the effects of multisensory structured language instruction on native language and foreign language...

The Effects of Multisensory Structured Language Instruction on Native Language and Foreign

Language Aptitude Skills of At-Risk High School Foreign Language Learners

Richard Sparks

College of Mount St. Joseph Cincinnati, Ohio

Leonore Ganschow

Miami University Oxford, Ohio

Jane Pohlman

Olympus Center Cincinnati, Ohio

Sue Skinner

Miami University Oxford, Ohio

Marjorie Artzer

Northern Kentucky University Highland Heights, Kentucky

Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 42, 1992. Copyright © 1992 by The Orton Dyslexia Society ISSN 0736-9387

25

26 THE OLV~R DYs~xIc

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. Implica- tions for foreign language classroom instruction of at-risk students are discussed.

Introduction

There is a small but growing body of empirical literature regarding the use of multisensor3~ structured language approaches to teach basic reading skills to students with language learning disabilities (LD) or dyslexia.1 These studies indicate that poor readers who receive systematic direct instruction in the alphabetic principle make superior gains in reading, writing, and spelling in comparison to poor readers who do not receive such instruction. Positive findings have been reported among beginning readers (Enfield 1976, 1988; Williams 1987), adoles- cents (Royal 1991; Williams 1987), college students (Guyer and Sabatino 1989), and adult populations (Liberman 1987). Reports of positive effects of phonological awareness training come from Belgium (Content et al. 1986), Sweden (Lundberg, Frost, and Peterson 1988), and En- gland (Bradley and Bryant 1985). Recently, authors of a carefully con- trolled research study using a treatment and control group reported significant reading and spelling gains of students whose teachers had received specialized instruction on multisensory teaching (Hutche- son, Selig, and Young 1990).

Recently, we have described methods for adapting a multisensory structured language approach (hereafter referred to as MSL) to teach a foreign language (FL) to high school and college students who have difficulty mastering this school requirement (Myer et al. 1989; Sparks et al. 1991b). Our studies over the past half-dozen years have indicated that at-risk FL learners, like students with native LD, have relative difficulties with one or more of the language codes--phonolog~ syntax,

~The first two authors contributed equally in the preparation of this manuscript.

MULTISEN$ORY INSTRUCTION FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE 27

semantics--which we have referred to in recent articles as our Linguis- tic Coding Deficit Hypothesis (LCDH) (Sparks, Ganschow, and Pohl- man 1989). The LCDH is derived from research on poor readers by Vellutino and Scanlon (1986), who reported that poor readers have particular difficulty with storing and retrieving phonological and syntactic information in written language, i.e., i n " . . . using language to code information" (p. 117).

Our studies on at-risk FL learners have indicated that most have problems with the phonological code-- the ability to break down and put together the sounds of the language and relate them to the appropriate written letters/letter combinations (Ganschow et al. 1991, 1992; Sparks et al. 1991, in press; Sparks, Ganschow, and Pohlman 1989). Our research has indicated that these learners have relative difficulties with the native language codes which affect their learning of a FL, especially the way it is currently taught in school (Sparks, Ganschow, and Pohl- man 1989). Because of these language-based difficulties, we also speculate that a MSL approach might benefit this population, as it has bene- fited those who have had difficulty learning native literacy skills.

To date, there have been no empirical studies to test our hypothesis that at-risk FL learners who receive MSL instruction in a FL will learn the language more easily or better than those who study the language through other approaches. Studies of this kind have been difficult to conduct because: (a) students with identified LD generally do not take a FL in high school; (b) FL teachers are unfamiliar with MSL approaches; and (c) those at-risk students who take a FL are generally not separated out for remedial instruction.

Over the past several years, in our exploration of methods for teaching at-risk FL learners, we have located two high school teachers who have been using MSL for a number of years and who have special classes specifically for students with identified LD and other at-risk FL learners. As we observed the two teachers to see how they adapt MSL for FLs, we became interested in determining whether systematic instruction makes a difference in these students" performance in both native language and FL over time. For this kind of study we needed a comparison group, also difficult to find, since it is rare to find special classes for at-risk students in a FL. However, we were able to locate a school that had a separate class for at-risk learners and was not using an MSL approach. In this paper we explore results of a preliminary investigation of the effects of an MSL approach on native and FL performance over one year in two classrooms. For comparison, a classroom which used a different methodology for at-risk students is also described.

Before delving into the study itself, we begin with a review of the literature on at-risk students--their learning characteristics, and stud-

28 Tz-~ OrDEx DYsrExrc

ies that have been conducted with them. We then examine current teaching methodologies in FL, after which we describe an MSL approach as it applies to the teaching of a FL. In the research study we explore findings on three separate pre-post studies of at-risk foreign language learners: (1) students in a private high school where a teacher trained in both MSL (Gillingham and Stillman 1960) and Spanish uses MSL to teach Spanish; (2) students in a private high school where a native-born Spanish teacher uses MSL to teach Spanish; and (3) students in a public high school where a native-born Spanish teacher uses a variety of approaches to instruct a special class of at-risk students.

Review of the Literature on M-Risk Foreign Language Learners

FL educators have been concerned about the inability of some students to learn a second language for over 30 years. Studies in the FL literature which have attempted to explain FL learning problems have focused on variables such as intelligence, affect (attitude and motivation), learning strategies, and learning styles. 2 While FL aptitude research flourished in the 1960s with the work of John Carroll (1962,1973, 1981, 1985, 1990) and Paul Pimsleur (1963, 1966a, 1968), in the 1970s FL educators began to focus primarily on affective variables, in particular, motivation, attitudes (Gardner 1985; Gardner and Lambert 1972), and anxiety (Horwitz and Young 1991). Findings of this research remain equivocal. For example, researchers have criticized affective models for their failure to prove a causal link to FL learning difficulties (Au 1988; Oiler 1981; Oiler and Perkins 1978a, b). Others (Sparks and Ganschow 1991b, c) have speculated that low motivation, poor attitudes, and high anxiety may be consequences of problems in the FL classroom. Recently, factors such as learning strategies and learning styles have been thought to play a major role in the success or failure of FL learning. However, Oxford (1990) has acknowledged that these variables have not been thoroughly researched and that problems with validity and reliability plague learning style instruments.

Until recentl~ little empirical research had been published about students with FL learning problems. In the 1960s Paul Pimsleur and his colleagues (1964) conducted studies with FL "underachievers," students who did well in other subjects but experienced considerable difficulty with FL learning. Pimsleur (1966b) developed a FL aptitude test battery, the Language Aptitude Battery (LAB), consisting of three parts: (1) verbal intelligence; (2) motivation; and (3) auditory ability. His research with these underachieving students revealed that auditory abil-

2For an extended discussion of IQ, affective, and learning strategy/style, see re- views by Sparks and Ganschow (in press); Sparks et al. (1991).

MULTISENSORY INSTRUCTION FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE 29

it3~ or difficulty with sound discrimination and sound-symbol association tasks, was the variable which accounted for failure to learn a FL which could not be explained by poor motivation or low intelligence.

A possible connection between dyslexia and FL learning difficulties was explored by Harvard counselor Kenneth Dinklage (1971). The students whom Dinklage counseled were not able to learn a FL and were generally found to have three types of problems: (1) poor auditory discrimination; (2) poor memory for sounds and words; and (3) poor reading and spelling skills. Dinklage found that many of these college students had experienced difficulties learning to read, spell, and write in their younger years. He attributed their FL learning difficulties to problems with the processing of oral and written language, not low motivation or high anxiety.

Recentl)~ anecdotal references describing the FL learning problems encountered by students with LD began to appear for the first time in the LD literature (Ganschow, Myer, and Roeger 1989; Gans- chow and Sparks 1986,1987, in press; Keeney and Smith 1987; Lefebvre 1984; Lerner, Ganschow, and Sparks 1991; Levine 1987; Pompian and Thum 1988; Sparks and Ganschow 1991a; Sparks, Ganschow, and Ja- vorsky in press; Sparks, Javorsky, and Ganschow 1990). Articles also appeared in the FL literature (Myer and Ganschow 1988; Myer et al. 1989; Sparks and Ganschow 1991b). As recently as 1987, however, only one empirical study about the FL learning problems of students with LD had appeared in either the LD or FL literature. This study (Gajar 1987) compared the performance of a group of students with LD and a group of students without LD who were enrolled in FL courses on a test of FL aptitude, the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) (Carroll and Sapon 1959). This test uses both native language and contrived language tasks to measure the phonological, syntactic, semantic, and rote memory aspects of FL learning. Results showed that the students with LD exhibited significantly lower performance on all five MLAT subtests and both the Long and Short Forms of the test. Students with LD had the greatest difficulty with subtests of grammatic structure and rote memory.

