No abstract

Noelting's (1980a, 1980b) three parallel instruments on proportional reasoning—two presenting problem-solving tasks in the ratio and division interpretations of fractions and one presenting the tasks in the purely symbolic form of numerical fractions—were administered to 6 female and 41 male learning disabled students, grades four through eight. Performances on the instruments were then compared to the performances of 120 non-learning disabled students in grades five through nine of the same school district. The purpose of the study was to determine whether learning disabled students differed in their development of proportional reasoning and whether their disability was in the use of symbols and language and not in their ability to solve proportional problems. Developmental scalograms, PPR>0.93, resulted in support of the hypothesis that the proportional reasoning abilities of the learning disabled student are developmental and thus not unlike those of the non-learning disabled student. A comparison of the three means for the two groups revealed a reversal in performance with the learning disabled students more successful at problem solving and the non-learning disabled students more successful at the purely symbolic form of numerical fractions. Unlike the non-learning disabled students, the learning disabled students' inability to express a strategy did not indicate an inability to solve the problem.

Outlines how to use structured portfolios as a tool in teacher education courses to help students understand the impact a disability has on a child and the family

Point/Counterpoint presents viewpoints on a particular issue. An article by Kathleen Wong, Jim Kauffman, and John Lloyd, which appeared in the November 1991 issue of Intervention in School and Clinic, presents information regarding the reintegration of students with disabilities into general education. In this issue of Intervention, Lori Bell Mick reacts to this article; Wong, Kauffman, and Lloyd then respond to Mick.–-GW

In this issue I am pleased to introduce a new department of Intervention, called Point/Counterpoint. This department, which will appear periodically throughout the year, will present contrasting viewpoints on a particular issue. The nature of Ritalin is discussed in the following Point/Counterpoint. Robert Cooter's "Effects of Ritalin on Reading," which appeared in the May 1988 issue of Academic Therapy, described the nature of Ritalin, its use in education, and its effect on reading performance. In the present issue, Lori Bell Mick responds to Cooter's article on four specific points. Mick includes portions of Cooter's article in her response. In order for readers to distinguish between Cooter's original conclusion and Mick's disagreements, italics are used for quotations from Cooter (1988). Cooter's reaction to Mick's disagreements follow the Mick article—GW