A postmodern critique of Conte's, Andrews's, Gresham's, and Elliott's assumptions.
In this article I suggest that the assumptions that Conte, Andrews, Gresham, and Elliott make regarding the characteristics that should be attributable to learning disabilities are limited by the "either/or" empirical view. I contend that (a) there is no such phenomenon as a pure primary disorder; all behavioral and learning problems are manifested by a discrete cluster of behaviors, so that one differentiates exceptionalities by looking at the quality of behaviors and possible antecedents rather than comparing them quantitatively; (b) that learning disabilities are earmarked by the inefficient manner in which tasks are approached in one's specific area(s) of deficient intellect rather than by universal characteristics; (c) that all aspects of learning are metaphorical and, therefore, have implicit dimensions; and learning disabilities are, in large part, a deficit in learning implicit information; (d) that in-school and out-of-school learning are of a piece and must be synthesized, just as theory, research, and practice must be synthesized; and (e) that the definition should not dictate our notion of what learning disabilities are, but rather should reflect our observations of persons with learning disabilities.
Kronick
D
D
D003072:Cognition Disorders / Q000209:etiology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007859:Learning Disabilities / Q000209:etiology* / Q000523:psychology; D008297:Male; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000209:etiology