P e t e r We s t w o o d

The What Teachers Need to Know About series aims to refresh and expand basic
teaching knowledge and classroom experience. Books in the series provide essential
information about a range of subjects necessary for today’s teachers to do their
jobs effectively. These books are short, easy-to-use guides to the fundamentals of a

L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U LT I E S
subject with clear reference to other, more comprehensive, sources of information.
Other titles in the series include Teaching Methods, Numeracy, Spelling, Reading What
and Writing Difficulties, Personal Wellbeing, Marketing, and Music in Schools.
teachers
need to know
Learning Difficulties draws on international research about learning difficulties
to present a clear picture of the issues involved. It focuses on early identification,
so that intervention can prevent or minimise the negative outcomes of persistent
failure and explains how teachers can address problems effectively. Problems of
socialisation and behaviour are discussed and brief coverage given to students’
specific difficulties with reading and mathematics. A comprehensive range of links
about
to additional sources of information will help teachers find positive solutions for
their students.

Peter Westwood has been an Associate Professor of Education and has taught all
age groups. He holds awards for excellence in teaching from Flinders University
in South Australia and from the University of Hong Kong. Peter has published
many books and articles on educational subjects and is currently an educational
consultant based in Macau, China. Westwood

Cover images: © Erengoksel | Dreamstime.com

© Mikdam | Dreamstime.com
ISBN 978-0-86431-936-4
Learning
9 780864 319364 difficulties
What teachers
need to know about
Learning
difficulties

PETER WESTWOOD

ACER Press
First published 2008
by ACER Press, an imprint of
Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd
19 Prospect Hill Road, Camberwell
Victoria, 3124, Australia

www.acerpress.com.au
[email protected]

Text © Peter Westwood 2008

Design and typography © ACER Press 2008

This book is copyright. All rights reserved. Except under the

conditions described in the Copyright Act 1968 of Australia
and subsequent amendments, and any exceptions permitted
under the current statutory licence scheme administered by
Copyright Agency Limited (www.copyright.com.au), no part
of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, transmitted, broadcast or communicated in any form
or by any means, optical, digital, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written
permission of the publisher.

Edited by Carolyn Glascodine

Cover and text design by Mary Mason
Typeset by Mary Mason
Printed in Australia by Ligare

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Author: Westwood, Peter S. (Peter Stuart), 1936–

Title: What teachers need to know about learning difficulties / Peter Westwood.
Publisher:Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press, 2008.
ISBN: 9780864319364 (pbk.)
Notes: Includes index.
Bibliography. .
Subjects: Learning disabled—Education.
Teaching—Methodology.
Learning disabilities.
Dewey Number: 371.9043
Contents

Preface v

1 Current perspectives on learning dif ficulties 1

Defining and describing learning difficulties 2
Gifted students with a learning disability 4
Potential causes of a learning difficulty 5
Teachers’ perspectives 6
Teaching methods and curricula 7
Prevalence of learning difficulties 8
Perspectives from home and overseas 9
Is the concept of ‘learning disability’ useful? 12

2 Af fective consequences of learning dif ficulty 15

Affective factors in learning 16
The failure syndrome 17
Self-esteem 18
Self-efficacy 19
Self-worth 20
Locus of control 21
Learned helplessness 23
Motivation 24
Stress and anxiety 25

3 Early identification and intervention 27

Screening procedures 28
Teacher as observer 30
Information from parents 30
Intervention 31
Reading Recovery 34
Success for All 35

iii
iv CONTENTS

Involving parents in intervention 36

General principles for intervention 37
Benefits and pitfalls of intervention 38

4 Social and behavioural issues 42

Problematic social development 43
A supportive classroom environment 44
Cooperative and collaborative activities 45
Teaching social skills and strategies 46
Addressing behavioural problems 48
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder 52

5 Teaching students with learning dif ficulties 55

What has research said about teaching methods? 56
Difficulties in reading 60
Teaching reading skills 61
Key elements in fostering reading development 65
Difficulties in learning mathematics 65
Teaching basic mathematics 67

6 Accommodating and supporting students with

learning dif ficulties 71
Adapting the classroom program 72
Adapting curriculum content 73
Adapting teaching and learning processes 73
Adapting outcomes and products 74
Differentiation of assessment 74
Difficulties with differentiation 75
Individual Education Plan 76
Organising support in school 76
Additional teaching 79

References 82
Index 101
Preface

Students with learning difficulties comprise the largest group of students

with special needs attending mainstream schools. Often our schools seem
ill prepared to cater adequately for their learning needs, resulting in too
many individuals leaving school without the essential literacy, numeracy
and social skills they require to meet the demands of daily life. In the
fi nal report of the Inquiry into Early Intervention for Children with
Learning Difficulties (Report 30: Realising potential) the NSW Standing
Committee on Social Issues (2003) stated that these students fi nd their
schooling ‘extremely alienating and dismaying’ because they often find
they are unable to access the supports they need to overcome or manage
their difficulty, and thereby maximise their potential. The Committee
concluded that, ‘It is essential that current and future cohorts of children
do not grow up feeling that the education system neither acknowledges
nor addresses their learning needs’ (p. 59).
In this book I have drawn on the international literature to explore
what is known about learning difficulties and how schools can address
this problem most effectively. In particular, I have focused on early
identification, so that intervention and support can be provided promptly
to prevent or minimise the negative affective outcomes that result from
persistent failure. Often these negative outcomes operate to maintain or
exacerbate a learning problem for the students concerned by impairing
their self-esteem and reducing their motivation to learn.
It is not unusual to find that some students with learning difficulties
also have problems with socialisation; and some have problems conforming
to acceptable codes of behaviour. These problems are discussed in some
detail. Most attention is given to an overview of teaching methods that
work effectively for these students. Brief coverage is given to students’
specific difficulties with reading and with mathematics; but this is not

v
vi PREFACE

in depth because other books in this series address these topics in much
greater detail.
It is hoped that the links to additional sources of information, together
with the comprehensive list of references, will aid teachers who wish to
find solutions for their students’ learning difficulties.
My sincere thanks go to Carolyn Glascodine for her efficient editing
and to Maureen O'Keefe for her management of the original manuscript.

PETER WESTWOOD

RESOURCES www.acer.edu.au/need2know

Readers may access the online resources mentioned

throughout this book through direct links at
www.acer.edu.au/need2know
 o n e

Current perspectives
on learning difficulties

KEY ISSUES

◗ Learning difficulties are not uncommon in schools. In a few cases,

they may be the result of a specific learning disability; but they are
much more likely to be due to environmental factors such as social
disadvantage, inappropriate curriculum, inadequate teaching, or lack
of positive support for learning.
◗ Many teachers do not feel confident or competent to meet the needs
of students with learning difficulties; and they tend to blame students
for problems in learning.
◗ Perspectives on learning difficulties and learning disabilities vary
from country to country. Prevalence rates also vary, due to differing
definitions of learning difficulty and disability.

According to the Queensland Studies Authority (2007, p. 1), ‘Learning

difficulties refer to barriers that limit access to, participation in, and out-
comes from the curriculum’. A significant number of students in our
schools exhibit such difficulties for a variety of reasons. This chapter
explores some of the reasons and also reports the prevalence rate for learn-
ing difficulties. In addition, several key issues associated with learning
difficulties are discussed.

1
2 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

Defining and describing learning difficulties

Students with learning difficulties is a very general term, used widely and
without much precision. Usually the term is applied to students whose
learning problems in school are not directly related to any specific physical,
sensory or intellectual impairment (although in some cases their intelli-
gence may be somewhat below average). Instead, the learning difficulties
may be due to external factors such as socio-cultural disadvantage, limited
opportunities to learn, a lack of support from home, an inappropriate curri-
culum, or insufficient teaching in the early years. The learning problems
these students experience are often further exacerbated by their emotional
reactions to lack of success. These students, in the past, have been referred
to as ‘slow learners’ and ‘low achievers’. Badian (1996) even refers to them
as having ‘garden variety’ learning problems, meaning that such difficulties
are widespread and in no way unusual. We normally refer to these students
now as having general learning difficulties. Their lack of success is evident
across most areas of the school curriculum.
The population of students with learning difficulties also contains a very
much smaller number of individuals described as having a specific learn-
ing disability (SpLD). Despite having at least average intelligence, these
students experience chronic problems in learning basic literacy, numeracy
and study skills. They may also have problems developing positive social
relationships. The US National Center for Learning Disabilities (2001)
defines a specific learning disability as:

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

store and respond to information. The term ‘learning disability’ is used to
describe the unexplained difficulty a person of at least average intelligence
has in acquiring basic academic skills ... [and] LD is not a single disorder.
It is a term that refers to a group of disorders.

Karande et al. (2005, p. 1029) provide a rather more detailed defi nition,
very close to the wording of the official definition adopted in the United
States of America:

Specific learning disabilities (SpLD) is a generic term that refers to a

heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significantly unexpected
specific and persistent difficulties in the acquisition and use of efficient
 CU R R EN T P ER S P EC T I V E S O N L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 3

reading (dyslexia), writing (dysgraphia) or mathematical (dyscalculia)

abilities despite conventional instruction, intact senses, normal intelli-
gence, proper motivation, and adequate socio-cultural opportunity. The
term SpLD does not include children who have learning problems that are
primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of subnormal
intelligence, of emotional disturbance, or of socio-cultural disadvantage.

The most obvious characteristic of students with learning difficulties and

learning disabilities is their failure to acquire adequate proficiency in reading
and writing. Indeed, it is their problem with literacy that most commonly
brings these students to the attention of teachers and parents. Very often
the students’ weaknesses in literacy are accompanied by similar difficulties
with basic mathematics. These problems in literacy and numeracy have
a negative impact on the students’ progress in almost all areas of the
school curriculum. Individuals with learning difficulties also seem to
lack effective learning strategies for coping with the work that teachers
set for them, resulting in persistently low achievement. All three areas of
weakness are acknowledged in the defi nition of students with learning
difficulties currently used in Queensland: ‘… those whose access to the
curriculum is limited because of short-term or persistent problems with
literacy, numeracy, or learning how to learn’ (Department of Education,
Training and the Arts, 2002a, p. 1).
In describing the typical classroom response of these students, Twomey
(2006, p. 93) states:

Many of these students avoid participating verbally during lessons, do not

appear to take an interest in the subject matter, and do not perceive class
discussions as learning opportunities. Their attitude serves as a defense
mechanism which protects them from possible humiliation from giving
the wrong answer and exposing their academic inadequacies.

According to Chan and van Kraayenoord (1998, p. 21):

Fundamental to an understanding of learning difficulties from an infor-

mation-processing perspective is the view that these students often have
difficulties with collecting, interpreting, storing, modifying and retrieving
information. Specifically, they fail to spontaneously activate learning strat-
egies or previously learned information during these cognitive operations.
4 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

There is no valid behavioural or achievement checklist that helps differen-

tiate students with general learning difficulties from those with specific
learning disability. Nor need there be such a list, because all students with
classroom learning problems tend to exhibit the same range of characteristics
(Kavale et al., 2005). Among the most frequently identified problems are:

◗ poor attention to task and to teacher’s instructions, resulting in greatly

reduced time spent engaged in active learning (Whedon & Bakken, 1999)
◗ disengagement (Rowe, 2006a)
◗ low self-esteem (Lerner & Kline, 2006; McCowen, 1998; Zafiriadis et al.,
2005)
◗ dysfunctional attitude (Rowe, 2006a)
◗ negative behaviours (Rowe, 2006a; Zafiriadis et al., 2005)
◗ lack of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to promote learning (Chan &
van Kraayenoord, 1998; Margolis & McCabe, 2003)
◗ memory and organisational problems (Hay et al., 2005)
◗ diminished self-efficacy (Klassen & Lynch, 2007; Lancaster, 2005; Margolis
& McCabe, 2003)
◗ passivity and avoidance of risk-taking (Chan & van Kraayenoord, 1998;
Twomey, 2006)
◗ learned helplessness and external locus of control (Firth et al., 2007;
McCowen, 1998)
◗ frustration (Watson, 2005)
◗ loss of motivation (Watson, 2005)
◗ depressive tendencies (Sideridis, 2007; Zafiriadis et al., 2005).

Gifted students with a learning disability

Liddle and Porath (2002, p. 13) state that, ‘The idea that a child can be both
gifted and learning disabled strikes some as a paradox’. But it is clear that
some students with high intellectual potential do experience significant
problems with learning basic academic skills, and can be said to have
‘dual exceptionalities’ (giftedness and learning disability). For example,
Munro (2002) suggests that up to 30 per cent of gifted students may have
problems with reading such that their attainment level is several years
below expectation. Other writers have focused on their chronic difficulties
in writing (e.g., Milton & Lewis, 2005).
 CU R R EN T P ER S P EC T I V E S O N L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 5

Concern has been voiced in recent years over the plight of such students,
because often they are overlooked and under-served by the system (Riggs,
1999; Stewart, 2002). In addition, students of high ability are often very
acutely aware of and distressed by their difficulties, leading to secondary
emotional, motivational and behavioural problems. Identification of these
gifted students is essential, followed by effective remedial intervention for
basic skills, and coupled with personal counselling if necessary (Lovett
& Lewandowski, 2006). Stewart (2002) suggests that electronic assistive
technology can be one helpful way of bypassing some of the students’
problems, also enabling them to achieve some success and reveal their true
abilities. Basically, these students require the same intensive and effective
teaching methods recommended for use with other students with learning
problems. These methods are described fully in later chapters.

Potential causes of a learning difficulty

Regardless of whether a learning difficulty is general or specific, and
regardless of whether a student is gifted or average, several factors can
cause difficulties in learning. Twomey (2006) suggests that there are three
perspectives on learning difficulties and their underlying causes, each
focusing on rather different factors and highlighting different character-
istics in the students. These perspectives are referred to as (a) the deficit
model, (b) the inefficient learner model, and (c) the environment factors model. It is
probable that all three models are valid, and they are not mutually exclusive.
In all three models, learning failure severely undermines a learner’s self-
esteem and confidence, and leads to secondary affective and motivational
problems, as described in the next chapter.
Under the deficit model, it is assumed that learning difficulties are
caused by cognitive and perceptual weaknesses within the student. These
supposed cognitive deficits include below average intelligence, poor atten-
tion to task, visual and auditory processing difficulties, weak memory
capacity and inadequate comprehension of the complex language used in
instructional contexts. In addition, under the deficit model, disadvantages
in the student’s cultural or home background, such as a dysfunctional
family situation, problems associated with English as a second language,
low expectations, lack of support, health problems and poverty may also
contribute to difficulties in learning (Abosi, 2007).
6 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

The inefficient learner perspective does not focus on such deficits but
believes the learning problem is due to an individual failing to approach
school learning in a systematic way – in other words, the individual has
not discovered how to learn effectively in school (Twomey, 2006). This
model represents a more optimistic perspective for intervention because
research evidence from strategy training studies suggests that students can
be taught to be more effective learners (e.g., Chalk et al., 2005; Chan &
van Kraayenoord, 1998; Swanson, 2000).
The third perspective considers that learning difficulties are due mainly
to environmental influences, the most significant of which is the quality
and appropriateness of the teaching that an individual receives (Hotchkis,
1999). Elksnin (2002, p. 252) even describes the large group of students
with non-specific difficulties as ‘casualties of the general education curri-
culum’. More will be said in a moment concerning teaching methods and
curricula as possible causal factors.

Teachers’ perspectives
There is still a very strong tendency for teachers to subscribe to the deficit
model. They are inclined to blame students for having poor motivation or
for being of limited ability. Rarely do they seek to improve the quality of
their own teaching, or provide students with guidance in more effective
ways of learning (Dettori & Ott, 2006; Elkins, 2007; Westwood, 1995).
If teachers believe that learning difficulties are caused by innate character-
istics of learners, combined with outside influences from the home and
culture, there will be a general reluctance to review teaching methods
or revise curriculum content (McCowen, 1998). Unfortunately, believing
in the deficit model often leads teachers to lower their expectations for
these students, providing them with a less-demanding, watered-down
curriculum that simply adds to their frustration and alienation because
their basic need for age-appropriate achievement is not being met (Frey &
Wilhite, 2005; Watson & Boman, 2005).
Dettori and Ott (2006) believe that teachers tend to view under-
achieving students and students with learning difficulties as if they are a
homogeneous group with common characteristics and needs. In general,
they make very little special provision for them. In addition, they often
anticipate that these students will exhibit poor behaviour in class, and this
 CU R R EN T P ER S P EC T I V E S O N L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 7

leads a teacher to focus on classroom management rather than differen-

tiating or modifying instruction (Bakker & Bosman, 2006). Secondary
school teachers in particular, are far from adept at addressing students’
individual learning needs and often display a negative attitude towards
students with difficulties (Watson & Boman, 2005; Watson & Bond,
2007). To improve this situation, Hunt (2004) suggests that it is essential
to provide whole-school professional development for teachers in order
that all staff are exposed to a wider range of teaching methods and ways of
addressing individual differences.

Teaching methods and curricula

In terms of environmental influences on learning, teaching methods and
school curricula can often cause or exacerbate learning difficulties. Until
recently, the method of teaching was rarely investigated as a possible cause
of learning difficulty. Teachers seem to assume that if something is taught
(which usually means explained or demonstrated), it is automatically
learned; and if it is not learned, then the problem must be due to
inadequacies in the student’s own ability, motivation or persistence, not
to the effectiveness of the teaching method. However, not all methods of
instruction are equally effective in achieving particular goals in learning.
Nor are all methods equally effective with all students. Problems in learn-
ing arise if inappropriate methods are used. Examples of this are when
unstructured, student-centred approaches rather than direct teaching are
used in the important beginning stages of learning to read or to calculate
in mathematics (DEST, 2005; Ellis, 2005). Some educators now believe
that many of the problems students have with reading and mathematics are
due to inappropriate or insufficient fi rst teaching (e.g., de Lemos, 2005;
Hempenstall, 2005; Hotchkis, 1999).
Other problems associated with teaching method include the teacher
moving ahead too quickly with the program, devoting too little time to
practice, using overly complex language when instructing and explaining,
a shortage of suitable teaching materials (books, computer programs) at
an appropriate level, and distracting classrooms where too many different
activities are going on at the same time (Abosi, 2007). Problems also
arise when the teacher does not monitor students’ progress carefully
day by day so is unaware when a student is experiencing difficulty. If a
8 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

learning problem is not recognised early and remedied quickly, it is likely

to get worse.
The curriculum itself can also be a cause of learning difficulty when the
subject matter is too difficult (that is, beyond the cognitive ability level of
some of the students) or the tasks and activities are boring. Anything that
is too difficult or boring causes problems in holding students’ attention. In
fairly large classes with students of varying ability, it is not surprising that
from time to time some individuals are given work that is either much too
complex, or much too simple – both situations leading to frustration and
disengagement. When the demands of curriculum content and learning
activities are pitched too high or too low, learners may cease to learn (Paas et
al., 2004). In an ideal situation, the content of the school curriculum should
be challenging enough to motivate all students, but not so challenging that
it causes some to become confused and discouraged. Nothing ‘recedes like
success’ if the subject matter gets too difficult too quickly.

Prevalence of learning difficulties

Students with general and specific learning difficulties comprise the largest
group of students requiring support for learning in the mainstream school
context. Estimates put the prevalence rate of general learning difficulties at
some 16 to 20 per cent of the school population (e.g., Louden et al., 2000;
OECD, 2005; Zafiriadis et al., 2005), and specific learning disability at 3 to
5 per cent (e.g., Graham & Bailey, 2007; NHMRC, 1990; Pearl & Bay,
1999; Westwood & Graham, 2000). It is known that prevalence rates vary
considerably from school to school, with some schools reporting more than
30 per cent of their students experiencing problems in learning. There is
great variation also across countries in terms of the extent to which general
and specific difficulties are recognised and where resources are allocated
for support (OECD, 2005).
Exact prevalence figures for learning difficulties are almost impossible
to ascertain because the defi nition of what we mean by a ‘learning dif-
ficulty’ is not consistent across different countries, or even across states
within the same country. When teachers are asked to identify students
with learning difficulties in their own classes there is often confusion
about which students to include (Watson, 2005). Rivalland (2000, p. 12)
comments that:
 CU R R EN T P ER S P EC T I V E S O N L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 9

The diversity of defi nitions used to describe children who are deemed
to have learning and/or literacy difficulties is one of the factors that
complicates any analysis of how children with learning difficulties are
catered for in schools ... [and] it is hard to know exactly which children
we are talking about whenever policies and practices for students with
learning difficulties are being described or discussed.

In an attempt to clarify the situation somewhat – and to facilitate data

collection across countries – the OECD (1999; 2000; 2005) suggested three
broad categories of students with special educational needs. This book is
concerned with the second and third of these OECD categories.

◗ students with identifiable disabilities and impairments whose learning

problems are attributed directly to the disability rather than to other factors
◗ students with learning difficulties not attributable to any disability or
impairment – the learning problem is regarded as arising within the context of
the teaching and learning situation
◗ students with difficulties due to socioeconomic, cultural, or linguistic dis-
advantage for whom intervention of a compensatory nature is needed.

Perspectives from home and overseas

Different countries have adopted different positions on learning difficulties
and disabilities. These perspectives have resulted in somewhat different
terminology and different service provision. The situations in Australia, the
United States of America and the United Kingdom illustrate this point.

Australia
In Australia, the term students with learning difficulties includes all mainstream
students who are experiencing problems in school learning, regardless
of whether their difficulties are general or specific. As a consequence,
writing from an Australian perspective, Graham and Bailey (2007, p. 386)
state that, ‘Students with learning difficulties tend to be a diverse group
that demonstrates low achievement in academic subjects for a myriad of
reasons’.
The preference in Australia for using the all-embracing term learning
difficulties rather than learning disabilities dates back to the Cadman Report of
1976, Learning difficulties in children and adults. At that time, the Committee
10 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

voiced doubts that a separate learning ‘disability’ per se actually existed as

a phenomenon with neurological causes (Chan & Dally, 2001a; Elkins,
2000). Similar doubts have been expressed over the years in several other
countries, and the existence of SpLD is still something of a contentious
issue in education. In 1990, however, the National Health and Medical
Research Council in Australia did differentiate between students with
general learning difficulties (estimated at that time to be about 11 per cent
of the school population) and students with specific learning difficulties
(estimated at 4 per cent) (Hallinan et al., 1999). Queensland is the only
state that has followed the NHMRC example and officially identifies
students with SpLD. The position in Queensland is that:

In all regular primary and secondary schools there are students with
learning difficulties who need assistance to access the curriculum. Some
of these students are experiencing short term or persistent problems in
literacy, numeracy and/or learning how to learn. Some have learning
disabilities. Due to the neurological basis of their difficulties, they have
persistent long-term problems and may need a high level of support. These
students have average to above average cognitive ability. (Department of
Education, Training and the Arts, 2002b, n.p.)

The important point to note in the Australian context is that a student does
not need to be labelled as ‘learning disabled’ in order to attract additional
funding for teaching support. All students identified as having learning
difficulties, regardless of type or cause, are entitled to such support.
Naturally, the quantity and quality of support varies from school to school.
Parent groups (e.g., SPELD) tend to argue that the needs of their children
with genuine learning disabilities are not being adequately met under this
system because these students require more frequent and intense tuition
than is available in most schools. Often they resort to paying for private
tutoring after school hours (Greaves, 2000).
Concern has been expressed about the number of students with learning
difficulties and learning disabilities being identified now in Australian
universities (Ryan & Brown, 2005). These are otherwise intelligent and
capable individuals who are having problems with aspects of literacy and
mathematics at tertiary level. It is said that learning difficulties represent
the fastest growing area in university student support services, with the
number of students rising by 88 per cent since 1996 (Payne & Irons, 2003).
 CU R R EN T P ER S P EC T I V E S O N L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 11

Is this a reflection of a learning disability (dyslexia), or a reflection of

inadequate teaching in their school years?

