Definition Of Learning Disabilities Research Articles

A Systematic Review of Research Syntheses on Students with Mathematics Learning Disabilities and Difficulties

AbstractThe purpose of the systematic review of mathematics intervention syntheses was to identify patterns and gaps in content areas, instructional strategies, effect sizes, and definitions of learning disabilities (LD), mathematics LD (MLD), and mathematics difficulty (MD). Using rigorous inclusion criteria, we evaluated 36 syntheses that included 836 studies with 32,495 participants. Although each synthesis stated a focus on LD, MLD, or MD, few students with LD or MLD were included, and the authors’ operational definitions of disability and risk varied. Syntheses predominantly focused on word‐problem solving, fractions, computer‐assisted learning, and schema‐based instruction. Wide variation in effectiveness, content areas, and instructional strategies was reported. Finally, our results indicate the majority of syntheses included achievement outcomes, but very few reported on other outcomes (e.g., social validity, strategy use). We discuss how the results of this comprehensive review can guide researchers in expanding the knowledgebase on mathematics interventions.

Providing Therapy and Educational Programs for Gifted Dyslexic Children Is a Challenge

Children who are gifted and have learning disabilities possess a notable skill or aptitude and are capable of excellent performance, but also have a learning handicap that makes some aspects of academic attainment difficulty. We identify some of these children and provide them with the assistance they need. It occurs only rarely unless a school especially decides to identify and then serve these children. This paper presents a visualization of the essential points that must be dealt with to serve gifted children with dyslexia. The researcher has tried to describe children with dyslexia as gifted and has drawn heavily on giftedness and learning disabilities definitions. The idea of giftedness and learning disability is differently viewed and put forth by the researcher with the help of numerous research reviews. This research paper is helpful for teacher training institutes and educators to understand the characteristics and needs of gifted children with dyslexia and strategies to assist their learning.

Comparing Math LD Diagnostic Rates Obtained Using LDAC and DSM-5 Criteria: Implications for the Field

Within the Canadian context, the two major learning disability classification systems are arguably the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Learning Disabilities Association (LDAC) of Canada’s Official Definition of Learning Disabilities. Several of the more recent changes to the fifth edition of the DSM contrast with the LDAC definition, which establishes them as competing diagnostic frameworks. We investigated the frequency of math learning disability identification when both the LDAC and DSM-5 criteria were modelled and applied to an archived data set (2011–2016). Results support generally similar percentages of math learning disability cases identified when employing LDAC or DSM-5 criteria; however, the two methods identified a different set of cases. Implications for using DSM-5 versus LDAC criteria in diagnosing learning disabilities are discussed, including the need to consider adopting a national diagnostic standard.

University faculty attitudes and knowledge about learning disabilities

ABSTRACT Adults with learning disabilities (LD) constitute one of the fastest growing populations of students attending institutions of higher education. Faculty members play an important role in the adjustment and success of these students. The current study investigated the perceptions towards LD of faculty members at a public university in Israel. Specifically, the study examined the level of contact, attitudes, knowledge, and training of faculty members with respect to students with LD. The results demonstrated that faculty members overall had a significant amount of contact with and held positive attitudes towards students with LD. However, it appeared that faculty members would benefit from information regarding the current definition of LD, related legislation about LD and other disabilities, and training and support services for LD. Implications for practice and further research are discussed.

“My Dyslexia is Like a Bubble”: How Insiders with Learning Disabilities Describe Their Differences, Strengths, and Challenges

Educational research undervalues the experiences of people with disabilities, including those with learning disabilities and/or dyslexia, whom we call insiders . In this study, we examined narratives pertaining to schooling from published memoirs and/or interviews with 30 insiders with learning disabilities or dyslexia. First, we describe how these insiders define learning disabilities. We found multiple definitions of learning disabilities (LD), from sharp divisions between “LDness” and “normal,” to conceptions of universal learner variability such as “everyone learns differently.” We also describe how insiders defined their gifts as learners, and the challenges they faced in schools. Insiders identified strengths around creative problem-solving, multimodal thinking, and persistence. Challenges in school involved learning how to read, difficulty memorizing disconnected facts and needing more time. Recommendations include designing instruction that builds on the cognitive gifts of those with learning disabilities and dyslexia while minimizing instruction that focuses on their challenges. Subscribe to LDMJ

Learning disabilities in Canada: Definitions and accommodations.

