Difficulties in Learning English As a Second Or Foreign Language

FL Learning Difficulties Examined 
Two colleague-researchers, in particular, Ganschow and Sparks, have 
demonstrated the relationship between phonological/orthographic or phonemic 
coding and FL learning difficulty. In their review of nearly two dozen studies, mostly 
from their own previous research, Ganschow, Sparks, and Javorsky (1998) examined: 
(a) native language skill and FL aptitude differences, (b) FL grades, (c) students’ self-
perceptions, (d) teachers’ perceptions, and (e) parents’ perceptions of FL learning, (f) 
FL proficiency, and (g) factor analyses in order to determine the relationship between 
native language skill and FL aptitude. 
The findings from the Ganschow et al. (1998) study supported the belief that 
students who showed FL learning problems would also exhibit native language 
learning differences that affected their learning of a foreign language, and that 
problems with one language skill such as phonology/orthography were likely to 
impact negatively on both the native language and the FL. Further, they speculated 
that good FL learners had significantly stronger native oral and written language 
skills and FL aptitude (e.g., as measured by the Modern Language Aptitude Test 
[MLAT], Carroll & Sapon, 1959, as cited in Ganschow et al.), and that the majority 
of FL underachievers would have the most difficulty with phonological/orthographic 
aspects of FL learning (Ganschow et al., 1998). 
The Ganschow et al. (1998) analysis included a variety of FL learners.
Participants in studies on native language skill and FL aptitude differences consisted 
of high school students, including: (a) first-year high school FL learners (Sparks et 
al., 1992a, as cited in Ganschow et al.); (b) students with and without LD who were 

---

22 
enrolled in FL courses (Sparks, et al., 1992b, as cited in Ganschow et al.); and (c) 
postsecondary students (Ganschow et al., 1991, as cited in Ganschow et al.). In 
addition, the studies on students,’ teachers,’ and parents’ perceptions included 373 
college students (Ganschow & Sparks, 1991, as cited in Ganschow et al.). One study 
on anxiety and FL learning included 36 college FL learners (Ganschow et al., 1994, 
as cited in Ganschow et al.), and was replicated with 154 postsecondary students 
(Ganschow & Sparks, 1996, as cited in Ganschow et al.). Two studies of foreign 
language proficiency involved the same two groups of 60 and 36 high school students 
who were completing their second year of FL study (Sparks et al., 1997, as cited in 
Ganschow et al.). Three factor analysis studies involved: (a) one with 80 high and 
low risk FL learners, and students with identified LD (Ganschow, Sparks, Patton, & 
Javorsky, 1992, as cited in Ganschow et al.), (b) one with 154 ninth and tenth grade 
females and 100 co-ed ninth grade students (Sparks et al., 1995, as cited in Ganschow 
et al.); and (c) another with 96 students (Sparks & Ganschow, in press, as cited in 
Ganschow et al.).
As cited in Ganschow et al. (1998), Pimsleur (1968) and Pimsleur, Sundland, and 
McIntyre (1964) suggested that different levels of ability to process sounds and 
sound/symbol units was often the cause of differences in FL learning that could not be 
attributed to low motivation or intelligence. Dinklage (1971, as cited in Ganschow et 
al.) concluded that otherwise high achieving students at Harvard University who failed 
FL requirements, showed learning weaknesses in: (a) reading and spelling, (b) 
letter/symbol reversals, (c) sound and syllable discrimination in the FL, and (d) in verbal 
memory.

---

23 
Ganschow et al. (1998) showed that students who demonstrated FL learning 
problems also exhibited native language learning differences that affected their learning 
of a foreign language, and that problems with one language skill such as 
phonology/orthography were likely to impact negatively on both the native language and 
the FL. Further, they established that good FL learners had significantly stronger native 
oral and written language skills and FL aptitude, as measured by the MLAT (Carroll & 
Sapon, 1959, as cited in Ganschow et al., 1998), and that the majority of FL 
underachievers would have the most difficulty with the phonological/orthographic 
aspects of FL learning.
In this meta-analysis, Ganschow et al. (1998) found that large numbers of 
students without learning disabilities (LD) exhibited FL learning difficulties and that 
attitude and motivation problems were not the cause of FL learning problems but were 
the result of such problems (Ganschow & Sparks, 1995, 1996; Ganschow et al., 1994; 
Ganschow et al., 1991; Sparks & Ganschow, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1996; Ganschow, 
Sparks, Javorsky, Pohlman, & Patton, 1992a, 1992b; all cited in Ganschow et al.). The 
findings from the Ganschow et al. (1998) meta-analysis supported the Linguistic Coding 
Differences Hypothesis (LCDH) theory developed by Sparks and Ganschow (Sparks, 
1995; Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, 1993a, 1995a; all cited in Sparks, Philips, Ganschow 
& Javorsky, 1999), specifically, that good FL learners showed stronger native oral and 
written language skills and FL aptitude than poorer FL learners and that basic native 
language skills and FL aptitude are important for success in FL learning (Ganschow et 
al., 1998).

