Search

This paper examines evidence for relationships among individual differences (IDs) in L1 achievement, L2 aptitude, and L2 achievement. It begins by providing an overview of my academic journey from L1 educator to L2 researcher and explains the development of the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (LCDH). Next, I review Peter Skehan's influential research on language aptitude and L1-L2 relationships and summarizes research showing that IDs in L1 achievement (and L1 ability) are universal, can be identified early, and are stable over time. Then, I review research on L1-L2 relationships and IDs in L2 learning, focusing on the longitudinal studies and reporting two new studies that examine the relationship between L1 achievement and L2 aptitude on the MLAT. Overall, I argue that the development of L1 literacy leads to growth in metalinguistic awareness, which enhances L1 literacy skills, and that L1 literacy and metalinguistic awareness provide the foundation for L2 aptitude, the ability to use and understand "decontextualized" material. I conclude the paper by proposing an answer to the title.

This article discusses the author's belief that the notion of a foreign language (FL) "disability" started with the a priori assumption that there is a unique disability for FL learning and an intimate connection between FL learning and learning disabilities (LD). Educators, clinicians, and researchers were largely uninterested in evidence contrary to the FL "disability" concept and either facilitated or encouraged FL course substitutions and waivers. The empirical evidence has shown that FL "disability" is not an evidence-based diagnosis that reflects severe language learning problems or an academic impairment. Instead, it is an invented "disability" with a flexible definition that expanded the notion of harm and pathologized everyday experiences.

The simple view of reading (SVR) model proposes that reading comprehension is the product of cognitive domain skills, word decoding, and oral language (linguistic) comprehension, and that decoding and language comprehension make separate, independent contributions to reading comprehension. The SVR has been supported in both first (L1) and second language (L2) reading research as a viable model to explain more and less successful reading acquisition and to recommend instructional intervention. This article reviews L1 and L2 reading research that supports the SVR and explains how the model can be used to assess foreign language (FL) reading skills, identify strong and weak FL readers, and identify FL readers' strengths and weaknesses. Specific examples of standardized cognitive and linguistic measures for English and Spanish used to assess word decoding and language comprehension skills are cited. Implications of the SVR model for assessment and pedagogy are discussed.

Studies have shown that U.S. learners' proficiency in reading and listening comprehension lags behind their ability to decode words. Recent studies have found that even after 3 years of high school L2 courses, U.S. students fail to develop minimal proficiency in reading comprehension. This paper suggests that while cognitive factors (word decoding and listening comprehension) explain the largest amount of variance in learners' ability to comprehend text, this model, known as the Simple View of Reading, does not consider other factors that may contribute to reading achievement, especially in a largely monolingual English context. In contrast, the Component Model of Reading posits that reading ability is influenced not only by cognitive skills but also by factors in the ecological and psychological domains. In particular, the U.S. social context hampers primarily monolingual English speakers from becoming proficient in L2 oral language and L2 reading comprehension. Pedagogical recommendations are offered.

Studies with U.S. secondary second language (L2) learners have revealed individual differences (IDs) in first language (L1) skills and L2 aptitude and shown that these IDs are related to L2 achievement and proficiency. In this study, U.S. students were administered measures of L1 achievement, L1 cognitive processing, and L2 aptitude; followed through 2 to 3 years of Spanish courses; and administered standardized measures of Spanish achievement at the end of each year. Students were divided into high-, average-, and low-achieving groups according to their scores on the Spanish measures and compared on the L1 measures and L2 aptitude test. Findings showed significant overall group differences on most L1 measures and significant between-group differences on most L1 measures and the L2 aptitude test. IDs in L1 literacy, L1 working memory, and L2 aptitude best discriminated among students who completed 2 versus 3 years of Spanish. Results support claims that IDs in L2 achievement mirror IDs in L1 skills and provide evidence for the crosslinguistic transfer of L1 to L2 skills.

A unique anxiety for foreign language (L2) learning has been hypothesized to explain students' problems with language learning. However, L2 anxiety instruments have been challenged on the grounds that they reflect students' language learning ability and/or perceptions of their language learning skills. In this study, 266 U.S. high school students were administered measures of first language (L1) skills, L2 aptitude, and L2 achievement and followed through 2-3 years of Spanish courses. In 1st-year Spanish, they were administered the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS), divided into 3 anxiety groups, and compared on the L1 and L2 measures. Findings showed that the Low Anxiety group scored significantly higher than the High Anxiety group on all L1 and L2 measures, and significantly higher than the Average Anxiety group on most L1 and L2 measures at the end of 1st- and 2nd-year Spanish. Students who completed 3rd-year Spanish displayed either low or average anxiety on the FLRAS. Results revealed negative correlations between the FLRAS and all L1 and L2 measures. Correlations between the FLRAS and the L2 achievement measures increased over time. Findings show that the FLRAS is unlikely to be measuring anxiety for language learning but more likely to be a proxy for students' levels of L1 skill, L2 aptitude, and L2 achievement.

