Language, Students with

7
CHAPTER

Learning Disabilities, and

Students with Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Students with learning disabilities comprise a large, if somewhat poorly defined, segment of the population
of children with special needs. This chapter describes both the specific language characteristics of children
with learning disabilities and the effects of these language difficulties on their academic and social perfor-
mance. In addition, the language and communication difficulties of students with attention deficit hyper-
activity disorder are reviewed. Although these are considered separate disorders, both children with learning
disabilities and those with attention deficit disorders often have language difficulties that impact their
school success. Some suggestions are provided for teaching children with language-learning disabilities.
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Explain the difficulties in defining learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder.
2. Identify the major language difficulties experienced by many students with learning
disabilities and those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the impact of
language difficulties on learning.
3. Identify appropriate instructional approaches for students with language-learning
disabilities.

Keisha W.: A Case Study

Keisha W. is an 8-year-old African American student in a Mrs. W. has held a succession of low-paying jobs and
regular second-grade class. Her teacher is concerned about has been unemployed several times. The family lives in
her lack of progress in reading and her poor socializa- public housing in a high-crime neighborhood. Mrs. W.
tion. The teacher also reports that Keisha is pleasant and has reported that Keisha’s early development was normal,
cooperative but is very shy and reluctant to participate in although she remembers that Keisha had frequent colds
groups. Keisha is reading at an early first-grade level, and and earaches and was always a quiet child.
her reading is slow and hesitant. Her first-grade teacher Keisha was observed in the classroom during a group
noticed similar problems with reading and socialization reading lesson and during group work on a writing assign-
but hoped that the child would outgrow these problems. ment that followed the reading lesson. When called on to
Mrs. W. has struggled to provide for Keisha and read, she read very quietly. She hesitated frequently and
her two brothers since her husband left her 3 years ago. misread a number of words. She needed a great deal of
(continued)

72

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 72 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 73

Keisha W.: A Case Study   Continued

assistance to complete a paragraph. However, when asked is wrong? It is because of cases like Keisha’s that the term
a question about the passage, she responded correctly. learning disability was developed. Keisha must have a disabil-
During the group activity, Keisha kept to herself; she joined ity that diminishes her ability to learn, some would argue.
in only when prompted to do so by her teacher. As a result, she is not achieving to her potential. Yet, call-
Keisha was tested for possible classification for spe- ing her “learning disabled” certainly does not solve Keisha’s
cial educational services. Her Wechsler Intelligence Scale problems. We want to know more about her. What exactly
for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) scores in the major is wrong? What can be done?
cognitive areas clustered within the average range. Within In this report, there are several hints that Keisha
the verbal area, her results varied from the 6- to the 9-year has some sort of language-based learning disability. For
levels. The Test of Language Development-3 (Primary) was example, her difficulty reading words, her reluctance to
administered and yielded a spoken language quotient (SLQ) talk, and results from the language testing could indicate
of 84. This score placed Keisha in the below-average range. a language-based disability. Yet, Keisha talks normally
Her test profile indicated that her lowest scores were in and can communicate when she is encouraged to do so.
word articulation and word discrimination—elements of Her language disorder, if indeed there is one, is really quite
phonology. Keisha scored highest in grammatical under- subtle. In order to better understand Keisha and other
standing and picture vocabulary. children like her, we will examine the term learning disabili-
What are we to make of a case like Keisha’s? Here is a ties and the relationship between language disorders and
child who seems to be bright and does not have a behavior learning disabilities.
problem, yet she is struggling to succeed in school. What

Defining Learning Disabilities and Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder
What is a learning disability? How do we know that such a thing even exists? In 1960, there
were no classes for children labeled learning disabled. In the 2011–2012 school year, there were
over 2.3 million children classified as learning disabled in the public schools of the United
States (4.7% of the entire school population). Although this is a very large number of chil-
dren, the percentage of the school population identified as learning disabled has actually
decreased from a high of 6.1 percent in the 2000–2001 school year to 4.7 percent in the
2011–2012 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Cortiella and Horowitz (2014)
identified several factors that may explain the decrease in identification of students with
learning disabilities, including expansion of early childhood education, improvements in
reading intervention, and efforts such as the use of the response to intervention (RTI)
approach (see the RTI Action Network website) to identify children with learning difficulties
at an early age and provide intervention in the general education classroom without formal
identification (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014).
Where did all of these children with learning difficulties come from? The answer to
this question lies partly in the history of the term learning disability and partly in its defini-
tion. Dr. Samuel Kirk proposed the term in 1963 to describe “a group of children who have
disorders in development of language, speech, reading, and associated skills needed for
social interaction” (Kirk, 1963, p. 2). Kirk’s proposal resonated with professionals who
worked with children who had been identified by a variety of labels, including perceptu-
ally impaired, brain damaged, borderline mentally retarded, dyslexic, childhood aphasic,
and so on. Now there was one label that could be used to identify children with significant
learning difficulties.
Although the term learning disabilities helped consolidate the young field of special
education and channel research funding into better understanding of significant learning
difficulties, it also set off a search for the “cause” of learning disabilities—a search that
continues to this day.

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 73 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 74 Chapter 7

Early theories of learning disabilities focused on perceptual deficiencies, especially

auditory and visual perception, as the probable cause. It was hypothesized that students
with learning disabilities had particular difficulty integrating perception with motor func-
tions (perceptual–motor functioning).
Assessment batteries and intervention materials were developed and disseminated.
Although some children may have been helped, the perceptual–motor theory of learning
disabilities ultimately faltered on evidence that, in most cases, perceptual and perceptual–
motor intervention simply did not work (Kavale & Mattson, 1983). Still, vestiges of the
perceptual theory of learning disabilities linger to this day.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the information-processing theory of learning disabilities
was predominant. This theory grew out of what was being learned about processing
information in the rapidly developing computer field. Applied to humans, information-
processing theory provided sophisticated models of learning that showed how informa-
tion might flow and be altered during the learning process. It also helped researchers
describe how learning might break down and cause the sort of learning problems seen in
children identified as learning disabled. Intervention methods such as learning strategies
were developed to help children overcome their information-processing deficiencies.
Information-processing theory presented a more sophisticated explanation of what
might be causing the academic and social difficulties characteristic of individuals with
learning disabilities, but it has proved hard to implement in practice. In addition, many
children with learning disabilities exhibit no clear pattern of information-processing
difficulties.
One of the difficulties in defining learning disabilities is that we appear to be search-
ing for a single underlying cause for a group of disabilities that is unlikely to have a single
cause. Partly as a response to this dilemma, the response to intervention (RTI) model
emerged as an alternative way to identify children with learning disabilities. Rather than
searching for internal learning difficulties, the focus of the RTI model is on examining the
outcomes of instruction. Students who fail to keep pace with their peers receive supple-
mentary instruction designed to help them improve their learning and catch up with their
classmates. In the past decade, the RTI model has become widely used in the United States,
although, as Fuchs and Deshler (2007) note, a number of issues remain to be addressed,
including the application of the model to older students and to content area reading and
writing. The RTI Action Network has developed a checklist for identifying students with
suspected learning disabilities on their website (search for RTI Action Network and click
on “Checklists”).
Another approach to understanding individuals with learning disabilities is to iden-
tify subgroups within the general population. The International Dyslexia Association
(2012) estimates that approximately 85 percent of children with learning disabilities have
difficulties primarily in reading and language. Although debate among researchers con-
tinues, there is a growing consensus that reading disorders are caused by difficulties with
language. If true, this theory can help practitioners identify and intervene with children at
risk for learning difficulties. Although there may be different causes of the learning diffi-
culties experienced by other children labeled as learning disabled, the subgroup approach
helps narrow the search for causative factors. Of course, in a sense, looking for subgroups
marks a return to the days before the use of a single label, but that might be a necessary
step in order to better identify and teach children with learning disabilities.
Another group of children that is sometimes included in discussions of learning dis-
abilities is students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorders. Attention deficit hyperac-
tivity disorder (ADHD) has been defined as “a persistent pattern of inattention and/or
hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development” (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013). The symptoms of ADHD include inattention, hyperactivity,
and impulsivity.
By definition, ADHD is not a type of learning disability. However, up to 45 percent of
children with ADHD exhibit academic learning difficulties similar to those experienced
by students with learning disabilities (Du Paul, Gormley, & Laracy, 2014).

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 74 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 75

Watch this video to learn more about ADHD. What are the types of ADHD discussed
in this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wz7LdLFJVM

Existing definitions have done little to resolve the dilemma of learning disabilities. The
definitions tend to be broad and offer little help to practitioners seeking to identify children
in need of intensive remediation. For example, the federal definition of learning disabilities,
incorporated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), states:
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 imperfect ability to listen, think,
speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. Such disorders include
such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction,
dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Such term does not include children who
have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor
handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental,
cultural, or economic disadvantage.
The definition was designed to be broad and inclusive, although its last section was
meant to exclude other causes of learning problems from the category of learning disabili-
ties. However, the definition has been difficult to apply in practice. Until recently, IDEA
required local education agencies (school districts) to use discrepancy between achieve-
ment (usually defined as standardized test scores) and potential (IQ) to identify students
with learning disabilities. The 2004 amendments to IDEA make the use of discrepancy
optional and call for a process that determines if a child responds to “scientific, research-
based intervention” (the RTI approach mentioned earlier in this chapter).

