Myths Of Foreign Language Learning And Learning Disabilities
Myths of Foreign LanguageLearning and Learning DisabilitiesDr. Richard L. SparksBoston UniversityBoston, MAApril 4, 2019
Outline of Presentation I. Setting the stage for considering FL learning problems II. Some history about FL learning problems III. Is there a “disability” for FL learning?The problem with LD/Discrepancy definitions IV. Research about course waivers and substitutions V. Myths of FL Learning and LDs VI. FL Reading “Disability”: The Simple View VII. Best Practices—Dos and Don’ts
Contact information richard.sparks@msj.edu I will send you copies of any study mentioned today I encourage you to read the papers published on this topic Sparks, R. (2016). Myths about foreign language learningand learning disabilities. Foreign Language Annals, 49 (2),252-270. Sparks, R. (2009). If you don’t know where you’re going,you’ll wind up somewhere else: The case of “foreignlanguage learning disability.” Foreign Language Annals,42, 7-26.
Before I begin Be patient with me In order to understand why there are “Myths (beliefs)about FL Learning and LDs, ” one has to be aware of thefacts (evidence) about FL learning and LDs The first parts of my talk present the evidence (facts) The last parts of my talk present the myths (beliefs) andthe best practices
Themes of my presentation based on theEvidence 1. Language learning runs along a continuumfrom superior to average to poor oral and writtenlanguage skills (no “cut point” for a “disability”) 2. To have problems with FL learning, one musthave substantial impairments in oral/written L1skills (not math skills) 3. To have a LD in L1, one must have substantialimpairments (below average) L1 skills (nextslide)
Substantial Impairment Below average academic skillsMathxWritten LanguagexSpellingxxReadingStandard Score7085SD-2-1100Average Range115 1130 2
Themes of my presentation based on theEvidence 4. If you do not exhibit substantial impairments inL1 skills, you will likely pass FL courses (assumingeffort, attendance, completing the work, etc.) 5. There is no empirical evidence for the idea of a“disability” for FL learning 6. Likewise, there is no valid diagnosticprocedure to identify who will exhibit inordinateproblems with FL learning prior to enrolling in FLclasses
Themes of my presentation based on theEvidence 7. There is no empirical (scientific) basis on which anindividual classified as LD should be provided with a FLwaiver/substitution but a low-achieving (non-LD) FLlearner should be denied a FL waiver/substitution Why not? Because evidence has found no cognitive, L1 academicskills, FL aptitude, and FL outcome differencesbetween students classified as LD enrolled in FLcourses vs. low achieving, non-LD students in FLcourses
I. Setting the Stage forConsideration of FLLearning Problems
Setting the stage Questions we have investigated over 30 years Why do students exhibit FL learning problems? What are the primary differences between good,average, and poor FL learners? Are there native language (L1) differences betweenLD/low achieving students enrolled in FL courses? Which students most likely exhibit FL learning problems? What are best predictors of FL learning? Are there other factors (anxiety, motivation) that play acausal role in FL problems?
Setting the stage Can we define and diagnose a disability for FL learning? Are there different FL outcomes (grades, proficiency)between LD and low-achieving, non-LD FL learners? Is there cross-linguistic transfer of L1 to L2 skills? Is learning to read a FL similar to learning to read L1?(Simple View of Reading) Does aptitude for language learning play an importantrole in learning a FL? How well do U.S. students achieve in FL coursescompared to native speakers of the target language?
