A total of 83 children with different special educational needs (SEN) assessments were contrasted with a control group (N = 40) without special needs on measures that aimed to identify potential areas of strengths as well as weaknesses in these SEN groups. Carefully selected groups of dyslexics, dyspraxics, children with specific language difficulties, moderate learning disabilities, attention deficits and emotional/behavioural disorders were assessed on measures of literacy, phonological and verbal skills, non-verbal ability, problem behaviour scales and cognitive interference. Scores indicated that individual measures were relatively poor at specifically differentiating one SEN group from the controls and that all SEN groups presented evidence of literacy deficits despite potentially different causes for such acquisition difficulties. For most of the six SEN groups targeted, assessments that considered strengths as well as weaknesses provided a profile that specifically differentiated the group from the controls in contrast to the other SEN groups tested.

Much research has been devoted to the development of literacy skills and to detailing processes in the early acquisition of reading and writing. However, little research in this area has linked cognitive profiles with teaching methods. This work viewed children who were underachieving given their cognitive status, those who were learning slowly and children experiencing no difficulties. The results indicated significant differences between the dyslexic, slow learning and normal control children, with the dyslexics performing best with visual/semantic methods and the slow learners with phonic methods. However, both groups improved less than the controls. The findings suggest the importance of teachers adjusting their teaching to suit the child's cognitive profile in order that success in learning will be optimized.

No abstract

No abstract

This research investigated the impact of linking teaching approaches to cognitive profiles in two children with poorly developed literacy skills but with differing patterns of cognitive deficit. One child presented average ability levels but specific deficits in spelling and poor scores on tasks related to motor skills. The second child showed more wide ranging deficits and below average ability. Both children were taught spellings via six teaching programmes over a period of 15 months. Improvements indicated that the child with specific spelling deficits benefited greatly from teaching programmes that built upon visual/phonological strengths compared to areas of weaker motor skills. The child with low attainment levels in all areas except motor skills presented little evidence of learning with any method of instruction. The results are interpreted in terms of current theories of literacy development and disability. They indicate the need to consider effective individual strategies for learning beyond the application of one favoured teaching strategy, and how profiling strengths and weaknesses may inform strategy selection.