Language Teaching (2025), 1–25

doi:10.1017/S0261444825100803

REVIEW OF RECENT SCHOLARSHIP 1

Specific learning differences in learning, teaching, and

3

assessing additional languages 5

1 2 7
Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne
8
1
Department of English and Linguistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK and 2 Department of Languages, Kotelawala 9
Defence University, Colombo, Sri Lanka
10
Corresponding author: Judit Kormos; Email: [Link]@[Link]
11

(Received 31 October 2024; accepted 23 May 2025) 12

13

14
Abstract
15
The prominence and significance of research on specific learning differences (SpLDs) in language learning,
16
teaching, assessment, and teacher education have substantially increased in the past ten years, which justi-
fies the need to review the findings of studies conducted in recent years. The growth of the field also requires 17

that the scope of the review is extended to research in the area of L2 assessment and teacher education. In 18

our paper, we first offer a short discussion of different views of disability and inclusion and a succinct sum- 19

mary of the definitions of SpLDs. We then summarize recent research developments in five main areas: (1) 20

the impact of SpLDs on L2 learning and achievement, (2) the identification of SpLDs in multilingual con- 21
texts, (3) teaching techniques and programmes in supporting language learners with SpLDs, (4) assessing 22
the second language competence of test-takers with SpLDs, and (5) raising language teachers’ awareness 23
and knowledge of SpLDs. 24
In our conclusion, we highlight the implications of recent scholarship in this field for language teaching
25
and testing, teacher education, and suggest further research directions.
26

27
Keywords: language teaching pedagogy; second language assessment; second language learning; specific learning 28
differences; teacher education
29

30

31
1. Introduction
32
In our globalized world, proficiency in another language is an indispensable skill. Therefore, it is cru- 33
cial to ensure the accessibility of second language (L2) education for all and that students who have 34
special educational needs receive efficient support in learning additional languages. Additional lan- 35
guages can include another language taught in the classroom, which is traditionally referred to as a 36
foreign language, a second language that is the language or medium of instruction in the context but 37
is different from students’ home language (usually referred to as second language learning contexts or 38
multilingual contexts), or the study of a heritage language, ‘a socio-politically minority and/or minori- 39
tized language acquired as the first or one of the first languages in a bilingual or multilingual context’ 40
(Montrul, 2023, p. 399). Individual differences that can exert a potential impact on processes and 41
outcomes of L2 learning have been extensively investigated. Nonetheless, how students with special 42
educational needs, particularly those who have specific learning differences (SpLDs), that is, diffi- 43
culties in the domains of literacy (dyslexia and dysgraphia/dyspraxia) and numeracy (dyscalculia), 44
acquire additional languages had been given little attention in the past. Specific learning differences 45
can have a substantial effect not only on the development of first language (L1) literacy skills but 46

47

48
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative
49
Commons Attribution licence ([Link] which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and
reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. 50
2 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

also on L2 learning processes and outcomes. As a consequence, it is of great importance that we gain 51

detailed insights into how individuals with SpLDs acquire additional languages if we want to ensure 52

equitable educational opportunities for this group of L2 learners. It is also essential that we understand 53

how developmental trajectories of children who speak different home language(s) from the contex- 54

tually, socially, and educationally dominant language are affected by SpLDs to identify their learning 55

strengths and weaknesses in a timely manner and support the acquisition of literacy skills in the lan- 56

guage of schooling. Furthermore, the field of second language education also needs to be provided 57

with relevant empirical evidence about the effectiveness of educational programmes and teaching 58

methods that can be applied to enhance the second language and literacy skills of individuals with 59

SpLDs. 60

The increasing accessibility of educational opportunities worldwide has also led to a rise in the 61

number of candidates taking international tests and among them there are many students who have 62

diverse needs, including those with disabilities. Consequently, it is crucial that neither the design nor 63

the implementation of these tests presents barriers for these students and that assessment procedures 64

are both valid and fair. In the past few years, the field of L2 assessment has directed considerable 65

research effort into investigations of test-fairness for test-takers with SpLDs. Although studies are still 66

few in number, a growing number of publications have examined the utility of special arrangements 67

in supporting candidates with disabilities, including those with SpLDs, to perform to the best of their 68

abilities in language tests. 69

As a result of the augmented focus and accumulated research insights on SpLDs in the field of 70

cognitive psychology, second language acquisition, language education, and assessment, the need to 71

enhance language teachers’ awareness and expertise in inclusive language teaching methodologies has 72

also been recognized. Several initiatives, including larger scale European Union funded projects (e.g. 73

Dyslexia for Teachers of English as a Foreign Language), massive open online courses (e.g. Dyslexia 74

and Foreign Language Teaching) on FutureLearn, as well as smaller scale programmes in South and 75

East Asia (e.g. Indrarathne, 2019), have been launched to promote the inclusion of language learners 76

with SpLDs in a variety of instructional settings. Researchers, who were often part of the team that 77

designed and delivered these teacher education programmes, have been keen to gauge the impact of 78

these programmes on teachers’ knowledge, self-confidence, and attitudes towards inclusion. 79

In sum, the prominence and significance of research on SpLDs in language learning, teaching, 80

assessment, and teacher education have substantially increased in the past ten years, which justifies 81

the need to review the findings of studies conducted since 2018, which is the date of the last publica- 82

tion included in Kormos’ (2020) research timeline on SpLDs. The growth of the field also requires that 83

the scope of the review is extended to research in the area of L2 assessment and teacher education. 84

In our review, we mainly report studies in foreign and second language contexts as most research 85

has been conducted with either students who acquire an additional language in classroom settings 86

or children whose home language(s) differ from that of the language schooling. Following current 87

conventions in second language research, we use the term L2 to include all the different types of 88

additional learning contexts, but where relevant we specify specific characteristics of the setting in 89

which an additional language was learned. To our knowledge, no existing studies have examined 90

heritage language learners with SpLDs, and for this reason this group is not included in our review. 91

The review was conducted through a comprehensive search of databases such as EBSCOHost, 92

Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus. We have included studies that focus on SpLDs in gen- 93

eral as well as dyslexia in particular, which is one of the most widely researched subtypes of SpLD in 94

our field, and which has a significant impact on L2 learning processes and outcomes (Kormos, 2016). 95

Research that does not categorize students as having an SpLD or dyslexia based on prior identifica- 96

tion by a certified expert but classifies participants in categories of attained level in a relevant skill 97

area, such as ‘typical’ and ‘struggling/poor’ readers/comprehenders/writers is considered. Original 98

terminology applied in the reviewed studies will be reported, but we aim to avoid the use of language 99

which promotes a deficit perspective of disabilities and instead emphasizes ‘that people are different 100
 Language Teaching 3

without reducing those differences to deficiencies and without attributing a lesser value to the indi- 101

vidual’ (Cioè-Peña, 2021, p. 22). In our review, we will first offer a short discussion of different views 102

of disability and inclusion and a succinct summary of the definitions of SpLDs. We will then sum- 103

marize recent research developments in five main areas: (1) the impact of SpLDs on L2 learning and 104

achievement, (2) the identification of SpLDs in multilingual contexts, (3) teaching techniques and 105

programmes in supporting language learners with SpLDs, (4) assessing the second language com- 106

petence of test-takers with SpLDs, and (5) raising language teachers’ awareness and knowledge of 107

SpLDs. 108

109

2. Disabilities, inclusion, and specific learning differences 110

111
Despite extensive global and local endeavours that promote the use of transparent and non-offensive 112
language, agreeing on universally accepted terminology relating to disabilities and inclusion can be 113
challenging. Even the term ‘disability’ itself lacks a clear-cut definition. According to the UK Equality 114
Act (2010), disability is ‘a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term 115
adverse effect on one’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’, a definition that also encom- 116
passes SpLDs. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognizes 117
that disability is an evolving concept (United Nations, 2006), implying that definitions may change as 118
societal perceptions evolve and more voices of disabled individuals are represented in the discourse. 119
The recent social justice model of dis/ability highlights the importance of understanding how con- 120
ceptualizations and discourses of dis/ability can ‘sustain hegemonic divisions of power and ideals of 121
normalcy’ (Cioè-Peña, 2021, p. 21). 122
The terms used to label SpLDs differ hugely across contexts. In the USA, the fifth edition of the 123
Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM- 124
5, American Psychiatric Association, 2013) uses the term specific learning disorder. The terms learning 125
disability and learning difficulty are frequently applied in psychological research and legislation in 126
Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. These terminologies are used within deficit models of 127
disabilities that view disabilities as deficiencies and consider them as a series of obstacles in one’s 128
lives. The deficit models, which also embody medical conceptualizations of disabilities as ‘disorders’, 129
resulted in educational approaches with the main aim of meeting individuals’ specific needs (Thomas 130
& Loxley, 2007). In educational provision based on this model, no consideration is given to how 131
the educational context and prevalent teaching and assessment methods create barriers to effective 132
learning. 133
To counter these perspectives, MacKay (2006) suggested the use of the expression ‘specific learn- 134
ing difference’ for students who experience barriers to learning due to dyslexia, autism, and ADHD. 135
However, in most countries and educational and diagnostic contexts, SpLDs only comprise dyslexia, 136
dyspraxia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia (see Sewell, 2022). The term SpLDs also reflects the view that 137
is endorsed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that disabil- 138
ity is a socially constructed barrier, which ‘may hinder full and effective participation in society on 139
an equal basis with others’ (United Nations, 2006, p. 4). Thus, SpLDs are seen as differences in indi- 140
viduals’ abilities which might pose challenges in particular aspects of learning if their environment 141
does not accommodate their needs (Sewell, 2020). According to the interactional view of disabilities 142
(Norwich, 2009) that forms the basis of inclusive educational practices, disabilities hinder full partic- 143
ipation in society and education because individuals’ specific characteristics interact with barriers in 144
the environment. Therefore, the main aim of inclusive education is to understand what barriers stu- 145
dents face that prevent them from learning effectively and to remove these obstacles to participation 146
and success. The more recent social justice perspective views SpLDs (originally based on the work of 147
Singer [1998]) as part of the naturally occurring diversity of human cognitive development and func- 148
tioning. The conceptualization of and the advocacy movement for neurodiversity places emphasis on 149

150
4 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

recognizing the diversity of the lived experiences and identity of neurodiverse individuals (Kapp et al., 151

2013). 152

The cognitive conceptualization of SpLDs in our review is based on the fifth edition of 153

the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) of the American Psychiatric 154

Association (2013). Although DSM-5’s (American Psychiatric Association, 2013 definition and char- 155

acterization of SpLDs and its application to education is not without problems (see e.g. Peters & 156

Ansari, 2019), it offers an empirically grounded conceptualization of SpLDs. One useful aspect of the 157

description of SpLDs in DSM-5 is that it brings together various subtypes of SpLDs, such as dyslexia 158

and dyscalculia, under a joint umbrella term of SpLDs, and thereby highlights the substantial overlap 159

between these subtypes of SpLDs. Nonetheless, DSM-5 also acknowledges that various subcategories 160

of SpLDs exist, of which ‘specific learning disorder in reading’ and ‘specific learning disorder in writ- 161

ten expression’ are of high importance in multilingual contexts. The DSM-5 differentiates word-level 162

decoding problems (dyslexia) from higher-level text comprehension problems (specific reading com- 163

prehension impairment). However, word- and text-level comprehension problems can also co-occur. 164

In the writing domain, SpLDs can cause challenges with spelling, punctuation, and grammatical 165

accuracy, as well as clarity of expression and coherent organization of ideas. The DSM-5 applies the 166

processing strengths and weaknesses framework (Hale et al., 2010) that recognizes that each individual 167

with an SpLD displays different strengths and weaknesses and recommends that general educational 168

approaches and additional support be tailored to students’ individual profiles. The DSM-5 lists weak- 169

nesses in the areas of working memory, executive functioning (planning, organizing, strategizing, and 170

paying attention), processing speed, and phonological processing as key characteristics of SpLDs. 171

Although the cognitively oriented conceptualization of SpLDs in our review is based on a pri- 172

marily medical/psychological model, where relevant we still prefer to use the term ‘specific learning 173

differences’. This terminology is in line with the interactional and social justice views of disabilities 174

(Norwich, 2009; Sewell, 2022) that can guide L2 research in this field in exploring the strengths and 175

weaknesses of L2 learners and multilingual language users with SpLDs and the complex and dynamic 176

interactions between individuals and their multilingual educational contexts. 177

178

179

180
3. The impact of specific learning differences on second language learning and achievement 181

The previous research timeline (Kormos, 2020) covered two distinct areas of the (1) cognitive and 182