Sparks, Ganschow, and Pohlman (1989) introduced a theory which attempted to explain the FL learning difficulties of students with LD, the Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis (LCDH). The hypothesis, derived from the work of Vellutino and Scanlon (1986) on children with reading disabilities, was based on two premises: (1) foreign language learning is built upon native language learning; and (2) students with FL learning problems have deficiencies in one or more of the linguistic codes of their native language system--phonological, syntactic, and/or semantic. Rote memory difficulties are thought to exacer- bate FL learning difficulties. The LCDH is consistent with factor

30 THE OLDER DYSLEXIC

analytic studies conducted by FL researcher John Carroll (1962), who found that four variables contributed most to successful FL learning: phonetic coding, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning ability, and rote memory. The MLAT is comprised of these four factors. The LCDH was initially advanced by the authors after they analyzed the psychoeducational testing profdes of 22 college students who had petitioned and been granted a waiver from their university's FL requirement after FL course failure. Analyses of testing profiles revealed that over 60 percent of the students exhibited deficits in the phonological code, and all but one of them had failed the FL in the first or second semester. A smaller number exhibited deficits only in the syntactic and semantic codes, and all but one of this group were able to advance to the second year of the FL before failing. The authors speculated that phonological deficits, in particular, had a severe and immediate impact on performance in the FL classroom.

These case studies led us to conduct a series of empirical studies with students with LD and non-LD, at-risk FL learners. The results of these studies have been described in detail elsewhere but will be sum- marized here, along with the results of another recent s tudy . 3 One study compared the performance of postsecondary level juniors and seniors who were successful in FL learning (received As or Bs in at least two semesters of a FL course) and unsuccessful (had received a waiver or permission to substitute courses for the university's FL requirement because of FL course failure) (Ganschow et al. 1991). Results showed no differences in IQ between the groups on the WAIS-R. However, the petition group scored significantly poorer on native language tests of phonology and syntax; no differences were found on semantic measures. The petition students also scored significantly poorer on all five MLAT subtests and both the Long and Short Forms of this FL aptitude test.

A second empirical study used an author-developed screening instrument, the Foreign Language Screening Instrument (FLSI), to search for connections between native and foreign language learning (Ganschow and Sparks 1991). The instrument, which comprised questions about students' academic learning and developmental histories, was given to over 600 FL-enrolled university students. Results showed that questions relating to reading, spelling, writing, and grammar were the best discriminators for identifying students who were potentially at risk for FL learning difficulties. The instrument showed students with identified LD to be particularly at risk.

In a third study, FL learners with and without LD were surveyed on questions relating to their opinions about learning a FL (Javorsky,

aFor a comprehensive review of these studies, see Sparks et al. 1992.

MULTI$£~VSORY INSTRUCTION FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE 31

Sparks, and Ganschow 1992). Results of self-reports showed no differences between the groups in their level of motivation to learn a FL, but students with LD felt more anxious about FL learning than their non- LD counterparts. Students with LD also perceived themselves as hav- ing fewer skills to master the written and oral language demands in- herent in the study of a FL. The authors speculated that the higher level of anxiety experienced by students with LD was a by-product of their language-learning problems.

In a fourth empirical study, the authors compared high- and low- risk high school students enrolled in the first semester of first-year FL courses in college preparatory programs (Sparks et al. in press). Stu- dents at low risk (LR) (A or B grades in the first quarter of the FL) and high risk (HR) (D or F in the first quarter of the FL) were compared on measures of native and FL aptitude. Using an Analysis of Covariance to control for cognitive differences, significant differences between the two groups were found on all phonological and some syntactic measures, and all subtests and both the Short and Long Forms of the MLAT. No significant differences between the groups were found on any of the semantic measures. The authors speculated that the HR students were not identified as at-risk before FL course enrollment because their native language semantic skills were in the average range. However, when phonological measures such as pseudoword reading, spelling, and a phoneme segmentation task were administered, subtle deficits in the HR groups' phonological skills became apparent.

In a related stud~ the authors assessed a group of students with identified LD who were also enrolled in first-year FL courses and compared them to the LR and HR groups on the same measures of native language and FL aptitude (Sparks et al. 1992). No significant differences were found between the HR and LD groups on most measures of phonology (pseudoword reading, phoneme segmentation), and syntax. Likewise, no significant differences were found between the HR and LD groups on any of the five subtests or the Short Form of the MLAT. Most importantly, no significant differences were found among LR, HR, and LD groups on the semantic measures. The authors hypothesized that HR (non-LD) learners and students with LD share similar linguistic coding deficits, primarily phonological, which affect performance in FL courses.

In a recently completed study the first two authors used Horwitz's Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope 1986) to identify high, moderate, and low anxious college FL learners enrolled in first semester FL courses (Ganschow et al. 1992). Though the groups had performed similarly on the ACT/SAT and a cognitive measure, results showed significant group differences on measures of native language phonolog~ oral language, and FL apti-

32 TME OLDER DYSLEXIC

tude. High and moderate anxious students scored significantly lower than low anxious students on the aforementioned measures and exhibited relative differences on their subsequent grades in FL courses. The results suggested that students with higher levels of anxiety have relatively weaker language skills. The evidence lends some support to the position that affective differences, such as low motivation or high levels of anxiety, may be a result of, not a cause of, FL learning difficulties (Sparks and Ganschow 1991b, c).

The results of these empirical studies all support the LCDH and have led us to speculate that the largest group of poor FL learners ex- hibits deficits primarily in the phonological component of language (Sparks and Ganschow in press). Semantic difficulties, in the form of language comprehension problems, do not appear to trigger most FL learning difficulties. However, recent findings indicate that students with phonological deficits also are likely to have subtle or overt difficulties with speech perception and production. Fowler (1988), for example, suggests that the sentence-level problems of less-skilled readers are not caused by deficiencies in syntactic knowledge, but instead reflect a broad, underlying deficit in phonological processing. Crain's (1989) research has supported the view that the spoken language comprehension failures of poor readers arise from limitations in phonological processing involving working memory. These positions have been supported by other researchers (Liberman 1989; Mann, Cowin, and Schoenheimer 1990; Mann, Shankweiler, and Smith 1984; Shankweiler and Crain 1986; Smith, Mann, and Shankweiler 1986).

Review of Foreign Language Teaching Methodologies

There are probably as many different approaches to teaching a second language as there are methodologies to teach reading and writing in one's native language (Daggett 1986; Elson 1983). Methodologies include traditional approaches such as Grammar-Translation (focuses on the FL in written form, teaching in the student's native language), the Direct Method (exposes students to second language with little or no instruction in the student's native language), and the Audiolingual Method (attempts to teach the FL through oveflearning and extensive use of oral language with little use of a student's native language). Nontraditional approaches include Total Physical Response (emphasizes listening comprehension combined with the physical act of doing what has been said), Suggestopedia (recommends learning in a relaxed envi- ronment to help students overcome psychological barriers), and Com- munity Language Learning (students design course syllabus based on their needs with an emphasis on listening and speaking). Valette (1990)


has suggested that the one common objective of these methodologies is the development of FL proficiency. Proficiency, defined as the ability to use language in natural settings (Omaggio 1986), has become the focus of FL educators, and guidelines for levels of proficiency have been developed. 4

In recent years, FL educators have increasingly adopted what are called "natural" approaches to FL learning (Krashen 1982; Terrel11977). These approaches initially emphasize listening to and understanding messages in the FL. For example, Terrell (1982) has outlined three types of activities dominating a classroom that uses natural language: (1) comprehension activities, or listening comprehension practice; (2) speech production, which occurs after students are able to recognize approximately 500 spoken words; its development is said to parallel the speech of young children who first begin to speak single-word utter- ances; and (3) speech emergence, which occurs after the speech production phase and is encouraged through the use of games, affective activities, and problem-solving activities. During FL activities the teacher is not supposed to correct errors because such correction is said to be potentially harmful to the student's speech development in the FL.

