The Etiology of LD

It's not difficult to understand the skeptic’s point of view as to the reality of LD as an actual disorder.  Skeptics have suggested that behaviors associated with LD could have been the result of a number of environment conditions, rather than some innate cause. For example, troubles with reading could simply have been attributed to lack of exposure to print at an early age, or students' lack of motivation, or student dispositions toward reading. In other words, it could easily have been argued that environmental conditions are just as plausible a reason for difficulties and that there is little reason to believe that child A doesn't have the same innate ability to learn how to read as child B. I’m sure I myself, and other educators I have known, have at some point in the past ascribed a child's lack of performance to his living conditions or lack of effort, rather than consider the possibility that their difficulties may actually be due to something physically taking place within the child's brain. These "causes" are so tempting to educators, and perhaps to researchers for other reasons, given how often we have seen first hand the impact a child's home life can have on their academic performance or dispositions. Perhaps the reason for suggesting that learning disabilities are the result of environment conditions rather than due to abnormalities in the physical brain may be due to the hope that improved conditions and interventions can improve the difficulties students have with learning. Attributing them to the brain is almost equivalent to admitting defeat. 

Today, however, there is evidence that neurological differences are likely to be the cause of these difficulties. That, in fact, there is something physically different about child A and child B that results in one having a more difficult time in learning to read than the other.  Although our book is a little dated given the speed of technological advance, the research done in neuroimaging, and in postmortem studies prior to this, have discovered structural and functional differences between patients with and without reading difficulties.  The evidence of heritability of disabilities provides additional evidence of the physiological cause of LD. In fact this physiological link between brain and disability seems well established, even at the time of these studies the studies in the text, Learning Disabilities: Foundation, Characteristics and Effective Teaching. It is likely that the most recent literature only confirms this link.

Although I know very little about brain development and the impact of environment on the developing brain, I wonder if there is yet still room for skeptics, even with the widespread acceptance neurological differences as the root cause of learning disabilities. Is it possible that while regional brain differences are the causes of learning disabilities, could environment factors affecting the growing child be the cause of these differences? In other words, how malleable is the growing brain? I'm aware of the concept of familiality, the greater likelihood of relatives having the learning disability, but couldn't these family members also be exposed to similar conditions causing an abnormal brain development, and subsequent disability? For example, I wonder what effects long-term dire poverty has on the development of the growing brain. Could child A have had the same reading ability as child B had he not grown up in severe poverty? An article in Science Daily, in addition to the improvement of reading ability of students with dyslexia, suggests that the brain is malleable to at least some degree, and that environmental conditions can impact brain functions. My concern isn't about the reality of LD, but rather that a sort of physiological fatalism may prevail, and that the emphasis on impersonal brain imaging may overshadow the real personal and dire socioeconomic conditions that can put children at risk of neurological dysfunction. In fact the textbook Learning Disabilities: Foundation, Characteristics and Effective Teaching only dedicates a single paragraph to environmental factors, despite this link. It make you wonder how many of these learning disabilities (as well as a host of other problems) may have been prevented, or corrected for, had more attention been directed at eradicating poverty and improving the living conditions of these children?

ID Meets IT Part 2: The AT Approach

Digging deep once again into the archives of instructional design, we come across another model of self-paced instruction: The Audio Tutorial (AT) Approach. Devised by Postlethwait in the early 60's, the AT approach initially utilized audio tapes to deliver supplemental lectures to students from disadvantaged backgrounds in order to assist them with complexity and pace of the material. Shortly afterward, the supplemental program evolved into a full blown system for delivering a complete instructional program via weekly "learning kits" that provided students with a set of audio instructions and the materials and media (photos, text, films, etc.) needed to complete the assigned activities.

Like the PSI model discussed in the previous post some features included in AT were small learning modules, frequent assessment,  an emphasis on doing rather than listening (despite the name), and student self-pacing (to a degree). However, the two models seem differ in two fundamental ways: pacing and people. Whereas the PSI model, or Keller Plan, allowed students move at there own pace throughout the entire course and under the condition of demonstrated mastery of the previous modules, the AT approach move students along on a weekly schedule, allowing them to spend as much or as little time as they needed to complete the week's unit. Beyond the independent study session, the AT approach also incorporates a social component (guest lecturers, small group work) to the classroom beyond the basic tutoring sessions of the Keller plan. It is the value added by the social component that I believe sets the AT approach apart from the PSI model. Granted, the inclusion of this component restricts students from truly moving at their own pace through the entire course, but I think that for many, the understanding that is gained from the unscripted conversations and exchange of ideas, viewpoints and experiences that take place when students interact, is worth it.

