1987 triarchic intelig

8/6/2019 1987 triarchic intelig

1/10

ln te liig en ct? , In fo rma tio n P ro cess ing "a n d Spe cific Le arn in g D is ab ilit ie s:

A Triarchic Synthesis

.John KoUigian,Jr., and Robert J. Sternberg

I nfo rm a tio n p ro ce ss in g th eo rie s o f in te llig en ce o ffe r a p ote ntia lly r ic h y et g en er ally u n-e xp lo re d t heor et ic al f or um fo r conc ep tua li zi ng and i nv es tig a ti ng .l ea rn ingdi sab ili tie s.The purpose of this article is to advance our understanding of the nature of specificle a rn ing d is ab il it ie s b y u sing S te rnber g's (1985) tr ia rc hic th eo ry o f h uman in te llig en cea s a framewo rk fo r e xp an din g th e c om po ne ntia l-d efic it a pp ro ac h. S pe cifica lly , d efi-cient cog nitive stra teg ies a nd ina deq ua te kno wledg e in certain do ma in s m ay resu ltfrom lea rn in g d isa bled ind ivid ua ls' ina bility to (a/selectively enco de, com pa re, a ndc om bin e in fo rm atio n, o r (b ) a utoma tize in /o rm atio n p ro ce ssin g. In addition, t hi s ar ti -cle em ph asizes th e im po rtan ce o fth e experien tia l, co ntextu al, an d m otiva tio na l h is-tory o f the lea rning d isa bled ind ivid ua l in u nd ersta nd in g h is o r h er comp on en tia ldeficits.

, ' S " tephen Jay Gould has described. his fascination with well-agedmysteries (Gould, 1980). Indeed, asvoraciousmystery readers, the presentauthors also have spentmany sleep-less nights pondering the plots of mys-teries that. haveprbvoked irn-passionedimental 'debate~whetherthese ruminationsfiavefocused onJosephine Tey's'absolution of RichardIII, Agatha: Christie's murder of'RogerAckroyd, or Stephen Gould's enigmaof Piltdown Man.Similarly.the field of learning dis-abilities has its own very special blendof conundrum and .controversy. Forinstance, when.tutoring.an elementaryschool-aged child, the first author-wasequally mystified by the disparity be-tween the child's proficiencyin man-ipulating numerical symbols and hisdifficulty in' reading a word of text.Overall, the child was bright, eager tolearn, and well liked by his peers, buthe just could not decode the written.word. Indeed, the puzzle of suchdomain-specific deficits representsthe hallmark of a perennial debatewithin the field of learning dis-abilities. The puzzle is inherent in thedefinition of specific learning dis-8

(Vellutino, 1979).We believe that acomponential-deficit theory of learn-ingdisabilities holds some promisefor understanding the nature of spe-cific learning disabilities. (Alternativeviews of reading disabilities includeperceptual deficits, short-term mem-orydeficits, phonetic deficits, rule-learning deficits, partial informationdeficits, and controlled processingdeficits; see Sternberg &'Wagner, J982,for descriptions of these. alternativeviews.) . .

This article expands on the com-ponential-deficit approach by show-ing how aspects of the triarchic theoryof ..huinan intelligence (Sternberg,"1984,1985) interface with, and can beapplied to, our understanding of thenature of specific learning disabilities.We also briefly summarize and high-light specific areas or loci in which thetriarchic theory of intelligence holdsthe most potential for contributing toour understanding of specific learningdisabilities.abilities: This definition refers to in-dividuals who have. a deficit ina spe-cific domain of intellectual.function- TRIARCHIC THEORY OFing, such as reading, calculating, or LEARNING DISABILITIES:spelling, yet who also have average or .AN EXPANSION OF THEabove-average general intelligence -.It . COMPONENTIALshould be noted that whereas disabled DEFICIT VIEW'"individuals lack specific abilities, theconverse is notnecessarily true; not allindividuals who lack specific abilitiesare learning disabled, Furthermore,we consider a learning disability to bean "intrinsic deficit, one not caused by(but perhaps exacerbated by) externalfactors such as poor' teaching, en-vironmental deprivation . . ; or byother handicapping conditions, suchas sensory impairment oremotionaldisturbance" (Spear & Sternberg,1986, p. 3). These qualifying factorsare highly traditional (e.g., Orton,1937) and very similar to the federaldefinition adopted by public schoolsto identify learning disabled children(PoL . 94 ., .1 42 ).Clearly, any comprehensive theoryof intelligence must confront the per-plexing question of why certain dis-abilities are limited primarily to spe-cific areas or domains, whether theybe reading, spelling, or calculating

In this section.the rudiments of thetriarchic theory of human, intelligencewill be presented (Sternberg, 1985).Ateachstep of the presentation, we willsketch' the ways in which the theorycan be used to account for and ex-plain the existence andlaterperpetua-tion of specific learningdisabilities. Itis.importantto note.tha t although thetriarchic.theory'willbe used to providea theoretical framework for the subse-quent discussion, one need not acceptthis theory in order to follow the argu-ments that are presented or to givecredence to the conclusions that aredrawn. The points that we make aboutspecific learning disabilities could al-so be demonstrated through the as-similation of selected parts of othertheoretical frameworks.The triarchic theory ofhuinan intel-ligence comprises three subtheories: acomponential' subtheory, which re-

J o ur na l o j L e ar ni ng D is ab il it ie s


2/10

lates intelligence tothe internal.worldof the individual; an experiential sub-theory, which relates intelligence toexperience with both the internal andexternal worlds of the individual; anda contextual subtheory,which relatesintelligence. to the external world ofthe individual. Each of these sub-theories addresses different aspects oftheinterface between intelligence andlearning disabilities. See Figure 1 foran outline of the triarchic theory ofhuman. intelligence.The Componential Subtheory

The componential sub theory spe-cifies the information processingcomponents, or mental mechanisms,that underlie intelligent behavior. Thesubtheory proposes three basic kindsof components: metacomponents,performance components, andknowl-edge-acquisition . components. Al-though these three components aredifferent, their functions are often in-terrelated and interdependent

