Dogmatic Insularity in Learning Disabilities Classification and the Critical Need for a Philosophical Analysis

Autor/inn/en	Dombrowski, Stefan C.; Ambrose, Don; Clinton, Amanda
Titel	Dogmatic Insularity in Learning Disabilities Classification and the Critical Need for a Philosophical Analysis
Quelle	In: International Journal of Special Education, 22 (2007) 1, S.3-10 (8 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0827-3383
Schlagwörter	World Views; Learning Disabilities; Identification; Classification; Federal Legislation; Intervention; Special Education + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? World view; Weltanschauung; Learning handicap; Lernbehinderung; Identifikation; Identifizierung; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem; Bundesrecht; Special needs education; Sonderpädagogik; Sonderschulwesen
Abstract	The recent revision of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act; IDEIA) in the United States (U.S.) has created the opportunity for an unprecedented change in the way in which learning disabilities (LD) are identified. As a result of this revision, intense and often polarizing debate has surfaced regarding models and methods relevant to classifying learning disabilities in children. This paper presents a philosophical/worldview framework developed to facilitate discussion among and limit dogmatic insularity within the field of LD diagnosis as it attempts to further delineate LD identification procedures. Identification of LD is discussed in relation to four root-metaphorical world views: mechanism, organicism, contextualism, and formism. Application of world view principles to discussion and debate regarding proposed LD classification models might help the field avoid entrapment within dogmatic, insulated, and limited perceptual frameworks that tend to marginalize competing models while magnifying strengths and minimizing (or inadvertently ignoring) weaknesses of a favored LD diagnostic model. This discussion is critical because learning disabilities comprises 51% of all special education diagnoses in the U.S.; yet, consensus has not been attained regarding the most appropriate LD diagnostic parameters. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	International Journal of Special Education. 2889 Highbury Street, Vancouver, BC V6R 3T7, Canada. Web site: http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10