Language Learning 55:1, March 2005, pp. 151-177

Comparison of the Performance of College Students Classified as ADHD, LD, and LD/ ADHD in Foreign Language Courses Richard L. Sparks College of Mount St. Joseph James Javorsky Oakland University Lois Philips Miami University In this study, college students classified as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who had fulfilled the foreign language (FL) requirement were compared with students classified as learning disabled (LD) or both LD and ADHD who had either substituted courses for the college FL requirement (petition) or had passed FL courses (nonpetition) on cognitive and academic achievement measures and in FL course grades. Findings revealed few between-group differences on the testing measures and also showed that all 5 groups scored in the average to above-average range on all measures of cognitive ability and academic achievement and achieved primarily average to aboveaverage grades in college FL courses. Results indicated that petition status and disability classification were not important in differentiating the 5 groups' cognitive Richard Sparks, Department of Education; James Javorsky, Human Studies and Child Studies Department; Lois Philips, College of Arts and Sciences. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard L. Sparks, College of Mt. St. Joseph, Cincinnati, OH 45233. Internet: [email protected] 151

152

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

ability, academic achievement skills, and graduating grade point average.

Over the last 20 years, foreign language (FL) learning has been thought to be particularly difficult for secondary- and postsecondary-level students classified as learning disabled (LD; Arries, 1994, 1999; Ganschow, Philips, & Schneider, 2001; Ganschow & Sparks, 1987; Mabbott, 1994; Pompian & Thum, 1988; Sparks, Ganschow, & Pohlman, 1989).' Researchers have hypothesized that students classified as LD have a languagebased disorder that impairs language learning (i.e., reading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking) and interferes with FL learning (Ganschow, Sparks, & Schneider, 1995; Levine, 1987). Educators and other professionals have assumed that because of language learning difficulties, students classified as LD cannot learn an FL; therefore, requiring these students to take an FL would be not only inappropriate, but also discriminatory (Wolinsky & Whelan, 1999). The FL requirement has garnered the attention of college student services providers and university policymakers, who have designed policies and procedures to assist students classified as LD in fulfilling the FL requirement. At some secondary and postsecondary institutions, service providers work with FL educators, helping them to use instructional accommodations and make FL courses more accessible to these students (Scott & Manglitz, 2000). Other colleges and universities have provided special sections of FL classes for students classified as LD and other at-risk learners (Demuth & Smith, 1987; Downey, Snyder, & Hill, 2001; Hill, Downey, Sheppard, & Williamson, 1995). Others have procedures for course substitutions that include sign language, computer programming, and FL literature and culture coursework (Philips, Ganschow, & Anderson, 1991; Shaw, 1999). In the 1990s Sparks, Ganschow, and their colleagues conducted a series of empirical studies with students who performed well in FL courses and students who performed less

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

153

well in or failed FL courses. The results of these comparison studies showed that the less successful FL learners had significantly lower levels of native-language skill (i.e., reading, spelling, writing, and vocabulary) and FL aptitude as measured by the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) than the more successful FL learners (Carroll & Sapon, 1959; Ganschow & Sparks, 1996; Ganschow et al., 1994; Ganschow, Sparks, Javorsky, Pohhman, & Bishop-Marbury, 1991; Sparks & Ganschow, 1995, 1996; Sparks,

Ganschow,

Artzer, Siebenhar,

& Plageman,

2004; Sparks,

Ganschow, Javorsky, Pohlman, & Patton, 1992a). The studies showed that poor FL learners exhibited particular difficulty with the phonological/orthographic aspects of language learning (i.e., word recognition, pseudoword reading, and spelling). Sparks and his colleagues have also conducted empirical studies that investigated whether students classified as LD enrolled in FL classes exhibit cognitive, academic achievement, and FL aptitude (on the MLAT) differences when compared to at-risk, non-LD students. In some studies, at-risk students were defined as those who had achieved grades of D or F in the first semester of high school FL courses. In other studies, at-risk students were those who had failed a FL course in the seventh or eighth grade, had been advised not to enroll in a FL course in seventh or eighth grade because of a history of native-language learning problems, and/or had been previously classified as LD. In these studies, they found that the students classified as LD did not exhibit significant differences in cognitive ability (IQ), academic achievement, or FL aptitude when compared to the at-risk, non-LD students (Sparks et al., 1998; Sparks & Ganschow, 1993; Sparks, Ganschow, Fluharty, & Little, 1996; Sparks, Ganschow, Javorsky, Pohlman, & Patton, 1992b). In addition, these studies also found that the FL learning difficulties of students classified as LD and of at-risk students are primarily language-based and that both groups have particular difficulty with the phonological/orthographic component of language (i.e., on measures of word recognition, spelling, and pseudoword reading). Sparks et al. have also speculated that students

