Learning Disabilities Essay Example for Free

training Disabilities EssayPuzzling is the stipulation teachers enforce to describe scholars with teaching disabilities. They itemise us that these students look entirely normal, seem intelligent, carry on intelligent conversations that they dont place to whatever different than some otherwise students. Yet these students receive got worry doing certain tasks non any- in school. several(prenominal) defecate hassle edition others perform mischievously in spell out still others charter patronise mistakes in math. Teachers in many schools tell us that these students argon very hard to teach that they b atomic phone number 18ly do non learn in the same ways or as easily as others their age. They tell us that these students befuddle circumscribed deprivations and atomic number 18 non easy to teach in large classes in which about other students perform reasonably well. They tell us that modifying instruction so that these students can profit from teac hing is an intricate bear on.Because of the heterogeneous nature of this congregation of children, the concept of specific k straightawayledge disabilities has been hard to de book or describe in few sentence or by a numerical score such as an IQ or by a decibel loss. Further lots, because the ambit has been of enliven to educators, psychologists, psychiatrists, neurophysiologists, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, optometrists, wrangle pathologists, and others, the problem has been aspected in each of those disciplines from different perspectives. Hence on that point is really the invite for several definitions for exercise disabilities and thus we can conclude that its definition is defined in nerve to case basis.Definition of nurture DisabilitiesHistorically, the following terms were used to name children with Learning disabilities perceptually handicapped wittiness injured neurologically impairedThen, there came two broad aspects of concern in defining and or ident ifying those childrenbiological etiology- minimal brain dysfunction, psych unityurological teaching disorders. air developmental disparity in psychological surgeryes, developmental imbalanceThe definition of breeding disabilities in an preparational term has derived its heritage from neurology psychology speech pathology ophthalmology remedial reading Wiederholt (1984) has traced the history of Learning dis competency and has delineated three dimensions of disorders namely(1) disorders of the spoken manner of speaking studied primarily by neurologists andophthalmologists such as Samuel Kirk developed a test, the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, for use in describing language functioning and developing remedial programs.disorders of written language represented mostly by psychologists, speech pathologists, and educators such as Grace Fernald established a clinic at UCLA where she perfected remedial reading and spelling techniques.disorders of perceptual and motor behaviors studied mostly by a number of disciplines such as Goldstein, Werner and Strauss as pioneers of the stadium which disputationed thefollowing behavi verbal characteristics that telld between those with andthose without brain injuries excessive motor activity, hyperactivity, stiffness and consistently poor motor performance, erratic behavior, poororganization, high distractibility and faulty perceptions (like reversals) and Samuel Orton was a neurologist who believed that lose of cerebral dominance was a cause of language disorders. (In normal individual any the left or right side of the brain has dominance in controlling specific functions.) Cruickshank stressed his efforts on the assume of brain-injured children, specifically children with cerebral palsy. Getman, Marianne Frostig, Newell Kephart, and Ray Barsch focused on the correlation of perceptual disorders and developed remedial procedures ranging from optometric heart exercises, tracing and copying patterns, an d differentiating figure from background in a puzzle, to making angels in the snow. Today, there argon unlike provinces in Canada that have established programs for discipline disabilities which was instituted for example by The Ontario Ministry of instruction Saskatchewan Department of gentility Halifax Board of Education and Quebec Ministry of Education just now the most widely used definitions is the one incorporated by theLearning Disabilities Association of Canada or LDAC (2002) which state that, the termLearning Disabilities refer to a number of disorders which whitethorn affect theacquisition, organization, retention, transforming or use of verbal or nonverbal culture. These disorders affect acquisition in individuals who otherwisedemonstrate at least average abilities essential for thinking and/or reasoning. Assuch, encyclopaedism disabilities atomic number 18 distinct from global intellectual deficiency.Learning disabilities result from impairments in one or mu ch processes tie in toperceiving, thinking, remembering or bringing up. These include, but ar non limitedto language processing phonological processing visual spatial processingprocessing speed memory and attention and executive functions (e.g. cookeryand decision-making).Further, LDAC mentioned that schooling disabilities range in severity and may interfere with the acquisition and use of one or much of the followingoral language (e.g. listening, speaking, understanding)reading (e.g. decoding, phonetic knowledge, word recognition, comprehension)written language (e.g. spelling and written expression) andmathematics (e.g. computation, problem solving).Further, the U.S. Department of Education regulation provided states that a student has a specific cultivation disability ifthe student does not achieve at the proper age and ability levels in oneor much(prenominal) of several specific areas when provided with appropriate encyclopedism experiencesthe student has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of these seven areas (a) oral expression, (b) listening comprehension, (c) written expression, (d) base reading skill, (e) reading comprehension, (f) mathematics calculation, and (g) mathematics reasoning.To summarize, all these definitions of tuition disabilities, it includes the following major conceptsThe individual has a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes. (These processes refer to intrinsic prerequisite abilities, such as memory, auditory perception, visual perception, oral language, and thinking.)The individual has difficulty in erudition, specifically, in speaking, listening, writing,reading (word-recognition skills and comprehension), and mathematics (calculation and reasoning.)The problem is not primarily cod to other causes, such as visual or hearingimpairments motor handicaps mental retardation activated disturbance or economic, environmental, or cultural disadvantage. A severe discrepancy exists between the students apparent potential for learning and his or her low level of achievement. In other talking to, there is conclusion of underachievement. The various definitions of learning disabilities have several elements in commonneurological dysfunctionuneven egression patterndifficulty in academic and learning tasksdiscrepancy between potential and achievement riddance of other causes Identification of Learning DisabilitiesIn identifying individuals with learning disabilities, the following common characteristics must be observe Disorders of attention Hyperactivity, distractibility, poor concentration ability, short attention span Poor motor abilities Poor fine and gross motor coordination, general awkwardness and clumsiness, spatial problems Perceptual and information processing problems clog in discrimination of auditory and visual stimuli, auditory and visual closure, and sequencing Oral language difficulties Problems in listening, speakin g, vocabulary, and linguistic competencies sorrow to develop and mobilize cognitive strategies for learning Lack of organization, active learning set, metacognitive functions Reading difficulties Problems in decoding, basic reading skills, and reading comprehension Written language difficulties Problems in spelling, handwriting, and written composition Mathematics difficulties Difficulty in quantitative thinking, arithmetic, term, space, and calculation facts and Inappropriate affectionate behavior Problems in social skills deficits, emotional problems, and establishing social relationships.There are also other practical compartmentalisation schemes that are useful(1) the academic learning disabilities ( reading, arithmetic, handwriting, spelling, and written expression)(2) the developmental learning disabilities ( attention, memory, perceptual skills,thinking skills, and oral language skills)A somewhat more system of rulesatic way to look at characteristics of students with le arning disabilities is to look at those factors referenced in display devices. The following outline reflects the types of difficulties often observed in learning dis competentd students(1) significantly different school way of life behaviorsdifficulty in beginning or finishing tasksdifficulty in organizinginconsistent in behaviordifficulty in peer relationships(2) significantly below-average performance in auditory comprehension and listeningdifficulty in following filmionsdifficulty in comprehending or following class discussions softness to retain information received aurallydifficulty in understanding or comprehending word meanings(3) significantly below-average performance in spoken languageuse of incomplete sentences or unusual number of grammatical errorsuse of callow or improper vocabulary or very limited vocabularydifficulty in recalling words for use in self-expressiondifficulty relating isolated facts, scattered ideasdifficulty in relating ideas in logical ecological succession(4) significant academic problemsdifficulty in reading fluencydifficulty in associating numbers with symbols foolish ordering of letters in spellingconfusion of manuscript and cursive writingavoidance of readingconfusion of math concepts addition, multiplication(5) orientation difficultiespoor time concept, no grasp of meaning of timedifficulty in navigating around building or school groundspoor understanding of relationships (big, little, far, close, under, on, near)inability to learn boots (north, south, left, right)motor disabilities or significant underdevelopment for agepoor coordinationvery poor balanceawkward, poorly developed manipulative or manual dexteritylack of rhythm in safarisIII. Intervention for Learning Disabilities. This knowledge of the characteristics of learning disenable students is one basis for intervention. Thus, we have seen that children with learning disabilities compose sort of a diverse assemblage. It should be no surprise then to find that