Students Classified As Learning Disabled and Non‐Learning Disabled: Two Comparison Studies of Native Language Skill, Foreign Language Aptitude, and Foreign Language Proficiency

Abstract

ABSTRACT Proponents of the concept of learning disabilities (LD) assume that students classified as LD and those with IQ‐achievement discrepancies have more severe native language and foreign language learning problems than students not classified as LD. Two studies that included high school students classified as “at‐risk” for learning a foreign language (FL) investigated these assumptions. The first study compared “at‐risk” students classified as learning disabled (LD) with “at‐risk” students not classified as LD. Results showed no significant differences between the two groups on measures of native language skill, FL aptitude, and FL learning and proficiency. The second study examined only the students classified as LD and compared students with and without discrepancies between their scores on measures of intelligence (IQ) and academic achievement. Results showed no significant differences between the two groups on measures of FL learning and proficiency. Findings suggest that students classified as LD and non‐LD do not exhibit cognitive, academic achievement, and FL aptitude differences, or differences in their FL learning and proficiency after two years of FL study. The findings of both studies are contrary to the LD concept. The studies demonstrate the importance of providing verifiable evidence to substantiate claims that a student meets criteria for classification as LD. Implications focus on use of the LD label and IQ‐achievement discrepancies for determining which students may have problems with FL learning.