The United States of America

In the United States of America, the term learning disability (LD) was origin-
ally coined in the 1960s to describe students of at least average intelligence
who exhibited serious difficulties in acquiring literacy and numeracy skills,
and who might also have problems in areas such as perception, coordi-
nation, memory and information processing. The current US defi nition
(one of several still circulating) is:

[Learning disabilities are] a heterogeneous group of disorders of presumed

neurological origin manifested differently and to varying degrees during
the lifespan of an individual … [and] Early indicators that a child may
have LD include delays in speech and language development, motor
coordination, perception, reasoning, social interaction, prerequisites to
academic achievement and other areas relevant to meeting educational
goals. (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2006, p. 1)

The original expectation was that LD, as identified in students of at

least average intelligence, would probably account for no more than 4 per
cent or less of the school population. This learning disability would be
recognised by a marked discrepancy between a student’s measured IQ and
his or her achievement level. Gradually, however, the term began to be
applied to almost any student failing in the US school system regardless
of intelligence level or other learning characteristics. As a consequence,
the fundamental differences between students with general learning
difficulties and specific learning disabilities became blurred (and remains
blurred) in that country. Part of the problem arose because once students
were labelled as LD they were eligible for additional services and support,
whereas students with general problems in learning were not. Schools (and
parents) therefore had a vested interest in seeking to have students assessed
and labelled. Despite the clear and restricting defi nition of LD that should
have applied, the number of students receiving this label grew rapidly,
and continues to grow. A national survey in the United States of America
reported by Altarac and Saroha (2007) suggests that LD affects 5.4 per cent
of ‘average’ students (i.e., students with no other primary handicapping
condition). However, the organisation LDonline (2008) states that 15 per
12 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

cent of the US population has some type of learning disability. Statistics

from the US Department of Education (cited on the National Institute
for Literacy website, 2008) reports that just over half of all students with
special educational needs in US schools are students categorised as LD;
and the number rose by 36.6 per cent between 1990 and 1998. So it would
seem that strict application of the defi nition of LD in the United States of
America has been virtually abandoned. Kavale et al. (2005) acknowledge
the obvious over-identification of students with SpLD, indicating that
many students with mild intellectual disability and with other reasons for
low achievement are being included.

The United Kingdom

The United Kingdom, seemingly influenced by OECD current definitions
and terminology, has clouded the issue of definition even more by adopting
the terms learning difficulty and learning disability to refer to individuals with
intellectual disability (i.e., mental handicap). In addition, while retaining
the concept of specific learning disability (SpLD) for other students, the
criterion of at least average intelligence has gone, thus opening up the way
for over-identification. The United Kingdom currently defi nes SpLD in
the following way:

Pupils with specific learning difficulties have a particular difficulty in

learning to read, write, spell or manipulate numbers so that their perfor-
mance in these areas is below their performance in other areas. Pupils may
also have problems with short-term memory, with organisational skills, and
with coordination. Pupils with specific difficulties cover the whole ability
range and the severity of the impairment varies widely. (Department for
Education and Skills, 2003a, p. 1)

Is the concept of ‘learning disability’ useful?

Specific learning disability remains a controversial topic. While some
experts argue strongly that, for example, a severe reading disability is
qualitatively different from any of the more general forms of reading
failure, others regard it as merely a different point on the same reading
difficulty continuum. So, is it helpful to differentiate between general and
specific learning problems?
 CU R R EN T P ER S P EC T I V E S O N L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 13

Carlson (2005, p. 1) claims that, ‘There is a vast difference between a

learning difficulty and a learning disability; an individual with learning
difficulty can learn using conventional teaching techniques while LD
requires specialised intervention which depends on the type of disability’.
It is important to challenge this claim because the intensive study of SpLD
over many years has not resulted in any major breakthrough in special
teaching methods or instructional resources. In terms of pedagogy, it is
difficult to imagine that any teaching method found useful for students
with general problems in learning to read or calculate would not also be
highly relevant for other students identified as dyslexic or dyscalculic – and
vice versa. If one examines the literature on teaching methodology for
students with SpLD (e.g., Lerner & Kline 2006; Lewis & Doorlag 2006;
Pierangelo & Giuliani 2006), one usually finds not a unique methodology
applicable only to SpLD students but a range of valuable teaching strategies
that would be helpful to all students. Any student with a learning problem
requires assistance, and there seems little to be gained from seeking to
differentiate between SpLD and non-SpLD students; the need for high-
quality, effective instruction is equally strong in both groups. All students
who find learning to read and write difficult are best served by designing
and delivering intensive high-quality instruction, rather than by identifying
them with a label (Elliott, 2008).

L I N K S T O M O R E O N L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U LT I E S

◗ OECD report (2005) Students with disabilities, learning difficulties

and disadvantage: Statistics and indicators. Available online at: http://
eprints.hud.ac.uk/464/
◗ Queensland Studies Authority (2007). Learning difficulties. Retrieved
21 January 2008 from: http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/syllabus/
kla_special_needs_info_learning.pdf
◗ A useful paper describing the ‘failure syndrome’ by Jere Brophy
(1998) can be located online at: http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/
digests/1998/brophy98.pdf

>
14 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

◗ An article ‘What are learning disabilities?’ by Silver (2001) is available

online at: http://www.ldonline.org/article/5821.
◗ Wikipedia contains a detailed description and discussion of specific
learning disability online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_
disability/
◗ The terminology for learning difficulties and disabilities used in the
UK is explained online at TeacherNet: http://www.teachernet.gov.
uk?wholeschool/sen/datatypes/Cognitionlearningneeds/
◗ Hay, I., Elias, G. & Booker, G. (2005). Students with learning
difficulties in relation to literacy and numeracy. Schooling Issues Digest
2005/1. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Available online at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/
publications_resources/schooling_issues_digest/schooling_issues_
digest_learning_difficulties.htm
 t wo

Affective consequences
of learning difficulty

KEY ISSUES

◗ Learning difficulties frequently bring with them a number of emotional

reactions to persistent lack of success.
◗ Students with learning difficulties often develop low self-esteem, lose
confidence in their own abilities, and develop a number of strategies for
avoiding tasks that are perceived to be too challenging.
◗ To understand the affective outcomes from learning difficulty it is
necessary to consider attribution theory, expectancy-value theory and
self-efficacy theory.
◗ A significant component necessary in helping students with learning
difficulties is to address their feelings concerning their situation, to
teach them coping strategies, and to break into the failure cycle.

Where and when do learning problems begin? The answer is that for many
children with learning difficulties their problems begin in the fi rst few
years of formal schooling. At this time, they are also beginning to develop
important beliefs about themselves and their own capabilities. Even at an
early age children can begin to regard themselves as failures in certain situ-
ations. If, for some reason, a child finds that he or she cannot do something
that other children are doing easily; for example, recognising words or work-
ing with numbers – there is a significant loss of confidence and motivation.
This leads in turn to deliberate avoidance of the type of activity associated
with the failure, and can herald the beginning of avoidance of any new or

15
16 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

challenging situation. Avoidance leads to lack of practice. Lack of practice

ensures that the individual does not gain the relevant knowledge or skill
while other children forge ahead. From that point on, the downward traj-
ectory is set and the failure cycle begins (Robinson, 2002). The individual
caught in a failure cycle thinks: ‘I can’t do it. I don’t like it. I’m not success-
ful. I don’t have the ability. I am not going to try’. As Cross and Vidyarthi
(2000, p. 13) remark, some students with difficulties are unable to separate
‘failing in class’ from ‘failing completely as a person’. Students in this situ-
ation often develop very negative attitudes and behaviours that are
detrimental to further learning. Some will exhibit unacceptable behaviours
that frequently get them into trouble, while others withdraw into them-
selves and do not participate fully in most learning activities. Research
has produced a widely agreed consensus that children who experience
problems in learn ing tend to acquire maladaptive self-referential styles (that
is, they consistently refer to themselves in a negative way) and consequently
develop poor self-concept and self-esteem (Humphrey, 2002).
The effects of early failure can be long term and cumulative. Slavin
(1994) reports that failure in the early school years virtually guarantees
failure in later years. For example, the consequences are dire for a child
who fails to learn to read in the early years. Studies have shown that
children who fail to read adequately in the early years of primary school are
still likely to experience major literacy problems in secondary school (e.g.,
Juel et al., 1986; Selikowitz, 1998; Smart et al., 2001; Torgesen, 2002).
According to Hay et al. (2005), longitudinal studies have shown that 70
per cent of students with problems in literacy at age 7 still have the same
problems when aged 15.

Affective factors in learning

The major affective factors associated with the learning process include:

◗ how much a particular learning task is valued by the learner (intrinsic

motivation)
◗ beliefs about one’s own ability to complete the task (self-esteem and self-
efficacy)
◗ awareness of the way others may perceive you as a learner (self-worth)
◗ attributional beliefs concerning the causes of one’s success and failure (locus
of control).
 A F F EC T I V E CO N S EQ U EN C E S O F L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT Y 17

These important variables tend to be strongly interrelated, with some

sharing a reciprocal relationship. The experiences a student has while learn-
ing will shape, for better or worse, that student’s confidence, motivation,
and perceptions of his or her own capabilities – and will therefore influence
future learning. When learning difficulties arise and persist they are likely
to have a very detrimental impact in all four areas of affect. Burden (2002)
suggests that how learners view themselves in relation to the learning
situation (‘learner self-perception’) must be given high priority when pro-
viding support and when planning intervention programs.

The failure syndrome

An individual needs to believe that success is possible when attempting
a learning task if sufficient effort is to be maintained (McNamara, 1994;
Wearmouth, 2002). Students who experience lack of success in school over
a long period of time begin to believe that they have no ability and will
never succeed. They abandon any serious attempt to tackle the schoolwork
they are set, and instead they try to find ways of preserving their status in
the peer group by other methods. Often these alternative methods result in
inappropriate behaviour and risk-taking.
In 1998, Brophy (p. 1) wrote:

Failure syndrome is one of several terms that teachers commonly use

(others include ‘low self-concept’, ‘defeated’ and ‘frustrated’) to describe
students who approach assignments with very low expectations of success
and who tend to give up at early signs of difficulty. [These students] often
fail needlessly because they do not invest their best efforts – they begin
tasks half-heartedly and simply give up when they encounter difficulty.

Similarly, Boekaerts (1996, p. 588) comments that:

[W]hen students believe that effort will not result in mastery, they may
refrain from putting in effort and settle for the belief that the subject
matter is too difficult or that their personal resources are inadequate. These
attributions may protect them from criticism in future, but they also trap
them in a vicious circle. Indeed, students who refrain from putting in
effort due to low self-efficacy lose their chances of enhancing self-efficacy,
interest and self-regulation.
18 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

Lewis (1995, p. 31) reminds us:

One of the biggest challenges for the teacher of a child who has difficulties
in school-based learning is to sustain the child’s confidence and enthusiasm
in learning. The greatest disincentive in learning anything is to experience
repeated failure. Even adults, who should be relatively confident and
mature, tend to react to failure by wanting to avoid the activity which
prompted the failure.

In order to understand the dynamics of the psychological factors that

are associated with problems in learning, it is necessary to consider rele-
vant attributes of a learner such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-worth,
locus of control and motivation. It is also necessary to highlight the
contribution made by attribution theory to the understanding of learned
helplessness.

Self-esteem
Self-esteem can be loosely defi ned as appreciating one’s own positive
qualities and personal worth. The term self-esteem is closely allied to
notions of self-concept and self-image (Santrock, 2006). Positive self-
esteem is necessary for optimum mental health, and it is the responsibility
of all schools to help students develop positive self-esteem. One’s level of
self-esteem also influences one’s motivation to attempt particular tasks and
meet specific challenges. Ormrod (2005) affi rms that teachers need to
respond to students’ efforts in ways that will boost rather than lower their
self-esteem.
Positive self-esteem is a by-product of doing well. Low self-esteem
arises from the lack of success associated with a learning situation. All
learners need to have abundant opportunity to be successful in academic,
social and physical situations if they are to develop positive self-esteem and
maintain good levels of motivation. In the academic domain, it is essential
to gear schoolwork to students’ developmental levels and capabilities, and
to provide them with positive and constructive feedback. Seligman (1995)
says self-esteem is created almost entirely by an individual’s successes and
failures in the world. Feelings of self-esteem develop as a result of meeting
challenges, working successfully and overcoming obstacles.
 A F F EC T I V E CO N S EQ U EN C E S O F L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT Y 19

Self-esteem is sometimes undermined in schools by practices such as:

◗ labelling certain students as failures or as problematic, either overtly in the

feedback they receive or covertly by the way in which they are treated (Riley
& Rustique-Forrester, 2002; Smidt, 2002)
◗ using ability-grouping within the classroom that reinforces feelings of inade-
quacy in those students assigned to the lowest groups (Chang & Westwood,
2001; McIntyre & Ireson, 2002)
◗ withdrawing students from classes to attend remedial lessons, because this
can negatively affect the student’s social status and self-esteem among peers
in the regular class (West, 2002)
◗ setting difficult tasks that result in frequent failure (Chan, 1994)
◗ giving certain students simpler work in class that causes embarrassment
within the peer group context (Hall, 1997).

In many ways, self-esteem in children is fairly fragile. Once it is damaged, it

is extremely difficult to rebuild; but a major goal in working with students
with learning difficulties is to attempt to do precisely that. Santrock (2006)
suggests that there are four main ways of improving self-esteem:

◗ highlighting and building upon children’s strengths, and valuing their

interests
◗ providing emotional support and social approval
◗ helping children achieve by setting interesting and relevant tasks and explicitly
teaching the component skills needed to complete them
◗ helping children cope successfully with challenging situations and encour-
aging them to reflect upon their success.

Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is an individual’s awareness of his or her personal competence
in a given context. Such awareness develops over time from the individual’s
observation of his or her own performance and the results obtained in a
variety of situations. Constructive feedback given by significant others is also
influential. Achieving good results, being praised and admired by others,
enjoying successes and knowing that you are doing well all contribute to the
development of one’s positive beliefs about self-efficacy. Conversely, poor
results and too much criticism reduce self-efficacy and lower a learner’s
20 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

aspirations (Biggs, 1995; Gage & Berliner, 1998). Achievement and self-
efficacy go hand in hand. Knowing that you are doing well enhances
one’s feelings of competence and confidence; and of course, the reverse is
obviously true. The level of students’ self-efficacy is an important variable
determining how much effort they will put into any task and how long
they will persist if the work is challenging (Moriarty et al., 1995). Lancaster
(2005, p. 47) comments that, ‘Self-efficacy beliefs contribute significantly
to the level and quality of human functioning as they influence how people
feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave’.
In school, a student’s expectations for success when faced with a new
challenge are directly related to his or her self-efficacy beliefs. Students
with learning difficulties have been found to lack confidence in their own
self-efficacy, particularly in relation to schoolwork (e.g., Klassen & Lynch,
2007; Lancaster, 2005). Individuals low in self-efficacy tend to shy away
from difficult tasks that they see as personally threatening because they
anticipate failure and loss of face among peers. Due to a history of poor
outcomes from their efforts, students with learning problems tend to have
very negative beliefs concerning their own self-efficacy (Ormrod, 2005).
In intervention programs, every effort must be made to try to enhance
students’ academic self-efficacy (Erlbaum, 2002). Setting tasks that are
suitably challenging but are achievable, together with the teacher’s use of
descriptive praise when giving feedback are important in this respect.
Descriptive praise indicates exactly why a particular outcome from effort
is praiseworthy. For example, ‘Well done, Marianne. You remembered to
go back and check each step in the calculation. You used a very sensible
approach’. When descriptive praise is perceived by children to be genuine and
credible it appears to enhance their motivation and feelings of self-efficacy.

Self-worth
Self-worth is closely related to both self-esteem and self-efficacy because all
three are concerned with the way individuals feel about themselves. In the
context of learning difficulties, feelings of self-worth directly influence the
way in which some students respond to challenges and to potential failure
situations. An aspect of self-worth theory looks at the way in which we
try to protect ourselves from negative evaluation by others (Eccles et al.,
1998). For example, many students with learning problems would not wish
 A F F EC T I V E CO N S EQ U EN C E S O F L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT Y 21

their peers or the teacher to think they lacked ability in a particular area,
so they would rather give the impression that when they get poor results it
is because they have not put in any effort. For them, being accused of not
trying is better than trying hard and being seen to fail. Self-worth theory
suggests that in some circumstances a student stands to gain more by not
making any effort because avoiding the task prevents any loss of face that
failing would have caused. In this case, avoidance is protecting the student’s
feeling of self-worth (Valas, 2001). Attempting to maintain self-worth can
cause a student to adopt a variety of defensive and avoidance strategies, said
to be typical of students with learning difficulties.
A teacher has responsibility to strengthen all students’ feelings of worth,
by valuing their contributions, showing interest in them as individuals,
and by using the strategies referred to above to build self-esteem and self-
efficacy. Teachers must also encourage students who display defensive and
avoidance tendencies to make an attempt at all the tasks they are set in class,
and to give whatever guidance is necessary to make sure they succeed.
It is important that teachers publicly acknowledge and praise students’
positive efforts, rather than emphasising lack of effort. As a first step in
working with a student with learning difficulties, it is often useful to help
the student explore his or her feelings, beliefs and attitudes associated with
the difficulty, and then to teach the student to use positive self-talk to
overcome personal reluctance and to restore some feeling of self-efficacy.
Counselling is often a necessary component of support.

Locus of control
Low confidence in self-efficacy is often accompanied by what is termed
in psychology external locus of control. To explain the concept of locus of
control, one needs to understand that individuals attribute what happens
to them in a particular situation either to internal factors (e.g. their own
ability, talents, effort or action) or to external factors (e.g. luck, chance,
something outside their control). Children with an internal locus of control
recognise that they can influence events by their own actions and they
believe that they do to some extent have control over what happens to them.
Appreciating the fact that outcomes are under one’s personal control is a key
component of feelings of self-efficacy (Pajares & Urdan, 2006). In the class-
room context, an example of internality is when students recognise that if
22 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

they listen attentively, ask questions, concentrate and work carefully they
get much better results. Attribution theory suggests that children will not
be motivated to persist in learning if they have attributed success or failure
to forces over which they have no control (e.g. their own innate ability)
rather than to factors they can control to some extent (e.g. the amount of
effort they make, or their improved use of cognitive strategies).
Under normal circumstances, internality of control increases steadily
with age. It has been found, however, that many students with learning
problems and with negative school experiences remain markedly external
in their locus of control in relation to school learning. They believe that
their efforts in school tasks have little impact on their progress, and that
what happens to them is unrelated to their own actions (Bender, 2004;
McCowen, 1998). Students’ positive confidence in their own capabilities
rapidly erodes if they experience early failures and frustrations. Students’
past causal inferences about their own successes and failures are major
determinants of future motivation and achievement.
A student who remains largely external in locus of control is one who is
prepared to be managed and controlled by others, such as teacher, teacher’s
aide, or more capable peers. There exists a vicious circle wherein the child
feels inadequate, is not prepared to take a risk, seems to require additional
support, gets it, and thus develops even more dependence upon others. By
providing too much support, we encourage the development of learned
helplessness.
The teacher’s task is to break into this circle and help the student to
recognise the extent to which he or she does have control over events and
can influence outcomes (Galbraith & Alexander, 2005). It is natural for a
teacher’s aide to wish to help and support a student with learning difficulties;
but this should not be done to the extent that all challenge and possibility
of failure are eliminated (Fox, 2003). Failure must be possible and when it
occurs children must be helped to see the causal relationship between their
own efforts and the outcomes. Accepting occasional failure and attributing
that failure to the correct cause is an essential part of learning (Seligman, 1995).
As students come to understand that their mistakes often occur simply
because they have not applied enough effort, or have not taken sufficient
care, their perceptions of inability will decrease. Students become more
internal in their locus of control, and much more involved in learning
tasks, when they recognise that effort and persistence can overcome failure.
 A F F EC T I V E CO N S EQ U EN C E S O F L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT Y 23

Self-efficacy is one of the important internal motivational resources needed

by students (Lancaster, 2005).
An external locus of control can have a negative impact upon a student’s
willingness to persist in the face of a difficult task. It is easier for the
students to give up and develop avoidance strategies rather than persist if
the expectation of failure is high. In the instructional approach known as
attribution retraining (McInerney & McInerney, 2006), students are taught to
appraise carefully the results of their own efforts when a task is completed.
They are taught to verbalise their conclusions aloud: ‘I did that activity well
because I took my time and read the questions twice’; ‘I listened carefully,
and I asked myself questions’; or ‘I didn’t get that problem right because
I didn’t check the example in the book. Now I can do it. It’s easy!’ The
main purpose in getting students to verbalise such attribution statements
is to help change their perception of the reasons for their successes or
failures in schoolwork. Overtly verbalising in this way helps to focus their
attention on the real relationship between effort and observed outcomes.
In most cases, attributional retraining seems to have maximum value when
it is combined with the direct teaching of effective strategies necessary for
accomplishing particular tasks.

Learned helplessness
Low self-esteem, diminished self-efficacy, feelings of poor self-worth, and
an external locus of control are all typical of the affective state termed learned
helplessness. Students with learning difficulties resulting in low academic
achievement appear to be particularly susceptible to learned helplessness.
They begin to assume that anything a teacher asks them to do will be too
difficult and will result in failure. This creates a serious obstacle to future
learning (Valas, 2001).
Ormrod (2005), drawing on the work of several other researchers in the
field, suggests that students with learned helplessness exhibit the following
characteristics:

◗ lack of self-confidence
◗ tendency to set themselves easy goals and to resist challenges
◗ avoidance behaviour
◗ decreased effort
24 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

◗ poor concentration
◗ define themselves as failures
◗ give up easily when faced with difficulty
◗ underestimate their own ability
◗ fail to recognise their own successes when they do occur.

Once a student has developed learned helplessness, it is an uphill battle

for teachers to try to reverse the process. Ormrod (2005) suggests that
many of the strategies recommended for enhancing self-esteem and self-
efficacy (particularly descriptive feedback, discussing reasons for failure and
success, valuing students’ strengths and contributions) may help to change
the students’ orientation. Attribution retraining, as described above, is also
necessary.

Motivation
Teachers often blame a student’s learning problems on his or her lack of
motivation. It is almost as if teachers believe motivation to be a fi xed and
innate trait of learners, rather than a variable characteristic that is signi-
ficantly influenced by outside factors. For many students with learning
difficulties their problem is certainly not an innate lack of motivation but
rather a marked reluctance to take risks or make any new commitment in
a learning situation. This reluctance is due entirely to prior experiences of
failure. Difficulties in learning significantly reduce a student’s motivation,
because it is hard to maintain keen interest and expend great effort in
learning something if the outcome is unsatisfactory.
In classroom contexts, motivation is diminished by:

◗ irrelevant or boring tasks

◗ information overload
◗ lack of variety in teaching approach
◗ negative reinforcement and criticism
◗ lack of success.

Conversely, the following factors help to maximise motivation:

◗ interesting tasks that present the right level of challenge

◗ activities that bring with them pleasure, enjoyment, satisfaction and success
◗ social reinforcement in the form of positive feedback from others
 A F F EC T I V E CO N S EQ U EN C E S O F L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT Y 25

◗ ownership and responsibility for a task

◗ freedom to make choices and decisions concerning what to do and how to
do it.

Teachers need to consider the above points when seeking to regain stu-
dents’ interest and motivation. A large part of overcoming learning
difficulties hinges on increasing students’ motivation to learn. While it is
ideal if motivation is intrinsic (that is, related to attempting a task because
it is of genuine interest and worth), it is more likely that the form of moti-
vation may have to be extrinsic (in the shape of incentives and rewards) in
the early stages of working with students with learning difficulty.
Psychologists are interested in studying the variables that cause people
to act and think in certain ways. They explore possible reasons or forces
behind an individual’s choice of activity, the persistence with which the
person will engage in the activity, their reactions when faced with diffi-
culties, and their thoughts about themselves as learners. Atkinson (1966)
developed what is now termed the ‘Expectancy-Value Theory’. This
theory suggests that for students to be willing to expend personal effort
on an activity, the activity and the outcome have to be seen as relevant
and valuable to the learner and the learner has to believe he or she will be
successful if attempting the task. If the learner does not feel confident about
success, or if the task is not valued, very little effort will be expended and
low achievement can be anticipated.