the teaching and strategies go upes designed to help those children are also quite a diverse. But it is possible to cluster the various wooes into three broad educational strategiestask training, in which the emphasis is on the sequencing and simplication of the task to be erudite. Ysseldyke and Salvia (1984) have advanced schlep theoretical models namely (a) analyzing the childs abilities and disabilities and (b) analyzing the task and the direct training of the terminal behavior or task.This view is avowed by behavioral analysts who advocate (1) finding out what the child can and cannot do in a particular skill, (2) determining whether or not the child has the behaviors ask to succeed in the task, (3) defining the goals in observable terms, and (4) organizing a systemic remedial program using reinforcement techniques. The apply behavior analysts do not infer processes or abilities that underlie difficulties but rely solely on the childs interactional history and the cu rrent behavior and environmental situation. They feel that their approach, which is task lie and observable, is the most parsimonious approach, and to some it is the simply approach needed.ability or process training, in which the focus is on the remediation and simplification of the task to be learned.Quay (1983) discussed the relative efficacy of ability or process training. He declared that three approaches to remediation have evolved (1) remediating a disability so that learning pull up stakes be facilitated at a later date, (2) training and ability or process for its own sake, and (3) direct training of the task. He concludes that the direct instruction mode (task training) should be tried frontmost and then toss in favor of other methods if direct instruction is not successful.ability or process-task training, in which the rootage two approaches are combined and integrated into one remedial program.Raschke and Young (1986) support this approach. They compared the behav ior compend model with the diagnostic-prescriptive model. They state that neither approach alone has the answer and propose what they call a dialectic-teaching approach into one system. Essentially the model assesses the abilities and disabilities of the children (intraindividual diffences), makes task analyses of the skills to be learned, and prescribes remediation in the functions and skills to be developed. This dialectic system they maintain permits the teacher to assess, program, instruct, and evaluate the childs psycholinguistic characteristics in the same system as his skill competencies and consequential variables.Hence, the task of developing a definition of learning disabilities proved to be a formidable challenge. Indeed, defining this population is considered such an everyplacewhelming task that some have likened learning disabilities to legal expert Potter Stewarts comment on pornography impossible to define, but I know it when I see it.Thus, defining learning disab ilities in a way acceptable to all has continued as a debatable issue since the inception of the field. Although a number of definitions have been generated and used over the years, each has been judged by some to have some shortcomings. There are many types of disabilities, each of which may beg a unique diagnosis and a unique remedial method.POSITION PAPER The definitions of learning disabilities are numerous and so varied that it is difficult to present taxonomy or even a specific list of these different definitions. The definition of learning disabilities is a problem in much of the nations finishedout the world. This problem first came out when some parents in the United States became concerned because their children who were not learning in school were spurned from specific education since they were not mentally retarded, deaf or blind, or otherwise handicapped. Their children were called by various names such as neurologically handicapped, brain-injured, aphasodic, dyslex ic, and perceptually handicapped.In spite of its current widespread use, the term learning disability is vulnerable to misunderstanding and misuse. The condition is difficult to define operationally since the designation learning disability is an umbrella term for a variety of deviations that are not included in traditional categories of portentous children. Also it has been confused with general learning problems that are common to some degree in most children. In addition, it has been misused to include educational retardation, which is found in slow learning children and in children who have not learned because of poor teaching or absence from school. Another vulnerability of the term comes from the difficulty in drawing an explicit line between normal and abnormal. Some allowances must be make for biological and psychological diversity, and considerable variation in abilities is accepted as normal.So, the question now is, If there are objections to the term learning disabilitie s, why use it? Why not use some other term? Well and good, if a better term can be found. Other terms are either too specific or too broad. Dyslexia for example, only refers to severe reading disability and it is not the only learning disability. Brain injury has little or no educational relevance. Perceptual handicaps barricade children with language disorders.Hence, the label learning disability has evolved to encompass the heterogeneous group of children not fitting neatly into the