If you were to describe a rough sketch of this approach (learning kits complete with instructions and materials) to any elementary teacher, they would probably respond with something like this, "Oh, you mean centers." Though I'm ashamed to admit that I know many elementary teachers who deal exclusively in whole group, lecture style instruction even with younger children,  it's standard practice among elementary teachers to incorporate a set of independent activities at stations throughout the room for students to work on at their own pace. Some teachers even have centers that they change on a weekly basis, much like the AT appraoch. Of course these centers are not likely to involve the complexity and rigor of AT, but from the teacher's standpoint, they provide them with an opportunity to set students meaningful (albeit lower level) curriculum related tasks while they work more closely with a single child or a small group of students. The inclusion of small group tasks is often mirrored in centers as well, with students working as study partners or peer tutors. Due to the constraints on the complexity of task that students can work on independently, I don't see this approach moving beyond a supplemental role to classroom instruction, at least at the elementary level. However, when we make the leap to high school and especially college campuses, I believe this approach has already caught on in the form of virtual high schools and online courses and degree programs.

Despite this approach's origins in on-campus learning labs and audio cassettes, I can't help but see this model's broad adoption (wittingly or unknowingly) among distance learning courses I've taken at the college level, plus or minus a few components. The semi-self paced nature is especially appealing to older students, particularly those with full-time jobs and families to juggle, but the weekly format allows it to fit into the traditional academic calendar and incorporate collaborative or cooperative activities among students. In the majority of courses I've taken, a learning management system such as Moodle or Blackboard was used to organize content into weekly sessions complete with resources and actvities, or rather, an online "learning kit". The tasks assigned are often adaptable to the students' situation and learning preferences, provided the instructor allows options or choice. And moving through the course with an entire course still gives students the perception that they are part of a group, though from what I've read in the literature, this sense of community is harder to establish in an online course than its face-to-face counterpart. The weekly format also helps to regulate the amount of feedback and support the instructor is to provide, making the instructors job a little easier than keeping up with a classroom of students all scattered throughout the course material as in the PSI model.

Overall, I see this approach as a happy medium between the PSI model and the traditional lecture based classroom. With the AT approach, structure is given to students, but flexibility to accommodate learner's needs is allowed. Accommodations are still made for students' learning speeds, but learning doesn't become an isolated activity. I should note here, though, that some students, particularly those with cooperative group experiences, prefer this. My wife is currently working on her Masters online through Michigan State University and though most of the course follow the AT approach, with collaborative projects thrown in here and there, one of her favorite courses was a completely self-paced course with no student interaction. 

Beyond the standard use at the elementary level, virtual schools at the high school level, and online course in higher ed described above, I see the potential of the basic framework of AT (i.e. carefully structured "learning kits") to reach learners beyond the institutions in which they are created. Now that these "kits" can be digitized, they can made available online to anyone with an Internet connection and accessed by anyone who is passionate about learning. The Opencourseware movement, behind which academic powerhouses such as MIT, Stanford, and the University of Michigan have thrown their weight, now makes available high quality courses, including the materials in many cases, available freely on the web (sans instructor feedback and credit, of course). And with the rise of social networking applications, I can envision an number of self-organized learners, particularly in countries where access is limited, supplementing the instructional support missing from these "kits" to create true online learning communities. It would be fitting that a model originally designed to help struggling learners, could become a tool to empower those eager to learn,  yet struggling because of their lack of opportunity.

Kozma, R.B., Belle, L.W. and Williams, G.W. (1978) Instructional Techniques in Higher Education. Educational
Technology Publications, New Jersey.

Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1979). Research on audio-tutorial instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 321-341.

ID Meets IT Part 1: A Classroom of One

This is the first post in a series of postings examining historical and contemporary instructional delivery and design models and their implications for instructional technology, hence the title, ID Meets IT.

Individualized instruction may be a familiar buzzword for today’s educators, but its historical roots extend deep into the educational soil.  At a time during social upheaval, cultural revolutions, and questioning of authority, it no surprise that in the early 60’s F.S. Keller devised an unconventional plan to address a problem many teachers still face today: why students refuse to learn. The Keller plan was a dramatic break from the traditional system of instruction in which the teacher delivered the same instruction, to the same group of students, and at the same time, same speed, same order.  Davis (2000) succinctly outlines the system as:

…a plan, which was designed to maximize learning by stressing achievement and positive reinforcement. This approach has come to be known as The Keller Plan, Self-Paced Instruction, or the Personalized System of Instruction. The key elements of the system are:
   •    Clear educational objectives.
   •    Small learning modules with associated achievement tests and immediate feedback
   •    Student self-pacing
   •    Positive reinforcement
   •    Student emphasis on doing rather than listening

Although Davis doesn’t explicitly state the rationale for why PSI will make students want to learn, it’s not too difficult to infer a primary reason. Students that traditionally have difficulty learning won’t be frustrated with unsuccessful attempts at keeping up. Likewise, students who excel academically won’t be bored with the slow pace.

