The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1978, 134, 185-195

ABSTRACT REASONING IN A SPECIFIC GROUP O F PERCEPTUALLY IMPAIRED CHILDREN: NAMELY, T H E LEARNING-DISABLED*' University of the Witwatersrand

LYNNJ. MELTZER SUMMARY The present study was designed to investigate whether learning-disabled children differ from normal achievers in terms of logical thought and whether they exhibit dkcalages in their acquisition of Piagetian concepts. The Ss comprised 35 learning-disabled boys attending full-time remedial schools and 35 matched normal achievers. The group mean age was 9 years 1 month and the mean ZQ was 109. Ss were tested on a measure of visual perception and on 1 1 Piagetian tasks measuring conservation of quantity and number, seriation, and classification. Results indicated a significant difference between the groups in terms of perception but not in terms of logical thought. The rank order of the 11 Piagetian tasks was significantly correlated for the two groups (r = .89). It was concluded that the perceptual problems of the learningdisabled reside at a functional rather than at an organizational level, thus affecting only specific cognitive activities. A. INTRODUCTION The emergence of learning disabilities as a distinct area of special education has been so rapid that there is at present a lack of consensus regarding fundamental concepts, definitions, and empirical findings. In particular, a great deal of controversy surrounds explanations of the relationship between the perceptual problems of the learning-disabled and their logical thought. Such controversy reflects the disagreements among cognitive theorists concerning the nature, development, and interrelation of perception and conception, with Werner (29) and Bruner ( 3, 4) at the one extreme emphasizing the

* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on September 24, 1976. Copyright, 1978, by The Journal Press. This study is based in part on an M . S . thesis submitted to the University of the Witwatersrand. The writer expresses her gratitude to Professor J. W. Mann who supervised this research. 185

186

JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

role of inference in perception, Olson (19)and the Gibsons (11, 12)at the other extreme reducing most cognitive processes to perception, and Piaget (20, 2 1) positioned between the two poles. The present study was designed to assess the logical thought processes of the learning-disabled child as compared to those of the normal achiever, and, of secondary importance, to focus at the theoretical level on the problem of the relation between perception and conception. The rationale for the present research is reflected in a statement by Bruner (3, p. ix) that an ideal method of investigating cognition is to study not only the “efficiency” but also the “inefficiency” which characterizes the strategies employed for thinking and solving problems. Such “inefficiency” has been investigated in the brain-injured (13, 23, 24), the deaf (9, 31), the blind (26, 30), and the culturally-different (7, 14). However, not many investigators have examined the cognitive functions of the learning-disabled, a group which manifests perceptual, attention, and academic problems. Such a group offers a unique opportunity for investigating the perception-conception relationship because the learning-disabled are characterized by a deficit in information processing rather than a deprivation of sensory information. The present study was designed against a background of contradictory empirical findings, especially as regards perceptual and perceptual-motor development in the learning-disabled (8, 10, 15, 16). Somewhat less controversy has characterized the few investigations of abstract reasoning in this group and the general conclusion points to a deficit in thinking and categorization. However, such a conclusion is probably a consequence of two factors. First, much of the research was undertaken in the 1940’s and 1950’s (22, 23, 24) to investigate the reasoning processes of brain-injured children, and many of the findings have simply been extrapolated to the learning-disability population. Secondly, abstraction has been measured almost exclusively in terms of categorization, symbolization, or the use of concrete versus abstract concepts (2, 28). What is, indeed, surprising is that none of these investigations has used Piagetian tasks which are less susceptible to the effects of formal education and are therefore more suitable for measuring the logical processes of individuals who have not benefitted optimally from school education. In this respect it is noteworthy that the few studies in this area which have utilized a Piagetian framework have investigated Piagetian performance as a predictor of school achievement, and in particular of mathematics achievement (1, 5 , 25). One of the few exceptions to this trend is the study by Klees and Lebrun (17) which demonstrated that the severity of the child’s perceptual problems had a differential effect on his logical thought as measured by Piagetian tasks. Thus, children with less severe perceptual problems man-