traditional categories of handicapped children. And that, substantial number of children show retardation in learning to talk, do not acquire other communication skill, do not develop normal visual or auditory perception, or great difficulty in learning to read, to spell, to write, or to make arithmetic calculations. Some of them even, are not receptive to language but are not deaf, some are not able to perceive visually but are not blind, and some cannot learn by ordinary of method of instruction but are not mentally retarded. Although such children are from a heterogeneous group and weaken to learn for diverse reasons, they have one thing in common they do not perform as well in school as they could.Discussing the problem and the difficulties of names for these children, Kirk (1963) explained that sometimes classification labels block our thinking. He further stated that it is better to state that a child has not learned to read than to say the child is dyslexic. So he advised that the name should be functional. He suggested further that since the parents were interested in service to their children, it might be preferable to use a term related to teaching or learning and that the term learning disability might be preferable over the currently used terms such as cerebral function and brain injured. The term learning disabilities were agreed by these parents and they consider it more appropriate since it implied teaching and learning and since they were interested primarily in service for their children.So, one of the major problems of definition is that a learning disability is not as translucent or homogenous as blindness or deafness. There are many types of disabilities, each of which may require a unique diagnosis and a remedial method may vary differently from another condition also termed a learning disability. It is no wonder that many students, teachers, and parents have ex black market confused about the term learning disability and the characteristics of children so labeled. This confusion appears to be international and is illustrated by the remarks of a teacher who, in testifying to a government committee studying the subject (Learning Difficulties in Children and Adults, 1986), stated I find myself asking the following questions What does the term learning difficulty mean? Does the term learning difficulty mean the same as learning disability? How about the term dysfunction? What does the term minimal brain dysfunction mean? Do they all m ean the same? Certainly, all these labels are not necessary, or are they? Does labeling a child with learning problems create more problems? It all survives a bit confusingThe terminology changes often, varies from state to state and from country to country.Out of these definitions, came my own definition of learning disability Learning disability describes a result rather than the cause of the learning disability. Therefore, the conditions we call a learning disability is defined in terms of the students difficulties what he can and cannot do in school and focuses primarily on the academic performance. So, one cannot be labeled as learning handicapped if he has not yet started formal schooling as the label learning handicapped indicates that a student is having unusual learning difficulties and involves speculations to possible causes, but it specifically indicates that the primary cause cannot be a condition such as mental retardation, hearing or visual impairment, and so on.Le arning disabilities should be identified in the formal school context. Thus, preschoolers should not be labeled as learning disable as growth rates are so unpredictable at young age, In addition, very young children who appear to have problems may be identified under a noncategorical label, such as developmentally delayed. For many children, learning disabilities first become apparent when they enter school and fail to acquire academic skills. The failure often occurs in reading, but also happens in mathematics, writing, or other school subjects. Among the behaviors frequently seen in the early elementary years are inability to attend and distil poor motor skills, as evidenced in the awkward handling of a pencil and in poor writing and difficulty in learning to read. In the later elementary years, as the political platform becomes more difficult, problems may e intermix in other areas, such as social studies or science. horny problems also become more of an impediment after seve ral years of repeated failure, and students become more conscious of their poor achievement in comparison with that of their peers. For some students, social problems and inability to make and trammel friends increase in importance at this age level.A radical change in schooling occurs at the secondary level, and adolescents find that learning disabilities begin to take a greater toll. The tougher demands of the junior and ranking(prenominal) high school curriculum and teachers, the turmoil of adolescence, and the continued academic failure may combine to enhance the learning disability. Adolescents are also concerned about life after completing school. They may need counseling and guidance for college, career, and vocational decisions. To worsen the situation, a few adolescents find themselves drawn into acts of juvenile delinquency. Because adolescents tend to be overly sensitive, some emotional, social, and self-concept problems often accompany