Inclusive foreign language curriculum

Towards a more inclusive foreign language curriculum for students with learning disabilities. Andrea D. Dykyj New York University add333@nyu.edu

Inclusive foreign language curriculum Introduction In the United States, college-bound high school students are required by law in many states to meet a Foreign Language (FL) requirement, in which they must have taken and passed a certain

number of FL credits prior to graduation. Even college-bound students attending high schools with no FL requirement face the possibility of having to fulfill a FL requirement at the university level. The inconsistent nature of these requirements from state to state and institution to institution further complicate students decisions as to whether or not, and at what stage, to fulfill this college requirement. For learning-disabled (LD) students (i.e. students with native language communication deficits), learning a FL in general much less having to deal with the additional stress of having to meet the same expectations defined by both state and national educational standards and faced by their mainstream peers can seem an impossible task. As a solution to this problem, many states have waived the FL requirement for LD students enabling these students to meet this requirement by taking alternative elective courses. Rather than leaving LD students with no other option than avoiding FL classes altogether, modifications to traditional mainstream FL curricula can help make these classes more accessible to those students who still wish to take them.

Research Questions 1.) What issues are posed by traditional high school-level FL classes, curricula, and teaching methods for LD students? 2.) What are the curricular alternatives and modifications for LD students to traditional FL classes (excluding course or requirement waivers)? How do these alternatives address the needs of LD students? 3.) What are the policies and laws currently in place regarding the FL education of LD students in the United States?

Inclusive foreign language curriculum Context This study will focus on LD high-school level students (grades 9-12) in the United States specifically focusing on students with native language learning impairments, as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA): Speech or language impairment means a communication disorder, such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment, that adversely affects a childs educational performance (Ibid, 2010, 300.8).

Methods This study will be conducted as secondary research on the different political and theoretical contributions to the respective fields of LD and FL education. The study will include policy analyses, analysis of pedagogical theory and research of current methods, trends, and developments in the fields of LD and FL education; and a comparative analysis of U.S. and E.U. language education policies and standards.

Review of Literature FL Education in the United States In the field of FL education, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) is widely regarded as the primary authority on FL teaching standards and practices in the United States. These standards and practices are delineated in ACTFLs Proficiency Guidelines a set of guidelines for educators describing the standards and qualifications for different levels of proficiency in a FL. The Guidelines measure proficiency across four dimensions of language speaking, writing, listening, and reading and identify five major levels of proficiency: Distinguished, Superior, Advanced, Intermediate, and Novice; which, in turn, are further subdivided into High, Mid, and Low sublevels (ACTFL, 2012, p. 3). In turn, the presentation of

Inclusive foreign language curriculum these different levels of proficiency in a FL as a continuum, rather than a set of fixed standards,

provides educators with a more flexible barometer of student ability accounting for a greater range of proficiencies across various competencies and dimensions of language. The primary purpose of these Guidelines, according to ACTFL, is neither to describe how an individual learns a language nor prescribe how an individual should learn a language; but to serve as an instrument for the evaluation of functional language ability (Ibid, 2012, p. 3). Despite the widespread acceptance of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines as the official set of standards for U.S. FL education, the laws and policies dictating general FL requirements vary on a state-by-state basis. According to a survey conducted by the National Council of State Supervisors for Languages (2010), 24 of the 26 states surveyed have some sort of variation of a FL requirement. Of these 24 states, 15 stipulate different options for students to satisfy the FL requirement: either through taking other accepted courses (i.e. Fine Arts, Technology classes, etc.); taking a proficiency exam to test out of FL classes altogether; studying a FL only as a requirement for an advanced diploma; or opting out of the requirement with a signed permission document from a parent or guardian. In terms of LD-specific stipulations and policies, only one state New York explicitly outlines procedures for LD students in dealing with the state FL requirement: Only those students identified as having a disability which adversely affects their ability to learn a language may be exempted from the language other than English requirement if the students individualized education programs state that such requirements are not appropriate (2010).

