CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
A disability is any continuing condition that restricts everyday activities. It is

attributable to an intellectual, psychiatric, cognitive, neurological, sensory or

physical impairment or a combination of those impairments. It may be permanent

or likely to be permanent, it may or may not be chronic or episodic nature but it

does results in substantially reduced capacity of the person for communication,

social interaction, learning or mobility and a need for continuing support

(Disability Services Act, 1993).

The main categories of disability are physical, sensory, psychiatric,

neurological, cognitive and intellectual. A physical disability is the most common

type of disability, followed by intellectual and sensory disability. Intellectual

disability includes intellectual and developmental disability which relate to

difficulties with thought processes, learning, communicating, remembering

information and using it appropriately, making judgements and problem solving.

Learning Disabilities refers to a variety of disorders that affect the

acquisition, retention, understanding, organization or use of verbal or non-verbal

information. These disorders result from impairments in one or more

psychological processes related to learning. Also, it is in combination with other

average abilities essential for thinking and reasoning. Learning disabilities are
1
specific not global impairments and as such are distinct from intellectual

disabilities. Learning disabilities range in severity and invariably interfere with the

acquisition and use of one or more of the following important skills: oral language

(listening, speaking, understanding), reading (decoding, comprehension), written

language (spelling, written expression), mathematics (computation, problem

solving) (LDAO, 2001). Definitions of learning disabilities have evolved over

time. These definitions have been attempts at describing a condition that had been

labeled, among other terms, aphasia, neurologically impaired, Strauss Syndrome,

and minimal brain dysfunction. History suggests that the term learning disabilities

originated with and became popularized by Dr. Samuel Kirk based on his writings

in the early 1960s and comments that were made at the April 6, 1963 Conference

on Exploration into Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child. His proposed

label was enthusiastically received and helped to unite the participants into an

organization known as the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities

(Lerner, 2000).

Common types of learning disabilities; Dyslexia: Difficulty with reading

Problems reading, writing, spelling, speaking. Dyscalculia: Difficulty with math

Problems doing math problems, understanding time, using money. Dysgraphia:

Difficulty with writing Problems with handwriting, spelling, organizing ideas.

Dyspraxia (Sensory Integration Disorder): Difficulty with fine motor skills

2
Problems with hand-eye coordination, balance, manual dexterity.

Dysphasia/Aphasia: Difficulty with language Problems understanding spoken

language, poor reading comprehension. Auditory Processing Disorder: Difficulty

hearing differences between sounds, Problems with reading, comprehension,

language. Visual Processing Disorder: Difficulty interpreting visual information,

Problems with reading, math, maps, charts, symbols, pictures.

1.2 Statement of Problem

Learning disabilities or learning disorders, are an umbrella term for a wide

variety of learning problems. A learning disability is not a problem with

intelligence or motivation. Kids with learning disabilities aren’t lazy or dumb. In

fact, most are just as smart as everyone else. Their brains are simply wired

differently. This difference affects how they receive and process information.

Simply put, children and adults with learning disabilities see, hear, and understand

things differently. This can lead to trouble with learning new information and skills

and putting them to use. The most common types of learning disabilities involve

problems with reading, writing, math, reasoning, listening, and speaking.

Learning disabilities have affected a lot of children, so in turn affects their

learning. Therefore, based on this reason there is need to investigate early

identification and intervention for children with learning disabilities.

3
1.3 Research Questions
1. What is the causes of learning disabilities?
2. What are the causes of learning disabilities among male children?
3. What are the causes of learning disabilities among female children?
4. How can we identify children with learning disabilities from high social
economic status?
5. How can we identity children with learning disabilities from low social
economic class?
6. How can we identify children of high level of difficult learning disabilities?

1.4 Research Hypothesis

Ho1 There is no significance difference between male and female children

in the causes of learning disabilities.

Ho2 There is no significance difference between high and low social

economic status in children with learning disabilities.

Ho3 There is a significance difference between children of normal

intelligence and children of high level of difficulty in learning
disabilities.

1.5 Purpose of Study

The main purpose of this study is to study the effect of the role early

identification and intervention plays in children with learning disabilities and

recognizing the signs and symptoms in learning disabilities.

4
1.6 Significance of Study

Early diagnosis not only improves the child’s ability to reach their academic

potential but also prevents the development of low esteem and behavioral problems

that further interfere with their ability to learn. By learning more about learning

disabilities in general can help pave the way for success at school and beyond.

1.7 Scope and De-limitation of Study

Due to the limitation of time, this project is to be conducted using the

schools only located in Ughelli North local Government Area of Delta State.

1.8 Operational Definition of Terms

Aphasia: A partial or total loss of language skills due to brain damage

Conjectured: A supposition based upon incomplete evidence; a hypothesis

Neuropathologist: A specialist who studies neuropathology

Handicapped: A disabled person

5
 CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Historical Perspectives of Learning Disabilities
The history of learning disabilities has been divided into five periods:

European Foundation Period (1800 to 1920); U.S. Foundation Period (1920 to

1960); Emergent Period (1960 to 1975); Solidification Period (1975 to 1985);

Turbulent Period (1985 to 2000). Others before them (Lerner, 2000; Mercer, 1997;

Wiederholt, 1974) have also divided the history into roughly similar periods

(Andrew et al., 2000).