Learning disabilities (LD) affect many students in Canada. The best estimate of the prevalence of LD among children is 3.2% (Brennan, 2009; Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, 2017). Similarly, Bizier, Till, and Nicholls (2015) reports that 2.0% of the Canadian population between the ages of 15 and 24 have a diagnosed LD. However, the concept of LD is not uniformly defined across Canada, and consequently, any measure of national prevalence regarding individuals with LD is likely to be inaccurate. For example, in both the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (Brennan, 2009) and the 2012 Canadian Survey on Disability (Bizier, Till, & Nicholls, 2015), LD are defined as attention deficit disorder (ADD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, and other developmental disabilities of scholastic skills. In comparison, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) does not share the same definition and makes no explicit mention of ADHD and ADD in their explanations of LD. Including ADHD individuals in the definition of LD is likely to inflate the prevalence of LD in the nation as treatments and services for those with ADHD and LD vary greatly. A lack of a clear and easily explained definition of LD can affect variability in prevalence and services for individuals with LD (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002). Understanding the differences can contribute to the development of a widely accepted definition that can then allow for the implementation of better practices concerning LD across the country. This review aims to identify commonalities and differences among policies regarding accommodations for students with LD in different Canadian provinces and territories. It also aims to promote the goal of standardizing the definition of LD and empirically supported accommodations across Canada to ensure equal opportunity for all Canadian students with LD.Defining LDThere exists much variability in the way LD is defined across research, political, and clinical contexts. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) includes diagnostic criteria for specific learning disorders and specifies that these disorders are neurodevelopmental in nature and affected individuals experience significant difficulty with academic ability and skills. Moreover, the fifth edition of the DSM (DSM-5) outlines three different types of specific learning disorders, including impairments in reading, written expression, and mathematics. These impairments present themselves in mild, moderate, or severe forms and are separately evaluated from ADHD. However, despite the updated DSM-5 definition, definitions of LD in research, clinical settings, and educational settings and policies differ. The general problem regarding LD is that the definitions often lack enough specificity and are mostly understood as generalised learning problems (Kavale & Forness, 2000). Moreover, the lack of an agreed upon and functional definition of LD is of particular concern among Canadian provinces and territories, as each has its own policies regarding services and accommodations that are made available to students with LD.Canadian DefinitionsThe Canadian federal government does not have any documentation that explicitly defines LD or outlines services for individuals with LD, as it is an issue that is related to education and governed on a provincial level. Instead, the definition of LD for Canadians largely depends on geographic location within the country given that provincial governments all have their own working definitions, key terms, and policies concerning the matter. However, the most widely accepted definition of LD comes from LDAC, which specifies that LD are lifelong, neurobiological, or injury-related brain impairments that affect one or more processes related to learning. The severity of these disorders can vary and often refer to specific impairments in oral language, writing, reading, mathematics, or specific difficulties involving organisational or social skills difficulties (Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, 2017). …

Looking Backward to Look Forward: Reflections of Past Presidents of the Council for Learning Disabilities

Anniversaries offer a time for reflection, celebration, validation, and sometimes, simply a candid conversation on the current state of a field. In the field of learning disabilities, anniversaries offer a time to consider how far the field has come and just how far is left to go to understand what a learning disability is. Definitional understanding is foundational for moving forward. This column presents findings from a series of short conversations with past presidents of the Council for Learning Disabilities, individuals who are also leading experts in the field of learning disabilities. Results suggest four different thoughts about the definition of learning disabilities, two main themes regarding areas in which the field needs to focus, and two themes specific to where the field may be headed in the next 20 to 25 years. The column concludes with a discussion of implications for the future.

