Conventional wisdom suggests that students classified as learning disabled will exhibit difficulties with foreign language (FL) learning, but evidence has not supported a relationship between FL learning problems and learning disabilities. The simple view of reading model posits that reading comprehension is the product of word decoding and language comprehension and that there are good readers and 3 types of poor readers—dyslexic, hyperlexic, and garden variety—who exhibit different profiles of strengths and/or deficits in word decoding and language comprehension. In this study, a random sample of U.S. high school students completing first-, second-, and third-year Spanish courses were administered standardized measures of Spanish word decoding and reading comprehension, compared with monolingual Spanish readers from first to eleventh grades, and classified into reader types according to the simple view of reading. The majority of students fit the hyperlexic profile, and no participants fit the good reader profile until they were compared with first- and second-grade monolingual Spanish readers. Findings call into question the practice of diagnosing an FL “disability” before a student engages in FL study.
AaronP. G.JoshiR.Boulware-GoodenR.BentumK. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.
2.
American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese. (2016). National Spanish Exam. Valparaiso, IN: Author.
3.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Alexandria, VA: Author.
4.
AouadJ.SavageR. (2009). The component structure of preliteracy skills: Further evidence for the Simple View of Reading. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 183–200.
5.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
BeckI.McKeownM.KucanL. (2002) Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford.
7.
BernhardtE. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second-language reading. In McGroartyM. (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics (pp. 133–150). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CarrollJ.SaponS. (2000). Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT): Manual. Princeton, NJ: Second Language Testing. (Original work published 1959)
9.
CarverR. (1998). Predicting reading level in Grades 1–6 from listening level and decoding level: Testing theory relevant to the SVR of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 121–154.
10.
CarverR. P. (2003). The highly lawful relationships among pseudoword decoding, word identification, spelling, listening, and reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 127–154.
11.
CattsH.AdolfS.WeismerS. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the Simple View of Reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.
12.
CattsH.HoganT.FeyM. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–164.
13.
CumminsJ. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In StreetB.HornbergerN. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Volume 2. Literacy (2nd ed., pp. 71–83). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.
14.
CunninghamA.StanovichK. (1998, spring/summer). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, pp. 1–8.
15.
DifinoS.LombardinoL. (2004). Language learning disabilities: The ultimate foreign language challenge. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 390–400.
16.
DroopM.VerhoevenL. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78–103.
17.
FarniaF.GevaE. (2013). Growth and predictors of change in English language learners’ reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 36, 389–421.
18.
FrancisD.FletcherJ.CattsH.TomblinJ. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In ParisS.StahlS. (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369–394). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
GarcíaR.CainK. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84, 74–111.
20.
GevaE.RamirezG. (2015). Focus on reading. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
21.
GottardoA.MuellerJ. (2009). Are first- and second-language factors related in predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 330–344.
22.
GoughP.TunmerW. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
23.
GrigorenkoE. (2002). Foreign language acquisition and language-based learning disabilities. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 95–112). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
24.
Høein-TengesdalI.HøeinT. (2012). The reading efficiency model: An extension of the componential model of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 467–479.
25.
HooverW.GoughP. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
26.
JeonE.YamashitaJ. (2014). FL reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64, 160–212.
27.
JoshiR.AaronP. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.
28.
JoshiR.JiX. R.BreznitzZ.AmielM.YuliaA. (2015). Validation of the simple view of reading in Hebrew. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 243–252.
29.
KodaK. (2008). Impacts of prior literacy experience on second-language learning to read. In KodaK.ZehlerA. (Eds.), Learning to read across languages (pp. 68–96). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
LeonsE.HerbertC.GobboK. (2009). Students with learning disabilities and AD/HD in the foreign language classroom: Supporting students and instructors. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 42–54.
31.
LervågA.AukrustV. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant of the difference in reading comprehension between first and second language learners. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 612–620.
32.
LesauxN.KiefferM. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 596–632.
33.
LysF.MayA.RavidJ. (2014). A cross-departmental approach to supporting students with a disability affecting foreign language acquisition. Prague Journal of English Studies, 3, 85–96.
34.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.LesauxN. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 701–711.
35.
MegherbiH.SeigneuricA.EhrlichM. (2006). Reading comprehension in French in 1st and 2nd grade children: Contribution of decoding and language comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 135–147.
36.
MeyerM.WoodF.HartL.FeltonR. (1998). Selective predictive value of rapid automatized naming in poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 106–117.
37.
NagyW.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108.
38.
NakamotoJ.LindseyK.ManisF. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of English language learners’ word decoding and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 691–719.
39.
NationI. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40.
NationK. (2007). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In SnowlingM.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248–266). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
41.
NijakowskaJ. (2010). Dyslexia in the foreign language classroom. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
42.
OfieshN. (2007). Math, science, and foreign language: Evidence-based accommodation decision making at the postsecondary level. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 237–245.
43.
PriorA.GoldinaA.ShanyM.GevaE.KatzirT. (2014). Lexical inference in L2: Predictive roles of vocabulary knowledge and reading skill beyond reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 27, 1467–1484.
44.
ProctorC.CarloM.AugustD.SnowC. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256.
45.
ScottS.BanerjeeM. (2013, July). Foreign language accommodation: Incorporating evidence-based practices under the AHEAD documentation guidance. Paper presented at the Association on Higher Education and Disability Conference, Baltimore, MD.
46.
ShawR. (1999). The case for course substitutions as a reasonable accommodation for students with foreign language learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 320–328.
47.
ShaywitzS. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia. New York, NY: Knopf.
48.
SparksR. (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.
49.
SparksR. (2006). Is there a “disability” for learning a foreign language?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 544–557.
50.
SparksR. (2009). If you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll wind up somewhere else: The case of “foreign language learning disability.”Foreign Language Annals, 42, 7–26.
51.
SparksR. (2015). Language deficits in poor L2 comprehenders: The simple view. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 635–658.
52.
SparksR. (2016). Myths about foreign language learning and learning disabilities. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 252–270.
53.
SparksR.LuebbersJ.CastañadaM. (in press). How well do U.S. high school students achieve in Spanish when compared to native Spanish speakers?Foreign Language Annals.
54.
SparksR.PattonJ. (2016). Examining the simple view of reading (SVR) model for U.S. high school Spanish students. Hispania, 99, 17–33.
55.
TunmerW.ChapmanJ. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 453–466.
56.
VerhoevenL.van LeeuweJ. (2012). The simple view of second language reading throughout the primary grades. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1805–1818.
57.
WightM. (2014). Students with learning disabilities in the foreign language learning environment and the practice of exemption. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 39–55.
58.
WoodcockR.Muñoz-SandovalMcGrewK.MatherM. (2004). Batería-III Woodcock-Muñoz. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