While Keller’s plan was perhaps revolutionary at the time, personalized systems of instruction (PSI) have found several niches in today’s classrooms.  During my undergraduate years, I was a volunteer at the University of Michigan’s Family Housing Center assisting with an afterschool English program helping the children of foreign graduates students learn English. The system in place consisted students working at their own pace on small self-guided activities (games, worksheets, etc) contained within files folders. An assistant assessed their work immediately, a sticker was added to their progress chart, and they were allowed to select a new activity within their leveled range until all similarly color-coded unit activities were completed, after which they were allowed to move on to the next level. In my work as an elementary educator, I’ve personally used, and have known many educators who have also incorporated a watered down version of PSI into centers or individual seat work while the teacher works with a small group of students on a skill they’ve yet to master, on collaborative projects, or on small investigations in which supplies are limited. 

While I believe PSI still plays a limited, supplementary role in the classroom in terms of instructional delivery, one of the biggest trends I see in the re-emergence of PSI is in the field of educational technology. Technology takes the appealing aspects of PSI (self-pace, immediate feedback, emphasis on activity) and makes it both feasible and scalable.  K12, a primary vendor The Florida Virtual School, incorporates a series of self-paced modules for students to work through at their own pace with frequent assessment checks that are conditional for advancement to the next lesson.  On a side note, Moodle, an LMS that is probably familiar to anyone who has taken and online course at the university level, recently included the ability for instructors to include conditional activities. I’ve also seen PSI take a dominant foothold in elementary computer labs and middle schools concerned about standardized test scores. PSI based software packages such as Classworks, Waterford, Study Island and a whole slew of similar programs appeal to these schools because of their emphasis on mastery of specific, concrete, curriculum aligned objectives. Students move at their own pace, are immediately given feedback through quizzes or games, and teachers can easily monitor the progress of an entire class all working on separate skills, an incredibly difficult task in a normal classroom setting. 

Despite these advantages, PSI, both in technology based and traditional classrooms, is not without problems.  Any teacher with a classroom of 20-30 students knows how difficult it can be to monitor, support and provide feedback to students working on the same lesson, let alone 20-30 different lessons. And while technology provides a solution of sorts to this problem, the kind of feedback and support a machine can provide to a child or adult is severely limited. I’ve had the opportunity to both score and write assessment items for Pearson and for my district and quality items the assess higher order thinking skills are very difficult to write, especially when limited to closed responses such as the multiple choice and matching items found in these types of technology programs. The multiple assessment items required are not only difficult to write, but are also very time consuming, as is the preparation and management of a vast quantity of instructional materials. This is one of the reasons I think PSI has become more prevalent in the field of educational technology.

In addition, I also question Davis’ contention that PSI is suited to different learning styles. The very linear, lock-step oriented methods of PSI allow students to move at their own pace, but in the implementations of PSI that I have seen, they are still marching down the same path. Moreover, with the technology-based versions of PSI mentioned above, they are going it alone. PSI in an online environment can be a terribly isolating experience, and not just for distance learners working from computers at home. Walking into a computer lab with 30+ headphone-clad students sitting silently and staring at computers while they cycle through lessons is a somewhat disturbing experience.

A final point needs to be addressed and ties into the two points above. The division of instruction into small, frequently assessed units of distinct objectives, compounded with the method of assessment available through technology or the feasibility of creating assessments, and added to the fact that students will likely be working alone or with an ever changing small group, equals a severely limited range and type of activities (and activities are the emphasis) that can be performed by students. Modeling skills as they are likely to be applied in students’ personal lives or at some point in their careers seems to be a difficult task to ask of PSI. Moreover, while I’ve seen higher order thinking skills addressed in these programs or assessments, it is usually in such an isolated context that it is difficult to apply or transfer that skill into another setting.  

In conclusion, PSI has a place in education, but I would proceed with caution. PSI would be well suited to basic skill remediation or acceleration, but PSI models are a big investment, both online or off. PSI requires a big investment both in the time to develop materials or money to purchase them, and the manpower to monitor and support students or the technology that can do so. I see a lot of school districts seduced into technology packages that follow a PSI model because they are so laser focused on test scores that measure a discrete set of isolated skills, they are blinded to the wider view of how technology is increasingly being used in schools and in daily life to inquire, create, and connect. And online or off, it is these connections with people that further inspire us to create, to spark our curiosity and teach us the art of inquiry.