Homeschool and Mainstream Comaprison
by: Mary O'Neil
Thank you for visiting my site. I hope that you will find it interesting and perhaps inspiring. Thank you for your time and feel free to email with with any questions. Thank you!AbstractMenu
Welcome Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References Relevant Links email:
moneil@anselm.edu
This is a pilot study that looked at two variables. The first was that the self-esteem of those children who have a learning disability is generally lower and whether or not there is a difference in the self-esteem levels of those who homeschool and those who are in school. Also whether or not academic difficulty plays a role in the self-esteem of these learning disabled children. The second hypothesis proposed that behavior and emotion these children display would be worse based on self-esteem and academic difficulty. The study was conducted with three female participants all ten years of age. The participants kept daily diaries of their happiness levels and the teachers and parents kept daily records of academic difficulty, emotion and behavior. The study found minimal support for these hypotheses in that the homeschooling participant did report highest levels of happiness and better displays of emotion. In contrast, the in school participants did report lower levels of happiness and worse behavior and emotions. However, the study was not able to determine whether or not these reported levels of emotions and behaviors by both student and teacher were due to the learning disability itself or to external circumstances. It was done with case studies but for future research with a wider population there may be more significant results.
Introduction
When looking at children in school who have a learning disability as opposed to those who do not, several interesting questions arise. One in particular, however, is the possible effect the learning disability has on the behavior and self-esteem of the child. Another interesting question to be discussed is the possible differences between those children with a learning disability who homeschool and those children who attend school, and if this too is a factor that effects their behavior and self-esteem.
Learning disability is a term that came to be in 1963 with the formation of the Association of Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities. It is a term that refers to a group of heterogeneous disorders that have the common underlying element of the potential for academic achievement, but possessing difficulty in the process of doing so (Tanner, 2001). Physicians and others in the health related field, most commonly define a learning disability in terms of the one described by the American Psychiatric Association in DSM-IV (Gottesman & Kelly, 2000). This states that a learning disorder is diagnosed when the individual’s achievement on individually administered standardized tests in reading, mathematics or written expression is substantially below that expected for age, schooling, and level of intelligence. A learning disability is often times diagnosed when the individual has an IQ of eighty or below (Ashcroft, Fraser, Kerr, & Ahmed, 2001). Learning disabilities are thought to be a result of any of several possible dysfunctions in the central nervous system. Any combination of effects during pregnancy, birth, and pre- or postnatal development that may have any effect on the central nervous system, may interfere with the child’s cognitive and mental abilities later on in life (Gottesman & Kelly, 2000). The idea that it is due to a dysfunction in the central nervous system is, however, attributed due to the lack of any other explanation.
Learning disabilities are often times categorized into two categories: verbal and nonverbal. Examples of verbal learning disabilities would be those such as childhood aphasia, an auditory cognitive disorder, or an inability to use expression through the use of writing. A third verbal disability, which is the most prevalent in both children and adults, is the difficulty in reading or mild to severe dyslexia (Myklebust, 1983 & Tanner, 2001). Other defining characteristics of a learning disabled student would include lack of phonological awareness, difficulty in visualizing words in their heads, poor motor skills, poor visual memory skills and difficulty with linguistics (Stringer, Morton, Collins, & Bonikowski, 1999). Difficulties that would fall into the category of nonverbal would include such things as difficulty in social perception. This often times results in not being able to distinguish social cues and facial expressions properly. They often times cannot decipher the meaning in any given social interaction or any meaning in a given facial expression. They are less sensitive to the social meaning of gesture and have more difficulty in discriminating vocal tones. More severe examples would include not being able to determine left from right, east from west, small from large, and fast from slow (Myklebust, 1983). Regardless of which category they fall into the learning disabled is a distinct population that still continues to grow rapidly from the two million children in the 1993-1994 school year (Tanner, 2001).
Children’s learning disabilities are almost inevitably accompanied by a lowered self-esteem only after being exposed to others for a short while. Research shows that children of all ages who have a learning disability also have lower self-esteem and display this in their behavior as opposed to children who do not suffer from one (Settle & Milich, 1999). Their disability has negative consequences on their self-esteem and this aspires into negative behavior. The research suggests that this can be for two reasons, one internal and the other external.
