Handbook of Learning Disabilities

Handbook of
Learning Disabilities

This page intentionally left blank

Handbook of
Learning Disabilities

Edited by

H. Lee Swanson
Karen R. Harris
Steve Graham

THE GUILFORD PRESS

New York London

© 2003 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.
72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012
www.guilford.com

All rights reserved

Paperback edition 2006

No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Handbook of learning disabilities / edited by H. Lee Swanson, Karen R.

Harris, Steve Graham.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 1-57230-851-6 (hard) ISBN 1-59385-303-3 (pbk)

1. Learning disabilities—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Learning

disabled children—Education—United States—Handbooks, manuals, etc.

I. Swanson, H. Lee, 1947– II. Harris, Karen R. III. Graham, Steven,

1950–

LC4704 .H364 2003

371.92Ј6—dc21 2002015272

To my mentors: Annette Tessier, Bill Watson, and Barbara Keogh.
—H. L. S.

To Donald Deshler, Barbara Keogh, and Bernice Wong—
very broad shoulders to stand on indeed.
—K. R. H.

To Lamoine Miller, a wonderful mentor and colleague, who took a
chance on a raw young man from Georgia; I am forever grateful.

—S. G.

This page intentionally left blank

About the Editors

H. Lee Swanson, PhD, is Distinguished Professor and holds an endowed chair at the
University of California, Riverside. He did his doctoral studies at the University of New
Mexico and his postdoctoral work at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Swanson
was recently awarded a large U.S. Department of Education grant, which provides support
for a longitudinal study of working memory in children with and without math disabilities.
He served as Editor of Learning Disability Quarterly for 10 years, and also has published
over 200 articles, 13 books, and 30 chapters.

Karen R. Harris, PhD, is Currey Ingram Professor of Special Education and Literacy at
Vanderbilt University. She has taught kindergarten and fourth-grade students, as well as
elementary and secondary students with ADHD, learning disabilities, and
behavioral/emotional difficulties. Dr. Harris’s research focuses on theoretical and
intervention issues in the development of academic and self-regulation strategies among
students with ADHD, learning disabilities, and other challenges. Author of over 100
scholarly publications, she is Editor of the Journal of Educational Psychology. She is past
president of the Division for Research of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Steve Graham, PhD, is Currey Ingram Professor of Special Education and Literacy at
Vanderbilt University. He received his doctoral degree from the University of Kansas.
Following the completion of his doctorate, he was a member of the special education
faculties at Auburn University and Purdue University. Dr. Graham’s research has focused
primarily on identifying the factors that contribute to the development of writing difficulties;
the development and validation of effective procedures for teaching planning, revising, and
the mechanics of writing to struggling writers; and the use of technology to enhance writing
performance and development. One outcome of this focus has been the development of an
instructional approach to writing, known as Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD),
which provides a powerful way to assist students in the development of higher-level
cognitive processes involved in written language, the capability to monitor and manage their
own writing, and positive attitudes about themselves as writers. Dr. Graham is the author of
more than 150 scholarly publications and coauthor of several books.

vii

This page intentionally left blank

Contributors

Robert D. Abbott, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, Uni-
versity of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Gary Adams, PhD, Department of Special Education, George Fox University, Newberg, Ore-
gon
Stephanie Al Otaiba, PhD, Department of Special Education, Florida State University, Talla-
hasee, Florida
Dagmar Amtmann, PhD, Center for Technology and Disability Studies, University of Wash-
ington, Seattle, Washington
Scott Baker, PhD, Eugene Research Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Roderick W. Barron, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, On-
tario, Canada
Barbara D. Bateman, PhD, JD, Department of Special Education, University of Oregon, Eu-
gene, Oregon
Nancy J. Benson, PhD, Population Health Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Virginia W. Berninger, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Patricia Greig Bowers, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada
Deborah L. Butler, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education, Uni-
versity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Douglas Carnine, PhD, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators, University of
Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Laurie E. Cutting, PhD, Kennedy Krieger Institute and Departments of Developmental Cog-
nitive Neurology and Education, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

ix

x Contributors

Martha Bridge Denckla, MD, Kennedy Krieger Institute and Department of Developmental
Cognitive Neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Donald D. Deshler, PhD, Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kansas

Batya Elbaum, PhD, Department of Education and Psychology, University of Miami, Coral
Gables, Florida

Carol Sue Englert, PhD, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan

Jack M. Fletcher, PhD, Department of Pediatrics, Center for Academic and Reading Skills,
University of Texas–Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas

Steven R. Forness, EdD, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Science, University of
California, Los Angeles, California

Douglas Fuchs, PhD, Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
Tennessee

Lynn S. Fuchs, PhD, Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Ten-
nessee

David C. Geary, PhD, Department of Psychological Services, University of Missouri, Colum-
bia, Missouri

Russell Gersten, PhD, Instructional Research Group, Long Beach, California

Steve Graham, PhD, Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Ten-
nessee

Daniel P. Hallahan, PhD, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia

Karen R. Harris, PhD, Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
Tennessee

Cynthia M. Herr, PhD, Department of Special Education, University of Oregon, Eugene,
Oregon

George W. Hynd, EdD, Department of Special Education and Psychology and Center for
Clinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

Galit Ishaik, BS, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada

Joseph R. Jenkins, PhD, Department of Special Education, College of Education, University
of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Kenneth A. Kavale, PhD, Division of Special Education, College of Education, University of
Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Maureen W. Lovett, PhD, Brain and Behavior Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, and
Departments of Pediatrics and Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Contributors xi

G. Reid Lyon, PhD, Child Development and Behavior Branch, National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland

Charles MacArthur, PhD, School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware

Virginia A. Mann, PhD, Department of Cognitive Science, School of Social Sciences, Univer-
sity of California, Irvine, California

Troy Mariage, PhD, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michi-
gan

Margo A. Mastropieri, PhD, Graduate School of Education, George Mason University, Fair-
fax, Virginia

Kristen N. McMaster, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, Tennessee

Carlin J. Miller, MEd, Center for Clinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, University
of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

Devery R. Mock, MA, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia

Robin D. Morris, PhD, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Geor-
gia

Jeff Munson, PhD, Program Project on Autism, University of Washington, Seattle, Washing-
ton

Rollanda E. O’Connor, PhD, Department of Instruction and Learning, School of Education,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Wendy H. Raskind, PhD, Department of Medicine and Multidisciplinary Learning Disability
Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Leilani Sáez, MA, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Riverside, Califor-
nia

Juliana Sanchez, MEd, Center for Clinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, University
of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

Jean B. Schumaker, PhD, Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kansas

Thomas E. Scruggs, PhD, Graduate School of Education, George Mason University, Fairfax,
Virginia

Bennett A. Shaywitz, MD, Departments of Pediatrics and Neurology, Yale University School
of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut

Sally E. Shaywitz, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New
Haven, Connecticut

Linda S. Siegel, PhD, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Ed-
ucation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

xii Contributors

Deborah L. Speece, PhD, Department of Special Education, University of Maryland, College
Park, Maryland

H. Lee Swanson, PhD, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Riverside,
California

Jennifer B. Thomson, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Sharon Vaughn, PhD, Department of Special Education, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas

Joanna P. Williams, PhD, Department of Human Development, Teachers College, Columbia
University, New York, New York

Bernice Y. L. Wong, PhD, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British
Columbia, Canada

Naomi Zigmond, PhD, Department of Instruction and Learning, School of Education, Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Preface

Research on learning disabilities (LD) has become a major scientific endeavor across several
academic disciplines, including psychology and education. This research has provided scien-
tifically based models for practice in several areas across both special and general education,
such as those in the areas of instruction and methodology included in this text. Thus, the pur-
pose of this book was to chronicle the major findings that have emerged in the field of LD
over the past 20 years. In extensive discussions, we identified programmatic research pro-
grams that have been and continue to be well recognized over this time period. This hand-
book covers a wide range of topics in LD. Selection of authors was based upon a number of
factors, the most important of which being whether the research programs were program-
matic and well represented in scientific journals.

We are grateful to Chris Jennison at The Guilford Press for his tremendous support
through all phases of this project, and to his colleague Laura Patchkofsky, who handled the
production details, including chapter author coordination, with exemplary skill and enthusi-
asm. We are also thankful to Crystal Howard for monitoring the progress of all chapters
(submission, revisions, and follow-up). We are most grateful, however, to all contributors for
their willingness to undertake this difficult and challenging task; we thank them for making
this undertaking not only doable, but enjoyable.

H. LEE SWANSON
KAREN R. HARRIS
STEVE GRAHAM

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Part I. Foundations and Current Perspectives

1. Overview of Foundations, Causes, Instruction, and Methodology in the Field 3
of Learning Disabilities
H. Lee Swanson, Karen R. Harris, and Steve Graham 16
30
2. A Brief History of the Field of Learning Disabilities 57
Daniel P. Hallahan and Devery R. Mock 76
94
3. Classification and Definition of Learning Disabilities: An Integrative Perspective 110
Jack M. Fletcher, Robin D. Morris, and G. Reid Lyon

4. Learning Disabilities and the Law
Cynthia M. Herr and Barbara D. Bateman

5. Learning Disability as a Discipline
Kenneth A. Kavale and Steven R. Forness

6. English-Language Learners with Learning Disabilities
Russell Gersten and Scott Baker

7. Searching for the Most Effective Service Delivery Model for Students
with Learning Disabilities
Naomi Zigmond

Part II. Causes and Behavioral Manifestations

8. Attention: Relationships between Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 125
and Learning Disabilities
Laurie E. Cutting and Martha Bridge Denckla 140
158
9. RAN’s Contribution to Understanding Reading Disabilities 182
Patricia Greig Bowers and Galit Ishaik 199

10. Basic Cognitive Processes and Reading Disabilities
Linda S. Siegel

11. Memory Difficulties in Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities
H. Lee Swanson and Leilani Sáez

12. Learning Disabilities in Arithmetic: Problem-Solving Differences
and Cognitive Deficits
David C. Geary

xv

xvi Contents 213
229
13. Language Processes: Keys to Reading Disability 242
Virginia A. Mann 256

14. Self-Concept and Students with Learning Disabilities 273
Batya Elbaum and Sharon Vaughn 293
306
15. Neurological Correlates of Reading Disabilities 323
Carlin J. Miller, Juliana Sanchez, and George W. Hynd 345

16. Genetic Influences on Reading and Writing Disabilities 364
Jennifer B. Thomson and Wendy H. Raskind
383
Part III. Effective Instruction 403
417
17. Effective Remediation of Word Identification and Decoding Difficulties 431
in School-Age Children with Reading Disabilities 450
Maureen W. Lovett, Roderick W. Barron, and Nancy J. Benson
471
18. Teaching Text Structure to Improve Reading Comprehension
Joanna P. Williams

19. Enhancing the Mathematical Problem Solving of Students
with Mathematics Disabilities
Lynn S. Fuchs and Douglas Fuchs

20. Students with Learning Disabilities and the Process of Writing:
A Meta-Analysis of SRSD Studies
Steve Graham and Karen R. Harris

21. Preventing Written Expression Disabilities through Early and Continuing
Assessment and Intervention for Handwriting and/or Spelling Problems:
Research into Practice
Virginia W. Berninger and Dagmar Amtmann

22. Science and Social Studies
Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri

Part IV. Formation of Instructional Models

23. Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research in Learning Disabilities
Bernice Y. L. Wong, Karen R. Harris, Steve Graham, and Deborah L. Butler

24. Direct Instruction
Gary Adams and Douglas Carnine

25. Cooperative Learning for Students with Learning Disabilities:
Evidence from Experiments, Observations, and Interviews
Joseph R. Jenkins and Rollanda E. O’Connor

26. Identifying Children at Risk for Reading Failure: Curriculum-Based
Measurement and the Dual-Discrepancy Approach
Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Kristen N. McMaster, and Stephanie Al Otaiba

27. The Sociocultural Model in Special Education Interventions:
Apprenticing Students in Higher-Order Thinking
Carol Sue Englert and Troy Mariage

Part V. Methodology

28. Exploratory and Confirmatory Methods in Learning Disabilities Research
Robert D. Abbott, Dagmar Amtmann, and Jeff Munson

Contents xvii
483
29. Designs for Applied Educational Research 501
Jean B. Schumaker and Donald D. Deshler 514
532
30. The Methods of Cluster Analysis and the Study of Learning Disabilities
Deborah L. Speece 551
571
31. Neurobiological Indices of Dyslexia
Sally E. Shaywitz and Bennett A. Shaywitz

32. What Have We Learned about Learning Disabilities
from Qualitative Research?: A Review of Studies
Charles MacArthur

Author Index

Subject Index

This page intentionally left blank

Handbook of
Learning Disabilities

This page intentionally left blank

I

FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT
PERSPECTIVES

This page intentionally left blank

1

Overview of Foundations, Causes,
Instruction, and Methodology in the

Field of Learning Disabilities

H. Lee Swanson
Karen R. Harris
Steve Graham

The authors of the chapters in this Hand- brain injury and mental impairment. The
book review major theoretical, methodolog- U.S. Foundation period (1920 to 1960) is
ical, and instructional advances that have characterized as focusing on remediation
occurred in the field of learning disabilities and educational studies. The Emergent peri-
(LD) over the last 20 years. The first, and od (1960 to 1975) is characterized by the
only previous, comprehensive Handbook on formation of organizations to advocate for
Research in Learning Disabilities was pub- children with LD. This period focuses on de-
lished in 1986 and edited by Steven Ceci. finitions of LD and intervention programs.
This text was an important contribution to Some of these intervention programs are still
the field. Since that time, significant foundational to the field; others have been
progress has been made in identifying and criticized and dismissed. The Solidification
treating children and adults with LD. This period (1975 to 1985) reflects a period of
volume captures major research programs calm for the LD field. Researchers for the
that underlie these advances. Because of the most part abandoned models of the past to
diversity of subjects covered, the Handbook focus on empirically validated applied re-
is divided into five sections. search. Also during this time, key legislation
was passed reiterating earlier definitions of
Part I: Foundations and the field. The Turbulent period (1985 to
Current Perspectives 2000) reflects an epidemic increase in the
number of students identified with LD which
The foundations of and current perspectives in turn escalates the intensity of the unre-
in the field are the focus of the first section. solved issues. Although professional and
Chapter 2 reviews some of the major re- governmental organizations put forward de-
search-based landmarks of the field. In this finitions, these definitions were not necessar-
chapter, Hallahan and Mock divide the histo- ily related to intervention practices. The au-
ry of LD into five periods. The European thors also characterize the field as currently
Foundation period (1800 to 1920) is charac- wrestling with postmodernism orientations.
terized by findings from clinical studies on
In Chapter 3, Fletcher, Morris, and Lyon
address the issues of classification, defini-

