INT'L REV OF RESRC IN MENTL RETARDTN V11

Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:

https://medipdf.com/product/intl-rev-of-resrc-in-mentl-retardtn-v11/

Click Download Now

xii Preface

plex problem of social interactions of retarded children in mainstreamed classes

in public schools. It is evident in reading her chapter that there are no simple
solutions for integrating retarded children into society. Finally, McCuller and
Salzberg provide an analysis of imitative behaviors from an operant point of
view. This is an important research area for it is apparent that imitation plays a
strong role in shaping behavior in retarded persons.
Beginning with the next volume Norman W. Bray, University of Alabama,
will become a co-editor of this series. We anticipate no substantive changes in
the series except that several topical volumes are planned. One of these will fo-
cus on research relating to community adjust of retarded persons and the deinsti-
tutionalization movement. Another will review and analyze the literature on cog-
nitive processes in the retarded. We will continue to consider unsolicited
manuscripts of high quality on any researchkheory issue involving persons of
low intelligence, however labeled. Potential contributors are advised to contact
one of the editors and to describe the proposed materials in advance of submitting
completed manuscripts.

NORMAN R. ELLIS
University of Alabama
 Cognitive Development of
the Learning-Disabled Child

JOHN W. HAGEN, CRAIG R. BARCLAY, AND BElTlNA SCHWETHELM

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN

.................................................... I
.............................. 3
A. Description of the Ph 3
B. Learning Disabilities as a "Basic Category" . . . . 4
C. Considerations in the 6
111. Historical Overview ............................... 6
A. Deficit Models.. . . . . ............................. 7
B. Academic Models.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. I1
C. Developmental Lag Models . . . . . . .............................. 12
D. Deficiency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
IV. Aspects of Cognitive Development in the Learning-Disabled Child. ............. 17
V. An Integrative Perspective.. ..................................... 23
A. Metaphysical Assumptions ............................. 24
B. Person and Environment Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
...................... 28
33

I. INTRODUCTION

The cognitive development of children identified as learning disabled has been

the subject of considerable research, theory, and debate. The perspective taken in
this article differs markedly from many current views of developmental dis-
abilities in that the focus is on information processing. While it is recognized that
organismic features are obviously involved and must be considered in the identi-
fication and remediation of many forms of learning disabilities, the emphasis
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN 1 Copyright 0 1982 by Academic h i s . Inc.
MENTAL RETARDATION. Vol. I I All rights of rrprcduclion in any form reserved.
ISBN 0-12-36621 1-7
2 John W . Hagen, Craig R . Barclay, and Bettina Schwethelm

here is on the important role of the development of problem-solving strategies

and knowledge for successful achievement in school and other learning situa-
tions. In the model proposed, a functional analysis of performance is used in
place of the standard diagnostic procedures that lead to particular labels. In our
view, one should be able to characterize a child’s performance in terms of
processing proficiencies or deficiencies. In this approach, terminology such as
perceptually handicapped, mentally retarded, or learning disabled is
deemphasized.
Interest in learning disabilities has grown at a phenomenal rate in the past 20
years, due mostly to a concern on the part of parents, teachers, and other
professionals that certain children have great difficulty acquiring and using infor-
mation presented through various academic tasks. Learning-disabled children are
best described as lagging behind their cohort group in achievement in certain
types of school-related subjects. Unfortunately, the study of learning disabilities
has lacked a coherent focus, since the field has been unable to identify exactly
what adaptive behaviors sufficiently characterize different types of disabilities
(Hagen & Barclay, 1982). In the early work on developmentally disabled young-
sters, a subpopulation was identified as not fitting the traditional description of
mental retardation in the sense of an overall intellectual deficit (e.g., Strauss &
Lehtinen, 1947; Werner, 1957). Kirk (1963) suggested that this group, together
with children of normal intelligence experiencing similar cognitive deficiencies,
be thought of as learning disabled, since their difficulties adapting seemed spe-
cific to a relatively narrow range of problem types.
Recently developmental psychologists have joined the ranks of educators con-
cerned with learning disabilities. Learning-disabled children present an oppor-
tunity for studying processing deficiencies in problem solving. One pragmatic
model for investigating developmental phenomena is to select children deficient
in a hypothesized process and then to observe their performance on tasks already
shown to tap the process of interest in nondisabled children (see Campione &
Brown, 1977). Remediation through training in a problem-solving skill such as
verbal rehearsal can also be used as evidence of a processing deficiency (e.g.,
Brown, Campione, Bray, & Wilcox, 1973; Torgesen, 1977a,b).
In this article the attempt is made, first, to differentiate the issues associated
with identifying and evaluating leaming-disabled children. Section 11 includes a
description of the phenomena of learning disabilities and points to problems of
definition. It is proposed that any initial attempts to characterize the difficulties
these children encounter in school must consider learning disabilities as a “fuzzy
concept (e.g., Gaines & Kokout, 1977; Horvath, Kass, & Ferrell, 1980).
”

