ALTHEA CORKERN ASHE

ALTHEA CORKERN ASHE
A Qualitative Investigation of Latin and Students with Learning Disabilities at the
Postsecondary Level: A Narrative Journey
(Under the Direction of LINDA HARKLAU)
Learning disabilities and Latin may, on first glance, appear to be unlikely allies.
Approximately two-thirds of the four-year institutions of higher education in the United
States require the study of a foreign language. Since most students with learning
disabilities have special problems with language processing, the difficulty which these
students encounter in foreign language classes must be addressed at the postsecondary
level. The purpose of this study is to create a unique synthesis of these two seemingly
disparate fields, demonstrating that Latin may be a best choice of foreign language for
students with learning disabilities.
The story begins with eight students with learning disabilities and three with
physical disabilities comprising a self-contained beginning Latin class at a four-year
institution of higher education. Accommodations are an integral part of the class
structure. The students are profiled through dialog journals, interviews, teacher
researcher observations, and psychological and educational assessments on file as part of
the evaluation for disability status. Collaboration between student and teacher during the
second semester in designing individual plans of study based on learning preferences
leads to student requests for memory strategies.
During the third semester the focus shifts from teacher-centered multisensory
instructional practices to student-centered direct language learning strategies. Oxford’s
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning is used to determine change in students’
frequency of use of language learning strategies as a result of direct training in memory
strategies.
In describing and extending the theoretical premises of the curriculum and
methodology which I developed as the teacher researcher in my own postsecondary Latin
classroom, I address issues such as confidentiality and ambiguities in institutional policy
on disability diagnoses, challenges in keeping pace with a departmental syllabus,
fulfilling requested accommodations, distractor minimization, testing procedures,
(dis)organization, classroom management, inconsistent performance, the need for
review, the heterogeneity of students with learning disabilities, and affective changes in
students’ attitude toward foreign language study. This study documents pioneering
efforts to grant students with learning disabilities access to the benefits of language study
on a par equal to their non-learning disabled peers.
INDEX WORDS: Accommodations, College, Higher Education, Special Education,
Language, Latin, Learning disabilities, Multisensory, Postsecondary,
Learning strategies
A QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION OF LATIN
AND STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
AT THE POSTSECONDARY LEVEL:
A NARRATIVE JOURNEY
by
ALTHEA CORKERN ASHE
B.A., Louisiana State University, 1975
M.A., Louisiana State University, 1987
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2001
© 2001
Althea Corkern Ashe
All Rights Reserved
A QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION OF LATIN
AND STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
AT THE POSTSECONDARY LEVEL:
A NARRATIVE JOURNEY
by
ALTHEA CORKERN ASHE
Approved:
Electronic Version Approved:
Gordhan L. Patel
Dean of the Graduate School
The University of Georgia
December 2001
Major Professor:
Linda Harklau
Committee:
Elizabeth St. Pierre
Richard LaFleur
T. Keith Dix
Maria A. Restrepo
DEDICATION
Seemingly chance occurrences change our lives, and our paths take a turn we
never imagined. So it was that my love affair with the Classics was born. The seeds
were sown one afternoon when a friend asked me if I wanted to visit a Greek and Roman
Mythology class with him, assuring me that I wouldn’t be noticed in the crowd of 375
other students. Countering my response that the class sounded like a terrible bore, he
replied off-handedly, “Nah, it’s a pretty good class.” Five minutes into the class, I agreed
with his assessment, and I knew I was where I was supposed to be. The lecturer was a
tall, slender gentleman whose soft voice could be easily heard in the back of the large
lecture hall – not because the acoustics were extraordinary, but because he held the
students mesmerized. As he told ancient stories of Olympian gods and goddesses, he was
part philosopher, part psychologist, part entertainer. At the end of the lecture, he touted
the benefits of taking Latin since it was pre-registration and time to consider next
semester’s courses. “But do you know the real reason you should take Latin?” he
queried. He answered with tongue firmly planted in cheek, “Because it makes Greek
easier to understand!”
I took him at his word and departed the class wanting more – wanting to read the
myths in their original Greek and Latin. I left the lecture hall going immediately to the
Registrar’s office to change my major to Latin Education. “LATIN Education?” the
advisor asked. “Sure,” I said, “it will help me teach Greek.”
iv
v
Teachers rarely know the far-reaching effects they have on students’ lives. My
students with learning disabilities don’t know that they have Dr. William M. Clarke, Jr.,
to thank for the same exciting opportunity to read those Olympian escapades in Latin that
I had. Maybe Greek will not be far behind.
So here’s to you, Bill, for starting me on this path which began as an
undergraduate…and continues still.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To Leroy and Sarah Corkern, my first teachers who taught by example that
learning doesn’t end when school lets out, it’s a lifelong process, and it’s fun;
To Tommy and Adam, who tolerated my extended absences and received my
frantic middle-of-the-night long-distance calls for computer advice on a fairly regular
basis without complaint;
To Auntie Peep, for showing me the influence that one woman of faith and
conviction can have upon the world;
To Pierre, for being supportive of a separate class for student with learning
disabilities in tangible ways;
To Betty, for helping interpret my dreams with intuition, with a quick wit, with
patience, and with a loving heart;
To Bettie, for the walks and the talks and the laughter that kept me sane;
To Mary, who made me feel like family from the day we met;
To Diane, for never wavering from the belief that I could do it;
To Martha, for supporting with her wisdom, and listening with her heart; and
To Chip, for extending my spiritual journey more than I thought possible:
I might have been able to do it without you…but I’m glad I didn’t have to.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER
1 HOW IT ALL BEGAN..............................................................................................1
A. Introduction..........................................................................................................1
B. The Story ..............................................................................................................2
C. LD Classification .................................................................................................4
D. Legal Accommodations .......................................................................................6
E. Foreign Language Requirement ...........................................................................8
F. In the Beginning ...................................................................................................9
G. The Story Continues ..........................................................................................11
2 SETTING THE STAGE ..........................................................................................15
A. My Role as Teacher Researcher.........................................................................15
B. Methods of Data Gathering ................................................................................20
C. The Suitability of Latin for Students with LD ...................................................28
3 THE ROLE OF STUDENT PARTICIPANTS........................................................34
A. Description of First Semester Class ...................................................................34
B. Definition of Terms............................................................................................39
C. Students’ Self-Report of Disabilities and Academic Challenges.......................44
D. Accommodations Requested..............................................................................49
vii
viii
4 GETTING STARTED .............................................................................................57
A. Learning Preferences..........................................................................................57
B. Multisensory Instruction ....................................................................................59
C. Definition of Terms............................................................................................62
D. Does Induction Lead to Reduction?...................................................................64
5 “GETTING TO KNOW YOU” ...............................................................................68
A. Heterogeneity .....................................................................................................68
B. Distractor Minimization .....................................................................................70
6 LET THE LATIN BEGIN .......................................................................................74
A. Course Prospectus ..............................................................................................74
B. Housekeeping .....................................................................................................76
C. The Sounds of Reading ......................................................................................91
D. Analytic vs. Global Learners Using the Reading Method ...............................100
E. Syllabus and Assignments: An Issue of Time.................................................106
F. Need for Review ...............................................................................................109
G. Testing..............................................................................................................111
H. An Ending (First Semester) and a Beginning (Second Semester) ...................119
7 SECOND SEMESTER – MORE OF THE SAME?..............................................125
A. New Arrivals ....................................................................................................125
B. An Ounce of Prevention, A Pound of Cure......................................................128
C. A Pound of Prevention, A Pound of Cure........................................................130
D. Metalinguistic Skills and Analysis of Errors ...................................................132
E. Need for Memory Strategies ............................................................................136
ix
F. Another Ending and Beginning ........................................................................145
8 VERBAL “SNAPSHOTS” OF CASE STUDY PARTICIPANTS .......................146
A. Hershel .............................................................................................................146
B. Derrick..............................................................................................................149
C. Angela ..............................................................................................................152
D. Freda.................................................................................................................153
E. Dale...................................................................................................................156
F. Amber ...............................................................................................................158
9 STRATEGIES TRAINING ...................................................................................162
A. Previous Strategy Training...............................................................................163
B. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning ......................................................164
C. Adapting the SILL for Students with Learning Disabilities ............................166
D. Adapting the SILL for Latin ............................................................................169
E. Scoring the SILL ..............................................................................................170
F. Results of First Administration of the SILL .....................................................171
G. Memory Strategies ...........................................................................................173
H. Second Administration of the SILL .................................................................183
10 DISCOVERIES AND CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................187
A. Pervasive Issues ...............................................................................................187
B. Suitability of Latin for Students with LD.........................................................203
C. Considerations for Prospective Teachers of LD Students................................204
D. Generalizability................................................................................................208
E. Ave atque Vale (Hail and Farewell)..................................................................209
x
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................211
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................223
A. JOURNAL ENTRY TOPICS ..........................................................................223
B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ............................................................................227
CHAPTER 1
HOW IT ALL BEGAN
A. Introduction*
One of my favorite cartoons depicts a man standing in front of a duck. The man
is addressing the duck with, “Sprechen Sie Deutsch?” The duck makes no reply. The
man tries again with, “Habla Español?” Again, no response from the duck. The man
tries yet another time to ask the same question but in a different way, “Parlez vous
Francais?” Only silence from the duck. In one last desperate attempt to speak in a
language which the duck understands, the man says, “Quack?” The duck responds
excitedly, “Quack!” With the man's having found a language which the duck
understands, communication finally begins.
Teachers of foreign language must often exhibit this type of persistence in dealing
with students with learning disabilities (LD). The Education for all Handicapped
Children Act (Public Law 94-142, 1975) defines a “specific learning disability” as
a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in
understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may
manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write,
spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such
conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain
_______________
*Portions of Chapter 1 are excerpted from “Latin for Special Needs Students: Meeting the Challenge of
Students with Learning Disabilities,” by A. Ashe, 1998, in R. LaFleur (Ed.), Latin for the 21st Century:
From Concept to Classroom (pp. 237-250). Copyright 1998 by Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley. Used
with permission of publisher.
1
2
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not
include children who have learning problems which are primarily the
result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of
emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic
disadvantage (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1994,
p. 4).
“Specific learning disability” (SLD) is the term used in federal legislation to refer
to difficulty in certain areas of learning, rather than in all areas of learning (Lokerson,
1993). It is synonymous with “learning disability” (LD). Simply stated, a learning
disability is a disorder which adversely affects the manner in which individuals with
normal or above-average intelligence take in, retain, and express information.
B. The Story
My interest in students with learning disabilities in the foreign language
classroom began with Eileen in the early 1990’s. Eileen was a puzzle to me. A
sophomore in my beginning Latin class at West Delta University (WDU: pseudonym
used here to protect privacy of participants), she was obviously intelligent, she expressed
herself well in conversation, and she had a “B” average on the first half-semester's work.
But now, two days before the midterm exam, she was sitting in my office almost in tears
because, in her words, she was no longer "getting it." She couldn't “put it all together.”
She was also holding in her hand an Accommodations Letter from the on-campus Office
of Disability Services which stated that she had a learning disability entitling her to “time
and a half on examinations.” I knew of the existence of this office because I had had
3
students with physical disabilities in my classes, but I did not know that learning
disabilities fell under the same rubric.
I had noticed that in Eileen's written work she frequently reversed letters. For
example, she could recognize the tense of laudabamus (imperfect), but when asked what
the tense indicator was, instead of answering “b-a,” she might reverse the letters and
respond with “a-b.” She also had difficulty connecting the written word with the way it
sounded. Even though she recognized the tense of laudabamus, she often omitted a
syllable in pronouncing it, saying it as laudamus (present tense, “we praise”) or
“laubamus.” In reading aloud, it was not unusual for her to substitute a familiar word
with similar form but unrelated meaning, e.g., multitudines (crowds) for militibus (to the
soldiers). Connecting the written word with the spoken word was for her at best
disagreeable and at worst agonizing.
In questioning Eileen about her past experience with foreign language study, I
learned that she had made poor grades in French in high school. When she entered
college, she decided to enroll in Spanish to fulfill her foreign language requirement; she
dropped out just before midterm. Armed with the documentation of her learning
disability, she petitioned the College of Arts and Sciences to waive the foreign language
requirement for her degree. The associate dean told her that a substitution of a culture
course for the language course would be considered only after she made a “good faith
effort” in attempting to pass the language course. This “good faith effort” was defined as
consistent class attendance and completing or attempting to complete all class
assignments and tests. If she was not earning a passing grade by the date for dropping
courses, she would be allowed to withdraw without penalty to her grade point average
4
and to take a culture course in place of the foreign language requirement. We still had
four weeks in which to work together before the drop date.
We began meeting outside of class for twenty minutes per day. I quickly
discovered that Eileen knew more Latin than she thought she did. When she could not
answer a question on a practice test, she frequently produced the information if I read the
question aloud or asked it in a different format, e.g., using fill in the blank instead of
true/false.
I wondered if there were other students in foreign language classes who might
benefit from the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge in ways similar to the ones
Eileen and I were using. Since her Accommodations Letter had originated in the Office
of Disability Services, it was there I began my inquiry.
C. LD Classification
I contacted the Coordinator of the Office of Disability Services and learned that
there were 123 students registered with that office who had entered our university of
approximately 30,000 students with documentation of a learning disability. I had
questions about the types of documentation required, and what differentiated students
with learning disabilities from those with low IQ scores.
I learned that in most states, LD classification is contingent on a discrepancy
between a student’s performance on a standardized intelligence (IQ) test and scores on
standardized measures of academic achievement in areas such as basic reading skills,
reading comprehension, or listening comprehension (Sparks & Javorsky, 1999b).
Students with a diagnosed LD (such as dyslexia) or a neurobiological disability (such as
Attention Deficit Disorder) often exhibit a discrepancy between potential to perform and
5
actual performance. The amount of discrepancy required for LD classification varies
from state to state and is generally expressed in standard deviations for public high school
systems (e.g., 1.25 standard deviations in Indiana, 2 standard deviations in Ohio).
At the postsecondary level, every institution has its own set of criteria for
determining eligibility for accommodations. Schwarz (1997) indicates that some schools
require a certain percentile on the Modern Language Aptitude Test, while others require
full documentation including an assessment of aptitude, academic achievement,
information processing, and diagnosis with findings indicating a deficit associated with
foreign language learning problems. At WDU, for example, a student can be classified as
learning disabled when a 15-point discrepancy is found between intellectual ability (Full
Scale or Composite) and academic achievement test scores (using age-based norms),
indicating that a capacity to perform exists but that skills are weak in one or more areas
such as written language, oral expression, or mathematics.
A publication from the Office of Disability Services at WDU (1998) revealed that
students who disclose a disability and request accommodations must provide
documentation from one of the following types of licensed psychologists: clinical,
educational, school, neuropsychologist, or learning disability specialist. The testing must
include at least one of the following from each category:
Aptitude: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised
Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised: Test of Cognitive
Ability
Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence
Standford-Binet Intelligence Scale (4th Ed.)
6
Achievement: Scholastic Abilities Test for Adult
Stanford Test of Academic Skills
Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised; Test of Achievement
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test.
The student’s documentation generally contains suggested accommodations based
on the evaluative testing. Service Providers at the Office of Disability Services use these
evaluations and suggested accommodations to determine which specific
accommodations should be formally requested of a faculty member. The Service
Provider then writes a form letter to faculty members requesting specific
accommodations for the student.
The letter ends with a caveat regarding confidentiality, “Please note that this letter
is a confidential document between you, the student and the Disability Services Office.”
This is the extent of information given to faculty; the faculty member does not have
access to the student’s file nor any other information regarding the student’s disability
including the name or the nature of the student’s disability.
D. Legal Accommodations
The letter reads, “The above mentioned student has a documented disability and is
enrolled in your class. Under Section 504 and ADA this student is legally entitled to the
following accommodation(s).” The accommodations are then listed. I was not familiar
with the acronym and wondered about the legal basis for such accommodations requests.
I learned that accommodating students with any type of disability, whether
physical disability or learning disability, is not only sound academic practice, it is a legal
obligation. Federal law (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) prohibits
7
discrimination against those with handicapping conditions, including learning disabilities,
and guarantees the right of every child to receive benefits from public education
programs. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (Public Law 101-336)
expanded the scope of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and prohibits discrimination against
people with disabling conditions even by institutions receiving no federal financial
assistance. Together, these two laws require institutions to provide students with
learning disabilities “equivalent access” that will allow them an education equal to that of
their non-disabled peers.
Accommodations can be any means by which institutions provide “equivalent
access” or “equal access” for students with learning disabilities (Scott, 1997), thereby
leveling the playing field between students with LD and non-LD students. The intent of
the law is not to lessen or to otherwise compromise the standards or academic integrity of
institutions (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1993). The purpose of such
accommodations is to assure that achievement, and not the student's disability, is being
measured.
Section 504 and the ADA mandate that students with learning disabilities be
provided “reasonable accommodations” which do not pose an “undue hardship” on the
institution. Examples of academic adjustments which may be considered “reasonable
accommodations” if they do not change the essential nature of a course or program of
study may include: extended time on exams, private testing, alternative test formats, and
extended time to complete coursework. The specifics of accommodation are not defined
in federal law; accommodations, according to some LD Service Providers, should be
8
decided on an individual basis and not necessarily limited to those suggested (Block,
Brinckerhoff, & Trueba, 1995).
E. Foreign Language Requirement
Approximately two-thirds of the four-year institutions of higher education in the
United States require the study of a foreign language (Brod & Huber, 1996). Because
many learning disabilities involve special problems with language processing (Ganschow
& Sparks, 1987, 1993; Sparks, Ganschow, Pohlman, Skinner, & Artzer, 1992), the
difficulty which students with LD face in foreign language classes an area that must be
addressed at the postsecondary level (Arries, 1999; Barr, 1993; Mabbot, 1994). Levine
(1987) states that no single content area threatens students with learning difficulties more
than foreign languages. Henderson (1999) observes that in a comparison of students
who met or exceeded recommended years of high school study in eight subject areas, the
area of foreign language study showed the greatest discrepancy of preparedness between
students with disabilities and students without disabilities.
Academic institutions, in complying with federal legislation, are not required to
make fundamental changes in essential elements of their programs in order to
accommodate the student with a learning disability. Some institutions, in lieu of
accommodations in individual foreign language classrooms, offer substitutions of the
foreign language requirement or complete waivers. These institutions have determined
that knowledge of a foreign language is not essential to the nature of certain curricula, or
faculty are not available who are willing to deal with accommodations (Gajar, 1987).
An increasing number of students have received course substitutions or waivers
for the college foreign language requirement in recent years (Moore, 1995). It remains to
9
be seen whether the number of waivers or substitutions granted by institutions of higher
learning will decrease as a result of the 1998 ruling by a federal court judge that a
university is not required to provide course substitutions for or waivers from the foreign
language requirement for students classified as LD (Guckenberger et al. vs. Trustees of
Boston University et al., 1998).
I wondered about the number of students with documented learning disabilities on
our campus. Was this an average number for a university of approximately 30,000
students? Would those numbers increase or decrease? A quick check of the records kept
by the Office of Disability Services revealed that the majority of the 123 students with
documented learning disabilities were enrolled in curricula requiring at least two
semesters of a foreign language. What were the implications of the language requirement
on our campus for students with LD if the numbers were increasing? I sought to learn
more about the current situation by examining some of its history.
F. In the Beginning…
In the early 1960s a conference was called in Chicago by parents of perceptually
handicapped children (Hallahan & Cruickshank, 1973). Numerous definitive labels had
been used to describe these children, employing such terms as “minimal brain
dysfunction,” or “central processing dysfunction,” or “perceptually handicapped
children” (Kirk, 1972), and some lay organizations had already been formed which
utilized the terms “brain injured children” and “perceptually handicapped” (Hallahan &
Cruickshank, 1973). Uppermost in the minds of many of the conference participants was
what to call these children as they sought better labels for their own children as well as a
term which would draw the various small organizations together.
10
Dr. Samuel Kirk, then of the University of Illinois, addressed the meeting and was
approached prior to the meeting with the request that he give a term which applied to
every child. Kirk presented to the parents for the first time the term “learning
disabilities” to describe a group of children with disorders in development in language,
speech, reading, and associated communication skills needed for social interaction. He
excluded from this group children with generalized mental retardation. A responsive
chord was struck because of the essentially positive nature of the term, and the
convention voted to call itself the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities
(Hallahan & Cruickshank, 1973).
In 1969, six years after the establishment of the Association for Children with
Learning Disabilities, the first federal legislation providing funds to educate children with
learning disabilities was passed. Public Law 91-230, known as the Children With
Specific Learning Disabilities Act, provided funds for public schools to establish
programs dealing with the special problems of children with learning disabilities
(Mangrum & Strichart, 1984).
During the decade of the 1960s it was a commonly held belief that with early
diagnosis and treatment of a learning disability, a child could be 'cured' (Rothstein, 1993).
But by the 1970s it was becoming obvious that learning disabilities persist into
adulthood, and the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities was renamed in
1979 to become the Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities, thus
indicating its additional focus upon adults.
The late 1980s saw a dramatic increase in the number of students with learning
disabilities on college campuses; along with the increased numbers, the need for college
11
programs for students with learning disabilities increased as well (Rothstein, 1993). The
number of students with LD nearly tripled between 1985 and 1994 (Henderson, 1995),
and some universities found themselves with several hundred LD students. In 1996,
students with learning disabilities accounted for 3.1 percent of freshmen enrolled in
postsecondary institutions (This Year's Freshman, 1997). By 1998, 3.5 percent of all
freshmen self-reported as learning disabled (Henderson, 1999). With 1.6 million new
freshmen entering more than 3,100 institutions of higher education in 1998, this
percentage translates to approximately 56,000 first-time, full-time college freshmen who
self-reported a learning disability. It is likely that the number of students with learning
disabilities enrolled in postsecondary institutions will continue to increase.
G. The Story Continues
In order to address the issue of the increasing number of LD students and
difficulty in foreign language learning, I wrote a proposal to the dean of Arts and
Sciences that we offer a separate Latin section designed primarily for students with
learning disabilities. The class was not to be remedial, which would imply a substandard
level of preparedness; the students with LD, in order to get credit for the course, would
have to pass the same departmental final exam administered to non-LD students. The
class was to be modified with accommodations of time and alternate test-taking formats
automatically incorporated into the class structure, and a multisensory approach to
language teaching was to be employed. “Modified” meant a change of approach rather
than diminished quality or expectation.
My request for a separate class was supported by the relatively recent idea being
espoused in the literature that students with LD learning a foreign language are more
12
successful in a self-contained classroom. Hill, Downey, Sheppard, and Williamson
(1995) describe separate language courses in Italian, Spanish, and Latin at the University
of Colorado to meet the needs of students with severe language learning difficulties;
these courses emphasize careful structuring and sequencing of the language with slowed
pace of introduction of new material as well as extensive opportunities for repetition and
review. Sparks, Ganschow, Fluharty, and Little (1995) describe a special self-contained
section of Latin for students with learning disabilities in a public high school. Arries
(1994) describes a separate Spanish course for special needs students at the College of
William and Mary, and Schneider (1995) teaches German in a self-contained college
classroom of students who are at risk for language learning.
The proposal for the separate Latin section for students with LD took eighteen
months from inception to approval. In that interim I received research support to
investigate the topic of foreign language learning for students with LD at the
postsecondary level. A conference sponsored by the Office for Services to Disabled
Students and the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado introduced
me in a broad way to “Learning Disabilities at the College Level” and in a more specific
way to students with LD in modified foreign language classes.
I learned of other conferences, workshops, and seminars which included sessions
on the topic of LD and foreign language learning. Through the contacts made at these
conferences (Orton Dyslexia Society, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit
Disorder, Association of Higher Education and Disabilities, Postsecondary Disability
Training Institute) I received invaluable information about research and publications
addressing the topic of foreign language and students with LD. It was obvious from the
13
length of the reading lists that the corpus of works dealing with foreign language learning
and LD students at the postsecondary level was not large; the bibliography concerning
Latin and students with learning disabilities at the high school and postsecondary level
contained ten references.
The proposed Latin course for students with LD was approved with the option of
offering the next level of Latin if the first semester was reviewed favorably by the
students, by the Coordinator of LD services on campus, and by me. After approval of
this sequence of modified Latin courses, no substitutions or waivers were automatically
granted for foreign language requirements. All students with a learning disability –
whether a language-specific disability or not – were advised to enroll in the modified
section of Latin to fulfill their language requirement. Students with LD were not forced
to take this segregated course, and they could enroll in a non-LD section of any language
and request accommodations (e.g., extended time for taking tests, readers for tests,
scribes for tests, note-takers in the classroom, textbooks on tape, etc.) according to their
specific disability.
According to Standards for Foreign Language Learning (The National Standards
in Foreign Language Education Project, 1996), the purpose of a foreign language
requirement is to familiarize students with the mechanics of language and to expose
students to another culture from the intimate perspective of that language. Students with
language substitutions or waivers are not afforded the same opportunity to experience a
foreign language as students without learning disabilities. I proposed that with at least
“reasonable accommodations” and some modification of strategies on the part of both
14
student and teacher, students with learning disabilities do not have to be categorically
shut out from benefiting from foreign language study.
CHAPTER 2
SETTING THE STAGE
It is my belief that one goal of educational research in the field of foreign
language study is to seek practical solutions for classrooms and to speak to questions
arising from situated learning. Faced with the very real and immediate need to work with
students with learning disabilities in my postsecondary foreign language classroom, it
seemed that the framework of an action research study would be elucidating in
determining which teaching techniques and approaches addressed the strengths and
weaknesses of the eleven students enrolled in my beginning Latin class.
A. My Role as Teacher Researcher
The general goal of action research, according to Halsey (1972), is “small-scale
intervention in the functioning of the real world,” and “a close examination of the effects
of such intervention.” The fact that I would be functioning in the “real world” as both a
teacher and a researcher in my own classroom presented issues which I had not
considered previously. Would the two roles detract from or enhance each other? Are
they mutually exclusive? Could I be an ‘objective’ researcher when I, as the students’
teacher, was committed to using every means at my disposal to get the information
across? On the other hand, would I be tempted to ignore a student’s “right to fail” and –
because I might need her/him to continue in the study – lower my standards for passing
the course when issuing final grades?
15
16
I knew there would be advantages to being a combination teacher researcher in
my own classroom. I would not have the problem of observing classroom behavior
which may change as a result of a stranger’s presence. For example, students may feel
intimidated and become less talkative if an investigator were present, for fear of making
mistakes while being observed. As the students became accustomed to me as a teacher,
their familiarity with my tandem role of teacher researcher would be intrinsic from the
outset.
Stake (1995) asserts that the goals of research are “to inform” (p. 91) and “to
sophisticate” (p. 91), as well as “to assist the increase of competence and maturity” (p.
92). It was my fervent hope that the grades of the students in the study would improve as
a result of being “informed” as they became more “competent.” I feel that these same
goals of imparting information which results in competence and sophistication in the
subject matter are the goals toward which I strive in my role as teacher to all students in
every class. Would I be able to attain “objectivity” in such a situation?
My concern about being an “objective” researcher was addressed by Nixon
(1987) who writes that action research “lends itself to a strong sense of ownership of the
inquiry process and the results” (quoted in McCutcheon and Jung, 1990, p. 148). Indeed,
my strong sense of ownership of the inquiry process and its effect, and how those results
would affect my own future practice, gave me permission to be interested -- even
passionately so -- in the outcome. I knew that I would not be able to simply record
information and remain aloof and “objective.” But subjectivity, according to Zinn (1979,
p. 213), “does not disqualify work as scholarship or science as long as data gathering
procedures and values are both made explicit.”
17
Peshkin (1988) elaborates on the issue of subjectivity when he argues that
qualitative researchers “should systematically seek out their subjectivity, not
retrospectively when the data have been collected and the analysis is complete, but while
their research is actively in progress” (p. 17). I found it very exciting to think of my
classroom as an active research real-life laboratory with the students as co-creators of
knowledge.
My realization of my own subjectivity – which manifested itself in my enthusiasm
for learning more about how students with learning disabilities would respond to the
“small-scale intervention” of action research -- was evident to me as I described my
proposed study to my beginning Latin students on the first day of class. Perhaps that lack
of objectivity was contagious, and may be a partial explanation of the fact that every
student was interested in being involved in the study.
I wondered if my own vested interest in wanting all participants to remain in the
study would tempt me to lower my standards so that their grades would permit their
continued enrollment in Latin. I knew that I would have to be guided by the 1971
Principles of Professional Responsibility (quoted in Spradley, 1979) which addresses the
issue of conflict of interests between researcher and participants: “When there is a
conflict of interest, these individuals [being studied] must come first” (p. 35). This
reminded me that no one would be well served by inflated grades which would take away
a student’s right to fail. If a student withdrew from the study, I would heed Spradley’s
caveat that “The values held by any particular ethnographer do not always coincide with
the ones held by informants” (p. 34). Substituting “teacher researcher” for
“ethnographer,” and “students” for “informants” does not change the truth of that idea.
18
In describing the role of teacher researcher, Stake (1995) writes, “Teaching is not
just lecturing, not just delivering information; more, it is the arrangement of
opportunities for learners to follow a natural human inclination to become educated…
Arranging access to information…is a major part of teaching” (p. 92). I cannot say, with
Stake, that my students’ interest was a result of a “natural human inclination to become
educated.” However, these students were highly motivated to pass their language
requirement in order to earn a college degree.
The part of Stake’s description of teaching which particularly captured my
attention was the phrase “arranging access to information.” This has the same flavor and
wording as the Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336, 1990) which states
that persons with disabilities, including learning disabilities, must be provided “equal
access” to programs that non-disabled persons are afforded. It seems to me that the
objective of “arranging access to information” as well as “equal access” is to provide
equal opportunity for students with learning disabilities to learn a foreign language. In
“arranging access to information,” I would engage in action research with the class as a
whole – changing my approach and methodology as a result of student feedback. It was
my hope that in “the arrangement of opportunities for learners” to learn in a way that
utilized their strengths and de-emphasized their weaknesses, “equal access” to the course
material would be a reality.
The idea of action research as a framework for my study was tremendously
appealing to me, but I wondered about the feasibility of action research carried out in my
own foreign language classroom. Addressing this issue, Nunan (1992) claims that action
research is “a form of research which is becoming increasingly significant in language
19
education” (p. 17). Research which fits his definition of action research must contain
three elements: it must be initiated by a question, supported by data and interpretation,
and carried out by a practitioner investigating aspects of his or her own context and
situation. He elaborates, “A descriptive case study of a particular classroom, group of
learners, or even a single learner counts as action research” if it meets these three criteria
(p. 18).
Atweh, Kemmis, and Weeks (1998), agreeing with Nunan (1992), also believe
that action research must be carried out by a practitioner rather than an outside
researcher. However, this trio of writers believes two additional elements of action
research to be essential: it must be collaborative, and it must be aimed at changing
things. Action research, according to this definition, is a group activity. Descriptive
research carried out by a teacher in her own classroom does not qualify as action research
if it does not involve others or if its purpose is to increase understanding rather than
change the phenomenon under investigation.
Action research, according to Cohen and Manion (1994), is concerned with
identifying and solving problems in a specific context. Its aim is to improve the current
state of affairs within the educational context in which the research is being carried out.
Collaboration is also an important feature according to these commentators.
I, indeed, would be working with a particular group of learners in a specific
educational context. As the research practitioner/teacher in my own classroom, my
research study would evolve as a result of seeking solutions to the question, “What
teaching methodology, approaches, and techniques would be best suited for this
particular group of students with learning disabilities attempting to learn a foreign
20
language?” I was one of those practitioners that Nunan (1992) described as “less
concerned with generating generalisable knowledge than with solving pressing problems
associated with their own particular workplace (pp. 18-19). At the same time, however, I
believed that my research would be of interest to other teachers of foreign language who
were confronted with the relatively new phenomenon of having students with learning
disabilities placed in their postsecondary foreign language classrooms.
The first-hand perspective of the researcher is considered by Allen and
Bisplinghoff (1998) to be a primary strength of teacher research: “Teachers are
immersed in the rich contexts of the classroom, integral to the lives of the participants,
invested in the research questions, and intent on developing insights and strategies that
will improve the teaching/learning relationship” (p. 53). I was proposing to immerse
myself in the rich context of my own foreign language classroom with the intent of
developing insights and strategies that would improve the chances of a positive foreign
language learning experience for this group of students with learning disabilities.
B. Methods of Data Gathering
I wanted to discover “what worked” for the students as each attempted to learn a
foreign language. My purpose in gathering data was trifold: first, I wanted to begin
structuring my methods and techniques in response to their initial journal entries
describing their preferred method of taking in information as well as their description of
the effect which their disabilities had upon their learning process. Secondly, I wished to
track their progress as they began learning a foreign language, noting their responses and
reactions to my changes in teaching methodology as well as to my suggestions for their
individualized study methods. Thirdly, I wanted to learn what distinguished my students
21
as people, i.e., to gain a more complete picture of my participants as individuals rather
than concentrate solely on their identity as “learning disabled students.”
The eleven students and I began to document their experiences using a variety of
methods including: dialog journals, recorded interviews, written self-reports of how they
prepared for quizzes and tests, a homework preparedness log, and observations recorded
in the form of field notes. Each method of data collection is described more fully below.
1. Dialog Journals
I wanted all eleven students to become self-observers as they recorded their
reactions to the class and described problems they were encountering either in class, in
other classes, or in general. Because I thought it would be helpful to dialog with all
eleven students, I decided to make dialog journals a part of the requirements for the entire
class. It was at this point that I began thinking of the five students as case study
participants within a larger class context.
Oxford (1990a) observes that some teachers find it helpful to provide guidelines
for content rather than have the journal writing be free-form. In keeping with this idea, I
asked the students to respond in their journal to specific topics ranging from a description
of the ways that their disability manifested itself in class to their reaction to language
learning strategies which I introduced in class. (See Appendix A for a complete list of
journal entry topics.) I responded in writing to students’ journal entries, making
comments, answering their questions or concerns, and asking for clarification of points
which I did not understand.
A topic was assigned on Thursday and due the following Monday. I suggested
that the length of each entry should be approximately one page, but that the students
22
could write until they felt that the question or topic was adequately addressed. Students
had the choice of handwriting their answers, using a computer, or using a scribe. One
student (Derrick) wanted to come to my office to “tell me the answers,” but I discouraged
this as we already had face-to-face interviews scheduled, and I wanted the initial journal
response to each question to reflect as much of the students’ own voices and views as
possible. Derrick used various means of recording information for his journal entries:
sometimes he wrote them, sometimes his mother recorded them for him, and twice I
allowed him to dictate his responses to me. The other ten students either hand-wrote the
entries themselves or typed them. While I was teaching, I sometimes compared the data
from a student’s journal entries with that gathered from interviews, noting whether a
student responded differently in a preferred medium (written or oral).
2. Recorded Interviews
Four oral audiotaped interviews were conducted with each of the five case study
participants: one during the first week of classes of the first semester (Fall, 1999), one
during the same week of the second semester (Spring, 2000), one during the same week
of the third semester (Fall, 2000), and one on the last day of class of the third semester
(Fall, 2000). The interviews were partly structured and partly semi-structured as
described by Cohen (1998) in that there was “a prompt which requests certain
information, but the exact shape of the response is not predetermined” (p. 28). (See
Appendix B for interview questions.)
The purpose of the first interview was twofold: to gather background information
about the students’ foreign language learning experiences from grade school up to the
present; and to ask the students to describe their learning disability in their own words
23
and tell how it affected their lives and learning experiences. These topics were addressed
in journal entries as well.
The purpose of the second interview was again twofold: to have the students
report reactions to the first semester course in general and to have them describe their
preferred modality of taking in information. This last topic had been addressed in journal
entries the previous semester. I was interested in comparing their responses early in their
Latin learning experience with their responses to the same questions after a full semester
of Latin study.