3

4 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

tion, and public policy. Their review con- evidence of failure to respond to quality in-
cludes that classification research over the struction. They key is to measure children in
last 10 to 15 years provides little evidence to multiple ways over multiple time periods.
support IQ discrepancy definitions. The au-
thors further review research suggesting In Chapter 4, Herr and Bateman analyze
that neither IQ scores nor an IQ discrepan- important legislative influences in the field.
cy are relevant to treatment planning. They They suggest that some legislation and liti-
review some methodological measurement gation have had a detrimental effect on the
problems in subtype research. They con- practices of evaluating students who are
clude, however, that research on subtypes suspected of having LD. For example, they
that are based on either achievement or pro- argue that the definition of LD as indicated
cessing skills do not suggest much as to evi- by the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-
dence of subtype by treatment interactions. tion Act (IDEA) has led to widespread mis-
They further critique two models that have use of standardized tests and discrepancy
emerged in relationship to the classification formulas. There are several important cases
of LD. One involves an intraindividual- reviewed in their chapter, including Corcha-
differences approach that looks at discrep- do v. Board of Education of Rochester City
ancies within the child, and the other focus- School District (2000). This case raised the
es on a problem-solving model that focuses issues of defining a learning disability. The
on a child’s response to instruction. The au- implication of the court decision was that
thors do not see these two models as incom- severe discrepancy between achievement
patible. They argue, however, that both and ability cannot be used as a litmus test of
models reflect confusion about different lev- LD. The Wrowley case (1982), which recog-
els of classification and a failure to recog- nized that free and appropriate education
nize that no single classification is suitable had to be tailored to individual capabilities,
for all purposes. They argue that an intrain- is detailed. An Indiana case (Nein v. Greater
dividual-differences perspective leads to ex- Clark County School Corporation, 2000)
cessive testing, which, in turn, does not have that follows the progress of one student
a strong relationship to treatment out- identified in first grade as having a learning
comes. They argue that the problem-solving disability is also reviewed. In this case, the
model is not independent of classification is- school district had failed to provide an ap-
sues or even the concept of intraindividual propriate education for a student with LD.
differences. Although the problem-solving Other court decisions (e.g., Cleveland
model is less focused on within-child varia- Heights-University Heights City School Dis-
tion, it retains, according to the authors, the trict v. Voss, 1998) have challenged the ex-
concept of “discrepancy” with environmen- pectation that parents must pay for private
tal or social expectations. Furthermore, this school education when public schools fail.
discrepancy is relative to the expectations of Current cases focus on program effective-
a local context. In their research they em- ness as measured by student progress.
phasize the importance of a multivaried ap-
proach with both dependent and indepen- In Chapter 5, Kavale and Forness evaluate
dent variables. They indicate that focusing how far the LD discipline has progressed
on single variables are not helpful except from its historical foundations. Fundamental
beyond pilot data. Their classification re- problems of definition have severely affected
search calls for an integrated model. They the LD discipline. They note that even
argue that for identification and eligibility though research has increased significantly
purposes, LD should be conceptualized as within the field of LD, it lags behind in theo-
unexpected, largely in the absence of re- ry development. Although there have been a
sponse to adequate instruction, and a dis- number of theories proposed, none fully ex-
crepancy should be a matter of not learning plains the deficits experienced by the increas-
to expectations. They argue that as a goal to ingly heterogeneous LD population. The sci-
identify children for special education, test entific discipline of LD suffers because of a
scores and ability discrepancies are not valid continued movement away from attempts to
indicators. Furthermore, children should delineate the structure of LD. These authors
not be placed in special education without note that while the discrepancy concept has
precipitated many debates within the field,
the real problem is that a discrepancy is

Overview of Foundations, Causes, Instruction, and Methodology 5

viewed as equivalent to underachievement. research studies on the relative effectiveness
Kavale and Forness do not see underachieve- of service delivery models for students with
ment and LD as equivalent; they suggest that LD and other mild-to-moderate disabilities.
discrepancy might be better viewed as neces- She argues that data on the relative efficacy
sary but insufficient criteria for LD identifi- of one special education placement over an-
cation. They view the inclusion of low other are scarce. Furthermore, some of this
achievers within LD samples as undermining research is flawed because the studies fail to
the scientific integrity of the field. One major conform to rigorous standards of experi-
difficulty within the field is that students mental research. Zigmond also argues that
identified by a social–political–economical research focused on delivery models asks
notion of LD have little resemblance to the the wrong question. She concludes that
description offered within the scientific disci- what goes on in a particular setting makes
pline. Kavale and Forness argue that the sci- the difference, not where the delivery of ser-
entific discipline of LD should seek to pro- vice occurs. Her work demonstrates that
vide a new formal definition that explicitly some instructional practices are easier to
states what LD represents, based on several implement and more likely to occur in some
decades of accumulated understanding settings than in others.
about its nature.
Part II: Causes and
In Chapter 6, Gersten and Baker provide a Behavioral Manifestations
review of literature on English-language
learners with LD. English-language learners The second section of the Handbook focus-
are disproportionately represented in special es on the causes and behavioral manifesta-
education. Some of the instructional issues in tions of LD. Leading researchers address
the ongoing research involve merging Eng- their work and in some cases the work of
lish-language development with academic others in the areas of attention (Chapter 8),
instruction. Current reconceptualizations of speed and reading (Chapter 9), basic cogni-
LD in terms of paying attention to rates of tive processing (phonological, semantic, or-
learning growth and elimination of discrep- thographic processing abilities) (Chapter
ancy models, as well as the dramatic increase 10), memory (Chapter 11), problem solving
in the number of English-language learners (Chapter 12), language processes (Chapter
in schools, pose increasing problems for the 13), social cognition (Chapter 14), neuro-
field. Gersten and Baker note that determin- logical correlates (Chapter 15), and genetic
ing rates of academic growth over time is a influences (Chapter 16). Each author was
key criterion for determining LD, and early asked to consider the following questions
intervention is critical for English-language when writing his or her chapter:
learners. Although research is fairly clear
about some of the ingredients of effective 1. What is the operation definition of LD in
reading intervention programs, their appli- your research program?
cation to English-language learners is some-
what more complex. These authors highlight 2. What theoretical models provide a
some of their attempts to synthesize the framework for your research?
knowledge base on effective teaching with
application to English-language learners. Re- 3. What findings have been consistently
cent research has focused on the transition replicated in your laboratory, school
into English-language instruction in grades 3 context, and/or fieldwork?
through 6. Gersten and Baker’s research sug-
gests that effective instructional principles 4. What independent researchers have con-
build and use vocabulary as a curricular an- firmed these findings?
chor. They discuss several means to reinforce
vocabulary (effective use of visuals as well as 5. How do students with LD differ from
paying attention to the cognitive and lan- controls on the constructs under investi-
guage demands). gation?

In the final chapter of this section (Chap- 6. What applications does your research
ter 7), Zigmond focuses on effective service have for practice?
delivery models. She provides a review of
In Chapter 8, Cutting and Denckla focus
on the relationship between attention-

6 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and and sound deletion (a phonological aware-
LD. They study known genetic disorders ness task). Rapid naming is associated not
(neurofibromatosis, Tourette syndrome) to only with initial fluency but also with fluen-
understand brain–behavior relationships in cy gained after practice. Bowers and Ishaik
children with ADHD and LD. They indicate suggest that RAN is more closely related to
that there is overwhelming evidence that the orthographic skill than to phonemic encod-
supply of attentional resources in children ing. Their recent research has focused on
and adults with ADHD is not impaired. subtyping by strengths and weaknesses of
Rather, it is a deficit in the deployment or al- RAN as well as phonemic deletion skill.
location of attention resources that charac- They suggest a double-deficit hypothesis in
terizes ADHD samples. Over the last 12 which children can vary in terms of difficul-
years their research used the behavioral–neu- ty on phonological skills, rapid naming
rogenetics approach to studying LD and skills, or both. The literature is unclear as to
ADHD. For example, they study neurofibro- whether RAN measures represent domain
matosis, a common gene disorder. Mental re- general or domain specific processing speed,
tardation is rare in this population, although but it is clear that it makes an important
LD is reported in approximately 25 to 61% contribution to reading.
of children with this disability. This popula-
tion has been found to have lower than ex- In Chapter 10, Siegel outlines the normal
pected performance on a variety of language course of development in reading and ex-
tasks (many related to phonological process- amines why poor readers fail to develop ad-
ing). When compared to children with read- equately. She provides a strong theoretical
ing disabilities, many processing deficits model for our understanding of basic cog-
were similar, such as slow naming and poor nitive processes. She argues that a focus on
phonic segmentation. Comparisons of LD word recognition measures is fundamental
and ADHD to children with Tourette syn- to evaluating reading disabilities because
drome have also yielded similar processing these measures are a strong correlate of ba-
characteristics. Cutting and Denckla find sic psychological processes. She states that
that characteristics of LD related to execu- definitions should be at the reading recogni-
tive dysfunction are not particularly charac- tion level and that a cutoff below the 25th
teristic of pure Tourette syndrome, with the or 20th percentile contributes to the opera-
sole exception of cognitive slowing. Their tionalization of the field. Reading problems
findings on Tourette syndrome and ADHD are best conceptualized as a continuum
yield several parallels: Both disorders show with varying degrees of severity. Her re-
abnormal frontal lobe volumes and addi- search indicates that children with reading
tional abnormalities in the subcortical struc- disabilities show remarkable homogeneity
tures. Their research has made several con- in cognitive profiles. Siegel finds that when
tributions to our understanding of the reading disabilities are defined in terms of
complex interrelationships between execu- word recognition skills, all children with
tive function, language, and academic skills. reading problems have deficits in phono-
logical processing, working memory, and
In Chapter 9, Bowers and Ishaik review short-term memory and syntactic aware-
their research related to rapid naming and ness. She also indicates there is no reliable
reading disabilities. There are three foci to evidence to indicate that IQ plays a cogni-
their work: (1) independence of the contri- tive role in development of reading skills.
bution of rapid automatic naming (RAN) to She provides an extensive review of five
reading from that of phonological aware- possible processes that underlie the devel-
ness, memory span, and verbal ability; (2) opment of reading skills in the English lan-
association between orthographic process- guage. These processes involve phonology,
ing and RAN; and (3) understanding the syntax, working memory, semantics, and
“why” of the association between RAN and orthography. Siegel’s research shows that
reading. Their work suggests that measures difficulties in phonological processing are
of verbal working memory overlap consid- fundamental problems for children with
erably with phoneme deletion and sound reading disabilities and this problem contin-
pattern tasks and also demonstrates a ues to adulthood. She reports that there is
strong relationships between RAN of letters no evidence to suggest that development of

Overview of Foundations, Causes, Instruction, and Methodology 7

decoding skills is a result of specific instruc- children who meet this criterion in year 1
tion in grapheme–phoneme conversion will not necessarily meet it in successive
rules. Siegel’s research points to three grades. His earlier cross-sectional research
processes critical in analysis of reading dis- shows that most academically normal chil-
abilities: those related to phonological, syn- dren gradually switch from counting to di-
tactic, and working memory processes. rect retrieval of an answer, whereas most
children with arithmetic disabilities do not
In Chapter 11, Swanson and Sáez review make such a transition. Geary also found
memory research completed within the last that children with arithmetic disabilities did
20 years on samples of children with LD. not necessarily differ from their academical-
This research focuses primarily on the con- ly normal peers in types of strategies used to
tribution of both short-term and working solve simple arithmetic problems. Differ-
memory to academic performance. Deficits ences, however, were found in the percent-
experienced by children with LD in the ar- age of retrieval and counting errors. These
eas of reading and math are related to prob- children’s long-term memory representa-
lems in the phonological loop and a speech- tions of addition facts were incorrect. He
based representational system, as well as provides a taxonomy of three general sub-
problems in the general executive system. types of mathematical disability: those relat-
The executive system focuses on the moni- ed to procedural errors, semantic memory,
toring of information, focusing and switch- and visual/spatial difficulties. In the review
ing attention, and activating representations of literature, Geary delineates an inability to
from long-term memory. The research is retrieve basic facts from long-term memory
couched within Baddeley’s tripartite struc- as a defining feature of arithmetic disabili-
ture. The definition of LD used by Swanson ties. When children with arithmetic disabili-
and Sáez relies on cutoff scores (i.e., student ties retrieve arithmetic facts from long-term
performance below the 16th percentile in memory they commit more errors than do
reading or math, with average IQ scores). their academically normal peers and show
Problems in the executive system are re- error and reaction time patterns that often
viewed in terms of studies where researchers differ from those of younger academically
have manipulated the mental allocation of normal children. The results of additional
attention, focused on how children use studies from his laboratory suggest that in-
strategies to inhibit irrelevant information, hibitory mechanisms should be considered
and focused on how children combine pro- as potential contributors to retrieval errors.
cessing and storage demands. Problems in
executive processing are described in terms In Chapter 13, Mann focuses on the rela-
of limitations in attentional capacity rather tionship between language processes and
than processing strategies. Problems in the reading disabilities. Moving away from the
phonological system are reviewed in terms notion of discrepancy, she justifies a lan-
of a meta-analysis focusing on the recall of guage-based approach. She indicates that
ordered information in which few resources orthography rests on the nature of the spo-
from long-term memory are activated. Be- ken language it transcribes. She also indi-
cause short-term memory has less direct ap- cates that language processing skills and
plication to complex academic tasks, the re- reading problems result when poor readers
mainder of the chapter considers the have problems with phoneme awareness,
relationship between working memory and morpheme awareness, and three language
complex cognition. Practical applications skills: speech perception under difficult lis-
for instruction are also provided, including tening conditions; vocabulary, especially
four instructional principles. naming ability; and using the phonetic rep-
resentation in linguistic short-term memory.
In Chapter 12, Geary focuses on the diag- Based on comparative studies (e.g., Ameri-
nosis of arithmetic disabilities. He suggests can and German instruction), Mann sug-
that a score lower than the 20th or 25th gests that awareness of phonemes is en-
percentile on a mathematics achievement hanced by methods of instruction that direct
test combined with low, average, or high IQ a child’s attention to the phonetic structure
is a typical criterion for diagnosing arith- of words. Instructional experiences alone
metic disabilities. He indicates, however, are not the only factor that account for fail-
that this criterion is slippery because most