In this video by the National Center on Learning Disabilities, they call learning
disabilities an “umbrella term.” What does this mean for understanding the
concept of learning disabilities?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG_xSBsFMPQ

The federal definition of learning disabilities identifies disorders of language (spoken or

written) as the defining feature of the disorder. The definition recognizes that most children
labeled as learning disabled have difficulty understanding and using language. However,
IDEA also includes the disability category of “speech or language impairment,” which is
defined as “a communication disorder, such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language
impairment, or a voice impairment, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.”
As you might imagine, there can be a lot of confusion about the terms learning disability and
speech or language impairment. After all, according to the definitions, many children with “learn-
ing disabilities” have a disorder of language. But many children with “speech or language
impairment” have difficulties with educational performance. To make matters worse, many
speech-language specialists use an entirely different term (specific language impairment [SLI]) to
describe children who have “a language deficit, but without accompanying factors such as
hearing loss, low intelligence scores, or neurological damage” (Kaderavek, 2014). Researchers
have found that up to 50 percent of children with reading disorders (the most common type
of learning disability) may also meet the criteria for SLI and that a similar percentage of chil-
dren with SLI could be considered reading disabled (McArthur, Hogben, Edwards, Heath, &
Mengler, 2000). See Table 7.1 for a summary of definitions of learning disabilities.
Although there is a lot of overlap between learning disabilities and specific language
impairments, there may be differences as well. Children with specific speech and lan-
guage impairments are typically identified prior to entering formal schooling. Their

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 75 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 76 Chapter 7

Table 7.1 Category Label Definition Characteristics

Definitions of Learning Learning Disabled Disorder in one or more of the Difficulties in thinking,
Disabilities and Related basic psychological processes listening, speaking,
Disorders involved in understanding or reading, spelling, or math.
in using language, spoken or
written.
Speech or Language A communication disorder— Speech and/or language
Impairment such as stuttering, impaired difficulties, usually
articulation, a language apparent early in
impairment, or a voice development, that impact
impairment—that adversely learning.
affects a child’s educational
performance.
Specific Language A language deficit, but without Significant language
Impairment accompanying factors such as difficulties, usually first
hearing loss, low intelligence identified at an early age.
scores, or neurological damage.

Sources: Based on IDEA (2004); Kaderavek (2014).

language delays and differences are so significant that they have caught the attention of
their parents, preschool teachers, or family physicians. Their language disabilities are
usually more significant and affect several areas of language (Bishop & Snowling, 2004).
On the other hand, children with learning disabilities are not usually identified until they
enter school. Their difficulties first show up in school-related tasks. Their language diffi-
culties may be more subtle and less pervasive than those encountered by children with
specific language impairments.
Most of the research on the relationship between language and learning disabilities
has been conducted with students whose primary learning difficulty is in reading and
writing. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V)
definition of learning disabilities (specific learning disorder) includes subcategories for
impairments in reading, writing, and mathematics. Within the reading subcategory,
children can be diagnosed with difficulties in word reading accuracy, reading rate or flu-
ency, or reading comprehension. Reading disabilities have been estimated to occur in
approximately 10 to 15 percent of the school-age population (Shaywitz et al., 1992).
Over the years, a number of different theories about the causes of specific reading dis-
abilities have been proposed (see Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004, for a
review). Today, however, there is a broad consensus among researchers that specific
reading disabilities are caused by language difficulties (Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin,
1999; Scarborough, 2005).
Whatever we call them—learning disabled, reading disordered, dyslexic, specific
language impaired—it is clear that there are a number of children who, despite normal
intelligence, fail to learn adequately in typical classrooms. Although this is clearly a het-
erogeneous population, many, if not most, children with learning disabilities have lan-
guage difficulties. That does not mean that children with learning disabilities do not have
other contributing learning difficulties such as attention deficits, memory difficulties, or
organizational problems. But many of these learning problems may, in fact, be mediated
by underlying language difficulties.

Check Your Understanding 7.1

Click here to gauge your understanding of the concepts in this section.

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 76 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 77

Language, Learning Disabilities, and Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder
Historically, many different causes for learning disabilities have been proposed. Possible
causal factors have included brain injury, perceptual disorders, and differences in neu-
rological processing (Lerner & Johns, 2015). For most children with learning disabili-
ties, however, there is no readily identifiable cause for their learning difficulties. But
contemporary views of the causes of learning disabilities focus primarily on language
difficulties.
The evidence for the relationship between learning disabilities and language comes
from a variety of sources. First, children with language difficulties have been found to be at
high risk for reading difficulties (Bishop & Adams, 1990; Catts, 1993; Snowling, Bishop, &
Stothard, 2000). For example, in a study of approximately 200 kindergarten children with
language impairments, researchers found that by fourth grade more than 50 percent of the
children performed significantly below average on a test of reading comprehension—a
rate more than five times greater than children with typical language development (Catts,
Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002). In addition, the severity of the language impairment was
found to be related to the reading deficit.
The second type of evidence for a relationship between language and learning dis-
abilities comes from studies that have reported the existence of specific language defi-
ciencies in children with learning disabilities. Most of these studies have been conducted
with children whose primary learning difficulty was in reading. These studies have iden-
tif ied a variety of language-learning def icits related to poor reading performance
(Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). Although phonological processing dif-
ficulties have most often been found to be related to reading difficulties, researchers have
more recently focused on children whose primary reading difficulties are in reading com-
prehension rather than in word attack. Children with reading comprehension difficulties
have been found to have difficulty in many areas of language, including vocabulary
knowledge and syntactic skills, but not phonological awareness (Nation, Cocksey, Taylor,
& Bishop, 2010).
Although there is overwhelming evidence that reading disabilities are related to lan-
guage disabilities, there continues to be debate about which aspects of language are most
important. There is a growing consensus among researchers that there appear to be two
types of reading disabilities. One type (often called “dyslexia”) is caused primarily by defi-
cits in phonological processing. The second type is caused by difficulties in various aspects
of language (Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Weismer, 2005). Moreover, Catts and others (e.g.,
Snowling & Hayiou-Thomas, 2006) have claimed that children with phonological disor-
ders are more likely to have problems with word attack, whereas children with more gen-
eral language difficulties have problems primarily in comprehension (Catts, Adlof, &
Weismer, 2006). Let’s examine in more detail the evidence for language-learning disabili-
ties in students with reading and learning disabilities.

Phonology
Deficits in phonological awareness—especially phonemic awareness—have been found
to be highly related to reading failure. Phonological awareness is an ability that develops
over time in typically developing children. By 5 years of age, most children can divide
words into syllables, but they are just beginning to be able to divide words into sound units
(phonemes). There is a great deal of evidence that children’s sensitivity to the sounds of
their language and their ability to manipulate those sounds is related to the acquisition of
reading skills (Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). In fact, phonological
awareness and memory have been found to be highly predictive of reading success by both
the National Early Literacy Panel (2008) and by the National Reading Panel (2000). As
noted in Chapter 6, good readers tend to have good phonological skills, whereas poor
readers lag behind in the development of phonological awareness.

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 77 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 78 Chapter 7

Watch this video of a therapist working with a young child on learning to associate
sounds with letters. How does the therapist help the child make the association
between letters and sounds?

Deficiencies in a number of phonological skills have been identified in children with

reading disabilities, including difficulty dividing syllables into phonemes (Fox & Routh,
1980), identification of sounds, phoneme segmentation and detecting rhyme (Blachman,
2000; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Brady, Shankweiler, & Mann, 1983; Snowling, 2000;
Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994; Tunmer, 1989; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Spearing, 1995).
Early difficulties with phonological processing have been found to be related to later read-
ing and writing problems, especially when they co-occur with other language difficulties
(Lewis, Freebairn, & Taylor, 2000).
In their review of the research, Vellutino and colleagues (2004) concluded that “there
is now strong and highly convergent evidence in support of weak phonological coding as
an underlying cause of the [specific reading disability] disorder” (p. 12). With so many
studies reaching a similar conclusion, there can be little doubt that phonological aware-
ness plays a very important role in reading disorders.