Metacomponents. Metacomponentsare higher order, executive processesthat are used to plan, monitor, andevaluate one's task performance.Metacomponents include: (a) defini-tion of the nature of the task, (bj.selec-tion of lower order processes to ac-complish the task, (c) formation orselection of one or more strategies intowhich to combine the lower order pro-cesses, (d) formation or selection of amental representation upon which thelower order processes act, (e)alloca-tion of mental resources in task per-formance, (f) monitoring of one's taskperformance, and (g) evaluation ofone's task performance. Metacom-ponents are distinguished from otherkinds of components by the fact thatthey are the only kind of componentthat can act upon other components,either other metacomponents or lowerorder components. In this sense,metacomponentsare a central sourceof individual differences in general in-telligence, .as most forms of intellec-tual behavior require some sort ofmeta componential functioning to di-rect them (Sternberg, 1980).Volume 20, Number 1. January 1987

META- META- .COMPONENTS COMPONENTS

~ a~cCOMPONENTS

CONTEXTUAL ADAPTINGPART

EXPERIENTIAL NOVELTYPART

COMPONENTIALPART

SHAPING SELECTING

AUTOMATIZATION

PERFORMANCECOMPOimITs

ACQUISITIONCOMPONENTs

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the parts of the triarcbic theory of buman intelligence. ..Interface: Metacomponents and

Specific Learning Disabilities. Deficitsin metacom]Jonential functioningsuggest the deficient' involvemerit ofcomponents that are broadly appliedto. a wide range of intellectual tasksand skills. Whereas there is extensiveevidence that mentally retarded in-vididuals significantly differ fromnormal individuals in many meta-componential skills (Brown, 1978;Butterfield & Belmont, 1977; Stern-berg & Spear, 1985), there is littleevidence that learning disabled in-dividuals suffer from metacomponen-tial deficits (Spear &Sternberg, 1986).Metacomponential functioning. tglo-ba1 by nature, tends to manifest itselfin a general depression of intellectualperformance and thus, by definition,is not consistent with the specificity

characteristic of learning disabledpopulations ..Metacomponential def-icits, however, may affect learning dis-abled individuals indirectly through"working memory"; although this pos-sibility has not yet been the subject ofexperimental investigations; it repre-sents apotential link between infor-mation processing and learning dis-abilities that should be explored.Indeed, working memory. has beenimplicated both as a source of specificreading disabilities (see Jorm, 1983,fora comprehensive review of readingdisabilities and working memory) andas an intermediate location for thestorage of .metacomponential infor-mation (Hunt, 1980). That is, meta-componential information must hebrought into working memory beforesuch information can be applied to a

IThe term "deficient" is used interchangeably 'Wi th disability; itrefers to a lack of certain abili tiesthatis due primarily to the existence of an intrinsic deficit, rather than the existence ofotherfactorsthat might interfere with learning.9


3/10

particular problem. Clearly, a childneeds to organize his or her specificskills "into some active form" thatserves to enhance the learning process(Swanson, 1982,p. 319).Thus, becauseworking memory has been identifiedas a problem in reading disabilitiesand because metacomponential func-tioning plays a large role in workingmemory processes, the relationshipbetween reading disabilities and poorworking memory may actually reflectan underlying connection betweenreading disabilities and meta com-ponents. This possibility needs to beinvestigated.Relatedly, specific metacomponen-tial connections to the "visuo-spatialsera tch pad" of working memory maybe a potential source of deficient com-ponential processing (Baddeley &Lieberman, 1980; Jorm, 1983, p. 314).Asa result, the learning disabled childwill continue to execute poorly a par-ticular sequence of steps in a problem-solving task, or persist in neglectinginformation that may be essential tothe solution of a given problem. Inthis sense, metacomponents allow thelower order components to continuetheir specific deficient operations. In-"'conjunction with working memory,metacomponents may be at least in-directly involved in some classes ofspecific disabilities-although therole of a learning disabled student'sexecutive functioning in his or her dis-abilities remains a vigorously debatedarea (e.g., Brown,J980; Cavanaugh &Perlmutter, 1982; Flavell, 1978; Torge-sen, 1985;Wong, 1982;Worden, 1983).

Performance Components. Perfor-mance components are lower order,nonexecutive processes that executethe plans and strategies designed bythemetacomponents, Whereas meta-components "direct" performancecomponents as to precisely what to door how togo about solving a givenproblem or task,. the performancecomponents actually do it (i.e., theysolve the problem). Thus, metacom-ponents operate upon components,whereas performance componentsoperate upon data.Performance com-ponentsthat are central to intelligentbehavior include processes such as (a)10

inferring relations among stimuli, (b)applying previously inferred relationsto new situations,(c) mapping higherorder relations between relations, (d)comparing alternative solutions anddeciding which is the best solution toa problem, and (e) responding tostimuli.

Interrace: Performance Componentsand Specific Learning Disabilities.General components are required toperform all tasks of a given nature,whereas specific components are re-quired to perform single, isolatedtasks. Class components are commonto certain specific families or classesof tasks (including at least two tasks).It Seems that. specific learning dis-abilities arising out of performance-componential deficits would developonly from those performance com-ponents that are of a "class" nature, asopposed to those ot"general" or "spe-cific" natures (Sternberg, 1980).For in-stance; in the domain of mathematics,alearning disabled child's inability toclassify or categorize certain types ofalgebraic information or, in the do-main of reading, a learning disabledchild's inability to use orthographicstructure in internally representinglanguage,may both represent dis-abilities at the class-component level.Why are certain groups of classcomponents deficient and others in-tact(e.g., why a reading disability, say,but not a math disability)? One pos-sible explanation for this deficit in-volves inadequate communicationfrom a class -.of performance com-ponents to the metacornponents thatare responsible for coordinating thatdomain-specific class of components.For exaniple,a child is comparingalternative solutions to a series oflong-division problems (each withfour answer choices). The problems,however, are very long and tedious toexecute, makingestimation (withoutsolving each problem) an expedientstrategy. If the child, however, doesnot estimate and laboriously solveseachproblem, his or her efforts wouldbe an inefficient use of resources andtime. In this instance, inadequate

feedback from performance com-ponents to metacomponents wouldresult in a continuation of the child'spoor allocation of mental resources,that is, an inefficient long-divisionstrategy. Clearly, in order. to under-stand the domain specificity of certainlearning disabilities, we need. to inves-tigate the ways in which classes of per-formance components are inter-dependent with, and intertwined with,the actions. of the other parts of thecomponential subsystem.