Comparative Analysis: FL Education Policy in the European Union In terms of FL education policy and practice, one of the most highly regarded models of FL education in the world is that of the European Union (E.U.). Much like the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines of the United States, the Common European Framework (CEF) serves as the common

Inclusive foreign language curriculum basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe (COE, 2012, p. 1). In addition to sharing many similarities with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, such as the taxonomic nature of the respective frameworks and the explicit definition of the different levels of proficiency, etc.; the CEF also contains an interesting political dimension, incorporating the political aims and objectives of the Council of Europe in achiev[ing] greater unity among its members as an integral part of these standards and guidelines (Ibid, 2012, p. 2). Unlike U.S. FL education policy, which varies from state to state, the E.U. takes a much more centralized approach to FL education policy. The policies outlined in the CEF provide member governments and non-governmental institutions with a framework for language learning and teaching that is at once centralized and coherent, yet open and flexible in nature unifying the different states and political bodies under a common set of goals and policies that reflect their own individual needs and beliefs (Ibid, 2012). According to authors Beacco and Byram (2003), in addition to achieving greater unity among its members, the organization of the CEF also ensures a level of quality and consistency among member States in their approach to language education and policy. By reduc[ing] the number of ad hoc decisions [on the parts of individual member States], often taken under the pressure of events, the CEF promotes policies that have been carefully thought out, rather than being the sum of ad hoc decisions (Beacco, 2003; Byram, 2003; p. 8). In addition to ensuring quality at a policy-making level, the comprehensive nature of the CEF and the consistency it

promotes among member States also ensure that all students receive the same quality education and access to the same educational opportunities throughout the E.U. In the end, the CEF provides member States with a common principle and objective to adhere to in conducting their own

Inclusive foreign language curriculum language education policies policies relevant to the needs of its citizens.

LD Laws and Policies in the United States While there is no specific document exclusively focusing on LD student rights and standards in FL education in the United States, laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act have been written to account for LD student rights within schools and other public institutions in general. Under the IDEA, one of the Acts principal stipulations requires that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living (NICHCY, 2010, 300.17). While the Act does call for special services and accommodations to promote the comprehension and success of LD students within the context of the general, mainstream curriculum; the curriculum is only to be modified to the extent that its original integrity remains intact so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children (Ibid, 2010, 300.1). Again, while the IDEA has no specific stipulation regarding LD performance/accommodation in the FL classroom, its scope is such that it encompasses all learning institutions (i.e. all Charter, public, and private schools; K-12) and to all core academic subjects including FLs. In contrast to the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act has a much broader scope of influence emphasizing the equal treatment of LD individuals in public programs and institutions in general; calling for equal access to any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United

Inclusive foreign language curriculum States Postal Service (United States Department of Labor, 2009; 794(a)). Among the individuals protected under Section 504 are LD students attending [any] college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or [] public system of higher education; or a local educational agency [] system of vocational education, or other school system institutions such as these qualifying

as federal and/or public programs and agencies (Ibid, 2009; 794(b)). In the end, the basic motives behind both Acts remain the same: to protect LD individuals from discrimination and to promote access to equal benefits and opportunities through whatever means necessary.

FL Requirements and the LD Student In general, navigating the institutional bureaucracy of the U.S. education system at any level can be a daunting task for any parent or student and even more so when there is a LD involved. In his article, Madaus (2003) walks LD students through this transition from high school to higher education in the context of the FL requirement, including the different factors LD students need to be aware of in making this transition. One of the first series of issues Madaus addresses is that of the importance of the FL requirement in the college admissions process. According to Madaus, as tempting as it may be to waive the FL requirement altogether at any level, doing so could very well decrease ones options in terms of post-secondary institutions: while some institutions are more flexible in regards to the FL requirement, others will adhere rigidly to this requirement and will not consider the learning disabilities in the admissions process (Madaus, 2003, p. 63). Furthermore, criteria for FL requirement at the postsecondary level can also vary from institution to institution some institutions requiring more credits than others, and others requiring none. In terms of postsecondary course-substitution policies, while some institutions are more accepting of course substitutions, others are firm in their opposition to accepting substitutions or waivers as a