Section 111 presents a brief historical overview in which different models of

learning disabilities are described and then compared and contrasted. The four
general approaches discussed are the neurophysiological, developmental lag,
academic, and deficiency models. Section IV focuses on important aspects of the
LEARNING DISABILITIES 3

cognitive development of the learning-disabled child, specifically, the develop-

ment of attention, verbal mediation, memory processes, and cross-cultural evi-
dence that deals with the effects of education on cognitive development. Section
V proposes an integrative perspective that outlines, in broad terms, the possible
relationships between existing knowledge about cognitive development and the
behavior of the leaming-disabled child.

11. THE PROBLEM

Children identified as learning disabled have attracted the attention of diverse

groups interested in education, psychological theory, and litigation. Although
few professionals would deny the existence of learning disabilities (however, see
Ysseldyke, 1977), there is little agreement on exactly how to describe the dis-
tinguishing characteristics of these children (e.g., Hagen & Barclay, 1982).

A. Description of the Phenomena

and Problems of Definition
Any general description of learning disabilities seems to depend on the infor-
mation source consulted. As is the case in many other areas that focus on human
performance, two fundamental views of learning disabilities are apparent from
the literature: a biological or neurophysiological one and a behavioral one. The
neurophysiological position depicts learning disabilities as
the result of perceptual and linguistic processing deficits . . . which may be of any etiological
origin, . . . observed in children and youth of any age and of any level of intellectual func-
tion . . . [resulting from] perceptual processing deficits which, in turn, are or may be the result
of a (diagnosed or inferred) neurophysiological dysfunction occurring at prenatal, perinatal, or
(in the case of linguistic dysfunction) at the postnatal periods of development. (Cruickshank,
1981, p. 46)

Given a behavioral approach, the assumption is that a learning disability is

understood best in terms of identifiable learning problems. These problems result
more from ineffective educational experiences than from neurophysiological
dysfunction (see Hagen & Barclay, 1982). A corollary view to this characteriza-
tion is that taken by educators who see learning disabilities as being mainly
academic in origin (Bateman, 1973; Engelmann, 1969); that is, a disability is
tied directly to school tasks and the remediation of learning problems can be
achieved through the use of behavioral techniques.
The major focus of a neurophysiological model is on deficits within the child,
whereas a behavioral approach analyzes only task and situation variables. Nei-
ther model adequately accounts for the fact that the developing child must func-
tion in different environments over time; that is, both the person and environ-
4 John W . Hagen, Craig R . Barclay, and Bettina Schwethelm

mental (task) factors interact in complex ways. It is this interaction that needs to
be explored and explained. If it is assumed that the child’s adjustment is best
understood in the context of an interaction between psychological processes and
environmental features, then the descriptions cited previously are inadequate.
In this article a cognitive-developmental information-processing perspective
is taken. The disabled child is seen as deficient in the use of certain processes that
control and regulate the flow of information through some cognitive system.
These processes, in turn, are constrained by environmental or task characteristics
and demands (see Barclay, 1981; Newell & Barclay, 1982). Evidence reported
by Bauer (1977, 1979), Newman and Hagen (1981), and Torgesen (1977a,b)
suggest that many learning-disabled children are deficient in the use of the
“active” strategies used by non-learning-disabled youngsters in solving many
school-related and everyday tasks. Furthermore, it has been shown that disabled
youngsters respond to brief training procedures that remedy certain deficiencies.
At this point in time it is apparent that a complete description of learning
disabilities must await future theoretical developments and empirical study. An
understanding of learning disabilities must account for the complex interaction
between person variables (e.g., structural features and psychological processes)
and environmental constraints (see Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Neisser, 1976). Un-
fortunately, given a cognitive perspective, it is not yet clear how development
varies within the population of learning-disabled children or between disabled
and other populations. That various definitions of learning disabilities have led to
confusion among parents, educators, physicians, and psychologists is certainly
not surprising. Without accurate descriptions, any definition of learning dis-
abilities is incomplete. Section II,B outlines a potentially useful approach for
resolving some of the difficulties with descriptions and definitions.

