Talk:Learning disability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Firming up the page content
A lot of what's here is good, but there are pieces that are outdated and/or innaccurate. I'm going to make the changes I think are needed, which I guess is the whole point of this wiki stuff! I will check back to see if people are opposed to the changes.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misterjep (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] On the subject of ADD
If a student with ADD was still exhibiting extreme difficulty concentrating or just generally learning after recieving treatment, could they be given the same treatment as one in an IEP? If so, could they stay in the gifted program of their school, but simply be given more time to do assignments et cetera?
I am by no means an expert on this subject so I don't want to change it myself, but I think there's a slight error on the 'learning disability' page. Under the brief mentioning of Alzheimer's disease the following text can be found: "As the condition progresses, the patient begins losing lifelong memories, with the most recent to go first. Eventually, they often regress to childhood [...]"
Coincidentally, I recently heard that this is a common misconception. In fact the memories that have made the most impact in peoples lives are the ones that remain the longest. The fact that the most impressive memories are usually from when a person was young makes it seem as if a person is slowly regressing to childhood when this is not really what is happening. It's just that memories from childhood are stronger. Also note that in the Alzheimer's disease article regression to youth is not mentioned at all.
Could someone who knows the facts please either correct the article or correct me? ;)
Non-verbal learning disability is a learning disorder associated with damage to the white matter in the brain. The right-sided brain functions are adversely affected. Transfer of information between right and left brain via the corpus callosum may also be a problem. People with this disability are strong in verbal skills, with prolific speech and vocabulary, & excellent rote memory. They are often auditory learners, as opposed to the much more common visual learning style. Weaknesses are in math, visual-spatial skills, & social skills where non-verbals are needed (thus the name, "Non-verbal learning disability). NLD children may be clumsy and accident prone. Small muscle skills, such as writing and drawing, are painstaking. Learning to read by decoding is intact, but discerning content and meaning and other higher-order thinking skills will be weak. Generalizing knowledge from specific experiences will also be a weakness. "Getting lost" demonstrates the deficit in visual-spatial skill. "Not fitting in" will describe social relationships.
- Interesting stuff. Feel free to add directly to the article, whoever you are :-) -- Tarquin 15:42 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Old material moved from "Mental retardation" page
The following material was on the "Mental retardation" page. It needs cleaning up and updating to modern views on disability. -- Tarquin 15:42 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
I suggest using the term COGNITIVE DISABILITY with acknowledgement that MR, mental retardation, is an older, less preferred, term. (Chris Keller) I have edited the following in that spirit, and have added and rephrased.
Mental retardation, abbreviated as MR, is an older term used when a person has certain limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating, taking care of him or herself, and social skills. A more policitally correct term, "cognitive disability," reflects more enlightened, more modern theories.
Cognitive limitations will cause a child to learn and develop more slowly than a typical child. Children with cognitive delays/disabilities may take longer to learn to speak, walk, and perform self-care skills such as dressing or eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school. Their learning curve is gradual. They need accomodations and therapeutic intervention at school. There may be some things in the general curriculum they cannot master.
[edit] Causes of Cognitive Disability
I'm disappointed by this page. For example, most people who have learning disabilities and ADHD actually have above average IQ. It shouldn't be associated with mental retardation and should thus be totally separated. Someone who is more qualified than me should also rewrite the article to make it less 'negative'. Perhaps famous, successful people such as Tom Cruise, should be highlighted.
- Genetic conditions. Sometimes mental retardation is caused by abnormal genes inherited from parents, errors when genes combine, or other reasons. Examples of genetic conditions are Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and phenylketonuria (PKU).
- Problems during pregnancy. Cognitive disability can result when the baby does not develop inside the mother properly. For example, there may be a problem with the way the baby's cells divide as it grows. A woman who drinks alcohol (see fetal alcohol syndrome) or gets an infection like rubella during pregnancy may also anticipate that there will be consequences for her child's normal development. A malnourished woman puts her unborn baby at high risk, as well.