Stress and anxiety

In addition to negative impacts on self-esteem, self-efficacy and moti-
vation, learning difficulties can also cause major anxiety and stress in
students (Firth, 2006; Heiman, 2001; Zundans, 2003). In severe cases,
the outcome is that the individual begins to show signs of acute depression
and withdrawal (Sideridis, 2007; Zafi riadis et al., 2005). In fact, depression
is reported to be fairly common among students with learning problems
(Webber et al., 2002). Anxiety and depression are states that seriously
impair an individual’s ability to attend and concentrate in learning situ-
ations, thus compounding the original learning difficulty.
It is true, however, that certain individuals with learning difficulties
seem to be remarkably resilient to such stress and anxiety, coping well with
their problems and remaining in good mental health. Bryan (2003) suggests
26 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

that if it is possible to identify the specific dispositions or factors that make

some individuals resilient to adversity, we may be able to cultivate similar
dispositions in others. Meanwhile, for many students with chronic learning
difficulties it is essential to teach them effective ways of handling their
stress, coping with their problems, and remaining active learners (Firth,
2006; Firth et al., 2007).
The main message in this chapter is that we need to be more sensitive
than perhaps we sometimes are to the feelings, emotions, beliefs and attri-
butions of the students we set out to help. In addition to helping them
acquire essential knowledge and skills, we need to help them reflect upon
and modify any negative attitudes and beliefs they may harbour concerning
their own ability to improve. This is the counselling and therapeutic
component of effective intervention, and it must not be neglected. Until we
truly understand the affective consequences of learning failure, our actions to
prevent such damaging occurrences for the students in our own classrooms
will always be half-hearted and inadequate (McKissock, 2001).

L I N K S TO MO R E O N AFFEC T IVE FAC TO R S

◗ For an overview of psychological problems associated with learning

difficulty, see: http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.aspx?r=746
◗ For material on self-esteem and self-worth, see: http://www.nldline.
com/self.htm and http://www.ncld.org/content/view/866/391/
◗ For a discussion of locus of control construct, see: http://wilderdom.
com/psychology/loc/LocusOfControlWhatIs.html
◗ For detailed information on Albert Bandura’s interpretations of self-
efficacy, see: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html
◗ For other material on self-efficacy and learning, see: http://www.des.
emory.edu/mfp/self-efficacy.html
◗ Learned helplessness is the focus of a BA dissertation (2004) online at:
http://www.kzoo.edu/educ/sip/2004sips/Lanser.pdf
 t h ree

Early identification
and intervention

KEY ISSUES

◗ It is essential that children with learning difficulties be identified at the

earliest possible time. Appropriate intervention can then be provided.
◗ Early intervention can offset the possibility of secondary emotional
reactions to prolonged failure.
◗ Early identification can involve observation and screening procedures,
supplemented by information from parents and teachers.
◗ Several well-researched intervention programs are available such as
Reading Recovery, Success for All, Multilit and QuickSmart.
◗ To be effective, intervention needs to be high quality, intensive and
frequent.

The long-term impact of a learning difficulty can be devastating for the

individual concerned, causing not only low achievement in key areas of the
curriculum but also bringing with it the affective consequences discussed in
the previous chapter. It is of vital importance therefore to identify children
at risk of possible learning failure as early as possible in order to provide
appropriate teaching to minimise the impact of a learning difficulty. There
is evidence to support the view that early intervention for problems in
learning in both literacy and mathematics can have extremely beneficial
outcomes in terms of higher success rates in school and a reduction in the
emotional problems associated with failure (Campbell & Ramey, 1994;

27
28 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

Dowker, 2004; Siegel & Brayne, 2005; Wasik & Karweit, 1994; Wright,
2003). The importance of providing such intervention for reading is
highlighted by Sloat et al. (2007, p. 523) who state:

Most children who do not learn to read during the primary grades will
probably never learn to read well. Children who reach the end of third
grade with low literacy skills typically have less access to the regular
curriculum, require long-term support, and fall further behind their peers
in literacy achievement and curricular knowledge.

While the identification of intellectual, physical or sensory disabilities

takes place reasonably early in a child’s life, the identification of less
obvious difficulties in learning that are not related to a disability typically
does not occur until the child is in school and already having problems
(Milton, 2000). This is sometimes referred to as the ‘wait to fail’ model
of identification and is regarded as less than satisfactory (Tollefson et al.,
2007). To improve this situation many attempts have been made to identify
specific signs within the developmental pattern, behaviour, or overall per-
for mance of preschool children that might be predictive of later learning
difficulties. The main approaches to this problem include screening pro-
cedures and structured observation by teachers (e.g., Leung et al., 2007;
Sugai & Evans, 1997; Twaddle, 2001).

Screening procedures
Most screening procedures for use with preschool children or children in
the early years of schooling apply an observation checklist approach that
requires teachers (and sometimes parents) to report on important aspects of
children’s development. These instruments focus on skills and behaviours
such as speech and language development, gross- and fi ne-motor skills,
visual and auditory perception, attention and memory that have been
found in research to be predictive of success or failure in school. Sometimes
screening procedures also take into account a child’s work samples from
kindergarten or school, and some require a child to complete certain
tasks and activities that are then evaluated. Twaddle (2001, p. 26) states:
‘Screening is initial assessment to support teaching and learning, and to
identify areas of concern which could interfere with, or possibly restrict, a
child’s development and learning’.
 E A R LY I D E N T I F I C AT I O N A N D I N T E R V E N T I O N 29

Screening for potential learning difficulties is not a new idea. Early and
current practices in identification and intervention are summarised in a
comprehensive text edited by Bradley et al. (2002). Many of these screen-
ing and assessment systems are directed mainly toward predicting potential
reading difficulties, but a few are now targeting mathematics (e.g., Gersten
et al., 2005; Wright, 2003). The major focus has also been upon detect-
ing specific learning disabilities rather than general learning problems;
although screening in the early years can be used to reveal both.
Work on early intervention in Australia began with Helga Rowe’s
(1981) monograph for teachers and school counsellors. More recent work
has included the High Risk Screening Survey (HRSS) (Sugai & Evans,
1997). This instrument covers children in from pre-primary to Grade 7
and requires a teacher to rate all children in a class in areas of academic,
social and physical/sensory performance. The Australian Kindergarten
Screening Instrument (Twaddell, 2001) is designed for children in the 4.5
to 6 years age range and covers gross- and fi ne-motor skills, language,
pencil and paper work, reasoning and personal characteristics. In Western
Australia, a project called Catch Them Before They Fall has explored the
validity of screening for potential reading difficulties by assessing each
child’s phonological awareness and memory skills during the middle of the
pre-primary year (Heath, 2005). Since 1995, schools in Queensland have
used the Year 2 Diagnostic Net to monitor the progress of students in lower
primary school and to identify those needing assistance in literacy and
numeracy. Early identification of difficulties is also stressed in most of the
action plans for literacy and numeracy prepared by all state departments of
education (e.g., Government of South Australia, 2007).
In the United Kingdom, early detection of learning problems and
special educational needs has been stressed for some years. Advice on this
issue, for action by school-based special educational needs coordinators
(SENCos), has been promulgated (Department for Education and
Skills, 2002). Published instruments are also available from the National
Foundation for Educational Research, such as the Early Years Easy Screen
(EYES) (Clerehugh et al., 1991) and the Middle Infant Screening Test (MIST)
(Hannavy, 1993).
In the United States of America, most school districts have adopted
one or more forms of early screening, linked with early intervention
measures for children identified as being at risk (e.g., Arkansas Department
30 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

of Education, 2007; Zimmerman, 2007). Much of the research on early

identification has also taken place in the United States of America.
Some of the areas of performance that are frequently included in obser-
vation checklists and screening procedures include:

◗ language skills (speech, vocabulary, syntax)

◗ auditory and phonological skills
◗ fine-motor skills and hand–eye coordination (as, for example, in pencil grasp,
copying ability, use of scissors)
◗ attention and short-term memory (for example, the ability to repeat simple
sentences accurately)
◗ writing one’s own name
◗ comparing and matching words in print
◗ naming of letters and numbers.

Teacher as observer
It has been acknowledged for many years that experienced early childhood
teachers are reasonably skilled in noting when young children are having
learning problems. Indeed, in many ways they are at the cutting edge of
the early identification process. In addition to the specific cognitive and
physical skills mentioned above, preschool or fi rst-grade teachers take into
account such things as a child’s ability to maintain attention to task for
adequate periods of time, work without close supervision, persist with a
task despite frustrations, listen to and understand instructions, socialise
with peers, show interest in books and make serious efforts to learn. The
contribution of these informal observations to the identification of at-risk
children is as important as results from more formal testing or assessment
(Flynn & Rahbar, 1998).

Information from parents

Parents can, of course, provide much important information that can help
teachers or psychologists diagnose learning difficulties (Reddington &
Wheeldon, 2002). Relevant aspects of a child’s early development prior to
beginning school and his or her behaviour patterns outside school are often
known only to parents. There are risk factors such as very low birth weight,
 E A R LY I D E N T I F I C AT I O N A N D I N T E R V E N T I O N 31

prematurity, difficult birth delivery, illnesses, accidents, anxieties and

traumas that are often correlated with later learning problems (Delgado et
al., 2007). Developmental achievements, such as the age at which the child
could speak, walk and function independently, can also be very signifi-
cant. Any information collected from parents supplements data obtained
in other ways.

Intervention
The chief purpose of identifying children with learning difficulties at an
early stage is obviously in order to intervene and provide these children
with additional teaching and support. Early intervention should result
in fewer children moving into middle and upper primary school with
continuing problems in literacy and numeracy. In the past, intervention
has usually been provided in the form of remedial teaching, with selected
students withdrawn in small groups for additional teaching. This instruc-
tion has generally focused on literacy skills, with much less attention given
to learning difficulties in basic mathematics (Milton, 2000). But in recent
years, prevention and intervention have been reconceptualised as occur-
ring in three tiers or ‘waves’ (Rohl, 2000; Tollefson et al., 2007). The ‘three
wave model’ sees prevention and intervention in the following terms:

◗ First wave: Prevention. High-quality first teaching to maximise success for all
children and minimise learning problems.
◗ Second wave: Early intervention. Small group tuition to help some children
catch up. Estimated to be necessary for up to 20 per cent of children. All
children still failing after this second-wave intervention require more intensive
and frequent teaching represented by the third wave. It is hypothesised that
children who do not respond adequately to this level of additional support
are probably the students with genuine learning disabilities. The revised
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (US Department of
Education, 2004) now recommends that poor response to intervention be
used to identify SpLD, rather than a discrepancy between IQ and attainment.
The Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina has
devised an interesting intervention approach based on rate of response to
intervention (RTI) (Zimmerman, 2007) (see the Links box at the end of
the chapter).
32 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

◗ Third wave: Intensive support. Longer-term support for individuals who do not
respond quickly to second-wave tuition. Estimated to be necessary for some
5 per cent of students.

First-wave teaching
It is now generally agreed that the fi rst-wave instruction should utilise
proven, research-based teaching methods. This implies that explicit and
direct instruction will be used in the early stages for teaching reading,
writing, spelling and arithmetic skills, accompanied by much guided and
independent practice. In the teaching of reading and spelling due attention
will be given to the development of phonic skills.
In the United Kingdom this first-wave teaching takes place mainly,
but not exclusively, in the daily ‘literacy hour’ implemented in all primary
schools. Students’ progress is closely monitored to identify individuals who
may require additional (second-wave) teaching.
It is not essential that teachers employ particular programs or materials
for first-wave teaching because effective programs can be developed from
a range of suitable resources. However, examples of structured approaches
and materials used by some schools in the United Kingdom and Australia for
first-wave instruction in literacy include Letterland (Wendon, 2006), Jolly
Phonics (Lloyd & Wernham, 1995) and THRASS (Teaching Handwriting,
Reading and Spelling Skills, Davies & Ritchie, 2004). Letterland is a compre-
hensive scheme for beginners, covering phonological skills, reading, spelling
and writing. It employs a synthetic phonics approach embedded within story
contexts and establishes strong links between letters and sounds. Although
it is a program in its own right, Letterland can easily be integrated into a
broader language and literacy program. Jolly Phonics sets out to teach 42 basic
sound-to-letter correspondences, using a multi-sensory approach. THRASS
is designed to teach students how specific letters and letter groups represent
the phonemes of the English language (Symons & Greaves, 2006).
Australian approaches for fi rst-wave teaching that extend beyond
phon ic instruction include SWELL (School-Wide Early Language and
Literacy) (Center, Freeman & Robertson, 1998), CLaSS (Children’s Literacy
Success Strategy) (Department of Education, Employment and Training:
Victoria, 2001). SWELL covers children from kindergarten into the early
primary years and is a code-oriented beginning reading program. It is
based upon principles from the American intervention program Success
 E A R LY I D E N T I F I C AT I O N A N D I N T E R V E N T I O N 33

for All (see below) and is for use within a whole class. It comprises three
stages: (a) emergent literacy (learning about print, phonological awareness,
oral language, listening comprehension); (b) becoming literate (phoneme
awareness, phonics, spelling, comprehension); and (c) towards literacy com-
petence (comprehension, writing, grammar). CLaSS is a whole-school
approach that aims to maximise the literacy skills of all children in school
years P to Grade 2 inclusive. Also relevant are the professional development
materials for teachers known as First Steps and Stepping Out used in Western
Australia and elsewhere (Edith Cowan University, 2007).

Second-wave teaching
Second-wave teaching continues to employ direct teaching methods and
places even more emphasis on practice and mastery. The small group format
enables teachers to interact with each student and to adjust instruction to
each student’s needs. If it is not the student’s regular teacher who provides
the second-wave instruction, the support teacher involved needs to main-
tain close liaison with the regular classroom teachers in order to link his or
her instruction with the regular class program.
Specific programs for second-wave teaching include Multilit (Making up
lost time in literacy) (Wheldall & Beaman, 2007), QuickSmart (Graham et al.,
2007) and ELRP (Early Literacy Research Project) (Crevola & Hill, 1998).
Multilit can also be regarded as third-wave intervention. It is intensive and
focuses on phonic decoding, sight vocabulary and text reading for students
with reading difficulties in Year 2 and above. Emphasis is placed on select-
ing books carefully so that they are at an appropriate instructional level for
the students concerned (Pearce et al., 2006). QuickSmart is designed for
middle school students and involves structured 30-minute sessions to be
conducted by the teacher or an aide, three times per week for 26 weeks.
ELRP is seen as a whole-school approach that targets at-risk students in
the 5 to 8 years age group. The findings from this project influenced the
development of the Early Years Literacy Program and its associated materials
in the state of Victoria.
Again, THRASS and other code-based reading approaches are also
applicable as second-wave methods (Symons & Greaves, 2006). THRASS,
using direct teaching, is highly appropriate for students with learning
difficulties who otherwise remain confused about the fact that the same
sound units in English can be represented by different orthographic units
34 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

(e.g. /–ight/ and /–ite/) and how the same orthographic pattern can
represent different sounds (e.g. /ow/ as in flower or /ow/ as in snow).

Third-wave teaching
Third-wave teaching usually involves one-to-one or one-to-two tutoring.
Children who require this level of intervention tend only to benefit if
the tutoring occurs daily. The notion of providing third-wave support
twice a week for 30 minutes is largely a waste of time; but unfortunately,
twice-weekly sessions are all that many schools can provide. In the United
Kingdom, the Department for Education and Skills (2003b) describes
approaches that are appropriate for third-wave intervention, and discusses
issues involved in planning and providing the prevention and intervention
model in schools (see the Links box at the end of the chapter).

Reading Recovery
The most obvious example of third-wave individual intervention is Reading
Recovery (Clay, 1993). This early intervention program was fi rst developed
in New Zealand and is now used in many other parts of the world. Children
identified as having reading difficulties after one year in school are placed in
the program to receive intensive one-to-one daily tuition tailored to their
needs. Instruction is based on a combination of whole-language and skills-
based teaching principles. Some attention is given to listening for sounds
within words and practising phonic skills in context, but most attention is
devoted to improving fluency. The children receive the 30-minute daily
tuition for approximately 15 to 20 weeks.
A typical Reading Recovery lesson includes seven activities:

◗ rereading of familiar books for practice, fluency and confidence

◗ independent reading of a book introduced the previous day
◗ letter-identification activities, using plastic letters in the early stages
◗ writing of a dictated or prepared story
◗ sentence building and reconstruction from the story
◗ introduction of a new book
◗ guided reading of the new book.

The books selected for each individual are designed to give the child a
high success rate. Optimum use is made of the available time and students
 E A R LY I D E N T I F I C AT I O N A N D I N T E R V E N T I O N 35

are kept fully on task. Teachers keep ‘running records’ of children’s oral
reading performance and ‘miscues’, and they use this information to
determine what knowledge or strategies a child still needs to learn. While
Reading Recovery sessions have to be provided by a trained teacher, it is
also evident that parent-tutors and volunteers who are often used within
primary schools could easily master the basic teaching strategies.
Evidence has accumulated to indicate that Reading Recovery is generally
effective in raising young children’s reading achievement and confidence
(e.g., Ng, 2006; Reading Recovery Council of North America, 2002;
Smith-Burke, 2001). It is claimed that the program is highly successful
with the lowest-performing children in Year 1, with at least 80 per cent
of those who undergo the full series of lessons finally reading at the class
average level or better. Evidence also suggests that children who participate
in Reading Recovery are less likely to be referred later for remedial support
(O’Connor & Simic, 2002). However, data from the Ministry of Education
in New Zealand indicate that some 8 per cent of children in the program
still have to be referred for longer-term specialist support (Ng, 2006).
Reading Recovery is not without its critics. It has been observed that
skills and motivation acquired in the Reading Recovery lessons do not
necessarily spill over into better classroom performance, possibly because
the reading materials provided in the regular setting are not so carefully
matched to the child’s ability level, and the child receives much less indi-
vidual support. Other criticisms relate to the labour-intense nature of
the one-to-one intervention that places strain on school resources. Cost-
effectiveness remains an unresolved issue, but Iversen et al. (2005) provide
evidence to show that children can be taught in pairs, rather than indi-
vidually, without any detrimental effect on their progress.

Success for All

This early intervention program from the United States of America has
been adopted for use in several other countries. It involves intensive one-
to-one teaching using teachers or paraprofessionals to help increase the
literacy learning rate for at-risk and socially disadvantaged children (Slavin,
2004; Slavin & Madden, 2001). Lessons operate daily for 20 minutes. One
unique feature of Success for All is that junior classes throughout the school
usually work in ability groups for reading, with children going to different
36 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

classrooms according to their ability level. This arrangement necessitates a

block-timetabling organisation that some schools fi nd difficult to adopt.
Chan and Dally (2000, p. 226) describe the intervention thus:

The tutoring process in Success for All is similar to the Reading Recovery
program in that its fi rst emphasis is on reading meaningful texts. Initial
reading experiences are followed by phonics instruction which provides
systematic strategies for cracking the reading code. Emphasis is also given
to strategies to assist and monitor comprehension.

In an attempt to overcome the reported lack of generalisation and transfer

of skills, said to be found with Reading Recovery, the Success for All teachers
also participate in the mainstream reading program and assist with reading
lessons in the regular classroom. This helps to ensure that the one-to-one
tutoring is closely linked to the mainstream curriculum, not divorced from
it. Slavin and Madden (2001, p. 9) state that:

In general the tutors support students’ success in the regular reading curri-
culum rather than teaching different objectives. For example, the tutor
generally works with a student on the same story and concepts being read
and taught in the regular reading class. However, tutors seek to identify
learn ing problems and use different strategies to teach the same skills.
They also teach metacognitive skills beyond those taught in the classroom
program.

Research evidence in general has been very supportive of Success for All as
an effective intervention model (Morrow & Woo, 2001). However, a few
students with learning disabilities appear to require even more intensive
instruction.

Involving parents in intervention

To be maximally effective, intervention in schools needs to be extended
into the home if possible. When parents support their child’s literacy and
numeracy skills at home, much is achieved by reinforcing work from
school and providing additional practice. Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie
(2003) report very positively on the outcomes from what they term
a ‘dialogic approach’ in which parents are trained to interact positively
with their children (age 6+ years) in a literacy learning context at home.
 E A R LY I D E N T I F I C AT I O N A N D I N T E R V E N T I O N 37

They are encouraged to read to the children, discuss stories, play games
or activities to develop awareness of sounds in words, rhyming and alliter-
ation (phonological awareness), and teach the alphabet and basic phonics.

General principles for intervention

Over recent years a consensus has emerged over the essential ingredients
needed for successful intervention for learning difficulties. It seems from
firsthand observation and from research that the following general prin-
ciples need to be incorporated in all forms of early intervention:

◗ Children experiencing difficulties in learning must spend considerably more

time receiving direct help and guidance from teachers and parents.
◗ Frequent successful practice is essential to build skills to a high level of
automaticity.
◗ Daily instruction will achieve very much more than twice-weekly intervention.
◗ The instruction provided in intervention programs must be of a very high
quality and delivered with clarity and intensity.
◗ In order to ensure intensity and frequency of intervention, at-risk children
need to be taught individually for part of each day, graduating later to small
groups and to in-class support, before independent progress in the regular
class becomes viable.
◗ As well as attempting to improve basic academic skills, early intervention must
also focus on correction of any negative behaviours such as poor attention to
task or avoidance that are impairing the student’s progress.
◗ Although withdrawing a student for individual or group work can achieve a
great deal, it is also essential that the regular classroom program be adjusted
to allow at-risk children a greater degree of success in that setting. Failure
to adapt the regular class program frequently results in loss of achievement
gains when the student no longer receives assistance.
◗ There is a danger that children with learning problems may receive a remedial
program containing too many decontextualised skill-building exercises. All
work must be interesting and meaningful, and there must be genuine reasons
for engaging in the activities provided in an intervention.
◗ The materials used with at-risk children must be carefully selected to ensure
a very high success rate. For teaching early reading, repetitive and predictable
texts are particularly helpful.
38 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

◗ Multi-sensory and multimedia approaches often help children with learning

difficulties attend, assimilate and remember particular units such as letter–
sound correspondences, sight vocabulary and spellings.
◗ Children should be taught explicitly the knowledge, skills and strategies
necessary for identifying words, extracting meaning from text, spelling, writing
and calculating with numbers.
◗ Writing should feature as much as reading in early literacy interventions.
Concepts about print can be acquired through writing as well as reading, and
a great deal of phonic knowledge can be developed through helping children
work out the sounds they need to use when spelling words.
◗ In tutoring for mathematics improvement, due time and attention must be
given to developing automaticity in computational skills, as well as applying
taught strategies for problem solving.
◗ The use of other tutors (aides, volunteers, peers, parents) can be very helpful.
These individuals need to be taught how to function effectively in the tutor-
supporter role.
◗ Maximum progress occurs when parents or others can provide additional
support and practice outside school hours.

Benefits and pitfalls of intervention

It is always said, for good reason, that children with learning problems need
to be identified and helped as soon as possible. In general, that advice is
obviously sound because prevention is much more effective than attempting
a remedy after major problems have arisen. However, what is not always
so readily appreciated is that the very act of intervention inevitably labels
some students as ‘different’ within the school system and within their own
eyes (e.g. ‘I am a child at risk’, ‘I am a remedial student’, ‘I am a Reading
Recovery child’, ‘I need a support teacher’, and so forth) and places them
in a sub-system that changes their school experience compared to that of
other students (Lewis, 1995). The child who is withdrawn from class or
receives additional attention in the classroom does feel different (and perhaps
inferior) and is viewed as different by peers. Valas (2001) reports that being
placed within a special education support service, or having contact with a
psychologist, special education teacher, or therapist can have a detrimental
effect on the self-esteem of students with learning difficulties. Making
children feel different or ‘deficient’ can cause negative affective outcomes.
 E A R LY I D E N T I F I C AT I O N A N D I N T E R V E N T I O N 39

The potentially negative effect of identification and intervention

creates a significant dilemma for schools. How can additional support best
be provided? How do you provide assistance without making it obvious
that you are doing so? Is this more of a problem at secondary school than
primary school? According to studies by Klassen and Lynch (2007),
adolescents want help to be discreetly provided. But, how can a school
provide an unobtrusive form of support that still has sufficient intensity,
frequency and duration to have any real benefit? These dilemmas remain
unresolved. Perhaps any skill-development benefits for a student resulting
from high-profi le intervention outweigh negative impacts stemming from
the identification and labelling process. This important issue is addressed
further in the final chapter, where affective outcomes from the practice of
‘differentiation’ are explored.

