This review has been accessed times since April 27, 2004 Swanson, H.L., Harris, K.R. & Graham, S. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of learning disabilities. New York: The Guilford Press 587 pp. $70 (Cloth)     ISBN 1-57230-851-6 Reviewed by Patricia Mytkowicz Curry College April 27, 2004 The mid 1960s and early 1970s formally recognized the field of learning disabilities (LD) with researchers like Kirk, Orton, Monroe, Fernald and Cruickshank leading the way (Hallahan & Mercer, 2001). Those decades witnessed a number of publications in the field. However, according to the editors of this newly published handbook, Swanson, Harris and Graham (2003), there has not been a comprehensive guide published since Ceci’s Handbook (1986). Thus, their Handbook of Learning Disabilities seeks to update the information and to “chronicle the major findings that have emerged in the field of LD over the past 20 years”(p. xiii). The editors include a broad range of topics within the field written by researchers whose programs maintain their longstanding reputations and whose works appear frequently in scientific journals. The handbook’s five main divisions cover (1) Foundations and Current Perspectives (2) Causes and Behavioral Manifestations (3) Effective Instruction (4) Formation of Instructional Models and (5) Methodology. With each section including a minimum of five chapters, there is ample theoretical and practical information. The arrangement of the sections is effective with each segment building on the one before, so the reader is left with a complete and inclusive overview of what has been learned about the field of LD since its emergence as a discipline in the 1960s. Part I provides chapters that address historical and theoretical frames of reference, definitions of LD, legal issues, language learning in ESOL students, and service delivery. The first chapter, written by the editors, outlines the entire handbook with a synopsis of each chapter emphasizing its most salient points. Hallahan’s and Mock’s chapter on the history of the field suggests that while researchers have identified important aspects of LD, there are a number of problems that still need to be addressed. The first issue is the use of the discrepancy model as an ineffective means of diagnosis and the need for improved, more reliable identification models. The second is the continued overrepresentation of certain ethnic groups in the LD category and the need to monitor these numbers. The third is the continued debate over programmatic issues ranging from inclusion to self-contained models. The chapters on definition and legal implication, the first authored by Fletcher, Morris and Lyons, the second by Herr and Bateman, build on these problems and reinforce the need for an improved identification process that uses “broader-based assessment procedures which go beyond simply comparing two scores from the WISC-III (Wechsler, 1991) and the Woodcock Johnson III (Woodcock, McGrew & Mather, 2001)” (p.71). Kavale and Forness, in their chapter “Learning Disability as a Practice,” also advocate an improved identification process. They present concerns about the discrepancy between the scientific and political approaches to LD. “The difficulty is that the students identified by the political LD discipline often bear little resemblance to the description of LD offered by the scientific discipline” (p. 87). They argue for a more unified LD discipline to better address concerns in the field. Gersten and Baker examine English language learners with LD, a population that needs further research. Their chapter acknowledges the disproportionate number of minorities in special education and highlights sound instructional practices for this group. The final chapter in this section, authored by Zigmond, examines the multiple ways that service delivery for LD students have been implemented. It concludes that there is no one best way and that educators can only provide an effective model by looking at each case individually. The chapters in Part II address the causes and manifestations of LD. Cutting and Denckla write about the relationship between ADHD and LD. They examine attention as one of the executive functions and believe that further research should take place in correlating executive function deficits and LDs. Bowers and Ishaik acknowledge phonological processing deficits as a main cause of reading disability but posit that slow naming speed in identification of simple, visual stimuli is another source of a different type of reading disorder. They suggest that identifying the underlying root of the LD can help the practitioner distinguish the appropriate remediation. Siegel’s chapter continues the study of reading disabilities and links them to basic cognitive processes. She suggests that phonological processing, syntactic awareness, and working memory are three basic cognitive processes that are deficient in readers who experience reading difficulties. Swanson and Sáez concentrate on memory difficulties in LD. Their two decades of research reveal that working memory (WM) is a problem for both children and adults with LD and manifests in poor reading and deficient math skills. Geary’s chapter examines arithmetic and cognitive deficits. His work, like other researchers mentioned above, links both long term and working memory and compromised executive functions to math LDs. Mann examines language processes as the cause of reading disabilities. She suggests a language-based procedure as an important component of remediation of reading disorders. Another chapter, written by Elbaum and Vaughn, addresses self-concept in students with LD. It comes as no surprise that students with LD are particularly vulnerable to problems with self-perception, and the authors give intervention strategies. The last two chapters in this section, the first authored by Miller, Sanchez, and Hynd; the second, by Thompson and Raskind, report research related to neurological and genetic correlates and influences on reading and writing disabilities. This section provides the reader with a solid frame of reference about possible origins of LD and symptomatic presentations. Effective instruction is highlighted in Part III. The chapters give remediation and instructional techniques in reading, written language, math, science and social studies. Lovett, Barron and Benson review the literature related to successful remedial practices for children with reading disorders. Thus their recommendations for effective strategies are based on a strong theoretical foundation. They describe a new program, the Phonological and Strategy Training (PHAST) Track Reading Program that integrates both direct reading instruction and strategy instruction. Williams’ chapter focuses on reading comprehension skills and outlines a technique used to teach theme identification in narrative writing. Initial studies show promising results. Lynn and Douglas Fuchs have published prolifically in the field, so their inclusion in the Handbook is essential. Their chapter treats problem-solving skills of students with math disabilities. Fuchs and Fuchs outline a process that scaffolds the ability to transfer prior knowledge to novel problems. They also present information about effective practices and emphasize that while the field has made great strides in identifying a variety of processes that support effective instruction, there is a need for further research in recognizing principles of strong explanations to concretize and make visible conceptual foundations to students who have LDs. Graham and Harris continue to highlight effective practices in their chapter on the writing process with a meta-analysis of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD). They give practical advice, based on multiple research studies of SRSD, that clearly support direct