During the third interview I wished to gather information on two topics: the
interstitial three-month summer break and whether it was causing difficulties in Latin
study. The second topic covered was the students’ past experience with explicit language
learning strategy training.
The fourth interview which was the exit interview for the study conducted at the
end of the third semester (December, 2000) asked the students to reflect on their third
semester of language study brought closure on our year and a half together.
I also turned on the tape recorder, with the student’s permission, whenever there
was an opportunity to do so during an out-of-class tutoring session. This was partly to
have a record of our interaction, and partly to accustom the student to the tape recorder’s
presence in my office where the interviews took place. It was not always convenient to
capture out-of-class sessions on tape because they were either impromptu or took place
immediately after class. I wondered if occasionally a student might not want subject
matter of a sensitive nature to be captured on tape. For that reason, I set the tape recorder
24
on my disk within arm’s reach of the student so that the student could stop the recording
at will.
3. Written Self-Report of How Students Prepared for Quizzes/Tests
On each quiz and unit test during the first two semesters, there were two selfreporting questions concerning preparation:
1. Describe HOW you studied for this quiz/test.
2. HOW LONG did you study?
“Self-observation implies references to some actual instance of language
learning,” writes Cohen (1998). I wanted the students to think about each instance in
which they prepared for graded work and whether there might be a relationship between
the way they studied or the length of time spent studying, and the grade earned. Oxford
(1990a) suggests that this type of open-ended questions invites learners to say what they
want about learning styles, generating interesting and useful information.
In the beginning of the semester I asked the students to answer the questions
about how they studied as well as how long they studied when I returned their work with
the grade earned. However, it was not unusual for a student to be unable to recall the
length of time spent studying for a quiz or test, particularly if a weekend intervened
between a quiz/test on Friday and its return with the grade on Monday. Therefore, I
began printing the questions on the quiz/test, asking the students to answer the questions
as soon as they completed the quiz/test and before turning it in.
4. Homework Preparedness Log
Each day at the beginning of class I passed around a sheet called the Homework
Log. This sheet was a blank grid from a grade book which listed each student with the
25
last four digits of their social security number on the left side. Across the top of the sheet
was the date, the day of the week, and the assignment for the day. Each student marked a
“P” if she/he had prepared that day’s assignment or a “U” if unprepared.
In order to count oneself prepared, the student had to have attempted all exercises
or translations. The answers did not have to be correct for the assignment to be
considered prepared. I defined a minimum level of preparedness for translations if a
student was totally lost and could not make sense of what the Latin was saying. I
changed the definition of “minimum amount” for a self-report of Prepared as the
semester progressed.
For example, if a student got “stuck” in a paragraph and could not
put the words together syntactically, a minimum preparation was looking up the
definitions of the Latin words. As more inflected endings were learned, if the student
could make no sense of the words in a sentence or paragraph, minimum preparation for a
“P” for the day consisted of identifying the case endings of nouns and tense and person
endings for verbs before coming to class.
I felt that having a record of the students’ actual preparation of out-of-class
assignments was important to determine if this area needed attention in case the student
began having difficulty with the material as the semester progressed.
5. Observations Recorded in the Form of Field Notes
In an effort to gather information to be used as part of the “thick, rich description”
revealing the “human dimensions” (Soltis, 1989, p. 126) of the rich milieu of a classroom
environment, I began observing and writing down information about the five students as
well as the entire class while the class was in progress. I quickly discovered that taking
field notes as I taught was too invasive and interruptive to the teaching and learning
26
process; therefore, I began returning to my office immediately after class to write down
my observations.
This method worked well for the first two semesters. During the third semester I
taught another class immediately after the LD section and was not able to record my
thoughts and observations while they were uppermost in memory. Therefore, I began
tape recording every class. Immediately after my classes and office hours ended for the
day, I listened to the tapes while making notes about what had transpired in class. I was
listening for anything of significance I wanted to have in my field notes for future
descriptive narrative (e.g., the way the students responded to the presence of the
interpreter for the deaf student) or for something that I felt merited reflection in the way
students were receiving the material which might influence changes in my presentation.
I began to realize the value of having a record of student behavior which the
student would probably not self-report or assess in interviews or written selfobservations, e.g., the way Derrick entered the classroom – often late, breathless, and
with much noise as he got himself situated. A description of this type behavior, I believe,
added depth to a holistic description of the classroom “personality” as well as perhaps
explained something about the individual’s experience with the class (e.g., Derrick
frequently missed the review of recent material during the first few minutes of class).
As I recorded students’ individual behavior, I considered Yin’s (1994)
observation that in situations in which it is impossible to separate the phenomenon’s
variables from their context, the qualitative case study focuses on holistic description and
explanation. Through holistic description and explanation, I hoped to situate the
students’ language learning experience in the context of the classroom.
27
6. Generalizability, Validity, and Triangulation
In doing action research with students with learning disabilities, I was not
engaging in a positivist, value-free, empirical approach to research. Sparks and Javorsky
(1999b) report that for over thirty years professionals in the LD field have been unable to
agree on a consistent definition of and eligibility criteria for classification as LD. I found
a wide range of diagnoses for the students enrolled in my class, lending credence to the
idea that a group of students with disabilities severe enough to warrant accommodations
in a foreign language class may be a heterogeneous group. This heterogeneity, coupled
with the fact that each student’s particularities make each learning disability unique,
makes generalizability problematic. The same teaching techniques and strategies that
work for a particular student may not be generalizable to another student, which is why
action research/case study seems to be the best method for discovering which foreign
language learning techniques and strategies “work” for students with various learning
disabilities.
In the interpretivist philosophy which I am bringing to my action research,
contextual validity is an important indicator of trustworthiness. “The context of the
teaching situation gains in strategic importance,” say McCutcheon and Jung (1990) when
describing the interpretivist perspective. I would seek to critique the contextual validity
of my qualitative research on appropriately qualitative criteria, by paraphrasing Arries’
(1999) questions about his qualitative research in his own classroom: Are my
observations consistent with the observations of other foreign language educators who
teach students with learning disabilities? Do they correspond to the published
experiences of students with LD in the foreign language classrooms? Would foreign
28
language educators or students with LD find my description of student characteristics
valid?
Lather (1986) describes the process of triangulation in which multiple methods of
data gathering are employed in qualitative research to establish data trustworthiness. In
order to increase confidence in research findings, multiple data sources, as indicated
above, were used: dialog journals, interviews, written self-report of method of preparing
for quizzes/tests, homework preparedness log, observations recorded in the form of field
notes, and the results of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning during the third
semester of the study.
Merriam (1998) explains that qualitative studies are chosen “precisely because
researchers are interested in insight, discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis
testing” (pp. 28-29). I feel that the triangulation of data in my study proved invaluable as
a tool for “insight, discovery, and interpretation.” This process will be described in
subsequent chapters as it relates to each student, but I will here note that I found it crucial
to examine each data source as it related to a student’s disability, i.e., if a student’s
disability manifested itself in written expression, the dialog journal sometimes proved
problematic in revealing a student’s full reaction. In order to assess the student’s total
response, I cross-checked the student’s written responses with other sources of data
which employed a medium of expression in which the student was comfortable, such as
verbal expression in an interview.
C. The Suitability of Latin for Students with LD
My thoughts now turned to the specific content area: Latin. Is Latin a good “fit”
for students with learning disabilities who are attempting to learn a foreign language?
29
My review of the literature revealed the possibility of a suitable match between Latin and
students with learning disabilities.
It has been suggested that certain languages may be more learnable than others for
given individual students, depending on their language strengths and weaknesses. As
early as the 1980s, Latin was being described as “accessible” (Ancona, 1982) and a
possible “best choice” (Fisher, 1986) for students with learning disabilities. There are
several reasons for the hypothesized “fit” between Latin and students with learning
disabilities.
First, Latin has a highly transparent relation between orthography and phonology,
i.e., Latin is a phonetic language in which there is simple co-relation of sight and sound.
The twenty-three letters or letter combinations of the Latin alphabet represent thirty-five
sounds; English, by contrast, contains forty sounds with more than 1,100 ways to spell
them. A recent study (Paulesu et al., 2001) conducted with dyslexic college students in
France, Italy, and England demonstrated that it is easier for dyslexics to learn to read in
languages where there is a one-to-one relationship between a letter and the sound it
represents. Because of the regularity of the Latin sound system and its relation to the
written language, the student’s ability to associate the written and vocalized forms is
thought to be greatly facilitated (Ashmore & Madden, 1990). Research is currently being
conducted (Van Heuven, 2001) which demonstrates that different regions of the brain are
activated when comparing the reading in a language with a transparent or “shallow”
orthography (e.g., Latin) and reading in a language with an opaque or “deep” orthography
(e.g., English). The “shallow” orthography of Latin, or consistency of pronunciation for
30
specific letters, makes reading Latin aloud a relatively mechanical process once the
sounds of each letter have been introduced and practiced.
Another reason stems from the research which shows that many students with
learning disabilities have difficulty breaking down and putting together the sounds of a
spoken language (Sparks, Ganschow, Pohlman, Skinner, & Artzer, 1992). These students
appear to have phonological difficulties that make it difficult for them to recognize,
decipher, and differentiate sounds and syllables (Ganschow & Sparks, 1987). A number
of researchers have, therefore, suggested that students with pronounced phonological
difficulties might encounter fewer difficulties learning a language which relies primarily
upon reading rather than oral communication (Block, Brinckerhoff, & Trueba, 1995;
Fisher, 1986; Myer, Ganschow, Sparks, & Kenneweg 1989; Ganschow & Sparks, 1987;
Sparks & Ganschow, 1993a). Latin may be preferred to a modern language since the
primary emphasis in the Latin classroom is upon reading and translating rather than oral
communication and the generation of novel utterances. “Instruction that places a heavy
emphasis on oral communication may pose serious problems for the students who have
language learning difficulties,” conclude Myer, Ganschow, Sparks, and Kenneweg
(1989). This elimination or de-emphasis of the oral-aural aspect of Latin, in which a
student must distinguish the sounds spoken by another person in a foreign language
(Sparks, 1995), may make Latin more accessible than modern languages for students with
aural processing disabilities. David Seaman (1996) concurs, “Latin has been a successful
alternative in some institutions because it has no spoken component, so it is particularly
valuable to students with difficulties in listening and speaking in the foreign language.”
31
Just as listening to Latin audiotapes in a language laboratory and conversing in
Latin are not generally primary foci in a Latin classroom at the postsecondary level,
neither is written composition as large a component in Latin as in the modern spoken
languages (Ball & Ellsworth, 1989). Written composition in Latin may be incorporated
in the deductive grammar-translation method, but it tends to be neither emphasized nor
taught in the inductive reading method (Phinney & Bell, 1991). This may be significant
for some students with language processing difficulties since the active written
composition and/or oral production of a language – even their native language – may be a
more daunting task than reading a passage for comprehension (Ganschow, Sparks,
Javorsky, Pohlman, & Bishop-Marbury, 1991).
Spelling is an area in which students with foreign language learning disabilities
often have difficulty (Benseler, 1993; Ganschow & Sparks, 1987; Schwarz, R., 1999;
Sparks & Ganschow, 1992a; Sparks, Ganschow, & Javorsky, 1993). Ancona (1992)
reports that the phonetic nature of the Latin language may facilitate correct spelling by
students with learning disabilities. The study of Latin is said to improve spelling
performance for non-LD students because of its focus on derivatives (Carlisle &
Liberman, 1989; Robinson & Hesse, 1981); perhaps because of the number of English
words derived from Latin, the study of Latin might be helpful in developing spelling
skills for students with LD as well (Ganschow & Sparks, 1993).
Yet another reason for the hypothesized fit between Latin and students with
learning disabilities is that Latin is an inflected language in which verbs and nouns have
variable endings according to tense (for verbs) or gender (for nouns). The fact that Latin
words can be broken down into smaller units (stem plus endings) may make the task of
32
deciphering words easier for the dyslexic student who transposes letters (Ancona, 1982).
For example, the verb audiebamus (“we were listening”) may be divided into component
morphemes for deciphering the word: mus indicates the subject “we,” ba indicates the
imperfect tense, and audie is the root meaning “hear.” With the word broken down into
component parts, the largest morpheme contains five letters. Perhaps the task of visual
recognition becomes easier when larger words can be divided into smaller component
morphemes for analysis, thus affording less opportunity for transposition of letters by
students with visual processing deficits.
Finally, Latin vocabulary is thought to be more manageable for students with
learning disabilities because Latin has a relatively small lexicon (Hill, Downey,
Sheppard, & Williamson, 1995). In addition, since Latin is not a spoken language, there
is consistency of meaning as well as a consistency of idiomatic expression which is not
present in evolving languages. Ashmore and Madden (1990) suggest that more than half
of the total English vocabulary is derived from Latin; thus, familiarity with English
words may facilitate recognition of roots of Latin words. This close relation between
vocabularies makes Latin a useful tool for developing English vocabulary – an advantage
not limited to students with learning disabilities. Perhaps this benefit of Latin study is
even more important to students with language disabilities since students who are poor
foreign language learners often have low semantic (word meaning) knowledge in their
native language (Sparks & Ganschow, 1993b).
Perhaps because of these hypothesized advantages, Latin is one of the languages
offered in the Foreign Language Modification Program at the University of Colorado
(Boulder). Georgia Southern University (Statesboro, GA) also provides special sections
33
of Latin for students at risk in foreign languages. Separate, self-contained classrooms of
Latin for students with LD are by no means common, however. In fact, these were the
only two programs at the postsecondary level that I was able to discover.
CHAPTER 3
THE ROLE OF STUDENT PARTICIPANTS
A. Description of First Semester Class
In the Fall of 1999, eight students who disclosed various disabilities to the Office
of Disability Services at WDU, and who also requested special accommodations in a
foreign language class, were informed by Service Providers in the Office of Disability
Services of the availability of a separate, self-contained section of beginning Latin (Latin
1001) for students with learning disabilities. These eight students had disabilities
representing an admixture of:
•dyslexia
•specific learning disability in written expression
•specific learning disability in reading comprehension
•specific learning disability in verbal fluency
•specific learning disability in memory/reading comprehension
•Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
•Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD).
The collective accommodations requested by the eight students with these
disabilities were:
•time and a half on in-class assignments
•time and a half on out-of-class assignments
•time and a half on examinations
34
35
•distraction-reduced environment
•separate room for testing
•scribe for exams
•reader for exams
•consideration for spelling
•consideration for absences.
One of the students with a learning disability had a physical disability which
necessitated the use of a wheelchair. In addition, there were three students with other
types of disabilities enrolled as well. One student was visually impaired, one had
profound hearing loss, and one had a psychological disability. The advisors at the Office
of Disability Services felt that the accommodations requested by these three students
would fit well with the accommodations requested by the students with learning
disabilities and Attention Deficit Disorders.
The student with the psychological disability was requesting accommodations
which duplicated those requested by the students with LD, i.e., time and a half on in-class
assignments and examinations, consideration for absences, and distraction-reduced
environment. The accommodations requested by the deaf student were that a sign
language interpreter be allowed in class and that I face the student as much as possible
when speaking. This student also requested that, insofar as I was able, I give him lecture
notes in some written form. The visually impaired student did not bring a written letter
requesting accommodations; when I asked him what accommodations he would find
helpful, he requested that copies of tests be printed with large font and that any notes
written on the board be given orally as well.
36
In addition to the pedagogical reasons for admitting the non-LD students, there
was a practical consideration as well. The minimum enrollment for a beginning foreign
language course is generally ten students; I knew that there were eight students with LD
enrolled and that the three additional students would assure the minimum ten enrollees
necessary for continuation of the class.
Latin 1001 met five days a week for 50 minutes per day. On the first day of class,
I explained to the eleven students that I was seeking volunteers to be part of a study in
which I would observe and gather information on their study habits and learning
strategies. All eleven agreed to be a part of the study. I was interested in the possibility
of following these students for as long as possible during their foreign language study;
therefore, I was particularly interested in those students enrolled in a curriculum which
required three semesters of a foreign language. Five of the eleven students indicated that
they were enrolled in majors which required three semesters of the same foreign
language.
Because of the issue of confidentiality, I had never requested a student’s
documentation from the Office of Disability Services. When I contacted that office, I
was told that I could have access to files only with written permission. I presented each
student’s signed consent form and was allowed access to their files. A brief description
of the five students -- given with pseudonyms chosen by the student -- is offered below
along with their diagnoses. (See Chapter 3C for an expanded description of the students’
disabilities.)
37
STUDENT
AGE
MAJOR
CLASSIFICATION GPA
DIAGNOSIS
Dale
23
Speech Communication
Senior
2.19
dyslexia, ADD
Derrick
19
Sociology
Freshman
1.7
dyslexia
Hershel
20
Mass Communication
Freshman
2.71
reading disorder
Freda
19
Psychology
Sophomore
3.9
ADD
Amber
25
English
Senior
2.46
psychological
disability
I was surprised to find psycho-socio evaluations included as part of the
evaluations. I asked one of the LD Service Providers why a psycho-socio evaluation was
considered part of an evaluation for a learning disability. I was told that disorders such as
Tourette Syndrome (a neurological disorder characterized by uncontrollable vocal
sounds), other chronic health conditions (such as advanced Lyme disease or
Fibromyalgia), or Bipolar Disorders (manic-depression) might mimic learning disorders
but are of different origin. Therefore, health care professionals attempt to determine the
source of the difficulty as part of the diagnosis. The issue of confidentiality regarding LD
documentation was becoming clearer to me. After viewing the students’ documentation,
it seemed that the learning disabilities were often accompanied by a wide range of social
and psychological problems as well.
I debated whether to include Amber, the student who had a psychological
disability but no learning disability, in the study. Her LD documentation indicated that
the medication which she took for her psychological disorder slowed down her
neurological processes, necessitating a request for time and a half on in-class assignments
and examinations as well as a distraction-reduced environment. In addition, a
consideration for absences was also requested in her Accommodations Letter from her
38
LD Service Provider. I thought Amber would fit well into the study since all three of
these accommodations were included among those requested by the students with
learning disabilities. I also thought it might be interesting to compare her language
learning experience with the experience of language learning by students with LD.
Thus the study began with the focus on five students situated within a larger class
of eleven students who presented a wide range of disabilities. The remaining six
students, again given with pseudonyms, who formed the larger class context for the first
semester of study were as follows:
Ruth – Specific learning disability in written expression and ADHD
Jeff – ADHD
Rebecca – ADHD
Leo – Visual impairment
Eric – Total hearing impairment
Cynthia – Specific learning disability in memory/comprehension due to physical
disease (Fibromyalgia) and psychological disorder (Bipolar); also side
effects of medication for these two conditions.
The eleven students were Caucasian, ranging in age from 18-25; six were male,
five were female. The group of five students who remained in the study for its duration
(1 ½ years) consisted of three males and two females. The age ranges for the five
students was 18- 25; three were male, and two were female. [A new participant would
be added during the second semester making the age range 19-51 with three males and
three females participating.
39
B. Definition of Terms
I was surprised at the range and breadth of diagnoses which seemed to fall under
the general term “disability” describing these eleven students for the purpose of receiving
accommodations in their academic coursework. I wondered at the exact wording of a
definition which could include such a variety of diagnoses. For clarification I consulted
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336). Disabilities are
described as impairments which “substantially limit one or more major life activities.”
Examples of such impairments listed in the Title II Regulations of the ADA are: hearing
and visual impairments, paraplegia, traumatic brain injury, cardiac disease, psychological
disorders, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, specific learning disabilities, drug addition,
and HIV disease.
I now understood why students with ADD and LD were permitted services and
accommodations in the same manner as students with quadriplegia, blindness,
schizophrenia, and HIV: they fit the category of “substantially limiting a major life
activity,” i.e., progress in school (Latham & Latham, 1994). Once the determination has
been made that a student has brought sufficient documentation for “disability” status, the
student is eligible for basic services such as early registration, textbooks on tape, notetakers, and various testing accommodations. This explained to me how all eleven
students – with learning disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorders, physical disabilities, and
psychological disabilities – had come to be included in a group of students with a
“disability” label.
I was familiar with the legal term “specific learning disability” (SLD) used in
federal legislation to refer to difficulty in certain areas of learning, rather than in all areas
40
of learning (see Chapter 1A). Since “specific learning disability” is synonymous with
“learning disability” (Lokerson, 1993), I sought a definition of “learning disabilities”
from the viewpoint of a disabilities’ organization. I now turned to a 1990 position paper
entitled “Learning Disabilities: Issues on Definition” issued by the National Joint
Committee on Learning Disabilities. This organization proposed the following definition
of learning disabilities:
Learning disabilities is a general term that refers to a
heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in
the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning,
or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual,
presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction, and may occur
across the life span.
It seemed, indeed, that the learning disabilities of the students in the class fit the
above definition of “heterogeneous group.” The characteristic common to each learning
disability was the manifestation of “significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of
listening, speaking, reading, writing, or reasoning.” The definition also indicated what
learning disabilities do not include:
Problems in self-regulatory behaviors, social perception, and social
interaction may exist with learning disabilities but do not by themselves
constitute a learning disability. Although learning disabilities may occur
concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (for example, sensory
impairment, mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance), or with
extrinsic influences (such as cultural differences, insufficient or
41
inappropriate instruction), they are not the result of those conditions or
influences.
I could not determine from this definition whether Attention Deficit Disorder and
Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder are considered learning disabilities and would
manifest themselves in the same way as other learning disabilities in “significant
difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning,
or mathematical abilities.” If an attention deficit was considered a problem of “selfregulatory behavior,” it apparently did not, according to the above definition, constitute a
learning disability. Yet accommodations were granted for ADD and ADHD, thus
implying that ADD and ADHD are disabilities that “substantially limit one or more major
life activities” (ADA, 1990).
In an effort to learn more about attention deficits, I turned to publications of a
national organization named CH.A.D.D., a slightly truncated acronym for Children and
Adults with Attention Deficit Disorders. From CH.A.D.D.’s literature (The Disability
Named ADD, 1993), I learned that “Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is a
neurobiological disability that interferes with a person’s ability to sustain attention or
focus on a task and to delay impulsive behavior.” The authors also note that Attention
Deficit Disorder (ADD) is used to include the distinct categories of Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Undifferentiated Attention Deficit Disorder.
Therefore, I, too, shall include ADHD and Undifferentiated Attention Deficit Disorder in
the general term ADD. The literature characterizes adults with ADD as “restless, easily
distracted, have difficulty sustaining attention and concentrating, are impulsive and
42
impatient, have frequent mood swings and short tempers, are disorganized and have
difficulty planning ahead.”
I was now alerted to the fact that I might be faced with a class in which lack of
attention and perhaps disorganization was a problem for at least half the students. It
remained to be seen how this apparently pervasive lack of organizational skill might
manifest itself in the class.
From my perspective as a college classroom instructor, the categories of “learning
disabilities” and ADD/ADHD were beginning to look similar in that:
•ADD, ADHD, and learning disabilities seem to be “hidden” disabilities, i.e.,
when students with learning disabilities or ADD/ADHD present an accommodations
letter to me, there are generally no visual clues as to the students’ disabilities.
•Attention Deficit Disorders, at least for the purposes of receiving
accommodations, are apparently more closely related to learning disabilities than other
disabilities, according to the groupings listed in a brochure from WDU’s Office of
Disability Services. The groupings represent four types of specialists trained in offering
assistance in specific areas:
ºLearning Disabilities & AD/HD
ºDeaf & Hard of Hearing
ºPhysical & Systemic Disabilities
ºPsychological Disabilities.
•The fact that accommodations are granted to students with ADD/ADHD means
that this disability “substantially limits one or more major life activities” (ADA, 1990).
Since students with ADD/ADHD are granted accommodations under the rubric of
43
“disability” in a setting where “learning” is the goal, then the “major life activity” which
ADD/ADHD “limits” in the classroom must be some aspect of the learning or
demonstration-of-knowledge process. It seems confusing for a hidden disability that
interferes with learning not to fall under the category of “learning disability.”
•Regardless of the different etiologies of ADD/ADHD and specific learning
disabilities, the accommodations requested by the students with ADD and ADHD
duplicated those requested by the students with LD, e.g., time and a half on assignments.
I thought perhaps some of the manifestations of ADD/ADHD and LD might be similar if
the same accommodations “level the playing field” in a learning environment for both
groups.
A note on terminology is in order here. According to Sparks and Javorksy
(1999b), “For over thirty years, professionals in the LD field have been unable to agree
on a consistent definition of and eligibility criteria for classification as LD” (p. 37). I
organized this separate section of Latin primarily for students with “hidden” disabilities
rather than physical disabilities. From the beginning, therefore, the class was known and
referred to in conversation as a “class for students with learning disabilities.” My order
of priority in admitting students to the class in future years – if requests for enrollment
exceed a predetermined enrollment – will be: students with learning disabilities, students
with ADD/ADHD, students with physical disabilities, students with psychological
disabilities. For these reasons I shall occasionally use the descriptive phrase in describing
this special section for Latin as a “class for students with learning disabilities.”
44
C. Students’ Self-Report of Disabilities and Academic Challenges
Having spent time learning about students with learning disabilities, I now felt it
was time to consider what I might learn from them. I was particularly interested in
knowing the students’ perceptions of their own disabilities and the academic challenges
encountered as a result of their disability. Each student addressed this topic in a journal
entry in answer to the question: “Describe your disability in your own words and describe
how it has affected you academically. What types of problems has it caused you?”
A synopsis of each student’s response to the two questions is given below; the
self-reported diagnosis is in boldfaced print, and its attendant problems are in italics. If a
student’s self-reported diagnosis differed from the diagnosis reported in the
documentation on file with the Office of Disability Services, I included the official
diagnosis in brackets.
Freda – I am diagnosed with ADD. My attention span is short and
I get bored easily. The only way it has affected me has been my note
taking ability. I get bored and sometimes forget to take notes. Another
major factor for my classes, is that if I am not interested in a subject I
cannot concentrate.
Dale – I have ADD and Dyslexia…The major problem it gives me
is the time it takes me to figure out the task. Sometimes when writing it
out I will jumble a few words together which don’t make any sense.
School has been a constant struggle…Consepts don’t come to me as
quickly, I am always the last to finish a test.
45
Amber – My disability is obsessive-compulsive disorder. It has
at times made me lose concentration and many times makes me late class.
I have a fear of germs, so I wash my hands a lot. In the mornings I have to
check to make sure everything is turned of several times, this occasionally
makes me late for class. If I get too anxious I tend to go to sleep and put
off some homework until I calm down. It’s not as much of a problem with
school work as it used to be.
Hershel – Spina Bifida is Latin for ‘divided spine.’ Hydrocephalus
is water on the brain…I was born with both birth defects…My Spina
Bifida requires me to have a shunt in my head…I have had numerous
surgeries throughout my life to replace my shunt…I also have paralysis
from the waist down as a result of this…Due to my disability and the
many surgeries that I have had, this has had an effect on my reading
comprehension. Although I am able to read great, my comprehension has
a lot to be desired. If I read something, I am not able to remember the
most important parts because I cannot get a clear picture of what is going
on. [Hershel’s LD documentation indicates that he has a Reading
Disorder in the area of reading comprehension; this is a learning disability
due to “dysfunctional visual memory and visual sequencing ability and
non-verbal reasoning ability.”]
Derrick – well I an dixlecck My diss alaby really is in reading and
spelling but the problems it has cost wod take up more thim 10 times the
spac I have (sase I have) so if it cod soiffe I well just say I ben forst out of
46
cassis refosd job and more. [Well, I am dyslexic. My disability really is
in reading and spelling, but the problems it has caused would take up more
than 10 times the space I have (here he tries another spelling for “space I
have”) . So if it will suffice, I will just say I’ve been forced out of classes,
refused (?) job and more. (Derrick couldn’t remember what he meant by
“refosd” job.)] [Derrick’s LD documentation revealed that he also had
extremely deficient writing skills and relatively poor verbal fluency.]
Ruth – I was diagnosed with ADD, at the end of my junior year…I
can remember in grammer school, I would always forget a book or
homework assignment at school or at home. It seemed whenever I needed
anything, it was always somewhere else...When I began high school, my
disability came with me, except it was getting worse…I had to go to a
Psycologist…they found I had ADD with the disability to express my
feelings…My disability put me through a lot of inner pain. [Ruth’s
documentation revealed a diagnosis of ADHD and specific learning
disability in the area of written expression.]
Leo – My disability is an optic nerve disease…Do to this the
signal sent from my eyes to my brain is partially lost, which makes every
thing that I see smaller than usual. Academically it has affected me,
because in most classes I can’t read what the teacher is writing or what
the teacher displays. It has kept me from getting matterials that are
needed due to not having a way to go and get them…It has kept me from
47
being able to read some nessicerry information, because of it being too
small.
Jeff – Attention Deficit Disorder. In my own words my disability
has caused me to be behind. Not with me not keeping up but just missing
areas of school from as early as grammar school to now. Examples of me
being behind is my writting I have mistakes that should have been fixed
along time ago. I have trouble grasping areas now because I don’t grasp
the areas which lead up to the ones now. Problems it has caused me are I
am a little slower in some areas and it takes me a little longer to grasp the
ideas. [Jeff’s documentation reported Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder.]
Eric – I have one disability which is the profound loss of hearing
in both my ears…It is hard for me to keep my attention. Like for
example – I have to watch my interpreter at all times…at most time I get
messed up even though no one is perfect. I am having perfect time
understanding everything in class and have no problem doing my work.
Jessica – My disability is ADHD. I was not diagnosed with this
disability until my senior year of high school. It has always taken me a
longer time to study than most kids for test…I am so organized and…I
have such good study habits. All my life I have done horribly on
standardized test…Now that I have medication to help me concentrate, it
helps greatly.
48
Cynthia – …disabilities of memory and comprehension due to the
effects of bipolar, fibromyalgia, and the side affects of the medication.
In sum, the eleven students reported the following disabilities:
•specific learning disability: dyslexia (Dale, Derrick)
•specific learning disability in the area of written expression (Ruth, Derrick)
•specific learning disability in the area of reading comprehension (Hershel)
•specific learning disability in the area of verbal fluency (Derrick)
•specific learning disability in the area of memory/comprehension (Cynthia)
•visual impairment (Leo)
•auditory impairment (Eric)
•psychological disability (Amber, Cynthia)
•Attention Deficit Disorder (Dale)
•Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (Ruth, Jessica, Freda, Jeff)
Collectively, the problems that the students perceived as a result of their
disabilities were: difficulty with maintaining attention, note taking, punctuality, reading,
reading comprehension, memory, spelling, and difficulty seeing visual aids. With that
information, I next directed my attention to the issue of accommodations. In
implementing the requested accommodations, I wanted to discover if the
accommodations addressed the academic challenges that the students encountered due to
their disabilities.
49
D. Accommodations Requested
Before the first day of class, I reviewed all the accommodations that were
requested in the Accommodations Letters brought to me by the eleven students from the
Office of Disability Services on campus. I found that the nine accommodations could be
implemented using the following categories.
1. Accommodations Concerning “Time”
At first I considered it important to know which accommodations applied to
individual students. However, nine of the eleven students required at least one of the
accommodations pertaining to “time”:
•time and a half on in-class assignments,
•time and a half on out-of-class assignments, and
•time and a half on examinations.
I also noticed that one of the students (Freda), who did not have a specific request
for time and a half on examinations, had a request for time and a half on in-class
assignments. I found it curious that she would need additional time for in-class
assignments but not for examinations; for that reason I went back to the documentation
of her disability from her psychologist. There, indeed, was the recommendation for
extended time on examinations which read, “extended time for examination or untimed
examinations.” Perhaps her Service Provider at Disability Services considered “time and
a half on in-class assignments” to include examinations. Or perhaps it was simply an
oversight.
Because of this discrepancy, I decided that I would observe the class as a whole
when taking examinations in order to assess whether “time and a half” needed to be
50
afforded the entire group. If a majority of the class needed extended time, I would divide
the exam into sections and administer individual sections on different days (e.g.,
grammar and culture sections on one day, translations on the next). If the majority of the
class did not need extended time, I would make arrangements with individual students for
additional time.
In assessing the students’ need for extended time on out-of-class assignments (i.e.,
homework), I began by assigning the same amount of work given to non-LD classes in
order to keep pace with the departmental syllabus. My thoughts were that perhaps I
could simply reduce the number of lines assigned for translation by one-third so that, in
theory, the LD students would be spending the same amount of time translating as their
non-LD peers. This seemed a good idea in theory, but it did not hold up in practice. We
had to experiment with other ways of dealing with this accommodation.
I did not foresee a problem with “time and a half on in-class assignments” since I
do not normally assign work which must be turned in by the end of the same class period.
Instead of “in-class” assignments, I planned to have students begin working on
homework so that I could observe the speed at which they worked as well as answer
questions and address any problems which might arise.
2. Accommodations Concerning Testing Environment
Three students had accommodations concerning testing environment:
•distraction-reduced environment
•separate room for testing.
51
Hershel was the only one of the three who had both accommodations. I decided to
investigate that particular request to find out what his needs were and why he had specific
need of a separate room for testing.
In a conversation with Hershel after the first class period, I learned that his
request for a separate room for testing stemmed from his physical disability rather than
his learning disability. Due to Spina Bifida, he had lost the use of his legs and had
limited use of his arms and hands. He could not position his wheelchair around a
traditional student desk in order to place his upper body in a comfortable position to
write. He needed a table at a certain height with no obstructions which would prevent his
positioning his wheelchair underneath. He also required enough space to spread and
support his arms on a firm surface which was more than a student desk afforded.
I suggested that he pull his wheelchair up to the teacher’s desk and that we share
the space on top. This did not work because the “modesty panel” prevented his
positioning his wheelchair underneath. He suggested that we turn the desk around and
have the modesty panel on my side of the desk. This would have prevented my sitting at
the desk, but I do not sit down during class, so this was not a concern. There lacked
about three inches for his knees to fit underneath the desk. Again, his suggestion solved
the problem, and that was to remove the center drawer from the desk. This gave him the
needed room to roll his wheelchair under the desk in order to position his arms
comfortably to write. I wondered how he dealt with this in other classes when he wanted
to write. He explained that it was the duty of his aide to transport him to classes as well
as take notes during class. If he was not able to position himself in a classroom in order
to write, his teachers sent his examinations to Disability Services, and he took them there.
52
There still remained the issue of a “distraction-reduced environment.” I was not
sure whether this meant a distraction-reduced environment specifically for testing, or
whether it meant that these students were particularly distractible at all times because of
their disability. I determined to treat the accommodation as though it meant both.
Beginning with the first class period, I observed, recorded, and addressed
immediately any environmental distraction which seemed to draw a student’s attention
away from the task at hand. Then I took steps to prevent its reoccurrence, particularly
during a testing situation. There was no way I could predict what distracters might
impede a particular student’s attention, nor was it detailed in their evaluative
documentation. I assumed, however, that what distracted one student might also be a
problem for other students. This proved to be the case. This issue arose during the first
few minutes of the very first class when the sign-language interpreter began signing my
spoken words for the deaf student.
I also decided that “distractions” would be a good topic for a journal entry so that
I could learn more about distractions to a student’s classroom performance which might
not be visible or apparent to me. In addition, I wanted to be aware of any distraction that
a student might encounter outside of our immediate classroom environment.
3. Accommodations Concerning Test Taking
Two test-taking accommodations requests included:
•scribe for exams
•reader for exams.
My immediate question concerning readers and scribes for exams was, “Who
provides these readers/scribes?” A call to the director of Disability Services revealed that
53
a student whose accommodations include the provision of a reader or scribe may call
Disability Services two days prior to an examination in order to schedule a reader or
scribe provided by that office.
I could foresee no problem with a student’s taking the exam in either a separate
room in the foreign language building or in a room provided at Disability Services, and
having a reader or a scribe present to assist in the test-taking process. I learned that a
scribe is instructed to write exactly what the student says; in that case, it did not seem
that a scribe’s lack of knowledge of the Latin language would be a hindrance to the
student taking the test. In fact, I could see advantages to a scribe’s not having personal
knowledge of the subject matter so that all the knowledge recorded on the student’s exam
would be solely the student’s.