An internal model would suggest the importance of the role of attributional style due to previous academic successes and failures, self-efficacy, motivation, and knowledge of their cognitive processes, also known as strategic knowledge. One such model that incorporates all of these is Borkowski’s Model. This is a complex metacognition model that incorporates all of the components beginning with strategic knowledge, which is the knowledge about the appropriate strategies for a given task, when to use these strategies and how to apply them efficiently (Palladino, Poli, Masi, & Marchechi, 2000). For example, when a child is learning how to read they must visual the letter, correspond that with the sound it makes, then proceed to pronounce it correctly. This would be strategic knowledge carried out. When done so properly, the child can either contribute it to internal factors such as their own effort, or to external factors such as luck. This is known as attributional style, which in turn affects their sense of self-efficacy. The child becomes more confident in themselves and their ability to successfully complete a task if they contribute their previous successes to internal factors such as effort (Palladino, Poli, Masi, & Marchechi, 2000). This, in turn, is what plays a huge role in their self-esteem. Borkowski’s model suggests that often times this process is delayed in learning disabled children and if not attended to it will lead to depressive symptoms and low self-efficacy. This is often times why children with learning disabilities are characterized as having low attributions to effort and high attribution to external factors, low self-esteem, and low perception of self-efficacy.
An external model would suggest the importance of the role that the environment can play on the child’s self-esteem. More specifically, the importance of the role of other peers, teaching styles, and also family factors. Often times teachers foster learning disabilities by focusing on children’s weaknesses rather than their strengths (Stringer, Collins, & Bonikowski, 1999). Whether they are aware of it or not, they need to use a form of teaching that allows the child to feel as though they can do something as opposed to what they cannot do. It is not always the case that they cannot do something but more so the process they need to utilize that is perhaps different from the traditional approaches. Teachers often times give less attention to the learning disabled students, praise them less and consider them less desirable than a non-disabled student (Pavri & Luftig, 2000). Students with a learning disability often times have a delay not just in academic performance but also in social development. That is, some students lack skills in initiating and sustaining positive social relationships (Pavri & Luftig, 2000). They often times display more aggression and negative verbal and nonverbal behaviors, which is often times interpreted as either withdrawn or disruptive. Trying, on both accounts, to get attention specifically from the teacher. This results in fewer friendships than their peers without a learning disability as well as actively being rejected by other peers. They become aware that there is less social acceptance and more rejection toward them because of it (Settle & Milich, 1999). They are also more likely to fail one or more subjects and are more likely to be held back. The other children react to this quite harshly with name-calling and making fun constantly. This produces negativity towards the children and they then begin to view themselves the way that the “normal” children view them. As a result of this, their self-image and self-esteem decrease. Also, it is shown that the children themselves see that they lack some skills that others do not and when they have to leave the classroom to get the extra help, they have feelings of inadequacy and failure, which also produces lowered self-esteem (Albinger, 1995).
The research also has findings on the behavior of the children who suffer from the LD. They are often times associated with acting out behavior, aggression, and misconduct in the classroom (Kravetz, Faust, Lipshitz & Shalhav, 1999). There are several reasons suggesting why this is, the first being that the same neurological defect that creates difficulty in comprehending written language could also underlie problems in understanding non-verbal communication. Other research points to heightened emotions as a source of misbehavior. Children with LD have the tendency to reach heightened highs and lows when it is unnecessary to do so and react to a given situation with that emotion (Kravetz, Faust, Lipshitz & Shalhav, 1999). For example, if they feel inadequate in the classroom because they cannot read aloud, then they will “act out” in order to divert from reading. Children also have the tendency to fabricate stories as to their whereabouts when they have to leave the classroom to see the special needs teacher in order to remain free from ridicule (Albinger, 1995). The way that they feel that they need to protect their self-perception and how others perceive them is a direct result of the fear that they have from the rejection of peers. This can often times produce lying behavior and fabrications. It is clear that they have to give up some of their morality and self-respect in order to obtain help from the resource room and this does not have good implications for future sacrificing.
