EDUC 422 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Feminist Movement, Ideal Type, Harvey Hubbell
4 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
HISTORY OF LD - 1) Why are the discoveries about the left temporal lobe, in particular Broca's and Wenicke's areas, important to understanding learning disabilities? These discoveries asserted that
damage to specific areas of the brain can cause disabilities/ behaviours. That reading and spoken language can be separate in the brain. That damage in only one area can only affect one aspect of
language. The Broca’s area is responsible for speech and damage - can impair speech. Wenick’s area damage - affect meaning of language. It is important to understand these two specific brain regions
as they can help locate neurobiological damage when identifying/ classifying LD. (Swanson et. al, 2014, 16-17)
2) What was Franz Joseph Gall's contribution to the field of LD? Franz Joseph Gall was one of the first ppl. to explore the connection between brain injury & mental impairment. He said that separate
areas of the brain controlled different functions. His main ideas were: localization of function in brain and Phrenology (shape and size of the cranium is related to brain). He also conceptualized Broca’s
aphasia. He was the first to describe case of speech loss based on injury to the left frontal lobe - also believed that speech was due to memory, each of which was situated in some particular part of the
brain. (Swanson, p. 16-17)
3) What was the meaning of "dyslexia" as defined during the European period? Berlin believed that dyslexia was the same word as blindness so they thought that it was losing the ability to read but
still having normal language abilities. (Swanson, p. 17-18)
4) What role did women play during the Foundation period? Women knew how to translate research into practice. Since the teaching profession was dominated by females, they brought attention to
the critical need to develop educational interventions for those with reading disabilities and other disorders. They also provided insight into legitimate practice. (Swanson, p. 18)
5) Describe the contributions of Samuel Orton, Samuel Kirk, Werner & Strauss and Cruikshank during the Foundation period. Samuel Orton was the father of the international dyslexia society.
He discovered that students who had trouble with reading demonstrated above average IQ and that IQ does not always reflect true intellectual capacity (achievement aptitude discrepancy). He put forth
the theory of mixed dominance – the brain stored mirror images of visual representations. Worked with Anna Gillingham and they both stressed the importance of explicit phonics and blended instruction.
Samuel Kirk established the first experimental preschool for children with intellectual disabilities and came up with the ideas 1) children with disabilities have individual differences and 2) assessment is a
critical tool for guiding instruction. Werner and Strauss recognized that sometimes there were genetic factors (in comparison to external factors) that affect intelligence. They found that the exogenous
(external) children exhibited more forced responsiveness to auditory and visual stimuli, and to be more disinhibited, impulsive, erratic and socially unacceptable than children with endogenous disabilities
(genetic). They also cautioned about standardized testing and advocated for clinicians to dive deeper into the reasons that children were making mistakes. Cruikshank carried forward Werner and
Strauss’s ideas from research on students who were intellectually disabled to students with LD, worked with kids with cerebral palsy and found they performed similarly to kids from Werner and Strauss
study. Created the Montgomery County Project where results were published in the A Teaching Method for Brain-Injured and Hyperactive Children, these cases when looked at now would have had these
kids classified as LD. He built bridge between the research previously conducted with students with intellectual disabilities and research with children who would now be considered LD. (Swanson, p. 18-
22)
6) By the end of the Foundation period, what was known about learning disabilities? In the foundation period, they focussed mostly on intervention. All states passed laws that focussed on
correcting, not causation. End of this period focussed on the neurobiological origin of LD and obtaining sufficient knowledge on LD.(Swanson, p 18-22)
7) When was the term "learning disability" first used, and by whom? Samuel Kirk first used it during the emergent period.(Swanson, p.19-20)
8) How did the definition of learning disability change during the Emergent period? LD was not associated with intellectual disabilities anymore. It changed from Kirk’s definition “a disorder from
psychological, emotional, behavioural” to Bateman’s definition which defined achievement-aptitude discrepancy. It was altered from “you have a LD and low IQ/ achievement” to “you have an LD, and
normal IQ, just low achievement”. (Swanson, p. 19-24)
9) What were some important empirical findings from research conducted during the Solidification period? Researchers believed that students with LD can benefit largely by providing them with
strategies for learning through research-based curriculum. Students with LD exhibit social problems as well as academic problems. They found that LD students exhibit social problems because strangers make negative
evaluations on these children because students with LD often find it difficult to express their language (non) verbally. (Swanson, p.24)
10) What were the main issues that contributed to the Turbulent period? They had trouble with the definition of learning disabilities. They were unsure about whether social skills should be an
inclusionary factor. The number of students with LD also doubled. There were also placement issues regarding integration or segregation. There was several criticisms about the IQ-achievement
discrepancy model. (Swanson,p.25)
11) Why is the current period considered “full circle”? Evidence of a neurological basis has been accumulating rapidly. Heredity has also been gaining research validation. (Swanson, p., 28)
12) What is "responsiveness to intervention" (RTI) as described in the Current period? It replaced the IQ-discrepancy model. It is used for identification of LD. Students begin with high quality
instruction in the general discussion. Those who don’t respond to instruction progress into another level with more personalized instruction and additional support. If students still do not respond, they
receive Intensive Individualized instruction. If they still do not respond, they are referred for full evaluation for LD. Teachers provide initial interventions. Students progress is continually reassessed.