8 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

ure to achieve phoneme awareness. Some of clear disruption of the neurological system
the factors relate to speech perception (i.e., for language in individuals with dyslexia.
the awareness of rhyme). Recent research Brain-based research in dyslexia has primar-
has confirmed the relationship between ily focused on the planum temporale, gyral
speech perception and early reading skill. morphology of the perisylvian region, cor-
pus colossum, and cortical abnormalities of
In Chapter 14, Elbaum and Vaughn re- the temporal–parietal region. Miller and
view research on self-concept. Self-concept colleagues state that the neural biological
is a multidimensional construct; therefore, codes believed to underlie cognitive deficits
the authors emphasize only those dimen- in individuals with reading disabilities are
sions of self-concept especially relevant to centered on the left temporal–parietal re-
students with LD. These areas include acad- gion. Differences in the symmetry of the
emic self-concept, social concept, and global planum temporale have consistently been
self-worth. Their meta-analysis shows little found in association with reading disabili-
reliable association between the self-concept ties. Specifically, asymmetry of the planum
of an individual with LD and educational temporale is due to a larger right plana. A
placement. They conclude that educational reversal of normal pattern of left greater
placement is not an overriding determinant than right asymmetry has been found in in-
of self-concept, placing more importance on dividuals with developmental dyslexia. Al-
other factors such as individual teacher un- though the core deficit in dyslexia appears
derstanding and acceptance of students with to be phonological processing, they con-
disabilities. They also find that students clude that visual processing is also implicat-
with LD who have a low self-concept can ed. Their research indicates, however, that
benefit from appropriate interventions. variability in the pattern of the plana sym-
They indicate a caveat in the literature, metry or asymmetry is not a sufficient cause
however, because students who have a low of severe reading disability or dyslexia. This
self-concept do not necessarily have low is because such symmetry or reverse asym-
general self-perceptions. In addition, some metry in the plana also appears in the nor-
students with LD have self-concept scores in mative population. Although their review
the same range as do students without dis- suggests that there is a strong heritability
abilities. Research indicates that there are component in the reading process, many un-
several issues related to the measurement of knowns have yet to be explored. For exam-
self-concept, including those resulting from ple, although certain genes have been target-
the poor theoretical foundation of a number ed as being involved in dyslexia, it is not
of measures. Elbaum and Vaughn indicate known how these chromosomes cause man-
that further research needs to be done on a ifestation of reading deficits. The authors
longitudinal basis to investigate the extent also indicate that there has been little inves-
to which LD students’ self-concept changes tigation of the genetic contributions to
as a function of academic progress. dyslexia in minority populations.

In Chapter 15, Miller, Sanchez, and Hynd In the final chapter (Chapter 16) of this
consider the neurological correlates of read- section, Thomson and Raskin focus on ge-
ing disabilities. Their research focuses on netic influences on reading and writing dis-
children characterized by difficulties in abilities. Their work has shown that phono-
reading and spelling, including difficulties in logical short-term memory has a genetic
segmentation, rapid and automatic recogni- ideology, leading to an instructional pro-
tion in decoding of single words, articula- gram in which reading begins with precise
tion, and anomia. During the last decade representation of syllables and phonemes
there has been consensus that a core compo- and spoken words. They review some of the
nent of reading disabilities is difficulty in Colorado twin study findings that support
phonological processing. These authors also the existence of major gene effects on read-
report evidence of visual deficits in some ing disabilities, although they indicate that
people with reading disabilities. They re- the precise information about the mode of
view the neurobiological evidence done inheritance is less clear. Literature suggests
through postmortem, electrophysiological, localization of dyslexic gene sites (i.e., gene
family, and functional magnetic resonance sites have been attributed to chromosome 1,
imaging studies (fMRI), all pointing to a

Overview of Foundations, Causes, Instruction, and Methodology 9

2, 6, 15, and 18). The authors review a vari- search on word identification and decoding.
ety of mathematical approaches developed Although developmental reading disabilities
to model the inheritance patterns of a trait have been acknowledged for the past centu-
in families. Thomson and Raskin examined ry it is only within the past 10–15 years
nuclear families consisting of 409 individu- that well-controlled studies have emerged.
als and found a genetic contribution to Lovett and colleagues have overcome previ-
phonological decoding rate, in addition to ous methodological and measurement prob-
the genetic contribution that is shared with lems. They review previous studies on
phonological decoding accuracy. Their re- phonological processing and indicate there
sults also indicate that genes which con- is limited knowledge on remediating “se-
tributed to nonword repetition account for vere” forms of developmental dyslexia. Al-
the genetic basis of the digit-span score, but though advances in our understanding have
there is an additional genetic contribution been made regarding children in younger
to nonword repetition tasks not accounted grades, mixed results and a range of out-
for by measures of digit span. They indicate comes exist among remediation studies with
that future developments will focus on readers with severe disabilities and older
genotype/phenotype correlations, biological children. Further difficulties relate to gener-
consequences of specific genetic changes, alizations which implicate processes besides
and intervention strategy guided by genetic the phonological system. Lovett and col-
profiles. leagues review the extensive research pro-
gram conducted at The Hospital for Sick
Part III: Effective Instruction Children in Toronto which specifically ad-
dresses issues of generalization and transfer
The third section includes chapters from of learning. They test two remedial pro-
leading researchers focusing on effective in- grams, one focusing on direct instruction
struction in the areas of word skills (Chap- (phonological analysis and blending/direct
ter 17), reading comprehension (Chapter instruction) and another on strategy train-
18), mathematics (Chapter 19), writing ing (word identification strategy training).
(Chapter 20), spelling (Chapter 21), and sci- Both procedures yield substantial changes in
ence and social sciences (Chapter 22). The reading behavior when compared to control
authors of these chapters were asked to ad- conditions. Results indicated that a combi-
dress the following questions: nation of the two intervention programs en-
hanced generalization over either program
1. How are students with LD operationally in isolation. Their research focus has moved
defined? to enhancing reading fluency.

2. What does research indicate are the most In Chapter 18, Williams provides a de-
important components of instruction? tailed review of her research on reading
comprehension. She takes the position that
3. What behaviors or targets of instruction regardless of the controversies about the na-
show the largest or weakest gains? ture and extent of the disability, instruction-
al techniques recommended for students
4. What is the magnitude of treatment out- with LD are qualitatively different than
comes (effect sizes)? those recommended for poor readers. Her
research is based on the assumption that
5. What evidence is provided on transfer one should focus on school-identified
and generalization? groups because they are more ecologically
representative settings yielding more useful
6. What evidence is provided that students results. Williams found in her earlier work
with LD respond similarly or differently that children with LD have difficulty pro-
from their counterparts under treatment ducing a representation of information from
conditions? their reading of text. She does not imply
that they do not monitor; rather, their repre-
7. What are the principles of instruction sentation of a paragraph develops less ade-
that emerge from the research? quately than in a child without disabilities.
Her general principles of instruction at-
8. What are the results related to the trans-
fer of findings to classroom practice?

In Chapter 17, Lovett, Barron, and Ben-
son provide an overview of intervention re-

10 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

tempt to externalize some of the steps of research on a model of strategy instruction
comprehension. Some of these principles referred to as self-regulated strategy develop-
make use of modeling strategies, sequencing ment (SRSD). Their instructional model is
tasks that reflect progression from easier to designed to enhance students’ strategic be-
more difficult material, and provision for haviors, self-regulation skills, content
extensive practice and feedback. She has de- knowledge, and motivation for writing. An
signed interventions related to theme identi- important goal of their program is to help
fication to incorporate some goals of con- students with LD develop more sophisticat-
structivism (integrating text meaning and ed approaches to composing by teaching
concepts that are personally meaningful) as powerful composition strategies for plan-
well as structured, direct instruction. In this ning, composing, and revising, as well as
instructional model, Williams makes use of self-regulation strategies critical to the writ-
teacher explanation and modeling, guided ing process. Earlier research found that chil-
practice, and independent practice. Instruc- dren have difficulty writing due to an inabil-
tion is directed to focus on components of ity to sustain the writing effort. Students
organization (e.g., theme identification via a with LD fail to access the knowledge they
series of questions that help the students possess, and their difficulties in the mechan-
generalize the theme to relevant life situa- ics of writing interfere with the process of
tions). The instructional sequence makes generating content, leading to meager out-
use of stories with single clear and accessi- put. Graham and Harris indicate that gaps in
ble themes. She has analyzed her findings as writing knowledge are not limited to genre
a function of responsiveness to instruction. but also to other aspects of writing such as
She found that for children in second and knowledge of how to write. They provide a
third grade no significant relationship meta-analysis of research using the SRSD
emerges between nonresponders and special model. The SRSD model has produced large
education status. Williams’s current re- effect sizes for students with and without
search focuses on various types of informa- LD, including strong positive effects on the
tional texts, such as single structure versus a quality, structure, and length of writing by
compare–contrast structure. students with LD. Although they raise ques-
tions about what components provide the
In Chapter 19, Fuchs and Fuchs summa- largest effect sizes, the full SRSD model ap-
rize their research on mathematical problem pears to be the most powerful related to mea-
solving. They define students with math dis- sures of grammar, maintenance, and general-
abilities as having an intelligence test score ization. Graham and Harris’s instructional
of at least 90 and performance at least 1.5 model has a profound effect not only on stu-
standard deviations below the mean on a dents with LD but also on writers of poor,
mathematics achievement test. Their work average, and good ability.
clearly shows that students with math dis-
abilities lack a strong foundation in the In Chapter 21, Berninger and Amtmann
rules of problem solving. Their research review 12 years of research on the preven-
shows that it is necessary to have explicit in- tion of spelling and writing problems. In
struction on transfer in order to draw the their view of writing, this can be represent-
connection between novel and familiar ed in a triangle that encompasses short-term
problems. Fuchs and Fuchs indicate that ad- memory, working memory, and long-term
ditional work is needed to identify strategies memory environments. They find that early
for increasing the magnitude and range of intervention aimed at teaching handwriting
problem-solving effects. Their work empha- or spelling to at-risk writers reduces the
sizes the importance of process variables, by number of students who need to rely on
making the rules of problem solving explic- computer technology to bypass low-level
it. To optimize the quality of providing ef- writing processes. They indicate that tran-
fective explanation as well as continuing scription skills differentiate good and poor
their work on strengthening transfer to real readers. Their earlier work has shown that
problem-solving tasks, they are presently orthographic coding is directly related to
identifying the cognitive correlates that un- handwriting and spelling in students who
derlie effective instruction. have dyslexia, as well as in those who have
specific writing problems without any mo-
In Chapter 20, Graham and Harris review

Overview of Foundations, Causes, Instruction, and Methodology 11

tor disabilities. They find that handwriting volved text-processing strategies, mnemonic
draws on orthographic coding but spelling strategies, elaborative integration, inquiry-
draws on both orthographic and phonologi- oriented or activities-oriented instruction,
cal coding. Berninger and Amtmann’s recent and peer tutoring. They draw several conclu-
research suggests that because phonological sions for enhancing positive outcomes in in-
short-term memory is genetically con- struction, including specifying instructional
strained it may also apply to learning to objectives, maximizing engagement through
spell. With young children, explicit training approaches such as opportunities to re-
in the alphabetic principle in isolation and spond, enhancing concreteness and mean-
words in context leads to significant im- ingfulness via mnemonic instructional strate-
provement in the spelling accuracy in young gies, and actively retrieving steps of a
children’s composition. They also review mnemonic strategy or reasoning through sci-
several instructional principles which influ- ence problems and experiments, as well as
ence both low-level and high-level spelling the explicit provision of learning strategies.
skills in the same lesson. They propose a Current research focuses on developing ap-
model of writing which takes into consider- propriate tutoring materials with application
ation the transcription and executive func- to more complex subjects, such as high
tions. Developmentally, the executive func- school chemistry.
tion plays an increasing role in text
generation and management of the writing Part IV: Formation of
processes. Berninger and Amtmann also Instructional Models
provide an extensive review of research sup-
porting use of computer technology. They The fourth section of this Handbook focus-
indicate that computers can assist in writing es on general instructional models. This sec-
beyond bypassing transcription problems tion differs from the previous section due to
(spelling). the focus on models that would be consid-
ered general heuristics of effective instruc-
In Chapter 22, Scruggs and Mastropieri tion regardless of instructional domain.
review intervention research on science and These chapters focus on research related to
social studies. They indicate that major edu- strategy instruction (Chapter 23), direct in-
cational decisions relative to science and so- struction (Chapter 24), cooperative learning
cial studies have been made without consid- (Chapter 25) and curriculum-based mea-
ering students with LD. Nevertheless, a surement models (Chapter 26). This section
substantial amount of research has been un- also addresses the influence of constructivist
dertaken in science and social studies educa- models on instructional outcomes (Chapter
tion for students with LD. The majority of 27). The authors in this section were asked
their studies were conducted as true labora- to consider the same seven questions listed
tory experiments or actual classroom and in Part III.
teacher applications. They present the argu-
ment that phonological processing deficits In Chapter 23, Wong, Harris, Graham,
are related to some problems in compre- and Butler provide a comprehensive over-
hending science and social studies texts, view of cognitive strategies instruction re-
but these processes are no more important search in the field of LD. They define cogni-
than higher-order processes. Scruggs and tive strategies as processes that the learner
Mastropieri characterize science and social intentionally performs to influence learning.
studies education by two major models These models include self-control compo-
of instruction: constructivist–child-centered nents as a way of planning and executing a
models and content-driven or textbook- strategy, as well as a way of monitoring and
based approaches. They note potential ad- evaluating its effectiveness. Wong and col-
vantages to constructivist approaches. How- leagues organize their review by age level:
ever, there is an overreliance on discoveries children, adolescents, and young adults.
or insights into concept acquisition. Con- They identify connecting themes or dis-
tent-driven models typically emphasize cernible commonalties among cognitive
breadth over depth of learning in the acquisi- strategies instruction approaches. Strategies
tion of factual material. Overall, their ap- instruction for elementary grades includes
proach to facilitating content learning has in-