On the other hand, I did wonder about the availability of a reader who could read
the Latin language since every test would entail some form of translation from Latin to
English. In other words, a student would have to read the Latin silently or have the Latin
read to him. I learned that qualified readers would be available with the proper two-day
notice. It was up to the student to contact Disability Services to make such arrangements.
It was my responsibility to provide a copy of the exam to Disability Services, sending it
via fax, dropping the exam off personally, or requesting that a student worker come pick
up a sealed copy of the exam from me.
Knowing that testing and/or quizzing would take place every three class days in
beginning Latin, I asked if students who requested readers might be able to use a tape
recorder if I recorded the questions onto an audio tape and allowed the student to use
headphones. This, it seemed to me, would be less disruption for the class as well as the
54
student if the student could remain with the class for the duration of the testing. A
Service Provider informed me that this might be an acceptable accommodation,
depending on the individual students’ needs. However, if a student required a scribe as
well as a reader, he would need to inform Disability Services two days before the exam to
make arrangements.
4. Accommodations Concerning Evaluation of Knowledge
The one accommodation which seemed to specifically address evaluation of a
student’s knowledge was “consideration for spelling.” Sparks and Ganschow (1993)
found that even students who are “at-risk” for language learning (but not necessarily
diagnosed with a learning disability) encounter difficulty with spelling. Therefore, I
suspected that more than one student would have difficulty with spelling, and it did not
seem fair to me to “count off” for spelling on some students’ papers but not others. I also
wondered if the psychologist who had requested “consideration for spelling” would have
made this request part of the other students’ evaluations if he had been the evaluator for
them as well.
My goal was to find a method of testing the student’s knowledge of the language
which would not be unduly impeded by the student’s disability or weakness, i.e.,
difficulty in spelling. I determined to seek a solution which would fit the entire class, or
at least offer the same option or alternative to each student.
While some Latin teaching methods such as the grammar-translation method
emphasize active production of both written and oral forms of target language words, our
department was using the reading method. In this method, reading for knowledge, rather
than the active production of forms, is emphasized from the first page of the text.
55
Composition is not a focus, thereby reducing the necessity for students to spell forms
correctly. Recognition and translation of forms takes precedence over writing and
composition. A close look at the teacher’s manual of our departmental text, Cambridge
Latin Course, though not specifically addressing the evaluation of students with learning
disabilities, provided me with an excellent solution to this challenge of spelling correctly,
and it also pointed me toward helpful resources. (This will be described more fully in
Chapter 4B.)
5. Accommodations Concerning Attendance
The accommodations requested for two students included “consideration for
absences.” I was not sure how to handle this. My attendance/participation policy had
always been that after two absences, a student’s participation portion (15%) of the overall
grade would be lowered. Did “consideration for absences” mean that these two students
should not be penalized for absences beyond the two absences I granted each student?
When students were absent, they could not participate in the group activities and
learning of the language. Excessive absences would mean that I could not evaluate the
students’ progress on a daily basis. Would “consideration for absences” mean that
allowance for missed work should be given, and work accepted after the due date? I
always tried to “catch students up” with work missed in class if they requested it. But
with work assigned each night, how would a student with excessive absences keep up
since the missed work would become cumulative?
Students in modified foreign language classes at the University of Colorado are
asked to sign an agreement stating that they agree to “no more than three unexcused, nonhealth related absences from class sessions” (Snyder, 1999). This, however, does not
56
address the number of absences permitted as “consideration of absences” as an
accommodation. I still did not know “how many would be too many.”
As the course progressed, one of the students for whom “consideration for
absences” was an accommodation missed approximately three classes per week and
finally, on the advice of her physician, dropped the course before the last day to drop
classes (Nov. 5). The other student who requested “consideration for absences” ended
the semester with the second highest attendance rate in each of the three semesters of her
enrollment in Latin. Conversely, the student with the lowest attendance rate each
semester did not have “consideration of absences” mentioned in his accommodations
letter.
Considering this class as a whole, there were students with accommodations that
did not seem to be needed and not invoked, students who did not have accommodations
that might have been beneficial, students for whom the same accommodation meant
different things, and a wide range of behavior of students with the same accommodations.
It seemed to me, therefore, that the matching of students with accommodations is by no
means an exact science.
CHAPTER 4
GETTING STARTED
A. Learning Preferences
In order to identify possible techniques that might prove helpful for individual
students or the class as a whole, I sought information from each student by means of a
journal entry asking what type learner they were. The question was phrased as follows:
What type learner are you? Do you learn better by listening, or does it
“stick” better if you see it written? Or do you do best when you listen as
well as see written text (either in a book or on the board)?
The length of answers ranged from one sentence (Dale) to half of a typewritten
page (Hershel). Selections from their answers are given with the preferred form of input
in boldfaced print.
Freda – I do the best when you I listen and see it written.
Sometime I miss details when I just listen, so when you use both
techniques I get all the information. It also reinforces the material to see it
done both ways.
Dale – I am not to sure if one way is really more helpful than
another.
Amber – I learn better by listening then seeing it written. The
written form reinforces what I just heard. They work together. Just
57
58
hearing it doesn’t give a visual example, but just seeing it is not as
effective as hearing and see. They work best together.
Hershel – I feel I learn better by listening to what is being said as
well as looking at it on paper or on the board. I feel that if I see the
definitions and translations on paper as well as listening to the teacher say
them aloud, I can retain the information easier than when I just listen.
Derrick – Well I difetly dpind on the sudjeck for sum I can just
listtn but for alrs I take nots like math I take mots but Phoake I don’t.
[Well, it definitely depends on the subject. For some I can just listen, but
for others I take notes – like math I take notes but Philosophy I don’t.]
Ruth – …I guess I learn better if I see it written, and writing it out
for myself.
Leo – I am a better learner when I write it or when I see it
written. It helps me when I write out the material because when I write it
myself I understand it better.
Jeff – [By the third week of class, Jeff had stopped attending class
and did not provide any further journal entries.]
Cynthia – [Cynthia had quit attending by this time and provided no
further journal entries.]
Eric – …I learn more by either learning by the board and
working on my homework. Although I am not a good listener, I usually
get tired or bored by listening because I am hearing no sounds at all. I do
better on written text. Any way is good for me.
59
Jessica – I think I learn best when I listen as well as see written
text.
With half the class consciously aware that they used at least two forms of input
simultaneously, I decided to provide opportunities for both hearing and seeing any
material that I presented – whether directions, homework assignments, grammar
presentation, vocabulary drill, testing, reading passages, review, or attendance reports. I
would gradually incorporate the act of writing as a means of retaining information for
those three students who preferred writing to listening; I would then determine whether
this might be beneficial for other students in the class.
B. Multisensory Instruction
In reviewing the literature which addresses the topic of foreign language
instruction for students with learning disabilities, I found that virtually every reference,
both anecdotal and empirical, advises the use of multisensory instruction. Schwarz
(1999) reports that at the First International Multilingualism and Dyslexia Conference
held in Manchester, England (1999), every method presented for teaching modern foreign
languages to dyslexic students included multisensory instruction. Whether the term used
is “multisensory instruction” (Moats & Farrell, 1999), “multimodal teaching” (Raynor,
1991), or “multiple modalties” (Sparks, Ganschow, Pohlman, Skinner, & Artzer, 1992),
the basic meaning is the same: multisensory instruction refers to “any learning activity
that includes the use of two or more sensory modalities simultaneously to take in or
express information” (Moats & Farrell, 1999, p. 1).
Multisensory involvement is thought to engage more than one of the learning
pathways that lead to the brain: visual (seeing), auditory (hearing), tactile (touching), and
60
kinesthetic (moving). Speech is considered kinesthetic because of the movement of the
tongue, lips, and throat in sound production. The act of writing is considered
tactile/kinesthetic because of the sense of touch as well as movement. The principle is
that when there are several means of gaining information presented at the same time, a
weakness in any of the learning pathways may be circumvented (Myer, Ganschow,
Sparks, & Kenneweg, 1989).
There is a long history in pedagogy of the idea that memory is reinforced when
learning takes place through multiple senses. By the late 19th century, educational
psychologists were espousing the idea that all the senses are involved in learning. In 1917
a specific instructional approach that would appeal to as many cerebral centers as
possible was developed by a physician (Hinshelwood) for written language disorders.
This method was specifically for children who were “word blind,” due (it was believed)
to underdevelopment or injury of the brain (Moats & Farrell, 1999).
S. T. Orton, a neurologist, was the first person to report on “word blindness”
(what was later to become known as dyslexia) in American medical literature in 1925.
To counteract this disability, he felt that the interrelated functions of language – listening,
speaking, reading, and writing – must be taught at the same time. In this way the use of
all sensory pathways reinforced weak memory patterns by simultaneous association of
visual (reading), auditory (listening), and kinesthetic (speaking and writing) fields.
According to Orton, a person with word blindness could develop directionality by
speaking a word while looking at a visual presentation of the word and following the
letters with the fingers (Moats & Farrell, 1999).
61
A modified version of Orton’s approach, the Orton-Gillingham method, is a
remedial strategy which has been used since the l960s to teach beginning reading, writing
and spelling to students with language learning problems at the elementary and secondary
levels. The Orton-Gillingham method is described as a multisensory structured language
[MSL] approach which teaches the phonology of the language directly and explicitly
while the students simultaneously see, hear, and write the language. Students begin by
reading and writing sounds in isolation then blend the sounds into syllables and words.
(Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators, 2000).
In 1996 Sparks, Ganschow, Fluharty, and Little applied the Orton-Gillingham
method to the teaching of Latin to twenty-seven students with LD in grades nine to
eleven. The authors contend that “by directly and explicitly introducing the sounds and
symbols through multiple modalities, students receive different forms of input, which is
thought to enhance learning for students with FL learning difficulties” (p. 170). They
explain that an MSL approach does not evaluate modality preferences (visual, auditory,
tactile-kinesthetic) in order to determine particular “learning styles.” In a multisensory
structured language approach, all modalities are thought to influence the learning process.
Giving students access to more than one form of input is not to train a visual tactilekinesthetic, or auditory process; rather, it is to provide “additional forms of input
continuously directed toward learning the structure of the language” (p. 170).
I was convinced that multisensory instruction was essential for foreign language
acquisition for students with learning disabilities. However, I had two reservations about
attempting a “pure” MSL approach. First, in the Sparks et al. (1996) study mentioned
above, the Latin teacher received extensive training in MSL methodology: she had
62
observed and consulted with a high school Spanish teacher using an MSL approach; she
received approximately 30 hours of one-to-one instruction from a teacher of students with
reading disabilities at the high school level; and she observed the reading instructor use
MSL methodology to teach students to read, spell, and write their native language
(English) . I had neither the time nor the opportunity for such training.
In the second place, students in our Latin program were not graded on
pronunciation of the language, so I did not think it necessary to drill extensively on one
sound at a time, striving for complete mastery. There were, however, components of the
Orton-Gillingham approach in addition to the multisensory instruction which I thought
would benefit students with learning disabilities: a slowed pace, careful monitoring of
student progress at every step, and extensive review. Therefore, I planned to use a
modified multisensory structured language approach.
C. Definition of Terms
At WDU, the Classics faculty had chosen a textbook that employs the reading
method of language teaching for the first three semesters of Latin. Before describing the
process by which I chose the approach and method that I would use with this class of
students with learning disabilities, a defining of the terms approach, method, and
technique is in order. In much of the literature dealing with Latin pedagogy, the terms
seem to be used interchangeably. However, for clarity and consistency (except for direct
quotations) I shall define and use the terms in the following manner, patterning them after
the hierarchical system described by Richards and Rodgers (1986) in which “techniques
carry out a method which is consistent with an approach…” (emphasis mine).
63
An approach, according to their definition, is a set of assumptions dealing with
the nature of language teaching and learning. Therefore, I place the terms induction
(reasoning in which general principles are deduced from particular facts) and deduction
(reasoning in which conclusions necessarily follow from the propositions stated) in the
approach category since they are axiomatic and make certain assumptions about the
nature of language learning, the former (induction) assuming that particular facts give
rise to general principles, and the latter (deduction) assuming that general principles are
learned first, and these principles are then applied to particular instances.
A method, as defined by Richards and Rodgers (1986) is “an overall plan for the
orderly presentation of language material…based upon the selected approach. An
approach is axiomatic, a method is procedural.” According to this definition, grammartranslation and reading are methods since each uses a different order of presentation and
differs in the weight and value given to developing specific skills. The grammartranslation method emphasizes a “systematic understanding of language and an ability to
describe language accurately” (Pearcy & al., 2001). The reading method emphasizes
reading comprehension first and foremost before explanations of grammatical concepts.
The third tier of Richards and Rodgers’ (1986) organizational hierarchy is
technique. A technique “is implementational – that which actually takes place in a
classroom. It is a particular trick, strategem, or contrivance used to accomplish an
immediate objective.” Techniques and the ways in which I accomplished the objectives
of the method I ultimately chose will be discussed in the following section.
64
D. Does Induction Lead to Reduction?
At the time of the study, the faculty in my department were drawn to the inductive
approach and the “reading method” of the Cambridge Latin Course (CLC) with its
emphasis upon reading beginning with the first chapter. [N.B. Chapters in the CLC text
are called “stages”; however, for clarity’s sake, I will use the more familiar term
“chapter.”] Using the inductive approach, reading passages are read before new grammar
is introduced. In this method, students learn vocabulary and grammar through reading
passages and noticing particular words and structures. The student is then expected to
formulate general principles from the information given; i.e., nouns ending in “-m” often
signal a direct object in Latin. The Teacher’s Manual of the CLC states, “the students
themselves will derive general principles of grammar and groupings of vocabulary from
the specific instances they remember from their readings.”
An aspect of the reading method that was important to the faculty was that it does
not present the Latin language “as an abstract linguistic system or merely as an exercise
for developing mental discipline. Instead, it presents the language as the medium of the
great culture and literature that molded it” (Scope & Sequence of the CLC, 2000). The
CLC uses plots and characters in stories to capture student interest. This approach is
based on the premise that if students are presented with new information in a meaningful
context, the chances of mastering the language increase. Further, if students follow the
plot of a story, recognizing and reacting to characters, they are less inclined to treat the
readings as mere exercises. I had found this interest in plot and characters to be true of
non-LD students in the past and hypothesized that it might be true of students with
learning disabilities as well.
65
The department’s reliance on an inductive instructional approach was potentially
problematic for LD student instruction, however. When I began looking into the issue, I
soon found that deduction was favored by LD specialists. Mangrum and Strichart (1984),
for example, found that deductive reasoning “makes it an effective technique for
introducing concepts to learning disabled students” (1984). These psychologists address
learning disabilities at the college level in general. While not rejecting inductive
reasoning, per se, these authors claim that “the straightforward expository format of
deductive reasoning makes it an effective technique for introducing concepts to learning
disabled students.”
Agreeing with Mangrum and Strichart, the dePaul Dyslexia Association (1994)
advises teachers against the use of inductive reasoning for students with learning
disabilities: “Don’t expect him to learn by induction (given this fact and this fact, what is
the result?). He must have deductive reasoning presented (given this fact and this fact,
the result is this fact).”
Addressing the issue of deductive reasoning specifically in foreign language
learning, Pearcy, Allen, Kent, Klaassen, Konopka, and Pearson (2001) promote the
grammar-translation approach to language teaching for students in general, and students
with learning disabilities in particular. The grammar-translation method is a deductive
method based on the mental-discipline theory that views the mind as a muscle which
needs vigorous exercise. The grammar-translation method begins with the memorization
of paradigms, grammar rules, and vocabulary which are then applied and practiced,
generally with one new grammatical structure per chapter (Richards & Rodgers, 1986).
For instance, the personal verb endings of -o, -s, -t, -mus, -tis, -nt are memorized as a
66
group before they are applied in reading passages. Pearcy et al. explain that the
grammar-translation method can be defined by its emphasis upon parsing, diagramming,
and writing synopses (email correspondence with L. Pearcy, Nov. 22, 2000). One reason
that this team of researchers and teachers espouses this method is that it focuses on one
skill at a time; they believe that this feature makes learning Latin easier for all students,
and especially for students with learning disabilities.
Nevertheless, even with the implied caveats against using an inductive approach
in the literature, there were strong incentives for me to adopt the Cambridge Latin
Course. In a faculty meeting in which the creation of a separate section for students with
LD was discussed, concern was expressed that there would be less required of this
section of students -- even though they would be given credit for 1001. Like any other
instructor in a large foreign language department, I did not develop the course in a
vacuum, and it was the general consensus of the faculty that the LD students should be at
the same place in the syllabus at the end of the semester so that they could take the
departmental exam which was given to all sections – albeit in a different format, if
necessary. It was also felt that a student with LD should be able to transfer to a non-LD
section for the next level of Latin if that seemed necessary because of conflicts in
scheduling.
I seemed to be addressing an unspoken fear of “reverse discrimination,” in which
it was felt that students with LD would have an unfair advantage over non-LD students if
the course requirements were not as rigorous. Among other things, then, my curriculum
decision needed to address faculty fears that students with LD might receive a “watered
down” version of the course, and to assure them that the LD students would be at the
67
appointed place in the departmental syllabus by semester’s end. There would not be
different course requirements, but different methodology and techniques that would be
used to arrive at our destination.
Even as I agreed to use the reading method which the other Latin classes were
using, I wondered if using induction with the students with learning disabilities would
lead to reduction of numbers of students with LD who would be able to meet their
language requirements.
CHAPTER 5
“GETTING TO KNOW YOU”
A. Heterogeneity
On the first day of class, I knew that I would be facing a heterogeneous group of
eleven students with learning disabilities as well as physical disabilities, and some with
both. The disabilities represented were: dyslexia, ADD, ADHD, visual impairment,
hearing impairment, psychological disabilities, and specific learning disabilities in the
areas of written expression, reading comprehension, verbal fluency, and
memory/comprehension.
I wondered how the students with LD would react to students with physical
disabilities, and vice versa. The need to address this interaction became apparent within
the first few minutes of the first class. Two interpreters accompanied the deaf student,
one of whom sat in front of the class (but slightly off-center) to translate everything I said
into American Sign Language. In the “audience” were five students with Attention
Deficit Disorder (ADD). This created some interesting dynamics as the attention of the
easily-distractible students with ADD was riveted on the motions of the interpreter’s
hands and greatly animated facial expressions. I must admit that I, too, was fascinated as
I had never had a sign interpreter in my class.
Eric’s Disability Services Provider had sent me a letter listing accommodations as
well as tips for communicating with a deaf student. I decided to use parts of this letter as
a means of regaining and addressing the ADD students’ deflected attention. I explained
68
69
to the class that the interpreter was translating my spoken language into a visual/manual
form of sign language that Eric could understand, and that she would interpret Eric’s
questions and comments in sign language into spoken language so that the class and I
could understand. I also explained that the interpreter would not say, “Eric doesn’t
understand the second example.” She would speak in the first person saying, “I do not
understand the second example.” She would literally be Eric’s voice. I also indicated
that I would speak directly to Eric rather than saying to the interpreter, “Tell him that I
will repeat the second example.”
I called attention to the fact that there were two interpreters who would alternate
sitting in the interpreter’s chair because signing a foreign language can be particularly
fatiguing since much of the material does not come with ready-made signs and must be
spelled out letter by letter (“This Just In…,” 2000). For this reason, there is a “three to
ten word lag-time between a speaker and the interpreter which may result in the student
being a bit behind in the class discussion” (Accommodations for a Deaf/Hard of Hearing
Student, 1998). Because of this lag-time, I realized that I needed to slow my pace of
speech in general.
The class was not five minutes old, and I was already attuned to challenges which
I would need to address by altering my teaching techniques and/or classroom
presentation. I became aware of exactly how I phrased a question or comment or
explanation when I learned that the sign language interpreter was bound by a code of
ethics which impelled her to “relay the exact message of the speaker,” including every
“uh,” false start, and comments addressed to other individuals. As I slowed my rate of
speech, I also began to monitor my word choices, avoiding circumlocution and searching
70
for the clearest and most efficient way of expression or explanation. I felt that this would
benefit not only Eric but the whole class.
“The distraction caused by the novelty of having an interpreter in class will
quickly wear off,” a Deaf and Hard of Hearing Specialist at the Disability Services
assured me. Indeed, the class and I soon became accustomed to the constant motion of
hands in our peripheral vision. Occasionally the gestures of the interpreter made the
material we were translating more poignant. For example, when we were translating a
story about the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius with its attendant loss of life, the depiction by
the interpreter of rocking a baby and then the sudden cataclysm which resulted in the
death of the child was quite moving.
B. Distractor Minimization
With almost half the class diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder, I did not
think that maximum foreign language learning could take place until high-appeal or
particularly annoying classroom distractions were minimized. By the end of the first
week, the heterogeneity of distractors for individual students was in evidence: what was
a distractor for one person would not even be noticed or acknowledged by another. I
determined that the best course in dealing with a distractor was to acknowledge and
address it immediately, if possible.
Some distractors were obvious – such as a student entering the classroom after
class had begun. Two students (Derrick and Angela) were habitually tardy, and
invariably entered the room out of breath and apologizing profusely. When this
happened, I could see the students’ attention refocus on the noisy movement of the latecomer. Each time this occurred, I informed the student that a noisy apology upon
71
entering was more of a distraction than simply entering quietly and taking a seat. Both
students seemed surprised by this comment. Because getting to class on time was a
pervasive problem for other students as well, I felt I needed to take more long-term
measures to see if there was a way to forestall late arrival. (See “Accountability” below).
Often included in tips for teachers of students with ADD is the suggestion that
easily distractible students be seated away from “high appeal distractors such as
windows, doors and computers” (Reither, 1997). University teachers don’t always have
control over their physical classroom environment since it is not unusual to change
classrooms, or even buildings, for every class in any given day. Closing the door after
class started cut down on the distraction of noise and movement in the hall, but it was
impossible to do the same with the bank of windows which virtually covered the outside
wall. There were no window coverings, so we had to stop occasionally and acknowledge
that, yes, that black cat that hangs around the air conditioner probably lives there, and
yes, the thunder is awesome. Generally, just the acknowledgement that there was a
distraction, and giving it a few moments’ attention, was sufficient to revert the students’
attention back to the task at hand. Whenever there was a particularly loud clap of thunder
or lightning, our brief recognition of it became, “Zeus est iratus,” which was a very early
example of a predicate adjective following an intransitive verb. I did, however, request
that blinds be installed when I realized there was no way to darken the room for viewing
videos.
When I asked in a journal entry, “Can you identify distractors (i.e., things that
keep you from paying attention) during class?”, the responses were:
72
•information written on the board from the previous class can still be seen
even though it has been erased (Hershel)
•whining of the air conditioner (Hershel)
•constant buzzing of thermostat (Freda)
•projector fan noise (Angela)
•sitting too close to people, dirty desks (Amber).
I responded to each student’s distractions by acknowledging them either in their journal
or privately in my office, even though there was little I could do about some of them.
One student, Derrick, proved to be an irritating distraction to other students
almost immediately. I noticed that he sat in the back of the room, a favorite place for
three of the other students. By the end of the week, however, all three students had
moved across the classroom to opposite corners. When I questioned the reason for their
move, all three students said that Derrick’s habit of muttering to himself the entire time
was too distracting and/or annoying. I had seen Derrick’s lips moving but did not realize
that his words were audible.
In the journal entry mentioned above concerning distractors, five students
mentioned other students who were distractions. Four of them implied or stated that it
was Derrick: Freda wrote, “Interruptions by a certain class member get on my nerves,
but I understand that it may be due to his disability.” Dale was more descriptive and less
tolerant in his response,
I have a problem with one other student in the class. I have talked
to you about it before. It drives me crazy when he continues to talk and go
on and on when no one is even listening. He trys to draw attention to
73
every thing he does, from coughing, snezzing being late, getting hurt. I
just can’t stand him and if he is in the next class i am going to be very
upset. {However, by the third semester he was feeling differently: “I
thought I would have a distraction caused by one student but he really
hasn’t been a factor at all.”}
And Rebecca responded, “______ (not to mention any names) really
disturbed me at times, but I think he really just tried to draw attention to himself.”
Ruth, however, mentioned Derrick by name, “The only thing that drives me crazy
is when Derrick mumbles, but after a while I became use to it and now I hardly
hear him.”
Interestingly, Derrick did not list any other students as distractions. In
fact, he seemed totally unaware that other class members were responding to him
in this way. Derrick, whose attention was drawn to the slightest environmental
stimuli, apparently did not perceive his own distractibility when he wrote, “I do
not have that Big of a problen with distractin in this class.”
One other student (Angela) listed another student as a distraction, “Amber
is a distraction.” When I asked Angela to elaborate in an interview, she
responded, “She is the loud one. Everyone else is friendly and eager to help.”
When I asked in what way Amber was loud, Angela responded, “Before class she
and Derrick have these screaming discussions.” Amber and Derrick (both
classified as “loud” by other students) became fast friends. The only other student
who did not express displeasure with Derrick at some point during the semester
was the deaf student.
CHAPTER 6
LET THE LATIN BEGIN
A. Course Prospectus
All faculty in the Classics section who taught first-semester Latin used a
prospectus which had been in place since we adopted the Cambridge Latin Course in
1990. It called for weighted percentages in the following categories:
Quizzes
15%
Unit Tests
60%
Final Exam
25%.
I added two categories: Class Participation (15%) and Response Journals (10%), reducing
the weight of the final exam and unit tests to:
Quizzes
15%
Class Participation
15%
Unit Tests
40%
Journal Responses
10%
Final Exam
20%.
I surmised that class attendance might be especially important for LD students so
that students can practice and interact with the language in a setting where feedback is
immediate. In adding the Class Participation category, I was emphasizing the importance
of the students’ being in class and preparing homework on a daily basis. Following
Reither’s (1997) suggestion to “focus on training for appropriate behavior” for students
74
75
with ADD, I hoped that rewarding this behavior would be a motivator for those students
whose disabilities made class attendance a special effort.
Students could receive up to two class participation points per day – one point for
being in class on time, and one point for having prepared the assignment. I made it clear
that in order to be counted as Prepared, they had to have attempted the entire assignment
so that I could observe this aspect of their learning process in a concrete way. There was
no penalty if the assignment was not perfectly prepared, but an effort to complete the
work must be evident. The description of the Class Participation portion of the grade
from the Prospectus read as follows:
Homework/Class Participation (15%)
Each day you will be considered either:
-Prepared (on time and have written assignment)
-Unprepared (in class but no written assignment)
-Absent
You will sign a sheet at the beginning of each class indicating
whether you are prepared (worth 2 points) or Unprepared (worth 1 point).
In order to count yourself Prepared, you MUST be in class and have
attempted to translate EVERY sentence of the assignment and give that
translation if called upon. It does NOT have to be a correct translation –
but it must be at least an attempt.
If you are Unprepared, I will not call upon you for homework
translation for that day. You will, however, be asked to participate in
other class activities. Even if you are Unprepared, DO attend class so that
76
you can hear the translation as well as new grammar explanation or
review.
My syllabus also deviated from the departmental prospectus by including
Response Journals as a category. The Response Journal section of the prospectus read:
Response Journal (10%)
Each week you will be asked to write (in English) about a topic
pertaining to the way we are studying Latin, i.e., what you are finding
helpful, suggestions for different ways of doing things, what you find
distracting, etc.
Response journal topics will be assigned on Thursday and due
Monday along with the regular assignment. This should be about one
page in length.
I did not keep assigning topics on a weekly basis as the semester progressed; I
needed more information and feedback from the students at the beginning of the course
when I was getting to know them along with their needs, weaknesses, and strengths. I
felt that the Response Journal was an important enough learning/feedback tool to warrant
10% of the semester grade.
B. Housekeeping
Throughout the first semester, challenges arose in carrying out the “mechanics” of
the course in the areas of attendance/accountability, organization, and testing procedures.
The students and I were continually discovering issues that adversely affected learning in
each of these areas and changing our behavior to address them.
77
1. Attendance/Accountability
I kept scrupulous records of class attendance and homework preparation for
several reasons. First, in an LD course, we had to consider the possibility that even with
accommodations some students might ultimately be unable to thrive in the course and
would request a waiver. The dean required that a “good faith effort” be shown by a
student before the substitution of a culture course for a language course would be
considered for subsequent language classes. A “good faith effort” included attending
every class meeting, turning in all assignments, taking all quizzes and exams, and
meeting with the instructor on a regular basis to discuss any difficulty the student is
having in the course. If a question arose concerning this “good faith effort,” it was my
responsibility to provide documentation supporting my assessment.
Second, I wanted the students to be aware of my record-keeping and to be
involved in it to the extent of taking the responsibility of recording their preparation and
attendance on a daily basis. Although I reserved the right to challenge a student’s claim
of being prepared if I saw evidence to the contrary, I surmised that there would be less
chance of disagreement or misunderstanding about the statistics I reported if the students
themselves participated in the daily assessment by marking the log book.
Third, if a student were having difficulty in the class, I wanted to observe – and
for the student to be aware – if there was a correlation between attendance/preparation
and performance in the course. In assessing the reason for lack of a student’s progress in
learning the language, I needed to know if there had been consistent attendance and
preparation with poor results, in which case I would suspect a learning disability. On the
other hand, a more general problem of lack of effort, attendance, and preparation could
78
contribute to poor performance and lack of progress for any student – with or without
learning disabilities.
For record-keeping purposes, I made a roster of the class in a roll book with each
student identified only by the last four digits of their student identification number. I
passed around the roster each day at the beginning of class for the students to indicate
with a “P” if they were Prepared or with a “U” if Unprepared. If a student was
unprepared, I would not call on him/her to participate while the class was translating
homework aloud; I had learned in non-LD classes that this slowed down the class pace
for the ones who had prepared the assignment. This method of accountability had
worked very well in my non-LD classes.
Minor problems with this method of accountability arose almost immediately.
Even a matter as simple as passing around the roll book needed adjustment. After the
third time the roll book changed directions, going back to those who had already signed it
and arriving back at my desk without everyone receiving it, we practiced the route that
the roll book should take, regardless of absentees.
As the semester progressed, students became used to the routine of the attendance
log, but during the third week, three students put their mark in the wrong slot. I realized
that the horizontal line across which the students’ eyes had to travel had begun to
lengthen and perhaps their eyes were not following “their” line across. I began making a
new roster every three weeks and suggested that students use a straight edge to help find
and follow “their” line. This worked well until after midterm when I made a new roster,
omitting the name of the student who dropped the course. I did not think to apprise the
students that their “position” on the roster may have changed. Two students put their
79
mark on the wrong line, apparently finding their line by position on the page rather than
reading their four-digit number. This had not been an issue in my non-LD classes. I
realized that what was a very simple procedure in non-LD classes took extra time and
attention in this one.
In my non-LD classes, if students arrived after the roster has been passed around
the room, they were instructed to find the roll book on my desk and sign in. By the end
of the second week, classes seldom appeared to be unduly distracted by the latecomers.
However, in this class during the second week when three students were late, the
disruption caused by their entrance and coming up to my desk captured the attention of
the class as a whole; heads were turned as students’ focus changed to watch every move
of the latecomers. Thereafter, I decided to place their preparedness grade for them,
marking an “L” to indicate that they were late.
I noticed that one student (Derrick) consistently indicated on the roster that he
was prepared, but he did not seem to be at all familiar with the homework assignment.
During the second week I noticed that his notebook was blank, and yet he had placed a
“P” to indicate that he had attempted the assignment. When I asked him about this
discrepancy, he said that he thought “P” stood for “Present.” Thereafter, he consistently
indicated with a “U” that he had not attempted or completed the assignment. At the end
of the second week I asked him about the number of Unprepareds that he was
accumulating. He indicated that he didn’t like to write. I suggested that he could use a
tape recorder or talk to his Service Provider at the LD Clinic to discuss the possibility of
hiring a scribe. While he said he would work on it, he never brought in any tapes or
80
contacted the LD Clinic to investigate the availability of a scribe for homework
assistance.
Our class met five days per week. During the second week of class, attendance
became a problem for two students who each missed three of the five classes. Students
were allowed three unexcused absences, and they had both reached that limit within 10
class days. One of them was Jeff, who had written in his journal that his disability had
caused him “to be behind” in school. He was certainly falling behind in this class. By
midterm he had 14 absences, and he was Unprepared for 7 of the 19 days on which he
attended class. When I pointed out that he was in class only 57% of the time, he said that
he “had been too busy with work in other classes to attend Latin class.” He did not think
he had missed many classes, so we reviewed the Class Participation log that the students
themselves mark. He accepted my evaluation at that point.
The visually impaired student (Leo) missed fifteen classes by midterm; he
offered no reason, nor did he schedule an appointment to make up missed work. His
attendance improved somewhat the second half of the term (nine absences). A third
student (Cynthia) began missing classes and indicated that her doctor had advised her to
resign from school for the semester. She and one other student (Amber) had
“consideration for absences” as an accommodation; while Cynthia dropped the course,
Amber did not miss a class the entire semester. I was struck by the disparate
performance even among students who supposedly needed the same accommodations.
When I handed out midterm averages, I wrote to Dale that his number of
accumulated absences (8 out of 33 classes) showed that he had missed class
approximately 25% of the time. After class I asked him if he was surprised by his Class
81
Participation percentage. He responded, “Yeah, missing only two points for an absence
doesn’t seem like that big a deal since it’s only two points. I didn’t realize I missed so
much.” He indicated that he “had better make a bigger effort to get to class,” explaining
that he was often late or absent on Mondays when he didn’t get back in time for class
from frequent weekend trips to a neighboring state. His final Class Participation grade
went up by four percentage points.
I felt I was already observing two instances of excessive absences and lack of
effort being more to blame than the disability in the cases of Jeff and Leo. It is not
unreasonable to assume that fifteen absences before midterm would be a difficult obstacle
to learning for even a non-LD student to overcome. The fact that Jeff had been in class
and prepared for only twelve of the last 33 class periods contributed much more to his
failure to learn the language, in my opinion, than did his disability which he blamed for
causing him “to be behind.” I respected any student’s right to fail, but in the case of
students with disabilities, I felt that I had to be especially prepared to defend my position
that the failure was due primarily to factors other than the student’s disability. If Jeff
requested a substitution for the remainder of his language requirement based on his
disability, or Leo on his visual disability, I would have recommended a denial of that
request. Accurate record-keeping with the students’ input was an important part of that
process.
2. Organization
Daily Goals. Reither (1997) suggests that teachers of students with “reasoning
deficits” due to dyslexia, ADHD, or language processing disorders “Provide a schedule
or predictable sequence of events in the classroom. If the routine varies, a schedule on
82
the board is very helpful.” I had not done this in non-LD classes as I had never found the
process of transitioning from one activity to another to be of particular concern for the
students or for me. However, because adults with ADD are described as “disorganized”
with “difficulty planning ahead” (Ch.A.D.D., 1993), I decided to take this suggestion to
provide a verbal “road map” of the activities of each class period and to help us focus on
daily goals.
I wanted the day’s “syllabus” to have components that were familiar to the
students and yet be varied enough to engage the attention of both visual and auditory
learners. I considered naming the schedule of activities “Agenda” which is Latin for
“things to be done.” However, Via, the Latin word for “road” or “way” is introduced
very early in the first chapter of the Cambridge Latin Course (North American Third
Edition, p. 4). Therefore, our daily road map listing the hour’s activities became our Via.
I began listing the Via on the chalk board as soon as I entered the room each day;
there it remained until the end of class. The Via quickly took on a life of its own with
advantages I had not foreseen. As we completed each activity, I put a check mark by it
on the list. This gave the students a sense of accomplishment which I shared as well. I
knew that the Via was useful in keeping us on-task when we were getting off-track during
a culture discussion. Amber pointed to the Via and said, “Let’s go.”
