Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01164.x
· Volume 10 · Number 3 · 2010
227–236
Case studies of learning disabled students with deficient syntactic control in English as a foreign language jrs3_1164
227..236
Salim Abu-Rabia and Lesley Lanir University of Haifa, Israel
Key words: Dyslexia, foreign language, syntax acquisition, repeated articulation.
This paper discusses a mini-experiment; an exercise was devised to investigate the effects of repeated articulation on the acquisition of syntax. The main participants of the experiment are two Hebrewspeaking students, one formally assessed as having reading disabilities, one female age 14 (Q) and one dyslexic male age 16 (W). Q has been learning English at school for 4 years; she is in eighth grade. She is in the group for weak learners of English and does not show signs of a reading disability. She has taken private tuition once a week for approximately 5 months. She had not previously studied the target structure in the experiment. The results are discussed in light of the literature review findings, and some applied implications and conclusions were drawn for learning disabilities (LD) teaching.
Introduction The difficulties that many dyslexic students encounter in learning their native language often extend to the learning of a foreign language (FL) in school (Abu-Rabia and Siegel, 2002; Lundberg, 2002). Generally, when learning a FL, it is possible to improve reading with extensive practice. However, knowing a language not only includes reading and reading comprehension, but it also includes the ability to put words together to form phrases and sentences that express thoughts. Unfortunately, the syntactic rules that determine the order of words in a sentence appear to present the dyslexic student with another barrier to overcome. On the one hand, problems acquiring accurate grammar could be because of lack of practice, inappropriate instruction or interference from the first language – or, on the other hand, cognitive processes may be the cause. It is well researched that dyslexia reflects deficits in some components of the language system – the phonological short-term memory (STM) (Frith, Landerl and Frith, 1995; Gathercole and Baddeley, 1990; 1993). Neurological [Note: Correction added on 28 July 2011 after first publication on 24 August 2010. The title and authorship of this article have been amended in this version from ‘Abu-Rabia, S., Lanir, L. and Ilaiyan, S. (2010), Case studies of deficient syntactic control in two learners with reading disability with Hebrew as a foreign language’ to ‘Salim Abu-Rabia and Lesley Lanir (2010), Case studies of learning disabled students with deficient syntactic control in English as a foreign language’. An acknowledgment has been added at the end of the article.]
studies support this view (Humphreys, Kaufman and Galaburda, 1990; Pennington, Filipeck and Lefly et al., 2000). However, extensive evidence also exists that dyslexia is associated with deficits in serial memory (Swanson et al, 1998) and limitations in working memory (Swanson et al., 1998). As working memory is heavily involved in language acquisition and ‘the attainment of fluency both in native and foreign languages involves the acquisition of memorized sequences of language components’ (Ellis and Sinclair, 1996, p. 84), there exists the possibility that ‘the confusion over syntax’ often apparent in reading-disabled FL pupils (Crombie, 1997) results from a combination of the limitations mentioned above. Using Baddeley’s (1986) working memory theory, this paper presents a theoretical argument as to whether difficulties producing and recognising correct syntactic structures for dyslexic students reflect working memory limitations and sequential memory limitations, or whether they are a consequence of the initial reading disorder – the restricted phonological STM. Using the theoretical argument as a basis, this paper also presents a mini-experiment that primarily investigates the advantages of articulated rehearsal on the acquisition of new syntactic structures and that, second, allows brief consideration of the usefulness of explicit versus implicit grammar methodologies. Cognitive processing Dyslexia results from differences in the structure and function of the brain (Galaburda, 1994). The following section discusses briefly three cognitive dysfunctions that provide the supporting theoretical basis for the difficulty in syntax acquisition in a FL. Phonological limitations The first major type of cognitive dysfunction at the input stage concerns lack of phonological awareness. Phonological awareness refers to the awareness of the sound system. It has been shown to be one of the most reliable predictors and associates of reading ability (Mann, 1991). Dyslexic children have a malfunction within the language system that impairs their phonemic ability, the capacity to segment the spoken word into its underlying sounds – its phonemes. Consequently, they have difficulty learning to decode and, ultimately, to read fluently (Shaywitz, 2003). A considerable body of research attest to the existence of phonological
© 2010 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2010 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
227
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 227–236
awareness limitations in the reading disabled – even when reading disabilities are classified theoretically into subtypes arising from different etiological hypotheses, for example – the phonological deficit hypothesis, the dual route hypothesis and the phonological core variable difference hypothesis – phonological memory deficits remain central characteristics to these different models (Curtin, Manis and Seidenberg, 2001). Serial processing limitations Besides taking into account the discrete sounds of language, incoming information has to be sequenced if it is to be processed and retained; the order of the elements is of paramount importance. Dyslexics may also show poor visual sequential memory, that is, a poor ability to perceive things in sequence and then remember the sequence. For instance, they are often unable to use single units of a memorised sequence correctly. If asked what comes after Wednesday, they have to start counting from Sunday to supply the answer. When using a dictionary, they must start with ‘A’ each time. In addition, they have difficulties in remembering letter strings and sound–symbol correspondences, in particular, series and sequences of stimuli. Some also have poor auditory sequential memory and, therefore, may be unable to repeat