2.1.1 European Foundation Period (1800 to 1920)

During the European Foundation Period, there were two main lines of work

relevant to the field of learning disabilities. First, several groundbreaking

discoveries in the field of neurology occurred during this time. Second, toward the

end of this period, significant seminal articles and books on reading disabilities

were published. We can trace the origins of the field of learning disabilities back to

research in Europe on acquired brain pathology in adults. Men whose names still

grace the pages of neurology textbooks conducted this research. One of the

primary objectives of this research was the attempt to match up areas of the brain

to particular behaviors. A German physician, Franz Joseph Gall, is credited as the

first major figure to explore the relationship between brain injury and mental

6
impairment. Gall based much of his theorizing on observations he made of brain-

injured soldiers. In a letter published in 1802, he conjectured that three separate

parts of the brain are each responsible for what he termed: (a) vital sources

(movement and sensation), (b) moral qualities (inclinations of the soul), and (c)

intellectual qualities (Head, 1926; Wiederholt, 1974). Of particular relevance to

learning disabilities, Gall is known for noting the effect of brain damage on what

today would be termed Broca’s aphasia.

Gall’s contributions in linking brain injury and aphasia, however, were largely

overshadowed by his association with the phrenology school of thought, the belief

that skull shape determines mental and personality attributes. In later years, many

considered him a quack. One exception was John Baptiste Bouillaud, Dean of the

Medical School of the College of France (Wiederholt, 1974).

In the 1820s, Bouillaud furthered Gall’s work through autopsies of several

patients with brain injury. Bouillaud did not ascribe to Gall’s position on

phrenology, but he did agree with much of what he had to say regarding the

localization of brain functioning. Although Gall had hypothesized that the control

of movement and sensory perception are located in the brain stem, Bouillard

concluded that they are located in the cortex. In addition, he asserted that the

frontal anterior lobes of the brain control speech. In the 1860s, Pierre Paul Broca

did much to debunk the phrenologists through postmortem observations of adults

7
with brain injury. In particular, Broca is generally known for being the one who

did the most to promote the idea that speech functions primarily reside in the left

side of the brain. He based his case on autopsies of several patients who had had

impaired speech while alive. Broca concluded that a small section of the left side

of the brain was responsible for speech. This area, which is located in the inferior

left frontal lobe, has come to be called Broca’s area; persons who have a particular

constellation of speech problems involving slow, laborious, dysfluent speech are

referred to as having Broca’s aphasia.

Carl Wernicke, a Polish-born physician whose family moved to Germany at

an early age, was another major figure who explored brain localization during this

period. In 1874, he published a book describing 10 case studies of brain-injured

patients with language problems. However, the language disorders they possessed

were different from those of Broca’s patients as was the particular area of the brain

affected (Wernicke, 1874). In contrast to Broca’s subjects, Wernicke’s patients had

fluent and unlabored speech, but the sentences spoken were often meaningless. In

addition, his cases had difficulties in recognizing and comprehending words. He

called this disorder sensory aphasia, which has become known as Wernicke’s

aphasia. The particular area of the brain, now referred to as Wernicke’s area,

consists of a section of the left temporal lobe.

8
 Years later, Adolph Kussmaul (1877) reported on the case of an adult patient

with no apparent disabilities other than a severe reading deficit.

2.1.2 U.S. Foundation Period (1920 to 1960)

By about the 1920s, clinicians and researchers in the United States began to

take an interest in the work of the Europeans who had been studying brain-

behavior relationships and children and adults with learning difficulties. The U.S.

researchers focused their efforts on language and reading disabilities and

perceptual, perceptual-motor, and attention disabilities. In the United States, there

were several key figures from medicine, psychology, and education during this

period who used the research of Hinshelwood and other Europeans as a

springboard for their own work. Primary among these were Samuel Orton, Grace

Fernald, Marion Monroe, and Samuel Kirk.

Samuel Orton was arguably the key figure in setting the stage for the study of

reading disabilities in the United States. The primary professional society devoted

to reading disabilities, the International Dyslexia Association, was originally

named the Orton Dyslexia Society.

In January of 1925, Orton, then a neuropathologist at the State Psychopathic

Hospital in Iowa City, set up a 2-week, mobile clinic in Greene County, Iowa. As a

part of this experiment, local teachers were invited to refer students who were

considered defective or who were retarded or failing in their school work (Orton,

9
1925). Fourteen of the 88 students were referred primarily because they had great

difficulty in learning to read. Orton highlighted the fact that many of these students

scored in the near-average, average, or above-average range on the Stanford-Binet

IQ test—one had an IQ of 122, four had IQs between 100 and 110, five had IQs

between 90 and 100, one had an IQ of 85, and four had IQs between 70 and 80.