Second language (L2) educators have proposed a unique anxiety for general L2 learning and an anxiety specific to L2 reading. Since the early 1990s, the L2 anxiety concept has been challenged on theoretical and empirical grounds. In this investigation, U.S. high school L2 learners were administered the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS) and measures of first language (L1) skills, L1 phonological memory and working memory, L1 print exposure, L1 reading attitudes, L1 metacognitive ability, L2 aptitude, and L2 achievement, then were followed through 2 to 3 years of Spanish. Results showed that the FLRAS explained significant unique variance in most L1 skills and L2 aptitude. Hierarchical regressions showed that the FLRAS explained growth in L2 achievement from first- to second- to third-year Spanish. Findings suggest that the FLRAS is likely to measure individual differences in or self-perceptions of students' language learning skills rather than a specific anxiety for L2 learning. Implications for the teaching of L2s to U.S. students are discussed.

Conventional wisdom suggests that students classified as learning disabled will exhibit difficulties with foreign language (FL) learning, but evidence has not supported a relationship between FL learning problems and learning disabilities. The simple view of reading model posits that reading comprehension is the product of word decoding and language comprehension and that there are good readers and 3 types of poor readers--dyslexic, hyperlexic, and garden variety--who exhibit different profiles of strengths and/or deficits in word decoding and language comprehension. In this study, a random sample of U.S. high school students completing first-, second-, and third-year Spanish courses were administered standardized measures of Spanish word decoding and reading comprehension, compared with monolingual Spanish readers from first to eleventh grades, and classified into reader types according to the simple view of reading. The majority of students fit the hyperlexic profile, and no participants fit the good reader profile until they were compared with first- and second-grade monolingual Spanish readers. Findings call into question the practice of diagnosing an FL "disability" before a student engages in FL study.

Despite the widespread use and effectiveness of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) composite score in predicting individual differences in L2 achievement and proficiency, there has been little examination of MLAT subtests, although they have potential for illuminating components of L2 aptitude and the mechanism of prediction. Here we use regression commonality analysis to decompose the predictive variance from the MLAT into unique components for each subtest alone and for each possible combination of subtests (duos, trios, etc.) that may have shared variance. The results, from a longitudinal study of 307 U.S. secondary students during 2 years of Spanish learning, provide strong evidence for the role of literacy-related skills in all subtests and in predicting all L2 outcomes. These and other results support a view of L1 literacy and language skills leading to metalinguistic development, which in turn leads to stronger L2 aptitude and achievement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Foreign language educators have developed measures to assess the proficiency of U.S. high school learners. Most have compared language learners to clearly defined criteria for proficiency in the language (criterion-referenced assessment) or to the performance of other monolingual English speakers (norm-referenced assessment). In this study, the performance of monolingual English students enrolled in first- (n = 293), second- (n = 268), and third-year (n = 51) high school Spanish courses on the Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz Pruebas de aprovechamiento was compared to that of native Spanish speakers, which was normed with native Spanish speakers. Findings showed that after two years of high school Spanish, U.S. students' achievement in Spanish word decoding and spelling was similar to that of native Spanish speakers in the fifth to sixth grades, and their performance in Spanish reading comprehension, vocabulary, listening comprehension, and writing was below that of the average native Spanish speaker in first grade. Third-year students' achievement was somewhat stronger, although more similar to than different from that of the second-year students despite the added instructional time. The results are discussed in light of the U.S. social context in which monolingual English students learn to speak and comprehend a language at the same time as they are learning to read and write the language.

Widespread use of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) in L2 studies of individual differences implicitly assumes that L2 aptitude is a distinct cognitive facet. There is considerable evidence for prediction from L1 abilities to L2 learning. In this longitudinal study, L1-MLAT-L2 relations were examined in 307 US secondary students based on six L1 and six L2 measures of language and literacy, and the MLAT. Mediation and regression analyses revealed that each L1 measure individually predicted all L2 scores and MLAT; the L1 measures collectively substantially predicted MLAT scores; MLAT is a significant but moderate mediator of prediction from L1 to L2 scores; and prediction from MLAT to L2 scores is significantly and substantially due to variance in L1 abilities captured by MLAT. Overall, prediction from MLAT is due primarily to its functioning as a measure of L1 abilities, although substantial L1 variance which predicts L2 scores is not captured by the MLAT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional wisdom in education has suggested that students who are classified as learning disabled (LD) will exhibit inordinate difficulties learning a foreign language (FL). Even when not explicitly stated, the notion that those classified as LD have a disability for FL learning is implied. However, while beliefs about this purported disability have been supported by anecdotes, personal opinions, and case studies, the beliefs themselves have not been supported by empirical evidence. Advocates of a disability for FL learning have ignored the empirical evidence, which substantiates that there is, in fact, not a special relationship between FL learning and LDs, nor is there a unique disability for FL learning. This article cites several myths about LDs and FLs and examines the evidence that falsifies each of the myths.