12 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

research in the area of mnemonics, composi- as well as mixed models (i.e., restructured
tion, and mathematics and strategy instruc- and structural arrangements in a general
tion for secondary students with LD. These class). Their work suggests that assistance
authors also provide a comprehensive review provided by peers during cooperative learn-
of a strategic-content learning program that ing may not be sufficient for students with
is focused on adults with LD. The key theme LD. Sometimes students with LD have diffi-
is that children who have difficulties learning culty meeting the reading requirements of
need to be engaged in more extensive, struc- the group’s work. Jenkins and O’Connor in-
tured, and explicit instruction to develop dicate that less than half of the students
learning, performance, and self-regulation with LD (around 40%) successfully partici-
strategies. The authors indicate that many pate in cooperative groups. They also ob-
questions remain about strategies instruc- serve a significant side effect for using coop-
tion, particularly the contributions of vari- erative learning as an inclusion strategy.
ous components to the multicomponent Their research clearly indicates that stu-
models of strategies instruction. dents with LD differ in their response to co-
operative learning. The way teachers imple-
In Chapter 24, Adams and Carnine pro- ment cooperative learning and the
vide an overview of their work on direct in- characteristics of the students themselves
struction. They define direct instruction as determine outcomes. Further, how the char-
emanating from the foundational work of acteristics of students with LD are perceived
Engelmann and associates. In these pro- by their classmates must be considered
grams, information about what the teacher when using cooperative learning in a gener-
needs to say and do is scripted within each al education setting.
curriculum program. They provide a meta-
analysis of the relevant research on direct In Chapter 26, Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster,
instruction that relates to students with LD and Al Otaiba focus on the link between
and an effect-size index (a quantitative in- treatment resisters (or nonresponders) and
dex) as a means for judging outcomes. Some the application of curriculum-based mea-
of the important findings are that the effect surement. Treatment resisters are children
sizes are larger in older than younger who are unresponsive to generally effective
groups, effect sizes were larger in mathe- treatments. Fuchs and colleagues provide an
matics than reading, effect sizes were larger extensive review of the literature regarding
on criterion-related measures when com- what nonresponsiveness to instruction en-
pared to norm-referenced measures, and tails. Previously, researchers have defined
effect sizes were larger for studies imple- lack of responsiveness as related to the level
mented within a year period. Effect sizes de- of performance and the rate of growth.
creased when interventions lasted over a There are serious limitations to each of these
year (Adams and Carnine attribute this to definitions in isolation. They suggest a dual-
using multiple teachers affecting the fidelity discrepancy approach where attention is giv-
of the implementation). However, regardless en to performance level and growth rate. The
of the manipulations, they found effect sizes procedure requires an assessment of every
related to direct instruction were in the child in every classroom weekly, evaluation
range of 0.73 to 1.26. of progress on a regular basis, formulation of
interventions in general education class-
In Chapter 25, Jenkins and O’Connor rooms for children identified as dually dis-
provide a review of research on cooperative crepant, and implementation of those proce-
learning for students with LD. They define dures with fidelity. Within this context,
cooperative learning as instructional use of nonresponders are identified as those who
small groups so that students work together score 1 standard deviation below their aver-
to maximize their own and each others’ age-achieving peers in performance level and
learning. They provide a comprehensive re- slope (growth). However, it is important to
view of the experimental studies on cooper- realize that if a student’s growth was similar
ative learning for students with LD in the to that of average students, even though the
areas of mathematics, writing, and reading. student performs poorly, the student would
They also address the application of cooper- not be identified as a nonresponder. Like-
ative learning to different forms of peer me- wise, a student who performed at a border-
diation, such as crossed age peer tutoring,

Overview of Foundations, Causes, Instruction, and Methodology 13

line level but made no growth would likely resemblance to that in the field of LD 20
be identified as a nonresponder. years ago. Since the inception of the field,
the body of knowledge concerning LD has
Fuchs and colleagues also indicate that been influenced by the sophistication of the
validating the notion of discrepancy in research process. In this section authors
terms of responsiveness to treatment may identify how methodologies illuminate our
further validate the IQ-discrepant group. understanding about the causes and/or cor-
After examining this dual-discrepancy ap- relates of LD. The areas covered include ex-
proach, they turn their attention to curricu- ploratory and confirmatory models (Chap-
lum-based measurement (CBM). Generally, ter 28), single-subject and group-design
the procedure requires gathering samples of models (Chapter 29), subtype analysis
relatively broad skills, examining dimen- (Chapter 30), neuropsychological indices
sions within the curriculum as reflected in (Chapter 31), and qualitative research
weekly tests. Their repeated measurements (Chapter 32). Research conducted by the
and sampling differs markedly from typical author of each of these chapters exemplifies
classroom approaches in which teachers as- a particular methodological approach. The
sess mastery of a single skill and move on to authors review their research using the tar-
different or more difficult skills. Because geted methodology with LD participants. In
CBM information is collected in a time se- addition, these authors were asked to con-
ries format, the researcher or teacher is able sider the following questions when writing
to calculate slopes or estimates for each in- their chapters:
dividual as a means to describe growth and
the effects of treatment. The goal is to de- 1. What has this methodology told us
scribe individual trajectories of changes in about LD that is not apparent in other
academic performance. methodologies?

In Chapter 27, Englert and Mariage in- 2. What are the strengths and limitations of
vestigate sociocultural models of special ed- this methodology?
ucation interventions that focus on higher-
order thinking skills. They focus on social 3. How does this methodology complement
constructivism as a theoretical model for de- or refine traditional comparisons (e.g.,
signing and implementing instructional pro- analysis of variance) found in the litera-
grams. Palincsar and Brown’s early research ture between students with LD and those
provides a foundation for much of this without disabilities?
work. The authors review three research
programs that view students as a communi- 4. What part does context, error, and com-
ty of learners. Particular emphasis in each plexity play in the applications of these
program is on teacher modeling and think- methods?
ing aloud and providing strategies to be a
successful learner. Teachers are viewed as 5. What variations exist within the method-
providing an apprenticeship to students in ological approach and why is a particu-
cognitive activity. A key concept in these lar variation used in your research?
models is the “zone of proximal develop-
ment.” This is the distance between the level In Chapter 28, Abbott, Amtmann, and
of performance obtained by the child in in- Munson provide an overview of exploratory
dependent problem-solving activity and the and confirmatory methods in LD research.
level attained by the child in collaboration They describe current data management sys-
with others. This sociocultural model of tems and limitations to traditional ap-
learning suggests that instruction has to be proaches of handling missing data. They dis-
situated in activities which promote transfer cuss the use of methods that explore
and generalization. measurement structures in the context of
new theories. These exploratory factor
Part V: Methodology analysis procedures are useful in early stages
of conceptualization. In their view, ex-
The final section focuses on methodology. ploratory methods should be guided by the-
Research practice in LD today bears scant ory as much as possible and performed so
that Type 1 errors are tightly controlled.
Confirmatory methods, in contrast, provide
for comparison of consistency of data with

14 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

competing models. Much of Abbott and col- University researchers use group designs
leagues’ research has focused on the covaria- when attempting to compare the effects of
tion of individual differences in growth. an innovative instructional procedure to
They often use confirmatory factor analysis traditional instructional procedures. Several
and structural equation modeling to create a studies showing variations of single-subject
complete mapping of the theoretical con- designs are embedded within group design.
structs and the model of measurement error. Through these various designs, instructional
They contrast structural equation modeling methods for teaching a variety of strategies
and traditional multiple analysis of variance associated with general education courses
(MANOVA) approaches. MANOVA de- are validated. Schumaker and Deshler also
pends on the type of correlation among de- indicate the conditions in which rules of an
pendent variables. If the multiple dependent experimental design must be considered
measures are not indicated with latent vari- within the context of the current school sit-
ables, then a MANOVA is appropriate. uation.
However, if multiple dependent measures are
indicated with other latent variables, then In Chapter 30, Speece reviews the empiri-
structural equation modeling is appropriate. cal procedures of handling sample hetero-
Abbott and colleagues argue strongly that at- geneity. She focuses on subtyping proce-
tention should be given to the fit of relevant dures known as cluster analysis. Part of the
competing theoretical models. They also appeal of cluster analysis is that it is not a
outline new directions in confirmatory mod- single method but encompasses a variety of
eling of data. Besides the new software pack- approaches. Her analysis focuses primarily
ages for a variety of statistical methods, on hierarchical agglomerative methods in
innovations have been related to permuta- which the researcher starts with a partici-
tion-based tests. pant (whether LD or non-LD) in his or her
own cluster and then moves to successive it-
In Chapter 29, Schumaker and Deshler erations until all participants are in a single
focus on group and single-subject design for cluster. How the investigator decides at
applied educational research. Several studies what point the hierarchy best reflects the
are reviewed that were conducted under the true underlying structure of the data is dis-
auspices of the Kansas University Center for cussed. Speece reviews the three major ele-
Research and Learning. Challenges in de- ments for designing and evaluating classifi-
signing effective intervention studies are re- cation research: theory formulation,
viewed. Schumaker and Deshler adopt stan- internal validity, and external validity. She
dards to field-test their interventions that reviews the difficulties with “distance” mea-
focus on application, usability, and general- sures. She indicates that because of the un-
izability. Particular attention is given to sin- certainty associated with statistical stopping
gle-subject designs. The term “single sub- rules, replication of a cluster structure is a
ject” is a misnomer, because these designs requirement. Her own analysis indicates,
involve multiple subjects. Single-subject de- however, that cluster analysis within the
sign is particularly useful for students who field of LD has been infrequent. Possible
are receiving intervention in a setting with a reasons for infrequent use include the com-
small number of students, and for close ex- plicated process for using hierarchical and
amination and development of intervention ultra-agglomerate methods, the sheer
components and procedures. Because the amount of work involved, and the fact that
focus is to develop interventions that create the prior classification work has had little
large changes in skills within a reasonable impact on research in reading disabilities.
period, these designs are useful in assessing Speece presents a compelling argument that
effectiveness. The designs are also useful in this is an appropriate tool in the classifica-
studying changes in growth, because all stu- tion of children experiencing learning prob-
dents can participate and act as a control as lems.
well as participate in the treatment condi-
tions. Several of the designs used by Schu- In Chapter 31, Shaywitz and Shaywitz fo-
maker and Deshler are of a hybrid nature cus on the neurobiological indices of dyslex-
and manipulate setting, student, and se- ia. They define dyslexia as unexpected fail-
quences of behaviors taught. The Kansas ure in reading among children and adults
who otherwise possess levels of intelligence

Overview of Foundations, Causes, Instruction, and Methodology 15

and motivation considered necessary for ac- ition of qualitative research is hard to pin-
curate fluent reading. Dyslexia is one of the point, some characteristics noted by
most common neurological-based disorders MacArthur indicate a focus on understand-
affecting children with prevalence rates of 5 ing people, events, and constructs in their
to 10% in clinics and about 17% in unse- full context. An essential characteristic of
lected population-based samples. The au- qualitative research is commitment to un-
thors also argue that dyslexia is a persistent derstanding social issues in their natural
chronic condition that does not represent a context with all its complexity. There is an
transient developmental lag. Shaywitz and open nature to the investigation that focuses
Shaywitz’s results indicate that reading dis- on the meaning of events, ensuring the
ability in young children as well as adults is trustworthiness of the data, and checking
due to a deficit in phonology. Shaywitz and the validity of the interpretations. In his re-
Shaywitz’s research further suggests that view, several studies have relied primarily
there are differences in the temporo–pari- on a qualitative analysis of interviews to un-
eto–occipital brain regions between dyslexic derstand the views of individuals with LD.
and readers without impairment. They re- Usually interview transcripts are analyzed
view the methodology related to functional inductively and the responses are guided by
brain imaging (positron emission tomogra- general questions. MacArthur outlines the
phy, fMRI, and magnetoencephalography). limitations in this approach but indicates
The converging evidence using functional that unique perspectives of individuals with
brain imaging in adult readers with dyslexia LD are not often heard in quantitative mod-
shows failure in the left-hemisphere posteri- els of analysis.
or brain system to function properly during
reading. In recent studies, these researchers In summary, the authors of these chapters
use fMRI to examine the functional organi- review significant advances in knowledge
zation of brain for reading and reading dis- made in the field of LD. Although the chap-
ability. They use a subtraction methodology ters are diverse in terms of research pro-
to isolate brain–cognitive function relation- grams reviewed, some clear themes emerge.
ships. Their findings indicate that sex differ- For example, there is a clear biology to LD,
ences exist in functional organization of the the correlates of which are reflected in a
brain for language. In general, there is evi- number of psychological processes. There
dence of relatively greater right-hemisphere appears to be a reliance on operational defi-
involvement for females than for males. nitions of LD that do not rely on discrepan-
Their research has focused on the brain cy criteria. Furthermore, several instruction-
regions where previous research has impli- al programs with critical commonalities
cated reading and language. They find acti- have been effective across a broad array of
vation patterns related to phonological academic areas. A number of legal and po-
analysis. For example, on nonword rhyming litical influences have provided distraction
tasks, individuals with dyslexia experience a to developments within the field, yet strong,
disruption of the posterior system that in- theoretically based research is emerging in
volves the posterior superior temporal gyrus multiple areas. In addition, a number of
(also known as Wernicke’s area, the angular methodological approaches have converged
gyrus, and the striate cortex). They indicate in showing that students with LD have
the strengths and limitations of the fMRI. qualitatively and quantitatively distinctive
Perhaps the most profound implication of characteristics that vary from those of their
the Shaywitzses’ work is the biology behind normally achieving peers. There remain, of
a learning disability. They demonstrate a course, many unresolved areas within the
persistent nature of a functional disruption field. Some of these continue to relate to
in the left-hemispheric neural systems and consensus on definition, whereas others re-
indicate that the disorder is lifelong. late to isolating those components of in-
struction necessary for effective outcomes.
The final chapter (Chapter 32) by Though each chapter fleshes out the details
MacArthur provides a comprehensive of various research programs, the reader
analysis of what we have learned about LD discovers numerous and important direc-
from qualitative research. Although a defin- tions for future research.