B. Learning Disabilities as a “Basic Category”

The theoretical assumptions underlying the notion of learning disabilities as a
“basic category” are found in the work of Cantor and Mischel (1977, 1979),
Neisser (1979), Rosch (1975, 1978) and her associates (Rosch & Mervis, 1975;
Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem, 1976), and Wittgenstein
(1953). In these works an analysis of basic categories, or “concepts,” has been
applied to objects and events found in everyday life situations. Only one applica-
tion of “fuzzy set concepts” has been used in the case of learning disabilities
(Horvath et a l . , 1980).
In the analysis first offered by Rosch, the defining elements of any category
include (a) the presence of a “prototypical” example, together with “fuzzy” or
marginal instances; (b) the absence of singular defining features; and (c) a three-
level hierarchical ordering of categories consisting of a prototypic, a basic, and a
subordinate level.
LEARNING DISABILITIES 5

A prototype is a concept that incorporates all of the typical features of the

category. In reality a true prototype is a cognitive construction based on an
amalgamation of features abstracted from different exemplars of the category.
For example, the prototype bird would include feathers and wings. Prototypes
are necessarily abstract in the sense that they represent features of many different
exemplars. Object (events, personality, etc.) categories at an intermediate level
in the hierarchy are considered “basic,” since they incorporate most of the
identifiable features of the prototype. For example, chair is considered basic to
the superordinate furniture. Analyzing an exemplar to the subordinate level
usually provides little information about the category that was not derived from
the basic level.
Neisser (1979) has extended the prototype analysis to the concept of intelli-
gence:
In my opinion, then, intelligent person is a prototype-organizedRoschian concept. Our confi-
dence that a person’s overall similarity to an imagined prototype, just as our confidence that
some objects to be called “chair” depends on its similarity to prototypical chairs. There are no
definition criteria of intelligence [learning disabilities], just as there are none for chairness; it is
a fuzzy-edged concept to which many features are relevant. Two people may both be quite
intelligent and yet have very few traits in common; they resemble the prototype along different
dimensions. Thus there is no such quality as intelligence, any more than there is such a thing as
chairness: resemblance is an external fact and not an internal essence. (p. 185)

The notion of a basic category is extended here to include the concept of

learning disabilities. This application has clear advantages over traditional views
of disabled children for the following reasons. In addition to having intuitive
appeal by considering learning disabilities in terms of a constructed basic catego-
ry, one acknowledges the ambiguity in description and definition apparent in the
current literature. A prototype analysis could lead to a description of disabled
children in terms of typicality. That is, an agreed upon, standardized set of
quantifiable features are rated on the dimension of “degree of typicality”; then
children suspected of being disabled are assessed and compared to the basic level
concept. A prototype analysis thus allows a description of the extent to which
any child is learning disabled and in what specific ways. A basic category of
learning disabilities suggests that a disability is not an individual quality; instead,
children are viewed in terms of their resemblance to a prototype-an emphasis
on who is learning disabled is shifted to a description of what a disability is.
In summary, the quantification of typicality would first involve portraying a
prototype and, second, taking multiple measures of the different prototypic fea-
tures observed in any child’s performance. The dimensions around which a
prototype is constructed would surely include neurophysiological, psychologi-
cal, and behavioral indices. An evaluation of prototypic features would result in
a profile that measures the child against the prototype, producing some index of
learning disability. This approach could be criticized on the grounds that no
6 John W . Hagen, Craig R . Barclay, and Bettina Schwethelm

precise definition of a prototypic learning disability is possible; however, this

apparent limitation is a major strength of a prototype analysis, since the category
is necessarily conceptual in nature and precludes precise definition. What is
available is an index of the extent to which any child’s disability maps onto the
prototype. Therefore cumulative assessments of features made over,time render a
portrait of the disabled child.