Analysis of Attributes in the Official Definitions for Learning Disability

Background: The phenomenon of learning disability is increasingly occupying the centre stage all over the world. Still, there is no commonly agreed definition for the condition. Method: This study attempts a comparative analysis of the similarities or differences between 23 official definitions of learning disability derived from various sources. By using a quantitative-cum-qualitative systematic procedure of identification and listing the attributes, prioritizing and rank ordering them, assigning of appropriate weights before deducing their conceptual meaning, observations on the nomenclature and content characteristics of the definitions were created as basic data units to be undertaken in this analysis. Results: There is plurality of definitions amidst varying emphasis on nature or content of especially seven majorly identified attributes with little agreement on what qualities characterize the condition of learning disability. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the need for quantifying or establishing the empirical veracity of the identified attributes before explicating a cohesive or meaningful overall re-statement on definition of learning disabilities. The need for cross cultural and transnational research is highlighted.

Self-Efficacy and Emotional Competence of Learning Disability Students:A Correlational Analysis

Unlike other disabilities, such as paralysis or blindness, a learning disability is a hidden handicapped and it is a neurological disorder that affects the brain's ability to receive, process, store and respond to information. The term learning disability is used to describe the seeming unexplained difficulty a person of at least average intelligence has in acquiring basic academic skills. These skills are essential for success at school and work and for coping with life in general. An important part of the definition of Learning Disability is its exclusions: learning disabilities cannot be attributed primarily to mental retardation, emotional disturbance, cultural difference, or disadvantage. Thus, the concept of Learning Disability focuses on the notion of a discrepancy between a child's academic achievement and his orher apparent capacity to learn. Learning Dis abilities affects individuals differently at various stages of life-early childhood, the elementary schools years, adolescence, and adulthood. In some cases other problems coexist with the learning disabilities. Emotional competence as an efficiency to deal effectively with several dissociable but related processes is a blending of competencies (Coleman 1970). A learned capability' based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work. Our emotional intelligence determines our potential for learning the practical skills based on the five elements: self-awareness, motivation, self-regulation, empathy, and adeptness in relationships. Our emotional competence shows how much of that potential we have translated into on-the-job capabilities. (Denial Goleman, 1998). Emotional competence can be defined as the demonstration or practical application of the learned abilities and knowledge-building attitudes related to the cognitive, affective, conative and social aspects of emotional intelligence in active interaction with one's environment. Emotional competence can be a resource through which organisational relationships are created, interpreted and altered but self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviours necessary to produce specific performance attainments (Bandura, 1977,1986,1997). Self-efficacy reflects confidence in the ability to exert control over one's own motivation, behavior, and social environment. Self-efficacy is the extent or strength of one's belief in one's own ability to complete tasks and reach goals. Self-efficacy affects every area of human endeavor. By determining the beliefs a person holds regarding his or her power to affect situations, it strongly influences both the power a person actually has to face challenges competently andthe choices a person is most likely to make.Jadhav (2010) investigated a study on a study of emotional maturity' and emotional competence of college going students of Belgaum district and reported that there is a significant difference between male and female students, second year students and government and private college students in emotional competence. It was found that there is no difference between 20-21 and 22-23 year students in both variables, male and female and first and second year students in emotional maturity and arts and science students in both emotional maturity andemotional competence, rural and urban students in emotional competence.Pintrich and Groot (1990) observed in one study on Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance and results revealed that, depending on the outcome measure, self-regulation, self-efficacy, and test anxiety emerged as the best predictors of performance. Intrinsic value did not have a direct influence on performance but was strongly related to self-regulation and cognitive strategy use, regardless of prior achievement level. Levine (1999) reported that children who cannot overcome learning difficulties are more likely to under-perform in school and become problem students. …