Hinshelwood had also noted that many of his cases of congenital word-blindness

were intelligent, but with the advent of IQ tests Orton was able to lend a certain

degree of objectivity to this notion. Furthermore, presaging later references to the

Matthew effect, Orton speculated that the IQ score might not always reflect true

intellectual ability in students with reading disabilities. After his seminal article in

1925, Orton continued to study children with reading disabilities over the next

several years, with his work being summarized in his classic book, Reading,

Writing, and Speech Problems in Children (Orton, 1937). Although he relied

heavily on Hinshelwood’s prior work, Orton’s views differed from Hinshelwood’s

in at least three important respects. First, Orton had a much more liberal view of

the prevalence of reading disabilities. Whereas Hinshelwood had bristled at the

notion that one per thousands of students in elementary schools might have word-

blindness, Orton offered that somewhat over 10 per cent of the total school

population (Orton, 1939) had reading disabilities. He noted that Hinshelwood had

argued for restricting the diagnosis of word-blindness to those cases in which there

10
would be no question about whether there was pathology present. Second, although

they both thought reading disabilities were often inherited, Hinshelwood pointed to

agenesis of the angular gyrus in the dominant hemisphere as the site of the

problem. Although Orton considered the angular gyrus of the dominant hemisphere

as essential to maintaining a normal reading skill, he viewed reading as a complex

activity that involved several areas of the brain. Rejecting the idea of defects in

brain development, Orton focused instead on the inheritance of mixed cerebral

dominance, or motor intergrading, as being behind many cases of reading

disabilities.

Orton was one of the first to introduce the idea of multisensory training. In

particular, he stressed the use of the kinesthetic function by having students trace

letters while sounding them out (Orton, 1937). And Orton’s ideas served as a

stimulus for the work of Anna Gillingham and Bessie Stillman, whose book,

Remedial Work for Reading, Spelling, and Penmanship (1936) emphasized

building the following linkages: visual-auditory, auditory-visual, auditory-

kinesthetic, and kinesthetic-visual. Gillingham and Stillman believed it is essential

to establish each linkage with patient care, even into the thousandth repetition

(Gillingham & Stillman, 1936). Today, practitioners still use many of the ideas of

Orton and Gillingham and Stillman. These practices have come to be referred to as

the Orton-Gillingham Approach. Basically, the Orton-Gillingham Approach is a

11
phonics-based, multisensory method using the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic

modalities for reading decoding and spelling instruction.

Fernald was another figure associated with a multisensory approach to

reading disabilities. As part of her rationale, she provided a brief history of the use

of the kinesthetic modality to teach reading, including references to Plato in the

third century B.C. Horace in 65 B.C., Quintilian in 68 A.D., Charlemagne in the

8th century, and Locke in the 17th century (Fernald, 1943). Fernald differed from

Orton and Gillingham, however, in her opposition to a phonics-based emphasis on

sounding out letters and words. Instead, she emphasized reading and writing words

as wholes. Fernald actually predated Orton with respect to advocating for a

multisensory approach to reading disabilities. In 1921, she coauthored an article

describing remedial treatment of six cases of students with reading disabilities at

the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA) Clinic School (Fernald &

Keller, 1921).

2.1.3 Emergent Period (1960 to 1975)

From about 1960 to 1975, learning disabilities began its emergence as a

formal category. It was during this period that (a) the term learning disabilities was

introduced; (b) the federal government included learning disabilities on its agenda;

(c) parents and professionals founded organizations for learning disabilities; and

12
(d) educational programming for students with learning disabilities blossomed,

with a particular focus on psychological processing and perceptual training.

Most authorities credit Samuel Kirk as the originator of the term learning

disabilities. In the first edition of his Educating Exceptional Children, which

became arguably the most widely used college introductory text for special

education of its era, Kirk (1962) defined learning disabilities as follows: A learning

disability refers to a retardation, disorder, or delayed development in one or more

of the processes of speech, language, reading, writing, arithmetic, or other school

subject resulting from a psychological handicap caused by a possible cerebral

dysfunction and emotional or behavioral disturbances. It is not the result of mental

retardation, sensory deprivation, or cultural and instructional factors. (Kirk, 1962,).

Addressing a group of parents of perceptually handicapped children a year later,

Kirk (1963) again used the term learning disabilities. Several of the parents at the

conference had approached Kirk before he spoke, saying that they needed help in

selecting a name for their proposed national organization (Kirk, 1976). Ironically,

Kirk first talked of his distaste for labels but then proceeded to introduce a term

that has become, by far, the most frequently used label in special education. As

indicated before, the term brain injury has little meaning to us from a management

or training point of view. It does not tell me if the child is smart or dull,

hyperactive or underactive. The terms cerebral palsy, brain injured, mentally

13
retarded, aphasic, etc. are not actually classification terms. In a sense they are not

diagnostic, if by diagnosis we mean an assessment of the child in such a way that

leads us to some form of treatment, management, or remediation. In addition, it is

not a basic cause since the designation of the child as brain injured does not really

tell us why the child is brain injured or how he got that way. Recently, the term

“learning disabilities” have been used to describe a group of children who have

disorders in development in language, speech, reading, and associated

communication skills needed for social interaction. Motivated by Kirk’s speech,

the parents immediately formed the Association for Children with Learning

Disabilities (ACLD), now known as the Learning Disabilities Association of

America (LDA), which is generally acknowledged as the largest and most

influential learning disabilities parent organization in the United States.