- Problems at birth. If a baby has problems during labor and birth, such as not getting enough oxygen, he or she may have mental retardation. Being born early places an infant at risk. Brain bleeds (intraventricular hemorrhages or IVHs)are a common complication of extreme prematurity, and may result in developmental and cognitive delays/disability.
- Health problems. Diseases like whooping cough, the measles, or meningitis can cause mental retardation. Mental retardation can also be caused by extreme malnutrition (not eating right), not getting enough medical care, or by being exposed to poisons like lead or mercury.
Mental retardation is not a disease. Mental retardation is also not a type of mental illness, such as depression. There is no cure for mental retardation. However, most children with mental retardation can learn to do many things. It just takes them more time and effort than other children.
[edit] How is Cognitive Disability Diagnosed?
Cognitive disability is diagnosed by formal testing in several domains. These are:
- the ability of a person's brain to process information--learn, think, solve problems, and make sense of the world (called IQ or intellectual functioning); and
- whether the person has the skills he or she needs to live independently (called adaptive behavior, or adaptive functioning).
Intellectual functioning, or IQ, is usually measured by a test called an IQ test. The average score is 100. People scoring below 70 to 75 are thought to have mental retardation. To measure adaptive behavior, professionals look at what a child can do in comparison to other children of his or her age. Certain skills are important to adaptive behavior. These are:
- daily living skills, such as getting dressed, going to the bathroom, and feeding one's self;
- communication skills, such as understanding what is said and being able to answer;
- higher order thinking skills, such as planning and organization;
- social skills with peers, family members, adults, and others.
To diagnose cognitive disability, professionals look at the person's mental abilities (IQ) and his or her adaptive skills.
[edit] Signs of Cognitive Disabilty (Mental Retardation)
There are many signs of cognitive disability. For example:
- missing one or more developmental milestones, such as sitting up, crawling, or walking later than other children;
- learning to talk later, or having trouble speaking;
- finding it hard to remember things;
- not understanding how to pay for things;
- having trouble understanding social rules;
- having trouble seeing the consequences of their actions;
- having trouble solving problems, and/or
- having trouble thinking logically;
- reacting or responding more slowly;
- struggling to integrate incoming information from one or more senses.
About 87 percent of people with cognitive disability will only be a little slower than average in learning new information and skills. When they are children, their limitations may not be obvious. They may not even be diagnosed as having cognitive delays until they get to school. As they become adults, many people can live independently or semi-independently.
The remaining 13 percent of people with mental retardation score below 50 on IQ tests. These people will have more difficulty in school, at home, and in the community. A person with more severe disability will need more intensive support his or her entire life. Every child with cognitive disability is able to learn, develop, and grow. With help from family, the medical community and especially from the educational system, as spelled out in the federal IDEA and ADA laws, children with cognitive delays/disabilities can maximize their skills and potential, learn to adapt to their environment, and be included in mainstream society.
[edit] Title of this article
I don't think the material here belongs at the title Learning Disability. Many of the conditions are not strictly conditions that impair only learning, but more generally cognitive functioning. Learning disability implies things that one is capable of doing in principle but has difficulty learning to do, whereas some of these conditions appear to make people simple cognitively incapable of certain types of activity or thought. Something like cognitive disability or cognitive impairment might be better. This article could either redirect there, or cover specifically issues relating to difficulties learning material. --Delirium 06:58, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
I think there could be more information on the varying meanings of the term 'learning disability' in the Uk for example this term has largely replaced 'mental retardation.' See section below for further information.
