Utilizing Semantic, Mnemonic, and Strategic Approaches to Vocabulary Instruction to Promote Word Learning for Students with Learning Disabilities

In a recent issue of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Danforth, Slocum, and Dunkle (2010) discussed the historical contributions of Dr. Samuel A. Kirk, a well known special education pioneer and psychologist, to the fields of mental retardation (now known as intellectual disability) and learning disabilities. Although we agree with some of the authors' points—including the assertion that Kirk had a powerful influence for decades on the development and delivery of special education services for all children—several of their statements do not appear to represent Kirk's viewpoints accurately or provide adequate representations of the origins and conceptual foundations of the learning disability field and its relationship to mental retardation. In order to set the record straight, we have used Kirk's exact words within this response from his publications over his lifetime to place into proper historical perspective his views on the origins of the learning disabilities field, as well as the relationship between mental retardation and learning disabilities. Contrary to the statements made by Danforth et al., we maintain that Kirk's beliefs concerning mental retardation and learning disabilities were not complex and confusing.In fact, the claims made by Danforth et al. (2010) seem to us to be the result of a bit of revisionist history. In this article, we discuss several of Danforth et al.'s comments, including (a) the history of the learning disability construct, (b) Kirk's three claims regarding the constructs of learning disability and mental retardation, (c) the concept of intraindividual differences, (d) the assertion that Kirk left children with mental retardation behind, and (e) the belief in the educability and potential of all children.Danforth et al. (2010) asserted thatKirk did not believe that learning disability was a "recent invention," or that it was "crafted as a conceptual outgrowth of the mental retardation construct," or "developed by researchers working with children with mental retardation." The origins of the conceptual foundations of learning disability are nearly as longstanding as many of the other disability categories, and the roots can be traced back to at least the early 1800s (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Hammill, 1993; Wiederholt, 1974). In fact, Kirk often noted that the most common learning disability, dyslexia or specific reading disability, has been studied for over a century and has its own history that is totally separate from the history of mental retardation. In this regard, Kirk and Gallagher (1983) stated:Kirk (1974) further wrote: "Disabilities in reading, writing, and spelling have been of interest to neurologists, ophthalmologists, psychologists, and educators since and before the beginning of this century" (p. 1).Danforth et al. (2010) noted that the conceptual and diagnostic basis for learning disability evolved from the "Strauss syndrome." Although Kirk was highly influenced by the work of Alfred Strauss and acknowledged the contributions of Strauss by explaining that "Strauss gave the initial impetus to the field of learning disabilities" (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984, p. 30), he always maintained that "The discipline now called learning disabilities had its beginning in the early contributions of neurologists who studied the loss of language in adults and ophthalmologists who were concerned about children's inability to develop language or to read or spell" (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984, p. 21). For example, throughout his writings, Kirk discussed how the origins of specific reading disability can be traced back to the 1800s when various physicians studied brain injury in patients who had lost the ability to read (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984; Kirk & Gallagher, 1983). Physicians from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States provided the first case studies of individuals who had lost the power to read—usually because of a stroke or brain injury—and these physicians attempted to identify the characteristics, etiology, and methods that would be most effective for treating these reading disorders (Anderson & Meier-Hedde, 2001). As an example, in 1872, Sir William Broadbent described the cortical damage present in an autopsy of an individual who had speech disturbances and reading disabilities (Broadbent, 1872). Five years later, Kussmaul (1877a) noted that "a complete text blindness may exist although the power of sight, the intellect, and the powers of speech are intact" (p. 595). In this regard, the term word blindness was first applied to individuals with aphasia who had lost the ability to read (Kussmaul, 1877b). Thus, Kussmaul gave birth to the idea of specific reading disability (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002), a type of learning disability that Kirk would study his entire career (Kirk, 1984).From early in his career, Kirk was fascinated by the enigma of children with specific reading disabilities and how they could be best served. In 1929, he began his master's degree at the University of Chicago. During his graduate studies, he also worked as a resident instructor at the Oaks School in Oak Park, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago), where his job was to manage 50 delinquent boys who had mental retardation (Kirk, 1984). He worked at the school under the tutelage of Dr. Marion Monroe, a researcher at