[net-gold] DISABILITIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES: Learning to Achieve: A Review of the Research Literature on Serving Adults with Learning Disabilities
- From: "David P. Dillard" <jwne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Net-Gold <Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple University Net-Gold Archive <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple Gold Discussion Group <TEMPLE-GOLD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sean Grigsby <myarchives1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K12AdminLIFE <K12AdminLIFE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Platinum <net-platinum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Net-Gold @ Nabble" <ml-node+3172864-337556105@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, MediaMentor <mediamentor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Digital Divide Diversity MLS <mls-digitaldivide@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:54:02 -0400 (EDT)
.
DISABILITIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES:
Learning to Achieve:
A Review of the Research Literature
on Serving Adults with Learning Disabilities
Learning to Achieve:
A Review of the Research Literature
on Serving Adults with Learning Disabilities
Authors
Juliana M. Taymans - George Washington University, Washington, DC
H. Lee Swanson - University of California, Riverside, CA
Robin L. Schwarz - The Carlos Rosario International Public Charter School,
Washington, DC
Noel Gregg - University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Michael Hock - University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
Paul J. Gerber - Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
Editor
Juliana M. Taymans - George Washington University, Washington, DC
The National Institute for Literacy
June 2009
Chapter 1
Introduction
Juliana M. Taymans
A significant number of adults in the United States
demonstrate inadequate basic skills. Approximately
20% to 30% of adults in the United States lack the
literacy skills needed to meet the reading and computation
demands associated with daily life and work
(Lasater & Elliott, 2005). Despite societal trends that
demand increased literacy skills, census data indicate
that more than 40 million American adults have
not attained a high school diploma or its equivalent
(Lasater & Elliott, 2005). According to the results of
the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), a
national survey of adult literacy, 11 million Americans
are nonliterate in English; 30 million possess Below
Basic skills, indicating challenges in reading beyond
the most simple and concrete tasks; and 63 million
can perform everyday basic literacy activities but have
difficulty reading technical information or extended
prose (Kutner et al., 2007, p. 2). In addition, 46 million
function at the Below Basic level when faced with
quantitative literacy tasks (Kutner et al., 2007, p. 35).
About 3 million adults attend a variety of federally
funded adult education and training programs
designed to target the specific needs of the
populations they serve (National Commission on
Adult Literacy, 2008). Adults with the lowest literacy
levels enroll in adult basic education (ABE) for
instruction in reading, writing, and math fundamentals.
Some English classes for speakers of other
languages also address basic reading and writing as
well as conversational English needed for everyday
interactions. Many speakers of other languages face
the additional challenge of limited literacy skills in
their native language that can slow their learning
progress. Individuals 16 years and older can also
enroll in programs to achieve a high school credential
through adult secondary education (ASE)
and general educational development (GED) programs.
In addition to developing advanced literacy
skills, these programs teach traditional academic
content, such as science and social studies, associated
with a high school education.
There are also a variety of programs that directly
address employment-related needs. Job Corps targets
vulnerable teens and young adults ages 16 to
24 who want to prepare for specific careers or
attain the education necessary to qualify for the
military or higher education programs. Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) addresses
the needs of adults who can benefit from developing
work-related basic skills to end their welfare
status. These basic skills go beyond traditional
literacy activities to address planning and communication
skills important in finding and keeping
employment. Workplace literacy programs are
offered to employed adults in conjunction with
businesses. Although programs typically target
basic reading, writing, and math skills, they do
so in the practical context of workplace demands
by addressing issues such as job safety, technology
skills, and communicating with coworkers, supervisors,
and customers.
Adult education and training programs also
include family literacy programs that simultaneously
promote adult and child literacy. A typical
family literacy program guides adult caregivers in
child-centered literacy activities such as side-by
side reading, storytelling, arts and craft activities,
and educational computer games. The goal of family
literacy programs is to increase the literacy and
life skills of both caregivers and their children.
Although the exact prevalence is not determined,
a subset of the individuals who enroll in
adult education and training programs are individuals
with either diagnosed or undiagnosed learning
disabilities (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad,
1993; Ryan & Price, 1993; U.S. Department of
Labor, 1991).
The NAAL survey results indicated
that 6% of the adults surveyed reported having
learning disabilities. On average, these individuals
had lower prose, document, and quantitative
literacy skills than adults without learning disabilities
(Kutner et al., 2007, p. 30). Not surprisingly,
adult education and training programs serve a
higher percentage of adults with learning disabilities
than the population statistics would suggest
(Corley & Taymans, 2002). For example, Mellard
and Patterson (2008) found that 29% of the participants
attending 13 Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act programs (not including English as a
second language [ESL] services) reported having
one or more learning disabilities. Welfare-to-work
programs also report serving a large number of
low-literacy individuals, with 25% to 35% of their
participants considered to have learning disabilities
(National Governors Association, 1998).
