Learning Disabilities

As a beginning point in our discussion related to the symposium topics, we would like to suggest that major theoretical advances have occurred in our understanding of learning disabilities. The progress we see is reciprocal-in which practical issues of diagnosis and intervention are beginning to become tightly intertwined with theory. Individuals in cognitive science, for example, and learning, disabilities, are beginning to profit from collaborative efforts. No doubt, this progress has occurred in the face of difficulties associated with defining and diagnosing learning disabilities. As suggested in the first chapter by Keogh, this is because the integration and evaluation of findings from diverse orientations is complicated considerably when researchers cannot determine whether inconsistent or contradictory results are due to the heterogeneity in the LD sample or to deficiencies in their theories. Given the substantial dilemmas posed by inexact, incomplete and overlapping definitions of learning disabilities, that progress has occurred might be surprising.

One reason for this interative work on learning disabilities, especially when it comes to translations into clinical and educational applications, relates to such issues as identification, classification and the heterogeneity of the learning disabled population. In an attempt to enhance interactive efforts across various orientations, Keogh suggests that some common assumptions must be shared. Some of these assumptions are: (1) the locus of the learning disability is in the individual, (2) learning disabled individuals do not function at levels consistent with their intellectual potential, and (3) learning disabled individuals exhibit unexpected failures in specific academic or educational tasks. Keogh suggests that several steps are necessary if one is to encourage the integration of various approaches to learning disabilities. Some of these steps include (1) detailing the primary attributes that distinguish learning disabilities from other conditions, (2) providing a detailed and comprehensive taxonomy of the heterogeneity within learning disabilities, (3) searching for viable aptitude-treatment interactions, (4) relating learning disabilities to the content and structure of learning tasks, (5) testing competing models of treatment, instruction or intervention, and (6) documenting the longitudinal course of learning problems.

Unless progress is made in some of these areas there will be minimal cross over effects between various perspectives (psychological, neuropsychological, biomedical). Pellegrino and Goldman provide an excellent discussion related to our understanding of learning disabilities and intelligence by directing our attention to the notion of cognitive competence. They begin by suggesting that the link of learning disabilities to the construct of intelligence is confusing. For example, on the surface the relationship between intelligence and learning disabilities seems related because they are linked into diagnostic practices and operational definitions.

However, if one defines intelligence as the ability to learn, intelligence does not seem like a construct that would attach itself to children who are deficient in their ability to learn. This conceptual problem is redressed by considering the fact that intelligence is more than what a test measures; intelligence is composed of many elements that involve processes and content. Unfortunately, modern theories of intelligence, as they relate to learning disabilities, are vague and have yet to be translated into operational testing practices. Further, our tests of intelligence do not emanate from theories of intelligence and cognition and our current tests of achievement do not incorporate theories on the development of domain expertise. Pellegrino and Goldman's chapter provides several suggestions about how cognitive theories of intelligence can enhance our understanding of learning disabilities.