Language Learning Strategies of Listening Comprehension - Case Study Example

Do meta-cognitive Language Learning Strategies assist in the SLA of listening comprehension? Learning Disabilities Even though most researchers agreeabout the characteristics of learning disabilities, there is a disagreement about what should or should not be included in the definition of learning disabilities. While there is some agreement about these general topics, there is continued disagreement in the field about diagnostic criteria, assessment practices, treatment procedures, and educational policies for learning disabilities. A number of influences have contributed to these disagreements, which in turn, have made it difficult to build a generalized body of scientific and clinical knowledge about learning disabilities. Furthermore, this has hindered our ability to establish reliable and valid diagnostic criteria. While some progress has been made during the past decade in establishing more precise definitions and a theoretically based classification system for a LD, it is useful to understand these historical influences because of their continuing impact on diagnostic and treatment practices for children with learning disabilities. The first part of this essay will address the definitional issues, which have molded the field of learning disabilities into its present form, and how to resolve these issues so we can meet the social and educational needs of individuals who display characteristics of learning disabilities. Because LD is often misinterpreted to be synonymous with reading disability or dyslexia, most of the available information concerning learning disabilities relates to reading disabilities, and the majority of the children with LD have their main deficits in reading (Torgenson, 1991). Therefore, the second part of this essay will address the relationship between students lack of metacognitive skills and reading problems. Also, in order to better understand the difficulties faced by students and teachers in the field of LD, reading disability was chosen for it is one of the more common problems; hence, an examination of this relationship provides a closer look at a concrete example of LD. The prevalence of LD identification has increased dramatically (Torgenson, 1991); however, this identification or realness is in debate because of the lack of an agreed upon definition of LD and objective diagnostic criteria. The increase in the identification of children with learning disabilities has led many to question the validity and reliability of LD as a diagnostic category. Yet, it is critical that the procedures for identifying children and adults with LD be valid and accepted by the scientific and clinical communities. How do we go about increasing the ability to identify individuals with LD accurately? The answer depends how valid estimates can be obtained from a set of criteria for identification that are clear, observable, measurable, and agreed upon. Currently, there is no universally accepted test or standard for identifying children with LD. While a discrepancy between intelligence quotient (IQ) and achievement are used as criteria to identify and diagnose LD, there is a debate on how this discrepancy is quantified (Siegal, 1989). For example, clinically speaking, a child can be identified as having a learning disability in one school district but not in a neighboring district because of differences in the measure of discrepancy used (Wong, 1986). From a research perspective, different ways to measure discrepancy lead to different characteristics in the sample and different prevalence estimates, which ultimately make possible the replication and generalization of the findings. The discrepancy standard further exacerbates the problem of identification of LD because it is later in life that a child can be effectively diagnosed. The discrepancy between IQ and achievement generally cannot be found until age eight or nine (Siegal, 1989). In fact, most school districts do not identify children with learning disabilities until a child is reading well below grade level, usually in the third or fourth grade. However, by this time the child has experienced failure so many times that his/her low self-esteem coupled with the lack of motivation and acquisition of knowledge (academic and nonacademic) and skills has already held the child back from the rest of his classmates. And the longer a child goes without identification and intervention, the more difficult it is for remediation to be successful. Another issue that makes it difficult to accurately identify and define LD is the multidisciplinary nature of the field. LD is defined in many different ways because so many interest groups ranging from fields in education, psychology, neurology, optometry, psychiatry, government, to name a few, are involved. Because of the diverse background of fields mentioned above, disagreements are naturally going to occur. These disagreements range from the importance of etiology, diagnostic methods, intervention methods, and, of course, professional responsibilities. Biases of these professionals lead to many children being identified as LD (Wong, 1986). Furthermore, an overly broad label and lack of specific identification criteria has led the term learning disability to be of any diagnostic value. Definitional and research efforts should focus on the seven domains mentioned by Wong, for example, receptive language (listening), expressive language (speaking), basic reading skills, reading comprehension, written expression, mathematics calculation, and mathematical reasoning. A clear definition cannot be achieved by lumping them together because of the heterogeneity and complexity of each category. Also, explicit diagnostic criteria for each of the seven specific disability domains will make it easier to operationalize the definitions for example, in the area of disability in basic