Field Of Learning Disabilities Research Articles

Republication of “Learning Disabilities: A Historical Note”

Editors’ Note The second decade of Intervention in School and Clinic, then titled Academic Therapy, represented a field coming into it own. The articles focused on specific teaching methods in reading, math, spelling, and handwriting. In this decade the field discovered adolescents with learning disabilities and emotional-behavioral disabilities. The archives were fascinating, with articles by Dr. Don Deshler, Dr. Lee Swanson, Dr. Ed Polloway, Dr. Margo Mastropieri, Dr. Thomas Scruggs, and Dr. Cherry Houck. All are current leaders in our field. We selected an article by Dr. Samuel Kirk, then a professor at the University of Arizona. Dr. Kirk’s article provides us with a historical overview of the field of learning disabilities, then a relatively new term and field. It is always good to have an early historical perspective with which to judge the present. 531393 ISCXXX10.1177/1053451214531393Intervention in School and ClinicKirk research-article2014

The Goldilocks Chair

In addition to many other areas of prejudice faced by people with a learning disability there is a history of the disability itself being an exclusion criterion for psychotherapy. In 1993 Bender published an article entitled ‘The unoffered chair: the history of therapeutic disdain towards people with a learning difficulty’. Using the article as a frame of reference this paper will explore the challenges of working psychotherapeutically in the field of learning disability both for therapist and client. It will identify the barriers that exist prior to and during therapy and describe changes I have made to my practice as a result of these observations. There is a long history of negative attitudes towards people with a learning disability and I will suggest why this has continued and the changes that are necessary.

Brian Glynne Jones 1954-2014

Brian Jones, who died suddenly in February at the age of 59, studied at Swansea University before beginning a distinguished career in the field of learning disabilities. He worked as a nurse in North Wales and, between 1996 and 2010, as a lecturer in the subject at Bangor University.

The continuing imperative for interdisciplinary work in learning disability

Welcome to the March issue of BJLD, this is my first editorial as the new incoming editor, and my first task is to record a note of personal thanks to the work of Professor Duncan Mitchell, who has demonstrated remarkable stewardship, steering BJLD through some difficult times. I have to say that I am delighted, as well as being very proud to be taking over as Editor of British Journal of Learning Disabilities, taking place at a culminating point in my career. Having recently taken early retirement, I have been awarded an Emeritus Professorship at the University of Hertfordshire and have also become Honorary Professor of Learning Disabilities at the Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. I now work part time as Professor of Learning Disabilities at the Institute for Practice, Interdisciplinary Research and Enterprise, University of West London. I have a portfolio of activity focused entirely on research and scholarly activity, thus, taking over the editorship of BJLD contributes to a cogent area of activity for at least the next 3 years. In this, my first editorial for BJLD, I have the privilege to introduce a wide range of papers, and two case histories, and this has reminded me of the continuing importance of interdisciplinary work in the field of learning disabilities. In the first paper, Katrina Holmes presents a fascinating paper that explores the positive and negative experiences of three people with learning disabilities who have used social networking sites. Next, Larry Lee and Alexander Carson explore practice that attempts to manage acts of intimate violence perpetrated by students with learning difficulties in a specialist college setting. Laura Shewan and colleagues present a paper on what parents with learning disabilities understood about their disability, and how they perceived this impacted on their parenting role. Their study suggests that these parents experienced some difficulties; however, these tended to be related to specific tasks only. Following a similar theme on parenthood Sheila Gould and Karen Dodd identify, a well-recognised risk of parents with learning disabilities that of having their children removed. She asserts that little research has investigated the impact of this on these parents. Her paper explores the perceptions of nine mothers with mild learning disabilities, and their experiences of having had their children removed. Next, Barbara Hurtado describes the experience of involving people with learning disabilities and additional needs in the recruitment of staff. She identifies that a significant amount of support, as well as additional time and adaptations to the interviewing and scrutinising processes was necessary in order to ensure that people with learning disabilities could contribute meaningfully. In the next paper, Stefanie Rubbert and colleagues explore concerns about the effectiveness of services offered to people with learning disabilities who were overweight. They report on the development of an interdisciplinary body awareness group that they established. Next, Helga Fasching from Austria explores how career counselling at school contributed to supporting inclusive transition processes from school to regular vocational training and occupation for school-leavers with an intellectual disability. And in a similar theme, Joanne Skellern and Geoff Astbury research issues of paid employment for people with learning disabilities. Their work critically examines the experience of gaining employment from multiple perspectives, including students with learning disabilities, parents, education staff and employers. In the penultimate case study by Leigh Hagan and Helen Thompson, they report on the impact of using a Speech Generating Device [SGD] on the communication abilities of a nonverbal individual with a moderate learning disability. Their findings reveal that using the SGD for this individual resulted in improvements in expressive communication abilities and pragmatic skills that included topic maintenance, taking conversational turns and reduced communication breakdown. The clinical implications of this intervention are discussed. In the final paper,

