This article examines the efficacy of current definitional perspectives on learning disabilities (LD) and related assessment models to support appropriate instructional and support services for learners of English with learning-related difficulties. A revised framework for defining LD and an associated assessment model, curriculum-based dynamic assessment (CDA), are proposed. The results of a teacher assessment study are reported to exemplify how this revised framework may be studied. The study examined the following questions: (a) Can curriculum-based dynamic assessments of authentic learning tasks help educators to differentiate between the work of students with limited English proficiency and their peers identified as having LD? (b) What are the characteristics of curriculum-based work samples of limited English proficient students with LD that may predictably differentiate them from their peers without LD?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Artiles, A.J., & Trent, S.C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education , 27, 410—437.
2.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1996). Educating language minority children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education .
3.
Baca, L., & Cervantes, H. (1991). Bilingual special education (ERIC Digest #E496) . Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
4.
Baca, L., & de Valenzuela, J.S. (1994). Reconstructing the bilingual special education interface (National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Program Information Guide Series No. 20). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education .
5.
Barrera, M. (1997). Effects of the pause procedure on the lecture notes and retention of secondary students with limited English proficiency and learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
6.
Barrera, M. (1999, December 10). Assessment of limited English speakers with learning disabilities. Proposal submitted to Office of Special Education Programs Initial Career Awards. (Available from Office of Special Education Programs, Initial Career Award #H324N000027-1)
7.
Barrera, M. (2001a, January). Assessment of limited English speakers with learning disabilities in P—12 settings. Paper presented at Minnesota Association of Teachers of College of Education Mini-Congress for Higher Education, Minneapolis, MN.
8.
Barrera, M. (2001b). Evaluation of individualized education plans for a Minnesota school district. Report submitted to District 742, St. Cloud, MN, available from author by request.
9.
Barrera, M. (2002, October 11). Curriculum-based dynamic assessment for Spanish-speaking learners of English with and without disabilities. Paper presented at International Council on Learning Disabilities , Charlotte, NC.
10.
Barrera, M. (2003). Curriculum-based dynamic assessment for new-or second-language learners with learning disabilities in secondary education settings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(1), 69—84.
11.
Barrera, M., & Chamberlain, S. (in preparation). Use of curriculum-based measurement in a dynamic assessment of students with limited English proficiency and learning disabilities (Initial results available from author).
12.
Bender, W. (1998). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identification, and teaching strategies (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
Boehner, J., & Castle, M. (2005). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guide to “frequently asked questions.” Retrieved June 10, 2005, from http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/109th/education/idea/ideafaq.pdf
14.
Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W. (1995). Language minority student achievement and program effectiveness: Research summary on ongoing study. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
15.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
16.
Cummins, J. (1989). A theoretical framework for bilingual special education. Exceptional Children, 56, 111—119.
17.
Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18—78). New York: Guilford Press.
18.
Deno, S.L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 184—192.
19.
Dew, N. (1984). The exceptional child: Demography. In P. C. Chinn (Ed.), Education of culturally and linguistically different exceptional children (pp. 1—41). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397594)
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1995). Curriculum-based measures for secondary students: Utility and task specificity of text-based reading and vocabulary measures for predicting performance on content-area tasks. Diagnostique , 20(1—4), 102—121.
22.
Feuerstein, R. (1986). Learning potential assessment. Special Services in the Schools,2(2—3), 85—106.
23.
Fuchs, D., & Deno, S. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488—499.
24.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204—219.
25.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom based assessment . School Psychology Review, 28, 659— 671.
26.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D.L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly , 25, 33— 46.
27.
García, S.B., & Malkin, D.H. (1993). Toward defining programs and services for culturally and linguistically diverse learners in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(1), 52—58.
28.
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language minority student in special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 6, 310—322.
29.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new Sscience. New York: Penguin Books.
30.
Greene, J. (1997). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. TheBilingual Research Journal , 21, 103—122.
31.