Academic skill profiles in a sample of Mexican school children

It is important to understand learning disabilities (LD) because they are prevalent worldwide. Currently there is great controversy about LD definition, as some studies focus on the discrepancy between intelligence and academic skills, while others focus only on academic skill assessments. The DSM-IV-TR provides the most commonly used definition for LD, which includes specific learning disabilities (reading, writing, arithmetic) and unspecified learning disabilities. For specific one would expect a significant discrepancy between academic skills and IQ, in contrast, significant discrepancies should not be observed in the unspecified. The literature also reports comorbidities among LD types. The objective of this study was to evaluate reading, writing, and arithmetic task performance profiles in 127 public elementary school children. Based on DSM-IV-TR criteria, we determined academic skill profiles, the presence of LD, LD type, and potential comorbidities in our sample. Using normalized test scores for reading, writing, and arithmetic, we applied a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify academic skill patterns. The results showed the following clusters among school children: 1) children with normal academic skills (n = 80), 2) children with unspecified LD including deficiencies in all three academic processes (n = 27), and 3) children with specific reading LD including arithmetic and writing deficiencies (n = 20). These classification types may later help identify specific neuropsychological characteristics underlying a specific disability, and subsequently facilitate treatments. Key words: Learning disabilities, reading disabilities, LD subtypes, hierarchical-clusters.

Between Negative Stigma (Cultural Deprivation) and Positive Stigma (Learning Disability): The Historical Development of Two Special Education Tracks

This article posits an updated, broader perspective on the concept of learning disabilities (LDs) than that accepted in the local Israeli literature, revealing how it is immersed in class, ethnicity, and culture. This is shown through historical description, accreditation, and contrasting of the two special education discourses: the "cultural deprivation" discourse and the "LDs" discourse. There are three sections. Part One presents the theoretical, conceptual, and methodological background of the sociological and discursive debate about LDs. The social-constructivist model used in an analysis of the two categories is proposed as an alternative to the clinical-medical model. The definitions of LDs and cultural deprivation accepted in the Israeli discourse are presented in Part Two. The metamorphoses in the discourse about the category of LDs are uncovered through reference to their conceptual and historical antecedents. This part discusses the various understandings and constructions of learning difficulties. Part Three examines the textual representation of parents of children with disabilities in both cases, exploring the meanings of guilt, responsibility, and agency in each discourse. The conclusion clarifies the social and political significance of the distinct textual and rhetorical representations. It becomes evident that the discourse on LDs and the discourse on cultural deprivation are two special education tracks directed at different target audiences: the culturally enriched audience, well-off and educated on the one hand, and the Mizrahi audience of limited means and education on the other hand.

Bridging policy–practice gap: Protecting rights of youth with learning disabilities in Hong Kong

Abstract Discrepancies between policies and practices have been known to be key barriers to ascertain adequate service delivery for students with disabilities and their families. For students with learning disabilities, the policy–practice gap is manifested through three key barriers to education: the difficulty to operationalize the definition of learning disabilities in service delivery, psychosocial issues associated with their learning differences, and minimization of parent participation. The implementation status of recent policies to strengthen systematic intervention throughout various stages of schooling to post-school life in Hong Kong has not been examined. This study represents an initial effort to understand service delivery for youth with learning disabilities through their parents' account of experiences. Findings suggest wide policy–practice gaps in fulfilling the mandates of implementing the 3-Tier Intervention model, establishing student support teams for all eligible students, providing transition services, and engaging and supporting parents in the decision-making process. Bridging the policy–practice gaps and balancing the tension between standards-based education systems and support for diverse needs are universal challenges. An evidence-based approach to policymaking is necessary to increase effective policy implementation and the role of research to contribute to such an approach is discussed.