L I N K S T O M O R E O N I D E N T I F I C AT I O N A N D
INTERVENTION

◗ The topic of identification of SpLD through children’s response to

intervention is addressed by Tollefson, J. M., Mellard, D. F. & McKnight,
M.A. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: A SLD determination
resource. The US National Research Center on Learning Disabilities,
Information Digest (Winter issue 2007). Available online at: www.nrcld.
org/resource_kit/general/RTIdigest2007.pdf
◗ A good example of kindergarten assessment in relation to identifying
SpLD can be found at the Arkansas Department of Education (Special
Education) website in the Resource guide for specific learning
disabilities (2007). Available online at: http://arksped.k12.ar.us/
documents/stateprogramdevelopment/DyslexiaGuideApril30.pdf
◗ A document prepared by the National Joint Committee on Learning
Disabilities (2005) presents a clear statement on the concept of
‘responsiveness to intervention’. Available online at: http://www.
ldonline.org/article/11498. The Committee also provides a statement on
‘learning disabilities and young children: identification and intervention’
(2006), online at: http://www.ldonline.org/article/11511

>
40 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

◗ A very comprehensive summary of what teachers should look for when

identifying potential learning difficulties at preschool, primary and
secondary school levels is provided by Bergert (2003) The warning signs
of learning disabilities. ERIC Digest online at: http://www.ericdigests.
org/2001-4/ld.html
◗ A brief summary article, Lyon, G. R. & Fletcher, J. M. (2002). Early
identification, prevention, and early intervention for children at risk
for reading failure. Center for Development and Learning, online at:
http://cdl.secured-ecommerce.net/resource-library/articles/strategies.
php?id=19&type=author
◗ A comprehensive summary of intervention principles and practices in
Australia can be found at the website of the Australian Government
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, online
at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_
resources/other_publications/successful_programs_strategies_for_
children.htm
◗ Brooks (2002) provides an evaluation of intervention methods for
literacy in use in the UK at this time. His review includes some
approaches that are also used in Australia and New Zealand (e.g.,
THRASS, Reading Recovery). Available online at: http://www.dfes.gov.
uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR380.pdf
◗ A similar review covering mathematics interventions (Dowker, 2004) is
available online at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/
RR554.pdf
◗ See also Department of Education and Skills (UK) (2003). Targeting
support: Choosing and implementing interventions for children with
significant learning difficulties. Retrieved 28 January 2008 from: http://
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/literacy/63437/nls_
chooseintervent_020103.pdf
◗ Details of screening tests and other early identification instruments can
be found in the catalogues of the National Foundation for Educational
Research in the UK and from the Australian Council for Educational
Research.
◗ For details of the SWELL literacy approach, see: http://www.uranpoinss.
qld.edu.au/pages/swellweb6.htm
 E A R LY I D E N T I F I C AT I O N A N D I N T E R V E N T I O N 41

◗ For information on CLaSS and ELRP, see Hill, P. W. & Crevola, C. A.

(n.d.). Key features of a whole school, design approach to literacy
teaching in schools. Available online at: http://www.bsw.vic.edu.au/
EarlyYears/researchpage_files/hillcrev_3.pdf
◗ Details of the Australian early literacy program An even start, introduced
in 2008 to assist children who did not reach the national literacy
benchmarks, can be visited at: http://www.anevenstart.dest.gov.au
 f o u r

Social and
behavioural issues

KEY ISSUES

◗ Studies over many years have revealed that students with learning
difficulties often have significant problems making friends and being
accepted by peers.
◗ Direct intervention is necessary to assist some students with learning
difficulties to develop socially.
◗ Training in social skills is important; but research findings suggest that
it is not always effective.
◗ Students with learning difficulties may exhibit behavioural problems that
must be addressed appropriately by teachers.
◗ Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) contributes to learning
and behavioural problems in some students.

It is well established that many students with learning problems also

have difficulty in developing positive social relationships with their peers
and with their teachers (Pavri & Monda-Amaya, 2001). Overwhelming
evidence confi rms that many students with learning difficulties have signi-
ficant deficits in social skills and in communication competence that may
predispose them to negative interactions with their peers (Donahue & Pearl,
2003; Kavale & Forness, 1996; Pearl & Bay, 1999; Vaughn et al., 1993).
Bryan (1998) suggests that almost 60 per cent of SpLD students experience
problems of being ignored, isolated, or rejected by classmates. In addition,

42
 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOUR AL ISSUES 43

some students with learning problems may become victims of teasing and
bullying. The situation is most problematic for students who also have an
emotional or behavioural disorder; and there is a danger that such students
become marginalised or are openly rejected by classmates. Wiener (2002)
reports that many students with learning difficulties have major problems
with social relationships and exhibit a variety of emotional reactions.
Students are at risk in school if they lack social skills, are aggressive
or provocative, and are rejected or victimised by others (Fox & Boulton,
2005; Yuen et al., 2007). It is for this reason that helping these students
establish better social relationships with others is one of the most important
goals in their education. It is evident that poor peer relationships during
the school years can have a lasting detrimental impact on quality of life, on
mental health, and on social and personal competence in later years.
It is essential that teachers are alert to the potential social development
problems that students with learning difficulties may have, and are pre-
pared to intervene with specific support. In an ideal world, teachers
and caregivers would identify any social adjustment problems students
are having and would attempt to intervene in some way to help them
acquire necessary social skills. But it is not an ideal world, and although
some studies have shown that mainstream teachers are aware of the fact
that students may have problems in social functioning (e.g., Tur-Kaspa,
2002) other evidence suggests they often do not recognise the extent of
the student’s social difficulties and therefore do not intervene to improve
matters (Hutchinson et al., 2002).

Problematic social development

Studies have confi rmed that students with learning difficulties are often
less accepted, more openly picked upon, or more neglected socially than
their classmates (Fry & Bartak, 2006; Pearl & Bay, 1999; Valas, 1999). In a
review of the relevant research literature, Coleman and Byrd (2000, p. 302)
suggest that, ‘most victimised children do not have the requisite general
social competencies (friendliness, cooperativeness, prosocial skills, sense of
humour) for becoming esteemed members of the peer group’. Humphrey
(2002, p. 30) states that, ‘Children with learning difficulties, whether
specific or general, are at an increased risk for bullying and teasing, and are
less likely to be accepted by their peer group’.
44 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

Riddick’s (1996) interviews with dyslexic students revealed that per-

sonal shame, embarrassment, depression and anger were common reactions
to their failures, and at least half the group reported being teased about their
difficulties by the peer group. Similarly, an earlier study by Martlew and
Hodson (1991) found that students with SpLD were teased significantly
more often than students without SpLD, and had problems in establishing
friendships. Evidence has accumulated over the years that students with low
achievement, particularly those of average intelligence with a specific
learning difficulty, are often targets of various forms of peer victimisation
(Mishna, 2003; Norwich & Kelly, 2004; Pearl & Bay, 1999). It is suggested
that often there are characteristics of these students that make them vulner-
able; for example, they may appear to be weaker, shy, nervous, or socially
inept (Mishna, 2003; Okabayashi, 1996). On the other hand, they may
display irritating, aggressive and provocative behaviours that cause other
students to dislike them. Often there is something about their behaviour
that seems to contribute to their vulnerability (Fried & Fried, 2003). It is
noticeable that most of the personal and behavioural characteristics repor-
ted to be typical of students who are socially rejected or bullied by others
(e.g. passivity, feelings of inadequacy, self-blame, poor self-concept, dimin-
ished self-esteem, problematic peer relations and external locus of control)
are also characteristic of students with learning difficulties (Gans et al.,
2003; Mishna, 2003). They often see themselves as failures, and regard
themselves as stupid and powerless (Harris & Petrie, 2003).
This chapter presents some of the steps that can be taken to facilitate
positive social interaction and to reduce troublesome behaviour that may
cause a student to be disliked by other students. To enhance social develop-
ment, teachers must create classroom environments where competition
is not a dominant element and they must use activities that encourage
cooperation among students ( Johnson & Johnson, 2003). They may also
need to teach certain students the social skills they seem to lack (Seevers &
Jones-Blank, 2008).

A supportive classroom environment

A positive and supportive environment is essential for the social develop-
ment of all students. To facilitate social interaction, three conditions are
necessary:
 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOUR AL ISSUES 45

◗ The general attitude of the teacher and the peer group towards students with
learning problems must be as positive and accepting as possible.
◗ The environment should be arranged so that students with learning difficulties
have the maximum opportunity to become socially involved in group or pair
activities in the classroom and during recess in the schoolyard.
◗ Some students with significant socialisation problems need to be taught the
specific pro-social skills that may enhance contact with peers.

Peer-group members can be encouraged to maintain and reinforce social

interactions with less able or less popular students. Often they are unaware
of the ways in which they can assist. Enlisting the help of the peer group
can be achieved through a system called Circle of Friends. This is a support
strategy to help students who have difficulty fi nding a friend and coping
with work in class (Barrett & Randall, 2004). The approach originated
in Canada but is now used in the United States of America, the United
Kingdom and Australia as one way to foster social inclusion for students
with difficulties. Circle of Friends operates by involving some of a student’s
classmates as natural supporters to help the child acquire more positive
behaviours and cope with schoolwork routines and assignments.
To increase the chances of positive social interaction for students with
learning difficulties, a teacher could make more frequent use of non-
academic tasks (e.g. games, model-making, painting) because these place
the child in a situation where he or she can more easily fit in and contribute.
In addition, ‘peer tutoring’ and ‘buddy systems’ have been found effective.
Several versions of these exist, including Classwide Peer Tutoring (CWPT)
involving all students. Research over two decades has confi rmed the
effectiveness of peer tutoring for improving learning outcomes for students
at all age and ability levels (McMaster et al., 2006).

Cooperative and collaborative activities

Regular use of group work in the classroom is one way of providing
students with opportunities to develop social skills and learning skills
through collaborating with others (Knight et al., 2004). Careful planning
is required if group work is to achieve the desired educational and social
outcomes. The size of a group is important, and students working in pairs
is often a good starting point. The composition of groups is also important
46 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

in order to avoid obvious incompatibility between students’ personalities.

Group members may have to be taught how to work together productively
(Yamanashi, 2005). They may need to be shown behaviours that enable
cooperation – listening to the views of others, sharing, praising each other
and offering help to others. If the task involves the learning of specific
curriculum content, the students need to be shown how to rehearse and test
one another on the material.
Initially there is some merit in having groups of students working
cooperatively on the same task at the same time. This procedure makes it
much easier to prepare resources and to manage time effectively. Choice
of tasks for group work is very important. Tasks have to be selected which
require collaboration and teamwork. It is not enough merely to establish
groups and to set them to work. The ways in which individual tasks are
allotted need to be carefully planned (division of labour), and the way in
which each student can assist another must also be made clear. Teachers
should monitor closely what is going on during group activities and must
intervene when necessary to provide suggestions, encourage the sharing of
a task, praise examples of cooperation and teamwork, and model cooper-
ative behaviour themselves. Doveston and Keenaghan (2006) suggest
that there is great value in discussing openly with a class the best ways of
making group work effective, and explicitly identifying the skills necessary
to cooperate productively with others.
The frequent use of collaborative groupwork creates a necessary but not
sufficient condition for some students with learning difficulties to improve
their social interactions with others. In the case of students displaying
extreme withdrawal or rejection, simply relying on classroom interactions is
not always sufficient. Sometimes it is necessary for a student to be removed
from the classroom, counselled and coached intensively in particular social
skills before those skills can be applied in the group setting.

Teaching social skills and strategies

Social skills comprise a set of competencies that allow children or adolescents
to initiate social interactions with others, establish their acceptance in the
peer group, and cope effectively and adaptively with their social environ-
ment. As stated above, some students with learning difficulties and with
emotional and behavioural problems are particularly at risk of social isolation
 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOUR AL ISSUES 47

(Gresham, 2002) – although it is important to stress that some students with

learning difficulties do not have a socialisation problem and are actually
popular with classmates, particularly if they have a pleasant personality.
One of the main reasons why certain students are unpopular is that they
lack appropriate social graces that might make them more acceptable.
Cartledge (2005) recommends that social skills instruction should
begin in the preschool or primary years, when children are most receptive
to behaviour change. Early training in social skills can be instrumental
in reducing or preventing problems in later years. Cartledge also advises
that social skill instruction should be embedded in the context of events
that occur naturally within the children’s own classroom setting. Research
shows that there is very limited transfer or maintenance of skills when they
are taught in contrived exercises unrelated to the real classroom. The most
meaningful settings in which to enhance a child’s skills are usually the
classroom and schoolyard. The skills to be targeted need to be of functional
value to the child in the social environment in which he or she operates.
Most programs for training social skills are based on a combination of
modelling, coaching, role-playing, rehearsing, feedback and counselling.
In each individual case, the first step is to decide what the priorities are for
this student in terms of specific skills and behaviours to be taught.
Social skills training usually includes the teaching of some or all of the
following behaviours:

◗ making eye contact

◗ greeting others by name
◗ gaining attention in appropriate ways
◗ talking in a tone of voice that is acceptable
◗ initiating a conversation
◗ maintaining conversations
◗ answering questions
◗ listening to others and showing interest
◗ sharing with others
◗ saying please and thank you
◗ helping others
◗ making apologies when necessary
◗ joining in a group activity
◗ taking turns
◗ smiling at others
48 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

◗ accepting praise
◗ giving praise
◗ accepting correction without anger
◗ coping with frustration
◗ managing conflict.

To a large extent these behaviours, once established, are likely to be main-

tained by natural consequences – that is, by a more satisfying interaction
with peers. Individuals with acceptable social skills are less likely to engage
in problem behaviour, are better at making friends, are able to resolve
confl icts peacefully, and have effective ways of dealing with persons in
authority (Poulou, 2005).
As well as having appropriate positive pro-social skills, a socially compe-
tent individual must also avoid having negative behavioural characteristics
that prevent easy acceptance by others; for example, high levels of irritating
behaviour (interrupting, poking, shouting), impulsive and unpredictable
reactions, temper tantrums, abusive language, or cheating at games. In
many cases these undesirable behaviours may need to be eliminated by
behaviour modification or through cognitive self-management.
Some researchers warn against over-optimism in regard to the long-
term efficacy of social skills training (e.g., Kavale & Mostert, 2004; Maag,
2005). While most social skills training produces positive short-term effects,
there are usually major problems with maintenance and generalisation of
the trained skills over time (Cartledge, 2005). Training in social skills is
not a matter of simply teaching a student something that is missing from his
or her repertoire of behaviours, but rather involves replacing an undesirable
behaviour that is already strongly established with a new alternative
behaviour. The negative behaviours we often take as indicative of lack of
social skill in some students (e.g. non-compliance) may actually be useful
behaviours for the individual concerned if they achieve desired outcomes
such as avoiding work that the individual fi nds threatening, or gaining
them more attention than they would otherwise receive (Hudson, 2003).

Addressing behavioural problems

Behavioural problems can arise because of stresses or difficulties a student
is experiencing in life outside school. In such cases, the problem behaviour
causes the learning difficulty and low achievement because the student is
 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOUR AL ISSUES 49

preoccupied with worries and is often in trouble. Causal factors outside

school, for example in the family situation, are difficult for teachers to deal
with in any practical sense, but teachers should adopt an understanding
attitude toward students in this situation and perhaps make reasonable
allowances rather than adding to their problems by harsh discipline. School
counsellors and social workers have an important role to play both in
providing support to the student and in keeping teachers informed of the
background difficulties.
In a few cases, the problem behaviours may be due to a student’s in-
ability to communicate effectively (Tait, 2007). Aggressive behaviour is
sometimes the result of students’ inability to be verbally assertive and to
win an argument or have their opinion heard. Instructions from the teacher
may not be understood, and the student becomes frustrated and angry.
But it is clear from what has been said so far, that inappropriate and
challenging behaviour from a student with learning difficulties can be
directly caused by the student’s inability to cope with schoolwork success-
fully. In other words, in such cases the learning difficulty is the primary
cause of the problem behaviour. Inappropriate behaviour then creates a
situation where much of the teacher’s time is taken up with managing
or correcting the behaviour rather than providing effective teaching and
encouragement for the student (Hudson, 2003; Shanahan & Richmond,
2007). All too often teachers react overtly to undesirable behaviour, thus
reinforcing it. Instead of ignoring or deflecting inappropriate behaviour,
teachers often reinforce the behaviour unintentionally by reacting overtly
to it. In such situations the student’s learning opportunities are further
compromised. Students who are constantly seeking attention, interrupting
the flow of a lesson and distracting other students are often very troubling
to teachers (Bakker & Bosman, 2006). Frequent disruptions have a ripple
effect and can cause major reduction in the overall quality of learning
and teaching occurring in that classroom, as well as destroying a positive
classroom atmosphere. It is reported that teachers can lose about half of their
teaching time in some classrooms due to students’ disruptive behaviour
(Charles & Senter, 2005).
Naturally, teachers feel professionally threatened by students who con-
stantly challenge their control. The feeling of threat can cause the situation
to get out of hand, and a teacher can get trapped into confrontations with
a student, rather than looking for possible solutions that will provide
50 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

responsible choices and save face for the student and teacher (Lindberg et
al., 2005). Inappropriate behaviour in the classroom is often inadvertently
rewarded by the teacher’s response to it. For example, a teacher who spends
a lot of time reprimanding students who misbehave is in fact giving them
a lot of individual attention (social reinforcement) at a time when they are
behaving inappropriately. This misapplication of reinforcement encourages
the very behaviour the teacher is trying to prevent.
The traditional approach to behavioural problems in school has tended
to be reactive and aversive rather than preventive. However, in recent years
there has been a shift toward a more positive behaviour support model
(PBS) that attempts to be proactive by reducing the likelihood that serious
problems will arise (Allen et al., 2005; Barton-Arwood et al. 2005; Bryer
et al., 2005). PBS intervention strategies include:

◗ modifying or eliminating classroom conditions that increase the probability

of challenging behaviour arising (for example, by reducing group size, intro-
ducing alternative materials or assignments, arranging seating differently,
eliminating interruptions and distractions, establishing routines for distributing
materials)
◗ ‘catch them being good’: positive reinforcement rather than reprimands (‘Well
done, Green Group. You are working very hard’)
◗ discussing behaviour codes and personal rights and responsibilities with
students
◗ explicitly teaching students behaviours they need to display to meet the
teachers’ expectations
◗ teaching students self-monitoring and self-control strategies
◗ providing active and supportive supervision.

Teachers may also use strategies such as deflection and diffusion to take
the heat out of a potential confrontation. Teacher: ‘Aaron, I can see you’re
upset. Cool off now and we’ll talk about it later; but I want you to start
work now please’. The judicious use of humour can also help to defuse a
situation, without putting the student down. Compliance with a teacher’s
instructions may be improved by presenting a sequence of three or four
simple requests that have a high probability of being complied with before
giving the instruction that may be resisted. The ‘momentum’ of complying
with the easy requests carries over into compliance with the final instruc-
tion (Stephenson, 2006).
 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOUR AL ISSUES 51

Corrective actions a teacher might decide to use for low-level inappro-

priate behaviour include:

◗ tactical ignoring (non-reinforcement) of the student and the behaviour

◗ simple directions (‘Sharon, get back to your work please’)
◗ question and feedback (‘What are you doing, Michael? OK, That’s good’)
◗ rule reminders (‘Jeanne, you know our rule about noise. Please work quietly’)
◗ simple choices (‘Excuse me, Ben. You can either work quietly here, or I’ll have
to ask you to work on your own at the carrel – OK?’).

When inappropriate behaviour is more extreme and causing disruption to

others, a teacher will need to take stronger action such as isolating a student
from the class group by using ‘time out’. However, Hudson (2003) reminds
us that this form of discipline is rarely effective in the long term, although
it may solve an immediate discipline problem.
If a behavioural problem is persistent, it becomes increasingly important
that the teacher (and/or the behaviour management team in the school)
should analyse possible reasons for this behaviour and examine the context
in which the learning and behaviour problems are occurring (Lancaster,
2005). The analysis deals with issues that are immediately observable in the
classroom. For example, it is pertinent to ask:

◗ How frequently is this behaviour occurring?

◗ When does the behaviour occur?
◗ When is the behaviour least evident?
◗ How is the class organised at the time (groups, individual assignments, etc.)?
◗ What is the teacher doing at the time?
◗ How is the student occupied at the time?
◗ What is the teacher’s immediate response to the behaviour?
◗ What is the student’s initial reaction to the teacher’s response?
◗ How do other students respond to the situation?
◗ What strategies has the teacher used in the past to deal successfully with a
similar problem?

It is not only externalising behaviour such as aggression, anger, vandalism

and bullying that need to be modified. It is equally important that students
who have reacted to learning failure by withdrawing into themselves and
becoming passive and anxious should also receive attention. Unfortunately,
they are less likely to be noticed by their teachers because they present no
52 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

problem to the management of the class. Nor is it easy to restore a student’s

confidence and assertiveness. This will only occur if the individual becomes
more successful in schoolwork and is openly accepted and valued by the
teacher and the peer group for his or her other strengths.
It must be recognised that changing a student’s behaviour is often very
difficult. The behaviour we regard as inappropriate has proved to be quite
effective for the student in attaining certain personal goals (e.g. escape from
an unpleasant task; getting the teacher’s full attention). The behaviour has
been practised frequently and has become very well established. In order
for a positive behaviour change to occur, the student must fi rst desire to
change. The responsibility of the teacher is then to help the student under-
stand exactly how to bring about and maintain the change. The student
needs to replace inappropriate behaviour with more appropriate and posi-
tive behaviour (Hudson, 2003). Attention must also be given to improving
the student’s self-monitoring and decision making in order to increase self-
control over the problem behaviour.
The main goal of any type of behaviour-change intervention should
be the eventual handing over of control to the individual concerned, so
that he or she is responsible for managing the behaviour. One way of
achieving this is to employ cognitive behaviour modification (CBM). This
intervention fi rst helps the student analyse the inappropriate behaviour and
understand that the response (e.g. lashing out at others, arguing with staff )
is not helping in any way. The student is then taught to use ‘self-talk’ to
help monitor his or her own reactions to challenging situations when they
occur. For example: ‘OK. Stay calm. Read the question carefully. Read it
again. Do I understand this? No. I must put up my hand and ask the teacher
to explain it for me’. The self-talk enables the student to process aspects
of the situation rationally and enables him or her to control and manage
responses more effectively. A key ingredient in the approach is teaching
the student to use self-talk statements that serve to inhibit impulsive and
inappropriate thoughts or responses, allowing time for substitution of more
acceptable responses; for example, to be assertive but not aggressive.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

One detrimental behavioural pattern that is fairly often associated with
learning difficulties, either as a primary cause of the difficulty or as an
additional problem, is hyperactivity. Some students with learning problems
 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOUR AL ISSUES 53

display a need for excessively high levels of physical activity. This causes
them to have great difficulty remaining in their seats and keeping still.
They twitch and wriggle, they drum their fingers on the desk, they bounce
their feet, they poke other students, they pick things up and then drop
them, and they want to move around the room frequently. They do not
seem able to inhibit impulsive actions or responses. It is believed that in
some cases this problem of hyperactivity has a physical cause and is not
simply due to lack of self-control.
In almost all cases of hyperactivity the student also has significant
dif ficulty in maintaining attention to task, and is highly distractible and
distracting in learning situations. For this reason, the condition is now
referred to as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This condition
is recog nised fully in the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed., APA, 2000), an official source of reference for psychologists. It is
considered that approximately 3–5 per cent of school-age children present
symptoms of ADHD (Rappley, 2005), but the classification ADHD is
often misused and applied to students who are merely bored and restless,
or who are placed in a class where the teacher lacks good management
skills. Hyperactivity is also present sometimes as an additional problem
in certain disabilities (e.g. cerebral palsy, acquired brain injury, specific
learning disability and emotional disturbance).
Students with ADHD, while not necessarily below average in intelli-
gence, usually exhibit poor achievement in most school subjects (Lucangeli
& Cabrele, 2006). Impaired concentration and restlessness associated with
ADHD seriously impair a student’s learning capacity. The literature indi-
cates that most hyperactivity diminishes with age even without treatment,
but in a few cases the problems persist into adult life. Treatments have
included diet control, medication, psychotherapy, behaviour modification
and cognitive behaviour modification. According to Lerner and Kline
(2006), the most effective treatment for ADHD requires the integrated
use of effective teaching strategies, a behaviour management plan, parent
counselling, a home management program and medication.
Students with ADHD need to be engaged as much as possible in inter-
esting work, at an appropriate level, and in a stable environment. Enhancing
the learning of students with ADHD will also involve:

◗ providing strong visual input to hold attention

◗ using computer-assisted learning (CAL)
54 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

◗ teaching the student better self-management and organisational skills

◗ monitoring the student closely during lessons and finding many opportunities
to praise them descriptively when they are on task and productive.