2.1.4 Solidification Period (1975 to 1985)

The period from about 1975 to 1985 was a period of relative stability as the

field moved toward consensus on the definition of learning disabilities as well as

methods of identifying students with learning disabilities. It was a period of

considerable applied research, much of it funded by the USOE, that resulted in

empirically validated educational procedures for students with learning disabilities.

There was some upheaval with respect to professional organizations, but this

unrest was relatively brief.

14
 In 1975, Congress passed Public Law 94-142, the Education for All

Handicapped Children Act. With this law, learning disabilities finally achieved

official status as a category eligible for funding for direct services. By the early

1970s, the NACHC definition of 1968 had become the most popular one among

state departments of education (Mercer et al., 1976). The term specific learning

disability means a disorder in one or more of the psychological processes involved

in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest

itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or to do

mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual

handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental

aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning disabilities which

are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, or mental

retardation, or emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic

disadvantage (USOE, 1977).

The 1977 USOE definition, with minor wording changes, has survived until today

as the definition used by the federal government. However, that does not mean that

other definitions have not been promulgated by parent and professional groups.

Examples of two developed during this period were those of the National Joint

Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) and the ACLD.

15
 In 1978, the major learning disabilities professional organizations as well as

the ACLD formed the NJCLD in order to attempt to provide a united front in

addressing issues pertaining to learning disabilities. In 1981, the NJCLD developed

the following definition: Learning disabilities is a generic term that refers to a

heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the

acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning or

mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed

to be due to central nervous system dysfunction. Even though a learning disability

may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g., sensory

impairment, mental retardation, social and emotional disturbance) or

environmental influences (e.g., cultural differences, insufficient-inappropriate

instruction, psychogenic factors), it is not the direct result of those conditions or

influences. (Hammill, et al., 1981). In formulating this definition, the NJCLD was

purposeful in its exclusion of any mention of psychological processes, which were

integral to the USOE definition. By not mentioning psychological processes, the

NJCLD distanced itself from perceptual and perceptual-motor training programs,

which had lost favor in the research community.

2.1.5 Turbulent Period (1985 to 2000)

During the most recent period of learning disabilities history, several things

have occurred that have solidified the field of learning disabilities even further, but

16
several issues have also threatened to tear the field apart. Driving much of the

concern for the latter issues is the extraordinary growth in the prevalence of

learning disabilities. From 1976–1977 to 1998–1999, the number of students

identified as learning disabled has doubled. There are now more than 2.8 million

students identified as learning disabled, which represents just over half of all

students with disabilities (USOE, 2000). Although some (Hallahan, 1992) have

argued that there may be good reasons for some of this growth, most authorities

acknowledge that there is a very good chance that many children are being

misdiagnosed as learning disabled. Areas in which there has been further

solidification are definition, the research strands of the learning disabilities

research institutes, research on phonological processing, and research on biological

causes of learning disabilities. Issues contributing to the turbulence in the field

include concern about identification procedures, debate over placement options,

and denunciation of the validity of learning disabilities as a real phenomenon by

constructivists.

Early during this period, several new and revised definitions surfaced: the

ACLD (now the LDA) definition of 1986, the Interagency Committee on Learning

Disabilities (ICLD) definition of 1987, and the NJCLD revised definition of 1988.

In the meantime, the definition in federal law covering learning disabilities

remained virtually unchanged. The LDA definition is distinctive for its emphasis

17
on the lifelong nature of learning disabilities, its lack of an exclusion clause, and its

reference to adaptive behavior: Specific Learning Disabilities is a chronic

condition of presumed neurological origin which selectively interferes with the

development, integration, and/or demonstration of verbal and/or nonverbal

abilities. Specific Learning Disabilities exists as a distinct handicapping condition

and varies in its manifestations and in degree of severity. Throughout life, the

condition can affect self-esteem, education, vocation, socialization, and/or daily

living activities. The ICLD, consisting of representatives from several federal

agencies, was charged by Congress to report on several issues. Although Congress

did not direct them to do so, they did formulate a definition. Their definition was

essentially the same one as the 1981 NJCLD definition, except for two changes. It

mentioned deficits in social skills as a type of learning disability, and it added

attention deficit disorder as a potential comorbid condition with learning

disabilities: Learning disabilities is a generic term that refers to a heterogeneous

group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use

of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities, or of

social skills. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be due

to central nervous system dysfunction. Even though a learning disability may occur

concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g., sensory impairment,

mental retardation, social and emotional disturbance), with socio environmental

18
influences (e.g., cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction,

psychogenic factors), and especially with attention deficit disorder, all of which

may cause learning problems, a learning disability is not the direct result of those

conditions or influences.

