Slideshow Transcript

1. Slide 1: Identifying Native Language Difficulties among Foreign Language Learners in College: A “foreign” language learning disability? Leonard Ganschow, Richard L. Sparks, James Javorsky, Jane Pohlman, & Andrea Bishop-Marbury Presenter: Cindy
2. Slide 2: Outline I Introduction II Literature Review III Method IV Instruments and Procedures V Results and Discussion VI Summary and Future Directions
3. Slide 3: Introduction • The authors described studies that at-risk foreign language learners exhibit linguistic coding problems—subtle phonological, syntactic, and/or semantic difficulties—in their native language. • This “linguistic coding deficit” hypothesis forms the basis for the purpose of this study: to compare successful and unsuccessful foreign language learners on variable thought to be related to learning a foreign language.
4. Slide 4: Evidence for Foreign Language Learning Disabilities
5. Slide 5: 1960s 1971 1980 Foreign language Students with learning problems foreign language The first with suspected or learning reference to a identified learning problems were relationship disabilities because of inability to meet thought to be between the foreign underachievers. These students dyslexia and language requirement. had difficulties foreign There has been only understanding language one empirical study on the foreign the language, learning language learning speaking it, or problems abilities of Ss with both. LD.
6. Slide 6: • Dinklage (1971) described three types of unsuccessful foreign language learners: 1 2 3 Students who were Students who had Students who had unable to “hear” the difficulties with memory language and had the written problems for the problems with (reading and sound and words an oral communication writing) aspects (which often approach to foreign of the language overlapped with language learning listening difficulties).
7. Slide 7: In Gajar’s (1987) study • Subjects: Students with LD and non-LD • Tasks: They took the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), which uses a simulated language to measure aspects of oral and written language. • Results: Students with LD exhibited significantly lower performance on all five of the MLAT subtests but especially on Subtest 4, which measures sensitivity to grammatical structure, and Subtest 5, which measures the rote memory aspect of leaning a foreign language.
8. Slide 9: The Language-Based Nature of Foreign Language Learning Difficulties • In examining the nature of foreign language aptitude through factor analysis, John Carroll, the author of MLAT, identified four aspects area, which he called (a) phonetic coding, or the ability to code auditory phonetic material in such a way that this material can be recognized, identified, and remembered over time; (b) grammatical sensitivity, or the ability to handle grammar; (c) inductive language learning ability, or the ability to infer linguistic forms, rules, or patterns from new linguistic content; (d) rote memory for foreign language learning materials, or the capacity to learn a large number of phonetic and grammatical associations.
9. Slide 10: • Like Carroll, Pimsleur (1966) developed a test of foreign language aptitude, the Language Aptitude Battery. • Pimsleur stated that “auditory ability” was measured by sound discrimination and sound-symbol association tests. • Auditory ability was perhaps the chief factor that distinguished underachievers from successful language learners (Pimsleur, 1968; Pimsleur et al., 1964).
10. Slide 11: Subtests 1 & 2 of Carroll’s MLAT also measure auditory ability
11. Slide 12: • Besides Carroll’s and Pimsleur’s theories, other attempts have been made to predict success in foreign language learning using (1) general cognitive ability, (2) language aptitude (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Jakobovits, 1970; Pimsleur et al., 1964; Wesche et al., 1982), and (3) attitude/motivation measures, such as high anxiety, low motivation, or negative attitude, are the result of language learning problems (Sparks and Ganschow, 1991).
12. Slide 13: The Language-Based Nature of Native Language Learning Difficulties • The presence of oral language and communication deficits associated with LD has been well established in the literature (Myklebust, 1964; Johnson, & Myklebust, 1967; Wiig & Semel, 1976, 1980). • The relationship of oral language proficiency to later academic achievement is also well documented, e.g., preschool language impairments may result in later reading, writing, and spelling difficulties (Forrell & Hood, 1985; Lee & Shapero-Fine, 1984; Stark et al., 1984).