LYNN J. MELTZER

187

ifested adequate abstract reasoning, a finding which conflicts with the above-mentioned results of other investigators. One can therefore surmise that had previous investigators used Piagetian rather than categorization tasks, they might have obtained a different picture of logical thought in the learning-disabled. Therefore, the major aim of the present study was to investigate the reasoning processes of the learning-disabled within a Piagetian framework and to ascertain whether these processes are impaired as occurs in the brain-injured, whether they are characterized by a developmental lag as occurs in the deaf and in the blind, or whether they are equivalent to that of normal achievers. A second issue which was investigated in this study was related to the postulate of Myklebust, Bannochie, and Killen (18) that the mental processes of learning-disabled children are structured differently from those of normal achievers and that their reasoning processes are fragmented and autonomous. The question was raised as to whether the learning-disabled would exhibit inconsistencies or decalages in their acquisition of various Piagetian concepts. Thus, the following two questions were posed: 1. Is there a difference in the performance of learning-disabled children and normal achievers on each of a number of tasks measuring conservation of quantity, conservation of number, seriation, and classification? 2. Is the order of difficulty of the Piagetian tasks the same for the learningdisability group and the group of normal achievers?

It should be noted that for the purposes of the present study, perception was defined in the manner proposed by Piaget (21), referring to that process whereby firsthand information is obtained about the world, and excluding conscious judgment. Conception was defined as the ability to abstract and to reason logically and was used synonymously with terms such as “symbolization,” “thinking,” “abstraction,” and what Piaget terms “intelligence.” B.

METHOD

1. Subjects The experimental group comprised 35 learning-disabled boys whose learning disabilities were so severe that they had been placed in full-time remedial schools. All these Ss had been diagnosed as manifesting visual perceptual problems. The mean age of this group was 9 years 2 months and the age range was 8 years 1 month to 9 years 10 months. The mean ZQ was 109. The control group consisted of 35 normally achieving boys who were matched with the learningdisabled Ss on a one-to-one basis with respect to

188

JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

sex, age, and ZQ.The mean age of this group was 9 years and the age range was 8 years 1 month to 9 years 9 months. The mean ZQ was 109. All the S s were white and all came from middle-class or upper-income homes. Only males were selected as they are overrepresented in the learningdisability population by a ratio of approximately five males to every one female.

Materials The Continuous Symbol Checking Test (6), known as the CSC,* was selected as a measure of visual perceptual competence because it has a high loading on perception as it is defined in this study and does not tap inference or abstraction. This test was administered as a check on the original diagnosis of perceptual problems in the learningdisability group. The major set of materials was a battery of 11 tasks adapted from the tests originally devised by Piaget (20), and designed to conform with the criteria stipulated by Tuddenham (2 7) for the development of satisfactory cognitive tasks. These modifications included the introduction of a standardized questioning procedure so that the majority of the questions required the S to respond monosyllabically. In addition, there were built-in checks to control for set as it was essential to establish whether the child had grasped the particular concept adequately or whether he was simply at a fluctuating, intuitive stage of thought. Finally, orientation sessions were introduced as a means of assessing the child’s understanding of instructions and relational terms, such as “more,” “less,” “some,” “all,” “biggest,” and “smallest.” The 11 tasks (see Table 1) were designed to tap four main aspects of the number concept: namely, conservation of continuous quantity, conservation of number, seriation, and classification. One of the reasons for using Piagetian number tasks was related to Piaget’s postulate (20) that the essence of abstraction resides in the individual’s mathematico-deductive reasoning and that the construction of number parallels the development of logic in the child. Each task comprised numerous questions involving judgments of the transformed materials, and, with the exception of the seriation tasks, the child was always required to explain his judgments. 2.

3 . Procedure

The Continuous Symbol Checking Test wasadministered to groups of four children at one time, whereas the Piagetian battery was given on an individual

*

The CSC was developed by the South African National Institute for Personnel Research.

189

LYNN J. MELTZER

DESCRIFTIONOF Task Conservation of quantity

Conservation of number

Seriation

Task number A

Description

B C

Comparison of quantities of liquid in standard beaker and round wine glass. Comparison of wine glass with tall, narrow cylinder. Comparison of beaker with 3 small sherry glasses.

A

Comparison of 2 rows of blocks-1

B

Comparison of 2 rows of b l o c k s 1 row spread out.

A

Selection of the biggest, smallest, and middle-sized card from a set of 3 and then 5 cards. Serial orderingof 10 cards and deduction of certain size estimates from this rank order. Deduction of certain size estimates from the resenation of the 10 cards.

B C Classification

TABLE 1 ELEVENPIACETIAN TASKS

THE

A B C

row bunched.