a learning disability at his age . roughly secondary schools now have programs for adolescents with learning disabilities.Many teachers in Canada suggested that we abolish the label learning disability, and merge it with the emotionally disturbed and the educable mentally retarded and only deal with the child from an instructional point of view by defining learning tasks so that they can be taught step by step. I potently opposed with this suggestion. Though maybe it is possible for the child with severe learning disability, but this approach is not sufficient to mild learning disabilities students.This is one of the sterling(prenominal) sources of controversy about the identification issues. The question of how much academic and learning retardation is evidenced before an individual should be identified as learning disabled. Aside from identifying children with learning disability, it is very important to judge the finale of a childs learning disability as either mild or severe. Determining the level of severi ty is helpful in placement and in planning teaching delivery. I strongly suggest that students with mild learning disabilities should be condition different remediation from those of students who have severe learning disabilities.At this point, it is very crucial to differentiate the two cases. Mild learning disabilities describe the problems of many students. Students with mild learning disabilities usually have a disability in just one or two areas of learning, and although they need supportive help and superfluous teaching, they can probably get along at least for part of the day in the fixity classroom. So, within the unshakable classroom, the fixity teachers should often make changes in instruction that will benefit these students.On the other hand, students with sever learning disabilities pose a very different problem and they require quite different educational services. These students are likely to lag significantly in several areas of learning and to have concomitant social, emotional, or behavioral problems. They need the environment of a limited classroom, should contact mainly with one teacher, and should be given supernumerary services for most of the day. Because of the intensity of their problems, the special class should be given fewer students than the perpetual classroom. I suggest the 13 teacher to student ratio is the top hat to maximize and hasten the remediation process. However, students with severe learning disabilities can gradually be mainstreamed for special subjects or activities or placed in the resource room, or even back in the fixing classroom as their progress permits.Because of these definitions teachers, guidance councilors, and other school personnel, play the biggest role in identifying, diagnosing, remediating or treating this kind of disability within the school context. So any teaching/service delivery should exceed meet the requirements needed to serve properly learning disabled students within the continu al classroom. Hence, learning disabled students should be treated or given remediation within the given school context with the greatest help of the regular classroom teacher but the guidance of the learning disabilities specialist. So, it is implied that each school should have a learning disabilities specialist.With this, a change in the administrative arrangements for the placement for instruction of children with learning disabilities is a must. It is important to take note that in the past, the rapid growth of special education was in the direction of removing atypical children from the mainstream of regular classroom and placing them into special education programs. Even the regular education supported this movement which maybe because the responsibility of educating children with a variety of learning problems is transferred to the domain of special education, and that would really lighten the lean load of regular teachers. But that should not be the case and I do not suppor t that movement.The trend should be reversed and all students with learning disabilities should be brought back into the regular classroom with the regular students and in the hands of the regular teacher with the help of the learning disabilities specialist. A number of movements and researches support this claim.The prestigious movement that supports this claim is the REI or the regular education hatchway led by Madeline Will, the director of special education in the U.S. Office of Special Education in 1986. She stated that this initiative is designed to enhance collaborative efforts among regular and special educators and shared responsibility (Will, 1986). In this initiative, regular and special educators were encouraged to jackpot their talents and coordinate their efforts in planning and teaching. I greatly support this initiative as the underlying premiss of this concept is that students learning disabilities can be more successfully taught in the regular education class room than in special education classes or resource room.By promoting the merging of special and regular education, the regular education initiative reflects a major change in the way students with learning disabilities are identified, assessed, and educated. The approach is supported by many special educators (Lloyd, Singh, Repp, 1991 Maheady Algozzine, 1991 Biklen Zollers, 1986 Greer, 1988 Reynolds, Wang Walberg, 1997). A specific example is, more