LD: The Next 25 Years Howard S. Adelman
W
has been found wanting in both instances. As a concept, LD has been elusive; as a category, it has been polymorphous. All attempts to differentiate LD from For more than a hundred years much underachievement run into basic concomplaint has been made of the ceptual and methodological concerns. unmethodical way in which schools are Most of these have been rehashed conducted, but it is only within the last in the arguments over definition thirty that any serious attempt has been and about what constitutes a severe made to find a remedy for this state of discrepancy between aptitude and things. And with what result? Schools achievement. remain exactly as they were. Too rarely discussed, however, has been the field's failure to do the conComenius wrote that in 1632. It's ceptual and empirical work required to enough to make one think that the develop a classification scheme that more things change, the more they encompasses all learning problems. stay the same. Such a framework is needed as a broad Rereading Ray Barsch's 1968 article foundation for differentiating LD from made me feel just that way. Things other major learning problems and for have changed, but substantial progress appropriate subtyping within each has not been made in answering the category. In the absence of a theorytwo broad and fundamental questions based classification scheme, key diagthat drive the learning disabilities (LD) nostic criteria, assessment procedures, field. Stated simply, those questions and ameliorative strategies remain relaare: Who are we talking about? What tively ignored. needs to be done to help them? Although reliable data do not exist, few would disagree with the estimate that at least 30% of the school populaWho Are We Talking About? tion in the United States is experiencing significant learning problems. It is Barsch argued for treating learning clear that such persons differ not only disabilities as a concept rather than a in terms of functioning, but also with category. Given the dissatisfaction respect to the causes of their problems. with prevailing LD definitions and the As long as almost any individual with fact that practitioners and researchers a "garden-variety" learning problem continue to use a variety of descriptors, stands a good chance of being diagit seems evident that it has been tried nosed as LD, the tendency will exist to as both a concept and a category—and view most learning problems as being
henever I'm tempted to wax philosophical from a historical perspective, I reread the following passage:
caused by some form of personal pathology. Thus, many who do not have disabilities will continue to be treated as if they did; and those found in various programs and research samples will continue to differ in important (but unidentified) ways—thereby confounding efforts to compare and generalize. Because of the current classification problem, a large proportion of research purporting to deal with LD samples has more to say about learning problems in general than about learning disabilities. In this regard, failure to differentiate underachievement caused by neurological dysfunctioning from that caused by other factors has been cited specifically as a major deterrent to important lines of research and theory and is certainly a threat to the very integrity of the LD field. With respect to practice, failure to differentiate learning problems in terms of cause contributes to widespread misdiagnoses and to prescription of unneeded specialized treatments. In turn, this leads to profound misunderstanding about which interventions do and do not have unique promise for learning disabilities. In general, the scope of misdiagnoses and misprescriptions in the field has undermined prevention, remediation, research, training, and the policy decisions shaping such activity. Given that the concept of LD is poorly defined and differentiated and results in overdiagnosis and inflated
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES VOLUME 25 NUMBER 1, JANUARY 1992 PAGES 17-22 SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA
18
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
prevalence and incidence figures, it is not surprising that those so diagnosed have become the largest percentage in special education programs. And, it also is not surprising that the LD field has experienced a significant backlash in the form of criticism of current practices and policies (e.g., the Regular Education Initiative). In its extreme form, this backlash questions whether there is such a thing as a learning disability. The danger in this position, of course, is that we lose sight of learning problems caused by minor CNS dysfunction.
Placing LD in Perspective As a way of reducing the confusion caused by varying definitions and criteria, some have recommended that specific "markers," such as demographic, personality, and programming variables, be reported on every LD sample (e.g., Keogh, MajorKingsley, Omori-Gordon, & Reid, 1982). However, this recommendation, along with efforts to identify " L D " subtypes (e.g., Lyon & Flynn, 1991; McKinney, 1988; Rourke & Strang, 1983), overlooks the confusion caused by accepting current LD samples as validly diagnosed. That is, by starting with a group already diagnosed as having LD, the researchers skip over the more fundamental classification problem of differentiating LD from other learning problems. Such a practice works against conceptual clarity and tends to collude with trends to treat all learning problems as if they were learning disabilities. The key to identifying learning problems caused by minor neurological dysfunctions (i.e., learning disabilities) involves, obviously, assessing such CNS dysfunctions. Unfortunately, available methodology precludes doing this in a valid manner (i.e., existing neurological and psychoneurological procedures lack validity for making such a diagnosis). Indeed, in most cases it is impossible to be certain what primary instigating factor
caused a specific learning problem. As a result, individuals currently diagnosed as LD have been so labeled based mainly on assessment of relatively severe underachievement—the causes of which remain undetermined (cf. Chalfant, 1985; Coles, 1987). Obviously, then, just because someone has been assigned the LD label, that is not sufficient indication that the individual has an underlying dysfunction. Still, it remains scientifically valid to conceive of a subgroup (albeit a small subset) whose learning problems are neurologically based and to differentiate this subgroup from those with learning problems caused by other factors. A useful perspective for doing so is provided by a reciprocal determinist or transactional view of behavior. (Note: This view goes beyond an ecological perspective.) The trend toward understanding behavior from a reciprocal determinist or transactional perspective has a distinguished history (e.g., Bandura, 1978). Over the last 25 years, the usefulness of such a perspective has been discussed with respect to the causes and correction of learning problems in general and learning disabilities in particular (e.g., Adelman, 1970-71, 1971; Adelman & Taylor, 1983,1986a; Coles, 1987; Smith, 1991). A transactional perspective subsumes rather than replaces the idea that some learning problems stem from neurological dysfunctions and differences. As elaborated by Adelman and Taylor (1983, 1986a), a transactional view acknowledges that there are cases when an individual's disabilities predispose him or her to learning problems, even in highly accommodating settings. At the same time, however, such a view accounts for instances when the environment is so inadequate or hostile that individuals have problems despite having no disability. And, finally, it recognizes problems caused by a combination of person and environment factors. The value of a broad transactional perspective, then, is that it shifts the focus from "Is there a neurological deficit causing the learn-
ing problem?" to "Are the causes to be found primarily in • the individual (e.g., a neurological dysfunction; cognitive skill and/or strategy deficits; developmental and/ or motivational differences); • the environment (e.g., the primary environment, such as poor instruction programs, parental neglect; secondary environment, such as racially isolated schools and neighborhoods; tertiary environment, such as broad social, economic, political, and cultural influences); or • the reciprocal interplay of individual and environment!"