Another important aspect of behavior is that of the social world and their social cognition. Children learn many of their social interactions in an early age play setting. Most times we consider play to be fun and exciting for the children, but it is also serious preparation and acquiring of basic social skills for social interactions as adults (Hepler, 1994). Children who have been subject to rejection are often times excluded from social activities, which leaves them with no or few friends. One study found that learning disabled children were rejected as early as the first two months of kindergarten and that sixty percent of the learning disabled children were rejected in that study and remained rejected six months later (Hepler, 1994). This can lead to poor social developments, which could have long-term effects such as behavioral problems in school. Many socially rejected children drop out of school and develop delinquent behavior (Hepler, 1994).
Not only does social rejection lead to poor social developments, it contributes to the level of loneliness the child experiences. Feelings of perceived loneliness among children without learning disabilities ranges from ten to eighteen percent. Whereas, in children with learning disabilities, it is often higher than twenty-five percent (Pavri & Luftig, 2000). They have more of a sense of isolation and disconnectedness, which is often times a direct result of their disability. This has the tendency to impact their levels of social competence later on in life. These feelings of rejection and loneliness effect their belief about their ability to make and keep friends in the future (Pavri & Luftig, 2000).
However, the research suggests that children who are homeschooled suffer less in these social areas as opposed to those children with the same learning disabilities who are mainstreamed, that is, attend school (Ensign, 2000). Research seems to be in support of the idea of homeschooling for these children as a means of aid. It suggests that children receive the one on one care from a loving source that does not cause them hurt and frustration as do their peers, the parent. It allows them to remain interested in educational pursuits by allowing them to focus on their strengths and develop them as opposed to being constantly reminded of their weaknesses by comparisons to peers (Ensign, 2000). Also, they are allowed to move at their own pace and the research shows that if they are allowed to do this without being looked at as the oddball, then they do eventually reach the academic levels they are supposed to be at.
Homeschooling began in the late 1960s, early 1970s, when educational critics such as John Holt began to view public education as dissatisfactory. Between 300,000 and 1.23 million students in the United States are currently being homeschooled and statistics show that the typical homeschooling family is a white, two-parent home, with above average income and education, (Duffey, 1999). However, the research shows that homeschooling is an important means of aid for children with learning disabilities who need the one on one attention and tutoring of an educator (Duffey, 1999). Research of the 1970s and the 1980s focused on whether homeschooled children who were taught by parents who were untrained as teachers could do as well academically as those who attend public school. Now special education students are becoming more and more the main component of the homeschooling population (Ensign, 2000). Again the question is being raised as to whether or not these parents are equipped sufficiently to teach their children with these special needs. In answer to that question, the majority of those who homeschool, use an educational consultant for helping plan and monitor academic progress of the student. Often times homeschooling results in higher academic progress according to standardized measures in most areas when compared to children in school (Ensign, 2000). For a learning disabled student, many use specialists for reading and math, depending on where the child has the most difficulty (Ensign, 2000). Beginning to recognize that there is plurality in the methodology of teaching has become more and more apparent when evaluating the different methods teachers use in school. Homeschooling is simply another method that has roots in individuality of each student.
Children who are in school have to strive to achieve the norms and if they have a learning disability are unable to do so and are repeatedly exposed to failures. They may develop a learned helplessness as they get older, which means that they are more likely to give up. They attribute their failures to the idea that they have insufficient ability when it could be merely a case of insufficient effort (Settle & Milich, 1999). This lack of effort that was not remedied in childhood can have a profound effect on the attainment of a high school or college degree, employment, interpersonal relationships, and emotional well being (Gottesman & Kelly, 2000).
The research also shows that the family, particularly the parenting styles, comes into play where achievement behavior is concerned. The research suggests that it is indeed more difficult for a learning disabled child to develop appropriate work habits and positive attitudes about schoolwork. When parents are able to provide positive experiences around academic tasks the child is more likely to become willing to approach learning tasks. However, the parents must not be the disengaged type who leave the education up to the teachers alone, nor can they be the intrusive type who completes the tasks for the child (Switzer, 1990). Research suggests that the best method is a compatible authoritative style. Authoritarian styles seem to lack the elasticity for the child to develop a sense of internal control, parents who are permissive are even less successful, and the least successful are those who adopt conflicting styles, for example the father is authoritarian and the mother is laissez-faire (Switzer, 1990). So the role of the parent is crucial in understanding and supporting their child who suffers from a learning disability in order to help them still be able to achieve academic success in their later years and to not develop that sense of learned helplessness.