Natural approaches, when paired with the new goal of profi- cienc F de-emphasize the teaching of vocabular3~ grammar, and pro- nunciation in favor of communicative competence. Thus, their impact has been to use indirect instruction as a way to teach specific language skills. To date, no research evidence is available showing the success of natural approaches for students with FL learning problems.

MSL Approach for FL Learning

In contrast to indirect, natural approaches to FL learning are methodologies which teach language in a direct fashion and emphasize skill development. In a direct approach to FL learning students are explicitly taught not only the vocabulary (semantics) and grammar (syntax) of the new language but also its sound-symbol system (phonology). The FL is learned in a "multisensory" format (MSL), i.e. where students can "hear," "see," and "do" (write) the language simultaneously. In our previous articles, we suggested that a MSL approach might allow a student to "crack the code" of a FL (Myer et al. 1989; Sparks et al. 1991, in press).

The rationale for a direct, MSL approach is derived from our recent empirical studies, the FL literature, and research on reading disabilities. In our empirical studies we have found significant differences in

4See Omaggio (1986) for an overview of the guidelines developed for proficiency levels by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL).

34 ThE OLDER DYSLEmC

the phonological skills of successful and unsuccessful FL learners. In the FL literature Carroll and Pimsleur emphasized the importance of phonetic coding and auditory ability in aptitude for learning a FL. Findings in the reading disability literature suggest that deficits in students' phonological skills are the primary source of variance in reading ability; poor readers do not differ from good readers in their use of context (see review by Stanovich 1986b). Support has been generated for methodologies that emphasize decoding, or the teaching of the "alphabetic principle" (Adams 1990; Liberman 1987; Liberman and Liber- man 1990; Liberman and Shgnkweiler 1985; Perfetti 1991). Importantl3~ findings suggest that phonemic awareness skills can be taught and can enhance reading acquisition (Ball and Blachman 1988, 1991; Bradley and Bryant 1985; Lundberg 1987). Likewise, results of recent studies have shown that the use of a systematic, MSL approach when teaching read° ing can enhance reading skill (Brightman 1986; Frankiewicz 1984; Guyer and Sabatino 1989; Hutcheson, Selig, and Young 1990; Vickery, Rey- nolds, and Cochran 1987; White 1986).

We outlined a method for using MSL to teach FL to at-risk learners in a previous article and speculated on the reasons why this method has the potential to be successful with at-risk FL students (Sparks et al. 1991b). An MSL approach is appealing for several reasons: (1) phonology and syntax are taught directly and explicitly in a systematic, step- by-step fashion; (2) only a small amount of material is presented at one time; (3) material is thoroughly mastered before new material is introduced; and (4) a multisensory approach is used (Williams 1987).

However, to date there have been no empirical studies testing the effectiveness of a MSL approach to FL instruction with at-risk learners. The present study is a first attempt to examine this issue. The study is, of necessity, a preliminary investigation. Given the uniqueness of the population (FL-enrolled students with LD and non-LD at-risk students who have language learning problems) and the setting (self-contained FL classes for this population), to date we have found only a few isolated high school FL classrooms that specialize in working specifically with students with LD and/or identified at-risk FL learners.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the pre- and posttest scores on native language and FL aptitude tests of three such groups, each of whom was enrolled in a separate section of first-year Spanish. It was hypothesized that the two groups receiving MSL instruction would show gains in the phonological component of their native language and increase their scores on a test of FL aptitude (MLAT). The students who did not receive MSL instruction were not expected to show gains in either native language phonology or FL aptitude. We also administered a proficiency test designed by the last


listed author to evaluate the students ' oral and written language skills in Spanish. Because the approach to data gathering and analysis was the same, the overall methodology for the three sets of subjects is described under one heading. A detailed description of the subjects and results of pre-post testing are reported as three separate studies.

Method

Subjects Each of the three schools had a special section of introductory

Spanish because college preparatory-level students had (1) failed or exhibited inordinate struggle in a previous FL course; (2) been recommended for the course based on a history of language learning problems; or (3) previously been diagnosed as LD. 5 Students met one, two, or all three of the criteria. Students in two of the schools received an MSL approach to teaching Spanish. Students in the third school were taught using traditional FL methodologies. A brief description of the MSL and traditional teaching methodologies is provided here.

MSL groups. The two MSL Spanish classes were taught using traditional MSL methodology. 6 Letters (graphemes) representing sounds (phonemes) were introduced to the students and immediately synthesized into words. The sounds were simultaneoulsy presented through multiple modalities (auditor~ visual, tactile-kinesthetic), where the students heard the Spanish phoneme ("a'), saw the graph- eme (a), and wrote the letter (on the board or paper). Thus, each student was simultaneously listening, speaking, reading, and writing the FL sound. The new sound ("a') was immediately synthesized into words that used only sounds and symbols that the s tudent had previously been taught (Ana, canta). Words were then combined into short sentences (Ana canta). Both the words and sentences also were dictated using multisensory input (i.e., listen, repeat, write and say, read). During the first two weeks of classes, the two MSL teachers introduced the Spanish vowel sounds while reviewing similar English/Spanish consonant sounds. Special sounds (e.g., consonants that are different in Spanish, diphthongs) were taught later. Thus, the MSL classes were taught the new phonology directly. Later, syntax was also taught directly. Each class followed a structured daily lesson plan which incor- porated review of previously learned material in the following sequence:

5AU subjects with LD had been identified by the school or local school district using the state's guidelines for the diagnosis of LD.

6See Sparks et al. (1991) for a detailed description of MSL methodology applied to Spanish.

36 TnE OLDER DYSLEXXC

1. Blackboard Drills--instruction and review of sounds and grammar.

2. Oral Sound Drills--review of new sound(s) just learned at blackboard.

3. Grammatical Concepts--introduction or review of grammar. 4. Vocabulary Teaching-- introduction of new vocabulary which

uses only previously learned sounds and/or a new sound. 5. Reading/Communicative Activities--practice of "real" com-

munication in Spanish.

There was one important difference between the MSL teachers' methodological approach. One teacher (MSL/ES) taught the course using both Spanish and English during class time. The second teacher (MSL/S) taught the course using only Spanish at all times.

NO/MSL group. The NO/MSL class was taught using traditional FL teaching methodologies and classroom modifications geared specif- icaUy for students with LD. The instructor made modifications such as allowances for misspellings, frequent review of material, liberal use of overhead transparencies for simultaneous auditory/visual input, an emphasis on oral over written work, motivational games, reduced homework assignments, and cooperative learning experiences.

In sum, instruction in the two MSL classes differed from the NO/ MSL class in that the MSL teachers focused on direct and explicit instruction in the phonology of the language. MSL/ES and MSL/S instruction differed in that the focus in the MSL/ES class was on teaching sound/symbol correspondences in both English and Spanish, whereas the focus in the MSL/S class was on teaching the correspondences in Spanish only. All three groups were similar in respect to their small class size and their separate, self-contained classrooms for at-risk FL learners.

Procedure A battery of educational tests was selected based on the findings

of previous research studies on FL learning (Ganschow et al. 1991; Sparks et al. in press; Sparks, Ganschow, and Javorsky in press; Sparks, Ganschow, and Pohlman 1989). Names of the instruments and their abbreviated titles are indicated in Figure 1; abbreviated titles are used throughout this paper. The native language assessment battery included tests of phonolog~ syntax, semantics, verbal memory, and rote memory. A cognitive assessment was used to determine levels of cognitive functioning of the students. Only those students who obtained a standard score of 90 or above on the cognitive measure were chosen to participate in the study. This criterion resulted in the removal of one student from the NO/MSL group. A FL aptitude test, the MLAT, was

MULTrSENSORY INSTRUCTION FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE 37

gndemood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC), Forms A and B: test designed to measure auditory perception and conceptualization of speech sounds.

