Wow! I think that's exactly what we need to be able to select appropriate interventions and, if necessary, accommodations. The generalizations put forward at most professional development events I attend seem more intended to elicit sympathy than to find remedies. It should be possible through current research methods to identify specific barriers to precise areas of learning and then find the best tools to move the learner past them. Defining a group by its distance from a norm rather that by what actually separates it only perpetuates the sense of mystery when we should be seeking understanding. I absolutely agree that research results are less impressive than they might be were we applying them to better defined, more homogeneous groups. Doing this would also require all who aspire to claim some expertise in the field to update their lexicon in a way many practitioners have not done since their college days. Hopefully science will finally bring enlightenment to the warring "beliefs" in education.
Christy Breihan
Adult Basic Ed Instructor


>>> Richard Gacka <ldconsultants at mac.com> 01/25/07 8:22 PM >>>

I have been following the thread of responses to the question  
regarding future research efforts. Since the discussion has recently  
turned toward recognition that the problem may be ambiguity at the  
center of the bull’s eye, that is, the definition of the condition  
being measured, I would like to continue the discussion.

Like many apparent conundrums, movement toward a solution of the  
problems that affect “research” may not be easy, and may call for  
greater reconciliation between “theoretical” and “practical”  
considerations.  I would hope that there is rather generalized  
recognition that there is a problem, the research that we have is  
often based on a very poorly defined group and that flaw ripples  
through all of the generalizations that result. To be certain, we  
should address research problem. But in doing so, do we focus on  
“fixing” the definition, or more realistically, moving in the  
direction of having better definitions. I think the latter would be a  
viable initial research objective.

The literature shows increasing frequency of the term “spectrum  
disorder” in describing symptomatic continuums. I would propose that  
use of the term would be appropriate in the field of Learning  
Disabilities, i.e. we begin to replace the singular term “Learning  
Disability” with the more encompassing (and in my view more accurate)  
term “Learning Disabilities Spectrum Disorder.” This would better  
address the multiplicity of etiology but would also allow  
differentiation of the different “types” of “L.D.” Achieving that  
differentiation would be a major accomplishment, since that  
differentiation would greatly facilitate research on the impact of  
interventions because doing so would allow more “apples to apples”  
analysis. I have thought for a long time that much of the past  
research has failed to show impact because the group that was  
studied, while having the same “label,” was in fact a rather  
heterogeneous group.

It is interesting to look at the DSM-IV in terms of the number and  
specificity of diagnostic codes. “Learning Disorders” has 4 codes,  
“Communication Disorders” has 5 codes and “Attention-Deficit and  
Disruptive Disorders” have 5 codes. Those codes are generally not  
consistent with terminology used in educational discussions, although  
one can mentally make a “cross-walk” between them and the terminology  
used in the field of Adult Education. Wouldn’t it be a step forward  
for the field if the people who did the diagnostic work spoke the  
same language as the people who provide the “treatment?” Another way  
to look at the DSM-IV issue is to compare the generic area of  
Learning Problems with the area of Substance Abuse. In the latter,  
there are 114 (I may be off a little) diagnostic codes. It does not  
take an expert to see that the “field” of Substance Disorder” did a  
much better job of lobbying for representation and specificity than  
did the field of “Learning Disabilities.”  Since most research starts  
with some attempt at grouping, and since that grouping often depends  
of diagnostic classification, I would argue that some major thrust in  
the field of “LD” would be to better articulate the “Types,” and that  
gets back to the concept of it being a “Spectrum Disorder.”

Another benefit or promoting a view of Learning Disabilities as a  
“family” of disorders sharing commonalities but also having  
differences would be the ability to identity or compensate for  
contaminating secondary and environmental issues. This has been  
suggested in the earlier discussions but has not been clearly  
defined; the differentiation between the “pure underlying condition,”  
and the presentation seen by most practitioners of “the pure  
underlying condition, exacerbated by secondary, environmental,  
health, and emotional factors.”  Those factors need to be  
differentiated and recognized as part of any research.

Having said all of that, the true value would be the enhanced  
capacity of practitioners to better select interventions that would  
have a greater probability of resulting in improved performance. If a  
clear and easy to understand classification system were available, it  
would allow practitioners to better conceptualize the group of  
students in their charge. With clearer definitions they could better  
adapt their use of materials and techniques to meet the  
characteristics of their students. Concurrently, “formal research”  
could use the same classifications but do so at a much more rigorous  
level of variable control, ideally keying off of “trends” reported in  
the practitioner research. This would result in a significant  
reduction in the chasm between research and reality.

So, what exactly am I suggesting?

The field of Learning Disabilities needs to establish a presence  
within the community that is currently working on the next revision  
of the DSM. The goal would be to expand the specificity of diagnostic  
codes and include clear definitions so that practitioners could  
conceptualize their interventions in the same terminology. I know  
that there are individuals who would resist such an expansion of  
categorization, but it need not be punitive, sterile or  
discriminatory, and it is sorely needed if the field is to gain any  
true professional recognition.

That the field refine its thinking from speaking of “A Learning  
Disability” to “A Continuum” or “A Spectrum of Manifestations.” Even  
with the current “spectrum disorders” seen in the literature, (for  
example, Autism Spectrum Disorder), every individual case is likely  
to be a unique “hybrid” because no two individuals will have lived in  
the same environment and experienced the same consequences of having  
those difficulties. Starting to think of learning problems from that  
perspective would be a step in the right direction.

That practitioners at the “grass roots” level begin to conceptualize  
the Learning Disabilities that they see on a daily basis as “sub- 
types” of a “family” of manifestations, and begin to adjust their  
interventions accordingly. I would encourage energetic application of  
“practitioner research” or “practitioner inquiry,” thinking more  
about gathering objective data on the consequences of their  
instruction than the term that they happen to call their efforts or  
the formal regulation of related variables. If that were done, a  
small “core” of informal evidence might evolve, that could then  
direct subsequent more rigorous “formal” research.

My apologies for the length of this communication, but I hope it has  
been helpful in continuing the discussion.

Richard Gacka
Director: PA ABLE Learning Differences project
ldconsultants at web.mac.com