Abstract
In this article I suggest that the assumptions that Conte, Andrews, Gresham, and Elliott make regarding the characteristics that should be attributable to learning disabilities are limited by the “either/or” empirical view. I contend that (a) there is no such phenomenon as a pure primary disorder; all behavioral and learning problems are manifested by a discrete cluster of behaviors, so that one differentiates exceptionalities by looking at the quality of behaviors and possible antecedents rather than comparing them quantitatively; (b) that learning disabilities are earmarked by the inefficient manner in which tasks are approached in one's specific area(s) of deficient intellect rather than by universal characteristics; (c) that all aspects of learning are metaphorical and, therefore, have implicit and explicit dimensions; and learning disabilities are, in large part, a deficit in learning implicit information; (d) that in-school and out-of-school learning are of a piece and must be synthesized, just as theory, research, and practice must be synthesized; and (e) that the definition should not dictate our notion of what learning disabilities are, but rather should reflect our observations of persons with learning disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.