(2) affective impact of SpLDs on L2 learning processes and outcomes. In contrast to the substantial 183

increase in the studies examining the cognitive correlates of SpLDs and their overall impact on L2 184

learning and achievement, to our knowledge, only two recent studies have focussed on the affective 185

aspects of L2 learning. Venagli and Kupisch (2024) examined differences in self-perceived compe- 186

tence and L2 learning motivation between dyslexic L2 users of English in Italy and Germany (aged 187

between 18 and 24), as well as the relationship between these two variables. They found that dyslexic 188

participants from Germany reported higher L2 competence in all four skills and they also exhibited 189

higher levels of L2 motivation, which the authors explained with typological similarities between 190

German and English and different language teaching approaches in the two countries. L2 learning 191

motivation, which was conceptualized as the composite of ideal- and ought-to L2 self (Dörnyei, 2009), 192

was a strong predictor of perceived L2 competence for both groups, highlighting the important role 193

future-related visions and external motives can play in L2 achievement among dyslexic L2 learn- 194

ers (see similar previous findings in Csizér et al’s (2010) study). Venagli and Kupisch’ (2024) study 195

was also novel in asking participants to rate dyslexia awareness among their peers and teachers. The 196

results showed that a lower rate of awareness of dyslexia in the educational context was associated 197

with lower motivation and self-esteem of dyslexic L2 learners. This finding establishes an important 198

link to the need for raising teachers’ awareness of SpLDs and inclusive language teaching practices 199

(see our review below). 200

 Language Teaching 5

Another study that did not focus on L2 learning outcomes and processes was conducted by 201

Gavriilidou et al. (2021) and examined differences in self-reported learning strategy use between 202

Greek dyslexic and non-dyslexic L2 learners of English (aged 9–15 years). They found that dyslexic 203

learners applied fewer cognitive and social strategies and used more metacognitive strategies for 204

supporting their language learning processes than their non-dyslexic peers suggesting that dyslexic 205

learners might benefit from more awareness raising and training in the use of effective language 206

learning strategies. 207

Before discussing the impact of SpLDs on each separate L2 language skill and knowledge area, it 208

is important to consider the results of a recent study by Burbank (2024) that has investigated the lan- 209

guage learning experiences and achievement of L1 English speaking dyslexic students in high-stakes 210

secondary school exams in the UK. Burbank’s results showed that dyslexic students (aged around 211

18) achieved similar scores in these exams in Latin and Spanish, but they performed below their 212

non-dyslexic peers in French. Burbank’s interviews with dyslexic learners of these modern foreign 213

languages also revealed that the higher transparency of the orthography of Spanish and Latin as well 214

as smaller class sizes for these languages than for French might explain these differences in attain- 215

ment. Students also mentioned positive language learning experiences, effective teaching methods, 216

and available support as key factors that play a role in their attainment. 217

218

3.1. The impact of SpLDs on L2 reading 219

220
Studies in the period of the review have examined the impact of SpLDs on language learning out- 221
comes and achievement from a number of perspectives and in a variety of settings. As L2 learners 222
with SpLDs tend to experience difficulties not only in L1 but also in L2 reading, one thread of stud- 223
ies has focussed on the impact of SpLDs on L2 reading outcomes in contexts where L2 English is 224
learned predominantly in classroom-based contexts, and there has also been a growth of studies in 225
immersion, content-integrated, and multilingual contexts. 226

227

3.2. Word-level L2 reading 228

Most research on reading in alphabetic languages has been concerned with the extent to which 229

dyslexic L2 learners from various L1 backgrounds such as Italian (Fazio et al., 2021), French 230

(Commissaire & Demont, 2022), Spanish (Suárez-Coalla et al., 2020), and Polish (Łockiewicz & 231

Jaskulska, 2019; Łockiewicz et al., 2020) differ from their peers in terms of their word-level reading 232

skills in L2 English as a foreign language. Fazio et al.’s (2021) study showed that Italian children from 233

4th to 8th Grade (10–14 years old) with reading difficulties in their L1 performed below their peers 234

with no reading difficulties in tests of L2 word and non-word reading. Similar findings were obtained 235

in L2 English word- and non-word reading by Suárez-Coalla et al. (2020) for Spanish dyslexic chil- 236

dren (8–12 years) and Gkountakou and Talli (2024) for Greek dyslexic children (9–12 years). The 237

significant impact of dyslexia on L2 English word-level reading skills was also demonstrated in 238

Pan et al.’s (2024) study of dyslexic children from three different Chinese L1 backgrounds (Beijing, 239

Hong Kong, and Taipei). A relatively high latency of co-occurring L1 Chinese and L2 English word- 240

level decoding difficulties (approx. 50%) was observed in a Chinese CLIL programme with students 241

aged 13 to 14 by Li et al (2021). Shakory et al.’s (2023) longitudinal study in a French-Canadian 242

immersion context established a relatively large overlap of L1 English and L2 French word-level 243

reading difficulties (between 56% and 86%) using the joint predictors of word-reading fluency and 244

accuracy. Their findings also revealed that children who had difficulties in reading in both lan- 245

guages in Grade 1 (age 6) continued to exhibit these challenges in Grade 3 (age 9), but almost 246

all of those who were ‘struggling’ readers in only one of the languages became typical readers by 247

Grade 3. 248

249

250
6 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

The only study during the review period that showed no statistically significant difference in L2 251

English real-word and non-word reading between children with L1 reading difficulties and their peers 252

with no such difficulties was conducted by Łockiewicz et al. (2020) with Polish children aged 14. The 253

authors argued that the L2 proficiency of students might not have been sufficiently high for differences 254

between the two groups of learners to emerge. The sample size of this study was also relatively low 255

resulting in reduced statistical power. 256

Fazio et al.’s (2021) data suggested that working memory and phonological skills in L1 accounted 257

for the lower L2 word-reading performance of the group of children (10–14 years) who had read- 258

ing difficulties in their L1 Italian. These findings were also supported by Łockiewicz and Jaskulska’s 259

(2019) study with Polish learners of L2 English (aged 16) who had dyslexia. In their research, L2 real- 260

word reading accuracy in the dyslexic group of students was predicted by verbal short-term memory 261

capacity, phoneme blending, and rapid automatized naming skills. 262

Commissaire and Demont’s (2022) study examined L2 word reading of L1 speaking French chil- 263

dren (11–15 year old) in L2 English as a foreign language, and they were also interested in finding 264

out to what extent the differences between L1 and L2 orthography and sound-letter correspon- 265

dences influence word-reading accuracy in silent reading and reading out loud. Dyslexic participants 266

performed best in reading words that shared L1 and L2 orthographic patterns and were congru- 267

ent in sound-spelling correspondence in both English and French. In contrast, they were least 268

accurate in reading words that shared L1 and L2 orthographic features but were incongruent in 269

terms of letter-sound correspondences in the two languages. Commissaire and Demont’s (2022) 270

research demonstrated that establishing new representations of sound-letter relationships when there 271

is cross-linguistic similarity is a resource-demanding process in which dyslexic students might need 272

additional support. Suárez-Coalla et al.’s (2020) study also highlights that word-reading difficulties 273

might depend on the characteristics of words with longer non-words being harder to process for 274

dyslexic L2 readers than shorter real-words. 275

276

277
3.3. Text level L2 reading 278

Another area investigated in a number of recent studies is the impact of L1 reading skills and dyslexia 279

on L2 text-level reading comprehension. In a study of Slovenian children (aged 10–11) learning L2 280

English in classroom settings, Košak-Babuder et al. (2019) found that students with an official iden- 281

tification of dyslexia performed significantly below the level of their peers in a test of L2 reading 282

comprehension. Levlin et al.’s (2024) study, which was also conducted in a foreign language con- 283

text, revealed that Swedish students aged 15 who had reading comprehension difficulties in their L1 284

Swedish were 23 times more likely to score lower on a test of L2 English comprehension (combined 285

reading and listening text comprehension scores) than their typically developing peers. Participants 286

who had mixed word-level and text-comprehension difficulties were six times more likely to achieve 287

below the level of their peers with no L1 reading-related difficulties. However, in this age group, L1 288

Swedish word-level reading difficulties were not associated with L2 text comprehension. L1 reading 289

fluency in German was not significantly related to L2 English sentence comprehension in Maurer 290

et al.’s (2021) study conducted with Swiss children (aged 9) from mono- and bilingual language back- 291

grounds either. Kormos et al.’s (2019) analysis also showed that 5% of dyslexic children belonged to the 292

above average L2 reader group and 15% of participants in the below average L2 reader group were not 293

dyslexic. These findings suggest that as children’s word-level decoding skills in their L1 develop and 294

become automatized as a result of literacy instruction, they do not reliably predict text comprehension 295

difficulties in an L2 acquired in classroom contexts. 296

In an immersion context, D’Angelo et al.’s (2020) study focussed on Anglophone children in French 297

immersion in Canada and found that the shared variance in reading comprehension difficulties in the 298

participants’ L1 English and L2 French was 41.7% at age 9 (Grade 3). They explained the relatively low 299

overlap in text reading difficulties in the two languages with reference to Elwér et al.’s (2013) research 300
 Language Teaching 7

that demonstrated that children’s reading comprehension difficulties generally become apparent in 301

about Grade 4 when oral language comprehension abilities and word-level decoding skills contribute 302

similarly to written text comprehension (e.g. Simple View of Reading, Gough & Tunmer, (1986) and 303

its use in L2 research reviewed by Sparks, 2021). In D’Angelo et al.’s (2020) study, poor comprehen- 304

ders in L1 English and L2 French were also found to differ from their peers with average and above 305

average reading comprehension scores in vocabulary knowledge in both of their languages as early as 306

in Grade 1. A further important aspect of this research was that it involved multilingual participants 307

representing the diverse linguistic landscape of the Canadian context. 308

Since the publication of Kormos’ (2020) research timeline, there has been a clear expansion of 309

research involving instructed Chinese L2 learners of English as a foreign language (e.g. Gao et al., 310

2019), students participating in a CLIL program in China (Li et al., 2021), and bilingual Chinese- 311

English children in Hong Kong (e.g. Chung & Lam, 2020; Deng & Tong, 2021; Huo et al., 2022; Tong 312

et al., 2022). One line of studies has investigated the extent of overlap of text reading difficulties in 313

participants’ L1 that uses a logographic writing system and L2 English that has an alphabetic system 314

and the predictors of reading difficulties in the two languages. In a foreign language learning context, 315

Gao et al.’s (2019) study with children aged nine to ten from urban and rural locations in China, 316

the co-occurrence of L1 Chinese and L2 word-reading difficulties was only 36%. The lower overlap 317

might be partly due to the shorter duration of English language instruction the students received 318

and the younger age of participants, but might also be the result of the fact that they used a spelling 319

test in L2 English as a proxy measure of L2 reading ability, which does not seem to be a valid tool 320

for assessing L2 reading skills. Gao et al.’s (2019) research also called attention to the urban-rural 321

divide in educational resources and opportunities that resulted in a higher prevalence of L2-related 322

difficulties in rural contexts than in urban settings in their study. 323

In the bilingual context of Hong Kong where English is learned from the age of 3.5 in kindergarten, 324

Tong et al. (2018) found that around half of the children (aged around ten) who were classified as poor 325

text comprehenders in L1 Chinese in Hong Kong also belonged to the poor comprehender group 326

in L2 English. In a content-integrated language learning (CLIL) context in China, Li et al. (2021) 327

showed that students (aged 13–14) who had reading comprehension difficulties in L1 Chinese scored 328

significantly lower in an L2 English reading comprehension test than those participants who had L1 329

word-decoding difficulties or were typically developing L1 Chinese readers. 330

Another line of research conducted with Chinese learners aimed to identify the predictors of L2 331

English reading performance. Deng and Tong’s (2021) research investigated the differential role of 332

segmental and suprasegmental phonological awareness in L1 Chinese and L2 English text compre- 333

hension and concluded that Cantonese lexical tone awareness played an important role in both L1 and 334

L2 text reading difficulties. Tong et al.’s (2018) study found that in addition to word-decoding skills, 335

rapid automatized naming, and phonological awareness in L1, which are well-established factors that 336

account for L2 English reading difficulties for learners from alphabetic language backgrounds, mor- 337

phological awareness in L1 Chinese contributed significantly to L2 text comprehension. Chung and 338

Lam’s (2020) study with young adolescent students aged 12 to 13 provided evidence for the prominent 339

role of the same factors except for phonological awareness in L1 Chinese, which might be because with 340

the development of literacy skills, the influence of phonological awareness tends to decrease (Landerl 341

et al., 2013). However, Tong et al.’s (2022) research failed to identify morphological awareness as an 342

underlying ability that would account for differences in L2 reading performance of groups of children 343