Easier Said Than Done

A Canadian context for the diagnosis of students with specific learning disabilities (LD) was investigated in the present literature review. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to determine the current and best practices in this field. Overall, no agreed upon definition of LD was identified, although core similarities in definitions were noted. Furthermore, recent research shows that many psychological assessments fail to adhere to any one definition when making this diagnosis, and as a result the diagnosis may or may not reflect the presence of a permanent disability that impairs academic functioning at the postsecondary level. There is, therefore, a need to adopt a consistent, evidence-based approach to diagnosis of LD in Canada. Recommendations regarding best practices and appropriate criteria for diagnosis of LD are discussed.

A contemporary review of the definition, prevalence, identification and support of learning disabilities in Australian schools

Learning disabilities (LDs) are associated with underachievement in one or more areas such as reading, spelling, writing and/or mathematics. In general, it is assumed that LDs are neurological in origin, permanent in nature and resistant to intervention. Moreover, LDs are not considered the result of intellectual, physical or sensory disabilities, emotional disturbance, cultural or economic disadvantage or inappropriate teaching. The purpose of this review was to provide school communities including principals, classroom teachers, other professionals, parents and students with a contemporary review of the definition, prevalence, identification and support of LDs. In particular, this review highlights the confusion surrounding the definition of LDs and how this has impacted on estimates of the prevalence of LDs, as well as current identification methods used in Australian schools. The various methods used to support students with LDs in schools are discussed.

Beyond Culture as Group Traits

The construct of culture has been largely invisible in the research and long-standing debates in the learning disabilities (LD) field, such as those pertaining to the definition of LD and how research knowledge is used in local settings. When used, the idea of culture tends to be defined as unrelated to LD and studied as restricted to individual/group traits. We challenge the culture–LD dichotomy and the limited conception of culture used in this knowledge base. For this purpose, we make the case for a cultural model of learning that can inform scholarship about the nature of LD, and we propose a culture-based model for the study of research knowledge use in professional practices. Moreover, we offer a third perspective on culture to study the strategies that the LD research community might be using to demarcate and maintain a cultureless paradigm of LD. Our discussion offers potentially rich opportunities for a culturally minded and reflexive stance in the LD field that is urgently needed in our increasingly diverse society.

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

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

Eligibility for statutory learning disability services in the north-west of England. Right or luxury? Findings from a pilot study

Accessible summary • There are often rules about who can use learning disability services. • We used a questionnaire to ask clinical psychologists in the north-west of England about the rules where they work. We also asked them what psychologists do when it comes to deciding about who can use learning disability services. • We found out that different places had some things in common in how they defined learning disabilities and how they decided who used services. However, there were also differences between different places. • Differences between different areas can make it difficult for people with learning disabilities if they move. Summary Access to learning disability services in England is often governed by eligibility criteria. A semistructured questionnaire was completed by clinical psychologists in the north-west of England about service eligibility criteria and psychologists’ role within the referral process to learning disability services. The survey highlighted both variations and similarities across the region in terms of definitions of learning disabilities, eligibility for accessing local services and the psychometric measures used to assess functioning. Differences in how services assess eligibility can lead to difficulties, for example when people move area. The use of standard eligibility criteria could be one means of overcoming this.

Educating Students With Learning Disabilities in Taiwan

In East Asia, Taiwan is one of only a few countries that has a clear definition of learning disabilities (LD) as well as operational criteria for the identification of LD (Hung, 2006). In Taiwan, special education services for students with LD are mandated in the Special Education Act of 1984 (Tzeng, 2007). According to the official statistics from the Taiwanese Special Education Transmit Net, Ministry of Education (MOE; 2010), there are 96,220 students with disabilities (K–12) receiving special education services in Taiwan. Within this group, students with LD compose 21% of the total population, which is second only to students with intellectual disabilities (31%). Education in Taiwan is moving forward in meeting the needs of this unique group of students. However, overall there is a low prevalence rate of students with LD in Taiwan (Hung, 2006; Tzeng, 2007; H. Wang, n.d.). Therefore, in spite of the recognition of learning disabilities as a category, there still are areas for improvement in the education of this population of students. To gain a clearer understanding of the education of students with LD in Taiwan, a description of the definition of LD, the procedure for identification and diagnosis, provision of services, and educational placement (i.e., special education and general education) is presented.