Type I, II, and III Learning Problems As the above discussion suggests, a classification scheme is needed that puts learning disabilities into perspective vis-a-vis other learning problems, and a transactional view of causality clarifies the parameters for such a scheme. Of course, no simple typology can do justice to the complexities involved in classifying learning problems for purposes of research, practice, and policy making. However, even a simple conceptual classification framework based on a transactional view can be heuristic (Adelman & Taylor, 1986b). My colleagues and I, for example, have found it extremely valuable to use such a model to differentiate types of learning problems along a causal continuum. To illustrate: Think about a random sample of students with primary learning problems (i.e., the learning problem is not the result of seeing or hearing impairments, severe mental retardation, severe emotional disturbance, or autism). What makes it difficult for them to learn? Theoretically, at least, it is reasonable to speculate that a small group may have a relatively minor internal disorder causing a minor CNS dysfunction that makes learning difficult even under good teaching circumstances. As suggested by proposed LD definitional changes (e.g., National
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015
19
VOLUME 25 NUMBER 1, JANUARY 1992
Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1989), these are individuals for whom the term learning disabilities was created. In Figure 1, these individuals are represented as part of the group designated Type III problems (i.e., those whose problems—in theory—are caused by factors within the individual). At the other end of the continuum are problems caused by factors outside the individual, such as inadequacies in the environment in which learning takes place (Type I problems). In the middle are problems stemming from a relatively equal contribution by both sources (Type II problems). This group consists of persons who do not learn or perform well in situations in which their individual differences and vulnerabilities are poorly accommodated or are responded to hostilely. That is, they have some internal factor that can predispose them to a learning problem in certain but not all learning and teaching situations. The learning and performance problems (and many behavior problems) of such persons are truly the reciprocal product of individual predispositions and the nature of the environment in which they must learn and perform. At points along the continuum the degree of variance accounted for by person and environment variables shifts. After identifying Type I, II, and III problem groups, subtypes can be for-
mulated. For example, subtypes for the Type III category might include not only learning disabilities but also learning problems arising mostly from other personal disorders, such as serious behavioral or emotional disabilities or developmental disruptions. In formulating subtypes, basic dimensions such as problem severity, pervasiveness, and chronicity obviously play an important role. There are tremendous practical problems involved in making differential diagnoses along such a continuum. This fact, however, does not preclude the use of such a conceptual classification scheme as an aid to understanding (a) the variety of learning problems that confront practitioners and researchers and (b) concerns that have arisen because of failure to operate within a broad classification framework. Ultimately, differentiating among learning problems is essential to improving both research and practice. Moreover, practically and politically, the degree of indiscriminate diagnosis is an increasing source of embarrassment to the field and inevitably will continue to produce backlash. More importantly, the failure to differentiate LD from other types of learning problems means continued inappropriate use of the limited resources available for intervention and research.
Primary Locus of Cause Problems caused by factors in the person (P)
Problems caused by factors in the environment (E) (E-P) Type I learning problems
E-P Type II learning problems
(e~P) Type III learning problems (e.g., learning disabilities)
FIGURE 1. A continuum of learning problems reflecting a transactional view of the locus of primary instigating factors.
What About Intervention? Barsch believed that learning disabilities should become a third major category of education (i.e., there should be regular education, learning disabilities, and special education). His reasoning was that efforts to educate students with such problems would require the best of regular and special education and would have to avoid the worst of both fields. He was particularly worried about potential negative influences resulting from conceiving learning disabilities as essentially a special education problem. He was right to worry. Over the past 25 years, interventions in the LD field have pursued primarily a rather narrow special education orientation. As a result, they have relied too exclusively on remedial practices designed mainly to address developmental concerns. Not surprisingly, the weight of available evidence points to the limited efficacy of what has been tried in this regard (e.g., Horn, O'Donnell, & Vitulano, 1983; Kavale & Forness, 1985; cf. Torgesen & Wong, 1986). To move forward, practitioners and researchers must (a) broaden their approach to teaching and (b) expand their view of intervention beyond teaching. With respect to the former, it seems particularly important to focus on motivation as a primary intervention concern and, in doing so, to pursue personalized, sequential, and hierarchical teaching strategies. Beyond teaching, it is important to think in terms of a societal approach encompassing an integrated continuum of preventive and treatment services.
Personalized, Sequential, and Hierarchical Teaching A transactional perspective suggests that prevention and remediation of many learning problems primarily require general changes in systems and learning environments (e.g., modifying approaches to schooling and instruction). In particular, it seems
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015
20
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
likely that major benefits would accrue from modifying current instructional practices to better match individual differences, not only in developmental capability, but also in motivation. And, indeed, the focus on motivation, especially intrinsic motivation, probably needs to be given primary emphasis (Deci & Chandler, 1986). The theoretical concept of the match, as advocated by leading scholars such as Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, and McVickers Hunt, reflects a transactional view of learning and learning problems. Both individualized and personalized interventions are based on this concept. However, the major focus in most individualized approaches is on accounting for individual differences in capability, while personalization has been defined as accounting for individual differences in both capability and motivation (Adelman, 1971; Adelman & Taylor, 1983, 1986a, 1990). Personalization represents an application of the principles of normalization and least intervention needed (which encompass the concept of Least Restrictive Environment). Furthermore, personalization can be treated as a psychological construct if the learner's perception is viewed as the critical factor in defining whether the environment appropriately accounts for his or her interests and abilities (Lazarus, 1991). Properly conceived, personalized programs can be seen as encompassing the type of procedures regular classrooms need to implement in order to significantly improve the efficacy of mainstreaming and prereferral interventions (Chalfant, Van Dusen Pysh, & Moultrie, 1979; Graden, Casey, & Christenson, 1985; Johnson & Pugach, 1991). Properly designed and carried out, personalized programs should reduce the need for remediation. That is, maximizing motivation and matching developmental capability should be a sufficient condition for learning among those who have no internal disability (e.g., Type I learning problems), thereby minimizing the need for remedial intervention.
