CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The chapter titled ‘Introduction’ deals with general context of

education (i.e., provision of children’s right to education, several
steps taken to address issues related to access to education as well
as quality of education in the present scenario). A picture has been
presented about children with problems and learning disabilities
which include definition, history, symptoms, prevalence rate, criteria
for assessment and need of specific intervention programme to
enhance children’s learning. The chapter ends by focusing on the
current research’s concern and rationale for the study on
developing a classroom intervention programme for children who
face learning problems and learning disability in order to enhance
their learning outcomes.

Education is the basic right of every child and a doorway to access other
rights. Education not only plays an important role in the progress of self, but
also aids social change, thereby contributing to building a healthy nation.
Therefore, the Constitution of India (framed in 1950) guarantees free and
compulsory education for all children. Under the provision of fundamental
rights, Article 21A of the Constitution of India, states, “The State shall provide
free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen
years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine”
(http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html).
Various government policies which focus on the same goal; for instance,
the 83rd Constitution Amendment Bill, 1997, sought to make the Universal
Primary Education (UPE) as the fundamental right of children. The National
Policy on Education (NPE), 1968, 1986, and amended in 1992, set the year
2000 as the deadline to achieve this goal. The NPE (1986) also talked about
Minimum Level of Learning (MLL), mentioning that “to promote equality, it
will be necessary to provide for equal opportunity to all not only in access, but
also in the conditions for success. Besides, awareness of the inherent equality
of all will be created through the core curriculum. Minimum levels of learning
will be laid down for each stage of education.”
 2

(http://www.ugc.ac.in/policy/national.html). The Right to Education (RTE)

Act was passed in 2009 by the Parliament, which also guaranteed the provision
of free and compulsory education to all children between the ages 6 and 14
years. It also says that the acquisition of educational skills and knowledge
should be in accordance with the children’s age.
Various governmental organisations [like, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA),
District Primary Education Programme (DPEP), Early Childhood Care and
Education (ECCE), the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), and
District Institute of Education and Training (DIET)] and non-governmental
organisations [like, M Venkatarangaiya Foundation (child labour eradication),
Paratham Mumbai Education Initiative (universalisation of pre-primary and
primary education in metropolis), Bodh Shiksha Samiti (appropriate primary
education for the urban poor), Rishi Valley Rural Education Centre (multi-
grade and multi-level teaching/learning model), Eklavya (pedagogic renewal),
and Centre for Education Management and Development (school improvement
through management inputs)] are trying hard to achieve this objective in
different parts of India. This goal, however, is yet to be achieved by the Indian
education system. In reality, even the government has failed to achieve the 10
years of children’s free education in spite of keeping the upper limit of age for
getting education as 14 years. Largely, issues related to access to schools and
availability of school teachers have been fulfilled by investment on
infrastructure and recruitment of teachers. However, the quality of education, a
factor which influences the child’s learning outcomes, is a major concern. The
aforementioned goal for the Indian education system can be achieved only
when our educational programmes are designed in such a way that it will
match with the mental level, capability and needs of learners (Joshi 2004:
106). The NPE (1986) had also advocated the need and use of supplementary
remedial instruction for first generation learners and emphasised that they
should also get the opportunity to set their own learning pace. In other words,
the NPE (1986) had elaborated an educational and/or teaching-learning
environment where the needs of every child would be recognised and teaching
instructions would match their needs. In this regard, the National Curriculum
 3

Framework (NCF 2005) has also stressed on learning without burden and
child-centered teaching learning-approach.

Recently, concerns about low levels of literacy achievement among children

have been raised. According to the Mid Term Achievement Survey (MAS),
2008, conducted by the National Council of Educational Research and
Training (NCERT) for primary schools across the country, it was reported that
“the national average for Language was 60.31%; an increase of 1.44% from
Base Line Achievement Survey (BAS) conducted in the year 2001-02”.
Comparing comprehension ability of primary school children to other
language-related elements, for instance, spelling, vocabulary, structure of
sentences, comprehension of informative passage, and comprehension of story
was not an easy task. The improvement of 1.95% was seen in the national
average of Mathematics from BAS 2001–02 to MAS 2008, which was 48.46%
(http://www.educationforallinindia.com/Achievement_survey.pdf). Poor
achievements in reading, comprehension and basic mathematical functions
were and continue to be issues of concern for Indian primary education.

These facts make it clear that the unsatisfactory level in children’s

achievement could be due to the learning problems or learning difficulties
(interchangeably used) faced by them. The term learning problems or
difficulties has a vast meaning in itself. It could be the result of several factors
which could directly or indirectly impact learning in children. Some factors are
related to schools and teachers, for instance, poor quality of teaching
instructions, overcrowded classrooms, insufficient time for teaching, lack of
practice of reading, inadequate instructional resources, and lack of individual
attention required for learning (Karanth, 2003: 20; Konantambigi, 2000;
Westwood, 2004: 89). In addition, inappropriate curriculum may also
contribute to reading-related difficulties in children (Mathes and Torgesen,
1998). Children’s inappropriate learning approach and lack of attendance in
school are also some of the reasons for poor school performance (Westwood,
2008a: 6).
 4

