I haven't followed all the discussion, so I may be repeating someone 
here, sorry.  Given the list of LD problems it would be useful to  
prioritize them in relation to occurrence--how often within a 
population.

I think I have herd it said that 80% of teachers in the field are 
volunteers--strategies for getting the info to  the vlunteeers is the 
major sticking point, but I think the problems here can probably be 
solved, I'm not sure just yet how, but I think it can be done.

Andrea
On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:35 PM, Christy Breihan wrote:


> 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

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Learning Disabilities mailing list

> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

>