At the same time, teachers will see that, although mobilized to try harder, some students continue to have significant learning problems (e.g., those in the Type III category). From this perspective, proper implementation of a personalized program is seen as the first step in clarifying those who do and do not require more than appropriate accommodation of individual differences in order to learn effectively. Those who do, of course, are candidates for the full range of remedial interventions. Depending on problem severity, remediation involves one (or more) of three hierarchical levels ranging from a focus on observable problems to one on underlying problems (Adelman, 1989a; Adelman & Taylor, 1986a). Level A focuses on age-appropriate life tasks (basic knowledge, skills, and interests), Level B on missing prerequisites for learning, and Level C is concerned with factors interfering with learning (disabilities, negative motivation, and interfering behaviors). Procedures used to personalize and remedy intervention should reflect a primary, systematic focus on motivation. In particular, they should stress (a) overcoming negative attitudes, (b) enhancing motivational readiness for learning, (c) maintaining intrinsic motivation throughout the learning process, and (d) nurturing the type of continuing motivation that results in the learner engaging in activities away from the teaching situation. Attending to these matters is seen as essential to maximizing maintenance, generalization, and expansion of learning. Failure to attend systematically and comprehensively to these matters means approaching passive (and often hostile) learners with methods that confound diagnosis and research and that may just as readily exacerbate as correct learning and behavior problems. Beyond having value for preventing and correcting all types of learning problems, the personalized, sequential, and hierarchical approach outlined above is seen as having promise for
identifying different types of learning problems and for detecting errors in diagnosis. For example, when only personalization is needed to correct a learning problem, it seems reasonable to suggest that the individual does not have a learning disability. At the same time, when a highly mobilized individual still has extreme difficulty learning, the hypothesis that the person has a disability seems somewhat safer. (In our work, personalization is seen as a necessary step in facilitating valid identification of Type I, II, and III learning problems.)
A Societal Approach to Intervention Barsch stressed the importance of interdisciplinary convergence and what today is called transdisciplinary training. At this juncture in our history, policymakers increasingly are recognizing the importance of approaches that account for social, economic, political, and cultural factors. And, the array of preventive and treatment programs is extensive and promising. The range can be appreciated by grouping them on a continuum, from prevention through treatment of chronic problems. Categorically, the activities encompass (a) primary prevention to promote and maintain safety and physical and mental health (beginning with family planning), (b) preschool programs, (c) early school adjustment programs, (d) improvement of ongoing regular support, (e) augmentation of regular support, (f) specialized staff development and interventions prior to referral for special help, and (g) system change and intensive treatment. Examples of relevant interventions in each category are cited in Figure 2. Unfortunately, implementation of the full continuum of programs with an extensive range of activities does not occur in most communities. And what programs there are tend to be offered in a fragmented manner. Policymakers are coming to see a relationship between limited interven-
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015
21
VOLUME 25 NUMBER 1, JANUARY 1992
tion efficacy and the widespread tendency for complementary programs to operate in isolation. For instance, physical and mental health programs generally are not coordinated with educational programs; a youngster identified and treated in early education programs who still requires special support may or may not receive systematic help in the primary grades, and so forth. Failure to coordinate and follow through, of course, can be counterproductive (e.g., undermining immediate benefits and working against efforts to reduce subsequent demand for costly treatment programs). Limited efficacy seems inevitable as long as interventions are carried out in a piecemeal fashion. Thus, there is increasing interest in moving beyond piecemeal strategies to provide a comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated programmatic thrust (e.g., Hodgkinson, 1989; Kagan, 1990; Kean, 1989). The range of programs cited in Figure 2 can be seen as integrally related, and it seems likely that the impact of each could be exponentially increased through integration and coordination. Indeed, a major breakthough in the battle against learning and behavior problems may result only when the full range of programs are implemented in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion. As I have proposed previously (Adelman, 1989a, 1989b), it is time to determine the efficacy of a comprehensive, societal approach through a demonstration project. This kind of project will require a consortium to develop, coordinate, and evaluate in one catchment area an integrated set of programs encompassing the entire continuum outlined in Figure 2. The findings of such a project should have preventive and corrective implications for a wide range of learning and behavior problems. Such a project could help address the concerns surrounding the Regular Education Initiative (Kauffman, 1989; Will, 1986). That is, the data could have major cost-benefit and policy implications for decisions about how to reverse the current overempha-
sis on special education programs so that the limited resources available can be reserved for students who manifest severe and pervasive psychoeducational problems.