154

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

classified as LD do not exhibit FL learning problems that are unique to the LD classification, nor do their FL learning problems differ from those of other at-risk learners not classified as LD (Sparks, 2001; Sparks & Ganschow, 2001; Sparks & Javorsky, 1999a). In another series of studies, Sparks, Ganschow, and their colleagues examined groups of postsecondary-level students classified as LD who had been granted course substitutions for the FL requirement (i.e., petition students). 2 In one study, they investigated whether a group of 97 petition students at one university would display significant cognitive and academic achievement differences when they were grouped by level of IQ-achievement discrepancy, by discrepancy between achievement on different measures, and by level of performance on phonological orthographic processing measures, the MLAT, and FL course grades (Sparks, Philips, Ganschow, & Javorsky, 1999a). Results showed no differences among students with different levels of IQ-achievement and achievement-achievement discrepancies on the MLAT, American College Test (ACT)/Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), graduating grade point average (GPA), or college FL GPA. The students' mean scores on IQ and academic achievement measures and the ACT/SAT were in the average range. Sparks, Philips, and Javorsky (2002) replicated the aforementioned study with a different group of 158 petition students classified as LD at the same university and achieved similar results. Sparks and Javorsky (1999b) also obtained similar results with 42 petition students classified as LD at another university. In related studies, Sparks and his colleagues compared the cognitive, academic achievement, and demographic profiles of 46 students classified as LD at one university who had been permitted to make course substitutions for the FL requirement (i.e., petition students) 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 (i.e., nonpetition students; Sparks, Philips, Ganschow, & Javorsky, 1999b). The results showed no significant differences between

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

156

the two groups on measures of reading, math, and written language, ACT/SAT scores, and graduating GPA when IQ was used as a covariate; however, both groups' IQ scores were in the above-average range (i.e., Petition group= 79th percentile, Nonpetition group = 87th percentile). The two groups also exhibited similar demographic profiles (e.g., levels of IQ-achievement discrepancy, number of students who had taken FL courses in high school). Sparks et al. found that the two groups together appeared to constitute a heterogeneous group of learners. Sparks, Philips, and Javorsky (2003a) replicated the study with different groups of petition (n = 86) and nonpetition (n = 40) students classified as LD at the same university and obtained similar results (i.e., no significant differences in IQ, academic achievement, and graduating GPA). The results of the aforementioned studies show that students classified as LD may or may not experience problems with FL learning. The findings also suggest that the FL learning problems of students classified as LD may not be unique but may be similar to the FL learning problems of other poor FL learners not classified as LD; that is, both groups exhibit similar problems with language learning generally (Sparks, 2001). Sparks and his colleagues have suggested that native-language and FL educators and university service providers should not assume that students classified as LD will experience FL learning problems based on their classification as LD or the presence of IQ-achievement discrepancies. (See Sparks et al., 2003a, for a list of suggestions regarding FL assessment, instruction, and policy issues related to students classified as LD.) In contrast to that with college students classified as LD, little or no research has been conducted with college students classified as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who are enrolled in FL courses. Students classified as ADHD are considered to exhibit inappropriate levels of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994), nine symptoms of ADHD are included in the inattention

156

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

category: failure to give close attention to details or often makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, difficulty sustaining attention to tasks, not listening when spoken to directly, inability to follow instructions, difficulty with organizing tasks, avoidance or dislike of tasks requiring sustained mental effort, frequently losing items necessary for tasks, easily distracted by extraneous stimuli, and forgetfulness in daily activities. To justify a diagnosis of ADHD, six of these symptoms must be present for at least 6 months; also, the symptoms must be maladaptive as well as inconsistent with the current developmental level of the individual. Six hyperactivity symptoms and three impulsivity symptoms that must meet the same criteria are included in the DSM-1V. For an ADHD diagnosis, an individual must exhibit at least six of the nine total symptoms in this category. The hyperactivity symptoms are fidgety or squirmy with hands or feet while in seat, leaving seat when seating is expected, running or climbing excessively in inappropriate situations, difficulty playing quietly, often perpetually moving (on the go), and talking excessively. The impulsivity symptoms are blurting out of answers before questions have been finished, difficulty awaiting turn, and interrupting and intrusion of others. DSM-IV criteria require that the behaviors be present before 7 years of age and also that the behaviors be exhibited in two or more environmental settings (e.g., both at school and in the home). Furthermore, there must be distinct evidence of impairment in the social or academic life of the individual. Finally, these symptoms should not occur as a result of some other disorder. Currently, the DSM-IV defines ADHD based on separate but correlated symptom dimensions: inattention (IA), hyperactivity/impulsivity (H/I), or both (Chlabildas, Pennington, & Willcutt, 2001). Diagnoses are then specified by four ADHD types: ADHD-Combined type (includes inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity), ADHD-Predominantly Inattentive type, ADHD-Predominantly Hyperactivity-Impulsive type, and ADHD-Not Otherwise Specified. The DSM-IV field trials indicated that these subtypes differ significantly on variables