Setting the stage What is a Learning Disability (LD)? LD refers to academic impairment There are only 3 types of LDs (DSM-5) Reading Disorder (often referred to as dyslexia) Written Language Disorder (not just spelling problems) Mathematics Disorder (unrelated to FL learning) There must be a “substantial impairment” (belowaverage skills) to be classified as LD (next slide)
Substantial Impairment Below average academic skillsMathxWritten LanguagexSpellingxxReadingStandard Score7085SD-2-1100Average Range115 1130 2
Setting the stage What LD is NOT? Reversals of letters and numbers “Slow” reader, writer, etc. Poor handwriting (“dysgraphia”) Speech and language impairments AD/HD (our research) “Processing” problems” (auditory, visual processing) Sensory deficits Nonverbal learning problems (NVLD) Eye movements (tracking, scanning, focusing)
II. Some History aboutResearch into FLLearning Problems
Some History @ FL Learning Problems The notion of a continuum of language skills underlies allof our work At first, we viewed FL learning problems as aconceptually distinct disorder But, we were wrong—Why? 1. By 1993-94 ,our studies found FL learning problemsresulted from L1 problems (oral, written language) 2. There were no differences in the language skills of lowachieving and LD students in FL courses
Some History @ FL Learning Problems All skills, including FL learning and FL aptitude, run alonga continuum from very good (99th percentile) to average(25-75th percentile) to very poor (1st percentile) Individuals can achieve at difference places along thecontinuum in different skills Individual differences are normal and expected Next slide
Academic achievement skills xXXxxXStandard Score7085SD-2-1X100Average RangeX115 1130 2
Some History @ FL Learning Problems Why is continuum notion of language skills important? Many educators believe that all individuals have samelanguage learning (FL) aptitude (potential) If so, then the reasons for FL learning problems are notlanguage learning skill differences Instead, hypothesize that poor FL learning is due to lowmotivation, high anxiety, lack of effort, etc. These variables are related to language learning skills,but have not been found to be causal Next slide
Some History @ FL Learning Problems In the early 90s, new term, “foreign language learningdisability” (FLLD), appeared in the LD literature In the U.S., it very quickly became popular to associate FLlearning problems with LD Gajar (1987), Keeney & Smith (1994), Barr (1993),Mabbott (1994), Pompian & Thum (1984) Some suggested FLLD is a conceptually distinct disorder(Arries, Shaw, Smith), similar to reading or math disability
Some History @ FL Learning Problems By mid-1990s, universities explicitly linked LD and FL learningby: -assuming students classified as LD will have FL problems-making substitutions/waivers of FL requirement available-awarding course substitutions only to students w/LD labelIn US, students receive waiver/course substitution not forexcelling in FL, but because they are classified as LDBy late 1990s, LD label for college students became valuablebecause as students were waived from FL courses, LDdiagnoses increased, number of waivers increased
Some History @ FL Learning Problems Late 80s and early 90s, we were conducting research withstudents, both LD and non-LD, who had FL learning problems By 1993, our findings revealed no differences in IQ, L1 skills, FLaptitude, L2 course outcomes between LD and low-achieving,non-LD students in FL courses From 1991-2018, no studies have found differences oncognitive, L1 achievement, FL aptitude, and FL outcomemeasures between secondary/postsecondary studentsclassified as LD enrolled in FL courses vs. low-achievingstudents with FL learning problems not classified as LD
Some History @ FL Learning Problems As a result of our empirical findings, we hypothesized thatFL learning occurs along a continuum of very good to verypoor FL learners Likewise, because the evidence showed that FL learningexists along a continuum of language learning, anydiagnosis of a FL “disability” will be arbitrary and dependentirely on where the line (“cut point”) is drawn To date, no studies have refuted this hypothesis and theempirical evidence has supported the hypothesis Next slides as examples of “arbitrary” cut point
Arbitrary cut point for “FL disability”—30th percentileMLATWJ-III Written LangWJ-III VocabularyWJ-III ReadingxxxxStandard Score7085SD-2-1100Average Range115 1130 2
Arbitrary cut point for “FL disability”—20th percentileMLATWJ-III Written LangWJ-III VocabularyWJ-III ReadingxxxxStandard Score7085SD-2-1100Average Range115 1130 2
Arbitrary cut point for “FL disability”—40th percentileMLATWJ-III Written LangWJ-III VocabularyWJ-III ReadingxxxxStandard Score7085SD-2-1100Average Range115 1130 2
Some History @ FL Learning Problems So, which “cut point” is the correct one? There is no empirical evidence that any “cut point” iscorrect, i.e., below Xth percentile, all fail FL courses Likewise, there is no evidence that only studentsclassified as LD will have FL learning problems Lots of students have FL learning problems, most not LD Evidence shows that students without substantialimpairments in L1 skills—LD and not LD—pass FL courses
Summary-History @ FL Learning Problems What were the important lessons we learned from ourresearch with students who had FL learning problems? 1. That L1 problems were related to FL learning problems 2. That a diagnosis of LD is not important for explainingwho has FL learning problems 3. Students who fail FLs display substantial impairmentsin L1 skills (reading, writing, oral language) (notmath)
III. Is there a “Disability” forFL learning? (The Problem withLDs and Discrepancy)
Is there a “disability” for FL learning? In 2006, Sparks reviewed the empirical evidence andfound that evidence does not support the notion of a FL“disability” He expanded on the paper in 2009 Sparks, R. (2006). Is there a “disability” for FL learning?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 544-557 Sparks, R. (2009). If you don’t know where you’re going,you’ll wind up somewhere else: The case of FLLD. ForeignLanguage Annals, 42, 7-26.
