Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a “third method” approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.

This investigation focused on validating two feedback routines for use by special education teachers to enhance the performance of students with learning disabilities. One routine (the Feedback Routine) involved teacher-delivered elaborated feedback, the other (the Feedback-Plus-Assistance Routine) consisted of elaborated feedback plus a student-acceptance routine, which included setting goals for the next practice trial. Two experimental designs were employed: one to determine whether teachers could learn the routines, the other to determine the effects on student learning. Dependent measures were (a) teacher and student performance of the routines, (b) student trials to mastery, and (c) student errors across trials. Measures of teacher and student satisfaction and teacher maintenance were also gathered. Results indicated that the special education teachers effectively integrated the routines into their teaching repertoires. Further, the routines significantly reduced the number of student trials to mastery and the number of student errors in practice attempts following feedback sessions. The two routines appeared equally powerful in terms of teacher and student learning; however, the teachers continued to maintain the routine requiring student involvement in goal setting for a longer period.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract