Learning Disabilities Essay

stick is the marches t each(prenominal)ers map to describe students with cultivation disabilities. They tell us that these students look entirely normal, seem intelligent, take to the woods on intelligent conversations that they dont appear to some(prenominal) different than separate students. Yet these students mformer(a) ambitiousy doing certain labor movements non whole- in teach. Some deem difficulty recitation others fargon sick in spelling still others possess frequent mistakes in math. Teachers in numerous coachs tell us that these students argon real hard to teach that they simply do non learn in the alike(p) ways or as easily as others their develop. They tell us that these students have specific require and argon not easy to teach in large classes in which approximately other students perform reasonably well. They tell us that modifying financial postulatement so that these students fecal matter profit from teaching is an intricate process. Because of the heterogeneous nature of this group of minorren, the concept of specific instruction disabilities has been hard to define or describe in few sentence or by a numerical score such as an IQ or by a decibel loss. Further much, because the field has been of interest to educators, psychologists, psychiatrists, neurophysiologists, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, optometrists, speech pathologists, and others, the business has been panoramaed in each of those disciplines from different perspectives. Hence there is really the need for some(prenominal) definitions for nurture disabilities and thus we scarcelyt abstain that its definition is defined in case to case buns.Definition of scholarship DisabilitiesHistorically, the fol wiped out(p)ing confiness were use to name pincerren with attainment disabilities perceptually handicapped brain injured neurologically impairedThen, there came two vast aspects of concern in defining and or identifying those childrenbiolo gical etiology- minimal brain dysfunction, psych whizurological encyclopedism disorders. fashion develop kind disparity in psychological processes, developmental imbalanceThe definition of teaching disabilities in an nurtureal depot has derived its herit suppurate from neurology psychology speech pathology ophthalmology remedial interlingual rendition Wiederholt (1984) has traced the history of Learning damage and has delineated three dimensions of disorders namely(1) disorders of the spoken quarrel studied primarily by neurologists andophthalmologists such as Samuel Kirk developed a test, the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, for use in describing terminology functioning and developing remedial programs.disorders of written language represented for the almost part by psychologists, speech pathologists, and educators such as Grace Fernald naturalized a clinic at UCLA where she perfected remedial reading material and spelling techniques.disorders of percept ual and motor behaviors studied mostly by a number of disciplines such as Goldstein, Werner and Strauss as pi angiotensin converting enzymeers of the field which listed thefollowing behavioral characteristics that place mingled with those with andthose without brain injuries excessive motor activity, hyperactivity,awkwardness and consistently woeful motor procedure, erratic behavior, distressingorganization, high distractibility and faulty perceptions (like reversals) and Samuel Orton was a neurologist who believed that lack of cerebral dominance was a cause of language disorders. (In normal individual either the left or right side of the brain has dominance in controlling specific functions.) Cruickshank focused his efforts on the study 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 eye exer cises, tracing and copying patterns, and differentiating figure from background in a puzzle, to making angels in the snow. Today, there ar various provinces in Canada that have established programs for knowledge disabilities which was instituted for example by The Ontario Ministry of erudition Saskatchewan Department of culture Halifax Board of raising and Quebec Ministry of EducationBut 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 may affect theacquisition, organization, retention, consciousness or use of literal or nonverbalinformation. These disorders affect training in individuals who otherwisedemonstrate at least total abilities essential for cerebration and/or reasoning. Assuch, teaching disabilities argon distinct from global adroit deficiency.Learning disabilities conduce from impairments in one or more processes related toperceiving, thinking, remembering or learn. These include, exactly argon not limitedto language treat phonological processing visual spatial processingprocessing speed memory and guardianship and executive functions (e.g. planningand decision-making).Further, LDAC mentioned that attainment disabilities range in severity and may interfere with the acquisition and use of one or more 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 further states that a student has a specific larn handicap ifthe student does not achieve at the proper age and ability levels in oneor more of several specific areas when provided with tolerate nurture experiencesthe student has a spartan discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of these seven areas (a) oral expression, (b) listening comprehension, (c) written expression, (d) primary reading skill, (e) reading comprehension, (f) mathematics calculation, and (g) mathematics reasoning.To summarize, all these definitions of knowledge 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 necessity abilities, such as memory, auditory perception, visual perception, oral language, and thinking.)The individual has difficulty in learning, specifically, in speaking, listening, writing,reading (word-recognition skills and comprehension), and mathematics (calculation and reasoning.)The problem is not primarily due to other causes, such as visual or hearingimpairments motor handicaps mental retardation emotional disturbance or economic, environmental, or cultural disadvantage.A severe discrepancy exists betwee n the students apparent potential for learning and his or her low level of achievement. In other words, there is evidence of underachievement. The various definitions of learning disabilities have several elements in parking areaneurological dysfunctionuneven growth patterndifficulty in donnish and learning undertakingsdiscrepancy between potential and achievementexclusion of other causes Identification of Learning DisabilitiesIn identifying individuals with learning disabilities, the following common characteristics must be observed 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 Difficulty in discrimination of auditory and visual stimuli, auditory and visual closure, and sequencing Oral language difficulties Problems in listening, speaking, vocabulary, and linguist ic competencies Failure to develop and mobilize cognitive strategies for learning insufficiency of organization, active learning set, metacognitive functions teaching 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, time, space, and calculation facts and Inappropriate well-disposed behavior Problems in social skills deficits, emotional problems, and establishing social relationships. in that location are similarly other pragmatic classification 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 systematic way to look at characteristics of students with learning disabi lities is to look at those factors referenced in screening devices. The following outline reflects the types of difficulties often observed in learning disabled students(1) signifi open firetly different schoolroom behaviorsdifficulty in undertakening or finis tasksdifficulty in organizinginconsistent in behaviordifficulty in peer relationships(2) significantly below-average performance in auditory comprehension and listeningdifficulty in following directionsdifficulty in comprehending or following class discussionsinability 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 immature or improper vocabulary or very limited vocabularydifficulty in recalling words for use in self-expressiondifficulty relating isolated facts, disjointed ideasdifficulty in relating ideas in logical sequence(4) significant academic problemsdifficulty in reading fluencydifficulty in associating numbers with symbolsincorrect ordering of letters in spelling bewilderment 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, teeny, far, close, under, on, near)inability to learn directions (north, south, left, right)motor disabilities or significant underdevelopment for agepoor coordinationvery poor balanceawkward, poorly developed manipulative or manual ingenuitylack of rhythm in movementsIII. Intervention for Learning Disabilities. This knowledge of the characteristics of learning disabled students is one basis for intervention. Thus, we have seen that children with learning disabilities compose quite a diverse group. It should be no surprise then(prenominal) to find that the teach ing and strategies go intimatelyes designed to dish out those children are to a fault quite a diverse. But it is assertable to cluster the various approaches into three broad pedagogyal strategiestask develop, in which the emphasis is on the sequencing and simplication of the task to be in condition(p). Ysseldyke and Salvia (1984) have advanced tow 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 provideed by behavioral analysts who counsel (1) finding out what the child can and cannot do in a particular skill, (2) determining whether or not the child has the behaviors needed to succeed in the task, (3) defining the goals in observable toll, and (4) organizing a systemic remedial program using reinforcement techniques. The applied behavior analysts do not infer processes or abilities that underlie difficulties but rely solely on the childs interacti onal history and the ongoing behavior and environmental situation. They feel that their approach, which is task oriented and observable, is the most parsimonious approach, and to some it is the alone 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 stated that three approaches to remediation have evolved (1) remediating a check so that learning give 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 order (task training) should be tried set-back and then discarded in favor of other methods if direct instruction is not successful.ability or process-task training, in which the first two approaches are combined and incorporate into one remedial program.Raschke and Young (1986) support this approach. They com pared the behavior analysis model with the diagnostic-prescriptive model. They state that neither approach completely 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 fire task that some have likened learning disabilities to Justice Potter Stewarts comment on smut im realizable to define, but I know it when I see it.Thus, defining learning disabil ities in a way acceptable to all has proceed 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 adjudicated by some to have some shortcomings. There are umpteen types of disabilities, each of which may require a quaint 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 passim the world. This problem first came out when some parents in the United States became bear on because their children who were not learning in school were rejected from special(prenominal) didactics since they were not mentally retarded, desensitise or blind, or otherwise handicapped. Their children were called by various names such as neurologically handicapped, brain-i njured, aphasodic, dyslexic, and perceptually handicapped.In spite of its flow rate 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 novelty of deviations that are not included in traditional categories of exceptional 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 commandmental retardation, which is gear up 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 made for biological and psychological diversity, and considerable variation in abilities is accepted as normal.So, the question now is, If there are objectio ns to the term learning disabilities, why use it? Why not use some other term? Well and good, if a better(p) term can be found. Other terms are either overly 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 pedagogyal relevance. Perceptual handicaps exclude children with language disorders.Hence, the label learning disability has evolved to breed the heterogeneous group of children not fitting neatly into the traditional categories of handicapped children. And that, substantial number of children steer 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 b y ordinary of method of instruction but are not mentally retarded. Although such children are from a heterogeneous group and fail 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 sin ce 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 obvious 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 become 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 organization committee studying the subject (Learning Difficulties in shaverren 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 dysfun ction mean? Do they all mean the same? Certainly, all these labels are not necessary, or are they? Does labeling a child with learning problems create more problems? It all becomes a bit confusingThe terminology veers 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 disabled if he has not yet started positive schooling as the label learning disabled 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 impai rment, and so on.Learning disabilities should be identified in the formal school background. Thus, preschoolers should not be labeled as learning disabled as growth rates are so un screamable 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 simple(a) years are inability to attend and concentrate 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 curriculum becomes more difficult, problems may emerge in other areas, such as social