kormos_smith 2012 specific learning difficulties ch1

7/29/2019 Kormos_Smith 2012 Specific Learning Difficulties Ch1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kormossmith-2012-specific-learning-difficulties-ch1 1/8

Teáching Larguages to students w ih spec]fic L€rning Differences

lntroductionThis chapter ]ool(s closeiy at üe discourses of disability particrrlarly relating to dyslexia

- to identify the cu ent domin3nt trends, and to explore where they have üeil .oots,It wil] become c]ear thí oughout this book drat a range of discourses is used, accordingio the topic under di§cussion. It is not Üe intention in this chaPter to plescribe howteachers should use language, or which discourse chojces shouid be made. Rather it is

hoped that reader will gain an insight into üe power oflanguage, and feel empoweredto move beiween discourses, as it seems apPlopriate in difí erent sitüations. Mostimporlently, ihis chapter discusses where responsibility lies fol detemining the relativepower of competing discourses, and what impact the language choices teachels makemight have on üeir leamers.

Po]iiicians and military tacticians have ]ong known üat during waltime language plays a

crucial role in influencing public opinion and boosting the morale oí the troops. ln a

survey of terminology used by the Bdtish pless to desclibe tlre events or ú e fust Gulfwar, the Guardian newspaper (l99I) IePorted üat while British forces 'suppressed','eliminated; oí e,len 'neutfalised; targets, the lraqi í oIces were simPly'destrayí ng: al7d'/iilii,lg' whatever they targeted, Most tellingly, whiie British jouínalists were working!^del 'í epaning guidelines' for leasons of secudry the ]raqi journa]ists Were subjectedto 'censorshíp'; üey were led 'propaga,ldfl', in contrast to üe 'press Ürierir,gs' that alliedjouína]ists had access to,

Thepower

tiat carelullychosen language has to change the way

we perceive a situation is clear. This has been the case throughout history and has beenwell documented in the field ofeducation, particularly wiü reference to disability.

when We talk about any aspect of oür society we have to make choices aboüt üe woldsüat we use; the parlicular way üat we use language is described as üe discourse oí üatfield. Discourses do not carry meaning so much as perform specific functions, paticular]yin üe socio-poiitical domain in which educatlon is located (Allan, 1999), Murí ay (J998)points out that acquüing the discourse of the teaching pTofes§on is part of the processol táking on üe socia1 identity ofbeing a teacher, and being assimilated into the cultüeof the chosen field. It ellows noüce teachels io gain entry to the community and enablesthem to organize theil ideas and ú ndelstanding oí üe new concepts to which üey aleintroduced.

,. ,discourse is socia]ly constitüiive as w€1 as socially conditioned - it constifutes sihrations,

objects ofknowledge and üe social idenlities oF and relalionships between people and gíoupsofpeople, lt is constitutive both in üe sense üal it helps to süsrain and reprodrrce üe sociat

§taius quo and in üe sense that it contributes to translorming it, Since discourse is sosociatly consequential, it gives ríse to important issues of power, Discursive practices mayhave majol ideologicá] effects _ üat is, üey can he]p prodüce and í eproduce ünequal powerí elationsbetwe€ (for instance) social c]asses, women and men and ethnic/.u]tunl majoritiesand minonHes through üe ways in which they represent üings and po§tion peop]e,

(lairclough & wodak, 1997: 258)

Views of Di5ability in Educat]on

Alüough the desire to use tTanspaleni and non-offensive telminology may be stíong, it is

,,roi"r*'"r" """,

ao 6nd expressions üat all can aglee on, and even the tenn 'disalrility'

i. ;r."ri rr* .,,uig]rafo,_á ,o d"í ir-r". ln üe British Equality Act (Great Britain, 2oro) it is

a"fr.r"a".

'" plri.i.rt oI mental impairment which has a subsiantial and long_term

acluerse eí f.cton yo,]r ability to calry out normal day-to-day activities" a descí iption which

includes dyslexla, depencLing on how '§ubsiantial] and'norrnal, day-to-day activities' aTe

deí ined, Many dyslexic people are surprised vr'hen they lcam that they are classed -i".l,r"r."ly - ,. Í r"r", Á."Ú"d, b""",", in cominon with many oüer groups ol disabled

.eoole. üev perceive üeií d§ab it} as a sedes ofbanieIs in their ]ives, rathel ihan as aá"Á'"."* .rr"i"".",n o[ üeir persolrality oT identiiy, In the UN Conventlon on the

iig;ia ir l"r.o,r" .lr'i l.l Disabilities it is aclGowledged that 'disabi]ity is an elolüng

..i-na 1U*, zoo6) so cleíinitions may be subject to altelation as society changes its

i"-*-"ii"ir", ""a* -ore disabled people find iieir voices and contribute to the debate,

Dominant discourses tenii to reflect and futther the inteiests of the powerful 1lor

"""rr.pl",poli.y -"k.rs and professional bodies), while competing discourses seek to

;;iŰ;;;;.;".'", structu;e and relocus üe discussion, usually in favour oí üe

"'r*.a.'.a ".l"* p"\r'r'erful (in this case, these mighl be disabled students and iheir

i.|áiti*"rra "auo."'"s).

