|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I BEGIN with an event recently reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education :
Dyslexic Student Sues University of Massachusetts
A senior has sued the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in an effort to expedite the university's procedure for granting foreign-language-requirement waivers to students with dyslexia.
In a class-action suit filed in U.S. District Court in Springfield, Carole Reis, a journalism major, charged that the foreign language requirement put an unfair burden on dyslexic students. Ms. Reis's request for a waiver from the requirement was filed last September and has not yet been acted on.
University officials acknowledged that the hearing board for dyslexic students did not meet regularly and that it could take up to nine months to process a waiver request.
Obviously something of a test case, this suit nonetheless points to the growing need to recognize and respond to the problems that some learning disabled students face in the foreign language classroom. While there is a considerable literature on the general topic of learning disabilities and an increasing quantity of public attention given to the subject as evidenced by countless articles in both national and local newspapers and magazines (see, e.g., Learning Disabled ; Wald), there has been scant awareness of the specific problems posed by the study of second languages for certain students suffering from a variety of (often subtle) learning disabilities. However, many of us in academic situations have been confronted by these problems, and the past few years have witnessed a growing awareness of the need to establish procedures and policies for dealing with the learning disabled student in foreign language courses.
The first published paper on this topic—“The Inability to Learn a Foreign Language” by Kenneth Dinklage—appeared as early as 1971. Little if anything else on the topic was published until the appearance in 1982 of a booklet on techniques for teaching a foreign language to learning disabled students (Bilyeu). In 1983 the Chancellor's Committee for Persons with Disabilities at the University of Wisconsin conducted a study of modifications made for learning disabled students with respect to required foreign language study. That same year Jonathan Cohen touched on the topic in his article “Learning Disabilities and the College Student: Identification and Diagnosis.” In 1984 Wiig pointed to the fact that learning disabled students are frequently at risk in foreign language courses. Then, in 1985, the New York State Association of Foreign Language Teachers devoted a special issue of its Language Association Bulletin to the topic of the foreign language learner with special educational needs, the University of Pennsylvania organized a colloquium entitled Learning Disabilities and Foreign Language Study, and the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association sponsored a session, “Exemptions from the Foreign Language Requirement.” The mere organization of such colloquiums demonstrates a growing national awareness of our responsibility to recognize and respond to the needs of learning disabled students in our foreign language classes.
This paper summarizes information presented at both the University of Pennsylvania colloquium and the MLA convention session on learning disabilities and foreign language learning. I then describe in somewhat greater detail the policy and procedures adopted by the University of Pennsylvania.
The colloquium held at the University of Pennsylvania in March 1985 was organized specifically to educate faculty members and administrators on the general topic of learning disabilities, with specific reference to the effect of disabilities on foreign language learning. The college's Committee on Undergraduate Academic Standing, the group that deals with student petitions for exemptions from the foreign language requirement, had grown increasingly concerned about its obligations to maintain the standards implicit in Penn's long-standing foreign language requirement as well as its responsibility to reliably identify and sensitively deal with the problems of those students whose learning disabilities made it impossible (or impractical) for them to pursue the study of a foreign language. The speakers included two psychologists (David Goldstein and Kenneth Dinklage), one psychiatrist (Marshall Schechter), an audiologist (Maxine Young), and the director of a school for the learning disabled (Elissa Fisher). Each was asked to address the topic from his or her perspective, and conflicting points of view were encouraged.
The presentations were organized around the following questions:
The responses to these questions varied according to the perspective and background of the speaker. There was consensus that the characteristics of the learning disabled student might include the following: problems in dysgraphia or dyscalculia, sound-symbol correspondence, coding and symbolic difficulties, information acquisition weaknesses, vocabulary retention deficits, attention (distractability) problems, auditory sequencing and retention problems, reversals in spelling, reading, and writing, evidence of right-left confusion, encoding, classification and decoding difficulties, hyperactivity, emotional lability, anxiety and depression (Dinklage, “Regarding”; Fisher; Goldstein; Schechter; Young). The speakers also agreed that there is no such thing as a specific foreign language learning disability (Goldstein; Young). They did believe, however, that there is a group of specific learning disabilities that may impact on the learning of a second language. These include many of the characteristics above with specific reference to early problems in reading and writing English, bad spelling, right-left confusion, reversals, and poor handwriting. In addition to having some of the characteristics commonly associated with dyslexia, some students without serious reading or writing problems experience difficulty with sound-symbol correspondence, auditory discrimination, sequencing, and retention (Dinklage, “Regarding”; Fisher; Goldstein; Young). These speakers also agreed that while many of these symptoms appear and are diagnosed in childhood, it is possible for otherwise academically talented students to become aware of subtle learning disorders that interfere with second language learning when they are in secondary school or college.
