LEARNING DIFFICULTIES & LEARNING DISORDERS

Literature Review

The Terminology: Learning Difficulties / Disabilities / Disorders 3

The Terminology: Learning Difficulties / Disabilities / Disorders

Special education research is complex and concepts and terms have been drawn from a variety of fields including medical, psychological and educational. Diagnostic practices used to classify children as noted by the prominent psychologist / special educator, Samuel Kirk, are often “administratively helpful but educationally unproductive” (Kauff

man, 1976, p.240).

Samuel Kirk, is probably the first person who publicly used the phrase ‘learning disorder’ and contributed to the first federal legislation acknowledging learning disabilities. However, Kirk later went on to say:

“I think we are still struggling with terminology as we have for the last 50 years in this field. One definition doesn't include everything, hence more definitions”

(Danforth, 2009, p.181)

In this literature review I will only briefly explore the key definitions of relevant terminology and some of the issues surrounding these definitions.

Learning Difficulties: Is a blanket umbrella word that includes both diagnosed and undiagnosed disorders. It’s a broad term that teachers, schools and assessors apply to kids who can’t meet the “normal” requirements of classroom (Prior, 1996, p.56). The term General Learning Disabilities (GLD) could refer to any student that at one time or another may experience a learning difficulty due to various factors including things like; relationships, confidence and classroom learning conditions (Woodcock, et.al.,2013).

Learning Disabilities (LD): Which is often referred to in Australia as Learning Disorders are a diversified group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities. These disorders are inherent part of the individual and possibly due to some kind neurobiological dysfunction (Friend, 2013, p.135). It is often difficult to isolate a learning disability from a difficulty as the two often go hand in hand. The issues involved are often complex, as is the multifaceted nature of all students. Scanlon in a recent review of the medical definition of LD says that it is better to understand LD as an entity not a phenomenon, meaning that it can not be detected without isolating it to the three primary academic skill areas; reading, writing and mathematics (Scanlon, 2013, p.26).

LD will still be confined to specific academic manifestations; it exists only if certain forms of achievement are unexpected….Because of their LD, many individuals are likely to have difficulty planning, managing time, remembering details and tasks, expressing them- selves, and/or organizing.

(Scanlon, 2013, p.27).

A Specific learning disability (SLD) “means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written.” (Kauffman, 2001, p.6). This may then manifest in ways that effect the child’s ability to speak, read, write, spell or do mathematical calculations.

Diagnosis and Labelling Students with a Learning Disorder

Australian schools under the new Student-Centred Funding Model that began this year, empowers teachers to recognise a learning disorder if they provide the proper evidence, despite there being no medical diagnosis. This process is very controversial because of the stigma associated with various labels.

“Informal discrimination is widespread. It is embedded in social, economic and political processes that restrict life chances for some groups and individuals”

(UNESCO Global Monitoring Report 2010, p.6)

Some parents resist labeling their child with a ‘disorder’ or ‘disability’ because of the associated discrimination that comes with it. Particularly in the classroom, many teachers simply drop their expectations of students with such labels and use it as an excuse for underachievement. This has been a huge issue in the past and continues to be a major issue in the present with the rise of NAPLAN testing. It is believed that current practices associated with national testing are not in principle compliant with the Australian federal disability discrimination law, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and the Federal Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Cumming, 2013, p.1).

In recent years there has been a shift away from using what is called ‘discrepancy criteria’ to identify a child as having a SLD. The key clinical classification systems are ICD-10 (World Health Organisation) and DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association). Often the clinical labels are somewhat umbrella terms and do not actually help in specific intervention (Nag & Snowling, 2012, p.3). It is for this reason that many educators are turning to an alternative approach to classification called the ‘response to intervention’ (RTI). This approach only identifies SLD in children if they “continue to struggle even after substantial individualised help has been given and documented through continuous monitoring of their response to the intervention” (Nag & Snowling, 2012, p7). This approach suggests that diagnosis should be delayed until after the intervention has proven ineffective. RTI has become a major policy initiative in America and Australia but Kavale & Spaulding, 2008 investigation suggests that there is difference of opinion on whether or not RTI is effective for diagnosing SLD. Rather RTI procedures should be incorporated into general education to improve the support systems for improved learning or all students (Kavale & Spaulding, 2008, p.176).