(aged 10–11) with varying levels of difficulties in L1 and L2 reading comprehension. Instead, their 344

data indicated that these groups differed in syntactic awareness and argued that lower levels of syn- 345

tactic awareness in L1 Chinese might result in difficulties in L2 English syntactic awareness, which 346

then might exert a negative impact on L2 text comprehension. This recent line of research highlights 347

the need to consider a wider array of linguistic abilities in identifying L2 reading difficulties among 348

Chinese L1 speakers and to take into account the shift in the role that these underlying L1 abilities 349

might play with cognitive maturation, L1 literacy instruction, and L2 instruction and exposure. 350
8 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

Finally, Kuester-Gruber et al.’s (2023) work is unique in its focus on how German children with 351

dyslexia learn to read Chinese characters and its innovative use of eye-tracking methodology. In this 352

study, 18 dyslexic children and 22 non-dyslexic children aged around ten were taught Chinese in eight 353

consecutive 3-hour sessions. After the teaching sessions, the accuracy of character naming and the 354

duration and number of eye fixations on the Chinese characters were measured. Dyslexic participants 355

did not differ from their peers in terms of their eye movements, which suggests that their visual-spatial 356

processing of Chinese characters is not different from that of their non-dyslexic peers. However, they 357

scored lower than their peers both in naming the characters in German and Chinese, but the dif- 358

ference was more pronounced when the characters were named in Chinese. These findings suggest 359

that dyslexic learners from alphabetic language backgrounds might have challenges with learning to 360

read in Chinese due to the limitations of verbal working memory and lower levels of phonological 361

awareness. 362

Overall, the research reviewed during the period seems to align with the results of von Hagen et al.’s 363

(2021) meta-analysis that demonstrated a significant effect of L1 reading difficulties on L2 word- and 364

text reading regardless of similarities and differences between the target language and the L1 of the 365

participants, onset of L2 instruction, and the age of the students. Although research conducted in 366

immersion and CLIL settings is limited during this period compared to instructed foreign language 367

learning contexts, previous studies provide ample evidence for the overlap of L1 and L2 word- and text 368

level decoding difficulties of bilingual children in a variety of immersion contexts across languages 369

with different orthographic systems (for a review see Gottardo et al., 2021). Nonetheless, the focus of 370

the majority of studies still remains on English as an L2. There would be a need to investigate a wider 371

range of target languages, and not just European ones, such as various languages used in education 372

in Asia and Africa that might not be spoken by children at home in these contexts. 373

374

375
3.4. The impact of SpLDs on L2 writing 376

3.4.1. Spelling 377

Another area where there has been growth is the examination of the impact of SpLDs on L2 writing 378

at the lower level of spelling and higher level text composing skills. In Fazio et al.’s (2021) study, which 379

was already reviewed above, Italian children with reading difficulties spelled half as many words cor- 380

rectly in a dictation task as their peers with no reading difficulties and the most important predictors 381

of L2 word spelling accuracy were phonological awareness in L1 Italian and working memory capac- 382

ity. Significant differences in L2 English word spelling accuracy between dyslexic and non-dyslexic 383

adolescents in Hong Kong, albeit with a smaller performance gap of around 30%, were also observed 384

in Chung and Lam’s (2020) research. Their findings also showed that rapid letter naming, and L2 385

English morphological and phonological awareness contributed significantly to L2 spelling accuracy 386

in a dictation task. In another study in the same context with younger children (8–9 years old), Huo 387

et al. (2022) found that participants with phonological and/or orthographic processing difficulties 388

performed below their peers with no difficulties in an L2 word dictation task. A longitudinal study 389

with kindergarten children (aged 3–4) in Hong Kong by Yeung and Qiao (2019) showed that chil- 390

dren at risk of spelling difficulties lagged behind their peers in the development of the spelling of 391

phonemes of short words and that spelling performance was predicted by L2 phonemic awareness and 392

L2 vocabulary knowledge. In a qualitative interview study conducted in an Irish immersion context 393

(Aindriú, 2021), class teachers and parents also gave account of dyslexic children’s spelling difficul- 394

ties and potential confusions between spelling in L1 English and L2 Irish. The only study that has 395

detected no differences between dyslexic and non-dyslexic L2 learners is that of Łockiewicz et al. 396

(2019), which compared the frequency of spelling errors in a free writing task of Polish teenagers. 397

They hypothesized that students might have used words that they could spell correctly and might 398

have consciously avoided those lexical items whose orthographic form they were uncertain about. 399

The potential moderating role of the socio-economic context in the development of lower level L2 400
 Language Teaching 9

writing skills such as spelling is demonstrated by Gao et al.’s (2019) results (mentioned above with 401

regard to L2 reading and the urban-rural divide) as well as Fazio et al.’s (2021) findings showing that 402

the level of mother’s education had a significant link to L2 spelling skills. 403

404

3.4.2. Text-level writing 405

Herbert et al. (2020) carried out a longitudinal study in Canada with L1 English and L2 English speak- 406

ing multilingual children between Grades 4 and 6 (aged 10–12). They divided their participants into 407

typical readers, readers with word decoding difficulties, and readers with text comprehension diffi- 408

culties, and examined the development in L2 writing skills using tests of punctation, mechanics, and a 409

story-writing task. They found that regardless of language background, students who had either type 410

of reading difficulties performed below those with typical reading skills in terms of overall story writ- 411

ing scores, the use of contextual conventions, contextual language use, and organization. They also 412

produced fewer well-constructed sentences and complex and compound sentences, and wrote shorter 413

stories than their peers. In terms of spelling, writers with word-level reading difficulties spelled fewer 414

longer words correctly than those with text-level comprehension difficulties, who in turn also per- 415

formed below their typically developing peers in this regard. Herbert et al.’s (2020) study has also 416

shown that the writing development of children from mono- and multilingual backgrounds follows 417

a similar path, but the developmental trajectory of children with reading difficulties in the majority 418

language lags behind those of typical readers. 419

Li et al.’s (2023) study was carried out in China in an English-immersion context and investigated 420

summaries written by Grade 8 students (aged 13–14). Similar to Herbert et. al’s (2020) study, par- 421

ticipants were classified as ‘typical’ readers, poor-decoders, and poor comprehenders in L1 Chinese 422

and then also in L2 English. The summaries of L2 learners who had below average decoding and text 423

comprehension skills in L1 Chinese included fewer themes than the work of those who belonged to 424

the ‘typical’ reader category. Participants with below average text comprehension scores incorporated 425

fewer main ideas and important details in their summaries than typical readers. These results show 426

that reading-related difficulties in L1 can have a significant impact on performance in writing tasks 427

that involve the integration of reading and writing skills. 428

Selhström et al. (2022, 2023) conducted a larger scale study in a foreign language context in Sweden 429

and examined differences in L2 writing quality of upper secondary school students (17–18 years 430

old) with and without reading difficulties in their L1 Swedish. In the first part of their project 431

(Sehlström et al., 2022), students with L1 word-level decoding difficulties, L1 text-level comprehen- 432

sion difficulties, and no difficulties wrote an argumentative essay which was assessed for content, 433

cohesion, coherence, vocabulary, language use, spelling, and punctuation. The poor comprehender 434

group received significantly lower scores in terms of cohesion, language use, and spelling than the 435

typically developing group, but there were no statistically significant differences between the group 436

with word-level decoding difficulties and the participants who had no reading difficulties. In the sec- 437

ond part of their project, Selhström et al. (2023) examined the argumentative text quality and writing 438

self-efficacy of Swedish secondary school students, and they divided the participants into groups with 439

word- and or/text-level reading difficulties in L1 Swedish and no reading difficulties. They found 440

that participants with L1 reading difficulties displayed lower levels of confidence in their L2 writing 441

abilities, and they achieved lower writing scores than their peers. These results are similar to those 442

obtained in Levlin et al.’s (2024) study, which was already reviewed in the previous section in terms 443

of findings for L2 reading comprehension. Levlin et al.’s data suggested that children who had been 444

identified to display L1 reading difficulties in primary school were 74% more likely to have lower 445

scores in a national test of L2 writing skills than those with no L1 Swedish reading difficulties. 446

Álvarez-Cañizo et al. (2023) investigated the quality of compositions on a familiar topic (family 447

or hobbies) written by Spanish children with dyslexia (aged around 12) in an instructed classroom 448

learning context. Unlike in the previously reviewed studies, dyslexic L2 learners were not compared 449

to their non-dyslexic peers; instead, the researchers focussed on the relationships between L1 Spanish 450
10 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

and L2 English writing fluency and linguistic text quality. Their results showed that the number of 451

spelling errors, number of revisions, and writing pauses as well as the speed of writing and lexical 452

diversity in the essays were significantly correlated (r values ranged from 0.5 to 0.7), and students 453

performed better in L1 Spanish writing than in L2 English. The findings also revealed that children 454

who demonstrated lower L2 word reading accuracy and fluency made more spelling mistakes, wrote 455

slower and fewer words and longer sentences, and produced lexically less diverse texts. Similar associ- 456

ations between performance in a word-spelling task and L2 writing fluency and text quality measures 457

were observed suggesting that difficulties with L2 spelling might cause further challenges in lexical 458

and syntactic formulation processes during composing. Another interesting result of the study was 459

that higher accuracy in an L2 picture naming task resulted in longer, more cohesive and lexically 460

more diverse texts highlighting the important role of L2 vocabulary knowledge in L2 writing. 461

Overall, the results of the recent studies reviewed seem to indicate that L1 reading difficulties have 462

a significant impact not just on L1 but also on L2 writing performance due to the cognitively demand- 463

ing nature of composing that can be taxing for attentional and working memory resources (Kormos, 464

2023). The writing difficulties of children and adolescents with SpLDs seem to be substantial in both 465

instructed and immersion contexts. These challenges in L2 writing might be due to the potential 466

weaknesses of L2 learners with SpLDs in focussing and maintaining their attention on the content 467

and organizational aspects of content planning and text production. Difficulties in L2 writing might 468

also be caused by the lower L2 vocabulary knowledge of students with SpLDs which might be exacer- 469

bated by lower level L2 reading skills that limit opportunities for incidental L2 vocabulary learning. 470

Challenges at the level of L2 spelling might be the result of lower levels of phonological awareness, 471

slower word retrieval, and reduced working memory capacity and morphological awareness of L2 472

learners with SpLDs, which are also important contributing factors to L2 reading difficulties. The 473

additional cognitive load at the level of spelling might drain attentional resources and prevent L2 474

writers with SpLDs from devoting sufficient attention to lexical choice, syntactic encoding, and the 475

use of cohesive ties during composing. Currently, most research in this field has been conducted with 476

children and adolescents, and our knowledge of the L2 writing difficulties of individuals with SpLDs 477

in further and higher education contexts and in the workplace is limited. Further research would be 478

needed with these learner groups because writing is a key means of assessment in higher education, 479

and there are also several professions in which writing skills are highly important. In order to support 480

the writing development of L2 learners/users with SpLDs using research-informed pedagogical tools 481

and interventions, it would also be necessary to investigate writing processes using keystroke and/or 482

think-aloud methodology and to conduct interviews to explore these learners’ writing practices. 483

484

485
3.5. The impact of SpLDs on L2 oral and combined written–oral text comprehension 486

Recent research has also investigated challenges of students with SpLDs in L2 listening compre- 487

hension. Košak-Babuder et al. (2019) and Kormos et al. (2019) analyzed the differences in the 488

performance of Slovenian dyslexic and non-dyslexic children (aged 11–13) on an L2 English lis- 489

tening test. Košak-Babuder et al.’s (2019) results indicated that dyslexic children scored significantly 490

lower than their non-dyslexic peers. Kormos et al. (2019) reanalyzed the same dataset and found that 491

around 50% of dyslexic children belonged to the below average, 35% to the average, and 15% to the 492

above average L2 listener group, which demonstrates that around half of the young dyslexic L2 learn- 493

ers might not have substantial difficulties with understanding spoken L2 texts. They also conducted 494

a regression analysis examining the predictors of L2 listening scores which indicated that dyslexia 495

status made a unique contribution to L2 listening beyond orthographic skills (measured by a dic- 496

tation task) and word-level decoding (measured by a timed word reading task). They hypothesized 497

that ‘additional difficulties, such as lower working memory capacity, which were not captured by the 498

low-level L1 assessment tools, contribute to L2 listening performance’ (Kormos et al. 2019, p. 845). 499

These assumptions have been confirmed by Eberharter et al.’s (2023) study that examined the role of 500
 Language Teaching 11