the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago and a leading reading expert who had originally worked with Dr. Samuel Orton in Iowa. Orton is often described as providing the first report on word blindness in America and as being the key figure for setting the stage for the study of reading disabilities in the United States (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002).Kirk, therefore, had parallel interests in both mental retardation and the concept of reading disability, dating back to his early graduate studies and his work experiences at the time. Reflecting on his experiences at the Oaks School, Kirk (1976) stated:Kirk's first publication based on his master's thesis was a study that explored the learning of simple words by what he referred to as "subnormal boys" (Kirk, 1933). He later explained (Kirk, 1984):As did Fernald, Orton, and Monroe, Kirk found that retention for word learning was improved when tracing was added to the teaching procedure. Kirk (1984) also hypothesized at this time that "remedial reading might alleviate delinquency in some children" (p. 29).As was the case with other early pioneers, Kirk was concerned about finding the most efficacious ways of instruction for children who were struggling to learn to read. Kirk (1984) explained how Monroe's 1932 book, Children Who Cannot Read, was for a while his "bible" (p. 31) and how her system of diagnosing reading errors and profiling abilities and disabilities continued to influence his work in later years. In discussing Monroe's remedial program, Kirk noted that "Her remedial work was continued by two of her students who studied with her at the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago" (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984, p. 32). These two students, Thorleif G. Hegge and Samuel A. Kirk, along with his wife, Winifred, went on to develop the Hegge, Kirk, and Kirk Remedial Reading Drills (1936), which evolved from the study of children with reading disabilities, and their development was "influenced by Marion Monroe and the Fernald kinesthetic method" (Kirk, 1984, p. 32).Monroe (1932) also created an expectancy formula as a way of identifying reading disabilities that was based on comparing a child's chronological age, mental age, and arithmetic ability to reading performance (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Monroe, 1932). The resulting discrepancy indicated the severity of the reading disability. Influenced by Monroe, Kirk (1962) recommended that for diagnosing severe reading disabilities (dyslexia), one would determine a child's reading potential or capacity by comparing his or her Stanford-Binet IQ score and measures of vocabulary and arithmetic computation to the present level of reading achievement (pp. 265–266). This type of discrepancy expectancy formula or ability-achievement discrepancy was incorporated into P. L. 94–142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975).Danforth et al. (2010) asserted that Kirk's own thinking about the relationships between mental retardation and learning disabilities was complex, multifaceted, and confusing. They noted that Kirk made the following three claims: (a) mental retardation was an exclusionary criterion to learning disability, (b) a child could have both a learning disability and mental retardation, and that (c) "learning disability was often mental retardation in disguise" (p. 189). Although it is understandable how readers unfamiliar with the origins of these fields could view such claims as "complex and even confusing" (p. 188), Kirk, in fact, viewed them as quite consistent as we discuss below.Danforth et al. (2010) indicated that Kirk "came to believe that he could not promote the new learning disability construct without clearly distinguishing it from the older, more established condition of mental retardation" (p. 182). On the surface, Danforth et al.'s statement is true. In fact, Kirk (1977) stated that the characteristics associated with learning disabilities were distinguishable from those associated with mental retardation, and in his scholarly endeavors and governmental public policy work during his years in Washington, DC, he attempted to differentiate between these two constructs. Kirk was well aware that federal legislation in the late 1950s and early 1960s already provided teacher training for students having mental retardation (e.g., P.L. 85–926, National Defense Education Act of 1958, that provided funds for training professionals to train teachers of students having mental retardation) and for students who were deaf (e.g., PL 87–276, Special Education Act of 1961, that provided funds for training professionals to train teachers of students who were deaf) (Kirk, 1984).Just as he had done for children having cerebral palsy or mental retardation, Kirk wanted to create another category of special education that would protect and provide services for children with specific learning disabilities. In discussing the category of learning disabilities, Kirk and Gallagher (1983) explained: "The label learning disability includes the heterogeneous group of children who do not fit neatly into the traditional categories of handicapped children" (p. 366). In the 1950s and early 1960s, public schools did not provide special educational services for these children. Kirk and Chalfant (1984) explained that the field of learning disabilities emerged for the following two reasons:Hammill (1993) also agreed that the most influential group in the learning disabilities movement were parents; it was their advocacy work that was primarily responsible for the specific legislation that was passed. In fact, Kirk often noted