Students with learning difficulties

Over many years students with learning problems have been given a variety of labels, including ‘dull’, ‘educationally subnormal’, ‘slow learners’, ‘low achievers’, ‘at risk’, the ‘hard-to-teach’ and ‘learning disabled’. After a period of time each label attracts its own odium and is replaced by another. Most recently the American literature appears to favour the descriptor ‘struggling’ – as in ‘struggling readers’ – and the term appears in the title of many books dealing with learning problems. It is to be hoped that ‘struggling’ goes the way of other inappropriate terms since it implies that the fault lies with the learner.

In most countries the term learning difficulty is applied to students who are not making adequate progress within the school curriculum, particularly in basic skill areas covering language, literacy and numeracy. Their problems may be associated with just one particular school subject, or may be evident across all subjects in the academic curriculum. For a variety of reasons these students do not find learning easy in school. The number of students with such learning difficulties varies across schools and across countries. Prevalence rate has been reported as varying anywhere between 12 per cent and 30 per cent of the school population (for example, Gupta, 1999; Silver & Hagin, 2002; Waldron & McLeskey, 2000; Westwood & Graham, 2000). Students with these problems are therefore quite common in schools; and because they are found to flourish almost everywhere the description ‘garden variety’ learning difficulty has been coined for them (for example, Badian, 1996). Often the intellectual level of these students is somewhat below average and disproportionate numbers come from lower socio-economic and disadvantaged backgrounds.

Within the fairly large group of students with learning difficulties there is a very much smaller sub-group of individuals with normal intelligence and no obvious impairment. These students find the learning of basic literacy and mathematical skills incredibly problematic. The students have been labelled ‘learning disabled’ (LD) or ‘specifically learning disabled’ (SpLD) to separate them from ‘garden variety’ students described above. 

General learning difficulties can occur as a result of any combination of the following influences (collated from Chan, 1998; Cheng, 1998; MacMillan & Siperstein, 2002; Naparstek, 2002; Westwood, 2003):

• inadequate or inappropriate teaching

• irrelevant and unsuitable curriculum

• classroom environment

• socio-economic disadvantage

• poor relationship between student and teacher

• poor school attendance

• health problems

• learning through the medium of a second language

• loss of confidence

• emotional or behavioural problems

• below average intelligence

• sensory impairment

• specific information processing difficulties.

It is important to point out that teachers tend to blame students themselves,  or their socio-cultural and family backgrounds for the learning difficulties. Studies by Cheng (1998) and Westwood (1995) for example indicate that teachers commonly attribute learning problems to weaknesses or impairments within the student rather than to deficiencies within the teaching method, curriculum, or teacher-student relationship. They talk about students being ‘slow’, lacking in intelligence, disorganised and poorly motivated. They also identify them often as coming from ‘poor home backgrounds’ or ‘unsupportive families’. Henderson (2002) refers to this as the ‘deficit discourse’ surrounding learning difficulty; and Bearne (1996) suggests that this ‘blame the victim’ perspective can have a negative impact on teachers’ classroom practices and the expectations they hold for students with difficulties. McLaren (2003, p.236) talks about the trend toward ‘psychologizing’ failure. He states:

Psychoanalyzing student failure amounts to blaming it on an individual trait or series of traits (e.g. lack of motivation or low self-concept) … This attitude is particularly frightening because teachers often are unaware of their complicity in its debilitating effects. Psychoanalyzing school failure is part of the hidden curriculum that relieves teachers from the need to engage in pedagogical self-scrutiny or in serious critique of their personal roles within the school, and the school’s role within the wider society. In effect, psychoanalyzing school failure indicts the student while simultaneously protecting the social environment from sustained criticism.

While some learning problems are indeed due to specific weaknesses within the learner, it is most unlikely that this is the case with the vast majority of students. Environmental factors, including teaching methods and the curriculum, are much more frequent causes of difficulty. Kershner (2000, p.280) remarks, ‘For most children whose progress causes concern in school, the problems are to do with experience and learning rather than intrinsic intellectual weaknesses or deficits’.

The environmental factor over which teachers have most control is the method of teaching. It seems likely that when methods are not matched to students’ interests and capabilities, and when they are not matched well with the type of learning involved in the lesson, learning difficulties will be created.