---

24 
The Ganschow et al. (1998) meta-analysis produced a number of implications 
in regard to three areas. First, in regard to the diagnosis of FL learning problems, 
they recommended that to determine the existence of FL learning problems, 
diagnosticians should establish whether a student has a documented history of 
difficulty with native language learning and current difficulties, as well as a verifiable 
record of failure in, or inordinate struggle with native language learning. In addition, 
they should look for overt or subtle difficulties with native language learning in the 
phonological/orthographic, syntactic, and/or semantic components and low FL 
aptitude on the MLAT (Carroll & Sapon, 1959, as cited in Ganschow et al., 1998), 
when this determination is made. 
Second, in regard to FL instruction for students with FL learning problems, 
the Ganschow et al. (1998) findings supported the conclusion that direct teaching of 
the phonological/orthographic and grammatical rule system is essential to help poor 
FL learners. Third, Ganschow et al. (1998) recommended that school policies include 
a continuum of interventions to help students. Such interventions might include: (a) 
in-class accommodations, such as untimed tests; (b) slowed pacing of verbal 
instructions; and (c) paired oral and visual cues to relate content. Additional 
interventions recommended by the authors include tutorial support and an entirely 
separate course on the structure of the learner’s native language.
Language Learning Disability 
In the available literature language learning differences, difficulties, and 
language learning disability (LLD) are discussed in the context of ESL and FL study.
Some of the researchers seem to have an agenda toward the promotion of the diagnosis 

---

25 
of LLD, and some seem to want to deny its diagnosis. In either case, it is generally 
acknowledged that there is no effective and consistent instrument for the diagnosis of 
LLD (Shank, 2001; Schwarz, 2003). The case for LLD diagnosis seems to be designed 
to open the way for services and accommodations that require or are supported by 
government or bureaucratic funding. Most LLD authors refer to a sample population 
that is unique and not representative of the whole U.S. population, but findings and 
conclusions are generalizable to the target population, and even to the broader ESL 
population, and arguably, to the entire adult learning population, especially where 
findings point to the benefits of teaching to multiple intelligences. Most authors provide 
a small handful of resources or tips and suggest that research in this field is still quite 
limited. 
Comstock and Kamara (2002) reported that LLD are often unrecognized in 
adults, even by those who have them. Many individuals with LLD do a remarkable 
job as they compensate for these disabilities, but can suffer frustration, 
misunderstandings, and other communication breakdowns. The characteristics and 
severity of LLD vary and can influence many areas of life, including: (a) self-esteem, 
(b) personal relations, (c) social interactions, and (d) employment, as well as (e) 
educational pursuits. The majority of attention has been directed toward childhood 
LLD, but the underlying problems are likely to stay with the individual throughout 
adulthood.
Comstock and Kamara (2002) pointed to specific areas of life that are 
influenced by LLD and specific skill breakdowns that are caused by LLD. For 
example, not only are problems in reading, writing, and spelling symptomatic of 

---

26 
LLD, so are distinct weaknesses related to attention, listening, memory, and 
organization, as well as mathematics and meaning. Comstock and Kamara provided 
some examples of the kinds of challenges that adults with LLD face, not only in 
learning, but in life situations and relationships. Also, they provided strategies, 
resources, and tips for adults with LLD. Many adults with LLD can benefit from 
awareness, guidance, and resources that are available, and there are a number of 
national organizations that can help explain disability laws and accommodations both 
in the classroom and the workplace and guide adults with LLD toward other support 
resources. The outlook and recommendations provided by Comstock and Kamara 
pointed to the improved state of diagnosis over the past decade and to a future 
wherein electromagnetic images of the brain further knowledge of brain function and 
learning as well as perceptions of learners and learning differences.
Shank (2001) pointed out that approximately 5-10% of the general population 
of the U.S. lives with some form of LD and that number increases to 40-80% within 
the adult education community. Since adult ESL students make up 40-50% of the 
total adult education population, the greater challenge is to identify, document, and 
address LLD in ESL learners, and it is generally acceptable that LLD is greater 
among ESL learners than in native English speakers. Still, there are currently no 
adequate measures to identify and quantify the ESL/LLD effected learners. Also, 
resources, or the lack thereof, is a prohibiting factor, and cultural resistance plays a 
large and incalculable role. 
Shank (2001) suggested a number of possible causes for LD, most of which 
are linked to some neurochemical disturbance due to physiological problems such as: 

---

27 
(a) birth defects, (b) health issues, or (c) physical trauma. Shank cautioned that there 
can be many different reasons for a learner’s lack of progress, and educators should 
take care to not immediately label a student as LD. Although some might find relief 
in such a diagnosis, others might find it to be personally devastating. The challenges 
of immigration and native language interference alone can represent notable cognitive 
dissonance, and teachers should not underestimate their impact if they hurry to the 
conclusion of the presence of ESL/LLD. 
In what is perhaps the primary rationale for establishing the existence of and 
diagnosing the presence of ESL/LLD, Shank (2001) concluded that these ESL/LLD 
learners should be screened and documented so they can have access to the services, 
support, and special accommodations that are available to them. At the same time, 
educators should focus on teacher training so that teachers can become better 
equipped to identify LD in students and implement techniques to help them succeed. 
Schwarz and Terrill (2000) recognized the possibility that adult ESL learners’ 
difficulties with being able to sustain employment and show progress on ESL 
assessments could be related to learning disabilities and they confirmed the 
problematic nature of identification and assessment of ESL learners with LD.
Schwarz and Terrill suggested the need for alternative and additional assessment 
strategies, especially since typical diagnostic instruments are normed on younger, 
native English speakers and are not suitable for adult ESL learners. 
In lieu of standard assessments, Schwarz and Terrill (2000) offered alternative 
evaluation methods that included learner interviews and portfolio collection which 
might provide a more complete picture of a learner’s performance over time.

---

28 
Schwarz and Terrill indicated that, often, LD can be covered up and compensated for 
in an individual’s native language, but surface in the learning and practice of a second 
language since contextual strategies may not be available in the target language. Still, 
they emphasized, as did Shank (2001), that the benefits of identifying adults as LD 
should be weighed against the potential stigma of the label, and they urged the 
consideration of other reasons for limited progress in English.