It takes time for a]ternative t€minology to become established in

a community, and usually even longer í oI aflitudes to change; as Corbett notes, ianguage

n*r'r*, iJ **OOr,, 'h", ,l,"y, Ú"", b"ilt on shií iing sands, , ,waves move in to wash,ű."J"",

"r\,ora.and new shapes are drawn, (1996:7o). [n ordel to establish üe

role üat discourses play in our society, it is importani to consider the reiationship

between language and thought,

The interaction between language and

thoughtThe exact role that language plays in shaping our üoughts has 1ong been debated by

i"**,r, ".ir-*ariitsinj psy,hotogists, but opinions aie stili divided as to,the nature

of ih. ,"1"tiorr.hip b"ween language and thought (Slobin, zoo3), Pui simpl, the question

O **,n".r""r"ár" fu.,damenially ,iete"T ines oul view of üe world, oI only rsf"'s it,

L]nguistic determinists algú e üat we mrv rot be aware of üings üat our fiÉ t anguage

does not have ways ol describing, because o"r wor]il view is shaped by the flrst language

we learn- Evidence for üis uiew ls e*emplií ied by studies of colour terms in dilferent

i""r""c;., *-. l""g"ages divide the coloLrr spectrum into onlv, L!v.l!:i:_1,:^1*"*'

i" 'ffi'""a'a^*'t;

.thlrs divide it ü,ee *ays ihau,ng a sep.rate ieJm á]so foí ' íed'

.o_"1rl"r" t"*"." light and dalk), Most known languages övide üe spectrum into a

ma_,rimrrm of eleven distinct coloul teíms; English is one examlle of a langlrage that has

"r"*" '"r-.(Dolr'r'ú án, 2oo7), The arg"me"i is that people whose first Janguage has



Views olD sabllity ir EducJtlonTeaching Languages to students With SPec fic Learn ng Differences

fewel colouí terfis ale not so sensitive to the variations in colow that En8lish speake$describe. That is not to say üai üey cannot perceive the va ations in shade colourpelcePtion is essentially a biological phenomenon, which langrrage does not determine.However, on perceiüng a coloü! we assign it to dle nearest category tlrat we have a labelfol, and describe it in those terms. Even speakers of English, who have a relatively widerange of besic coloul term§ to dlaw oi1, still have to differentíate betiveen the manyshades that are descdbed as blue using additional adjectives (light / dark / sl<y l na\y lroyal blue etc). It is not that English speake§ cánnot see the colours, but they do not

have distinct telms for üem, and so m€tally gloup üem rogether under üe umbrellateTm 'blue'. Howevel, by interacting \i,ith othel langlrage communities English spealersmay become aware of new ideas or concepts and may even adopt the appropriateterminology if üese concepts are deemed to be impofiant enough, so üe determinists'posilion seems wea\ ln úl,s respccl.

on the other hand, linguistic relativists argue, babies and infanis must genenteüoughts long befole they develop language, so that it seems clear that our thoughts areindependent of our ]anguage üse, raüel than being determined by it- Their aI8ument isthat the language used merely reflects what is impofiant to ihe speech community usingit. one domain where this seems to be demonstrated is in üe terminology ofkinship,In some cultures whele mafiiage conventions are stdctly legulated and Potential par11lels

may come from one side of the family but not the other, ii becomes vital to leco8nizedistinctrons such as mateTna] vs. paternal re]atives, and thus to label üem differendy

(Hage, 1999). This is not tlle case in English, lor example, since in most English-speáting coinmunities, marriage partne* genelally aTe found outside of the family.oüer examples include distinctions between telms for older and younger siblings, andlor parents' older and yourger siblings, where the degree of deference due to individualsvaries accolding io a strict hielalchy. Again, this is not üe ca§e in most English-speakingcommunities, and if a speaker uses the term 'aunt' it would be unusual to enquií ewheüer a faüer's oI modler's sistel was being í eferred to, or an uncle's wife, let alonewhether she was youngel or oldel than the palent. It is not the case dlat English speakelsaIe not aware of how a woman they call 'aunt' is related to them, but Üat it í s noi ofsulBcient cultüral iú pofiance to wanant indication in everyday speech, and so üelanguage lacks the necessary teí ms to do so.

Peíhaps it will never be possible to say definitively wheihel 1anBuáge exeIts moleinfluence over thought, or vice versa; most like]y ii is a cyclical plocess, which starts as

1anguage use develops and continues üroughout a person's life isee Figure r.I)- Howevel,whai is important in üis chapter is the idea that makin8 a conscious effori to changelangrrage habits and usage can affect üe way we üin]< abolrt üe world around us, arrdcan also influence the dlinking of others we inteiact with.

Figure 1l Language reflect| as w.ll a5 shapes our view of the world around us

Models of disability reflected indiscoursesThe first educational p§ychologist in the UI( C}T il Buri (apPointed in I91J) is best

remembe.ed for devetping the idea of categoizing people according to üeir IQ, as

_"r.,rr"a.r.i.g tt".rudeiests of the time (Segal, 1967). Those whose lQs were gauged

"i s. ".rr"r"* *"r. classed, as 'feeblemind,erl', ald those wiü an IQ of 70 wele deemed to

be,backward,,whichlaterbecameknownas,educationall|subnanÍ Lfil,.The1959(Bntish)rra.rrt"t H""ltt1 aa süpulated that these chl,drer, were 'ineducable' , a powerfirl and

áemeaning label which Teflects the plessrú e on students to be receptive learners, raüer

üan on th'e insb-uctors to be elfective teachers, In l97o Üese telms disappeared ftom

fi;i";"e"

(Rogeí s, I98o), but olüe generations of teachers_who had been trained

,rrlng üi" ás.o.,is", it is hald to imagine tiat all would irmediate]y flnd it easy to

.-t i"." ,t"

ia* ru", every child could - and should - be able to access education, What

does seem likely is that changes in teí minology would have been adopied (even ií not

n l, J"."a-ár mo.".""di-ly by th" educatlonal and medical proí essionals üan by

I[;Ű;. ihi. á"y ."ll h"uá causerl dií ficrrlties in communication between patents and

,"'^.i"ri, .arr."aio"ár psychologists and students (Nolwich, l99o), The use of language

that is ünfamiliar to non-€perts serves to underline üe powel of the professionals and

the powerlessness of the people they are supposedly workingfor, This is a common

theáe, as will be seen in the following sections which trace tie developmeni olaliscourses reialing to dyslexia. Figure L2 illústlates the progression lrom a

medica}ly dominaied discourse pertaining to dyslexia, to a mole inclusive discoüIse,

irrit",irrg .o-" of üe key terminology, As wil1 become clear, though, it is by no means

th" .""" t'h"t *h"rl r r,rew discourse is introdrrced, the previous one disappears,

The condition that is generally.ailed dyslerra among medica] ptofessionals and lay-people

