Learning disability is a general term that describes specific kinds of learning problems. A learning disability can cause a person to have trouble learning and using certain skills. The skills most often affected are: reading, writing, listening, speaking, reasoning, and doing math.
Almost 3 million children (ages 6 through 21) have some form of a learning disability and receive special education in school. In fact, over half of all children who receive special education have a learning disability (Twenty-fourth Annual Report to Congress, U.S. Department of Education, 2002). It's important, though, to realize that learning disabilities (LD) vary from person to person. One person with LD may not have the same kind of learning problems as another person with LD. One may have trouble with reading and writing. Another may have problems with understanding math. Still another person may have trouble in each of these areas, as well as with understanding what people are saying.
This A-Z Topics page is intended to connect you with more information about the disability. The resources we've listed here will lead you to groups with great authority on learning disabilities and and to what research is revealing about both the medical aspects of LD and effective education for the nearly 3 million students with LD. You'll also find research and practical advice on behavior management, and the latest thinking on appropriate procedures for diagnosing LD.
The list below isn't intended to be exhaustive of the resources available. It's intended to get you started on your search for information about LD.
This article isn't available online, but it's worthwhile pursuing at a library, resource room, or from the publisher itself. It reviews the historical basis and rationale for identifying children as learning disabled on the basis of a discrepancy between scores on measures of intelligence and achievement. In addition, to a historical perspective, recent studies that address the validity of classifications of children with learning disabilities (LD) according to the presence or absence of discrepancies between IQ and achievement are reviewed. Throughout this article, the role of IQ testing in the designation of children as learning disabled for research and public policy is addressed. The authors conclude that IQ tests have limited utility for the identification of children with LD. Alternative approaches to classification that incorporate the idea of a discrepancy between aptitude and achievement are discussed. (ERIC: Authors)
Research on reading disabilities conducted within the last two decades provides evidence in support of new approaches to the diagnoses of reading disabilities in children and adults. This article summarizes recently acquired information about a specific set of linguistic-cognitive markers for reading disabilities, and it also describes efforts to develop measures of these markers in the areas of phonological awareness, rapid automatic naming, and verbal short-term memory. In addition, implications of this new information for the diagnosis of reading disabilities are considered. (ERIC: Authors)
This document provides individuals, schools, professional diagnosticians, and service providers with a common understanding and knowledge base of those components of documentation that are necessary to validate a learning disability and the need for reasonable accommodations for candidates seeking to register with various Educational Testing Service testing programs.
The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct summary of the major issues in SLD identification and outline some proposals for change. Starting with a review of current requirements in federal law, the document goes on to discuss several SLD identification approaches and the way they have been used, current state practices in SLD identification, and alternative approaches that are being proposed by reseachers and stakeholder organizations. It ends with a discussion of the challenges to reaching consensus on any change in the identification procedure for specific learning disabilities.
This document provides background on use of discrepancy approch to diagnosis, summarizes what we know from research and practice, and makes policy recommendations about where we need to go from here.
The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) has been funded by OSEP to address the complex issues surrounding the proper identification of students with learning disabilities who need special education services. Specifically, the Center is analyzing existing methods of identifying students with learning disabilities. It is also studying state and local policies to determine factors that explain the differences in the number and characteristics of students identified with learning disabilities from state to state, from district to district within a state, and even from school to school within a district. On NRCLD's Web site, you can access the results of these efforts, including:
At the time of this testimony, Dr. Lyon was the Acting Chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch, at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH). His testimony begins with a summary of what we know about how children learn to read, including understanding how sounds are connected to print, how reading fluency develops, and how meaning is constructed from print, as well as other factors that influence learning to read. Next, an overview is provided on why so many children are having difficulty learning to read (deficits in phoneme awareness and developing the alphabetic principle, deficits in acquiring reading comprehension strategies and applying them to the reading of text, deficits in developing and maintaining the motivation to learn to read, limitations in effectively preparing teachers). The testimony also includes a summary of what we can do help children learn to read.
The 2001 article: Presents analysis of 13 studies designed to teach students with learning disabilities to write better expository or narrative text. Notes the success of these interventions, and details three components for any comprehensive instructional program: instruction in writing process, critical dimensions of different writing genres, and structures for feedback. (ERIC: JPB)
The 1999 article: Summarizes research on effective instruction in writing for students with learning disabilities. It finds that three components stand out as methods that reliably and consistently lead to improved outcomes in teaching expressive writing to these students. These components are: (1) adhering to a basic framework of planning, writing, and revision; (2) explicitly teaching critical steps in the writing process; and (3) providing feedback guided by the information explicitly taught. The paper also notes two specific teaching methodologies that incorporate these three principles: first, Self-Regulated Strategy Development, which involves self-directed prompts, and second, Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing, which focuses on pre-writing strategies. Emerging issues in writing instruction are identified, including the mechanics versus the content of writing, dictation as a means of eliminating mechanical difficulties of expressive writing, and transfer of writing skills and related strategies to other subject-matter areas. (Contains 10 references.) (ERIC: DB)
This research brief discusses two reading instruction models for teaching secondary school students with disabilities. The first, Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), is designed specifically for students with learning disabilities and students who are at risk of reading failure. This strategy adapts reciprocal reading and incorporates cooperative learning. CSR utilizes four strategies: preview, click and clunk (students identify parts of a passage that are hard to understand, then using four "fix-up" strategies, get the gist and wrap up. Students are also taught to use the following cooperative group roles: leader, clunk expert, gist expert, announcer, and encourager. The second strategy, Strategic Instruction Model (SIM), consists of a package of components for use by students with learning disabilities, as well as instructional tools for use by teachers. The reading strategies portion of SIM includes: paraphrasing, self-questioning, visual imagery, and word identification. The Content Enhancement Routines in SIM help teachers manage and present the content of their classes in ways that help all students learn. A concept anchoring table is presented. The article closes with a description of other approaches and suggestions for selecting and implementing the appropriate model. (Contains 19 references.) (ERIC: CR)
Editor's note: Find out in detail about the SIM, at: http://www.ku-crl.org/sim/index.html. You may also be interested in another Research to Practice Brief at NCSET, "Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR): Improving Secondary Students Reading Comprehension Skills," by Christine D. Bremer, Sharon Vaughn, Ann T. Clapper, and Ae-Hwa Kim. Find it at: www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=424.
This meta-analysis looked at outcomes of school-based interventions aimed at enhancing the self-concept of students with learning disabilities, specifically effect sizes in relation to students' self-concepts prior to the intervention. Results indicated that only students with documented low self-concept benefited significantly from intervention. For these students effect sizes were quite large. (Contains references.) (ERIC: Author/DB)
|
This information is copyright free.
Readers are encouraged to copy and share it, but please credit the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY). |
|
NICHCY Connections pages are
published in response to questions from individuals and organizations that
contact us. We encourage you to share your
ideas and feedback with us!Project Director: Suzanne RipleyNICHCY thanks our Project Officer, Dr. Peggy Cvach, at the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education. |
|
| Publication of this Web resource page is made possible through Cooperative Agreement #H326N030003 between the Academy for Educational Development and the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. | NICHCY P.O. Box 1492 nichcy@aed.org www.nichcy.org |