Hershel, who always positioned his wheelchair in the front of the room, began a
ritual of asking me as I entered, “What’s on the Via for today?” As I began writing on
the board, the students generally settled down to prepare for class as they watched the list
of activities for the hour unfold. If there was something unfamiliar on the list, someone
83
invariably asked what it meant as soon as I wrote it. After completing the writing, I
would read the list, previewing each activity with an explanatory sentence or two.
I noticed during the third week that three students – Ruth, Freda and Jessica –
were copying the Via into their notebooks. I asked them how they used the list. Ruth
said she used it each night to go over the material we covered in class. Freda said she
used it as a study guide when she had studied for the first unit test. Jessica said it helped
keep her organized.
One day we had a particularly long Via. Amber asked, “Will we really get to all
that?” The students quickly learned a vocabulary word before it was introduced in the
text: fortasse. That’s the Latin word for “perhaps.”
Notebooks. Not since teaching high school had I felt a need to be directive in
helping students organize their notebooks in a manner that would help them remember to
bring their written work and verb charts to class. Remembering to bring their textbook
did not seem to be a problem, but loose papers (handouts, worksheets, verb/noun charts)
were causing organizational problems for some students by the end of the second week.
On the fourth day of class I handed out a blank noun chart which we would use the entire
semester; I asked that the students bring it to class every day. The next day in class, I
referred to noun endings and asked the students to “take out their noun charts.” The
response was much movement as students flipped through the textbook looking for the
chart. Jeff vigorously shook the book while holding it over his head. Hershel directed
his aide to search through his book bag. Jessica, Freda, and Ruth turned immediately to
the chart in which they had punched holes and placed in a three-ring binder. Jeff, Leo,
Dale, and Derrick could not locate their chart and asked for duplicates; Derrick had “left
84
it on his bed when he cleaned out his backpack.” Dale said that he didn’t bring it because
he thought we wouldn’t need it since it didn’t have anything written on it (Later in the
semester he told me it “flew out of his Jeep,” and he had to start a new one.).
At the end of the hour, Ruth asked for a duplicate chart. I was puzzled as I had
seen her locate hers immediately. She said that she would like a duplicate of every
handout so that she could practice on a clean copy at home. After that I offered “clean
copies” of handouts, grids, and charts to anyone that wanted to use them for review.
The following Monday as we were looking at noun endings on an overhead
transparency, I asked the students to “refer to their noun chart.” Again there was a flurry
of movement and two requests for duplicates, this time from Eric and Cynthia.
By this time I realized two things: one, that some direction in setting up a
notebook might help to organize their papers; and two, that the Via, was not impetus
enough for some students to plan ahead and take out the needed materials after viewing
the list. I had specifically written “New noun endings with Noun Chart” as one of the
activities.
The next day we spent a few minutes discussing possible setups of notebooks. I
suggested four dividers marked Assignments, Class Notes, Handouts, and Charts.
Thereafter when giving directions or reminders which involved any of those categories, I
would refer to the appropriate section of the notebook, e.g., “You might want to make a
note of this in your Class Notes section.” I also began to hole-punch handouts as part of
my preparation of class materials. Ruth carried a hole-punch in her backpack and
occasionally took it out to use it.
85
This notebook arrangement did not work for everybody, particularly the section
for assignments. Dale preferred to write his assignments in the front of his Latin text
book so that when he sat down to do his assignment, “everything is right there.” Derrick
occasionally wrote the assignment on his hand. Leo preferred to write the assignment
across the top of the text book somewhere in the chapter under consideration.
I felt I had done my part in offering at least one method of organizing materials.
Having their charts available for use ceased to be a problem, except for an occasional
request for a blank when someone forgot a notebook. The papers that strayed the most
often were worksheets that I handed out and assigned for that night’s homework. Even
though there were hole-punches in the paper, I noticed that several students folded the
paper and placed it in their text book.
I also began to ask that when students entered the classroom and sat down that
they take out their textbook and notebook. I was trying to minimize the bustle of activity
during the first few minutes of class. This request did not have much effect. However,
my request that they take out necessary materials (i.e., homework, charts, text) as soon as
I wrote the Via on the board did cut down on rummaging through books, book bags, and
notebooks for wayward materials. As I wrote each activity on the board, Hershel
generally made a statement or asked a question about the materials needed for each one,
e.g., “We need our chart for that, right?” He almost always knew the correct answer. I
could not tell if he simply needed assurance or if he had a need to express himself
verbally as a way of establishing his presence since his physical mobility was impaired.
Whatever the reason, this verbalization helped Derrick who struggled with following
what was written on the board.
86
3. Testing Procedures
Quizzes. I considered whether it would be more beneficial for the students to
take quizzes at the beginning of class, in the middle, or at the end. I could see advantages
and disadvantages of each. At the beginning of class the material might be fresh in their
minds, but there might be the problem of some students’ needing more time to complete
the quiz which would take up class time. If the quiz were given in the middle of class,
there would be an opportunity for review as a group, but there still might be the question
of using the time productively for those students who finished quickly. Giving the quiz at
the end of the hour might be preferred by for those students who wished to take the quiz
without the pressure of a time constraint in class; but I wondered if the idea of a quiz at
the end of the hour would influence their focus during the class. There might also be a
logistical problem of finding a vacant room for those students who needed extra time.
I varied the time during the hour for the first three quizzes, then asked the students
to comment in a journal entry: “When do you prefer to have quizzes – at the beginning
of class, in the middle, or at the end? Why do you prefer that time?”
No student wanted the quiz at the beginning of class. Two (Jessica and Derrick)
preferred quizzes in the middle of class, with Jessica writing that she “liked to get a
review before I take the quiz,” but she didn’t want to have it at the end because “I find I
rush to hurry up and leave to go home.” Derrick also preferred the middle of class for
quizzes because of time to review beforehand. The rest of the class preferred to take the
quizzes at the end of class so that there was time for review. No one mentioned that
length of time to take the quiz could be a problem. Sample comments were:
87
I feel I am more comfortable taking the quizzes at the end of the
class because by going over the definitions right before the quiz, I feel that
it is fresh on my mind and I am able to make a better grade. (Hershel)
I rather having quizzes at the end of the class, because it gives me
time to look over and review the information for the quiz. Also sometimes
when we review first it answers questions that I had while studying. (Ruth)
Truly? The end. Time to sneak a peak; last-minute “learning,”
which doesn’t stick. (Jeff)
We took quizzes at the end of the class period for the rest of the semester.
I began giving students five minutes to study immediately before the quiz. Amber
commented, “The few minutes of study before it is helpful.” However, on some days,
particularly “high energy” days such as a home football game weekend, there would be
wiggling and whispering or even talking aloud after the first couple of minutes of silence.
After that happened twice, I offered to let each student begin the quiz any time during
that five-minute period; a raised hand indicated that the student was ready. Some
students began immediately, and some took the full five minutes for review.
In non-LD classes I allot five minutes for a quiz; for the LD class I allotted ten
minutes. For the first two quizzes (which covered thirteen vocabulary words each), no
one stayed past the ten minutes. When grammar questions were added after the second
quiz, Dale and Derrick were usually still in the room after ten minutes.
The need for some students to take extra time created a problem in two areas:
testing environment and scheduling. Derrick had a class immediately after Latin and
could not, therefore, stay to complete his quiz or test. He returned in the afternoon to
88
finish his work. I gave him the test in sections so that he would not have seen the
material on the test and have an unfair advantage over the other students.
Dale did not have a class, but he (and anyone else who needed extra time) had to
be “uprooted” as we vacated the room at the end of the hour for the next class to begin.
We either found a vacant room in that building or took the ten-minute walk across
campus to return to my office. Neither of these solutions was satisfactory as the students
seemed to lose their focus with this interruption, but it was the best we could do under the
circumstances. I realized that for the next semester, I needed to reserve the same room
for two consecutive hours in order to accommodate those students with the need for
extended time for test taking.
Hour Tests. Regarding testing procedures, my first concern was for the three
students whose accommodations included a “distraction-reduced environment” (Amber,
Hershel, and Derrick) and a “separate room for testing.” I also wanted to provide a
distraction-reduced environment for the whole class because of Arries’(1999) finding that
distractions during a test “may cause the student to overlook examples or even
instructions and consequently score far below his or her real ability” (p. 100). I was
interested in providing every opportunity for the students to show their “real ability.”
Hershel also required “a separate room for testing,” stemming from his physical
disability which prevented his using a student desk. We had found a workable solution in
sharing the teacher’s desk, but it was problematic; Hershel and I were in such close
proximity that every time I moved my pen or the papers or my body, he became
distracted. Thereafter, I sat in a student desk during their tests.
89
Amber, who needed space around her because of her fear of germs due to her
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, always sat along the outside wall by the windows. This
worked during class, but during the test we had to make some adjustments. Cynthia, who
was very easily distracted by noises of any kind, could not tolerate Derrick’s constant
murmuring. When she moved to the other side of the room, she was too close to Amber
for Amber’s comfort. We spread out the desks as far as possible, facing Cynthia toward
the wall. This arrangement was acceptable to everyone for the remainder of the hour.
For the next hour test, I suggested that Cynthia bring and use ear plugs. That
worked very well as far as noise disturbance; however, still bothered by Derrick’s
fidgeting, she pulled a desk into the far corner of the room and faced the wall for
subsequent hour tests and quizzes. Interestingly, she did not have “distraction-reduced
environment” listed as an accommodation.
Derrick had trouble recognizing some of the words on the first test, and he raised
his hand whenever he was perplexed by either an English word in the directions or a
Latin word in a question. As a result, in the first test there were four instances in which I
had to go down the row to his seat at the back of the room in order to read the words
“determine,” “accusative,” “gustatory,” and “obscene.” This was disruptive for other
students, so I suggested that he take advantage of his accommodations for a scribe and a
reader for the next hour test. It is the responsibility of the student to make a request to the
LD Clinic for a scribe or a reader 48 hours in advance of the time when those services are
needed. The day before the test, Derrick informed me that he still had not made the
request. We discussed various options and decided that I would make an audiotape of the
test; he would bring a tape player and stop and start it, pacing it so that he could write his
90
answers. The next day he brought a tape player to the test, but he did not bring earphones.
He wanted to go back to his dormitory room to get his earphones, but in the interest of
time, I suggested that he go to my office (four buildings away) and sit in the entrance hall
where he could play the tape without disturbing anyone. For the next test, he secured the
services of a reader/scribe in a timely fashion.
Before this test I had asked Leo, the student with the visual impairment, if he
wanted a reader or a scribe. He suggested that if I would print the test in large print, he
would be able to read and write for himself. I printed the test in Times New Roman 16point; it did not bother him that the formatting was somewhat awkward as a result of the
larger font.
Before the test began, I had asked that students be as quiet as possible when
leaving the room. Each one complied with the request in an admirable fashion as they
moved from their desk to the door. Then two of them slammed the door on the way out.
Immediately before the next test I reminded the class to leave quietly AND close the door
gently.
My Reflections. So…what does this section describing LD students and testtaking say to me? or to a potential instructor of students with LD at the college level? As
I was coding my data in order to identify and examine issues that emerged during this
study, the pile of testing data contained large amounts of information from field notes,
journals, and interviews. Further dividing “testing” into subcategories, I found that “testtaking procedures” was almost as voluminous as “test format” and “test content.”
Reviewing my field notes on the subject of test-taking procedures, I realized that
the length and detail of my descriptions were in direct relation to the divergence from the
91
accustomed routine that I used with non-LD classes. From my reading of research as
well as advice and observations of teachers of students with LD, I knew to expect
differences in the way LD students produced information on tests. Nowhere had I been
forewarned that the testing procedure itself would take such time, preparation and energy.
During the administration of the first unit test, I did not feel as though I were in a
college classroom. Attending to this class of eleven students took extraordinary patience
and a willingness to work with students’ concerns and needs related to environmental
sensitivities (e.g., Cynthia’s need for total silence; Amber’s need for physical space
between her and the other students); surmounting disability issues (e.g., Derrick’s need
for identification and clarification of English words; Hershel’s need for assurance that he
understood the questions); integrating ADD students’ needs for kinesthetic activity
(requests to go to the restroom from Leo, Derrick, and Dale; Derrick’s habit of
muttering) with other students’ easy distractibility (e.g., from the constant whine of the
thermostat to noise in the hall).
I began to ask myself: How much is enough? How much is too much?
Realistically, how much energy can most language teachers expend in the usually-simple
procedure of administering tests? It felt to me that a class of “special needs students”
required much more than alternate testing format.
C. The Sounds of Reading
1. Introduction of Phonemes and Graphemes
In this class of students with learning disabilities, I hoped that the introduction of
Latin sound-symbol correspondence in a structured, letter-by-letter multisensory format
might be of specific help to those students who preferred auditory to visual input,
92
strengthening the connection between the spoken and written word. For example, if a
student encountered the word mater but did not recognize it in its written form, perhaps
the skill of sounding out the word phonetically would trigger auditory memory of its
meaning from having heard the word spoken in class. I also wanted students to be at
least comfortable enough with the language to pronounce words in the course of asking
questions about translations, i.e., “What does laudabamus mean?” as opposed to “What
does the third word from the left mean?”
Having decided to use a modified multisensory structured language (MSL)
method (see Section 4B) to teach Latin to students with learning disabilities, I still had
two concerns – one practical and one theoretical – concerning the “structured” aspect of
the method. In a basic multisensory method, students are exposed to multiple modalities
as they receive input from visual (seeing), auditory (hearing), and tactile/kinesthetic
(speaking and writing) sources. This was a familiar and effective approach which I had
used in the past, but the MSL method goes beyond this, emphasizing simultaneous use of
all modalities, i.e., hearing a sound, seeing the symbol that corresponds to that sound, and
writing the symbol for the sound while saying it. I wondered about the multitasking
competency of students with LD to engage in writing while speaking and listening since
the inability to “multitask” is one of the tendencies possibly signaling a difficulty with
foreign language learning (Becher, Castro, and Hill, 2000).
The second aspect of the “structured” MSL method that I was not sure how to
integrate was the reading and writing of sounds in isolation. In a pure MSL approach,
one sound-symbol correspondence is learned at a time, generally in the order in which it
is encountered in the text. This sound-symbol correspondence is practiced, then
93
synthesized into syllables which contain the sound and rehearsed before integrating it into
short words. Emphasis is upon mastery of each step before proceeding to the next. In the
Latin reading method used in our department, however, exposure to phoneme-grapheme
combinations is not sequenced since the reading of sentences begins before the
introduction of individual vocabulary words. I was uncertain, therefore, of the order in
which to present phoneme-grapheme correspondences.
On the first day of class I introduced the sounds of Latin by reading each short
three-to-four word model sentence aloud. I then pronounced each word while pointing to
the word on an image of the page on an overhead transparency, and the class repeated
the word. I pronounced the next word and the class repeated it; I then combined it with
the previous word, again with the class repeating. At the end of each page, we paused for
the students to attempt to discern the meaning of the sentences from the visual context as
well as English derivatives contained in the narrative. We continued this sequence of
pronouncing and reading until the end of the first week.
At the beginning of the second week, I began the systematic presentation of
individual phoneme-grapheme combinations with the consonants that are most unlike
English: v (with the sound of “w”), c (always hard), and g (always hard). I surmised that
the letters that are pronounced the same in both English and Latin would be less of a
stumbling block when the students began to attempt reading Latin sentences before the
formal introduction of all discrete sounds. Beginning with v (with the sound of English
“w”), I prepared a list of words containing the letter v, taking two words from the chapter
(servus and via) and then consulting the Vocabulary at the back of the book to select
94
other words containing v which would be encountered in subsequent chapters. I chose
words that the students might recognize from English derivatives (e.g., villa).
First, I pronounced a phoneme as I wrote it on the board while the students
watched and listened; this engaged the visual as well as auditory modality. Next, the
class pronounced the phoneme as I wrote it. I then asked the students to write the letter
as we pronounced, thus engaging the tactile-kinesthetic modality. While they wrote the
letter on paper, I wrote the letter on an overhead transparency. I noticed, however, that
no one was watching the transparency; all eyes were trained on their paper as they
reproduced a v and voiced the sound. We did this for ten repetitions.
Three students had difficulty with this process. Hershel, who had lost mobility in
his hands due to Spina Bifida, was only able to write at about half the pace of the rest of
the class. Whenever he was not able to keep up, he turned to his aide/scribe who
dutifully wrote the letter v ten times in Hershel’s notebook. Another student, Derrick,
seemed to be expending an extraordinary amount of effort in writing the letters, and his
movements seemed slow and laborious, his body tensed and hunched over the desk He
wrote in very large letters, using a whole notebook page for the ten repetitions. The third
student, Jessica, was writing but not repeating; I asked her after class why she was not
voicing the sound of the letter. She explained that she had difficulty repeating while
writing because repeating the sound distracted her. She may also have been distracted
because Eric, who had learned to read lips and had been taught about placement of the
tongue for pronouncing letters, attempted to voice the sounds of the letter with the group.
Next we pronounced the words containing v as I pointed to the words on an
overhead transparency. In the interest of time, I asked the students to copy only one word
95
from the list to keep as a model – which I chose for its brevity. Nevertheless, three
students were able to copy most or all the words while we pronounced the list; Jessica,
Ruth, and Roy continued this practice with the introduction of each succeeding letter.
We rehearsed each new letter for two days, with the letters introduced in the
following order, beginning with letters having different sounds in English and Latin:
v, c, g, consonant i, long and short e (introduced together), long and short i, diphthongs
ae, au, ei, eu, oe, and ui. I had planned to then introduce and rehearse letters with the
same sounds in English and Latin, but by this time the students were reading stories aloud
on a daily basis, and I did not feel we needed to devote time to specific instruction and
practice with letters having similar sounds in the two languages.
At the same time we began learning sound-symbol combinations, I began to ask
students to attempt to read a short four-word sentence in Latin which they had translated
for homework. When they encountered a letter whose sound was not familiar to them,
they had the choice of guessing at the sound, or asking for me to model it for them. As
the students began sightreading on a daily basis, the only unsolicited correction that I
offered for mispronunciation was for those letters whose sounds had been specifically
introduced as a single phoneme. Mastery of the sounds was gradual and thorough.
Only one student (Cynthia) expressed discomfort with learning one sound at a
time. She asked that I direct her to a chart giving all the sounds in Latin. I would like to
have had the opportunity to track her progress and ease or discomfort with the language,
but her attendance became sporadic, and we conducted much of our interaction
concerning assignments and missed work via telephone and email for two weeks. She
dropped the course at the end of the third week of class.
96
2. Common Reading Errors, Comfort Level, and Competence in Oral Latin
Common Reading Errors. During the second week of class, I began to ask
students to read short Latin sentences without modeling them first. During that week,
two types of reading/pronunciation errors were evident: the omission of syllables (e.g.,
salutat read as “saltat”) and pronouncing the blend qu to sound like the letter “k” in
English (e.g., coquus read as “cokus”).
I wondered if the mispronunciation of qu as “k,” rather than the more common
English sound of “kw,” could be from interference of previous experience with another
foreign language. I asked in a journal entry for students to address the topic of prior
foreign language learning experiences. I was surprised to learn that nine of the eleven
students had been enrolled in Spanish class either in high school or college. Perhaps this
accounted for the qu pronounced as k, as well as an occasional double “l” pronounced
with a “yuh” sound, e.g., villa read as vee-yuh.
When students began reading Latin aloud, it was more common for syllables to be
incorrectly omitted than improperly intruded. As words in the readings became longer,
e.g., circumspectavisti, omission of syllables became more frequent. At that point, not
only did we separate the stem from the tense indicator and the personal ending, we
separated the stem into syllables or deconstructed the compound, i.e., circumspecta visti
or circum specta visti. I left the tense indicator and the personal ending visually
“chunked” if we had learned and rehearsed the endings in that manner.
Knowing that one of the possible indications of dyslexia is the transposition of
letters in writing and/or reading, I expected Dale and Derrick to alter the position of
sounds within a word, e.g., mercatorem read as “mertacorem.” However, this was not a
97
pattern for either student. They more often omitted letters or syllables, even though they
both read at a slower pace than the rest of the class. At first, Derrick exhibited a pattern
of incorrect sound-symbol correspondence within a word, even with letters having the
same sound in both languages, e.g., sedet read as “senet.” Although he continued to drop
syllables, his ability to make the correct sound-symbol association improved.
Syllables were not generally intruded until the introduction of the imperfect tense
in Chapter 6. In Latin the imperfect tense is signaled by the letters ba added to the end of
the verb stem, followed by a personal ending m/s/t/mus/tis/nt, e.g., lauda-ba-t.
Thereafter, it was not uncommon for a student to insert a ba syllable when reading a
present tense verb, e.g., saying laudabat for laudat. This error was not confined to the
students with dyslexia.
I tried to determine whether the student was translating the verb as it was printed
in the text (laudat = she is praising), or if the student was actually translating the word
which she spoke (laudabat = she was praising). I could not discern a pattern for
individual students. I was looking for evidence whether the student was visually
misperceiving the word (both saying and translating it as the incorrect tense) or if the
student perceived the written word correctly and translated it correctly, but
mispronounced it. This would have indicated to me whether there was a problem with
visual recognition or with sound-symbol coordination.
Since I could not determine the source of the problem, I wrote the form which
was in the text as well as the form which the student spoke. Seeing both words written
on the overhead transparency in large letters and with the words separated into stem,
98
tense indicator, and personal ending (e.g., lauda t and lauda ba t), and hearing both words
pronounced generally helped students recognize the difference in the two words.
Comfort Level and Competence in Oral Latin. During the second week of
class when students began reading Latin aloud, I addressed their initial discomfort by
reminding them that they had all had only one week’s exposure to the language and were
not expected to be proficient. I gave them the choice of either “guessing” at the
pronunciation or asking me to model it for them. Everyone seemed comfortable with that
assurance and with reading aloud in each other’s presence. The fact that the class was
small compared to most other undergraduate classes may have helped them feel at ease,
as well as the fact that everyone in the class knew that every other person in the class had
“special needs.” By the end of the second day they seemed to have become acclimated to
“performing” individually.
I was surprised by the speed at which some students emerged as “stars” (Freda,
Amber, Hershel, Ruth, Jessica) in the reading of Latin. By the end of the third week I
began to notice that as those five improved in reading the Latin without needing either
correction or modeling, two of the others began making disparaging comments about
their own ability when it was their turn to read, e.g., “I’m horrible at this,” (Dale), or “I
can’t do this,” (Jeff). Dale wanted me to model virtually everything he read for the entire
time he was enrolled in Latin. Jeff, however, after his caveat of not being able to do it,
proceeded to attempt a pronunciation and waited for my corrections.
Derrick’s interaction with the language was especially interesting to me. He
seemed to enjoy hearing the sounds of the language. When we drilled vocabulary, he
repeated loudly. When we reviewed the list the following day, he generally said the word
99
with me as I modeled it instead of waiting to repeat it with the class – much to the
annoyance of students around him as they became distracted by this. I could not tell if he
wanted to show that he remembered the pronunciation from the previous day, or if he
lacked a sense of the listening/speaking sequence.
He had a good “ear” for the language and could mimic me beautifully. When I
read Latin, he watched me intently, seldom looking at the printed word. He developed an
easier facility with reading Latin than he did English. When he came to my office to ask
questions, he more often wanted me to read the English translation of a word rather than
the Latin word. When taking quizzes or tests without a scribe or an audiotape, he asked
me to read the English instructions more frequently than the Latin words.
Derrick looked forward to hearing the audiotape of the stories which I brought to
class. These recordings had different voices for different parts and had sound effects as
well. He listened intently and could understand the gist of the reading. He also enjoyed
reading the Latin when the students read “parts” as in a play. He and Hershel read the
Latin with expression, much to the amusement of us all. Whenever Derrick was
distressed in class or in my office, he used the Latin word eheu (oh, dear!) rather than an
English word to express himself.
As we began to lag behind the departmental syllabus after midterm, I asked the
students less often to read the Latin aloud before translating it. This component of the
class was not a departmental requirement and was not evaluated in assessing grades. It
was more time-efficient for me to read the Latin aloud or play the audiotape of the stories
prepared by the book publisher.
100
I hoped that the explicit teaching of sound-symbol coordination had by this time
been beneficial in helping students discriminate speech sounds and strengthen the
phonological awareness of those with deficits in this area. I was gratified by the response
of one of my colleagues who observed the class. “They read as well as any class!” he said
in amazement.
D. Analytic vs. Global Learners Using the Reading Method
1. Combinations and Permutations
In a class of students with different learning and other disabilities, different
strengths and weaknesses, and different learning styles, I found myself continually
searching for ways to address each difference. The textbook we were using, the
Cambridge Latin Course, was based on the inductive approach to learning a language.
For the inductive thinkers whose preference seemed to be to read the passages before
formal explanations of grammar were presented, we studied model sentences and read
passages together, and together consolidated grammar rules after exposure to numerous
examples in context. For the deductive thinkers, I varied the point within the chapter at
which grammar was presented – sometimes presenting new grammar and offering
worksheets before assigning the readings.
Two types of language learners, analytic and global, are hypothesized by Shrum
and Glisan (1994). Analytic language learners are detail oriented, concentrating on
grammatical details. They would “rather find the meanings of words in a dictionary than
guess in context” (p. 199). Global language learners, on the other hand, read for main
ideas, ignoring grammatical details and using guessing strategies.
101
The two students who seemed most unlike each other in their approach to learning
a foreign language were Derrick and Freda. Based on my observations in class with
respect to the questions they asked and their reactions to different presentations of
material, I would characterize Freda as a quintessential analytic learner and Derrick as a
global learner. Amber and Dale, on the other hand seemed to embrace both styles with
varying degrees of success. A description of each of these students and the way they
interacted with the subject matter is in order.
Freda seemed to be the personification of an analytic learner who “concentrates
on grammatical details” (Shrum and Glisan, 1994, p. 199). In the reading method, formal
explanations of grammar are delayed until the new grammatical construct has been
encountered several times in the context of the Latin stories. This means that a student
will encounter, for instance, an ablative case noun in context (in atrio meaning “in the
atrium”) long before the ablative endings are formally introduced. The phrase can be
translated correctly without resorting to case identification. Freda, however, wanted all
the pieces of the puzzle before looking at the big picture. If the form of the word was not
one whose ending she recognized, or if the ending differed from the Complete
Vocabulary entry in the back of the text book, she asked about the form of the verb.
When we read the model sentences in class to examine the pattern of word endings which
indicated usage, she read the About the Language section of the chapter that night before
translating the reading assignment.
Also in keeping with an analytic, detail-oriented learner who prefers to look up
words in a dictionary rather than use contextual clues, she turned immediately to the back
of the book to look up the definition when she encountered a vocabulary word that was
102
new or unfamiliar. The reading method is based on the premise that students should
glean as much meaning from context as possible, consulting the Complete Vocabulary
only as a last resort. She kept a running list of vocabulary words which she encountered
and did not recognize, and she made flash cards to practice them outside of class.
Freda seemed to prefer to learn new information by means of a step-by-step,
ordered presentation. Her notebook in which she took class notes was orderly, often with
numbers highlighted with a color marker to indicate the sequence of steps.
Derrick was at the opposite end of the analytic/global scale from Freda. He
approached the stories in the text in a holistic way, wanting to know what the story was
communicating about the plot and characters rather than how it was being communicated
through the Latin. More comfortable with main ideas than pieces of discrete information,
he eschewed grammatical details, and he used guessing strategies more often than he
referred to the text book for grammar rules or word definitions.
Although he had difficulty analyzing grammatical details, he remembered most
details of plot and characterization, not only from day to day, but for the three semesters
that he was enrolled in Latin. In the third semester, he often reminded us of the early
behavior of a character whom we had met a year earlier. He suggested relationships
among the characters that I had not thought of, and he rarely forgot a character’s name.
Before sightreading a story in class or assigning a story for homework, I generally
asked for a volunteer to give a summary of the previous day’s reading. If Derrick had
been in class the previous day, he volunteered to give a summary of the story, often
wanting to add details about motivations that he intuited, projecting the future actions of
characters based on their previous behavior. Even when he did not prepare translation
103
homework, he was able to listen carefully and intently as other students translated,
holding the gist of each sentence in abeyance and putting them together in story form at
the end of the reading. He then used that information to virtually retell the story either
the next day or on a translation passage of a test.
He contributed to every discussion about Roman culture, either asking questions
or adding information from sources such as the archeology class he was taking as well as
programs on the television’s History Channel or Discovery Channel. His global
processing served him well in drawing upon and consolidating cultural and historical
facts from a variety of sources, but it was not helpful to him in discerning syntactical
relationships or patterns of the language in either English or Latin.
It was difficult for me to observe distinct dislikes or preferences for activities
addressing global or analytic learning styles for Dale and Amber. Like Derrick, Amber
volunteered on a daily basis to recount the escapades of characters from past stories. She,
too, seemed to think globally and intuitively about the motivation of characters beyond
what was explicitly stated. Her hobbies included reading fantasy novels and watching
movies, and she seemed to view the stories in our textbook as another source of
entertainment and pleasure, often reading four or five stories ahead of the syllabus not
wanting to wait to find out more plot and characterization. After the third semester of
Latin, she asked about the next textbook in the series, wanting to find out what happened
to Quintus when he was grown (a character we met when he was 16).
But unlike Derrick, Amber was as comfortable memorizing and applying
grammatical details as she was in discussing larger socio-cultural issues. Rarely did she
make less than 100 on quizzes which required memorization or tests of reading ability;
104
her final average for the semester was 99.07. She seemed to move with ease between
inductive/deductive and analytic/global learning. Perhaps it is significant that she was
the only student in the class who had neither a learning disability nor a physical
disability; her disability was psychological.
Dale also exhibited no clear preference for activities indicating an analytical or
global learning style. Sometimes he was able to recall discrete facts with ease; at other
times recall seemed laborious and his thinking unfocused. On homework translations he
could not often render a coherent summary because he had gotten too bogged down in
grammatical details, trying to solve Latin as though it were a huge grammatical jigsaw
puzzle.
It surprised me that a person like Dale with dyslexia loved to read as much as he
did. In all four interviews he mentioned reading books about politics, culture, current
events, and history. He was able to integrate topics and think globally on those subjects,
drawing from each genre to make a valid point or present a cogent argument.
2. Different Strokes for Different Folks
I continued to bring in audiotaped stories which had different voices and good
sound effects for those global learners who wanted to take in the entire story at once
before attempting the slower process of translation. The students who wanted printed text
before them were able to follow along in their book. Sometimes we listened to the tape
after translating the story, which seemed to be the preference of the analytic learners.
In culture presentations and testing, I assigned the English culture readings for
those global learners who liked to read for main ideas, and I offered a worksheet based on
the readings for those analytic learners who first noticed details, building on details to
105
make an integrated whole. I also found that the worksheet helped the global learners
attend to details which they may have overlooked as they read for main ideas. In testing
culture, I offered short descriptive essay questions as well as fill-in-the-blank questions.
Homework assignments alternated between translation and comprehension
passages. In testing grammar and translation skills, I included comprehension passages
for the global thinkers and translation passages for the analytic thinkers. Grammar
questions included those based on the stories as well as those questions eliciting discrete
pieces of information out of context.
For the step-by-step analytic learners I provided a grid on which students recorded
the verb and noun endings as we encountered them in the stories; those students who
needed a “bigger picture” of the grammatical endings of words in order to understand
where the pieces fit in before we encountered them filled in as much as they desired by
using the charts in the reference section of the text.
Having discovered no proponents of using an inductive approach for students
with learning disabilities (e.g., Pearcy et al., 200l; dePaul Dyslexia Association, 1994;
Mangrum & Strichart, 1984), I was gratified to see both global and analytic learners
respond to a combination of inductive and deductive approaches. Of particular concern
had been the dePaul Dyslexia Association’s (1994) caveat to avoid the inductive method,
“Don’t expect him to learn by induction…He must have deductive reasoning presented.”
Perhaps a “pure” inductive method would not have matched the learning styles of
individuals, but as part of a more eclectic approach, it seemed to help address the
different strengths and weaknesses of the group.
106
E. Syllabus and Assignments: An Issue of Time
The departmental syllabus called for completion of the first two books (twenty
chapters) of the Cambridge Latin Course (CLC), and all students were expected to take
the same final exam. Even so, during the first month of class I slowed the pace of
introduction of new material compared to the non-LD sections. Hill (1991), reporting on
her experiences teaching a college Latin course for students with severe language
learning difficulties, found that a slower pace at the beginning of the semester had two
effects: the students learned the basics, and they acquired confidence in their ability to
learn the language. My experience confirmed Hill’s as I observed the students becoming
accustomed to the aspects of Latin that provided the “building blocks” for the remainder
of their language study: the acquisition of Latin vocabulary, syntax, and reading and
translation skills.
Ten of the eleven students had had frustrating experiences in language learning
prior to this class. I felt that since “time” was a factor in accommodation requests for
time and a half on in-class assignments, out-of-class assignments, and examinations, the
initial pace of the class might be an issue. Journal entries describing past experiences
with a foreign language confirmed that “time” or “pace” was an issue: Dale “enrolled in
Latin and found that the class was to fast pased for me to keep up.” Derrick always
wanted to learn another language “but it semd inpuble to do the tiachers were to fast” (but
it seemed impossible to do [because] the teachers were too fast). Amber felt that
“students with disabilities find it hard enough to take a class that moves at such a fast
pace as the other foreign language classes do.” Freda understood that “we might be a bit
107
slower, but it doesn’t mean we don’t understand the material.” Hershel suggested that the
class “should have been scheduled for an hour and a half.”
“Time and a half” requested in accommodations seems to imply that students with
LD need 50% more time than non-LD students to complete the same amount of work.
Based on that calculation, I cut the pace by 50%, covering half the material for the first
month. During that time the students were assigned the same readings as the non-LD
classes but were allowed “time and a half” as a result of the slower pace. During that
time I did not assign a reading passage for homework on the days when a quiz was
scheduled.
Even if I had not planned to slow the pace in the beginning, the pace would have
been slower than the syllabus because of the extra time and attention that was necessary
for virtually all aspects of the class, e.g., students’ questions, the need for repetition of
explanations and directions, for multiple, multisensory modes of presentation, for
translation of homework passages, and time and half allotted for quizzes. At the end of
the month when I felt that the students were acclimated to me, to class procedure, and to
foreign language study, I began to increase the pace of moving through the chapters.
This meant that if students were assigned the same readings as the non-LD classes, there
would be no opportunity for “time and a half” for completion. This proved to be a
problem.
During the first month, students reported that they were unprepared twenty times.
As the homework assignments lengthened due to the faster pace, students began to
complete assignments on a less regular basis. During the second month, the number of
“Unprepared” reports almost doubled to 39. In an effort to catch up to the departmental
108
syllabus, I began assigning reading passages due on quiz days. There were more
Unprepareds recorded on these days than non-quiz days.
I also noticed that the pattern of uncompleted work changed as well; during the
early weeks, the students who were Unprepared generally had not attempted to do the
assignment, i.e., it was “all or nothing.” In the following weeks, there were more
instances of incomplete assignments, as though an attempt had been made, then aborted.
When I asked for reasons for non-completion, only once did I get an answer referring to
the difficulty of the passage, “I couldn’t figure out what was going on so I quit because it
wasn’t making any sense” (Dale). The reasons given for other incompletions, when I
asked, related to some aspect of time.
In order to continue the increased pace in an effort to “make up” for the slowed
pace at the beginning, I began to reduce the number of lines required for homework
translation. However, we could not simply skip over the remainder of the passages since
it would interrupt the text’s story line. Accordingly, we began to cover the unassigned
portion in class, using it as practice in reading comprehension. I would read each
sentence in Latin and then asked fast-paced questions in English to guide the students
through the material; e.g., Celer Syphaci respondit, “tu sonos audivisti. ego prope
montem ambulabam.” followed by my questions: Who was speaking? To whom was he
speaking? Who heard sounds? What was Syphax doing near the mountain?