Factors like home environment and sociocultural environment, such as

poverty, illiteracy of parents, lack of support or interest in child’s literacy
development by parents and family members, lack of access to preschool
instruction, lack of command over language used in school, lack of stimulating
environment at home, lack of exposure to textual material, noise and
distraction at home, stress, illness and family break ups, and peer group
pressure are also responsible for poor learning outcomes (Konantambigi, 2000;
Karanth, 2003: 20; Westwood, 2004: 90; Karande and Kulkarni, 2005;
Westwood, 2008a: 6). Developmental history and medical problems (such as
preterm birth and low birth weight, malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies,
worm infestations, hearing impairment, visual impairment, asthma and allergic
rhinitis, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, leukaemia and lymphoma, type I diabetes
mellitus, congenital hypothyroidism and habitual snoring) also play a key role
in the decline of scholastic achievement. Children with limited intelligence,
i.e., borderline intelligence or slow learners (their IQ ranges between 71–84),
and mentally challenged children (IQ≤70), are seen to exhibit poor school
performance. Psychiatric disorders like irritability, anhedonia, unsubstantiated
complaints of lack of love from family members, somatic complaints, poor
concentration, conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder (Karande
and Kulkarni, 2005) also cannot be ruled out as important factors contributing
to achievement in school. Nowadays, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
infection is also said to be one of the contributing factors for poor achievement
in children [ibid]. Moreover, neurobehavioural disorder could also contribute
to this failure; for example, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
autism, and Tourette Syndrome (TS) (Karande and Kulkarni, 2005).

There are certain instances of poor performance in spite of average and

above average intelligence, sufficient teaching-learning instruction and
instructional materials, proper motivation and adequate home environment,
social and cultural opportunity (Karande and Kulkarni, 2005). This condition
of children, known as Learning Disability (henceforth referred to as LD), is
one of the factors for academic failure, and most teachers as well as parents are
ignorant about it. Socio-cultural factors and factors related to school climate,
 5

teaching and teacher behaviour towards children, which could be termed the
environmental factors, contribute poor academic outcomes and such poor
learning outcomes are termed learning difficulties. However, it is very
troublesome or almost not possible to tease out the influences stemming from
internal processing mechanism malfunctions and the environmental aspects.
Nonetheless it is important to recognise the possible different factors.

Children and the process of learning are viewed from two distinct
perspectives, given the disciplinary background of the viewer. Historically two
streams have existed–educational perspective (i.e., teaching/pedagogic
practice) which did not focus on problems of learning, and then there were
clinical psychology and special education which looked at all learning failure
as pathological. These two fields come together i.e., Educational Psychology
which largely focuses on teaching–learning problems and therefore brings
learning content (educational) with teaching–learning strategies. For the
enhancement of academic performance, educationists focus on instructional
practices whereas; psychologists stress all development aspects of children
(Kapur, 2007: 34). Actual learning happens when a child becomes an active
recipient of the learning process or knowledge [ibid]. Majority of efforts
however had to focus on enhancing learning behaviour and this was possible
through synergy between varied approaches. Interventions using technical
neurological know–how and equipment as well as ones using the engagement
of multiple senses were beginning to be utilised (Paris and Paris, 2006).
Interventions have looked specifically at reading skill and reading
comprehension, as these skills were found to be directly related to better
academic performance (Oakland et al., 1998; Paris and Paris, 2006). Research
regarding these interventions will be summarised in another Section.

Search for the appropriate strategies for the enrichment of academic

performance of children with LD started long back (Carlson, 2005), but in
recent times, a mountain of research studies have focussed on adequate and
effective teaching strategies for these children. Mainly, after the legislation of
the No Child Left Behind Act, 2001 in the United States of America,
 6

remediation and intervention of learning disabled children has become a

priority for researchers, child specialists and educationists.

In India, the awareness and understanding of LDs has greatly increased in

recent years, as a result more children are being identified as having LD.
However, only awareness and understanding is not sufficient for learning
disabled children. The question remains what is to be done after identification?
There is a definite need to do something for these children so that they could
successfully deal with their difficulties. Mathes and Torgesen, (1998)
mentioned that children who face difficulties in reading, regardless of the
underlying causes behind their problems, share the similar basic needs for
literacy-related instruction as any other child. All in all, the goal is to provide
interventions and educational assistance to children who would be successful
in the general education classroom settings. However, LD interventions are
being addressed at the individual level, and they require intensive resources.
Different interventions- with a group of children or classrooms could better
address the problems. Attempts are constantly being made in the field of
elementary education for appropriate interventions and/or remediation.
Interventions for learning disabilities is one such effort as it has been found
that academic lags can be addressed sufficiently well if one can deal with
learning disability (Torgesen et al., 2001; Fletcher, Foorman and Boudousquie,
2002; Bryant et al., 2004; Coyne, Zipoli and Ruby, 2006).