Insufficient or inappropriate teaching, particularly in the early years, can be a major cause of learning difficulty. Students from backgrounds where there has not been an opportunity to develop what might be termed ‘school-learning readiness’ are potentially at risk when they enter unstructured early school programs. The philosophy underpinning early years education is that children should be encouraged to develop at their individual rates; but the outcome can be that without direct teaching some children fail to acquire crucial knowledge, skills and attitudes that would enhance their progress. Instead they experience frustration and failure and develop increasingly negative feelings toward learning in school (Slavin, 1994). To prevent this problem, all effective early intervention programs tend to place due emphasis on explicit teaching (see Chan & Dally, 2000). The use of explicit teaching methods in the early stages of learning in no way precludes the student from ultimately developing independence in learning; indeed, direct teaching in the early stages facilitates greater confidence and independence in later stages (Heward, 2003b; Pressley & McCormick, 1995).

It takes very little time for lack of success to undermine a child’s confidence and interest. There is nothing organically wrong with the student but he or she quickly becomes locked into a failure cycle and attracts the description of slow learner, lazy, or poorly motivated. The ‘Matthew Effect’ – the poor getting poorer — comes into play and the child falls more and more behind classmates (Stanovich, 1986). There is clear evidence that students who are failing in first year of school generally are still having learning problems in later years (for example, Morris, 2003). For those who get off to a bad start, nothing recedes like success. It is fairly characteristic of some contemporary classroom approaches based on constructivist philosophy that they rely heavily on students’ good independent learning aptitude, high intrinsic motivation, and positive group-working skills. These attributes are singularly lacking in many at-risk students. Their problem is compounded when direct teaching is frowned upon because it is incompatible with constructivist learning principles. Strategies such as drill and practice, regular revision, and corrective feedback for example, are not systematically used. For children who get off to a shaky start such programs do nothing to help them improve (Heward, 2003b).

Direct and explicit forms of instruction appear to achieve most in the early stages of learning basic academic

skills (Swanson, 2000a; Wilen, Ishler, Hutchison & Kindsvatter, 2000). Over many decades, despite the popularity of student-centred, activity-based learning approaches, clear research evidence supports the value of direct and explicit teaching, often delivered through the medium of interactive whole class teaching (Dickinson, 2003; Galton et al., 1999; OFSTED, 1993). Where explicit teaching is used, students with learning difficulties appear to make much better progress and become more confident and effective learners. Direct teaching not only raises the attainment level of all students but also reduces significantly the prevalence of learning failure.

Effective teaching practices are those that provide students with the maximum opportunity to learn. These practices increase achievement through maintaining students’ attention and on-task behaviour (academic engaged time). This active involvement includes listening to instruction from the teacher, asking and answering questions, discussing with teachers and peers, working on assigned tasks independently or with a group, and applying previously acquired knowledge and skills. Studies have shown that students who are receiving explanations, cues and direct instruction from the teacher spend more time attending to the content of the lesson and participating more fully (Jacobsen et al., 2002; Killen, 1998; Rosenshine, 1995). Effective lessons, particularly those covering basic academic skills, tend to be under teacher control and have a clear structure.

Based on a meta-analysis of outcomes from many different types of teaching approach Swanson (1999) draws the conclusion that the most effective method for teaching basic academic skills to students with learning difficulties combines  the following features:

• Carefully controlling and sequencing the curriculum content to be studied.

• Providing abundant opportunities for practice and application of newly acquired knowledge and skills.

• Ensuring high levels of participation and responding by the children (for example, answering the teacher’s questions; staying on task).

• Using interactive group teaching.

• Modelling by the teacher of effective ways of completing school tasks.

• Direct strategy training (teaching children how best to attempt new learning tasks).

• Making appropriate use of technology (for example, computer-assistedinstruction).

• Providing supplementary assistance (for example, in-class support; homework; parental tutoring).

It is unfortunate that some methods of teaching that are known to reduce educational failure and raise achievement levels are not willingly adopted in schools. There is a general resistance among teachers to any approach that seems too highly structured and likely to reduce their freedom and autonomy to use their own preferred methods and style (Waldron & Leskey, 2000). Heward (2003b) provides an excellent critique of the ways in which contemporary thinking about teaching methods creates a barrier to the implementation of effective special education. Two examples of approaches that are known to be highly successful but are not widely used in schools are direct instruction (Adams & Carnine, 2003) and precision teaching (Lindsley, 1992a).