Upload
chastity-carroll
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Learning Disability IdentificationLearning Disability IdentificationEngaging in Expert Dialogue
ObjectivesObjectives
Become fluent with vocabulary and concepts related to LD identification issues
Practice having conversations with: Experts who do not have current information Novices who need to understand this approach Individuals who have questions
AssumptionsAssumptions
Learning disabilities are real.A meaningful definition of a disability
that is used for classification should emphasize what it is rather than what it is not.
When a person has a “real” disability, it does not go away or get fixed.
Why?Why?
Individuals on evaluation teams are supposed to be experts in the areas they are evaluating.
There are passionately held beliefs about LD in and out of the educational arena.
You can become a resource to others.
SourceSource
Classification of Learning Disabilities, an Evidence-Based Evaluation, Fletcher et al, 2002
Topics to Speak of MasterfullyTopics to Speak of Masterfully
Historical Context
Bimodal Distribution
Does discrepancy account for something important?? Prognosis Neurobiology Other domains
How “real” is LD as traditionally defined?
How does a normal distribution affect the way
you think about discrepancy?
Shouldn’t “discrepant” and “non discrepant”
groups differ in important ways?
StructureStructure
What are the “facts”
What questions might be asked?
But First, Remember the But First, Remember the HistoryHistory
Prior to 94-142Clinical descriptionsPerceptual-motor theoriesMinimal brain dysfuntionProcessing disorders
94-142DefinitionRegulations: severe discrepancy
How Did We Get Here?How Did We Get Here?1977 Regulations
1997 Reauthorization
2001 LD Summit
2002 LD Roundtable
2004 Reauthorization
Why is the Distribution of Why is the Distribution of Reading Skills so Important?Reading Skills so Important?
Bimodal distribution Isle of Wight Studies (Rutter and Yule) Why did they find a tail?
individuals with low IQs and mental retardation ceiling effects on measures
Failure to replicate Accurate representation of
exceptionalities So what?
How How is is Reading Distributed?Reading Distributed?
Epidemiological studies: random selection and assignment large scaleAustralia, New Zealand, Great Britain,
and US
Reading is NORMALLY distributed
Examining the Discrepancy Examining the Discrepancy HypothesisHypothesis
Bimodal Distribution
Draw a picture of the “expected” distribution of reading if discrepancy definition is valid.
Draw a picture of the “true” distribution of reading.
Ensure each person at your table understands the importance of this information and can explain it.
PrognosisPrognosis Don’t “discrepant” children benefit more from
instruction than “non discrepant” children?
Connecticut Longitudinal Study: tracked children in 3 groups
A=not reading impaired B=reading impaired with discrepancy C=reading impaired without discrepancy
“C” students had IQs 18 pts lower than “B’s”!!
B’s and C’s had achievement that was virtually identical
Absolute achievement growth curve
Neurobiological DifferencesNeurobiological Differences
Hereditability factors
Higher IQ RD appears to have more robust hereditability
Lower IQ RD appears to be more affected by environmental changes
Neuro-imaging information
Assessment ProfilesAssessment Profiles
Assessment that focuses on: intra-individual differences skills such as: phonological awareness, rapid naming,
vocabulary, visual motor skills, memory
Do such profiles reliably differentiate students? profiles are more similar than different difficulty creating measures that are “pure” processing
measures do not improve educational outcomes
Assessment ProfilesAssessment Profiles
If LD and non LD students do not differ substantially on most cognitive measures, then what would you say to an evaluator who purports that a student has a learning disability as evidenced by problems with visual motor skills?
Is there Research about Is there Research about Patterns of Performance?Patterns of Performance?
Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Practice, Fletcher, et.al. 2007.
Weaknesses (SS < 90, or
percentile rank <25)
Strengths (SS 7 points/ ½ SD or more
above weakness)
Possible sources of difficulty
Intervention targets to consider
1. Word recognition and spelling
Math calculation(and ≥90)
Phonological processing
Phonemic awareness, phonics, single word decoding
2. Reading fluency Word recognition Automaticity of word reading; rapid naming of letters
Rapid naming of letters; Oral reading fluency;
3. Reading comprehension
Word recognition Problems with vocabulary, receptive language, working memory, attention
Specific skill or strategy instruction for reading comprehension; vocabulary development
4. Math computation
Word recognition and spelling (and ≥ 90)
Executive functions & attention, working memory, motor and spatial skills
Math concepts and procedures
5. Spelling Motor skills in younger children;
Residual from phonological language problems in older children
Spelling, letter patterns (orthography), practice in writing
6 Word recognition, reading fluency, reading comprehension, spelling, math computation
Word recognition and math problems characterized by pervasive language and working memory problems
Reading (especially word recognition) and math concepts and procedures
Stability?Stability?• Shifting the rules:
• Find “Dot” as a marginally LD Discrepant student on figure 5 (page 203).
• Describe Dot to each other.
• Shift the IQ line 5 points. Now describe Dot to each other.
In your group, discuss the significance of the fact that over time large percentages of students shift around in the groups described in figure 6.
Wrap up: State of the FieldWrap up: State of the Field
LD is real
LD is probably caused by underlying processing disorders Processing measurement is not established IQ and Language test profiles DO NOT differ for LD/non LD groups
except on phonemic awareness measures
Aptitude-achievement discrepancy is not a valid LD marker
Low achievement alone is not LD
SO?
So, “dual discrepancy”. . .So, “dual discrepancy”. . .
The student’s achievement is substantially lower than peers
The student’s progress is substantially lower than peers
Necessary conditions: Solid, research based instruction
General education instruction Interventions
Addressing other issues affecting progress