To minimise the effect that ADHD has on academic progress, it is par-

ticularly important to increase the amount of work these students complete
each lesson. This often requires a structured program with regular and
immediate rewards for work completion and goals achieved (Wright,
2007).

L I N K S TO M O R E O N S O C I A L A N D B E H AV I O U R A L I SS U E S

◗ LDonline website has useful links to several articles on behaviour and

social skills. Available online at: http://www.ldonline.org/indepth/
behavior
◗ LDonline also has a relevant item by Mather and Goldstein on behaviour
modification. Available online at: http://www.ldonline.org/article/6030
◗ Internet Special Education Resources website has a comprehensive
paper by Adam Cox (2006) on teaching social skills. Available online at:
http://www.iser.com/teaching-social-skills.html
◗ Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports website provides
comprehensive coverage on the topic of positive behaviour support, with
links to several recent articles. Available online at: http://www.pbis.org/
schoolwide.htm. See also: http://www.pbis.org/main.htm
◗ Cognitive behaviour modification applied to social skills training is the
topic of an article by Smith, S. W. (2002) in ERIC Digests online at:
http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-3/skills.htm
◗ The National Institute of Mental Health website (2008) provides a
concise overview of ADHD. Available online at: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/
health/topics/attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-adhd/index.shtml
 f ive

Teaching students
with learning difficulties

KEY ISSUES

◗ Research has shown clearly which teaching methods produce the best
results for students who have learning difficulties. Unfortunately, these
methods are not widely used by classroom teachers.
◗ Much is known about effective instruction that can reduce failure rates.
But teachers-in-training are not specifically exposed to this research and
they are encouraged to use student-centred approaches.
◗ Learning to read is problematic for students with learning difficulties.
Effective methods for teaching reading are known and should be used.
◗ Effective methods for teaching mathematics are required to prevent the
high failure rate that is common in this subject.

In Chapter 1, attention was drawn to the fact that many learning difficulties
are caused or exacerbated by inappropriate teaching methods. Due to the
fairly disappointing standards achieved by too many students in recent
years there have been demands in several countries for schools to adopt
teaching methods that have been carefully evaluated for their efficacy,
rather than employing methods based on teachers’ personal intuition,
style, or preference (e.g., DEST, 2005; Moran, 2004). Recent emphasis on
the importance of evaluating the effectiveness of methods of instruction
before they are adopted for widespread use in schools applies not only to

55
56 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

methods used for general teaching purposes but also those used for rem-
edial intervention (Wheldall, 2007).
In the past, some educators have suggested that student-centred
constructivist approaches such as activity methods, project work, resource-
based learning, discovery maths and whole-language approach to literacy
have most to offer students with special educational needs (e.g., Goddard,
1995; Kroll, 1999; MacInnis & Hemming, 1995). These approaches often
emphasise social interaction more than mastery of curriculum content, and
are deemed to be more accommodating of differences among students.
However, research evidence does not support this viewpoint (Swanson &
Deshler, 2003; Vaughn et al., 2000). Student-centred approaches require
much more initiative, persistence and independent learning ability than
most students with learning difficulties possess (Kirschner et al., 2006;
Mayer, 2004).

What has research said about teaching

methods?
The evidence clearly indicates that students with learning difficulties make
best progress in academic subjects under teaching methods that are direct,
explicit and well structured (Ellis, 2005; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2002;
Rowe, 2006a; Swanson & Deshler, 2003). They do less well with methods
that are unstructured, open-ended, and rely on incidental learning through
activity and discovery (Carnine, 2000; de Lemos, 2004; Mastropieri et al.,
1997; Pincott, 2004). This finding applies particularly to the beginning
stages not only of reading, writing and mathematics but also subjects such as
science, geography, technology and other skills-based and knowledge-based
areas of the curriculum. Wilen et al. (2000) comment that research shows
that a systematic approach has benefits for young children, students with
learning difficulties and students of all ages and abilities during the first stages
of learning informative material, or material that is difficult to learn.
Rowe (2006b) refers to a very successful professional development
research program (Working Out What Works) conducted by the Australian
Council for Educational Research designed to help teachers cater more
effectively for students with learning difficulties in Years 4, 5 and 6. In
particular, the program encouraged teachers to use direct and explicit
instruction for basic academic skills and this brought about significant
 T E AC H I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 57

improvement in students’ achievements in literacy and numeracy.

Improvements were also noted in students’ attention to task and their
general behaviour. Rowe reports that the most effective methods were
found to be direct instruction, strategy training and a combination of
direct instruction with strategy training. This finding confi rms a large
body of extant research evidence that indicates the superior effects of direct
teaching over student-centred discovery methods for teaching basic skills
(see Ellis, 2005 for a comprehensive review).
The use of direct teaching methods in the early stages in no way pre-
cludes students from ultimately developing independence in learning.
Indeed, early direct teaching facilitates greater confidence and indepen-
dence in later stages of learning. Over many decades, despite the popularity
of student-centred, activity-based approaches, clear evidence supports the
value of appropriate direct teaching (e.g., Kirschner et al., 2006; Mayer,
2004), often delivered through the medium of interactive whole-class
lessons (Dickinson, 2003).
In general, effective teaching methods are those that provide all students
with the maximum opportunity to learn by increasing ‘academic engaged
time’ and maintaining high levels of on-task behaviour. Academic engaged
time refers to the proportion of lesson time in which students are cogni-
tively focused on their work. This active involvement includes attending
to instruction from the teacher, working independently or with a group
on assigned academic tasks and applying previously acquired knowledge
and skills. Students who are receiving instruction directly from the teacher
attend better to the content of the lesson than students who are expected
to find out information for themselves. Effective lessons, particularly those
covering basic academic skills, tend to have a clear structure, with effective
use made of the available time. Effective teaching not only raises the
attainment level of all students but also reduces significantly the prevalence
of learning difficulties and disengagement (Rowe, 2006b).
Swanson (2000), after reviewing teaching methods, drew the conclu-
sion that the most effective approach for teaching basic academic skills to
students with learning difficulties combines the following features:

◗ carefully controlled and sequenced curriculum content

◗ provision of abundant opportunities for practice and application of newly
acquired knowledge and skills
58 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

◗ high levels of participation and responding by the students (for example,

answering the teacher’s questions; staying on task)
◗ frequent feedback, correction and reinforcement from the teacher
◗ interactive group teaching
◗ modelling by the teacher of effective ways of completing school tasks
◗ teaching students how best to attempt new learning tasks (direct strategy
training)
◗ appropriate use of technology (e.g. computer-assisted instruction)
◗ provision of supplementary assistance (e.g. homework, parental tutoring, etc.).

Hockenbury et al. (2000, p. 9) conclude that the education needed by stu-

dents with learning difficulties includes instruction that is ‘more efficient,
intensive, relentless, carefully sequenced, and carefully monitored for
effects’. According to Foorman et al. (2006), the features most commonly
found in effective classrooms where learning difficulties are minimised
include:

◗ teachers applying proactive classroom management

◗ more time devoted to instructional activities
◗ students more academically engaged
◗ more active and explicit instruction
◗ teachers providing support (‘scaffolding’) to help students develop deeper
understanding
◗ tasks and activities well matched to students’ varying abilities (differentiation)
◗ students encouraged to become more independent and self-regulated in their
learning
◗ a good balance between teacher-directed and student-centred activities.

It is important to note the last point in the list above concerning balance
between teacher-directed and student-centred learning. The work of
Scruggs and Mastropieri (2007) in teaching science to students with
learning problems serves to remind us that certain educational goals can’t
be achieved if a teacher uses only direct teaching methods. For example,
working towards goals in science relating to inquiry and deductive reason-
ing clearly requires a constructive, hands-on approach, with student activity
and discussion. These writers conclude that investigative activity combined
with direct teacher input as needed is most likely to achieve the broadest
range of positive outcomes in science for students with learning difficulties.
In other words, the optimum approach requires a balance between teacher
 T E AC H I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 59

instruction and student construction of knowledge. A similar conclusion

is warranted in relation to teaching basic academic skills in literacy and
numeracy (Center, 2005; Pressley, 2006). Having reviewed the research
on teaching, Ellis (2005, p. 46) concludes: ‘Best practice is now recognised
by classroom practitioners as the applying of a combination of instructional
approaches which best fits the students being taught’.
Several researchers have used a statistical procedure known as meta-
analysis to combine data from many different studies in order to determine
the overall effectiveness of different methods of teaching or working with
students with learning problems (e.g., Forness et al., 1997; Swanson, 1999;
Vaughn et al., 2000). Meta-analysis allows researchers to calculate a statistic
called effect size (ES) which can be taken as an index of the effectiveness
of a particular method. An ES of 0.80 and above is regarded as a strong
effect, suggesting the method produces very good results. An ES of 0.50
to 0.70 suggests a moderately effective method, while an ES below 0.30
suggests only a weak or possibly negligible effect from the method. For
most purposes, it is usual to regard an effect size greater than 0.40 as
indicating a potentially useful teaching approach (Cohen, 1988; Forness
et al., 1997). From these meta-analyses there is strongest support for direct
strategy training (e.g. teaching students to use mnemonics, apply reading
comprehension strategies and strategies for writing, spelling and maths).
These methods typically yield an ES above 1.0. Also strongly supported
(ES of 0.70–0.85) are direct instruction and methods that involve frequent
testing for mastery.
It is clear that teaching students how to learn – that is, strategy training
in its various forms – combined with high-quality direct teaching of cur-
riculum content, is most effective in helping students learn. Methods that
provide abundant opportunity for practice with feedback from a teacher,
high participation rates and supplementary assistance produce the best
improvement (Heward, 2003). Many of the same features are identified by
Sideridis and Greenwood (1998) who add the following elements to create
the most effective approach for students with learning difficulties:

◗ reinforcement, with students being rewarded through descriptive praise and

encouragement
◗ brisk pacing of lessons
◗ positive student-to-student interactions through peer assistance, group work
and discussions
60 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

◗ positive student-to-teacher interactions with frequent asking and answering of

questions.

Two areas of the curriculum where teaching methods exert a particularly

powerful influence on students’ learning are reading and mathematics. It is
not the intention to go deeply into these two areas in this text because they
are covered fully in other books in this series. Instead, some basic issues
and principles will be considered in relation to teaching these skill-based
subjects to students with learning difficulties.

Difficulties in reading
One area of the curriculum that has stimulated much attention from
educational researchers over many years is the teaching of reading. Reading
has also attracted major controversies regarding how it should be taught,
with advocates of holistic approaches waging war against advocates for skill-
based methods (Hempenstall, 2005; Santrock, 2006). The present weight
of research evidence favours the view that the foundation stages of literacy
and numeracy should be taught in a systematic and direct manner, rather
than through a child-centred approach that relies on incidental learning
(de Lemos, 2005; National Reading Panel, 2000; Rose, 2006; Wheldall
& Byers, 2005). In particular, due attention should be given to the direct
teaching of phonic skills to enable readers to decode unfamiliar words. It
is felt that inappropriate teaching is the underlying cause of many students’
difficulty in acquiring effective literacy skills.
Difficulties in acquiring proficiency in reading have also attracted much
research interest. Poor reading ability is one of the major characteristics
of students with learning difficulties. It is often their weakness in literacy
that fi rst brings them to the notice of teachers and parents. Ability to read
is recognised as the key to effective learning in all areas of the school
curriculum, so difficulty in learning to read has an extremely negative
impact on a child’s learning across all school subjects. Weak readers read
very little, and it is an unfortunate fact that students who most need
practice in order to improve through developing automaticity, fluency
and confidence in their word-recognition skills are the very students who
manage to engage in the least amount of reading. They use a variety of
tactics to reduce the amount of time they spend engaging with books. This
 T E AC H I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 61

happens because they find reading a very frustrating and often embarrassing
task. Reading difficulties thus have a detrimental influence on a student’s
self-esteem, confidence and motivation.

Teaching reading skills

There are two main processes involved in reading. The first is word
identification and the second is comprehension. Word identification involves
the accurate recognition or decoding of words printed on the page and is
the first step towards reading for meaning. Many students with learning
difficulties try to remember words simply by their length and pattern.
While this strategy works effectively for a few words, it eventually becomes
impossible to store and recall every word that is encountered. Some students
with reading difficulties have not grasped that in the English language an
alphabetic code is used for spelling words, and can be used in reverse to
identify unfamiliar words. Using this code, letters and groups of letters
represent specific speech sounds in fairly predictable ways. While it is true
that some words in English are written without perfect sound-to-letter
correspondences, it is equally true that at least 80 per cent of words can be
decoded wholly or partly by applying phonic knowledge. So, a priority in
teaching the beginning stages of reading is to establish an understanding of
the phonic principle (Coltheart & Prior, 2006; de Lemos, 2004). It must
be stressed here that no teacher ever uses a phonic approach exclusively – to
do so would be to teach early reading and spelling in the most unnatural
and boring way. Valid criticisms have been made of some forms of remedial
teaching of reading that err on this side and involve nothing but repetitive
drilling of isolated skills. The teaching of phonics needs to be done
thoroughly, but only as part of a total reading program with an emphasis
on reading for enjoyment and for information.
To understand the principle of phonic decoding from print, a child has to
be able to break spoken words into their component sounds and know that
letters can be used to represent these sounds. This concept represents one
of the most essential understandings that beginning readers need to possess.
Before they can understand the phonic concept they must possess what is
termed phonological awareness. This term refers to the ability to understand
that spoken words are made up from a sequence of several separate speech
sounds produced in rapid succession. For example, the simple word food is
62 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

made from the separate sounds /f/ + /oo/ + /d/. When saying the word
food very slowly these separate sound units (phonemes) can be heard. Students
with the most serious degrees of reading difficulty have been found to lack
phonological awareness, and they need to be given structured experiences to
help them improve significantly in this area (Blachman et al., 2000; Galletly,
1999; Nicholson, 2006). More information on training phonological aware-
ness can be found in Westwood (2008a) within this series of books.
When children can identify sounds within spoken words the next step
is to teach common letter-to-sound correspondences. Teaching phonics
means teaching learners the precise relationships between letters and
sounds and how sounds can be blended to produce words. The favoured
method of instruction, ‘synthetic phonics’, is one in which children build
the pronunciation of a word in print by sounding out and blending the
letters. After single letter-to-sound correspondences have been mastered,
instruction moves on to groups of letters that represent pronounceable parts
of words (e.g. /th/,/cl/, /tr/, /str/, /pre/, /un/, /ing/, etc.), and later to the
study of word families that help children recognise and use groups of letters
that are shared by words that sound similar (e.g. tell, bell, fell, cell, sell, well).
Research evidence very strongly supports direct and systematic instruc-
tion in phonic skills soon after the child reaches school age (Coltheart &
Prior, 2006; Johnston & Watson, 2005). This early start provides a firm
foundation on which to build higher-order literacy skills. Children should
not be left to discover phonic principles for themselves through incidental
learning, although much valuable phonic knowledge can be acquired and
reinforced from the words children are attempting to read and write every
day. There are many programs designed to teach phonic knowledge in a
systematic way; for example, THRASS and Jolly Phonics, already described
in Chapter 3.
As well as learning phonic skills, it is necessary for children to build
up a vocabulary of words they know instantly by sight. Children who are
beginners, and those with severe reading problems, do not have many
words they know by sight. They have not yet had sufficient experience with
reading to build up an extensive ‘sight vocabulary’. But acquiring a sight
vocabulary occurs quickly for most children as they gain more exposure to
print. As they become competent in applying phonic knowledge to decode
words, these new words are then added to a child’s sight vocabulary and do
not need to be decoded the next time they are met.
 T E AC H I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 63

The key to building sight vocabulary is frequent exposure to important

words and abundant practice in recognising them, saying them and writing
them. Some of the usual ways of providing additional repetition and over-
learning of sight vocabulary include:

◗ using vocabulary controlled reading books that deliberately use key words
repetitively
◗ using flashcards to practise rapid recognition and spelling
◗ using word lotto games in which a child covers words on a card as they are
pronounced by the teacher, then reads all the words back to the teacher at the
end of the game.

Of course, flashcard activities and lotto games should be regarded only as

supplements to a child’s more extensive practice with reading and writing of
meaningful text. Practice of sight vocabulary words and acquiring phonics
skills are only of value if a child can make use of the learning when reading
books and other print media. The most meaningful method of acquiring an
extensive sight vocabulary is to engage in reading very frequently. Santrock
(2006) summarises findings from the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) in the United States of America showing clearly that
students who read more pages per day in school and for homework are
much more likely to achieve higher reading test scores than those who
read less. Unfortunately, students with learning difficulties are skilled in
avoidance tactics and manage to read as little as possible.
Reading with understanding must be the focus of any literacy program
from the very beginning. Comprehension is not something that comes
after learning the mechanics of word recognition and decoding. Difficulties
with comprehension occur if a student is weak at the underlying skill of
word identification. Slow and laboured reading prevents easy interpre-
tation of meaning. Students who are good at comprehending text use a
variety of ways to support their understanding. For example, they may
visualise as they read narrative material; they may pose questions to
themselves; they may think about the relevance of what they are reading;
they may challenge the accuracy of stated facts; and they check their own
understanding as they read. Weaker readers do not tend to use any of these
strategies spontaneously.
In order to improve students’ comprehension, it is important to consider
the possible underlying cause of the problem. Sometimes comprehension
64 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

problems stem from a student’s limited vocabulary knowledge or lack of

reading fluency. If a student has difficulty understanding what is read,
it is worth devoting more time to discussing word meanings, before,
during and after the student reads a passage of text. There is certainly
value in sometimes pre-teaching difficult vocabulary. Engaging readers
in discussion about the topic of a text and encouraging them to adopt a
thought ful approach can also improve their reading comprehension most
naturally. It is also necessary to teach students effective strategies to use
when approaching text in order to get meaning from it (Boulware-Gooden
et al., 2007). Such strategies include:

◗ previewing the text first to get an overall impression of the content

◗ generating questions in your mind concerning what you already know about
the topic and what you hope to find out
◗ reading the text carefully, and then rereading if necessary
◗ summarising in your mind the main points in what you have read.

Unfortunately, there is evidence that primary school teachers tend not to

give sufficient attention to strategy instruction in reading (Parker & Hurry,
2007). And in secondary schools comprehension tends to be tested, rather
than taught.
The following principles may also help to strengthen comprehension
skill development for students with learning difficulties:

◗ Ensure that the reading material is interesting and at an appropriate reading

level.
◗ Always make sure students are aware of the purpose for reading a particular
text.
◗ Apply comprehension strategy training, using authentic texts rather than con-
trived exercises.
◗ Prepare students for starting a new book. Ask: ‘What do you think this story is
about?’ ‘What do the illustrations tell us?’ ‘What does this word mean?’ ‘Let’s
read the subheadings before we begin’.
◗ If there are comprehension questions to be answered, read them together
before the story or passage is read, so that students enter the material knowing
what information to seek.
◗ Use newspapers and magazine articles as the basis for discussion and com-
prehension activities. Highlighter pens can be used to focus upon key ideas,
important terms, or facts to remember.
 T E AC H I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 65

Key elements in fostering reading development

It has already been stressed that daily instruction will achieve much more
than twice-weekly intervention, and that maximum progress occurs when
parents or others can provide additional support and practice beyond school
hours. In addition, to prevent or remedy difficulties in reading, teachers
should ensure that the following elements are provided within the teaching
program:

◗ abundant opportunities to read for pleasure and for information

◗ systematic instruction in phonic knowledge and word-attack skills
◗ opportunities to build a sight vocabulary of the most frequently used words
◗ successful practice, often using material that has become familiar to the
student
◗ practice that will build skills to a high level of automaticity and at the same
time strengthen a student’s confidence
◗ texts used with students must be carefully selected to ensure a very high
success rate
◗ instruction and guided practice in applying reading comprehension strategies
◗ counselling, praise, encouragement and recognition of personal progress in
order to improve a student’s self-esteem
◗ as well as attempting to improve reading, teachers must also focus on the
correction of any negative behaviours such as poor attention to task and task
avoidance that are impairing a student’s progress.

Difficulties in learning mathematics

Many students, including those without learning difficulties, fi nd math-
ematics a difficult subject to master; and many go through life regarding
themselves as poor mathematicians. Some even develop a phobia and
learned helplessness regarding mathematics, and they panic at the thought
of having to perform calculations and solve problems (Buxton, 1991). Wain
(1994) considers it a very sad commentary on mathematics teaching that
it has failed so many students by not providing them with stimulation,
understanding, enjoyment and a feeling of success. He points out that many
intelligent people, after an average of 1500 hours of instruction over eleven
years of schooling still regard mathematics as a subject for which they have
no aptitude. Their antipathy toward the subject continues into adult life.
66 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

Yet, there is no convincing evidence (with a few exceptions) that their

dif ficulties are the result of any perceptual or cognitive deficits. The few
exceptions are the students with a genuine learning disability (‘dyscalculia’),
perhaps affecting up to 3 per cent of the population (Colwell, 2003;
Michaelson, 2007). According to Landerl et al. (2004), dyscalculia is due to
a brain-based deficit that specifically affects numerical processing, and is not
due to weaknesses in other cognitive processes such as attention, memory or
perception. Given that some 35–40 per cent of students are reported to have
difficulties with mathematics (American Institutes for Research, 2006), it
is clear that dyscalculia explains only a tiny part of this population. For
the remaining individuals, it is likely that the curriculum content and the
teaching methods used are the cause of failure to learn.
Some of the negative pedagogical factors associated with learning diffi-
culties in mathematics include:

◗ insufficient or inappropriate instruction

◗ curriculum covered too rapidly, outstripping students’ ability to learn
◗ lack of balance between direct instruction in basic computational processes
and student-centred activity
◗ abstract concepts and symbols introduced in the absence of real-life concrete
examples
◗ poorly structured or overly complex textbook.

Regardless of the innate and environmental causes of failure in mathematics,

students with difficulties all tend to show the following weaknesses:

◗ poor mathematical concept development

◗ lack of understanding of mathematical terms
◗ confusion over the meaning of printed symbols and signs
◗ extremely poor recall of basic number facts
◗ weak multiplication skills
◗ difficulty in understanding place-value (e.g. that in the number 2072 the first
numeral on the left represents 2000 while the final numeral represents 2
units)
◗ poor procedural skills leading to slowness and frustration in calculating
◗ inability to determine which processes to use in solving problems
◗ untidy bookwork with misaligned columns of figures
◗ frequent reversal of single figures and reversal of tens and units (e.g. 34
written as 43)
 T E AC H I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 67

◗ difficulties with reading and comprehending word problems

◗ lack of effective strategies for approaching mathematical tasks
◗ inability to transfer mathematical skills taught in school to the real world.

Teaching basic mathematics

The most effective teachers of mathematics appear to provide systematic
instruction in a way that students not only master arithmetic skills and
problem-solving strategies but also develop a genuine understanding of
the subject matter (Hay et al., 2005). Research on teacher effectiveness
in the area of mathematics, together with some influential views on
mathematics teaching, support the use of a structured approach within a
carefully sequenced program rather than purely activity-based methods
(DfCSF, 2007; Ellis, 2005; Kilpatrick et al., 2001; Stigler & Hiebert,
2004). Emphasis is placed upon students constructing meaning rather than
memorising facts and procedures through rote learning; but this is not
achieved simply through the medium of unstructured activities. Effective
lessons are typically clear, accurate and rich in examples of a particular
concept, process, or strategy, with ample opportunities for students to
practise and apply what they have learned. The emerging perspective is
that effective teaching and learning in mathematics for all students requires
not only student-centred investigative activities but also a good measure of
teacher-directed explicit instruction.
It is essential to help students with learning difficulties develop func-
tional arithmetic skills and effective problem-solving strategies. Functional
knowledge in arithmetic involves two major components:

◗ mastery of basic number facts that can be automatically retrieved rapidly

from memory (e.g. 9 × 4)
◗ a body of knowledge about computational procedures for subtraction, add-
ition, multiplication and division.

