The authors present the cases of two pupils who both show very serious, apparently similar learning difficulties, mainly in mathematics. An analysis beyond appearance of their learning activities revealed remarkable differences between them, in terms of both weaknesses and strengths. The authors point out that when teachers are planning remedial interventions for pupils with severe learning difficulties, they must evaluate individual differences carefully, paying attention not only to difficulties but also to potentialities and points of strength.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amoretti, G., et al (1993). Test di matematica per la scuola dell'obbigo [Mathematical tests for compulsory school]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.
2.
Bottino, R.M., & Chiappini, G. (1995). ARI-LAB: Models, issues and strategies in the design of a multiple-tools problem solving environment. InstructionalScience, 23, 7—23.
3.
Burns, M. (1998). Math: Facing an American phobia. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
4.
Cornoldi, C., & Colpo, G. (1981). MT prove di lettura [MT reading tests]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali .
5.
Dettori, G., & Ott, M. (2001). Accessible software for early maths education: Focusing on content, strategies, interface. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Universal access in HCI (pp. 798—802). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
6.
Gibelli, C., & Ott, M. (1991). Developmental reading and writing disorders: Courseware as a remedial tool. In R. Winterburn (Ed.), Realizing human potential: Aspects of educational and training technology (Vol. 24, pp. 197—203). Nichols, NY: Kogan Page.
7.
Giovanardi Rossi, P., & Malaguti, T. (1994). Valutazioni delle abilità matematica [Evaluation of mathematical abilities]. Trento, Italy: Erickson.
8.
Hammond, N. (1992). Learning with hypertext: Problems, principles and prospects. In C. McKnight et al. (Eds.), Hypertext: A psychological perspective. Chichester, England : Ellis Horwood.
9.
Jackson, C.D., & Leffingwell, R.J. (1999). The role of instructor in creating math anxiety in students from kindergarten through college. Mathematics Teacher, 92(7), 583—586.
10.
Lucangeli, D., Tressoldi, P.E., & Fiore, C. (1998). Valuatzione delle abilità di calcolo aritmetico—Test ABCA [Evaluation of the abilities of arithmetical computation—Test] . Trento, Italy: Erickson.
11.
McClosky, M., Caramazza, A., & Basili, A. (1985). Cognitive mechanisms in number processing and calculation: Evidence from dyscalculia. Brain andCognition , 4, 171—196.
12.
Meyer, M.S. (2000). The ability-achievement discrepancy: Does it contribute to an understanding of learning disabilities?Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 215—237.
13.
Morchio, B., & Ott, M. (1989). Using computers in the diagnosis and remediation of developmental dyslexia. In C. Bell , J. Davies, & R. Winders (Eds.), Promoting learning (pp. 231—236). London, England: Kogan Page/ New York: Nicholas Publishing.
14.
Raven, J.C. (1938). Progressive matrices: A perceptual test of intelligence, 1938, sets A, B, C, D, and E. London: H. K. Lewis.
Tressoldi, P.E., & Cornoldi, C. (1995). Batteria per la valutazione della scritture e delle competenze ortografiche [Battery for the evaluation of writing and orthographic competence]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.
17.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children—Revised . San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
18.
Winebrenner, S. (2003). Teaching strategies for twice-exceptional students . Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(3), 131—137.
19.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early interventions as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology , 88(4), 601—638.
20.
Zigmond, N. (1993). Learning disabilities from an educational perspective . In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F. Kavanagh , & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better understanding learning disabilities (pp. 251—271). Baltimore : Brookes.