Modern language Aptitude Test (MLAT): tests foreign language aptitude using a simulated format to provide an indication of probable degree of success in learning a foreign language; includes five subtests: Part I: Number Learning; Part I1: Phonetic Script; Part II1: Spelling Clues; Part IV: Words in Sentences; and Part V: Paired Associates.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPV'r-R), Forms L and M: measures receptive vocabulary for Standard American English.

Wide Range Achievement Test-Revlesd (WRAT-R), Spelling subtest: tests performance on writing single words from dictation.

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R), Forms G and H:

Basic Skills Cluster tests two aspects of reading: Word Identification tests ability to read isolated words; and Word Attack tests ability to read (pseudo) nonsense words.

Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery (WJPB): Brief Scale Cognitive Ability Cluster consists of a combination of

the Antonyms-Synonyms subtest and Quantitative Concepts subtest scores. Antonyms-Synonyms tests knowledge of word mean- ings. Quantitative Concepts tests knowledge of quantitative concepts and vocabulary; no calculations or application decisions are involved.

Written Language Cluster consists of two subtests and three item analyses. Dictation tests ability to respond in writing to a variety of questions requiring knowledge of punctuation and capitalization (8% of items), spelling (82% of items), and usage (10% of items). Proofing tests ability to read a short passage and identify punctuation and capitalization (41% of items), spelling (24% of items), or usage (35% of items) errors in the passage. The three Item Analyses of the Dicta- tion and Proofing subtests are Punctuation and Capitalization which tests ability to respond in writing to oral requests to form punctuation marks and correct punctuation and spelling mistakes in written material; Spelling which tests ability to spell words in written form and identify and orally correct spelling mistakes in written material; and Usage which tests ability to respond in writing to oral requests to spell plurals of words and verbally identify and correct word-usage mistakes in written material.

Memory Cluster tests verbal memory and includes two subtests: Memory for Sentences tests ability to remember material presented auditorily; and Numbers Reversed tests ability to hold a sequence of numbers in memory while reorganizing that sequence.

Figure 1. List and description of test instruments

38 Tm~ OLDER DYSLEXIC

administered. The MLAT was chosen in order to compare students' linguistic coding performance on native language tests to their linguistic coding performance on a FL aptitude measure. Figure I presents a brief description of each test of native and FL aptitude. Figure 2 presents the linguistic code(s) measured by each test.

Students were pretested over a two-hour time period within the first six weeks of school. Posttesting occurred during the final two weeks. All but a few tests, designed specifically for group administra- tion, were administered individually by the authors with assistance from special education and school psychology majors trained by the authors prior to this study. 7

In order to evaluate the students' level of proficiency in Spanish, two proficiency tests were administered to the three groups of students, one at the end of each semester. The tests were designed to cor- respond with information covered in the textbooks used in each class, and measured the four skills--listening, speaking, reading, and writing--recommended by the American Council on the Teaching of For- eign Languages (ACTFL) guidelines. 8 The teachers of the MSUES and MSL/S groups used the textbook, Voces y Vistas, 9 and the teachers of the NO/MSL group used the textbook, Spanish for Today.~O The number of items in each section of the test was determined by the approximate amount of time allocated to each skill in the text. After the tests were administered, the total percent of items correct was determined. The tests were administered by the classroom teachers. Due to time con- straints and teacher illness, the MSL/ES group was not given the oral (speaking) section of the second test. Thus, MSL/ES group's second test percentage is based on the reading, listening, and writing sections of the test.

Analysis of Data Means and standard deviations of pre- and posttesting were de-

termined and differences between Means analyzed using a t-test for correlated samples.

Study I (MSL/ES)

Sample The sample for Study I consisted of 14 high school students attend-

ing a private college preparatory school located in an upper middle

r/he authors would like to thank Charles Sheffield, Kim Stevens, and Vanessa Torbeck for their assistance in this study.

sSee Omaggio (1986) for an overview of these guidelines. 9Voces y Vistas is published by Scott-Foresman. loSpanish for Today is published by Houghton-Mifflin.


TEST Phonological Syntactic Semantic Memory Lindamood X PPVT-R X WRAT-R Spelling X WRMT-R

Word Identification X Word Attack X

WJPB Written Language Dictation X X Proofing X X Punctuation/

Capitalization X Spelling X Usage X

WJPB Memory X MLAT

Number Learning (1) X Phonetic Script (II) X Spelling Clues (III) X X Words in Sentences (IV) x Paired Associates (v) x

Figure 2. Linguistic Code(s) measured by native and foreign language aptitude tests.

class area of Baltimore, Maryland. Though boys and girls were in separate buildings, FL classes were co-ed. The sample included seven males and seven females. There were 13 ninth-grade students (six males, seven females) and one eleventh-grade student (male). The age range at pretesting for the sample was 14 years, 4 months to 18 years, 0 months (Mean age 14 years, 7 months). The Mean general ability of the total group on the WJPB Brief Scale Cognitive Ability Cluster was 107.5 (S.D. = 9.48). One ninth-grade student had received tutoring in her native language which used an MSL approach for a period of six weeks in the summer after completion of the seventh grade.

Results Foreign Language Aptitude. Table I presents means, standard de-

viations, and significance levels of the MSL/ES group on pre- and post- tests of the MLAT. Significant gains were found between pre- and post-

Tab

le I

G

rou

p M

ean

s an

d S

tan

dar

d D

evia

tio

ns

on

th

e M

od

ern

Lan

gu

age

Ap

titu

de

Tes

t (M

LA

T)"

MS

L/E

S

MS

L/S

N

O-M

SL

P

rete

st

Po

stte

st

Pre

test

P

ost

test

P

rete

st

Po

stte

st

X

S.D

. X

S

.D.

X

S.D

. X

S

.D.

X

S.D

. X

S

.D.

ML

AT

87

.0

7.9

103.

8 12

.6

89.5

9.

3 10

2.2

11.4

90

.0

9.4

90.5

11

.3

Sh

ort

M

LA

T L

on

g

86.3

9.

9 10

4.6

11.8

97

.2

9.0

106.

4 10

.9

88.6

10

.5

88.3

13

.8

ML

AT

I

88.6

18

.3

107.

8 16

.9

106.

3 13

.8

113.

1 18

.0

89.0

11

.7

92.3

2

1.7

M

LA

T I

I 85

.6

13.1

95

.9

15.7

99

.0

13.0

10

0.1

9.8

90.2

17

.1

89.2

15

.2

ML

AT

III

11

.3 b

3.2

b 16

.8 b

5.0 b

11

.9 b

6.4

b 16

.0 b

8.T

° 10

.5 b

6.8 b

14

.7 b

7.6 b

M

LA

T I

V

84.2

10

.1

89.6

8.

8 88

.2

8.2

92.7

11

.1

83.8

8.

3 82

.5

8.3

ML

AT

V

85.0

17

.9

103.

3 20

.2

91.8

12

.5

98.3

15

.2

92.1

15

.8

84.4

11

.1

,Per

mis

sion

was

obt

aine

d fr

om th

e Ps

ycho

logi

cal

Cor

pora

tion,

pub

lish

er o

f th

e M

LA

T, t

o co

nver

t Car

roll

an

d S

apon

's (1

959)

sta

n-

dard

ized

nor

ms

to s

tand

ard

scor

es (

X =

100

; S.D

. =

15)

. bR

aw sc

ores

wer

e us

ed f

or S

ubte

st II

I (Sp

ellin

g C

lues

) as

this

sub

test

had

no

t bee

n n

orm

ed o

n n

inth

gra

de s

tude

nts

wh

o c

om-

pris

ed 6

7% o

f ou

r po

pula

tion

.


test scores on the Short and Long Forms and all five subtests: MLAT Short Form (t = 5.39, df = 13, p = .0001); MLAT Long Form (t = 7.50, df = 13, p = .0001); Part I (Number Learning) (t = 4.39, df = 13, p = .0007); Part II (Phonetic Script) (t = 5.03, df = 13, p = .0002); Part III (Spelling Clues) (t = 3.45, df = 13, p = .004); Part IV (Words in Sen- tences) (t = 2.21, df = 13, p = .05); Part V (Paired Associates) (t = 3.57, df = 13, p = .003).