Comparison of a class of wooden beads with its subclasses of yellow and green wooden beads. Deduction of the arithmetical relation of part to whole-subtraction of one subclass from the total class. Comparison of imaginary necklaces in terms of length-deduction of the relationship between length and number.

basis. The order of the Piagetian tasks was counterbalanced by randomizing the presentation of the four sets. Each of these four sets was preceded by an orientation session and only if the S responded correctly to all the check questions, did the E proceed. If not, the concepts were explained to the child and the orientation questions were again posed. Those Ss who still did not display any understanding of the crucial concepts were eliminated from the sample. 4.

Scoring

For each of the 11 Piagetian tasks the total number of correct responses was obtained by summing the number of correct judgments and explanations. Each judgment was simply correct or incorrect. The explanation, which reflected the child’s comprehension of the principles involved, was more difficult to score as the child’s response had to satisfy a number of criteria. As an example, in the conservation tasks the child had to indicate comprehension

190

JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

of one or more of the Piagetian principles of invariant quantity, compensation, and reversibility. Similar but more complex categories were used for scoring the explanations in the classification tasks. In order to decrease subjectivity, two independent raters scored the explanations, and the interrater reliability, calculated by means of the Spearman-Brown formula was .89. The child‘s total number of correct responses on a particular task was then converted to a pass-fail dichotomous category. A child was only classed in the “pass” (conserve, seriate, classify) category if he responded correctly to all the judgment and explanation questions and he was classed in the “fail” category if he obtained a score which was less than the maximum. Therefore, only if a child obtained the maximum possible score could he be classified as an abstract thinker who had fully internalized the concept being assessed.

C.

RESULTS

1. Question I The results obtained for the perceptual task indicated that the group of learning-disabledSs was inferior to the group of normal achievers (t = 1,92;df = 34). As regards logical thought, Table 2 provides a comparison of the performance of the two groups for each of the 11 Piagetian tasks. The table

COMPARISON

TABLE 2 PERFORMANCE OF THE THIRTY-FIVE MATCHED PAIRS SUBJECTS ON THE ELEVENPIAGETIAN TASKS

OF THE

Task CQ Task A CQ Task B CQ Task C C N Task A C N Task B Ser Task A Ser Task B Ser Task C CI Task A CI Task B CI Task C

x n a.

> X1.d.

X1.d.

>xn.a.

8 7

6

10 9

6 8

9 14 3

5

0 2 7

10

5

8 1

3 5 8 3

iv

N’

14 12

21 23 19 18 21 13 31 32 28 20 22

16 17 14 22 4 3

7 15 13

OF

Note: All differences were nonsignificant. CQ = Conservation of Quantity, C N = Conservation of Number, Ser = Seriation, CI = Classification, Xn.*. = Scores obtained by the normal achievers, = Scores obtained by the learning-disabledSs, N = The number of matched pairs within which there was a difference between the obtained scores, N ‘ = The number of matched pairs which did not differ in their scores.

LYNN J. MELTZER

191

summarizes the number of matched pairs within which there was a difference between the scores obtained by the learning-disabled S and his matched partner. It is evident that in most cases the number of matched pairs within which the normal achiever succeeded whereas his matched learning-disabled partner failed W,,a. >XI.,.)exceeds the number of matched pairs within which the reverse situation occurred (X1.d. >Xn.a.).It is also apparent from the values of N ' and N that, with the exception of the first seriation task, the number of matched pairs which did not differ in their scores exceeded the number of pairs which did obtain different scores. This result therefore indicates that the majority of learning-disabled Ss performed equivalently to their normallyachieving partners. Such a trend was tested statistically by means of the nonparametric Sign test, which was selected because the range of applicable statistical techniques was limited by the ordinal method of scoring and by the matched-pairs technique. In all cases a two-tailed test was used and the null hypothesis was rejected at or beyond the .05 significance level. The results of the analyses revealed that on each of the 11 tasks there was no significant difference between the two groups. 2. Question 2

In order to provide an answer to this question, the number of Ss who had been classified in the pass category (conserve, seriate, classify) was computed for each task. By these means the relative difficulty of the tasks was determined and the task with the highest frequency of pass responses was regarded as the easiest. For each group the 11 tasks were then ranked according to their relative difficulty level, as is presented in Figure 1. It is evident from Figure 1 that the order of difficulty of these 11 tasks was very similar for the two groups. The extent of the similarity of these rank orders was analyzed by means of the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient, where the obtained correlation was .89 which was significant at the .01 level (N = 11; rexPected = .746). This result therefore indicates that for the specific groups tested, those tasks which proved difficult for the learningdisabled Ss also proved difficult for the normal achievers, and similarly for the easy tasks. Finally, it is evident from Figure 1 that, in general, the conservation tasks were less difficult for the particular groups tested than were the seriation and classification tasks.