There was no consensus on how these learning disabilities should be diagnosed. Several speakers talked of a discrepancy between measured ability and performance (Dinklage, “Regarding”; Goldstein), but various testing mechanisms were suggested. Dinklage encouraged the use of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, tests of reading and spelling, and the Carroll-Sapon Modern Language Aptitude Test. Young encouraged the use of the Central Auditory Processing test.
With respect to exemptions from a foreign language requirement, there was some disagreement. Several felt that exemption was in the best interest of the reliably diagnosed student since foreign language study (especially beyond the elementary level) would demand an effort that was inconsistent with the potential benefits (Dinklage, “Regarding”; Fisher). Others believed that foreign language study is of vital importance, even to the learning disabled student, and felt that exemptions should be permitted only in the most serious cases (Goldstein; Young). In all instances there was unanimity regarding the need for special courses, accommodations, or remedial techniques for learning disabled students.
A variety of accommodations and remedial techniques were proposed. These included special courses, small classes, repetitions of material, untimed testing, multiple repetitions of auditory material, presentation of teaching strategies and learning aids, reduction in spelling bias, a wide variety of activities to ensure access to all learning channels and increase motivation, psychotherapeutic intervention, and teachers who are concerned, patient, and flexible (Dinklage, “Regarding”; Fisher; Goldstein).
By contrast to the University of Pennsylvania colloquium, which was somewhat theoretical, the MLA session “Exemptions from the Foreign Language Requirement: On What Basis?” focused more specifically on procedures for identifying and assisting learning disabled students, as well as policies and procedures for dealing with language requirement exemptions. The participants included Lenore Ganschow and Richard Sparks from Miami University in Ohio, Kathy Heilenman from Northwestern University, Kenneth Dinklage from Harvard University, and myself.
As in the University of Pennsylvania colloquium, several of the speakers described (the same) identifying characteristics of the learning disabled student, specifically those difficulties that negatively affect the learning of a second language (Dinklage, “Inability,” 1985; Ganschow and Sparks; Heilenman). Once again there was also detailed discussion of a wide variety of ways to accommodate the requirements of learning disabled students (Ganschow and Sparks; Heilenman).
All four speakers considered the need for adequate testing to validate the existence of learning disabilities that would significantly interfere with foreign language study. Considerable emphasis was placed on detailed case histories and supporting documentation. Ganschow and Sparks discussed their own questionnaire that predicts a “risk factor” for foreign language learning. The approaches to college exemptions outlined by the speakers differed; some would require detailed dossiers, testing, and case histories (Dinklage; Freed); others would require a special committee and “foreign language requirement advisor” (Heilenman); and some suggested various policies for different types of learning disabled students (Ganschow and Sparks). There were conflicting attitudes toward the utility of an alternate course of study to replace required foreign language courses. Although there was no unanimous agreement on appropriate policies for exemption from foreign language courses, there was emphatic accord on the need to recognize and respond to the needs of learning disabled students.
In the light of the information presented at our own colloquium as well as what was learned from informal surveys of policies at other institutions (including those presented at the MLA meeting), the University of Pennsylvania has recently instituted a new set of procedures and policies to deal with petitions for exemption from the college's foreign language requirement. This policy is summarized as follows (and is described in more specific detail in appendixes I, II, and III).
1. All students who wish to be considered by CUAS for an exemption from the foreign language requirement must present a complete case history. This case history should include grades and letters from high school and college language instructors, any previous documentation from a psychologist or medical doctor specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities, and, where appropriate, primary or secondary school records that document learning disabilities.
2. All students must have made an “earnest effort” in at least one language course at Penn. Such effort will be evaluated by a detailed statement from the instructor as well as evidence of having received assistance outside of class.
3. There should be evidence of satisfactory performance in other courses.
4. The Vice Dean for Language Instruction will interview all applicants. In clear-cut cases (i.e., where there is obvious ineligibility for exemption or where there is a previous, documented history of learning disabilities) the Vice Dean will make a recommendation to the Executive Committee.
7. All students who receive an exemption from the language requirement will have to fulfill an alternative requirement, to be formulated on a case-by-case basis. This requirement is designed to capture, as far as possible, the nature and intent of the foreign language requirement, that is, to provide (a) an understanding of language, (b) an understanding of culture, and (c) an exposure to foreign literature.
We believe that this policy reflects the national concern for the needs of learning disabled students while it supports the college's commitment to foreign language learning. Our philosophy maintains that studying a foreign language, even when it does not come easily, is expected of all students who have applied to and been accepted by the College at the University of Pennsylvania. This means not merely passing a specified number of courses but being able to demonstrate minimal proficiency on a multi-skill test of language proficiency. At the same time, the college recognizes that some students may suffer from learning disabilities and may consequently encounter severe difficulty when attempting to learn a foreign language in a classroom setting. These students should be exempted from the foreign language requirement but required to satisfy an alternative requirement that offers similar benefits.
The author is Vice Dean for Language Instruction in the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania and teaches French in the Department of Romance Languages.