When we began these “guided translations,” Freda, Jessica, and Ruth expressed
dismay, commenting that it was too fast-paced to write the translation or take notes.
Derrick and Amber, on the other hand, liked this method precisely because it was fastpaced. I emphasized that this portion of the story was for comprehension practice and we
109
were reading it not for details, but to find out “what was going on.” We summarized the
plot at the end of each story in order to have a frame of reference for the action of the
succeeding reading passage.
Nevertheless, we never did catch up completely to the non-LD classes and were
four chapters short of finishing when time ran out at the end of the semester. Rather than
giving hasty and superficial attention to the remaining chapters, we began the second
semester with the last four chapters which we did not cover.
The issue of “time” was proving to be a thorny one. The “extended time”
accommodation is the most common accommodation requested by students with LD
(Vogel, 1993). I could see that the extension of time for examinations and in-class
assignments was a need for the entire semester’s work as well. The extra time needed for
cognitive processing which proves beneficial and necessary for students with LD could
be generalized, in our case, to the 4 ½ month semester. By the time we ended the second
semester, the “time and a half” extension would have been ideal.
F. Need for Review
1. A Pervasive and Persuasive Caveat
Every source I consulted on teaching LD students, including research (e.g.,
Sparks et al., 1992), recommendations for college instructors (Hill, 1999), and interviews
with my LD students (e.g., Hershel, Dale, Derrick, Freda, Amber), contained a constant
refrain: the need that students with LD have for frequent review of material. It was more
than a mere suggestion; it seemed, rather, an imperative. I was forewarned.
“Review of previous learning” had been a topic included in my earliest education
methods courses and educational psychology courses. I knew from personal learning
110
experience as well as teaching experience that review is a critical component in the
activation of prior knowledge in the course of cognitive processing (Deshler, Ellis, &
Lenz, 1996). Still I was unprepared for the extent to which memory deficits interfered
with the recall of information, necessitating review and repetition of information “in
every class [and] in office hours” (Hill, 1991). Perhaps the need for review is a result of
two characteristics of students with learning disabilities described in the literature:
inconsistency and poor memory.
2. Inconsistency
Researchers (Levine, 1987) as well as teachers (Turner, 1994) describe the
performance of students with LD as inconsistent. “Work is inconsistent: sometimes
done well, sometimes very poorly,” according to Becher, Castro, & Hill (2000). I found
this to be true of some students across weekly quizzes as well as within individual papers.
Dale, for example, made A’s on four quizzes which were followed immediately by F’s.
Derrick spelled the word “definition” three different ways on the same page: defanishin,
difanes, and defanis. I could never be sure that the knowledge a student exhibited one
day, particularly in the areas of grammatical concepts and memorization of discrete facts,
would be retrievable the next day. The two students with dyslexia (Dale and Derrick)
seemed to be the most inconsistent in that regard.
Dale and I worked outside of class using the text English Grammar for Students
of Latin (1993) in an effort to make a permanent “category” for “direct object” in his
schema of grammatical information. In my office he seemed to internalize the concept
and able to articulate it with respect to the examples. Two days later in class he was not
111
able to identify the direct object in an English sentence, and once again he seemed
puzzled by the concept.
I began to see the need for review on a daily basis, particularly as endings of
verbs and nouns became more numerous along with a growing vocabulary list. Time,
again, was a factor. The decision of how far back to go into the material for review was
based more on time available than strength of need. This frequency and breadth of
review would not have been appropriate in a non-LD class; what would prove boring and
unnecessary to non-LD classes was a sine qua non (necessity) for this one. This need for
constant repetition and review seemed a good justification for separate, self-contained
foreign language classrooms for students with LD.
G. Testing
1. Alternate Format
Quizzes. “Consideration for spelling” was listed in the accommodations letters
of the two dyslexic students, Dale and Derrick. Spelling was not an issue on the first
twelve vocabulary quizzes since all words were given in Latin, and the student supplied
the English. Correct spelling of English words was not a goal of this course; I did not,
therefore, feel the necessity of assigning weight to English spelling as part of the
evaluation of the written work on quizzes or unit tests. This was true of the first twelve
chapters.
Beginning with chapter thirteen, vocabulary words to be memorized were listed
with additional Latin forms, i.e., verbs now had two forms called “principal parts” which
contained information needed for formation and recognition of tenses. At this point,
spelling became an issue to the extent that, for example, a student could distinguish the
112
present tense dicit (she says) from the perfect tense dixit (she said). Memorization of
principal parts was deemed a necessary element of the course when the faculty met in
1994 to establish common goals and objectives for all Latin classes.
The purpose of accommodations is to assure that the student’s achievement, and
not the disability, is being measured (Brinckerhoff , Shaw, & McGuire, 1993). My
dilemma was how best to do that without giving an unfair advantage to the two students
with accommodations for spelling. If I tested them orally for different verb tenses, might
not that magnify their disability if deficits in the area of phonological processing were
present? How, then, could I best tell if they knew the difference between formation of
the present tense and formation of the perfect tense without resorting to their written
differentiation between dicit and dixit?
I reasoned that the main objective in the reading method of learning a language is
to read. If a student can demonstrate a recognition of differences in tenses via correct
translation either orally or in written form, I feel that this levels the playing field for
students with difficulties in spelling due to a disability. Students in our department are
generally required to actively produce the principal parts of a verb, i.e, the student is
given the first principal part (porto) and expected to write the remaining principal parts
(portare, portavi, portatus). These forms are used in the formation of other tenses. If I
did not require the active production of these principal parts, I could simply list all the
principal parts and ask for a translation of them. However, I feel that giving the principal
parts in Latin and asking the students to translate them is not an accurate indication of
their understanding of the different tense forms. For that reason I tested passive
recognition but active translation of the root in the form of a finite verb. For example, I
113
required the student to demonstrate recognition of portavit as the perfect tense by
translating it in the proper tense, i.e., ‘she carried.’ This translation is evidence that the
student knows the difference between the present and perfect stem of the verb, and it
accomplishes the same purpose as the active production of portavi in the proper sequence
of principal parts.
I then had to make the choice of whether to offer this format to all the students in
the class, or just the two dyslexic students. I chose the former – reasoning that if testing
in the two ways is truly an equal assessment, then all students in the class should have
equal access to the two formats.
This left me with an ethical dilemma. Would giving the remaining nine students
in the class (who did not have accommodations for spelling) the same choice as the
dyslexics give an unfair advantage to those nine students compared to students in other
sections who don’t have this choice? For an accommodation to be fair to both LD and
non-LD students, the accommodation should allow the LD student to perform to his or
her ability but offer no benefit to non-LD students.
At this point I had to examine the goals of the course in relation to the reading
method which my department had adopted in 1990. In the grammar-translation method
which we had eschewed in favor of the reading method, translation from English into
Latin with correct spelling was a requirement, represented by exercises in the text as well
as a portion of the departmental exam which was given to all sections. In the reading
method text there was no such requirement. Without the requirement of original
composition in the language, either orally or in writing, and without English-to-Latin
translation exercises, I could not see the advantage or necessity of active production of
114
accurate spelling of principal parts or other forms. If a student could show understanding
of the formation of a tense by choosing the correct root from a listing of the principal
parts and adding the appropriate endings, I felt this was a sufficient demonstration of
knowledge in keeping with the objectives of the reading method we had adopted.
This would be a topic I would add to the agenda for discussion at the next faculty
meeting. It seemed to me that we had not fully considered the elements of Latin
pedagogy which we had transposed from the grammar-translation method but were not an
essential part of the newly-adopted textbook series.
Unit Tests. I made no changes in the content of the unit tests, keeping the same
format which I used in my non-LD sections. I continued to require Latin-to-English
translation of passages that had been assigned for homework as well as passages that
were new. Grammar questions and culture were also included.
I changed one type of question after observing the confusion which fill-in-theblank questions presented. I had always included this type question in the grammar
section of the test. For example, after studying three ways of translating a perfect tense
verb (e.g., portavit = he/she/it carried, he/she/it has carried, or he/she/it did carry), a
grammar question representing that concept was: “Intravit can be translated ‘he/she/it
entered’; give one additional translation of intravit.” I supplied the possible subjects as
part of the information given so that the verb translation was the item being tested. This
had not presented confusion in the past. However, the item being tested was
misunderstood by four students. Hershel thought that “one additional translation” meant
another meaning for the basic stem, and he gave the answer, “he/she/it left,” knowing that
that was not the meaning, but not being able to interpret the question any other way.
115
Amber and Freda, thinking I was asking for an additional tense, incorrectly translated the
verb “he/she/it had entered” and “he/she/it used to enter,” respectively. Derrick, thinking
that the question concentrated on the subject of the verb, changed the subject to read
“they entered.”
Thereafter I used fewer fill-in-the-blank questions on the grammar and culture
sections, substituting short answer and multiple choice. Derrick had difficulty
transferring the letter of the answer he had chosen from the pool of answers to the small
line beside the question. Thereafter he circled the answers. I noticed that throughout the
course of the three semesters, Derrick missed fewer answers on the multiple choice
sections when he was able to hear the choices read by either a reader or on tape. He also
requested a “word bank” for any fill-in-the-blank questions. However, I felt that the
subsequent fill-in-the-blank questions were specific enough and also warranted active
recall instead of passive recognition.
2. Recall “Triggers”
When vocabulary lists were less than fifteen words, I put all the words on the quiz
for that chapter. When the lists became longer, I continued to put only fifteen words on
each quiz, aware that the time students spent taking a longer quiz might be spent more
profitably on other activities. As Ruth turned in her quiz from one of the longer
vocabulary lists, she made that statement that she “missed one and I can almost see it on
the page” [the page in the text]. I was surprised that her visual recall of the vocabulary
list was still so strong since the words on the quiz were arranged in sections by parts of
speech as well as in a different order from the single, long alphabetical list in the text.
116
I wrote all the vocabulary words on the board without their principal parts. As
soon as I wrote the Latin word whose translation she could not recall, it triggered her
memory. I did not know if this type of “aid” on the quiz would help her remember the
meaning when she met the word in context, but it was helpful for the present. Thereafter,
Hershel requested that when a verbatim passage from the text book was included on the
test that the passage be photocopied from the text and inserted into the test. He was
aware that his visual recall served him well when he could see the information in the
exact format in which he learned it.
About half the class took advantage of the blank charts attached to each unit test;
I could not discern a consistent pattern of use by individuals. The chart contained blank
lines for the appropriate number of noun and verb endings for which they were
responsible. Some students filled them in immediately upon receiving their test, and
others tore them off and left the blank charts in sight. I also attached a piece of lined
notebook paper for those students who preferred to write on lines instead of the white
space on the test.
I noticed that when there was a two-part question, i.e., “Circle the adjective in the
sentence below and indicate its gender. Draw a line from the adjective to the noun it
modifies,” occasionally one of the parts would be omitted with the student later
indicating that he had not seen it. I began breaking the questions into single sections,
numbering each one. I also observed that it was not unusual for a student to omit the first
question in a series of questions if it was placed in close proximity to the directions.
Frequently a student omitted a sentence or a whole paragraph in translations,
either in the textbook or on a test. For the tests I began spreading out the material over a
117
larger area, using a larger font for printing. There were a few gasps the first time I
handed out a six-page test instead of the usual four-page one, but the white space seemed
to reduce the number of omissions. I also began numbering sentences individually in the
paragraphs for translation. Consequently some students wrote the paragraphs as a list of
numbered sentences, some numbered the sentences in paragraph form, but no one ignored
the numbers altogether. There were also fewer omissions when I drew the appropriate
number of lines for an answer, such as a six-line grid for a conjugation of a verb.
I received fewer questions about directions on a test, and it seemed to settle
students’ anxiety when we reviewed material in the same format in which it would be
tested. For example, if the culture section was going to be tested in short answer format,
we reviewed material in that fashion with students making up questions for their
classmates. They enjoyed this type review and could be quite creative; sometimes I used
the questions which they suggested. After a reading about Roman cuisine and what foods
were available to the Romans, Jeff offered this one: “If an ancient Roman came to visit
you and you took him to McDonalds, what foods would he be familiar with?”
3. Unlimited Time.
I realized that some students need an absence of time pressure to reduce the effect
of their disability on their performance, but I wondered again, as I had grappled with the
accommodation for spelling, if this were a “reasonable accommodation” in terms of
fairness to their non-disabled peers. I knew that the accommodations were to allow a
students with disabilities to compete on an equitable level, but what about non-LD
students who needed extra time to perform to the best of their ability?
118
Runyan (1991) addresses this issue with research that indicates extended time on
exams for university students with LD resulted in improved reading comprehension
scores whereas the non-LD students showed no change in performance. Vogel observes
that this research “demonstrated that this modification reduced the effect of the learning
disability on performance and improved the students’ chances of entering the
examination on an equal footing…” (p. 13).
It seems to me that this “equal footing” can be a complex, slippery concept which
needs to be defined and redefined on an individual basis. I began to suspect that where
the line is drawn in the classroom between accommodating and a “one size fits all” policy
has a great deal to do with the educational philosophy of the one doing the defining.
‘How much is enough?’ and ‘Does this privilege one group over another – be it LD or
non-LD?’ became my mantras.
119
H. An Ending (First Semester) and a Beginning (Second Semester)
1. Academic Results
The final grades for the first semester were:
Freda
A
Hershel
A
Jessica
A
Ruth
A
Amber
A
Eric
B
Dale
B
Derrick
D
Leo
D
Jeff
F
Cynthia
Withdrawal
Percentage comparisons with a non-LD class of 29 students which I taught using
the same text and including a Class Participation component reveals that 96% of the nonLD class passed the course (A, B, C, or D) compared to 81% of the LD class. The
percentage of A’s in the non-LD section was considerably higher than in the LD section:
82% compared to 45%. The breakdown of the grades by percentage in the two classes is:
120
non-LD
LD
A
82%
45%
B
7%
18%
C
7%
0%
D
0%
18%
F
4%
9%
W
0%
10%
I wanted to compare the difference in Class Participation to see if there was a
disparity between the two groups in preparation and attendance. Adding the Class
Participation percentages of each group and dividing by the number of students per class
rendered an average Class Participation percentage per pupil. The tally was close with an
average of 81.4% for the non-LD students and 79.4% for the LD students. This is not
intended to be a rigorous statistical analysis, but it appears from my record-keeping that
the LD students earned lower grades for the same percentage of class attendance and selfreported homework preparedness. It does not speak to the issue of length of time each
group spent studying in order to earn those percentages.
121
Student
Class Participation Grade
Final Course Grade
Freda
100
A
Hershel
100
A
Jessica
98
A
Ruth
95
A
Amber
95
A
Eric
80
B
Dale
72
B
Derrick
63
D
Leo
34
D
Jeff
29
F
Cynthia
Withdrawal
W
It is apparent that the Class Participation grade corresponds closely to the final
grade received in the course for the LD students -- with eight of the ten students falling
within the same point spread for both Class Participation and final grades. I cannot say
whether the percentage of an individual’s attendance and homework preparation grade is
a predictor of final grades, but it does seem to have an influence. This comparison
piqued my interest in observing and bringing to the attention of the students another
relationship during the second semester – between time spent studying for quizzes/unit
tests and grade earned. If Derrick, for instance, had failed to see a connection between
the two, perhaps an awareness of that correspondence would help him survive the second
semester.
122
Seven of the nine students who passed the first semester of Latin enrolled for the
second semester: Jessica, Dale, Freda, Ruth, Derrick, Amber, and Hershel. Leo’s final
grade for the course was a “D.” With a Participation average of 34%, I think that his lack
of attendance and preparation for class was more a factor in his low average than was his
visual disability. He was put on scholastic probation, remained in school one more
semester, then resigned from school. Eric was put on scholastic probation and did not
enroll in another language course. As in Leo’s case, I think Eric’s “B” average for the
term was a reflection of his level of effort rather than his disability.
2. Affective Changes
Anxiety, as defined by Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986), is “the subjective feeling of
tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the
autonomic nervous system” (p. 125). According to Krashen (1982), anxiety may cause
the learner to fail to “take in” the target language, thus impeding second language
acquisition. Also addressing the issue of anxiety and foreign language learning, a study
by Sparks, Ganschow, Patton, Artzer, Siebenhar, and Plagemen (1997) demonstrated that
students scoring high on a measurement of anxiety about learning a foreign language
learning also scored lower on proficiency tests in reading, writing, listening, and
speaking.
I was aware that anxiety and attitude might adversely affect language learning.
Some of the students showed visible signs of anxiety during the first two weeks of class,
particularly when reading aloud. As the students became more comfortable with each
other and with me, the outward signs of anxiety began to diminish. Freda’s blushing
123
became less frequent when she responded incorrectly, and Derrick’s shallow breathing
lessened when he read Latin aloud.
The only type of anxiety which I observed that did not diminish during the year
was test anxiety on the part of Dale, Leo, and Derrick. These three generally had to get
up to go the restroom or to get a drink of water at least once during an hour test. I
attributed this to anxiety rather than hyperactivity since none of the three were diagnosed
with ADD/ADHD.
Comparison of a student’s beginning and final journal entry of the semester
revealed that affective changes had taken place during those seventeen weeks: anxiety
diminished, and negative attitudes toward being in a foreign language class had changed.
Excerpts from the first and last journal entry of the semester illustrate.
Freda: (Before) “I was really disinterested because I could not see how a foreign
language could help my major…I really disliked foreign language…”
(After) “Studying Latin has made me change my attitude about studying a foreign
language…I am no longer afraid…”
Hershel: (Before) “I feel that my past experiences with a foreign language have
been somewhat troubling.” (After) “…the experience has been awesome. I am very
excited about learning this language."
Dale: (Before) “Foreign language and I do not get along…The pressure and the
fear of the class [high school Spanish] was terrible. Everyone seemed to catch on an I
didn’t.” (After) “As far as the overall Latin class I have enjoyed it.”
Derrick: (Before) “I fond [found] spanish to be exsenly [extremely] hard do
[due] to my dislexea but with a lot of help I fish [finished] it with a (B).” (After – with
124
his mother scribing for him) “When I first decided to sign up for this course, I was
somewhat apprehensive. Now I truly enjoy the class but not only to learn the language.
The informal class structure, the motley crew of characters that make up this group make
it an interesting part of my day just to see what will happen next.”
Leo: (Before) “My experience with foreign language learning…was terrible. I
hated every day of it.” (After) “Latin…is really interesting to me and I enjoyed learning
the language.”
Jeff: (Before) “I was real indisisive about take a language partly b/c 5 times a
week but I took the class anyway.” (After): “…happy I took the class b/c one of my best
friends is also taking the 1st Latin.”
The six students quoted above represent the two with the highest semester average
(A’s), a middle scorer (low B), and the three lowest (D, D, F). I chose the excerpts based
not on what was said, but on the range of scores that was represented. I was looking to
see if there was a range of reactions across the range of grades with the lower scorers
retaining their negative attitude. This did not seem to be the case. It would seem that
anxiety was no longer as much of an interference even for the lower scorers.
CHAPTER 7
SECOND SEMESTER – MORE OF THE SAME?
A. New Arrivals
Two new students joined the class at the request of the dean. Roy had taken a
section of Latin for non-LD students the previous semester and failed. His previous
experience, described six weeks into the second semester, is best told in his own words:
When you study and study and you don’t improve, but in fact do
worse, it begins to give you a negative attitude. This was the case
especially last semester when I took this same Latin class and failed. I
went to class everyday, met with my teacher at least once a week, usually
more, studyed more for that class than I think I had any other class before,
and I still failed. To work so hard and to still fail really gave the worse
attitude in the world towards studying a foreign language.
I was very interested in his comparison of his experiences in the non-LD Latin
class and this class as well as his assessment of the reasons for the different experiences.
As I suspected, the pace of the class contributed to his failure, and perhaps the absence of
multisensory methodology:
Having taken the same class for regular students the main
difference is the speed at which material is covered. I don’t think that this
class is any easier, it’s the way you teach it. I don’t think I failed last
semester because my teacher was a bad teacher, I don’t think she
125
126
understood the ways that students with disabilities learn, like you
understand.
I don’t really think that my disability has really affected me that
much in this class. I think that has a lot to do with the way the class is
taught. I think I have a better understanding of how to study.
I never learned the nature of Roy’s learning disability as the dean said simply that
he had a documented learning disability. He was extremely reserved and, although his
journal entries were descriptive and expansive, he rarely offered more information than
requested in oral conversations. When I asked if he planned to bring an accommodations
letter from Disability Services, he replied, “Time has never been a problem in completing
tests.” When I wrote in his journal how pleased I was at his progress, he wrote back,
“This class is perfect for me.” Then he added something that made me smile at his
forthrightness: “But that doesn’t mean I want to start learning any more language than I
have to.”
Angela had taken elementary Latin two years before. She then changed to a
major with no language requirement. A year later she changed majors again, reverting to
her original major of Psychology with its language requirement. To fulfill the
requirement, she enrolled in elementary Spanish, withdrawing late in the semester and
receiving a W on her transcript. She reported that she had dropped that course because it
was conducted completely in Spanish, and the pace of the teacher’s speech was too fast
for her to understand.
One of the assistant deans of Arts & Sciences had contacted me midway through
the first semester of the elementary LD Latin class to request that this “non-traditional”
127
student be admitted to the second semester LD Latin class. At the age of 51, Angela fit
the profile of a “non-traditional student” as an adult learner over the age of 25
(Association for Non-Traditional students in Higher Education, 2001; DeGabriele,
2001).
Angela made an appointment with me to discuss the best way of reviewing the
first semester’s work. I suggested that she begin reading through the text to refresh her
memory of the material we had already covered, and she requested permission to audit
the remainder of the term. I gave her handouts, worksheets, and assignments which we
had covered in the first half of the semester, offering to review them with her as she
completed them. We agreed to meet after she began auditing the class and reviewing the
material.
Angela expressed herself well in conversation. When I asked how her disability
had affected her, she described her disability as a seizure disorder of the complex partial,
temporal lobe which affected her memory and ability to recall when the seizures were not
controlled. She was currently having seizures and working with a neurologist to find a
medication that would control them without unwanted side effects. Since she was
forthcoming with information about her disability, I asked if she would like to be a part
of my investigation into Latin and students with learning disabilities.
She was interested and brought me a copy of her documentation which described
her disability as a “mild degree of brain-behavior dysfunction.” It continued, “Her
performance fell just within the brain-damaged range for immediate memory as well as
complex reasoning and abstraction.” I expected to find a diagnosis of “specific learning
disability” since the description of her “mild degree of brain-behavior dysfunction”
128
sounded similar to “minimal brain dysfunction” – one of the specific learning disabilities
listed in Public Law 94-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 1975). I also
wondered if the term “brain-damaged” fit the category of “brain injury” which is
mentioned in that law as well (see Chapter 1A).
I then realized that the date of the evaluation which she brought to me was 1985. I
thought that perhaps adults with LD were not being routinely identified as such in the
mid-eighties since it was only six years prior to that time that the Association for
Children with Learning Disabilities became the Association for Children and Adults with
Learning Disabilities, thus indicating its additional focus upon adults (see Chapter 1F). I
wondered if she had more recently received a diagnosis of LD. The Office of Disability
Services requires that documentation of a disability be less than three years old, but I did
not pursue the question of a more recent diagnosis since it was the 1985 evaluation which
she had chosen to disclose.
B. An Ounce of Prevention, A Pound of Cure
The transition from the first semester to the second felt seamless. After the joyful
reunion of the class and the usual round of “How was your Christmas?”, I introduced the
two new students. I wondered how the seven students who had been together felt about
the addition of two newcomers, and whether Roy and Angela felt ill at ease since they
were joining an already established group.
The socialization of the two new students was almost immediate. Roy was good
friends with Jessica; Jessica’s delight at seeing him was obvious, and perhaps the class
picked up her cues. As I introduced Angela, I asked the class members to introduce
themselves one at a time. This felt somewhat formal until it was Hershel’s turn. Hershel,
129
remaining true to his particular Southern upbringing, always addressed me with “Yes,
Ma’am,” “No, Ma’am,” or “Ma’am?” He could not bring himself to address an
obviously middle-aged women by her first name; he, therefore, dubbed her “Miss
Angela.” The spontaneous appellation was adopted by all the students, and she remained
“Miss Angela” for the remainder of our time together.
With introductions and acquaintances behind us, we settled quickly into a routine
with familiar elements: the Via on the blackboard to keep us on task, the passing of the
roll book to indicate “Present” since there was no homework due on the first day of class,
and the characters in the story whom we had left in mid-plot. The effects of a monthlong break between semesters was evident as we began sightreading a passage from the
text.
During the previous semester we had established a routine during sightreading of
“help” or “don’t tell me.” These were the responses a student could make when
sightreading and encountering an unfamiliar word. The “help” response gave the
students assurance that they would not have to squirm uncomfortably for too long when
they did not have an answer. On the other hand, some students took longer to process
information with a concomitant longer “wait period.” The “don’t tell me” meant that the
student was still processing information and did not want rescue.
There was an inordinate number of “help” requests compared to the previous
semester. Having taught non-LD classes in the spring term, I knew to expect a slight
long-term memory decay after a month of interrupted study. It seemed to take the LD
students twice as long to work through this reading passage, and perhaps twice as long as
it would have taken these same students a month ago before the break.
130
“Time” became an issue for me on that first day back with the students for two
reasons. First, I was aware that we had ended the first semester four chapters behind the
departmental syllabus, and I hoped that with the familiar routine, we could recover some
of that lost time. Second, I realized that the inability to recall vocabulary even by the
most consistent memorizers (Amber and Freda) would have to be addressed, perhaps as a
daily mini-review in class.
I was concerned about another problem. Once they had gotten help with
semantics, their syntactical skills still were not up to the level they had been at the first
semester’s end. I could not tell whether they had forgotten the inflected endings or
whether they did not remember the application of the endings. We consulted the noun
and verb charts as a reminder of the morphology, and we read the story slowly, using
each incident of syntactical confusion as an opportunity to review the relationship of
morphology and syntax.
Since we were using the same text that we were using at the end of the first
semester, the reading level of the chapter was not significantly higher than the one with
which we had ended a month prior. I had to look elsewhere for the reason and a solution
for the apparent confusion the students were experiencing. I was also aware that the
challenges we were facing now might be encountered again after the three-month
summer break for those students who planned to continue their language study.
C. A Pound of Prevention, A Pound of Cure
I was beginning to identify with Hill’s (1991) finding regarding reduced content
of language courses for students with learning disabilities. Because “LD students cannot
control the same volume of information” as non-LD students, Hill advises teachers of
131
Latin to continually examine “what is most important to teach, to insist be memorized, to
read in Latin” (p. 3). During those first few days of the second semester after the monthlong holiday break, vocabulary seemed to be the biggest hindrance to translation and
“what was most important” to be reviewed and relearned.
In reviewing vocabulary at the beginning of the second semester, I began with the
first chapter of the first book. My reasoning was based on the idea of positive
reinforcement, i.e., since the material was at the elementary level, this would show the
students how much they had actually retained. Although that seemed pedagogically
sound, the time that it took to review a vocabulary list which contained such words as et
and est and via was not worth the time. The actual review of the lists containing basic
words did not take long because the students remembered the majority of the first two
chapters. It was the loss of time as we shifted focus to and from yet another activity in
the already full 50-minute time period which helped determine my decision to abandon
vocabulary review of the earlier chapters.
Heeding the advice to examine what is most important to be memorized, and
knowing that the cumulative list of vocabulary words to be committed to memory
increased with each chapter, I began to review only the vocabulary which would appear
in the reading for the assignment due the following day. I used the overhead projector or
made flash cards. The class preferred the flash cards and treated it much like a game. No
one felt the need to take notes since they would encounter the words in the readings. The
benefit we reaped in exchange for this activity was a faster paced reading the next day
and a reduction of the students’ frustration at the length of time it was taking to complete
their translation homework. Every student mentioned the value of these reviews in their
132
final journal entry in which I asked for activities they had found helpful as well as those
they did not find of benefit.
In my second semester non-LD classes I take the first two days to review the
grammar from the previous semester. I did not structure the review for the LD class in
the same way because research (e.g., Fisher, 1986; Myer et al., 1989) as well as my own
observations indicated that new information was more easily understood and retained by
students with LD when presented in small amounts. Transferring that idea to a general
grammar review, I reviewed grammatical structures as problems surfaced in the secondsemester readings. Since I could not tell which grammar concepts needed more
explanation before hearing their translations, I reviewed concepts as we encountered
them. However, stopping immediately after a challenging sentence for explanation
interrupted the flow of the story as well as making the students who did not translate
correctly feel responsible for holding up the class. Those reasons seemed valid enough to
convince me the grammar review needed to come at the end of the reading each day.
Then two happy accidents happened. One occurred with the first quiz of the
second semester, and the other with the first unit test. The former indicated to me that
information about parts of speech was being internalized by at least some of the class,
and the latter led us in the direction of metalinguistic skills and error analysis.
D. Metalinguistic Skills and Analysis of Errors
Ganschow, Sparks, and Schneider (1995) found that the level of language analysis
ability – or metalinguistic skills – is a critical factor for students learning a foreign
language. Myer et al. (1989) define metalinguistic awareness as the “conscious attention
to language elements, or the ability to manipulate language as an object” (p. 115).
133
Accordingly, I developed some teaching strategies to address metalinguistic
awareness. For example, when introducing the new words to be learned in the
vocabulary list of each chapter, we broke the alphabetized list of words into parts of
speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and other (prepositions, adverbs, conjunctions, and
idiomatic phrases). The students identified the part of speech by its morphology or by
examining the English definition. Students either wrote the words in their notebooks as I
wrote them on the overhead or labeled them in the alphabetical list in the book with
N(oun), V(erb), Adj(ective), or O(ther).
This analysis served two purposes. Placing the four categories on the four
quadrants of a page naturally “chunked” the list into smaller units for study and practice.
It also provided a visual means for emphasizing the regularity and patterns within
categories of parts of speech (e.g., nouns with nominative singular ending in –us).
When I accidentally printed a quiz for the same chapter which I had used with the
non-LD class the previous semester, I found out how valuable the word analysis was to
the LD students. This quiz did not have the words divided by parts of speech. Freda and
Hershel requested that I write the words in categories on the board, which I did, using the
first word of the Latin vocabulary entry.
I wanted to find out how well the students could identify parts of speech in
sentences without having seen them categorized as such. Dale and Derrick, even though
they might correctly translate a sentence, still had difficulty identifying and explaining
syntactic categories, e.g., a direct object. I was not sure if the problem was at the level of
the identification of part of speech or began at the syntactic level when function and
relationship to other words was involved.
134
For the next chapter’s vocabulary, I assigned the identification of the vocabulary
list according to parts of speech before we categorized them in class. I expected that
Dale and Derrick would have difficulty with this assignment since they seemed to lack
“slots” for functionality. This, however, was not the case. The class as a whole had little
difficulty with identifying parts of speech.
Another incident reinforced my goal to teach the students metalinguistic
awareness. As in the first semester, when the reading passages became longer and more
numerous, I assigned part of each reading for homework; the remainder of the passage
we translated together in class at a rapid pace for the purpose of reading comprehension,
or, as Amber phrased it, “to find out what’s happening.” When I gave unit tests, I always
included a passage for translation which the students had prepared for homework, but
they were not tested on the sightreading passages.
However, on the second unit test, I accidentally included part of the story which
we had sightread in class. When I realized the mistake, I corrected everyone’s paper as I
normally did but decided to drop this grade from consideration in the calculation of the
final grade.
The students were accustomed to the routine of taking their unit tests home to
correct them in a different colored ink so that I could see at a glance whether they
understood enough to correct the items they had missed. If a students could not
understand their mistakes in a particular instance, I either addressed that as part of the
mini-review the next day in class or suggested that the students come to my office for
further explanation if they wished.
135
The errors on the mistakenly included reading passage were numerous. Instead of
asking the students to correct each instance of incorrect translation, I thought it might be
more beneficial for them to analyze their errors to see if they could determine a pattern.
My goal was to teach the students to analyze any aspect of the Latin language they did
not understand and to help determine a course of action if one was necessary or desired.
I asked the students to consider each error to determine whether the problem was
vocabulary, recognition and/or use of inflected endings, or translation. I asked that they
place a checkmark in one of those categories for each error.
The students were quick to identify vocabulary errors, but less adept at
distinguishing the difference between weakness in knowledge or function of inflectional
endings and broader translation skills. After I checked the accuracy of each student’s
analysis, I used specific examples of misidentified errors which the students volunteered
to bring before the class. Angela commented that she had made “errors on errors,” which
was an accurate description.
Overall, the most checkmarks were in the category of vocabulary with the next
highest in inflectional endings. In looking at the specific vocabulary words missed, I
found that the more recent vocabulary words were less of a problem than words
introduced earlier. It seemed that we needed a way to bolster long-term memory.
I theorized that the problem of tense recognition and case distinction had not been
as evident in the homework translations as on the unit tests because for out-of-class
assignments there was the liberty to look up unfamiliar words and to refer to endings
charts. Perhaps some students had been depending more heavily than I realized upon
vocabulary to guide them toward the translation of the sentences. As the cumulative list
136
of vocabulary grew, perhaps an overdependency on word meaning as a guide to syntax
was no longer working.
E. Need for Memory Strategies
At the midpoint of the second semester, I met with each student who wished to
discuss their error analysis and to help plan a course of action for improvement of
language skills. Derrick requested help with study skills and mnemonic devices for
memorization of vocabulary. Dale needed ways to memorize inflectional endings.
Angela asked for suggestions about using colored highlighters to help with memory of
vocabulary. Hershel wanted to know what kind of practice test his mom could make for
him to remember his vocabulary. Roy wanted assistance with translation, particularly
nested subordinate clauses. Except for Roy, memory seemed to be a common thread in
each students’ request for help.
I used this information in two ways: first to address each student’s request for an
individual plan of study tailored to their strengths and preferred method of studying; then
to introduce more multisensory techniques to the class for vocabulary learning and
memory of inflectional endings.
1. Individual plans of study
It was midterm of the second semester when I met with the five students listed
above to suggest different study techniques based on the journal entries describing their
learning type – visual, auditory, or tactile/kinesthetic. I also based my recommendation
on my observations of the way each responded to different techniques in class. I
considered as well their self-reported study habits and the length of time spent studying.
137
Derrick. His Preferences. Derrick had reported in his journal entry that his
preference for listening or taking notes “dpind on the sudject for sum I can just listtn but
for alrs I take nots like math I take nots but Phoake [Philosophy] I don’t.”
My Observations. Derrick wrote as seldom as possible. If there were any other
way to take in information, either by observing or listening or both, he chose those over
pencil and paper. If I specifically suggested that he write something (e.g., the page of an
assignment, endings on a chart, appointments on a planner), he did so – slowly and
laboriously. Occasionally if he looked around the room when other students were taking
notes, he imitated their example, but his writing under those circumstances was generally
illegible, even to him.
The other obvious characteristic Derrick displayed was a need to move his body.
If he could think of any excuse to move, he did so: to get a drink of water, go to the
restroom, adjust the blinds, go to another room in search of chalk, retrieve lost or
forgotten articles, etc. I shared this observation with him and asked how we might
combine that characteristic with the way other students used paper and pencil.
Our Plan. Derrick suggested a memory board, with which I was unfamiliar. This
was a piece of wood approximately 15 inches by 4 inches by ½ inch. The surface was
rough, very much like sandpaper. He had used this method of tracing words in order to
learn spelling while in a state-approved full-time middle school for dyslexics.
Apparently he was not using it in college as it was at his home in a neighboring city. He
said he would get his mom to send it. “It’s like worth writing on paper 10 times to use
the memory board once,” he claimed.
138
Because I was familiar with Derrick’s penchant for procrastination and not
carrying through with plans, I agreed that the memory board was a terrific idea, but what
could we do in the meantime to help with vocabulary retention? When he said that he
liked to listen, I suggested two ways he might incorporate this in studying vocabulary: by
listening to his recorded version of the text for the vocabulary reading, or by bringing a
tape recorder and recording the introduction and practice of vocabulary words. Since
Derrick did not like to read, I suggested that he pay particular attention to the introduction
of vocabulary words in which the class repeated all principal parts including the English
definition.