Jrt"

i" ,ro,""ry

,o dehne precisely 1see chapter z fot more on this), Pelhaps for üis

a*a"", "*, 'rra,"*" a range of different expressions has been rrsed to denote üe



TlME LocATloNoFPRoBLEM

DlscoURsE TYPlCAL TERMS

l9'hcentury

lNDLVlDUALPRoBLEM

soClETALPRoBLEN/

THERE ls NoPRo8LEM -oN LYDlVERslTY

MedicaLD]scourse:Dys]exja as a syndrane

Diagno5is

condjtionDi5ord€

Legal Discourse:Dyslexia as a Disability

Re3§onable adjustnrentsDi5climinatjon

Duty / Rights

social Discourse:Dyslexia as a specifc Learning Dlílculry

Disabling erVironmentsntegration

Dlscourses !sed n Educatioral Sett]ngs:Dyslexia as a special Educatjanal Need special Educaiional Needs

cooldinator ('SENco')

s!pport

nclus ve Discourse:

s pecij. Lea rni n c D lí e rence

lndividuál diíí erencesDiVerse pe15peci]V€

Teaching Larguag€ to students With specific Learning D]ffer€ces V]ews of DisabiIiry in Education

A medical discourse

Much of the terminology lelating to disabled learners (coveting a ful1 range ofimpairments) that was u§ed in Bdtain up to the r97os í s considered unacceptable Loday,

as Was noted above, Expressions from üe r95os and r96os such as'imbecile'ald',feeble-mí w)ed' beIrayed a lack of understanding ol the issues that gave rise to dií i.ulrie§in learning, and a lack of respect for the individuals so labelled, As diagnosis was in üehands of doctors, and based on ihe perceived deficits in individuals, the emphasis was

on what learners col d not do as wel1 as their peers, resulting in üem being designated'dumb' ot'handicapped', This medical modei of disabiliiy focussed on physical or cognitive

abnormality and informed many developments in the BTihsh education system, The

assumption ol the need fol segregated 'Special' education can be seen as analogous to

qualantine lot the students' own good, and that of Üe Wider community (oliver, l99o),

Dyslexia is still often re]É rredto as a 'readj,ng disability', particulaü in North America,

which embodies the assrrmption Üat leaming to read is a'normaL activity ihat everybody

should be able to do, r3üer than an aciiviry that has only become central io our. society

relatrvely recendy in hlrman history

Diagnosis of dys]exla end other specific learning differences (SpLDs) is usually now

carried out by specia]ist assessols such as educational psychologists, IatheI tharr merlirrl

pIactitioners; they use statistica] analyses to deiermine who has significant disclepancies

(that is, 'abnormalities') in üeir cognitive Profiles (see chapteT 5 for mole details)- A

range of different cognitive flrnctions (for example, visuo-spatia1 and phonologicalplocessing) ale presented as indices, with standardized scoíes, confidence inteNáls and

percentiles given. This can sometimes give the effect of reducing Students' educational

experiences to numbe$, and neglecting the very human elements of diversity rnd

individualism. Formal diagnostlc rePorts Lypically document their statistical í indings inscientific language that many people find opaque {particularly those dyslexic people who

í indany reading onerous), The use of this scie tlfic language, üth its le]iance on Latin

and Greek-based vocabulary can have üe elfect of distancing the professionals from üepeople they are 'treating', lt Serves to undelLine the auüodty üey have to determine who

has dyslexia, and who cloes not, and gives them the powerlu1 role of gatej(eeper when it

comes to deciding who may be eligible lor addiiional resources ol leasonable adjustments

í n the curricrrlum,

Another aspect in which the medical model í s sti1l very often prominent is in describing

what dyslexia is. Dyslexia is sometimes described as being a 'syndrome'in that there alea nrrmlreí of's}T nptoms' that manifest in different ways in dilíerent individuals, An

analogy can be made wiü the sympioms oí a common cold: one person who de']ares thai

he has a cold may have a sole thloat, a headache and a high iemperatule, while another

may say that heI co]d s},Tnptoms compdse a nmny nose, a cough and a shivery feeling,

The two individuals experience dilferent symPtoms, but both can iairly be said to have 'a

cold'. This can be a very useful way of üinking aboüt the complex and diverse manifesta-

tions of dyslexia, which other-wise can be hard to exalain. Howeve! it is important to keep

in mind that dyslexia is noi a disease, and as such cannot be 'cuIed"

Figure 1,2 Chronological developm ents in dyslexia, í elaleddiscourses

particu]al diffrculties that dy§exic people experience; some ol these are explored here,It is over a hundred and Üirty years since it was documented Üat people ol apparendyaverage inte]ligence in other í ieids could experience difficulties in manipulating symbolicIeplesentations ol speech, music ol numbers. The Í jlst identificaiion is usually ascribedio Ado]ph Kussmaul, a Geman doctot who in 1878 lecognized üat one ofhis patientswas unable to read, despite being othelwise cognilive]y sound (Kirby & Kaplan,2oo]).He called the condition 'woíd-bLiúdness', thereby relating it to the visual impailmentalready well known and documented; ihis is a telm ihat üany people would find relativelyaccessible. Half a decade later, Rudolf Berlin, a German ophthalmologist, coined the term'dyslexia' {frorn the Creek words í or difficulty' and 'wold') to desc be a condition inwhich peopie seemed to have lost their ability to read {Wagne! 197]). This telm

(arguably less accessible to non-medica] lay people) is now most commonly used for adevelopmental difference in learning, having í ep]aced the term'congenital word blindness'proposed in r9r7 by Hinshelwood (E]lis, I99]), Another early telm foí üis conditionwhich is no longer in everyday use is Samuel Ofion's woró 'strephosymbolia' , ,Nhichtranslates literally as'twisted sFnbols'(orton, 1925, cited in Ha]lahan & Mercer,2oo5).This is now reserved lor a specific visüal disturl:ance phenomenon in which thereader perceives üe text to be distorted or moving. other teüns that are oÍ len usedinterchangeably lor dyslexia, such as'readí ng dí sability', 'specifc leamíng dfficuLly' and'specijc leal,níng diference' will be discussed below.