Is there a “disability”? The problem with “FL learning disability” is theterm, Learning Disability (LD) The primary problem with the LD concept is (andcontinues to be) its ambiguity The term LD has never had a logically consistent,easily operationalized, and empirically validdefinition and classification (diagnostic) system Researchers, diagnosticians, and practitioners havenever agreed on definition and diagnostic criteria
1983Learning Disabilities as a SubsetOf School Failure: TheOverSophistication of a ConceptBOBALGOZZINEJAMES YSSELDYKEExceptional Children
1988
1998
2005
2017
So, what is a LD? Because LD field could not agree on what a LD is, discrepancy became operational definition of LD in 1978Discrepancy (IQ vs. achievement) between one’s IQ scoreand one’s achievement on standardized tests Thus, if achievement was not consistent with intellectualability on a standardized IQ test, LD was often diagnosed In U.S., states used different discrepancy criteria (15, 20,22.5, 30 standard score points) that resulted in massconfusion (move from state to state, LD or not LD)
Example of student with IQ-achievement discrepancyIQ120Writing 96Reading 95Math115XFullScale IQReading AchMath Ach.Writing AchXXXStandard Score7085SD-2-1100Average Range115 1130 2
Example of same student without reference to IQWriting 96Reading 95Math115XReading AchMath Ach.Writing AchXXStandard Score7085SD-2-1100Average Range115 1130 2
So, what is a LD? By late 90s, researchers had falsifieddiscrepancy as themarker for diagnosing LD for several reasons . 1. Discrepancies are normal/expected in everyone 2. IQ not good predictor of learning to read and write 3. Diagnoses of LD are arbitrary, based on judgment 4. Diagnoses of LD ignored the assessment data 5. Many (most) individuals classified as LD exhibitaverage achievement in reading, spelling, writing
Consequences of ignoring research Despite evidence, use of IQ-achievement discrepancy asthe primary diagnostic marker has persisted even afterDSM-5 discontinued discrepancy as criterion Stanovich, K. (2005). The future of a mistake: Will discrepancy continue tomake learning disabilities a pseudoscience? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28,103-106.Dombrowski, S. et al. (2004). After the demise of discrepancy. ProfessionalPsychology: Research and Practice, 35, 364-372.Weis, R. et al. (2016). When average is not good enough: Students withlearning disabilities at selective, private colleges. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 48, 1-17.Sparks, R., & Lovett, B. (2009). Objective criteria for classification ofpostsecondary students as LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 230-239.
Summary-Is there a FL disability? To know whether there might be a FL disability, we mustagree on the definition and diagnostic criteria for LD But, the LD field does not agree on the definition anddiagnostic criteria for LD IQ/achievement discrepancy still used even though DSM5 eliminated its use in 2015 If we don’t agree on definition and diagnostic criteria forLD, e.g., for L1 reading and writing disabilities, we willhave great difficulty with a definition of and diagnosticcriteria for a FL “disability”
IV. Research with studentsclassified as LD who receivedwaivers and substitutions
IV. Research with students classified as LD From 1991-2008, our studies asked whether students classified as LD in FL classes .1. exhibit weaker cognitive, L1 achievement skills, and FLaptitude than low-achieving (non-LD) FL learners?2. with varying degrees of IQ-achievement discrepancyexhibit lower scores on IQ and L1 skill measures thanLD students who do not have IQ-ach disc?3. who w/draw from/do not pass FL courses exhibit cognitive,L1 achievement, or demographic differences whencompared to LD students who pass FL courses?4. display worse FL outcomes (grades, proficiency in the FL)than low-achieving students not classified as LD?
