Reading and Students with Specific Learning Disabilities

Students with specific learning disabilities often face unique barriers that hinder the process of learning to read. Yet with targeted interventions and accommodations in reading instruction and assessment, these students can gain proficiency in reading and achieve academically to their full potential. Understanding the characteristics of students who have specific learning disabilities is an important step toward the development of effective instruction and appropriate assessment.

This paper is intended to begin a discussion of the issues surrounding reading and students with specific learning disabilities; it is not intended to be a comprehensive research review. The paper provides: (1) an overview of the characteristics of students with specific learning disabilities, (2) a description of common approaches to reading instruction, and (3) assessment approaches and issues that surround the assessment of reading for students with specific learning disabilities.

The paper is one of several brief papers developed to contribute to the process of conducting research and developing accessible reading assessments for students with disabilities. Creating accessible reading assessments based on accepted definitions of reading and proficiencies of reading requires knowledge of the issues specific to each disability and how they affect reading and the assessment of reading. The information in these papers was obtained through a broad review of literature and Web sites of national agencies and organizations, along with input and feedback from professionals in the disability areas. Each paper is intended as a first step to facilitate discussions that include individuals who do not know the disability, in this case learning disabilities, and those who may know the disability but have not considered the interaction of the disability with reading or the assessment of reading through statewide testing.

Students with Specific Learning Disabilities

Nearly three million students in the United States received special education services for specific learning disabilities in the 2000-2001 school year, comprising one half of all students with disabilities in U.S. schools (U.S Department of Education, 2002). The incidence of specific learning disabilities has increased by more than 300 percent in the last 30 years (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Despite this wide prevalence, specific learning disabilities remain one of the least understood and highly controversial disabilities that affect students today.

It has been estimated that about 199,599 English language learners (ELLs) received special education services for specific learning disabilities in 2001-2002. Thus, approximately 55.9% of school-age ELLs with disabilities were identified with learning disabilities (Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Pendzick, & Stephenson, 2003). The challenge of learning English and having a learning disability adds another level of complexity to learning to read and demonstrating reading achievement (Muller & Markowitz, 2004; Spear-Swerling, 2006).

According to the Learning Disabilities Association of America, “specific learning disabilities (SLDs) are chronic conditions of presumed neurological origin which selectively interferes with the development, integration, and/or demonstration of verbal and/or nonverbal abilities. [It exists] as a distinct handicapping condition and varies in its manifestations and in degree of severity.” Learning disability is an umbrella term that refers to various groups of disorders marked by significant difficulties in the acquisition or use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning or mathematical skills (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1998).

Learning disabilities historically were manifested by a discrepancy between achievement and intelligence. Often deficits occurred in particular academic areas, and could not be explained by other factors (Mellard, Deshler, & Barth, 2004). Traditionally, a requirement in the diagnosis of learning disabilities was the use of the IQ-discrepancy formula. This discrepancy was measured by the difference in intelligence, or a child’s potential ability to perform, and the child’s actual performance. A student’s achievement had to be significantly lower than intellectual ability to be eligible for special education services for a learning disability. This has created significant controversy regarding an over-identified or mis-identified number of students with learning disabilities. Specifically, over-identification of students from minority groups (such as African Americans or Hispanic Americans) has emerged as a concern (Coffey & Obringer, 2000), although U.S. Department of Education (2002) data indicate that when compared with average percentages, the percentages of Hispanic students receiving services for learning disabilities are slightly higher and the percentages of Black (non-Hispanic) students receiving services for learning disabilities are slightly lower. Recent federal policies permit approaches to the identification of students with learning disabilities that emphasize failure of students to respond to interventions rather than the discrepancy approach (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Subsequently, discussion has emerged about the validity of this approach for ELLs (Barrera, in press; Klingner, Sorrells, & Barrera, in press) and for comprehensive assessment of learning disabilities (Kavale, Holdnack, Mostert, & Schmied, 2003; Mastropieri, 2003).