Morphology
There is increasing evidence that morphological skills also play an important role in the
development of literacy skills and in explaining literacy disorders. Research has found that
morphological knowledge is related to vocabulary development, word reading, spelling,
and reading comprehension (Apel, Wilson-Fowler, Brimo, & Perrin, 2012; Nagy, Carlisle,
& Goodwin, 2013; Tong, Deacon, Kirby, Cain, & Parrila, 2011). Morphological awareness
is important because it helps children analyze and understand complex words. Poor mor-
phological skills can contribute to learning disorders in reading. For example, Casalis,
Cole, and Sopo (2004) studied morphological awareness in French children with reading
disorders (dyslexia). They found that morphological awareness (as well as phonological
awareness) was poorer for the children with reading disorders than for their peers without
reading disorders. Siegel (2008) compared the morphological awareness skills of sixth
graders with reading disorders (dyslexia) to a group of English language learners and chil-
dren with English as their first language. She assessed each group on a variety of reading
tasks that included both morphological and phonological skills. Although there was little
difference between the English language learners and native English speakers, the children
with reading disorders did much more poorly on the tasks that measured morphological
awareness.

Syntax
Research on the syntactic skills of children with learning disabilities has been clouded by
some of the issues in definition we discussed earlier in this chapter. In other words, the
answer to whether children with reading and learning disabilities have deficits in syntax
depends on how one identifies learning disabilities. That may explain why some research-
ers have reported that children with learning disabilities have deficiencies in syntactic
skills, whereas others have not found such problems. For example, a number of studies
that used standardized tests of language skills have found that children with learning dis-
abilities, especially those with reading disorders, have poor syntactic skills when com-
pared to their peers of the same age without reading disorders (e.g., Bishop & Snowling,
2004; Catts et al., 1999; Mokhtari & Thompson, 2006; Nation, Clarke, Marshall, & Durand,
2004). Students with learning disabilities have been reported to have difficulty under-
standing syntactic structures such as complex sentences (e.g., those that contain relative
clauses and use the passive voice) (Vogel, 1974) and to use shorter and less complex

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 78 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 79

sentences (Simms & Crump, 1983). Other studies have not found significant problems
with syntax in children with reading and learning disabilities (Roth & Spekman, 1989;
Shankweiler et al., 1995).
Why the differences in findings? Again, part of the answer lies in how one defines
learning disabilities. Are we talking about students with reading disorders, language diffi-
culties, math deficiencies, or all of the above? It would not be surprising to find different
results depending on the nature of the learning problems of the children studied. In an
attempt to get a more definitive picture of the syntactic skills of students with learning dis-
abilities, Scott and Windsor (2000) carefully chose 20 children with language-learning dis-
abilities. Each student had expressive language difficulties (measured by the Test of
Language Development) and a specific reading impairment. These children were matched
by the researchers with children of the same chronological age and to younger, typically
developing children with a similar language age as the children with language-learning
disabilities. All of the children watched videotapes and then were asked either to tell or to
write a story about what they had seen. The researchers evaluated the children’s responses
on four major criteria: productivity, lexical diversity (vocabulary), grammatical complex-
ity, and grammatical error. The results showed that children with learning disabilities pro-
duced shorter and less complex utterances than the group of the same chronological age
but were similar to the younger children matched for language age. Similar results were
found for grammatical complexity and for errors, although the group with language dis-
abilities made more errors than either of the other groups. There were no differences
found on lexical diversity (vocabulary), except in writing. The students with learning dis-
abilities used less diverse vocabulary. The researchers concluded that children with the
type of syntactic difficulties found in this study would have a very difficult time function-
ing in a regular education classroom. Their speaking and writing would be shorter, less
grammatically complex, and filled with errors.
Although there has been conflicting evidence about the syntactic functioning of stu-
dents with learning disabilities, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that syntax is an area
of concern. The sort of problems experienced by children with learning disabilities may
not always be obvious in spoken language, but these problems become more identifiable
in reading and in written output.

Semantics
The acquisition and application of semantic knowledge are significant problems for many stu-
dents with learning disabilities. In particular, research has discovered two main problem areas:
word finding and the use of figurative language. Many studies have found that the expressive
vocabulary skills of children with learning disabilities lag behind those of other children (e.g.,
Rudel, Denckla, & Broman, 1981). Children with a variety of learning disabilities, including
reading disorders, take longer to retrieve words from memory than typically developing chil-
dren (Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts et al., 1999). Some researchers believe that this word-
finding problem is characteristic of children with reading disorders (Wolf, Bowers, & Biddle,
2000). In addition to their word-finding problems, students with learning disabilities have been
reported to have difficulty with word meanings. Children with reading comprehension deficits
have been found to have overall deficiencies in vocabulary (Catts et al., 2006).
Studies of children with learning disabilities have also reported specific problems
with figurative (or nonliteral) language, such as understanding and using metaphors
(Nippold & Fey, 1983), similes (Seidenberg & Bernstein, 1986), and idioms (Qualls, Lantza,
Pietrzykb, Blood, & Hammera, 2004). Problems understanding and using nonliteral lan-
guage may reflect the rigidity with which many students with learning disabilities seem to
approach language. That is, it seems as though they become attached to the most concrete
meaning of words, even when this clearly makes no sense in the context. Nonliteral lan-
guage is often an important part of the curriculum; metaphors and similes are important
language devices that are used in many stories. Students are asked to use such devices in
their own writing (and are graded accordingly).

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 79 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 80 Chapter 7

Pragmatics
Although most of the research on language and learning disabilities has focused on read-
ing disorders, there are other ways that language may affect learning. For example, many
children with learning disabilities experience significant difficulty with aspects of social
skill development (Bryan, Burstein, & Ergul, 2004). Children with language-learning dis-
abilities have been found to participate in fewer peer interactions and are less preferred
communication partners (Weiner & Schneider, 2002). As a result, they often are less
accepted by their peers and have difficulty establishing friendships. Since much of social
interaction is language based, there is likely a relationship between social skills and the use
of language for communication (pragmatics). Research has consistently found the area of
pragmatics to be a major problem for children with learning disabilities (Boucher, 1986;
Lapadat, 1991; Troia, 2011). Not only do these students have difficulties with language, but
they often lack the ability (or the knowledge) to analyze social situations, to plan their
responses, and to evaluate the consequences of their actions (Bryan, 1991; Vaughn, 1991).

In this video, two boys are having a conversation. What does the video suggest as
ways to improve social communication?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RjRZ9jMfs0

In addition to the research with children classified as learning disabled, a number of

studies have found that children with specific language impairments are at risk for social
difficulties (Brinton & Fujiki, 1993). Children with specific language impairments have
been found to have difficulty with social tasks, such as cooperative learning (Brinton,
Fujiki, & Higbee, 1998), and to experience social rejection (Paul, Looney, & Dahm, 1991).
More recently, Hart, Fujiki, Brinton, and Hart (2004) found that social behavior problems
were linked to the severity of language problems. Specifically, children with more severe
language disorders were less prosocial (sympathetic, comforting, sharing) than their peers
without language disorders. Although children with specific language impairments often
have more significant language difficulties than children identified as language-learning
disabled, there is considerable overlap between the two groups, adding further evidence
that language difficulties may be a factor in the often reported social problems of children
with learning disabilities.
Children with learning disabilities frequently have significant difficulties with prag-
matics, especially with conversational skills. They have difficulty clearly expressing them-
selves to others, they frequently fail to adjust their language to the needs and/or level of
their listener, and they are not sure what to do when they do not understand something
being said to them. These difficulties have consequences for classroom interaction, social
relationships, and the ability to understand and use written language.

Metalinguistic Skills
Metalinguistic skill refers to “the ability to reflect consciously on the nature and proper-
ties of language” (van Kleeck, 1994, p. 53). When children play word games, use rhyme, or
recognize nongrammatical sentences, they are using metalinguistic skills. As van Kleeck
points out, metalinguistic skills are not essential for the development of spoken language.
We don’t ask young children to tell us what parts of speech they just used (at least not
before they enter school). However, many researchers believe that metalinguistic skills are
essential for learning how to read and write.
We have already discussed one type of metalinguistic skill—phonological awareness.
As children progress from the initial stages of reading to become more proficient readers,
other types of metalinguistic skills become important. For example, children develop an