Knowledge-Acqnisition Components;Knowledge-acquisition componentsare lower order, nonexecutive pro-cesses that are usedin.learningnewinformation. The three major knowl-edge-acquisitioncomponents are (a)selective encoding-the process bywhich information that is relevantforone's problem-solving purposes is dis-tinguished ..from information that isnot relevant for one's purposes; (b)selective combination-the processby which the selectively encoded in-formation is assimilated and orga-nized to form a coherent and usablecognitive structure; and (c) selectivecomparison+the process by whichthe newly encoded and combined in-formation is compared to old infor-mation and antecedent cognitivestructures. Mayer and Greeno (1972)referred to results of these or similarprocesses when they discussed the im-portance and utility of "internal" and"external" connectedness. Internalconnectedness (i.e., selective com-bination) requires knowing how tocombine components of informationinto an internally coherent and con-nected whole, whereas external con-nectedness (i.e., selective comparison)requires knowing how to relate newcomponents of information toold el-ements in one's general cognitivestructure so as to form an externallycoherent and connected whole. Suchintegrative processes of connected-ness are important in the 'componentprocesses of knowledge acquisition.Indeed, knowledge-acquisition com-ponents playa complex and criticalrole in the. development of specificlearning disabilities.

Journal of Learning Disabilities


4/10

Interface: Knowledge-AcquisitionComponents. and .Specific LearningDisabilities. Individual differences inknowledge-acquisition componentsare critical in specific learning dis-abilities. These components operatedirectly on stimulus inputs and men-tal representations, both of which canbe domain specific. Consequently,knowledge-acquisition componentscan operate upon information in do-main-specific ways and thus this spec-ificity contributes to their critical rolein our understanding of learning dis-abilities. The research of Ceci(1982,1983) provides an elegant illustrationof differences in knowledge-acquisi-tion components in the process ofselective comparison among learningdisabled and nondisabled children.Ceci discovered that learning disabledIO-year-olds resembled nondisabled4-year-olds in their failure to exhibit alarge increase in response time whensemantically unrelated pairs of primephrases and pictures of objects (e.g.,"Here's a fruif'-HORSE;"Here's ananimal"-APPLE) were presented;similarly, disabled ltl-year-olds failedto exhibit as large a facilitation asnondisabled lO-year-olds when theprime phrases were semanticallyrelated to the pictures of objects(e.g., "Here's a vegetable"-CARROT;"Here's an animal":'__COW). In con-trast, nondisabled lO-year-olds sus-tained relatively large penalties in per-formance from unrelated primephrases and large benefits fromre-lated ones. These results suggest thatthe nondisabledchildren were de-liberately employing the prime phras-es to aid their identification (i.e.,nam-ing) of pictures of familiar objects.The learning disabled children failedto utilize fully the primed semantic in-formation and, in a sense, werenot en-gaging in processes of selective com-parison similar to those of non dis-abled readers.Similarly, the learning disabled areless likely to selectively combine in-formation by utilizing strategic tech-niques of subjective organization andcategory clustering in a list of words tobe recalled (Bauer, 1982; Torgesen &Goldman, 1977). As implied earlier,the active involvement of knowledge-Volume20, Number 1, January 1987

acquisition components (such as se-lective comparis()l..lan~colllbillation)in infonlultioiiprocessihghighlightstwo potential loci of specific learningdisabilities, both of which can facili-tate or constrain children's learningand processing of new information:strategic behaviors and knowledgebase.

Differential Flexibility of CognitiveStrategies and Strategic Behaviors.The notion that strategic deficits arein part responsible for informationprocessing differences between learn-ing disabled and nondisabled chil-dren is not novel (Hunt, 1978).Indeed,the differential use of cognitive strate-gies has been targeted as a majorsource of the learning disabled in-dividual's difficulties on a wide rangeof both lower level or "bottom-up"(e.g., word identification and decod-ing) and higher level or "top-down"(e.g., short-term memory-rehearsal,elaboration, organization) informa-tion processing skills. Many studieshave shown that learning disabledchildren's cognitive strategies are, insome ways, processing deficient (orinefficient). For instance, these defi-cientstrategies may take the form ofinadequate (a) word knowledge (Maneis, 1985), (b) verbal rehearsal (e.g.,Rose, Cundick, & Higbee, 1983), (c)category clustering (e.g., Torgesen &Goldman, 1977), (d) elaborative en-coding (e.g., Lorsbach & Gray, 1985),(e) retrieval cue selection (e.g., Wong,1982), or (f) cognitive effort (e.g.,Swanson, 1984).Indeed, strategic behaviors havebeen looked at from many cognitiveperspectives. Depending on the orien-tation of the investigator, strategiescan refer to many types and levels ofinformation processing task perfor-mances (Gerber, 1983). Gerber hasdiscussed the ambiguous and oftenconfusing ways in which the term"strategy" has been employed as anexplanation for the learning disabledindividual's failure to perform spon-taneously or efficiently on many dif-ferent tasks.Given this confusion and withoutentering into this ongoing definitionaldebate, a bit of conceptual clarifica-

tion is necessary ..Our conception ofstrategies is simply that of organizedcollections of component processes(Sternberg & Salter, 1982) or se-quences of mental operations (Torge-sen, 1985) that can be manipulated toenhance performance on a specifictask or set of related tasks. Increasingstrategic awareness of, and access to,task performance is a necessary re-quirement of any explanation of in-telligent behavior "(Swanson, 1982);thus, strategic choice and executionrepresent key manifestations ofknowledge-acquisition componentsand intelligent behavior.Furthermore, a useful way to con-ceptualize the strategic differencesamong learning disabled individualsis in terms of cognitive or strategic"flexibility" (Sternberg, 1981). In spe-cificcontent domains, the learningdisabled may represent, process, andaccess information inflexibly (andthus inefficiently). That is, sub-routines of information may be lessreadily available both for the com-bination of encoded stimuli intomeaningful form and for the com-parison of old problems and solutionswith new ones.