-1



. , -,

]

i

]

Te3ch]ng Languages to studenis With specific Learning Differences

There are severaj specific learning differ:ences (SpLDs) that ale oí tenassociated with andlrequently co occur with dyslexia, and these wi]l be discussed rnore ful]y in Chapter ],Here, it is worti noting thai dyslexia and othel SpLDs ale often desctibed asdevelopmenta] 'dl:soí .Jed,such as Atteniion Deficit (Hperactivity) Dlsorder (morecommonly refered to as ADi,{D) and obsessive - Compu]sive Disolder (ocD). The Verynegative ierm 'disorder' highJights thc 'abnormality' ofthe deve]oPmental páthway üatpeople who have 1eaming dií ferences have followed and the sú ggestionof'chaos' in üeircognitive profile seems to pass judgemeni on Üem as individuals.

Since the r98os, alternative models that take a mole socio_cultrrral view of dis3lrilityhave been gaining siTength, and üeir associated discourses are becoming more lamiJiar.However, the medical model has by no means disappeared from our range of discourses,and it is sti]l common to heal í eí ilences o Üe 'diagnosis' oí dyslexia, and to see medicalanalyses used as the basis for making reasonab}e adjushnenis in education,

A legal discourseovel the ]ast thifiy yeals, recognition has been growing in tlie UK and many othercounüies üat some leamels (including those with hidden disabiiities such as dys]exia)require particular types of support in order to succeed. Although we]l meaning, andusually welcomed by tea.hers and students aiike, the Provision oí this suppolt is stillbased on the idea that some ]ealnels are deflcient in celtain ways; üe iegal discourse

stlppons üe belief that thele is a probiem, and that it is located in an individrral learner,The British Education Aci of I98I established the lega1 palameters foI this in the UKand deí ined a 1carner as h3ving 'specia] Educationa] Needs' ('SEN') because oi'leamingdifficuliies' if he or she demonstrated 'a significantly greater dií licu]ty in ]earning thanüe majority ofchildren oí his [sic] age' or'a disability which eiüer prevents or hindershim [sic] í lom making use of educational lacilities ola kind generally provided lorchildren ofhis [sic] age in schools'(DES I98I), These definiüons assume some expectedleve1 of abi]ity which some ]earne6 deviate ftoIrr srifficiently to attlact the label of 'SEN'.Thcy also fail to ac}now]edge that ii may be the educational fáci]ities üat are genelallyprovided which are deficient, rather than the lealnel,

The legal discourse that ihj§ legislation í elieson makes use of concepts such a5Iesponsibiliiies, rights and duties. The legal protection offered to leamers who expelrcncedifficulties in their studies is gcnerally welcomed by these indivicluals and their advocates,

but the patema]istic tone of the discouNe seems strangely outdated in the 2l't cenfury;the use of the word 'sPeciaL in conneclicll} to the education ol disabled learners is seen bysome as overly sentimenta] (Corbett, 1996), In Üe USA, the term 'exceptional' has cometo seiYe ihe same function as 'special in Bdtish English to indicate ihai which is noi'normal' (see lor example winzel, I99]), however that is defined (ií indeed it ever is),A]though both terms have the potential to denote that which is better than usual andtherefore desilable or admirab]e, all too o1ien they are commonly used as a euphemismfor educational provision that is of less va]ue üan üat which is 'ordinary' or'mainstleam', and ultimately lor í ailure (Barlon, 1997), An aruLlysis ol the tenninologyin general use in legal circles shows that the deíicii model underpins all the prov,1slon,

Views ofDjsabiIity in Educatior

and that üis has become quitc firm]y fixed in the common language of the literaturelrJ i" s.]r""|s l-d golerrnerral , ir.les,

This discoursc is likeiy to afíect leamers in diffelent Ways, depending on üeil expericnce§in the education system, some may be üankful for the opportmities they are aflbrderlthrough the provision of additional suppoIt (in the form of technology or speciaiisttuition), and not think too deeply about the ineclualities of üe education system whichmean that they require this Support. othels may come to pelceive themse]ves as unable

to succeed on their own, and because of the support dley leceive, develop a 'learnedhelplessness' (Mac]nt}Te, 2oo5), which persists throüghout thet lives. Undoubtedly, it isgood practice for a society to set out what rights disadvantaged groups have, ancl todeielmine what provision will be made [o enable them to succeed in life, It is unfoitunatethat this provision rests on üe medical definitions of developmental differences, whichwill on]y perpetüate the exclüding notion üat it is somehow üe individua] who has aproblem and who must be helped.

]n ihe sense that ú e njushce of discí nnination against peoPle With disabi'ities is seen a§ social]ycreat€, this draws upon lt social constnlctionisi way oí thinking, However, inasmuch aS the1egisLarion Jpplies oll]y to medically deí ined"iInpairment5", it is limited to a medical model thatdcals with accidents ofbirth, and does not Seek to áddress §ocia] car^es ofpoor literacy learning(Chanock, 2oo7: ]7).

A discourse of social constructionThe view of disábility as a socia]ly constfucted barlier is one üat hes gained wideaccePtance over the last iwenty yeals. The Urlited Nations Conveniion on the Rights ofPersons wiih Disabilities (20o6) suppolts this model and defines disabled people asthose'who have long_term physical, menta], intellectual or sensory jmpairments which ininteraction with various barriers may hinder üeir ful1 and efIective participation in societyon an equal basis with oüers' (p. .+). The discoune of'this model places the emphasis ondisabling lactors in society and the environment, raüer than 1ocating any difficu]tie§ inthe individua], The term 'dys]exia' is rrsed alongside the expression .Specí lic LearmngDifrculty' (oí spLD) which indi.ates that an individual may face challenges with regeldsto one párticriar aspect oflearning, Although this is an attempt to acknowledge l-.arners'strengüs as well as theil areas of weal(ness, the teIm does noi stand up wel] When

scrutinized in detail. It seems that these students have a dilficu]ty in ]earning that isspecific to one alea, or a diíficulty with ]earning in one particulal element of theü course.when the imP]ications of ihis ale considered, it couJd be argued that almost all of ushave a 'specií ic learning &í ficulty' in one way or anothe! perhaps wiü spatial awaleness(e.g, in palking a cer) oI in processing í igures (fol a tax retuln). Booth et a]. (1992) morehelplully suggest that most dilficulties in lcarning are largely due io the conterlualintenctions of sevela] factors i11 the education system, Such as the physicai envifonment,group dynamics, attitudes of stafí and students, the matelia]s and lesouí ces t|at are used,and government policy, In other words, the dilficulry that the learner experiences isnot an intrirrsic characleristic of his or het person, and if the education system Wele

9



..

