Attention and Cognitive Deficits in Learning-Disabled Students

Abstract

The efforts of Phyllis Tamanaha and Fred Hoffman in running subjects were instrumental in completing this research. This research investigated two procedures which, according to previous research, facilitate the acquisition of concepts among normal children: (a) the selection and sequence of positive and negative examples and (b) analytic assistance during concept learning. Each of two experiments involved elementary grade, learning-disabled students and included an initial study followed by a replication in a different region of the country. Training and testing were conducted with individual students.The purpose of Experiment 1 was to determine the effect of including minimally different positive and negative examples in a concept learning set among learning-disabled students.The results indicated that the inclusion of these examples did not facilitate the concept acquisition of learning-disabled students. Experiment 2 was to determine the degree to which learningdisabled students benefit from a simple strategy when learning to draw inferences. The results indicated that exposure to a strategy actually hindered the performance of learning-disabled students.

Paradigms Lost

“…In one study (Granzin & Carnine, 1977), static examples that involved minimal differences between each picture resulted in a higher rate of acquisitions of concepts with nonlearning-disabled students. However, when the same type of format was used with learning disabled students, higher concept acquisition scores were not achieved (Carnine, Gersten, Darch, & Eaves, 1985). The differing results may reflect a greater saliency for relevant concept features in dynamically created examples versus minimally different static examples.…”

“…Instruction involved the following steps: (1) stating a rule, (2) presenting an example and questions that required applying the rule to the example, and (3) asking for justification of the answer, which required stating how the rule applied to the specific example. Results of the study showed that analytic assistance of this form reduced the trials to criterion for non-learning-disabled students (Ross & Carnine, 1982), but not for learning disabled students (Carnine et al, 1985).…”

“…One possible explanation for the ineffectiveness of analytic assistance with learning disabled students is the limited amount of instruction, only about 15 minutes in the Carnine et al (1985) study. A later study (Darch & Kameenui, 1987) incorporated much more training (twelve 40-minute sessions).…”

Comments, Countercomments, and New Thoughts

“…It seems to me that the approach advocated by Carnine and Woodward would produce a rich data base, but such a direction in their research characterizes much of the problem of the LD field (i.e., a field with data but no theory). More specifically, I am uncertain about how to organize the contextual variables suggested by the commentators, on the one hand, and how to account or explain the residual differences that occur between ability groups, on the other (a problem also noted in Carnine, Gersten, Darch, & Eaves, 1985). It appears to me that a comprehensive model of educational instruction must account for individual differences and changes in cognition.…”