“Response to Intervention (RTI) is a well-developed, collaborative process involving regular and special education. RTI emphasizes collaborative decision-making using periodic assessment, differentiated instruction in classrooms, and increasingly intense interventions as needed. The critical components of RTI are well-designed curriculum and instruction, interventions at increasing levels of intensity, well-trained staff, and assessment-driven decision-making.” (Callender, 2014, p.6)

There are a variety of models that schools develop for intervention. Most schools however develop a multi-tiered RTI model to provide struggling learners with services and interventions at increasing level of intensity. Figure 1 is the model of RTI applied in Northern Territory Government schools.

Northern Territory Government, Department of Education 2015.

Three Perspectives on the Cause of Learning Difficulties

1. The deficit model

The deficit model defines learning difficulties solely within the child. For example, a child may enter your classroom with either a physical, cultural, social, linguistic, or cognitive disadvantage, but is considered, for one reason or another, less capable of learning than his or her peers.

The seen benefit for some is that once the issue has been identified, specific things can be done to assist the learner. Often there is a sense of relief that the issues is not because the learner is simply lazy or has a low IQ. Such labelling of a learner however, can be very stigmatising, and not necessarily help in regards to the specific educational experiences that could most assist a learner.

Harry & Klingner, 2007 point out that unless the disabilities can be clearly biologically defined, defining and/or identifying disabilities is often a very subjective process and can lead to bad decisions. They also point out that "the focus on disability has become so intertwined with the historical devaluing of minorities" (Harry & Klingner, 2007, p. 16). Some researchers have noted that differences in culture and experience have been labeled deficit (Legters et.al, 1993) and it is for these such reasons that there has been a major shift away from this model.

2. The inefficient learner model

This model associates learning difficulties more with the idea that learners have not ‘learnt how to learn’ so to speak. Inefficient learners fail to apply effective learning strategies spontaneously in appropriate learning contexts (Ceci, 2013, p.175). Benefits of this model include; identification of students based on risk rather than deficit, early identification and instruction, and linkage of identification assessment with instructional planning (Vaughn, 2003. p.136).

3. The environmental factors model.

The environmental model is linked to the social model of disability that says that disability is caused by the way society is organised, rather than by a person’s impairment or difference. In terms of LD it suggests that learning difficulties of a students are not necessarily something “within the student” rather they are due to various environmental factors. These factors can include a variety of things such as social disadvantage and/or inappropriate; curriculum, teaching methods and class structure. The later is sometimes referred to as the “instructional setting model of learning difficulties” (Twomey, 2006). According to Westwood (2008), environmental factors are usually the largest cause of learning difficulties (Westwood, 2008, p.1). Research in the area of self-regulation also suggests that their could be in fact a variety of other environmental ‘triggers’ such a certain noises that are ‘stressors’ to a child and inhibit their ability to self-regulate and hence effect their ability to concentrate and learn (Shanker, 2014).

These three views on the causes to LD are not mutually exclusive, rather they all shed light on the complicated interplay of factors in relations to the causes of LDs. What is important is for teachers to develop effective strategies to support students with learning difficulties as they are the most prevalent students with special educational needs in mainstream classes. It is vital that teachers have “repertoire of pedagogical skills that are effective in meeting the developmental and learning needs of ALL students” (Rowe, 2006).

Types of learning difficulties

Lerner (2014), identified common learning and behavioral characteristics of individuals with learning disabilities in the following way:

¥ Disorders of attention

¥ Poor motor abilities

¥ Psychological processing differences

¥ Poor cognitive strategies for learning

• Oral language difficulties

¥ Reading difficulties

¥ Written language difficulties

¥ Mathematics difficulties

¥ Poor social skills

Attention Disorders refer to the inability to focus when a lesson is presented; short attention span, easily distracted, poor concentration; may display hyperactivity. Poor motor abilities are described as the difficulty with gross motor abilities and fine motor coordination. Psychological processing differences described problems in processing auditory or visual information such as difficulty in interpreting visual or auditory stimuli. Poor cognitive strategies for leaning refer to not knowing how to go about the task of leaning and studying. This includes the lack of organisational skills and passive leaning style. Oral language difficulties refer to underlying language disorders (problems in language development, listening, speaking, and vocabulary). Reading difficulties refer to problems in leaning to decode words, basic word-recognition skills, or reading comprehension. Writing difficulties occur when a student performs poorly in tasks requiring written expression, spelling, and handwriting. Mathematics difficulties refer to issues with quantitative thinking, arithmetic, time, space, and calculation facts. Lastly, poor social skills are when students do not know how to act and talk in social situations; difficulties with establishing satisfying social relationship and friendship (Lerner, 2014, p.6).

