Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
…
60 pages
1 file
2002
The term "specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning disabilities which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, or mental retardation, or emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (USOE, 1968, p. 34) After P.L. 94-142 was passed and federal funds became available, states were expected to identify children with LD. It quickly became apparent that states needed assistance with criteria for identification of LD, leading to publication of the Procedures for Evaluating Specific Learning Disabilities in the Federal Register (USOE, 1977). These procedures recommended that LD be defined as: a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the areas: (1) oral expression; (2) listening comprehension; (3) written expression; (4) basic reading skill; (5) reading comprehension; (6) mathematics calculation; or (7) mathematic reasoning. The child may not be identified as having a specific learning disability if the discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of: (1) a visual, hearing, or motor handicap; (2) mental retardation; (3) emotional disturbance, or (4) environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
Journal of School Psychology
Learning disabilities: neurological bases, clinical features and strategies of intervention [Working Title], 2020
Scholars and researchers have constantly argued due to the ambiguity and a lack of consensus in the scientific community in defining what constitutes a learning disability. The difficulty in identifying a universal term is reflected in the multiple terms that are used interchangeably (e.g. learning disabilities, specific learning disabilities, dyslexia, minimal brain dysfunction). Most commonly accepted and used definitions (e.g. IDEIA) can be considered ambiguous as it excludes certain conditions and describes characteristics in terms of abilities, processes, and achievement without discrimination between these terms. The only constant criterion (across definitions) is the discrepancy criterion that is the discrepancy between ability and achievement. In this context, it is important to note the differences in conceptualizing ability and academic achievement. Currently, the scientific community appears to agree that (a) learning disabilities are a distinct disability manifesting in students with low academic achievement, (b) it is a developmental disability that impacts individuals across their lifetime, and (c) it is a product of the interaction between genetic and environmental contributing factors, with environmental factors being determining by sociocultural conditions. Interventions addressing learning disabilities are not always evidencebased; interventions can be influenced by socioeconomic circumstances and policy decisions. Consequently, it is necessary to approach learning disabilities with a holistic and system-based approach rather than try to differentially diagnose them.
Global Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 2020
Learning Disability Quarterly, 2018
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) 1 affirms that the construct of learning disabilities (LD) represents a valid, unique, and heterogeneous group of disorders, and that recognition of this construct is essential for sound policy and practice. An extensive body of scientific research on LD continues to support the validity of the construct. Historically, "specific learning disability" (SLD) has been recognized and defined by the U.S. Office of Education since 1968 (U.S. Office of Education, 1968). However, recent discussion about retaining the LD category has prompted this overview of critical issues in the field of LD and their implications for policies that affect individuals with LD. This paper addresses points of general agreement in the field of LD, common misperceptions regarding LD, and unresolved issues in scholarship and practice, which inform the NJCLD's policy recommendations regarding LD research and practice. The paper presents neither all agreements nor all controversies in the field of LD; the NJCLD's purpose in presenting this document is to establish a basic consensus upon which to build policy for the United States. Understanding LD: Consensus and Controversies Even though a great deal is known about LD, the field has been the subject of controversies for most of its history. This section of the paper addresses points of agreement, common misperceptions, and unresolved issues.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 2002
An emerging theme in professional development for adult literacy program staff over the past decade has been the topic of learning disabilities (LD). As adult educators have come to recognize that the effects of LD can play a significant role in the performance and retention of adult learners, many have sought answers to the following Definition of Learning Disabilities In the years following the 1975 enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, many special educators viewed LD as a developmental delay that would be outgrown as an individual matured. The field was too new at that time to benefit from longitudinal studies that followed students into adulthood. Similarly, the adult literacy field did not readily make connections between clients who seemed to have difficulty learning and existing research on the K-12 special education population. Some early articles (Bowren, 1981; Gold, 1981) questioned the incidence of LD among adult learners and debated appropriate practices for adults with LD. But adult literacy programs were for the most part not yet attending to LD in the design and delivery of services for learners or in staff development. problems that significantly affect their academic achievement and their lives. Prevalence of Learning Disabilities in Adults Literacy providers have questions about the prevalence of LD among adults and whether its prevalence in the general adult population is different from that in the population enrolled in adult literacy education. No one study has as yet determined a generally accepted prevalence rate among adults. Varying estimates for specific segments of the population do exist, but the estimates were obtained not through formal evaluation and documentation but through instructor observation, from administrators' educated guesses, and from client self-reports. For example, the U.S. Employment and Training Administration (1991) estimated the incidence of LD among Job Training and Partnership Act Title IIA recipients to be 15-23 percent. When Ryan and Price (1993) surveyed ABE directors nationwide about the prevalence of adults with LD in ABE classes, estimates ranged from 10 percent to more than 50 percent. Other estimates have been proposed for various subpopulations, but all lack validation data. A reasonable estimate of the prevalence rate among the general adult population can be extrapolated from data on the incidence of LD among school-age children. Data collected by the U.S. Department of Education for the 1998-99 school year indicates that 4.49 percent of the school population ages six to twenty-one have a primary diagnosis of specific learning disability (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Many believe that this rate is an underrepresentation because operational definitions of LD vary from school system to school system. This may account for the discrepancy in the reported school-age identification rate and estimates derived from other sources. Research based on brain studies supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) indicates that 20 percent of school-age children may be considered reading disabled (Lyon, 1995; Shaywitz, Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch, 1992). Although not all children with reading disabilities have LD and not all children with LD have reading disabilities, the percentage of individuals with reading-related disabilities is higher than the standard school-based special education reports would lead us to believe. Given that recent studies point toward LD as a persistent, lifelong impairment, it is reasonable to accept a higher prevalence rate for the general adult population than is reported from special education data. For subsets of the general population, such as persons enrolled in adult literacy programs, we can assume a higher incidence rate (Reder, 1995). Although studies indicate that gender is not a determining factorequal numbers of males and females have learning disabilities-there is a gender bias in the identification of LD in school-age children, with four times as many boys as girls being so identified
2012
The purpose of this article is to inform to the reader the current debate on learning disabilities area. The language barrier imposed by the scientific literature in English makes professionals and college to miss the exciting progress on this diagnostic category so controversial from its formal beginning. We first analyze the definitions of specific learning disabilities that have been in force until the first decade of this century, then make the new definitions formulated to now and discuss characteristics of the history of definitions in this field. We conclude with the demands that we face because of the new definitions.
MERIP/Middle East Report No. 141 (July-August 1986), pp. 14-27, 1986
Jurnal Pemberdayaan dan Pendidikan Kesehatan (JPPK)
Христианство на Ближнем Востоке, 2023
communication , 2012
Agriculture and human values, 2024
European Journal of Multilingualism and Translation Studies ISSN: 2734 - 5475 ISSN-L: 2734 - 5475 Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/li, 2024
Nationalities Papers
BOSNA i Hercegovina i Berlinski proces : analiza stanja ključnih procesa u BiH pred londonsku konferenciju 2018, 2018
Osmanlı Arşiv Belgeleri Işığında Tiran’daki Kiliselerin İnşa ve Onarım Faaliyetleri, 2024
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019
Cancer research, 1983
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 1996
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2017
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2004