The learning disabled child's stra-tegic inflexibility may result in partfrom individual differences in cogni-tive or personality style that hinder theoperation of certain componentialprocesses (Baron, 1982; Bayliss &Livesey, 1985;Blackman & Goldstein,1982; Gerber, 1983). Cognitive stylesimply refers to "individual preferen-ces for processing information and in-dividual strategies for thinking aboutproblems" (Cherkes; 1983, p, 95).Among other things, differences incognitive style can lead to ineffica-ciousspeed of component execution(Sternberg & Spear, 1986). This stylis-tic difference might occur if compo-nent execution is slow and overall per-formance is reduced-either becauseof time constraints that cannot be met,or because of suboptimal use of work-ing-memoryca pacity. Inefficaciousspeed of execution also may refer toperformance that is too fast, as in animpulsive learner who does not spendsufficient time executing componentsthat need to be executed more care-

11


5/10

fully, and thus,more slowly (Kagan,1965; Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert, &Phillips, 1964). In this.case, the impor-tantdimension is,not reflectivity-im-pulsivity, but rather the decision to.bedifferentially reflective or impulsive-depending upon the task and the situ-ation in which the task is performed(Sternberg, in press). To theextentthatlearning disabled students are charac-terized simply by either a reflectivestyle or an impulsive style, or somepoint along a continuum of reflect"ivity-impulsivity, they will lack thestrategic flexibility needed for optimaltask performance: Clearly, there is noone style or point along a continuumthat is optimal for all occasions. Amore complete understanding of thepossible ways in which cognitive styleand strategy interact in differentlearning situations may prove helpfulin the assessment and remediation oflearning disabilities (Sternberg, inpress).Clearly, the notion of cognitivestrategies is an important one inguid-ing our understanding of specificlearning disabilities. Research at-tempting to isolate the specific strat-egies that are inflexibly used and inef-ficiently applied in learning disabledchildren's performance on certainacademic tasks still needs to be con-ducted. Yet, all intellectual behavior oflearning disabled children cannot beexplained simply in terms of strategicinflexibility, inefficiency, or inac-cessibility .. Individual differences inknowledge-acquisition componentprocesses suggest the existence af im-partant differences in the potentialrichness af domain-specific knowl-edge between learning disabled andnondisabledchildren,

Richness ofKnowledge Base. Knowl-edge-acquisition components providethe mechanisms far the developmentaf a rich knawledgestructure in spe-cific domains. Increments in theknawledge base allow for more com-plex forms of later acquisition andpossibly greater ease in the executianof performance components. As thebase of previously acquired knowl-edge becomes richer, the possibilitiesfor relating new knawledge to old12

knowledge (and [or incorporating thatnew knowledge into. the existingknowledge base) increase. There is thepassibilityofa feedback loop: Thecampanents lead to an increasedknowledge base, which leads to. moreeffective use af the components,which leads to. further increases inknowledge base (Sternberg & Suben;1986). Itis quite passible that learningdisabled individualspassess an in-adequate knowledge base, upanwhich components act, as well as defi-cientcomponents, fram which theknowledge base grows. Far example, areading disabled child may nat beable to encade and combine informa-tion from a histary textbook, resultingin inadequate knowledge aboutspe-cific areas of history. This inadequateknowledge base, in tum, may lead to.deficient selective-comparisan pro-cesses aswell. Inshort, the child mustcompare insufficient new informationabout history to. alder informationthat is already insufficient

In support of this possibility, recentwork in cognitive psychology hasshown strong connections betweenstructures of knowledge and cognitiveprocesses (Glaser, 1984). Glaser hasarguedconvincingly that in order to.accountfor the domain' specificity ofknowledge structures, we must can-sider nat only-general processes, butalso interactians between knowledgestructures and processes. Limitationsin the extent afbackground knawl-edge Can contribute to the domainspecificity of the learning disabled.in-dividual's performance deficits. Usingreading-disabilities as an example,Torgesen (1985, p. 352) has speculatedthat since reading disabled childrenare likely to "have limited access tomany kinds af informatianas a resultaftheirreading problem, they willprobably perfarm poorly on manymemory tasks because af limitationsin theirknowledge-base," Several in-vestigators (e.g.,Chase & Simon, 1973;Chi, 1978; Chi & Koeske, 1983) havedemonstrated tha t the differential per-farmances of experts and novices onassorted memory tasks may be more aconsequence of different underlyingknowledge bases than of different cog-nitive strategies.

swanson (1982) has noted than oatanlyda differences in cognitivestrat-egies distinguish between learningdisabled and nondisabled students,but also, differences in knowledge ofrelevant subject areas likewise . dis-tinguish between the two populations.Indeed.vpreviously learned informa-tioncan influence a student's abilityto encodeprocess, and manipulateincaming novel infarmatian.Cam-panents are constantly drawing uponold information in their processingof new information. If, either for rea-sons of inadequate environmental op-portunities or Jar reasons of corn-po.nen tial inadequacies (especiallyinadequacies in the functianing ofknowledge-acquisition components),a child'sknowledge base is limited ina specific domain, then componentialprocessing. in that domain will beimpaired.Although differences in knawledgebase are critical far understanding inctellectual performance, it is also. im-portant to.understand-how current in-:dividual differences in knawledgebase evolve out ofdifferences in theactivities of knowledge-acquisitioncomponents (Sternberg, 1984), Cogni-tive process and knowledge structureare often inextricably linked. If an in-dividual's componential processes foracquiring certain kinds of knowledgeare deficient in a given subject do-main, performance differences in theautomatization af infarmation pro-cessing and coping with novelty mayresult. Accordingly, we will considerthese and related issues in the nextsectian.

The Experiential SubtheoryComponents' operate iwithin the,

cantext of the child's distinct ex-periential history, They are applied totasks and in situations that vary interms of their familiarity to. the child(Sternberg, in press.), When a newtaskis initially confronted, ar when anold task 'is confronted in anew situa-tion.thetask requires exercise of one'sability to.deal with navelty. However,as the child gains experience andfamiliarity 'With the tasks and situ-