The state of learning difficulties/ disorders in Australia

In Australia, there are many statistics about the number of students with difficulties/disorders. A longitudinal study of Australian children has found that approximately 12.3 per cent of students in Australian schools have additional education needs (Dempsey and Davies, 2013). A survey conducted by Leaning Difficulties Australia (2000) also indicated that 16 per cent of Australian students are perceived by their teachers to have learning difficulties and have support needs.

However, according to Woodcock, Dixon and Tanner (2013), many students with a SLD or GLD go unrecognised throughout their schooling life. Hence, many students simply get left behind, and their needs are not accommodated for in their schooling. This is also backed up by much of the qualitative data collected over the past decade (Fielding‐Barnsley, 2005, p.70). The Mapping the Territory Report (2000), suggested that every school needed at least one LD specialist. The report was also critical of teacher training saying that “new teachers are not adequately trained to teach students with special needs in inclusive classrooms” (Ministerial Advisory Council On the Quality of Teaching, 2000, p.67). So despite the fact that Australia has been proactive in developing inclusive practices in education the current evidence still suggests that students with a learning difficulty/ disorder are not being treated the way they need to be.

Approximately 20 per cent of children in Australia experience learning difficulties. Approximately 3.5 per cent of these children are seen as having a SLD which has been identified as being ongoing (persistent for at least 2-3 years) and resistant to interventions (ACT Government, 2013. P.3).

There is evidence to suggest that Australian universities also have work to do to ensure that their courses and teaching methodologies are inclusive. This is despite the fact that more students with learning disabilities that are enrolling in Australia universities, the learning needs of these students are not well recognized (Ryan, 2007, p.436). Ryan (2007) conducted qualitative research and explored the experiences of university students with a learning disorder. Results gathered suggested that these students did not often receive the support they needed and that their ‘stories’ are often not believed. Students often felt that they do not belong and this was often due to the ‘normative expectations and practices’ of university lecturers (Ryan, 2007, p.460). So not only are many students with a learning difficulty/ disorder not being recognised in their school life, but also they have been ignored and made to feel unwelcome at university.

Foreign Language Learning Disability / FLLD

Dr. Kenneth Dinklage (1976) of Harvard University, Psychologist, has researched why some of Harvard’s brightest students were not passing their foreign language classes; despite the fact that they are excellent students in their other classes. When he interviewed these students, Dinklage proposed reasons why some students perform well in other subjects but not in FL course that:

1. A number of failing language students had in fact been diagnosed as learning disability and had overcome their disability. However, the foreign language course had triggered the problems.

2. Other in the group had previously undiagnosed learning disabilities; the problems had not shown up until foreign language classes were attempted.

3. The third part of the group, Dinklage assumed that they had a ‘Foreign Language Learning Disability (FLLD)’. He, however, could not find the usual evidence of problems in testing.

The term of FLLD had been increasingly common used, and many researchers (Gajar, Reer, Hu, Reed, as cited in Sparks, 2006) defined the concept of a FLLD. Sparks and colleagues (2006) has clarified that a disability for learning an FL has not been supported by the research literature.

Sparks says;

“Like Ellis (1985) and Stanovich (1988), I take the position that the proper analogy for FL learning problems is obesity, not measles, and that FLLD can be operationally defined and diagnosed only in an arbitrary manner.”

Sparks insisted if FL learners are taught with the right strategies and their needs accommodated, then learning problems (like obesity) are avoidable. According to the result of his research, Sparks (2006) says, educators should question their policies for course substitutions or waivers from FL requirements with a classification of LD. An LD classification is irrelevant in determining whether a student will exhibit FL learning problems. (Sparks et.al., 2006) He concludes, “the focus of native and foreign language educators and researchers should be on developing effective methods for teaching FLs to low-achieving students.”

The Current State of Japanese Language Education in Australian Secondary School

According to The current state of Japanese Language Education Australia Schools report, there has been an overall decrease of approximately 16 per cent in the number of students studying Japanese in Australia since 2000, nearly 15.6 per cent in terms of number of secondary school where Japanese as second language is offered. This decline is occurring despite various government initiatives to increase proficiency in key trade languages including; Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian and Korean. The National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) strategy was initiated in 1994. This policy increased funding for languages, between 1995 and 2002 the Federal government allocated some $220 million to the program (Scarino et.al., 2011). The Current State of Japanese Language Education in Australian Schools analysed factors of decrease;

¥ A failure to provide appropriate coursed and assessment regimes for different groups of learner at the senior secondary level.