longer words orally without getting the syllables or letters in the wrong order, for example, words like necessarily (nerecessily) and specific (pescific) (Levine, 1990) (our examples). Because every word consists of letters and corresponding sounds in a specific sequence, a disability in this area of sequencing affects reading ability and the aptitude to acquire new language. Swanson et al. (1998) reviewed at length research pertaining to serial processing. The researchers state, that ‘when a task demands that verbal information be recalled in sequential order, the memory performance of students with reading disabilities declines’ (p. 37). They conclude from their overview that LD readers as a group are distinctly disadvantaged; they have difficulty remembering letters, words, numbers and unfamiliar items that can easily be named and stored phonetically in memory. While researching the memory performance of children with reading disabilities, from the area of neuroscience, Galaburda (1994) suggests that the mechanisms involved in processing information in parallel and in series in the brain are altered in dyslexics. He has found ectopias (clusters of cells out of place) in the cortex of the brain, where cognitive activity is controlled. Working memory limitations So far, it has been established that dyslexics have difficulty distinguishing the individual sounds of words and, beyond that, have problems sequencing letter strings. To compound their disabilities further, irregularities can also develop at the third stage of information processing – within the STM system. Baddeley (1986), while investigating STM, conceptualised the construct of working memory – a multi-component system for temporarily holding and manipulating information. He proposed working memory to be a resource-limited 228
system made up of a controlling central executive system and two other slave systems: the phonological loop specialising in the retention of speech-based information and the visuospatial sketch pad. Several studies (Swanson, 1992; Swanson et al., 1998) have shown that children with reading disabilities suffer from working memory deficiencies. Swanson and Siegal (2001) reviewed research whose findings show that working memory deficits are fundamental problems of children and adults with learning disabilities. From their own research, they conclude that students with reading disabilities have working memory deficits related to the phonological loop. Working memory, phonological loop and sequencing As mentioned above, extensive research confirms that reading-disabled children have phonological memory, sequential memory and working memory limitations. Before investigating the acquisition of syntactic structures, the acquisition of the component parts of phrases and sentences – the words – has to be considered. This section examines the functions and the connections of the cognitive processes using the acquisition of vocabulary as an illustration and a basis for the acquisition of syntactic strings. Gathercole and Baddeley (1993) put forward the hypothesis that a problem of ‘localized processing limitation’ (p. 75) within the phonological memory, in particular, is deficient in language-disordered children. As a basis for their research, the researchers used Baddeley’s (1986) working memory model, concentrating on one of the components of the model – ‘the phonological loop’ (p. 81), which had been implicated strongly in many aspects of language processing (Gathercole and Baddeley, 1993). The loop system consists of two subcomponents: the phonological store – where speech material is encoded via a trace that decays in seconds – and an articulatory control process – which maintains and refreshes speech material by a process of subvocal rehearsal. Functionally, the phonological working memory system is thought to be responsible for temporary storage of verbal information while other cognitive tasks, such as verbal reasoning, or listening or reading comprehension, take place. Gathercole and Baddeley (1990) hypothesised that when someone hears a new word, the sounds enter a phonological store within the working memory. Only material adequately stored and rehearsed enters the long-term memory. Thus, for the system to work efficiently, initial input needs to be accurate. However, the linguistic nature of language together with a phonological deficiency can affect input. Linguistically speaking, words are composed of meaningless units (phonemes) and meaningful units (morphemes). The existence of this duality together with the linguistic phenomenon of ‘minimal pairs’ requires lexical information to be stored correctly, because the distortion, omission or substitution of a meaningless unit can produce a new word that has a different meaning and even a different function (e.g., den, then; sheep, ship). According to Gathercole and Baddeley (1993), the following may happen to any new words or string of words that a learning-disabled child attempts to acquire. The child may © 2010 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2010 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 227–236
not segment the word properly, and it may be stored as any combination of its phonemes or with phonemes missing, so that when the child meets the word again, he/she does not recognise it and is unable to retrieve it. The word may fade from the phonological store very quickly and not enter the long-term memory; thus, the child will not be able to recall it. The decreased capacity of the phonological memory may not be able to support too many items together and, thus, be unable to process the distinctiveness of the sounds of each meaningful unit; thus, fewer items would be stored or all the items are stored but in a ‘degraded form’. Consistent findings of close links between children’s abilities to retain new phonological information for very short periods and their vocabulary knowledge support this view. In 1990, Gathercole and Baddeley investigated whether the short-term phonological storage component of working memory plays a role in the acquisition of vocabulary in young children without language problems. Using a longitudinal design, the vocabulary skills of 104 children entering school between the ages of 4 and 5 were tested and retested 1 year later. On both occasions, phonological memory was investigated by requiring a child to repeat back non-words varying in length and complexity. The results of their study of pre-reading children showed that a relationship exists between success in non-word repetition performance and size of vocabulary