Nancy Mather

Specific Learning Disabilities: Clarifying, Not Eliminating, a Construct

,S.C.Dombrowski,R.W.Kamphaus,and C. R. Reynolds (2004) proposed a new set of suggested diagnostic criteria that challenges many ofthe traditional beliefs about these disorders. This article provides a critique of their proposed criteria aswell as an alternative approach for LD identification that is more aligned with current understanding ofthe etiology and characteristics of these disorders.

School Is Fun at Recess Informal Analyses of Written Language for Students with Learning Disabilities

The purpose of an informal analysis of written language is to identify what writers can do as well as what they find difficult about writing. This article reviews the varied components of written language, suggests informal means for assessment, and summarizes the cognitive and linguistic factors that influence varied aspects of writing performance. Two informal evaluation scales are presented that stress the interconnection between oral and written language processes.

The Efficacy of a Memory Strategy for Eliminating Reversal Behavior

This single subject experiment was based on the concept that children often persist in making reversals in reading and writing because of directional confusion and failure to develop memory strategies and generalizations regarding symbol systems. The eight-year-old male subject was taught to use a memory strategy for determining correct symbol orientation. The experiment used a single subject multiple baseline design, and attention was directed to accurate recognition and production of letters and digits. Intervention for letter and digit reversals was separated to determine the effect of the strategy on each type of reversal behavior. Following the two phases of specific training, the frequency of letter and digit reversals decreased. The results demonstrated the utility of a mnemonic method for diminishing the number of reversals made by the subject. In addition, the results support the theory that reversals represent directional uncertainty and are amenable to direct intervention.

Back on Track: A Response to Shaw, Cullen, McGuire, and Brinkerhoff

W hen we pause to reflect, all of us who have worked in the field of learning disabilities for the last two decades can testify to the jagged path our field has followed. Unfortunately, this path is similar to the narrow switchbacks that the mules obediently follow as they carry tourists to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. In many respects, without data to support our decisions, we seem to proceed in one direction for a short time, only to change suddenly and proceed in the opposite direction. Now as we approach the reauthorization of IDEA, we must attempt to define our core beliefs about what actually constitutes the classification of learning disabilities. New information and insights gained from advances in neurological and cognitive research in the last 20 years can enlighten our discussions as we take this opportunity to reexamine our beliefs. We must put aside our philosophical differences in regard to what, where, and how intervention ought to be delivered. Instead, we must reach consensus and clarify the characteristics of the individuals whom we represent. Shaw, Cullen, McGuire, and Brinkerhoff (1995) have made a significant contribution to moving us closer to operationalizing the NJCLD (1981) definition of learning disabilities. Consideration of the Shaw et al. (1995) proposal, however, requires us to rethink and realign our priorities at a number of levels. We need to reexamine our assessment processes, our teacher-training practices, and legislative mandates for identification and intervention. In reviewing the proposed operational definition, we see ideas interwoven from the past, yet a movement toward the future. We will examine both the benefits of their recommendations as well as several questions that have arisen.