I asked if he might try using paper and pencil to practice vocabulary in his room
in an unhurried setting. He indicated that was an option. As the act of writing was
tedious for him, I suggested that he spend no more than 15 minutes at a time, take a short
5-minute break, then return to the task. We agreed to meet twice a week during my
office hours to revise our plan as necessary.
Dale. His Preferences. In his journal entry Dale reported that he was “not sure if
one way is really more helpful than another.” I asked him to describe the way he was
learning endings. He explained that he is a “big sports fan,” and he associated the endings
of every declension with the initials of a university that had a football team. For
example, the endings of neuter nouns of the second declension are:
139
Singular
Plural
um
a
Genitive
i
orum
Dative
o
is
Accusative
um
a
Ablative
o
is.
Nominative
For the singular endings he recited: University of Mississippi, Iowa, Oregon,
University of Mississippi, Arkansas. On his quiz he had put –as as the Accusative plural
ending. When I asked what had happened on that ending, he replied, “Oh, I thought the
Accusative Plural Neuter ending was Arizona State instead of Arizona.” I did not think I
should try to improve on that.
Dale was also listening to a series of twenty audiotapes to help improve memory.
He said that he was learning to picture things in his mind to aid memory:
It's like, if you lose your keys a lot, to like, when you put your keys
down, think of you blowing up the object you're putting them on. And
you're like, 'Where're my keys? Well, I blew up the TV, so that's where
they are.'
My Observations. Dale was interested in computers and often brought
information he had retrieved from web pages. This included items such as Latin
inflectional endings, the times of programs about Rome on television, and articles on the
medicine he was taking for ADD.
Our Plan. I did not want to interfere with his adapting the information from the
tapes to memorize Latin, nor did I think his football team lineup needed improving. I
140
suggested that he might want to investigate a website (www.centaursystems.com) which
offered demonstration programs for vocabulary and endings practice. For the time being,
he was happy with his low “B” average, and we decided to wait until he finished the
audiotaped memory course. In the meantime, he was going to learn the third declension
endings by picturing a line-up of his friends with a characteristic of each friend standing
for the ending (i.e., Boogy Guidry came to school dressed different every day, so he
stood for 3rd declension Nominative Singular since that changed so much).
Angela. Her Preferences. Angela wanted to use color to help her memorize
meanings of vocabulary words. She also said that she taped copies of the endings charts
where she could see them when she brushed her teeth, washed dishes, or drove (i.e., on
the dashboard).
My Observations. She came to class with endings of different declensions written
in different colors and with charts highlighted laterally, i.e., Accusatives in all four
declensions boxed in with the same color.
Our Plan. I suggested flash cards with different colored cards for different parts
of speech. In addition to the color scheme, I thought she might find the “portability” of
flash cards convenient since she seemed to want her study aids nearby as she did chores
or drove. I asked if she wanted to come by my office twice a week to “check in” and let
me know how the cards worked. Her reply, “I go out to listen to music four nights a
week, so I have to go home after class to take a nap.” She decided she wanted to come
during my office hours once a week.
141
Roy. His Preferences. I did not have a journal entry from Roy from the first
semester describing his preferences. In my office he said he had not thought much about
the way he learned, but he didn’t have trouble looking at something and memorizing it.
My Observations. Often when I arrived for class, Roy was reading.
Our Plan. I asked if he like to learn by reading explanations and examples. When
he said that he did, I directed him to Goldman and Szymanski’s (1993) English Grammar
for Students of Latin, available in the campus bookstore. I thought he might profit from
the information under Clauses, Subordinate.
Hershel. His Preferences. Hershel said he thought that both looking and
listening at the same time helped him learn.
My Observations. Hershel was very tactile/kinesthetic, i.e., he liked to move his
body in his wheelchair, and he took every opportunity available to talk in class:
volunteering answers, repeating my directions to make sure he had understood them,
fraternizing with students before and after class, and making general comments on other
students’ answers (i.e., “Good job, Miss Angela!”).
Our Plan. Since he had the help of his mom or his grandfather each evening for
homework, I suggested an interactive oral study session with someone reading the Latin
word and him saying the answer. For his practice quiz, I gave him a template which he
could photocopy and have his study helper write the Latin word for him to define.
In summary, as a result of students’ metalinguistic awareness and analysis of
errors an their own unit tests, four students concluded that difficulty with memorization
was the most serious hindrance to translation which they encountered. Formulating an
individualized study plan based on each student’s reported study habits as well as my
142
observation of their learning preferences in class seemed to be a necessity. I do not think
a one-size-fits-all solution would have sufficed to address individual needs. Each student
had different resources available (e.g., Hershel’s strong family involvement in his study
routine) and different abilities (Dale’s computer skills) which may not have been
accessible or even desired by each person. Each person also brought a different level of
commitment to out-of-class study time.
2. Multisensory Reinforcement in Class
With an individualized study plan in place for each of the five students who
requested it, I was ready to address the apparent long-term memory deficit in a more
general way. Based on a knowledge of individual students’ habits, I added a
multisensory rehearsal of material to complement the study strategies already being used
by the students. Myer et al. (1989) found that all modalities can influence the learning
process, and I wanted to provide as many modalities as possible to reinforce both shortterm and long-term memory.
I chose each strategy with the specific intent of addressing a particular student’s
strengths. Examples below indicate the student for whom the strategy was chosen, which
facet of Latin learning it addressed, and which of the senses are involved.
Angela indicated a penchant for using color to emphasize related endings. I used
oversized chalk in different colors to add inflectional endings to stems written in white in
order to provide visual contrast with the colors. The oversized chalk produced a broad
easily-discernable swath on the chalk board. I also used different colored pens on the
overhead transparency to emphasize endings. Modality: visual. Language component:
memorization and syntax of inflectional endings.
143
Derrick liked to learn by listening. I began eliciting the same response from
several people when asking for discrete pieces of information, i.e., instead of asking just
one person to remind us of the elements of indirect statement (noun in the accusative case
and verb in the infinitive), I called the names of three or four other people to echo the
answer if it had been correct. The first time I did this, the original respondent thought
that the answer she had given was incorrect and that I was looking for the correct answer.
After that the students became quickly accustomed to this technique. Modality:
auditory, kinesthetic for those answering. Language component: grammar rules,
inflectional endings, vocabulary.
Hershel liked to copy information from the overhead projector, but when he tried
to copy information from the overhead projector, frequently he could not keep up the
pace. He had such a good visual memory that I thought he might benefit from having a
copy of the transparency to trigger his visual recall when he was studying at home. I
offered to make the transparencies available each day for him to make a photocopy. He
was enthusiastic about the idea. I put each day’s transparencies on my office door after
class, and his aide picked them up to copy them and returned them to my door. Other
students took advantage of that as well. Modality: visual associated with auditory.
Language component: any written material.
Roy had requested help with translating nested clauses, particularly relative
clauses. When there was a sentence in the translation which mystified someone, I wrote
the sentence on the board, doing a visual dissection by manipulating the position of
various parts of the sentence. For example, the sentence servus, cui sacerdos signum
dederat, victimas ad aram duxit (The slave, to whom the priest had given a sign, lead the
144
victims to the altar.) would be written with cui sacerdos signum at a right angle to servus,
and victimas and ad aram at a right angle to duxit. Modality: visual. Language
component: reading comprehension.
Dale liked computers which offered him two benefits: he preferred to type rather
than write, and his computer could check and suggest changes in spelling. I could not
incorporate computers in the class this semester because of scheduling conflicts in the
computer laboratory, but I began formulating ways to use computers for the following
semester.
I was pleased with the mutual learning circle that had taken place in the area of
study and learning strategies. I learned from them how they studied, they learned from
me how to modify or enhance their preferred techniques, I learned from them what
techniques to bring to the whole class, and they in turn reaped the benefits of my
improved methods which had been determined in part by them. I was already looking to
the third semester when this process could continue.
145
F. Another Ending and Beginning
The final grades for the second semester of Latin were: (highest to lowest)
Freda
A
(98%)
Amber
A
(96%)
Jessica
A
(95%)
Ruth
A
(94%)
Hershel
B
(88%)
Roy
B
(87%)
Angela
B
(81%)
Dale
C
(72%)
Derrick
D
(61%)
Six of the students enrolled for the third semester of Latin. Amber, Angela, Dale,
and Derrick were in curricula that required three semesters of foreign language study.
Freda and Hershel chose to take the course as an elective.
CHAPTER 8
VERBAL “SNAPSHOTS” OF CASE STUDY PARTICIPANTS
At this point, to present a more complete picture of participants as individuals
rather than concentrate solely on their identity as "learning disabled students," I will
describe each student's characteristics and attributes which I found set them apart from
their classmates and made them unique individuals. The following “snapshots” are based
on weekly journal entries, semester interviews, and my own field notes.
A. Hershel
Hershel was born with Spina Bifida. In his Sophomore year as a Mass
Communication major when he enrolled in Beginning Latin, this affable 21-year-old was
knowledgeable and articulate about his physical disability as he related that Spina Bifida
“occurs in every two out of 1,000 children born.” As the condition progressed, the
resulting pressure on his spine caused the gradual loss of use of his limbs. Confined to a
wheelchair, he had an aide provided by Vocational Rehabilitation Services who drove
him from home to school, accompanied him throughout the school day to assist in getting
across campus, and acted as a notetaker in class. He had three different aides throughout
the one-and-one-half years of this study.
The challenges which resulted from this physical disability were many. I was
struck by the manner in which this disability affected virtually every aspect of his life.
For instance, in describing a typical day in a journal entry, he listed as one of his
activities "getting out of the car." What would seem to be unremarkable minutiae for
146
147
non-physically-challenged students became a noteworthy activity of Hershel's day. None
of the other students described the process of getting to class, but Hershel, interestingly,
described this process in two different journal entries as "walking." ("After arriving for
my 10:40 class, I proceed to walk to my class." The following semester he again
described the process but this time included his aide, "When we arrive at 9:40, we walk
into Howe-Russell.")
In addition to conditions directly related to his physical disability, Hershel
suffered from numerous infections throughout the eighteen months which caused bodily
discomfort as well as required the use of medication affecting his performance. He
mentioned that the effect of medication was sometimes a distracter during test-taking
"depending on what [medication] I took that day." At one point he was on "medicine that
made me very tired and made me sleep most of the day." After suffering with bladder
infections for over a year, he underwent surgery during the interstitial summer of the
study.
Regular medications were a part of his routine three times a day as well as
attending to other physical needs related to his disability. He began his day by "taking
care of medical needs such as taking my medicine and getting catheterized for ten
minutes." In describing his daily routine in each of three semesters, he mentioned the
taking of medication thrice daily in each entry. He did not reveal the nature of this daily
medication, although he always had to meet either his mom or dad for lunch in order to
"receive" or "get" his medication from them.
A typical school day for Hershel was very regulated, structured, and disciplined.
He had a strong sense of what he would be doing and when he would be doing it
148
throughout the day. He incorporated time for his spiritual life, for physical exercise, for
eating healthy meals, and for relaxing, enjoyable activities.
Hershel's spiritual life revolved around two activities which were important to
him: weekly church attendance and daily calls to his grandfather so that they could begin
their day together with prayer. He had a very close relationship with his grandfather, and
one of the very few times Hershel missed class was to be at his grandfather's side when
he was undergoing surgery.
Realizing the importance of exercise, diet, and rest in keeping his body as fit as
possible, Hershel's first activity upon awaking was to exercise his legs and do pushups
and hand exercises. He also had a personal trainer at a health club where he worked out
three nights per week. The role of diet was equally important; he never missed a meal,
and he mentioned in two journal entries that he ate a "healthy meal" for supper each
evening. Sufficient rest was a part of his routine; his bedtime was 9:00 on school days,
and he tried to schedule times of rest throughout the day.
Computers were a source of pleasure and entertainment for Hershel. He checked
email each morning, and he enjoyed video games. He also used the computer as a tool to
explore sports information about his favorite football, basketball, and baseball teams.
Spectator sports were a continual source of excitement for him, whether it was his
attendance at a university sporting event, a high school athletic event, viewing sporting
competitions on television, listening to a play-by-play broadcast on the radio, or reading
accounts and scores in the daily city newspaper. When he had to return to his high school
to get his noon medication from his mother, who is the school secretary, he described his
149
high school's football days as "the most exciting day up at school because it is football
night and the atmosphere is incredible."
The many ways in which Hershel liked to access information about his favorite
sports teams – listening to the radio, watching television, attending live competitions, and
using the computer as an information tool – was an indication of the way he would later
describe his preferred methods of taking in information in the foreign language
classroom.
B. Derrick
Derrick, a 19-year-old who listed his major as "Non" during the first semester of
Latin, had chosen Sociology as a major by the end of the second semester. He seemed
perpetually confused about his classification as Sophomore or Junior, and during the third
semester of Latin he indicated that he was unsure whether he was enrolled in Junior
Division or Arts and Sciences.
He missed the first day of class because he could not locate the classroom.
During the second semester, he insisted that he could come to my office for makeup work
immediately after class. However, I knew from looking at his schedule that he had a
class immediately after Latin that met for 90 minutes. We did a little investigating
together and discovered that he had been a half-hour late to every class because he
thought it only met for an hour rather than one-and-one-half hours. It never occurred to
him that the class was already well underway each day when he arrived.
He often arrived late for our class. Awaking just in time for our 11:30 class, he
would skip breakfast, arriving out of breath and panting heavily. He actually seemed to
plan to oversleep, and to relish rushing. When I asked about his activities immediately
150
before Latin class, he wrote, "over sliping [sleeping] runing to class but I thing [think]
wut you do befor a class allwass [always] afects your profamins do [due] to your mentall
state". In response to my query about why he overslept each day, he wrote, "it take along
time for me to get to sleap and wen I do I sleap shalowly so I tend to sleap late".
The third semester he had a class immediately before our 11:30 class. When he
continued to be late to Latin, I asked in his dialog journal if he were attending the class
immediately before ours. He responded, "he [meaning the professor] hass ben none
[known] to ceap [keep] us up to an ower late".
When describing each semester's schedule, he listed these basics in all three
journal entries dealing with that topic: wake up, class, break, room and dinner, study,
sleep. In only one did he mention time spent studying and preparing for class: "sumwer
in thair I do work for class." I rarely saw evidence of his working on homework outside
of class.
Never taking a full load of classes, Derrick reported in his journals that he was
involved in these organizations: Residence Hall Association which handled residence
hall governance, Red Cross, Amnesty International, American Civil Liberties Union, and
United College Democrats. He attended meetings virtually every night, Monday through
Friday. About the weekend he writes, "wen I can I relax but that is not offen I am ushey
[usually] 2 busy".
Derrick was plagued with physical problems as well as accidents during the entire
three semesters of Latin study. During the second semester, he fell from a balcony and
had to wear a back brace. During the third semester he wore a heart monitor several
times to class, and he called attention to this new accoutrement each time. He sneezed
151
frequently and made a huge production of each sneeze, putting vocal power behind it so
that the sneeze was “voiced.”
When the class was working on grammar exercises or translations, he rarely
offered verbal answers. However, when the topic under discussion was any aspect of
Roman culture, he tried to dominate the conversation, relating what he had learned from
television shows and/or from other classes. He wanted to speak rather than to listen.
When the class was translating stories, he tried to steer the focus away from the
translation of the Latin, moving more into an intuitive characterization of the people and
offering alternative ways the story might have been written.
It was difficult to get Derrick to write about a subject in which he had no interest.
For instance, most of his journal entries concerning study habits, schedules, and time
spent studying for each assignment were quite short. In a journal entry in which he was
asked to write a two-page response to his overall experience in Latin class, his answer
was only forty-one words long. However, when asked to describe his summer activities,
he wrote two pages describing his surgery in detail as well as the painting/bricklaying
company he had formed called "Mone Lite Panting."
Derrick enjoyed coming to Latin class, and he found a kindred spirit in one other
member in their shared interest in discussing plots of movies and television shows.
Virtually every time Derrick arrived to class early, he and Amber were deep in discussion
about a movie's or television's plot or characters. Derrick developed tremendous
admiration and affinity for one character in our textbook, a slave cook named Grumio,
whose fate was not specifically stated in the destructive wake of the eruption of Mt.
152
Vesuvius. Derrick held out hope until the end of the third semester that Grumio would
once again appear.
C. Angela
Angela suffered from a severe seizure disorder; her seizures were at various
levels of control throughout the period of this study. Her frustration with this condition is
revealed in her description of the interstitial summer between the second and third
semester course:
All summer was spent changing neurologists and testing a variety
of medications for seizure control. We ended up getting nowhere. Last
week I made a decision to change to another neurologist; that's always a
trying experience. I felt so sad & angry; manipulated, I guess, though I
knew that was going to be part of the process.
At the age of 51, Angela was in her Senior year as a Psychology major when she
enrolled in the study. Returning to college work after a sixteen year break, she did not
intend to use her Psychology degree after graduation; I do not know her reason for
returning to college. A divorced mother of one adult child, she scheduled three nights a
week for going out to listen to blues music. Latin was the only course in which she was
enrolled when she joined the study, and she did not have an outside job. When asked the
question, "If you work, describe the type work you do," she responded with "Housework,
washing clothes,…~ 10 hours per week."
During her final semester of course work before graduation, she was enrolled in
two classes, and she reported that she was going out to listen to music only on Monday
nights. She also reported that she might have to drop even her once-a-week outings
153
because of the effects of new medication which was making her "too tired to go out."
She struggled constantly with feeling the need for approximately two-hour naps and rest
during the day, and she arranged her schedule so that it was "delightfully casual, unless
there's somewhere to be, or something to be done, and I arrange my schedule so that
neither of those happens often, or early."
Daily activities beside rest and schoolwork included watching television, reading
and responding to email, visiting friends – particularly one friend who was confined to a
hospital for psychological problems, and dating throughout the course of the year. She
also listed as one of her typical weekly activities "Rx shopping in the early evening."
Angela experienced numerous crises during the year she was enrolled in the
study. Among them were disagreements with her neighbors over floodlights in their yard
which disturbed her, legal problems with her ex-husband, a car which caught fire, and her
adult son moving back in with her for several months, then taking a job in another state.
She had difficulty adjusting to both transition periods after each of his two moves, and
she was often visibly distressed. She also reported that "Studying becomes much less
important when I am stressed with life changes."
D. Freda
Majoring in Psychology, Freda exhibited more interest in my research study than
any other student. Although she was the youngest member of my study at age eighteen,
by the end of the first semester she was making insightful suggestions about the direction
my research could take:
I know that you are very interested in how students with disabilities learn
languages. You might want to do some comparative studies between
154
students with disabilities enrolled in regular classes, compared to how they
do in a specialized environment like our class. You could also compare
these students grades to see which language is easier for students w/
disabilities to learn. Another thought I had was that you could send a
questionare to all disabled students through the disability office about their
experiences learning language. The disability office has sent us
questionares before for our comments on its services, I am sure they
would work with you. I am interested in how the individual disabilities
affect how you learn language, like my ADD for example.
Freda exhibited an extraordinary amount of self-discipline in scheduling her time.
In addition to taking a full load of courses each semester, she scheduled time each day to
relax as well as work out at a gymnasium. She held a weekend job as a waitress. "I
really like waitressing," she writes, "and the money is great." She also managed to keep
up a long-distance relationship with her boyfriend via email, telephone calls, and holiday
visits to New York.
The biggest distractor for Freda was the regulation of her Dexadrine taken for
Attention Deficit Disorder: "If my meds are screwy it really effects my performances on
tests and is defenitly my biggest distractor." She mentions the effects of medicine in
eight places in her journal, writing that
If I am druggy from taking too much Dexadrine, I can't study. It is
actually a weird feeling b/c I am too tired to concentrate to study, but my
body is too stimulated by the meds to sleep. I can always tell when the
155
meds have built up in my system and sometimes even when I really need it
to study or take a test I can't take any b/c the side effects are too bad.
In her second interview, she described the side effects of Dexadrine as nausea and
not being able to eat. She was intensely aware of the long-term effects of weight loss
since her sister was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa (a pathological loss of appetite).
Freda did not take Dexadrine on the weekends unless she needed to be focused.
She took the medication when she was studying for a test, and she took it again about an
hour before the test. She constantly felt the struggle to balance the good effects of the
medicine with the unwanted effects: "If I don't take my medication I tend to wander
(think of other things – make careless errors b/c not consentrating), but then on the other
hand if I have taken a lot of meds it can make me jittery during a test."
In three places in her journal, she mentioned that having an interest in a subject
helped her to stay focused: "I try to take classes that spark my interest because it makes
it easier for me to pay attention during the class." About her concentration in Latin, she
writes: "I like Latin, so it is a lot easier for me to focus and perform well in the class."
The fact that she found the stories in the textbook "interesting makes it easier to translate
them."
Freda enjoyed being with people and liked "going out with friends on the
weekends after work when I am able." She exhibited a mature level of understanding and
tolerance of other students' behavior in the class. She wrote, for example, "Interruptions
by a certain class member get on my nerves, but I understand that it may be due to his
disability." She also volunteered her time working for a professor six to seven hours a
week "running subjects" for psychological research. She considered her main focus to be
156
schoolwork, and she made sure that neither working nor socializing interfered with that
emphasis in her life.
E. Dale
Dale was in his Senior year in Speech Communication when he enrolled in my
beginning Latin course. He had attempted Latin a year earlier and withdrew. At the
beginning of the study, he was enrolled in only one other course, "a english class that is
taught on T.V. so we only meet 3 times the entire year."
An outdoorsman by nature, he spent every weekend from October to February at
his family's hunting camp which was a four-hour drive from school. He left every Friday
after Latin class, and he generally drove back on Monday morning before class. He spent
his time there "hunting deer, ducks squirrels alligators whichever is in season." When the
weather was warm and hunting season was over, he spent his time fishing and water
skiing. Since he made the return trip on Monday morning, he often arrived late or missed
class completely due to unexpected heavy traffic.
During the summer between semesters of this study, he enrolled in summer
school, then "After going the first day I decided I did not want to go to school this
summer. So I dropped the class and started looking for a job." Always enjoying being
out of doors, he took a summer job as a counselor at a camp associated with the city
Recreation and Parks Commission. However, he reported, "The days were long and hot
and the kids terrible. The eight weeks felt like eighteen, there is no way I could ever do
that kind of work again."
To reward himself for completing the eight weeks of work, he took to the
outdoors once again:
157
A friend and I pulled a pop up trailer behind my jeep and we went on a
road trip out west for 2 weeks we went across Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, Califorina, Las Vegas, Hoover dam, Grand Caynon the whole
trip was one mile short of 4600 miles.
Dale's favorite indoor pastime was watching the soap opera "The Bold and the
Beautiful," for which he returned to his apartment each day. He also enjoyed spending
time with his girlfriend, reading and responding to email, and keeping up with current
events via television and the internet. He also spent a “great deal of time online reading a
lot about topics that interest me. It is a great tool for help on everything you want to
know and some that you don't." Indeed, he brought to class colored printouts of web
pages covering topics as diverse as Latin paradigm endings to the effects of medication
he was taking.
The taking of medication for Attention Deficit Disorder was one of the things
which he specifically listed as a daily activity. He noted the exact times and the amount.
Dale struggled with amounts of medication and when to take it for the entire eighteen
months. At one point he became disgruntled with the perceived side effects of Dexadrine
and the way he felt it was changing his personality, causing him to hyperfocus. The
example he gave was "sitting for several hours staring at the yellow and blue wires of the
radio that I was trying to repair." At that point he gradually reduced the doses and got off
of the medication completely, all without the advice or knowledge of his physician.
Dale was sometimes loquacious, attentive, and interactive in class. At other
times he was quiet, seemingly unfocused and distracted, and disinterested in what was
going on around him. During those times he would leave class hurridly without speaking
to anyone as soon as class was dismissed. When he was withdrawn in class, he would
answer written queries very tersely as well. For example, during the first semester he
158
described his weekly schedule using a full sheet of blank paper and writing with
extremely small print. In the final semester, when asked to describe his weekly schedule,
his answer was only fifteen words long. His reticence in class was mirrored in his
writing. Invariably during these periods, he was experimenting with changes in types
and/or amounts of medication.
Dale lived with his sister who was also a student at the university. One of
his biweekly activities was "picking up after my sister (which is my roommate)
because she is messy." He added, “She makes a four-oh without studying." He also
had an older sister with dyslexia who was enrolled in a different university which
grants waivers for the foreign language requirement.
F. Amber
At twenty-five years of age, Amber still had three years of school left when she
entered the study in 1999. She wrote of her academic background, "I was out of school
for a couple of years and came back in 1997." In her second interview she stated that she
had quit school because of money, and she had a 2.0 at the time she resigned. During
that time she worked at McDonalds. When she returned to school she had enough hours
to be classified as a Junior, but she changed majors from a General College curriculum to
one in Arts and Sciences (English), necessitating another three years of school. She also
indicated that she had raised her GPA since that time and had earned A's and B's the
semester before the study began.
Amber's schedule was packed with an hour's commute to and from school, a full
course load, a 10-12 hour student job on campus in which she did "a lot of office work,
typing, and filing," and with tutoring her twin six-year-old nieces who lived with Amber's
159
family. It was her role of helping her nieces with their homework and helping them catch
up with missed schoolwork that fueled an interest in education.
During the interstitial summer between second and third semester Latin, she
enrolled in a summer school course in which she worked with a special education
teacher. Both she and the teacher worked with a deaf child and a child with a learning
disability whom they were teaching to read. After this experience, she considered taking
extra courses to become certified in Special Education. Of her overall experience in the
classroom, she observed, "I found out through busted water pipes in the ceiling and
broken teacher/parent conferences that anything can happen when teaching." Although
the experience was positive, she stated that after that summer experience, "I need a
vacation!"
Amber enjoyed a variety of activities, including painting, reading, talking on-line
with friends, walking, caring for her pet guppies and baby turtle, and picnicking.
However, her most avid interest was movies. Every Friday throughout the eighteen
months of the study she stayed up all night with a friend, either watching movies on
television or attending movies at a theater. She loved to discuss the plot of movies and
was particularly interested in characterization. She brought up the subject of movie plots
in each of her four interviews, and often before class she engaged class members in
discussions of television show plots. Frequently the discussions were vociferous as I
entered the classroom.
This interest in movie plots and characterization carried over into an intense
interest in the plot and depiction of characters in our Latin textbook. She had a distinct
like and dislike for certain characters, and she often translated stories before their due
160
date. At first I wondered if she feared getting behind in her work and was therefore
forging ahead when she had time. But she explained that it was not that at all; it was that
she couldn't wait to "see what happened to the characters." She liked to offer alternative
endings to stories or observe other ways in which a character might think or feel. At the
end of the last semester, she asked if there were another book in our textbook series as
she wanted to order it and translate the stories to find out everything about the characters.
Culture discussions always held Amber's attention. She was as interested in
learning about the daily life of the ancient Romans as she was in the life of movie
characters or the shenanigans of made-up characters in our Latin stories. She was as
interested in the antics of Grumio the cook as she was in the complicated duplicity of
Salvius the senator.
At home she had no good place to sit to study ("I use the bed"), and she was
constantly distracted by her "loud family, my dad's loud TV, dealing with my brother's
children and my aunt being at the house, and the electricity going out (a lot thanks to
being in the country)." She frequently mentioned tiredness and depression as a result of
"too much to do in other classes," and near the end of the long, drawn-out Gore-Bush
presidential election, she listed her medication as well as "annoyance at the presidential
election" as distractors for her during class that week.
Although Amber did not have a learning disability, I decided to include her in the
study since her counselor determined that the effects of medication which she took for
her psychological disability caused behavior which might be addressed by
accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Amber knew that she would
need three semesters of a language, and she was delighted to be a part of the study. She
161
particularly liked the four "interview visits," as she called them. I was very interested in
comparing her reaction and response to multisensory methodology and strategy training
with the experience of the other five students with learning disabilities and ADD.
CHAPTER 9
STRATEGIES TRAINING
In Fall, 2000, our group convened once again. Six students returned: Freda,
Amber, Hershel, Angela, Dale, and Derrick. The third semester Latin class met three
days per week for 50 minutes. This was 40% less time spent in class than in the first and
second semesters which met five days per week. I was concerned about time.
The request which was voiced most often during meetings with individual
students the previous semester was for strategies to aid memorization of vocabulary and
inflectional endings (see Section 7E). Knowing that we would be in class almost two
hours less per week, I investigated memory aids that shifted the focus from teachercentered instructional strategies to student-centered learning strategies.
Oxford (1990a) describes an approach to strategy training specifically for second
language learners who have a need for “particular, identifiable, and very targeted
strategies that can be taught in one session or just a few sessions(s)” (p. 201). This
training entails teaching the students a strategy and having the students practice the
strategy with actual language tasks. The training also includes information on the value
of the strategy, when it can be used, how to use it, and how to evaluate the success of the
strategy. This seemed to be exactly what we needed.
Oxford (1990, p. 17) divides strategies into the following categories:
•memory (e.g., grouping, imagery, rhyming)
•cognitive (e.g., reasoning, analyzing, summarizing)
162
163
•compensation (e.g., guessing meaning from context, using synonyms)
•metacognitive (e.g., self-evaluation of one’s progress)
•affective (e.g., anxiety reduction, self-encouragement, self-reward)
•social (e.g., asking questions for clarification).
Oxford (1990, pp. 277-300) developed an 80-item questionnaire, the Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), to access the frequency with which the learner
tends to use learning strategies in general. It also assesses which strategy groups listed
above the learner tends to use more frequently. I administered the SILL to the students
during the first week of the third semester class. I was particularly interested in noting
their strategy use in the memory category before strategy training began, then
administering the SILL at the end of the semester to compare their strategy use before
and after strategy training.
A. Previous Strategy Training
During the first interview of the semester I asked the six students if they had had
any previous training in learning strategies in general and memory strategies in particular.
Regarding general learning strategies, the responses were vague. Amber noted that she
had been exposed to a description of different learning styles in one of her classes.
Angela and Derrick both mentioned a learning center on campus where she had had some
computer training and he had taken some time management classes.
Dale and Derrick were the only two who specifically mentioned memory
strategies: Dale described an audiotaped memory course which had not really helped him,
and Derrick described a “memory board” which is a piece of rough masonite on which
dyslexic students trace letters with their fingers to help learn spelling.
164
Based on the responses given, I felt that strategy training in memory strategies
was worth pursuing.
B. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) assesses language learning
strategies in the following six categories::
A. Remembering More Effectively. Memory strategies include:
grouping; making associations; placing new words into a context to
remember them; using imagery, sounds, sound-and-image combinations,
actions, etc. in order to remember new expressions; reviewing in a
structured way; going back to review earlier material.
B. Using Your Mental Processes. Cognitive strategies include:
repeating; practicing with sounds and writing systems; using formulas
and patterns; recombining familiar items in new ways; practicing the new
language in a variety of authentic situations involving the four skills
(listening, reading, speaking, and writing); skimming and scanning to get
the idea quickly; using reference resources; taking notes; summarizing;
reasoning deductively (applying general rules); analyzing expressions;
analyzing contrastively via comparisons with another language; being
cautious about word-for-word translating and direct transfers from another
language; looking for language patterns; adjusting your understanding
according to new information.
C. Compensating for Missing Knowledge. Compensation
strategies include: using all possible clues to guess the meaning of what is
165
heard or read in the new language; trying to understand the overall
meaning and not necessarily every single word; finding ways to get the
message across in speaking or writing despite limited knowledge of the
new language; for instance, using gestures, switching to your own
language momentarily, using a synonym or description, coining new
words.
D. Organizing and Evaluating Your Learning. Metacognitive
strategies include: overviewing and linking with material you already
know; deciding in general to pay attention; deciding to pay attention to
specific details; finding out how language learning works; arranging to
learn (schedule, environment, notebook); setting goals and objectives;
identifying the purpose of a language task; planning for a language task;
finding practice opportunities; noticing and learning from your errors;
evaluating your progress.
E. Managing Your Emotions. Affective strategies include:
lowering your anxiety; encouraging yourself through positive statements;
taking risks wisely; rewarding yourself; noting physical stress; keeping a
language learning diary; talking with someone about your
feelings/attitudes.
F. Learning with Others. Social strategies include: asking
questions for clarification or verification; asking for correction;
cooperating with peers; cooperating with proficient users of the new
166
language; developing cultural awareness; becoming aware of others’
thoughts and feelings.
The SILL does not assess use of individual strategies within categories but
considers the frequency of use of each strategy group as a whole. There are 80 items
which a student rates according to one of the following criteria:
1. Never or almost never true of me
2. Generally not true of me
3. Somewhat true of me
4. Generally true of me
5. Always or almost always true of me.
C. Adapting the SILL for Students with Learning Disabilities
I made several adaptations in the administration of the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning for students with LD:
1. Time Requirement
The instruction to administrators of the SILL concerning time allowance is to
“Allow approximately 30 minutes for students to complete the SILL.” There is no
suggestion for time allowances for students with learning disabilities. Using the most
common time accommodation request for time-and-a-half, I calculated that
administration should take approximately 45 minutes. This fit in perfectly with a 50minute class, allowing five minutes for instructions and questions before the students
began answering the Inventory.
167
2. Directions
The section of the SILL entitled “What to Do When Administering the SILL”
advises, “Ask students to read the Directions sheet silently and then raise their hands if
they have any questions about the Directions” (pp. 278-279). I could see no benefit in
asking the students to read silently, especially since some read more slowly than others.
In addition, the directions were printed in small print with very little white space; this
had been a distraction for the students with attention deficits and a hindrance for students
with reading difficulties in the past. With my commitment to presenting information
both visually and audially, I read the instructions aloud while projecting an enlarged copy
onto the overhead projector screen.
The directions listed the five possible responses to each question along with an
explanation of that response:
1. Never or almost never true of me means that the statement is
very rarely true of you; that is, you do the behavior which is described in
the statement only in very rare instances.
2. Generally not true of me means that the statement is usually not
true of you; that is, you do the behavior which is described in the
statement less than half the time, but more than in very rare instances.
3. Somewhat true of me means that the statement is true of you
about half the time; that is, sometimes you do the behavior which is
described in the statement, and sometimes you don’t, and these instances
tend to occur with about equal frequency.
168
4. Generally true of me means that the statement is usually true of
you; that is, you do the behavior which is described in the statement more
than half the time.
5. Almost or never true of me means that the statement is true of
you in almost all circumstances; that is, you almost always do the
behavior which is described in the statement.
The directions called for the students to score the SILL themselves. I did not
want to take class time for that process and, therefore, omitted the students’ involvement
in that phase of the score analysis. The disruption and the changing of class routine that
would result from having the students become involved in the scoring process did not
seem a good trade-off for the time it would take away from explanation and discussion of
the results.
In lieu of handing out written directions with the five possible ratings listed, I
copied the underline portions (given above) directly onto the answer sheet. As I read the
brief explanation of each rating, I wrote “less than half the time” as well as “< ½” beside
#2; beside #3 I wrote “1/2”; and beside #4 “> ½” and “more than half.” This was in
view at the top of each student’s answer sheet for reference throughout the administration
of the Inventory.
3. Oral Administration
I knew that there would be requests for further explanation of questions as well as
requests for examples to illustrate the meaning of questions, e.g., #58: “I prepare for an
upcoming language task (such as giving a talk in the new language) by considering the
169
nature of the task, what I have to know, and my current language skills.” I also could
predict laughter for items such as #17, “I imitate the way native speakers talk.”
Laughter and/or questions at different times by six people would be more
disruptive than addressing the content of questions as a group. Therefore, I read the
Inventory aloud item-by-item at the same time that I uncovered the item on the overhead
projector, pausing after each item for the students to choose a rating and ask questions.