Research with students classified as LD In all of our studies, we found that students classified as LD inFL courses . 1. Exhibited no differences in L1 skills and L2 aptitude whencompared to low-achieving, non-LD students 2. With/without IQ-achievement discrepancies exhibitedno differences in L1 achievement and FL aptitude3. who w/drew from or did not pass FL courses exhibited noL1 achievement differences compared to studentsclassified as LD who passed FL courses4. displayed no differences in FL outcomes (course grades, FLproficiency) to low-achieving, non-LD FL learners
L1 and L2 skills, L2 aptitude of high-achieving,low-achieving, and LD students in FL classesXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXMLAT scores-three d Score7085SD-2-1100Average Range115 1130 2
Research with students classified as LD In addition, we conducted a number of studies withpostsecondary students classified as LD who receivedwaivers and course substitutions for FL requirement We also compared students who had received waiversand substitutions with students classified as LD who hadfulfilled the FL requirement by passing FL courses Journal of Learning Disabilities, Foreign Language Annals,Language Learning, Annals of Dyslexia
Research with students classified as LD Findings showed LD students with waivers/substitutions: 1. Did not generally have problems w/FL learning prior to granting of waiver/substitution2. Had passed FL courses in high school and college withaverage to above average grades3. Did not exhibit different learning profiles or moresevere FL problems than LD students who hadfulfilled LD requirement4. Did not exhibit achievement profiles distinct from thosewith less severe or no IQ-achievement discrepancy5. Achieved WP grades if they withdrew from FL courses
Research with students classified as LD 6. Passed FL courses to fulfill FL requirement if waiver orsubstitution request was denied 7. Most did not exhibit substantial impairments (belowaverage) in L1 skills 8. Were not diagnosed as LD until college whenconfronted with fulfilling FL requirement (60-65%) 9. Displayed NO significant differences on testingmeasures (IQ, L1 academics, GPA, ACT/SAT) whencompared to LD students who passed FL courses
LD who received waivers vs. LD who did notreceive waiversXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXLDs no waivers MLATLDs with waivers MLATLDs no waiversLDs with waiversStandard Score7085SD-2-1100Average Range115 1130 2
LD who received waivers-varying degrees ofIQ-achievement discrepanciesXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2.0 SD discrepancy1.5-2.0 SD discrepancy1.0-1.5 SD discrepancy 1.0 SD discrepancyStandard Score7085SD-2-1100Average Range115 1130 2
Summary of research with studentsclassified as LD In sum, studies’ results suggested LD students whoreceived waivers and substitutions . 1. Did not have unique cognitive and L1 achievementprofiles on measures of oral/written language 2. Did not exhibit FL learning problems differentfrom LD students who passed FL courses 3. Did not exhibit substantial impairments in L1 skills
Summary of research with studentsclassified as LD 4. In most cases, had no documented history of FLlearning problems 5. Had passed all previous FL courses 6. Had withdrawn with passing grades from FL courses So, why did these students receive a waiver/substitution? Were provided with waivers and substitutions based: a)requested the waiver, and b) had a LD diagnosis
V. Myths about FL learning and LDs
V. Myths about FL learning and LDs Despite the evidence, U.S. universities and high schools:--- continue to use the term FLLD--- associate FL learning problems with LDs--- grant course waivers and substitutions Recent papers by Wight (2014), Lys et al. (2014), Difinoand Lombardino (2004) highlight extent of this practice Random search of websites of 50 U.S. colleges found thatall allowed waivers and substitutions but only for studentsclassified as LD (in contradiction of all evidence)
Myths about FL learning and LDs Why is evidence on FL and LDs ignored? (2006, 2009) Misunderstanding and misuse of LD concept (discrepancy) Students gain access to course accommodations andmodifications, thus pleasing parents (and students) Diagnosticians benefit from increased referrals Attorneys benefit from larger client base for lawsuits High schools/colleges benefit from avoiding lawsuits High schools /colleges benefit from increased enrollment Schools save inordinate number of hours on meetings andconferences to discuss students’ issues with FLs Professional organizations benefit from increased visibilityand funding as a result of advocacy
What are the Myths about FL learning and LD? I was inspired to write this paper after reading JulianElliott’s paper in LD Australia: “The Dyslexia Debate :Some Key Myths” (Vol. 46, Nos. 1 and 2, May 2014) Elliott is co-author of new book, The Dyslexia Debate,with Elena Grigorenko Sparks, R. (2016). Myths about foreign language learningand learning disabilities. Foreign Language Annals, 49,252-270.
What are the myths about FL learning and LDs? Myth #1 Students who are classified as LD will exhibit FL learningproblems and either fail or withdraw from FL courses Most LD students pass FL courses withoutaccommodations Students classified as LD pass/fail/struggle with FLcourses at same rates as low-achieving FL students LD should not be used as the sine qua non (absolutelyneeded) to determine who will have FL learning problems Student’s language skills should be examined (more later)
What are the myths about FL learning and LDs? Myth #2 Withdrawal from FL courses is evidence of an undiagnosedLD, problems with FL learning, and/or a “disability” for FLlearning Students classified as LD who withdraw have WP-passing Most who are assigned WP grades have passed previousFL courses with A, B, C grades No differences in language skills, cognitive ability, collegeentrance exam scores, and FL aptitude between LDclassified students and low-achieving FL learners whowithdrew from FL courses
What are the myths about FL learning and LDs? Myth #3 Students classified as LD in FL courses exhibit weakerlanguage learning skills and lower FL aptitude than lowachieving, non-LD students There are no significant differences in L1 reading,spelling, writing, vocabulary, memory, phonologicalprocessing skills between students classified as LD andlow-achieving FL learners LD students are supposed to be different from lowachieving, non-LD students—hallmark of LD—but are not
What are the myths about FL learning and LDs? Myth #4 Students classified as LD who are granted coursesubstitutions or waivers exhibit low (below average) levelsof language learning ability and are different from studentsclassified as LD who pass FL courses Students classified as LD with waivers/substitutionsexhibit average (or better) native language skills No differences between L1 skills, cognitive ability, collegeentrance scores (SAT, ACT) between students classifiedas LD who were granted waivers and LD students whopassed FL courses (important finding—why?)