The simple view of reading (SVR) model proposes that reading comprehension is the product of word decoding and language comprehension, and that both components make independent contributions to reading skill (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). The model posits that there are good readers and three types of poor readers--dyslexic, hyperlexic, and garden variety--who exhibit different profiles of strengths and/or deficits in word decoding and language comprehension. In this study, 165 first- and second-year high school students studying Spanish as a second language in the United States were administered standardized measures of Spanish word decoding, pseudoword decoding, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Participants' scores were compared to monolingual Spanish readers from grades 1 to 9 and then classified according to SVR reader types. The majority of students met the hyperlexic profile (good word decoding, poor reading comprehension). No participant fit the dyslexic criteria (poor decoding, good reading comprehension), and none met the good reader criteria (good word decoding, good reading comprehension) at a level higher than that of second-grade monolingual Spanish learners.

Cunningham and Stanovich reported a longitudinal investigation over 10 years that examined the unique influence of exposure to print in explaining individual differences on various measures of reading achievement and declarative (general) knowledge. The present study replicated their investigation with a larger number of participants and additional measures of literacy and language skills. Fifty-four 1st graders were administered reading, spelling, vocabulary, IQ, and listening comprehension measures and then followed to the end of 10th grade. At the end of 10th grade, they were administered an IQ test and measures of reading comprehension, language ability, general knowledge, and exposure to print. Results showed that 1st grade reading skills were a strong predictor of 10th grade outcomes. Second and third-grade reading skills were predictive of individual differences in print exposure even after 10th grade reading comprehension and language ability had been partialed. Individual differences in print exposure also predicted differences in the growth of reading ability, word decoding, spelling, vocabulary, and listening comprehension throughout the elementary grades. Findings confirm the powerful, long-term benefits of providing children with a fast start in reading and support the reciprocal nature of strong reading skills and engagement in reading and reading-related activities.

The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) has been challenged on the grounds that it may also assess language learning skills. In this study, 128 students who had been administered measures of first language (L1) skills in elementary school were followed from 1st to 10th grade. Fifty-three students had completed second language (L2) courses in high school where they were administered the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), FLCAS, and measures of L1 skills. A full information likelihood procedure (FIML) was used to conduct a path analysis and hierarchical regressions. The results showed that the FLCAS accounted for significant unique variance in L1 skills in elementary school several years before the students' engaged in L2 study as well as significant unique variance on the MLAT and L1 skills measured in high school. Hierarchical regressions found that the FLCAS predicted growth in L1 skills (reading, spelling, language) in elementary school and also from elementary to high school. Findings suggest that the FLCAS is likely to be measuring individual differences in students' language skills and/or self-perceptions about their language learning skills rather than anxiety unique to L2 learning.

This study examined whether a large group of postsecondary students participating in a support program for students classified as having learning disabilities (LD) met criteria for five objective diagnostic models for LD: IQ-achievement discrepancy (1.0 SD, 1.5 SD, and greater than 2.0 SD) models, a "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" ("DSM-IV") model, and an academic impairment model. The participants were 336 postsecondary students enrolled in a private liberal arts college who had been previously classified as having LD prior to entering the program. Results showed that the largest proportion of students met the 1.0 SD (48.8%) and the absolute academic impairment (40.2%) criteria. However, 40.5% of the participants were not classified as having LD by any of the five models. Participants exhibited remarkable variability in their aptitude and achievement scores, with mean composite achievement scores ranging from the very low to the average ranges in reading, mathematics, and writing, depending on the achievement test used. The findings of this study and others suggest that little information about a student's academic skills is likely to be conveyed by a diagnosis of LD, leading to great heterogeneity in skill levels within LD support programs.

Much has been written about gifted students with learning disabilities, but there have been few large-scale empirical investigations, and the concept has proven controversial. The authors reviewed the available empirical literature on these students, focusing on (a) the criteria by which the students were identified and (b) the students' performance on standardized tests of ability and achievement. In addition, the test scores of these students were aggregated to determine typical performance levels. A total of 46 empirical articles were reviewed, and major findings included wide variability in identification criteria across studies, frequent reliance on dubious methods of learning disability identification, and a lack of academic impairment among the identified students. Implications for the "gifted/LD" category are discussed. (Contains 3 tables.)

In this article, I describe studies conducted over 25 years with secondary and post-secondary L2 learners in the United States. The evidence from these studies shows that there are important connections between students' early L1 skills and their L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency and that individual differences in students' L1 skills in elementary school are related to differences in their L2 achievement several years later. (Contains 9 figures and 1 note.)