the important role and success of parents and parent groups, such as the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, in establishing through litigation the rights of their children with disabilities (Kirk & Gallagher, 1983, p. 15).Kirk attempted to differentiate between those learning disabilities that were attributed to a neurological impediment that resulted in a specific academic problem from the more generic learning problems in children that could result from limited school attendance, inadequate instruction, or other environmental conditions. Such children were excluded from the learning disability category because their difficulties could be attributed to a lack of opportunity to learn (Kirk & Gallagher, 1983). In 1963, Kirk was invited to speak at the Conference on Exploration Into Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child. He proposed that the term learning disability be used to categorize these children who did not fall into the traditional categories of disability, but nevertheless had learning impairments (Kirk, 1984).Kirk was also concerned that learning disability would become a category for all types of learning problems when it was meant to capture only those individuals with specific disabilities that did not interfere with all types of learning. He found that the field of learning disabilities was experiencing the same type of problems with expansion and misidentification as did programs for the educable mentally retarded, stating:Kirk, therefore, was very concerned about differentiating between children having mental retardation, where their learning was negatively affected across many academic and adaptive learning skills areas (e.g., reading, math calculation, spelling, writing, social interactions, eating, dressing) from those having a specific learning disability within one or more academic areas (e.g., reading and/or math calculation).Danforth et al. (2010) noted that "Kirk steadfastly maintained that, in some instances, a child could have both a learning disability and mental retardation" (p. 187). This statement is true and an accurate reflection of Kirk's beliefs. Because Kirk viewed a learning disability as a perceptual impairment, a person of any level of intelligence, including intellectually gifted individuals, could have a learning disability. In an interview with Arena (1978), Kirk explained this conceptualization of learning disability: "I like to define a learning disability as a psychological or neurological impediment to development of adequate perceptual or communicative behavior, which first is manifested in discrepancies among specific behaviors or between overall performance and academic achievement" (p. 617). Kirk, Kliebhan, and Lerner (1978) also noted that "the concept of discrepancy applies to mentally superior, mentally normal, and mentally retarded children" (p. 27). Thus, Kirk did maintain that individuals of any level of intelligence and with any other disability could also have a learning disability. He understood that comorbidity can exist among numerous disorders, such as a child having both a sensory impairment and mental retardation or a child having both a learning disability and physical impairments. Kirk (1962) explained this in the following manner:Thus, for Kirk a learning disability differed from mental retardation in that it stemmed "from intrinsic cognitive or perceptual difficulties interfering with a child's learning" (Kirk, 1984, p. 40). He further stated:Children who have mental retardation or an emotional disability could also have an intrinsic neurological impediment to learning; and these children would be considered to be "multiply handicapped and remediated as such" (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984, p. 16). Thus Kirk noted that learning disabilities are "not primarily due to severe mental retardation, sensory handicaps, emotional problems, or lack of opportunity to learn" (Kirk & Gallagher, 1983, p. 368).Kirk was always concerned about misclassification of children because it would lead to inadequate understanding of the child as well as inappropriate instruction. Kirk and Chalfant (1984) stated: "In classifying children for instructional purposes, considerable care must be taken to avoid mistaken diagnoses and misclassifications" (p. 14). Kirk was well aware that children could be diagnosed as having mental retardation when, in fact, they did not. He found that some children who were classified as having mental retardation would be better classified as having learning disabilities. Throughout his career, he stressed that the diagnosis of children was for the purpose of remediation, not for classification or categorization. In this regard, Kirk and Johnson (1951) stated: "The purpose of any diagnosis, or the determination of etiology, is to assist in structuring the most adequate rehabilitation procedures" (p. 109).Kirk always viewed the concept of intraindividual discrepancies as a defining feature of learning disabilities, with Kirk and Gallagher (1983) stating the following: "Although such children form a heterogeneous group and fail to learn for diverse reasons, they have one thing in common: discrepancies (intraindividual differences) in abilities and achievement" p. 366). Regardless of the type of disability, however, Kirk was always interested in the concept of intraindividual differences, specifying what children could do, what they had difficulty doing, and, most importantly, how to resolve their difficulties. He commented: "I have felt for some time that labels we give children are satisfying to us but of little help to the child himself" (Kirk, 1975, p. 8). He felt that