Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology
Download 9.82 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- The Use of Cutoff Scores to Identify a Learning Disability
- A Simple Model
- Remediation and Accommodation 479
- REMEDIATION AND ACCOMMODATION
- References 481
478 Learning Disabilities perform poorly on the more complex reading tests for any one of a number of reasons. For example, an individual may read a paragraph aloud correctly but forget the answer to a question or may read correctly but slowly. In reading single words, the person may produce a good phonetic but inaccu- rate rendering of a low-frequency word. The only reading task that is not confounded with other dimensions is the read- ing of pseudowords.
The question arises as to how low a score should be in order to identify a learning disability. One of the aspects of the definitional issues is that we are not dealing with a clearly identifiable entity when we speak of a learning disability. Andrew Ellis (1985) has noted, in regard to dyslexia, the proper comparison is with obesity, not measles: For people of any given age and height there will be an uninter- rupted continuum for painfully thin to inordinately fat. It is en- tirely arbitrary where we draw the line between ‘normal’ and ‘obese,’ but that does not prevent obesity being a real and worry- ing condition nor does it prevent research into the causes and cures of obesity being both valuable and necessary. . . . There- fore, to ask how prevalent dyslexia is in the general population will be as meaningful, and as meaningless, as asking how preva- lent obesity is. The answer will depend entirely upon where the line is drawn. (p. 172) Measles is easy to diagnose because of the spots. People with learning disabilities have no spots, only some test scores. In a manner similar to the diagnosis of obesity, it is not clear at what point or how low the score is for the person to be con- sidered learning disabled or how overweight a person must be before he or she is called obese. In the most extreme cases, it is clear. However, we are really dealing with degrees of severity and not with a clear question of absence or pres- ence, except in the more extreme cases when the diagnosis is easy. Deciding on the appropriate cutoff score below which one identifies a learning disability is problematic. As a guideline, many have typically used scores below the 25th percentile (e.g., Fletcher, 1985; Rourke, 1991). This cutoff is arbitrary, but there is some evidence of the validity of this score. First of all, a number of studies have found that this score separates learning disabled from normally achieving individuals on a variety of tasks (e.g., Fletcher, 1985; Rourke & Finlayson, 1978; Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Escobar, 1990; Siegel & Ryan, 1988). Does that mean that 25% of the population will be called learning disabled on the basis of that test? In reality, this is not the case, and this cutoff iden- tifies about 7–8% of the population as learning disabled (Fletcher et al., 1994; Rourke & Finlayson, 1978; Shaywitz et al., 1990). Second, in this author’s experience, this score is correlated with teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of chil- dren’s problems in school and with the self-report of adults who report academic difficulties. Thus, the use of the 25th percentile as a cutoff score is correlated with observations in the real world. However, there is no way of knowing what is a valid cutoff score; there is no magic number to separate learning-disabled from non-learning-disabled individuals. An argument could just as easily be made for the 20th per- centile or the 15th percentile instead of the 25th percentile. No blood test, X ray, or magnetic imaging technique can be used to diagnose a learning disability. However, for the edu- cational system to identify who will receive the accommo- dations and remediation, we must take a continuous variable—for example, reading performance—and make it a dichotomous one.