reading skills. Ultimately, much effort is needed to improve identification, which in turn, will lead to specific definitions used to diagnose individuals. In order to be successful in improving the diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities, a classification system is needed to identify different types of learning disabilities. Better research that is longitudinal in nature and has been replicated will lead to a better scientific foundation to build upon. Longitudinal research will allow us to study different types of LD and their relationships to other disorders and to construct data for a specific and relevant definition. Longitudinal studies of LD can lead to the identification of better predictors of different types of LD, their prevalence, their developmental course, and their response to intervention (Wong, 1996). The improvement in the quality of research in learning disabilities is paramount in coming to understand learning disabilities and how to help children and adults with LD. Documenting the umbrella term learning disabilities makes no sense for scientific, clinical, and school policy purposes. Instead, it is extremely important to address each type of learning disability individually to arrive at clear definitional statements and better understanding of the etiology, developmental course, identification, prevention, and treatment. What do we know about a particular learning disability? In order to understand the above we turn our attention towards the second part of the essay: the relationship between metacognitive skills and reading problems. The main goal of reading instruction is to enable children to understand what they read. The development of phoneme awareness, phonics skills, and the ability to read words fluently and automatically are necessary, but not sufficient, for the construction of meaning from text. The ability to understand what is read is based on several factors. Children who comprehend well are able to activate their relevant background knowledge when reading. For example, good comprehenders can relate written text to what they might already know. Unlike poor readers, good comprehenders also have a knack for summarizing, predicting, and clarifying what they have read, and they frequently use questions to guide their understanding (Wong, 1996). The ability to do the above and to do it efficiently is the definition of good metacognitive thinking. Metacognition is an important construct in learning, especially reading. Further, metacognition is a theoretical construct of ones awareness of ones own cognitive processes, cognitive strengths and weaknesses, and self-regulation (Wong 1996). Therefore, learning problems in reading are attributable to less sophisticated metacognitive skills. When looking at models for learning to read, one must look at the characteristics of the learner, nature of the materials to be learned, criterial task and learning activities. First, characteristics of the learner will affect their progress in the following way. For example, children who comprehend well will usually have a good vocabulary (Torgenson, 1991). This knowledge in vocabulary helps the student understand the text easier than someone who may not have a stronger vocabulary. Hence, the student is more knowledgeable and has effectively shown to strategically be successful at completing the task than someone who may not know as many definitions. Second, the nature of materials will definitely have an impact on the success of the individuals performance. For example, if a student is learning the playbook for basketball under the guidance of his coach for the third year in a row, he or she should be able to grasp the plays easier than someone new to the team. Thirdly, criterial tasks give the learner an idea of what is required of them and how they will be tested to prove they have mastered the criteria. Do students know the evaluation and assessment scheme of how their performances will be judged? If they do, they can tailor their studying techniques to reflect what will be required of them during their education in a particular course. Finally, learning activities are activities students engage in while learning. Developing study habits that enable a learner to learn things in a more organized and efficient manner is one example of learning activity. Despite having the repertoire of strategies for learning to read, some students will fail to access the appropriate strategies (Wong, 1996). This is an important point regarding metacognition because it means that students have not learned efficient techniques to make them aware of their knowledge. The development of metacognitive skills is the crux of the problem facing students. Without engaging in these skills in a sophisticated manner, the idea of self-knowledge and the appropriate use of the knowledge will be unrealizable. Also, the role of motivation and, hence, self-regulation is paramount when discussing the importance of the relationship between metacognitive awareness and self-regulation. Good students know that if they stay and watch television all night instead of studying for their English test that is scheduled for the morning, they will fail if they do not go to bed at a reasonable time. What is the difference between those students who can distinguish of getting a good nights rest and feeling fresh on the day of the test, compared to those who would rather watch wrestling the night before? The difference relates to the spontaneous and learned developments of various cognitive strategies in students as they effectively tackle academic work (Wong, 1996). In other words, as children get older, they differentiate relational strategy knowledge and general strategy knowledge. For example, Wong (1996) states relational strategy knowledge allows students to understand which strategies are more useful at particular times and which strategies are applicable