labels did not translate into intervention needs, and these needs could only be determined through thorough study of each child. He wrote: "Their classification as mentally retarded had little relevance to the training of these children. Each child needed a diagnosis, and each child needed a different program (Kirk, 1984, p. 37). Kirk always asserted that instead of using labels "it is more accurate and meaningful to describe behavior" (Kirk, 1975, p. 9). When evaluating children with mental retardation, he asked the following questions: "What abilities does this child have? What deficits exist? What do we do about these particular deficits?" (Kirk, 1984, p. 37).These types of questions led Kirk to develop a test of specific perceptual and linguistic functions, the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities–ITPA (Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968). Profiles were used to identify a specific child's strengths and weaknesses for the purpose of planning the most appropriate educational intervention. Kirk (1962) explained the importance of profiles, stating: "The profiles showed typical assets and deficits in growth which necessitate different educational methods and programs for various types of deviant children; the gifted, mentally retarded, auditorily handicapped, visually handicapped, speech handicapped, crippled, socially maladjusted, and multiply handicapped" (p. 32). Kirk (1984) further observed that "the ITPA was popular from the beginning because it is an intraindividual test, comparing a child's own abilities and disabilities for the purpose of organizing remediation for deficits" (p. 38).Throughout their article, Danforth et al. (2010) suggested that Kirk's turning of his "educability narrative" was a way to promote the learning disability construct while negating mental retardation. In describing how Kirk's viewpoints changed, Danforth et al. stated:Danforth et al. further explained thatDanforth et al. (2010) asserted that "Students with learning disabilities were nuggets of gold among the coal heap, untapped assets buried within a defective population, awaiting discovery and instructional polishing up" (p. 190) and thatThus, Kirk is portrayed as turning away from the population of children having mental retardation, essentially leaving these children behind, in a "coal heap" because of their limited learning potential. Danforth et al. did, however, note at one point that Kirk "remained a strong supporter of the educational training of students with mental retardation throughout his career" (p. 190), but later, they more negatively claimed that this message was somehow lost or obscured and that he "also negated that very message in certain circumstances" (p. 190). In addition, in discussing a quote by Kirk, Danforth et al. explained that Kirk asserted that although a child with mental retardation required "care" and "management," the child with learning disabilities had assets and disabilities that may be amenable to remediation.To set the record straight, Kirk never negated the message of being a strong supporter of the education and training of students with mental retardation; he only attempted in many of his publications, speeches, and federal government public policy work to clarify the similarities and differences between mental retardation and learning disabilities. Moreover, concerning the aforementioned comment by Danforth et al. (2010) regarding the "care" and "management" quote by Kirk in relation to mental retardation, readers of this Journal and Danforth et al. should be aware of the fact that Kirk stated that the label of mental retardation applies to children who require "certain kinds of care, management, and education [italics added]" (Kirk, 1967, p. 13). Education was never excluded by Kirk from care and management, as Danforth et al. suggested.Kirk believed that all children, regardless of type of disability, had learning potential and would be responsive to educational intervention and treatment. He commented that his experience at the Wayne County Training School "pointed out to me that much more could be done with handicapped children than most people believed" (Kirk, 1984, p. 32) and "biased me toward a belief in the power of intervention" (Kirk, 1984, p. 35). Throughout his career, Kirk was a champion for children with all types of abilities and disabilities, including those who were gifted. He was concerned with the accurate identification of disabilities for ensuring the most effective services. Kirk would not agree that he turned his back on children having mental retardation or that these children had limited learning potential. In fact, he commented that throughout his career, it was "a great source of satisfaction to participate and help the parent movements—first for children with cerebral palsy, then for the mentally retarded, and lastly for the learning disabled" (Kirk, 1984, p. 41). When helping one group, he never abandoned the others as Danforth et al. implied. Kirk always believed in the educability and potential of all children and that all children were unique and deserving of the best instruction possible.Kirk (1962) maintained that one basic principle was inherent in the philosophy of a democracy, namely, that all children have the right to develop to their maximum potential. He commented that the expression "All men are created equal" denotes not only equality before the law, but also equality of opportunity. He summarized his view as follows:This, in fact, is the legacy that Dr. Samuel A. Kirk left behind, not just for the fields of learning disability and intellectual disability, but for all areas of disability.