Not only is the role of the parents important, but also it is equally as important for the parents to foster the role of the child. More specifically, making the child aware of his or her role in a healthy family system often times effects the growth and the development of the child. Learning disabled children are often assigned a negative role in the family that diminishes maturity and achievement expectations (Switzer, 1990). If the child is perceived in the eyes of the rest of the family as worse in some way, they too will believe that this is indeed what they truly are. They will feel as though they cannot be assigned any other role besides the “dumb” one or the one that will never amount to anything. They need to be assigned a role that supports maturity in a healthy way and encourages, not discourages achievement.
Another consideration is gender; that is, there is a suggestion that girls have a harder time than do boys when a learning disability is involved. Generally in the early years of school, girls do better than boys do academically, yet the girls have less confidence in their intellectual abilities (Settle & Milich, 1999). Girls are more likely than boys to attribute things to a lack of ability and boys are more inclined to blame the teacher or other external factors (Settle & Milich, 1999). Girls blame themselves for their failures, yet they do not attribute their successes to these same abilities. Girls tend to underestimate their chances for success and boys tend to overestimate their chances for success (Dimitrovsky, Spector & Levy-Shift, 2000). In other words, girls tend to be more prone to adopting a helpless response style when it comes to failures and task persistence. This is particularly why that when boys and girls have a learning disability, girls are more like to have a more difficult time overcoming a learned helplessness response style and realizing that when they get older their failures may be due to insufficient effort.
Research shows that seventy-five percent of children with learning disabilities have social impairments. Girls in a play setting tend to report negative ratings as to how much their peer liked playing with them and tend to report equally negative self-evaluations (Settle & Milich, 1999). In a social setting, girls with LD have more heightened emotions than do boys when engaging in these interactions and also have the tendency to rate any interaction more negatively than do boys (Albinger, 1995). Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand other people according to Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences. It consists of the ability to understand both verbal and nonverbal messages, which as previously discussed is more difficult for learning disabled children, particularly girls (Dimitrovsky, Spector & Levy-Shift, 2000). This suggests why they have these negative social interactions. Therefore, homeschooling may be a particularly good option for learning disabled girls, for they can interact with their siblings who will not reject them.
Therefore, this study is looking at two main variables, self-esteem and behavior with the independent variable as the learning disability. The first is that homeschooling is better for the children’s self-esteem. It looks to see whether or not a child with a learning disability is inclined to have higher self-esteem if they homeschool as opposed to being in school. Also, the hypothesis looks to see if the level of academic difficulty faced each day has any relation to the self-esteem or the happiness of the learning disabled child. More specifically, children would have lower self-esteem on academically harder days and higher self-esteem on academically easier days. The second hypothesis looked at whether or not behavior and emotion would also be displayed at different levels depending on the academic difficulty. Again, worse behavior and emotion levels on academically harder days and better behavior and emotion levels on academically easier days.
Methods
Participants
The participants for this study were three children in fifth grade who have a diagnosed learning disability. All three of the participants were ten years of age and all three participants were female. Two of the participants attend public school in Jaffrey, NH and one participant is homeschooled. They all receive special help or special education services by the same tutor. The same woman teaches the mainstream participants in areas of spelling, writing, reading, and math. They attend the resource room to acquire those needs from her and spend the rest of the day in the classroom with the non-learning disabled students. The homeschool participant receives tutoring in areas of math and reading from this teacher then spends the rest of the day being taught by the mother. The homeschool participant is evaluated on a monthly basis by a state approved institution that corresponds with many homeschooled children in the area.