The NJCLD revised definition was in response to the LDA definition’s

emphasis on the lifelong nature of learning disabilities and the ICLD’s listing of

social skills deficits as a type of learning disability. The NJCLD revised definition

agreed with the former but disagreed with the latter: Learning disabilities is a

general term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by

significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading,

writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the

individual, presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction, and may

occur across the life span. Problems of self-regulatory behaviors, social perception,

and social interaction may exist with learning disabilities but do not by themselves

constitute a learning disability. Although learning disabilities may occur

concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (for example, sensory

impairment, mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance) or with extrinsic

influences (such as cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction),

they are not the result of those conditions or influences.

19
 In general, the term specific learning disability means a disorder in one or

more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using

language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability

to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.

2.2 Classification of Learning Disabilities

Classification is the process of forming groups from a large set of entities

based on their similarities and dissimilarities. It is not the same as identification,

which is the process of assigning entities to an established classification. Valid

classifications can be differentiated according to variables not used to form the

groups. They are also reliable and have adequate coverage, i.e., permit

identification of the majority of entities of interest. In classification research,

groups are formed and evaluated for reliability, validity, and coverage. All

classifications are hypotheses about the independent variables. Classification

researchers evaluate the reliability, validity, and coverage of a hypothetical

grouping of interest (Fletcher et al., 1993; Morris and Fletcher, 1988; Skinner,

1981).

In the area of learning disabilities, classification occurs at multiple levels: in

identifying children as learning disability or typically achieving; as learning

disabilities versus mentally deficient; within learning disabilities, as reading versus

math impaired. Across classes of putative childhood conditions that produce

20
underachievement, learning disabilities is identified as a particular type of

unexpected low achievement and is distinguished from types where low

achievement is expected due to emotional disturbance, social or cultural

disadvantage, or inadequate instruction (Kavale and Forness, 2000). From a

classification perspective, these levels of classification and the notion of learning

disability as a form of low achievement that is unexpected represent hypotheses

that should be evaluated.

2.2.1 Discrepancy Hypothesis

The IQ-achievement discrepancy criterion is the most controversial and best-

studied component of the federal definition of learning disabilities. From a

classification perspective, it is a hypothesis that children with poor achievement

below a level predicted by an IQ score (IQ discrepant) are different from children

with poor achievement consistent with their IQ score (low achievement). IQ-

discrepant children with learning disabilities have been proposed to differ from low

achievers who are not IQ discrepant on several dimensions, including neurological

integrity, cognitive characteristics, response to intervention, prognosis, gender, and

the heritability of learning disabilities (Fletcher et al., 1998; Rutter, 1989; Siegel,

1992; Stanovich, 1991). There is an extensive body of research that can be used to

evaluate this hypothesis.

2.2.2 Heterogeneity Hypothesis

21
 In federal and non-federal definitions, learning disbility is rarely

conceptualized as a single disability, but instead is represented as a general

category composed of disabilities in any one or a combination of several academic

domains. In the 1968 federal definition, seven domains are specified: (1) listening;

(2) speaking; (3) basic reading (decoding and word recognition); (4) reading

comprehension; (5) arithmetic calculation; (6) mathematics reasoning; and (7)

written expression. While the inclusion of these seven areas of disability in the

federal classification ensures that the category of LD accounts for a wide range of

learning difficulties, the practice implies that what may be highly variegated

learning problems should be lumped together. Even today, many studies simply

define groups of children as learning disabled despite considerable evidence that

the correlates of LD in reading, math, and other achievement domains vary at

multiple levels of analysis. In this section, we will ask how well these seven

domains cover the range of LD and raise questions concerning what domains

should be included in the federal definition.

2.2.3 Exclusion Hypothesis

Most definitions of LD include an exclusion clause, which simply states that

LD is not primarily the result of other conditions that can impede learning. These

other conditions include mental deficiency; sensory disorders; emotional

disturbance; cultural, social, and economic conditions; and inadequate instructional

22
opportunities. Given the role of the exclusion element within definitions of LD,

children identified as LD are often identified on the basis of what they are not,

rather than what they are. This is unfortunate for three major reasons. First, by

placing an emphasis on exclusion, the development of inclusionary characteristics

that are linked to assessment and intervention is difficult. To illustrate, the 1977

operationalization of the federal definition suggests that RD be assessed with IQ

and achievement tests; it does not specify the domains of reading and ignores the

variation in components of reading that may represent differential treatment

emphases. Second, an exclusionary definition is a negative definition that adds

little to conceptual clarity and clearly constrains understanding the disorder to its

fullest extent. Think of the difference in clarity when we identify a child as LD

versus identify the child with a reading comprehension disability. Third, many of

the conditions that are excluded as potential influences in LD are themselves

possible factors that interfere with the development of those cognitive and

linguistic skills that lead to the academic deficits that form the basis for LD (Lyon

et al., 2001). Parents with reading problems, for example, may find it difficult to

establish adequate home literacy practices because of the cumulative effects of

their reading difficulties (Wadsworth et al., 2000).