Learning Disability in Children as an Outcome in Anesthesia and Analgesia Research

This article introduces and contextualizes the four articles that constitute the thematic special series on geometry instruction for students with learning disabilities or difficulties. The four articles, each emphasizing one important aspect of geometry learning and instruction for students with learning difficulties or disabilities, are aimed to answer critical questions raised by special education/math education researchers and practitioners on how to teach geometry to students with learning disabilities or difficulties.

When educators hear the term universal design for learning (UDL), most associate it with technology (cf. Zascavage & Winterman, 2009). However, UDL is not solely about the use of technology in education (KingSears, 2001; Orkwis & McLane, 1998; Rose & Meyer, 2000). UDL is also about the pedagogy, or instructional practices, used for students with and without disabilities. The concept of universal design, which originated in the field of architecture in the 1970s by Ron Mace (Center for Universal Design, 1997), continues to have a major influence, particularly reflected in building structures that are now required to incorporate features (e.g., ramps, doorway widths) that enable more people with different needs to access buildings without the need to retrofit structural details (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 1991). The main feature of universally designed buildings and products (whether a business or a home) is that they allow people with unique needs to independently and immediately use them is. Some of these features are structural (door handles instead of door knobs); others are technological (such as closed captions on television sets). Within universal design, seven guiding principles drive the design of products and environments so that they are usable by more people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design (Connell et al., 1997). When educators employ these principles in the design and delivery of instruction, accommodations noted on individualized education programs (IEPs) for students with learning disabilities (LD) may more naturally occur in general education classrooms. As applied to the educational needs of students with LD, these principles are played out in both technological and pedagogical ways. The seven guiding principles originally identified for universal design are equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive use, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and size and space for approach and use (Connell et al., 1997). The principles are sometimes overlapping in function, as noted in the following examples. One principle, flexibility in use, is evident when teachers design instruction that accommodates a wide range of students' preferences and abilities. For example, when the instructional goal is for students to measure the perimeter of quadrilaterals, teachers can use concrete and virtual manipulative demonstrations to show the different types of quadrilaterals with corresponding formulas. The concrete and virtual manipulative demonstrations are flexible because they provide students choices in learning, and these choices also accommodate students' needs when learning the content. However, it is not simply the use of concrete or virtual manipulatives that conveys information to students with and without LD. How teachers verbally explain the math content, concepts, and rules, that is, the pedagogy that is used, can either clarify or confuse learners. For this example, the pairing of the virtual manipulative technology with the way teachers instruct has the potential to increase the number of learners, regardless of ability, who can more quickly learn how to measure the perimeter of quadrilaterals. Equitable use of instructional materials can be achieved via technology, such as digital texts for students with LD. However, when the instructional material is a textbook that is not well designed in terms of how its content is organized, depicted, and sequenced, pedagogical features that increase the content's accessibility for many learners become the focus. For example, researchers who have analyzed textbooks found the content difficult to comprehend, laden with minimally related facts and information (cf. Jitendra, Deatline-Buchman, & Sczesniak, 2005; Jitendra et al., 2001; van Garderen, 2006). Taking a UDL approach to textbook usage, these weakly designed features are redesigned before instruction is delivered, so that key facts are targeted and relationships among them are determined. …