Difficulties with basic print reading and reading comprehension are the most common problems associated with learning disabilities (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Because of the strong connection between spoken and written language, reading problems often can be traced to early delays in receptive and expressive language development (Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999; Catts & Kamhi, 2005; Scarborough, 2001). Among students who are diagnosed with learning disabilities, 80 percent are diagnosed because their reading skills lag behind; 90 percent of students with learning disabilities identify reading as their primary difficulty (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Still, many children who receive special education services are able to close the achievement gap and read print on the same level as their peers. With the use of specialized techniques, these students can learn to generalize specific skills and strategies to a variety of reading situations.

Instruction for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities

Many students become fluent readers of print through systematic and explicit instruction. Yet, the question of which practices are best for students and have research-based evidence remains the subject of considerable controversy. The two approaches used most commonly for students with learning disabilities are remediation and compensatory (assistive) technology.

Remediation instruction is based on the process of diagnosing and solving specific reading problems or strengthening weak areas of reading. Remedial approaches are typically labor-intensive and involve direct instruction in the area of phonemic awareness, word recognition, and comprehension strategies. Gersten et al. (2001) reviewed research on reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities and found that direct instruction of comprehension strategies has been a perennially effective approach in improving students’ ability to decode and comprehend print.

Compensatory education programs recognize, but work around, problem areas so that students can learn other information. Compensatory approaches teach the student to cope with the area of reading affected by disability and compensate for deficits by using technology or other tools. Compensatory strategies are typically used for older children or for those whose print-reading disabilities are severe, but who have high levels of auditory comprehension. Examples of compensatory approaches include books on tape, having someone read a book aloud, or using assistive technology that can read books aloud and highlight words on the screen. The purpose of assistive technology (AT) is to help students with learning disabilities meet challenging academic goals and to express the knowledge that they already have obtained.

Although remediation and compensatory approaches are often presented in isolation in educational literature, Thompson, Johnstone, Thurlow, and Clapper (2004) suggested that students with a variety of disabilities may benefit from a combination of approaches. Combining remediation and compensatory approaches appears to align with current legislation that requires grade-level achievement for all students, including students with learning disabilities. Combined approaches may aid in the overall development of students with learning disabilities by addressing decoding issues while at the same time aiding students in meeting other grade-level reading expectations that do not require decoding (Thompson et al., 2004). The effectiveness of such approaches, however, is difficult to research scientifically, as holistic approaches have multiple dependent and independent variables.

Assessment of Students with Specific Learning Disabilities

Reading is central to learning; children who do not learn to read print by the second grade are likely to struggle with learning throughout their lives (Stanovich, 1985). However, for students who have difficulty with reading, accommodations can be made in the area of assessments. One of the most common, and controversial, assessment accommodations provided for students with learning disabilities is the read-aloud accommodation. Such accommodations allow portions of tests to be read aloud to students by another person. Read aloud accommodations are very common in mathematics and other subject area tests, but often are not allowed (or flagged as “non-standard”) for reading tests (Clapper, Morse, Lazarus, Thurlow & Thompson, 2005; Thompson, Blount & Thurlow, 2002). Students who read test booklets visually may be provided extended time or allowed to take their test in a quiet place. Extended time and alternative settings are less controversial accommodations because they are not perceived to interfere with the state-defined targeted proficiencies of a reading test, whereas a read-aloud accommodation more often is perceived to interfere with what the reading test is supposed to be measuring.

Few states have accommodation policies for ELLs with disabilities. Further, we know little about the accommodations typically used by ELLs with learning disabilities. Because of the language involvement created by both the limited English proficiency and the learning disabilities for some students, accommodations are potentially an important part of access for ELLs with disabilities.

Overall, little research has been done on the constructs of reading that are actually tested on large-scale assessments, and which constructs may or may not require print reading. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which read aloud accommodations (or increasingly, use of technology to read print) affect the processes of reading in large-scale assessments.