6/10


7/10

on familiar tasks, it should be ex-pected that he or she will have greater, difficultywith novel ones.But thisdif-ficultywith novel information ismostlikely an effect, rather than a cause, ofspecific learning disabilities. For in-stance, learning disabilities may ad-versely influence the natural course ofa child's knowledge-acquisition skillsby, say, limiting his or her range ofex-periences with tasks in disabled areas,such as mathematics. This experien-tial limitation may in turn exacerbatethe debilitating effectsofhis or her ex-isting disabilities. Clearly, then, novelinformation may prove especially dif-ficult for the learning disabled child toprocess and thus may be avoided. Inthis way, the learning disabled child'sdifficulty with novelty is most ac-curately considered a secondary con-sequence, rather than a primary deter-minant, of the deficient operation andexecution of his or her original dis-abled skills.The Contextual SubtheoryAccording to the contextual sub-

theory, the componentsof'intelligenceare applied to life experiences in threeways: (a) in adapting to environments;(bjinshaping environments; and (c)in selecting new environments (Stern-berg, 1984-).The contextual processesof adaptation, shaping, and selectionmay be conceptualized as hierarchi-cal stages. Initially, an individual typ-ically attempts to adapt to his or herenvironment. Adaptation involvesself-modification of one's cognitions,affects, or behaviors; with the goal oftryingto achieve a desirable match be-tween individual needs, interests, andmotives, on the one hand, and the en-vironment, on the other hand. If'adap-tation to environmental circum-stances is unsuccessful, then a contex-tually intelligent individual will at-tempt to shape the old environment,select a new environment, or effectsome combination of both.Shaping involves modifying an in-

dividual's environment in order toaugment the perceived fit between in-dividual and environment. Instead ofaltering or changing aspects ofthe selfto suitthe environment, an individual14

attempts to change the environment in childhood; current educationalinwhich he orshelives. Shaping may policies tend to highlight rather thanbe attempted after one fails to adapt to ""conceal specific disabilities (Stern-an environment, or after an individual berg. in press). Just as Campione,is secure enough with the environ- Brown, and Ferrara (1982) have refer-ment thatthe risk of shaping actually red to mental retardation as "generalbecomes a viable" alternative to the academic retardation," it seemsconformity of adaptation. Yet, shap- equally apt to refer to learning dis-ing, like adaptation, isnot always sue- abilities simply as "specific academiccessful. Its failure may occur for one disabilities."of two reasons. First, many pro-". Although the contextual subtheoryfessional, academic, and personal en- is not a primary determinant of, orvironments may resist one's attempts contributor to, specific learning discat shaping. Second, environments abilities, it isa primary determinant ofmay be open to shaping but the in- thedefinition,identification, anddividual maybeata loss for an effica- evaluation of learning disabled in-cious shaping strategy. In such cases, dividuals in educational settings. Inselection serves as a final option. many cases, the judged severity of aSelection involves deselecting or re- learning disability ultimately depends'

jecting the presentenvironment and on the extent to which the studentsselecting an alternative environment successfully adapt to, shape, and se-that is more consonant with an in- lect aspects of their school environ-dividual's interests, abilities, orvalues.ment. Disabled students who are un-In effect,the individual must perceive able to adapt to, shape, or select theirproblems with the present environ- environment are at risk of exacerbat-ment, identify a new environment ing their disabilities. Most likely, con-without such problems, and be ca- textual problems compound alreadypable of executing the selection. In existing disabilities and contribute tosum, intellectual development in this make the disabilities more difficult tosubtheory of" intelligence occurs overcome or remediate.through component interactions that For instance, itseemspossible thatlead to contextual adaptation, shap- contextual difficulties may in part ac-ing, and selection. It addresses the count for, and contribute to, the read-question of which behaviors are in- ing disabled student's shift from earlytelligent for whom.vas well as where "bottom-up" deficits to later,more ad-these behaviors are intelligent (Stern- vanced, "top-down"deficits (see Spearberg, 1984). & Sternberg, 1986, for a detailed dis-

cussionof "bottom-up" and "top-down" deficits). In general terms,Spear and Sternberg have concep-tualized reading disabilities as"a two-stage process: an early stage that ischaracterized by "bottom-up"prob-lems (e.g.,word recognition, decod-ing) in learning to read individualwords, and a later stage that is charac-terized by "top-down" problems (e.g.,reading comprehension, strategies) inunderstanding text. "Spear and Sternberg (1986) believe

that the important shift from the earlystage to the later stage occurs becauseof (a) the debilitating force of theoriginal constellation of "bottom-up"deficits arid (b) the failure to auto-matize individual words, which inturn drains component resources(Spear & Sternberg, 1986). A third fac-

Interface: The Contextual Subtheoryand Specific Learning Disabilities. Spe-cific learning disabilities seem to bemore debilitating in the primary yearsand less visible as individuals growolder (e.g.,Sternberg, in press; Weller,Strawser,&Buchanan, 1985). In manycases, -.individuals are consideredlearning disabled only when they arein a school setting or an academiccontext As Worden (1983) haspointed out, the learning disabledchild is virtually always identified (ordiagnosed) in the-classroom, After all,school is the context inwhich reading,calculating, and spelling proficiencyisofgreatvalue to students and ofspe-cialconcern to parents, teachers, andadministrators. It is difficult to mini-mize the effects of specific disabilities

Journal oj Learning Disabilities


8/10

tor, however, may be contextual in-telligence: That is, those readers whoare less contextually intelligent (andhave difficulty adapting, shaping, andselecting their environments) may bemore susceptible to having their early"bottom-up" deficits develop into later"top-down" deficits.

In this sense, a complete intellectualprofile of the learning disabled stu-dent requires an exploration of therole of his or her contextual behaviorsin determining the severity of his orher disabilities. This is in contrast tomore traditional notions of learningdisabilities as strictly a matter of cog-nitive, component, or ability deficits(Torgesen, 1975) or as a discrepancybetween expected ability and actualclassroom achievement (Strawser &Weller, 1985). Such notions are insuf-ficient in that they do not adequatelyreflect the complex etiology of thelearning disabled student's academicperformance.For school-age children, adaptationrepresents the aspect of the contextualsubtheory that has been most fre-.quently cited as a modulator of theseverity of learning disabilities (e.g.,Coulter &Morrow, 1978;McKinney &Feagans, 1983; Strawser & Weller,1985;Weller, 1980;Weller et al., 1985;for related applications to the field ofmental retardation, see Greenspan,1979).Adaptive behavior may involvea wide range of interpersonal, social-perceptual (Maheady & Maitland,1982), attentional, organizational, or"practical" (Wagner & Sternberg,1985) behaviors that help disabledstudents achieve a better fit with theiracademic context. In the contextualsub theory, adaptive behavior is vitallyimportant to the intelligent function-ing of learning disabled students; it isan integral part of the ultimate expres-sion of learning disabilities in theclassroom.Why isit that some disabled stu-dents have trouble effectively adapt-ing to school? As with automatizationfailure in the experiential subtheory,motivation may play an active role inthe contextual subtheory, If disabledstudents have made many attempts toadapt to or possibly shape their en-vironment and are unsuccessful, thenVolume 20. Number 1, January 1987