It is reasonable to stipulate that children with mental deficiency and sensory

disorders are excluded from classifications of LD. Separate categories exist and

23
their treatment needs are different. This stipulation begs the question of how to

differentiate mild mental deficiency and LD (Gresham, MacMillan, & Bocian,

1996), given the weakness of psychometric definitions. Other exclusions are even

more difficult to justify. For example, where is the evidence suggesting that RD

and MD are different in children who are anxious, depressed, or even psychotic?

Recent longitudinal studies suggest that early achievement is causally related to

and often precedes the development of behavioral problems, and the interventions

that enhance academic achievement prevent behavioral difficulties

(OnatsuArvilommi and Nurmi, 2000). This differentiation is based on the

presumption that constitutional factors are more relevant for children with LD than

environmental factors.

2.3 Types of Learning Disabilities

2.3.1 Dyslexia (Reading-based or Print-based)

Dyslexia is a reading-based learning disability, which results in children

having difficulty with word recognition and decoding print. They may have

difficulty identifying and comprehending words from a book or with spelling.

Because decoding printed words from a book becomes so much of a struggle, they

often miss the meaning of what they have read. Common signs include: Reads

painfully slow, Difficulty with basic letter sounds, has trouble decoding, order of

letters become mixed up, cannot recall known words.

24
2.3.2 Dysgraphia (writing-based)

Dysgraphia is a writing disability, which means a child may not have the

complex set of motor and information processing skills to be able to write his or

her own thoughts down on a piece of paper. They struggle with writing complete

and grammatically correct sentences, and often have poor handwriting. Common

signs include: Awkward pencil grip, Illegible handwriting, Frustration with writing

thoughts on paper, can talk about an idea, but cannot write it down on paper.

2.3.3 Dyscalculia (math-based)

Dyscalculia is a math-based learning disability, which results in your child

having trouble recognizing numbers and symbols and understanding basic math

concepts. For older students, they often have issues related to reasoning. Common

signs include: Difficulty recalling number sequences, may mistake numbers that

look similar in shape (i.e. 3 and 8), cannot retain patterns when adding, subtracting,

multiplying, or dividing, Difficulty with handling money or estimating cost.

2.3.4 Central Auditory Process Disorder ( Auditory-based)

Central Auditory Process Disorder (CAPD) is an auditory disability, which

means a child has difficulty processing information he or she hears and interpreting

speech. A child with CAPD does not necessarily suffer from hearing loss, instead

he or she has a hearing problem where the brain does not interpret information

heard. Common signs include: Distracted by background noises, has difficulty

25
following directions, Misspells or mispronounces similar sounding words, has

trouble following conversations.

2.3.5 Nonverbal Learning Disorders

Nonverbal learning disorders can be very difficult to diagnose, as children

who have it are often very articulate and do well academically. But, they lack

motor coordination, common social skills and interpreting nonverbal

communication. Common signs include: Does not perceive nonverbal cues such as

facial expressions, can be very disruptive in conversation; asking too many

questions, Poor fine and gross motor skills, has difficulty dealing with change.

2.3.6 Visual Processing Disorder (visual-based)

Visual Processing Disorder occurs when a child cannot receive, process,

sequence, recall or express information in an accurate and timely way. This does

not mean the child has poor eyesight, but that his or her brain has trouble

processing visual information. Common signs include: Often mistake letters and

numbers that look similar in shape; misreads words, Remembering the spelling of

familiar words incorrectly, cannot copy words accurately; spacing letters or words

poorly; writing outside lines, margins; Loses place while reading; cannot find

numbers or details on a page easily.

26
2.3.7 Aphasia, Dysphasia or Global Aphasia (language-based)

Children who suffer from language-based disorders such as aphasia,

dysphasia or global aphasia have a hard time expressing themselves using words as

well as understanding spoken or written language. Common signs include:

Difficulty expressing thoughts verbally, Poor reading comprehension, frustrated

when speaking, has trouble labeling objects.

A learning disability cannot be cured but with the right resources and

support you can make sure your child can overcome learning disability barriers,

gain confidence and achieve success.

2.3.8 Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

Children with ADHD often have problems sitting still, staying focused,

following instructions, staying organized, and completing homework.

