Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 1
e-Journal of Educational
Research, Assessment and
Evaluation
Revista ELectrónica de
Investigación y EValuación
Educativa
LEARNING DISABILITIES AT THE DAWN OF THE
XXI CENTURY
[Las dificultades específicas del aprendizaje en el albor del siglo XXI]
by/por
Article record
About authors
HTML format
Goikoetxea, Edurne (egoikoetxea@deusto.es)
Ficha del artículo
Sobre los autores
Formato HTML
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to inform to the reader the
current debate on learning disabilities area. The language
barrier imposed by the scientific literature in English
makes professionals and college to miss the exciting progress
on this diagnostic category so controversial from its
formal beginning. We first analyze the definitions of specific
learning disabilities that have been in force until the
first decade of this century, then make the new definitions
formulated to now and discuss characteristics of the history
of definitions in this field. We conclude with the demands
that we face because of the new definitions.
Resumen
El objetivo de este trabajo es acercar al lector la actualidad
del debate sobre las dificultades específicas de aprendizaje.
La barrera que impone la literatura científica en inglés
hace que profesionales y estudiantes universitarios se
pierdan los apasionantes avances sobre esta categoría diagnóstica
que tan polémica trayectoria ha tenido desde su
nacimiento formal. Presentamos las definiciones de las
dificultades de aprendizaje que han estado vigentes hasta
la primera década del siglo XXI, las nuevas definiciones y
discutimos dos características de la historia de las definiciones
en este campo. Concluimos con las exigencias que
plantean las nuevas formulaciones.
Keywords
Learning disabilities, Special education, Reading instruction,
Mathematics instruction, Educational politics.
Descriptores
Dificultades específicas de aprendizaje, Educación especial,
Enseñanza de la lectura, Enseñanza de las matemáticas,
Política educativa.
Reading is a complex skill. In order to learn
to read, good instruction, a combination of
attention, memory, linguistic and reasoning
processes, and a lot of practice is required.
Like other complex skills that are the result of
the interaction between development and
learning, there are large individual differences
in reading performance. These individual differences
have become increasingly visible as
literacy has become more universal. In the
19th
century, when only a minority of privileged
males were taught to read and write,
generally with private tutors, there was less
variability. The differences that did exist were
less evident than those that have come to be
as millions of children are taught to read in
groups, led by one teacher.
Today, in Latin America and Spain, literacy
reaches a large part of the school-age population.
When reading in these countries is
taught in Spanish (not forgetting other official
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 2
languages like Guaraní, Catalán, Euskera and
Gallego, and non-official indigenous languages
like Quechua, Maya, Mapudungun
and Rapa nui, among others), a relatively
transparent or superficial orthography is being
used. For example, in the sense of reading, we
convert a grapheme (a letter or set of letters,
like “b”, “ch”, to which a phoneme corresponds)
into a phoneme (the smallest unit of
sound that can change the meaning of a word,
like /s/ in “sal” and /k/ in “cal”). However, the
Spanish orthography is not as transparent in
the case of writing, as there are various
graphemes for the same phoneme. In Spanish,
we can read all of the words correctly
(without being able to write them) without
knowing their meaning or ever having heard
them before. Thus, we have an orthography
that is easier to learn in the case of reading
than other more opaque or deeper alphabetic
orthographies like English (see Seymour, Aro,
& Erskine, 2003 for a study comparing European
languages) or other writing systems, like
Chinese, with a large number of symbols (see
Ho, 2010). Therefore, unless various factors
coincide to impede it, the majority of children
are able to learn how to read over the course
of one year of formal education, which in
Spain is usually the first year of primary
school. We use “learning to read” to refer to
the (incredible) process that a beginning
reader goes through when he or she identifies
the graphemes, finds their corresponding
phonemes, and puts these phonemes together
to pronounce a word that he or she will recognize
if it coincides with a word stored in his
or her auditory memory (see Alegría, 2006 for
an excellent explanation in Spanish of what it
means to learn to read). It involves what one
of the most successful cognitive models of
visual word recognition (Coltheart, Rastle,
Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001; Jackson, &
Coltheart, 2001) calls the construction of the
phonological route, which, with practice,
ends up producing the lexical route. Three or
four more years will be necessary in order to
read fluently (that is, with good accuracy,
speed and expression), and up to seven or
eight more to understand written texts with
the same level of comprehension as those that
are listened to (Sticht, Beck, Hauke, Kleiman,
& James, 1974).
Unfortunately, not all children learn to read
and write successfully. Children who read
with much less accuracy, speed, or both accuracy
and speed, than expected at their grade
level and age, without any other apparent disorders
to explain this specific disability, enter
into one of the least understood and most
highly debated categories of special education,
commonly called “learning disabilities”
in Spain. This general term covers children
who, due to a linguistic deficiency, do not
manage to read, write, or do mathematical
calculations.
The purpose of this study is to bring the
reader up to date on the current debate about
learning disabilities. The linguistic barrier
imposed by the scientific literature in English
causes education professionals and university
students to miss the exciting advances made
in this diagnostic category, whose trajectory
has been so controversial since its formal beginnings
in the early 1960s. In the first section,
we present the definitions of learning
disabilities that have been used or are still in
use in the first decade of the 21st
century. In
the second section, we present the new definitions
formulated so far. In the third section,
we refer to two characteristics of the history
of the definitions in this field, and we conclude
by describing the demands proposed by
the new definitions.