knowledge. This connection could not be attributed to intelligence or chronological age. Gathercole, Hitch and Service et al. (1997) also included in their research of 65 five-year-old children tasks that tapped STM and new word learning. The non-word repetition task indicated that phonological STM capacity constrained the children’s ability to learn new words. The above research demonstrates that children who have no literacy difficulties require a well-functioning phonological STM in order to remember novel words. This memory function in dyslexic children is proposed to be deficient, and thus, stable representations of new words are not formed. Consequently, it is feasible that each encounter with a word creates a number of superficial phonological traces instead of replicating and intensifying an existing phonological configuration – leading to inefficient and very gradual storage (Gathercole et al., 1997). How do these deficiencies in cognitive processes affect language acquisition? If the combined memory functions of working memory, phonological memory and sequencing are deficient, and stable representations of new words are not formed, then the loop cannot draw on the fragile inscriptions previously traced and match them with the incoming data to create stronger accessible representations. If a regular child needs 12 encounters with a word before it is fully registered, then a dyslexic child will need many more (Gathercole et al., 1997). Working memory and syntax Words are not assembled arbitrarily into sentences; syntactic rules determine their order. Many researchers in the area of child language have argued that one of the ways in which © 2010 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2010 NASEN
syntactic development is achieved is by the child learning a storehouse of multi-word language patterns that are used both as models for his or her own utterances and for the abstraction of the rules governing language (Fromkin and Rodman, 1993). Research has discovered that readingdisabled children often lack the ability to store word order rules that set constraints on how words are organised in sentences. For example, from his study of syntactic mastery among poor readers, Byrne (1981) found that they revealed weaknesses in syntactic control. In addition, Spiedel (1993) showed that a child with word order problems and syntactic errors had a phonological STM disability. The researcher proposed that like new vocabulary items, the multi-word utterances to be learned must first be held in phonological working memory. Similarly, Lundberg (2002) suggests that poor abilities to hold phonological material temporarily disrupt the development of adequate long-term representations of the words and phrases that are used to build syntactic patterns. Research by Adams and Gathercole (2000) also supports this idea. They concluded that children classified as having relatively poor phonological memory abilities had a smaller range of syntactic constructions compared with children classified as having relatively good phonological memory abilities. All of which corroborate Baddeley, Gathercole and Papagano’s (1996) notion that the loop system within the working memory model – which does not necessarily function correctly in reading-disabled children – mediates the acquisition of syntactic knowledge because strings of words must first be held in phonological memory. Learning vocabulary involves remembering and sequencing the phonological properties of language. Learning syntactic structures involves remembering and sequencing larger chunks of language – vocabulary items. For learning to take place, accurate processing of incoming language data consisting of a detailed phonological representation of the individual elements in their correct sequence must occur. In reading-disabled children, deficiencies in the functioning of the phonological loop, working memory limitations and poor sequencing abilities affect proper functioning, causing superficial processing of lexical items and syntactic structures. The effect on FL acquisition Phonology, memory and FL learning So far, it has been established that poor quality processing results in the inability to create stable and distinct phonological representations of new vocabulary items, especially those that have no existing associations such as non-words, and in addition, poor abilities to hold phonological material temporarily disrupt the development of adequate long-term representations of the words and phrases that are used to build syntactic patterns. In principle, foreign vocabulary items are as difficult to learn as non-words to those learning a FL at the initial stage; thus, if dyslexic children have difficulties repeating non-words, it follows that their ability to repeat foreign words must also be impaired, and consequently, their ability to acquire foreign vocabulary must be affected as well. Research supports this suggestion. Taking 229
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 227–236
into consideration the probability that the accuracy of phonological representations of new language material might be important in learning vocabulary, Service (1992) used three tasks to predict English language learning by Finnish children over a 3-year period. On one of the tasks, Service found a correlation between repetition accuracy of pseudo-words and FL learning. Service interpreted her findings according to Baddeley’s model in that a very quick fading store for input phonology causes errors in translation to an articulatory code or prevents rehearsal altogether and interrupts the acquisition process. There are claims that native speakers’ mental lexicon involves strong semantic links, whereas the basis of the operations of the FL lexicon is phonological rather than semantic (Singleton, 1999). They studied a stroke victim (PV) with a STM deficit that was thought to be an impaired phonological store. PV was successful at learning pairs of meaningful words in her own language. However, her performance deteriorated when she tried to learn new vocabulary, presented visually and auditorily, in a FL – when no semantic connections were available. In addition, Papagano, Valentine and Baddeley (1991) conducted experiments using articulatory suppression to explore the role of the phonological loop system of working memory in the acquisition of FL vocabulary by adults. The suppression interfered with the phonological recoding of the visually presented items and, hence, prevented their short-term phonological storage. Those groups who were exposed auditorily to foreign words that