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 80 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 81

awareness of the grammatical rules that underlie language and the pragmatic rules that
govern conversation.
Children with learning disabilities have frequently been found to have difficulty
developing metalinguistic skills, especially phonological awareness. But researchers have
also found that children with learning disabilities have difficulty recognizing grammati-
cal and morphological errors and making the appropriate corrections (Kamhi & Koenig,
1985). In a study of predictors of reading difficulty, Menyuk and colleagues (1991) found
that measures of metalinguistic abilities (including word retrieval, phonological, and
semantic) were the best predictors of later reading problems, but that different metalin-
guistic skills predicted the performance of different children. Tong and colleagues (2011)
examined both the morphological and syntactic awareness skills of fourth-grade children
with good reading comprehension skills compared to those with poor comprehension.
They found that the students with poor comprehension had weaknesses in both
morphological and syntactic awareness.
The research evidence suggests that children with learning disabilities, especially those
with reading disorders, have a variety of language-learning deficits. Difficulty with phono-
logical processing is the most often reported language difficulty, but a variety of other lan-
guage problems are associated with reading and learning disabilities. The strongest source
of evidence for a relationship between language and learning disabilities comes from inter-
vention studies. Although children with language disorders may be more likely to have
reading difficulties, and students with reading disorders may have language difficulties, nei-
ther of these findings is conclusive evidence that language and reading are causally related.
In order to show cause, we need to see evidence that enhancing language skills improves
reading outcomes. Fortunately, a number of studies have found just such a result. For exam-
ple, Bradley and Bryant (1983) looked at the effects of sound-categorization training on the
reading development of beginning readers. Children who were poor at sound categoriza-
tion were taught to recognize and group words by their sounds. Children who were taught
this skill did better on reading and spelling tests than other children who were taught to
group by word meaning or who received no training. In a review of the research on the
effects of phonemic awareness intervention, Ehri and colleagues (2001) found that phone-
mic awareness intervention was generally very effective. One of their analyses was on effect
sizes on phonemic awareness training. Effect sizes measure the strength of an intervention.
An effect size of 0.20 is considered weak, 0.5 is considered moderate, and anything above
0.8 is considered strong. Ehri and colleagues (2001) found the overall effect size for phone-
mic awareness interventions to be 0.86 for improving phonemic awareness itself. They also
found that phonemic awareness training had a moderately positive effect on both reading
(0.53) and spelling (0.59). The researchers found these effects to be true for typically devel-
oping children and for those who were identified as at risk for reading difficulties. The
effects were less robust for children identified as having reading disorders.
Results such as these support the conclusion that phonological awareness difficulties
are a cause of reading disabilities. The National Reading Panel (2000) concluded that “pho-
nological awareness training improves reading performance in preschoolers and elemen-
tary students, and in normally progressing students, as well as in older disabled readers
and younger children at risk for reading difficulties” (pp. 2–19).
Similarly, there is increasing evidence that instruction in morphological skills, includ-
ing activities that focus on morphological word parts and patterns, can improve literacy
outcomes for students with literacy difficulties (Goodwin & Ahn, 2010).
Although there is a lot of evidence that language skills are related to reading and that
training in language can enhance reading, children with language-based reading disorders
are often not identified as candidates for language intervention. Typically, their language-
learning difficulties are more subtle than those of most children who are identified at an
early age for speech and language intervention. It is interesting to note, however, that sev-
eral researchers have found that the most effective interventions for reading difficulties
combine instruction in phonological awareness with intensive language instruction
(Hook, Macaruso, & Jones, 2001).

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 81 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 82 Chapter 7

Language and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

ADHD is one of the most common neurobehavioral disorders of childhood. The U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) estimates that approximately 11 percent
of children age 4 to 17 years (6.4 million) have been diagnosed with ADHD as of 2011.
Although ADHD is not recognized as a category of disability under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, many children with ADHD receive special education and
related services under the “Otherwise Health Impaired” category or other categories.
Although speech and language disorders are not a core characteristic of children with
ADHD, research has found that a significant percentage of children with ADHD have speech
and/or language difficulties. A review of studies that have examined the co-occurrence of
ADHD and language impairments by Mueller and Tomblin (2012) found percentages of lan-
guage impairments ranging from a low of 45 percent to a high of 90 percent. Despite the evi-
dence that language disorders are frequently associated with ADHD, language is not usually
part of the treatment plan for students with ADHD. Why is this so? Mueller and Tomblin (2012)
have suggested a number of factors to explain the lack of focus on language issues, including an
exclusive focus on social and behavioral issues, failure to assess language skills, and belief that
literacy difficulties are the result of lack of motivation rather than language difficulties.

In this video, a girl with ADHD and a language disorder describes the impact of
the language disorder on her life. What were some of the ways that her language
difficulties affected her?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIRpgWl2bWs

A number of specific language disorders have been identified in the ADHD popula-
tion. For example, Gremillion and Martel (2012) compared the semantic language skills of
a large sample of children with ADHD (n = 266) between 6 and 12 years of age to those of
a similar sample of children without ADHD. The children were tested on their word
knowledge, working memory, and reading and mathematics achievement. The research-
ers found that the children with ADHD performed significantly lower than their peers on
all of the measures. They concluded that semantic language difficulties combined with
memory deficiencies could account for much of the reading and mathematics under-
achievement of the children with ADHD. Martinussen and Mackenzie (2015) reached a
similar conclusion in their examination of the differences between children with ADHD
with good reading comprehension as compared to those with poor comprehension. They
found that the poor comprehenders in their sample of 45 adolescents with ADHD had
significantly lower scores on a measure of expressive vocabulary than did their peers with
good reading comprehension. Both of these studies suggest that semantic language diffi-
culties, particularly vocabulary deficiencies, may be related to the academic underachieve-
ment that is characteristic of some children with ADHD.
Students with ADHD often have significant problems with social interaction and in
developing peer relationships. A variety of factors may contribute to these difficulties, but
problems with social communication (i.e., pragmatic language) have been found to be an
important factor in social development deficiencies (Redmond, 2004). Children with ADHD
have been reported to have significant difficulties in the domain of pragmatic language, espe-
cially in social communication (Bishop & Baird, 2001). Specifically, they have been found to
have poor conversational initiation skills (Bishop & Baird, 2001), have difficulty in the role as
speaker (Mikami, Huang-Pollock, Pfiffner, McBurnett, & Hangai, 2007) as well as listener
(Nilsen, Mangal, & Macdonald, 2013), and have difficulty with discourse management and
narrative discourse (Staikova, Gomes, Tartter, McCabe, & Halperin, 2013). For example, when
Purvis and Tannock (1997) asked boys with ADHD age 7 to 11 years to retell a story, they found
that, compared to non-ADHD peers, they made more errors in sequencing the story elements
and made ambiguous references (using pronouns where the individual being referred to was

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 82 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 83

Teacher Perspective: Students with Reading Disabilities

In the resource room class that I taught in this year, many everyone else. He was also absent quite often. When I
of the students were way below grade level in reading. asked him to answer a question, he shut right down. Then
They did not like to read during regular class time because he would make noises so he would get into trouble and be
they struggled. They would not raise their hand to answer asked to leave the room. It took me a while to figure out
any questions for fear they would answer wrong and get what was happening. Once I figured out what was going
laughed at. I encouraged them to participate and helped on, I pulled him back to the table and worked with him
them when I could. One young man never liked to do his one on one. He just struggled at reading. With a little more
bookmark after he read his book. He was always behind help, the behavior issues began to stop.

not clear), making it difficult for the listener to follow their retelling of the story. In the study by
Staikova and colleagues (2013), the researchers concluded that the pragmatic deficits of chil-
dren with ADHD appear to be highly related to their social skills difficulties.
The research on the language abilities of children with ADHD indicates that these
children tend to have more language difficulties than might be expected. Their difficulties
are primarily in the use of language for engaging in successful social communication. In
addition, recent research suggests that language and cognitive difficulties may contribute
to significant problems with written expression (Re, Pedron, & Cornoldi, 2007).

Impact of Language Impairments

Research has found that children with language disabilities are clearly at risk for academic
failure, especially in reading. In fact, the incidence of reading disabilities in children with
early language difficulties has been estimated to be between 4 and 75 percent (Bashir &
Scavuzzo, 1992). There is some evidence that children with language-learning disabilities
are also at risk for emotional problems (Baker & Cantwell, 1982). Therefore, it is essential
that teachers and other professionals intervene as soon as possible to help these students.
For those who think that if we just wait long enough, children with language disabili-
ties will get better, the news is not good. Although some studies have found that children
with early language problems improve over time, most researchers have concluded that
these children continue to be significantly impaired in their learning when compared to
that of their peers (Rissman, Curtiss, & Tallal, 1990). In one study (Aram, Ekelman, &
Nation, 1984), a group of children with early identified language disorders was examined
10 years later. Most adolescents (70%) continued to have difficulties with academic tasks
and social acceptance. Although some children with early language problems do, indeed,
grow out of them (30% of the children in the study just cited), it appears that most con-
tinue to experience significant problems. Therefore, it is important for teachers to recog-
nize language disorders and use effective intervention approaches.

Check Your Understanding 7.2

Click here to gauge your understanding of the concepts in this section.

Instruction for Language-Learning Disabilities

What are some effective instructional approaches for enhancing the language skills of stu-
dents with learning disabilities? This section will focus on instruction in two specific areas
known to be problematic for students with learning disabilities: phonological processing

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 83 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 84 Chapter 7

and cognitive strategies. The methods discussed in this chapter were designed primarily to
address the needs of students with learning disabilities, but they can be applied to other
children experiencing similar problems. An overview of instructional approaches and meth-
ods for children with language and communication disorders is presented in Chapter 14
of this text, but specific methods developed primarily for specific populations of stu-
dents with disabilities are presented within the chapter that addresses that disability.