However, there is a need for an intensive and early intervention in the field
of reading for children who show reading behaviours at early stages of
schooling, as reading behaviour is persistent in nature and also remains
consistent across the age span (Bryant et al., 2004). Juel (1988) found in his
study that the probabilities of good readers in Grade I to be remaining a good
reader until Grade IV were 0.88. Similarly, the poor readers in Grade I had a
0.87 probability of remaining poor readers till Grade IV. Therefore, early
intervention is a primary way of dealing with reading difficulties, thus
remediating them before they become deep-rooted and prominent, long-term
reading failures (Coyne, Zipoli and Ruby, 2006).
 7

In view of these issues surrounding effective intervention, the concern of the

present study was to plan a classroom intervention to address the learning
problems; some of which may be children with LD. Learning problems may be
manifested as consistently poor academic performance, failure to read a simple
passage and answer questions based on the text (as per the difficulty level of
the Grade in which the individual is), carry out simple mathematical functions
expected of the Grade. The following sections are aimed at creating a better
understanding about learning problems and learning disability, the theoretical
understanding and the status of research in the field.

Basic Concepts

Poor Academic Performance and Learning Problems or Difficulties:

Learning problems (LP) or learning difficulties faced by children resulted into
poor academic performance. The term learning problems and learning
disability (LD) are often misunderstood as being the same. Learning problems
are consequence of any of the following factors or a compound effect of two
or more factors like limited cognitive abilities, poor teaching instructions and
instructional resources, overcrowded classrooms, inadequate time for teaching,
insufficient practice of reading, inappropriate curriculum, and less individual
attention required for learning (Westwood, 2004: 89; Karanth, 2003: 20;
Konantambigi, 2000; Mathes and Torgesen, 1998). Inadequate prior
knowledge (Sturomski, 1997) and lack of attendance in school are also
considered as contributing to children’s learning problems (Westwood, 2008a:
6). Learning disability, on the other hand, is one of the factors for children’s
learning problems or difficulties. Children with learning disability fail to
achieve an average level of academic performance in spite of having adequate
cognitive potential and getting all needed resources for education. LD is
generally conceptualised as inherent to the child and is a result of a
neurobiological deficit. Children with LD face difficulties in one or more of
the following aspects; reading, writing, spelling and calculation (Bender,
1998). These children do not face difficulties in understanding concepts and
they are good in other aspects like, science, sports, dance, painting and arts etc.
 8

In spite of accepting the fact that learning disability is a result of

neurological deficiency, school teachers and parents play a game of blaming.
Studies have shown that teachers and parents both primarily consider factors
on the part of children (e.g., laziness, slow in learning, lack of interest in
academic activity, more interested in play, inattentive etc.) as responsible for
their poor academic achievement. In addition, teachers also believe that
children from disadvantaged families where parents are less educated are not
educable (Praveen and Konantambigi 2013; Konantambigi and Shetty 2008;
Prasad, 2010; Karanth, 2003; Appachar, 2005; Tripathi and Kar, 2008). In
Praveen and Konantambigi (2013) study, teachers showed a tendency to
expect normalising behaviour towards underachievers (e.g., they said that
when child will grow up will cope with the academic demands). A study by
Venkatesan (2011) reported that parents and teachers viewed the main
underlying cause for poor achievement to be a vested in children; for example,
lack of interest in study, laziness, inattention, more interest in play. Parents
and teacher blamed each other for academic failure of children. In addition,
factors related to families and home environment (caste, poverty, illiteracy
among parents and family members, lack of educational supports from parents,
etc.) were not much stressed by parents, and factors related to teachers and
school were less acknowledged by teachers [ibid].

Description of Learning Disability (LD): There is a group of children who

are of average and above average intelligence, have crossed the entire gamut
of developmental milestones, whose parents are educated with good socio-
economic conditions but are struggling with letters and words in their
everyday academic life. This group of children has a desire to learn but
somehow they fail. It is not a case of lack of motivation and laziness, but it is
the case of disability associated with learning in children. Rief and Stern
(2010: 5) mentioned that “the problems associated with learning disabilities
interfere with one or more of the following: learning reading, writing, or math,
and may affect a person’s ability to speak, listen, reason, recall, or organise
information”. These conditions vary from individual to individual, and in
many cases they affect an individual’s life; for instance, academics, work-life,
 9

daily routine, family life, peer and friendly relations (Venkatesan and
Purusotham, 2007: 99–100). Specifically, various risk factors are associated
with this disability, such as academic failure, school dropout, unemployment,
underemployment (i.e., difficulty in holding a job), emotional and mental
health problems (e.g., depression, frustration and low self-esteem), and other
learning and social problems. In addition, altercation with the law is also said
to be a repercussion of this disability as a high number of juvenile offenders
and prison inmates (60–80%) were found to have reading problems (Rief and
Stern, 2010). It is to be noted that they are not necessarily learning disabled.

History and Different Terminologies of Learning Disability: The search for

the causes of children’s poor academic condition had started many years
before the phenomenon learning disability was named by Samuel Kirk. The
hunt for the causal factors for children lagging behind in school in spite of
having average and above average intellectual ability began in 1960s and
1970s in the developed countries, especially in the United States of America. It
is not a new concept; its roots can be traced back to the early 1800s (cited by
Carlson, 2005). Traditionally, various vague terms like idiot, imbecile, feeble-
mined and moral defective were referred to denote the population or groups of
learning disabled (Tait and Genders, 2002: 15). In brief, a different set of
terminologies had been used to describe the same difficulties over time.