Materials
The materials for this study were diaries for each child to write in daily and a checklist for the parent or teacher to fill out daily. They were asked to keep them for a total of two weeks with daily entries but were only able to do so for seven days. The student diary included an hourglass that they were to fill with their “happiness” level of the day and to write a few sentences about why they filled it as far as they did (see Appendix C). The checklist for the teacher/parent asked for information about what academic things the student was asked to perform that day and what behaviors and emotions the child displayed that day as well (see Appendix D and E).
Procedure
The procedure that was used was an evaluation of diary reports kept by the students and daily recordings by the parent and teacher for a total of seven days. The students were given an assent form (see Appendix B) and the parents were given a consent form (see Appendix A). A debriefing statement was not necessary because both parents and children knew the whole purpose of the study beforehand. All three students were observed for the two variables, happiness level, which was looked at in terms of predicting self-esteem, and behavior when engaging in situations where the learning disability plays a prominent role.
Two things were searched for particularly, one was the happiness level of the children. They were given a diary that contained the same page for each day. The page included an hourglass that was left empty and the students were asked to fill up the hourglass as much as they felt would show their happiness level for that day. They were also asked to write a few sentences as to why they filled it up as much as they did.
The second thing that was looked for was the behavior and emotion of the children. This was done through a checklist that was given to both teacher and parent. They were asked to rate the child each day on six different emotions and behaviors, which included aggression, frustration, sadness, motivation, overall mood, and happiness level. They rated them on a scale from one to five with five being the highest. They were also asked to rate the overall level of academic difficulty, again on a scale from one to five, and what they had to do whether it included reading aloud or taking a test. This was looked at to see if there is a significant difference between those in school and those at home when it comes to the display of these emotions and behaviors. For example, when they have to read aloud in the classroom as opposed to one on one with a parent.
Results
The analysis for this study was mostly qualitative and the measurement that was used to determine the happiness levels were taken from a standardized metric ruler. The checklists for the teacher and parent were a series of questions and various emotions that they were asked to rate, with the ranking from one to five, five being the highest. No statistical analyses were conducted.
The first hypothesis was evaluated by looking at the happiness levels that each child reported for each day. They did so by filling an hourglass that stood two and one half inches high according to how they felt that day and why. Comparisons between the homeschooling and mainstreaming happiness levels were made in order to distinguish if there was any difference. It was found that the homeschool participant reported higher happiness levels for each day. In fact, she reported one hundred percent happiness each day (see Figure 3). The two mainstream participants reported fluctuating happiness levels with extreme highs and lows for each day (see Figure1 and Figure 2). However, it was not found that they reported these levels due to their learning disability and what actually occurred while in school. More specifically, they rarely discussed the actual academic trials they faced each day, but reported more levels of happiness due to external things such as birthdays, Halloween, and good weather (see Table 1). However, one mainstream participant did indeed report low happiness at about twenty percent for five out of the seven days due to difficulty in math, having to go to the office for bad behavior, and for having overall long and hard days.
Secondly, the level of academic difficulty was looked at. This was done by teacher/parent and they rated academic difficulty on a scale from one to five with five being the highest. It was reported that the level of academic difficulty was generally high on each day for each participant. However, a significant relationship between the reported levels of academic difficulty and the reported levels of happiness by each student was not found. Again, the children reported higher levels of happiness due to external circumstances rather than due to internal ones. However, on the hardest days when the teacher would rate academic difficulty as a four or a five, one mainstream participant did report her lowest levels of happiness due to difficulty in math and spelling. Overall however, this was generally not the case for all three participants.
Lastly, the behavior and emotions were looked at to see if there was a relationship between the academic difficulty and happiness. For the homeschool participant there was a slight coincidence between happiness levels and behavior and emotion actually displayed. The student reported one hundred percent happiness for each day, whereas the teacher reported somewhat fluctuating levels of emotions and behavior (see Figure 6). There was no fluctuation for aggression, however there was very little change in low sadness level reported by the teacher, which is close to the reported high happiness level by the student. There were high ratings of motivation and overall good mood with slight variation in frustration. This is somewhat supporting to the hypotheses predicted.