Definitions of learning disabilities that are
becoming extinct
Between the years 1960 and 2000, there
were numerous definitions of learning disabilities,
along with a large number of terms.
We begin with a brief reference to the most
widely-used terms in this area: specific learning
disability, reading learning disabilities,
developmental dyslexia, dyslexia, learning
disorder and reading disorder. In such limited
space, it is not possible to say much about
whether these terms have meant the same
thing over time and for everyone. We ask the
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 3
reader that, at the risk of being imprecise but
flexible, they be regarded as synonyms. They
have all helped various professionals (teachers,
doctors, psychologists) designate children
who did not learn to read at the expected level
for their grade or age, without showing other
apparent disabilities. The term dyslexia also
serves to designate adolescents and adults
who, having learned to read previously, have
partially or totally lost this skill as a result of
brain damage. We will use the same terms
employed in the sources cited; when we do
not refer to any particuluar source, we will
use the term specific learning disabilities
(LD). Our choice intends to support the term
used in the university curriculum in Spain
through the core material Learning disabilities
and Psycho-educational intervention for a
degree in Educational Psychology (Royal
decree 916/1992). Additionally, for the first
time, it is used in the Spanish Organic Education
Law (2006), when in article 71, title II on
equity in education, it mentions specific
learning disabilities (p. 17179). In Spain the
noun difficulty was used instead of deficiency
or disability, and the preposition of rather than
in (with the exception of Miranda, 1986). In
the United States, when Spanish is used for
this category, the expression usually employed
is specific learning deficiency.
Another necessary clarification that should
be made is related to why we talk indiscriminately
about specific learning disabilities and
reading learning disabilities, or why we identify
specific learning disabilities with reading
problems and ignore difficulties shown in
writing and mathematics. The main reason is
that the definition of specific learning disabilities
implies the existence of a languagebased
problem. Therefore, 80 to 90% of children
with specific learning disabilities only
have trouble reading (U.S. Department of
Education, 2006), and the research in this area
has mainly dealt with the skill of reading.
This identification also has a historic root that
we do not explore here. In fact, there is already
a specific definition of reading learning
disabilities that attributes the problem to the
phonological component of language (Lyon,
Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003). Someday, the
general term may disappear, leaving only the
specific terms. We know today, for example,
that mathematics learning disabilities, that is,
the specific learning difficulties that manifest
themselves as problems in learning mathematical
calculation, do not always have, if
they ever do, a linguistic origin. Given that
there is a large amount of research on the
cognitive characteristics of mathematics
learning disabilities, we will not deal with this
question here.
Of the many definitions of LD, we
will focus on two: the one from the North
American legislation and the one from the
diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM, diagnostic
and statistical manual) of the American
Psychiatric Association. They have been
decisive in professional practice and in research
in North America, the leading country
in this field. In the case of the DSM definition,
it is a reference for professionals in
countries like Spain that do not have laws or
organizations to establish their own defini-
tions.
The definition from the first law on
special education financing in the United
States, Public Law 94-142, Education of All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975, opened
the doors of American schools to people between
3 and 21 years of age with disabilities,
thus giving official status to the category of
LD by establishing the financing of direct
services for these children. Public Law 94-
142, which was maintained with hardly any
changes until the later law called the Individual
Disabilities Education Act of 1997
(IDEA; see Torgesen, 2004), reads:
The term ‘children with specific learning disabilities’
means those children who have a disorder in
one or more of the basic psychological processes involved
in understanding or using language, spoken
or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write,
spell, or do mathematical calculations. Such disorders
include conditions as perceptual handicaps,
brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia,
and developmental aphasia. Such term does not in-
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 4
clude children who have learning problems which
are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor
handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance,
or environmental, cultural, or economic
disadvantage.
This definition did not vary much
from the definition agreed on in 1968 by the
National Advisory Committee on Handicapped
Children, sponsored by one of the
founders of the field of LD, Professor Samuel
Kirk.
This law did not include criteria to identify,
in practice, which children had an LD. Therefore,
the U.S. Department of Education, in the
regulations made after the law in 1997, first
added a mathematical formula which it later
retracted due to the criticism it received, and
then the much debated criteria of and the severe
discrepancy between the Intelligence
Quotient (IQ, from here on) and performance
in one of the domains specified by the law
(see Cunningham, 2007). Multidisciplinary
teams in North American schools could identify
LD if:
(a) …(1) The child does not achieve commensurate
to his or her age and ability levels in one or
more of the areas listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, when provided with learning experiences
appropiate for the child’s age and ability levels;
and
(2) The team finds that a child has a severe
discrepancy between achievement and intellectual
ability in one or more of the following areas: (i)
Oral expression; (ii) Listening comprehension;
(iii) Written expression; (iv) Basic reading skill;
(v) Reading comprehension; (vi) Mathematics calculation;
(vii) Mathematics reasoning.
(b) The team may not identify a child as having a
specific learning disability if the severe discrepancy
between ability and achievement is primarily
the result of: (1) A visual, hearing or motor handicap;
(2) Mental retardation; (3) Emotional disturbance;
or (4) Environmental, cultural, or economic
disadvantage.
The definition from the fourth edition of the
DSM (DSM-IV) states:
Learning disorders are diagnosed when the individual’s
achievement on individually administered,
standardized tests in reading, mathematics, or
written expression is substantially below that expected
for age, schooling, and level of intelligence.
