|
Abstract THE SPECTRA OF LEARNING DISORDERS: By This masters thesis sought through a balanced and comprehensive review of contemporary and historically significant literature to evaluate the various types of learning disorders, especially the most familiar subset--termed learning disabilities (LD). It is shown that the general accuracy of LD classification processes and efficacy of subsequent treatments in the public schools have repeatedly been called into question by numerous creditable authorities in the field. This thesis delved into the evolutionary/historical background of the subject as a method of understanding what might have contributed to present day dilemmas. Informational patterns emerged within the clinical perspectives that resulted in the partitioning of the disabilities portion of learning disorders into three unambiguous, conceptual models: the educational, the neuroanatomical, and the biochemical. The remaining, non-clinical portion of this learning disorders picture was addressed by including two additional models: the developmental difference and the psychological. Historically, a number of authoritative commissions met in order to formulate a definition of LD that could clarify clinical perspectives and classification methodologies. Trends in conceptualization and terminology emerged that, by the end of the 1980s, had brought about the general agreement that LD was intrinsic to the individual, presumed to stem from central nervous system dysfunction with the possibility of lifetime duration. Coupled with incomplete nomenclature that makes it difficult for LD practitioners to look beyond neurological explanations, the presumption of central nervous system dysfunction builds on unproven assumptions and appears to circumvent scientific method. Findings also revealed that little effort, if any--especially in the form of impact studies--has, to date, been expended to determine whether or not notification to guardians and children of disabilities involving central nervous system dysfunction is traumatic to, or has insidious effects upon, LD classified children. Because LD nomenclature was found not to include mention of personhood and agency, there may be little incentive for LD practitioners to see beyond mechanistic-deterministic limitations. Among the array of shortcomings found to be implicit in the LD paradigm, practitioners may be led to overlook young learners’ capacities to contribute to their own successes. Consequently, the thesis recommends reinstituting, wherever possible and relevant, the underutilized, non-clinical developmental difference and psychological models as described therein. |
||