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

157

such as age of onset, gender ratio, and level of social and academic impairment (Lahey et al., 1994). For example, academic deficits and school-related problems tend to be most pronounced in the types marked by inattention, whereas peer rejection and, to a lesser extent, accidental injury are most apparent in the types marked by hyperactivity and impulsivity. Individuals with the predominantly inattentive type tend to be socially passive and appear to be neglected rather than rejected by peers. Research findings have shown that a large percentage of children classified as ADHD may continue to exhibit symptoms related to the disorder when they reach adolescence and adulthood (Klein & Mannuzza, 1991). Some students classified as ADHD may also exhibit academic difficulties and have been found to achieve lower grades and exhibit low scores on standardized achievement tests (Anderson, Williams, McGee, & Silva, 1987; Barkley, Rischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1990; Wener, 1990). A small number of studies and anecdotal reports have indicated that college students classified as ADHD may also have academic problems (Heiligenstein, Guenther, & Levy, 1999; Heiligenstein & Keeling, 1995). There has been one empirical study on FL learning that included students with a dual diagnosis of LD and ADHD. In that study, Sparks, Philips, and Javorsky (2003b) compared (a) petition students classified as LD; (b) petition students classified as LD and ADHD; (c) nonpetition students classified as LD; and (d) nonpetition students classified as LD and ADHD on cognitive (IQ) and academic achievement (reading, math, writing, ACT/SAT, GPA) measures and on FL grades. The results showed few differences among the four groups on the testing measures. However, the nonpetition LD/ADHD group scored significantly higher than the petition LD group on measures of IQ, reading, math, and scholastic achievement (ACT). The findings showed that some students with dual classifications of LD and ADHD may not experience serious problems with FL learning.

158

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

There are anecdotal reports that students classified as ADHD may experience difficulties with FL courses (Arries, 1994, 1999; Hodge, 1998; Latham & Latham, 1998). However, there has been only one empirical investigation that has included students classified only as ADHD (i.e., without dual

classification as LD). In that study, Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips (2004) examined the demographic profiles, overall academic performance, college entrance scores, and FL classroom performance of 68 college students classified as ADHD who had graduated from the same university over the same fiveyear period. The findings showed that all 68 students had completed the university's FL requirement by passing FL courses. The students' mean college entrance score (ACT score of 24.7) was similar to that of the middle 50 percent of freshmen at the university, and their mean graduating GPA (2.7) was similar to that of the typical graduating senior at the university. The students had participated in both lower-level (100) and upper-level (200, 300, 400) college FL courses in several different FLs and had achieved mostly average and above-average grades (i.e., 83% of the students' FL grades were C or higher). One student had majored and eight students had minored in an FL. Two thirds of the students had passed all of their FL courses without the use of instructional accommodations (e.g., untimed tests). The findings suggested that the students' classification as ADHD did not interfere with their ability to complete college FL courses and that students classified as ADHD may fulfill the FL requirement in a manner similar to other college students not classified as ADHD. Purpose of Study Although the aforementioned study examined the profiles of students classified only as ADHD who had fulfilled the college FL requirement by passing FL courses, the students were not compared to other groups of FL learners who had

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

159

been classified as LD or as both LD and ADHD. The purpose of the present study is to examine whether students classified as ADHD who fulfilled the college FL requirement by passing FL courses have cognitive, academic achievement, and FL course grade profiles different from (a) petition students classified as LD who received course substitutions for the college FL requirement, (b) petition students classified as both LD and ADHD who received course substitutions for the college FL requirement, (c) nonpetition students classified as LD who fulfilled the FL requirement by passing FL courses, and (d) nonpetition students classified as both LD and ADHD who fulfilled the college FL requirement by passing FL courses. The new features of this study are (a) the inclusion of another disability classification-students classified only as ADHDand (b) the comparison of the cognitive ability, academic achievement, and FL grade profiles of students with different disability classifications (i.e., ADHD only, LD only, both LD and ADHD) who fulfilled the FL requirement by passing FL courses or those who received course substitutions for the FL requirement. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first empirical study in which students classified as ADHD have been compared to other students-disabled or nondisabledwho had either passed FL courses and fulfilled the FL requirement or who had received course substitutions for the FL requirement.

Method Participants Participants were 144 college students who had enrolled in and graduated from a Midwestern, state-supported, medium-sized (16,000 students) university composed mainly of undergraduates. The participants had enrolled in and graduated from this university between Summer 1995 and Fall 2000. A number of the participants had been classified as ADHD, as LD, or as both

