Original NLA List Nov. 13, 1997
Among much else, Glenn Young states the following:
" research is showing that a large percent of our
population in adult literacy programs do have central nervous system disorders
that do affect their ability to learn to read"
I'm curious about that from a couple of perspectives:
1.
If (and I'm assuming, here)
the large majority of that population has not been formally diagnosed, then on
what basis can we make such a claim?
2.
If LD is a form of
neurological malfunctioning, then why would it be more unevenly distributed
among particular classes of persons than more evenly distributed across the
general population?
Also, as Glenn seems to imply:
"Since the difference between those with LD and those who
are not reading due to lack of access, previous training or whatever, is that
those with LD are not reading or reading well, due to a disability issue - as
the definition states - a presumed
disorder of the central nervous system"
Is there a great divide between those with and without LD or are
learning disabilities part of a broader continuum as a subset of learning differences,
which, in turn, might be viewed as a subset of multiple intelligences linked ultimately
to various societal and cultural interpretations and forms of knowledge.
As a non-specialist, let me step outside this Socratic question
posing and venture forth into a speculation.
My personal theory:
There is a complex relationship between physiology, psychology,
and the social construction of knowledge.
In a society where demands for literacy are pervasive, at least some of
those who lack extensive reading and writing skills may experience that lack as
a personal inadequacy that may induce shame, low self-regard and other negative
emotions. Such emotions have a
physiological impact which not only seem to, but actually create "central
nervous system disorders." Those
disorders will be intensified or abated depending on the various coping or
supportive strategies people are able to enact.
Thus, they are not innate, but socially constructed and deconstructed as
people negotiate the terrain between their own psychology and the culture. To the extent that we are able to create
empowering learning environments that draw on the creative potential of
learners we will be better able to support people to maximize their own developmental capacities in part through literacy, however minimal gains may
seem on any 'objective" standardized tests. I, then, agree with much of what Glenn says
in the following:
The key to addressing the needs of adult learners with
learning disabilities is to look at it from a disability view and not a
teaching view - therefore, teaching becomes one of many means that are brought
to the table to address the needs, and depending on the capacity of the individual,
teaching to read becomes either a major, moderate or limited part of the
approach to help the person become functional.
The use of other tools, such as "accommodations" - meaning
alternative methods of gaining and using information - books on tape, oral instruction,
use of reading machines, etc. become the lead means of gaining inform, rather
than relying on reading only. "
What I like especially is Glenn's interpretation of literacy as
one intervening variable among others in helping people to expand their life capacities. Where I might differ is that I don't see this
applying simply to LD students, but as a more generalized objective of adult literacy
education. Thus, perhaps in some ways,
opposites do meet; Glenn, seemingly as interpreting "learning disabilities"
as an innate physiological malfunction, whereas I look at knowledge and felt "inadequacy" more as a
psycho-cultural phenomenon and by doing so achieve a certain personal agency
over such a labeling that in some compelling ways characterizes my own struggle
and sometimes failure to learn.
Perhaps Glenn identifies more freedom through the
diagnosis. If so, I can respect that,
but let's keep an open mind.
George Demetrion
No comments:
Post a Comment