Oral~Written Native Language. Table II presents means, s tandard deviations, and significance levels of the MSL/ES group on the native oral and writ ten language measures. 11 Significant gains were found on the following measures of phonology: WRAT-R Spelling (t = 3.11, df = 13, p = .008); L indamood Audi tory Conceptualization Test (t = 3.77, df = 13, p = .002); WRMT-R Word Identification (t = 2.50, df = 13, p = .03); WRMT-R Word Attack (t = 2.83, df = 13, p = .02); and the WRMT-R Basic Skills Cluster (t = 3.27, df = 13, p = .007). No significant gains were found on the WJPB Spelling (t = .13, df = 12, p = .90) or the WJPB Dictation (t = .79, df = 12, p = .45).

No significant gains were found on any of the syntactic measures: WJPB Proofing (t = .99, df = 12, p = .34); WJPB Punctuation (t = .44, df = 12, p = .68); or the WJPB Usage (t = 1.48, df = 12, p = .17). No significant differences were found on the total WJPB Written Language Cluster (t = .37, df = 12, p = .72).

Significant gains were found on the semantic measure, the PPVT- R (t = 2.12, df = 13, p = .05) and a measure of verbal memory, the WJPB Memory for Sentences subtest (t = 3.30, df = 13, p = .006). No siginficant gains were found on the WJPB Numbers Reversed subtest (t = 1.15, df = 13, p = .27) or the total WJPB Memory Cluster (t = 2.11, df = 13, p = .06).

Proficiency Tests. Table III presents means and standard deviations of the MSL/ES group on the proficiency tests. The group achieved a mean score of 73.2 percent on Test 1, 68.2 percent on Test 2, and 72.0 percent w h e n the two test scores were combined.

Study 2 (MSL/S)

Sample The sample for Study 2 consisted of ten high school s tudents at-

tending a private college preparatory school for girls located in an upper middle class area of Cleveland, Ohio. There were eight ninth-grade students, one tenth-grade s tudent , and one eleventh-grade student. The age range at pretesting for the sample was 14 years, I month to 16

nOne student was unavailable for the complete native language posttest battery.

Tab

le I

I G

rou

p M

ean

s an

d S

tand

ard

Dev

iati

ons

on T

ests

of

Nat

ive

Ora

l an

d W

ritt

en L

ang

uag

e

MSL

/ES

MSL

/S

NO

-MS

L

Pre

test

P

ostt

est

Pre

test

P

ostt

est

Pre

test

P

ostt

est

X

S.D

. X

S.

D.

X

S.D

. X

S.

D.

X

S.D

. X

S.

D.

WR

AT

Spe

ll

95.7

10

.1

99.6

12

.2

101.

6 14

.0

104.

0 10

.8

88.1

13

.9

89.3

15

.4

Lin

dam

oo

d

85.6

" 7.

3"

92.6

" 9.

8"

88.1

" 7.

4"

91.0

" 7.

0"

78.4

" 12

.7"

82.5

" 13

.0"

WR

MT

Wor

d Id

. 96

.1

5.8

99.6

7.

4 10

0.6

9.7

103.

7 5.

0 88

.7

14.6

87

.7

17.6

W

RM

T W

ord

Att

. 93

.1

12.0

10

1.8

11.0

95

.6

13.7

95

.5

6.9

88.7

15

.5

90.4

16

.1

WR

MT

B.

Skill

s 94

.8

7.6

10

1.1

9.

7 98

.7

11.8

10

1.0

5.2

88.9

14

.0

90.2

17

.6

PP

VT

10

5.1

8.9

108.

4 10

.9

107.

4 12

.3

112.

1 5.

1 96

.4

13.3

96

.4

15.4

W

JPB

Wri

t. C

l. 10

2.8

8.0

102.

2 10

.3

103.

6 8.

0 10

6.7

11.2

94

.9

8.0

95.6

10

.5

WJP

B D

ict.

105.

0 9.

2 10

2.6

12.5

10

7.0

8.5

104.

6 10

.2

96.1

11

.4

94.3

10

.1

WJP

B P

rof.

10

4.2

6.8

102.

4 5.

4 1

02

.1

6.7

108.

4 11

.2

92.3

9.

9 95

.0

15.8

W

JPB

Pun

c.

108.

5 4.

2 10

7.5

7.9

104.

5 4.

2 10

5.3

6.4

98.2

10

.2

97.9

14

.5

WJP

B S

pell.

97

.9

12.7

98

.1

12.2

10

4.0

9.1

106.

6 12

.1

90.4

12

.3

91.6

11

.5

WJP

B U

sage

10

3.9

7.5

100.

0 7.

2 10

2.0

10.5

10

5.9

15.2

94

.2

12.0

95

.1

16.0

W

JPB

Mem

. C

l. 10

2.9

15.1

11

0.2

14

.1

109.

4 10

.4

111.

0 6.

8 93

.5

14.2

95

.5

13.9

W

JPB

Mem

. S

ent

97.1

15

.7

106.

6 13

.7

103.

5 12

.1

109.

6 9.

6 90

.8

12.3

92

.2

13.2

W

JPB

Nu

m.

Rev

. 10

4.5

18.9

11

0.4

15.3

10

9.6

13.3

10

8.4

10.5

95

.2

16.3

98

.9

15.3

• Raw

Sco

res

MULTISZNSORY INSTRUCTION FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE 43

Table III Group Means and Standard Deviations on Foreign Language Proficiency

Tests

Test I Test 2 Combined Total Group X a S.D. X a S.D. X a S.D.

MSUES 73.2 7.5 68.2 23.3 72.0 9.6 MSL/S 79.9 5.8 65.5 10.2 72.5 5.9 NO/MSL 65.5 11.5 54.7 17.2 60.2 13.3

"Mean scores represent percent correct.

years, 5 months (Mean age 15 years, 0 months). The Mean general ability of the total group on the WJPB Brief Scale Cognitive Ability Cluster was 111.0 (S.D. = 8.3). None of the s tudents had previously been taught in their native language with a MSL approach.

Results Foreign Language Aptitude. Table I presents means, s tandard de-

viations, and significance levels of the MSL/S group on the MLAT. Sig- nificant gains were found on both the Short and Long Forms: MLAT Short Form (t = 3.95, df = 9, p = .003), and MLAT Long Form (t = 2.94, df = 9, p = .02). No significant gains were found on any of the five MLAT subtests: Part I (Number Learning) (t = 1.33, df = 9, p = .22); Part II (Phonetic Script) (t = 0.37, df = 9, p = .72); Part III (Spell- ing Clues) (t = 1.19, df = 9, p = .27); Part IV (Words in Sentences) (t = 1.32, df = 9, p = .22); and Part V (Paired Associates) (t = 1.67, df = 9, p = .13).

Oral~Written Native Language. Table II presents means, s tandard deviations, and significance levels of the O-G/S group on the native oral and writ ten language measures. No significant gains were found on any of the phonological measures: WRAT-R Spelling (t = 0.96, df = 9, p = .36); L indamood Audi tory Conceptualization Test (t = 1.20, df -- 9, p = .26); WRMT-R Word Identification (t = 1.14, df = 9, p = .29); WRMT-R Word Attack (t = .03, df = 9, p = .98); WRMT-R Basic Read- ing Skills Cluster (t = .78, df = 9, p = .45); WJPB Spelling (t = 1.04, df = 9, p = .33); and WJPB Dictation (t = 1.36, df = 9, p = .20).

No significant gains were found on any of the syntactic measures: WJPB Proofing (t = 1.86, df = 9, p = .10); WJPB Punctuation (t = .41, df = 9, p = .69); or the WJPB Usage (t = 1.36, df = 9, p = .21). No significant gains were found on the total WJPB Written Language Clus- ter (t = 1.62, df = 9, p = .14).

No significant gains were found on any of the semantic or memory


measures: PPVT-R (t = 1.29, df = 9, p = .23); WJPB Memory for Sen- tences (t = 1.25, df = 9, p = .24); WJPB N u m b e r s Reversed (t = .28, df = 9, p = .79); and the WJPB total M e m o r y Cluster (t = .47, df = 9, p = .65).

Proficiency Tests. Table III presents means and s tandard deviations of the MSL/S group on the proficiency tests. The group achieved a mean score of 79.9 percent on Test 1, 65.5 percent on Test 2, and 72.5 percent when the two test scores were combined.