Concluding Comments In concluding his article, Barsch pleaded for time to allow the concept
Continuum
of learning disabilities to "ripen and mature." If my reading of the contemporary scene is correct, some think we may have allowed so much time for ripening that the concept has rotted. I am not one of those people. Properly defined and applied, the concept of learning disabilities still has scientific and practical promise. But, clearly, the field can't spend another 25 years
Types of Activities
Prevention
I. Primary prevention to promote and maintain • safety • physical and mental health (beginning with family planning)
Early-age Intervention
II. Preschool programs • day care • parent education • early education (encompassing a focus on psychosocial and mental health problems) III. Early school adjustment • personalization in primary grades • parent participation in problem solving • comprehensive psychosocial and mental health programs (school-based)
Early-after-onset Intervention
IV. Improvement of ongoing regular support • specified remedial role for regular classroom teachers • parent involvement • comprehensive psychosocial and mental health programs (school-based—all grades) V. Augmentation of regular support • academic (e.g., reading teachers, computer aided instruction, volunteer tutors) • psychosocial (e.g., staff and peer counselors, crisis teams) VI. Specialized staff development and interventions prior to referral for special education and other intensive treatments • staff training/consultation • short-term specialized interventions
Treatment for Chronic Problems
VII. System change and intensive treatment • rehabilitation of existing programs • special education services • referral to and coordination with community mental health services
FIGURE 2. From prevention to treatment: A continuum of programs for learning, behavior, and socioemotional problems.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
Chalfant, J.C, Van Dusen Pysh, M., & Lyon, G.R., & Flynn, J.M. (1991). Assessing subtypes of learning disabilities. In H.L. Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance Swanson (Ed.), Handbook of assessment of teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, learning disabilities: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 59-74). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. 2(3), 85-96. McKinney, J.D. (1988). Empirically derived Coles, G. (1987). The learning mystique: A subtypes of specific learning disabilities. critical look at 'learning disabilities." New In M.C. Wang, H.J. Walberg, & M.C. York: Pantheon Books. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of special Comenius, J.S. (1632). The great didactic ABOUT THE AUTHOR education: Research and practice. Oxford, (M.W. Kentinge, Trans, and Ed.). New England: Pergamon Press. Howard S. Adelman, PhD, is currently profes- York: Russell & Russell. National Joint Committee on Learning Dissor of psychology at UCLA and codirector of the Deci, E.L., & Chandler, C.L. (1986). The abilities. (1989). Utter from NJCLD to memUCLA School Mental Health Project. Address: importance of motivation for the future ber organizations. Howard Adelman, Department of Psychology, of the LD field. Journal of Learning Dis- Rourke, B.P., & Strang, J.D. (1983). SubUCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1563. abilities, 19, 587-594. types of reading and arithmetical disabilGraden, J.L., Casey, A., & Christenson, ities: A neuropsychological analysis. In S.L. (1985). Implementing a prereferral M. Rutter (Ed.), Developmental neurointervention system: 1. The model. psychiatry (pp. 473-488). New York: REFERENCES Exceptional Children, 51, 377-387. Guilford. Adelman, H.S. (1970-71). Learning prob- Hodgkinson, H.L. (1989). The same client: Smith, C.R. (1991). Learning disabilities: The lems: Part I. An interactional view of interaction of learner, task, and setting (2nd The demographics of education and sercausality. Academic Therapy, 6, 117-123. vice delivery systems. Washington, DC: ed.). Boston: Little, Brown. Adelman, H.S. (1971). The not so specific Torgesen, J.K., & Wong, B.Y.L. (Eds.). Institute for Educational Leadership. learning disability population. Exceptional (1986). Psychological and educational perspecHorn, W.F., O'Donnell, J.P., & Vitulano, Children, 8, 114-120. tives on learning disabilities. Orlando, FL: L.A. (1983). Long-term follow-up studies Adelman, H.S. (1989a). Prediction and preAcademic Press. of learning disabled persons. Journal of vention of learning disabilities: Current Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learnLearning Disabilities, 16, 542-555. state of the art and future directions. In ing problems: A shared responsibility. L. Bond & B. Compas (Eds.), Primary Johnson, L.J., & Pugach, M.C. (1991). Peer Washington, DC: U.S. Department of collaboration: Accommodating students prevention in the schools (pp. 106-145). Education. with mild learning and behavior probNewbury Park, CA: Sage. lems. Exceptional Children, 57, 454-461. Adelman, H.S. (1989b). Toward solving the problems of misidentification and limited Kagan, S.L. (1990). Excellence in early childERRATUM intervention efficacy. Journal of Learning hood education: Defining characteristics and The key to Figure 1 in "Effects next-decade strategies. Washington, DC: Disabilities, 22, 608-612, 620. of Reading and Writing on Office of Educational Research and ImAdelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (1983). LearnCerebral Laterality in Good provement, U.S. Department of Eduing disabilities in perspective. Glenview, Readers and Children with Dyscation. IL: Scott, Foresman. lexia," by John R. Kershner and Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (1986a). An Kauffman, J.M. (1989). The Regular EduRonald W. Stringer, was printed introduction to learning disabilities. Glen- cation Initiative as Reagan-Bush educain error in JLD 24:9. The correct view, IL: Scott, Foresman. tion policy: A trickle-down theory of edukey is as follows: open shapes Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (1986b). The cation of the hard-to-teach. The Journal of represent the left ear, and solid problems of definition and differentiation Special Education, 23, 256-277. shapes represent the right ear. and the need for a classification schema. Kavale, K., &Forness, S. (1985). The science Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 514-520. of learning disabilities. San Diego: CollegeAdelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (1990). IntrinHill. sic motivation and school misbehavior. Kean, T.H. (1989). The life you save may be Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 541-543. your own: New Jersey addresses prevenBandura, A. (1978). The self system in tion of adolescent problems. American reciprocal deterrninism. American PsycholPsychologist, 44, 828-830. ogist, 33, 344-358. Barsch, R.H. (1968). Perspectives on learn- Keogh, B.K., Major-Kingsley, S., OmoriGordon, H., & Reid, H.P. (1982). A system ing disabilities: The vectors of a new convergence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, of marker variables for the field of learning disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univer1, 7-23. sity Press. Chalfant, J.C. (1985). Identifying learning disabled students: A summary of the Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Cognition and motiNational Task Force Report. Learning Disvation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 352-367. abilities Focus, 1, 9-20.