L1 word-level decoding, phonological working memory, and naming speed in a test of L2 listening 501

comprehension for young learners in Austria (aged 13–15). Their findings demonstrated that lower 502

phonological working memory capacity and L1 German word-reading accuracy were significantly 503

associated with lower L2 listening scores. Levlin et al.’s (2024) study mentioned earlier also found 504

that Swedish learners of English with L1 reading comprehension difficulties performed significantly 505

below their peers in a test that included oral and written text comprehension tasks. In contrast to find- 506

ings regarding single modal oral text comprehension, Košak-Babuder et al.’s (2019) and Kormos et al.’s 507

(2019) findings revealed that when exposed to bimodal (spoken and written) texts, dyslexic students’ 508

understanding of key information is similar to those who have no official identification of reading 509

difficulties. 510

511

512
3.6. The impact of SpLDs on oral communication and L2 vocabulary knowledge 513

There is limited research on the impact of SpLDs on oral communication partly due to the commonly 514

held belief that L1 literacy-related difficulties have a limited effect on L2 speaking skills. The only study 515

to date by Levlin et al. (2024) already reviewed above found that Swedish learners of L2 English with 516

L1 reading comprehension difficulties were 12 times less likely to achieve high scores in a test of oral 517

communication than their peers. 518

The results of larger scale quantitative studies on the impact of SpLDs on L2 vocabulary knowledge 519

are somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, a meta-analysis of existing research by von Hagen et al. 520

(2021) concluded that dyslexia does not have a statistically significant effect on receptive vocabulary 521

size. Kormos and Smith (2023) have argued that this might have been because most of the previous 522

studies included in the review applied vocabulary tests originally designed for L1 speaking children 523

without modifications for the L2 learner participant group. In a large-scale study conducted in a 524

Chinese CLIL context, Li et al. (2021) (reviewed above on L2 reading) showed that children who 525

had word- and text-level reading comprehension difficulties in their L1 Chinese had smaller breadth 526

and depth of vocabulary knowledge than their typically developing peers. Łockiewicz et al. (2019) 527

did not detect any significant differences in L2 vocabulary knowledge between dyslexic and non- 528

dyslexic Polish L2 learners (see above for results on L2 writing). On the one hand, these contrasting 529

findings with regards to the influence of SpLDs on L2 vocabulary development might be related to 530

the sensitivity and validity of the measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge used in these studies. On 531

the other hand, the differences might also be due to the level of proficiency of the participants, which 532

might interact with the effect of SpLDs. It is possible that in the early stages of L2 learning, differences 533

in vocabulary size and depth might not be apparent between students with and without SpLDs (as in 534

Łockiewicz et al.’s [2019] study), and they emerge only as L2 learners are expected to acquire higher 535

levels of lexical knowledge (e.g. the immersion context of Li et al. [2021]). 536

Our understanding of the key underlying cognitive and language-processing related factors that 537

predict the L2 learning outcomes and its development has been substantially expanded in the past 538

few years in the areas of reading, listening, and writing. However, less attention has been given to 539

spoken language skills and vocabulary development which are also key constituents of L2 compe- 540

tence. Further research in this field could shift focus to investigating the L2 difficulties of multilingual 541

children in naturalistic, immersion, CLIL, and classroom-instructed settings, and the mediating role 542

of socio-economic factors. This would help the timely identification of literacy-related difficulties 543

among multilingual children from disadvantaged backgrounds and could also inspire future studies 544

in the Global South. 545

546

547
4. The identification of specific learning differences in multilingual contexts 548

A key issue in bi- and multilingual contexts is how SpLDs can be identified in the case of L2 users 549

whose L1 is different from the majority language and whose proficiency in the L2 might not be 550
12 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

developed to the extent that their skills and cognitive characteristics can be assessed in the L2. This 551

problem can be further complicated by the fact that if standardized tools in the participants’ L1 are not 552

available or if they are available, there are no qualified assessors in the context who can use them. In an 553

overview of the field of assessing the L2 reading skills of multilingual children in a variety of contexts, 554

Geva et al. (2019) argued that existing research evidence seems to suggest that for young L2 users in 555

target language environments, L2 word decoding skills develop relatively quickly if the language of 556

schooling is the L2. Therefore, for these children word-level decoding skills can be assessed reliably 557

and tests can yield similar diagnostic information as for L1 speaking children. For older students 558

with less exposure to the L2, word-reading tests administered in the L2 might not provide reliable 559

results. However, Shakory et al.’s (2023) results with bilingual French-English immersion children 560

in Canada that we described earlier, suggest that tests of word-level reading accuracy and fluency 561

that are commonly used as diagnostic tools, might not be accurate predictors of persistent reading 562

difficulties unless they are administered in both languages. 563

In a recent interesting and promising international collaborative project, Ho et al. (2024) designed 564

an online diagnostic instrument for global English, called WordSword Test ([Link] 565

[Link]) which assesses word-decoding speed and accuracy in and out of sentential context. 566

Their validation study with nearly 900 participants of different ages and educational and language 567

backgrounds has demonstrated appropriate psychometric qualities of the test and the aim of the 568

research team is to offer referenced norms for different groups of L2 learners and users in the future. In 569

another recent study, Kahn-Horwitz and Goldstein (2024) have designed a diagnostic assessment tool 570

for measuring L2 English word decoding and spelling skills, vocabulary knowledge, and syntactic and 571

morphological awareness and its predictors (orthographic knowledge and rapid automatized nam- 572

ing) for Hebrew speaking children in Israel (aged 11–16). Their research suggested that the assessment 573

tool can yield valuable diagnostic information for teachers across Grades 5 to 10 and can help them 574

identify students who might struggle with L2 English literacy skills. 575

In their review of previous research findings, Geva et al. (2019) concluded that phonological 576

awareness and rapid automatized naming are independent of L2 proficiency and can be measured 577

in either L1 or L2. When assessed in L2, these tests can also offer valuable predictive insights for L2 578

word reading difficulties. In the case of working memory, tests administered in L2 before L2 pro- 579

ficiency reaches a higher level were found to be less informative. The conclusions reached by Geva 580

et al. (2019) have been confirmed by recent studies with monolingual and bilingual children in Italy 581

that showed that being at risk of reading difficulties influenced performance on tests of phonological 582

awareness (Taha et al., 2022; Vender & Melloni, 2021), rapid automatized naming, and non-word rep- 583

etition (measure of phonological short-term memory) in Italian, but bilingual status did not (Taha 584

et al., 2022). 585

Geva et al. (2019) recommend exercising caution when assessing L2 text comprehension difficul- 586

ties of multilingual L2 users because L2 proficiency, school experience in the target language and 587

prior to the arrival to the country, family literacy, and socio-economic background might all act 588

as mediating factors in how well L2 users understand written texts. A highly influential European 589

collaborative project has recently developed Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual Settings 590

(LITMUS) tools for developmental language disorder ([Link] which 591

often co-occurs and overlaps with dyslexia (Snowling et al., 2020). These tools include language neu- 592

tral tests of lexical and phonological processing, sentence repetition, and cross-linguistic lexical tasks 593

in a variety of languages and parental questionnaires. 594

Some recent empirical investigations of the assessment of reading difficulties in multilingual con- 595

texts have also been carried out, one of which was conducted by Helland et al. (2023) with children 596

from different language backgrounds in Norway (aged 8–9). Their research aimed to shed light on 597

how using an instrument administered in the children’s L2 Norwegian can distinguish difficulties 598

arising from a potential underlying literacy-related difficulty from challenges that derive from not yet 599

sufficiently developed L2 competence. When L1 Norwegian dyslexic and non-dyslexic children and 600
 Language Teaching 13

L2 children were compared on tests of Norwegian reading, spelling, vocabulary, and sentence com- 601

prehension, L2 participants and L1 dyslexic children performed below the level of non-dyslexic L1 602

children. However, on domain general cognitive tests such as working memory, phonological mem- 603

ory, dichotic listening, and visuo-spatial memory, most L2 speaking children scored in the same range 604

as L1 speaking children, and even higher than the L1 non-dyslexic group in dichotic listening and 605

visuo-spatial memory. They further subdivided the L2 group based on the results of a risk-index 606

questionnaire for dyslexia filled in by the caregivers and compared the subgroup’s performance on 607

domain specific tests (reading, spelling, vocabulary, and sentence comprehension) and domain gen- 608

eral tests. The children with the lowest risk of dyslexia achieved at a level similar to their L1 speaking 609

non-dyslexic peers, whereas those with the highest risk were similar to dyslexic L1 speaking chil- 610

dren. The middle group could be placed within these two groups with a pattern either suggesting 611

an emerging reading difficulty, or one that can be remediated with instruction and the development 612

of L2 Norwegian skills. Similar to Geva et al.’s (2019) suggestions, Helland et al. recommend using 613

domain general cognitive tests to identify literacy-related difficulties in multilingual children with 614

sufficient exposure to the majority language. 615

Another project carried out by Krenca et al. (2020) in the French immersion setting in Canada 616

applied diagnostic tools in the participants’ L1 English and L2 French to predict early reading diffi- 617

culties in L2 French, and compared the utility of assessment instruments in L1 English and L2 French. 618

The novelty of their study was that they administered a playful and computerized dynamic assessment 619

tool in which children aged 6 to 7 learned novel word pairs that only differed in one phoneme in L1 620

English and L2 French. Their results showed that lower performance on this dynamic test of lexical 621

specificity in the children’s L1 English was associated with a higher risk of L2 French reading diffi- 622

culties, but scores on the assessment of L2 French lexical specificity were not predictive of L2 French 623

reading status. The findings underscore the importance of applying L1 assessment tools, if they are 624

available, for identifying emerging reading difficulties in an L2 at a young age when children’s L2 625

proficiency is not yet sufficiently developed and when exposure might be largely limited to school 626

contexts. They also provide evidence for the utility of a playful dynamic assessment instrument that 627

tests a language processing ability that is a precursor to phonological awareness. 628

629

630
5. Teaching techniques and programmes in supporting language learners with specific 631
learning differences 632

Another area of research in the field that has been expanded in the past five years is the investigation of 633

the benefits of instructional programmes in supporting the L2 development of students with SpLDs. 634

These studies include smaller-scale predominantly qualitative case studies that document potential 635

effects of multisensory instruction on L2 spelling skills of dyslexic Norwegian learners of L2 English 636

(Flaten Jarsve & Tsagari, 2022), the L2 reading skills of dyslexic Iranian students (Mohamadzadeh 637

et al., 2020), and the reading and spelling skills of a Chinese learner of English (Kałdonek-Crnjaković, 638

2021) as well as quantitative intervention studies aiming to develop L2 linguistic skills (e.g. Abu-Rabia 639

& Salfety, 2021; Li et al., 2023; Tribushinina et al., 2022). Reraki’s (2022) research investigated the 640

impact of an inclusive language teaching programme on Greek dyslexic and non-dyslexic students’ 641

motivation and achievement. The researcher trained three English language teachers on dyslexia- 642

friendly approaches in the classroom who then implemented this approach in their teaching. Reraki’s 643

classroom observations as well as interviews with the students (aged 10–11) and their teachers indi- 644

cated that dyslexic L2 learners’ motivation improved during the seven-week programme, but the 645

effects on performance were non-significant probably due to the short duration of the intervention 646

and lack of individualized support. 647

In terms of instructional programmes supporting the development of L2 phonological awareness 648

and L2 word-reading, Mohamadzadeh et al. (2020) conducted a study in Iran with five dyslexic stu- 649

dents (aged 8–12) who received 12 sessions of multisensory instruction on the alphabetic principle, 650
14 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

sound-letter correspondences, and phonological awareness. They found considerable improvement 651

in L2 English and L1 Persian phonological awareness and in L2 English non-word reading. Li et al. 652

(2023) provided lexical specificity training to a group of emerging bilingual children in Canada (aged 653

7) who were identified as being at risk of developing reading difficulties in L2 English. The experiment 654

involved systematic practice in discriminating pairs of words that only differed in one phoneme (20 655

phonemic contrasts) for three weeks in two 20-minute sessions per week. The experiment was effec- 656

tive in terms of enhancing the at-risk group’s performance on a test of phoneme discrimination but 657

the training effects did not have an impact on L2 phonological awareness, word reading accuracy, or 658

fluency. Similarly, the experimental group performed better than the at-risk control group of emerg- 659

ing bilingual children in the post-test, but not in any other L2 test, suggesting that the benefits of 660

lexical specificity training do not transfer to other areas of L2 skills. 661

In Flaten Jarsva and Tsagari’s (2022) study, five Norwegian dyslexic students (aged 11–12) partic- 662

ipated in a multisensory teaching programme combined with digital practice for eight sessions that 663

targeted L2 spelling skills. The intervention included activities that develop letter-naming and spelling 664

skills as well as phonological awareness in L2 English. Most participants demonstrated improvement 665

in the spelling test and reported increased motivation. The teacher who administered the programme 666

also attested the effectiveness of instruction by giving an account of students’ enhanced engagement. 667

