La Agencia y la Identidad

The history of LD has been well documented with respect to the nature of particular problems (specific language and reading disorders and the behavioural correlates of brain injury) and the structure of special education at the time; a compelling case was made for the need for a category like LD (Kavale & Forness 1995). It should be noted that given the sensitive nature of this problem and the wide range of special needs, one must be very careful in applying the definition, as inferences could be drawn that could lead to negative results.

The history of LD in Australia has been documented in several studies, including Jenkinson (2007), Elkins (1997, 2000), and Rivalland (2000). In a publication ―Mapping the Territory – Primary Students with Learning Difficulties: Literacy and Numeracy, Vol 1‖, John Elkins et al. (1997) an analysis of the Australian local scene and context is provided. In fact the definition of LD that is adopted and accepted in a significant way in this important field is also debated and according to this analysis the definition hinges on the following main terms that are used in Australian schools. These terms are used to describe children who have difficulties with literacy and numeracy learning:

Learning difficulties Learning disabilities At educational risk Special needs

It should be clear to the reader that the meaning of these terms varies from State to State and from school to school in Australia. In fact, my own experience when I came face to-face with the main actors of the first special school was such that I was told not to refer to students with learning difficulties as LD students, but instead I should adopt the term ―special needs‖. Although these perceptions may be present, I have adopted the term LD as it is used globally to refer to students with learning disabilities, even though in the UK the term Special Needs Education (SNE) is used in a formal context to distinguish students with learning difficulties and other disabilities. In some publications the term ‗Learning Disabilities‘ was used by the Department of Education, Employment Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA 1999) and was also used to classify funding categories for special needs students:

―a student, who has been assessed by a person with a relevant qualification, as having intellectual, sensory, physical, social/emotional or multiple impairments to a degree that satisfies the criteria for enrolment in special education services provided by the government of the state or

territory in which the student is located‖ (DETYA 1999, p2).

The definition of LD appears to be a little vague, and evidence from previous studies in the literature (Kinzer 1994, MacMillan & Hendrick 1993) indicates that the normal mainstream curriculum appears to disadvantage this category of students. The question of "What is LD?" has been a long-standing source of controversy, conflict and crisis (Keogh 1996). Although research in LD has experienced unprecedented growth and has had significant impact on special education, it remains among the most problematic classifications because of the vagaries and antagonisms surrounding the definition (Mather & Roberts 1994, Shakespeare 2005).

Over time, a number of LD definitions have been proposed, but none had emerged as an unequivocal favourite (for example Tucker, Stevens, & Ysseldyke (1983). Currently the two definitions that dominate this area are the legislative definition found in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 1997), and the one proposed by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD 1994), a consortium of representatives from organizations interested in LD.

The definition of learning disabilities (LD) is a very strongly debated matter. Organisations such as the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD 1994) in the USA, Becta (2002) in the UK, and Australian government groups such as MCEETYA (1999, 2005), have considered and debated the relevant definition of LD or special needs.

A useful definition of LD comes from the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) who defines LD as:

―a number of disorders which may affect the acquisition, organization, retention, understanding or use of verbal or nonverbal information. These disorders affect learning in individuals who otherwise demonstrate at least average abilities essential for thinking and/or reasoning. As such, learning

disabilities are distinct from global intellectual deficiency‖ (LDAC 2002).

LDAC (2002) suggests that LD results from impairments in one or more processes related to perceiving, thinking, learning or remembering, and include language processing; phonological processing; visual spatial processing; processing speed; memory and attention; and executive functions (Adam & Tatnall 2007; Adam & Tatnall 2008) and that it varies in severity and may interfere with the acquisition and use of oral language, reading, written language and mathematics (Learning Disabilities Association of Canada 2002).

The definition of LD which has been adopted in this thesis is the one presented by Kirk (1962) and is quoted here for completeness:

―A learning disability refers to retardation, disorder, or delayed development in one or more of the processes of speech, language, reading, writing, arithmetic or other school subjects resulting from a psychological handicap caused by a possible cerebral dysfunction and/or emotional or behavioural disturbances. It is not the result of mental retardation, sensory

deprivation or cultural and instructional factors‖(Kirk 1962, p263).

An issue that has concerned education authorities around the world is whether students with learning disabilities should receive their education in mainstream classrooms or in some form of special schools. A number of researchers support the view that students

with LD require an alternative approach to their learning, while others claim that it is best to integrate these students with mainstream classes (Bulgren 1998, Shaw et al. 2005, Kavale et al. 1995, Kavale 2002). Overall, however, there is considerable evidence to support the existence of special schools to cater for the needs of LD students (Adam and Tatnall 2003). These schools often exist on a small amount of funding support from the government; however, they cater for individual differences in a significant way through their own fundraising and budgeting efforts.

There is little recent primary research data available on the use of ICT for students with LD, but a Deakin University report (Blackmore, Hardcastle et al. 2003) provides useful secondary information. It should be noted that a research study that was conducted nationally in Australia in 2000, had identified particular schools for their comprehensive curriculum‘s integration of ICT (Cormack, Couch et al. 2000)14

. One of the schools included in that study was Concord School, in Bundoora, Victoria; that was also part of this study.

Early researchers concentrated on the learning difficulties of a single primary area or field like English, Mathematics or Science. Their work and analysis depended on the identification of some criteria or factors like IQ, which did not adequately demonstrate the full scale of the learning problems and disabilities (Bulgren 1998).

Studies that were conducted in the USA by Forness et al. (1998) revealed that more work was needed to identify the learning patterns (styles) of students with LD. From the early days of computers and technology, teachers and researchers, were keen to explore computer-based tools in order to enhance learning outcomes (Kulik et al. 1983). In particular, some of the computer-based software on dyslexia in the 80s was developed by people who were closely related to students who suffered from dyslexia. For example, Stanovich (1980) and Davis et al. (1994) used dyslexic software programs to aid students in this area. It should be noted that similar software application programs were used in the UK, and in particular people with dyslexia were assisted with ICT (Becta 2003, 2005). Other computer-based software involved mathematical

14

problem solving, games and simulations. The latter is a significant area that involves ongoing research about the way games can stimulate and engage students with learning disabilities (Pillay 2002).

Whilst these approaches may have provided an environment for work, and stimulated the students‘ own interest, it was found inconclusive to suggest that the learning outcomes had improved to a significant extent through these approaches (Newhouse et al. 2002 and Becta 2003). The thesis will discuss and compare the participant observations from the special schools, and in particular, in Chapters 7 and 8 it will provide evidence of the impact that games have on self-esteem, engagement and learning outcomes for LD students. Furthermore, these results will be correlated with the results from the individual study.