it is likely that they might tend tobelieve their. difficulties -,are. insur-mountable (Licht, 1983). Such percep-tions can lead to avoidance behaviorstoward the area (or areas) of the-iracademic disabilities (Adelman &Taylor, 1983). Accordingly, these stu-dents may be less likely to engage inthe adaptive, achievement-orientedbehaviors that potentially could amel-iorate the expression of their dis-abilities, or at least mitigate the se-verity of them in schooLBecause learning disabilities arecontextually relevant and relativephenomena, their effects can be lessdebilitating as contextual demandschange. With maturity, learning dis-abled individuals will have availablemore opportunities to shape and se-lect their own environments. Unlikeprimary- and secondary-age students,learning disabled adults will have thenecessary flexibility to shape their en~vironmental requirements so thattheymay improve their disabled skills in aconstructive, nonthreatening manner(e.g., without the time constraints thattend to highlight disabilities). Indeed,it may be difficult to perceive the ac-tual disabilities of such individuals.For instance, Snyder (1983) has listedseveral contextual strategies (e.g., incollege, choosing courses with a lec-ture format; on the job, practicingtasks during non-working hours) fordisabled readers to use that may helpthem cope successfully with the en-vironmental demands of higher edu-cation and employment. Further-more, these individuals will have theopportunity to select a professionalcontext that may minimize the needfor their particular deficient skills. Forinstance, many disabled adults willenter jobsin which there are fewor noacademic demands to expose theirdisabilities. Even in those jobs with. academic task demands (e.g., univer-sity professors, lawyers) other qual-ities and talents (e.g., creativity, au-tonomy, initiative) come into play thatmay have been less important or evendeemphasized during primary andsecondary schooling. Importantly, in-dividuals with specific disabilities canshape and select environments so thattheir required levels of adaptation will

be acceptable to their preferred way oflife (Sternberg, in press).Finally, the contextual relativity oflearning disabilities is apparent whenone considers how the nature of dis-abilities changes as contextual orsocietal demands shift. For instance, atone-deaf child would be consideredlearning disabledif an understandingof his or her language required keentone recognition skills, or if the childhad been enrolled in an advancedmusic program; Similarly, an uncoor-dinated or unathletic individualwould be considered learning dis-abled in a society. or culture thatheavily valued physical developmentand expression. Clearly, the definitionand identification of learning dis-abilities usually reflect the relative ap-propriateness, importance, and valueof the deficient skills in the .in-dividual's present societal and cul-tural milieu.SUMMARY ANDSYNTHESIS

In sum, thetriarchic theory of in-telligence implies several interrelatedloci of specific learning disabilities.Learning ..disabled individuals aredeficient in their application of spe-cific components to certain contentdomains. Although the componentialsystem is a highly interactive one,knowledge-acquisition componentsseem to be primary suspects in thecomponential lineup; if learning dis-abled individuals are unable to applyknowledge-acquisition componentsin an efficacious manner, it is likelythat their cognitive strategies andknowledge in specific .domains alsowill be deficient. Such deficits willserve to compound the existing learn-ing disabilities. In addition, relateddeficits in the tendency to automatizecomponential functioning may hin-der specific learning processes. Thatis, automatization failure will ad-versely affect specific componentialfunctioning (e.g., among specificclasses of performance or knowledge-acquisition components) or com-munication among different kinds ofcomponents (e.g., inadequate feed-back from these lower order com-

15


9/10

ponents to metacomponents) (Stern-berg & Wagner, 1982).Any complete analysis of theetiol-ogy ofcomponentialdeficits leadingto specific learning disabilities re-quires an understanding of, andsen-sitivity to, the experiential and contex-tualforces that drive deficient com-ponential functioning. Componentsare vitally important, but they must beexamined within the experiential,contextual, and motivational historyof.the individual; indeed, componentsare not experience-and context-free.For instance, information processingin the learning disabled individualwill.be affected by the motivationalpatterns (e.g., attribution styles) oftheindividual, patterns that may havebeen derived from the disabled in-dividual'sownexperiential and con-textual history' and that can have asubstantial effect on intellectual be-havior in school (Sternberg, 1984;Zigler, 1971). In an intriguing syn-thesis, Humphreys and Revelle (1984)have presented an. information pro-cessing model that attempts to high-light the effects of motivational andsituational.variables on efficient cog-nitive ..performance. As it has beenshown that motivational dt~ficitscanboth hinderthe acquisition of knowl-edge as well as reduce the automatiza-tionof informationprocessing, we en-courage research that integrates moti-vationaland cognitive explanationsof the learning disabled individual'sintellectual behavior. The-functioningof various kinds of components canbe adequately understood only in thewhole context in which they operate(Sternberg, 1981).With its emphasis on the interac-tion of components, experiences, andcontexts, thetriarchic approach tolearning disabilities highlights thecomplexity of intellectual behavior,the heterogeneity of the disabled pop-ulation, and the specificity of theirlearning difficulties. In this way, thetriarchic theory offers a useful frame-work within which to identify and de-scribe the different "severity subtypes"of the learning disabled population(McKinney, 1984; Strawser & Weller,1985). An evaluation of the learningdisabled child's difficulties should in-16

elude both experiential (e.g., auto-matized behavior): and contextual(e.g., .adaptive behavior): assessments,in addition to componential decom-position of cognitive performance; Anapproach that integrates these assess-ments promises to enhance educators'efforts to isolate the ways.in which thedisabled child's experiential and con-textual subsystems modulate the se-quelae and ultimate expression of hisor her specific componential deficits.ABout THE AUTHORSJoh~ Kolligian, Jr., MA, is a Doctoral Candidatein Clinical and. Developmental Psychology, YaleUniversity: Robert J, Steinberg, PhD, is IBM Pro-fessor of'Psychology and Education. Yale Univer-sity. Address: John Kolligian. Jr; MA. Department'o J Psychology, Yale Univers ity, Box llA Yale Stn;New Haven, CT 06520-7447.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe would like to express our sincere appreciation toJul ie Beth SincojJ ' for herthoughtfulsuggestions onan earlier draft of this article. and to Louise Spearfor her helpful comments and support.