English

The study of children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) has emerged as a vibrant line of inquiry over the last three decades. DCD is defined as a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by poor motor proficiency that interferes with a childs activities of daily living (sometimes also known as dyspraxia). Common symptoms include marked delays in achieving motor milestones and clumsiness, typically associated with poor balance, coordination, and especially handwriting skills. The condition occurs in 5% to 6% of American school-aged children, implying that most school classes have at least one affected child. The outcomes associated with DCD often extend beyond the motor domain to include secondary mental health, emotional, and behavioral issues, with reports on higher anxiety and depression, poor social communication, being bullied, lower global self-esteem, and less participation in typical childhood activities. Because of those consequences, early diagnosis, treatment, and educational support are important. The purpose of this review is to summarize the relevant evidence on the topic of DCD for professionals of the learning disabilities field, providing specific information on its assessment, classification, treatment, learning implications, and practical tips to assist school practitioners, educators, and administrators.

Book Review: Dramatherapy and Destructiveness: Creating the Evidence Base, Playing with Thanatos

As Dramatherapists our job is to mend, bridge and heal in a creative way. Working in the field of Learning Disabilities I am used to the frequent response from others about how rewarding it must be...

Multiple components of developmental dyscalculia

Unresolved controversies regarding the functional impairments at the origin of dyscalculia, including working memory, approximate number system and attention have pervaded the field of mathematical learning disabilities. These controversies are fed by the tendency to focus on a single explanatory factor. We argue that we are in need of neurocognitive frameworks involving multiple functional components that contribute to inefficient numerical problem solving and dyscalculia.

‘Not everybody memorises the phone book’: Representations of autism in psychiatrists’ accounts

Background:sychiatric conceptualisations of autism have been criticised for a narrow perspective based on an overly medicalised and diagnostic view of the condition. We were interested in exploring the views of psychiatrists when asked to reflect on their understanding of the conceptMethods:In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with six psychiatrists working in the specialist field of learning and developmental disability in the UK.Results:A thematic analysis of their perceptions of autism revealed four main themes: (1) Diagnostic concordance and ambiguity; (2) Threshold of complexity; (3) Autism as an artificial construct; and (4) The socio-relational context of care.Conclusions:While the analysis revealed elements of understanding that matched the application of diagnostic criteria, a more gestalt, contextual understanding of autism was also shown that acknowledged the psychological limitations of diagnosis and its sociological impact. Compared with what we expected to find, a much richer conceptualisation of the concept of autism was revealed.

Identifying Best Practice in a Shifting Landscape: Making Sense of RTI in the Context of SLD Identification

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) has had substantial influence on special education in general and the field of learning disabilities in particular. Since its reauthorization in 2004, ongoing regulatory efforts have been underway to determine its operationalization and implementation. Of particular concern to those involved in the educational process (i.e., special educators, school psychologists, families, advocates) are the guidelines for identifying children with specific learning disabilities (SLD), including the use of Response to Intervention (RTI). In this article, some of the most relevant and controversial issues associated with the use of RTI for the identification of SLD are detailed. We discuss how SLD is conceptualized in terms of identification approaches and classification criteria and present position statements of special education professional associations on the changes to the federal SLD definition and identification criteria. Finally, we summarize proposed resolutions to the seemingly irreconcilable differences identified throughout the article.

Tracking Citations

The earliest hypothesis concerning the phonetic-phonological roots of reading and writing learning disabilities is usually attributed to Boder in the U.S. literature. Yet by following a trail of references to work in psychology and education conducted some 30 years earlier in the USSR, we find the seeds of this idea already well established in the work of Russian educator and psychologist Roza Levina. Here we trace the Soviet origins of these ideas and discuss their heretofore unrecognized importance in the field of learning disabilities and special education.

Confessions and reflections of the black sheep of the learning disabilities field

The educational systems in all countries have failed to adequately address the problems of students with learning disabilities. Antisocial behaviour, homelessness, mental health problems and even suicide are a result. This article will explore the reasons for this state of affairs. One of the major reasons is excessive reliance on testing without developing a more efficient and streamlined system. Related to this excessive testing is reliance on intelligence quotient (IQ) scores. I argue and present evidence that the IQ score is unnecessary in the diagnosis of whether or not there is a learning disability. Intelligence quotient tests also do not provide useful information that can be used in the treatment of a learning disability. In addition, one of the latest, and very regressive, trends is to demand testing for ‘processing deficits’, even though there is no evidence that processing deficits are useful for either diagnosis or remediation. One recent and promising approach, Response-to-Intervention, has been developed. This approach emphasizes early identification and intervention and remediation as soon as problems are discovered. A longitudinal study of early identification and intervention will be described. Educators have solutions to the problem of learning disabilities within their grasp. Society will benefit if these solutions are pursued.