maturing. We must move forward quickly, and this means facing up to the classification problem and to the task of broadening our approaches to intervention.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015
W
has been found wanting in both instances. As a concept, LD has been elusive; as a category, it has been polymorphous. All attempts to differentiate LD from For more than a hundred years much underachievement run into basic concomplaint has been made of the ceptual and methodological concerns. unmethodical way in which schools are Most of these have been rehashed conducted, but it is only within the last in the arguments over definition thirty that any serious attempt has been and about what constitutes a severe made to find a remedy for this state of discrepancy between aptitude and things. And with what result? Schools achievement. remain exactly as they were. Too rarely discussed, however, has been the field's failure to do the conComenius wrote that in 1632. It's ceptual and empirical work required to enough to make one think that the develop a classification scheme that more things change, the more they encompasses all learning problems. stay the same. Such a framework is needed as a broad Rereading Ray Barsch's 1968 article foundation for differentiating LD from made me feel just that way. Things other major learning problems and for have changed, but substantial progress appropriate subtyping within each has not been made in answering the category. In the absence of a theorytwo broad and fundamental questions based classification scheme, key diagthat drive the learning disabilities (LD) nostic criteria, assessment procedures, field. Stated simply, those questions and ameliorative strategies remain relaare: Who are we talking about? What tively ignored. needs to be done to help them? Although reliable data do not exist, few would disagree with the estimate that at least 30% of the school populaWho Are We Talking About? tion in the United States is experiencing significant learning problems. It is Barsch argued for treating learning clear that such persons differ not only disabilities as a concept rather than a in terms of functioning, but also with category. Given the dissatisfaction respect to the causes of their problems. with prevailing LD definitions and the As long as almost any individual with fact that practitioners and researchers a "garden-variety" learning problem continue to use a variety of descriptors, stands a good chance of being diagit seems evident that it has been tried nosed as LD, the tendency will exist to as both a concept and a category—and view most learning problems as being
henever I'm tempted to wax philosophical from a historical perspective, I reread the following passage:
caused by some form of personal pathology. Thus, many who do not have disabilities will continue to be treated as if they did; and those found in various programs and research samples will continue to differ in important (but unidentified) ways—thereby confounding efforts to compare and generalize. Because of the current classification problem, a large proportion of research purporting to deal with LD samples has more to say about learning problems in general than about learning disabilities. In this regard, failure to differentiate underachievement caused by neurological dysfunctioning from that caused by other factors has been cited specifically as a major deterrent to important lines of research and theory and is certainly a threat to the very integrity of the LD field. With respect to practice, failure to differentiate learning problems in terms of cause contributes to widespread misdiagnoses and to prescription of unneeded specialized treatments. In turn, this leads to profound misunderstanding about which interventions do and do not have unique promise for learning disabilities. In general, the scope of misdiagnoses and misprescriptions in the field has undermined prevention, remediation, research, training, and the policy decisions shaping such activity. Given that the concept of LD is poorly defined and differentiated and results in overdiagnosis and inflated
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES VOLUME 25 NUMBER 1, JANUARY 1992 PAGES 17-22 SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA
18
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
prevalence and incidence figures, it is not surprising that those so diagnosed have become the largest percentage in special education programs. And, it also is not surprising that the LD field has experienced a significant backlash in the form of criticism of current practices and policies (e.g., the Regular Education Initiative). In its extreme form, this backlash questions whether there is such a thing as a learning disability. The danger in this position, of course, is that we lose sight of learning problems caused by minor CNS dysfunction.
Placing LD in Perspective As a way of reducing the confusion caused by varying definitions and criteria, some have recommended that specific "markers," such as demographic, personality, and programming variables, be reported on every LD sample (e.g., Keogh, MajorKingsley, Omori-Gordon, & Reid, 1982). However, this recommendation, along with efforts to identify " L D " subtypes (e.g., Lyon & Flynn, 1991; McKinney, 1988; Rourke & Strang, 1983), overlooks the confusion caused by accepting current LD samples as validly diagnosed. That is, by starting with a group already diagnosed as having LD, the researchers skip over the more fundamental classification problem of differentiating LD from other learning problems. Such a practice works against conceptual clarity and tends to collude with trends to treat all learning problems as if they were learning disabilities. The key to identifying learning problems caused by minor neurological dysfunctions (i.e., learning disabilities) involves, obviously, assessing such CNS dysfunctions. Unfortunately, available methodology precludes doing this in a valid manner (i.e., existing neurological and psychoneurological procedures lack validity for making such a diagnosis). Indeed, in most cases it is impossible to be certain what primary instigating factor
caused a specific learning problem. As a result, individuals currently diagnosed as LD have been so labeled based mainly on assessment of relatively severe underachievement—the causes of which remain undetermined (cf. Chalfant, 1985; Coles, 1987). Obviously, then, just because someone has been assigned the LD label, that is not sufficient indication that the individual has an underlying dysfunction. Still, it remains scientifically valid to conceive of a subgroup (albeit a small subset) whose learning problems are neurologically based and to differentiate this subgroup from those with learning problems caused by other factors. A useful perspective for doing so is provided by a reciprocal determinist or transactional view of behavior. (Note: This view goes beyond an ecological perspective.) The trend toward understanding behavior from a reciprocal determinist or transactional perspective has a distinguished history (e.g., Bandura, 1978). Over the last 25 years, the usefulness of such a perspective has been discussed with respect to the causes and correction of learning problems in general and learning disabilities in particular (e.g., Adelman, 1970-71, 1971; Adelman & Taylor, 1983,1986a; Coles, 1987; Smith, 1991). A transactional perspective subsumes rather than replaces the idea that some learning problems stem from neurological dysfunctions and differences. As elaborated by Adelman and Taylor (1983, 1986a), a transactional view acknowledges that there are cases when an individual's disabilities predispose him or her to learning problems, even in highly accommodating settings. At the same time, however, such a view accounts for instances when the environment is so inadequate or hostile that individuals have problems despite having no disability. And, finally, it recognizes problems caused by a combination of person and environment factors. The value of a broad transactional perspective, then, is that it shifts the focus from "Is there a neurological deficit causing the learn-
ing problem?" to "Are the causes to be found primarily in • the individual (e.g., a neurological dysfunction; cognitive skill and/or strategy deficits; developmental and/ or motivational differences); • the environment (e.g., the primary environment, such as poor instruction programs, parental neglect; secondary environment, such as racially isolated schools and neighborhoods; tertiary environment, such as broad social, economic, political, and cultural influences); or • the reciprocal interplay of individual and environment!"