Kałdonek-Crnjaković’s (2021) single participant case study involved a Chinese student studying in the 668

UK, who took part in an intensive 12-session multisensory explicit teaching programme that aimed 669

to enhance their word reading and spelling skills. The student demonstrated consistent improvement 670

in L2 English word reading skills and general L2 self-efficacy but not in L2 spelling or in self-efficacy 671

with regard to L2 spelling. Tribushinina et al. ‘s (2022) study was a quantitative experimental project 672

in which 20 dyslexic Dutch students (aged 12–14) received spelling instruction for eight weeks in 20- 673

minute sessions. The students compared and contrasted the Dutch and English spelling systems and 674

were taught L2 English spelling regularities explicitly. The control group consisting of 20 dyslexic par- 675

ticipants followed the regular English curriculum during this time. Although both groups improved 676

over time, the experimental group made higher gains in L2 orthographic knowledge in the immediate 677

post-test than the control group, and they maintained this gain in the delayed spelling post-test five 678

weeks after the intervention. Both Flaten Jarsva and Tsagari’s (2022) and Tribushinina et al.’s (2022) 679

studies seem to provide evidence for the benefits of explicit, contrastive, and multisensory instruc- 680

tion of the L2 spelling system for dyslexic L2 learners in classroom contexts, while the single case 681

study by Kałdonek-Crnjaković (2021) might indicate individual level-variability in how successfully 682

L2 learners respond to intervention programmes. 683

Abu-Rabia and Salfaty’s (2021) explicit aim was to examine whether the severity of L1 reading diffi- 684

culties mediate the effectiveness of a four-month intervention programme targeting the development 685

of L2 vocabulary knowledge, morphosyntactic awareness, reading accuracy, fluency, and text compre- 686

hension among L1 Arabic speaking learners of English in Israel. The researchers divided 180 dyslexic 687

participants (12–13 years old) into three groups: those with severe, moderate, and mild forms of 688

dyslexia. They examined whether the experimental group consisting of 90 dyslexic students improved 689

in terms of L1 Arabic and L2 English word- and non-word reading, text comprehension, phonologi- 690

cal, morphological, and syntactic awareness as a result of the intervention compared to the matched 691

control group that did not take part in the intervention programme. Participants with mild and mod- 692

erately severe dyslexia in the experimental group improved significantly in all of the L2 English tests 693

over time and their gains were significantly larger than those of the control group. However, no signif- 694

icant change in the performance of students with severe dyslexia could be observed. The intervention 695

on L2 skills also transferred to some of the L1 Arabic skills (word-level decoding, spelling, and text 696

comprehension in the case of the group with mild dyslexia but not for those who had moderate 697

or severe forms of dyslexia). Abu-Rabia and Salfaty’s large sample longer term intervention study 698

provides further evidence for the benefits of targeted intervention programmes that provide explicit 699

instruction on different levels of the L2 linguistic system for dyslexic students. Their research also 700
 Language Teaching 15

supports the theory of cognitive retroactive transfer (Abu-Rabia et al., 2013) that hypothesizes that 701

instructional programmes developing L2 abilities also enhance L1 skills. However, their findings call 702

attention to the heterogeneity of L2 learners with dyslexia and the need to search for further ways of 703

effectively supporting students who have severe forms of SpLDs. 704

As shown in the above review, although there has been a growth in research investigating the 705

impact of intervention programmes for language learners with SpLDs, most research has been small 706

scale and has primarily targeted lower level L2 skills such as spelling and word-reading skills. Further 707

studies would be necessary to replicate and extend Abu-Rabia and Salfety’s (2021) larger scale inves- 708

tigation in a wider variety of language learning contexts. It would also be important to study the 709

differential effects of inclusive language pedagogies for language learners with and without dis- 710

abilities, not just in terms of language learning outcomes, but also for motivation, enjoyment, and 711

engagement. There has also been an increased interest in multimodal language learning and teaching 712

(cf. [Lim et al., 2022] systematic review) but studies so far have failed to consider their use and impact 713

for language learners with SpLDs. 714

715

716
6. Assessing the second language competence of test-takers with specific learning 717
differences 718

The objective of promoting fairness in assessment is to prevent tests from causing harm to test-takers, 719

and to optimize the potential for all test-takers to perform to the best of their abilities. One way 720

to achieve these aims and meet these standards is through ensuring that tests are accessible to all 721

test-takers and follow the principles of universal design (Sireci et al., 2003). Universal design prin- 722

ciples require careful consideration of the test construct and the selection of tasks that avoid bias or 723

the emergence of construct irrelevant variance based on individual test-takers’ characteristics. The 724

principles of universal test design represent an important impetus towards ensuring the accessibility 725

of tests (Christensen et al., 2023). Nevertheless, there will always be candidates who might require 726

adjustments in the testing process (Lazarus et al., 2022). 727

Within the realm of second language assessment, three types of special adjustments have been 728

investigated: read-aloud assistance, time extension, and the self-pacing of audio input in listening 729

tests. Read-aloud assistance involves reading the text out loud to students with disabilities while they 730

simultaneously read it themselves. Although read-aloud has an impact on test validity, it is more 731

commonly used in classroom contexts, and less frequently applied in high-stakes assessments of text 732

comprehension unless the construct of comprehension is assumed to be multimodal. In a study by 733

Košak-Babuder et al. (2019), young Slovenian dyslexic and non-dyslexic learners of English were 734

exposed to three different formats of input – written, oral, and bimodal written and oral texts – and the 735

authors investigated whether dyslexic participants benefited from read-aloud assistance. The input 736

texts also differed in difficulty based on readability indices. As mentioned earlier, dyslexic children 737

performed at the level of their non-dyslexic peers in the bimodal text comprehension condition, but 738

further analyses showed that improvement in comprehension in the read-aloud condition was more 739

pronounced when the text was difficult. Košak-Babuder et al. (2019) argued that being able to simul- 740

taneously read and listen to a text eases the processing burden of decoding written words for dyslexic 741

students and frees up attentional and working memory resources for higher level text comprehension. 742

Kormos and Ratajczak (2019) examined how Hungarian learners of English (aged 14) with dif- 743

ferent L1 literacy profiles perform in a digital test of L2 reading comprehension under extended and 744

standard timing conditions. They assessed L1 literacy skills using a test of L1 reading comprehen- 745

sion, and a standardized test of Hungarian word- and non-word reading, phonological awareness, 746

and rapid naming. A combined factor score based on students’ performance on this test was cre- 747

ated to analyze whether L2 learners with lower levels of L1 literacy skills benefit from extended time 748

more than their peers with higher L1 literacy profiles. L1 literacy was significantly associated with 749

L2 text comprehension. However, their study showed that the participants did not perform better 750
16 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

in the extended timing condition and that time extension did not give an advantage for L2 learners 751

with low-level L1 skills indicative of dyslexia. Possible reasons for the findings might be that the test 752

included relatively short reading texts and was generously timed in the standard condition already. 753

Kormos and Ratajczak also measured the time students took to complete the test and concluded that 754

a margin of around 50% extra time from the mean test population test completion time could allow 755

most test-takers to demonstrate their knowledge in similar tests of L2 reading. Motteram et al.’s (2023) 756

recent study of a large-scale English language and numeracy test in Singapore, which used qualitative 757

interviews with stakeholders, found that extended time might support test-takers in handling their 758

anxiety that might be the result of or an accompanying characteristic of disabilities. 759

Eberharter et al. (2023) investigated whether giving young Austrian learners of English (aged 14) 760

individual control over the recording of listening input provides a differential boost to the perfor- 761

mance of students with varying levels of L1 skills indicative of dyslexia. They administered a test 762

of listening under a single listening condition and in a self-paced condition when test-takers could 763

stop, rewind, and forward the recording when listening for the second time. L1 literacy profiles were 764

assessed similarly as in Kormos and Ratajczak’s (2019) study using an instrument standardized for L1 765

German speakers. As mentioned earlier, participants with lower L1 literacy scores performed worse in 766

the listening test than children with higher L1 literacy scores. Interestingly, no impact of self-pacing 767

on listening scores was found, and test-takers with lower L1 skills scored lower in the self-paced 768

condition compared to their peers. The authors argued that self-pacing might not have benefited the 769

students because they could not see the questions that had to be answered during the self-paced phase 770

of listening. This might have been a particular disadvantage for children with lower working mem- 771

ory capacity, who might have had difficulties maintaining the relevant information active to respond 772

correctly to the listening items. 773

Current research findings on the benefits of testing accommodations for candidates with SpLDs are 774

inconclusive. On the one hand, there is limited evidence for the positive impact of accommodations 775

on test scores for students with SpLDs. On the other hand, there is a scarcity of studies that have 776

examined how test-takers with SpLDs use these accommodations and perceive their benefits. More 777

research with a wider variety of tests and test-takers with SpLDs would be needed to understand 778

how testing accommodations and universal design features of L2 assessment support candidates with 779

disabilities (see also Taylor & Banerjee, 2023). 780

781

782
7. Raising language teachers’ awareness and knowledge of specific learning difficulties 783

Language teachers play a crucial role in the process of L2 learning of students with SpLDs. Their work 784

involves observing and identifying learners with SpLDs, leading them to a formal diagnosis/screening 785

process, employing inclusive pedagogical techniques in class, assisting both learners and their par- 786

ents/caregivers to understand the strengths and weaknesses of learners, addressing the social stigma 787

associated with SpLDs, employing appropriate assessment methods to measure the progress of learn- 788

ers with SpLDs, as well as working closely with school management to make the teaching-learning 789

process suitable to learners with SpLDs. Research has investigated aspects such as teacher knowl- 790

edge/awareness of SpLDs, teachers’ attitudes towards learners with SpLDs, availability of teacher 791

education programmes on SpLDs, and the effectiveness of such programmes. It is important to note 792

that there was a limited number of studies that investigated these aspects in relation to language 793

teachers before 2020. Thus, the summary provided within this section about the findings before 2020 794

refers to some studies that were focussed on teachers in general, primary education teachers, and/or 795

special education teachers. The review of studies after 2020 focusses only on studies that investigated 796

language teachers. 797

Several studies up to 2020 investigated teacher awareness of dyslexia/SpLDs. While most of 798

these studies focussed on teachers in general or primary teachers rather than language teachers 799

(e.g. Alawadh, 2016), a few studies investigated teacher awareness among language teachers (e.g. 800
 Language Teaching 17

Indrarathne, 2019). These studies indicated that in many contexts, teachers either did not have suf- 801

ficient awareness and knowledge of dyslexia/SpLDs or their awareness was not translated into the 802

implementation of inclusive practices. 803

Several studies since 2020 have investigated language teacher awareness of dyslexia/SpLDs and 804

inclusive language pedagogy in a variety of contexts. Atar and Amir (2023) surveyed 176 pre-service 805

EFL teachers in Turkey and found that the participants either lacked knowledge or or their knowledge 806

about dyslexia was inaccurate. Ataç and Taşçı (2020) investigated teachers’ knowledge of inclusive 807

education of 20 pre-service English language teachers also in Turkey and reported that the partici- 808

pants did not have sufficient expertise and skills to teach learners with learning difficulties. In another 809

study with Turkish in-service language teachers, Özçelik and Elverici (2023) found that many English 810

teachers in their survey of 180 participants were not prepared to teach learners with dyslexia. Nushi 811

and Eshraghi (2023) distributed a questionnaire among 84 teachers of English in Iran to investigate 812

their awareness of dyslexia and found that the majority lacked adequate knowledge about dyslexia. 813

Wong and Russak (2020) administered a basic language construct survey, which included ques- 814

tions that assess phonological knowledge and skills of participants, among two groups of teachers 815

who taught beginner literacy in English in Hong Kong. One group was non-native English speak- 816

ers (N = 96) and the other native speakers (N = 24). Although the native speaker group performed 817

significantly better, both groups scored below 50% except in the phonological awareness task. The 818

findings indicate that the participants did not have sufficient understanding of what factors con- 819

tributed to learning difficulties. Žero and Pižorn (2022) also found that undergraduate and graduate 820

students who would become English teachers in Bosnia and Herzegovina had misconceptions about 821

dyslexia/SpLDs. The above studies in a wide range of contexts confirm earlier findings before 2020 822

that teachers in general lack adequate awareness of SpLDs. 823

However, some studies that investigated language teachers’ knowledge and awareness of SpLDs in 824