Gresham, F., McMillan, D., & Bocian, K. (1997). Teachers as “tests”: Differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at-risk for learning difficulties. School Psychology Review, 26(1), 47— 60.
32.
Hallahan, D., & Kaufman, J. (1998). Introduction to special education (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
33.
Harry, B. (1994). The disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Theories and recommendations. Project FORUM Final Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374637)
34.
Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35.
Idol, L., Nevin, A., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. (1999). Models of curriculum-based assessment (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
36.
Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446, Part B, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq.
37.
Jitendra, A.K., & Kameenui, E. (1993). Dynamic assessment as a compensatory assessment procedure: A description and critical analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 14(5), 6—18.
38.
Jitendra, A.K., Rohena-Diaz, E., & Nolet, V. (1998). A dynamic curriculum-based language assessment: Planning instruction for special needs students who are linguistically diverse . Preventing School Failure, 42(4), 182—185.
39.
Klotz, M., Feinberg, T., & Nealis, L.K. (2004). Learning disability identification and eligibility: A NASP forum for discussion. Communiqué,33(1), 1, 3, 14.
40.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon Press.
41.
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output?System , 26(2), 175—182.
42.
Lidz, C., & Peña, E. (1996). Dynamic assessment: The model, its relevance as a nonbiased approach, and its application to Latino American preschool children . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 367—372.
43.
Maqsud, M. (1980). Effects of personal lecture notes and teacher notes on recall of university students. TheBritish Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 289—294.
44.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18—78). New York: Guilford Press.
45.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, & Learning. ( 1998). Reducing bias in special education assessment for American Indian and African-American students. Little Canada, MN : Minnesota Educational Services .
46.
National Institute for Literacy (1995). Important definitions of learning disabilities Retrieved November 15, 2005, from http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/ld/archive/insert.htm
47.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1989, September 18). Letter from NJCLD to member organizations. Topic: Modifications to the NJCLD definition of learning disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
48.
Obiakor, F.E., & Utley, C. (1998). What do reform and restructuring mean for culturally diverse exceptional learners? In B. A. Ford (Ed.), Compendium: Writing on effective practices for culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners (pp. 88— 98). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
49.
Ortiz, A.A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 321—332.
50.
Ortiz, A.A., & Maldonado-Colón, E. (1986). Recognizing learning disabilities in bilingual children: How to lessen inappropriate referrals of language minority students to special education. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 40(1), 43—56.
51.
Ortiz, A.A., & Wilkinson, C.Y. (1991). Assessment and intervention model for the bilingual exceptional student (AIM for the BESt). Teacher Education and Special Education, 14(1), 35—42.
52.
Reschly, D.J., Hosp, J.L., & Schmied, C.M. (2003). And miles to go . . . State SLD requirements and authoritative recommendations. Nashville, TN: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Available from http://www.nrcld.org
53.
Salvia, J. & Hughes, C. (1990). Curriculum-based assessment: Testing what is taught . New York: MacMillan.
54.
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1995). Assessment of students with learning disabilities: Current issues and future directions. Diagnostique, 20(1—4), 17—31.
55.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155—168.
56.
Semel, E., Wiig, E.H., & Secord, W.A. (1995). CELF-3: Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX : Psychological Corp.
57.
Shin, J., Deno, S.L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. The Journal of Special Education , 34, 164—172.
58.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (Guilford School Practitioner Series). New York: Guilford Press.
59.
Shinn, M.R. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement . New York: Guilford Press.
60.
Siegel, L. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 304—319.
61.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984). Why aren't all children in the Nordic countries bilingual?Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development , 5, 301—315.
62.
Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735—749.
63.
Stanovich, K. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 350—361.
64.
Suritsky, S.K. (1992). Use of a note-taking strategy training to improve the quality of notes recorded by students with learning disabilities in required college courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
65.
Swanson, H.L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 129—140.
66.
Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students . Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Available from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu
67.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hick-man, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children , 69, 391—409.