Authors examined the relationship between individual differences in L1 print exposure and differences in early L1 skills and later L2 aptitude, L2 proficiency, and L2 classroom achievement. Participants were administered measures of L1 word decoding, spelling, phonemic awareness, reading comprehension, receptive vocabulary, and listening comprehension in 1-5th grades, and then followed into 9-10th grades where measures of L2 aptitude, L2 proficiency, and L1 print exposure were administered. Students' responses on the L1 print exposure measure were used to divide them into High, Average, and Low Print groups. Findings showed significant differences between the High versus Low Print groups on all L1 skill measures, L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency tests, and L2 classroom achievement after controlling for IQ. L1 skill differences between the groups emerged as early as 1st grade. L1 phonemic awareness, L1 word decoding, and L1 spelling measures were the best discriminators of L1 print exposure among the three groups. Results suggest that early success in L1 reading and reading volume prior to L2 study may be related to differences in L2 aptitude, L2 proficiency, and L2 achievement several years later.

This retrospective study examined L1 achievement, intelligence, L2 aptitude, and L2 proficiency profiles of 208 students completing two years of high school L2 courses. A cluster analysis was performed to determine whether distinct cognitive and achievement profiles of more and less successful L2 learners would emerge. The results of nonhierarchical ("k"--means clustering) revealed three distinct cognitive and achievement profiles. Participants in the high-achieving cluster scored above average range generally on all L1 and L2 measures; students in the average-achieving cluster scored average range generally on all L1 and L2 measures; and those in the low-achieving cluster scored low to below average range generally on all measures except IQ. Findings suggest that students' level of achievement in L1 skills developed prior to L2 exposure is strongly related to and consistent with their L2 aptitude and proficiency, level of attainment in L2 is moderated by level of attainment in L1, and L2 learning runs along a continuum of learners with stronger to weaker language skills. (Contains 3 tables and 5 figures.)

The study examined whether individual differences in high school first language (L1) reading achievement and print exposure would account for unique variance in second language (L2) written (word decoding, spelling, writing, reading comprehension) and oral (listening/speaking) proficiency after adjusting for the effects of early L1 literacy and verbal skills, cognitive ability in L1, and L2 aptitude. Participants were administered measures of L1 word decoding, spelling, reading comprehension, phonological awareness, receptive vocabulary, listening comprehension, and cognitive ability in 1st through 5th grades; L2 aptitude in 9th grade; and L1 reading achievement, L1 print exposure, and L2 proficiency in 10th grade. The findings showed that L1 reading achievement in 10th grade made significant and unique contributions to L2 word decoding, L2 reading comprehension, L2 listening/speaking, and overall L2 proficiency after adjusting for the effects of L1 literacy and verbal skills, cognitive ability in L1, and L2 aptitude. Subsequent analyses showed that L1 print exposure variables made unique contributions to L2 reading comprehension, L2 decoding, L2 writing, L2 listening/speaking, and overall L2 proficiency even after adjusting for the effects of L1 literacy and verbal skills during elementary school, cognitive ability in L1, L2 aptitude, and 10th-grade reading achievement. The results suggest that stronger L1 reading skills are related to stronger L2 outcomes and that opportunity for and engagement in L1 literacy experiences may also be related to differences in L2 proficiency.

English as a foreign language (EFL) spelling was examined longitudinally three times (4th, 9th, 12th grades) during 9 years of EFL study among Hebrew first language (L1) students. The study examined the impact of L1 literacy variables including phonemic awareness, word attack, and spelling on EFL spelling and the relationship between EFL literacy variables and EFL spelling. Results showed that English spelling measured at earlier points strongly predicted later English spelling. L1 literacy skills measured in fourth grade were more significant than English word recognition in explaining end of ninth grade EFL spelling. Beginning of first year EFL letter knowledge in fourth grade predicted end of first-year EFL spelling. These results show qualitatively different L1 and EFL literacy abilities impacting EFL spelling at 4th, 9th, and 12th grades.

A factor analysis of a test battery that included early first-language (L1) achievement, L1 cognitive ability, second-language (L2) aptitude, and L2 affective measures to predict oral and written L2 proficiency was conducted. The analysis yielded 4 factors that were labeled Language Analysis, composed of L1 and L2 language comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, and inductive language learning measures; Phonology/Orthography, composed of L1 and L2 phonemic coding and phonological processing measures; IQ/Memory, composed of L1 intelligence and L2 paired-associate learning measures; and Self-Perceptions of Language Skills, composed of L2 motivation and L2 anxiety measures. The 4 factors explained 76% of the variance in oral and written L2 proficiency. Findings support the view that L2 aptitude is componential. Results are discussed in the context of long-term L1-L2 relationships and individual differences in L2 learning.