Croatia and Poland demonstrated different results. Fišer and Kałdonek-Crnjaković (2022) analyzed 825

the teaching practices of 16 Croatian English language teachers. They found that the participants 826

could accurately define dyslexia and they used dyslexia-friendly teaching practices. However, the 827

authors also observed that the teachers who had experience in teaching learners with dyslexia were 828

less confident in defining dyslexia than those who did not have such experience. Similar findings 829

were reported by Oskwarek et al. (2024) who investigated 75 English language teachers with some 830

experience of teaching learners with dyslexia in the Upper Silesia Province. Their participants were 831

aware of dyslexia and attempted implementing effective teaching and assessment techniques when 832

teaching learners with dyslexia. These two studies indicate that having experience in teaching learners 833

with dyslexia could either increase or decrease teachers’ confidence in teaching these learners and 834

factors such as the availability of resources and teacher training might moderate the link between 835

experience and confidence in teaching L2 learners with SpLDs. 836

A notable difference can also be observed between the findings in studies before 2020 and after 837

2020 in terms of teacher attitudes towards learners with SpLDs and inclusive pedagogy. Studies 838

conducted before 2020 highlighted that teachers in general had negative attitudes towards learners 839

with SpLDs (e.g. Hettiarachchi & Das, 2014; Indrarathne, 2019). However, several studies after 2020 840

note that teachers are willing to learn about SpLDs and inclusive practices (e.g. Ataç & Taşçı, 2020; 841

Haggag & Bakr, 2020; Nushi & Eshraghi, 2023). Young (2024a) distributed a modified version of 842

the Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised Scale (SACIE-R) among 843

239 English language teachers in Japan and found that teachers had positive attitudes towards teach- 844

ing students with SpLDs. However, the participants stressed the need for more teacher training on 845

SpLDs. Kałdonek-Crnjaković and Fišer’s (2021) investigation of ten in-service Croatian EFL teachers 846

also found that these teachers had positive attitudes towards teaching learners with dyslexia. 847

Another line of research after 2020 has also looked at teachers’ readiness to teach learners with 848

SpLDs and their use of classroom and assessment techniques. Huys (2020) investigated a group 849

of 47 EFL teachers in the Netherlands and found that these teachers employed differentiation in 850
18 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

assessing learners with dyslexia; however, differentiation techniques were less evident in their class- 851

room teaching. The author also noted that the participants lacked confidence in their own ability to 852

teach learners with dyslexia. Lack of teacher training was identified as the cause of these outcomes. 853

Madden (2021) used interviews and think-aloud protocols to investigate the teaching practices of 854

four EFL/ESL teachers in Northern Ireland on their use of inclusive pedagogical practices. The par- 855

ticipants reported using several inclusive language teaching techniques through trial and error. They 856

also mentioned that there was a severe lack of teacher training on teaching learners with dyslexia and 857

that they did not feel prepared and confident to teach such learners. In another study, Konrad (2023) 858

investigated the teaching practices of six EFL teachers from Austria in teaching learners with dyslexia. 859

The teachers used support strategies when teaching writing, language structures, and sounds, but they 860

also lacked formal teacher training in this area. In contrast to the findings described above, Lu et al. 861

(2022) reported that the EFL teachers investigated in China (N = 328) had not used specific inclusive 862

teaching techniques in class. The participants also emphasized that they had not received any training 863

on this aspect. 864

Teachers’ lack of awareness, possible misconceptions about SpLDs, their negative attitudes towards 865

learners with SpLDs, and ineffective or insufficient inclusive practices can largely be attributed to the 866

lack of professional training opportunities available to them (Indrarathne, 2019). Research before 867

2020 suggests that appropriate teacher training on SpLDs and inclusive language teaching can instil 868

positive attitudes among teachers towards learners with SpLDs (e.g. Indrarathne, 2019; Kormos & 869

Nijakowska, 2017), increase their knowledge on SpLDs (Giannopoulou et al., 2019; Rae et al., 2011) 870

and their self-efficacy beliefs on teaching learners with SpLDs (Kormos & Nijakowska, 2017). As 871

previously noted, some of these studies investigated language teachers and some teachers in general. 872

Considering the positive changes that teacher training can bring about, many studies that investi- 873

gated language teacher awareness of dyslexia/learning difficulties and inclusive pedagogical practices 874

after 2020 recommend teacher training to increase teacher knowledge of dyslexia/learning difficulties 875

(e.g. Ataç & Taşçı, 2020; Atar & Amir, 2023; Nushi & Eshraghi, 2023; Özçelik & Elverici, 2023; Wong & 876

Russak, 2020). Uçak and Demirok (2023) used a pre-post-test design in Turkey to investigate whether 877

a teacher training initiative could increase the academic skills and professional knowledge of learning 878

difficulties of 28 English language teacher participants. They found that there was a statistically signif- 879

icant increase from the pre-test to the post-test in the participants’ skills and knowledge indicating the 880

beneficial effects of teacher training in raising teacher awareness of learning difficulties. Nijakowska 881

(2022) reported statistically significant improvements in self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes among a 882

group of 69 EFL teachers from Greece, Slovenia, and Poland in terms of implementing inclusive teach- 883

ing practices in a study that employed a pre-post comparison of the training programme. Wray et al. 884

(2022) conducted a systematic review based on 71 studies that investigated self-efficacy among teach- 885

ers for inclusive education practices. The review included both language teachers and other teachers. 886

They found that pre- and in-service teacher training plays an important role in increasing self-efficacy 887

beliefs in implementing inclusive teaching practices. 888

Although positive effects of teacher training have been reported, there still seems to be a scarcity 889

of teacher training initiatives on SpLDs in many contexts. Sowell and Sugisaki (2020) administered 890

a questionnaire among current and former graduates of Indiana University of Pennsylvania who 891

were EFL teachers (N = 23) to investigate whether these participants had received any training 892

on identifying and accommodating learners with SpLDs, the type of training they received, and 893

whether the training was useful. They reported that the majority did not receive or had very little 894

training and was not confident in teaching learners with SpLDs. The authors thus recommend ini- 895

tiatives to raise teacher awareness on SpLDs. Young (2024b) used the Inclusive Practices in English 896

Language Teaching Observation Scale (IPELT) and post-observation interviews to investigate English 897

language teachers’ training needs on inclusive practices among 13 teachers in Japan. They con- 898

cluded that the participating teachers needed more training on identifying and teaching learners 899

with SpLDs. Žero and Pižorn (2022) also highlight the need for more training in teaching learners 900
 Language Teaching 19

with dyslexia/SpLDs for undergraduate and graduate students who would become English teachers 901

in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mohammad (2022) emphasizes the same in the Iraqi EFL context. 902

These findings indicate that in many contexts, language teachers still do not have sufficient aware- 903

ness of SpLDs. This often results in teachers becoming less confident and ready to teach learners with 904

SpLDs. However, it seems that teachers have developed more positive attitudes towards learners with 905

SpLDs and their willingness to learn how to teach learners with SpLDs has increased in the recent 906

years. This may be due to the influence of the internet and social media where inclusion is being 907

more often discussed. Although teachers’ willingness to learn how to teach learners with SpLDs has 908

increased, and the effectiveness of offering teacher training on raising teacher awareness of SpLDs 909

has been documented, teacher training opportunities are still scarce in many contexts. Thus, both 910

teachers and learners with SpLDs are disadvantaged in these contexts. 911

912

913
8. Pedagogical implications and conclusions 914

Researchers in the fields of cognitive psychology and second language acquisition have conducted 915

extensive explorations of the impact of SpLDs, in particular dyslexia, on the development of L2 read- 916

ing and spelling skills. Our understanding of the nature of the difficulties of dyslexic L2 learners in 917

comprehending written texts and spelling single words particularly in English as an additional lan- 918

guage has grown substantially over recent years. However, hardly any studies have been conducted 919

on the role of SpLDs in multimodal text comprehension which is becoming an increasingly widely 920

applied means of sharing information and using additional languages for entertainment. Insights into 921

the extent to which multimodality can support text comprehension are important as multimodal 922

input can enhance engagement with reading texts, contribute to L2 vocabulary development, and 923

enhance uptake of new information through reading in content-integrated English for Specific and 924

Academic Purposes settings. Research in this area would also have implications for increasing the 925

accessibility of L2 assessment tasks and offer insights into whether multimodality can serve as a tool 926

for universal design without substantial impact on the construct to be assessed. To develop effective 927

writing support programmes, more research would also be required to explore the L2 written and 928

oral text production difficulties of L2 learners with SpLDs with specific investigations in different 929

genres that are prevalent across various levels of schooling. Studies could also investigate whether 930

multimodal means of L2 production create engaging and effective opportunities for L2 users with 931

SpLDs to demonstrate and develop their knowledge of the L2. 932

While there has been an increase in studies in instructed classroom contexts with participants 933

from Chinese and European language backgrounds, we know still very little about the challenges of 934

students with SpLDs who speak several home languages in the Global South and Central Asia. There 935

would be a need to examine L2 learning challenges in a wider variety of target languages including 936

Spanish as a target L2 and languages that serve as a tool of instruction and mediation in multilingual 937

contexts, particularly in non-Western, non-industrialized contexts that are resource poor in terms 938

of educational assets. There are very few studies with multilingual participants beyond the Canadian 939

context which hinders developing diagnostic assessment tools that can detect L2 learning difficulties 940

at an early stage before the students fall substantially behind their peers. As already mentioned in 941

this paper, more systematic and preferably international collaborative studies would be required to 942

design, validate, and if needed, norm and standardize, diagnostic assessment tasks for multilingual 943

children and adults that can either be administered in the L1 or home language of L2 learners/users or 944

that include language independent tasks. It would also be necessary to extend the scope of diagnostic 945

assessment so that they include informative student, parent, and teacher questionnaires, observation 946

tools, and interview schedules in addition to linguistic and cognitive tests. 947

It is also important to highlight that the majority of the reviewed studies and existing literature 948

focusses on dyslexia and literacy-related (reading and writing) difficulties, and we currently lack 949

insights into the L2 language learning processes and challenges of learners with dysgraphia, autism, 950
20 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

and ADHD. Participants in most research projects tend to be selected so that they would only have 951

one type of disability, whereas in reality disabilities often intersect and overlap. To advance inclusive 952

second language education and assessment, it would be essential to extend the scope of research from 953

dyslexia to other types of neurodiversity and consider the intersectionality of disabilities with race, 954

ethnicity, and gender (Cioè-Peña, 2021). 955

Several recent studies have investigated the benefits of multisensory instruction and explicit teach- 956

ing of sound-letter correspondences in the past few years. However, many of these studies are 957

small-scale, involve a low number of participants, and tend to be short-term. The focus of exist- 958

ing research in this area is also relatively limited and centres around lower level linguistic skills. 959

Larger scale classroom-based and also some more controlled experimental studies would be needed 960

to better understand the impact of specific interventions for L2 learners with SpLDs, and whether 961

different types of teaching methods and interventions yield more impactful results for different types 962

and severities of SpLDs. More collaboration with SLA researchers investigating aptitude-treatment 963

interactions would also be beneficial because findings relating to whether students with different 964

working memory and aptitude profiles benefit differentially from various teaching approaches are 965

directly relevant for L2 learners with SpLDs. The examination of the effect of teaching approaches and 966

intervention should also be extended beyond impact on L2 skills and should include the effects on 967

engagement, motivation, self-perceptions, and emotions as they are key predictors of achievement in 968

L2 learning. A similar recommendation can also be made in the area of the use of accommodations 969

and accessibility features in assessment. While it is important to gather more information on how 970

different types of accommodations such as extended time affect test scores, research efforts should 971

also focus on if and how test-takers use accommodations and how they can reduce test-taking anx- 972

iety and increase test motivation. Both of these factors can create construct irrelevant variance and 973

disadvantage test-takers with SpLDs. 974

The review also showed that language teachers in several contexts lack sufficient awareness of 975

SpLDs and inclusive language pedagogy. As discussed previously, a limited number of studies have 976

investigated language teacher awareness of dyslexia, particularly in regions such as Africa, East Asia, 977

and South America. Although small in number, the available studies largely point out the lack of 978

awareness of SpLDs among language teachers. This may also be the case in regions where studies 979

have not been carried out yet. The consequences seem to be teachers’ inability to identify and teach 980

such learners using appropriate pedagogical interventions and their lack of understanding of assess- 981

ment techniques that need to be applied in the teaching-learning process. Many studies thus stress 982

the need for teacher training initiatives to raise teacher awareness of SpLDs because existing research 983

findings on the impact of teacher training initiatives highlight that they can successfully increase 984

teacher awareness and raise their self-efficacy in teaching learners with SpLDs. Thus, both pre- and 985

in-service teacher education programmes should include a component on SpLDs and inclusive lan- 986

guage teaching in their curricula. This should not be limited to discussing/explaining theoretical 987

concepts. Teachers need more hands-on experience in aspects such as identification tools, inclusive 988

classroom techniques, and assessment methods. Teacher education thus should focus on contents 989

such as inclusive teaching materials/assessment design, teaching practicum with learners with SpLDs, 990

and microteaching to increase pre- and in-service language teachers’ confidence. Continuous evalu- 991

ation of training programmes is also needed in order to understand ongoing teacher needs and the 992

impact and effectiveness of the programmes. 993

994

References 995

996
Abu-Rabia, S., & Salfety, A. (2021). The acquisition of English as a foreign language among different levels of learners with
997
dyslexia. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(4), 317–331. [Link]
Abu-Rabia, S., Shakkour, W., & Siegel, L. (2013). Cognitive retroactive transfer (CRT) of language skills among bilingual 998