There is no single common profile for an adult
student with learning disabilities; age, formal diagnosis,
and high school completion are documented
sources of variability. A recent study of adult education
program participants found that middleaged
individuals (ages 46 to 55) were more likely
to identify themselves as learning disabled than
younger participants (Mellard & Patterson, 2008).
Younger adult students are more likely to have a
formal diagnosis than older students because of the
trend toward improved special education identification
in recent years. In the past, lax graduation
standards allowed many adults with learning disabilities
to exit high school with diplomas despite
having significant literacy needs. Today, this is less
likely because of increased accountability and more
rigorous graduation standards. Regardless of specific
individual circumstances, living with a learning
disability has the potential to be a major life
stressor (Mellard & Patterson, 2008), especially in
situations involving formal learning performance.
Adult service providers need research-based
information in order to understand and serve
adults with learning disabilities, but they face challenges
finding and using high-quality resources.
Grounding program and instructional practices in
research is often complicated by programs staffed
by part-time teachers and volunteers with a variety
of teaching backgrounds and credentials and
limited resources for professional development.
The flexible design of adult education and training
programs also poses challenges to service providers
who must tailor their instruction to settings
ranging from high to low tech, enrollment options
from open to closed entry, and amount of weekly
instructional time from 2 hours to full time. Each
of these delivery options, while facilitating access
for adult learners, can pose a significant challenge
to effectively meeting the needs of adults with
learning disabilities. As chapters 4 and 5 in this
volume explain, important principles of accommodations
and instruction focused on addressing
learning disabilities such as technology integration,
opportunities for extensive practice, and programming
for skill generalization are particularly
challenging to implement in many adult education
and training settings.
This publication, Learning to Achieve: A Review
of the Research Literature on Serving Adults With
Learning Disabilities, is the result of the National
Institute for Literacys recognition of the expanding
research base relevant to educational services
for adults with learning disabilities. The literature
reviews included in this document were developed
by a panel of experts in the field of learning
disabilities with the goal of bridging the gap
between research and practice in working with
adults with learning disabilities. The six research
syntheses presented in this document provide a
specific, coherent evidence base for the Institutes
new professional development initiative, Learning
to Achieve: A Research-Based Training on Serving
Adults With Learning Disabilities.
Researchers who specialize in learning disabilities
have made a clear and compelling case for
interventions that are informed by research rather
than intuition. For example, there is a substantial
body of research on interventions to improve the
word recognition skills of individuals with learning
disabilities. These interventions are based on
directly addressing underlying deficits in phonological
processing as well as providing explicit,
mastery-oriented instruction (Fletcher, Lyon,
Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007). This is in sharp contrast
to some popular, unscientific approaches.
Interventions based on learning styles,
perceptual and motor training, instruction
tailored for auditory or visual learners,
the need for multisensory integration, and
even less reasonable interventions involving
special colored lenses, metronomes, neural
patterning, and so on, continue to be promoted
for LDs despite lack of evidence for
efficacy and proposed mechanisms that are
inconsistent with scientific understanding
of cognitive processing and brain function
(Fletcher et al., 2007, p. 267).
It is important for service providers to have access
to information that clearly indicates practices based on
research as opposed to those that may be popular but
unproven or even discredited. Armed with such information,
service providers can make educated choices
about the interventions they offer. Understanding
what learning disabilities are and are not is important
basic information for adult service providers and can
help clarify the potential relevance of interventions.
The complete publication may be read at the URL above.