Enhancing Phonological Awareness

Earlier in this chapter, we discussed the large research base that has implicated phono-
logical awareness as a cause of the reading diff iculties faced by most students with
learning disabilities. As we noted, research studies have found that it is possible to
teach phonological skills and have a positive effect on reading. Due to the strong and
consistent findings linking phonological awareness to reading, a large number of pho-
nological training programs have been developed during the past two decades (see
Table 7.2 for examples). As a result, teachers and other educators are finding it increas-
ingly difficult to decide which program to use. In their review of phonological training
programs, Torgesen and Mathes (2000) suggested that any program should follow these
principles:
1. Instruction in phonological awareness should begin with easier tasks and move toward more
difficult tasks.
Example: Instruction should begin with segmenting words, then sounds within
words, then beginning and ending sounds.
2. Instruction in phonological awareness should be a regular part of the curriculum.
Example: The authors suggest that phonological awareness activities should take
place for 15 to 20 minutes a day in regular kindergarten classrooms.

Table 7.2
Phonemic Awareness Instructional Programs
Program Developer/Date Brief Description

Programs for Regular Classroom Instruction

Ladders to Literacy: Activity books for phonological
Preschool Notari-Syverson, O’Connor, & Vadsey (2005) awareness and oral language skills for
Kindergarten O’Connor, Notari-Syverson, & Vadsey (2005) preschool and kindergarten ages.
Phonemic Awareness in Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler (1998) Developmental sequence of activities
Young Children in phonological awareness. Activities
range from simple listening games to
more advanced exercises in rhyming,
alliteration, and segmentation.

Programs for Small Group or Individualized Training

Launch into Reading Bennett & Ottley (2011) In-depth, systematic phonological
Success: Book 2 awareness training for young children.
Phonological Awareness Torgesen & Bryant (2013) Small group activities for children
Training for Reading (second with weaknesses in phonological
edition) awareness. Highly scripted lessons and
activities.
Road to the Code Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel (2000) Small group instruction for children
in kindergarten and first grade having
difficulty learning to read.

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 84 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 85

3. Teachers should expect that children will respond at widely varying rates to instruction in phonological
awareness.
Example: Some may progress quickly while others will require more intensive and
extensive instruction to acquire phonological awareness skills.
4. Instruction in phonological awareness should involve both analytic and synthetic activities.
Example: Analytic activities require children to identify individual sounds within
whole words (e.g., “What is the first sound in the word dog?). Synthetic activities
involve blending together individual phonemes (e.g., “What word do these sounds
make: /b/-/a/-/t/?”).
5. Because the first goal of instruction in phonological awareness is to help children notice the
individual sounds in words, teachers should speak slowly and carefully, and should pronounce
individual sounds correctly.
Example: Many teachers confuse the letter name with the sound made by the letter
(e.g., the letter p makes the sound puh, not pee). Also, words with blends can be
confusing (e.g., church has six letters but just three sounds (/ch/-/ur/-/ch/).
6. It is not easy to pronounce individual phonemes correctly without some careful practice.
Example: Teachers need to be aware of issues such as regional and local accents and
the distortion that takes place when sounds are used in context (e.g., /b/ sounds
different in beet and bought).
7. Methods to stimulate phonological awareness in students are limited only by the creativity of teachers.
Example: Good teachers embed phonological activities within many types of
activities such as spelling and writing.
8. Instruction in phonological awareness should be fun for teachers and students.
Example: Imagine the delight that a child in a kindergarten class for children with
special needs experiences when he recognizes the letter b and identifies the sound it
makes while participating in a story-reading activity.

Box 7.1 provides an example of a phonological training program first developed and
tested by Blachman (1991) and now available for use in the classroom as “Road to the Code”
(Blachman et al., 2000). This program uses a variety of classroom-based instructional
activities that are both fun and effective. When Blachman taught teachers to use these tech-
niques, their kindergarten students outperformed others on several measures of
phonological awareness and letter names.
Now that it is well established that phonological training can improve the phonologi-
cal processing and reading of some children with disabilities, the question becomes which
instructional methods are most effective. Although research has not yet found a definitive
answer to this question (and may never do so, given the heterogeneous nature of learning
disabilities), the results do provide research evidence that will enable teachers and other
professionals to select instructional methods for students with phonological-processing
problems. These methods have been shown to be effective and to meet the mandate of
legislation, such as the No Child Left Behind Act, that requires the use of evidence-based
practices.
For example, Torgesen and colleagues (2001) assigned 60 students with reading disor-
ders, ages 8 to 10 years old, to two groups. Each group received one-on-one instruction for
two 50-minute sessions each day for 8 to 9 weeks for a total of 67.5 hours of instruction.
This was followed by generalization training, during which the teacher supported the chil-
dren in their regular classrooms. One group was taught with the Auditory Discrimination
in Depth (ADD) program (now known as the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing program
[LiPS]) (Lindamood & Lindamood, 2011). This program provides intensive instruction in
phonological and reading skills using a multisensory approach in which students learn to
use sensory information from the ear, eye, and mouth to identify, label, and classify
sounds. Children are taught to identify and label the place and manner of articulation of

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 85 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 86 Chapter 7

Box 7.1 Example of a Phonological Training Program

1. Say-It-and-Move-It Activity. This is a phonological seg- words using picture cards developed by the Russian
mentation task in which children are taught to rep- psychologist Daniel Elkonin. The cards have a picture
resent sounds by using manipulatives (such as disks, of a common word at the top (e.g., sun) and a series of
tiles, or buttons). The children are taught to represent, boxes below the picture that represent the number of
with a disk, each sound they hear. Each child is given phonemes (not letters) in the word. Children are taught
a card that is divided in half. The top half is a disk to move a disk along the boxes that correspond to
storage area. On the bottom half of the card, there each sound as they say the word.
is an arrow pointing from left to right. If the teacher 3. Letter Names/Letter Sounds. Children are taught to use
says, “Show me the a,” the children are to move a disk keywords and phrases to help them remember the
from the top half of the card to the left-hand end of sounds made by each letter. For example, they might
the arrow and say the sound. After demonstrating see a card for the letter t that showed two teenagers
mastery of this skill, the teacher progresses to two- talking on a telephone. Another activity described
phoneme words (up, it, am) and three-phoneme words by Blachman is a post office game in which children
(sun, fat, zip). select a picture that illustrates a word with a target
2. Segmentation-Related Activity. One of several segmen- letter (e.g., pot for p) and place it in the correct letter
tation activities is used in the second step of this pouch. Later, as children learn the letter–sound rela-
lesson. For example, children might learn to group tionships, letters are placed on the manipulatives used
words based on rhyme, or they are taught to segment in the Say-It-and Move-It activity.
words using Elkonin cards. In this activity, the chil-
dren are taught to identify the number of sounds in Source: Adapted from Blachman (1991).

phonemes using a special “language” (e.g., “lip popper” for the unvoiced, plosive sound
/p/). The other group was taught using a program called Embedded Phonics, which was
designed by Torgesen and colleagues (2001). Children in this program received intensive
practice in word reading that was immediately applied to connected text. Instructional ses-
sions included introduction of new words, spelling practice, word games, oral reading, and
writing. The primary difference between the two approaches was in the amount of time
spent on phonemic activities and on using phonemic skills in reading and writing. The
ADD (LiPS) program emphasized learning phonemes out of context, whereas children in
the Embedded Phonics program learned about sounds in the context of reading and writ-
ing activities.
The researchers found that children in both programs made substantial progress in
both phonological processing and in reading. In fact, approximately half of the children in
each group were reading at an average reading level 1 year after the intervention. Considering
the severity of the reading deficiencies of the children in this study, this is an excellent result.
Of course, that means that the other children were still behind their peers, even though
their rate of reading progress did improve significantly. Surprisingly, there was no signifi-
cant difference between the two approaches. The authors concluded that intensive remedi-
ation programs in phonological skills that are based on sound instructional practices, as
were both of the programs in this study, can be effective for many children with significant
reading difficulties.
The Institute for Education Sciences, a U.S. Department of Education program that
reviews educational programs, reported that Ladders to Literacy was found to have poten-
tially positive effects on alphabetics and fluency and mixed effects on comprehension
(Institute for Education Sciences, 2010).
The Orton-Gillingham method is another intensive, individualized program for
enhancing phonological processing. Based on the work of Samuel Orton in the early
20th century, the program uses a systematic, multisensory approach to teaching read-
ing that emphasizes the development of phonological awareness, sound–symbol

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 86 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 87

relationships, and the basic elements of language (syntax, semantics, etc.). Multisensory
instruction, incorporating visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile learning pathways, is
an essential component of the program. Although the Orton-Gillingham method has
been in existence for more than 50 years, there is surprisingly little research on its effec-
tiveness. A review of research by Ritchey and Goeke (2006) found that reading programs
based on Orton-Gillingham principles were moderately effective, particularly for word
attack and nonword reading measures.