160

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

LD and ADHD. All participants had been diagnosed by qualified professionals, and their diagnoses had been accepted by the university. The university's Student Health Services reviewed the documentation provided by the students classified as ADHD and as LD and ADHD and verified each student's diagnosis of ADHD. In order for the university to accept the diagnosis, the documentation, which was reviewed by a doctor (MD) in the Student Health Services office, must have been current (completed within the previous 3 years), completed by an appropriate professional, and written on letterhead or official forms used by the professional. The documentation also had to include the following information: (a) the assessment tools used and their results, (b) a specific diagnosis, (c) a description of the functional limitations of the disability, (d) recommendations for an academic setting, and (e) prescribed medications and a treatment/monitoring plan. The professionals who had classified the students as ADHD had used different batteries of measures in doing so. These measures included clinical interviews, rating scales, psychological testing, intelligence testing, academic achievement testing, and medical assessments. The participants were chosen for this study based on meeting the following criteria: . They had been classified as ADHD, as LD, or as both LD/ ADHD. 3 . They had received services from the university's Office of Learning Assistance. * A standardized measure of intelligence (either the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised [WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981] or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III [WISCIII; Wechsler, 1991]) had been administered to them. . The Woodcock-Johnson-Revised (WJ-R): Tests of Achievement: Broad Reading and Broad Written Language Cluster (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) had been administered to them.

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

161

* Their records included an ACT or SAT score. . Their records included a graduating GPA. The intelligence and academic achievement measures used by the evaluators are summarized in the appendix. A number of the participants classified as LD and as LD/ ADHD had petitioned and received course substitutions for the university's FL requirement. Other participants classified as LD and as LD/ADHD had not petitioned and had fulfilled the university's FL requirement by passing FL courses. None of the participants classified as ADHD had petitioned for course substitution of the college's FL requirement, and all of them had passed FL courses to fulfill the FL requirement. The participants were divided into five groups: * ADHD: There were 18 students in the ADHD group, 8 males and 10 females. The mean age of the group was 22 years, 6 months (ages ranged from 21 to 25 years).4 * Petition LD: There were 63 students in the Petition LD group, 43 males and 20 females, all of whom had received course substitutions for the FL requirement. The mean age of the group was 23 years, 7 months (ages ranged from 21 to 37 years). * Petition LD/ADHD: There were 23 students in the Petition LD/ADHD group, 17 males and 6 females, all of whom had received course substitutions for the FL requirement. The mean age of the group was 23 years, 11 months (ages ranged from 21 to 29 years). * Nonpetition LD: There were 28 students in the Nonpetition LD group, 10 males and 18 females, all of whom had fulfilled the FL requirement by passing FL courses. The mean age of the group was 22 years, 2 months (ages ranged from 20 to 29 years). * Nonpetition LD/ADHD: There were 12 students in the Nonpetition LD/ADHD group, 6 males and 6 females, all

Language Learning

162

Vol. 55, No. 1

of whom had fulfilled the FL requirement by passing FL courses. The mean age of the group was 22 years, 0 months (ages ranged from 20 to 25 years).

Procedure Demographic information and standardized test data for each of the 144 participants was on file in the university's Office of Learning Assistance. All participants had provided informed consent for their testing records to be used for research purposes. The participants' demographic information and standardized test data were recorded on a form by the three authors of the present study. Data Analysis Standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15) and standard deviations were calculated to determine the 144 participants' standardized testing profiles. Means and standard deviations were also calculated for graduating GPA and SAT/ACT scores. A larger number of students had taken the ACT (n = 111) than had taken the SAT (n = 78). (Forty-five students had taken both the ACT and SAT tests.) Therefore, the SAT scores for those students who had taken only the SAT were transformed into ACT scores using a concordance table published by the American College Testing Program (Dorans, 1999; Dorans, Lyu, Pommerich, & Houston, 1997). To determine whether the groups exhibited overall cognitive ability (IQ), academic achievement (WJ-R), scholastic aptitude (ACT), and GPA differences, a four-group analysis of variance was conducted for each dependent variable. A Scheffe test was used to determine between-group differences. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level. Because of the different sample sizes among the five groups, evaluations of the assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance, and linearity were performed. Based on the visual

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

163

inspection on the normality plots of the measures, data for the total sample and for each group were found to be normally distributed. The presence of homogeneity of variance for the total sample and for each of the groups was examined using Bartlett's test (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The results indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance had not been violated (p < .001). Participants' grades in college FL courses were compiled by counting the number of letter grades in FL courses achieved by students in each of the groups. To determine whether there were significant differences in the percentages of FL grades among the groups, a 6 (grade: A, B, C, D, F, W/WP/WF) x 5 (group: ADHD, Petition LD, Petition LD/ADHD, Nonpetition LD, Nonpetition LD/ADHD) chi-square analysis was performed. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level. Results Cognitive, Academic Achievement, and GPA Comparisons On the WAIS-R/WISC-III, there was not a significant overall difference among the five groups, F (4, 139) = 2.44; p =.0502. On the WJ-R Reading Cluster, there were significant overall differences among the five groups, F (4, 139) = 3.08; p =.02. However, no between-group differences were found On the WJ-R Mathematics Cluster, there were significant overall differences among the five groups, F (4, 102) = 2.84; p = .03.5 Follow-up group comparisons showed that the Nonpetition LD/ ADHD group scored significantly higher than the Petition LD/ ADHD group on this measure. There were no other betweengroup differences. On the WJ-R Written Language Cluster, there were significant overall differences among the five groups, F (4, 139) = 5.67; p = .0003. Follow-up group comparisons showed that the ADHD group scored significantly higher than both the