Inclusive foreign language curriculum viable alternative to the FL requirement. In conclusion, Madaus warns LD students to take

precautions in preparing themselves for a smooth transition into the university/college environment rather than relying on assumed progress in terms of LD rights and accommodations. Benefits of FL Study for LD Students Elaborating on this idea of LD law in theory vs. LD law in practice at the postsecondary level, Richard Sparks and James Javorsky present their own research (2000) questioning current diagnostic procedures used by universities in the United States in classifying LD students, as well as the policies regarding the acceptable alternatives for such students in terms of university FL requirements/courses. According to research conducted by the authors, many of the learning difficulties faced by students in learning a FL are rooted in native speaking deficiencies supporting the authors Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (LCDH), which states,

(1) language learning occurs along a continuum from very strong to very weak performance in a FL; and (2) some learners have stronger skills in the components of language (i.e., phonological/orthographic, syntactic, semantic) than do other learners (Javorsky et al, p. 646). In turn, the authors conclude that current diagnostic procedures in classifying LD students are both problematic and based on a series of faulty assumptions: in addition to being inconsistent and unstandardized (i.e. not authorized by professional diagnosticians), current diagnostic procedures are overly focused on testing for FL learning aptitude (via the Modern Language Aptitude Test, or MLAT) rather than on native language learning issues leading often to misdiagnosis, even of non-LD students (Ibid, 2000). In terms of course substitutions/waivers for LD students, the authors also discovered that these actions were based on misconceptions/false assumptions as well: according to research, there is no significant difference in achievement data, as evidenced by standardized scores, between LD and non-LD students that would make passing an FL

Inclusive foreign language curriculum

class more difficult. Based on these findings, the authors advise against the a priori assumption that students classified as LD require a course substitution for the FL requirement for doing so will only demotivate both the students as well as teachers and counselors from becoming more innovative with their approaches to educating these students and helping them pass FL courses. In a later article, Sparks (2008) presents further evidence building upon his theory on the lack of achievement differences between students classified as LD and non-LD students enrolled in FL courses or between students classified as LD who pass FL courses or receive course substitution (Sparks, 2008, p.180). Sparks recounts the results of over 20 years worth of studies conducted by his research group in FL learning with high- and low-achieving FL learners as well as students classified as LD and with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Ibid, 2008, p. 181). Sparks divides these different studies under 3 subheadings/questions:

1.) Are there differences between students classified and not classified as LD in FL courses? 2.) Are there differences between LD students with and without IQ-achievement discrepancies? And 3.) Are there differences between students classified as LD who pass FL courses or receive course substitutions? (Ibid, 2008, p. 181).

In all three of these categories, test results showed no cognitive, academic achievement, or demographic differences between any of the groups being compared leading Sparks to the same conclusion that the basic assumptions about students classified as LD and FL learning are incorrect; and that, in turn, either all students, not just those classified as LD, should be eligible for course substitutions or no students should be eligible for course substitutions (Ibid, 2008, p. 182). In addition to the logistical benefits of fulfilling the FL requirement by taking actual FL courses, researchers suggest that learning a FL can also provide LD students with a multitude of

Inclusive foreign language curriculum educational and personal benefits (Kleinert, Cloyd, Rego, and Gibson, 2007). In their article

10

(2007), Kleinert et al. discuss the importance of successfully including students with disabilities in FL mainstream instruction; as well as discussing different strategies for successful inclusion of LD students. The authors list six reasons as to why LD students should participate in the general (FL) curriculum:

1.) FL instruction is frequently required for graduation; 2.) Studying a FL can help with native language acquisition; 3.) Studying a FL instills a sense of sensitivity towards cultural and diversity differences in students; 4.) Learning a FL can instill a sense of confidence in students from tackling something as difficult as learning another language; 5.) FL classes can provide students with an environment of acceptance; and 6.) FL instruction will prepare students with disabilities both mentally and academically for the challenges and experiences of postsecondary education (Kleinert et al, 2007, p. 25).

The authors also list different strategies in successfully incorporating LD students in the mainstream FL curriculum; such as graphic organizers, explicit instruction in phonology and syntax, extensive modeling, etc. Through participation in general education foreign language classes, the authors conclude, LD students will have the opportunity to be fully immersed in a language and its cultures and to receive the assistance and support of their peers who are also learning that new language experiencing all of the same benefits of FL education as their peers and many more (Ibid, 2007, p. 29).