The learning problems significantly interfere with
academic achievement or activities of daily living
that require reading, mathematical, or writing
skills. A variety of statistical approaches can be
used to establish that a discrepancy is significant.
Substantially below is usually defined as a discrepancy
of more than 2 standard deviations between
achievement and IQ. A smaller discrepancy
between achievement and IQ (i.e., between 1 and 2
standard deviations) is sometimes used, especially
in cases where an individual’s performance on an
IQ test may have been compromised by an associated
disorder in cognitive processing, a comorbid
mental disorder or general medical condition, or
the individual’s ethnic or cultural background. If a
sensory deficit is present, the learning difficulties
must be in excess of those usually associated with
the deficit. Learning Disorders may persist into
adulthood. (APA, 1994, pp. 48-49).
The DSM-IV includes four disorders
in its section on learning disorders: reading,
mathematics, written expression and nonspecified
disorders. When dealing specifically
with the reading disorder, it adds that the performance
on reading accuracy, speed or comprehension
is substantially below that expected
given the individual’s chronological
age, measured intelligence and ageappropriate
education (p. 50).
These and other definitions not reviewed
here include common criteria:
(a) the discrepancy between IQ and academic
achievement that we describe below;
(b) the heterogeneity or academic domains in
which difficulties can appear (the North
American law includes seven; the DSM-IV
only includes three); and
(c) the reasons for exclusion from diagnosis,
such as mental retardation, sensory impairment,
socio-cultural disadvantage (the object
of compensatory education and non-special
education) or inadequate teaching. This last
factor has received much criticism because, as
neuro-imaging studies have shown, teaching
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 5
is necessary to create the neuronal networks
that support reading (Fletcher et al., 2002).
These three criteria focus the majority of the
criticisms around the definition and identification
of the LD. We do not think it is necessary
to address these aspects, which have received
a lot of attention in the Spanish literature (Defior,
1996; García, 2001; Jiménez, 1999). We
will only deal with the first one due to its importance
in evaluating the current changes.
The discrepancy criterion was included in
the original LD concept formulated by Kirk
(1962). He found that it was necessary to
separate children with low academic
achievement due to mental delay from children
with low academic achievement but
normal intelligence. Inclusion has been an
important criterion, as is the exclusion of children
who did not show a severe discrepancy
in spite of being poor readers. However, the
process to determine what a severe discrepancy
is was not operationalized, which produced
great variability in how it was applied
in North American state laws, in research, and
in practice (Lyon, 2001). Some statistical
methods for calculating it have been: the deviation
with regard to the grade in school,
expectation formulas based on the IQ as predictor
of reading performance, comparisons
of normalized standard scores, and regression
equations (Evans, 1990).
In Spain, and possibly in Latin America, it
has been impossible to use the most appropriate
formulas for calculating the discrepancy,
including the ones established in the DSM-IV.
The reason is that we do not have reading (or
math or writing) tests that offer normalized
standard scores, nor valid tests to measure the
change over time. This impoverished situation
in educational diagnosis did not have to be, in
this case, an obstacle to the identification of
students with LDs, if we take into account the
numerous criticisms of the discrepancy criterion,
like the fact that IQ does not predict
reading performance or have a one-directional
relation with reading, because in the longterm
reading influences IQ (see Kavale,
2002). These and other criticisms have a more
profound explanation, which we will not discuss,
and which involves the poor reliability
and validity of the test scores and the results
of the statistical procedures used to find discrepancies
between the IQ and reading ability
(or writing or mathematics). Of greater interest
to the reader are the consequences of the
lack of reliability and validity of the discrepancy
criterion. One consequence is that it delays
the identification of children with real
reading problems to such a degree that the
intervention may be ineffective because it is
applied too late (Lyon et al., 2001). For the
discrepancy to be reliable, it has been estimated
that it would be necessary to wait until
third grade or 9 years of age; at the same time,
longitudinal studies show that the majority of
poor readers beyond second grade rarely become
normal readers (e.g., Klingner, Vaughn,
Hughes, Schumm, & Elbaum, 1998; Shaywitz
et al., 1999). Another consequence is that
there are errors in the identification of children
who do not show a discrepancy, but do
have real reading problems. Numerous metaanalyses
show that the children with a discrepancy
and those with low performance,
that is, those who perform as expected according
to their IQ, are hardly differentiated
on measures of reading and phonological
knowledge, but they are on vocabulary and
syntax (Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Stuebing
et al., 2002). The third criticism is that the
discrepancy criterion sheds little light on how
to approach intervention (see Vaughn, &
Fuchs, 2003) and what the response to the
intervention might be, as it hardly explains
1% of the variability (Stuebing, Barth,
Molfese, Weiss, & Fletcher, 2009).
In response to these and other criticisms, the
North American law was reformed, and the
DSM definition will soon be rewritten.
The specific learning disabilities in the
2004 IDEA and the 2013 DSM-V
At the dawn of the 21st
century, we are
witnessing important changes in the definitions
and identification procedures of LDs
offered by the sources reviewed in the previ-
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 6
ous section (North American legislation and
DSM).