164

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

Petition LD and the Petition LD/ADHD groups. There were no other between-group differences. On the ACT/SAT, there were significant overall differences among the five groups, F (4, 139)= 6.16; p =.0001. Follow-up group comparisons showed that the ADHD group scored significantly higher than the Petition LD group and that the Nonpetition LD/ADHD group scored significantly higher than both the Petition LD and the Petition LD/ADHD groups. On graduating college GPA, there were no significant overall differences among the five groups, F (4, 139) = 1.74; p = .15. Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and F values for each of the six dependent variables. FL Grades The chi-square analysis showed that there was a significant distribution of FL grades among the five groups, x2 (20, N= 144)- 118.71, p =.0001. The results showed that FL grades were not evenly distributed among the groups. Table 2 presents the numbers of grades achieved by each of the five groups in FL classes and the corresponding percentages for each group. Discussion The purpose of this study was to determine whether the cognitive, academic achievement, and FL course grade profiles of college students classified as ADHD who had fulfilled their university's FL requirement by passing FL courses would exhibit differences when compared to those of college students with different disability classifications (i.e., LD, LD/ADHD), some of whom had fulfilled the FL requirement by passing FL courses (Nonpetition LD, Nonpetition LD/ADHD) and others who had been permitted to make course substitutions for the FL requirement (Petition LD, Petition LD/ADHD). Findings showed that students classified as ADHD exhibited cognitive and academic achievement scores that were

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

CO 0

C10c Co

CO

Cl Om CO

165

CD 0

CS -4 CO

C

0 0

CO

1.

Cl

-R 4

-4

L 1

-4

.140

10

-4

0

-4

.

3

1-4 1-4

0.

CO -4

.H ,~

0

I-4

-4

CO C'

0 CO

6 0)

Cl

Co

C~6

Cl 0

10 Cl

-C

C5

0C

Z2

0

C: CD

-4 ,--4

-4

Lo

oq

: CO

6 ,-4

4-4

IN Cl4

CO

CO LOS

CO 0

CO co 1-4

cl

11

*.S

r. 0

1;5 m

1954 a)

1-4 ,--4

.a)

1t

1-

-4 -4

CO -.4

C9

CDI 11

Cl -4

1-4

Cl -4 1-4 1-4

114

o

1-4 1-4

0 -4l

0

Cl

Cl

I-4

Z2 -4

-4

CD

CO

I-4

1-4 1-4

-4 1-4

0

-4

U: 10 -4:'

1-4 1-4

1-4

C.)

4

-4 a)

H9

¢ a

4

)- a C)

~ ~ ~ ~~~ 4 ~

CO~

c

4

0

Q

166

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

0 ; ,-

C>

o:

m

ci cc cO

C

to

0 O-

4.) m

$.,

O)

Oi U m

x 0

z U Ov)

b4

0 -4.

0

.

O

-0 '

Scc

c

U

O

bD

0

,~

C 1>

0-

o

1-

0:

ci

cc 00 c

0 04.

ci 00c

0

,--

OCi

-0

C 00 --

ci >-4 C

ci

Nc °O

0

.Z!

P..

0I

M

.0

CO

O-

co a ci

L> 0

*0 C

U

om cc co ci

4.)

U U a

ci

0

-4

ci

cc

Y.

r4-

za cc

0

ci

I

ci 00

0

cc om ci cc0o co

o4 U P..

z

I:-

LO~ 0~ ciN c I

Q ;-I

U U 0 a.)

4-) d

0TI

0

P E-4

C

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

167

in the average to above-average range. For example, ADHD students' mean IQ score was at the 83rd percentile (standard score [SS] = 114.6). Their academic achievement scores ranged from the 66th percentile (SS = 106.1) in math to the 87th percentile (SS = 117.3) in reading. Their ACT score was in the above-average range (24.7), and their graduating college GPA was just below a B (2.73). These findings show that the students classified as ADHD did not exhibit deficits in basic academic skills and achieved college entrance scores and graduating GPAs similar to those of the middle 50 percent of students at the selective public university where the research was conducted. The findings also showed that students classified as ADHD exhibited cognitive and academic achievement profiles that were similar to both petition and nonpetition students classified as LD and LD/ADHD. Although students classified as ADHD achieved significantly higher scores than the Petition LD group on two measures (ACT/SAT, WJ-R Written Language) and the Petition LD/ADHD group on one measure (WJ-R Written Language), their scores were similar to those of the LD and LD/ADHD groups (i.e., in the average to above-average range). The findings suggest that college students classified as ADHD may achieve higher scores than students classified as LD or as LD/ ADHD on some measures of academic achievement. However, the achievement scores of these groups are likely to be more similar than different. In a previous article, Sparks et al. (2003b) found no significant differences between the cognitive ability and academic achievement of petition students classified as LD and petition students classified as LD/ADHD. They speculated that this finding was "counterintuitive," because one would expect students classified as both LD and ADHD (i.e., those with two disabilities) to have learning profiles that would suggest the presence of more severe learning problems than students with LD (i.e., those with one disability). In the present study, students classified as both LD and ADHD exhibited cognitive and academic achievement profiles similar to those of students

