Students Classified as LD Who Petitioned for or Fulfilled the College Foreign Language Requirement—Are They Different?

Abstract

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.

Individual and longitudinal differences among high and low-achieving, LD, and ADHD L2 learners

“…Studies with college L2 learners classified as LD have found that students with IQ-achievement discrepancies did not exhibit more severe L1 learning problems or lower L2 aptitude than either LD or other low-achieving students without IQ-achievement discrepancies (Sparks & Javorsky, 1999;Sparks, Philips, Ganschow, & Javorsky, 1999a;Sparks, Philips, & Javorsky, 2002). Also, college students classified as LD who received course substitutions for the L2 requirement (petition) and LD students who fulfilled the college L2 requirement (non-petition) by passing L2 courses did not exhibit significant differences in L1 cognitive ability, L1 achievement, or college entrance scores (i.e., ACT, SAT) (Sparks, Philips, Ganschow, & Javorsky, 1999b; Sparks, Philips, & Javorsky, 2003a).…”

Should the Modern Language Aptitude Test Be Used to Determine Course Substitutions for and Waivers of the Foreign Language Requirement?

“…In their research studies, Sparks and his colleagues have found that diagnosticians and disability service providers may have used students' MLAT scores in a discrepancy analysis to diagnose a disability for foreign language learning and to recommend course substitutions for the foreign language requirement. They have recommended that the MLAT not be used in either of these ways (Sparks, 2001;Sparks, Philips et al, 1999aSparks, Philips, & Javorsky, 2002. In some cases, they have also found that the MLAT has been used as the only testing measure to recommend course substitutions for the foreign language requirement.…”

“…In their studies, Sparks et al have found many students who withdrew from foreign language courses before completion; thus, there was no course grade available and the course outcome was unknown. In addition, other students have been granted course substitutions for the foreign language requirement without having enrolled in a foreign language course (see Sparks Q Javorsky, 1999a; Sparks, Philips, et al, 1996;Sparks, Philips, et al, 1999aSparks et al, 2002Sparks et al, , 2003. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence showing that students classified as LD who obtain similar scores on the MLAT (and similar levels of native language skills) achieve different outcomes in foreign language courses; that is, some pass foreign language courses and fulfill the foreign language requirement and others withdraw from or do not enroll in foreign language courses before being granted course substitutions.…”

“…Contrary to this anecdotal evidence, however, are studies showing that students who are at-risk for foreign language learning, but not classified as LD, do well in their academic courses and also pass foreign language courses, although some may achieve lower foreign language grades than in their other courses (e.g., A in history, B or C in the foreign language course) (Sparks Q . In studies with stu-dents classified as LD, Sparks et al have found that they not only profit from general instruction in their academic courses but they also pass foreign language courses, although they may achieve lower grades in the foreign language course Sparks, Philips, et al, 1999aSparks et al, 2002Sparks et al, , 2003. Interpretation of these findings with postsecondary level students classified as LD in these studies who received course substitutions was problematic, however, because: (a) some students did not take any foreign language courses in college; and (b) many students withdrew from foreign language courses before completion.…”

“…In two recent studies, Sparks and his colleagues , Sparks et al, 2003 compared college students classified as LD who had received course substitutions for the foreign language requirement and who had fulfilled the requirement by passing foreign language courses on measures of cognitive ability (IQ), native language achievement (reading, writing), ACT/SAT score, and graduating grade point average (GPA). In both studies, no differences were found between the two groups on the testing measures.…”