were as dissimilar as possible to words in their native languages failed to acquire these words. Supporting research for syntax If singular FL vocabulary items cannot be processed accurately, then subsequently strings of words must also be affected. Sparks and Ganschow (1993) concluded that dyslexics have problems learning a FL. They demonstrated that language delayed college students deficient on native syntax and phonology, and STM deficits in their L1 also scored poorly on all subtests of the Measure of Language Aptitude Test. Daneman and Case (1981; cited in Ellis and Sinclair, 1996) discovered that children between ages 2 years and 6 years with STM problems had difficulties learning an artificial language. The words had a stem, prefixes and suffixes. It was found that syntactic complexity affected production but not their recognition. The researchers argued that before retrieval of whole words could take place, the learners had to retrieve the verb stem and then the appropriate prefixes and suffixes, and arrange them. In other words, all the different morphemes were stored as separate chunks instead of together as one string. However, above and beyond the fact that results on non-word repetition predict FL aptitude, for many years, researchers have proposed that FL acquisition is based on one’s ability to learn one’s native language. Spolsky (1989; cited in Ganschow, Sparks and Schneider, 1995, p. 28) claims that ‘any physiological or biological limitation that blocks the learning of a first language will similarly block the learning of a second language’. In addition, the linguistic coding differences hypothesis states that one’s skill in one’s native language, L1 components of phonological, orthographic, 230
syntactic and semantic ‘codes’, provides the basis for ‘successful’ FL learning (Ganschow et al., 1995). Thus, considering the causal relationship between L1 and FL, together with the apparent phonological memory deficits that dyslexic children have, then it seems evident that they will not find acquiring a second language an easy mission. The phonological loop component of working memory has evolved as a system supporting language learning. In addition to the role it plays in vocabulary acquisition, it seems that it may also play a crucial role in syntactic learning. Dyslexic children have a deficiency in this system because they do not register new phonological structures readily; consequently, transfer of new items to long-term memory is inhibited. Added to this, there is a significant relationship between language abilities in the L1 and FL aptitude, all of which leads to the conclusion that some of the dyslexic children will have considerable difficulties in acquiring a FL. The case study This section of the paper discusses a mini-experiment whose main subject is a 16-year-old pupil with reading disabilities. Using the theoretical background presented above, an exercise was devised investigating the effects of repeated articulation on the acquisition of syntax. Introduction A paper written by Ellis and Sinclair (1996) instigated this mini-research. In 1996, the researchers investigated the role of working memory in FL acquisition among non-learningdisabled students. One of the areas of their research was the effect of articulatory rehearsal of Welsh utterances on the acquisition of the forms of words and phrases, and some aspects of productive grammatical fluency. Although research had already taken place showing that phonological rehearsal of novel words facilitates long-term vocabulary learning, the role of phonological rehearsal of multi-word utterances in the acquisition of phrases and collocations, and abstraction of syntactic regularities remained to be demonstrated. Their rationale behind the experiment was that language learning involves the learning of sequences, and because working memory holds short-term sequence information, then working memory must be heavily involved in language acquisition. They proposed that shortterm rehearsal of sequences would promote the consolidation of long-term memories of language sequences. From the researchers’ results, they concluded that rehearsal in phonological STM provides a wide range of language learning advantages. However, although significant improvements in pronunciation, grammatical fluency and accuracy were evident between the groups of those who rehearsed out loud and those who did not, rehearsal did not help the students judge as to whether a string was grammatically correct or not. In addition, only slight improvements were found in explicit metalinguistic awareness of the rule structures rehearsed. Ellis and Sinclair explain that these results were because of the fact that the focus of the experiment was on understanding, translation and repetition, and not on form. © 2010 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2010 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 227–236
The current experiment The place of grammar in teaching of FL is controversial. The current trend in FL classrooms in Israel is to move away from ‘language orientated’ methodologies to more ‘communication oriented’ methodologies, where less emphasis is placed on teaching grammar explicitly (Nunan, 1998). However, the same instruction is not equally effective for all FL learners. Individual learner differences influence which instruction works best. Although research in second language acquisition shows that learners master tense/aspect forms relatively quickly, they seem to be unsuccessful when attempting to produce the correct syntax of a particular tense. For example, ‘I am cleaning the floor’ becomes ‘I cleaning the floor’, ‘What do you want to eat?’ becomes ‘What you want to eat?’ (Littlewood, 1984) (our examples). Having had success using rehearsal for learning new vocabulary items for LD pupils, it was decided to establish whether less focus on form and more on production would be a more successful methodology. The rationale for the mini-experiment was based on the fact that the environment of the FL classroom together with LD learners’ weak phonological memory and sequencing problems do not allow adequate input of new grammar forms. In the classroom, the type of practice the LD student is exposed to usually consists of sentence completions or gap fill exercises where the target form is copied, circled and perceived as an individual chunk and not as a syntactic string. This type of practice does not allow enough practice using complete grammatical structures and is devoid of correct spoken model and oral production, and, thus, places little emphasis on the correct articulation of the novel sequences of sound. Consequently, detailed phonological representation of the individual elements in their correct sequence does not take place, and instead, incomplete or low-quality processing of incoming syntactic information occurs. Taking into consideration the phonological awareness deficits of reading-disabled children, it was considered that focusing on articulatory rehearsal with a method using positive input in the form of ‘in-put flooding’ (Ellis, 1997) may stimulate learners’ processing through ‘consciousnessraising’ (Ellis, 1997) and, thus, would have an important role to play in the long-term storage and development of correct syntactic structures. The present study, similar to the Ellis and Sinclair (1996) experiment, investigated the role of articulatory rehearsal of FL utterances in language acquisition. However, this experiment’s main interest was LD learners and whether, first, repetition of a new structure over time would lead to the acquisition of new syntax and, second, whether repetition allowed the subject to notice certain reoccurring grammatical patterns from which rules could be generalised. In addition, the current experiment differed in that there was no focus on translation – simple sentences were chosen to reduce memory load; only one form – the past simple negative – was used (didn’t + base verb); rehearsal took place few times each meeting and over a period of 5 weeks; and the subjects not only heard the target sentences but also saw them. © 2010 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2010 NASEN
Method Subjects Two Hebrew-speaking students were involved, one formally assessed as having reading disabilities, one female age 14 (Q) and one male age 16 (W). Q has been learning English at school for 4 years; she is in eighth grade. Although she is in the group for weak learners of English, she does not show signs of a reading disability. She has taken private tuition once a week for approximately 5 months. She had not previously studied the target structure in the experiment. W has been learning English for 6 years. He is in 10th grade. He has been taking private tuition for over years. He is in a regular class studying for five-point Bagrut (the final matriculation exam). He has previously studied the target structure in the experiment many times at school and in private lessons. Materials and procedure The experiment consisted of a pre-test, five learning phases and two post-tests. The pre-test (Appendix A) was a multiple choice test of 25 items of ‘fill the gap’ sentences. The subjects had to read the sentence and circle the syntactic construction from a choice of three that would suitably fill the gap. Twelve of the items on the test were target grammar formations to be used in the learning phases – for example, ‘He didn’t eat the pizza last night’. This grammatical form is usually first taught in grade 6 and reviewed every year. The pre-test was used to check the subjects’ knowledge of the target syntax to be used in the experiment. As a control, to see if the test was of a suitable format and based on material generally learned, the pre-test was completed by the two experimental students and two other students (grade 9) who do not suffer from reading disabilities. These two students only took part in the pre-test stage, and both scored highly on the pre-test (90%). At this stage, none of the students was aware what the experimental structure was to be. Any multiple choice questions that were answered correctly among the target items were omitted from the following phases. In other words, all the target constructions in the learning phase were items that had not been answered correctly in the pre-test phase – resulting in nine target items. In the learning phase, subjects were instructed to listen and look at a target sentence as it was repeated three times (Appendix B). They were told what the structure was and instructed to pay attention to the order of the words. The average number of words in a sentence was six. To check correct pronunciation and hopefully effect stable representations of the new structures, the subjects were then asked to read the sentence three times out loud. Any errors in reading were corrected. There were nine target sentences. There were five learning phases approximately once a week lasting approximately 5 minutes. 231
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 227–236
The differences between the subjects in this phase was that Q had never been exposed to the structure of past simple negative, and W had been shown and taught the rule many times over the last 3 years. Therefore, after each practice session, W was asked what was the construction being practised and how was it formed. After three practice sessions, he was able to answer those questions automatically.
Table 2: Second post-test results Task 1
The post-tests consisted of task 1 – a multiple choice questionnaire identical to the one in the pre-test used to check if the new structure had been internalised; and task 2 – a multiple choice test with different target sentences using the same structure (Appendix C) to assess if the subjects had internalised the new syntax and were able to generalise their knowledge. The third exercise – task 3 – consisted of three different options of the nine target sentences (Appendix D). Only one option out of the three was the same as the one rehearsed in the practice phase. This post-test assessed the ability to recognise the correct construction among those that were incorrect. In fact, this test was an easier version of the multiple choice tests.
Task 2
Task 3 W
Subject
W
W
Pre-test total
25
25
Total correct
19
20
Target total
9
13
9
Target correct
9
12
9
language learning advantages, however, these advantages were not apparent in the current experiment in either the LD or the non-LD student. Overall, during training, the participants did not implicitly accumulate exemplar specific information (Ellis and Sinclair, 1996). They did not acquire the new syntax, and it is apparent that they did not learn gradually across multiple practice phases to extract the invariant properties of the target items and acquire information about the structure of the target syntax. What could be the reasons for this?
In order to examine the effect of explicit instruction on the choice of items, after the first set of post-tests was given, W was shown an example of a past simple negative structure and told to deduce the formula of the syntax. He was then given the three sets of post-tests to answer again.