13. Slide 14: Besides, the characteristics of children with LD…. • the deficits in reading comprehension could result from a generalized lack of linguistic awareness (Menyuk & Flood, 1981). • difficulties in dealing with the complex syntactic structures of spoken language (Glass & Perna, 1986; Magee & Newcomer, 1978; Newcomer & Magee, 1977; Vogel, 1975; Wiig, Semel, & Crouse, 1973). • deficits in written language that appear to persist into adulthood.
14. Slide 15: • Poor readers often have deficient listening comprehension skills (Buerger, 1978; Chall, 1983; Curtis, 1980; Smiley, Oakley, Worthen, Campione, & Brown, 1977; Stanovich, Cunningham, & feeman, 1984.) • Oftentimes, these language deficits persist and create learning problems in college for students with LD.
15. Slide 16: All of these findings strongly suggest that oral language disorders play a causal role in later reading and writing difficulties associated with LD (Butler, 1988; Liberman, 1982; Liberman & Shankweiler, 1979; Perfetti, 1985; Vellutino, 1979).
16. Slide 17: Linkages between Native and Foreign Language • Vellutino and Scanlon (1986) coined the term “linguistic coding” to refer to the use of language to code information and, specifically, to the functional use of the phonological, syntactic, and semantic attributes of the language.
17. Slide 18: Poor Readers’ Main Difficulty difficulty in processing structural and formal properties of spoken and printed words Students with deficit in metalinguistic awareness reading disorders deficit in awareness of the elements of language
18. Slide 19: --> Vellutino and Scanlon stated that, because of these deficiencies, poor readers were more attuned to the meaning (semantics) of the words and sentences than the structural (phonological and syntactic) aspects.
19. Slide 20: • These studies provided evidence that attend to both meaning and structural good readers components. attend more to the meaning (semantic) than poor readers the structural components (syntax, phonology) of language.
20. Slide 21: A pilot study (Sparks et al., 1989) • Subjects: College students who have been identified as having extreme difficulties learning foreign languages.
21. Slide 22: 13 Ss 8 Ss with with phonological syntactic or deficits semantic course failure level deficits 1st semester 7 failed none failed one made it to the 2nd semester 6 failed second semester only 1 was able 7 reached the to reach the third third semester of 3rd semester the language semester of the language
22. Slide 23: --> Specific linguistic coding problems in the students’ native language were especially apparent in the phonological domain. Results: Phonological problems of their native language had the most immediate and severe impact on foreign language learning.
23. Slide 24: Phonological Coding & Reading/Listening Problems with word decoding are significant contributors to variance in reading abilities (Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1986). Phonological processing abilities are strongly linked to later reading achievement (Catts, 1989; Catts & Kamhi, 1986; Gough & Hillinger, 1980; Liberman, 1971, 1982; Liberman & Shankweiler, 1979).
24. Slide 25: Children with reading disabilities are said to have less awareness of and sensitivity to the speech-sound structure of the language (Catts & Kamhi, 1986, 1987; Liberman, 1982). Listening problems are also found in college students with learning disabilities (Morris & Leuenberger, 1990).
25. Slide 26: Research Purpose • The purpose of the present study was to determine whether there would be significant differences between successful and unsuccessful (petition) college foreign language learners on test of intelligence, foreign language aptitude, oral and written language, and mathematics.
26. Slide 27: METHOD Subjects 30 juniors and seniors matched by sex and year in college 15 successful foreign 15 petition Ss language Ss The GPAs ranged from 2.1 to 3.3. The GPAs ranged from 2.6 to 3.5. SAT/ACTs were ranged from the 1st SAT/ACTs were converted to percentile to 93rd percentile. percentiles for basis of comparison and ranged from the 45th percentile to the 99th percentile.