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000) in the

United States of America affi rms that all students should develop fluency in
operations with numbers, using swift mental computation and paper-and-
pencil calculations. This ability is also stressed in the activities recommended
for the daily ‘numeracy hour’ in UK primary schools. However, it is vital
that teachers recognise that skill in arithmetic is a necessary but insufficient
68 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

component of competence in functional mathematics. On top of this com-

petency, students also need effective cognitive strategies to apply when
faced with mathematical problems.
When focusing on remediation with students with learning difficulties
it is advisable to use a diagnostic approach, starting with fi nding out what
they can already do, and what concepts and skills they have already acquired
(Hay et al., 2005). It is also essential to locate any gaps in knowledge
that may exist (for example, weakness in certain multiplication facts, or
misconceptions regarding a particular process) and to determine what
the student needs to be taught next. This information can be obtained
by looking at samples of a student’s work, setting suitably graded tests and
analysing the results, and from working directly with the student in an
informal interview situation. Where a student is experiencing difficulty
with particular types of calculation, it is revealing to discover whether the
student can carry out the process if allowed to use counters, a number line,
or a calculator. Can the student explain and demonstrate what to do to
perform a particular calculation or solve a specific problem? The student
can be asked to work through the example step by step, thinking aloud
throughout the process. The teacher can then detect at once the exact point
of difficulty or confusion and can intervene from there.
Students with learning difficulties usually display helplessness and
confusion when faced with mathematical problems in word form. They
may, for example, have difficulty reading the problem and comprehending
the exact meaning of specific terms. They do not know how or where to
begin, or what process to use. Their most obvious weakness is a lack of any
effective plan of action for approaching a mathematical task. Students with
these difficulties need to be taught a range of effective problem-solving
and task-approach strategies. The aim is to teach them how to process
information in a word problem without a feeling of panic or hopelessness.
They need to be able to sift information sensibly and impose some degree
of structure for solving the problem.
While current wisdom on the teaching of mathematics favours a
problem-based approach, students with learning difficulties tend to get
lost, and they learn very little if left to discover methods of calculation
and problem solving incidentally. They need to be taught directly and
sequentially the knowledge and skills required in functional mathematics.
When teaching a problem-solving strategy the teacher should:
 T E AC H I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 69

◗ model and demonstrate effective use of the strategy for solving routine and
non-routine problems
◗ ‘think aloud’ as each aspect of the problem is analysed
◗ discuss with the students possible procedures for calculating a result
◗ reflect upon the effectiveness of the procedure and the feasibility of the result
obtained.

Once students have been taught a particular strategy they need an oppor-
tunity to apply the strategy under teacher guidance and with feedback.
Finally, they must be able to use the strategy independently and generalise
its use to other problems. The sequence for instruction in problem solving
of students with learning difficulties therefore follows a logical sequence
beginning with direct teaching, followed by guided practice and ending
with student-centred control and independence. It is clear that for students
with learning difficulties it is necessary to provide many more examples
than usual to establish and strengthen the application of a particular
strategy. Since there is evidence that students can be helped to become more
proficient at solving problems, teachers of students with learning difficulties
need to devote adequate time to this important area of schoolwork and not
confine their teaching to pure arithmetic. Appropriate balance within the
program is the key.

LINKS TO MORE ON TEACHING METHODS

◗ The books Teaching and learning difficulties (Westwood, 2006) and

What teachers need to know about teaching methods (Westwood,
2008b) address in much more detail many of the issues raised in this
chapter.
◗ The Center for Literacy Studies at the University of Tennessee provides
a helpful summary of the most effective teaching methods for students
(including adults) with learning difficulties. Available online at: http://
ldlink.coe.utk.edu/characteristics_of_ld.htm
◗ The National Center for Learning Disabilities (US) provides information
on classroom strategies for grades K to 8. Available online at: http://
www.ncld.org/content/view/304/376/
>
70 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

◗ The National Dissemination Centre for Children with Disabilities website

has helpful material on strategy training (News Digest 25). Available
online at: http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/newsdig/nd25txt.htm
◗ The Reading Reform Foundation website contains many valuable items
on the effective teaching of literacy skills. The material is constantly
updated. Available online at: http://www.rrf.org.uk/
◗ LDonline website has a paper by Kate Garnett on ‘math learning
disability’. Available online at: http://www.ldonline.org/article/5896
◗ Details of the Reading Assistance Kit, developed as a component of the
Reading Assistance Voucher Scheme in Australia (2007) are available
online at: http://www.readingtuition.edu.au
 s i x

Accommodating and
supporting students with
learning difficulties

KEY ISSUES

◗ Students with learning difficulties can have their instructional needs

met in a variety of ways; for example by adapting the curriculum,
modifying the teaching method, varying the teaching materials, or
through supplementary instruction.
◗ Most of these strategies for accommodating students with learning
difficulties bring with them some disadvantages or limitations as well as
benefits.
◗ One common characteristic of all effective support strategies is that
they increase the student’s academic engaged time, provide additional
successful practice and increase a student’s self-efficacy and
confidence.

Students with learning difficulties require various forms of support in order

to learn more effectively and, if possible, catch up with their peer group
in terms of academic achievement and social development. This support
can come in many different forms, ranging from modifications to the
classroom program, an individual education plan, changes to the pattern
of organisation within the classroom, providing additional teaching either
within the class or by withdrawal for group instruction, peer tutoring, using
additional support staff to give the student individual help, or any feasible

71
72 L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S

combination of these options. Support may also be provided through access

to additional specialist services and resources beyond those available in
the school (e.g. for psychological assessment, speech therapy, counselling)
(Dettmer et al., 2005). In this fi nal chapter some of the in-school systems
of support will be discussed.

Adapting the classroom program

Fletcher-Campbell et al. (1999, p. 73) state categorically that, ‘Education has
to adapt to pupils’, implying that a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching is
untenable if students’ individual needs are to be met. The term differentiation
– meaning teaching things differently according to observed differences
among students – has been used to describe the practice of attempting to
match instruction to students’ characteristics. Adapting instruction in this
way is essential for students with significant disabilities. But differentiation
obviously has potential benefits too for students with learning difficulties
if it means that schoolwork can be tailored to meet their needs. According
to van den Berg et al. (2001, p. 246):

Adaptive teaching is an educational approach that clearly recognises differ-

ences between learners – especially cognitive differences or other specific
characteristics. Teachers accept that their students differ in capabilities and
take these differences as the starting point for teaching and learning. [emphasis
added]

Differentiation can occur in terms of adjustments to the curriculum

content, the teaching-learning processes and the products from each
lesson. Differentiation can also occur through modification of the instruc-
tional materials, the classroom organisation, student–teacher interactions,
the amount of support given to different students, modifications to the
nature of assigned homework and accommodations made in methods
of assessment (Fahsl, 2007; Janney & Snell, 2004; Tomlinson, 1996,
2001). Effective differentiation combines pedagogical and organisational
adjustments. Differentiation is also achieved through flexible use of support
staff, changing the learning environment, setting alternative tasks, using
assistive technology and providing variety in the ways students are required
to produce work. Each of these forms of differentiation can bring both
benefits and disadvantages, as indicated here.
 ACCOM MO DAT I N G A N D S U P P O R T I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 73

Adapting curriculum content

This usually means that students with learning difficulties may be required
to cover less material in a lesson (or deal with the content in less depth) and
the resource materials such as texts, worksheets and notes may be modified
to require less reading and writing. Homework may contain activities for
additional practice and application rather than extension work. While this
form of modification makes it easier for students to succeed, they may
actually dislike it intensely because it clearly highlights them as less capable
than other students, and is thus embarrassing within the peer group (Hall,
1997; Klinger & Vaughn, 1999). On this issue Seligman (1995) says that if
we deprive students of the opportunity to work towards the same objectives
as other students we weaken their self-esteem just as certainly as if we
had overtly belittled or humiliated them. Shaddock (2006) recommends
that teachers should avoid offering a diluted and self-limiting curriculum.
Reducing or ‘watering down’ content also has the long-term effect of
increasing the learning gap between students with learning difficulties and
other students. Wang (1998) has reported there is evidence that students
may receive less high-quality instruction when schools try to modify the
work and individualise the curriculum in this way.

Adapting teaching and learning processes

This adaptation covers all the major and minor changes that may be made
to the way instruction occurs in the classroom. It includes modifications
to the teaching method, how students are grouped, the nature of their
participation in the lesson and interactions between teacher and students.
The teacher may re-teach certain concepts or information to some students,
perhaps using simpler language and more examples. A teacher may give
more assistance or less assistance to individuals according to their needs.
Questions asked during the lesson may be pitched at different levels of
difficulty to increase participation, and there may be closer monitoring of
the work of some students during the lesson. The rate at which the students
are expected to work is allowed to vary, with extra time allowed for some,
and extra practice provided for those who need it. Cooperative learning,
peer assistance and group work may be used to ensure that students with
difficulties can benefit from working successfully with others. For some
74 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

areas of the curriculum, computer-assisted instruction (CAI) may be used.

The advantage of this form of differentiation for students with learning
difficulties is that the modifications can be applied while still following a
common curriculum with the class. For this reason, they are regarded as
the easiest adaptations for teachers to make. Deschenes et al. (1999, p. 13)
observe that, ‘Adapting in this way is feasible for classroom teachers because
it is relatively unobtrusive, requiring little extra time for special planning’.
From the students’ point of view, it is less likely that the gap will expand
between higher and lower achievers.

Adapting outcomes and products

Outcomes from the learning process are often tangible products such as
written work, graphics, or a model; but sometimes the product refers to
other evidence of learning, such as an oral report, a performance, a presen-
tation to the group, participation in discussion, or the answering of oral
questions. The outcomes or products provide one form of evidence that
learning has occurred. Modifying the products of learning may mean that
each student is not expected to produce exactly the same amount, type, or
quality of work as every other student. A student may be asked to produce
work in a different format, for example, an audio recording, a drawing or
poster, rather than an essay. Or a student may complete a multiple-choice
exercise rather than prepare an assignment involving extensive writing.
A potential danger in setting out from the start to accept less work from
some students, or a lower quality of work, is that this strategy represents
a lowering of expectations that can result in a self-fulfi lling prophecy.
A different perspective suggests that teachers should help students with
learning difficulties achieve more, not less, in terms of output. Removing
all obstacles may not be in the best interest of these students.

Differentiation of assessment
Assessment refers to any process used to determine how much learning
and what quality of learning has occurred for each student in the class.
Assessment provides an indication of how effective a particular episode of
teaching and learning has been. Assessment also highlights anything that
may need to be taught again, revised, or practised more by some students.
 ACCOM MO DAT I N G A N D S U P P O R T I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 75

Classroom tests are one of the ways in which teachers assess the progress
of their students. Students with significant learning difficulties may require
additional time to complete the test, or a variation in the mode of respon-
ding. Students who have a genuine learning disability such as dyslexia can,
in some countries, obtain permission to take public examinations with the
help of a scribe or interpreter, or with more time allowed.
Obviously, modifications or accommodations to assessment should not
result in the abilities of students with a learning difficulty being misrepre-
sented as greater than they really are in school reports. The intention is to
help the students reveal accurately what they know, without having to place
emphasis on written responses and reading. Modifications to assessment for
students with learning difficulties include such options as:

◗ simplifying or abbreviating the assessment task

◗ allowing longer time for some students to complete the task or test
◗ allowing students with literacy problems to have assistance in performing the
task or test (e.g. having the questions read to them, or dictating answers to a
scribe)
◗ allowing a student to present work in a different format (e.g. a project book or
portfolio, rather than an essay).

Difficulties with differentiation

Although differentiation is widely recommended in policy documents and
teaching guidelines, adjusting instruction and modifying the approach in
this way is far from easy. Many teachers are unable or reluctant to engage
in extensive changes to the way they commonly teach a group of students
because it requires a large amount of additional planning every day and is
difficult to sustain over time (Chan et al., 2002; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998).
Studies have found that teachers have major problems when attempting to
match the difficulty level of classroom tasks to the different cognitive ability
levels of their students. In the American context, Schumm and Vaughn
(1995, p. 176) observe, ‘Despite a growing body of literature regarding
instructional adaptations that teachers can make in general education
settings, few teachers implement such accommodations’. With this in mind,
rather than using complicated systems of differentiated teaching, students
with learning difficulties may be better served by greatly improving the
76 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

quality of general classroom teaching and providing additional support for

those who are still in need. This is entirely compatible with the notion of
‘tiers’ or ‘waves’ of intervention, as described in Chapter 3.

Individual Education Plan

An Individual Education Plan (IEP) is a document drawn up by relevant
personnel (teacher, psychologist, speech therapist, parents, etc.) to indicate
clearly the learning objectives and required methods of instruction for a
student with special educational needs. In most schools, students with general
learning difficulties are unlikely to have an IEP; but students ascertained as
having SpLD may have such a document. The advantage of having an IEP
is that teachers have a clear indication of what to aim for with the student,
and progress is monitored regularly. An IEP often indicates that the student
is entitled to a certain amount of additional time with a support teacher or
teacher’s aide for individual teaching. An IEP can result in more effective
support being available to a student with learning difficulties. Tennant
(2007) suggests that the process of creating an IEP is valuable in itself by
getting staff to spend time thinking of the priority needs of particular
students and how best to meet those needs.

Organising support in school

There are four main ways in which support and additional teaching are
provided for students with learning difficulties in primary and secondary
schools:

◗ in-class support: additional help is provided by the classroom teacher, resource

teacher, teacher’s aide, volunteer helper, or through peer-tutoring
◗ resource room model: at designated times, students with learning difficulties
leave the mainstream class to attend sessions with the special education
teacher in the resource room
◗ special class: students are placed full-time or part-time in a class contain-
ing other students with learning problems to follow an intensive remedial
program
◗ ability grouping: a pattern of school organisation that groups students into
classes based on academic ability (also referred to as streaming or tracking).
 ACCOM MO DAT I N G A N D S U P P O R T I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 77

In-class support became the favoured model in the past decade, because
it was believed that students felt stigmatised by being withdrawn from
class to attend resource room teaching. The in-class support model is also
in keeping with the philosophy of inclusive schooling that suggests all
children have the right to be in mainstream classes, and that all teachers
should accommodate the full ability range without handing some students
over to other staff for different treatment elsewhere. By providing support
within the student’s own class, it is believed that help can be given within
the context of the mainstream curriculum, not via a separate program. The
big disadvantage of in-class support is that it draws immediate and obvious
attention to the students receiving the help. For this reason, it is not always
popular, particularly with secondary school students.
The resource room model can be quite effective if the students attend
the sessions willingly. The smaller group context makes it feasible to address
individual needs and differences. It is also easier for the teacher to adopt a
direct instruction approach that research has shown to be highly effective
(Carnine, 2000). Primary school students tend to prefer attending resource
room lessons rather than receiving in-class support (Vlachou et al., 2006),
but students in secondary school prefer to remain in class without additional
assistance other than that provided by the teacher in the normal course of
the lesson. In some schools the staff in a resource room also provide a service
to other teachers by creating alternative instructional materials for use in
the mainstream (e.g. simplified texts, worksheets, computer software).
Full-time and part-time special classes were popular before the advent of
inclusive education practices. They had many of the advantages of a resource
room in terms of the opportunity to structure the program tightly and
use effective instructional methods. The great disadvantage was that they
segregated the students from the mainstream, and the students often hated
being stigmatised as ‘special’. Although many of these classes were called
‘opportunity classes’ they actually reduced a student’s opportunity to return
to the mainstream because the curriculum content tended to differ in the
two settings. There is abundant evidence that being placed in a special class
can have lasting negative effects on the students’ motivation, self-esteem and
feelings of self-efficacy (e.g., Alderman, 1999; Cross & Vidyarthi, 2000).
Ability grouping or streaming was once very popular, and although
less popular now, it is still retained in many secondary schools. It is argued
that grouping students by academic ability creates homogeneous classes
78 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

that are easier to teach, particularly in key subjects such as mathematics,

science and foreign languages (Hallam, 1996; Oakes, 1994). Students with
learning difficulties would be accommodated in lower streams, along with
other students who were displaying poor achievement. In theory, ability
grouping should facilitate the broad differentiation of curriculum content
into at least three levels (advanced, standard and basic). Such adjustments,
it is argued, can result in enhanced opportunities to experience success
rather than failure. It is sometimes suggested that students with learning
difficulties can be helped most by ability-grouping practices because they
no longer have to compete with, or compare themselves to, the most
capable students (Harlen & Malcolm, 1997). Students of high ability are
also believed to benefit from ability-grouping practices because they can be
exposed to a suitably challenging program. Ability grouping became less
popular, however, for a variety of reasons, not least because it did not appear
to deliver most of the expected benefits. In particular, research results have
suggested that grouping by ability does nothing to raise the achievement
level of the lower-ability students. There are also potential problems
associated with placing students with learning difficulties permanently in
what are perceived as ‘bottom’ groups – such as negative social labelling
effects, reduced curriculum coverage, removal of opportunities for lower-
achieving students to work with and learn from high-achieving students,
and a widening of the gap between high-ability and low-ability classes in
terms of achievement. Students in low-track classes typically have the most
negative views of themselves both academically and generally (Oakes, 1985).
In recent years, the trend has therefore been toward mixed-ability classes in
both primary and secondary schools. Mixed-ability classes, it is believed,
offer an equal opportunity for all students to participate in a common
curriculum. Within mixed-ability settings, effective in-class support and
curriculum differentiation can be offered as necessary. However, Good and
Brophy (2008) have commented that abolition of ability grouping, while
strongly advocated by many educators, is not unanimously supported. They
regard arguments for mixed-ability teaching as based more on ideological,
sociological and theoretical principles than on any empirical evidence
demonstrating its effectiveness.
Most schools appear to adopt some combination of the four models
described above. Each model has some advantages and some defi nite dis-
advantages. Schools adopt particular models partly based on the school’s
 ACCOM MO DAT I N G A N D S U P P O R T I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 79

philosophy concerning how best to support students with learning diffi-

culties, but partly on the availability of necessary human and material
resources.

Additional teaching
One of the ways in which students with learning difficulties are supported
is through additional teaching, either within the class or through part-
time withdrawal for group or individual instruction. Many countries now
employ ‘support teachers’ or ‘resource teachers’, and may also supplement
the effort of these teachers by using paraprofessionals – variously known
as ‘classroom assistants’, ‘learning support assistants’, ‘or ‘teacher’s aides’.
These additional personnel, together with a growing number of volunteer
helpers in schools, are regarded as integral and essential components of an
effective support system for students integrated into inclusive classrooms
(Fox, 2003). In recent years, resource teachers have been encouraged to
widen the scope of their remedial help so that they work more in support
of other teachers in the school and less in direct teaching of students with
learning difficulties in a withdrawal room.
Co-teaching and in-class support are increasingly presented as desirable
models of service delivery; but students requiring ‘third-wave’ intensive
teaching are still likely to benefit most from separate sessions, at least in the
early stages. Some research indicates that a combination of in-class support
together with regular withdrawal for intensive instruction produces the
best gains in achievement (Marston, 1996).
As indicated above, in-class support can be provided by the students’
own teacher, by a support teacher, or by a teacher’s aide working under the
direction of the teacher. In the past decade the value of paraprofessionals
assisting within the classroom has been recognised in most education
systems (Department for Education and Skills, UK, 2004; Dettmer et al.,
2005). While paraprofessionals are not responsible for determining the
details of the curriculum content to be followed by a student with learning
difficulties, or for setting the objectives and selecting methods, they can
be instrumental in helping the student access the curriculum and achieve
the objectives. A classroom assistant can contribute to the teaching and
learning by working closely with individual students, working with small
groups, helping to interpret instructions, checking for understanding,
80 L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U L T I E S

keeping students on task, listening to students read, modifying tasks or

materials, supervising and giving feedback on practice activities, and
generally encouraging and motivating students (Logan, 2006). Classroom
assistants have an important role in pastoral care. They can be invaluable as
an extra ‘ear’ for detecting students’ worries and disputes.
In many parts of Australia, schools have created what are often called
‘Learning Assistance Programs’ (LAPs) using parents, grandparents, retired
teachers, student-teachers, or other unpaid workers to help students with
learning problems – and sometimes to work with gifted and talented
students as part of a ‘mentor’ scheme. These volunteers perform a very
valuable service in schools. When assisting students with learning problems
the roles given to such helpers include listening to individual students read
(providing extra practice), helping students with writing and spelling, help-
ing students check or prepare homework assignments, and sitting with a
student to keep him or her on task. The amount of individual attention
they can devote to students with special needs is far greater than most
teachers can afford to give.
Peer tutoring is another option that can provide additional support
for learning. In peer tutoring situations one student instructs or rehearses
another student on a prescribed topic. The tutoring process results in much
greater individual attention for the tutee, and also has benefits for the tutor.
Students are often much more effective communicators than are teachers
when it comes to explaining a concept or demonstrating a skill. In most
classrooms where peer tutoring, cross-age tutoring (older students working
with younger students) or class-wide peer tutoring (all students involved)
are implemented have discovered that tutors need some amount of training
in order to carry out their role effectively. They need training in providing
positive feedback, using praise, explaining, elaborating, rehearsing and re-
inforcement. It is also important to match tutor with tutee carefully to
ensure compatibility. The evidence is that peer tutoring can be very effec-
tive in achieving both social and academic gains (Cole & Chan, 1990;
McMaster et al., 2006).
There are, of course, several other ways in which students with learning
difficulties can have additional teaching, adapted to their ability and needs.
For example, computer-assisted learning has much to offer in terms of drill
and practice programs and instructional packages, after-hours tutoring at
school and private tutoring arranged by parents outside school hours.
 ACCOM MO DAT I N G A N D S U P P O R T I N G S T U D EN T S W I T H L E A R N I N G D I F F I CU LT I E S 81

It can be seen from the above descriptions that there are many options
open to teachers to help accommodate and support students with learning
difficulties more effectively. Chan and Dally (2001b, p. 18) conclude that
there is no single model that is able to meet the diverse needs of all students;
and that ‘… students with learning difficulties are best served by having
access to a range of services that can operate simultaneously and flexibly’.
It is to be hoped that all schools seek to provide such services and such
flexibility.

