Differences in the Learning and Transfer Performance between Students with Learning Disabilities and other Low-Achieving Students on Problem-Solving Tasks
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 1993
Differences in the Learning and Transfer Performance between Students with Learning Disabilities and other Low-Achieving Students on Problem-Solving Tasks
Despite a lack of empirical support, students with learning disabilities are frequently characterized as having poor transfer abilities. The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in the learning and transfer ability of 20 students with learning disabilities (LD) and 20 students with matched low achievement (LA). The two groups were assessed on one learning task and three transfer tasks under unassisted and assisted conditions (i.e., dynamic assessment). A 2 (Group) by 4 (Session) (i.e., pretest, training, maintenance/transfer, and delayed maintenance) mixed, factorial design was employed for data collection. Seven separate analyses and several post-hoc analyses were conducted to determine group performance differences on measures of learning, transfer, and maintenance. Results indicated inconsistent performance differences. Implications of these findings are discussed in the context of previous research employing dynamic assessment as well as investigations of problem-solving in students with LD.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakemanR.GottmanJ.M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BerttramC. (1980). Effect of word segmentation training upon learning disabled students' transfer performance in reading phonetically regular words. Paper presented at the Annual International Convention of The Council for Exceptional Children, Philadelphia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 189 770)
3.
BrownA.L.BransfordJ.D.FerraraR.A.CampioneJ.C. (1982). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In FlavellJ.H.MarkmanE.M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed.): Cognitive development (Vol. 3, pp. 77–166). New York: Plenum.
4.
ButterfieldE.C.NelsonG.D. (1991). Promoting positive transfer of different types. Cognition and Instruction, 8 (1), 69–102.
5.
CopelandA.P.WeissbrodC.S. (1983). Cognitive strategies used by learning disabled children: Does hyperactivity always make things worse?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 473–477.
6.
DayJ.D. (1983). The zone of proximal development. In PressleyM.LevinJ.R. (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Psychological foundations (pp. 155–175). New York: Springer-Verlag.
7.
DayJ.D.HallL.K. (1988). Intelligence-related differences in learning and transfer and enhancement of transfer among mentally retarded persons. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93, 125–137.
8.
DayJ.D.ZajakowskiA. (1991). Comparisons of learning ease and transfer propensity in poor and average readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24 (7), 421–433.
9.
DiBenedettoB.RichardsonE.KochnowerJ. (1983). Vowel generalization in normal and learning disabled readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (4), 576–582.
10.
FerraraR.A.BrownA.L.CampioneJ.C. (1986). Children's learning and transfer of inductive reasoning rules: Studies of proximal development. Child Development, 57, 1087–1099.
11.
GelzheiserL.M. (1984). Generalization from categorical memory tasks to prose by learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (6), 1128–1138.
12.
GelzheiserL.M.ShepherdM.J.WozniakR.H. (1986). The development of instruction to induce skill transfer. Exceptional Children, 53 (2), 125–129.
13.
GickM.HolyoakK. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In CormierS.M.HagmanJ.D. (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications (pp. 9–46). San Diego: Academic.
14.
HallL.K.DayJ.D. (1982). A comparison of the zone of proximal development in learning disabled, mentally retarded, and normal children. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
15.
KirkS.A.GallagherJ.J. (1979). Educating exceptional children (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
16.
LindquistE.F.HieronymusM.N. (1976). Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
17.
McLeskyJ. (1977). Learning set acquisition by reading disabled and normal children. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, New Orleans. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 151 754)
18.
MeltzerL.J. (1991). Problem-solving strategies and academic performance in learning-disabled students: Do subtypes exist? In FeagansL.V.ShortE.J.MeltzerL.J. (Eds.), Subtypes of learning disabilities: Theoretical perspectives and research (pp. 163–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19.
PerkinsD.N.SalomonG. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46 (1), 22–32.
20.
ReynoldsC.R. (1984–1985). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 451–476.
21.
SattlerJ.M. (1982). Assessment of children's intelligence and special abilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
22.
Science Research Associates Committee on the SRA Test. (1987). SRA Test of Basic Skills. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
23.
SieglerR.S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 481–520.
24.
StoneA.MichalsD. (1986). Problem-solving skills in learning-disabled children. In CeciS.J. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 291–315). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
SwansonH.L. (1989). Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for effective use. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12 (1), 3–14.
26.
SwansonH.L. (1990). Intelligence and learning disabilities: An introduction. In SwansonH.L.KeoghB. (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues (pp. 23–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27.
WechslerD. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.
