This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Sparks, R. L. Articles by Javorsky, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sparks, R. L. Articles by Javorsky, J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparison of Students Classified as LD Who Petitioned for or Fulfilled the College Foreign Language Requirement

College of Mount St. Joseph, 5701 Delhi Road, Cincinnati, OH 45233

Lois Philips

Miami University in Oxford, Ohio

Leonore Ganschow

Department of Educational Psychology at Miami University

James Javorsky

Purdue University

In this study, we compared the cognitive, academic achievement, and demographic profiles of 46 students from one university who had been classified as learning disabled (LD) and had received permission to substitute courses for the university's foreign language (FL) requirement (petition group) with the profiles of 21 students from the same university who had been classified as LD and had fulfilled the university's FL requirement by passing FL courses (nonpetition group). Results showed no significant differences between the two groups on measures of reading, mathematics, written language, American College Testing score, and graduating grade point average when IQ was used as a covariate. More petition than nonpetition students had at least a 1.0 SD discrepancy between IQ and achievement and had been referred only for FL learning problems. More nonpetition than petition students had taken an FL in college and received accommodations in the FL. The two groups together appeared to constitute a heterogeneous group of learners, with more than half failing to meet a minimum discrepancy criterion for classification as LD. The discussion addresses the classification system for LD, the process for determining the presence of FL learning problems and how to address them, and directions for further research.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 32, No. 6, 553-565 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/002221949903200607


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Sparks and B. J. Lovett College Students With Learning Disability Diagnoses: Who Are They and How Do They Perform? J Learn Disabil, November 1, 2009; 42(6): 494 - 510. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. Sparks and B. J. Lovett Objective Criteria for Classification of Postsecondary Students as Learning Disabled: Effects on Prevalence Rates and Group Characteristics J Learn Disabil, May 1, 2009; 42(3): 230 - 239. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. Sparks Is There a "Disability" for Learning a Foreign Language? J Learn Disabil, December 1, 2006; 39(6): 544 - 557. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. Sparks, L. Philips, and J. Javorsky Students Classified as LD Who Petitioned for or Fulfilled the College Foreign Language Requirement Are They Different?: A Replication Study J Learn Disabil, August 1, 2003; 36(4): 348 - 362. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. Sparks, L. G. Philips, and J. Javorsky Students Classified as LD Who Received Course Substitutions for the College Foreign Language Requirement: A Replication Study J Learn Disabil, December 1, 2002; 35(6): 482 - 500. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. M. Hatzes, H. B. Reiff, and M. H. Bramel The Documentation Dilemma: Access and Accommodations for Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2002; 27(3): 37 - 52. [Abstract] [PDF]