168

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

classified as only ADHD. Thus, the findings of two different studies have shown that students classified with two different disabilities (both LD and ADHD) exhibit cognitive and achievement profiles similar to those of students with one disability (either ADHD or LD). These findings suggest that students' disability classification may, not be meaningful in distinguishing their cognitive ability (IQ) and academic achievement (reading, math, writing, ACT/SAT, and GPA) characteristics, and that their disability classification may not be helpful in determining whether they will pass FL courses and/or fulfill FL requirements of universities they may attend. Moreover, students who had fulfilled the FL requirement by passing FL courses (i.e., ADHD, Nonpetition LD, Nonpetition LD/ADHD) and those who had received course substitutions (i.e., Petition LD, Petition LD/ADHD) exhibited similar cognitive and academic achievement profiles generally. This finding suggests that a student's petition status (i.e., whether or not he or she received course substitutions for the FL requirement) may not be meaningful in distinguishing his or her cognitive ability or levels of academic achievement. The findings also raise questions about why petition students with cognitive and achievement profiles that are similar to those of nonpetition students with disabilities (i.e., ADHD, Nonpetition LD, Nonpetition LD/ADHD) did not fulfill the FL requirement by passing FL courses. (See Sparks et al., 2002, 2003a, for a discussion of college students classified as LD who petition for waiver of or course substitutions for the FL requirement.) When the students' grades in college FL courses were compared, findings showed a significant difference among the five groups. The three groups that fulfilled the university's FL requirement by passing FL courses (i.e., ADHD, Nonpetition LD, Nonpetition LD/ADHD) were more likely to achieve FL grades of A, B, and C. In contrast, the two groups that received course substitutions for the university's FL requirement (i.e., Petition LD, Petition LD/ADHD) were more likely to achieve grades of Withdrawal (W/WP/WF). Although these findings were expected

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

169

(i.e., students who fulfilled the FL requirement would be likely to achieve higher FL grades and complete more FL courses), the large number of average and above-average grades of students classified as ADHD was unexpected. Eighty-nine percent of the ADHD students' FL grades were A, B, and C; however, only 2 percent of their grades were W/WP/WF. These findings suggest that students classified as ADHD can achieve average or aboveaverage grades in college FL courses. In a previous study, Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips (2004) suggested that students classified as ADHD may achieve higher grades in FL courses than students classified as LD or as both LD and ADHD. However, the results of the present study show that students classified as ADHD and nonpetition students classified as LD and as LD/ADHD who fulfill the FL requirement by passing FL courses perform equally well in FL courses. It seems likely that these students with three different disability classifications did well in FL courses because of their average to above-average cognitive ability and academic achievement in language-related skills.

Implications Because the study was conducted at one university and included a relatively small number of participants in some groups, one should be cautious in interpreting the results. Although more research with larger samples of students classified as LD, ADHD, and LD/ADHD is needed, there are inferences that nonetheless can be drawn from the investigation. First, a student's classification as ADHD may not be indicative of whether he or she can pass FL courses and/or fulfill a college's FL requirement. Disability service providers, FL educators, and diagnosticians should not use the ADHD classification to determine whether a student should enroll in

170

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

FL courses or to speculate whether the student can pass FL courses and/or fulfill the FL requirement. Second, a college student's classification as ADHD may not be a reliable indicator of his or her levels of cognitive ability or academic achievement skills as measured by standardized cognitive ability and achievement tests. Disability service providers, FL educators, and diagnosticians should not assume that college students classified as ADHD have low cognitive ability or poor academic achievement skills. Third, college students classified as ADHD may not exhibit deficits in the language-related skills that have been found to be important for and predictive of successful FL learning. Disability service providers, FL educators, and diagnosticians should not assume that a student's classification as ADHD means that he or she will be a poor language learner in either the native language or the FL. Fourth, a student's disability classification should not lead service providers to recommend that he or she petition for course substitutions for or waiver from their college's FL requirement. The findings of the present study and several other investigations (Sparks, Javorsky, & Philips, 2004; Sparks et al., 1999b; Sparks et al., 2002, 2003a, 2003b) have shown that students classified as LD and as ADHD pass FL courses and fulfill the FL requirement. Disability service providers, FL educators, and diagnosticians should refrain from using students' disability classifications to predict their future performance in FL courses or as a marker to recommend course substitutions or waivers of the FL requirement. Instead, they should encourage students with disabilities to enroll in FL courses and use appropriate instructional accommodations (e.g., participating in tutoring, using extended time on tests, taking tests in a distraction-free environment) for which they may be eligible. Fifth, further empirical investigations with students classified as ADHD enrolled in FL courses at both the secondary and postsecondary level of education are necessary