Type I, II, and III Learning Problems As the above discussion suggests, a classification scheme is needed that puts learning disabilities into perspective vis-a-vis other learning problems, and a transactional view of causality clarifies the parameters for such a scheme. Of course, no simple typology can do justice to the complexities involved in classifying learning problems for purposes of research, practice, and policy making. However, even a simple conceptual classification framework based on a transactional view can be heuristic (Adelman & Taylor, 1986b). My colleagues and I, for example, have found it extremely valuable to use such a model to differentiate types of learning problems along a causal continuum. To illustrate: Think about a random sample of students with primary learning problems (i.e., the learning problem is not the result of seeing or hearing impairments, severe mental retardation, severe emotional disturbance, or autism). What makes it difficult for them to learn? Theoretically, at least, it is reasonable to speculate that a small group may have a relatively minor internal disorder causing a minor CNS dysfunction that makes learning difficult even under good teaching circumstances. As suggested by proposed LD definitional changes (e.g., National
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015
19
VOLUME 25 NUMBER 1, JANUARY 1992
Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1989), these are individuals for whom the term learning disabilities was created. In Figure 1, these individuals are represented as part of the group designated Type III problems (i.e., those whose problems—in theory—are caused by factors within the individual). At the other end of the continuum are problems caused by factors outside the individual, such as inadequacies in the environment in which learning takes place (Type I problems). In the middle are problems stemming from a relatively equal contribution by both sources (Type II problems). This group consists of persons who do not learn or perform well in situations in which their individual differences and vulnerabilities are poorly accommodated or are responded to hostilely. That is, they have some internal factor that can predispose them to a learning problem in certain but not all learning and teaching situations. The learning and performance problems (and many behavior problems) of such persons are truly the reciprocal product of individual predispositions and the nature of the environment in which they must learn and perform. At points along the continuum the degree of variance accounted for by person and environment variables shifts. After identifying Type I, II, and III problem groups, subtypes can be for-
mulated. For example, subtypes for the Type III category might include not only learning disabilities but also learning problems arising mostly from other personal disorders, such as serious behavioral or emotional disabilities or developmental disruptions. In formulating subtypes, basic dimensions such as problem severity, pervasiveness, and chronicity obviously play an important role. There are tremendous practical problems involved in making differential diagnoses along such a continuum. This fact, however, does not preclude the use of such a conceptual classification scheme as an aid to understanding (a) the variety of learning problems that confront practitioners and researchers and (b) concerns that have arisen because of failure to operate within a broad classification framework. Ultimately, differentiating among learning problems is essential to improving both research and practice. Moreover, practically and politically, the degree of indiscriminate diagnosis is an increasing source of embarrassment to the field and inevitably will continue to produce backlash. More importantly, the failure to differentiate LD from other types of learning problems means continued inappropriate use of the limited resources available for intervention and research.
Primary Locus of Cause Problems caused by factors in the person (P)
Problems caused by factors in the environment (E) (E-P) Type I learning problems
E-P Type II learning problems
(e~P) Type III learning problems (e.g., learning disabilities)
FIGURE 1. A continuum of learning problems reflecting a transactional view of the locus of primary instigating factors.
What About Intervention? Barsch believed that learning disabilities should become a third major category of education (i.e., there should be regular education, learning disabilities, and special education). His reasoning was that efforts to educate students with such problems would require the best of regular and special education and would have to avoid the worst of both fields. He was particularly worried about potential negative influences resulting from conceiving learning disabilities as essentially a special education problem. He was right to worry. Over the past 25 years, interventions in the LD field have pursued primarily a rather narrow special education orientation. As a result, they have relied too exclusively on remedial practices designed mainly to address developmental concerns. Not surprisingly, the weight of available evidence points to the limited efficacy of what has been tried in this regard (e.g., Horn, O'Donnell, & Vitulano, 1983; Kavale & Forness, 1985; cf. Torgesen & Wong, 1986). To move forward, practitioners and researchers must (a) broaden their approach to teaching and (b) expand their view of intervention beyond teaching. With respect to the former, it seems particularly important to focus on motivation as a primary intervention concern and, in doing so, to pursue personalized, sequential, and hierarchical teaching strategies. Beyond teaching, it is important to think in terms of a societal approach encompassing an integrated continuum of preventive and treatment services.
Personalized, Sequential, and Hierarchical Teaching A transactional perspective suggests that prevention and remediation of many learning problems primarily require general changes in systems and learning environments (e.g., modifying approaches to schooling and instruction). In particular, it seems
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015
20
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
likely that major benefits would accrue from modifying current instructional practices to better match individual differences, not only in developmental capability, but also in motivation. And, indeed, the focus on motivation, especially intrinsic motivation, probably needs to be given primary emphasis (Deci & Chandler, 1986). The theoretical concept of the match, as advocated by leading scholars such as Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, and McVickers Hunt, reflects a transactional view of learning and learning problems. Both individualized and personalized interventions are based on this concept. However, the major focus in most individualized approaches is on accounting for individual differences in capability, while personalization has been defined as accounting for individual differences in both capability and motivation (Adelman, 1971; Adelman & Taylor, 1983, 1986a, 1990). Personalization represents an application of the principles of normalization and least intervention needed (which encompass the concept of Least Restrictive Environment). Furthermore, personalization can be treated as a psychological construct if the learner's perception is viewed as the critical factor in defining whether the environment appropriately accounts for his or her interests and abilities (Lazarus, 1991). Properly conceived, personalized programs can be seen as encompassing the type of procedures regular classrooms need to implement in order to significantly improve the efficacy of mainstreaming and prereferral interventions (Chalfant, Van Dusen Pysh, & Moultrie, 1979; Graden, Casey, & Christenson, 1985; Johnson & Pugach, 1991). Properly designed and carried out, personalized programs should reduce the need for remediation. That is, maximizing motivation and matching developmental capability should be a sufficient condition for learning among those who have no internal disability (e.g., Type I learning problems), thereby minimizing the need for remedial intervention.