[edit] Mental Retardation needs its own page
The term "mental retardation" is a perfectly acceptable, widely used diagnosis. While the use of "retard" or "retarded" may be perjorative, "mental retardation" is not. It is a type of developmental disablility, and is found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), which is the standardized manual used by psychiatrists and psychologists around the world to diagnose psychological disorders. Here is one of thousands of internet articles on the subject [1]. I'm new to Wikipedia, and this is the first subject I looked up, as I work and was interested in what I'd find here. I'd like to recreate the page. I'll check back to see if there are any objections. Teufelhund9 06:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I just came here to say pretty much the same thing, that retard should be a separate page, not a link here. Sam [Spade] 16:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] merger?
This article should not be merged w mental retard. Lerning disabled is a broader satagory, including attention deficit and dyslexic and all kinds of people who arn't retards. I do think alopt of content w this page could be merged tho, and this page expanded on the non-retarded types of learning disabilities (esp attention deficit / hyperactivity disorder, which seems neglected). Sam [Spade] 00:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that the "mental retard" article is the one which should be hollowed out and deprecated, and this one much expanded. "Mental retard" is an old-fashioned term which is going the way of "idiot" and "moron". Let's try things like "pervasive developmental disorder" instead. -- The Anome 00:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
-
- I'm saying your wrong. Its an important term, and wikipolicy suggests we use the most commonly used term. Pervasive developmental disorder includes alot of stuff that isn't retards, same as learning disabled. Maybe you should be more careful w your overly broad attempts at political correctness. At least my old fashioned terms are specific and functional. Sam [Spade] 01:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not up on the lingo, but I'm pretty sure that PDD is not the same as MR (mental retardation), and I'm very sure that MR is not the same condition as a learning disability. Sam, I agree with your conclusion but could you please not use the word "retard" unless you're referring specifically to the derogatory term? Saying "retardation" in reference to the condition is fine, but saying "retards" isn't really acceptable. Rhobite 05:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Whichever, I think I'll go edit Political correctness and Newspeak now ;) (P.S. I used to work as a caretaker of the retarded, and the first thing they taught us was to treat them like everybody else. I showed my roommates a good time, let me tell ya! IMO its all about how you treat others, not how you label them.) Sam [Spade] 20:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I was reasonably sure you'd have a knee-jerk reaction to my perceived "political correctness." All I'm asking is for you to not use the word "retard" where it's unnecessary, which in my opinion is up there with "fag" and "bitch." I'm not asking you to say things like "differently abled," I'm just asking you to refrain from using a term which is regarded by most people as offensive. Rhobite 00:26, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I of course challenge that "most people" bit, the word "retard" gets alot of use, indeed it easilly ranks in say... the 1,000 most used words, I'd wager. From a socio-linguistic perspective, I think the key is being better people, and sincerely caring more for others, rather than simply shifting our vocabulary (which only ends up shifting the unfriendliness to the new term, like how "special" is an insult now, thanks to PC foolishness). Sam [Spade] 12:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Just because a word is used doesn't make it acceptable. I dare say a lot of people still say Nigger, but I dont suppose the majority of Wikipedians would say that thats an acceptable term. Oh, and speaking as a disable person, the word special is as bad. We dont want to be treated as "special" we just want to be treated the same as everyone else.
-
-
-
-
The definition and resulting discusion is centred very much around an american perspective. In the UK there are various definitions also, and the pne on wikipedia would seem to fit the term used in law regarding education. The department of health (2001) however in its document "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century," (outlining UK government policy,) states the fillowing:
"Learning disability includes the presence of: a significantly reduced ability to understand new or complex information, to learn new skills (impaired intelligence), with: a reduced ability to cope independently (impaired social functioning); which started before adulthood, with a lasting effect on development. This definition encompasses people with a broad range of disabilities. A low IQ (below 70 for example) is not - on its own - enough to decide whether someone should be provided with additional health and social care support. An assessment of social and communication skills is also taken into account when determining need. Many people with learning disabilities also have physical and / or sensory impairments. The definition covers adults with autism who also have learning disabilities, but not those with a higher level autistic spectrum disorder who may be of average or even above average intelligence - such as some people with Asperger's Syndrome. 'Learning disability' does not include all those who have a 'learning difficulty' which is more broadly defined in education legislation."