D. Adapting the SILL for Latin
The SILL is based on the premise that the target language is a modern spoken
language. I omitted eight questions which I did not feel applied to the reading method of
learning Latin. For example, in the set of questions concerning Cognitive strategies
(Section B), I omitted #26, “I attend and participate in out-of-class events where the new
language is spoken.” Likewise in the Compensation strategies section (Section C), I
omitted #44, “If I am speaking and cannot think of the right expression, I use gestures or
switch back to my own language momentarily.”
If students were learning Latin in an immersion program in which the language
was the spoken medium of communication, perhaps those questions would have been
appropriate, but they did not seem suitable for our purposes. The eight questions which I
omitted were all from the Cognitive category (omitting six of the 25) and the
Compensation category (two out of eight).
I adapted some of the questions which, with a slight rewording, would apply to
Latin, i.e., #17: “I imitate the way native speakers talk.” To make this a viable question
for our approach to the language, the wording on the transparency became: “I imitate the
way native speakers the teacher and the speakers on the audiotape talk.” By adding the
170
words “the teacher and the speakers on the audiotape,” I changed the emphasis – but not
the intent – of the question.
E. Scoring the Sill
The SILL is divided into six sections, each representing a type of language
learning strategy, with the number of questions indicated:
Part A - Memory – 15 questions
Part B – Cognitive – 25 questions
Part C – Compensation – 8 questions
Part D – Meta-Cognitive – 16 questions
Part E – Affective – 7 questions
Part F – Social – 9 questions.
The student answers each question as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Adding the total points per
section and dividing by the number of questions gives an average use of that type
strategy. Scores for each section fall between 1.0 and 5.0 and are interpreted according to
the following scale:
4.5 to 5.0
Always or almost always used
(HIGH)
3.5 to 4.4
Generally used
(HIGH)
2.5 to 3.4
Sometimes used
(MEDIUM)
1.5 to 2.4
Generally not used
(LOW)
1.0 to 1.4
Never or almost never used
(LOW).
To determine an overall average of language learning strategy use, the raw score of each
section is added together, then divided by 80.
171
Since I omitted eight questions, I divided the Cognitive sum by 19 instead of 25,
and the Compensation sum by six instead of eight; I divided the total raw score by 72
rather than 80 to reflect the reduction in the total number of questions. I gave the
students a “Profile of Results on the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning” (Oxford,
1990, p. 290) which listed the strategies in each of the six categories along with their
average for each section; there was an overall average given as well. I also filled out a
graph (p. 291) so that the students would have a visual representation of their results.
F. Results of First Administration of the SILL
Results of the first administration of the SILL during the first week of the third
semester of Latin were as follows:
Memory Cognitive Compensation Meta-Cognitive Affective Social Overall Average
Hershel
3.40
3.16
4.00
4.06
4.43
5.0
3.83
Derrick
3.00
3.79
4.17
3.56
4.00
3.89
3.64
2.94
4.14
3.11
2.96
Angela
2.33
2.95
3.00
Freda
2.40
3.79
3.17
3.81
3.29
3.78
3.40
Dale
2.47
3.16
3.17
2.06
2.14
2.67
2.61
Amber
2.27
3.47
3.83
3.56
4.00
3.89
3.38
Hershel ranked highest in Overall Average strategy use followed by Derrick,
Freda, Amber, Angela, Dale. The score that surprised me the most was Derrick’s. Based
on Green and Oxford’s (1995) research with university students, more successful learners
demonstrate a greater use of learning strategies. Derrick was perhaps the least
172
“successful” learner in the class, so I did not expect his strategy use to be in the High
range.
For an earlier version of the SILL, the “social desirability response bias,” or the
tendency to falsify responses in order to make a good impression, was empirically
monitored. No evidence of social desirability response bias appeared (p. 256). However,
Derrick had at one point claimed that he could score anywhere he wanted on a different
self-report measure:
I never have been a big fan of those personality tests because I score
everywhere on them. I mean I am such a, uh, eclectic personality I
literally can score anywhere I want on that.
I wondered if on this measure he had given responses that he thought were desirable
instead of reporting his actual use of strategies. When I asked him if he had answered
questions the way he thought they should be answered rather than describing the
strategies that he actually used, his response was somewhat equivocal:
Well, I’m not sure how the, I’m not sure I’m reliable on that because a lot
of them I wasn’t, I’ve never been, you know, quite positive how to answer
some of those. Because they’re, you know, it’s good but it’s not that
good, and it’s this and, so you know, I try to be as honest as possible.
On the other hand, in a small-scale study with six higher-proficiency and six
lower-proficiency English majors, the lower-proficiency learners were found to
use more strategies than the higher-proficiency learners; the higher-proficiency
learners used the strategies more effectively (Chen, 1990).
173
G. Memory Strategies
“Memory strategies, such as grouping or using imagery, have a highly specific
function: helping students store and retrieve new information” (Oxford, 1990, p. 37).
Oxford identifies four sets of Memory strategies that are useful for reading. Within each
Memory strategy set, individual strategies are listed:
A. Creating mental linkages
1. Grouping
2. Associating/elaborating
3. Placing new words into a context
B. Applying images and sounds
1. Using imagery
2. Semantic mapping
3. Using keywords
4. Representing sounds in memory
C. Reviewing well
1. Structured Reviewing
D. Employing action
1. Using physical response or sensation
2. Using mechanical techniques.
174
In order for the students to experience a range of memory strategies, I had
intended to chose at least one strategy from each of the four Memory strategy sets listed
above. However, I felt we were already using the sole strategy (Structured Reviewing) in
the “Reviewing Well” memory set (Category C) to maximum advantage. I estimated that
we would include five strategy training sessions during the semester. My choice of
strategies was based on the need for strategies that would address the various learning
styles of the class members.
From Category A. Creating Mental Linkages:
Grouping
From Category B. Applying Images and Sounds:
Using Keywords
Representing Sounds in Memory
From Category D. Employing Action:
Using Mechanical Techniques.
When I presented a new strategy, we devoted the entire 50-minute class period to
discussion and practice of the strategy using the following format:
1. I explained and demonstrated the new strategy.
2. I asked the students to describe ways in which they had used some form of the
strategy. (They seemed unaware that the manner in which they performed a task might
be considered a strategy.)
4. We discussed whether the new strategy could be integrated with strategies they
were already using, or whether they should be set aside.
5. The students practiced the strategy.
175
6. We discussed how and when the strategy might be useful for other language
tasks.
7. I asked the students to think about (but we did not discuss) the feasibility of
using these memory strategies in other subject areas.
We spent from two to three weeks concentrating on each strategy before the
introduction of another. The students received direct, explicit strategy training for the
five strategies listed above; I will, however, describe only one strategy from each of the
three Memory strategy sets:
Creating mental linkages: Grouping
Applying images and sounds: Using Keywords
Employing action: Using mechanical techniques.
I asked the students to report on their use of the new strategy at various time
intervals in their journals and in the final interview. Specifically, I asked for response in
the following categories:
•Description of the strategy in their own words (one week after introduction)
•Initial Use of Strategy (two weeks after introduction)
•Continued Use of Strategy (end of semester)
•Combination with Other Strategies (self-report of use on each quiz)
•Reaction to Strategy (end of semester journal entry), and
•Application to Other Classes (end of semester interview).
A description of the strategy training as well as students feedback is given below.
176
1. Creating Mental Linkages: Grouping
I chose Grouping because it had familiar elements which we had been using in
various forms since the beginning of our language study. This seemed a good strategy to
introduce students to the direct, explicit instruction of language learning strategies.
I began by reading Oxford’s description of Grouping to the class, “Grouping
involves classifying or reclassifying what is heard or read into meaningful groups, thus
reducing the number of unrelated elements. It sometimes involves labeling the groups, as
well” (p. 58). Our discussion began with the identification of ways in which we were
already using this strategy. The students quickly identified our use of grouping for
dividing the vocabulary lists into parts of speech.
No one identified the charts organizing verbs and nouns as a means of grouping;
therefore, that is where we concentrated our focus. We examined and experimented with
forming subgroups of nouns and verbs according to patterns, e.g., identifying verbs
whose fourth principal part differed from the first principal part (pono, ponere, posui,
positus) but was the basis for a familiar English word (e.g., position from positus). We
also made similar groupings for nouns, including third declension words whose
Nominative Singular looked alike (e.g., vox and nox) but whose Genitive Singular did not
follow the same pattern (e.g., vocis and noctis).
Next we discussed ways in which Grouping could be integrated with the students’
strategies already in place, e.g., Freda decided she could be more aware of groupings
when she wrote her vocabulary words, and Derrick decided that within conjugations he
would group verbs according to the length of their fourth principal part since that is the
form he found the most difficult to memorize.
177
Lastly, I asked the students to come up with ways to use grouping that we had not
focused on previously. Since Dale often was not aware of punctuation, he had difficulty
using visual contextual clues such as commas or periods which might otherwise help him
identify clauses and phrases of complex sentences containing nested subordinate clauses.
He decided he would try to concentrate on grouping clusters of words within punctuation
marks before trying to read the whole sentence. I was not sure how this would work, but
I was pleased that he was trying to integrate a new strategy with familiar tasks.
I asked for student feedback on the strategy – including a description of the
strategy in their own words, their use of the strategy, and a general reaction to the
strategy – at various intervals after its introduction. Responses are given below; for
brevity’s sake, I report the responses of only two students to each question. The
responses I chose reflect a wide range of reactions.
Description. One week after the introduction of Grouping, I asked for a
description of the strategy in a journal entry to demonstrate an understanding of the
strategy. Four of the six students described Grouping using the examples we had used
together in class, e.g., Dale wrote, “When using the grouping technique you look at the
list of words and separate them into classes. [Here he drew a visual with columns labeled
Noun, Verb, Adj., Other.] Sometimes the breaking up of the words helps rather than
entire list.” From his description he seemed to understand the concept.
Derrick’s response was more abstract, “you brake up the matruls [materials] in to
small groups as it is escer [easier] to re member.”
Initial Use. Two weeks after the introduction of the Grouping strategy, all six
students reported an attempt to use Grouping when studying for daily quizzes. Opposite
178
reactions came from Angela (“I always used this b/c it makes it easier to identify the
words by their ends, & to place in conjugations & tenses”) and Dale (“it did not do much
for me”).
Continued Use. Hershel reported in his final interview, “I continued to use
Grouping more than the other strategies…I could get a better understanding of what the
Latin word meant.” Derrick, on the other hand, wrote, “NO not much.”
Combination with Other Strategies. Three students reported combining Grouping
with other strategies, i.e., Phonological (Derrick) and Keyword (Freda and Angela).
Reaction to Strategy. At the end of the semester, Angela wrote that she found
Grouping useful: “The method makes it easier to identify the words by their endings, and
to place in categories & tenses.” Dale, on the other hand, did not: “I could not really
draw the difference as well as for ex Keyword.”
Application to Other Classes. Amber: “Yes, it would work for many subjects.
There are always things that can be grouped as alike.” Dale: “No.”
2. Applying Images and Sounds: Keyword
I chose Using Keywords because it involves both the visual and auditory learning
modalities. Oxford defines Using Keywords as:
Remembering a new word by using auditory and visual links. The first
step is to identify a familiar word in one’s own language that sounds like
the new word – this is the “auditory link.” The second step is to generate
an image of some relationship between the new word and a familiar one –
this is the “visual link.” Both links must be meaningful to the learner (pp.
41-72).
179
I explained Keywords with these steps:
1. Say the Latin word.
2. Think of a word in English that sounds like the Latin word. This is the
auditory link.
3. Look at the English definition.
4. Draw a picture to connect the English definition with the picture. This is the
visual link.
To recall the definition of the Latin word.
1. Say the Latin word to hear what it sounds like.
2. Think of the English word you related to it.
3. Think of the picture you related to the English word.
4. The picture will remind you of the definition.
This strategy evoked the most laugher, creativity, and enthusiasm on the day of
presentation. I introduced an example which I thought would be memorable so that the
students would have a model for recall to remind them of the process of this strategy.
The example was commodus which means “convenient.” I asked for suggestions for the
“auditory link” which was to be a word in our language that sounds like the Latin word.
The answer, which I expected and received, was “commode.” I asked for a visual link
The response from Dale was to draw a picture of a “commode” with the caption: When
you gotta go, you need a convenient “commode.” This seemed to fulfill the requirement
of “both links meaningful to the learner.” I was glad that we had practiced Latin
pronunciation so that the graphemes on the page represented the same sounds for all the
students.
180
Some examples were general enough for everyone to use and remember; some
were too much within the personal purview of an individual for use by other students.
For instance, on a quiz, Dale illustrated me oportet [I should] with “->”; that particularly
visual link was known only to him. Still other words needed no visual link once the
sound of the word was established, e.g., si which means “if.” Angela’s “keyword” was:
“SEE IF I remember this.”
Description. Angela explained it well: “A Keyword is what you think of when
you see/hear it & writing it next to the word & learning to connect them in your mind.”
Hershel, however, skipped the auditory step. He wrote, “This is when you try and think
of a word similar to the meaning of the Latin word.” I got the impression that he never
did really understand how to use Keyword.
Initial Use. Hershel: “I tried to avoid using this method b/c it was very confusing
to me.” Derrick, however, responded well to it: “it hilp me to remeber difanes
[definitions].”
Continued Use. Dale: “Yes, I use this constantly.” Angela: “Yes! Yes! I’m
finding that the words I’ve retained are those w/ connections.”
Combination with Other Strategies. Freda: “I combined Keyword with making
up songs or words to help me remember vocabulary.” Hershel: “Didn’t use.”
Reaction to Strategy. Angela: “I liked this. At first I felt it was silly, and as I
used it, I realized it could be a valuable method for learning.” Dale: “This is my
favorite strategy.”
Application to Other Classes. Dale: “I use this in every subject.” Derrick: “yes
it lind it self to must subjecks.”
181
3. Employing Action: Using Mechanical Techniques
Mechanical techniques involve the tactile/kinesthetic modalities. Oxford suggests
that flashcards are both familiar and useful for getting writing practice in the target
language; touch and muscular activity are activated as flashcards are manipulated. The
students received strategy training in two mechanical techniques: flashcards and
computers. Although the use of a computer was not listed as a Mechanical Technique,
I thought that the touch and movement of computer use might be an attractive aid to
memorization. I also knew that everyone in the class was at least familiar enough with
computers to use them for email.
I introduced the class to the use of a computer program which drilled vocabulary
meaning as well as noun and verb endings. We went to a room with multimedia
equipment where I demonstrated the program. The next day we went to the computer
lab. Hershel was not able to go to the computer lab on the second floor, so I loaned him a
copy of the program. Everyone practiced (except Angela who was absent) for an hour.
The next class day we went a second time to the lab to practice thirty minutes
immediately before a quiz.
Description. Freda: “The computer is like taking quizzes. If someone has a hard
time doing well on the quizzes, then this is an excellent exercise.” Amber: “Using your
computer you can practice your word endings and their meanings.”
Initial Use. Dale: “I used it as an additional way of seeing the words other than
my written work.” Angela: “The one time the class went to the lab, I was rushed, didn’t
know what to do or how to do it.”
182
Continued Use. Freda: “This is the only strategy I did not really use.” Dale:
“Yes, it was an easy program.”
Combination with Other Strategies. Hershel: “I combine this with the other three
methods.” Amber: “I didn’t use it much, and I didn’t combine it with other strategies.”
Reaction to Strategy. Derrick: “I did not like it at all.” Angela: “I would have
used this method of learning often if it had started with the first book.”
Application to Other Classes. Dale: “I think computer classes are coming soon
and this would help prepare us for computer taught courses.” Freda: “Probably not.”
4. Summary and Reflections
At the end of the semester, Grouping was the strategy listed as the favorite by
three people. Keyword was the favorite of two people, and Computer as the favorite of
one. The Computer was the least favorite of three people.
I could not have predicted which strategies would be well received and used. I
was surprised that the computer was the least favorite. The most common complaint
about the computer program was that it required total accuracy of spelling on English
word definitions. This was the reason that both Freda and Derrick gave for not finding
the computer helpful. Perhaps their experience would have been different with a
different computer program.
My experiences with strategy training confirmed my belief that it is important to
introduce a range of strategies which speaks to auditory, visual, and tactile/kinesthetic
learners. Derrick, for instance, responded well to Flash Cards. Although he could not
identify the reason, my observation was that he liked the feel of the cards and the
movement of his body required to separate them into piles. He also liked Phonological
183
strategies such as clapping the rhythm of principal parts and emphasizing the accented
syllable as hard as he could with his hands.
The introduction and initial practice of each strategy took time away from
translation that would have been more typical of a non-LD third semester course. It was,
however, worth the time in my opinion. Apparently the students felt the same way. In
her final interview, Freda voiced the suggestion that I start strategies training much
earlier in the course because she would have benefited from it. Angela reported that she
had gotten some good ideas just from reading the questions on the SILL and asked for a
copy of it after the first administration.
H. Second Administration of the SILL
At the end of the semester I administered the Strategies Inventory for Language
Learning once again. I wanted to determine if training in memory strategies as students
had requested had increased the frequency of students’ use of these memory strategies.
184
Those results were:
SILL Results Before and After Strategies Training
Compensation
Affective
MetaMemory Cognitive
Hershel (before)
Overall
Average
3.16
4.00
4.06
4.43
5.0
3.83
3.60
3.58
3.17
4.50
4.57
4.0
3.90
3.00
3.79
4.17
3.56
4.00
3.89
3.64
3.33
3.58
3.17
3.00
2.71
3.11
3.22
2.33
2.95
3.00
2.94
4.14
3.11
2.96
(after)
2.93
2.79
2.50
2.31
3.29
2.22
2.67
(before)
2.40
3.79
3.17
3.81
3.29
3.78
3.40
(after)
3.93
3.79
3.17
3.88
4.57
3.89
3.88
(before)
2.47
3.16
3.17
2.06
2.14
2.67
2.61
(after)
3.27
3.53
4.00
2.81
3.43
3.56
3.35
2.27
3.47
3.83
3.56
4.00
3.89
3.38
2.87
3.79
3.33
3.94
3.94
3.67
3.60.
Derrick (before)
(after)
Angela (before)
Dale
Social
3.40
(after)
Freda
Cognitive
Amber (before)
(after)
I was pleased to note that all six of the students used memory strategies more
frequently after the direct strategies training than before. While overall strategy use
increased for four students – Hershel, Freda, Dale, and Amber – Derrick and Angela’s
185
reported strategy use actually declined. I noticed that Angela’s Compensation strategy
use decreased almost as much as her Memory strategy use increased; perhaps she was no
longer having to compensate for missing knowledge by guessing the meaning from clues.
When I told Derrick that, according to his responses on the SILL, his strategy use
over the course of the semester had decreased, he seemed very surprised:
Mine went down? Less? That’s unlikely. I actually used more than I did
before, but it’s, it was, I was struggling with some of the questions, I mean
there was ones I answered one thing, and I was like well no, I can’t really
answer that, it’s wrong. You know.
When I asked for an example, he cited a question which I had adapted for Latin by
adding the word “reading”:
Well like the one that said, ah, that you said, you know, you could put down
reading or writing. I put ah, saying or writing, or put down saying and I’m like
wait, I say it as I write it, though. So I mean, scratch that out, so it doesn’t. I do
both, so, you know, it’s not really the same.
He noted some dissatisfaction with the rating instrument:
I honestly, I hate to say this, but I don’t know how accurate those things
are because it’s so subjective. I use a lot more things that I did in the past
and then, there, but I wasn’t sure exactly how to answer some of the
questions. It’s the rating thing that screwed me up.
186
In giving me advice about future administrations of the SILL in order to find out
about students’ learning strategies, I think he was also suggesting the manner in which he
could best express himself:
Honestly, if you do this again, I’d use open-ended questions and just ask
them, ‘what do you do and explain it?’ and just let them explain it out on
their own, because you’ll get a much more accurate answer.
I explained that that was the reason for the questions about strategies in the
journal entries. I pointed out that his journal entries as well as his SILL showed that he
had increased his use of memory strategies, and I was pleased with that since memory
strategies is “what we worked on.” His reply may have expressed more than one
student’s response. “Yeah,” he agreed. “We definitely worked on those.”
CHAPTER 10
DISCOVERIES AND CONSIDERATIONS
A. Pervasive Issues
In focusing for eighteen months on teacher research as practical inquiry, I was
attempting to “generate or enhance practical knowledge” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999,
p. 19). I became a “student of teaching and learning” (Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992, p.
387), and in taking on the dual role of teacher/learner, I ended the study as a different
person than when I began. The six students who participated for that year and a half felt
they, too, had changed; perhaps this was partly due to their dual roles as
learners/participants.
I did more listening in my double role of teacher researcher than as a classroom
teacher. While I tried to avoid making the students feel as though they were under a
microscope, in every interaction with students – whether in my office, in the classroom,
or in chance meetings on campus – I was conscious of the fact that I was observing the
scenario on two levels: one engaged in the present moment, and the other from the point
of view of an observer outside the situation who might retell the story at a later date. I
was always looking for that perfect example to capture on tape or to store in memory
until I could jot down my field notes.
As a teacher-researcher in my own classroom, I was gathering information which
became part of the teaching process. I observed and questioned and learned from my
students in much the same way they observed and questioned and learned from me. We
187
188
asked questions of each other, and we explored possible answers to those questions –
sometimes with more success than others. That was all a part of the process. As the
students became involved in my research process, they became more self-aware, thus
contributing to their own success in helping set goals and ways to reach them. It was a
good way to learn about learning.
Richardson (1996) believes that teacher research is conducted to enhance
immediate classroom change and to provide insight into professional practice. As a result
of observation and dialoguing with students, classroom changes took place throughout
the study in the areas of testing format, testing procedures, environment, and techniques
to enhance deductive and inductive learning. I found as well that spending eighteen
months with the same students fostered my knowledge of students with LD and provided
insight into professional practice which I might not have experienced in a shorter study.
I had intended to spend more time observing and assessing the students’
acquisition of a foreign language than on what I, in the beginning, considered peripheral
issues. But part of what I learned is that students with learning disabilities bring a whole
array of issues with them in addition to the academic -- including physical, emotional,
and social. Several broad issues permeated the students’ and my own experiences
throughout the eighteen months. These included:
•the benefits of a small, self-contained class for students with LD taking a
foreign language;
•what it takes to be a teacher of LD students at the college level;
•the requisite of confidentiality and the stigma associated with the LD label;
•the suitability and interpretation of accommodations.
189
In addition to the benefits of a small separate classroom in which
accommodations can be individually interpreted and implemented, I found that students
with LD may benefit perhaps even more than their non-LD peers from daily review,
immediate feedback, multisensory presentation, a slowed pace of introduction of new
material, a longer period of acclimation to the study of language, a teacher who is
willing to work with and learn from the students, dialog in which “student voices” are
heard concerning learning styles and effects of disabilities, and the choice of a language
with shallow orthography which relies primarily upon reading rather than oral
communication. These issues are addressed below.
1. Separate Class for Students with LD: Smaller and with a Slower Pace
Based on my experiences with this class over an eighteen month period, I believe
that students with LD who are learning a foreign language are likely to be more
successful in a segregated self-contained classroom. One of the questions in this study
was whether a separate class for students with LD should be offered in language
departments. It would be discriminatory to require LD students to take such a class and
not offer accommodations in other language sections, but addressing the “separate class”
issue from a pedagogical point of view, I discovered several aspects of teaching students
with LD that suggested there may be benefits in a separate self-contained class for
students with LD.
Daily review, immediate feedback, and multisensory presentation are elements of
teaching which benefit LD students (Fisher, 1986; Sparks et al., 1992). Effective
instructors of non-LD classes may incorporate these practices in their classes as well.
However, the frequency and extent of daily review needed by LD students, as well as the
190
repetition of instructions and grammar explanations, may be unnecessary and an
inefficient use of time for non-LD students. The need for consistency in review,
feedback, progress checks, and multisensory presentation may be greater in LD classes as
well (Hill, 1999; Mangrum and Strichart, 1984).
Students with LD may benefit from a slowed pace the first few weeks of class
when the basics are introduced and class procedure is becoming familiar. This slower
pace takes into account the need for students to become familiar with the process of
learning a foreign language as well as the need to address affective issues. I found a
slower pace critical for acclimating students to each other and to becoming accustomed to
reading and responding in the presence of their peers.
I observed that the slower pace in general met the needs of students like Derrick
and Hershel who had difficulty writing. A slowed pace also allowed students with slower
cognitive processing to take unhurried time when answering questions. Six of the
students listed “pace” as one of the reasons for their inability to keep up in a non-LD
language class. Dale expressed his feeling that with the slower pace and other students
like himself, he was “not scared to go to this class and be embarrassed when I do not
understand.”
Ten of the eleven beginning students in Latin had had previous unpleasant
experiences with learning a foreign language (see Section 6H2). My experiences were in
accordance with Hill’s report (1991) that it is not unusual for students with LD to take
several weeks to learn to trust the instructor and the language learning experience as a
result of lack of success in previous language classes.
191
Student voices suggest another reason for a separate section of language to meet
their needs. The smaller segregated class size was seen as an advantage for optimal
performance:
Hershel: “I do better in a small environment and can get individual help.”
Dale:
“I don’t need every class to be small, but this class size allows
more time to be spent dealing with problems.”
Derrick: “A small class size makes it easier to ask questions.”
Freda:
“A smaller class size makes it easier to learn – and impossible to
blend in and not participate.”
Amber: “The teacher is able to give each student individual attention.”
Based on my experience with this class, I would offer one caveat concerning a
separate language class for students with LD: without specific guidelines for enrollees,
and perhaps because LD itself is so nebulously defined (Sparks & Javorksy, 1999b), the
class could become an institutional “catch-all” for students with learning difficulties who
have not been identified as learning disabled (i.e., “problem” learners). Also included
might be students with psychological and physical disabilities whose disabilities present
challenges to learning a foreign language. I volunteered to enroll students with
disabilities other than LD if their accommodations were similar to those requested by the
students with LD. This served a practical purpose of raising the number of enrollees to
eleven which was more than the standard minimal enrollment of ten students for a class
to be offered.
I found no literature addressing the issue of a separate, self-contained foreign
language classroom at the university level for students with physical disabilities and
192
students with learning disabilities. I found that in this class the integration of LD students
and students with other type disabilities did not necessarily disadvantage either group.
The needs and the accommodations required for the physically challenged students
enrolled in the LD class were similar to the accommodations for LD students, but this
may not be the case with all physical and/or psychological disabilities. LD students are
already a heterogeneous group (Myer, Ganschow, Sparks, & Kenneweg, 1989), and with
the addition of students who are otherwise challenged, even more time may be required
of the instructor in helping physically or emotionally challenged students with certain
type disabilities. Instructors for whom spending extra time with students is an issue may
need to take into account the admixture of students with learning disabilities and students
with other types of disabilities.
The literature suggests that students with LD may be more successful in selfcontained classrooms (Arries, 1995; Hill, Downey, Sheppard, & Williamson, 1995;
Schneider, 1995; Sparks, Ganschow, Fluharty, & Little, 1995), and student voices
concur. I, too, found that a segregated, self-contained class of LD students, with the
possible addition of students who are otherwise challenged, is one way of offering “equal
access” to foreign language study for students with LD.
2. Instructors of Students with LD: Characteristics and Workload
I discovered that an instructor of LD students has to be an exceptionally dedicated
teacher in terms of time, patience, flexibility, consistency, interest in discovering what
works for individual students, and willingness to address affective concerns. My
preparation time for this class doubled, as did the number of hours I spent with students
outside of class. Obviously, accepting the challenge of working with students with LD at
193
the college level involves more than simply implementing accommodations. Just as
“extended time” is the most frequent accommodation requested by students with LD
(Vogel, 1993), “extended time” is also required of instructors of LD students for
addressing students’ concerns outside of class and for preparing specialized class
materials.
Mangrum and Strichart list a characteristic of the ideal instructor for students with
LD as “committed to meeting individual needs of students” (1984, p. 97), and Hill (1999)
adds that the instructor should “work consistently with students in a mutual effort to
understand individual learning problems and mitigate their effects.” It is this emphasis
upon the individual that requires time and dedication from the instructor. I found that
formulating plans to address the manifestation of learning disabilities in individual
students took much out-of-class time, but I felt that collaboration with individual students
in an unhurried one-on-one conversation was essential in the process of discovery and
approximation of what works and what does not work for each individual.
In addition to determining each individual’s needs and strengths, there were other
time-consuming tasks which I found essential in working with LD learners: meeting with
students on a regular basis for tutoring, proctoring students who took time and a half for
examinations, and working with students to agree on a satisfactory time schedule of due
dates for other written work for which time and a half is required.
My time spent in the preparation of specialized class materials increased, and the
evaluation of knowledge took more time as well. Some of the tasks I found necessary in
this regard were:
194
•preparing multisensory materials to address different learning styles (including
kinesthetic activities);
•preparing materials for reinforcement of learning such as worksheets or simple
step-by-step explanations not offered in the textbook;
•providing alternate formats of tests that address students’ strengths instead of
their weaknesses (i.e., reading quizzes and examinations into a tape recorder);
•preparing structured review sessions for each class;
•providing immediate feedback concerning performance and frequent progress
checks;
•corresponding with LD providers and administrators (and occasionally parents)
concerning students’ progress.
Several of the activities listed above may be necessary to some degree when
working with non-LD students, but it is the “degree” factor which mandates intense
attention and diligent application of practices that are part of effective teaching when
working with students with LD. Hill (1999) adds to that list “sympathetically addresses
the affective concerns that often plague students with learning problems,” and Mangrum
and Strichart (1984) include “supports the goals of the LD program” (p. 97).
Keeping a record of LD students’ “effort” took extra time. Class attendance,
participation, and homework preparation may not be aspects of record-keeping that
college Latin teachers are accustomed to logging. It is given no weight in the syllabus
used by my department, for example. However, a “good faith effort” was required of a
student before the dean would consider the substitution of a culture course for a language
course for subsequent language classes. A “good faith effort” included attending every
195
class meeting, turning in all assignments, taking all quizzes and exams, and meeting with
the instructor on a regular basis to discuss any difficulty the student was having in the
course.
If a question arose concerning this “good faith effort,” it was my responsibility to
provide documentation of the student’s performance. In assessing the reason for lack of a
student’s progress in learning the language, I needed to know if there had been consistent
attendance and preparation with poor results, in which case I would suspect a learning
disability. On the other hand, a lack of effort, attendance, and preparation could
contribute to poor performance and lack of progress for any student – with or without
learning disabilities.
I found that flexibility and patience were necessary when I discovered that
procedures that were simple in non-LD classes were no longer working in an LD class, or
at least taking extra time and attention. Even seemingly effortless procedures such as
passing the homework log around the class (see Section 6B.1) or administering tests (see
Section 6B.3) proved to be a challenge requiring patience, ingenuity, and forethought in
an LD class. I have described the need in a testing situation to integrate individual
students’ needs when those needs seemed to conflict, for example, ADD students’ need
for kinesthetic activity with other students’ easy distractibility. Perhaps for reasons such
as this, Arries (1999) found that the most common recommendation that students made
for an instructor in an LD classroom was to be patient and supportive.
Based on my experience of teaching a self-contained class of Latin for students
with LD, and cognizant of the amount of time and energy involved in meeting
individually with students and in specialized class preparation, it seems inequitable for an
196
instructor of LD classes to be responsible for a course load equal to that of instructors of
non-LD classes. I, therefore, requested and was granted a reduced teaching load in order
to compensate for the additional time and attention necessary for instructing students with
LD.
Administrators and deans who must be conscious of budgetary constraints (and
who isn’t?) may be hesitant to allow release time or a reduced teaching load for a teacher
who proposes to teach fewer students than her peers. However, for those administrators
who are faced with the dilemma of when to grant requests for waivers or substitutions of
the foreign language requirement, a class organized especially for students with learning
and/or other disabilities speaks to that dilemma. Students who request “reasonable
accommodations” are supported by the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Offering a class especially for students who must be accommodated fulfills that
obligation when accommodations are automatically incorporated into the class structure.
It would not be legal to require students with LD to take a segregated language class if
they did not choose to do so, but if substitutions or waivers are not granted for the foreign
language requirement, a section of Latin designed for students with disabilities may be an
attractive alternative to students and administrators alike.
3. Stigma and Confidentiality
It seemed that the label of “learning disabled” carried a potential stigma which
raised some significant logistical and ethical issues associated with confidentiality in
organizing and teaching a separate section for LD students. In preparing to list the
special course in the registration booklet, I was informed by the LD Service Providers
197
that I could not indicate in any way that this section was different from any other section
of Latin as this would be a breach of confidentiality.
I next investigated the possibility of listing the course with a course number
different from the non-LD sections so that students with LD would know in which
section to enroll. However, according to the University’s legal advisors, a course
numbered differently than 1001 on a students’ transcript might alert prospective graduate
schools or employers that this student was enrolled in a special class or received
accommodations, thus breaching the student’s right to privacy.
The LD section could have the notation “Permission of Department” (POD)
beside it, but the course number remained the same. The POD notation was used by
many departments to indicate courses which required special permission; thus, the
notation itself would not breach confidentiality. As a result, I fielded a myriad of phone
calls from non-LD students who, not knowing the nature of the POD notation, wanted to
enroll in the course because it fit their schedule. Students who added the course to their
schedule without permission had to be informed and dropped from the roster.
Another early indication of the privacy and confidentiality issues surrounding the
label “learning disability” was in relation to my request to send recruiting letters to
students with learning disabilities who needed to fulfill a language requirement for their
degree. I was told by an LD Service Provider that although their addresses were part of a
public record, their identification as students with LD was not. I wrote the letter and
Disability Services addressed and mailed it to prospective enrollees.
An indication that the “learning disability” label might carry a certain stigma was
found in the Accommodations Letter printed on Office of Disability Services letterhead.
198
This letter stated briefly and almost cryptically, “The above mentioned student has a
documented disability and is enrolled in your class. Under Section 504 and ADA this
student is legally entitled to the following accommodation(s):”. There was no
explanation of Section 504 and no indication of what ADA signified. The
accommodations were then listed and the letter signed by the Director of Wellness
Education and Outreach Services. At the bottom of the letter in bold print was the
statement concerning confidentiality, “Please note that this letter is a confidential
document between you, the student and the Disability Services Office.”
The disabilities of the three physically challenged students were obvious -- if not
immediately, then within the first few minutes of meeting them: Eric had to respond
through an interpreter or the medium of writing; Leo squinted and held reading and
writing materials within a few inches of his face; Hershel was in a wheelchair. For the
remaining eight students with “hidden” disabilities, there was no indication in the
Accommodations Letter whether I was being asked to accommodate a student with a
learning disability, a psychological disability, or any other category of disability with
which I was not familiar.
The next incident in which confidentiality was an issue took place when I
inquired about access to students’ evaluations folders at the Office of Disability Services.
I telephoned that office to request that a copy of the students’ evaluations or other
documentation of their disability be sent to me via campus mail. The LD Service
Provider asked whether I had written permission for access to files. When I answered in
the affirmative, she informed me that confidential information could not be sent via
campus mail. After I produced proof of permission for access, the files had to either be
199
picked up by me or delivered by a student worker. The LD Service Provider also
informed me that she was not at liberty to discuss any case unless I had permission for
that as well.
In theory, this confidentiality issue seemed a deterrent to accessing information
about the students’ disabilities which might help me or other college instructors
understand challenges the student faced and help find solutions. In practice, however, I
found that confidentiality was not an issue that impacted my teaching greatly. The
diagnostic testing and clinical evaluations upon which a diagnosis of “learning disability”
was rendered were interesting and informative, but not particularly useful to me for two
reasons. First, interpretation of diagnostic scores requires specialized knowledge of
educational psychology which most college faculty might not possess. Second, and more
significantly, although the prose associated with the diagnostic scores offered
interpretation of the students’ strengths and weaknesses, I did not find these
interpretations meaningful for behavior I observed in the classroom. Student voices –
journal entries and interviews describing their disability, how they viewed its impact on
their learning, and the description of their learning preferences, combined with my
observation of the way they took in formation – had far more practical value in furthering
our goals of finding an individual’s optimal method of taking in information.