2

A Brief History of the Field
of Learning Disabilities

Daniel P. Hallahan
Devery R. Mock

Without a historical perspective, the uniqueness of present-day contributions and
“discoveries” tends to be overemphasized. But in fact these contributions
represent extensions, modifications, verifications, or duplications of previously
observed phenomena or stated positions. Unless we use the past as points of
reference and guides, investigators of [learning disabilites] may either recommit
past follies or “rediscover” the contributions of their professional progenitors
when they should instead extend and correct the works of those who pioneered
before them.

—WEIDERHOLT (1974, p. 1)

It is not easy to separate the wheat from the nents. This history includes research investi-
chaff, the sheep from the goat, or the contri- gating behaviors as disparate as aphasia and
bution from the folly. In the field of learning social competence and interventions ranging
disabilities (LD), professionals are asked to from Direct Instruction to forced laterality.
make this distinction almost daily. Some It is a history that begins with the observed
contributions in the field extend previous re- relationship between brain injury and be-
search and shed new light on old problems, havior and progresses to and beyond the
for example, the relationship between systematic identification of students with
phonological awareness and reading ability specific disability. In keeping with others
(Adams, 1990). However other “discover- who have chronicled these events (Hallahan
ies” are not so fruitful, for example, neuro- & Mercer, 2001; Lerner, 2000; Mercer,
logical patterning (Delacato, 1966). 1997; Wiederholt, 1974), we have ap-
proached this subject chronologically and
Weiderholt (1974) suggested that the ulti- divided the history of LD into several peri-
mate value of a “contribution” depends not ods. We have chosen to use the periods sug-
on the persuasive power of its supporters gested by Hallahan and Mercer (2001):
but on the “contribution’s” relative place in European Foundation Period (c. 1800–
history. Thus, to distinguish the proverbial 1920); U.S. Foundation Period (c. 1920–
wheat from chaff, Weiderholt argued for the 1960); Emergent Period (c. 1960–1975);
“contribution” in its historical context. In Solidification Period (c. 1975–1985); Tur-
so doing we look to the past, well beyond bulent Period (c. 1985–2000). Individually
even the 1975 passage of the Education for these periods illustrate the interests, theo-
All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), to ries, and tools of the field at various points
a history that spans centuries and conti-

16

A Brief History of the Field 17

in time. Collectively, these periods evidence As Head noted, the letter summarizing
progress and serve as guides for distinguish- Gall’s discoveries contained two themes—
ing the contribution from the folly. one related to the revolutionary idea of lo-
calization of function in the brain, the other
European Foundation Period to what was to become the basis for what
(c. 1800–1920) was called “craniology” or “phrenology.”
Unfortunately for Gall, his name became
During this period, some European physi- more associated with phrenology than with
cians and researchers explored the relation- his discovery of localization of brain func-
ship between brain injury and behaviors, tion. By the middle of the 19th century, he
primarily disorders of spoken language. was considered a charlatan within the med-
Later, in the second half of this period, this ical community.
research gave way to investigations con-
cerning presumed brain abnormalities and According to Head, Gall also missed the
disorders of reading. Many of the achieve- mark with respect to his conceptualization
ments of this period, although limited by of what later would come to be known as
19th-century technology, remain seminal Broca’s aphasia. He was the first to describe
achievements in the field of LD. The work cases of speech loss based on injury to the
of individuals such as Gall (Gall & Spurz- left frontal lobe. However,
heim, 1809), Broca (1861), and Hinshel-
wood (1895, 1917), however flawed and although many instances came before him, he
limited by the technology of their time, appears to have looked upon them as confir-
serve as the very “points of reference and matory of a localization of faculties deter-
guides” that Wiederholt (1974) extolled. mined on other grounds. For him normal
speech was due to the perfect exercise of cer-
One of the first individuals to explore the tain aspects of memory, each of which was sit-
relationship between brain injury and men- uated in some particular part of the anterior
tal impairment was a physician named Franz lobes of the brain. . . .
Joseph Gall. Prior to Gall, the brain was
viewed as “a single organ from which flowed Gall . . . appears to have looked upon
vital energy under the influence of the will speech as the direct mechanical expression of
into all parts of the body” (Head, 1926, p. the concepts, inclinations, feelings and talents
3). Based on his observations of patients of man, each of which he localized in a partic-
with brain injury, Gall asserted that separate ular part of the brain. (1926, p. 11)
areas of the brain controlled specific func-
tions. Sir Henry Head, in his classic two- Beginning in the 1820s, John Baptiste
volume work on aphasia, paraphrased a Bouillaud, dean of the Medical School of
letter published in 1802 describing Gall’s the College of France, performed autopsies
assertions: of patients with known brain injury. This
work confirmed Gall’s notion of localiza-
The apparently uniform mass of the brain is tion of brain functioning. Bouillaud posited
made up of organs which subserve the mani- that movement and sensory perception were
festations of our vital and moral faculties; controlled in the cortex of the brain and
these consist of three groups: (1) those which speech in the frontal anterior lobes.
concern purely the exercise of vital force; (2)
the inclinations and affections of the soul; and Later, Pierre Paul Broca used autopsies to
(3) the intellectual qualities of the mind. Each further Bouillaud’s work and concluded
of these is localised in a different portion of that speech functions actually reside in the
the brain. The organ of the vital force resides inferior left frontal lobe, an area that would
in the brain stem. . . . The inclinations and af- later be named Broca’s area. His name also
fections of the soul belong to the basal gan- became linked to a particular type of slow,
glia, whilst the intellectual qualities of the laborious, dysfluent speech—Broca’s apha-
mind are situated in various parts of the cere- sia.
bral hemispheres. Hence the moral and intel-
lectual characteristics can be deduced from In 1874, Carl Wernicke published a book
measurements of the skull, which is modified containing 10 case studies of brain-injured
by the underlying brain. (1926, pp. 4–5) patients with language disorders. These pa-
tients had fluent speech, but often it was de-
void of meaning. In addition, these individ-
uals manifested difficulty in recognizing and

18 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

comprehending words. Wernicke labeled noted the disproportionate number of males
this disorder “sensory aphasia.” With time, with this disorder and posited the potential
this particular type of aphasia as well as the heritability of congenital word-blindness. In
area of the left temporal lobe responsible addition, Hinshelwood asserted that the pri-
for the disorder would bear Wernicke’s mary area of disability was faulty visual
name. memory for words and letters. For this rea-
son, he recommended one-to-one training
As research in language disorders pro- designed to increase visual memory for
gressed, interest developed in disorders re- words.
lated to reading. In 1872, Sir William
Broadbent published an account of six cases U.S. Foundation Period (c. 1920–1960)
of persons whose histories supported the
idea that speech and language is controlled By 1918, all states had passed laws requir-
by the left frontal lobe. One of these cases ing compulsory education for children.
was that of an otherwise intelligent adult Thus, this period, one relatively comparable
who lost the ability to read and name famil- to Weiderholt’s (1974) “transition phase,”
iar objects while retaining the ability to begins as teachers across the United States
write and converse. Later in 1877, Adolph attempted to affect widespread literacy.
Kussmaul reported on observations made Consequently, researchers in this period
by van den Abeele, which left “little room moved beyond observing and explaining
to doubt that a complete text-blindness may abnormal behavior. Instead, many found
exist, although the power of sight, the intel- themselves working with children in educa-
lect, and the power of speech are intact”: tional settings where remediation, not etiol-
“A woman, forty-five years of age, was ogy, became the focus. Out of necessity,
struck with apoplexy while in the enjoy- these researchers built on the work of their
ment of the most blooming health. . . . Two European predecessors and developed diag-
months after the attack she discovered that nostic categories, assessment tools, and re-
she could no longer read printing and writ- medial interventions that would influence
ing. She saw the text, distinguished the future practice. Not surprisingly, much of
forms of the letters, and could even copy the this work was focused on reading disability.
text, but was incapable of translating words
into spoken words and thoughts” (1877, p. In 1921, Grace Fernald coauthored an ar-
776). Kussmaul attached the label “word- ticle describing remedial reading practices
blindness” to this specific brand of reading that had been used with students at the
disability. UCLA Clinic School (Fernald & Keller,
1921). In this article Fernald advocated for
In 1884, Berlin, a German ophthalmolo- an emphasis on teaching the reading and
gist, introduced the term, “dyslexia.” He writing of words as wholes using a tech-
believed “dyslexia” was preferable to nique that integrated several sensory modal-
“word blindness” for a condition of neuro- ities including visual, auditory, kinesthetic,
logical origin (Anderson & Meier-Hedde, and tactile (VAKT). As rationale for this
2001). In a later book, Berlin presented six procedure, Fernald (1943) provided historic
cases of adults with dyslexia, each of whom examples of the teaching of reading via the
had lost the ability to read even though each kinesthetic modality. These references in-
had normal language ability (Berlin, 1887, cluded Plato, Horace, Quintilian, Charle-
cited in Anderson & Meier-Hedde, 2001). magne, and Locke. To her credit, Fernald
kept extensive records of student progress,
In 1896, W. Pringle Morgan, an English and although she did not conduct research
physician, published the first case study of a with the methodological rigor expected to-
child with congenital word-blindness. A day, she was able to report notable perfor-
French physician, John Hinshelwood, in- mance gains in the areas of reading,
spired by the work of Morgan and others, spelling, penmanship, foreign language, and
studied a particular patient from 1894 to arithmetic.
his death in 1903. Upon performing the au-
topsy, Hinshelwood located the cause of the Samuel Torrey Orton, the father of the In-
reading disability in the left angular gyrus. ternational Dyslexia Society (formerly Or-
In 1917, Hinshelwood published Congeni-
tal Word-Blindness, a volume in which he

A Brief History of the Field 19

ton Dyslexia Society), worked as a neu- position at a facility for delinquent boys
ropathologist at the State Pychopathic Hos- with mental retardation, the Institute for Ju-
pital in Iowa City, Iowa. In this capacity, venile Research, Monroe developed a syn-
Orton participated in a 2-week mobile clinic thetic phonetic approach to the teaching of
for students with learning problems where reading. She published her experiments in
he made observations regarding students the book Children Who Cannot Read
with low academic achievement, many of (Monroe, 1932) and later went on to train
whom had low reading achievement. Of the teachers in several field-based projects in ar-
14 students in the clinic referred for reading eas around Chicago. Like Fernald, Monroe
problems, most demonstrated IQs in the published studies lacking methodological
near-average to above-average range, which rigor by today’s standards; however, she did
led Orton to hypothesize that IQ was not al- report impressive achievement gains in
ways reflective of true intellectual capacity, reading.
especially in students with reading deficits—
a view shared by many present-day reading Monroe, like Orton, bequeathed to the
researchers (Siegel, 1989). Orton summa- field of LD educational practices that affect-
rized and published this work in Reading, ed progress in years to come. For example,
Writing, and Spelling Problems in Children Monroe pioneered the practice of calculat-
(Orton, 1937). ing a reading index, the discrepancy be-
tween actual and expected level of reading
Although Orton built on much of Hin- achievement for a student. Using this index,
shelwood’s work, he came to disagree with she could identify students who needed spe-
his predecessor on numerous points. Orton cific assistance. Perhaps Monroe’s greatest
believed that the prevalence of reading dis- gift to the field of LD came about through
ability was much higher than Hinshel- her meticulous reporting of case studies of
wood’s 1 per 1,000, perhaps even as high as children with reading disabilities. In partic-
10% of the total school population (Orton, ular, Monroe advocated finding patterns of
1939). In addition, Orton (1939) main- errors in order to decide on remedial pre-
tained that the skill of reading involved scriptions: “Reading errors are of many
more areas of the brain than the angular kinds and may be classified into various
gyrus. He put forth the theory of mixed types. Two children, reading the same para-
dominance, wherein the brain stored mirror graph, may make the same number of er-
images of visual representations. Students rors, receive the same reading grade, and yet
with reading disabilities lacked cerebral their mistakes may be wholly different in
dominance and were therefore unable to nature. Their reading performances may be
suppress these stored, mirrored representa- quantitatively the same but qualitatively un-
tions. Mixed dominance therefore resulted like” (1932, p. 34).
in reversals of letters and words in both
reading and writing. He labeled this phe- At the Institute of Juvenile Research,
nomenon “strephosymbolia,” explaining Marion Monroe had a colleague named
that students with reading disabilities were Samuel Kirk who was working at the insti-
not blind to words; instead, they “twisted” tute as part of his graduate training in psy-
the symbols comprising words. Although chology. Monroe tutored Kirk in the diag-
Orton’s work would later perpetuate the nosis and remediation of severe reading
myth that individuals with dyslexia “see disability. Although Monroe’s influence is
things backward,” he left an enduring lega- not immediately apparent in Kirk’s master’s
cy in remediation practices. He stressed the thesis comparing the Fernald kinesthetic
need for explicit phonics and blending in- method to the look–say method, it is impos-
struction using a multisensory approach. sible to ignore her influence, as well as that
This practice is explained in Remedial Work of Orton, in Kirk’s doctoral dissertation. In
for Reading, Spelling, and Penmanship completing the requirements of the doctoral
(Gillingham & Stillman, 1936), a reference program at the University of Michigan, Kirk
guide that has recently been published in its studied brain–behavior relationships by sur-
eighth edition. gically creating brain lesions in rats and
testing them for handedness and strepho-
Orton’s research associate in the mobile symbolia (Kirk, 1935, 1936). After com-
clinic was Marion Monroe. After taking a pleting his doctorate, Kirk took a position