Study 3 (NO-MSL)

Sample The sample for S tudy 3 consisted of 15 high school s tudents at-

tending a public high school located in a middle class area of Cincin- nati, Ohio. The sample included nine males and six females. There were five ninth-grade s tudents (three males, two females), six tenth- grade s tudents (four males, two females), and four eleventh-grade students (three males, one female). The age range at pretest ing for the sample was 14 years, 2 months to 18 years, 7 months (Mean age 15 years, 4 months). The Mean general ability of the total group on the WJPB Brief Scale Cognitive Ability Cluster was 99.4 (S.D. = 9.3). None of the s tudents had previously been taught in their native language with a MSL approach.

Results Foreign Language Aptitude. Table I presents means, s tandard de-

viations, and significance levels of the NO-MSL group on the MLAT. n No significant gains were found on the MLAT Short and Long Forms or any of the five subtests: MLAT Short Form (t = .25, df = 13, p = .79); MLAT Long Form (t - .14, df = 13, p = .89); Part I (Number Learning) (t = .59, df = 13, p = .57); Part II (Phonetic Script) (t = .23, df = 13, p = .82); Part III (Spelling Clues) (t = 2.41, df = 13, p = .32); Part IV (Words in Sentences) (t = 0.57, df = 13, p = .58); Part V (Paired Asso- dates) (t = 1.69, df = 13, p = .12).

Oral~Written Native Language. Table II presents means, s tandard deviations, and significance levels of the NO-MSL group on the native oral and writ ten language measures . No significant gains were found on any of the phonological measures: WRAT-R Spelling (t = 1.14, df = 14, p = .27); L indamood Audi tory Conceptualization Test (t = 1.79, df = 14, p = .10); WRMT-R Word Identification (t = .43, df = 14, p = .67); WRMT-R Word Attack (t = 1.28, df = 14, p = .22); WRMT-R Basic

nOne student was unavailable for complete posttest battery.


Reading Skills Cluster (t = 1.03, df = 14, p = .32); WJPB Spelling (t = .57, df = 14, p = .58); and WJPB Dictation (t = .61, df = 13, p = .55).

No significant gains were found on any of the syntactic measures: W]PB Proofing (t = .72, df = 13, p = .48); WJPB Punctuation (t = .93, df = 13, p = .93); and the WJPB Usage (t = .17, df = 13, p = .87). No significant gains were found on the total WJPB Written Language Clus- ter (t = .44, df = 13, p = .67).

No significant gains were found on any of the semantic or memory measures: PPVT-R (t = .26, df = 13, p = .80); WJPB Memory for Sen- tences (t = .67, df = 13, p = .51); WJPB Numbers Reversed (t = .38, df = 13, p = .71); and the WJPB total Memory Cluster (t = .19, df = 13, p = .85).

Proficiency Tests. Table III presents means and standard deviations of the NO/MSL group on the proficiency tests. The group achieved a mean score of 65.5 percent on Test 1, 54.7 on Test 2, and 60.2 percent when the two test scores were combined.

Discussion

In general, the findings of this study support the hypothesis that students who receive MSL instruction in a FL would show gains in native language phonological skills. This result was expected in light of recent empirical findings of reading researchers showing that direct instruction in phonology and phonological awareness training improves reading skill (Ball and Blachman 1988, 1991; Bradley and Bryant 1985; Hutcheson, Selig, and Young 1990; Lundberg 1987; Lundberg, Frost, and Peterson 1988; Vickery, Reynolds, and Cochran 1987). The hypothesis that FL aptitude scores would improve as a consequence of direct instruction in MSL was also supported. This finding was expected based on Demuth and Smith's (1987) anecdotal evidence that FL aptitude would improve as a result of instruction in the structure of native language. The third hypothesis, that students who did not receive MSL training in the FL would not show gains in either native language phonology or FL aptitude was also supported. The subjects in the NO/ MSL group clearly exhibited weaknesses in phonological skills, as their pre- and post-test mean scores were almost one standard deviation below the mean on the phonological measures. Likewise, the pre- and posttest mean FL aptitude scores of the NO/MSL group were approximately one standard deviation below the mean. These findings on the NO/MSL group were anticipated, since the group did not receive instruction which focused on the phonological component, the primary deficit of unsuccessful and poor-achieving FL learners (Ganschow et al. 1991; Sparks et al. 1991; Sparks, Ganschow, and Pohlman 1989). Re-

46 Tzcs OLam¢ DYSLSrdC

suits are also supported by related research on phonological deficits in poor readers. For example, Aaron (1990) hypothesizes that students with reading disabilities who exhibit deficits in a component of reading skill (e.g., decoding or comprehension) are expected to show greater gains in reading if they are given instruction that concentrates on im- proving the weaker component.

Although the hypothesis that students receiving MSL instruction would show improvement in native language phonological skills was partially supported, the two MSL groups did not make equivalent gains. The MSL group that was taught in both English and Spanish (MSUES) made significant gains on all native language phonological measures and the Long and Short Forms of the FL aptitude test (MLAT) as well as all of its subtests. In contrast, the MSL group taught only in Spanish (MSL/S) made significant gains only on the Long and Short Forms of the MLAT, not its subtests. The MSL/S group did not make significant gains on any of the native language phonological measures. While this finding may be surprising, the results may lend support to the position that students who have weaknesses in their native language skills need instruction in and support of their less efficient native language phonological, syntactic, and semantic skills in order to learn the new sound/symbol and grammatical system of a FL effectively. The use of their native language to support FL instruction may help at-risk students to learn the new phonology and syntax of a FL without being "bombarded" by the FL, as they are likely to be in a classroom that uses primarily a natural communication approach.

In addition to the gains in native language phonological skills, the MSL/ES group also showed significant increases in receptive vocabulary. This finding suggests the possibility that instruction in phonological skills may enhance semantic skills in one's native language. FL educators have hypothesized that the study of a FL will have a positive effect on students' reading and writing skills in a school setting (e.g., see Herron 1982). In reading research Liberman and Shankweiler (1985) have speculated that listening skills might improve as a student becomes a better reader. Along these same lines, Stanovich (1986a, 1988) has hypothesized that poor readers may suffer from "Matthew Effects," a phenomenon that is said to occur because poor readers, the majority of whom exhibit decoding deficits due to poor phonological skills, are exposed to lesser amounts of decontextualized language; over time, the skills that support listening comprehension (i.e., vocabular~ syntax, general knowledge) are affected.

Significant gains were also made by the MSL/ES group on a verbal short-term memory task. Again, it might be speculated that the improvement in phonological skills made by the MSUES group was re-


lated to their increased efficiency on phonological tasks. Gathercole and Baddeley (1989, 1990) have hypothesized that poor readers do not have a general weakness in verbal memory; rather, their verbal short- term memory problems may reflect a deficit specific to phonological memory.

On the proficiency tests, all three groups scored lower on Test 2. The authors speculate that as the course progressed, the FL became increasingly more difficult for these at-risk students.

Implications

There are several implications that might be derived from these studies, though implications should be tempered because of the pilot nature of the studies. Nonetheless, the suggestions here provide a potential springboard for future investigation and collaboration between special educators and FL teachers.

One implication is that FL and special educators should be aware of the impact that weaknesses in native language phonological skills may have on FL learning. In this study the three groups displayed average semantic and syntactic skills on their pretests. Relative weaknesses in the phonological code, however, were reflected in their pretest scores, which were close to one standard deviation lower than their mean cognitive scores.

Second, results of these studies suggest that direct instruction in the phonology (and syntax) of a FL may be promising methodology for teaching at-risk FL learners, the majority of whom seem to have phonological deficits. FL adaptation of MSL programs (e.g., Project Read [Greene and Enfield 1985a, 1985b] or Alphabetic Phonics [Cox 1985]) may be particularly appropriate for this purpose because of their emphasis on direct instruction in phonology and their use of a multisensory approach.