strategy instruction in the writing process. Their results show that SRSD benefits a wide range of students, not only those with LD, and classroom teachers can easily implement it. The five chapters in Part IV build on the practices of effective instruction presented in PART III to discuss the formation of instructional models that effectively address LDs. Wong, Harris, Graham and Butler discuss cognitive strategy research as it relates to LDs. They summarize twenty years of research in the field of cognitive strategy instruction arranged by age groups from elementary grades through young adults. The section on young adults was particularly interesting to the reviewer because of her own practice. It presents theoretical rationale, instructional guidelines, research, and directions for future research in the area of strategic content learning (SCL). Their epilogue provides interesting food for thought on fostering practices that encourage strategic learning. Adams and Carnine address the area of direct instruction. They distinguish between the recognized term of direct instruction that “is often associated with research showing that certain educational techniques and methods have resulted in accelerated academic success” (p.403) and the formalized Direct Instruction curricula developed by Adams and Engelmann (1996) “that have been field-tested with students using a three-stage curriculum-testing process” (p. 403). They provide significant data to support their conclusion “that Direct Instruction programs should definitely be considered as a standard for evidence-based best practices” (p. 412). Jenkins and O’Connor look at cooperative learning (CL) and see it as a solution to dealing with students with diverse learning abilities and styles. They examine studies of CL that have been conducted to assess whether CL benefits students with LD. Their conclusions strongly support CL for students with special needs. Identifying children at risk for reading failure using a curriculum-based assessment and the dual-discrepancy approach is the focus of Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster and Otaiba. They make a case for the importance of early identification of children with reading difficulties, as these students are subsequently more likely to experience a wide range of failures ranging from school withdrawal to unemployment to welfare dependency to incarceration. They examine dual discrepancy, that is the combination of a traditional model that observes the difference between IQ and academic achievement, and an alternative approach that looks at nonresponsiveness to adequate instruction. Their research suggest that the dual discrepancy model is useful in identifying reading disabled students. The final chapter, written by Englert and Mariage studies the sociocultural model as a means to implement higher order thinking skills for students with LDs. They suggest that critical thinking skills are important components of new core-curriculum standards required for high stakes testing, so any methods that can increase higher order thinking skills will become more and more valuable in the new century. The final section of the Handbook, examines Methodology. Abbott, Amtmann and Munson look at an overview of confirmatory methods to continue LD research. They suggest that researchers need to become familiar with a variety of statistical and data management applications in order to compile useful data. Schumaker and Deshler begin their chapter with an enthusiastic letter from an educator who had been exposed to Content Enhancement Routines at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL). The authors examine principles that can be applied to evaluate interventions for students with LD. This chapter includes sections that “discuss different research designs that have been used by KU-CRL researchers while developing and testing interventions that make a difference in the performance of students with LD” (p. 486). Speece studies the methodology of cluster analysis as it applies to the study of classification of LDs. She suggests that the field of LD is “beset by muddled constructs and definitional conundrums” (p. 501), so cluster analysis is one effective way to examine subtypes of LDs. Cautious consideration of past practices can effect improved classifications of LD. She believes “the best work in classification of LD using empirical methods is ahead of us” (p. 511). No overview of the field of LD would be complete without contributions from Shaywitz and Shaywitz. They present the latest research on neurobiological indices of dyslexia as shown through brain imaging. The final chapter of the Handbook addresses the implications gleaned from qualitative research studies, an increasingly acknowledged and accepted form of research practice. MacArthur examines four areas of contribution to the field of LD by qualitative researchers: the insider view on the meaning of LD and on the impact of educational programs the implementation of models of inclusive education, the understanding of classroom instructional processes from a sociocultural perspective the education of culturally and linguistically diverse students with LD (p.545) He concludes that qualitative research is compatible with quantitative research and can add to both the theoretical and practical knowledge of LD. The Handbook of Learning Disabilities is a welcome addition to the LD field. Despite the numbers of studies and research articles published about LD over the last twenty years, this is the most recent comprehensive overview of all the facets of the discipline published in one accessible manual. The editors have chosen well-known researchers whose subjects are thoroughly investigated with extensive references. In fact, the references alone may be a reason to acquire this text. The progression of subjects is effective as each section builds on the prior, providing the needed information to understand and appreciate further chapters. While many of the authors mention future trends in their individual writings, perhaps a chapter devoted entirely to potential developments might have been an additional bonus. Scott and McGuire (2003), long known researchers in the field of postsecondary education for students with LDs, are looking at the emerging field of Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) as a potential model to increase success for these students, and as a way for postsecondary service providers to expand their roles to help inform practice for mainstream faculty. This Handbook is a useful resource for both those who are experienced in the field as well as those who are new to it. It is an excellent reference for any practitioner’s library since it provides such a thorough overview of the LD field, and it would also serve well as a text for an introductory course in LD in teacher training programs. References Ceci, S.J. (1986). Handbook of cognitive, social and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hallahan, D.P. & Mercer, C.D. (2001). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. Paper presented at the U.S. Office of Special Education Program's National Initiative on Learning Disabilities, Washington, D.C. Scott, S. & McGuire, J. (2003). Promoting Universal Design in College Instruction: Changing Roles, Responsibilities, and Relationships with Faculty. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association on Higher Education and Disabilities (AHEAD), Dallas TX. About the Reviewer Patricia Mytkowicz Associate Professor Program for Advancement of Learning (PAL) Curry College, Milton Massachusetts Professor Mytkowicz has research interests in ESOL college students with LDs and factors that impact their persistence. ~ ER home | Reseņas Educativas | Resenhas Educativas ~ ~ overview | reviews | editors | submit | guidelines | announcements ~