20 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

at the University of Illinois and established Doll, William Cruickshank, Newell Kep-
the first experimental preschool for children hart, Laura Lehtinen, and Samuel Kirk.)
with mental retardation. In taking on the Two German émigrés—Alfred Strauss, a
task of educating these children, Kirk found neuropsychiatrist, and Heinz Werner, a
a need for assessments that could isolate developmental psychologist—were key in
and identify abilities and disabilities. The re- translating Goldstein’s findings to those of
sult was the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic children with mental retardation.
Abilities (ITPA; Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk,
1961). Although the ITPA would later be Strauss and Werner divided the children
widely criticized (Engelmann, 1967; Halla- into two groups: those with exogenous
han & Cruickshank, 1973; Hammill & mental retardation and those with endoge-
Larsen, 1974; Mann, 1971; Ysseldyk & nous mental retardation. The former were
Salvia, 1974), it enjoyed widespread use presumably brain injured; the latter presum-
through the 1970s. Kirk’s work, flowing di- ably had familial mental retardation. In a
rectly out of Monroe’s tutelage, produced series of laboratory studies, they found that
the historically important ideas that (1) chil- the exogenous group of children exhibited
dren with disabilities (later specified as LD) more forced responsiveness to auditory and
have intraindividual differences, and (2) as- visual stimuli (Werner & Strauss, 1939b,
sessment is a critical tool for guiding in- 1940, 1941). In addition, Strauss and Kep-
struction. hart (1939) found children with exogenous
retardation to be more disinhibited, impul-
In addition to reading, researchers practic- sive, erratic, and socially unaccepted than
ing during the U.S. Foundation Period began children with endogenous retardation.
to investigate disabilities in perception, per-
ception–motor, and attention. Much of the The work of Werner and Strauss did not
early research in this area focused on adults go without criticism. In particular, Sarason
with brain injury. Kurt Goldstein was a (1949) pointed out that there were serious
physician and director of a hospital for sol- flaws in the way they distinguished their ex-
diers who had incurred head wounds in ogenous from endogenous groups. Never-
World War I. In this role, Goldstein observed theless, they had found reliable differences
and documented a constellation of behaviors between the two groups, suggesting that
seeming to accompany brain injury. These mental retardation was not a homogenous
behaviors included hyperactivity, forced re- state. Further reinforcing this idea was a
sponsiveness to stimuli (i.e., indiscriminant study of what happened to the two groups
reaction to stimuli), figure-background con- after admission to Wayne County. They
fusion, concrete thinking, perseveration, found that after 4 to 5 years in the institu-
meticulosity, and catastrophic reaction tion, the IQ of students with exogenous re-
(Goldstein, 1936, 1939). In keeping with the tardation decreased while the IQ of the en-
popular Gestalt school of thought, Goldstein dogenous group increased an average of 4
argued that these phenomena were best un- points (Strauss & Kephart, 1939). Based on
derstood not by looking for a specific physi- this information, the researchers began de-
ological cause but by viewing the individual signing learning environments to better fit
and his or her related manifestations as a the needs of students with exogenous retar-
whole. He was concerned with the function- dation. In such environments, inessential
ing of the entire individual in all aspects of stimuli were attenuated and essential accen-
behavior. tuated. This line of research produced two
classic volumes: Psychopathology and Edu-
The work of Goldstein served as an impe- cation of the Brain-Injured Child (Strauss &
tus for other researchers who were interest- Lehtinen, 1947) and Psychopathology and
ed in applying his findings to children. Education of the Brain-Injured Child:
Much of this work took place at one institu- Progress in Theory and Clinic (Vol. 2)
tion—Wayne County Training School in (Strauss & Kephart, 1955).
Northville, Michigan, about 20 miles from
the University of Michigan. (In fact, several Werner and Strauss also espoused ap-
key figures in the field of special education proaching standardized test scores with cau-
during this period worked at Wayne Coun- tion. Similar to Monroe, they advocated
ty, e.g., Alfred Strauss, Heinz Werner, Edgar that clinicians dig deeper to find out the rea-
sons why a particular error was made.

A Brief History of the Field 21

Werner (1937) contended that to under- to present-day criteria, many would be con-
stand normal child psychology, as well as sidered learning disabled or learning dis-
mental deficiency, one must go beyond mere abled with comorbid attention-deficit/hy-
standardized achievement test scores. Wern- peractivity disorder (ADHD).
er and Strauss (1939a) argued for what they
termed “functional analysis,” “the exami- Like that of Werner and Strauss, Cruick-
nation of an individual in critical situations shank’s educational program reduced irrele-
which elicit the impaired functions” (p. 61). vant stimuli, enhanced relevant stimuli, and
Furthermore, they stated, “It is clear that provided highly structured assignments.
the results of functional analysis, rather The academic instruction took the form
than the data from achievement tests, of readiness training involving perceptual
should serve as the guide for remedial work. and perceptual–motor exercises, home-
The methods, techniques and materials for work, and arithmetic. Little attention was
training must be chosen for their adequacy given to the development of reading skills.
in relation to the functional impairment” (p. This program increased perceptual–motor
62). abilities and decreased levels of distractibil-
ity but unfortunately had no effects on aca-
And so it was that: demic achievement or IQ. In addition, the
increases in perceptual–motor abilities and
the conceptual posture of Werner and Strauss, attention disappeared in the 1-year follow-
coupled with their research into the differenti- up. Despite the questionable efficacy of his
ation between exogenous and endogenous educational program, Cruickshank is singu-
mental retardation, did much to destroy the larly important to the history of LD. He
then-popular notion that mental retardation was responsible for building a bridge be-
was a homogenous state. Concern for the di- tween the research previously conducted
agnosis of particular disabilities and educa- with students with mental retardation to
tional procedures based upon the Werner and children who would now be considered
Strauss recommendations became an intrinsic learning disabled.
element of the basic principles upon which the
field of LD was constructed. (Hallahan & Emergent Period (c. 1960–1975)
Cruickshank, 1973, p. 65)
At the close of the Foundation Period, re-
William Cruickshank was the person to searchers had discovered tools for identify-
carry forward Werner and Strauss’s ideas as ing and educating students with disabilities.
he helped pioneer the emerging field of LD. They had sufficient knowledge to claim ex-
After completing his doctorate, Cruick- istence of a specific construct, a construct
shank began working with children with not yet referred to as LD. Thus, the time
cerebral palsy and found that these children was ripe for the emergence of LD into the
performed similarly to those with exoge- public domain. During the period spanning
nous mental retardation studied by Werner 1960 to 1975, parents and teachers became
and Strauss. In fact, the children with cere- acquainted with the notion of LD and
bral palsy displayed more forced respon- founded organizations to advocate for chil-
siveness to background in figure-back- dren with this disability, federal officials be-
ground studies than did children without gan to take notice of the rising tide of public
cerebral palsy. Cruickshank therefore rec- concern for students with this disability, and
ommended that the education of students researchers created interventions that would
with cerebral palsy take place in distraction- later set standards for practice. As a result,
free environments. Upon making such rec- this period is characterized by the efforts of
ommendations, Cruickshank organized a numerous individuals and groups to put
demonstration pilot study in Montgomery forward comprehensive definitions and ef-
County, Maryland, titled the Montgomery fective educational programming.
County Project. The results of the study
were published in A Teaching Method for The term “learning disability” first ap-
Brain-Injured and Hyperactive Children peared in print in Educating Exceptional
(Cruickshank, Bentzen, Ratzeburg, & Children (Kirk, 1962). Kirk (1962) defined
Tannhauser, 1961). The case histories of the LD as
students in this study suggest that according

22 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

a retardation, disorder, or delayed develop- or behavior disabilities ranging from mild to
ment in one or more of the processes of severe, which are associated with deviations of
speech, language, reading, writing, arithmetic, function of the central nervous system. These
or other school subject resulting from a psy- deviations may manifest themselves by various
chological handicap caused by a possible cere- combinations of impairment in perception,
bral dysfunction and/or emotional or behav- conceptualization, language, memory, and
ioral disturbances. It is not the result of mental control of attention or motor function . . .
retardation, sensory deprivation, or cultural
and instructional factors. (p. 263) These aberrations may arise from genetic
variations, biochemical irregularities, perina-
Later in 1963, Kirk used this term in ad- tal brain insults or other illnesses or injuries
dressing a group of parents at the Confer- sustained during the years which are critical
ence on the Exploration into Problems of for the development and maturation of the
Perceptually Handicapped Children. The central nervous system, or from unknown
parents were searching for a name for a pro- causes. (Clements, 1966, pp. 9–10)
posed national organization. After listening
to Kirk, they named their new organization Task Force II was composed of educators
the Association for Children with LD who sought to create an alternative defini-
(ACLD), now known as the LD Association tion to that proposed by Task Force I. Un-
of America. able to reach consensus on a single defini-
tion, they put forth two. The first stressed
Two years later, Kirk’s former student, Kirk’s earlier notion of intraindividual dif-
Barbara Bateman, put forth a definition that ferences. Children with LD were thus
reintroduced Monroe’s concept of reading
index. This definition proposed the follow- those (1) who have educationally significant
ing: discrepancies among their sensory-motor, per-
ceptual, cognitive, academic, or related devel-
Children who have learning disorders are opmental levels which interfere with the per-
those who manifest an educationally signifi- formance of educational tasks; (2) who may
cant discrepancy between their estimated po- or may not show demonstrable deviation in
tential and actual level of performance related central nervous system functioning; and (3)
to basic disorders in the learning process, whose disabilities are not secondary to general
which may or may not be accompanied by mental retardation, sensory deprivation, or se-
demonstrable central nervous system dysfunc- rious emotional disturbance. (Haring & Bate-
tion, and which are not secondary to general- man, 1969, pp. 2–3)
ized mental retardation, educational or cultur-
al deprivation, severe emotional disturbance, The second definition brought forward
or sensory loss. (1965, p. 220) Monroe and Bateman’s concept of discrep-
ancy. It stated:
From this definition, LD became inextrica-
bly tied to the notion of achievement–apti- Children with LD are those (1) who manifest
tude discrepancy. an educationally significant discrepancy be-
tween estimated academic potential and actual
The federal government soon became in- level of academic functioning as related to dy-
terested in the field of LD and sponsored a functioning (sic) in the learning process; (2)
project titled “Minimal Brain Dysfunction: may or may not show demonstrable deviation
National Project on LD in Children.” The in central nervous system functioning; and (3)
project was staffed by three task forces, two whose disabilities are not secondary to general
of which focused primarily on defining LD. mental retardation, cultural, sensory, and/or
Interestingly, the two task forces were of educational deprivation or environmentally
markedly different constitution and thus produced serious emotional disturbance.
produced remarkably different definitions. (Haring & Bateman, 1969, p. 3)
Task Force I was composed of medical pro-
fessionals who elected to define the term As these two task forces were attempting
“minimal brain dysfunction.” This disorder to name and define the construct that is LD,
affected the Education of the Handicapped Act was
signed into law. Contrary to the wishes of
children of near average, average, or above av- many parents and despite the progress of
erage general intelligence with certain learning the field, the 1966 Education of the Handi-

A Brief History of the Field 23

capped Act did not extend federal assistance Like many of his predecessors, Newell
and protection to students with LD. Al- Kephart worked at the Wayne County
though many parent groups advocated for Training School. Kephart (1960, 1971) pro-
their children and exerted pressure on feder- posed the idea of a “perceptual–motor
al policymakers, parents of children with match.” This theory held that motor devel-
more traditional disabilities held more polit- opment preceded visual development and
ical sway (E. Martin, personal communica- kinesthetic sensations resulting from motor
tion, January 2001). These parents were movement provide feedback; therefore, mo-
concerned that the reallocation of limited tor training should precede visual perceptu-
resources would mean fewer services for al training. Beyond this, Kephart also assert-
their children. They argued that children ed that laterality, the ability to discriminate
with LD were already served through pro- left from right on one’s body, precedes the
grams such as Title I. Interestingly, similar ability to discriminate left from right in
arguments were also heard in 2001 as poli- space. He therefore recommended remediat-
cymakers attempted to revamp the field of ing the reversal errors of poor readers
LD (Fletcher, 2001). through training in laterality.