Regarding the North American legislation,
in the first decade of the 21st
century,
under President Bush, Congress approved two
laws on financing general education and special
education: Public Law 107-110, or the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, and
Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEA) of 2004, respectively. Both laws
cover the intention to improve the academic
performance of all students and change the
culture of the North American schools, focusing
on the results of the child, and not on the
resources offered (Weishaar, 2008). In fact,
they were preceded by four reports on special
education, based on research on LDs and
reading, where it was pointed out that the
identification of children with LDs could be
reduced with good teaching, and that many
children placed in special education had not
received an adequate general education
(Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004,
pp. 306-307).
We will deal with the IDEA, which
incorporates the definition of the disorder that
concerns us here and applies the same innovations
as the NCLB regarding children with
LDs. In fact, the 2004 IDEA is a reformulation
of the 1997 IDEA, in order to achieve its
alignment with the principles of NCLB. IDEA
legislates how North American states and
public agencies must offer special education,
interventions and other similar services to
individuals from birth to the age of 21 who
present one or more of the 13 handicaps mentioned
in the law, including the specific learning
disability. As we will see, the formal definition
differs somewhat from the 1997 IDEA
and the 1975 law on individuals with handi-
caps:
IN GENERAL.- The term ‘specific learning
disability’ means a disorder in 1or more of the
basic psychological processes involved in understanding
or using language, spoken or written,
which may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to
listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do
mathematical calculations.
DISORDERS INCLUDED.- Such term includes conditions
such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury,
minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental
aphasia.
DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED.- Such term does not
include a learning problem that is primarily the
result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of
mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of
environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage
(IDEA, 2004, pp. 2657-2658).
The novelty of the 2004 IDEA
consisted of the additional procedures established
two years later by the North
American Department of Education in the
2006 regulations for the identification of
these students. They include three general
criteria, which are:
(1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy
between intellectual ability and achievement for
determining whether a child has a specific learning
disability …;
(2) Must permit the use of a process based on the
child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention;
and
(3) May permit the use of other alternative researchbased
procedures for determining whether a child
has a specific learning disability … (p. 46786).
Below are the specific criteria that the
diagnostic group must use (now composed
of the parents, classroom teacher and a
professional qualified to make individual
diagnoses) to determine the existence of
an LD:
“(a) […] (1)
The child does not achieve adequately for the
child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level
standards in one or more of following areas, when
provided with learning experiences and instruction
appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved
grade-level standards: (i) Oral expression. (ii) Listening
comprehension. (iii) Written expression.
(iv) Basic reading skill (v) Reading fluency skills.
(vi) Reading comprehension. (vii) Mathematics
calculation. (viii) Mathematics problem solving.
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 7
(2)(i) The child does not make sufficient progress
to meet age or State approved grade-level
standards in one or more of the areas identified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section when using a
process based on the child’s response to scientific,
research -based intervention; or
(ii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths
and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or
both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level
standards, or intellectual development, that is determined
by the group to be relevant to the identification
of a specific learning disability, using appropriate
assessment, consistent with […]; and
(3) The group determines that its findings under
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section are
not primarily the result of — (i) A visual, hearing,
or motor disability; (ii) Mental retardation; (iii)
Emotional disturbance; (iv) Cultural factors; (v)
Environmental or economic disadvantage; or (vi)
Limited English proficiency.
(b) To ensure that underachievement in a child
suspected of having a specific learning disability is
not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading
or math, the group must consider, as part of
the evaluation described in […]—
(1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a
part of, the referral process, the child was provided
appropriate instruction in regular education
settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and
(2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments
of achievement at reasonable intervals,
reflecting formal assessment of student progress
during instruction, which was provided to the
child’s parents.
(c) The public agency must promptly request parental
consent to evaluate the child to determine if
the child needs special education and related services,
and must adhere to the timeframes described
in […], unless extended by mutual written agreement
of the child’s parents and a group of qualified
professionals, as described in […] (a)(1)—
(1) If, prior to a referral, a child has not made
adequate progress after an appropriate period of
time when provided instruction, as described in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section; and
(2) Whenever a child is referred for an evalua-
tion.
(U.S. Department of Education, 2006, pp. 46786-
46787).
Summarizing, the main novelty in the
identification procedures is the substitution of
the discrepancy criterion by that of response
to intervention. The heterogeneity criteria are
maintained, although now with eight domains
instead of seven, as reading fluency was
added. The causes for exclusion are also
maintained, although with more complex requirements
to demonstrate that the suspicion
of LD is not due to a lack of instruction. In
this regard, some critics state that the delays
in the attention to children with LD will continue
due to the complexity of the current
documentation (see Cunningham, 2007).
Thus, in the process of identifying a student
with LD, the schools should not require, although
it is not prohibited, the use of the discrepancy
between the IQ and reading skills or
other domains, and they should permit, although
it is not obligatory, the use of a process
based on the child’s response to a scientific
evidence-based intervention. This procedure
has been called the response-tointervention
approach, included for the first
time in the NCLB law, and referring to the
fact that the student who shows signs of having
an LD would receive increasingly intense
interventions.
Although there is some debate about
how many levels are necessary in order to
consider an intervention adequate, it is common
to talk about three levels of intensity and
six steps in the procedure to be followed (see
e.g., Fuchs, 2007; Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, &
McKnight, 2006). Level one, called preventive
intervention, involves the use of quality
evidence-based instruction programs used
with the entire class in what is considered
general, not special, education. This level
requires continuous monitoring using brief
tests to identify those students with low
achievement and a risk of developing an LD,
with a follow-up done every 1 or 2 months on
their response to the use of these general education
programs. Level two should be used as
soon as possible, and it includes reinforcement
in a small group (1 to 5 children) offered
by a specialist, tutor or special education
teacher. At this level, programs and strategies
are used that are designed to improve the
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 8
level one teaching offered to all the students.
Although there is no consensus about how
long the level two interventions should last, 9
to 12 weeks with continuous evaluation has
been suggested. The end of this phase can
lead to three decisions: (a) for the student to
return to the general classroom, (b) for the
student to receive a second round of level two
instruction, (c) for those who have not improved
at all at this level to go on to level
three. Level three is synonymous with special
education. At this level, the LD is diagnosed
and, at the same time, the intervention is offered.
The intervention, individual or in a
small group, is adapted to the needs of the
student and involves continuous monitoring.
When improvements are observed that place
the student at the expected level for his grade,
he or she must return to level one. If he or she
fails again in the general class, the student can
return to level two and level three, proceeding
in this way until the student can remain in
level one. Only if the student does not respond
positively to the series of interventions
is he or she considered to be at risk of having
an LD and possibly in need of special education
services.
With regard to the second source, the
definition from the DSM-IV will continue to
be valid until the year 2012, but changes have
already been proposed for the 5th
edition,
which will probably be published in 2013.
The future DSM-V will use the term learning
disabilities for the first time instead of learning
disorders and, as in the 2004 IDEA, it
proposes to eliminate the discrepancy between
intellectual capacity and academic
achievement as an identification criterion. It is
too soon to know which other criteria will be
included in the DSM-V definition.
Brief historical note about the specific
learning disabilities
It is beyond the scope of this paper to summarize
the historical research on LD. Moreover,
it is not necessary. The reader can consult
authors in Spanish, such as Miranda
(1986) and Ortiz (2004), who follow the classification
by Wiederholt (1974), and García
(1995), who follows Hammill (1990). For the
history of this concept in Spain, one can consult
García (2001) and Jiménez (1999). In
Spain, the less well-known historical description
by Hallahan and Mercer (2001) contains
five periods that range from 1800 to 2000.
Here we will briefly mention two historical
events whose presence in this article is justified
because they help to understand the reforms
in this field.
The first event, without considering
the 19th
century and part of the 20th
, occurred
in 1962 when Kirk (Kirk, 1962; Kirk &
Bateman, 1962) coined the term specific
learning disabilities which, one year later in
1963, would be used by an influential North
American association of parents of children
with LD (see Hallahan & Mock, 2002). Up
until the year 2000, there were more than
twelve definitions originating from laws, universities,
associations and researchers, among
others. Kavale and Forness (1998) believe
that the problem in this field is of an intellectual
nature: “we ‘know’ more than we ‘understand’”
and, therefore, we have the “embarrassing
situation of not being able to answer a
rather fundamental question: What is a learning
disability?” (p. 245).
This historical trend of disagreement
about the definition and identification of the
LD, which will probably continue in the short
term (e.g., Hale, Kaufman, Naglieri, &
Kavale, 2006), explains two facts. One is the
extraordinary increase in the prevalence of
LD. In the United States, the number of children
with LD doubled in approximately 20
years (between 1976-1977 and 1998-1999),
reaching 2.8 million children in the year 2000,
which represents half of all children with disabilities
(Hallahan & Mercer, 2001). This
unprecedented increase is attributed, in part,
to erroneous diagnoses. The second fact is the
limited validity of many investigations on LD
due to the heterogeneity of their samples.
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 9
The other historical event is that in
spite of the definition problems, there have
been a variety of approaches, tests and programs
stemming from the diverse disciplines
that have converged in the field of LD- psychology,
neurology, education, ophthalmology
and others-. In their brief history of LD in
the United States, Moats and Lyon (1992)
name approaches as diverse as perceptualmotor
training, psycholinguistics and constructivism,
each of them passionately defended
and, at the same time, discredited, for
not achieving “miracle cures” (p. 283). And
they add: “the LD enterprise became an
enormous machine – indeed, a factory– with
attending cottage industries, fueled by legal,
sociopolitical, educational, and entrepreneurial
energy …. there has been no logical blueprint
for this machine that could provide objective
knowledge about who and how many
children were at issue, why they could not
learn, or how they might be helped. It is important
to understand, albeit with hindsight,
how we could have gotten so far ahead ourselves”
(p. 283). Changing this situation with
valid studies has been the great challenge in
this field.
Future of the field of specific learning dis-
abilities
The great difference in the North American
legal definitions from the year 2000 on, as
well as the intellectual current that underlies
them, is the conviction that no child should
receive special education services without
first having shown that he or she failed after
receiving quality teaching (Fletcher, Morris,
& Lyon, 2002). It is not difficult to foresee
that for this decision to become reality in
countries like the United States, and undoubtedly
in Spain, it will be necessary to improve
in at least three areas that we will mention
here.
The first is the university training of students
in teaching programs. Some studies
have pointed out the surprising gaps in
knowledge and understanding about learning
to read among teachers (Moats & Foorman,
2003). Prevention is the best intervention in
reading (the 2004 IDEA dedicates 15% of
special education funds to prevention), and
that means offering good reading instruction.
Today we have a lot of information coming
from research on reading and mathematics
that is still not widely used in the classroom.
Improving teacher training would have significant
effects on the educational results, as
primary school is where, at least in Spain,
failure in school silently begins (FernándezEnguita,
Mena, & Riviere, 2010). This improvement
would require structural and superficial
changes, from a considerable increase in
the credits assigned to the area of language
teaching (only between 2.5% and 5% of the
total number of credits in the Primary and
Kindergarten childhood education degrees;
furthermore, in Spain there are no postgraduate
programs specifically in this area) to
the creation of university textbooks on teaching
reading based on the current knowledge;
similar needs exist in the training of teachers
in mathematics (see Blanco, 2001; Rico,
2000).
The next area is the quantity and quality
of the educational materials, starting with the
workbooks for teaching reading and the instruments
for evaluating reading. Regarding
the educational materials, the quality of our
materials could also improve considerably by
simply putting into practice what we already
know. In this regard, Spain is behind countries
like the United States, Great Britain, or
Canada, which have quality educational materials
like Jolly Phonics (Lloyd, 1993) or Letterland
(Wendon, 1992), whose efficacy has
been demonstrated in scientific investigations
(e.g., Brunsdon, Coltheart, & Nickels, 2006;
Kenny, 2003; Kwan, 2005; Stornelli, 2002;
Stuart, 1999, 2004; see also National Reading
Panel, 2000). Regarding evaluation instruments,
a response to intervention approach
requires the use of brief tests with good sensitivity
and specificity that can be applied in
groups. They must allow the continuous
monitoring of the students’ progress in reading
throughout the school year, facilitating
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 10
decision-making and intervention. In Spain
we do not have even one test of these characteristics
(the so-called “screening” or early
detection tests) with recognized reliability and
validity.
Finally, we have gaps in knowledge and a
lack of programs and methodologies that facilitate
teaching based on scientific research
on children with LDs, the most revolutionary
idea of the new North American laws. This
requires improving the third pillar: research.
Although in Spain there are already some
examples along these lines (Jiménez et al.,
2010), we must increase the quality and quantity
of research on instruction methods in
reading and mathematics. Not all educational
intervention yields positive results, and when
it does, it is not always effective for everyone.
Our research must help us to find out which
interventions are effective and for whom. In
addition, Spain and Latin America are multilingual
societies with a laborious research
agenda to discover how effective the interventions
in the language(s) taught are.
Improving these areas would especially
protect children with LDs and their families
from receiving treatments that we know do
not work, or that do not have enough scientific
support, producing in the families and
children another experience of failure and
shattered hopes, in addition to economic cost,
effort and time. The innovations discussed
here remind us that professionals and researchers
have an obligation to make the best
research-based teaching methods available to
all students.
References
Alegría, J. (2006). Por un enfoque psicolingüístico
del aprendizaje de la lectura y sus
dificultades - 20 años después. Infancia y
Aprendizaje, 29, 1-19.
doi:10.1174/021037006775380957
American Psychiatric Association (1994).
DSM-IV Manual diagnóstico y estadístico
de los trastornos mentales. Barcelona: Mas-
son.
American Psychiatric Associaton (2011).
Proposed draft revisions to DSM disorders
and criteria. Obtenido en diciembre 2011
de http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx
Bachmeier, R. J. (2009). Breaking the discrepancy
code: A meta-analysis of the specific
learning disability literature (Tesis
doctoral). Obtenida en diciembre 2011 de
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=403
&lang=es&cfc=1
Blanco, L. J. (2001). La formación matemática
del profesorado de primaria. Suma, 38,
31-38.
Brunsdon, R., Coltheart, M., & Nickels, L.
(2006). Severe developmental letterprocessing
impairment: A treatment case
study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23(6),
795-821. doi:10.1080/02643290500310863.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon,
R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual
route cascaded model of visual word recognition
and reading aloud. Psychological Review,
108, 204-256. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.108.1.204
Cunningham, A. W. (2007). Classification
and identification of mathematics learning
disabilities: Legal and research-based
analyses (Tesis doctoral). Obtenida en diciembre
2011 de
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=403
&lang=es&cfc=1
Defior, S. (1996). Las dificultades de aprendizaje:
un enfoque cognitivo. Archidona
(España): Aljibe.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act
of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 20 U.S.C.
§1400 et. seq. (1977). Obtenido diciembre
2011 de
http://users.rcn.com/peregrin.enteract/add/9
4-142.txt.
Evans, L. D. (1990). A conceptual overview
of the regression discrepancy model for
evaluating severe discrepancy between IQ
and achievement scores. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 23, 406-412.
doi:10.1177/002221949002300703
Fernández-Enguita, M., Mena, L., & Riviere,
J. (2010). Fracaso y abandono escolar en
España. Barcelona: Fundación”la Caixa”.
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 11
Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, A. W., Reschly, D.
J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches
to the definition and identification
of learning disabilities: Some questions and
answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304-331.
doi:10.1007/s11881-004-0015-y
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M. A.,
Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K.
et al. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities:
An evidence-based classification.
En R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan
(Eds.), Identification of Learning Disabilities:
Research to practice (pp. 185-250).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G. R., Fush, L. S., &
Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities.
From identification to intervention. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R.
(2002). Classification and definition of
learning disabilities: An integrative perspective.
En H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S.
Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities
(pp. 30-56). New York: Guilford
Press.
Frangella, E. R. (2007). An investigation of
the influence of the reauthorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act on Catholic school children
with learning disabilities in New York (Tesis
doctoral). Obtenida Obtenida en diciembre
2011 de
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=403
&lang=es&cfc=1
Fuchs, L.S. (2007). NRCLD update on responsiveness
to intervention: Research to
practice. Lawrence, KS: National Research
Center on Learning Disabilities. Obtenido
de
http://www.nrcld.org/resource_kit/general/
RTIResearchtoPractice2007.pdf.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., Lipsey,
M. W., & Roberts, P. H. (2001, August).
Is "learning disabilities" just a fancy
term for low achievement? A meta-analysis
of reading differences between low achievers
with and without the label. Paper presented
at the Learning Disabilities Summit:
Building a Foundation for the Future,
Washington, DC.
García, J. N. (1995). Manual de dificultades
de aprendizaje. Lenguaje, lector-escritura y
matemáticas. Madrid: Narcea.
García, J. N. (2001). Dificultades de aprendizaje
e intervención psicopedagógica. Barcelona:
Ariel.
Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2001, August).
Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives.
Paper presented at the Learning
Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation
for the Future, Washington, DC. Obtenido
diciembre 2011 de
http://www.nrcld.org/resources/ldsummit/ha
llahan2.html.
Hallahan, D.P., & Mock, D. R. (2002). A
brief history of the field of learning disabilities.
En H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S.
Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities
(pp. 16-29). New York: Guilford
Press.
Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A. S., Naglieri, J. A.,
& Kavale, K. S. (2006). Implementation of
IDEA: Integrating response to intervention
and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology
in the Schools, 43, 753-770.
doi:10.1002/pits
Ho, C. S. H. (2010). Understanding reading
disability in the Chinese language: from basic
research to intervention. En M. H.
Bond(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese
psychology (pp. 109-121). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400
et seq. (West 2003 & Supp.2006). Obtenido
diciembre 2011 de
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_l
aws&docid=f:publ446.108.pdf
Jackson, N. E., & Coltheart, M. (2001).
Routes to reading success and failure. Toward
an integrated cognitive psychology of
atypical reading. New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Jiménez, J. E. (1999). Psicología de las dificultades
de aprendizaje. Una disciplina
científica emergente. Madrid: Síntesis.
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 12
Jiménez, J. E., Rodríguez, C., Crespo, P.,
González, D., Artiles, C., & Alfonso, M.
(2010). Implementation of response to intervention
(RtI) model in Spain: An example
of a collaboration between Canarian
universities and the department of education
of the Canary Islands. Psicothema, 22, 935-
942.
Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., &
McKnight, M.A. (2006). Responsiveness to
intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence,
KS: National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities.
Kavale, K. A. (2002). Discrepancy models in
the identification of learning disabilities. En
R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan
(Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities:
Research to practice (pp. 369-426).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). The
politics of learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 21. 245-273.
doi:10.2307/1511172
Kenny, A. A. (2003). The effect of early
phonics instruction on children's invented
spelling and an examination of the relation
between invented spelling and current and
later reading achievement (Tesis doctoral).
Obtenido diciembre 2011 de
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=403
&lang=es&cfc=1.
Kirk, S. A. (1962). Educating exceptional
children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kirk, S. A., & Bateman, B. (1962). Diagnosis
and remediation of learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 29, 73-78.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T.,
Schumm, J. S., Elbaum, B. (1998). Outcomes
for students with and without learning
disabilities in inclusive classrooms.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
13(3), 153-161.
Kwan, A. B. (2005). Impact of systematic
phonics instruction on young children learning
English as a second language (Tesis
doctoral). Obtenido diciembre 2011 de
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=403
&lang=es&cfc=1.
Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación;
Boletín Oficial del Estado, número
106, 4 mayo 2006.
Lloyd, S. (1993). The phonics handbook.
Essex, UK: Jolly Learning.
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S. E.,
Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood,
F.B., …Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning
disabilities. En C. E. Finn, A. J., Rotherham,
& C. R. Hokanson, Rethinking special
education for a new century (pp. 259-
287). Washington, DC: Progressive Policy
Institute and Thomas B. Fordham Founda-
tion.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B.
A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals
of Dyslexia, 53, 1-14. doi:10.1007/s11881-
003-0001-9
Miranda, A. (1986). Introducción a las dificultades
en el aprendizaje. Valencia: Pro-
molibro.
Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003).
Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of
language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia,
53, 23-45. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0003-7
Moats, L. C., & Lyon, R. (1992). Learning
disabilities in the United States: Advocacy,
science, and the future of the field. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 26, 282-294.
doi:10.1177/002221949302600501
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching
learning to read: An evidence basedassessment
of the scientific literature on
reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Washington, DC: National Institute
of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment.
Ortiz, M. R. (2004). Manual de dificultades
de aprendizaje. Madrid: Pirámide.
Real Decreto 916/1992, de 17 de julio, Boletín
Oficial del Estado, número 206, 27 agosto
1992.
Rico, L. (2000). Formación y desempeño
práctico en educación matemática de los
profesores de primaria. Suma, 34, 45-51.
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine. J. M.
(2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in
European orthographies. British Journal of
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 13
Psychology, 94, 143-174.
doi:10.1348/000712603321661859
Sticht, T. G., Beck, L. J., Hauke, R. N.,
Kleiman, G. M., & James, J. H. (1974).