Proposed Alternative FL Curricula for LD Students

In an effort to make this more inclusive FL curriculum a reality, many authors, educators, and researchers have begun to develop their own modified curricula that would rival course substitution and waivers as an alternative to traditional FL class models for LD students. In his

Inclusive foreign language curriculum article (1999), Lorin Pritikin develops an alternative French curriculum that would enable LD

11

students to participate in and experience all the benefits of the mainstream FL classroom. Pritikins modified curriculum preserves all of the traditional elements of a FL curriculum (i.e. culture, reading, writing, and linguistic components), placing an emphasis on the multisensory learning (MSL) and indirect methods (i.e. the natural method) of FL addressing the phonological difficulties and deficits (LCDH) commonly experienced by LD students in FL learning. Additional adaptations to the curriculum include tactical/kinesthetic reinforcement, repetition, and phonetic transcription; among other modifications. According to Pritikin, to ensure the success of such models as legitimate alternatives to current approaches to LD FL education, teachers must also become advocates to parents, fellow faculty members, administrators; emphasizing the benefits to all students of inclusive FL education. While Pritikin focuses predominantly on curricular modifications to the traditional FL curriculum, Manel Lacorte explores the value of what he calls interactional instruction or instruction designed to provide and maximize opportunities for interaction at any proficiency level (ACTFL, 2012). In his article (2001), Lacorte emphasizes the importance of a broadened interest in and understanding of the various competencies and social conditions in the classroom integrating, rather than compensating for, the different personal experiences and cultural knowledge of the students. Lacorte cites three different case studies in which classroom interaction is the focus: LD students in a bilingual transition classroom; a student-teacher discourse analysis, and a segregated classroom analysis. Based on his findings, Lacorte concludes that to address the specific needs of LD students, all the while maintaining a high level of independent interaction among the students, teachers should provide students with management/organizational activities that maximize time for interaction maintaining a sense of inclusion in the classroom through an emphasis on social

Inclusive foreign language curriculum relationships and interactional resources. According to Lacorte, expanding inclusion in the FL classroom is largely a function of the need for more interactive approaches to FL education (Lacorte, 2001). In contrast to the (respective) work of Pritikin and Lacorte; Gobbo, Leons, and Herbet

12

(2009) examined effective LD FL teaching/learning strategies, focusing on the perspectives of the students themselves, and which strategies they found to be the most helpful in mainstream, postsecondary-level FL classes. In order to find the answers to these questions, Gobbo et al. conducted a 3-year qualitative study of students with learning disabilities and AD/HD in the foreign language classroom. The study followed 67 students enrolled in a total of 96 semesters of instruction in first- and second-year Spanish courses; and took place from 1996-1999. All students were studying at the same two-year college, which exclusively serves students with LD and AD/HD (Gobbo et al, 2009). Data was collected using learner reflection sheets/journals; videotaped exit interviews; and Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPI), conducted by an ACTFL-certified tester. The results of the study found that, overall, 79.3% of all students increased one level or more in proficiency, as measured by the OPI. In terms of student interview responses, most students cited "visuals" and "repetition" most frequently as strategies that seemed to work for them. These strategies were followed by "one-on-one teaching" and "multi-modal approach" in terms of popularity of teaching techniques. Based on these results, the researchers compiled a list of effective LD FL teaching practices that would help inform instructors decisions in terms of both curricular decisions and instruction: such practices included making careful curricular choices that are conscious of pace; building in phonetic support for students with weak language processing skills; creating structured activities to ensure student success; and several other suggestions (Ibid, 2009, p. 53).

Inclusive foreign language curriculum

13

Limitations Caution must be advised in considering Gobbo et al.s (2009) study: the study was conducted in a 2year college exclusively serving students with LDs and ADHD a setting using methods specially developed to cater to such a population. This bias should be considered in conducting future research within this field. Pritikins (1999) findings are equally questionable in terms of validity, in that she provides no evidence for the validity of her developed curriculum. Further research will have to be conducted to validate this proposed curriculum.