Watch this video of an Orton-Gillingham reading lesson. What kinds of sensory

inputs were used?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZgS8Ij1Ltg

A number of reading programs have been derived from the Orton-Gillingham model,
including the Slingerland Approach (Slingerland & Aho, 1994–1996), Project Read (Enfield
& Greene, 1997), and the Wilson Reading System (Wilson, 1996). The latter program has
become widely used in the last decade, especially since the development of Fundations®, a
program designed to be implemented in general education classes to prevent reading fail-
ure. There is limited research evidence to support the Wilson programs. An Institute for
Education Sciences report (2007) found that the Wilson program had a “potentially posi-
tive” effect on learning alphabetics but no evidence for effectiveness in improving reading
fluency or comprehension.
Many phonological training programs were initially designed for use with individuals
or small groups. But a number of programs have now been developed to use in regular
education classes with the entire class (see Table 7.2 for some examples). There is now
some research that shows that the use of such programs with kindergarten and first-grade
classes can help children develop phonological skills (Hatcher, Hulme, & Snowling, 2004)
and may be particularly beneficial for children at risk for reading disorders.
Several phonological training programs use some form of technology in the delivery
of instruction. Two that have received some attention by researchers are the Fast ForWord
program (Scientific Learning Corporation) and Earobics (Cognitive Concepts). Fast
ForWord is the general name for a series of programs that feature computer-based activi-
ties designed to build language and reading skills in individuals with language-learning
difficulties, including, but not limited to, individuals with learning disabilities. The origi-
nal program was designed for children between kindergarten age and 12 years old who
have a wide range of language-learning difficulties. The program now has five levels that
cover the age range from preschool through high school. Scientific Learning Corporation
(the program’s distributors) claims that students using the program “can achieve a one to
two grade level reading gain in 8 to 12 weeks” (Scientific Learning Corporation, 2011).

Watch this demonstration of some of the elements of the Fast ForWord language
program. What cognitive and language skills does the program claim to improve?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WulFNyBnAAQ

Most of the research on Fast ForWord has focused on the language program, since this
was the first program developed and has been in use for the longest time. Fast ForWord
Language (FFW-L) consists of seven computer games designed to teach specific language
skills. Children play five computer games a day for a total of 100 minutes. The computer
constantly monitors their success, adjusting the difficulty level upward or downward as
necessary. Children progress through five levels on each of the seven games. One of the
unique (and controversial) aspects of Fast ForWord is that at the first level of each game,

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 87 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 88 Chapter 7

acoustic input is modified. That is, the sounds that the child hears are digitally manipu-
lated to increase the duration and the intensity of the sound. It is hypothesized that chil-
dren with language-learning difficulties cannot process incoming auditory input as
quickly as other children. Therefore, slowing down this input should enhance their
language-learning abilities. As the children progress through the levels, these sound
enhancements are reduced until the child is hearing normal auditory input. Research on
Fast ForWord has generally been mixed. Initial studies by Paula Tallal (the developer of the
program) and her colleagues (1996) found that children with speech and language difficul-
ties who played computer games that used modified auditory input outperformed similar
children who played games without modifications. Later studies, however, generally failed
to confirm the very dramatic results reported by the early studies. For example, in an
intensive study of five children with significant language-learning difficulties, Friel-Patti,
DesBarres, and Thibodeau (2001) reported significant gains in phonological processing
for two of the participants but little improvement for the other three. In a study with a
much larger number of children with language impairments, Cohen and colleagues (2005)
compared the effectiveness of intervention using (1) Fast ForWord, (2) another series of
computer-based language intervention activities, and (3) traditional speech and language
therapy. Although children in all three groups benefited from instruction, those who
received either of the computer-based intervention activities did no better than children
who received traditional therapies. Similarly, Fey and colleagues (Fey, Finestack, Gajewski,
Popescu, & Lewine, 2010) compared the effectiveness of the FFW-L program in combina-
tion with a more traditional narrative-based language intervention to determine if FFW-L
could enhance the language training. In the narrative-based language intervention, chil-
dren participated in several tasks designed to enhance grammar and storytelling skills. The
authors found that children in the combined program (FFW-L + language intervention)
did not outperform children who only received language intervention. Although research
indicates that the FFW-L program can improve the phonological-processing ability of
many (but not all) children with language-learning disabilities, it may be no more effective
than other intensive language-intervention programs.
In addition to improvements in language skills, the developers of the Fast ForWord
programs have claimed that children can improve their reading ability by participating in
the program. Again, studies of these claims have yielded, at best, mixed results. For exam-
ple, in a study comparing Fast ForWord with training based on the Orton-Gillingham pro-
gram (a multisensory, structured language approach that emphasizes instruction in the
alphabetic code), children with reading and language disorders made significant improve-
ments in both language and reading with both approaches. Children trained using the Fast
ForWord program did improve their reading skills, but not more than children using the
other approach. Another study of children with learning disabilities found that Fast
ForWord did not significantly improve either the language or the reading scores of most of
the children. However, children with more severe learning problems did benefit from
instruction using the program (Troia & Whitney, 2003). To test whether the acoustically
modified speech used in FFW-L can improve reading, Loeb and colleagues (2009) com-
pared the effects of FFW-L to those of a computer-based intervention for language that did
not use acoustically modified speech and a traditional language intervention approach
where a therapist worked with a child on a one-to-one basis on language tasks. The
researchers found that all of the interventions improved blending skills, but none signifi-
cantly improved reading. As is the case with language outcomes, there is little evidence
FFW-L can improve reading skills as significantly as the program developers have claimed.
However, new Fast ForWord products targeting reading have recently been developed that
have not yet been tested in large-scale research studies.
Another computer-based program that has been used to teach language skills to chil-
dren with language-learning disabilities is the Earobics Literacy Launch program
(Cognitive Concepts). Earobics uses a series of computer-based activities to teach phono-
logical awareness, auditory processing, and phonics skills. There are three versions of the
program: one for children 4 to 7 years old, one for children ages 7 to 10, and a third

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 88 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 89

program for adolescents and adults. In each program, the participant moves through a se-
ries of levels while playing interactive games. The computer automatically adjusts the dif-
ficulty level in response to the participant’s answers. The authors claim, “Elementary
school students across the country are making dramatic, statistically significant gains in
essential literacy skills.” The company’s website (search for Earobics) presents reports
from several school districts that have successfully used the Earobics Literacy Launch pro-
gram. The Institute for Education Sciences (2009) found that the use of Earobics had posi-
tive effects on alphabetics and “potentially positive” effects on fluency.

Watch this demonstration of some of the activities in the Earobics program. What
are the skills being taught in this demonstration?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEBOyJlT-fs

The effectiveness of Earobics Literacy Launch, Fast ForWord, and the LiPS programs
was compared in a study of 60 children with reading and language deficits (Pokorni,
Worthington, & Jamison, 2004). Children received 3 hours of instruction in one of the
programs each day in a summer program. The authors found that the LiPS program was
the most effective in improving phonological skills. The Earobics program was also effec-
tive, but the Fast ForWord program was not effective. None of the programs significantly
improved reading skills.
In summary, there is now overwhelming evidence that phonological training pro-
grams can improve the phonological skills and perhaps the reading skills of many children
with learning disabilities. There is, as yet, no clear evidence that technology-based pro-
grams such as Fast ForWord or Earobics Literacy Launch are superior to other programs.
However, the research does suggest that intensive, long-lasting intervention can work.
Phonological training has generally been used successfully with young children who are
beginning readers to improve phonemic awareness and word identification skills. What
about older children with language-learning problems? What can we do for them?

Mnemonic Strategies
One type of approach that has been frequently found to be useful in helping older students
learn a variety of skills is mnemonic strategy training. With this approach, students are
taught how to learn, not just what to learn. In other words, the children are taught a strategy
to use as they are learning.
Many students with learning disabilities have difficulty learning new vocabulary
words. Mastropieri (1988) described a strategy for vocabulary learning that she and her
colleagues have applied successfully in a number of academic areas (Scruggs & Mastropieri,
1992). The keyword strategy includes the following steps:
1. Recoding. The new vocabulary word is recoded into a keyword that sounds similar to
the target word, is familiar to the student, and can be easily pictured. For example,
forte (meaning “loud”) could be recoded as fort.
2. Relating. The student relates the keyword to the target word, using an illustration. A
sentence that relates the word to the drawing is created. In our example, a picture of
a fort during a battle might show guns firing. The sentence might read, The guns at the
fort are loud.
3. Retrieving. The definition of the new vocabulary is recalled by thinking of the keyword,
creating the drawing (either actual or imagined), thinking of the related sentence, and
stating the definition—forte means “loud.”
Although this technique may seem slow and cumbersome, it works. It has been
applied successfully in a number of studies to improve the vocabulary learning of students

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 89 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 90 Chapter 7

with learning disabilities (e.g., Condus, Marshall, & Miller, 1986; Mastropieri, Scruggs,
Levin, Gaffney, & McLoone, 1985). Use of the keyword mnemonic method does not have
to be limited to students with disabilities. Uberti, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2003) reported
the results of a study in which the keyword approach was compared to more traditional
vocabulary instruction—providing either a picture to illustrate a word or providing a defi-
nition only—in classrooms that included both disabled and typically developing 8- to
10-year-old students. The typically developing students learned approximately equally in
all three conditions, but the students with learning disabilities did far better with the key-
word approach—actually outperforming their peers.
The keyword method is just one example of a learning strategy that may be used to
help older students with language-learning difficulties. The research on this and other
instructional techniques suggests that it is possible to help these students overcome at
least some of their learning difficulties.