than fifty years ago, Samuel Kirk, in his presidential address to special educators, emphasized that all teachers (regular and special educators) have the responsibility for teaching learning disabled children. Kirk implored that every teacher is a teacher of learning disabled children (Kirk, 1941). He further wrote the followingActually the education of exceptional children is not wholly the responsibility of any one group of teachers .It is hoped that in the future all special class teachers will not only be responsible for the edu cation of children in their classroom, but will take on the added responsibility of alter their knowledge and special skill to the regular classroom teacher who (has0 many learning disabled children in (the) classroom. (Kirk, 1941)In 1968, Lloyd Dunn wrote an influential article about the benefits ofhaving special educators work with regular teachers in serving learning disabledchildren (Dunn, 1968).Another view to change the administrative arrangement in special education is to group children with different disabilities together for instruction. This categorical system in special education historically evolved as the field of special education developed. Each category of disability (such as visual impairment, hearing impairment, mental retardation, orthopedical disabilities, speech disorders, emotional disturbance, and learning disabilities) became established individually over the years when there was sufficient interest in that particular area of exceptionality. This concept e mphasizes the common characteristics among students with disabilities and the common instructional methods for teaching students with various disabilities. In this system, students with learning disabilities, behavior disorders, and mental retardation are often grouped together.Some parents and special educators are concerned that children with learning disabilities might be lost in the shuffle of this kind of placement, if such classes become a dumping ground for students with a variety of unrelated problems. The resulting diversity of learning and behavior problems would resist teachers in helping students with learning disabilities.But this view is also opposed by a number of authors and has even provoked unusual levels of confusion, emotion, and debate within the special education community (Jehkins Pious, 2001). Moreover, other special educators and parents, express concern regarding the regular education initiative movement and caution that more study is needed before making full-scale and far-reaching changes in procedures and policies that will affect the lives of students with learning disabilities (Lloyd et al., 1991 Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1988 Cannon, 1988 Kaufman, Gerber, Semmel, 1998 McKinney Hocutt, 1988, Lerner, 1997).But these opposing views have no substance and should be disregarded altogether. Fuchs Fuchs (2000) have conducted research on the perceptions of and attitudes toward the regular education initiative among both regular and special educators. These studies suggest that neither regular nor special education teachers are dissatisfied with the current special education delivery system. In fact, the teachers favored the resource room model over the consultant model. Many of the teachers saw no progression in the achievement levels for either special or regular education students as a result of the regular education initiative reforms. The success of the initiative depends on the support of regular and special teachers ( Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, Lesar, 1991 Coates, 1989). Moreover, the research prove that merely modify the responsibility from the resource room teacher to the regular or a consultant is not adequate to ensure the success of the reform.Hence, major policy changes in regular education profoundly affect students with learning disabilities. Several recent national study commissions on the poor quality of schools serving the learning disabled students. It is my fear that, most schools pursuit for academic excellence standards will left tooshie students with learning disabilities or they will be the losers. Being unable to meet the educational standards set by the pursuit-of-excellence movement, some students with learning disabilities will be denied a high school diploma and thus be denied the opportunity to complete their schooling. Further, if regular teachers are held accountable for the academic excellence of their students, they will be indisposed(p) to accept the responsibili ty for hard-to-teach students. Some special educators predict that the push for excellence may serve to increase the schism between regular and special education (Pugach Sapon-Shevin, 1997).Hence, it is my challenge to educators and healthcare professionals to undergo another education reform movement where school curriculum requirements for the learning disabled should be added to the current curriculum standards for the regular students. So in this recommendation for curriculum changes, a greater consideration should be given for the learning disabled students. But this should be within the context of the regular education curriculum.This approach is same with the desegregation of regular and special education. Some special educators also are now urging that the integration process should be taken much further that the current special education system should be drastically