Teach ng Lang!ag€ to students with sP€i6c Learning Dltrelences

organized diífeí ent]y t would cease to exist (just as it wolrld be easier to park if üe bays

were bigger),

FoI students who do experience'specific iearning difficulties', additional support shouid

be made available, in comp]iance With the legislation. This is the ptovision of assistiveiechnology or specialist tuition that was noted in the plevious section, V/hich is a legalresponsibility of the edlrcalional providel This support is additional to lhe input ihai the

subject tuiol offers üe rest of the class and is peíceived in a variety ofways by sfudents

\rho recelve ii. Some are open to the stpport and Í ind thai it enables them to succeed;othels leel it is embarrassing to have to have erlla help, or [ee] üat they do not have timeto access the suppolt since they ale having to work so hard to keep up with the class.

some students who ale noi receiving additional support may í ee] that üose who ale havean unfair advantage ovel them, and this can be divisive in a class, ln any case, it seemsthat the discourse , although broadly based in a socio cuiiural view or disability üat seeks

to identil} systemic balriers to learning and provide solutions - sti]1 accePts that theí e alecertain individuals who experience difÍ iculties, and that ad hoc arrangements must be

made to allow Üis minority to integlate into the system that caters fol Üe maioí ity,

Discourses of disability in educational settingsIn educationa] institutions, the responsibi]ity to comply with disability legis]ation lsusuaily taken re]atively seriously and it forms a prominent palt of üe school's or college's

policies and procedures docú mentation. The discourse used in education can becategorized as a hybrid of the models already discussed above, Learners will be assessedby a suitab]y ciualifled prolessional who wi1l rliagzose the kind oí disabiLity plesent jn theindividual- Although practice varies &om country to country in England a Stat1mffit ofSpecill Educa.tíonal Neerls may be drawn up and discussed by a panel made up oll theprolessionals in conjunction with the advocates of the learner (and occasionálly even thelearner him or herse]fl). This wiil decide whai provision needs to be mede in termsof .dditional suppol1by a specialist teacher, so thal the learner can be included in the

maí nstreayn class, or whetheí ihe student Would benefit most from attendin8 a 'slecií .lschool' (i.e. a Se8legated institution which catels oniy for disabled leamen, and whichma) oÍe. l n ore ro§licted cun,l u]umJ,

When choosing an educationa] Ioute, some students with prolound and complex physicaland ]earning disabilities (or their parents or guardians on üeir behalf) may believe that a

smal1 in§titution with specialist staff and equipment will meet their learning needs morefully, and opt for the 'specia]' educational í oute, A good example of this is provided bysome members of the deaf community in Hlrngary whom Bajkó and Kontra (2oo8)lound would prefer to learn English in a small discrete group with a teacher who madeextensive use of sign language, raiher than adapting to a pledominantly oral languageteaching situation in which ih.,y áIe likely to be disadvantaged, However, there are manystudents Whose disabilities and learning dií lelences ale not comPlex and who wouldprefer to be edücated alongside iheii peers, and for these learners, rtasonable adjustments

need Lo l,e made in order to a]low in.ll,ion.

Views of Disab ]ty ii Educat]on

Beíng includerl' should entai] a]] ]earners sharing not only the same physical space andlacilities, but also following thc same curricu]um and extra_cuTricular aciiüties as üeirpeers. í n reality, it is orren the case that disebled ]eaTners aí e integrattd'raIhet t]7aí 7 |iIIyinc]uded. That is, they are allowed to be present, but Without the expectation that theyworr]d be able to access a1] of the activities and facilities that oüer learners do,

Whilst many educaiional establishments ale genuineiy Striving to imPlement en inc]usiveq7stem, üele rs a very human tendency to find ways of meeting c telia set out by

extemal bodies, so thxt, although policies 3nd discol]Ises may be adopted superficially,there is ]itde lundamental change evident Üat Points to Üe internalisation of üe conceptsor ownershiP of the policies. To some exLent, this is the situaiion with the term 'ilx.l siolí',which has been introduced in legislaiion and is now t|e 'correct' telm to desclibe policiesrelated to the education of disabled students. However, there appears io be a wide Iangeof understanding as io What it actually means to implement an 'inclusive' education policy(Lindsay,2oo]).

Fiamre and oyler l2oo4) comment that, in the USA, ihe term is often used to describeschools and colleges that tr} to plovide education í ordisal]]ed stüdents in tlre same placeas non-disabled studenis, rather lhan those that have a culilue of providing educátion thatis |ully accessible for everyone, It thus hás a much narIower Iemit than that set out inthe'lnder fol lnclusion' (Booth ei al., 2ooo). Thls ties in. ith Dyson's (2ool) obse ationthai üere aí e also ca]ls in the literature fot 'responsible í ncLusiol,which he takes to ú ean,

inreality, integration, ThiS iS

the situation When sfudents who have disebilities sharephysicat lacilities but do not inleracL meanirrgltlly with the widel closs_section of thestudent popu]ation, The onus is on the individual to accommodate üe needs of the'inc]uding' institution. Balton and Tomlinson (1984: 79) suggest üat it is often financialconsiderations raüer ihan pedagogical goals that goveln decision-making in many cases,and unlofiunately 'polití ca] Ihetoí ic suPersedes plactice'. Gray (2ool) Iemarks thet the1997 UK Creen Paper'Excellence for ali children: meeting sPecial educationai needs'describes inc]usion as a plocess rathef than e state, which seems to cast doubt on thelikelihood of any educational establishmcnt ever achieving a tíu]y inclusive ethos,especiálly as the term lras been usurped and the meaning corlupted.

