Dyslexia and learning a foreign language: A personal experience

Annals of Dyslexia, 2000 by Simon, Charlann S

Language acquisition theories of how one learned a foreign language dominated the 1980s. Therefore, foreign language instructors moved away from direct instruction on grammar rules (Savignon 1987) at the same time reading teachers emphasized "the wholeness of language" (Goodman 1986), rather than the analysis of the phonological structure. Now, many foreign language teachers conclude that students need a balanced approach to learning that combines direct instruction on language structure with realistic communication interactions. Chen (1995) represents the viewpoint that comprehensible input alone is insufficient.

For Krashen (1982), subconscious acquisition of comprehensible input in a low-anxiety context plays a pivotal role in developing language fluency; he sees the learning of grammar as useful only as a "monitor" and not an utterance-- initiator. This theoretical claim is counter-intuitive and contrary to the personal experiences of numerous language teachers... (p. 58).

Earlier studies support Chen's conclusions. For example, Long (1983) examined twelve studies dealing with the effects of instruction (learning) and exposure (acquisition), and she concluded that formal instruction in grammar did make a difference. Likewise, Scott (1989), analyzing data from oral and written tests taken by students of French, found that students who had received direct instruction on language structure performed better overall than those with whom implicit methods of instruction had been used. Zhenhui (1999) suggests that cultural factors can play a significant role in determining the most effective foreign language teaching methods. For example, Chinese students generally show great interest in language structures and linguistic details because accuracy is very important to them. Zhenhui emphasizes a balance between accuracy and fluency by providing realistic scenarios in which students can practice specific English structures and learn to accept errors as part of the learning process.

Like Zhenhui, Chen (1995) suggests a method of foreign language instruction that incorporates the best features of an acquisition model and the best features of a learning model. Specifically, ". . . explicit grammar knowledge is realized through contextualized language practice in communicative activities in which rules of use are presented in discourse contexts" (p. 60). Reading specialists (Chall 1997; Adams 1997) and speech-language pathologists (Chaney 1990) have made similar recommendations for balancing "code emphasis" and "meaning emphasis" approaches to reading.

In the 1990s I completed a master's degree in ESL, and throughout the course work I debated professors who subscribed to a "one-size-fits-all" approach to teaching English. Professors were aligned with Gass and Selinker (1994) who proposed that all children can learn a second language naturally if they are exposed to "comprehensible input" (Krashen 1982) and are taught to read through whole language methodologies (Goodman 1986). Professional and personal experiences motivated me to argue against the indirect language teaching methods the professors recommended. First, as a speech-language pathologist, I could not discount the role of individual differences in language learning. It was unlikely that individuals with language-based learning disabilities (dyslexia) would learn a foreign language in roughly the same way and within the same time frame as individuals with typical language learning capabilities. Secondly, my personal experiences with dyslexia convinced me that a structured learning format provides the type of focused practice within a communication context that persons with dyslexia need to learn accurate pronunciation and a variety of language structures. Since language learning is not a natural process for some of us, direct instruction and repetition supply the support needed to develop greater accuracy, fluency, and confidence in our first or second languages.