In this field there are issues of what constitutes appropriate assessment for learning disabilities. It certainly is the tradi- tion to do extensive additional testing besides achievement testing. However, the usefulness of additional testing for the
that the primary reasons for doing assessments are to docu- ment the existence of a learning disability and to recommend appropriate remediation and accommodations. In order to accomplish these aims, the achievement testing described previously is clearly needed. Typically, tests of cognitive processes and intelligence tests are included in many assess- ments. Do we really need tests of auditory memory, visual memory, language, and visual closure? Is there such an entity as auditory memory? Suppose the stimuli for an auditory memory task are words and the individual is asked to repeat them, or suppose they are musical phrases or melodies and the person is asked to discriminate them. Would conclusions about auditory memory be the same if these diverse stimuli were used? The question should always be How does the task
interested in learning more about his or her strengths and weaknesses. An extended assessment may also be valid for these reasons. However, it is not necessary to define the learning disability to propose accommodations or remedial strategies. Remediation and Accommodation 479 Surber (1985) has summarized the problems with lengthy and detailed reports that include measures of cognitive processes and intelligence tests: At the opposite end of the continuum, some of the more lengthy reports include every detail of the evaluation process, whether relevant or not. Both novice and experienced readers are left to wade through the jargon, attempting to ferret out the key ele- ments that have relevance for the student and the teacher in the classroom. Consequently, items of greatest relevance become diluted in the sea of information being washed ashore. (p. 162) There were a number of problems with the assessments of learning disability. The evaluations that I have seen have re- sembled a patchwork quilt in which none of the squares were the same. Each evaluation uses different tests, different ter- minology, and different labels for the learning disability. Here are some examples of the types of learning disabili- ties that were reported to exist: language-based learning dis- ability, subtle verbal processing, attentional and long-term memory limitations, difficulty in visual processing speed, statistically significant disparity between relative conceptual language strengths compared with mathematics and written output, slow processing speed, visuoperceptual processing inefficiencies, problems with the ability to process auditory and visual information, mild frontal lobe disorder, and poor auditory processing. The process of assessing whether there is a learning dis- ability has been made unnecessarily complex. Standardized tests of reading, spelling, arithmetic calculation, and mathe- matical problem solving as described earlier are essential. Obtaining a sample of writing is important. Other tests may be done for interest or research but they are not essential to the diagnosis of a learning disability. In addition to the achievement tests discussed earlier, an important part of any assessment is the use of analyses of errors. Systematic analyses of errors may provide useful information about an individual’s level of functioning in reading, spelling, and arithmetic, and they may provide infor- mation about appropriate accommodations. Numerous stud- ies such as those of Barwick and Siegel (1996); Bruck and Waters (1988); Fowler, Shankweiler, and Liberman (1979); Guthrie and Siefert (1977); Lennox and Siegel (1993, 1996); McBride and Siegel (1997); Pennington et al. (1986); Sieden- berg (1985); Smiley, Pascquale, and Chandler, (1976); Sprenger-Charolles and Siegel (1997); Tal and Siegel (1996); Weber (1970); Venezky and Johnson (1973); and Werker, Bryson, and Wassenberg (1989) have used analyses of errors as a means to understanding the nature of the difficulties in individuals with learning disabilities. A good assessment should systematically analyze the errors made by individuals. Error analysis also provides some information about the types of questions the individual was able to answer cor- rectly. For example, are the spelling errors good phonological equivalents of the word to be spelled (e.g., nature spelled as nachure)? Or are they good visual errors—that is, a close match to the visual form of the word (e.g., nature written as natur; e.g., Lennox & Siegel, 1993, 1996)? Analyses such as these help us understand the strategies that the individual is using and can provide guidelines for remediation. Finally, an assessment should include a direct interview with the student to analyze strengths as well as weaknesses not detected by achievement tests. Many individuals with learning disabilities have talents in the areas of art, dancing, mechanics, music, sports, or any combination of these. For example, both Agatha Christie and W. B. Yeats had learning disabilities (Miner & Siegel, 1992; Siegel, 1988a) that can be documented but obviously were individuals with consid- erable talent. The recognition of these strengths is important to the development of educational strategies and to the self- esteem of the individual with learning disabilities (e.g., Vail, 1990).
The following list includes some remedial techniques that are useful for helping individuals with learning disabilities. For children, the following remedial measures are recom- mended for learning difficulties: • To enhance word recognition skills, a word-family approach to draw attention to common word patterns (e.g.,
• Talking books, books, or both can be used. • Textbooks on tape should be provided if possible. • The use of high-interest, low-vocabulary books. • The use of procedures such as cloze tasks to improve the understanding of syntax. • The use of a language experience approach—allowing the dictation of stories and then using the words from these stories as the basis for reading vocabulary. • The use of a calculator should be considered to help with arithmetic facts and multiplication tables. • The use of a computer (word processor) is encouraged; this may help improve the quality of written work. Using a computer spell check often and early in the writing process will ensure that the student sees correct spellings of words to enhance knowledge of common word patterns.