A third implication is that a teaching method which provides direct instruction in the phonology of the FL also has the potential to increase native language phonology. In the present stud~ the MS/dES group made significiant gains on most native language phonological measures as well as a metalinguistic, or phonemic awareness, task (Lindamood and Lindamood 1979). In our view, this implication is ex- citing because the instructional approach has the potential to enhance students' phonological skills and to improve FL skills. Thus, improvement in phonology and phonemic awareness might serve not only as a base for FL learning but also for improved reading in the student's native language, with corresponding increases in native language syn-

48 T ~ OLDER DYSL~aC

tax, vocabular~ general information, and listening comprehension. In short, teaching the phonology of a FL may be yet another technique to counteract debilitating Matthew Effects.

A fourth implication is that direct teaching of the phonology of a FL may result in substantial improvement in FL aptitude, as measured by a FL aptitude test, such as the MLAT. FL educators Demuth and Smith (1987) began FL instruction with at-risk college learners by providing direct instruction in native language phonology, morphol- og~ and syntax before teaching the FL. Anecdotal reports in their study indicated that many of their students made large posttest gains on the MLAT. Results from our preliminary studies here provide empirical support for their findings. Students who receive direct instruction in the elements of language may be able to develop more efficient native language skills which may improve their aptitude for learning a foreign language.

A fifth implication is that at-risk students may need FL instruction from a teacher who teaches in both the FL and the student's native language. In this study the MSL/ES group made greater gains on native language phonological measures and MLAT subtests than the MSL/S group. Evidence reviewed earlier supports the view that spoken language comprehension failures can result from phonological processing problems; thus, at-ri~k students may have difficulty with listening comprehension, a speculation that is supported in the literature on students with reading disabilities and LD (Crain 1989; Shankweiler and Crain 1986; Smith, Mann, and Shankweiler 1986). It may be unreason- able, then, to expect students with weaknesses in phonology to be successful in FL methodologies that start out with listening to the FL and operate under the assumption that students learn to comprehend and speak the FL in much the same manner as they acquired their native language. Rather, instruction may have to begin with simultaneous oral (listening and speaking) and written (reading and writing) instruction, with an emphasis on "cracking the code" and learning the sound/symbol system of the new language through a MSL approach.

A final implication from these studies is that there is a need for research on instructional approaches for at-risk FL learners. This paper was limited to findings on only three FL classrooms, and the studies here should be replicated with other FL classrooms. Also needed are longitudinal and follow-up studies to test the effectiveness of successful FL programs for at-risk learners over time.

Studies designed to determine whether instruction makes a difference are sometimes fraught with problems of design, and this study is no exception. Locating teachers who provide MSL instruction in the FL and finding at-risk students who are grouped together for FL instruction is a formidable task. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that this


pilot study may help provide the impetus for further experimentation on the use of MSL approaches for FL instruction with at-risk FL learners. Perhaps, special educators and FL teachers can begin to work together by coordinating efforts in both fields towards the joint effort of teaching basic language literacy.

Re[erences

Aaron, E G. 1990. Can reading disabilities be diagnosed without using intelligence tests? Journal of Learning Disabilities 24: 178-186, 191.

Adams, M. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Au, S. 1988. A critical appraisal of Gardner's social-psychological theory of second- language (L2) learning. Language Learning 38: 75-100.

Ball, E. and Blachrnan, B. 1988. Phoneme segmentation training: Effect on reading readi- ness. Annals of Dyslexia 38: 208-225.

Ball, E. and Blachman, B. 1991. Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly 26: 49-66.

Bradley, L. and Bryant, E 1985. Rhyme and Reason in Reading and Spelling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Brightman, M. 1986. An Evaluation of the Impact of the Alphabetic Phonics Program in the Kinkaid School from 1983 through 1985, Report No. 2. Houston: Neuhaus Foundation.

Carroll, J. 1962. The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (ed.). Training and Research in Education. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pitts- burgh Press.

Carroll, J. 1973. Implications of aptitude test research and psycholinguistic theory for foreign language teaching. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 2: 5-14.

Carroll, J. 1981. Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. C. Dil- ler (ed.). Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Carroll, J. 1985. Second language abilities. In R. Sternberg (ed.). Human Abilities: An information processing approach. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.

Carroll, J. 1990. Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now. In T. Parry and C. Stansfield (eds.). Language Aptitude Reconsidered. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Carroll, J. and Sapon, S. 1959. Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Content, A., Kolinsky, R., Morals, J., and Bertelson, E 1986. Phonetic segmentation in prereaders: Effects of corrective information. Iournal of Experimental Child Psychol- ogy 42: 49-72.

Cox, A. 1985. Alphabetic phonics: An organization and expansion of Orton-Gillingham. Annals of Dyslexia 35: 187-198.

Craln, S. 1989. Why poor readers misunderstand spoken sentences. In D. Shankweiler and I. Liberman (eds~.). Phonology and Reading Disability: Solving the reading puzzle. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Daggett, G. 1986. Eight approaches to language teaching. ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Demuth, K. and Smith, N. 1987. The foreign language requirement: An alternative program. Foreign Language Annals 20: 67-77.

50 THz OLDER DYSLEXIC

Dinklage, K. 1971. Inability to learn a foreign language. In G. Blaine and C. McArthur (eds.). Emotional Problems of the Student. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Dunn, L. and Durra, L. 1981. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.

Elson, N. 1983. Why we do what we do. TESL Talk 14: 15-30. Enfield, M. 1976. An alternate classroom approach to meeting special learning needs of

children with reading problems. Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Enfield, M. L. 1988. The quest for literacy. Annals of Dyslexia 38: 8-21. Frankiewicz, R. 1984. An Evaluation of the Impact of the Alphabetic Phonics Program in

Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District from 1981 through 1984. Houston: Neuhaus Foundation.

Fowler, M. 1988. Grammaticality judgments and reading skills in grade 2. Annals of Dys- lexia 38: 73-94.

Gajar, A. 1987. Foreign language learning disabilities: The identification of predictive and diagnostic variables. Journal of Learning Disabilities 20: 327-330.

Ganschow, L., Myer, B., and Roeger, K. 1989. Implications of foreign language policies and procedures for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Focus 5: 50-58.

Ganschow, L. and Sparks, R. 1986. Learning disabilities and foreign language difficulties: Deficit in listening skills? Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International 2: 305-319.

Ganschow, L. and Sparks, R. 1987. The foreign language requirement. Learning Disabili- ties Focus 2: 116-123.

Ganschow, L. and Sparks, R. 1991. A screening instrument for foreign language learning problems: Evidence for a relationship between native and second language learning problems. Foreign Language Annals 24: 383-398.

Ganschow, L. and Sparks, R. In press. "Foreign" language learning disabilities: Issues, research, and teaching implications. In S. Vogel and P. Adelman (eds.). Success for College Students with Learning Disabilities. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., and Bishop-Marbury, A. 1991. Identi- fying native language difficulties among foreign language learners in college: A "foreign" language learning disability? Journal of Learning Disabilities 24: 530-541.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Anderson, R., Javorsk~ J., and Skinner, S. 1992. Relationship between anxiety and language performance in high and low anxious college foreign language learners. (Manuscript submitted for publication).

Gardner, R. 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. and Lambert, W. 1972. Attitude and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowle~ MA: Newbury House.

Gathercole, S. and Baddeley, A. 1989. The role of phonological memory in normal and disordered language development. In C. von Euler, I. Lundberg, and G. Len- nerstrand (eds.). Brain and Reading. Volume 54. Hampshire, England: Macmillan.

Gathercole, S. and Baddeley, A. 1990. Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language 29: 336-360.

Gillingham, A. and StiUman, B. 1960. Remedial Training for Children with Specific Disability in Reading, Writing, and Penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Greene, V. and Enfield, M. 1985a. Project Read Reading Guide: Phase I. Bloomington, MN: Bloomington Public Schools.

Greene, V. and Enfield, M. 1985b. Project Read Reading Guide: Phase II. Bloomington, MN: Bloomington Public Schools.


Guyer, B. and Sabatino, D. 1989. The effectiveness of a multisensory alphabetic phonetic approach with college students who are learning disabled. Journal of Learning Dis- abilities 22: 430-434.

Herron, C. 1982. Who should study a foreign language?: The myth of elitism. Foreign Language Annals 15: 441-449.

Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., and Cope, J. 1986. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Mod- ern Language Journal 70:125-132.