¥ Terms for different groups of learners and different courses are not uniform across the country.

¥ Problem with the quality and suitability of some secondary programs and a disconnection between textbook-focused programs in early secondary and the demands of senior secondary syllabuses.

The number of students completing Year 12 units has been falling from 5,179 in 2002 to 4,910 in 2008. The reports from teachers (particularly in Vic, SA and WA) that they and their students believe that Japanese at the senior level has become increasingly difficult and competitive in recent years, leading to a drop in enrolments at these levels in some schools, and in a small number of cases, to the subsequent demise of the program (Anne and Robyn, 2010). This review indicates that secondary Japanese programs in Australia have neglected to adjust the curriculum for increasing numbers of students with a difficulty/disorder. As a result, these students have traditionally been underserved, often failing or dropping out. However, in most schools it is compulsory for students in Year 7 to 9 to study a second language whether or not they are going to study languages in years 11/12 at the the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) level. Therefore, beginning Japanese teachers have a special responsibility to include students with difficulty/disorders. If language teachers wish to apply the theory that “lessons are for everybody” (Kathryn and Kathleen, 2014) then they must plan their lessons to accommodate all students especially those with a learning difficulty/disorder.

Benefits of learning a Second Language for students with a LD

Despite the vast research data that testifies to the benefits of learning a second language, many students with a LD are often excluded from language classes and placed in ‘enrichment’ classes or ‘literacy support’ classes (Lo Bianco, & Freebody 2001, Curnow et.al. 2007, p.31).

The following is a brief summary of what the literature tells us in regards to the range of benefits to all students.

¥ Second language study benefits academic progress in other subjects

¥ Second language study narrows achievement gaps

¥ Second language study benefits basic skills development

¥ Second language study benefits higher order, abstract and creative thinking

¥ Early second language learning enriches and enhances cognitive development

¥ Second language study enhances a student's sense of achievement

¥ Second language students score higher on standardised tests

¥ Second language study promotes cultural awareness and competency

¥ Second language study improves chances of college acceptance, achievement and attainment

(Curtain & Dahlberg 2004, Hakuta 1986, Dumas 1999, Caldas & Boudreaux 1999)

The COST A8 Consortium was one of the biggest cross-linguistic studies completed during the late 1990s confirmed that transparent (transparent in terms of orthography-to-phonology mapping) writing systems make the process of learning to read much easier. English, however is considered an ‘opaque’ language and students reading accuracy in English fell to below 40% compared to the average score of 90% or higher for students tested in other languages deemed transparent (Nag & Snowling, 2012, p.16). This has important implications for Japanese as a second language. Despite Japanese being classified as an extensive orthographical system, beginner Japanese syllabaries are ‘transparent’ as they cannot be visually de-constructed below the level of the syllable. What many people do not realise is that SLDs such as dyslexia are not always transferable to other languages such as Japanese. This was proven in Wydell and Kondo’s 2003 study which found that their test subject had a core phonological deficit that led to his dyslexia but did not affect his reading in Japanese (Wydell & Kondo’s 2003). The incidence is dyslexia in ‘transparent’ languages is an area of conflict and in need more research (Miles, 2000, p.163). This is due to the complexity of influences in any learning context. But there should be no doubt that leaning a second language such as Japanese provides students with a LD with numerous benefits and for some, their LD will not even transfer into the language classroom if appropriate teaching methodologies are utilised, while for others, learning FL may bring out/highlight their LD.

Creating a language classroom that accommodates students with a LD.

Formal learning can be an unbelievably stressful and humiliating experience for student with leaning difficulty/disorder. Especially when teachers do not fully understand what the student is going through.

Schwartz (1997) explains that learning foreign language can be an unbelievably stressful and humiliating experience for student with leaning difficulty/disorder. Therefore, beginning foreign language teachers have a responsibility to change this phenomenon by making lesson plans and alternative strategies for students with difficulty/disorder in order to be successful in high school (Tiffini, 2008, P.7).