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

171

to replicate the findings of this study. One question in need of further investigation is how the performance (e.g., course grades, oral and written FL proficiency) of students classified as ADHD in FL courses compares to that of nondisabled students enrolled in FL courses. Revised version accepted 7 July 2004

Notes 'Traditionally, students have been diagnosed as LD by calculating whether a severe discrepancy (i.e., 1.5-2.0 standard deviations) was apparent between their scores on a standardized measure of intelligence and standardized measures of academic achievement (i.e., reading, spelling, writing, oral language, and mathematics). Although the IQ-achievement discrepancy concept has been shown by recent research to be invalid (e.g., see Aaron, 1997; Lyon et al., 2001; Siegel, 2001), it is still the most widely used diagnostic procedure to classify students as LD. 2Apetition student was one who had submitted an appeal to the university's Office of Disability Services to petition for course substitutions for the university's FL requirement. His or her petition was submitted to the university's LD coordinator, who reviewed the appropriate documentation. The LD coordinator either approved or rejected the petition. If the petition was approved, faculty in the academic divisions chose the courses that would be approved for substitutions to take the place of the required FL course(s). 3All students in the present study had participated in previous studies conducted by Sparks et al. (2003b) and Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips (2004). 4During the time period covered by this study, there were a number of additional students classified as ADHD at this university who had received services from the university's Office of Learning Assistance and had fulfilled the FL requirement by passing FL courses. However, either a standardized measure of intelligence, at least one standardized achievement test, or both had not been administered to these students. In a previous study Sparks, Philips, and Javorsky (2003b) described the demographic profiles, overall academic performance (GPA), college entrance scores (ACT/SAT), and FL classroom performance of these students. 5The WJ-R Mathematics Cluster had not been administered to all of the participants.

172

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

References Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of EducationalResearch, 67, 461-502. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, J., Williams, S., McGee, R., & Silva, P. (1987). DSM-III disorders in preadolescent children: Prevalence in a large sample from the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 69-76. Arries, J. (1994). An experimental Spanish course for learning disabled students. Hispania, 77, 110-117. Arries, J. (1999). Learning disabilities and foreign languages: A curriculum approach to the design of inclusive courses. Modern Language Journal, 83, 98-110. Barkley, R., Rishcher, M., Edelbrock, C., & Smallish, L. (1990). The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria I: An 8-year prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 363-387. Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT): Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Chlabildas, N., Pennington, B., & Willcutt, E. (2001). A comparison of the neuropsychological profiles of the DSM-IV subtypes of ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 529-540. Demuth, K., & Smith, N. (1987). The foreign language requirement: An alternative program. ForeignLanguage Annals, 20, 67-77. Dorans, N. (1999). Correspondence between ACT and SAT I scores (College Board Rep. No. 99-1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 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. Downey, D., Snyder, L., & Hill, B. (2000). College students with dyslexia: Persistent linguistic deficits and foreign language learning. Dyslexia, 6, 101-111. Ganschow, L., Philips, L. & Schneider, E. (2001). Closing the gap: Accommodating students with language learning disabilities in college. Topics in Language Disorders, 21, 17-37. Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1987). The foreign language requirement. Learning DisabilitiesFocus, 2, 116-123. Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1996). Anxiety about foreign language leaming among high school women. Modern Language Journal, 80, 199-212.

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

173

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Anderson, R., Javorsky, J., Skinner, S., & Patton, J. (1994). Differences in anxiety and language performance among high- and low-anxious foreign language learners. Modern Language Journal, 78, 41-55. 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 leaming disability? Journal of LearningDisabilities, 24, 530-541. Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., & Schneider, E. (1995). Learning a foreign language: 'Challenges for students with language learning difficulties. Dyslexia, 1, 75-95. Heiligenstein, E., Guenter, E., & Levy, A. (1999). Psychological and academic functioning in college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of American College Health, 47, 181185. Heiligenstein, E., & Keeling, R. (1995). Presentation of unrecognized attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in college students. Journal of American College Health, 43, 226-228. Hill, B., Downey, D., Sheppard, M., & Williamson, V. (1995). Accommodating the needs of students with severe language learning difficulties in modified foreign language classes. In G. K. Crouse (Ed.), Broadening the frontiers of foreign language education (pp. 46-56). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Hodge, M. E. (1998). Teaching foreign language to at-risk learners: A challenge for the new millennium. Inquiry, 2, 68-78. Klein, R., & Mannuzza, S. (1991). Long-term outcome of hyperactive children: A review. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 71-89. Lahey, B., Applegate, B., McBumett, K., Biedennan, J., Greenhill, L., Hynd, G., Barkley, R., Newcornn, J., Jensen, P., Richters, J., Garfinkel, B., Kerdy, K., Rick, P., Ollendick, T., Perez, D., Hart, E., Waldman, I., & Shaffer, D. (1994). DSM-IV field trials for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. American Journalof Psychiatry, 151, 673-685. Latham, P., & Latham, P. (1998). Attention deficit disorder in college: Faculty and students-Partnersin education. Cabin John, MD: National Center for Law and Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED422699) Levine, M. (1987). Developmental variation and learning disorders. Cambridge, MA: Educators' Publishing. Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J., Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., Torgesen, J., Wood, F., Schulte, A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In