There is an atempt at the start of the article to denote this however, this is not very clear and only uses the term 'develomental disability.'
Also further, taken from Gates, B (2004: 8) Understanding Learning Disabilities. In Gates, B. (Ed) Learning Disabilities, Toward Inclusion. (4th edition) London: Churchill Livingstone:
Generaly speaking in the UK the term 'learning disability' is used to describe people with a significant developmental delay that results in arrested or incomplete achievement of the 'normal' milestones of human development; relating to intellectual, emotional, spritual and social aspects. The term 'mental handicap,' used until recently in the UK, has largely been replaced as it was seen to give a negative image. The term 'mental retardation' is not used much any more in the UK either.
Though it seems that 'intelectual disabilities' is becoming more and more popular in the UK. Gates, B. (Ed) (2006) Care Planning and Delivery in Intellectual Disability Nursing. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing - As well as a whole ramge of other books.
As the term is broad, but can have different meanings in different countries, would it not be better to add a further (clearer) description to enlighten the readers to this, rather than merging the two articles?
[edit] Summary Edits
I have reservations about the second paragraph in the summary:
Someone with a learning disability does not necessarily have low or high intelligence, nor any innate inability to learn. It just means this individual has an impairment to their ability due to a processing disorder, such as auditory processing or visual processing, that is detrimental to normal teaching methods. Learning disabilities are usually identified by school psychologists through testing of intelligence, academics and processes of learning.
The distinction with cognitive deficits is appropriate (though it could be made clearer), but the content regarding processing disorders is dated and the statement about identification by school psychologists is slightly inaccurate. [2]. I recommend the following revision:
In the US and Canada, individuals with Learning Disabilities usually have IQs within the normal range (i.e., 85-115), but some may have IQs above 115. It is not their intelligence that is impaired, but their ability to learn academic skills and content under usual instructional conditions. Individual students with Learning Disabilities are officially identified by a team of educators (including general and special education teachers, speech-language therapists, school psychologists, and school administrators) working with students' parents. Although medical professionals may contribute to the diagnosis, Learning Disabilities is an educational, not a medical, condition.
I revised the section on ADHD to reflect current thinking about co-morbidity and to tighten content about the relationship between LD and ADHD.
I edited the list of resources to include those provided by professional, parent, and similar organizations that serve as sources of advocacy and provided resources about Learning Disabilities. Given their stature and authority, these should be featured.
Source: Hallahan et al. (2005). Learning disabilities: Foundations, characteristics, and effective teaching (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
JohnL 17:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I took out ADHD from the summary. It is not considered a learning disability, according to the official definitions. Sources: learn-dis/learning%20disabilities.html and [3] I plan to make the summary more general again, as the criteria for LD vary from place to place and from professional to professional. If somebody wants to make a case for keeping the summary as it is on this date, please say so. Logophile 21:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC}
I included Canada in the list of countriesn who use the definition, I changed socio-biological to psychological, which is more correct. I added dysgraphia to the list of learning disabilities (it is listed in the DSM-IV along with dyslexia). I removed autism because strictly speaking it does not meet the criteria for a learning disability. Under the DSM-IV autism has its own classification of disorders under the heading pervasive developmental disorder. BarryCull 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Professor of Psychology http://www.conestogac.on.ca/~bcull
I have taken a couple of terms out of the list, namely brain damage and perceptual disability because they are not strictly considered learning disabilities. The term perceptual disability was used for a term in the sixties and seventies to refer to a class of children that lacked perceptual-motor skills. The theory was that there lack of coordination, poor movement , poor visual-tracking etc. led to learning disabilities elsewhere, most notably reading. The term more recently seems to have come back with a quite different meaning. My research led me to the CNIB site, a link to which I have provided [here http://www.cnib.ca/Library/for_libraries&schools/resource_kit/index.htm]. The definition appears to refer to a sensory impairment, rather than an LD. If folks think it should go back in the link, I would suggest that there be an accompanying write-up explaining what it is. Otherwise it adds to confusion rather than knowledge. This was a "null link" before.