Cognitive Learning Strategies

A number of studies have examined the use of cognitive learning strategies to enhance the
language skills of students with learning disabilities, especially in the area of vocabulary
learning. Cognitive strategy instruction provides students with a framework for under-
standing words and the relationships between words by helping students recognize the
similarities and differences between words. For example, in a study by Bos, Anders, Filip,
and Jaffe (1989), high school students with learning disabilities were taught to use a seman-
tic feature strategy that used a relationship chart on which the most important ideas in a
reading passage were listed across the top and related vocabulary terms were listed on the
side. Students were guided to develop a definition of each word and then discuss how the
word related to the ideas from the text. Students who used this method outperformed
their peers who simply used a dictionary to look up definitions. After reviewing a number
of studies that used some form of cognitive strategy instruction for word learning, Jitendra,
Edwards, Sacks, and Jacobson (2004) concluded that this was a highly effective approach to
teaching vocabulary to students with learning disabilities.
Another type of learning strategy is morphological analysis. This method involves
teaching students to use word parts such as prefixes, suffixes, and root words to derive the
meaning of a word. Harris, Schumaker, and Deshler (2011) compared a morphological anal-
ysis strategy to an alternative strategy approach for enhancing the vocabulary skills of high
school students with learning disabilities. The researchers found that both students with dis-
abilities and those without disabilities in both treatment groups made statistically significant
gains in their ability to define the target vocabulary words. However, students in the mor-
phological strategy group outperformed their peers who used the alternative vocabulary
strategy as well as those in the control group on a test of morphological analysis skills.

Technological Applications
Emerging technologies show promise in helping children with learning disabilities over-
come their learning difficulties. Two studies by Kennedy and his colleagues (Kennedy,
Deshler, & Lloyd, 2015; Kennedy, Thomas, Meyer, Alves, & Lloyd, 2014) examined the use
of podcasts to deliver vocabulary instruction in social studies content areas to high school
students with disabilities. The content acquisition podcasts developed for these studies
used a multimedia format based on universal design of learning principles. The podcasts
present illustrations of the word to be learned with text and a voice-over that explains the
word and its definition. The researchers found that when the students with disabilities
were taught using the content acquisition podcasts, they had significantly higher scores
on vocabulary probes and learned the words faster than when they were taught using the
standard approach.
Speech recognition holds a lot of promise for students with reading and writing diffi-
culties. Speech recognition programs translate the spoken word into text on the computer

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 90 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 91

screen. Early systems were expensive and difficult to use, but current programs, such as
Dragon Naturally Speaking (Nuance Communications) and IBM’s Via Voice are making
speech recognition more practical and accessible than ever. Speech recognition software
(along with voice output programs that translate words on the computer into speech) will
make computers more functional for children with a wide range of learning disorders.
Since word recognition software is relatively new, research on its use in classroom
situations with children with disabilities is limited. However, the research in existence
points out both the potential benefits as well as the limitations of this emerging technol-
ogy. Higgins and colleagues (Higgins & Raskind, 2000, 2004; Raskind & Higgins, 1999)
have conducted the most extensive research on the use of speech recognition programs
with students with learning disabilities. They have found that students who use this tech-
nology can improve their word recognition, spelling, reading comprehension, and phono-
logical processing.
Despite the positive results reported in these studies, speech recognition technology
is not without difficulties. Many of the students reported experiencing frustration with the
time it took to “train” the program to recognize their voice and with the errors the soft-
ware produced. Additionally, most speech recognition programs are not as accurate in
recognizing children’s voices, especially when the children have language and/or reading
difficulties, as is the case with most students with learning disabilities.
Read the following case study about James, and then respond to questions about the
case in your Pearson eText.

James: A Case Study

EDUCATIONAL HISTORY, CURRENT PLACEMENT, in January, James began to receive all his academic instruc-
AND PROGRESS tion in the general classroom.
Academically, James has shown an aptitude for
James is a 9-year, 6-month-old student who has been
mathematics and has steadily earned grades of A and A–
classified as special education under the “Specific Learn-
throughout the school year. James is also highly curious in
ing Disability” classification. James received basic skills
science and social studies, and has earned high Bs and As in
instruction in reading in first grade. Due to a concern
those subjects throughout the year. James has experienced
by his parents and teachers concerning his gains in read-
ebbs and flows in rule-based subjects such as grammar
ing, he was referred to the district’s child study team at
and spelling. His performance generally falls within the
the beginning of his second-grade year. He was classified
high B to A range, with occasional dips in which he earns
that same school year and began receiving services in an
Cs. Reading is the area in which James has the most diffi-
inclusion classroom and a pullout resource classroom (for
culty. He has deficits in expressive and receptive vocabu-
reading and writing only). Throughout third grade, James
lary, verbal memory, and attention in regard to reading.
continued to receive instruction in both an inclusion gen-
These deficits have made it difficult for James to compre-
eral classroom and a pullout resource setting (for reading
hend reading materials and to demonstrate (in written
and writing).
and verbal means) his understanding. Despite his difficul-
James is currently a fourth-grade student in an inclu-
ties, James has worked extraordinarily hard since join-
sion classroom. James has participated in the general
ing the general classroom environment and, through his
classroom setting within the inclusion classroom for sci-
efforts and the supports provided to him, has maintained
ence, social studies, math, spelling, and grammar for the
a B average. In writing, James has difficulty structuring his
entire school year. From September through December,
work and completing his thoughts. This is largely due to
he received instruction in reading and writing in a pullout
his expressive vocabulary and verbal memory deficits (he
resource room setting. At that point, his parents requested
can easily forget the direction of his writing as he writes).
that he be placed back into the general classroom. They
However, with the use of graphic organizers and teacher
believed his progress was stagnating in the resource room
support, James is able to complete writing assignments at
and that he felt isolated from his peers, and they wanted him
approximate grade level proficiency.
to have the opportunity to rise to the occasion. Beginning
(continued)

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 91 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 92 Chapter 7

James: A Case Study   Continued

In addition to the instruction James receives in the Language Development

inclusion classroom, he also sees a speech-language pathol- James’s parents have self-reported to have interacted with
ogist three times per week for a total of 1 hour each week. James as much as his siblings and to have made literacy
They have focused on strategies to help James expand his activities (such as reading to and with James) a key focus
receptive vocabulary such as breaking words into pre- of his early childhood. Still, James’s parents reported lan-
fixes, roots, and suffixes (morphology) and defining new guage deficits from an early age in terms of vocabulary
words through context clues and using word keyword and reading comprehension (both materials that James
strategies. Their sessions have also focused on expanding has read and stories that have been read/told to him). This
James’s expressive vocabulary through strategies such as may certainly, as has been suggested by professionals who
having James view a picture and then create a word web to have worked with and assessed James, be attributable (to
describe the whole picture or parts of the picture using as at least some degree) to his history of chronic middle ear
many words as he can that are applicable. infections.
James also receives services from an occupational When James was first formally tested as a second-
therapist. He does not have regular sessions with this pro- grade student, it was found that he had deficits in language
fessional; instead, she observes James once a month in in general. As a young student, James had struggles with
the classroom setting and makes recommendations for elements of phonology, morphology, syntax, and seman-
accommodations that may aid in James’s classroom devel- tics. Pragmatics was not an area of concern. He interacted
opment. The occupational therapist and the teacher also properly with adults and peers. Throughout his school
meet briefly once a week to discuss James’s progress, and experience, James made significant gains in phonology
the therapist sees James outside of the classroom as needed. and moderate gains in syntax. With the intensive strate-
gies used by teachers and particularly the speech-language
pathologist, James has made gains this school year in mor-
PHYSICAL/HEALTH DEVELOPMENT
phology through word attack strategies such as identifying
Before describing James’s language development, it is prefixes, suffixes, and roots. Reading comprehension con-
important to detail his physical and health development. tinues to be an area of weaknesses (and the target of many
James’s mother gave birth to him after a 39-week pregnancy goals) as James continues to learn and implement semantic
(which is about typical). He was reported to hit all physi- skills to improve expressive and receptive vocabulary strat-
cal and cognitive milestones within the range of typically egies as well as strategies to improve verbal memory and
developing children. James is an outstanding athlete, par- aid James in organizing his thoughts.
ticularly excelling in swimming. Although his gross motor
skills are above average, observations of James, tests, and EVALUATION OF LANGUAGE
collaborative discussions with the occupational therapist AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS
reveal a weakness in terms of fine motor skills. He struggles
This section is broken up into two sections: informal and
with tasks such as finger-thumb succession. According to
formal assessments. Although James has participated in
the occupational therapist, this is a developmental issue
comprehensive testing in speech, language, and commu-
that is linked to his sensory processing of touch sensation.
nication skills in the past, the testing that is to be reported
This is the reason he receives occupational therapy services.
upon is limited in scope to skills related to expressive and
Just before the age of 2, James had his first ear infec-
receptive vocabulary. This decision was made based on
tion. These ear infections would prove to be chronic. James
the goals that have been prioritized for James by both the
has had numerous ear infections throughout his life and
parents and the school for this school year. James’s parents
six separate surgeries to insert tubes in his ears to reduce
have made it clear to the school that it is their wish to have
the instances of infection. Ear infections still continue cur-
vocabulary acquisition skills and vocabulary usage strate-
rently, with his mother reporting winter to be the worst
gies as the top priority in terms of the intervention services
season for infections. In 2012, his hearing was assessed at
he receives in school as well as strategies that are expressly
the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia under normal cir-
taught in the general classroom. School personnel (teacher,
cumstances (without an ear infection). James was found
special education teacher, speech-language pathologist,
to have normal hearing acuity bilaterally; however, he was
and case manager) agree that, although there are other fac-
found to need a higher signal-to-noise ratio. This indicates
tors that contribute to James’s school performance, expres-
that James has trouble distinguishing between the primary
sive and receptive vocabulary skills are a significant deficit
auditory input and background noise.
(continued)

