and teaching method: A review of the research. Academic Therapy, 15, 597–605.
32.
Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54, 228–239.
33.
Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1990). Substance over style: A rejoinder to Dunn's animadversions. Exceptional Children, 56, 357–361.
34.
Larrivee, B. (1981). Modality preferences as a model for differentiating beginning reading instruction: A review of the issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 180–188.
35.
Liberman, I. (1985). Should so-called modality preferences determine the nature of instruction for children with reading disabilities? In F. Duffy & N. Geschwind (Eds.), Dyslexia: A neuroscientific approach to clinical evaluation (pp. 93–103). Boston: Little, Brown.
36.
Liberman, I. (1987). Language and literacy: The obligation of schools of education. In W. Ellis (Ed.), Intinacy with language: A forgotten basic in teacher education (pp. 1–9). Baltimore: The Orton Dyslexia Society.
37.
Liberman, I., & Liberman A. (1990). Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 51–76.
38.
Liberman, I., & Shankweiler, D.Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 1985, 6(6), 8–17.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284.
41.
Mann, V., Cowin, E., & Schoenheimer, J. (1990). Phonological processing, language comprehension, and reading ability. In J. Torgesen (Ed.), Cognitive and behavioral characteristics of children with learning disabilities (pp. 59–87). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
42.
Omaggio, A. (1986). Teaching language in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction.Boston: Heinle.
43.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies.New York: Newbury House.
44.
Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. (1991). Phonological short-term memory and foreign language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 331–347.
45.
Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability.New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Anderson, R. (1991). The college foreign language requirement: An action plan for alternatives. National Academic Advising Association Journal, 11, 51–56.
47.
Pimsleur, P. (1966a). Language aptitude battery.New York: Harcourt, Brace.
48.
Pimsleur, P. (1966b). Testing foreign language learning. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Trends in language teaching (pp. 175–214.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
49.
Pimsleur, P., Burger, S., & Fogelman, M. (1974). Modality endowment in foreign language learning.Albany: State University of New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 093 175)
50.
Pimsleur, P., Sundland, D., & McIntyre, R. (1964). Underachievement in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 113–150.
51.
Rapala, M., & Brady, S. (1990). Reading ability and short-term memory. Reading and Writing, 2, 1–25.
52.
Rieben, L., & Perfetti, C. (1991). Learning to read: Basic research and its implications.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53.
Royal, N. (1991). The long term consequences of specific language disabilities: The secondary years.Cambridge, MA: Educator's Publishing.
54.
SAS/STAT user's guide (1990). Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
55.
Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children.San Diego: Author.
56.
Sheffield, B. (1991). The structured flexibility of Orton-Gillingham. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 41–54.
57.
Simpson, S., Swanson, J., & Kunkel, K. (1992). The impact of an intensive multisensory reading program on a population of learning-disabled delinquents. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 54–66.
58.
Skehan, P. (1986). The role of foreign language aptitude in a model of school learning. Language Testing, 3, 188–221.
59.
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275–298.
60.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning difficulties: Affective or native language aptitude differences? Modern Language Journal, 75, 3–16.
61.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993a). The impact of native language learning problems on foreign language learning: Case study illustrations of the linguistic coding deficit hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 77, 58–74.
62.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993b). Does the study of Latin affect the native language and foreign language aptitude skills of students with and without learning disabilities? Manuscript submitted for publication.
63.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993c). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language learning problems: Linking first and second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 77, 289–302.
64.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993d). The effects of a multisensory structured language approach on the native language and foreign language aptitude skills of atrisk learners: A follow-up and replication study. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 194–216.
65.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993e). Identifying and instructing at-risk foreign language learners in college. In D. Benseler (Ed.), The dynamics of language program development (pp. 173–199). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
66.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Artzer, M., & Patton, J. (1994). Comparison of native language skills, foreign language aptitude, and foreign language proficiency between at-risk and not-at-risk foreign language learners over two years of foreign language instruction. Manuscript submitted for publication.
67.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1992). Diagnosing and accommodating the foreign language learning difficulties of college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 7, 150–160.
68.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1993). Perceptions of low and high risk students and students with learning disabilities about high school foreign language courses. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 491–510.
69.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992a). Identifying native language deficits in highland low-risk foreign language learners in high school. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 403–418.
70.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992b). Test comparisons among students identified as high-risk, low-risk, and learning disabled in high school foreign language courses. Modern Language Journal, 76, 142–159.
71.
Sparks, R.Ganschow, L., Kenneweg, S., & Miller, K. (1991). Use of the Orton-Gillingham method to teach a foreign language to learning disabled/dyslexic students: Explicit teaching of phonology in a second language. Annals of Dystexia, 41, 96–118.
72.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Pohlman, J. (1989). Linguistic coding deficits in foreign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 179–195.
73.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Pohlman, J., Skinner, S., & Artzer, M. (1992). The effects of a multisensory, structured language approach on the native and foreign language aptitude skills of at-risk foreign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 25–53.
74.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
75.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Explaining the variance in reading ability in terms of psychological processes: What have we learned? Annals of Dyslexia, 36, 67–96.
76.
Stanovich, K. (1988). The right and wrong places to look for the cognitive locus of reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 154–177.
77.
Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
78.
Tiedemann, J. (1989). Measures of cognitive styles: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 24, 261–275.
79.
Treiman, R., & Baron, J. (1983). Phonemic-analysis training helps children benefit from spelling-sound rules. Memory and Cognition, 11, 382–389.
80.
Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, D. (1986). Linguistic coding and metalinguistic awareness: Their relationship to verbal and code acquisition in poor and normal readers. In D. Yaden & S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy (pp. 115–141). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
81.
Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 192–212.
82.
Wallach, G., & Butler, K. (1984). Language learning disabilities in school-aged children.Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
83.
Wells, C. G. (1985). Language development in the preschool years.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
84.
Wells, C. G. (1986). Variation in child language. In P. Fletcher & T. Garman (Eds.), Language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 109–139). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
85.
Wesche, M. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119–153). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
86.
Wiig, E., & Semel, E. (1980Language assessment and intervention for elearning disabled. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
87.
Williams, J. (1987). Educational treatments for dyalexia at the elementary and secondary levels. In W Ellis ed.), Intimacy with language: A forgotten basic in teacher education (pp. 24–32). baltimore: The Orton Dyslexia Society.
88.
Wong, B. (1991). Assessment of metacognitive research in learning disabilities: Theory, research, and practice. In H. L. Swanson (Ed.), Handbook on the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 265–283). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
89.
Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery test-Revised.Circle lines, MN: American Guidance Service.
90.
Woodcock, R., & Johnson, M. B. (1978). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery: Tests of achievement, cognitive ability.Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