The roots of the term learning disability can be seen in the work of Samuel
Kirk (1963), who used this term to express the difficulties faced by children in
understanding school-related basic skills like speech, language, reading,
spelling, writing and mathematics. Even before the work of Samuel Kirk,
different terms had been used to refer the same condition. For instance, in
1877, the German neuropsychologist, Adolf Kussamaul, used the term word
blindness or word-deafness to describe reading disability. Similarly, another
German physician, Rudolf Berlin (1984), referred to the term dyslexia to
explain the condition of difficulty in interpreting written or printed symbols.
Another influential figure was Samuel Orton (1939), a neurologist working
with children having reading disability. He used the word strephosymbolia
 10

(which means ‘twisted symbols’), to symbolise a condition causing reading

failure in children (Swanson, Harris and Graham, 2006: 18–19; Peterson and
McGrath, 2009; Mather, Wendling, and Kaufman 2011). Thus, various terms
have been used to refer to the same difficulties of children; for instance,
dyslexia, learning disabled, slow learners, minimally damaged brain and
educationally handicapped (Karanth, 2003: 17).

Over time, the understanding surrounding learning problems or disabilities

has been from a pathological model as some manifestations have neurological
processing issues. The approach to deal with learning has also to do with
painting a pathological scenario. Learner centered, transfer of learning from
one domain to another (the application of multiple intelligences of Howard
Gardner), bringing in emotional/motivational factors at play to bear on
children's learning and so also application of technology emanating from
neurological and information processing science approaches need to be
considered in conceptualisation of intervention for teaching-learning problems.
The literature on LD is largely soaked in the language of pathology, clinical
diagnosis and remediation/individual interventions. This approach according
to Konantambigi (2003) leads to labelling children and the labels stick through
the school years and beyond. As the individual explores various skills and
tasks, he or she may be burdened by such labels, thus affecting their self-
efficacy. After looking at the definitional and other literature on LD and
learning issues, these need to be viewed in a more holistic way. Attempt being
made in the field is a move towards intervention that is more child-friendly.
Works of Howard Gardner, constructivist and cultural constructionist
approaches led by conceptualisation in a more of Vygotsky and Rogoff lend
such a perspective. The approaches of Vygotsky and Rogoff have been briefly
discussed at the end of this Section.

Meaning and Definition of Learning Disability: The complexity of the

concept of LD makes it difficult to agree upon a single definition. Regarding
the definition of LD, Lyon (1996b: 3), cited in Thapa (2008: 24) mentioned
that it is “one of the least understood and most debated disabling conditions
 11

that affect children”. However, incongruity still remains about the definition,
diagnostic criteria, assessment, interventions procedures and legislation
regarding this condition. Among all the definitions, the dominant definition
has been used in different American legislations. The Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94–142), presented a definition
which was similar to the definition by the National Advisory Committee on
Handicapped Children (1968). This was also integrated into the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 1990. The recent definition given by
IDEA, 2004, includes the meaning of the term, inclusion as well as exclusion
criteria. It reads as follow:

Meaning: “The term ‘specific learning disability’ means a disorder in one

or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in
using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the
imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical
calculations”.

Inclusion Criteria: “Such term includes such conditions as perceptual

disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia”.

Exclusion Criteria: “Such term does not include a learning problem that is
primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental
retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or
economic disadvantage” (http://www.ldonline.org/features/idea2004/).

This definition focused on the four major aspects, i.e., (a) the manifestation
of the symptoms of LD is not homogenous; however, it represents a group
with diverse disorders; (b) it has neurobiological basis that is innate in nature;
(c) LD children are identified when there is a lag between their potential and
academic performance; (d) exclusion criterion which define what is not LD;
for example, children’s academic difficulties as a prime consequence of
external factors, culture, environment, economic factors, physical impairments
 12

(visual or hearing), limited cognitive ability (e.g., mental retardation), and

emotional problems.

The National Centre for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) Definition: The

recent definition of LD has been given by NCLD, 2009, as:

“a neurological disorder that affects the brain’s ability to receive, process,

store and respond to information. The term Learning Disability is used to
describe the seeming unexpected difficulty a person of at least average
intelligence has in acquiring basic academic skills. These skills are essential
for success at school and work, and for coping with life in general. LD is not
a single disorder. It is a term that refers to a group of disorders” (as cited by
Rief and Stern, 2010: 5).

In other words, the neurological basis of LD is exhibited through deficit in

information processing, which influences the way external information is
received, processed and expressed. LD is also manifested in many areas,
including learning reading, writing or math, and may affect an individual’s
ability to speak, listen, reason, recall or organise information
(http://www.ncld.org).

The DSM–IV and DSM–V Definition:

In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)

classification, the term “learning disorders” has been mentioned and children
“are diagnosed when the individual’s achievement on individually
administered, standardised tests in reading, mathematics, or written expression
is substantially below that expected for age, schooling, and level of
intelligence” (American Psychological Association [APA], 1994).