27. Slide 28: SAT/ACTs & GPAs • As the table indicates, there were no significant differences between groups on SAT/ACTs scores, F(1,22) = 2.00, p = .17; however, there were significant differences on GPAs, F(1,29) = 10.24, p = .003.
28. Slide 29: Instruments and Procedures • Instruments used to assess foreign language learners
29. Slide 30: • (1) intelligence: WAIS-R; • (2) foreign language aptitude: MLAT Long Form, Parts I-V and Short Form, Parts III-V; • (3) phonology: Goldman-Fristoe-Woodcock (GFW), Sound Blending and Spelling of Sounds subtests; MLAT, Parts I (Number Learning), II (Phonetic Script), and V (Paired Associates); W Range Achievement ide Test-Revised (WRAT-R) Spelling; Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery, Part II (W JPB) Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack subtests; • (4) grammar and syntax: MLAT Part IV, Words in sentences; WJPB, Written Language; • (5) semantics: that is, vocabulary and reading comprehension: MLAT-Part III, Spelling Clues; W JPB, antonym-Synonyms and Picture Vocabulary subtests. Passage Comprehension subtests; • (6) mathematics: WJPB, Mathematics cluster.
30. Slide 31: A T-unit is defined as a main clause plus attached or embedded subordinate clauses (Hunt, 1965, 1970) and provides a gross measure of syntactic complexity. TOWL-2 • A 15-minute writing sample, in which the students were asked to take a position in a topic of their choice, was also collected. • A scoring method was adapted from the Test of Written Language-2 (TOWL-2) (Hammill & Larsen, 1988) and included measures of
31. Slide 32: • In this study, the 30 writing samples with names removed and errors included were typed onto sheets, which were shuffled and graded independently by the authors. They cross-checked scores for accuracy. • This scoring method differs from the TOWL-2, wherein total number of words or errors in a given sample are counted.
32. Slide 33: Procedure: • Students were tested individually over several time periods totaling approximately 5 hours. • Achievement tests were administered by the authors; intelligence tests were administered by a licensed psychologist.
33. Slide 34: Analysis of Data • An ANOVA procedure was used to determine the level of significance of the difference of the difference between successful and unsuccessful foreign language learners on each test and test cluster in the diagnostic battery. • Standard scores were used in the analysis of data. • A level of .05 was used as the criterion for significance. • Bonferroni (Dunn) and Tukey T-tests were performed on variables with unequal numbers of scores (due to the omission of a given test in an individual’s test profile) to confirm the ANOVA results.
34. Slide 35: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Measures of Intelligence • Table 2 represents a statistical comparison of group means on full-scale intelligence and IQ subscales.
35. Slide 36: Results • Results of WAIS-R IQ comparisons showed no differences between the groups on Verbal Performance, and Full-Scale IQ. • One subtest: Vocabulary, F(1,29) = 7.29, p = .01, distinguished the groups.
36. Slide 37: • The findings on intellectual functioning support earlier studies by Carroll (1958), Pimsleur (Pimsleur, 1968; Pimsleur et al., 1964). Intelligence is not a significant factor in the prediction of success in foreign language classes. • The significant difference on the Vocabulary subtest of the WAIS-R lends support to a finding by Lefebvre (1984) that college students identified as LD because of foreign language difficulties scored lower than students with LD referred to the University of Virginia’s Counseling Center for other academic problems.
37. Slide 38: Measures of Foreign Language Aptitude Results • Significant differences between the groups were found on the total test and all of the subtests. • For both groups, performance on Subtest IV (Words in Sentence) was lower than any of the other subtests.
38. Slide 39: Measure of Academic Performance Results • Most petition students have difficulty with tasks involving sounds and sound-symbol relationships in English.
39. Slide 40: • As reported under MLAT Part I and II, the measurement of phonological performance, were also significant.
