Technology, one of the gifts of reductionistic thinking, can be used holistically to liberate students with learning disabilities from many of their struggles with text while they are learning to read and write or to circumvent these struggles entirely throughout their lives if necessary. Technological occupations also offer possibilities for people with learning disabilities. It may well be that using technology in assistive, compensatory, and occupational manners will also produce better readers and writers. Certainly, it can greatly alleviate the problems of not acquiring information about the world while struggling with text.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BillingsleyF. (1993). Reader response: In my dreams: A response to some current trends in education. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18 (1), 61–63.
2.
BowersC.A. (1993). Childhood and the cultural amplification characteristics of computers: Some critical concerns. Holistic Education Review, 16 (2), 35–44.
3.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins.
4.
DeciE.L.ChandlerC. (1986). The importance of motivation for the future of the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19 (10), 587–594.
5.
DeciE.L.RyanR.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
6.
DouglassM.P. (1989). Learning to read: The quest for meaning. New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
FerreiroE.TeberoskyA. (1979). Literacy before schooling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
8.
GerberP.GinsbergR.ReiffH.B. (1992). Identifying alterable patterns of vocational success in highly successful adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 475–487.
9.
GirouxH. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
10.
GlasserW. (1992). The quality school. New York: Harper Collins.
11.
GoertzelV.GoertzelM.G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little Brown & Company.
12.
GravesD. (1982). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13.
GrayR.A. (1981). Services for the LD adults: A working paper. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 426–431.
HarsteJ.WoodwardV.BurkeC.L. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16.
HearneJ.D.PoplinM.S.SchonemanC.O'ShaughnessyE. (1988). Computer aptitude: An investigation of differences among junior high students with learning disabilities and their non-learning disabled peers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21 (8), 489–492.
17.
HigginsE.RaskindM.H. (1992). Aninvestigation of the effects of assistive technology on postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Council for Learning Disabilities International Conference, Kansas City, Missouri.
18.
Holistic Education Review. (1993, Summer). Special Issue, 6(2).
19.
IsaacsonS. (1989). Confused dichotomies: A response to DuCharme, Earl, and Poplin. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12 (3) 243–250.
20.
KimballW.H.HeronT.E. (1988). A behavioral commentary on Poplin's discussion of reductionistic fallacy and holistic/constructivist principles. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21 (7), 425–428, 447
21.
KamiiC. (1985). Youngchildren reinvent arithmetic. New York: Teachers College Press.
22.
PoplinM. (1984). Summary rationalizations, apologies, and farewell: What we don't know about learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7 (2), 130–135.
23.
PoplinM. (1988a). The reductionist fallacy in learning disabilities: Replicating the past by reducing the present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21 (7), 389–400.
24.
PoplinM. (1988b). Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21 (7), 401–416.
PoplinM.S.GrayR.LarsenS.BanikowskiA.MehringT. (1980). A comparison of components of written expression abilities in learning and non-learning disabled students at three grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 46–53.
27.
RaskindM.H. (1993). Assistive technology and adults with learning disabilities: A blueprint for exploration and advancement. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16 (3), 185–198.
28.
RaskindM.H. (1994). Learning disabilities in adulthood. In GerberP.J.ReiffH.B. (Eds.), Assistive technology and adults with learning disabilities: A rationale for use (pp. 216–279). Reading, MA: Andover Medical Publishers.
29.
RaskindM.H.ScottN. (1993). Technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. In VogelS.A.AdelmanP. (Eds.), Success for postsecondary students with learning disabilities (pp. 152–162). New York: Springer-Verlag.
30.
ShorI.FreireP. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues in transforming education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
31.
SleeterC. (1986). Learning disabilities: A social construction of a special education category. Exceptional Children, 53 (1), 46–54.
32.
SmithF. (1973). Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
33.
SmithF. (1985). Analysis of student performance in punctuation using graphic versus non-graphic micro computer instruction. Delta Phi Epsilon Journal, 28, 105–116.
34.
SmithF. (1973). Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
35.
SmithR. (1982). Writing and the writer. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
36.
SpekmanN.J.GoldbergR.J.HermanK.L. (1992). Learning disabled children grow up: A search for factors related to success in young adult years. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 161–170.
37.
StoneS.PoplinM.JohnsonJ.SimpsonO. (1993). Nontraditional talents of the learning disabled: Music and art and divergent thinking. Unpublished manuscript, The Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA.