2.3.9 Autism

Difficulty mastering certain academic skills can stem from pervasive

developmental disorders such as autism and Asperger’s syndrome. Children with

autism spectrum disorders may have trouble communicating, reading body

language, learning basic skills, making friends, and making eye contact.
27
2.4 Identification of Children with Learning Disabilities

In order to identify children with learning difficulty (Denga, 2009) posited

the following methods:

i. The use of Checklist

Checklist can be constructed by the teacher and used to identify and

assess the child with learning difficulty. The checklist contains the child’s

name, his class, the sex, approximate age and the various items against

which the extent of learning difficulty can be checked.

ii. Observation

Observation by teachers, counsellors and special educators is very

important initial activity. It is tied up with the checklist because a teacher or

counsellors can more confidentially check what he has observed rather

depend on secondary source. If possible visits can be paid to the parents

home to find out what the child does at home. Observation calls for a team

effort.

iii. Use of Tests

28
 If standards psychological tests are available, they could be used to

ascertain the extent of leaning difficulty. These tests can be obtained from

experts on tests construction or from the Faculty of Education nearest to the

school.

iv. Face to Face Interviews with the Children Suspected to have Learning
Difficulty

The teacher can ask the child to tell a story, to read a passage, to

narrate about his achievements and his relationship with other children.

During this face to face discussion, several problems can be identified for

treatment. Assessment may be done both in mother tongue and in English. A

child can be asked to write short passage from a book so that the ear-hand

coordination can be assessed.

Identification is an important process that enables detection of children with

specific learning difficulties, with the ultimate goal to provide appropriate

treatment and support needed for successful functioning in and out of school.

2.5 Early Intervention for Children with Learning Disabilities

Early intervention suggests that schools should not wait difficulties in

students to reinforce, but they should try to find students at risk as early as

possible. The main goal of special education is to enable students with learning

disabilities to be educated and to have benefit from it. This means that these

29
students will be provided with free and appropriate regular education, just as it is

given to their peers (Vaughn and Linan-Thompson, 2003). Teaching approaches

that have a significant impact on the achievement of students with learning

difficulties are well defined, clear, and carefully designed in relation to the area in

which instruction is required (reading, writing, mathematics). Although these

techniques are not specific and unique only to special education, their application

is necessary. Special education differs from regular education in being clearer,

more intense, and more supportive. Effective educational approaches for students

with learning difficulties and their effects can be summarized as follows:

 Controlling the difficulty of the tasks (e.g. allocation of problems and

examples of parts that will ensure high achievement and adjustment of tasks

according to the abilities of the students and their skills) is associated with

improved academic outcomes.

 Teaching students in small, interactive groups is associated with increased

achievement.

 Modeling and teaching strategies for creating questions and thinking aloud

while reading, writing or solving a particular math problem (e.g. self-asking

questions, meta-cognitive strategies) are characteristics of teaching which is

associated with improved outcomes.

 Direct and clear instruction is associated with improved academic outcomes.

30
  Higher order processing skills may facilitate the integration of knowledge

and skills in solving complex mathematical problems.

 Learning when, where and how to use strategies to support students in the

development of action plans that direct learning.

 Tracking progress in academic skills related to effective outcomes in

academic areas.

 Building blocks for reading and writing is essential to improve the reading

and writing outcomes, the process of writing and its organizational and

mechanical aspects are associated with improved outcomes in writing.

 Teachers who provide systematic feedback on the outcomes assist students

with learning disabilities.

One of the approaches to prevention and early intervention is education to be

allocated in arrays or levels, whereupon it starts with effective exercises designed

for the whole class, then support is offered to students who need it by including

monitoring of outcomes and monitoring of progress as part of teaching within the

whole class. For example, (O'Connor, 2000) tried to reduce reading errors made

by preschool children through teaching which consisted of four levels that varied

in terms of length, intensity and duration. This instruction lasted 2 years. At the

end of the first grade, the mistakes made by the children with specific learning

difficulties were reduced. However, the number of children who were directed to
31
the centers for special education was not reduced. O'Connor believes this is related

to the limited resources available to them in schools, thus preventing the effects of

the most intense level of instruction that is designed for students with the most

progress. According to (Dickson and Brusuck, 1999) who also applied the system

of three levels that varied within the dimensions of O'Connor’s survey. They found

a lot of progress in reading among students with reading difficulties who were

taught in small groups. They highlighted the deficit of time and resources needed

to provide intensive instruction which is necessary to the students with learning

disabilities.

 Teaching in small groups: One of the key variables in the models of early

intervention in students with learning disabilities is the proportion of

teacher-student (i.e. the size of the group) which is included in teaching.

Smaller groups allow for greater interaction between teachers and students,

individualization of teaching, focus on task, monitoring by the teacher and

feedback (Slavin, 1996). For effective teaching of reading the size of the

group is important for several reasons:

i. Smaller groups enable students to achieve better results.

32
 ii. In smaller groups the variability of students in terms of their ability to

learn is reduced, thereby reducing the variability of ways of teaching

required by students.

iii. The size of the group affects the quantity and quality of verbal speech

among students.

iv. Teaching reading can be customized to the individual needs of

students. (Elbaum et al., 1999) examined the outcomes of teaching

groups of children who have difficulties in reading. The results of this

study show that the effects among students who were taught in small

groups and in pairs were significantly greater than the effects on the

students who were taught within the whole class. Similarly, other

studies show that teaching in small groups has major effects versus

learning within the whole class (Slavin, 1996).

