Normally achieving, mildly retarded, and learning disabled 6- through 8-year-old students, matched on chronological age, were asked to (a) describe sim ilarities and differences among exemplars of 12 different categories, (b) identify the categories, and (c) name the exemplars. Large performance differences between the normally achieving and mildly retarded groups were reflected in group comparisons, the accuracy of individual student identification, and pattern differences. The mildly retarded were also clearly differentiated from the learning disabled on both group and individual classification measures. In contrast, few and small performance differences were present between the normally achieving and learning disabled students, who also evidenced similar patterns of responding. However, a subset of learning disabled students did generate fewer different descriptors than all but one of the normall) achieving students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineK. M.KorinekL.MorsinkC. V., & AlgozzineB. (1988). Who's on first, what's on second: Questioning in special education classrooms. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 23 (1), 22–27.
2.
AlgozzineB.MorsinkC. V., & AlgozzineK. M. (1988). What's happening in self-contained special education classrooms?Exceptional Children, 55 (3), 259–265.
3.
BauerR. H. (1982). Information processing as a way of understanding and diagnosing learning disabilities. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 33–45.
4.
BorkowskiJ. G., & DayJ. D. (1987). Research with special children: Issues, definitions, and methodologies. In BorkowskiJ.G. & DayJ. D. (Eds.), Cognition in special children: Comparative approaches to retardation, learning disabilities and giftedness, (pp. 1–14). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company.
5.
CeciS. J. (1982). Extracting meaning from stimuli: automatic and purposive processing of the language-based learning disabled. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 16–53.
6.
CeciS. J. (1983). Automatic and purposive semantic processing characteristics of normal and language/learning-disabled children. Development Psychology, 19, 427–439.
7.
CeciS. J. (1984). A developmental study of learning disabilities and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 352–371.
8.
CeciS. J., & BakerJ. G. (1989). On learning. . . . More or less: A knowledge x process x context view of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,22 (2), 90–99.
9.
DallagoM. L. L., & MoelyB. E. (1980). Free recall in boys of normal and poor reading levels. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 62–78.
10.
FinnJ. D., & ResnickL. B. (1984). Issues in the instruction of mildly mentally retarded children. Educational Researcher,13 (3), 9–11.
11.
FornessS. R., & KavaleK. A. (1984). Education of the mentally retarded: A note on policy. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 239–245.
12.
GerjuoyI. R., & SpitzH. H. (1966). Associative clustering in free recall: Intellectual and developmental variables. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 70, 918–927.
13.
GliddenL. M., & MarH. H. (1978). Availability and accessibility of information in the semantic memory of retarded and nonretarded adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25, 33–40.
14.
GoldsteinD.HasherL., & KosteskiD. (1980). Automatic and effortful memory processes in learning disabled children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada.
15.
GoldsteinD.HasherL., & SteinD. K. (1983). Processing of occurrence-rate and item information by children of different ages and abilities. American Journal of Psychology, 96, 229–241.
16.
GreenfieldD. B., & ScottM. S. (1985). Individual differences in preschool children's knowledge of superordinate categories. Journal of Applied Development Psychology, 6, 321–334.
17.
HallahanD. P., & KauffmanJ. M. (1976). Learning disabilities versus emotional disturbance versus educable mental retardation. Introduction to learning disabilities. NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
HallahanD. P.KellerC. E., & BallD. W. (1986). A comparison of prevalence rate variability from state to state for each of the categories of special education. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 8–14.
19.
LorsbachT. C., & GrayJ. W. (1985). The development of encoding processes in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities,18 (4), 222–227.
20.
MacMillanD. L. (1988). Issues in Mild Mental Retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23 (4), 273–284.
21.
MasonJ. M. (1978). Role of strategy in reading by mentally retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 82, 467–473.
22.
PalmerM. (1974). Clustering of nonretarded and retarded subjects: Some basic determinants. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 454–461.
23.
RiegelR. H. (1972). Measuring educationally handicapped children's organizational strategies by sampling overt groupings. Research Report No. 37, Research, Developmental and Demonstration Center in Education of Handicapped Children, University of Minnesota.
24.
RiegelR. H., & TaylorA. M. (1974). Comparison of conceptual strategies for grouping and remembering employed by EMR and nonretarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 592–598.
25.
RothF.P., & SpekmanN. J. (1989). The oral syntactic proficiency of learning disabled students: A spontaneous story sampling analysis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32 (1), 67–77.
26.
ScottM. S., & GreenfieldD. B. (1986). Young children's intentional knowledge of superordinate categories. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,147 (2), 219–232.
27.
ScottM. S.GreenfieldD. B., & PartridgeM. F. (1991). Differentiating between two groups who fail in school: Performance of LD and mildly retarded students on oddity problems. Learning Disabilities Research, 6, 3–11.
28.
ScottM. S., & GreenfieldD. B. (in press). The screening potential of a taxonomic information task for the detection of learning disabled and mildly retarded children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.
29.
ScottM. S.GreenfieldD. B., & UrbanoC. (1985). A comparison of complementary and taxonomic utilization: Significance of the dependent measure. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 241–256.
30.
ScottM. S.ScottK. G., & SerchukR. (1980). Preschool children's performance with perceptual and conceptual recognition criteria. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 3, 173–190.
31.
ScottM. S.SerchukR., & MundyP. (1982). Taxonomic and complementary picture pairs: Ability in two- to five-year-olds. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 5, 243–256.
32.
ScruggsT. E.BennionK., & LifsonS. (1985). Learning disabled students' spontaneous use of test-taking skills on reading achievement tests. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 205–210.
33.
SwansonH. L., & ObrzutJ. E. (1985). Learning disabled readers' recall as a function of distinctive encoding, hemisphere processing and selective attention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 409–418.
34.
TorgesenJ. K. (1977). Memorization processes in reading-disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 571–578.
35.
TorgesenJ. K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Educational implications. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2 (1), 45–52.
36.
TorgesenJ. K., & GoldmanT. (1977). Rehearsal and short-term memory in reading disabled children. Child Development, 48, 56–60.
37.
TorgesenJ. K., & GreensteinJ. J. (1982). Why do some learning disabled children have problems remembering? Does it make a difference?Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2 (2), 54–61.
38.
TorgesenJ. K.MurphyH. A., & IveyC. (1979). The influence of an orienting task on the memory performance of children with reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 43–48.
39.
WoodT. A.BuckhaltJ. A., & TomlinJ. G. (1988). A comparison of listening and reading performance with children in three educational placements. Journal of Learning Disabilities,21 (8), 493–496.
40.
YsseldykeJ. E.O'SullivanP. J.ThurlowM. L., & ChristensonS. L. (1989). Qualitative differences in reading and math instruction received by handicapped students. Remedial and Special Education,10 (1), 14–20.