Learning From Samuel A. Kirk's 16 Versions of Learning Disability: A Rejoinder to Mather and Morris

In 2004, when I first started to investigate the history of the learning disability construct, I quickly found that the available literature on the topic fell into two categories, valid historical scholarship and celebrationist narratives. There were a small number of serious historical works by Carrier (1983, 1986, 1987) and Franklin (1987, 1994), who examined the growth of the learning disability diagnosis as a political and scientific development over many decades. I framed my own research in the tradition of Franklin (1987, 1994) and Carrier (1983, 1986, 1987), upholding the standards of research methodology and critical analysis set by historians (e.g., Danto, 2008; McDowell, 2002). My goal has been to determine where this notion of learning disability came from and how it grew in the work of many scientists over time. I have assumed neither that learning disability is a correct way of understanding the learning difficulties of some children nor that this construct was built as some sort of farce. I view the construct as a historical product, an idea cultivated through scientific practices and theories over generations of research. My research efforts resulted in a book entitled The Incomplete Child: An Intellectual History of Learning Disabilities that chronicled the scientific ideas and practices that brought about the learning disability construct (Danforth, 2009). It is a story of multiple lines of intellectual traditions conflicting and melding, of pre-WWII German holistic science blending with Chicago School functionalism and the environmentalism of the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station. In addition, I have written a recent series of articles, including the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities piece that I co-authored with Laura Slocum and Jennifer Dunkle. In these historical articles I addressed topics ranging from the pronounced social class bias of learning disability researchers of the 1960s and 1970s (Danforth, in press, a) to the 1970s epistemological shift toward objectivism (Danforth, in press, b). The Mather and Morris (2011) response paper belongs to the celebrationist category of historical writing that does not meet the standards of methodological rigor and critical analysis set by professional historians. This paper continues a professional line of insider accounts, self-congratulatory, poorly researched historical overviews written by special educators that celebrate the field and its pioneers (e.g., Cruickshank & Hallahan, 1981; Hallahan & Mercer, n.d.; Hallahan & Mock, 2003; Wiederholt, 1974). These works, although often informative, are overwhelmingly acritical. The authors fail to ask serious and troubling questions about the development of the field and the social impact of the ideas in the field. The purposes and the work in the field are lauded without the kind of rigorous scrutiny that historians apply to their subject matter. In their paper Mather and Morris’s (2011) attempt to preserve ‘‘the legacy that Dr. Samuel A. Kirk left behind’’ (p. 118). Their primary goal is to perpetuate a purified narrative of a man living, thinking, and acting without contradictions and errors, without moral uncertainty and fallibility. The truth of the matter is that Sam Kirk was far from clear and definitive in his handling of the learning disability construct. In fact, he articulated 16 substantively different versions of the learning disability construct. I devote an entire chapter in my 2009 book to this issue. In this short rejoinder, I briefly illuminate Kirk’s multiple contradictory articulations of the concept of learning disability between 1960 and 1984. Then I probe for possible lessons we might draw from Kirk’s inconsistencies.

Learning Disabilities or Difference: A Critical Look at Issues Associated with the Misidentification and Placement of Hispanic Students in Special Education Programs

A new generation of Hispanic students are at risk due to inadequacies in our educational system. The inadequacies which include lack of prepared teachers and misuse of testing and assessment procedures impact special education programs, in particular, when one examines practices relative to Latino students in the area of learning disabilities. The article addresses problems in the definition of learning disabilities, learner variability, and the effects of race, poverty, culture, and language on educational outcomes. The authors call for a new assessment paradigm that would require the restructuring of professional development programs and institutional practices in public schools that are not in line with current research on topics related to this population including second language acquisition and cognitive development.