At the same time, teachers will see that, although mobilized to try harder, some students continue to have significant learning problems (e.g., those in the Type III category). From this perspective, proper implementation of a personalized program is seen as the first step in clarifying those who do and do not require more than appropriate accommodation of individual differences in order to learn effectively. Those who do, of course, are candidates for the full range of remedial interventions. Depending on problem severity, remediation involves one (or more) of three hierarchical levels ranging from a focus on observable problems to one on underlying problems (Adelman, 1989a; Adelman & Taylor, 1986a). Level A focuses on age-appropriate life tasks (basic knowledge, skills, and interests), Level B on missing prerequisites for learning, and Level C is concerned with factors interfering with learning (disabilities, negative motivation, and interfering behaviors). Procedures used to personalize and remedy intervention should reflect a primary, systematic focus on motivation. In particular, they should stress (a) overcoming negative attitudes, (b) enhancing motivational readiness for learning, (c) maintaining intrinsic motivation throughout the learning process, and (d) nurturing the type of continuing motivation that results in the learner engaging in activities away from the teaching situation. Attending to these matters is seen as essential to maximizing maintenance, generalization, and expansion of learning. Failure to attend systematically and comprehensively to these matters means approaching passive (and often hostile) learners with methods that confound diagnosis and research and that may just as readily exacerbate as correct learning and behavior problems. Beyond having value for preventing and correcting all types of learning problems, the personalized, sequential, and hierarchical approach outlined above is seen as having promise for
identifying different types of learning problems and for detecting errors in diagnosis. For example, when only personalization is needed to correct a learning problem, it seems reasonable to suggest that the individual does not have a learning disability. At the same time, when a highly mobilized individual still has extreme difficulty learning, the hypothesis that the person has a disability seems somewhat safer. (In our work, personalization is seen as a necessary step in facilitating valid identification of Type I, II, and III learning problems.)
A Societal Approach to Intervention Barsch stressed the importance of interdisciplinary convergence and what today is called transdisciplinary training. At this juncture in our history, policymakers increasingly are recognizing the importance of approaches that account for social, economic, political, and cultural factors. And, the array of preventive and treatment programs is extensive and promising. The range can be appreciated by grouping them on a continuum, from prevention through treatment of chronic problems. Categorically, the activities encompass (a) primary prevention to promote and maintain safety and physical and mental health (beginning with family planning), (b) preschool programs, (c) early school adjustment programs, (d) improvement of ongoing regular support, (e) augmentation of regular support, (f) specialized staff development and interventions prior to referral for special help, and (g) system change and intensive treatment. Examples of relevant interventions in each category are cited in Figure 2. Unfortunately, implementation of the full continuum of programs with an extensive range of activities does not occur in most communities. And what programs there are tend to be offered in a fragmented manner. Policymakers are coming to see a relationship between limited interven-
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015
21
VOLUME 25 NUMBER 1, JANUARY 1992
tion efficacy and the widespread tendency for complementary programs to operate in isolation. For instance, physical and mental health programs generally are not coordinated with educational programs; a youngster identified and treated in early education programs who still requires special support may or may not receive systematic help in the primary grades, and so forth. Failure to coordinate and follow through, of course, can be counterproductive (e.g., undermining immediate benefits and working against efforts to reduce subsequent demand for costly treatment programs). Limited efficacy seems inevitable as long as interventions are carried out in a piecemeal fashion. Thus, there is increasing interest in moving beyond piecemeal strategies to provide a comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated programmatic thrust (e.g., Hodgkinson, 1989; Kagan, 1990; Kean, 1989). The range of programs cited in Figure 2 can be seen as integrally related, and it seems likely that the impact of each could be exponentially increased through integration and coordination. Indeed, a major breakthough in the battle against learning and behavior problems may result only when the full range of programs are implemented in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion. As I have proposed previously (Adelman, 1989a, 1989b), it is time to determine the efficacy of a comprehensive, societal approach through a demonstration project. This kind of project will require a consortium to develop, coordinate, and evaluate in one catchment area an integrated set of programs encompassing the entire continuum outlined in Figure 2. The findings of such a project should have preventive and corrective implications for a wide range of learning and behavior problems. Such a project could help address the concerns surrounding the Regular Education Initiative (Kauffman, 1989; Will, 1986). That is, the data could have major cost-benefit and policy implications for decisions about how to reverse the current overempha-
sis on special education programs so that the limited resources available can be reserved for students who manifest severe and pervasive psychoeducational problems.