In 1968, The First Annual Report of the Like Kephart, several other researchers fo-
National Advisory Committee on Handi- cused their attentions on visual and visu-
capped Children was published. The U.S. al–motor disabilities. Gerald Getman, an op-
Office of Education formed and charged tometrist, published a manual of training
this committee with writing a report and de- activities that focused on general coordina-
finition of LD that could be used to set poli- tion, balance, eye–hand coordination, eye
cy and secure funding. This committee was movements, form perception and visual
chaired by Kirk and hence offered a defini- memory (Getman, Kane, Halgren, & McK-
tion similar to the definition Kirk published ee, 1964). Also during this period, Marianne
in his 1962 textbook. The definition read: Frostig developed a pencil-and-paper test,
The Marianne Frostig Developmental Test
Children with special (specific) LD exhibit a of Visual Perception, assessing eye–motor
disorder in one or more of the basic psycho- coordination, figure–ground visual percep-
logical processes involved in understanding or tion, form constancy, position in space, and
in using spoken and written language. These spatial relations (Frostig, Lefever, & Whittle-
may be manifested in disorders of listening, sey, 1964). Raymond Barsch created the
thinking, talking, reading, writing, spelling, or “Movigenic Curriculum” (Barsch, 1967) in
arithmetic. They include conditions which which he attempted to train students for effi-
have been referred to as perceptual handicaps, cient movement in the environment, and
brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, Glen Doman and Carl Delacato attempted
dyslexia, developmental aphasia, etc. They do to program “neurological organization” in
not include learning problems that are due pri- children with brain injury (Delacato, 1959,
marily to visual, hearing or motor handicaps, 1963, 1966). Among other things, Doman
to mental retardation, emotional disturbance, and Delacato advocated limiting children’s
or to environmental disadvantage. (U.S. Office use of one side of their body in order to pro-
of Education, 1968, p. 34) mote unilaterality. They believed that mixed
dominance was a sign of brain injury and a
Following this report and the formation cause of reading disabilities. Although these
of the first major professional organiza- programs enjoyed brief periods of populari-
tion—the Division for Children with LD ty, they were eventually criticized and dis-
(DCLD) of the Council for Exceptional missed. The Doman–Delacato program, in
Children—Congress passed the Children particular, came under heavy fire from critics
with Specific LD Act. Neither this act nor (Hallahan & Cruickshank, 1973; Robbins
Public Law (PL) 91-230 made LD a formal & Glass, 1969). Hence, the Emergent Period
category; however, Part G of the law per- produced many real contributions to the
mitted the U.S. Office of Education to field of LD, but it also yielded quite a few fol-
award discretionary grants to support lies (Weiderholt, 1974).
teacher education, research, and model ser-
vice delivery programs in LD (Martin, Before moving to the next period, we
1987). briefly discuss another important figure

24 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

from the Emergent Period: Helmer Mykle- provide free and appropriate educations to
bust. Whereas many during this period were all of their students, including students with
pursuing lines of research focused on visual LD. As EAHCA reached full implementa-
and visual–motor development, Myklebust tion in 1977, the U.S. Office of Education
focused on language development. In work- put forth a definition of LD. This definition
ing with deaf children, Helmer Myklebust was essentially the same one proposed by
encountered children with normal hearing National Advisory Committee on Handi-
acuity and poor auditory comprehension. In capping Conditions (NACHC) in 1968 and
attempting to explain this phenomenon, remains, with minor changes, the same defi-
Myklebust proposed that these students and nition used today. It read:
others with LD had difficulty in interneu-
rosensory learning. Doris Johnson was criti- The term “specific learning disability” means
cal in helping Mykelbust translate his ideas a disorder in one or more of the psychological
to classroom practices. Together, they advo- processes involved in understanding or in us-
cated instructional programming in which ing language, spoken or written, which may
(1) training in comprehension preceded manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen,
training in expression, (2) whole words and speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathemati-
sentences were trained to the exclusion of cal calculations. The term does not include
nonsense words and individual sounds, and children who have LD which are primarily the
(3) training in phonetically dissimilar words result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps,
preceded training in words that are similar or mental retardation, or emotional distur-
(Johnson & Myklebust, 1967). bance, or of environmental, cultural, or eco-
nomic disadvantage. (U.S. Office of Educa-
Like Monroe and Bateman, Myklebust tion, 1977, p. 65083)
found it useful to consider a student’s ability
compared with his or her achievement level. In addition to this definition, the U.S. Of-
He introduced the idea of a “learning quo- fice of Education also proposed a formula
tient,” consisting of expected potential com- that could be used by individual states to
pared with realized potential. Expected po- identify students with LD, but because of
tential was the average of mental age (the negative public response, this discrepancy
higher of verbal and nonverbal mental age), formula was not included. However, the
life age, and grade age (included to reflect U.S. Office of Education’s regulations did
opportunity for school learning). Realized retain the general idea of the need for a se-
potential was taken from scores on stan- vere discrepancy between achievement and
dardized achievement tests. intellectual ability for identification as
learning disabled.
Solidification Period (c. 1975–1985)
In opposition to the definition used in
According to Hallahan and Mercer (2001), EAHCA, the National Joint Committee on
from 1975 to 1985 the field of LD entered a LD (NJCLD), a body consisting of several
period of calm that foreshadowed a later pe- professional organizations and the ACLD,
riod of turbulence. In these years the field so- proposed a definition that did not include a
lidified both the definition and federal regu- psychological process clause. By intentional-
lations for identifying students with LD. In ly excluding this clause, the NJCLD dis-
addition, researchers, for the most part, tanced itself from the perceptual and per-
abandoned the follies of the past and focused ceptual–motor training programs of its not
on empirically validated applied research. so distant past. This definition stated:
Although there was some turmoil related to
professional organizations, this upheaval LD is a generic term that refers to a heteroge-
was brief and limited in scope and effect. neous group of disorders manifested by signif-
icant difficulties in the acquisition and use of
Definition and Federal Regulations listening, speaking, reading, writing, reason-
ing or mathematical abilities. These disorders
In 1975, Gerald Ford signed EAHCA into are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to
law. This law required school districts to be due to central nervous system dysfunction.
Even though a LD may occur concomitantly
with other handicapping conditions (e.g., sen-
sory impairment, mental retardation, social

A Brief History of the Field 25

and emotional disturbance) or environmental Throughout this period, professional and
influences (e.g., cultural differences, insuffi- government organizations continued to put
cient-inappropriate instruction, psychogenic forward definitions of LD with the intent at
factors), it is not the direct result of those con- arriving at some form of consensus within
ditions or influences. (Hammill, Leigh, Mc- the field. In 1986, the ACLD (now the LD
Nutt, & Larsen, 1981, p. 336) Association of America) proposed a defini-
tion of LD in which the authors stressed the
Shortly after EAHCA had reached full chronic and lifelong nature of the condition
implementation, the U.S. Office of Educa- as well as the potential effects disabilities
tion funded five centers for applied research may have on “self-esteem, education, voca-
in LD. Dale Bryant directed the Columbia tion, socialization, and/or daily living activi-
University center and his colleagues carried ties” (Association for Children with LD,
out research in memory and study skills, 1986, p. 15). This definition was unique in
arithmetic, basic reading and spelling, the that it lacked an exclusion clause. A year
interaction of readers and texts, and reading later, the Interagency Committee on LD
comprehension. At the University of Illinois (ICLD; 1987) proposed a definition similar
at Chicago, Tanis Bryan led research in so- to that of the NJCLD, except for two
cial competence and attributions regarding points. The committee included social skills
success and failure, and at the University of deficits as a type of LD and listed attention-
Kansas, Donald Deshler directed research in deficit disorder as a potential comorbid dis-
educational interventions for adolescents order with LD. In 1988, the NJCLD revised
with LD. James Ysseldyke directed the insti- its definition. This revision yielded a defini-
tute at the University of Minnesota. These tion consistent with the lifelong nature of
researchers addressed the decision-making LD found in the Learning Disabilities Asso-
process used to identify students with LD. ciation of America (LDA) definition and
At the University of Virginia, Dan Hallahan discordant with the social skills deficit as
directed research on children with LD who LD found in the LDA and ICLD definitions.
have attention problems, and John Lloyd The definition read:
led research on metacognitive strategies di-
rectly used in completing academic tasks. LD is a general term that refers to a heteroge-
neous group of disorders manifested by signif-
Turbulent Period (c. 1985–2000) icant difficulties in the acquisition and use of
listening, speaking, reading, writing, reason-
In his 1974 historical review of the field of ing, or mathematical abilities. These disorders
LD, Weiderholt wrote: “Despite [the] rapid are intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be
growth during the 1960s and ’70s, or per- due to central nervous system dysfunction,
haps because of it, the LD field is currently and may occur across the life span. Problems
confronted with several major problems. of self regulatory behaviors, social perception,
These include problems of definition, terri- and social interaction may exist with LD but
torial rights, and an adequate data base” (p. do not by themselves constitute a LD. Al-
43). These problems that Weiderholt identi- though LD may occur concomitantly with
fied continued and intensified in the follow- other handicapping conditions (for example,
ing years. If the Solidification Period repre- sensory impairment, mental retardation, seri-
sented the calm before the storm, the ous emotional disturbance) or with extrinsic
Turbulent Period was the storm. Between influences (such as cultural differences, insuffi-
the publication of Weiderholt’s history and cient or inappropriate instruction), they are
the 1998–1999 school year, the number of not the result of those conditions or influ-
students identified as having LD doubled. ences. (National Joint Committee on LD,
Currently more than 2.8 million students 1988, p. 1)
are identified as having LD (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, 2000). This rapid in- Despite the varied definitions that were
crease in the size of the population with LD put forth between 1975 and 1997, the reau-
escalated the level of intensity regarding is- thorization of the Individuals with Disabili-
sues that were once noncontroversial or un- ties Education Act (IDEA) included essen-
recognizable in the Solidification Period. tially the same definition found in the 1975
EAHCA. Thus, despite all the progress the
field had made in those 22 years, the federal

26 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

regulations authorizing special education normal functioning in individuals with
for students with LD clung to an under- dyslexia (Joseph, Noble, & Eden, 2001). In
standing that had in fact been proposed by addition, researchers have found a high de-
Kirk as early as 1962. gree of heritability for reading disability and
speech and language disorders (Wood &
The pursuit of applied research that be- Grigorenko, 2001).
gan in the Solidification Period continued
through the Turbulent Period. Much of this Although the research conducted in the
effort grew out of the research begun at the Turbulent Period has answered many ques-
five institutes (Hallahan & Mercer, 2001). tions, this research has also highlighted
Investigations focused on deficits in cogni- some pressing problems within the field.
tion, metacognition, social skills, and attri- Foremost among these problems seems to
butions in students with LD. In addition, be the utility of the discrepancy formula in
training regimens for the remediation of identifying students with LD. The notion of
these deficits, as well as curriculum-based using a discrepancy between ability and
assessment, all emanated from the earlier re- achievement, first proposed by Monroe and
search programs of the institutes. later advocated by Bateman and Myklebust,
was adopted by most states as part of their
In addition to the research carried out by identification process (Frankenberger &
the institutes established in the Solidifica- Fronzaglio, 1991). Critics have argued that
tion Period, research in phonological pro- this formula does not reliably identify stu-
cessing became a focus in the Turbulent Pe- dents with LD (Fletcher et al., 2001; Velluti-
riod. Researchers found that phonological no, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000). Furthermore,
awareness, the ability to identify and ma- students with and without discrepancies do
nipulate the units of sound in our spoken not significantly differ on measures of
language, to be one of the most powerful phonological awareness, orthographic cod-
predictors of later reading skill (National ing, short-term memory, and word retrieval
Reading Panel, 2000). Moreover, reading (Fletcher et al., 2001). Researchers are
researchers have come to view phonological therefore pursuing alternatives to the dis-
awareness as a component part of effective crepancy based identification procedure.
reading remediation. Lyon (1998) stated: These alternatives include phonological as-
“We have learned that for 90% to 95% of sessments (Torgesen, 2001; Torgesen &
poor readers, prevention and early interven- Wagner, 1998) and treatment validity ap-
tion programs that combine instruction in proaches (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Gresham,
phoneme awareness, phonics, fluency devel- 2001).
opment, and reading comprehension strate-
gies, provided by well trained teachers, can Another issue of urgency is the dispropor-
increase reading skills to average reading tionate representation of some ethnic
levels” (p. 9). The recognized importance of groups in the LD category. Although the de-
phonological awareness has even led to gree of disproportion is not as great as for
change in the way researchers define dyslex- some other categories, such as mental retar-
ia. Dyslexia is now believed to be a disabili- dation or behavior disorders, African Amer-
ty “reflecting insufficient phonological pro- icans are slightly overrepresented in the LD
cessing abilities” (Lyon, 1995, p. 9). category—18.3 percent of students ages 6 to
21 in the LD category are African American
The research of the Turbulent Period has whereas 14.8 percent of the resident popu-
also produced evidence supporting a biolog- lation ages 6 to 21 are African American.
ical basis for LD. Albert Galaburda and And American Indians are even more dis-
Norman Geschwind conducted postmortem proportionately represented in the LD cate-
studies in which they found differences in gory—1.3% of students ages 6 to 21 in the
the size of the planum temporale between LD category are American Indians whereas
dyslexics and nondyslexics (Galaburda, 1.0% of the resident population 6 to 21 are
Menard, & Rosen, 1994; Galaburda, Sher- American Indians (U.S. Department of Edu-
man, Rosen, Aboitiz, & Geshwind, 1985; cation, 2000).
Geschwind & Levitsky, 1968; Humphreys,
Kaufman, & Galaburda, 1990). Neuro- The fact that disproportionate representa-
imaging studies have revealed that the left tion in the LD category is not a major issue
hemisphere of the brain seems to show ab- for the aggregated data from across the

A Brief History of the Field 27

United States should not blind us to the fact what the future will bring, we do have our
that both African American and Hispanic past, our rich and varied history. This histo-
students are disproportionately identified as ry will direct our future. It is our point of
LD in some states: “The nationally aggre- reference and our guide (Weiderholt, 1974),
gated data have been interpreted to suggest and this history has shown us, time and
no overrepresentation of either black or again, that that which endures is based on
Hispanic students in LD. But state-level solid, empirical underpinnings.
data tell a more complex story. . . . Clearly
there is overrepresentation for these two mi- References
norities in the LD category in some states”
(National Research Council, 2002, p. 67). Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking
and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT
In addition, professionals inside and out- Press.
side the field are wrestling with the issue of
placement options for students in special ed- Anderson, P. L., & Meier-Hedde, R. (2001). Early
ucation. Sparked by the regular education case reports of dyslexia in the United States and
initiative (REI) proposed by Madeleine C. Europe. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34,
Will (1986), the former Assistant Secretary 9–21.
of Education, the controversial debate pit-
ting full inclusion against a continuum of Association for Children with LD. (1986). ACLD
placement options continues to divide and definition: Specific learning disabilities. ACLD
define the field of LD. Newsbriefs, 15–16.