Unique questions will arise for this population as researchers continue to understand better the cognitive aspects of learning disabilities. In reference to large-scale assessments, what types of accommodations should be allowed? Answers to accommodations questions relate specifically to the types of skills that are assessed in large-scale reading tests. Do these reflect the complexity of the reading process or are they focused on a few specific sub-skills of reading? And what should these tests reflect? Each of these questions will need attention as researchers, policy makers, and practitioners continue to grapple with improving educational outcomes for students with learning disabilities.

Summary

The intent of this brief paper is to highlight issues surrounding reading and students with learning disabilities. While not a comprehensive review, it is intended to give enough of a sense of the characteristics of the students, general instructional approaches used with them, and assessment approaches and issues to generate discussion about the possible ways in which more accessible assessments can be designed for those students who are proficient readers given their learning disabilities. This paper is part of the background for research on accessible reading assessments conducted by the Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessments (PARA), and for discussions among collaborators on the National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects (NARAP).

References

Barrera, M. (in press). Roles of definitional and assessment models in the identification of new or second language learners of English for special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities.

Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 948-958.

Catts, H.W., & Kamhi, A. (Eds.). (2005). Language and reading disabilities (2^nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Clapper, A. T., Morse, A. B., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis56.html

Coffey, K. M., & Obringer, S. J. (2000). Culturally diverse rural students: At special risk for LD classification. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 19, 15-19.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320.

Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J., Mostert, M. P., & Schmied, C. M. (2003). The feasibility of a responsiveness to intervention approach for the identification of specific learning disability: A psychometric alternative. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities “Responsiveness to Intervention” Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

Klingner, J. K., Sorrells, A. M., & Barrera, M. (in press). Three-tiered models with culturally and linguistically diverse students. In D. Haager, S.Vaughn, and J. Klingner (Eds.), Validated reading practices for three tiers of intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Mastropieri, M. A. (2003). What are the feasibility and consequences of response to intervention (RTI)? Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

Mellard, D. F., Deshler, D. D., & Barth, A. (2004). LD identification: It’s not simply a matter of building a better mousetrap. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27, 229-242.

Muller, E., & Markowitz, J. (2004). Synthesis brief: English language learners with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education Inc.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1998). Operationalizing the NJCLD definition of learning disabilities for ongoing assessment in schools. Asha, 40 (Suppl. 18), in press. Retrieved August 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ldonline.org/njcld/operationalizing.pdf.

President’s Commission of Excellence in Special Education (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Retrieved August 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/
reports/index.html

Scarborough, H.S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97-110). New York: Guilford Press.

Spear-Swerling, L. (2006). Learning disabilities in English language learners. LD Online. Retrieved March, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ldonline.org/article.php?max=20&id=1883&loc=111

Stanovich, K. E. (1985). Explaining the variance in reading ability in terms of psychological processes: What have we learned? Annals of Dyslexia, 35, 67-96.

Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Clapper, A. T. (2004). State literacy standards, practice, and testing: Exploring accessibility (Technical Report 38). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M.  (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002) Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18, 137-146.

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pendzick, M. L., & Stephenson, T. G. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities (No. 4 Special topic report: Findings on special education LEP students). Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.

Acknowledgments

This paper was developed through a collaborative effort of numerous members of the PARA staff. The contributors are listed here alphabetically: Kristin Eisenbraun, Christopher Johnstone, Sheryl Lazarus, Kristi Liu, Danielle Matchett, Ross Moen, Mari Quenemoen, Rachel Quenemoen, Sandra Thompson, and Martha Thurlow. In addition, we had the invaluable assistance of a member of the General Advisory Committee for the National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects (NARAP), Suzanne Fornaro, who is Past-President of Learning Disabilities Association, and the LDA Board of Directors. Input also was provided by another member of the General Advisory Committee for NARAP, Stan Dublinske, who is Senior Advisor for Planning of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, and several individuals working with him who provided detailed input, including Diane Paul, Kathleen Whitmire, Patricia Prelock, and Rose Sevcik.

Top of Page