Moving the LD Field Ahead

Abstract

Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is no path and leave a trail. Anonymous

In this final article in the series on the future of the LD field, we reflect on ideas presented by the contributors and underscore trends for the the future that seem essential to the field's progress. Inadequacies of prevailing thinking in the field are highlighted and suggestions are offered about the way in which such thinking needs to be expanded and transformed. In this connection, we stress the importance of (a) an expanded focus on adolescents and adults, (b) broader models for understanding the patterns of behavior and learning seen in LD programs, (c) going beyond the concepts of diagnosis, treatment, remediation, and individualized instruction, (d) expansion of prevailing views of basic skills, and (e) development of interventions that focus on more than changing people. Finally, we explore implications of and ideas for reducing the large number of LD misdiagnoses.

One purpose of this series has been to focus attention on the directions that have been established and where they are leading the field. Another purpose has been to encourage thought and discussion about new paths to follow. The rapid growth of the field has left precious little time for reflection, and it is easy to lose perspective under such circumstances. The series presentations provide a beginning for efforts to clarify an agenda for the immediate future; over the next year or so, we hope that the various LD journals will encourage an ongoing interchange about these and other ideas that should shape that agenda. It is from such an interchange that a new synthesis of guidelines and recommendations for theory, research, and practice can be developed by the field's advocates, representatives, and others who shape the future through then influence on policy and socialization of professionals and the general public. It is time to stimulate and broaden the dialectic process; the result should be a refreshing renewal of the spirit that prevailed when the field was born.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelman, H.S. (1971). The not so specific learning disability population. Exceptional Children, 8, 114–120.

Adelman, H.S. (1986a). Staffing the field for the future. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 477–479.

Adelman, H.S. (1986b). Intervention theory and evaluating efficacy. Evaluation Review, 10, 65–83.

Adelman, H.S. , & Taylor, L. (1982). Enhancing motivation and skills needed to overcome interpersonal problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 438–445.

Adelman, H.S. , & Taylor, L. (1983). Learning disabilities in perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Adelman, H.S. , & Taylor, L. (1985). Toward integrating intervention concepts, research, and practice. In S.I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Clinical child psychology: An introduction to theory, research, and practice. Orlando: Grune & Stratton.

Adelman, H.S. , & Taylor, L. (1986). An introduction to learning disabilities. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Adelman, H.S. , & Taylor, L. (in press). The problems of definition and differentiation and the need for a classification schema. Journal of Learning Disabilities.

Algozzine, B. , & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1986). The future of the LD field: Screening and diagnosis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 394–398.

10.

Allender, J.S. (1986). Educational research: A personal and social process. Review of Educational Research, 56, 173–193.

11.

Bandure, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 344–358.

12.

Kavale, K.A. , & Forness, S.R. (1985). The science of learning disabilities. San Diego: College-Hill Press.

13.

Keogh, B.K. (1986). Future of the LD field: Research and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 455–460.

14.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

15.

Lindsay, G.A. , & Wedell, K. (1982). The early identification of educationally “at risk” children revisited. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 212–217.

16.

McKinney, J.D. , & Feagans, L. (Eds.). (1984). Current topics in learning disabilities. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

17.

Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Toward a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

18.

Reason, P. , & Rowan, J. (Eds.). (1981). Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research. New York: Wiley.

19.

Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Random House.

20.

Sapir, S.G. (1986). Training the helpers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 473–476.

21.

Scarr, S. (1985). Constructing psychology: Making facts and fables for our times. American Psychologist, 40, 499–512.

22.

Smith, C.S. (1986). The future of the LD field: Intervention approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 461–472.

23.

Soltis, J.F. (1984). On the nature of educational research. Educational Researcher, 13, 5–10.

24.

Torgesen, J.K. (1986). Learning disabilities theory: Its current state and future prospects. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 399–407.

25.

Torgesen, J.K. , & Wong, B.Y.L. (Eds.) (1986). Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities. Orlando: Academic Press.

26.

Wedell, K. (1970). Diagnosing learning disabilities: A sequential strategy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 311–317.

27.

Wissink, J.F. , Kass, C.E. , & Ferrell, W.R. (1975). A Bayesian approach to the identification of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 88, 158–166.