LINKS TO MORE ON SUPPORT FOR LEAR NING

◗ The TeacherNet website provides an overview of Learning Support

Units in the UK. Available online at: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/
wholeschool/behaviour/learningsupportunits/
◗ New Zealand Ministry of Education website outlines the Supplementary
Learning Support system operating in that country. Available online at:
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/goto/SLS
◗ Support systems in NSW public schools are described online at: http://
www.schools.nsw.edu.au/studentsupport/programs/lrngdifficulty.php
◗ Similar information on support in South Australia is available at: http://
decs.sa.gov.au/speced/pages/speced/learning_difficulties/?showback=1
◗ In-class support strategies are described at: http://www.simonmidgley.
co.uk/support/inclass.htm
◗ Information on peer tutoring and cross-age tutoring is available online
at: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/9/c018.htm and at: www.indiana.
edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d78.html
◗ Information on ability grouping and the evidence from research
is available online at: http://www.sharingsuccess.org/code/bv/
abilitygrouping.pdf
References

Abosi, O. (2007). Educating children with learning disabilities in Africa. Learning

Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 3, 196–201.
Alderman, M. K. (1999). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Allen, D., James, W., Evans, J., Hawkins, S., & Jenkins, R. (2005). Positive
behavioural support: Defi nition, current status and future directions. Tizard
Learning Disability Review, 10, 2, 4–1.
Altarac, M., & Saroha, E. (2007). Lifetime prevalence of learning disability among
US children. Pediatrics, 119 (supplement), S77–S83.
American Institutes for Research. (2006). A review of the literature on adult numeracy:
Research and conceptual issues. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
APA (American Psychiatric Association). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders: Text revised (DSM–IV–TR). Washington, DC: APA.
Arkansas Department of Education (Special Education). (2007). Resource guide for
specifi c learning disabilities. Retrieved January 20, 2008 from: http://arksped.k12.
ar.us/documents/stateprogramdevelopment/DyslexiaGuideApril30.pdf
Atkinson, J. W. (1966). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior.
In J. W. Atkinson & N. T. Feather (Eds.), A theory of achievement motivation
(pp. 11–31). New York: Wiley.
Badian, N. A. (1996). Dyslexia: A validation of the concept at two age levels. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 29, 1, 102–112.
Bakker, J. T. A., & Bosman, A. M. T. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of remediation
possibilities of Dutch students in special education. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 745–759.
Barrett, W., & Randall, L. (2004). Investigating the Circle of Friends approach:
Adaptations and implications for practice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 20,
4, 353–68.
Barton-Arwood, S., Morrow, L., Lane, K., & Jolivette, K. (2005). Project
IMPROVE: Improving teachers’ ability to address students’ social needs.
Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 4, 430–443.
82
 REFERENCES 83

Bender, W. N. (2004). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identifi cation, and teaching

strategies. (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Biggs, J. (1995). Motivating learning. In J. Biggs, & D. Watkins (Eds.), Classroom
learning (pp. 82–102). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Blachman, B. A., Ball, E. W., Black, R., & Tangel, D. M. (2000). Road to the Code:
A phonological awareness program for young children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Social, cultural and affective aspects of learning.
In E. de Corte, & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental
and instructional psychology (pp. 585–590). Oxford: Pergamon.
Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007).
Instruction in metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and
vocabulary achievement of Third-Grade students. Reading Teacher, 61, 1, 7–77.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.), (2002). Identifi cation of learning
disabilities: Research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brooks, G. (2002). What works for children with literacy diffi culties? The effectiveness of
intervention schemes. Research Report 380. London: Department for Education and
Skills. Retrieved January 28, 2008 from: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/
data/uploadfi les/RR380.pdf
Brophy, J. (1998). Failure syndrome students. ERIC Digest: EDO-PS-98-2.
Retrieved January 26, 2008 from: http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/
digests/1998/brophy98.pdf
Bryan, T. (1998). Social competence of students with learning disabilities.
In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 237–267).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bryan, T. (2003). The applicability of the risk and resilience model to social
problems of students with learning disabilities: Response to Bernice Wong.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 2, 94–98.
Bryer, F., Beamish, W., Davies, M., Marshall, R., Wilson, L., & Caldwell, W.
(2005). The fi rst steps to school-wide positive behavioural support in a
Queensland high school: Laying the foundation for participation. Special
Education Perspectives, 14, 2, 26–45.
Burden, B. (2002). A cognitive approach to dyslexia: learning styles and thinking
skills. In G. Reid & J. Wearmouth (Eds.), Dyslexia and literacy (pp. 271–283).
Chichester: Wiley.
Buxton, L. (1991). Math panic. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cadman, A. (1976). Learning diffi culties in children and adults: Report of the House
of Representatives Select Committee on Specifi c Learning Diffi culties. Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service.
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual
and academic achievement. Child Development, 65, 2, 684–698.
84 R E F E R E N C E S

Carlson, S. (2005). A two hundred year history of learning disabilities. ERIC document.
Retrieved January 12, 2008 from: eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/
content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/c3/e4.pdf
Carnine, D. (2000). Why education experts resist effective practices (and what it would
take to make education more like medicine). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation.
Cartledge, G. (2005). Learning disabilities and social skills: Reflections. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 28, 2, 179–81.
Center, Y. (2005). Beginning reading: A balanced approach to literacy during the first three
years at school. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Center, Y., Freeman, L., & Robertson, G. (1998). An evaluation of the Schoolwide
Early Literacy and Language Program (SWELL) in six disadvantaged NSW
schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 45, 143–172.
Chalk, J. C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2005). The effects of self-regulated
strategy development on the writing process for high school students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 1, 75–87.
Chan, C., Chang, M. L., Westwood, P., & Yuen, M. T. (2002). Teaching adaptively:
How easy is ‘differentiation’ in practice? A perspective from Hong Kong.
Asia-Pacifi c Educational Researcher 11, 1, 27–58.
Chan, L. K. S. (1994). Relationship of motivation, strategic learning and reading
achievement in Grades 5, 7 and 9. Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 4,
319–339.
Chan, L. K. S., & Dally, K. (2000). Review of literature. In W. Louden, L. Chan,
J. Elkins, D. Greaves, H. House, M. Milton, S. Nichols, M. Rohl, J. Rivalland,
& C. van Kraayenoord (Eds.), Mapping the territory: Primary students with learning
diffi culties in literacy and numeracy. Canberra: Department of Education, Training
and Youth Affairs.
Chan, L. K. S., & Dally, K. (2001a). Learning disabilities and literacy and numeracy
development. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6, 1, 12–19.
Chan, L. K. S., & Dally, K. (2001b). Instructional techniques and service delivery
approaches for students with learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 6, 3, 14–21.
Chan, L. K. S., & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (1998). Learning through dialogues for
students with learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3,
1, 21–26.
Chang, C. C., & Westwood, P. (2001). The effects of ability grouping on low-
achievers’ motivation and teachers’ expectations. Hong Kong Special Education
Forum, 4, 1, 27–48.
Charles, C. M., & Senter, G. W. (2005). Elementary classroom management (4th ed.).
Boston: Pearson-Allyn & Bacon.
 REFERENCES 85

Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Auckland:

Heinemann.
Clerehugh, J., Hart, K., Pither, R., Rider, K., & Turner, K. (1991). Early Years Easy
Screen (EYES). London: NFER-Nelson.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
New York: Academic Press.
Cole, P., & Chan, L .K. S. (1990). Methods and strategies for special education. Sydney:
Prentice Hall.
Coleman, P. K., & Byrd, C. P. (2000). Interpersonal correlates of peer victimization
among young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 4, 301–314.
Coltheart, M., & Prior, M. (2006). Learning to read in Australia. Australian Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 11, 4, 157–164.
Colwell, D. (2003). Dyscalculia and functioning of the brain in mathematical
activity. In D. Coben (Ed.), Adult numeracy: review of research and related literature
(pp. 104–109). London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult
Literacy and Numeracy.
Crevola, C. A., & Hill, P. W. (1998). Evaluation of a whole-school approach to
prevention and intervention in early literacy. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 3, 2, 133–157.
Cross, M., & Vidyarthi, A. (2000). Permission to fail. Special Children, 126, 13–15.
Davies, A., & Ritchie, D. (2004). Teaching Handwriting, Reading and Spelling Skills
(THRASS). Chester: THRASS (UK) Ltd.
de Lemos, M. M. (2004). Effective strategies for the teaching of reading: What
works, and why. In B. A. Knight & W. Scott (Eds.), Learning diffi culties: Multiple
perspectives (pp. 17–28). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Educational.
de Lemos, M. M. (2005). Effective strategies for the teaching of reading: What
works and why. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 3/4, 11–17.
Delgado, C. E. F., Vagi, S. J., & Scott, K. G. (2007). Identification of early risk
factors for developmental delay. Exceptionality, 15, 2, 119–136.
Department for Education and Skills (UK). (2002). Supporting early identifi cation and
intervention for children with special educational needs. Retrieved January 27, 2008
from: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/foundation_
stage/1093763/
Department for Education and Skills (UK). (2003a). Data collection by type of special
educational need. Retrieved January 24, 2008 from: https://czone.eastsussex.gov.
uk/county_information/virtual_schoolbag/document.asp?item=1513
Department for Education and Skills (UK). (2003b). Targeting support: Choosing
and implementing interventions for children with signifi cant learning diffi culties.
Retrieved January 28, 2008 from: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/
publications/literacy/63437/nls_chooseintervent_020103.pdf
86 R E F E R E N C E S

Department for Education and Skills (UK). (2004). Induction training for teaching
assistants in secondary schools. London: Df ES.
Department of Education, Employment and Training (Vic.). (2001). Middle years
successful interventions literacy project. Melbourne: Author.
Department of Education, Training and the Arts (Qld). (2006). Learning
difficulties. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from: http://education.qld.gov.au/
studentservices/learning/learndiff/
Deschenes, C., Ebeling, D., & Sprague, J. (1999). Adapting the curriculum in inclusive
classrooms. New York: National Professional Resources.
DEST (Department of Education, Science and Training, Australia). (2005). Teaching
Reading: National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. Canberra: Government
Printing Service, Commonwealth of Australia.
Dettmer, P., Thurston, L., & Dyck, N. (2005). Consultation, collaboration and teamwork
for students with special needs (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson-Allyn & Bacon.
Dettori, G., & Ott, M. (2006). Looking beyond the performance of grave under-
achievement in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 4, 201–208.
DfCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families, UK). (2007). Teaching
numeracy. TeacherNet: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Retrieved November 2, 2007 from: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/
teachingandlearning/subjects/maths/teachingnumeracy/
Dickinson, P. (2003). Whole class interactive teaching. SET Research for Teachers
1, 18–21. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Donahue, M. L., & Pearl, R. (2003). Studying social development and learning
disabilities is not for the faint-hearted: Comments on the risk/resilience
framework. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 2, 90–93.
Doveston, M., & Keenaghan, M. (2006). Improving classroom dynamics to support
students’ learning and social inclusion: A collaborative approach. Support for
Learning 21, 1, 5–11.
Dowker, A. (2004). What works for children with mathematical diffi culties? Research
Report 554. London: Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved January 28,
2008 from: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfi les/RR554.pdf
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed.
In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., vol. 3,
pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.
Edith Cowan University. (2007). Overview of STEPS professional development course
and resources. Retrieved February 8, 2008 from: http://www.stepspd.com/au/
courses/index.asp
Elkins, J. (2000). All empires fall, you just have to know where to push. Antecedent
issues for a study of learning difficulties in Australia. Australian Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 5, 2, 4–7.
 REFERENCES 87

Elkins, J. (2007). Learning disabilities: Bringing fields and nations together.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 5, 392–399.
Elksnin, L. K. (2002). Redefining LD is not the answer. In R. Bradley, L.
Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identifi cation of learning disabilities: research to
practice (pp. 251–261). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elliott, J. G. (2008). The dyslexia myth. Learning Diffi culties Australia Bulletin, 40, 1,
10–14.
Ellis, L. A. (2005). Balancing approaches: Revisiting the educational psychology research
on teaching students with learning diffi culties. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Erlbaum, B. (2002). The self-concept of students with disabilities: A meta-analysis
of comparisons across different placements. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 17, 4, 216–226.
Fahsl, A. J. (2007). Mathematics accommodations for all students. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 42, 4, 198–203.
Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Purdie, N. (2003). Early intervention in the home for
children at risk of reading failure. Support for Learning, 18, 2, 77–82.
Firth, N. (2006). Success despite specific learning disabilities, Australian Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 11, 3, 131–137.
Firth, N., Cunningham, E., & Skues, J. (2007). Primary and secondary perceived
control: A comparison of adolescent students with and without learning
disabilities. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 1, 11–17.
Fletcher-Campbell, F., Meijer, C. J. W., & Pijl, S. J. (1999). Integration policy and
practice. In R. Bosker, B. P. M. Creemers & S. Stringfield (Eds.), Enhancing
educational excellence, equity and efficiency (pp. 65–88). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Flynn, J. M., & Rahbar, M. (1998). Improving teacher prediction of children at risk
of reading failure. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 2, 163–172.
Foorman, B. R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M., Moats, L. C.,
& Francis, D. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in Grades 1 and 2
on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 31, 1, 1–29.
Forness, S., Kavale, K., Blum, I., & Lloyd, J. (1997). A mega-analysis of meta-
analyses: What works in special education and related services? Teaching
Exceptional Children, 29, 6, 4–7.
Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). The social skills problems of victims of
bullying: Self, peer and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75, 2, 313–28.
Fox, G. (2003). A handbook for learning support assistants (2nd ed.). London: Fulton.
Frey, L. M., & Wilhite, K. (2005). Our five basic needs: Application for under-
standing the function of behaviour. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 3, 156–160.
88 R E F E R E N C E S

Fried, S., & Fried, P. (2003). Bullies, targets and witnesses. New York: Evans.
Fry, J., & Bartak, L. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of the support needs of
students with learning difficulties and emotional/behavioural disorders in
mainstream primary and secondary schools. Australian Journal of Dyslexia,
1, 1, 24–30.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators’ instructional adaptations for
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 21, 23–33.
Gage, N., & Berliner, D. (1998). Educational psychology (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton
Miffl in.
Galbraith, A., & Alexander, J. (2005). Literacy, self-esteem, and locus of control.
Support for Learning, 20, 1, 28–34.
Galletly, S. (1999). Making a lasting difference: The phonological + literacy
combination. In P. Westwood, & W. Scott (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Advocacy and
action (pp. 287–306). Melbourne: Australian Resource Educators’ Association.
Gans, A.M., Kenny, M.C., & Ghany, D.L. (2003). Comparing the self-concept of
students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
36, 3, 287–295.
Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and
interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38, 4, 293–304.
Goddard, A. (1995). From product to process in curriculum planning: A view from
Britain. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 5, 258–63.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2008). Looking in classrooms (10th ed.). Boston:
Pearson-Allyn & Bacon.
Government of South Australia (2007). South Australia’s action plan for literacy and
numeracy. Council of Australian Governments. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from:
http://www.premcab.sa.gov.au/pdf/coag/coag_ap_literacy.pdf
Graham, L., & Bailey, J. (2007). Learning disabilities and difficulties: An Australian
conspectus. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 5, 386–391.
Graham, L., Bellert, A., Thomas, J., & Pegg, J. (2007). QuickSmart: A basic
academic skills intervention for middle school students with learning difficulties.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 5, 410–419.
Greaves, D. (2000). Mapping the diversity of services and interventions for students
with learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 2, 34–38.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Social skills assessment and instruction for students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. In K. L. Lane, F. M. Gresham, &
T. E. O’Shaughnessy (Eds.), Interventions for children with or at risk for emotional
and behavioral disorders. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hall, S. (1997). The problem with differentiation. School Science Review, 78, 284,
95–98.
 REFERENCES 89

Hallam, S. (1996). Grouping pupils by ability: Selection, streaming, banding and setting.
London: Institute of Education.
Hallinan, P. , Hallinan, P., & Boulter, M. (1999). Enhancing student learning:
Inclusion in practice at a Queensland high school. Australian Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 4, 1, 10–13.
Hannavy, S. (1993). Middle Infant Screening Test (MIST). Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Harlen, W., & Malcolm, H. (1997). Setting and streaming: A research review.
Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Harris, S., & Petrie, G. F. (2003). Bullying: The bullies, the victims, and the bystanders.
Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
Hay, I., Elias, G., & Booker, G. (2005). Students with learning difficulties in
relation to literacy and numeracy. Schooling Issues Digest 2005/1. Canberra:
Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved January 25,
2008 from: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_
resources/schooling_issues_digest/schooling_issues_digest_learning_
difficulties.htm
Heath, S. (2005). Why wait till children fail? Early screening for children at risk for
reading problems. Learning Diffi culties Australia Bulletin, 37, 3, 16–17.
Heiman, T. (2001). Depressive mood in students with mild intellectual disability:
Students’ reports and teachers’ evaluations. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,
45, 6, 526–534.
Hempenstall, K. (2005). The whole language–phonics controversy: A historical
perspective. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 3/4, 19–33.
Heward, W. L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder
the effectiveness of special education. Journal of Special Education, 36, 4, 186–205.
Hockenbury, J., Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (2000). What is right about
special education? Exceptionality, 8, 1, 3–11.
Hotchkis, G. D. (1999). Some existing impediments to attaining excellence in a new
century. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 22, 3, 148–157.
Hudson, P. A. (2003). Behavioural intervention plan: Reducing challenging
behaviour through academic skills instruction. Special Education Perspectives,
12, 2, 35–64.
Humphrey, N. (2002) Teacher and pupil ratings of self-esteem in developmental
dyslexia. British Journal of Special Education, 29, 1, 29–36.
Hunt, P. (2004). Developing inclusive practices for delivering the curriculum at
Singleton High School. Special Education Perspectives, 13, 2, 10–26.
Hutchinson, N. L., Freeman, J. G., & Bell, K. S. (2002). Children and adolescents
with learning disabilities: Case studies of social relations in inclusive classrooms.
In B. Y. L. Wong, & M. Donahue (Eds.), The social dimensions of learning disabilities
(pp. 189–214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
90 REFERENCES

Iversen, S., Tunmer, W., & Chapman, J. W. (2005). The effects of varying group
size on the Reading Recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 38, 5, 456–72.
Janney, R., & Snell, M. E. (2004). Modifying schoolwork (2nd ed.). Baltimore:
Brookes.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group skills
(8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnston, R., & Watson, J. (2005). A seven years study of the effects of synthetic
phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment. Insight 17. Edinburgh:
Scottish Executive Education Department.
Juel, C., Griffith, P., & Gough, P. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal
study of children in fi rst and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78,
243–255.
Karande, S., Sawant, S., Kulkarni, M., Kanchan, S., & Sholapurwala, R. (2005).
Cognition in specific learning disabilities. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 72,
1029–1033.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. (1996). Social skills deficits and learning disabilities:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 226–237.
Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2005). Responsiveness to
intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and
proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 2–16.
Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M. (2004). Social skills interventions for individuals with
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 27, 1, 31–43.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding + it up: Helping children learn
mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,
4, 2, 75–86.
Klassen, R. M., & Lynch, S. L. (2007). Self-efficacy from the perspective of
adolescents with LD and their specialist teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
40, 6, 494–507.
Klinger, J., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Students’ perceptions of instruction in inclusive
classrooms: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 66, 1, 23–37.
Knight, B. A., Graham, L., & Hughes, D. (2004). Facilitating positive social
interaction for children with learning disabilities. In B. A. Knight, & W. Scott
(Eds.), Learning diffi culties: Multiple perspectives (pp. 171–185). Frenchs Forest,
NSW: Pearson.
 REFERENCES 91

Kovacs, K. (1998). Preventing failure at school. OECD Observer 214. Retrieved

January 21, 2008 from: http://www1.oecd.org/publications/observer/214/
article2-eng.htm
Kroll, B. (1999). Social constructivist theory and its relationship to effective
teaching of students with learning difficulties. In P. Westwood, & W. Scott
(Eds.), Learning disabilities: Advocacy and action (pp. 21–28). Melbourne: Australian
Resource Educators’ Association.
Lancaster, J. (2005). Is it really possible? Can students with learning difficulties ever
achieve higher levels of self-efficacy? Special Education Perspectives, 14, 2, 46–61.
Landerl, K., Bevan, A., & Butterworth, B. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia and
basic numerical capacities: A study of 8–9 years old students. Cognition, 93, 2,
99–125.
LDonline Org. (2008). Learning disabilities. Retrieved January 22, 2008 from:
http://www.ldonline.org/indepth/aboutld
Lerner, J., & Kline, F. (2006). Learning disabilities and related disorders (10th ed.).
Boston: Houghton Miffl in.
Leung, C., Lindsay, G., & Lo, S. K. (2007). Early identification of primary school
students with learning difficulties in Hong Kong: The development of a
checklist. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22, 3, 327–339.
Lewis, A. (1995). Primary special needs and the National Curriculum. London: Routledge.
Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (2006). Teaching special students in general education
classrooms (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Liddle, E., & Porath, M. (2002). Gifted children with written output difficulties:
Paradox or paradigm? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 2, 13–19.
Lindberg, J. A., Kelley, D.E., & Swick, A. M. (2005). Commonsense classroom
management for middle and high school teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lloyd, S., & Wernham, S. (1995). Jolly Phonics Workbooks. Chigwell, Essex: Jolly
Learning.
Logan, A. (2006). The role of the special needs assistant supporting pupils with
special educational needs in Irish primary schools. Support for Learning, 21, 2,
92–99.
Louden, W., Chan, L., Elkins, J., Greaves, D., House, H., Milton, S., Nicols,
S., Rohl, M., Rivalland, J., & van Kraayenoord, C. (2000). Mapping the territory:
Primary students with learning diffi culties in literacy and numeracy. Canberra:
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Lovett, B. J., & Lewandowski, L. J. (2006). Gifted students with learning
disabilities: Who are they? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 6, 515–527.
Lucangeli, D., & Cabrele, S. (2006). Mathematical difficulties and ADHD.
Exceptionality, 14, 1, 53–62.
92 REFERENCES

Maag, J. W. (2005). Social skills training for youth with emotional and behavioral
disorders and learning disabilities: Problems, conclusions and suggestions.
Exceptionality, 13, 3, 155–72.
McCowen, G. (1998). An evaluation of the theoretical positions that underpin
explanations of the nature of learning and learning difficulties. Australian
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 3, 22–25.
McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2006). Educational psychology: Constructing
learning (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Prentice Hall.
MacInnis, C., & Hemming, H. (1995). Linking the needs of students with learning
disabilities to a whole language curriculum. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28,
9, 535–44.
McIntyre, H., & Ireson, J. (2002). Within-class ability grouping: Placement of pupils
in groups and self-concept. British Educational Research Journal, 28, 2, 249–263.
McKissock, C. (2001). The role of counselling in supporting adults with dyslexia. In M.
Hunter-Carsch (Ed.), Dyslexia: a psychosocial perspective (pp. 245–253). London: Whurr.
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted
learning strategies: The promise and the limitations of peer-mediated instruction.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 1, 5–25.
McNamara, E. (1994). The concept of motivation: An applied psychologist’s
perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 11, 2: 6–15.
Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. (2003). Self-efficacy: A key to improving motivation
of struggling learners. Preventing School Failure, 47, 4, 162–176.
Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined
service models for students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education,
30, 2, 121–32.
Martlew, M., & Hodson, J. (1991). Children with mild learning difficulties in
an integrated and in a special school: Comparisons of behaviour, teasing and
teachers’ attitudes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 355–372.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2002). Effective instruction for special education
(3rd ed.). Austin, TX: ProEd.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Butcher, K. (1997). How effective is inquiry
learning for students with mild disabilities? Journal of Special Education, 31, 2,
199–211.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three strikes rule against pure discovery
learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist,
59, 1, 14–19.
Michaelson, M. T. (2007). An overview of dyscalculia: Methods for ascertaining
and accommodating dyscalculic children in the classroom. Australian Mathematics
Teacher, 63, 3, 17–22.
 REFERENCES 93

Milton, M. (2000). How do schools provide for children with learning difficulties
in numeracy? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 2, 23–27.
Milton, M., & Lewis, E. (2005). Teaching gifted children with learning difficulties
in writing. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 2, 79–88.
Mishna, F. (2003). Learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 36, 4, 336–347.
Moran, D. J. (2004). The need for research-based educational methods.
In D. J. Moran, & R. W. Malott (Eds.), Evidence-based educational methods
(pp. 3–7). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic.
Moriarty, B., Douglas, G., Punch, K., & Hattie, J. (1995). The importance of
self-efficacy as a mediating variable between learning environments and
achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 73–84.
Morrow, L. M., & Woo, D. G. (2001). Tutoring programs for struggling readers.
New York: Guilford Press.
Munro, J. (2002). The reading characteristics of gifted learning disabled students.
Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 2, 4–12.
National Center for Learning Disabilities (US). (2001). Learning disability. Retrieved
January 22, 2008 from: http://www.ncld.org/content/view/447/391/
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (US). (2000). Principles and standards
for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Health and Medical Research Council. (1990). Learning diffi culties in children
and adolescents. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Learning disabilities. Retrieved January 22,
2008 from: http://nifl.gov./nifl /facts/learning_disabilities.html
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2006). Learning disabilities and
young children: Identifi cation and intervention. Retrieved January 22, 2008 from:
http://www.ldonline.org/about/partners/njcld
National Reading Panel (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientifi c research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Ng, L. (2006). Annual monitoring of Reading Recovery: Data for 2004. Wellington:
New Zealand Ministry for Education.
Nicholson, T. (2006). How to avoid reading failure: Teach phonemic awareness.
In McKeough, A., Lupart, J. L., Phillips, L. M., & Timmons, V. (Eds.),
Understanding literacy development: A global view. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Norwich, B., & Kelly, N. (2004). Pupils’ views on inclusion: Moderate learning
difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools. British Educational
Research Journal, 30, 1, 43–65.
94 R E F E R E N C E S

NSW Standing Committee on Social Issues. (2003). Realising potential: Final report of
the Inquiry into Early Intervention for Children with Learning Diffi culties (Report 30).
Sydney: NSW Parliament.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Oakes, J. (1994). Ability grouping and tracking in schools. In T. Husen, & T. N.
Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed. vol. 1,
pp. 6–12). Oxford: Pergamon.
O’Connor, E. A., & Simic, O. (2002). The effect of Reading Recovery on special
education referrals and placements, Psychology in the Schools, 39, 6, 635–46.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (1999).
Inclusive education at work: students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Paris:
OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2000).
Special needs education: Statistics and indicators. Paris: OECD Centre for Educational
Research and Innovation.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2005).
Students with disabilities, learning diffi culties and disadvantage: Statistics and indicators.
Paris: OECD.
Okabayashi, H. (1996). Intervention for school bullying: Observing American
schools. Psychologia, 39, 163–178.
Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Merrill.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional
implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive
architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8.
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (Eds.), (2006). Self-effi cacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing.
Parker, M., & Hurry, J. (2007). Teachers’ use of questioning and modelling
comprehension skills in primary schools. Educational Review, 59, 3, 299–314.
Pavri, S., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2001). Social support in inclusive schools: Student
and teacher perspectives. Exceptional Children, 67, 3, 391–411.
Payne, T., & Irons, E. (2003). Learning disability resource package. Canberra:
Commonwealth Government of Australia.
Pearce, S., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2006). Multilit book levels: Towards
a new system for leveling texts. Special Education Perspectives, 15, 1, 38–56.
Pearl, R., & Bay, M. (1999). Psychosocial correlates of learning disabilities.
In V. L. Schwean & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of psychosocial characteristics
of exceptional children (pp. 443–470). New York: Kluwer Academic.
 REFERENCES 95

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. (2006). Learning disabilities: A practical approach to

foundations, assessment, diagnosis and teaching. Boston, MA: Pearson-Allyn &
Bacon.
Pincott, R. (2004). Are we responsible for our children’s maths difficulties? In B. A.
Knight, & W. Scott (Eds.), Learning diffi culties: Multiple perspectives (pp. 129–140).
Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.
Poulou, M. (2005). The prevention of emotional and behavioural difficulties in
schools: Teachers’ suggestions. Educational Psychology in Practice, 21, 1, 37–52.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching
(3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2007). Learning diffi culties. Retrieved January 21,
2008 from: http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/syllabus/kla_special_needs_
info_learning.pdf
Rappley, M. D. (2005). Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. New England
Journal of Medicine, 352, 2, 165–73.
Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2002). What evidence says about
Reading Recovery: Executive summary. Columbus, OH: RRCNA.
Reddington, J. M., & Wheeldon, A. (2002). Involving parents in baseline
assessment: Employing developmental psychopathology in the early
identification process. Dyslexia, 8, 2, 119–122.
Riddick, B. (1996). Living with dyslexia. London: Routledge.
Riggs, J. (1999). The Einstein factor: Who advocates for the gifted learning disabled
student in the classroom? In P. Westwood, & W. Scott (Eds.), Learning disabilities:
Advocacy and action (pp. 241–251). Melbourne: Resource Educators’ Association.
Riley, K. A., & Rustique-Forrester, E. (2002). Working with disaffected students.
London: Paul Chapman.
Rivalland, J. (2000). Defi nitions and identification: Who are the children with
learning difficulties? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 2, 4–7.
Robinson, G. (2002). Assessment of learning disabilities: The complexity of causes
and consequences. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 1, 29–39.
Rohl, M. (2000). Programs and strategies used by teachers to support primary
students with difficulties in learning literacy. Australian Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 5, 2, 17–22.
Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading. London: Department
of Education and Skills.
Rowe, H. (1981). Early identifi cation and intervention: A handbook for teachers and school
counsellors. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Rowe, K. (2006a). Effective teaching practices for students with and without
learning difficulties: Issues and implications surrounding key fi ndings and
96 REFERENCES

recommendations from the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy.

Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 3, 99–115.
Rowe, K. (2006b). Effective teaching practices. ACER e-News, 48, 1–3.
Ryan, J., & Brown, M. (2005). Just for them to understand better: The impact of
learning difficulties at university. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10,
1, 19–24.
Santrock, J. W. (2006). Life-span development (10th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting ready for inclusion: Is the stage set?
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 3, 169–179.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). Science learning in special education:
The case for constructed versus instructed learning. Exceptionality, 15, 2, 57–74.
Seevers, R. L., & Jones-Blank, M. (2008). Exploring the effects of social skills
training on student behaviour. National Forum of Special Education Journal, 19,
1, 1–8.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). The optimistic child. Boston: Houghton Miffl in.
Selikowitz, M. (1998). Dyslexia and other learning diffi culties (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Shaddock, T. (2006). Researching effective teaching and learning practices for students with
learning diffi culties and disabilities in the Australian Capital Territory: Final Report.
Canberra: Commonwealth Government of Australia.
Shanahan, J., & Richmond, C. (2007). Behaviour management via single case
intervention. Special Education Perspective, 16, 2, 5–19.
Sideridis, G. (2007). Why are students with LD depressed? A goal orientation model
of depression vulnerability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 6, 526–539.
Sideridis, G., & Greenwood, C. (1998). Identification and validation of effective
instructional practices for children from impoverished backgrounds and those
with learning and developmental disabilities using ecobehavioural analysis.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13, 2, 145–154.
Siegel, L., & Brayne, R. (2005). Early identifi cation and intervention to prevent reading
diffi culties. CMEC Toronto. Retrieved January 28, 2008 from: http://www.edu.
gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/pdfs/F2.pdf
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Preventing early school failure. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit,
& B. A. Wasik (Eds.), Preventing early school failure (pp. 1–12). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Slavin, R. E. (2004). Built to last: Long-term maintenance of ‘Success for All’.
Remedial and Special Education 25, 1, 61–66.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2001). One million children: Success for All. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sloat, E. A., Beswick, J. F., & Willms, J. D. (2007). Using early literacy monitoring
to prevent reading failure. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 7, 523–529.
 REFERENCES 97

Smart, D., Prior, M., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, F. (2001). Children with reading
difficulties: A six-year follow-up from early primary to secondary school.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 1, 45–53.
Smidt, S. (2002). A guide to early years practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Smith-Burke, M. T. (2001). Reading Recovery: A systematic approach to early
intervention. In L. M. Morrow and D. G. Woo (Eds.), Tutoring programs for
struggling readers. New York: Guilford Press.
Stephenson, J. (2006). Behavioural momentum: A practical antecedent strategy to
reduce noncompliance. Special Education Perspectives, 15, 2, 40–47.
Stewart, W. (2002). Electronic assistive technology for the gifted and learning-
disabled student. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 4, 4–12.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving maths teaching. Educational
Leadership, 61, 5, 12–17.
Sugai, G., & Evans, D. (1997). Using teachers’ perceptions to screen for primary
students with high-risk behaviours. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 21,
1, 18–35.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: Meta-analysis
of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford Press.
Swanson, H. L. (2000). What instruction works for students with learning
disabilities? In R. Gersten, E. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special
education research (pp. 1–30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instruction for adolescents with learning
disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
36, 2, 124–134.
Symons, A., & Greaves, D. (2006). The use of the THRASS program with younger
children with literacy difficulties. Australian Journal of Dyslexia, 1, 1, 31–36.
Tait, K. (2007). Problem behaviour or just a communication breakdown? Special
Education Perspectives, 16, 1, 10–17.
Tennant, G. (2007). IEPs in mainstream secondary schools: An agenda for research.
Support for Learning, 22, 4, 204–208.
Tollefson, J. M., Mellard, D. F., & McKnight, M. A. (2007). Responsiveness to
intervention: A SLD determination resource. National Research Center on
Learning Disabilities, Information Digest (Winter issue 2007). Retrieved January
28, 2008 from: http://www.nrcld.org/resource_kit/general/RTIdigest2007.pdf
Tomlinson, C. A. (1996). Differentiating instruction for mixed-ability classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School
Psychology, 40, 1, 7–26.
98 R E F E R E N C E S

Tur-Kaspa, H. (2002). Social cognition in learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong,

& M. Donahue. The social dimensions of learning disabilities (pp. 11–31). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Twaddle, P. (2001). If you want to make a difference, intervene: The Australian
Kindergarten Screening Instrument. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities,
6, 4, 26–35.
Twomey, E. (2006). Linking learning theories and learning difficulties. Australian
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 2, 93–98.
US Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Retrieved January 30, 2008 from: http://idea.ed.gov
Valas, H. (1999). Students with learning disabilities and low-achieving students:
Peer acceptance, loneliness, self-esteem and depression. Social Psychology of
Education, 3, 173–192.
Valas, H. (2001). Learned helplessness and psychological adjustment: Effects of
learning disabilities and low achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 45, 2, 101–114.
van den Berg, R., Sleegers, P., & Geijsel, F. (2001). Teachers’ concerns about
adaptive teaching: Evaluation of a support program. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 16, 3, 245–258.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD
intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children,
67, 1, 99–114.
Vaughn, S., Zartagoza, N., Hogan, A., & Walker, J. (1993). A four-year longitudinal
investigation of the social skills and behaviour problems of students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 404–412.
Vlachou, A., Didaskalou, E., & Argyrakouli, E. (2006). Preferences of students with
general learning difficulties for different service delivery modes. European Journal
of Special Needs Education, 21, 2, 201–216.
Wain, G. (1994). Mathematics education and society. In A. Orton, & G. Wain
(Eds.), Issues in teaching mathematics (pp. 21–34). London: Cassell.
Wang, M. C. (1998). Serving students with special needs: What works and what
does not. In D. W. Chan (Ed.), Helping students with learning diffi culties
(pp. 161–173). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
Wasik, B. A., & Karweit, N. L. (1994). Off to a good start: Effects of birth to three
interventions on early school success. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & B. A.
Wasik (Eds.), Preventing early school failure. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Watson, J. (2005). The school experience of secondary students with learning diffi culties:
The marriage of quantitative and qualitative data. Paper presented at the International
Educational Research Conference, UWS, Parramatta, 27 November to 1
December 2005.
 REFERENCES 99

Watson, J., & Boman, P. (2005). Mainstream students with learning difficulties:
Failing and underachieving in the secondary school. Australian Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 10, 2, 43–49.
Watson, J., & Bond, T. G. (2007). Walking the walk: Rasch analysis of an
exploratory survey of secondary teachers’ attitudes and understanding of students
with learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 1, 1–9.
Wearmouth, J. (2002). The role of the learning support coordinator: Addressing
the challenges. In G. Reid, & J. Wearmouth (Eds.), Dyslexia and literacy
(pp. 213–228). Chichester: Wiley.
Webber, L. S., Owens, J., Charlton, J. L., & Kershaw, M. M. (2002). Case studies
in learning disabilities: Implications for instruction. Australian Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 7, 4, 28–33.
Wendon, L. (2006). Letterland. Barton, Cambridge; Letterland International.
Retrieved January 28, 2008 from: http://www.letterland.com/Teachers/
Teachers_1.html
West, J. (2002). Motivation and access to help: The influence of status on one child’s
motivation for literacy learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 18, 205–229.
Westwood, P. (1995). Teachers’ beliefs and expectations concerning students with
learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 27, 2, 19–21.
Westwood, P. (2006). Teaching and learning diffi culties. Melbourne: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Westwood, P. (2008a). What teachers need to know about reading and writing diffi culties.
Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Westwood, P. (2008b). What teachers need to know about teaching methods. Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Westwood, P., & Graham, L. (2000). How many children with special needs in
regular classes? Official predictions vs teachers’ perceptions in South Australia
and New South Wales. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 2, 24–34.
Whedon, C. K., & Bakken, J. P. (1999). Using the clock, light, radio technique
to improve engaged time-on-task for students with learning disabilities.
Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 2, 6–10.
Wheldall, K. (2007). Efficacy of educational programs and interventions.
Learning Diffi culties Australia Bulletin, 39, 1, 3–4.
Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (2007). Multilit tutor program (revised). Sydney:
Macquarie University.
Wheldall, K., & Byers, S. (2005). Submission from Learning Difficulties Australia
to the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. Australian Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 10, 3/4, 9–10.
Wiener, J. (2004). Do peer relationships foster behavioral adjustment in children
with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 1, 21–30.
100 REFERENCES

Wilen, W., Ishler, M., Hutchison, J., & Kindsvatter, R. (2000). Dynamics of effective
teaching (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
Wright, C. (2007). Increasing academic output in students with ADHD. Learning
Diffi culties Australia Bulletin, 39, 4, 11–12.
Wright, R. (2003). Mathematics Recovery: A program of intervention in early
number learning. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 4, 6–11.
Yamanashi, J. E. (2005). A cooperative approach to assisting students at risk of
educational failure. Special Education Perspectives, 14, 2, 62–76.
Yuen, M. T., Westwood, P., & Wong, G. (2007). Bullying and social adjustment in
a sample of Chinese students with specific learning disability. Special Education
Perspectives, 16, 2, 35–52.
Zafi riadis, K. Luvaditis, M., Xenitidis, K. Diamonti, M., Tsatalmpasidou, E.,
Sigalas, I., & Polemitos, N. (2005). Social and psychological characteristics of
Greek secondary school students with learning difficulties. Journal of Adolescence,
28, 741–752.
Zimmerman, T. (2007). Recognition and response. Early Developments: Research-
based Practice, 11, 1, 6–10.
Zundans, L. (2003). Life narrative of a secondary school student with learning
difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 3, 22–25.
Index

Main entries in bold behaviour support 50, 54

behavioural change 47, 51–52
ability grouping 19, 76, 77–78, 81 behavioural momentum 50
academic engaged time 57, 71 behavioural problems 5, 42, 46, 48–52
adaptive teaching 72–74 bullying 43, 51
affective problems v, 5, 15–19, 23, 26,
38–39 Circle of Friends 45
aggression 43, 44, 49, 51 CLaSS (Children’s Literacy Success Strategy)
aides 22, 33, 76 32, 33, 41
used in support roles 38, 76, 79 classroom management 7, 51, 52, 53, 58
arithmetic 32, 38 classroom organisation 44–45, 50, 72
learning of 67–69 classwide peer tutoring 45
see also numeracy see also peer tutoring
assessment 28–30, 39, 72 cognition 4, 5, 8, 66, 72, 75
modifications to 74–75 cognitive behaviour modification 52,
attention problems 4, 5, 8, 37, 42, 52–54, 53, 54
66 collaborative group work 45–46, 59, 73
attention to task 5, 30, 37, 53, 57, 65 comprehension in reading 33, 36, 59, 61,
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder 63–65
(ADHD) 42, 52–54 computational skills 38, 67–69
attribution retraining 23, 24 computer-assisted learning 7, 53, 58, 74,
attribution theory 15, 18, 22 77, 80
automaticity 37, 38, 60, 65 concentration span 22, 24, 25, 30, 53
avoidance of school tasks 4, 15–16, 21, see also attention to task
23, 37, 48, 52, 60, 63, 65 confidence 5, 15, 17, 20, 22, 52, 57, 61,
65, 71
behaviour management 48–52 constructivist approaches 56
behaviour modification 48, 53, 54 cooperative learning 45–46, 73
behaviour problems 48–52 coping strategies 15, 25, 26, 48

101
102 I N D E X

counselling 5, 21, 26, 46, 47, 53, 65 expectancy-value theory 15, 25

cross-age tutoring 80, 81 explicit instruction 32, 56, 58, 67
curriculum 1–3, 10, 27, 36, 56, 59, 60, see also direct instruction
72, 74
adapting curricula 73, 78 failure cycle 13, 15–16, 17
as a source of difficulty 1, 2, 6, 8, 66 failure syndrome 17
watered-down 6, 73, 78 feedback 18, 19, 24, 47, 58, 80
its importance to learners 19, 20, 59
decoding 33, 60, 61, 62 First Steps 33
see also phonic approach flashcards 63
deficit model 5, 6 fluency in reading 34, 60, 64
depression 25, 44 frustration 4, 6, 8, 48, 66
descriptive praise 20, 54, 59
diagnostic approach in mathematics 68 gifted students 4, 80
Diagnostic Net (Queensland) 29 with learning difficulties 4–5
differentiation 39, 58, 72–75, 78 group work 37, 45–46, 59, 73
of curriculum 73 grouping practices within a classroom
of method 73–74 19, 35, 37, 45–46, 78, 79
problems associated with 39, 75–76
direct instruction 7, 23, 32, 33, 56, 57, homework 58, 63, 72, 73, 80
59, 60, 62, 69, 77 hyperactivity 42, 52–53
discovery learning 56, 57
disengagement from learning 4, 8, 57 identification of learning difficulties
distractibility 53 v, 5, 12, 27–30, 39, 40
dyscalculia 3, 66 ignoring inappropriate behaviour
dysgraphia 3 see tactical ignoring
dyslexia 3, 11, 13, 44, 75 incidental learning 56, 60, 62, 68
see also specific learning disability in-class support 37, 76, 77, 78, 79
inclusive education 77, 79
early failure 15, 16, 23, 27, 40 individual education plan (IEP) 71, 76
early identification v, 27–31, 39, 40 inefficient learner model 5, 6
effect size (ES) 59 intellectual disability 2, 12, 28
effective instruction 5, 13, 49, 53, 55, 57, intervention 5, 6, 9, 26, 29, 31–39, 42
67, 70 forms of 13, 31–36, 65
embarrassment 19, 44, 61, 73 principles of 17, 20, 32, 36, 37–38, 52
emotional reactions to failure 2, 5, wave model 31–33
15–21, 27, 43
English as a second language 5 Jolly Phonics 32, 62
environmental factors model 5, 6
ELRP (Early Literacy Research Project) 33, labelling 19, 39, 78
41 language of instruction 5, 7, 73
 INDEX 103

learned helplessness 4, 18, 22, 23–24, organisational skills 12, 54

26, 65, 68 organising support 76–81
learning assistance program (LAP) 80 orthographic units 33–34
learning difficulties v, 1–12, 14, 17,
19–20, 21 paraprofessionals 35, 79
causes of 5–6 see also aides
defined 2–4 parental involvement in intervention
described 2–4, 21, 23, 42-43, 52, 56, 36–37, 38, 65, 76, 80
58, 60, 63, 68, 71, 75 passivity 4, 44, 51
general 2, 8, 76 peer tutoring 45, 71, 76, 80, 81
identification of 27–38, 40 perceptual problems 5, 11, 66
prevalence of 8–9, 10 phonic approach 32, 33, 38, 60, 61–62,
specific 2–3, 10, 12 65
learning disability synthetic phonics 32, 62
see specific learning disability phonological awareness 29, 30, 33, 37,
learning strategies 3, 4, 23, 35, 38, 59, 61–62
64, 67, 68 positive behaviour support 50, 54
Letterland 32 practice 7, 32, 34, 36, 57, 59, 63, 69, 73
locus of control 4, 16, 21–23, 26, 44 its role in learning 7, 16, 37, 60, 65
low achievers 2, 3, 9, 12, 27, 44, 48, 53 praise 20, 21, 46, 48, 54, 59, 65, 80
prevalence of learning difficulties
mathematics 3, 7, 10, 56, 78 8–9, 10
difficulties 65–67 problem solving in mathematics 38, 67,
teaching approach 27, 38, 56, 68–69
67–69 provocative behaviour 43, 44
memory 4, 5, 11, 12, 28, 29, 30, 66
mental handicap questioning 22, 23, 58, 60, 64, 73
see intellectual disability QuickSmart 27, 33
meta-analysis 59
metacognitive strategies 4, 36 readability level of text 33, 37, 63, 64, 65
mixed-ability classes 78 reading 3, 4, 7, 32, 35, 60, 61, 65–66, 75
modifying instruction 7, 72, 73–75 comprehension 33, 36, 59, 61, 63–64,
modifying resource materials 73 65, 67
motivation 4, 6, 15, 16, 18, 22, 24–25, difficulties 7, 12, 28, 33, 34, 60–61, 62
61, 77 fluency 34, 60, 64
Multilit (Making up lost time in literacy) phonics 32, 52, 61, 62, 65
27, 33 strategies 36, 59, 63–64, 65
multi-sensory teaching 32, 38 teaching approach 55, 56, 61–65
word recognition 33, 38, 60, 61,
number facts 66, 67 62–63, 65
numeracy 2, 3, 10, 29, 31, 60, 67 reading difficulties 29, 34–35, 60–61
104 INDEX

Reading Recovery 27, 34–35, 36, 40 in university students 10–11

reinforcement 24, 50, 51, 58, 80 over-identification of 12
rejection 43, 46 spelling 32, 33, 38, 59, 61, 63, 80
remedial intervention 5, 19, 31, 34–36, Stepping Out 33
37, 56, 61, 76 strategies for learning 3, 4, 23, 35, 38,
resilience to stress 25–26 59, 64, 67, 68
resource room model 76, 77 strategy training 6, 57, 58, 59, 64, 70
responsiveness to intervention 31, 39 streaming 76, 77
risk factors 30–31 structured teaching 32, 33, 54, 56,
rote learning 67 57–58, 67
Success for All 27, 35–36
scaffolding 58 support for learning 1, 5, 8, 10, 17, 22,
screening procedures for learning 31–34, 35, 36, 39, 58, 71–74, 76–79,
difficulty 29–30, 40 80
self-concept 16, 17, 18, 44 SWELL (School-Wide Early Language and
self-control 50, 52, 53 Literacy) 32, 40
self-efficacy 4, 15, 17, 19–20, 21, 23, 25, synthetic phonics 32, 62
71, 77
self-esteem 4, 15, 16, 18–19, 21, 23, 24, tactical ignoring 49, 51
26, 38, 44, 61, 65, 73, 77 teachers
self-management 48, 54 as observers 28, 30
see also self-control attitude toward students with
self-monitoring 50, 52 difficulties 7, 45, 49
self-referential style 16 teachers’ beliefs concerning learning
self-talk 21, 52 problems 6–7
self-worth 16, 18, 20–21, 23, 26 teaching methods
sight vocabulary 33, 38, 62–63, 65 as cause of difficulty 6, 7–8, 55, 60, 66
slow learners 2 constructivist 56
social relationship problems 2, 42, diagnostic approach 68
43–44, 45 direct 7, 23, 32, 33, 56–57, 58, 59, 60,
social skills v, 42, 44, 46–48, 54 62, 69, 77
deficits in 43, 44 effective 5, 13, 49, 53, 55, 57, 67, 70
defined 43, 46–47 explicit 32, 56, 58, 67
training of 42, 44, 45, 46–48 research-based methods 32
special classes 76, 77 structured 32, 33, 54, 56, 57, 67
specific learning disability 1, 8, 12–13, teasing 43
44, 53 tests and testing 30, 40, 59, 68, 75
a contentious concept 12–13 THRASS 32, 33, 40, 62
defined 2 time out 51
in gifted students 4–5 tracking 76
 INDEX 105

victimisation 43, 44 word families 62

visual perception 5, 28, 53 word lotto 63
vocabulary-controlled reading books 63 word recognition 33, 38, 60, 61, 62–63,
volunteer helpers in school 76, 79 65
word-attack skills 65
watered-down curriculum 6, 73 writing 32, 38, 56, 63, 74
wave model of intervention 31–34, 76, 79 writing difficulties 3, 4, 12, 13
withdrawal for special teaching 31,
38, 71, 79
 P e t e r We s t w o o d

The What Teachers Need to Know About series aims to refresh and expand basic
teaching knowledge and classroom experience. Books in the series provide essential
information about a range of subjects necessary for today’s teachers to do their
jobs effectively. These books are short, easy-to-use guides to the fundamentals of a

L E A R N I N G D I F F I C U LT I E S
subject with clear reference to other, more comprehensive, sources of information.
Other titles in the series include Teaching Methods, Numeracy, Spelling, Reading What
and Writing Difficulties, Personal Wellbeing, Marketing, and Music in Schools.
teachers
need to know
Learning Difficulties draws on international research about learning difficulties
to present a clear picture of the issues involved. It focuses on early identification,
so that intervention can prevent or minimise the negative outcomes of persistent
failure and explains how teachers can address problems effectively. Problems of
socialisation and behaviour are discussed and brief coverage given to students’
specific difficulties with reading and mathematics. A comprehensive range of links
about
to additional sources of information will help teachers find positive solutions for
their students.

Peter Westwood has been an Associate Professor of Education and has taught all
age groups. He holds awards for excellence in teaching from Flinders University
in South Australia and from the University of Hong Kong. Peter has published
many books and articles on educational subjects and is currently an educational
consultant based in Macau, China. Westwood

Cover images: © Erengoksel | Dreamstime.com

© Mikdam | Dreamstime.com
ISBN 978-0-86431-936-4
Learning
9 780864 319364 difficulties