480 Learning Disabilities • Consideration should be given to the use of a tape recorder for projects, book reports, and so on, allowing the teacher to hear the quality of the ideas without relying on the written products. • Copying from the blackboard is difficult; alternatives should be considered. For example, class handouts, photo- copying other students’ notes, or tape recording oral lessons may be an option. The following additional recommendations should be con- sidered for adults: • Teaching metacognitive strategies to help individuals with learning disabilities enhances their learning (for a detailed discussion, see, e.g., Butler, 1995, 1998; Montague, 1997). • Encouragement of self-monitoring strategies to organize information and to avoid confusion when doing more than one activity. Strategies could include drawing plans or making lists to follow sequential steps from a manual or verbal instructions. • A literacy program and basic skills training in reading and arithmetic is a possibility for some individuals functioning at a very low level. • Teaching people with learning disorders to make it clear when they do not understand is important. Even asking the person what they mean or to repeat the instructions in a different way may be helpful. • If they have difficulty understanding, training people to ask the person to repeat the instructions in a different way can be helpful. • Textbooks on tape should be provided. • Tape recording of lectures should be allowed and encour- aged if the instructor is willing to give permission. Con- sideration should be given to the use of a tape recorder for projects, reports, and so on; this would allow the teacher to hear the quality of the ideas without relying on the writ- ten products. • If acceptable to the instructor, answers to essay questions should be completed in point form. Consideration should be given to a similar format for class assignments. • Because of spelling difficulties, consideration should be given to not reducing grades for spelling errors. • If possible, use a computer (word processor) for written work. This may help improve the quality of written work. Using a computer spell check often and early in the writing process will ensure that you see correct spellings of words to enhance your knowledge of common word patterns. • Copying from the blackboard is difficult; alternatives should be considered. For example, class handouts, photo- copying other students’ notes, or tape recording oral lessons may be an option. • Alternate modes of examination (e.g., oral exams) may be considered.
Until the field of learning disabilities resolves the definitional issues, significant progress will not be made. We must exam- ine our basic concepts about the nature of learning disabilities and our current practices. Specific and clear operational defi- nitions will help the field advance. However, this resolution will not happen automatically. It will take a concerted effort by the field. REFERENCES Aaron, P. G. (1991). Can reading disabilities be diagnosed without using intelligence tests? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 178–186.
Arnold, L. E., Smeltzer, D. J., & Barneby, N. S. (1981). Specific perceptual remediation: Effects related to sex, IQ, and parents’ occupational status; behavioral change pattern by scale factors; and mechanism of benefit hypothesis tested. Psychological Reports, 49, 198. Backman, J., Bruck, M., Hebert, M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1984). Acquisition and use of spelling-sound correspondences in read- ing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 114–133. Barwick, M. A., & Siegel, L. S. (1996). Learning difficulties in adolescent clients of a shelter for runaway and homeless street youths. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 649–670. Bateman, B. (1968–1969). “Clinically” obtained IQs versus “pro- duction line” IQs in a mentally retarded sample. Journal of
Benton, A. L., & Pearl, D. (Eds.). (1978). Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. Berninger, V. (1994). Future directions for research on writing disabilities: Integrating endogenous and exogenous variables. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 419– 440). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Boder, E. (1968). Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic screening procedure based on three characteristic patterns of reading and spelling. Claremont College Reading Conference, 32, 173–187. Boder, E. (1971). Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic screening procedure based on three characteristic patterns of reading and
References 481 spelling. In B. C. Bateman (Ed.), Learning disorders (Vol. 4, pp. 298–342). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications. Boder, E. (1973). Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach based on three atypical reading-spelling patterns. Developmental
Boder, E., & Jarrico, S. (1986). Boder Test of Reading-Spelling Patterns. New York: Grune & Stratton. Brown, W. S., Marsh, J. T., & Smith, J. C. (1973). Contextual mean- ing effects on speech-evoked potentials. Behavioral Biology, 9, 755–761.