174

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No., 1

C. Finn, A. Rotherham, & C. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-287). Washington, DC: Fordham

Foundation. Mabbott, A. (1994). An exploration of reading comprehension, oral reading errors, and written errors by subjects labeled learning disabled. Foreign Language Annals, 27, 297-324.

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.

Pompian, N., & Thum, C. (1988). Dyslexic/learning disabled students at Dartmouth. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 276-284.

Scott, S., & Manglitz, E. (2000). Foreign language learning: A process for broadening access for students with learning disabilities. Journal of PostsecondaryEducation and Disability, 17, 23-37.

Shaw, B. (1999). The case for course substitutions as reasonable accommodations for students with foreign language learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities,32, 320-328.

Siegel, L. (2001). IQ-discrepancy definitions and the diagnosis of LD: Introduction to the special issue. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 36,

2-3. 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. Sparks, R., Artzer, M., Javorsky, J., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Miller, K., & Hordubay, D. (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.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993). 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.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995). Parent perceptions in the screening for performance in foreign language courses. ForeignLanguage Annals, 28,

371-391. Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1996). Teachers' perceptions of students' native language skills and affective characteristics. Journal of EducationalResearch, 89, 172-185.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Learning difficulties and foreign language learning: A review of research and instruction. Language Teaching, 34, 79-98.

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

175

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Artzer, M., Siebenhar, D., & Plageman, M. (2004). Foreign language teachers' perceptions of students' academic skills, affective characteristics, and proficiency: Replication and followup studies. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 263-278.

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.

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. ForeignLanguageAnnals, 25,403-418. 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.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Pohlman, J. (1989). Linguistic coding deficits in foreign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 179-195. Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1999a). 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.

Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1999b). Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement: Replication and comparison studies. Journalof Learning Disabilities,32, 329-349. Sparks, R., Javorsky, S., & Philips, L. (2004). College students classified with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the foreign language requirement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 169-178. Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1999a). Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 566-580. Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1999b). Comparison of students classified as learning disabled who petitioned for or fulfilled the college foreign language requirement. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 32, 553-566.

Sparks, R., Philips, L., & Javorsky, J. (2002). Students classified as LD who received course substitutions for the college foreign language requirement. Journal of Learning Disabilities,35, 482-499, 538. Sparks, R., Philips, L., & Javorsky, J. (2003a). Students classified as LD who petitioned for or fulfilled the foreign language requirement-Are they different? A replication study. JournalofLearningDisabilities,36,348-362.

176

Language Learning

Vol. 55, No. 1

Sparks, R., Philips, L., & Javorsky, J. (2003b). College students classified as learning disabled (LD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the foreign language requirement. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 325-337. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WA7S-R). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Ill (WISC-III). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Wener, C. (1990). Developmental psychopathology: From infancy through adolescence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wolinsky, S., & Whelan, A. (1999). Federal law and the accommodation of students with LD: The lawyers' look at the BU decision. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 286-291. Woodcock, R., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson-Revised: Tests of Achievement (WJ-R). Chicago, IL: Riverside.

Appendix List of Testing Instruments Used by Evaluators Aptitude

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R): Tests general intelligence; 12 subscales. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III (WISC-III): Tests general intelligence; 12 subscales. Reading Woodcock-Johnson-Revised (WJ-R)-Broad Reading Cluster: The Letter-Word Identification Subtest tests ability to identify isolated words; the Passage Comprehension Subtest tests ability to determine a word that would be appropriate in the context of a passage.

Sparks, Javorsky, and Philips

177

Math

Woodcock-Johnson-Revised (WJ-R)-Broad Mathematics Cluster: The Calculation Subtest tests skill in performing mathematical calculations; the Applied Problems Subtest tests skill in analyzing and solving practical problems in mathematics. Written LanguagelSpelling

Woodcock-Johnson-Revised (WJ-R)-Broad Written Language Cluster: The Dictation Subtest tests skill in providing written responses to items requiring knowledge of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and word usage; the Writing Samples Subtest tests skill in writing sentences that are evaluated with respect to quality of expression. The student is generally not penalized for errors in the basic' mechanics of writing, such as spelling or punctuation.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Comparison of the Performance of College Students Classified as ADHD, LD, and LD/ADHD in Foreign Language Courses SOURCE: Lang Learn 55 no1 Mr 2005 WN: 0506001954005 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.blackwellpub.com/

Copyright 1982-2005 The H.W. Wilson Company.

All rights reserved.