Bilyeu, E. E. “Practice Makes Closer to Perfect: Alternative Techniques for Teaching Languages to Learning Disabled Students in the University.” Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education Project 116CH 10305. Ellensburg: Central Washington U, 1982.
Chancellor's Committee for Persons with Disabilities. Report on Undergraduate Foreign Language Requirement. Unpublished report, U of Wisconsin, Madison, 1983.
Cohen, Jonathan. “Learning Disabilities and the College Student: Identification and Diagnosis.” Adolescent Psychiatry: Developmental and Clinical Studies . Ed. M. Sugar. Vol 11. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983. 177–97.
Dinklage, Kenneth T. “The Inability to Learn a Foreign Language.” Emotional Problems of the Student . Ed. G. Blaine and C. McArthur. New York: Appleton, 1971.
———. “The Inability to Learn a Foreign Language Viewed Up Close.” MLA Convention. Chicago, 28 Dec. 1985.
———. “Regarding College Students' Inability to Learn a Foreign Language.” U of Pennsylvania colloquium, Learning Disabilities and Foreign Language Learning. Philadelphia, Mar. 1985.
“Dyslexic Student Sues University of Massachusetts.” Chronicle of Higher Education 12 Mar. 1986: 1.
Fisher, Elissa. “A Learning Disability Specialist Looks at Foreign Language Instruction.” U of Pennsylvania colloquium, Learning Disabilities and Foreign Language Learning. Philadelphia, Mar. 1985.
Freed, Barbara. “Language-Requirement Exemptions: Problems and Policy.” MLA Convention. Chicago, 28 Dec. 1985.
Ganschow, Lenore, and Richard Sparks. “Profile of the Learning-Disabled Student Who Experiences Foreign Language Learning Difficulties: Curricular Modifications and Alternatives.” (Revised title: “Impact of the Foreign Language Dilemma on College Bound Students with Specific Learning Disabilities.”) MLA Convention. Chicago, 28 Dec. 1985.
Goldstein, David. “Determinants of Performance in Foreign Language Learning.” U of Pennsylvania colloquium, Learning Disabilities and Foreign Language Learning. Philadelphia, Mar. 1985.
Heilenman, Laura K. “Exemptions from the Foreign Language Requirement: Notes from the Field.” (Revised title: “Foreign Language Requirement Meets Learning Disabled Student: Outcome Uncertain.”) MLA Convention. Chicago, 28 Dec. 1985.
The Learning Disabled. New York Times Educational Supplement 11 Nov. 1984.
New York State Association of Foreign Language Teachers. Spec. issue of Language Association Bulletin 36.3 (1985): 1–27.
Schechter, Marshall. “Who Are the Learning Disabled?” U of Pennsylvania colloquium, Learning Disabilities and Foreign Language Learning. Philadelphia, Mar. 1985.
Wald, Matthew L. “Dyslexics Learn to Read.” New York Times 25 Mar. 1986: C1.
Wiig, E. H. “Language Disabilities in Adolescents: A Question of Cognitive Strategies.” Topics in Language Disorders 4.2 (1984): 41–58.
Young, Maxine. “Brain Function, Bilingualism and Central Auditory Processing: Theoretical Considerations regarding Second Language Learning Difficulty.” U of Pennsylvania colloquium, Learning Disabilities and Foreign Language Learning. Philadelphia, Mar. 1985.
Students in the College of Arts and Sciences are required to attain competence in a foreign language. The foreign language requirement is described in detail in the Undergraduate Bulletin.
Students who have a documented disability that precludes learning a foreign language may petition the Committee on Undergraduate Academic Standing for an exemption from the language requirement. In considering such a petition, the Committee requires the following documentary evidence:
If the student has not already been tested for learning disabilities prior to requesting a waiver of the language requirement, he or she should present the case history mentioned in section 1 and should not undergo testing until requested to do so by the Committee.
Students considering petitioning for a waiver should seek the guidance of the College Advising Office before assembling their dossiers. They should also be aware that, if their petition is granted, they will, without exception, have to fulfill an alternative requirement, to be formulated on a case-by-case basis by the Committee. The imposition of an alternative requirement is founded on the University's belief that language learning provides one of the important ways by which a student gains a perspective of the diversity of human culture. The Committee believes that if the language requirement is waived, other realms of knowledge that will furnish similar perspectives must be substituted and it is in this spirit that an alternative requirement will be imposed.
Alternative requirements for students exempted from all or part of the foreign language requirement should be based on two primary considerations:
While alternative requirements should be formulated on a case-by-case basis, they should seek to provide a balance between a general (theoretical) understanding of foreign languages and cultures and a more intimate acquaintance with life in a foreign society as revealed through its literature. Furthermore, every effort should be made to see that the alternative package has an internal consistency and is not scattered among several different cultures. We recommend that the alternative package be formulated to provide the following:
A list of possible courses to satisfy items 1–3 will be prepared.
© 1987 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