40. Slide 41: Measures of Phonology • This finding is consistent with Dinklage’s (1971, 1985) observations of Harvard students, some of whom had difficulty remembering sounds and problems hearing the language. • Findings also support factor analyses by Carroll (1962), who identified phonetic coding factors related to success in foreign language, and research by Pimsleur and colleagues (Pimsleur, 1968; Pimsleur et al., 1964), who reported an auditory ability factor. • These results are also consistent with the LD literature, which has shown difficulties with phonology to be the basis for variance in reading ability of students with LD (Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Kamhi & Catts, 1989; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987).
41. Slide 42: Grammar & Syntax Significant differences between groups
42. Slide 43: Grammar & Syntax Results showed that scores of petition Ss and successful foreign language learners differed in Spelling and Usage, but not in Punctuation and Capitalization.
43. Slide 44: • The findings on T-unit measures are consistent with studies by Vogel (1985) and others (Morris & Crump, 1982), who found that Ss with LD differed significantly in productivity, but not in numbers of word per T-unit. • Vogel (1985) suggested that complexity within a T- unit, or “syntactic density” (for example, number of subordinate clauses per T-unit), may be a more important discriminator.
44. Slide 45: Grammar & Syntax • Overall findings on measures of grammar and syntax are consistent with…. Carroll (1968) identified a “grammatical sensitivity” factor related to success in learning a foreign language. Syntactic deficits in written language observed in college students with LD (Blalock, 1981; Gregg, 1983; Vogel, 1985; Vogel & Moran, 1982).
45. Slide 46: Semantics • Tests measuring semantics as related to vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension showed no significant differences between groups.
46. Slide 47: • These findings support the author’s speculation that the foreign language differences are not at the level of overall semantic understanding, as measured by these instruments.
47. Slide 48: The overall mean of the petition Ss was in the average range.
48. Slide 49: Successful foreign language learners The overall mean scored in the of the petition Ss superior level . was in the average range.
49. Slide 50: Mathematics • Overall findings suggested that petition students did not have difficulties with math.
50. Slide 51: Discussion • Findings on petition students in this study showed that they differed most from successful foreign language learners at the phonological and syntactic (grammatical) levels in their native language. • Petition students performed significantly poorer than successful foreign language learners on tests measuring ability to identify single words in reading, synthesize isolated sounds into meaningful words, and spell words. They also performed more poorly on written language tasks, in terms of grammar and productivity.
51. Slide 52: • The findings of the study suggest that, overall, the MLAT, measures the spelling performance, and a writing sample are the best indicators, in that petition Ss’ overall means differed by at least one standard deviation from their cognitive performance on the standardized measures.
52. Slide 53: • Limitation of the study: Small sample size because of the difficulties in locating a population of petition students.
53. Slide 54: SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS • Based on the finding of this study, the authors suggest that the presence of difficulties with phonological and syntactic skills in one’s native language may be in indicators of potential foreign language difficulties.
54. Slide 55: • There are two issues that need further exploration: 2. Further studies should examine specifically the role of verbal memory (Carroll, 1958; Dinklage, 1971), listening comprehension (Ganschow & Sparks, 1986; Morris & Leuenberger, 1990), and oral expression (Pimsleur, Hancock, & Furey, 1977) in foreign language learning.
55. Slide 56: 2. The second issue is the question of ‘how to qualify for a foreign language waiver/course substitution.’ (Ganschow et al., 1989)
56. Slide 57: • The authors suggest that questions such as the following be considered: (1) Will phonological and/or syntactic training help foreign language learners as it has children and adults with learning disabilities (Ball & Blachman, 1988; Liberman, 1987; Lundberg, Olofsson, & Wall, 1980)? (2) Should languages that rely less on ability to converse (e.g., Latin) or represent logographic rather than orthographic systems (e.g., Chinese) be considered for students with phonological deficits (Fisher, 1986; Ganschow & Sparks, 1987)? (3) Will further research in second language learning provide a casual link between native and foreign language leaning problem (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991)? (4) What kind of appropriate instruction catered to specific learning needs could fulfill the foreign language requirement?