I understood a student’s right to privacy. The confidentiality issue associated
with LD students, however, seemed to have a different nuance. It felt more than a
violation of “public vs. private” information; there seemed to be a sense of shame
attached to the LD label. Perhaps in some realms students did not want to reveal the fact
200
that they were “differently abled”; because learning disabilities are hidden disabilities,
disclosure might be a choice rather than a necessity.
Perhaps a sense of shame felt by the students was a result of the perceived rebuff
by faculty members. In their interview at the end of the second semester, Dale, Derrick,
and Freda recounted incidents in which their requested accommodations were ignored,
denied, or degraded. Dale claimed, “Most of those requests are meaningless and teachers
don’t pay any attention, like counting off for spelling.” Derrick said that he had once
been denied the use of a scribe, and Freda reported, “The professor made me feel like I
was asking for some special favor." The result was that Dale and Freda no longer
delivered their Accommodations Letter to professors unless they found they needed
accommodations in that particular course.
In our class, students did not show hesitancy about revealing the nature of their
disability to me or to other class members. In fact, during their final interview I asked
my six participants to choose a pseudonym for use in the writing of this study. All six
said to use their own names. At least at that moment, they did not feel stigmatized by
being “differently abled.”
In all, then, I found that I had to address issues of confidentiality when identifying
the students eligible for the special section, organizing and publicizing its existence, and
in obtaining students’ records. Although students did feel some negative impact and
stigma from their disability in other classes, our class seemed to benefit students by
removing the stigma and making them more comfortable with revealing their specific
disabilities and resulting learning needs.
201
4. Accommodations: Suitability and Interpretation
I found that while the notion of accommodations on the surface seemed clear-cut,
when I began implementing them there were significant issues of interpretation and even
unsuitability. In some cases I could not observe any benefit to the student when the
accommodations were granted. For example, the student with a psychological disability
(Amber) had the following accommodations:
time and a half on in and out of class assignments and examinations,
consideration for absences, and
distraction-reduced environment.
Not only did she not require or use the “time and a half” accommodation for in-class
assignments and examinations, she was generally the first or second person to complete
examinations, quizzes, and in-class assignments such as worksheets. I asked the students
to record the time spent on homework assignments, and she reported spending less time
on assignments than anyone who prepared, and her accuracy in translation was
exceptional.
Amber’s second accommodation was for “consideration for absences,” yet she
ended the semester with the second highest attendance rate in each of the three semesters.
Again, the accommodation was superfluous. Only the third accommodation,
“distraction-reduced environment,” seemed to be the one she needed most in order to
perform optimally.
On the other hand, I found that Derrick’s accommodations were appropriate and
beneficial in helping demonstrate his knowledge of the subject matter. He had the most
requested accommodations:
202
time and a half on in and out of class assignments and examinations,
consideration for spelling,
distraction-reduced environment,
scribe for exams, and
reader for exams.
Derrick invoked all his accommodations. If these accommodations had not been granted
him, I do not think he would have passed the course.
I also found that even when the accommodations requested were suitable, the
vague wording requires considerable interpretation on the part of the teacher with the
student’s help in order for the accommodation to meet the individual student’s needs.
For example, I interpreted “distraction-reduced environment” to mean “as free of noise
and movement as possible.” This interpretation worked for everyone but Amber. The
relating of her disability (psychological with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) to the
accommodation made a distraction-reduced environment one that allowed space between
her and other people and finding the cleanest desk possible.
In summary, I found that on the issue of accommodations there were students
with accommodations that were not needed and not invoked (e.g., Freda and Amber with
time and a half), students who did not have accommodations that seemed necessary
(Cynthia with a distraction-reduced environment), students for whom the same
accommodation meant different things (Amber and Cynthia needing different types of
distraction-reduced environment), and a wide range of behavior of students with the same
accommodations (Derrick and Freda with time and a half on examinations).
203
Teachers of students with LD, either in a separate classroom or as part of a
mainstream language class, might need to know that interpretation and implementation of
accommodations, in spite of their clinical basis, is by no means an exact science. I found
that accommodations alone are no guarantee that the students will have “equal access”
(terminology used in Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990) to the course content that
non-disabled students are afforded. Whether in a Latin course, another foreign language
course, or other college courses, accommodations are not a substitute for getting to know
students as learners in other ways.
B. Suitability of Latin for Students with LD
I found that Latin can be a suitable “fit” between foreign language study and
students with disabilities for several reasons:
Latin is a transparent language with “shallow” orthography in which there is
simple co-relation of sight and sound. It may be easier for dyslexics to learn to read in
languages where there is a one-to-one relationship between a letter and the sound it
represents (Paulesu et al., 2001). Different regions of the brain may be activated when
reading a transparent language such as Latin when compared to an opaque language like
English. One of the dyslexic students in my class (Derrick) found reading Latin easier
than reading English.
The study of Latin relies primarily upon reading and translating text rather than
the generation of novel utterances in conversation or written composition. Students with
pronounced phonological processing difficulties may encounter fewer obstacles learning
a language which does not emphasize an oral component. A printed text is generally in
evidence in conjunction with spoken Latin; this makes the deciphering of sounds in the
204
language less crucial for those students who have difficulty breaking down and putting
together the sounds of a foreign language.
There are two additional advantages which might make Latin more learnable for
students with learning disabilities. Since Latin is not a spoken language, there is
consistency of meaning as well as idiomatic expression which is not present in evolving
languages. This means a relatively small lexicon compared to modern spoken languages.
And finally, the fact that Latin words can be broken down into smaller units may make
the task of deciphering words easier for the dyslexic student who transposes letters. All
these reasons may contribute to making the study of Latin an effective choice for students
with learning disabilities.
C. Considerations for Prospective Teachers of LD Students
From the description in this volume of my journey through a year and a half of
teaching students with LD, it should be clear that there is no single cookbook recipe for
developing or teaching a class of LD students. Helping students with LD achieve their
full potential in language learning involves more than any simple or mechanical solution;
it means much more than simply extending time and a half for examinations. The
complexity imposed upon students’ lives by their disabilities and consequently upon
teachers’ academic lives requires that classes become a journey of problem solving and
trial-and-error experimentation to find satisfactory ways of removing obstacles to
learning. Not all challenges will be met with the same degree of success.
Nevertheless, while the journey will always be different, in this work I have
endeavored to identify the elements that should be taken into consideration. These
205
include: organizing a special class section, listening to student voices, teaching
techniques, and trouble-shooting problematic elements.
1. Organizing a Special Class Section
a. Separate Class. A self-contained classroom for students with LD met
pedagogical as well as affective needs for both the students and me. Performing,
responding orally, and asking questions in an environment with peers who understood the
effects of slower cognitive processing lessened anxiety compared to the angst of their
previous language learning experiences. Each student expressed the value of a small
class in which they received individual attention and in which daily participation was
expected.
b. Instructors. The preparation time of multisensory materials for class use and
the time spent outside of class addressing individual students’ learning needs require
more than “time and a half” from instructors. Extra record-keeping may be a necessity as
well. In order to offset the extra time and attention required in teaching a self-contained
class of students with LD, instructors of these courses should, I believe, be granted a
reduction in teaching load. Otherwise, an unfair expectation of time required of the
instructor creates an imbalance between instructors of LD classes and non-LD classes.
2. Consideration of Student Voices
a. Ways of Listening. Student voices were more helpful for me in understanding
their disabilities than hard scientific evidence of a learning deficit contained in their
diagnostic evaluations. Dialoguing with the students during this study was invaluable in
providing unique insights concerning their disabilities and ways in which it was
manifested in their academic lives. Offering an opportunity for two avenues of
206
expression, both oral and written, permitted them a stronger voice to express themselves
in a medium and in a manner which was suited for their strengths.
b. Individual Plans of Study. I met with students on an individual basis to
formulate plans for memorizing vocabulary and inflectional endings. This collaborative
plan was based on my observations of their response to different teaching techniques I
used in class, on journal entries describing their learning preferences, and on their current
study habits. The students felt that these individualized programs of study were valuable
motivators in memorizing vocabulary and inflectional endings. For that reason, I will
again employ this method of formulating individual study plans for those students who
wish to collaborate on matching their learning preferences with techniques for memory
work.
3. Teaching Techniques
a. Multisensory presentation. Virtually every reference for teaching students
with LD advises multisensory instruction which enables students to hear, see, and
perhaps write or speak subject matter simultaneously. It is thought that when there are
several means of gaining information presented at the same time, a weakness in any of
the learning pathways may be circumvented. The preparation of materials that reinforce
weak memory patterns takes much time, energy, forethought, and creativity.
b. Strategy Training. I began direct teaching of memory strategies in the third
semester of language study using Oxford’s (1990a) memory strategies for reading. All
six students’ memory strategy use increased according to their pre- and post-semester
SILL scores. Because of positive student response and feedback, I will employ memory
207
strategy training in future LD classes. Student voices suggested that strategy training
should begin in the first semester.
4. Problematic Elements
a. LD Documentation. LD evaluations and documentation which the students
brought to me at my request were not helpful in predicting the way in which their
strengths and weaknesses would translate into classroom performance. These files are not
generally available to classroom teachers, and most foreign language faculty are not
trained to interpret the evaluative instruments used to determine diagnoses. Out-of-class
interviews and written response journals were far more valuable in helping me
understand students’ learning styles and preferences.
b. Accommodations. The accommodations requests did not appear to “match”
students’ needs in all cases. Two students had accommodations which were not needed
or invoked, and at least one student did not have an accommodation that would have
benefited her. It is helpful to interpret the same accommodation (e.g., distraction-reduced
environment) in different ways according to the student’s disability.
c. Time. Time was perpetually an issue. I found that, in general, students with
learning disabilities did not learn Latin within the same time frame as non-LD students.
Grammar explanations, translation exercises, extensive review, testing, and the
mechanics of classroom management took more time than in non-LD classes. In order to
keep pace with the departmental syllabus, I reduced the number of lines assigned for
translation homework. The reduction was not the consequence of allowing extended time
for homework but a consequence of a slower pace of reading and translating homework
in class. The students’ need to ask questions for clarification or explanation also slowed
208
the pace. Rushing through the material at an uncomfortable rate was not satisfactory to
the students or to me. Rather than reducing course content, it may be preferable to extend
the time spent in each class on a daily basis or spread the material over a longer period of
time (i.e., an extra semester).
D. Generalizability
There is more than one path to the mountain. This separate class with attention
given to individual learning styles of students with learning disabilities was one way that
thirteen students gained “equal access” to the opportunities and benefits inherent in
studying a foreign language afforded their non-LD peers. Some of the thirteen reaped
more benefits from the course than others, and all had the right to fail, just as in a non-LD
class.
My experiences in this study are perhaps more generalizable to the teaching of
Latin than to languages which include a significant oral component. However, the model
I have set forth may in some measure be successfully emulated by teachers of any
language for students with learning disabilities, and some elements may be instructive to
any college teacher of students with disabilities, i.e., issues of confidentiality,
accommodations, teacher workload, teaching techniques including strategies training and
multisensory presentation, and ways of listening to student voices.
I engaged in the teacher researcher method of action research not to isolate
discrete facts for scientific study, but to generate valuable information for everyday
practice and to suggest plausible responses to classroom challenges presented by students
with learning disabilities in a postsecondary Latin classroom. I hope my experiences can
209
be instructive to those willing to attempt similar ventures in other contexts. I know that I,
myself, will undertake it once again.
E. Ave atque Vale (Hail and Farewell)
And so our three semesters together drew to a close. Final grades were:
Freda
97
A
Amber
96
A
Hershel
89
B
Angela
82
B
Dale
70
C
Derrick
63
D
Students’ final journal entry contained responses to the class:
Hershel: My experience with Latin has been awesome. I wish class lasted an
hour and a half.
Angela:
Please continue offering this class so that those of us with learning
disabilities can take a foreign language without feeling defective.
Derrick: the latun I have tacken is the best hope I have for larning a nuter lang
wicje it has opend a door that was fomaly slamd in my fass. [The Latin
I have taken is the best hope I have for learning another language. It
has opened a door that was formerly slammed in my face.]
Freda:
For the first time in my life I actually enjoy learning a foreign language.
Dale:
The way the class is set up is the only way for me to of passed Latin.
Amber:
I never thought I would be so interested in a foreign language,
especially Latin.
210
These are drastically different attitudes toward foreign language learning than the
attitudes which the students brought to the course (see Section 6H2). And perhaps they
are reason enough to implement or continue a program of foreign language classes for
students with learning disabilities. According to the Standards for Foreign Language
Learning (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1996), “Students
once shut out of language courses prosper in classrooms that acknowledge that ALL
students are capable of learning other languages given opportunities for quality
instruction” (pp. 18-19). As Freda said, “We might be a bit slower, but that doesn’t mean
we don’t understand the material.”
REFERENCES
Aaron, P. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of
Educational Research, 67, 461-502.
Aaron, P. G., & Phillips, S. (1986). A decade of research with dyslexic college
students: A summary of findings. Annals of Dyslexia, 36, 44-66.
Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators. (2000). What is the
Orton-Gillingham Approach? [On-line]. Available:
www.ortonacademy.org/approach.html
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 42 U.S.C.A. §
12101.
Ancona, R. (1982). Latin and a dyslexic student: An experience in teaching.
Classical World, 76, 33-36.
Arries, J. (1994). An experimental Spanish course for learning disabled students.
Hispania, 77, 110-117.
Arries, J. (1999). Distortion and omission in LD studies: What foreign language
educators and special education researchers need to know about myth. The Modern
Language Journal, 83, 569-573.
Arries, J. (1999). Learning disabilities and foreign languages: A curriculum
approach to the design of inclusive courses. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 98-110.
Ashe, A. (1998). Latin for special needs students: Meeting the challenge of
students with learning disabilities. In R. LaFleur (Ed.), Latin for the 21st century: From
concept to classroom (pp. 237-250). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley.
Ashmore, R., & Madden, J. (1990). Literacy via Latin: A case study. Journal of
College Reading and Learning, 23, 63-70.
Association for Non-Traditional Students in Higher Education. (2001). Brief
history of ANTSHE. Grand Junction, CO: Author.
Atweh, B., Kemmis, S., & Weeks, P. (1998). Action research in practice:
Partnership for social justice in education. New York: Routledge.
211
212
Bailey, K. (1991). Diary studies of classroom language learning: The doubting
game and the believing game. In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language acquisition and the
second/foreign language classroom (pp. 60-102). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional
Language Center.
Ball, R., & Ellsworth, J. D. (1989). Against teaching composition in Classical
languages. Classical Journal, 85, 54-62.
Barr, V. (1993). Foreign language requirements and students with learning
disabilities. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 834)
Becher, A., Castro, O., & Hill, B. (2000). Danger signals: Signs of potential
language learning disabilities in foreign language students. Handout in packet entitled
“Students who struggle to learn a foreign language: Identifying, teaching and advising
students with learning problems. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Graduate
Teacher Program Fall Intensive.
Benseler, D. (1993). The dynamics of language program direction. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Benseler, D., & Moore, S. (1997). Doctoral degrees granted in Foreign
Languages in the United States, 1996. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 378-395.
Benseler, D., & Moore, S. (1998). Doctoral degrees granted in Foreign
Languages in the United States, 1997. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 387-403.
Benseler, D., & Moore, S. (1999). Doctoral degrees granted in Foreign
Languages in the United States, 1998. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 385-402.
Benseler, D., Scinicariello, S., & Moore, S. (1996). Doctoral degrees granted in
Foreign Languages in the United States, 1995. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 362379.
Bilyeu, E. E. (1982). Practice makes closer to perfect: Alternative techniques for
teaching foreign languages to learning disabled students in the university. Fund for the
Improvement of Post-Secondary Education, Project #116CH 1035. Ellensburg, WA:
Central Washington University.
Bisplinghoff, B. S., & Allen, J. (1998). Engaging teachers: Creating teaching
and researching relationships. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Block, L., Brinckerhoff, L., & Trueba, C. (1995). Options and accommodations
in mathematics and foreign language for college students with learning disabilities.
Washington, DC:, HEATH Resource Center, American Council on Education
213
Brinckerhoff, L. C., Shaw, S. F., & McGuire, J. M. (1993). Promoting
postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Brod, R., & Huber, B. (1996). The MLA survey of foreign language entrance
and degree requirements, 1994-95." ADFL Bulletin, 28(1), 35-43.
Carlisle, J., & Liberman, I. (1989). Does the study of Latin affect spelling
proficiency? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 179-191.
CH.A.D.D. (1993). The disability named ADD: An overview of attention deficit
disorders [Brochure, CH.A.D.D. Facts 1]. Plantation, FL: Children and Adults with
Attention Deficit Disorders.
Chen, S. (1990). A study of communication strategies in interlanguage
production by Chinese EFL learners. Language Learning, 40(2), 155-187.
Chomsky, Noam. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, The Netherlands:
Mouton and Co.
Cohen, A. (1996). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the
issues (CARLA Working Paper Series #3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New
York: Longman.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994) Research methods in education. London:
Routledge.
Cruickshank, W., Bentzen, F., Ratzeburg, F., & Tannhauser, M. (1961). A
teaching method for brain-injured and hyperactive children. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press.
DeGabriele, Gabe. (2001, June). How do we define and serve the adult learner
in the 21st century? Keynote speech at the National Conference on the Adult Learner,
New Orleans, LA. [On-line]. Available: www.antshe.org/keynote.htm
dePaul Dyslexia Association. (1989). What teachers can do in a regular
classroom for children with learning disabilities [Brochure]. Baton Rouge, Louisiana:
dePaul Dyslexia Association. [Name changed to Dyslexia Association of Greater Baton
Rouge, Inc. in 1990].
Deshler, D., Ellis, E., & Lenz, B. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning
disabilities: Strategies and methods. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
214
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142 (S. 6),
Nov. 29, 1975.
Ehrman, M. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisenhart, N., & Weisenborn, J. (1997, May). Foreign languages for students at
risk. Workshop presented to University of Georgia faculty, Athens, GA.
Fisher, E. (1986). Learning disability specialist looks at foreign language
instruction. Hilltop Spectrum, 4(1), 1-3.
Gajar, A. (1987). Foreign language learning disabilities: The identification of
predictive and diagnostic variables. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 327-330.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1987). The foreign language requirement.
Learning Disabilities Focus, 2(2), 116-123.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1993). “Foreign” language learning disabilities:
Issues, research and teaching implications. In S. A. Vogel & P. B. Adelman (Eds.),
Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 283-322). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1998). Foreign language learning
difficulties: An historical perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 248-258.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Bishop-Marbury, A.
(1991). Identifying native language deficits among foreign language learners in college:
A "foreign" language learning disability? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 530-41.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., & Schneider, E. (1995). Learning a foreign language:
Challenges for students with language learning difficulties. Dyslexia [Journal of the
British Dyslexia Association], 1, 75-95.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An
introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Goldman, N., & Szymanski, L. (1993). English grammar for students of Latin
(2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: The Olivia and Hill Press.
Green, J., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2
proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
215
Guckenberger et al. vs. Trustees of Boston University et al. 974-F. Supp 106 (D.
Mass. 1998).
Hallahan, D., & Cruickshank, W. (1973). Psychoeducational foundations of
learning disabilities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Halsey, A. H. (1972). Educational Priority: Volume 1: E.P.A. Problems and
Policies. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Henderson, C. (1995). College freshmen with disabilities: A triennial statistical
profile. Washington, DC: HEATH Resource Center, American Council on Education.
Henderson, C. (1999). College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical
Profile. Washington, DC: HEATH Resource Center, American Council on Education.
Hill, B. (1991, November). Teaching foreign languages to dyslexic students:
Effective strategies: the University of Colorado’s Foreign Language Modification
Program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Orton Dyslexia Society, Portland,
OR.
Hill, B. (1999, April). Reaching diverse student populations in the Latin
classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Classical Association of the
Middle West and South, Cleveland, OH.
Hill, B., Downey, D., Sheppard, M., & Williamson, V. (1995). Accommodating
the needs of students with severe language learning difficulties in modified foreign
language classes. In G. Crouse (Ed.), Broadening the frontiers of foreign language
education (pp. 46-56). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom
anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
Hresko, W. (1999). Editorial Policy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 373374.
Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1993). What definitions of learning disability say and
don’t say. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239-256.
Kirk, S. (1972). Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London:
Longman.
Latham, P. H., & Latham, P. S. (1994). Higher education services for students
with attention deficit disorder and learning disabilities: A legal guide. Washington, DC:
National Center for Law and Learning Disabilities.
216
Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a
rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17(4), 63-84.
Levine, M. D. (1987). Developmental variation and learning disorders.
Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
Lokerson, J. (1993). Learning disabilities: Glossary of some important terms
(Report No. E517). Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted
Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352 780)
Louisiana State University. (1998). Disability services [Brochure]. Baton
Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University, Office of Disability Services.
Louisiana State University. (1998). Tips about deaf/hard of hearing students
[Brochure]. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University, Office of Disability
Services.
Lyon, R., & Moats, L. (1993). An examination of research in learning
disabilities: Past practices and future directions. In R. Lyon, D. Gray, J. Kavanagh, & N.
Krasnegor (Eds.), Better understanding learning disabilities: New views from research
and their implications for education and public policies (pp. 1-15). Baltimore: Brookes.
Mabbott, A. (1994). Students labeled learning disabled and the foreign language
requirement: Background and suggestions for teachers. In C. Klee (Ed.), The individual
learner in multisection courses (pp. 325-353). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Mangrum, C., & Strichart, S. (1984). College and the learning disabled student:
A guide to program selection, development, and implementation. Orlando, FL: Grune &
Stratton.
Mangrum, C., & Strichart, S. (1988). College and the learning disabled student:
Program development, implementation and selection. Philadelphia: Grune & Stratton.
McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research.
Theory Into Practice, 29, 144-151.
McKinney, J. (1987). Research on the identification of learning disabled
children: Perspectives on changes in educational policy. In S. Vaughn and C. Bos
(Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions (pp. 64-67).
Boston: College Hill.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
217
Moats, L. C., & Farrell, M. L. (1999). Multisensory instruction. In J. R. Birsh
(Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (pp. 1-18). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Moore, F. (1995). Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act:
Accommodating the learning disabled student in the foreign language curriculum. ADFL
Bulletin, 260, 59-62.
Myer, B. J., Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., & Kenneweg, S. (1989). Cracking the
code: Helping students with specific learning disabilities. In D. McAlpine (Ed.),
Defining the essentials for the foreign language classroom (pp. 112-120). Lincolnwood,
IL: National Textbook.
Naiman N., Frohlich M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language
learner. Research in Education Series No. 7, Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1994). Learning disabilities:
Issues on definition. In Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities
(pp. 3-7). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1996). Standards
for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen
Press.
Nixon, J. (1987). The teacher as researcher: Contradictions and continuities.
Peabody Journal of Education, 64(2), 20-32.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Orton, June. (1966). The Orton-Gillingham approach. In J. Money (Ed.), The
Disabled Reader (pp. 119-146). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Oxford, R. (1990a). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. (1990b). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: Connections for language
learning. In T. Parry & C. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 67125). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
218
Oxford, R. (1994c). Language learning strategies: An update. Washington,
DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 376 707)
Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language
learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Paulesu, E., Demonet, J.-F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N.,
Cappa, S. F., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2001). Dyslexia: Cultural
diversity and biological unity. Science Magazine, 291, 2165-2167.
Pearcy, L., Allen, M., Kent, T., Klaassen, M., Konopka, M., & Pearson, A.
(2001). Teacher’s manual for New first steps in Latin. Newburyport, MA: Focus
Publishing.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity – One’s own. Educational
Researcher, 17(7), 17-22.
Phinney, E., Bell, P., & Romaine, B. (1988). The Cambridge Latin Course:
Unit 1 Teacher's Manual (North American 3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pope, S., Bell, P., Farrow, S., Popeck, R. M., & Shaw, A. (2001). The
Cambridge Latin Course: Unit I Teacher’s Manual (North American 4th ed.). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Raynor, P. (1991). Foreign language acquisition and the learning disabled
student. International Schools Journal. Autumn, 41-46.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 29 U.S.C. § 701794; CFR 102.61.
Reither, R. (1997). Notes on ADD [On-line]. Available:
http://www.enteract.com/~peregrin/add/reithr.html
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language
teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, S. O. (1989). Specific developmental dyslexia: Retrospective and
prospective views. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 3-22.
Robinson, J., & Hesse, K. (1981). A morphemically based spelling program’s
effect on spelling skills and spelling performance of seventh grade students. Journal of
Educational Research, 75, 56-62.
219
Rothstein, L. F. (1993). Legal issues. In S. A. Vogel & P. B. Adelman (Eds.),
Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 21-35). New York: SpringerVerlag.
Rubin, Joan. (1975). What the 'good language learner' can teach us. TESOL
Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Runyan, M. K. (1991). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores
for university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 24, 104-108.
Scarcella, R., & Oxford R. (1992). The tapestry of language learning. Boston:
Heinle and Heinle.
Schneider, E. (1995). A multisensory, direct approach to teaching German as a
foreign language to at-risk college students. NEBODS Newsletter, 1, 14-15.
Schneider, E. (1996). Teaching foreign languages to at-risk learners (Report No
FL024353). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 402 788)
Scheiber, B., & Talpers, J. (1985) Campus access for learning disabled students.
Washington, DC: Closer Look.
Schwarz, R. (1997). Learning disabilities and foreign language learning: A
painful collision. LD Online. Available: http://www.ldonline.org
Schwarz, R. (1999). The First International Multilingualism and Dyslexia
Conference, Manchester, England. LD Online. Available: http://www.ldonline.org
Scott, S. (1997). Accommodating college students with learning disabilities:
How much is enough? Innovative Higher Education, 22(2), 85-99.
Seaman, D. (1996). Open the door wider: Foreign language classes for students
at risk. Foreign Language Association of Georgia Beacon, 31(1), 15-19.
Sheppard, M. (1993). Proficiency as an inclusive orientation: Meeting the
challenge of diversity. In J. K. Phillips (Ed.), Report of Northeast Conference on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages: Reflecting on proficiency from a classroom perspective
(pp. 87-114). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Shrum, J., & Glisan, E. (1994). Teachers handbook: Contextualized language
instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Snyder, Lynn. (1999). Agreement for inclusion in a modified foreign language
class. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Center for Language and Learning.
220
Soltis, J. (1989). The ethics of qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 2, 123-130.
Sparks, R. (1995). Examining the language coding differences hypothesis to
explain individual differences in foreign language learning. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 187214.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993a). Identifying and instructing at-risk foreign
language learners in college. In D. P. Benseler (Ed.), The Dynamics of Language
Program Direction (pp. 173-199). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993b). The impact of native language learning
problems on foreign language learning: Case study illustration of the Linguistic Coding
Deficit Hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 77, 58-74.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Fluharty, K., & Little, S. (1995). An exploratory study
on the effects of Latin on the native language skills and foreign language aptitude of
students with and without learning disabilities. The Classical Journal, 91, 165-184.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1993). Perceptions of high and lowrisk students and students with learning disabilities about high school foreign language
courses. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 491-510.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992). Test
comparisons among students identified as high-risk, low-risk, and learning disabled in
high school foreign language courses. Modern Language Journal, 76, 142-159.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Kenneweg, S., & Miller, K. (1991). Use of an OrtonGillingham approach to teach a foreign language to dyslexic/learning-disabled students:
Explicit teaching of phonology in a second language. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 96-118.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Patton, J., Artzer, M., Siebenhar, D., & Plageman, M.
(1997). Predictions of foreign language proficiency. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89, 549-561.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Pohlman, J., Skinner, S., & Artzer, M. (1992). The
effects of multisensory structured language instruction on native language and foreign
language aptitude skills of at-risk high school foreign language learners. Annals of
Dyslexia, 42, 25-54.
Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1999a). A response to Arries: “Learning disabilities
and foreign languages: A curriculum approach to the design of inclusive courses.” The
Modern Language Journal, 83, 569-573.
221
Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1999b). Section 504 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act: Accommodating the learning-disabled student in the foreign language
curriculum. ADFL Bulletin, 30(3), 36-44.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. (1996). Off track: When poor readers
become learning disabled. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stanovich, K. (1992). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has
intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7-29.
Stephens, S. (1990). Latin and the learning disabled student. The Classical
Outlook, 67(3), 111-113.
Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of “communication strategy.”
In C. Foerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 61-74).
London: Longman.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools.
London: Falmer Press.
This just in… . (2000, Spring). Elementary Teachers of Classics Newsletter, 910.
This year's freshman: A statistical profile. (January 17, 1997). Chronicle of
Higher Education, 43, A42-43.
Van Heuven, W., Schriefers, H., Hagoort, P., & Dijkstra, A. (2001). The wiring
of the language network in the bilingual brain: fMRI studies on word reading in DutchEnglish bilinguals. Nijmegen, Netherlands: University of Nijmegen, Institute for
Cognition and Information.
Vogel, S. A. (1993). A retrospective and prospective view of postsecondary
education for adults with learning disabilities. In S. A. Vogel & P. B. Adelman (Eds.),
Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 3-20). New York: SpringerVerlag.
Weaver, S., & Cohen, A. D. (1997). Strategies-based instruction: A teachertraining manual (CARLA Working Paper Series #7). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
222
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zinn, M. (1979). Field research in minority communities: Ethical,
methodological and political observations by an insider. Social Problems, 27, 209-219.
APPENDIX A
JOURNAL ENTRY TOPICS
First Semester
1. Describe your experiences with foreign language learning BEFORE this semester.
How did you feel about studying a foreign language BEFORE this class began?
2. Describe your disability in your own words and tell me how it has affected you
academically. What types of problems has it caused you?
3. What type learner are you? Do you learn better by listening, or does it “stick” better if
you see it written? Or do you do best when you listen as well as see written text (either in
a book or on the board)? Do you prefer that I use the blackboard or overhead in class?
4. Describe what a “typical day” is like for you (Monday/Wednesday/Friday,
Tuesday/Thursday, Saturday/Sunday). Include what you do immediately before this class
as well as immediately after this class. If you work, describe the type work you do.
5. When do you prefer to have quizzes – at the beginning of class, in the middle, or at the
end? Why do you prefer that time?
6. Write a one-page response to your overall experience in Latin class. Include such
things as: what you would like to see more of, what you would like to see less of, what
you would do differently if you were teaching the class, what you think of the textbook,
what you think of grading procedures or class procedures in general, pacing of class,
class size, anything else which you would like me to know or which might help me
improve the class in the future.
Second Semester
1. Describe what a “typical day” is like for you (Monday/Wednesday/Friday,
Tuesday/Thursday, Saturday/Sunday). Include what you do immediately before this class
as well as immediately after this class. If you work, describe the type work you do.
2. Describe how your disability has affected you in this class. Compare that to how it
has affected your work in other classes.
3. Compare your attitude toward studying a foreign language before you began studying
Latin with how you feel right now about studying a foreign language.
223
224
4. Write at least a two-page response to your overall experience in Latin class. Include
such things as:
•what you would like to see more of (i.e., what was really helpful)
•what you would like to see less of (i.e., what didn't help much)
•what you would do differently if you were teaching the class
•what you think of the textbook
•what you think of grading procedures or class procedures in general
•pacing of class
•class size
•any problems you had with OTHER students' disabilities and/or personalities in the
class
•any suggestions for improving the class in the future
•anything else which you would like me to know.
5. Pretend that there is no funding available to teach a section of Latin 1001 for students
with disabilities next year. With that in mind, write a letter to the Dean explaining
exactly how important this class has been to you, as well as its potential worth to future
students with disabilities who will attend WDU.
225
Third Semester
1. Tell me about your summer (what you did, where you went, how you felt, how your
family is doing). Were you ready to get back to school???
2. Describe your experiences in the computer lab on Friday in detail! Include things such
as:
--reactions to being in the lab (i.e., too noisy?, time passed quickly, etc.)
--what you had trouble with. If you had trouble, did you ask anyone for help?
--whether you enjoyed it
--would you want to do it again?
--was 30 minutes too long? too short? about right?
--would you want to have the computer program at home? Why or why not?
--do you think practicing on the computer helped you on your quiz on Friday?
3. If you work, describe the type work you do. How many hours per week do you work?
Describe your typical Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule.
Describe a Tuesday/Thursday schedule.
Describe your typical weekend activities, including both Saturdays and Sundays.
4. Do you think that your activities immediately before class affect your performance in
class?
What are your activities immediately before this class?
Does thinking about what you have to do immediately after class affect your performance
in class?
Can you identify distractors (i.e., things that keep you from paying attention) during
class? Think of things like: hunger, tiredness, stress, distraction caused by other
students, medication, mood, classroom environment, life situation, etc. Be specific! [An
example of a classroom distraction might have been the whining sound of the
thermostat.]
Can you identify distractors that keep you from studying efficiently?
5. AVE ATQUE VALE
THANK YOU for being such a wonderful class, and for being part of my research for
one and a half years!! I need to schedule a final 30-minute interview with each of you
between now and your last exam. Please list possible times below when we could meet
for thirty minutes. I will adjust my schedule to fit yours anytime within the next two
weeks. GRATIAS TIBI AGO!!!
DAY
DATE
TIME
lst choice:
_______________ ________________
________________
2nd choice:
_______________
________________
________________
3rd choice:
_______________
________________
________________
***********************************************************************
226
If I need to ask you any further questions next semester while I'm writing my dissertation,
is there a telephone number, address, and email where you can be reached?
NAME________________________________________
TELEPHONE NUMBER: _______________________
ADDRESS: ____________________________________
____________________________________
EMAIL:
____________________________________
***********************************************************************
You were introduced to five learning strategies this semester:
GROUPING, MECHANICAL TECHNIQUES, COMPUTER, KEYWORD, and
PHONOLOGICAL.
For each of the strategies, please answer the following questions.
1. Pretend that you are tutoring someone in Latin. Describe to them HOW this strategy
works, and its possible usefulness to them.
2. How did YOU use this strategy?
3. Once we learned it, did you continue to use it? Did you combine its use with any
other strategies? Give examples.
4. How did you LIKE this strategy? What made you like or dislike it?
5. Would you be able to apply this strategy in another subject? Why or why not?
Please RANK these five strategies in their order of usefulness to you. List your favorite
as #1.
GROUPING _____
MECHANICAL TECHNIQUES_____
COMPUTER_____
KEYWORD_____
PHONOLOGICAL_____
Any further comments about anything at all???
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Initial Interview (September, 1999)
1. Describe you prior experiences with foreign languages, if any.
2. Describe your learning disability in your own words and how it has affected your life.
Second Interview (January, 2000)
1. What type learner are you?
Do you learn better by listening, or does it “stick” better if you see it written?
Or do you do best when you listen as well as see written text (either in a book or on the
board)?
Do you remember better what I say or what I write?
2. Describe your reactions to and experiences with learning a foreign language at the
college level.
If you took another foreign language at the college level (besides Latin), how did that
experience compare to your experiences in Latin class?
If you studied a foreign language in high school or grade school, how do those
experiences compare to your study of language at the college level?
227
228
Third Interview (September, 2000)
1. Have you encountered any difficulties in your Latin study as a result of the threemonth summer break?
2. Has the way you have studied for the last two weeks changed as a result of the
summer break?
3. Did you look at your Latin text book this summer?
4. Have you had any experiences with learning strategy training? any with explicit
language learning strategy training?
5. Do you have any interest in learning different language learning strategies than you
are currently using?
Fourth Interview (December, 2000)
1. Do you agree with the change (or no change) in language learning strategy use
revealed by a comparison of the results of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
which you took at the beginning and end of this semester?
2. Has strategy training had any effect on the way you study Latin compared to your
language experiences prior to this?
3. Has strategy training helped you to study or learn material in other classes?
4. What suggestions could you offer for the “time crunch” we felt during the last
semester?