General learning difficulties

3.4 General learning difficulties & specific learning difficulties

As stated earlier, LDs have been defined in various ways through the last five decades whilst researchers took several factors into account. According to the Warnock Report (1978), this difficulty might be specific, i.e. reading, writing, mathematics or spelling, or it can be general, where learning is slower than a typical child across a range of tasks (Warnock, 1978;

Dockrell & McShane, 1992). It is critical to address the differences between the two terms (types) as they appear confusing for some researchers and teachers. In addition, identifying differences can assist in concentrating on specific areas of the disability related to the subject of this research.

3.4.1 General learning difficulties

General learning difficulties (which are referred to in countries other than the UK, including Jordan, as intellectual impairment, developmental delay or intellectual disability) might be defined as difficulties that cause development problems for children. For some children, these problems only become evident when they join school and their performance is compared to their peers (Dockrell & McShane, 1992). For example, in the USA, the American Association on ‘Mental Retardation’ (AAMR) has presented gradual definitions of intellectual impairment over last six decades. In one definition of intellectual impairment, Heber in 1959 described it as ‘sub-average’ general intellectual functioning which originates during the developmental period (0-16) (El-Roussan, 1996). Grossman in 1973 and 1983 added adaptive behaviour to the definition and extended the developmental period to 18 years old (Schalock et al., 2007). It can be seen that both definitions responded positively to the popularity of intelligence quotient (IQ) tests in those days and the entrance of social adaptive skills was limited.

In 2002, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), (formerly AAMR) suggested that people with intellectual impairment should be called people with ID (Schalock et al., 2007; Schalock & Luckasson, 2005). The new definition of ID is as follows: ‘Intellectual disability is characterised by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behaviour as expressed in conceptual, social and practical adaptive skills. This disability originates before age 18’ (Schalock et al., 2007, p.118). The child’s IQ score was one of the fundamental criteria used over many years to identify general LDs. The intelligence tests tend to compare the mental age of a child against his/her chronological age using the following formula: IQ score= (mental age/ chronological age) X 100%. In this formula, chronological age refers to actual age of the child whilst

35

mental age refers to the developmental phase that the child has reached in comparison to his peers (same age and cultural group) (see Gates & Wilberforce, 2003).

Early definitions of intellectual impairment by AAMR included children with IQ scores at least two standard deviations below the mean of the population (Less than 70). However, IQ tests failed to identify the precise nature of the difficulty (Dockrell & McShane, 1992). In addition, IQ tests have been built on different definitions of intelligence (e.g. Binet defined intelligence as a general intellectual ability, while Wechsler defined it as depending on verbal and non-verbal abilities) that have appeared in many tests, such as Stanford-Binet, Wechsler, Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test and McCarthy Scale of Children’s Abilities. Regardless of these different views of the exact nature of intelligence, IQ scores do not seem to be able to explain general difficulty, nor to determine the appropriate educational place for children with general LDs.

El-Roussan (1996) asserted a new approach in diagnosing general LDs and intellectual impairment, which includes several dimensions: medical, psychometric (intellectual abilities), social and educational. Medical tests for children at risk of general LDs are normally applied after birth (e.g. Apgar: devised by Virginia Apgar in 1952 covering five dimensions and with a scale of 1-3) or during a later phase, as in Phenylketonuria. Since the development of the Stanford-Binet test in 1916, psychometric tests have played an important role in identifying children with general LDs. Tests such as Stanford-Binet and Wechsler are used as a means of identifying children with general LDs. In the 1970s, a new dimension was added by AAMR. Social competence became a basic element in writing the final report of the child’s profile Adaptive Behaviour Scale. Finally, educational tests were developed in the late 1970s at Michigan University, focusing on reading, writing and maths dimensions.

Dockrell and McShane (1992) pointed out that there is no consensus on which term should be used to describe students experiencing general LDs. They indicated that children with general LDs might be classified in three different ways: IQ score, aetiology and curricular requirements. They argued that the IQ score gives the upper and lower limit to the types of SEN which a child might experience. They concluded that this range can be affected by environmental conditions. Furthermore, they described the benefit of using aetiology, in the sense that it provides important details about similarities and differences across the range of LDs.

36

According to the SEN Code of Practice, which was issued by the Department for Education and Skills in the UK, general LDs may appear in the following ways (Frederickson

& Cline, 2002, p.233):

• Low levels of achievement in all forms of assessment;

• Difficulty in acquiring skills (notably literacy and numeracy) on which much other learning in school depends;

• Difficulty in dealing with abstract ideas and generalising from experience;

• Little or no progress, despite involvement in the nursery curriculum;

• A range of associated difficulties, notably in speech and language (particularly for younger children) and in social and emotional development.

However, there is no consensus regarding the classification of general LDs. For example it might be classified in terms of:

• External forms, such as Down’s syndrome, Phenylketonuria, cretinism, macrocephaly (large headedness) and microcephaly (small headedness).

• IQ: mild (85-70), moderate (70-55), severe (55-40) and profound (below 40).

• Hearing or visual loss.

The Warnock Committee divided general LDs into three categories:

• Mild learning difficulties: students with mild LDs have low achievement at school. They can be helped to follow the normal curriculum. Some of them may even not be recognised as their social adaptation is well (British Institute of LDs, 2005).

• Moderate learning difficulties: the Warnock Committee included children who used to be called educationally subnormal under this category.

• Severe learning difficulties: the Warnock Report used severe LDs to describe children with a ‘mental handicap’ (Warnock, 1978; British Institute of LDs, 2005).

However, some studies have shown that students with general LDs are able to be taught at ordinary schools. Porter (2000) found strong evidence that even those students about whom teachers expressed the most concern were making gains in mathematics. She argued that the inclusion of students with severe LDs in the numeracy strategy should be given urgent consideration. Bochner et al. (2001) found that children with Down’s syndrome (DS) were

37

able to learn reading and writing. Their results showed that children in integrated school situations achieved advanced levels of reading and language skills. This translated into a positive correlation with the age groups.