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 92 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 93

James: A Case Study   Continued

for James and that interventions to aid James in these areas his guess. When he asks for assistance or when a teacher
would be greatly beneficial. It is for these reasons that approaches James about a question that is not fully under-
expressive and receptive vocabulary skills were the focus of stood based on the words used, James is typically able to
testing for this report. understand the question through talking with a teacher or
having the teacher explain or reword the question. When
Informal Assessment
James understands the question, his responses are typically
James has been the focus of consistent informal assessments
understandable, although the vocabulary used in answers
of vocabulary skills throughout the school year. This is par-
is typically below grade level expectations.
tially due to general classroom practices by his teachers this
James takes his grades very seriously, and when he
year (both the general and special education teacher), but
is taking a test, he will ask for assistance with vocabulary
also due in part to his parents’ wishes related to vocabu-
that he does not know within a question. On vocabulary
lary skills. Informal assessments based on observations
tests, he generally does well when he has had time to prac-
have been focused on independent reading (fiction and
tice words ahead of time (typically above the class average).
nonfiction), class work, and tests.
He does poorly, however, on vocabulary tests on words
James has been periodically assessed on independent
for which he has not had time to prepare. These words,
reading tasks by both the teacher and the special education
for example, test to see if James has retained knowledge
teacher in the classroom who have collaborated to share
of the word from reading assignments, is able to prop-
results and findings. Independent reading task assess-
erly use skills to determine word meaning based on word
ments have occurred during James’s reading of textbooks,
parts (prefix, suffix, roots), or is able to infer word meaning
news articles, novels, and short stories (both fictional and
based on context clues. In responding to short response
nonfictional). He has been found to be below his peers
or essay questions on tests, he is typically able to respond
in terms of defining grade level words. He has also been
appropriately, although his word choice is simpler than
found to have poor skills in terms of monitoring his own
his peers and he is often unable to use specific words that
understanding of words, such as stopping himself when he
would be expected on tests in areas such as science and
comes across words he does not know or recognize. As a
social studies.
result, he rarely uses word vocabulary strategies to learn
For informal assessments, the accommodations that
new words and aid in his comprehension of his reading
are ensured by his individualized educational plan as well
task independently. When prompted to use such strate-
as those deemed appropriate by the teacher, special educa-
gies (identifying prefixes, suffixes, and roots and using
tion teacher, speech-language pathologist, and his parents
context clues to infer meaning and then checking against
are in place. Accommodations pertinent to these assess-
a glossary or dictionary), he has been able to attempt them
ments include rewording and rephrasing of questions
with moderate success. When asked a question or to sum-
and directions, preferential seating, tasks broken into
marize what he has read, James often will hesitate and give
manageable portions, checklists and graphic organizers,
an answer of “I know the answer, but I don’t know how to
additional time on tests and quizzes, and testing in a small
say it” (or a similar answer). With assistance from a teacher
group setting.
or peer with whom James is able to talk out his answer or
when James is given assistance finding the “right words,” Formal Testing
he is generally able to express his opinion, although overly The results of three formal tests have been included in this
simple words are often used. report. The first test included, the Woodcock Johnson-IV
When working on independent class work (ques- (WJ-IV), was conducted by an independent learning con-
tions from a textbook or a worksheet), James has been sultant. This is a comprehensive language and literacy test;
observed in terms of his strategies when he does not know however, James’s vocabulary scores will be used because
a word in the question. James rarely seeks help when he they fall within the scope of the assignment. The second
does not understand a question. He will occasionally look test was the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test
at his neighbor’s paper; at times, he copies his neighbor’s (EOWPVT-4) administered by James’s teacher in conjunc-
answer, but more often, he looks at his neighbor’s response tion with the speech-language pathologist. The third test,
to help him understand what is being asked. Most often, the Rapid Automatic Naming (RAN) subtest of the Clini-
however, James will guess at the meaning of a question he cal Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4 (CELF-4), was
does not understand and formulate his answer based on administered by the teacher.
(continued)

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 93 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 94 Chapter 7

James: A Case Study   Continued

Although the WJ-IV was not administered by the lating the objectives and goals, and possible factors that led
teacher, it is included in this report to give a more complete to the differing results will be discussed in the analysis sec-
picture of James and to help clarify the objectives and goals tion of this report. Finally, the discrepancies underline the
that have been implemented based on the testing. Further- possible limitations of standardized testing and the impor-
more, the results of the WJ-IV have been found to conflict tance of proper balancing between formal and informal
with the results of subsequent tests. The discrepancies assessments while developing goals and objectives.
between the results of these tests are important in formu-

FORMAL TESTING RESULTS

Woodcock Johnson–IV. This is a standardized test that is normalized to James’s same-aged peers. James was 9 years,
5 months old when he was given this assessment.

Subtest Standard Score Percentile Rank Description Grade-Level Equivalent

Reading Vocabulary 74 4 Limited 1.4
Oral Expression 79 8 Limited 2.2
Picture Vocabulary 64 1 Limited Not listed

Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test Color-Shape Errors 4

(EOWPVT-4). This is a standardized test that is
Color-Shape Errors Criterion Normal*
normalized to James’s same-aged peers. James was 9 years,
6 months at the time the assessment was given. *Based on the performance of James’s peers, the assessment con-
siders five or fewer errors to be “normal,” six to seven errors to be
Raw Score Standard Score Percentile Rank “slower than normal,” and eight or more errors to be “non-normal.”

111 107 68 Neither accommodations nor modifications for James

as he took part in these formal assessments were deemed
Rapid Automatic Naming (RAN) subtest of the
necessary. Although he has proper classroom accommo-
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4
dations and modifications, he was able to participate in
(CELF-4). This subtest of the CELF-4 is normalized to
these assessments fully.
James’s same-aged peers. James was 9 years, 6 months at
the time the assessment was given.

Color-Shape Time 143 seconds

Color-Shape Time Criterion Non-normal*
*Based on the performance of James’s peers, the assessment consid-
ers 95 seconds or less to be “normal,” 96 to 114 seconds to be “slower
than normal,” and 115 seconds or above to be “non-normal.”

Apply Your Knowledge 7.1: Case Study: James

Click here to assess your understanding of James’s case.

Check Your Understanding 7.3

Click here to gauge your understanding of the concepts in this section.

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 94 21/02/17 10:47 AM

 Language, Students with Learning Disabilities, and Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 95

Summary
In this chapter, we have examined the language difficulties of children with learning dis-
abilities and children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorders. Problems with defin-
ing learning disabilities present one of the biggest challenges to identifying students with
learning needs. Despite the uncertainty created by problems with definition, overwhelm-
ing research shows that language difficulties are an important cause of learning disabilities
and that they do not usually get better on their own. In addition, research on students with
ADHD has found increasing evidence of language difficulties in this population.
Instructional approaches, including phonological training methods to enhance word iden-
tification ability, mnemonic strategies, cognitive learning strategies, and technological
applications, were presented. After reading this chapter, you should be better able to
identify language disorders in the classroom, understand some of the consequences of
language disabilities, and be better prepared to teach children with learning disabilities
and those with ADHD.

M07_KUDE8883_05_SE_C07.indd 95 21/02/17 10:47 AM