Horwitz, E. and Young, D. 1991. Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hutcheson, L., Sellg, H., and Young, N. 1990. A success story: A large urban district offers a working model for implementing multisensory teaching in the resource and regular classroom. Annals of Dyslexia 40: 79-96.

Jastak, S. and Wilkinson, G. 1984. Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.

Javorsky, J., Sparks, R., and Ganschow, L. 1992. Perceptions of college students with and without learning disabilities about foreign language courses. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice 7: 31-44.

Keeney, L. and Smith, N. 1987. Foreign language modifications for disabled students-- The campus response. AHSSPPE Bulletin 2(1): 4-5.

Krashen, S. 1982. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York: Pergamon Press.

Lefebvre, R. 1984. A psychological consultation program for learning disabled adults. Journal of College Student Personnel 25: 361-362.

Lerner, ]., Ganschow, L., and Sparks, R. 1991. Critical issues in learning disabilities: For- eign language learning problems. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice 6: 57-61.

Levine, M. 1987. Developmental Variation and Learning Disorders. Cambridge, MA: Educa- tors' Publishing Service.

Liberman, I. 1987. Language and literacy: The obligation of schools of education. In W. Ellis (ed.). Intimacy with Language: A forgotten basic in teacher education. Baltimore, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society.

Liberman, I. 1989. The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In D. Shankweiler and I. Liberman (eds.). Phonology and Reading Disability. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michi- gan Press.

Liberman, I. and Liberman, A. 1990. Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia 40: 51-76.

Liberman, I. and Shankweiler, D. 1985. Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education 6: 8-17.

Lindamood, P. and Lindamood, C. 1979. Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test. Allen Park, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.

Lundberg, I. 1987. Phonological awareness facilitates reading and spelling acquisition. In W. Ellis (ed.). Intimacy with Language: A forgotten basic in teacher education. Balti- more, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society.

Lundberg, I., Frost, J., and Peterson, O. 1988. Effects of an extensive program for stimu- lating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly 23: 263-284.

Mann, V., Cowin, E., and Schoenheimer, J. 1990. Phonological processing, language comprehension, and reading ability. In J. Torgesen (ed.). Cognitive and Behavioral Characteristics of Children with I.earning Disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Mann, V., Shankweiler, D., and Smith, S. 1984. The association between comprehension of spontaneous sentences and early reading ability: The role of phonetic represen- tation. Journal of Child Language 11: 627-643.


Myer, B., and Ganschow, L. 1988. Profiles of frustration: Second language learners with specific learning disabilities. In J. E. Lalande (ed.). Shaping the Future of Foreign Language Education: FLES, articulation, proficiency. Lincolnwood, IL: National Text- book Co.

Myer, B., Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., and Kenneweg, S. 1989. Cracking the code: Helping students with specific learning disabilities. In D. McAlpine (ed.). Defining the Es- sentials for the Foreign Language Classroom. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Oiler, J. 1981. Research on the measurement of affective variables: Some remaining questions. In R. Anderson (ed.). New Dimensions in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Oiler, J. and Perkins, K. 1978a. Intelligence and language proficiency as sources of variance in self-reported affective variables. Language Learning 28: 85-97.

Oiler, J. and Perkins, K. 1978b. A further comment on language proficiency as a source of variance in certain affective measures. Language Learning 28: 417-423.

Omaggio, A. 1986. Teaching Language in Context: Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle.

Oxford, R. 1990. Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategies in the context of style. In S. Magnan (ed.). Shifting the Instructional Focus to the learner. Middlebur~ VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

Perfetti, C. 1991. The psychology, pedagogy, and politics of reading. Psychological Science 2: 70-76.

Pimsleur, E 1963. Predicting success in high school foreign language courses. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2: 349-357.

Pimsleur, P. 1966a. Testing foreign language learning. In A. Valdman (ed.). Trends in Lan- guage Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pimsleur, P. 1966b. Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery and Manual. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich.

Pimsleur, P. 1968. Language aptitude testing. In A. Davies (ed.). Language Testing Sym- posium: A linguistic approach. London: Oxford University Press.

Pimsleur, P., Sundland, D., and McIntyre, R. 1964. Under-achievement in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics 2: 43-50.

Pompian, N. and Thum, C. 1988. Dyslexic/learning disabled students at Dartmouth Col- lege. Annals of Dyslexia 38: 276-284.

Royal, N. 1991. The Long Term Consequences of Specific Language Disabilities: The secondary years. Cambridge, MA: Educators' Publishing Service (Dissertation available through University Microfilms International, #871-0633).

Shankweiler, D. and Crain, S. 1986. Language mechanisms and reading disorder: A modular approach. Cognition 24: 138-168.

Smith, S., Mann, V., and Shankweiler, D. 1986. Spoken sentence comprehension by good and poor readers: A study with the token test. Cortex 22: 627-632.

Sparks, R. and Ganschow, L. 1991a. Foreign language learning disabilities and the use of the Modern Language Aptitude Test: A response to Faigel. AHSSPPE Latest Devel- opments, Spring, 1-4.

Sparks, R. and Ganschow, L. 19~1b. Foreign language learning difficulties: Affective or native language aptitude differences? Modern Language Journal 75: 3-16.

Sparks, R. and Ganschow, L. 1991c. Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language learning difficulties: Linking native and foreign language learning. (Manuscript submitted for publication).

Sparks, R. and Ganschow, L. In press. The impact of native language learning difficulties on foreign language learning: Case study illustrations of the Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis. Modern Language Journal.

MULTISENSOR¥ INSTRUCTION FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE 53

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., and Javorsky, J. In press. Diagnosing and accommodating the foreign language learning difficulties of college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice 7:150-160.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., and Patton, J. 1992. Test comparisons among students identified as high-risk, low-risk, and learning disabled in high school foreign language courses. Modern Language Journal 76:142-149.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., and Patton, J. In press. Identifying native language deficits in high and low risk foreign language learners in high school. Foreign Language Annals.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Kenneweg, S., and Miller, K. 1991. Use of an Orton- Gillingham method to teach a foreign language to dyslexic/learning disabled students: Explicit teaching of phonology in a second language. Annals of Dyslexia 41: 96-118.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., and Pohlman, J. 1989. Linguistic coding deficits in foreign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia 39:179-195.

Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., and Ganschow, L. 1990. Role of the service provider in helping students with learning disabilities with foreign language learning problems. In J. Vander Putten (ed.). Reaching New Heights: Proceedings of the 1989 AHSSPPE Confer- ence. Columbus, OH: Association on Handicapped Student Service Programs in Postsecondary Education.

Stanovich, K. 1986a. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 21: 360-407.

Stanovich, K. 1986b. Explaining the variance in reading ability in terms of psychological processes: What have we learned? Annals of Dyslexia 36: 67-96.

Stanovich, K. 1988. The right and wrong places to look for the cognitive locus of reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia 38: 154-177.

Terrell, T. 1977. A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. Modern Language Journal 61: 325-337.

Terrel], T. 1982. The natural approach to language teaching: An update. Modern Language Journal 66:121-132.

Valette, R. 1990. Fossils or forests? The challenge of teaching for proficiency in the secondary schools. In J. Alatis (ed.). Linguistics, Language Teaching, and Language Ac- quisition: The interdependence of theory, practice, and research. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Vellutino, E and Scanlon, D. 1986. Linguistic coding and metalinguistic awareness: Their relationship to verbal memory and code acquisition in poor and normal readers. In D. Yaden and S. Templeton (eds.). Metalinguistic Awareness and Beginning Liter- acy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Vickery, K., Reynolds, V. and Cochran, S. 1987. Multisensory teaching for reading, spelling, and handwriting, Orton-Gillingham based, in a public school setting. Annals of Dyslexia 37: 189-202.

White, N. 1986. The effects of a simultaneous-multisensory alphabetic-phonic, direct instruction approach on the teaching of spelling. Ph.D. diss., University of San Francisco, San Francisco.

Williams, J. 1987. Educational treatments for dyslexia at the elementary and secondary levels. In W. Ellis (ed.). Language and Literacy. Baltimore, MD: The Orton Dyslexia Societ~

Woodcock, R. 1987. Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.

Woodcock, R. and Johnson, M. B. 1978. Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Al- len Park, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.

the effects of multisensory structured language instruction on native language and foreign language...

Documents