There are also instituiions that operate a semj inclusive approach by withdrawingsome lealnels from some classes in order to provide additional intensive tuition infrrstJanguage literacy or numelacy- Unforfunately, it is olten second oI foreign larrguage

classes that are deemed to be non-essentia], so these sftldents ale denied the opporhrnityto bloaden üeir wor]d views in this way. other schools may run sePalate langüage c]asses

lor ]earnen With an spLD in ordel to provide specialist tuition designed to accommodatethei leaming styles, This may be beneí icial to these lealne6, but as wi11 be seen in ]atelchaptels, techniques ihat aí ehe]Pfu] lor learners with an spLD arc usually also good loldreir peers who have no aPpalent SPLD. ]n practice, üelefore, there may be beneí its fora]l in keeping the group together

In its pulest f'olm, inclusion calls í oIa ladical resüucturin8 ofihe education systemso thai it wi11 be equipped to accommodete a1l 1earners (Clough & Corbett, 2ooo;Frederi]<son & Cline, zooz), and, as such, it looks lxyond the integTatiot] of disabled



Teaching Language§ io srudents with sPec fic Learning Difr€ences

leamers in the'mainstream' to a vision ofPalticipation and engagement in edu"tion

which is accessible to all. This concept is explored in more detail in the fol1owing section,

lnclusive discourses of disabilityln a tnrly inc]usive model of education, no 'additiona] support' worrld be needed,

No'specialist teachers' would be requiled because all ieachen would be teaching with

üe aim of including all membets of the class. Materials would be produced in a range

óf iormets. anil therefore would not need io be special]y adapted fbl indiyiduals, andassisú ve techno]ogy would be available to everyone, There worrld be no need to disclrss

tlre issue ol inclrrsion, because it would be taken for granted that everybody should be

able to access all parts of the curriculum. ofcorrrse, indiüdual leamers would s]i]]

experience their Jurses in different ways, and some would have greater difficulty wiüsorrre areas than oüers. The range of diversity in human beings cannot be igÍloled, and

üis would inlbrm the construction of the búilt elviIonment, syllalri and curricula, üus

alfording í ull accessibility to atl. The que§tion üat this utoPian scenario would rlise

would be how to discuss the experiences of students who seem to be expenencing gleateí

difficulties than their peels, without using demeaning or delogatory language,

MacKay (2006) suggests the use ol the expression 'sp,c,rc leaming difercnce' |al:o

shorte ed to SplDlior str-rdents who are cunently deemed to have a specific leamlng

difficulty such as dyslexia, autism, attention deflcit or hyperactivity di§olders (ADHD),

The recognition that these are just manifestations ofa different way of perceiving lheworld is i positive acknowledgement ol leamer individuality, and throughoui this book

üe convention wili be adopted of refening to a learner who has (or lealners who have)

an SPLD to meaE those learners who exhibit some traits ol any of the specific learning

dilferences mentioneil heí e anal explored in more detail in the ner,t iwo chapters Booü

et al. {zooa) prelel üe expression 'baftiers to pa)licipatiofi ehd,leamí ng' tó 'Iearning

dí fucu]tr"r', *ii.h ,le^rly signals thet the issues lie in the leamer's en\T lonment, rather

Ún in tlre individua}. While boü this term arLd 'specijc learning d,i,&renc,s' ú nmisiakably

reflect inclrrsive attitüdes towards all leamels, clitics could algue that üey seem to

suggest a le]uctance to acknowledge Üai bafiiers and diffelences can result in very í ea1

expeliences ol difficültie§ in the classloom,

This ambivalence is in part explained by Dyson as a 'dilemma of d,ffirence' (2ool: p, 26);

he asserts üat maintaining the balance between emPhasizing similarities and

acknowledging difference is an essential featule of edu'ationa] policy, past and plesent,rhe problá is to avoid what MacKay chalacterizes as confusing equity wiü unirormity

1zooz: p. 16o). It is equitable to provide leamers with input in a variety of for-nats, so

that üey can discover lor themselves which sensory channels offeí ihem gí eatest

"..es"iúity. It is not equitable to tIeat all1earnels in the same way, and disregard their

indMduality and üeir developmental differences. For example, in langr,rage teaching it is

very important that teachers use a variety o' task-q?es and differentiate in tems of

expectatlon, leve1 of challenge and degree of support offered, so Üat students with

different 1eaming sryles are not disadvantaged. The Paí iicular difEculties üat snldenis

Vi€ws ofDisability in Education

-ioht exDelience because ,f üese differences need to be lecognized and named ií üey

,rJi" rr"'rda**"a *iü ptactrca] strategies- To achieve üis, we currently have to fall back

i,, J. hlrg.,"g" tt"t

is avai]able to us, drawing íIom the range of discourses that have

been explored in this chaptei

Labelling and self,identificationThe phenomenon of individuals taking on chalactedstics assigned lo them thlolrgh

Ü."ppii."tion

of"

l"bel 1such as 'blight' or 'disíuptive') has been explored in the

i"".r'"p-""'"r

r"rrafng üeory', notably by Becker (196]) and Rosenüal and }acobson

i_r,8t] t"

o."-i"u ot ihis üeory is that there are no qualities that can be objectively

iií r,r,ih"a, rr"' ,r,rr* arre mote powerfirl members of a society agree on how certain

il;;" should be perceiveJanil assign labels accordingly. By categorizing §hrdents

irr]to p^rtic,-rl". g.or.p. (for example 'dyslexic' or 'having Aspelger's syndlome'), the

i"rr"ri"ra .._" i" p"ra"iu" .l"_".rt. of behavioul to be characteistic of that category

when in fact an examination of empirical eviilence may reveal that these elements can be

;;;;r"* a range of groups, Furthermore, the people so labelled also come Jo beiieve

,h"iirr", rr"rr-" ,""*ayiesignated by their label, and ultimately begin to display these

behaviours, This can be a positive í orce in education if teachets communicate that they

""p..t " lot fro- theií sfuáents, Üese §tudents ale morc likely to succeed, HoweveI, moleoften it has a negative effect, because stu'Ients labe]led as having a disabfity (suc}r as

,tysl"*i"; -"y .oi.e to believe that they ale experiencing aü of the üí liculties that aTe

associatedwiüit'Folüisreason,someeducatorsandpalentsareleluctanttopuNueio.-"i

"a."."-"rr*lor fear ofhow labelling a yoüng pelson may affect his or her

achievement.