In DSM–V the term ‘Specific Learning Disorder’ has been used, which
combines diagnosis criteria of DSM–IV. It states that

“specific learning disorder diagnosed through a clinical review of the

individual’s developmental, medical, educational, and family history,
reports of test scores and teacher observations, and response to academic
 13

interventions. The diagnosis requires persistent difficulties in reading,

writing, arithmetic, or mathematical reasoning skills during formal years of
schooling. Symptoms may include inaccurate or slow and effortful reading,
poor written expression that lacks clarity, difficulties remembering number
facts, or inaccurate mathematical reasoning” (http://www.dsm5.org).

Procedure for Identification and Assessment: There are controversies

regarding the method and approaches used for identification and assessment of
LD. There are many barriers in the identification of children with LDs because
it is considered as an invisible handicap. Therefore, it is more likely to be
misunderstood and misinterpreted. The most debated and most studied
approach of identification of LD is IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria.
According to this approach, only those children who exhibit far below
academic achievement (in the area of oral language, listening comprehension,
reading comprehension, writing, spelling, arithmetic reasoning or calculation)
in comparison to their intellectual ability are identified with LD (Smith 1991:
41; Fletcher et al., 2002: 190). However, this approach is solely based on the
result of IQ test and children’s academic achievement.

Some studies do not support the IQ-achievement model on the basis of the
factors that identify LDs. In this regard, a study was conducted by Gresham
and Vellutino (2010) where the aim was to understand the role of intelligence
in the identification of Specific Learning Disabilities. They reviewed several
studies and suggested that “intelligence is not a strong predictor of reading
achievement and does not predict responsiveness to remedial instruction”.
They also mentioned that instead of intelligence, responsiveness to
intervention (RTI) is a more significant predictor of reading achievement of
Grade I through Grade IV children. In the RTI model, multi-level interventions
are provided in the general classroom according to the need and severity of
children’s problems. If children’s needs are not fulfilled in a general
classroom, they are referred for special help. Thus, the RTI model for LD
identification is more accurate than IQ scores and other individual profile
analysis.
 14

LD is also identified based on children’s poor achievement scores on

standardised tests of reading and/or spelling in relation to their age and ability.
Their performance is also assessed on timed and untimed reading tests as well
as assessment of reading of pseudo words in comparison to real words.
Identification of LD includes the analysis of errors committed by these
children; for instance, whole-word guesses, lexicalizations and spelling errors
(Peterson and McGrath, 2009: 82). However, with reference to this
identification technique, some exclusion criteria that are not intrinsic to the
child may contribute to learning-related problems; for example, lack of
exposure or familiarity to the high quality teaching-learning instructions [ibid].

Behaviours of LD children have been divided into six domains by National

Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD, 1994) and the US
Department of Education (2002) as (a) listening (b) speaking (c) reading (d)
writing (e) mathematics and (f) reasoning. Investigation was done by Bryant et
al. (2004) for the characteristics of reading behaviours of LD children who had
reading disability. Teachers and professionals were asked to rate children’s
reading behaviour on the above-mentioned domains. Results showed that the
reading rate was a persistent difficulty for children with reading disabilities
across grade levels. It was mainly concluded that all the reading behaviours
drawn from neuropsychological and LDs literature can be used to screen and
identify children with potential reading disabilities [ibid].

Summing it overall, keeping in mind the above mentioned definitions and

diagnosis criteria, it is clear that using one single method is not foolproof
therefore use of a comprehensive approach of assessment is recommended. For
comprehensive assessment depending on single approach is not sufficient,
whereas, it requires multiple methods and tools for identification. The
comprehensive assessment also restricted the use of group method for the
diagnosis of children with LDs. However, it relies on various sources of data,
for instance, formal (standard test) and informal (observation, teachers’ and
parents’ opinion) measures.
 15

Assessment of LDs in India is generally based on discrepancy between IQ

and achievement, difficulties in reading and writing related to language,
difficulties in information processing, difficulties in visual-motor functioning
and grade lag of at least 2 years than the present grade. In addition, children
are also diagnosed with LD when their achievement on any standardised test
of achievement falls below in comparison to their expected age, grade and
potentialities. However, the screening devices for LD generally focus on
difficulties in the area of reading, writing, attention, and social and emotional
problems. Exclusion criteria are also kept in mind during assessment
(Konantambigi, 2003). Keeping this in mind, multiple approaches were used
for identification of LD in the present study. These have been explained in
detail in the next Chapter.

Types of Learning Disability: LD has been divided into three major types;
difficulty in reading called dyslexia; dysgraphia which means difficulty in
writing, and dyscalculia that refers to difficulty in arithmetic and calculation
(Dash 2005: 106; Fletcher et al., 2007: 2; Singh 2008: 35). Under the
Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of the United States of
America, the Federal Specific Education Law has described 13 categories of
disability, and Specific Learning Disability (SLD) is one of them. Specific
learning disabilities or LD are the terms typically used in schools’ setting. LD
is a multifarious term that illustrates specific difficulties with processing
information and learning skills. Dyslexia is one of the disabilities which comes
under learning disabilities (Rief and Stern, 2010: 3).