Arabic-English readers. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(1), 61–81. [Link] 999

1000
 Language Teaching 21

Aindriú, S. N. (2021). The challenges of Irish language acquisition for students with special educational needs in Irish-medium 1001
primary schools. TEANGA, the Journal of the Irish Association for Applied Linguistics, 28, 176–201. [Link] 1002
teanga.v28i.654 1003
Alawadh, A. S. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the challenges related to provision of services for learners with specific learning
1004
difficulties (dyslexia) in Kuwaiti government primary schools. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of York. https://
[Link]/download/pdf/[Link] 1005

Álvarez-Cañizo, M., Afonso, O., & Suárez-Coalla, P. (2023). Writing proficiency in English as L2 in Spanish children with 1006
dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 73(1), 130–147. [Link] 1007
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). [Link] 1008
1176/[Link].9780890425596
1009
Ataç, B. A., & Taşçı, S. (2020). An investigation of prospective language teachers’ knowledge and attitudes towards inclusive
education in Turkey. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12(2), 359–373. [Link] 1010

[Link] 1011
Atar, C., & Amir, A. (2023). Pre-service EFL teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about developmental dyslexia: Implications for 1012
EFL teacher training. Language Teaching and Educational Research (LATER), 6(2), 160–175. [Link] 1013
1296792
1014
Burbank, D. (2024). A survey involving secondary students with dyslexia studying Latin or a modern foreign language. Journal
of Classics Teaching, 25(50), 191–197. [Link] 1015

Christensen, L. L., Shyyan, V. V., & MacMillan, F. (2023). Toward a systematic accessibility review process for English language 1016
proficiency tests for young learners. Language Testing, 40(4), 856–876. [Link] 1017
Chung, K. K. H., & Lam, C. B. (2020). Cognitive-linguistic skills underlying word reading and spelling difficulties in Chinese 1018
adolescents with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(1), 48–59. [Link]
1019
Cioè-Peña, M. (2021). (M)othering labeled children: Bilingualism and disability in the lives of Latinx mothers (Vol. 131).
Multilingual Matters. 1020

Commissaire, E., & Demont, E. (2022). Investigating L2 reading aloud and silent reading in typically developing readers and 1021
dyslexic adolescents from grades 6 to 9. Dyslexia, 28(1), 40–59. [Link] 1022
Csizér, K., Kormos, J., & Sarkadi, A. (2010). The dynamics of language learning attitudes and motivation: Lessons from an 1023
interview study of dyslexic language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 470–487. [Link]
1024
4781.2010.01054.x
D’Angelo, N., Krenca, K., & Chen, X. (2020). The overlap of poor reading comprehension in English and French. Frontiers in 1025

Psychology, 11, Article 120. [Link] 1026

Deng, Q., & Tong, S. X. (2021). Suprasegmental but not segmental phonological awareness matters in understanding bilingual 1027
reading comprehension difficulties in Chinese and English: A 3-year longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 71(1), 150–169. 1028
[Link]
1029
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.). In Motivation, language identity and
the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters. 1030

Eberharter, K., Kormos, J., Guggenbichler, E., Ebner, V., Suzuki, S., Konrad, E., Moser-Froetscher, D., & Kremmel, B. (2023). 1031
Investigating the impact of self-pacing on the L2 listening performance of young learner candidates with differing L1 literacy 1032
skills. Language Testing. [Link] 1033
Elwér, Å., Keenan, J. M., Olson, R. K., Byrne, B., & Samuelsson, S. (2013). Longitudinal stability and predictors of poor oral
1034
comprehenders and poor decoders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(3), 497–516. [Link]
jecp.2012.12.001 1035

Equality Act. (2010). p. c.15. [Link] 1036

Fazio, D., Ferrari, L., Testa, S., Tamburrelli, F., Marra, E., Biancardi, M., Palladino, P., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2021). 1037
Second‐language learning difficulties in Italian children with reading difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1038
91(1), 63–77. [Link]
1039
Fišer, Z., & Kałdonek-Crnjaković, A. (2022). Croatian English as a foreign language teachers’ knowledge about dyslexia and
teaching students with dyslexia: Is their practice inclusive and dyslexia-friendly? Lenguas Modernas, 59, 31–49. https:// 1040

[Link]/[Link]/LM/article/view/67932 1041
Flaten Jarsve, C., & Tsagari, D. (2022). Dyslexia and English as a foreign language in Norwegian primary education: A mixed 1042
methods intervention study. CEPS Journal, 12(4), 155–180. [Link] 1043
Gao, Y., Zheng, L., Liu, X., Nichols, E. S., Zhang, M., Shang, L., Guosheng, D., Meng, Xiangzhi, & Liu, L. (2019). First and second
1044
language reading difficulty among Chinese–English bilingual children: The prevalence and influences from demographic
characteristics. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2544. [Link] 1045

Gavriilidou, Z., Dosi, I., & Mitsiaki, M. (2021). Comparing strategy use of dyslectic and non-dyslectic Greek EFL learners: 1046
The effect of gender, educational level, self-perceived proficiency and motivation. International Journal of Research Studies 1047
in Education, 10(6), 77–94. 1048
Geva, E., Xi, Y., Massey-Garrison, A., & Mak, J. Y. (2019). Assessing reading in second language learners. In D. A. Kilpatrick,
1049
R. M. Joshi, & R. K. Wagner (Eds.). Reading development and difficulties: Bridging the gap between research and practice (pp.
117–155). Springer. 1050
22 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

Giannopoulou, I., Pasalari, E., Korkoliakou, P., & Douzenis, A. (2019). Raising autism awareness among Greek teachers. 1051
International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 66(1), 70–81. [Link] 1052
1462474 1053
Gkountakou, M. I., & Talli, I. (2024). Reading and memory skills of children with and without dyslexia in Greek (L1) and
1054
English (L2) as a Second Language: Preliminary results from a cross-linguistic approach. Languages, 9(9), 298. [Link]
org/10.3390/languages9090298 1055

Gottardo, A., Chen, X., & Huo, M. R. Y. (2021). Understanding within‐and cross‐language relations among language, preliter- 1056
acy skills, and word reading in bilingual learners: Evidence from the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), 1057
S371–S390. [Link] 1058
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
1059
[Link]
Haggag, H. M., & Bakr, E. M. E. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions about language learning difficulties in English as a foreign 1060

language EFL classes. European Scientific Journal ESJ, 16(19), 1857–7881. [Link] 1061
Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B., Christo, C., Clark, E., Cohen, M., Davis, A., Decker, S., Denckla, M., Dumont, 1062
R., Elliott, C., Feifer, S., Fiorello, C., Flanagan, D., Fletcher-Janzen, E., Geary, D., Gerber, M., Gerner, M., & Goldstein, S. 1063
(2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identifica-
1064
tion and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223–236. [Link]
1177/073194871003300310 1065

Helland, T., Morken, F., & Helland, W. A. (2023). Disentangling dyslexia from typical L2-learning in emergent literacy. Dyslexia, 1066
29(4), 347–368. [Link] 1067
Herbert, K. E. D., Massey-Garrison, A., & Geva, E. (2020). A developmental examination of narrative writing in EL and EL1 1068
school children who are typical readers, poor decoders, or poor comprehenders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(1),
1069
36–47. [Link]
Hettiarachchi, S., & Das, A. (2014). Perceptions of ‘inclusion’ and perceived preparedness among school teachers in Sri Lanka. 1070

Teaching and Teacher Education, 43(1), 143–153. [Link] 1071

Ho, J. C.-S., McBride, C., Lui, K. F. H., & Łockiewicz, M. (2024). WordSword: An efficient online word reading assessment for 1072
Global English. Assessment, 31(4), 875–891. [Link] 1073
Huo, S., Wu, K. C., Mo, J., Wang, J., & Maurer, U. (2022). Children with Chinese dyslexia acquiring English literacy: Interaction
1074
between cognitive subtypes of dyslexia and orthographies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(3), 229–241. [Link]
10.1177/00222194211017819 1075

Huys, S. (2020). EFL teachers and dyslexia: How is dyslexia perceived by ELF teachers in the Netherlands. [Unpublished mas- 1076
ter’s dissertation]. Radboud University Nijmegen. [Link] 1077
b001-5be5795b9d9f/content 1078
Indrarathne, B. (2019). Accommodating learners with dyslexia in English language teaching in Sri Lanka: Teachers’ knowledge,
1079
attitudes, and challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 630–654. [Link]
Kahn-Horwitz, J., & Goldstein, Z. (2024). English foreign language reading and spelling diagnostic assessments informing 1080

teaching and learning of young learners. Language Testing, 41(1), 60–88. [Link] 1081
Kałdonek-Crnjaković, A. (2021). Fostering literacy skills and self-efficacy in a Chinese EAL learner with dyslexia. Australian 1082
Journal of Learning Difficulties, 26(1), 1–20. [Link] 1083
Kałdonek-Crnjaković, A., & Fišer, Z. (2021). Teacher positioning and students with dyslexia: Voices of Croatian EFL teachers.
1084
Journal of Language and Education, 7(3), 76–88. [Link]
Kapp, S. K., Gillespie-Lynch, K., Sherman, L. E., & Hutman, T. (2013). Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. 1085

Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 59–71. [Link] 1086

Konrad, K. (2023). Teaching English as a foreign language among students with dyslexia: A qualitative study. 1087
[Unpublished master’s dissertation]. Karl-Franzens Universität Graz. [Link] 1088
8586688?originalFilename=true
1089
Kormos, J. (2016). The second language learning processes of students with specific learning difficulties. Routledge.
Kormos, J. (2020). Specific learning difficulties in second language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 53(2), 129–143. 1090

[Link] 1091
Kormos, J. (2023). The role of cognitive factors in second language writing and writing to learn a second language. Studies in 1092
Second Language Acquisition, 45(3), 622–646. [Link] 1093
Kormos, J., Babuder, M. K., & Pižorn, K. (2019). The role of low-level first language skills in second language reading,
1094
reading-while-listening and listening performance: A study of young dyslexic and non-dyslexic language learners. Applied
Linguistics, 40(5), 834–858. [Link] 1095

Kormos, J., & Nijakowska, J. (2017). Inclusive practices in teaching students with dyslexia: Second language teachers’ concerns, 1096
attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs on a massive open online learning course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 30–41. https: 1097
//[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2017.08.005 1098
Kormos, J., & Ratajczak, M. (2019). Time extension and the second language reading performance of children with different first
1099
language literacy profiles. ARAG Research reports online. The British Council. [Link]
files/[Link] 1100
 Language Teaching 23

Kormos, J., & Smith, A. M. (2023). Teaching languages to students with specific learning differences. Channel View Publications. 1101
Košak-Babuder, M., Kormos, J., Ratajczak, M., & Pižorn, K. (2019). The effect of read-aloud assistance on the text compre- 1102
hension of dyslexic and non-dyslexic English language learners. Language Testing, 36(1), 51–75. [Link] 1103
0265532218756946
1104
Krenca, K., Gottardo, A., Geva, E., & Chen, X. (2020). English phonological specificity predicts early French reading difficulty
in emerging bilingual children. Annals of Dyslexia, 70(1), 27–42. [Link] 1105

Kuester-Gruber, S., Faisst, T., Schick, V., Righetti, G., Braun, C., Cordey-Henke, A., Klosinski, M., Sun, C.-S., & Trauzettel- 1106
Klosinski, S. (2023). Is learning a logographic script easier than reading an alphabetic script for German children with 1107
dyslexia? PLOS One, 18(2), e0282200. [Link] 1108
Landerl, K., Ramus, F., Moll, K., Lyons, I. M., Ansari, D., & White, S. (2013). Predictors of developmental dyslexia in European
1109
orthographies with varying complexity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(6), 686–694. [Link]
jcpp.12029 1110

Lazarus, S. S., Johnstone, C. J., Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L., Hinkle, A. R., & Burden, K. (2022). An updated state guide to uni- 1111
versally designed assessments (NCEO Report 431). National Center on Educational Outcomes. [Link] 1112
OnlinePubs/[Link] 1113
Levlin, M., Okonski, L., & Sullivan, K. P. (2024). Educational attainment in Swedish (L1) and English (L2) for students
1114
with reading difficulties: A longitudinal case study from primary to the end of secondary school. Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 68(2), 172–188. [Link] 1115