C. Considerations in the Mentification

of Learning Disabilities
An important clarification is needed regarding the logic of identifying learn-
ing-disabled children. If one assumes that both biological (person) and environ-
mental factors contribute to a disability, then four distinct cases or populations of
children must be compared before judgments are made regarding the nature of
learning disabilities; that is, there are children who evidence (a) both neu-
rophysiological signs and behavioral deficiencies, (b) no biological dysfunction
but deficiencies in some aspect of adaptive behavior, (c) clear neurological
abnormalities but no associated behavioral problems, and (d) neither neu-
rophysiological nor behavioral abnormalities. This last population would not be
seen as disabled; however, it represents a needed contrast group against which
relative comparisons can be made among the various populations of disabled
children.
Disabled children typically are identified if a learning problem exists, regard-
less of whether a neurological dysfunction is found. The concern here is that any
clear understanding of learning disabilities must consider the expected numbers
of children classified according to each combination of biological dysfunction
(yes, no) and behavioral deficiency (yes, no). This concern is relevant especially
in those cases in which children are seen as disabled if no neurological dysfunc-
tion is found and for youngsters with identified structural deficits but no behav-
ioral deficiencies. It seems apparent that unless these groups are considered as
reference points for judging whether learning disabilities exist, the concept itself
is constructed on the basis of a restricted sample (see Nisbett & Ross, 1980).
In Section I11 a historical perspective is presented that demonstrates the prob-
lems associated with the definition and identification of learning disabilities. The
different views are contrasted in terms of whether the causes of learning dis-
abilities are attributed to factors within the person, the environment, or an in-
teraction of the two.

111. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

According to Cruickshank (1977), the problem in the area of learning dis-

abilities “is not the lack of a definition, but the presence of too many defini-
LEARNING DISABILITIES 7

tions” (p. 7). During the past 40 to 50 years many etiological causes of learning
disabilities have been proposed. Approaches for intervention and remediation
abound and are at times likely to present researchers, parents, and educators with
confusing and even contradictory advice. It appears that several different inter-
vention programs can be found that aid groups of children with various
disabilities.
The following is a brief historical overview of learning disabilities. Develop-
ment, whether normal or “uneven,” is attributed to person variables (e.g.,
inherited genetic makeup of the individual, brain injury), environmental vari-
ables (rich versus impoverished environments), or a combination of both. Ap-
proaches to learning disabilities are classified here into four theoretical groups
that may be placed along a person-environment continuum. Positions taken by
researchers and clinicians are not always confined to one of these categories: It is
unlikely that any proponent of a neurological deficit position would wholly
disregard the constraints of various environments encountered by the learn-
ing- disabled child; similarly, those who focus on academic or behavioral factors
do not ignore certain physiological features often associated with learning dis-
abilities. The four approaches are discussed in the following order: (a) deficit or
neurophysiological models; (b) academic or behavioral models; (c) developmen-
tal lag models; and (d) the deficiency models.

A. Deficit Models
As in mental retardation, neurophysiological models attribute learning dis-
abilities to pathological conditions of the child. Much research in learning dis-
abilities attempts to link different types of learning problems to aberrations,
dysfunctions, or damage to the central nervous system (CNS), nutritional defi-
ciencies during the fetal period and infancy, genetic-constitutional factors, or
abnormalities and integrative deficits of the sensory modalities. Strauss and
Werner (1941, 1942), who worked with brain-damaged mentally retarded chil-
dren, are the authors most often credited with stimulating the initial interest in
learning disabilities. The book ‘‘Psychopathology and Education of the Brain-
Injured Child,” by Strauss and Lehtinen (1947), marked the emergence of learn-
ing disabilities as a field separate from that of mental retardation (Lerner, 1971).
In their early work Strauss and Werner had noted that certain groups of children
classified as mentally retarded demonstrated behavioral and biological charac-
teristics similar to those of soldiers who had suffered brain injuries during World
War 1 (Goldstein, 1942). These behavioral characteristics included perceptual
disorders, perseveration beyond task requirements, conceptual disorders, and
behavioral dysfunction. Soft neurological signs, a history of neurological impair-
ment (e.g., pre-, pen-, and postnatally), and absence of mental retardation in the
family were taken as evidence that the affected person was brain damaged.
Children with these characteristics did not benefit from a rich and stimulating
8 John W . Hagen, Craig R . Barclay, and Bettina Schwethelm