Majority of children with LDs face difficulties in learning to read. In the

proceeding section, the focus will be on common signs and symptoms of
children with LDs. Table 1.1 deals with signs and symptoms of children who
face difficulties in reading.
 16

Table 1.1: Signs and Symptoms of Children with LD

Motor or Perceptual Difficulty in fine and gross motor skills: drawing,

Skills copying, pencil grip, directionality (left and right, up
and down) and recognising differences in similar-
appearing letters, numbers and words.
Language Skills Problems with language or speech development:
receptive language, expressive language, appropriate
use of grammar and syntax, receptive language skills,
understanding metaphors, idioms or words with
multiple meanings, word retrieval, fluency and
vocabulary.
Early Literacy or Difficulty in understanding phonemes, rhyming,
Pre-reading Skills recognising the beginning, middle, and ending sounds
in spoken words, recognising, blending and separating
individual sounds within words, letter recognition,
letter-sound connection, knowledge that reading
happens from left to right and top to bottom of page and
ability to read and write child’s own name.
Reading Difficulty in learning the sounds that correspond to
letters and letter combinations, decoding ability,
differentiating between letters or words that look
similar (p and q, there and three), recognising and
remembering high frequency or sight words, accuracy
(adding or omitting words or parts of words), fluency,
comprehension and maintaining place while reading.
Writing Problems in sequencing letters correctly within words,
copying with accuracy, correct use of capitalization and
punctuation, spelling, planning and organising ideas for
writing, expressing ideas in complete sentences,
proofreading skills, legible handwriting and appropriate
spacing of words, staying within the margins of a page
 17

and writing on the line and aligning numbers in

columns when doing math problems.
Preschool and Problems with pronouncing words correctly, delayed
Kindergarten language and vocabulary development, difficulty in
sequentially reciting alphabets and days of the week,
difficulty with quick naming things (colours, shapes,
familiar objects or animals) when shown pictures or
objects, and frustration with coloring, pasting and
cutting with scissors.
Grades 1–4 Slowness in learning the connection between letters and
sounds, letter reversal (b/d) and inversions (u/n), lack of
a systematic approach to sounding out words, difficulty
in reading words (by sight and by decoding), frustration
with reading tasks, good comprehension of material that
is read to the child as opposed to the text that the child
tries to read independently, problem in recalling,
difficulty in learning math facts, especially,
multiplication tables, problems with math symbols
(confuses signs of operation such as +, –),
understanding time concepts (before, after, and telling
time), and problems in understanding directions.
Grades 5–8 Weak decoding skills; slowness in figuring out
multisyllabic words, poor sight word vocabulary,
difficulty in learning spelling strategies such as root
words, affixes, spelling patterns, poor oral reading; lack
of fluency, difficulty with word problems in math,
problems with recalling facts and good self-expressing
orally, but not in writing.
Source: Adapted from Rief and Stern (2010: 11–15).

Other Common Problems: These children may face difficulties in some of the
following areas:
 18

Memory: It is the ability to hold information in mind long enough to work with
it and act on it (working memory); the recall of information recently presented
(short-term memory); and retrieving information that has been stored in long-
term memory. Children with LDs generally have memory problems to some
degree (mild to severe), which can cause difficulty with the following:
remembering words and names (especially, irregular words), reading words by
sight, following multiple instructions given at a time and holding information
in mind for a longer time (Payne and Turner, 1999:136–38; Rief and Stern,
2010).

Sequencing: Sequencing is the ability to perceive and control a series of

information. Children with LDs often have problems with learning or recalling
at an automatic level a sequence of letters, sounds, numbers and other
information. Children with this weakness may have difficulties, such as
reading words accurately with sounds in correct sequence, following a set of
verbal directions, sequencing letters in the word, skipping numbers in between
while counting (3, 6, 9, 12), and confusing the order of events (e.g.,
summarising stories in the wrong order) (Rief and Stern, 2010).

Executive Functioning: It is a set of mental processes that is responsible for

management functions of the brain self-directed actions which individuals use
to help maintain control of themselves and accomplish goal-directed behaviour
(McCoach et al., 2004: 33; Rief and Stern, 2010). Children and teens with
developmental delays in executive functions are often developmentally
immature in several areas; for instance, self-management and self-regulation
skills, working memory, time awareness and time management, and planning
and organising skills (particularly for long-term assignments and projects).
They face difficulties to begin tasks that are not intrinsically motivating. If
they start, they lack the ability to sustain the level of attention, effort and
motivation necessary to get through difficult tasks. Meta-cognition
(monitoring one’s own thinking processes and learning progress, and applying
fix-up strategies when not doing well) is also found to be lacking in them (Rief
and Stern, 2010; Stein and Krishnan, 2007: 106–109; Pennington, 2009: 21).
 19

Processing Speed: It is the rate at which information is processed. Slower

processing speed has nothing to do with intelligence. It is not that someone
with this problem is a slow learner, but it means that she/he processes
information at a slower speed, which may cause difficulties with automatic
word recognition, reading fluency, quick reply to a teacher’s questions and
following along in class discussions. Word retrieval, naming things rapidly
and automatically, completing work in a timely manner (class assignments and
homework), and writing (letter formation and handwriting, spelling, getting
ideas on paper, and written composition) are other aspects where these
children face difficulties (Rief and Stern, 2010; Hartas, 2006: 14).