Regarding cognitive processes and the LD student, when a string of information enters the STM, its processing is reliant on how deeply it is registered. It is possible that phonological working memory limitations interacted with a persistent syntactic disorder. Conceivably, the articulatory control process that maintains and refreshes speech material in the phonological store became overloaded, and the phonological working memory system could not function adequately to create sufficiently distinctive or durable traces of lexical items in the phonological store. This breakdown in processing prevented transfer of target items to long-term memory. Furthermore, the sequential processing limitations added an extra strain as Swanson et al. (1998) fittingly states that LD children can rehearse several items but rarely use an organisational strategy; thus, there is failure to perform elaborate processing of each word or, in this case, strings of words. The combined idea of a phonological deficit and a working memory deficit – ‘a phonological memory deficit’ (Gathercole and Baddeley, 1993) – plus poor sequencing abilities may be to blame for the failure to acquire the new syntax. The instruction focused too heavily on areas of cognitive weakness. These limitations were overcome once the rule was provided because W could use the formula to make grammaticality judgments and select the correct answers without having to draw on long-term unstable representations.
With the purpose of investigating the effects of long-term learning, all the post-tests took place 1 week after the last practice phase. Results Rehearsal had no effect on the acquisition of the new structure (see Table 1). For task 1, both subjects scored 2 out of 9 correctly (22%) as compared with the pre-test where both scored 3 out of 12 (25%). Task 2 was not completed by Q because during completion of task 1, she admitted that most of the time, she was guessing. W scored 3 out of 12 (25%), the same result as the pre-test. In task 3, W scored 3 out of 9 (33%). Two of the items chosen correctly were the same as those selected in task 2. Q scored only 1 out of 9. After exposure to the grammar rule, W scored 100% on all tasks except for task 2 (see Table 2). The item on which he did not score correctly was one which he had actually selected correctly in the first pre-test. Discussion Although it was clear to Ellis and Sinclair (1996) that rehearsal in phonological STM provides a wide range of
Table 1: The pre-test and post-test results on tasks 1, 2 and 3 Pre-test
Pre-test results Pre-test results
First post-test results Task 1
First post-test results Task 2
First post-test results Task 3
Q
Q
W
Q
W
Q
W
25
25
25
25
25
W
6
12
5
9
12
1. Pre-test results
12
12
9
9
12
9
9
2. Pre-test results
3
3
2
2
3
1
3
232
© 2010 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2010 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 227–236
In addition to cognitive limitations, the methodology used in the experiment did not enhance learning, which could explain the lack of success of the non-learning-disabled subject. The instruction was not based on genuine communication needs but on the artificial repetition and practice of hollow phrases taken out of context. As Nunan (1998) states, the participants were denied the opportunity of seeing the systematic relationship that exists among form, meaning and use. Added to this, the subjects were not actually ‘producing’ but were only repeating, thus focusing on the meaning and not the structure, or maybe not paying attention at all. Furthermore, Ellis (1997) considers a student’s internal learning syllabus and the fact that grammar learning is developmental. He states that if a learner’s ‘inter-language’ is not at a development point that can acquire a certain grammatical concept, then long-term learning will not take place. Added to this, L1 interference may have influenced the subjects’ selection. Both subjects chose the incorrect answers of ‘didn’t + past tense’, for example, ‘he didn’t walked’, which happens to be the correct form in Hebrew in contrast to English where the correct form is ‘didn’t + base form’. Altogether, the results show that there is a need for formal instruction of explicit grammar rules in order to facilitate FL learning, and continual repetition of and massive exposure to new structures in varying contexts.
rules to reduce the load on other memory systems. Unfortunately, not all teachers are in a situation where they can develop a lesson plan on an individual needs basis. In a regular class situation, because of time constraints, this would almost be an impossible task. However, somehow, teachers have to overcome logistical constraints by being eclectic in order to cater for learning deficiencies and to ensure that information is being processed effectively. The only way to accomplish this is by investigating our learners’ needs and designing our lessons to include as many different ingredients as possible. Although this may be time consuming and it is not the perfect solution to a challenging teaching environment, hopefully, it will be rewarding if constructive learning eventually occurs and we successfully move our students along the learning curve, albeit slowly.