Finally, the field is also wrestling with the Barsch, R. H. (1967). Achieving perceptual–motor
debate between modernism and postmod- efficiency: A space-oriented approach to learning.
ernism. Proponents of postmodernism view Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications.
disability as a social construction based on
incorrect, immoral assumptions regarding Bateman, B. (1965). An educational view of a diag-
difference. They seek to create a caring soci- nostic approach to learning disorders. In J. Hell-
ety that values and accepts differences of any muth (Ed.), Learning disorders (Vol. 1, pp.
kind. Eschewing the need to pursue objective 219–239). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publica-
validation of teaching methods, postmod- tions.
ernism’s “main effect has been to reassure as-
piring cultural critics that they can play a sig- Berlin, R. (1884). Uber dyslexie [About dyslexia].
nificant role in the treatment of disabilities Archiv fur Psychiatrie, 15, 276–278.
without having to do anything so tiresome
as, for instance, work directly with children Berlin, R. (1887). Eine besondere art der wortblind-
to obtain the relevant data necessary to help heit [A specific kind of word blindness]. Wies-
them become more functionally indepen- baden, Germany: J. F. Bergman.
dent” (Sasso, 2001, p. 190). Modernists,
however, subscribe to a medical model that Broadbent, W. H. (1872). On the cerebral mecha-
places the locus of disability within the indi- nism of speech and thought. Proceedings of the
vidual. Furthermore, they look to empirical Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society of Lon-
research to validate teaching practices. don, 4, 24–29.
Teachers, therefore, use research-based in-
structional techniques to enhance learner Broca, P. P. (1861). Remarques sur le siège de la fac-
functioning and reduce differences. ulté du langage articulé, suivies d’une observation
d’amphemie (perte de la parole) [Remarks on the
The questions facing the field of LD are seat of the faculty of articulate language, fol-
many and varied. Some of the answers to lowed by an observation of aphemia]. Bulletin de
these questions may prove to be true “con- la Société Anatomique, 36, 330–357.
tributions” to the field. Others may only be
the follies against which Weiderholt Clements, S. D. (1966). Minimal brain dysfunction
warned. The future of the field of LD seems in children: Terminology and identification:
to hinge on this very issue: Will we choose Phase one of a three-phase project. NINDS
contributions, or will we choose follies? Monographs, 9 (Public Health Service Bulletin
Fortunately, we need not make this choice No. 1415). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
blindly. Although it is difficult to predict Health, Education and Welfare.

Cruickshank, W. M., Bentzen, F. A., Ratzeburg, F.
H., & Tannhauser, M. T. (1961). A teaching
method of brain-injured and hyperactive chil-
dren. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Delacato, C. H. (1959). The treatment and preven-
tion of reading problems: The neurological ap-
proach. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Delacato, C. H. (1963). The diagnosis and treat-
ment of speech and reading problems. Spring-
field, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Delacato, C. H. (1966). Neurological organization
and reading. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

28 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

Engelmann, S. (1967). Relationship between psy- Hallahan, D. P., & Cruickshank, W. M. (1973).
chological theories and the act of teaching. Jour- Psychoeducational foundations of learning dis-
nal of School Psychology, 5, 92–100. abilities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Fernald, G. M. (1943). Remedial techniques in ba- Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2001, August).
sic school subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill. LD: Historical perspectives. Paper presented at
the LD Summit, U.S. Department of Education,
Fernald, G. M., & Keller, H. (1921). The effect of Washington, DC.
kinaesthetic factors in the development of word
recognition in the case of non-readers. Journal of Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1974). The effec-
Educational Research, 4, 355–377. tiveness of psycholinguistic training. Exceptional
Children, 41, 514.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing,
K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K., Shaywitz, S. Hammill, D. D., Leigh, J. E., McNutt, G., &
E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2001, August). Classifica- Larsen, S. C. (1981). A new definition of learning
tion of LD: An evidence-based evaluation. Paper disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4,
presented at the LD Summit, U.S. Department of 336–342.
Education, Washington, DC.
Haring, N. G., & Bateman, B. (1969). Introduction.
Fletcher, M. A. (2001, October 5). Overhaul In N. G. Haring (Ed.), Minimal brain dysfunction
planned for special education: Administration de- in children: Educational, medical, and health re-
cries U.S. law. The Washington Post, p. A3. lated services (pp. 1–4). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Frankenberger, W., & Franzaglio, K. (1991). A re-
view of states’ criteria for identifying children Head, H. (1926). Aphasia and kindred disorders of
with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, speech. London: Cambridge University Press.
495–500.
Hinshelwood, J. (1895). Word-blindness and visual
Frostig, M., Lefever, D. W., & Whittlesey, J. R. B. memory. Lancet, 2, 1564–1570.
(1964). The Marianne Frostig Developmental
Test of Visual Perception. Palo Alto, CA: Con- Hinshelwood, J. (1917). Congenital word-
sulting Psychology Press. blindness. London: H. K. Lewis.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validi- Humphreys, P., Kaufmann, W. E., & Galaburda, A.
ty: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the M. (1990). Developmental dyslexia in women:
identification of LD. Learning Disabilities Re- Neuropathological findings in three patients. An-
search and Practice, 13, 204–219. nals of Neurology, 28, 727–738.

Galaburda, A. M., Menard, M. T., & Rosen, G. D. Interagency Committee on LD. (1987). LD: A re-
(1994). Evidence for aberrant auditory anatomy port to Congress. Bethesda, MD: National Insti-
in developmental dyslexia. Proceedings of the Na- tutes of Health.
tional Academy of Science USA, 91, 8010–8013.
Johnson, D. J., & Myklebust, H. R. (1967). LD:
Galaburda, A. M., Sherman, G. F., Rosen, G. D., Educational principles and practices. New York:
Aboitiz, F., & Geschwind, N. (1985). Develop- Grune & Stratton.
mental dyslexia: Four consecutive patients with
cortical anomalies. Annals of Neurology, 18, Joseph, J., Noble, K., & Eden, G. (2001). The neu-
222–233. robiological basis of reading. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 34, 566–579.
Gall, F. J., & Spurzheim, J. C. (1809). Reserches sur
le système nerveux en général, et sur celui du Kephart, N. C. (1960). Slow learner in the class-
cerveau en particulier [Studies on the nervous room. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
system, with particular attention to the brain].
Paris: Schoell. Kephart, N. C. (1971). Slow learner in the class-
room (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Geschwind, N., & Levitsky, W. (1968). Human
brain: Left–right asymmetries in temporal speech. Kirk, S. A. (1935). Hemispheric cerebral dominance
Science, 161, 186–187. and hemispheric equipotentiality. In Anonymous,
Comparative Psychology Monographs. Balti-
Getman, G. N., Kane, E. R., Halgren, M. R., & more: Johns Hopkins Press.
McKee, G. W. (1964). The physiology of readi-
ness, an action program for the development of Kirk, S. A. (1936). Extrastriate functions in the dis-
perception for children. Minneapolis, MN: Pro- crimination of complex visual patterns. Journal
grams to Accelerate School Success. of Comparative Psychology, 21, 145–159.

Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1936). Remedial Kirk, S. A. (1962). Educating exceptional children.
work for reading, spelling, and penmanship. New Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
York: Sachett & Wilhelms.
Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Kirk, W. D. (1961).
Goldstein, K. (1936). The modification of behavior Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (Experi-
consequent to cerebral lesions. Psychiatric Quar- mental ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
terly, 10, 586–610.
Kussmaul, A. (1877). Word deafness and word
Goldstein, K. (1939). The organism. New York: blindness. In H. von Ziemssen & J. A. T. Mc-
American Book. Creery (Eds.), Cyclopedia of the practice of medi-
cine (pp. 770–778). New York: William Wood.
Gresham, F. (2001, August). Reponsiveness to inter-
vention: An alternative approach to the identifi- Lerner, J. W. (2000). LD: Theories, diagnosis, and
cation of LD. Paper presented at the LD Summit, teaching strategies (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton
U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. Mifflin.

Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia.
Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3–27.

Lyon, G. R. (1998). Overview of reading and litera-

A Brief History of the Field 29

cy initiatives (Report to Committee on Labor and sessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. Pa-
Human Resources, U.S. Senate). Bethesda, MD: per presented at the LD Summit, U.S. Depart-
National Institute of Child Health and Human ment of Education, Washington, DC.
Development, National Institutes of Health. Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (1998). Alterna-
Mann, L. (1971). Psychometric phrenology and the tive diagnostic approaches for specific develop-
new faculty psychology. Journal of Special Edu- mental reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities
cation, 5, 3–14. Research and Practice, 13, 220–232.
Martin, E. W. (1987). Developmental variation and U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-sec-
dysfunction: Observations on labeling, public ond annual report to Congress on the implemen-
policy, and individualization of instruction. In M. tation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-
D. Levine & P. Satz (Eds.), Middle childhood: tion Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Development and dysfunction (pp. 435–445). U.S. Office of Education. (1968). The first annual
Baltimore: University Park Press. report of National Advisory Committee on
Mercer, C. D. (1997). Students with LD (5th ed.). Handicapped Children. Washington, DC: U.S.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Monroe, M. (1932). Children who cannot read. U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. states for education of handicapped children:
Morgan, W. P. (1896). A case of congenital word Procedures for evaluating specific LD. Federal
blindness. British Medical Journal, 2, 1378. Register, 42(250), 65082- 65085.
National Joint Committee on LD. (1988). Letter to Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R.
NJCLD Member Organizations. Washington, (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-reme-
DC: Author. diate and readily remediated poor readers: More
National Reading Panel. (2000, April). Report of evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy
the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to definition of reading disability. Journal of Learn-
read (NIH Publication No. 00–4654). Bethesda, ing Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
MD: National Institute of Child Health and Hu- Werner, H. (1937, May). Process and achievement:
man Development, National Institutes of Health. A basic problem of education and developmental
National Research Council. (2002). Minority stu- psychology. Harvard Educational Review, pp.
dents in special and gifted education. (M. S. 353–368.
Donovan & C. T. Cross, Eds.). Washington, DC: Werner, H., & Strauss, A. A. (1939a). Problems and
National Academy Press. methods of functional analysis in mentally defi-
Orton, S. T. (1937). Reading, writing, and speech cient children. Journal of Abnormal and Social
problems in children. New York: W. W. Norton. Psychology, 34, 37–62.
Orton, S. T. (1939). A neurological explanation of Werner, H., & Strauss, A. A. (1939b). Types of vi-
the reading disability. The Educational Record, suo-motor activity in their relation to low and
20(Suppl. 12), 58–68. high performance ages. Proceedings of the Amer-
Robbins, M., & Glass, G. V. (1969). The Do- ican Association on Mental Deficiency, 44,
man–Delacato rationale: A critical analysis. In J. 163–168.
Hellmuth (Ed.), Educational therapy (Vol. II, pp. Werner, H., & Strauss, A. A. (1940). Causal factors
321–377). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publica- in low performance. American Journal of Mental
tions. Deficiency, 45, 213–218.
Sarason, S. B. (1949). Psychological problems in Werner, H., & Strauss, A. A. (1941). Pathology of
mental deficiency. New York: Harper. figure-background relation in the child. Journal
Sasso, G. M. (2001). The retreat from inquiry and of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36, 236–
knowledge in special education. Journal of Spe- 248.
cial Education, 34, 178–193. Wernicke, C. (1874). Der aphasische symp-
Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition tomenkomplex. Breslau, Poland: Cohn &
of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, Weigert.
469–486. Wiederholt, J. L. (1974). Historical perspectives on
Strauss, A. A., & Kephart, N. C. (1939). Rate of the education of the learning disabled. In L.
mental growth in a constant environment among Mann & D. Sabatino (Eds.), The second review
higher grade moron and borderline children. Pa- of special education (pp. 103–152). Philadelphia:
per presented at American Association of Mental JSE Press.
Deficiencies. Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learn-
Strauss, A. A., & Kephart, N. C. (1955). Psy- ing problems: A shared responsibility. Exception-
chopathology and education of the brain-injured al Children, 52, 411–415.
child, Vol. II: Progress in theory and clinic. New Wood, F. B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Emerging
York: Grune & Stratton. issues in the genetics of dyslexia: A methodologi-
Strauss, A. A., & Lehtinen, L. E. (1947). Psy- cal review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34,
chopathology and education of the brain-injured 503–511.
child. New York: Grune and Stratton. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Salvia, J. A. (1974). Diagnostic
Torgesen, J. K. (2001, August). Empirical and theo- prescriptive teaching: Two models. Exceptional
retical support for direct diagnosis of LD by as- Children, 41, 181–186.