192

JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

r

r

linh

- SENC

-

SE R

TASKS

FIGURE 1 CORRECT RESPONSESON THE ELEVEN FOR T H E LEARNINGDISABILITY GROUP A N D THE GROUP OF NORMAL ACHIEVERS

FREQUENCY OF

D.

CLlL

CUB

CLlC

TASKS

DISCUSSION

The results pertaining to Question 1 reveal that the logical thought of the learning-disabled is no different from that of normal achievers, indicating that the learning-disabled differ from the deaf, the blind, and the brain-damaged, who generally manifest a developmental lag in their acquisition of logical thought. These results accord with some of the findings of Klees and Lebrun ( 1 7 ) . but they contrast with the findings of Bindler ( 2 ) and Wagner (28) who utilized categorization tasks rather than Piagetian measures. These findings suggest that the perceptual problems of the learningdisabled child are not generalized so that they affect all cognitive activities, but that such problems impair performance on specific cognitive tasks, such as the reading of symbols. Thus adequate abstraction, notwithstanding a deficit in perception, can probably be explained in terms of intact functioning at the integrative, organizational level of learning, and impaired functioning at the intra- and intersensory levels. In addition, this discrepancy between the perceptual and conceptual ability of the learning-disabled may in some way

LYNN J. MELTZER

193

account for the well-established but unexplained phenomenon of an abnormally large disparity between the verbal and performance 19s of such children. As regards the second question, the results indicate that the order of difficulty of the 11 tasks was very similar for the two groups (r = .89; see Figure 1). The implication, therefore, is that the reasoning ability of the learning-disabled is not more disorganized than that of normal achievers, suggesting that this group does not display more horizontal dkcalages in its thinking than do normal achievers. Thus, the Piagetian measures of logical thinking did not add support to the view propounded by Myklebust, Bannochie, and Killen (18) that the various cognitive processes of the learningdisabled are autonomous and distinct. With reference to the theoretical issues underlying the present study, the results lend support to Piaget’s developmental theory (20, 2 1). His notion of perception and conception as two independent but interacting systems would predict the present findings that although perception was impaired in the learning-disability group, the developmentally superior system of conception or logical reasoning was not affected detrimentally. In addition, the results suggest some support for the perceptually-based theory of Olson (19) as they indicate that the performance of the learning-disabled is impaired in certain performatory media, such as reading, but not in others. Thus, the difficulties of the learning-disabled may possibly be attributed to their inability to acquire and to use a knowledge of the alternatives provided by their environment. Thus, when they read, write, or draw, such children attend to the wrong cues, and this results in reversals and incorrect placements. Finally, if one considers these findings in the context of Bruner’s developmental theory (3, 4), no explanation appears to be forthcoming as no direct link was established between perceptual and conceptual problems. In conclusion, it is evident that future investigations of the learningdisabled within a Piagetian framework may prove fruitful in the attempt to clarify the nature of learning disabilities and to add to the body of theory relating to cognitive development. Hopefully, such research will unify the patchwork quilt of symptoms characterizing the various deviant groups into a single, coherent system. REFERENCES

E., & MILLER,P. Young Children’s Thinking. New York: 1. ALMY,M., CHITTENDEN, Teachers’ College Press, 1966. S. B. Patterns of conceptual functioning in children with “reading disability.” 2. BINDLER, Diss. Abst. Internat., 1972, 33 (1-3), 435.

194

JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

3.

BRUNER.J. S. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press,

4.

BRUNER, J. S., OLVER,R.,& GREENFIELD, P . , Eds. Studies in Cognitive Growth. New York: Wiley, 1966. CATHCART, W , G . The relationship between primary students’ rationalization of conservation and their mathematical achievement. Child Devel., 197 I , 42, 755-765. Continuous Letter Checking and Continuous Symbol Checking Test. Administrator’s Manual, National Institute for Personnel Research, South Africa, 1972. DASEN,P. R. Cross-cultural Piagetian research: A summary. J. Cross-cult. Psychol., 1972,

1966.