MacKay leporls flom Scot]and that the term'Speciai Educational Needs'has been

."*ou"a to- tt,r" t"gistation in üat par1 of the UK, so üai Scottish legislation

"""n"r"*rrr,*-gr]rses pupils witlra disability' (2oo2: Tr9), However, as.Bradley,

O". i"a Wit."i"" 1-.9991 poi,,t o,-,t, it is not [oI the non-disabled cornaunity to formulaie

á"fi,rltior,r" *iüo,lt Úe in|ut of disabled people, The World Health Organization

now defines disability as: 'üe outcome of i1re lnteraction belween a person wrth an

i..,.i..rrrerrtandüee'rronmentalandattitüdinalbarriershe/sheú ayface,,whichhas

bá ".l"or"a rr, *r" rrroad-based disability-Iights organizátion Disab]ed Peoples'i*i._",r"""r ".,r.""i"g

more towards a socral view of <lisability üan ro medical/delicit

-"á"i.lÚ"i*r.y, zoo5]. As noted aboue, the United Nations Convention on üe Rights

of Persons with Disabilities 1zoo6) í einforces üis view in üe definition used jn that

á"."_""r, *mr, vr'* üe product of discussion between disabled people from several

contributing couniries.

Florian 9' {rl. (2oo4) aígue that it is misleading and inaccuIate to assign a lealneI to one

*"i" l""g"r!"f

a;"bií iry and üat it is likely to amplify the deíicit notions already

I

l



Teaching Lánguages to StL]dents Wlth Specifc Lealnjng D ffeíenc€

plevalent in the educaiion system. Whilsi it is certainly necessary ihát etrtleí re cale be

taken in the use of these ]abels, exPlicii recognition o[ these differences can be seen to

have some beneficial consequences at a practical leve} í or the lealnels, üeir leacheís andí amilies. Since we have not yet eVoIVed a luliy inclusive education system, they provide a

stalú ng point for describing ihc difficulty the lealnel iS experiencing in üe c]assroom,

and putting in place §orne suppolt or accommodatory meásrüe§ to eneble learning to

progless; in many countries an individua] can invoke the pí otection ol ]egislation a5 a

result of the forma1 identification of some disabilities, and firnding may also become

available. An analogy can be drawn wiü ]anguage teachers identi§,ing their learners' firstlanguages, so as to be able to anticipate aspects of Üe ialget ]anguage that Ücy mightflnd strange or difí icult,and approach them in a §ensitive mannel ]t is imporiant here to

avoid essentialism, however, and to keep in mind that disabled leamers (or even learnerswho have the same disabi]ity] do noi form a homoge eolrs gloup (Barlon, 2ooJ), anymole than a gloup Who share a flrst language Would.

On a social level, knowing the type oflabel§ that may be appJied to a particu]al kind oídifficulty empowers learnels and üeir families by enabling them to make contact withothe^ who expelience something similar, ihereby building valuabie suppor1 networks,

and to do theil own lesearch independent of the 'expefis' who provide the labels, lt couldbe algued that this meí e]ypelpetuates a labelling cü]ture, but as Farí eil (2ooI) points out,

we 1ive in a society d]1át categorizes us accoldrng to nurTlerous cite a, and, with this inmind, perhaps it is better for leameÉ and thei teachels to be involved in some Way wiü

the plocess.Some commentators have called lor disab]ed people to reclaim terms thai have hitheftobeen tholrght oías derogatory as a means of assening Üeir right to selldefinition (Bo]i,

2oo5; Corbeit, 1996) and io try to uniíy an extlemely diverse group ol people (Bereslord,

2oo5), The validity of üis suggestlon is suppofied by the Success of othel minorirygloups (Such as homosexuals and ethnic minorities) in using such a strategy io chal]enge

the dominant discoürse and take control rrom the'Professionals', one prominentadvocate lor people with Aspergel's syndIome lef'crs to herself as an Aspie' (willey,

zoo9), and this teTm is beginning to appear mole often in infolmal jnternet djscussions.However, it has not yet become appropriate for people who do not have Aspergel'sSyndrome (sometimes referred to as 'neuro-t)?ical§) to use the term; it takes time lornew wolds to evolve and transler from their original speech community to ihe widerpopulation, bui the use oí global electronic media is 1ikely to inclease ihe speed oí '

language evohrtion.colbeit leminds us üat 'ullfamiliar sounds take time to heaí' {1996: 74, and there rs

1ittle point in simply changing current terminoiogy because, if there is no correspondingchange in attitudes (Bolt, 2oo5), Üe new terminology simply becomes attached tooutmoded üinlting, and the statrrs qrro is consened.