environment but, rather, generally appeared to be unable to maintain any devel-

opmental gains they had previously made. Strauss and Werner (1941, 1942)
classified these children as exogenously-as opposed to endogenously-retarded
children whose developmental delay was due to genetic or familial factors.
The work of Strauss and his colleagues has been criticized for numerous
reasons. For one, it is often impossible to determine whether children are ex-
ogenously or endogenously retarded. Children who have known and sometimes
severe neurological damage (e.g., cerebral palsy) may learn at a normal rate.
Furthermore, some children do not show soft neurological signs but have great
difficulties learning even simple tasks. Also, some learning-disabled children
may escape classification for a considerable period of time because they are not
hyperactive (Lerner, 1971).
Without doubt, Werner and Strauss had a determining influence on the direc-
tion taken in research and intervention. Investigators who had collaborated di-
rectly with Werner and Strauss, for example, Kephart and Getman, or who were
influenced by them, for example, Cruickshank, Barsch, and Frostig, adopted the
basic neurologicaUphysiologica1 orientation. Even though Werner and Strauss’
conclusions were derived from their research with retarded children, this next
generation of investigators shifted the focus to learning-disabled children of all
intelligence levels.
Such definitional problems have been a major concern of Cruickshank, who
early on (e.g., 1967) favored the label brain injured but then argued that learning
disabilities are caused by “perceptual processing deficits” (PPD) (Cruickshank,
1977, 1981). Since perceptual processes are the result of central neural activity,
Cruickshank concluded that neurological deficits must be the major causal fac-
tor. He assumed that future development and research with highly sensitive
brain-scanning devices would make it possible to identify the loci of neurological
dysfunctions.
Barsch (1965, 1967, 1968), Frostig and her colleagues (Frostig & Home,
1964; Frostig, Lefever, & Whittlesey, 1961, 1964),Getman (1963, and Kephart
(1960, 1963, 1967) differ slightly among each other in the forms of percep-
tual-motor training they advocate for the learning-disabled child. Their ap-
proaches are based on the premise that motor and perceptual development pre-
cede and are a prerequisite for cognitive or conceptual development. Given this
assumption, academic performance necessarily improves only when percep-
tual-motor deficits in learning-disabled children are remedied.
An alternative neurophysiological perspective was that taken by Orton (1937),
who traced dyslexic problems to mixed cerebral dominance, or a lack of domi-
nance in the left hemisphere-the location of the major linguistic areas. Inter-
ference of the right hemisphere during language-related tasks thus results in such
confusions as letter reversals. Orton advocated that dominance of the left hemi-
sphere could be established by strengthening motor responses on the right side of
the body and discouraging left-sided activities.
LEARNING DISABILITIES 9

The theory of neurological organization developed by Doman, Spitz, Zucman,

Delacato, and Doman (1960, 1967) also emphasized the establishment of cere-
bral dominance, which is unique to the human species. “Brain-damaged” or
learning-disabled children fail to develop normally because their CNS is poorly
organized. Doman et al. proposed that motoric patterning exercises combined
with a special diet and carbon dioxide therapy should result in an alteration of the
child’s brain structure in the direction of “normal” neurological organization.
This approach has been criticized extensively by numerous researchers and pro-
fessional organizations (see Hallahan & Cruickshank, 1973; Robbins & Glass,
1969).
A few researchers have investigated the possibility of a genetic predisposition
for specific types of learning disabilities: for example, Critchley (1970), Omenn
(1973), Stewart (1980), and Vandenberg (1973) have related genetic factors to
minimal brain dysfunction (MBD), reading disabilities, and hyperactivity. Stew-
art (1980) concluded the following from an analysis of family studies of hyper-
activity:
1. There is a connection between hyperactivity in children and alcoholism, antisocial per-
sonality, and hysteria in their adult relatives.
2. Hyperactivity in childhood may predispose people to these psychiatric disorders of adult
life.
3. Hyperactive children tend to have parents, uncles, and aunts who were hyperactive
themselves and vice versa.
4. There is direct evidence for genetic determinants of hyperactivity. (p. 160)

Unfortunately, it is impossible to interpret such correlational evidence, since the

causes of hyperactivity may also result from ontogenetic influences like model-
ing and reinforcement history; furthermore, malnutrition or undernutrition during
the pre- and postnatal periods (Martin, 1980) as well as vestibular disorders (de
Quiros, 1976) have been suggested as factors contributing to learning disabil-
ities.
Deficit proponents have suggested various programs of intervention based on
their respective theoretical positions. Of the three approaches that could be
utilized, (a) “teaching to the deficits,” (b) “teaching to the integrities,” and (c)
a combination of both (Johnson & Myklebust, 1967; Lerner, 1971), only the first
has been used frequently and consistently. Attempts at strengthening the sug-
gested deficits, typically perceptual or motoric in nature, can be seen in the
intervention procedures proposed by Kephart (1960), Frostig and Home (1964),
Barsch (1967), Getman (1965), and others. It was generally accepted that the
enhancement of inadequate visual, auditory, and motoric skills would subse-
quently result in more satisfactory academic performance.
Neurophysiological approaches have been criticized on both theoretical and
empirical grounds. In view of the heterogeneity of the learning-disabled popula-
tion alone (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1976), such unidimensional conceptualiza-
tions of etiology are inadequate (Wong, 1979a). For one, it can be assumed that
10 John W . Hagen, Craig R . Barclay, and Bettina Schwethelm

the range of reactions and the highest possible intellectual achievement of the
individual child are dependent not only on the extent of the CNS abnormality (if
present) but also on the environmental context. Some children with severe cere-
bral abnormalities function within the average range of academic achievement
and intelligence (see Birch, 1964; Fine, 1977; Lewin, 1980); furthermore, chil-
dren with no measurable neurological signs may demonstrate considerable learn-
ing deficiencies. According to Benton (l973), who has taken a rather extreme
position, ‘‘radical excision of an entire hemisphere (with occasional sparing of
one or another area such as the occipital lobe or hippocampus) rarely harms the
child” (p. 30).
Without doubt, the notion of cerebral dysfunction or aberration of a permanent
anatomical nature has lost much of its appeal as an explanatory construct of
learning disabilities. Evidence for measurable brain damage in learning-disabled
children is inconsistent and frequently absent. The essence of the major problem
with most attempts to match neurological dysfunctions with behavioral dis-
abilities is captured in the following statement: “Undoubtedly the major weak-
ness of tests of brain damage is the absence of an adequate theory of brain
function upon which they can be based” (Herbert, 1964, p. 210). Children are
frequently classified on the basis of test items of questionable standardization and
construct validity, and from these tests brain abnormalities are inferred
(Vellutino, Steger, Moyer, Harding, & Niles, 1977; Wong, 1979a).
Mattis, French, and Rappin (1975) concluded from a study of 113 children
with learning and/or behavioral problems that there was no consistent relation-
ship between reading disabilities and brain injury. In another study by Owen,
Adams, Forrest, Stolz, and Fisher (1971), clear signs of neurological damage
were noted in only 3 of 76 children with identified learning problems. Satz and
Fletcher (1980) pointed out that inferring brain damage in children with learning
problems is “reckless and unwarranted and leads to circularity in reasoning” (p.
674); a review of available evidence led them to the following conclusion:
MBD is indeed an empty, superfluous term. As such it represents a myth that should be
discarded as illusory. In fact the concept is not even necessary. What is urgently needed is a
more descriptive and operational class of definitions for target children without any presump-
tion as to etiology. (p. 674)

Several researchers (Vellutino et a l . , 1977; Wong, 1979a) argued that percep-

tual deficit proponents based their programs on a misinterpretation of Piaget’s
theory of development. Cognitive skills, according to Piaget (1960, 1969) are
acquired in a reciprocal relationship with perceptual and motoric abilities. These
begin with the elaboration of action schemata, which become increasingly de-
pendent on the child’s intellectual abilities. Perceptual deficit theorists, however,
emphasize the necessity of perceptual-motor training prior to teaching academic
skills. Larsen and Hammill (1975) pointed out that this approach often overlooks
academic inadequacies. In addition, perceptual training studies have failed to
LEARNING DISABILITIES 11

demonstrate concomitant or subsequent improvements in the areas of academic

skills (Belmont, 1980; Larsen & Hammill, 1975; Vellutino et al., 1977).
In an attempt to test the perceptual deficit model with poor readers, Momson,
Giordiani, and Nagy (1977) divided the information processing of verbal and
nonverbal stimuli into perceptual and memory phases. It was demonstrated that
the learning-disabled children achieved results similar to those of the nonhan-
dicapped group during the perceptual phase; however, during the encoding or
memory phase good readers consistently outperformed the learning-disabled
children in tests involving letters, and geometric and abstract forms. Morrison et
al. (1977) concluded that learning-disabled children may have problems “in
information processing in stages following initial perception, perhaps in encod-
ing, organization, or retrieval skills” (p. 79).

B. Academic Models
The academic approach, unlike neurophysiological models, assumes that
learning disabilities are associated with deficiencies in learning behaviors. Its
proponents suggest that a knowledge of etiological factors is of little importance
in the actual process of intervention. Bateman (1973), for example, argued the
following:
Children’s learning problems can be reconceptualized, for educational purposes, as residing in
the environment rather than in the child. Again, I am not suggesting that central nervous
systems do not differ from each other in ways undoubtedly related to learning performance. I
am, however. underscoring the fact that direct CNS manipulations are beyond the domain of
the educator. The term “learning disability” could be replaced by “teaching disability” to
emphasize the shift in focus from something deviant or pathological in the child to the
inadequate arrangement of the environment by a teacher of that child. (p. 247)

Behavioral analysis is particularly useful in special education for a number of

reasons: Clear behavioral objectives are developed for each child; larger tasks are
broken down into subtasks and subskills and organized into teachable units; the
performance of a child is measured regularly to assess the effectiveness of the
teaching techniques and materials; and the progress of each child is compared to
baseline data collected before the intervention phase. It is further assumed that
learning occurs in a hierarchical manner; that is, in a sequence from simple skills
to more complex ones (Engelmann, 1969; Gagnt, 1970; Vellutino et al., 1977).
Great importance is placed on explicit step-to-step instructions to ensure that
learning-disabled children know what is required of them, and to give them every
possible opportunity to experience success. Lovitt and Smith ( 1972) suggested
that some of these children may fail owing to a difficulty in understanding what
is expected of them. Feedback or knowledge of results, in the form of environ-
mental contingencies (e.g., reinforcement, punishment, or conditions of non-
reward or extinction), provide this information to the child.
12 John W . Hagen, Craig R . Barclay, and Bettina Schwethelm

Bateman (1973) argued that using such labels as MBD or learning disabled
may provide teachers with excuses for educational failure. Such labels often
reduce the expectancy of what these children can achieve and consequently result
in a less challenging learning environment (Bateman, 1973; Vellutino et a l . ,
1977). The DISTAR program developed by Engelmann and others, the Write
and See program by Skinner, and a reading program developed by Bateman
(1976, cited by Wong, 1979a) are examples of the academic approach favored
and implemented by many educators.
Perhaps the major logical problem in the academic approach, as in any purely
physiological model, is the circularity inherent in its argument. It is implied,
generally, that almost any child can learn a skill if the appropriate teaching
strategy is used. If the child fails to acquire an effective skill, it is assumed that
the teaching technique is inappropriate; any processing deficiencies of the child
are not taken into account. This often leads to continuous, and at times endless,
modifications in the teaching strategy. Stated differently, there are no clear
criteria for discontinuing intervention attempts.

C. Developmental Lag Models

Due to the predominant influence of the medically oriented defect model, the
developmental lag approach has never made a large impact in the area of learning
disabilities. Developmental theorists postulate that the development of handi-
capped children (whether they be mentally retarded or handicapped in other
ways) proceeds in the same sequence as with children without handicaps. Since
their rate of development is considerably slower, disabled youngsters may be-
come fixated at an immature stage and consequently fail to attain the same final
level of competence (see Inhelder, 1968). However, differences in performance
between the mentally retarded and children of average intelligence matched on
the basis of mental age are frequently observed. Zigler (1969, 1973) suggested
that these differences can be traced back to the individuals' socialization histo-
ries. Persons whose development is retarded often experience failure and become
more dependent on external cues and guidance by others; therefore a consider-
able proportion of the differences in the performances of normal and delayed
populations must be attributed to motivational differences, rather than to discre-
pancies in intellectual ability. Furthermore, emotional events may play a larger
role in children's cognitive development than has been previously thought (see
Luria, 1976).
In their attempt to understand learning disabilities, lag theorists have sug-
gested such factors as immaturity in some or all of the components of the CNS
(Bender, 1958; Gallagher, 1966; Kinsbourne, 1973; Satterfield, Lesser, Saul, &
Cantwell, 1973). delays in intersensory integration (Birch & Belmont, 1964,
1965), a lag in the maturation of the left hemisphere (Satz & Van Nostrand,