The evolving view of literacy is that it is a social process, something that connects to real life. The classroom can be used as one of may experiences that help formulate their evolving identity (Applegate, 2001, p49). The language learning classroom is a complex place, a dynamic environment. Teachers need to organise what goes on in the classroom so that the learners feel activity is purposeful and that they are putting efforts into a framework they can trust (Edge and Garton, 2009, p.8). Teachers need to constantly manage classroom interactions and so that learners know what to do, are motivated and that time spent is ‘maximally productive’ for language learning (Conway, et.al, 2012, p.33). There are vast amounts of literature exploring various models of effective teaching in the language classroom, and in essence all classrooms are ‘language’ classrooms and are beyond the scope of this review. I will address some of more well known and well tested models of effective classroom practices that are best suited to students with a LD.

The Direct Instruction (DI) approach has decades of research behind it and has proven to be a basic starting point in relation to teaching students with a LD (Swanson, 2000, p.33). DI involves seven steps for effective instruction, that focus on learning intentions, success criteria, learner commitment, lesson presentation, guided learner practice, lesson closure and reinforcement (Hattie, 2009, p205). Longitudinal studies dating back to the 1970’s have shown that DI is the key approach considered effective for students deemed ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘at risk’ (Stebbins, 1976) (Gersten, 1988) (Ryder 2006). All students who are just beginning to learn a second language can be considered ‘disadvantaged’ and hence for many students with a LD learning a second language creates a kind of equal playing field.

Likewise along with DI, Strategy Instruction (SI) has also been seen a a highly effective method for teaching students with a LD (Friend, 2013, p.158).

“Learning strategy instruction essentially involves the development of students’ awareness of the strategies they use, teacher modelling of strategic thinking, student practice with new strategies, student self-evaluation of the strategies used, and practice in transferring strategies to new tasks.”

(Chamot, 2004, p.19)

According to Chamot’s investigation most researchers in second language contexts agree on the importance of explicitness in strategy instruction. There is also agreement that teachers should integrate the explicit instruction of these strategies into their regular course work (Chamot, 2004, p.20). The evidence suggests that students benefit best when all teachers across all subject areas integrate SI into their classes. However, there is conflicting evidence in regards to whether or not SI should be taught in a students 1st language (L1) or in the target language. Grenfell and Harris (1999) acknowledged that beginning level learners would probably benefit much more from SI being taught in L1. Students should be able to reflect on their own learning and explore various strategies that work for them. Language learning strategies research can be traced back to the seminal work of Joan Rubin who suggested that a model of "the good language learner” could be constructed by looking at special strategies used by successful L2 (Chamot, 2005, p115).

The EESR Framework is a simple teaching framework devised by Conway, Richards, Harvey and Roskvist for graduate language teachers in order to ensure effective teaching. This simple framework if followed correctly would indeed ensure that students with a SLD and GLD are more appropriately catered for. The acronym is as follows: Establish Engagement, Ensure Learners can complete the task, Sustain engagement, Reflect on learning (Conway et.al., 2012, p.34).

A number of experts such as Dr. Kenneth Dinklage of Harvard University have proposed and debated various theories as to why some students perform well in other subjects but not in FL courses. Sparks (2006) researched the relation to first language (L1) and foreign language (L2) and he found that skills in phonological processing are important for written language development and oral proficiency in a FL. He, however, refutes ‘foreign language leaning disability’ as earlier discussed. His research has shown that all types of students can be successful in language class, if they are taught the right strategies and given the right assessments.

Tiffini (2008) suggests that Gardner’s theory of seven distinct intelligences: “linguistic, logical- mathematical, spatial, musical, body-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and interpersonal” are groundbreaking because he proved that people processed information in different ways, thus students could learn better if teachers taught to their intelligences. Tiffini also suggests that effective FL teaching strategies for LD students apply to all students in FL classes as well. Kathryn and Kathleen (2014) also suggest that Planning “Lessons for Everybody” in the secondary classroom is necessary for accommodating diverse students. These reviews suggest that teaching strategies in FL class should be applied to all students.

According to Dunn and Dunn (1978), 20-30% of school age children appear to be auditory learners, 40% are visual learners, and 30-40% are tactile/kinesthetic or visual/tactile learners. Gilakjani (2001) also found that 50% of the students, 100 university students of English majoring in Language Translation Department, preferred visual learning style, 35% of the students preferred auditory learning style, 15% of the students preferred kinesthetic style for their learning. However, according to The Current State of Japanese Language Education in Australian School (2010), the demands of secondary syllabuses are text-book-focused program. Hence, many FL teachers have a lot of work to do in order to adjust their programs and teaching methodologies to better serve the diverse leaning styles and learning needs of their students.