V ews or Disáb l]iy n Educdt on

Challenging dominant discoursesAlüoügh it has been accepted üat some of the terms noted above are unhelpí irl,

insensitive and have no place in fbrmal discoüGe in Üe 2lst century thai is not to say

üat the terms preferred today will noi be re8arded by our descendants as derogatory

oT inappropriate. Indeed, this chapter has shown that the language of diílerence and

disability, and how best to refel to leaIners who exPeí ience dilficr,r]ties, has been the

sübject of ongoing debate in education lor decades, The terms in cuú entuse in'mainsfí eam' education in the UK are 'Special Educational Needs' and 'LearningDimclr]iies' (Clorrgh & Corbett, zooo), both ol whí ch require lurther definition in ordeí

to play any useful role in üe discussion, ln Nonh America, üe most common terms ale

'Learning Disability' and 'Reading Disabiliiy'. In Bitish post,I6 educatjon, there has

already beerr a clear shift towards the terminology of 'disability' in an attempt to clairythe situation. some institutions are phasing out the word'support ' lrom üeir literature,

prefuí ing instead to olíel specialist ttlition' and the 'provis:ion of reasonable adjüstments'

to üeir dí sabled learners. lt is not cleal whether this has, or will in the future affect the

attitudes or self-image ol the learners who access üese services. tt may simply Lre a

window-dressing exercise, designed to placate disabiliiy rights campaigners. Howeve!

any chenges that are made selve to raise awareness ofthe 1anguege that is used and to

encourage leflection on the underlying attitudes lhat the discourse €mbodies.

Teachels often sefie as the intermediaries between otl'er educational professionals and

students, and as such often have to communicaie messages between the paíties, Thisimportant lole invo]ves a degree oi translation skills, and requires fluency in several

dilferent discourses so that they are able io move between them es appropriate for each

dií ferent audience. At the same lime, dlere is some responsibility on teachels to choose

lo use mole empowering discourses üat rellect inclusive approaches to education. ofcourse, the Iesponsibility to plomote discourses that cha]lenge the dominant, patemalistic

aspects of oul education systerns cannot be borne by teachers alone; it must be shaí ed

among üe academrcs who research and repoí t in ü€ freld, üe plactitioners who use the

language on a daily basis and the leamers end theií amilies who are the subject of the

terminology (bearing ln mind üat these are not disclete group§ but include in,lividuals

who have more than one of üese lo]es), Ii behoves us all to leflect on oüI üse oflanguage, and to acknowledge our own dependence on existing termino]ogy (Beí'§Íor']

2oo5), whi]st striving ai the same hme to promote those discourses that are benefrcia}

to an inclusive environment, howevel we conceive of it.

tn Üe lol1owing chapter we set out oul underctanding of üe specific ieaming rlilference

usually referred to as dyslexia, ard highlight the dií jlculty oí narrowly defining this very

complex phenomenon.

j-r5



i

. Discourses embody pí eva]ent attitude§;they both leflect and inRuence ihe wáy their users ihink.

. The donrinant discoulses í elaiing to d]sabiity curí enty refleci the medica] model and the socialmodel ofdisabiljty, but thele are many alternative dis.ourses.

. The medical dlscol]íse expresse5 disabi ty as ar abnormaL[y ocáted Within an ind]Vidua], Whichí equires (medical) ]nterueniion.

. The socal discourse expl€ses d]sability as a lesult ofthe barli€§ í3ised by society and the

environment that prev€ts an individuá| With an impairment í rom do]ng whai others do.. The ]ega discou.se dlaws on r.edica telminology to deíine Which individua s should receivesupport ]n the forrn of í easonable adjustments in order io oveí come societal ánd enVií onmenialbarriers, lt thereíoíe draws or the hro dominant djscourses to f!riher lhe rights ofd]sadvan,iaged individuals,

. The discouí se employed n educationa] s€tings ]s á]so a hybrid discourse, where terminologyfrom other domains i§ sometjmes adopted but lsed in a d fferent Way,

. The dis.oulse ofa tru|y inclusive education system has no need to lefel to addiiional suPpoltol reasonable adjustm€ts, sjnce al] cuí ricL]la are í ully acc€sib e to a|l, However, i! s stillrnPoftant to be áble to di5cu5s th€ Ways ir Which nd]Viduals' spec lc Learning differencesií rpact on theil studies,

. wh€ever pos5 ble, learners should be invoLVed ir th€ plocess oí d€ining iheir own d]fí ]culties.

. As teachlng plofessionals, we need to make use ofthe í ull range ordiscoulses, nroving betweenthem a5 n€essary to enhance communication With other proíessionals, oul colleagues, our

learnels, and theil advocat€,. As teach]rg Proí essiona|sWe have a roLe io PLay in shaping atl]tudes towards disability throLghihe langlage choices thát We make, and by ercouraging others to reíl€t on theil own |antsudge

]. What aí e the advantages a,rd disadvántages ofthe diff€€i disco!rses in disc!ssing thediffcu|!ies that anguage srlldents may expeíierce n their studiesi

2, Look at t€ts in youl irstitution or your.ountry connecied to siudent suppori or lealn n8developrnent, Whlch discouls€s can you ideitií i lfther€ i5 more ihan one discours€ beingused, car you determine whyl

3a. cons]deí the Words used for dyslexi3 and other sPec]fic lealning dijTerences in any otherlanguages that yoU know What discoulses do they seem to fit besi Withl

3b,Do you know ary new, alternat ve terms or

older,ess used

ierms that nr]ghtfit Wiih othel discoursesl Why are some ielms used ir Pleí erence io otheí si4. A5 you progless through this book, make a note of how the authors move between discourses

When dlscus5ing different topics and try to decide how ihe d]í í erentd]scoulses compl€rent

5, Read chanock's (2oo7) paper on the discouls€ ofdyslexia. How many discourses does sheideniirl HoW Would yo! characterize the difíereírcesbetween them)

Teaching Lang!ages to siuderis Wiih spec|fic Lealning Dií í erences Views ofDjsabiity n Edu<ation

Recommended readingchanock, K. (2oo7). How do we not communicate about dyslexial The discoursesthat distánce sclentists, disabilities staÍ l ALL adviseF, students, and lecturer§ fromolne anolheí . Journal of Academic Langaage ald. Learnílxg, 1 í í ),13-4).

Colbett, J. G9 9 6). Bad.mouthing: lhb Language of specí a.l Nr.í rs. London: Fálmer PTess,

]

116

kormos_smith 2012 specific learning difficulties ch1

Documents