Prevention Model Takes Off in Schools: A New Approach for Learning Disabilities

The purpose of this study was to examine whether English language learners (ELLs) would increase their vocabulary scores in the areas of word recognition, word meaning, and word application when iPads were used during vocabulary instruction. Five third-grade ELLs, at risk of being diagnosed as having learning disabilities, participated in the study. All students demonstrated low test scores in learning vocabulary words during the baseline. During the intervention, 36 vocabulary words selected from the third-grade’s Dolch word list were taught and practiced using the iPad application Learning Touch, First Sight Words Pro. All students were assessed and their vocabulary scores increased in the areas of word recognition, word meaning, and word application. Using the iPad and iPad app appears to provide a potential avenue for ELLs in learning English vocabulary words.

Chapter 11 - Strategic Academic Interventions for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities

Preface Legal Issues and Students with Learning Disabilities - Mitchell L. Yell and Todd Busch Themes and Dimensions of Learning Disabilities - Valerie L. Mazzotti and April L. Mustian Assessment and LD: Determining Eligibility, Selecting Services, and Guiding Instruction - Fredrick J. Brigham and Jeffrey P. Bakken Placement of Students with Learning Disabilities - Cynthia G. Simpson, Chad Rose, and Jeffrey P. Bakken Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students Labeled as Having Learning Disabilities - Yvel C. Crevecoeur and Festus E. Obiakor Prevention Strategies for Students At-Risk for Learning Disabilities - Amina M. Turton and Satasha Green Evaluating Bilingual Students for Learning Disabilities - Beatriz A. Duarte, Barbara Greybeck, and Cynthia G. Simpson English Language Learners and Learning Disabilities - Amy Eppolito, Cristin Jensen Lasser, and Janette Klingner Differentiated Instruction and Students with Learning Disabilities - Lenwood Gibson Jr. Reframing Outcomes for Students with Learning Disabilities: The Application of a Problem-Solving Approach - Michelle Marchant, Gordon G. Gibb, and Darlene Anderson

AT THE AGE OF TWENTY-TWO, MY DAUGHTER then a college senior was diagnosed as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder, a learning disability characterized, in her case, by short attention span, easy distractability, poor motor coordination, poor handwriting, and inconsistent spelling.' Results of the WoodcockJohnson Psycho-Educational Battery indicated above average verbal ability and reading aptitude, but a severe deficit in visual perceptual speed, and below average scores in math and written language aptitude. All other abilities tested, such as broad cognitive ability, reasoning, memory, and knowledge aptitude, were well within the average ranges. You may wonder about the relevance of my daughter's learning disability to the topic of this paper. Of interest is that, as a result of that learning disability diagnosis, my daughter received a waiver for requirements in mathematics and foreign languages. Still more interesting is, however, that my daughter-whose psychological test profile indicates apparently little talent for learning a foreign language--is functionally trilingual. She has native fluency in English, rates probably a terminal on the ILR Scale in German, and about a 1 + in Spanish.2 When she was diagnosed as lacking foreign language learning aptitude, she had already fulfilled her language requirement and was enrolled in a third-year Spanish composition course with which she did, however, have major problems. A superficial examination of the facts reported may lead one to doubt the construct and predictive validities of the psychological tests used to determine learning disabilities. How, after all, can an individual who has acquired a functional proficiency in two nonprimary languages be suddenly considered as lacking in foreign language learning aptitude? A closer look at my daughter's second language learning history may provide some explanation for the apparent inconsistency. My daughter acquired German as a tongue. That is, the language spoken to her by her mother up to about age seven was predominantly German. In addition to the input she received from her mother in the US, she spent an average of about six weeks annually in Germany during her early childhood. Since the age of seven, English became with rare exceptions the exclusive language in the home. My daughter did, however, continue to spend intermittent summer vacations with German relatives. The two times she attempted to German as a foreign language in high school and college she did not do particularly well. At the time I gave the fault for her mediocre performance to the teachers whoin my opinion--were unable to deal with her superior conversational fluency within the constraints of a grammar-oriented classroom. My daughter's efforts to learn Spanish started in high school, but she dropped the course because she found the highly analytical grammatical approach boring. She then took the first two semesters at the university, completing both courses with a grade of C. After her year of elementary college Spanish she spent one summer in an intensive study program in Mexico, and the following summer holding summer employment in Costa Rica. To make a long story short, my daughter has been successful in acquiring three languages in a predominantly natural acquisition environment but has considerable problems learning a language in a formal school setting where the instructional goals, activities, and tests emphasize analysis and mastery of the grammatical code. Her experience has led me to reexamine The Modern Language Journal, 75, i (1991) 0026-7902/91/0001/017 $1.50/0 ?1991 The Modern LanguageJournal

