A unified program of remedial and compensatory teaching is advocated for children with process learning disabilities. Background literature and related research on these two forms of teaching are presented. There is a description of the common foundation of remedial and compensatory teaching in terms of child analysis, task analysis, and the integration of child and task analysis. Remedial and compensatory teaching are differentiated on the basis of instructional goals, roles of disability and ability areas, instructional content, and age factors. Implications of such a unified program are discussed in relation to the roles of general and special education as are administrative considerations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bracht, G.H.: Experimental factors related to aptitude-treatment interactions. Rev. Educ. Res., 1970; 40, 627–646.
2.
Cronbach, L.J.: Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. Amer. Psychol., 1975; 30, 116–127.
3.
Fernald, G.M.: Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1943.
4.
Frostig, M.: Education for children with learning disabilities. In H.R. Myklebust (Ed.): Progress in Learning Disabilities, Vol. 1.New York: Grune & Stratton, 1968.
5.
Frostig, M., and Home, D.: The Frostig Program for the Development of Visual Perception: Teachers Guide. Chicago: Follett Publ., 1964.
6.
Goodman, L., and Hammill, D.D.: The effectiveness of the Kephart-Getman activities in developing perceptual-motor cognitive skills. Focus on Exceptional Child., 1973, 4(9).
7.
Grossman, H.J., Warren, S.A., Begab, M.J., Eyman, R., Nihira, K., and O'Connor, G.: Manual on Terminology and Classification in Mental Retardation. Amer. Assn. Ment. Defic, Spec. Publ. Ser.No. 2, 1973.
8.
Guilford, J.P.: The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
9.
Hammill, D.D.: Training visual perceptual processes. J. Learning Disabil., 1972; 5, 552–559.
10.
Hammill, D.D., and Larsen, S.C.: The effectiveness of psycholinguistic training. Exceptional Child., 1974; 41, 5–15. (a)
11.
Hammill, D.D., and Larsen, S.C.: The relationship of selected auditory perceptual skills and reading ability. J. Learning Disabil., 1974; 7, 429–436. (b)
12.
Heller, H.W.: The resource room: a mere change or real opportunity for the handicapped?J. Spec. Educ, 1972; 6, 369–376.
13.
Johnson, D.J., and Myklebust, H.R.: Learning Disabilities, Educational Principles and Practices. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1967.
14.
Kirk, S.A.: Correlates of reading disability. Papcf presented at the meeting of the II Congreso Hispanoamericano de Deficultades en el Apren-dizaje de la Lectura y Escritura, Mexico City, May, 1974.
15.
Kirk, S.A., and Kirk, W.D.: Psycholinguistic Learning Disabilities: Diagnosis and Remediation. Urbana: Univ. of III. Press, 1971.
16.
Kirk, S.A., McCarthy, J.J., and Kirk, W.D.: Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (rev. ed.). Urbana: Univ. of III. Press, 1968.
Melcher, J.W.: Some questions from a school administrator. Proceedings of the Conference on the Categorical Issue in Special Education. Columbia: Special Education Dept., Univ. of Missouri, 1971, pp. 33–38.
19.
Minskoff, E.H.: Creating and evaluating remediation for the learning disabled. Focus on Exceptional Child., 1973, 5(5).
20.
Minskoff, E.H.: Perceptual and psycholinguistic process training as viewed by an advocate. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Los Angeles, April, 1975. (a)
21.
Minskoff, E.H.: Research on psycholinguistic training: critique and guidelines. Exceptional Child., 1975; 42, 136–144.(b)
22.
Minskoff, E.H., Wiseman, D.E., and Minskoff, J.G.: The MWM Program for Developing Language Abilities. Ridgefield, N.J.: Educ. Performance Associates, 1972.
23.
Minskoff, J.G.: Learning disabled children at the secondary level: Educational programming in perspective. Selected Papers of the 8th Annual Conference of the Association for Children with Learning. Disabilities, 1971, 213–218.
24.
National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children: Special Education for Handicapped Children. First Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. HEW, January 31, 1968.
25.
Osgood, C.E.: Motivational dynamics of language behavior. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1957.
26.
Sabatino, D.A., and Dorfman, N.: Matching learner aptitude in two commercial reading programs. Exceptional Child., 1974; 41, 85–91.
27.
Silberberg, N.E., and Silberberg, M.: The bookless curriculum: An educational alternative. J. Learning Disabil., 1969; 2, 302–307.
28.
Skinner, B.F.: Tlie Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.