in specific circumstances. On the other hand, general strategy knowledge consists of (a) valuing a plan-full and strategic approach to learning because it increases the likelihood of successful outcomes in learning and performance; (b) realizing that learning involves effort, and (c) children come to realize that they are the very agents of their own successful learning as they deploy task-appropriate strategies and effort in learning (Wong, 1996). Now that we have emphasized the importance of metacognition and the connection between motivation and learning, we can directly apply this theoretical construct to reading. The following addresses the particulars involved in the relationship between students and some of the less sophisticated metacognitive skills they display in their reading habits. First, students who are experiencing difficulty with reading are not very efficient at reading compared to good readers. As mentioned earlier, good comprehenders have a knack for summarizing, predicting, and clarifying what they have read, and they frequently use questions to guide their understanding (Wong, 1996). If children can read the words on a page accurately and fluently, they will be able to construct meaning at two levels. To begin with, they will have some kind of literal understanding, however, this is not enough. Children must eventually actively guide themselves through text by asking questions like, Why am I reading this and how does this information relate to my reasons for doing so? What is the author’s point of view? Do I understand what the author is saying and why, and so on. It is this second or higher order of comprehension that leads readers to reflective, purposeful understanding of the meaning of what they have read. Some educators would call this reading between the lines but the step towards higher-order metacognitive skills is not so easy. Because reading development requires the acquisition of phonemic awareness and the other phonological processing skills, student’s cognitive resources are all dried up by the time they reach the second level. Therefore, students must master decoding in order to move up to higher-order metacognitive skills in reading (Wong, 1996). This process can leave a student mentally and physically drained; hence, motivation and effort can decline in ones pursuit of higher-order metacognitive skills. Deficits in developing and maintaining motivation to learn to read can be a major factor that limits the amounts of improvements that a child may make in reading. It is clear that difficulties in learning to read are very demoralizing to children (Wong, 1996). For example, in primary grades reading makes up a substantial portion of academic activities, and those students who have trouble with reading, are quickly noticed by peers and teachers (Wong, 1996). Over time, the inverse relationship between the ease of learning to read and the effort required to learn to read will take its toll on many would-be, but now discouraged readers. Another problem that can further exacerbate reading problems is the development of reading fluency. Although reading words accurately is a necessary skill in learning to read, the speed at which this is done becomes a critical factor in ensuring that students understand what they read. If a reader does not recognize words quickly enough, the meaning will be lost. A reader has only so much attentional capacity and cognitive energy to devote to a particular task. If the reading of the words on the page is slow and labored, the reader cannot remember what he or she said, much less relate the ideas they have read about to their own background knowledge. Also, informed instruction by the teacher is absolutely necessary in the remediation of reading problems. However, many teachers do not have a specialized education in teaching reading development. Teachers must be adequately trained in order to link instructional strategies with theoretical frameworks. Instead of teachers learning to teach reading by methods, we must develop teacher training through conceptual frameworks in order to teach the range of skills required to learn to read. To conclude, teachers must be trained to assess and identify problem readers at a young age. However, at present, teachers are left on their own to obtain specific skills in teaching phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling, reading fluency, and comprehension by seeking workshops at professional days. Furthermore, researchers need to do a better job at defining what is LD in order to help teachers make sense of the scientific research. Teachers can only help students when their knowledge base is increased by solid research designed to support the identification of LD accurately. Students will suffer if the educational community is unable to come to a consensus in what constitutes LD. It will be interesting to see how educational authorities at the school, government and research levels will decide on what is best for those with LD. References Siegal, L (1989). Is IQ necessary in the definition of learning disabilities? Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-479. Torgensen, J.K. (1991). Learning disabilities: Historical and conceptual issues. In B.Y.L. Wong (ED.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp.3-37). San Deigo: Academic Press. Wong, B.Y.L (1986). Problems and issues in the definition of learning disabilities. In J.K. Torgenson & B.Y.L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities. New York Academic Press. Wong B.Y.L. (1991). How do the results of metacognitive research impact on the learning disabled individual? Learning Disability Quarterly, 189-195. Wong, B.Y.L. (1991). The relevance of metacogniton to learning disabilities. Learning about learning disabilities (pp.231-258). San Diego: Academic Press. Wong, B.Y.L. (1996). The ABCs of learning disabilities. San Diego: Academic Press. Read More