Gaining Feedback from People with Learning Disabilities

Introduction: Person-centred approaches and service user involvement are integral to occupational therapy, but evidence is lacking about how occupational therapists working in the field of learning disabilities gather feedback from service users. Method: This research aimed to explore how members of the College of Occupational Therapists Specialist Section — People with Learning Disabilities gathered feedback from their service users. Questionnaires were completed by 70 occupational therapists and 12 of them participated in semi-structured interviews. Findings: The occupational therapists were passionate about service user feedback, but they were likely to use informal methods rather than established methods with a more robust evidence base. Despite research indicating greater potential for bias when asking people with learning disabilities for feedback, almost half the participants did not take measures to reduce this. The interviews suggest that this is due to service pressures, lack of confidence and the complexity of service users' needs. Conclusion: Occupational therapists need to do more to gain feedback from people with learning disabilities. Further research is required to establish the most effective way of doing this.

Developing Wellbeing as a Critical Tool in Social Work Education: An Example from the Field of Learning Disability

This paper will explore how ‘wellbeing’ is used in social work education to develop a critical understanding of the current English personalisation agenda, in relation to people with ‘moderate to severe’ learning disabilities. Drawing upon a short thematic analysis of policy for Learning Disability and Social Work Education, the paper will develop the argument that social wellbeing is an important factor for critical engagement and practice with this service-user group. Based upon teaching – incorporating service user and care views, as well as current research-in-progress, Schalock's (2004) taxonomy of wellbeing is developed to focus upon three themes: friendships and relationships; community engagement and structural factors. The importance for social workers of exploring aspects of community, in its widest sense, is emphasised, contrasting with a narrower view presented in policy implementation. The application of wellbeing as a practice and analytical concept therefore provides a framework for a critically reflective and engaged practice.

Understanding and Self-Advocacy: Students with Learning Disabilities, Unrecognized Talent

This is the first phase of a two-phase project that looks at the relationship between diagnostic testing and self-advocacy for students with learning disabilities (LD) within post-secondary education. In this first phase, data was obtained using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with professionals within the field of LD: three learning specialists, two administration staff, and five LD testing administrators. All data was thematically coded. Two four-year public universities in Northern California (one, a prominent research institution) participated. Findings show that university administrators often see students with disabilities as having less “economic value” than students without disabilities. In an effort to reduce costs, bureaucratic barriers are created through policies and burdensome documentation processes, which make it more difficult for students to gain or utilize support services. The data shows that few students understand their LDs, the diagnostic tests used, and their rights as a person legally defined as having a disability. The findings indicate that students’ primary focus is not on fully understanding their diagnosis and its implications. Rather, the initial data suggests that current policies require students to concentrate their energies on the documentation requirements to gain needed resources, and consequently, lower the possibility for self-advocacy.

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.

Pluralizing Methodologies in the Field of LD

The field of learning disabilities (LD) has a complex and complicated history. Tensions over definitions, eligibility criteria, service delivery models, and best practices, as well as epistemological debates, have been a part of that history from its inception. Given our collective struggles, as well as the current realities facing the field, there could not be a more critical moment for a conversation about how it is that we go about knowing what we know. In this concluding essay, we consider how, by focusing so intently on what works, we, as a field, may inadvertently lose sight of what matters. In other words, contrary to the push for narrowing what counts as evidence or knowledge, we examine the potential value in opening up the field to a more diverse range of methods for students who struggle academically. We also challenge taken-for-granted assumptions in the push toward evidence- or research-based practice. Finally, we highlight several compelling themes that we take away from the contributors of this special double issue.

Can clinicians and carers make valid decisions about others' decision‐making capacities unless tests of decision‐making competence and capacity include emotionality and neurodiversity?

PurposeThe purpose in writing this paper is to highlight the lack of knowledge of many who are involved in capacity assessments, especially non‐professionals such as carers of the learning disabled, and the view that current guidance for capacity assessments does not take into account issues of emotionality.Design/methodology/approachThe approach is to discuss current guidance and practice, and to offer academic criticism and explanation.FindingsThe findings include the discovery that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice suggests that healthcare professionals and family/carers may undertake assessments of decision‐making capacity, yet the guidance it provides for their doing so overlooks salient issues. Many of those involved in the daily lives of those, who may lack decision‐making capacity (and thus be seen as legally incompetent) such as the learning disabled, demented, mentally ill and neurodiverse, must decide whether to respect their decisions as competent, or to disregard the decisions on the grounds of incompetence and to act in the person's best interests. As many will lack training in their clinical and legal responsibilities and liabilities, it is crucial that they, and those they care for, are protected by not only an increased knowledge of mental capacity legislation and practice, but also how it may apply to questions of emotionality and neurodiversity.Originality/valueThis paper expands and builds on the authors' previous research into including emotionality in assessments of capacity, and will be of use to practitioners in the field of learning disability, and other psychiatric specialities.