Conclusions and Implications for the Field

Despite a fair amount of researcher and practitioner attention to these issues, in terms of current educational policy and standardized practices, there are no official laws or protocol purporting more inclusive, mainstream models of FL education adapted to meet the needs of students diagnosed with LDs as a legitimate option for LD students. While laws such as the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protect the rights of individuals diagnosed with a LD in the scope of public and federally funded institutions including equal access to schools and any class pertaining to the U.S. mainstream core curriculum; no clear alternatives or stipulations are defined regarding alternative curricular modifications (in general) for LD students. As reflected in state policies towards FL education, such decisions are made on an individual, state-by-state basis rather than instituting a standardized, nationalized curriculum or set of educational policies, such as that of the E.U.

Inclusive foreign language curriculum In lieu of any official policies, researchers and educators have begun to design their own

14

alternative models for the FL education of LD students designing class models and curricula that satisfy the specific needs of students with native language deficiencies/difficulties (i.e. phoneticallyfocused activities/lessons, structured activities, etc.), yet preserve the integrity of traditional FL curricula and standards. According to findings of such researchers as Sparks (2008), Sparks and Javorsky (2000), and Kleinert et al (2007); the benefits of pursuing these more inclusive models of FL education far outweigh the options of course waivers and substitutions for LD students: a FL education would not only afford LD students with the same opportunities and benefits as their nonLD peers enrolled in the same courses (i.e. access to more options for higher education, the potential to achieve honors recognition, etc.); it would also help address a lot of the issues these students struggle with in the first place, in their native language(s) including. Furthermore, evidence also shows that students diagnosed with LDs are fully, mentally capable of pursuing and succeeding in doing so a FL (Sparks, 2008). In two fields in which little research or literature exists connecting the two, this study will help contribute to promoting the increased presence of students with LDs in the field of FL education. In addition to increasing the presence of students with LDs, this study also aims to increase the participation of these students in mainstream FL classes; as opposed to opting out of these courses with no other option than waiving the requirement altogether. While many practitioners have begun to create their own FL curricula that address the needs of LD students, all the while preserving the value and integrity of the original FL curriculum; there is still no official policy in place promoting these modifications as acceptable alternatives to course waivers and substitutions. By raising consciousness and drawing attention to these critical gaps in LD and FL education policy and theory, this study will hopefully necessitate the changes required in current LD

Inclusive foreign language curriculum and FL policy and practices in the U.S. to create a more inclusive model of FL education.

15

Inclusive foreign language curriculum References American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012: Speaking, Writing, Listening, and Reading. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/files/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf

16

Beacco, J.C., & Byram, M. (2003). Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe: from Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/Linguistic/Source/FullGuide_En.pdf Council of Europe (COE) (2012). The Common European Framework in its political and education context. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf Kleinert, H. L., Cloyd, E., & Rego, M. (2007). Students With Disabilities: Yes, Foreign Language Instruction Is Important!. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 24-29. Lacorte, M. (2001). Interaction in the Foreign Language Classroom: Students with Learning Disabilities and their Teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Annual Association for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED457688.pdf Leons, E., Herbert, C., & Gobbo, K. (2009). Students With Learning Disabilities and AD/HD in the Foreign Language Classroom: Supporting Students and Instructors. Foreign Language Annals, 42(1), 42-54. Madaus, J. W. (2003). What High School Students With Learning Disabilities Need to Know About College Foreign Language Requirements. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(2), 62-66.

Inclusive foreign language curriculum National Council of State Supervisors for Languages. (2010). States with or Considering High School FL Graduation Requirements Revised March 2010. Retrieved from

17

http://www.ncssfl.org/docs/States%20with%20Foreign%20Language%20Graduation%20Re quirements%20-%20%20Revised%202010.pdf National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2010). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Subpart A: General Provisions. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/laws/idea/partb/subparta#300.10 Pritikin, L. (1999). A Policy of Inclusion: Alternative Foreign Language Curriculum for High-Risk and Learning Disabled Students. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED428586.pdf Sparks, R. L. (2008). Evidence-Based Accommodation Decision Making at the Postsecondary Level: Review of the Evidence for Foreign Language Learning. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 23(4), 180-183. Sparks, R. L., & Javorsky, J. (2000). Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: accommodating the learning disabled student in the foreign language curriculum (an update). Foreign Language Annals, 33(6), 645-654. United States Department of Labor. (2009). Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/sec504.htm