Motor Skills and Coordination: Children with reading difficulties face

problems in gross motor skills; skills that are needed for the use of large
muscles of the arms and legs, and, consequently, they face difficulties in
running, skipping, jumping, athletics, physical coordination (often manifested
as clumsiness), rhythm and balance. Deficits in fine motor skills (that require
the use of small muscles in the hands and fingers) lead to difficulties in
buttoning, zipping, holding and manipulating a pencil, and handwriting (Rief
and Stern, 2010; Hartas, 2006: 14).

Emotional Functioning: It is common for these children to have problems with

low-self-esteem, low tolerance for frustration, stress, anxiety and acting out
(Rief and Stern, 2010; Elksnin and Elksnin, 2004).) In addition, somatic
complaints, distractibility, verbal aggression and depression are some other
common features of dyslexic children. It has been also found that in
comparison to externalised disorders, they show more internalised disorders
(Choudhary et al., 2012).

Prevalence Rate: The prevalence rates of LD are influenced by many factors;

for example, nature of language in which children read and write, socio-
economic status of child’s family, child’s intellectual ability, teaching-learning
environment, and genetic factors. It is highly influenced by the criteria used
for assessment and diagnosis. Schumacher et al. (2007) reported the incidence
rate LD as 5–12% and Hensler et al. (2010) estimated this rate as 7–15%.
 20

The prevalence rate of LD among school children in India is not very clear.
Different researchers have suggested a different prevalence rate. Malik (2009)
mentioned that around 13–14% school children suffer from learning disorders
and as 10–20% among children and adolescents who face LD. Kapur (1995;
2008) has mentioned 10–20% and Mehta (2003) also cited that 10% children
face such difficulties. A recent study by Choudhary et al. (2012), where they
aimed to study the prevalence of learning disorders in school going children in
the city of Bikaner (Rajasthan), reported this rate as 10.25%. Mogasale et al.
(2012) conducted a study in a South Indian city (Belgaum) and reported the
prevalence rate of specific LD to be 15.17%, and among them, reading
disability was 11.2%.

Approximately 80% children who qualify for special education, have

reading disabilities (Shalini and Xiong, 2003; Rief and Stern, 2010: 3; Mather,
Wendling, and Kaufman 2011: 19) and are identified as having LDs.
Choudhary et al. (2012) found 10.25% prevalence rate of LD, and among
them, reading (7.47% ), writing (1.70%) and mathematics (1.07%) disorders
were also reported. It again supports the high occurrence of reading disorders
among LD group. The overall high-prevalence rate reported in Indian studies
need to be examined. It could be an artefact of the measuring device and other
confounding variables. During the course of review of Indian literature on LD,
it was noticed that majority of the studies employed criteria for identification
of LDs based on disparity between IQ and academic achievement, language
ability (reading, writing, calculation, spelling), emotional and behavioural
problems, two or more years of low performance in comparison to their age
and peers, information processing, visual-motor functioning and exclusion
criteria (Karanth 2003; Verma, 2008; Gupta, 2004, 2008; Gupta and Jamal
2006; Tripathi and Kar, 2008). In some of the studies, even the use of
screening device has not revealed such a high-prevalence rate (Appachar,
2005; Konantambigi and Shetty, 2008; Prasad, 2010; Praveen and
Konantambigi 2013; Narayanan 2013).
 21

Gender: LD has been found to occur more frequently in males than females
(Beaton, 2004: 142; Millichap, 2010: 61). Generally, boys are more noticed
with LD symptoms than girls in school settings because of their behavioural
symptoms. As boys exhibit symptoms that are easily noticeable (like they
easily get frustrated, act impulsively, and are more interested in rough and
outdoor physical activities) than girls. Therefore, teachers tend to diagnose
boys as sufferers of LD than girls (Pressley and McCormick, 2007:340;
Miedzian, 2002: 69; Osman, 2000: 39). Choudhary et al. (2012) also found
the similar results as boys suffer more than girls (11.40% and 7.14%,
respectively). A few researches in this regards do not support the finding that
boys exhibit LDs more than girls. In this regard, Miedzian (2002:69)
mentioned that boys and girls are both suffer equally.