For the mainstream participants, there was only a slight relationship for one of the students. The first student reported generally differentiated levels of happiness that often times did not correspond with the equally as fluctuating levels of behavior and emotions reported by the teacher (see Figure 4). However, for the second student there was a relationship between the two. This was the student who reported repeatedly low happiness levels and related it to academic trials. The teacher reported for her two days of the highest level of aggression, which the student reported as two days of the lowest level of happiness (see Figure 5). The teacher also reported very high levels of frustration for each day with a rating of four and five for each day, which also relates to the consistently low levels of happiness reported by the child. The teacher did report some differences in level of motivation though mainly she reported poor overall mood and poor overall happiness, which again corresponds with the child’s report of low happiness.
Discussion
This pilot study did indeed define coincidences between scores that supported the hypotheses however they were slight and not necessarily due to the reasons predicted. The first hypothesis concerning self-esteem and whether homeschooling is better for self-esteem or not was supported somewhat due to the homeschooling participant’s reports of better levels of self-esteem and happiness as the hypothesis predicted. However, the actual effect that the learning disability had on those levels of happiness was not really determined. This was due to the fact that the child generally did not report feelings that related to her schoolwork but more feelings that pertained to external situations and circumstances. Perhaps this is because the child is homeschooled and one of the major focuses of homeschooling is to focus on the child’s strengths and not their weaknesses (Ensign, 2000). Because the learning disability is the weakness, they have been taught to deal with it in ways that help them as individuals and not the classic in-school approach that is used for everyone and therefore do indeed have higher levels of self-esteem and happiness, (Palladino, Poli, Masi & Marcheschi, 2000). Different methods need to be applied to aid the disability in ways that it can be coped with instead of avoided (Simmerman & Swanson, 2001).
Also for the mainstream participants there was only one child that any relationship was found for and this was more supportive to the hypotheses because the child did report much lower levels of happiness than the homeschooled participant. More importantly however, she did report these low levels due to the academic problems she encounters which are a direct result of her having a learning disability. As the research shows, children often have a difficult time reading and writing which is where frustration and depressive symptoms become apparent, (Stringer, Morton & Bonikowski, 1999). They often time report lower levels of self-esteem and ability due specifically to their weaknesses in these specific cognitive areas, as did this participant. This coincides with one theory, Piaget’s theory of intelligence. All three participants were ten years of age and according to Piaget should be in the concrete operational stage. This stage consists of the ability to carry out mental operations and to gain a new perspective on a problem. They can associate different aspects of a problem to one another and perhaps that is why they can now assimilate the learning disability to their happiness or lack thereof.
The hypothesis concerning behavior and emotion was minimally supported with some findings that showed that the learning disability would affect their behavior and emotions in a negative way. For the one mainstream student, who indirectly reported actual issues pertaining to her learning disability, there was high frustration, aggression and sadness. The research shows this to be true frequently in students with learning disabilities who attend school and interact with non-learning disabled peers (Kravetz, Faust, Lipshitz, & Shalhav, 1999). For the other two participants, there were no real findings because they did not relate their levels of happiness to learning disabled issues, so regardless of the teachers report of behavior and emotion the two do not really coincide if the behaviors and emotions cannot be determined as a result of the learning disability.
One aspect of the study that could have had significant impact on the findings was inter-rater reliability. The teacher was the only one who rated the emotions and behaviors of these children and therefore inter-rater reliability was not determined. The teacher may not have been as subjective as an outside observer and since she was the only to observe the children, her reports may have been skewed in one direction or another. For example, what she may have observed as aggression or frustration may not have been observed as such from another person. However, she works with these children daily and is the one who knows the onsets of their behaviors more closely than any other, yet it may been more efficient if there were two or more observers to really rate the levels of displayed behaviors and emotions.
There were not enough participants in this study to conduct a statistical analysis that would have been able to define the significance of the relationships in more concrete terms. The design of the study was individual case studies and perhaps if it had been set up on a broader scale that included a larger amount of participants, then actual strengths of each relationship for each hypothesis would have been able to be determined. However, the homeschooling population with children who have learning disabilities is still a growing population. It is a quiet population that is difficult to obtain and when a learning disability is concerned there may not have been many willing participants, so that is why a case study approach was utilized.
