Toward a scientific pedagogy of learning disabilities: a sameness in the message.

The development of a scientific pedagogy of learning disabilities as called for by Kirk and Bateman (1962) requires the rendering of a science of learning disabilities and a pedagogy derived from that science. But such a pedagogy is necessarily incomplete if it fails to recognize that the structure of the curriculum significantly shapes the act of teaching students identified as learning disabled. The current thinking about curricula is that the universe of information that a curriculum program comprises need only be organized around subject area topics (e.g., mathematics, reading, language arts, science, social studies) and hierarchically arranged in a scope and sequence that has as its main characteristic the general ordering of skills from simple to complex. For all practical purposes, information is viewed as raw material (Kaufman et al., 1990) that can be nominally organized and readily packaged. The information is then consumed as curriculum that requires little or no transformation of its form or structure. The articles in this series of the Journal of Learning Disabilities provide examples of how transforming information by identifying and developing curricula around structural samenesses can lead to a pedagogy that is efficient and effective. The development of a scientific pedagogy of learning disabilities requires that the field acknowledge the importance of curriculum structure and the complexity of information. The field must also examine the intricacies of designing curricula with the same kind of commitment and passion it has demonstrated in the last 30 years in investigating the etiology and organic basis of learning disabilities.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The effect of task alternatives on vocabulary knowledge: a comparison of students with and without learning disabilities.

This study used a two-part task format to (a) describe the vocabulary knowledge of 10- and 12-year-old students with learning disabilities and (b) assess the effect of task alternatives on their vocabulary knowledge. We addressed these research objectives by comparing the performance of 24 students with learning disabilities to an equal number of their normally achieving peers. Vocabulary knowledge was first assessed through a production task. In the even the student's response was inaccurate or incomplete, an identification task assessing the same vocabulary term was presented. Results revealed that, compared to normally achieving students, students with learning disabilities are (a) significantly less able to construct fully specified responses to production tasks, (b) comparable in their ability to use pictorial responses to demonstrate vocabulary knowledge not accessible in production tasks, and, (c) when equated in reading achievement, only 10-year-olds are significantly poorer in composite vocabulary knowledge.