Li, M., Kirby, J. R., Geva, E., Koh, P. W., & Zhang, H. (2021). Profiles of poor decoders, poor comprehenders, and typically 1116
developing readers in adolescents learning English as a second language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(4), 306–324. 1117
[Link] 1118
Li, M., Snow, C., Ely, L., Frijters, J., Geva, E., & Chen, B. (2023). The impact of lexical specificity training on at-risk emergent
1119
bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 44(5), 889–912. [Link]
Lim, F. V., Toh, W., & Nguyen, T. T. H. (2022). Multimodality in the English language classroom: A systematic review of 1120

literature. Linguistics and Education, 69, 101048. [Link] 1121

Łockiewicz, M., & Jaskulska, M. (2019). NL reading skills mediate the relationship between NL phonological processing skills 1122
and a foreign language (FL) reading skills in students with and without dyslexia: A case of a NL (Polish) and FL (English) 1123
with different degrees of orthographic consistency. Annals of Dyslexia, 69(2), 219–242. [Link]
1124
00181-x
Łockiewicz, M., Jaskulska, M., & Fawcett, A. (2019). The analysis of free writing, vocabulary, and dyslexia in English as a native 1125

and foreign language (English vs. Polish Students). Health Psychology Report, 7(1), 57–68. 1126
Łockiewicz, M., Jaskulska, M., & Fawcett, A. (2020). Decoding and word recognition in English as a native and a foreign 1127
language in students with and without dyslexia (English vs. Polish Students). Dyslexia, 26(1), 18–35. [Link] 1128
1002/dys.1648
1129
Lu, J., Jiang, H., & Huang, Y. (2022). Inclusive EFL teaching for young students with special needs: A case in China. Children
(Basel), 9(5), 749. [Link] 1130

MacKay, N. (2006, February 12). Dyslexia friendly is inclusion friendly [Conference presentation]. British Dyslexia Association 1131
mini-conference: Dyslexia friendly – Making it happen on Monday morning. London, UK. 1132
Madden, C. (2021). ESL/EFL teachers’ perceptions of the reading and writing challenges and teaching strategies for dyslexic 1133
students learning English [Unpublished Master’s dissertation]. Ulster University. [Link]
1134
teacheng/files/2022-08/MDA2022_Ulster_Madden.pdf
Maurer, U., Jost, L. B., Pfenninger, S. E., & Eberhard-Moscicka, A. K. (2021). Effects of German reading skills and bilingualism 1135

on early learning of English as a foreign language in primary school children. Reading and Writing, 34(10), 2673–2689. 1136
[Link] 1137
Mohamadzadeh, S., Sotoudehnama, E., Marandi, S. S., & Akhavan Tafti, M. (2020). Teaching English to students with 1138
dyslexia in Iran: A multiple-case study. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 36(1), 19–33. [Link]
1139
2019.1605951
Mohammad, Z. A. (2022). Investigating teachers of English knowledge and awareness of dyslexia: A case study in primary 1140

Iraqi schools. Arab World English Journal, 13(4), 341–354. [Link] 1141
Montrul, S. (2023). Heritage languages: Language acquired, language lost, language regained. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1142
9(1), 399–418. [Link] 1143
Motteram, J., Spiby, R., Bellhouse, G., & Sroka, K. (2023). Implementation of an accommodations policy for candidates with
1144
diverse needs in a large-scale testing system. Language Testing, 40(4), 904–932. [Link]
Nijakowska, J. (2022). Inclusive teaching practices with learners with dyslexia: Face-to-face training-induced changes in foreign 1145

language teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, concerns and attitudes. C.E.P.S. Journal, 12(4), 129–154. [Link] 1146
cepsj.1424 1147
Norwich, B. (2009). How compatible is the recognition of dyslexia with inclusive education? In G. Reid (Ed.), The Routledge 1148
companion to dyslexia (pp. 177–193). Routledge.
1149

1150
24 Judit Kormos and Bimali Indrarathne

Nushi, M., & Eshraghi, M. (2023). EFL teachers’ awareness of dyslexia: The case of Iranian context. AILA Review, 36(1), 14–37. 1151
[Link] 1152
Oskwarek, A., Polok, K., & Przybysz-Zaremba, M. (2024). Teaching English to elementary dyslexic students. Jezyk. Religia. 1153
Tozsamosc, 1(29), 109–120. [Link]
1154
Özçelik, A. E., & Elverici, S. E. (2023). Dyslexia awareness among English language teachers in Türkiye. European Journal of
Education, 59(3), p. e12647. [Link] 1155

Pan, D. J., Meng, X., Lee, J. R., Ng, M. C. Y., & McBride, C. (2024). The cognitive-linguistic profiles and academic performances 1156
of Chinese children with dyslexia across cultures: Beijing, Hong Kong, and Taipei. Annals of Dyslexia, 74(2), 222–242. https: 1157
//[Link]/10.1007/s11881-024-00301-2 1158
Peters, L., & Ansari, D. (2019). Are specific learning disorders truly specific, and are they disorders? Trends in Neuroscience
1159
and Education, 17, 100115. [Link]
Rae, H., McKenzie, K., & Murray, G. C. (2011). The impact of training on teacher knowledge about children with an intellectual 1160

disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 15(1), 21–30. [Link] 1161

Reraki, M. (2022). Inclusive practices for dyslexic language learners: An intervention study in the Greek EFL setting. Support 1162
for Learning, 37(3), 480–494. [Link] 1163
Sehlström, P., Waldmann, C., & Levlin, M. (2023). Self-efficacy for writing and written text quality of upper secondary students
1164
with and without reading difficulties. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. [Link]
Sehlström, P., Waldmann, C., Steinvall, A., & Levlin, M. (2022). Swedish (L1) and English (L2) argumentative writing of upper 1165

secondary students with reading difficulties. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 22(1). [Link] 1166
21248/L1ESLL.2022.22.1.405 1167
Sewell, A. (2020). Introducing specific learning difficulties. In A. Sewell & J. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to special educational 1168
needs, disability and inclusion: A student’s guide. Sage.
1169
Sewell, A. (2022). Understanding and supporting learners with specific learning difficulties from a neurodiversity perspective:
A narrative synthesis. British Journal of Special Education, 49(4), 539–560. [Link] 1170

Shakory, S., Krenca, K., Marinova-Todd, S. H., & Chen, X. (2023). A 3-year longitudinal investigation of the overlap and 1171
stability of English and French word reading difficulties in French immersion children. Annals of Dyslexia, 73(1), 53–72. 1172
[Link] 1173
Singer, J. (1998). Odd people in: The birth of community amongst people on the autistic spectrum: A personal exploration of a
1174
new social movement based on neurological diversity. Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, University of Technology.
Sireci, S. G., Li, S., & Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodation on test performance: A review of the literature (Research 1175

Report No. 485). University of Massachusetts Amherst, Center for Educational Assessment. [Link] 1176
onlinepubs/[Link] 1177
Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., & Nation, K. (2020). Defining and understanding dyslexia: Past, present and future. Oxford Review 1178
of Education, 46(4), 501–513. [Link]
1179
Sowell, J., & Sugisaki, L. (2020). An exploration of EFL teachers’ experience with learning disability training. Laclil, 13(1),
114–134. [Link] 1180

Suárez-Coalla, P., Martínez-García, C., & Carnota, A. (2020). Reading in English as a foreign language by Spanish children 1181
with dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 19. 1182
Taha, J., Carioti, D., Stucchi, N., Chailleux, M., Granocchio, E., Sarti, D., De Salvatore, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2022). Identifying 1183
the risk of dyslexia in bilingual children: The potential of language-dependent and language-independent tasks. Frontiers
1184
in Psychology, 13, 935935. [Link]
Taylor, L., & Banerjee, J. (2023). Language assessment accommodations: Issues and challenges for the future. Language Testing, 1185

40(4), 1000–1006. [Link] 1186

Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2007). Deconstructing special education. Open University Press. 1187
Tong, X., Deng, Q., & Tong, S. X. (2022). Syntactic awareness matters: Uncovering reading comprehension difficulties in Hong 1188
Kong Chinese-English bilingual children. Annals of Dyslexia, 72(3), 532–551. [Link]
1189
Tong, X., McBride, C., Shu, H., & Ho, C. S. H. (2018). Reading comprehension difficulties in Chinese–English bilingual
children. Dyslexia, 24(1), 59–83. [Link] 1190

Tribushinina, E., Berg, Z. O. T., & Karman, S. (2022). Facilitating positive L1 transfer through explicit spelling instruction for 1191
EFL learners with dyslexia: An intervention study. Language Awareness, 31(3), 351–370. [Link] 1192
2021.1949332 1193
Uçak, Y., & Demirok, M. (2023). Examining the effectiveness of the educational program developed for English teach-
1194
ers working with students aged 13–18 who have specific learning disability. Children, 10(81). [Link]
children10010081 1195

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. [Link] 1196
convention/[Link] 1197
Venagli, I., & Kupisch, T. (2024). How does dyslexia impact second language acquisition? In E. Babatsouli (Ed.), Multilingual 1198
Acquisition and Learning: An ecosystemic view to diversity, (pp. 90–115). John Benjamins.
1199

1200
 Language Teaching 25

Vender, M., & Melloni, C. (2021). Phonological awareness across child populations: How bilingualism and dyslexia interact. 1201
Languages, 6(1), 1–20. [Link] 1202
Von Hagen, A., Kohnen, S., & Stadie, N. (2021). Foreign language attainment of children/adolescents with poor literacy skills: 1203
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 459–488. [Link]
1204
020-09566-6
Wong, R. K., & Russak, S. (2020). Do kindergarten teachers possess adequate knowledge of basic language constructs to 1205

teach children to read English as a foreign language? Annals of Dyslexia, 70(1), 79–93. [Link] 1206
020-00197-8 1207
Wray, E., Sharma, U., & Subban, P. (2022). Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy for inclusive education: A systematic 1208
literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117. Advanced online publication. [Link]
1209
103800
Yeung, S. S., & Qiao, S. (2019). Developmental trends and precursors of English spelling in Chinese children who learn English- 1210

as-a-second language: Comparisons between average and at-risk spellers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 93, 103456. 1211
[Link] 1212
Young, D. (2024a). Investigating English language teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. 1213
Environment and Social Psychology, 9(8). [Link]
1214
Young, D. (2024b). Identifying inclusive training needs with the inclusive practices in English language teaching observation
scale. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 9(59). [Link] 1215

Žero, A., & Pižorn, K. (2022). Undergraduate and graduate students’ beliefs about dyslexia: Implications for initial foreign 1216
language teacher education. CEPS Journal, 12(4), 101–127. [Link] 1217

1218
Judit Kormos is a Professor in Second Language Acquisition at Lancaster University. Her research focusses on the cognitive 1219
processes involved in learning and using additional languages and inclusive language teaching. She has published widely on
1220
the effect of dyslexia on learning additional languages including the book The second language acquisition process of students
with specific learning difficulties Routledge, (2017) and with Anne-Margaret Smith co-authored the book Teaching languages 1221

to students with specific learning differences (Multilingual Matters, 2023). She is also the author of several research papers that 1222
have investigated the accessibility of language tests for young learners. She was a key partner in the EU-sponsored Dyslexia for 1223
Teachers of English as a Foreign Language and the Comics for Inclusive Language Teaching projects both of which won the 1224
British Council’s ELTon award. She is the lead educator of the Dyslexia and Foreign Language Teaching massive open online
1225
learning course offered by FutureLearn and has run teacher education workshops and webinars on inclusive language teaching
in a large variety of international contexts. 1226

1227
Bimali Indrarathne is a Professor in English Language Teaching at Kotelawala Defence University, Sri Lanka. Her research 1228
focusses on second language acquisition, English language teaching at different levels, and inclusive language teaching. She
1229
has run several teacher education programmes on SpLDs and inclusive practices in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia,
Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka in which nearly 2000 teachers received face-to-face training. Recently, with Professor 1230

Judit Kormos, she completed a teacher awareness raising project covering six South Asian and four European countries. She has 1231
also authored several papers on SpLDs and teacher education and given webinars and talks in many international forums. She 1232
was also involved in the Dyslexia and Foreign Language Teaching massive open online learning course offered by FutureLearn. 1233

1234

1235

1236

1237

1238

1239

1240

1241

1242

1243

1244

1245

1246

1247

1248

Cite this article: Kormos, J., & Indrarathne, B. (2025). Specific learning differences in learning, teaching, and assessing 1249

additional languages. Language Teaching, 1–25. [Link] 1250