Neuropsychological Patterns of Learning in Children with Learning Disabilities - Literature review Example

Neuropsychological Patterns of Learning Insert Insert Insert 4 November Neuropsychological Patterns of Learning in Children with Learning Disabilities Neuropsychological patterns of learning comprise significant variations of learning and learning dysfunctions on the individual child. This pattern of learning involves the identification of specific patterns of personality functioning in the disabled children. Learning disability refers to subtypes of neuropsychological extremes and deficiencies. These disabilities lead to particular patterns of learning extremes and deficiencies. Learning disabilities have remained uniquely linked to individual theoretical models. The methodology of assessing learning disabilities utilizes several factors in explanatory models and various levels of analysis. The objective of this analysis is to review the patterns of variations in learning for children with learning disabilities. The purpose for this analysis is to provide a scholarly critique regarding the patterns of learning of children with disabilities. According to a research conducted by Robert-Jay Green (1990, p. 145), he formulated two hypotheses in investigating the impact of family interaction and structure on information processing deficits of children with learning disabilities. The first hypothesis by Green seeks to research into the relationship between thought orders of schizophrenic children and parental communication. The study employed the use of a scoring manual designed to measure nonconformity in communication. The study highlighted the parent’s interpersonal linguistic skills in categorizing, naming, directing shared attention, and explaining world concepts to the children of different age groups and different chores. Green, however, indicates that family communication would have minimal effect on the long run on the child. Further, an environment based on uneven and unstructured communication styles would experience persistent cognitive disorientation and confusion. Hence, this leads to the impairment of a child’s ability to process and keep new information at school. The findings proposed a strong and reliable relationship between deviations in parental communication and diagnosis of schizophrenic and marginal conditions of children. This relationship would be associated to families with cognitively confused schizophrenic children. The analysis revealed a high rate of communication deviance for 87% of parents with children of learning disabilities (Green, 1990, p. 145). The second hypothesis focused on how an under organized family structure would enhance or maintain the attention deficits of children with learning disabilities. It utilized the method of interviewing families of children with learning disabilities and rating them. These children also labeled as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Conduct Disorder displayed an inability to maintain a focused attention. Clinical research indicated that certain features of families hinder a systematic flow of ideas in communication. For instance, erratic and unfocused parental control styles, abrupt topic changes, conflict resolution through threats, deficient communication in words and reasoning, and disciplinary based on moods. These families would be considered chaotic, under organized and detached. Thus, the two hypotheses established an association between family characteristics and children with learning disabilities (Green, 1990, p. 146). However, these two studies failed to establish the direction of impacts between parent and child characteristics, and the role of environment and heredity in the emergence of these family patterns. Hence, the findings do not provide any results on the four etiological models; the genetic, environmental, ecosystem and stress models. Their research assumes that each model would fit only certain subtypes of learning disabilities. It would be recommended that further large-scale longitudinal research be conducted on parents diagnosed as learning disabled with children at high genetic risk. There is a need to perform continuous assessments on each family’s organization, family patterns, and variations of the children’s learning ability over time. Green, therefore, proposed further research on how family intervention programs could be used to improve a parent’s communication organization and clarity, as well as their children’s learning abilities in the future (Green, 1990, pp. 146-147). A study by Rourke et al. (2003, p. 630-631) focused at research and practices relating to children with learning disabilities. This study employed a neuropsychological approach to the study of learning disabilities. Rourke et al. employed an investigative approach by using contrasting groups of normal children controls and children with learning disabilities. The contrasting groups would be used to determine deficiencies of the learning disabilities children. However, their research excluded the critique of various findings relating to enquiries and exercise in the field of learning disabilities. Their study identified two subtypes of learning disabilities; basic phonologic processing and nonverbal learning disabilities. Nonverbal learning disabilities lead to well-built single word spelling and reading as compared to mechanical arithmetic. On the other hand, basic phonologic processing disability leads to poorly developed single word spelling and reading as compared to mechanical arithmetic. This emphasized integration of children’s dimensions with cognitive processing characteristics. Their findings revealed that neuronal abnormalities and unusual cerebral symmetries in the left hemisphere of the brain in children with dyslexia. However, they state that there exists no gross neuropathology would be present in dyslexia. According to their research, the utmost consistent finding is that the functional brain system of individuals with dyslexia tends to be absent, depressed and slow relative to controls. A number of children with dyslexia appear to have functional deficiencies limited to linguistic processing systems in the left hemisphere. No universal deficiency explains reading difficulties since children with learning disabilities constitute a heterogeneous group. However, poor reading would result from different forms of brain dysfunction (Rourke et. al., 2003, p. 634-635). Areas of brain dysfunction could be linked to different patterns of neuropsychological occupations. From their research, it remains clear that brain variations exist between children without learning disabilities and children with learning disabilities. The main obstacle to identifying reliable brain variations in learning disabilities would be due to limited precision in the definition of neuropsychological pattern of learning disabilities. The neuropsychological excesses that characterize basic phonologic processing disabilities include skills and abilities of concept formation, psychomotor, physical perception, problem solving, and visual spatial association. Attention to visual and physical involvement remains normal. Conversely, neuropsychological deficiencies include disordered segmentation, phonemic hearing, and unification. Impaired attention to and memory of hearing verbal material exists. These children also display poor verbal function, storage, and repetition. Their level and quality of verbal inference remains under developed, whereas, their nonverbal characteristic of arithmetic remains unaffected (Rourke et. al., 2003, pp. 635-637). Owing to the persistent relationship between neuropsychological assessment and intervention, follow up neuropsychological assessments should be conducted to evaluate the efficiency of certain modes of remedial interventions in learning disabilities. An understanding of the nature and treatment of children with different subtypes of learning disability would be achieved through the identification of subtypes of learning disabilities. This identification would be integrated with an exhaustive and all-inclusive neuropsychological investigation of children with learning disabilities. This assessment would be individualized to design remedial programs personalized to a child’s neuropsychological excesses and deficiencies (Rourke et. al., 2003, pp. 645-651). The use of a neuropsychological system for investigating children with learning disabilities became criticized for reflecting an emphasis on limited, static impacts of brain impairment on their behavior. The lack of a verifiable treatment approach poses challenges to the ability to translate information derived from neuropsychological assessment into effective and practical therapeutic and educational processes. The development and application of sub typing approaches would authorize the use of various classification patterns. These approaches may be simulated in other research and clinical situations involving neuropsychological patterns of learning. It would be recommended that further research be conducted aimed at deriving an agreeable and mutually acceptable definition of learning disabilities. There is also need for neuropsychological investigation on comparing other areas of neuropsychological interests with the subtypes of learning disabilities in outlined conditions. References Green, R. J. (1990). Family Communication and Children’s Learning Disabilities: Evidence for Coles’s Theory of Interactivity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3): pp. 145-148. Rourke, B. P., Abello, B. A. H. and Collins, D. W. (2003). Learning Disabilities: A Neuropsychological Perspective. In R. B. Schiffer, S. M. Rao and B. S. Fogel (Eds.), Neuropsychiatry (pp. 630-651). Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Read More