Conclusion This paper discussed the notion that the difficulties that reading-disabled children have acquiring correct grammatical forms in a FL are a consequence of a complex relationship among phonological skill, syntactic ability and working memory. It is understood that grammar acquisition is only one of the difficulties that dyslexic children endure, and it is recognised that there are many debates and questions as to the source of dyslexia. Nonetheless, storage and recall of information are critical elements in any learning process. Considering this, the results of any research theory that are replicated successfully or unsuccessfully are constructive if they move us closer to an understanding and if they are applied in the field to examine and develop remediation methods. Apparently, syntactic structure depends on a larger context, and this would suggest that apart from memorisation of fixed chunks, acquisition of syntactic structure depends more heavily on abstract rule-based learning. The method in this experiment was not successful because the instruction did not enable the subjects to construct rules. Thus, in order to facilitate learning, the remedial teacher has to ensure that the remedial students’ internal syllabus is, at development stage, appropriate for learning a particular new grammatical structure. The new structure has to be salient, and its complexity in use has to be considered. Ways of both intensifying the input and deepening the associations of the concept in order to ensure accurate long-term storage have to be formulated. In order to do this, a support system that maximises the strengths of reading-disabled learners has to be constructed for the phonological memory that will allow new grammatical items to remain in STM as long possible and, thus, permit long-term storage. One of which is to continually reinforce syntactic
I__an answer. don’t want wants
© 2010 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2010 NASEN
Appendices Appendix A She__her room yesterday. didn’t cleaned didn’t cleans
didn’t clean
Tomer__in her room yesterday. read is reading reads I__to school yesterday. didn’t go didn’t went
didn’t goes
doesn’t want
__you eat chocolate before meals? Is Do Does You__to the teacher. didn’t listened didn’t listens
didn’t listen
__you eating the cake? Is Are Do We__how to play tennis. doesn’t know knows know We__the book last night. didn’t read didn’t reads
didn’t reading
He__me. He thinks I am lying. don’t believe doesn’t believe You__the books yesterday. didn’t brought didn’t brings I last saw my doctor__. six months ago tomorrow
believes
didn’t bring
in two weeks
They__yesterday. Didn’t worked didn’t works
didn’t work
I__the new neighbours tomorrow. met will meet meets 233
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 227–236
He__the pizza last night. didn’t ate didn’t eats
didn’t eat
Where did you__in Eilat? stayed stays stay She__to the park yesterday. didn’t walked didn’t walks
didn’t walk
They__to go to the beach last night. didn’t want didn’t wanted didn’t wants He__his homework last week. didn’t does didn’t did didn’t do We will visit London__. yesterday next year last year
David__a party last week. had have has
didn’t washes
Tomer__a book every week. read is reading reads I__to work yesterday. didn’t walk didn’t walked I__an answer. don’t want doesn’t want
We__any cake this morning. didn’t buys didn’t buy didn’t bought
didn’t walks
doesn’t want
__you eat chocolate before meals? Is Do Does You__to the teacher. didn’t listened didn’t listens
didn’t wash
She will have to__the work before Thursday. finishes finish finished Appendix B She didn’t clean her room yesterday. She didn’t clean her room yesterday. She didn’t clean her room yesterday. I didn’t go to school yesterday. I didn’t go to school yesterday. I didn’t go to school yesterday. We didn’t read the book last night. We didn’t read the book last night. We didn’t read the book last night. You didn’t bring the books yesterday. You didn’t bring the books yesterday. You didn’t bring the books yesterday. They didn’t work yesterday. They didn’t work yesterday. They didn’t work yesterday. She didn’t walk to the park yesterday. She didn’t walk to the park yesterday. She didn’t walk to the park yesterday. They didn’t want to go to the beach last night. They didn’t want to go to the beach last night. They didn’t want to go to the beach last night. 234
I didn’t wash my hair last night. I didn’t wash my hair last night I didn’t wash my hair last night Appendix C She__her clothes yesterday. Didn’t wash didn’t washed
__you go to the concert last week? Do Does Did
I__my hair last night. didn’t washed didn’t washes
We didn’t buy any cake this morning. We didn’t buy any cake this morning. We didn’t buy any cake this morning.
didn’t listen
__you eating the cake? Is Are Do We__how to play tennis. doesn’t know knows know We__the movie last night. didn’t watched didn’t watches He__me. He thinks I am lying. don’t believe doesn’t believe You__the books yesterday. didn’t buy didn’t bought
didn’t watch
believes
didn’t buys
I__my doctor six months ago. didn’t see didn’t saw didn’t sees They__to school yesterday. didn’t go didn’t went didn’t goes I__the new neighbours tomorrow. met will meet meets He__the pizza last night. didn’t made didn’t make
didn’t makes
Where did you__in Eilat? stayed stays stay She__in the park yesterday. didn’t play didn’t played
didn’t plays
© 2010 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2010 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 227–236
__you go to the concert last week? Do Does Did They__to Haifa last week. didn’t move didn’t moved
didn’t moves
Acknowledgement Professor Abu-Rabia would like to thank Dr Salman Ilaiyan for his support and advice during the development of the themes presented in this article.
He__in his homework last week. didn’t give didn’t gave didn’t gives We will visit London__. Yesterday next year last year We__cake this morning. didn’t eats didn’t ate
didn’t eat
David__a party last week. had have has I__my car yesterday. didn’t clean didn’t cleaned
didn’t cleans
She will have to__the work before Thursday. finishes finish finished Appendix D She didn’t cleaned her room yesterday. She didn’t cleans her room yesterday. She didn’t clean her room yesterday. I didn’t go to school yesterday. I didn’t went to school yesterday. I didn’t goes to school yesterday. We didn’t read the book last night. We didn’t reading the book last night. We didn’t reads the book last night. You didn’t bring the books yesterday. You didn’t brought the books yesterday. You didn’t brings the books yesterday. They didn’t worked yesterday. They didn’t works yesterday. They didn’t work yesterday. She didn’t walked to the park yesterday. She didn’t walk to the park yesterday. She didn’t walks to the park yesterday. They didn’t wanted to go to the beach last night. They didn’t want to go to the beach last night. They didn’t wants to go to the beach last night. We didn’t bought any cake this morning. We didn’t buy any cake this morning. We didn’t buys any cake this morning. I didn’t washed my hair last night. I didn’t washes my hair last night. I didn’t wash my hair last night. © 2010 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2010 NASEN
Address for correspondence Salim Abu-Rabia, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. Email:
[email protected].