 Individual instruction:

For some students even teaching in small groups may not be sufficient

to provide the required level of focus, intensity and specificity of teaching,

so individual teaching becomes a necessity. Several studies support the

effectiveness of such instruction for students identified as at risk or with

learning difficulties. More recent research shows that additional individual

instruction to at risk students allows the results achieved by these students to

33
 surpass the results of the control group by an average. Two new studies of

intensive, individual instruction for at risk students gave impressive results.

According to (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003) conducted a two-semester

mentoring in the identification of letters, phonemic analysis and reading

skills. This mentoring was conducted in the duration of 20 minutes each day

for first graders who have reading difficulties. The results of this research

show that individual mentoring helped most students to have a GPA in

reading. Significant improvement in decoding skills for students with

reading difficulties who attend 80 hours of instruction in which they were

taught strategies for phonological decoding. Teaching was carried out

individually in two sessions per day lasting 50 minutes. The results of this

study show that the accuracy in decoding in these students exceeds the

national average, but that is not the case with the speed of decoding. These

studies suggest that key features of teaching reading, when combined with

individual instruction in sessions with appropriate intensity, can affect the

adoption of reading skills among students with learning disabilities.

 Duration of teaching.

Another variable that can influence the effectiveness of teaching is its

duration or intensity. The duration of teaching can be represented by the

previously designated number of sessions or it can be determined by

34
acquiring the predetermined criteria specific intervals. Another way to

increase the intensity of teaching is to add one more session each day.

(Torgesen et al., 2001) conducted intensive, individual instruction of

students with learning disabilities which consisted of two sessions a day (50

minutes for each session). Students had significant improvements and most

of these improvements were kept in the next two years. In addition, 19 of the

49 students were able to return to regular classes and no need was identified

for additional instruction. To determine the length of teaching that is

appropriate for students with reading difficulties of second grade, (Vaughn

et al., 2003) performed teaching in small groups of 54 students from the

second grade through 10, 20 and 30 weeks. Students with learning

disabilities continued to receive additional instruction until they reached a

predetermined criterion at each level. Of the 45 students who were present in

all assessments, 11 students failed to reach the criterion after 30 weeks, 10

students reached the criterion after 10 weeks, 15 after 20 weeks, and 9 after

30 weeks. The results support the importance of varying the size of the

groups and the intensity of intervention.

35
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHOD AND PROCEDURE

3.1 Methodology

This chapter explains the method and procedures used for the research. It

focuses on the following areas:

Research Design

Population of the Study

Sample and Sampling technique

Research Instrument

36
Validity of Research Instrument

Method of Data Collection

Method of Data Analysis

3.2 Research Design

This study was designed to use a research language on the effect early

identification and intervention for children with learning disabilities in Ughelli-

North Local Government Area of Delta State. Especially, it is done to recognize

the signs, symptoms and the various types of learning disabilities. Also, how help

can be given to them.

3.3 Population of the Study

The targeted population of the study consist of pupils (male and female) in

different classes and from different schools.

3.4 Sample and Sampling Technique

In choosing the schools and classes for this research, random sampling

method was used in distributing questionnaires to my respondents(teachers) for

completion. This method was selected in order to ensure a true and fair

representation of the target population.

3.5 Development of Research Instrument

37
 The main instruments that were used in the collection of the data and

information for this project are:

i. Questionnaire Method

The aim of using questionnaire was to elicit information on identification

and intervention for children with learning disabilities in Ughelli North

Local Government Area of Delta State. In the questionnaire, ten (10)

questions were structured.

ii. The Interview Method

The interview was related to some aspect of the research not covered by the

questionnaire. The informal and unstructured interview was found more

flexible to clear ambiguities that arose from answers received from

questionnaire questions asked in most cases triggered off discussion which

afforded the research opportunity of obtaining further depth of details from

respondents answers.

iii. Observation Method

38
 The research spent a lot of time observing pupils and how teachers can

identify and intervene for the children. This gave the researcher an insight

into the depth of how most children have been neglected and also an eye

opener as to how children need these interventions

3.6 Validity of Research Instrument

The research instruments were constructed after the consultation with

various manuals on research instruments. The instruments were also summited for

approval to the project supervisor and for subsequent certification if she found

them reflecting the objectives to be achieved in the study.

3.7 Method of Data Collection

The questionnaire was administered and collected personally from

respondents. The aim was to avoid any questionnaire getting lost in transit.

However, out of the one hundred (100) questionnaire that was distributed eighty

(80) was collected back from the respondents.

3.8 Method of Data Analysis

The collected data were subjected to data analysis by simple percentage. The

result was then presented in tablets according to their respective research question

and purpose of the study.

39
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

40
41