EPSE 526—Learning Disabilities in Adults—Group Discussion 1—Mike Parker

A.) Easier said than Done: Operationalizing the diagnosis of learning disabilities
for use at the postsecondary level in Canada.

The author states that there is “no clear definition of what LD is” and that there needs to
be “a consistent evidence approach to a diagnosis.” Do we agree or disagree with
this statement and how might it affect your teaching practice?

 The problem seems to be that there are some many different components to LD
that no one group can come up with a clear definition
 Some organizations overlap each other and are following different definitions —
and then the criteria changes from group to group—if a student changes
institutions or location that causes the student to have difficulties getting help.
 There needs to be a consistent definition that all groups would use to ensure
students get support
 The Impairment model is a new method of assessment—traditional testing
methods is based on IQ scores and the students ranking with in that
classifications—LD defined as two standard deviations below the norm.
 The old system might give false readings as to who might be considered LD and
the new one might not be so prone to false labeling
 People from outside the “Norms” of the tests would be labeled as poor students.
It should be based on the criteria and if the impairment fits the definition
 There should be consistency on the testing. It should be based on the student’s
abilities
 Low self esteem issues within the student may affect the outcomes and thus
norm referencing may not be the best method

B.) Beyond psychometric evaluation of the student—task determinants of

accommodation: Why students with learning disabilities may not need to be
accommodated.

The author states, “there is nothing to accommodate if the condition does not
compromise the student’s equal opportunity to participate in education.” In other words,
the accommodation needs to reflect the student’s disability. Is it as simple as that or
are there other factors that need to be taken into account?

 What ever the disability is, the intervention needs to be targeted towards that
impairment.
 You must consider that needs of the student. Any accommodations and
interventions need to be matched up with the needs of the students…the child
might have emotional needs that are not being addressed.
  Discuss with the child to find out what works for them in terms of support. How do
they learn best?
 What else is needed for student. How to support the child. What is the bigger
picture here and what might be missed at the University level?
 You need to consider the child. Its not as simple as black and white and there is
much more involved.

C.) Adults with learning disabilities Factors contributing to persistence

The author introduces us to the “Risk-Resilience model” as a means of explaining why

some young LD people do not go on to post secondary institutions.

1.) With this model is it possible to predict who might dropout of school or not
go on to post secondary? Can we as educators provide intervention or
support that might reverse this trend?
 In high school, kids fall through the cracks because they don’t have support at
home or have had bad experience in school and give up
 The Risk Resilience model could apply to anyone not just kids with LD
 How do you measure someone’s resilience or their self confidence?
 What else is involved?
 What are the student’s interests/motivations for going on to post secondary?
 Motivations might be that your friends are going. Do they have supports at home
and at University that will help? What are the parents saying?

2.) Are there other factors not considered or discussed by the author that
might influence young LD people to… not go on or to go on? What might
they be?

 Parents might be heavily influencing their decisions to go on, as well as

peers/friends.
 A positive self concept for LD students who overestimate their abilities. They
think they can do it but, in reality they can’t do it with out substantive support
 Negative side to that would be, the self believe that they can’t do it, so they don’t
try. They might have the skills but, the self propelling prophecy prevents them.
 Also, the influence of teachers, telling LD kids they can’t do the work when the
student might have the abilities to succeed. They listen to them and don’t go on
to University.
 The risk of failure is a huge roadblock and can cause a lot of damage to the child.
It can discourage then from trying.
  Social issues with LD people who struggle with poor self esteem would prevent
them for going on to higher learning.
 Social taboo associated with LD kids, would prevent them from going on to
higher education in some cultures. Parents of LD children wouldn’t want other
people knowing that their kid was LD and thus prevent them from going to
University.
 Also, students having to advocate for themselves at University could also be a
barrier for them. The student is now on their own and parents really can’t get
involved anymore.

Other thoughts.

 The idea of new technologies that could be of help to LD students was discussed
and how things have changed a lot in recent years. LD students now have a
better chance at succeeding at University because of advancements in computer
hardware and software that seem to be helping in leveling the playing fields.
 Also discussed the attitudes and actions of Employers who really don’t want to
understand or accept LD people into their business. More progressive employers
are willing to take on people with disabilities and work with them. There is the
believe in the business community it would cost the employer more money to
employ disabled people and that they are not capable of doing the job.

Reflection

A.) In our group, we discussed the differences between the IQ Achievement

Discrepancy model vs Academic Impairment model and agreed that the impairment
model would appear to be the better of the two. We were very concerned with the child
being label as LD and the possible development of poor self esteem issues as a result
of the IQ discrepancy diagnosis. We discussed the need for children to be tested on
their abilities rather than what the other children could do. I tend to agree with my
colleagues that we need to test children on their abilities, but I know from past
experiences that “New Methods” usually leave someone behind and that is
unacceptable. The traditional IQ Discrepancy test does tend to destroy a child self
esteem, which last with them all their lives, which is also unacceptable. A proven
method of testing children that did not destroy a child’s self esteem would in my opinion
be a great thing.

B.) The notion of accommodation based on the needs of a LD student, was something
we all seems to agree upon as the intervention is supposed to level the playing field.
We often find IEP’s written with required accommodations that have nothing to do with
the child’s impairment and the IEP has been copied and pasted from the previous year.
The prevailing attitude by some Resource Teachers is that they don’t have the time to
create a new IEP each year for every child and if last years was good enough then
simply copy it. I usually don’t bother to read the IEP’s as it has nothing of value in it and
I would rather discover the child’s abilities for myself. I like to chat with the student to
find out what works best for them and in that way, I can tailor activities and assignments
towards the child and their needs. The success of the student in my class is very
important to me.

C.) We all agreed that this article was very interesting and enjoyed the authors
discussion about the Risk Resilience Model. At the same time, we were concerned that
this model could easily be applied to non-LD individuals and how do you measure an
individual’s level of risk or resilience. But for a LD person, that risk factor is rather large
as they have faced years of low self esteem, insults, put downs and discrimination from
individuals who should have known better. To take a chance and expose one’s
vulnerabilities to people who might humiliate and embarrass them, is in some cases too
much to bare. Why would anyone LD or not, put themselves into that into an academic
environment that would further reduce the individual’s self esteem to the point of feeling
worthless. I don’t think the author managed to get to that level of understanding of the
nature of the risk-resilience factors that LD peoples face when deciding to go onto post
secondary institutions.

Also, there are other factors that are not included in the authors paper that might
influence a Learning Disabled person from going on to higher education. For example,
he has not included the strong influence that families have on a student’s decision to go
on to higher education. When a negative relationship exists with a parent or teacher,
then the level of resilience is most likely to be very low and thus the individual may not
have the abilities to move onto higher education. Furthermore, if the LD individual is
unable to accept the nature of their impairment, they would more than likely avoid
situations that would expose their vulnerabilities. Overall, I liked the article for trying to
highlight some of the issues faced by Learning Disabled people on a daily basis and for
the positive suggestions that might help LD people.

References

Gregg, N. (2014). Adults with learning disabilities: Factors contributing to persistence. In

H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities.,
2nd ed. (pp. 85-103). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. (Chapter 6)
Harrison, A. G., & Holmes, A. (2012). Easier said than Done: Operationalizing the
diagnosis of learning disability for use at the postsecondary level in Canada. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 27, 12-34. doi: 10.1177/0829573512437021

Roberts, B. L. (2012). Beyond psychometric evaluation of the student—task

determinants of accommodation: Why students with learning disabilities may not need
to be accommodated. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27, 72-80. doi:
10.1177/0829573512437171