Another aspect of this study that relates to the design was that through the usage of individual case studies there is the lack of comparison. This study was not able to compare the differences between the self-esteem, behavior and emotions of the learning disabled population and the non-learning disabled population. The research suggests that there are significant differences between the two, but this study was not designed to look at the comparisons, which could have played an important role in determining the happiness levels of students overall and if the learning disabled vary all that significantly.
One other variable that was not looked at in this study was gender differences. The research suggests that for girls the emotions and behaviors are often times more intense feelings than they are for boys (Albinger, 1995). However, this study only looked at three female participants and was not able to determine if that is indeed the case. Therefore, whether or not gender differences are significantly important was another issue that was not able to be determined with this study.
However limited this study was, it does indeed represent a population that needs more research in order to reduce its significantly growing numbers. The research is staggering because little progress has been made since the implementation of the idea of learning disabled students being inclusive in a non-learning disabled classroom as the solution to the social rejection problems of the learning disabled (Hepler, 1994). The homeschooling option is a legitimate resource that may indeed propose a solution to aiding the learning disabled in easing the emotional stigmas it places on them as they mature into adulthood. Often times these problems are overlooked and the child’s growth and
development is stunted both emotionally and academically. Promoting further research and the options for this distinct population is something that many people should advocate for and this study was a small-scale attempt at just that.
References
Albinger, P. (1995). Stories from the Resource Room. Journal of Learning
Disabilities.Vol. 28, 615.Ashcroft, R., Fraser, B., Kerr, M. & Ahmed, Z. (2001). Are Antipsychotic Drugs
the Right Treatment for Challenging Behavior in learning Disability?: The
Place of a Randomized Trial. Journal of Medical Ethics. Vol. 27, 338.Dimitrovsky, L., Spector, H. & Levy-Shift, R. (2000). Stimulus Gender and
Emotional Difficulty Level: Their Effect on Recognition of Facial
Expressions of Affect in Children with and without LD. Journal of
Learning Disabilities. Vol. 33, 410.Duffey, J. (1999). Home Schooling and Students in Special Education: Sorting
out the Options for Parents. Preventing School Failure. Vol. 43, 57.Ensign, J. (2000). Defying the Stereotypes of Special Education: Home School
Students. Peabody Journal of Education. Vol.75, 147.Gottesman R., & Kelly, M. (2000). Helping Children with Learning Disabilities
Toward a Brighter Adulthood. Contemporary Pediatrics. Vol. 17, 42.Hepler, J. (1994). Mainstreaming Children with Learning Disabilities: Have we
Improved their Social Environment. Social Work in Education. Vol. 16
143.Kravetz, S., Faust, M., Lipshitz, S., & Shalhav, S. (1999). LD, Interpersonal
Understanding, and Social Behavior in the Classroom. Journal of
Learning Disabilities. Vol. 32, 248.Myklebust, H. (1983). Toward a Science of Learning. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. Vol. 16, 17.Palladino, P., Poli, P., Masi, G. & Marcheschi, M. (2000). The Relation between
Metacognition and Depressive Symptoms in Preadolescents with Learning
Disabilities: Data in Support of Borkowski’s Model. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice. Vol. 15, 142.Pavri, S. & Luftig, R. (2000). The Social Face of Inclusive Education: Are
Students with Learning Disabilities Really Included in the Classroom?
Preventing School Failure. Vol. 45, 8.Settle, S & Milich, R. (1999). Social Persistence Following Failure in Boys and
Girls with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol. 32, 201.Simmerman S. & Swanson, L. (2001). Treatment Outcomes for Students with
Learning Disabilities: How Important are Internal and External Variability? Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol. 34, 221.Stringer, S., Morton, R. & Bonikowski, M. (1999). Learning Disabled students:
Using Writing to Build Autonomy and Self Esteem. Journal of
Instructional Psychology. Vol. 26, 196.Switzer, L. (1990). Family Factors Associated with Academic Progress for
Children with Learning Disabilities. Elementary School Guidance and
Counseling. Vol. 24, 200.Tanner, D. (2001). The Learning Disabled: A Distinct Population of Students.
Education. Vol. 121, 795.
Relevant Links
Saint Anselm College
APA