This replication study examined whether 158 college students classified as learning disabled (LD) who were granted course substitutions for the foreign language (FL) requirement would display significant cognitive and academic achievement differences when grouped by levels of IQ—achievement and achievement—achievement discrepancy and by level of performance on an FL aptitude test (Modern Language Aptitude Test; MLAT), phonological/orthographic processing measures, and in FL courses. The results showed that there were few differences among groups with differing levels of IQ—achievement or achievement—achievement discrepancy (i.e., < 1.0 SD, 1.0—1.49 SD, and > 1.50 SD) on MLAT and American College Testing (ACT) scores, graduating grade point average (GPA), or college FL GPA. The results also showed that between groups who scored at or above versus below the 15th percentile (i.e., < 1.0 SD) on the MLAT, there were no differences on measures of graduating GPA, college FL GPA, native language skill, ACT score, and Verbal IQ. Demographic findings showed that 44% of these petition students met a minimum IQ—achievement discrepancy criterion (≥ 1.0 SD) for classification as LD. These findings suggest that many traditional assumptions about LD and FL learning are likely to be false.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aaron, P.G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula . Review of Educational Research, 67, 461—502.
2.
Arries, J. (1994). An experimental Spanish course for learning disabled students. Hispania, 77, 110—117.
3.
Arries, J. (1999). Learning disabilities and foreign languages: A curriculum approach to the design of inclusive courses. Modern Language Journal, 83, 98—110.
4.
Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern language aptitude test (MLAT): Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
5.
Dinklage, J. (1971). Inability to learn a foreign language. In G. Blaine & C. Mc-Arthur (Eds.), Emotional problems of the student (pp. 185—206). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
6.
Dorans, N. (1999). Correspondence between ACT and SAT I scores (College Board Rep. No. 99-1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
7.
Dorans, N., Lyu, C., Pommerich, M., & Houston, W. (1997). Concordance between ACT assessment and recentered SAT I sum scores. College and University, 73, 24—31.
8.
Downey, D., Snyder, L., & Hill, B. (2000). College students with dyslexia: Persistent linguistic deficits and foreign language learning. Dyslexia, 6, 101—111.
9.
Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test—Revised (PPVT-R). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
10.
Fisher, E. (1986). Learning disability specialist looks at foreign language instruction. HilltopSpectrum, 4, 1—3.
11.
Freed, B. (1987). Exemptions from the foreign language requirement: A review of recent literature, problems, and policy. Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL)Bulletin, 18, 13—17.
12.
Frick, R. (1995). Accepting the null hypothesis. Memory and Cognition, 21, 132—138.
13.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1986). Learning disabilities and foreign language difficulties: Deficit in listening skills?Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 2, 306—319.
14.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1987). The foreign language requirement. Learning DisabilitiesFocus, 2, 116—123.
15.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1996). Foreign language anxiety among high school women . Modern Language Journal, 80, 199—212.
16.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (2000). Reflections on foreign language study for students with language learning problems: Research, issues, and challenges. Dyslexia, 6, 87—100.
17.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (2001). Learning difficulties and foreign language learning: A review of research and instruction. Language Teaching, 34, 79-98.
18.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Anderson, R., Javorsky, J., Skinner, S., & Patton, J. (1994). Differences in anxiety and language performance among high- and low-anxious foreign language learners. Modern Language Journal, 78, 41—55.
19.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Bishop-Marbury, A. (1991). Identifying native language difficulties among foreign language learners in college: A “foreign” language learning disability?Journal of Learning Disabilities , 24, 530—541.
20.
Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., & Keiser, S. (1999). The LD label for relatively well-functioning students: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 485— 490.
21.
Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1988). Test of written language (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
22.
Hodge, M. (1998). Teaching foreign language to at-risk learners: A challenge for the new millenium. Inquiry, 2, 68—78.
23.
Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. (1984). Wide range achievement test—Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak.
24.
Kaufman, A., & Kaufman, N. (1985). Kaufman tests of educational achievement. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service .
25.
Kavale, K. (1998a). The politics of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 245—273.
26.
Kavale, K. (1998b). The politics of learning disabilities: A rejoinder . Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 306—317.
27.
Kenneweg, S. (1988). Meeting special learning needs in the Spanish curriculum of a college preparatory school. In B. Snyder (Ed.), Get ready, get set, go! Action in the foreign language classroom (pp. 16—18). Columbus: Ohio Foreign Language Association.
28.
Lefebvre, R. (1984). A psychological consultation program for learning disabled adults. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 361—362.
29.
Levine, M. (1987). Developmental variation and learning disorders . Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing .
30.
Mabbott, A. (1994). Students labeled learning disabled and the foreign language requirement: Background and suggestions for teachers. In C. Klee (Ed.), Faces in a crowd: The individual learner in multisection courses (pp. 325—353). Boston : Heinle & Heinle.
31.
Myer, B., & Ganschow, L. (1988). Profiles of frustration: Second language learners with specific learning disabilities . In J. Lalande (Ed.), Shaping the future of foreign language education: FLES, articulation, and proficiency (pp. 32—53). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
32.
Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Anderson, R. (1991). The college foreign language requirements: An action plan for alternatives. National Academic Advising Association Journal, 11, 51—56.
33.
Pompian, N., & Thum, C. (1988). Dyslexic/ learning disabled students at Dartmouth . Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 278—284. Psychological Corp. (1992). Wechsler individual achievement test. San Antonio, TX: Author.
34.
Schultz, R. (1991). Second language acquisition theories and teaching practice: How do they fit?Modern Language Journal, 75, 17—26.
35.
Scott, S., & Manglitz, E. (2000). Foreign language learning: A process for broadening access for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education andDisability, 17, 23—37.
36.
Shaw, R. (1999). The case for course substitutions as a reasonable accommodation for students with foreign language learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 320—328, 349.
37.
Sparks, R. (1995). Examining the linguistic coding differences hypothesis to explain individual differences in foreign language learning. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 187—214.
38.
Sparks, R. (2001). Foreign language learning problems of students classified as learning disabled and non—learning disabled: Is there a difference?Topics in Language Disorders, 21, 38—54.
39.
Sparks, R., Artzer, M., Javorsky, J., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Miller, K., et al. (1998). Students classified as learning disabled (LD) and non learning disabled students: Two comparison studies of native language skill, foreign language aptitude, and foreign language proficiency . Foreign Language Annals, 31, 531—551.
40.
Sparks, R., Artzer, M., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Miller, K., Hordubay, D., et al. (1998). Benefits of multisensory language instruction in Spanish for at-risk learners: A comparison study of high school Spanish students. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 239—270.
41.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993a). Identifying and instructing at-risk foreign language learners in college. In D. Benseler (Ed.), The dynamics of language program development (pp. 173—199). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
42.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993b). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language learning problems: Linking first and second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 77, 289—302.
43.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993c). The effects of a multisensory structured language approach on the native language and foreign language aptitude skills of at-risk learners: A follow-up and replication study. Annals of Dyslexia , 43, 194—216.
44.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993d). The impact of native language learning problems on foreign language learning: Case study illustrations of the linguistic coding deficit hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 77, 58—74.
45.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995a). A strong inference approach to causal factors in foreign language learning: A response to MacIntyre. Modern Language Journal, 79, 235—244.
46.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995b). Parent perceptions in the screening for performance in foreign language courses. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 371—391.
47.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Artzer, M., Siebenhar, D., & Plageman, M. (1998). Differences in native language skills, foreign language aptitude, and foreign language grades among high, average, and low proficiency learners: Two studies. Language Testing, 15, 181—216.
48.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Fluharty, K., & Little, S. (1996). An exploratory study on the effects of Latin on the native language skills and foreign language aptitude of students with and without learning disabilities. Classical Journal, 91, 165—184.
49.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1995). I know one when I see one (or I know one because I am one): A response to Mabbott. Foreign Language Annals , 28, 479—487.
50.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992a). Test comparisons among students identified as high-risk, low-risk, and learning disabled in high school foreign language courses. Modern Language Journal, 76, 142— 159.
51.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992b). Identifying native language deficits in high-and low-risk foreign language learners in high school. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 403—418.
52.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Patton, J. (1995). Prediction of performance in first-year foreign language courses: Connections between native language and foreign language learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 638—655.
53.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Pohlman, J. (1989). Linguistic coding deficits in foreign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 179—195.
54.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Pohlman, J., Artzer, M., & Skinner, S. (1992). The effects of a multisensory, structured language approach on the native and foreign language skills of high-risk foreign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 25—53.
55.
Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1999a). Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement: Replication and comparison studies . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 329— 349.
56.
Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1999b). Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Accommodating the learning disabled student in the foreign language curriculum: An update. Association of Departments of Foreign Language (ADFL)Bulletin, 30, 36—44.
57.
Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., & Ganschow, L. (1995). Satiating the appetite of the socio-logic sponge: A rejoinder to Mabbott. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 495—498.
58.
Sparks, R., Philips, L., & Ganschow, L. (1996). Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement. In J. Liskin-Gasparro (Ed.), Patterns and policies: The changing demo-graphics of foreign language instruction (pp. 123—159). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
59.
Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1999a). Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 566—580.
60.
Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1999b). Comparison of students classified as learning disabled who petitioned for or fulfilled the college foreign language requirement . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 553—566.
61.
Stanovich, K. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 350—361.
62.
Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., & Lyon, R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-toremediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQachievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223—238.
63.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler adult intelligence scale—Revised . San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
64.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
65.
Wilkinson, G. (1993). Wide range achievement test (3rd ed.). Wilmington, DE: Jastak .
66.
Williams, W., & Ceci, S. (1999, August 6). Accommodating learning disabilities can bestow unfair advantages. Chronicle of Higher Education , pp. 84—85.
67.
Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service .
68.
Woodcock, R., & Johnson, M.B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement— Revised . Chicago: Riverside.