References Abu-Rabia, S. & Siegel, L. S. (2002) ‘Reading, syntactic, orthographic, and working memory skills of bilingual Arab Canadian children.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, pp. 661–78. Adams, A. & Gathercole, S. (2000) ‘Limitations in working memory: implication for language development.’ International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 35, pp. 95–116. Baddeley, A. (1986) Working memory. pp. 75–108. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S. & Papagano, C. (1996) ‘The phonological loop as a language learning device.’ Psychological Review, 1, pp. 158–73. Byrne, B. (1981) ‘Syntactic control in poor readers: is a weak phonetic code responsible?’ Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, pp. 201–12. Crombie, M. (1997) ‘The effects of specific learning difficulties (dyslexia) on the learning of a foreign language in school.’ Dyslexia, 3, pp. 27–47. Curtin, S., Manis, F. R. & Seidenberg, S. M. (2001) ‘Parallels between the reading and spelling deficits of two subgroups of developmental dyslexics.’ Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, pp. 515–47. Daneman, M. & Case, R. (1981) ‘Syntactic form, symantic complexity and short term memory: Influences on children’s acquisition of new linguistic structure.’ Developmental Psychology, 17, pp. 367– 78. Ellis, N. & Sinclair, S. (1996) ‘Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: putting language in good order.’ Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, pp. 234–50. Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition, pp. 79–88. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Frith, U., Landerl, K. & Frith, C. (1995) ‘Verbal fluency in dyslexia: further evidence for a phonological deficit.’ Dyslexia, 1, pp. 2–11. Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. (1993) An Introduction to Language. (5th edn). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. 235
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 227–236
Galaburda, A. (1994) ‘Developmental dyslexia and animal studies at the interface between cognition and neurology.’ Cognition, 50, pp. 133–49. Ganschow, L., Sparks, R. & Schneider, E. (1995) ‘Learning a foreign language: challenges for students with language learning difficulties.’ Dyslexia, 1, pp. 75–95. Gathercole, S. E. & Baddeley, A. D. (1990) ‘Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: is there a causal connection?’ Journal of Memory and Language, 29, pp. 336–60. Gathercole, S. E. & Baddeley, A. D. (1993) Working Memory and Language. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Gathercole, S. E., Hitch, G., Service, E. & Martin, A. (1997) ‘Phonological STM and new word learning in children.’ Developmental Psychology, 33, pp. 966–79. Humphreys, P., Kaufman, W. & Galaburda, A. (1990) ‘Developmental dyslexia in women: neuropathological findings in three patients.’ Annals of Neurology, 28, pp. 727–38. Levine, M. (1990) Keeping Ahead in School. Cambridge: Educators Publishing Service. Littlewood, W. (1984) Foreign and Second Language Learning, pp. 80–9. Cambridge: CUP. Lundberg, I. (2002) ‘Second language learning and reading with the additional load of dyslexia.’ Annals of Dyslexia, 52, pp. 165–87. Mann, V.A. (1991) ‘Language problems: a key to early reading problems.’ In B. Wong (ed.), Learning about learning Disabilities, pp. 130–61. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Nunan, D. (1998) ‘Teaching grammar in context.’ ELT Journal, 52, pp. 101–9.
236
Papagano, C., Valentine, T. & Baddeley, A. (1991) ‘Phonological STM and foreign language learning.’ Journal of Memory and Learning, 30, pp. 331–47. Pennington, B., Filipeck, P., Lefly, D., Churchwell, J., Kennedy, D. & Simon, J. (2000) ‘Brain morphometry in reading disabled twins.’ Neurology, 53, pp. 723–9. Service, E. (1992) ‘Phonology, working memory, and foreign language learning.’ Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, pp. 21–50. Shaywitz, S. (2003) Overcoming Dyslexia. New York: Knopf, Borzoi Books. Singleton, D. (1999) Exploring the Second Language Lexicon. Cambridge, UK: CUP. Sparks, R. & Ganschow, L. (1993) ‘The impact of native language learning problems on foreign language learning: case study illustrations of the linguistic coding deficit hypothesis.’ Modern Language Journal, 77, pp. 110–30. Spiedel, G. (1993) ‘Phonological short term memory and individual differences in learning to speak: a bilingual case study.’ First Language, 13, pp. 69–91. Spolsky, B. (1989) Conditions for second language acquisition, pp. 60–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swanson, H. L. (1992) ‘Generality and Modifiability of working memory among skilled and less skilled readers.’ Journal of educational Psychology, 84, pp. 473–88. Swanson, H. L., Conney, J. & O’Shaughnessy, T. E. (1998) ‘Learning disabilities and memories.’ In B. Y. Wong (ed.), Understanding learning disabilities, pp. 107–62. NY: Academic Press. Swanson, H. L. & Siegal, L. (2001) ‘Learning disabilities as a working memory deficit.’ Issues in Education, 71, pp. 1–48.
© 2010 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2010 NASEN