There is the term "Processing Disorder" that also has a null-link (it goes nowhere). As psychologists we often speak of people having processing deficits, these in fact are the hypothesized problems in the person's ability to take in information that are at the root of the learning disability. I would be willing to tidy this piece up should their be a concensus (or no response at all). As it stands it is misleading because it implies there is a specific disorder called a "processing disorder" and because the link goes nowhere.
Finally, I had some trouble, because I am new at the formatting, putting a link inside the box at the top right referencing the DSM-IV. If anyone can see what needs to be fixed, I appreciate the help. BarryCull 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Psych Prof
[edit] Special?
An accepted way of referring to these people as "special" As someone with a learning disabillity I can tell you right now if someone came up to me and reffered to me as "Special" i would be majorly offended. I understand what your trying to say (that it's more acceptable than calling someone a "retard") but the way it's worded gives the impression that it's an ok practice to do, it's not. Deathawk 19:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- Depends on the context. Obivious if someone walked up to a learning disability person and referred to him/her as a "special person" it would be offensive. However, terms like "Special education" and "Special assistance" are commonlly use and I have never seen anybody take offense at the name. Bayerischermann 22:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Added Dyspraxia to list
Hope you dont mind my small change :)
[edit] Removed section
I've removed the following addition by User:JohnHanson:
Use of self-teaching fun materials like Tooties, Calculators like Casio 260 and Sharp printing along with a stop watch can be very effective in preventing learning disabilities if started at an early age. Once a child has been labeled with learning disabilities, therapy sessions of at least three hours are required with a trained and certified Tootie teacher. Finding a occupational therapist trained in Tooties can be very helpful. The Brain Development Center has trained teachers around the world who can cure almost any learning disability or at least dramatically improve the condition. Brain damage with partially disabled limbs have made very good progress with the Tooties System. You may not believe it works but millions of children have used Tooties in homes and schools since 1962 so it is worth looking into before you get too discouraged even tho many other professionals may scoff at the idea. They just don't know it is possible. There is a condition called Quindrexia which is the state of not knowing what you don't know. The more educated we become the more we find out that we don't know and then must decide if we want to know it. If you have a child with any kind of learning problems it may be worth your time to learn about Tooties and what they can do.
because the information was inappropriate for the 'see also' section, as well as being unencyclopaedic. Natgoo 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed external links
The list of external links on this page was getting huge! Remember that Wikipedia is not a directory of external links. Also, the list was beginning to attract links to local services for learning disabilities, which are no doubt helpful to their users, but not to most Wikipedia readers. I've pruned it severely, and added a couple of links to www.dmoz.org (which is a directory of external links). Please think carefully before adding external links to this article, and take a look at our external links policy. There are many, many sites about learning disabilities on the web, and we can't list all of them. FreplySpang 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Responsiveness to intervention
I added in new material on the responsiveness to intervention approach--Vannin 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Special education legal issues and processes need to be in separate articles
I would like to propose that information related to the special education legal requirements, processes, and terminology be placed in a separate article. To my mind, there are at least a couple of reasons to do this:
First, the legal and public school aspects of qualifying and educating children with LDs differ dramatically from country to country. Since the English Wikipedia is relevant to all English-speaking countries, I think it would be a good idea to cover country-specific legal issues elsewhere.
Second, significant material on the special education aspects of learning disabilities obscures the main topic of the article --- the learning disabilities themselves. There is a myriad of information about LDs to be covered here already.
I propose that we create an article regarding the IDEA aspects of LDs and link to it from this article. It could also be integrated with the information structure on Special Education. smoran 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)