studies or science. Emotional problems also become more of an impe diment subsequently several years of repeated failure, and students become more conscious of their poor achievement in resemblance with that of their peers. For some students, social problems and inability to make and keep 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 senior high school curriculum and teachers, the turmoil of adolescence, and the continued academic failure may combine to intensify 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 adopt a learning disability at his age. Most secondary schools now have programs for adolescents with learning disabilities. many another(prenominal) 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 strongly 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 superlative sources of controversy about the identification issues. The question of how much academic and learning retardation is evidenced out front an individual should be identified as learning disabled. Aside from identifying children with learning disability, it is very heavy to judge the extent of a childs learning disability as either mild or severe. Determining the l evel of severity is helpful in placement and in planning teaching delivery. I strongly suggest that students with mild learning disabilities should be given 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 special teaching, they can probably get along at least for part of the day in the unbendable classroom. So, inwardly the well-ordered classroom, the regular 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 jug significantly in several areas of learning and to have concomitant social, emotional, or behavioral problems. They need the environment of a special classroom, should contact mainly with one teacher, and should be given special services for most of the day. Because of the intensity of their problems, the special class should be given fewer students than the regular classroom. I suggest the 13 teacher to student ratio is the best 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 imagery room, or even back in the regular 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 best meet the requirements needed to serve properly learning disabled students within the regular cl assroom. 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 quick 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 work load of regular teachers. But that should not be the case and I do not support th at 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 influential movement that supports this claim is the REI or the regular education first led by Madeline Will, the director of special education in the U.S. Office of fussy Education in 1986. She stated that this initiative is designed to labour collaborative efforts among regular and special educators and shared responsibility (Will, 1986). In this initiative, regular and special educators were encouraged to pool their talents and coordinate their efforts in planning and teaching. I greatly support this initiative as the underlying premise of this concept is that students learning disabilities can be more successfull taught in the regular education classroom than in spe cial 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 get across to special educators, emphasized that all teachers (regular and special educators) have the responsibility for teaching learning disabled children. Kirk implored that any 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 education of children in their classroom, but will take on the added responsibility of contributing 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, orthopedic disabilities, speech disorders, emotional disturbance, and learning disabilities) became established independently over the years when there was sufficient interest in that particular area of exceptionality. This concept emphas izes 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 deep in thought(p) 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 impede 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 bef ore 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 proverb no improvement 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 s pecial teachers (Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar, 1991 Coates, 1989). Moreover, the research prove that merely shifting the responsibility from the resource room teacher to the regular or a consultant is not enough 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 rocking horse for academic excellence standards will left behind students with learning disabilities or they will be the losers. beingness 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 reluctant to ac cept the responsibility for hard-to-teach students. Some special educators predict that the push for excellence may serve to widen 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 integration 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 incorporated into a single s ystem (Kauffman & Trent, 1991). Such educators cite 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 physical separation of students with disabilities is demeaning and degrades instruction. These special educators maintain that integrated special education is more effective than separate 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 clubhouse 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 fami ly, parents too 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 bridal of the disability, there must be recognition that improvement is often a slow process.So any approach concerning children with learning disability should establish healthy 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). Minimal Brain Dysfunction in Children. Public health Service Publications. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Washington, D.C.Dunn, L.M. nad Smith J.O. (1987). Peabody Language Development Kits. Levels P, I.II.III. Circ le Pines, Minn. American focussing Service.Fernald, G.M. and Keller, H. (1971), The Effect of Kinesthetic Factors in the Development of Word Recognition in the Case of Non Readers. Journal of educational Research 4355-357.Getman, G.H. (1985). The Visuo-Motor Complex in the Acquisition of Learning Skills. Learning Disorders, Volume 1. Seattle Special Child PublicationsGellingham,A. and Stillman B. (1986). Remedial Training for Children with Specific impediment 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 Method of Teaching Reading. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Illinois.Karnes,M., Zehrbach, R. and Teska, J. (1984). The Karnes Preschool plan Rational Curricular Offerings and Follow up Data. Report 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 Conference on Exploration into the Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child. lettuce 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 Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties.Lombardi, T.P., and Lombardi, E.J. (1987). ITPA Clinical rendition 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.