(Swanson, p.28)
13) Why was RTI considered a good alternative to an IQ-achievement discrepancy model? Starts off with high quality instruction so all students directly benefit. Interventions already provided at
start to make sure all students receive optimal instruction. IQ-achievement discrepancy model is a “waiting to fail” approach that will only intervene when progress is already delayed and it doesn’t allow
children to catch up on missed opportunities. ( Swanson, p.28)
SOCIETAL IMPACT - 1)Compare Canadian prevalence rates of LD in children and youth provided by Statscan to those reported by Cortela and Horowitz (2014) from census data available
in the U.S. Prevalence rates in US is higher than that of Canada because there is a larger population (overall, it’s about the same). Approximately 1.7% of the American population suffers from learning
disabilities. In contrast, 2.3% of the Canadian population suffers from a learning disability. In the USA, 66% of students with LD are male, and the majority of students in the 15-24 (student) age group
within Canada who had LD were also male. In the US the parental report of LD in the incidence of kids ages 12-17 is 2.6%. Canada’s self-report is 2.3% for 15 years and older (If individuals are self-
reporting), these numbers between the US and Canada are not far off.
2)What factors influence prevalence rates? Which of these factors may be playing a significant role in explaining the differences in prevalence rates found between Canada and the
U.S.? The population of US is much larger so prevalence rates will be higher. The US looked at race & ethnicity; whereas Canada stats lumped LD in w/ other mental health disabilities. Negative stigmas
will affect whether or not they will self-report whether or not they want to identify as having an LD or parents. There are methodological issues (the method of reporting). Fewer 60 year olds identified than
younger people because the younger people are more relevant to the times, the definitions change and more (or less) of a stigma when the person is older, doesn’t effect the person as much when they
are older. If teachers reported, there would be MORE. Lower rates with older people than younger people because early childhood education and daycare putting in interventions earlier, screening tools,
RTI. Perhaps, differences in definitions meant that older people were not diagnosed with LD when children. (Hoskyn, 2017)
3)How does gender influence prevalence rates of LD in Canada and the U.S.? Boys get diagnosed more often than girls. Boys are more likely to have LD than girls. Boys typically more noticed in
terms of their behaviour in comparison with girls. 2/3 of LD in the states are males. Present differently and the behavior problems are more noticeable. (Hoskyn, 2017)
4)LD iagnosed in Canadian children aged 5- 15 years; yet LD only accounts for 2.3% of the disabilities diagnosed in individuals over the age of 15 years. Why do you think that a decline in
LD occurs in adulthood. In the past decade there is a better understanding of reading acquisition and effort to providing intervention before eligibility (Cortella, p. 45.52). There has been a shift/change
in LD identification process and regulations. For example, the shift of assessment from IQ-discrepancy and cognitive discrepancy models to an RTI model. Adults are also less likely to seek help for a LD
than children because schools want to know the reason why students are not performing up to standards while in the work force, intervention is minimal. It is also easier to diagnose a LD at a younger age
when children are more susceptible to remedial interventions, therefore, a lot of adults may have been suffering for so many years that they have just coped/normalized their disability/do not know they
can get help/do not want to get help. There is a decline because way back when, children who are seniors now were not identified as having LD. But now in our time (current period) early identification for
LD is common and popular in the educational context, so that’s why adults now don’t have LD because they were not identified when they were younger. As Cortell and Horowtiz (2014) notes, “this age
group would have attended school prior to the passage of federal special education laws, reducing the likelihood of being identified as having LD during school years” (p. 26).Decline could be due to a
change in assessments in adulthood. Tasks required in adulthood do not require the same explicit skills as they did in in elementary school, such as reading comprehension or phonological
awareness. Tasks in higher education (high school, university) require an integration of fundamental skills (reading, writing, spelling); adults can develop compensatory skills as they mature that account
for a deficit in such skills. In addition, since the process of learning is not monitored, even if people above the age of 15 struggle with cognitive processing that their learning disability impairs, such
struggles would go unnoticed by others. These individuals would not be diagnosed since their struggles may not be apparent to others.
