This replication study compared 86 petition students who received course substitutions for the college foreign language (FL) requirement with 40 nonpetition students who fulfilled the FL requirement by passing FL courses on cognitive and academic achievement measures and graduating grade point average. The results showed significant differences between the two groups, favoring the nonpetition group on one measure, the American College Testing (ACT) score, when IQ was used as a covariate; however, no significant group differences remained when ACT score was used as a covariate. More than half of the 126 petition and nonpetition students did not meet a minimum criterion for classification as learning disabled (LD), and more than half of both groups (54% and 63%, respectively) were not classified as LD before enrolling in college. Sixty percent of the petition students either had not taken an FL course in college or had achieved only grades of withdrawal before petitioning for substitution of the FL requirement. Implications addressed include petition students' persistence in fulfilling the FL requirement, students' use of instructional accommodations and services, criteria used to classify students as LD, use of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), and why some students classified as LD pass FL courses and other students classified as LD do not.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Act, Inc. (n. d.). ACT assessment. Iowa City, IA: Author.
2.
3.
Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT): Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
4.
Dorans, N. (1999). Correspondence between ACT and SAT I scores (College Board Report No. 99-1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
5.
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.
6.
Downey, D., & Snyder, L. (2001). Curricular accommodations for students with language learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 21, 55—67.
7.
Downey, D., Snyder, L., & Hill, B. (2000). College students with dyslexia: Persistent linguistic deficits and foreign language learning. Dyslexia, 6, 101—111.
8.
Dufva, M., & Voeten, M. (1999). Native language literacy and phonological memory as prerequisites for learning English as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 329—348.
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.
Ganschow, L., Myer, B., & Roeger, K. (1989). Foreign language policies and procedures for students with specific learning disabilities. Learning DisabilitiesFocus, 5, 50—58.
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. (2000). Reflections on foreign language study for students with foreign language learning problems: Research, issues, and challenges . Dyslexia, 6, 87—100.
16.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (2001). Learning difficulties and foreign language learning: A review of research and instruction. Language Teaching, 34, 79—98.
17.
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.
18.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., & Shaw, R. (2001). The issue of accommodations, waivers, and course substitutions for students who have difficulties learning a foreign language: An interview. Association of Departments of Foreign Language (ADFL)Bulletin, 32, 59—64.
19.
Guckenberger et al. v. Trustees of Boston University, et al., 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass.1996).
20.
Guckenberger et al. v. Trustees of Boston University, et al., 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass.1997).
21.
Guckenberger et al. v. Trustees of Boston University, et al., 974 F. Supp. 106 (D.Mass.1998).
22.
Humes-Bartlo, M. (1989). Variation in children's ability to learn second languages. In K. Hyltenstam & L. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the life span (pp. 41—54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Kahn-Horwitz, J. (2000, July). Identifying the best reading related predictor variables for English foreign language reading achievement in elementary school age Hebrew speakers. Paper presented at meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Stockholm , Sweden.
24.
Lefebvre, R. (1984). A psychological consultation program for learning disabled adults. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 361—362.
25.
Olshtain, E., Shohamy, E., Kemp, J., & Chatow, R. (1990). Factors predicting success in EFL among culturally different learners. Language Learning, 40, 23—44.
26.
Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Anderson, R. (1991). The college foreign language requirement: An action plan for alternatives. National Academic Advising Association Journal,11, 51—56.
27.
Pompian, N., & Thum, C. (1988). Dyslexic/ learning disabled students at Dartmouth . Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 278—284.
28.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. § 701 et seq.
29.
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.
30.
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.
31.
Siegel, L. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 304—319.
32.
Sparks, R. (1995). Examining the linguistic coding differences hypothesis to explain individual differences in foreign language learning. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 187—214.
33.
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.
34.
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.
35.
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.
36.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993a). 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.
37.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993b). 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.
38.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993c). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language learning problems: Linking first and second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 77, 289—302.
39.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995). A strong inference approach to causal factors in foreign language learning: A response to MacIntyre. Modern Language Journal, 79, 235—244.
40.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1999). The Boston University case: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 284—285.
41.
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.
42.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992a). Identifying native language deficits in high-and low-risk foreign language learners in high school. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 403—418.
43.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992b). 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.
44.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Pohlman, J. (1989). Linguistic coding deficits in foreign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 179—195.
45.
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.
46.
Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1999a). Learning disabilities and foreign language: A curriculum approach to the design of inclusive courses: A response to Arries . Modern Language Journal, 83, 569—573.
47.
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.
48.
Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1999c). Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement: Replication and comparison studies . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 329— 349.
49.
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.
50.
Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1999a). Comparison of students classified as learning disabled who petitioned for or fulfilled the college foreign language requirement . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 553—566.
51.
Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1999b). Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 566—580.
52.
Stanovich, K. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 351—361.
53.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler adult intelligence scale-Revised (WAIS-R) . San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
54.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-III (WISC-III) . San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
55.
Williams, W., & Ceci, S. (1999, August 6). Accommodating learning disabilities can bestow unfair advantages. Chronicle of HighEducation , pp. 84—85.
