Benefits of multisensory structured language instruction for at-risk foreign language learners: A comparison of study of high school Spanish students

Annals of Dyslexia, 1998 by Sparks, Richard L, Artzer, Marjorie, Patton, Jon, Ganschow, Leonore, Et al

In this study, the benefits of multisensory structured language (MSL) instruction in Spanish were examined. Participants were students in high-school-level Spanish attending girls' preparatory schools. Of the 55 participants, 39 qualified as at-risk for foreign language learning difficulties and 16 were deemed not-at-risk. The at-risk students were assigned to one of three conditions: (1) MSL-multisensory Spanish instruction in self-contained classrooms (n = 14); (2) SC-traditional Spanish instruction provided in self-contained classrooms (n = 11); and (3) NSC-traditional Spanish instruction in regular (not selfcontained) Spanish classes (n = 14). Not-at-risk students (n = 16) received traditional Spanish instruction in regular classes similar to the instruction provided to the NSC group.

All three at-risk groups made significant gains over time on some native language skills regardless of teaching method. The MSL group also made significant gains on a foreign language aptitude measure. The MSL group and the not-at-risk group made greater gains than the two other at-risk groups on foreign language aptitude and native language measures of reading comprehension, word recognition, and pseudoword reading.

Although most at-risk learners achieved an "expected" level of foreign language proficiency after two years of instruction, significant group differences were found. On measures of oral and written foreign language proficiency, the MSL and not-at-risk groups scored significantly higher than the at-risk groups instructed using traditional methods. After two years of Spanish instruction, no differences in foreign language proficiency were found between the MSL group and the not-at-risk group.

There is extensive evidence that students who have difficulty learning a foreign language are likely to have weaker native language skills than students who have few or no difficulties learning a foreign language in traditional classroom settings. Anecdotal evidence in the foreign language and learning disabilities (LD) literature suggests that students classified as LD or as at-risk for foreign language learning problems require instructional accommodations or modified teaching techniques to pass foreign language courses (e.g., Barr 1993; Mabbott 1994; Ganschow and Sparks 1986). Some students classified as LD receive course substitutions/waivers for the college foreign language requirement (e.g., Freed 1987; Ganschow, Myer, and Roeger 1989). There is an ongoing debate about whether students classified as LD should receive course substitutions for, or waivers from, the foreign language requirement (Moore 1995; Sparks and Javorsky in press; Sparks, Philips, and Ganschow 1996).

Sparks, Ganschow, and their colleagues have hypothesized that students have difficulty with foreign language learning because of the same overt or subtle difficulties encountered with their native language (Sparks and Ganschow 1991; Sparks, Ganschow, and Pohlman 1989). Specifically, they and other researchers have found that students with foreign language learning problems have weaker phonological/orthographic skills than students without foreign language learning problems (Ganschow, Sparks, Javorsky, Pohlman, and BishopMarbury 1991; Service 1992; Sparks, Ganschow, Javorsky, Pohlman, and Patton 1992a, 1992b). Sparks, Ganschow, and colleagues have conducted considerable research on what they term the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (LCDH), a theoretical position they derived from research by Vellutino and Scanlon (1986) on native language reading (Sparks 1995; Sparks and Ganschow 1991, 1993a, 1993b, 1995a). The LCDH posits that native language skills-phonological/orthographic (sound and sound-symbol), syntactic (grammar), and semantic (meaning)-serve as the foundation for successful foreign language learning. The LCDH further posits that both foreign language and native language learning depend on basic language skill and that problems with one language component (for example, phonological/orthographic processing) will have a negative effect on other components (for example, vocabulary or syntax) of both native language and foreign language acquisition.

Considerable empirical evidence has been generated in support of the LCDH. Studies demonstrate that at-risk foreign language learners have significantly poorer phonological/ortho-graphic and syntactic native language skills (as measured by standardized tests of decoding, phonemic awareness, and grammar) and significantly poorer foreign language aptitude, as measured by the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) (Carroll and Sapon 1959). Carroll describes foreign language aptitude as "a fairly specialized talent (or group of talents), relatively independent of those traits ordinarily included under intelligence." (1962, p.89) To assess foreign language aptitude, the MLAT is a simulated learning task which measures the phonetic, grammatical, semantic, and rote memory aspects of language learning. It has been employed in numerous studies (Ganschow and Sparks, 1995, 1996; Ganschow, et al. 1991; Ganschow, Sparks, Anderson, Javorsky, and Skinner 1994; Sparks and Ganschow 1993c, 1995b, 1996; Sparks, Ganschow, Artzer, and Patton 1997; Sparks, et al. 1992a, 1992b; Sparks, Ganschow, Pohlman, Skinner, and Artzer 1992; Sparks, Ganschow, Artzer, Siebenhar, and Plagemen 1997, 1998; and Sparks, Ganschow, and Pohlman 1989). In general, these studies suggest that students with foreign language learning difficulties are comparable to not-at-risk learners in the semantic aspects of language, and achieve comparable IQ scores.