Auding and reading: A developmental
model. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources
Research Organization. Obtenido diciembre
2011 de:
http://www.nald.ca/library/research/sticht/a
ar/aar.pdf.
Stornelli, D. (2002). Synthetic phonics in
kindergarten classrooms: Effects of size of
phonological unit, type of phonics unit, and
amount and timing of phonics instruction on
literacy outcomes (Tesis doctoral). Obtenido
diciembre 2011 de
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=403
&lang=es&cfc=1.
Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading:
Early phoneme awareness and phonics
teaching improves reading and spelling in
inner-city second language learners. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,
587-605.
Stuart, M. M. (2004). Getting ready for reading:
A follow-up study of inner city second
language learners at the end of key stage 1.
British Journal of Educational Psychology,
74(1), 15-36.
Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J.
M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz,
B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ discrepancy
classifications of reading disabilities:
A meta-analysis. American Educational Research
Journal, 39, 469–518.
doi:10.3102/00028312039002469
Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Learning disabilities:
An historical and conceptual overview. En
B. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning
disabilities (3º edition, pp. 3-40). San
Diego: CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
U. S. Department of Education (2006). Assistance
to States for the Education of Children
With Disabilities and Preschool Grants
for Children With Disabilities (34 CFR
Parts 300 and 301). Federal Register, 71,
156, 46540-46845. Obtenido en diciembre
2011 de
http://idea.ed.gov/download/finalregulations
.pdf.
Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining
learning disabilities as inadequate response
to instruction: The promise and potential
problems. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 18, 137-146.
doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00070
Weishaar, M. K. (2008). The law and reality:
Understanding the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act. En E.
L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Educating individuals
with disabilities: IDEA 2004 and beyond
(pp. 63-83). New York: Springer.
Wendon, L. (1992). First steps in Letterland.
Cambridge, UK: Letterland Ltd.
Acknowledgements
The preparation of this manuscript was
partially supported by the Projects HU2010-
39-10 and IT363 of Department of
Education, Universities and Research of the
Basque Government.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS / SOBRE LOS AUTORES
Goikoetxea, Edurne (egoikoetxea@deusto.es). Professor at Department of Social and
Development Psychology. Her address is Department of Psychology and Education, University of
Deusto, Apartado 1, 48080 Bilbao (Spain). Buscar otros artículos de esta autora en Google
Académico / Find other articles by this author in Scholar Google
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Learning disabilities at the dawn of the XXI century. RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2.
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2eng.htm
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa [ www.uv.es/RELIEVE ] pag. 14
ARTICLE RECORD / FICHA DEL ARTÍCULO
Reference /
Referencia
Goikoetxea, Edurne (2012). Las dificultades específicas de aprendizaje en el albor del siglo XXI.
RELIEVE, v. 18, n. 1, art. 2. http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_2.htm
Title / Título
Las dificultades específicas de aprendizaje en el albor del siglo XXI. [Learning disabilities at the dawn of
the XXI century].
Authors /
Autores
Goikoetxea, Edurne
Review /
Revista
RELIEVE (Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa), v. 18, n. 1
ISSN 1134-4032
Publication
date /
Fecha de
publicación
2012 (Reception Date: 2011 June 2 ; Approval Date: 2012 January 3. Publication Date: 2012 January 3).
Abstract /
Resumen
The purpose of this article is to inform to the reader the current debate on learning disabilities area. The
language barrier imposed by the scientific literature in English makes professionals and college to miss the
exciting progress on this diagnostic category so controversial from its formal beginning. We first analyze
the definitions of specific learning disabilities that have been in force until the first decade of this century,
then make the new definitions formulated to now and discuss characteristics of the history of definitions in
this field. We conclude with the demands that we face because of the new definitions.
El objetivo de este trabajo es acercar al lector la actualidad del debate sobre las dificultades específicas de
aprendizaje. La barrera que impone la literatura científica en inglés hace que profesionales y estudiantes
universitarios se pierdan los apasionantes avances sobre esta categoría diagnóstica que tan polémica trayectoria
ha tenido desde su nacimiento formal. Presentamos las definiciones de las dificultades de aprendizaje
que han estado vigentes hasta la primera década del siglo XXI, las nuevas definiciones y discutimos dos
características de la historia de las definiciones en este campo. Concluimos con las exigencias que plantean
las nuevas formulaciones.
Keywords /
Descriptores
Learning disabilities, Special education, Reading instruction, Mathematics instruction, Educational poli-
tics.
Dificultades específicas de aprendizaje, Educación especial, Enseñanza de la lectura, Enseñanza de las
matemáticas, Política educativa.
Institution /
Institución
Facultad de Psicología y Educación. Universidad de Deusto (España).
Publication site
/ Dirección
http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE
Language /
Idioma
Español (Title, abstract and keywords in English & Spanish)
RELIEVE
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa
E-Journal of Educational Research, Assessment and Evaluation
[ISSN: 1134-4032]
© Copyright, RELIEVE. Reproduction and distribution of this articles it is authorized if the content is no modified
and their origin is indicated (RELIEVE Journal, volume, number and electronic address of the document).
© Copyright, RELIEVE. Se autoriza la reproducción y distribución de este artículo siempre que no se modifique el
contenido y se indique su origen (RELIEVE, volumen, número y dirección electrónica del documento).
Copyright of RELIEVE - Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa is the property of
RELIEVE - Revista Electonica de Investigacion y Evaluacion Educativa and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.