5.

6.

7.

3(1), 23-39. 8.

FROSTIG, M. Education for children with learning disabilities. In H . R. Myklebust (Ed.) Progress in Learning Disabilities (Vol. 1). New York: Grune & Stratton, 1968. Pp. 234-266.

FURTH,H . G. Linguistic deficiency and thinking: Research with deaf subjects. Psychol. Bull., 1971, 76(1), 58-72. 10. GETMAN,G. N. The visuomotor complex in the acquisition of learning skills. In J . Hellmuth (Ed.)Learning Disorders (Vol. 1). Seattle Wash.: Special Child Publications, 9.

1965. 11. 12.

GIBSON.E. J. Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1969. GIBSON,J. J. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton-Miftlin, 1966.

13. 14. 15. 16.

GOLDSTEIN, K., & SCHEERER. M.Abstract and concrete behavior: An experimental study with special mental tests. Psyrhol. Monog., 1941, 151, No. 239. GOODNOW, J. J. A test of milieu effects with some of Piaget’s tasks. Psychol. Monog., 1962, 76 N o . 36 (whole No. 5 5 5 ) . JOHNSON,D . , & MYKLEBUST. H . R. Learning Disabilities: Educational Principles and Practices. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1967. KEPHART.N. C. The Slow Learner in the Classroom (2nd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 197 1.

KLEES,M., & LEBRUN,A. Analysis of the figurative and operative processes of thought of forty dyslexic children. 1.Learn. D i s . , 1972, 5, 389-396. 18. MYKLEBUST, H. R.. BANNOCHIE. M . , & KILLEN,J . R. Learningdisabilitiesandcognitive processes. In H. Myklebust (Ed.).Progress in Learning Disabilities (Vol. 2). New York: Grune & Stratton, 1971. Pp. 213-251. 19. OLSON, D. R. Cognitive Development: The Child’s Acquisition of Diagonality. New York: Academic Press, 1970. 20. PIACET.J. The Child‘s Conception of Number. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952. 2 1 . -. The Mechanisms of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969. 22. STRAUSs, A. A,, & KEPHART,N. C. Psychopathology and Education of the Brain-Injured Child. Vol. 2 . Progress in Theory and Clinic. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1955. 23. STRAUSS,A. A., & LEHTINEN,L. E. Psychopathology and Education of the BrainInjured Child. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1947. 24. STRAUSS,A. A.. & WERNER,H. Disorders of conceptual thinking in the brain-injured child. J. N e w . 6 Ment. Dis., 1942, 96, 153. 25. THORNE, C. Six different types of conservation and their relation to MA, IQ and three areas of academic achievement. Diss. Abst. Inlernat., 1975, 36, 1405.4. 26. TOBIN,M. J . Conservation of substance in the blind and partially sighted. The Brit. J . Educ. Psychol., 1972, 42, 192-197. 17.

LYNN J. MELTZER

195

28.

TUDDENHAM, R. D. Theoretical regularities and individual idiosyncrasies. In D.Green, M. Ford, & G. Flamer(Eds.),Measurement andPiaget. New York McCraw-Hill, 1971. WAGNER,R. F. Symbolization deficits in dyslexic conditions. Acad. Ther., 1971,6,359-

29.

WERNER,H.Comparative Psychology of Mental Development (rev. ed.). Chicago: Follett,

27.

365. 1948.

30. WITHIN, H. A., DYKE,R. B.,FATERSON,H. F., GOODENOUCH, D. R.,& KARP, S. A. Psychological Differentiation: Studies of Mental Development. New York Wiley, 1962. 31. YOUNISS,J . , & FURTH,H . C. Prediction of causal events as a form of transitory and perceptual congruency in hearing and deaf children. Child Devel., 1966, 37, 73-82.

The Learning Disabilities Foundation Pride's Crossing, Massachusetts 01965

Abstract reasoning in a specific group of perceptually impaired children: namely, the learning-disabled.

The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1978, 134, 185-195 ABSTRACT REASONING IN A SPECIFIC GROUP O F PERCEPTUALLY IMPAIRED CHILDREN: NAMELY, T H E LEARNI...
2MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views