Contents: B.K. Koegh, D.P. Hallahan, Introduction. D. Johnson, B.K. Keogh, The Lives and Careers of Bill and Dorothy Cruickshank. M.Y. Kibby, G.W. Hynd, Neurological Basis of Learning Disabilities. R. Kotkin, S. Forness, K.A. Kavale, Comorbid ADHD and Learning Disabilities: Diagnosis, Special Education, and Intervention. D. Sridhar, S. Vaughn, Social Functioning of Students with Learning Disabilities. L.S. Fuchs, D. Fuchs, Using Assessment to Account for and Promote Strong Outcomes for Students With Learning Disabilities. L. Meltzer, M. Montague, Strategic Learning in Students With Learning Disabilities: What Have We Learned? M.P. Weiss, J.W. Lloyd, Structure and Effective Teaching. J.B. Crockett, J.M. Kauffman, The Concept of the Least Restrictive Environment and Learning Disabilities: Least Restrictive of What? P.J. Gerber, Learning Disabilities: A Lifespan Approach. J. Elkins, Learning Disabilities in Australia. B.Y.L. Wong, N. Hutchinson, Learning Disabilities in Canada. G. Opp, Learning Disabilities in Germany. K. Wedell, British Orientations to Specific Learning Difficulties. M. Tsuge, Learning Disabilities in Japan. L.M. Stevens, W. van Werkhoven, Learning Disabilities in The Netherlands. I. Lundberg, T. Hoien, Reading Disabilities in Scandinavia. L. Bravo-Valdivieso, N.M. Muller, Learning Disabilities Studies in South America. S. Vogel, S. Reder, A Comparative Study of Self-Reported Learning Disabilities: Findings From the International Adult Literacy Survey.

The study investigated the level of attitudes towards the education of students with learning disabilities among teachers in regular education classrooms. It also examined the influence of four teachers’ demographic factors on their attitudes towards education of students with learning disabilities in regular classrooms Ibadan, Nigeria. The descriptive research design was adopted for the study whilst the multi-stage sampling procedure was adopted to select the study sample. A total of 125 teachers participated in the study, 64 (51.2%) were males whilst 61 (48.8%) were females. A self-designed questionnaire tagged “Teachers’ Attitude towards Education of Students with Learning Disabilities in Regular Education Classrooms” (TAESLDRECQ) with a reliability of 0. 81 was utilized to collect data. One research question and four hypotheses were generated and tested. Percentage, mean, standard deviation, t-test and Analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistics were employed to analyze the data generated from the participants at 0.05 level of significance. Whilst the result of the research question reveals a grand mean of 2.59 which is slightly higher than the criterion mean of 2.50, the result from the test of norm showed that 9.6% (n=12) teachers had negative attitude, whilst 90.4% (n=113) teachers had positive attitude. Therefore, it was concluded that there is a positive attitude towards education of students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms. The results shows that teachers’ attitudes towards education of students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms based on: gender (Crit-t = 1.96, Cal.t = 1.440, DF = 123; educational qualification (F = 1.630, p(.171)>.05); years of experience (F = 2.329, p(.102)>.05); and category of students taught which could be either junior secondary or senior secondary class (Crit-t = 1.96, Cal.t = .035, DF = 123, p(0.973) towards education of students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms. Hence, it was concluded that teachers’ attitude towards education of students with learning disabilities is the same irrespective of their gender, educational qualification, years of experience and category of student taught (either junior secondary or senior secondary class). On the basis of these findings, it was recommended that there should be more trainings and in-service professional development programmes such as orientation, workshops, seminars, conferences to allow teachers in regular education classrooms to acquire knowledge, skills and values required for the adequate education of students with learning disabilities in their classrooms.