Bruck, M. (1988). The word recognition and spelling of dyslexic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 51–69. Bruck, M. (1990). Word-recognition skills of adults with childhood diagnosis of dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 26, 439–454. Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28, 874 –886. Bruck, M., & Waters, G. (1988). An analysis of the spelling errors of children who differ in their reading and spelling skills. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 77–92. Bryant, B. R., & Brown, L. (1985). A critical review of four mea- sures of paragraph reading. Remedial and Special Education,
Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabili-
Butler, D. L. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to pro- moting self-regulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal
Calfee, R. C., Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, C. (1973). Acoustic- phonetic skills and reading: Kindergarten through twelfth grade.
Camp, B. W., & Dolcourt, J. L. (1977). Reading and spelling in good and poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 300–307. Cruickshank, W. M. (1981). A new perspective in teacher education: The neuroeducator. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 337– 341.
Cruickshank, W. W. (1972). Some issues facing the field of learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 380–388. Daneman, M. (1984). Acquiring vocabulary knowledge from text. Paper presented at the Second Meeting of Reading Researchers, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Denckla, M. B., Rudel, R. G., & Broman, M. (1981). Tests that discriminate between dyslexic and other learning-disabled boys.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at- risk students: Not a simple matter. Elementary School Journal,
Doehring, D. G. (1984). Subtyping of disorders: Implications for remediation. Annals of Dyslexia, 34, 205–216. Doehring, D. G., & Hoshko, I. M. (1977). Classification of reading problems by the Q-technique of factor analysis. Cortex, 13, 281– 294.
Doehring, D. G., Hoshko, I. M., & Bryans, B. N. (1979). Statistical classification of children with reading problems. Journal of Clin- ical Neuropsychology, 1, 5–16. Doehring, D. G., Trites, R. L., Patel, P. G., & Fiedorowicz, C. A. M. (1981). Reading disabilities: The interaction of reading, lan-
Press.
Drum, P. A., Calfee, R. C., & Cook, L. K. (1981). The effects of sentence structure variables on performance in reading compre- hension tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 486–514. Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1983). Development of word identifica- tion speed in skilled and less skilled beginning readers. Journal
Elbro, C., Neilsen, I., & Petersen, D. K., (1994). Dyslexia in adults: Evidence for deficits in non word reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 205–226. Elliot, S. N., & Boeve, K. (1987). Stability of WISC-R IQs: An investigation of ethnic differences over time. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 461– 465. Ellis, A. (1985). The cognitive neuropsychology of developmental (and acquired) dyslexia: A critical survey. Cognitive Neuropsy-
Ellis, N., & Large, B. (1987). The development of reading. As you seek so shall you find. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 1–28. Epps, S., Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. (1985). An analysis of the conceptual framework underlying definitions of learning disabil- ities. Journal of School Psychology, 23, 133–144. Feagans, L., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1986). Validation of language subtypes in learning disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 358–364. Federal Register. (1977). The rules and regulations for implement- ing Public Law 94–142. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Felton, R. H., Naylor, C. E., & Wood, F. B. (1990). Neuropsycholog- ical profile of adult dyslexics. Brain and Language, 39, 485– 497. Felton, R. H., & Wood, F. (1991). A reading level match study of nonword reading skills in poor readers with varying IQ. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 318–326. Fisk, J. L., & Rourke, B. P. (1979). Identification of subtypes of learning-disabled children at three age levels: A neuropsycho- logical, multivariate approach. Journal of Clinical Neuropsy- chology, 1, 289–310. Fisk, J. L., & Rourke, B. P. (1983). Neuropsychological subtyping of learning-disabled children: History, methods, implications.
Fletcher, J. M. (1985a). External validity of learning disability sub- types. In B. P. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsychology of learning
York: Guilford Press. Fletcher, J. M. (1985b). Memory for verbal and nonverbal stimuli in learning disability subgroups: Analysis by selective reminders. Journal of Educational Child Psychology, 40, 244 –259. |
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling