Reconceptualization of Learning Disorders in Education: Individual Student Success

Learning disabilities have received a substantial increase in attention over the past decade, in an effort to minimize the potentially devastating effects on an individual’s ability to learn. Characterised by a hindrance in the capacity to learn, as well as academic underachievement, learning disabilities are often difficult to identify and are long thought to be the result of a neurological disorder (Ahmad, 2015). Within the educational institution, several conflicting practices and procedures exist regarding the diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities. Many of these practices and procedures are outdated, inconsistent, and discriminatory, contributing to the misidentification of those whose behaviours are not indicative of a learning disability, while excluding those whose behaviours are accreditable to a specific learning impairment (Geyens & Siegel, 2014). The mental competencies needed for academic achievement exist along a spectrum, suggesting that the endowment of special needs resources should be allocated accordingly (Penney, 2017). Rather than employing diagnostic criteria to determine which students warrant additional resources, the diagnostic process should focus on the construction of individualized teaching plans, challenging students to progress at their own momentum (Penney, 2017). A reconceptualization of learning disabilities is necessary in order to develop ways of providing individualized curriculum with appropriate accommodations, as to ensure that every student is afforded the opportunity to pursue an adequate education.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Essay Writing Service

A learning disability refers to a variety of conditions which interfere with the acquisition, organization, recollection, comprehension or utilization of information, both verbal and non-verbal (Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario, 2015). Unique from other intellectual deficiencies, these impairments affect learning in individuals who otherwise exhibit at least average abilities necessary for thinking and reasoning. While a diagnosis of a learning disorder is certain to be accompanied by difficulties, use of the terminology “disorder” and “disability” is misleading, suggesting the individual will suffer lifelong deficits that are unable to be remedied (Penney, 2017). A learning disability is not necessarily indicative of a neurological inadequacy, but simply perhaps that the individual’s brain is wired differently, as that certain skills are not those easily acquired. While some students are incapable of keeping up with the curriculum, others are not challenged enough, and are not permitted to move ahead to more challenging material. Current curriculum does not take into account divergent academic proficiencies, only those of the “average” student. While a learning disability may deter one from excelling in certain academic subjects, “all children (except those with severe brain damage or genetic disorders) can become functional readers and master the reading writing skills and mathematics needed for everyday living” (Penney, 2017). Individualized teaching plans focused on delivering information slowly and efficiently, ensuring the student fully grasps the material before moving forward, would be of great benefit to those who fall at the low end of the intellectual spectrum. Curriculum standards should enable all students to thrive individually, rather than impede the majority as a result of not being “average”.

Aptitude, motivation, and interest in academics inherently differ among students, as they also exhibit varying degrees of speed and efficiency in intellectual abilities required to learn (Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario, 2015). Every skill is “multidimensional and involves many different mental processes that all lie on a continua of effectiveness or efficiency, thus, there are no clear-cut categories corresponding to learning disabilities” (Penney, 2017). Learning disabilities are often regarded as a multitude of deficiencies within various mental processes, or as a significant discrepancy between predicted and actual achievement, with low cut-off points set as the defining measure of disability (Ontario Psychological Association, 2018). Such characterization is both ambiguous and biased, as the process of accurately diagnosing a learning disability is multifaceted and requires more than interpretation of standardized test scores (Ontario Psychological Association, 2018). Students who fall just above the set cut-off point, or those who only fall below the cut-off on select measures, may be overlooked as a result of not meeting the required measures to be deemed as having difficulty, while also unable to thrive following the traditional curriculum. The development of more comprehensive testing measures will only exacerbate the current issue, as there must inevitably be criteria that is or is not met in order for a diagnosis (Penney, 2017).

As the criteria used to assess the presence of learning difficulties is subjective, it also leads to an unfair allocation of special needs assistance and resources. Students identified as underachievers, yet not quite meeting the criteria for a diagnosis, are not able to apply for supplementary provisions. In some cases, these individuals are in as much of needs as those identified as having a disability, but will not receive government funded help, left to bear the financial responsibility of any additional resources they may require for academic success. Additionally, students who are identified as having a disability but deemed to possess only minor impairments, are often denied allocation of additional resources beyond the fundamental basics. The result of “the arbitrary nature of criteria for defining learning disabilities means that special help will be given on an arbitrary basis” (Penney, 2017). Socioeconomic status of the student’s parents is likely to further impact the dissemination of special assistance resources, creating a further disadvantage. Parents possessing low academic achievement are likely to encounter challenges assisting their children with curriculum difficulties, while those with low incomes will be unable to provide their children with private tutors or supplementary assessments from third-party providers (Penney, 2017). It is often not a disability, but a lack of the prerequisite skills which impedes the student, in which case acquiring the relevant skills would be of more benefit than supplementary accommodations.

As every institution requires supporting evidence for a diagnosis, the inconsistency in the practices and procedures employed to establish this are largely causative of the misidentification, or lack thereof, of learning disabilities. Diagnostic criteria is typically collected during a clinical observation, a diagnostic interview, and a battery assessment “relying on more than just one test or subtest of (a) aptitude, (b) achievement, (c) information processing, and (d) other assessment measures of

personality” (2017, Canada-wide). This is problematic as no agreed-upon working definition exists of what a learning disorder constitutes, and there remains no agreed-upon diagnostic criteria that supports testing in the aforementioned categories (Gyenes & Siegel, 2014). A disconcerting number of acceptable tests are available to be used in the diagnostic process within postsecondary institutions, many of which are not distinctly related to learning disabilities. Furthermore, many institutions do not limit the practitioner from employing other testing methods, nor require that the tests be used in all four categories of assessment (DeRight & Carone, 2013). While some researchers support the use of achievement tests in combination with an assortment of other diagnostic techniques to establish or rule out a learning disability, others remain advocates for utilizing discrepancies in cognitive ability and achievement test scores. While an abundant number of testing measures exist, it becomes increasingly difficult to make academic recommendations for a student when low test scores are achieved, but information processing is within average range, or alternatively, when information processing is deficient, but test scores are average. To further complicate matters, every educational institution possesses its own set of diagnostic and accommodation guidelines, many of which are obscure and inconsistent (Gyenes & Siegel, 2014). That is, “in some institutions an LD diagnosis is required based on an IQ discrepancy diagnosis of one sort, while in others, no IQ discrepancy is required” (Gyenes & Siegel, 2014). It is apparent that varying requirements for an accurate and distinct diagnosis within educational institutions is likely to create obstacles in the pursuit of an adequate education, and that a reconceptualization of the policies, practices and standards is desperately needed to offer consistency and equality to those suffering from a learning disability.

Limitations and Discussion

An array of additional factors contribute to the misidentification of learning disabilities, and to the rationale that standardized curriculum is unsuitable for individuals deviating from the norm. Notable

causative factors not discussed include cultural and ethnic backgrounds of ESL students, variance of diagnostic standards across provinces, variance in acceptable documentation for additional

accommodations, variation among institutions as to who is deemed an acceptable accredited professional to conduct testing measures, as well as inconsistent and insufficient training among faculty. No straightforward solution exists in rectifying the challenges present when diagnosing learning disabilities, or in developing an inclusive curriculum. Nonetheless, curriculum focused on individualized achievement which also gently challenges each student would be advantageous when dealing with students exhibiting learning difficulties, as well as delivering said curriculum in a one-room setting (Penney, 2017). Having students work on the same subject, yet at different skill levels within the same classroom could prove to facilitate a more individualized curriculum. Students could work in small groups with other students operating at the same skill level, with instructor intervention as needed. The goal would be promotion of individual achievement, with students advancing at their own pace once a skill had been mastered. This would ensure that no student is left behind, and every student is perpetually stimulated without being overwhelmed (Gyenes & Siegel, 2014).

Conclusion

Definitions can be continuously refined, new diagnostic criteria can be conceived, stigmas and prejudice can be eradicated, but these remain ineffective measures for the children who fall outside the diagnostic requirements of a learning disability. Research should not focus on specific standards and curriculum, but on individual progression and prospering of each student. If differences within each student, regardless of socioeconomic or ethnic background, continue to be ignored, we will continue to fail an entire subset of children who are in need of attention. Academic strengths and weaknesses should not hinder the opportunity for an appropriate and challenging education. Strengths and

weaknesses should be understood on an individualized basis, so that curriculum can be delivered in an effective way, resulting in academic success, ultimately translating into success within the real world.

References

• Ahmad, K. A. (2015). Exploring the Invisible: Issues in Identification and Assessment of Students with Learning Disabilities in India. Transcience, 6(1). 91-107.
• DeRight, J., & Carone, D., A. (2013). Assessment of effort in children: A systematic review. Child Neuropsychology, 21(1). 1-24.
• Gyenes, J., & Siegel, L. S. (2014). A Canada-wide examination of the criteria employed for learning disability documentation in English speaking postsecondary institutions. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(4). 279-295.
• Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario (2015). Official definition of LDs. Retrieved from http://www.ldao.ca/introduction-to-ldsadhd/what-are-lds/official-definition-of-lds/
• Ontario Psychological Association (2018). Ontario psychological guidelines for diagnosis and assessment of children, adolescents, and adults with learning disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.psych.on.ca/getattachment/37646d71-1469-4731-a3c6-55a458a8238f/OPA-Guidelines-for-Diagnosis-and-Assessment-of-Learning-Disabilities-Sept-7-2018-(1)-1.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf
• Penney, C. G. (2017). Rethinking the concept of learning disability. Canadian Psychology, 59(2). 197- 202.
• Schroeder, M., Drefs, M. A., & Cormier, D., C. (2017). The messiness of LD identification: Contributions of diagnostic criteria and clinical judgement. Canadian Psychology, 58. 218-227.