Conclusion

The research field of learning difficulties / disorders is vast and complex. There is much cross-overlap between the disciplines of education, medicine, sociology psychology and psychiatry. These disciplines all contribute to an evolving body of information that is extremely important for any teaching wishing to understand their students. This review is in no way comprehensive, but it has attempted to provide a general picture of the current state of learning difficulties and learning disorders particularly within the Australian context of the recent Student-centred Funding Model. This review also provided a brief summary of the current state of languages (particular Japanese) in Australia in order to hint at possible links between declining enrolments and the increasing focus on standardised tests and ATAR success in senior school language courses. This review highlights the immense benefits of studying a second language particularly for those students with a GLD or a SLD such as dyslexia. In addition it briefly explores what some of the key research tells us in regards to making our classes more effective for those students deemed to have a learning difficulty or disorder. It is very important that language education continues to grow and that language teachers continue to make the benefits of learning a second language accessible to all.

References

Antoinette Paul- Fitzpatrick, (2014). Implementing teaching strategies to students with difficulties in learning in mainstream inner city schools- teachers experiences

Applegate, M. D. (2005). The Impact of Voice on the Politics of Inclusion in the Literacy Classroom. The Politics of Inclusion: Preparing Education Majors for Urban Realities, pp43-65, Hampton Press.

Australian Capital Territory. (2013). Taskforce on Students with Learning Difficulties Final Report 2013

Banks, T. (2008). Foreign language learning difficulties and teaching strategies(Doctoral dissertation, Dominican University of California San Rafael, CA).

Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. (Eds.). (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Corwin Press.

Callender, W. A. (2014). Using RTI in Secondary Schools: A Training Manual for Successful Implementation. Corwin Press.

Caldas, S.J., & Boudreaux, N. (1999). Poverty, race, and foreign language immersion:

Predictors of math and English language arts performance. Learning Languages, 5, 4-15.

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic journal of foreign language teaching, 1(1), 14-26.

Ceci, S. J. (Ed.). (2013). Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 1). Routledge.

Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual review of applied linguistics, 25, 112-130.

Curnow, T. J., Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2007). Situational analysis for the Development of Nationally Co-ordinated Promotion of the Benefits of Languages Learning in Schools project (Report for the Asia Education Foundation). Adelaide: Report to Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education, University of South Australia.

Conway, C., Richards, H., Harvey, S., & Roskvist, A. (2012). 'That didn't work, did it? I need to know how to do that!'. Babel (00053503), 46.

Cortiella, C. (2011). The state of learning disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

Cumming, J. J., & Dickson, E. (2013). Educational accountability tests, social and legal inclusion approaches to discrimination for students with disability: a national case study from Australia. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(2), 221-239.

Curtain, Helena & Carol Ann Dahlberg. (2004). Languages and Children: Making the

Match: New Languages for Young Learners, Grades K-8. Third Edition. New York:

Longman.

Danforth, S. (2009). The incomplete child: An intellectual history of learning disabilities (Vol. 6). Peter Lang.

Dempsey, I, & Davies, M. (2013). National test performance of young Australian children with additional educational needs. Australian Journal of Education, 57(1), 5-18.

Dinklage, K. (1971). Inability to learn a foreign language. Emotional problems of the student, 99, 185-206.

Dumas, L.S. (1999). "Learning a Second Language: Exposing Your Child to a new World of

Words Boosts Her Brainpower, Vocabulary and Self-Esteem." Child, February 72, 74:

76-77.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching Students through their Individual Learning Styles. A Practical Approach. Prentice Hall, Reston, VA., ISBN: 10: 0879098082, 336.

Edge, J., & Garton, S. (2009). From experience to knowledge in ELT. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Research Division, Ministry of Education.

Fielding‐Barnsley, R. (2005). The attributes of a successful learning support teacher in Australian inclusive classrooms. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 5(2), 68-76.

Friend, M. (2013). Special education: Contemporary perspectives for school professionals. Pearson Higher Ed.

Gersten, R., Keating, T., & Becker, W. (1988). The continued impact of the Direct Instruction model: Longitudinal studies of Follow Through students. Education and Treatment of Children, 318-327.

Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice. Psychology Press.