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of a rich vocabulary intervention on the vocabulary learning and comprehension of third-grade students with language learning disorders (LLDs), including speech and language impairment and specific learning disability in reading. The study used a repeated acquisition design, a single-case design involving the repeated delivery of a vocabulary intervention on different sets of five vocabulary words and repeated pre-post measurement of students' vocabulary acquisition and comprehension of the different stimuli targeted each week. Students in the treatment group (n = 3) had 3 weeks of a baseline comparison phase, where they were taught sets of five untested vocabulary words (n = 15 words), and 5 weeks of a treatment phase, where they learned sets of five tested vocabulary words (n = 25 words). Vocabulary was measured using a 9-point Total Semantic Knowledge measure that included an oral definitions component and a receptive vocabulary assessment called Context Test Questions. Comprehension was assessed using a passage-level sentence verification technique. There was a statistically significant, moderate effect on vocabulary learning. No treatment effect was found on students' comprehension. Following the maintenance phase, students scored lower on the vocabulary maintenance assessment than at posttest, but about 1 point higher than their pretest scores. Testing effects were evident on the comprehension measure following the maintenance phase only. These results suggest that explicit vocabulary instruction led to immediate improvements in taught vocabulary but not comprehension skills for the third-grade students with LLDs in this study. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.31930236.

PurposeInteractive whiteboards (IWB) have become a common tool in education. The purpose of this paper is to look at some of the ways that this tool has been successfully used to engage and motivate teenage student learners with learning disabilities and difficulties (LLDD).Design/methodology/approachThe author draws upon his teaching practice to look at how IWBs have been used to engage and motivate teenage student learners with LLDD. The article compares the author's experiences with other teaching ideas identified, in order to reflect in more depth on teaching practice.FindingsThe author concludes that interactive white boards are an effective tool for the engagement and motivation of students with learning difficulties and disabilities, despite there being very little research evidence for their use with this group in further education settings.Originality/valueUse of the interactive white board has enabled the author to deliver ideas in a different style of teaching, developing more interactive and engaging lessons for students with learning difficulties and disabilities.

The article focuses on problems of special education and psychological-pedagogical support for students with learning disabilities. The research aim is to identify current trends in special education for these students, certain conditions and factors that impact their academic performance and development of life competencies. Research methods: analysis of today’s legislation, regulations, proceedings papers, guidance and other policy documents on special educational needs for students with learning disabilities in public elementary and middle school; analysis of statistical data on education for students with learning disabilities in 2019/2020 academic year in all 85 constituent entities of Russian Federation; an online random sample survey among specialists who work in public schools that students with learning disabilities attend. Conclusions based on the conducted study are as follows: the number of students with learning disabilities on inclusive terms is increasing; there is a legal backing and methodological support for special education in public elementary schools; special education conditions need to be provided not only in public elementary school but also in middle school; inclusive education specialists are lacking knowledge on learning, teaching and psychological-pedagogical support for students with learning disabilities in today’s school environment; there is a shortage of special education professionals in schools and learning centres. The results of the study can be used to develop educational policy, learning plans, programmes and to improve quality of inclusive education specialists training.

This article reports findings from three studies investigating the efficacy of an instructional model designed to promote self-regulation, the Strategic Content Learning (SCL) approach. Participants were post-secondary students with learning disabilities who ranged in age from 19 to 48 years. Each study comprised multiple in-depth case studies (total N = 34) embedded within a pre-posttest design. Students were provided with individualized SCL tutoring for two to three hours per week during at least one semester. Both qualitative and quantitative evidence converged to reveal consistent improvements across time in students' metacognitive knowledge about key self-regulated processes, perceptions of task-specific efficacy, attributional patterns, task performance, and strategic approaches to tasks. Students were also found to transfer strategic approaches across contexts and tasks. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.