Sara G. Tarver

Verbal rehearsal and selective attention in children with learning disabilities: a developmental lag.

Abstract To investigate the development of verbal rehearsal strategies and selective attention in learning disabled children, Hagens Central-Incidental task was administered to younger learning disabled (M CA = 8.68 years) and normal (M CA = 8.62 years) boys in Experiment 1 and to intermediate (M CA = 10.18 years) and older (M CA = 13.48 years) learning disabled boys in Experiment 2. Also, in Experiment 2, an experimentally induced verbal rehearsal condition was included to determine its effects on serial recall and selective attention performance. In Experiment 1, the serial postion curve of the normals revealed both a primacy and a recency effect, whereas that of the learning disabled revealed a recency effect only. In Experiment 2, both the intermediate and the older learning disabled exhibited both primacy and recency effects under both standard and rehearsal conditions. A developmental analysis of central recall for the three learning disabled groups revealed constant age-related increases in overall central recall and in primacy recall. That the normals recalled more central, but not more incidental, information than the learning disabled in Experiment 1 suggests that the learning disabled are deficient in selective attention. Correlational findings suggest that the selective attention of the learning disabled improves with age. The results were interpreted as support for the hypothesis of a developmental lag in the learning disabled population.

Attention Deficits In Children With Learning Disabilities A Review

Twenty-one experimental studies of attention deficits in children with learning disabilities were reviewed. Included in the review were studies of distractibility, hyperactivity, impulsivity, vigilance, and intersensory integration. From the accumulated evidence, the following conclusions were drawn: (1) Children with learning disabilities exhibit more distractibility than controls on tasks involving embedded contexts (figure-ground perception tasks) and on tests of incidental vs. central learning. They are not differentially distracted by other types of distractors such as flashing lights and extraneous color cues. (2) Hyperactivity of children with learning disabilities may be situational-specific, with higher levels of activity being exhibited in the structured situation. (3) Children with learning disabilities are more impulsive, i.e. less reflective, than controls. (4) Children with learning disabilities are deficient in their ability to maintain attention over prolonged periods of time. Studies of attention within a standardized testing framework were also discussed

Modality Preference and the Teaching of Reading: A Review

Teaching to a childs strengths versus improving areas of weakness has long been a key concept in remedial planning for many practitioners. Strengths and weaknesses have often been related to sensory modality capabilities resulting in the notion of auditory learners, visual learners, and learners needing haptic and kinesthetic feedback. This excellent review of research which assesses the validity of the modality strength concept finds strikingly little support; thus, practical wisdom is not supported by research data. Because the modality preference/strength concept has intuitive appeal and is apparently useful to many practitioners, the possibility certainly exists that the research is inadequately designed or insufficiently sensitive to validate this central principle. Comments regarding the methods of the studies and the conclusions of this review are invited from practitioners and researchers. — G.M.S.

Selective Attention and Locus of Control in Learning Disabled and Normal Children

A growing body of literature clearly shows typical LD children have trouble directing their attention to the central features of an externally-provided task. Further, LD children perceive the consequences surrounding their behavior to be more externally-controlled than does the average learner. This inactive, externally-controlled learning style is well documented. Further research needs now to isolate the subgroups which may exist within the broader characterization and examine the effectiveness of remedial techniques with the various subgroups. - G.M.S.

The Development of Visual Selective Attention and Verbal Rehearsal in Learning Disabled Boys

This experiment is provocative in that it purports to show that learning disabled boys may be developmentally slow rather than physically impaired or functionally fixated. The strength of the experiment, which researchers will particularly note, is the use of a well-researched experimental paradigm with which normal development has previously been established. Hence, the authors can utilize this remembering task to compare the development of learning disabled boys relative to those in previous studies who have not had learning handicaps. — G.M.S.

The Effect of Early Reading Failure on Acquisition of Knowledge Among Students with Learning Disabilities

Children with learning disabilities who are handicapped in reading cannot decode the printed word quickly and easily. As a result, word recognition processes drain attentional capacity that might otherwise be allocated to comprehension processes. Comprehension is complicated further by a secondary effect of the basic decoding problem—failure to acquire the information and vocabulary that is normally gained through reading experiences. Because of a limited knowledge base, the learning disabled (LD) student may be unable to demonstrate the higher level thinking abilities involved in reading comprehension despite normal intelligence. In this paper, the ramifications of early reading failure are considered within Challs (1983) five-stage model of reading development.

Comparison of dyslexic and nondyslexic adults on decoding and phonemic awareness tasks.

This study was conducted to determine if the phonemic awareness skills of college-aged dyslexic students (n=10) differ from those of their nondyslexic peers (n=10). Both groups were tested on reading of real and nonsense words and a phoneme reversal task. Although the dyslexic subjects had received considerable language remediation and were all succeeding at their college studies at a level that did not significantly differ from the nondyslexic subjects, they performed significantly poorer on two measures of phonemic awareness: reading of nonsense words and increased error rate and response time on reversal of common three phoneme words. These results were interpreted to suggest that although the dyslexic subjects had improved their reading skills there remained a fundamental deficit in their ability to process phonological information quickly and accurately.

Locus of control and learning disabilities: a review and discussion.

It has been widely reported that an external locus of control is associated with children who experience failure. A review of the relevant literature indicates that learning disabled children, like other groups of children who have experienced failure, are more likely to exhibit an external locus of control than their normally achieving peers. In particular, learning disabled children have been found to be more likely than normally achieving students to attribute their successes, but not their failures, to external factors. The relationship of the locus of control construct to the field of learning disabilities is discussed in terms of four questions: (1) what is the relationship between locus of control and academic achievement?, (2) how is locus of control related to learned helplessness?, (3) is a change in locus of control orientation desirable?, and (4) what is the utility of locus of control for the education of learning disabled children? It is concluded that, in the course of remediation, attention should be devoted to the entire syndrome of characteristics associated with failure but within the context of academic intervention.

A Comparison of the Effects of Reinforcement and Response Cost on the Selective Attention of Learning Disabled Children

This experiment, like others in a series by the present authors, examines attentional processes in learning disabled youngsters. This particular study is controversial in that it proposes that learning disabled children may be capable of better verbal learning than they demonstrate — they simply fail to produce, though they allegedly possess the capability. Comments regarding this “production deficiency hypothesis” are invited. — G.M.S. To investigate the effects of reinforcement and response cost on the selective attention and verbal rehearsal performance of learning disabled children, a modified version of Hagens Central-Incidental task was administered to 48 children enrolled in a private residential school for children with learning disabilities. A reinforcement condition facilitated both selective attention and verbal rehearsal (as measured by primacy effect), but a response cost condition did not. The results were discussed in relation to a “production deficiency” in learning disabled children.

WISC AND WISC-R PROFILES OF LEARNING DISABLED CHILDREN: A REVIEW

It has been widely assumed that learning disabled children exhibit a characteristic WISC or WISC-R profile. This paper reviews 24 studies investigating the performance of disabled learners on these instruments. Three questions were addressed in the review of these studies: 1) Is high Performance IQ-low Verbal IQ characteristic of learning disabled children? 2) Do learning disabled subjects exhibit more WISC (or WISC-R) subtest scatter than normal learners? and 3) Do learning disabled subjects exhibit a characteristic WISC(-R) profile? The evidence regarding the first two questions was inconclusive although Verbal-Performance IQ discrepancies and subtest variability may not be uncommon in normal children. The evidence does suggest that LD children, as a group, exhibit a characteristic WISC(-R) profile whereas few individual LD children actually conform to this pattern. It was concluded that WISC(-R) profiles may not be useful for differential diagnosis of learning disabled students.