Comorbidity: Many times it has been found that LDs may appear with other
disorders; for instance, speech and language disorders or attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). LDs share the high-comorbidity rate
with ADHD (Hulme and Snowling, 2009: 337; Nicolson and Fawcett, 2008:
179). About 15–20% of children with reading disabilities are diagnosed with
ADHD, and 25–40% ADHD are identified as reading disabled (Mather,
Wendling and Kaufman, 2011:70). Rief and Stern (2010) also mentioned
approximate 20–40% of occurrence with ADHD. A pattern has been noticed
that “higher rates of comorbid externalising disorders (ADHD, oppositional
defiant disorder, and conduct disorder) in boys with LD, whereas girls with
LD are more likely to have comorbid internalising disorders, such as
dysthymia” (Smith et al., 2001 as cited by Pennington, 2009: 48). A similar
finding was noticed in a review of research presented by Johnson (2005) that
children with LD show comorbidity with psychological problems like
adjustment problems, anxiety and hyperkinetic disorders. Nature of their
problems is externalising (ADHD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder/ODD and
Conduct Disorder/CD) as well as internalising (depression and anxiety).
Comorbidity of LD with ADHD and language difficulties has also been
reported in the Indian context by Anand (2007) and Sampath, Sivaswamy and
Indurkhya, (2009).
 22

Thus, it is clear that a classroom consists of diverse groups of children and

their academic performance is affected by several factors, one of the intrinsic
factor is LD, about which regular teachers are unaware. Therefore, these
children hardly get attention in general classroom settings. As a result, their
needs for appropriate assessment and remediation are barely met. In addition,
India being a developing country which has limited resources, it is not possible
to provide one-to-one intervention and special facilities to such children from
all classes, socio-economic status and location. Therefore, intervention needs
to be pitched in order to help children cope with a basic academic expectations
i.e., literacy skills. Keeping the Indian scenario in mind, it was assumed that
providing training to regular teachers in dealing with children with learning
problems and with LD would help to cater to the need of a larger group of
children and for a longer duration as teachers remain in the school settings
through the academic year and may be for many years.

This was the impetus for designing an intervention programme based on

whole classroom approach for children with LPs and LDs and to be
implemented by the regular teacher. Having painted a general picture of the
learning problems and disabilities that affect academic performance of
children, it is clear that the focus of the present study would have to be on
addressing both these factors through a classroom intervention. This study is
also in spirit of inclusive education in India advanced by National Curriculum
Framework (2005). A brief overview of the background of the study has
already been presented. The layout of the thesis presented in the following
section.

Lay Out of the Thesis

Chapter 2: ‘Literature Review’ presents literature related to LD and

different approaches to intervention which helped the researcher identify the
gaps and to contextualise the present study. LD has been contextualised with
reference to specific features of language; especially Indian languages (Hindi)
which are based on alpha-syllabic orthographic system. The description of the
Hindi language has been given in detail. Apart from strategies used in the
 23

intervention programme, other factors which influence effectiveness of the

intervention, for instance, mode of instructional delivery, implementer of the
programme and duration of the intervention programme have also been
described. A detailed review of literature based on intervention programme
used for enhancing reading comprehension skills have been done to document
the strategies used in the research and the nature and extent of its effectiveness
on children’s learning.

Chapter 3: ‘Methodology’ describes the methodology followed in the study.

The conceptual and/or theoretical framework of the study has been presented
in reference to insight gained through literature review presented in Chapter 2.
The gaps indentified in the context of the intervention programme referring the
Indian classroom setting guided the researcher to formulate the objectives for
the present study. Details have been given about method chosen for meeting
the proposed objectives, tools used and procedure for assessing children with
LPs and LDs, process of conducting the research (both teacher-training and
implementation of the intervention sessions to children) and possible rationale
behind it. It illustrates about research settings, samples, sources and method of
data collection. Method of data analysis and how qualitative and quantitative
data have been triangulated for the evaluation of effectiveness, utility and
feasibility of classroom based intervention programme have been mentioned
too. Ethical considerations followed in the study have also been explained.

Chapter 4: ‘The Intervention Programme’ provides details about the

physical settings, preparation and materials need for the intervention sessions.
The content of the intervention programme, for instance, total number of
sessions, duration of the intervention programme, duration of every session
and frequency of implementation. It also describes about strategies followed in
the study and procedural aspects. The last section of the chapter is about the
influence of subjective aspects of the researcher on the intervention outcomes.

Chapter 5: ‘The Researcher, the Teacher and the Intervention

Programme’ describes about the teaching-learning approach practiced by the
school teacher and her attitude, and behaviour towards children; especially
 24

children with LPs and LDs before the implementation of the intervention. A
detail of the content and the nature of teacher-training given in the study have
also been explained. Further discussion has been followed by the changes that
occurred in teaching-learning method used by the teacher and her behaviour,
beliefs and attitudes towards children after the intervention. It also details the
synergy happened the researcher and the teacher which promised positive
impact of the intervention.

Chapter 6: ‘Effect of the Intervention Programme on Children’ represents

improvement that occurred in children learning outcomes. The result has been
presented according to four groups; children with LD, children with low IQ,
children who could not read and children without learning problems.
Improvement seen in other domains of the children (e.g., behavioural) has also
been presented.

Chapter 7: ‘Discussion’ validates and discusses findings of the present study

with reference to existing literature in the field. Implications of the present
study for diverse group of children and regular class teachers have been
explicated.

Chapter 8: ‘Conclusion, Implication, Limitation and Future Scope’ spells

out the conclusion of the major findings of the study, and its implication for
practical uses. Description of the limitation of the study opens scope for the
future research in the field.