Concluding Comments In concluding his article, Barsch pleaded for time to allow the concept
Continuum
of learning disabilities to "ripen and mature." If my reading of the contemporary scene is correct, some think we may have allowed so much time for ripening that the concept has rotted. I am not one of those people. Properly defined and applied, the concept of learning disabilities still has scientific and practical promise. But, clearly, the field can't spend another 25 years
Types of Activities
Prevention
I. Primary prevention to promote and maintain • safety • physical and mental health (beginning with family planning)
Early-age Intervention
II. Preschool programs • day care • parent education • early education (encompassing a focus on psychosocial and mental health problems) III. Early school adjustment • personalization in primary grades • parent participation in problem solving • comprehensive psychosocial and mental health programs (school-based)
Early-after-onset Intervention
IV. Improvement of ongoing regular support • specified remedial role for regular classroom teachers • parent involvement • comprehensive psychosocial and mental health programs (school-based—all grades) V. Augmentation of regular support • academic (e.g., reading teachers, computer aided instruction, volunteer tutors) • psychosocial (e.g., staff and peer counselors, crisis teams) VI. Specialized staff development and interventions prior to referral for special education and other intensive treatments • staff training/consultation • short-term specialized interventions
Treatment for Chronic Problems
VII. System change and intensive treatment • rehabilitation of existing programs • special education services • referral to and coordination with community mental health services
FIGURE 2. From prevention to treatment: A continuum of programs for learning, behavior, and socioemotional problems.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
Chalfant, J.C, Van Dusen Pysh, M., & Lyon, G.R., & Flynn, J.M. (1991). Assessing subtypes of learning disabilities. In H.L. Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance Swanson (Ed.), Handbook of assessment of teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, learning disabilities: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 59-74). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. 2(3), 85-96. McKinney, J.D. (1988). Empirically derived Coles, G. (1987). The learning mystique: A subtypes of specific learning disabilities. critical look at 'learning disabilities." New In M.C. Wang, H.J. Walberg, & M.C. York: Pantheon Books. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of special Comenius, J.S. (1632). The great didactic ABOUT THE AUTHOR education: Research and practice. Oxford, (M.W. Kentinge, Trans, and Ed.). New England: Pergamon Press. Howard S. Adelman, PhD, is currently profes- York: Russell & Russell. National Joint Committee on Learning Dissor of psychology at UCLA and codirector of the Deci, E.L., & Chandler, C.L. (1986). The abilities. (1989). Utter from NJCLD to memUCLA School Mental Health Project. Address: importance of motivation for the future ber organizations. Howard Adelman, Department of Psychology, of the LD field. Journal of Learning Dis- Rourke, B.P., & Strang, J.D. (1983). SubUCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1563. abilities, 19, 587-594. types of reading and arithmetical disabilGraden, J.L., Casey, A., & Christenson, ities: A neuropsychological analysis. In S.L. (1985). Implementing a prereferral M. Rutter (Ed.), Developmental neurointervention system: 1. The model. psychiatry (pp. 473-488). New York: REFERENCES Exceptional Children, 51, 377-387. Guilford. Adelman, H.S. (1970-71). Learning prob- Hodgkinson, H.L. (1989). The same client: Smith, C.R. (1991). Learning disabilities: The lems: Part I. An interactional view of interaction of learner, task, and setting (2nd The demographics of education and sercausality. Academic Therapy, 6, 117-123. vice delivery systems. Washington, DC: ed.). Boston: Little, Brown. Adelman, H.S. (1971). The not so specific Torgesen, J.K., & Wong, B.Y.L. (Eds.). Institute for Educational Leadership. learning disability population. Exceptional (1986). Psychological and educational perspecHorn, W.F., O'Donnell, J.P., & Vitulano, Children, 8, 114-120. tives on learning disabilities. Orlando, FL: L.A. (1983). Long-term follow-up studies Adelman, H.S. (1989a). Prediction and preAcademic Press. of learning disabled persons. Journal of vention of learning disabilities: Current Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learnLearning Disabilities, 16, 542-555. state of the art and future directions. In ing problems: A shared responsibility. L. Bond & B. Compas (Eds.), Primary Johnson, L.J., & Pugach, M.C. (1991). Peer Washington, DC: U.S. Department of collaboration: Accommodating students prevention in the schools (pp. 106-145). Education. with mild learning and behavior probNewbury Park, CA: Sage. lems. Exceptional Children, 57, 454-461. Adelman, H.S. (1989b). Toward solving the problems of misidentification and limited Kagan, S.L. (1990). Excellence in early childERRATUM intervention efficacy. Journal of Learning hood education: Defining characteristics and The key to Figure 1 in "Effects next-decade strategies. Washington, DC: Disabilities, 22, 608-612, 620. of Reading and Writing on Office of Educational Research and ImAdelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (1983). LearnCerebral Laterality in Good provement, U.S. Department of Eduing disabilities in perspective. Glenview, Readers and Children with Dyscation. IL: Scott, Foresman. lexia," by John R. Kershner and Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (1986a). An Kauffman, J.M. (1989). The Regular EduRonald W. Stringer, was printed introduction to learning disabilities. Glen- cation Initiative as Reagan-Bush educain error in JLD 24:9. The correct view, IL: Scott, Foresman. tion policy: A trickle-down theory of edukey is as follows: open shapes Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (1986b). The cation of the hard-to-teach. The Journal of represent the left ear, and solid problems of definition and differentiation Special Education, 23, 256-277. shapes represent the right ear. and the need for a classification schema. Kavale, K., &Forness, S. (1985). The science Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 514-520. of learning disabilities. San Diego: CollegeAdelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (1990). IntrinHill. sic motivation and school misbehavior. Kean, T.H. (1989). The life you save may be Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 541-543. your own: New Jersey addresses prevenBandura, A. (1978). The self system in tion of adolescent problems. American reciprocal deterrninism. American PsycholPsychologist, 44, 828-830. ogist, 33, 344-358. Barsch, R.H. (1968). Perspectives on learn- Keogh, B.K., Major-Kingsley, S., OmoriGordon, H., & Reid, H.P. (1982). A system ing disabilities: The vectors of a new convergence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, of marker variables for the field of learning disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univer1, 7-23. sity Press. Chalfant, J.C. (1985). Identifying learning disabled students: A summary of the Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Cognition and motiNational Task Force Report. Learning Disvation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 352-367. abilities Focus, 1, 9-20.
maturing. We must move forward quickly, and this means facing up to the classification problem and to the task of broadening our approaches to intervention.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2015