REFERENCESAckerman, P.T.. & Dykman. RA. (1982) . Auto-

matic and 4Jortfulinformation-processing def-icits in children with learning and attention dis-orders. Topics in Learning and Learning Dis,abilities. 2 . 12 -22 t .

Adelman, B.S. & Taylor. L. (1983). Enhancingmotivation for overcoming learning and behaviorproblems. Journal of Learning Disabili ties. 16.384-592. .

Baddeley, A.D, & Lieberman, K (1980). Spatialworking memory. In R. Nickerson (Ed). Atten-tion and performance, VIIL Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Baron, J. (1982) . Personality and intelligence. InRJ Sternberg (Ed), Handbook a/human in-telligence (pp. 308-351). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bauer. RH (1982) . Information processing as away oj unders tanding and diagnosing learningdisabilities, Topics in Learning and LearningDisabilities, 2 . 3 3- 45 .

Bayliss, I.. & Livesey. PJ. (1985) . Cognitive stra-tegies of children with reading disability and nor-mal readers in visual sequential memory. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities. 18.326-332_

Blackman. S; , & : Goldstein. KM (1982) . Cognitivestyles and learning disabil ities: Journal ofLearn .ing Disabilities. 15. 106~1I5.

Brown. AL (1978)- Knowing when. where, and howto remember: A problem oj metacognition. In R.Glaser (Ed) .Advances in instructional psychol-ogy (Vol. 1,' pp, 1'7-165). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum. .

Brown. AL (1980). Metacognit ive development and

reading In RJ. Spiro.BiC, Bruce, & W . Brewer(Eds.). Theoretical issues in reading comprehen-sion (pp, 453-481) . Hillsdale. NJ.' Erlbaum.

Bruininks, TIL (1978), Peer status and personalitycharacteristics of learning disabled and non-disabled students. Journal oJ Learning Dis-abilities. 11 . 2 9 -3 4

Butkowsky. LS, & Willows, DM .(1980). Cognitive-motivational characteristics of chi ldren varyingin reading ability: Evidence Jor learned helpless-ness in poor readers. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 72 . 4080-422_

Butterfield. EC. & Belmont. .J.M (1977). Assessingand improving the cognitive functions of mentallyretarded people. In1 Bailer & ..M Steinlicht(Eds,), Psychological issues in mental retardation.Chicago: Aldine.

Campione=Ltl., Brown, A.L.. & Ferrara, RA.(1982). Mental retardation and intelligence. InRJ. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook oj human in-telligence (pp. 392-490). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Cavanaugh. I.. & Perlmutter, M (1982) . Meta"memory: A crit ical examination. Child Develop-ment 53; 11-28.

Ceci. S.J . (1982) . Extracting meaning from stimuli:Automatic and purposive processing of thelanguage-based learning disabled, .Topics inLearning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 46~53 ,

Ceci. SJ. (1983), Automatic and purposive semanticprocessing characteristics of normal a~d 'lan-guage/learning-disabted children.iDevelopmen-talPsychology, 19 . 427 -439 ,

Chase. w'G., &Simon. NA. (1973), The mind's. eyein chess. In w'G_ Chase (Ed.), Visual information .processing (pp. 2l5~281). New YorktAcademicPress.

Cherkes, M (1983). Cognitive development andcognitive style. Journal of Learning Disabilities.16,95-101.

Chi, MT.(1978): Knowledge structures andmemory development. In R. Siegler (Ed). Chil-dren's thinking: What develops? (pp_ 75'-96).Hillsdale. NJ' Erlbaum.

Chi. MT.. & Koeske . RD. (1983). Network rep-resentation of a child's dinosaur knowledge.Developmental Psychology, 1 9. 2 9 ~3 9.

COUlter, WA., & Morrow.H.W.(1978). Adaptivebehavior: Concepts and measurements. NewYork: Grune & Stratton.

Flavell. J.H (1978). Metacognitive development, In1M Scandura &. cs . Brainerd (Eds.}. Struc-tural/process . theories oj complex human be~haviorIpp. 213-245) . Alphen aan denRijr; TheNetherlands: Sijthoff &Noordoff .

Gerber. .MM (1983). Learning disobilities andcognitive s trategies: A case Jor training or con-straining problem solving? Journal of LearningDisabilities. 16 . 255~260_

Glaser. R. (1984) ; Education and thinking: The roleof knowledge. American Psychologist. 39.93-104.

Gould, S.J . (1980). The 'panda's thumb. NewYork.' Norton.

Greenspan. S _ (1979). Social intelligence in theretarded. InN.R. El lis (Ed). Handbook of mentaldeficiency- Psychological theory and research(2nd ed.). Hillsdale,. NJ.'.Erlbaum.Harter. S (1985). Processes underlying the construc-tion. maintenance, and enhancement of the self-



10/10

concept in children. In J. Suls & A. Greenwald( Ed s. ), P s y cho log ic a l p e rspec ti ve s on the self (Vol.3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Humphreys, MS., &Revelle, W (1984). Personality,motivation, and peiformance: A theory. of therelationsh ip between individual differences andinformation processing. Psychological Review,9L 153-184.

Hunt; E. (1978). Mechanics of verbal abili ty. Psy-chological Review, 85 , 109-130.

Hunt. E. (1980). ~The language of componentialanalysis. Behavioraland Brain Sciences, 3 . 5 73 -614.

Jorm, A.F. (1983). Specific reading retardation andworking memory: A review; British Journal of. P sychology , 74. 311-342. .

Kagan, 1. (1965). Reflection-impulsivity and read-ing ability in primary grade children. ChildDevelopment. 36 , 609-628.

Kagan. J.-. Rosman, B.,. Day. .D., Albert. J.. &Phillips, W (1964). Informat ion processing in thechild: Significance of analytic and reflective at-titudes.Psychological Monographs. 78 (WholeNo. 578).

Laberge, D.. & Samuels; SJ. {1974}. Toward atheory of automatic information processing inreading. Cognitive Psychology. 6 . 293 -323 .us B.G. (1983). Cognitive-motivational factorsthat contribute to theachievement of learning-disabled children. Journal. of Learning Dis-abilities; 16 . 483-490.

Licht; B.G., Kistner. JA . Ozkaragoz.iT; Shapiro,S; & Clausen. L (1985). Causal attributions of[earning disabled childreni Individual differencesand their implications for persistence. Journal ofEducational Psychology. 77 , 208'--216.

Lorsbach, T'C. (1982). Individual differences insemantic encoding processes. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 15,476-480.

Lorsbach, T.e, & Gray, J. W (1985). The develop-ment of encoding processes in learning disabledchildren. Journal of Learning Disabilities, .18,222-227 .

Maheady, L, & Maitland,G. (1982). Assessing so-cial perception abilities in learning disabledstudents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 363-370.

Manis, F.R (1985).Acquisition of wordidetuif ica-tionskills in normal and disabled readers. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 77, 78-90.

Mayer. RE, & Greeno. J.G.(1972). Structural dif -ferences between learning outcomes produced bydifferent instructional methods. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 63 , 165-173.

McKinney. J.D. (1984). The search for subtypes ofspeci fic learning disabili ty. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 17 , 43-50.

Volume20, Number 1; January 1987

McKinney. J.D.,' & Feagans. L. (1983). Adaptiveclassroom behavior of learning disabled students.Journal of Learn ing.Disabilities, 1,,360.-367.

Orton, S.T. (1937). Reading, writing, and speechproblems in children. New York: Norton.

Renick. MJ. (1985). The development of learningdisabled children s self-perceptions. Unpublishedmaster's thesis . University of Denver. .Denver,CO.

Rose, MC, Cundick, B.P., & Higbee, KL. (1983).Verbal rehearsal and visual imagery: Mnemonicaids for learning-disabled children. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 16 . 3 5 2- 354 ,

Schneider. W,.& Shiffrin, R.M (1977). Controlledand automatic human information processing: LDetect ion, search. and (lttent ion. PsychologicalReview, 8 4, 1 -6 6.

Shiffrin, RM, & Schneider, W (1984). Automaticand controlled processing revisited ..PsychologicalReview, 9 1. 2 69 -2 76 .

.Snyder, R.D. (1983).Coping strategies for inefficientreaders. Journal 'of Learning Disabilities, 16,261-263.

Spear, LsC; & Sternberg, R.J. (1986). An infor-mation-processing framework for understandinglearning disabilities. In S. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook-of cognitive, sociaL. and neuropsychological as-pects of learning disabilit ies. (Vol. 2, pp. 2-30).Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R.J. (1980). Sketch of a componentialsubtheory of human intelligence. Behavioral andBrain Sciences, 3. 573-614.

Sternberg, R.J. . .(1981). Test ing and cogni tive psy-chology. American Psychologist. 3 6 , 1 1 81 -1 189 .

Sternberg, RJ. (1984). Toward a t riarchic theory ofhuman intell igence. Behavioral and Brain Scien-ces, 7 , 269-315.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond LQ.: A triarchictheory of human intelligence. New York: Cam-.bridge University Press.

Sternberg, RJ. (in press). A unified theory of in-tellectual exceptionality. In J.G. Borkowski & J.Day (Eds.), Cogni tion and intell igence in specialchildren: Comparative approaches to retarda-tion, learning disabilities, and giftedness. Nor-wood, NJ. Ablex.

Sternberg, R.J., & Salter, W (1982), Conceptions ofintell igence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook ofhuman intelligence (pp. 3-28). New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Sternberg, RJ., & Spear. Le (1985). A triarchictheory of mental retardation. In NEllis & N.Bray (Eds.). International review ofresearch illmental retardation (Vol. 13 . pp. 301-326). NewYork: Academic Press.

Sternberg. R.J., & Suben, J. (1986). The socializa-tion of intelligence. In M Perlmutter. (Ed),

Perspectives on intellectual development: Min-nesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 19 , pp.201-235). Hillsdale. NJ. Erlbaum.

Sternberg. RJ.. & Wagner, R.K (1982). AUtoma-tization failure in .learning disabilities" Topics inLearning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-11.

Strawser. S., & Weller. C (1 98 5). Use of adaptivebehavior and discrepancy criteria to determinelearning disabilities severity subtypes. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 18 , 205~212.

Swanson. H.L (1982). A multidimensional modelfor assessing learning-disabled students' in-telligence: An information -processing frame-work. Learning Disabil ity Quanerly, 5, 312-3 26 .

Swanson, HL (1984).Effects of cognitive effort-andword distinctiveness On learning disabled andnondisabled readers' recall . Journal of EduCG"tional Psychology, 76.894~908.

Torgesen, J.K. (1975). Problems and.prospeas in thestudy of learning disabi li ties. In E.M Hethering-ton (Ed.). Review of child developmentresearch(Vol. 5, pp.'385-440). Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Torgesen, J.K(1985). Memory.processes in readingdisabled children. Journal of Learning Discabilities, 18 , 350-357.Torgesen. 1.[(., & Goldman, T. (1977). Verbalrehearsal and short-term memory in reading-disabled children. Child Development, 48 . 56 -60.

Vellutino. F.R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory andre-search. Cambridge, MA: MiT Press . .

Wagner. R.K.. &Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Practical in-telligence in real-world pursuits: The role of taci tknowledge. journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 49 , 4 36 -4 58.

Weller, C. (1980). Discrepancy and severity in thelearning disabled: A consolidated perspective .Learning Disability Quarterly. 3, 84-90.

Weller, C. Strawser, S, & Buchanan, M. (1985).Adaptive behavior: Designator of a continuum ofseverity of learning disabled individuals. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 18,200-204.

Wong, B.Y. (1982). Strategic behaviors in selectingretrieval cues i n gif ted. normal-achieving andlearning-disabled children. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 15 , 3 3- 37 .

Worden, P.E. (1983). Memory strategy instructionwith the learning disabled. In M Pressley & J.R.Levin (Eds.) . Cognitive strategy research: Psy-chological foundations (pp_129-153). NeW York:Springer- Verlag,

Zigler, E.F. (1971). The retarded child ~ a wholeperson. In H Adams & W Boardman (Eds.). Ad-.vances in experimental clinical psychology (Vol.1, pp. 47-121). New York: Pergamon.

17

Documents

1987 triarchic intelig