The Actuarial Turn in the Science of Learning Disabilities

In the mid-1970s, Donald Hammill and his colleagues authored three scathing critiques of the two most trusted scientific traditions of learning disability treatment — movement education and psycholinguistic training (Hammill, 1972; Hammill & Larsen, 1974; Hammill, Goodman, & Wiederholt, 1974). These critical reviews of research rejected the older model of clinical science that had served as the foundation of the field of learning disabilities and celebrated an actuarial form of research. Was Hammill actually proclaiming a change in the orientation toward scientific research, a paradigm shift involving philosophical commitments and methodological practices? This article explores the history of both the foundational clinical science and the new actuarial science that rose to prominence in the field of learning disabilities in the 1970s.

Complicating and Explicating: Taking up Reason in Learning Disabilities Research

In these days of achievement gap, evidence-based practices, and accountability issues, Julie Allan's Complicating, not explicating: Taking up philosophy in learning disability challenges us to think seriously about how well we as a field are meeting our mission of providing for academic and social needs of students with learning disabilities, including preparing them for life after school. In Allan's view, research and practice in field of learning disabilities as currently construed are not working; students with learning disabilities are not empowered, but constrained and controlled by discourses and practices in special education (p. 154). According to Allan, inequalities of a normative power of ideology that attributes success to children's characteristics results in students with learning disabilities viewing themselves in terms of what they lack (p. 159). Allan further asserts that knowledge base of field of learning disabilities is seriously flawed; its linear, hierarchical nature, grounded as it is in scientific method, makes it out of touch with subjective reality experienced by students with learning disabilities. For Allan, solution requires a political liberation of sorts, a deconstruction of status quo, not more conventional science. Allan goes on to propose that we align our research and practices not with scientific method, but with philosophers of difference in order to think differently about construction of learning disability and to envision new forms of learning. To do so, she suggests following theoretical concepts of transgression and rhizome, as well as theoretical practices of deconstruction and rhizomic analysis. All of this leads to what Allan sees as a theory and ethics of research that shifts our attention within learning disabilities away from fault, blame, and lack and towards ... more positive understandings of human differences that lead to more productive teaching practices and arrangements, more inclusion, and, in end, a more lucid sense of what we are about as educators and researchers (pp. 159-160). There is merit to what Allan is saying, but I find it disconcerting that she dismisses, largely through omission, current body of knowledge and practice in learning disabilities. While this stance is consistent with her philosophy of deconstruction, I had thought that purpose of her paper was to foster healthy dialogue, consider both the value and limitations of scientific thinking, and widen circle of discourse, not create a new, exclusive one. That said, points Allan makes are worthy of consideration. Certainly, we need to be sure that we don't become so obsessed with measurable outcomes that we fail to take into account feelings and preferences of our students; indeed, if, in process of serving students, we unwittingly cause them to feel at fault for their problems and/or disassociated from their classmates, we need to know about it and adjust what we do accordingly. We need to keep student failure in perspective and be ever mindful that a failure in one area we deem important does not mean that a student is failing in everything. Student perceptions must be a critical part of our research and teaching agendas so that we can monitor any unintended ill effects. Too, we need to continually and aggressively question our research assumptions, hypotheses, and findings. Now is not time to be complacent, particularly in view of less-than-robust life outcomes attained by students with learning disabilities compared to nondisabled peers, in form of lower graduation rates (U.S. Department of Education, 2001), higher rates of underemployment (Wehman, 2001), lower earnings (Shapiro & Rich, 1999), and a greater dependency on others (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). As Allan states, being too linear can leave us unprepared to adjust to derailments . …

Broadening Our Horizons: Toward a Plurality of Methodologies in Learning Disability Research

This article serves as an introduction to a special double issue of the Learning Disability Quarterly that seeks to engage the field in a respectful exchange about the need to expand research methodologies. In this article, we identify three interrelated concepts of interest to researchers in the field of learning disabilities (LD) — learning, disability, and research — and examine how the cultural location(s) of each serve(s) to influence decisions about and possibilities for researching learning disabilities. Subsequently, we urge greater use of a plurality of methods than is reflected in traditional LD research, sharing examples of what knowledge is currently lost, minimized, disregarded, or omitted, while articulating examples of what could be gained. Finally, by relating research on LD to schools, classroom life, and individuals identified as having learning disabilities, we advocate for more responsive research and a greater acceptance of epistemic reflexivity within the LD research community.