Table of Contents
FOREWORD - Introduction and
CHAPTER ONE - Introduction
Defining and Identifying Learning Disabilities
Chapter Content, Format, and Considerations
Research Challenges
Other Considerations
References
CHAPTER TWO - Assessment of Adults with Learning Disabilities
Introduction
Incidence of Reading Disabilities
Issues in the Assessment of Reading Disabilities
Key Issues in Validating Definitions of RD
Research Questions
Findings
Discussion
Recommendations: Linking Assessment to Instruction
Appendix A: Methods-
Calculation of Effective Sizes, Statistical Analysis, and Interrater
Agreement
Appendix B: Results of the Meta-Analysis
Notes
References
References, Meta-Analysis
Table 1: Psychological and Achievement Profiles on Standardized
Norm-Referenced Measures for Adult Participants With and Without Reading
Disabilities
Table 2: Weighted Effect Sizes, Standard Error, Confidence Intervals, and
Homogeneity of Categories for Comparisons Between Adults With and Without
RD (Corrected for Outliers)
Table 3: Correlations of Age, Gender Ratio, and Categorical Variables With
Total Effect Size (RD/NRD) Across Domains, Effect Size for IQ, Reading,
and Math (Aggregated by Study)
Table 4: HLM Regression Predicting Effect Sizes Comparing Adults With
Reading Disabilities and Without Reading Disabilities
Table 5: Conditional Model Predicting Effect Sizes for All Measures
Comparing Adults With RD and Without RD
Table 6: Conditional Model Predicting Effect Sizes for All Measures
Comparing Reading-Disabled and Average Achievers
Table 7: Comparison of All Studies That Reported Effect Sizes for
Cognitive and Language Processing Separated by Variations in Intelligence
and Reading
Table 8: Mean Effect Size as Function of Severity of Reading Disability
and Intelligence Scores
Table 9: Aggregated Means and Standard Deviations for the Classification
and Comparison Categories as a Function of IQ
Table 10: Psychological and Achievement Profiles on Standardized
Norm-Referenced Measures for Adult Participants With and Without Reading
Disabilities as a Function of High and Low Intelligence
Table 11: Comparison of Studies Separated by Variations in Math Scores and
Inclusion of Math Scores
Appendix C
CHAPTER THREE - Issues in Identifying Learning Disabilities for English
Language Learners . .
Introduction
Literature Search View of the Research
Report of Findings-Part I: Key Concepts and Definitions of Language
Processing and Reading.
Report of Findings-Part II: Theories Referred to in the Review or
Underlying Research
Report of Findings-Part III: Introduction to Evidence Supporting Direct
Testing of ELLs for Learning Difficulties (RD/LD)
Report of Findings-Part IV: Native Language Skill Weaknesses and Foreign
Language Learning Problems . .
Report of Findings-Part V: Direct Testing to Identify RD, LD, or FLLD
(Table 12)
Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@xxxxxxxxxx
<http://daviddillard.businesscard2.com>
Net-Gold
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/net-gold>
Index: <http://tinyurl.com/myxb4w>
<http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/net-gold.html>
<http://groups.google.com/group/net-gold?hl=en>
General Internet & Print Resources
<http://guides.temple.edu/general-internet>
COUNTRIES
<http://guides.temple.edu/general-country-info>
EMPLOYMENT
<http://guides.temple.edu/EMPLOYMENT>
TOURISM
<http://guides.temple.edu/tourism>
DISABILITIES
http://guides.temple.edu/DISABILITIES
INDOOR GARDENING
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/IndoorGardeningUrban/>
Educator-Gold
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Educator-Gold/>
K12ADMINLIFE
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/K12AdminLIFE/>
RUSSELL CONWELL CENTER SUBJECT GUIDE
http://guides.temple.edu/Russell-Conwell-Center
THE COLLEGE LEARNING CENTER
<http://tinyurl.com/yae7w79>
Nina Dillard's Photographs on Net-Gold
http://tinyurl.com/36qd2o
and also http://gallery.me.com/neemers1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neemers/
Net-Gold Membership Required to View Photos on Net-Gold
Twitter: davidpdillard
Bushell, R. & Sheldon, P. (eds),
Wellness and Tourism: Mind, Body, Spirit,
Place, New York: Cognizant Communication Books.
Wellness Tourism: Bibliographic and Webliographic Essay
David P. Dillard
<http://tinyurl.com/p63whl>
<http://tinyurl.com/ou53aw>
INDOOR GARDENING
Improve Your Chances for Indoor Gardening Success
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/IndoorGardeningUrban/
http://groups.google.com/group/indoor-gardening-and-urban-gardening
SPORT-MED
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/sport-med.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sport-med
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sports-med/
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/sport-med.html
Health Diet Fitness Recreation Sports Tourism
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/healthrecsport/
http://groups.google.com/group/healthrecsport
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/health-recreation-sports-tourism.html
Please Ignore All Links to JIGLU
in search results for Net-Gold and related lists.
The Net-Gold relationship with JIGLU has
been terminated by JIGLU and these are dead links.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/30664
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/healthrecsport/message/145
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] DISABILITIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES: Learning to Achieve: A Review of the Research Literature on Serving Adults with Learning Disabilities - David P. Dillard