Hakuta, Kenjii. (1986). Cognitive Development of Bilingual Children. Los Angeles:

University of California Center for Language Education and Research. ERIC Digest.

Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (1976). Teaching children with learning disabilities: Personal perspectives. Merrill Publishing Company.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2001). Specific learning disabilities and difficulties in children and adolescents.

Kavale, K. A., & Spaulding, L. S. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for specific learning disability?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(4), 169-179.

Legters, N., McDill, E., & McPartland, J. (1993). Section II: Rising to the challenge: Emerging strategies for educating students at risk. Educational reforms and students at risk: A review of the current state of the art, 47-92.

Lerner, J. W., & Johns, B. (2014). Learning Disabilities and Related Disabilities: Strategies for Success. Cengage Learning.

Lo Bianco, J., & Freebody, P. (2001). Australian literacies: Informing national policy on literacy education. Language Australia Ltd, GPO Box 372F, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia.

Louden, W.Chan, L. K. S.Elkins, J.Greaves, D.House, H.Milton, M.Nichols, S.Rivalland, J.Rohl, M.van Kraayenoord, C. (2000). Mapping the territory

McNamara, B. E. (2007). Learning disabilities: Bridging the gap between research and classroom practice. Prentice Hall.

Miles, E. (2000). Dyslexia may show a different face in different languages. Dyslexia, 6(3), 193-201.

Nag, S., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). School underachievement and specific learning difficulties. IACAPAP e-Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Geneva: International Association for Children and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions.

Nikkei, The Nihon Keizai Shinbun: Japan Economic Newspaper (December 2012)

Northern Territory Government,Department of Education 2015. Retrieved from

http://www.education.nt.gov.au/teachers-educators/literacy-numeracy/evidence-based-literacy-numeracy-practices-framework/key-elements/program-design Accessed 20/09/2015

Olden, K., & Guthrie, J. (2001). Environmental Influences on Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Journal, 11(1).

Prior, M. R. (1996). Understanding specific learning difficulties. Psychology Press.

Rowe, K. (2006). Effective teaching practices for students with and without learning difficulties: Constructivism as a legitimate theory of learning AND of teaching?.

Ryan, J. (2007). Learning Disabilities in Australian Universities Hidden, Ignored, and Unwelcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(5), 436-442.

Ryder, R. J., Burton, J. L., & Silberg, A. (2006). Longitudinal study of direct instruction effects from first through third grades. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 179-192.

Scanlon, D. (2013). Specific Learning Disability and Its Newest Definition Which Is Comprehensive? and Which Is Insufficient?. Journal of learning disabilities, 46(1), 26-33.

Schwarz, R. L. (1997). Learning disabilities and foreign language learning. LD Online. www. ldonline. org/article/6065 (accessed March 10, 2008).

Scarino, A., Elder, C., Iwashita, N., Kim, S. H. O., Kohler, M., & Scrimgeour, A. (2011). Student achievement in Asian languages education. Full report. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Shanker, S. (2014) Why Are Canadian Kids So Stressed Out? Huffpost Living Canada; 10/4/2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/stuart-shanker/kids-stress-canada_b_5120663.html Accessed 28/9/15

Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities.Journal of learning disabilities, 22(8), 469-478.

Stebbins, L. B. (1976). Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model. Volume IIIA: Findings: Cohort II; Interim Findings: Cohort III. Volume IIIB: Appendices.

Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2006). Native language predictors of foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude. Annals of Dyslexia, 56(1), 129-160.

sparks, R. L. (2006). Is there a “disability” for learning a foreign language?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 544-557.

Swanson, H. L. (2000). What instruction works for students with learning disabilities? Summarizing the results from a meta-analysis of intervention studies.

Twomey, E. (2006). Linking learning theories and learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 11(2), 93-98.

Unesco, E. F. A. (2010). global monitoring report 2010: Reaching the marginalized.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 137-146.

Westwood, P. S. (2008). What teachers need to know about teaching methods. Aust Council for Ed Research.

Woodcock, S., Dixon, R. M., & Tanner, K. (2013). Teaching in inclusive school environments.

Wydell, T. N., & Kondo, T. (2003). Phonological deficit and the reliance on orthographic approximation for reading: a follow‐up study on an English‐Japanese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(1), 33-48.

Young, K., & Luttenegger, K. (2014). Planning" Lessons For Everybody" In Secondary Classrooms. American Secondary Education, 43(1), 25.