What are the myths about FL learning and LDs? Myth #5 A low score on a FL aptitude test and/or discrepancybetween IQ and FL aptitude scores are evidence of a LDand/or potential FL learning problems Low score on a FL aptitude test (MLAT) does not predictfailure in FL courses, or whether student will needaccommodations to pass FL course Students with low FL aptitude scores generally pass FLcourses Students classified as LD and low-achieving FL learnersdo equally well on FL aptitude tests and achieve similaroutcomes in FL courses and FL proficiency
What are the myths about FL learning and LDs? Myth #6 (most problematic myth--old habits die hard, orlike zombies, don’t die at all!) Discrepancy between IQ and academic achievement isevidence of a LD as well as a “disability” for FL learning Students classified as LD with/w-out discrepancies in FLcourses exhibited no differences in L1 skills, FL aptitude,FL grades, and FL proficiency Discrepancy is irrelevant in predicting who will experienceproblems with FL learning Most students with discrepancies do well in FL courses
What are the myths about FL learning and LDs? What about the gifted/LD (G/LD) concept? High IQ (120-130) and average achievement (95-105) Have discrepancy but no academic impairment Lovett & Sparks (2010, 2013) have examined G/LD notion Lovett, B., & Sparks, R. (2013). The identification andperformance of gifted students with learning disabilitydiagnoses: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 37, 169-178.
What are the myths about FL learning and LDs? Despite its intuitively appealing nature, very littleresearch on the G/LD concept In our literature review, only 46 empirical studies over 3035 years Numerous theoretical and psychometric problems Wide variabilit
Sparks, R. (2016). Myths about foreign language learning and learning disabilities. Foreign Language Annals, 49 (2), 252-270. Sparks, R. (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.
The findings of these studies cast doubt on common myths about L2 vocabulary teaching and learning (Folse, 2004b). This paper focuses on the following eight myths: (1) Vocabulary is not as important in learning a foreign language as grammar or other areas. (2) Itis not good to use lists of words when learning vocabulary.
Myths and Realities As Samway and McKeon (2007) have noted, “a body of myths” or “urban legends” have been associated with ELLs and their education. They have identified fifty-eight myths about ELLs that fall into ten categories: demographics, enrollment, native language instruction,
Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains: Pearson Education. Brown, S. & Larson-Hall, J. (2012). Second language acquisition myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language learning nd(2 ed.). New .
Greek Myths Tell It Again! Read-Aloud Supplemental Guide Grade 2 Core Knowledge Language Arts Listening & Learning Strand. Greek Myths . English Language Learners and students with limited oral language skills may not necessarily know the meanings of all Tier 1 words, and may
American Sign Language is offered and accepted as a foreign language to fulfill high school and post-secondary language requirements. New Hampshire American Sign Language as a foreign language has never been proposed to the state legislature. However, some high schools and colleges offer American Sign Language and give academic credit.
Table of Contents Greek Myths Tell It Again! Read-Aloud Anthology Alignment Chart for Greek Myths .v Introduction to Greek Myths. .1 Lesson 1: The Twelve Gods of Mount Olympus . 11 Lesson 2: Prometheus and Pandora. . 24 Lesson 3: Demeter and Persephone. 36 Lesson 4: Arachne the Weaver .
The ‘Just So Stories’ by Rudyard Kipling as creation myths. These link well with Aboriginal Creation myths. Look at myths from different countries which explain the same idea differently e.g. the Canadian Indian creation myth of ‘How Glooskap Found Summer’ and Persephone and the creation of Winter and Summer. Bailiwick legends:
organization. Organizational behavior has been identified as the crucial variable for achieving success, and is considered the fundamental underpinning that helps leaders identify problems, ascertain how to address the problems, recognize the complexities within the organization, and . 3 establish whether change needs to occur to make things better (Miner, 2006b; Sims, 2002). Organizational .