restructured and that regular and special education should be merged into a single system (Kauffman Tren t, 1991). Such educators hang several reasons for changing the current system. Special education, they maintain, is not effective when it occurs outside of the regular classroom. In addition, the animal(prenominal) separation of students with disabilities is demeaning and degrades instruction. These special educators maintain that integrated special education is more effective than divert programs.So the delivery options for teaching students with learning disabilities should also include regular classes and resource room classes. This approach is concomitant to the observation that successful adults with disabilities have learned to function comfortably in society as it exists an unrestricted environment composed of all people. To promote experiences in the greater society, it must be ensured that, to the extent appropriate, students with disabilities should have experiences in school with regular (or non-special education) students.Since society includes the family, parents to o should not be forgotten as an important element in the entire complex. Parents are a vital component in the students education. These parents of children with learning disabilities need help in accepting their situation. Mental health professionals should help make parents be aware that the problem must be faced both by the child and by other members of the family. In addition to an honest acceptance of the disability, there must be recognition that improvement is often a slow process.So any approach concerning children with learning disability should establish reasoned parental attitudes and ensure parent-teacher cooperation is of course, very necessary. Parent support groups and family counseling are effective in assisting parents understand their children and their problems and in finding ways to help their children within the home. In addition, parent-teacher conference can become a bridge between the home and school and can involve parents in the educational process.Learning disabilities is now at a crossroads, as it seems to have been throughout its thirty-year history. Many innovative ideas are only in their beginning stages and will develop more fully in the years to come.The approach I suggested as discussed in this paper is one of those ideas. It is very important for this approach that more students with learning disabilities are served through regular education. In addition, there should be more collaboration between special and regular educators. A consequence of all of these shifts is that the responsibilities of learning disabilities teachers will change to meet the new demands.ReferencesBush, W., and Giles, M.(1979). Aids to Psycholinguistic Teaching. Columbus, Ohio Charles E. Merrill.Clements, S. (1986). stripped Brain Dysfunction in Children. Public Health serve well Publications. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Washington, D.C.Dunn, L.M. nad smith J.O. (1987). Peabody speech Development Kits. Levels P, I.II.III. Circle P ines, Minn. American Guidance Service.Fernald, G.M. and Keller, H. (1971), The Effect of Kinesthetic Factors in the Development of raillery Recognition in the Case of Non Readers. Journal of Educational Research 4355-357.Getman, G.H. (1985). The Visuo-Motor Complex in the skill of Learning Skills. Learning Disorders, Volume 1. Seattle Special Child PublicationsGellingham,A. and Stillman B. (1986). Remedial Training for Children with Specific Disability in Reading, Spelling, and Penmanship, 5th ed. Cambridge, Mass Educators Publishing Service.Hegge,T., Kirk,S. and Kirk, W.(1986). Remedial Reading Drills. Ann Arbor, Mich. Geroge Wahr.Hirsch,E. (1983). Training of Visualizing Ability by the Kinesthetic mode of Teaching Reading. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Illinois.Karnes,M., Zehrbach, R. and Teska, J. (1984). The Karnes Preschool Program Rational Curricular Offerings and Follow up Data. address on Longitudinal Evaluations of Preschool Programs, vol. 1 95-108.Kirk, S.A . (1963). Behavioral Diagnosis and Remediation of Learning Disabilities. In Proceedings of the throng on Exploration into the Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child. Chicago Perceptually Handicapped Children.Kirk, S.A. and Elkins, J. (1985) Characteristics of Children Enrolled in the Child Service Demonstration Centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities 8 630-637.Learning Difficulties in Children and Adults. (1986). Report of the House of Representatives Select charge on Specific Learning Difficulties.Lombardi, T.P., and Lombardi, E.J. (1987). ITPA Clinical Interpretation and Remediation. Seattle Special Child Publication.Minskoff, E.D., Wiseman, and Minskoff J. (1985). The MWM Program for Developing Language Abilities. Ridgefield, N.J. Educational Performance Associates.Orton, S.J. (1978). Specific Reading Disability Strphosymbolia. Journal of the American Medical Association 901095-1099.Spalding, R.B.AND Spalding W.T. (1987). The Writing Road to Reading. Morrow New York .Strauss, A.A. and Lehtinen. (1987). Psychopathology and Education of the Brain- Injured Child, vol. II. New York Grune and Stratton.Weiderholt, J.L (1984).Historical Perspectives on the Education of the Learning Disabled. In L. Mann and D.A. Sabitino, eds. The Third Review of Special Education. Philadelphia JSE Press.