5)How do the employment prospects for adults with LD in Canada as reported by Statscan compare to those in the U.S. as reported by Cortela and Horowitz? Statscan: In 2012, 63.5% of
Canadians aged 15 to 64 with a learning disability were not in the labour force, and another 7.7% were unemployed. The employment rate of working-age adults (aged 15 to 64) with a learning disability
was 28.8%, less than half the employment rate for those without any disability (73.6%). Moreover, employed adults with a learning disability worked fewer hours per week on average than those without a
disability (28 hours versus 37 hours). Cortela & Horowitz (USA) states that 46% of working-age adults with LD report being employed while 8% report being unemployed. Nearly half—46%—report not
being in the labor force. the same percentage as those employed. The vast majority—92% — had annual incomes of less than $50,000 within eight years of leaving high school. 77% earned $25,000 or
less. Only 19% of young adults with LD reported that their employers were aware of their disability. Only 5% of young adults with LD reported that they were receiving accommodations in the workplace.
Individuals with LD seek assistance from Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, comprising the largest number of consumers. So more people in Canada with LD are not in the labor force than the US.
Almost same rate of unemployment in both countries. Employment rates are higher in the US because there are more types of jobs offered for people.In Canada, there are more programs that offer
benefits for individuals and thus they don’t need to work (aka, welfare), therefore, the rate is
lower. (StatsCan,
2012)
CLASSIFICATION AND IDENTIFICATION - 1. What is meant by "inclusionary and exclusionary criteria"? Provide examples of both inclusionary and exclusionary criteria as they are
used in the classification of LD. When both inclusionary and exclusionary criteria are applied, in what way does the identified group of LD learners differ from other low achievers?
Inclusionary criteria are criteria that indicate the presence of a LD. Exclusionary criteria focus on the exclusion of other conditions that could explain the low achievement in the set of students. Inclusionary
criteria could be, low/ no response to intervention methods or a discrepancy in their IQ to achievement. Exclusionary criteria could be the absence of other conditions that could explain the low learning
aptitude. The group of LD learners differs from low achievers because of the lack of conditions to otherwise explain the low achievement and their unresponsiveness to intervention regular methods.
Inclusionary criteria: attributes that need to be present to be considered LD. Exclusionary criteria: attributes that influence achievement/performance so that deficits cannot be considered due to an LD. LD
differs because deficiency/struggle is from within the individual and not other conditions or external factors. Examples from the LD. Definition in May 2002: Inclusionary Criteria: “these include but are not
limited to language processing, phonological processing, visual spatial processing, processing speed, memory and attention, and executive functions”, “LD are suggested by unexpected academic under-
achievement or achievement that is maintained only by unusually high levels of effort and support”. Exclusionary Criteria: “LD are distinct from global intellectual disabilities”, “These disorders are not due
primarily to hearing and/or visual problems, socio-economic factors, cultural or linguistic differences, lack of motivation, inadequate or insufficient instruction, although these factors may further complicate
those with learning disabilities”.
2. Why is identifying students with LD solely on the basis of exclusionary criteria an inadequate method? It is an inadequate method because it focuses on the budget and monetary
consequences of including children with exclusionary criteria such as English proficiency, lack of ability to learn, socioeconomic conditions, etc. While these criteria may be good reasons as to why
students may not be best appropriated under the term learning disabilities, these students would still benefit from intervention. By using this methodology to provide intervention, the focus is on saving
money, and not on ensuring that all students get the help they need. Exclusionary criteria is also good, however, because it eliminates potential candidates who may be affected due to socio-economic
factors, sensory disorders, mental retardation etc., but is not satisfactory on it’s own. From course textbook (p.33-34), you’re not including the whole of the person, you’re only including factors that are not
apart of them. It is a process of elimination model, you’re not looking at individual processes involved in learning, just looking at external factors that therefore eliminates them. Example: could be poor &
LD, but overlooked due to low SES being an exclusionary factor. It doesn't produce a conceptual model for what LD might represent at a construct level. Group of children produced by using only
exclusionary criteria will be very heterogeneous, nothing makes them similar and therefore, a "group".
3. What is the difference between "identification" and "diagnosis"? Which approach is most relevant to student learning within an educational context? For a student learning within an
educational context – identification is definitely more relevant. Identification is being aware of criteria that could add up to a learning disability and making sure to focus on their learning path if need be.
Diagnosis should only come from a trained diagnostician and is more formal in the regard of more testing needs to happen in order for a formal declaration of LD is applied (Diagnosis used with trained
professionals, clinicians, etc.). Approach more relevant to an educational context is identification as it acknowledged difficulties, narrows down specific difficulties in individual children and provides
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
These discoveries asserted that damage to specific areas of the brain can cause disabilities/ behaviours. That reading and spoken language can be separate in the brain. That damage in only one area can onl y affect one aspect of language. The broca"s area is responsible for speech and damage - can impair speech. Wenick"s area damage - affect meaning of language. Franz joseph gall was one of the first ppl. to explore the connection between brain injury & mental impairment. He said that separate areas of the brain controlled different functions. His main ideas were: localization of function in brain and phrenology (shape and size of the cranium is related to brain). Women knew how to translate research into practice. Since the teaching profession was dominated by females, they brought attention to the critical need to develop educational interventions for those with reading disabilities and other disorders.
